Religion? What is that?

[Mark]

In the world religion is considered to be what particular 'faith' one believes, or professes to believe. I don’t think so. Look at the ‘religious’ lobby in the US, or here in Aus. They campaign for a particular party or candidate and what happens? George Bush happened, or we recently had eleven years of antisocial government, in part due to the so-called religious lobby. And did the religious lobby have any positive effect on the administration? Not that I could see. That’s not religion, that’s politics, the art of compromise between conflicting positions vying for influence or power over others presenting as waves of change judged to be either of the left or right.

The way I see it religion is what I do, what I put first in my daily life. That is what becomes the past I carry and presents as my future, which is now. I make it because what I do has more substance than what I say I believe, which I may not believe at all. It’s what I do that matters and what I do is not just ‘out there’.

The reason I bring this up here is this forum is titled Politics and Religion and I don’t see any ‘religion’ here, except the religion of politics. So I was wondering, what is your religion, what do you put first in your life?

The way I see it politics comes from a compassion for the human condition, a recognition that left to itself, without discipline, the most forceful will always rise and impose their will. Politics is born of the need to moderate the rapacious of human nature which, as can be observed, doesn’t seem to work too well.

The way I see it it’s the love of nature that gives birth to the green, peace and environmental movements. Political bodies created to help in the same moderation of the rapacious in human nature, because the rapacious just keeps growing, or so it seems.

But politics is not love or compassion. Politics moderates but doesn’t resolve the problem of the human condition. And what is moderated lives to return, given the opportunity.

Essentially, compassion and love of the earth are not separate, just different octaves of the same intelligence. Equally, the various political bodies are not separate. Having similar structures and functions, just different aims but within the same rational political sphere.

What separates one political body from another is what the various parties or participants put first in their daily life, what they actually live. Is it the politics or the love of the earth and compassion for its people?

The danger, in my experience, for the eco/social/political-activist is in the love of politics overtaking the original motivating love of the simplicity of the beautiful Earth .

What say you? I could be wrong, couldn’t I.

[brettbh]

>>That’s not religion, that’s politics.<<

They are really one and the same. Religion, in the majority of its modern forms, is simply a political mechanism which enables a minority to control the majority via the exploitation of their superstitious beliefs.“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong has been done, and there is no partiality."

Here's some other modern-day biblical dilemmas (not particularly germaine to this discussion, but I enjoy them so much, I'll post them anyway!):

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? (I'm pretty sure she's a virgin).

3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? How can I help you here?

5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Aren't there 'degrees' of abomination?

6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Beats me how anybody in their right mind can buy into such baloney!

>>The way I see it religion is what I do, what I put first in my daily life.<<

That's as much a ideological or humanitarian concept as it is a religious concept. People do not have to believe in supernatural beings or discarnate entities on the astral plane in order to be able to do good. Of course, religion does not necessarily entail a belief in such beings, but it's a common and often accurate connotation.

>>The way I see it it’s the love of nature that gives birth to the green, peace and environmental movements.<<

Greens and environmentalists do not necessarily love nature either more or less than the next man; the simply recognise that the continued success of our species is dependant upon us respecting the environment.

>>The danger, in my experience, for the eco/social/political-activist is in the love of politics overtaking the original motivating love of the simplicity of the beautiful Earth.<<

Care to share an example?

[Mark]

1.>>The way I see it religion is what I do, what I put first in my daily life.<<

That's as much a ideological or humanitarian concept as it is a religious concept. People do not have to believe in supernatural beings or discarnate entities on the astral plane in order to be able to do good. Of course, religion does not necessarily entail a belief in such beings, but it's a common and often accurate connotation.

2.>>The way I see it it’s the love of nature that gives birth to the green, peace and environmental movements.<<

Greens and environmentalists do not necessarily love nature either more or less than the next man; the simply recognise that the continued success of our species is dependant upon us respecting the environment.

