Sectarian violence - The dumbest interpretation of religion … ever

72 were martyred in the initial Sunni-Shia struggle. How do you elevate them for sacrificing themselves in conflict with the "enemy" and not hold it against the faction who killed them? How can you praise the death of your friends and not dwell upon the murderers? Christianity, in some sects, has found an answer.
Historically, there was enmity between Jews and Christians. The operative word is deicide. At some point, most Christians and eventually the Catholic church grew tired of scapegoating Jewish populations. They accepted that it was Christ's place to die, or else he could not be sacrificed to appease God for the sins of man. One death put an end to the need for killing. Maybe the Shia and Sunni should learn from that, and stop fighting over who killed Hussein way-back-when.
If you look at the geographic distribution of Muslims, Shia is obviously the unpopular opinion. They maintain majority in only a couple countries, Iran and Iraq, as well as numerous scattered communities. Shia Muslims are to Sunnis as Jews are to Christians: "We're related, but God favored us over you. Therefore, you don't deserve your rights."
That's the same story behind all supremacy. The people in control find an explanation for their supremacy, not in history, culture or chance, but in unfounded divine intervention. It must be the color of my skin or the way I vote or the way I pray or the fact that my genitals are on the outside that makes me better than you. I thank God every day for social scientists which disrupt these excuses for violence and hegemony.
Speaking of God, I do believe that when He sent His Son, the message was "care for the least of these." Scapegoating the minority groups is the exact opposite of his teachings. Christians, if you want to be better than the other 10,000 religions in the world, remember that.

Headline comment

Bush Assails Democrats on War Financing
In a perfect world, that headline would lead to a story where the leader of the free world berated his colleagues for funding war. Bush would be a hero who sought diplomacy, peace and prosperity for all. A man who funded those greater goals directly rather than hoped they would come some indefinite time in the future after a meandering march of military men.
No, in real life Mr. Bush says "pay for this war," even though he it hasn't accomplished any of the promises given before it started, and no one knows when it will end.
I wish the Democrats were the ones trying to fund a war that hadn't happened yet, so it coudl still be stopped before it starts. In a perfect world.

Which religion began the myth they all refer to?

Separating a solution into two problems: I combine the idea of Leviathan, beast of the Deep in Judaism; Tiamat, giant serpent whose body became the sea and sky in Sumerian myth; Elder Gods forecast to return and end humanity in Cthulhu; the endless cycle between Shiva and Vishnu in Hinduism; and the Midgaard Serpent forecast to return for Ragnarok in Norse myth into one comparative religious idea. I feel very gnostic when I say that deep down all of these are ways of expressing that people know what the Big Bang is, and that the resulting expansion of the universe is ultimately finite. Perhaps I just exemplified the failing point of comparative religion in believing that my Hindu science theory of calpas is the correct one, and all others just copies. I think these are also ways of remembering that life has ups and downs, bright days and dark days. I think it says, in my agnostic thinking, that what makes or breaks your day is often beyond your awareness or even comprehension.
Listening to heavy metal and reading mythology after taking Ginkgo Biloba is a mind-expanding experience.