Part of the issue here is the absolute certainty many of the arguments from either perspective (yes, everything happens for a reason, or no it doesn't) bring to the table.  Both need to recognize that all is not known, and that in both cases, there is strong evidence within the support of their own arguments that brings a question about its validity.  The faith in a Judeao-Christian God's creation of the world has some weak points if examined by the evidence of evolution, for instance.  But our abilities to explain variations in evidence from the perspectives of science are not absolute either.  Did our inability to measure infrared waves in the 19th century negate their existence?  Is it rational to argue that what cannot be proved, cannot be, when the proof may be beyond our capacity?  That God can't be, can't be, can't be, because I can't measure him or find him, is no more compelling a proof he doesn't exist than the notion that infrared wasn't there in the 19th century.  That seems to be arrogance, when certainly many of the "beliefs" of science have been shown as inaccurate, just as many of the beliefs of religion are.  The dogmatic absolute of being "right" unites both systems of belief in being wrong sometimes.  Maybe the baby was born at the time she was because factors the parents were unaware of came into play--they wanted to bring in a new life in respect to the imminent passing of a loved one--and named her as they did for the same reason, and the birth was triggered by the stress of the relative's death.  Or God smiled.  Proof of either is beyond us.  And evidence of both can be admitted by each.  I suspect most people are better able to prove the earth is flat in their own experience, than are able to prove the reality.  Meanwhile, isn't it a warm fuzzy to think the baby's birth happened for a reason within that context, (and until someone can disprove warm fuzzies, some of us will stay there)?

Just acouple points:
>Any forum that is open for anyone and any POV, will contain both wheat and chaff so to speak.  You have to go through alot af chaff to reach any wheat, sadly.
>Any time a human expresses himself, a part of what he seeks is validation.  That applies to you, me and anyone in between.  For some that's validation as a rebel or iconoclast, for others as conventional, or liberal, or radical, or as I read more and more postings, nutcase.
>Most people are not ready to actively think to form an opinion, so they spout the responses their "training" (upbringing and experience) avail to them, rather than any creative insight.  That's why it is so easy to pigeonhole one another.  I am gaining insights thru these that I wouldn't have had otherwise and I find that of great value to me, and I suspect that you do as well, or you would have stopped writing here.  Your question, and many others I've encountered, do make one think, and formulate a statement of belief.  That's a good thing.  For some posters it seems like it's just a reason not to think but to rant.
>One of things you seem to have addressed is the lack of a true examination of the rationale behind what one has said or believed in.  That's probably true.  But it's also true that traditions and customs can be adopted in a benevolent way as a means of getting through your day, without being turned over and over for justification.  In other words, I say "hello" to the people I meet without needing to understand that I've said it so they are not hostile.  People follow religious rituals with almost the same automatic response.  Certainly, many people find comfort in religion.  That triggers a negative response in many who don't share that religion, including atheists presumably without an ax to grind.  If you're helped by worshipping fire, light up.  I guess the other point is that we have an experience as mankind that collectively unites us, but as a man individually collides with the guy next to us.  The things that make you, you, are different from the things that make me, me.  But all of this is what makes mankind, mankind.  So we posit these questions in each life that someone sitting at the mouth of a cave came up with, only now in this generation our experinces don't resonate with the rhythms and comprehension of nature.  So our questions are newly relevant, and we look for Buddha on the internet instead of under the banyan.

I think that while dysfunction is nothing new, it has become more pervasive and insidious.  I used to be able to reach a doctor and have a diagnosis and treatment in less time than it takes to process the paperwork and have a triage review now. At work, same corporation, 10 years ago I could pick up the phone and have an answer to a question in minutes (I feel I could be more productive as a result).  Yesterday, I got an answer to a relatively minor but still significant question that had taken 2 weeks of phone tag, faxes, and emails.  I suspect strongly that a factor is the use of technology that either is "low-bidder" syndrome or simply inadequately implemented from lack of training or both.  Part is probably attitude that systemic failure creates ("if nobody knows how I do my job, nobody knows if I don't do it all).  Some is probably just having systems and people in place that are overwhelmed by the loads they are carrying.  A study recently concluded that job efficiency fell as the technology ratio was increased: people really can't multi-task effectively, and the operation of the technology and navigating through it is a timedrain.  Automation heightens certain productivity, but clericals and administrators aren't helped--probably are even hampered as they are required to do the tasks which were being done by the person replaced by the automated phone system, etc.

