Writers And Their Religion

[Andy]

This is something I've been wrestling with the past couple of days now. And I think it's because of all the controversy being raised with that Golden Compass movie.

So, do you think it's okay for writers to promote ideas and such in their writing that conflict with their religion? Do you think there's a point where this should be acceptable, or one where it should not be allowed?

[Nyx]

Actually the Amber spyglass is one of the books that involved religion that completely ruined everything for me. I am a big fan of Philip Pullman's and I was in awe at how he simply ruined all three books by bringing religion in the Amber Spyglass. So should religion be used in books? Sure, they are some books that completely benefit from this. But there should be a line, for example when an author bashes a religion completely then they are ruining their work of art.

[Rafael Domination]

Well...concerning writing...there really isn't anyone on the planet who can tell a writer what to do. They can create and destroy as many characters and universes as they want, and perform acts that defy all laws of physics with but a thought.

But, if they decide to share their views with the public, they really can't complain about things if another writer decided to critisize their work. Sure, it's what they beleive in, but the other writer believes in things too, and so, must have the freedom to express what they want the same as the writer who created the controversial work.

In short, go ahead and make whatever you want. But be prepared, and don't complain if someone else critsizes it. You have all the right to write. They have all the right to judge it.

[Andy]

I picked up the first book years ago, but put it down because I got bored. :rolleyes: Now I feel like I'm really missing out on what everyone's saying about it....To the library!

[Nyx]

You got bored?:O The Golden Compass (Northern Lights) and The subtle Knife are one of my favorite books!

[Rafael Domination]

The first two were fine...the third one kinda made me roll my eyes and say "Back to Alex Rider now..."

[Nyx]

Yea, I didn't bother finishing the last one. It was basically crushing religion and bashing it. I slammed the book down, and cursed Philip Pullman for ruining my favorite series of his.:blush:

[Rafael Domination]

Ah...religion crushing...reminds me of the Da Vinci code. Matter of fact is, both books made me question my own religion, but ended up making me stronger in it!

[Nyx]

Really? I guess the Amber Spyglass pissed me off too much for me to keep reading. It seemed like a lot o' bashing and little of explaining.

[Rafael Domination]

I know! :D

Shameless use of angels, too!

[Nyx]

I know, it was so...cruel!

[Rafael Domination]

At least they didn't treat God the way that Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie did...I heard my friends talking about it, and that was just a waste of film...

[Shaun]

There are heavy religious undertones in all three books of His Dark Materials, Nyx. If you didn't notice it until Amber Spyglass then you weren't paying very good attention. The opening of the first book, especially, has heavy implications on the nature of religion in the 17th through early 20th century Europe and America. It's an entire commentary on religion, which lends it some brownie points from me. I too put down the first book though. My reasons were I lost interest when Pullman ruined the integrity of Lyra (spelling?) when her best friend is kidnapped and about 10 pages later she's not even concerned about him anymore. Sorry...no. I have no interest in the character any more at that point. I didn't forget about my friend AJ when he went off to Iraq. Why? Because he's my friend and I was worried about him. Integrity...it's important.

As for the subject of this debate:
The day we censor literature from addressing the issues that are of the most importance in society is the day we destroy the value of literature entirely. The fact of the matter is that literature has and will be used to push against the confines of society. Some of the first banned books were books that challenge governments and religious ideologies. Plenty of Russian authors were either imprisoned or evicted from their homelands because of their opinions. Yevgeny Zamyatin, for example (the man who influenced George Orwell to write 1984), was banned in Russia because his book "We" directly criticized the Russian government and how it functioned (forcing a certain religious perspective on its people, oppressing the poor under an overly dictatorial communist regime, and threatening the stability of all Slavic nations under crippling militaristic rule).
If we want literature to continue to have value then we have to accept that it is going to test these boundaries. Religion should be criticized. Why? Because religion isn't always right. In fact, half the time it's dead wrong. Religious people used God as a valid reason for enslaving minority races and for oppressing them and preventing them from having what we White folk thought we were entitled to. Was that right? No, of course not. Religion has been used as a means for validating genocide, war, locale induced famine, and discrimination in almost every form, among other things. Literature criticizes these ideals because they are ideals worth criticizing. When Religion actually gets it all right will be the day that literature has nothing to say. That will never happen because nobody is united in the religious community. They're all over the place.
So, literature, when applicable, should very well have religion within it. If it has a purpose to exist within a novel, then the author should feel no reservations about addressing religion.

[jordanisonfire]

Well, my books are called the Divine Crusade Legendarium, so you can tell there's a lot of religion in there. No existing religious stuff, though, and definitely stuff I don't believe. I use the name Druids for the people who worship the God called Life (in my story), but scarcely use any of their real beliefs. They worship nature, but that's just about it. I do briefly touch on something that is believed by regular humans in my story that is similar to Christianity, but involves nothing similar to what happened in the Bible. It isn't explained in-depth, only by people at say churches or saying blasphemies like "My God" and such.

[Nyx]

There are heavy religious undertones in all three books of His Dark Materials, Nyx. If you didn't notice it until Amber Spyglass then you weren't paying very good attention.

-cough- what? -cough

I was paying attention and I did notice the religious hints in the first 2 books but I didn't mind that. It was fine and it didn't get in the way of the story, it added to it. But in the Amber Spyglass, it all turned one direction: Religion. And it wasn't undertones anymore, it was straight out and clear. And that is when I put the book down...

