How to Waste Money and Lives

The U.S. Prison system doesn't seem to function the way it should. Incarceration rates and amounts in the U.S. are higher than anywhere else in the world. We also have one of the highest rates of death by firearms, behind only South Africa, Colombia, Thailand and Guatemala. In 2004, 29,569 Americans were killed due to gunfire. 16,750 of them (56%) were suicides and 11,624 of them (40%) were homicides. Only 311 were due to "legal intervention", meaning police firings. statistically, 1 out of every 100 people you see are carrying a concealed weapon. So, my question is now, "Why is America such an apparently dangerous country?"
I would disagree with those that say it's our media, specifically violent video games, movies, television shows, music and other forms. It's true, in a way, that our media is constantly pushing violence to its highest extreme, but don't other countries watch and listen to the same things as us? Don't they also have violent histories, corrupt politicians, complex economies and repressed minorities just like us? Then why is it that these other countries have such smaller amounts of death by firearms, such as Japan with less than 60 a year, or Canada with less than 800 a year, or Great Britain with less than 50 a year? These numbers just don't add up, not when you consider their rate versus population: Japan - 0.07, Canada - 4.78, England - 0.38, United States - 15.22! Canada is the second most harmful country I've referenced, but you're still over three times more likely to get killed by firearms in the U.S.
My question remains the same. I don't see any distinguishing characteristic between the United States and the other countries I'm using here that would account for such a drastic difference. And if we really are the most violent, what does that say about our country? History doesn't seem to play any role at all, seeing as how Canada is generally the most peaceful nation in this comparison, but anyone who tries to argue that Japan or England have peaceful histories is bound to fail; just take a look at World War 2 for either or the occupation of India by the English and you'll see your mistake.
I'm trying to find answers to this question on my own, but I don't seem to be having any luck. I'm just running into more devastating statistics, so I'll end this on my main question:

What makes America such a dangerous country?

A Patriot vs. A Rational Lover of One's own Country

Patriotism entails that you hold your country more favorable than any other. This irrational favoritism can be labeled as immoral, illogical and unproductive. It is immoral because you hold the potential to ignore your country's wrongdoings as well as the needs of humans in other places simply because of their geographical setting. It is illogical because all arguments based on whether or not your home country is deserving of this favoritism leads to opinions or judgments that are convoluted and never-ending. It is unproductive because it can be used by either side; you can say that you are not a patriot because you don't support the troops when they are ordered to do wrong and you do support them when they are ordered to do right, which can also come down to a never-ending argument loaded with opinions and personal judgments. What is then left of patriotism which makes it positive? Supporting only your chosen politicians, or only the core principles of the country, or the prosperity of the economic system, all of these are not reason enough to be a patriot, they are simply pieces of your country as a whole that you find preferable.
It is perhaps time then that we abandon the label "patriot" as a whole, and rather, what is needed is to create a term that embodies both an appreciation for the right and a condemnation of the wrong in one's chosen land. Am I not a patriot if I support my country's acceptance of all races, religions and creeds? Am I not a patriot if I condemn my country's war crimes and it's unequal treatment of certain civil rights movements? "Patriot" is not the right word for this. The best definition I can think of for this new term is, "One who values the positive ethical progress of the location in which one resides". This term would allow for both appreciation and protest. It would not make a mockery of political parties that disagree, and instead would value their dissent as an opportunity for rational discussion and a second look at how our common community, America, acts as a whole.

Is there a way for patriotism to be considered logical and ethical without removing the need for a special term?
Is there a way to consider yourself an impartial citizen of the world (an internationalist, a cosmopolitan, and a golden rule universalist) and still hold a willingness to support one's own country without becoming a hypocrite?

