Blasphemer!!!! Hahahahahaha Those 'philosopher' types, ya cain't trust 'em - no fear o' Gawd. Too mush thinkin' goin' awn - no akchin.

And he made really nice Jasperware too - very cool stuff - LOL. It does seem though that some folks never learn from their 'mistakes' while others need only observe or at worst make, a mistake once. Most seem to behave as if any undesirable outcomes of their actions are due to the fact that they didn't do forcefully enough, whatever it is they did to generate the undesirable outcomes in the first place. Then they do the ritual again. This amusing pastime is known as 'banging one's head against a wall' and is, if correctly performed according to its hallowed tradition, accompanied by the requisite mantra, "I'll try harder next time". God forbid (as he's wont to do) they try a new tack.

AHD: behavior n. 1. The MANNER in which one behaves. || act n. 1. The PROCESS of doing or performing something: the act of thinking. 2. Something done or performed; a DEED: ... "Gee Virginia, there really IS a difference" said Alice while puffing mightily on her Maduro. Didn't your teacher ever tell you? Well, Virginia, it's like this; one describes a manner in which a deed is done and the other denotes the deed itself. How very, VERY odd these English speakers 'behave'. Let's go smoke the hookah su'more Alice.

Uh, 'MILLIONS' is a teensy-weensy bit of an overstatement. It's an assertion that, to put it charitably, would fall into the category of 'excrement'. "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." - Sec. 191 - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche - Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft. Then, of course, there's wholesale fabrication - always a hit. Here are the most current stats I've found - Deaths from Automobile accidents injury: 42,443 deaths in USA 2001 (CDC); 42,401 deaths reported in USA 1999 for "motor vehicle accidents" (NVSR Sep 2001); 41,804 deaths in 2000 (CDC). These numbers denote ALL traffic related accidents in those years, INCLUDING the approximately 41%+/- of those involving alcohol. In 2002, 17,419 people in the United States died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, accounting for 41% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA, 2003). That's a high number but it's just a little short of 'MILLIONS'. As for the 'writings of the founders', it would be really useful if David were to cite the actual sources wherefrom he derives his information. In particular, I'd like to know how just exactly how mortals might proceed to divine that "... they would clearly expect us to defend ourselves against impaired drivers." I've been searching for a neat Magi's trick and divination is always a crowd pleaser. Evidently, (and I've said this in reply to another of David's calls for summary executions of those who HE, in his God-like magnanimity, deems 'criminals') he finds the Constitution an obstruction to his base urge to kill: David, Let's just break the law to enforce it. And, while we're at it, why don't we just eliminate the right to a fair trial by a jury of one's peers and the right to face one's accuser(s). Let's eliminate the Bill of Rights altogether while we're at it - it's such an annoying impediment to the fun of summary executions in the town square. How COULD we have ever been so shortsighted as to think this 'Constitution' thing actually made any sense?" If I didn't know better, I'd suspect there's more than alcohol at work here - there's gasbagitis corrupticus. 'Hattip' to 'Bugs'.

Five stars for general sentiment. The trouble with this quote (in English) is the use of the words 'good' and 'bad', both of which are awful ('bad' - LOL) words. These words persistently and insidiously avoid the fact that they are both evaluative, subjective, and indistinct (nebulous) in their application. I mean, few seem willing to admit that what they call 'good' is simply what they 'like' or that what they call 'bad' is simply what they 'dislike'. Logan; Plato isn't addressing 'morality'. Plato is addressing 'responsible ACTION' ("... act responsibly") in relation to laws and the observance of laws. - It would be illuminating if you were to provide some insight into just EXACTLY how you've arrived at your assertion that 'most atheists claim morality is government forced coercion' ("... - the government forced coercion that most athiests claim morality to be, ..."). Your assertion makes me wonder how many atheists you know or if you know any at all, let alone whether you have any idea what 'most' atheists 'claim'. Perhaps you have some writings by atheists to back up your assertions. I'd be fascinated to read them. I'd side with Madalyn Murray O'Hair: "An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated."

One star for showing up. I think this quote misses the factors of the innate (native) tribal tendencies of humans to, at almost all levels of any social structure EXCEPT at the very top level(s), 'tow the party line'. Darwin was closer to the 'truth' than even he might have imagined. Witness the Scopes' "monkey trial". The 'right of the individual to establish his or her own beliefs' is entirely intact. The willingness to make use of and the willingness to defend that right is, and always has been, meager. At this very moment, the top echelon of our 'elected' leaders are dilligently at work devising ways to, slowly but surely, relieve us of many, if not most or all, of the rights formerly guaranteed by the Constitution - all in the name of promoting such concepts as 'freedom' and security and 'morality'.

