D1B wrote: That's why the United States has never had a dictator. Our nation was founded by freethinkers who had the brilliant foresight to separate church and state.
Religion kills people dead.
Fuck you.Ibanez wrote:D1B wrote: That's why the United States has never had a dictator. Our nation was founded by freethinkers who had the brilliant foresight to separate church and state.
Religion kills people dead.
That is actually a great theory. We haven't really seperated church and state, IMO, but what a great theory. I applaud you Jeff.
Question I pose to the audience: Is the fact that we haven't had a dictator related to our free thinking, diest founders?
He started two wars, stole our rights (Patriot Act), bankrupted our nation and increased the size of government by record proportion AND was a puppet of evangelical christians who still own the republican party.
Actually didn't THEY start the first war?D1B wrote:Fuck you.Ibanez wrote:
That is actually a great theory. We haven't really seperated church and state, IMO, but what a great theory. I applaud you Jeff.
Question I pose to the audience: Is the fact that we haven't had a dictator related to our free thinking, diest founders?
Actually, we came close with our reborn christian W.
Don't stop him...he's on a roll...andy7171 wrote:Actually didn't THEY start the first war?D1B wrote:
Fuck you.
Actually, we came close with our reborn christian W.
I was complimenting you lard ass.D1B wrote:Fuck you.Ibanez wrote:
That is actually a great theory. We haven't really seperated church and state, IMO, but what a great theory. I applaud you Jeff.
Question I pose to the audience: Is the fact that we haven't had a dictator related to our free thinking, diest founders?
Actually, we came close with our reborn christian W.
It's a continuation from when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.andy7171 wrote:Actually didn't THEY start the first war?D1B wrote:
**** you.
Actually, we came close with our reborn christian W.
It was soooooooooo sneaky of them to use Japanese Zeros to do that.CAA Flagship wrote:It's a continuation from when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.andy7171 wrote: Actually didn't THEY start the first war?
Nope, Saudi Arabia did. Either way, a backward ass theocracy acting in the name of god.andy7171 wrote:Actually didn't THEY start the first war?D1B wrote:
Fuck you.
Actually, we came close with our reborn christian W.
Amazing. You name a number of brutal dictators who emerged from governments which expressly embraced secular humanist principles and then claim that they never would "exist in a nation built on secular humanist principles." What Stalin and his ilk figured out is that, when a government embraces secular humanism, there is no objective reason that the leader must be a "humanist." The second generation of leader is NEVER a humanist. Historical FACT.D1B wrote:andy7171 wrote:[youtube][/youtube]
Yeah and this guy was loved by his own too. They seem sincere in their mourning.
Uncle Joe was a psychopath and of course people feared him, just like people feared the catholic church and its popes and monarchs who ravished Europe for 1900 years and created the fertile ground for the Hitlers and Mussolini's of the world to flourish.
Look at what's happening today. **** Stalin, look at the Middle East. There, right before your eyes, you can witness the danger of religion and the danger of putting your faith in rigid ethics and morality rooted in the paranormal.
Sheep.
Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Kim Jung Il, Saddam Hussein, Putin absolutely would not exist in a nation built on secular humanist principles. That's why the United States has never had a dictator. Our nation was founded by freethinkers who had the brilliant foresight to separate church and state.
Religion kills people dead.
JoltinJoe wrote:Amazing. You name a number of brutal dictators who emerged from governments which expressly embraced secular humanist principles and then claim that they never would "exist in a nation built on secular humanist principles." What Stalin and his ilk figured out is that, when a government embraces secular humanism, there is no objective reason that the leader must be a "humanist." The second generation of leader is NEVER a humanist. Historical FACT.D1B wrote:
Uncle Joe was a psychopath and of course people feared him, just like people feared the catholic church and its popes and monarchs who ravished Europe for 1900 years and created the fertile ground for the Hitlers and Mussolini's of the world to flourish.
Look at what's happening today. **** Stalin, look at the Middle East. There, right before your eyes, you can witness the danger of religion and the danger of putting your faith in rigid ethics and morality rooted in the paranormal.
Sheep.
Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Kim Jung Il, Saddam Hussein, Putin absolutely would not exist in a nation built on secular humanist principles. That's why the United States has never had a dictator. Our nation was founded by freethinkers who had the brilliant foresight to separate church and state.
Religion kills people dead.
Of course, you are going to say that the Soviet Union was not a secular humanist state. And that's just nonsense. Read the Soviet constitution. It is the most perfect articulation of secular humanism ever codified. Yes, the Soviet Union devolved from a secular humanist state into state outright hostile to basic human rights. That's because there was no anchor which objectively commanded adherence to secular humanism. What Stalin figured out (and what Dostoevsky predicted in his exchange of ideas with Nietzsche) was that without God, anything could be possible or justified (especially if it was said to be in the "common good" and in the interest of the state).
You are seriously deficient in historical knowledge and you routinely spout falsehoods which are propagated by fundamentalist atheism. Anything you think you know you read on some website. You are a fundamentalist atheist and a detriment to our way of live.
Our nation continues to thrive because it is a nation premised on natural law and which embraces objective truths, i.e., "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ..."
/thread
Polly Joe, the Catholic parrot! "Dostoyevsky, Dostoyevsky....Braaaaak! And why ain't there a doctrine of human rights in the fucking bible or the Koran? Shit, there were fucking slaves not to long ago and women are still be fucked over and only recently were able to vote! All your dumb religion has provided man is a bunch of fucking commandments with the the most important one being to obey that cocksucker of a god. Yeah, your source of objective truth is a fucking dipshit of epic magnitude. As a spiritual but secular humanist, I find your words hurtful and unhelpful. And I am not a fundamentalist atheist.JoltinJoe wrote:Amazing. You name a number of brutal dictators who emerged from governments which expressly embraced secular humanist principles and then claim that they never would "exist in a nation built on secular humanist principles." What Stalin and his ilk figured out is that, when a government embraces secular humanism, there is no objective reason that the leader must be a "humanist." The second generation of leader is NEVER a humanist. Historical FACT.D1B wrote:
Uncle Joe was a psychopath and of course people feared him, just like people feared the catholic church and its popes and monarchs who ravished Europe for 1900 years and created the fertile ground for the Hitlers and Mussolini's of the world to flourish.
Look at what's happening today. **** Stalin, look at the Middle East. There, right before your eyes, you can witness the danger of religion and the danger of putting your faith in rigid ethics and morality rooted in the paranormal.
Sheep.
Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Kim Jung Il, Saddam Hussein, Putin absolutely would not exist in a nation built on secular humanist principles. That's why the United States has never had a dictator. Our nation was founded by freethinkers who had the brilliant foresight to separate church and state.
Religion kills people dead.
Of course, you are going to say that the Soviet Union was not a secular humanist state. And that's just nonsense. Read the Soviet constitution. It is the most perfect articulation of secular humanism ever codified. Yes, the Soviet Union devolved from a secular humanist state into state outright hostile to basic human rights. That's because there was no anchor which objectively commanded adherence to secular humanism. What Stalin figured out (and what Dostoevsky predicted in his exchange of ideas with Nietzsche) was that without God, anything could be possible or justified (especially if it was said to be in the "common good" and in the interest of the state).
You are seriously deficient in historical knowledge and you routinely spout falsehoods which are propagated by fundamentalist atheism. Anything you think you know you read on some website. You are a fundamentalist atheist and a detriment to our way of live.
Our nation continues to thrive because it is a nation premised on natural law and which embraces objective truths, i.e., "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ..."
/thread
As with the passing of any accomplished author and philosopher, the death of Christopher Hitchens brings to the forefront the ephemeral nature of life. Pausing to reflect honestly upon our own lives is perhaps the most fitting tribute we can offer to someone who was so thoroughly dedicated to the objective truth. These are my musings.
Those hoping for a deathbed conversion were of course sorely disappointed. But the hope that Hitchens would find God was always futile. What the faithful fail to understand is that impending death will not suddenly cause a rationalist to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or an invisible man in the sky. There are plenty of atheists in the foxhole. Hitchens was just the most recent.
