Peace will come when its gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming €œImagine No Religion.€� For most folks, thats hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE

===

EV Tribune, Letter-to-the-editor, this morning, Sept 20

===

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when it’s gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming “Imagine No Religion.” For most folks, that’s hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE

===

EV Tribune, Letter-to-the-editor, this morning, Sept 20

===

...Jim Thompson

---
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

John Lennon

JF

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when it’s gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming “Imagine No Religion.” For most folks, that’s hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE


Overall, religion has done more good than harm. And since it's
probably wired into most humans, it's probably impossible to
eliminate.

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when its gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming €œImagine No Religion.€� For most folks, thats hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE

===

EV Tribune, Letter-to-the-editor, this morning, Sept 20

===

...Jim Thompson

---
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

John Lennon

JF

John F,

You know, in your heart, that "And the world will live as one" is a
leftist weenie-ism ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Obama, without aid of teleprompter, "Uh...Uh...Uh...Uh...Uh..."

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:33:55 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

[snip]

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

John


My experience has been just the opposite. "Believers" want to
"change" you over to their "flavor".

I'm considering putting a sign out front, "Proselytizers will be fed
to the dogs" ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Obama, Questioned about the Presidency, it's "above my pay grade"

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

John



When George Harrison died, Paul McCartney said, "He had a great love of
humanity, but didn't suffer fools."

i.e. He loved 'Humanity' but didn't like people too much. The
disconnect between the lofty rhetoric and the totalitarian impulses that
infect so much of the Left is one of the most striking cultural
phenomena of our day, I think.

You'd think everyone would have learned. Using the word 'Tolerance' to
demonise and marginalize people is a slightly new wrinkle on an old, old
technique. Previous hits:

"German Democratic Republic"
"Peace, bread, and land"
"You have nothing to lose but your chains"
"People's Courts"

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

This is all happening because the Left has abandoned the idea that
there's such a thing as truth. If reality is just a social
construction, then all there is to argue about is whether it's going to
be MY construction or YOURS. That is, it's a matter of who gets to
impose their will on whom. That's the classic recipe for totalitarianism.


Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

John Larkin wrote:

Overall, religion has done more good than harm. And since it's
probably wired into most humans, it's probably impossible to
eliminate.

Wired into us ? I knew it was a con trick by age 8 or therabouts. How I
finally came to that conclusion in a very literal way amuses me to this
day.

Graham

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:14:56 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:
[snip]

This is all happening because the Left has abandoned the idea that
there's such a thing as truth. If reality is just a social
construction, then all there is to argue about is whether it's going to
be MY construction or YOURS. That is, it's a matter of who gets to
impose their will on whom. That's the classic recipe for totalitarianism.


Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

You nailed it! Liberals == Totalitarianism

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.

John Larkin wrote:

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

Actually it's usually about LAND. None of the above.


In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

NOT my experience at all. SOME are very nice, some are the most evil
people on earth IMHO. The Catholic Church for example is uniquely heavily
responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS any many other STDs.

Graham

Jim Thompson wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[snip]

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

John

My experience has been just the opposite. "Believers" want to
"change" you over to their "flavor".

I'm considering putting a sign out front, "Proselytizers will be fed
to the dogs" ;-)

But they'd have to understand what it meant first !

Graham

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this?

Is that relevant ?


How much of it did he give away?

I believe he did donate to a number of causes actually.


Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

And you build electronics for charity alone ? Yes I know you do contribute
to worthy causes.

Graham

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

John



When George Harrison died, Paul McCartney said, "He had a great love of
humanity, but didn't suffer fools."

i.e. He loved 'Humanity' but didn't like people too much. The
disconnect between the lofty rhetoric and the totalitarian impulses that
infect so much of the Left is one of the most striking cultural
phenomena of our day, I think.

