Romney: Unfit Not As a Mormon But As A Religious Panderer

I'm curious to know how separation of church and state is defined by Ms. Jacoby. What exactly does she believe it to mean?

Thanks

Daniel - he seemed like you until he got belligerent. “He” was arguing with some people on another thread in the same way. I enjoy a spirited discussion, but of course don’t like being called dishonest or otherwise being insulted. I’m relieved to find it’s not you. “You” do seem to have calmed down since that time. I suggest "Daniel the 1st" as your new moniker

In terms of how I found the thread, I often compose in “word” because I’m a poor speller. I also copy the link into the word file, to make it easier to find. Thus I have a record of most of what I’ve written.

Dear E Favorite

That was not me in the thread that you linked to. I read the exchange between you and "Daniel" and it has made me feel kind of bad, that all this time you may have thought that he was me. I read it over a few times, and thought that surely anyone could tell it was not me.

But wait a minute, in his style of writing, he seemed to mimic me a little. Can that be possible? I guess, I am hoping more that it was just a coincidence, another commenter named "Daniel." I will see about getting a more unique name.

I have been posting for a few months. I have only seen a post or two in that time by another "Daniel" which seemed innocuous enough not to worry me. I post with varying frequency, sometimes alot, usually about philosophical things, that don't seem to impress much of anybody. Occaisionally I get snippy with someone, and post a short retort.

I think the longest most complex posts were on the question of torture. I, personally, don't know much about the Catholic Church, and I don't believe I would have a whole lot to say of substance on it.

When I started posting here and writing down my thoughts, it turns out that I believe a whole bunch of things which I did not realize until I wrote them down. I often suprise myself with what I write. I often wish I could go back and recapture much of what I had written, and collect it all in one place, and perhaps make up a larger more unified essay. But how can I do that? How did you know how to reference the exact thread, and link us to it?

mmmmmmmmm. I am so perplexed and distressed, and sorry about this. I think that on many matters, you and I are not so far apart.

E fav
Uh-oh. Im afraid to look; what if it was me? But, I can't imagine that it was. So, here goes

Hi, Daniel --

Are you the Daniel on this thread?

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/07/latin_mass_and_worship/comments.html#comments

If not, then I'm mistaken -- and I think it would be a good idea to distinguish yourself somehow from other Daniels.

To: Susan, or to whomever else it may concern?

What's the deal with the WaPo religious forum, software-wise?

It seems to be all screwed up, at least on my end.

Dear Efav again

I am sure someone else posted that a an atheist cannot be good without God. Because I don't believe that. I know from my own experience that belief in God does not have much to do with a person's goodness or lack of goodness.

I often wonder what is it that makes a good person good, but I know that it is not being a Christian, because I know alot of Christians who are not good, and I know that being an atheist does not make a person bad.

Dear E Fav

I do not think I ever said you were dishonest. I cannot recall that at all. I always read your posts with interest.

Maybe you got me mixed up with somebody else. Or, maybe it was someone else who posted as Daniel. That is the problem with using "just a first name." Maybe I should add something to it, so people will know that it is really me, and not some other, radnom, Daniel.

If I ever said you were dishonest, I think I mispoke, and said something in way that did not convey my meaning correctly. If so, I'm sorry about that.

Hmmm, strange that Romney is not castigated for the Mormon attitude towards women.

A summary:

from www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm ,(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Mormonism for a more balanced view)

"The Mormon position on women has changed little since the early 1800's, when the official view was that "woman's primary place is in the home, where she is to rear children and abide by the righteous counsel of her husband" (McConkie 844). This attitude, coupled with the doctrine of polygamy and the absolute power claimed by the men of the church, created a legacy of profound sexism which modern Mormonism has been unable to escape."

OK, good Mormons what sayest thou????

And please, please don't conjure up Paul's views about women. Professor Bruce Chilton put Paul's views in proper context in his book, Rabbi Paul as noted below:

Professor Chilton pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. Basically Paul was a "prude". An excerpt for Chilton's book,

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity/Mormonism.

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

Hmmm, do you think maybe that Mohammed's scribes simply enhanced Paul's thinking about women when they wrote the koran??? Absolutely!!!!

Why, thank you, Daniel: "So, I will give E-favorite credit for discovering this about Jesus. I think his persistence may be annoying to alot of people, even to Ms. Jacoby, but I will admit that he has a good point."

Does this also mean you don't think I'm dishonest anymore because I think atheists can be good without God? (No, I don't want to get in that conversation again, just wondering if you've softened on this point.)

Hello Daniel,

Thanks for your post.

Mitt Romney could really use the paragraph you came up with. Or the Malaysian prime minister in fact. Messier here than in the US on race and religion. No governments in the world has not tried to interpret, reinterpret and manipulate their countries' Constitutions to their advantage. Or politicians and political parties vying for power and/or to maintain power.

I read the other threads of other panelists on this quickly and noted that some maintain Buddhists are atheists. The "atheist" Chinese government, which regard Tibetan Buddhism as a religion, did try to regulate the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama - to be restricted to Tibet-born and not foreign born/reincarnated Dalai Lama. Asian Buddhists don't call themselves atheists yet. The Buddhism spoken of by some posters which seem based solely on their reading of the Dhammapada, are not the Buddhism I know of and understand as held and practiced in Asia by its adherents. It is more rich, varied and complex.

Thanks and regards
"J"

Dear Concerned Christian Now Liberated:

"And this from a "die-hard" member of warmongering, "death to infidels" Islam who wants to put everyone under the "boots" of Islamic theocracies??????

Sometimes you have to wonder about people like The Jihadist who speak from both sides of their koranic mouths!!!!"

The great information theorist, Claude Shannon, well and truly said that the more a communication channel says the same thing, the less it means. Try something different sometime. :^))

Dear Gerry,

"I observe with some positive surprise that you actually have moderated your point to a considerable extent, acknowledging human nature, for better or worse, independently of religion or non-religion, and without reference or comparison between the different atrocities this human nature is able to bring about."

You may be even more surprised that was always been my position. I have reacted strongly to the professional provocateurs like Hitchins who say "Religion Poisons Everything" with the implication that if we could just get rid of those nasty religionists all the world's problems would go away. My point, which got many really angry, is that no human civilization, either religiously based or not has a perfect record. Hitchins knows this as well as anyone else who can read, but he sure sells a lot of books that way.

I think this blog experience follows the rules of small groups, that some sociologist called "Forming, Storming, and Norming" We sure have had our storms at the outset. Maybe that was just part of "the human condition".

"I also have learned some things through these conversations. I call myself a "spiritual atheist", a person full of awe and wonder towards the universe and towards my existence, without trying to put a historically developed proxy in all the places that so far are unexplored - and even may be unexplorable."

Lots on the philosophy of science in that one. Perhaps we can discuss that at some length. I find it fascinating (and for me personally, very theological).

I am glad we are learning in these conversations, as I think I am too. Particularly, I am learning a lot from conversations with Pagan Place and Terra Gazelle. Their Free Exercise rights are routinely violated by aggression of various kinds, from what Terra says. I don't doubt a word of it. As a society, we need to do a LOT better on that.

Peace, friend.

For Jihadist, and others, who do not understand our strange American ways, Mit Romney's speech was really a departure from American custom and precedent. In fact, the entire Republican party seems to be deviating from what has always been the norm, the separation of church and state.

Mit should have said something like this:

"I do not believe that religion should be brought into politics or the operation of the government. Many Americans believe many different things, but they are all Americans, and they all deserve to be regarded and treated the same, without regard to their personal and private religious beliefs."

But Mit is a pretty slick operator; he did not choose to uphold American tradition; he choose to work every angle to his advantage, no matter who else may get knifed in the back.

For E-favorite and Henry James, I have some philosophical thoughts, which I know, probably don't relate well to anyone's reality. But, here goes, anyway.

I have said here many times that I do not believe that we choose much in the way of beliefs, in our ways of thinking, and even in our individual thoughts; we experience all of these aspects of ourselves, much as we experience the landscape in which we find ourselves; these experiences of belief wash over us, and impress themselves upon us, much as the vision of the sunset, or the sound of a symphony.

It is the same with our concepts of history. All of us think of history as visualisations of what we already know in our own lives. Nowadays, alot of us probably even get our images of history from movies, and we think that Cleopatra was married to Richard Burton.

History is not really a science like chemistry or physics. History is really more about documenting or validating a pedigree of events, to certifiy, with some degree of confidence, that things really happened according to a certain narrative or another. Yet, I think just about no one thinks of history this way; they give the commonly assumed stories of history a rock-solid certainty, without ever bothering to wonder how we know the events of history are true.

I will agree, that the pedigree that certifies the existence, life, and experiences of Jesus is pretty shakey, and precariously thin. All religions are like that. And I know and acknowledge all of the frailties and weaknesses on which my religion is founded.

I am aware of the origins of the Apostle's creed, which is a summary of orthodox Christian belief, that it was originally a political document arrived at by consensus and compromiee among the parties in dispute who were the power elite, and those who did not sign on to it were persecuted into oblivion. (That is what makes "orthodoxy" orthox).

I am aware of the subsequent rise of the Catholic Church as the primary conduit of Christianity from antiquity to the modern times, as a wealthy political power, that ruled Europe for centuries, which ran pretty far afield from the original simple teachings of Jesus.

I am aware of my own Protestant heritage, founded upon the decapitated head of Ann Bolyn, as Henry VIII sought to create a new church, not based on any new or subtle theological insights, but as an expression of English nationalism, and as manifestation of his own personal greed and lust power.

All along the way, people aborb and inherit the cultures into which they were born, and "roll with the punches," and pass on what they have been taught, know, and believe, to the next generation.

Everyone has their own subjective experience of the world around them, and can really, ultimately know very little about it. What we know with certainty is really and truely very limited. When you regard the narratives of history, how much more, then, is our experience limited; I often refer to history as the "fog of antiquity;" I believe I read that somewhere; I can't remember where.

Alot of what we think we know with rock-solid certainty turns out to be assumption. The model of the world, which we think we know so well turns out to be assumption, built on top of assumption. So, I will give E-favorite credit for discovering this about Jesus. I think his persistence may be annoying to alot of people, even to Ms. Jacoby, but I will admit that he has a good point.

Arminius, are you referring to this comment of mine: "does Christianity’s origin have to be based on the existence of a particular human being in order to be authentic?"

