> You make me second guess the idea of moving to texas... maybe Austin really is the only place I could exist?
> 
> I've always considered myself right of center, but if Rick Perry really is "Texas..."
> 
> Under NO circumstance will I support another Bush....-Bush was not very conservative. Perry is much more so. Austin is the center of liberalism here. The area I'm in is extremely fundamentalist, very church going, etc. 90+% of folks here 'know' there is a God. Our website would be uncomprehensible to them.

I agree with dhw... a humanistic approach must be fostered, and my central thesis is that we begin specifically with empathy/sympathy training. Yes, we can't talk about God in school (outside of comparative religions class) but we sure as hell can create classes that foster moral thinking.
> 
> Interesting and very informative. My backgound is very different than yours and the population I live among is very fundamentalist. Don't be surprised at anything you read about Rick Perry.-You make me second guess the idea of moving to texas... maybe Austin really is the only place I could exist?-I've always considered myself right of center, but if Rick Perry really is "Texas..."-Under NO circumstance will I support another Bush....

I agree with dhw... a humanistic approach must be fostered, and my central thesis is that we begin specifically with empathy/sympathy training. Yes, we can't talk about God in school (outside of comparative religions class) but we sure as hell can create classes that foster moral thinking.-Interesting and very informative. My backgound is very different than yours and the population I live among is very fundamentalist. Don't be surprised at anything you read about Rick Perry.

the next religious revival in America will be like this. My generation is already comfortable with "I don't know" as an answer, and Bell's movement encapsulates this. We need a competition-driven culture, but one that encapsulates love and not hatred for the losers, without lessening the impact of losing or overemphasizing the superiority of winning.
> 
> Looks like a great book with a reasonable interpretation of 'love' in the New Testament. We do need a competition-driven culture just as you describe.-Let me just note that it is MY description and not Bell's... though he might agree. -Bell's movement will die in the U.S. Evangelicals can't stand the thought of one of their own preaching Universalism, they view it as relegating Christianity back to "any old religion" and they fight it hard...-but he gives me hope.


> > DAVID: Your educational system is not enough. Parents have to have proper social values to instill in their children. 
> > 
> > Children become parents. Improvements won't come overnight! Evolutionary changes take place over generations, and it will also take time for educational changes to make a mark.
> 
> As I view it, the world's morals went downhill since the 1960's. That is not many generations of the filth buildup; reversal could be just as quick.
> -But why? It's great to make this observation, but what is the real cause?-One thing I think (that puts me in common with some of the 60's radicals) is that objectification of man has separated ourselves from each other. In some respects, we place WAY too much value on individuals. Individualism is something to be celebrated, but that axe cuts both ways. The more you appeal to the individual, the more you pave the way for self vs. others judgments. -Probably the key defining moment in American culture from the 1960's was the women's lib movement. Stemming from that, we now have a 2-income society that was forged from the fact that having more income meant more competition to get more money from those households. Then due to commercialization, we got hooked on convenience... with mom & dad both in the office, we needed to buy things in order to make household chores more convenient. We started spending less time with our kids, letting them watch TV so we could have more free time with each other. Then kids started getting into the rampant commercialization of youth...-Transformers and Thundercats are two examples of kids cartoons that were developed with the sole purpose of advertising toy-lines. (They were both well-written, but still...)-The whole thing is a feedback loop of "buy now, so you feel good now." We enforce this issue ourselves. Until we start saying no (to rampant commercialization as a dominating force in our lives) we can't even begin to start winning back the small battles that will allow us to control our own lives. -Our problem is a new kind of sensualism. -Truthfully, religion did serve a functional role in the past, of attempting to combat sensualism. However, as many religious people would claim, most of the people who show up on Sunday now, only come in to talk the talk. God does NOT sit at the center of society, and I don't think it will. Not in OUR society. Not in Europe's society. I say this because we now live in a world, where it is NOT possible to discuss God in a truly universal fashion. Our differences are too different. -I agree with dhw... a humanistic approach must be fostered, and my central thesis is that we begin specifically with empathy/sympathy training. Yes, we can't talk about God in school (outside of comparative religions class) but we sure as hell can create classes that foster moral thinking.


