text:
New Hawaiian Food Revolution
A new generation of upstart chefs, artisans, farmers, and food lovers takes Hawaiian food back to its roots—and into a bold new future.
Anybody here remember pineapple coulis? Macadamia-crusted mahimahi? Does the phrase "wasabi mashed potatoes" mean anything to you?
If you spent any time in Hawaii over the past, oh, 20 years, you may recognize these items from your dinner menu.
This story is not about those things.
First, some background. It's been two decades since a coterie of forward-thinking chefs put Hawaii on the culinary map. Seizing on the then-current trend for East/West fusion, they blended classical techniques with Hawaiian ingredients, mixed in bold Asian flavors, and called their style Hawaii Regional Cuisine. It was a thrilling amalgam, and HRC's star burned brightly for a spell, making celebrity chefs of Alan Wong, Roy Yamaguchi, Sam Choy, and Peter Merriman. But as Pac-Rim fusion's novelty faded, foodies' affections shifted, like those temperamental Kona winds, to more beguiling shores. By the turn of the millennium, the term fusion had become a slur.
Related: The Best Beaches in Hawaii
Which isn't to knock the HRC chefs' chops. Most of the original crew are still doing fine work today—and, for plenty of visitors, their names, dishes, and many restaurants still define Hawaiian food, fickle dining trends be damned.
But something else has happened of late, as a new generation of Hawaiian food pioneers emerges. They've embraced HRC's creative spirit and applied it to more traditional Hawaiian foods, drawing from the islands' past as much as the globalized future. They've amped up their commitment to sustainability, to local farmers and ranchers and fishermen, and to unsung or forgotten ingredients. They've moved past the gimmicky aspects of fusion to embrace its tenets naturally, intuitively, as only pan-ethnic, polyglot Hawaiians could do. They're cooking some extraordinary—often extraordinarily simple—food. And they're making it more accessible, in presentation and price, to Hawaii's workaday population, not just to well-heeled diners and tourists.
That last point is fundamental, and explains a lot about where you'll find the new breed. Hawaii's next wave is cresting not in the fine dining rooms of Waikiki, but in an ever-growing number of roving food trucks, farmers'-market stands, plate-lunch diners, guerrilla pop-ups, surfers' haunts, barbecue pits, and hyper-creative hot dog and hamburger joints. Suddenly, out of the blue, Hawaii is one of the most exciting places to eat in the country.
The beachhead of the movement is a defiantly casual Honolulu restaurant called Town, run by Oahu-born chef Ed Kenney. With his sleeve tattoos and flair for charcuterie, Kenney would fit right in among the scruffy hipster chefs of Brooklyn, Portland, and Montreal—except he's clean-shaven, built like a surfer, and as Hawaiian as they come. (Kenney's mother, a renowned hula dancer, and father, a Broadway singer and actor, used to headline shows at the Halekulani and Royal Hawaiian hotels from the 1950's through the 70's.)
Flush against the hillsides of suburban Kaimuki, far from the thrum of Waikiki, Town feels more neighborhood canteen than haute-dining mecca. The interior is a study in slacker chic, with hardwood benches, rough-hewn plank walls, and portraits of island farmers hung with easel clips.
The kitchen is far more ambitious. Take that charcuterie: all of it cured in-house, and all made with Hawaiian pork, from the spicy soppressata to the cumin-spiked terrine. Tart pickled star fruit provides the ideal counterpoint.
Kenney's beef comes from the Big Island's Kuahiwi Ranch, where it's pasture-raised and grain-finished for a pleasing minerality balanced with the depth of fat. A seared flatiron steak is served with local watercress and dense, chewy coins of fried paiai, or mashed taro root. Paiai—the solid form of Hawaii's beloved poi—has all but vanished from island menus, since small-scale production of it virtually ceased and was even illegal for a time. But a native Hawaiian named Daniel Anthony recently began selling his own organic, hand-pounded paiai, to the delight of chefs like Kenney. If anything could stand in for fried potatoes with steak, it's this.
Other curious local ingredients find their way onto Kenney's plates. A filet of buttery opah (moonfish) is sprinkled with feathery limu seaweed and sided with pohole ferns, lending umami and earthiness to the fish. Town especially dazzles with island-farmed greens and herbs, most of them sourced from MA'O Organic Farms, on Oahu's western shore. I'd always envied Hawaii for its sweet mangoes and apple-bananas, but I never thought I'd envy its ethereal tatsoi, fennel, and kale. Even the bartenders get in on the act, muddling arugula, celery, sage, and fresh turmeric into the cocktails. Indeed, the bar menu is one of Town's high points, especially given the dearth of good cocktails elsewhere. (Most drinks still taste like someone tossed a bag of Starburst into a Vitamix.)
Turn up any Saturday at Honolulu's crazy-popular KCC Farmers' Market and you'll be floored by the range of local ingredients on offer: tropical rambutan, sea asparagus, wild mushrooms, bitter melon, abalone, goat cheese, duck eggs, sweet Ewa corn, tangerines, taro, Kona coffee beans, Maui lavender, avocados the size of your head. For a traveler accustomed to islands in, say, the Caribbean—where fresh local produce is depressingly scarce—the variety and quality of homegrown foods is startling.
"People say we can grow anything in Hawaii, and it's true," says Gary Maunakea-Forth of MA'O Farms. On a tour of the farm's 24 acres, he shows me the new experimental garden, where a blueberry shrub is now thriving in the shade of a papaya tree. (Michelle Obama, who's made multiple visits to MA'O during the First Family's trips to Hawaii, has planted her own small vegetable plot nearby.)
Star fruit, mangosteens, blueberries: Hawaii is blessed with such natural bounty that it's shocking to learn that the state actually imports 85 percent of its food, at a cost of $3.6 billion a year. Dismaying but true: between the high price of local labor, the loss of farmland to rezoning, and the vagaries of the global supply chain, it's cheaper (at least superficially) for Hawaiians to ship food in rather than grow it themselves. This, in one of the most remote places on earth.
Back on the mainland—and in my own archipelago of New York City—chefs tend to speak of sustainability as an ethic rather than as a necessity. But the locavore argument takes on a very real urgency on a chain of islands 2,500 miles removed from anyplace else.
Of course, before Europeans arrived, the islands' food supply was entirely self-sustaining, thanks to sophisticated farming and fishing systems developed by ancient Hawaiians. "Our ancestors lived here for thousands of years with no imports, feeding a population close to what we have today, by putting every acre of land into production," says Kamuela Enos, of MA'O Farms. "They weren't just dancing hula—they were scientists and naturalists, figuring out how to live on a finite biosystem indefinitely." In the plantation era, however, Hawaiians were steadily driven off their farms and removed from the land. Today, fewer than 1 percent of Hawaii's residents work in agriculture, and fewer still are growing actual food for Hawaiians to eat. (Hawaii is now the world's leading producer of genetically engineered seed corn—some 10 million pounds of it per year—every ounce of which is shipped overseas, and none of which is even edible to begin with.)
It's no coincidence that the Hawaiian diet has changed drastically as well. Fiber-rich taro was once the islanders' go-to starch; it's been almost entirely replaced by cheap white rice. (Because of blight, taro is challenging to grow, and is priced beyond the reach of many consumers.) Processed, fried, and fast foods have pushed out still more whole foods and fresh produce. In just a few generations, "traditional food" has come to mean gravy-soaked loco moco breakfasts, greasy plate lunches (with a double scoop of macaroni salad), and musubi rice balls topped with Spam. The state has had an alarmingly high rate of increase in obesity and diabetes, especially among the native Hawaiian population. Poverty plays a huge role in this, of course. There's now a concerted effort among local chefs, farmers, and policy makers to reclaim Hawaii's agrarian roots and to make good food available and affordable across the islands.
On Oahu's windward coast, at the edge of Kaneohe Bay, an old fishing pier juts into the water. Roped alongside are a few dozen houseboats and rusty-hulled fishing boats. At pier's end stands a ramshackle bait-and-coffee shop that, for 30 years, served basic diner grub to fishermen and surfers. Last spring, two local friends—chef Mark Noguchi and restaurateur Russ Inouye—took over the lease. Today, He'eia Pier General Store & Deli is one of the best restaurants in Hawaii, if you could properly call it a restaurant.
Noguchi, 37, was born on Oahu and raised on the Big Island (where he danced hula as a teenager). After training at the Culinary Institute of America, he worked in some of Honolulu's top kitchens, including Town and Chef Mavro. At He'eia Pier, Noguchi gets back to basics, elevating traditional Hawaiian food—using fresh fish, organic meats, and local produce—without elevating the prices. No dish costs more than $13.
The daily-changing menu reads like a familiar array of plate-lunch staples, but when the food arrives you realize it's on another plane entirely. Noguchi's ahi katsu is delicate and flaky, brightened with fresh scallions and spiced with a surprisingly nuanced teriyaki sauce. His musubi are light and fluffy and shaped like dainty quenelles, nothing like the leaden, gummy rice balls Hawaiians are accustomed to; in lieu of the regulation Spam, they're paired with a terrific "tuna salad"—chopped ahi dressed with shiso, onion, Kewpie mayo, vinegar, and torn mint. And Noguchi's marvelously elemental luau stew—tender chunks of slow-cooked pork, onions, and taro leaf (tasting like spinach crossed with fenugreek)—could make a Hawaiian grandmother weep. The milieu is comfort food, but refined and enhanced. (As my friend Christine Quinlan at Food & Wine has noted, this may be the only plate-lunch joint in Hawaii with two immersion circulators in the kitchen.)
