Noah Feldman: Politics and religion are technologies

[crudhousefull]

This must have been interesting in 2003...bloody boring in 2011 though

[medoelkorsan]

wow he is talking about the center party in egypt now it is there after the 25th revolution hehehe

[jdubya181]

WOW only 12,000 views. How frustrating.

[Ichtiostega]

I'm sorry but this guy clearly doesn't know too much about politics.

[Ichtiostega]

@Ichtiostega No surprise. I googled his name and found out that he was in the Harvard law school. That explains everything ;-)

[samakaab1]

Hmm ..it's sad to know that such simplism is taught at Havard.

[nondescriptman]

Islam "designed to efficiently connect and manage any group of people" ?!?

It irritates me when people talk about the interpretation of Islam when it is considered by muslims to be the verbatim word of god. Noah Feldman is a product of the politically correctness seaking pro multi-culturalism generation. Very dangerous. Do not so tolerant that you tolerant intolerance! This is why we have sharia law in western countries. Whatever happened to our precious seperation of church and state?

[NorthernRealmJackal]

@nondescriptman I get why that particular phrasing pisses you off, but it's like you're missing the point.. That Islam (or almost ANY other major religion for that matter) is designed to efficiently connect and manage any group of people, is a legitimate opinion to have - just not a very considerate one towards religious people. That [insert major religion here] is CAPABLE OF efficiently connecting and managing any group of people, however, is undebatable.

[ObviousSockPuppet231]

@nondescriptman

Unless you're a Muslim, the only explanation for why it has flourished and then survived is that it has been useful as a technology---if it hadn't lasted, no-one would call the Quran the word of God except for small groups of Jews/Jains/Parsees size.

My grandfather had an Halakhic court: compliance was voluntary (under threat of possible ostracism, but no physical force), and I don't see why we should be afraid of Sharia courts similarly constituted----State/violence-­free.

[felinesarebest]

he's an idiot

[HoChoProductions]

@felinesarebest; I'd like you see you as a law professor at Harvard Law School you idiot.

[felinesarebest]

he's an asshole

[muhubo]

And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account. '(3:199)'

[Origen305]

Poor, in comparison to the genuinely creative thinkers who speak at TED. Why technology? An odd metaphor that's not even explicated. Overall an air of naive conceptualisation, and a lsck of insight ito IR and geopolitics. Some good points made but hardly original or insightful. Not even an inkling of empirical data to support the idea. Vapid :-(

[uthoshantm]

An interresting point made by Noah Feldman is the continuous support for anti-democratic regimes in the Muslim world to preserve US interests. This continuous support cannot anymore be justified by the threat of the soviet union. Human rights issues are selectively ignored when it comes to friendly regimes.

[uthoshantm]

Does Islam contain some elements found in democracy and vice versa? I think that we can safely answer positively. Wether democratic systems and societies ruled by Islamic systems can coexist peacefully depends on what means are selected to resolve differences. The wide majority of Muslims would select peaceful means for the simple reasons that they are economically, technologically and militarily weak. The most extreme actions come from desperate people who have nothing left to lose.

[uthoshantm]

I respect Noah Feldman because I feel that he is open minded and sincere. Yet, I do not quite understand the usefulness of comparing politics and religions to technologies. He does not really explain the reason nor the purpose of such comparison. Moreover, although Islam or democracy are relatively susceptible to wide interpretations, there does exist mainstream understandings that are shared by a majority.

[XANSEM]

Islam and Democracy; Islocracy. Sounds good to me!

[TheJamescrow]

this is some serious hocus pocus with words, he is a fool

[HawkEyeBlue]

* Islam is compatible with democracy (where western democracy is not the yard stick to measure) * I totally reject Bin Laden understanding of Islam which permits killing of innocent people * West should not ram down our throats the western democracy rather our own evolve our own model which is rooted in broader (non-sectarian) understanding of Islam

[lordsorgo]

@HawkEyeBlue

Innocent people? So who is exactly innocent?

[Roan7995]

This man is an extremely intelligent idiot.

