Big Think

Fred Stopp on January 15, 2008, 5:45 AM

Wow. He is the first person I have heard who acknowledges that Christianity is a myth.

Fred Stopp on January 15, 2008, 10:45 AM

Wow. He is the first person I have heard who acknowledges that Christianity is a myth.

a a on January 16, 2008, 4:35 PM

To: fredstopp,

Christianity makes up more than one third of the world population, how is that a myth. As far as Jesus Christ being a myth, why would Josephus Flavius, a first century Roman historian, mention Jesus and his miracles? He had no vested interest in early Christianity other than they were a fast growing religion that was an offshoot of Judaism. I find it ignorant that you took one phrase from a twelve minute presentation and twisted it into obsurdity.

Dave D on January 16, 2008, 8:40 PM

The ends do not justify the means Dershowitz, especially when the means erode our personal freedoms. The preventative state is a doorway to what Orwell wrote about in 1984.

a a on January 16, 2008, 9:35 PM

To: fredstopp,

Christianity makes up more than one third of the world population, how is that a myth. As far as Jesus Christ being a myth, why would Josephus Flavius, a first century Roman historian, mention Jesus and his miracles? He had no vested interest in early Christianity other than they were a fast growing religion that was an offshoot of Judaism. I find it ignorant that you took one phrase from a twelve minute presentation and twisted it into obsurdity.

Dave D on January 17, 2008, 1:40 AM

The ends do not justify the means Dershowitz, especially when the means erode our personal freedoms. The preventative state is a doorway to what Orwell wrote about in 1984.

James Beninger on January 17, 2008, 4:25 AM

I really don't understand how much more "prevention" we can do. The problem isn't that we're not preventing those potential crimes we know about, it's about identifying the crimes in the first place.

There is already a legal structure in place to prevent suicide bombing – identify and monitor the threat, then act when they actually commit a crime (which is inevitable in the planning of a suicide bombing).

If the threat isn't identified, then it can never be contained.

But when you use the word "preventative", you seem to mean identifying and containing people who are deemed a threat before that threat is made clear. The techniques and psychology to do this identification without a huge number of false-positives is non-existent.

To hold people responsible for things the government has deemed them likely to do, using a science that can be best defined as in its "infant stages", is an extremely frightening idea.

Hitoshi Noguchi on January 17, 2008, 5:19 AM

Alan Dershowitz presents some good points on the difficulties of adapting constitutional liberties to the modern criminal environment. But it is disheartening that he does not present a middle ground between "letting 10 nuclear terrorists go free to keep one innocent man out of jail" and treating human beings like wild animals. Especially when you realize that this is a Harvard professor who, by his own admission, had been thinking about this issue throughout his life. One is tempted to ask "Where is the Big Think?"

The least he could have done, in the limited timespan of his presentation, was to acknowledge the NEED for the middle ground. He does not. The need should be urgently addressed because torture and unorthodox investigation methods are not going to go away from the real world any time soon and, more importantly, as it stands we are detaining and torturing many more innocent people than there are potential nuclear terrorists which, reportedly, are still walking free.

Torture of innocent suspects are sticky situations. My brutal father extracted numerous confessions from me of things I never did, though his methods fell substantially short of torture. It might have given him some level of satisfaction to discover and punish the offender, but if his objective was to educate me, he utterly failed. All he managed to do was to breed rebellion. In the long run, it was counterproductive for both of us.

The difference between people and lions is that a caged or disabled lion does not breed further resentment from other lions. Draconian measures taken to innocent suspects could push those suspects over the edge to real terrorism. At the very least, they would certainly feed the meme of vengence.

The free world is in a delicate position where the more it responds to the threats posed to it, the more it loses the appeal that is the foundation of its strengths – not to even mention the loss of the reasons that make it worth protecting.

The Free World, and America in particular, was founded on a set of ideas that brought the best, the brightest and the most motivated to its shores. Surrendering those ideas is the ultimate defeat.

James Beninger on January 17, 2008, 9:25 AM

I really don’t understand how much more “prevention” we can do. The problem isn’t that we’re not preventing those potential crimes we know about, it’s about identifying the crimes in the first place.

There is already a legal structure in place to prevent suicide bombing – identify and monitor the threat, then act when they actually commit a crime (which is inevitable in the planning of a suicide bombing).

If the threat isn’t identified, then it can never be contained.

