wtf is wrong with so many Muslims?!

[greyowl]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

It's alright to be a bit liberal, Grey, but being moronic is unneccessary. More advanced? Bwahahahahahahahahhaa! Come on man, put the rhetoric away.

I'll take you up on the challenge Griz. Yes, many Indian societies were as advanced or more advanced than Old World societies thnat existed at the same time.

For example, the Mayans developed a mathematical system that was much more complicated than Old World mathematics in many ways.

"Maya mathematics constituted the most sophisticated mathematical system ever developed by that time. The Maya counting system required only three symbols: a dot representing a value of one, a bar representing five, and a shell representing zero. These three symbols were used in various combinations, to keep track of calendar events both past and future, and so that even uneducated people could do the simple arithmetic needed for trade and commerce. That the Maya understood the value of zero is remarkable - most of the world's civilizations had no concept of zero at that time."

In the field of politics, the Iroqouis Six Nations Confederacy was a much more sophisticated political system than any that existed in Europe at the time. The Iroqouis developed a government based on two houses; a lower house based on strict representation by population; and an upper house with equal representation from each Nation.

At the time of the American Revolution the founding fathers acknowedged ther superiority of Iroqouian political thought and organization by seeking the Iroqouis sachems' advice and adopting the Six Nations system as their model for the U.S. constitution.

"Benjamin Franklin's Articles of Confederation [1775] resembled the political structure of the Iroquois and other native nations that bordered the thirteen colonies. Down to the language Franklin used (the confederacy was called "a firm league of friendship"), the new states (Franklin still called them "colonies") retained powers similar to those of the individual tribes and nations within many native confederacies -- local problems were to be solved by the local unit of government best suited to their nature, size and scope, while national problems, such as diplomacy and defense, were to be handled by the national government. This notion of "federalism" was very novel to European eyes at that time. Among native peoples in America, the idea was so old that we have no record of when it first came into use.

The Articles of Confederation also contained a similarity to the Iroquois and other confederations because it had difficulties in levying taxes with any degree of authority. With the aid of historical hindsight, one may argue that the founders, in establishing the first confederatin of states, erred in their judgement of just how much "natural law" a gaggle of thirteen former English colonies could absorb. Like many native confederacies, their first attempt at government had a very weak executive -- not a problem if a legislative body strives for genuine consensus, but potentially paralyzing in a system more attuned to reconciling competing special interests, as the United States' evolved.

The Articles contained another native mechanism intriguing to European eyes: a clause allowing for amendment, just as the Iroquois Great Law of Peace provides that new measures may be "added to the rafters" of the symbolic national longhouse. Like the Iroquois Great Law, Franklin's Articles provided means by which new people and territory could be brought into the confederacy."

Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of American Democracy
By
Donald A. Grinde, Jr.
University of California at Riverside
and
Bruce E. Johansen
University of Nebraska at Omaha

Another time we can get into a discussion about the superiority of native American religious philosophy. In the meantime, I will leave with you one thought. I have studied native American spirituality for quite a while, and never have I encountered a native relgious belief as repellant, crude and fascistic as the following principle, which forms the basis of Western political thought.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

Romans 13:1-7

This principle is in direct contrast to most Indian societies, where challenges to authority were permitted, and critical thought was encouraged.

[greyowl]

Originally Posted by van-man

Greyowl, I believe you have unwittingly assisted my case. Whenever and where-ever, a religion is adopted as a state religion, these are the type of events we see. Christian or musilm the result will be and has been the same.

There was a social and political philosopher, whose name I can't remember, who said, "Where ever there is no choice, there is no faith." That is the inherent flaw with any state religion.

Religion is meant to be privately held and publicly protected, not the inverse.

I wasn't addressing your point but I agree with it. Separation of Church and State was developed to protect the Church from the State, not the State from the Church. And it was that good Jewish boy Rabbi Joshua who said, Give unto Caesar what is his, and give unto the LORD all that is His.

[van-man]

After re-reading my post, I probably should have said "unintentionally", but we're getting each other so its all good.

[Grizzly]

Awww, come on, Grey. Now we're talking about 2 out of hundreds of tribes. I may be mistaken, but I also believe that thing about the Mayas refers to thousands of years ago, not at the time of European Conquest.

Also, I find that our government bears a bit of resemblence to the ideas fashioned by the Greeks and Romans. I guess that's just because I'm not pushing an anti-white American agenda.

And two tiny instances hardly count as being more advanced on the whole. If they'd have been more advanced, then they wouldn't have had their asses handed to them, now would they?

