On the Mars one I disagree. Maybe a staggering stride, but certainly at a staggering cost, and after ridiculous boondoggles like the shuttle and the ISS, its hard to get an appetite for another visionary manned space extravaganza.

From what I've read, vastly more and better space science can be done per dollar with unmanned vehicles. The argument for sending people seems to be mostly about the thrill of it all. I wouldn't discount that motivation, but all you have to do is go to the websites for any of the ongoing missions-- Cassini/Huygens, the various Mars orbiters and landers, and (one day) New Horizons-- and look at the breathtaking pictures that they send back every day. To me, they are vastly more inspiring than it was to watch Alan Sheppard practice his swing.

All noble endeavors. All moot as long as religion continues to divide people and require that they kill or convert everyone else. Until that one pox is removed from this earth we are doomed.

OK, I am expecting to be blasted, but I just ask for a little introspection and honesty.

What good is religion doing anyone? Please don't say that it makes people moral; it does not. It allows (actually forces through threat of hell-fire) people to stop thinking for themselves and to do as they are told by someone who is a religious "leader." That is not morality.

Religious leaders have encouraged incivility, repression, murder, and more; in the name of one god or the other, every imaginable cruelty has been evoked. The world is far worse off because of all of those who think that heaven is reserved for them --> Prove me wrong.

Jan Knaus

Not sure how we could de-salinate the enormous volume of water that will come spilling over our shores as a consequence of global warming. We can't just dump heavily salinated water on our fields.

If the glaciers and ice sheets melt, there's no way to keep that water out of the oceans, Reid. Water runs off and evaporates and finds its way back down. Florida drowns.

12. Organize the Amalgamated Union of Pixies and Tooth Fairies to sprinkle magic dust on all the bad people and make them nice.

The key issues facing the world are well known. They are overpopulation and the strain this puts on natural resources. Everything follows from this: climate change, oil shortages, ethnic conflicts and territorial disputes, and the rise of ideologies promising simple solutions.

There are two aspects to this. First, the developed countries (especially the US) must transform into societies can that can run on a sustainable basis instead of raping the rest of the world for raw materials and finished goods. Second, the less developed parts of the world must be brought up to a "decent" standard of living without repeating the mistakes of the west.

Since we are not willing to (voluntarily) scale back our cosumerist society and since the developing world is not willing to give up the dream of a US-style society the inevitable changes will be messy and violent instead of planned and peaceful.

When people give up their SUV's and take the bus then we can start talking about meaningful change, until then all the Utopian plans are destined to fall flat.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

I'm not clear on why this is true. There have in the past been projects to haul icebergs -- mountains of fresh water -- thousands of miles. Why aren't similar efforts considered now -- the cost of the inundation will be in the trillions of dollars, or even tens of trillions, so one would think that the most unimaginable engineering solutions would in fact be sensible trade-offs against the raising of sea water levels.
Moreover, in previous heating/cooling cycles, as Al Gore explained in Inconvenient Truth, a vast fresh water lake was formed in what is now Northern Canada. Today's Great Lakes are the residue of that lake. As he said in the movie and says in his speech, a great breach in that lake led to the convergence of that fresh water and the salt water Atlantic, stopped the Gulf Stream, and plunged Europe into an Ice Age. All this of course a few years ago. But the point, I would suppose, is that it is not inevitable that the frozen fresh water of the ice sheets at the two poles must enter the saline seas.

Overpopulation does indeed lie at the root of most of mankind's problems, but whence overpopulation? Unfortunately, overpopulation results from very primitive aspects of human nature -- sex drive, propensity toward religion, tribalism, the selfish desire to control, the selfish desire to have others to take care of us.

The fact that our species cannot evolve fast enough to shed what once were survival characteristics -- but which are now suicidal tendencies -- gives me a pessimistic view of the future of humanity.

OK, is that pretentious enough for you?

Instead of a project wonk or policy wonk approach...

Let me propose a values wonk approach, instead.  Articulate and promote the values and the projects and policies sort themselves out and one has some sort of yardstick to provide exclusions and priorities.

One also has a way to select one's verbs:  How do we "cause" Africa and South America to build economies based on non-carbon sources of energy?  Perhaps we might "assist" or even "offer to assist" them instead.  I wonder what might be included in a list of ten values to discuss, clarify, and promote in 2007 and beyond?  Could I be so bold as to offer 5, in no particular order?  I think that out of them a number of the projects arise:

1. Reverence for the natural world, including caution and humility in the ways we attempt to shape it to our perceived needs.
2. Wariness of hubris at all levels, starting at the personal.
3. Recognizing the value of friendship at all levels, and the importance of fostering and nurturing it:  again, starting at the personal level.
4. Valuing the common good, and doing what one can to diminish the poison of alienation:  again, at all levels.
5. Seriously investigating the Happiness Index as an alternative to the Gross Domestic Product as a measure of national success. 

