It's The Theocrats, Stupid

To John Stephens:

Your slavery trivia: “Using the Bible as a justification for slavery as generally practiced in the United States requires a fair amount of cherry picking.”

It may be so, you probably have a point looking the issue from that angle.

But I’m intrigued why god, who talked in the bible with many people, who mention slavery in his mandates to humans as if it were an accepted institution, was kind of mum about how bad was the slavery institution.

In a post above, I said that he established tough consequences if people worked in certain day he didn’t like us to work, but surprisingly no consequences for owing or trading slaves.

Does that implies that because there are no supernatural consequences established unequivocally by god in the bible, anybody can own or trade slaves today and not being a sinner?

Peace “John S.”

JAC

To "Another View":

My question & comment >>How come that god was not part of the picture? God is supposed to be the designer and all powerful that micro manage the universe, including us humans.

Your kind answer >> One reason only. Man didn't want Him in the picture. He made us with free moral agency.

Please tell us, who is man in your answer and how man communicates with god in a way that indisputably god understood man wants and man received an authentic, demonstrable true response.

Also what has the free moral agency to do with god talking with humans about slavery as it were not something despicable. It was accepted in most societies in the old past, but you know, we expect more from god. He established tough consequences if people worked in certain day he didn’t like us to work, but surprisingly nothing about slavery.

Thanks and peace "Another View".

JAC

Terry:

I appreciate your note. That's exactly my sentiment in regard to Deism.

Why there would be any defense or "ownership" to Deism still eludes me, as in "...well, the founders WERE Deists!" I would then concede, "Okay, do we then owe our allegience to Zeus?"

And then comes a *wink* and comment such as "well, we really KNOW which deity they were talking about..." And I would reply: The only specific religion that was talked about with much regard was Christianity, and there are so many writings by the founders that mentioned it specifically as a danger to the substance of a constitution, that I wonder why a Christian would bring it up. On another thread, Chris Everett produced some wonderful quotes that I can't find currently.

Finally, regarding Enlightenment: don't the writings of Paine, Madison, Jefferson just blow you away! These guys were incredible for their time and ours. I wish we had such leadership today.

“How CCNL is any different from [others] with their unending and often indecipherable repetitive diatribes, eludes me.”

This is how CCNL is different: He provides references that can easily be checked for accuracy and legitimacy.

For Gaby and for Truth

Europe experienced an "Enlightenment." That is an historical observatioin; that is my observation. But I did not say that an enlightened society is a perfect society, nor that an enlightened person is a perfected person. An enlightened person is merely someone who sees better in better light.

Even after the the "Enlightenment," there was the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, and more wars after that. But, at least, now, individual people can exist and live with an "enlightened" view of things without being tried for apostasy or heresy.

Everyone isn't enlightened. Perhaps many people cannot be enlightened because they simply do not have the capicity for enlightenment. But those who do should be permitted to be.

I think that enlightenment will come to Islamic society after a greater tribulation even than prevails now. Among Islamic societies, there is a rapid dissolution towards nihilism, as the old fundamentalist ways are challenged, and crumble.

But they will follow in the footsteps that we have already trod. Not because we as Americans or as the children of European culture are better or superior, but because we are human beings, all travelling the same road. Some of us have just gone a little before the others.

Obsession is just that - the object of the obsession makes no real difference. How CCNL is any different from Moody, Jacob Josevz or Levent Alkan, with their unending and often indecipherable repetitive diatribes, eludes me.

Using or misusing a public forum to vent your spleen and/or promote your political cause without end is the height of immaturity and pretty much meets the definition of narcissistic
self-absorption. In the end, it's both boring and irritating, but fortunately avoidable with a flick of the wrist.

>>Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

>>John Stephens,

>>References to support your contentions??

Find it in scripture for us all where what John Stephens states is not correct.

>>And you have a PhD in History from what University??

Condescending retort....to be expected.

Again returning to the topic, i.e. the Dark Age mentality of Islam--

Indeed we are "surrounded" by one billion Muslims in this easy-accessible modern world. With the koran as their guide, they have been shouting "death to the infidels" for the last 1400 years not just since 1948.

The problem now is that we can hear and smell the stench of their warmongering message.

The solution: Delete the flaws in the koran and "pink slip" all the "red-neck" imams. "Pink-slipping" all the "red neck" Christian preachers, "profits" and priests and "we are the chosen" rabbis is also part of the solution.

Hmmm, if you trace it all back to the origins of the three major religions claiming Abraham as founder/father, you find the "pretty wingie thinges" as the essence and essentials of it all. This then is the experience of it all and results in one major conclusion:

"Abrahamic” (to include Joe Smith's "Mormon-con") religions are hallucination/"pretty wingie, flying, talking fictional thingies"-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

John Stephens,

References to support your contentions??

And you have a PhD in History from what University??

Slavery trivia:

Using the Bible as a justification for slavery as generally practiced in the United States requires a fair amount of cherry picking.

Even when the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt, they had slaves themselves. Most slaves were actually indentured servants. All debts were cancelled after seven years and periods of indenture fulfilled. Slave owners were admonished to treat their slaves kindly, remembering that just as they were masters, so likewise they had a Master in heaven who would judge them. Some servants received the inheritance of wayward sons.

The idea of treating slaves like dogs, working them like mules from dawn to dusk, and feeding them nothing but corn meal and blackstrap molasses; chaining them up, lashing them to hamburger, siccing dogs on them, pouring hot coals down their throats, drowning them at sea during food shortages, etc. could in no way be justified by Biblical scripture.

In America, war was looming on the horizon for many years because of slavery, but the Civil War was not fought to free slaves. Many in the Union army strenuously objected to the idea of freeing slaves. The Civil War was fought for complex economic reasons, not the least of which was the northern industry dictating the price of raw materials to the South and prohibiting the South from selling on the international market. [I recommend Max Weber] The nation's capitol was located in Washington, DC as a compromise to the Southerners. The three-fifths rule in the Constitution was likewise a compromise, based on representation by numerical census. Southerners wanted their slaves to count in the political census, and argued that Blacks could do work equal to Whites. Northerners argued that Blacks were only equal to perhaps half of Whites; they compromised on each Black counting as three-fifths of a White. Even though the slaves could not vote, the slave owners got three votes for every five slaves they owned. So, ironically, slaves were enumerated to reinforce the cause for slavery.

A general prejudice against Blacks was pervasive. Even many if not most Abolitionists did not consider them equal. The Abolitionists were more like the SPCA than the ACLU.

The wealth of this nation was built on the backs of slaves. It has been estimated that restitution to Blacks would exceed one trillion dollars, but they never even received the promised forty acres and a mule. Slaves were too expensive for the average person. Rich people bought them, used them, abused them, then walked away for others to clean up the mess when slavery was outlawed. And, it was a hell of a mess. Although it has been played down over time, there were, in fact, roving bands of freed Blacks murdering Whites, much like the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. The South was predominantly rural and nakedly vulnerable to these attacks, especially in areas where Blacks outnumbered Whites significantly. The worst nightmare of the Southerners had come true, and they were terrified. While the South was occupied by Union Forces, Ulysses S. Grant did little to protect Southern Whites, maintaining a punitive attitude towards the South in general. That gave rise to the Ku Klux Klan and a reign of terror against Blacks. Rutherford B. Hayes won no clear victory in his run for the office of President of the United States, and was elected by secret compromise with Southern politicians to leave Southern affairs in Southern hands, though publicly promising to protect Blacks. It was he who withdrew Union forces from the South, after which the Blacks were subsequently left to their fate up to and including Jim Crow laws. Freed in 1860's, given full rights as citizens in 1960's, Blacks spent about one hundred years in humiliation and degredation after being freed from slavery.

As Ron Paul has so clearly argued, the Civil War was unnecessary. The United States is the only western nation to end slavery by war. Some estimates are that slavery would have ended in perhaps twenty years through natural attrition. That seems a long time, until contrasted with the overall period of two centuries or more.

DITLD,

Your, and similar others comments in this thread, intrigue me.

You note certain thought or ideaology as 'primitive' or 'superstitious' and/or the same of 'old kings' or 'empires' that are now 'crumbled and faded'.

Consider the current empires, kings and ideaologies of our time. If you look closely, you see many empires in the world today in transition, some to grow, many to crumble.

I submit to you that 'enlightenment' born of mans 'wisdom' is not enlightenment at all. Otherwise, we should have overcome the perpetual rising and falling of mans societies and, additionally, we would have eschewed the distinct reality that we became so 'enlightened' that we can erase our very existence from this planet in a relative instant.

Enlightenment, apart from a superior mind that is not of mankinds realm, has only provided us steps backward from the true excellence of physical life and our inherent potential that human beings consistently blind themselves to.

There is a fundamental reason for all of this...and one doesnt have to be a 'fundamentalist' to understand it.

Daniel ITLD,

"I know that it will come, also, eventually, to Islam. The Islamic Priest Class will resist it; the political strongmen and dictators will resist it; the uneducated fundamentalists will resist it; nevertheless, it will irresistably, come."

I can only hope that you are right, but I do have my doubts. Plus, I have a feeling that it will not come in my lifetime or my childrens'. We have a word in Germany, it's "verbohrt", the best tranlation I can come up with is either "bull-headed" or "pig-headed", but it means a lot more than that. Like someone drilled dogma into your brain and you are unable to get it out, you stubbornly cling to it, you will defend it against any reason. Does that make sense?

"Enlightment" is a word to describe the prevailing philosophical mood of the eighteenth century, but it is also a word to describe the expansion of an individual's personal view of the world. The founders of the United States and the Constitution lived in the "Enlightenment" and they were enlightened.

I think the most important word in enlightened thinking is "tolerance." Tolerance actually has nothing to do with religious theology, it is just a way to behave towards your fellow man. When people are done beating up on each other, and when each has taken as much beating as he gives, then everyone, sooner or later gets around to tolerance; bingo!

To be enlightened means to cast off all that is primitive and superstitious in the realm of religious theology and belief. To be enlightened means to let go of the belief in a God of good and a God of evil (or Satan) engaged in a perpetual struggle; to be enlightened means to give up the idea of the gods of Olympus, or of a god sitting on a Heavenly throne, presiding over creation. The founding fathers had indeed given up those antiquated beliefs.

Then, what is left is radically altered, but if you are enlightened, then that is what you must deal with. Some enlightened people take up a Deistic view of God; some take on the belief of doubt and skepticsm; some take an existentialist leaning; some may be stoic or fatalistic; some become atheists; all are free thinkers, unbound by man-made theology of old kings and empires that are now crumbled and faded.

A person cannot choose to be enlightened; he just sees better, in better light. A society cannot purposefully steer itself to enlightenment; it just happens as the individuals of the society are better educated, and know more and more about the true nature of the world in which they dwell. It is a state of mind that just comes over men and over societies, not summoned, yet irresistable, like the seasons of the year.

I know that it will come, also, eventually, to Islam. The Islamic Priest Class will resist it; the political strongmen and dictators will resist it; the uneducated fundamentalists will resist it; nevertheless, it will irresistably, come.

JAC

A few more points, if I may:

>>How come that god was not part of the picture? God is supposed to be the designer and all powerful that micro manage the universe, including us humans.

One reason only. Man didnt want Him in the picture. He made us with free moral agency. Human beings were/are given a choice. In relative terms, some desire Gods presence in their lives...but most dont.

>>Also, why god gave some soft guidelines for their decisions on slavery and not a direct command like he did with fornication and other not so serious matters?

Consider: No difference, basically, with a loving human parent with their child. Guidelines can be in different levels, different requirements for different situations.

All the best.

PS

To the contributor of:

>>...and saw the Creator as once removed from the Creation itself (re: deists)

Did the Creator tell them He was once removed, or is this a human theory or guess?

Yet without some form of deity there is no reason to empathize with anyone in fact a Deity ensures eventual justice and without justice the only truly logical thought is what can I get away with today.

There is little evidence from history that altruism beyond the bare minimum necessary to insure the tribe's survival has ever been innate to human beings.

I've never understood the many attempts made to turn Deists into modern day Christians... they were anything but. Even a brief review of Wikipedia should disabuse anyone of that notion.
They were non-trinitarian and closely allied with the then-contemporary Unitarian movement. They didn't accept the divinity of Jesus. They did apparently hold to some but not all traditionally Christian notions regarding the afterlife and a future moral reckoning.

Deism has been associated with Platonism and even the philosophy of Confucious. In it's earliest forms Deism was quite similar in part to Gnosticism, and considered the Creator to be the Demiurge or 'craftsman' of creation. Unlike Gnosticism, Deism does not distinguish the Demiurge from the ineffable and Divine Godhead - the true Source of all things.

The Deistic framers were deeply influenced by the science of the day and the social philosophy of the Enlightenment (of which secularism, social responsibility and self-determination were critical elements) and saw the Creator as once removed from the Creation itself, which continued to run 'like a clock' under it's own power - very much a mechanism with mechanical laws that followed the scientific notions (but without the religion)of Newton, Descartes and Copernicus (a Catholic priest).

Humans in this 18th century Deist view had sole responsible for their own destiny. The Creator didn't enter into the equation of daily living.

The Deists were closely followed in time by the Transcendentalists e.g. Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau - who were decidedly non-Christian and deeply influenced by Vedanta, the Upanishads and Hinduism. Theosophy and Christian Science were not far behind.

The early founders and philosophers of Americana seem to be unequalled in the power, range and originality of their thinking, and certainly compared to today's self-important civil servants & politicians. But then, we don't expect big thoughts from our leaders these days, and while they frequently disappoint, they seldom surprise us.

Maybe we'll get both lucky & surprised in this election cycle...... any chance??

Hi Terra,

Some good points as usual. A few comments in response:

"Yes, Christians did fight against the horror of slavery."

Right. And for humane and Christian reasons.

"And yes, Christians fought for the continuation of slavery."

The motivation of the Southerners to fight for slavery was economic, not any Christian doctrine. They did claim that the Bible allowed slavery, which it did. Certainly, by their own record the Exodus Jews took slaves, especially young women, as they conquered parts of Canaan. In fact no biblical age civilization denied slavery; so it is hard to see it as religious.

