Hope Is Not A "Cult of Personality"

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/streaming-porno.html streaming porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/stop-pornography.html stop pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/eva-henger-porno.html eva henger porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/pornos-for-pyros.html pornos for pyros http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/pornoraphy.html pornoraphy http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/pornorama.html pornorama

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/el-autobus-porno.html el autobus porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/superporno.html superporno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/sublime-directory-porno.html sublime directory porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/dutch-porno.html dutch porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/dvd-porno.html dvd porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/dvd-pornografici.html dvd pornografici

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/teen-girl-porno.html teen girl porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/teacher-porno.html teacher porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/tattoo-porno.html tattoo porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/teen-porno-video.html teen porno video http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/teen-porno-galleries.html teen porno galleries http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/teen-porno.html teen porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/pregnant-porno.html pregnant porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/poze-porno-gratis.html poze porno gratis http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/barnpornografi.html barnpornografi

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/teenager-porno.html teenager porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/teenage-pornography.html teenage pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/teen-pornos.html teen pornos

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/dragonball-z-porno.html dragonball z porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/teenporno.html teenporno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/dragonballz-porno.html dragonballz porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/dragon-ball-z-porno.html dragon ball z porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/dragonball-porno.html dragonball porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/teens-porno.html teens porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/the-cure-pornography.html the cure pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/thai-porno.html thai porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/dominican-porno.html dominican porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/disney-pornography.html disney pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/the-new-pornographers.html the new pornographers http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/disneyporno.html disneyporno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/breaking-pornography-addiction.html breaking pornography addiction http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/brazilian-porno.html brazilian porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/brazil-porno.html brazil porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/toonporno.html toonporno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/toon-porno.html toon porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/tomb-raider-porno.html tomb raider porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/deep-throat-porno.html deep throat porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/top-porno.html top porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/toons-in-porno.html toons in porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/transvestite-porno.html transvestite porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/tranny-porno.html tranny porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/traci-lords-porno.html traci lords porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/turkish-porno.html turkish porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/turk-porno.html turk porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/czech-porno.html czech porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/video-porno-gratis.html video porno gratis http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/video-porno.html video porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/video-clip-porno.html video clip porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/video-pornographique-gratuite.html video pornographique gratuite http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/video-pornographique.html video pornographique http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/video-pornographie.html video pornographie

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videopornogratis.html videopornogratis http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videoporno.html videoporno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/video-pornos.html video pornos

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/futurama-porno.html futurama porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/schoolgirl-porno.html schoolgirl porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/gadis-porno.html gadis porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videos-porno-gratis.html videos porno gratis http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videos-porno.html videos porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videos-de-porno.html videos de porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videos-pornos.html videos pornos http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videos-pornograficos.html videos pornograficos http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videos-porno-largos.html videos porno largos

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/violent-pornography.html violent pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videosporno.html videosporno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videos-pornos-gratis.html videos pornos gratis

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cine-porno.html cine porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/classic-porno.html classic porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/classic-porno-movies.html classic porno movies

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/chinese-pornography.html chinese pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/christian-pornography.html christian pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/webcam-porno-gratis.html webcam porno gratis

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/free-porno-movies.html free porno movies http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/free-porno-pics.html free porno pics http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/free-porno-pictures.html free porno pictures

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/chicas-porno.html chicas porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/children-porno.html children porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/chinese-porno.html chinese porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/wild-porno.html wild porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/wife-porno.html wife porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cheerleader-porno.html cheerleader porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/chats-porno.html chats porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cheap-porno-dvd.html cheap porno dvd http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cheap-porno-dvds.html cheap porno dvds

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/celeste-porno.html celeste porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/censorship-of-pornography.html censorship of pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/women-porno.html women porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/celeb-porno.html celeb porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/celebrity-porno.html celebrity porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/celebrity-pornography.html celebrity pornography

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/www-pornos.html www pornos http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/www-porno-it.html www porno it http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/www-porno.html www porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cartoonporno.html cartoonporno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cartoons-porno.html cartoons porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/x-porno.html x porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cartoni-porno.html cartoni porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cartoon-porno.html cartoon porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cartoon-porno-clips.html cartoon porno clips

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/young-porno.html young porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/young-girls-porno.html young girls porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cartoni-animati-porno.html cartoni animati porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/index.html zeichentrickporno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/youngporno.html youngporno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/young-teen-porno.html young teen porno

http://yomayorrrkudapo.md http://yomayorrrkudapo.md

"I think it is true that many young people have a visceral emotional response to the promise of hope and change that Obama seems to embody, but that is a far cry from religious worship."
------------------------------------------------------------
No, it isn't. That "visceral emotional response" is definitely religious.

I'm curious just exactly what you think of as "religious".

Susan, two comments:

“The idea that there is some sort of natural antipathy between thought and action is a powerful one in the history of American anti-intellectualism. . . .”

I believe GWB is good evidence of the existing intellectual position that competent people do not have to think. Anybody who thinks is obviously trying too hard, which shows they are not competent. GWB takes this position not because he has thought it out, but because he is shrewd. He knows the people in his class take this position and he very much wants to be important to his class.

“He might even be--horrors!--an "elitist."”

Republicans do not have faults. Nor does any country they may be running. Critical thinking, to them, identifies their enemies. So people who are absolutely convinced of their deserved privileged status find critics unbearably “uppity,” i.e., “elitist.” This is the way Republicans think.

You may think I am hard on Republicans, but I would love to have them prove me wrong. Of course, they have weird criteria for proof. All they have to do is say something, and it is true.

After more than 2 decades of Bush’s and Clintons at the White House Americans are ready for something new. Obama is in the right place at the right time that is hard for Clinton to overcome.
What was that flap early on about Obama refusing the Pledge of Allegiance or something, did he explain himself there?

Candy wrote:

"It is no doubt that Obama has not substance to his speeches and yet, he has a following that seemes magical at best. His cousin in Kenya had the same following and when he did not win the election, his followers took to the street and killed many people. I can almost see the same thing happening here in America and this would not be pretty."

I think it is disgraceful that any American would imagine that our fellow citizens might go on a rampage and kill people over the outcome of an election. That hasn't happened often since 1860.

Perhaps if Obama were an extremist candidate from a party that advocates violence, one might fear that, but he is an all-American, peaceful, mainstream candidate who attracts idealistic and well-educated voters. His supporters are the last people on earth who would riot or kill.

Candy lacks the kind of civic faith in Democracy I described above -- the sense that you can trust other Americans as a group to do what is best. This faith may be somewhat unwarranted, because after all, Americans started the Civil War and have made many mistakes. But still, it is deeply disturbing to me that anyone has such little faith in our Constitution and our citizens that she imagines they will resort to bloodshed and mayhem so easily, and also -- as Obama himself rightly said -- that they can be easily "duped" by him. Do you really believe that millions of well-educated, well informed voters have been turned into Zombies incapable of rational analysis?

