Stoned, my response will be long. I hope you read it though, as I make valid points. I replicate your post in full as to not be blamed with omitting anything. I just hope you don’t throw a Knee Jerk reaction to whatever I say because it disagrees with you, which is the usual course in these sorts of debates online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea that there will be no state and this will be a True Democracy is no different than what Lenin promised, by the way, so lets not go that direction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This quote alone shows me you've really misinterpreted The Venus Project and the idea of a Resource Based Economy. Most Critics of a resource based economy always compare it to Communist/Socialist systems and I often wonder whether it's their inability to comprehend how such a system could work in practise or if it's that old 1950's American mentally of Communism = Evil, coming out
Actually it’s a Valid criticism. Marx was basically working toward a Truly Democratic State, in which the workers could run the Factories and the Farms, and in which no one would be exploited. That was the principle behind his Communism, and if you read “Das Capital” or “The Communist Manifesto” you will soon realise that a world without Money, in which all people support society based upon True Human Compassion and in which we all gain what we want or need, and are free to develop ourselves to our True Potential rather than subject ourselves to domination by wealthy elites was the very Heart of Communism. Lenin’s vision of Communism, while diverging from Marx in some ways, certainly continued the same theme.
How, exactly, is that very different from the Venus Project?
As far as the existing social systems are concerned, there is nothing wrong with Communism/socialism or whatever you want to call it.
Well, other than it can’t be done because it goes against Human Nature…
The problem (as with all current systems) is that it's easily hijacked and turned into a dictatorship by those who wish to control the masses.
But, the same could easily happen to the Venus Project so, your actual point is not very convincing. Why do you think the Venus Project would be immune from the possibility of a Dictator hijacking it?
Read below before you answer back with something about Scientists.
Lenin and other Communist leaders didn't fail on their promises, they achieved what they set out to achieve. Domination.
But was that what they set out to Achieve?
I doubt you’ve read much about Vladimir Ulrich Lenin, but he was actually one of the most Brilliant men to have ever lived. He was also a strong Idealist, and a True Believer in his Cause. He wanted to create the perfect world in which the poor would no longer exist for all would be fed, and in which all people were Free. He wanted to create a New Humanity in which Science and Reason prevailed, and solved our problems, and in which all people would work together for the Greater Good of Mankind.
He became a Dictator not because he wanted to crush everyone under him into submission, and rule them, but because he was so dedicated to his Dream that he wouldn’t compromise on it at all and tried to forced it into existence. He was also so convinced of the reality of how Marx ad the Enlightenment saw Humanity that he couldn’t bring himself to consider that they may have been wrong on anything, so never modified his Goals to reflect responses generated in society, but rather tried to change the people as a whole to reflect that Dream.
Like most Ideologues he couldn’t see past his Vision to see the Reality, and refused to believe that his Dream simply couldn’t be a Reality.
In this way, Lenin was less Evil and more simply grossly mislead by his own ideals and his Stubborn refusal to assess them against Reality.
Stalin is another matter, but came along much later.
That being said, the biggest difference between a Resource Based Economy and Communism is the glaringly obvious fact that there's no money involved.
But in a Truly Communist society there is no money involved…
So what your saying is, you have never read “The Communist Manifesto”, “Das Capital”, or any other work by Karl Marx, nor have you any understanding of Communism.
Put simply, it would take us back to the days when our species lived off the land in synergistic harmony with the environment combined with our advancements in science and technology and our potential to advance much further to achieve a high standard of living within this life style - in theory
Wouldn’t the Feudal System do that better than the Venus Project though? The Venus Project is still trying to build on Democracy, which in and of itself is not how Humanity has always lived. Aristotle said that Democracy was the worst form of Government, and creates the most Strife, and claimed that Monarchy was the only form of Government which is established for the Good of All. The Feudal System meanwhile allows for us to live off the Land and to work cooperatively out of Duty, Loyalty, and Honour, rather than for Money.
If you add to it modern Human Rights, and our advanced Technology, you get a perfectly workable Governing system that is not, in fact, Democratic, but is free of the major social problems we find today, and that brings us back to the Land.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd end up with people wanting to centrally plan everything and not advance. They may talk of advance, but they'd wan tot plan out those advances as a linear path, and attempt to force creativity to conform to that path, thus crushing it under a burden. Actual scientific advancement would be slowed considerably, as would social mobility, by the ever-present need to constantly keep society organised.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea where you got this idea from.
