"This is a massive forearm..." LOL.

Rest day, suite!

Just finished reading NO True Glory by Bing West, an account of the Marine's battle for Faluja in 2004, excellent read highly recommend it, it was extreamly informative. The next book on my list, coincidentally is Power, Faith, and Fantasy. Have a good rest day all.

Any chance at getting subtitles for the Rippetoe videos, they are almost always difficult to hear. Sometimes they also have useful material!

Man thank god its a rest day

missed to many workouts I am so sad today is a restday. Kajan see u at the gym on wed then.

Good correction from Mark Rippetoe, however the woman still had the same problem the second time around.

Lauren,

Great show....thanks for putting it on your site in the MP3 format.

After a personal conviction 5 years ago, I began reading the Bible, which ultimately led me to reading the Koran. I came to the conclusion that the two actually "battle" one-another. What's funnier, is that the Bible, primarily 95% prophecy, states throughout that the adversary will produce a religion, or religious beliefs that will constantly attack God's word.

I'm sure many will comment otherwise, but I came to the conclusion that the Koran, is a twisted and perverse version of God's word, deliberately put in place to confuse and decieve the world.

I was asked recently if I believe "in" God, and my response was that was a "religious" question. God, from my understanding, and his declaration, is not a God of religion, but a God of Faith. I simply choose to believe God!

The Koran in my opinion, is not a book of faith, but one of a "cult of death", bent on destruction and lies. Exactly what God declared Satan's role would be as the "Father of Lies".

Having just been an trainee @Rippitoes cert this past weekend, I must personally thank COach Rippitoe, everyone @ CfSD, all the trainer who assisted, my fellow trainees, and all else who were involed with the biggest kudos to Coach Glassman and Lauren for proving these certs. I dont know when I both learned and accomplished so much in 2 days. Perhaps that was at my first cert in Raleigh back in March!
CF has been a blessing in my life. Having been first made aware what a DL or BS was less than a year ago and now performing those same moves bordering on the advanced weight level for my current bwt.add that to the fact that my clothes size dropped fm a 12/14 to a 4/6 in the same timeframe! CF helps me get some on a min by min basis. As my daily coach, Keith Wittenstein of CFNYC has been both a teacher,guide,and friend and in the end teaching me that supreme health is within reach enabling me to drink the KoolAid offered by Coaches Rip and Glassman!
What an amazing journey this year has been. I cant wait to the next few to unfurl!
Thanx all who have guided me on this roller coaster ride!
Eddie and Lisa Lugo you have been great hosts for this cert on every level and deserve special mention as well!

My abs are that sore from the quad glute developer situps, that I can't straighten up. :) I had to skip yesterday. I can barely move.

Hopefully I can straighten up soon enough. :)

---Patrick

http://www.angrydalty.com/crossfit.htm

In reguards to the MP3 file:

It is interesting that I have never heard anything about what Michael Oren is talking about (which I am not implying that it is not ture, I think it is about 20% truth); everyone that I have asked never heard either.

Also, I noticed that the word 'Democracy' is thrown around very often. The idea and practice of democracy was brought by the ancient Greeks many years before Christ. Democracy worked in Greece because everyone had the same beliefs, same interests, they were the same race, same culture, same traditions...etc. Democracy does not work unless it is in a society such as ancient Greece. Whoever wants to belive that democracy can work in a society that does not share tradition, culture, race...etc. I advise that they look into history of, let us say, the Roman empire, or Greece itself; see what caused them to fall.

I can't help to mention, since Michael Oren is Jewish, I am starting to really notice that there is a lot of Jewish influence in the U.S. Government. It seems that everywhere in the world many people know the Jews as people of deceit except here in the U.S. where the Jews seem to have a great influence. Isn't that a little suspicious? Also, isn't it a little suspicious why the U.S. is at "war" with the Muslims who are enemies of the Jews?

I was just wondering.

Thank you.

George;
Interesting question?! Have you considered attending Bigots Anonymous after your morning WOD?

Got to love the rest day comments!!??

Jay (Jewish)
Western Pa,

Moderator: #11's anti-Semetic libel should be removed.

Made up Linda today:

43/160/m
29:46
-wasn't in a hurry

From the interview, sounds like an interesting book.

Anyone have any idea if there was any freemason involvement in the early Barbary Pirates war?

Haven't listened yet. However, note that a search for #11 on WOD days is unsuccessful. Drive-by hate is unseemly. Agree with John.

George Owen,

Immigation and politicians killed Rome. Politicians tauted enlightment and tolerance by accepting all forms of new culture. When in reality they were placating to a non tradiitonal roman mind set in pursuit of there own power. You had people commitmeted to ideals from there homeland or their conquered land. Politicians gave them permission for there own political power. It chipped away and deterioted everything that made Rome what it was. Fewer and Fewer people in the Roman empire became Roman. They never converted by permission of Roman leaders. Tradition and observances of Roman culture disappeared. It is what we will experience here in the USA I fear. Pledge of allegiance gone. Christmas gone. etc etc Look how our politicians were willing to ignore the majority of Americans concerning Illegal Immigration. Democrats and Republicans placated to non americans and pushed and tried to spin it to fool the American people. Each determined to seize a new majority of votes. We have been at about 51/49 that last few years in elections. Each party was willing to deteriate some of the basic fundamentals of America. Ignoring the wishes of the people who elected them and ignoring Law was worth the price for a 10 million extra votes. The danger is the same. I say let those who adhere and believe to the principals of America become Americans. If you are usnure what they are read the declaration of independence, the constitution, and the bill of rights. Ignore ACLU driven legal precedence that is not written law but judicial activism.

We are at war with Islamic Facism. It is sweeping across the world. People like you bow down to its evil power and violence. You respect what you think is strong and make excuses. You have been bred with guilt. You feel bad for any intolerence you may feel and explain it away with conspiracy theories like Jews/Isreal. Isreal fights every day for its life. You had to fight for 6 years and you sound like your willing to make a deal with muslims. Islam will destroy everything you know and everything you think is right. They are using an old model of violence to conquer and expand. Read a history book. The control of Flesh make men power. The muslims not participating in jihad are just as guilty cause nothing is as evil as the indifference of so called good muslims. By the way this Nation is based on Jewish and Christian Law. The idealism and philophies, though generations apart are rooted in the same. Islam is at war with that. So even if your an athiest everything you enjoyed and everything that allowed you to formulate your ideals was created under a democracy based on jeiwsh and christianity culture. So what you have to come to know is threatened regardless of you chalking this up to wars of just religion etc. Declaring yourself a non actor becuase your not religious makes you just a passive victim. I suggest you travel to a muslim state. See how perverse it is. How its ideals are counter to your own. It is a place you would not want to raise your children. Intolerence is not racism. I am intolerant to anthing that threatens my way of life, my family's way of life and the nations way of life. You are not enlightened thinking counter to your grandfather's way of thinking. You have been subversed into to thinking you have expanded opened knowledge. It is your vanity that is used to manipulate your thoughts. So at cocktails parties you can impress ladies with your openness and non violence because women worry about such things because of children. Go ahead. I will man up and carry the rifle in the foreign field and really calm the fears of the women you try to impress with your bs.

Jason McNab
Sgt USMC

#11 when you call the jews a people of deceit, you undermine those of us who have non-racist political distrust of zionism and/or jewish politcal solidarity and activism in our own countries. Furthemore you lend credence to the too common defense of "He opposes my views, therefore he is an anti-semite"!

Leaarn how to have a polite conversation!

Oh and lol, @ #11's bigotry being called out and #8 being ignored.

Silence is agreement people.

I don't think English is George's first language. I also don't think he realizes that democracy has been working just fine in America and western Europe for quite some time, in conditions of ethnic diversity.

The Athenians, you will recall, decided that their version of democracy--which amounted to the rule of the mob, only conceivable in conditions of cultural uniformity--didn't work, and in effect ceded their self rule to the Macedonians, under Phillip and Alexander. Alexander, of course, went on to conquer most of the known world, and offered cultural protections that were unique in history. He allowed people to retain their own kings in most cases, practice their own religions, and asked only that he be seen as the ultimate authority.

The Romans borrowed this model, but in the Constitution of their Republic improved much upon the basic Athenian model. Specifically, they recognized that somebody needs to be in charge, that the people need to be heard, but that they are often violently passionate and stupid, so they need to be balanced by a more sober--and generally more educated--aristocratic class. They borrowed, apparently, the Spartan notion of two kings in appointing two Consuls to handle foreign and military affairs. Each could veto the other. They had a Senate of landed and educated aristocrats, and an Assembly of the people. There was also a court system, called the Tribunal, which could reverse some or all of the laws. Not sure on that last point.

The reason the Republic failed was that civic virtue--the desire to support the well being of Rome relative to one's parochial interests--declined with prosperity to where the people basically no longer wanted to rule themselves. There was constant gridlock and policy failure. Julius Caesar was merely recognizing the inevitable, and Augustus was treated as a hero.

The Roman Empire failed because their military never dealt decisively with clear military threats, specifically the Parthians and the Germans. They knew they were there, they knew they weren't going away or getting weaker. Problem was, their preferred military methods didn't work against them, so they lost battles to both. Rather than retooling, rethinking, and trying again, they pretended that the problem would go away. It didn't. It came knocking.

There is perhaps a lesson there. I had more to say, but will leave it there.

I will ask, though, why has every historical Caliphate failed? Why did the Ottoman Empire fail?

Language is everything. I believe in order to establish common ground one must be (all together now) "Hard-nose, literal, precise and acccurate" This is a long arduous process and frequently preceived as boring. The clip provided begins with stating "one of the great myths of American history..." Nothing that follows establishes why this is true. What is a "myth of American history?" What makes one myth great and another not great? If you were to ask someone off the street (assuming you could estalish a definition of a myth of history) what is a myth of American history, I would think you would more likely to get someone to say Washington chopping down the his father's cherry tree, rather than America's role in world politics. In other words, Mr. Prager has stated a preposition (American myths) as a common understood principle and then by his own definition names one which he designates as "great." That the introduction to this clip may be not founded reality, I would submit it is not worth spending time on.

When one applies the standard of "hard nosed, literal, precise and accurate." one finds that much of what is said is not fact.

gotta love the crossfit blog. get ripped doing the WOD's, rip out stupid political comments, then get ripped for making them. never seen so many lines used for each post!

Sgt McNabb,
We are a Jewish and Christian nation? Really? Really? What Madrassa did you learn that at? Certainly not by "reading a history book" like you chastise George Owen to do.