But when you use the word “preventative”, you seem to mean identifying and containing people who are deemed a threat before that threat is made clear. The techniques and psychology to do this identification without a huge number of false-positives is non-existent.

To hold people responsible for things the government has deemed them likely to do, using a science that can be best defined as in its “infant stages”, is an extremely frightening idea.

Mitchell Burkett on January 17, 2008, 9:55 AM

Christianity should be interpreted in multiple ways.
1. As storys to guide us to be kind and good people.
2. As a way to give faith in a higher power, or in any sence human worth and happiness
3. A way to be accepted forever by a community and by a God.
4. To make the world come together as one.
Of course there are hundreds of ways to really interpret the bible. these are just a few. What he was saying had some point, but was shallow at the other end.

Omar Sapayeen on January 17, 2008, 10:01 AM

In a sense, this kind of thing isn't new.

We all saw the video of Saddam, on assuming power, reading off a list of people within his own party whom he feared would someday pose a threat to him. They were taken out and killed.

The rationale justifying most incidences of ethnic cleansing often included the fear of future threat from that clan or ethnic group. When Pakistan was losing the war to Bangladesh in 1971, they 'preemtively' collected professors, scientists and scholars and killed them all, to prevent Bangladesh from ever becoming a nation strong enough as to pose a threat.

There is nothing new of this kind of 'preventative' approach. What makes it look different to us is that we're used to seeing this kind of thing done by other nations we consider ghoulish and evil. We're unwilling to concede that by engaging in the same kind of atrocity ourselves, we're becoming evil ourselves.

And we're getting there. A contributor to Guliani's campaign recently commented on the need to eradicate all Muslims in America. Though he said he was 'not necessarily referring to genocide', he made it clear he sees no distinction between moderate and extremist. This kind of thinking is common, if not dominant in the conservative right wing community in America.

Hitoshi Noguchi on January 17, 2008, 10:19 AM

Alan Dershowitz presents some good points on the difficulties of adapting constitutional liberties to the modern criminal environment. But it is disheartening that he does not present a middle ground between “letting 10 nuclear terrorists go free to keep one innocent man out of jail” and treating human beings like wild animals. Especially when you realize that this is a Harvard professor who, by his own admission, had been thinking about this issue throughout his life. One is tempted to ask “Where is the Big Think?”

The least he could have done, in the limited timespan of his presentation, was to acknowledge the NEED for the middle ground. He does not. The need should be urgently addressed because torture and unorthodox investigation methods are not going to go away from the real world any time soon and, more importantly, as it stands we are detaining and torturing many more innocent people than there are potential nuclear terrorists which, reportedly, are still walking free.

Torture of innocent suspects are sticky situations. My brutal father extracted numerous confessions from me of things I never did, though his methods fell substantially short of torture. It might have given him some level of satisfaction to discover and punish the offender, but if his objective was to educate me, he utterly failed. All he managed to do was to breed rebellion. In the long run, it was counterproductive for both of us.

The difference between people and lions is that a caged or disabled lion does not breed further resentment from other lions. Draconian measures taken to innocent suspects could push those suspects over the edge to real terrorism. At the very least, they would certainly feed the meme of vengence.

The free world is in a delicate position where the more it responds to the threats posed to it, the more it loses the appeal that is the foundation of its strengths – not to even mention the loss of the reasons that make it worth protecting.

The Free World, and America in particular, was founded on a set of ideas that brought the best, the brightest and the most motivated to its shores. Surrendering those ideas is the ultimate defeat.

Mitchell Burkett on January 17, 2008, 2:55 PM

Christianity should be interpreted in multiple ways.
1. As storys to guide us to be kind and good people.
2. As a way to give faith in a higher power, or in any sence human worth and happiness
3. A way to be accepted forever by a community and by a God.
4. To make the world come together as one.
Of course there are hundreds of ways to really interpret the bible. these are just a few. What he was saying had some point, but was shallow at the other end.

Omar Sapayeen on January 17, 2008, 3:01 PM

In a sense, this kind of thing isn’t new.

We all saw the video of Saddam, on assuming power, reading off a list of people within his own party whom he feared would someday pose a threat to him. They were taken out and killed.

The rationale justifying most incidences of ethnic cleansing often included the fear of future threat from that clan or ethnic group. When Pakistan was losing the war to Bangladesh in 1971, they ‘preemtively’ collected professors, scientists and scholars and killed them all, to prevent Bangladesh from ever becoming a nation strong enough as to pose a threat.