You may have noticed that Obama does not resemble George Wallace at his worst. His speeches are NOT appeals to irrational hate, mayhem or racial or religious intolerance -- or anything else that might incite violence. On the contrary, they sound like lectures given by a talented professor in Constitutional Law and someone you might pick to edit the Harvard Law Review -- because that is exactly what Obama is! He is a member of the Ivy League tribe, along with FDR and JFK. He does not pretend to be anything else. He is refreshing because he does not hide his roots, or pretend to be an awe-shucks "down-home" folksy guy, or pretend that he likes to shoot animals, or any of the other sickening stereotypes that so many American politicians embrace.

If you read most response in this forum, you will see that majority are for Obama and against Senator Clinton. Again, they are taken in the magical voodoo air. This is the same spirit or illution that sent many to Guiyana with Jim Jones and they all died for what they believed to be the truth.

I feel sorry for the majority in America today because they have no idea what is coming their way. Sen. Clinton is realistic, she knows what she is talking about and has solid solution to the problems facing America today.

However, I do realize that Obama supporters will not listen and change, but we will all reap the down side of this blind following.

"It is a not-so-subtle attempt to imply that Obama enthusiasts are somehow taken in by a mindless worship of their candidate. I think it is true that many young people have a visceral emotional response to the promise of hope and change that Obama seems to embody, but that is a far cry from religious worship".

It is no doubt that Obama has not substance to his speeches and yet, he has a following that seemes magical at best. His cousin in Kenya had the same following and when he did not win the election, his followers took to the street and killed many people. I can almost see the same thing happening here in America and this would not be pretty. Voodoo is hypnotising the those that are caught in it cannot control their actions and support. If you pay attention to the media, they are taken up. Everything that Sen. Clinton says is twisted and made to reflect negativity, but Obama is the saint.

Obama has the media and the mass in his hand, and it is not for the good. Just wait until November if this mania is not snubbed.

Wiccan: Greetings and Merry Meet!

No, I am not of the Ásatrúar. I am agnostic, though I do find myself interested in a variety of religious expressions. 'Thor's Child' fits me in a variety of ways, from general Norse ancestry, to multiple specific ancestors whose names began with Thor, or Tor, to early comic book reading, and a more recent interest in the Eddas.

The trouble with the word 'faith' is that in addition to 'confidence,' it has come to mean something people can own, people cannot change, and that people must defend. Those who question that faith are perceived as attackers, regardless of their actual intent.

CCNL, I suspect the reason you have had no responses is that religious folks have no interest in engaging with someone who pretty obviously will just attack their faith. Honestly, if you saw a poster who obviously would just attack your position, by repeating that you are damned, will not be saved, go to hell, etc. etc. (Canyon comes to mind) would you think twice before engaging in conversation with them? If you've been trying to get a response with no takers for over a year, perhaps it is time for a different tactic. (It would also spare the rest of us from extra scrolling.)

P.S. Dad keeps all his hammers in the shed out back... now you just have to find the shed to get Mjolnir for your smiting binge. Remember, berserker rages tend to leave one very tired after, so plan a vacation day for recovery ahead of time. ;)

In my above post in the end I was bit sarcastic with the usual Devils.

The above mentioned links also address the topic under discussion.

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web sites:

ALL MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE MEANINGS ARE ANSWERED:

1-www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm (on this site you will get all answers about Islam, CHRISTIANITY, JESUS, JUDAISM , ETHEISIM, HINDUISM and all other religions).
2-www.islamalways.com/
3-www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
4-www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
5-www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp
6-www.justaskislam.com/index.php (on this site you will get answer of every question you have and asked, with in a day or by next day - IT’S A CHALLENGE !!!)

Antitoxin from yellow slimy diseased filthy homo brains…CCNL…severe USA BUSHY madness…etc.

I don't have faith, I have the experience of living this life that I base my judgements on.

Vote Nader

http://www.naderexplore08.org/?gclid=CIXVsr-v2pECFQEelgod6UtHeg

Politicians… Its never quite as good or so bad as they make it out to be. Once elected, those sincere campaign promises run head-on into reality and … then we do it all over again.

"How is faith in religion different from hope in politics?

Faith in religion … No, its faith in God.

Hope in politics … I don’t just vote for a candidate, I cast my hope on them.

Christian hope … Is Reality not yet Realized.

Where's Mjolnir when you need it? :-)

"Nearly all religions have died. Ancient Greek, Aztec, Roman and Norse religions are dead -- not a single person believes in them."

Well, I can't speak for the Aztecs, but I know plenty of Norse Reconstructionists, as well as some Greek and Roman ones.

Somebody needs a smiting... ;)

S C Cromett and Me, Me, Me,

The flaws in Christianity are repeated for two reasons 1) to thump them like the bible has been thumped for the last 2000 years. So complain 1999 years from now.

2) Not one Christian has countered these basic flaws after almost a year of repetition. Since this validates these flaws, why is any Christian, i.e Obama, still a Christian?????????

And yes there are analogous flaws for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism so why "pray tell" don't these followers wise up and join the realm of reality??????

Faith and Hope. Two words with similar meaning but different level of certainty, as some examples in this thread have shown.

But words also change meaning depending of the context. Most people will understand when a religious person, talking about religion, says:

“Respect my faith”

“Faith saves”

“You do not have faith”

“If you do not have faith you will go to hell for the eternity”

In this context, “you do not have faith” clearly means you do not believe in my god and in the promises that god made to us through his books or other sort of revelations.

On the other hand, when a person says you do not have faith in my candidate, he or she does not imply that we doubt in the existence of his/her candidate, only that we do not believe in the promises of that candidate. Fortunately the political candidate has no power to send us to hell for the eternity, although he may put us to live in a hell for a while.

Best wishes to all.

JAC

Faith and Hope. Two words with similar meaning but different level of certainty, as some examples in this thread have shown.

But words also change meaning depending of the context where used. Most people will understand when a religious person, talking about religion, says:

“Respect my faith”

“Faith saves”

“You do not have faith”

“If you do not have faith you will go to hell for the eternity”

In this context, “you do not have faith” clearly means you do not believe in my god and in the promises that god made to us through his books or other sort of revelations.

On the other hand, when a person says you do not have faith in my candidate, he or she does not imply that we doubt in the existence of his/her candidate, only that we do not believe in the promises of that candidate. Fortunately the political candidate has no power to send us to hell for the eternity, although we may put us to live in a hell for a while.

Best wishes to all.

JAC

Whose talking about social security? And I like something more than your say so to that effect. By the way When SS came in we were in the midst of the great depression largely lengthened and made worse by the New Deal.

Terra of Our 3 trillion dollar budget 20% is military, 15% pork and the remainder is social programs of one sort or the other.

Susan Jacoby wrote:

"It just astonishes me that the difference between hope and faith is so difficult for many people on this thread to understand."

