God Save Us From God's Politics

J,
thanks for the comment. The point is: "If we want to" means "if we are able to want to". There is the rub. Kudos to your optimism about the freedom of thinking, even the freedom of thinking for pigeons, lol!. If I look at history - and presence - I have grave doubts.

The term "brainwashed" doesn't expire simply because you are sick of hearing it.

People behave exactly like those pigeons when they perform a dance to pray for rain or anything else: They posit a causal - mystical or otherwise - connection where there is none, or where there is a random temporal sequence at best.

Of course if you deny the existence of randomness, I resort to a sympathetic feeling for sweet little pigeons...

A "fixed talking point" that needs constant repetition until The Obfuscating, Brainwashed Jihadist and her ilk do something about their book of "death to the infidel", i.e.

"Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe."!!!!!

Hello Pilgrim,

I know. It is not so much a conditioned reflex, but rather, automatic spouting of "fixed talking points" or "set company lines" so to speak. I am leery of using the term "brainwashed" as it reminds me of a forced process as in "The Manchurian Candidate".

Gerry's point is put in a hilarious way. How can we be sure that even the pigeons would not revert to their "normal" self once freed? Unlike animals used as "lab rats", we humans can deviate from any set behavior or thinking - free to change our minds, our jobs, our habits. If we want to. We also tend to conform to any organisations' rules and norms we're in, be it in schools, the workplace, NGOs or religious organisations.

Thanks and regards
"J"

Jihadist,

Well, your reply to Gerry cracked me up! Apparently the pigeons are not simply hungry and smart enough to know how to get fed, but brainwashed. Likewise, lab rats that run mazes to get food - learning, or brainwashed? It is also a fact that Pavlov's goal, which he achieved, was to train lab assistants to write something down when a bell rang and the dog slobbered.....

Actually, Gerry may have a point. The comments of Christian fundamentalists often seems like a conditioned reflex to me. Not sure about the birds and rats, though. They are probably smarter than that.

Hello Gerry,

Your post on "religious" pigeons is the most fun I've read for a while. It cracks me up.

Did the pigeons actually learn how to pray, or is their head movements taken to be as them praying? Were the pigeons taught to fast and to repent?

Who are the fellows teaching pigeons to be "superstitious" and reading into pigeon's head movements that they are religious. What if we premised that the pigeons were at rapt attention in their head movements like Nazis and fascists and to be rewarded for it with food?

Who are the fellows who funded them? Where was it done? What are we? Pavlov dog's, then trained monkeys, then homing pigeons, and now "superstitious pigeons"? The ascent of man, or the descent of man from looking at hapless animals being subjected to experiments to find meaning on human behavior?

Why not compare humans to humans rather than with dogs, monkeys, pigeons or lemmings? Whatever happens to "....and this is what seperate man from animals" and such?

Those are very smart pigeons to know how to get food from humans. Especially in a controlled environment of a lab, and they are not free to roam to find food themselves as they would if free in the world. They will do anything. Just ask your employee. They are not being noble. Only being survivalists.

"J":)

Susan, I simply want to thank you for your article. I regret that your viewpoints, which are so intelligent, honest, evident, "normal" in the best sense of this word, have to be confronted with the foggy and verbose preachings of a Ryan Haber (or Pablo, the holder of e degree in "bible"), people who think that unless you squeeze your brain cells into "believing" in their particular brand of superstition, you cannot have "nobility". Unbelievable and sad. And ludicrously condescending, since there is no base to "descend" from.

I just read an article about the fact that you can teach pigeons to become superstitious "believers" in no time ("convert" them): Just use the old confusion of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". If the pigeons turn their heads in a particular way and THEN get food every time only after this movement, they will continue and even exaggerate that particular head motion: Their prayers have been answered. The experiment works with all sorts of movements (denominations).

Noble pigeons. I look at the Habers twisting their necks for being "saved", believing that "noble secularism" is an oxymoron.

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo has posted elsewhere on On Faith a commentary titled "Presidential Spirituality, not Religion – Please!!" Intended or not, it poses some counter points to Ms. Jacoby's post. While I deeply respect Ms. Jacoby's viewpoint, I believe Mr. Stevens-Arroyo is closer to the mark of reconciling the political and religious in America. A must-read!

Thank you, Pilgrim, and you're right, there's no need for the two to be mutually exclusive, at all.

Pam,

Well written rebuttal to Ryan's narrow viewpoint. Thanks. And damn right we are all social beasties, and empathy, and its companion, compassion, is pretty much inborn, not learned from a book. The book may reinforce it, and guide it, but it is not the source. And, boy howdies, poor Ryan has never had the wonderful experience of being around animals!

I am a believer, Christian, but also hold to evolution, and see no conflict.

Ryan wrote:
"That it, it in no way can be deduced from, 'I feel sorry for him,' that, 'I should not do to him what made him feel bad.' Nor from, 'I shouldn't like that done to me,' does it follow logically that, 'I shouldn't do it to him.'

I'm not talking about *logic*, Ryan. Don't be an @$$. I was speaking of empathy. Do you know the definiton of that word? It's to do with emotion, not logic. If you are empathetic, then I think those things do absolutely follow.

"... and sometimes it's not true. I wouldn't like to be pushed through a birth canal, but it will still have to happen to my baby at some point. I wouldn't like to be shot while breaking into somebody's house, but I might have to shoot somebody, to protect my wife and children, who is breaking into mine."

If it meant living versus dying, I'd happily be pushed through a birth canal (I was, once) and I would certainly wish the same for my children. Gaining a life, priceless.

Where the empathy comes in, is in NOT breaking into someone's house, because you wouldn't want yours to be broken into. If I were to do it anyway, I would feel guilty and recognize that I deserved my punishment, if caught.

"Again, Pam, in 'naturalism' (the use of whatever happens among the animals in nature as a guide for our own conduct) we find no answers. In fact, there, we find most of the problems. Bulls don't ask cows if they'd like to mate. They simply mount them. Is it reasonable to go around teaching schoolchildren that they are 'just animals' and then be surprised to find that, as adults, they act like it, lying, stealing, and raping at will?"

Sorry you see the animals as so depraved. Guess you haven't spent much time around them. Bulls only mate cows that are in heat, otherwise, there's no way she's going to stand for him. There is no rape. I have bred dogs for years. Occasionally, a randy, but inexperienced, young male decides he's not going to wait to be invited - he gets his comeuppance PDQ, I can tell you.

In any case, I wasn't suggesting that we use the animals for a "guide." Please don't put words into my mouth. I meant that all social animals live by rules that govern their behavior and allow the society to function cohesively. This, and empathy, is all that our own laws are about and precisely where our "morals" come from.

We are more complicated creatures and have need of more complicated rules - we also have the brains to formulate them. But don't make the mistake of thinking that other social animals don't have any. There can be serious consequences for stealing among them. Without language, "lying" requires some extrapolation, but there are consequences there, too. Please do read Frans de Waal - you will find him eye-opening, I think.

Of course, as one who understands and accepts that we evolved from an ancestor that we have in common with chimpanzees and bonobos, I do think our social structure "comes from" the animals, in that sense, but I don't think that we "look to" them for guidance now.

And your premise about school children is absurd, as you must know. I have accepted evolution, and rejected religion, since well before attaining my majority. I recognize, therefore, that I am "just" an animal (actually, I think animals, including humans, are pretty wonderful and amazing). All the same, I don't go around stealing and lying at will. Nor would I rape, if I were a man. One does not follow the other. I am a *social* animal, and I follow the rules - not grudgingly, but happily. No Big Daddy in the Sky holding out reward or punishment necessary.

DITLD,

What is obfuscating about:

What is obfuscating about the following:

A synopsis of the flaws in the foundations of today's contemporary religions:

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

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

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

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

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The Islamic Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

??????????

Daniel ITLD,

Well, Haber was pretty rude to Pam. At least graphic, and beyond reason. Maybe we should deck both? ...probably not, on second thought. Plays to their arguments.

I think E Favorite has been patient. I can definitely see that has got a point.

That thing that Ryan Haber wrote was actually pretty rude.

Daniel ITLD,

Re 'obsfucating': 12 points out of 10 for you. Very, very good! I wonder if poor 'Concerned' has a clue.

E Favorite,
Don't deck the poor bloke. At least he is polite. Go deck 'Concerned'.

Ryan Haber -- The next a stranger comes up to you in the street and decks you -- that's me!

You're a fine one to call other people obsfucating. You're the ones that obsfucating. You're alot more obsfucatinger than she is. In fact, you're one of the most obsfucatingest people I ever did see.