I get the idea from Reality.
Firstly Scientists, not politicians, would be doing the planning, so how scientific advancement would slow down I do not know.
But if Scientists run the Government, then wouldn’t they be by definition Politicians? Either that or they’d be Lords.
Either way, there job would entail more than simply being Scientists, as every Government faces more than just Technical Concerns. The Scientists would have to effectively become Politicians, or Lords, in order to actually accomplish the Task of setting up Civil Law, and managing internal and external Conflicts.
That said, its also one of the most striking facts that people in these sorts of movements, or modern Neo-Atheism, try to Venerate Scientists as if they are all Altruistic Truth Seekers who want for nothing but to understand our Universe and who are Purely guided by Logic and Reason. The idea of a Scientists has become sort of a Sacred one, in which a Scientist is understood to be Driven y a desire to know Truth and to expand our Knowledge, and who can see the world for what it is.
But, that’s not the Truth, is it? Being that I am studying Medical Sciences now (Psychology) I can tell you from personal academic experience that Scientists are just as Human as everyone else. They aren’t all objective, they aren’t all altruistic Truth Seekers, and they don’t always think logically and Rationally. Oftentimes Scientists will be so committed to one particular Theory or Hypothetical Model that if another one comes along to Challenge it, they will fight tooth and claw to discredit it, not because they find deep flaws in the Research, but because the other Model competes with their own which they just know is True because its their model. Some Scientists will write research that agrees with whoever will pay them to write the Research, such as those who work for major corporations or the Government, and the same exists in Universities. Many of them allow Political or Philosophical Biases Colour their perspective to such a degree that they selectively interpret the Data, and even ignore some that doesn’t conform to their desires, in such a way that their own conclusions become more tenable.
Scientists often simply promote their own personal beliefs, rather than allowing new Information to change them.
While I am not castigating Science itself as a horrible venture or as a waste of Time, I am trying to make a point that Scientists do not simply think Logically and Rationally all of the time and don’t always come to the Right Conclusion, and aren’t always willing to admit error. So the idea of a Society run by Scientists is not one that really makes me feel better, simply because I see no reason why it would avoid the pitfalls of those run by Politicians or Aristocrats.
In fact, it may be worse. Scientists are Trained in Science, not Governance and Law. Worse still, while we like to think of Scientists as all basically the same thing, people who do Science, the Truth is, they aren’t. Medical Doctors are Scientists, but a lot of Medical Doctors wouldn’t know much about Astronomy, or Geology; That’s because they aren’t Astronomers or Geologists. Loads of people who are skilled at Chemistry know little about Physics beyond what’s needed for Chemistry. Plenty of people who know a good deal about Forestry and Agriculture aren’t too skilled in Engineering just as many Medical Doctors aren’t.
Science has a lot of Fields, and being good at one, say Astronomy, doesn’t make you good at another, say Chemistry. This means that there are plenty of Scientists out there who really aren’t good at Science as a whole, even if they excel at their chosen Field in Science.
Given this information, and the fact that Scientists are simply not Trained to be Lawmakers or Judges, why should I think that a Society run by Scientists would be more efficient?
The Scientists will not by virtue of being Scientists be good Lawyers, nor will they Judge matters of Law well by virtue of being Scientists. They won’t be good at settling conflicts either, nor will they be best at knowing what each individual needs.
Given that running a Society will automatically lead one to make Laws, Judge those who are said to have Violated them, and to settle disputes between parties, the Scientists will have to learn Considerable Legal Skills in order to shape this Society. As the Venus Project is also suppose to promote Democracy, this means the Scientists will also have to hone the ability to be Charismatic and run for Office, to win over support form a Majority. The Scientists will be Politicians.
As Jacques Fresco said in the film, "Our problems in life are technical." This is all the scientists need as far as incentives. The only thing which could slow down any advancement would be their ability to do so.
But, most of our Problems in life Aren’t Technical. When a man and woman are having problems and want a Divorce, new Technology won’t be the Solution. When people enter into agreements and one accuses the other of Violating those terms, Technology is not the Solution. If someone kills someone else, Technology may help us solve the Murder, but it won’t tell us what to do with the Killer, nor will it erase the Killers desire to Kill. When one Country invades another, sure Technology helps win the War, but so does Strategy and Political Maneuvering, so even in War Technology is not Alone in Consideration.