3.>>The danger, in my experience, for the eco/social/political-activist is in the love of politics overtaking the original motivating love of the simplicity of the beautiful Earth.<<

Care to share an example?

1. It's the way I see it, religion is a word that doesn't have to mean what is 'commonly' understood by it. The word doesn't 'belong' one way if it serves me to use it another. It's not ideological or conceptual if it's in my experience and what I actually live.

2. I think I make this point too, it depends on what you put first. Survival, in one form or another, is all the politicians are concerned about too. As for being concerned for the species, that's a red herring, there's nothing special about the species. It's the intelligence behind it that matters, not the form of it, species die like everything else. The concern is for the survival of their perceived position or particular identification, for this, against that. That's politics.

3. As I say, in my experience. I have the experience of the fundamental love of life as the form of nature that has impelled me and enabled me (in part) to find the solution to the problem of human nature of which politics is one form. In me, for me. I had to get into it to get out of it.

If you want to know how I live my life follow the link in my sig. Though I wouldn't really call it my religion, because of the commonly held associations with that word. :)

[Simon]

Religion is for morons.

Enough said. :cute:

[brettbh]

>>I have the experience of the fundamental love of life as the form of nature that has impelled me and enabled me (in part) to find the solution to the problem of human nature of which politics is one form.<<

And what, exactly, is the solution?

>>If you want to know how I live my life follow the link in my sig. Though I wouldn't really call it my religion, because of the commonly held associations with that word.<<

I did. Like you, we too have opted out of the rat race and now reside in an extremely remote village that borders one the most beautiful Provincial Parks in Canada. There is no fast food, there is no cell phone service, and the nearest town is more than an hour away. Days that were once spent in the office or commuting to Seattle are now spent in the countryside. We work when it rains, and do not work when the sun is shining. During the summer months, we'll often load up our backpacks on the spur of the moment, head into the forest and see nobody else for days. Like you, we too enjoy the simple things. There really is nothing better than packing a picnic and some books in a waterproof pack, swimming to an island in the middle of a pristine lake and spending the day doing absolutely nothing except basking in the sun, reading and sharing your food with the critters.

But I do not consider the way that we have chosen to spend our days to be a form of religion or a solution to "the problem of human nature." In fact, I do not consider it to have any deep meaning whatsoever. That would be reading way too much into it. We made a lifestyle choice, plain and simple. Nothing more. Nothing less.

>>Religion is for morons.<<

Religions were formed because people needed a way to explain what otherwise could not be explained and to control what otherwise could not be controlled. How scary must it have been to not understand why the sun would rise in the morning and whether or not it would rise the next morning? So, in deciding the sun was dragged behind some higher being's chariot and that sacrificing a pig or a goat would keep that being happy and ensure that he carried the sun into the sky the next morning, people were equipped with a method of both explaining and controlling the event.

But then religion evolved into something much more sinister as people realised that the superstition of the masses could be used as a method of controlling them. Hence, we ended up with bibles: books created by wealthy capitalists to protect their own interests ... books which encouraged the masses to believe that poverty was a noble and godly thing ... that greed was bad and that they shouldn't want what the capitalists had ("Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God") ... and that slaves should be happy with their station and work hard for their masters ("Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward").

In other words, what the capitalists said was: "Be poor, do as you're told and you'll get your reward after death; but rock the boat and try to get some of what we have and you'll experience eternal damnation. Oh, and be warned that boat rocking will not will not only get you eternally damned, it'll also get you accused of heresy. That right, boy, I said heresy. We'll drag your sorry ass before the Inquisition and when they find you guilty - and make no mistake about it, boy, they WILL find you guilty - you gonna be roasted like a pig on a spit, just like what we already did to 50,000 other troublemakers. You remember when that Billy Bub was dumb enough to be askin' me for a pay rise? Do you, boy? Well, you didn't see him again after that, did you? That's because we made him into a Billy Bub Burger, boy. Yup, we fried his sorry ass well and good, that's what we did. And now his soul be burning in the eternal flames of Hell. You understand what I'm sayin' here, boy? Do ya? Do ya? Good. Now you go git yerself back to work, boy, and don't you be givin' me no more bother. Go on, git! Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord"

[mountainhiker]

>>I have the experience of the fundamental love of life as the form of nature that has impelled me and enabled me (in part) to find the solution to the problem of human nature of which politics is one form.<<

And what, exactly, is the solution?

