What Obama Could Not (and Should Not) Say

Hi guys, I was just checking out the internet-my girlfriend talked me into getting this computer-and like to meet new people I guess(hehe). I told her that it's little kids do that stuff, it's rediculous.

Well, anyway I she told me about this great deal where it helps you make friends AND you can get a free ipod! too.

If you think you're the one who likes to a little adventure, just check out jenny@ipod.com!

LEARN HOW TO SPELL!!!!! How delightfully ironic to misspell an grammatical insult!

That's what's wrong with this country-all of the immigrants come here with nothing to offer to the nation, only to creating a small world around them that imitates their home!

How ignorant, why didn't you jsut stay there! Oh, because they don't have the niceties that we have here. You come here for all of the free and nice stuff and shun our history.

I love how the US is referred to a 'miracle melting pot'. Well it's more like crap stew if you ask me. This countrys going to die from all of the extra 'non contributing' mouths to feed.

YOU DO have to take a test! I have one left and in 1 year I'm an American citizen! See-I know your country better than YOU/a natural citizen I expect.

I take the goverment test and that's it-you don't have to do the constitusion test anymore(thank god) it doesn't apply anyway.

So maybe you should read before you accuse others of being DUM!

NO! That's not what I said at all!

The point is lost on you Tony. People like you make me wish there was standardized testing to quilify to vote/be a citizen.

The only natural order is in nature-the only order in society has been through intimidation, conquer, deceit.

I agree with Hymen. A society left in the hands of the majority is doomed by its own stupidity-the majority of the population is just plain dum.

Look at what happened in Baton Rouge when regular people were left to themselves to survive-what a massive blunder!

Most people don't realize that they NEED the smart people that are in the government to more or less take care of them!

What's right ain't right! Might makes right! To bellieve otherwise is to authorize others to rape, pillage and plunder you.

I believe the government is still working as long as it represents the majority-when they believe in god, blue meanies or aliens! (That's the majority of the electoral college, of course-not the ACTUAL people!) In a democracy, I believe the majority is entitled to it's own prosperity as well as demise-take credit for example.

Christianity was spread by the blade, monarchy by torture and massive supression by taxation, socialism by intimidation and forced government dependency, fascism by intimidation and exploitation of youth, and democracy by the musket-maintained by the bayonet! Until recently. I believe Richard Jeni in response to theory that 'Violence doesn't solve anything', "Well, it solved WWII...come to think of it, violence is the only thing that relly solves anything."

In it's lowest terms, our own democracy has seen two distinct methods of rule-make the people afraid so that they would comply and make the people content so that they would comply. A fool thinks otherwise for to do so would deny evidence. Consider Ambrose Bierce's definition, "COMFORT, n. A state of mind produced by contemplation of a neighbor's uneasiness." Similar to content, ineffective or lethargic. As long as people THINK their vote counts, the state of things will remain as they are on our side as the public-all the while, the bums in office are stealing hand over fist, our prosperity and stifling our creativity and industry with socialist, regulatory law making. Consider the popular vote of 2004! The first president elected by the Supreme Court.

What does all of this have to do with religion and Barack Obama? Nothing! As it should not! The state of the people is suppposed to be separate from the church of the people! That being said, just don't be shaken and surprised when your elected official is found making decisions based on his own religious belief in spite of the people! (*coughStemCell*) I guest the athiests were left out in the rain on that one.

Who is Sam Harris and why do people preach agnostic? Wouldn't you just BE agnostic? I guess there's money in NOT religion as well as religion! "I'm so different, I'm agnostic!" It doesn't matter, I still get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, and I still have to pay intome tax to the mob I mean Federal Government.

I have a great respect for Sam Harris. I feel He and Daniel Dennett are amoung the main voices of American Atheism. I become just a little perturbed to hear people like Sam sing the political praises of Mr Obama, whom I feel has far more Cultural negatives than positives for our Country, although politically he may be no worse for the country than the alternative.

Whenever I read Political comments by atheists I repeatedly see Atheism and Secular Humanism aligned with Liberalism and Socialism, and I wonder why this should be an intuitive pairing. I consider myself an Agnostic very much by definition. Intelligent awareness is inescapably obvious to us.

Einstein although a Jew first, was formost an Atheist or Agnostic in his thinking, but He recognised that even though there is no personal god, there is "the reason that manifests itself in Nature", I believe His Words.
If it is not painfully obvious to the scientific community there is in this seemingly entropic Universe, a Darwinian-style tendency toward Sentiency. I give you the Human Race as evidence. To me it is apparent in the concept of Evolution itself. One cannot be an Atheist and not logically be an Evolutionist, and cannot be an evolutionist without seeing intelligence growing out of an animate state, growing out of seeming inanimatness.

I go on like this to make the point that As 'non-believers' we need to take great care that our Politics don't become a jumble with our Philosophical bent. As much as I dislike the thought that the Political Right feels guided by a mythical God, I also feel they get more correct for the wrong reason that is good for America than the Left gets on purpose with their discourse that social programs, amnesty and central governmental power is the way this Country is best served.

I really only want what's best for the future of this Country and I fear for its longevity. Lets not lose our Freedom in our search for the Truth.

Peter:
I'll try to explain one more time.
You said, in reference to evolutionary theory, "It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings."
I said, evolutionary theory says that the main mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is NOT in any way "random". (The Dawkins quote amplified this point.)
So, you say evolution must be wrong, because it is described as random. I repeat, natural selection is NOT in any way random. This is a common (and inexplicable) misconception among those who oppose evolutionary theory. Those who repeat this misconception are simply, undeniably wrong on this point.
So, shouldn't you correct yourself now? Shouldn't you say something like, "Oh, I thought that natural selection was random. I was confusing genetic mutation (which IS random) and natural selection (which is NOT random, and which is the central mechanism of evolution in Darwinian theory). I don't know if I made this mistake on my own, or if I was just repeating what some other writer had written. And if I got this clearly false idea from something written by another person, I wonder if that other writer really believed it, or was being deliberately dishonest. Dammit, I repeated that writer's lie, that evolutionary theory is based on random events, and made a fool of myself in the process. Man, I sure do resent that other writer, whoever he or she is!"
If you have an honest bone in your body, you'll start typing it right now. Otherwise, you're just another liar for God.
And if you have God on your side, then why must you lie?

A question from another atheist on another of Sam's forums:

"... I want you to pretend you are an atheist and answer all your own questions to me. No fair just saying you don't know, can't think of any answers etc, you have to give the best answer you can from an atheist POV, i.e. there is no god.”"

QUESTION: "If there is no god:
Where did, matter, the universe, come from. (remember these things are, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: As an atheist it cannot be known where all the matter, and for that matter the universe came from. All an atheist can do is take a relative stab at it based on the evidence that is now available and might have been available in the distant past, in the atheist's frame work, billions of years ago, since what happened in the beginning, if there was a beginning, is nothing an atheist was privileged to witness.

An atheist can speculate on an eternal universe or multiple universes, but have no evidence for such other than imagination on why there is something instead of nothing. Based on the current line of thinking however, as an atheist, the evidence of an expanding universe, the gradual death and decay and wearing out of the universe all seems to point to a beginning but, as an atheist, it is only speculation from what.

QUESTION: "How did life come from an amoral, random, blind, chance beginning.. ( remember we are here so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: As an atheist the question can only be speculated upon, since an atheist does not see and has never seen life coming from blind chance beginnings. There is order and information (design) in all of nature, in everything seen, so how a random, chaotic process can produce this stuff over time is still a mystery that science will hopefully one day be able to give the answer to, because evolutionary science is the only thing that the atheist has hope of in being able to answer the deep questions of life. It takes faith to believe.

QUESTION: "How did love, compassion, thinking, personality, morals and truth come from non-living matter (remember that all these things are, so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

Answer from an atheist perspective: The problem of ethics alone is one of the more puzzling problems an atheist has to answer, and that is how can something qualitative and intangible, immaterial such as a concept or idea like "good" come from physical, lifeless matter substance? Yes, the human race is connected to this terrestrial ball in that all the physical attributes needed to sustain human life are interconnected, but this does not explain how something that came from a rock stores knowledge and thinks and is able to make moral judgments. One of the preconditions for thinking, logic and intelligibility is a mind. The atheist has yet to hear a rock offer an intelligent defense for its existence, but maybe that is because the atheist does not think on the same plane that a rock does. Is that a possibility? Yes, it does seem foolish to believe, but hey, why not? It all depends on how the electromagnetic impulses in any particular mind are triggered. The human mind is such an amazingly complicated and apparently well designed piece of matter for the atheist to explain how it could come from chaotic beginnings and be able to think not only of physical, material concepts such as rocks, but also of immaterial, non-tangible concepts such as good, love, justice, right, wrong. But the alternative is not an alternative to an atheist - created by God.

How does one establish a moral principle "good" without first a standard to compare good too? In an atheist world from a unpredictable, chaotic, random, chance beginning it would be established by experience, trail and error. How an atheist first got to this point is hard to imagine, but even at this point, whose experience, whose trial and error? Why does ones ideal of good become the standard another "ought to" necessarily accept? Why is your "good" good? Whose choice of what "good" is is the right choice? As an atheist the only justification for good is just the mere opinion of what good is for what does the atheist mean by good? What things possess the properties of goodness? What is it rated against? To each his own idea. That is the atheist standard, himself, for good cannot be that which is to the benefit or happiness of the greatest number for any number of factors, such as the ability to determine the outcome and consequences of any given "good" action or decision.

QUESTION: "How did something come from nothing? ( remember we are here so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

Answer from an atheist perspective: To an atheist something has never been witnessed coming from nothing, for from nothing, nothing comes. So it is reasonable to believe that something did come from something else, but what that something else is the atheist knows not. He can only speculate. Every effect that he has ever witnessed has a cause. What is the cause of the universe since the current trend is that it had a beginning? The atheist has no idea, just pure speculation, one being that of multiple universes that have eternally existed.

QUESTION: "What are people who are following the bible (or any religion) really following? (remember they do and even kill for it, so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: The atheist believes they are following a pie-in-the-sky, a do to not die, a crutch of wishful thinking so that they do not have to face the fact that existence will soon be over and it will all be meaningless.

QUESTION: "What happens when you die. (remember we do die, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

Answer from an atheist perspective: "Nothing happens when you die because after you are dead you are nothing. Your essence, your nature ceases to be and your body and physical makeup are used to push up daisies and provide hey for another dumb beast to feed on, maybe even one that will ponder the same questions?

"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. Utter meaningless! Everything is meaningless." (Ecclesiastes 1:2)

QUESTION: "Why should anyone be nice to anyone else (remember that they are, so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: Because being nice may possibly be beneficial to the atheist. It's the selfish gene that calculates what benefit being nice will be to ones existence.

QUESTION: "How can we know what is good or bad or measure horror (remember we do so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: We can't know, we can only decide what our perception of good and bad and horror will be. One atheists perception of good could be another atheists bad. Ones perception of horror could be another's joy and excitement.

QUESTION: "What is the meaning of life?"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: Whatever you make it to be. There is no ultimate meaning or purpose in existence. There is nothing to look forward to once you are dead, so, "Eat, drink and be merry," for tomorrow you die! Go for the gusto! Get what you can out of life for you're going to be dead longer than you are alive. Don't worry about hurting someones feelings or even doing them bodily harm if you can get away with it and it is to your benefit, to the extent that you can determine that benefit.

Peter:
I'll try to explain one more time.
You said, in reference to evolutionary theory, "It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings."
I said, evolutionary theory says that the main mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is NOT in any way "random". (The Dawkins quote amplified this point.)
So, you say evolution must be wrong, because it is described as random. I repeat, natural selection is NOT in any way random. This is a common (and inexplicable) misconception among those who oppose evolutionary theory. Those who repeat this misconception are simply, undeniably wrong on this point.
So, shouldn't you correct yourself now? Shouldn't you say something like, "Oh, I thought that natural selection was random. I was confusing genetic mutation (which IS random) and natural selection (which is NOT random, and which is the central mechanism of evolution in Darwinian theory). I don't know if I made this mistake on my own, or if I was just repeating what some other writer had written. And if I get this clearly false idea from something written by another person, I wonder if that other writer really believed it, or was being deliberately dishonest. Dammit, I repeated that writer's lie, that evolutionary theory is based on random events, and made a fool of myself in the process. Man, I sure do resent that other writer, whoever he or she is!"
If you have an honest bone in your body, you'll start typing it right now. Otherwise, you're just another liar for God.
And if you have God on your side, then why must you lie?

Hi Pierre,

You have not attempted to answer a single question I have asked you. You are not being reasonable if you want a discussion. Your post is like a seething rage beneath the surface in which you are slinging mud because you cannot answer my questions. You are letting emotion play too big a part in all of this. You will not here from me again unless there is some give and take. Give me some answers and I will answer your last post and continue our discussion.

Peter:
I'll try to explain one more time.
You said, in reference to evolutionary theory, "It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings."
I said, evolutionary theory says that the main mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is NOT in any way "random". (The Dawkins quote amplified this point.)
So, you say evolution must be wrong, because it is described as random. I repeat, natural selection is NOT in any way random. This is a common (and inexplicable) misconception among those who oppose evolutionary theory. Those who repeat this misconception are simply, undeniably wrong on this point.
So, shouldn't you correct yourself now? Shouldn't you say something like, "Oh, I thought that natural selection was random. I was confusing genetic mutation (which IS random) and natural selection (which is NOT random, and which is the central mechanism of evolution in Darwinian theory). I don't know if I made this mistake on my own, or if I was just repeating what some other writer had written. And if I get this clearly false idea from something written by another person, I wonder if that other writer really believed it, or was being deliberately dishonest. Dammit, I repeated that writer's lie, that evolutionary theory is based on random events, and made a fool of myself in the process. Man, I sure do resent that other writer, whoever he or she is!"
If you have an honest bone in your body, you'll start typing it right now. Otherwise, you're just another liar for God.
And if you have God on your side, then why must you lie?

Hi Pierre,

I am not able to post under my name? I don't know why.

I am not being allowed to send my post. Sorry Pierre.

Hi Pierre,

PIERRE: "I said, evolutionary theory says that the main mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is NOT in any way "random". (The Dawkins quote amplified this point.)

Where did natural selection come from? Did it choose to make an eye or create a mind? If not then it was a blind, random, chance process. Was natural selection around before the supposed Big Bang? Ever seen an explosion of any kind order or design information? How could it organize information in the first place unless it was mindful? What made something "choose" to select something else? If it was not chosen then it was blind, random happenstance.

PIERRE: "So, you say evolution must be wrong, because it is described as random. I repeat, natural selection is NOT in any way random."

Was the origins of evolution, the "Big Bang" (or the multiple universe or however else you want to conjecture on how we got here) a blind, random, chance happenstance? If not then was natural selection behind the "Big Bang" organizing information and selecting it? You are saying natural selection is responsible for the design and intelligence we see and witness today? The scientific community believes the Big Bang was a random, chance, happenstance that started the ball rolling. Either way explain how the Big Bang or natural selection is mindful or chooses (shows intent) instead of blindly and randomly selecting.

PIERRE: "This is a common (and inexplicable) misconception among those who oppose evolutionary theory. Those who repeat this misconception are simply, undeniably wrong on this point."

So I see you are not going to answer my questions. Fair enough, it's hard to have a dialog with someone when it is so one sided. There is no exchange taking place as to your reasons. You have not been able to show how natural selection came to be in the first place. How can something organize information when that something is is not mindful? Have you ever seen anything but a mind with intent? My intend (being mindful) is to show how the evolutionary worldview cannot make sense of the universe. Does a stone have intent? Can a chemical? How can life originate by chemical means? Ever see chemicals dissolving from stones produce life? To think of this biotic soup made from all these dissolving chemicals producing the diversity and complexity we see around us! No life comes from the living and that is all we ever witness. It takes a lot of faith to believe otherwise.

With the origins of the universe, how would chemicals mixing together know that they needed eyes to see or a mind to think? How would chemicals work towards this process? If they did not know these things then it was a blind, random, chance, chaotic process. It just happened. Yet that is not what we witness in the real world.

I quote (add http://),

www.icr.org/article/352/

"Darwin, in his writings, letters, and memoirs, promoted natural selection as a means by which the incredible design obvious in every living system could be derived through purely mechanistic, naturalistic processes. He devoted great energy to refuting the writings of William Paley, in which Paley reasoned that one can infer from the functional complexity of a system that

intelligence was necessary in its formation.

[Did you get that Pierre? What is your intelligence source - natural selection? ]

Just as a complex watch necessarily implies a watchmaker, so living systems, much more complex than a watch, demand that a Creator was involved in their origin. His position was eminently logical, but necessarily implied a Creator-God.
And this helps explain why Darwin and his modern disciples combat the concept of design with such vigor. If such a Creator exists, He has the authority to set the rules for His creation, and the authority to set the rules for breaking His rules. Accountability for our actions to a holy, Creator-God is not easily accepted by the natural man.

Jesus told Nicodemus, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).

If no supernatural agency has been at work throughout history, then creation is dead. But if evolutionists even allow a spark of supernatural design in history, then evolution is dead, for evolution necessarily relies on solely natural processes.

But design in living things is obvious. Even the single-celled organism is complex beyond the ability of scientists to understand, let alone duplicate. All of life is governed by the marvelously complex genetic code, which contains not only design and order, but what is equivalent to written information. This DNA code must not only be written correctly, the rest of the cell must be able to read it and follow its instructions, if the cell is to metabolize its food, carry out the myriad of enzyme reactions, and, especially, to reproduce. This code had to be present at the origin of life. How could it have written itself? And how could all the various organelles learn how to read and obey it?
Carl Sagan, the modern-day evolutionary spokesperson has admitted:

The information content of a simple cell has been established as around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.[5]

And yet he believes the code wrote itself, by purely random, natural processes, as non-living chemicals sprang to life!

Is this view really credible? Is it really scientific to ascribe to natural processes functions and products which clearly are the result of intelligent design? The Bible tells us that even "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20)."

End of quote.

Another quote (add http://),

www.icr.org/article/385/

"Gravity holds us firmly on the ground and also keeps the earth circling the sun. It draws rain from the sky and causes the tides. This mysterious gravity force continues to puzzle scientists even as it gives stability to the universe. How is gravity able to act across empty space, and why does it exist in the first place? Science has never been very successful in explaining such "natural" laws. After all, these universal rules cannot slowly arise by mutation or natural selection; they have been here since the very beginning. Gravity, as well as every other intricate physical law and constant, is actually an absolute testimony to creation….

The properties of gravity illustrate just how unique this essential force is. Consider six points, chosen from many others.