I'm curious what might be added to this list.  To those who say "too Utopian," I guess I'll point them Robert Browning's Direction

Happy New Year, everyone. 

aMike

Reed, perhaps you could encourage your colleagues at the TPMCafe to start a section dedicated to global warming, because this is a complex and wide-ranging topic requiring more expertise (and interest) than has been displayed on this blog to date.

I don't pretend to have scientific expertise, but my general sense as a layperson reading the literature is that the volume of water involved may be too great to be meaningfully impacted by your proposal.

At this point, we apparently still have time to reduce the impacts of global warming if we focus on reducing the output of greenhouse gases. This will not be easy; even nations that approved the Kyoto Protocol are having trouble meeting what scientists tend to agree are entirely too modest targets.

We need to quickly transition from an oil-based to a hydrogen-based economy. That's going to take a 21st Century version of the New Deal. Who is going to step up to the plate on this one?

Howard Boyce: "We need to quickly transition from an oil-based to a hydrogen-based economy." I haven't been convinced by Avery Lovins and others promoting this. There really isn't a natural source of hydrogen, so it must be produced from water, which just happens also to be the end product of hydrogen fuel cells. So it takes energy, meaning perhaps fossil fuels, to make it; and by the second law of thermodynamics, too, you get back less than you put in.  

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Figure out how to divert melting land-based ice caps (both poles) into fresh water lakes, canals, rivers, and irrigation systems to turn deserts green and keep Florida from drowning. (I wish I were kidding. No jokes on this list.)

Reminds me of the New Yorker cartoon. The physicist , by a black board which he's chalked full of equations , points to a spot in the middle and says: "here a miracle occurs".

OK I have to politely disagree with anyone who might argue that a trip to Mars is a bad idea.  In our efforts to reach the Moon we saw a rapid increase in the rate of discoveries especially in the area of electronics which has benefitted all in America and the world.  I think efforts to reach Mars will have the same benefits technologically in the future.

Of course in my mind not as important as tackling global warming and our energy consumption issues but still something worthy of doing.

But it (a proposed trip to Mars) is one of only 2 things I can praise George W. Bush for.  That and making the waters around the Hawaiin Islands a national monument... 

I rather prefer to think of Osama arriving in Paradise -- to be punched in the mouth by George Washington. As he fell to his knees, Thomas Jefferson kicked him, but Robert E. Lee was courteous enough to help him to his feet before delivering a stunning blow.

As Osama shook his head, he overheard "They never quite read it correctly -- the verse is 72 Virginians." That's when John Randolph of Roanoke hit him with a rotten mackerel, shining and stinking by moonlight.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

This is Earth Station, Captain Wigmar speaking:

There is no land at the north pole-- the ice there is floating on a deep ocean, so I believe it is, in fact, inevitable that melting north polar ice will enter the saline seas.

And as to the Antarctic ice cap, the Greenland ice cap, Iceland, and any other glaciated islands, forget it-- that meltwater is also going to the ocean. The vast majority does not flow off in rivers, so we could not capture it in the first place, and if it some does flow off in rivers we in theory could capture it, but where would we put it, and how would we get it there?

Towing a few icebergs around won't change anything.

Captain can you steer us on a path to avoid that large "planet-killer" asteroid that has our name on it?  This hunk of rock we call home can be pretty at times (even if some of the people can behave very ugly) and is the only one we have, I've grown kinda attached to it.  Thanks in advance... ;-)

Nothing much can be done about large chucks of melting ice which abut oceans...except address the cause of what's making them melt.

If there were a true divinity in charge of all this, these false prophets would have been called to account centuries ago.

I really do agree with the sentiments of your post Jan.  But with my spiritual leanings when it comes to these matters I think we as a people were endowed with free will.  We are supposed to know right from wrong and make our own choices accordingly.  And in my mind those accounts will be settled when it is time to stand and be judged...

8. Cease American dependence on foreign oil and gas.

Hydrogen based energy is not an alternative to oil/gas usage. Hydrogen is only available at great cost in energy to separate it from other raw materials. That energy has to come from somewhere, and it can't come from hydrogen.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Well sadly we have a few Quaker Presidents who don't rank all that well -- Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon. Hoover can be redeemed if you focus on his famine relief work during and following World War One -- but Nixon never really got the tradition.

But Quakers have had much to do with American Reforming Movements -- they are at the root of abolition efforts beginning in the 1780's, you'll find them at the heart of prison reform movements, more humaine treatment of the mentally ill, today you'll find them in the restorative justice movement, and in the 20th century, the Civil Rights movement. Non-Violence is a core Quaker principle -- it is hard to imagine an opposition to war growing without Quaker involvement. In the 1950's it was largely Quakers who took up opposition to Nuclear Testing, things like SANE (Now SANE/FREEZE) and later Women's Strike for Peace have Quaker origins and they lead into the Kennedy era treaty, and later improvements.

British and American Quakers won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947 for relief efforts in post war Europe (both wars), and a number of them were quite active in nominating Jimmy Carter for the same award. I think they may be the only religious sect that has ever won a Nobel.

