Isn't it a tad disrectful to have your feet on a flag pole?

I WISH!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali represents – at the risk of her own life - everything that used to make me proud to be a progressive fascist-hating liberal. Where are her supporters today? They do not seem to be on the new left. Judging from several recent reviews of Ali’s books, the left seems content to criticize her as an “enlightenment fundamentalist” (the absurdity of that construction is worth meditating on), and dismiss her views as “too simple” and “offensive.” The left’s criticism of Ali reminds me of a quote by Martin Amis: “Being inoffensive, and being offended, are now the twin addictions of the culture.” Christopher Hitchens, whose work is often linked on CrossFit rest days, has written two essays on Ali for Slate.com. Here they are if anyone is interested in reading more about Ms. Ali:

http://www.slate.com/id/2141276/

http://www.slate.com/id/2142147/

I love the WaPo. Anne just glosses over the details of Van Gough's murder with this graph - "he pinned a letter threatening Hirsi Ali onto his victim's chest." The murderer was a radical jihadist who stuck a dagger through the death threat for Hirsi Ali into the young man's heart. details, people, details.
Anyway, the courage of Ali is profound and her articulate defense of women's rights in the islamic world is, unfortunately, much needed.

thank you so much for the follow-up video on OVH squatting....took notice for sure!!!

(8 days down, about 35 more to go on my recovering shoulder dislocation

(my inner monologue speaking: remember jake, knees soft coming down, knees soft coming down,....knees soft!) sometimes you gotta laugh or you'll cry

Just want to thank you guys for all the effort you put into this website and these videos. I wouldn't want to train any other way.

Spot on Orie #2.

Nowadays it's the left that wants to make religion illegal and encourages the millatary to disobey it elected leader. To paraphrase an angry Walter Sobchak, "Whose the f*cking Fascists here!?".

Schmidty, I think the politically correct term for "Radical Jihadist" is "Angry Youth". Show some sensitivity.

A brave woman. I am not sure why many leftists seem repulsed by her. I guess she is ready to fight back. Perhaps, do they not have the stomach yet?

Either way, she is a stud.

CCT Joey from which STS do you hail? 320th here...

Comment #6: "Nowadays it's the left that wants to make religion illegal"

How do you figure they want to make religion illegal? Are you talking about enforcing the establishment clause in the Constitution?

Jamienoki... 123rd

email me

I was born & raised in Ohio...that picture is exactly why I'm never going back! Sorry mom.

Salaam (peace)

Wow, here we go again, While reading the last rest day's discussion I LITERALLY broke out in a cold sweat, lets see how this one goes.

First let me thank Coach and Mrs. Glassman for Crossfit (free workouts, free articles free videos) and most importantly the opportunity to discuss issues with people whom I would not normally get the chance to.

On: Hirsi Ali- First: let me just make it clear that we all have the right to choose our own destiny, she is not the first muslim sister to do what she has done, there are literally thousands of Hirsi Ali-s out there, I know quite a few. I was even engaged to one. I’m looking forward to read her book.

I will quote the article:

“ from tribal Somalia, through fundamentalism, and into Western liberalism” Key word there TRIBAL for those who don’t know. Alot of what is passed of as Islam is not Islam, Tribal customs,( arranged marriages, honor killings, female circumcision you name it). Who knows what Hirsi went through as a young girl growing up. There is Islam and then there’s Muslims- and unfortunately some muslims come from Planet PSYCHO. And yes we are guilty of not taking out the trash. like cctjoey said "we have made our problem his"

Secondly
“After Sept. 11, 2001, horrified by some of the things Osama bin Laden was saying, she reached for the Koran to confirm a hunch: "I hated to do it," she wrote, "because I knew that I would find bin Laden's quotations in there."

The Quran was revealed/ compiled over a period of 23 years; a lot of the commandments in the Quran have to do with specific events that took place during the time of the Prophet. Also some of the verses have been abrogated (nullified) by other verses that were revealed at a later date. And yes the Quran does talk about cutting peoples head off. But you have to ask first when was the verse revealed? Under what circumstances was it revealed?, who is it referring to,? Who is doing the cutting? Whose head is being cut? Has it been abrogated by any other verse revealed at a later date?

Ooops there I go talking about cutting peoples’ heads off, I guess I am a blood thirsty savage that wants to enslave the whole world and have all the contestants of the Miss America beauty pageant as my CONCUBINES. Conquer a new state every night right?

Coach, Thanks again.

Abdullah.

Intersting article on Radical Youth who think it is the Government of Denmark's role to keep an empty building for them to squat in or build them another.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070303/ap_on_re_eu/denmark_clashes_11

"The eviction angered youths who have viewed the building as free public housing for years. It has also been a popular cultural center for anarchists, punk rockers and left-wing groups, where performers have included Australian musician Nick Cave and Icelandic singer Bjork."

Real winners. Europe has so much to offer on a cultural basis (roll eyes). That continent has just about done itself in with leftist policies. All that has to happen now is the Islamists to mop up.

Abdullah...

Good to hear from you. I was afraid we lost you. Be patient with us as we make sense out of all this stuff. I am always interested in your take.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and #12 Abdullah are two of the voices the West so badly wants and needs to hear from. Denouncing what is wrong with the way a portion of the world's population is practicing Islam will help us all to take the fight to the Islamofasists, where it belongs, instead of trying to wage war on an entire religion. Now, if we could just hear some stabilizing, authoritative,respected voices in Irag, Afghanistan, Iran and parts of Africa, I'd sleep much better at night.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is definitely a strong woman. She had a choice to be the victim or to be the victor. I am glad that she chose victor. Thanks Coach for posting an insightful view.

In post #12, Abdullah brings up good questions for anyone to stop and ask themselves when getting ready to pass judgement.

Kate

Not much of a rest day article that could inspire acidic debate. Still, you get comments like #6 that spouts lies about liberals and religions, so all is as it should be.

Anyway, this weekend spent some days is Kuala Lumpur. Got a bit bored seeing so many women in head scarfs thought I'd take a shot at my usual bit of debate. Did the usual fun bit: "What's with the headscarf? Does it keep your head cooler? Is it functional?" When they brought up the bit about women needing to be covered due to religious tenets, I bring out the funny stuff. "So in Islam, men are treated like children? Men have no self control, so women must take away temptation from them? Islam is a female dominated religion controlling the actions of men?" By this time, most of the ladies seem to be at a lack of an explanation in English. Sadly, my Mandarin is non-existant. The men just get irritated, but not angry as I'm playing it like a dumb tourist looking for meaningful information.

Still, I disagree with the practice of Islam like I disagree with the practice of Christianity on many points. One does not become a stronger character by removing temptation. At a certain point, wouldn't you like to say "I've been tempted with the chance to go down the wrong path and not get caught, and I chose the right path" instead of seeing a bolted door with DO NOT ENTER written across forcing onto the predetermined "correct" path of thought? Similar to the difference between fired and raw clay bowls, which can hold to to true pressure?

As for liberals being against religion, no, we're against those in power using the strength of the Federal and Local governments to enforce their own views of religion. Here's a big secret they keep forgetting to tell you: children have ALWAYS been able to pray in public US schools. It's that the teachers and principals cannot COORDINATE prayer. It's private schools that can stop your child from praying as she sees fit (in a non-disruptive manner). Liberals have protected religion from government, conservatives have sought to destroy religion by introducing Caesar into the pulpit. Hmm, keep up the good work and maybe someday you'll render only unto Caesar.

"That continent has just about done itself in with leftist policies."

For your information: Scandinavia -- pretty much the most leftist place you'll find anywhere -- is doing better than anyone else in the world, no matter how you try to cut it.

Abdullah #12 makes an important point about Ms. Ali mixing up Muslim tribal violence with the Islam religion.

She has a number of articles available on the AEI (w/f/s) website at: http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.all,scholarID.117,type.1/pub_list.asp

Ms. Ali speaking at an AEI event two weeks ago (w/f/s link to MP3 audio file): http://static2.capitalreach.com/aei/media/5190.mp3

Her (w/f/s) wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

I can only hope that she influences the AEI more than the AEI influences her. She already supports preventive strikes against Iran. AEI is supporting her followup to her first movie, called Submission II, which will be about Islam and homosexuality. Good on them.

I never, ever get drawn into the rest day debates. Today is an exception.

Nuke-Marine - I have tremendous respect for you. And I am not by any (ANY) means an apologist for any sort of aberrent behavior. But I do think that when you're visiting a foreign country or culture you have to respect the locals' choices/norms and just live with it. I think might be fair to challenge their assumptions if they were living in Cleveland, but not in Kuala Lumpur.

Tariq

Tarig, why respect them? Why play along with the charade?

Chuck that elitists attitude is why the entire world views the U.S. as being arrogant...Tariq is dead on with this one ..while we may not understand the reason for why other cultures have the traditions they do ...respecting that culture while you are a guest is the higher moral ground ...there is no danger in respecting and trying to understand why a culture does what it does.... alot of danger can come from showing no respect forothers because you feel you culture and way of life is superior ....I may not be an authority on this subject but i have been to over 40 countries and done 6 OEF/OIF rotations so I am @ least not talking out my @$$... cheers

Great video ! Was looking for something which would teach safety and how to dump weights when squatting. Can I request another video for backsquats ?