>>If you want to know how I live my life follow the link in my sig. Though I wouldn't really call it my religion, because of the commonly held associations with that word.<<

I did. Like you, we too have opted out of the rat race and now reside in an extremely remote village that borders one the most beautiful Provincial Parks in Canada. There is no fast food, there is no cell phone service, and the nearest town is more than an hour away. Days that were once spent in the office or commuting to Seattle are now spent in the countryside. We work when it rains, and do not work when the sun is shining. During the summer months, we'll often load up our backpacks on the spur of the moment, head into the forest and see nobody else for days. Like you, we too enjoy the simple things. There really is nothing better than packing a picnic and some books in a waterproof pack, swimming to an island in the middle of a pristine lake and spending the day doing absolutely nothing except basking in the sun, reading and sharing your food with the critters.

But I do not consider the way that we have chosen to spend our days to be a form of religion or a solution to "the problem of human nature." In fact, I do not consider it to have any deep meaning whatsoever. That would be reading way too much into it. We made a lifestyle choice, plain and simple. Nothing more. Nothing less.

>>Religion is for morons.<<

Religions were formed because people needed a way to explain what otherwise could not be explained and to control what otherwise could not be controlled. How scary must it have been to not understand why the sun would rise in the morning and whether or not it would rise the next morning? So, in deciding the sun was dragged behind some higher being's chariot and that sacrificing a pig or a goat would keep that being happy and ensure that he carried the sun into the sky the next morning, people were equipped with a method of both explaining and controlling the event.

But then religion evolved into something much more sinister as people realised that the superstition of the masses could be used as a method of controlling them. Hence, we ended up with bibles: books created by wealthy capitalists to protect their own interests ... books which encouraged the masses to believe that poverty was a noble and godly thing ... that greed was bad and that they shouldn't want what the capitalists had ("Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God") ... and that slaves should be happy with their station and work hard for their masters ("Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward").

In other words, what the capitalists said was: "Be poor, do as you're told and you'll get your reward after death; but rock the boat and try to get some of what we have and you'll experience eternal damnation. Oh, and be warned that boat rocking will not will not only get you eternally damned, it'll also get you accused of heresy. That right, boy, I said heresy. We'll drag your sorry ass before the Inquisition and when they find you guilty - and make no mistake about it, boy, they WILL find you guilty - you gonna be roasted like a pig on a spit, just like what we already did to 50,000 other troublemakers. You remember when that Billy Bub was dumb enough to be askin' me for a pay rise? Do you, boy? Well, you didn't see him again after that, did you? That's because we made him into a Billy Bub Burger, boy. Yup, we fried his sorry ass well and good, that's what we did. And now his soul be burning in the eternal flames of Hell. You understand what I'm sayin' here, boy? Do ya? Do ya? Good. Now you go git yerself back to work, boy, and don't you be givin' me no more bother. Go on, git! Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord"

I am impressed, all you did was prove that you have no clue what religion really is.. Will have to recommend a few good books so you can catch up....

[brettbh]

Will have to recommend a few good books so you can catch up....

Erm, do you mean the bible?

[Mark]

brettbh,

The solution, for me, is simple. What I give my attention to, what I acknowledge I get. If I acknowledge problems I get problems. Test it in your experience, next time anger arises in you don't give it your attention as if it has a right to be. See what happens, it either comes back at you renewed because you are trying to suppress it - force against force - which won't work. Or it dies because you have enough understanding to see there is no need for anger, it just causes pain all round, and you have denied its momentum enough. The appearance of it is another matter.