DITLD,

Why note the problems with The Obfuscating Jihadist? Because she like most "liberal" Muslims still believes that the koran has no flaws/stench. And that has led to the following:

The assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

CCNL, you are projecting all your fears of Islam onto Jihadist. Instead of imagining her as a potential threat, why don't you think of her as someome communicating to us, from a far-away and exotic land, about ordinary and picturesque things?

This reminds me:

In my ninth grade geography class, we were all assigned to write a paper on a foreign country. The teacher made a list of countries, and each student drew the name of the country; I got Malaysia, so I researched Malaysia and wrote my paper on it.

Even after all this time, I still remember alot about Malaysia, and probably have a slightly above average interest in Malaysia. I can remember the capital, off the top of my head, without even going to look it up: Kuala Lumpur. And isn't this also where the giagntic Petronis twin towers are located?

So, CCNL, why don't you take it easy?

Pilgrim,

C. S. Lewis discusses the breakdown of language and the use of education to destroy it in "The Abolition of Man."

E Fav,

Lol. No, I don't think you're smug. I don't know you from a hole in the wall. If you came up to me on the street and decked me, I wouldn't know who it was. That's why I differentiated between the tone I inferred from your comment, the possibly intended different tone, and your overall character. Three very different things.

Pam,

You are mistaken. It's a basic principle of logic (and ethics) that an imperative cannot be derived from a declarative. That it, it in no way can be deduced from, "I feel sorry for him," that, "I should not do to him what made him feel bad." Nor from, "I shouldn't like that done to me," does it follow logically that, "I shouldn't do it to him." It just doesn't follow, and sometimes it's not true. I wouldn't like to be pushed through a birth canal, but it will still have to happen to my baby at some point. I wouldn't like to be shot while breaking into somebody's house, but I might have to shoot somebody, to protect my wife and children, who is breaking into mine.

Again, Pam, in "naturalism" (the use of whatever happens among the animals in nature as a guide for our own conduct) we find no answers. In fact, there, we find most of the problems. Bulls don't ask cows if they'd like to mate. They simply mount them. Is it reasonable to go around teaching schoolchildren that they are "just animals" and then be surprised to find that, as adults, they act like it, lying, stealing, and raping at will?

Ahh, the Obfuscating Jihadist is now making small talk about USA democracy in action while the stench of her koran continues to permeate the globe to include her own country, Malaysia.

Said country is quickly turning into an Islamic theocracy based on the hallucinations of an illiterate, warmongering Arab and his plagiarizing scribes.

One wonders how long it will take to decontaminate it.

....and so, in Iowa, Huckabee won. Obama won.

English grammar aside, what does it mean?

According to BBC, Huckabee is for "values", and Obama is for "change".

Jacoby: "Time for a change in values?"

Inerrantist : "Come hell or high water, no!"

Fundamentalist: "Not until hell freezes over!"

Fanatic : "Over my dead body!"

American Innocent abroad : "Anyone got small change? I can't believe how much the value of the dollar has gone down!"

Malaysian using Manglish: "Aiyo! Ar, Hucka who?Obaba what? Where got one, lah!"

Ahh, the Obfuscating Jihadist is back making small talk about grammar while the stench of her koran continues to permeate the globe. One wonders how long it will take to decontaminate it.

We're now on English grammar here? Not going on about spelling yet? F Scott Fitzgerald is said to have some trouble with the spelling of some words.

"Oh Carol! I'm a bloody fool...."
(so my father thought Neil Sedaka sang)

"Ah nevah saw a wild thang feelin' sorry for itself"

- DH Lawrence

Who gives a hoot how English is pronounced, developed and mutated all over the world? You've not seen me using Manglish yet. It ain't worth a bucket of warm spit to get hoity-toity on this. I find English inflected with local idiom and their own mother tongue's grammar by non-native speakers fascinating, charming and educational. You can all call it bad English, and some examples:

- "I have hungry."

- "Who belongs to this pen?"

- "Can or not?" "Cannot!" "Okay! Can!"

- "My boss will be on top of me."

I love these comments about grammar on my thread. It shows the high intelligence of people interested in issues at the intersection of secularism and religion.

Gaby: "If God wanted to let us have some religious guidance in writing, wouldn't you think he/she/it would have communicated it in a clearer fashion?"

YES!

Concerned - you're welcomed. Interesting points about the scholars' attachment to Jesus as deity. Will think on it. Almost sounds like being tied to tradition - roots, tribalism.

Could also be an occupational hazard to reach a negative conclusion about Jesus.

" I am simply asking the question that Pam missed. Whence our dignity? Being social animals might make us special – but special is not the same thing as noble or dignified. Special only means distinct in some essential way."

Special was my take on our status, I didn't mean it as some absolute trait. Special to ME.

"There are lots of social animals for that matter. The fact that we have evolved a faculty for empathy in no way explains the fact of moral imperatives."

Sure it does. Empathy allows you to put yourself in another's place. To recognize that pain and fear in another feel the seem to him as they do to you. It's precisely where morals come from. The golden rule is the only one necessary, if we'd all just abide by it.

"Because I feel harmed by an action in no way explains how I might postulate a Golden Rule. And in fact many people who are harmed to do not go on to live by the Golden Rule, but to take revenge."

The golden rule (empathy) should keep the harm from happening in the first place. It might work better if we didn't have a book that tells us that it only applies to kith and kin - perfectly OK to stomp the guys in the next town if they worship another god. Kill them all - their wives, babies, concubines and livestock. Great.

"Moreover, if we are just social animals, why do our rights transcend those we accord to ants and wolves, other social animals?"

Because we've been taught by religion that we are "above" the other animals. They have no souls, and we are to have "dominion" over them. We are, on the strength of this, quite anthropocentric. Were we to accept our natural place in the natural world, we might be more charitable.

E. Favorite,

I appreciate the reference to John Haught's commentary. He is apparently a typical Catholic theologian, lots of verbage, not much "to the point" rhetoric. I believe he and theologians like Father Schillebeeckx suffer from all the years of Catholic brainwashing and they still cannot make the leap to saying Jesus was not deity. Professor Crossan has a similar problem but when he writes as a co-author, he can make some substantial leaps to truth and reality e.g. his book Who is Jesus with Watts and Excavating Jesus with Reed.

Crossan's historical analyses and use of references also saves the day for his conclusions but he also cannot make that leap to saying Jesus was not deity which is sad since he does a great job proving it.

Thanks again!!!

E Favorite:

You said:

"Parker - Your paraphrasing sure takes the bite out of the first 4 commandments, but seriously, how do you know that's what God meant? "

How does anyone know what God meant???

That's the problem with religion, no one knows for sure who was a prophet and who not, who wrote the Bible and who know, what Jesus meant with his incessant parables and what not.

If God wanted to let us have some religious guidance in writing, wouldn't you think he/she/it would have communicated it in a clearer fashion?

Judaism, Islam and Christianity are religions based on writings by unconfirmed sources and their scribes and supposedly carry the word and will of God.

From where I sit, God didn't exactly do a good job communicating his will and therefore he shouldn't have any problems when we mere sinner don't do exactly what he wants.

It's like having a boss that gives you a very sketchy assignment, leaves you completely alone during the planning phases, doesn't give you any concrete feedback and hopes you can read his mind of what (s)he envisions as the final outcome. Then, after weeks of intense labor, you proudly present your project, but (s)he is hates it and demotes you (purgatory) and finally fires you (hell) for doing the best you could under the circumstances.

I don't understand why anyone would want to be working (living) under these circumstances.

Oh well, such is life...

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

The wisdom of man is foolishness but the word of God is God's precious truth. The Bible says that Christians are to rightly divide the word of truth. Susan did not rightly divide God's word and so the people of God are responsible before God to correct her mistake.

Are you part of the Emergent Church?

E Favorite

Contact me at steemfreek@gmail. Anybody else who does this will be blocked.

Ryan haber says: “It is a trait typical of smug people that they will interpret someone's statements in the least charitable way” and "Perhaps you are not actually a smug person, but only play one on the internet when nobody knows your name or place of domicile."

Ryan - it's obvious you think I'm smug! I don't mind, really. it's not the worse thing a person could say about me, I just can't figure why you go to such great pains to deny it, while saying it in a veiled way.

Regarding noble and secular, you said “at least oxymoronic because "noble" and "secular" are contrary modes of being” and all your allusions were to “noble” being attached to the term “secular,” not to tradition.

Mr Mark – have you noticed? This time around, all of the candidates for President can speak English. I’m hopeful it will rub off on the ‘murikin peepul.

Pilgrim – I’d give ryan a break on it’s/its – I do that stuff all the time when writing quickly on the web. ps- are you Arminius reincarnated?

Ryan Haber:

Interesting. I am a C S Lewis fan, being Episcopal. Can you give me a reference to his discussion of language?