1. Gravity does not change with time. Many researchers have looked for a possible variation in the strength of gravity, without success. Some feel that stronger gravity in the distant past might possibly have helped trigger star formation or the Big Bang itself. Even with a long time scale, however, gravity appears to be perfectly constant.[4] Gravity therefore does not solve the problems of Big Bang cosmology.
2. Aside from air resistance, large and small objects fall downward in exactly the same time. Drop two compact objects and you should see and hear them hit the floor simultaneously.
3. Gravity is always attractive, while other forces such as magnetism can either repel or attract. This beneficial property makes gravity the universal "Elmer's Glue" which binds the universe together. Even the distant galaxies, which appear to have been created with an outward expanding motion, are gradually slowing due to the inward gravity pull from all other galaxies in the universe.
4. Gravity cannot be fumed off or shielded in any way. Intervening objects have no effect on the original gravity force between two separated masses. This means that there is no antigravity chamber available in which the occupants can continually float freely. The weightless, gravity-free feeling you may have experienced on an amusement park ride results from a temporary falling motion. Orbiting astronauts appear weightless only because their fall toward the earth is balanced by the outward directed centrifugal force.
5. Gravity attraction does not depend on the composition of objects, only on their mass or weight. Several blocks composed of glass, lead, ice, or Styrofoam, if they all have equal mass, will attract each other identically.
6. The gravity force decreases with distance but is actually infinite in its extent. Gravity acts instantly between the earth and moon, as well as across the millions of light years of space between galaxies, according to classical theory."

End of quote.

The evolutionist has quite a dilemma. It is like the chicken and egg scenario. How does he make sense of it? The creationist has no problem answering it with certainty, for God has revealed this much - the chicken came first. The evolutionist is left with much speculation as to how it all came about, just like in every other area that I listed in the previous posts in which you have not responded to, nor do I believe you can.

Peter:
I'll try to explain one more time.
You said, in reference to evolutionary theory, "It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings."
I said, evolutionary theory says that the main mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is NOT in any way "random". (The Dawkins quote amplified this point.)
So, you say evolution must be wrong, because it is described as random. I repeat, natural selection is NOT in any way random. This is a common (and inexplicable) misconception among those who oppose evolutionary theory. Those who repeat this misconception are simply, undeniably wrong on this point.
So, shouldn't you correct yourself now? Shouldn't you say something like, "Oh, I thought that natural selection was random. I was confusing genetic mutation (which IS random) and natural selection (which is NOT random, and which is the central mechanism of evolution in Darwinian theory). I don't know if I made this mistake on my own, or if I was just repeating what some other writer had written. And if I get this clearly false idea from something written by another person, I wonder if that other writer really believed it, or was being deliberately dishonest. Dammit, I repeated that writer's lie, that evolutionary theory is based on random events, and made a fool of myself in the process. Man, I sure do resent that other writer, whoever he or she is!"
If you have an honest bone in your body, you'll start typing it right now. Otherwise, you're just another liar for God.
And if you have God on your side, then why must you lie?

Hi Pierre,

You: "1) Learn to spell my name. (If you can't manage that, try cutting and pasting it.)"

Sorry, my apologies. It was not done intentionally. I just read the "r" as a "c" without my glasses on.

YOU: "2) I asked, "Are believers who claim that evolution is random pitifully ignorant or simply stupid?"

Here is what I originally said,

"It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings, that information and logic just suddenly or laboriously materialized from what?"

You failed to answer my original question and the adjoining questions on that post. As I said before you pontificate the way things are and yet you cannot answer how it all came to be, so you are the one who can't make sense of it, and you expect me to? So is it not right to think exactly the opposite of what you said, that you are the foolish or ignorant one? I have an explanation of why things are the way they are and how they came to be.

Why don't you ask a leading evolutionist on how it all began?

‘The interpretation of evolution is in a state of upheaval: the rapid advancement of Molecular Biology has led into question many of the tenets of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism which, although valuable approaches at the time they were formulated, never fulfilled the criteria demanded by real scientific theories… In the author’s opinion, no real theory of evolution can be formulated at present.’

From the publishers’ advertising of a recent evolutionary book, Evolution Without Selection, by A. Lima-de Faria, Esevier Science publishing Co. Inc., New York (NY) USA, 1988 372 pages.

‘I have faith and belief myself. I believe that the universe is comprehensible within the bounds of natural law and that the human brain can discover those natural laws and comprehend the universe. I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed.’

‘I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.’

Isaac Asimov, Counting the Eons, Grafton Books (Collins), London, p.10.

‘The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models: hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.’

Dickerson, Richard, Scientific American, Sep. 1978, p.70

In September 1992, a Scientific American article called ‘Mind and Brain’ said that human brain is …

‘the most complex structure in the known universe, complex enough to coordinate the fingers of a concert pianist or to create a three-dimensional landscape from light that falls on a two-dimensional retina’.

A few lines further on, the author said,

‘the current version [of the brain] is the result of millions of years of evolution. It is difficult to understand the brain because, unlike a computer, it was not built with specific purposes or principles of design in mind. Natural selection, the engine of evolution, is responsible.’

This is the stark reality of what evolutionary science is teaching our generation-even the most complex structure in the universe is said to have no plan, no purpose, in defiance of all ordinary logic. Trying to explain design without a designer-in other words, justifying atheism, is what evolution has always been all about, despite the attempts by ‘theistic evolutionism’ to disguise the obvious.

(Source: Gerald D. Fischbach, ‘Mind and Brain’, Scientific American 267(3):24, September 1992.

‘Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools’ (Romans 1:22).

"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'"
-Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, leading cladistic taxonomist), Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981.

So you answer my questions if you can or if you dare. Maybe you should be honest and admit that you do not have the answers. Ah, but that would show in principle just how shaky a ground you really stand on, like a belief planted in mid-air without a foundation.

Peter,
1) Learn to spell my name. (If you can't manage that, try cutting and pasting it.)
2) I asked, "Are believers who claim that evolution is random pitifully ignorant or simply stupid?" Answer the question -- or refuse to and yet again reveal your dishonesty (or ignorance) and cowardice.

Hi again JC Pierce,

I would like to add to your previous post in which you said,

JC PIERCE: "There are only physical, biological and psychological forces in the world, and no magic ones."

There again, you would have to show me how something intangible, non-physical, logical, organic can come from a tangible, material, physical, illogical inorganic beginning. I'm convinced you threw in the "psychological forces" as an afterthought to cover your tracks. Where do you ever find a thinking or rational rock or chemical, yet supposedly after the Big Bang and through countless ages of time, magically we got intangible, non-physical thought and logic coming from this matter - thinking, rational man.

JC PIERCE: "Death is the permanent end of all experience. There is no final justice in the end for anyone. From the moment we die, we have no chance of ever seeing our loved ones, living or dead, ever again."

How do you know?

Are you all knowing? Since you are not dead how are you able to say what is beyond death unless you are either all knowing or have experienced death, or know the One who is all knowing? You couldn't say it in either the first or second (especially the second for it is contradictory to your viewpoint), of these three propositions, only in the last.

JC PIERCE: "It's not all bad. In a universe with no gods, eternal souls or afterlife, one thing is for certain: All pain is temporary."

Are you absolutely sure. If so explain to me how you, of all people know these things.

How do you get your meaning and purpose out of life Mr. Pierce? I contend their is a true and living God who is able to give meaning and purpose to life from whom we know and without Him it is all absurd. Without God (and I only contend for the one and only true God - the God of Judea-Christianity) how do you establish meaning or purpose as anything other than arbitrary? How do you establish morals? How do you establish truth? How do you establish logic? How do you establish order. Where does information come from? I mean a stone does not formulate information, only a mind does. It does not think, it is not living.

Would you care to answer these questions?

Hi Pierce,

ME: "It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings."

Pierce: "Yes, Peter, it would be a stretch of the imagination -- if you were describing evolution with any accuracy. But your description ("blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings") is completely and totally inaccurate."

Are you saying that when this process all began it had meaning and purpose? Are you saying that something was planned when the Big Bang happened? You do believe in the Big Bang, right? Or do you have a different theory such as the multiple universe theory as to why we are here? If you do you are going against the commonly held position in science today. Which brings me to the next point in who is right? What can you say is actually established about evolution? BTW, since I have answered some of your questions, why don't you tackle some of mine Pierce, on my previous post? My questions are usually, and some of them always avoided because the atheist does not have an answer to why he can pontificate his position.

PIERCE: "The primary mechanism is called "natural selection," and it has NOTHING to do with chance."

Where did it come from? Why is it able to organize information and matter? If it is not able to organize matter or information then it all happens by chance. Why are there natural laws that follow certain conditions? Where do you see or can you demonstrate a law not coming from a mind, and I mean demonstrate.

PIERCE: "(As Richard Dawkins wrote over a decade ago, "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work.")"

Sure, it is long, long, long ago. Who was around to witness it? No one. As God said to Job,

"Where were you when I laid the earths foundation? Tell me if you understand." (Job 38:4)

PIERCE: "Peter, you seem sincere in your point of view, as do the many believers who repeat it."

Pierce, there is no such thing as a neutral point of view. A persons mind is formed upon basic foundational presuppositions in either one of four options that I know of; the universe was created, it came about by chance, it always existed or everything is an illusion.

You have been influenced by the prevailing worldview of your time. Try tracing that worldview back in time. The question for any worldview must be is it true? How do you know what you know is true and conforms to what is real? The atheist cannot show how his worldview is true or conforms to reality. He cannot show how something living can come, comes, or has ever come from something non-living. He cannot show how an amoral process can produce ethics and morals, since a process does not think, only a mind thinks. He cannot show how logic comes from a process that supposedly began randomly and by chance. He cannot show how information can come from such a process for anything resulting from an explosion does not produce order or information. A mind produces both. He cannot show how truth, beauty, knowledge, love, compassion can come from a mixture of any non-living, non-thinking, physical material chemicals. He cannot show evolution taking place today where a human, or any animal is mutating and changing into another form. All the atheist can do is point to animals who were designed to adapt to the conditions in which they live, not change into another form of life. Show me where these things are happening? No, the atheist's position is foolish.

Then there is the question of authority. On whose authority does the atheist base their judgments and why? Can you show me why they are anything other than subjective and relative?

PIERCE: "This begs these questions: Are believers who claim that evolution is random pitifully ignorant or simply stupid?"

What evolution? There is another side to the equation. Are believer's (or atheists for that matter) that believe in evolution right? On whose authority? You, Pierce, naturally assume that the Christian or person that believes that evolution is the fairy tale are the ones in error. But it all depends on your starting point and how you build on that starting point that determines your worldview and what is the authority of your starting point? One thing about a skeptic is that by nature he won't believe something no matter what the evidence. They suppress anything that does not line up with their basic, foundational beliefs. That is why he is a skeptic. The Bible makes this clear,

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For, although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like moral man and birds and animals and reptiles... They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen." (Romans 1:18-23, 25)

The skeptic by nature is hostile to God and will not accept the Word of God, nor is he able to do so. It takes God's mercy and grace to open an unbeliever's eyes, ears and heart tom the truth of Scripture, because they live in rebellion to God believing they are autonomous and wise and always choose what they desire and want.

"Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires, but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful nature is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." (Romans 8:5-8)

So there is no way I can convince you unless God is a work within your heart, but I can show you that you have no foundation for your belief. It is firmly planted in mid-air. That is how silly it is.

PIERCE: "Do they think they have any right to discuss an issue they plainly know nothing about? Do they think they can impress others by parading their ignorance?"

Maybe you can explain and show proof of the issues I have mentioned above Pierce, then we can talk? What do you know for sure Pierce? What can you say is absolutely true and what do you base your conclusion on? The Lord Jesus Christ is my sure foundation! As the apostle Paul said, in which I wholeheartedly agree,

"I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those in Laodicea, and for all those who have not met me personally. My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine sounding arguments."
(Colossians 2:1-4)

How complete is your understanding of evolution? What have you read about it and do you understand about it? Who has convinced you it is true? How wise do you feel they are?

PIERCE: "Tell us Peter; we'd love to find out."

It is a two-way street Pierce. You are going to have to give me some answers too. Are you willing to do that?

Peter Huff wrote, "It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings."
Yes, Peter, it would be a stretch of the imagination -- if you were describing evolution with any accuracy. But your description ("blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings") is completely and totally inaccurate. The primary mechanism is called "natural selection," and it has NOTHING to do with chance. (As Richard Dawkins wrote over a decade ago, "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work.")
Peter, you seem sincere in your point of view, as do the many believers who repeat it. This begs these questions: Are believers who claim that evolution is random pitifully ignorant or simply stupid? Do they think they have any right to discuss an issue they plainly know nothing about? Do they think they can impress others by parading their ignorance?
Tell us Peter; we'd love to find out.

Oh goody! More ranting from Sam Harris on the virtues of being a rational, noble, sane minded atheist and the vice of being a merger, irrational, immoral Christian.

How do you get virtue and morality and rationality from evolution? How does a non-thinking, non-living, amoral process give birth to living, rational, ethical human beings? How I wish an atheist could answer these questions before he attempts to put his foot in his mouth and mumble something totally incoherent and unbelievable, so unbelievable that it takes greater faith to believe than even T.D. Jakes or Jack Van Impe or John Hagee in their "last days madness," as Gary Demar wrote in his book by the same name.

No, in all we ever see or witness life comes from life, thinking from being, intelligence from a mind. It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings, that information and logic just suddenly or laboriously materialized from what? How can something intangible and non-physical in essence such as logic come from something physical and non-living. These are questions the atheist needs to answer before they start mocking other faiths. And their belief is a faith, but a leap in the dark rather than a rational faith.

Hi Jihadist! Long time no read. Still fighting the battle of ideas I see.

Readers of these comments may have noticed the techniques used by most critics of Sam Harris' remarks.
First, they call Harris names. They call him smug, elitist, etc. Then they proclaim him wrong. He is just so wrong, they say.
Then, they offer no specific criticism of anything Harris wrote.
How odd. They are so sure that they are right, and they have this handy forum for demonstrating how each of Harris' ideas can be refuted and they... choose to offer no criticisms other than name-calling.
A rational person may assume that these critics have no reasoned arguments to offer. (After all, saying "I believe my magical, invisible friend is real, and that makes it true for everyone" doesn't have much persuasive power.)
One might also assume that, because they have only derision to offer, these critics may not quite grasp the concept of "civil debate."
Perhaps these critics respond with such strong emotions because Harris draws attention to the part of religious faith that is truly embarrassing -- that faith in most religions requires belief in magic. But magic isn't real. There are only physical, biological and psychological forces in the world, and no magic ones. Death is the permanent end of all experience. There is no final justice in the end for anyone. From the moment we die, we have no chance of ever seeing our loved ones, living or dead, ever again.
It's not all bad. In a universe with no gods, eternal souls or afterlife, one thing is for certain: All pain is temporary.
Bravo, Mr. Harris.

MM, very well said. And I say this as a Christian.

However, I disagree that science has not been used to justify atrocities. Eugenics certainly comes to mind.

karen

Mr Harris,

It is no more logical to discount the wisdom that can be gleaned from the various traditions that are labeled 'religion' as it is to discount wisdom that comes from the traditions that are labeled 'science.' You have argued that these are not equivalent in that people justify horrible actions via religion (or misinterpretation of religion) whereas people do not justify atrocities via science. This is true; but it does not mean that we can't benefit immensely from the practices and teachings of the so called 'religious' traditions.

It seems to me as though 'atheists' are trying to put up resistance to the threat of closed-minded religionists, to counter the religionist's use of irrational/dillusional thinking to control the country/world. But in so doing, you are trying yourself to control things. The truth is that religious folks will start to see that questioning their own tradition can be healthy, but not when you tell them to. It can't be forced upon them.

The tone of most atheists, while I agree with most of their arguments, is quite negative and condescending towards religious people. This isn't necessary. What is your goal, after all? Is it to create more divisions, or is it to bring people together and out of ignorance? If it is the latter, would it not be wiser to use a more constructive and respectful tone? Many, many so called religious people are extremely intelligent, sensitive, well-meaning people. They would probably be much more open to questioning their own traditions, in a healthy way, if the argument for doing so was presented with a positive tone.

I understand the anger that seems to simmer beneath the surface of the atheist message; and while I do feel it is warranted in many ways, I think a more measured approach may better serve the cause. (Perhaps it won't sell as many books, and maybe therein lies the rub...)

Mr. Harris,

Let me also add the following, which comes from the "Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems."

TOP 5 COUNTRIES in TOTAL CRIMES PER CAPITA:

Dominica, New Zealand, FINLAND, DENMARK, Chile.

Hmmm. Seems like your aforementioned countries might not be the utopia that you would like everyone to believe. I know, I know. The Jerry Springer and Oprah Winfrey audience that you're targeting are probably too stupid or too lazy to do anything more than regurgitate whatever you say.

Mr. Harris,

Are you aware that Saudi Arabia has a lower, per capita murder rate than any of the four countries you championed? I would assume then that it would be your hope that the U.S. move itself toward a more Saudi Arabian society?

And how exactly does Chistianity hinder the develop of education in the U.S.? We spend more money, per student, on education than any other country in the world and have less to show for it. Where is religion to blame in this equation?

And when countries around the world need financial or military help, whom do they call? Sweden? Denmark? I don't think so. It's the U.S. You know - one of the youngest countries in the world who also happens to be the only superpower. Yes, America - what a terrible place to be.

I'm willing to vote for Obama even if he claims to believe in the bible. I'll bet he still believes in Newton and Einstein too - but wait!

If even Newton and Einstein are only speaking the relative truth based on the new frontier of quantum physics, doesn't that further marginalize the absolutism of religious faith - which is based on evidence somewhat more tenuous than particle physics??

I personally don't see how science is making the case for religious belief - on the contrary, the mystery only increases as time goes on. How is this evidence of the Absolute???

Religion and religionists on the other hand, claim to have all the answers, at least according to numerous hundreds of posts on these threads ....... how so???

If you're looking for a keen rational mind and a logical problem-solver in your political candidate of choice, I'd think religion would be that last thing anyone was talking about .... but that's just me.

Okay, your piece is a little bit funny, with lots of entertaining, if a bit sophomoric, vitriol. But it is hardly credible to point out that some Confederates believed God was on their side, while completely ignoring that the abolitionist movement was shaped by Christian belief, and carried out by Christians. Christianity didn't create slavery, though defenders of slavery cherry-picked from the Bible to justify the institution. But the movement to end slavery was fundamentally Christian, not atheist.

TYPICAL WHITE PERSON (EXCEPT I'M NOT), Hi
Why should I be fooled by your saying, "Don't be fooled?" I don't know anything about what you represent. As for Obama, I've read both his books, listened to all his speeches, sat through two of his rallies, and read his entire web site and innumerable interviews of him and his wife. Until I have as much information about you, I'm sorry to say I'll have to ignore your advice, though not you, of course.

Mr. Foster, Hi,
While I very much respect your feelings, I feel you've mistaken Harris's larger point in mentioning Romney's clothing, which was to further his point that evangelicals doomed Romney's campaign by their prejudiced refusal to grant legitimacy to another Christian sect. If you substitute Catholic prayer shawl or Jewish yarmulke for Mormon undergarments, you'll perhaps see where I see Harris coming from. That the intimacy of the garments mentioned is apt to provoke snorts is a unfortunate side effect of what we silly humans find humorous. Harris is not so naive as to be innocent of baser forms of humor but would also know that humor might better drive his point. As a nonMormon, I actually missed the humor for seeing his larger point of Romney being unfairly evicted in favor of lesser candidates. Admittedly this may be because he was my GOP favorite, being the one successful executive in the whole race, a true star.