If you think about, acknowledge, any negativity of mind you stir the emotion which generates more thinking which stirs emotion ad infinitum, or until the emotion has run its course. Got depressed, hit my mate, gone to war.

You probably know the torrent of mind fear, anger, resentment, greed, etc can be at times. That's the problem of the human condition, it overtakes me when I would be without it, if it does. Of course it's only the problem when I, one, knows it enough as a pain. That's when there is a possibility of seeing the solution.

If there is a solution it has to be accessible to all in their own experience now or it's just another patch, like politics or religion. So what is there besides the problem of mind, in your own experience? In my experience, now, all I have is sense. The sensation of the body inside and the senses 'outside'. And the space it all occurs in.

If a little anger dies when I don't give it my attention as if it is right then there is the potential of being free of the whole lot. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. Is it a fact in your experience anger or fear dies? There is only so much of it in any body and when it has been denied enough it doesn't return as a problem, a psychological possession or obsession.

Yes, I live in a beautiful place but I haven't 'opted out'. I did once, or twice, but it didn't work. And it has its time but is not the solution. A wise man once said,"I must be able to walk unmoved amidst great sordidness and great beauty." Unless I can be unmoved, emotionally, by the beauty in nature or my love, and be unmoved by the sordidness of human nature, I will be moved, emotionally. And you can't have the 'good' emotion without inviting the 'bad' emotion, they are of the same mind. This is how another wise man was once able to say "I am in this world but not of it."

Sense/ation is your only reliable anchor against being swept away by the momentum of mind once it is upon you in earnest. It's not the whole solution in itself but the solution rests on it. There is nothing else that works for good, in my experience.

[brettbh]

I'm sorry, maybe I'm stupid but I really do not understand what it is that you are attempting to say :-)

>>If I acknowledge problems I get problems.<<

You may; I do not. Acknowledging problems is the first step towards dealing with problems. To do otherwise is simply to bury one's head in the sand.

>>Test it in your experience, next time anger arises in you don't give it your attention as if it has a right to be.<<

Anger is a perfectly normal and healthy emotion. If a person makes me angry, I'll speak with them about the cause of my anger; if a situation makes me angry, I'll consider whether I should do something to change that situation.

People have problems. People have emotions. Attemtping to bury either is pointless.

[mountainhiker]

Erm, do you mean the bible?

Reading it would be a place to start but there are additional books that might help you as well.

[Mark]

I'm sorry, maybe I'm stupid but I really do not understand what it is that you are attempting to say :-)

>>If I acknowledge problems I get problems.<<

You may; I do not. Acknowledging problems is the first step towards dealing with problems. To do otherwise is simply to bury one's head in the sand.

>>Test it in your experience, next time anger arises in you don't give it your attention as if it has a right to be.<<

Anger is a perfectly normal and healthy emotion. If a person makes me angry, I'll speak with them about the cause of my anger; if a situation makes me angry, I'll consider whether I should do something to change that situation.

People have problems. People have emotions. Attemtping to bury either is pointless.

We were looking at the problem of human nature and you asked me what is my solution, exactly. So I told you, exactly. The problem here seems to be you think the problem of human nature is 'out there' somewhere. You don't have a problem, with being emotional, angry, depressed, self doubtful/judgmental, worrying etc. So it's theoretical to you. An intellectual exercise. Where, exactly, have I suggested you bury your problems or emotions?

The only healthy function of emotion is to draw my attention to whatever is not right which then requires me to act to be rid of the emotion, because it's not healthy. It becomes a problem when I ruminate on it, as our society teaches us to, as you would have to do to go to war with someone. And if talking to them about the 'cause' of your anger doesn't help and you can't change the situation that 'makes' you angry what then? Can you give anger up if you believe it is right?