Well, I think the two sometimes blur together. I think most old-fashioned Americans such as me, for example, have a lot of "faith" in democracy. That is to say, we have an untested and perhaps unwarranted feeling that things will work out and that our fellow citizens are decent people who, as group, will make wise decisions. We feel this way despite past catastrophes such as the Civil War. We also have faith that during a crisis, strong capable leaders will emerge -- people like Lincoln and FDR. They did in the past, but that is no guarantee they will again.

That is a kind of faith, albeit one that is on firmer ground than religious faith.

A happily married husband will have faith that his wife is not cheating on him. That is "faith" in the sense that he has no proof she isn't, and she has opportunity; i.e. he doesn't have her under 24 hour camera surveillance. Faith is the assumption that things will go well even though there is no assurance or proof that they will, and even though there is a significant likelihood that they will go badly. Wives often do cheat, even in happy marriages, so it is somewhat irrational to be sanguine. But a well adjusted, sane husband allows himself to be irrationally sanguine.

All of us have a measure of irrational faith in various things such as automobiles, and we couldn't function without it. A perfectly sane person who understands risks and knows what happens in high speed collisions would not be able to drive on Atlanta's highways, where every day you see drivers eating, watching television or apply cosmetics while driving at 80 mph in a 55 mph zone. You have to be a little crazy to drive here! You must trust in other drivers including many who clearly do not deserve your trust.

- Jed

Jihadist writes:

.........and where is my favourite anti-theist atheist, Mr. Mark, on "hope" and "faith"?"

Mr Mark has recently started a new job and needs to limit his time on this blog to after-work hours. And, as Mr Mark is spending a lot of time driving to and fro and doesn't own a laptop and is away from his residence and his desktop computer, his time to visit any blog is pretty restricted.

You'll just have to play without me for the time being. :)

That said, my thoughts on hope and faith are...oops, gotta go!

Greetings, Thor's Child. Are you of the Ásatrúar?

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

Even though in many ways I agree with you, your repetition of the same points is enough to make ME want to turn religious just to spite you. And believe me, that takes some doing. You are not doing your own arguments any good at all, and that is very unfortunate for a topic as important as this.

Susan,
I find the confusion over the difference between faith and hope very, well, confusing. Faith is your confidence that something will happen and/or is true whatever the evidence. Hope is the feeling that something can come true. Hope is probabilistic, there is a possibility that it can come true but no certainty that it will. Hope is also something one can influence the outcome of. I have hope that we don’t get another Conservative half-wit in the White House this November. I can go out and support the candidate of my choice to help change that result. A believer has faith, a certainty that there is a God, Allah, the Great Goddess, or whomever out there, but they can’t change the fact one bit that there is or is not a deity or deities.

As always, an interesting discussion.

Hope and Faith are similar in that both are projections of our desires and/or expectations into the future. Faith is the word we use when we are confident of the outcome. Hope is the word when we are uncertain of the outcome, but know that our desirable outcome is still within the realm of possibility.

When we publicly state our religious affiliations, or publish our irreligious thoughts, we all have faith that the US Government will not put us in jail or fine us or otherwise persecute us.

We also hope that our fellow citizens will not discriminate against us through job actions, shunning, harassment, etc.

It is always a shock when our faith fails us, which is why 'there's no zealot like a converted zealot;' whereas it is just a disappointment when our hopes are not realized.

p.s. Ancient Norse religion, such as the worship of dear old Dad, has been officially recognized as a religion in some European countries. Thor-ism Lives!

Hahaha, oh Concerned. We are all glad that you took it upon yourself to point out these flaws in his faith. You are truly a learned man. Congrats!

You however are still saying the same thing you say in EVERY post you write. Thinly connecting your "points" to a topic about religion/christianity is idiotic when the points are not relevant to the topic. The topic is not "Christianity and it's founders/frauds". You my friend are still a PUNK!

Me, Me, Me,

Hmmm, the topic is Senator Obama's religious faith. Some would call this Senator Obama's religious flaws. Being a bright guy, why not note these flaws as a matter of his faith? He does not unfortunately so we have to provide this to the general public as part of this topic. I assume you are Christian as is Senator Obama so here are the flaws in Christianity as noted by many contemporary OT and NT exegetes:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

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

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

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

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

(And there is no stifling of discussion in any of these points and welcome your counter points.)

It just astonishes me that the difference between hope and faith is so difficult for many people on this thread to understand. I don't have any more "faith" in politics than I do in religion. I hope that we can find better political solutions to the solvable problems of our society, but I don't have "faith" that what I want is going to happen (unlike people who believe in eternal life). The fact that I think liberal democracy offers better solutions than reactionary conservatism does not mean I have faith in the rightness of solutions offered by particular politicians.

BUY Marloboro REDS. They will make you Happy!

The new Nike's are out, get 'em while they are hot! HOT HOTTA!!!! YAY!

I find Concerned Christian Now Liberated to be EXTREMELY annoying. As do I: Jozvez, Thomas Baum. You poison all discussions, by going way off topic to sell your opinions. Please be clear, you are selling, not discussing, as you leave no room for discussion. Idiots. Please reply with another advertisment for stupidity and ignorance, PUNKS!

As others have noted, "faith" has different meanings. The problem is religious faith, or unwarranted faith, for example that an unproven medical treatment will work.

One can have reasonable faith in a person who is demonstrably reliable. It is reasonable to have faith in the U.S. government and democracy, because overall the government has been a force for good, and it has fixed more problems than it has caused. Reagan's claim that "government is the problem" struck me as unpatriotic and irresponsible.

People who say that Obama's ideas are based on unrealistic hopes, or blind faith, have greatly overestimated the difficulties we face. In health care, for example, Obama is merely suggesting that we bring our system up to the standards of other first-world countries. They spend half or one-third as much money per capita as we do, and they have universal health care, and much better overall health, longevity, dental care and so on. If they can do it, so can we. It does not call for a miracle, although it will take political activism by many citizens to overcome vested, special interests such as insurance companies. As Obama says, he cannot do it himself. Obama's gift is that he can make such pedestrian, commonsense goals seem exalted, and he can motivate young people to help reach them. That is an excellent quality for a leader.

I wrote "There is no question the religion is triggered by despair and hopelessness." I mean modern religion. Before the enlightenment and the growth of science, religion was more plausible and rational. Before Darwin, it was reasonable to think that living things were designed by an intelligent creator. Darwin himself agreed. Before modern medicine, prayer probably worked better than doctoring, because pre-modern medicine often did more harm than good.

Furthermore, many authors have made the convincing case that Christian religion, with its emphasis on the individual, equality before God and concern for the poor, gave rise to much of enlightenment philosophy and the scientific method. It is no coincidence that modern democracy and science arose in Christian societies. Atheist authors such as Dawkins should acknowledge that, and give credit where it is due.

Sorry, spelling for "Malaysia," I need spell check.

Chris everett: "faith becomes unrestrained and able to inspire belief in the possibility of ANYTHING. In fact, it can inspire CERTAINTY in anything. Faith is hope that has gone off the tracks."