Observing the trajectory of an average life, a pessimistic realist could conclude that our existence is a tragedy interspersed with brief moments of happiness. An optimist would say that happiness is life's norm, interrupted at times by tragedy. But both could agree that no matter our disposition toward one or the other we should acknowledge each day the joy of being alive. Think how keenly that was felt in Hitchens' last days. The other option, as he would tell you, is usually worse.
Given our short time here, we can better tilt the scale in favor of happiness when we find a healthy balance in extracting the most from life every day, but with the prudence of delaying rewards when necessary to plan for a productive and happy future. Hitchens' obvious excesses with alcohol and tobacco are an example of how imbalance in yielding to immediate indulgence and thoughts for the future can lead to unpleasant consequences. Of course he has plenty of company; but in spite of his and our real human frailties, we all have the power to live each day to the fullest in our particular circumstances, to a degree that is responsible.
Certainly, sacrifice and self-discipline are necessary to achieve lasting happiness in life, but a little indulgence each day honors the pleasure of being alive. But not too much. At different life stages, the balance between these opposing forces of immediate and delayed gratification will tend to shift. With age, experience and accomplishment comes a natural tendency toward reaping the rewards from past sacrifice. For example, a serious student will devote years of hard study for the benefits of a degree, while others during that time are enjoying more of life on a daily basis. But that sacrifice once made yields a commensurate reward in future pleasures. Unfortunately, no clean formula exits to balance self-indulgence and self-sacrifice. The best approach is to incorporate a clear recognition of the dilemma into life's daily decisions. Live for today, but plan for tomorrow.
So, in honor of Hitchens I propose here guidelines to how we can make those daily decisions, a secular distillation of moral behavior derived from those characteristics that define us as human. Each person will by definition develop a unique approach tailored to personal need. But natural variation should not be understood to mean that everybody has free reign. Our mutual obligations create boundaries around individual moral codes. That is analogous to free speech being defended up to the point where speech creates injury to others, such as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. Free speech, yes, but within responsible confines. Personal choice has limits. What follows is my list of how we might make good choices within accepted boundaries.
• Respect the environment
• Be honest
• Be reliable
• Be responsible
• Be faithful to your life partner
• Respect and be tolerant of others
• Do no harm to others
• Be happy for the success of others
• Cherish family and friends
• Enjoy safe and responsible sex
• Nourish good health
• Be true to yourself
• Be moderate in all things, including moderation
• Be consistent
• Disdain mediocrity
• Find balance in life
• Be curious
• Use time wisely
• Donate to charity
• Respect animal rights
• Leave the world a better place
I have elsewhere expanded on each of these points, but they are largely self-explanatory. These suggestions are not mandated from above by a higher power, but instead are derived from our biology. One prominent characteristic of humans is sociality. Functioning as a group in many circumstances conveys significant advantages on members of the group. Associated with sociality is altruism, which is sacrificial behavior that in some way promotes the propagation of the genes of the altruistic individual, usually by aiding the survival of a close relative sharing some common genetic stock. The ultimate altruistic behavior would be dying for the sake of another's survival. An uncle getting in harms way to protect a nephew is an example. Social cooperation and altruism are likely significant factors in the success of our species, a fact that underlines the biological basis for a natural ethic as a defining and adaptive human characteristic.
As a species endowed with large complex brains, we can choose a path unique to humans by elevating ourselves above the common fate of other species. We can choose to be moral. Amazing clarity is achieved in realizing that life is not controlled by some unseen and mysterious god, but by an individual's power to make decisions, and a personal choice to be moral. There is tremendous joy in understanding that purpose and meaning in life are self-derived, and that these precious commodities are not some gift from above that can be taken away arbitrarily by a wrathful deity working in mysterious ways. We are the masters of our own fate. Nothing is more powerful, or more satisfying.
I don't know to what degree Hitchens would agree with or follow any of the above. But I am sure he would love to debate the issues, and that he would do so with his usual fiery charm and the smug confidence that he could just not contain.
I know too that Hitchens conformed to at least one of these guidelines: he left the world a better place. He will be missed.
Dr. Jeff Schweitzer is a former White House senior policy analyst the author of five books, including, A New Moral Code and his latest, Calorie Wars.