"Obama’s candidacy is genuinely thrilling: his heart is clearly in the right place; he is an order of magnitude more intelligent than the current occupant of the Oval Office; and he still stands a decent chance of becoming the next President of the United States. His election in November really would be a triumph of hope."

Bull hockey, It will be triumph of one of the most cynical politicians , who it willing to throw anyone under the bus, who uses race to move ahead (using race to divide us), and who is an empty suit.

Obama's campaign is about Obama, not improving America.
Don't be fooled

Mr. Harris, you are a bigoted moron. You vainly try to appear oh so intelligent and sophisticated with your snide comments about religion. Then, while discussing Mitt Romney you write, "the Governor had been wearing consecrated Mormon underpants..."

Do you realize how offensive a comment like that is to Mormons? Somehow, I don't think you would be making snide comments about prayer shawls, yarmulkes and religious clothing from other religions. For some reason though, making fun of Mormons' sacred garments is fair game among pseudo-intellectual elitists like yourself. I guess that's because Latter-day Saints quietly sit back and take the vicious abuse of morons like yourself.

So, all I have to say is I see you for what you really are and I am very unimpressed.

ALICIA, Thanks for speaking so well and eloquently to remind us what's important: those realities the press sets aside for being too unattractive and complicated while YouTube clips of Rev. Wright have the lifespan of Britney Spears (hah). Those who'd never vote for Obama are obviously having a field day, crushing the pearls he casts, as if to swine, his brilliantly high-minded speech dismissed mindlessly as "fakery". I hear the echo of Kerry swiftly downed by his honorable war record hurled against him by a candidate whose father got him into the Guard where he failed to complete his service. How Kerry's coming out against a war he had fought in was held to be worse than Bush being for a war he refused to fight in...If Obama overcomes this problem in what our MSM panders to in the worst of us it will indeed signal a new dawn, a good morning in America.

This whole news coverage is a major distraction for what really ails America. Yes, the remarks were inflammatory and could easily be seen as hateful. Anti-America comments, no, it's the truth many people see and not just African Americans. The last presidential election it was "same sex marriage" that got the people stirred up and Bush a second term. This time it's anti-patriotism, a distraction!

I feel sorry for hardworking Americans trying to survive in this economy (regardless of race) and soldiers dying or wounded in a needless war. Our unstable economy and loss of jobs and what NAFTA has produced is what concerns me. These are the issues that affect my life, not seeming anti-American statements of a Chicago preacher. In Chicago, in the Black community, Dr. Wright and the Trinity Church has and is doing marvelous social work and is considered a beacon of light. Wright is not perceived as a hate-filled preacher and craze ministry. The Black community don't always understand how easy Americas are distracted, especially, when we're really hurting and at the hands of our own leadership. With films like "Iraq for Sale" and others, they don't make a dent in the American people ability to see that we're a very much imperfect union. It's almost as if we prefer to be deceived and issues sugar coated if stated at all. Racism promotes white supremacy and this is no substitute for a true sense of self-worth and fairness. At the end of the day, we're all trying to feel good about ourselves and hopefully, make this world a better place. Distractions such as this will always hinder blind-sighted, Americans, who have good intentions, but are taught and guided to be judge and jury on race issues and not real issues and resolutions that sustain growth...this war, gas prices and companies taking jobs overseas and still getting tax credits.

The great thing about the Obama Presidential bid is that Americans are getting the chance to think for themselves! Out of this new America will become a stronger and more viable country. "The People" will have a true voice, politicians will do their job or lose them. This distraction is to take this away and I guess this is the real reason for stopping the Obama train. Obama's win will most definitely benefit White people more than other people, thanks to Bill Clinton and well as other democratic presidents (think welfare and public housing), we're caught up in the industrialized prison system (modern day slavery)...mandatory minimum sentencing and three strikes laws have crippled black America substantially with 1 out of 4 blacks incarcerated. So, not to elect Senator Obama and instead McCain will mean many more families will lose loved ones, our foreign relations around the world will be strained and we'll continue to be viewed as imperialists. This war will continue to erode our economy and jobs will be not be brought back into this country anytime soon. You weigh these concerns against a Chicago preacher with inflammatory remarks that can be viewed as racist and anti-American, depending on one's knowledge of the oppression that has and still exist in this country.

This current media culture really shapes and molds attitudes and thinking. The extreme energy place on what Dr. Wright preached and Obama being a long-time member is going to be the winning ticket for McCain. So be it. It's not about race, it's about money, greed and power.
As an African American, we have no other choice but to see America quite differently and can understand Dr. Wright's statements. The difference is that many or most black preachers won't be so forward with exposing America's oppression. Indeed, there have been many changes and progress has been made. But it's still new...the 1965 voting act, the end of Jim Crow Law in the 60s, lynching’s and a legal system that's put many innocent men and women on death row. We have titans like Oprah Winfrey, Ben Carson, Michael Jordan, Bill Cosby, Dr. Jonetta B. Cole and others prominent preeminent Americans. So I can understand how white people feel Dr. Wright's comments are unwarranted and unpatriotic. John Hagee, Pat Robertson and Ron Parsley really irritate me and I have to turn them off.

Let's not be distracted, let's move forward from this point...

In conventional politics, campaigns will play dirty and use whatever tactics possible to gain an edge. The problem is playing the race card is not an edge to gain. Everybody loses. The Clintons have done very well marketing themselves to African Americans over the years. Was it genuine or just for the assets? Consider the bag of bricks Obama has to carry when the Clinton campaign allows open ended racial accusations, words and phrases to slip. When it comes to dodging the race card anyone who ponders the weight of Hillarys bag needs to look no further than Geraldine Ferraro. Clearly racist. Hillary denounces the comments and apologizes days later and it goes away. Damage done. Assets protected. No other presidential candidate has ever had to go through what Barack has had to regarding a former pastor. Is that what we call tough love here in America? Americans should stand strong through this process. Slavery and its residue of racism happens to be a much larger part of society than some would admit. Hillary will benefit from that for a minute. Barack Obama will be president.

I am glad you wrote on this topic Sam. As a man of Northeast African heritage, I have been very proud of Mr. Obama since 2004. However, his embrace of faith after his election has made me nervous as to how much he will go with faith at the expense of reason. So far, he has been a balanced man. Hopefuly, he will tilt towards reason in at least his policies if not in his personal spirituality. He seems to be a thoughtful man capable of thinking, curiousity, and respect for intellectual engagement. That gives me the audacity to hope.

I am totally amazed at the number of people willing to pass judgment based on a few seconds of Fox "fake news" sound-bytes. How many of you who are so quick to condemn took the time to view the full sermons from which the bytes were snatched out of context? How many of your churches could withstand this kind of attack where someone is looking for 1 minute of unrestrained anger among 20 years of love and forgiveness?
Watch the entire sermons or shut up!
http://www.youtube.com/trinitychgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
And yes, it would be refreshing if we could drop all this religious nonsense like a lead balloon and get on with solving our very real social and environmental problems.

What a Crock of Crap

DAVIDO, whether Obama owns DVDS of Wright interests you, because you've never watched them, which is telling of the value you place on the imaginary over the real.

Sam Harris is dead on as usual with one exception: he treats religion as a cause rather than effect or tool of an even deeper cause, greed.

He mentioned Southerners giving their lives for slavery because their churches told them to, but the churches were telling them what they wanted to hear, that their sociopathic behavior that made them a lot of money was morally acceptable.

Harriet Beecher Stowe put these words in the mouth of one of her characters in chapter 16 of Uncle Tom's Cabin:
____________________________________

"suppose that something should bring down the price of cotton once and forever, and make the whole slave property a drug in the market, don't you think we should soon have another version of the Scripture doctrine? What a flood of light would pour into the church, all at once, and how immediately it would be discovered that everything in the Bible and reason went the other way!"

http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/uncletom/utfihbsa16t.html
____________________________________

I sometimes wonder if this isn't exactly what happened. Slaves were replaced by sharecroppers who instead of getting a subsistence living from their masters ended up owing them money, and today, we have illegal immigrants who rather than being fed and clothed year round as slaves were can be dismissed to starve on their own dime after the harvest or even removed by a call to la migra (now ICE).

Wow what a wonderfully insightful essay. Its rare to read an original thought in the blogosphere.

I'm sure you'll get lots of vitriol for it. Please keep writing anyways.

Obama and his campaign made sure that Wright was not allowed to speak for himself and the question should have been about that. Where is Rev. Wright and why hasn't anyone questioned him about his sermons? Why don't they just ask him if he remembers Obama being in church on the days he gave his anti-American sermons? Isn't this America and can't a pastor preach whatever he wants? The issue of whether Obama agrees with whatever Wright said still hasn't been answered but Obama used to his advantage by making it into a race issue and not one of religious freedom.

I'd be interested to know if Obama owns the DVDs of Rev. Wright attacking America.

swp,
Thanks for bringing some new insights to this old American problem.

This is so breathtakingly true as to be rather a miracle of language. That the godful in power willfully mock reality everywhere in America, instead of tending to the creatures they claim are protected by the sky, is so obvious a dereliction of duty as to shame our nation. Until Americans throw off the yoke of superstition, we'll not enjoy the fruits of reason that have brought the good life of peace and plenty to Scandinavians. Truth alone will bring us to reason, so the words of Mr. Harris are greatly appreciated by those who love America.

The most revealing event in this election is the battle against racism is being won in the South, while the rest of the country is still struggling. It's a relief that Bill Richardson has spoken up as an influence in the Hispanic community because these are voters who have also experienced righteous anger at White oppression. As the dynamics of this race changes, the changing of the tide won't predict how the result will play out. Obama may have won a new base.

It would be a terrible event for the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton and the women's movement if Hillary was perceived as winning the racist White vote.

WYZEPRINCE,

You say, "The problem, as I see it, is that because we are not perfect, any institutions we create (including religious ones) will not be perfect. Therefore, we humble ourselves, recognize a higher power and seek guidance. Recognizing our own fallibility, observing the amazing complexity of the universe, and coming to the conclusion that there is higher power at work, seems eminently reasonable to me."

STOP RIGHT THERE!!! It is NOT eminently reasonable to conclude that there is a "higher power" at work. Why? Because you are using a classic logical fallacy, the ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. Since you can't explain the amazing complexity, you accept a wholly unfounded explanation, namely a "higher power," for purely emotional reasons. I won't get into the fact that "higher power" doesn't even amount TO an explanation, I'll just say that this is the Achilles' Heel that so many religious people try to slip into what might otherwise pass as a rational argument.

The funny thing with your sentence is that you begin by recognizing your own fallability, then proceed immediately to manifest it in your logic.

I recommend that, recognizing your own fallability, you proceed cautiously in your argument, examining each step carefully. What follows from the (apparent) "amazing complexity" of the universe? Well, first, define your terms. What do you mean by complexity? Biological complexity? That's largely explained by evolution. The large number of astronomical bodies? That's explained by cosmology. The bottom line is that your question itself begs many other questions. So what's the reasonable response? Follow the questions! That's science, and it doesn't lead to "a higher power did it." In field after field we find that things look more and more like we think they would IF THERE WERE NO HIGHER POWER. In NO CASE does scientific inquiry lead us closer to the "higher power" "explanation." Wyze up!

Jihadist,

After many lines of only semi-comprehensible but nevertheless somehow interesting prose, you say:

"And now, we a subset of Caucasian male who are atheists who doth give the impression that they are better, smarter and wiser than anyone in the US and have all the answers.

I hate to break it here than even quantum physicists are now thinking and saying even Newton and Einstein may be wrong. Science is still not perfect, still learning and do not have all the answers and solutions."

Science will NEVER be perfect!!! Or, more accurately, the body of scientific theories will NEVER be perfect!!! And atheiests DON'T claim that it is!!! And they DON'T claim to have all the answers!!! ARGGHHH!!!!!!!

You've had your fun. I'm calling CCNL!!!! ;)

I quite agree with you, Sam: NO RELIGION whatsoever should play a part in politics and in our government. It corrupts and it engenders strife & division.

What do we demand from our Congress Representatives, Senators, President, his/her cabinet, Justice Dpt, etc. etc. at every level? Competency, equity, honesty and effectiveness. That's all. No pseudo professions of faith, nor hypocritical mis-behaviors.

That Obama had to spend his and my precious time, and that of many other people, to make a long speech that both blamed and yet supported the outrageous insults declared in a Christian Church by his personal religious adviser, an ordained minister, is bad enough. No, Barak, you can't have your cake and eat it too!

But we also had to endure the unacceptable contorted explanations by pundits of the Black Community that it was ok to insult all Americans - though through no fault of their own - as long as Blacks did so. Of course, this "damnation" in a Christian Church, which was fundamentally unchristian and inhumane language, and symptomatic of deeply rooted hatred and malevolence toward another race, would have been totally illegal if uttered by a white or brown. Such double standard and dubious rhetorics to defend the indefensible are, to say the least, outrageous and multiply the offense.

I do feel that Barak was most probably sincere, though contradictory, both in his speech and in his faith, contrary to what you, Sam Harris, seems to surmise in the present article. But I do object to Obama's continuous use of his religion, its terminology and intonation in his campaign political discourse as a candidate for the presidency of the USA. What will he do with this religious baggage once he is President if he is the selected nominee and is victorious in the general election? Will he use it as shamelessly and unethically as our present presidential moron?

And what can we conclude from his lack of judgment when he included Rev. Wright amid his closest advisers even though he already knew about his rabid fervor against the whites? What kind of people would join him in the cabinet and the administration after all this, plus earlier major problems?

No, decidedly, this latest incident has saddened me greatly and I have to confess that, from now on, BO can no longer count on my vote.

Barak, I am so disappointed. Decades away, it seems, from that bright evening when you stirred our consciences and I became an early supporter after hearing you at the 2004 Democratic Convention. -

Yawn. Just another attempt to talk away faith by advocating rationality. But faith and rationality live on different pages.

Go Obama 2008.

With all due respect, Mr.Harris, it is troubling that Senator Obama has belonged for twenty years to a congregation in which anti-American lies have circulated (e.g., that the US government exposed African-Americans to the AIDS virus). I was also disturbed to learn recently that the United Church of Christ has taken an anti-Israel position (e.g., calling for a boycott of corporations that do business in Israel). A presidential candidate who is comfortable with these positions is not someone that I can support. Call me another Democrat for McCain.

You do have a faith, Sam; you definitely believe in non-believing! And you have faith in what you may call pure rationality.

I don't feel I have any "faith" per se. I rather see myself as a fundamental AGNOSTIC. I simply DON'T KNOW. And I am not inclined to venture to know & align reams of empty words, sentences, paragraphs, pages & chapters of books to discuss what is not part of the visible or the audible parts of our living experience. Mere common sense & reason, as well as a peaceful heart & human dignity, must or should rule our daily lives & relegate dubious RELIGIOUS creeds & rituals to their proper place: at a reasonably tolerable & tolerant distance.

Does this mean I should be totally deprived of SPIRITUAL aspirations?
Of course not.
My own eyes as well as constant scientific discoveries in my world & in space/time make me marvel at the wonders of all creation. Its immensity, its infinite smallness, its constant movement & energy - from our human perspective. Macro/micro systems. And us, seemingly in between, in amazement & awe. Aware of some of its wondrous multifaceted & multidimensional workings. And so intimately proud to be an integral part of it, both immense & diminutive, in our own right!

In fact, from a rational viewpoint, we should "believe" that a Creator exists - or should have existed - since, indirectly, we can see & hear & touch Its Creation & Its Creatures! And we might surmise that It is only ABSENT because this is Its choice - thru indifference or other interests - or bec. either we are unable somehow to communicate from our level to its own thru our supposedly intended in-born limitations, or even more simply because, following the order of all things created It partakes of their fate & has ceased to exist, leaving its evolutionary creation & creatures to their own devices. A lab experiment of sorts, apparently revolving endlessly thru space & time...

Even agnostics, sometimes, may lend themselves to imaginary suppositions when musing upon the possible rationality of their existence. It does not mean they "believe" in them. Nor do they put a premium on mere rationality. It may just be an existential bent.

For, being aware of the primacy of this world, this space & its beauty, the agnostic, thru his/her deep integration with it, may & often will have spiritual longings for its primordial force, its energy & tenderness. A propulsive élan toward Nature & all its inhabitants, all subject to the same natural & just rules of being born, growing & maturing, then decaying & dying. And death itself, in that perspective, is no longer a "last" act to be feared, but an anonymous re-integration to the great Whole, a re-transformation in our transformative worlds.

Well, despite my affirmations in the 2nd paragraph I have written today a few sentences about a subject I had vouched to avoid... to a certain extent! But these spiritual longings are eminently natural, particularly for agnostics, when, on the one hand, we do not confuse them or force them with any specific narrow "religion" &, on the other hand, we consider & ponder the smaller & greater environments with which we live integrally for a time. - Uranie -

Well done.

Thank you for presenting an articulate opinion piece and illustrating the irrational hold religion has on American politics.

BGone wrote:

"Jed Rothwell:

Not disagreeing but did you know that in spite of the blood baths like, Bull Run and Gettysburg and many others most Civil War deaths were from non hostile causes due mainly to poor sanitation?"

It does not seem relevant but I have heard that is true. They improved sanitation considerably in the last years of the war.

"Would you support the notion of giving all former slaves a huge cash payment?"

No, that is an absurd idea.

"Don't you think it's about time black folks demanded a day of thanksgiving, national holiday to honor American slave owners?"

That's sickening, even as a joke.

Hello Chris Everett,

Most of the atheist authors on atheism are Caucasians.

I still would like to know what a non Caucasian atheist, especially an African-American, has to say on this flap over what Pastor Wright said, and his or her reaction to Barack Obama's speech.

You : "Is it all just another instance of BAD FAITH from a person OF FAITH? In your case I'm loathe to think so."

An atheist, or rather, an ethical culturist, throwing "faith" on a religionist? One does gets the impression that atheists are in more dire need for believers to agree with them than the other way around.

Surely not trying to limit a believer to a certain expectation? You've used this "bad faith" thing on another religionist. Or was it someone else?

This much is certain. Not many believers have much faith in atheists talking about faith in any way. After all, they are the FAITHless ones, the unFAITHful ones, the non-FAITHfull ones.

One should not want to have faith in anyone, any group that thinks saying "damn Malaysia", burning its flag, not wearing the right label pins, not treating the Constitution man-made laws, is secularly heretical, blasphemous, unpatriotic and treasonous.

One would think that is just as bad as any religionist insisting another to comply with all tenets of any faith or risk damnation as a heretic or blasphemer.

One do hold one's fellow co-religionists personally responsible and acountable for their words and deeds. One do hold others likwise.

One do not have faith in governments which cynically and hypocritically manipulate and exploited the faith of a group to fight their wars for them. As in the case of the mujahids in Afghanistan agaist the Soviets, the then ideological enemy of a certain state.