In contrast, Paul asked Philemon to forgive and welcome back the runaway slave Onesimus, now a brother in Christ. The Letter is a model of forgiveness, love, and tact. Onesimus was probably later freed man and then became a Bishop. Paul asked that Philemon send Onesimus back to him for study, which he apparently did do, rather than punishing him. So it seem that Paul was for moderating the normal ferocity of the times in which he lived, at least after he quit the death squads and became Christian.

"It was not the religion that made the difference, it was the hearts of the people. It was their empathy for those who were hurt."

A basic concern for your fellows is part of Christianity, and also in many other traditions.

"That does not come through religion...but through seeing yourself in all people."

Yes, it can come from general empathy. I think it can also come from a sense of your Goddess, as well. But abolitionist leaders record that it did come to them through Christian religion.

Be well.

Again, a return to Reality:

Indeed we are "surrounded" by one billion Muslims in this easy-accessible modern world. With the koran as their guide, they have been shouting "death to the infidels" for the last 1400 years not just since 1948.

The problem now is that we can hear and smell the stench of their warmongering message.

The solution: Delete the flaws in the koran and "pink slip" all the "red-neck" imams. "Pink-slipping" all the "red neck" Christian preachers, "profits" and priests and "we are the chosen" rabbis is also part of the solution.

Hmmm, if you trace it all back to the origins of the three major religions claiming Abraham as founder/father, you find the "pretty wingie thinges" as the essence and essentials of it all. This then is the experience of it all and results in one major conclusion:

"Abrahamic” (to include Joe Smith's "Mormon-con") religions are hallucination/"pretty wingie, flying, talking fictional thingies"-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

To Another view:

Thanks for answer my question "What may not easy to comprehend is how gods talking with mortals make them write about slavery as a normal part of society. Can somebody explain this?"

Your answer: "God did not start slavery. Mankind did. Israel eventually wanted their own judges, kings. God, with many of those who ruled over Israel, was not part of the picture. Still, God gave them guidelines for their decisions...such as freeing those in bondage after a certain number of years."

How come that god was not part of the picture? God is supposed to be the designer and all powerful that micro manage the universe, including us humans.

Also, why god gave some soft guidelines for their decisions on slavery and not a direct command like he did with fornication and other not so serious matters?

Thanks again for your answer. Still some more explanation needed. Who else wants to jump in????

Peace Another view

Schmoozealert: (I like that name!)

I'm sorry I didn't follow the "full-of-themselves" comment. And I'm not certain any of them believed distinctly in a "creator God" with any specificity.

I think you might consider re-reading Thomas Paine.

That "man's religion" he seemed to have the biggest "beef with" might be the very one that you reference as "..we really know what diety.. was acknowledged." You'd have to check that out yourself, "The Age of Reason."

On the contrary, I'm just a little denser than most, you'll need to spell out specifically, and exactly, which diety the founders were speaking of when modeling the constitution. I'd love quotes from the Constitution that would support your position.

I'm more than willing to learn. Not schmoozed... C'mon..
I'd be eager to get some input from our readers as well, in regard to which deity was mentioned.

I've read "God on Trial" by Peter Irons recently, he's a consitutional scholar and a wonderful author who does probably the best job I've ever seen addressing the "original intent" of the men who framed the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and quotes Madison as saying:

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties... Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christianity, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? ...During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial.. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Suffice it to say that I'm less-than-clear that the founders wanted this to be a Christian (in particular) nation, any more than they wanted it to be subject to any deity.

PS I know this is an old but well argued argument and it's been hashed around on these posts before, so sorry if I'm beating a dead horse.

I'd just add on a personal note that I was "schmoozed" for 47 years in the good 'ol Lutheran Church, ELCA. I can definitely speak the language.

Respectfully,
Jeff

Re: Thomas Paine

He described himself as a "Deist" and commented:

How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical.

A Deist, like Thomas Paine, doesnt seem to be denying a creator here...he just has a beef with some of mans 'religions'

>>Susan's Freethinkers also mention very influential secular leadership throughout this nation's history, including writings by the founding fathers themselves that would lead one to believe they were less than religious folks.

...'less than religious folk.' Hmmmm
Unless a person is just full of themselves, most admit to being human or are perhaps seen in all the glory of their human error...but still believe in a Creator God.
The contributor of the previous paragraph marked >> is not convincing.

>>We're all atheistic and/or agnostic in regard to someone else's gods (as were the founders in relation to Zeus and Apollo,) so the question is meaningless as far as "well, they all acknowledged a diety..."

???????????????????????????????????????????
Ah..but we really know what deity they acknowledged. C'mon now.

A Question: I think youve been schmoozed, not educated or enlightened.

JAC asked above:

>>What may not easy to comprehend is how gods talking with mortals make them write about slavery as a normal part of society.

>>Can somebody explain this?

There is an overall lack of understanding of the story of slavery in the bible.

Mankind, from the time of Eden, chose to live his own way. Consequently, the intentions God had for mankind were less and less understood throughout the subsequent generations. And, consequently, man started their own systems of government. Some of those governments, groups of people, tribes..however it may be segregated, came up with their own systems of the stronger ruling over the weaker. To make a long story short..thus was born slavery into the mix..among other human-devised situations.

Why does it seem God backed slavery? Why did his chosen nation embrace things like slavery?

God did not start slavery. Mankind did. Israel eventually wanted their own judges, kings. God, with many of those who ruled over Israel, was not part of the picture. Still, God gave them guidelines for their decisions...such as freeing those in bondage after a certain number of years.
All of it encompasses why God does what he does and why mankind does what he does. Simple logistics. Man wants to do things his own way. God is letting man do so..at our own request. Lessons are to be learned. One has have to ask...'Are we passing our tests?'

Much more to the story. But even with translated scripture into the King James, a student can put 2 and 2 together about who really is responsible for such things.

Regards

A Question:

You'd find an incredible amount of atheistic and agnostic philosophy related to governing and government throughout the ages in Doubt, a History, by Jennifer Michael Hecht. She's been chosen to be the Templeton Foundation scholar for 2008. It's a great book.

Susan's Freethinkers also mention very influential secular leadership throughout this nation's history, including writings by the founding fathers themselves that would lead one to believe they were less than religious folks.

We're all atheistic and/or agnostic in regard to someone else's gods (as were the founders in relation to Zeus and Apollo,) so the question is meaningless as far as "well, they all acknowledged a diety..."

Thomas Paine is an excellent example of a "deist" that had great influence on the formation of our government, yet reading him would probably make a religious person fume.

>>"Abrahamic” religions are hallucination-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

I thought that was only Timothy Leary's league (i.e. halluciation-based religion)

>>The fact is that the agnostic/atheist/deist voice was instrumental in founding our secular form of government, and in defeating massive and energetic efforts to found this country as a "Xian Nation."

Mr. Mark:

Interesting comments. Could you provide names of any prominent person who was agnostic or atheist or who in some fashion denied a deity that was/were one/some of the instrumental voices you refer to?

Thanks.

Mr. Mark, Arminius, and Ghostbuster: excellent posts, all.

The one thing I'd add to Mr. Mark's excellent post from this morning is that I wonder if the prominence of the recent "secularist" dialogue is in fact a direct response to the politicization of religion, particularly in the last Republican 7 years (ie Karl Rove's "values voters," the "moral" party, GWB's "higher Father...," the simple black-and-white dichotomies that define the right-wing in general) that have resulted in disasterous policy, bitter partisanship, dysfunctional government, growing indifference to the huge class differences. I wonder if folks are finally saying "enough!"

And finally, following the religiously-motivated attacks against the US on 9/ll allow us all to ask the question of whether or not religion is still a greater force for good in the world. Has this question been asked by so many in prior generations? I think it's an exciting time, and it allows another dimension into the conversation--namely, allowing all to see another side to the equation. It's exciting to see the youth interested in our coming election--they are voting on their future, and I believe they are wise beyond their years.

Thank you all for the posts.

slavery has human roots not just religious roots. You think those poor wretches laboring in the Soviet Gulag were any less slaves than the Blacks bought and paid for in Africa because they labored without pay and on starvatin rations for the government rather than a Human master?

Ghostbuster,

Good post on slavery. Yes, groups are playing the blame game and claiming the victory. They don't read much history, apparently.

I would love to visit Gettysburg. I have been to Chickamauga, lived very near the Chattanooga battlefield, and currently live 6 miles from the site of the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain. The Civil War fascinates me. Of course, here in the South, which I do love, I am exposed to those unfortunates afflicted with the 'Lost Cause' myth.

Arminius

Interesting dialogue today.

I guess it is human nature for a group to try to claim credit for all positive acts (abolishing slavery) while pinning all the blame on the other side for acts against humanity (owning slaves).

I think I agree with the overall point the Moderate is getting at. The human tradgety of human slavery requires a bit more analysis than the normal hyperbole (all Christians are to blame... all secular governments are to blame...).

I visit Antietam and Gettysburg frequently. Sometimes when strolling throught the battlefield I think about this very subject. For me, it kind of puts this whole conversation into perspective.

Mr. Mark,

On this,
"Americans owe it to themselves to learn the history of their country that wasn't taught in school."

Agreed. Isn't it interesting that what passes for history or 'social studies' textbooks in this country are selected by committees in Texas, where there is a higher concentration of the religious folk who must approve what is taught? As a result American kids get an extremely whitewashed version of the books that they use in class. Our history is so much more complex,and exciting than that. To get folks started I recommend the two books my James Loewen called 'lies my teacher told me' and 'Lies across America.'

Dear Daniel -

I agree with you that the Moderate is reading ill will into the writings of Susan Jacoby. I also believe that he should take my advice and read her book, "Freethinkers."

Moderate asked me what new info that book added to the argument. Having had a few days to ponder the question, I believe that the most-important thing Susan's book accomplishes is to show in no uncertain terms that the struggle between the secular and the sacred has been going on in earnest since the formation of the USA, that it has been ever-present throughout our history and that it continues today.

Most Americans are woefully ignorant of this fact of our history. Indeed, there are those who believe that our founding fathers were all "devout Christians," that our money always had the words, "In God We Trust," on it...and that this nation has been "under god" ever since George Washington first recited the Pledge of Allegiance at Valley Forge. Many Americans believe - incorrectly - that the emergence of a strong atheistic/agnostic voice in this country is a recent phenomenon, brought on by the publishing a 4 books within the past 3 years, or a result of the free-love '60s. They see American history as a straight line of fervent religious belief that has run uninterrupted until the last few years (or months...or weeks) when godless atheism suddenly raised its head as a ploy to make "real Americans" feel inferior and to sell a few angry/militant/intolerant books.

The fact is that the agnostic/atheist/deist voice was instrumental in founding our secular form of government, and in defeating massive and energetic efforts to found this country as a "Xian Nation." The religious voice rises and falls throughout our history, though it is interesting to note that it is strongest in times of war, when dissent is stifled and the fear of destruction melds with the fear preached by all religions.

In like measure, the secular voice rises and falls in this country. It is strongest when human rights, science and reason are to the fore (as in the late 1800s and the 1960s) while it becomes feeble whenever the hot blood of war and religion grip the national psyche.

Again, I highly recommend Susan's voice to one and all. Americans owe it to themselves to learn the history of their country that wasn't taught in school.

Moody the murderers are almost uniformly followers of your faith. Ninety percent of all the deaths in Iraq since the capture of Saddam Hussein

Yeah the whips and chains pervs have sites all over the web. They represent about 1% of all westerners if that. And peculiarly enough most of the people involved seem to be there of there own free will and the government has nothing to do with and most countrys governments would like it to stop tomorrow.

What an IRONI in the whole present world:

LOOK ALL OVER AROUND,

"ACTUAL KILLERS ALL IN CONTROL" CALLING/BRANDING WHO ARE BEING KILLED IN 'UNCOUNTALBE NUMBERS' AS KILLERS!!!!!!!!!

TO FURTHER JUSTIFY THERE NON STOPPING KILLINGS!!!

1- 5 Million Congolese recent genocied by Belgians & Israealies

2-
WITH ALL BIG TALKS, THIS IS ALL ACTUALLY WHO YOU ARE:

Statistically
-more than 1 million Iraqi's are been butchered so far
-more than 4 million displaced.
-All major cities are destroyed. No electricity, no water, no sanitation no NOTHING.

On Al Jazeera net Analyst’s are

THANKING USA (Chaos & Conspiracy Masters) for,

1- Alienating millions of the Sunnis from the US established only Shia government.

2- And then branding them ALL SUNNI CIVILIANS as allies of Bathiest Previous (US breed & Groomed) Dictator. And projecting that idea through out world through its Zionist controlled media.
3- In result PROVOKING THE US MADE SHIA ESTABLISMENT to genocide Sunni civilians “AND OFFICIALLY KEEPING CRIMINAL SILENCE SUPPORTING AND PROVIDING WEOPENS”. (On Al Jazeera net Analyst’s comments).

WELL DONE USA MONSTOROUS MASTERS.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK; YOUR DAYS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR.

Your stupid look bushy bush president recently visited Middle East and was trying to sell the same evil propaganda.

He thinks like him the world is filled with blinds and fools!!!!

No wonder WHY now the extremely abused women EVEN preferring to blow them selves up after all the humility, WHO USED TO BE LIVING PIOUS AND RIGHTIOUS LIVES.

FOR ABUSED WOMEN REFERENC YOU CAN SEE USA TORTURE CELL SNAPS & MOVIES ALL OVER ELECTRONIC MEDIA.

Once again, a return to Reality:

Indeed we are "surrounded" by one billion Muslims in this easy-accessible modern world. With the koran as their guide, they have been shouting "death to the infidels" for the last 1400 years not just since 1948.

The problem now is that we can hear and smell the stench of their warmongering message.

The solution: Delete the flaws in the koran and "pink slip" all the "red-neck" imams. "Pink-slipping" all the "red neck" Christian preachers, "profits" and priests and "we are the chosen" rabbis is also part of the solution.