Like Ed Kenney, Noguchi is fond of sourcing odd, overlooked ingredients, such as akulikuli (a.k.a. sea purslane), a tidal succulent that he harvests just down the shore. The plant's magenta flowers are used to make leis, but few younger Hawaiians realize that akulikuli leaves are actually edible: crisp, full of juice, and deliciously salty. Noguchi uses them in a zesty salad with pickled limu seaweed, Hawaiian chiles, and plump local tomatoes.
High-tech kitchen notwithstanding, He'eia Pier remains the same weather-beaten shack it always was. You can still buy a bilge pump or a gallon of outboard-motor oil along with your meal. The old-timers still turn up—only now they share picnic tables with food pilgrims from Honolulu, as well as the occasional biker gang, who've no doubt heard the rumors about Noguchi's phenomenal cheeseburger. After lunch they linger on the pier to watch the paddleboarders drift by, or gaze at the verdant slopes of the Koolau Range, whose sculpted peaks are usually shrouded in mist by midday. Following a rain shower—a near-daily occurrence on the eastern coast—the entire mountainside lights up with waterfalls.
Noguchi is just one of several island restaurateurs who've traded white linens and wine stems for a more democratic setting. Henry Adaniya was the toast of Chicago at his acclaimed restaurant, Trio (where wunderkind chef Grant Achatz, now of Alinea, got his start). In 2006 Adaniya shut Trio, left Chicago, and moved to his parents' hometown of Honolulu to start…a hot dog joint. As at He'eia Pier, the food at Hank's Haute Dogs is far, far better than it needs to be.
Over on the Big Island, chef Edwin Goto, a veteran of luxury hotel kitchens, recently downshifted to set up Village Burger, located next to an Orange Julius in a Waimea shopping center. Goto is serious about his farm-to-fork. Not only is the beef local (Hawaii Ranchers red veal; Kahua Ranch Wagyu beef), but so are all the trimmings: Kekela Farms baby greens; Nakano Farms tomatoes; Hawaii Island Goat Dairy chèvre; Hamakua mushrooms.
Just up the road is the promising Allen's Table, opened last fall by Allen Hess, who previously ran the kitchen at Merriman's, the long-running HRC bastion in downtown Waimea. Hess's new place has two faces: by day it's a freewheeling roadhouse specializing in barbecue (the brisket is fantastic). At night the votives, tablecloths, and jars of flowers come out, and Hess gets creative. A salad combining fresh and fried green-zebra tomatoes (grown year-round at nearby Honda Farm) is laced with silken house-made ricotta and topped with smoked Kona kampachi (jackfish). Grilled ika (squid) finds a provocative partner in melt-on-your-tongue short ribs. And Hess's grass-fed Big Island rib eye is damn near perfect, with a distinctly buttery character. "That's because we finish the beef on avocados," he says, flashing an impish smile. Huh? "Yeah, it was an idea born of a few beers in the backyard. Like, 'How good would that taste?' A friend owns an avocado orchard, so I paid him a few hundred bucks to dump a truckful at the ranch. The cattle are raised on pasture, but for the last month they gorge on avocados." Hess is on to something. That beef was delicious.
Oahu has a reputation for overpriced food, one that's certainly justified at the tonier resorts. But you can also eat exceptionally well in the least assuming places, wearing little more than board shorts and flip-flops. (Trust me, you'll fit in better if you do.)
You can, for instance, find a soul-stirring tuna poke made by a Korean lady at the back of the Kahuku Superette, a dingy-looking North Shore grocery store. You can get a fabulous, fiery pad kee mao at Opal Thai, a bare-bones surfers' hangout in Haleiwa run by Bangkok-born chef Opel Sirichandhra, who started with a food truck before going brick-and-mortar last November. You could spend a whole afternoon in the food court of Honolulu's Shirokiya department store, sampling hundreds of humble Japanese delicacies—from salmon-roe donburi to yakisoba (fried noodles), from sautéed okra to hot, gooey, made-to-order takoyaki (octopus fritters). You could troll the industrial district near the Honolulu airport to find Mitch's, a hole-in-the-wall fish market that hides one of the city's top sushi bars. You could also make the rounds among Oahu's vaunted food trucks, which have exploded in popularity and number, going from 90 three years ago to more than 250 today. (What, you thought L.A. owned that game?)
Or you could have a great meal at one of the itinerant lunch stands that set up inside local farmers' markets. Best among the current crop: The Pig & The Lady, run by a young Vietnamese-American chef named Andrew Le. His family is there to help: Le's three siblings, plus their Hanoi-born mom and Hue-born dad. (They've also hired a Japanese translator for the bazillion Japanese tourists who descend on the weekend markets.) Le's bun bo Hue—the lusty, spicy noodle soup of his father's hometown—is the finest I've had outside Vietnam; if you look serious about it he'll drop in a slow-cooked pig's trotter. The Japanese swoon over bo la lot (grilled beef wrapped in betel leaf) and Hoi An–style com ga (chicken rice seasoned with turmeric and topped with shredded banana leaf).
Three nights a week, Le takes over the storefront space at Hank's Haute Dogs and transforms it into a remarkable pop-up restaurant, also called The Pig & The Lady. It's here that the chef really shines, with an ever-changing, five-course tasting menu. A recent dinner started with a knockout punch: Chioggia beets, speck, and raspberries, draped in horseradish crème fraîche and sprinkled with mint. Kaffir lime and Vietnamese lemongrass gave a kick to the salmon cured with Sichuan peppercorns, fennel, and grapefruit. A crispy confit pork belly was plated with pickled onions and black rice purée, topped with a soft quail egg, then drizzled in a sriracha vinaigrette.
So hold on a minute. Aren't some of Le's dishes—with their East/West flavor collisions—pretty much what we used to call "fusion"?
Well...yes. We just don't use that word anymore. Yet for many Americans, fusion-by-any-other-name is precisely how we eat now. Young chefs are again turning east (and west, north, and south) for inspiration, and embracing the remix, the hybrid, the mash-up: the Korean taco, the sunchoke-and-beef-cheek shu mai. The "f" word forms the angle at so many zeitgeist-defining restaurants, from Lukshon, Spice Table, and A-Frame in Los Angeles to Wong, Fatty 'Cue, and Talde in New York City. To a new generation of American diners, the once-exotic tastes of lemongrass and kimchi are as familiar as home cooking. These days you'll find a bottle of sriracha sauce—the ketchup of the 2010's—on every hipster's table.
What, then, do we call this post-global culinary style? "Transcontinental food"? "Srirachan Cuisine"? Maybe, for once, we should just call it "cooking." For there's a natural, homey quality to the current school. While Reagan-era fusion came off as soulless and inauthentic—like its musical analogue, jazz-rock fusion—today's iteration feels more organic, more real, in part by dispensing with the "authenticity" issue altogether. Chefs have moved beyond both the limitations of tradition and the cloyingness of novelty for novelty's sake. They're aiming not for purity but for pure deliciousness—and to hell with where it came from.
Another reason fusion originally lost its cred on the mainland: all those exotic ingredients flew in the face of the emerging locavore movement. In Hawaii that conflict goes out the window. Unlike in, say, Minneapolis—where local yuzu and wasabi are nonexistent—Hawaii's brand of fusion cooking runs hand-in-hand with the field-to-fork ethic. "A third of our menu at He'eia Pier is sourced in our immediate area," Mark Noguchi says. If almost anything can indeed be grown in Hawaii, from lychees and persimmons to vanilla and cacao, why shouldn't island chefs embrace all that bounty, in its myriad combinations?
And so Hawaii, after years out of culinary fashion and favor, finds itself once again in sync with the times, on multiple fronts. But as Noguchi is quick to point out, trendiness has nothing to do with it. "This is how Hawaiians have been eating all their lives," the chef says. "My entire larder is ingredients I grew up with." So-called fusion cooking—be it refined Hawaii Regional Cuisine or a down-and-dirty teriyaki loco moco—never went away here. How could it? From the earliest Marquesan settlers onward, the islands have been defined by far-flung influences, resulting in a remarkable demographic diversity: Polynesian, Filipino, Japanese, Portuguese, Chinese, Malay, British, Vietnamese, and on and on.
"Hawaii has always been a melting pot of ethnicities, cultures, and cuisines, as much as New York or Miami, if not more so," Noguchi says. "Look at us: we are fusion. Here it's not just a concept or some fleeting trend—it's a way of life."
Peter Jon Lindberg is T+L's editor-at-large.
When to Go
Favorable trade winds mean Hawaii's weather is great year-round, but visit between April and November for warmer, drier conditions.
Getting There
Most major airlines fly to Oahu's Honolulu International Airport (HNL); some also service Kona International Airport (KOA), on the Big Island.
Halekulani 2199 Kalia Rd., Honolulu; 800/367-2343; halekulani.com; doubles from $435.
Kahala Hotel & Resort 5000 Kahala Ave., Honolulu; 800/367-2525; kahalaresort.com; doubles from $425.
Mauna Kea Beach Hotel 62-100 Mauna Kea Beach Dr., Kohala Coast, Big Island; 877/880-6524; maunakeabeachhotel.com; doubles from $525.
Great Value Waikoloa Beach Marriott Resort & Spa 69-275 Waikoloa Beach Dr., Waikoloa, Big Island; 877/359-3696; marriott.com; doubles from $209.
Allen's Table 64-957 Mamalahoa Hwy., Waimea, Big Island; 808/885-6268; dinner for two $100.
Hank's Haute Dogs 324 Coral St., Honolulu; 808/532-4265; lunch for two $16.
He'eia Pier General Store & Deli 46-499 Kamehameha Hwy., Kaneohe, Oahu; 808/235-2192; lunch for two $26.