Dear Editor, You make me just want to jump up and cheer 'BRAVO!'. Thank goodness there are brave souls like yourself out there. Your site is a wonderful example of people who promote discussion of subjects which aren't always brought up in 'polite' company but whose airing is a benefit to all. We are all, whether we know it or not, in your debt for your service. Thanks so very much.

Bingo, E Archer - beautifully articulated in a non-judgmental framework.

Thanks for the 'heads up' on the 'Ten' Joe. Hadn't recalled that version but it embodies my take exactly as you may have guessed - not that I dismiss the original Ten - for the 'simple', 'common sense' (it's not called 'common' for nothing - is it?) precepts that they are. The trouble many folks have with Bertrand Russell is that he does think, question, reason, and provide evidence BEFORE making grand pronouncements. It's a quality I value highly and a quality which is systematically discouraged in the dicta of most religions but especially in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Russell was, after all, a mathematician by training. It's a dicipline which rests on axioms, lemmata, and 'proofs'. I remember being amazed at how his texts made the underlying principles of calculus seem simple (to me at least) when the college texts made them seem less easily apprehensible or more obscure.

I do agree with Joe insofar as my experience has let me know that 'police-ing' institutions, be it local authorities or national services, frequently, if not often, have their own ''administrative well being at the top of their list of priorities with their purported 'tasking' somewhere below that. There are clearly many exceptions to this 'norm' but sadly, unless there's overwhelming human tragedy at hand, too few in my opinion. The response to 9/11 by emergency services personnel was a time when 'tasking' was galvanized in an extraordinary, inspiring way. No one however, at that time, was concerned with directing anyone's 'opinions' or 'private habits'. That's a luxury reserved for times when there's nothing better to do.

A prescient statement indicating a deep understanding of history and the timeless human proclivities and foibles of the masses as well as the religious and ideological despots who dictate (as in dictator) what's acceptable and what isn't. Think post-9/11 mindset for a recent example when we had 'fredom fries' on the menu in our nation's Capitol. Think the imprisonment of Galileo for heresy in 1633 for having the unmitigated, heretical audacity (Psalms 93 and 104, and Ecclesiastes 1:5 refer to the motion of celestial bodies and the suspended position of the earth.) to suggest that the Earth MIGHT go around the Sun (he, of course, knew that it did) in contravention to the then accepted 'Biblical' thinking that the Earth was surely the 'center of all things' because, well, 'God had clearly made it so'. On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II officially announced that the Church had 'mishandled' the case - not that it was 'wrong', just that it had 'mishandled'. At that rate, religion will recognize hydrogen fusion in, oh, let's say circa 2255. Progressive if I do say so myself! There are those 'unorthodox' folks on the loose who might conclude that this tendency to be, well, 'late' makes the church irrelevant or 'stupefying' or numbing. They might even go so far as to think of the institutions as, oh, uhhh, - what's a kind euphemism for 'numb nuts'? . . . Oh yeah, 'numb, nuts'. They just might have a point.

There are judgmental types who will disagree on the basis of their own convenient, highhanded 'morality'. It won't change the validity of this quote. It's nice though that 'heresy' is also no longer a crime like it was in the 'good old days' when a site of this nature would have been burned on the ashheap of great works.

It just occurred to me: "speeding drivers"? Just exactly what percentage of drivers ACTUALLY stay under the speed limit at all times? If all persons who 'speed' were arrested, there'd be no one left to tend the store. Can you imagine if all commuters stayed under the posted speed limit? If they did, the freeways would become permanent parking lots - AND - they'd be cited for obstructing the traffic flow. This is one area of institutionalized hypocrisy that seems, in part at least, designed to provide a supplemental income stream for a service which is undeniably useful and necessary despite its flaws. It's just disingenuous in certain areas of its structure. I really have to wonder about this inane, sanctimonious, and hypocritical 'moralizing' stuff. Ahh well, 'God' made us in his image and I'm sure he can't be ashamed. Remember; 'HE has a plan'.

Ok, there are SOME folks I REALLY wouldn't want to see nude in public - or, well, ... anywhere for that matter - euwwwww - LOL. But really, it's a non-issue, isn't it? I mean, does anybody actually CARE if there's public nudity? Ooooh, better watch out! Suppression of libel is lurking for a peek.

EXCELLENT points Joe and Anon. That really IS funny - especially as it relates to Weil.