Hmmm, if you trace it all back to the origins of the three major religions claiming Abraham as founder/father, you find the "pretty wingie thinges" as the essence and essentials of it all. This then is the experience of it all and results in one major conclusion:

"Abrahamic” religions are hallucination-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

ARMINIUS:

Thank you for the sage advice. You know, a guy who knows his beers can't be all bad.

I was just thinking awhile ago that while we're all blathering and blowing smoke, those poor Iraqis are getting their ass handed to them on a platter. I have a peaceful, contented life and then WHAM! I remember what's going on in the world.

People are wringing their hands about the suicide bombers. Does anybody out there have a clue what kind of horrendous hell American war machines rain down on combatants and civilians alike? Anybody who calls Arabs cowards knows nothing about what they're up against.

General Curtis Lemay, US Army Aircorps commanding, said that America damn well better win the war (WWII) or they'd all be tried as war criminals. The Allies dropped millions of tons of incendiary bombs on cities in Japan, where the residents built homes of wood and paper, so there were major conflagrations. Many cities, some the size of New York and Chicago, were utterly razed. Thousands and thousands of Japanese civilians were burned to death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just icing on the cake.

Then, there's Dresden, Germany, where flames rose 15,000 feet into the sky. The bombers had to fly around the fire storm. Burning pavement flowed like water in the streets. Persons with phosphorous on them dived into the nearby river and had two choices: drown or burn alive. Every time they poked up out of the water, they burst into flame again.

The suicide bombers have a long way to go to equal the record set by America.

Yes, I love my country, and no, I'm not taking sides, but if the Arabs or Muslims or whoever want to have a 17th Century Caliphate in the Middle East and be left the hell alone to enjoy it and worship Allah, why not let them?

OIL

They got it. We want it.

I know this will probably offend The Moderate, and may be labeled as one of those "ad hominum" attacks that you've all heard tell of, but I do not know how else to say it. You read so much ill will into Susan Jacoby, when there is abosultey none intended, that I can see, that you must have a little tendency to be paranoid. I've read lots and lots of her articles on this forum, as you suggested, lots and lots of them, and I am just not seeing the poisonous, toxic, hostility that you see; I see alot of it in the commenters, but not in her. You can nit-pick away at her till the cows come home, but I think that she seem to be a pretty good person. So, that makes me wonder about you.

Oops... make that 'the papacy did not formally condemn slavery....'

Arminius

A historical note on slavery, if I might.

At least one early Christian opposed slavery: St. Patrick. A former slave in Ireland himself, when he returned to Ireland to spread the Gospels, he all but drove slavery from the island. As well as human sacrifice. He never did get the Irish to stop fighting among themselves. Seem to be a national characteristic.

This happened in the fifth century. The papacy did not formerly condemn slavery until the 19th century.

Arminius

That would mostly be followers of Islam see the horror that is Darfur.

Terra-

The pressing questions are- who are the slave owners and traders today? Who is working to free the enslaved in 2008?

It is an abomination that gets little or no media attention today.

If your interest goes beyond a little xtian bashing -please read the following link and find a way to get involved in the abolition movements of today.

http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/SaudiArabia.htm

The Moderate,
Sorry to have not gotten back to you more quickly...but life and a beautiful weekend intruded. It was 80 today...

Back to the subject- England and France outlawed Slavery before America did. It took a war for us...they passed laws or recognized that their laws did not include slavery.

In 1772 an English court declared , that Slavery was not according to English law...and slavery was not allowed. There never was a law in English common law that allowed the ownership of men. This judgement emancipated the 10 to 14 thousand slaves in England and also laid down that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the American colonies) could not be enforced in England.

1771 The French declared slavery unlawful.
1865 America ended slavery (by way of war).

Yes, Christians did fight against the horror of slavery. And yes, Christians fought for the continuation of slavery. It was not the religion that made the difference, it was the hearts of the people. It was their empathy for those who were hurt. That does not come through religion...but through seeing yourself in all people.

terra

E Favorite,
Your point was well taken. Thanks.

Freestinker,

You noted: "All religions are cults based on hallucinations! Tell me something new ..."

I could not agree more with you!!!

My previous comments on another thread:

Indeed we are "surrounded" by one billion Muslims in this easy-accessible modern world. With the koran as their guide, they have been shouting "death to the infidels" for the last 1400 years not just since 1948.

The problem now is that we can hear and smell the stench of their warmongering message.

The solution: Delete the flaws in the koran and "pink slip" all the "red-neck" imams. "Pink-slipping" all the "red neck" Christian preachers, "profits" and priests and "we are the chosen" rabbis is also part of the solution.

Hmmm, if you trace it all back to the origins of the three major religions claiming Abraham as founder/father, you find the "pretty wingie thinges" as the essence and essentials of it all. This then is the experience of it all and results in one major conclusion:

"Abrahamic” religions are hallucination-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

Wow says

"I think it is sad that so many Moslems in this world look at this and rationalize a justification for it, however, I do not beleive this includes the majority."

How can any believing Moslem not feel the noose tightening and fear if they slip up in word or deed they may be next in line to lose their life?

Isn't that the message the Moslem leaders have sent to the "faithful"?

The idea that anything anyone says on a blog ought to influence one's opinion of one's neighbors is astonishing. We are talking here about ideas (at least, some of us are), and although ideas certainly have consequences, I can only paraphrase Thomas Jefferson and say that other people's religious opinions are of no concern to me unless they pick my pocket or break my leg. Now, a president who tries to write his religious views into law is indeed picking my pocket, in more ways than one, and under theocracies, such people also break legs (and worse). My next-door neighbor's religious views, whatever they are, are of no concern to me and I presume that mine are of no concern to her. We've loaned each other cups of sugar and heating pads. That's what neighbors do--unless they belong to religious cults that "shun" outsiders.

CTCNL says:
"Bottom line: Mormonism is a cult based on hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir."

Freestinker says:
All religions are cults based on hallucinations! Tell me something new ...

Hi, Parker - regarding Catholic University - despite the name and it's affiliation with the Roman Catholic church, please don't write off anyone who has ever attended there.

The many courses offered that are not directly associated with catholic doctrine are taught without any reference to it. It's a fully accredited university (like Georgetown and Loyola and many other catholic schools) and many students, especially in the graduate schools (e.g. law, gerontology, nursing, social work) are not Catholic and attend only for the fine education that's available there.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Some more "Mormon-con":

1. "Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

2." "Moroni the golden hornblower", or "son of Mormon, the propheteer/profiteer", or "actually Nephi", or "good buds with John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, and Elias all who ministered to Joseph Smith as angels" or as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

"Some scholars have theorized that Smith became familiar with the name "Moroni" through his study of the treasure-hunting stories of Captain William Kidd.[2] Because Kidd was said to have buried treasure in the Comoros islands, and Moroni is the name of the capital city and largest settlement in the Comoros, it has been suggested that Smith borrowed the name of the settlement and applied it to the angel who led him to buried treasure—the golden plates.

Complementing this proposal is the theory that Smith borrowed the names of the Comoros islands and applied them to hill where he found the golden plates, which he named Cumorah.[3]

Bottom line: Mormonism is a cult based on hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir.

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 Convergence!!!!

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

Typical Moslem ideology. I just don't understand how these individuals could feel justified by holding a FIVE MINUTE trial and sentencing him to death, over an oppinionated, intelectual debate about a minor belief in the Moslem religion! He had no time to get a lawyer or even a human rights attorney...NOTHING! I think it is sad that so many Moslems in this world look at this and rationalize a justification for it, however, I do not beleive this includes the majority.

John Stephens - thank you

Anonymous - you are mistaking me for John Stephens.

Since no one of the billions of humans who have died ever has given a documented report of an afterlife, neither in heaven nor in hell nor in any other place, the statistical probability of its existence approaches zero, and the documented reports equal zero.

I have therefore settled to the reasonable conclusion, quite comfortably, that there is no such thing as an afterlife, and have enjoyed and still enjoy this life and this admirable earth, nature, universe very much, including its ups and downs, its loves, its disappointments, its help to others and the help I received from others, and last not least, the feeling of co-responsibility for myself, my fellow humans and our planet. I don't need any religious proxy for these wonderful feelings and insights.

Even if billions of people believe in this and that - that is no proof at all for the truth of their beliefs. EVERYBODY thought the earth is flat.

By the way, CCNL, why stop at Moroni, thus demonstrating your lack of knowing anything substantive about Mormonism? Joseph Smith also attested that John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, and Elijah the Prophet among others also visited him personally with important roles in re-establishing the true church by the "laying on of hands" (ordaining) with the true authority needed to officiate in it on the earth, thus restoring that which had been lost by apostasy? The appearance of Elijah fulfilled a prophecy of Malachi and fulfilled what the Jews are still waiting for--the return of Elijah the prophet to "turn the hearts of the children to the fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children," of which you would have no idea what that means. Thanks for the foil, CCNL.

CCNL,
Since this is an atheist blog and all of us are uninvited "guests", yet atheists seem to like directness, I'll be more direct with you. If you think I or anyone I know has any remote possibility of being influenced by anything you have to say, then let me make it perfectly clear that there is no such possibility. I'll give you a few reasons out of a thousand.

Your moniker implies that you think you are "liberated" but my impression of you is as one captivated by the chains of self-importance, inconsiderateness of others and devoid of the "milk of human kindness", full of ennui ("been there, done that"), rudeness, devoid of understanding how humans interact in a way that enables trust or compromise or cooperation.

You cite a source who you say gains qualification by having attended Catholic University, but to me I wouldn't trust anything taught there nor anyone who had attended there, because I consider the baptizing of infants, saying money is involved in obtaining forgiveness from wrong-doing, or teaching the practice of celibacy for clergy, as being so inherently wrong ideas that anyone who has read the Bible could not possibly also think Catholicism ever arose from Biblical understanding. Why don't you spend your ennui-embedded time persuading the pope to consider changing those practices--thus helping the Catholic church out of some significant quagmires?

Moody, Moody, Moody,

The partial murder count carried out in Allah's name:

1a) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

1b) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens murdered, 1000’s injured

2) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4000 US troops and 80,625 – 88,048 Iraqi civilians murdered http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

3) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were murdered and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

4) Bali-in 2002-murdering 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

5) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were murdered, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

6) Spain in 2004- murdering 191 people and wounding 2,050.

7) UK in 2005- The bombings murdered 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Statistically
-more than 1 million Iraqi's are been butchered so far
-more than 4 million displaced.
-All major cities are destroyed. No electricity, no water, no sanitation no NOTHING.

On Al Jazeera net Analyst’s are

THANKING USA (Chaos & Conspiracy Masters) for,

1- Alienating millions of the Sunnis from the US established only Shia government.

2- And then branding them ALL SUNNI CIVILIANS as allies of Bathiest Previous (US breed & Groomed) Dictator. And projecting that idea through out world through its Zionist controlled media.
3- In result PROVOKING THE US MADE SHIA ESTABLISMENT to genocide Sunni civilians “AND OFFICIALLY KEEPING CRIMINAL SILENCE SUPPORTING AND PROVIDING WEOPENS”. (On Al Jazeera net Analyst’s comments).

WELL DONE USA MONSTOROUS MASTERS.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK; YOUR DAYS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR.

Your stupid look bushy bush president recently visited Middle East and was trying to project the same evil propaganda.

He thinks like him the world is filled with blinds and fools!!!!

No wonder WHY now the extremely abused women EVEN preferring to blow them selves up after all the humility, WHO USED TO BE LIVING PIOUS AND RIGHTIOUS LIVES.

FOR ABUSED WOMEN REFERENC YOU CAN SEE USA TORTURE CELL SNAPS & MOVIES ALL OVER ELECTRONIC MEDIA.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Does it not all come down to that "pretty talking, non-flying, sometimes graffi, fictional thingie" named Moroni and his relationship with Joseph Smith, "The Mormon-con"?????

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Islam is not perfect and the koran inherently condones sin as shown 24/7 in the 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites. Their actions give significant credence that greed, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hate, anger and greed.

Bottom line: Islam oozes of sin whose stench has been there since its inception!!!!!!

Now for the question of Freedom of Speech:

IF SOME BODY HAVE UNDERSTANDING PROBLEM
I repeat!
TRY TO READ SLOWLY........

In Islam,
Muslims DIFFRENCIATE between
- Free Speech (which is acceptable)
&
-Vulgar, obscene, insulting, abusive Slurs (which are not acceptable in Islam, UNLIKE WESTERN TRADITIONS WHERE EVERY THING GOES).

AND MR. "CCNL" IS ONE OF THE PREDOMINENT EXAMPLE OF IT!!!

Don't tell us SITTING AT DISTANCE, that we shouldn't be offended.
Go first abuse IN EVERY POSSIBLE WORD,
- the person present next to you, or
- your parents or
- your love ones.
And then tell us how do you FEEL?
(I guess VERY CONTENTED, HAPPY & GOOD according to your freedom of speech???)
&
And "THEN TELL US FIRST" how open heartedly your abused FALLAS accepted your EVERY POSSIBLE WAY verbal abuse?
Now "GO LOOK into the mirror". And then tell first DO YOU FEEL ANY DIFFERENCE?
I doubt !

CHAOS & CONSPIRACY THEORY IN PRACTICE OF WEST & PARTICULARLY OF USA:

To the great fan and admirer CCNL
Of
USA masters "FATHER OF ALL DEVILS”?
Rightly said by Iranian President before US mad bushy bush use the words axe.o.e.

AND below is the kind of LIBRATION AND FREEDOM your SECULAR, CAPTILIST, DEMOCARTE, CORPORATE MONSTOR ADMINISTRATION ESTABLISHMENT is providing to the world NOW for more than half century. YOU ARE SO PROUD OF.