Kahuku Superette 56-505 Kamehameha Hwy., Kahuku, Oahu; 808/293-9878; tuna poke for two $17.
Mitch's Fish Market & Sushi Bar 524 Ohohia St., Honolulu; 808/837-7774; dinner for two $70.
Opal Thai 66-460 Kamehameha Hwy., Haleiwa, Oahu; 808/381-8091; dinner for two $47.
The Pig & The Lady See thepigandthelady.com for dates and reservations for the pop-up restaurant. Also visit their stand at the KCC Farmers' Market (see listing below).
Shirokiya Food Halls Ala Moana Shopping Center, 1450 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu.
Town 3435 Waialae Ave., Honolulu; 808/735-5900; dinner for two $80.
Village Burger Parker Ranch Center, 67-1185 Mamalahoa Hwy., Waimea, Big Island; 808/885-7319; lunch for two $27.
Haleiwa Farmers' Market Joseph P. Leong Bypass and Kamehameha Hwy., Haleiwa, Oahu; Sundays, 9 a.m.–1 p.m.
KCC Farmers' Market Kapiolani Community College, 4303 Diamond Head Rd., Honolulu; Saturdays, 7:30 a.m.–11 a.m.
Madre Chocolate Oahu's first bean-to-bar chocolate operation, which occasionally offers chocolate-making classes and cacao-plantation tours. 20A Kainehe St., Kailua, Oahu; 808/377-6440; madrechocolate.com.
MA'O Organic Farms maoorganicfarms.org. Look for their stand at the KCC Farmers' Market.
Waikoloa Beach Marriott Resort & Spa
Kohala Coast property on 15 oceanfront acres with a Polynesia-meets-Asia vibe after the recent $54 million renovation.
Kahala Hotel & Resort
Oahu classic—fresh from a three-year, $52 million renovation—with thoughtful in-room details (Egyptian-cotton linens; chenille robes; oversize rainfall showerheads). This 1964 colossus benefits from having about it a whiff of retro glamour. It was here, at what was then a Hilton and known as the Kahollywood, that Richard Burton and Liz Taylor hid out from the paparazzi in a private cabana.


text:
By Jason Miks
GPS digital producer Jason Miks sits down with renowned evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, author of the Selfish Gene and An Appetite for Wonder, to discuss readers' questions on religion, its role in society and whether children can be described as "Christian."
A number of readers noting your skepticism over religion's role in society ask whether an absence of religion would leave us without a moral compass?
The very idea that we get a moral compass from religion is horrible. Not only should we not get our moral compass from religion, as a matter of fact we don't. We shouldn't, because if you actually look at the bible or the Koran, and get your moral compass from there, it's horrible – stoning people to death, stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.
Now of course we don't do that anymore, but the reason we don't do it is that we pick out those verses of the bible that we like, and reject those verses we don't like. What criteria do we use to pick out the good ones and reject the bad ones? Non-biblical criteria, non-religious criteria. The same criteria as guide any modern person in their moral compass that has nothing to do with religion.
So the moral compass of any person is very much a part of the century or even the decade in which they happen to live, regardless of their religion. So we live in the early 21st century, and our moral compass in the early 21st century is quite different from 100 years ago, or 200 years ago. We are now much less racist than they were, much less sexist than they were. We are much kinder than non-human animals than they were – all sorts of respects in which we are labeled with a moral compass. So something has changed, and it certainly has nothing to do with religion.
You've been travelling to the States from the U.K. for a number of years. Have you noticed much of a change in the place of religion in the two countries over that time?
Notoriously, the United States is the most religious of the Western advanced nations. It's a bit mysterious why that is. In Britain, Christianity is dying. Islam, unfortunately, isn't. In Western Europe generally, Christianity is dying. Even in America, the figures show that religious adherence is being steadily reduced, and the people who now record themselves as having no religious affiliation is something like 20 percent. Many people don't recognize what a high figure it is, and so politicians here who feel they have to curry favor with religious lobbies should maybe take a look at those statistics and realize that not everyone in this country is religious.
You say it's a bit of a mystery why America is so much more religious than other advanced countries. Do you have any thoughts on why it might be? Tied to that question of disposition, several readers also wondered if there is a genetic predisposition toward faith?
There probably is, but I don't think that really explains why America is so different from Britain. The least implausible suggestion that I've heard is that Britain and Scandinavian countries, which are also very non-religious, have an established church, and that kind of makes religion boring. Whereas in America, there is constitutionally a bar against an established church, and that could be one reason why religion has become so popular – it has become big business, it has become free enterprise, rival churches vie with each other for congregations and especially tax free ties.
Some readers see you as very evangelical in your atheism. Do you feel it a duty, just as some Christians might to share the word of God, to spread an atheist point of view?
Duty is a funny word. But when you say evangelical, I like to think that I don't shout or shriek, but employ a quiet, sober voice of reason. And reason is on our side.
You've talked about feeling uncomfortable with the impact of religion on children. In fact, one reader asked whether you would prefer to see no under-18s at church. What's your take?
I certainly wouldn't wish to prohibit parents influencing their children. However, for the rest of the world, to label a child a Catholic child simply because its parents are Catholic, seems to me to be a form of child abuse. The child is too young to know.
You can see the absurdity of talking about a Catholic child of four when you think what it would be like if we talked about an existentialist child of four, or a logical positivist of four. In other words, we wouldn't accept the labeling of a child based the parents' belief, so why do we accept it when it's religion? Why does religion get a free pass when it comes to labeling children in this way?
Am so happy someone like Dawkins speaks for me.
With 20% of the population now saying that they are religiously unaffiliated, its just a matter of time before this religious charade comes to a painful ending. Mathematicians have predicted that within 100 years religion as we now know it, will be comprised of a very small minority. In the end, science and critical thinking will win out in this country.
You think science and critical thinking are going to win out? That's funny.
Human nature hasn't changed in ten thousand years. The veneer of civilization is slightly thicker and more polished, but wait until the oil runs out in 50 to 60 years and there are no large scale alternatives in place.
It is going to be a madhouse with religious fundamentalism on one side and outright anarchy on the other.
Julie – I hope you are right. The sooner the better.
I think people have a rosey-eyed view of what a typical Atheist is like. Go hang out in a prison with some violent offenders; most of them didn't grow up attending church.
About 80% were regular church attendees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's always curious to see people who think they can just make up facts and people will believe them.
There is a a significant number of people in the world who are not progressive sheep.
100% of the H.D. Harvey's in the world are 100% wrong on 100% of what they comment on.
If that's how you feel will, I'll never watch fresh prince again.
Bil willie day is also off the table.
the vast majority are christians..
And from your post? You show clearly how uncaring and uncivilized you are.. Most those in jails you imply are sinners.. Yet most were once innocent children who needed help but neglected by those as you. Yep,, call them sinners. How wonderful.
Bet you didn't know that the vast majority in prisons are mentally ill due to childhood trauma.. Then again,, you love to judge and spew your uncivilized beliefs.
Statistics show over 74% of prison inmates are Christian. Less than .2% are atheists. Religion drives crimes against society through its guilt and shame. When you cannot please your god, why should you care about your fellow humans? Religion makes it all about "you" and your needs when you fail it, for you are outcast and outlaw.
Religion itself is not to blame for the mistakes that humans are capable and prone to making in every field they join or create. No human is perfect and as a consequence nothing we will ever do will truly reach perfection. Why does religion as a whole take the blame for the flaws and inconsistencies of some of its members? Science is not labeled faulty or untrue when postulates don't work, why should religion be? Neither discipline is perfect but both are true. The mistake and the redemption of both these faculties is us.
And please you might want to refrain from defining or explaining a term for which you do not have any respect. True reasoning come from having respect to different aspects of knowledge. Don't label religion or God if you don't respect it enough to truly consider and attempt to understand it.
I don't think you can say religion drives crimes against society through guilt and shame, I think guilt and share are cultural and exist where ever society forms. But according to your logic, it would suggest that atheists are people who cannot please society and feel guilty and ashamed so they take it out on religion.
Btw, prisons have low populations of atheists because most atheists are of the upper middle class, college educated, and white. These people are generally minority numbers in any prison system regardless of religious affiliation.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons has studied and surveyed this material for decades. According to them, atheists make up 0.2% of the prison population.
That number could possibly be skewed if the prisoners believe that being religious will get them parole sooner. Of course, that can't be the case because that would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Our state parole boards couldn't possibly be religiously discriminatory.
nice try,, then again,, doesn't religion do just that. make believe, fabricate and excuse you for your evils..
I'd say that would make them mostly christian
Wow, thanks for that stat, optikradio. I am an atheist and it has long been my belief that the majority of inmates in U.S. prisons are believers in some form of religion.
That statistic is quoted over and over again. It's from 1997. There are no recent studies or statistic that prove this on a national level (read US), never mind on an international level. That's pretty sloppy science. Where are the statistics from the past decade? Answer: There are none.
Will S,
I have one word for you: FAIL!
Quite true Will S, quite true indeed. Good posting on your part!
Good post? I Guess you don't bother with facts either?
Of course interesting posts are easier to manufacture if facts are optional.
How do you know the religious affiliations of prisoners? That is quite an assumption you are making.
I think the point is, anyone can call themselves whatever they'd like, however we all know Christianity as proclaimed in the New Testament, does not command a Christian to break the law. We are actually commanded to be subject to the higher powers as God has ordained government. Therefore, you can question the Christianity of one who repeatedly commits/practices sin. By your fruits ye shall know them. It would be safe to say the Spirit of God is not in him. Just a thought.