Here are a few qoutes from the our third president and the author of our constitution on christianity: http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

We might lose important American traditions like Christmas and the pledge of allegiance. Christmas wasn't a federal holiday until 1870, the pledge was written in 1892 and modified in 1951. I'd say we could manage just fine as a nation without either. Though I would sorely miss the original pledge.

Stay safe,
Travis

As for the .mp3 I wholly disagree. We should bring the troops home. Not just from Iraq but from Asia and Europe as well and let the world fend for itself. With the money we save we can secure our borders, and keep those nuts locked away in there sandbox

Any CrossFitter thoughts on Creatine? Anyone out there taking it and seeing results? I've never used it despite a long history of sports and wondering if it's worth taking a look at?

I really wanted to stay out of this one.

Sgt McNab, I ask that please refrain from putting your rank and service should you ever right something so charged (and poorly written) as your comments above. Your quasi-"Few Good Men" rant at the end there makes it harder for others in uniform who do not think as you to divorse ourselves from stereotypes people form about servicemen.

Additionally, what you wrote is pretty political; I suggest you look up in the UCMJ what it says about making political statements while declaring yourself a service memember.

Travis,

Thanks for calling them "nuts" in their "sandbox". Maturity goes a long way.

What about the almost 300 million nuts living in their lush environment wasting their resources.

Ya, us, the U.S.

Think before you post.

#8

You know, I'm Jewish, and I keep hearing about this great Zionist conspiracy that controls all of the money and power, but no one seems to want to let me in on the party. C'mon people what did I do wrong? I want to control the banks and government too!

In other news you are an under-educated, microcephallic, nincompoop, and judging by the quality of your discourse, and the brains needed to understand CrossFit, I'm guessing you are an embarrassingly sub-par athlete for the amount of effort you put into it.

Shalom.

Maximus

Suggested read:

Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries

link to book at Amazon.com - safe if you are permitted to shop at work :)
http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-West-Muslim-Conquests-Centuries/dp/1573922471/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8550633-4106057?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185805026&sr=8-1

#13 - If the moderator removes comment #11 decrying Jewish people then, in all fairness, shouldn't the moderator also remove any comments denigrating Muslims, Christians, globo gyms, bodybuilders, marathoners, etc.. I have been doing CrossFit for a year now and reading the comments thread for that long. One thing I have noticed is a tendancy in the comments to squelch, or attempt to squelch, any dissenting ideas or thoughts. Yes, comment #11 was in bad taste and is not true (I was surprised to see it on here) but I have seen many neocon assertions on this thread that fall into the same category.

anyone know what kind of paint they are using to paint the bumpers in the pic? I think thats a great idea!

Thanks in advance
Dave

Thank God for Sgt. McNab (#17) and the many like him serving this country. Thanks also to Sgt. McNab for telling it like it is--most Americans believe (if only quietly) what he wrote today.

The people that Sgt. McNab are fighting don't want to be friends, they want to either convert us or kill us--it appears they have no preference in that regard.

#13 - MikeC

Thank you for that post. Although one may not agree with someones comments and even find them offensive, it is always good to know what kind of people are out there in the "real world".

The comment should be left in place and judged accordingly.

Hola~
I made up yesterdays workout today;
41yo/f/165
swam 1 mile 34:54
run 400meter 25 back extensions 5x
ran .4mile on treadmill for all run sections
1st 1degree incline 5.0mph, 25 extensions
2nd 1 degree decline 5.5mph, 25 extensions
3rd 1.5 degree incline 6.0mph, 25 extensions
4th 1.5 degree decline 6.5 mph 25 extensions
5th 0 degree 7.0mph 25 extensions
total time 32:54
treadmill downstairs, extension machine upstairs

Religious labels are powerful concepts. It comes as no surprise then, that these labels are used by people inclined to destructive acts as often as they are used by people trying to lead constructive lives. Don't take all of these claims directly to heart.
When president Bush was talking about a crusade in the middle east, is it really plausible that he meant that christian people are going there to kill or convert muslim people because they are muslims?
More likely, it was an ill advised use of a powerful concept, used at the time because of the desire to communicate a powerful intent.

It is doubtful to me if your heart and mind can be filled with true religious spirit as you commit destructive acts such as some of the Jihadis have done, more likely religion is used as a powerful concept to rationalize and justify destructive acts.

#29 MikeC: Fair point. After I posted, it occurred to me that I was proposing a form of censorship, and you're correct in observing that plenty of other targets are pilloried on rest days. But the point of rest day discussions is vigorous debate, and statements like "everyone knows that ..." make any rational discouse impossible, Let's not forget that 6 million bodybuilders and marathoners weren't killed; it was European Jews.

#8 Matt Hunt,
The self-righteousness of your beliefs, as you stated them, is one of the main reasons I would be overjoyed to see all religion disappear from our planet.

I have much much more to say on the topic, but I have to go to bed. Goodnight all.

#35 Andy,

I didnt see anything self-righteous about Matt's post. I do understand where a lot of religious folk can be self-righteous (though they have no grounds to be, Christians specifically), but I did not see this in Matt's post. Care to clarify?

alot of 'would-be' censors today.

John and Bingo, you guys know better. Those guys should be appluaded for having the courage to be so publically ignorant. (insert golf clap)

How about we argue the person's point of view or at least ask them to defend it, if it is so wrong?

I say leave all the posts up and bring these topics to the sunlight.

If I had to guess both the anti-semites and anti-zionists are on the political left, which is quite ironic. However, even if not here today, the common ground being covered by the anti-semetic and anti-zionist left and the Jihadists is truely a modern sight to behold. The bloggoshere is full of this convergance. I would hazard to guess that Travis P. might just be a Ron Paul fan, however.

Together they are linking up on college campuses, legislative houses, and street protests to put devil horns and Nazi symbols (actual and metaphoric) on pictures of our president and 'Jews'. Amazing how both believe that the current administration and the 'Jews' cooked up 9/11 and the GWOT.

As for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. I really don't care necessarily about the religious texts. It is current actions that count. Right now radical Muslims are in a fight with us that many of us fail to recognize or admit. Since they want a fight, I say lets give them one. Nothing we say or do will change this. They are not going to stop until Sharia law is the default law of the world, period. They tell us this everyday. Some religious leader or political leader in the Muslim world gets in front of a mob of angry numb-nuts and speaks about how America, Israel, Britian, or the West must be destroyed. Everyday you can find this stuff.

Everyday Radical Muslims fire off bombs to intimidate local populaces into further accepting and then embracing Sharia law. Everyday, all over the world.

No thanks. Here is spit in your eye. I don't need to demonize these people. They are doing and supporting evil everyday. To me this ain't about their religion. They are just @ssholes of the first order.

Jews. Whatever. I have never had a run in with a Jew or Israeli that was negative. Everywhere in the world that anyone is highly negative about the Jews and Israelis are either a high concentration of socialists/communist or Muslims. No one else gives a crap.

The more left the place or the more Muslim the place you can be the more Anti-Semitic/Zionist it is, starting with the UN.

alot of 'would-be' censors today.

John and Bingo, you guys know better. Those guys should be appluaded for having the courage to be so publically ignorant. (insert golf clap)

How about we argue the person's point of view or at least ask them to defend it, if it is so wrong?

I say leave all the posts up and bring these topics to the sunlight.

If I had to guess both the anti-semites and anti-zionists are on the political left, which is quite ironic. However, even if not here today, the common ground being covered by the anti-semetic and anti-zionist left and the Jihadists is truely a modern sight to behold. The bloggoshere is full of this convergance. I would hazard to guess that Travis P. might just be a Ron Paul fan, however.

Together they are linking up on college campuses, legislative houses, and street protests to put devil horns and Nazi symbols (actual and metaphoric) on pictures of our president and 'Jews'. Amazing how both believe that the current administration and the 'Jews' cooked up 9/11 and the GWOT.

As for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. I really don't care necessarily about the religious texts. It is current actions that count. Right now radical Muslims are in a fight with us that many of us fail to recognize or admit. Since they want a fight, I say lets give them one. Nothing we say or do will change this. They are not going to stop until Sharia law is the default law of the world, period. They tell us this everyday. Some religious leader or political leader in the Muslim world gets in front of a mob of angry numb-nuts and speaks about how America, Israel, Britian, or the West must be destroyed. Everyday you can find this stuff.

Everyday Radical Muslims fire off bombs to intimidate local populaces into further accepting and then embracing Sharia law. Everyday, all over the world.

No thanks. Here is spit in your eye. I don't need to demonize these people. They are doing and supporting evil everyday. To me this ain't about their religion. They are just idiots of the first order.

Jews. Whatever. I have never had a run in with a Jew or Israeli that was negative. Everywhere in the world that anyone is highly negative about the Jews and Israelis are either a high concentration of socialists/communist or Muslims. No one else gives a crap.

The more left the place or the more Muslim the place you can be the more Anti-Semitic/Zionist it is, starting with the UN.

#11, George Owen,

"It seems that everywhere in the world many people know the Jews as people of deceit except here in the U.S. where the Jews seem to have a great influence. Isn't that a little suspicious? Also, isn't it a little suspicious why the U.S. is at "war" with the Muslims who are enemies of the Jews?"

The great thing about free speech is how easy it makes it to spot the idiots.

#27 "maximus"
I highly doubt you have the intellegence nor the athletic ability to make such a condescending comment to #8.
I ask that you take a look, scroll up to #8 and tell me where that person makes a reference to the Jewish people. You won't find it.
Also, if you really are a XXcrossfitcoachXX@yahoo.com, you above all, should know that there will always be someone with more athletic ability than you. I sure you get paid thousands, even millions for your athletic performance, don't you?

I recommend no name calling unless you can prove you have no faults of your own.

#37 Steve

Oopsy. Yes indeed, I was referring to comment 11, not 8, my mistake.

I stand by my right to insult, make fun of, and otherwise denigrate fools who make uninformed, racist, anti-semitic and generally moronic comments on this or any other forum.

By the way, if you had read the previous post with a critical eye, you would have seen that I was speaking not of ultimate athletic performance, but of getting the best results possible with the athleticism that one has, by using the power of one's mind. In point of fact, this is my specialty and there are very few who can match me in ability to strategize CrossFit workouts.