Hold up, at no time did I state I was being disrespectful. I asked questions and put a child like interpretation on the answers they gave. I do the same thing with Christians when I'm talking to them.

The problem with most cultures and their beliefs is that they never learned about them as adults. They were born into it. When a time comes when they have to explain it to someone completely outside a context they're used to, they must then look deeper into their beliefs for an explanation that represents verbally what they truly feel.

Consider it akin to going to a gym, over to a person moving from the bench press to the tricep extension. Ask him what he's doing, when he gives the two word answer, ask him "why?" then push again with a tone that holds general interest. Next ask wasn't the bench press training the tricep? Keep exploring deeper as to why duplicate efforts without getting preachy. The point is not to learn about the person beliefs, it's to see if the person understands his own beliefs. Most get flustered having to go too deep into why things are the way they are.

As for respecting local customs, I respect by the point of learning customs. At no time shall I become tolerant of intolerance. Sure, the women of the culture may find burkas and scarves as not intollerant, in fact may be comforted by wearing them because that's all they've been exposed to. Similar cultural taboos in the US exist in relation to clothing, food, actions, sex, etc. All I have done though was take a local custom, and the explanation for that custom, then take a different look at it.

PS: What then was wrong with my interpretation that Muslims treat their men like children? I've seen how women act at a male strip club, so I know women can lose self control. Yet you don't see men wearing full body clothing to stop tempting the women, do you?

Great video !

Regards from Argentina

Interesting article. I would like to point out that Tariq Ramadan is a very controversial figure himself. In fact, the political establishment in Europe is having a hard time finding the "right" Muslims to talk to. Since Muslims are not a homogenous, stereotypical group, we cannot expect to find a single representative that will speak for them all. Every path to integration is a personal one, in the end.

Also, the global political context has not made the integration of Muslim immigrants any easier. Much of the progress made over the last 50 years has been smashed to pieces by the recent rise of radical islamism and terrorism and the West's backlash. Rebuilding trust will not be easy.

#13 CCTJOEY

We already saw your irrelevant article on Denmark last rest day. Were you under the impression that your insightful (ahem) commentary was somehow more on-topic today?

Nukem, concur on the school prayer - love the joke "I prayed before every exam." The difference in govt v private schools, however, is you can avoid paying a private school if they wrongly restrict your behavior - by going somewhere that better suits your needs.

Abdullah, thanks for a thoughtful post. I appreciate in particular hearing that HA is not a lone voice among Muslim females.

Crossfit, thanks for giving this brave woman's voice another vehicle.

I think Joey has pointed out a great issue - much of Western Europe is done. They made a deal with the devil, and the U.S. refuses to learn from it. Much of what I’m about to write applies equally to our much loved neighbors to the north, but not all.

I continue to be amazed that folks talk about immigration and additions to socialization programs (such as Bush's medicine benefit and the renewed press for 'universal' health care) without discussing the fact that these policy issues are joined at the hip.

Socialized programs depend upon a growing worker base for financial solvency. Since we westerners have a choice, and choose not to breed all that much (the US is barely sustaining replacement rate, thanks to minority populations which exceed the anglo rate of 1.67 by enough to bring our rate to 2.1 or so), our social programs will be as unsustainable as Europe's are proving to be, and we will be forced to do what Europe does – throw in the towel on defense spending, and open the borders for anyone.

I am not anti-immigration and would in fact prefer a “controlled” open border policy, with incentives for legal immigration and an appearance of deterrence for immigration of criminals (appearance, regrettably, is all that can be reliably done). I would remove any restrictions on educated, English speaking immigrants immediately to brain drain the rest of the world to here, but not being master of time and space as yet, I will have to wait on that one. The fact that politicians and others continue to discuss the two issues - govt programs and immigration policy - as if they were separate issues makes me wonder if they think we are stupid or they are disingenuous (of course, both may be true).

If sustainability is an issue – for example, water availability in the west – one has to be concerned about population growth. Also, if you are one who believes the four assertions about global warming (it is happening, caused by humans, will cause injury to humans, and is reversible by human behavior without causing greater harm than good), you should be concerned about population growth. If the US would like to have the choice not to have a growing population, we cannot continue to have socialized programs which function by taking a little of the life energy from a lot of workers to pay for the ‘benefits’ of all (while I admire the originally stated intent of social programs, I think there’s ample evidence that outputs of socialized programs are a thing done TO people not FOR people, but that’s another discussion). “Socialized math” only works with a growing population base, because government transfers are zero sum transactions. Health care and social security in particular are largely consumed by the elderly – 25% or so of all health care costs are consumed in the last year of life, “end of life care.” ‘Wealth transfer programs’ (‘life energy’ transfer programs) only work when the young outnumber the old by a wide margin, otherwise, there’s no hiding the fact that these programs are in fact politicians bribing the public by taking money from those who are productive, and passing that money/wealth/life energy to the unproductive, so the unproductive can sustain life without being productive (in some cases, maybe most cases, despite not having taken the effort to store up wealth for later years, and/or without having to depend upon the productive members of their own families, which was the only similar option in pre-industrial days). Socialized programs amount to a politician saying you can have something for nothing, and we had no reason not to believe them in 40s, but we would know better now if we were paying attention.

Three considerations, totally apart from the immigration/socialization discussion – if you pay more to people to be unproductive, you get more unproductive people. Two, the implication of a smaller and smaller population of the productive, most of whom are young, being forced by the government to pay more and more of their life energy for the unproductive, most of whom are old (as is seen now in Europe), is that the whole process will begin to appear to be a fight between the young and the old for resources (it will seem that way because it is that way). One might think that would cause more than a little generational friction. If you look, you can see the impact of that struggle in European (particularly continental) culture today, and it is starting to get ugly. Third, I don’t assert, nor could I prove, that proposals for sustaining or increasing socialistic programs are a means by which some would like to wreck the US’s uncontestable military dominance, but socialization programs are a proven strategy to economically handcuff a nation such that it cannot afford to defend itself. Examples abound.

Please note that I do not intentionally disparage all of the unproductive as blameful for their condition, or lesser humans for their lack of productivity – clearly, the world is not fair and produces many humans who can not be productive due to accidents of birth or life. The term unproductive is intended as descriptive and factual but not pejorative term.

It appears there is a fundamental gap of understanding which drives the willingness of some to put their trust in a government solutions to economic problems. The best I can tell, that gap is the mis-understanding of where wealth comes from. Governments do not create wealth, but at their best, they are essential for creation/defense of conditions under which men/woman may create wealth through busy-ness (business?). Men/women create wealth by investment in capital goods, which may be combined with innovation (or result from innovation) to produce an output of greater value than the sum of the inputs of the process. Value creation can be as simple as making/selling pencils, or as complex as the post 9/11 US economy growing by an amount larger than the entire value of the (2006) economy of China.

One example – social security is supposed to take money from many, hold the money in a trust, and then redistribute the money to the original “contributor” (slave?). In the time that the money is not available for use by the one who produced it, the money does not ‘work,’ it is not invested. By contrast, the same person who might invest only half of what social security requires (15%, ask a small business owner), would have the option of using the money to invest in the purchase of capital, such that the money is utilized by others to create wealth/value where none exists. 7% of the free man’s income would nearly always produce more wealth for the retiree than the govts 15%, and in the mean time would contribute to overall economic growth. The investor gains the money, plus a ‘return on investment,’ AND whomever utilized the money in the investment process also created a product of greater use to a customer than the sum of the inputs to create the product, and jobs, etc. Even when the ‘insurance’ idea is referenced (“social security is just an insurance policy”), the government approach is demonstrably poor. The insurance premium you pay for auto insurance is immediately ‘invested’ by the insurance company – providing a means to increase wealth for the insurance company owners/investors, as investments do – and thus when the premium is paid back out as a claim, it has in the mean time created wealth, contributing to the growth of the overall economy. If the government were to provide the same insurance product, they would have to charge much higher premiums for the same amount of coverage because government cannot invest, cannot put capital work to create value/wealth. Government ‘insurance’ programs are zero sum, at best. Real insurance programs are an incredible economic boon.

Failing to understand what creates wealth, many won’t understand why government wealth transfer programs do not contribute to wealth and in many ways stifle additional wealth creation.

Failing to understand the source of our wealth, like the fabled farmer, we will kill the golden goose thinking to get what is inside.

I fear it is not an accident that public schools and universities don’t require fundamental economic literacy.

How does this tie into today’s article? By the fact that Europe has no choice but to continue to import labor, much of which must come from Muslim nations such as Somalia, because these are the nations which produce unskilled labor (for example, Somali birthrate exceeds 6/female). Even if they decided they’d like to reduce immigration to a rate such that immigrants would be more likely to assimilate into European culture, these nations don’t have that choice. Mark Steyn’s articles and books are pointing this out, and what the implications are, but I can’t tell whether anyone’s listening. No one on the main political stage is.

