Educated young oeople were flooding out of Greece long before the current government took over. The present government's rise is a reaction to the death of the Greek economy, not the cause of it.

"Gun rights" and "gun controls" are not mutually incompatible. For example, mandatory mental health checks for licensees seems emininently sensible as a control, and yet there are people who cry "freedom" and "rights" even when people try to establish checks of that sort. Do you really value the "freedom" of potentially homocidal individuals that much?

Most people at the very least would be happier with stricter background checks, and yet even reasonable moves to have mandatory mental health checks are decried as "taking our freedoms". Which is a bit much.

Yes, but you would need plans, and transmitting plans on te internet will be illegal.

They're working for the extremely high number of Americans who want stricter gun controls that they're finding impossible to implement due to the vocal outrage of the Nutter Rambos of America, and they figure that even if they can't manage to close down the existing paths to firearms ownership, they should at least try to prevent opening up new ones.

I'm not blaming anyone for "espousing" anything -- I'm blaming them for telling religious people "this isn't for you", or even worse -- stating (unscientifically) that science disproves God. I went to a Catholic school. We studied just as much science as the kids in non-denominational schools, because nothing in Catholic dogma says science is bad -- in fact, university study in Europe was founded by the Catholic church to study "the mechanics of God's creation", and science was seen as a holy endeavour, similar to how the medieval Muslim scholars viewed it.

In the last 20 years, things have changed drastically. I no longer mix with as many catholics as I did when I was a believer, but it's clear that far more of them reject parts of science and believe in literal interpretations of the Bible, even though catholic dogma has not accepted biblical literalism for centuries. The influence comes from outside the church. It's also not about being "weak-minded", it's just about being uneducated. Thirty years ago, these people without the educational background to understand science would have just shrugged because science wasn't important to them.

Builders don't soend their whole lives building. Painters don't spend their entire day painting. Why shouldn't evangelists get some "down time" too?

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Do not underestimate the polarising effects of listening to people attack you. I try t be neutral and reasonable on debates on religion. This leads non-religious people to think I'm a religious person trying to corrupt hem, and it leads religious people to believe I'm an atheist trying to corrupt them. The internet isn't currently a place for reasoned debate as people are just too quick t assume any disgreement is an attack. It is possible (though maybe not likely) that such a site could become a "safe place" for debates. Extremism on either side is usually a result of polarisation, which really affects both sides equally.

You souns quite unpleasant. If that's you as a better person, I hate t imagine what you were like before.

Oh, how cute -- you're making patronising statements and assumptions again. It could be that the AC GP is making a comment about integration. After all, isn't it one of the biggest concerns about immigrant communities that they fail to integrate? Perhaps the AC was trying to get the previous poster to think about the fact that segregation is never good for society.

In Scotland, segregation in the school system was sold as a means of protecting the Catholic (ie Irish and Italian immigrant) kids from bullying from the local (low Protestant) kids. In reality, it was a sticking-plaster that maintained a century of sectarianism by skirting around the need to preach tolerance and understanding.

Actually, that passage has been presented as being a doctrine for passive-resistance, bolstering the case that the historical Jesus was a sort of Gandhi figure in a country that was constantly bubbling with armed resistance against the Roman occupation. Turning the other cheek challenged the slapper to strike you the other way, and slapping with the front of the hand recognised you as a person of value, whereas the back of the hand was a dismissive gesture, devaluing you. if someone you're close to (eg your dad) slaps you with the palm, then you turn the other cheek, you're effectively saying "hit me again and you're disowning me", whereas if someone hits you with the back of their hand and you turn the other cheek, you're saying "I'm no less than you. Hit me again and prove it." Walking the extra mile was because Roman laws only permitted a legionnary to impune a subject for a mile at a time, and if you carry the pack for two miles, you might get him in trouble with his centurion. The goal was to make them too scared to demand assistance. There is no passive resistance in making two wedding cakes.

I used to be religious (catholic), and it worries me how much of a tendency there is towards fundaMentalism across the board. But I don't blame religious people for this -- I actually blame outspoken atheists who preach that science and rationality are the enemies of religion. It is them, ironically, who turn uninformed religious people into zealots.

They say that, yes. One of the hardest parts of Christian doctrine is actually living up to that ideal. It's a principle that I've tried to stick to even after I lost my faith - hate the actions, not the actor, or something like that.

That's because that's the satirical Discworld version of Death. The real-world figure employs different typographical conventions. Particularly when he's disguised as Santa Claus.

You sound more sinister than that. You're Death, right? I'd know that scythe anywhere.