To all the idiots trying to rip apart Jason McNab (post # 17....Semper Fi Jason).....you are all missing the point. Islam is not your friend. If you think you can beg, deal or barter with the Islamic Fascists you are all fools and I hope you get exactly what you deserve. Regardless of your personal feelings, political beliefs, etc, the fact remains that if the Islamic freaks win everything you hold dear (your rights to dissent, to protest, to have an open forum with which to voice your ridiculous propaganda) will be gone. You disagree, you lose your head. Get it? What a bunch of morons. I believe it was Patrick Henry who said, "I may hate all that you say with everything in me, but I will defend to the Death your right to say it". Think about that the next time you feel like getting on your knees to suck off the "great and mighty" extremists. Wake the F**K UP!

#37 "steve"

I looked over comment #8. It strikes me as an stunningly uncritical analysis of the Bible Vs. the Koran. It seems to say that he has made the decision , based on no evidence whatsoever, to believe in the literal truth of the bible, and denigrate and insult the one point four billion people of Muslim faith as worshipers of a "cult of death" as if 1,400,000,000 people could be easily categorized as "evil". This strikes me as the worst kind of small-minded, unthinking, narrow-minded pablum imaginable.

It is odd that you defend someone's right to villanize billions, but have a problem with me calling one person out on the carpet for their reprehensible, racist and myopic viewpoint.

Yeah, yeah, I know "Why do you hate America"...

#35 Grund,
self-right·eous (slfrchs)
adj.
1. Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
2. Exhibiting pious self-assurance:

The belief that your "God" is correct, and the word of that God correct without question or doubt. Other texts when viewed through such a filter are necessarily incorrect and as Matt put it in #8:
"The Koran in my opinion, is not a book of faith, but one of a "cult of death", bent on destruction and lies. Exactly what God declared Satan's role would be as the "Father of Lies".

This viewpoint is the very definition of self-righteous. The scripture("declaration") of the God that Matt believes, not believes in, has(at best) been filtered and skewed to the aims and goals of the religious leaders to such a point that to call it anything other than propaganda is ludicrous.

See also:
self-right·eous (sělf'rī'chəs)
adj.

1. Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
2. Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks.

If you can't see it as self righteous, you are probably viewing from the inside out.

I only have a comment about the picture. . .

Damn, I wish I had traps like that.

-jj

#24 Stoker

-CREATINE-

Good question.

I researched creatine for a short while only to find that (in short) it enhances athletic performance, is an organic acid, and comes 50% naturally from food. There are many other benefits still being discovered by supplementing creatine. There are few, if no, contraindications for taking creatine. You would have to eat about 15 steaks to equal 1 serving of creatine monohydrate.

If you can get by without it, more power to you. But not everyone is blessed with great genetics.

Then, I had to try it myself. I've noticed a slight size and performance increase, generally about 5%. Have yet to find any negative side effects. If there are, please comment with a reference.

Hope this helps.

Disclaimer: This was an attempt to answer a question alone and may not be held accountable for any negative action.

MikeC #29;

On first reading of your post I agreed. So I went back and re-read both #11 and #8. If you read each word of the posts I still think my original impulse, and that of John W., is correct.

"...many people know the Jews as people of deceit." That's a rather broad-brush statement of hate, wouldn't you say? Substitute any other race (eg. Chinese, Black) or any nationality (eg.Mexican, French) or religion (eg. Catholic, Hindu) and try saying it again. That type of baseless, venomous comment has no place in intellectual discourse. I stand by my original impulse.

#8 on the other hand offers an opinion on the Koran, opining that the Koran is the bible-equivalent for Islam, and that the Koran is "not a book of faith, but one of a 'cult of death.'" Note that the poster is comparing the bible and the Koran and finds the latter to be lacking. He is not comparing Christians and Muslims per se, and is not offering a broad-brush characterization of Muslims as #11 does of Jews. One may find Matt's opinion to be without merit, and certainly there are those among us who can easily refute his contentions about the religious tomes in question. But for this reader, although I'll go only so far as to say that I do not agree with #8's contention, I do feel that his post does at least leave open the opportunity for intellectual discourse, whereas #11's broad stroke ad hominem is nothing but hateful drivel which is not conducive to productive conversation (on top of the fact that I cannot find him anywhere else, as identified, on the comments).

I hope that this clarifies my comment #16 with regard to the concern about censorship. Perhaps we can move on from this and examine the content of the audio.

That is the beautiful and funny thing about politics, religion, and heartfelt belief structures…

Only time will prove which ideals and thoughts are true and correct. However, we humans will fight to the death for our individual beliefs regardless of where they learned or adopted.

Give a man a fish; he eats for a day, teach men to fish they eat for a lifetime; if we manipulate the fish market, we eat steak…

One must look at people (See Latin; “Politics”) and their motives to truly understand the hidden agendas…the religious leaders, politicians, and decision makers, on all fronts are not the ones directly at risk (Physically) perhaps professionally or financially but not physically, that is of course unless their true motives are revealed.

MAN, I just love this Crossfit stuff…My belief structure has been modified in regards to working out because I was willing to try a different view point…Not holding on to a belief of what used to work, no, trying something new…

Thank _____ that it is rest day, wow am I broke off…

#41 Maximus

If your comment wasn't intended for #8 Matt, then my recent comment to you had no foundation.

Was I really backing Matt and his veiw on the Qur'an? Let me ask you this, if what you believe is true, then musn't you believe that opposing beliefs are false?
It seems you perfer a neutral ground of open mindedness and a bewildered path.

The comment I made about name calling was a generalization to all crossfitters. If you have to resort to name calling then you must be willing to accept judgement on yourself, because not one of us is perfect including myself.

I'm glad to see that you pride yourself in the ability to strategize crossfit workouts. What good does that do when you can type www.crossfit.com in your browser and get the WOD?

Joey #37:

Your post must have been held; it showed up well after mine. I'll wait for your thoughts on my post #45 regarding intellectual discourse. I believe I may have touched on some of your concerns.

I can't listen to this file at work, so will refrain from comment on content.

However (and with due regard to Barry who sees this differently than I), I am sceptical that anyone really "knows" what happened to the Roman empire. Human brains were not built to understand events that large and complex, and the information available to understand it is limited. That's my baggage with 'history' - folks pretend it's an event which exists objectively but you can find anything to you want to justify what you already believe when you have that vast an amount of data to work with, and there's no guarantee you can find the critical date, necessary for understanding, which very well may have been filtered out by the perception of the recorders.

Study it, learn from it, believe it or not, history is fascinating and fun but I'm a long way from being convinced that anyone can prove what happened to Rome or why - at least, not to the degree that it would influence how I would live or vote today. That said, I'll study it when necessary so I can attempt to refute those who would use it as "proof."

The man or woman who will choose bigotry as a way to live has dictated their own punishment. As long as they can be prevented from gaining access to the power of the state, they will not be a significant threat. I say let them stew in their own juices, they create their own painful justice by their chosen beliefs. Using state power to suppress those with such beliefs is a 'cure' far worse than the 'disease.'

Interesting rest day comments as usual! I'm off to Memphis starting this week - won't be settled until late August; will be enjoying all the WODs I can make up with a dynamax ball, jump rope, parallets, portable pull up bar, etc, along the way; will miss the weights and doing the real WOD, but only for a while.

Paul

I have not listened yet to the article. (I will in a few moments) I did however want to comment about the comments.

Labels are never good or very correct. It is too bad that people feel that need to label and catagorize others. When someone labels someone else, they are taking one small part of someone's life and making the whole of that person that way. Whenever someone throws labels around, all I can think about is their ignorance. I wonder why someone would choose to close their mind off that much and make broadhanded statements.

#11's comment was racial, but more importantly it is their ignorance that we should be considering.

I saw something interesting the other day on the way home from the beach- An auto repair shop had a fence up around their yard and on their fence, permantely afixed by the gate, was a big, white sheet with a swastika painted on it.

Kate

Bingo,
I agree it is below the level of intellectual discourse. That is precisely why I would want it to remain. I find trips to the gutter rather satisfying. This stuff must be seen to be believed. These people are out there and we must let them to the table so as to prove their existance to those who do not pay attention.

I never let an opportunity for a guy like that to out himself and if possible I provide a spot light.

Let him defend himself and his position. This will bring about more people 'peeling' themselves away from that movement as they see they were suckered in by biggots. Travis's post was an example of it. He quickly wanted to seperate himself, yet no one put him in the group. This is good. There is a line in the sand and guys like #11 help people choose instead of riding the line.

#8 reveals his ignorance right off the bat ... "I have never heard anything about what Michael Oren is talking about". How can I respect the opinion & (conspiracy) theories of someone too lazy to even Wiki the Barbary Wars? These types of people are impervious to facts & logic. It's really not worth trying.

#35 Now Mr Shirley, your statement that it is because of self-righteousness etc. ... is both misguided and juvenile. You have a brain, yes? You can judge good & bad can't you? If so, then you should really judge each religion on it's own merits (is it benign, is it good, is it bad) rather than lumping all religions together - BASED ON THE ATTITUDE/FAITH OF AN INDIVIDUAL rather than the worth of the religion. It's kinda like saying "those bodybuilders are really vain. That's why I wish all fitness enthusiasts would disappear from the earth" Pretty lame.

InfidelSix, I believe you mean #11

#45, Bingo,

It is an interesting question whether there are differences among the following statements:

(1) Religion X is inferior to Religion Y.
(2) Followers of Religion X are inferior (in their behavior) to followers of Religion Y.
(3) Members of a given race are inferior.

In America, until recently, I believe that it was only (3) that was looked askance. The difference being that (1) is a statement of opinion about a belief system, as opposed to a statement about individual people. (2) is a statement about behavior, since in theory, free individuals are able to choose any religion, or none at all. (3) is a statement about an immutable characteristic of an individual over which he or she has no power.

In cultures that prescribe death for disavowing one’s given religion, (2) implies (3) and (1) implies (2). For those people, it would seem that all the statements are the same.

Of course, these three statements mean completely different things to us, but that is because the notion of killing people for abandoning their religion is repugnant to a free society.

Is it a bad Idea to skip a rest day and do some more exercising anyways?

#55?

Lots of folks make up missed workouts on a scheduled rest day. Or play a sport.

OTOH, doing a heavy day of deadlifts and squats could be taking your life into your hands. Seems to get Coach's spidey-sense tingling.

t.

Just because you are paranoide, does not mean they are not out to get you :)
Don't take life too seriously.

Today's training: 4x 100 mtr sprint + 1 round of 30x 10 kg weighted L=pull-ups + GH-sit-ups followed by 2x 400 mtr run + a second round of weighted L-pull ups with GH sit ups followed by 1x 800 mtr run and the last rond of weighted L pull ups with GH sit ups.
I was done.
Have fun, Johan

Soooooooo...... Intellectual discourse? Indefensible rhetoric? Theological ramblings? NEXT WEEK, ON "AS THE CROSSFIT TURNS!" Hahahaha. Man, see what happens when a bunch of people have too much energy?

