In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 16 2014 00:36 coverpunch wrote: Civil War casualties were an order of magnitude smaller than World War I. And that's before we even get to the fact that World War II brought the horrors of the trenches to the home fronts, to civilian centers, and that while 90% of the casualties in World War I were military personnel, 90% of the casualties in World War II were civilians.
You might want to know that Czechoslovakia suffered about the same casualties in World War II as the Union in the Civil War, despite having only 25% of the population of America in 1860. That's how horrible the war was.
Which was not the point of my post. Point was that when you have competing powers, you get wars. There are things that help preventing that even if you have competing powers, but those things are currently much better developed in Europe than in US.
As for your comparison, your numbers seem to be quite off. Whole of US had just 3 times the population of Czechoslovakia. The military casualties for Czechoslovakia were 25000, civilian cca 300000. Casualties in US were 750000 military and unknown number of civilians, most likely at least the same number. So at this point you already have higher ratio for civil war. But that is of course beside the point, as a) Czechoslovakia was not really on the frontlines until the end of the war and persecution was not comparable to Poland or USSR b) it is not relevant to my point too much
focusing on things like Creationism, which are insane, mind you, but a really small part of the political picture in the U.S.
It's not a really small part. Creationists makes up more of the electorate than plenty of constituencies...
Together, abortion and health care reform are among the most polarizing issues for the nation’s already partisan political sphere....“This has been the problem for a long time: men in blue suits and red ties determining what women should do,” Slaughter said to the New York Times.
He voted in favor of imposing tighter restrictions on federal payments for abortions but explained to the publication that some of his fellow GOP lawmakers were so ill-equipped to discuss women’s health issues that party leaders have advised them on how to address the issue more appropriately.
What you seem to miss is how Creationism influences all of those policies and more, especially climate change which is also a big issue.
It's not just the doctrine of Creationism that is a problem, it's how it encourages disbelief in fact. Generations of Americans raised to dismiss facts that don't line up with a fairy tale their parents taught them as children. Now that generation is trying to legally enforce a mandate to brainwash another generation. That's not a small regional issue. It jeopardizes the very patriotism you describe.
focusing on things like Creationism, which are insane, mind you, but a really small part of the political picture in the U.S.
It's not a really small part. Creationists makes up more of the electorate than plenty of constituencies...
Large constituency doesn't mean large political issue. People who believe in aliens outnumber gay people by a fair margin, but I'm really not worried they're going to start putting up orbital defense cannons. Yes, teaching Creationism is an issue, but in the U.S. education policy is local, and the vast majority of constituencies would never try to teach it, and everywhere the courts will stand against it.
On June 16 2014 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote: What you seem to miss is how Creationism influences all of those policies and more, especially climate change which is also a big issue.
How does Creationism specifically address climate change? White evangelicals are likely to hold opinions correlated to each other on these points, but they're not exclusive. Heck, a lot of Churches are now holding "Creation Care" discussion/work to focus on solving environmental issues. In Genesis, God says people are in charge of the earth and have to tend it like a garden; it seems like this has no quarrel with avoiding greenhousing our planet to death.
- Finally, @Nyx: Nice post. And I'm with you; it isn't an all or nothing thing, which is what I mean when I say I want movement on creationism in America, or unaddressed racism towards gypsies/polish/turks in Europe. I just try to recognize the problems are problems of excess of otherwise laudable impulses. :-)
People who believe in aliens outnumber gay people by a fair margin, but I'm really not worried they're going to start putting up orbital defense cannons.
Come on... You're smarter than that. You know that the people who support gay rights is a muuuuuch larger constituency than supports 'orbital space cannons'.
But the size of the creationists lunatic constituency is of comparable size. It also wields immense influence on policy.
How does Creationism specifically address climate change?
Hard to believe you didn't know this...?
Heck, a lot of Churches are now holding "Creation Care" discussion/work to focus on solving environmental issues. In Genesis, God says people are in charge of the earth and have to tend it like a garden; it seems like this has no quarrel with avoiding greenhousing our planet to death.