CCNL & ALL the blood bath Admirers:

Now the World is fully aware of USA
1- Pentagon military organization "Chaos Theory" all over the world to support its Weapon Industry with more than 18000 fighter plans and more than 1800 war ships IN SERVICE which ALONE IS BIGGEST THEN THE REST OF THE WORLD WEAPON INDUSTRIES & ARMS IN SERVICE COLLECTIVELY including Russia, China, India, Europe, NATO etc. And responsible of supplying illegal weapons all over the world FUELING ALL KIND OF BLOOD SHED ESPECIALLY IN CONTINENT OF AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST.
2- And USA White House civilian government "Conspiracy theory" to support its advances to control world resources.
Your and your Govt. credibility SUCKS.
Liars and conspirers!!!
Your pentagon driven Media conspires and All US dumb heads do is just follow the media slogans.
For example:
YOU and your stupid Bushy Bush call Iran Exe of Evil.
If some body with the slightest sense analysis. IRAN HAS NEVER SHOWN AGGRESSION WITH ANY BODY IN LAST 250 YEARS. It was puppet Saddam of Iraq who attacked Iran on his USA bushy master administration behalf.
IRAN HARDLY HAS ANY AIR FORCE & NAVY.
But USA mad administrative dogs talk about what if Iran will acquire nuck. They haven't yet.
This reason is so STUPID. The question is....
What about Pakistan already nuclear with ability to deliver.
What about Korea WHO THREATEN US RIGHT AT ITS FACE, what about Russia.
What about Mad Israel. Which is REAL THREAT WITH NUCKS to the whole Muslim world. If one look according to the MAD USA ADMINISTRATION PROSPECTIVE!!!
IT IS AGAIN PENTAGON + WHITE HOUSE driven Chaos and Conspiracy theory by Zionist controlled Media and stupid US masses again ONLY REPEATING media words like axe of evil, shia sunni, Iran Arabs bla bla bla without putting any burden OR strain on there brains to once try to think REALISTICLY, same way like they believed in there Tyrant Rulers when there Rulers bluntly lied about EVERY THING to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sunni and Shia are living peacefully side by side ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Even in more than 8 year Iran and Iraq war raged by USA Bushy Administration Iraqi puppet. There was NO UNREST in Iraqi civil fabric. NO ONE was attacking the establishment in the Iraq; No kind of CIVIL DESTRUCION was in progress, raping, killing, bomb blasting CIVILIANS BEORE THE US ANIMALS INVASION was in progress.
It is the same 300 YEARS OLD COLONIAL divide and ruthless rule technique PRACTICED BY the US animals, kill the Shia blame the Sunni, kill the Sunni blame the Shia FUEL THE FIRE AND KILL CIVILIANS INDESCRIMINATELY in the name of collateral damage.
THE WHOLE WORLD AND MUSLIMS ARE VERY WELL AWARE OF IT.

Kuwait war was again raged by USA ANIMAL Bushy Administration Iraqi puppet.

In Bosnia and Kosovo case, YOU ANIMALS kept your CRIMNAL SILENCE FOR 2-3 YEARS until YOUR butchers were done and satisfied with there Muslim slaughter. YOU ANIMALS couldn't bear the Muslim independent state on your European Continent. Saving them after you are done and satisfied is a big B.S.!!

I REPEAT !!

If you and your KIND are not deaf OR blind??

Since millions & millions of Shia's are welcome by Saudi Sunni's every year on Hajj from the very beginning of time. AND millions & millions of Shia's and Sunni's perform Hajj TOGETHER STANDING SHOULDER TO SHOULDER every year DISPITE OF PENTAGON DRIVEN EVIL MEDIA PROPAGANDA!!

Saudia is a land of PEACE!

Hurray! Pentagon "Chaos Theory".

Don't worry, if needed, Saudi's will use these 60B arms from US on Israel. Since they are not in war with Iran or Shia's from the time Saudia came into being. (IF NEEDED means, if Fascist Israel ever tried to also show its aggression towards Saudis)

To the HONEST KIND OF WEST,
Dare to reply that:

Anonymous,
"With Western Enlightenment and respect for the individual, we cannot win this war"
Rightly said by you Anonymous "You cannot win the WAR" because as you admitted your self,
Instead of reasoning YOU ALL are raging WAR.
And Muslims can't be convinced by your deceiving, bias polices and practices. Muslims see following common problems in the ENLIGHTED WEST which hardly exist OR stands out as very little in the Muslim masses and
"Are convincing enough NOT TO BE CONVIENCED”:
1- Chaos and Conspiracy theory practice towards Muslims to grab, still, occupy there lands and wealth and destroying there properties, lands and countries.
2- Your non-negotiation on real issues and brutal approach of enforcing your ideas upon Muslims.
AND WITH IN YOUR SOCIETIES HIGH RATE OF:
3- Moral degradation.
4- Incest (One of the reasons is FORCEFULLY giving kids from natural to un-natural parents).
5- Rape (Every second women get raped in her life time in your society).
6- Child molestation. (Reflects the SAFTY of children in your FREE SOCIET & in your CHURCHS).
7- Teenage pregnancies. (Shows the over all moral mind set of your masses, even kids are not left out any more).
8- Drugs and Alcohol addiction. (It is an unstoppable avalanche in your WHOLE society.)
9- Prostitution (every high street has savannahs & occupied by business women in the evenings)
10- Extreme racism against colored and all other kind of human breeds. Blacks are still facing the brunt.
11- Women’s exploitation in the name of freedom. (Telling them work equally hard and earn them selves. Is it possible for the mother of 2 or more to –i- raise children –ii- maintain house hold –iii- earn simultaneously. Even the strongest Will and nerves man can’t do it simultaneously with the kind of attention these responsibilities deserve NOW also consider in the keep changing natural physical demands of the women. It’s ACTUALLY FREEING THE MEN FROM ALL REAL RESPONSIBILITIES EXCEPT ONLY SEXUAL DESIRE & ITS FULFILLMENT.
12- Inhuman intervening UNBALANCED state laws about kids, women, men etc enslaving and making there lives hell.
13- High street crime rate.
14- Your enslaving & controlling corporate and mega chain brand INTEREST AND TAX BASED culture CRUSHING THE POOR SOCIETIES (ONLY providing freedom of EXPLOITATION to the rich masters).
And non convincing list is further very long............

AND we Muslims find ALL THE BALANCED LAWFUL SOLUTIONS of the above mentioned menaces in our religion Islam! THAT’S WHY THEY HARDLY EXIST IN OUR SOCIETIES IN GENERAL AND NOT FORCED BY ANY “GOVERNING BODY” WITH SUCH NEGATIVE IMPACT & INEFFECTIVE AS IN WEST.

Daniel The Christian Abolitionist movement predate Honest Abe by more than a century and has links going back to those same Christians that finally brought and end to the bloody conflicts in the Roman Colosseum.

You are not nice and I do not appreciate your adverse treatment.

Have you forgotten all the adulation of the past; even long after the ill treatment began?

think, please, think........

You are not nice and I do not appreciate your adverse treatment.

Have you forgotten all the adulation of the past; even long after the ill treatment began?

think, please, think........

Hi Lucy,

Thank you for the insight, and yes, what you say is correct as far as I understand it. When everyone is religious, imputing the economic activities of a society to religion is not sound reasoning. Even if we would later see them as crimes against humanity.

Generally, Susan makes the most amazing errors with historical facts. As unpopular as it is I guess someone has to press for truth in journalism.

I'm late on reading some posts from 2/1 but would like to give some info regarding male circumcision.

Female circumcision is self-explanatory, no purpose in it other then selfishness of the male gender in the culture that supports it. To say the least a wide variety of education is needed in those cultures.

A pediatrician does not do male circumcision so the American Academy of Pediatrics is not the authority on the issue. It is the Obstetrician that does the circumcisions on a male infant. If an adult male gets a circumcision an urologist usually does it.

The AAP makes a recommendation that states it is the choice of the parent and medically speaking they consider the percentages of benefits to be too low to say, “it is a medically necessary procedure.” However, AAP does acknowledge that the infant is too young to remember the trauma of the event of being circumcised and waiting until the child is old enough to make its own decision makes the event surgically painful with the lasting effect of the memory.

You do the math, the infant not remembering the event is more of a benefit then having it done as an adult male. Not to mention that the personal hygiene is better on a circumcised penis which leads to less chance of STDs and infections from bacteria being trapped in the skin folds. The appearance of a circumcised penis is more appealing to the opposite sex in most cases as well.

I'm late on reading some posts from 2/1 but would like to give some info regarding male circumcision.

Female circumcision is self-explanatory, no purpose in it other then selfishness of the male gender in the culture that supports it. To say the least a wide variety of education is needed in those cultures.

A pediatrician does not do male circumcision so the American Academy of Pediatrics is not the authority on the issue. It is the Obstetrician that does the circumcisions on a male infant. If an adult male gets a circumcision an urologist usually does it.

The AAP makes a recommendation that states it is the choice of the parent and medically speaking they consider the percentages of benefits to be too low to say, “it is a medically necessary procedure.” However, AAP does acknowledge that the infant is too young to remember the trauma of the event of being circumcised and waiting until the child is old enough to make its own decision makes the event surgically painful with the lasting effect of the memory.

You do the math, the infant not remembering the event is more of a benefit then having it done as an adult male. Not to mention that the personal hygiene is better on a circumcised penis which leads to less chance of STDs and infections from bacteria being trapped in the skin folds. The appearance of a circumcised penis is more appealing to the opposite sex in most cases as well.

I'm late on reading some posts from 2/1 but would like to give some info regarding male circumcision.

Female circumcision is self-explanatory, no purpose in it other then selfishness of the male gender in the culture that supports it. To say the least a wide variety of education is needed in those cultures.

A pediatrician does not do male circumcision so the American Academy of Pediatrics is not the authority on the issue. It is the Obstetrician that does the circumcisions on a male infant. If an adult male gets a circumcision an urologist usually does it.

The AAP makes a recommendation that states it is the choice of the parent and medically speaking they consider the percentages of benefits to be too low to say, “it is a medically necessary procedure.” However, AAP does acknowledge that the infant is too young to remember the trauma of the event of being circumcised and waiting until the child is old enough to make its own decision makes the event surgically painful with the lasting effect of the memory.

You do the math, the infant not remembering the event is more of a benefit then having it done as an adult male. Not to mention that the personal hygiene is better on a circumcised penis which leads to less chance of STDs and infections from bacteria being trapped in the skin folds. The appearance of a circumcised penis is more appealing to the opposite sex in most cases as well.

E-Favorite,

That was brief?? LOL

I not even going to comment, except the I would like to add that your quote "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork," is from Psalms 19:1. Although, I do not know what version you quoted it from. The KJV reads:

Psalms 19:1 " The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

The Moderate;

I arrive late at the debate about the abolition of slavery,but having read many of your posts I think you miss the larger point that virtually everyone in those days was religious,(it could mean death to be otherwise) and religion had previously condoned slavery,and had been involved in it itself in the past.
There were no secularists,no atheists and no agnostics in those days; if there were any,they kept quiet about it.

Dear Mr. Mark,

"Her essays have no effect on me in this respect. Neither do those of others. I simply feel better informed."

Well enough, as far as it goes.

Arminius,

"Good Grief."

Ideas do matter, my friend.

E FAVORITE:

Okay, but it will sound like gibberish to some and won't change any minds. I shall endeavor to be brief.

There are basically two schools of thought on the belief in God.

One is that early man was so afraid of the perils of the natural world around him - lightning, storms, earthquakes, disease, death, etc., that he tried to appease the elements that threatened him and eventually that transmuted to gods of various sorts, whether heavenly objects such as the sun, moon and stars or earthly, such as animal, vegetable and mineral. There were many ways of worshipping, from dancing naked in the pale moonlight to human sacrifice. Some gods were conceived in human or quasi-human form. Monotheistic gods were conceived, from the Jewish YHWH (a Spirit) to the American Indian Great Spirit. In short, gods were invented.

The second school of thought, to which I subscribe, is that man has an innate need for a god with whom to express his spiritual nature, an element that raises him above the beasts. Man intuited a higher form of life and consciously sought it. In short, gods were revealed.

There are, of course, innumerable resultant religions, many of which are a blend of the two.

The ancients knew many secrets that we have lost over time. We have excelled at technology at the expense of spirituality. It is my belief that many ancients knew a common thread of truth. So, it wasn't so much that religions borrowed from one another, though many obviously did, but that they had a common knowledge lost in the annals of time.

For instance, I am satisfied after diligent research that the three wise men (not kings) who went to visit Jesus as a two-year-old toddler were Zorastrians from Persia. Back when the Israelites were taken captive to Persia, they learned the language and culture, and many remained after they were freed to return to Israel. The Jewish and Zorastrian sages shared wisdom. The Zorastrians studied the stars to determine future events, which is how they knew that a messiah was to be born in Israel. You may recall that they followed a star [how does one do that? -- an interesting follow-up, perhaps later]. So, Zorastrians went to the land of Judaism to welcome the messiah of Christianity.

I had a book in my library from many years ago which explained how the constellations used to have different names from those of modern astrologers and revealed future events. Aztecs and Mayans were hip to this [mark December 21, 2012 on your calender - the world ends]. Israelites used to study the stars while tending sheep at night. The pyramids in Egypt are directly aligned to the stars, and the Egyptian wise men knew the heavens. Many, many cultures studied the heavens.

"The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork."

Mr Mark,

You and I do have our differences. But I must admit that was a good reply to 'Moderate'. As you say, how can a blog affect what I feel about my neighbors, whom I either accept or not depending on what kind of people they are? Or fellow citizens? Good grief.

Arminius

Moderate asks:

"1. Do you trust your neighbors more when you read her [Susan Jacoby's] essays, or less?"

Her essays have no effect on me in this respect. Neither do those of others. I simply feel better informed.

"2. Are you more fearful, and angry after you read her work, or less?"

See answer 1.

"3. Are you more accepting of differences you may have with your fellow citizens, or less?"

See answer 2.

;)

JS writes:

"don't believe everything you read on the internet. Persons with no medical training give health advice; persons with no legal training give legal advice; persons with no knowledge of God give spiritual advice."

The difference is that bad medical advice can kill you and bad legal advice can also cause you great harm. Spiritual advice given "with no knowledge of god" is harmless.

John Stephens:

First, I agree with much that you say. We both believe, even though we differ in our beliefs.

Second, save your breath, CCNL is not worth replying to. He is the non-believer equivalent of the knee-jerking, non-thinking fundamentalist. You think. He does not. E Fav and some other non-believers here DO think, and can be addressed with good returns.