Most of Societies problems stem from our interpersonal relationships, and a need to both express ourselves yet live communally in a society. Technology would make work easier, not personal relationships.
Reducing all of our Problems to being Technical reveals a deep ignorance of the Human Condition.
Politicians haven't a clue what to do about Global warming and the environment, they don't know what alternative fuels are best to use when the oil runs out, they don't know what foods and drugs are best for our health and which aren't and, as you've touched on, would have no idea how to implement a completely new socio-economic system like Venus Project proposes.
Correct. But, the kicker is, neither do Scientists, and there’s plenty of Debate on all of the above in Science. Well, except for Economics which is not a Scientific Field, and so why would a Scientist know more about this than anyone else? Shouldn't an Economist develop Economic Theory?
Also, did you know that in Modern western Democracies, sometimes Scientists run for Office? They even get Elected. Look at Dr. Ron Paul. The idea that Politicians are distinct from Scientists is one that is created by us thinking of them as different, but there is overlap and nothing stops a Scientists from being a Politician.
Leaving conspiracies aside, at best our politicians are charismatic accountants but more often than not, are bad PR people. They have 'advisors' such as scientists, engineers etc to give them the info and they make a decision based on what they feel is best for the bank... I mean, the people. What The Venus Project proposes is we cut out 'the middle men' and let the scientists, engineers, doctors etc make the decisions which would be based on what we need to live and advance, not based on what we want or we THINK we need.
But then the Scientists would just fill the Role of a Politician and thereby become Politicians, whose main incentive will be to impress the Group of ruling Scientists. I’ve seen this at University already and it never leads to a pure Quest for Truth no matter where it leads, it leads to Scientists being weeded out of the Group for holding to unpopular ideas (No not discredited or unproven) and people being promoted base don Nepotism and how well they can parrot whatever is popular at the moment. It’d be no different form what we have now.
This is the real problem with implementing a Resource Based Economy, and why I feel it won't happen, is getting everyone out of the short term gain/instant gratification mentality that we're in. All proposed problems I've heard suggested in a making such a system a reality is all down to us and the 'what's in it for me' line of thinking. Truth be told, even if every single person was 100% committed to making this a reality, its very unlikely that anyone alive would see it come to full fruition. So you can already see a problem in trying to convince everyone.
That’s the same thing Marx said. He believed that the Ruling establishment would have to first see a Revolution to get rid of the Old Order of Kings and Nobles, and that this Revolution can then bestow upon the people a Socialist State. The True Goal would be Communism, not Socialism, but True Communism could not emerge instantaneously, and would have to develop organically out of the Socialist State. Socialism would redistribute goods and services and have a Central Government for the needed planning of said society and creation of the medium of exchange, but this state would be temporary and dissolve as the People grew to fill the Roles Locally, until no more need for a Large Government would exist because the people themselves would share all of the benefits of their Labour with each other willingly an open and free society. At this point the Government would disband and the People would assume direct control over the society, money would no longer be useful, and would be abandoned, and people would have all they needed. A Nice and short Fictional Account of this can be Read in “Looking Backwards”, a Novel written in 1887 by Edward Bellamy. He was a Christian Socialist and this is how he envisioned the eventual Communist State to be.
Here are two links.
“Looking Backwards”
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/624“Equality”
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7303Read an enjoy.
Capitalism and other monetary systems have got people believing that money really does make the world go round and it's that materialistic, selfish belief which is a big opponent.
“The Love of Money is the Root of All Evil.” A wise man wrote that once and I made it into a big important book. Pity you think said Book is also part of the problem…
Theistic beliefs are also a challenge as most of the mainstream beliefs, particularly the Abrahamic beliefs, believe in some form afterlife and this life is merely a gateway to that eternal bliss (or damnation).
Which is a Problem why?
Continued Below in a Second Post. Please read.
reply
share
ZAROVE
13 years ago
Continued From The Above.
Also fundamentalists and certain sects believe in end of days and are also opposed to certain scientific discoveries and methods, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong for thinking that these would be very hard to convince to make an investment for the future of the planet and all mankind when Theists believe that the end is coming and/or this life is merely a pit stop and we should do what we can not to p*ss of God,
You know, you should really read what Fundamentalists actually believe rather than simply parroting old accusations about them. One thing I’ve always hated is how people mindlessly repeat tired old arguments that simply aren’t true and this is one of them, and this one is particularly irksome as the same people who use it make exactly the opposite critics of the same group later on, as if they can’t win either way.