Should the US continue to ride economic illiteracy, the fallacy of which has been demonstrated by existing experiments in socialism for our edification, we will follow Europe into financial helplessness and the helplessly fertile will inherit the earth.

#13, Abdullah,

"The Quran was revealed/ compiled over a period of 23 years; a lot of the commandments in the Quran have to do with specific events that took place during the time of the Prophet. Also some of the verses have been abrogated (nullified) by other verses that were revealed at a later date. And yes the Quran does talk about cutting peoples head off. But you have to ask first when was the verse revealed? Under what circumstances was it revealed?, who is it referring to,? Who is doing the cutting? Whose head is being cut? Has it been abrogated by any other verse revealed at a later date?"

I think your point is an excellent one, but many non Muslims (and many Muslims) do not have access to reasoned interpretations of these selected quotes. When we hear that something is written in the Quran and quoted by extremists, we simply accept that the way it is.

I wonder why someone doesn't maintain a website listing these quotes, following them with a way to put them in context, and thereby rebut the notion that these quotes are commandments to be lived by to this day.

We often ask why moderate Muslims do not speak out. I think maintaining a website of scholarly interpretations of these selected quotes would be a great start. Perhaps this information is already out there in an easily accessable format. If so, do you know where?

NukeMarine #18 says: "Not much of a rest day article that could inspire acidic debate. Still, you get comments like #6 that spouts lies about liberals and religions, so all is as it should be."

Yet 4 days ago Chef wrote: "My call is that religion as practiced needs to be outlawed en mass. Its the most dangerous and foolhardy weapon every contrived by man. We prevent people driving drunk? Good call. "

So in two rest days Liberals have suggested I am a liar citing them, and a criminal for going to church.

Sweet.

Chuck #10 Asks: "How do you figure they want to make religion illegal? Are you talking about enforcing the establishment clause in the Constitution"

That establishment Clause was designed to protect Religion from the state, not the state from religion. So, if your question made sense, it would read

"How do you figure they want to make religion illegal? Are you talking about misappropriating the establishment clause in the Constitution"

To which I would enthusiasticaly reply, YES!

As far as I'm concerned, all religion is lunacy.

It pains me to imagine the incredible scientific and medical advances that we could have made as a species by now, if we only didn't waist so much time and money obsessing over imaginary beings that may or may not control the workings of the world... I'm pretty convinced that religion is the chief architect of our eventual demise as a species.

If I had my way, there would be no religion, just reason and science. However, since most people seem to be incapable of reasoning for themselves, tolerance of religions is a necessity in a Democratic society.

So, Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote a book or two exposing the barbaric insanity of Islam... Kudos to her. Honestly, I'm all for it. The problem with her particular path, though, is that she has sought political influence over a religion... Good luck.

1. It's just not going to go anywhere... ultimately, she will just be used by hack organizations like AEI to further their agenda of the month... AEI doesn't truly give a crap about the advancement of reason over religion.

2. If you're going to seek political influence over 1 religion and not all, you're just looking to pick a massive fight. Nothing productive will come of it. The same goes for religion picking fights against governments... It's either all or nothing in my opinion.

Zach

#16/Denver - one moderate who's voice has been influential in Iraq is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. During the chaos following the Askari Mosque he directed that no Shia would take revenge on a Sunni, "even if they kill half of the Shia." I light of the way that the Shia in general have been brutalized by the Sunni since ~656, this is a noteworthy statement. He was also the force behind the group of unarmed Shia that marched to defuse what looked to be a disastrous confrontation between the US and Moqtada al Sadr (disastrous in that it would have required that the US destroy a significant mosque - we'd have killed Sadr, but the victory would have caused an incredible amount of bad will); the unarmed group simply broke up the miscreants and sent them home, saving the mosque and combatant lives.

In short, he's a living example of moderate Shia Muslim leadership. For all I know, he still believes in some of the repressive aspects of Shia Islam, I can't speak to his entire theology, of course, but he strikes me as a moderate Muslim who walks his talk.

Unfortunately, many shia did what I would have done - fought back against the aggressors. And as per the usual, many non-combatant non-aggressors were ruthlessly murdered by both sides, because the US failed to establish security. Perhaps we can rectify that now.

Finally worked a catch up CFT into the rhythm today, and came out +40 since my Jan benchmark. Partner was +65. I did the best squat (not the heaviest) I've ever done, based on what I learned from Xfit vids and starting strength; it was a sublime moment. Camp Cupcake's winter weather continues to be a delight.

CCTJoey-
Remember a couple of weeks ago the protest in Washington DC that was very disturbing? I was reading an article today in a magazine that discussed the counter attack. There was a website listed and I went to it and thought you would like to see the efforts being made against the protestors.

http://www.gatheringofeagles.org

Scroll down until you see "Answering the call of our fallen."

Kate

Zach,

Always a potent post.

Understanding that your opinion of religion is somewhat negative (!), do I also understand you to say that you would not use the power of govt to restrict another citizen's practice of religion, so long as the govt also defended your right not to practice?

A thought - I'm trying to think of any culture that brought itself to anything like a standard for 'virtuous behavior' without a religious driver for cultural norms - anyone have an example?

Aswab

#30, Zach,

"If I had my way, there would be no religion, just reason and science. However, since most people seem to be incapable of reasoning for themselves, tolerance of religions is a necessity in a Democratic society."

How do you feel about non democratic societies that are unwilling to tolerate the non orthodox beliefs of either their own people or those of other nations? Any thoughts on how we should reason with those people?

OK - interesting debate, but I will ask the weekly question: what is the name of the song in the OHS video?

Kate, thanks for the site.

Ewen, glad to hear you are a fan of my posts. Since I posted that on the tail end of the rest day last time I thought it was relevant this time even more so based on WhiskeySean's #7 post. the connection is the "Radical Youth" in Europe and the mindset that refuses to label it what it actually is.

In France the Radical youth that burned the streets were Muslim Immigrants and 2ng genereation Immigrants.

In Denmark the "Radical Youth" are leftists and anarchists.

Either way they are slacker/thugs who are unproductive at best and destructive at worst.

So I feel it is relevent to post the article so the similarities can be noted.

What similarities...only a mindset...an accidental one I hope.

Here is a political cartoon that I think is relevant.

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/EricAllie/2007/02/31d219ac-09ff-41a0-83f8-b21de5aee095

Keep checking in Ewen:)

#28 Aswab-

Thank you for all your well thought-out posts, even if I don't always agree with them. You mention healthcare for the elderly and end-of-life care, and I think its interesting that you cite Europe as a system that doesn't work, because I think that they are more realistic in terms of health care than America is. In countries such as Sweden that have single-payer healthcare, there are algorhythms that prevent resources from being wasted on those who do not truly need it. For example, you cannot have a brain-dead family member kept on a ventilator for months and at the expense of $100K. If there is no chance of recovery, they simply pull the plug and move on. In America, however, you see this kind of futile action all the time, 'heroic action' to prolong the life of the terminally ill as long as possible. This is why 'end of life' care ends up being so expensive. The cost then is either covered by the government, a private ensurer, or the hospital eats the bill. In any case, the cost of this is passed on to the rest of health care consumers.. One of the reason why all health care in the U.S. is so ridiculously expensive. Single-payer healthcare certainly has its share of problems, but in this area the efficiency of it is far superior to our own system.

-Tavis

Comment #30, Whiskey Sean,

I did not call you a liar, I said you posted lies (yes, it amounts to the same thing). Your (deleted?) post said the left wants to outlaw religion. That's a lie, there are those on the left AND right that want to outlaw some religions if not all but their own. I consider it lying to label the group based on the actions of the few (unless we're talking a representative few). You want me to base the conservative's viewpoints off what I hear from Ann Coulter?

As far as the establishment clause, it applies to federal and local (thanks to the 15th amendment). You can bumper sticker quote it all you want ("freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" or "protect religion from government, not the other way around"), it still says what it says. Any law that gets passed stating we must pray toward Mecca 5 times a day will be struck down, no matter how many times you cry about the Constitution not saying "a Wall of Seperation". If you bother to read, it doesn't say "Freedom of Religion" either, but you can darn well imply it.

As far as religion being negative, completely disagree. It's been the exploitation of any type of power that's been negative. That can be said of governments, corporations and religions. I've been of the opinion anyway that everyone has their own beliefs. Religion is merely a conformity of beliefs. Church is where that conformity takes place. Granted, this loose definition allows for more "secular" type religions. Not sure where I went with this, but I hope it made a bit of sense.

Aswab,

Nope, I don't think that governement can effectively regulate religion out of existence.... Well, actually it probably could, but the price would be pretty high.

As I type this, I realize what an interesting question it actually is... There are plenty of instances, historically, of governments altering the thought patterns of their citizens through essentially attrition... After all, we are talking about a thought pattern.

Nuke-Marine,

Religion goes waaaaaayyy beyond an exploitable power. In my opinion, it is a flaw in the human psyche; an inability to face reality. It not only provides some people with power over others. It essentially makes us dysfunctional as a species... incapable of productively interacting with the world we live in, because we can't see it for what it is.

Yikes... I'm rambling... had a sick baby all night, so I haven't had much sleep.