There is nothing new of this kind of ‘preventative’ approach. What makes it look different to us is that we’re used to seeing this kind of thing done by other nations we consider ghoulish and evil. We’re unwilling to concede that by engaging in the same kind of atrocity ourselves, we’re becoming evil ourselves.

And we’re getting there. A contributor to Guliani’s campaign recently commented on the need to eradicate all Muslims in America. Though he said he was ‘not necessarily referring to genocide’, he made it clear he sees no distinction between moderate and extremist. This kind of thinking is common, if not dominant in the conservative right wing community in America.

Liam O'Riley on January 18, 2008, 6:01 PM

Haha yes he does acknowledge that Christianity is a myth…
I'm guessing that Mr. Gomes is one of those 'post-modern' Christians

However Gomes has a fair point, science does have boundries to what is logical and what is cemented fact, however religion and faith at all length has that extra dimension of spirituality, God, Heaven and Hell that science does not have an answer to. In this extra dimension of faith, comes the roots of virtues and deeper meaning that science cannot bring forth

Robert Franek on January 18, 2008, 8:11 PM

Check your definition of myth. Gomes is using the term here not as the antithesis of fact, but rather as authoritative story through which reality is interpreted.

Liam O'Riley on January 18, 2008, 11:01 PM

Haha yes he does acknowledge that Christianity is a myth…
I’m guessing that Mr. Gomes is one of those ‘post-modern’ Christians

However Gomes has a fair point, science does have boundries to what is logical and what is cemented fact, however religion and faith at all length has that extra dimension of spirituality, God, Heaven and Hell that science does not have an answer to. In this extra dimension of faith, comes the roots of virtues and deeper meaning that science cannot bring forth

Robert Franek on January 19, 2008, 1:11 AM

Check your definition of myth. Gomes is using the term here not as the antithesis of fact, but rather as authoritative story through which reality is interpreted.

danny nettleton on January 19, 2008, 11:32 PM

Anyone interested in the nature of myth and its function in society would do well to read Joseph Campbell (“Hero With a Thousand Faces” is the best place to start). Myth in an academic context, which is certainly where Mr. Gomes is comming from, is not something that is untrue or false. A myth is the narrative which contains our deepest beliefs. For Christians that narrative is expressed in the mystery of faith: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ shall come again.” to say it is a myth is not to say it didn’t happen, it is to say it is the defining narrative.

In manyways science has it’s own myths. The most powerful is the cosmological myth of the big bang and the anthropological myth of creation. To say evolution is the defining myth of our time is not to say evolution isn’t real,but rather to say it is the decisive narrative through which many view the world. Listen to biologists describe the process by which we came into being and you will not receive a bland passionless account but a story that defines who we are.

I believe both evolution and Christianity. I’m merely making the point that myth does not diminish the subject, it elevates it. When Gomes talks about the Christ-myth he is not speaking patronizingly, saying that it’s just a story. He is saying that it is the defining narrative through which he views the world.

When a story becomes a myth it becomes more than the sum total of its parts. Such language is surely fitting in the case of the gospel.

ashlyn thornton on January 21, 2008, 11:10 AM

i think that the arguement is ver effective. his stabce on the issues is blatantly stated. he see religion as an answer to life that cannot be answered by science or anything else. he states that nothing else explains happiness or gives the ideology that was laid out by many people before and smarter than him. he states that Christianity is not a religion that has been tried and failed but one that has been wondered but never tried.

ashlyn thornton on January 21, 2008, 4:10 PM

i think that the arguement is ver effective. his stabce on the issues is blatantly stated. he see religion as an answer to life that cannot be answered by science or anything else. he states that nothing else explains happiness or gives the ideology that was laid out by many people before and smarter than him. he states that Christianity is not a religion that has been tried and failed but one that has been wondered but never tried.

Grace En-Tien Chang on January 21, 2008, 7:57 PM

There is the very frightening and real danger of pushing people who were innocent of the crime into doing exactly what you didn't want them to do or are accusing them of doing. There has to be a more efficient method of quickly processing suspects and eliminating suspicion – to hold people even for only half a year is a portion of that person's life that can never be recompensated. Mistakenly punishing innocent people for crimes they have not committed is going to have a debiliating long term effect on society, as with the white terror in Taiwan in the fifties where the government incarcerated and executed many of the intellectuals in society on unreliable tips of socialist activity. The effects of this can still be seen today as the politicians in Taiwan use this issue as levers for support and division.