Yes - and then when hope and action are abandoned, and prayer, the last resort, seems to save the day, it is percieved as proof of faith.

J-

Thanks for your thoughtful and thorough reply.

One thing I would like to try to clarify as a dilemma for me is the contention that religions are man-made institutions, and are therefore adaptable and changeable and malleable according to the times and culture (on the one hand,) and yet they bear absolute truth, declarations from the gods, provide our basis in morals and ethics, are "infallable," and are revelations of a divine source of everyting (on the other hand.)

Interestingly I more often hear that religions are "man made" from people within religions. I'm always confused as to why that would be a positive argument from the point of a religionist, (although I think sometimes their point is that we "...now see through a mirror dimly...which I think is a mechanism through which mistakes can be addressed, and religious "policy" changed.)

Additionally, I think one difference between "faith" and "hope" (apart from various symantic interpretations) is that "faith"
terminology supports a very specific kind of audience: those people who are willing to acknowledge that there are authorities, or "scripture," who pass along the will of the gods. In that respect, it would be hard to argue a point with a religious authority, unless one were to simply change religions.

Political hope, on the other side, is democratic where democracy reins, and can and should have change and evolution as a primary feature: it should reflect people's changing needs and societal values.

On all respect otherwise I concur with your post.
And incidentally, I don't think you'll ever need to fear anything I say in regard to your "young impressionable mind," as I think your mind is about a light-year ahead of mine in nearly every regard!

PS I had a very dear friend in college from Malasia--Rashid Yosuf. He was one of the most brilliant people I've ever met. Any relation?

Jed Rothwell,

You write, "There is no question the religion is triggered by despair and hopelessness. When people have real hope and realistic goals that can be achieved in this life instead of the next, many of them turn away from religion."

That's an interesting connection between hope and faith. Hope is the realistic belief that a desired outcome is achievable, although not certain. Hope can inspire productive action on a large scale towards a shared goal, and if Obama can inspire this sort of involvement, all the better.

On the other hand, faith steps in where hope has collapsed, and instead of inspiring productive action, faith directs the believer towards consoling, but totally ineffective, rituals. So faith is a degenerate, desperate, pathetic residue of hope. It reflects a human need for hope even in (maybe ESPECIALLY in) hopless situations. It reflects the triumph of this need over the human need for truth. And having achieved this disconnect between hope and reality, faith becomes unrestrained and able to inspire belief in the possibility of ANYTHING. In fact, it can inspire CERTAINTY in anything. Faith is hope that has gone off the tracks.

Jed Rothwell - thanks for responding to Jihadist's point to me better than I could have.

Nice to see you here. Your posts overall have been on the mark, as usual.

Terra,

Beautiful poem...thanks for sharing it.
Amazing how poetry and prose can help us humans keep a healthy perspective.

Regards

I don't like this discussion of hope and faith. Hope - faith - neither of the two changes anything. Plus, the word "faith" has two completely different semantic meanings.

To cause change you need:

Sober assessment of what is, without religious obfuscation (difficult enough!),

clear definition of a goal,

plans and experiments to realize such a goal,

sober assessment of the means at our disposal,

sober assessment of the possibilities for change,

flexibility of methods (if one doesn't work, try another one (Bush's "stay the course" mantra is the most idiotic self-castration imaginable),

asking ourself, myself, what we, what "I" can do.

"Sober" may include the most passionate will to achieve change!

Hope and faith (in this particular operational semantics) is wishing somebody else will do something to make it happen - it never will happen.

The other semantics meaning of religious "faith" (believing something is "truth" without even an attempt of finding evidence) is simply eyewash.

For J:

Reading your posts over quite a period now, I observe that you step by step gradually move towards the insight that religion is man-made. Your arguments, often very convincing, always take into account the religious diversity ("truth" and diversity are mutually exclusive!) and the - always disputable - social or psychological merits of religion, again, far from any logical argument for the validity of any religious content.

Well, I have learned a lot through these discussions myself.

Same old "reality challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist!!! She says she has read Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus"but she can't come to grips with the flaws in her own religion???? Give us a break!!!!

Any way, once again here are the basic flaws in Islam. We await some proof that these flaws are not true!!!

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

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 greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Jihadist wrote:

"Moi : One can only hope Obama can deliver on his promises. But, looking at empirical evidence on the state of the economy, it is quite plausible that he will fail to deliver."

No, not "only hope." We can we can help him deliver. In fact, as he himself said (and as FDR said before him), if we do not help he will fail. It is also not true because if he fails we can fire him, whereas you can't fire God.

"Moi : I do admire the faith of Obama's followers and fan that he can deliver what he promised which is rather preposterous given the wide and diversified agenda of the Democratic party. More so than the Republicans."

Diversity in people and in the agenda strengthens the party, and makes it more likely it will succeed, not less. If one approach does not work, we will try another, as FDR said.

"Moi : I hope atheists are the realists they said they are and realistic enough by now to realise that the so-called "fantasists" are more involved, more committed and more active in putting their faith into action."

That is not in evidence; many atheists are as committed as any believer. Many of the top civil rights leaders of the 1950s were atheists, for example. And even if we accept that it is true for the sake of argument, it has no bearing on whether atheists are right or wrong. That would be "an appeal to the consequences of a belief" (logical fallacy).

"You gotta believe!

- In yourself and others.

- That faith, beliefs and religions never die."

Nearly all religions have died. Ancient Greek, Aztec, Roman and Norse religions are dead -- not a single person believes in them. Many Christian sects are extinct. All religions will die sooner or later. As Jefferson said, the time will come when we look at Christian mythology such as the virgin birth the same way we look at ancient Greek mythology: as nonsense. The question is: When today's religions fade away, will other religions arise to replace them? No one can say for sure. But we can speculate about possible outcomes:

Suppose science and technology continue to progress, and social and economic justice expand, so that most people achieve a stable, middle-class lifestyle, with security, education, healthcare and so on, at about the same level that first-world people enjoy today. Will this likely increase religion, or decrease it? In the U.S. religion has not declined much. But everywhere else in the world that has progressed, especially Europe and Japan, prosperity and modernity have displaced religion. It is declining. It will probably never vanish completely, at least not in the next few thousand years, but it does seem likely that fewer and fewer people will believe it.

It could be that the decline of religion in Europe and Japan was caused more by WWII than by modern prosperity. That would explain why the U.S. has not followed the trends of the majority of the world's modern people.

Of course, there is no guarantee that science and technology will continue to progress. They might regress, as they have in the Muslim world, which used to be the most creative and intellectually buoyant. If we do return to the dark ages, then I am certain religion will grow rapidly, just as it has in places like Egypt in recent years, as the economy has stagnated and people have lost hope; and in the so-called "red states" in the U.S., which are afflicted with the most poverty, crime, drug addiction, mothers without child support and other social scourges. There is no question the religion is triggered by despair and hopelessness. When people have real hope and realistic goals that can be achieved in this life instead of the next, many of them turn away from religion. (Not all, but many.)