[Shaun]

Again, Nyx, you weren't paying attention :P. The whole series revolved around religious tension and oppression :P

A note on religions is that they are inherently derivative of one another, sort of like fantasy tends to be (although many times this is unintentional). The story of Jesus, by the way, is not an original story to Christianity. The same concept of the virgin birth leading to a messiah-type figure has been around before Christianity existed. This lends a lot of ammo for religious critics to tear down the foundations of Christianity. Christians have a history of altering their religion by eradicating and destroying other religions. Take Paganism, for example, who were systematically persecuted and executed for their beliefs. Christmas is actually a Pagan holiday, but few people today even realize that. This was part of the Christian Church's attempt to stamp out Paganism entirely, and, well, it almost worked. Pagans barely exist as a religion today, just the same as there is little left of the Native Americans, who were also equally treated with derision and subjected to the same cast of religious hypocrisy and violence a the Pagans, only perhaps to a larger extent as Native Americans were almost made extinct, whereas there is no 'race' that makes up the Paganists.
This is another reason why religion has to be presented in a critical way within literature. Few people actually pay attention to this stuff, but they do pay attention to literature. More people have read fiction than a history book.

[Nyx]

I think you're not paying attention to how I word my response.
There's religion in all three books but there's other things to look to, if you don't want to think of it as being about religion, you can. You can read the first two books without saying that they did more than merely hint at religion because that idea isn't so clear and out there as it is in the third book. It is there and obviously Phillip Pullman meant for it to be about religion, but no one can say how a book should be read and interpertated as that is the reader's choice. So someone could read the first two books and say that it is hinting religion but it isn't all that it's about (even though some may think it is), but there's no way one can read the Amber Spyglass and say that it doesn't revolve around religion. Because there's nothing else for it to be about.

[Shaun]

Well, actually, there is a limit to how many interpretations can be made about a book. Literature is not infinite in its interpretations. Not all interpretations are inherently correct, just as not all are inherently wrong simply because they differentiate from what everyone else thinks.
That being said, you may very well have taken it as a book that dealt with religion in a mildly indirect way and were thrown off when Amber Spyglass went in a more direct way. Regardless, the religion was there and from the start religion was being criticized, and that can't be avoided. The undertones were there from the start, the entire opening scene of the first book was a commentary on religious ideologies, and the series is forever entwined in religion.
You simply interpreted it differently and took the religious undertones in a different manner. The question is why did the third book really ruin it for you if its take on religion was valid criticism in literary form?

[Nyx]

Why did it ruin the series for me? Hm..well, for one thing it is not something that I would've read if I'd knew where it was going. I read that series because it grabbed my attention with the fantasy stuff but I didn't reject it because of the religion undertones. I would've however not read any of the books if I knew it'd end in such a clear point revolving around religion. Why? Although books that are revolving around religion are of course completely fine, they're not the kind of books I like to read, atleast not for light reading anyhow. The Golden Compass and The Subtle Knife were enjoyable light reading for me (as I was only in gr. 5 when I read them), The Amber Spyglass was too much for me. I slammed it shut and I was disappointed that I didn't get to enjoy another book like The Golden Compass and The Subtle Knife.

[Shaun]

Well especially at grade 5. Maybe reread it when you're older, you might have a better perspective on it. It's hard for kids to deal with challenging ideologies in literature as a rule. Hence why school libraries don't stock a good supply of controversial literature.

[Nyx]

That's true (the library comment), our school library consists of books like: Timothy and his amazing adventures!:rolleyes:

[Imelda]

I think the day writers aren't allowed to bash religion is the day I quit writing. We should be allowed to bash whatever we want. If you don't like it, don't read it.

[Nyx]

I agree, no one can tell writers what they can or can't write. Even though books which bash religion aren't books that I enjoy reading, they are others who do enjoy them.

[Rafael Domination]

I agree no one can tell writers what they should and shouldn't write...but just because we can't, it doesn't mean we should. Lies can be fabricated. Mindless crap can be invented. Events can be exaggerated beyong the truth. Writers have power in this world. We should use it wisely (...oooh, where is the Spiderman music?) We should set the limits ourselves.

And besides, we can write freely, but non-writers and other writers also have the freedom of speech, and they also cannot be told what and what not to say.

[jordanisonfire]

This is like the thing in the news where the school teacher got jailed for naming a teddy bear Muhammad. If it weren't so serious, it'd be comical.

[Rafael Domination]

Are you serious? :D

Now that, is just plain cuckoo...

[jordanisonfire]

I think it's like you can't call any objects except living things Muhammad because it's against the Islamic faith to make false idols of him. Something like that...

[Nyx]

Wow! are you serious? They jailed her for that? Hides Muhammad *sigh* I have a stuffy piggy named Muhammad:blush:

[Shaun]

Wait, so if I named my shoe Muhammed, even if I wasn't talking about the prophet, it would still be considered blasphemy?

That's just idiotic. That's an invalid use of the "freedom of religion" rule, which unfortunately England has a problem with I think. The U.S. is getting like that too and it's disgusting. I'm sorry, Freedom of Speech comes first. If I want to name my teddy bear Muhammed, I will, and the second any religious person comes after me for religious reasons I will sue them for infringing on my rights. And if they win, I will file a case with the Supreme Court, and you can guarantee I will win that...and it won't look good for religious folks. Keep your damned religion out of people's personal lives if they don't want it there...:glare:

[Rafael Domination]

Wait, so if I named my shoe Muhammed, even if I wasn't talking about the prophet, it would still be considered blasphemy?

That's just plain stupid. I mean, its just a shoe, and in that woman's case, its a teddy bear. But, I'm just wondering, how did those people win against her?