HA! You lie like most Christians do when cornered. The Federal Bureau of Prisons released data on 218, 167 prisoners in April 2013 which showed that only a small percentage of the prison population called themselves atheists. It reported a .02 percent population of atheists in prison. The report also indicated that those who called themselves Christians tended to be less educated and more prone to violent crimes.
That statement is patently false. There are no more atheists in prison than in the general population.
um, most did attend church and that is why they are in prison. Only religion makes good people do evil things...and they do it for an invisible skydaddy
did you know not having kids is hereditary? if your parents didnt have kids, chances are you wont either. so please, do us all a favor and dont have kids.
I'm going to go all out and suggest that this post was made by an atheist, relishing in the atheist-defensive comments to follow. I don't need any statistics to guess that the majority of prisoners are/were religious. Why do I see atheism proposed so often as the opposite of religion, as the only counterpart? Of course modern religion can be blamed for so many of our sufferings and hatred. But rejecting religion does not mean rejecting God, just as rejecting Santa Claus doesn't mean you'll never get any gifts.
Religious fanatics don't usually go to prison, they're usually the ones putting other people in prison or torturing them for having different beliefs than they do. Either that, or blowing themselves up in the name of their god. Whatever good religion may do is easily outweighed by the horrendous acts it allows people to justify. There will always be bad people, but religion makes good people do bad things.
I don't think it is this easy. The real problem is we have lots of poor people who want free stuff from governments and their elected officials. Many politicians got elected for promising taking from the rich and give it to the poor. So the Republican Party has to court bunch religious idiots to vote for them.
yes,, the wealthy vatican taking our tax dollar to promote their flag.. ie catholic charities,, enables the catholic name to be spread out yet financed by tax dollars.
In case most are unfamiliar with CC.. It's an organization that produces cheap services never addressing the real problems of society, children in need of good therapy.
I'm no catholic, however the Vatican is also a recognized state and the Pope its head of state. Complain all you want about what they do with tax money...that's what governments do.
they take our money.. grant money..
Each person is afforded the right to state the ideas and opinions. It is the small and immature minded that attack what is stated. The mature minded accepts the statement and expresses their view in a manner that others can accept it. What I find most illuminating is that those who must have a supreme power are least able to express their logic. I was a minister for over twenty years and a Christian for perhaps forty. Yet, my mental evolution has brought me to an understanding that religion serves itself and not its people. When we sat in our caves, huddled against the thunder and lightning, we had to reason a "why" to that which frightened us. Over centuries our fears continued to enlighten our understanding. We seek salvation to stave off the fear of the Hell which we created to control ourselves and others.
When we loose ourselves of this Earth, may we do it without carrying our mythology into interstellar expeditions.
So Dawkins uses Websters as his moral compass! What could possibly go wrong with that? (tongue in cheek)
Perhaps he uses empathy and compassion rather than a book.
well stated.. in fact I find that to be a strong attribute among most atheist I know.
most people go to church to listen to the iman, rabbi, priest, reverend etc tell them if they believe and go to church every week and be devout that they will never die but go to heaven, Eden, paradise etc.. They really believe they will never die, but they and their loved ones will be together for eternity.
My question has always been what if they loved a whole bunch of men, women etc are they all going to be together in that place? It could get really messy!~!!!!!!!!
Always been my point too. What if you never got along with your parents or siblings ....would you be stuck in heaven with them?
If you truely think that christians are accepting of others, just tell a group of them that you're an atheist and watch religious persecution at its best. Both sides of the issue react strongly because the other side does. It's a vicious circle.
If the Christians that you know get onto you for being atheist, you are hanging around the wrong people.
Certainly, I have been told many times how I am going to hell, typically by people I have no inclination to hang around. Others have been obnoxious in their proselytizing (I guess they are trying to save my soul, but it gets annoying after a while). But most Christians I have told that I am atheist do not care in the slightest.
And I live in the bible belt, so I doubt you are from an area more religious than the area I am from.
Been there. Done that. If you think Church n a z i s give you a ration of grief now, try doing it 50+ years ago.
I totally disagree with AL . Atheists or non believer in a deity is NOT a religion .
It is a system of belief based on the reasoning behind observations. However, these observations stem from an unclear and incomplete perception of reality (a fact well studied in science) and so one must have faith that the observations presented to us are indeed real. Then we use science to explain the nature, beginning and unfolding of our "observed" reality. You DO need faith in science- what is science worth for if the only ones that can attest for its validity and application is us? Religion is much the same, only instead of having faith in only observation, one has faith the WHY of the universe/ perceived reality.
Diana, it is not a SYSTEM of beliefs, it is a single belief. That's it.
You do not get to invent a system and say that it's what atheists believe. It's dishonest. It is NOT based on reason as a rule, it is NOT based on anything. It is a SINGLE BELIEF and nothing more. It is simply not true that atheism is based on any common thought process. I know atheists who believe in magic!!
You are doing no better than the people claiming that atheism is a religion.
Donna, science is a system of beliefs. That is apparent to anyone who studies science. You do not only believe in the theory of relativity don't you? Scientists incorporate myriad of theories (beliefs-reasoning of observations) to make an "accurate" portrayal of reality. As to me saying what atheists believe- why do you then criticize and attempt to undermine religion? Every belief (or at least a good one) MUST be based on something. Atheists portray religious people as being blindly ignorant, but if Atheism were just a single belief in a non deity as you seem to put it independent from reason then it is JUST or MORE foolish than faith in a deity. Please, some criticizing hypocrisy if you are inconsistent in your statements. If you were to say that Atheism arises from reason, THEN I would respect your stance more, whilst arguing that your reasoning is flawed. But criticizing religion, and portraying Atheism as a single belief based on nothing rational – you're just insulting you'e own views. Maybe you should reconsider them.
As to those atheists who claim to believe in magic- I'd call them confused or at most delusional. You can't prove God (some would argue) but you can't disprove him. But magic as an independent concept does not make sense at all. That's just someone who is too lazy to fully analyze their beliefs. If you were to give me a detailed explanation of magic and why it conflicts or does not conflict with a the implications of a Deity or with postulates of science I might be more lenient. But having a belief without a basis for defending and implementing it is just wrong.
Atheism and science are NOT the same things. They are not interchangeable. Science is a process, not a belief system. People might believe that it's valuable or invaluable, and there are beliefs involved in the practice, but the fact remains, that science itself is not a system of beliefs.
Sometimes Atheism stems from reason and sometimes it doesn't. Because atheism refers only to a single thing, you cannot say that anything else is common among atheists.
Diana, belief in god, is belief in magic. Belief in ghosts, karma, heaven, reincarnation- it's all magically thinking. It's amusing you defend some magical thinking but call others delusional.
What a hypocrite.
I never said Science and Religion are interchangeable much less the same thing! What I said implies that they are not contradictory opposites. As for magic, religion is not magic, but someone who does not understand it might label it as such. I said i would believe in magic insofar as someone can talk rationally about it. That being said, what I DONT understand is how someone can believe in the metaphysical distortion of "magic" and not believe in a metaphysical world or Creator. If someone, believing in magic but not in God or the afterlife could rationally explain his or her belief (which seems a tad paradoxical) I would be more lenient. Belief in magic is NOT a belief in God. Again I urge you to please not superimpose a term on another you don't and do not want to attempt to understand. If someone were not to believe in God, the only legitimate reason aside from "i don't want to" would be because "I don't think He exists". The former is a juvenile albeit common response, but the second, which is the ONE belief you are so excited to point out, should have some origin as to why it popped up in your head. Otherwise, you are indeed guilty of fanciful delusions or poor reasoning/intellectual capabilities. Again, magic is not religion and religion is not magic. Magic is a practice or belief in using supernatural forces to influence the physical world. The belief in God is the belief in a metaphysical/physical duality in the universe which is governed by a supreme being. As to being hypocritical, I do not believe I am. But what I do notice is that you seem to argue passionately (and illogically) about a topic you haven't TRULY contemplated. I suggest you think more about what you write and refrain from believe there are no alternatives. I am by no way telling yo to believe something you don't want to, but in order to truly defend your beliefs you must know WHY, HOW, and WHY NOT you should have them. Mind me, the last part is the most important, because it will give you a truer and stronger perspective. With that said, I hope you do care enough to ask more questions about religion/God, atheism, etc. and do so without bias, without ignorance, and most importantly without taking yourself too seriously.
As to science being a process and not a set of beliefs- science is a STUDY. The scientific method, or any other reasoning method, is indeed the process that obtains information for this study. The thing is I have been a practician and lover of science for all my life really, and indeed through science one asks questions, investigates and consequently gathers answers. But science is not a verb, even though it implies a process- it is a noun (not studying, but a study) This study obtains information that in order to build upon it hold to be true (until further notice). You have to believe or assume that your previous, well tested conclusion was true to move forth. Because of this discipline called "science" we have "discovered" that sensory input, especially visual is highly modified before reaching the cerebral cortex. Knowing this we have to believe that what we see to study is indeed real, and we can (for the most basic steps) begin studying first what we see. Math (as mathematicians would say-the "purest science") is the most faithful belief systems I have ever studied. We cannot see a one, we cannot feel a one, we cannot here a one yet we believe there exists a concept such as a 1. Consequently we believe concepts such as 2, 3, 4, etc also exist. There is no way to prove math as any method of proving it would require the same assumption used to create this belief. Yet we have FAITH that 1, 2, radicals ,etc DO exist, even though there is no rational reason to believe they do- we invented them. And after inventing this system that is not really tangible, it is just a concept (much like God in the eyes of an atheist) we attempt to EXPLAIN the world through its laws. Nonetheless, it must have SOME good, as many contributions arose from this concept. But any knowledge obtained from this unprovable system must be taken with faith that it is the ONLY knowledge possible. Atheist who can actually (somewhat hypocritically) justify their beliefs do in the end have FAITH that they TRULY know what is around them, and that the world is just as they can analyze or observe it.