Oh, and CCTJoey- are you pipeline, AST or actually in the career field? just wondering.

#42 AK Cop

Your post is a contradiction.

Very interesting posts today.

I'll echoe the comments of Joey, and I believe some others, that the posts which may offend some of us should remain. People who live under tyranny, whose governments sponsor terror directly or indirectly, live in a world where they cannot hear the oppositions opinions without risking their own lives. Fortunately we live in a free society where we can hear all the information we choose to and then form our opinions. I would reccomend reading "the case for democracy" by Natan Sharansky.

5 rounds
400 meters
10 pullups
10 dips
13:54

28M/5'-6"/165#

Did modified version of Hero Workout dedicated to Army Sgt 1st Class Daniel Crabtree:

40 pull-ups
400 M run
30# DB Thrusters x 21 reps
800 M run
30# DB Thrusters x 21 reps
400 M run
50 pull-ups

27:20

Took me at least as long to cool down as the work-out took. Great work-out overall.

On the upswing of a couple day bout with food poisoning. Ugh! Hoping to get back to CF for the upcoming three-day work cycle. Need to rehydrate myself after being totally wiped out...

Don't forget to wash that lettuce and make sure those eggs are cooked!

Just a note of THANKS to everyone's support for Sammy and all the rest of our warriors - I will be copying and forwarding all of your comments to him!

WRT CREATINE

I generally eat meat, veggies, fats, and fruit. I supplement with whey protein, and occasionally muscle milk (mostly b/c i love the taste). I try to limit everything else, even fruit. I rarely eat refined sugars.

But recently, pre/during my workout, I have been drinking Crea-Drive. Its 5.25g of creatine and 35g of some sugars or another. I have noticed my performance improved dramatically, including personal bests in several WODS (Linda, Helen) and several lifts (power clean, front squat). I don't know if it is the sugar or the creatine, but I like it.

Oh yeah, the extra sugar has produced no ill effects on my physique for those who care about that stuff.

I may try beta-alanin next.

In search of finding John Velandro's email to ask for Sgt. Lugo's info, in yesterday's comments, I came across Bingo's Sunday musings. They were wonderful as usual, thank you Bingo for sharing (They inspired some of my own). In addition, I enjoyed reading Kegger's insight about education.

There are certain people that I always look for their posts to read their results or their musings about the WO, or on rest days to read their thoughts about the topic of the day. There are some (most) days where Joey usually says what I am thinking about the topic. I usually read and reread Barry's and Jeff Glassman's comments and think them over for a while.

My point is is that without this community and the gifts that Coach gives us on a daily basis, my life would not be a rich as it is.

Listening to the article was great. I'm glad to see (hear) that a few people are starting to pay attention to history. Hopefully someday we will learn from it and apply it into the actions of today. I feel all political leaders should brush up on their history.

Kate

It is amazing to me that yall get so heated. Who cares what closed minded single individuals think. I seriously doubt that you have any chance of changing the views of such a person via on-line posts. I am all for speaking your mind, but it seems to me that the responses are overly strong. Thanks for the entertainment though. Everyone enjoy the day off. I have a date with GI Jane.

#65 John-
Please let Sammy know that he is in our family's thoughts and thank him for his service.

Kate

#60 Aaron, in the careerfield, why?

Thanks for the creatine response.

While its true that Jefferson was our third president, a founding father, author of the Declaration of Independence, founder of the University of Virginia, and generally an extraordinary renaissance man, it is James Madison who is widely considered to be the author of our Constitution.

Creatine? Sorry to steer this back to fitness...

While it is a natural food derivative I would not say it is without faults. There are a few professional football teams that ban athletes using creatine (it is not banned by the NFL). I believe it increases chances for strains, cramps pulls etc when you are taking it but I do not know for sure. However I would like to know more of the reason why they ban it. Can someone else shed some more light on this?

The law of contradiction:
If A and be are not equal and...
Someone says A is right.
Someone says B is right.

Then either one of them is right or their both wrong. They can't both be right. Look for the absolute truth and hold on to it. Some people can't handle the truth, and that's because they don't have it.

I thank God (and am honored to defend) a country where you can believe what you want. That still doesn't mean you're right, but it is your choice. I know I don't have it all figured out; don't get me wrong. I think people remember a lot of the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (which really means having a State/Country church like England did)but forget about the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Listen, if you don't believe in the Bible, try to prove it wrong and more than likely you'll end up just like C.S. Lewis- a Christian. I dare you. Oh, and do the G.I. Jane. I dare you to do that too.

"I WOD for God."

5 mile run today in 37:53 (PR)

I did read somewhere that when taking creatine you must severely up your water intake to account for the fluids that the creatine is using in your muscles. I know that when I was taking Cell-Tech as a gym muscle-head I had to drink tons of water to stay hydrated. Be careful with it especially in the heat.

#70 joey- im a P.rescue pipeline cross trainee guy (just went to dive with a bunch of your AST guys) and didnt know if we knew the same people or not. just wondering.

I would agree with the water. Creatine would cause me to cramp horribly if I didn't drink water to the point I was peeing every 15 minutes. While amusing to some, I found that just getting creatine from meat is enough for me. I will also work harder to obtain things, knowing I don't have a supplement to rely upon.

I may try it again and see now with 7 months of CrossFit behind my belt if it helps me, but if I have to drink that much water (we are talking like 250 oz + a day) I'd rather just not bother.

Sorry about the "typos" in my ranting. It's the law of non-contradiction (and there are a few more errors in there). I vote for CrossFit Spellcheck.

I agree with #74. Take lots of water. I like creatine, but it will cramp you up if you don't stay hydrated. If you take stuff with Nitric Oxide in it, start off with a small dosage and work your way up to the recommended daily serving size,or you may find yourself with the "itis", aka the bubble-guts. I had that happen when I took NOxPlode and then had to fly over Baghdad for three hours in a Blackhawk. I can only speak from experience...

did the wod from yesterday. 25:15- it's hard for me to keep good posture when my back hurts so bad. plus it's hard for me to my speed up w/ my back killing me like it does. i am loving crossfit. can't wait till the wod for tomorrow.

as for creatine.....i have taken creatine on and off for the past 5 years. my body loves creatine. i respond really well to it. creatine should help you with muscular endurance, and recovery. i take mine with a glass of oj, gatorade, kool-aid. the sugar will drive the creatine into your muscles. i normally don't "load" the creatine. i have loaded it, taken it only before a workout, vice-versa, and have taken it before and after i workout. i have never had a problem with no drinking enough water. i would up my 8 glasses a day to 9 a day. if you are drinking a gallon of water a day you will be fine. water intake and creatine came about when creatine first came out. it is still important, but not as important as it used to be. i take monohydrate. none of this overpriced celltech junk.

any auburn, alabama crossfitters?

#72, Matt-

you are dead on with your water/hydration creatine post. for more info, read the following.

Creatine was orignially tested by Mark Tarnopolsky, a canadian doctor looking for results on clinical patients, typically paraplegics (sp.) that had severe muscle deterioration because of inability to move. in laymans terms, creatine jacks skelatal muscle full of water and other fluid (some ATP production follows, allowing more uptake of protein/glycogen.) The muscle can then perform as normal, however, thanks to the increase in fluid in and around the muscle (the pump associated after about 2 weeks of 5G/day), muscles tear (growth) and repair themselves with more tenacity. The strain/injury question comes from the fact that, without all the fluid in and around the muscles, simple tears would present themselves as soreness or injury, and the athelete/subject stops working that muscle out or rests. However, when jacked full of fluid, these tears can go unnoticed, and therefore, worked out again and injury occurs.
It isnt banned by the NFL, but strongly discouraged. typically endurance atheletes see no gain from creatine; anerobic, power atheletes do. Remember- anybody that says creatine works is basing that on anecdotal information only- the FDA, American College of Sports Medicine, and IOC have found no value in creatine- just like all other supplements on the market today.
And you dont need to hydrate because of the fluid used by the creatine forcing fluid to skelatal muscle- it has to do with the extreme amount of stress it puts on your kidneys to process it. if you are going to use creatine, it should be used for no more than 8 weeks of time, with 5G/Day, five days a week. your water uptake should be NO LESS THAN 80 fl oz per day, based on the average 180 lb male. And the "loading phase" is nonsense. And by "nonsense" i mean "scientifically proven NOT to increase uptake of creatine over any period of time in the skelatal muscle." You can only handle 3-5G/Day of creatine.

Hope i helped.

I have used it myself, with similar results to most of you. I guess it was good when all I cared about was my prison body work out(bench and curls). I gave up pretty quickly when I began training in jiu jitsu, 20 minute roll?? Ha! I was in a full body cramp in 4 minutes. I guess you can compensate with water intake but I imagine there are risks to that also.

Basically, in purely my own opinion, I do not think synthetic creatine loading (or 99% of other supplements) is in line with the mission statement of CrossFit.

WAR EAGLE #78!. I'm not from there, but I'm a fan.

Did a new (for me anyway) workout from the video section (scaled a little): 10 sets of 135# deadlifts/15 push-ups for time - 11:27

Regards to creatine: all the docs in the navy are against it, have not heard to many specifics but the dehydration thing seems to be the big one. It also makes you gain water weight which might counteract strength gains for bodyweight and metcon stuff.

28/F/108#

3 mile interval run on treadmill
Burgner WUx3
OHS & snatch practice

3 rounds of
10 hanging leg raises
1 min handstand hold against wall

still playing it safe with my neck. hopefully will be 90% tomorrow for whatever the WOD is.

Though Jefferson was the third President of the United States, a founding father, ambassador to France, author of the Declaration of Independance, founder of the University of Virginia, and a generally extraordinary renaissance man, it is widely believed/accepted that the man responsible for outlining our Constitution was his neighbor, James Madison.

For your viewing pleasure.
Islam around the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz-bTNxpApU

#78 bear

Thats an interesting name you have, especially being from Auburn, AL.

War Damn Eagle

Angry G,
You don't find the wahabists to be nuts? If it is not nuts then it must be reasonable. Nice reasonable people that you would like to have as neighbors.
Also would you say the fertile crescent is accurate description for the middle east today, or that it was only accurate 600 years ago before mas desertification made it in to a sandbox.
You not likeing my tone doesn't make it immature or less true.