If you justify it now when you can be clear you haven't a hope of giving it up when it's upon you, whatever you perceive the cause to be, because you think someone has the power to 'do it' to you. Only you have the power, so only you have the responsibility. But that's too difficult until you have suffered enough from such avoidance.

Ask the one on the receiving end of your anger if it's healthy. Or on the receiving end of any of your unhappy emotions. It sure is normal, just look beneath the surface of anyone who isn't getting their own way and there it is. But would you tell me that's healthy? War, violence, conflict begins inside where I believe I have a right to be angry because somebody did something to me. Nobody makes you angry, you get angry because you believe you have a right to be angry. You give in to anger and you must enjoy it to say it's healthy. This only means you don't know enough the pain anger is, to you and everyone around you. That's not stupid, that's just inexperienced.

[brettbh]

>>Ask the one on the receiving end of your anger if it's healthy.<<

I'm sure they'd say that it was healthy. Were I to do something that PO'd my wife, I'd certainly want her to speak to me about it. In doing so, we'd be able to find a solution. That may entail me adjusting my ways, or maybe her anger would dissipate when I explained the reasons for my actions. In either case, problem solved!

>>It sure is normal, just look beneath the surface of anyone who isn't getting their own way and there it is.<<

If somebody is angry simply because they are not getting their own way, then that's certainly rather childish.

>>War, violence, conflict begins inside where I believe I have a right to be angry because somebody did something to me.<<

That's way too simplistic. Conflict is caused by religious intolerance, racial intolerance and prejudice, monetary gain, political expediency and a host of other reasons - including, in part, anger. But the solution is not to get rid off the anger, it is to get rid off the biases and bigotry that cause unreasonable anger.

>>You give in to anger and you must enjoy it to say it's healthy.<<

Sorry, but that is completely nonsensical. Yup, I give in to anger. And I also give in to happiness, sadness and all the other emotions that are a perfectly normal - and healthy - part of the human condition. People do not enjoy negative emotions, but they are nonetheless part and parcel of being human. A person will feel sad if one of their parents dies. A person will feel angry if one of their children is abused. Feeling those emotions is not in any way unhealthy, it's perfectly normal.

[Mark]

>>Ask the one on the receiving end of your anger if it's healthy.<<

I'm sure they'd say that it was healthy. Were I to do something that PO'd my wife, I'd certainly want her to speak to me about it. In doing so, we'd be able to find a solution. That may entail me adjusting my ways, or maybe her anger would dissipate when I explained the reasons for my actions. In either case, problem solved!

>>It sure is normal, just look beneath the surface of anyone who isn't getting their own way and there it is.<<

If somebody is angry simply because they are not getting their own way, then that's certainly rather childish.

>>War, violence, conflict begins inside where I believe I have a right to be angry because somebody did something to me.<<

That's way too simplistic. Conflict is caused by religious intolerance, racial intolerance and prejudice, monetary gain, political expediency and a host of other reasons - including, in part, anger. But the solution is not to get rid off the anger, it is to get rid off the biases and bigotry that cause unreasonable anger.

>>You give in to anger and you must enjoy it to say it's healthy.<<

Sorry, but that is completely nonsensical. Yup, I give in to anger. And I also give in to happiness, sadness and all the other emotions that are a perfectly normal - and healthy - part of the human condition. People do not enjoy negative emotions, but they are nonetheless part and parcel of being human. A person will feel sad if one of their parents dies. A person will feel angry if one of their children is abused. Feeling those emotions is not in any way unhealthy, it's perfectly normal.

You're sure they'd say it was healthy? You mean you haven't asked anyone, so you don't know. And if you ever do ask anyone make it a mature woman, a woman of experience, ask her if she enjoys your anger. Ask her if she thinks war starts 'out there', or does it start in the man who thinks he has a right to be angry. Righteous anger? You mean the same old biblical stuff?