Zach

comment #30: "That establishment Clause was designed to protect Religion from the state, not the state from religion. So, if your question made sense, it would read "

It has nothing to do with protecting religion. It protects a citizens right to chose whether or not to participate in religion. The Establishment Clause was designed to prevent the Federal Government from passing any law regarding the establisment of religion. A law regarding the establishement would be any law discouraging or encouraging participation in a religion.

Until the 14th Amendment was passed, States could and did pass laws regulating religion. Several states had state relgions. Several had laws prohibiting catholics from holding political office.

After the 14th Amendment was passed following the Civil War, the States were required by the Constitution to provide their citizens with due process of law.

During the 20th Century, the Supreme Court held that due process required the States to follow the limitations placed on the Federal Government by the establishement clause, ie: the Establishment Clause was incorporated into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Freedom of religion is considered a fundmanental right. That means that any law which impacts a person's right to chose whether or not to participate in a religion has to pass strict scrutiny. That requires the law to pursue a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means. When laws impact religion fail that test, they are overturned by the Suprememe Court.

The European experience suggests that radicalism in all its forms is dangerous. Being a radical myself, I happen to disagree with that. But when the Enlightment has been at the root of 2 catastrophic wars and several catastrophic genocides, you can see how an Enlightment enthusiast would make them nervous.

- Josh

"In my opinion, it is a flaw in the human psyche; an inability to face reality."

Zach,

It's my understanding that the best and most learned physicists in the world cannot agree on what "reality" is. Do you know something that Von Neumann and Einstein didn't?

I dealt with this in other respects on the last Rest Day. I haven't gone back to see how that one ended, but I'm betting you had no response to what I thought was a concise, clear, logically tight, and factual argument.

I do now know why as a presumed Lakoff acolyte you refuse to answer questions clearly. Self evidently, I don't expect a clear answer to the question above. You don't have one. You can't without being dishonest or stupid.

Apolloswabbie,

I thought that an excellent summary of the issue. I would hazard a guess 99% of the voting population couldn't put that with near that clarity. The only people who really understand this stuff are business owners and stockbrokers/business analysts. People with skin in the game, short term.

39/190

3.5 mns jump rope (dang weather!)
20 dumb snatches-25lbs (My first time doing these. Definitely awkward form)
20 dumb squat cleans (10-25, 5-45, 5-40)
100 sit-ups (50-30-20)
20 DS-25lb
20 DSC (40lbs, sets of 10 and 10)
5mns jump rope
30 80% Body weight Bench Press (missed two days. Trying to make-up the missed workouts a little at a time.

40mns

Tavis - you bring in an important element. Do you want government algorhythms to efficiently allocate the health care that you get? I think that's important to consider, because that's the only significant control govt has over costs. An example, mid 90s, the UK had as many MRI machines as the state of Rhode Island. Very efficient rationing of care, but quality? Effectiveness? Reflective of the freedom you and I want? Remember the guy that had to sue the Canadian govt for the right to pay for his own knee replacement surgery, because he didn't want to wait two years for the govt to pay for it for him? He won - it took two years to win, but he 'won.'

I would also point out that I do not want govt algorhythms directing the end of life of citizens. I'm not huge on forcing all of us to pay for it either - but that's a degree of power we should never willingly cede to govt. The situation you describe also points out the conflict inherent in wealth transfer programs - govt picks the winners and losers, and in the process becomes the means of combat over resources, which I mentioned earlier, is becoming a generational conflict in Europe.

Also, while I would like to, I did not compare the European system to our present system; that's another discussion (hopefully, one we can have here). I don't like our present system either. But obviously I am in vehement opposition to a government imposed solution to the current govt imposed problem on health care - to wit, lack of market forces in health care leading to excessive costs.

Not to get too far afield from my main point for today - choosing socialized programs means you have to grow the population by birth rate or immigration - "The Crisis of Abundance" is a first rate, and short book, for understanding how market forces would allow us to self-ration vice submitting to 'shortages for all' as is done it the single payer system.

In appreciation for a thoughtful response, Paul

PS - there's a little more on health care and liberty here:
http://apolloswabbie.blogspot.com/

Just for fun:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

and

"Congress shall make no respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people PEACEABLY [my emphasis] to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances."

For extra fun, please derive the right to abortion from that Amendment, and the following:

3rd: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

4th: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

5th: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

14th: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . .The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. [I skipped Sections 2-4 as not relevant]"

In my view, intellectual contortions that would baffle the most accomplished yogi are necessary for this task. Yes, I know the history.

Regardless of our views on this--and I'm Pro-choice, more for pragmatic than theoretical reasons--we all have to view all efforts to enact law outside of the legislative process as inherently inimical to the specific intent of our Founding Fathers, and the spirit with which they approached the creation of our Republic.

Thus, in my view, atheists should be fully as outraged about this case as Christians and other people of faith.

I'm fully prepared to posit that Jefferson, for example, may as well have been an atheist, but I'm also prepared to argue he would have opposed tooth and nail the TACTICS of the Secular-Progressive movement, if not in all cases the underlying intent.

Barry,

What the hell is it exactly that bugs you so much about atheism?

Age 34
BW 147#

3x
Row 500 meters
Bench Press 150# x30

25:57

#45, Barry,

". . . [W]e all have to view all efforts to enact law outside of the legislative process as inherently inimical to the specific intent of our Founding Fathers, and the spirit with which they approached the creation of our Republic."

Do you believe that Marbury versus Madison (allowing the Court to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional, despite their having been created through the legislative process) was wrongly decided?

Do you believe that Miranda versus Arizona (creating the Miranda "rights" and the "remedy" of excluding evidence gathered in violation of these rights) was wrongly decide?

If your answer to either of these is no, what evidence do you find in the Constitution to support either of these decisions?

I have a question unrelated to the subject of this rest day...
I'm trying to get my father into shape. The only form of exercise he's had in the past 20 years is doubles tennis a couple days a week at the most and a little walking. The tennis is more of a social thing than exercise since they drink beer b/t sets. He has a ruptured disk in his upper back/lower neck and a "torn" rotator cuff in his shoulder. I don't think it's a full tear since he didn't need surgery. Also, he has terrible flexibility and his legs get really tight when he jogs (I talked him into jogging 100 meters for every 500 he walks). I've had him doing some of the basic crossfit moves but he says he'd be more comfortable doing the machines.
Do y'all have any ideas for an easy starting program for him. And also, as much as I hate the machines, should I get him to do the machines (since some exercise is better than none)?

By the way, I have looked at the CF Beginners Program and had him doing some of that.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Tstone, That's a sacred mission, I wish you well.

Anything is better than nothing and strength training is a critical part of older persons' health which is frequently over looked. Interestingly, strength will also affect his mobility - weak muscles tend to react more rapidly to extension towards their habitual limits, limiting normal range of motion in some cases.

I wish I had advice other than: reinforce what ever he's willing to do; and build off of that. Show him the video of the seasoned citizen doing crossfit - perhaps he'll be willing to compete with her!

Paul

Tstone-
My dad is in his 80's, and I try and get him to do some proprioceptive work on a balance board (while holding on to him, of course). It's not a major part of the regimen, but studies have shown that this type of work has beneficial side-effects...just a thought...

Barry,

For my part, I think R v W is bad law. I don't think you can find what they said is a constitutionally protected right in what's written. On the other hand, I cannot accept that the state gets to regulate that sort of values based choice.

On the face of it, the legal issue is simple - if the not-born baby is legally defined as a life, then it should receive all the constitutional protections you or I do. Obviously, that will never be a simple issue to decide.

My only hope for resolution is that sometime in the future, it will be made so easy to prevent unwanted pregnancy, that it will cease to be an issue for but the mentally/emotionally impaired and/or physically victimized.

However, back to demographics again, red staters are reproducing fastest in the US - to what political persuation will they adhere?

I have to dig into the Federalist Papers, soon.

Paul

Added thought - I think there's some possibility that the next generation of women may get to a point of saying "holy smokes, look what we did" and demand that their 'right' be removed. Whether this would be for good or ill, I don't know, but it seems possible.

Always interesting to see what hits the board between PM (for me) and AM, out here.

Aswab

#53, Apolloswabbie,

"However, back to demographics again, red staters are reproducing fastest in the US - to what political persuation will they adhere?"

FOr an argument that "The right to abortion has diminished the number of Democratic voters." See:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006913

Hari,

I haven't studied either of those decisions, so I can't comment. I HAVE studied Roe v. Wade, and that's why I'm commenting.

Rough opinion, though. The Supreme Court, within the context of the checks and balances system, was intended primarily to curb excesses on the part of the Legislative Branch. It was not intended to create "good" laws, but to strike down bad ones. It has a negative, and not a positive function, by design. In order to perform this function, logically it must have the power to overturn laws.

Miranda, given the timeframe and who was sitting on the bench when that decision came down, I have a strong feeling it was judicial activism, but I would have to research it.

Scott,

I don't have any issues at all with atheists, per se. I think they have the right to believe what they believe, and I have the right to believe what I believe. As long as they leave me alone, we're all happy citizens of our great Republic.