[Shaun]

Because people and governments constantly allow religions to cloud judgment because of fear. They don't want to make the religious folks mad so they take their case with seriousness, rather than ignoring the case as they should...this is a tremendously stupid policy in the world. Religion should be separate from politics at all times and I should have every right to express myself and not have to follow the rules of a religion if I don't want to.

[Imelda]

She wasn't in England, she's in a Middle Eastern country, she just happens to be English. She got off with 15 days in prison, but now there are protests against her sentence and they want her to be executed. Sharia (sp?) law and all that. Which they want to be implemented in England ...

[Shaun]

Quite honestly that is one of the reasons I absolutely despise organized religion. Total B.S. England needs to step in and bring her back to England and flip the proverbial middle-finger at the idiots who are calling for her execution.
But, that's me, and I'm rather disgusted by religions using such extreme measures over stuff that really doesn't matter. And for them to assume such laws should be allowed in England is ridiculous. And people wonder why Western Society has problems with the Middle East...

[Imelda]

The best thing is that is wasn't really her who called the bear Muhammad. It was some kid in her class who nominated his own name for the bear's name, and that got picked. So the Muslim child who should know that stuff kinda did it ...

Oh and there's no way we'll step in. We have too many Islamic people to offend here. :rolleyes:

[jordanisonfire]

What does Gordon Brown care if an English woman thousands of miles away from him gets jailed because of a stupid reason like that, which he could pull her out of in five seconds? He has MUCH more important stuff to do. His cheese sandwich for lunch isn't going to eat itself...

[Shaun]

Adding more idiocy to the pie Imelda...great.

Now we can all see why the Western world has such a hard time fostering peaceful relations with the Middle East right? I'd love to think we could be at peace...but with that sort of thinking I can't imagine it ever being possible. The scary part is that this sort of ignorant, biased, religiously clouded insult to human decency is what will end up destroying the Middle East entirely. I don't think they realize that the one thing that will be their ending as a union of the entire Western world against them. Terrorism, violence, and ignorant thinking is going to do that. The one thing the Western world hasn't asked for the is the destruction of all Middle Eastern countries...the one thing terrorists have asked for is the destruction of all infidels (which includes practically all countries that are predominantly white and Christian/Catholic), and Middle Eastern countries, generally, are doing little to stop this sort of thinking. All it's doing is hurting relations with the rest of the world...

[Nyx]

Shaun, are you saying that all Middle Eastern people think like that?!

[Hypocrit]

Sorry I just walked in but

The one thing the Western world hasn't asked for the is the destruction of all Middle Eastern countries...the one thing terrorists have asked for is the destruction of all infidels (which includes practically all countries that are predominantly white and Christian/Catholic), and Middle Eastern countries, generally, are doing little to stop this sort of thinking. All it's doing is hurting relations with the rest of the world...

Would you like to rethink that argument?

We have, as of THIS MOMENT, over 50 airbases and military hubs scattered throughout the middle east NOT including Iraq or Afghanistan, one of which is one the Muslim holy land.

We don't preach, we do. We don't need the populace to hate them, we don't need the populace to even have an opinion on them. Why? The fight isn't on our turf.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Middle Eastern and American politics and ways of domination are very different.

But, as I said, I just walked in.

[Rafael Domination]

We have, as of THIS MOMENT, over 50 airbases and military hubs scattered throughout the middle east NOT including Iraq or Afghanistan, one of which is one the Muslim holy land.


And I suppose we've nuked them about as much times as they've sent their puppets blowing up into useless little pieces at our soldiers? :)

Face it. If the West decided to strike back with full force, we'd reduce all those screaming fanatics into radioactive atoms. A few stragling bases in their lands mean nothing compared to what we're really capable of, so let's relax a little about that. We haven't cowardly crashed any jets into their buildings yet, so I guess we may have flicked them on the ear a few times, but they'v punched us on dozens of occasions. We've hurt each other, yes, but they want to kill us.

They're actually pretty lucky we don't give them a taste of their own doctrine. Kill the infidels. Death to the West. Please.


Quite honestly that is one of the reasons I absolutely despise organized religion.


Erm...I'm assuming you're only talking about the extreme, blood-letting religions right?

[Nyx]

Erm...I'm assuming you're only talking about the extreme, blood-letting religions right?

*cough* excuse me? *cough*

It's wrong to call any religion blood-letting because of how some people follow it.

[Rafael Domination]

I'm not accusing anyone. I'm just trying to clear up whether Shaun despises all religions, even the ones that strive of peace, calm, etc...

[Nyx]

I'm not accusing anyone. I'm just trying to clear up whether Shaun despises all religions, even the ones that strive of peace, calm, etc...

I don't actually know of any religion that doesn't strive for peace,calm,etc.

[Rafael Domination]

Erm...yeah. It's just some of their followers that twist the message of peace for their own crooked plans.

[Nyx]

Erm...yeah. It's just some of their followers that twist the message of peace for their own crooked plans.

:DExactly what I meant. Few religions are blood-letting, it's the way they are followed that changed what they truely are meant to be.

[Rafael Domination]

Glad we agree on that...

[Shaun]

Actually, all religions are covered in blood, no matter where you look. It's unavoidable. Every single major religion that I know of has been the cause of bad policy, violence, hatred, discrimination, bigotry, and war. The root of all evil, in a lot of ways, is organized religion. Yes, there are nice people in those religions, but they are outweighed by the people who have the power, who make it clear that they could give a flying crap about any of us at all. These are the people that make policies that defy logic, call for Holy wars, use religion as a means to discriminate against someone else, use religion to exact revenge, etc. So, yes, I hate all organized religions. You can believe whatever you want, but I refuse to be the type of person that will stand idle while my rights are being trampled on by a religious zealot.