Sam Harris obviously see the world from the prisms of his personal experience and non-belief. Pastor Wright is from his from own experiece and belief.

Pastor Wright is right when he stated the "chicken has come home to roost". Even the CIA admitted it as "blowback", their own special term for it. They supported (funding and training to the tune of at least $3 billion) the mujahids. Who also included the Database (Al Qaeda), some of whose veterans went on to fight in Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq.

Perhaps, Mr. Harris and Hitchens, being people of no faith, is fearful of people of passionate faith as shown by the example of the mujahids vs Soviets in Afghanistan - a battle between Godliness vs. Godlessness; between occupation and expulsion, between self-determination and imposition.

A society without faith is just that. A society that has only one set of approved belief or non-belief is one that is dull and effete. I can never stay for more than two days in any Scandinavian country. It is set. It is settled. It thinks it has found utopia and is living in it. But God knows the undercurrents of ennui and numbing sameness.

The Scandinavian countries came out with schnapps, open-faced sandwiches, Swedish meatballs, ABBA, Volvo, Nokia, Lego, Ikea, Tivoli Gardens, Hans Christian Anderson, Scandinavian black death rock, Karen Blixen, Gunnar Myrdal, Nobel prizes, Igmar Bergman, and that little mermaid on the rock in Copenhagen.

One can't remember who got last year's Nobel Prize for Peace or Literature or Science or Economics. But one can remember, every day, on one's ethnicity, one's faith, one's gender and how one is regarded and treated by others not of the same ethnicity, same faith, same gender as one.

To paraphrase and abuse Jane Austen, it is a universally and globally held evident truth that in the most privileged country in the world, the most priveleged citizen is the Christian Caucasian male. Due to history. Due to numbers. Due to inbued cultural and social entitlement.

And now, we a subset of Caucasian male who are atheists who doth give the impression that they are better, smarter and wiser than anyone in the US and have all the answers.

I hate to break it here than even quantum physicists are now thinking and saying even Newton and Einstein may be wrong. Science is still not perfect, still learning and do not have all the answers and solutions. Nor do reason and logic in dealing with legimimate human anger and frustrations if it is not addressed openly and justly.

Faith and belief is still with us. I look forward to hearing atheists continue to tell us religionists how and what think on religion and beliefs. And on ethics, morals and values.

Thanks and regards
"J"

This has nothing to do with how Obama would conduct himself as President.

That is the real issue. you are letting yourself get diverted from the election.

Rev. Wright is NOT in the contest and bears no relevance to Sen. Obama's future conduct in the White House.

This is another bucketful of Republican politcal slime and you are running for it thirsty with a big ladle.

Black American Preachers have been the back-handed blessing of Slavery. The teachings of and peaceful interpretations of the Christian faith adopted from the slave master has kept this country relatively immune from black anarchy or uprising. No matter how frustrated and angry the black populace had become over the centuries their places of worship was where they ultimately went to ventilate that anger. It is there black Pastors have been most effective for their congregants, but also for America. They have given voice to their "flocks" anquish, but in a manner that was peaceful in accord with Christianty's teachings. So be careful not to stymy the sounds of vitriol coming from the altars because you may just be creating a far greater problem.

M. Burke,

You claim that Rev. Wright is a "racist bigot" yet you fail to provide a single example to support you claim. Without citing any examples your pejorative label is rather unpersuasive.

-Freestinker

You claim that Rev. Wright is a "racist bigot" yet you fail to provide a single example to support you claim. Without citing any examples your pejorative label is rather unpersuasive.

1. Define racism. Be sure to include all races.
2. Is it a problem? If no then you're finished. Otherwise:
3. Suggest a cure for the problem. Be sure it fits all races.
4. Write laws with penalties for being a racist. Be sure to include all races.

Could a white preacher rail about black folks on welfare or something? How would it be received? Any white folks on welfare or something? Does the law only apply to one race or all? The unwritten "fat mouth" law only applies to white folks that aren't preachers or big shots like Rush. Maybe it should be put into writing and enforced?

Black folks aren't perfect are they? Are they of one mind and one body? Anything that applies to one black person applies to all black people? For sure, anything that applies to one non-black person applies to all according to Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. What does the word Reverend imply? Is it so?

Jeremiah serves this God -> http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Righteousness surely applies to all races equally well. I know. Evangelicals have a patent on righteousness.

Those who are not one of them, evangelicals are nobodys. Does Jeremiah qualify as an evangelical? Maybe he's just an ordinary nobody trying to be somebody riding the wave of Obama madness.

Did Clinton's preacher rail on G-D-ed Yankees,(not necessary to be a preacher to do that in Boston -come October). She is one of them??? Her preacher is probably just a nobody and knows it.

Riding waves could be limited to black preachers. Billy Graham wouldn't do anything like that would he? Leading the multitudes to hell knows no race or gender and it pays well for those in God's favor for they shall always find a favorable wave of one kind or the other. Don't you imagine hell is filled with racism, whatever that is just to increase the already out of sight chaos?

Mr. Obama has also spoken very intelligently on religion and politics. Examples may be seen on his website. Mr. Harris would be pleased, I believe, to support Obama's contention that there needs to be a strong separation of church and state. He believes political issues need to be framed and reasoned about in a "common language" that all people share, not the language of religious values. However, although Harris might disagree, Obama believes politicians should not hide their religious beliefs, believing they relfect on one's general character and relate to the origins of people's values.

This type of article provides a fresh air in the evaluation of a political figure's speech, and fill the void. It important to emphasis that only the next generation of political leaders, untainted with religious belief, will bring better future to the poor people of the society; and it may produce better result in the next 1000 years.

I think John Lennon's lyrics are so appropriate at this time...

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

I believe that politicians, candidates and office holders alike, who drag their religion into their speeches, most especially when they, like Bush, claim that their religion will play or has played a role in policy making, MUST be questioned by religion experts, theologians, in detail about their beliefs. This never happens. Somehow, it is OK for politicos to prate about religion in hopes of garnering votes but their religion is a PRIVATE matter and can't be investigated in detail. Bull!
If a candidate says they believe in universal health care or refers to other humans living or dead, who influence their policy decisions, or writings, texts, documentation, these influences are discussable. But say "Jesus" or "the Bible" and suddenly it's off limits. This is the worst thing to be unquestionable.
If a candidate can keep his or her religious beliefs to themselves and tell the press and voters "My religious beliefs or lack of them are nobody's business but my own, and my policies will not be guided by personal religious convictions", then the press should not harry them, hound, them, or report the negative onslaught of religiosos who demand shows of faith. That would be respecting a person's private beliefs.
But when politicians themselves bring up their religion, whether just to prove they have a religion or imply or state outright that somehow their faith makes them an acceptable or superior candidate, their posture demands rigorous investigation into exactly what aspects of their faith they are talking about, what their interpretation of the holy texts they claim to adhere to is, how they resolve conflicting parts of their holy text, and how they resolve religious tenets with real world conduct and policies ("thou shalt not kill" and wars and prisoner execution for example) -- or whether they don't resolve them but are just resigned to being hypocrites when it suits them.

This is an absolute responsibilty of the press.

Why does the press report and comment on these sideshows and refuse to confront these pi-mouthed politicians head on?

Ooooh! Respect for a person's religious beliefs.
What tripe!

Sam Harris is right as usual! As for the black church, why are blacks so devoid of the basic Judaeo-Christian morality you would think their churches would preach and teach?

I think it is fair to note that religion, like politics, has been both an enabler and a disabler of slavery and racism in this country -- if not in Western society in general.

Early on, the Catholic church enabled the trade in non-white slaves with several papal "bulls" or edicts that sanctioned the practice. On the other hand, notable Christians ranging from John Brown to Nat Turner to MLK and others spoke out against the moral outrage of slavery and racism. Reading the Bible was outlawed on most slave plantations because reading could lead to questioning, revolt and escape from bondage. Thus Christianity, the right to practice one's religion, is rightly associated with freedom among many black people. Let us also not forget the Quakers in this equation either. They are a deeply religious sect that believed, on moral grounds, that slavery was wrong, and risked themselves and their wealth to help blacks escape.

Moreover, false prophesy is not the exclusive domain of religion. Many non-religious leaders (ie politicians) make false predictions, promises and arguments to elicit fidelity and cooperation among the masses.

The problem, as I see it, is that because we are not perfect, any institutions we create (including religious ones) will not be perfect. Therefore, we humble ourselves, recognize a higher power and seek guidance. Recognizing our own fallibility, observing the amazing complexity of the universe, and coming to the conclusion that there is higher power at work, seems eminently reasonable to me.

Which brings me to the use of reason. Reason can be a valuable tool, but it has been proven for quite some time that reasonable arguments about the same subject can lead to differing conclusions. Moreover, reason is always predicated upon facts...or things we think we know. From my vantage point, the road in front of my house looks flat. It stands to reason that unless the earth is interminably long, if one traveled far enough down the road (substitute ocean) one would fall off the side. It has been at times reasonable and unreasonable to believe that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, or that waves and particles behaved differently...but the more we study, the more we understand, the less reasonable our prior assumptions become.

As Gin Rummy, the white "gangsta" on the Boondocks cartoon is fond of saying, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," --- meaning that there are "unknown unknowns." Faith is a means of accessing these potentially important facts. After all, how else would we have known that Saddam had such a large cache of WMD's squirreled away in Iraq? Alhamdullilah.

you show great incite in america's religous p-roblems . the founding fathers tried to exclude it from government but bigoted people saw that it was put back into all facets of daily life. pity the bulk of the people who mostly believe in GOD but not in codified churches. it was a noble attempt to have religous freedom as opposed to the religous nightmare they ran away from in europe.

Brilliant and correct anlysis

Sam,

Amen, brother.

Tharriso,

You seem to have some book learning but you misunderstand much. Sam Harris does not claim to prove the nonexistence of God. You're tilting at straw windmills, if I may mix metaphors. JYHUME's response was apt.

IQ of 140. Several degrees. Graduate study.

I sometimes worry about whether or not I'm perceived as a boor on these blogs. I feel much better now.

Jihadist,

Interesting comments about cultural "frisson". Yet Harris' point still stands that religious superstition is unnecessary for morality, as shown by Scandanavia. And one can easily distinguish between Denmark and North Korea by noting that the coerced "civility" of North Korea does not detract from the heartfelt civility of Scandinavian culture.

Also, once again you prop up your assertion that "atheist authors [continue] to insult the intelligence of athiest readers with the insistence that without religion and/or belief in God, all will be well with the world, including there be no more racial strifes." That's bunk and you know it. Why do you incessantly and intentionally misrepresent the atheist position? Is it all just another instance of BAD FAITH from a person OF FAITH? In your case I'm loathe to think so.

The problem with Obama's "famous" speech on race this week is that it came after not before exposure of Wright's sermons on the news. How convenient and politically correct of Senator Obama.

Whether he is or was right about the war in Iraq is now immaterial. The issue is that for 20 years he was comfortable in hearing the racist drivel of his spiritual leader and not once did he publicly condemn it. I am certain that Martin Luther King would have immediately walked out of that church had he heard the poison that Wright spewed from the pulpit. King was a uniter whereas Wright is a racist bigot who divides and even praises another racist (Farrakan).

Clearly Obama's rhetoric and actions do not jive.

Replying to: Peter Downing, UK

Sir, you are absolutely correct on several levels with respect to your selective historical analysis. But there is slavery based upon time immemorial (meaning long, long before the advent of Islam or of their invasion of central and southern Africa) practices attendant to the aftermath of wars, clan in-fighting, societal leverage, indentured servitude, etc.

In these cases, a person's slave status had nothing whatsever to do with his or her humanity, or lack thereof. Rather with more mundane concepts of fate, luck, misfortune, etc, or with the ability, again, or the lack thereof, to financially secure one's eventual 'freedom'.

These 'slaves' were of all races, colors, or creeds. Their humanity was never at issue, merely their temporal status.

And then there is slavery predicated upon (and Papally blessed, no less) the notion that individuals of color were less than human, berift of 'souls' - how economically convenient - and therefore appropriate to be categorized and traded as common law 'chattel'. That is the difference, Mr. Downing, human beings being reduced to 'soulless, common law chattel' under the European perversion of the concept of 'slavery'.

Again, none of this is to argue with your statements that Africans, whether Moslem or Animist, did sell fellow Africans into 'slavery'. So, it is not an inconvenient truth, as you termed it. After all, we, too, can read and understand history; but we read history in its entirety, not selected snippets.

Not to excuse bondage of any sort; but the historical slavery to which you refer, though involving the exchange of items of value in return for the services of other humans, was temporal - key concept being 'humans' - and had no resemblence to the perverted, religiously- consecrated, dehumanizing version practiced by the European's and by their colonial holdings.

And, whether or not this satanic perversion has been legally abolished, the pseudo-sacrosant past Papal edits sanctifying African, soulless sub-humanity (later meaningless Vatican apologies nothwithstanding) still provides the not so subtle sub-text to the issues of race and religion currently being addressed.

Tharriso -

You exercised your impressive IQ all for naught, and appear to have missed the point made by Sam Harris altogether.

Unless I failed to get the point as well, I believe he implied that it was a pity that religion is still plays such an inordinately large role in public politics, as evidenced by Mr. Obama's recently compromised position and subsequent media thrashing.

Had he not been wearing religion on his sleeve throughout his campaign, this might not have happened - I remember when he was preaching politics in black Baptist churches in South Carolina not so many months ago, and it worked quite well in South Carolina. It didn't work well for me however. But since I'm only one vote, who cares? Appealing to the voting masses is the key to getting elected.

On the other hand, I think Obama is still an excellent candidate for president, and if he's the dem candidate I'll vote for the guy. Unlike Bush, Obama will be able to function well beyond the considerations of religion in the performance of his job. Hillary Clinton would do the same.

John McCain is just weak-minded enough to continue letting fundamentalists and evangelicals play a significant role in government policy. He has clearly allied himself with these forces for the sake of vote getting only recently. In McCains's case, it's ultimately his character that I question, not his religion.

But I digress - imagine how refreshing it would be if religion were not on the front page of every candidate's resume? Could a non-religious person run for high public office without the massive weight of a proclaimed religious affiliation behind them?? Forget atheist for a minute, and think non-theist. That might be someone who embraces secular humanism as a philosophy, but without the religious trappings - maybe a modern day Franklin or Jefferson sans the Deism. For the voting public today, that would simply be too ambivilant.

Their moral development and declared values would be based on high academic capacity and ability to work collectively with others, exceptional personal achievement, and a proven record of clear rational thinking as applied to their declared national goals and public policy orientation - although these alone would not be sufficient qualifications for the Oval Office in today's religious climate - if I'm getting Sam's point.

Your grand summation would place this person on the same roster as the world's short list of noted totalitarian dictators (never mentioning that these individuals do not function in secular democracies such as our own - big discrepancy).

Like others before you, you've equated 'atheism' with the sociopathic megalomania that we see in totalitarian regimes....apparently you don't have an advanced degree in history, or you're really a religious person in disguise?!

You've made quite a broad but unjustified leap my friend. And speaking of religion, how about a Buddhist candidate? Atheist for sure, but a faithful follower of well established religious metaphysics nonetheless. Would they be a suitable candidate for high public office??

You seem to have missed a category of atheist numbering in the billions. And my point - atheism is not and should not be a disqualifier in a political candidate, but surely is in our highly charged Christianity-dominated culture.

I enjoyed Mohammed Mallek's post regarding the essence of religion - which is mysticism in all it's many forms. This is really the foundation of religious experience, but tends to function in the private and personal realm. It does not translate well to public displays of religion and is really transcendent to the structure, if not the function, of religion. That said, it does not replace science nor does it intend to - it is indeed a far cry from the histrionics of fundamentalism, which would have us all worshipping the very limited concept of God that exoteric religions offer.

The religious theocrats would have us follow a set of highly ambiguous rules and regulations founded largely on fantasy and confabulation. This is why some folks would like to see a lot less religion mixed with politics.

It reminds us of the fact that religious absolutism as an organizing principle is no different from any of the other totatlitarian and authoritarian systems that we hold in such utter disregard with good reason - e.g. the partial list that you've documented in your summary.

I look forward to the day when a truly non-religious person can run for public office and be taken seriously based on their dedication to the functions of that office, rather than on a declared set of personal beliefs that ultimately has nothing to do with the job at hand. Franklin and Jefferson would agree.........

More of the Messiah talk. We are so messed up as a nation that only Obama can save us. PLEASE!!!!!!!

Wright mixed politics with religion, Christ would never have done that, Christ knew that the two were seperate and wright casts doubt on the validity of black churches as true christian churches. it also doesn't help that blacks from africa have hidden their deities behind Christian icons...which GOD do they really serve.

The photo of the Reverend Mr. Wright as invited guest in the White House, shaking the hand of Bill Clinton, should lay the discussion to rest. There have always been extreme sects and extreme preachers, and Obama has disassociated himself from Mr. Wright's utterances. So give it a rest!

Thank you, Mr. Harris for adding a little reason .Somehow, some of the reactions to Senator Obama's speech remind me of the excitement that was shown just before we went off to "kick butt" in Iraq five years ago. The snippets of Rev. Wright have given lots of whites an opportunity to "let it rip." I long for the day when more white people see their "whiteness." As a teacher, I worry about out students today, but when we hear many adults comment on Senator Obama, we realize that ignorance continues to be bliss for too many of us in this country. I continue to think that anti black feelings are in the DNA of too many white Americans.

Mel : Religion indeed is the opium of the masses.

Moi : Thank you Mel, for reminding us what Mr. Karl Marx said, "Religion is opiate of the masses".

Drugs and socialism and atheism. Good combination to cure all the world's problems.

It would be lovely to hear from an African American atheist on this question.

Any African-American atheist out there who thinks Pastor Wright is right? Or wrong?

I don't think it's so much a question of what Obama can't say as what he doesn't believe. Obama's mother had the good sense to abandon religion. But Obama himself seems to need to cling to it, first studying Islam then "coming to the cross."

I don't see how anyone can get the impression he's a secularist behind the Christian window-dressing. After all, he's been presented with the perfect opportunity to turn away from his church and instead, he continues to cling to it and to forgive his minister.

I read him as an adult man as angst-ridden as any teenager in his search for himself and as one who has recreated himself through both racial and religious identity.

Trying to blame all the woe in the world on religion is just as ridiculous as saying religion will fix everything. Mr. Harris claims to be on the side of reason, but I've seen reason, I know reason, and Mr. Harris, you don't have reason.

Sam Harris is the atheist version of guys like Jerry Falwell and Jeremiah Wright. Cheered on, of course, by his own sychophantic sectarian hordes. His worn out "faith-is-the-root-of-all-evil" tirades defy reason, and provide no platform for actually dealing with societies issues. Elect a bunch of atheists and our problems will go away!

For a man who claims to be a more pure and pristine voice of rational discourse, it amazes me how his writings are filled with logical fallacies, straw man arguments, extremist vignettes, half-truths, selective use of statistics (BTW - Finland, Norway, Sweden also have higher suicide rates than the U.S....what does that mean? And what kind of tenuous reasoning are you employing to draw a correlation between religion and the socio-political trends you cite), and condescending rhetoric passed off as argumentation...all the hallmarks of the religious rhetoric he so roundly condemns. Slapping a coat of atheist paint on it does not change what it is at the core.