The issue I see is that a very vocal subset of them feels it necessary to use religion to attack the very foundations of our Republic, and to attack traditional values, like patriotism, honor, and dignity, with the ostensible purpose of increasing morality generally, through increasing the virtue of Tolerance that is apparently only absent due to improper schooling, such as going to church.

Yet the arguments they advance in the moral sphere are sophomoric in the extreme, and the arguments they want to use to support their position in the public sphere are generally stupid. We are not at war with Islam because George Bush is a Christian. We are neither at war with "Islam", nor does Bush need to be a Christian to make the obvious point that there are people out there who want to kill Americans.

This argument can only be understood as either a red herring, or prima facie evidence of an inability to process information and draw reasonable conclusions, which is ironic, since Reason is invariably the faculty with which they want to associate themselves.

What does one do with someone who cites Reason in support of an irrational position, and does so dogmatically? If you're me, you start pointing this out.

On a fitness note, does anyone have any tips for improving pull-ups? I can get one set at 20+, then it drops to 15 or so and it's just down hill from there. Any advice? Thanks!

#56, Barry,

"The Supreme Court, within the context of the checks and balances system, was intended primarily to curb excesses on the part of the Legislative Branch. It was not intended to create "good" laws, but to strike down bad ones."

I'd be surprised if you can find anything in the Constitution to suggest that the Supreme Court was created to curb excesses on the part of the Legislative branch. All three branches are sworn to uphold the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Marbury declared that it should have the final say, and the other two branches have accepted that position ever since.

I asked this a couple days ago and didnt get much of a response - does anyone use creatine supplements while crossfitting? whats CF's position on creatine?

To call Islam violent or inherently demeaning toward women is a gross simplification of the religion. Obviously, there are some quotes in any religious text that can be manipulated to make the religion sound violent and repulsive. To any Christians out there, look at these:

"... Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death." -- Exodus 31:15

"Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him." --Leviticus 24:16

How about sexism in Christianity? I think I could conjure up a passage about that.

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is digraceful for a woman to speak in the church." 1 Cor. 14

Islam encourages its followers to kill? If I read things out of context, so does Christianity.

"Anyone who is captured, will be run through with a sword. Their children will be dashed to death right before their eyes." -- Isaiah 13

And oh, wait, did I pull that out of the old testament? Well how about straight from the mouth of Jesus?

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Obviously, I find such mis-quoting absurd and intellectually, lazy. If anyone thinks that Islam is so violent, please look at Christianity and how easy it would be to misquote it. Open the book of Leviticus to see how many things a good Jew or Christian should kill their neighbor for.

I personally know plenty of Muslims and Christians, and I don't think either Muslims or Christians are especially violent or hateful.

Think of all those Muslims who teach at the Defense Language Institute. Do they all teach our Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines how to speak Arabic and Farsi because they want to destroy America.

There are fringe groups in any society. For proof of that, look at the Movie Jesus Camp

"The judicial Power of the United State, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . .The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . ." Constitution.

"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution. By a limited constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #6.

Cited here: http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=33&articleID=417

Mikey,

The best bet for that sort of question is the Message Boards. My guess is some people use it, some don't. I don't think it makes a huge difference either way, especially if you follow the Zone diet.

Barry #56 "What does one do with someone who cites Reason in support of an irrational position, and does so dogmatically? If you're me, you start pointing this out."

As an atheist I find this last statement of yours extremely hypocritical. That is exactly what your doing by trying to argue for christianity.
You use some fancy words to enhance your arguments but they are still very "sophomoric"

The three branches of government were not created equal. If anything the courts were not meant to hold so much power since the judges are appointed for life. I don't think that a bunch of Lawyers should hold so much power...especially when they are not elected.

Nuke says :I" did not call you a liar, I said you posted lies (yes, it amounts to the same thing). "

I struggle to find your point.

Nuke Says: "Your (deleted?) post said the left wants to outlaw religion. That's a lie, there are those on the left AND right that want to outlaw some religions if not all but their own."

Do the second half of your sentences always contradict the first? If both sides want to outlaw religion, as you say, then my statement was one sided, but not a lie. Which you called it not one breath beforehand. I quibble, but then again, I am not the one calling others liars, criminals, and lunatics.

Nuke Says: "I consider it lying to label the group based on the actions of the few (unless we're talking a representative few)."

Then you should buy a dictionary.

Nuke Says : "You want me to base the conservative's viewpoints off what I hear from Ann Coulter?"

Yes. Not one of my first choices, but I don't shriek in horror at the thought.

The rest of you argument was similarily cast by Chuck (#41) who said: "It protects a citizens right to chose whether or not to participate in religion. The Establishment Clause was designed to prevent the Federal Government from passing any law regarding the establisment of religion. A law regarding the establishement would be any law discouraging or encouraging participation in a religion."

Which is so splendidly tautological I have no choice is point out that the constitution itself is unconstitutional, when assessed with such enlightened and precise logic.

Bumper stickers indeed.

NickC,

I'm not a Christian, nor am I arguing for it. Find a post anywhere in the last year where I've argued for Christianity.

I assume that takes care of your objection?

I will ask, though, in what respect is atheism more rational than belief in Divinity? You do realize, don't you, that Aristotelian systems of argumentation and logic were resurrected by Catholics to develop unassailable arguments for use against heretics, and that that intellectual tradition represented the framework from which the Enlightenment grew?

Reason is a tool for getting from point A to point B. However, it tells you little or nothing about point A. If one starts from the premise that only what is visible is real, developing atheism is quite simple. Any moron can do it.

However, what if I choose to start from the premise that the thought of God itself, being perfect, cannot possibly have originated in a human mind without an external referent?

You don't agree with that? Fine, but it's perfectly rational, for people that so view it.

Your basic problem--and this is common problem among dogmatic atheists--is that you consider your position as so obviously right, that any other position, BY DEFINITION is wrong, and irrational.

Yet Christians, Muslims, and Jews think the same way. How are you any different? Oh yes, because YOU are right. How silly of me not to understand the profound and obvious difference between your position and that of Jerry Falwell, who--fool that he is--thinks he's right with as much energy as you do.

He's intolerant because he's wrong, and you're tolerant--and different--by merit of the fact that you are right.

If you don't see a problem here, I'm going to have to ask that your membership card in the Rationalist Club be revoked.

Barry, I am very tolerant. I merely feel that assuming that because a few people got together and wrote a book 2000 years ago does not necessarily mean that the world is as they said it was. Remember at that time people still believed the world was flat, people were being burned at the stake for having a third nipple, c'mon are we really going to take their word seriously nowadays. There is a possibility of a GOD, but you have to prove it for me to believe it. Until then, I am not going to trust whole-heartedly some book that was written hundreds of years ago, which by the way has been revised multiple times. Perhaps I'm just stubborn.

"Yet Christians, Muslims, and Jews think the same way. How are you any different? Oh yes, because YOU are right. How silly of me not to understand the profound and obvious difference between your position and that of Jerry Falwell, who--fool that he is--thinks he's right with as much energy as you do."

My position is that I am different than them because I don't believe in a deity created by witch doctors and cultists that was written years ago, I find that an extremely lazy way of thinking.
"Well I can't explain it, so I guess god created it." Is this the kind of modern day advancements we should expect in cures for cancer and aids too.

#60, Barry,

I do not see how these citations support your proposition (#56) that:

"The Supreme Court, within the context of the checks and balances system, was intended primarily to curb excesses on the part of the Legislative Branch."

I find nothing in the Constitution to support the proposition that the Supreme Court has the authority to render an act of Congress null and void, yet it does, and the other branches accept this.

My point is that while I agree with your position (#46) that nothing in the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion, much of what we accept as legitimate (e.g., the Supreme Court striking down laws it finds to be unconstitutional, creating Miranda Warnings, ordering Nixon to turn over the tapes) is also not in the Constitution.

So where does that leave us?

NickC why waste so much energy debating the existence of God? You're not according to what you stated before an atheist so why jump onto that at every opportunity? I submit that thou doth protest to much. If the knowing means you would have to change your behavior then not believing is easier right? I would agree though, that you shouldn't believe in something created by witch doctors and cultists, unless of course you're a witch doctor and a cultist. And yes I'm serving as an agent provocoteur.

S. Baer, do a search for "grease the groove." There's also quite a bit on this if you look in the message board. Good luck!

Nickc, Umm, it's not quite that "a few people got together and wrote a book 2000 years ago". You know that right? There is a bit more to the story.

Re: Roe v. Wade - It should be hard for most people to stomach the sad fact that some 45 MILLION pregnancies have been terminated since the 70's. Disclosure - I am pro Life (from the moment of conception, et al). fortunately for folks that think like me, more people seem to be waking up to the problems with "choice". Perhaps another Wilberforce will come along.

Population control thinking as one of the primary drivers of the abortion biz. It is a big (and global) biz btw. Methinks mankind has the knowledge to deal with water use, food production, resource efficiency, etc. to handle a few more folks than we have now but that is another big and lengthy topic.

NickC,

"My position is that I am different than them because I don't believe in a deity created by witch doctors and cultists that was written years ago, I find that an extremely lazy way of thinking."

'Nuff said. Card revoked.