Christian Theocracy (America)

The majority of Americans believe in the Christian God of the Bible, but how much of the Bible's teachings are actually becoming a part of our political policies? How is it that the United States Government has the ability to grant marriage licenses to heterosexual couples but not homosexual? Why is abortion a controversy and not a one-sided scientific fact? How is it that we, as a country, have become complacent yet aggressive, ignorant yet dangerous, and freedom-loving yet oppressive?
Every time I watch an American politician give a speech, it somehow invariably ends with, "God bless America", or something like that. But why? Why has it become easier to get elected if you admit to believing the word of God? I don't see many atheist politicians, or people of other religions. It seems to me that Christianity has the monopoly on American politics. We were given the freedom of religion to worship however we wished, and most of the founding fathers were either not very religious or hated Christianity. So how is it, despite what our well-meaning founders attempted to give us, we have become predominately Christian in policy? John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and others would all be appalled at the sight of the ten commandments in a courthouse or at the amount to which the Bible has leaked into our lawmaking. A separation of church and state means that no church should hold any sway in politics, yet we have failed miserably in this regard. The doctrine of Christianity is slowly becoming the absolute law of the land. There's a difference between taking your morals from a single source that you hold higher than all others and purposefully trying to impose those sets of morals into a governing body that is supposed to remain neutral. It doesn't take long before a religion that is becoming law becomes so intertwined with the workings of the system that it becomes nearly impossible to take it out. As these laws infect the system, politicians that favor keeping these laws become easier and easier to elect. If the majority of a generation is forced to agree with Christian values through law, the next generation will become more accepting of those values, and so on, until there is little left to distinguish country from church.
Now, I'm not saying that this is definitely what I believe is going to happen. I just find the idea of religiously inspired laws in a democracy that serves religions of all kinds appalling.

Does where a person draws their moral code from matter as long as you agree with it?
Is the separation of Church and State reasonable?

Patriotism as an Excuse

I find that it is easy, especially in present-day America, to misuse the word "patriot", or any of it's connotations. Our politicians and media today say things such as, "If you don't support the war, you're unpatriotic", "If you say that the German human rights policies are better, you're unpatriotic", "If you prefer Canada's health system, you're unpatriotic", "Socialists, communists, fascists and terrorists are all the same". There seems to be no way to be truly patriotic without also being blind. Our country bombs civilians, more often and in larger amounts than the terrorists. Our country still has homeless people, a laughable matter considering their are countries that have solved the homeless crisis, such as Germany. Our country has people sick and dying because they can't afford any kind of health care or insurance, when countries such as Canada, most European countries, and even Cuba have systems that treat their citizens more often, in higher numbers, and tend to have longer life spans in cases of "death by natural causes". To be a patriot, in the mindset of a Conservative, I must ignore all of this. I must agree with killing civilians. I must watch people live on the street, and ignore their cries for help. I must let my fellow Americans die because they couldn't afford medicine. I must support Capitalism, the reason for our overly obese, sugar-run based food system, the reason for our competitive market system where if you're not making a killing then you're the one getting killed, the reason for our total lack of regard for how our overly competitive, every-man-for-himself nature is bankrupting the world of natural resources and basic human compassion. I must disagree with socialism. I am wrong to think that sharing could help. I am wrong to think that total and absolute equality, laws based on rational ethics rather than fascist christian theocracy could better our living conditions. I am wrong to believe that there could be something better than what we already have, because we are America, the biggest, strongest, we-can-do-no-wrong-because-we-can-end-the-world-with-the-push-of-a-button country the world has today.
This is how I view the modern form of American patriotism.

Do you believe our use of the word "patriot" has been corrupted, or do you think that there is a way to say you are patriotic and still ignore the mass misrepresentation of the word? (or some other answer that disagrees with my stance as a whole?)

Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism

I often find myself torn on where I draw the lines between these groups. Each one of them carries a certain stereotype, and I have discovered that I don't really fit any of them. In doing so, I have come to the conclusion that I must be a hybrid of two, seeing as how Atheism and Theism are polar and Agnosticism an attempt to find a middle stance. Now, I easily don't fit in Theism, because I don't believe that any of the established religions on Earth are convincing enough to make me follow them; in fact, their very plurality and universality question their probability. For a long time, I believed that I fit in the category of Atheism, only because it was the other choice: the denial of all possibilities presented by Theism. To avoid a paradoxical argument, however, I now realize that I cannot say that I am a full Atheist. To deny the chance that a single religion could be right would be to ignore my core belief that the universe is infinite, and within infinity, anything can and will eventually happen. Therefore, a complete and outright denial of any particular religion is not genuine, rather, I have to phrase it to mean that I find it highly improbable that we have already conceived of the absolute divine truth. On the Richard Dawkins Scale, I would have to place myself as a 6, finding either 1 or 7 to be saying more than is provable and, honestly, outlandish and close-minded. So this middle ground, which Dawkins calls a "De-Facto Atheist", is where I fit; a slightly agnostic atheist. So I view the world as more of a naturalist and a scientist, finding psychological and emotional ways to feel spiritually individual, and believing that anyone who boasts to know the truth about God, whether that he definitely exists or definitely does not exist, isn't going to be showing conclusive, concrete, convincing evidence anytime soon.

