Racial profiling is non-PC these days so why not realize that the bulk of our terrorists are religious zealots so they deserve extra examination. So give people the option of signing up for the atheist fast pass. All they need to do is take the blasphemy challenge and declare openly the non-existence of God. I'd have to check but you may also have them eat a small ham sandwich. I think there is a specific sandwich for this task used during the inquisition. Next kill a house fly or similar easily generated bug. Lastly declare that L Ron Hubbard was a charlatan and they give you a fast pass card which you can use at any airport or other security check point. Still not sure what to do with the Wickin and the other fringe religions.
Then I could be a card carrying Atheist. The only down side is that the government now has a list of all the Atheist and people may get persecuted for their views when the zealots get enough power.-- MisterQED, Jul 10 2008 Blasphemy Challenge http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/ [MisterQED, Jul 10 2008] Put down a few pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumiebut this time, they're not permitted to go to Nagasaki [lurch, Jul 10 2008] Lateral Veiw of the Human Skeleton http://www.medical-.../pic.asp?id=150-013Ankles, Knees, Hips,Shoulders, base of neck. **All in line** [MikeD, Jul 13 2008] Overbaked http://groups.yahoo.com/group/overbaked/Intelligent Design makes no sense? Discuss it here! [jutta, Jul 14 2008] As a card-carrying liberal christian, I concur. Atheists should not be forced to wait in airport security lines.-- jefmjones, Jul 10 2008 I had wondered at one point if a test of some kind could be devised to weed out zealots. Something that would guarantee eternal damnation to the individual should they lie.
Then again, this would be like the ultimate martyrdom - damning oneself to hell in order to further a cause. It may be no deterrent at all.
Overall, it won't work, 'cause not all terrorists are religous. That's probably a quite offensive assumption, to some people.-- Custardguts, Jul 10 2008 No I agree not all terrorist are religeous but many are. I also agree that there should be basic checking for all. Timothy McVey proved that wackos don't always follow a nice prototype. Anyone can be a terrorist. Anyone could have a set of events that causes them to want to end it all or hurt others, but I would think those people would be easier for a trained screener to pick out. The people I worry about are those who can do it with a smile on their face, casual as can be, assured their path is guided by a higher purpose and welcoming death as the start of a happy afterlife. That guy is going to be tougher to detect so they need a second look.-- MisterQED, Jul 11 2008 //I'd have to check but you may also have them eat a small ham sandwich.//
Damn, I guess vegetarian atheists like myself don't get to be a card-carrying atheist then.-- imaginality, Jul 11 2008 What about a depressed atheist?-- Cedar Park, Jul 11 2008 Can you keep the fly as a pet instead, not eat the ham, BUT do other things to confirm that you are a true non-believer? If so I want to sit the test. + (I have an art-work called "Ye Must Be Unborn Again" which is somewhat similar. I give them out like religious tracts.)-- xenzag, Jul 11 2008 I don't see terrorists as being religious zealots particularly, they seem to conform more to the pointless saddo stereotype to me.
I'm not sure what a pointless-saddo test might actually consist of.-- zen_tom, Jul 11 2008 //I'm not sure what a pointless-saddo test might actually consist of// It would probably consist of being locked in solitary confinement on some nearby island. If you haven't killed yourself within 5 years then you're probably a pointless saddo and can be safely indicted for being a terrorist.-- DrBob, Jul 11 2008 Flawless reasoning [ColonelBob]! - can someone give that man a medal?-- zen_tom, Jul 11 2008 [imaginality] On further consideration, I don't think that sandwich is necessary, but I still think it's funny, so I'd like to keep it in. The idea was to have a test for each religeon: chrisitian=blasphemy, jewish=ham, Buddist=fly & L Ron = Scientologists, but I think the blasphemy thing is old testament, so if you can prove that then you can skip the sandwich.-- MisterQED, Jul 11 2008 One of the Commandments ?
<Quick Google>
Yes, the Third, "Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain" (.."for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain").
Doesn't that get the Mohammedans too ?
But the ham sandwich is still excellent, if you remove it we fear we shall be obliged to remove our bun.
Can we have cheese and tomato on our ham sandwich, please ?-- 8th of 7, Jul 11 2008 Oh, and a beer. And some crisps.-- 8th of 7, Jul 11 2008 And while you're in the kitchen dear, is there any of that Black Forest gateau left .... ?-- 8th of 7, Jul 11 2008 I will not be removing the sandwich, but do you know the name of the sandwich? I thought it had a common English sandwich as a decendant. Hitchen's mentioned it in "God is not great".-- MisterQED, Jul 11 2008 I suspect you'll find that certain faiths are "allowed" to bend their own lesser rules for the greater good. For instance, a Muslim might, just might, not be put off by the ham sandwich if he believed that the glory of jihad outweighed the shame of eating pork.