Grace En-Tien Chang on January 22, 2008, 12:57 AM

There is the very frightening and real danger of pushing people who were innocent of the crime into doing exactly what you didn’t want them to do or are accusing them of doing. There has to be a more efficient method of quickly processing suspects and eliminating suspicion – to hold people even for only half a year is a portion of that person’s life that can never be recompensated. Mistakenly punishing innocent people for crimes they have not committed is going to have a debiliating long term effect on society, as with the white terror in Taiwan in the fifties where the government incarcerated and executed many of the intellectuals in society on unreliable tips of socialist activity. The effects of this can still be seen today as the politicians in Taiwan use this issue as levers for support and division.

joyce arnold on January 27, 2008, 3:20 AM

Thank you for your discussions.
I think that this is the sort of slippery slope that makes the totalitarian state a more feared object than the perpetrators of crime.In the wrong hands this leads to very narrow thinking and a state controlled preventive approach akin to Hitler's final solution.
I was hoping for a more positive approach to preventive jurisprudence. There is enough evidence to know the reasons for most of these crimes, like sexual predators, suicide bombers. How can we help these individuals and groups to better cope with their problems so they don't have to project them onto us all? How can we make our society understand the inevitability of crime and prepare, protect and cope with the inevitable?
Surely if we legislate and prosecute, torture and incarcerate, we all individually absolve ourselves of responsibility, handing over all the power to the state and we exacerbate the potential of violent crime
Joyce Arnold

joyce arnold on January 27, 2008, 8:20 AM

Thank you for your discussions.
I think that this is the sort of slippery slope that makes the totalitarian state a more feared object than the perpetrators of crime.In the wrong hands this leads to very narrow thinking and a state controlled preventive approach akin to Hitler’s final solution.
I was hoping for a more positive approach to preventive jurisprudence. There is enough evidence to know the reasons for most of these crimes, like sexual predators, suicide bombers. How can we help these individuals and groups to better cope with their problems so they don’t have to project them onto us all? How can we make our society understand the inevitability of crime and prepare, protect and cope with the inevitable?
Surely if we legislate and prosecute, torture and incarcerate, we all individually absolve ourselves of responsibility, handing over all the power to the state and we exacerbate the potential of violent crime
Joyce Arnold

Norman McDowell on January 31, 2008, 12:28 AM

"You cannot simultaneously prevent war and prepare for war" -Albert Einstein.

The ends never justify the means, the means justify the ends. There are endless methods for preventing people from committing horrible acts, however preemptive punishment is a horrible act of it's own.

I agree with what he said that we must dispose of the myth of the hereafter. I agree with the Voltaire quote, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities".

A big problem (as far as extremists) is that when people put faith in something above humanity, namely God (or at least a God that certain people believe in) they lose their faith in humanity. This doesn't just go for Muslim extremists, this goes for evangelical Christians in the US, this goes for Mormon extremists, or any organized religion really.

Norman McDowell on January 31, 2008, 5:28 AM

“You cannot simultaneously prevent war and prepare for war” -Albert Einstein.

The ends never justify the means, the means justify the ends. There are endless methods for preventing people from committing horrible acts, however preemptive punishment is a horrible act of it’s own.

I agree with what he said that we must dispose of the myth of the hereafter. I agree with the Voltaire quote, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”.

A big problem (as far as extremists) is that when people put faith in something above humanity, namely God (or at least a God that certain people believe in) they lose their faith in humanity. This doesn’t just go for Muslim extremists, this goes for evangelical Christians in the US, this goes for Mormon extremists, or any organized religion really.

Dea Whitewing on February 11, 2008, 6:45 PM

We addressed the subject of incarceration, however I believe not enough was said about the invasion of privacy. What leads the authorities to the conclusion that they may arrest me? Would the qualifications for a preemptive strike include looking over my finances? Looking over the books I read, places I travel, and comments I leave on websites? As a political science student I visit plenty of extremist websites and search for books that could be considered terrorist training material. Is that grounds of an arrest? Is that even grounds for having a closer look at my actions?