You'd think everyone would have learned. Using the word 'Tolerance' to
demonise and marginalize people is a slightly new wrinkle on an old, old
technique. Previous hits:

"German Democratic Republic"
"Peace, bread, and land"
"You have nothing to lose but your chains"
"People's Courts"

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

This is all happening because the Left has abandoned the idea that
there's such a thing as truth. If reality is just a social
construction, then all there is to argue about is whether it's going to
be MY construction or YOURS. That is, it's a matter of who gets to
impose their will on whom. That's the classic recipe for totalitarianism.


Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

Jim Thompson wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
[snip]

This is all happening because the Left has abandoned the idea that
there's such a thing as truth. If reality is just a social
construction, then all there is to argue about is whether it's going to
be MY construction or YOURS. That is, it's a matter of who gets to
impose their will on whom. That's the classic recipe for totalitarianism.

You nailed it! Liberals == Totalitarianism

George W Bush was doing a good job of it too.

How about politics and/or religion = totalitarianism ?

Graham

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

---
Dunno, don't care.
---

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

---
I don't imagine it could be because they're artists pursuing their
passion and money happens to be part of the territory?

You claim to be an artist, yet I don't see you turning down work because
you think you're getting too rich, yet you begrudge them their fortunes.


Anyway,

Whatever gets you through the night 'salright, 'salright
It's your money or life 'salright, 'salright
Don't need a sword to cut through flowers oh no, oh no

Whatever gets you through your life 'salright, 'salright
Do it wrong or do it right 'salright, 'salright
Don't need a watch to waste your time oh no, oh no

Hold me darlin' come on listen to me
I won't do you no harm
Trust me darlin' come on listen to me, come on listen to me
Come on listen, listen

Whatever gets you to the light 'salright, 'salright
Out the blue or out of sight 'salright, 'salright
Don't need a gun to blow your mind oh no, oh no

Hold me darlin' come on listen to me
I won't do you no harm
Trust me darlin' come on listen to me, come on listen to me
Come on listen, listen

John Lennon


JF

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:23:10 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

---
Dunno, don't care.
---

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

---
I don't imagine it could be because they're artists pursuing their
passion and money happens to be part of the territory?

You claim to be an artist, yet I don't see you turning down work because
you think you're getting too rich, yet you begrudge them their fortunes.


Anyway,

Whatever gets you through the night 'salright, 'salright
It's your money or life 'salright, 'salright
Don't need a sword to cut through flowers oh no, oh no

Whatever gets you through your life 'salright, 'salright
Do it wrong or do it right 'salright, 'salright
Don't need a watch to waste your time oh no, oh no

Hold me darlin' come on listen to me
I won't do you no harm
Trust me darlin' come on listen to me, come on listen to me
Come on listen, listen

Whatever gets you to the light 'salright, 'salright
Out the blue or out of sight 'salright, 'salright
Don't need a gun to blow your mind oh no, oh no

Hold me darlin' come on listen to me
I won't do you no harm
Trust me darlin' come on listen to me, come on listen to me
Come on listen, listen

John Lennon


JF

My rock 'n' roll CD collection includes all the Beatles' works.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:38:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


My rock 'n' roll CD collection includes all the Beatles' works.

---
Got any Procol Harum or Rotary Connection?

JF

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
Overall, religion has done more good than harm.

Perfectly reasonable opinions, John, but I think that's impossible to prove
or disprove.

And since it's
probably wired into most humans, it's probably impossible to
eliminate.

Yes.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

What do you think of Penn Jillette? He's an (outspoken) atheist, but he's
also one of the more humanitarian guys I'm aware of. Among other things, he
organizes a huge blood drive in Las Vegas annually, and as a bit of a bribe
has given away many thousands of tickets to his show in return. (I.e.,
that's real money he's giving up there -- probably over a million bucks by
now --, since there's a very good chance the seats could have been sold if
they hadn't been given away.)

He also in no way looks down on people who are religious and is criticizes
atheists who do so.

If the religious people of this world were generally like Phil and Joerg and
the athetists were like Penn Jillette, I doubt we'd have many problems at
all...

---Joel

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:01:30 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:38:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


My rock 'n' roll CD collection includes all the Beatles' works.