Don't get me started on how 'Christian' action rarely aligns with 'Christian teachings' (politically)...
God says people are in charge of the earth and have to tend it like a garden; it seems like this has no quarrel with avoiding greenhousing our planet to death.
The Creationist politician in the video literally says that's impossible unless God does it himself... I think you underestimate how ignorant and pervasive Creationists are.
It wouldn't hurt me so much if that ignorance was relegated to giant 'Christian' glass cathedrals. It's the fact that is our congress that makes me so sad...
Rep. (Lies straight from the pits of Hell) Broun on the Science committee hurts the most though probably. Like how in the world could Republicans not be bothered by that?
That's why I think the point "You're just bashing the US by attacking a very small group of ridiculous people" isn't really appropriate. It certainly looks like the US has a big problem with religious ignorance in many institutions and that these positions are backed by a considerable part of the population.
I mean, I get it if at a local election with a few thousand voters a guy like that wins, but how do these people manage to get to Washington? Why does the Republican party not get a zero percentage of votes at the federal level without distancing itself clearly from these kinds of positions? Being it climate change denial, creationism or whatever?
I'd really, really like Iran and the US/the West to work together on Iraq. It probably won't go too smoothly, but I think the result would be pretty nice and even mean a Nobel for someone (probably Rouhani).
You also have to keep in mind that it was an absolute monarchy before 1979 and that the revolution had leftist/secular student parts in it. So it's not so easy as to reduce it to "they were free and prospering and now they're extremist and poor what was their problem?"
The west never had ambitions to transform the country into something more democratic because they were pretty content with the pro-Western monarchy that was in power.
On June 16 2014 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote: -video-
There is a distinction between fundamentalists and creationists. I'm a mainstream Protestant, so I think both are nonsense. Yes, creationism is bizarre, but the incidence of people who are "creationists" is dramatically higher than the camp of biblical literalists who would argue in such a way. Less than 30% of Americans are biblical literalists; the plurality think the Bible is inspired and unique, but not something where God dictated every word or which should be used for policy prescriptions. You'll notice that "creationists" outnumber biblical literalists by a fair margin. This means lots of people are classing themselves as "creationist" who aren't actually "every word in the Bible happened" people. A lot of religious people just call themselves "creationist" as a statement of their faith that God created humanity. This is really important to point out.
And the climate change thing in popular discourse is overwhelming dominated by scientific (and pseudo-scientific) debate.
On June 16 2014 04:48 Nyxisto wrote: That's why I think the point "You're just bashing the US by attacking a very small group of ridiculous people" isn't really appropriate. It certainly looks like the US has a big problem with religious ignorance in many institutions and that these positions are backed by a considerable part of the population.
I mean, I get it if at a local election with a few thousand voters a guy like that wins, but how do these people manage to get to Washington? Why does the Republican party not get a zero percentage of votes at the federal level without distancing itself clearly from these kinds of positions? Being it climate change denial, creationism or whatever?
don't germany etc have a handful of extremist seats as well, like neonazi stuff
On June 16 2014 05:32 ticklishmusic wrote: I'd really, really like Iran and the US/the West to work together on Iraq. It probably won't go too smoothly, but I think the result would be pretty nice and even mean a Nobel for someone (probably Rouhani).
there's no interest to genuinely solve iraq lol. please, it's just a thing to be taken advantage of. and this is not something new either, neither the west or iran, saudis etc give a damn about actual living people in iraq
On June 16 2014 04:48 Nyxisto wrote: That's why I think the point "You're just bashing the US by attacking a very small group of ridiculous people" isn't really appropriate. It certainly looks like the US has a big problem with religious ignorance in many institutions and that these positions are backed by a considerable part of the population.
I mean, I get it if at a local election with a few thousand voters a guy like that wins, but how do these people manage to get to Washington? Why does the Republican party not get a zero percentage of votes at the federal level without distancing itself clearly from these kinds of positions? Being it climate change denial, creationism or whatever?
don't germany etc have a handful of extremist seats as well, like neonazi stuff
maybe one or two in some state parliaments? But practically, no. Luckily we're kind of nazi-proof nowadays, at least in politics.