Quakers generally do not try to manage or control movements they help put into motion -- the idea is more to develop a range of approaches to an issue, seek out all sorts of likely allies, create a consensus, and then nurture the growth of the movement without necessarily sponsoring it. Just as non-violence and opposition to war as conflict resolution is a core principle, so too is the idea of witnessing against social evils, and for meaningful reforms.

Re: If you come up with Buddhism, I would remind you that it is not a religion

Buddhism is a religion. Look it up in any reference book and it will say something like "Asian Religion founded by Siddhartha Gautama..."
Buddhism is also not free of governmental involvements. In Thailand and to some extent it functions much as the Religious Right does here, opposing abortion, gay rights and so forth. American Buddhism bearsabout as much similarity to traditional Asian Buddhism as Unitarianism does to Orthodox Christianity.

Re: There has been no voice of reason decrying these profiteers

You're joking, right. No one has ever criticized the excesses of greedy, power-hungry religious leaders?

JPF: "This is true of any energy source. Gasoline has be refined. Coal has to be mined. Even wood has to be chopped." I tried to explain that this is not a parallel. You must find and deliver any resource, but it can still be a resource. You have to stoop to pick up money on the street, but it's still money.

Hydrogen is different. It isn't lying there waiting to be dug out of the earth. Its source is the end product of its burning. It's as if the only way to obtain coal was to reconstitute it from the smoke out your chimney. By the second law of thermodynamics, that's not merely difficult: it's also more costly in energy than it gives you.

It's as if you obtained that money not by bending over, but by trading in the very food you will use the coin to buy. The vendor, in this case nature and its laws, naturally wants a small profit from all this, and you end up with less food than you started. Not a plan for feeding the family.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

-Close the nuclear fuel cycle. Retool the auto industry to build modular, safe, third generation nuke plants. As adjuncts, build hydrogen-producing plants. Electricity from nuclear, cars on hydrogen - no carbon emissions.

-Apollo mission for nuclear fusion energy, for clean unlimited energy by mid century. Fusion torch technology enables a new isotope economy - making us alchemists at long last. We can create new raw materials from waste products or currently inferior ores. Also, entirely new materials for products we can't even imagine now.

-Heavy infrastructure investments in transportation, such as electric rail and maglev rail. Also in water projects to bring water from artic (maybe your iceberg idea has play here) and Canada to American west, southwest and Mexico. Bring water to thirsty west and help bring Mexico into 21st century, as our lead partner in developing the republics of Ibero-America.

-Yes, go to Mars and colonize the moon. Again, for raw materials and the science-driver thrust it will give to earth economy. It is human destiny to be stewards of our near-space. We won't survive as mere occupants of this planet alone.

-Government must begin these type of investments now with a view towards generational capital investment bugeting - 25 to 50 year perspectives.

We will need to invest in upgrading education massively. All this will entail a need for a high-skilled work force, many more engineers and physicists, etc.

Mankind needs to leave childhood and realise that war is no longer possible. We must build a concert of sovereign nation states dedicated to developing the planet and beyond for the common good and common benefit for the entire human race. To do so means we must defeat the neo-feudalist War Party currently laying waste to our country and the world, finally and completely.

UA

Right. I think the primary source of hydrogen for commercial use today may actually be natural gas, and much research is going into making the extraction of hydrogen from natural gas more efficient.

Separation of water into its constituents is also being explored, but requires large doses of electricity, which has to be produced somehow.

Dang that Second Law!

In practical terms, we should probably think of the widespread use of hydrogen as launching the nuclear economy (not the hydrogen economy), as nuclear power is the only non-hydrocarbon source of energy likely to be sufficient to power the production and world-wide distribution of hydrogen fuel.

RE: "It is human destiny to be stewards of our near-space. We won't survive as mere occupants of this planet alone."

Although my childhood was redeemed by reading the great science fiction writers of the 40s and 50s (and my user name here was inspired by a 14-year-old's infatuation with "The Martian Chronicles") I can't agree with this.

There are no planet-hopping 18-wheelers, much less interplanetary oil tankers. The notion that we can resupply the earth by mining Mars is as fantastical as the premise of "Slan" (and as seductive).

If you are right that "we won't survive as mere occupants of this planet alone" then we won't survive. Fortunately, the argument is not true.

Perhaps the desire to colonize Mars, and beyond, is just harmless wishful thinking and I should leave it alone, except that I don't think it is harmless. At the very least, it diverts massive amounts of funds from doing useful kinds of space exploration. At worst, it is an extension of dominionist thinking beyond our planet, and dominionism is, at least in part, what has got us in this fix to begin with.

The 60s are may be in disrepute these days, even on the left, but we should never forget that startling first image of Earthrise over the lunar surface. It captures what we need to remember about our amazing, sensual, fecund, nurturing, vulnerable and irreplacable home in the cold, desert vastness of space.

Near space remains extremely relevant for applications from weather forecasting to communications to resource tracking. The question is whether deep space exploration has enough cultural and technological spinoffs to justify a given level of expenditure.