---
Got any Procol Harum or Rotary Connection?

JF

I don't recognize that... whatzit?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

Jim Thompson wrote:

My rock 'n' roll CD collection includes all the Beatles' works.

I could be unkind and say it shows your age but I won't.

I remember age about 8 moving home and helping my dad out in the garage. He
used to play piano in a jazz quartet (as a hobby) and was serious about his
music (of all kinds).

As we listened to the radio, I remember him saying something along the lines
of .. "those Beatles, they're going somewhere".

I liked their stuff too.

Graham

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:34:40 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this?

Is that relevant ?


How much of it did he give away?

I believe he did donate to a number of causes actually.


Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

And you build electronics for charity alone ? Yes I know you do contribute
to worthy causes.

Graham

I build electronics because that's what I'm good at and that's what I
like to do. I do not try to convince millions of people to give me
money because they think I'm something that I'm not. Nor do I try to
foster their discontent.

And I'm certain that I give away a far larger fraction of my income
that any of the named entertainers do or did.

Getting rich off of selling socialism is pretty weird.

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:40:44 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

John



When George Harrison died, Paul McCartney said, "He had a great love of
humanity, but didn't suffer fools."

i.e. He loved 'Humanity' but didn't like people too much. The
disconnect between the lofty rhetoric and the totalitarian impulses that
infect so much of the Left is one of the most striking cultural
phenomena of our day, I think.


Absolutely. I've seen a lot of it up-close... people who love
humanity, preach social justice, and are just plain mean to the people
around them.

Honestly, in their real lives, the sweetest and most thoughtful people
I know are religious, and the worst pricks are atheistic socialists.

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:23:10 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

---
Dunno, don't care.
---

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

---
I don't imagine it could be because they're artists pursuing their
passion and money happens to be part of the territory?

Hardly ever.


You claim to be an artist, yet I don't see you turning down work because
you think you're getting too rich, yet you begrudge them their fortunes.


I don't begrudge any Hollywood fathead the money they make. I wouldn't
live their lives for a gigabuck. Why do they keep sticking needles in
their arms, and beating up/shooting their families, and becoming
alcoholics/suicides/dead at phenomenal rates if they are such pure
artists?

We do turn down work if we think it's harmful or immoral. Like
manufacturing cigarettes, or helping certain countries improve their
Bombs.

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:27:46 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Overall, religion has done more good than harm. And since it's
probably wired into most humans, it's probably impossible to
eliminate.

Wired into us ? I knew it was a con trick by age 8 or therabouts. How I
finally came to that conclusion in a very literal way amuses me to this
day.

Graham

Well, it's not wired into everyone, but the majority of people believe
in some sort of God or some spiritual equivalent. Religion has been,
and remains, one of the most powerful forces in human relations.

Religion has evolved with civilization. Western religions especially
have been instrumental in fostering learning, science, and morality,
all of which have nurtured progress.

But if you were somehow able to eliminate it, I don't think humanity's
state would improve.

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:31:03 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

Actually it's usually about LAND. None of the above.


Whether it's about land, gold, or tea, people form up teams to fight
over stuff. The things I listed are some ways the teams separate and
organize. There's no doubt that genetic similarity concentrates mutual
interest and, lacking DNA testing, language and color and religion are
useful surrogates.




In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

NOT my experience at all. SOME are very nice, some are the most evil
people on earth IMHO. The Catholic Church for example is uniquely heavily
responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS any many other STDs.

If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS. Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at least
a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their drug
resistance.

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:32:29 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:40:44 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

John



When George Harrison died, Paul McCartney said, "He had a great love of
humanity, but didn't suffer fools."

i.e. He loved 'Humanity' but didn't like people too much. The
disconnect between the lofty rhetoric and the totalitarian impulses that
infect so much of the Left is one of the most striking cultural
phenomena of our day, I think.


Absolutely. I've seen a lot of it up-close... people who love
humanity, preach social justice, and are just plain mean to the people
around them.