[gavanduffy123]

911=inside job

[gavanduffy123]

this man is very smart. His explanations and observations are inteligent. However, I belive that too many of his ideas are based on lies. not to say that he is trying to lie to you. The way he describes 911 and the reasons behind it are false, and so inturn the reasons that he sees the US going to war are false.

but still I am not putting him down, it goes to show you that intelect can thrive even with out the proper nurishment of knowndgle.

[fatimanazeer]

well presented and fair.

[Mutwasze]

Indeed! POLITICS&RELIGION are but Old Technologies that continue to Adapt to the Worlds New Order.

[zOmAlGaNg23]

welldone! its true and you are intelligent young man talking about the truth of the whole world, there is no a young man of your age can understand what you understood and expressed eloquently, i bear witness now that you said everything impartially and you are the rare truthtellers and good intellectuals, masha allah

[martinp22]

Good talk. Very eloquent. I like zOmAlGaNg23's comment!

[ArgueExplain]

This guy isn't one of the better TED speakers.

Islam and democracy are set up in his speech to be seen as either 'good' or 'bad'. They are amoral. Like a gun, these two ideas are completely harmless until the human element is introduced.

It's those darn people. Crazies in every bunch. Republican crazies, religious crazies, YouTube crazies, athiest crazies, and democrat crazies - they are everywhere!

[AmericanMuslim1]

His point is certainly plausible. He is mostly fair and unbiased in his presentation.

[HuckleberrySlim]

who sent this guy? im gonna go with it wasnt some church, but rather, a group (not mentioning any *bilderberg* names...) who wishes to unite through politics. Hmmmmm? go figure....

[markinu]

The palestinians had a democratic election. They elected Hamas. If the people are fanatic, they will elect a fanatic government.

[evelcat]

wonder why american elected Bush.... twice!

[markinu]

Bush's program pre-911 was to concentrate on domestic policy, in fact he was accused be Gore of ignoring Saddam as a problem.

[Roan7995]

Thank you for pointing this out.

[dakhan]

the concept of 'reforming' islam is an old one, and regardless of who propounds it and how its done, its never been done and muslims believe, never CAN be done. so its an ultimately losing battle.

[AtheistdotEDU]

I think we might have to sacrifice a reliance on Christianity for morals in order to defuse the threat of religious war, i.e. with Islam. Our primary religions must be sacrificed to reason if we are to avoid war.

It would be a noble sacrifice. It served us well enough.

[richardmra]

Islam and Politics = Technologies

Both = Manipulable

Great!

Seems like a new Strategy.

Reforming Islam by Stealth!

This Jew is clever

[richardmra]

People Like Noah Feldman are incredibly clever and what they are trying to do is this:

Since we cannot eliminate Islam or reform it by force, lets just reform it by stealth.

very clever!

[dakhan]

i think the point on islam being a cause for the iraq war was as he mentioned, 'once removed.' meaning obviously, with no quick war in afghanistan that seemed to have been successful then, the war in iraq would have been a harder sell. and thus, no 9/11, no war in afghanistan, no war in iraq. and thats where you can link the islam part in it. i dont believe he is saying that this is necessarily true, but he's making a statement. whether you agree or not is different.

[gsishta]

right...youre right. i feel better.

[gsishta]

Noah makes a good argument for his contention that politics and religion are technologies and similar at that.

It pains me to hear him say at 1:30 that Islam can be said to have precipitated the (Iraq war) - AMAZING!

Then as if that isn't enough - he goes on to say it again at 2:40 and this time even more emphatically.

[kolnidre666]

What is there to be amazed at? Such blameful contentions are in his blood. And as an establishment whore it is also profitable for him to perpetuate such lies and slanders.

[11WorldInspiration11]

Hi kolnidre666,

If you don't mind my respectfully asking, based on your profound & critical analysis, how was Feldman's piece a perpetuation of "lies and slanders"? Are you proposing that his analyses were "lies and slanders"?

Sincerely,

Chad Y.

[UnitedHumanity]

11worldinspiration11, did you watch the video these comments are about?

Do you read and follow the news?