Note I didn't say "one" person. Granted, I see how you could have taken it that way - so let me clarify - I meant a certain person - in this case, Jesus, a 1st century Jewish carpenter. Could we have teachings, the spread of a religion, communities, dogma, etc, without a certain human personality and biography who was supposedly originally responsible for it?

Concerned - Merry Christmas to you too.

E-Fav,

Thanks for the correction; you did not say multiple people origin, but an origin not depending on one person. My immediate answer is still no, but it is, of course, something to be investigated. I will of course look at paths that I do not immediately agree with.

Arminius

Arminius: "As far as a multi-person origin of Christianity: no. That does not ring true. Think of Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Latter Day Saints.... what am I forgetting? Of course Hinduism, Shinto, etc. had no (human) founders. Judaism is a separate study."

Please note, I did not say "multi-person origin of Christianity" - I said “…other fast-growing movements in history.” And that’s what I meant.

In any event, as a thorough researcher, I urge that you not to avoid a line of inquiry simply because it “does not ring true” to you. That’s when you should consider your biases.

Hmmm, The Jihadist notes:

"I'm with the Moderate in supporting the rights of all to believe what they want and chose, and freedom to practice their faith, or not to believe. Seperation of church and state is the best umbrella for all to practice their faith, or no faith at all. I am more concerned about state interference in matters of personal faith, governments promoting specific faith, and people in governments making their particular faith as primary in decisions on public policies."

And this from a "die-hard" member of warmongering, "death to infidels" Islam who wants to put everyone under the "boots" of Islamic theocracies??????

Sometimes you have to wonder about people like The Jihadist who speak from both sides of their koranic mouths!!!!

test

test

Hey everyone it has been awhile since I last posted but I have read through the comments (found a job and they let us use the web) I enjoy all the diffrent and diverse personalites on here it is a releif to see that so many can and do use rational thinking! However some of us on here are rather rude and attack rather than voice an opionion for reveiw by our peers...

Concerned, what the heck has jihadist done to you, and why are you soooo adament in making yourself have no credibility with anyone on here by blantantly assaulting everyone who doesn't scream for the destruction of Islam. NO ONE CARES about your 'crack-pot' theories and conspiracies dealing with Islam...sorry but I could see you being the type to say "OBAMA-OSAMA"...you are an intelligent person, and you have in the past displayed great rationality when approaching subjects, but you also have no control over other's beleifs...so give it a rest!

I just wanted to say it is getting cold now and it is also becoming a world that is moving backwards instead of forwards, so get ready for the holidays and enjoy the time with family and friends and show the Love that all of you have. Remember that while politics and religion and all these debates are important FAMILY always trumps arguments on the web. Hope you all have a blessed and safe Holiday season, hope you all are filled with good food and great presents, and remember that those of us without family are the ones that need Love the most during these Great Times.

Peace be unto You All

-MONK-

PS if this posts twice sorry recived an error message and tried again...

Hey everyone it has been awhile since I last posted but I have read through the comments (found a job and they let us use the web) I enjoy all the diffrent and diverse personalites on here it is a releif to see that so many can and do use rational thinking! However some of us on here are rather rude and attack rather than voice an opionion for reveiw by our peers...

Concerned, what the heck has jihadist done to you, and why are you soooo adament in making yourself have no credibility with anyone on here by blantantly assaulting everyone who doesn't scream for the destruction of Islam. NO ONE CARES about your 'crack-pot' theories and conspiracies dealing with Islam...sorry but I could see you being the type to say "OBAMA-OSAMA"...you are an intelligent person, and you have in the past displayed great rationality when approaching subjects, but you also have no control over other's beleifs...so give it a rest!

I just wanted to say it is getting cold now and it is also becoming a world that is moving backwards instead of forwards, so get ready for the holidays and enjoy the time with family and friends and show the Love that all of you have. Remember that while politics and religion and all these debates are important FAMILY always trumps arguments on the web. Hope you all have a blessed and safe Holiday season, hope you all are filled with good food and great presents, and remember that those of us without family are the ones that need Love the most during these Great Times.

Peace be unto You All

-MONK-

PS if this posts twice sorry recived an error message and tried again...

Hey everyone it has been awhile since I last posted but I have read through the comments (found a job and they let us use the web) I enjoy all the diffrent and diverse personalites on here it is a releif to see that so many can and do use rational thinking! However some of us on here are rather rude and attack rather than voice an opionion for reveiw by our peers...

Concerned, what the heck has jihadist done to you, and why are you soooo adament in making yourself have no credibility with anyone on here by blantantly assaulting everyone who doesn't scream for the destruction of Islam. NO ONE CARES about your 'crack-pot' theories and conspiracies dealing with Islam...sorry but I could see you being the type to say "OBAMA-OSAMA"...you are an intelligent person, and you have in the past displayed great rationality when approaching subjects, but you also have no control over other's beleifs...so give it a rest!

I just wanted to say it is getting cold now and it is also becoming a world that is moving backwards instead of forwards, so get ready for the holidays and enjoy the time with family and friends and show the Love that all of you have. Remember that while politics and religion and all these debates are important FAMILY always trumps arguments on the web. Hope you all have a blessed and safe Holiday season, hope you all are filled with good food and great presents, and remember that those of us without family are the ones that need Love the most during these Great Times.

Peace be unto You All

-MONK-

test

Hi, E-Fav,

Regarding forms of government: I like Churchill's observation the best: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Thanks for the pointers. We do have our differences(!), but they are fun and educational.

As far as a multi-person origin of Christianity: no. That does not ring true. Think of Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Latter Day Saints.... what am I forgetting? Of course Hinduism, Shinto, etc. had no (human) founders. Judaism is a separate study.

Oh, yeah, still looks like Concerned has the hots for Jihadist.

Arminius

Hi, E-Fav,

Regarding forms of government: I like Churchill's observation the best: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Thanks for the pointers. We do have our differences(!), but they are fun and educational.

As far as a multi-person origin of Christianity: no. That does not ring true. Think of Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Latter Day Saints.... what am I forgetting? Of course Hinduism, Shinto, etc. had no (human) founders. Judaism is a separate study.

Oh, yeah, still looks like Concerned has the hots for Jihadist.

Arminius

Hi, E-Fav,

Regarding forms of government: I like Churchill's observation the best: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Thanks for the pointers. We do have our differences(!), but they are fun and educational.

As far as a multi-person origin of Christianity: no. That does not ring true. Think of Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Latter Day Saints.... what am I forgetting? Of course Hinduism, Shinto, etc. had no (human) founders. Judaism is a separate study.

Oh, yeah, still looks like Concerned has the hots for Jihadist.

Arminius

Hi, E-Fav,

Regarding forms of government: I like Churchill's observation the best: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Thanks for the pointers. We do have our differences(!), but they are fun and educational.

As far as a multi-person origin of Christianity: no. That does not ring true. Think of Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Latter Day Saints.... what am I forgetting? Of course Hinduism, Shinto, etc. had no (human) founders. Judaism is a separate study.

Oh, yeah, still looks like Concerned has the hots for Jihadist.

Arminius

Hello Gerry,

I find it understandable for The Moderate to be sometimes irked when atheists generalised on all believers with the same single note in their posts. Believers do differentiate personal faith from the some of the mess of organised religion.

I'm with the Moderate in supporting the rights of all to believe what they want and chose, and freedom to practice their faith, or not to believe. Seperation of church and state is the best umbrella for all to practice their faith, or no faith at all. I am more concerned about state interference in matters of personal faith, governments promoting specific faith, and people in governments making their particular faith as primary in decisions on public policies.

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

Hello E Favorite,

That's what had I thought - governments to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Your President is both head of state and head of government. I believe your friend meant a system of governance where the role of the head of state and the head of government is cleary demarcated, with or without a monarchy - the President is head of state, and the prime minister is head of government. France has such system, but it is most prevalent in former British colonies (and members of the Commonwealth) that adopted the Parliamentary system.

The English are already thinking ahead on when Prince Charles takes over as King of England, the United Kingdom, Head of the Commonwealth. He does not have the same cachet as his mother, Betty Windsor (a.k.a. Queen Elizabeth II) formerly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Lots of British jokes about what happens when cousins marry and scrapping the bottom of the barrel of the gene pool among their royalty, and that an earl (the original or first one) is the result of a union between a King and a flower girl.

Malaysia is weird - a Parliementary system with a constitutional Paramount ruler/King/Head of State rotated among the Sultans of nine states (others don't have Sultans/royal houses) for a five year term. The rulers/Sultans decide among themselves. Yes, quite benign actually - for the government with a two third majority that can easily pass laws in Parliament, and the Paramount ruler, whether he sign it into law or not, after 30 days would become law. Not quite a check and balance (after a very controversial Constitutional amendment) but the Paramount ruler still has a lot of public respect and do act on petitions submitted by the public to the embarassment of the government.

Back to Mitt Romney, what he stated in his speech is to be expected, yes? He is a Republican candidate and has to reach out to the religious right, one of the support base of the Republicans. He put in a reminder on "war on terror". From now to election day late next year is a long time. Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda may, yet again, "enhance" the chances of the Republicans. The joke going around in the Muslim world is that, Osama Bin Laden is a Republican planted provocateur. Everytime President Bush looks wobbly at the polls, Osama step right in to "assist". War is very profitable for some, ideologically and as suppliers of everything from weapons to security guards from Fiji.

The Presidential candidates are not talking too much about the US economy, or it is not getting much attention from the media/public. I have to follow economies, markets and move around this and that, and am urging you to be financially prudent and economically balanced and covered. That old cliche, not putting all of one's eggs in one baskets is true. Follow the money, follow the arms sale (legal and otherwise) and you'll see where the possible future economic and conflict hot spots will be.

If you have significant investments, hold some of your portfolios in Euros too. Some simple and obvious rules - Don't put investments in one country and in one currency. Be the first in and the first out and you'll be covered. Got to go. ..

Thanks and regards
"J"

test

E. Favorite,

OK.

And a very Merry Christmas or Merry Holiday to you and yours!!!!

E. Favorite,

OK.

And a very Merry Christmas or Merry Holiday to you and yours!!!!

Concerned - I'm not looking into additional textual references to the historical Jesus. I also don't consider biblical references as providing evidence of Jesus’ historicity, anymore than I consider biblical references to angels to be historical.