Is it responsible to trust someone who claims that they know for sure something that is unprovable, or does a person's religious convictions vary enough from their day-to-day beliefs to make that a harsh judgment?

Response: "How can we know what freedom is and appreciate such state when we don't have people fighting for us?" - Mariah

I believe that the kind of viciousness directed at soldiers that you are talking about is a misplaced anger by the aggressors. It's easy to look at the news and see that our men accidentally killed the wrong people when we're at war, and it's easy to find reasons to hate what the military is doing when you disagree with the president. Condemning the actions of our fighting force is not something to be unexpected by a country so opposed to any proper form of direct confrontation. However, attacking or protesting at an individual soldier, or a unit, I can never agree with. Your everyday soldier is not pulling the strings or ordering the strikes. He signs up, knowing his life is in danger, and is placed wherever the higher-ups want him to be placed. It is a long nd unlikely time before he is actually put into any position of total command (which I would consider to be a position where your bosses are limited and your say is actually taken under full advisement). So to ever attack the large majority, I think, is completely unjustified. They were doing whatever they had to do in order to keep peace, and if they did it wrong, it is not because they made any decision to, it's because the people above them made a mistake. It's easy to follow to chain of command in the military, and it goes up quite a ways before even a single person has the ability to act with impunity. The more aggressive critics of the military need to remember that the average private joins for one of two reasons: 1. "I need to make money for my family", 2. "I want to serve and protect my country at any cost to myself." These are not the kinds of reasons that drive a person to purposely kill a civilian, and these are not the kinds of reasons that fuel an unjust war. They are simply the motivating factors for an average person to do what none of us back home did: say, "My country and my people are more important to me than my individual life, and I'm willing make a wager on that and go out there and prove it." I would much rather hold responsible the President, who has the power to start and stop wars, and Congress, which has the power to declare a war legal or stop the President if he is making a huge mistake. It seems to me that these people, which an actual ability to decide and hold final say, are much easier to place responsibility on than a soldier who is returning from the front-lines.

Is there any true way to criticize any section of our government for acts of war in a time of national crisis?

Theological Argument

This is an argument I posed for my friends back in November, which relates back to Naturalism / Supernaturalism as well as the upcoming Agnostic / Atheistic. I was hoping I could get feedback to either make the argument more sound or reasons why it does not conclude properly on one point or another.

"For something to exist at least one person has to believe in it, otherwise the idea of it does not exist, and without the idea, it has the same relevance to a person as having not happened; e.g., does a tree falling in the woods make a sound? Thus, we can conclude that, at the least, the idea of God exists because we know what this idea means.

Next, for something to be based in faith, there must be no evidence of it, because to have evidence of something and to have faith in it is simply called understanding. This is what separates the pondering of most likely unanswerable questions, philosophy, from faith in the possibility of an answer for an unanswerable question, religion. Religion is then equivalent to taking a philosophy of which there is no evidence and concluding that it is correct. This concludes that the idea of God exists, as well as the possibility for God’s existence being derived from those on Earth having faith in His existence rather than understanding of His existence.

Next, to remove the need of faith in a subject, one must gather evidence to support the claim. Once there is evidence, faith is no longer necessary. This concludes that the idea of God exists; that the idea that God exists persists due to faith, and that to prove God does exist would remove the necessity for faith in his existence and replace it with understanding.

Finally, by the fact that belief in God’s existence persists only because of faith, proving his existence would remove faith, and thus removing the only link to the possible existence of God. This concludes that proving God exists proves he does not exist. All that is necessary is to prove that an idea exists. Since we know the meaning of the idea of God, we know that the idea exists, and because we know that the idea exists, we remove the need for faith, and because we remove the need for faith, we subsequently remove the possibility for the existence of God, thereby concluding that either God does exist, and is not necessary, or God does not exist, and we think for ourselves. Any evidence of God interfering with our lives would prove his nonexistence, and full lack of evidence would prove his unimportance.