I hear this argument all too often from Internet Atheists and it makes no real sense in light of the fact that the Theists you describe, who are all Universally Christians as the End Times beliefs you describe are Christian, don’t actually believe that this life is just a pit stop where we live and try not to make God mad before we die and Go to Heaven, and its equally dubious to claim that this belief leads them to not try to improve this world or make an investment in the Future when those same Christians are all too often criticised for wanting to be involved in Politics precisely to make such an investment. it’s a Damned if you do Damned if you don’t situation, because if the Christians withdraw from the world, you claim their beliefs prevent them from doing any good at all, and if they engage in Politics you claim they want to create a Theocracy which will take away all our rights.
Nevertheless, the fact that many Christians DO, in fact, get involved Politically, especially the Evangelical and Pentecostal branches who are those who most push the whole End Times Talk you alluded to, don’t you think this complaint, that Theism leads to complacency and accepting this life and all its misery because its just a pit stop and they will go to heaven soon anyway is flawed?
Christians aren’t renowned for sitting about doing nothing, allowing the world to get worse and worse, because the believe God will take them to Heaven in the end so they don’t have to improve society. They Run Soup Kitchens, Homeless Shelters, Hospitals, and various other Charities, as well as counselling centres and programmes to help abused wives, drug addicts, and the mentally ill get back on their feet and lean to take care of themselves. Christians are highly active in trying to make this world a better place, all promoted by the same beliefs you claim will cause them not to. I doubt you can cite any examples of Christians who think that all they have to do is sit tight, not make God mad, and make it through life till they die, then they get to Heaven, so don’t bother doing anything. Even if you could, its still a distinct Minority.
So no, I don’t buy that Theism, especially the Abrahamic Faiths, prevent social progress because they teach people to sit about idly and accept domination by powerful elites because this life doesn’t matter anyway. You have no evidence that this actually happens, and it seems to run contrary to what most Churches, especially the Much Vilified Fundamentalists, actually teach and do in practice
and Capitalists care about nothing but themselves and their bank accounts.
Not necessarily. People are far more complex than this. Someone can be both a Capitalist AND compassionate to the Poor, simply because they see Capitalism as a means to help everyone in society. They would view Capitalism as a means of creating Jobs, as well as consumer goods that people actually want, and a mean to allow Freedom since a large part of this is the Free Market in which people buy what they want.
Being a Capitalist doesn’t mean you are selfish and only care about money. That’s just a Generalisation. A stereotype.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Capitalist system may have its flaws, but it does adapt to change a lot faster and better than a centrally planned society, and provides a much larger incentive for advancing sciences and art, than can any centrally planned society. It also provides an environment in which that can happen, something a centrally planned society removed by its need to keep everything on a pattern.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You sound just like a politician.
No I don’t. Well, not all of them. Many Politicians are Socialists. You act like all Politicians are Capitalists.
And as I’m merely explaining the benefits of Capitalism, I don’t’ think that I sound very much like a Politician at all. An Economist will tell you the same thing I just did, as would a good many other types of people who aren’t Politicians.
The only incentive a Capitalist system provides is to make money!!
Which is why I don’t’ really like Capitalism. However, I loathe Communism, and Socialism is not really my thing either. Still, Capitalism has certain advantages, and this is objectively provable.
There's plenty of opportunity for scientific advancements within a capitalistic society, as long as it's within: Weapons development, Pharmaceuticals, useless Consumer items E.g. iPad etc. to name a few.
Or useful ones. Capitalism also encompasses factories that make clothes, process food, and creates medical equipment. Basically anything that is produced to be sold for a profit is part of Capitalism. That covers anything you want or need.
By the way Pharmaceuticals are necessary for the Medical Profession.
Most companies, like Apple for example, are good at selling us sh*t we don't need. Pharmaceuticals are now about treatments not cures, and I'm not even getting into the fallacies and corruption behind weapon manufacturers. Basically the only advancements that come out of a Capitalist system are the ones that make profit!
Which is the Flaw to Capitalism. Bravo. However, that doesn’t alter the fact that it allows advancement to a greater degree than does a centrally Planned society, which it does, regardless of the above Flaw.