Honest intellectuals of any stripe (religious or not) should recognize his stuff for what it is: an atheist's hellfire and brimstone sermon. If Sam Harris represents the spokesman for a rational alternative to religion, then we are all in trouble indeed.

This is the the cross accusation in many of the posts:

Your church (pastor, priest, rabbi, imam, minister, padre, etc.) have said worse things than mine.

We all are somehow related to a religion, today or in the past. Depending of your age, you have hear during 10, 20 or more years your religion leaders sometimes say horrible things.

Some agree with them, others do not. Some keep silence, others react and say something. Others simply quit the religion, but not before years and years of silence.

What happens is that first person that preaches religion to us is our mother or other significant relative, at an age that we do not even understand what this loved person is telling to us.

No wonder why is tough to quit, but never is late.

Peace to all and best wishes.

JAC

Is this guy for real? Maybe he should do a fact check before he goes about trashing institutions and individuals with not so much as a single fact to back up what he's saying. I'm sure that an analysis of church members in any black community will reveal that on average these folks are much more successful in a real world sense (in terms of finances, societal impact, family stability, emotional stability, etc.), than those people in the community who are not churchgoers. After being a non-churchgoer for most of my life, then becoming a devout Christian in recent years, one of the biggest revelations to me is the fact that the Bible serves as the ultimate guide to living in "this world". People who follow the admonitions of their pastors to live their lives showing apathy and responsibility for the plight of others, valuing the importance of their families and working to keep them sound, learning to cope without societal crutches like drugs and alcohol, adopting modest living and a strong work ethic, avoiding the natural tendency to seek instant gratification and understanding success as being more than just acquiring material possessions, in my opinion are better prepared to succeed in "this world" than those who don't adhere to such these beliefs.

JYHUME,

Excellent response to THARRISO!

THARRISO,

Could you understand what JYHUME was saying to you? Hope so. A start perhaps for you in understanding a little bit of logic.

And of course the one thing Mr Obama could not say was that the two biggest purveyors of slaves to the USA were Africans and Moslem Africans. It is much more convenient for many people to think that slavery in the USA was bought about soley by European, and particularly British plantation owners. But in reality all slaves were being rounded up and sold by Africans, but that's an inconvenient truth that the likes of Mr Obama does not want to mention. It was the faith of Islam that encouraged and promoted the use of slaves across much of Africa that then promted the notion among Christian plantation owmers.

Thank you Mr. Harris for identifying the fundamental (pun intended!) issue here. Religion indeed is the opium of the masses.

Just saw a longer clip on YouTube of the chickens come home to roost comment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ&feature=related). Found out for the first time that Rev. Wright was quoting a comment a US ambassador (Ambassador Peck) made the prior day on Fox News. The gist also was that he wanted his congregation to engage in self-reflection about the issue and Peck's comment. He wasn't saying the 9/11 attacks were justifiable. In fact, he clearly condemned them. But, the media has flat out refused to engage in any serious discussion, including whether the country needs to be called out when it engages in mistakes and terrible conduct, as unfortunately our imperfect union has done from time to time. These are serious issues worthy of serious debate. Our media has proved itself totally incapable of fostering any serious debate, and instead has been engaged in incitement in the interest of entertainment and ratings. It's both pathetic and profoundly dangerous to our country.

What a sad demoralizing message to read on the day before Easter Sunday.

We r sick to death of Obama's speeches and the media who treat him like the Prom king. Enough already. He is not qualified, he is a racist. his "preacher" is filled with hate so he is no Man of God - just posing as one as Obama is posing as someone who cares about America. Michelle Obama likes to portray herself as coming from a poor family but her Brick home is better than most middle class families and she certainly was never poor. Lets stop the charade. He is not qualified period. The people in Pennsylvania will show youwhat most of us think about Obama in the next primary. Hint- we don't think much of him and he has no chance to become President.
www.obamatruth.org

Sam

I hear no mention of the full context of the famous sermons in your posting above. You and all the other pundits jumped to conclusions on this entire sermon. Listen to the sermon then comment. Wright was quouting Edward Peck and clearly said so in the sermon. Edward Peck is a Former USA ambassador who mentioned these items in the a FoxNews interview 2-3 days before wright quoted him. Listen to the full sermon before misreporting or making erroneous conclusions. Compare what the Media shows with what the sermon actually said.

http://www.truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/

Great essay. Thanks, Sam. To answer your final question: no, not in our lifetimes. Perhaps in a thousand years?

Obama is a major step forward but we have a lot further to go to reach the audacity of reason. How do we get there? How about this scenario.

We need to find an unknown atheist who can run for an essentially uncontested office and get elected. Once established and successful in that job, he (or she) can then proclaim his lack of faith and make it an issue in the re-election campaign. He'll probably lose that election, but the publicity generated could lead to more open discussions and less hypocrisy.

Another scenario involves you or some other known atheist (a Richard Dawkins type) running for Congress or the Senate or even for a state legislative position. Then we could have open discussion right from the start. This would require a great act of courage by our candidate because he and his family would be subject to threats and abuse, so he won't be easy to find.

Superb analysis and a true opinion !

I heard about your books before, now I 'met' you.
Finally a voice for the non-religious minds.

Indeed; if we all could start feeding our children sanity.

Towards the end of 2007 CNN presented the democratic candidates on a stage bearing their souls about their relationship with their god, their ministers, and prayer. Foolishly I thought that the constitution specified a separation of church and state. I also recall some comment that James Madison had made that no candidates were to be questioned about their religious beliefs. I find it disturbing that our citizens speak with such reverence about upholding the constitution, and claim such respect for the founding fathers, and yet blatantly push religion into so many aspects of the election. I don't remember reading or hearing any criticism about that program. Now we have controversy about Senator Obama and his pastor. I'm finding this state of religious influence in our elections truly disturbing.What is more disturbing is how seldom anyone speaks up.

Posted on March 22, 2008 00:45

David Cunard:
"If Mr Obama becomes President I wonder who will swear him in at the Inauguration - Jeremiah Wright? I can't think that would sit well with much of the electorate!"

And who will be in his cabinet? Is there a place in his administration for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? What will be the role of Michelle Obama? He has refused to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright; will he continue to consider Wright his mentor and seek his advice as he did when he considered running for president?

This scares me. Apparently Obama has such strong emotional ties to this racist hate-mongering preacher that he is unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge that Wright's influence is inappropriate and indeed harmful.

If the American Citizens elect Obama despite the knowledge of Wright's influence over him, then it will be an acceptance and a tacit blessing of the union.

Everyone in the USA is bashing Rev.Wright and Obama but no one is saying anything against John Mccain and his evangelist supporters i.e. John Hagee and Rod Parsely. This is called double standards of the conservative americans. Rod Parsely even had the audacity to declare 34000(and growing) Americans who embraced Islam after 9/11 as "traitors" who should be killed.

Americans wake up..... Look around you...The evangelist polliticians that you appointed from 2000-2008 ,to run your nation to have turned your nation world's most indebted nation(debts of $5.3 Trillion dollars and growing). You are wasting about $12 billion dollars per month in Iraq , a million Iraqis butchered ,4000 American men and women dead , Iraq which was the most prosperous Arab nation 30 years ago is now the most destitute in the whole world and your VP just went to the Saudis today to beg to reduce the oil price from $110 dollar per barrel to $90 dollar per barrel.

"Though not a believer in or supporter of any organized religion, I find Sam Harris' propositions deeply troubling. I have four years of college, six years of graduate school, an IQ of 140, one degree (among several) in biology, and considerable graduate level study in evolution, philosophy, and systematic theology, among other things...."

It sounds like you have spent way too much time in an academic setting and could benefit by getting out in the real world for a spell.

Words with very important theological impact:

"Heaven is a spirit state. No physical bodies abide there."

"In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."

http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.

It's these strange superstitions, sometimes dignified by the term "religions", that lead some to think that America is a "third world country with swimming pools". Whatever happened to education......

Rev. Wright was speaking for God which no man has the right to do. The theology of Reverend Wright and his fellow pastors at TUCC is bizarre as they are followers of James Cone's Black Liberation theology which is far away from Christian beliefs. Here is a sample of James Cone's beliefs:

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

Rev. Wright is a powerful man in Chicago politics and TUCC is both the largest Black Church and the most active politically. At TUCC Senator Obama, raised without formal religious training or structures found both a spiritual home, which coddled his sense of alienation from mainstream America, and a political power base from which to further his political career.

Thanks THARRISO, that was a nice piece of post-modernist relativism. There is kind of a feel-good aspect to saying that science is no better than other disciplines, but it’s kind of crap. As Carl Sagan said on number of occasions, when making claims about the world and making prophecy about the future, science is the only human endeavor that “really delivers the goods.” Other disciplines just make excuses.

But I do appreciate your creds; they sound familiar. I’ll spare you my own list.

You are correct, of course, that there is no way for science or religion to prove that god exists or doesn’t exist. However, I think that this standard pursues the wrong question. We should be asking the only useful question: Is there a god that exists in this world and acts in a manner that impacts it? Most believers will answer “yes!” But this is a demonstrable claim that science can weigh in upon. If such a super-being does exist, then science can, or will be able to, detect its violations of known physical laws. I eagerly await that day. To date, no such violations are known to have occurred.

If, however, god is “beyond the observable,” as you mentioned, then it is outside of our world and does not interact with it. Unfortunately, such a being would be of no consequence to us. Since it doesn’t impact our lives or our world in any way, who cares how many of its angels would fit on the head a pin?

You say that Mr. Harris’ “proposition is based on faith, the nonexistence of God is something in which he believes, not something that he can prove.” Yet you fundamentally fail to grasp the meaning of atheism, and of what Mr. Harris is trying to say. “Faith,” as you like to call it, is of a categorically different type for the skeptic. The burden of proof doesn’t fall upon the atheist to disprove god, just as there is no need for me to actively disprove that invisible aliens are living in the walls of my house trying to control my brain. Likewise, we can sit here all day long making stuff up. Should we then commit serious intellectual effort debating whether or not to believe in the veracity of each and every imaginary trifle? No, of course not. That is the atheist’s position: since there is absolutely no demonstrable, verifiable reason to believe that a god exists (let alone having particular characteristics), it is absurd for us to waste our time and energy worrying about how to please it.

I too played those games for years with epistemological uncertainties. But at the end of the day, they all seem rather trivial.

Though not a believer in or supporter of any organized religion, I find Sam Harris' propositions deeply troubling. I have four years of college, six years of graduate school, an IQ of 140, one degree (among several) in biology, and considerable graduate level study in evolution, philosophy, and systematic theology, among other things. I surely admit however, that I don't come even close to knowing everything. Rarely do I boast of my learning this openly, but this circumstance demands credentials. Part of Sam's problem is that he seems to think he is smarter than anyone else there is and knows everything there is to know.

Epistemology is the field of philosophy that asks the question, "How do you know that what you claim to be true (Ontology) is indeed really true?" There are several ways that people claim to know what is true. Divine revelation is the starting point for those who basically say, "I know what is true because God told me." Others begin with the premise of authority-the Pope or the Bible is accepted as having an ultimate authority from which all other truth flows. There are a number of systems of logic which purport to be able to discern truth. These involve methods such as syllogism and dialectic. Modern scientific thinking grew out of empiricism and went on to incorporate deduction and induction. What we commonly call the modern scientific method, the Hypothetico-Deductive Model of Scientific Investigation, involves all three. In fields like medicine, it goes on to include placebo controlled double-blind trials, with results that must be replicable, conclusions that must be verifiable, and are subject to peer review.

There are those who do try to reconcile science and faith. I tried for a long time. One approach is called theistic evolution, the idea that God used evolution as his process in creating us. One problem with this theory is the randomness in which evolution happened. There is nothing in evolutionary processes to indicate that it was "directed." Complications arise in the field of mathematics due to ideas such as, "No matter how improbable something is, given infinite chances in infinite time and infinite universes within a multiverse, it must happen." Randomness can be quantified within formulas such as fractal equations, a branch of mathematics discovered only a decade ago. So, were all of the evolutionary genetic mutations that turned out to be dead ends part of God's plan? Is survival of the fittest, in which we see trillions of conscious animals tremble in fear and suffer in pain as they become prey of predators, part of God's grand scheme in bringing humans into existence?

Neither pure reason, nor scientific methods involving logic coupled with observation can verify that which lies beyond the observable. In other words, you can't test something that lies beyond your ability to test. There is nothing profound about that. It all comes down to this. Neither pure logic nor science can prove that God exists. In like manner, however, neither pure logic nor science can prove that God does not exist. Neither logic nor science is capable of an adequate epistemology regarding metaphysics.

Sam Harris belongs to a new breed of pseudoscientific philosophers. Members of this cadre believe that the randomness found in cosmological and biological evolution somehow proves that God does not exist. To be fair, they do illustrate great contradictions between God, as portrayed in the systematic theologies of religions around the world, and what is observed in the universe and our world of life. This randomness cannot, however, prove that nothing supernatural exists. We have virtually no clue what lay and lies on the other side of the Big Bang: Heaven, another dimension of the universe/multiverse, the laboratory of an alien in another realm, or absolutely nothing at all. We will likely never know.

Plenty of people of religion believe that they have God and the universe all figured out. They believe in God as master of the universe, and many believe they understand every last nuance of God, his will, and the nature of all that exists. They have no adequate epistemology, no way that is verifiable. Sam Harris and his fellows believe that they have metaphysics all figured out: it doesn't exist. In like manner, they have no adequate epistemology, no way that is verifiable.

As an idealistic young adult, I thought I knew all about God and science. I now know that I didn't know. I look at the universe and at this particular planet which teems with life, in utter awe. It seems reasonable that there is something bigger and more sentient then we, something that is far beyond our own experience. There is, however, absolutely no way to know with total certainty. Religious belief is exactly that, an ascertation of faith. Part of the universe seems to jump out and demand that we acknowledge something greater than ourselves. Simultaneously, close examination belies that sentiment, not just randomness in cosmology, but that immense obstacle that no theologian can ignore, the problem of evil. So I now live with the ambiguity. Our world, physical and metaphorical, as well as our universe, is filled with that which we do not understand, some of which we eventually will, most of which we never will. In the midst of it, I stand in awe. I cannot definitively say, "God exists." So am I an agnostic? Am I an atheist? The religious conservatives surely believe so. In their minds, they know so. They lump me in the same category with Sam Harris, but they are wrong. Sam Harris categorically insists that God does not exist. His proposition is no different than the proposition by people of religion. Theirs is a proposition based on faith, God is something in which they believe, not something they can prove. Likewise, Sam Harris' proposition is based on faith, the nonexistence of God is something in which he believes, not something that he can prove.

Herein lies the utter hypocrisy of Sam Harris, self professed man of reason. Reason has never been, nor is it now, capable of proving the existence of God. Reason also has never been, nor is it now, capable of disproving the existence of God. Sam Harris would have you believe that it is. Reason is not an adequate epistemology for either, and neither is the scientific method. Religious conservatives condemn nonbelievers as infidels bound for Hell. They seek to control society and force others to conform to their world view. They are a dangerous lot. Sam Harris condemns believers as irrational and delusional idiots. What Sam himself fails to see is that he too is a believer, a believer in logic, a logic that he structures in the manner that brings him to the conclusion he wants to find. He would have you believe that he is a scientist. He is no scientist, for science acknowledges its limits. Science is a way to observe and test that which is observable and testable within this universe, but not beyond.

In this Sam Harris and I are radically different. I know that I do not know how to distill ultimate reality or ultimate truth. Absolute ontology is beyond my grasp. Sam Harris is an atheist. An atheist is a believer, one who believes God does not exist, one who believes he has distilled the ultimate reality regarding this realm of metaphysics. He ridicules those who acknowledge their faith in God, but will not acknowledge that his position is one of faith as well. He would eradicate society of faith in God. Religion has brought much war to our Earth, but it has brought the field of ethics as well. Actively sterilized of religion, atheistic societies imposed upon citizeneries in North Korea, Cuba, China, and the USSR have been utterly devoid of ethics; nothing has value beyond raw power. People are pawns in the pursuit of power by ruthless tyrants. The utopia that Sam Harris envisions can never exist; this humanism ignores the character flaws endemic in human nature.

George Bush is a person of religious faith, a fundamentalist faith that believes he has all of reality distilled and defined. Barrack Obama also is a person of religious faith, but his is a faith that looks for good, and seeks to separate good from bad, one which truly does evoke and manifest HOPE. Clinton and McCain have the abilities to lead society. Obama has the potential to transform who and what we are as a nation.

Radical fundamentalists seeking to gain political power over society are dangerous. Sam Harris and those who think as he are even more dangerous. The atheistic and humanistic society Mr. Harris advocates would have no benchmarks of morality and ethics. It would devolve into the same thing we have been given by Castro, Stalin, Mao, and Kim. That is why he is just as dangerous as they.

Mr. Harris, you are quite wrong when you say the church has been destructive to African-Americans. You can criticize religious belief and mock faith as superstition, but I find your characterization offensive. Unless you've walked in a black person's shoes--whether just off the hull of a boat in 1619 or in today's world, where you are either invisible or looked down upon by the manifestly mediocre majority "race"--you have no right to make wild assumptions about the role of faith and belief in the black community.

A GRAND BARGAIN FOR DEMOCRATIC PARTY UNITY

It is clear, with Politico.com reporting that even Hillary's campaign is coming to the rational conclusion that she has--at best--a ten percent chance of winning, that uniting the Democratic Party around Barack Obama is imperative.

Here is a solution that allows everyone to take something from the table, which is what it is going to take for the Party to begin the healing process.

A deal should be struck whereby Hillary agrees to withdraw from the race, and Obama agrees to let most of the Florida and Michigan delegations be seated at the convention.

Hillary could then claim a victory of sorts, as making this the "price" of a dignified exit would allow her to say she is putting the Party's prospects in November above her own ambitions.

It would also help the Democrats win those two states in the general election.

It requires noblesse oblige from both sides.

Obama clearly has it.

And if Hillary takes the deal, it would do a lot for her restoring the family legacy that this ugly campaign, and especially Bill Clinton's role in it, has so tarnished.

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Sam, keep it coming, you are right on the mark once again.

If Mr Obama becomes President I wonder who will swear him in at the Inauguration - Jeremiah Wright? I can't think that would sit well with much of the electorate!

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

You noted: "Race and rights. Race and rights. Race and rights.

It should have said: "Shiites and rights. Shiites and rights. Shiites and rights".

But no, you criticize all but your own as Islam reeks with the stench of discrimination against 20% of it brothers and sisters!!!!!!!

I'd have an easier time warming up to atheists if they weren't always acting so damn smug. Like they discovered some secret that the stupid people (i.e. everyone else) on the planet just happened to overlook all these thousands of years.

