Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[Crusader]

Well, Pete and I discussed this at length a couple years ago.

What about religion as a social system of transcendent idealism focused on concepts of unity of world culture, bringing principles, mores and a code of conduct? I think there is room in our society for aspiring to abstract ideals of productive behavior versus that notion of ALL religion as simple super-naturalism. Also, socially, I feel there is a need for aspiring towards higher levels of achievement and self-awareness, or a "higher consciousness." Or, as Buddhists would say, a correct way of thinking and acting, versus the fundamentalist (pick a religion) who proselytizes for manipulation, conquest and promotes the worship of supernatural beings.

I see that society has certain fabrics, like "family", "culture", and "traditions". When you destroy them, you leave a void that is filled with... What? Moral bankruptcy? Egoism? Narcissism? Lady Gaga? A return to barbarism? What do you think happens? Does everyone get more scholastic suddenly? I think generally, it turns out more like Russia after the fall of the totalitarian state, (i.e. drugs, crime, and sex). I don't care what the mechanism is, but I feel people need social fabrics with which they build societies.

here you suggest that Atheism equates to moral bankruptcy. preposterous. A society can create rules of conduct without the presence of a deitific power. If people embrace Athiesm they can still strive for ideals, like making the world an utopia for all, or for further scientific progress, to name a few. Why can't a society based on Atheism not have fabrics like "family", "culture", and "traditions"? I mean, you worry about drugs, crime, lady gaga and whatnot, but may I remind you that these plague the highly religious USA far, far more then they do the more Atheist Netherlands?

The Dark Ages came after the descent of Rome into decadence, and thus weakened they were overwhelmed by their intrepid barbarian former allies. The Roman empire collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy, and failure to continue expanding. Its economy and decadence were fueled by conquest, where nations were pillaged and the booty carted off to Rome. Once the conquests ended, the coffers dried up, but the appetites did not, and thus the empire crumbled leading to barbarian dominance in Europe for the next few hundred years. If anything, the tendency for monasteries to collect and translate the few books that were around preserved knowledge and led to the eventual rediscovery of the Greek and Roman philosophies, and thus the age of enlightenment and preservation of western civilization.

Barbarian dominance? We're talking about the Middle ages (500AD-1500AD) here. The Church was the greatest power out there for the most part of that time period. Sure, by current standards the people lived barbarically in good parts of Europe in the first centuries but by the year 1000 that was certainly no longer the case.

What scientific advances have been thwarted? I mean consider Darwin, studying Theology at Cambridge who started his journey as a part of this exploration. Or, Mendel and his discovery of genetic inheritance.

Surely you kid me. I am talking about the middle ages. Darwin lived 1809–1882. Mendel in 1822–1884, both in the age of enlightenment. It was in the period 500-1500AD that science was greatly hampered. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was mentioned and was in the period when the church finally was losing it's grip. Everything before then that did not fit the strict christian teachings was branded heretical and would land the scientist in no ends of trouble, often including death. The earth was the center of the universe and everything, sun, stars and all, revolved around it. Because Earth was created by God. And of course it's flat. Oh yes. You can fall off at the end. Try to say otherwise and you are a heretic. you will be branded, your jaw dislocated for speaking heresy and you would be burned at a stake. No, the church preferred the flock to be dumb and in absolute terror of them, for they were the only ones who could save them in the afterlife.

Finally, about Islam. I wouldn't have a problem with Islam if it were a peaceful voluntarily selected social construct (such as Sufism), but that is not how radical Islam (Wahabism, or Salafism) works. As is happening in places like Sudan, or France, or Holland, they grow to a critical mass, then seek to dominate regionally, and eventually displace the non-Islamic people through implementation of Sharia law or outright violence(e.g. Darfur, Somalia). The non-Islamic people are subjected to the rules of dhimmitude, where it becomes easier to convert to Islam than to remain a virtual slave with few rights. Terrorism is just the tip of the sword, the sharp edge is the jihad (struggle) to dominate the world. I don't see that these people who are hiding bombs in their panties are very willing to sit down and discuss peaceful strategies for constructive engagement. The Obama (Hope and Change) message has been lost on them, and the lack of Bush-Cheney doesn't seem to have changed their strategies, or tenacity at all. We might capitulate and retreat to our caves(ostrich strategy), and hope they choose to just leave us alone. But, then again, when global dominance is the jihad, then this probably just advances their agenda. Right? This latest attempted bombing reveals that the US has returned to the failures of 2001, and it will embolden the terrorists for another big hit soon. The lesson we seem to have learned from Gitmo is... take fewer prisoners.