Chemotherapy = Profit, the half dozen or so proposed cancer cures over the last 30years (both theoretical and probable) = loss of profit.
4 generations of iPhones with technology pre-dating the original iPhone = large profit, 1 generation of iPhone with technology of its 3 successors = limited profit.
Seeing the pattern yet?
Its cute that you think I’m a capitalist and so want to rail against it.
How in a Capitalist society are we supposed to solve any of our real problems when the most important aspect of it is profit? Capitalism is all about getting to the top by climbing over who ever you need to, to get there and the ones who are the most successful are the ones who are good at putting a price tag on things you don't need or could get at little cost (if any cost at all)
You know, this reminds me of another quote.
“ He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house; but he that hateth gifts shall live.”
How are real scientific advancements supposed prevail when there's the need to make profit?
By making the advancement itself profitable.
That said, your still operating on a too simplistic process, as not everyone who is a capitalist will only care about money, they won’t all be “Pure” capitalists and many will still give money to Philanthropic causes. Others will donate money just as a Tax write-off. Either way in a Capitalist society real research can be done, either by making the research itself profitable, relying on people who aren’t JUST Capitalists, or getting money as a Charitable donation from a wealthy donor who wants to look good to the cameras and pay fewer taxes.
We need to stop paying scientists to develop weapons and useless consumer items and task them sorting our problems out. The advancements will continue regardless, but the results will be more beneficial to everyone.
Are you certain? Also, top ENGINEERS develop weapons and Weapons advancement is often beneficial in helping secure the safety of nations.
Also, many Scientists are working on Medicine, not weapons. Or other fields. Its not like the majority work in Weapons development, or on cheap consumer goods. Heck, the Ipod was not created by Top Scientists, it was developed base don already-existent Tech.
The only challenge for The Venus Project and a Resource Based Economy to over come is us
Which is the same for Communism. The problem is, We aren’t designed to live that way. Its not Human nature, and as a result is not Healthy.
It leads to the same dictatorship it seeks to avoid, and slows the advancement it seeks to speed up.
reply
share
Xavior_Penguin
13 years ago
XP- I know Atheists, like yourself, like o think Religion is Primitive and Religious people are uneducated, and that if one is educated they become less religious as they learn to think of themselves and learn how the world works, but, like the flaw with Tesla, your comments are flawed here too. The truth is, Religion is not avoidable. There is no such thing as a Nonreligious person. Religion by definition is simply a Philosophical understanding of he meaning and purpose of existence, and everyone has this. Atheism is not the opposite of Religion, for Religion is not belief in and about gods.
I am not an athe
ist. -ist is a belief system.
There is a fine line between having a unique lifestyle and adhering branch of beliefs based upon ones hobbies, passions, experiences and getting absorbed into some narrow cult and having imaginary friends. At this point you're just mentally ill, and worshipping some medieval horsesh!t in compensation for the fact that you have no personality, no identity and are otherwise worthless, determined on limiting everybody else into your abysmal retardation.
It's 2010, worship and seek technology motherf#cker! It's a beautiful and unpredictable world out there! Acquire some f#cking pride and self-worth!
Tesla was an Orthodox Christian, yes. The funny thing is, "Orthodox" christianity as the word correctly implies, is actually original christianity, based on the church Jesus was supposedly born in. Most Orthodox Christian's that I've hung out with were noticeably more chillaxed, intelligent and hilarious, I've found questioning their humanity difficult. It speaks volumes that no genocides that I can name have been committed in the name of Orthodoxy, and the fact that Serbia has been a secular state separated from the church since the country's inception over a millennium ago. If I were you, I would be seriously f#cking embarassed about how behind your beautiful America is in this department, even your founding fathers have declared their conquered land as secular, and intended to separate the church from the state.
In other words, Orthodox Christians are not remotely religious in the way you think of it. Their societies are broadly more open and free than USA's severely sh!tstained community.
Also, Orthodox priests do not bugger little boys.
~Lance
reply
share
ZAROVE
13 years ago
XP-
I am not an atheist. -ist is a belief system.
Now your just being Pretentious. You obviously have a belief system, and claiming you don’t is just silly.
There is a fine line between having a unique lifestyle and adhering branch of beliefs based upon ones hobbies, passions, experiences and getting absorbed into some narrow cult and having imaginary friends. At this point you're just mentally ill, and worshipping some medieval horsesh!t in compensation for the fact that you have no personality, no identity and are otherwise worthless, determined on limiting everybody else into your abysmal retardation.