> DAVID: Your educational system is not enough. Parents have to have proper social values to instill in their children. 
> 
> Children become parents. Improvements won't come overnight! Evolutionary changes take place over generations, and it will also take time for educational changes to make a mark.-As I view it, the world's morals went downhill since the 1960's. That is not many generations of the filth buildup; reversal could be just as quick.-
> And do you really think ALL parents are capable of monitoring ALL the activities, friendships, influences (e.g. at school) of ALL kids? -It would be much better if they tried. The 'whatever' attitude where kids run the parents, as now, is causing the problems. Parents must be parents, not just friends with their kids. -Have you never encountered children from what you considered to be perfectly respectable families who have gone off the rails despite their upbringing?-Of course I have. They are usually overly respectful and very spoiled.-> Did your own parents know absolutely everything you got up to before you were 21?-Actually I was a very good kid. Now at my age I wish I had had some misadventures.-
> Are you hoping for more faith schools, to encourage insularity and intolerance? -Actually in my early schools there was an hour time-out for kids to go to their churches for religious teaching. The rest of us had study hall. It can't be in public schools.-> For Matt: There are some schools over here that have banned competitive sports, which to my mind is crazy. You can have competition without immorality, and you need it if children are to better themselves. -Absolutely.-> Religion often puts fear of God and adherence to dogma before love of one's fellow creatures, and I can see no merit in that.-Some religions, and generally rejected by folks who can think. The author, Karen Armstrong, a former nun is a great example.

the next religious revival in America will be like this. My generation is already comfortable with "I don't know" as an answer, and Bell's movement encapsulates this. We need a competition-driven culture, but one that encapsulates love and not hatred for the losers, without lessening the impact of losing or overemphasizing the superiority of winning.-Looks like a great book with a reasonable interpretation of 'love' in the New Testament. We do need a competition-driven culture just as you describe.

If I were dictator of the world, I would give my blessing to those who find comfort and communal pleasure in religion, so long as they did not interfere with the rights of others. But my educational system would be based 100% on love of my fellow humans and all my fellow creatures, and in my view that principle has no need of any God.
> 
> I certainly agree with you, as far as you go. But you are describing a utopia among humans. Your educational system is not enough. Parents have to have proper social values to instill in their children. In my world all parents would be totally responsible for the actions of their children up to age 21. That is when the immature frontal lobes are generally fully functional, and should be moral. What if, under these considerations, all parents had to serve the same prison time as their underage criminal children?
> -That's assuming that morality is a built-in function. In my view, morality, insomuch as its a human activity, is a purely emotional activity. Logic isn't enough--which is what you're describing when you discuss the frontal lobes. Logical decision making. Morality is something that guides you when logic isn't enough: Moral decisions always are ultimately made on a conscious feeling a person has at the time. Moral structures like utilitarianism vs. consequentialism are artifacts that help us... rationalize our emotive response.-Man has a sense of morals, but the sense must be honed by experience & guidance. Kids with really strict parents invariably say "I will be a better parent and let my kids do what they want..." until of course, they reach parenting age and realize the discipline had a firm purpose. -Jason Dorsey is a guy who does talks all over the United States detailing how to handle the odd combination of 4 generations existing in the work place. (First time that's happened in American History.) He considers as a damaging trend for his own generation, the "Self Esteem Movement." Making kids feel better instead of pushing them to work harder. Gen Y was the first generation where sports trophies disappeared--losing teams "won" too. I can't speak for the UK, but it I think it clearly creates a culture of appeasement between parents and children. Suddenly the children take a greater level of command, and the social backlash for parents who try to balk the trend transforms into near hysteria... such as that woman a couple of years back who got arrested for spanking her kid in a parking lot. When I was 5, I remember once when my mom swatted me on my bare butt IN the grocery store. -The key point is that children's frontal lobes are not fully developed... and David that's about right for me. College wasn't a real option for me until about the age of 22. You can train in logic all you want however, and that won't mean the child is even physically capable of doing it, because of the immature frontal lobe. So as far as I'm concerned, old-school parenting is probably correct in terms of using fear as a tool. (Work @ the child's level.) -One of the thesis ideas I'd had when in a more creative mood, was in developing a touch-app that would work as a trainer for sympathy and empathy in small children. I don't think our modern logic-driven enterprise spends enough time on this important emotional aspect of development that truly sits at the very base of the decision-making tree that is human morality. -> I understand that Rabbi Sacks would tout religion. That's natural for him. But the societal standards in the West had totally fallen apart, especially now that we are seeing equal opportunity crime. If there were a religious revival things will improve. Some articles I've read indicate that religious revival is on the way, and I'm delighted. And I'm still a tought love guy.-You can probably gather that I'm a huge tough love guy myself. Take heart. Wal-Mart picks the elderly for store greeters because Gen Y (and later) are less likely to steal from who they consider to be their grandparents. I don't think a religious revival is in the works however... the next religious revival in America will be like this. My generation is already comfortable with "I don't know" as an answer, and Bell's movement encapsulates this. We need a competition-driven culture, but one that encapsulates love and not hatred for the losers, without lessening the impact of losing or overemphasizing the superiority of winning.