Jihadist - I should have said the US Gov PROTECTS minorities. Respect can't be demanded or legislated - that's why we need protection.

A friend of mine often says the best form of government is a benign monarchy. Unfortunately, he says,when the ruler dies, with no system of fairness in place, there's no guarantee that the next ruler will be so benign.

Right - It could be a half-wit son or conniving cousin. Hell, something like that could happen even with a good system in place!

Arminius - I know you've got a full plate right now, but if you have time and interest, you might want to check on John Frum - the Messiah, since the 1940's, of the cargo cult of the island of Vanuatu.

I don't know much about it and am NOT comparing Frum to Jesus, but I think learning more about it will give insight into how new religions are formed. Since this is a recent religion there should be more reliable documentation.

Dear Moderate,

I observe with some positive surprise that you actually have moderated your point to a considerable extent, acknowledging human nature, for better or worse, independently of religion or non-religion, and without reference or comparison between the different atrocities this human nature is able to bring about. I also have learned some things through these conversations. I call myself a "spiritual atheist", a person full of awe and wonder towards the universe and towards my existence, without trying to put a historically developed proxy in all the places that so far are unexplored - and even may be unexplorable.

Hmmm, The Jihadist forgot a few phrases like "Its the all about the koran, stupid" also "The koran is bad both on paper and in practice" and also the most famous one,

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

And to show our concern for The Jihadist, once again the Five Step Program for Deflawing her warmongering religion and its book of hallucinations and "plagiarizations":

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your misguided Islamic ways!!!!

Arminius and The Moderate,

Of course some atheists and believers are strident, but neither one of you have told anyone they will go to hell for not sharing the same belief as you both.

Perhaps we should use words such as "assertive" and "forceful" instead of "strident" and that dirty, filthy word, "militant".

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

Hello E Favorite,

Thanks for your response. I hope so too. I wish I could remember who said - "Common sense isn't".

As the Moderate said, nothing is perfect. Everything, including Constitutions, Bill of Rights, Universal Declaratiaon on Human Rights, look good on paper.

A Republican President, say Mitt Romney, to check and balance the Democratic Congress? Or towards stalemates and checkmates?

On issues, one recall Clinton's campaign reminder during his first bid for Presidency - "It's the economy, stupid!"

Thanks and best regards

"J"

In reference to the never ending argument about "separation of church and state", I just don't understand. I don't get it. There is the old fall back of reminding all the people in the argument that the "separation" phrase does not exist. Yes, I fully understand the need to avoid state sponsored religion (that being a key tenet of the first amendment). I find it odd that so many who do not espouse any religion fight so hard to remove any sign of religion from the public domain. Religion is the very reason the Constitution and Bill of Rights came to be. The need to protect the right to worship is the very reason the right to not worship exists. Are there not more important things to concern ourselves with?

Oops, make that "the great Utopia of religious CoNvergence."

Ahh, The Jihadist returns to make commentary about Mitt Romney, a misguided "religist" with respect to the founder and foundations of his religion just like The Jihadist's misguided koranic life.

Hmmm, if the flaws of Mormonism were removed i.e. all references to Moroni and his revelations and if the flaws of Islam were removed i.e. all references to Gabriel and his revelations, there would hardly be anything left in either religion other then some version of the Commandments. Finally the start of the Utopia of Religious Covergence!!!!

Hmmm, what shall we call this potential joining? Musmors? Morms? Musmos? M&Ms? Ismors? Moisls? or Islamorms?

Arminius, you say: "I have trouble accepting that the origin of Christianity was a fraud.”
So do I – and I really think “fraud” is not a good word. Think about this – does Christianity’s origin have to be based on the existence of a particular human being in order to be authentic?

By the way, I DO think there was a lot of “fraud” later on, when Christianity was institutionalized. And I think there’s fraud now, when people are misled about things they must believe to be a Christian (e.g., the miracles, biblical inerrancy, etc.)

You also say: “I think - believe - that Jesus started something that exploded so fast that we got this terrific explosion of different documents."

Consider -- Does it take a person to start a fast-growing trend? Could it be an event? A series of events? A group of people?

In your research, it would be interesting to track the origins other fast-growing movements in history.

Jihadist - any group with too much power and not enough common sense can wreak havoc.

That's why we have laws and why in the US we have a Constitution with a system of Government that respects minority groups and makes it difficult for any branch of the government to have too much power.

Dear Jihadist,

"How can anyone say that only believers are into vilifiations and Inquisition and not atheists?"

Well said, and to the point. The historical record is on your side. We of religious faith have to own up to our errors, which have been many. But the Atheist crowd has some doozies to own up to as well. When we can all do that, we might get a more constructive dialog going.

By the way, I support the Free Exercise rights of, Christians, Moslems, Jews, Wiccans and other Pagans, and Atheists. We all have our positions on the question of (the) God(s) and are entitled to them.

Arminius,

"Religion is not the source of all evils in the world.

Yes. That is true. Folks forget, for example, that Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Hospitals are among the best and formed the backbone of medical care in much of the country for a long time. There are many Moslem charities too. They are a force for good, in general, except when we make human mistakes.

"Neither is atheism."

I never said it was. That is interpolated by my debate partners, but is not part of *my* argument. Western Europe is pretty non religious these days, and has not developed into a blood bath. All the previous experiments were actively anti religious, and went horribly wrong because the were willing to kill to bring about the workers paradise or whatever. Western Europe today seems to be just non religious in a benign way and has better human rights record in the last decade that our beloved USA.

My real point is that, contrary to Chris Hitchins, Atheism is no cure all for the ills of the world. And the religions are not the cause of all the ills of the world.

"It is humans doing bad things, either from bigotry or tribalism or power lust or simple greed ... (obvious simplification here)."

Agreed. Perhaps a simplification but a powerful one. It accounts for a lot.

Arminius,

I will try and work on the stridency.

But Arminius, think about it. I have not been active here for a while and I log on to find "Henry James", Susan Jacoby, and Gerry all either talking about my arguments, or in Gerry's case venting personal insults for no particular reason. So I set them straight, all according to Hoyle. These folks are pretty much a bare knuckle bunch so bluntness is the order of the day.

If any of them wanted to have an enlightened talk and didn't start by spitting, that could work.

Moderate,

OK, I accept and agree with your position. It was not clear to me previously.

Religion is not the source of all evils in the world. Neither is atheism. It is humans doing bad things, either from bigotry or tribalism or power lust or simple greed ... (obvious simplification here).

But you do come across rather strident sometimes. Perhaps I do too.

Arminius

Dear Arminus,

Think about this. Why is my moderate position that:

"My point is not that religions are perfect, but that the alternatives yet devised by man are far from perfect too."

such a lightning rod?

Why do people call me names over that? Perhaps it violates the sensibilities of anti religious fundamentalism?

Hi Arminius,

Pol Pot was in the list. I checked. I have him as an also ran because he "only" killed two million.

The point here is that the supposition, widely held by folks like Hitchins, Harris, Dawkins, and widely supported here is that religion is the source of all the problems in the world.

It is not.

If that makes people mad it is not my problem. I get a lot of name calling, over it, as in:

"Moderate intelligence, reading only the literature that bolsters the moderateness of his thinking: The sky is blue, my socks are blue, therefore my socks are the sky. Thinking along these lines."

As to the crusades, they were a mess, but why dredge stuff up from a thousand years ago. My point is not that religions are perfect, but that the alternatives yet devised by man are far from perfect too.

"Get a grip, dude. What the hell are you trying to prove, anyway?"

I reserve the right to defend myself in these debates. If you have a problem with that that is not my problem either. Being moderate does not mean being a door mat, my friend.

Peace.

Jihadist,

WOW! That was one hell of a post. Your words on the possibility of atheist bigotry should be read carefully by those of that standing.

As you said, and truly, it is about human nature.

Incidentally, I have been voting here in America since 1972. I usually vote against, not for.

Arminius

Moderate -

'Moderate'? I have some doubts....

OK, the Inquisition maybe killed 2000. Since these were executions done by trial, it is not suprising that the toll was low. But you forgot the Albigensian Crusade, which did in about 200,000, and was the source of the unforgettable quote, "Kill them all, and let God sort it out." In the 13th century, this was a sizable percentage of the population of France. Perhaps comparable to what Stalin did. And it is interesting that you left out the Grand Champion of all time, as far as percent of population exterminated: Pol Pot.

Get a grip, dude. What the hell are you trying to prove, anyway?

E. Favorite and Arminius,

Let me know if you find any other references to the existence of the historical Jesus other than the ones I previously noted i.e. Josephus, Tacitus and the scriptural references, Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- (read them all at http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )

Professor Crossan after much research concluded that the twelve scriptural references were actually five indepentent attestations so there are seven first-second century textural accounts of the crucifixion. Again that is excellent verification considering where the crucifixion occurred and that Jesus was considered a minor Jewish upstart by the Romans.

Previously I noted that there were eleven attestations but I failed to note Professor Crossan's combinations.

E Favorite
Mr. Mark

Jesus PBUH is not standing for US Presidential elections. Mitt Romney is.

Do you really think that having alienated some estimated 30 million atheists in the United States by his politics of exclusion in his speech, Mitt Romney would stand a real chance in his candidacy?

One would think many "mainstream" Christians in the US would not want him as President, specifically those groups which are competing with the LDS for adherents in the US and, especially, overseas. The Mormons are active proselytisers globally.

Mitt Romney, in his speech, spoke as someone would from a faith that expects all it adherents to undertake missionary work at one point in their lives. The LDS has the same interests and objectives with other religious entities into missionary work.

Never discount the obvious - that there may those who dislike Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama more and would support Mitt Romney thus. Elections are won and lost sometimes not because voters like a candidate, but because the other is more anathema to them.

While seperation of church and state is what we all want, I would be as wary of a candidate who is hostile of beliefs as those who politicised their beliefs in the public square.

Going by what atheists think of believers (from their posts I read in On Faith threads) what are the possibilities that in the future, an atheist candidate bidding for a political post would say of his opponent who is an adherent of a belief this:

"He is unfit to hold office. He is deluded, irrational, illogical and moronic."

Any more terms and labelings I missed out hurled by atheists against believers? That is simplyfying it, but you get my drift. Politically, he would probably say something like this:

"He will not uphold seperation of church and state. He will provide more funds for faith-based initiatives. He will support school prayers. He will replace the study of evolution with intelligent design in school curriculums."