[11WorldInspiration11]

Uh... What news?! Which channel are you suggesting? Let's just analyze Feldman's single statement, "No 9/11, No War!" It's not a catchy chant at a protest or rally. It is an educated hypothesis. Think! What other incidents would have granted "entry" of American and allies soldiers' footprints into Afghanistan since Oct. 7, 2001 and conveniently legitimized "pre-emptive strike" or "Bush Doctrine" that led to the invasion of Iraq on/since Mar. 20, 2003? I not only follow the news "selectively

[11WorldInspiration11]

(continuing response to PlanetoftheAtheists)...

...as prefaced before, conveniently handed Bush and friends the "right" (rationalized nonetheless) to exercise the "just war doctrine". Hence, his entire premise, in my humble opinion, was poised poignantly and accurately.

Sincerely,

Chad Y.

[PlanetoftheAtheists]

no kidding. Bush was planning on attacking iraq before 9-11 (Check out Richard Clark's statements, and others close to the Whitehouse at the time). And it had nothing to do with Islam. Bush and his friends are henchmen for the defense and oil industries. This guy's entire premise is wrong

[11WorldInspiration11]

(Continuing my previous response to UnitedHumanity, I now am also responding to you comment, with all due respect.)

..."selectively", I research! Instead of merely allowing my brain being bombarded with "objective truth" from multi-channels, I synthesize, which am afraid not practiced by the majority nowadays. Feldman's prudent analyses by no means rule out the possibility that Bush and his colleagues were contemplating the attack before 9/11. He is making the most logical argument that 9/11....

[Ghurshah]

Brilliant. Love the elequance.

[umzj]

what is sad about this video is that there has only been 5000 views

[Serge808]

this guy is snob, snobby elitist aristocratic pig

[Archaenum]

And you want to cut him down to your size?

[exclamation3mark]

911=false flag=oil=theft by distraction. (not destruction) smoke-screen, what have you wrought upon the generations?

[asmhaxor]

Do not use 'technology' in such a profane way as equating it with 'politics' or 'religion.'

[Atropos911]

i wish Americans would close their mouths more often, especially while they speak. the accent and the extended phonemes at the end are painfully annoying.

[rubenantoni]

Noah Feldman, is this guy fucked by mason gays or what??? What is he blaffing, he is really crazy.

Hey people if you call this science, then you are dumb and donkeys...this man is a intolerant and racist gay mason!!!!

[kirbyether7]

You know he didn't really sound all that intolerant in is talk. In fact he sounds much more calm and tolerant than you.

[mtheoryrules]

I would contest his point on politics regarding consensus of definition.

There is source one can refer to in seeking to define democracy, philosophy, but the problem is that a vast majority of people are philosophically lazy, hence the popularity of ancient religions which offer basic philosophical frame of reference for foundamental philosophical questions about metaphysics and morality.

[Archaenum]

Religions may "offer" a pseudo-philosophical frame of reference, but they provide no consistent, substantiatable answers, certainly not about metaphysics. Religions are a means by which to herd the credulous and ignorant.

[Tomar17]

So I would assume you know something about the religion he was talking about? Meaning you actually read the Quran and didn't just extrapolate assumptions about misinformation given by other people and politically motivated media?

If not, then you are making assumption about something which you know very little about, using extensive verbiage for sophistication.

Peace

[Archaenum]

Such a trite and predictable argument, Tomar! You aren't even managing to approximate logic, let alone sophistication.

One does not need to read the Qu'ran, Bible, whatever, to conclude that *all* religions are human-invented and replete with internal and external inconsistencies. All that one needs to know to apprehend this fact *is* science, sociology, history, and something about comparative religion. The actual nonsensical content of dogmas is irrelevant.

[Tomar17]

Arch, whatever mindset or ideas you have developed, does not change you don't have much fact, but many assumptions.

If you haven't even read the book, all you have about it are other people's views. Please read the Quran yourself, if nothing else, out of academic curiosity.

PEace

[Archaenum]

You are making utterly unfounded assumptions about my knowledge base. Scarcely a strong argument for whatever position -- I suspect deluded -- that you may hold.