SWO Mike,
The staff sergeant has siginificantly more rights regarding political expression than your messmates in the wardroom (unless swo is southwest oregon and not what I think it is). I bet if you tried to make an issue of it you would find his statements are well within his rights.

"Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion." Jon Stewart

enough of that, im going to have a crack at G.I. Jane today

CCTJoey,
If you are saying that my views have no merits because some of the people who hold similiar views are retards like #11 I'd respectfully disagree. If you found out Paris Hilton had the same beliefs as you (yeah right as if she is smart enough to have beliefs) would you recant them all?
On the other hand if you are saying that it's worth noting that the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Well, umm yeah. I'd rather lose than win on that team.

There were a few great responses to what I wrote; even if they disagreed with me. I think Jason McNab knows what he is talking about. It is very rare you find people like McNab in the U.S.

To give some quick answers to a few questions/responses.

-No, democracy is not working in the U.S., which is very unfortunate.

-Anti-Semetic? I don't know what that is. I just know who is the enemy and why.

-Yes, English is not my first lenguage. However, I am more of an American than many other Americans.

-Freedoms? Wake up! America is losing its freedom.

If America is to stand for another 100 years, I recommend people should start researching world history. And the best place to start is the place that history was written not were it was re-written.

For the person who asked McNab not to state his military rank, I ask why? Should people not see who are the real people who defend America? I will do you a favor, I will not state my rank because I think you might be threatened. However, I will tell you that I have served for 22 years in the Air Force.

Thank you,

George Owen.

Travis P., the later. Though I disagree with your opinion, I doubt you knew you were in such fine company as #11. This is a place neither you, or I thought you should be.

Just glad you pushed away from his point of view, now you just need to see things my way;)

and last but not least

ProPain,
I would normally keep my mouth shut on this one, but you invited anyone to disprove the bible. This is too easy! It's not even fair. I'll let you watch a video so you don't get all tripped up on the words and stuff: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/video10.htm

Paul,

I have to respectfully disagree. One of the principle reasons why Americans are so tremendously ignorant of our own history--much less that of the rest of the world--is due precisely to what amount to perfectionist complaints.

It's obviously true that our sources are necessarily incomplete, and that "history" in no small measure is made by historians, and that what is preserved, generally, is the "truth" of the victor, not the vanquished. All this goes on the debit side of history.

However, this should not prevent us from making reasonable and vigorous efforts to do the best we can, and draw what conclusions we can from history. Our government was created by men who were passionate about history, who read and reread available documents, and who felt strongly what I believe is still true, that learning about the past helps us understand the present better, and make wiser and better informed decisions.

The fact that notions of unambiguous truth have been successfully attacked in the academy has put all historians--who by the nature of their calling tell stories--on the defensive. This has meant in practice that Marxist historians can be considered, at least in academic settings, on par with people who tell more conventional (and rational, in my view) stories.

If we can't agree in at least broad outline what has come before, we decrease the chance of agreeing in broad outline on the present. And we see these alternative histories behind many of the more seemingly irrational interpretations of the present.

With respect to Rome, it is unambiguous that they were conquered by known enemies. It is unambiguous that following failed campaigns, they tried to wall their enemies out, and never sallied out against them again. Beyond that, some people think it was the bathhouses, some Christianity that did them in, but the bottom line is they lost on the battlefield, and the battles--rather than being fought far from home, were fought on home turf.

I did listen to the tape, and the thing that struck me was how intellectually and morally congruent we used to be. How we used to combine practicality with profound and considered idealism. That was our strength. We will not find it now in capitalism unfettered by moral restraint, or common decency. We will not find it now by offering up the indulgence of the self indulgent as a sacred rite and responsibility.

One can only hope--against hope--that we wake up before death comes knocking on our door.

War Eagle from CrossFit Birmingham,AL (my garage)!! Shirts soon?

Travis P,

Please tell me why I need to go take out the people in Sedona, Arizona who believe in the power of crystals and live in a big desert.

"Nuts" in a "sandbox"? Because I don't agree with someone's faith that automatically makes them a "nut"? Living on or near sand makes a place a "sandbox"?

Since I hold the same belief as Dennis Prager that it is impossible to argue faith due to its nature that no one can prove articles of faith, I refuse to argue it. I will call no person "nuts" based on their faith, even if I do not agree with it's teachings.

Your prejudice blinds your logic in this matter.

What the heck does Paris Hilton have anything to do with any of this conversation?

I've seen some very poor arguments, but I have to agree, today's rest day has shown the true colors of some of the posters.

Travis P.,
Sorry, but I didn't get a chance to finish that video yet. It was interesting though.

Just a couple things, since it sounds like you are an intelligent guy:

http://www.moh.org/WinkPrat/DTM/HolyBibleWhollyTrue.htm
or
http://www.moh.org/WinkPrat/DTM/AMathematicalChallenge.htm

Fascinating interview--I look forward to reading the book. Thanks CCTJOEY for that little trip "around the world". It served to remind me just how widespread their jihad is today.

Some have mentioned it before on rest days but I think it is important to remember that although there are those who committed violent atrocities in the name of Christianity, they were acting on their own misguided motivations for selfish reasons and their actions had no true Biblical basis. Whereas, it has been shown repeatedly that the radical Islamist finds his/her violent actions required and rewarded in the Qu'ran. Although the Qu'ran is replete with contradictions, it clearly endorses the advancement of Islam through physical force. Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight”. The Qu’ran boldly declares, “And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you” (Surah 2:194; cf. 22:60, the Qu’ran). This is not the same thing as the Bible’s “an eye for an eye” which, in context, was given in order to humanely limit and restrict legal punishment to a degree in keeping with the crime. That is, they prevented dispensers of justice from punishing too harshly or too much (ie. the punishment must fit the crime). Remember that many of Muhammad’s campaigns were not in self-defense, but initiated to further the Muslim domain and fulfill their quest to conquer the world through violent means.

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful" (Surah 9:1-5, the Qu'ran). Gee thanks, if I survive the slaying and I repent of my idolatry then I can live in peaceful submission. Nice.

What a contrast with Jesus who never once took up the sword or encouraged anyone else to do so. Jesus said, “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:39,44, the Bible). And Paul, an Apostle of Jesus, said “Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. Therefore ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:19-21, the Bible).

Regardless of your religious beliefs these are facts surrounding Islam, Christianity and violence that can be easily found if one was so inclined. Just a few thoughts.

Best,

Another post in purgatory. Man, and it was genius.

18M/5'7"/145#

i know today was a rest day and all but i had to workout. anyways...

today i did:
slow 7 mile run in an hour
then
swam .5 miles
then
got my PR in FRAN - 3:13

Scaled down WOD.

5 tuck pull-ups
7 GHD sit-ups

Never done GHD's before, and l-pullups, well, I am not quite there yet and I don't like waiting around for me to find the strength to do 10 tuck pu's a round.

So I did 12 rounds plus 5 more pullups.
By round 8 or so, I started doing kipping pullups unless they were palms-toward-me.

Excited for tomorrow.

One last comment. Someone is out to destory America and the Muslims are not the only ones.

-Thanks,

G. Owens

Yesterdays time 19:43

#54 InfidelSix,
I think you misunderstood my characterization. I don't judge religion "BASED ON THE ATTITUDE/FAITH OF AN INDIVIDUAL." I judged Matt as self righteous based on his views of religion(in particular the correctness of his own views and his assuredness of the wrongness of the other).

I judge religion as a bad thing, in general, because I have a brain, and "I" am able to judge good/bad on my own, without resorting to a mythical vindictive sky god to punish me if I do otherwise. And I think it is more than fair to lump all three Abrahamic faiths together in this regard(as I judge them all "bad" based on their individual merits).

Your comment, coming from someone with the name "InfidelSix" is interesting. I'm curious as to your meaning/usage of "Infidel"

And finally, your analogy is "pretty lame." I did not express a wish for the removal of the religious from the world, only the removal of religion. Big difference.

To play with your anology a bit, since you brought it up...
Would you argue that the bodybuilding mentality is correct, and should be prosyletized to the masses? Or that Crossfit frees us from the traditional views of the fitness industry, freeing us to reach our potential, unfettered by silly unproven myths.

#95 ProPain,
Regarding the first link, its nothing but circular logic. Proves nothng, other than what the writers of the bible wrote. A funny quote from the article linked regarding the "unity" of the Bible: "What would you have? I know what you'd have - you'd have the most motley junk you've ever seen in your life, with people totally contradicting each other!"

Re: Panin(second link): http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/panin_mark.html
Easily refuted.

To use a Twain quote from the first link: "It's not the things I don't understand in the Bible that bother me, it's the things I do understand!"

arguing about religion on the internet is rediculous...

Eh, It gives me something to do in the downtime at work.

I was just getting ready to turn the page on xfit because of all the koolaid drinking and intolerence of "other" fitness modalities, not to mention imbalance in political opinions, and along comes Mr. Owens comments, Mr. Wopat's, and of course "the interview." Maybe I'll stick around and learn something! Uh, thanks...Crossfit?

#80 Aaron,

Sorry, I don't mean to pick out specifics, because you wrote a great comment about Creatine.

I do, however, have to point out the fact that the FDA recommends only 60milligrams of Vitamin C per day. If you research it, your body, under stressful situations, and how many of us are ever under stressful situations right?, can utilize up to 6 Grams of vitamin C.

With a recommendation like that, it's hard to believe them on most things. But opinions are opinions, and I'm not trying to attack you personally, just want to get the info out there.

"I did not express a wish for the removal of the religious from the world, only the removal of religion."

Uh, where is this "religion" you speak of, apart from the religious? Self evidently, this is evasive sophistry. Were not many religious faithful put to death under the Communists, based on the dialectical materialists perception that belief and person coexist? How is atheistic dogmatism in any respect different from religous dogmatism?

As near as I can determine, the only real difference is that atheistic dogmatism lacks the brakes provided by a formal ethical teaching--it is formally impossible to be a hypocrite in any way other than secretly believing in God--and greases the rails with the hubris of the presumption--through a bastardized adoption of the terminology of science, without the appropriate genuine skepticism and corresponding humility--of unique possession of absolute truth, at least with regard to issues of "metaphysical" import.