If that is not clear enough at what I'm alluding at:

- How can one be sure that atheists would not be as insistent on their non-beliefs when they are in the majority, control Congress and hold the Presidency as believers are said to be by atheists in history and now?

- How can one be certain that atheists, who are capable of bigotry as well, would not be excessive in denigrating believers just for their beliefs, and take away the rights of believers as they said believers doing to them?

- How can one be sure that believers will not stigmatised and be driven underground and into the closets as atheists said believers are forcing them?

- How can anyone say for certain that atheists are not as strident on their non-beliefs and and as bigoted as believers are against those who don't share their (non)beliefs?

- How can anyone look back in history to see that stridency can lead to militancy and militancy can lead to repression of those who don't share one's views.

- How can anyone say that only believers are into vilifiations and Inquisition and not atheists?

This is not about faith, this is about human nature, with or without faith.

Thank you and best regards

"J"

Gerry,

"this so-called Moderate once tried to convince me that religion is good, because, according to him, Stalin killed more people than the inquisition."

No. You missed the point. I made the case the the Atheist crimes had been worse than any recorded religiously motivated crimes. Not that "religion is good". Logically there is a world of difference between the two statements.

"Moderate intelligence, reading only the literature that bolsters the moderateness of his thinking: The sky is blue, my socks are blue, therefore my socks are the sky. Thinking along these lines."

You lost that argument by any logical considerations. You are babbling now. Learn to reason. It will profit you.

Mod

Dear Susan,

"The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki also killed more people than any individual battle fought with guns. This tells us nothing about the relative morality of guns versus bombs."

Wrong.

While no precise statement can be made, according to the Atomic Archive web site there were approximately 135,000 killed or injured in Hiroshima, and in Nagasaki 64,000. Whereas the battle of Stalingrad, conducted with guns, resulted in upwards of 1,500,000 dead if you count all combatants and civilian casualties.

The total population of Hiroshima (255,000) and Nagasaki (195,000) pre-raid were about 450,000. Even with a 100% fatality rate this would be only a third of the losses attending the battle of Stalingrad.

If this represents your knowledge and understanding of history, then I can understand why you can take some of the positions that you do.

"Of course Stalin killed more people than the Inquisition did. He had 20th century tools."

This is comforting, no doubt, but Specious.

The Inquisition had three centuries to work and could have easily killed vast numbers more than the 2,000 that they did. They just did not want to.

The simple historical fact is that the Atheist experiments were far bloodier than any religious wars.

The Atheist Soviet Communists killed upwards of 40,000,000. That is twenty thousand times more than the Inquisition. The majority were starved or frozen to death in slave labor camps. Starvation and freezing were available in the sixteenth century to the Spanish so the technology is not the issue.

The Atheist French Revolution Guillotined somewhere between 18,000 and 40,000. That is around ten to twenty times the Inquisition.

The Atheist Communist Chinese under Mao killed perhaps 60,000,000 for another thirty thousand times more than the inquisition.

Other smaller players like Pol Pot killed two million in Cambodia, Kim Il Sung in North Korea, Ho Chi Min in Vietnam, also contributed.

I recommend The Black Book of Communism – Crimes Terror Repression by Stephane Courtios et al. to your consideration for a historical account of the history of the Atheist Communist movement and the relationship of its ideology to the ocean of blood it spilled.

And yes, they did do this in the name of Atheism. No, I do not think that all Atheists are like that. I wasn't when during three decades while I was an Atheist, and I doubt that you are. But historically many were. So it does falsify the assertion that safety, prosperity, and civility in our societies will be enhanced by the elimination of religion. So given that the Atheist societies have, on average, been more dangerous than the religious ones, what is your value proposition for Atheism over religion?

Gerry,

Well, first of all, my investigation is prompted by a long-standing urge to understand just what the principles are for accepting a historical event or person as reasonably true. This urge dates back to when I was an atheist/agnostic (depending on how I felt that day). My quest is only concerned with history methods applied to documents and events in the 1st century CE. The Donation of Constantine and the current condition of Christianity does not concern me here. Nor does any definition of superstition. I want to know if it is at least probable that a man named Jesus was there and preached, and 40+ years later the events were (in multiple versions, to be sure), at last recorded.

As to cults, well, yes, lots of them. Any beginning religion, or splinter group of an established religion, might be considered a cult, especially one started by one person. Early Christianity was certainly considered a cult by the Romans and Jews. But that fact by itself is not evidence that Jesus did not exist.

I have trouble accepting that the origin of Christianity was a fraud. I am not talking about miracles or resurrection here. I think - believe - that Jesus started something that exploded so fast that we got this terrific explosion of different documents. No, no, not proof yet. Just a suspicion. Anyway, I don't anticipate proof.

Arminius

Henry James--

That's very funny. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Of course Stalin killed more people than the Inquisition did. He had 20th century tools. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki also killed more people than any individual battle fought with guns. This tells us nothing about the relative morality of guns versus bombs.

Arminius,

I agree to most of your arguments for serious research, except for your last one: "then it is a very iffy thing to come up with a reasonable scenario explaining how Christianity happened". Thousands of cults "happened" without even claiming any historic root. And considering that the whole Christian church history is based on fraud, the nefarious "Donation of Constantine", I am not very sure, and, as I said, disinterested about the historical "truth", which, as we can so evidently see today, is based on fraud (Bush and his accomplices).

Personally, I am not interested enough if Jesus existed "or another man with the same name", lol. It is the superstition, the essence of all cults, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism that keeps me wondering - and fearing. My problem is not the existence of cults around Jesus or God or Smith or Johnson or Jones or Mohamed, my problem is US humans desperately trying to reduce the so far inexplicable, grandiose, all that is transcending our minds to the modest, mean, even vulgar human wisdom at a given time. Cults may have a social function - but they have nothing to do with reality or truth.

My "belief" in evolution stems both from a desire for honesty, to admit that we don't know very much yet, instead of pretending to know. It stems from the hope that there will be a time when humans have developed so far that they don't "need" any more Romneys, Robertsons, Huckabees, Bushes etc. To me, fighting on both sides of the argument over the "correct" interpretations of a world view based on fraud and illusion from the very beginning ("No eating from the tree of knowledge, please, or you go to hell! We have invented this place especially to frighten you to avoid it!") appears equivalent to two children beating each other up over the question if Cinderella lost her left or her right shoe.

Henry James,
this so-called Moderate once tried to convince me that religion is good, because, according to him, Stalin killed more people than the inquisition. Moderate intelligence, reading only the literature that bolsters the moderateness of his thinking: The sky is blue, my socks are blue, therefore my socks are the sky. Thinking along these lines.

E-Fav,

I'm aware of the other beliefs - mainly the 'mystery religions'. Part of the puzzle.

Arminius

Arminius - what you describe is not a handicap - it's self-awareness, important for any objective undertaking.

Regarding "if one says Jesus did not exist, then it is a very iffy thing to come up with a reasonable scenario explaining how Christianity happened."

Here’s another scenario: Christian-like BELIEFS already existed in the many similar pagan stories. The RELIGION of Christianity got a big boost when recognition by the Roman Emperor Constantine ultimately made it the official religion of Rome.

It’s not an original idea and I’m not trying to sell you on it or suggest that it trumps “Interested’s.” Just want you to be thinking about it during your search.

E-Fav,

I'm trying to formulate my position on the historical reality of Jesus. Thanks for the references. I do have a handicap - I sincerely believe that He existed, and, oddly enough, this is not a religious statement - it somehow seems reasonable, given the New Testament. Of course I cannot prove it, but at least I am aware of my slant in the matter and hope it will not misguide me. I think my arguments will ultimately deal with probabilities. Interested made a good point when he said that if one says Jesus did not exist, then it is a very iffy thing to come up with a reasonable scenario explaining how Christianity happened.

Arminius

E. Fav,

There are actually eleven separate accounts of the crucifixion. These attestations differ in some of the details but they all note the crucifixition of Jesus aka Christus.

Eleven attestations is a significantly more than most historical figures and events have from the first century Palestine.

Conclusion: Jesus lived and was crucified by the Romans. As per Crossan and others, the details of the life and death of said Jesus got embellished to make said Jesus competitive with Greek, Roman et al heroes and human-god men.

"Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

Arminius - who knows, "Interested" might turn up again. I see him (her?) around from time to time. Yes, he seems quite credible and I'm fairly sure that without a forum like this on religion and the cover of anonymity it provides, he and I would not have met or engaged in such a candid, intense discussion. Unfortunately, the very anonymity that allowed him to speak up, ultimately prevents me, or anyone, from referring to him as an authority on this subject. I wish “Interested” or other such authorities will speak up publicly soon, but I’m not holding my breath. Notice at the end of that discussion, that he does not respond to my “fill-in-the-blanks” statement on the existence of Jesus that biblical scholars could accept. When I caught up with him on another thread, he actively declined to fill it in. I don’t blame him – I really think he went out on a limb even discussing all of this with me. Still, I think we’ll all be better off when responsible scholars are willing to take something like this on.

Hey, Arminius – maybe you can peddle your own version of this around to the people you talk to. Just an idea! Also, I suggest you read “the Dishonest Church” by Jack Good (retired UCC minister), available on Amazon, and check out the richarddawkins.net discussion on “the Pagan Christ” in which an atheist biblical scholar engages several atheists on the subject of the historical Jesus. (PS – at some point, perhaps on a different thread, “Interested” identified himself as a Christian).

Concerned – I’m familiar with those sources. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make about fact that four somewhat differing accounts all include the crucifixion.

Georgiason,
Thanks for your candid reply. I think if I'm not mistaken that the levels of unwed pregnancies and divorces are going up, to point out two examples of a direction our country seems to be heade in. I don't blame that on the institution of the presidency of the U.S., but I do think there is a tone set by a president and it heads in a direction, then the people take it from there. There will also undoubtedly be backlashes such as occurred during the time of Eisenhower.

But I want a president whose integrity and ethics I feel I can trust in all aspects of his or her life, not just for convenience or public appearances but as deeply felt convictions. Then, let them get many smart voices around them with very different perspectives on complex issues, and listen to those voices (unlike, it appears, Bush/Cheney did). That's what I'd like to see. Another Lincoln.

