Pith: Religion has failed to revive the human species. Religion, like anything else in life, has the potential for either lifting our spirits and bringing out the best in us, or generating some of the worst distortions of thinking and action that humanity has ever known.

Explanation: Every attempt to distill all of life into a few thousand pages and induce everyone to accept it as gospel has failed miserably to date. The tendency of many followers to check their brains at the door has further retarded progress, if indeed the word is applicable to religion. The drive to homogenize humanity with sin and guilt has always been the enemy of individuality, creativity, and true freedom of spirit. Despite their archaic substructure, the church and the synagogue and the mosque and the temple all have many modern heroes who have given tirelessly of themselves to fight oppression and injustice, ironically, as the lesser of evils.

Consequences: As a generator of community, religion has the power to lead the world to a better way of living, but only if it gives up playing mind games and terror tactics against its own people. The only guarantee in the information age is that religions will increase in variety and receive more public scrutiny than ever in history. Under such circumstances they will either evolve into something more useful or die resisting change. Pray for success, if anything.

see more at http://www.socialfarts.com

Point well taken. For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to blame the media entirely--they are a money-making business and they have to have a product that people are willing to buy. And I was seemingly a voice in the wilderness here in S. central Michigan, a conservative hotbed. I knew something was fishy from the very beginning, and I yelled at my TV screen many times for the media to do its job.

We're really getting off-topic here.

The public must accept its share of the blame in remaining so ignorant, because it is most often a choice to do so. I was aware of the falsity of the Czech meeting shortly after Powell used it as casus belli (amongst other reasons) against Iraq, and I'm no rocket scientist.

And Alex --

I have a letter out to the Reader's Representative at the LA Times for the endorsement slate for the Nov 06 elections, and will post it here as soon as I receive it. Thanks for your patience.

S. E. X.

That's what sells, period, either because of the tittilation factor or to the holier-than-thou types.

It didn't hurt that Clinton's most vocal critics were (and still are) foaming-at-the-mouth xtians (nutjobs, if you will) strangely obsessed with everyone else's sex life. It all added up to big ratings.

I shouldn't have to remind anyone here about Clinton's biggest nemesis---Newt Gingrich, who also had a little sex scandal of his own. Funny how that didn't get as much airtime in the liberal media as Clinton's did.

This isn't meant as a rebuttal to chronomitch's point, but more as expanded discussion of the differences between the situations.

Now zip forward to the Bush administration and compare the lies about the Iraqi War (among other things) to those of Clinton. Even though Bush and his cronies were not on the stand when they lied, you would have to be delusional (and many neo-conns are) to think that Clinton's sins can even compare to those of the current administration. But in the case of Bush, where was the media when we found out there were no WMDs in Iraq? Where was the outrage when we found that Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 hijackers or Al-Quaida? The lies of the Bush administration should have taken an even bigger role in the media than the Clinton sex scandal. It should have been covered 24 hours on the news networks. It should have been the front page story of every major newspaper for weeks. The media did such a poor job in this case that there are still a large number of people who believe Saddam helped the 9/11 terrorists and who swallow the ridiculous lies of our leaders in office.

I think it is clear what kind of bias the media has.

Classic.

When it comes to stereotyping and hatred I advise many of you to take a close look in the mirror, as I have lost count of the number of times christians have been refered to as "nutjobs" here.

I have never seen a post here that contains any hatred nor sweeping generalizations like you claim. I have used the word "nutjob," and I'll keep using it to refer to various nutjobs out there. Just to be clear, we're talking about people like Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Phelps, Haggard, Koresh, and of course, Bush. These people have all exhibited megalomaniac behavior and they're using fear of a fictional god to manipulate people into following them. That qualifies them as nutjobs in my book and I have no problem saying it.

Think about it: how are any of those men different from the stereotypical delusional guy walking down the street wearing a sandwich board and screaming, "Repent!!! The end is near!!!" to anyone within earshot? I've seen people doing just that (minus the sandwich board), and they are no less a nutjob than any other nutjob. The nutjobs I've listed above are just more successful at fooling people, that's all.

I've also used the term in reference to my in-laws, who, among other things, complain about their pastor, who drives a BMW and receives $80,000 in yearly salary. This same guy lobs guilt bombs at his followers who can't afford to pony up every week. Hello? Do I have to explain what should be obvious? They are intelligent, kind-hearted people, but yet they still go---every week. And dump all their spare cash in the pot. I'm not trying to blame the victim here, but it seems that you almost have to be a delusional nutjob to ignore the obvious and let someone con you out of your money week after week for years. The old "fool me once...." advice should apply at some point.

Comment by: HW
================
Your assumptions regarding history appear to be flawed.The founding fathers were not Christian or at least Christianity was not that important to many of them. Not one document refers to a Christian God. Check this link for starters and begin your new education. We will welcome you when you are finished.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/

"And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm
=======
I think you are terribly misinformed about GW.

When it comes to stereotyping and hatred I advise many of you to take a close look in the mirror, as I have lost count of the number of times christians have been refered to as "nutjobs" here.

Please cite some evidence of stereotyping and hatred. Thank you.

I have neither the time nor the patience to attempt to shed light on the mis-information contained in many of these posts, and it would probably exceed the size limit for posts were I to do so.

Many have tried, and have been found wanting. If you have some information to impart to us that isn't the same boilerplate that we've heard a million times before, then please do so.

In my opinion, most of you would probably find that the most conservative of administrations would infringe a mere fraction on civil liberties compared with Sharia law.

I'm sure the Dominionists would disagree with you.

My final point to ponder would be to ask whom you think would feel more at ease, atheists or christians, were we to have the opportunity to attend a social occasion with those who drafted our constitution and led the United states for her first hundred years? Were you to be intellectually and historically honest, you would acknowledge that it would be the christians.

Huh? Are you saying that if you and I travelled back in time that you would be treated better than I by our founding fathers? You may well be right judging by the attacks made on Jefferson and Paine during that time period. What's your point though?

While many may be happy with the rise of secular humanism, it is simply inaccurate to deny the christian roots of this nation. Why are so many offended when christians mourn how close those roots would seem to being severed?

By that you mean what? If you mean that Xianity was the dominant religion, well that's true, it was, and still is. So what? If you mean to assert that this nation was founded on Xian principles or somesuch notion like that, then you'll have to explain to me why the Constitution was derided as an atheist document, why Adams wrote that this is in no way a Xian government in one of our first national treaties, and why Jefferson explicitly stated that his intent was to erect a wall of separation between church and state...for starters.