If religion does survive in the future, I expect it will gradually morph into a form that causes little or no harm. It will be denatured as it were; a mere formality like the modern Church of England. It will be like the tiny fraction of cocaine flavor that is still allowed in Coca Cola -- just a trace of the original, with no addictive or harmful qualities.

This poem reminds me of hope...

...all at once the heavy night
Fell from my eyes and I could see!-
A drenched and dripping apple tree,
A last long line of silver rain,
A sky grown clear and blue again…
I know not how such things can be!-
I breathed my soul back into me.

Edna St. Vincent Millay.

terra

.........and where is my favourite anti-theist atheist, Mr. Mark, on "hope" and "faith"?

Dear Mr. Mark,

"Hope" and "faith" from your perspective please, for clarity on the athiests' take on it. Inquiring minds wants to know.

I will have to leave this for now.

Thanks and best regards

"J"

P.S. Just don't say atheists have no hope, no faith. That is too existentialist. I've read Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" too. It is about "hopeless" endeavours, about futility and the absurdity or trying:).

....and oh yes TopCat,

Hope and faith as articulated in religious theology is not different from political ideology. Hope that our particular religous theology can resolve all the problems of the world. Hope that our particular political ideology can do likewise. Both religion and politics ask us to have faith in their "tenets" and "solutions" and "panacea" for human well-being.

.....and, on the elections, please vote accordingly:

- Huckabee for God's laws and values

- Obama for hope and change.

- Clinton for insipid speeches.

A good weeked to all.

"J"

Hello Arminius :)

Some others of my favourite atheists, Chris Everett and E Favorite, are now throwing one liners too, on hope and faith.

Can't have that word "faith" Ewwww.....

Chris Everett : Hope articulates a plausible future and says it might happen.

Moi : One can only hope Obama can deliver on his promises. But, looking at empirical evidence on the state of the economy, it is quite plausible that he will fail to deliver. After all, he is a Democratic candidate and all for goverment spending on health and such. Too much US debt.

Chris Everett : Faith articulates a preposterous future and says it WILL happen.

Moi : I do admire the faith of Obama's followers and fan that he can deliver what he promised which is rather prespoterous given the wide and diversified agenda of the Democratic party. More so than the Republicans.

Chris Everett : Hope is for optimists, or for those who need optimism. Faith is for the ignorant, and for those who crave ignorance.

Moi : Hope is for those of any religious, non-religious and political persuasion who have any given fears on anything. Hopes and fears are spoken of in the same breath sometimes and rightly so. What one fears, one hopes to overcome it. Atheists fears religion will take over the public square and public policy. Atheists hope for seperation of state and church at best, and purging of all beliefs at worst.

E Favorite “Hope is for realists; faith is for fantasists.”

Moi : I hope atheists are the realists they said they are and realistic enough by now to realise that the so-called "fantasists" are more involved, more committed and more active in putting their faith into action.

Looking at what is happening, is John Lennon a fantasist as reflected in his song, "Imagine"?

As Armimius aptly and succinctly stated :

You gotta believe!

- In yourself and others.

- That faith, beliefs and religions never die.

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

Arminius,

I agree that of the three - faith, hope, love, the greatest is of these is love. Faith and hope are components of love. We love someone or something, we invest our faith and hope in them.

Thanks and regards

"J"

"Jihadist" just wrote:

... ... ...

Oy vey!

Now one of my admired atheistic ones, Jeff P, and Ms. Susan Jacoby is really confusing my young and impressionable mind on hope and faith.

"How is faith in religion different from hope in politics?"

It should be:

- How is faith in religion different from faith in politics?

- How is hope in religion different from hope politics?

... ... ...

Jihadist's post was rather long winded and confusing (IMHO) in places, but generally it does serve to show that Susan Jacoby (and others) have not be totally even handed in hope/faith with respect to their politics.

Jihadist is correct is pointing out than hope/faith in politics does not appear to be really different than hope/faith in religion so you should pour on the hard questions about political beliefs --- demand evidence for claims. So we would expect Susan Jacoby, the Freethinker, to pour on the questions to all politicians (Dems, Repubs, Libertarians, etc..., all flavors of politicians) with the same vigor she pours it in on religions.

From this perspective, it sure does look like Obamaism ("change", "hope", "justice", etc...) is as much a cult as a religion with many, including Susan Jacoby.

Solutions?
How about saving the money on Iraq? How about Blackwater? How about finding the 9 million dollars lost in Iraq somewhere...why not close down Gitmo...try the prisoners let them go or put them in Levinworth. Close down the renditions and Abu Ghraib. Take back the tax breaks for the rich and have universal healthcare for everyone.

You think that having a caste system has anything to do with democracy?

What I find amazing is that those who shout the most about social programs and tax breaks are the ones who will need the social net the most and don't make enough to fret about tax breaks.

terra

Garyd,

So what social programs you talking about?
The Tax breaks for the rich, the incentive for the Oil Companies, how about the tax breaks for the corps that go off shore?

Are those the social programs you talking about? Or how about privatizeing Walter Reed, that costs more then to keep it like it was for all these years...and keeping it cleaner.

Molly Ivins, bless her bigger then life soul...wrote this in 2003. It's gotten worse since then.
Connect the Dots, Folks: Bush Tax Cuts for Rich
by Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas — I just love the fine print in the president's tax-cut plan. I grant you, the overall effect is pretty spectacular, too — a plan that has almost no stimulative effect but still opens a future of zillion-dollar deficits to drag down the economy. That's the back-asswards of what we need, but it's not the fun part.

Look at these goodies:

Think because you have money in the stock market you might have a stake in eliminating the dividend tax, the centerpiece of the president's tax cut — $300 billion over 10 years? (You probably think you have money in the stock market because your 401K keeps going down — that would be 40 million Americans.) But no! This tax break doesn't apply to your dividends! The money in your 401K from both savings and dividends are tax sheltered until you withdraw the money — then all of it gets taxed as ordinary income. You don't get any tax break on your dividends — that only goes to the investor class. According to Kevin Phillips, 1 percent of investors pocketed 42 percent of the stock-market gains between 1989 and 1997, while the top 10 percent of the population took 86 percent. These people need a tax cut! They haven't been getting their share!

According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the effect of eliminating dividend taxation is that the average benefit for those making less than $10,000 would be $6, and average benefit for those making more than $1 million would be $45,098. Quick, high-schoolers, let's practice up for the those SATs by figuring out by what percentage $45,098 is bigger than $6.

Bush also wants to accelerate the income-tax cuts slated for 2006. Look at this folly. The top 5 percent of taxpayers would get 70 percent of the benefits on that one. The bottom 80 percent would get 6.5 percent of the benefits. Ditto with accelerating the 2004 tax cuts: 64.4 percent to the top 5 percent of taxpayers; 7.7 percent to the bottom 80 percent.