Parker,

Come on. How can anyone possibly believe that the president sets the moral tone for the whole country? Of course, we want a president as close to being as pure as the wind-driven snow as possible, but we're probably going to have to settle for something less. Whatever his/her morals, the rest of us probably will just keep on trucking.

Let's see now. Who was president of the United States when rock & roll hit the scene and the youth culture exploded? Why, that swinging cat, Dwight David Eisenhower! And who were presidents of the US during the days of hippies, flower children, and Haight-Asbury? Lyndon Baines Johnson and Richard Nixon! And does anyone really believe that the level of marital fidelity in this country rose or fell because of Bill Clinton?

Let's not worry ourselves about the moral tone a president will establish. Choosing one who's competent and has the right policies will strain our brains enough.

Hat's off to Susan Jacoby. If I tried to write a comment, I would only restate what she said, but I wouldn't be able to say it with her eloquence, force, and brevity.

One plus of having Mitt Romney run for president and make his speech is to generate renewed focus on the fundamentals of what this country is all about. Many Americans who otherwise would never have given it much thought are being reminded why the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, stipulated the separation of church and state.

"The United States government was created by geniuses so it could be run by idiots." How sad, seven years into the disastrous presidency of our current idiot holy roller, to watch Republican candidates vying with each other over which is the biggest idiot.

What would you have told him (Romney) to say?

"As with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and variations thereof, Mormonism has significant flaws in its founder and foundations. The basic message of "love your neighbor as yourself", however, remains.

That will be the theme of my administration!!!!

And my decisions will not be tainted by any Mormon rules that are in opposition to that theme.

And there will no one in my administration who does not believe in my basic message. "

I'm sorry, but Mitt Romney fails as a human being period, and on religion he's not of this planet if you know what I mean. You're all avoiding the subject of just what Romney's religion is, which is a cult, built on the premise that some God forsaken man wanted to have as many wives as he could, and Joseph Smith did; he had 30. Then, in order to bolster this complete and utter blasphemy of a religion, God and Jesus have sex! Please, give me a break! The Garden of Eden is in Missouri?! And according to the so called Mormon faith, I am a demon of Satan because I am black!!! OK people, you all need to get a grip and examine this issue more closely. Just because Mormons claim to be religious and righteous doesn't make it so, and it isn't. This religion is nothing more than an incredibly ugly cult, which is why Romney couldn't explain his religion, nor what it means. If he does you will be as repulsed as I am, and filled with the realization that this cult needs to be put down for what it is, an extremely sexist and racist cult, built only for the purpose of a white man having as many wives and as much sex as he could get, and that is the basis of that so called religion. One again, what really saddens me is to see that this "newspaper" cannot go so far as to examine the facts and present them to the public. Of course, you did that hit piece on Obama being a Muslim as if it were a great and wonderful thing, when really, it was the most egregious piece of work I have seen you do since I began reading this paper more than 40 years ago. You don't have to present an article as something one believes in, but as good journalism, something one gleans information from. We can make our own decisions as to what we believe. I thought that's what journalism was all about, digging for the truth and the facts and presenting them, not your bogus pieces of recent times, and the extraordinarily bad journalism this paper has exhibited. I don't know what your credentials are in the realm of theology, but I admit that I have none whatsoever. But does not God call for us to cast out false gods and beliefs? That we should have no other before him? Romney's beliefs do make him unfit for all categories, president and on his stands on Christianity. His so called "Christian" beliefs that black people are demons and of Satan clearly make him that. This is a part of his belief and he cannot be separated from it because it is inherent in what he believes. The rest of it is simply unChristian, and not what God has given us to believe and live our lives by. Please, go do your research, present a proper article, and then come back to us with the facts of Mitt Romney's religion.

Susan:

There are, as we have seen both here and in other media sources, many different ways to look at Romney's speech and his foundational values. One thing I haven't seen is a discussion about an aspect of choosing a president during this stage in our country's history that I still think is a major consideration, due in part to the Clinton days and even in part to the current administration. That major consideration involves ethical leadership and example. Hillary hasn't inspired that from my vantage point, so I am interested in who can win the presidency and will have that example that is so needed. This does not mean a leader can't change their mind on issues, but it means their life should show in its details what they want to be known for in public as to their honesty, integrity, and the care they have taken with their own children.

A president is somewhat of a figurehead, a sort of "father of our country" in the eyes of children--so I hope the parents in this country will vote based on the ethical tone our next leader will set for America. I am not implying such a person must have a strong religious background, but their personal integrity ought to be clearly evident from all aspects of their private life as well as their public life.

What disqualifies Mitt Romney is that he is either stupid (which he is not), ignorant (maybe), immoral (maybe), delusional (maybe) or a combination thereof.

I can understand that being reared (indoctrinated) in a cult..ure that is closed and regimented will likely lead to the child being a Mormon forever.

"Give us a child until he is seven, and we will make him ours forever" - Jesuit maxim - perhaps Francis Xavier.

Mormons have them until they are 21+.

Please note that the Mormon technique for control is simply guilt - much like the Society of Jesus.

Romney would have no problem reconciling the works published in SLC with holding office.

Flip-Flop.
The Mormons have been flip flopping since Joseph Smith was used by (and used) his family to bring this cult into existence (it was a sick then and it is sick now).

Romney is not strong enough to acknowledge that the purpose of the strange teachings of his cult is for control of the adult by giving them a s set of belief to set them apart - cult.

President? Only if you want someone that is a flip flopper.

If only you could have heard him on his "mission".

Yes, of course he is just another right-wing religious fanatic who desires the erosion of the barrier between (his) church and state.

It is part of his belief system.

If he panders and fawns to religious bigots in his own county, imagine what he will do to the Mullahs?

E-Fav,

I followed the link you provided. Holy S***! Where is Interested when we need him?!? That dude can think, and reason, and present what he thinks well. He is traveling down the path I proposed for myself, and is miles ahead. Both of you made excellent points. My conclusion, to generalize, is that our understanding of what is 'true' in history is sadly lacking. And as you both said, modern methods of proof cannot be directly applied to ancient history.

My education painfully continues.

Arminius

I empathize with why both Muslims and Athiests are sensitive to a speech like this -- having both been so demonized, grouped and labled by some. With all that's been said in this thread and being one who likes Romney, I went back to the text to read again what has been cited by those here as being so inflamatory.

I noticed of Muslims, Romney includes them in this statement "I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love ...the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims."

To me, acknowledging Islam as drawing its adherents closer to God and admiring aspects of the faith -- is a far cry from the all too frequent fundie rhetoric of Muslims going to hell or of all being terrorists. It is about as far as persons of differing faiths can go without abandoning thier own convictions for the other.

I noticed Romney also distinguishes violent Islam from other Muslims and cites Muslims as part of those suffering due to the violent acts of such groups. THough I do think Romney could use a better word to distinguish those whom we are fighting from Muslims and perhaps cite the other numerous threats we face as a nation.

I also noted that before talking about secularists, Romney uses the qualifier SOME not ALL and Romney does not single out athiests or agnostics as the secularists. JFK described himself in secularist terms but of course we know he was a Catholic. The way he described his beef with secularism, he could simply be making reference to the ACLU -- I don't necessarily like that he leaves it open, but he does leave it open and does not point the finger specifically at agnostics or athiests as the bain of America's existence.

More than comparisons to JFKs speech, I would like to hear commentators compare Mitt's faith speech to the faith speech Obama gave in recent months. Obama did not go as far as Mitt but he did advocate for a place for religion in the public and political sphere. DOes anyone have thoughts on this?

I like Obama too;)

Regards to all

Kate

To summarize Hirsi Ali's comments:

"Until the koran is "Deflawed", no one is safe!!!"

It's amazing how Christians consider that since everything that happens is because Jesus either allows it or makes it happen, that suddenly everything good that has ever happened was just because "Jesus wanted it too". That's why it is so easy for them to re-write history.

E. Fav,

From Tacitus (From ask.com)

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

"Therefore to scotch the rumour, Nero substitured as culprits and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius by sentence of the procuator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out again in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find vogue." (Tacitus, Annals 15:44; Moore & Jackson 4.282-283)

From: Josephus - The Essential Works
by Paul Maier, http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

"For Christians, books 18 through 20 of the Antiquities are far and away the most important sections in all of Josephus' writings, since they provide a rich background for the entire New Testament era. Happily, they are also the most authoritative chapters in the Antiquities since at long last Josephus is either an eyewitness of direct contemporary of the events he is reporting. His paragraphs on John the Baptist show Jesus' forerunner from a fresh vantage point, while his portrayal of crucial events in the career of Pontius Pilate help explain that governor's pressured performance at the trial of Jesus. In the case of Jesus' brother James, he even provides crucial addenda to the New Testatment, which does not tell us how James died. Josephus does!

His two celebrated references to Jesus - Antiquities 18:63 and 20:200 - have provoked an enormous quantity of scholarly literature. The constitute the largest block of first-century evidence for Jesus outside of biblical or Christian sources, and may well be the reason that the vast works of Josephus survived manuscript transmission across the centuries almost intact when other great works, like those of Nicolas of Damascus, were totally lost. But are the Jesus references authentic?"

See the rest of the article for a discussion about this question.

Then there are these scriptural references:

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- (read them all at http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )

Were these scriptural stories embellished? Yes, but the crucifixion is the constant event.

So the obvious is that there is a magic, floaty man who created the universe? Yeah, really obvious.

from The NYTimes

Islam’s Silent Moderates

By AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Published: December 7, 2007

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. (Koran 24:

"The key to ending this tyranny of interpretation of the Koran is within the Koran itself, if the people have the courage to use it."

IN the last few weeks, in three widely publicized episodes, we have seen Islamic justice enacted in ways that should make Muslim moderates rise up in horror.

A 20-year-old woman from Qatif, Saudi Arabia, reported that she had been abducted by several men and repeatedly raped. But judges found the victim herself to be guilty. Her crime is called “mingling”: when she was abducted, she was in a car with a man not related to her by blood or marriage, and in Saudi Arabia, that is illegal. Last month, she was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes with a bamboo cane.

Two hundred lashes are enough to kill a strong man. Women usually receive no more than 30 lashes at a time, which means that for seven weeks the “girl from Qatif,” as she’s usually described in news articles, will dread her next session with Islamic justice. When she is released, her life will certainly never return to normal: already there have been reports that her brother has tried to kill her because her “crime” has tarnished her family’s honor.