That fuckwad's religion has had 2000 years to produce results and what do we have? Fucking nothing but world wars, industrial scale rape of children by catholic priests, famine, Stalin, Hitler, slavery, human trafficking, massive poverty...kalm wrote:As a spiritual but secular humanist, I find your words hurtful and unhelpful. And I am not a fundamentalist atheist.JoltinJoe wrote:
Amazing. You name a number of brutal dictators who emerged from governments which expressly embraced secular humanist principles and then claim that they never would "exist in a nation built on secular humanist principles." What Stalin and his ilk figured out is that, when a government embraces secular humanism, there is no objective reason that the leader must be a "humanist." The second generation of leader is NEVER a humanist. Historical FACT.
Of course, you are going to say that the Soviet Union was not a secular humanist state. And that's just nonsense. Read the Soviet constitution. It is the most perfect articulation of secular humanism ever codified. Yes, the Soviet Union devolved from a secular humanist state into state outright hostile to basic human rights. That's because there was no anchor which objectively commanded adherence to secular humanism. What Stalin figured out (and what Dostoevsky predicted in his exchange of ideas with Nietzsche) was that without God, anything could be possible or justified (especially if it was said to be in the "common good" and in the interest of the state).
You are seriously deficient in historical knowledge and you routinely spout falsehoods which are propagated by fundamentalist atheism. Anything you think you know you read on some website. You are a fundamentalist atheist and a detriment to our way of live.
Our nation continues to thrive because it is a nation premised on natural law and which embraces objective truths, i.e., "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ..."
/thread
A balanced assessment from the Washington Post yesterday. Bottom line, religion and life for humans is significantly better because of secular humanist principles.Seahawks08 wrote:Don't want to forget about the inquisition and the terrible effect religion had on the sciences.
Has religion made the world less safe?
By Steven Pinker
The Bible depicts a world that, seen through modern eyes, is staggering in its savagery. People enslave, rape, and murder members of their immediate families. Warlords slaughter civilians indiscriminately, including the children. Women are bought, sold, and plundered like sex toys. The world of the New Testament is little better: kings carry out mass infanticide; thieves and activists are punished by being nailed to a cross.
Though most of the events narrated in the Bible almost certainly never happened, historians agree that they reflect the norms and practices of the era. We live in a world that is indisputably less violent than that of our ancestors. Savage practices such as human sacrifice, chattel slavery, blood sports, debtors’ prisons, frivolous executions, religious persecution, and punitive torture and mutilation have been eliminated from most of the world. Less obviously, homicide rates have plummeted over the centuries, and during the past sixty-five years that the rate of death from war has fallen to historically unprecedented lows.
Having documented these declines of violence, I am often asked what role religion has played in this historical progress. Overall it has not been a good one. Many humanitarian reforms, such as the elimination of cruel punishment, the dissemination of empathy-inducing novels, and the abolition of slavery, were met with fierce opposition in their time by church authorities. The conviction that one’s own values are sacred and those of everyone else heretical inflamed the combatants in the European Wars of Religion, the second-bloodiest period in modern Western history, and it continues to inflame partisans in the Middle East and parts of the Islamic world today.
Defenders of religion as a pacifying force often claim that the two genocidal ideologies of the 20th century, fascism and communism, were atheistic. But the first claim is mistaken and the second irrelevant. Fascism happily coexisted with Catholicism in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Croatia, and though Hitler had little use for Christianity, he was by no means an atheist, and professed that he was carrying out a divine plan. Historians have documented that many of the Nazi elite melded Nazism with German Christianity in a syncretic faith, drawing on its millennial visions and its long history of anti-Semitism.
As for godless communism, godless it certainly was. But the repudiation of one illiberal ideology does not automatically grant immunity from others. Marxism violently rejected the humanism and liberalism of the Enlightenment, which placed the flourishing of individuals as the ultimate goal of political systems.