On the subject of the Middle East. Maybe if they stopped bombing us and causing so many god forsaken problems we wouldn't need a military presence there. If they were a) friendly, b) cooperative, and c) good allies, then we wouldn't have any reason to be concerned about them having nuclear or biological/chemical weaponry. The fact is that groups like Al Qaeda (and there are many) live in the Middle East, are often supported by Middle Eastern governments, and such organizations have no intention of ever fostering peaceful relations with the U.S. I would love to think that we could easily walk away from our presence in the Middle East, but so long as there are loads of people there willing to fly planes into our buildings, bomb innocent Iraqi citizens who want nothing more than to go to school, get a job, and live a decent life, and do all the other horrible things that such people do, we'll never leave the Middle East and we'll continue to wage war.
You want to know the easiest way for the Middle East to get rid of the U.S. in the Middle East? Start programs that root out and destroy terrorist groups, make a liberal effort to destroy such groups, and become trade allies with the U.S. They have something we want, and we have plenty of things they want. Cooperation benefits everyone, and with the Middle East being remarkably business savvy it wouldn't be like the U.S. ripping off the Native Americans for Long Island. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but I accept that leaving is not an option at this point. Most of the people being killed over there right now are innocents, people who have done nothing more than tried to live their lives in a war torn country. If that isn't a clear picture of the kind of disgusting people we're fighting against then I don't know what is. They're intentionally making things worse for the Iraqis and doing everything necessary to keep us there. If they wanted us out they'd stop being so utterly idiotic and find something else to do.

Nyx: No, I have not and will not say that all Middle Eastern peoples are like the people I'm describing. I've known a few people from the Middle East and I haven't had a personal problem with any of them. They are, for the most part, very good people who are not all that different from everyone else, except in their religious beliefs. Most of them are not Jihad-screaming extremists. But, as I've learned time and time again, it doesn't take that many people to ruin everything for the majority.

[Rafael Domination]

Actually, all religions are covered in blood, no matter where you look. It's unavoidable. Every single major religion that I know of has been the cause of bad policy, violence, hatred, discrimination, bigotry, and war. The root of all evil, in a lot of ways, is organized religion. Yes, there are nice people in those religions, but they are outweighed by the people who have the power, who make it clear that they could give a flying crap about any of us at all. These are the people that make policies that defy logic, call for Holy wars, use religion as a means to discriminate against someone else, use religion to exact revenge, etc. So, yes, I hate all organized religions. You can believe whatever you want, but I refuse to be the type of person that will stand idle while my rights are being trampled on by a religious zealot.


The sins of the father should never be blamed on the son. Some religions may have misbehaved in the past, but that's no reason to keep associating some of the sects that have never done anything wrong with the rest of the idiots. It's like me calling you a rat because you have hair and maybe ate some grain products sometime ago. It's like calling an apple a pineapple just because they have the same name and they are both fruits. The root of all evil is not the religion, but the morons who twist it, it's message, and purpose for their own sick needs.

[Shaun]

The difference Raf...religions are making the same mistakes they have been making for thousands of years. Nothing has changed, just technology. So long as the majority of religious people continue to allow religion to be used to insight war, violence, discrimination, hatred, bigotry, etc. then religion will be the root of all evil.

[Imelda]

I have to agree with Shaun to a certain extent (ok, I didn't read his posts, but I know what he thins anyway :p). Most people are involved with religion for good purposes, but the organised-ness of major religions often distort that. All these religions put down violence etc, but then they say 'well actually, it's ok to do in *this* circumstance'. The exception is probably Buddhism, but I can't say I know too much about that.

A lot of the stuff did occur in the past, but it still has resonances in the present and it's a tough job fighting against the loud religious fanatics to get them to realise that their holy book was written by humans and is falliable, and that common sense and kindness are often worth more than religious doctrines. We're never going to get rid of prejudice against homosexuals if Christian nutcases continue to say they're evil and going to hell (note: that's different to saying you personally don't agree with it, and think it's kinda unnatural, but you're not going to attack anyone for it). We're never going to make women equal when fanatical Muslims are twisting the Qu'ran and saying it's the woman's fault if she gets raped because women are evil and men are blameless. Common sense should stop those thoughts being anything more than fleeting in the human mind, but instead they're being perpetuated. You can be religious and not an idiot, but if you are you should be loud about it and maybe give use agnostics and atheists some faith that religion isn't all about the fanaticism. :)

[Shaun]

Buddhism isn't a religion, by the way. It's an ideology. Just wanted to make that clear. If it were a religion I wouldn't have addressed all religions the way I did :P.

Religious people also need to come to a consensus that more often than not the very people they trust to maintain their religion and release copies of their religious books are the same people who make changes to suit ideological needs. The whole 'homosexuals are bad' part in the Bible was never there in the first place and was simply and addition that was manipulated through the King James Version of the Bible. But nobody will actually take the time, as I have and as many others have, to look into their history to realize this. Religion is just like politics. (By the way, it is morally reprehensible that homosexuals cannot get married because of religious reasons because marriage is not a religious concept and never has been. I can get married in a church by a priest, or in a court by a judge, the latter of which requires no presence of religion. Explain to me why homosexuals cannot have this second option...with logic.)
The problem with good religious folks is that they are good because they keep quiet about their religion. They say "I believe in God", but they don't try to shove it down everyone's throats, go out and have rallies or try to convert people every chance they get. They don't make ridiculous policies based on religious ideals that discriminate against other people. But, because they are quiet they are unlikely to be loud mouthed about their moral beliefs...I imagine if they stood up they would outnumber the bad religious folks, but they don't stand up...calling them to action is difficult.