We also saw Islamic justice in action in Sudan, when a 54-year-old British teacher named Gillian Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail before the government pardoned her this week; she could have faced 40 lashes. When she began a reading project with her class involving a teddy bear, Ms. Gibbons suggested the children choose a name for it. They chose Muhammad; she let them do it. This was deemed to be blasphemy.

Then there’s Taslima Nasreen, the 45-year-old Bangladeshi writer who bravely defends women’s rights in the Muslim world. Forced to flee Bangladesh, she has been living in India. But Muslim groups there want her expelled, and one has offered 500,000 rupees for her head. In August she was assaulted by Muslim militants in Hyderabad, and in recent weeks she has had to leave Calcutta and then Rajasthan. Taslima Nasreen’s visa expires next year, and she fears she will not be allowed to live in India again.

It is often said that Islam has been “hijacked” by a small extremist group of radical fundamentalists. The vast majority of Muslims are said to be moderates.

But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif, that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted — and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done?

Usually, Muslim groups like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are quick to defend any affront to the image of Islam. The organization, which represents 57 Muslim states, sent four ambassadors to the leader of my political party in the Netherlands asking him to expel me from Parliament after I gave a newspaper interview in 2003 noting that by Western standards some of the Prophet Muhammad’s behavior would be unconscionable. A few years later, Muslim ambassadors to Denmark protested the cartoons of Muhammad and demanded that their perpetrators be prosecuted.

But while the incidents in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and India have done more to damage the image of Islamic justice than a dozen cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the organizations that lined up to protest the hideous Danish offense to Islam are quiet now.

I wish there were more Islamic moderates. For example, I would welcome some guidance from that famous Muslim theologian of moderation, Tariq Ramadan. But when there is true suffering, real cruelty in the name of Islam, we hear, first, denial from all these organizations that are so concerned about Islam’s image. We hear that violence is not in the Koran, that Islam means peace, that this is a hijacking by extremists and a smear campaign and so on. But the evidence mounts up.

Islamic justice is a proud institution, one to which more than a billion people subscribe, at least in theory, and in the heart of the Islamic world it is the law of the land. But take a look at the verse above: more compelling even than the order to flog adulterers is the command that the believer show no compassion. It is this order to choose Allah above his sense of conscience and compassion that imprisons the Muslim in a mindset that is archaic and extreme.

If moderate Muslims believe there should be no compassion shown to the girl from Qatif, then what exactly makes them so moderate?

When a “moderate” Muslim’s sense of compassion and conscience collides with matters prescribed by Allah, he should choose compassion. Unless that happens much more widely, a moderate Islam will remain wishful thinking.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Concerned - Yes, I've perused both books, some time ago - my recollection is that Crossan was frustratingly vague about getting to the bottom line of what *I* wanted to know (i.e., exactly how dependable is this info) --much like a whole genre of "liberal" biblical scholars who are used to writing and talking around issues in a certain style that they understand but others really don’t get.

Arminus – Wonderful – I applaud your quest. Keep me posted. Of course, there’s a wealth of material out there, but I also suggest talking with clergy and seminary professors, etc. And don’t let them off the hook – be sure to try to find out just what their sources are, how good (objective) the sources are, how they react to you – e.g., welcome questions? Seem informed/scholarly, or give “pastoral” responses? Have stock answers? Confused answers? Good answers (based on what you already know) Get peeved? Get more interested and engaged? Tell you it’s a matter of faith?

I did some of this (am still at it, but not as regularly) and find the differences among clergy/professors’ reactions and responses amazing -- especially assuming they are all working with the same knowledge base.

AS A START – go to this “on faith” thread from last March. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/paula_fredriksen/2007/03/the_answer_to_this_question.html#comments I had a long conversation there about what constituted “evidence” for the historical Jesus with someone with the moniker “Interested” who seemed to be a biblical scholar. The conversation is towards the end. Some of it will sound familiar – I learned a lot from “Interested.” We were both very patient and persistent. And it took a lot of both qualities to get through to each other.

Kennedy's speech was made to all Americans.

Romney's speech was made to Republican "believers", the appropriately-named "base".

Kennedy spoke of the importance of maintaining the separation of Church and State.

Romney, in effect, repudiated that position.

"How much does it matter that the next US president could be a lifelong member of a church which contends that white people speaking Middle-Eastern languages and driving chariots inhabited north America centuries before Columbus?" asked the UK's Guardian newspaper.

"In a fundamental sense, not at all. The Mormon beliefs of the Republican presidential nomination contender Mitt Romney - which he shares with at least 4 million other Americans - are his own affair. He is entitled to hold them, just as American voters are entitled to be appalled by, inspired by or indifferent to them.

"He framed his speech as an appeal for religious liberty in a religious nation. He said little about his own religious beliefs and values. As a result the Mormon question is still there. Maybe it ought not to matter. But it does."

Gerry

I'm still not impressed.

If the atheism that Jacoby preaches is not a religion than her atheism has no place in this "conversation on religion".

I and my ilk have no intention of persecuting anyone. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Secular humanism has its own set of unprovable beliefs. Atheists fail to acknowlesge the obvious because it boggles their mind. Reason and logic fail to explain many observable things can not be measured with our rulers and stopwatches. There is no point in my pointing out what you refuse to see. I leave you to enjoy what you call freedom. I call it a self imposed slavery to a finite existence.

The following is from a previous post by a user named Sean. Very well said:

"I will not try to refute all of the nonsense that exists in this editorial opinion, but the author's viewpoint could use a brief history lesson. If the United States has been so successful in not descending into bloody, religious persecution because of its secular commitments (and I agree with the constitutional basis of how this is intended to work), how did she somehow miss the dramatic example to the contrary - Mitt Romney's own faith? Would she deny the blatant and obvious fact that members of Romney's own faith, Mormonism, were stripped of property, hounded from place to place, tarred and feathered, raped and murdered, over the course of nearly three decades? And that this was either ignored, or actively aided and abetted by secular authorities of both state and federal government? That the Governor of Missouri issued an executive order to "exterminate" the Mormons, or at least drive them from the state - because of their religious convictions? This is all obvious history in our own beloved United States. I think Romney understands something about what it means for a religion and its adherents to be persecuted because of their beliefs and practices. After all, his forefathers lived it in vivid and excruciating detail."

The following is from a previous post by a user named Sean. Very well said:

"I will not try to refute all of the nonsense that exists in this editorial opinion, but the author's viewpoint could use a brief history lesson. If the United States has been so successful in not descending into bloody, religious persecution because of its secular commitments (and I agree with the constitutional basis of how this is intended to work), how did she somehow miss the dramatic example to the contrary - Mitt Romney's own faith? Would she deny the blatant and obvious fact that members of Romney's own faith, Mormonism, were stripped of property, hounded from place to place, tarred and feathered, raped and murdered, over the course of nearly three decades? And that this was either ignored, or actively aided and abetted by secular authorities of both state and federal government? That the Governor of Missouri issued an executive order to "exterminate" the Mormons, or at least drive them from the state - because of their religious convictions? This is all obvious history in our own beloved United States. I think Romney understands something about what it means for a religion and its adherents to be persecuted because of their beliefs and practices. After all, his forefathers lived it in vivid and excruciating detail."

The following is from a previous post by a user named Sean. Very well said.:

"I will not try to refute all of the nonsense that exists in this editorial opinion, but the author's viewpoint could use a brief history lesson. If the United States has been so successful in not descending into bloody, religious persecution because of its secular commitments (and I agree with the constitutional basis of how this is intended to work), how did she somehow miss the dramatic example to the contrary - Mitt Romney's own faith? Would she deny the blatant and obvious fact that members of Romney's own faith, Mormonism, were stripped of property, hounded from place to place, tarred and feathered, raped and murdered, over the course of nearly three decades? And that this was either ignored, or actively aided and abetted by secular authorities of both state and federal government? That the Governor of Missouri issued an executive order to "exterminate" the Mormons, or at least drive them from the state - because of their religious convictions? This is all obvious history in our own beloved United States. I think Romney understands something about what it means for a religion and its adherents to be persecuted because of their beliefs and practices. After all, his forefathers lived it in vidid and excruciating detail."

A hundred years ago Mark Twain differentiated between "Professing Christians" and "Professional Christians". It is clear from his speech that Mr. Romney belongs to the latter group.

Not impressed:

Secular humanism is the only really workable idea. It replaces superstition with honesty and reason. That is what formerly constituted the moral value of the US. Goering at the Nuremberg trial: All you have to do is tell a lie often enough, and everybody will think it is truth. Add patriotism - and the flock will blindly follow you.

Next step in the US will be the "Gesinnungspolizei", thought police. It is already beginning. I am glad I live neither in (present day) America nor in Iran. Neither I nor any of my friends and students is religious, and I am very happy about not having to fear living in heaven next door to you and your ilk.

Why call the absence of religion - religion? It is as if someone would call the absence of intellect - intellect - q.e.d. (It has been done before, with disastrous consequences!)

Real freedom is freedom from religion - plus tolerance of any non-proselytizing religion.

Here's what Romney's speech implies: Hey all you religious nut-jobs, I am as nutty as the best of you. Let's call a truce, win the "culture wars" by destroying secularism and then we fight it out amongst ourselves to decide who's right about the Jesus (whoops, I mean diety). How's that sound?

You would think (perhaps that's the problem?) that someone currently encountering the bigotry of the religious right would choose to stand up for freedom rather than asking to join the Xtian jihadists.

E-Fav,

Agreed that there will most probably never be definitive proof of the existence of Jesus. In other words, no direct evidence. My self-imposed task is to find out what the term 'indirect evidence' might mean in regards to history in general, and Jesus in particular. I'm not sure where to start, and I suspect it is a rocky road. But I'm gonna try.

Arminius

WEll I do agree with you on Romney Jacoby.

Jwest - The really serious theocrats, the Dominionists, whom the average fundie hasn't heard about but who nevertheless have great influence among their leadership, are busy working for a day when gay citizens will not just be jailed but executed. God save America from His followers!

Romneys message to fundamentalist Protestants - Your intolerance of me and the resulting threat to my ambitions is unjust. Let's join hands and turn our intolerance on someone else. I've always felt Romney was a loathesome toad who would lick any boot. This speech confirmed it.