Final conclusion: God is not relevant to your life, whether or not he exists, via the combined paradoxes of putting faith in something that requires evidence to have justification for being believed in the first place, and not putting faith in something that, because of the latter conclusion, cannot possibly influence your life."

Response: "If one were to take a naturalistic view point on religion, how would religion originate?" - Kim

I think both of the ways you suggested could be possibilities if one were to take a naturalistic view. When you look at more ancient religions, you can see where influence has come into play. The Romans were are a great example of this. They took primarily the Hellenistic view that the Greeks had, and organized a central structure around that. However, they always maintained an open mind when finding a new religion, making the Gods of people that they conquered their Gods as well. This is summed up well in both how their influence can be seen in countries today that were once under Roman occupation, as well as how the Empire itself became Christian. The willingness of the population to convert must have been a tumultuous and controversial time, but it stuck, eventually developing the Roman Catholic Church, one of the strongest powers in Christian history. Delving even further into Christianity, we see how closely Jesus represents Horus: Virgin birth, son of God, mother (Isis-Meri vs. Mary/Miriam), father (Jo-Seph vs. Joseph), born of royal descent, both have their births announced by angels, both have assassination attempts (Herut vs. Herod), both are Shepards, both are 30 when they are baptized by a baptizer in a river just before the baptizer is beheaded. Now, with all these similarities in their stories (and more), it can be argued that the authors of the Bible, whether they knew Jesus as a person or as the actual son of God, attributed the mythologies associated with Horus, who was "the Jesus" of a powerful religion not far from their homeland, to Jesus himself. Whether or not any of this is true because of that is up for debate (or maybe mankind's saviors just happen to live similar lifestyles).
On the other side, we can also find examples of religions that seem to spring up over night from a single author. Scientology is a good recent case of this. The founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, wrote the works that detail the entirety of the religion in its original form. He also spent the majority of his life as a science fiction writer, but the common follower of Scientology will overlook this fact, chalking it up to him finding some kind of real truth and using his already established writing ability to communicate what he had learned about the universe. This is a religion originating from one man, over a brief period of time, whose followers take the whole matter very seriously and are elevated to the same legal status as any other religion. This pertains to your example of one person seeing benefits in drawing others to his cause and so making up the entirety of the religion himself.
So I would maintain, given a naturalistic standpoint (which I find myself to be in), both of your suggestions as to the origins of religions can be valid. I would go further to say that there are even more ways that a religion can be created, and if you find a religion that started in such a manner, you can find another that works along the same lines.

Should a religion created seemingly overnight by one man be accredited with the same status as a religion that has existed for hundreds or thousands of years and has millions of followers?
(ex.: Scientology vs. Christianity / Islam)

Altruism and Egoism

I feel that the discussion about whether or not a person can truly be altruistic has little or nothing to do with the implementations of altruism, at least not beyond the definition of the word. The real argument only comes about when the idea is proposed that a person cannot act in a way that does not benefit them or coincide with how they wish for events to play out. Egoism itself is the problem then, and not altruism. So, when I think of egoism, I think of a person who performs actions that benefit themselves. Now, I do not believe that this means we cannot act outside of this scope. To act in favor of another over oneself must be considered. If I am in a position where I must choose to sacrifice my own state of being for the well being of another, and I choose to help that other person, then I have gone against my chance to act egoistically. Had I dismissed the well being of the other person, I would be acting for myself, and therefore would have taken my chance to be egoistic. Now, it could be said that I wanted to help the other person more than I wanted to act for myself. This can still be true without ruling out the possibility of my act being altruistic. Although I do want to do what makes me happy, the fact that I sacrifice that chance to better another person makes my act altruistic. It is impossible for a person to perform an action that they do not want to do; if they do not at least send the signals from their brain to their muscles, then they are not themselves performing the action (just as I would not say I am in control of where I go in a car if someone else is driving me; I have to at least be directly involved in the action to do it myself, ex.: I am moving of my own will because I chose to be in the car). But wanting to do something is not the only factor in whether or not an action is performed. Weighing the the wants of the other person is equally as important, at least to those of us who are not egocentric.
My summary example for this: I am walking along the seaside, enjoying the water and sunset. There is a person in distress only a few yards out into the water (someone I could easily save). I want to keep walking down the beach (as it is my reason for being there, although I might not immediately be thinking about it), but my reaction towards seeing a person in need sets off a lighting-quick series of events in my head. The first is that I stop walking. The second is that I look around to get a grasp of what is happening. The third is that I proceed with helping the person. This example is isolated from wanting to help the person; whether or not I actually want to help them is not important. What is important is that I value the life of the other human being, I weigh my desires against theirs, find that I have no reason not to assist them, and then proceed to abandon my activity in favor of theirs. This case is a little extreme, but I feel my argument can carry into situations that are not so dire and immediate. It may not be a proper sentence structure, but this next bit will attempt to describe my thoughts on the situation without having to refer to myself: "This person needs help. There appears to be only one person here who can help. The desire of another person to live and survive is paramount. An attempt to save this person must be made." No reference is made to either "I" or "want", and I wish to express the difference between objectively referring to myself in the third person as well as the distinction between a person's desires (which I believe can be purely instinctual) and a person's wants (which I believe are more directly related to instances we are trained to hope for because the results are positive). [These two issues only arise because, even objectively, I must refer to myself ("only one person here") since I am the author, and because "desire" is often used interchangeably with "want", which is not the sense in which I am using it here.]

