Left & Right Wing Preoccupation

[someone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[onthebottom]

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

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

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

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

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

nuff said.

OTB

 

[langeweile]

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

I give up...you win...

 

[someone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and why is it witness to a society in decay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have better data please present it.

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

[/QUOTE]I will not argue with that (although the poll results indicate that is is more than a fringe).

 

[slowpoke]

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

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

 

[yychobbyist]

YYC, Someone,

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

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

OTB

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

 

[someone]

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

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

 

[onthebottom]

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

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

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

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

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

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

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

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

OTB

 

[someone]

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

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

 

[yychobbyist]

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

OTB

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

 

[slowpoke]

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

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

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

 

[langeweile]

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

This quote is true for religion and for politics.

 

[someone]

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

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

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

 

[onthebottom]

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

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

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

I thought it was interesting that:

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

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

OTB

 

[someone]

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

I thought it was interesting that:

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

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

OTB

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

 

[slowpoke]

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

OTB

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


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

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

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

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

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

This is the real scandal...."

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

 

[onthebottom]

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


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

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

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

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

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

This is the real scandal...."

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

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

OTB

 

[slowpoke]

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

OTB

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

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

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