Moved from history and civilisation - tejtej

We see dysfunctional systems everywhere we look. FEMA, Katrina, Iraq, election frauds, political scandals, emergency rooms that are overwhelmed, healthcare in general in chaos, product recalls, diminished expectations of quality, service and reliability in most business dealings.  I sense this disturbing trend is becoming the norm.  What's your view?  Why is this happening?  How can we get things back to working better?
>It took me over 3 weeks of phone calls, and resubmissions, and pharmacy visits to get a simple change in insurance coverage in place.  And yes, I got mad.
>It took over 4 hours in an emergency room to have my wife's amputated toe looked at by a doctor when it became re-infected.
>Whole shelves in stores are bare due to recalls. After recalls.  After recalls.
>Service depts are gone, replaced by either a 17 year old trainee unable to deal with a problem, or a phone system that gives you a 30 minute menu of options but not one you can use.
>And then there's our gov't.

The basics of what I said at first are correct.  But there are two factors affecting how this would be treated.  Both people and property are subject to a courts jurisdiction, so in a civil court, a judgment may be levied against property within a court's jurisdiction when the property belongs to a person who is not within that jurisdiction.  So in your example, John Doe could sue The Indian and if The Indian had property in NY, that could be taken and wind up in John Doe's hands.  Additionally, a person may voluntarily place themselves within a courts jurisdiction, even if they normally would not be there. So the Indian might appear in the court to protect his property, and then theorectically wind up in jail.  And generally the incident would be examined to determine where the damage from the act occurred and would be prosecuted there. If you are defamed, the defamation is where you are (generally).  Again, generally, defamers acting outside of a jurisdiction (say Europe) with regard to a person in the US are not likely to have any consequences.  All that changes when the stakes get higher (a major corporation being defamed by someone in another country, or having secrets stolen via internet, or a criminal conspiracy that's internet based, or terrorist activity). The act is deemed to have taken place where the damage is done, and that opens up the world for multinational corporations to be able to react more fully say in India. The server and forum operators are largely not held responsible, unless their failure to perform some aspect of their contractual agreement or operating laws created exposure.  (Ex, they had been warned to take The Indian off their forum, or were required by law to monitor postings, had agreed to, and then failed to) The law here is actually hopelessly behind the technology, for the most part. Hope this helped answer your question, which isn't stupid at all. 

I'm not 100% certain, but I'll consult someone over the weekend who should know.  My sense is that both the defamed and the defamer must be subject to the jurisdiction of the court the case would be submitted to, which in the US, cases go to local, state, or federal court depending upon the entity which governed that activity (ie local courts hear local caselaw, state courts hear cases involving state laws and appeals from local courts, federal courts hear cases about federal laws and appeals from state courts).  Defamation of character is a state law, I believe, and in the US, all states reciprocate in jurisdiction in that I can bring a case to NY or NJ if I live in NY and the defamer is from NJ, so long as the crime is a crime in both places.  What happens when national borders cross I don't know.

There's a recent book out, I think it's called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" that analyzes this pretty thoroughly.  The basic premise is that climate and geography coupled with resources favored initial population concentrations, which in turn fostered societal formations, in turn developing technology.  These advances were in some places on the globe hindered, or elsewhere enabled by geography to spread, primarily along climatically similar routes. If you look at a topograghical map, you can see where features like the Himalayas, the Gobi, the Sahara, defined East/west spread of agriculture (which rose where native plants and animals could be domesticated) leading to larger populations leading to clans then tribes then nations capable of specialized labor.  This gave rise to  technology of increasing sophistication. I have made only a weak stab at distilling the concepts and data in the book, but the author does a pretty good job of explaining why Europe conquered America at the initial encounter; why did Spain have guns, horses, and disease which subjugated the Aztecs, and not vice versa.  It reads somewhat repetitively, but it's definitely worthwhile if you're curious about this question.