A preemptive strike would only encourage the feeling of being an outcast. It would only increase the negative feelings felt by the group that is being singled out for the action. Whether the action is against Jews, Muslims, women, or people that like to highlight their hair and pierce every part of their body, all groups with equal sensitivity feel the lack of acceptance. Single them out and you cause them to come together and use their joined strength to cause more trouble, than before.

A preemptive strike should not be in a form of punishment but in a form of a helping hand. If everyone had a feeling of belonging and knew they could find help from those around them, they would be less willing to go and blow themselves up or go and kill someone. Hate breeds hate, so shouldn%u2019t we focus on lessening the amount of hate in the world rather than breed more of it by separating people into groups that are trust worthy and those whose lives need to be looked into.

Dea Whitewing on February 11, 2008, 11:45 PM

We addressed the subject of incarceration, however I believe not enough was said about the invasion of privacy. What leads the authorities to the conclusion that they may arrest me? Would the qualifications for a preemptive strike include looking over my finances? Looking over the books I read, places I travel, and comments I leave on websites? As a political science student I visit plenty of extremist websites and search for books that could be considered terrorist training material. Is that grounds of an arrest? Is that even grounds for having a closer look at my actions?

A preemptive strike would only encourage the feeling of being an outcast. It would only increase the negative feelings felt by the group that is being singled out for the action. Whether the action is against Jews, Muslims, women, or people that like to highlight their hair and pierce every part of their body, all groups with equal sensitivity feel the lack of acceptance. Single them out and you cause them to come together and use their joined strength to cause more trouble, than before.


A preemptive strike should not be in a form of punishment but in a form of a helping hand. If everyone had a feeling of belonging and knew they could find help from those around them, they would be less willing to go and blow themselves up or go and kill someone. Hate breeds hate, so shouldn%u2019t we focus on lessening the amount of hate in the world rather than breed more of it by separating people into groups that are trust worthy and those whose lives need to be looked into.

Elijah Stone on March 1, 2008, 2:28 PM

even though science has not been able to explain or prove things like the soul joy or happiness wich is true but how can religion answer those questions when the answer can only back up the answer with blind faith. when an answer is only backed up with faith it is not proven anymore then when science cannot find the soul or god or where joy or happieness comes from

Elijah Stone on March 1, 2008, 7:28 PM

even though science has not been able to explain or prove things like the soul joy or happiness wich is true but how can religion answer those questions when the answer can only back up the answer with blind faith. when an answer is only backed up with faith it is not proven anymore then when science cannot find the soul or god or where joy or happieness comes from

Musycks on March 13, 2008, 6:20 PM

Anyone who has found all the answers in Christianity has a very low burden of proof, and is very easily satisfied, as are most adherents to primitive superstition based philosophies. He possibly applies some of the standards of critical thought to common areas that atheists do? I wonder what his views on ghosts are? or astrology? or any number of supernatural explanations for events?
Does he agree with me that Horus was not a God, even if he shares many common points with the Jesus fable.. or Odin, or Thor or any number of pre-Xtian, or non middle eastern versions. He's as much an atheist with them as I am.
If, like most Xtians he doesn't presume that say, astrology is much of a guide to living or clairvoyants are getting messages from your dead grannie etc.. then he's part of the way to shedding the nonsense he's peddling. Until then he's an empty gong, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing, with no more credibility than John Edwards fleecing the gullible.
pathetic.

Musycks on March 13, 2008, 10:20 PM

Anyone who has found all the answers in Christianity has a very low burden of proof, and is very easily satisfied, as are most adherents to primitive superstition based philosophies. He possibly applies some of the standards of critical thought to common areas that atheists do? I wonder what his views on ghosts are? or astrology? or any number of supernatural explanations for events?
Does he agree with me that Horus was not a God, even if he shares many common points with the Jesus fable.. or Odin, or Thor or any number of pre-Xtian, or non middle eastern versions. He’s as much an atheist with them as I am.
If, like most Xtians he doesn’t presume that say, astrology is much of a guide to living or clairvoyants are getting messages from your dead grannie etc.. then he’s part of the way to shedding the nonsense he’s peddling. Until then he’s an empty gong, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing, with no more credibility than John Edwards fleecing the gullible.
pathetic.

Luke Allen on April 30, 2008, 11:30 PM

Even though I believe in most of the premises Prof. Dershowitz is stating: ie. "You should treat people that are suicide bombers like Lions" He would be better off if he stopped the hysterical approach to our current dilemma.