Hari,

The ruling you are referencing was in 1803, when--I guess it must have been Jefferson was President, if my math is right--so the Chief Justice would have been Marshall or John Jay. Either way, that ruling happened only about 10 years into the existence of our nation, when precedents and procedures of all sorts were still being sorted out, by the very people who put the whole thing together.

If you read the quote from Hamilton, and the link more generally, the goal was to avoid a strictly Parliamentarian system of the British variety, which provided for redress of constitutionally offensive legislation solely through electing new people. As he commented, that was good, but more was needed, given Madison and Hamilton's view of the documented history of what might be termed "vulgar populism". They wanted a firmer hand at the reins, at the end of the day, than groups of people elected with agendas.

Ultimately, much of our national history revolves around compromises of various sorts, often reached after what used to be very searching and principled deliberation. In this particular case, the Court basically said that their construction of their job was to understand the Constitution, the intentions of the Founders, and rule in some cases that some laws failed, in effect, to pass the smell test, based on what the law said. To serve as a Court of last resort, where the laws just weren't thought through properly.

However, although prudence admits the desirability of this function in moderation, the question logically arises as to what the extent of that power should be. Non-activist judges simply compare a law to what the Constitution says, and if it fails to clearly violate any provisions of the constitution, then it's OK. And far better to do nothing than the wrong thing.

Activist judges, on the other hand, view it as their duty to use their power to generate desirable social change. This is an explicit agenda. Thus, in ruling a law banning abortion unconstitutional, the explicit goal was to generate social change that had not occurred--would not have occurred--through the ballot box, thus making this "law" something which would not have passed actual democratic legislative muster in most states. And it did so only with a very, very contorted understanding of the actual language of the Constitution.

The whole thing was a setup, just like the Scopes Trial, both sides of which were funded by the ACLU as a public relations stunt. If you study what actually happened, versus what most people BELIEVE happened, it's quite stunning.

# 72, Barry,

"However, although prudence admits the desirability of this function in moderation, the question logically arises as to what the extent of that power should be. Non-activist judges simply compare a law to what the Constitution says, and if it fails to clearly violate any provisions of the constitution, then it's OK. And far better to do nothing than the wrong thing."

Agreed, in principle. But what does it mean to "clearly violate any of the provisions of the Constitution?" Does a law banning flag burning clearly violate the First Amendment?

Hari,

There are a lot of attorneys out there, and I would hazard a guess almost every one has a slightly different take.

My view would be that the right to PEACEABLE assembly is guaranteed, and that if flag burning generates violence, then it would constitute a form of incitement, and thus fall short of both protected free speech, and being an aspect of peaceful assembly.

If people want to burn flags in their homes or non-public spaces, I think that should be protected. The flag burning, per se, is not in my opinion the main issue. The main issue is that there are products of our all-too-often mediocre educational system out there who are stupid enough to think that's a sensible thing to do. The flag burning is a symptom. It is not the illness. And if we ban flag burning, we do not thereby eradicate the underlying malady.

Such is my opinion. It's not legal, since I'm not qualified, but it is my personal opinion. I think efforts in the form of teaching American history and civic duty would be better spent than trying to get through an Amendment.

Good for her, I hadn't heard her name, but anyone nowadays with the balls (well, figuratively) to stand up to the Islamic Fundamentalists, I've got to give them a big 'ol thumbs up. Keep up the good work.

Hey guys, found an interesting article about crossfit. Pretty decent article I think alot of people here would like. Here's the website:
www.trainerlee.com (Click on the articles link on the homepage)

The women/headscarves point is interesting, because the same thing happens in the US -- at most beaches here the men won't be wearing shirts, but the women *have* to wear tops. Same rules, same motivation, different items of clothing...

#74, Barry,

"There are a lot of attorneys out there, and I would hazard a guess almost every one has a slightly different take."

Agreed. The answer is not found in a simple reading of the First Amendment (the sort of exercise you posed in #46). A symbolic gesture is not literaly "speech" so would what should the Court do? Is upholding a law banning flag burning judicial activism?

@ Barry Cooper

For the fellow revoking Rationalist Club cards, you've got some sloppy work to account for. Your last rest day post on Science (a fraction of your daily output!) was a tangled mess that you were far too pleased with. You should know better than to hand in a first draft. Consider yourself on probation.*

Points of dissent:

1. "It's my understanding that the best and most learned physicists in the world cannot agree on what "reality" is. Do you know something that Von Neumann and Einstein didn't?"

I think you would agree that one of the traits of a philosopher (and don't we all want to be philosophers?) is that he attempts to combat the strongest interpretation of an opponent's position, not the weakest (straw man). You're not being very generous with Zach here.

"Accepting reality" should be interpreted, IMHO, as believing in things on the merit of the evidence that supports them. It has nothing to do with trying to decide whether the universe is made of particles, waves, strings, string-cheese, etc. Given the ubiquity of superstition, I see ample evidence in support of Zach's claim that the human psyche is flawed and craves divine explanations for that it cannot itself explain. People can't even resist betting on "heads" after "tails" comes up three times in a row.

2. "I will ask, though, in what respect is atheism more rational than belief in Divinity?"

Atheism, or agnosticism (I'm pretty sure the "athiests" around here don't go so far as to completely rule out the supernatural), is more rational that belief in divinity because the evidence in support of divinity is sketchy, all across the board.** This isn't anything personal against divinity. I feel the same way about Bigfoot. If you want to join the science club, you're supposed to leave your faith at the laboratory door.

"Your basic problem--and this is common problem among dogmatic atheists--is that you consider your position as so obviously right, that any other position, BY DEFINITION is wrong, and irrational."

You did specify dogmatic atheists here, but for my part, I'm just sitting here waiting for someone to drop some evidence in support of any particular religion that actually has some "oomphf" to it. I'll admit that the fact that most believers are content with "Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it!" sets my teeth on edge, but other than that I have no agenda.

Jay

* You started it.

** You can say that's just because I don't BELIEVE in your arguments. That would sound pretty lame to a judge and jury. Seriously, if you have links to strong arguments, I'd love to see them.

#60/Lucien, fantastic post, thanks.

My leftist/Democrat/liberal/socialist/statist friends berate religion with a passion. I listen to their litany of religion's ills and the list is a match, item for item, with what I find objectionable with their political views which for me constitute a religion - a very dangerous one.

I fear socialism more than Islam and the other religions combined.

Funny that the US military works on a socialist model. Would it be reasonable to say that you fear the US military more than Islam and other religions combined?

Jay,

Don't religion and science both present, in their own ways, views of what is true? And, logically, in order for anyone to claim--both for themselves and for anyone possessed of "Reason"--a unique and accurate version of the truth, wouldn't all the i's need to be dotted, and "t's" crossed? If Scientists can't agree on what reality IS, then how can some form of Divinity be denied a priori? This is hardly a red herring, or straw man. What Zack was actually saying was "Reality as I conceive it." This is his perspective, and not generalizable except via shared scientific views, and since there ARE no shared scientific views on what is "Really Real", my point stands.

I will readily concede that ultimately, if some form of transcendant reality exists--which, self evidently, there are in almost all physical models aspects of reality we cannot directly apprehend--then to matter it must be accessible to experience, in this world or the next. For example, when we die, we float above our bodies, then see a tunnel of light, etc. etc. In the form of Near Death Experiences, this phenomena has been attested to repeatedly. Logically, although alternative explanations are possible, those explanations in no way constitute a definitive refutation of those who want to claim them as evidence of actual reality. They present evidence sufficient for those already convinced that survival of death is impossible, and inadequate to those convinced otherwise. This is called Jame's Paradox.

However, I categorically cannot accept Reason as NECESSARILY leading to atheism. Reason, historically, has been used considerably more often in support of various forms of theism, particularly in the Jewish, Greek, Indian, Chinese, Islamic and Catholic traditions.

One issue in this debate that is ubiquitous is a failure to define what one means by God. Does the efficacy of prayer necessarily depend on an external sentient being? Given that all matter is at least theoretically connected non-locally, as proven mathematically and experimentally by Bell's Theorem and accompanying experimental work, is there perhaps a ripple effect to intention? This possibility cannot be ruled out a priori. Science deals with things that can be tested, and in many cases ideas can be posited that cannot currently be tested, but that are in theory at least not inimical to falsification.

The larger, more important, issue I raised, is that if Science itself is used as a vehicle for the development of a subjective sense of certainty and Truth--which is self evidently the case for anyone claiming such a sweeping and uniquely accurate apperception of the Truth that anyone disagreeing with them is, in their own lights, by definition irrational--then it leads necessarily to dogmatism, which is what that is. Now, anyone who understands even grade school versions of the philosophy of science knows that science never proves anything. It merely disproves competing explanations. It never knows if there is not a yet better idea out there, that will enable the current idea to be falsified in some as yet unknown way. It is by design provisional, and hence in theory infinitely progressive in the amount of knowledge it can accumulate. Proper practitioners also understand that a model that can be replicated is in no way a formal representation of Truth, merely a useful tool for manipulations of matter in various ways to create things.