Oddly enough, in your well-worded post, you made a grammatical error! "You're probably aware of it's importance..." oops, should have been 'its' with no apostrophe. Sorry, could not resist!

Mr. Mark and E Favorite,

Coincidentally, I agree with you about the state of affairs regarding the use of the English language, especially in the US. It's atrocious.

Interestingly, C.S. Lewis (a Christian) wrote a good deal about the break down of language and its meaning. You're probably aware of it's importance in George Orwell (a socialist). Most tellingly, Confucius, when asked which of his many statutes was the most important, he said those aimed at the purification or rectification of language. So much so, he said, that he would dispense with all the rest if only he could get people to use words for their proper meanings and a standardized grammar.

Good grief, E Favorite,

I didn't, nor do I say, that atheists tend to be more condescending than Christians do. I wrote that was our impression and stereotype of atheists. I didn't make an indirect dig, I clearly cited the abovementioned posts as an example of the sort of smugness that we thought typical of atheists.

Daniel's comments weren't the slightest bit smug, and I don't know whether he's an atheist. Pilgrim, who decided "to add to Mr. Haber's education" about the dictionary definition of "noble" ventured into the realm of smugness.

You commented, "Plus, as long as we’re talking grammar – I’ll ask Ryan haber to please note that “noble” modifies “tradition” not “secular.” Thus a tradition, such as honoring one’s elders could be noble and a tradition such as human sacrifice would be ignoble." That also seems smug, yes. As I pointed out in my email, I never even implied that "noble" was modifying "secular" rather than tradition. It is a trait typical of smug people that they will interpret someone's statements in the least charitable way, that is, the way most likely to be erroneous; smug people will also give undue attention to spelling errors, minor grammatical flaws, etc., in people's writing. All this, they will do in order to find a way to demonstrate their superiority. That is what you seem, at least to me, to have done - since we're being direct.

You will please note, E Favorite, that I have not called you a smug person. Only that your remarks seem characteristic of a smug person. The difference is important. Perhaps you are not actually a smug person, but only play one on the internet when nobody knows your name or place of domicile. Maybe you aren't smug at all, but only picky about grammar and aren't aware of how your comments come across. Perhaps I am only hypersensitive. It's all possible.

I'm going to lunch. Happy New Year.

Dear E Fav -

It's nice to hear that you had a grammar teacher who was a real stickler. That shows a commitment to and an appreciation for language, something that is sorely missing in our "I ain't not gonna do it" society.

Why is it that the proper use of English is looked down upon in this country as being elitist? Why are so many of us comfortable with the hillbilly english of our Harvard-educated president, while distrusting people who can put together thoughts succinctly and compellingly while using a large vocabulary (Christopher Hitchens springs to mind).

Americans tend to distrust an english teacher like yours who was a stickler for detail, yet they would never accept a math teacher or football coach or a medical school professor or an auto shop instructor who wasn't a stickler for detail. And they certainly wouldn't go in for surgery or bring their car in for repair to be worked on a a person who didn't have a knowledge of and a working ethic that utilized the details.

Language is THE way we communicate as a species, yet many Americans distrust those who use it effectively. They're seen as elitist brainiacs, and people to be distrusted.

A sad state of affairs, is it not?

Ryan haber: "stereotype we had of atheists was not that they were immoral. It was that they were smug and condescending. Like the little lesson on grammar I received."

FYI - when I studied grammar I was a devout Catholic (my only devout period was in Jr high). So was my grammar teacher - we went to the same church.

He was a real stickler. When I shifted to atheism, my attitude about grammar remained the exactly the same. I'm also just as direct as I ever was and really don't like the kind of indirect dig you made above. That's what it seems like, anyhow. But to be sure, I'll ask - are you saying that atheists tend to be more smug and condescending than Christians? And do you think that my comments about the word "noble" were smug and condescending?

E Favorite:

I too understand the commandments to be writtn in the spirit that Parker here conveyed. I understand them to be gentle and loving guidance on how to live the fullest, happiest life.

I don't understand how Huckabee keeps getting credited for sincerity.... He is anything but sincere. As Peggy Noonan recently wrote: "That guy is using the cross so I’ll like him. That doesn’t tell me what he thinks of Jesus, but it does tell me what he thinks of me. He thinks I’m dim. He thinks I will associate my savior with his candidacy. Bleh."

E Favorite,
Thanks for acknowledging my post to you. I think the Bible was/is intended to be read thoughtfully, lovingly (including the reciprocal love from and for Divine Providence), and the New Testament sheds light on how the Old Testament can be understood without the brow-beating or bludgeoning that sometimes is inferred. I think we can do our best to understand Bible passages allowing a breadth of meaning that adds richness to our day-to-day lives. All the best to you this year.

Ryan,

With respect to ancient codes, commandments etc., it is simply the evolution of the human race with the resultant contemporary codes like the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Pablo

I never said that you misused the scriptures, so please do not keep repeating that. You criticized Susan for quoting the scriptures, then you did the same thing. That is all I said.

Your defense is that she did it wrong and you did it right; is that correct? You want me to show you how you are wrong. Why? I do not engage in silly squabbles over nuanced theological points. That is one reason why Bible-quoting is, as a rule, a very bad policy, because it almost always engages acrimonious bickering which does nothing to advance the cause of Christ.

You seem a little misguided and do not see the inappropriateness in issuing forth unsolicited Bible quotes to people who can read and have access to Bibles. Your very implication is that they are stupid and you are smart, and not just smart, but superior, when, you are not. Being a Christian does not make you better than other people, and memorizing Biblical quotes does not make you smater than other people.

There is no way that you can convey the complexity of Christianity by a few choice Bible-quotes, nor accomodate to the complexity of life by a few choice Bible-quotes; this practice is, in fact, a futlie way to prommote your argument, and it never, ever works.

If you know someone whom you sincerely believe could benifit from a particular Biblical citation, because you know of some specific difficulty that they may be having, why not whisper it in their ear or send it to them in a card? That would be more helpful. On a forum such as this, it is seldom helpful.

Daniel in the Lion’s Den, and Pilgrim,

I wasn’t confused about the definition of secular. Your definition of secular strikes me as a pagan or secular one. Pagans in classical antiquity were very happy to worship this god on this day and that god on that day, and between days not think about either, nor consider the contradictions involved in the two cults. The pagan philosophers almost always ended up becoming either totally atheist/skeptical or else discerning the necessary existence of a single god whose existence alone could explain other realities. This god was necessary as a first fact, you might say, but not a meaningful part of day-to-day life. These philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, were still very much like their neighbors in that they could discern the existence of this god, while still happily going from temple to temple without concerning themselves about that god much at all, except perhaps in their dialogues.

The first innovation of the Jews, enshrined in the Ten Commandments, is to make the first fact of existence the first fact of their lives. They insisted to themselves and to each other that the One, still veiled in much mystery, should be the First and Final in their life, individually and as a nation. The Greek pagans were happy to acknowledge the god existed and then to leave the god alone, but the Jews insisted that God could not be put into a neat category, a nice little box, and put off into a corner of the closet. For the Greeks, the gods had their sphere (the sacred) and everything else was free of their authority. For the Jews, God became the all-important and deciding factor of life. His reality would dictate everything – the conduct of marriages, of business, of governance, of international relations. They never intended that such things be abolished by Him, nor that they weren’t natural and worldly (with no negative connotation). The Jewish innovation is not the destruction of the secular, but its submission to the sacred.

So Daniel and Pilgrim, your idea that going to church is religious and that going to the movies is secular, that is the idea that I reject as a Christian. I will not box up different parts of my life into different little categories and act as if they had nothing to do with each other. I have only one life, and I am the same person wherever I go or whatever I do. It is the same *I* that votes, that selects movies to watch, that attends Holy Mass each morning. Christianity, lived out in its traditional ways, is like Judaism lived out in its traditional ways in that both religions insist upon the submission of the secular to the sacred, of humanity to God. We do admit of the secular, though. Our government is secular, and it couldn’t but be secular. Its purpose is to regulate affairs of this world. I fully support the separation of Church and State. My own Church, the Catholic Church, forbids churchmen to be statesmen – a cleric cannot be a congressman, as Fr. Robert Drinan of Massachusetts found out. Yet I must insist that the separation of Church and State is not the same as the separation of Faith from Life, nor of Faith from Social Life, nor of Faith from Politics.

E Favorite,

I never suggested that “noble” modified “secular” in Ms. Jacoby’s expression. I only suggested that they were oxymoronic when used in the same phrase.