Diana, I'm sorry but you don't seem to be able to keep the conversation straight. We were talking about atheism and science, not science and religion.
"As to science being a process and not a set of beliefs- science is a STUDY."
The study of something through science IS A PROCESS Einstein.
Please recall what you say, we WERE talking about religion, science and atheism. You know a conversation CAN branch into other topics related to it. It IS allowed in this universe. As for the science- science is a study of our surrounding. It is a discipline. The process by which this study is formed is through observation, etc. It is not the same as studying something. You don't science something, you study something that forms part of a study called science. Please, please try to think outside the box, or at all.
Diana, I was very clear about what we were talking about:
I said:
"Atheism and science are NOT the same things. They are not interchangeable."
To which you replied, "I never said Science and Religion are interchangeable much less the same thing!"
Yes, you can bring new things into the conversation, but pretending I said science and religion, as you claimed, when I most definitely did not, makes you look like a person with no integrity. That was pretty much lying on your part...
You're hopeless on the science thing. You don't seem to have a good grasp of the language. Nothing you have said contradicts what I have told you.
Diana, don't expect primadonna to actually quote you correctly. In spite of her two degrees she has not mastered he art of correctly quoting anyone accurately, and actually likes to lie about what people have said to try gaining her points. She's a rude patronizing and lying fraud . Who has no actual interest in respectful discussion, but only to try swinging her college degrees, in history and anthropology she actually dares to claim, as a club against believers. She's arrogant and rude. Dont hold your breath on not being misinterpreted by this liar.
Disillusioned, you are a psychotic, stalker freak. You are a liar, it is NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO CHANGE YOUR COMMENTS. You have some kind of paranoia if you think I can go in and change what you wrote!
You are so embarrassed at your own words, that you concocted this fantasy that I somehow altered your quotes. You cannot do that in this system. What we see is what YOU wrote.
You are delusional. GET HELP.
What's the matter, you don't like being pointed out as a misquoting liar? You're all about tthe truth as you feel it to be, suck some up yourself. Time and again you wante to tell me how wrong I was, though my point made perfect sense in light of social connections to natural selection. You lied about what I said and try to breezily gloss over that as if it had no bearing. Suck on some of it back.
I am aware that you began with the idea of bashing religion and then lobbying for an atheism that does not depend on reason. I explained and tried to point out that as much as you would like to make religion seem "delusional" a belief in non existence of a deity (or anything really) cannot arise from nothing because then it WOULD be a delusion. You don't seem to understand that if you want to believe what you want do so, but respect other beliefs, as well as your own. Believe with an informed mind or a feeling soul but don't believe without justification. If you do so, and I greatly perceive this is your case, for all your arguing and inconsistent statements you don't truly believe what you think you do. Best of luck figuring it out, and the way you are gonna sort ANY belief is not by believing you ARE absolutely right, but by acknowledging the possibility that you are wrong. Meanwhile refrain from attacking concepts you don't want to or can't understand when you can't explain your own view. Good luck.
Diana, I was never bashing religion. Please reread our comments, clearly you are inventing things that you think I've said.
I applause your views.
....and I claps at your pronouncements
I've never particularly cared for John Lennon's "Imagine." Something about it jarred my musicality. But it came on the radio the other night, and for once, I let it play. And I cried. Why? Because that is my dream, in my heart of hearts. No religion, no borders, no wars, no greed – just a species protecting each other and thriving on this earth. Yes, I am an atheist. And I dream of truth and compassion for us all.
"But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
"The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein
But if laws alone were effective in regulating criminal behavior, prisons would be empty.
Thing is, atheists need to stop being hypocritical. They're a religion, they should just come out and say it. Proponents of the view have acted in pretty much every way a religion has acted. They have bibles (Dawkins' books, for one), they try to push other religions out (anytime you see an atheist groups trying to get religious symbols removed from public places; the lack of such symbols is THEIR symbol), and so on. My father is borderline atheist, and he lost his wife of 50+ years (my mom) a few months ago and the idea that there is absolutely nothing after death is driving him insane with grief. I get the feeling a lot of folks who spend their time and energy trying to convince people there is no afterlife (oh, yeah, that's another area where atheism is a religion – conversion attempts) have never experienced such a loss and trying to come to grips with the fact that, if there is no afterlife, then all that person was is gone forever.
Al, I am sorry, but your bitterness does not define others. I call myself an atheist simply because I would like people with religion to understand that I am diametrically opposed to it. And your father's personal struggle with grief, again, does not define what it means to be an atheist. I lost my husband. I grieved (and still do at times). But I take comfort that he has returned to the earth that spawned us. I take comfort that he lived a good life and lived it well, and was a great mate for me. Religion does not need to be a part of my grieving process simply because someone else can't understand why it's not.
You know, that's an interesting – does our inability to accept nothing at the end of life drive us to believe in something that will? Our entire existence is one of there always being a tomorrow, another day. Even when others around us pass away.
A religion is a set of beliefs. Atheism refers to one, single belief or lack of belief, so it cannot be a religion. It's a simple matter of facts.
There is nothing whatsoever that atheists share other than a lack of belief in a deity. I have know atheists who believe in ghosts, I know atheists who believe in mystical karma, even reincarnation. Most atheists I know have never even read Dawkins.
You can't just kick and scream and call a single belief a religion. It doesn't work that way....I see you're upset and looking for a group to blame, but I'm sorry, there is no atheist religion.
I have never read any of Dawkin's books, and I find it humorous that you're trying to classify atheists as a religion. You make my day 🙂
It is interesting...I was at the library the other day leafing through the magazine "Reason" the one put out by atheists. One of the articles, and in a positive light, dealt with athiests starting churches and meeting on Sundays. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now if they can just get their doctrine straight. 🙂
I can't get over just how many people are posting in here to lambaste God. This alone shows just how much Atheism is taking hold here in America. How many of these idiots have ever thought out how the universe works and the beauty of the lands around us? Did it ever occur to these people that there was an intelligent being behind all of this? Evidently not! On the other hand, how many of these people are truly happy? Not many, I believe!
no proof of a god ever proven to exist.. Please clarify your position.
Quinton, that's just it: I never quite realized the beauty of the universe until I realized I'd become an atheist. When I stopped focusing on an afterlife, and started caring about THIS life – then, then life became truly beautiful. There is no need for a deity to appreciate the wonder of the world.
I had the same experience.
That's just it- God IS the world. And when you TRULY wonder at this world, at our lives, at our very existence,emotions, etc. You have to question HOW (science) WHAT (surroundings) WHY (God). Math, biology everything points to intelligent design, unlike Hawkings asserts. When you consider the sheer astronomical mathematical factors and the sheer magnitude of the universe, and couple that with human, nature, emotion ,and ability to appreciate beauty and reason, one starts to wonder why, and why us. I have utmost respect for science, and a great appreciation for beauty, but the sheer magnitude of brilliance in the universe highlights an innate (well-hidden) humility, and I HAVE to open my mind to the possibility of a creator. The universe's beauty and my admiration of it compels me to.
The fact that you and I are both posting on this topic means we are both just about as happy as each other at the moment. We both think there's something wrong with society – you think that people should be more fearing of a god you've never seen but are convinced exists... and I think people should be less fearing and enjoy life more and realize that nothing we do can NOT have a negative impact on SOMETHING...
For instance, are you a consumer of bottled goods? I invite you to take a look at what plastics are doing to seabird chicks–their parents are feeding them bottle cap tops/rings and disposable lighters, bracelets, beads, etc. They are dying with literally stomachfuls of plastic. What if God had created a more godlike species than us, and their waste looked to us like edible food? Would be kind of cruel of him, wouldn't it? No, I'm maybe not as blissful as you are... but be warned that ignorance is bliss and people who contribute to the suffering of others and fail to educate themselves on things such as the horrific plight of the seabirds in lieu of educating themselves on a 2,000 year-old long-dead torture victim will not be spared from ceasing completely to exist without ensuring that future generations can sustain themselves. What will ensure our ability to sustain ourselves millions of years from now? Religion?! L O L
You'll have to remember...Clinton Dawkins says it's stupid to ask "why". This is how they get around the big topic of creation. We're supposed to believe in some explosion which set everything in order, and in PRECISE order. Everything we see (cars, buildings, watches) was created.....but the matter which makes up the Universe? Nah, that just sort of happened. Right.
Reading Dawkins' responses makes it obvious he has never actually read the Bible and has no understanding of the subject matter he is talking about. This is typical of most atheists. They have a lack of education on what they are actually fighting against. Consistently referring to old testament practices which don't even apply to the faith. If you actually read the book the new testament explains to you exactly why the OT happened and why it doesn't apply anymore. The logical failures in Dawkins' comments are huge. It is a travesty that other uneducated people get their information from this man considering him an expert on subjects he doesn't understand due to his own lack of education on the subjects.
Well said, Jerad L. Thank you for your enlightened post above. By the way, I want to thank Quinton above, too!
much like complaining someone never read all of Marvel's comic books, yet they make a decision that these are just silly and entertaining books of fabrications.
I'd much rather put down the book that makes people hate other religions and AT MOST become 'good people' at the expense of having a closed mind and less tolerance for difference in culture... and pick up books that continue to allow us to fight disease, build more efficient cities of people who live more efficiently, create computers and machines which spread ideas that aren't poison to the planet, and make million-ton vehicles that will be able to rocket us into space.
Just me, though. Get over your own piousness and ACTUALLY better yourself.