By the way Harris, maybe the view is pretty nice from your enlightened secular isolation chamber, where you don't have to actually deal with real people. But for those of us in the real world, we sort of have to accept the reality of being part of a community with all sorts of people - nice people, bad people, obnoxious people, and even a hypocrite or two. Part of going to church is accepting that you are part of a community and aren't allowed to sulkily scoop up all your marbles and run home to mamma every time someone says something you don't like.

Living with and putting up with odd folks is part of being a grown-up. Refusing to associate with anyone who doesn't match-up to your own sense of fashion and taste is something I would have hoped you had gotten over at high school graduation.

Have fun in your bubble Peter Pan.

PaixEtJoie:
Rev. Wright has several sermons on forgivness, etc. just check out the church website adn you will find them. He is also a formel US Marine, fought in a war, served his time for his country, and a host of other things in the greater Chicago area. Your post clearly shows that you have not done even any middle school level research on the man.

Also, there are other religions, subcultures, races, ethnicities here in America. They all have a right to vote, and most don't base their judgement of a candidate on how "Christian" their values are. Also, for many African Americans, Rev. Wright's comments were similar to what they have heard, felt, experienced their entire lives. And, yes those wounds are fresh, as if they occured yesterday. When was the last time you had a black friend over for dinner and asked them about their feeling on this?

Oh and yes, all presidents have advisors with different specialties. Elected leaders usually have subgroups to survey and meet with each constituent/special interst group to ensure that everyone's issues are heard within the context of their unique perspective. This is very common and can be broken down by race, gender, age, social class, people with disablities, and now even those who are transgender, etc. That's just Civil Rights 101.

Ah...the rabble must have their gods, something Obama understands and plays to. I long for the days when educated politicians can consign the stench of superstition to the dung hill where it thrives and belongs, but I fear those days in the American political marketplace are far, far away.

Might as well play the Caesar game and give the plebeians their sugar-coated temples to Aprhodite, or in today's parlance, give some lip-service to the ever-mighty goatherd god, Yahweh, and his poor, tortured carpenter son.

Religion got him (Obama) into this mess, surely a few pious statements will get him out.

Depressing as it is, as long as he knows was a Sunni is (as opposed to a Shiite), and can pronounce "nuclear", he's got my vote.

Senator Obama plans to bring people together. In other words, he is talking about RECONCILATION AND MAYBE REPARATION. Reconciliation is a spiritual exercise. Resolving the racial issues in this nation is a process that requires to the most extent a spiritual approach. This exercise in reconciliation requires FORGINESS and COMPASSION. This is the kind of things that a Spiritual Advisor would share with the person being advised. THERE HAS TO BE A HEALING PROCESS. This too is a spiritual matter. Rev Wright has carried the ANGER for so long it is still coming out of him just like someone who was wounded yesterday. While I recognize that he is human and is in need of HEALING FROM THE LORD, I am concerned that such a man is THE SPIRITUAL ADVISOR TO SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT. What does he impart to those he administers the Word of God to? So if this man is going to be THE SPIRITUAL ADVISOR TO OUR PRESIDENT (if Sen Obama becomes ur President), what kind of advice will he be giving Sen obama in matters of HEALING WOULDS CAUSED BY RACISM, and RECONCILIATION? When Sen Obama talks about BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER, he is actually talking about RECONCILIATION. How can HE succeed with HATE & ANGER SPITTING FROM PULPIT? It sounds to me that Rev Wright would be satisfied only with HAVING THE WHITES PAY A CERTAIN PRICE. WHAT PRICE WOULD THAT BE? AT WHAT STAGE DOES REV WRITE INTRODUCE FORGIVENESS? From the Biblical perspective, FORGIVING IS THE DUTY OF THE OFFENDED. ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS IS THE DUTY OF THE OFFENDER. And FORGIVING IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE OFFENDER COMING TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS. When the offender comes to ask for forgiveness, then at that moment, he or she learns that forgiveness has already been made available. I am wondering what kind of Gospel Sen Obama has been taught.Listen, SEN OBAMA IS NOT CAPABLE OF BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER. You can not achieve such goal with the likes of Rev Wright as your SENIOR ADVISOR IN MATTERS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN RELIGIOUS. Who was his advisor in matters of WHITE RELIGIOUS MATTERS?

Rev Wright was Senator Obama's Senior Advisor for African American Religious Matters. Who is his Senior Advisor for White Regious Matters? Who is his Senior Advisor for Asians Religious Matters? Who is his Senior Advisor for Latinos Religious Matters? Who is his Senior Advisor for Women Religious Matters, and Jewish Religious Matters, and arab Religious Matters, etc.???? I could go on and on. I would think that he would need advisors for all these other groups in order for him to be able to address their issues. Or does he assume that he already knows their issues? Or does Sen Obama only intend to bring BACKS TOGETHER? This may look like some insignificant detail, but I think these details reflect a reality about Sen Obama's true plans.Again, FORGIVENESS IS AT THE CENTER OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. God forgave us. He made the forginess available to us. He did not wait for us to go ask for forgiveness. We benefit from this forgiveness ONLY WHEN WE, THE OFFENDERS, GO TO GOD AND EXPRESS OUR REPENTANCE. This is the role of churches. If we all waited for those who have offended us to come back and pay us or ask for forgiveness before we can LET GO OF THE POISON OF GRUDGE AND ANGER, THEN WE WILL BE EATEN UP INSIDE UNTIL IT WILL KILL US. Rev Wright is a perfect example of this. Instead of administering LOVE AND PEACE AND JOY, he was so consumed with anger that HE BECAME AN AGENT OF DEATH! If you want to see proof of what I've just said, just hear the words of Mrs. Michelle Obama again, "Only now, she is proud to be an american!" This statement is LOADED!Senator Obama must have been fed this hatred so much that HE FOUND REV WRIGHT INCENDIARY WORDS NORMAL AND ACCEPTABLE. By sitting in the pews and RENDERING SUPPORT BOTH FINANCIALLY AND PHYSICALLY (I imagine that he would come out of church that Sunday and say to his pastor, 'That was a great sermon. I was really blessed! - Or maybe what else do you think he said to his pastor after the sermon?) (...)

By giving such support to Rev Wright, HE WAS AND IS STILL ENABLING REV WRIGHT! He is an accomplice. As a LAWYER, SEN OBAMA WILL UNDERSTAND THIS, I HOPE. When I hear people say, forget about this. He has already given a speech, I SAY, YEAH, A SPEECH!!! That's all he does. He hopes to SPEECH EVERYTHING OUT. Just give a speech and everything will be fine. Come on! People, if we all engage in this discussion HONESTLY, we will be helping our country as well as healping Sen obama become a better candidate and be more prepared for the White House, and also, we will be doing ourselves a favor.

I'd like to see a more constructive discussion of these more serious ideas that have the capacity to affect our future! NOW TO YOU! WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Reconciliation is a spiritual exercise. Resolving the racial issues in this nation is a process that requires to the most extent a spiritual approach. This exercise in reconciliation requires FORGINESS and COMPASSION. This is the kind of things that a Spiritual Advisor would share with the person being advised. THERE HAS TO BE A HEALING PROCESS. This too is a spiritual matter. Rev Wright has carried the ANGER for so long it is still coming out of him just like someone who was wounded yesterday. While I recognize that he is human and is in need of HEALING FROM THE LORD, I am concerned that such a man is THE SPIRITUAL ADVISOR TO SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT. What does he impart to those he administers the Word of God to? So if this man is going to be THE SPIRITUAL ADVISOR TO OUR PRESIDENT (if Sen Obama becomes ur President), what kind of advice will he be giving Sen obama in matters of HEALING WOULDS CAUSED BY RACISM, and RECONCILIATION? When Sen Obama talks about BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER, he is actually talking about RECONCILIATION. How can HE succeed with HATE & ANGER SPITTING FROM PULPIT? It sounds to me that Rev Wright would be satisfied only with HAVING THE WHITES PAY A CERTAIN PRICE. WHAT PRICE WOULD THAT BE? AT WHAT STAGE DOES REV WRITE INTRODUCE FORGIVENESS? From the Biblical perspective, FORGIVING IS THE DUTY OF THE OFFENDED. ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS IS THE DUTY OF THE OFFENDER. And FORGIVING IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE OFFENDER COMING TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS. When the offender comes to ask for forgiveness, then at that moment, he or she learns that forgiveness has already been made available. I am wondering what kind of Gospel Sen Obama has been taught.Listen, SEN OBAMA IS NOT CAPABLE OF BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER. You can not achieve such goal with the likes of Rev Wright as your SENIOR ADVISOR IN MATTERS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN RELIGIOUS. Who was his advisor in matters of WHITE RELIGIOUS MATTERS?

Rev Wright was Senator Obama's Senior Advisor for African American Religious Matters. Who is his Senior Advisor for White Regious Matters? Who is his Senior Advisor for Asians Religious Matters? Who is his Senior Advisor for Latinos Religious Matters? Who is his Senior Advisor for Women Religious Matters, and Jewish Religious Matters, and arab Religious Matters, etc.???? I could go on and on. I would think that he would need advisors for all these other groups in order for him to be able to address their issues. Or does he assume that he already knows their issues? Or does Sen Obama only intend to bring BACKS TOGETHER? This may look like some insignificant detail, but I think these details reflect a reality about Sen Obama's true plans.Again, FORGIVENESS IS AT THE CENTER OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. God forgave us. He made the forginess available to us. He did not wait for us to go ask for forgiveness. We benefit from this forgiveness ONLY WHEN WE, THE OFFENDERS, GO TO GOD AND EXPRESS OUR REPENTANCE. This is the role of churches. If we all waited for those who have offended us to come back and pay us or ask for forgiveness before we can LET GO OF THE POISON OF GRUDGE AND ANGER, THEN WE WILL BE EATEN UP INSIDE UNTIL IT WILL KILL US. Rev Wright is a perfect example of this. Instead of administering LOVE AND PEACE AND JOY, he was so consumed with anger that HE BECAME AN AGENT OF DEATH! If you want to see proof of what I've just said, just hear the words of Mrs. Michelle Obama again, "Only now, she is proud to be an american!" This statement is LOADED!Senator Obama must have been fed this hatred so much that HE FOUND REV WRIGHT INCENDIARY WORDS NORMAL AND ACCEPTABLE. By sitting in the pews and RENDERING SUPPORT BOTH FINANCIALLY AND PHYSICALLY (I imagine that he would come out of church that Sunday and say to his pastor, 'That was a great sermon. I was really blessed! - Or maybe what else do you think he said to his pastor after the sermon?) (...)

By giving such support to Rev Wright, HE WAS AND IS STILL ENABLING REV WRIGHT! He is an accomplice. As a LAWYER, SEN OBAMA WILL UNDERSTAND THIS, I HOPE. When I hear people say, forget about this. He has already given a speech, I SAY, YEAH, A SPEECH!!! That's all he does. He hopes to SPEECH EVERYTHING OUT. Just give a speech and everything will be fine. Come on! People, if we all engage in this discussion HONESTLY, we will be helping our country as well as healping Sen obama become a better candidate and be more prepared for the White House, and also, we will be doing ourselves a favor.

I'd like to see a more constructive discussion of these more serious ideas that have the capacity to affect our future! NOW TO YOU! WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To all of the learned posters - moreso than this humble one - I can on register my anguish at the current lack of a spiritual content, or even context, in what passes for the tortuous and convuluted religious dialogue in this society , particularly when matters of race are involved by citing the following:

"By the Rivers of Babylon, where we sat down. And, there we wept, when we remembered Zion!
Because the wicked carried us away in captivity and required of us a song. But how can I sing my Father's Song in this strange land? So let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in THY sight, Oh Jah! Oh Jah! Oh Jah!" Selah. B

The height of arrogance: to presume that someone Harris (rightly) detects has intellect and reason that even begins to approach his own lofty levels, would still have the audacity to "fake" his faith for mere political pragmatism. To be able to peer into someone's heart and mind and probe their innermost motive and sincerity (or lack thereof) is a power that's almost, well... spiritual. Even supernatural.

Actually, contrary to (most) athiestic presumptions, faith and reason are not inherently at odds. Could it even possibly be that Obama has actually reasoned out his faith, and reached the conclusion that it is reasonable to believe as he does? To such a reasoned man like Harris, clearly such an audacious proposition by an otherwise reasonable man is utterly unreasonable.

If only Obama and the rest of the world would see the light (or lack thereof) from Harris' enlightened perspective. Pray for us, pastor Harris. :)

I've concluded that Sam Harris is a god.

Where's the beef?
Wright had a lot of truth to support his oratory, which is a lot more than you can say for most Christian preachers, most politicans, all of the Bush folks, all Fox commentators, most main stream pundits, etc.

The hypocrisy of the Christian Right and folks like HillBilly is sickening!

"Dear Mr. Hitchens,
It must be very painful for you to assuage the 150,000 people die every day, and 149,000 of them thought they would see tomorrow.

A minister of the Most High God,
Canyon Shearer"

Nice try. I was almost reaching for my wallet but found there was no plate. I admire your blind faith though I have one question or possibly two. Why is it that nearly every religious person, irrespective of the flavor, feel that I want or need to hear their thoughts of how I should worship? After all if I pray by myself in my own temple will they somehow know and not bother me? Do they disrespect people so much that they think they are incapable of knowing their own thoughts? I am the guy that closes the door on the Watchtower folks that come, unbidden, to my door or that hangs up when someone calls because they were absolutely POSITIVE that I could not form my own opinion. Yours was, as was Obama's, an eloquent speech. Perhaps though if these reformers spent more time giving some of their room to the homeless and food to the needy it might help some wretched soul who must live under the bridge. I admire the Salvation Army for this yet, it comes with a price doesn't it? As is the case with TUCC. The people in the pulpit wear fine robes while others stand naked in the snow. Not a sealed in stone statement but my opinions the same.

Rationalist: All religion is inherently irrational and should be mocked.

Moi : And all atheists with dubious or so-called 'rational' and 'reasoned' notions on religion and everything else should be too.

--------------------------------------------------

barbara b: Sam Harris for president.

Moi : As a Democrat or Republican? He sounds like a liberal or leftist Democratic on domestic issues but a neo-con right wing Republican on foreign issues.

With his domestic programmes and foreign ones, Mr. Sam Harris as President, will take the US under faster economically, socially and politically than you can say, "Sam Harris for President!" And racial and religious divisions will still be there - among and between all religious and ethnic majorities and minorities.

Mr. Harris would not be elected as President. He has a known and articulated contempt for the majority of his fellow Americans who said they beleive in deity/deities and are members of organised/institutionalised religion. In all his speeches, he would be calling them idiots, delusionals and such.

Any believer wants to give to Mr. Harris' presidential campaign? On just his platform for making America economically and politically strong again?

Better "Ralph Nader for President!" At least his platform, concerns and solutions is more concrete and workable.

YES, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOUR SPIRITUAL LEADERS SAY TO CHILDREN,INCLUDING YOUR OWN. IN WRIGHT'S CHURCH SEVERAL HUNDRED CHILDREN WERE APPARENTLY SUBJECTED TO THIS RACIAL BILE, WEEK AFTER WEEK, YEAR AFTER YEAR, GENERATION AFTER GENERATION. DURING THE SERMON I AM SURE THAT MOST OF THESE CHILDREN LOOKED AT THEIR PARENTS WHOOPING AND DANCING IN EXCITEMENT AT THESE COMMENTS AND LEARNED WHAT?--"WHITEY IS EVIL"
NOW, WHAT DO THESE CHILDREN FEEL ABOUT OBAMA'S AND THE OTHER ADULTS ACQUIESCENCE TO THESE WORDS AND ACTIONS? OBAMA, A U.S. SENATOR. WANTS TO UNIFY US BY GIVING A SPEECH ON RACE-HOW CAN THIS EVER HAPPEN WITH THESE CHILDREN? DID OBAMA ACTUALLY WHOOP AND DANCE IN FRONT OF THESE KIDS?
I CANNOT DISTINGUISH OBAMA'S CHURCH FROM THOSE ISLAMIC SCHOOLS WHERE A CLERIC TEACHES JIHAD AND HATE TO YOUNG CHILDREN. SOMEBODY STATED IT BETTER THAN ME-"RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING."

BGONE sez:

"Jews were being held in bondage in Egypt when Moses convinced Pharaoh to, "let my people go"

You realize that this is just another mythical story from the OT, don't you? There's no evidence at all that Jews were slaves in Egypt, or that they helped to build the pyramids etc and that the so-called exodus ever occurred. There's not even a shred of evidence that Moses even existed. Most Hebrew scholars view the OT as archetypical myth-making, ie: as pure myth unsupported by even a shred of archaeological and historic evidence. Too bad the Christians continue to view such obvious myths as historic fact as desperately cling to their virgin birth and resurrection myths.

Just wanted to clear that up in time for the annual network tee-vee showing of Old Charlton asking Yul to "let my people go."

Mr. Sam Harris,

Hello. Thank you for your essay. Very entertaining, most enlightening for us to know where you are coming from on this.

Other readers and posters here has focused on other parts of your essay. I will, a wee bit, on a wee point you made.

You : "Examples of well-behaved and comparatively atheistic societies like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark—which surpass us in terrestrial virtues like education, health, public generosity, per capita aid to the developing world, and low rates of violent crime and infant mortality—are of no interest to our electorate whatsoever."

Those Scandinavian countries you mentioned are not quite enthusiastic, nor cruel , nor at all colonising European powers of the scale of others like Britain and France.

Those Scandinavian countries are quite insular and monocultural until the fifty years, and even then still not so multi-cultural nor quite used to or accepting as yet of pluralism in their own societies.

Those Scandanavian countries don't have a history of slavery and importation of slaves to work on their fields of hogs and potatoes.

Those Scandanavian countries don't have the "right to bear arms" clause and an NRA.

And I believe, some Americans would consider those Scandinavian virtues you mentioned to be socialistic. Their personal income taxes are very high.

And yes, there are other well-behaved and comparatively atheistic societies like Cuba, China, Vietnam North Korea.

And yes, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark are "well—behaved", which I take that you mean to be law-abiding? Being "well-behaved" also mean being civil even if one is a racist or bigot. One would pause to to live in such a colourless or lacking of colours (from skin tones to ideas) diverse societies without the frisson on race and religion that reminds us how welcoming, challenging and enriching diversity is in human growth and progress. Diversity is a test of man's mono-mindedness and singular-mindedness.

And you concluded : "We may be ready for the audacity of hope. Will we ever be ready for the audacity of reason?"

I do regret any atheist authors continuing to insult the intelligence of athiest readers with the insistence that without religion and/or belief in God, all will be well with the world, including there be no more racial strifes. That all will automatically look past the colour of one's skin if one is an atheist freed from the "superstitious" belief in God and no more member of organised/institutionalised religion. Non-belief in God is no guanratee of personal prejudices on race and gender.

We know that some (many?) adherents of a religion of a particular ethnic group do regard those of another ethnic group of the same religion differently due to history and culture. Or else there won't be Baptist churches with mostly Caucasian membership, and Baptist churches with mostly African-American membership.