One of those people who can't handle numbers, need something visual to work with? Find the Urban-Brookings charts published in the Jan. 7 New York Times showing who gets how much of this tax cut. You can bareley see the lines that measure the relief until you get above the 99th percentile.

Naturally there will be a lot of spinning on these tax cuts in the weeks ahead, with numbers being tossed around like confetti. We'll probably need John Paulos, the innumeracy guy, to referee. I recommend the Center for Tax Justice (www.ctj.org), whose computer model is widely respected.

Speaking of damn lies and statistics, one of the little games being played in Washington is that the Republicans want to switch to Enron accounting on the economy. They're leaning on both the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to change the way they make their economic estimates. According to the R's, "static scoring" — as opposed to your "dynamic scoring" — overestimates the cost of tax cuts by ignoring their role in boosting economic growth. Why, claim the R's, tax cuts pay for themsleves! If that's so, why are all the states going broke? Bring on Arthur Andersen and mark-to-market accounting — that'll perk up the economy.

The only good part of the Bush's tax cut plan is the $400 increase in the tax credit per child — at least that spreads it around a little. Naturally, that's the one part of the plan right-wingers hate.

As we all wade into these numerical battles over exactly how much of this tax cut goes to the very rich, the more fundamental question is whether it's a good idea — either economically, or in terms of social justice, to have the very rich get very much richer than they already are.

Contrary to the paranoid fantasists on The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, populists are not motivated by some burning resentment of the rich — we don't spend our lives in an envious funk that someone else is better off than we are. "No skin off my nose" is the general attitude, with others coming in at "Lucky them" or "Good for them." The problem is that the rich are screwing up our democracy. Less than 0.1 percent of the U.S. population gave 83 percent of all itemized campaign contributions for the 2002 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. According to the Houston Chronicle, just 48 wealthy Texas families provided more than half the campaign funds for the major Republican state candidates this fall.

How dumb do you have to be not to be able to connect the dots here? Law, policy and regulation are consistently shaped to favor the rich over the rest of us, and that, dammit, is not fair, it is not right, it is not the country we want and for which we are asked to sacrifice.