Jerad You need to do some fact checks .First surveys have shown that Atheists have read and understand the Bible better than believers..For the majority that is how they became Atheists Second nowhere in the new testament does it say ignore the old testament in fact it says just the opposite. Do you realize the 10 commandments are in the old testament Are you saying we should ignore them The book religious people call the good book is not good .It is evil .
Your right Artisgreat,the bible,the koran,and all such "holy books" are evil,I just wish we could all see that.Also most christians dont even know the ten commandments, the REAL TEN COMMANDMENTS which can be found in exodus 34.
I can't speak for the next man....but who do I put my trust in??? Many men speak of no God that we should carry on
with no desire to have some sort of moral compass.Really???...for man to have all the answers why does it seem he
can't come up with solutions to the problems he creates?.Can he establish true lasting peace?doesn't look that way.
This is funny...man so sure God didn't create heaven&earth but yet can't truly prove the "big bang" either I won't go on
though I will say this...it just doesn't seem logical to me for man to be so quick to rebuke what may be our only hope
From my own experiences I can tell you how life ended up for me living with no restraints...no moral code(acting as if mom&dad didn't teach me anything)to one step at a time applying God's word...been in less trouble hands down it
isn't easy truth be told living up to the commandments I don't play into debates you got to search things out everything
is up for discussion with me just think it's foolish some men are hard pressed judge yourselves.The Bible is the all time selling book...ever.Many prophetic events spoken of long ago are recorded in secular history to have happened precisely as spoken hmmm.Prophetic events for the end times and those involved are rapidly unfolding on the world stage but yet man can't realize our own human ill willed actions are the very reasons these prophesies have been and are being fulfilled!!! This comment isn't for artisgreat per say...just the place I chose to comment.If you do nothing else love one another...times to hard out here for the BS regardless!!!.
He was raised in a religious home and boarding school with a religious education. He's also been studying this issue for decades. I expect he knows more about the bible than most posters here.
The Scriptures tell us even the devils believe and tremble. That you credit with Dawkins' such a wide swath of Bible knowledge falls flat when you see how he injects OT into everything. Its a misapplication of the Law theologically-he does what every good lawyer/critic does: go after the perceived weakest link of the opposition; when in fact he rarely touches the truth of the New Testament. And we all know why.
Elliot, from your comments, it's clear to me that you are the one who is ignorant about the place of the OT in modern religions.
Coming from one who says Christianity PRESCRIBES violence, I'll wear your criticism as a badge of honor. lol
Well said
human brains are wired to succeed from birth.. yes, that also means many of those in prisons and mental insti-tutions..
What distracts use from that path are childhood traumas;
Telling your child they are a sinner among all sinners is just wrong, negative and reducing them.. trauma #1.
Telling your child about a place they will receive painful third degree burns for eternity,, is frightening, trauma #2
Showing a dead and bloody guy on a cross is just gross.. trauma #3
Instead,, tell your children they are good, love and hug them and help them understand human emotions. Most importantly that people are NOT sinners,, some people were disadvantaged children who were abused and never had anyone to help them cope. Help them understand that there is a physical change in the brain of severely abused children caused by trauma and coping alone. Help them understand that heightened emotions replaces reasoning in the brains of adults who were once abused as children, many were unaware. Teach them not to blame or judge, but to understand and help..
Please keep them away from religions until they are at least 18.. let them make a healthy decision when they are old enough. (I understand that if you don't induct them as children, the brainwashing won't stick as well)
Realist? Please open your eyes and know there is a God. Do you really think something as complex as the human body just banged into existence? How can you look around at the complexity and beauty in nature and not know that there is a God. Children need to go to church with their parents and learn about the reality of God and how to live their life. Taking God out of everything is why this country is declining.
And it just had to be the bible god who made all this huh? Read the bible I mean really read it with your eyes open. The god in that book couldnt make a ham sandwich,he would screw it up then blame the sandwich.
in our simple minds we think the universe is complex.. we are still evolving and one day will understand. Your simple idea of complex aligns itself quite well with religions who worshiped to volcanoes, because they didn't know any better.
People's gods changed as we understood more.. and the simplest of minds will weakly follow the voodoo.
Shame on you..
Mr. Dawkins wants politicians to begin courting atheists? He does realize that when you are an atheist, you are not identified with a particular religious movement or voting bloc. Even religiously inspired politicians do target atheists in every participatory democracy around the world. They are called voters.
This is either the dumbest statement ever made by Mr. Dawkins; or a brilliantly whimsical satirical brain fart. After reading it a second time; I suspect the former. If atheists are going to claim an intellectual superiority over us uneducated and religiously faithful unwashed masses; you better be able to think and express your thoughts better than this. Wow, I'm speechless.
Francesco, His point is valid. Any group represents a voting bloc- you don't have to have meetings for that to be. I don't go to women's meetings or middle aged meetings to be part of those voting blocks.
And for the record. there are lots of groups of various names that coincide with the atheist movement such as Freethinkers and Seculars, and Humanists. There are camps for children under these communities, just like church camp, there are clubs at schools, etc.
Currently, both US parties focus on religious groups. You are simply wrong to say that they currently target atheists as voters. It's clear in every election that both parties put religion in the forefront of their candidates' platforms. That's what he's saying should change. They should stop alienating atheists.
I'd suggest Clinton Dawkins get his US citizenship before commenting on our politics. By the way, did you know ol' Clint has been married 3 times? I mean, ok, once is a mistake...divorced...married again...divorced...now married again. Bet he's a treat to live with-he knows it all..lol
It's absurd to say that someone needs to be a citizen to comment on our politics. I expect he is far more educated and pays attention to what's going on than many, many citizens.
well Donna, we can all agree he knows a lot about being, and not being, married. LOL
It would be best for you to remain "speechless".
Dawkins' opening argument is meaningless: it is ignorant of the fact that we had such things as stonings before religion. And surely more randomly.
The fact that people did it without religion doesn't miss his point. In religion, it is PRESCRIBED. Do you understand what that means? So part of the clearly stated religious moral code is to stone people to death. Yes, other "moral codes" are violent, but that in no way negates the fact that the Judeo-Christian moral code is filled with violence.
prima donna-please advise where in the Christian part of Judeo-Christian moral coding is violence commanded?
Elliot, If you haven't read the OT, then I can't help you. If you are claiming that the the NT nullifies the OT, show me where your church publicly renounced the OT as false.
If there were no religion to PRESCRIBE it do you think it would be less frequent? People who cling to power would find another reason or way to PRESCRIBE it.
Donna, do I have to spell it out for you? Old means Old and New means New.
TKO, No one think that violence would end without religion. But it's certainly possible it would reduce without encouragement from organized religion.
Would Bush have invaded Iraq and killed tens of thousands of people if he didn't have the excuse to say "God told me to do it,"? Probably, but he might not have had so much support.
But if we are talking about the most violent Abrahamic laws today- Sharia Law, do you think there would be less violence if that were ended? I think so.
How about everyone who spits hatred at gay people using the bible as their reason? I think that would be reduced if people had to find a rational reason to oppose it.
Elliot Carlin, You are so uneducated about religion it's sad. First, not every Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic religion interprets the OT the same- so pretending that your view speaks for everyone is juvenile.
Second, when you teach people that the OT is true and right, and that those are the things your god encourages.
Finally, you either don't understand your own religion or you're a liar. You still cherry pick things from the OT to use, you don't dismiss it as fiction.
I like the idea children should not be allowed in church til over 18.
Makes sense , since they need time to mentally develop .
I don't have a problem with parents forcing kids to go to church. Many churches are great communities. If kids don't like the church, in high school or after high school they will stop going.
It is true that people's religious beliefs highly correlate with their parents. One could argue that this is due to sinister brain washing. I would instead argue that these people are members of a community that they enjoy. They are under the spiritual guidance of individuals that largely share their values and see no reason to change. Would they be equally happy in a different religious organization or as an atheist? Probably. Is that a problem? I certainly don't think so.
correct,, it's unfair to the child.. But the religionist will argue simply because they know brainwashing sticks when started in early childhood.
Religionist as alcoholics,, they deny the lie and need believing buddies.
Apparently Dawkins knows very little about the bible and tries to persuade using lies. Stoning to death and even the sabbath are under the old law. Once Jesus died on the cross we were placed under the new covenant. Jesus paid the price for all of our sins and we have to study the bible and do his will his way to have any hope of heaven. Please do not let this guy lead you down the path to destruction. Think about this moral compass. Why do even children know when they are doing wrong? Because there is a God, open your eyes people.
Blake, you would have an argument if all of the Judeo-Christian religions renounced the Old Testament as false, and evil, but that's not the case, is it?
Prima Donna-Christ came to fulfill the law (O.T.). The Law showed how man missed the mark over and over.
Do answer this though...since no one today is under 'the law' of the O.T., why does evil still abound without 'religion'? Man is culpable today, right? I mean, we don't see a God speaking from the cloud today, do we? Therefore obviously He doesn't exist, or so your argument goes. Again, why so much violence in our own country from people not even associating w/religion?
Elliot, you are extremely naive if you think no one relies in the OT, unless your teaching is that it was false and fictional, you are teaching people to believe what's in it. And you are wrong about your assumptions about how my argument goes.
Blake Before you quote what the Bible says please get out your Bible and read Matthew 5:17-19 .It clearly says that the old testament is not void and its laws are not void
your god is EVIL open your own eyes.
and he knows nothing about Jewish legal development either. We don't just pick and choose criteria to determine which ancient laws are still relevant.
Dostoyevsky said "If there is no God, then all things are permissible"
Dawkins' recently said certain pedophilia isn't harmful to children; another leading atheist, Lawrence Krauss, admitted incest would be morally acceptable.