Honestly, in their real lives, the sweetest and most thoughtful people
I know are religious, and the worst pricks are atheistic socialists.

John


I'm a right wing atheist... am I mean to anyone besides ignorant
liberals ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Obama, Questioned about the Presidency, it's "above my pay grade"

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Peace will come when it’s gone

Peace is the theoretical interval between wars. I don't think there's
been any time since modern man took up the stone axe, that there's
been world peace. Why we would be expected to change the bad habits
of millions of years, is subject to debate.

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming “Imagine No Religion.” For most folks, that’s hard to do.

Does that mean I have to give up worshiping the almighty dollar?

But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers.

Bah. The easiest road to world peace is to let the warring factions
kill each other off. Given sufficient time and armament, the war
mongers will mutually exterminate each other, leaving only us peace
loving Americans to sift through the mess for spoils.

Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Replace cathedrals with government buildings, replace church campuses
with federal park lands, and replace missionaries with politicians.
Yeah, that might work.

Where would one go to feel guilty?

Psychiatrists deal with this problem on a professional level. If
you're Jewish, guilt is institutionalized. You're expected to feel
perpetually guilty making this a non-problem.

Who would be around to oppose
science and reason?

Plenty of tax payers oppose government funded monster research
projects for no better reason than they can't afford it. Lack of
funding is sufficient reason to oppose science, reason, progress,
research, studies, and exploration. Recovering from the costs of the
previous breakthrough is good reason to delay work on the next big
thing. While it's difficult to stop progress, a little slow down
might even be welcome.

Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda?

Currently the Democrats are supported by illegal aliens and deceased
voters, while the Republicans favor ballot box stuffing and creative
enforcement of existing voting laws. I would say it's about even at
this point. The neighboring county an election several years ago
where such nonsense on the part of both parties results in a total
vote count that was somewhat greater than the number of registered
voters. Everyone pretended not to notice and the election was settled
by what I suspect was a coin toss.

I recall that John F. Kennedy had problems because he was a Catholic
and some people thought he would be influenced by the pope.

Locally, we have a weird problem. The only people interested in
staffing local volunteer civic positions are the religious right.
Perhaps with more religion, we can get more grass roots participation
in local government?

Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

Well, he has nothing to lose. Dropping other peoples involvement in
religion doesn't affect someone with none to start with.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN
SCOTTSDALE


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

Actually it's usually about LAND. None of the above.

Whether it's about land, gold, or tea, people form up teams to fight
over stuff. The things I listed are some ways the teams separate and
organize. There's no doubt that genetic similarity concentrates mutual
interest and, lacking DNA testing, language and color and religion are
useful surrogates.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

NOT my experience at all. SOME are very nice, some are the most evil
people on earth IMHO. The Catholic Church for example is uniquely heavily
responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS any many other STDs.

If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS. Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at least
a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their drug
resistance.

Are you suggesting sex/drugs and rock-and-roll are responsible ?

Even the Romans had full blown group sex (orgies). Non-monogamous sex and sex
for fun within or without marriage is widespread the world over.

Funnily enough dolphins mate for fun too. As do certain apes and various other
species.

Graham

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

Actually it's usually about LAND. None of the above.

Whether it's about land, gold, or tea, people form up teams to fight
over stuff. The things I listed are some ways the teams separate and
organize. There's no doubt that genetic similarity concentrates mutual
interest and, lacking DNA testing, language and color and religion are
useful surrogates.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

NOT my experience at all. SOME are very nice, some are the most evil
people on earth IMHO. The Catholic Church for example is uniquely heavily
responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS any many other STDs.

If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS. Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at least
a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their drug
resistance.

Are you suggesting sex/drugs and rock-and-roll are responsible ?

Even the Romans had full blown group sex (orgies). Non-monogamous sex and sex
for fun within or without marriage is widespread the world over.

Funnily enough dolphins mate for fun too. As do certain apes and various other
species.

Graham

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:54:41 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:33:55 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

[snip]

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

John


My experience has been just the opposite. "Believers" want to
"change" you over to their "flavor".