In any case, soon enough some radical preacher would begin teaching that the one outweighed the other, or that lying to a non-believer was acceptable regardless of what you said.-- david_scothern, Jul 11 2008 I agree with [david_scothern], to terrorists, the ends justify the means. Whatever it takes to get the Fast Pass will be justified by the desired terror outcome.-- darren-b, Jul 11 2008 Maybe there should be a cowardice fast pass. Some people are scared of everything and would never dare hijack a plane. They set up some fake fires or bombs and anyone who gets scared enough gets automatic clearance.-- phundug, Jul 11 2008 So add a "scream like a girl" fast pass?
Sadly I agree with the annos. The people who would think nothing of killing a plane load of people will certainly pick and choose the pieces of whatever religeon allows them to complete the act. I mean you'd think the "thou shalt not kill" bit would give the abortion bombers pause, but maybe the fact that they are carrying an Athiest card will get them killed before they can kill anyone else?-- MisterQED, Jul 11 2008 Yup. Islamic terrorists already boozed, visited strip clubs, ate meat etc to avoid suspicion. They would be just as likely to deny their religion to get past security.-- Bad Jim, Jul 11 2008 The security checks are so time consuming because it's all about half-ass searching, and people being coy about their luggage, bodies, and privacy. If it's all about speed, then what about an optional FAST PASS room where you run in, get completely naked, have your rectum probed by a guard, your luggage tossed about and X-rayed, and then quick as a whip you're out the door, high-fiving the guard as you run for the plane?-- napoleonbag, Jul 11 2008 In the end I agree with Bill Maher. What we all need is a Secret Service for the rest of us. A large group of very well trained and well paid people who interview people before they board a plane. It works for El Al it could work for the rest of us.
My appologies to those that took offence to this, but I just found out that they passed a law allowing Intelligent Design to be taught in Alabama, so I'm a little miffed at the Christians and the world has something else to make fun of the US about. And it's not like they needed it.-- MisterQED, Jul 11 2008 //If it's all about speed, then what about an optional FAST PASS room where you run in, get completely naked, have your rectum probed by a guard//
That's brilliant. A fast pass for people with literally nothing to hide. Post as an idea and I'll bun it.-- Bad Jim, Jul 11 2008 Mirror, Mirror, on the wall, Who's the athiest of them all?-- Cuit_au_Four, Jul 11 2008 I think [phundug] is close to the mark. How about an interview with each potential passenger where they are wired for EEG, and then shown videos of terrorist-crashed or -exploded aircraft. If the passenger is still willing to board, they must be a terrorist and can't be allowed to get on the plane.
The airplane doesn't have to fly, and everybody gets partial refunds.
(The EEG? Oh, that was just some pointless invasion of privacy. Pay it no mind.)-- lurch, Jul 12 2008 I don't mind airport security, it's fast enough in my opinion. Nobody should get a fast pass.
There are good and bad people of any persuasion, no particular religion or lack thereof disqualifies anyone from doing evil things, at the end of the day, people are people. [-]
[MisterQED], how is ID hurting you? It's just an idea. I see that you consider it fiction. I suppose you would like to see all fiction banned from school. It's not like they're telling the kids "this is proven"...-- Spacecoyote, Jul 12 2008 Restrict all aircraft to be single-seaters. That would avoid hostage crises, though we still need some way to prevent them becoming piloted missiles a la the WTC or Kamikaze.-- david_scothern, Jul 12 2008 //Restrict all aircraft to be single- seaters// Passengers could be towed along behind a lead aircraft inside individual capsules like a string of frogspawn. The cheapest seats would be at the end, where the most turbulence might be expected to occur.-- xenzag, Jul 12 2008 ///how is ID hurting you?//
Maybe he has children who are chasing biology degrees but will never understand it properly because some evangelical luddites have had evolution struck off the syllabus.-- Bad Jim, Jul 12 2008 Yes, [SC] as [BadJim] supposed, I have a daughter. She is only one now, so she doesn't know what she want to be, but it may be something in medicine or biology and I'd like to give her the best chance I can of fulfilling her dreams, so I don't want people to put errant ideas in her head that evolution is really just one of many theories accepted by present science.-- MisterQED, Jul 12 2008 //I don't want people to put errant ideas in her head that evolution is really just one of many theories accepted by present science//
Yes, of course. Who would. For the kind of unflinching, filail loyalty required to strap explosives to your chest and blow up some American infidels for Allah, we will need to allow only the influences we deem acceptable and sympathetic to our cause.