At the same time, particular religious movements at particular times in history have worked against violence. In zones of anarchy, religious institutions have sometimes served as a civilizing force, and since many of them claim to hold the morality franchise in their communities, they can be staging grounds for reflection and moral action. The Quakers parlayed Enlightenment arguments against slavery and war into effective movements for abolition and pacifism, and in the 19th century other liberal Protestant denominations joined them. Protestant churches also helped to tame the wild frontier of the American South and West. African American churches supplied organizational infrastructure and rhetorical power to the civil rights movement (though Martin Luther King rejected mainstream Christian theology and drew his inspiration from Gandhi, secular Western philosophy, and renegade humanistic theologians). In the developing world, Desmond Tutu and other church leaders worked with politicians and nongovernmental organizations in the reconciliation movements that healed countries following apartheid and civil unrest.
So the subtitle of the late Christopher Hitchens’s atheist bestseller, How religion poisons everything, is an overstatement. Religion plays no single role in the history of violence because religion has not been a single force in the history of anything. The vast set of movements we call religions have little in common but their distinctness from the secular institutions that are recent appearances on the human stage. And the beliefs and practices of religions, despite their claims to divine provenance, are strongly influenced by human affairs, responding to its intellectual and social currents. When the currents move in enlightened directions, religions often adapt to them, most obviously in the discreet neglect of the bloodthirsty passages of the Old Testament. Many accommodations instigated by breakaway denominations, reform movements, ecumenical councils, and other liberalizing forces have allowed other religions to be swept along by the humanistic tide. It is when fundamentalist forces stand athwart those currents and impose tribal, authoritarian, and puritanical constraints that religion becomes a force for violence.
The typical canards based on some gross historical distortions.Seahawks08 wrote:Don't want to forget about the inquisition and the terrible effect religion had on the sciences.
Wrong.JoltinJoe wrote:The typical canards based on some gross historical distortions.Seahawks08 wrote:Don't want to forget about the inquisition and the terrible effect religion had on the sciences.
Jeez Joe, you make secular humanism sound as though it's some sort of dog whistle term for the religious right. Is secular humanism a movement to be feared?JoltinJoe wrote:What nonsense Pinker is. Always has been and always will be. He claims that we live in the most peaceful period in history, even though the worst atrocities in human history, resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions, have occurred within the lifetime of people living today. Yet he claims to have "documented" that the world has become more peaceful in modern times. Really? The facts so completely undermine his claims that it is baffling that anyone would take him seriously. But when you have an agenda, anything is possible. The secular humanist kool-aid stand is open for business.
Worse, the vast majority of these deaths occurred at the hands of governments which had formed on secular humanist principles. He simply ignores the "humanist" roots of these governments. Here is the flaw of the contemporary "secular humanist." Before you embrace humanism, you have to explain why those governments formed in its name devolved into the most efficient killing machines in the history of mankind. (Of course, if you address that question, you would have to acknowledge that we've experienced the most brutal and repressive period in human history within the past 90 years -- a period which not so coincidentally coincides with the rise of secular humanism as a system of moral philosophy).
Marxism wasn't, at its inception, a "humanist" movement? Who the hell is he trying to kid? Marx's earlier writings were no doubt humanistic, and these works were the inspiration for Lenin. It is "irrelevant" that communism was atheistic? You have to be pretty dim to buy into that line.
The enlightenment was a "humanist" movement? Not in the sense that Pinker uses the term. The Enlightenment was a natural law movement which stressed that each individual possessed natural, unalienable rights because they were imbued to him by his creator. Modern secular humanists don't believe in a creator.
The re-writing of history and moral philosophy continues unabated.
Secular humanism's great flaw is that is possesses no basis to command adherence to humanist principles as an objective ground for its moral outlook. Which means once a secular humanist government is formed, its loyalty to humanist principles is only as deep as the commitment to humanism of its current leadership.
Moreover, that modern secular humanists have to re-write history and distort prior philosophical movements, in order to claim a foundation in them, lays bare the dishonesty of its present advocates.
Oh sure.JoltinJoe wrote:The typical canards based on some gross historical distortions.Seahawks08 wrote:Don't want to forget about the inquisition and the terrible effect religion had on the sciences.