There need be no rivalry whatever between religion and science. Religion is NOT scientific, but that need lead in no way to the necessary conclusion that it is thereby falsified. That notion is itself unscientific--the test can't be done--as it presumes to a complete knowledge of what COULD be real, which no one possesses.

As Coach indicated, there are close parallels between dogmatic atheists, and socialists who are convinced that not only are their theories complete, but that there are no competing explanations that could even potentially be of use, and that failing to adhere to their version of things is thereby irrational.

Given the materialistic bias implicit in the notion that religion is in some for a disease of the brain (note, I raised a very serious issue with this interpretation last Rest Day, which no one has addressed), then the notion that the only way to deal with dissidents is by killing or expelling them makes perfect sense. They have Religion the same way some people have the mumps or cancer, and talking to them makes no sense, as they are definitionally insane. We see that basic attitude clearly here, and saw it in full bloom in various Communist regimes, in a social Darwinist form in the Holocaust, and in the French Revolution, which was perhaps most clear in its preferred means of ridding the world of nobility--understood in my view literally and figuratively--through literally creating a mind/body distinction.

I see the same impulse in Leftists today, and it pisses me off.

HAri/#55 - great link, enjoyed that one, thanks.

It occurred to me as well, that these discussions have a pattern. Someone posts something on the "War with Islam", which doesn't exist, then someone comes along and says something like "Let's just get rid of all religion, it's stupid", then someone points out that they are religious, and don't consider themselves stupid. Then the atheistic propagandist backs up and asks someone to prove to them that religion makes sense, presumably with a standard of proof that would require them to become Bible pounding Christians themselves, from the very force and unassailable nature of the argument.

Quite obviously, these things have been discussed from time immemorial. I was reading a text this morning from the atheist sect--one of them, anyway--from classical India, the Carvakas. He was saying if I can't see it, it doesn't exist, therefore I should eat as much ghee as I can, even if I can't pay for it, have as many large breasted consorts as I can, and when it's all up, it's up for good. This position is obvious. However, it is a manifest fact that in the history of philosophy and religion, it has been considered and rejected many times. Thus, the people asking for proof don't want "proof". They could do the research themselves. They are saying "unless you can convince me of something I am opposed to believing with ounce of my body and mind, then you have to be quiet." Why do they do this? Because religious people are intolerant, and need to be killed or at least quieted. Anyone who doesn't understand their brotherly love should be hung upside down by their toes and beaten with a wooden dowel.

What such atheist need to show, on their side, is the necessary correlation between religion, per se, and violence. A great many Jews are atheists. How do we separate the religious "Zionists" from the secular "Zionists"? Is one uniquely the cause of violence? Is the Arab-Israeli conflict ultimately REALLY about religion, or about the use of totalitarian regimes of an external enemy which happens to coincide with SOME aspects of the Quran, as a convenient focus for all discontent, and presumably violent and reformist tendencies?

Atheists: prove to me that religion, uniquely, is the cause of violence. I believe it is a fractionating character in human thinking which precedes the label of religion or even cultural identity, which you display in apparently sincere innocence (which is to say innocence of actual self knowledge) in your very condemnation of religion, in toto, without making allowance for the many good things it has accomplished.

response to Coach and Nuke Marine..

I know I would fear the US military more than Islam or other religions, except for 2 things.

1. The Republic that controls the Military

and

2. The Oath Service Members take to the Constitution, not to any particular elected leader.

These 2 things, generally, make the the US military the most feared organization on the planet and the most trusted.

As far as the Military being socialist...that is a hard sell. The hierarchial nature of the Military makes it somewhat different. I can see your point with wages and "benefits" (healthcare, housing etc.). However, the nature of the military is more totalitarian with grievence mechanisms.

If anyone plans to use the US Military as an example of a self-sufficient Socialist organization, that would be a mistake. We use much more money than the private sector would to accomplish the same things. However, this is a necessity due to mission and security concerns.

To argue that Government could opperate as smooth as the Military would also be false. The military has someone to be accountable to (re-enlistments and Government), whereas the government does not. Though one could argue voters, however history shows that the more control government has over people's lives, the less it tends be responsive.

Normally I don't post on the rest days after the rest day but I do continue to read the debate. I was quite busy yesterday but I did want to make a few points.

If we make abortion illegal then we will be back to having women perform abortions on themselves with coathangers. Abortions will happen regardless. Women being terrifed of the responsibility, or the implications of actions, have been "taking care of the problem" for millenia. Accountability or regulations on the clinics or doctors would help to weed out those women using abortion as a method of birth control. I am neither pro life and pro choice, I am a mix. Abortion isn't something that I will ever do, but I also understand the need for it to be done in certain instances in a sanitary environment. Except for late term abortions, which there is never a need for. If abortion becomes illegal then even the circumstances of rape or incest will leave a woman with all her choices and freedoms having been taken from her.

Nick C- Just curious, If proof was shown to you, then would you believe it truly, or would you then need proof of the proof?

I don't think that all scientist check their faith at the door of their labs. The truly great scientists, the ones willing to risk all, the ones that find cures for diseases or genetic links or decifer gentic code, the ones that keep searching for the answers to a question that they have had their whole life (which, have you ever wondered how did that question get started in the first place?) have to do something-

They must take a leap of faith.

Kate

#55 Hari- Great link!
I have a post in the holding tank that discusses that issue a bit. I read the article that you linked, after I wrote my thoughts.

Joey- No problem! I was glad to see that there are others that were equally disturbed and willing to make sure that those sorts of protests don't happen again.

Kate

Nuke, I would like to know exactly how you define "socialism" because it doesn't seem in accordance with any definition I've ever seen (I will caveat this with the difficulty of finding one socialist doctrine; like religion, everyone has their own spin on it). However, the military is not a socialist construct. Members of the military don't experience wealth redistribution or control over their private property.

I'm not going to discuss further because it seems that was just a throw-away comment to create a bit more stir.

Clarification to one of my points-
I said there is no need for late term, but I need to add to that the words partial birth,

So it should read- "There is no need for late term, partial birth..."

Kate

Kate,

I agree. As I mentioned, I'm Pro-Choice personally, for the simple reason that abortions will happen whether they are illegal or not. It should be added, though, that murder is illegal, too, and IT still happens, so this is not a bulletproof argument.

The reason non-believers need to be concerned about "jurisprudence" like Roe v. Wade is that, regardless of their personal position on the topic, a precedent has been created for enacting law by the Supreme Court, whose members are not directly appointed by the People, who cannot be removed except for gross malfeasance, if then, and whose opinions might therefore be at gross variance both with the will of the People--which is not normally their problem--but also with the explicit intent of the Constitution, which by definition IS their problem.

As Hari has implicitly argued, the case can be made that in striking down ANY law as unConstitutional they may have overreached their proper limits. This may or may not be the case, but that happened long ago, and has been accepted as precedent since. What does seem abundantly clear and obvious to to me, though, is that by any rational standard deriving rights that are nowhere made clear, and then imposing them from a central position on ALL states as the Law of the Land is dishonest and unprofessional.

This is a principle reason for the rise of the Religious Right, whose supposed power is the source of all our contemporary worries, according to some, and the only solution for which is the adoption of an ill-considered and manifestly philosophically childish atheism.

Put simply, Christians were pissed that the right to rule of the Majority was flouted, and their will was ignored. In my view, this issue ought to be sorted out on a state by state basis, and the Supreme Court should have refused to review the case. It was outside their bailiwick. This would have created far less of a social divide, since Christianity, as inclined to charity and tolerance, ought logically to stand for many liberal causes--at least in one interpretation--as evidenced by, among others, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.

This is why even thoughtful atheists should be concerned. Once the principle of judicial legislative power is in place, there is no end. In Judgement in Nuremburg, the German Judge, played I believe by Gregory Peck, asks Spencer Tracy, the Prosecuting Attorney (or judge, I forget): "How could I have known it would lead to this?". And Spencer Tracy says: "You knew the first time you convicted an innocent man."

There is far more in play here than just religious issues. To address today's topic, it appears to me that this woman is annoying people precisely because she's a secular conservative. If you're on board, you're supposed to be a secular progressive. That's the flavor of the kool-aid.

Barry,

The reason that atheism is more rational than the belief in a supreme being is because the latter is taught to us at a young age, and some of us hang on to this narrow-minded belief without questioning it. In this regard religion can be likened to racism or any other ism that involves prejudice against a group of people...values that people teach to their kids while they are young and impressionable and ready to believe everything their parents tell them. The bible is nothing more than a story book written a long time ago. If we were never told that everything in the bible is the absolute truth, but just read it as children we would come away with some very good values on how to live a good life, ie. living by the 10 commandments. But living your life in fear of 'god' when there is absolutely zero proof of his existence is just bizarre. The human race needs IDEAS, not BELIEFS.

Guivererobin,

CCTJOEY described the socialist aspects of the military best. He correctly points out it's not a self-substaining model, as it dependes SOLELY on the wealth redistribution I hear people moaning about. Let's face it, I don't pay Federal tax (nor sales tax anymore since moving to Japan). All my money comes from others that "worked" for it.