Wait a minute, is she going to be a Jihadist or a scientist? Cause having her choose between two competing theories would probably be good practice for an aspiring scientist.-- MikeD, Jul 13 2008 //Cause having her choose between two competing theories// I would never deem to mandate one scientific theory over another, my objection is that ID can't even stand up to the faintest scrutiny. Want to test it yourself? It’s easy, just stand up straight, or more accurately try. If God made us to stand up straight, then why did he do such a bad job?
When you stand up, as straight as you can, you bend your spine. Your butt sticks out. It has to, because your hip bones will not allow your knees to be in line with your spine. You don’t have to be a engineering genius to realize the advantage for a biped in standing up straight. I realize it every time I need to stand for long periods of time and my back hurts.
The most ID can claim to be is a hypothesis, but I'd consider it just a wish. Evolution is a proven scientific theory that can be and has been used to predict future behavior. You can't just offer them both up to impressionable minds as if they are equal footing, or at least you can't do it without pissing me off.-- MisterQED, Jul 13 2008 //As a card-carrying liberal christian, I concur. //
As another (fairly) liberal christian, I call [marked-for-deletion] stereotyping. You don't have to believe in God to value a cause more highly than you value your life, nor is there even a meaningful statistical correlation; for example, consider how many acts of atheist self-sacrifice were involved in the defence of the Soviet Union during the second world war.
Also, you don't have to believe in God to be relaxed about your own mortality - you just need a good sense of proportion. So, the //those who can do it with a smile on their face// remark is wrong, too.
Also, for what it's worth, what [zen_tom] said, except that I think 'pointless saddos' are generally undervalued.-- pertinax, Jul 13 2008 I believe in evolution, but i wouldn't say empirical scientific theories are ever proven, as opposed to mathematical or logical ones. They aim at corroboration and some are yet to be falsified, but they could be, logically, or they would fail the test for falsifiability. However, this is to some extent a process of refinement most of the time, though there are also scientific revolutions.
On the subject of terrorism, i've never perceived it as particularly closely linked to religious belief. The Symbionese Liberation Army, Baader Meinhof/Rote Armee Faction and Meibion Glyndwr weren't remotely religious so far as i know and are more anti-religious and atheistic in most cases. I would say terrorism is a response to political frustration.
SLA - based on Kwanzaa - non-religious.
RAF - Marxist and Situationist influenced - non-religious.
Meibion Glyndwr - seemed to have no particular ideology but again, certainly not religious.-- nineteenthly, Jul 13 2008 // Meibion Glyndwr - seemed to have no particular ideology //
Seemed to have "no particular idea", more like .....-- 8th of 7, Jul 13 2008 Jihad me at hello...-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jul 13 2008 Well, maybe there's a league table of ideological sophistication among these groups. The SLA seemed to be pretty clueless too, though the RAF were a bit more intellectual, but then they were German.-- nineteenthly, Jul 13 2008 Not that I ever do this but L - O - Firkken L [2-fries]. touche.
As to the whole ID thing, it always struck me as the kind of whiny- fawning half arsed compromise a true coward will offer up when they are losing an argument.
But that's just me being opinionated again.-- Custardguts, Jul 13 2008 [Mr.QED], modern science can't even say why a cell dies. (There are 5 competing theories as such) I think it would be folley to allow any theory of our origins to be offered up //to impressionable minds//. Tell me. You say evolution is scientifically proven? How then did living matter come to be from non-living matter? This has yet to be "proven" because it has yet to be recreated.
And yes, [Custard], I agree. Bravo to you [2Fries].-- MikeD, Jul 13 2008 Nope, not done yet.
What do you mean we can't stand up straight? Men have been doing it all they're lives just fine. The architecture of the human body is a marvel. Maybe you should take an A&P class or two before talking like that. The curvature of the spine helps reduce shock. It spreads the impact, (divinely), throughout all of the vertebrae. If they were all stacked one right on top of the other, your lumber wouldn't last a decade. The bones in your feet have a two dimensional curve in them as well. Perfect for absorbing *all of the body's weight* while walking [upright].
[Mr.QED], take a good long look at the capabilities of the human body. We are not awkward half evolved ground apes that would be better suited for running around on all four (although your commentary makes me wonder), we are the glorious apogee of animal life on this planet. Quite possibly the most remarkable creature to ever grace existence.