Talk about pandering. Jacoby once again abuses a supposed "conversation on religion" with her conversation on secular humanism to appease her atheist liberal admirers.

OK, she is entitled to her non-religion religion. The thing is that it is our nation's freedom of religion, not from religion, that protects her entitlement.

Secular humanism is not a proven workable idea. It too has failed miserably where it has been tried.

E. Fav.,

Have you had time to peruse Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus hard copy or online? Ditto for his book (with Professor Jonathan Reed), Excavating Jesus??

Henry – Good! And if you find yourself in Princeton, look up Pagels and carefully observe the look in her eyes and her general demeanor when you ask about the source of her evidence. My experience is that biblical scholars get nervous when asked these kinds of questions (unlike scientists and historians of other eras or other types of experts who thrive on sincere and intelligent questions). I don’t really blame them. The historicity of Jesus is a political hot potato. Meanwhile truth is important too, no? especially for educators? (vs indoctrinators)

Arminius – good question regarding my standards of historical “proof.” My personal feeling, based on my own library research and occasional personal encounters (both face-to-face and on-line) with authorities, is that good “proof” is not to be found, either way -- can’t say definitively that there was or was not a Jesus, based on what is left to us from the 1st century. Unfortunately, when lay-people hear things like “serious historians agree…” they hear “proof of Jesus!” I strongly suspect that the historians (and clergy) know that and are glad of it, because is usually means they don’t have to get into the details of their standards of proof.

I wish I knew more – I’m trying and am glad to see you’re on the path too. The fact that the information is so illusive, is troubling, I think – especially when it’s about such an important figure.

E. Fav,

As noted previously:

Besides the Josephus reference (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html), NT exegetes use the following attestations to Jesus' crucifixion as proof he existed.

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.-

Were these stories embellished? Yes, but the crucifixion is the same throughout.

The Jesus Seminar after reviewing all the scriptural and non-scriptural documents from the time period, voted red (the event occurred) as follows:

Jesus was crucified

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate

Jesus was crucified with the participation of the highest Jewish authorities

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem

Jesus was crucified at Golgotha

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be. The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened. While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

Professor Crossan's book, Who was Jesus?, was written unencumbered by pages of supporting references for a audience of non-specialists.
See Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

Part of Crossan's The Historical Jesus has been published online at http://books.google.com/books?id=AsPHR4-7Wc8C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=%22place+of+life%22+%22the+historical+jesus%22+crossan&source=web&ots=8mVx_1M6g4&sig=XFqT8S1coAT18xq8Qwt1vMcMjW0

There is also a search engine for this book on the right hand side of the opening page. e.g. Search Josephus

(Warning, the online book is not complete).

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

Will Do, Arminius.

and I am sure I will be right.

Though I haven't done as much research as EFav,
I believe there was,

though I wouldn't be stunned to find out (which I probably never will one way or another) that I am wrong.

And as you know, while I admire the man described in the stories, I don't believe he was the Son of God.

love
Henry

Henry James,

Please let us know what you find. Ignore the resurrection and the miracles - was there a person named Jesus, who preached a reconfiguration of Judaism in the 'Holy Land', ca. 4 BCE - 29 CE?

Arminius

E Fav

I am just in the first chapter, and this is the only book of hers that i have looked at. I have been wanting to read it for a long time: it has a great reputation - the Modern Library says it is the 73rd best non-fiction book of all time (seriously).

So far, she has not said EXPLICITLY that she is sure Jesus existed, or on what evidence she believes it. But it is pretty clear from the writing that she doesn't question his existence, though she would seem to agree with Bloom that every "fact" about his life is disputable and tendentious. Especially the most important one: his putative resurrection.

If I find more, I will let you know.

E-Fav,

What do you accept as historical proof? I admit that the ones you have listed for Jesus are not real 'proof'.

If you are looking for contemporary evidence for Jesus, there is none. It remains to be seen, however, if a person that is considered to have really existed by historians can be accepted without contemporary evidence.

For example, the only contemporary citation for Socrates is in Aristophanes' comedy, 'The Clouds'. And we all know that playwrites love to invent characters.....

Arminius

Ms. Jacoby,

At last we agree on something. Mitt Romney is a RINO, Republican in Name Only. He is as liberal as it gets. You are absolutely correct with his positions while governor in Mass and he is definitely pandering to us Fundies. However, we are not fooled by him. Move over Mitt, we are voting for Mike.

Hi, Henry - regarding Pagels' lack of doubt, does she say what she bases it on? I'd really like to know (I've read some Pagels, but haven't seen that.)

What I have is a long and growing list (now including Susan Jacoby) of authors and scholars who say they think Jesus existed, but don't (or won't) provide evidence. That in itself is an interesting story, don't you think?

Here the list, compiled several months ago:

- Marcus Borg (on “On Faith”) says he’d swear in a court of law that Jesus is the Son of God because early Christians believed it to be so. That’s not evidence, it’s a personal interpretation.

- NT Wright (on “On Faith”) says he’s written about it at length elsewhere, but he doesn’t say where. Plus, lengthy writings are not necessarily evidence.

- Bart Erhman says, in a discussion of his book “Misquoting Jesus” at the National Cathedral, “I don’t know any serious historians who think so” regarding Jesus as myth. He also said he didn’t think Paul would lie. That’s not evidence, it’s conjecture.

- Raymond Martin, in "The Elusive Messiah," quotes Dominic Crossan saying the fact that Jesus was crucified is “as sure as anything historical can ever be” but there is no reference for the comment, for Crossan’s source of information, nor is any reason given for such certainty. Scholars quoting each other’s assertions is not evidence, no matter how impressive the scholars.

So, you see, Henry, I’ve done a lot of homework on this. I really am interested in sorting it all out.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme

Pagels' book The Gnostic Gospels says of the 1st century christians:

"Diverse forms of Christianity flourished (like the Mormons and the Evangelicals etc today- HJ) in the early years of the Christian Movement, Hundreds of rival teachers all claimed to teach "the true doctrine of Christ (as Huckabee and the Mormons do today - HJ), AND DENOUNCED THE OTHERS AS FRAUDS. All claimed to be the Authentic tradition"

(by the way, EFav, Pagels doesn't seem to have any doubt about the actual historical existence of Jesus. though she would say, i think, that every other "fact" about him is in doubt- including of course that he was resurrected even according to contemporary accounts).

http://www.davidinmanhattan.com/president-john-f-kennedy-on-religion-in-politics/politics/620
Nobody can say it any better then John F. Kennedy. Go to this link to hear Pres. Kennedy's speech

Romney and Christian Political Authority
An Historical Perspective

Romney's position that Christian faith is a necessary qualification for the Presidency has echoes of the original Christian History.

The fundamental tenet of Christian Supremacy - that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, regaining his earthly body - has ambiguous underpinnings EVEN in the Christian Bible. Some accounts (e.g. Luke's and some accounts of Paul's conversion) are consistent with the interpretation that disciples may have been seeing a Ghost or Apparition rather than a body (read Chapter 1 of Elaine Pagels' great book, the Gnostic Gospels).

As Pagels says in that chapter: Whether or not one accepts the resurrection story as literally true, "the doctrine of bodily resurrection serves a *political function*: it legitimizes the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle Peter. From the second century, the doctrine has served to validate the apostolic succession of bishops, the basis of Papal authority to this day."

Romney is claiming an analagous "Christian right to succession" for the Presidency of the US.

Ironically, the basis of the Mormon claim to be the THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH is that the Catholics strayed from the God-authorized line of authority and priesthood, and that line was restored to Joseph Smith and the Latter Day Saints in 1830.

BUT: not all contemporaneous Christ followers believed in a literal resurrection. That was the story that had the most political clout.
"

Mormons have blood on their hands with the massacre of 150 settlers in their territory in the 1800s. Any religious group is capable of oppressing the lesser group without exception. I agree Europe has already seen the horrible results of religious rule. Americans don't believe it can happen here but I fear it is already happening. Gays are the current target of choice for christians and much harm has come to them in the name of Jesus. I listen to christians talk about atheist with vile spewing out of there mouths. Many christians would put gays and atheist away in prison if they could get away with it. For those of us that believe in the Constitution we have to make sure christian adhere to it also.

Daniel

thanks for your clarificatin,
and my apologies for misreading you.

cheers,
Henry

Sean laments that Joseph Smith was killed by an anti-Mormon mob. I have read that too. Isn't that more reason that religion and politics should not be merged? It is just common sense, that religion does not belong in politics or the administration of the government.

Dear Henry James

I was being sort or rhetorical and flippant. I think I must of wrote down my thoughts wrong.

I am on the side of Thomas Jefferson who helped engineer the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. I oppose the merging of religion and the state.

When I said I cannot believe we are even talking about his, I meant it sort of along the lines of "Gee, I can't believe this guy, Bush, is President."

I think we are on the same side, I hope.

from today's NYTs
the Godless Communist Rag that abetted Bush's lies about WMD etc:

"Mr. Romney was not there to defend freedom of religion, or to champion the indisputable notion that belief in God and religious observance are longstanding parts of American life. He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact."

They got this right.

While it is obvious that the full vision of the Founders that secular government would act to prohibit a state religion and preserve the rights of all to believe or not believe as they choose has not, even yet, been fully realized in American civic life, Jacoby claims that it is this vision which we must achieve. The tragedy of our history is that while we have in many cases avoided open religious war or persecution, in the case of the Latter-day Saints and their history this system failed. Mormon religious leaders appealed again and again to secular authorities, at both state and federal government levels, to protect them from mobocracy in their property and persons when they were threated with religious persecution. They went to the state house. They went to the White House. A sitting president told them he would do nothing to assist them (Van Buren). A sitting governor issued an executive order to exterminate them. Finally, they had to leave the borders of the country to achieve any degree of freedom from harassment for their religious beliefs and practices, often by state and federal authorities! Those practicing Mormons were obviously not without their blind spots and problems relative to interaction with state authority, but they appealed precisely to the secular power designed to protect human rights that the Founders created, and were ignored and rebuked time and again. This is not rhetoric. It is bald historical fact. It is common to cast fear about the potential for religious intolerance by religious adherents, as noted in Jacoby's opinion, but little attention is paid to the reality of state-sanctioned persecution of Mormon and other faiths in our own country's history. It tends to be ignored.

Daniel
what a limited view of the issues you illustrate.

First, the "separation" of church and state has, in the opinion of many, been seriously eroded over the last 30 years.