Chris Everett,

I’m not really bewildered by the existence of moral atheists. I can’t say I’ve ever met an atheist who struck me as particularly immoral. Also, as for Christianity at least, I can say quite confidently that the primary purpose of our religion isn’t to instill morality. That is a mischaracterization that dates to the Enlightenment. The Founding Fathers were especially susceptible to the idea that religion’s chief benefit, even purpose, is the formation of character with morality. In Protestantism, with its emphasis on sermons, this ideas is closer to truth, but even in the case of Protestantism it is false. With Catholicism it is patently false. The purpose of religion is certainly, moreover, not to tell the world anything new about morality, or anything that the world didn’t already know. You don’t have to be religious to know that murdering your mother is bad and kicking the dog is unkind.

That said, I never have heard an adequate philosophical underpinning for morality without recourse to the transcendent dimension of human experience.

You wrote, “I see the secular American government as being the MOST noble of institutions because it is founded on the principal of respecting, protecting and even promoting mankinds inherent NATURAL rights, i.e. the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

It’s interesting. I agree with you, mostly, and I agree that our constitution is a noble document, and our government a noble form. Our Founding Fathers, interestingly enough, did not see these rights as secular ones, although the government, having charge over many secular affairs, they held bound to defend these rights. Our Founding Fathers saw these rights as being endowed by our Creator. And this is why Christians won’t leave off all the jabbering about God. (I mean more philosophically minded ones, and not those who like being pandered to, as most people do. For the record, I DETEST Huckabee’s incessant pandering to Christians.) We won’t leave off the jabbering about God because we cannot find another basis for understanding our rights or the purpose of good governance. That is because God made us, and made the world, and its order, even its secular order, derive from his good will for us. The very secularly minded Founding Fathers (very few of whom were atheist, but most of whom weren’t very religious) quite agreed.

“The concept of rights is itself a complex one, but suffice to say that respecting a person's rights equivalent to treating them with dignity, and behaving with dignity yourself. It's easy to see the nobility in that.”

But whence that dignity? That is another way of restating my question to Ms. Jacoby. I am not here insisting that everything we do must be based on proof-texts from the Bible. I am Catholic – we have never operated by proof-texting the Bible – one of the criticisms against us is that we are not “biblical enough,” right? I am simply asking the question that Pam missed. Whence our dignity? Being social animals might make us special – but special is not the same thing as noble or dignified. Special only means distinct in some essential way. There are lots of social animals for that matter. The fact that we have evolved a faculty for empathy in no way explains the fact of moral imperatives. Because I feel harmed by an action in no way explains how I might postulate a Golden Rule. And in fact many people who are harmed to do not go on to live by the Golden Rule, but to take revenge. Moreover, if we are just social animals, why do our rights transcend those we accord to ants and wolves, other social animals? Note that I wrote “transcend,” for on examination you will see that our rights are not simple more numerous than we accord to those animals, but of an entirely different sort.

I was a classical history major, and I’ve read Hammurabi’s Code, the Lipit-Ishtar codex, and I think Ur-Nammu too. The newer Ten Commandments have modified the older Codes in a striking way. To wit, they have removed the graded punishments. In Hammurabi’s Code, and those like it, the lower social classes receive less legal protection and sterner punishments than the rich, than those who likely called themselves “nobles” while treating their neighbors like brutes. The Ten Commandments, by contrast, makes no distinction among persons based on class, nor even by sex. That was new. The Jewish Law, expanding upon the Commandments, adds layer upon layer of protection for the poor, and even gives lighter penalties to the poor. That sounds outright socially progressive to me.

I haven’t read Robert Ingersoll, though. Maybe I will.

Lastly, Chris, I am not shocked, as I said, to find upstanding and morally-conscientious atheists. Not at all. In fact, growing up in my somewhat but not very religious home, the impression and stereotype we had of atheists was not that they were immoral. It was that they were smug and condescending. Like the little lesson on grammar I received.

Pablo, Pablo, Pablo,

Your Four B Syndrome is at all time high. (Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Bible thumping)

And you did not answer the question about believing in "pretty wingie thingies" aka tinker bells, fairies and angels.

Parker - Your paraphrasing sure takes the bite out of the first 4 commandments, but seriously, how do you know that's what God meant? and how do you know how or if to paraphrase other passages in the bible?

Concerned - Here's something to add to your litany of scholarly sources: In a recent Salon interview, a Roman Catholic theologian gone on record about the resurrection. Georgetown University theologian John Haught says, “If you had a camera in the upper room when the disciples came together after the death and Resurrection of Jesus, we would not see it. I'm not the only one to say this. Even conservative Catholic theologians say that.”

There’s more for anyone who wants to read the article: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john_haught/print.html

Concerned,

I have a degree in Bible but I have learned most by walking with God. You may poke fun at me if you would like but remember that the skeptics of Noah's day ridiculed him until the flood took them in judgment and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were blinded by their love of sin and there was no remedy for them except wrath and justice. I pray that you will repent so that you will not have to face God's wrath.

Dear Daniel in the Lion's Den,

Jesus quoted the Scripture all the time and some people were put off by what He said. Stephen, Peter, and Paul were martyred for preaching the word of God. The English Bible you read cost William Tyndale his life. Daniel was thrown in the Lion's den because he would not cease to pray by his window. His enemies did not like him or his God which I am sure he unabashedly proclaimed. Jesus commanded His followers to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. Are you suggesting that I should disobey His command?

Again, you say I have miss used the Scripture and if you are going to claim that show me how. So far your claim is unsupported and I believe that you are wrong in your charge but if you can demonstrate that I have misunderstood the Scriptures I would like to know so that I may grow.

Have you ever been born again?

E Favorite,
Although I tend to doubt whether you spent very much time reflecting on the 10 commandments when you made your "journey", I might as well comment on your recent comment about what we find in Exodus 20. To paraphrase what I glean from the first four, to me they say, "If you want to be the happiest that you can be, will you heed the following counsel? 1) Put me first in your life, acting from the heart and not just for show; for your children and grandchildren will tend to follow the example of what was in your heart, as evidenced by what you do in your daily actions. 2) Don't make the poor judgement that my creations or your creations are what you should worship--keep things in perspective. 3) Don't take my authority on yourself, or presume to speak for me. 4) You'll be a good deal healthier, live longer, and the earth will be more productive for you if you will make one day in seven a "holy day" wherein you quit worrying so much about the labors of this world and spend time thinking about spiritual qualities that can make your life richer and fuller and more meaningful."

Notwithstanding that I believe the 10 commandments are a good thing when properly understood, I quite agree with Susan Jacoby in this well-reasoned essay, and that is a different subject entirely.

Pablo, Pablo, Pablo,

And your educational background as compared to those scholars referenced below???? And some "bottom-line" questions, do you still believe in "pretty wingie thingies" aka tinker bells, fairies and angels??? And has God visited you in the same manner "it" visited Thomas "the NT Moses" Baum?????

And you asked about the flaws in the OT and NT:

As noted previously,

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

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

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

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

Pablo

It is my observation that unsolicited quoting of the Bible is usually, but not always, a rude practice, often leading to acrimony. I just find it usually to be very off-putting. Maybe that is just me, and people who do this casually are not aware of their rudeness. I was trying to point that out. In addition, you criticized Susan for quoting from the Bible without proper context and then you did a similar thing. I guess you are not able to see my point. Sorry.

"Ms. Jacoby admits of a moral dimension to human living (whence its origin, I have never read her adequately explaining) so I know she is not believe something like, 'Humans are just animals, and nothing more, less, or other.'"

I can't speak for Ms. Jacoby, of course, but I might well have made a statement similar to hers, and I can tell you what *I* would mean.

Right, we are "just" animals. Social animals. Personally, I think that's pretty special.

If you take more than a cursory look at the other social animals, you will find a good deal of such attributes as altruism, justice, and empathy - the roots of "morality." The "golden rule" is an inborn part of us as surely as is the desire to eat or to have sex. I highly recommend the books of Frans de Waal, if you'd like to know more about where our conscience comes from.

I also think you should look into knighthood a bit more before you declare them "noble."

Chris Everett - you sound like a good hearted fellow too.

I recall when I was in the middle of my journey from belief to non-belief, I thought about the 10 commandments. I realized that I couldn’t remember what all ten of them were, but recalled something about “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” Upon reflection, this didn’t seem like one of the ten most important rules to live my life by.

So I got my bible, and found that the first 4 commandments were all about who’s in charge! 10 rules and four of them about were about whom to worship, how and when to worship him and what happens to you and your children’s children if you don’t worship correctly. I was completely unimpressed with them as a basic guide to moral behavior. Most of all, I was astounded that I never before realized how primitive and narcissistic the initial commandments were. Just saying “the 10 commandments” sounded so impressive and authoritative that I never thought to look closely at what each commandment was. People talk about the 10 commandments as if they are the most important and sacred things that ever existed. What a sham.