[Rafael Domination]

The difference Raf...religions are making the same mistakes they have been making for thousands of years. Nothing has changed, just technology. So long as the majority of religious people continue to allow religion to be used to insight war, violence, discrimination, hatred, bigotry, etc. then religion will be the root of all evil.

I still think 'root' is still to blatant and mindless of an accusation. It isn't fair to me to be associated with those who use religion as a mask to hide their hypocritical lusts, and I think it shouldn't be done. There are religions out there that have never followed the path of force and violence. If they are covered in blood, it belongs to them, having been beaten and persecuted for their beleifs.


The problem with good religious folks is that they are good because they keep quiet about their religion. They say "I believe in God", but they don't try to shove it down everyone's throats, go out and have rallies or try to convert people every chance they get.

Actually, while shoving stuff down people's throats is imbecilic, there's nothing illegal or wrong about a religion trying to convince people about something if that thing does not harm anyone and would only result in a visible benefit. There's a difference between being obnoxious about one's religion, and merely confident and open about it.

[Shaun]

I still think 'root' is still to blatant and mindless of an accusation. It isn't fair to me to be associated with those who use religion as a mask to hide their hypocritical lusts, and I think it shouldn't be done. There are religions out there that have never followed the path of force and violence. If they are covered in blood, it belongs to them, having been beaten and persecuted for their beleifs.

Name one religion that does not have a violent past or a violent present.
It might seem unfair to you to be associated with the terrible aspects of religion, but it also is extremely unfair to all those people that were murdered or turned into slaves or massacred when they never did anything to the church in the first place. Christianity is, by default, hypocritical in that respect. They preach love for their fellow man, but elect politicians who refuse to create a viable healthcare system, pass laws that violate our rights, and ignore the fact that there are hundreds of problems in this country that desperately need to be addressed while filling their pockets full of donated money by church goers and other places. They preach love while they vote for measures that discriminate against other people simply because they are different, in turn causing emotional harm to people that haven't done anything wrong other than be who they were born to be. So long as you are a religious person you are associated with the past of your religion, especially if you and people like you don't do anything to stop it. I don't see anyone trying to stop neo-conservative Christians from destroying the foundations of this country...true Christians would already be condemning such people for their vulgar actions.


Actually, while shoving stuff down people's throats is imbecilic, there's nothing illegal or wrong about a religion trying to convince people about something if that thing does not harm anyone and would only result in a visible benefit. There's a difference between being obnoxious about one's religion, and merely confident and open about it.

There is plenty illegal with brainwashing and plenty wrong with cramming religion down people's throats. Too many children are forced into religion and never given the opportunity to figure out why they have to believe it. Sorry, that's wrong and disgusting. If you want to believe in God, it should be because you actually believe in God, not because someone told you you had to and you just went along with it. The second you allow religion to be taught in classrooms is the moment when logic and reason go right out the door. Any children I may have will be exposed to religion when they want to be, not because I want them to be religious or not. If they want to go to church, they can, but I will never force them to believe in God, or to believe that God doesn't exist. I leave that decision to them. It's morally reprehensible to force beliefs on someone else and just as bad to condemn someone to hell for not believing, something which many religious people do.

[Hypocrit]

Actually, all religions are covered in blood, no matter where you look. It's unavoidable. Every single major religion that I know of has been the cause of bad policy, violence, hatred, discrimination, bigotry, and war. The root of all evil, in a lot of ways, is organized religion. Yes, there are nice people in those religions, but they are outweighed by the people who have the power, who make it clear that they could give a flying crap about any of us at all. These are the people that make policies that defy logic, call for Holy wars, use religion as a means to discriminate against someone else, use religion to exact revenge, etc. So, yes, I hate all organized religions. You can believe whatever you want, but I refuse to be the type of person that will stand idle while my rights are being trampled on by a religious zealot.

On the subject of the Middle East. Maybe if they stopped bombing us and causing so many god forsaken problems we wouldn't need a military presence there. If they were a) friendly, b) cooperative, and c) good allies, then we wouldn't have any reason to be concerned about them having nuclear or biological/chemical weaponry. The fact is that groups like Al Qaeda (and there are many) live in the Middle East, are often supported by Middle Eastern governments, and such organizations have no intention of ever fostering peaceful relations with the U.S. I would love to think that we could easily walk away from our presence in the Middle East, but so long as there are loads of people there willing to fly planes into our buildings, bomb innocent Iraqi citizens who want nothing more than to go to school, get a job, and live a decent life, and do all the other horrible things that such people do, we'll never leave the Middle East and we'll continue to wage war.
You want to know the easiest way for the Middle East to get rid of the U.S. in the Middle East? Start programs that root out and destroy terrorist groups, make a liberal effort to destroy such groups, and become trade allies with the U.S. They have something we want, and we have plenty of things they want. Cooperation benefits everyone, and with the Middle East being remarkably business savvy it wouldn't be like the U.S. ripping off the Native Americans for Long Island. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but I accept that leaving is not an option at this point. Most of the people being killed over there right now are innocents, people who have done nothing more than tried to live their lives in a war torn country. If that isn't a clear picture of the kind of disgusting people we're fighting against then I don't know what is. They're intentionally making things worse for the Iraqis and doing everything necessary to keep us there. If they wanted us out they'd stop being so utterly idiotic and find something else to do.