If I were dictator of the world, I would give my blessing to those who find comfort and communal pleasure in religion, so long as they did not interfere with the rights of others. But my educational system would be based 100% on love of my fellow humans and all my fellow creatures, and in my view that principle has no need of any God.-I certainly agree with you, as far as you go. But you are describing a utopia among humans. Your educational system is not enough. Parents have to have proper social values to instill in their children. In my world all parents would be totally responsible for the actions of their children up to age 21. That is when the immature frontal lobes are generally fully functional, and should be moral. What if, under these considerations, all parents had to serve the same prison time as their underage criminal children?-I understand that Rabbi Sacks would tout religion. That's natural for him. But the societal standards in the West had totally fallen apart, especially now that we are seeing equal opportunity crime. If there were a religious revival things will improve. Some articles I've read indicate that religious revival is on the way, and I'm delighted. And I'm still a tought love guy.

One of these was directly covered by Sacks. What he's missing however is that it takes someone who is ultimately disciplined to instill those rules in the first place. But in my mind, the only universal truth that exists for man is that we cannot exist without each other. 
> > 
> > The problem discussed is one Nietzsche identified: What does society do now that we have killed God? We have no punisher for the afterlife. There are living examples of those who have done perfectly well with nothing other than other people as their focus-->Look to the east.
> 
> You have made excellent points, but your statistics re prison don't work. I said that the humanists I know are exemplary in their ethics. Of course their number will be fewer in prison. The problem is atheists talk a good game but they don't go out and teach as the religions do. Your other point that it takes discipline is very true, and parents today are of the 'whatever' generation.-Atheism does not necessitate humanism. Typically in America, atheists essentially follow de-facto Judeo-Christian ethics, without really thinking about or realizing that they are following the ethics.-The subtle point regarding prison statistics, is that logically rational & educated people typically follow the implicit and explicit rules of society...-the problem has very little to do with ethics as much as socio-economic status. Atheists tend to be pretty affluent, whereas Christians run the gamut. (Most atheists are college educated, therefore they have correspondingly higher salaries.)-If you compare crime rates according to income, THERE you have your correlation--and it has NOTHING to do with religion.