The military system has its flaws: I make the same amount of money whether I work 5 hours a day or 14 hours a day. Pay raises are guarenteed once or twice a year. At least promotions have a merit based system, but even that has flaws depending on the branch of service. So long as a person does the minimum (not getting in trouble and getting busted), you get a pay check equal to the person doing the maximum if you're the same rank.

Still, you get an army that should have zero worries about the necessities in life (housing, medical, food, clothing, transportation, etc.) which therefore provides total focus on whatever job is at hand. Granted, I doubt in a pure socialist structure they would remove the necessities (fire you) should you not do the job at hand.

From my perspective, Pure Captitalism and Pure Socialism do not work. A system that combines both I think creates a more productive workforce.

Barry,

Without getting into a massive discussion of 1st amendment law, the answer to your question about flag-burning is that it is not "incitement" because the flagburner is not seeking to have those in agreement with him engage in violence. The only exception that might apply is so-called "fighting words," but the fact that something might evoke a violent reaction does not necessarily mean that it falls in the category of "fighting words." "Fighting words" involve a direct challenge to the hearer specifically threatening violence. That is not present in the context of flagburning.

About the only "burning" that is inherently unlawful is crossburning, but even that is allowed on private property with permission of the owner. Only where it can be construed as a threat, is it unlawful to burn a cross. Due to historical background, there is a presumption that burning a cross on someone else's property is a threat. In some states, burning a cross on public property is banned as well, but those are based on a presumptive threat due to historical uses of crossburning as well. It would be a real reach to find a similar threat in a flag-burning situation.

What we are dealing with in the proposal to ban flagburning is the "heckler's veto" not fighting words. That's why Nazis and KKK members are regularly allowed to march in provocative places and given police protection when they do it. The fact that their message is not well-received and even hurtful does not mean that it can be banned. The same goes for flagburning.

To take it out of the flagburning context, think about the Danish cartoon fiasco -- no one in the US has seriously suggested that publishing those cartoons was not protected by the 1st amendment (in the United States). To the contrary, they were published, and there were no riots. Had there been riots, they would have been dealt with as such.

Similarly, neither would a public burning of an effigy of Mohammed, the Buddha, Jesus Christ, the Pope, Jerry Falwell, the Dalai Lama,, George Bush, or Tony Blair, or my mother; or burning the Koran, the Bible, or any religious book; or any other country's flag, or, well, you name it, be unprotected. Bad taste or bad judgment? Probably. Legal? Absolutely.

The point of the 1st amendment is to prevent the government from banning or punishing unpopular speech. If everyone accepts and agrees with the speech, it doesn't need protection. The fact that some particular speech offends is not a basis for banning it under some exception to the 1st amendment.

Barry,

I personally think that the reason why she is annoying people so much with her ideas is that she is making them face facts that they are not comfortable with. She pushes the envelope with her opinions and she doesn't back down. She is not willing to back down any more.

Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean that I don't see value in what all religions have to offer. For example- I'm very interested in the teachings of Buddha and there is so much to learn from the different sects of Buddhism. It is wrong to close the door on the different teachings that are available just because they might be from a different religious background? The intollerance of different beliefs and the close mindedness is what gets everyone riled up in the first place, when the religion/ no religion discussions come up.

When people start to close their minds down and say that everyone else but them and their beliefs are wrong they are no different than the Taliban and their blowing up the huge Statues of Buddhas in Afghanistan. The day that happened, my 96 year old grandmother, who has traveled all over the world and saw those statues in person, cried. I believe that it was for the resounding, collective, slamming shut of the minds that upset her (and me) the most, that and the senseless destruction of beautiful pieces of art.

More thoughts on proving God's existance-
If I personally have proof of the existance of God, would my proof be enough for a skeptic? I doubt it, because it would mean that they would have to believe me and take my word for what I say and that would beyond what they are comfortable with. Words mean nothing to someone that demands proof. Pictures mean nothing. If they truly, truly want to believe what they are seeing as proof of God then they already would have seen the proof without me showing them my proof.

Kate

Jay,

Do you understand--were you taught as a child and as a product of our educational system--that a string of assertions does not constitute an argument?

If that idea, too, should be considered as a worthless remnant of childhood, let me simply say then you are wrong.

Porkchop,

I am not saying flag burning SHOULD be against the law, but let me ask you this, as a mental exercise: if I were to stand on a street corner in New York City and yell racial epithets, with a permit, would that be legally acceptable, in the same way and for the same reason that flag burning is? Provided I didn't threaten anyone?

As far as that goes, didn't I just read or hear about them banning one of the most common epithets? Is there any way that should pass legal muster, if flag burning is allowed? Surely flag burning should count as hate speech too. If you think about it, words are symbols as well.

Kate,

That's likely true. I also think that we should keep in mind that our Republic was founded in the Age of Enlightenment, according to what amounted to religously inspired, but ultimately secular ideals, and that she is therefore likely in that tradition. I only read the article, and it wasn't entirely clear what all she had to say.

The Enlightenment took Greek ideals of universal truths and the possibility of human perfection as possible successors to religiously ordained, and politically enforced notions of theology. To the Catholic Church, specifically.

Ironically, the sorts of folks she is apparently most offending, are most offended at her taking on Islam from a secular perspective. There is a notion of universalized tolerance within the Enlightenment, an ideal of human rights that adhere to all persons of all races and creeds. Of universal tolerance.

Yet, when one studies the Leftist implementation of this notion, it attacks the very culture--Western, rationalistic culture--that gave rise to that ideal, and privileges instead all manner of barbarism, despotism, and human cruelty, provided it doesn't occur within the domain of Western control.

This is done in the name, I guess, of tolerance--one human person's freedom fighter is another human person's "terrorist", we hear--but as one can clearly see on this very Rest Day, tolerance is not something they practice everywhere.

With respect to alternative religious traditions, I might encourage you to read the Tao Te Ching. It is the most translated book in the world after the Bible. I personally like the Jane English/Gia Fu Feng translation. There is also a Chuang Tzu and Wen Tzu.

The historical Taoists apparently were quite different than one might imagine reading these books. I can't comment on that aspect of it, but the books themselves are worth reading repeatedly.

That's right, Barry, the government cannot prosecute you for standing on a street corner and yelling racist epithets, sexist epithets, anti-gay epithets, anti-religious epithets, or anything else you can think of. You have a right, as a red-blooded American, to be a complete and utter jerk.

The social approbation that may result from such conduct is a different matter.

I don't know who "they" are in your comment about banning certain epithets.

You point out another matter in mentioning a "permit," however, which is that there can be "time, place, and manner" restrictions so long as they are neutrally applied. So, depending on the circumstances, there may be issues of disturbing the peace, blocking sidewalks, etc. In addition, there are other considerations special situations, for example, in the K-12 educational context, as schools are permitted to consider the effect of some speech on the educational process.

Hmm, first let me point out that there are now two "Jays" posting. ______Jay______ is new. Welcome ______Jay_______. I'll switch my own moniker to BCJay to keep things clear.

Barry,
I read Tao Te Ching a long time ago and should probably pick it back up again and reread it, since I can't remember much of it. I'll look for the translations you suggested. I like the Dhammapada too.

Kate

Barry,

I agree with you that denying the possibility of Divinity is absurd. As you say, the experiment cannot be performed, and no indisputable evidence has presented itself one way or the other. That's why I'm trying to swap terms in this discussion: agnosticism for atheism. Unfortunately "atheism" is more current and tends to do double duty. Regardless, the leap from allowing the possibility of divinity to affirming any particular religion is a mighty one.

Onto the rest:

"Don't religion and science both present, in their own ways, views of what is true?"

Yes. But they don't do it in similar ways. Religion constructs reality from allegedly divine informants. Science builds reality from the application of the "scientific method". This isn't to say that scientists are perfectly objective, or even mostly objective, but the ideal is there and all theories are open to challenge and revision. I think this is an important distinction, don't you?

"Logically, in order for anyone to claim--both for themselves and for anyone possessed of "Reason"--a unique and accurate version of the truth, wouldn't all the i's need to be dotted, and "t's" crossed?"

Yeah, maybe you're right there. Except I don't see any scientists trying to assert a complete, perfectly accurate picture of reality. Scientists *do* challenge anyone with a dissenting view on a particular theory to either "put up, or shut up" so to speak, but why shouldn't they? Science has made it possible to argue with perfect strangers halfway across the world from the comfort of my home office. It has street cred. What does religion have?

I think you're making this harder than it needs to be. I hold (sorry, "posit"!) that reasonable people should believe in concepts and ideas in proportion to the evidence that supports them. Any objections? Starting from this point, there is simply no compelling reason to take up Islam, Christianity, Shinto, or anything else - barring, perhaps, a personal metaphysical experience of some sort that might leave someone convinced beyond a doubt.

"My point stands"

Your oversimplified point stands. Like I said before, I don't see anyone trying to suggest that the very possibility of religion is ridiculous. I do see people frustrated with Religious Righteousness. Personally, I don't care what the heck people believe in. Most agnostics don't. But when believers start putting norms on public behaviour, or butting heads with other believers: Houston, we have a problem. I know that you perceive a kind of scientific Righteousness, but how could it ever be as blind or