I commented on a remark by mtheoryrules' in which there were general comments on religion. You irrelevantly tried to toss in the Qu'ran as a challenge. Red herring arguments are a fallacy of logic. Such fallacious arguments are the typical resort of someone unprepared to defend their point of view.

[miighankurt]

Archaenum all religions are not human invented, you can say they all had ashare of people twisting them to suite their personal whims thus corrupting them from the original form. But to say they are all human invented that's atheistic. for example Kama sutra, how do you know it's not a divine religious practice? What's your proof Kama Sutra is human invented?

[Archaenum]

Yes, they are. That's *why* I am an atheist.

So, why so many variants? This does not suggest any coherent "original form". It's special pleading.

The **logical** inability to disprove nonexistence does not necessarily imply existence. It is simply logically impossible to disprove nonexistence. To claim otherwise is to commit the Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy of logic. This is one of the favourite arguments of slightly more intellectual religionists.

[Serge808]

oh stop with your big words and philosphical rhetoric.this guy is an elitist, in favor of making everyone the same.all he's doing is calling politics and religion technologies, no depth or truth in his words.religions are good in that they make us all different, having different beliefs is what makes us humans, it's not religions that cause wars it is the evil people on top of the pyramid who use propaganda to exploit people and their beliefs.

[Archaenum]

1. oh stop with your big words and philosphical rhetoric

Now you want *me* down to your level.

[Serge808]

why are you so concumed with these "levels" you keep talking of?it seems your whole inner universe is about levels, oh this person is not on my level, oh im scared im not on that persons level...we're alo on the same level.you needt o get rid of predisposed hatred for religious people, our world is free, free for people to be religious if they want and also not to push it on others

[Archaenum]

*You* were the one who drew attention to levels by using ad hominems in lieu of logical critique of his content.

I'd agree with you on one thing -- you apparently "have no real truth to talk about".

[Serge808]

nope, sorry, you need to chill out and stop trying to talk down to people who are religious.that says nothing about their character unlike this snob who is quite obviously totally consumed by his ego

[Archaenum]

*I* do not *need* to do any such thing. You merely wish that I would.

I've watched Feldman's video twice. I detect none of the arrogance or snobbery that you project onto him.

Projection illustrates much more about the person projecting -- you, Serge -- than it does about the attributes of the maligned messenger of unwelcome tidings.

You have nothing substantive or logical to say because you are way out of your intellectual depth. Get used to it.

[Serge808]

ok...nice big words , enjoy your noah feldman.bye

[Archaenum]

2. I would not call religion a technology, but it *is* a power system akin to politics. Thus, the two systems become either allies or competitors.

Yes, the problem is people. Specifically: a) stupid, credulous, emotion-driven people who are incapable of critical thinking, and b) the greedy, power-mongering types who take advantage of that stupidity.

[Archaenum]

You have it back to front, Serge. Religion *divides* people. This discussion demonstrates that.

[Serge808]

thats funny because i'm not religious, I'm just not a snobby aristocrat who likes to hear himself talk and has no real truth to talk about

[Tomar17]

arch, stripping away the verbiage, you really didn't say anything.

I asked a simple logical question, have you actually read the book about which have drawn such a strong conclusion?

Peace

[Archaenum]

I have already explained that your insisting that I have read the Qu'ran is utterly and completely irrelevant to this discussion. Reading detailed explanations of false concepts does not eliminate the falsehood.

[Tomar17]

sigh... more assumptions...

how do you conclude it is falsehood without actually reading it to find what it is?

[Archaenum]

Sigh.

Read my earlier comments and figure it out for yourself.

[Tomar17]

Arch, it has been interesting and I have said what I have. But realize that every closed minded person who refuses to even consider or learn about the other view has rationalization that seems compelling to him, much like yours.

I hope you actually learn about the other sid first hand some day

peace

[Archaenum]

Tomar, your approach to my comments has been quite typical of what I dislike about the ad nauseam, illogical repetitis of religionists.

Calling me closed-minded is a fallacious ad hominem. You know nothing of the cognitive processes that brought me to my conclusions. You merely make assumptions based on the fact that I won't play *your* game.