I don't disagree that planetary migration and mining are not within the scope of any current technology. Certain manufacturing technologies may be quite cost-effective in the weightlessness, free vacuum, and solar energy of near space.

Of course, a vagrant asteroid might make it all moot. That is a very low, but nonzero probability that would require deep space surveillance to detect, and even more to divert.

The Big Blue Marble is unforgettable. I was cheered, this year, to hear that new audio analysis of Armstrong's first words, on stepping onto the moon, were what he said he said, not what was widely misquoted: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

While we look to the skies, let us also remember how much of the planet remains unexplored, merely because it is covered with water.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I agree wholeheartedly that the concept of humans living on another planet, or even on the moon, and doing so not as a huge drag on our economy, is a fantasy. The environment on any known planet other than our own is hostile to human life beyond anything ever imagined before. In fact the journey just to Mars is nearly impossible because of the risk of death due to cosmic rays. Once there, it isn't possible to be exposed to the Martian atmosphere, the Martian cosmic and solar radiation, to the ambient temperature, etc. without dying. Any trivial mistake there means sudden death.

Then, assume we somehow work out that problem, the cost of returning any goods from Mars or even the moon is orders of magnitude more than the cost of manufacturing those goods on Earth. This is simply a case of the laws of physics ruling.

Hoppy in Sacramento

The Green Hills were not forgotten on Apollo 15.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I don't remember if it was in that transcript, but there is a Lunar crater named Rhysling, and a Martian crater named Heinlein.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I see I was a bit sloppy in my wording of a post I dashed off too quickly. Slap-dash painting with too broad a brush. When I mentioned mining the Moon and Mars, I was thinking of mainly of that in support of their own colonies, not as exported re-supply back to earth. Some rare elements and specialty low or zero gravity refined product would be economical to export. Another point I meant to make but neglected to (and someone else subsequently mentioned) is that a primary reason for colonizing our near-space and later on, deeper space, is to provide physical protection of the earth from asteroids. Only when we master fusion technologies (and the development of a fusion rocket engine) will space travel become practical. But we aren't there yet and must rely on our crude existing means to start building the local near-space infrastructure now.

The broader point I was making is that our government must think and plan in longer term, generational capital budgeting. Certainly, some in government do, but our society and business people think in such short term frames. With more than six billion souls alive now and more every day, the "free market" neo-feudal elite currently running the world will be content to let massive genocide and not-so-benign neglect take care of all those useless eaters. This oligarchy, the heart of every imperial project since the birth of civilization, is the enemy of national sovereignty and most specifically to the intent of our constitution - to promote the commonwealth or common good. The current American belief that our country's wealth is founded on the "free market" and Adam Smith has led to our near ruin. Returning to a Hamiltonian-FDR American System approach to long-term infrastructural investment, thru directed credit and targeted tax and trade policies is the only way to avoid unimaginable calamities in the very near future. Global warming will be the least of our problems as a depopulated world shivers and starves thru a new dark age. The oligarchical economic royalists figure they will thrive in their islands of wealth while the rest of us just die or scratch out a meager existence. But they are wrong, as they have always been, as they do not understand how a population supports itself thru a self-reproducing culture of expanding knowledge and infrastructure for all. Or if some of them understand, they actively suppress this human impulse. Zeus punishing Prometheus for giving humanity fire.

Humanity will probably survive a new dark age and flower anew in the unforeseeable future, but why not defeat the oligarchy now?

UA

12. Breed a Pegasus species and distribute flying ponies to all the children in the world.

Re: It isn't lying there waiting to be dug out of the earth.

Neither is gasoline. Crude oil must be altered chemically too in order for us to use any of its potential. That's why it took 5000 years of civilziation before it was used for anything except soaking torces in it for outdoor lighting (it was too smoky for indoor lighting), despite its ready and cheap availability in some the most anciently civilized regions of the world. Basically, what we do in these cases and with hydrgoen) is give the raw energy source a push up the thermodynamic hill (where it is resting some distance up the slope already in some local hollow or pit), then let it roll all the way down. Since the distance it rolls down is farther than the distance we push it uphill, we reap more energy than we put into it. This does not violate any laws of thermodynamics, if it did even our current energy economy would be impossible. And by the way, our entire planetary ecology is based on liberating hydrgoen from water molecules; every green plant on earth does this (releasing oxygen in the process, hence our atmosphere) and they've been doing it for 3.2 billion years, so a hydrogen economy does not seem to be a technical impossibility.

The "closed system" metaphor is not quite accurate with regard to Mars. Many raw materials exist there, including oxygen.

Several years ago I was in Sonora, Mexico, a few miles south of Punto Peñasco, and right by the road I saw a water still - out in the desert. It was simple. A redwood condenser tower that was about 8' x 8' x 8'. On the beach side of the tower the builders had dug a zig zag trench down to the water of the Gulf. It was probably 100' long, and it was covered with visqueen plastic. So the tidal bore would fill up the trench each day, and it would evaporate into the condenser. There was a 2" pipe coming out of the condenser, with a full head of sweet water (no pressure behind it) spilling out on the desert floor. I later learned that it was a joint experimental project of the University of Mexico/University of Arizona.