The argument that because notions of divinity can be philosophically excluded, as non-falsifiable, from "science", in no respects speaks to their validity, merely to the available spheres of perception by which they may be approached. One has to be a "true believer" in science as the one and only, evolutionarily sent, divinely material method of TTruth--which really needs two capital "T" to convey the right message in order not to grasp that other opinions are possible and reasonable. Intolerance is telling other people they are wrong, and working to interfere with the free practice of their belief. Tolerance is saying "here is what I believe, and I don't care what you believe."

on creatine...i took it for awhile and had great results with it. if you take too much it can upset your stomach a little bit (at least it did mine)but it was never more than mild discomfort. nothing that interfered with my day. and it only happened once or twice. i got extremely thirsty and drank rediculous amounts of water, but other than that it was great. hope this helps!

Some thoughts for consumption (and a note for Bingo at the end).

People who hold religion in contempt (or the religious) seem to suffer from the same self-righteousness of which they accuse the "faithful", namely - belief without proof. Sam Harris carries the argument out in "The End of Faith". My problem with this view is that it's got the same logical flaws - I can't prove God exists, but you can't prove he doesn't. Moreover, science has postulated many things without proof - we call them hypotheses, and then perhaps theories, and maybe laws. Religion in many ways tries to do the same thing. Let's take one of the most cherished laws of science - the law of gravity, for a moment. Has anyone ever measured the particle or force of gravity? The answer would be no. We can measure its effects, quite beautifully and elegantly pointed out by Newton, as inversely proportional to the square of the distance. But no one has ever measured a "gravitron" or a "gravity field" with any device. I point out this diversion just to open the mind to possibilities and uncertainty.

Let's call religion an idea. Ideas can be qualitatively judged. Some are good; some are bad. Some are simply better than others. We see this every day, from traffic lights in bad spots to ill-conceived inventions. We take the measure of their quality and we go "eww, that sucks." Let's leave aside the specific standards we use to do this for a moment. If religion is an idea, then we can judge the quality of the content of the idea or ideas that make it up. There's nothing wrong with that - nor is it hypocritical to do so, as long as you're clear about what you're using as the standard by which you judge it. I would commend "Sword of the Prophet" to anyone as a critique of the Islamic religion, just as I might recommend Sam Harris' or Christopher Hitchens' critiques on religion, more generally, despite my disagreement with the idaeas contained in any of them.

Which brings us back to the early posts that lit up this day's comments. Mr. Owen (at #11), I don't care how long you have served in the Air Force, you are a narrow-minded boob. You qualify for the exception to the name-calling award when you say something so blindingly stupid.

Now, how can I let #8 off the hook if I go after #11, Travis P asks? Because there is a very large distinction between those two posts, Travis, and two other people have already touched on two aspects of it. I'll say only this - there is a huge difference between saying "Everyone knows the Jews are liars (#11)" (paraphrasing) and "participating in Judaism is to partake in a lie" (for example).

One minor point about arguing by analogy, also. You have to be careful and the analogies have to be "four corners" analogous to the item you're comparing or it fails at the outset. The "bodybuilder" example fails because, as has been pointed out, it's a choice, not an immuatble characteristic. I can say "bodybuilders are meatheads for using that program" (which I don't, by the way) as shorthand for attacking the underlying decision to use that model - I'm engaged in judging the model of fitness and the decision to use it - I'm not truly saying that bodybuilders are X (as a "race"). I'm saying they're fools for making that choice, just as we do about people all the time - like people in the high speed lane doing 45 with their left blinker on - they're idiots. Clearly.

Being born with the name Schickelgruber, however, (Hitler's Jewish maternal heritage, by the way) is not a choice; choosing a religious belief is (with due caveats about youthful indoctrination). If I were to say that "everyone knows blacks are (fill in the diatribe)", people would be incensed, as well they should. Why there is less vitriol about Jews seems to me to be a historical by-product that hasn't yet been stamped out. Too bad.

Which brings me to one other theme. Bingo (and others) say this stuff should be pulled off the board as devoid of any utility. I'm tempted to agree. But Joey makes a great case for why it shouldn't (plus, the way he states his case is just hysterical) - so, Darrell, I give Joey the point on this one. Plus, I believe people have a Constitutional right to be prejuduiced both in their hearts and their speech - see Brandenburg v. Ohio (the KKK cross-burning case).

Finally - thanks all for this community. Bingo - I've just been really busy, brother, but thank you for your email of concern. hope you are well.

Just home from work, no time to comment in depth. Might get to Barry's and Dale's comments if work tonight allows time to do so.

Just a note that the notion of a lack of brakes without a formal ethical education strikes me as funny. Where are the ethical brakes on the religious?(who I assume you implied had a formal ethical education). I guess the ethical teachings of religion are pretty cut and dried then? Not up for debate? Black and white, no gray area?

It would be easy for me to be a hypocrite, by acting contradictory to my beliefs/values, same as anyone else. The false notion of the amoral atheist is commonly tossed about, and holds no ground with me, or with most atheists for that matter. I hold human life in the utmost regard, I would posit far more than anyone who believes in an afterlife. And I see death nearly every night I work. At work, I try to decrease the suffering and help people get back to living their lives, as they wish to. By the nature of what I do I am often forced to act against some of my values, but I do so in order to respect the patients' values, beliefs, and desires.

My values are grounded in doing what is best for people here on earth. Living a good life, helping people and decreasing suffering when I can, and generally having a live and let live attitude.

I believe it is my lack of belief in the fantastical and superfluous claims of the afterlife that grounds my morals. I have no god to forgive me and wash away my "sins," they are mine and mine alone. No god to punish me either. But as I have stated before, if the only thing holding you back from killing and raping is fear of punishment in the next life, then you are seriously disturbed and I am happy that you have found religion. It keeps everyone around you safer.

I'm rambling. Off to bed.

Please do comment substantively after you have rested. In the meantime, let me dilate on this comment: "I believe it is my lack of belief in the fantastical and superfluous claims of the afterlife that grounds my morals."

It has been said that the Devil knows the Bible like the back of his hand. I don't know about this, but it is very clear that atheists do. They read it more than most Christians. You would think they like it.

Why do they do this? To proselytize. To convert those of religious faith to a new belief, to a new day. And yet, in doing so, they consistently fail to see that their ethical stance consists entirely in a rejection of what they view as religious hypocrisy--of wars fought in some God or others name.

They say, "if you didn't believe this, then you wouldn't do that." But, Materialists--Great Keepers of the Concrete--what evidence do you have, can you offer, that by deleting Quantity 1--Religion, you thereby procure a more ethical person?

The simple fact is that many books can and have been written comparing religious teachings to what has actually been done--and of course finding fault--for the simple reason that there is something there, some truth which is postulated.

Love thy neighbor as thyself. That is a Christian doctrine. If someone hates everyone, the actual content of their belief can be questioned.

Yet how does one do this with a dogmatic atheist? You cannot get a positive solely be deducting a negative. You cannot make a Christian more Christian by causing them to disavow Christianity. The actual content of Christianity is admirable. Why not focus on greater adherance to the doctrine--greater congruence--than on abandoning that faith for one without content?

To the extent I can tell, atheists rely solely on their own personal biasses, and Darwinistic interpretations of evolution.

In itself, this is unobjectionable. What, to me, is objectionable is the prima facie, undeniable hypocrisy in condemning dogmatically dogmatism in others, and intolerantly working to extirpate the intolerance of others.

If you want live and let live--which one would hope would be a part of whatever ad hoc religion of one you have developed for yourself--then live and let live. Don't take delight in critizing others, especially from such a flimsy and indefensible philosophical position.

Andy - get some sleep. You've earned it.

Plus, I think if you re-read Barry's post, you might re-evaluate what he is saying with less tired eyes. He is speaking in the larger sense that atheism has philosophically no restraint - i.e. if there is nothing else to worry about (after this) and this life is all that matters, why not just get whatever you can in the here and now? Consequences, shmonsequences. That is a very real logical outcome of non-belief. You might argue that empirically this is not the case. That is going to be necessarily anecdotal unless you can claim to speak for all atheists/agnostics. As Barry points out, religion (at least some) have a "brake" on behavior as a result of their claims to "right" behavior that avoids "punishment" for "sin". Given that we can judge the content of the ideas qualitatively (as I argue above), we can at least make some judgments about whether the ethical mores of a particular religion are up to the task.

I think you are misinterpreting Barry's line about "formal ethical teaching". I do not think he is using "teaching" as a form of "to teach" - rather he is using the definition of "formalized doctrine" - e.g. "What are the teachings of the Catholic church with regard to contraception?"

So, no implication that every religious person is educated, but rather that religion as a whole (or any given one) has a set of principles or "teachings" that we can measure against any set of ethics, whether it's Kant's imperative or someone else's. That's at least how I read his post.

On your final point, you're using hyperbole and it dilutes your argument and in fact strengthens the case for religion. You note that "no god to forgvie me" and also "no god to punish me" and you wave away the conclusion I noted above with the claim that "if the only thing holding you back from killing and raping is fear of punishment in the next life, then you are seriously disturbed and I am happy that you have found religion. It keeps everyone around you safer."

What you fail to address is the underlying teleological problem - how do we know murder or rape is wrong in the first instance? Because you simply "know it to be so"? Because it's the only way we could live in harmony? Much of the ethical components that make up our law and society have their origins in religious prescription and proscription. Why is murder sometimes okay and sometimes not? Religions offer some views as to why. Rape? Stealing? Why is it bad to take someone else's goods? I mean, many social philosophies posit that ownership ought to be the fruit of everyone's efforts and doled out "each according to his needs" . Yet the Bible says "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods", implicitly recognizing property ownership and superior claims of right. So who is right under your theory, Andy? Communists or The Commandments?

In many ways, the secular "law" of today is the same in origin and intent as the "law" of the old testament. We infuse breaking the law with the same kind of moral depravity as was done with the breaking of the sabbath. Littering and not being "green" is viewed as a kind of moral turpitude on a par with covetousness of the days of yore. But I digress...

The point is, you have to be careful that in your own zeal to prove that you are superior morally or intellectually to anyone who believes in God that you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater (the irony of that sentence is not lost on me).

Cheers, friend.

Can't sleep.

I'm by no means taking the moral high ground here. I've admitted previously to being elitist and intolerant, amongst other things. I'm working on that. But I do try to act according to the Golden Rule, and ascribing that particular ethic to Christianity alone is dishonest on your part Barry. It was around long before Jesus' time, and will hopefully be around long after our time here(if humanity is still around).

One of my issues with Christianity(I know it best so I'll use it as an example) is its lack of internal consistency regarding the bible. And the way the original writings have been twisted and reinterpreted by the generations of clergy(most recently the evangelicals/fundamentalists). All that aside, I do think there is some great wisdom and beautiful writing within it. I don't think its necessary to accept the entire text as the word of god in order to take what works and apply it.