Nyx: No, I have not and will not say that all Middle Eastern peoples are like the people I'm describing. I've known a few people from the Middle East and I haven't had a personal problem with any of them. They are, for the most part, very good people who are not all that different from everyone else, except in their religious beliefs. Most of them are not Jihad-screaming extremists. But, as I've learned time and time again, it doesn't take that many people to ruin everything for the majority.

Shaun, what happened when the Ottoman Empire fell? Did we let the Middle East form itself into seperate nationality based on ethnicity and religion?

No. Some guy, probably white and nonislamic. pretty much made all the borders. We gave power NOT to those who had power previous to the Ottoman Empire, which would have been impossible to do, or even to those the indiginous people liked or trusted. We gave it to those we saw fit.

Ok, so, we go into their land cut it up and ignore all racial/ethnic/religious differences and DON'T expect a blood bath? If that happened in Europe, 50years ago, how do you think Europe would look now?

Well, it turns out if you fuck over a place horribly enough you need military supervision there. Who woulda thought.

Now at THE SAME TIME as claiming the world police role we... fund terrorism? Buddy there are letters found going from Iranian and Iraqian officials to U.S. officials concerning massive WEAPONS TRADES.

So at the same time as trying to "keep peace" we arm to classic enemies against each other and then act suprised when there's a blowback and some genocide? Geeze, who woulda thought?

@Raf... Christianity doesn't have violent roots? Rowdy masses don't kill mindlessly for Jesus? You know when you tell me not to judge your whole religion on the actions of a few? Well you're doing that right now to Islam.

[Nyx]

Well Hypo said everything I wanted to say (except of course Hypo said it much better than I ever could), so now I am going to wait silently until someone responds to those comments...

[Rafael Domination]

Rowdy masses don't kill mindlessly for Jesus


Oh they do. And I'm insulted they even call themselves christians. That's no reason to associate other christians with them. Using the term Christianity is too general, and includes sects that have never murdered a single person in an organized and taught way.


You know when you tell me not to judge your whole religion on the actions of a few? Well you're doing that right now to Islam


I never said anything about Islam directly. I was talking about those suicidal fanatics who associate with Islam, but ironically are rejected by that religion itself.

[Shaun]

Shaun, what happened when the Ottoman Empire fell? Did we let the Middle East form itself into seperate nationality based on ethnicity and religion?

No. Some guy, probably white and nonislamic. pretty much made all the borders. We gave power NOT to those who had power previous to the Ottoman Empire, which would have been impossible to do, or even to those the indiginous people liked or trusted. We gave it to those we saw fit.

Ok, so, we go into their land cut it up and ignore all racial/ethnic/religious differences and DON'T expect a blood bath? If that happened in Europe, 50years ago, how do you think Europe would look now?

Well, it turns out if you fuck over a place horribly enough you need military supervision there. Who woulda thought.

Umm, well this would all be very valid if not for the fact that the Ottoman Empire took sides with the Central Powers during World War I against France, England, and later on Canada and the United States, rather than keeping its nose out of the war considering its weakened economic state and the very recent coup that removed the sultan and put Enver Pasha in control. So, considering they were fighting against the Allies and ultimately lost, it is inevitable that reform would take place. This is of course just relatively recent history, ignoring the numerous, almost constant wars the Ottoman Empire was engaged in from the 1500s on. The United States, by the way, was not involved in the aftermath of the war as far as the Ottoman Empire was concerned. The Treaty of Sevres, which dealt with what to do with the newly formed Turkey, excluded the U.S. and Russia. So, actually the entire liquidation of the Ottoman Empire was more a result of British negotiations, which turned many of the previously conquered areas into British mandates or independent states. Not a result of U.S. involvement at all here.
Of course, the re-acquired many of these lost lands some time later because of Ataturks refusal to comply with the first treaty. A second treaty had to be made with the USSR (Russia), which gave them back a lot of the land that had been taken away from them.
That's the history of that part.

Now at THE SAME TIME as claiming the world police role we... fund terrorism? Buddy there are letters found going from Iranian and Iraqian officials to U.S. officials concerning massive WEAPONS TRADES.

So at the same time as trying to "keep peace" we arm to classic enemies against each other and then act suprised when there's a blowback and some genocide? Geeze, who woulda thought?


So, because we give them weapons and sell them stuff that gives them reason to bomb us. Yes, the logic of that is solid.
There is a lot of stuff that the U.S. has done that is wrong, and a lot of stuff that is believed the U.S. has done that isn't true. A lot of that has to do with terrorism. Some of it we've been involved in, some of it we haven't. Regardless, it doesn't give any valid reason for bombing the two towers, or calling for the destruction of an entire people, which is what extremists are calling for. I recognize that not all Christians are evil, and that a lot of them are generally good people, and it's the same for the United States. There are some truly horrible people (who ironically happen to be Christians) and then there are a lot of generally good people.

[Nyx]

So, because we give them weapons and sell them stuff that gives them reason to bomb us. Yes, the logic of that is solid.


You're right, it IS solid logic. The U.S is giving weapons to Iraq and Iran when they claim that they are in fact the threat.

[Rafael Domination]

Maybe if our countries just decided to isolate from each other for a few decades. We give them back what's theirs and they give back what's ours, and we don't interfere with each other.

