Well an interesting day economically: stock market falls around the world and Tokyo closing early as a result of the computers not coping with a run on technology shares following the announcement of fraud investigations, an increase in the UK unemployment figures of 110,000 (7%) to 1,530,000 (5%) primarily due to the outsourcing of manufacturing to the Far East, LD Platts figures showing a drop in the price of LDPE for the third consecutive month (though my few is this is just a cyclical seasonal price change), worries of European gas supplies from Russia.



I have considered your thoughts and they have struck a chord with some of my own. My conclusions (for the present):

What better venue than the WCG's forums. The WGC is global, as members we all share a common purpose, pooling our spare CPU processing power for the benefit of humanity, so why not use this global community as an opportunity learn more about how we perceive each other, and ourselves.

Having an open honest discussion in a public forum would hopefully allow a greater global input, thus rather than a UK view of the USA and vice versa, we encompass many more nations.

Topically a series has be running on UK television 'The Root of all Evil', which aserts that all relgions (not just extreme fundmental branches) are in herently Evil, that we should banish them all, and place our beliefs in factual science. Whilst I concurred which many of the presenter's premisses I found myself disagreeing with the several core ones: that it is religion that is the problem per se, that atheism is any better, that science is factual rather than our current best interpretation of the evidence.

Since I have had no feedback regarding my proposal, for the time being I will continue our discussion on this Thread.

It is impossible to have a useful discussion without unanimous agreement as to what all the labels/terms mean. For this purpose I propose that we use Wikipedia. For a precise definition of all the current "Christian political trends" (righ-wing, fundamentalist, evangelical, etc.) this URL is excellent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_right

Since Christianity is clearly a conservative religous institution, we need to understand the basic social & philosophical roots of conservatism as it is currently defined. I have condensed some paragraph quotes on this topic from Wikipedia:

"Conservatism is any of a number of political philosophies supporting traditional values or an established social order.

"In English-speaking countries, conservatism often refers to a political philosophy presented by Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke. Burkean conservatives wish to conserve heritage; they advocate the current social climate. To a Burkean, any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected. Burkeans do not reject change, as Burke wrote "a state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation," but they insist that further change be organic, rather than revolutionary.

"All conservatives value tradition. Tradition does not mean simply custom, habit or nostalgia for the past, though custom does inform tradition and sustain it. For a conservative, tradition is composed of standards and institutions that have been shown to promote the good, and therefore they find authority in tradition and apply it in politics. This authority, be it a person, a literature or a way of life, is rooted in the past, and thus cannot easily change.

"Religious conservatives look to the receipt of special knowledge from a traditional source. Note that these values arrive external to their surrounding social order; religion opposes "the world," though it may be informed by the world. So religious conservatism, rather than considering local sources of tradition, prefers the holy organization of church, mosque or temple, which delivers special knowledge received so long ago.

"Burke argued that tradition is a much sounder foundation than "reason". The conservative paradigm he established emphasizes the futility of attempting to ground human society based on pure abstractions (such as "reason," "equality," or, more recently, "diversity"), and the necessity of humility in the face of the unknowable. Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of time, while "reason" may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation.

"Conservatives typically limit innovation out of risk aversion. Change is by nature risky; it can potentially disrupt or even ruin the social order, which is the only existing guarantee that conservative values will survive. Maintaining the status quo at least preserves these values, so conservatives favour heritage over innovation, incremental change over utopian projects, and unity over discord. This attitude is well summed up by the Shakespearean phrase, 'Discretion is the better part of valor.' "

The opposing historical/social movements are referred to as "The Age of Enlightment" and "The Age of Reason". The best definition is again quoted directly from Wikipedia:

"In his famous 1784 essay 'What Is Enlightenment?', Immanuel Kant defined it as follows:

" 'Enlightenment is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if its cause is not lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own intelligence!' "

Now that religious affiliation is a close second best predictor of voter preference (only party affiliation is higher) it is obvious there is a powerful political movement best referred to as a broad "Christian-based political action coalition," that we could call C-PAC [see-pack], (which may include non-Christians). We must not simply (in our own minds) lump all the different political subgroups together in some generic classification that we tend to think of as "the Christian Right".

First, our subsequent views would be entirely incorrect. Second, we would lose valuable knowldedge which is vital to our understanding of the dynamics of this movement; especially if we anticipate a potential need to challenge or modify it. Third, a new nomenclature such as C-PAC would direct equal attention to the political action component (which is our real concern); not just the Christian-based component. It would also avoid the "demonizing of Christianity effect" which will only further polarize and distort the dialogue.

If we aspire to be clear-thinking and effective, we must be intellectually precise and emotionally neutral.

If only it were that easy. Still, aarao2000, it is certainly a point worth making.

The first thing that came to my mind when I read you post was Manhattan.

The city is a virtual pot-pourri of sharply deliniated ethnic neighborhoods; each of which boasts its own cuisine, ethnic character and language. Just cross one small street and you have literally walked from China to Italy. In the middle of this patchwork ethnic quilt is an agora that rivals those of the ancients.

Yet, somehow the city is more vibrant and functional because of it. Probably because it embraces differences, and doesn't try to "homogenize" them. Even more inspiring is that in the end, whatever their backgrounds, every native takes fierce pride in the fact that they are, first and foremost, (Manhattan) "New Yorkers."

For me, in many ways N.Y. / N.Y., is illustrative of what is the best part of being an American.

Unfortunately, we do not get most of these programs here. My preferred news source is "The BBC World News" at 6AM, channel 15 on Insight Cable.

It would be interesting to hear the support that the producers offer for their position. Like you, my thinking has not led me to the conclusion that all religions are inherently evil. That is not to say that almost all religions do not eventually become a destructive force in social and political affairs. Nor does this mean that they do not, at times, provide useful and constructive functions in society.

Religion is analagous to the famous passage by Paul: "The good that I would do I do not do, and the evil that I would not do I do." Although religion may initially originate out of the best of intentions, owing to man's nature the sad results are predictably the same.

Ooooo this is going to be fun.

Here in the UK the Church of England, is a self contradicty organistantion, it is in general conservative (with a small 'c') and allied with the Conservative (with big 'c') party, but in political terms it is predominantly socialist (left-wing) in nature. It has embraced the ordination of women, and is in general accepting of Homosexuals which can both be considered as liberal (with a small 'l') acts. Looking out to the global anglican church, currently skirting arround the edges of schism, this to is a very broad mix. On the one hand you have the US branch which invested an openly homosexual Bishop (hardly a conservative act) whilst on the other you have the rabidly homophobic African branches.

This is where we must take care with our definitions and labels and beware of generalisations. However I concurr with your suggestion of using Wikipedia as the common reference source. We must also take care with the language we use. You know what they say two countries divided by a common language. In my GE days our favourite for winding up the 'Yanks' and the 'Jocks' (slang a nickname for a Scotsman) was to use the word 'presently' in our presentations.

As for the Topic, I would like to see it run, but all be it with an amended and possibly more appropriate title.