Anonymous,

This really is amazing that people think that simply making statements makes them correct. Show me how her Bible quote was correct usage do not just make a statement.

Dear Daniel in the Lion's Den,

God bless you and happy New Year! Maybe you should change your name if you are not willing to get into the lion's den. Since you say I took the Bible out of context please articulate how. I pointed out how Susan took the passage out of context you just made a statement. I do not think I was rude to Susan I simply spoke the truth in love. Remember that being a Christian is not a popularity contest. I would think you would know that with the name you are using.

Concerned,

Again stop listening to all your non-believing so-called scholars who have an axes to grind with God. I ask you last time to prove that the Bible is not trustworthy. I am still waiting.

Ryan Haber:

You seem a bit bewildered that morality can exist in an atheistic worldview. I can assure you that morality is definitely NOT a religiously-derived quality. Religions simply combine moral codification with supernatural authoritarianism. In reality, a moral sense is a NATURAL attribute of human beings (morally defective individuals notwithstanding).

I see the secular American government as being the MOST noble of institutions because it is founded on the principal of respecting, protecting and even promoting mankinds inherent NATURAL rights, i.e. the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The concept of rights is itself a complex one, but suffice to say that respecting a person's rights equivalent to treating them with dignity, and behaving with dignity yourself. It's easy to see the nobility in that.

Of course, it doesn't necessarily require a secular institution to secure human rights, although the history of religious governance, of which the founders were keenly aware, was one of consistent, nearly universal sectarian violence, bloodshed and tyrrany. The founders knew that a government based on religion would inevitably give expression to man's basest instincts and behavior. Fortuanately they lived during the Enlightenment, that brief chapter of human history where the faculty of reason was first recognized as man's most sublime and transcendent quality, as opposed to the faculty of servitude that was touted by the religious/monarchial governments of the day. It was the light of reason, illuminating human nature, that was the basis for the natural rights of man that the American secular constitution secures.

So you see, it was an optimistic time, when mankind credited mankind with the capacity to see for himself into the nature of things (of course, there's no alternative other than subjugation, which is a form of degradation). That immediately put all men (and women of course) on an equal footing with respect to each other, from which equality under the law and democracy directly follow.

You seem like a good-hearted fellow. If you are interested in reading about morality from a freethinker's perspective, there's no one better than Robert Ingersoll. I recommend "Superstition and Other Essays", but I'm sure any collection will do.

At the risk of sounding like a shrill atheist, I implore you to read the ten commandments IN FULL as they are written in either of the two (slightly different) versions in the Bible and really ask yourself if that is the true basis of morality. Note the tyrrany over the mind. Note the cursing of generations of descendents. The obliviousness to the immorality of slavery. Compare the ten commandments with yet more ancient codes such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
and reflect on the fact that such codes were ubiquitous; they were simply man's early attempts at moral codification (with the 10 commandments being a particularly dreadful example that has unforutnately been the one to survive, as a accident of history).

Daniel itld -- agree.

And, no - the meaning of “secular” has not changed since you took the SATs - at least not in the dictionary, but it's been smeared by some to suggest a negative meaning of irreligious or anti-religious.

We live in a secular democracy - our founders set it up that way. We do not have a state religion, and any religion that does not violate the civil laws (e.g., polygamy) can be practiced in the US. Also citizens have the right to not practice a religion.

Regarding use of the modifier “noble” – synomyms are dignified, gracious, fine, decent, good. It seems to me that “noble” could be used to describe anything or any person that fit that description – no need for transcendence. Plus, as long as we’re talking grammar – I’ll ask Ryan haber to please note that “noble” modifies “tradition” not “secular.” Thus a tradition, such as honoring one’s elders could be noble and a tradition such as human sacrifice would be ignoble.

'Secular', to add to Daniel's good definition, and to add to Mr. Haber's education, has today in America an extended meaning: separation of church and state. I would bet large sums of money that that is what Ms Jacoby meant.

"Secular" means, that part of life not pertaining to religion. Going to church is a relgious activity; going to the movies is a secular activity.

That is at least what I always thought. This definiton of "secular" given in the above comment seems pretty far afield from my traditional concept of that word "secular."

(I learned the meaning of this word in high school SAT preparetory vocabluary class, where we learned 10 new words a day; has it change since then?)

I find myself in the unlikely position of agreeing with most of Ms. Jacoby's thoughts expressed in her most recent post. Of course, with some of her points, I agree with her statements, if not with the sentiments or implications that she may have intended them to carry.

One thing really bothered me though, and does so more and more. She mentioned beliefly America's "noble secular traditions." This phrase strikes me as being (perhaps doubly) oxymoronic. It is certainly at least oxymoronic because "noble" and "secular" are contrary modes of being. At least, that's the best I can express the problem succinctly.

"Secular" refers to this-worldliness as such, and in opposition to, or at least isolation from, anything transcendent, anything beyond the material and human. Taken to its extreme, it even separations out of the human anything but the material. Ms. Jacoby admits of a moral dimension to human living (whence its origin, I have never read her adequately explaining) so I know she is not believe something like, "Humans are just animals, and nothing more, less, or other."

Yet the idea of nobility is by all accounts an expressly immaterial one. It has to do not with material causes and effects but with meaning, goodness, and dignity. That's why we might speak of a noble knight, but not a noble financeer. At least, if the financeer is noble, it is not because of his financing, but because of some other dimension of his personality and character. Likewise, we might speak of a noble flag precisely because the flag means, speaks of, something noble: the Homeland, the Country, the Nation, one's Neighbors. We don't usually speak of noble tire irons. Nobility is inherently a transcendent idea. Even an atheist will see that the noble at least must transcend the merely mundane, the day-to-day, the this-worldly.

Those are exactly the things that the secular rejects. If it does not reject them or deny their existence, it at least refuses to speak of them.

That's why I wonder what Ms. Jacoby might possibly mean when she writes, "noble secular traditions."

My first thought was that she might mean things like "trial by jury", "universal suffrage," or "state of the union address." Those things are very good, but they are not exactly noble - not very close even. And when seen up-close, trials and voting booths hardly strike one as transcending anything, let alone rising to the vaunted status of "noble." They lack the aesthetic nobility of a renaissance Italian palace. They lack the moral nobility of a Gandhi. They lack the crystalline, luminescent obviousness meant when we speak of elegant mathematical proofs that we might call a sort of intellectual nobility.

What exactly can Ms. Jacoby mean when speaking of "noble secular traditions?" Has anyone got an idea?

Note: This is recycled Mareial From Brethren(s) Anderson's page. Thank You Brethren Chuck, et al.

VOTE: Take Back A Sweet America & throw out the Russian Crude(s) so to speaketh (communists at heart & 1000 faces, who vie with 'Both" International Religious & nonReligious Mafiaoso Capitalist with Evilizing thoughts.)

Note: President Ronald Reagan rightly said, "..The EVIL EMPIRE.." [U.S.S.R.].

Is this a genuine conspiracy or What????

Please see 2nd hand Evidence here, via Russia Links!

1) Russia's energy giant Lukoil says it's been given the go-ahead to expand its oil and gas activities in Iran. Please see:

http://russiatoday.ru/business/news/18479

2) Lukoil and Rosneft say they'll consider selling their oil and gas in roubles instead of dollars, if the U.S. currency continues to depreciate. Please see:

http://russiatoday.ru/business/news/18426

Please, Sweet Fellow American(s),

VOTE: ((( Peace Love Rock nRoll nRap Mitt_ROMNEY for Prez 2008 YEA! )))))))))

Thank You , me fellow Eclati-On(s) & not Off(s)! Ya Ya!

Romney Romney Romney Romney!

America is in good hands With President Romney!

Susan,

That was an excellent essay, and helped me quite a bit. Up till now I couldn't put my finger on what bugged me about how the campaigns have run this time. You described it perfectly.

There's a lot of talk by different candidates about what they will do if elected, yet they're history is a far better way to judge them then their promises. Certainly, comments about the candidates’ faith serve no purpose than to try to scare people from voting for the “wrong religion”.

As a resident of Massachusetts, I can tell you that Mitt Romney's faith had nothing to do with the problems he left the state with when he left the Governor's office.

Pablo, Pablo, Pablo,

Hmmm, still thumping the bible without looking at the historical review of the quoted passages???

For Luke 6: 43-45 see http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/041_Trees_and_Hearts to see why this passage has been rated by many NT exegetes as not being said by the historical Jesus.

For Matthew 12: 36-37- This passage appears only once in scripture meaning it more than likely was not said by the historic Jesus.