The upside was that it was so lo-tech, while the glaring downside was that the condenser was too expensive to be practical to have any impact in terms of potable water supply to meet the needs of communities, or even agricultural development (that was a long time before drinking water costs us a dollar per gallon.)

Just for fun, I daydreamed about the condenser problem may times over the years. How could you build a cheap, low-tech condenser that was relatively efficient? Somewhere along the line I had my Eureka moment - the Mexican Olla!

Ollas are those little clay water jugs that you often see in shops in the border areas. A spherical bottom with a cylindrical neck, and a little clay cup that covers the top. The technology is thousands of years old, and they are really marvelous. The low fire clay is bisque fired, resulting in a very poreous clay that allows the water inside the jar to seep to the serface and evaporate, which cools the water inside, providing you with perfect temperature drinking on the hottest days.

Old growth redwood, which is horribly scarce these days, has the same properties - water will travel right through the board and evaporate, cooling the air or water on the inside of the condenser. But clay is abundant - hugely abundant. A time proven efficient condenser. I'll bet every oil yard in the world, where they burn off the gasses in spectacular fires, has a suitable clay deposit nearby. They could be firing Ollas with that energy, and stockpiling them for the future!

But visqueen is a petroleum byproduct - I haven't figured out a replacement for that. I suppose you could use glass.

Based on that, I think we should always look for low tech solutions first. The simpler the better.

Even with high-tec, there's a scale problem. There's some sense in reducing multibillion dollar energy project to billions of 100 dollar energy projects. The more local energy production is to energy consumption, the more efficient. Photovoltaic cells are going through tremendous development right now - and you get much more bang for the buck than you did a few short years ago. How about an Energy welfare system? From what I understand, the programs that have come into place have been wonderfully effective - energy upgrades for poor folks homes etc. A large photovoltaic project would actually drop the unit price of this technology due to an increase of production, and the energy payoff would be huge. Plus new jobs...every burg in the US would have a Chip Guy office next to the Cable Guy's office.

<>And the local and small concept might solve the EIR problem...I don't know. I remember during the energy crises days of the '70s Portland, Oregon developed a huge smog problem because everyone went to wood stoves. The kicker is Pheonix, Arizona, I think. Evaporative coolers are very popular there, and it has stressed out the city water supply since millions of gallons of potable water go "up in smoke" everyday from these coolers. But then, they build their houses with lumber and stucco instead of thick walled mud brick or straw bales.

OK, I'll bite... people bashing religion is a bit of a pet peeve of mine anyway....

In Defense of Religion:

Above you said:

All moot as long as religion continues to divide people and require that they kill or convert everyone else. Until that one pox is removed from this earth we are doomed...

Religious leaders have encouraged incivility, repression, murder, and more; in the name of one god or the other, every imaginable cruelty has been evoked. The world is far worse off because of all of those who think that heaven is reserved for them

Now, since this is a political board, try replacing the word "religion" with "politics"...

Religion, like politics, is a basic and essential requirement for human society. Religion, like politics, is an organizing scheme for certain aspects of society. Like with all organizations (corporations, NGOs, governments, relgious groups), there is a great deal of power in being organized, and having people work for together for a oommon cause. With any gathering of power, there is going to be corruption, and some people will take advantage of that. There are also un-corrupt people who, because the system as it exists advantages them, will fight to maintain that system.

Just like with our government, the individual acts of corruption do not outweigh the greater good of the system. As Iraq has recently illustrated, even bad government is generally better than anarchy. Likewise, even bad religion helps more people than it hurts. Not that we shouldn't try to make religion and government better, but that's no reason to get rid of them.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a guess that, since you are obviously not a part of any organized religion, you are probably educated, independent, have a strong family or social structure that you can rely on, make pretty good money, and are in good health. So maybe you don't need religion, but your lack of ability to see how other people do need religion is disheartening.

In political terms, you're what could be called a Republican... someone who is in favor of lowering taxes/the size of government because it doesn't do anything directly for them, the successful business owner, not really seeing how much its doing for them by doing so much for everyone else in society.

Here's where most religious leaders in America spend their time, and here's where the money people tithe goes: Feeding the poor and helping the homeless, and organizing others to feed the poor and help the homeless. Organizing medical care. Marrying people (including gay people who want an official ceremony, which is something they can't get from the government outside MA - again, its usually the most repressed and discriminated and down on their luck parts of society that are helped most by religion. For more on that, ask any African American). Providing a place for socializing and networking to help people meet other people for marriage or business. Providing a place for children to go that is not the mall and a place for the elderly to go socialize that doesn't require money to be spent. Fighting social injustice. Maintaining social order. Visiting the sick and infirm. Speaking at funerals. Comforting the bereaved. Giving the hope of a heaven or a greater interconnectedness of all things to those who need it.