I'm considering putting a sign out front, "Proselytizers will be fed
to the dogs" ;-)

...Jim Thompson


Most of the people who knock on my door don't want to save my soul,
they just want money.

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:27:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when its gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming €œImagine No Religion.€� For most folks, thats hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE

===

EV Tribune, Letter-to-the-editor, this morning, Sept 20

===

...Jim Thompson

Among a slew of other fallacies that's akin to saying there'd be peace
if mankind were rabbits instead of homo sapiens.

Might be but they aren't.

Tweaking your chime a wee bit... can't you admit that religion has
been the cause of most wars and most ills of the world ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 03:16:16 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

Actually it's usually about LAND. None of the above.

Whether it's about land, gold, or tea, people form up teams to fight
over stuff. The things I listed are some ways the teams separate and
organize. There's no doubt that genetic similarity concentrates mutual
interest and, lacking DNA testing, language and color and religion are
useful surrogates.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

NOT my experience at all. SOME are very nice, some are the most evil
people on earth IMHO. The Catholic Church for example is uniquely heavily
responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS any many other STDs.

If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS. Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at least
a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their drug
resistance.

Are you suggesting sex/drugs and rock-and-roll are responsible ?

I am suggesting that the more sexual partners you have, the likelier
you will be to contract an STD. Is that a radical theory?


Even the Romans had full blown group sex (orgies). Non-monogamous sex and sex
for fun within or without marriage is widespread the world over.

The Romans weren't yet exposed to syphylus, AIDS, or any number of
nasty drug-resistant critters. And they mostly died young anyhow. I'm
sure many died from complications of bladder infections, which can be
very nasty without modern treatment.


Funnily enough dolphins mate for fun too. As do certain apes and various other
species.

Humans have radically changed their social behavior in the last few
thousand years; dolphins and chimps haven't. AIDS is killing a lot of
people, but not many dolphins or apes, as far as I can tell.

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:38:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:27:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when it’s gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming “Imagine No Religion.” For most folks, that’s hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE

===

EV Tribune, Letter-to-the-editor, this morning, Sept 20

===

...Jim Thompson

Among a slew of other fallacies that's akin to saying there'd be peace
if mankind were rabbits instead of homo sapiens.

Might be but they aren't.

Tweaking your chime a wee bit... can't you admit that religion has
been the cause of most wars and most ills of the world ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

No and no.

John

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

Actually it's usually about LAND. None of the above.

Whether it's about land, gold, or tea, people form up teams to fight
over stuff. The things I listed are some ways the teams separate and
organize. There's no doubt that genetic similarity concentrates mutual
interest and, lacking DNA testing, language and color and religion are
useful surrogates.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

NOT my experience at all. SOME are very nice, some are the most evil
people on earth IMHO. The Catholic Church for example is uniquely heavily
responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS any many other STDs.

If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS. Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at least
a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their drug
resistance.

Are you suggesting sex/drugs and rock-and-roll are responsible ?

I am suggesting that the more sexual partners you have, the likelier
you will be to contract an STD. Is that a radical theory?

Providing you take the sensible precautions which the Catholic Church forbids, that
need not be the case at all.


Even the Romans had full blown group sex (orgies). Non-monogamous sex and sex
for fun within or without marriage is widespread the world over.

The Romans weren't yet exposed to syphylus,

Sure ?


AIDS, or any number of
nasty drug-resistant critters. And they mostly died young anyhow. I'm
sure many died from complications of bladder infections, which can be
very nasty without modern treatment.

Funnily enough dolphins mate for fun too. As do certain apes and various other
species.

Humans have radically changed their social behavior in the last few
thousand years; dolphins and chimps haven't. AIDS is killing a lot of
people, but not many dolphins or apes, as far as I can tell.

Different species dolphins, but there is an ape form of AIDS AIUI.

Are you suggesting abstention for kids ? I can tell you, it won't happen. Those who
pledged they would abstain in the USA actually showed a higher rate of STDs since
they weren't suitably prepared.