Again, you don't know shit about secular humanism. And like all apologist hacks, you try to deflect blame for creating the Hitlers and Stalins of the world.JoltinJoe wrote:What nonsense Pinker is. Always has been and always will be. He claims that we live in the most peaceful period in history, even though the worst atrocities in human history, resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions, have occurred within the lifetime of people living today. Yet he claims to have "documented" that the world has become more peaceful in modern times. Really? The facts so completely undermine his claims that it is baffling that anyone would take him seriously. But when you have an agenda, anything is possible. The secular humanist kool-aid stand is open for business.
Worse, the vast majority of these deaths occurred at the hands of governments which had formed on secular humanist principles. He simply ignores the "humanist" roots of these governments. Here is the flaw of the contemporary "secular humanist." Before you embrace humanism, you have to explain why those governments formed in its name devolved into the most efficient killing machines in the history of mankind. (Of course, if you address that question, you would have to acknowledge that we've experienced the most brutal and repressive period in human history within the past 90 years -- a period which not so coincidentally coincides with the rise of secular humanism as a system of moral philosophy).
Marxism wasn't, at its inception, a "humanist" movement? Who the hell is he trying to kid? Marx's earlier writings were no doubt humanistic, and these works were the inspiration for Lenin. It is "irrelevant" that communism was atheistic? You have to be pretty dim to buy into that line.
The enlightenment was a "humanist" movement? Not in the sense that Pinker uses the term. The Enlightenment was a natural law movement which stressed that each individual possessed natural, unalienable rights because they were imbued to him by his creator. Modern secular humanists don't believe in a creator.
The re-writing of history and moral philosophy continues unabated.
Secular humanism's great flaw is that is possesses no basis to command adherence to humanist principles as an objective ground for its moral outlook. Which means once a secular humanist government is formed, its loyalty to humanist principles is only as deep as the commitment to humanism of its current leadership.
Moreover, that modern secular humanists have to re-write history and distort prior philosophical movements, in order to claim a foundation in them, lays bare the dishonesty of its present advocates.
He'll never answer that last one.kalm wrote:Jeez Joe, you make secular humanism sound as though it's some sort of dog whistle term for the religious right. Is secular humanism a movement to be feared?JoltinJoe wrote:What nonsense Pinker is. Always has been and always will be. He claims that we live in the most peaceful period in history, even though the worst atrocities in human history, resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions, have occurred within the lifetime of people living today. Yet he claims to have "documented" that the world has become more peaceful in modern times. Really? The facts so completely undermine his claims that it is baffling that anyone would take him seriously. But when you have an agenda, anything is possible. The secular humanist kool-aid stand is open for business.
Worse, the vast majority of these deaths occurred at the hands of governments which had formed on secular humanist principles. He simply ignores the "humanist" roots of these governments. Here is the flaw of the contemporary "secular humanist." Before you embrace humanism, you have to explain why those governments formed in its name devolved into the most efficient killing machines in the history of mankind. (Of course, if you address that question, you would have to acknowledge that we've experienced the most brutal and repressive period in human history within the past 90 years -- a period which not so coincidentally coincides with the rise of secular humanism as a system of moral philosophy).
Marxism wasn't, at its inception, a "humanist" movement? Who the hell is he trying to kid? Marx's earlier writings were no doubt humanistic, and these works were the inspiration for Lenin. It is "irrelevant" that communism was atheistic? You have to be pretty dim to buy into that line.
The enlightenment was a "humanist" movement? Not in the sense that Pinker uses the term. The Enlightenment was a natural law movement which stressed that each individual possessed natural, unalienable rights because they were imbued to him by his creator. Modern secular humanists don't believe in a creator.
The re-writing of history and moral philosophy continues unabated.
Secular humanism's great flaw is that is possesses no basis to command adherence to humanist principles as an objective ground for its moral outlook. Which means once a secular humanist government is formed, its loyalty to humanist principles is only as deep as the commitment to humanism of its current leadership.
Moreover, that modern secular humanists have to re-write history and distort prior philosophical movements, in order to claim a foundation in them, lays bare the dishonesty of its present advocates.
Regarding the founders, enlightenment, and natural law, I get what you're saying but didn't the deists reject the supernatural? Can you not be a humanist and believe in a creator?