Copyright 2003, The Daily Camera
~~~~~~~
Garyd, I have no idea about you..but I pay taxes and have for 40 years. I pay so that my neighbor can have a decent elder life. Do you know how many elderly died of starvation or the cold before Social Security? 50%.

How many children still die because they do not have healthcare? And this numbnutz pres vetoed SChip, so that 4 million kids can go hang I guess. So much for the hypocritical pro lifers.

terra

Jihadist,

Very thought provoking essay! Interesting how 'faith', and also 'believe', have sometimes been treated almost as expletives by some here.

But.....

I have faith in America.
I have hope for America.
I believe in what our Declaration of Independence said about our rights.

Also, on a lighter note: "Ya gotta believe!" - unofficial motto of the New York Mets baseball team.

And on a serious note, a Christian viewpoint, from Paul: "...faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

Arminius

Terra,

Now ask why these things are occurring and if the only answer is that you think a three trillion federal budget 60 odd percent of which is spent on social programs then you aren't really thinking about solutions.

Oy vey!

Now one of my admired atheistic ones, Jeff P, and Ms. Susan Jacoby is really confusing my young and impressionable mind on hope and faith.

"How is faith in religion different from hope in politics?"

It should be:

- How is faith in religion different from faith in politics?

- How is hope in religion different from hope politics?

Going by the constantly articulated contention by atheists on religion, belief in the God/s, religious tenets/injunctions and religious institutions are all man-made. So.....

Political parties have ideological differences just as religious groups have theological ones. Some atheists do characterise religious beliefs as ideologies as if religious groups are political parties.

Organised religions as in sects, denominations, schools of thoughts are the result of theological schisms within the original organised group of religious believers. It is akin to ideological differences in political parties that may lead to newly formed ones.

Religion is also constantly argued by atheists to be a human construction and politicised for power and control over men. Of course, the facts of history will bear out the facts on the politicisation of organised religions and religious institutions are not quite initiated by religious spiritual leaders, but state leaders.

And of course, some religious leaders are only too enthusiastic to purge those not members of their faith with the formal support of states' "divinely sanctioned" kings and queens with inquisitions and expulsions and such.

The fact remains that many religious-affiliated organisations are political or politicised - organised to promote what they believe is best for their communities or societies or state.

In many states, even in Europe, one find faith based political parties such as Christian Democrats (Germany) just as one would find find PAS in Malaysia.

As atheists say religion is a human construct and organised religion a human institution, just as in politics, a "human" institution, it is capable of change and has proven so. Not for the better in some instances, just as in politics.

Just as some human "constructed" theologies can caused great harm to societies, so do political ideologies. Just as in politics people change political allegiance due to appeal of specific political ideologies, people do change their religion in preferring the theology of another.

As in political ideology, religious theology is compared on form, substance and ability to deliver what one finds resonated most to him or her, that delivers what he or she needs by empirical observation, and personal satisfaction derived from living according to the purpose of faith and acting on promises of realising the purpose of the faith.

As religion "promises", so do politics. There is no real difference in the temporal promises of charismatic and effective prophets and politicians. Both groups of inspired and inspiring leaders fundamentally calls for a just, humane and compassionate world, a world of human possibilities and to act in achieving an equitable world.

Unlike politicians, prophets recognise human limits and the baser human instincts. They spoke on them which do disquiet those of us who don't like to be lectured and hectored on morals and ethics and values such as the Ten Commandments etc.

So, by the premise of atheists themselves on hope, faith and justice, prophets are the most successful politicians ever. What they taught still have personal appeal on people who adhere to their teachings, including on values and ethics which also shaped their political stance on issues and candidates.

Certainly religions are more democratic than believers would like to believe, cared to see and accept. Christianity with its countless Christian denominations, and Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism which have every strain of interpretations and school of thoughts the adherents subsribe to. Even some atheists co-opted aspects of organised religion, including Zen Buddhism.

Only when a particular strain of religious adherents, believers, sect or denomination control a state i.e. as a theocracy, do we talk about religion as being "totalitarian". As long as religion don't control states and all spheres of public and personal life, it is not totalitarian.

As for the contention that as believers believe and held that God said it, therefore that's it! is a classic and cliched atheist's lazy summation, apparent blindness to reality and confused and confusing contradictions. Just as on doubts for them and for believers, including and especially Mother Teresa's.

Everyone who cared to read On Faith posts by believers would obviously see that believers have different notions on God, even within the same faith, sect or church. Differences of views and beliefs within a same faith is the same same as in a political party.

What a political party leader said signifies what he or she stood for that may be in line or different from their political party's ideology on solutions, proposals or remedies for the human condition and aspirations. Just as religious leaders would, and in line or otherwise with their faith's theology.

And religious leaders will continue to speak on politics just as political leaders will continue to speak on religion. Who should we ask to shut up first? Politicians from speaking on faith? Religious leaders from speaking on politics? Is is really possible to seperate politics from religion in the public square?

And so atheists argue that "Faith is different from hope. Period". What what scientific and empirical evidence to back up? This is a statement of certainty and the special preserve of and usually made by believers like me.

Surely too simple. Faith is intertwine with hope. Ask any believer, even those of the adherents of religions that believe in the after-life, reincarnation, they will tell you it is the temporal issues that focussed them most.

Religious theologies are either clashing with or blending with political ideologies in the public sphere. Both theologies and ideologies are based on temporal (or secular) possibilities and rooted in reality on the human condition and human aspirations.

If people are not chosing and performing abortion that happened in reality, it would not be a theological and political issue on rights in this world world of nature (value on life, when it begins, whose life is more important); and human relations (for or against, to allow or not, to punish or not to punish for abortion).

So now the contention is that faith is refusing to confront reality, and not considering evidence that runs contrary to one's beliefs. Then we are forgetting "faith" in the political and secular context as in - having faith in America, American values, the American dream when everything seems to go to hell in a handbasket on the economy, the hot war in the Middle East, the culture wars in the US on everything from evolution vs creationism to gays rights.

It is not enough to hope to change or reform secular human institutions. If humans can adapt, revise, change, reform or do away with Shariah and Shariah related institutions, and even to come out with new human initiated institutions and human mechanisms in compliance with its principles (e.g. Islamic finance) then, "human institutions" such as health care can be changed as well.

Ms. Jacoby stated in her thread's intervention here that "Hope allows us to experiment with doing things differently in the effort to obtain a different result."

Yes or course, but it is also requires "unwavering faith" in oneself and others to improve, or do way with, or replace existing human instituions to make life better for everyone, especially the marginalised, the deprived, those out of the mainstream that keep us trying again and again to get the result that is just for all, as hope for in realising aspirations and expectations which is also "hope".

Of course believers are not coldy and cooly gleaning empirical evidence (facts/reality) and using science and technology, scientific approaches in research, mobilising ICT to realise possibilities and opportunities to realise "hope". They just pray to God and hope for the best. So some blinkered atheists insisted and thought.

So, how is faith in religion different from hope in politics?

How is faith in religion different from politics?

How is hope in religion different from politics?

None at all as "hope" and "faith" are human emotions in reaction to the human condition.

One still have "hope" and "faith" even if one do not believe in God/s or are a member of any organised or institutionalised religion.

I have faith in democratic institutions. I have faith in free markets. I have faith in the marketplace of ideas. I have faith in people. I have faith in God. No matter how challenging, how dismal, how dismaying the world sometimes seems.

Thanks and regards
"J"

PS,
followed by Justice.

terra

I see folks that work two jobs, care for their kids, go back to school...and yet will always be on the bottom.

A little boy that has a toothache, his mother can not take him to a dentist and the child dies.

A five year old girl is taken to the hospital repetedly...she is not covered by insurance, so she is not given the tests it would take to know what is wrong. She is called "Depressed" and told to go home. She dies of cancer.

There are people loseing their homes because of deregulation...that made lots of bucks for people.

What with the reminder of the Keating Five in the news today, that was another case of deregulation and the greed of people.

You can say that some folks were at the right place at the right time, but I say they do not deserve to spend more on a shopping trip then it would take to save a home or a child's life.

While I live a content life, I have little needs. But I see those who have nothing in this land of plenty. People in New Orleans that are living under bridges because their homes in public houseing that was just fine after Katrina, were torn down. Louisiana Congressman Richard Baker (R-LA) said, after the hurricane, "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did." ... Baker was in real estate before he went into "public service".

When those in power close the public schools, close public housing, fire people from their jobs, refuse to provide access to affordable public healthcare, and close off all avenues for justice, it is not necessary to erect a sign outside of New Orleans saying "Poor People Not Allowed To Return." People cannot come back in these circumstances and that is exactly what is happening.

The invisible hand is bouncing around ok...and giving the finger to those who were not at the right place at the right time.

Hope needs to be let out of the box.

terra

Mr. James of course it did. The people you were referencing as fascist were not and in fact for the most part were the exact opposite.