Dear Pablo (more)

You said"

"...you selectively quote a Bible verse and forget that one must use the whole counsel of scripture when coming to a conclusion on what the Bible teaches on a subject..."

But you did exactly the same thing, didn't you?

Susan wasn't quoting from the Bible to promote her Christian beliefs, since she says she is an atheist. Therefore, one would not expect her to weave her quote into a complex tapestry of Christian theology. Surely you understood that.

But Christians often quote from the Bible to promote their Christian beliefs. Speaking as a Christian who finds this practice objectionable, how much more then would it be to people who are not Christian? We all know how to read and we all have access to Bibles, so I won't say anymore, because I am trying to be less rude, and more polite and courteous here, but, it is not always easy.

Dear Pablo

You must not be paying close attention to the Presidential campaign. Every single one of the candidates has made a little noise about the fact they are Christians. You haven't noticed that?

It is sort of like atheletes taking steroids; if one of them does it, then all the rest feel compelled to follow suit, in order to remain competitive.

Pablo: "one must use the whole counsel of scripture when coming to a conclusion on what the Bible teaches on a subject."

Susan's use was appropriate and sufficient to make her point.

Can you finish the following, Pablo?

A stitch in time...
Don't count your chickens...
A fool and his money...
SIX OF ONE...

Dear Susan,

First I would like to say God bless you and happy New Year! And that I do agree that one should not vote for a presidential candidate just because they are a Christian or claim to be one. There are a lot of Christians who do not have what it takes for the job.

However, on your first point in which you assert that candidates should not speak of their faith you selectively quote a Bible verse and forget that one must use the whole counsel of scripture when coming to a conclusion on what the Bible teaches on a subject. Jesus said,

“For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6:43-45) .

So you see that Jesus taught that actions and words are tied together and thus you have misused God’s word for your own agenda. If I were you I would pay close attention to what Jesus said on the same issue as recorded in Matthew’s gospel. Jesus said,

“I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:36-37).

You say you will be voting for a Christian but when I look at the field of candidates I see a group that mostly contradicts the Holy Scriptures in word and action. Which candidates are you asserting are Christians? The only candidate who says emphatically that he is a Christian is Huckabee and it is hard to tell whether or not his actions match his words with all the hearsay swirling around in the untrustworthy media. As pointed out above Jesus said that we will know them by both their fruit and words. The Scripture is the measuring stick to measure the fruit to see whether it is genuine or not.

I would like a Presidential candidate who is intelligent, well-educated, sophistocated and worldly. This, by definition, would be a person who knows about and understands the science of evolution, without controversy or trouble, that it is not a relgious question, but just part of being a complete, knowledgable and serious human being.

And what else I would like the candidate to have is life-experience, of haveing to scramble and figure things out under difficult circumstanes. President Clinton's life experience was getting impeached; President Bush's life experience is leading a disastrous war. I would like our President to have life experience BEFORE becoming President, and not get it in "on the job training."

Whan a person promotes his religious piety, he has one of two things wrong with him. He may be deliberately deceptive, seeking to exploit the ignornace of others. Or he may simply have a sincere and unsophistocated belief that his piety makes him a better and superior person. This indicates a shallow and unreflective person, who knows little about life and the world. This kind of person would not be a suitable Presidential candidate.

Whatever a person's own religious beliefs, a President should be flexible in his interactions with others of differing beliefs, realizing that he will be President to them all; and a President should be consious and aware of the doctrine of tolerance and toleration, as the basis for the separation of church and state, and confident enough to accept this religous restriction, wihout feeling in any way circumscribed or threatened.

This point of view comes from a conscious reflection about life, in all its complexities and mutations, and cannot be just an ad-hoc slogan such as "love the sinner, hate the sin."

Having said all this, there is really no way to judge any person, and know how they will react to future, unknown events. Every person's potential remains unknown, until it is challenged and tested. Abraham Lincoln and FDR were two unlikely candidates for greatness, yet things worked out so that we will always remember them.

How intolerant of Jacoby to push her unbelief on on all the religious people of America. The truth is that unbelievers like Jacoby are trying to play God by trying to dictate what candidates can or cannot base their world view upon. She is free to run for president as a non believer if she wishes that is the American way. Believers have an equal right to do the same. In the same a God fearer will govern from his or her God centered world view the nonbeliever will govern from his or her godless world view. We are all still equally citizens and thus should not have the equal right to run for public office.

VOTE: ((( Peace Love Rock nRoll nRap Mitt_ROMNEY for Prez 2008 YEA! )))))))))

Thank You , me fellow Eclati-On(s) & not Off(s)! Ya Ya!

Romney Romney Romney Romney!

America is in good hands Mit Romney!

Praise the HOLY-NO-MON! Hallaluja Sweet sweet A*M*E*R*I*C*Afrom which Eclati-On's Born!

JS: "I have seen with my very own eyes politicians and court witnesses swearing on Bibles. Perhaps you mean it isn't required, which is true. I always tell the judge "I agree to tell the truth."

We've all seen it. On "Perry Mason" reruns if no where else. And it was my meaning that it isn't required. To do so would violate the First Amendment and yet, in court proceedings, until the easrly part of the last century, it was required and an atheist could not testify because he/she wouldn't have any credibility having not sworn on a Babble.

As for Mr. Scahill, KUDOS be unto him! I saw him on the Bill Moyers PBS show a few weeks ago and it was just what I had hoped for... an expose of the real agenda of the Dominionists. Prince is one of them. Cheney is just another opportunist who really has no principles of any kind that are not as egocentric as a two month old baby.

Agki

Agkistrodon, Piled higher and Deeper:

Thanks for the corrections, especially the Supreme Court.

I have seen with my very own eyes politicians and court witnesses swearing on Bibles. Perhaps you mean it isn't required, which is true. I always tell the judge "I agree to tell the truth."

My last statement has to do with ersatz Christians waging war, which is lunatic. Jesus and his disciples are totally nonviolent.

Cut to the chase: Read BLACKWATER by Jeremy Scahill. Spooky stuff. The rise of the Theocons who intend to rule the world with a private army while serving a (united Roman Catholic/evangelical) religious agenda. Big Dick Cheney started us down this road in the '90s.

I don't like it as a Christian, former military, US citizen, student of government, or human being.

Minor correction - Max Weber (not Marx) was the early sociological authority on bureaurocracies. If I don't say it someone else will.

Chris Everett - thanks for the post above.

One could argue that compared to the 10 Commandments, Muslim Sharia Law is even more atavistic and punitive in an absolute sense, albeit coming from the same Law of Moses.

That is one set of rules that no Westerner would want to live under for 5 minutes. One of the great dangers in the world of today is the possible spread of this most severe and barbaric 'code of justice' beyond it's present confinement in mainly Arabic countries e.g. Saudi Arabia being it's purist representative.

I've read of the existence of a Sharia court in Canada of all places! I hope this isn't so, but even the possibility is an object lesson in what can happen when the politics of religion prevails over the secular administration of government.

We need to consider that current politicians running on a religious platform are tacitly supporting the idea of more, not less, religion in government today. How can further confusion and obfuscation of the central Constitutional principle of church and state separation be a good thing??

We've lived with it in our faces for the last 7 years, and the results have not been pretty. The Catholic-dominated Supreme Court will be heard from plenty in the coming years, and this powerful (religiously conservative) legislative force needs plenty of balance elsewhere in government.

Hopefully a democratic POTUS and a democratic super-majority in Congress would be enough to keep them in check, should this be the outcome of next year's election. If not, expect both a further erosion of civil rights, and a much bigger helping of religion in your governmental diet.

Dale,

Thanks for the reference to the Code of Hamurabbi. Here's a link to another even earlier code, the Code of Ur-Nammu (please forgive my Wikipediaphilia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

The first ten are reproduced below. Although there are obviously some (modern context) issues with it such as an acceptance of slavery, it stands in stark contrast with the ten commandments in that it is secular, behavioral and implementable. In other words, it is not a form of superstition and one could unambiguously govern to it. The ten commandments, on the other hand, is just a bunch of threats with unspecified consequences that impinge not only on man's behavior but on his conscience. Governing to the ten commandments would literally be an unleashing of the dogs of hell.

1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
3. If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
4. If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
5. If a slave marries a native (i.e. free) person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
6. If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
7. If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free.
8. If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin slavewoman of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.
9. If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver.
10. If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay her half a mina of silver.

Since there really isn't a candidate in either party that I feel compelled to vote for, I think I'll write in Susan Jacoby. We could use someone so clear minded and unfailingly reasonable. As always, an excellent column.

Obviously, seven of the ten commandments are unconstitutional and/ or unenforceable.