The Qu'ran was written by a man and was based on another fantasy book. Muslims and Christians consistenly cherry pick these fantasies.

[Archaenum]

I do read *about* the Qu'ran: Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q; 2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (Q; 9:123), slay them (Q; 9:5), fight with them, (Q; 8:65 ). It tells its followers to humiliate the Christians and the Jews and impose on them a penalty tax (Q; 9:29). Apostasy in Islam is the biggest crime, punishable by death.

Sounds a lot like the Old Testament? This is not a coincidence.

[Tomar17]

Reading about a book is the same as adopting someone else's opinion about it, along with their cherry picking and biases to support their views.

No matter how many big words you use, doesn't change the fact that you haven't done your own unbiased research.

I hope you do read it someday, first ridding yourself of any biases, and sincerely assessing if it is truth or falsehood. Only with sincere examination can we expect to find truth.

peace

[Archaenum]

Tomar, what part of "NO" do you not understand? This is my last response because you exhibit no logic in your one track.

Are you saying that the quotations are inaccurate?

No, I thought not. You merely wish to discredit them with derision and yet another ad hominem.

The Quran undoubtedly has "good" bits, just as the Bible has "good" bits. However, there are lots of bad bits that provide fodder for antipathies.

If I'd quoted "good" bits you would have agreed. Hardly unbiased.

[evelcat]

just goes on to show once again, the danger of little knowledge. You are a liar

[Archaenum]

"You are a liar"

just goes on to show once again, the danger of little knowledge.

[dEEpindEEd]

little knowledge!!! have u seen this guys crudentials?!

[mtheoryrules]

In general people are more comfortable with a degree of certainty, religions tend to be very black and white by comparison to the body of contemplation found in philosophy, which tends to leave most with more questions than answers.

If it was just ignorance than education would provide the remedy, yet religion still thrives.

I would reason that religion is not a contrivance designed to herd people, but rather that people are inclined towards herd behavior and religions only reflect this.

[Archaenum]

I'm fully in agreement that human cognition?psychology is the problem. This is *why* all the numerous different religions have been invented.

Religions work as means by which the power elites can herd people precisely because people cannot cope with their own ignorance, and, as you say, are happy to be herded.

[sorealitty]

he says: no islam , no war..

i can also say: no america, no war

no israel, no war

what an idiotic thesis.

to say that a certain ideology is the cause of human misery is neglecting that as long as there are selfish humans/societies, there will be causes for war

if u think that this guy makes sense, read about the project for the new american century.. also "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II"

[Atropos911]

I think you're totally awesome.

[youboon]

9/11 was staged by the bush (dickhead) administration anyway (before you republicans start moaning: the evidence is overwhelming anyway, go read about it.)

heres my equation:

islam = answer for muslims...therefor

no dickhead administration = no war...therefor stop trying to be clever and categorising islam and democracy together. you're talking out of your arse.

it doesnt take a genius to figure out that if you invade a country for your own gain, the people there will hate you. duhh.

[gusphraba]

You can't make a picture of Islam because you would commit a sin. Just kidding.

[MonkeyBallZ214]

No, not kidding, that is true. All Christianity is supposed to follow that rule as well according to the bible. Do they? No. Pick and choose what you want to live your life by is the way religions run.

[pepinthelucky]

This guy realy seems like he is out of one of Bushs think tanks. Additionaly how is it easier to define hope vs democracy or islam?

[gusphraba]

I think he's quite honest but it's not one of those enlightening TEDs I've gotten used to. Rather meh.

[FaceOfGod2]

This guy is so Pro-Islam it is disgusting! No sir. Religion, politics and government are not the same for any religion except Islam which still makes government and religion be intertwined like 7th century ideology. Christianity has little to do with technology but if you read you would know it is based on LOVE! Expressing LOVE, sharing LOVE.

[FaceOfGod2]

People who hate or fear religion do so because they think it is trying to control them. Some religions may do that but Christianity (most of it) is simply a way of living life and showing and expressing love. Can that be a bad thing? They are not trying to control anyone. Islam does that!