Graham

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:27:14 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

Actually it's usually about LAND. None of the above.

Whether it's about land, gold, or tea, people form up teams to fight
over stuff. The things I listed are some ways the teams separate and
organize. There's no doubt that genetic similarity concentrates mutual
interest and, lacking DNA testing, language and color and religion are
useful surrogates.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

NOT my experience at all. SOME are very nice, some are the most evil
people on earth IMHO. The Catholic Church for example is uniquely heavily
responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS any many other STDs.

If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS. Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at least
a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their drug
resistance.

Are you suggesting sex/drugs and rock-and-roll are responsible ?

I am suggesting that the more sexual partners you have, the likelier
you will be to contract an STD. Is that a radical theory?

Providing you take the sensible precautions which the Catholic Church forbids, that
need not be the case at all.

Given the AIDS rates in some countries, non-Catholic countries
incidentally, those precautions aren't working.




Even the Romans had full blown group sex (orgies). Non-monogamous sex and sex
for fun within or without marriage is widespread the world over.

The Romans weren't yet exposed to syphylus,

Sure ?

It wasn't a big deal in Europe until the 14th century. Read The
Canterbury Tales or The Decameron. There were lots of jolly monks and
wayward maids until The Pox got going strong, after which the church
got serious about morality.




AIDS, or any number of
nasty drug-resistant critters. And they mostly died young anyhow. I'm
sure many died from complications of bladder infections, which can be
very nasty without modern treatment.

Funnily enough dolphins mate for fun too. As do certain apes and various other
species.

Humans have radically changed their social behavior in the last few
thousand years; dolphins and chimps haven't. AIDS is killing a lot of
people, but not many dolphins or apes, as far as I can tell.

Different species dolphins, but there is an ape form of AIDS AIUI.

It doesn't seem to kill them often; they have partially adapted to it.
Chimps are wildly promiscuous and seem to be OK.


Are you suggesting abstention for kids ? I can tell you, it won't happen. Those who
pledged they would abstain in the USA actually showed a higher rate of STDs since
they weren't suitably prepared.

I'm suggesting that the fewer sexual partners you have, the safer
you'll be. "Protection" is often skipped, in favor of pills by people
who can afford them, in favor of nothing by those who can't.

Viruses and bacteria have their own agenda.

John

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:27:14 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

Actually it's usually about LAND. None of the above.

Whether it's about land, gold, or tea, people form up teams to fight
over stuff. The things I listed are some ways the teams separate and
organize. There's no doubt that genetic similarity concentrates mutual
interest and, lacking DNA testing, language and color and religion are
useful surrogates.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

NOT my experience at all. SOME are very nice, some are the most evil
people on earth IMHO. The Catholic Church for example is uniquely heavily
responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS any many other STDs.

If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS. Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at least
a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their drug
resistance.

Are you suggesting sex/drugs and rock-and-roll are responsible ?

I am suggesting that the more sexual partners you have, the likelier
you will be to contract an STD. Is that a radical theory?

Providing you take the sensible precautions which the Catholic Church forbids, that
need not be the case at all.

Given the AIDS rates in some countries, non-Catholic countries
incidentally, those precautions aren't working.




Even the Romans had full blown group sex (orgies). Non-monogamous sex and sex
for fun within or without marriage is widespread the world over.

The Romans weren't yet exposed to syphylus,

Sure ?

It wasn't a big deal in Europe until the 14th century. Read The
Canterbury Tales or The Decameron. There were lots of jolly monks and
wayward maids until The Pox got going strong, after which the church
got serious about morality.




AIDS, or any number of
nasty drug-resistant critters. And they mostly died young anyhow. I'm
sure many died from complications of bladder infections, which can be
very nasty without modern treatment.

Funnily enough dolphins mate for fun too. As do certain apes and various other
species.

Humans have radically changed their social behavior in the last few
thousand years; dolphins and chimps haven't. AIDS is killing a lot of
people, but not many dolphins or apes, as far as I can tell.