Dostoyevsky 1
athiests 0
you can thank secular society to stop "then all things are permissible",, god has zero to do with that..
Remember, doing good deeds began with man forming tribes, learning to live together and without gods.. Religion crept out of these tribes as they found they could gain power by scaring people.
In the USA,, we keep religions tamed. US laws are over religions. Religions answer to us, as it should be.
Religions rules are no different than kids tree house ones.. Their stories are quite similar too
So we could have avoided the whole slavery/Civil War thing if we had just had tribes. Interesting theory. Never heard it before. At least not in reputable circles.
Sarcasm off....
Your arguments never deal with the origin and continuation of evil.
no. religion is a cultural universal. There is no such thing as an atheist tribe.
Morality is a supernatural concept. Something can be sensed to have color, texture, shape, etc. Nothing can be sensed to have moral worth. Morality is completely subjective and without the fear of God to enforce moral absolutes there is nothing saying that something is definitively "good" or "bad."
evil comes mostly from once children who were 1) traumatized and now mentally ill and 2) those from power who always want and get their own way..
morality and doing good came from parents who loved their children (just like some species in the animal kingdom where animal take care of one another).. the caring spread as parents didn't want others harmed.
Religion and god had zero to do with that.
ggg, you are mistaken. There are tribes that have no identifiable religion, and there are religions that have no deity.
Really? Name them. Name one culture that does not follow a spiritual ate of some sort. Quit flapping your moth as if you know, and show that you really do.
ah,, like the catholic church who thought pedophilia isn't so bad and the rest of the christians never held them accountable for their crimes.. The victims rejected by christianity
Anyone on any side of that issue knows what the RCC did was morally wrong and about as depraved as one can go. The RCC disobeyed the Lord and the Scriptures-it doesn't lessen that truth. But nice try. By your argument, we should all be renouncing our citizenship because our country our President has a Tuesday Kill-List he checks off weekly.
Elloitt I think what Krauss was saying was that if Morals came from the Bible then incest was acceptable If Adam and Eve were the first humans and they had children then in order to populate the world there children had to of performed incest. So much for getting your morals from the Bible
Artis–if you have to say "I think he was saying..." then you need to re-watch the video-what you typed is what you wanted it to say. He was essentially forced to admit if man is the arbiter of all things moral, then incest could be acceptable...and he was booed for saying it.
Donna, get a grip-Dawkins wasn't talking about incest/you're injecting a different conversation altogether-run along while the adults discuss important matters.
Elliot Carlin, What a bizarre little liar you are. You referenced two people, one about pedophilia and one about incest. You should know that.
You are lying he did not say that. He was talking about his personal experience and the the experiences of his friends, whom he talked to about it. And he said he didn't think it did any LASTING harm, not NO harm. And there are different definitions of incest in various cultures, so it's correct to say it's not an absolute issue.
It's really sad when you have to stoop to lying to try to make a point....
Donna you are correct Krauss did not say what I attributed to him . I got the story correct but i attributed it to the wrong person Sorry it was not intentional.
I am very confused. I replied to a comment from Elliot Carlin that said this:
"Elliott Carlin
Dostoyevsky said "If there is no God, then all things are permissible"
Dawkins' recently said certain pedophilia isn't harmful to children; another leading atheist, Lawrence Krauss, admitted incest would be morally acceptable."
Then Elliot Carlin replied that I erroneously mentioned incest, despite that the comment referencing it was under his name. Now you are replying as if I had replied to a comment from you.
Are you and Elliot Carlin the same poster?
Donna No we are not the same poster ,I think he was answering my incorrect post about Krauss and then at the end of his post thru in a comment to you
Dawkins was named #1 thinker of our times. Dawkins rules, reason rules, most of the theiest commentators here are simply nuts.
I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,–Richard Dawkins.
Yeah, HE'S SURE GOT ME THINKING....LOL!!!!
What is love? Is it really anything? Does it really exist or is it just confusing hormones prior to breeding or is it comprised of acts to get something from someone? What is morality? Does it really exist here on planet earth? Is there anything that is truly right or wrong? Our existence, we mortals of flesh and blood, is it pointless? Some day should science find there is more to ourselves than what we perceive to be just our current definition of our physical selves, what then? For instance, many unexplainable things have happened to me, such as exact and precise times of future events, usually disasters but not always, does this prove either one of two things a greater component to our physical selves or that our physical selves may contain extra-dimensional characteristics not yet recognized by science? Now, my question is very simple, witnessed as walking on water in public many times across the United States since 1978 and the ability to modify the weather, why would it be immoral for me to change the world to the way I want it to be?
The Christian God is in Hell for plagiarizing his own novel.
The Devil intercepts all prayers sent to God and uses them for his own power. That's why there is so much evil in the world. Don't you get it? All you Christians are just empowering Satan!. It's so obvious, even a young child could understand 🙂
Remember Adolf Hitler? He was a devout christian, what good did that do anybody?
Not true.
However we do know Stalin had no time for God-and he subjugated 10 times the number Hitler did. And Russia is STILL paying for it.
The Ten Commandments remain the highest moral influence in the world. Almost every country's legal system is based on them, in one form or another.
To say that religion provides no moral compass is a blatant lie. In Muslim countries, Sharia law is the moral compass, for good or bad. In "Christian" countries where the Ten Commandments are routinely ignored, there are increasing numbers of divorces, illegitimate births, criminality, and substance abuse. Perhaps Mr. Dawkins does not consider these "moral" problems.
While Mr. Dawkins may WISH that religion did not provide a moral compass, in reality, just the opposite is true.
The last 4 or so are moral. The first ones are just religious fatwas.
PuzzledInPeoria You are wrong ,in fact the exact opposite is true .Those items you mentioned as proof that without Religion are more prevalent are actually more prevalent in the countries with the most people who believe in God.
Firstly, I actually did like your analysis on why religion is still common in the US but not as much in the UK. Secondly, could everyone please stop it with the cherry picking of Bible verses? That goes for everyone who does it (myself included) to the people who claim that we're doing it when we're not (a little context goes a long way). Thirdly, there's a good quote about the difference between religion and a relationship with God. Mr. Dawkins is correct that religion is not a moral compass. However, he fails to make the distinction between religion and a relationship with God.
–An evangelical Christian who's not ashamed of it.
Dawkins and other atheist are absolutely right in asserting that God does not exist but fail miserably when it comes to the societal implications of asserting such a thing. This is why Dawkins will always be a second-rate thinker compared to a Nietzsche or Dostoevsky.
Morality IS a supernatural concept. Hitler was White and had a funny little mustache and spoke German. These are things we can perceive about him through our senses, or at least gather from what people of the past had sensed about him. We all, more or less, can perceive things similarly to the point where our perceptions coincide with what we can call "reality" and not just "opinion." Once you start getting into the territory of saying he was morally "bad" is when you begin to venture out of reality and into opinion. Saying he was "bad" is a supernatural concept, as opposed to a natural concept such as saying he had brown hair.
Now, a Christian can say he was "bad" because he violated the principle of "Thou shalt not kill," which was sent down from an all-good God. What can an atheist say? If you don't believe in the supernatural, what the hell can you say? Who says killing is "bad?" Would killing Hitler be "bad?" You might say killing causes suffering, and suffering is "bad." But wouldn't killing Hitler cause less suffering overall? Besides, what about suffering makes it inherently "bad?" Some people, such as in the BDSM community, have decided it is good in certain instances, are they wrong?
To Nietzsche this moral ambiguity was invigorating, but modern Atheist just dance around the issue by inheriting the moral compass of their Christian-derived culture and pretending it fits in with their ethos.
rejecting your ridiculous claim that our moral compapass is christian derived isn't dancing around – it's marching right through it. Recorded History started about 6,000 years ago, not 2000.
largely Christian-derived. Obviously there have been other influences.
Nice red herring. That was not even close to the point of my post.
You might want to educate yourself about morality in non human animals. It is not a supernatural concept.
It's Sunday! Of course, this is the first headline in CNN's section on the World! Keep it up, CNN, your record on Christian bashing on Sunday's remains perfect.
Mr Dawkins has no clue as to what he is saying! The very first question and answer for example. We as Christians don't pick and choose from the Old Testament and New Testament. The only thing from the OT that we live by is the 10 Commandments. But the OT is more of historical facts and figures. God told us to go by the NT! If you're going to answer sir then answer correctly!
God never mentioned the NT. It's all about Jesus instead.
Gos said watch the heavens for updates, not wait around for bible part two. (gen 1:14)
"God told us to go by the NT!" ... Where or when did he do that? As the other reply mentions, it couldn't be in the New Testament. The New Testament is a collection of books by different authors, all written long before anyone collected them all together and called it "The Holy Bible". None of those authors wrote about a book that wouldn't exist for another 300 years.
religion is evil
It took religion to create the idea and name of an abstract evil. It always helps to create a bogeyman to keep your "flock" togther and looking outward, instead of inwards at the internal rot within.
Richard Dawkins reminds me vey much of a tree hidden in the depths of the proverbial world forest. He cannot see the entirety of the forest only the trees that immediately surround him. He can see the perfect qualities of the hummingbirds occasionally fly as well as the other wondrous living creations around him but he sadly cannot reach the conclusion that a omnipotent creator was the cause of al these remarkable creatures. They didn't evolve by chance. Mr. Dawkins is like that blind man walking around in a dark cave holding a candle looking for a light that shown so brightly 2000 years ago and was witnessed alive and well by over 500 human beings and who saw him after he was crucified dead and buried
Evolution is a proven fact.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This video explores how the Damsel in Distress became one of the most widely used gendered clichés in the history of gaming and why the trope has been core to the popularization and development of the medium itself.