And as far as the law goes, I don't respect it because its the law, I follow it out of fear of punishment when the law doesn't match my values(which puts me on the same moral stage as the religious, but I value my freedom, and not many laws are worth breaking at the risk of losing that). I don't see breaking the law in and of itself as morally depraved.

And before I try to sleep again, I'll admit(if I haven't in the past) that you two are both my betters when it comes to argument, hands down. You also make me think. I was sure Barry would come after me with his usual zeal, and I was waiting on it so I could read what he said and rethink my positions from his viewpoint. I mean its not the first time you've accused me of evasive sophistry. ;)

Some of the content of Christianity can be admirable. I disagree that following the doctrine more rigidly would be more admirable.

This all began with #8 above, which I saw as self righteous, by the very definition. Setting up the current conflict as #8 did, as a battle between Christianity/Islam I find to be very harmful. As I consider both the be untenable, what I am concerned with then is the result of that position. I have also said I maintain no real hope of convincing anyone by arguing over the internet. The result of such a demarcation based on religion can have few end points. Christians convert/kill the Muslims. Muslims convert/kill the Christians. But I don't see either side giving up.

I'm just kinda going at this piecemeal, so forgive the jumping around.

Dale, one final point. "Much of the ethical components that make up our law and society have their origins in religious prescription and proscription." This I would disagree with. I would argue that we evolved(haha, there it is) with ethical systems to help us survive, and that the systems were conscripted by religion to serve the purposes of those in power. Chicken or egg?

Really now. I have to be up for work in 6 hours. 'Night all.

Oh yeah.
Single 2pd KB clean and strict press. 5x5 L and R.

Joey feel like Caveman after Barry and Dales' posts.

Andy - you might want to do some deep digging about the origins of ethics and religion. I hate to disabuse you of your notion, but I'll betcha a beer that cavemen were creating mythologies about the Sun God, or the Sky God, and what each God dictated as proper behavior (like killing their enemy) LOOONNG before cavemen were discussing ethics and proper moral choices when faced with competing values (which is a shorthand definition of ethics). I'll bet you on that one. unless of course you're going to tell me you believe in Creationism. ;-)

The Golden Rule as a general principle may pre-date Christ; I haven't researched that exact ethical cannon's origins, but let's assume somewhere, someone (like maybe the Buddha or Confucius) offered something similar to the people as a way of getting through the day. Let's go further and even posit that it was some secular ruler of an ancient dynasty in Sumarra or some other such place. You still do't seem to get the ontological problem - it's your (and anti-religious people everywhere's) own chicken and egg problem: what is the authority for such a proposition as a basis for ethical behavior? Stated more simply - who says it should be that way? Religious people say, "easy, Jesus Christ said so and that's good enough for me." You laugh and say "pshaw! Simpletons! What bunk!" and then you offer that the Golden Rule as an ethical standard predates Christ - okay, so what? For Christians, Christ gave that ethic authority and force to be followed - what's your justification? Do you cite the Emperor Ming of my hypothetical dynasty as more compelling authority because he didn't solicit the Almighty's backing?

Why isn't the Rule "get what you can, as much as you can, before you croak" from Emperor Ming equally as valid? Do you see the original problem of denying Christians the recourse to God, yet you simply get to assert the Golden Rule yourself as an authority. Kant tried to arrive at the same moral standard without reference to God or any other authority but man's own reason - which seems to be what you, and many other, religious critics, are after. Kant's success, or lack thereof (depends upon who you read), is not come by easily. In fact, Kant himself denied that his theory was the same as The Golden Rule.

So, take heart, Andy, you're in good company philosophically; Kant was no dummy. For myself, I see no need to thrash religion, nor view its adherents as weak-mined or simple because of faith. You want to criticize religious diogma, great, go ahead, but don't kid yourself that without religion the world would be all roses and lollipops and good will toward men. Serial killers would still stalk the streets; criminals would still steal, rob, and murder; there would still be famine, war, disaster, and disease. Arguably, religious organizations do more than any other group on the planet to try to ameliorate some of the human suffering from these events. Just name me a totally secular organization that reaches out to as many people as religious organizations combined (i.e. all religious organizations of any stripe, be it Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, etc. NB - plese don't say the UN; you will be so wrong.) I think you'll find the "God" people are holding their own under their ethic of helping the less fortunate.

And again, you seem unwilling to judge any particular religion on its own merits or as relative to another religion, which is what #8 did. That's valid critique in my mind. A religion that says its God commands its adherents to kill babies and every third pregnant mother is qualitatively less ethical than one which commands its followers to love all men and judge them not. I don't know why you are so offended by #8 making such a comparative judgment.

That's fair. Very un-Dawkins-ish.

Atheism is an intellectually coherent, and defensible position. No one can deny this.

But at the same time, in my view so are most religions. It is my personal belief that they all have it somewhat wrong, but that on balance religion has done more good than bad, and that the bad can in most cases largely be attributed to human rapacity in general, and not theological prescriptions in specific.

Yet, one can draw a difference in the historical methods of Christianity and Islam. Although the Catholic Church has been involved in many "worldly" conflicts, they have always been, arguably, deviations from their charter, not constituent of their charter. Christians are to be "fishers of men"--salesmen, proselytizers, missionaries. That violence has at times entered in--for example in the Spanish conquest of the New World--does not diminish the clarity of the basic directive, which is pacifist to a fault in my reading. Such violence, then, is demonstrably contrary to the message taught by Jesus, as handed down to us. This makes reform within the faith easily accessible.

Islam, on the other hand, has always considered conquest to be a valid tool for spreading the political power of Islam. Following a successful conquest, they would--in my understanding--offer the vanquished the choice of conversion, death, or --for some religions, notably Judaism and Christianity--life as a second class citizen, who paid more taxes, and were offered less rights. Muhammad himself ushered in this policy, right at the start. It is front row, center. Inescapable.

What this means is not that Islam must be crushed, or that we are necessarily at war with Muslims, even though many Muslims believe themselves to be at war with us. It does mean that we need to recognize the essential congruity of belief which Bin Laden expressed in attacking us, with that of the earliest Muslim Conquistadors. This means that this is not a new thing, unlikely to vanish or dim quickly, and that we therefore need to do what we can to stop their potential to inflict harm on us as far from our shores as possible.

It also means that long term, they need to reinvent their faith in such a way that peace with the West is possible, and social forms existing for thousands of years can be reevaluated with an eye to increasing both the piety and felicity of Muslims around the world, without a need for expansive and ultimately self defeating external Jihad. The term for such self scrutiny of faith is, I believe, Ijtihad.

Bottom line, all religious faiths have unique textures, ideas, and forms. If we draw a line from tolerant to intolerant, some standard distributions tend more toward the intolerant. The same exercise can be done with respect to propensity for aggressive violence.

Atheisms, too, have textures, I would add. There is no reason to believe there is one faith and one doctrine. Many sociopathic nihilists can be found among atheistic ranks, as can world class humanitarians, with all the possibilities in the middle.

The bottom line is that--while I believe labels have uses in some cases--most of the time we serve the causes of peace and accurate perception best by treating people with as fine a degree of precision as we can muster, and I simply don't believe the case can be made that religions can be put into any blanket "box", and castigated uncritically en masse, without violence to the very ideals according to which the judgment was purportedly made.

To all, especially Barry, Dale, George, & Joey:

Who wrote the Scriptures? Atheists, of course! Who else could make up such fantastic concepts. Life after death! Really!! Monotheism? Denis Prager, who moderated the Michael Oren interview, illuminates.

Prager's paramount tenet is that morality comes from God. He has argued on his show for a quarter century that the commandment thou shalt not commit murder is so wondrous, who else but God could have given it to us? What Prager doesn't realize is that he is judging God. He is appealing to some innate higher code to weigh God for His Righteousness.

If the Scriptures said that thou shalt blind thy spouse and mutilate thy second born, that would be a wondrous and good thing. Amen. It is God's word, which thee must obey, and may not judge.

Prager's hybrid morality starts with the uncontestable belief in a Just God, and the flawless observation of the lack of justice on Earth. (Women and children being harvested off the streets; AIDS.) From this he can prove, with penetrating, undeniable logic, that the soul, heaven and hell, judgment day, and holy scriptures all exist.

To create great fiction, one must not succumb to it. Prager did.

What is provable is not faith, and what is faith is not provable.

"There is only one true faith. Follow me!"

Gödel proved one cannot simultaneously prove that mathematics is consistent and complete.

Corollary. A single human brain can never completely describe the workings of itself.

These notions share one thing: a metasystem. We cannot judge arithmetic from within mathematics, nor morality from within a code, nor religion from within a system of faith. We have to stand back and judge from above, bringing in external criteria.

Scriptures are collections of moral parables. We must protect them, and to do so, we have found nothing better than a secular government. Thanks to Madison. Dale's search for a secular, moralistic, activist, organization is over.

Individual behavior is the weather; culture is the climate. Kant's sharpening of the Golden Rule was a waste of time. Multiculturalism is far worse. We do judge our culture to be superior.

The miracle convergence of Eastern and Western religious philosophy is Fitzgerald's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. W should have the verses cut apart and drop them over the jihadists in billions of leaflets. He should offer a post-mortem eternity of virgins to each male who can complete a collection.

P.S. For George Owen I recommend a different reading list: The Federalist Papers and Mein Kampf. How and why did you know that Michael Oren was a Jew? Schindler's list in reverse? You managed to drag a herring across the trail. Almost no one commented on Oren's observant historical framework for the War On Terror.

More mp3'a please coach!

Will seek M C's book out.
Surprised how little discussion about the radio program itself.

Will investigate a) whether the barbary pirates were pre-modern "islamic jihadists" as described by the talk show host, which Michael did not refute. And b) where the comparison between Europe (portrayed as cowards) and America (galant fughters) regarding North Africa/Middle East could be disproved ie where America has not fought against anti-democratic tendencies in this region for sake of financial gain etc

Apologies re typos in previous comment - Very late here in Uk and typing on tiny archos 604 Wifi pmp.

My grandparents didn't read much, but they had a copy of Fitzgerald's Rubbaiyat. So do I. I'm with him on the wine thing.

I believe I've said before, in my view Sufism--within which tradition I would locate Khayyam, perhaps a tad uncomfortably--is an excellent template for a path forward. Saadi, Hafez, Rumi, Al Arabi, Al Ghazali et al. The stories and literature are vast, the doctrine is largely or entirely benign.

The Persians have a glorious past they are busily screwing up.