Different species dolphins, but there is an ape form of AIDS AIUI.

It doesn't seem to kill them often; they have partially adapted to it.
Chimps are wildly promiscuous and seem to be OK.


Are you suggesting abstention for kids ? I can tell you, it won't happen. Those who
pledged they would abstain in the USA actually showed a higher rate of STDs since
they weren't suitably prepared.

I'm suggesting that the fewer sexual partners you have, the safer
you'll be. "Protection" is often skipped, in favor of pills by people
who can afford them, in favor of nothing by those who can't.

Viruses and bacteria have their own agenda.

John

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:27:14 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

Actually it's usually about LAND. None of the above.

Whether it's about land, gold, or tea, people form up teams to fight
over stuff. The things I listed are some ways the teams separate and
organize. There's no doubt that genetic similarity concentrates mutual
interest and, lacking DNA testing, language and color and religion are
useful surrogates.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

NOT my experience at all. SOME are very nice, some are the most evil
people on earth IMHO. The Catholic Church for example is uniquely heavily
responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS any many other STDs.

If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS. Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at least
a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their drug
resistance.

Are you suggesting sex/drugs and rock-and-roll are responsible ?

I am suggesting that the more sexual partners you have, the likelier
you will be to contract an STD. Is that a radical theory?

Providing you take the sensible precautions which the Catholic Church forbids, that
need not be the case at all.




Sensible precautions?

http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticuk.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/92015.php

http://www.realtruth.org/news/030315-006.html

John

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when it’s gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming “Imagine No Religion.” For most folks, that’s hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE



Overall, religion has done more good than harm. And since it's
probably wired into most humans, it's probably impossible to
eliminate.

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

John


Err..what about the so-called "holy" wars waged by various religions?

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when it’s gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming “Imagine No Religion.” For most folks, that’s hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE


Overall, religion has done more good than harm. And since it's
probably wired into most humans, it's probably impossible to
eliminate.

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

John




Do you just mean believers in Biblically-based religions, or does that apply
to any spiritual belief system?

Just curious.

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:31:03 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

Actually it's usually about LAND. None of the above.


Whether it's about land, gold, or tea, people form up teams to fight
over stuff. The things I listed are some ways the teams separate and
organize. There's no doubt that genetic similarity concentrates mutual
interest and, lacking DNA testing, language and color and religion are
useful surrogates.




In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

NOT my experience at all. SOME are very nice, some are the most evil
people on earth IMHO. The Catholic Church for example is uniquely heavily
responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS any many other STDs.

If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS. Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

That's a well-known and long-held idea.

Look at the Old Testament food laws. Pork - trichinosis. Shellfish - food
poisoning (cholera and salmonella, for example). Blood - parasites that
might not migrate into the muscle/meat.

It's often suggested that the O.T. laws against male-male sex (IIRC no
mention made of female-female relations) is that, given the scarcity of
water and the fact that there was no soap or so on, having anal sex is a
real good way to get a raging urethral infection from a variety of enteric
bacteria that, in the absence of antibiotics, could very easily spread to
the bladder and kidneys; not exactly trivial. And if the guy with the
infection does go and have sex with a woman, the infection can be given to
her - uterine/fallopian infections are a common cause of sterility. And
back when ther were very, very few people, having kids was vital.

And it's got nothign to do wiht the fact that they disn't know what
bacteria, parasites, or other microorganisms were - they weren't stupid,
they had eyes and could make observations. So if several people ate
shelfish, an dgot what today we'd recognize as cholera, they put 2 an d2
together, and made a rule that "shellfish are dangerous to eat", and this
bacame a law, and then a religious tenet.

Same for monogamous sex, and strictures against sex with animals - IIRC,
evidence suggests that syphilis originated with sheep, but check to be
sure. And just think about all the Valtrex commercial on TV...


Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at least
a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their drug
resistance.

John


THat's it.

I'm not one of the "sex is a sin" crowd. But any sort of intimate physical
contact simply does carry with it the risk of infection.