And by the why, even Buddhist monks are also capable of braying for opposition against repressive authorities or for violence. As in in Tibet by monks against the Chinese central government. As in Sri Lanka in the Singhalese Buddhists vs. the Hindu Tamil Tigers. Perhaps you may wish to read up more on this and see how and if race can be as divisive, if not, more divisive than religion. I don't need to go into Burma with minorities being persecuted as well as members of the majority who opposed.

Race and rights. Race and rights. Race and rights. This simple thing to remeber in the case of what Pastor Wright spoke on and irritated some others not of the same race as him.

I certainly hope you will contemplate on this when you meditate.

But yes well, we all know that religion is the root of all evil and unreason in this. Or religion poisoned everything. So atheists insisted conveniently. Any atheist with the audacity to say, "It ain't all true?" "It ain't so" to that simplistic conclusion repeated like a mantra as evident truth?

And thanks again for your entertaining and enlightening essay on this.

Thank you.

"J"

This is an extremely offensive statement:

"And this, despite the fact that the Governor [Mitt Romney] had been wearing consecrated Mormon underpants all the while, whose powers of protection are as yet unrecognized by Evangelicals."

To devout Latter-day Saints (Mormons) the above statement is akin to spitting on the yarmulke and tallit of someone of the Jewish faith, or burning the orange robes of Buddhist monks.

FYI, the undergarments that devout Mormons wear are a private symbol of devotion to Christian beliefs and should never be a topic of casual conversation nor sarcastic writ. And they are called "temple garments", not "underpants".

Why, in this day and age, is it still considered acceptable for a respected news source like the Washington Post to mock the beliefs of a worldwide faith? Are Jews and Buddhists next? Oh...no...of course not. I forgot about the media double-standard--mocking Mormons is well within the current standards of political correctness. Mocking Jews and Buddhists is not.

Jed Rothwell:

Not disagreeing but did you know that in spite of the blood baths like, Bull Run and Gettysburg and many others most Civil War deaths were from non hostile causes due mainly to poor sanitation?

Would you support the notion of giving all former slaves a huge cash payment? Just slaves and not the descendants of slaves else most all of us no matter the color of our skin would qualify. Jews were being held in bondage in Egypt when Moses convinced Pharaoh to, "let my people go" so Jews would also be entitled. But then Europeans were enslaved by the Romans so all European Americans would also be entitled.

Don't you think it's about time black folks demanded a day of thanksgiving, national holiday to honor American slave owners? Without them they would still be in Africa where aids and starvation are but two of many nasty norms. We have Columbus day when we thank the Italians for us being here. Without the Roman the Anglos would still be dancing around their May Poles naked. Without the Egyptians the Jews would have starved to death and there wouldn't be any of them at all, according to the Bible.

Let's make the Japanese pay us all. They are the only people on this earth that have no history of ever being slaves that I can find, not that they weren't desirable but they were uncooperative, something to do with Kamikaze.

Slavery and descendants of slaves has no place at any public forum. There is hardly anyone who does not qualify as the descendant of former slaves while there are no legal slaves at all. Why discuss something no one is involved in other than academic?

Well as usual when atheist write about religion they reveal their gross ignorance of History in general and Christian history in specific.

1st for the Christian Mr. Harris, God the Father and God the Son are one substance that means that Everything the the Son experience on the Cross the father experience on the throne in heaven and more besides.

2nd there were more Christians warring against slavery than fighting for it. The Civil War was from a Christian perspective the penance we paid for the crime of thinking we ought to be able to own and abuse our fellow man.

3rd Quoting Hitchens on Christianity is like quoting Marx on Astronomy in that neither in that case would know what the heck they were talking about.

The Blacks were slaves in America,my ancestors as Irish were treated as slaves in Quebec.My great-grandfather was a native Indian slave who raped my great-grandmother who delivered the baby then commited sucide. Many native Indians are still treated as second class citizens in North America and are supposed to live on reservations. This was their country, I don't see to many of them as millionaires, I also don't see to many people caring. Why is one minority so much more important than the others?

Hey Sam, (yawn) take some more writing classes. And it wouldn't hurt if you learned the meaning of the word "respect" in the process.

I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding here--- the nature of religion is to speak about abstractions, things that only exist outside of our material world--- patterns that are there and that we can get finite glimpses of, like the number pi, or the mathematical cosine function. Whether the expression of faith is Muslim or Bahai, abstract invisible patterns provide the only motivators other than pleasure and pain. We start to see them quietly, over time, and religion serves to pass the visions on from generation to generation. The particular fables that they attach to the patterns are immaterial--- they are like the pictures of the cosine function that you see in mathematics books. The true object is not the particular squiggle, it is an infinitly rich construction which reveals itself over time.

To many people, here is what church is:

-The place where you make you commitment to God
-The place where you “may”meet your spouse
-The place where you and your spouse make a commitment to God
-The place where you have your children baptized
-The place where you may attend marriage counseling
-The place where you may attend addiction counseling
-The place where you may get assistance when you can’t meet your bills
-The place where you join a ministry for some type to fellowship with others
-The place where you begin community service per God’s instructions (helping others)
-The place you go weekly (or more) to ask for God’s forgiveness

Many critics of Obama have legitimate questions that “should” be asked. But when someone makes a flat out statement that he should get up and walk out of his church, they need to answer the questions as to what church means to them. I suggest to you that if anyone can get up and just leave their church, there is a good chance they weren’t really invested in the church, spiritually.

Finally, so far I have seen three video clips with Wright making four incendiary statements. For the sake of discussion let’s supposed he makes 2 comments a year of this type. Do you think the average churchgoer would leave his/her church for that?

You see, a fiery, charismatic minister may draw you to the church. But it is the fellowship, support, and service that are truly the church.

Voltaire claimed: if God does not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. On the contrary, if God does not exist, it would be more necessary to live the good life. Atheist Bertrand Russell prescribed the good life as one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.”
If only our politicians in government were honest enough to admit this piece of truth, our government could be a government of the truth, by the truth, and for the truth. Not as it has always been a government of lies by hypocritical liars. Poch Suzara

Thanks for saying these things. It is heartening to hear from a fellow American who understands how noxious religion can be in our society.

But my experience in Europe has shown me that the path to power can be just as perilous, In such secular states as France, where I live (and where folks do indeed manage to love their neighbors, raise their children and care for one another without seeming to need an afterlife), the brightest and the best often face crippling obstacles to power nonetheless because there is an elitism and a class rigidity that makes most poliical discourse inherently sterile. Despite my distate for religious discourse in politics, I have actully come to think there are worse beasts than this.

..1st.....YEAR........ANiVERSARY......BLOGGiNG............WiTH..........ONFAiTH.........WAPO: FOR.........................................ONE..............YEAR.....TODAY!........WE........:
......E.C.L.A.T.A.R.i.A.N.S........LOVE....YE..............ALL...

.....................1...........................................YEAR...................................................ANiVERSARY.................................BLOGGiNG.......................................................WiTH..................................ONFAiTH...........................................................WAPO...................................FOR.........................................ONE ..............................................................YEAR........................................TODAY!....................................WE.................................................E.C.L.A.T.A.R.i.A.N.S.................LOVE........................................................YE...........................ALL...

"Obama was surely wise not to mention that Christianity was, without question, the great enabler of slavery in this country."

But the abolition movement also had roots in Judeo-Christianity. It is hard for me to imagine an anti-slavery movement coming from any other religion or philosophy. From Moses to Babylon to the martyrs slaughtered in the Roman coliseums, the stories of those who were enslaved are an important aspect of Judeo-Christianity thought. All religions have some aspect of compassion for the weak among us, but you should give Judeo-Christianity some due for being the one religion that actually brought abolition of slavery into the political world.

Sam Harris writes that " Obama was surely wise not to mention that Christianity was, without question, the great enabler of slavery in this country. The Confederate soldiers who eagerly laid down their lives at three times the rate of Union men, for the pleasure of keeping blacks in bondage and using them as farm equipment, did so with the conscious understanding that they were doing the Lord’s work. After Reconstruction, religion united Southern whites in their racist hatred and the black community in its squalor—inuring men and women on both sides to injustice far more efficiently than it inspired them to overcome it."

And why was Obama "surely wise", if I may ask?

Sam Harris won't agree with the answer that I am going to give, but the real reason why he was wise is that, contrary to purported 'rationalist' constructs of 'reality', the everyday reality that humans live is far more complex than the stupid materialistic one that Sam Harris sees.

Sam Harris and other lazy thinkers like him dismiss religion as superstititon. But hope, motivation, reciprocal altruism are 'spiritual' or 'transcendental' constructs that really determine the evolution of peole's lives, not just within the short time-spans of one phase of a person's lifetime, or even the timespan of one whole lifetime or even that of three generations who may have experienced each other's physical presence, but even over longer timespans during which cultures evolve, 'memes' form, and what neuroscintists call the 'activity patterns' that determine the options among which free will can be exercised take sahpe in the brain.

These non-physical, 'emergent' dimensions of a very concrete reality has been investigated by many inter-disciplinary scientists in recent years, namely evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists, artificial intelligence experts, Game Theorists as well as Mathematicians, theologians, sociologists and anthropologists, among others. Antonio Damasio's challenge to a certain Cartesian conception of reality has made waves among even many scientists who are far, far more knowledgeable than Sam Harris in their quest for truth and far more rigorous in their challenge to so-called 'religion' as a narrow (and therefore misguided), antropocentric or anthropic, construct of the ideas of traditional religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or other.

The debate continues.

But, yes, Obama was right because he refuses to kill the emergence of hope; he refuses to let cynicism overpower human decency and thereby prevent the formation of those activity patterns in the brain that cause the emergence of neural options among which the free will of each one of us can be exercised and we can choose to be religious, to be generous, to be not reverse-racists or a-racist but anti-racist.

Be less intellectually lazy, Sam,and try to see religion as a quest to undestand the transcendental rather than indulge the no-doubt lucrative but stultifying game of setting up strawmen constructs of the religious discourse so that you can show iconocalst prowess at lynching such strawmen that nobody literally believes in.

Mariano Patalinjug:

"Who harbors such an unapologetic and virulent hatred for whites and for America, the very country where he feels free to routinely urge his flock (including Obama) not to intone, "God bless America," but to curse, "God damn America?"

Who indeed? Let's start with Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: "Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." How is that different from saying "God damn America"?

And then let's list all those right wing preachers, including intimate friends and advisers of Bush and McCain, who insist that God hates America and has punished her with 9/11 because we have so many homosexuals.

And the neocons! Don't forget them! And Cheney! They say they love the country but they have fomented more anti-American hate than anyone in the last 30 years. Plus, they did not have the guts to serve in the military in the war they started, whereas Wright was a U.S. Marine. I don't care what he said: he demonstrated more real patriotism than all those neocons tied together.

Now, who should we subtract from this list? Who has stood up and said uniquivically that he does NOT agree with these anti-American preachers? Not Bush. Not McCain! Only Obama has the guts to stand up and disagree publicly with religious fanatics.

Yonkers, New York
21 March 2008

I have the feeling that many Americans have been seduced and mesmerized by that recent Philadelphia speech of Barack Obama on race relations in America and on his close and intimate 20 year association with Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright--Wright as his mentor, virtual uncle, and spiritual adviser, Obama as Wright's disciple.

Because he possesses such unusual oratorical gifts, Obama represents a grave danger to America because he has the ability to sway not only the uneducated and the gullible, but even also the highly educated, the sophisticated and the street-smart among us--pretty much the same way a smake-oil salesman practically hypnotizes people to buy his cure-all elixir.

As far as his controversial association with Rev. Wright is concerned, the nagging question persists: Why does Obama stubbornly avoid breaking off his personal association with somebody who harbors such an unapologetic and virulent hatred for whites and for America, the very country where he feels free to routinely urge his flock (including Obama) not to intone, "God bless America," but to curse, "God damn America?"

His sophistic and pathetic explanation is that he can no more disown Rev. Wright than he can disown a white grandmother who feared blacks.

If he were not aspiring to be elected President of these United States, that explanation would not matter one way or the other. There may actually be no need for him to offer any explanation at all.

But because he may succeed in his quest of the Presidency of these United States, on the wings of his oratorical prowess, he owes the American people a good and satisfactory explanation why
he chooses to continue to embrace such a malignant and venomous influence as Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

As a "typical white person" (part Cherokee, part German, part ?) I would like to say that I think Barack Obama is full of sh*t. He kicked his grandmother to the curb and honored his racist pastor. His grandmother helped raise him, his pastor only instilled anti-American and anti_white beliefs in him. That's not the kind of loyalty I would expect anyone to extend to a non-family member. Will he kick America to the curb? You bet, anyone who disrespects their own grandmother in front of millions of Americans could care less about you, that's for sure. Of course, that's just the typical white view on the issue.

Gene wrote, apropos of nothing it seems:

"You should read more history. Most soldiers in the Civil War did not care one way or the other about slavery."

YOU should read more history. 180,000 soldiers in the Civil War WERE slaves, and they cared very much about slavery! They were the black troops in the Union Army, and they were the finest and braves sons of the South. They were patriotic Americans -- only the white people in the south betrayed the nation.

Of course there were also many outstanding white Unionist southern troops, who deserve equal credit for saving the nation. There were 120,000 white unionist troops from Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana and other states.

The Civil War was mainly a war within the south, with half the southern population fighting the other half. It was white confederates versus black and white unionists. The conflict did not end until 1963, with the voting rights act.

The war would never have happened in the first place if the south had had a democratically elected government. Black people should have been allowed to vote! I am sure they have voted to stay within the union. Thousands of them gave their lives for that cause.

And don't give us any revisionist bull about black troops who fought for the Confederacy. That's a myth. Perhaps there were a handful, but there were 180,000 others who fought for the Union, and hundreds of thousands more who fled from slavery across to the Union lines, often at great peril.

I am sick and tired of seeing the best, finest, most patriotic Southerners maligned and forgotten. We should tear down the statues of white Confederate soldiers and put up statues of black southern patriots. They fought for their country even before they were allowed to vote! And as Lincoln said, without the black troops the Union would have lost.

I agree with Gene that many of the soldiers, while not abolitionists, did not have a vested interest in the continuation of slavery but they did benefit from the inequities of the slave society and, therefore, would have benefited from the post war inequities.

As far as Senator Obama's faith or lack thereof(as Sam Harris assumes of any educated person)no one on this blog can attest to the personal beliefs of this man. He may profess belief in the Gospels of Jesus Christ which can be interpreted in many different ways. He may be more akin to a deist or pantheist (or even a panentheist) in his belief system and still be able to honestly claim belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. He may be aware of the multitude of scientific theories that seem to imply a rejection of a purely materialistic view of reality.

The essence of most “religious” teachings is that consciousness is the ground of being instead of material. Of course, with the Popper-esque paradigm dominating most of the current scientific thought, materialistic science views consciousness as merely an epiphenomenon of the material brain and no more. Clearly, this perspective limits the interpretation of phenomena such as near death experiences, out of body experiences, telepathy, etc. With the recent findings in quantum mechanics, however, this purely material paradigm is becoming outdated and lacking in explanatory theories. Consciousness appears to be much more than merely the epiphenomena that materialist scientist claim. To determine if there is an afterlife one must extrapolate and theorise from different findings and theories not merely rely on one type of method of inquiry, I.e. material science.

I think that many enlightened mystics of human history have attempted to teach other people the methods necessary to be enlightened but their teachings have been co-opted by the “followers” who are self interested, egocentric and greedy people. The result of these organizers of religions is a “belief” system instead of a pure “practice” as you see in Zen. Simply “believe in this dogma and you will be rewarded” is the resulting misconception of many religion’s teachings. Jesus Christ seemed to be teaching his followers that they should be one with God and give up their entity of self in each moment. (See Matthew 6:28, Luke 17:21, John 15:13 and John17:21-23) This view seems to be similar to Buddhist thought (except the concept of God which could be interpreted as a personification of ultimate reality). Of course the followers of Christ misinterpreted his teachings in order to fulfill prophecy and to create a self-interested entity of “church”.

Can we integrate the modern theoretical physics and the essence of the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Great Buddha, etc.? If the recent interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct, then the integration has begun!

As for the prosperity gospel types amongst the ministers of Christianity, there is great ignorance or avoidance of the true teachings of the New Testament

These greedy ministers of prosperity ignore the following (amongst others):

Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Luke 12:15
Then he said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."
Luke 12:33
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

You should read more history. Most soldiers in the Civil War did not care one way or the other about slavery. Very few owned slaves, North or South. Most Union soldiers referred to the Confederates as "the secesh" because Union soldiers were fighting to preserve the Union. Rebels were fighting the invasion of their homelands (people had far greater loyalty to their state than the federal government). In fact, when Lee invaded Maryland, he had to deal with numerous desertions as many soldiers did not want to invade the North. Later historians, like Grant said in his autobiography, came to believe the amount of suffering had to be about something greater than preserving the Union, and abolishing slavery made the costs somewhat more pallitable.

thishowiseeit wrote:

"Sen. Obama,
we are now in 2008 not in your grandma times!
First of all it's time to bury the hatchet and
forgive and forget."

That was the WHOLE POINT of Obama's speech! Honestly, I wonder, did you listen to it, or read it?

The question is: How do we go about burying the hatchet and forgiving? Do we pretend it didn't happen? Tell the victims to get over it and stop feeling sorry for themselves? Do we get all bent out of shape anytime anyone mentions the past? Or do we actually deal with it?

Forgiving is fine, but forgetting would be a bad idea. People who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Sen. Obama,
we are now in 2008 not in your grandma times!
First of all it's time to bury the hatchet and
forgive and forget. Second, please read today's
Sam Harris' post because it really makes sense!

I doubt that Senator Obama, or most churchgoers, pay too much attention to what is said from the pulpit, at least as far as making their economic and political decisions. I am a senior citizen and a practicing Roman Catholic. I go to church every week but that does not mean that I agree with the sentiments of my pastor, the bishop or the Pope. I presume Senator Obama's churchgoing was part of his routine and his alliance with Chicago's black community. The fact that the pastor seems to be an out and out nut is not necessarily the type of thing which impels someone to leave one church for the other. We have had 41 Protestants and 1 Catholic president, and I doubt a sermon or two is enough to change lifetime habits and allegiances. Maybe it should be, but that isn't the way it works.

Read today's Post Op-Ed: I am so glad that someone in the media finally had the balls to parse Obama's sophistry correctly, unlike the knee-jerk editorials that simply glanced over the issues. I have never been a fan of Charles Krauthammer- a tad too right-wing for me, but now I am.

A point to be noted: Obama himself faced NO ills from America's slavery, yet wants to champion that cause. He wants so much to belong to the black community, to be considered black, and have it replace the father who abandoned him. But these unresolved internal demons, although understandable, make him highly unfit to lead any grand public office.

Krauthammer is right: Obama has NOT transcended the bitterness of America's slavery, and will NEVER be able to for he will always pander to the community that he doesn't really belong with. Anway, anyone who goes around saying, "To know me is to love me", does indeed flatter himself.

At the end, please allow me to repeat Krauthammer's unavoidable and important question: "Senator, why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?"