Since 9-11 Most in America seem willing to give up Liberty for safety. This is the root of preventive jurisprudence. In WWII the US faced an enemy that also thought suicide bombing was good, please don't forget the lesson of the Kamikaze fighters of Japan. They also flew airplanes to their own individual deaths to attempt to kill more of us. Therefore, the promises of an afterlife are not the only root to suicide behavior and can't be the only way we address this behavior.

If someone is willing to give up their life for a belief, no matter how erroneous one in opposition to this belief feels, we will not stop their martyr mentality by killing them all. Heck, killing them is what they want. One who is in opposition must first listen and then, like we so often do in the US with extremist, we take the middle road and ask them to pull in their extremist. Example: alot of the FBI agents that just raided that crazy polygamist sect in Texas were LDS practicing members. (Mormon's raiding other, too extreme wrong view held, Mormon's for those not familiar with the LDS faith.) In our country, where Christianity is widely accepted, my favorite Christian book is the recently released "Lord Protect Us From Your Followers" In this book, is a calling for Christians to pull in these war-mongering extremists that make all Christians look bad.

Thus, the two points of this response so far are:
1. Please think and don't fall into the trap of giving up our liberties for "preventative jurisprudence" and
2. America could succeed in the war on Muslim extremists if they used and promoted more, the use of current Muslim's that know that Allah wouldn't want babies dying and woman raped. The Taliban Government is not inline with the Quaran and America has alot of Muslims that are angry with the violent methodology employed by terroist. Instead of labeling all Muslim's as terroist, America needs its Muslim population to be on the forefront of this war. That would be all the "preventive jurisprudence" our country needs for terrorist.

Finally, to combat crime on another front ex. sexual predators, we simply need to strengthen and make extremely harsher punishments for first offenders. Most sexual crimes are committed by re-offenders, therefore, we don't need "preventative jurisprudence" we need punishment for prosecuted predators that deters the crime in the first place and never allows a convicted predator to find other people to harm.

Thank you in advance to anyone that take the time to read this response.

Luke Allen on May 1, 2008, 3:30 AM

Even though I believe in most of the premises Prof. Dershowitz is stating: ie. “You should treat people that are suicide bombers like Lions” He would be better off if he stopped the hysterical approach to our current dilemma.

Since 9-11 Most in America seem willing to give up Liberty for safety. This is the root of preventive jurisprudence. In WWII the US faced an enemy that also thought suicide bombing was good, please don’t forget the lesson of the Kamikaze fighters of Japan. They also flew airplanes to their own individual deaths to attempt to kill more of us. Therefore, the promises of an afterlife are not the only root to suicide behavior and can’t be the only way we address this behavior.

If someone is willing to give up their life for a belief, no matter how erroneous one in opposition to this belief feels, we will not stop their martyr mentality by killing them all. Heck, killing them is what they want. One who is in opposition must first listen and then, like we so often do in the US with extremist, we take the middle road and ask them to pull in their extremist. Example: alot of the FBI agents that just raided that crazy polygamist sect in Texas were LDS practicing members. (Mormon’s raiding other, too extreme wrong view held, Mormon’s for those not familiar with the LDS faith.) In our country, where Christianity is widely accepted, my favorite Christian book is the recently released “Lord Protect Us From Your Followers” In this book, is a calling for Christians to pull in these war-mongering extremists that make all Christians look bad.

Thus, the two points of this response so far are:
1. Please think and don’t fall into the trap of giving up our liberties for “preventative jurisprudence” and
2. America could succeed in the war on Muslim extremists if they used and promoted more, the use of current Muslim’s that know that Allah wouldn’t want babies dying and woman raped. The Taliban Government is not inline with the Quaran and America has alot of Muslims that are angry with the violent methodology employed by terroist. Instead of labeling all Muslim’s as terroist, America needs its Muslim population to be on the forefront of this war. That would be all the “preventive jurisprudence” our country needs for terrorist.

Finally, to combat crime on another front ex. sexual predators, we simply need to strengthen and make extremely harsher punishments for first offenders. Most sexual crimes are committed by re-offenders, therefore, we don’t need “preventative jurisprudence” we need punishment for prosecuted predators that deters the crime in the first place and never allows a convicted predator to find other people to harm.

Thank you in advance to anyone that take the time to read this response.