Arminius

To the Moderate:
I appreciate what I consider your wider and more understanding views in an attempt not to "whip up divisiveness." That is why I said that Jihadist comes from a position of sincerity. I don't think as one poster said that she thinks Islam is "on the side of the only supreme truth," but it is all she really knows in depth, and evidently it has worked for her world view. I don't think atheists or Christians are going to be able to confront the beliefs of a billion people and say, "you're wrong to believe that way." That's like trying to tell a teenager that they are wrong--the result is they feel alienated from you, they still believe they are right, and they may rebel in significantly harmful ways. We can hope to build bridges of understanding rather than chasms of divisiveness.

John Stevens,
A while back you wrote:

"Mohammed and Joseph Smith have a common basis for authority. Both saw an angel that no one else saw, both wrote a book establishing a new religion, and both claimed to be a prophet of god with nothing more to substantiate their assertions than their personal word. If one is to believed, why not the other? How then to resolve the inherent conflicts in their teachings?"

Part of my point to Jihadist was that Mohammed, if an inspired leader, could most certainly have foreseen that a leadership vaccuum would occur at his death and would continue to occur throughout the subsequent history of his followers. That, plus the many inconsistencies in his teachings, demonstrate in my way of thinking that his was not inspiration, but a very shrewdly carried out plan to lead a group of people who otherwise had no unifying religious concept. His plan worked for him, but has created fairly disastrous consequences down through history as was pointed out by Jihadist.

Joseph Smith, on the other hand, presented a fairly simple leadership model (including the moderating influence of counsels and balances of power) and leadership succession model that will be carried out this week. Some argue that there were inconsitencies in his teachings (certainly about polygamy), but he taught the paramount importance of free agency and freedom of religion or no religion. As to the new book of scripture, it is no more like the Koran than pure water is like cement. But one has to read it, perhaps more than once, to figure that out. Thanks for reading this if you do. And CCNL, I don't need your graffiti about this subject.

On the slavery issue, we all know that it was and is an error of the fallible humans.

Religions, cultures, political systems, secularism, non secularism, all them in one form or another participated. All are guilty.

What may not easy to comprehend is how gods talking with mortals make them write about slavery as a normal part of society.

Can somebody explain this?

JAC

Dear chuckmcf:

"Moderate" isn't."

Most people who say things like that to The Moderate turn out to be reading things into what he writes. Read carefully, and you may find that what you fear is in your own mind and not The Moderate's.

Do read it carefully for exactly what is there. Eventually most people come to understand.

Dear Mr Mark:

"Not factual errors, but errors of omission. In other words, you present a biased view of history."

Actually, I am not presenting anything as well developed as a "view of history". I am presenting a strictly limited argument that falsifies a predicate presented by Susan in her latest essay. In some sense, I grant you that all arguments are biased towards establishing conclusions.

The argument is as follows:

1. Slavery was nearly universal throughout history. I presented a list of example nations that permitted slave holding as a warrant for that predicate.
2. Secular nations have been no exception. The history of the Communist nations and their vast Gulag of slave labor warrants that. I could enlarge that list to include other tyrannies but this example is sufficient for the limited point I am making.
3. The Abolitionist movement was organized and prosecuted by Quakers, later joined by Evangelicals. Still later by liberated Blacks in the US and still later it became law.

In regards to Susan's predicate it is then possible to conclude that "secular governments" do not necessarily oppose slavery. Further, (whatever other religious people did to perpetuate slavery) the Abolitionists, particularly the early Abolitionists, were informed and motivated by their interpretation of religion. They believed that the slaves were children of God, even as they themselves were, and worked to eliminate this horrendous injustice.

Please note that I agree with the main points of Susan's latest essay. In my opinion, her frequent representation of basic historical facts remains the basis for her cynical and commercial enterprise of whipping up of hostility and divisiveness.

Regarding this, I would ask you:

1. Do you trust your neighbors more when you read her essays, or less?
2. Are you more fearful, and angry after you read her work, or less?
3. Are you more accepting of differences you may have with your fellow citizens, or less?

Truly, only you can know the answers but they are important questions. So why do I ask them? Because in a pluralistic democracy, you have to work with widely varying people on such common ground as you can find with them.

The budding Evangelical environmental movement comes to mind. You may not agree with them much, but should you cooperate with them on preserving the earth or not? Should you trust them on issues where you agree?

Another example is that I disagree with Mike Huckabee strongly on his notion of amending the Constitution to make it more consistent with his particular religion. But I like his positions on illegal immigrants. He believes that their children should be given access to higher education, health care, and so forth. So do I. Should Democrats of like mind work with him on a consensus view of that matter?

John Stephens,

OK, so you are sailor who forgot to check the weather before sailing. And Jesus apparently forgot to do the same.

And what educational credentials do you have in the field of religion?

The summary by Father John P. Meier in his book, A Marginal Jew: II. Mentor, Message and Miracles. 905-33", about the walking on the water legend is very "to the point": http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/128_Walking_on_Water

"- the story of the walking on the water is a creation of the early church and does not go back to an incident in Jesus' public ministry

-there is no need for naturalistic explanations of the story's origins

-Matthew's story of Peter walking on the water can also be dismissed as a creation of the church"

"Msgr. Meier, 55, is a professor of New Testament in the Biblical Studies Department at Catholic University of America, where he has taught since 1984. He holds a doctorate in sacred Scripture (1976) from the Biblical Institute in Rome, where he graduated summa cum laude and received the papal gold medal. He had received the same honors in 1968 when he graduated from the theology program at Gregorian University. He is a former president of the Catholic Biblical Association (1990-91), has authored numerous books and is widely published in a variety of journals and reference works. He has been editor of Catholic Biblical Quarterly."

Check Answers.com for added information about Msgr. Meier.

John Stephens: "None of them necessarily disproves the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for reasons to complicated to include here."

On Come on, John, give us at least one reason - it can't be all that complicated, can it? Probably at least a few of the people here would be able to understand.

I'll tell you what, if you give one of your reasons, I promise not to criticize it or comment on it in any way. I just want to hear what it is.

Thanks. Look forward to hearing from you.

All I can say is, right on. Or, to extract some sentences from my own posting on Pamela Taylor's page:

It does not matter what the Koran (or Bible) says about some political issue that someone can interpret in an enlightened, progressive way. All that matters is what the recognized authorititative voices of the Koran (Bible) say at some particular point in time in some particular geographical location on earth.

People like Ms. Taylor and American Christian fundamentalists who want religious values to be expressed in the political sphere while at the same time preserving secular values like freedom of expression are chasing a ghost wrapped in a myth covered by a fable. Mandating that religious values must be expressed in the political sphere requires that some one religious person or group of religious persons make the final judgment on every law and rule. Those people will never, ever approve freedom of speech that allows individuals to question the religious officials' officially authorized positions.

The only solution is the American Founding Father's solution: Separate church and state. Until Islam makes that overarching decision, it's not even worth raising specific issues like freedom of expression.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a sailor. A body of water seven miles long and four miles wide is more than sufficient to turn into a maelstrom in a fierce storm. [There is a direct correlation of water depth to wave height. It takes 3 feet of depth per 1 foot of wave, generally speaking, unless the storm is a freak, and that happens. So, if that body of water were as deep as say, Loch Ness, you could be in peril.]

I've been out there in a similar situation, with one man sailing and three men bailing.

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

Fascinating, but it doesn't affect my knowledge or faith in the least.

I'm well aware of the similarities of the Biblical accounts of events and other historical or traditional stories.

The great flood story is told in many cultures, some pre-dating the Bible.

Jesus is not the first recorded half-man/half-god born of a virgin birth who died to save the world. One was gored to death by a bull.

Christmas is a pagan festival, as is Easter. Many such rites and rituals were adopted by ersatz Christians.

Neither time nor space nor my limited brain suffice to list them all. I've read hundreds. None of them necessarily disproves the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for reasons to complicated to include here.

I'm betting my life on Jesus for good reason: experiential reality. Many believe there is a God; I know there is.

CAVEAT: To those other posters out there, don't believe everything you read on the internet. I often see web sites cited as proof of assertions. There are wonderful sources of knowledge on the internet, and mountains of garbage. Persons with no medical training give health advice; persons with no legal training give legal advice; persons with no knowledge of God give spiritual advice; etc. ad infinitum.

John Stephens,

Your logic in points one to four are excellent. There, however, has been significant questions raised amongst contemporary NT exegetes about your "facts" listed in #5 i.e.

"Jesus calmed storms at his command, healed the sick, cleansed the leper, gave sight to the blind, restored limbs to the maimed, and raised the dead. "

e.g. Walking on Water: (1) John 6:16-21; (2a) Mark 6:45-52 = Matt 14:22-27; (2b) Mark 4:35-41 = Matt 8:18,23-27 = Luke 8:22-25.

from http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/128_Walking_on_Water

"In The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, MacDonald devotes a chapter to this story and another to the story in Mark 5:1-20. He begins by noting :

In no gospel does Jesus sail more often than in Mark, and, as far as we now know, no author independent of Mark ever related Jesus to things nautical. ... One of Mark's most enduring innovations was painting traditions about Jesus against a landscape replete with mountains, uninhabited regions, villages, and especially a sea. He presented four of the disciples as erstwhile fishermen who were able to provide Jesus with the boat that would later transport him across the Chinnereth. He told them to have it ready for him, so that he could avoid the crowds, and once used it as his pulpit. The disciples sail with Jesus across the lake several times, enduring a storm and rowing against contrary winds. Once they failed to provision the ship with enough bread, an oversight unpardonable for ancient sailors, who often had to traverse vast expanses. Several episodes echo sailing tales in the Odyssey. (p. 55)

MacDonald points out that Mark seems to have been responsible for the elevation of the Lake Chinnereth, a mere seven miles long and four miles wide, into "a ferocious sea, troubled by storms, mighty winds, and lofty waves." This literary re-imaging of the Galilean lake was already observed by the 3C pagan writer, Porphyry (see citation above, under Parallels.

MacDonald cites numerous parallels between the Odyssey and Mark, including shared use of rare vocabulary not found in the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Hebrew Bible. "

The reference also points out parallels to the "acts" of the pre-Jesus Buddha.

To Anon,

You said "JAC- I agree. The Jihadist posts have a false ring. Like putting lipstick on a pig."

Yes, we agree on the final results. I differ with you a little on the intentions.

"J" appears to me as a sincere person that believes that she is on the side of the only supreme truth, and she does not go along with some bad gays on the leadership of the organization that she belongs.

On the other side, a good number of posters in this blog do not care much about her truth. I'm one of them and probably you too.

But all we are worried that the organizations spreading those kind of truths want to control not only the spiritual life of everybody in the planet, but also the material life.

Peace Anon

JAC

Moderate writes:

"I have read many of Susan's essays here On Faith. Does "Freethinkers" present unique new material?"

Her book presents an expansion upon what you might read in her On Faith columns. You're not giving Susan a fair shot at presenting her argument by limiting yourself to her columns.

"Was there a factual error in what I posted that you wish to discuss? I am open to new learnings about the facts of history if you have any to offer."

Not factual errors, but errors of omission. In other words, you present a biased view of history. "Freethinkers" gives credit where it is due in the abolitionist movement, and that will include the religious and non-religious.

Again, I recommend the book to you. And I will look up the Willberforce book per your recommendation.

Since Susan Jacoby is holding no punches, neither shall I.

The legend of Mohammed says he was spirited away to Jerusalem, where he met with Jesus and Abraham. That raises some questions.

1. Why did Mohammed need the sanction of two Jews to authenticate his being a prophet?

2. If he claimed that he saw Jesus, then he acknowledged that Jesus is resurrected from the dead, which verifies the Christian faith. Why didn't he accept the teachings of Jesus?

3. Just by the sheer force of Logic, does it seem reasonable that the same God who told Jesus to sacrifice himself like a lamb to the slaughter for the salvation of the world would tell Mohammed to go kill all the heretics? Would God not then be a God of confusion? Which is it: love your enemies, or kill them?

4. Mohammed and Joseph Smith have a common basis for authority. Both saw an angel that no one else saw, both wrote a book establishing a new religion, and both claimed to be a prophet of god with nothing more to substantiate their assertions than their personal word. If one is to believed, why not the other? How then to resolve the inherent conflicts in their teachings?

5. Jesus calmed storms at his command, healed the sick, cleansed the leper, gave sight to the blind, restored limbs to the maimed, and raised the dead. Could not Mohammed at least walk on water?

Men who issue fatwas against authors like Salman Rushdie, or murder film makers like Van Gogh, or send death threats to cartoonists, just because they disagree with them, are all murderous thugs who are simply looking for an excuse to kill someone. There's no difference between these pin heads and the southern white trash who lynched Black men for whistling at a white woman, or whistling in the vicinity of a white woman, or supposedly looking the wrong way at a white woman. They're all beasts on the prowl.

JAC- I agree. The Jihadist posts have a false ring. Like putting lipstick on a pig.

I'm not making a pig slur. Here's a definition for those who don't know it-

PUTTING LIPSTICK ON A PIG

A term used by many, generally in reference to someone who may be trying to make something or someone look appealing or attractive when it quite clearly will not work, or will only deceive the dumbest of people.

Car salesmen are generally good at "putting lipstick on a pig" because they are always selling unroadworthy buckets of sh-t and try and hide their sh-tfulness by tarting them up.

Example-

"The dude in that car yard just put a body kit on that piece of sh-t. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig"

I agree with most of what CTCNL posts about the dangers of religions.

In the case of the "J", CTCNL relentless attacks to her suave posts may appear unfair, but if you look to the whole picture, CTCNL may be right in his tone.

If your religion, as an organization, makes grave mistakes because is founded in wrong principles, because not well intentioned leaders, or as part of the law of unintended consequences, you must fix the religion or leave it.

The point is that most major religions are based on faith, the sincere acceptance of a single universal truth. In an ideal world with only true good people, and no other competing truths, the universal truth could be dispersed without trouble, but this is not the case in the reality.