It's too simple for you. You still think the problem of human nature is 'out there', in some other body. Which only means you are unwilling to take responsibility for your unhappiness. Or would you tell me you don't get unhappy? Or that being 'normal' unhappiness is healthy? Utter nonsense! And you would pass this on to the children?

What's normal in the world is the problem. It's normal for people to be exploited, for women to be raped, for nations to go to war, for men to be angry and greedy. Unhappiness is normal. It's all normal but to say it is healthy is absurd. If you don't see the problem of human nature then there isn't one, for you, yet.

Like the biblical slave you mentioned earlier you don't yet have the will to see the cause of your enslavement, you believe normal is natural. It's too uncomfortable to see it otherwise, to go against the stream of 'normality'. Sooner or later everyone comes up against the past they make. It's just a matter of time and experience. No problem, just the way it is.

[brettbh]

>>You're sure they'd say it was healthy?<<

Yup.

>>It's too simple for you.<<

It's not too simple; it's just plain old, straightofward simple.

>>Which only means you are unwilling to take responsibility for your unhappiness.<<

Eh? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Like most people, I have experienced events which have caused me to be sad. When a loved one dies, people do not usually grin like a Cheshire cat. They feel sad. And, in some cases, they may even feel angry. That's perfectly normal.

>>Or would you tell me you don't get unhappy?<<

Nope. I'm human.

>>Like the biblical slave you mentioned earlier you don't yet have the will to see the cause of your enslavement, you believe normal is natural.<<

To what, exactly, do you think I am enslaved? My emotions? Yup, I suppose I am. And I suppose everybody else is too (well, except for you!). Emotions are part and parcel of being one of those odd critters called humans.

I really do not know what you are attempting to say here. That somebody shouldn't be angry if a crackhead breaks into his house and steals his belongings? That somebody shouldn't be sad if a parent dies? That somebody shouldn't feel outrage if their daughter is raped? That these emotions are wrong? That these emotions can and should be kept under wraps? That wars could be avoided were people to take more pleasure in the small things?

Emotions are part of our nature. The problem is not that we have those emotions; rather, it is 1) that some of our emotions are stirred up entirely by bias or bigotry and 2) the way in which some people deal with their emotions. Were the KKK a group of emotional (angry) people? Possibly. Would the KKK have been an ok movement had its members been less emotional and expressed their opinions through, say, political debate rather than hangings? Nope. They'd still have been a bunch of bigots.

The problem is not that we are emotional; it is that some of us cannot deal with our emotions and/or have emotions which are stirred entirely by intolerance and bigotry. The solution is not to lose our emotions (which is impossible anyway); it is to learn to deal with our emotions and to lose our intolerance and bigotry.

[Mark]

This brick wall is just too thick for me.

[brettbh]

Thicker than a Kwik Fit Fitter.

[Simon]

Emotions are part of our nature. The problem is not that we have those emotions; rather, it is 1) that some of our emotions are stirred up entirely by bias or bigotry and 2) the way in which some people deal with their emotions. Were the KKK a group of emotional (angry) people? Possibly. Would the KKK have been an ok movement had its members been less emotional and expressed their opinions through, say, political debate rather than hangings? Nope. They'd still have been a bunch of bigots.

KKK are just a group of misguided people who only wants to share some love during the winter...

Oh.. Wait.. Maybe they ain't like the ones we have back here in Sweden? :halo:

[brettbh]

An evil looking bunch, without doubt!

[Simon]

An evil looking bunch, without doubt!

Indeed they are. They strike early in the morning when it's still dark..

[brettbh]

Indeed they are. They strike early in the morning when it's still dark..

So, tell me: did you understand the point that Mark was attempting to make here or are you too as thick as a wall?

[Simon]

So, tell me: did you understand the point that Mark was attempting to make here or are you too as thick as a wall?

Now dont drag me into a discussion about "religion". I just felt for hijacking this thread with my nonsense :cute:

[brettbh]

Now dont drag me into ...

Sorry, but you dragged yourself into it ;-)