So basically all Religious people are mentally ill and have no personality. Also, all Religion comes from the Middle Ages. I don't honestly know which one of those claims is more absurd.
Its very obvious that the , ahem, "Religious" aren't all Mentally Ill, aren’t all personalityless, and tend not to be that stupid either.
Your claim is just rhetorical and useless.
It's 2010, worship and seek technology motherf#cker! It's a beautiful and unpredictable world out there! Acquire some f#cking pride and self-worth!
But, Technology has its limits and is nothing more than the creation of tools for our use. I don't think its wise to make our servants our masters.
That said, it assumes too much to think people who disagree with you lack self worth or possess low self esteem, and the year it is is not really relevant to the Truth or falsity of ones beliefs. Also, one can argue that you must have incredibly Low Self esteem and feelings of inadequacy simply because of the fowl language you employ and need to be derogatory towards people whose beliefs differ from your own.
Tesla was an Orthodox Christian, yes. The funny thing is, "Orthodox" christianity as the word correctly implies, is actually original christianity, based on the church Jesus was supposedly born in.
But, Jesus was not Born into any Church. He was Born into Judaism. He founded the Church.
Also, Orthodoxy is one of the Two Apostolic Branches that Split in 1054 in the Great Schism. Catholicism can equally claim antiquity.
Most Orthodox Christian's that I've hung out with were noticeably more chillaxed, intelligent and hilarious, I've found questioning their humanity difficult.
That’s nice, but they are still Christians so ultimately still have that whole "Religion" thing you complain about.
Also, I don't know what other Christians you've met, however a lot of it ay be Cultural as well. IE, a lot of Evangelical Christians say and do things I find bizarre or out f step with Historical Christianity myself, but I don't assume its all in bad faith. That said, what Genocide have been done in the name of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel? What Genocides have ever happened in the name of the United Methodist Church? Or the First Baptist Church? How many Genocides have ever been conducted in the name of the United Church of Christ? Or the Disciples of Christ? Or the Free Evangelical Church? How about the Genocides you can list in the name of the Evangelical Christian Union? Or in the name of the Calvary Baptist Church? Or the Churches of Christ? Any? Any at all?
It speaks volumes that no genocides that I can name have been committed in the name of Orthodoxy, and the fact that Serbia has been a secular state separated from the church since the country's inception over a millennium ago. If I were you, I would be seriously f#cking embarassed about how behind your beautiful America is in this department, even your founding fathers have declared their conquered land as secular, and intended to separate the church from the state.
I am an Englishman. I am also a Monarchist, whose ancestors were Loyalist in Americas Revolutionary War.
I also descended from the House of Stuart, and am a descendant of James Stuart, the 6th of Scotland and First of England.
So lets not really pretend I care what America's Founders envisioned other than for History's sake.
That out of the way, they did indeed intend a Secular State, but not in the sense of Modernists. They never intended a State that was completely removed from all Concern over the Church or that was based around an ideological secularism. They simply meant by Secular a form of Neutrality that allowed people to hold Public Office regardless of what Religion they personally Held to, and that ensured that no one Religion would be given preferential treatment over the others.
In other words, they did not want a State Church or to infringe on the rights others had to worship.
However, they were not averse to "Religion" taking part in Government or having a voice. Unlike today’s Secularists, who want to remove all References to Christianity from the Public Square and demand Government never mention God at all, Americas Founders did mention God, printed Bibles using Taxpayer money, and paid for missionaries to the Indians. None of them objected to Churches sending Delegates to State or Federal Government, even Congress, to speak to them on behalf of some cause.
Their Secularism was totally different from Modern ideas about it.
In other words, Orthodox Christians are not remotely religious in the way you think of it. Their societies are broadly more open and free than USA's severely sh!tstained community.
Isn’t this highly presumptive though? I mean, for one thing many Christians in America are very open minded, and lets not forget that in Russia today, yes in 2010, the Orthodox church is trying to make life more difficult to other Branches of Christendom, and even has help from the Government which assures the dominance of the Orthodox Faith in the Russia’s of the modern Era.
Also, Orthodox priests do not bugger little boys.
Nor do most others, that’s only the Catholic Churches great modern shame, and even then its overstated as its not like all Catholic Priests are Paedophiles, or even a sizable minority.
reply
share