On June 16 2014 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote: -video-
There is a distinction between fundamentalists and creationists. I'm a mainstream Protestant, so I think both are nonsense. Yes, creationism is bizarre, but the incidence of people who are "creationists" is dramatically higher than the camp of biblical literalists who would argue in such a way. Less than 30% of Americans are biblical literalists; the plurality think the Bible is inspired and unique, but not something where God dictated every word or which should be used for policy prescriptions. You'll notice that "creationists" outnumber biblical literalists by a fair margin. This means lots of people are classing themselves as "creationist" who aren't actually "every word in the Bible happened" people. A lot of religious people just call themselves "creationist" as a statement of their faith that God created humanity. This is really important to point out.
And the climate change thing in popular discourse is overwhelming dominated by scientific (and pseudo-scientific) debate.
When you explore the issue, you find the nuance. If you subscribe to GH's camp, most maladies in the world could be described with the History Channel guy and captioned, "Creationism." It has been an absurd explanation since day 1 for all the issues its theorized to affect. They're in every science field and it sometimes means no more than God was the originator of humanity, as Yoav points out. It isn't convenient for the academically lazy that retreat to one label to try to explain the actions of an incredibly diverse group of people. The common thread behind the argument is: Evangelicals are responsible for social ills (like intolerance) and you can't trust people that believe in God with modern science.
I try not to dignify the argument with a response when it isn't merited. It's as if you're passing by some guy on the street constantly muttering "creationist lunatic constituency," "ignorant and pervasive Creationists," "religious fanatics mostly just want to ban abortion and teach Creationism as science." You're left waiting for the rest of the basket of Bilderberg/Rothschild theories that similarly explain everything and nothing at once. In US Politics, give the creationist psychoanalysis a rest.
On June 16 2014 04:48 Nyxisto wrote: That's why I think the point "You're just bashing the US by attacking a very small group of ridiculous people" isn't really appropriate. It certainly looks like the US has a big problem with religious ignorance in many institutions and that these positions are backed by a considerable part of the population.
I mean, I get it if at a local election with a few thousand voters a guy like that wins, but how do these people manage to get to Washington? Why does the Republican party not get a zero percentage of votes at the federal level without distancing itself clearly from these kinds of positions? Being it climate change denial, creationism or whatever?
don't germany etc have a handful of extremist seats as well, like neonazi stuff
maybe one or two in some state parliaments? But practically, no. Luckily we're kind of nazi-proof nowadays, at least in politics.
point is the U.S. system does give representation to minorities, but along locality/regional lines. european parliamentary system gives voice to ideological minorities. it's probably better to be the latter, but either way you'll get a trifling amount of extremists. the real problems are elsewhere
Just did a little reading about what the US and Britain did in Iran back in the 1900's.
All sorts of messed up, I feel like Britain takes a lot of blame for overthrowing a Prime Minister just because he wouldn't give them cheap oil (and dragging the US into it).
On June 16 2014 07:48 Danglars wrote: It isn't convenient for the academically lazy that retreat to one label to try to explain the actions of an incredibly diverse group of people. The common thread behind the argument is: Evangelicals are responsible for social ills (like intolerance) and you can't trust people that believe in God with modern science.
People who agree with modern scientific consensus and believe in god are not creationists. They're just religious people. You're trying to divert by redefining the meaning of creationism. There are some religious scientists(although most aren't), but these people are not the same people Greenhorizon has been talking about.
"Climate change is not real because god made the earth for humans to build factories on it" or argumentation along these lines in the video he posted are not shared by even one serious scientist, but seem to be popular among some of the highest ranking politicians. That's the issue he was talking about. Could you imagine an atheist becoming president of the United states? Probably not. But a president who claims that God told him invading Iraq is cool? Happened ten years ago.
Well, we thirst for the blood and call for the head of a 12-yr old girl that attempted murder, because Slenderman told her to. Yet, a devout Mormon planning to join the military commits a school shooting here in OR, writing in a journal that he planned to kill all the sinners... not even a peep.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqIXc9rCMAAvbW9.png)