And Romney's speech adds to the erosion.

Read Postlethwaite here if you want the view of a sane Christian.

I am glad YOU think everything is fine. Which tranquilizers do you take?

It is hard for me to believe we are even talking about this. What is there really, to say? Separation of church and state has worked well for a long time. Why change now?

Sean

While secularism is what the founding fathers envisioned, it took a while to actually be established in the hearts and minds of the american people. In fact, even now, secularism is not accepted, which is why Romney even had to make this speech. The fact that Mormons were persecuted was a consequence of the lack of secularism and a failure of the spirit of the constitution translating into reality, rather than caused, or abetted by the ideals of secularism.

However, America is (was?) still far more secular than the rest of the world, especially Europe (where the church was the most powerful actor, and then maybe the king), but now Europe has adopted this policy in force, while Americans are regressing towards what Europe used to be. America is becoming more like Europe, and Europe like the US. And thats the problem.

Mitt Romney affirmed that a religious test must be given a political candidate when he said it was important that the candidate be a person of faith. The christian faith. I too find it hard to believe an angel named moroni gave golden tablets to a huckster and as a result a new religion emerged. Two questions, 1: where are the golden tablets today, and 2: What is it about people that allows them to believe in something so strange because someone said so. ???? I think that must be why I can't believe in anything that doesn't make sense. I'm a numbers guy, everything has to add up. Make sense, follow a logical pattern. That is how, IMHO, the real world works.

The speech was total hypocrisy. First, it was not about the general public fearing Mormons (they don't - George Romney and Mo Udall ran without the subject ever coming up). It was (as Charles Krauthamer writes today) about Huckabee in Iowa claiming to be the Christian, and polls showing evangelicals in Iowa squirming at a Mormon. Second, he invokes the "no religious test for office" clause as a convenient way of not describing his religion, then turns around and proclaims Jesus his lord and saviour (so he can fool evangelicals into not paying attention to the fact that no evangelical theologian thinks Mormons are christians), and then proclaims that you have to have some religion to be an American at all (atheists are not welcome). despicable.

I will not try to refute all of the nonsense that exists in this editorial opinion, but the author's viewpoint could use a brief history lesson. If the United States has been so successful in not descending into bloody, religious persecution because of its secular commitments (and I agree with the constitutional basis of how this is intended to work), how did she somehow miss the dramatic example to the contrary - Mitt Romney's own faith? Would she deny the blatant and obvious fact that members of Romney's own faith, Mormonism, were stripped of property, hounded from place to place, tarred and feathered, raped and murdered, over the course of nearly three decades? And that this was either ignored, or actively aided and abetted by secular authorities of both state and federal government? That the Governor of Missouri issued an executive order to "exterminate" the Mormons, or at least drive them from the state - because of their religious convictions? This is all obvious history in our own beloved United States. I think Romney understands something about what it means for a religion and its adherents to be persecuted because of their beliefs and practices. After all, his forefathers lived it in vidid and excruciating detail.

Hmmm, the Democratic Party majority controls Massachusetts yet Milt Romney, a Republican, was elected by said Democrats as their governor. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, atoning for their sins for electing the Christian Teddy "DUI ED" Kennedy all these years??

Or was it because Milt is an impressive, articulate leader with sufficient personal funds so he does not have to sell his soul for campaign contributions????

Hello Susan, Neither I nor other posters on your earlier blog asked you to engage in a debate with us about the existence of the historical Jesus. Several of us pointed out that information we had was different from your statement about the “sheer number of contemporary commentaries” about his existence. We have done our own research and are drawing our own conclusions. The question is, what are your sources of information?

I don’t want to enter into a debate with you about this. I’m just asking you, a journalist, what your source of information is that statement. Or if you don’t want to, or for some reason can’t answer that question, could you please say that?

Thanks
(I'm posting this on the other blog too, where the conversation originated)

Arminius--

Adams became much more of a deist the older he got, a rather interesting evolution (pardon the expression). He was strongly influenced by the continuing intolerance of non-Puritan religions in Massachusetts, where he spent the rest of his life after leaving the presidency. One of the biggest disappointments of his life was that, in the 1820s, he was unable to persuade Massachusetts lawmakers to remove the prohibition against Jews holding public office from the state constitution.

Susan,

You said, "It was Samuel Adams, not John Adams, who had the exchange I quite with Thomas Paine. See pp. 61-62 in my "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism."

My reply: apparently both John and Sam had it out with Payne:
In 1796, Adams denounced the deism of political opponent Thomas Paine, saying, "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will."
- 'The Works of John Adams' (1854), vol III, p 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.

True that John was close to being a Deist, but apparently he was not quite there.

Also, you are correct, it was Sam that spoke up about religion at the 1st Contintental Congress. Thanks for the corrections.

Arminius

Ms. Jacoby,
If I may be so bold as to agree with you and disagree with you at the same time:
Jihadist was probably correct that some of Romney's speech told that portion of America whose trust he was trying to win more about themselves than about himself. But what is to be expected given the realities of today's politics? Why belittle Romney for doing what he did not want to do--give a speech on faith in America--because he saw the political need to do it?

As to secularism, I agree that the obvious exclusion of the non-religious from having a voice "at the table" was uncalled for, especially if Romney had read the backlash from atheists against the kind of column that Dawkins wrote in On Faith last week.

But if secularism is an institution with a coherent ideology, then I hope that ideology truly will represent what the Founding Fathers envisioned--that every reasoning mind who is a lover and preserver of freedom will have a voice at the table, including both those who believe that faith in divine providence has a place in private life that should neither be expunged nor denigrated, and those who believe that all religions are wrong altogether. I think you mostly attempt to bridge the gap between the two in a reasonable (ableit slanted by your own agenda) way, and thank you for trying to bridge that gap.

If secularism could champion Emerson and Payne and the real Darwin as their voices from the past who still need to be heard, rather than Dawkins and Hutchens as their voices of today whose agendas are suspect, then I think it as an institution would be given ample voice at the table. At least I hope so. Peace, please, all, and have a good day.

I would also like to add that as an author with a busy professional life, I do not have time to engage in debates with individual bloggers about questions like the existence of the historical Jesus. There are thousands of books on this subject. Do your own research; draw your own conclusions.

To Arminius:

It was Samuel Adams, not John Adams, who had the exchange I quite with Thomas Paine. See pp. 61-62 in my "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism."

John Adams's views on the separation of church and state were virtually indistinguishable from those of Thomas Jefferson. Their correspondence bears this out.

Yes, Mitt is pandering all right. He's very slick. I hope people can see through him.

I'm not concerned, really, about him imposing Mormonism on us, I'm concerned about him being first and foremost a manipulator -- and this time a slick one.

On another subject...

Susan – I hope you’re coming back with research-based information on the issue of contemporary commentaries about Jesus. You’ve popped in with your feelings about how foolish you think atheists are to be concerned about this. I hope you’ll pop back in with facts, too.

(I also posted this on your earlier thread. I really want a response. I think you owe it to us as a journalist.)

No comment.

Hmmm, The Jihadist notes:

"Nowadays, it is always politicians who are:

(a) the most manipulative, exploitative and divisive on race and religion;

(b) who politicised religion as a means to an end; and

(c) who don't seperate religion from politics

Hmmmm, sounds just like the President of the warmongering, Islamic, terror and torture theocracy of Iran, aka the Third Axis of evil.

As Ms. Susan Jacoby concluded : "Romney is unfit to be president not because he is a Mormon but because he is yet another pandering politician who denigrates America's separation of church and state and jumps on the right-wing, faith-based bandwagon."

That he is.

Nowadays, it is always politicians who are:

(a) the most manipulative, exploitative and divisive on race and religion;

(b) who politicised religion as a means to an end; and

(c) who don't seperate religion from politics.

I just love the bits of his speech on Islam. Quite shrewd actually. Americans are most averse in having a Mormon or Muslim as President, so a survey say, so he diassociated Mormons from being in the same category as Muslims and expressed his dismay on "violent Islam".

Come now. Violent Islam or violent Muslims? Non-Muslims can be quite violent without being Muslims. One don't have to be a Muslim to shot up Christmas shoppers in a departmental store.

And just too bad, Mormons are like Muslims - no alcohol, no smoking, no sex outside marraige, family values, but er, we still practice polygamy, we do smoke, and love drinking coffee and tea.

At least Mr. Romney acknowledge Muslims pray. Perhaps Muslims will now pray to God that he will:

(a) not stand a spitting chance at the Presidency.

(b) rethink what he said and repent or be faced with domestic and foreign policy hell of blunders and damnation.

(c) he gets the Presidency and let people have rights to polygamy marraiges between consenting adults. That would address social realities supported by scientific research that shows man is not monogomous by temperament, instinct and practice.

Mr. Romney's speech is another manifestation, another example of someone who is a member of a minority in any country trying to overcome the bigotry and mistrust of the majority in advancing his personal aspirations and ambitions without compromising his personal belief, culture and tradition.

If Mr. Romney is a Buddhist or Jewish, perhaps his speech would be greeted differently. Mr. Romney is a realist who knows the prejudices of his fellow countrymen towards his faith and fellow adherents. In his speech, he seek to remind on historical common grounds and precedents, and to state the current common concerns and fears. The speech, in pandering to most out of necessity, tells more about us than Mr. Romney.

Best regards
"J"

Oh, yeah, check out Thistlethwaite's reply to Romney's speech. Although a Christian herself, she is just as tough on Mitt, maybe more so, actually labeling him theocratic.

Arminius

Oh, yeah, check out Thistlethwaite's reply to Romney's speech. Although a Christian herself, she is just as tough on Mitt, maybe more so, actually labeling him theocratic.

Arminius

Good article, and I agree. But I think it was John Adams who made the religious statement at the Continental Congress, and also had harsh words with Payne.

Arminius

This is indistinguishable from the position of the religious right.

Well said. Excellent.

This has much in common with Brent Walker's column, which is also good. When Jacoby and a leading Baptist Minister agree, we have a broad consensus.

Susan -

Your words are welcome.

Having just watched Tweety (ie: Chris Matthews) gushing over Romney's speech - with a "balanced" panel of commentators that was limited to Pat Buchanan and David Kuo - it's nice to see that SOMEONE out there has the guts to shout that the Emperor Romney is quite naked.

Excellent column.

Just so.