[Kayz]

You are all wrong because the fucking Mayan temples were built by aliens to use as a landing strip while on their intergalactical quests. SAme thing goes for the Egyptian pyramids.

[van-man]

I think I saw that in a movie once!

[greyowl]

Originally Posted by Kayz

You are all wrong because the fucking Mayan temples were built by aliens to use as a landing strip while on their intergalactical quests. SAme thing goes for the Egyptian pyramids.

Wait a minute. wasn't Manwhore born in Roswell in 1948?

This is all starting to make sense to me. Time to smoke another blunt.

[sc redneck]

Originally Posted by greyowl

Wait a minute. wasn't Manwhore born in Roswell in 1948?

This is all starting to make sense to me. Time to smoke another blunt.

[CaesarWilliam]

A propewr religion as a concept does not exist on planet earth.

Religion as a concept was dreamed up as a way for man to explain things he does not understand, and to give him hope in the future and times of despair.

The proper Religion of tomorrow would include things like, evolution, atomic science, astro-physics, genetics ect. It would also recognize man's basic needs(sex, love, violence, hatred ect) not try to repress honest, normal, instincts that we have developed through the course of human history. These instincts were developed for our survival.

The religion of tomorrow would recognize we are not above our planet. The rape of our living space for finacial gain must cease. (I ain't no hippie) Man must realize that the individual means absolutly nothing and that good of the whole is most important or we will be exterminated by evolution. Evolution dictates that if we do not continue to evolve then we will be eradicated.(ask the millions of dead species that preceded us!) We cannot mold the world to our needs. we must mold ourselves around the structure of the world that currently exists. This religion would be a higherarchy of power to be used to the continued evolution of man so that we could strive as a community to constantly better ourselves, physically, mentally as a species. This is our religion of the future.

But the Comsumer world we live in has softened us to the point that we will probobly greet our extinction with smiling faces and open arms! Here's to the death of a species! Hail Christian, hail muslim, buddist or what ever.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to take a shit.

[greyowl]

Originally Posted by CaesarWilliam

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to take a shit.

After reading your post, I do too.

[dennis]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Woah, woah, woah! Let's not make shit up here, shall we? The Constitution(the document which founded and is the heart of America) is SPECIFICALLY a non-religious document founded on non-religious princicples.

While a goodly percentage of the population may have been religious, the foundation of the country is NOT religious or religion. In fact, the Constitution and America was founded as an areligious place ON PURPOSE so that we didn't have another case of the Church of England or some crazy towel-wearing fucksticks running around and oppressing everyone here.

You can thank reason and non-religious men for the freedoms you have.

I can thank Jesus' preciuos blood for the freedom I have along with all the brave americans that have died to protect our country..d

[CaesarWilliam]

I'm curious if you have ever been to another Country. I'd say on the true "Freedom Factor" America is dragging up the rear right now. You are persecuted. At every level of life the governement intervines.

Other countries have less infrastucture, but are far freer. Latin America for example has it flaws, but all in all the people are much more friendly, the law is very minimal, police interfearnace in your daily life is non-existant, business is much less restricted, and these places are very easy to make a good living in. There are no wars. In some countries there is not even a Military. Because they don't need one. (I am not anti-war in principle)

I love the States, but I can no longer live there. No Freedoms have remained as they were intended. Freedom of speech is words the media will bend, they can hold you indefinatly without trial, you can't own a gun without being placed in a government computer. I think you can still take a shit without permisission, but I ain't been in COuntry in a couple years, so that may have changed also.

Ben Franklin said that Anyone who gives up essential liberty for a trade of saftey deserves neither liberty nor safety.

I'm sure your answer to me is "AMERICA! Love it our leave it!" My answer, "I did."

[van-man]

By the way you phrased your statement, it sounds like you were told to leave....

[CaesarWilliam]

Nope, just a choice. I don't mean it's for everyone.

[Bob Smith]

Caeser, Ive been to South America and all in all, I think it sucks. They may have less govt interference, but the average standard of living is lower than the average poor family in America. Try speaking out against Hugo Chavez in Caracas and lets see what your opinion of the Venezuelan military is. Ive been there and see the military in action. My dad has done a lot of business down there, and its not a "friendly" place to go when you have to have military escort and protection when you leave the city. No doubt there are some beautiful places down there, but the standard of living is low, freedoms depend entirely on which country you are in, and the political instability in most of those countries is enough to stay away.