[amoxtlacatl]

Dear FaceOfGod2,

Some facets of Christianity may not be trying to control people, but look at the US: for the last few years, some Christians have fought hard to outlaw the possibility of same-sex marriage and of abortion.

_Your_ type of Christianity might not seek to force others, but there ARE types of Christianity AND Islam that DO seek to control people.

Painting ALL Christianity as good and ALL Islam as bad is at least misinformed -if not disingenuous.

[gusphraba]

It's a double standard. After all they are both based on Abraham, pray to the same god and fought wars in his name. The differences are marginal.

[ConradZaar]

"Liberal democracy and Islam seem to be incompatible. But technologies tend to be highly malleable and compatible, so I'm going to call democracy and Islam technologies. Now that democracy and Islam are technologies, they must be highly malleable, and therefore they are compatible. Thank you."

[FaceOfGod2]

you blow my mind sir LOL

[claschxtreme]

Although i suspect he's on to something when he says politics and religion are kinds of technology, his view about politics is very naïve to say the least.

[marsCubed]

Unusually for TED, I have to say that this is a very disappointing talk. This guy makes so many dumb statements that it is annoying. Having an idiotic voice is no guarantee of intelligence, although it usually helps.

[damM3]

it sounds like hes twisting capitalism and democracy together.

[knootya]

It seems as if my outlook is altered with each TED vid that I watch.

[hymnofashes]

This guy knows nothing about the Bush administration.

Dennett is way ahead of him.

[apks2004]

Right On the money Video!

[marjan15]

See Wafa Sultan talk here on Youtube.

[guitarguy93]

That felt really monotonous. Kind of disappointing from TED

[raviddobbins]

Technology requires some level of intentionality, but the structure and diffusion of power within religion comes as an afterthought not as a primary objective. Politics can viewed as technology because political systems are purposeful systems designed (albeit poorly sometimes) to carry out a required task of regulation of a population.

[787Bisurdaddy]

"but the structure and diffusion of power within religion comes as an afterthought not as a primary objective."

Just to clarify, do you not believe that religion was created as a means to control people? Because I do. That is the only way I can see how the various rules of religion would make any sense. And the contradictions due to the fact that humans at the time thought less logically than we do today, and thus the contradictions would not have been a problem for them.

[raviddobbins]

"to the fact that humans at the time thought less logically than we do today"

So do you honestly believe humans are more progressed today then they were in times past? Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates surely these men are not illogical men. Humans are no more "logical" today then they were 2,500 years ago. There are ignorant fools today just as there were logical and intelligent men in the past. Such a sweeping statement about humanity is closed minded and temporally prejudiced.

[787Bisurdaddy]

"Humans are no more "logical" today then they were 2,500 years ago."

I disagree, in the sense that I think the average person today sees more value in logic and basing their belief around it. Today's person is more willing to accept reason and evidence than religious dogma. That's not to say that logical people did not exist back then, but that logic is becoming more accepted as a source of truth.

I'm sure our vastly increased knowledge of the natural world has something to do with it, too.

[raviddobbins]

"I think the average person today"

By average person you of course mean the average white male in the western world right? You use the word logic, but what you mean to say is that people in Western Civilizations more readily accept your particular view of the world which is based on current trends in science, does that sound about right?

[787Bisurdaddy]

"You use the word logic, but what you mean to say is that people in Western Civilizations more readily accept your particular view of the world which is based on current trends in science, does that sound about right?"

In a way, yes. People in the Western world are more likely to evaluate their world based on the observation of available evidence instead of superstition. Probably partly due to the fact that we have much more evidence today than we used to.

[raviddobbins]

I would agree.

Although on a different note I would disagree about your understanding of religion. True, some religions such as Hinduism and Catholicism use rigid structural hierarchy to impose its doctrine over the population. On the other hand, some religions such as Buddhism and Protestantism (at very least Neo-Calvinists and Baptists) do not attempt to use government to impose religious doctrine. Of course on some level, organization is necessary in every human interaction.

