In What Direction is Our Society Evolving?

Today I watched one of the most ignorant, farsical displays I've seen in a long time. It was one of these "court trials" on the book review station but on by Freedomfest 2010. The topic of the way was "Is Religion beneficial to our social conduct?" The opening speaker talked about the massive stone cathedrals built in Europe while the common people were starving. He spoke of art and music and literature being produced that was not generally available to the unwashed masses. He spoke of how Greece was responsible for higher math and advanced concepts in art. At a certain point his opening statement was cut off by the "Judge" and he was accused of "filibustering". I have to suggest right here that the Judge didn't even know what a "filibuster" was. I can't respect a man with that kind of ignorance. It isn't cutting a guy off after he's making too many excellent points that makes your side look utterly stupid. Just to refresh your memory, a filibuster is for the purpose of stalling and NOT making points, of "running out the clock". A filibuster is reading your aunt's recipe for blueberry pie or reading the genealogy of the Egyptian pharaohs, or reading off names from a phone book. That's what a filibuster is. It was pointed out that "My opponent will try and tell you that Science couldn't advance in the world until the advent of Christianity in the West." Well, just to refresh your memory- - advances in science didn't take place in the west till the middle of the fourteen hundreds. And this was because of contact the Crusaders had had with Babylon and places in the Middle East, and points further East such as China, and contact with Islam, or in other words places that still respected Science, something they had abandoned in the West ever since the Fourth Century when the Nicine Creed was ratified. So the religious protagonist gets up there with the oppertunity to take the sum total of six or seven thousand years of acquired religious wisdom to try and make the best opening statement possible. He starts off by talking about a village you walk into where 95% know a man named "Bill" whereas the remaining five percent either don't know Bill, or else actively deny his existance. Well let's put on our thinking caps and try to anticipate his point. Does "Bill" somehow represent "God" in this story and 95% of the people say they know "God" and so must be right? Well, suppose we say to the 95%, "Good. Bill sounds like a nice guy. I'd like to meet him." And they say "Bill's not here. We can't find him and we have no idea where to look for him". And you ask for a photograph of Bill and none of the group photographs have Bill in them, and you can't find any DNA or forensic evidence that Bill ever existed there. I think I've made my point. One key point the Atheist made that really can't be refuted was that in telling the Jesus Passion Story, one is inclined to side with Jesus against the Jewish religious authorities, although Jesus was basically standing alone? The big question is "What capacity is there in man that gives him the ability to say that one religion is more moral than another religion? It can't come from religion". Then various socialogical studies were brought out to demonstrate that church going people are more moral. But then when cross examined and asked how the studies were "controled" for caused and effect, he said "None of that was done. We didn't regard it as necessary". One of the studies showed that people who attended a little church got drunk more often than people who never attended church at all. And he concluded "a little religion is better than none at all". But clearly many of the founders of religion might be called scitzophrenic by today's modern standards. The foundation for many of Hitler's anti-semitic ideas came from the Christian clergy. All the while we were told that that the apparent tranquility of modern day Europe can't be entered into evidence because "Europe was religious two hundred years ago". The best he could come up for Atheists causing social havoc is Po Pot in Cambodia, who went on a killing rampage back in the late 'seventies. This trial is reminicent of something Luis Monteith would do. It carries shallowness to a whole new dimension. It makes Sheria Law of the Muslems look enlightened by comparrison. In Sheria law there are no lawyers, no juries, no cross examination of witnesses, and no compulsary process for obtaining witnesses on your behalf. There is also much thing as a charge of purgery because being Muslem, you are presumed to be a person of contience. Women's testimony is given only half the weight of a man's. And Infidel's testimony may be disregarded alltogether. Also- - Sheria law does not accept any modern forensic evidence, so DNA evidence in rape trials is not admissable. Presumably women as well as men may get a divorce, but I imagine that isn't likely. Most modern Islamic countries have severely limited or abolished Polygamy. Moslems have a five tiered system of morality. There is behavior that is required, such as are in the Five Pillars of the Faith. There is behavior that is recomended. There is behavior that is neutral. There is behavior that is banned outright. And there is behavior that is "discouraged" because it might lead to banned behavior. In Calvary Anaheim behavior that is discourages are things like- - dating the opposite sex- - because it might lead to sexual relations- - also thinking and asking questions and seeing things from another point of view is strongly discouraged- - and seeking psychotherapy is discouraged because it is a symptum of spiritual weakness. Thus is the reactionary state of religion.

People think of Evolution as being forward progress. The Grand Canyon is a product of evolution because of water erosion over tens of thousands of years. Evolution can be an erosive thing. It can erode your faith in God and shape it into something else. Erosion can turn arguments around. You know- - I've been debating with myself- - which is more reactionary- - Calvary Chapel Christianity or Sheria law? The thing with Christianity is you get away from it for a while and then you come back to it later, perhaps hoping it's changed, and in the intervening period it seems to have gotten even worse than you remember it. Certainly Islam is a highly authoritative and reactionary religion. Nobody disputes this. Still if there is a good thing about all these Wars the US has become involved in, it's an opportunity to get "In Your Face" confronting Islamic Law, particularly about the abuse of women's rights. The women of Islam are in the end what will end up changing it. As the world goes, the forces of change are still positive and progressive, even if the pendulum seems to be swinging the opposite way in this country right now. Evolution is of course "survival of the fittest" and certainly there is a place for that in this country. We want "market forces" to decide things as a rule, rather than a central government. If inventors had as many amazing energy and new automotive inventions as they claim to have, more of them would have caught on if they really worked, if for no other reason than corporations would want to cash in on them. "Buying out" a good idea and junking it is counter-productive. In time certainly any corporation will realize this. People believe the world is a more tollarent place than it used to be. Hopefully one day it will be a more peaceful place.