[img]http://el-muerte.student.utwente.nl/lba/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5424[/img]

Thanks to LBG/Gustav for the link.

I think the "Danish" drawings of the prophet were a little more offensive than that!

The #1 reply after hearing about this subject is.

F'em if they can't take a joke

#2- Don't worry, they will get over it!

Religion in se is something good, it's human nature. It can be a help for society and mankind. Only when taken public and celebrated on a large scale, it can harm.

Media is always large scale, and will always provocate.
Provocation can harm.

Yeah, the cartoon of JJ was so over the top, that it becomes funny again.

I have to disagree. I think the danger isn't necessarily religion per se but rather, when people interpret religion for selfish motives.

I mean, if we had people doing as Jesus said and acting as Jesus would across the planet, and doing it selflessly, then certainly that would be the antithesis of harm. Unfortunately, human nature is flawed.

You are totally correct, but you misinterpreted what I really wanted to say, I think.
Anyway,
I once heard (correct me if I'm wrong) that Bush said "God said I had to invade Iraq." That kinda contradicts what you said.
Seperation of Church and State is holy and that's more what I meant with my comment about religion getting a pain in the ass when it gets too organized.

Btw, I think 'in se' isn't wrong. Which you seemed to insinuate when using 'per se'.

I think the same could apply precisely to the concept of Communism. But Communism is becuase it cannot work; whereas religion is good despite not working.

Is religion, then, as ineffective as that political idyll?

Enzo - I wasn't trying to imply anything, I know my use or per se is correct though.

Capo - perhaps it is politics that are ineffective in the scope of religion, which deal in absolutes of good versus evil, while politics oftentimes (but not always) is defined by alterior motives and selfishness while supposedly representing compromise and selflessness.

By today's standards, is seems politics is more about good versus evil. A shame of course, but it looks like polarization seems today's magic word.
These boards are a fine example of it.

About religion, is that always in terms of good versus evil??
I tought it was about ethics, and how they are related to humanity and utopies.

I can't explain why, but I have the feeling religion is not about good and bad.

Can anybody correct me on the non-existing word 'utopies', if you know what I wanna say with it?

As for the per se debate, I must dive into the bath and cuddle up naked with you guys. As long as the message is communicated, I don't care how it's spelt. If somebody doesn't grasp that Ruanda is Rwanda or in se is per se (taking context into consideration) you'd either have to be a pedant or extremely dumb yourself.

Anyway, climbing out of that cosy jacuzzi and diving into another one: I get what you're saying, Double J. To keep it short, the reason I don't see religion as effective is that, to me, there is no right and wrong. It's simply Truth or not.

To keep up the Star Wars tradition, only a Sith talks in absolutes. Religion, I think, likes to simplify things into black and white to make life easier to cope with. If it succeeds, that's fine, so long as it doesn't infringe others' more indefinable sense of good and bad.

And Enzo's right: polarisation is the key reason why there're so many feuds around here. It's the good ol' "With us or against us" deal, and it's shameful.

Not that I'm accusing you of that, Double J. Not at all.

I think you have a rather thin view on religion. It can be a lot more than you think it is.
Why don't you mix your second phrase with your first phrase?

Yeah, it's thin, but at least broad enough to respect people's beliefs; that's broad enough, I think. Some religious people, however, let their beliefs blind them, and I always find it ironic when religious people are also very political, especially in war time. Because, for me, I find it difficult to accept a co-existence of God and War.

Yes, it was.

I wasn't gonna mention it, but since you brought it up, you should bone up on your use of et al, though :p

I never understood the origins of this odd expression. From which language does it come?

Latin, I believe, as is per se if I'm not mistaken.

If I recall from my high school Latin (no, I wasn't a Jesuit) it would be something like "and also..." or "and others..."

Enter one pedant, enter three (I'm the third).

I've also seen, though not very often, et al. spelled with a full stop after the l, implying it is an abbreviated form of the original.

Endeth the lesson. Or complication. Or whatever.

Yes, but i believe that the "others" refers to people, not places, events, or things, as in the context you used it.

From thelawencyclopedia.com:

et al.
n. abbreviation for the Latin phrase et alii meaning "and others." This is commonly used in shortening the name of a case, as in "Pat Murgatroyd v. Sally Sherman, et al."

Yeah, it refers to people.

"The older Yankees, like Johnson, Posada, Mussina, et al..."

"The Supreme Court Justices, such as Rehnquist, Thomas, Alito, et al..."

here comes the fourth pedant (and proud to be! :p )

et al. (the correct form is with a point!) is the abbreviated form of the Latin et alii . It means "and others".


.....err...uh....I am late......someone else already explained it....

When you are talking about things rather than persons you could use "etc."[.]<--

^ But what the heck should one do about the abbreviation period at the end of a sentence? Can I merge them into one?!

BTW, I never comprehend why Americans put commas inside quotation marks. :p

American punctuation is not my thing I guess. My writing method is one of a kind: American spelling, British punctuation.

Although I know it's incorrect, I almost always put my commas outside the quotation marks.

I will say, though, that it looks wrong either way to me.

I worked as a proofreader for many years and to tell you the truth, all the rules about English and punctuation drove me crazy. And then they changed the rules on using commas and everything I learned in school went out the window. So the bottom line is, if it looks good to you, the writer, then it's ok.

Oh, and I forgot. Nothing drives me more crazt than the way people use, or rather don't know how to use, the words your, you're, to, too, then, than. Just a pet peeve of mine.

Mine is people who use big words, and then use them incorrectly or spell them wrong.

It is not incorrect, that's how Brits do it. Also that's how we do it in Persian, so I guess I'm conditioned to this method and that's why it makes more sense to me.