The possible results in real life:
• A religious organization integrated 100% by good, honest people that live and promote the universal truth, but because the law of unintended consequences, it causes hatred and wars.
• A religious organization composed by 99% of good people honestly following the truth under the guidance of the other 1% that pursue other things in addition or instead of the universal truth. For example, power and dominance for themselves of for their allies.

In this environment, a nice person talking nice things of a fundamentally wronged based organization is being useful to no good deeds.

Peace “J” and CTCNL.

JAC

One hopes for relgious liberty in the Moslem World and freedom for Pervez kambasch.
It is quite preposterous that a candidate for the presidency highlights his invincible ignorance in showing his ignorance of evolution and for a theocratic amendment to the Constitution.
I find it so stupid,even for other atheists, to call us new atheists dogmatic when we so criticize dogmatism. And there are many atheist books in print now to show our rationality and responsibility in accepting atheism!
We rationalists ever have to oppose the absurdity of the theocons- creationism, abstinence-only education faith-based initiatives, among others.
Perhaps, the Moslems will further become more like us as their economies get better and more become more educated. Then there is the rationalistic fallacy of thinking that education will stem superstition , when it sometimes gives voice to supestition- notice Duane Gish.
Faith is the I just say so of credulity!It argues in a circle.

One hopes for relgious liberty in the Moslem World and freedom for Pervez kambasch.
It is quite preposterous that a candidate for the presidency highlights his invincible ignorance in showing his ignorance of evolution and for a theocratic amendment to the Constitution.
I find it so stupid,even for other atheists, to call us new atheists dogmatic when we so criticize dogmatism. And there are many atheist books in print now to show our rationality and responsibility in accepting atheism!
We rationalists ever have to oppose the absurdity of the theocons- creationism, abstinence-only education faith-based initialtives, among others.
Perhaps, the Moslems will further become more like us as their economies get better and more become more educated. Then there is the rationalistic fallacy of thinking that education will stem superstition , when it sometimes gives voice to supestition- notice Duane Gish.
Faith is the I just say so of credulity!It argues in a circle.

tip to mr moody..

presenting afghanistan and other muslim dominated nations as bastions of free speech is a hard sell to the free world..

but hey.. i understand where you're coming from. you are practicing the islamic version of "free speech" you were taught: anything said that exalts and defends islam is "free speech" and anything said that questions and criticizes islam is insultive and worthy of death.

mr moody you are not free. your thoughts are not yours. try to speak one small question of islam. try to state one small criticism of islam. you will not, you cannot for fear of reprisal and the threat of hellfire.

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Apparently you suffer from the same koranic flaws as all Islamic fundamentalists i.e. "angel" breath and the stench of a warmongering, greed-driven, lust-driven, hallucinating, illiterate founder. Once again, we offer free of charge, the Five Step Cleansing Process:

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.

"Moderate" isn't.

He or she is seeking to throw a cloak of alturism over a superstitious belief system that has endorsed slavery over eons. While it is true that some religious types strongly opposed slavery in the United States and Britain, it is equally true that religious leaders in the pre-Civil-War South, to cite but one instance, were solidly behind it and quoted the Bible to bolster their case. Take a look at the Bible's advocacy of slavery. There are numerous other instances of religious authorities supporting the status quo that included slavery.

The facts do not support "moderate's" advocacy on behalf or religion as a force against slavery.
The plain fact is that religion has been a supporter of slavery throughout most of history.

"Moderate" should read more history before smugly and patronizingly criticizing Jacoby's interpretation of it, or accusing anyone of being "naive."

In Islam,
Muslims DIFFRENCIATE between
- Free Speech (which is acceptable)
&
-Vulgar, obscene, insulting, abusive Slurs (which are not acceptable in Islam, UNLIKE WESTERN TRADITIONS WHERE EVERY THING GOES).

AND MR. "CCNL" IS ONE OF THE PREDOMINENT EXAMPLE OF IT!!!

Don't tell us SITTING AT DISTANCE, that we shouldn't be offended.
Go first abuse IN EVERY POSSIBLE WORD,
- the person present next to you, or
- your parents or
- your love ones.
And then tell us how do you FEEL?
(I guess VERY CONTENTED, HAPPY & GOOD according to your freedom of speech???)
&
And "THEN TELL US FIRST" how open heartedly your abused FALLAS accepted your EVERY POSSIBLE WAY verbal abuse?
Now "GO LOOK into the mirror".

The self proclaimed WESTERN HONEST KIND through Zionist media as usual blowing OUT OF PROPORTION one tiny single event in Afghanistan hidden corner.

The country which is UNDER CONSTANT ATTACK FOR ALMOST QUATER OF A CENTURY by the SAME self proclaimed HONEST KIND. Where every inch of it is rubble, destroyed. And where mostly the mentality of the people is GET KILLED OR KILL after the so long OPPRESION OF WESTERN HONEST KIND. "IT IS MORE THAN 25 YEARS OF CONSTANT ATTACK"

Just LOOK at USA FREEDOM laws of TORTURE, DESTRUCTIVE CONSPIRACY & CHAOS THEORIES IN PRACICE. And how many INOCENT CIVILIANS KILLED AND TORTURED BY US SOLDIERS UNDER US PROTECTED LAW. "Is any body accountable?" Where every day innocent Afgans are killed by US soldiers under US protected TORTURE LAW??

The whole media is filled with GREAT US torture cells snaps and movies!

In Afghanistan TALIBAN represents the majority people heart and minds which LIGITIMATE GOVERNMENT when ASKED FOR THE EVIDENCE AS PER INTERNATIONAL LAW was replied in the form of rain of bombardment. And Tony UK and Pervaze PAK were answered by US instead of Taliban that it is not a nation but PART OF TERORIST GROUP.

AND THAT IS THE KIND OF JUSTICE USA IS BRINGING ALL OVER THE WORLD.

WHERE THERE IS NO LAW FOR US MASTERS AND ZIONEST ARE ABOVE FROM ALL KIND OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Dear Mr. Mark,

1. The Moderate never speaks through his hat. Unless truth is his hat.

2. Was there a factual error in what I posted that you wish to discuss? I am open to new learnings about the facts of history if you have any to offer.

3. I suggest you read "Real Christianity" by William Wilberforce for a look into the Abolitionist Evangelical viewpoint of the time.

4. I have read many of Susan's essays here On Faith. Does "Freethinkers" present unique new material?

"I think you are nit-picking Susan without really commenting on what she said."

First, I quoted her, and addressed exactly what she said. It may not have been her main point in this essay but it is part of her general style. Her many historical errors made for rhetorical purposes are both mendacious and central to her toxic polemical style.

Second, and atypically, I agree with much of what Susan said in this particular essay.

However, her general rhetorical technique, as exemplified by the quoted text, involves generalized slurs against people who disagree with her religious positions. You should go back and read some of her more extreme pieces. They are remarkably hostile, and based on a remarkable number of historical inaccuracies.

"My point was that contrary to Susan's naive suggestion that "secular governments" were the source of the Abolition, history records that the Quakers, later joined by the Evangelicals who did most of the social activism heavy lifting. That was true both in the British Empire and the Americas."

The Moderate is speaking through his hat yet again, propagating the myths that seek to whitewash history while stealing credit for religion when none is due.

I suggest Mr Moderate pick up a copy of Susan's book, "Freethinkers." It may disabuse him of his misconceptions.

Dear Terra,

I agree with you about the crimes of all slavers.

And yes, the Napoleonic Code mitigated a bit, just as some Roman household slaves were freed after a lifetime of devoted service. George Washington freed his slaves after the revolution, too. So not all slave holders were equally bad.

Surly though, the English were horrendous, qualitatively as bad as the communists really, and the Americans were no better.

Roman, Etruscan, Persian, Egyptian, Jewish, Greek, Carthaginian, American, British, French, Chinese, Indian, Moslem, Communist, Nazi, West African, Haitian, and Mexican, slave holders as well as others not listed here for lack of time were guilty of the most heinous crimes against humanity. But slavery was a universal institution in early civilizations. So implying that it was a particularly religious in motivation or that secular governments were the solution is historically illiterate.

My point was that contrary to Susan's naive suggestion that "secular governments" were the source of the Abolition, history records that the Quakers, later joined by the Evangelicals who did most of the social activism heavy lifting. That was true both in the British Empire and the Americas.

No excuses for crimes against humanity, but credit were it is due.

Susan, why even drag slavery into the question about a latter day Medieval religious sect problem with free speech? The two things have nothing to do with each other. Focus on the issues at hand instead of throwing generalized slurs around and you will become a better writer.

Jihadist,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments, especially in such a personal and poignant way. I had been away all day. Thank you deeply for your humanitarian work, and the example you set to us of someone who is trying to make a difference for your people and to build some understanding in the broader world. I marvel that you can maintain and convey such personal peace amidst the political turmoil you described so vividly and passionately.

The comparison you made to South American history would remind some of us, including many secularists, that "totalitarian religion" upheld and extended by long-standing cultural traditions has been a major factor in allowing the oppressive regimes in Muslim countries as well as in several South American countries to rise to power--the people having gotten used to "blind" obedience. I note by your words that you are not "blinded" and hope to build a better world for your people through compassion and understanding.

I hope Indonesia and even Turkey (where I have a close family member living) can lead the Muslim world (if Muslims really do look outside of their own tribes and countries as you do) to greater freedoms for their people. I also hope you can "multiply" yourself a hundred-fold by teaching other Muslims to seek peaceful solutions to the significant problems they face. I have friends who have done humanitarian work in Indonesia. I know they would echo those sentiments. Thanks again.

The Obfuscating Jihadist again makes some good points but again fails to address the basic issue, i.e. the flaws in the founder and foundations of Islam. These flaws must be addressed and corrected ASAP if there is going to be peace in the contemporary world.

Because The Jihadist herself is still basically an Islamic fundamentalist, she still retains the following beliefs/flaws:

1. Believes in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teaches her children that such things really exist.

2. Believes that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the good words now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed.

Jihadist it will take me awhile to read through it all to get a better understanding of the timelines and the history, and thanks for your efforts here.

The world seems a complex, struggling place. You obviously have made the effort to make it better, and I too thank you.

sheez jihadi

check your facts. either you are out of touch with reality or just taking a creative turn at passing off old islamic propaganda lines..

"That the best and brightest in Afghanistan who did not get out, were also detained or killed. Yes." "This is still ongoing in Burma/Myanmar."

Jihadist. Lets unwrap the truth and sit it on the table.

The best and brightest in Afghanistan are not ALL in the past tense -detained or killed. Here they are speaking out and taking a stand for freedom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2pAfcCEnp0

The struggle for freedom of speech is an overwhelming problem in Muslim nations and among practicing Muslims.

Jihadist,

Thank you for your humanitarian assistance. Real acts make a real difference.

Hello Jeff P and Parker,

I was in Aghanistan in 1999 as part of a Malaysian NGO coalition for humanitarian assistance. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees in camps in Iran and Pakistan. There still are. We will not discuss their dismal state and horrific stories here.

The fanatics in all Muslim countries have different frustrations and rages. The only thing consistent is that their governments do not measure up in meeting the expectations and needs of the people. Or plainly failed for all to see.

There is a common joke in developing/third world countries on governance - first blame the previous regime for corruption, incompetence and unjustness. Then blame the civil servants for not delivering what you ask them to. Then blame the outsiders for interfering and creating internal discords. Then blame your own people for creating internal discords. Then detain, torture and kill your own poeple. If the regime is removed by anyone. Repeat the process.

In the case of Afghanistan, the fanatics rise due to the Soviet invasion as Mujahideen fighters. The Taliban rise because once the Soviets left, the Mujahideen turn on its own people. The Taliban were welcomed then due to the vacuum of leadership and lawlessness that prevalied. They brought semblance of stability. To maintain stability, they use excessive force and turn on their own people they sought to protect.

MIA raised a matter that I did not. That the best and brightest in Afghanistan who did not get out, were also detained or killed. Yes. This is an all too familiar occurence in third world/developing countries' political-social change by force -from China's Cultural Revolution, to Indonesia's purging of "communists" in the mid-sixties, to Pol Pot in the Seventies. All too often, the best and brightest are seen as threats and opponents to their regimes, detained, tortured, re-educated or killed. This is still ongoing in Burma/Myanmar.

Parker asked how I could come to terms with the vacuum of leadership, including leadership succession, that happened and continues to happen within the Islamic cultural traditions.

Frankly, like most Muslims, I don't accept succession by force or by hereditary, unless by Constitutional or public consent by vote. But, most of our governments are not giving us a real choice are they? And being propped up, embraced and regarded as valued "friends" by certain countries whose interest certainly don't match with the ruled masses by oppression.

In Islamic history, the first four leaders after the Prophet is selected or elected by acclamation and consent. Of course, those who objected, assasinated them in spite of leaders having to be selected or elected to be based on the "best among you".

And, of course, subsequently, the early Muslims leaders relapsed into hereditary leadership. In principle, this is unIslamic - having kings or sultans etc. But, well, there are monarchies here and there and some claiming descendant to the Prophet through his daughter Fatimah. As long as they are Constitutional monarchies, with elected Parliament, fine, but the monarchies as we find in some Middle Eastern countries is not condusive.

Let us go to my country of origin. There were lots of Sultans, all of whom were not recognised of any special posts or role in the state when Indonesia's attained its independence. But, since its indepedence in 1949 and up till 1999, there was only two presidents - Sukarno and Suharto.

Sukarno, the charismatic mess, during his erratic regime, also led to the mass killings of at least half a million people due to purging of "communists". This led to the rise of Suharto and his "guided" democracy with an iron fist, detaining those who opposed his regime (which included many intellectuals, journalists etc charged wrongly and falsely as during the McCarthy era), muffling the media etc, for the sake of stability and unity of Indonesia.

In spite of that, and in opposition to his regime, we saw the rise of not only Muslim organisations like Muhammadiya, but also Jemaah Islamiyah. The former socially productive and constructive, the latter a murderous terrorist group with delusions of forging a pan South East Asian Muslim theocratic state.

Only with the fall of Suharto following the excess and corruption of his family and mismanagement of the Asian economic crisis of 1997, did Indonesia finally goes through a very painful "cleansing" of government.