One of these was directly covered by Sacks. What he's missing however is that it takes someone who is ultimately disciplined to instill those rules in the first place. But in my mind, the only universal truth that exists for man is that we cannot exist without each other. 
> 
> The problem discussed is one Nietzsche identified: What does society do now that we have killed God? We have no punisher for the afterlife. There are living examples of those who have done perfectly well with nothing other than other people as their focus-->Look to the east.-You have made excellent points, but your statistics re prison don't work. I said that the humanists I know are exemplary in their ethics. Of course their number will be fewer in prison. The problem is atheists talk a good game but they don't go out and teach as the religions do. Your other point that it takes discipline is very true, and parents today are of the 'whatever' generation.

Our site owner lives somewhere in the land of the Britons, where I certainly hope he is far away from danger!
> 
> This problem is in the US as well as Britain. Laura Ingraham wrote a book, "The Pornification of America", commenting about the lack of religiousity, among lots of other issues. Humanists will claim that they are just as moral, and I know that to be true, from my friends among them. But humanists are a small group who do not influence many people. Here is a wonderful commentary by Rabbi Sacks. Britain's chief rabbi.
> 
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903639404576516252066723110.html?KEYWORDS... a Brit might say, "Bullocks!" One thing I spent time studying when an atheist, was the claim that "without a God or a religion, law and order will disappear." Rearward-facing sentimentalists such as Ingraham or Sacks also forget that embedded in their own religious traditions, man has always directly rebelled against "God's morality." As Moses descended from the mount, he came upon the Golden Calf. -The only thing the Judeo-Christian ethic provides is fear. Fear that you will be punished in an afterlife. (There is no eternal hell in Judaism, but there IS Gehenna.) One could say in Jewish terms, they get punished an awful lot while they are alive. -But my point is this: In the United States, 85% of people profess Christianity as their religion. 2% call themselves atheists & agnostics. When you look at the statistics of incarceration rates, 85% of prisoners are Christian, and 0.5% are atheist/agnostic. What this demonstrates, is that religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with morality. The case of Sacks and Ingraham is immediately refuted. -The two central issues are that children need to be instilled with -1. Delayed Gratification
2. Empathy-One of these was directly covered by Sacks. What he's missing however is that it takes someone who is ultimately disciplined to instill those rules in the first place. But in my mind, the only universal truth that exists for man is that we cannot exist without each other. -The problem discussed is one Nietzsche identified: What does society do now that we have killed God? We have no punisher for the afterlife. There are living examples of those who have done perfectly well with nothing other than other people as their focus-->Look to the east.

Our site owner lives somewhere in the land of the Britons, where I certainly hope he is far away from danger!-This problem is in the US as well as Britain. Laura Ingraham wrote a book, "The Pornification of America", commenting about the lack of religiousity, among lots of other issues. Humanists will claim that they are just as moral, and I know that to be true, from my friends among them. But humanists are a small group who do not influence many people. Here is a wonderful commentary by Rabbi Sacks. Britain's chief rabbi.-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903639404576516252066723110.html?KEYWORDS=Jonathan+Sacks

Thank you for your concern! I live about three hours' drive from Penzance, which I guess by Texan standards is next door. The nearest rioting city is Bristol, one hour away ...-If I would have known. Visited Salcombe last month - or are you further east?

Xeno, you and I have more in common than you think. While the welfare money did help some at the time, I think it has certainly gone to far at this point. People who NEED the help are not able to get it because of those who abuse the system, and in the meantime, the drain on the income of those not on the system brings them ever closer to having to be dependent on it themselves.-My challenge lies here: setting aside, for the moment, that our system was improved by repubs & dems in '96, there will ALWAYS be people getting help that don't need it, and people that need help and never get it.-Knowing this, I hope ppl report suspected freeloading (I was required to when I worked healthcare) and if they don't, they have no right to complain. The system works by feedback.-I won't deny a kid an opportunity I had. Many people here want to kill ALL programs as if they are better at catching fraud than the next guy. I'm not so nearly sure of myself.