[Nyx]

Maybe if our countries just decided to isolate from each other for a few decades. We give them back what's theirs and they give back what's ours, and we don't interfere with each other.

It'd be great if it worked that way wouldn't it? But unfortunately, countries, because they are run by humans, are not satisfied with just having what they need. They want more and more, and wanting more leads them to destroying more to get what the want.

[Rafael Domination]

Sad, isn't it?

Sigh...humans. That's why we writers get to fabricate our own little universe. Life's not perfect, so we make up our own...

[Shaun]

Well, here's the thing Nyx. By selling weaponry to someone, that doesn't mean they can attack us with it. So, any nation would be considered a threat if it were to attack us. It really is irrelevant whether they are using weapons we sold or gave them. If the British had sold the Americans muskets after the revolutionary war, and then the Americans decided "hey, let's use them on the British even though the war is over and we're semi-allies", the British would have every reason to attack us.
So, the logic behind using weaponry sold to you on the seller is completely ridiculous. Iran may very well be a threat if the rumors about that country are true. Iraq may well have been a threat if the U.S. had not intervened in Desert Storm, or had made the choice to attack Iraq, initially for false reasons. Either way, you cannot justify leaving Saddam Hussein in power (well he's dead now) because he was a tyrant and that cannot be ignored. Whether it is the job of the U.S. alone to take action against dictators like that is another argument. The U.N. unfortunately hasn't worked and likely never will work.

As for isolationism. We tried that. Remember? That's how WW2 happened. We kept our noses out of it, tries to cut ties to any particular part and the result was we were attacked and thousands died. Isolationist policies don't work for nations who have economic or political power in the world. Japan attacked us over oil, basically, because we cut them off when they refused to stop attacking China (it's more complicated than attacking though). And what happened was Japan turned on us. Full isolationism doesn't work and can't work, especially considering the state the U.S. is in now. If we were to go isolationist all that would happen is another 9/11. Yes, I am convinced another event like that will happen in our life times, but my concern is that terrorists will disregard the fact that the U.S. has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the planet more than twice over and end up detonating a nuclear bomb on U.S. soil. The worst part of that is that the U.S. will be required to act and we will be less likely to hold off using nuclear weaponry on the middle east after such an attack. Meaning, millions of innocent people will die all so a bunch of extremists can make some ridiculous point. Islamic Extremists are completely ridiculous...

[Rafael Domination]

I see...so..any ideas on how to manage politics?

[Nyx]

Islamic Extremists are completely ridiculous...

This is it right there. The thing that bugs me to hell. Calling them Islamic Extermists. If one is a terrorist then they obviously aren't true Muslims. Many people are born with a religion based on their parents but it is wrong to call some arrogant terrorist who uses their religion as an excuse to blow up others, a Muslim.

[Shaun]

They are still Muslim, they are just extremists. Distinguishing them from normal Muslims is the whole point. We would still call the various sects of Christianity groups of Christians even though they may believe in different things. Islamic Extremists simply believe in a different aspect of the Muslim religion. They are still Muslim, albeit bad Muslims. I'm not going to exclude Muslims from being associated with the dark side of their religion. Because if I did that I'd have to do the same for every other religion, and I'm not willing to do that. Equal treatment all around.

As far as politics. Elect me as President. On a serious note. Cut all foreign aid programs to outside agencies, remove all unnecessary bases in foreign lands and call in all countries that we have or will have a problem with and iron out all the problems and find reasonable solutions. Israel, unfortunately, is a lost cause. The Israelis are not going to give up the land no matter what anyone else says. But there are other issues that, if Middle Eastern and Asian countries would be willing to have discussions on, could be resolved. There'd be a lot of changes if I were running this country, including dissolving the CIA entirely, because that organization is a complete waste of money, turning the FBI into an organization that works, removing all laws that infringe upon our rights as Americans and go back to looking at the Constitution. Will this ever happen? Probably not. The United States has needed a complete overhaul of the entire political system for a long time. Meaning, removing every single person in office right now, dissolving the part system entirely, and re-electing people based on merit, without an electoral college, so that we actually elect people that would be good for the job. We also need to hold politicians accountable for their actions. Just because they are high up in the government doesn't mean they are subject to the law. They are people just like us, just with more power, so when they screw up they should be help accountable. Our current President, for example, should be impeached and send to court to breaking constitutional law. Plenty of other politicians should have been locked up in prison, including Dick Cheney. Removing business from having influence in the government, as well as removing religion from influence would be good too (there's a reason why it says "separation of church and state"). But this is just a start and without revolution I doubt any of it will ever happen.

[Hypocrit]

Umm, well this would all be very valid if not for the fact that the Ottoman Empire took sides with the Central Powers during World War I against France, England, and later on Canada and the United States, rather than keeping its nose out of the war considering its weakened economic state and the very recent coup that removed the sultan and put Enver Pasha in control. So, considering they were fighting against the Allies and ultimately lost, it is inevitable that reform would take place. This is of course just relatively recent history, ignoring the numerous, almost constant wars the Ottoman Empire was engaged in from the 1500s on. The United States, by the way, was not involved in the aftermath of the war as far as the Ottoman Empire was concerned. The Treaty of Sevres, which dealt with what to do with the newly formed Turkey, excluded the U.S. and Russia. So, actually the entire liquidation of the Ottoman Empire was more a result of British negotiations, which turned many of the previously conquered areas into British mandates or independent states. Not a result of U.S. involvement at all here.
Of course, the re-acquired many of these lost lands some time later because of Ataturks refusal to comply with the first treaty. A second treaty had to be made with the USSR (Russia), which gave them back a lot of the land that had been taken away from them.
That's the history of that part.