Heath - you say Harris is "facile," a "hatemonger" etc. How so?

Harris is dishing out to the Religious Right what we secularists have been taking for decades -- and these thin-shinned whiners can't take it.

Personally, I prefer a very different approach, and recommend being very tolerant of theists and theism.

But the reactions to Harris show that some thieists sure can't take what they dish out to secularists.

Grow up or shut up.

To Consider:

Please remember that any claims of the existence of a god and such god's influence on mankind, are claims made by men (or women), like yourself. Explain why these claimants should be believed.

Additionally, I would argue that "unbelievers" generally regard your scripture as a memorialization of the ignorance and superstitions of the ancient world - nothing more.

Just because you believe something is true, does not make it true.

Just because you can imagine something, doesn't mean you should believe in it.

As always, Harris is facile, depending on cherrypicks, scorn, and misunderstanding in his self-serving anti-religious rhetoric. He's as popular a hatemonger as there is in America right now - no better than Jeremiah Wright at the end of the day.

Consider; "It could happen..but without God in the picture, it wont. The grandiose ideas of secularists and the like keep their 'faith' in man. Never has worked. Never will. Again, without God."

"God" HAD his chance, whiner.

The result has been division every time.

Now it's *our* turn to try. We could not possibly do worse than you have.

http://churchstatewall.typepad.com

Pete wrote:

"I think Harris's point is that such is the climate of superstitious credulity in this country that even so apparently rational and educated a person as Obama must PRETEND to believe in the flying jooba jooba monster - whether he does or not - or immediately lose his viablity as a political candidate."

Well, if that is what he meant, I think he should have phrased it better to make it clear he was not accusing Obama of pretending.

There probably are some politicians who pretend to believe in religion, but I am convinced that Obama is sincere. And I do not hold it against him, for the reasons I listed above. (Below, actually, but it should be above.)

I recall one Congressman from California has openly declared himself an atheist, so perhaps politicians are wrong, and they do not need make a show of religion.

Mr. Harris stated:

>>Religion unites, motivates, and consoles beleaguered people not with knowledge, but with superstition and false promises. Surely there is a better way to bring people together in the 21st century.

The fact of the matter is that waiting yet another century for mankind to bring mankind together will fail as it has in past centuries..those looking for and awaiting a utopia brought about by man's vision and leadership. It could happen..but without God in the picture, it wont. The grandiose ideas of secularists and the like keep their 'faith' in man. Never has worked. Never will. Again, without God. Superstition is more akin to the dark aspects of this worlds 'religions'..Religion, true religion, based on the ten commandments is far from a superstitious base, yet it has been discarded as such, hence the state that the family of man has been in and still is for all these millenia.

The misconception is elementary. Unbelievers look at scripture as a commentary of a harsh, distant God putting His thumb on man. It is the opposite. It is a chronology of mankind apart from God...yet God still having the perogative to step in where He chooses. Our time for doing it 'our way' is coming to an end. Not the end of the world..an end of an era.

Someone earlier had made a point of saying that "God brought Obama to the foot of the cross; Not Pastor Wright; he may have planted the seed."

This is ridiculous and untrue. What brought him to the foot of the cross was a woman, his wife. And nothing is sadder or more proof of how meaningless Religion is than a man changing his faith or religion for the prospect of getting laid.

Ben Stiller makes sense. You are truly enlightened.

And I like your movies, even Heartbreak Kid.

Jed said: "Sam Harris's statement is also unfair. He implies that Obama is a hypocrite:

'But Obama’s candidacy is also depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country.' "

I don't think he was saying Obama is a hypocrite (or at least not only that). I think Harris's point is that such is the climate of superstitious credulity in this country that even so apparently rational and educated a person as Obama must PRETEND to believe in the flying jooba jooba monster - whether he does or not - or immediately lose his viablity as a political candidate. Because the American electorate considers prescientific mediaeval superstitions in its candidates to be a GOOD thing.

Dear Mr. Hitchens,

It must be very painful for you to assuage the truth that it is your religion which is responsible for more racism and murder than any other in history, and yours is still relatively young.

I wrote this specifically in parody of your title, it's slightly more (x's infinity) important than yours though:

Letter to a Pagan Nation
C.B. Shearer (c) Nov 2007

To the godless, the heathens, and the willfully ignorant,

God will ultimately do the judging, not me. But I am the watchman, calling out that the sword is coming, that God is going to be judging you in righteousness, either on the day of your death, or when He returns.

He has given me the keys to the kingdom, the authority to say who is going to Heaven and Hell.

If you are a good person, then rest assured, you will go to Heaven. That is why it is so imperative that you are a good person.

God is going to judge you against perfection, against Himself.

He demands that you have at your core the love of Him and righteousness. But Paul tells us that none seeks after God.

Combined within having Him at your core, He forbids making up a god to suit yourself. This god can be money, science, or yourself, but it can also be making up a god that looks like God, but one that won't judge you based on these criteria of righteousness, or send someone to Hell.

The Bible tells us in several places that God's name is above every other name, it is the only name that is blessed forever. God will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain. Consider that no-one ever says, "Allah Damnit!" Or screams out "Sidartha Buddha" when they hit their thumb with a hammer. The reason being, these names are already cursed, and you cursing them doesn't matter. But we declare our hatred of God that we try to drag His name into the mud by using it in place of a four-letter filth word.

Paul warns us about loving the creation more than the Creator. God asks for one day out of our week to remember Him, are you giving Him that one day, or just a portion of it? He is asking for less than 15% of your week, and most people won't even give Him that. Consider that God executed Ananias and Sapphira for withholding this portion of their lives from Him after they said they had given all.

The Fifth Commandment demands that we obey our parents (contained in this is that they are commanded to obey the other nine Commandments), and by dishonoring God, we dishonor our creator and our parents.

God considers all life precious, and He says, "Thou Shalt Not Murder." Most of us (not me) have not removed the gift of life from someone. But consider this, that 1 John 3:15 says that if you hate someone without cause, then God considers you a murderer at heart. He is going to judge the intentions of the heart, and not just the actions.

You have heard it said of old, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery." But Jesus says to you, "Whosoever looks upon a person to lust after them, has committed adultery with them already in their heart."

At what value does petty larceny turn into grand-theft? What have you stolen, maybe a song on the internet? A toy from a sibling? Time from your employer? Or air from God?

Did you know that the Bible says that all liars will have their place in the lake of fire? How many lies, and I'm not talking about discretion here, do you need to tell to be a liar? I only needed to murder one person to be deemed eternally a murderer. (I'm covered from man's laws by the Geneva Convention and that the non-combatants were in the wrong place at the wrong time as they tried to be a human shield for some Al-Qaeda leaders, but not from God's Law) A person only needs to rape one girl to forever be called a rapist. One lie makes you a liar, and lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. Out of the mouth, the heart professes.

In light of the criteria above, do you think God owes you anything? When you covet things, whether they be happiness, money, people, or possessions, you are telling God that what He has given you is not enough.

These are God's standards of judgment; consider yourself warned. The cup of His wrath abides on you, all that is keeping you safe is His patience and offer for reprieve. But this patience will not last forever, on that day your life on this earth will be snuffed out, and you will stand before the Judgment Seat of God. You will stand naked before God, your shame exposed, the book of your conscience opened. What will you say? I wasn't warned? You have been, and I'll bet this letter is not the first time.

Jesus Christ described Hell in more detail than Heaven. It is a place of eternal torment, where the fire is never quenched and the worm dieth not. There is wailing and gnashing of teeth! The fire is unique to Hell, because even though it burns hot enough to melt sulfur, it is not a consuming fire, it is specially formulated to inflict pain. This fire also does not give off light, because Hell is a place of infinite darkness. This is telling, because God is light, and if Hell is totally dark, then God is NOT there, you will forever be separated from all of the graces of God, including love, joy, peace, and comfort. The Bible says God is the foundation we stand on, but because He is not in Hell, the person in Hell will forever feel the sense of falling, like that gut feeling you have when you miss a stair in the dark, you will forever have this sensation. God holds you in His hand like a spider suspended over the fire. In every way you disgust Him and like a spider biting at the hand, so is your transgressions tempting God to tip you, at this moment, into the fire.

But God is patient, that the gavel of your eternity has not fallen means there is still time to get right with Him. But here is even more bad news. You cannot bribe God. Let me take you to an earthly courtroom, where there are ten clear evidences of your guilt, and the punishment is execution. Try telling the judge that you have done heaps of good in your life, you've given to charity, never killed anyone, been physically faithful to your spouse, you've prayed daily, and always try to be nice to people. These are all nice things, but they are irrelevant to your guilt and the sentence that is due. You are trying to put a fresh bandage on a gaping wound, and blood and the puss of sin soils your works.

But here is love, not that you loved God, but that He loved you, He gave His Son to be the payment for your fine. You angered God and earned the sentence of eternal torment, which only by the pleasure of God has not yet been carried out on you.

Jesus Christ, one of the eternal Persons of the Trinity, God manifest in the flesh, came to this world born of the Spirit through the virgin Mary. He lived a perfect life, submissive to His Father in every way. He was tempted in every way possible way by the father of lies, but He didn't succumb. He was the only man ever to live that deserved Heaven, but in order to glorify His Father and save you from the wrath you had amassed, Jesus Christ willingly gave Himself up to pay your fine. He took the wrath of His Father and was beaten in the most heinous of ways, men died from lesser beatings than the one Christ took. Then He was hung on the cross at Calvary. He didn't only shoulder your sin, but the Bible says that He who knew no sin was made sin for you. God gazed down on His most precious Son and saw only filth, refuse, and malice. Our entire sin; past, present, and future, went to the cross and was crucified in Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us that He was forsaken by His Father, the eternal Trinity was rent in twain and when Christ was separated from the Father, your sin was separated from the Father.

You can be forgiven, because your fine has been satisfied. Jesus Christ's first words to the world were, "Repent and Trust!" This is precisely what you need to do, you must turn from your sins, call out to God for forgiveness, and place your faith in Jesus Christ to save you from the wrath you so rightly deserve. You will be forgiven, not because of anything you have done, but because Christ did all of the work and your debt is stamped, "Paid in Full."

If that wasn't good enough news, on the third day Christ rose from the grave and defeated death. Death has lost its sting; to be absent with the body is now to be present with the Lord.

I have no ulterior motive other than to see you saved and God glorified. I don't care if the United States survives past 2010, whether it is a Christian nation or a pagan commonwealth of the European Union. I would be out of a job, but I don't care, I do not seek to please men but only to glorify God. What glorifies God is you calling out to Him to save you, and Him being exalted for His goodness and kindness and patience and saving you and me despite our complete depravity and hatred of Him.

Consider this forgiveness long and hard, repent and trust in the Saviour right now. As I pointed out, every transgression tips his hand closer to the fire, we are stealing air from Him, and His patience could run out at any moment. 150,000 people die every day, and 149,000 of them thought they would see tomorrow.

A minister of the Most High God,
Canyon Shearer

Yep, religion is the great enemy of democracy alright and has been for a long time -since a witch doctor delivered the first fire and brimstone sermon, on or off the mount and then passed the first ever plate. If you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior then you're going to hell is real old, a lot older than Galilean virgins turning up pregnant and saying God did it.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul seems to be the only real counter-argument. Jesus was the son of the being in the burning bush, the God that did it. As difficult as it is to believe, this seems to be the only place where the question, which God was that is answered. Respect for people's faith forbids actually noticing what they're doing but there is the notion of using their own weapons on them since they have all the weapons, and respect to rely on when their weapons fail.

Sooner or later they'll get around to calling each other Devil worshipers anyhow. Why not sooner? There are some fights that must happen no matter how peaceable our better judgment tells us to be. It will be very interesting how this whole thing plays out. It's a crying shame the GOP couldn't find a born-again -makes the best of it little more if as much as a girlie-man fight.

Very poorly written. How could this person have won the PEN award???

THANK YOU SAM HARRIS. Couldn't have said it better myself.

THANK YOU. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Kenneth wrote:

"I know I could could never vote for someone who actually believes this Christian garbage."

That is unreasonable! Your standards are unrealistically high. Furthermore, all candidates believe in Christianity. Do you think they are all, equally bad? You see no difference between McCain and Obama because of this one issue?

I don't believe in religion either, but most people do. Furthermore, most people consider it a virtue to believe in it. You cannot hold one member of society responsible for going along with a trend that most people favor. People do not have time to re-examine every idea about life and morality. Good people take most ideas for granted, even ones that later appear obnoxious. One of Obama's points was that older white people often have racist notions that they themselves are unaware of. That is because in 1920, and even in 1960, nearly every white person was an outrageous bigot by modern standards. That included many people who I personally know were fine, gentle and good at heart. They failed to look beyond the "common knowledge" of the day. Yes, that is a fault, but you cannot saddle those individuals with all the blame for that common knowledge.

By the same token, you cannot saddle Obama with the entire burden of what you consider the mistake of religion.

Sam Harris's statement is also unfair. He implies that Obama is a hypocrite:

"But Obama’s candidacy is also depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country."

Obama does not only "claim" to believe -- he sincerely does believe. I am sure he does. Furthermore, Harris should acknowledge that Obama does not agree Harris's premise. Obama is not cynically pretending to believe in religion. The words "claim to" should be cut:

". . . a person of candor and eloquence must still believe what I consider unbelievable . . ."

Harris finds Obama's beliefs regrettable. I am as much an atheist as Harris, but I think these beliefs cause no harm because Obama acts rationally in every context in which it matters. Everyone has odd and unsustainable beliefs. I am sure that centuries from now, people will say that most of our beliefs and "facts" were wrong, or oversimplified, or incomplete, just as we say that about people in 1800. No one is perfectly rational and we all harbor contradictions. Some forms of religion do cause harm, but not Obama's. If anything it seems to help.

It often happens that delusions and wrong ideas -- such as the caloric theory of heat -- prove helpful, as a stepping stone to truth. As I pointed out in another thread here, Christian ideology made tremendous contributions to the modern scientific and enlightenment philosophies.

Harris's idea are not nuanced enough for me. I demand obscurity! I want answers that depend on how you look at them. For a nuanced, difficult atheist creed -- one that makes you think -- read the late, great, Arthur C. Clarke -- my hero. And by the way, for a delightful memorial photo of Clarke with his pet Tyrannosaurus rex, see:

http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm

Bravisimo! and Glory Halleluiah! Just reading something like this makes my breathing a little easier.

I am not an atheist; I do have a concept of God, but everything that Sam Harris has written here rings true to me.

Alot of people, aplogists for racism, like to point out that even Abraham Lincoln did not believe in the equality of black and white people, and that even he made statements asseting the inferiority of black people. But I have done alot of reading on Abe; in fact Abe Lincoln and Mary Todd are one of my favorite history arcs.

In those days, the political system operated very much as it does today, with the very same Whitehouse, and the very same Capitol, and the very same Democratic and Republican Parties flinging the very same mud at each other. If you read the story, it starts to get a little weird, actually how unchanged it all is from then, until now.

So, of course, Abraham Lincoln needed votes to win the re-election. So, he did make comments about blacks being inferior to whites, to establish himself as a credible candidate, to win. But I do not think that is what he believed.

In those days, there was a credible movement to send all the black slaves back to Africa, to the colony that we now know as Liberia. Alot of people thought that was a great idea. But Abraham Lincoln knew that it could not work and would never happen. Yet, at the beginning of many meetings and talks, he would bring up this notion, and give it a perfunctory review, as though it were doable, to appease the ignorant people listening to him. Then he would move on to more realistic things.

If a man wants to be elected to a high office, a man must appease the ignorant people. If a man does not have the stomach for such manipulations, then he should not run for high office. To be President, a man must step out onto the stage of religion, act his part, and follow the script, or else he cannot win. That is what Obama is doing.

I do not know for sure what he believes in his heart. No one knows that about anyone else. But he is reading the script and following the prescribed order as best he can to get elected. I do not find fault in him for that.

People who have written the script and prescribed the order will say that he is a hypocrite. They do not seem to realize that they also are caught up and mired in this very trap that they have set for others.

It is interesting to note that on this thread Harris has been accused by Tracy Hall of being afraid to mock Muslims, and by DZ of being a Muslim-hater and warmonger. DZ - read The End of Faith; Sam Harris is certainly not afraid to point out that the Muslim faith is capable of being just as silly as Mormon underpants, and definitely more dangerous.

To Aaron:

The word "indolence" means laziness. Can laziness be "unbridled"?

To DZ:

You claim Harris is a "warmonger" and "anti-Muslim hatemonger". What is your basis for these claims.

To Sam Harris:

Kudos on a well-articulated article.

"Guess Obama's is more like the American populace than Sam Harris is."

The majority of Americans believing something is no guarantee at all against its being stupid and wrong. People used to believe that the sun went around the earth, bleeding cured diseases, there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 etc.

Hence the need for reason.

Aaron - saying something four times doesn't make it so. Can you expand on your assertion that Sam Harris's piece constitutes "unbridled indolence," "irrationality" etc? The "antitheistic" I will grant you; that's sort of the point. But please back up those statements.

"But Obama’s candidacy is also depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country."

Guess Obama's is more like the American populace than Sam Harris is.

Thank God.

There is nothing fatuous about the chickens come home to roost statement. We have been messing with other countries for decades, and that meddling has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people. That tends to irritate people, and a significant cause of 9/11 is our own policy. I an an atheist, but Harris is a warmonger and anti-Muslim hatemonger. Doesn't look any better on you, Sam, than it does on Christians.

Sam Harris for president.

Mr. Harris, those are exactly my sentiments.

I would add that I am not convinced that Obama actually believes in the tenets of the religion with which he is associated. I suspect that, like Thomas Jefferson, the purpose of such association is based on the political necessity to which you allude, and not on religious faith.

That "necessity" truly is unfortunate.

Thank you Mr. Harris.

All religion is inherently irrational and should be mocked.

I was a firm Obama supporter before last weekend, now I know I will never vote for him and now I hope he losses the election.

I know I could could never vote for someone who actually believes this Christian garbage.

Obama deserves everything that has happened due to his relationship with his pastor.

Well said Mr. Harris!

Its this kind of unbridled anti-theistic indolence that makes me happy I'm a believer.

Harris, you have done nothing but expose the insecurity and irrationality that accompanies all atheistic worldviews... and called it "reason"!

Its this kind of unbridled anti-theistic indolence that makes me happy I'm a believer.

Harris, you have done nothing but expose the insecurity and irrationality that accompanies all atheistic worldviews... and called it "reason"!

Mr. Harris,

If you had made a mockery of a Jewish candidate's "consecrated Jewish beanie" you would be in all kinds of trouble.

If you had dared to made a mockery of Islam, you would have reason to fear for your life.

So why do you mock a Latter-day Saint candidate, who neither publicly displays nor discusses his ceremonial clothing?

Because like most bigots, you are also a coward. You only mock those who you know won't try to harm you.

hthalljr'gmail'com

Let's be clear: God brought Obama to the foot of the cross; Not Pastor Wright; he may have planted the seed. God converts the soul; not man!