As a trope the Damsel in Distress is a plot device in which a female character is placed in a perilous situation from which she cannot escape on her own and must then be rescued by a male character, usually providing a core incentive or motivation for the protagonist's quest.
The Tropes vs Women in Video Games project aims to examine the plot devices and patterns most often associated with female characters in gaming from a systemic, big picture perspective. This series will include critical analysis of many beloved games and characters, but remember that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it's more problematic or pernicious aspects.
For more examples of the Damsel in Distress see our Tumblr for this series:
Visit http://www.feministfrequency.com for more information, videos and a full transcript. English language captions coming soon!
This video series is created by Anita Sarkeesian and the project was funded by 6968 awesome backers on Kickstarter.com
Comments are currently closed (for obvious reasons) however, please feel free to share and embed this video on your own blogs and social media networks to facilitate discussions on the topic.
For more information on Cyber mobs and gendered online harassment, you can watch my TEDxWomen talk on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZAxwsg9J9Q
Use the following code to embed this video. See our usage guide for more details on embedding.
Paste this in your document somewhere (closest to the closing body tag is preferable):

Paste this inside your HTML body, where you want to include the widget:

Showing Revision 6 created 03/12/2013 by femfreq.


text:
The past few days we have been hearing predictions of a pretty significant storm heading our way. I have been hoping that the weather people would be completely wrong (I do not like snow), but this time they were very correct! The last accumulation predictions we have heard are saying we might get up to 2 feet of snow! This morning we woke up to already having about 5-6 inches and now we are up to 8-12 inches depending on where you look. The wind is pretty strong with gusts up to about 25mph so there is lots of snow being blown around which makes it hard to say exactly how much we have. The boys have been asking to go outside all morning so we bundled up and headed out. Zak loved it and ran around (falling a lot) and playing with the snow. Ryder is definitely more like me in the snow! He just stood in 1 place and would on;y move if we held his hand and pulled or carried him. Ben had to shovel the sidewalk around Ryder because he just wouldn't move!
Zak enjoying the snow


text:
Beautifully styled home cinema projectors that bring movies, sport, games and more to life in detail-packed 4K HDR with rich, vibrant colours and spectacular contrast.
With today's home cinema projectors, it's never been easier to create great entertainment in virtually any living space. Here are some tips to guide you on your way.
You'll find the perfect Sony projector for large home theatres or smaller living rooms, with easy installation, sleek styling and low running costs.


text:
Busted: Robredo wants to add years to the K-to-12 program? It's fake news!
Busted: Walang kasalanan ang Tulfo brothers ayon sa imbestigasyon? It's a misleading headline!
Busted: Legarda sinumbatan si Robredo na mag-resign bago pa lumabas ang resulta na panalo si Marcos? Misleading headline!
Busted: Hollywood actor laughed at Robredo for copying his Independence Day movie speech? It's fake news!
Busted: Tagumpay si Marcos versus Robredo? It's a misleading headline!
Netizens slam Duterte for saying women 'could not stand threats and intimidation'
New DOT chief to ask Montano why he rushed official New York engagement to watch Broadway show
Eldest Tulfo vows to help Wanda clear her name, berates 'black sheep' Ben over controversial P60-M DOT ad deal
'Baduy': Comelec spox calls out candidates imposing their face on Avenger images for campaign posters
COA report says DOT specifically required P60-M ads to air on Tulfo-produced PTV show
TV5 news anchor and journalist Ed Lingao took the time to respond to the open letter posted by a Facebook fan page for the President's youngest...


text:
How far would you go to protect the ones you love?
That is the haunting question which echoes in the background of a horrifying situation revealed through what, on the surface, appears to be an evening of fine dining in a Dutch restaurant. Translated by Sam Garrett from the Dutch, this book has already sold more than 1 million copies in 24 countries.
Herman Koch has given the reader an intriguing look at what people will do to protect the ones they love and not lose their 'happy family'. The horror is not the 'bump in the night' kind, but rather a chilling revelation in this psychological thriller, revealing a family not happy at all.
The stage of the story is set with two upper middle class brothers and their wives meeting in a restaurant with the courses serving as acts in the play. Their children have been caught on CCTV camera committing a horrible crime which shocks the nation, but only their parents have recognized them so far in the grainy video.
Koch keeps the narrative flowing well and the running commentary is actually very engaging, especially if you are Dutch or know the Dutch culture. Appearances matter and rules must be kept especially among the respectable bourgeois, but as dinner progresses, the story reaches a 'culinary climax' and all semblance of normalcy disappears. A modern world is revealed which may be as disappointing and disturbing as an overpriced meal in a high class restaurant.
The book is a good one for book clubs. There is a lot to discuss about the nature of evil and to what extent parents are responsible for the acts of their children. A reviewer from The Guardian said the book will appeal to those "who enjoy seeing what happens when the cosy certainties of middle-class families are shattered, when the thin facades of decency and manners are wrenched aside, showing the brutal, violent creatures that lurk beneath the surface." Now there is some food for thought.


text:
Активность, связанная с книгойНачать прослушивание
Сведения о книге
Sweet Water: A Novel
Автор: Christina Baker Kline
Текст читает Amy Rubinate и Suzanne Toren
From the #1 New York Times bestselling author of Orphan Train comes a novel about buried secrets and the redemptive power of forgiveness
Cassie Simon is a struggling artist living in New York City. When she receives a call from a magistrate telling her she has inherited sixty acres of land in Sweetwater, Tennessee, from her grandfather, whom she never knew, she takes it as a sign: it's time for a change. She moves to the small Southern town where her mother, Ellen, grew up-and where she died tragically when Cassie was three.
From the moment she arrives in Sweetwater, Cassie is overwhelmed by the indelible mark her mother's memory left behind. As she delves into the thicket of mystery that surrounds her mother's death, Cassie begins to discover the desperate measures of which the human heart is capable.


text:
Fans can vote to help determine Classic's MVP
NEW YORK -- Given what the digital portion of baseball's fan base put itself through last week with the Final Vote, it seems reasonable to assume that everyone's hands are still in online voting shape.
At least, enough to go through the exercise one last time.
This time, fans can help determine the Most Valuable Player of the All-Star Game.
The 84th All-Star Game is being televised nationally by FOX Sports, in Canada by Rogers Sportsnet and RDS and worldwide by partners in more than 200 countries via MLB International's independent feed. ESPN Radio and ESPN Radio Deportes are providing national radio coverage of the All-Star Game. MLB Network and SiriusXM are also providing comprehensive All-Star Week coverage. For more information, please visit allstargame.com.
So while watching the game, be sure to log onto MLB.com now through the end of the Midsummer Classic to vote for the Ted Williams All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award presented by Chevrolet via the 2013 All-Star Game MVP Vote sponsored by T-Mobile. The winner of the award will be announced at the end of the game, and fans' ballots will represent 20 percent of the official vote determining the winner.
Immediately following the conclusion of the All-Star Game, the winner will receive the Arch Ward Trophy, which was first presented in 1962 as a tribute to the man who founded the All-Star Game in 1933. That first presentation went to Leon Wagner of the Los Angeles Angels and to Maury Wills of the Los Angeles Dodgers, because two All-Star Games per year were played in those days.
These days, of course, there's only one game, and there can be only one MVP. And who that winner in will be, in part, is up to you. Join us, won't you?
These are the players who have won the award since fan voting was introduced in 2003:
2003: Garret Anderson, Angels
2004: Alfonso Soriano, Rangers
2005: Miguel Tejada, Orioles
2006: Michael Young, Rangers
2007: Ichiro Suzuki, Mariners
2008: J.D. Drew, Red Sox
2009: Carl Crawford, Rays
2010: Brian McCann, Braves
2011: Prince Fielder, Brewers
2012: Melky Cabrera, Giants


text:
The Old Charm Wine Table is an ornate occasional table that features a hand carved bulbous pedestal and a stepped thumb mould on the top
The choice of colours has now increased to five: Light Oak, Tudor Brown, Vintage, Chestnut & Fumed Oak. Each of these colours is now available in both traditional and classic finishes. Classic gives an additional dimension to the furniture with light distressing that reflects the passage of time and promotes the most authentic reproduction of the period
To view wood colours, please see product pictures. Hover over photo to view colour option
To make your choice, please select from the drop down menu above
We offer free UK delivery on all products costing £500 or more. On products costing less than £500 a small delivery charge applies which will be shown in the checkout. For full details on our delivery policies click here
Payment Options
Here at The Place for Homes we offer several finance options in order to spread the cost, simply select the Close Brothers Retail Finance option at checkout and you can apply on line. For more information click here
Returns Policy
If you're not totally satisfied with your purchase from The Place for Homes we do offer a returns policy, for full details on this please click here
Staingard Protection
We are able to offer Staingard Protection on all of our sofas and armchairs that we sell at The Place for Homes, for further details please click here


text:
CompAndSave has the best deal on Sharp printer ink cartridges on the web. The compatible and remanufactured Sharp toner cartridges we sell work as perfectly as genuine cartridges. We offer wholesale pricing, same-day shipping, and a one-year satisfaction guarantee.
CompAndSave.com has some of best deals on
discount cartridges and printing peripherals on the web!
Our product specialist is here to help you find the correct cartridge for your printer.
Please call: 1.833.465.6888
Mon - Fri | 6am - 6pm (PT)
Hide this


text:
Privileged Membership
Privileged Membership allows you to take advantage of all the great offers represented here and displayed around the website. We have teamed up with a growing range of companies operating within the caravan market to bring you great products and services at competitive prices. Keep checking the area for new offers available as we are growing our business membership base daily!