Elections were held, Muslim affiliated parties allowed to stand for elections, the Jemaah Islamiyah leaders and members hunted and defanged. In the current atmosphere of free speech and free press, Muslim fanatics has had to compete with others in the marketplace of ideas and Muslim fundamentalists or moderates if you like, seems to prevail for the majority.

Given a choice, most Indonesian Muslims chose what the west would call mainstream or moderate Muslim interpretion on Islam. The more fanatical Muslims has had to temper and tone their versions of Islam in the public debate. That seem to have relieved the west more than Indonesians themselves as it was the Islam they knew and practiced right up to the sixties and seventies before the Suharto regimes' exccess took its toll and radicalised Indonesian Muslims into concerted opposition against his regime.

But, with increased evangelical activities by some aggresive church groups headquartered in the US, I am not sure there will not be more flare-ups between Muslims and Christians there. It is widely known that US evangelical groups see Indonesia as ripe and is targetted for their missionary work in this century.

And Parker, as for leadership succession model for Islam to follow, surely you are not looking at other non-Muslim developing countries in Latin America,Africa and Asia? It was the flirtations with communism or socialism for non-Muslim states, Islam for Muslim states, or dogmatic secularism hostile to religious expressions.

Coups, I suppose, are more acceptable if by non-Muslim Latin Americans, Africans and Asians? Repressive regimes in Latin America, Africa and Asia are more acceptable if they are non-Muslims?
Mass killings by non-Muslim Latin Americans, Africans and Asians are more acceptable and has not basis in religion or becuase we think religion has nothing to do with it?

As you know, among Muslim countries, Turkey is a rather rigid secular state where the state banned even headscharves from being worn by public servants and in universities. We will not go into the essentially class warfare between the old elites and "upstarts" there who are confident and comfortable of their faith and wants the state not to dictate what they should or should not express in matters of faith that they consider personal rights of personal expresssion.

Indonesia under Suharto, not only has a "guided" democracy, but also "guided" belief - believe what you want as Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, animists, but you must believe in God as stated in the Pancasila. Indonesians are right in saying the state should not dictate even on what to believe, for their are polytheist Hindus and animists and atheists in Indonesia.

And Parker, what we are seeing are Muslims asserting themselves in ways either reprehensible or peaceful against their own repressive governments and increasingly out of touch ulema. Not all ulema mind you, for many are more in tune with the rage of their people. Every country has had to go through its own civil wars to decide what it wants to be. Freedom cost, but is worth the price for future generations.

I do believe Americans in the 1850s right up to and after the American Civil War would understand the passion and the anger of fighting for what one believe in, for what one consider one's rights, or the rights of all men not to live under oppression as lesser men - as all are equal under the law and under God.

Repressive Muslim governments and the elites supporting them are like the Southern American "aristocrats" - plantation owners. The Muslim masses are regarded with the same patronising disdain and paternalistic psuedo-concern and care. And they raped and pillaged their own lands for themselves on the blood, sweat and tears of their own people.

Thank you and regards

"J"

I do agree with what Susan Jacoby has written. I have read the Koran a couple of times, and I'm reading it again.

As long as it calls Jews and Christians apes and swine, there is an impediment to friendship.

As long as the Koran advocates killing all heretics, there is an impediment to peace.

As long as ersatz Christians call others the equivalent to apes and swine and likewise advocates killing heretics, there is an impediment to hope.

Jesus and his disciples were denied entry to a small village. The disciples asked Jesus whether or not they should command fire to come down from heaven and consume the villagers.

Jesus said, "You know not what Spirit you are of. The Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

Rehash number 1023: Jesus never killed anyone, neither did he advocated killing anyone, nor did he sanction killing anyone. He laid down is life rather than kill and commanded his disciples to follow his example. For about the first three centuries, they did just that, and countless thousands died, especially in Roman amphitheaters, where they were devoured by wild beasts, slaughtered by gladiators, crucified, burned at the stake, etc. If you don't read, go rent the old movie QUO VADIS starring Robert Taylor.

Anyone who kills for any reason is ipso facto not a Christian, no matter what they claim to be. Persons who engage in wars and murders while masquerading as Christians put Christ to an open shame. "Terror shall chase them into the darkness and the smoke of their torment shall rise up forever and ever."

Relax, sports fans, the lake of fire is not reserved for sinners like you and me, as so many fundamentalists preach. Rather, it is specifically for those wicked persons who know full well that they oppose themselves to God and make a mockery him. Speaking for myself, I hope Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and others of their ilk join the damned.

The Moderate,

When France owned New Orleans, there was slavery...but with the secular Napoleonic Code they had the right to buy their own freedom, families were not to be sold away from each other, they had the right to one day off and could grow their own food and make a profit if they sold part of it. They could own businesses, marry, follow their own religion, language and be educated. They could not be mistreated.

Then America bought Louisiana...the Christians that used the whip, fathered children on the black women, used slaves in breeding for other slaves...they took away all the rights that the Napoleon Code guarenteed.

Congo Square, that used to have the dancing and drums of the slaves on their day off, fell silent.The cries of the blave venders that sold their own fruit and vegtables disappeared. They were forced to convert, to not speak in their own language, beaten if caught being taught or seen to follow their own religion...this was done with the bible in one hand and a foot on the back of a black man.

Just because Christians were among the ones that fought to end slavery, does not mean that there were not others willing to die to keep black men enslaved.

Paganplace,
Though I hate to disagree with you, I must.
There are medical reasons why a male should be circumsized. My x was born at home and not circumsized...he had to be at the age of 43. That was more tramatizing then as a new born, I can guarentee.

The circumcized boy has less infections and problems as adults and no deaths, the uncircumsized boys had many more infections and deaths.

My son was circumcized, I heard his cry and I hated that he was being hurt, but I knew that it might very well save him worse later.

Blessings,
terra

"The best and brightest of Afghanistan have long migrated to other places."

Or they are resting in the Afghan dirt:

Katie Couric's Notebook: Afghan Journalist (CBS News)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrfDbPsfkWc

Jihadist likes to take the truth, wrap it in a nice package, and place it to the side.

Terry,
You said "there is no democracy in theocracy". While I don't advocate a "theocracy" (nor do I think the Supreme Being would, as the U.S. Constitution plus the two-party system are serving the purposes of at least maintaining a modicum of freedom and the balance of powers necessary for humans to co-exist freely), I think you are wrong to suggest that a true "theocracy" wouldn't provide "democracy" if the word is intended to mean "government by the people." I think that is exactly what the Supreme Being intended for this earth, including free speech and all the other Bill of Rights freedoms. So your definition of "theocracy" is not the only definition that can exist.

Excellent article Susan. Wherever religion rules we can expect a completely authoritarian guide to human behavior and with the usual zealous & overweighted application of sanctions for any perceived infraction thereof. There are no individual freedoms where religion predominates without secular authority, and there is no democracy in theoracy.

You were right in saying that civil law under the purview of the Vatican would hardly be better, had they not be divested of that authority (and certainly no sancuary for the religiously oppressed). The pope is a monarch, pure and simple.....the present one a regular medieval king.

Will the Abrahamic faiths ever depart from the Middle Ages and their tyrannical & byzantine rulers? I have yet to hear the Islamic Imams and clerics voice their absolute and universal disgust with the fundamentalist & absolutist interpretations of the Quran that lend support to the typically extreme and reactionary behavior mentioned in this article. It's safe to say that more than a few Muslim clerics find such a strict imposition of punishment altogether satisfactory.

Elsewhere in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) we have the honor killings of women and the traditional & tribally sanctioned genital mutilations of young girls, spoken of euphamistically as 'female circumcision' - hardly! A barbaric and abominable practice if there ever was one.

I thought we had the 'circumcision' issue thrashed out on Claire Hoffman's thread with 'The Circumcision Battles' but apparently the battle still rages.

As other posters have pointed out, male circumcision merely clips a tad bit of foreskin with no lasting damage (and possibly very considerable benefit) while the female version is the permanent and irreversible (sexual) mutilation of young girls for reasons of power and local tribal politics - and to enforce fidelity, since women are a negotiable product in these cultures.

Oddly enough, certain ladies are dead set against male circumcision, while previously circumcised (male) posters seem perfectly happy with their lot in life. Go figure! I recommend Claire Hoffman's thread for a lot more detal........

I enjoyed reading Susan's essay and Jihadist's comment above. I think Jihadist raised some significant points that many of us overlook in our characterizations of Islam. I also object to the "broad brush" approach of characterizing "Christianity" by looking at what happened in the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, and some of the Protestant Reformation whenever religious oppression occurred under any guise. Acts of oppression under those circumstances were carried out by people without enlightenment, without inspiration, without enlightened leadership.

What I don't undertand about someone like Jihadist is how someone as well read can come to terms with the vaccuum of leadership, including leadership succession, that happened and continues to happen within the Islamic cultural traditions. (Similar problem happened with the rise of dominant Catholicism, but with a different result--at least they have "come around" as Susan implies, through influences outside of their own body politic.)

How hard was it to have figured out that there were going to be the very problems we are seeing due to no leadership succession model for Islam to follow? To Jihadist, I would say, take a hard look at the "inspiration" that created such a vaccuum and thus fostered such a culture that can produce suicide terrorism, oppressive local leadership, and in-fighting among factions the likes of which we only begin to see.

Jihadist, thanks for a thorough reply. I don't know your life-business but have the sense that you might have traveled there, or have a specific take on the situation.

I expect you're correct with regard to how little is known about the college student among common Afghan people. It would be news in the West, to follow other atrocities that grab our attention recently.

But I would suggest that these are very important issues among atheists (personally I don't know whether or not there is a god--I like the term "freethinker") and I do think the definitions of terms are important for us to understand, as you suggest in your post. After all, comprehensible communication is the tool for peace.

You wrote: "The statistics on Muslim majority countries in the world showed that Muslims are among the poorest, most illiterate and without access to decent health and education. Muslim goverments and governance are corrupt, incompetent and self-serving. Afghanistan is among the poorest."

I think I remember reading that the average adult male lifespan there was 45 years or so, when the US invaded to fight against the Taliban.

Without access to education, fair elections, basic needs, and with a greater world peering at them through a microscope, how do we work to change the ideas of the "fanatics?"

Oiga Oiga O' Dulce Dulce AMERiCA, U.S.A. es UNO!

POR FAVOR:

VOTO:

(((( Paz Calor Amor Danza Charla MiTT (con) Senoir Y Senoira ROMNEY para Presidenta/o 2009. ))))))))

Voto "Si"

The Obfuscating Jihadist makes some good points but again fails to address the basic issue, i.e. the flaws in the founder and foundations of Islam. Because she herself is still basically a Islamic fundamentalist, she still retains the following beliefs:

1. Believes in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teaches her children that such things really exist.

2. Believes that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the good words now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed.

Hello Jeff P,

What do you want me to say about Afghans and Afghanistan? I just wish an Afghan, any Afghan, would comment here on what happened there.

Afghans are same people who fought and died to bleed communist and repressive Soviet Union and led to its dismemberment back to Russia. Afghans (Taliban) are also the fellows who blasted the Buddha Bamiya statues.

Afghans (Taliban) are also the fellows who purged heroin cultivation there, treated Osama as a "guest" in their "house" and so, no harm to come to their guest, leading to their "house" being wrecked in the hunt for that Database rat that is still loose till today.

Having been to Afghanistan only once in my life and before 2000, I can't say I want to judge that political, economic, social, ethnic and religious mess of a country and people whose life are wrecked and worsened by armed conflicts from the the Soviet invasion till today.

The best and brightest of Afghanistan have long migrated to other places. They have the skills and the means to do so. What is left are mostly those of lesser means and educated in madrassas, including those of the Deobandi school of Salafist/Wahabbi interpretation of Islam - the alma mater of many original Taliban leaders and supporters.

As per Ms. Susan Jacoby's essay, this is not a wrong question at all. One that is increasingly pertinent to be asked of governments of Muslim states and the Muslim ulema. Both really don't ask themselves. Both don't usually tolerate being questioned by their people.

As Ms. Jacoby rightly stated, Muslims around the world, depending on their interpretations of the Qur'an, have different views on faith in the private and public life and in governance. The applications of Shariah is for Muslims to sort out.

As Ms. Jacoby also rightly stated, a better question would be whether the exercise of civil legal power by religious leaders is antithetical to free expression.

However, the question should also consider whether secular leaders should invoke religion as and when it suits them in repressing freedom of expression and free speech among their populace.

By religious leaders, I mean those of the clergy of organised religion with headquarters and hierachies and faith-based organisations led by lay believers without proper clerical/ulema training but a passion for their own versions and visions on faith.

These religious-affiliated or based organisations are the ones actively interested in political and social issues. They include groups from the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East to the Muhammadiya in Indonesia. Their people power and people appeal cannot be under-estimated and even supplanted that of the ulema in some instances.

It is not a case of the insecurities of Muslims but of their governments and ulema. Both have a lot to answer for in projecting their failures and fears on others and their own people - the governments on governance, the ulema on faith.

In many ways, oppression by governments are worst. Muslim fanatics are as powerful as their governments and the ulema let them to be in cowering to and being dictated by their demands, or to cause their rise by their failures in governance and state policies.

The voices and actions of the Muslim fanatics are the loudest and most prominent. Sometimes amplipied by their repressive governments to distract and further curtail free speech by their own people against their own regimes.

The simple fact is, Muslims are increasingly ahead of both their governments and ulema in Muslim states. Oppressive states use "resurgent" Muslim "fundamentalism" as an excuse to impose repressive measures on their people and to curtail free assembly and free speech.

Some Muslim goverments use the threat of non-Muslims or "enemies" of Islam to repress free speech among their people. Some simply use Islam as a tool to check legitimate criticisms against their corrupt and hopeless regimes/governance.

The statistics on Muslim majority countries in the world showed that Muslims are among the poorest, most illiterate and without access to decent health and education. Muslim goverments and governance are corrupt, incompetent and self-serving. Afghanistan is among the poorest.

Where Muslim governments do not build up credible democratic institutions, do not allow for fair and free elections, do not allow for free speech, set new low levels of incompetency, Muslims turn to other possibilities and options, including relying on the Shariah law as an alternative. Odd it may seem, in basket case Muslim states, the Shariah is more reliable than civil laws and courts.