In the house of representatives there are 23 lawgivers portrayed in bas relief on the walls. Many pagans are portrayed, including Hamurabbi from whom the supposed Moses plagurized the ten commandments.

OORT - I agree with your comments but it's still disingenuous at best. These days every politician wants to be on 'the safe side' so throwing crumbs to the religous pigeons is to be expected.

Unfortunately several of these candidates have run religion up the flagpole as their basic primary platform, with all other considerations secondary to their 'christian' committment.

We can see that this nonsense should be dispensed with, but the GOP knows the traditional political clout of the right-wing evangelicals in recent years, and at least some still believe that their opinion counts for something! Actually I doubt it - I think their race is run. This is probably why McCain has a better and better chance all the time of actually emerging as the GOP nominee.

Finally, I must agree that there are virtually NO top quality candidates in this race, although the break-through fact of real diversity in the selections is to be applauded.

In my opinion, at no time in the past has an election been more about 'the lesser of two evils'. Actually predicting what any democratic candidate might do as POTUS is as unpredictable as the weather - whereas virtually every GOP candidate leaves little or no room for doubt.

Therefore we cast our vote and hope for the best - or at least for something better. There is something very redundant, & even entropic about our political system today. Fundamental changes are needed and yet it's in the vested interest of every politician (and every political system) to resist change - this is Marx as the sociologist and his highly prescient understanding of buearocracies in general.

This time around, I believe voters will have to fight tooth and nail for real change, regardless of who ends up in Congress and the Oval Office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123001212.html?hpid=sec-religion?hpid=sec-religion

"Huckabee Stands by 'Christ Comment'"

"I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

and here's a quote from that article: "It was a speech made to a Christian gathering, and, and certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptists," Huckabee said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Is this pandering?

Think back to the days of our founding fathers, how were they to convince a largely christian populace that it should fight and die for a new nation? Well, one thing that would work - say something that god wants it that way. Be vague enough (the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God) about the god in question ...

The founding fathers pandered to the christians to get the country to become a country. The christians are used to being pandered to, they expect it, they require it, they believe they are entitled by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God to be pandered to in any and all things.

It may seem unamerican by definition for the christians to hold these relgigious tests for the candidates we all must vote for/against, but unfortunately, it is very American.

They violate a fundamental principle of our nation's founding by doing this, and we as a nation can't survive well if we are lying to ourseles this way.

YAWWWWNNN

FYI the 10 commandments are an abomination. Most people who lionize them don't know what they actually say. Some excerpts:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

"you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave"

"you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave"

As an American and therefore a child of the Enlightenment, I can agree with Ms. Jacoby about the need for an absolute separation of Church and state. As a political realist, I recognize the death knell that would sound for any candidate for public office who goes too far in that direction. But more to the point, I believe avowed secularists like Ms. Jacoby don't get it quite right, any more than our religious-pandering right-wing politicians get it even partly right.

There is a balance here that few candidates manage to get. There is nothing wrong with running for office stating that you strive to be a moral person, and your morality at its source springs from a religious well. You cross the line when you declare that, because of your religion, there is a specific set of standards and a specific set of policies that you believe everyone should adhere to.

Further, Ms. Jacoby's absolutist approach is too easy on pandering Republicans. Her absolution is found in the statement, "Candidates should not be required to have led personal lives as pure as the driven snow." Well, fine, but what has that got to do with religious-pandering Republicans? Once a Republican sucks up to the evangelicals, he should be held accountable according to the standards set forth by those evangelicals. Those evangelicals declare that fundamental Biblical standards should determine our conduct. One of those principles, stated without qualification by Jesus, absolutely forbids divorce. Therefore, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Newt Gingrich are unfit for public office—by their own and their evangelical supporters own standards, for God’s sake. Why shouldn’t their hypocrisy be highlighted by their opponents? It’s not their divorces, but their hypocrisy and lies, that show the moral hollowness at the core of their souls.

In a separate forum in On Faith, Mr. Gandhi has commented on this issue. His commentary is worth reading. My comment to him is summarized in the following, which is also relevant here:

“God did not give us the 10 Commandments to post on the school house wall and place in stone on every courthouse lawn. God gave us the 10 Commandments to live by. You don't serve God by having the 10 Commandments publicly displayed for you and others to read over and over again. You serve God by reading the 10 Commandments once and then living by them all the days of your life.”

John Stephens said: "Beyond that, the "church" and state are joined at the hip. The Declaration of Independence maintains that our unalienable rights are endowed by our Creator. "

And I reply: But what does "Creator" mean? Jefferson's deism would argue against a "Creator" as the Xian god, wouldn't it? Jefferson could just as well have intended "Creator" to mean the physical and biological laws and principles that govern the universe or, as his deism dictates, a "Creator" who started the universe and then gives no more attention to it. The deist "Creator" is a far more perfect god than that of Judaeo-Muslim-Christianity because he/she/it doesn't have to do any fixing. He/she/it did it right the first time.

Stephens: "In God we trust" is imprinted on currency.

Only since the 50s and, even then, only at the insistence of some rightwing Xians in response to the "threat" of "godless" communism. The money doesn't speak for many of us.

Stephens: "The ten commandments is displayed in the Supreme Court chambers."

No, they aren't! The doors to the courtroom have panels with representations of plates bearing the Roman numerals I-X but there are no words. The numbers could mean anything.

Stephens: "The congress and the military have chaplains. Congressmen (Congresspersons?) and Senators have prayer breakfasts. There's a national cathedral in Washington, DC."

Let's get rid of them. There was a great deal of opposition to these when they were first proposed. We should end it now.

Stephens: "Elected officials and court witnesses swear on the Bible, even though the Bible forbids oaths."

No, they don't!!! I've been a court witness and I did not swear on any book nor is it required of elected or appointed officials in the Constitution or elsewhere. They may choose to do so for political or other reasons but many do not put their hand on anything to be sworn. Remember the Keith Ellison affair?

Stephens: "The federal government subsidizes some selected churches under the asupices of tax exempt status."

That's something else we should correct.

TAX GOD!! - a vanity plate I saw on a red Corvette in Idaho.

Stephens: "Preachers elocute political agendas to the congregation, and politicians pontificate in churches. Presidents pray to God before bringing hellfire and damnation upon enemy nations."

What does all that mean?

Arkansas Constitution, Article 19 Section 1 of the 1874 constitution: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

Maryland's Bill of Rights: Article 36: "That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come." Article 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."

Massachusetts' Declaration of Rights: "...every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."

North Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Sec. 8: "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...."

Pennsylvania a Declaration of Rights: Article 1, Section 4: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

South Carolina's Constitution, Article 4 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." 

Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9: Section 4: "That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state." Section 2. "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas' Bill of Rights Section 4: "RELIGIOUS TESTS: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." 

Fortunately, these 'religious tests' were rendered 'unconstitutional' by virtue of a U.S. Supreme Court case... Torcaso v Watkins... in 1961.

Again The Obfuscating Jihadist makes merry conveniently forgetting the horrors and stench of contemporary Islam.

Any presidential candidate "worth his or her salt" should be morally committed to correcting the invasive stench of Islam by noting its flaws and ways to correct and "deodorize" it.

"... the American version of representative government assures that such qualities as intellect and ethics as might equip a man to lead a powerful nation responsibly are precisely the qualities that would prevent him from subjecting himself to the debasing performances of vote begging and delegate swapping. It is a truism of American politics that no man who can win elections deserves to." ~ Trevanian, "Shibumi"

CHUCKMCF had it right (above)... "we have a collection of candidates pandering to ignorance and closed minds."

It is really a tragedy that the people who are most intelligent... most successful... most qualified... are automatically disqualified from running... because they do not believe in invisible, magical, supernatural sky-fairies (gods).

There is supposed to be no 'religious test' for elected office in the USA... although there ARE such tests in several states. But there will be a DE-FACTO 'religious test' for elected office so long as there is a clergy (religious puppet-masters) whose primary role seems to be to keep their 'flocks' (sheeple) wallowing in a perpetual state of ignorance and bamboozlement.

I cannot perceive that ANY of the proffered slate of candidates is worthy of being elected.

Sigh... it looks like I'll be writing in 'Pat Paulsen' again. The fact that he's dead doesn't make him a worse choice than any of the existing candidates, so far as I can see.

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." ~ Robert A. Heinlein

Well said, Susan! It's just a shame that the candidates that aren't pandering and using "God talk" in their stump speeches are considered to be "second tier". (Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich) I want someone that respects the Constitution, not someone that panders to the lowest common denominator.

And actually, I think that peat moss is more intelligent than the average American voter. Those micro-organisms can be pretty darn smart. :D

Hear, hear. Every day I pray to Jesus to protect me from his followers.

