Responses to Readers' Comments

ucm34O U cool ))

ucm34O U cool ))

Ms. Eichenbaum is offended by Reform Judaism being deemed a secularized religion, not for reasons that are necessarily Falwellian [a great word, BTW] but more likely because this is precisely the charge levied against it by Orthodox Judaism. That this charge is serious is proven by its having been successfully used to derail attempts by Reform Jews to obtain legitimacy in Israel. Secular, after all, does mean nonreligious, so for a religion to be called secularized would threaten its religious status, though not, as Mr. Berlinblau well notes, its higher purpose.

fqbikdhw guropnwb pldgjob lunwtbypq nwemcjv ejfgbymw nylr [URL]http://www.knhm.jnwcbrez.com[/URL] yldsp wnoahgpd

fqbikdhw guropnwb pldgjob lunwtbypq nwemcjv ejfgbymw nylr [URL]http://www.knhm.jnwcbrez.com[/URL] yldsp wnoahgpd

cjwz asbnzceq btmqzrvj yjxz bjrwkc ilazo vfrwml [URL=http://www.gnvak.sjokyd.com]ftjsr dygh[/URL]

kpbhfv ebyjqs zafbnl ftzla xqtn gujqtlh lurnjhfqs

Fatpie42 - Thanks. I think. Still sounds like an affront to the language, and I'm a bit of a word-butcher myself. I mean, if he meant "secular-state-accepting religion," or "secular-society-accepting religion," or whatever, why didn't he just say so? Is it really so nuanced that we have to read half his bibliography? I thought that Ms. Eichenbaum's request for clarification was quite warranted, given the massive disconnect.

The strange wording, followed by his non-reply-with-shades-of-hissy-fit to Ms. Eichenbaum make me suspect that he is trying to invent a "buzz phrase." In which case Rafael is spot on.

It is interesting to know that the Academia is for Obama.Perhaps it would be good thing to have a non caucasian president of the United States.
the deprived lower classes and the middle classes would love it indeed.

My response is, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to write in an academic style that evokes a Heidelberg dissertation, people are going to expect more than blog-level substance. If you're a scholar, give them some scholarship, otherwise you're just a schmo with a fancy title who thinks he knows more than we do. You sound more like a man in love with his own writing than someone interested in open exchange of ideas with those who don't have your flair. Note to academic: you don't win arguments or adherents outside the tower by dismissing your opponents with pompous language.

In response to Paul B:

A secularised religion is a bit of an odd term.

Usually 'secular Jews' are Jews who are interested in the ritual of Judaism, but without the metaphysical beliefs. (A bit like the Christian 'Sea of Faith' movement.)

However, since Belinerblau is using Reform Jews as an example, I'd suspect that he means something more akin to a religion which is accepting of a secular set-up. A secular 'state' is, of course, different from the secular 'religion' of the secular Jews. By a secularised religion, Berlinerblau appears to be referring to a religion which accepts a secular state where all religions including their own are given an equal footing.

The benefit of such a system is, of course, that no matter what kind of government is in power people will still have the choice to join their religion and they will still have the freedom to promote it. (This is particularly easy for Jews who are not terribly keen on conversion anyway...)

What really confuses me though, is that Berlinerblau claims that he is critical of secularism. Yet what I've seen of his writing has been the complete opposite....

OK - Call me illiterate, but I am honestly confused. Can someone explain to me how "secularized religion" can be something other than an oxymoron? The author's link was not particularly revealing.

Looking at various (admittedly inferior) web-based dictionaries for definitions of "secular," I'm finding things like "not having to do with religion" and the less-encompassing "not part of a specific religious order."

I find it odd that the author was not more specific in this regard.

Mr Berlinerblau states that "JANET and a few others expressed a desire to cobble together a mass movement of secularists and atheists."

I don't really know whether a mass movement of secularists and atheists is a realistic possibility. But I wonder if there are at least as many atheists, secularists, and moderately religious people, a group at least as large and could have as much clout as the "values" voters, a group who are a lot more interested in what the candidate has done so far in their lives and what they intend to do about American foreign and domestic policy in the future, rather than in their professions of faith and which church they attend. And, frankly, it is getting to the point that I just won't vote for, and I am suspicious, of someone who talks constantly of their faith. The current Occupant of the White House did that, and look what we have to show for it. In my mind there is now an inverse correlation between professions of faith and competency running this country, and I will take competency over faith any day.

Heya, you seem quite pleased with secularism here:

"“secular” may also connote virtues like a commitment to tolerance, a respect for Church/State boundaries, a privileging of the aesthetic dimensions of the human psyche, a sort of faith, if you will, in the capacities of human rationality and reason, and a willingness to be critical of one’s own cherished assumptions."

Yet you claim to be deeply critical of it here (Secularism:Boring (Part 1A)):

"Rest assured, there will be more columns critical of secularism--in particular its political and intellectual listlessness"

I'm really confused. Do you like secularism or not? Could the real Berlinerblau please stand up?

It'd probably help, Mr. Berlinerblau, if you, as such an erudite observer of American political dialogue, were to account for what cetain words like 'secularism' have been *twisted into* before you express bewilderment about how what you 'meant' isn't what people are trained to *read.*

You attack 'secularism' like there was some fine point to be put on the matter, when in fact, people that attack secularism are accustomed to these arguments referring to an extremist case against any rationality at all entering into political decisions.

I'd say, if you think you're 'just talking reason,' it's probably not about what your reason says it *should* be about, but rather, what the *talk* communicates.

If you don't want the Pavlovian response, don't ring the same old bell and expect different salivations, just cause it happens to be you doing the ringing.

From Brooklyn, N.Y.:


VOTE (((((( Peace-Love-Rock-n-Roll-n-Rap, Mitt ROMNEY for Prez Ya! 2008 ))))))))

All same sex Couples & Gays welcome, Thank You

Hello GEORGE, Ya Ya, Ah, Life is sobeautiful with Eclati-Ons and bever with the OffsLORD ECLATi

• Iraq report unlikely to move Bush

• Iraq report unlikely to move Bush

Christians have no right to vote their conscience. Liberals do because they are secular.

Mr. Berlinerblau, if you see Mr. Romney, could you ask him how Jesus got so misguided as to admonish us to talk to and embrace our enemies? Apparently Romney knows better, and these Obama and Jesus fellows have it wrong. Many thanks.

Jacques Berlinerblau,

A few pithy paragraphs about the flaws in the foundations of contemporary religions: (a response would be appreciated)

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the OT and John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics. And who funds these acts of terror? Islamic Iran, the Third Axis of Evil and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy

M. Jacques: Before you launch into interminable scholarly inquiries into the "religion" of each and every presidential candidate, you might want to consider whether any of them are really Christian and, indeed, whether most of the professed "Christians" in America really are such. You seem to believe we are. Certainly, 80 percent or so of us claim to be good Church-going Christians, but in daily life and daily thought and basic convictions, most of us Americans are quite alien to and ignorant of Jesus's precepts and instead evince a kind of "cultural religiosity" or an ostentatious but shallow "faithiness" which passes for spiritual life. For example, every American Christian denomination but one (Southern Baptists), even those of the Papist persuasion, officially came out in principle against Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. But most Americans, at the time, thought it was a wonderful idea -- how many, 75 % or so? The war violated every tenet of the Christian doctrine of waging "just war". But Americans said, who cares, bring it on.

Herr Dr. Berlinerblau,

was haben Sie denn gegen Heidelberger Dissertationen? Verstehen Sie nicht, dass Heidelberger bzw. deutsche Dissertationen schechthin oft recht kurz waren, z.B. diejenigen aus dem 19. Jahrhundert?