Brenda; "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. President. - Speech, 18 Dec. 1840, to Illinois House of Representatives

AHD - "suppress, stifle, repress. These verbs mean to hold in check something requiring or struggling to find an outlet. Suppress suggests the exercise of force that drastically inhibits or crushes."
An example of 'political suppression' then would be stifling expression to further some political agenda. It's one of the devices employed by dictators like Kim Jong Il, Mao Ze-Dong, and Fidel Castro. It's also used by 'wannabe dictator-ettes' (rock on) like those who aren't really happy with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights because these institutions get in the way of their base urges. One of the standard 'covers' or 'justifications' for these sorts of 'suppression-happy' power hogs is 'morality'. Another 'cover' is 'safety' like invading 'inconvenient' regimes under the banner of making the world 'safer' and then resorting to a 'moral' rationale ('freeing' a population) after it's discovered there really was no threat to OUR 'safety'. In pursuing power, Hitler's rationale was, in part, based on the 'safety' platform: On February 27, 1933, Nazis burned the Reichstag building. After the fire on February 28, 1933, president Hindenburg and Hitler invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permitted the suspension of civil liberties during national emergencies. We now have more than a few proponents of ignoring the Constitution in pursuit of furthering their 'moral' agendas. Sounds eerily familiar to me.

F. Tremblay; because he has that grandpa-like facial hair - like Santa Clause. What more 'authority' do you want from a guy marketing 'snake oil' anyway? The real reason though, is the same one that accounts for G. W. Bush's current White House stint - we're idiots.

'Classics', be they fables, parables, plays, or epic poems like those of Homer, owe their durability to the fact that they are universally or almost universally applicable and relevant at all times. Colloquial shorthand for that quality is that they're 'true' in the sense of 'fidelity' to the human condition. This one certainly is. It's also true that Disney has 'cute-ified' many classics to make them palatable and accessible to children and the average cultural ingénue.

Logan: I don't recall saying that "it was 'religion' that destroyed the (any) civilization." I also don't recall saying that "Religion has been the historical reason of national decay". I'm at a loss as to just exactly how you've managed to arrive at the supposition that I "confuse religion with compulsion...". Examples to support your contentions would be helpful. I'll make you a deal; You provide one example supporting your contention(s) and I'll provide one in turn to support my (actual) contention(s). I'll go first, OK? Let's take one of the most eggregious examples in MODERN history: In Germany, during (among other times not mentioned here) the early years of the 20th century (1900s) the majority religion (Christianity-protestant mainly) justified the murder of millions of Jews and other minorities under the banner of the superiority of Christianity and the (purported) 'race' that practiced it. With your permission, I'm going to be so bold as to label that 'mistreatment and marginalization' so as not to overstate the issue. Your turn.

Robert; I used "ancient law of liberty" as my search string and Hugh Nibley's name came up on at least 2 entries out of the 4 along with BYU on the others. Using "law of liberty" returns a large number of entries from other quarters of Christendom as well. It's actually referred to in the KJ Version as well as the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. From the KJV; - James 1:25 - But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. - James 2:12 - So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. | You should read in context though. The only thing I'm contending here is that, by the tenets of Christianity itself, no one gets to judge another - even if they're on target. No voting (handslap) - that's God's purview. The salient point of this discussion is that, from WITHIN the Christian framework, 'we' are admonished not to judge. From OUTSIDE ... of Christian tenets ... we get to judge all we want. Matthew 7:2 - For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. | Luke 6:37 - Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: ... As I understand it (please correct me if I've got it wrong), you don't get to play God IF you're Christian. You don't get to avoid Christian teaching to support Christian teaching - that's hypocrisy. I mean, no one could judge me a Christian or not a Christian if they were following Christian scripture. Anyone can label me according to inclination (and they do - LOL) but it's pi$$ing into the wind - in a manner of speaking (LOL) and reveals, well, nothing but their inclination.

It's so hard for a non-medium to know what a deceased person WOULD say. What she DID say in this quote is "I never hurt nobody but myself . . ." - hardly the kind of thing that qualifies as a crime

I agree David. Let's just break the law to enforce it. And, while we're at it, why don't we just eliminate the right to a fair trial by a jury of one's peers and the right to face one's accuser(s). Let's eliminate the Bill of Rights altogether while we're at it - it's such an annoying impediment to the fun of summary executions in the town square. HEADSLAP! How COULD we have ever been so shortsighted as to think this 'Constitution' thing actually made any sense? Now that I've been alerted to the errors of my thinking, it's becoming amply clear that Saddam was on to a much better way after all. - LMFAO

Pardon my noticing, but I don't see the word 'abuse' in any comments preceeding your comment David. There's a difference between 'use' and 'abuse'. 'ABUSE' is DEFINED as: "To use wrongly or improperly; misuse." 'Abuse' is therefore, by implication of its definition, almost always undesirable - a tautology. I too, have been channeling Mill - ROFL.

Moral indignation: The death-grip of fear that someone, somewhere, might be having a better time than you've ever had or are likely to ever have and is laughing at you because they know it.