The historical framework for the War On Terror is pretty salient. Arguably, so is Christianity's connection to Colonialism and domination.

I would say that the big religions aren't inherently dangerous, but radical interpretations of them can be. Al Qaeda is one good example, the Inquisition another one.

The Quran might contain antagonistic stuff towards infidels, but I believe it also treats Christians and Jews as equals as they are "people of the book." Maybe it was just Jews, I forget.

Which teachings and beliefs to take to heart is clearly a problem. So, there can be a big spread between the "good guys" and the radical fundamentalists, in every religion.

But how do radical beliefs take hold in a country or area, or at least gain enough acceptance that there isn't a revolution or something? It happened with Hitler, and it looks like it's happening in the Mid East.

I think the causes are the real issues to sort out, not the culture/religion. The perceived culture is a result of latent issues, not the root itself. So, maybe addressing the causes will take care of the 'culture.'

Dale,
As a matter of fact I am a staunch young earth creationist. ;)

And Barry, I would agree(again) about the Sufis. I am much more inclined to be tolerant of the mystical traditions than the evangelical ones. I see them as relatively benign. Seeking a trancendental experience on earth in my opinion does not a religion make, regardless of the fact your upbringing leads you to call that experience G_d, Allah, Nirvana, whatever. I also have great respect for teachings of the Buddha(before all the stuff added after the fact), and for that matter many of the words ascribed to Jesus.

Dale,
Perhaps we are born with the ability to know right from wrong. Animal have instincts that control their behavior. Many have correlates in human behavior(or game theory for that matter). I think that just because cavemen invented sky gods(and others) pretty recently in our development, that does not solve the teleological problem. The cause goes further back than 40,000 years ago. Millions and millions of years of hominid evolution ingrained certain behaviors in us. Religion merely gave names to these behaviors.

As far as why I think my path is more correct than the socialist nihilist is because I choose it to be so. I think it makes the world a better place. The nihilist, while surviving fairly easy in the modern world, would have a little different time of it without the aid of society's mechanisms to fall back on, and is thus a relatively modern development. Cooperation has always been vital to humanity. And that cooperation has always been abused by those in a dominant position.

I'm saying we aren't limited in our moral development, either by our evolutionary past or our religious past.

I also think the current problems are not religious in nature, but more of an issue of modernity vs premodernity.

Also, I clearly haven't listened to the mp3.

And most faiths have prohibitions as severe as those in the Quran. The other religions have, in general, moved on and selectively chosen what to believe out of their holy books(seperated the wheat from the chaff so to speak). I am easily able to compare/contrast b/w religions, I usually just choose not to do so.

Back to my pt. Might have time for more later.

Thank you all. I did listen to the mp3 and found it mildly interesting. As a Marine, I was well familiar with the Barbary Pirates episode ("...to the shores of Tripoli." Props to Presley O'Bannon and the boys.) There were other US interventions in the area - see the Perdicaris episode in 1904 that was the inspiration for "The Wind and the Lion".

Prager is clearly using Oren to make his own points - the part about Eurpope paying tribute in the past ("just like today") and the US standing up to the "evil" Muslims is overdone. The US paid its share of tribute to the Berbers before O'Bannon marched across the desert.

Light fare, really, with some historical lessons (maybe) for the present.

Andy,
Dale Saran my have said it best, the point intended in my original (#54) post, when he said:
"And again, you seem unwilling to judge any particular religion on its own merits or as relative to another religion"

Comparative judgment is a good thing. That's why evolution gave us brains. And that is the crux of the issue. You admittedly lump religions together and say you feel it's fair and then completely fail illustrate why it's fair.

This is typical of the 4 Atheists that I know very well. They suffer from a vindictive "Christophobia" and seem to suffer or live in fear of some oppression that must be invisible to the general population. Sure they're quick to fire off "Christians kill Abortion doctors", but they lie to themselves by refusing to acknowledge the difference b/w aberrant behavior and policy. Also, they ignore any concept of scale. Here's a relevant question. How many anti-abortion murder have there been in the last ten years? A: 2 How about in the last 20? A: 7 But typically Atheists and leftists try to establish moral equivalence by comparing the worst of Christianity (or the US) with the best of (fill in the blank. Or they compare the US with an idealistic utopia that doesn't exist. You statement smacked of multiculturalism and the refusal to make value judgments on religions, specifically Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Is this because you fear bias or bigotry? Because it should really be a slam dunk, especially for one that holds liberal values such as equal treatment of women, gays, and freedom from religious oppression. I would hope you could see the vast difference in the gay marriage issue vs the officially government (and Islam) sanctioned execution of gays in Iran.

>I think you misunderstood my characterization. I don't judge religion "BASED ON THE ATTITUDE/FAITH OF AN INDIVIDUAL." I judged Matt as self righteous based on his views of religion(in particular the correctness of his own views and his assuredness of the wrongness of the other).

But you did state that self-righteousness was one of the main reasons why you "would be overjoyed to see all religion disappear from our planet.") That's a fairly intolerant (and juvenile IMO) point of view.

Judaism values <> Islamic values <> Atheist values <> Buddhist values <> Hindu values <> Scientology values. You seem to have decided that Atheist values > (Abrahamic religions) values yourself but at the same time have a problem w/ #8 saying Christianity > Islam and deride him as self-righteous for his value judgment.

I'm more of a non-specific agnostic than a hard line athiest. But since you brought up the persecution issue I'll address it. If any belief structure should be worried about this invisible opression, it would be the hard line athiests. Every study/poll relating to the public perception of athiests reflects this(godless heathens, amoral athiests, etc).

I think you are missing the implications of the implied self-righteousness.

gotta run, more later.

Matt didn't say Christianity was better than Islam. He set it up as a struggle to the death with Christians on God's side and Islam as Satan. That is different. And that is one of the reasons that that view is abhorrent to me, and why it has understandably soured me to the dogma of relgion.

I have no problem admitting to the current problems Islam faces and the takeover of the faith by fundamentalists. Look at Christianity before it struggled through its growing pains and came into the modern era(inquisition, witch burning, crusdaes, et al). I think this is the issue with Islam at the moment. The mindset is not compatible with the modern(ie western) world. Western/modern notions of social justice and law are incompatible with the current practic of fundamentalist Islam.

And I am intolerant, to a degree, of mystical mumbo jumbo that affects my life in a negative way. Whether it be through people bombing places or people trying to legislate their self righteous view of morality. I see these as differences in degree, not in kind.

I also obviously have a problem with the killing of abortion doctors. Although it is small in scale, that is what can happen when people take the bible(or any text) a little too literally.

I have no issues with people on a day to day basis, of any faith. Unless they proselytyze, then I am as pleasant and respectful as they are. Most people keep to themselves, and we get along just fine. I have no problem being called intolerant for my views, I also have no problem being repeatedly chastised and told I'm going to hell for my lack of belief. Religion interests me, and I enjoy discussing it. I don't consider one belief structure better than the other for moral guidance, but the details/differences within each system are just as important and illuminating. So along the broad scale of values, I would agree that most systems offer the ability to pick and choose a congruous ethic. I don't think Atheist values are better than Christian values. But I do think that my values are better than fundamentalist Chrsitian values, or fundamentalist Islamic values. As I learn and progress through life I have changed my values. I don't understand people that just belive anything they are told and don't adapt and progress as they learn new things. If I thought a different ethical system had advantages over my own, I would adapt and take the good parts. If I somehow found a perfect match in an already existing system I would convert(although I don't see it happening anytime soon).

I am more than happy to judge any religion on its own merits, I just try not to do so in public.

Long post held by spam filter@2137

Jeff,

Thanks for that post. I found this quote to be quite enlightening.

'Scriptures are collections of moral parables. We must protect them, and to do so, we have found nothing better than a secular government. Thanks to Madison. Dale's search for a secular, moralistic, activist, organization is over.'

You pointed out that almost no one commented on Oren's observant historical framework for the War on Terror. I listened to the interview while trying to study for an exam. I found it illuminating in the repeated cycle that we (American and/or Westerners) keep finding people we think are resonable to deal with from that culture only to have it all cave in.

Perhaps the lessons are, that we are just too different from that culture to ever build a long term relationship based on any sort of trust. There is a built-in mistrust on both sides and a cultural expectation to mislead on their side in my opinion. I see this constanctly with how Muslim groups of various political, religious, and business natures deal with each other. The global Jihad movement is ripe with this. An organization finds 'Martyrs' who are actually just guys who think they have nothing to live for through indoctination.

The Palestinian people are an example of the above on a large scale. They are a tool of the much larger Islamic movement as a rallying cry, yet no other Muslim countries will let the Palestinian's in mass move into their countries or offer them any real aid. On average I think the Israelis treat the Palestinians better than the Muslim world.

Andy, I hear where you are coming from. I just find it sad that you see the world in such a clinical way based on what you have written.

Also, you have wrapped yourself around your own logic a few times in this discussion. I invite you to go back and reread you posts sometime in the future and perhaps you will see what I mean and the others have alluded to.

SWO, mentioned that The Sergeant above was out of line in a UCMJ sense. I would like to offer that we have atleast one military attorney on this board who would be a good judge of rather someone was out of line in the UCMJ sense and would work to remedy that with the military member and the moderator(s), for the good of both parties.

Joey - I wondered if I might be called out on that issue.

For the record, the good Sgt is well within the law. Contempt toward officials (Art. 88) applies only to commissioned officers in the first instance - it does not proscribe all politial speech. Sgt McNabb's wasn't even close. He's not commissioned and makes no mention of the Article's list of officials.
Art. 134 - disloyal statements? Nope, the exact opposite pretty much.

So, SWO Mike (#25), I think you're the one who needs to "look up in the UCMJ what it says about making political statements while declaring yourself a service memember." If you could point out to me where in the UCMJ the alleged violation is, I would be happy to take a closer look. :)

"Perhaps the lessons are, that we are just too different from that culture to ever build a long term relationship based on any sort of trust."

Yeah, when we come down on the side of the Shah instead of Mossaddeq, and Hussein instead of the Shia majority and Kurds, stuff seems to go haywire.

I don't think it's like the Mid East is so diametrically opposed to our culture. For example, there's growing democratic and secularist/reformist sentiment in Iran right now, despite the stirrings of the leadership. It's not so much a culture war as it's an age old dupe job by the fundamentalist movement.

However, when we just break down civil society and take out the government as we did in Iraq, the public doesn't seem to flock to the democracy that we envisioned. Apparently it's more complex than that. That doesn't mean that Arabic or Islamic culture can't be reconciled with Western values, it just means that it's tricky.