Is altruism an idea in and of itself, or it is merely a temporary absence of egoism?
(Are humans solitary with the ability to help or symbiotic with a sense of self?)

Response: "When did the idea of religion first begin?" - Julia

Religion must have been with humanity since they were able to ask, "Where did I come from?", and to think about it more than just being born from their mothers. I think they probably thought something along the lines of, "Where did we all come from?" Combine a seemingly unanswerable scientific and philosophic question like that with an entire race of creatures that know next to nothing of either science or philosophy, and you have the beginnings of religion. Someone is going to want to say, "Well, I know what happened...", which leads into making a really cool story that gets changed over time until it becomes a religious tradition to retell the myth. One caveman could communicate to the other, "I think the Earth was built." Then his children say, "I think the Earth was built by a person." His children say, "I think the Earth was built by a person for a reason", etc. This continues until you have the kinds of holy books we have today, where it's easy for a large group of people to find comfort, solace, or some kind of morality in a story that probably didn't happen. But it works, and it works well, especially since it seems to be human nature to invoke the magical and supernatural to explain that which cannot currently be explained. Combine that with the fact that, up until fairly recently in human history, we've been a pretty gullible lot, especially when it comes to believing our leaders and what they say is best for us, and it's not hard to make the connection between a story that is obviously fantasy, and a society that perpetuates that story for its own good (or just out of tradition).

What possible factors are there that have made the creation of religions such a universal phenomenon within humanity?

Naturalism Vs. Supernaturalism (can they coexist peacefully?)

I don't believe there is much hope for these two sides to coexist peacefully. Naturalism involves looking to the world we live in for answers, found in the form of empirical evidence. Supernaturalism involves finding answers to the same questions by trying to look outside our world, or by believing that we already know what is happening outside of this world through "faith". Since the questions often raised for these two sides to answer in the form of culture wars are incredibly important ones, and because they are such a contrast against each other, it doesn't seem likely that they will ever be able to agree on anything. The two ideologies can exist peacefully, as long as they are kept away from each other. When you mix, for instance, a group of people who believe that they are carrying out God's will by demonizing homosexual relations, and a group of people who believe in free choice and the ability to rightfully love someone of the same sex, especially ones making this decision after viewing the world around them and finding no evidence of harm done to anyone, you then have two very different groups arguing about a very important topic that cannot find a neutral ground. They will continue to disagree because of the basic approaches they take towards justifying one side over the other, and there will be strife between the two sides.
The only real way I see for peaceful coexistence to happen is for the two sides to stop arguing, and for public policy to be mandated only through this-world empirical evidence. If all we can agree on is this-world, then that is how we should decide things. This may seem unfair, but there seems to be no better way to proceed. The two sides will speak with mutual respect to each other, Supernaturalists will have to find a way to justify their arguments using empirical evidence (otherwise there is no reason they should expect a naturalist to believe them), and eventually, humanity will decide for itself which sides serves it better. One side will continually disprove and shine doubt on the other, and we will someday know for sure how we will truly be better off.

1. Is there a possibility for a neutral, respectful environment in which Naturalists and Supernaturalists can debate, while both feeling as though they are respected and their ideas are being given a fair evaluation?