I try not to carry beliefs, and I've certainly never been religious, but I don't self identify as atheist even if I often lean that way.

This probably isn't an answer to mitch's question but I've always wondered how true believers can be friends with non-believers. When the text that you treat as 'the word of God' makes it clear that those who disbelieve will go to hell (actually I can't quote any scripture on that but I'm fairly sure it's there), it seems to me that the believer would be stuck looking at the person in terms of 'they're going to hell'. Hell being literally the worst possible state in any plane of existence, how could a religious person manage to be friendly and cordial to someone who they 'know' are doomed to it?

I get easily offended by people who push their beliefs on others, so I'm thankful for their ability to bite their tongue, but wouldn't a believer with non-believer friends be desperate to 'save' them?

I don't think I could look at anyone the same if I felt that their future involved the most severe pain and suffering that it's possible to experience.

Moist

I just have a major problem with the implication that things today are somehow worse than they've been previously. At least for the US, while I do find the strength of the national government in relation to the states disturbing, I really think it's obvious that we're more free (and healthier and wealthier) today than we were 50 years ago, 100 years ago, etc. back to our founding.

I'm somewhat ignorant (well, more than somewhat) of how things are in the rest of the world but I'm tempted to assume most places have been better off since the Cold War ended.

Transparency is nice, when it's appropriate and oftentimes with what WikiLeaks does it's not, but it creates these feelings that our leaders are the epitome of evil. Just as I think it's harmful for the country to treat people of differing ideologies as enemies (be it Islam or the conservative/liberal culture war), I think it's dangerous to think that the whole system is coordinated to carry out atrocities for selfish gains. Yes, there are perverse institutional incentives for irresponsible governing, but I think the system is much more pluralistic and built on compromise.

WikiLeaks has it's moments as I've said from the start, but it'd be a mistake to make a villain out of an official or military serviceman because you caught them doing something that looks abhorrent. WikiLeaks lacks context and I think that makes its ultimate effect, however well-intentioned and built on small truths, to skew the real picture of how the world works. It's pieces to the puzzle, but without some very important ones you can't see what's going on, and in those cases it might be better to just look at the picture on the box.

Become? Implying that the current state differs from the past - please explain your perception of how things used to be.