So who is going to go do those things? You? Me? I'm too busy... I might have a few hours to donate, but who is going to set it up so I know where to go so that my donation of time is most effective. Yes, there are civic organizations but most of those have strong ties to religion or direct religious underpinnings. Its a lot easier for me to give 5 or 10% of my salary to an organized religion to take care of this stuff for me.

Plus, as an added bonus, I get to raise my kids in my religion. Since I turned out OK, and I respect my elders (somewhat) and have a strong connection to my past, it stands to reason that by raising my kids in the same religion I will endow them with the same attributes.

You may say, yes, but you don't need God to do all those things. Well, some Humanist societies have been set up for these functions to do the same sorts of things but without God. They're not corrupt, but they are also very, very small. They don't do much. The president doesn't answer their phone calls. If they grew huge, and the President did answer their phone calls, then the old leaders would be voted out and new leaders would be voted in and those leaders would probably look a lot like your more corrupt church leaders.

Its not God or a chance at Heaven that is causing the corruption of religious organizations, its corrupt people drawn to the power of the organizations. Using it to advance their own agendas. Using it for fighting or prejudice or for whatever you aren't liking about religion. However, just because you have the corruption doesn't mean you can get rid of the organization. Organized religion has been around as long as there has been organized government, and sometimes its part of the government and even more corrupt than it is here in the United States. Luckily we're in a society with separation of powers, which doesn't just mean the three branches of official government but also means a free press and a free religion keeping an eye on things.

So the next time you think to criticize a religious leader, I would suggest you go down to your local church, synagogue, or mosque, and spend a day or two walking in the shoes of a religious leader before you think to malign the work of someone who spends their days helping other people.

OK, hopping off my soapbox....

Re; Religion pretends to be science when it propounds "creation science"

I agree. But this is what I would call a "marginal issue", something pushed by a few radical sects not by mainstream religious bidies.

Rew: and when it seeks political power in order to defund or redirect or even outlaw certain threads in scientific research and certain evidence-based medical treatments

The issue here is NOT religion at all, but ethics. Presumably you would have no issue with religiuous people calling fopr the prdecution of Dr Menegle later all. Now I disagree with them on stem cells, but I respect their position entirely. (And besides adult stem cells are going to bear the more useful fruits in this reaserch if anything does, and they are not objectionable) "Frankenstein" science is not just something for the religious to worry about. We all should.

Re: But the three major, competing religions that arose in the Middle East don't seem to want to conform to our imaginings.

The major and mainstream branches of both Christianity and Judaism (not sure about Islam here) do comport themselves in this manner, at least these days. Don't confuse America's loud and obnoxious sects with religion, or even Christianity, as a whole.

Here's where most religious leaders in America spend their time, and here's where the money people tithe goes:

-- Buying politicians to enhance their power.

-- Coddling right-wing extremists.

-- Blaming gays, women, and civil libertarians for attacks perpetrated by other right-wing extremists.

-- Condemning competing religious leaders as heretics and infidels.

-- Living sumptuous lifestyles, paid for primarily by the ignorant and indigent.

-- Influencing their followers' votes from the pulpit.

-- Denying religious rituals to politicians of their own faith who disagree with them on a single issue.

-- Practicing a political philosophy in direct contradiction to that of their holiest scripture.

Note that these counter-democratic activities can only be performed by religious leaders; whereas the beneficial ones can be done -- and can be done much more efficiently -- by non-religious organizations.

I'm curious as to what you find "Marginal" about my comment, Howard. Is it my command of the facts or my writing style?

Hmm, you seem to offer a tribute to the parishioners, whereas my comment was directed at the leadership and the money. I'm afraid I still don't see how this makes my comment rate a 2; but that's OK, there is quite a bit I don't understand about magical thinking.

I'm just a bit surprised to find a usually-rational person such as you subscribing to the generally-accepted American posture that criticizing religious thieves and hypocrites is impolite.

Thank you for pointing out that it was I who misconstrued.

Whaaaaat?

Re; Religion pretends to be science when it propounds "creation science"

I agree. But this is what I would call a "marginal issue", something pushed by a few radical sects not by mainstream religious bidies.,

You're joking, right?

Jan Knaus

No I am not joking. The vast majority of mainstream religious bodies (at least in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc,.) have no trouble with Evolution or any other scientific theory.
Anti-scientific creationism* is very much a minority position. Don't be so parochial. The sun does not rise on the Atlantic an set on the Pacific, there's a whole world out there and Christiniaty is much saner and rational than the freak show our ill-educated North American sects have mae out of it.

* There is a respectable creatioonism which just asserts that God is in some sense behind nature and its laws and its working out is thus his will. This is a metaphysical tenet and does not conflict with science in any way.

Your *respectable* creationism rests on the insistence on being able to attribute cosmology and metaphysics to local tribal texts written by local holy men and then spiffed up by Medieval Scholastics.  This is about as respectable as insisting that because there is no mathematical conflict between Ptolemaic and modern astronomy, they are, practically speaking, the same. 