Jamaal Lowe on July 17, 2008, 12:04 AM

What has been the main reason that cultures or peoples have chosen to follow certain religious beliefs and devote themselves in service to a god, or gods, all throughout history? The reason is to ensure survival. Agricultural societies devoted themselves to pleasing storm gods, who could ensure bountiful crops from year-to-year; highly political societies chose to revere war gods who could ensure their victory in battle and the survival of soldiers who could live to tell the tale. One of the primary tenents of established science is something called the Scientific Method; in short summary it basically states that if an effect or process is capable of being measured, consistently, and the effect is capable of being produced again, within the same circumstances, then it must be true. Agricultural societies continued to revere their chosen storm god, as long as this god continued to provide plentiful rains for their crops; if the rains ceased, and the peoples could not appease their god or gods through their actions to invoke the entity to bring rains again—-they found another storm god. Dietal assimilation, promotion and evolution has been observed throughout a number of civilizations, recent and ancient; the question in terms of Christianity from a scientific standpoint then becomes…has the Christian God changed? Has the Christian God been able to manifest measurable effects in civilizations, consistently? Does the Christian God ensure the survival of those people who chose to believe in and serve it? The question of personal well-being is one mainly to be answered and experienced by those who follow the Christian God, but the tasks of measuring the consistency of the Christian God in civilizations, and it's ability to ensure the survival of those who chose to appease and serve it, can be observed and measured by everyone.

Jamaal Lowe on July 17, 2008, 4:04 AM

What has been the main reason that cultures or peoples have chosen to follow certain religious beliefs and devote themselves in service to a god, or gods, all throughout history? The reason is to ensure survival. Agricultural societies devoted themselves to pleasing storm gods, who could ensure bountiful crops from year-to-year; highly political societies chose to revere war gods who could ensure their victory in battle and the survival of soldiers who could live to tell the tale. One of the primary tenents of established science is something called the Scientific Method; in short summary it basically states that if an effect or process is capable of being measured, consistently, and the effect is capable of being produced again, within the same circumstances, then it must be true. Agricultural societies continued to revere their chosen storm god, as long as this god continued to provide plentiful rains for their crops; if the rains ceased, and the peoples could not appease their god or gods through their actions to invoke the entity to bring rains again—-they found another storm god. Dietal assimilation, promotion and evolution has been observed throughout a number of civilizations, recent and ancient; the question in terms of Christianity from a scientific standpoint then becomes…has the Christian God changed? Has the Christian God been able to manifest measurable effects in civilizations, consistently? Does the Christian God ensure the survival of those people who chose to believe in and serve it? The question of personal well-being is one mainly to be answered and experienced by those who follow the Christian God, but the tasks of measuring the consistency of the Christian God in civilizations, and it’s ability to ensure the survival of those who chose to appease and serve it, can be observed and measured by everyone.

Malcolm McGugan on September 26, 2008, 12:32 AM

So religion is asperational self help…
“Be all you can be Christians!”

Incidently, religion doesn’t explain the soul either. When it expounds on such matters it uses a technique commonly known as “making stuff up”.

Ashley Trimmer on March 23, 2009, 6:51 PM

I think Gomes makes some valid points on Christianity in this video. He definitely approaches Christianity from a more post-modern perspective, but he does well in defining Christianity as a “myth.” A narrative of our deepest beliefs. For a Christian, the Gospel is the Narrative for which they see and view the world, where their deepest beliefs are held. He said that, when talking to young people, he reminds them of their “obligation and responsibility to be agents of change in the world.” His approach to Christianity is not about cramming Bible verses down a person’s throat, or condemning them to hell because of their lack of belief; it’s about living in a way that brings about a positive change in a world that is hurting. That is where the impact is truly made. Christianity, to me, is not a “religion;” it’s not a set of rules and standards that must be followed, but a lifestyle that must be lived. While I didn’t agree with every detail of Gomes’ video, I feel it necessary to point out that this approach is a good one. The lifestyle will invoke questions (i.e. he was able to share stories of Job by encouraging young people in their efforts to change the world). When a person lives their life in a way that reflects what they say, people are more willing to listen to what they have to say.

Rachele Antenucci on June 14, 2009, 8:22 PM

Religions are a great place for pedophiles and rapists to hide, just as long as they are giving 10% of their income! So are prisons. Only the folks there were not as clever to hide it.