You would be surprised what that body of yours is capable of doing, had it ever the chance.-- MikeD, Jul 13 2008 This is true. The interior of the human body isd also fascinating, but unlike computers and cars, it's quite remarkably difficult to get the works back in and properly reconected when you've finished looking at them. Shame, really-- 8th of 7, Jul 13 2008 [MikeD], what i got from A&P was an increased awareness of similarities between humans and other species. For example, i saw a pterodactyl skeleton and realised the carpal bones were the same but different shapes - for instance, the pisiform was lengthened and appeared to support an aileron-like web of skin.
Considering the frequency of herniated discs, i don't think you can really hold the spine up as a marvel of design. It's like a bridge which has been upended for use as scaffolding for a towerblock. Similar things apply to the abdominal muscles.
When i look at a human body, i see a particular kind of ape and it amazes me that people don't see the similarities as implying a genetic relationship.
I wouldn't say we're much of a pinnacle concerning most of our bodies either, with the possible exception of the brain. Unlike some organisms, we can't live in boiling water several kilometres below the surface of the ocean or in concentrated hydrochloric acid, fly, run at over a hundred kph and so on.
I don't see design, just aeons of incremental changes due to natural selection. Life has been around a mind-numbingly long time, hence the apparent teleology (not that i'm an atheist as such, more Spinozistic).
Sorry, just having to agree to differ.-- nineteenthly, Jul 13 2008 Just to clarify, bung me in the agnostic basket.
I think the evolution theory has some boxes yet to tick - however that doesn't make me necessarily want to bring in a third party, just to cover gaps.-- Custardguts, Jul 13 2008 //How then did living matter come to be from non-living matter? This has yet to be "proven" because it has yet to be recreated//
Well it has been found that if you take a bunch of chemicals like carbon, hydrogen etc and zap them you get amino acids and so forth. It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to suppose that, repeated all over the world for billions of years, a lucky combination of organic molecules would reproduce.
What does Creationism have to support it's claim? One really old book, containing two creation stories that don't quite match up with each other, let alone against scientific evidence. Why did God give us useless organs? Why did we get eyes with blind spots while cephalopods have no blind spots?-- Bad Jim, Jul 13 2008 Please move the religion discussion to overbaked. Thanks!-- jutta, Jul 14 2008 OK, fair enough, but i still think there's not a lot of correlation between theism and terrorism. I haven't mentioned the IRA. Theirs was a quasi-religious issue, but they themselves tended to be Marxist so far as i was aware, though i may be wrong.
Muslims differ in their attitude towards jihad, some seeing it as an internal struggle against the evil in themselves for example. The behaviour of some anti-abortion activists in the US does seem to be religiously motivated, but it seems unlikely they will put a bomb on a plane. Aum Shinrikyo are also religious, of course. Animal liberationists basically aren't. The Shining Path really, really aren't.
I would say the distribution of religious belief amongst these groups is more or less the same as among people generally. I think you are giving a certain kind of Muslim too much significance.
An interesting group from this perspective is the Lord's Resistance Army. I don't think many mainstream Christians would see them as Christian. I've met people who work for the Anglican church in Uganda, and they wouldn't take that claim seriously for a second. For all i know, Muslims may generally see self-proclaimed "Islamic" terrorists in the same way.-- nineteenthly, Jul 14 2008 Hey, I vote for the Nudist Security Fast Pass. Of course, items stil could be keestered on, but a guy with a gloved hand...and quick bend-over and I'm on my way.
<Why does that sound a lot like my last visit to my doctor?>-- Klaatu, Jul 14 2008 I was just wondering, do i get paid for the unpleasantness of having to delve around in someone's anus or for my skill and experience in palpation there? I was just doing the books and i couldn't work out if i'd charged a sensible rate. The relevance to this being: does an official who has to do a cavity search get a bonus? If they get commission, presumably it would encourage them, which is a rather worrying thought.-- nineteenthly, Jul 14 2008 Jutta is right (big surprise), so if anyone wants to continue the ID discussion, I will create a post on overbaked today and leave a link here.-- MisterQED, Jul 14 2008 Yes, i'd be into that.-- nineteenthly, Jul 14 2008 [MikeD] The theory of evolution does not claim to explain the emergence of life at all (although this supposed weakness is often trollied out by supporters of ID).
Evolutionary theory is only concerned with explaining the emergence of a diversity of species through the process of natural selection.
(Can't get on to overbaked for some reason)-- squeak, Jul 15 2008 random, halfbakery