I have had my share of hard experiences in life.  Your hypothesizing only demonstrates your inability to envision what you might evoke in those you think you are communicating with.

Religion is a scourge.  Those who inanely argue for religion are scoundrels. 

You claim the following points can only be done by religious organizations. I am happy to take them one at a time:

-- Buying politicians to enhance their power.
Religious organizations rarely buy politicians. They don't have to. Most politicians already belong to religious organizations and have wide membership, which means votes. Its usually corporations and wealthy people that buy politiicans. Do you really think George W is an evangelical because he is paid for by them?

-- Coddling right-wing extremists.
Don't forget about codding moderate and left-wing extremists - damn those Unitarians, Jews, Episcopalians, Buddhists, and Hollywood Scientologists, and a wide assembly of Hispanic Catholic and African American churches... religions are made up of people, and people have political beliefs, and tend to coddle who they want to. Everyone coddles their extremists. I used to live in one of the most non-religious places in the US, possibly on earth, the SF Bay Area, and there was a ton of coddling of politicians going on. SO I can only surmise that removing religion will not remove coddling in the slightest.

-- Blaming gays, women, and civil libertarians for attacks perpetrated by other right-wing extremists.
I'm not quite sure what this sentence meant, actually. You may have to give me an example of someone blaming a gay or a woman for attacking someone. Usually its people attacking gays or women, not the other way around.

-- Condemning competing religious leaders as heretics and infidels.
Technically, and by definition, competing religious leaders ARE heretics and infidels. That's what being a heretic or infidel means. As for the condeming, it doesn't seem to happen much anyymore. Even the Pope finally went to Turkey. Also, you seem to be complaining that we are not all part of the same religion, but for it to get that way would require MORE religion not LESS religion. However, what I think you are complaining about is prejudice, and a preference for likeminded people over others, and that is clearly not a trait specific to religions.

-- Living sumptuous lifestyles, paid for primarily by the ignorant and indigent.. Your average minister has a college or graduate education and makes significantly less than his peers who have MBAs, law degrees, MDs, etc. Do you really think a Doctorate in Divinity from Harvard is a superior degree, financially, to a Harvard MBA, or Harvard Law degree, or a Doctorate in biochemistry for that matter. Actually, it perhaps compares to a Ph.D. in literature, but unlike a professor of literature your average preacher is on call 24/7 with horrible working hours and tons of job stress. Catholic clergy and Budhists, of course, essentially have taken a vow of poverty. For their education and skill level, clergy are extremely underpaid. Most could be making a lot more money doing other things. However, I believe in terms of pay they are on par with teachers, so clearly you can't say that religion is the only one who pays their employees poorly - governments do it, too!

-- Influencing their followers' votes from the pulpit.
Technically illegal, in the US. However, I can go down to the street corner and influence people's votes if I'm a clever enough speaker and I have meaningful ideas. How is this bad? Every election the Democratic party and the local liberal weekly sends me a list of propositions to vote on and how they want me to vote. I tend to agree with them, so I take their opinions into account. So clearly, this is not something only a religion can do.

-- Denying religious rituals to politicians of their own faith who disagree with them on a single issue.
You are basically speaking of excommunication, and clearly this is something only a religion can do. Only a religion can kick someone out of their religion. However, if religion did not exist you would still have civic clubs or social clubs or other types of organizations, and people would kick out people who they didn't like. I got kicked out of a science club for goofing around too much in high school. It happens...

-- Practicing a political philosophy in direct contradiction to that of their holiest scripture.
Clearly you have never studied the talmud, my friend. Why, that is the wonderful thing about holy scripture, there is no hard and fast rules. If you will kindly point me to whatever scripture you are thinking of, I am sure there is an alternate verse somewhere, or someone has ruled it out of context, or some watering down has occured. We see in scripture what we want to see, so there can be no contradictions.

However, if you are objecting to hypocrisy or misleading statements or saying one thing while another is true, then I invite you to check out our own founding documents, the ones that said all men are created equal and then implemented a 3/5 rule on some. You can follow the history of our country right up through "I did not have sex with that woman" to weapons of mass distruction. Clearly, without religion, people would still be hypocrites.

Now, let me ask you a question, a question with a story. Somewhere in America, right now, a high school boy has gotten in trouble for the thousandth time. He is in the principal's office. The principal likes the boy, and doesn't want him expelled or perhaps throwin in jail, which would probably ruin the boy's life, but he needs the boy to calm down and behave, and he needs someplace to send the boy after school. The boy's father is gone and his mother works double shifts to support him and his younger siblings. The principal can't take the boy home himself, because that is against school policy and also because the boy views the principal as an enemy and won't listen to him. He could call a social worker but that would invariably involve the mother, who doesn't have time to deal with the social worker, and also might risk the boy being taken away or arrested, if this is a state where social workers are required to report crimes. Most principals, or at least the good ones, know all the local clergy and they generally know the religion of each of their kids, and work regularly with them. In the real world, the principal calls the boy's minister, who comes down and talks to the boy and takes him home, or perhaps to a youth group meeting along the way. In your world, without religion, well, I don't really know what happens, and I'm glad I don't have to find out.

