GeorgeW

Bob Costas, the sports announcer, when challenged for speaking out about gun violence involving professional atheletes said, “Give me one example of an athlete — and I know it’s happened in society — but give me one example of a professional athlete who by virtue of having a gun took a dangerous situation and turned it around for the better." For that matter, name one mass killing that has been deterred by ordinary citizens carrying weapons. This notion of everyone carrying weapons for protection is NRA mythology. George

I read an interesting retort to those who claim that had the teachers been armed, they would be alive. It was pointed out that the mother of the shooter was armed. In fact, she was heavily armed. George

Welcome, Edward from another "flaming liberal." I look forward to hearing more about your experiences and insights in the various issues that we discuss here. George

Many (actually, I think it is most) gun deaths are from accidents and crimes of passion. The absence of a gun would prevent all of the accidental deaths and many of the crimes of passion. Just recently there was a news item about a young child killed accidentally by the father. I think there are types of guns that should be highly controlled. There would be no private ownership of assault weapons, cop-killer bullets and concealed weapons, except under exceptional circumstances. I would license gun ownership. A person would not be able to get a license without proving competence through training and testing. People with mental illness (see Tucson, Aurora, Virginia Tech, maybe Newton) or criminal records would not be able to own guns. This fear of home invasion is largely mythical and irrational. Yes, it happens. But, it is rare. Simple precautions like good locks and a cell phone nearby would deter many of these. We do have 911 and the reaction in many places is very quick. George

In my opinion, there is almost no chance that we will enact reasonable gun laws on a national level in the near future. There was nothing following Virginia Tech. There was nothing following Tucson. There was nothing following Aurora. And, I expect that there will be nothing following Connecticut. There is less support for gun control today than there was 25 years ago. I can remember when control gun was a topic of political discussion. It no longer is. Obama had no initiatives in his first term because it would be a useless waste of time. I suspect the same will be true in the second. It is a real shame. George

Because that airport area is probably controlled by the gun-hating, tree-hugging, federal government headed by a Christian-hating, tax-and-spend, arugula-eating, socialist, Kenyan Muslim who intends to take all our guns away from us. George

And, Timothy Egan had a wonderful Op-ed in the NYTimes, last week: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/the-great-gun-gag/ George

Our laws on guns are absolute idiocy. And, it is not even a topic of discussion. George

Apparently, there is no way of lending purchased books to friends. I have become a confirmed Kindle reader (although lately by iPad app rather than Amazon device) to the detriment of my friends. We can only now recommend that they purchase a book we liked rather than make a loan. In the :good ole days" we could hand them a paid-for and wholly-owned hard copy. But, then I couldn't sync my place across multiple devices, get a book within 30 seconds of desire, do word searches, carry a dozen books around in one hand, etc. George

David, I think that the need for certainty is one of the underlying factors that motivate fundamentalist religion. The expression 'The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it' expresses this point of view. No need for determining context, no ambiguous meaning, no fuzzy interpretation, no room for translation issues, no contradictions, etc. George

Much, much more mellow. Non-mellow extremists are asked to leave. George

David, Welcome. I hope you will join the discussions. George

Ron, Welcome back and thanks for the reference (I am a big fan of BAR). This may be particularly relevant today as we in the US approach our own 'fiscus twopercentus.' George

Skinker, History is full of self-proclaimed prophets, some of whom have led people to very nefarious ends. How do you propose that one determine if there are any true, divinely-inspired prophets, and, if that is established, distinguish between the true and the false? Simply proclaiming prophet-hood is not enough for some of us. George

Thanks Paul - good job. As far as social controls go, I personally came to this realization while living in the Middle East. I had always thought the low rate of crime was the result of very severe forms of punishment (beheading as an example). But, as the result of several incidents, I came to realize that this was not the case - the controlling factor was social. Fear of embarrassing one's family or community was a powerful deterrence. George

Yes, and the "territorial control influence" is not new. Much of the world (see U.S., South America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) was established by "territorial control influence." Organizations today like the U.N., NATO, SEATO, etc. do not stop this, but they do moderate it. George

Of course there is not complete peace today for everyone and every place. It is all relative and compared with history. The data is clear, we live in the most peaceful time in human history. I suggest you read "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker - the evidence is not just clear, it is overwhelming. If you think it is so bad now, think for a minute about living through the Civil War, the Holocaust, the Crusades, the ethnic cleansing of Canaan, the 100 Years War, or any other time in history. George

While I don't think anyone would argue that a stable family is a not good thing, the fact is we are niw living in the most peaceful time in human history. George

I can't speak about the specific situations you mention, but I have a someone different view in general about "quoting others." When it comes to certain subjects, like biblical history, authoritative sources are very helpful, maybe necessary. It is one thing to have an opinion about historical events, but it is better, I think, to have an informed opinion based on good sources. And, it is appropriate to cite the sources. One of my problems with Bishop Spong's essays, which I subscribed to for several years, was the lack of cited sources. He tended to state many historical issues as received wisdom which I knew to be the product of other scholars. He also tended, on occasion, to present facts as settled issues when I knew there was scholarly disagreement. I would like to have known the source of his assertions or statements 'of fact' to be able to read and evaluate for myself. When it comes to theology, I think it is different. There is no reliable, authoritative source for our faith beliefs. So, good, reasonable personal views are very worthwhile. George

I highly recommend the movie "Lincoln" to PCs and non-PCs. This is one of the best movies I have seen in some time. Not only is the very well made and acted, it deals with some serious moral and ethical issues. Probably the most interesting feature is the use of ignoble methods to achieve noble ends. Does the end justify the means? This story seems to suggest, yes. George

Dave, Thank you for your thoughts. As you suggest, this is not a clear, unambiguous issue even though many try to make it so. Welcome to the forum. We usually ask new members to introduce themselves in the "Introduce Yourself" thread and give a brief overview of their background and how they came to this forum. I look forward to your participation in the discussions here. George

I don't know enough about astronomy (or astrology) to make an intelligent comment about this. But, I do understand that pre-GPS, sailors and desert travelers did navigate by 'stars' (some of which may actually have been planets and the like). In any event that would not validate a literal reading of the story. Welcome to the forum and I look forward to your participation. We usually ask new members to introduce themselves in the "Introduce Yourself" thread. We would be interested in your general background as it relates to the forum. George

Rivanna, I did a cursory look back into The Happiness Hypothesis. Haidt seems to use the term 'sacred' more broadly than the conventional usage related to religion. He seems to use the term as something or some place special in contrast to the mundane or profane. As an example, he says "sacredness is so irrepressible that it intrudes repeatedly into the modern profane world in the form of 'crypto-religious behavior." He uses the example of one's birthplace having a special 'sacred' character. I can think of other secular 'sacred' places and things like the "Declaration of Independence," "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," the Washington Monument, Gettysburg battlefield, etc. He also uses sacredness in experiences such as being in love, experiences with nature and the like. He says that even atheists experience 'sacredness.' I think it is in this context that some experiences of war might fit into his definition. George

Thanks, Paul. George

Rivanna, Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think it came out quite like you intended. I agree somewhat with you that science and religion are separate fields. However, science can be used to help understand the phenomenon of religion as a universal human institution. There are clearly psychological and social factors involved in religion. This is independent of the existence/non-existence of any transcendent being which cannot be scientifically ascertained. George