Regarding murderous dictators, was secular humanism a part of their founding documents?
Modern anti semitism is a catholic principle. The pope even apologized for it. Pinker was born in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, in 1954, and graduated from Dawson College in 1971. He received a BA degree in psychology at McGill University in 1976, and then went on to earn his PhD degree in experimental psychology at Harvard University in 1979. He did research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for a year, after which he became an assistant professor at Harvard and then Stanford University. From 1982 until 2003, Pinker taught at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, and eventually became the director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, taking a one-year sabbatical at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in 1995-6. As of 2008, he is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard.[3] In June 2011 it was announced he would join the professoriate of New College of the Humanities, a private college in London.[4]
Pinker was named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential scientists and thinkers in the world in 2004[5] and one of Prospect and Foreign Policy's 100 top public intellectuals in both years the poll was carried out, 2005[6] and 2008;[7] in 2010 and 2011 he was named by Foreign Policy magazine to its list of top global thinkers.[8][9] His research in cognitive psychology has won the Early Career Award (1984) and Boyd McCandless Award (1986) from the American Psychological Association, the Troland Research Award (1993) from the National Academy of Sciences, the Henry Dale Prize (2004) from the Royal Institution of Great Britain, and the George Miller Prize (2010) from the Cognitive Neuroscience Society. He has also received honorary doctorates from the universities of Newcastle, Surrey, Tel Aviv, McGill, and the University of Tromsø, Norway. He was twice a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, in 1998 and in 2003.
Yes, them too. I use modern to mean the last few centuries. Catholic have hated jews since 1.andy7171 wrote:Wouldn't modern anti semitism be a Muslin principle?
Some objective source of truth! Took em 2000 years to realize jew are actually pretty cool people and should not be roasted in ovens by the millions.The Vatican has apologised to Jews on behalf of the entire Roman Catholic community, for failing to speak out against the Nazi holocaust during World War Two.
In his letter accompanying the apology, the Pope said the holocaust remained an indelible stain on the 20th century.
The Vatican's long-anticipated response to the killing of six million Jews was published in Rome on Monday.
The Head of the Vatican Commission, Cardinal Edward Cassidy, said the Vatican's statement amounted to an act of repentance as well as an apology. The document asks whether persecution was made easier because some Christians held anti-Jewish prejudices. But it also declares that many people were unaware of Hitler's so-called "final solution".
Pope John Paul has said he hopes the apology will help to heal the wounds of past injustices and misunderstandings between Christians and Jews. But the document makes no criticism of the Pope of the time, Pius XII, who has been accused by the Jews of pro-German tendencies.
The Vatican mentions that Pius XII saved hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives himself or through his representatives.
But the document fails to explain why Pope Pius never took sides during World War Two by speaking out against the holocaust while it was actually taking place.
The Vatican has always maintained he did everything he could behind the scenes (coward) to stop the slaughter.
In the document, the Vatican asks all Christians to meditate upon the catastrophe.
The apology ends by warning that the seeds of anti-Semitism (catholic church
American Jews not impressed
The US Jewish community voiced disappointment at the Vatican's statement .
"We are very sad, very disappointed," said Rabbi Leon Klenicki, director of the Department of Interfaith Affairs of the Anti Defamation League.
"The document falls short of the mark, it's taking a step backward," Rabbi Klenicki said.
The World Jewish Congress (WJC) issued a terse statement saying "those of us engaged in the dialogue have not yet succeeded."
Its statement "does not compare favourably with the French Catholic Bishops' Conference or the German Catholic Bishops' Conference," WJC executive director Elan Steinberg said.
National churches have admitted error
Catholic Bishops in France, Germany and Poland admitted they were at fault for their failure to react to Jewish persecution half a century ago.
But it was not until 1965 that the Vatican eliminated the phrase "perfidious Jews" from the liturgy of a Holy Week service.
Since then, relations between the Holy See and the Jewish state have steadily improved.
Pope John Paul II has dedicated much of his near 20-year-old papacy to improving relations with Jews, whom he refers to as "older brothers," after centuries of animosity.
Catholics have been apologizing for shit the last 50 years.