I said it above, but I'll say it again, religion is for the poor, the oppressed, the people suffering from prejudice, the ill, the people without hope... If you are wealthy and healthy and living in the "Friends" universe, then the hypocrisy of religious leaders may seem enough reason to get rid of religion.

For most people, though, that's going to come across as saying, I hate George W, so let's get rid of government, and let's start with social security checks and medicare!

Not only unpopular, but playing right into right-wing hands....

I do not, in the slightest, disagree with your characterization of some "religious" folk as being of a character that would embarrass Elmer Gantry, or, if I may be permitted a more specialized literary reference, Nehemiah Scudder.

Please correct me if I misunderstood you, but my sense was that you were ascribing such motivations to all religious people. If you were not doing so, may I suggest, with sincerity and humility, that your writing style did not suggest such a distinction?

My own spirituality is eclectic, but certainly not associated with any of the Abrahamic religions. Even so, I can find wisdom in the writings of religious thinkers from Aquinas to Maimonedes to Teilhard du Chardin. While I repudiate the conclusions, it is still valuable to understand the thinking of a Qutb or Azzim.

Nevertheless, I know a reasonable number of religious people, clergy and laity, who are honest about their positions, clearly understand and respect the separation of church and state, and, within their particular moral systems, attempt to do good for society as a whole. My impression was that you were painting these, along with Eric Rudolph and Mohammed Atta, with much the same brush. Accept my apologies if your intent was to be more selective.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

And I can agree with you that it is unfair to say "no religion is a good religion."

Religious groups, or groups with strong religious affiliations, that attack science from a religious point of view or become politically active are always going to be in the crosshairs, and fair enough.

Hizbollah is not a religion. Nor is the 700 Club. Both praise God, raise money, do charitable work and are inseperable from their political agendas.

Hizbollah has an armed militia and kills people they don't like for a mix of religious and geo-political reasons. The 700 Club has an army of political activists who advocate using the American military to kill people they don't like for a mix of religious and geo-political reasons.

I'm not a fan of either one.

What is it about people in this country who think that nothing exists beyond our borders? I expect that attitude among jingoistic conservatives, but apparently progressives are so as blind to the larger world. Please reread my post! I am NOT just talking about America, but about the world as a whole, which is appropriate here because the thread began with someone tarring Christianity AS A WHOLE (not just American sectarian Christianity) with Creationism etc. Outside North America Creationism is indeed very rare. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglican communion and the international Lutheran communion (that's about 3/4 of Christendom right there) do not suscribe to fundamentalist-style Creationism.
As for the other poster's point about "ancient tribal tetxs", well that's not quite right. Most of our religious texts date from a bit later than that. They are at least ancient national texts. And so what? All our science and philosophy, literature and art and music, has ancient roots too. Just as the sun does not rise and set on America's borders so too history did not begin in 1776. Is this some sort of modern-day snobbery that turns up its nose at anything older that a human lifetime?

May I suggest that the idea of "teachings of religions", especially with respect to personal deities, are more characteristic of Abrahamic religions than all religions? In different ways, Buddhism and Taoism -- Confucianism being even more marginally a religion -- focus much more on one's way of living, and in relating to others, than to a supernatural being.

In many pagan and animist traditions, there is no concept of a personal deity, but, if we modernize the language, the belief system comes closer to the Jungian idea of an archetype. As a somewhat random example, certain neowiccan or neodruidic traditions focus on the duality of male and female, with the Horned God and the Lady being symbolic, just as are the athame and the chalice, or even the Great Rite. In ceremony, the circle may call upon attributes associated with archetypical male and female, sun and earth. "Defender against rape" is one of the attributes given to the Horned God, who Christians sometimes equate to the devil -- rather than a much closer aspect of a stag.

Using a Jungian perspective can give insight into many traditional animist patterns. It is also rather interesting to look at the cross-cultural similarities of the shamanic experience, comparing cultures that never could have been in physical contact. Interestingly, Michael Harner interviewed some shamanic healers, after he, a Western-trained anthropologist, became an initiate. The traditional healer freely admitted that certain aspects of the healing ritual were sleight-of-hand, but immediately put them in a context that should be acceptable to psychiatrists working with psychosomatic manifestations.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Of course, I can always get spiritual guidance from my wise and loving feline associate, Mr. Clark. You see, he wears the orange robes of a monk, has the gravitas of an abbot, the belly of the Buddha, and, for him, any bowl is suitable for begging for food.

I suppose he is mostly of Zen orientation, as he is fond of koans that establish all is edible to the prepared stomach and mind -- and that the purr is an excellent meditation.

He is a charming gentleman that I wish could be introduced to all present.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*