Mr. Mark :)

You : "No votes for YOU, though. You have the description "atheist" attached to your name, and that's a deal breaker for most Americans when it comes to agreeing, cheering and voting for someone."

Moi : I would vote for Ms. Jacoby. That is a quite a principled piece she wrote up there. She calls herself a freethinker once. Frankly I don't remember if she ever calls herself an atheist. I could be mistaken.

My Member of Parliament is a Chinese atheist. Believers do get fed-up with those who talks more on religion and pursue religious charades rather than to be personally and professionally ethical, have integrity and actually to deliver.

I certainly would not vote for a declared "anti-theist". Gives the impression that he or she would possibly declare and wage war on theists just solely due to their beliefs in public statements and state policies.

An examples of a statement an anti-theist should not make if he or she is canvassing for votes for a public office:

"While I respect you but not your beliefs, I will defend your rights of freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly".

Say again?

Happy New Year to your family and you.

Best regards

"J"

Gaby asks:

"Why is it that we seem to have to elect the lesser of two evils every four years????"

Start with the obvious question: just how nuts do you have to be to run for president in the first place?

What person in their right mind wants to spend every waking moment for two years kissing butt and raising money, having their garbage gone through, having lies told about their lives, having their most-intimate secrets revealed...and all so they can spend the next four years being beaten up by friends and foes alike, that is, when they're not worrying about the nuts out there bent on killing them.

Why indeed!

the wag line
Integrity is the most important thing, and if you can fake that...

has a lot of truth in Real Life politics, as opposed to the fairy tales we all tell each other about what men of integrity our great leaders are.

Which of them hesitate to lie or cheat or torture when they think it serves their political interests or their country's interest.

And the people on some level want that quality. When Edwards says that Obama isn't "tough" enough to be president, or Rudy says no-one but him is tough enough,
that is the subtext...

I will do Whatever it takes to protect our interests.

Roosevelt did. Wilson did. Even Lincoln did from time to time.

We are indeed NOT electing a Pastor. We are electing someone who can be an SOB when needed.

Well spoken [written] Susan. I couldn't agree with you more.

I want a President who earns respect, not demands it. Someone who gives equal time to internal and external politics, because both are equally important. You are right, Susan, it will probably be a Christian, but hopefully not one like Huckabee.

There are only two in this race whom I take seriously, but even those two have flaws that I am not comfortable with.

Why is it that we seem to have to elect the lesser of two evils every four years????

Joet,
I wish I could believe that you're right, but there's an awful lot of peat moss out there.

Excellent column, Susan.

Very well said.

I still hold out hope for this country. A woman and a black man are running for office. I never thought I'd see that. Still, I'd love to see the day when a gay man, lesbian, or an avowed atheist or a Pagan are viable candidates instead of just those with the most money and the best capability to pander to the religious right.

More than anything, I want our president to know something about the country he's leading. They should have a working knowledge of the history of our country and what the Founding Fathers actually did or did not believe. I'd love to see efforts to understand our enemies and come up with better ideas than simply invading other countries on bad information. I don't know, maybe I'm asking for too much.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Mr. Mark: I share your opinion (or at least hope) that the first candidate who says either "I don't believe in God," or "I can assure you that I don't believe anything about God that will have the first thing to do with how I govern" - "so you can expect me to act in the best interests of America, not my god," would walk away with the presidency.

Oh yes, I'm also waiting for your next book. "Freethinkers" has proven to be an invaluable resource against the current onslaught of historical revisionism by Christian extremists (like Elliott of "On Faith" and Mitt Romney, among others).

Susan, you write "How sad it is that we have departed so profoundly from the ideals of the founders, who established the world's first secular government."

Indeed. I was reflecting the other day on the old Republican cold-war realpolitik expression, "Nations don't have friends, they have interests," and it struck me that, religion aside, this thinking, espoused by cold warriors like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney, is at the heart of our current national disgrace. In fact, the true genius of America is it was the first nation to ABANDON this foundation and replace it with the notion that "Just nations don't have interests, they have principles."

That said, the highest duty of a president is to these principles, which is why the oath of president is to uphold the Constitution, the document that embodies them. This first requires UNDERSTANDING the principles, which eliminates Romney and Huckabee right off the bat. Next, the president must express the principles in the decisions they make, which among other things requires a certain degree of selflessness. This eliminates Giuliani, Clinton and Biden (too bad about Biden - he's easily the most knowledgeable
candidate). Finally, the president must have sufficient intelligence, education and experience to make wise decisions. That eliminates Huckabee once again for good measure.

Funny how a president's personal life has so little bearing on their fitness for office.

Susan,

You astound and amaze me. Here I am, Christian, reading an essay by an atheist that I might have written myself. A great analysis.

Yes, Christian I am, but I am a staunch supporter of Jefferson's wall between church and state.

Your views on the former mayor of the Big Apple correspond exactly to my own. That man is dangerous.

Too many of the rest of the candidates are masters of the waffle, the sound bite, and the flip-flop. The exception, as you pointed out, is McCain. He has my grudging admiration for still being forthright, despite his cozying up to the religious right. I certainly disagree with him on issues, but he, of all the candidates, has the only shred of honor in the whole bunch. Will I vote for him? I don't know.

Dear Susan -

An excellent column, again - and a great way to end the year.

I think that most Americans would agree whole-heartedly with your words. In fact, I believe most Americans would stand up and cheer if ANY candidate from either party had the intelligence and the guts to say what you say. Such a politician might even secure enough votes to win the presidency in a landslide.

No votes for YOU, though. You have the description "atheist" attached to your name, and that's a deal breaker for most Americans when it comes to agreeing, cheering and voting for someone.

Have a great New Year!

Susan Jacoby:

Awesome.
(I'm waiting for your next book, by the way.)

Ms. Susan Jacoby,

Thanks for all the essays in this year.
Worth reading. Worth arguing.

Happy New Year.

Thank you and best regards

"J"

CHUCKMCF:

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy proposed the idea of federally financing any student who majored in government or politics.

An opponent argued that most of those who thereby received a free degree would not, in fact, serve in the government.

True, JFK responded, but in the years to come, think what an educated electorate we'd have.

P.S. Do you really think they're as smart as peatmoss?

The sad thing is not only that we have a collection of candidates pandering to ignorance and closed minds, but that we apparently have a sufficient number of voters with the intelligence of peat moss in these United States so that pandering to the ignorant is smart politics.

If we had an informed, educated and judicious electorate, we'd have different -- better -- campaigns.

But we don't.

Extraordinarily well said.

Someone somewhere should clarify the issue of separation of church and state. My understanding is that it means the government will neither establish or recognize an official religion, nor interfere with any citizen's right to believe or not believe as he or she so chooses.

Beyond that, the "church" and state are joined at the hip. The Declaration of Independence maintains that our unalienable rights are endowed by our Creator. "In God we trust" is imprinted on currency. The ten commandments is displayed in the Supreme Court chambers. The congress and the military have chaplains. Congressmen (Congresspersons?) and Senators have prayer breakfasts. There's a national cathedral in Washington, DC. Elected officials and court witnesses swear on the Bible, even though the Bible forbids oaths. The federal government subsidizes some selected churches under the asupices of tax exempt status. Preachers elocute political agendas to the congregation, and politicians pontificate in churches. Presidents pray to God before bringing hellfire and damnation upon enemy nations.

Speaking of which, President Bush says he prayed to God before the preemptive strike on the sons of Abraham in Iraq. As a Christian who knows that God hears and speaks to men, some questions come to mind.

Did Bush wait for an answer from God or did he just charge willy nilly into the fray, blowing God off? Was war important enough to fast and pray until he received an answer from God, or was war a light thing in his estimation? If God did answer, what did he say? Did God say no, but George disobeyed Him and led this nation into war against God's will, or did God say yes? If God said yes, then George and Osama bin Laden are right -- it is a Crusade conducted in the name of Almighty God (the Christian God) against Allah; it's a holy war, and nothing is more dangerous and bitter than a holy war.

Fasten your seatbelts, folks, it's going to get bumpy.

A wonderful column, Susan. You said what needed to be said and said it just right.

When it comes to separation of church and state, the Democratic candidates' statements in this area are just as meretricious and tawdry as the Republicans', though I suspect that, as President, some of the Democrats would make better decisions in this area.

The real danger here is that the now Catholic-majority Supreme Court, with its altar-boy-adoration of every kind of authority, particularly reactionary authority, will uphold every act of demolition of the wall of separation of church and state that comes its way.

People who think the way we do, need to work harder politically. Otherwise these new representatives of superstition and cruelty will prevail in our country.