[787Bisurdaddy]

Well, I suppose I must apologize for generalizing, as my experience comes mostly from Catholicism. That is the religion I was taught so it is the one I have examined the most.

When I began to question my religion, I felt as if much of it seemed structured to control the faithful. "Thou shalt not" this and that. I think controlling outsiders is a byproduct of inducting them into the religion.

[somor98]

Yeah, yeah, everything is a technology moron!!

[lordmetroid]

Just look up psychohistory on wikipedia... It will enlighten you much more.

[WtfJuju]

This is from 2003. I'd be ineterested in knowing what he thinks today.

[Lihinel]

The same?

Those are technologies to manipulate people and employ recources.

[Lihinel]

Gosh, never mind, you mean what he would say to their srewups, right?

Sry.

[WtfJuju]

huh? this video is from 2003, i was just wondering if he would still have the same opinion about these "technologies" today. whats a srewups... or do you mean screwups? if thats teh case. Yes.

[mccote]

I dont agree with this guy. To say that Politics or Religion is a technology is a real stretch. Especially religion. His whole talk is based on this faulty premise so hes on pretty shaky ground if you ask me.

And Im not convinced that a democratically elected Islamic leader will do any more or less evil than the alternative.

[BinaryReader]

I think its a valid point of view. Technology means a tool. And a tool has purpose, I think from that train of thought, religion and politics are tools for some agenda or purpose.

[Lazerjo2000]

he disagrees because of his religion hes just trying to poke holes so he doesnt lose faith and think hes going to hell

[lordcheetah]

Religion can be used to shaped groups of people's world view. This is used a lot in the Dune series.

[theoriginalanomaly]

Democracy is the worst technology... It produces large volumes of fault lines between citizens, and exasperated by the fact that they only are in power for a limited time. This means they have to dive deep and suck hard for all the life blood (monies usually/Power) out of a country and its people in a short amount of time, before someone else get their turn. Tribal gov't is much more stable, as long as states exist, competing ones keep less power from concentrating and less conflict.

[787Bisurdaddy]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

[TheStephenation]

And what system would you propose for two wolves and a lamb to decide what to have for lunch? Let the lamb be dictator and force the wolves to eat grass?

[787Bisurdaddy]

A Constitutional Republic, duh.

[lordcheetah]

A republic with limited powers would do the same thing. However the tendancy is to grant more power to the government during emergancies and then the government doesn't return the power. Tribal government doesn't work on large scales. Plus you'd still have intertribal issues.

[787Bisurdaddy]

"A republic with limited powers would do the same thing."

That's what a Constitutional Republic is. The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it simply outlines the limitations of government power. The rights of the people are a birthright.

"However the tendancy is to grant more power to the government during emergancies and then the government doesn't return the power."

Well, people have to stop being so naive and driven by fear.

[lordcheetah]

"The Constitution doesn't grant rights"

The Bill of Rights, anyone?

"Well, people have to stop being so naive and driven by fear."

I completely agree.

[787Bisurdaddy]

"The Bill of Rights, anyone?"

The rights of the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) are granted to people by "their Creator" (as stated in the Constitution).  The Constitution (ie, Bill of Rights) simply outlines the restrictions on government power that cannot usurp those rights.

"Congress shall make no law...", not "the people have the right to..."

[lordcheetah]

"The rights of the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) are granted to people by "their Creator" (as stated in the Constitution)."

The Bill of Rights doesn't say that, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independance.

At any rate, no creator interferes to protect these rights. In real life, government officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights).

And "Congress shall make no law" and "the people have a right to" are the same thing.

[787Bisurdaddy]

"The Bill of Rights doesn't say that, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independance."

Ah, yes, you're right.

"At any rate, no creator interferes to protect these rights."

"Creator" does not mean "God"; if it did, they would have used the word "God". Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was most likely an atheist himself, so the use of the word "creator" was intentional. It signifies that the rights were a birthright.

[lordcheetah]

Yeah I think we're arguing semantics at this point.

[theoriginalanomaly]

How have we proved Bin Laden did it?

[Lihinel]

A lot of good updates today.