So, because we give them weapons and sell them stuff that gives them reason to bomb us. Yes, the logic of that is solid.
There is a lot of stuff that the U.S. has done that is wrong, and a lot of stuff that is believed the U.S. has done that isn't true. A lot of that has to do with terrorism. Some of it we've been involved in, some of it we haven't. Regardless, it doesn't give any valid reason for bombing the two towers, or calling for the destruction of an entire people, which is what extremists are calling for. I recognize that not all Christians are evil, and that a lot of them are generally good people, and it's the same for the United States. There are some truly horrible people (who ironically happen to be Christians) and then there are a lot of generally good people.



Thanks for simplifying what I said. It does NOT matter who won the war. Guess who played a large role in the fall of the Ottoman Empire? The ethnicities living inside there.

Of course it doesn't call for bombing or genocide. Congratulations. Why do you argue or even make a statement for such a point?

For once could we argue what's at hand and NOT make the argument somethin it isn't? Obviously I am not pro-genocide. Do not attempt to align me with it.

If you weren't I apologize but must question why you stated the blatantly obvious. Sorry, internet debates frustrate me because it is not actually an argument of wit or righteousness, it's simply who takes up the most space and is the best at twisting words.

You give two epoples who historically hated have hated each other weapons at the same time and then back off and expect nothing to happen? So if I give two toddlers guns and back off am I then not held responsible for the aftermath? It seems like the same root logic.

And WRONG we sent SEVERAL ambassadors to help the French and English. We also played a large role in the creation of... Israel? Not that that has caused any conflict or anything...

[Shaun]

Thanks for simplifying what I said. It does NOT matter who won the war. Guess who played a large role in the fall of the Ottoman Empire? The ethnicities living inside there.

It's actually rather important who won the war. If they had won, well you can figure that out on your own.

Of course it doesn't call for bombing or genocide. Congratulations. Why do you argue or even make a statement for such a point?

For once could we argue what's at hand and NOT make the argument somethin it isn't? Obviously I am not pro-genocide. Do not attempt to align me with it.

Because you're providing justification for their actions. That's why I'm arguing it. If you don't find it right then you should bring it up, but by simply saying "well, we screwed with them and that's what we get", then I have a problem with it.

If you weren't I apologize but must question why you stated the blatantly obvious. Sorry, internet debates frustrate me because it is not actually an argument of wit or righteousness, it's simply who takes up the most space and is the best at twisting words.

Well, if you think so then you probably shouldn't get involved in them. I provided you with facts, that's all.

You give two epoples who historically hated have hated each other weapons at the same time and then back off and expect nothing to happen? So if I give two toddlers guns and back off am I then not held responsible for the aftermath? It seems like the same root logic.

And WRONG we sent SEVERAL ambassadors to help the French and English. We also played a large role in the creation of... Israel? Not that that has caused any conflict or anything...

So, you're comparing Middle Eastern countries to young, undeveloped children? That seems rather harsh. The difference between what you're saying is that the people given the weapons are "ADULTS", not children. They can make the conscious and moral decision on how to act, whereas children generally can't.

On the subject of U.S. involvement in the Treaty of Sevres, this is all the U.S. did:
"Turkey and Armenia as well as the other High Contracting Parties agree to submit to the arbitration of the President of the United States of America the question of the frontier to be fixed between Turkey and Armenia in the vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis, and to accept his decision thereupon, as well as any stipulations he may prescribe as to access for Armenia to the sea, and as to the demilitarisation of any portion of Turkish territory adjacent to the said frontier."

That's it. If you want to see the entire document you can go here: http://www.hri.org/docs/sevres/part1.html

Almost all the negotiations were done before the U.S. joined the League of Nations and our involvement was in negotiating simplistic terms such as keeping one little area demilitarized so that Armenia could get to the sea. Land disputes were a result of the early League of Nations members.

Israel is a whole different issue, but if we want to go there we can. Israel may have been a mistake, but at this point Israel isn't going anywhere and it would be just as unfair to give up Israel to someone else because the Israelis would be annihilated in a fit of genocide. But, again, nobody is willing to really work out peaceful negotiations with Israel, and Israel overreacts to everything because they're tired of being pushed around. They're surrounded by hostility and rather than taking advantage of the situation people are complaining about a bunch of land that really doesn't matter all that much. I don't know why people can't share it. This of course being rather new-age thinking considering the history of the U.S. of simply taking people's land and destroying them in the process (Native Americans anyone?). Regardless, there's no reason why land cannot be shared, but I guess there is a more complex issue there--religious issues that simply seem retarded to me.

[GeorgeMichael]

Going back to the beginning where Andy said it was based off of the controversy between the Golden Compass I would just like to quickly add that I just got back from watching the movie and I was not impressed.

[Rafael Domination]

Oh, it's out already?

Wow...Canada is way behind on this kind of stuff...

[Shaun]

It's getting a lot of bad reviews. I'm still going to go see it, but I had a feeling it was going to suck. The previews looked too good to be true. I'll probably see it next weekend and post a review of it.

[Rafael Domination]

They said it was 'worshipped' on the same 'altar' as LOTR. I don't get it. People say it sucked. The media LIIIIIIEED!!!

[Shaun]

The book is supposed to be really good but I hear that they made the film too complicated for kids or something. I'm skeptical though. Any time the media says something really sucks, generally it ends up being decent or good. Half the films they've ever told me were really good ended up being boring as hell.