The way to win is not to go kicking their butts around Waziristan, Af-Pak, Iraq, or Yemen, but to isolate them there and let the locals deal with them where possible aided where we can. I'm getting tired of the US getting the bad reputation of being the worlds police force, paid for by us with borrowed money. As far as Holland, France, London, Detroit, or other front lines facing internal assimilation goes, the only successful strategy will be a total intolerance for Islamification, which is not an intolerance for Islam, but rather an intolerance for displacing the rule of law, or radicalization and subsequent violence. This means we need to get tough on treasonous behavior committed by our own citizenry, and deportation for resident aliens/non-citizens. We suppress the wrong headed ideas of skin heads by being intolerant of their racist rhetoric, and exposing the fallacy of their wrong headed ideas. The same needs to be done with the wrong headed ideas in radical Wahabbist/Salafist Islam.

A bit nationalist extremist, but I fear you're right as far as the extremists are concerned. However, there are many, many, many moderate muslims who have in fact successfully integrated in countries like The Netherlands (We're not Holland, that's only two provinces of the Netherlands). They are most welcome indeed and contribute to the country. But they are overshadowed, sadly, by the actions of the few. the extremists and the poor integrators and the jobless profiteers of our more than kind social system.

Hi,
Sorry, the problems with Rome, and its decline, started even before there was a Christianity. Look at the civil wars at the time of Julius Caesar which eventually led to his assassination and the eventual rise to power of Octavius. In that evolution from a republic to an empire, indeed even in the events leading to that evolution, are the seeds of the eventual downfall of Rome. Many factors contributed and by the fourth century, when Christianity became the official religion, the fall was well under way.

As you've probably noticed, I'm no great defender of religion, but to blame Christianity or any other religion for the fall of Rome is wrong. Equally wrong is to attribute the survival of the ancient knowledge to the monks. They destroyed much more than they preserved, scraping manuscripts of ancient writings to reuse the vellum and parchment for their endless copies of the Bibles, Lives of the Saints, and other superstitious nonsense. Recently some previously unknown work of Archimedes was found by examining an old religious manuscript under UV light.

What little preservation of the ancient works that did happen was because of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire which lasted a millennium longer than the Western. And these works were reintroduced into Western Europe by returning crusaders and later traders who acquired them from the Muslims. Until Genghis Kahn devastated the Islamic world, its civilization and society were far in advance of the west.

Credit where credit is due, and the same for blame. Not all that we do is right, not all that our enemies do is wrong.

--Pete

Rome actually fell due to a lot of reasons and indeed, Christianity was named as one.

Reasons for the Fall of Rome

By N.S. Gill, About.com Guide

In A.D. 476 the last Roman emperor to rule the western Roman Empire was kicked out of office. Edward Gibbon and others pick this for the date of the fall of Rome. The Sack of Rome in 410 is also popular as a date for Rome's fall. Some say the Roman Empire never fell. But assuming it did fall, why did it fall? There are adherents to single factors, but more people think Rome fell because of a combination of such factors as Christianity, decadence, and military problems. Even the rise of Islam is proposed as the reason for Rome's fall, by some who think the Fall of Rome happened at Constantinople in the 15th Century.

1. Christianity
Over time, Church leaders became influential and took away power from the emperor. Christian beliefs conflicted with the working of empire.

2. Barbarians and Vandals
Rome embraced the barbarians but also lost territory and revenue to them, especially in Carthaginian Africa, which they lost to the Vandals.

3. Decay
"Marble 1st century A.D. Roman Naval Soldier"CC Joe Geranio
One can spot decay in many areas going back to the crises of the Republic under the Gracchi, Sulla and Marius, but in the imperial period and in the military it meant men were no longer trained right and the invincible Roman army was no longer.

4. Inflation
By the time of Claudius II Gothicus (268-270 A.D.) the amount of silver in a supposedly 100% silver denarius was only .02%. This led to or was severe inflation, depending on how you define inflation.


5. Lead
The presence of lead in the drinking water leached in from the water pipes, from glazes, and food preparation could have contributed to heavy metal poisoning. Lead was associated with contraception and recognized as a deadly poison.

6. Economic
Economic factors are cited as a major cause of the fall of Rome. Some of the major factors, like inflation, are discussed elsewhere. But there were also lesser problems with the economy of Rome that combined together to escalate financial stress. These include:

* Poor management,
* The dole (bread and circuses), and
* Hoarding.

7. Division of the Empire
"Map of Constantinople (1422) by Florentine cartographer Cristoforo Buondelmonte "Public Domain. Courtesy of Wikipedia.
The Roman Empire was split not just geographically, but culturally, with a Latin Empire and a Greek one, the latter of which may have survived because it had most of the population, a better military, more money, and better rule.

8. Hoarding and Deficit
Causes of the fall of Rome include economic decay through hoarding of bullion, barbarian looting of the treasury, and trade deficit.