Most Afghans are not seized by the fate of a boy. They don't know about it, or as well as the west/world. They are too busy trying to avoid being maimed or killed, trying not to end up in refugee camps, trying to get home, trying to eke out a living without the threats of bombs, bullets and landmines; without the bombast, stupidity and selfishness of their politicians and ulema.

Ms. Jacoby suggesting that Muslim "fundamentalists" read about Christian theocracy in the West and draw appropriate conclusions is a bit difficult to achieve.

Books on western history, thought, philosophy etc. are not widely and easily available in Afghanistan or most Muslim countries. The books available are mostly on their own people, country, issues, and faith. Muslims also generally don't have much interest to learn or know of on Christianity and its history.

Just as most Muslims are disinterested in Christianity, they have no interest in western thought. Unless they learn it in universities as part of European studies or western thought or western civilisation.

By the way, some Muslims call themselves fundamentalists as they are into the fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the Five Pillars and the core principles of social equity, justness, community peace and individual spirituality.

What the west and Ms. Jacoby call "fundamentalists" I believe is originally applied to a particular group of Christians with a specific reading of the Bible. Muslims do call the extremists, literalists, dogmatists and didactic ones among us "fanatics". The most extreme "fanatics" being terrorists.

Not that it matters to atheists who say what believers say and do neither interest nor apply to them.:)

Thank you and best regards

"J"

Moderate

I think you are nit-picking Susan without really commenting on what she said.

If Christians were responsible for the abolition of slavery, they certainly took their time getting around to it, don't you think? The point is, that intolerant religion is the opposite of freedom. The founding fathers were tolerant and had their tolerance codified into our Constitution. If they had been condervative Christians, as is often falsely claimed, it would have been impossible for them to acknowledge the fundmental rights of people to believe as they do, and therefore, to believe differently from each other.

President Abraham Lincoln was the primary mover in the final dissolution of slavery, and he did so as the secular President of the United States, not as the leader of a church, and also, I would hardly call him a Fundamentalis Christian.

"A little judgmental are we?"

No. I think there is a point to be made.

There is no female circumcision.

There is female sexual castration.

There is no correlation between female sexual castration and male circumcision.

If little boys around the world were being castrated- paganplace would have something to argue..

Dear Arminius:

"You are dead damn wrong. Circumcision may pain the child, but no more than birth and the cutting of the umbilical chord. I am circumcised. I hugely enjoy sex, and have two children. WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU COMING FROM? This is most unlike you."

1. I also am circumcised, and have no memory of getting that way. I will also assure Pagan Place that this does not preclude a healthy enjoyment of the opposite sex, in contrast to the abomination of a procedure called "female circumcision".

2. "WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU COMING FROM?" A little judgmental are we? Lighten up, dude.

Dear Susan:

Your sense of history consistently comes up wanting.

"Governments based on secular law have stopped trying behead people for religious reasons, just as they have (for the most part) stopped trying to justify slavery."

Actually history records that the secular governments worldwide saw slavery to be a necessity before the age of steam and internal combustion engines made the institution economically obsolete. Even then they were slow to let it go.

The Society of Friends who stopped slave trading among Friends during the 1760s and later began to expel slaveholders. This lead to the foundation of the first antislavery society in Britain: the London Committee to Abolish the Slave Trade, in 1783. In 1787 the Friends were joined by the Evangelical Christians and established the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade.

William Wilberforce, an Evangelical member of the British Parliament, and Thomas Clarkson, a Quaker organized opposition over the objections of English merchants. Finally in 1807 Parliament abolished the trade on British ships and created a naval squadron to patrol the West African coast, thereby making the slave trade more difficult for other nations. The Evangelical MP, Mr. William Wilberforce, was a major hero in the abolitionism movement in Britain over his distinguished career.

In North America, the Quakers also played a key role. The Second Great Awakening reforms, including women’s rights, temperance, educational improvements, humane treatment for the mentally ill, and the abolition of slavery gave new support. The Civil War allowed many more slaves to escape to freedom, and even fight in the Union Army, even if only as second class citizens.

The above is a synopsis from an article by: Stanley Harrold, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. Professor of History, South Carolina State University. Author of The Abolitionists and the South, 1831-1861,Gamaliel Bailey and Antislavery Union, and other books. Anyone who is interested can find it at http://encarta.msn.com.

BTW, the last great wave of slave holding in the twentieth century was perpetrated by secular governments. So the relationship between liberty and separation of church and state as we enjoy it seems peculiar to western liberal democracies. Sadly even they are far from perfect.

At least this week you did not call someone no more misguided and extreme than yourself an "ignoramus". Keep up the good work on that front.

Jihadist, I'd be curious on your take of all this.

Hi, E Fav, you said

"What's this "EVEN THOUGH I am a Christian" business? Are you implying that it's out of character in some way for a Christian to stand with a non-christian against a common oppresor???"

And right you are to criticize. I should have said "I am a Christian, and I am proud to stand with you..".

Thanks, dude, for reminding me.

Arminius

Paganplace,

You are dead damn wrong. Circumcision may pain the child, but no more than birth and the cutting of the umbilical chord. I am circumcised. I hugely enjoy sex, and have two children. WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU COMING FROM? This is most unlike you.

Arminius

Arminius: "Even though I am Christian, we both stand together against those who would oppress us in the name of either religion or some political belief."

What's this "EVEN THOUGH I am a Christian" business? Are you implying that it's out of character in some way for a Christian to stand with a non-christian against a common oppresor???

"The Sins of Islam"

The sins of the koran and Islam go with you no matter where you go.

As a reminder:

Islam is not perfect and the koran inherently condones sin as shown 24/7 in the 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites. Their actions give significant credence that greed, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed.

Oh, in that sense I'm not making an *equivalency,* save that I think it's still a barbarity of sorts, what's done right here in America in the name of medical sterility: I think... (As Pagan clergy you hear about things not often voiced) tha the male circumcision we consider all sterile and modern, actually traumatizes males at a young age, and statistics don't make up for the fact that this more minor mutilation actually would be quite unnecessary if people weren't ashamed of biology in the first place.

I think it's a similar sentiment, similar problem, similar damage, just on a different order of magnitude.... and, I think the solution lies in the same place... Stop demonizing the human body, and teach the proper care and use of it, instead of trying to control it or make the sexual parts go away, by one means or another.

It's all about traumatic procedures to subordinate human sexuality to certain power sources.

And I think that hurts people. Certainly, the West is a nation with a lot of men walking around with genitalia issues, and guess who gets it when *that* comes out sideways.

Women.

Kids.

Minorities.

Don't get me wrong, it's *all* just wrong. But pointing out atrocities doesn't mean the West knows all there is to know about 'private bits.'

Mightiest nation in the world and all the men are all messed up about sex and religion. Accident? Cause? Effect? I dunno. But from what I've heard, maybe worth looking at.

"Certainly 'female circumcision' is a euphemism for 'female genital mutilation'"

PaganPlace, I must agree with Arminius. FGM cannot be equated with male circumcision.

Female circumcision IS a euphemism for FGM.

And FGM is Female Sexual Castration (FSC).

Paganplace, again,

You are bulls-eye on the holocaust. Good for you.

Arminius

Paganplace,

For the record, I stand steadfast that female genital mutilation is a crime, an abomination.

As for male circumcision. What the hell is your point? I am circumcised. I still, at age 64, scream at climax. Medical records list me as less likely to get AIDS, which is not a concern with me. I simply do not understand your argument here.

Arminius

" agreed:

"I agree with u but when anything comes about holocaust comes in the western world why do westerners dont tolerate anything offensive about it if anyone denies holocaust does not mean he is blasphemous."

Cause it happened, and people who try to deny it are right-wing ideologues who find the deaths of ten million people which they were clamoring for, (Not just Jews, but also gays, Gypsies, and political dissenters) ...who they still don't like inconvenient to their attempts to repeat that scar on the world's conscience as if it were fresh and virtuous, somehow.

Just like if you traumatize people's sexuality and sexual organs in order to try and generate submission to religious or quasi-religious authority, someone immediately-profits and the world gets to live with the memory.

Even if they live in denial.

The holocaust happened. It's not in dispute. I've seen the damn negatives. Heard from living memory.

Those who would erase that memory and try doing it again are the only ones who'd have any incentive to fabricate.

Just like those who tell people what they want to hear about the age of the planet to justify another go-round, ...it's not just offensive to the memory of those who really died, and those who survived them, ...it's offensive to the truth, real and entire.

Further, people who want to insist it didn't happen are usually the ones gearing up to try and do it again.

And that can't stand.

"I am sickened by phony multiculturalism, which, in the name of religious "tolerance," says that we ought not to criticize cultures or countries into which nearly every girl is born only to have her clitoris cut (Indonesia and parts of Africa) and where a young journalist can be sentenced to death for mockery of a man-made (and I do emphasize the word man religious law."

Well, on the latter, I think that certain religions that like to throw accusations of 'idolatry' around have a way of treating the books that *say* so like idols: things someone made and were treated as Gods, themselves, while of course claiming the right to horribly-execute those who remember what a statue is for...

Certainly 'female circumcision' is a euphemism for 'female genital mutilation,' ...yet in America we still cling to a very Victorian 'scientific' rationale for near-universal male circumcision, namely that men are dominated by penises, yet shouldn't have to look at or clean them.... And thus someone takes a knife to their precious little bits at young ages, and if that doesn't have something to do with the general insecure crotch-clutching of the American male, Gods know what does.

It's familiar, so it gets glossed over, but in an age when people think the mere presence of a queer person in ten square miles somehow threatens straight marriage, how exactly is cutting up baby penises 'safe and harmless?'

I tend to suspect it's not.

That's just a resident Pagan saying, 'The both of youse is off your gourds about people's bits.'

Obviously, female genital mutilation is awful, ..profoundly offensive to human rights, I'd say, but we take the male version in stride, here, and, not being a boy, I think less denial of 'You have a peepee,' and more 'You maybe ought to keep this clean' would be healthy.

Cause to my experience, it's something that really hurts men who've been subjected to it, even if they don't say why.

People tend to blame a lot of the absurd Victorian puritanical ideas and on Christianity, (and certainly Christianity raised no complaint,) but actually it had to do with people trying to apply new rationales and technologies to the very same old prejudices and ingrown instincts... in order to justify and 'scientifically support' some of the very same hangups and inversions of nature as you find when people try to 'modify' women into some book's pious ideal elsewhere.

It's not about the religion.

Muslims say, 'There is no compulsion in religion. '

I say there's no religion in compulsion.

And maybe that's what we all ought to be looking to.

I agree with u but when anything comes about holocaust comes in the western world why do westerners dont tolerate anything offensive about it if anyone denies holocaust does not mean he is blasphemous.

I agree with u but when anything comes about holocaustcomes in the western world why do westerners dont tolerate anything offensive about it if anyone denies holocaust does not mean he is blasphemous.

"It's The Theocrats, Stupid"

I'm inclined to say you know how to understate the case real good. However, there's an awful lot of money involved for those enforcing God's laws. Stupid for all concerned maybe. The followers for sure but the big money still goes to those leading the multitudes to hell. I see the really stupid ones get a head start on their way to hell.

As fire breeds fire outrage must breed itself. Those who profit form the prophet might be well advised to hold the outrage down a little. Maybe something is chasing them and that's a desperation move?

Susan,

Well done, you have delivered a stunning broadside. And I am ready to help reload the cannons for the next one. Even though I am Christian, we both stand together against those who would oppress us in the name of either religion or some political belief.

Anyone who tries to rewrite our Constitution, to pervert it in the name of some totalitarian view of religion, will do so over my dead body.

Arminius
Claymore at the ready

This situation only reinforces the following call:

"NO ONE IS SAFE UNTIL THE KORAN IS "DEFLAWED"!!!!!!!!!!!!

Death to America! Death! Death! Death!

We have the First Amendment. We have our own fundamentalist...but we have laws that keep them in check.

Islam used to be the most tolerant, tolerant toward Christians and Jews...check with history. But the Fundies took over...just like the fundies would love to take over here.

There was a large Christian community in Iraq. They could worship as they pleased with no one to stop them...Saddam might have been a tyrant, but he was also secular and afraid of fundamentalists.
Now they are having to leave their homes...Secularism even in Iraq ensured the freedom of religion.

Now look at what is happening in Iraq...Sunnis against Shia...and the secular folks? Caught in the middle being killed in pet shops and in their homes or on their way to work.

The difference between them and us? we have the Constitution that allows me to worship my Gods...and Susan the right to worship none...and all the many paths inbetween.

For those who want to rewrite the constitution to align more with the "word of god"...beware of what you ask for.

terra

In America, there is a fad to run down what is called "secular humanism" and to regard "secularism" in a bad light. But almost everyone in America is secular, even Fundamentalist Christians, and almost everyone lives secular lives. People live and enjoy the secular aspects of their lives, take it all for granted, and don't even realize it. The secular aspect of society has become become a part of the landscape of everyday life, so that people do not even realize it anymore, but just assume that his how people live.

Even Fundamentlist Christians would not opt for a theocracy, if it were really about to happen, because, as you will recall, the religious wars of Europe were not waged between the religious and the non-religous but between the Catholics and the Protestants; both sides were religious. And for the most part, the heretics and apostates who were persecuted and burned at the stake, were not atheists, but people who modified the top-down belief system, some believing a little less, but others believing with a little too much ferver.

Christianity and Islam are mirrors of each other. What has happend to Christianity will also happen to Islam, but probably alot faster,since things seem to happen faster these days. Islamic parts of the world will be dragged kicking and screaming into their own "Enlightenment" and then pushed beyond. But no individual person will cause this to happen. And not even an army of mad suicide bombers can stop it from happening.

Islam is part of the world, and, like all cultures and all relgions, will mutate and change as time passes, and as people, in general, realize, gradually, that they want more.

Amen to that.

Thanks for the clear writing and thinking, a rare commodity among the various muddle-headed apologists, ignorami, and professional proselytizers that write for this blog.