The only difference between Communism as practiced in the former Soviet Union under any leader you care to name and Fascism as preached by Moussolini is the Country in which they were located.

I mean, you *do* realize it they only call it the 'invisible hand of the marketplace' when perfectly-chartable things fail to agree with certain *ideologies?*

Daniel,
It seems to me that this president had some VERY experienced people around him. He had an x President as a father...so what good did all that experience do? He was a govenor also, even if in Texasd the gov. is a figure head.

You are right...Lincoln failed as a grocer, split logs, read at law ( which meant he did not go to school) he gained notice because of his oratory and the debates against Steven Douglas.

Lincoln had almost no legislative experience before winning the presidency. Yet he was a credible Commander and Chief and( I think agknowledged by all) was a very good President.

He wanted to bring peace and unity after the war... "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds.... "

Also no slouch with words.

terra

"Yes --- the invisible hand works better than the alternative."

You know, I'm not an all-star economist, but it just doesn't look so invisible to me.

Could be we could actually make some choices about what we let certain people do, rather than claim we're powerless against invisible and sanctified 'hands.'

Jeff P.:

Based on you initial post I did look up several of the books you suggested, e.g. Richistan, I enjoyed reading all of your reviews. You are a very good writer --- this came as no surprise once a I found you were a G-town Dr. It was particularly interesting that you said:

"Yet what amazes me is that there doesn't seem to be a categorical bitterness toward the "haves" by the "have nots." Many of us, according to the reading, are "okay" with the inequalities and in fact mostly just envy the position and wealth obtained by the wealthy--we seem to feel that their wealth was "deserved," and aspire to be closer to that dream. (This is reflected in the other aforementioned books as well.) I was also surprised that much of the big wealth wasn't inherited. Most "new wealthy" are (?)surprisingly in my age group--40s to 50s--self-made folks who know how to wheel and deal, and are willing and able to take some financial risks. Some happened to be at the right place at the right time. "

I am one of those people that have no bitterness toward the haves --- but then again I'm in the class of the "haves" according to definitions of Richistan (the *lower class* of the haves to be sure).

You probably are (or you should be) in at least the lower class of the "haves" also as you made correct decisions and had the talent to go to and complete Med school. You deserve your rewards.

But so do I --- the price of entry for me into the lower class of the Richistanian "haves" was very, very high, I would be willing to wager it was very much higher than the price you paid. So forgive me for not being as sensitive.

But I care not about such sensitivity when I express doubts about the practical value of the political views like that of John Edwards. For

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker," or pharmaceutical companies that I "expect" my "dinner" or drugs I take, "but from their regard to their own interest."

Yes --- the invisible hand works better than the alternative.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill

But, yeah, though, I think Hope is that 'thing' we keep safe in a box in a world full of troubles, someone taught us we were unaccountably-responsible for.

Maybe faith is opening that box once more. :)

Haha. Well, blessed be, Terra. I try nottoput particular conditions on 'faith that this, or faith that that.'

Don't really think that's the point, myself. Not that faith hasn't gotten me place s I would have otherwise dared not go or given up on going. :)

For me, I think 'faith,' (And Pagans don't talk too much about faith, have one as we do, bad connotations as there are to the word just lately,,) ...I think faith is, 'Get where you can, and you'll be where you need to.' :) Faith comes from the same word as Fata and fate and even Fae, ..all of which have taken on some sense of 'doom,' (also a word that has taken on sinister connotations, ironically-enough... just like *faith* itself has turned into some kind of 'fatalism,' from which people need to be saved.

I meditate on Pandora's box, a lot, myself. All the 'sins' loosed on the world, and what makes the young lady 'all-gifted' is still shut up in a box.

We cling to Hope dearly, like the only thing we can keep in a troubling world.

One of these days, we'll realize it's not to be kept in a box, can't be contained by a box, isn't meant to be.

We needn't occupy our arms trying to *protect* hope, ...rather, we let hope *free,* and use our arms for something else.

Our real fear is not that we're helpless, but rather, that we're immensely-powerful.

I wonder if all the negative reaction to Senator Obama's talk of justifiable hope has something to do with the idea that people have a tendency to try and protect hope like a fragile possession, instead of the thing that did hard time with all the woes of the world in a box for a few ages, and should be let free. :)

As for PSG,

I'd sure like to go, myself, but this spring promises to be a bit exhausting, particularly in the 'Oh, Bright Lady, I can't believe I'm going *there,* *now* department.

But I'll be closer to where you are, anyway. :)

Norrie Hoyt wrote:

"Her 1992 health plan was a Byzantine, unworkable, ridiculous, Rube Goldberg mechanism which deservedly failed."

I agree!! Not only that, but in her effort to push through the plan, she infuriated both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill.

One of my pet peeves is the mis-use of the word "faith" for religion.

Faith means trust. If you have faith in God, then that means you have trust in God. Having trust in God is totally and completely separate from theology, ritual, and organization, which are all more complex aspects of religion.

Some faiths are more plausible than others.

I think that hope is a wish for something good to prevail or to happen, or for your experiences or conditions in the present to become better or improved in the future.

Hope has a little something to do with optimism and happiness. Sometimes people are happy and hopeful, even there does not seem much reason to be; it is a sort of inner quality.

Obama makes me feel hopeful; not about anything in particular; he is quite unlikely to solve many of the problems which have proven so intractable for the past many years; but he just has a good attitude, and he gives off good vibes, and his views do not seem to be ruined with cynicism and bitterness; he can still strike out in an optimistic direction, and really mean it with sincerity and not just be trying to trick people into feeling good, for their votes.

I like the saying, "while I breathe, I hope." It is the state motto of South Carolina, and goes back to Medeival time, I think.

Everyone says that Obama would not make a good President because he has no experience; but that is why I like him so much; when Abraham Lincoln was elected President, he had only served 1 term in the US House of Representatives. He did not do so bad.

I would very pleased to have a President who does not end every comment with the compulsive "God Bless America;" to me that is a really, excellent sign.

Hi Paganplace,

I had Hope since 2005 that i would again get to go to PSG..I had Faith that everything would line up -money, transportation, drivers- and guess what? I am going. ; )

Hope, Faith or Magick..lol...

terra

Anon:
Thanks for your dialogue and response.

As an economics major, I've been exposed to the theoretical and somewhat magical workings of Adam Smith's market "invisible hand." And I am a capitalist through and through.

It's not too complex to appreciate, though, how this "hand" doesn't disperse rewards equally among all of humankind, but we are left as a political body to try to remedy the extreme polarization that this economic system can lead to if unchecked. It's easy to resort to arguments that put more inherent worth to certain outstanding people.

As far as "taking from the rich and giving to the poor" arguments, I think we as a society begin to understand the conflicts when "...The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorests people." CEO pay in this country is preposterous--most agree but money has a way of influencing political policy that keeps this intact.

It's in the spirit of caring about massive inequality, versus the pretext of "earned reward," that helps define certain political positions, and allows an avenue through which at least the political representation of all people (rich and poor) can happen. However, It can't happen if the purpose of government is to partner with corporations (as with the Republican party of late) as a mutual-admiration club.

I'm sorry that I don't have the same sense of earned-entitlement that you seem to give the pharmaceutical companies. As a physician I encounter their "business" on a daily basis, and I could go on and on--I'll spare you on this thread.

I can never say things as well as Chris Everett and I think he sums it up between faith and hope in this line: "Hope articulates a plausible future and says it might happen. Faith articulates a preposterous future and says it WILL happen."

I hope I haven't sounded angry. I appreciate your input.

" Gerry:

Myths are more or less futile attempts at explaining what is perceived as facts. Since there are myriads of historic and geographic backgrounds, there are myriads of myths. Religionists mistake the description for the object described. They mistake "attempt at description" as the factual object."

And whose myth is *that.* :)

See, people raised me to think that about myths (Unless of course they were Biblical ones,) too.

"Superstitious primitives making up stories to explain lightning" they would say, of many myths.

Is that what you really think?

Myth is only as primitive as you *make* it.

Pagan kids get scared of lightning, too. I might say, "As well you might be, those are hotter than the Sun, some thousands of degrees Kelvin, in fact. Dangerous. What do you do. What do we learn from the Thunderer, about being scared?"

It's not futile. Unless you *make* it futile.

Chris Everett: “Hope is for optimists…. Faith is for the ignorant….”

How about - “Hope is for realists; faith is for fantasists.”

Anon asks:

"How is faith in religion different from hope in politics?"

That is the crux of the matter. I would expand the distinction to include blind faith in anything (including a political leader) on one side, versus informed hope in politics, progress and technology. Answer: we can have realistic hope because we know things can get better. As Jeff P. said, the proof is empirical. As Jefferson put it:

"And it cannot be but that each generation succeeding to the knowledge acquired by all those who preceded it, adding to it their own acquisitions and discoveries, and handing the mass down for successive and constant accumulation, must advance the knowledge and well-being of mankind, not infinitely, as some have said, but indefinitely, and to a term which no one can fix and foresee. Indeed, we need look back half a century, to times which many now living remember well, and see the wonderful advances in the sciences and arts which have been made within that period. Some of these have rendered the elements themselves subservient to the purposes of man, have harnessed them to the yoke of his labors, and effected the great blessings of moderating his own, of accomplishing what was beyond his feeble force, and extending the comforts of life to a much enlarged circle, to those who had before known its necessaries only. That these are not the vain dreams of sanguine hope, we have before our eyes real and living examples."

And as I put it:

"People who believe there is no likelihood of dramatic progress have no sense of history. Everyone living in the first world today, even a wretched person on welfare, is well off by the standards of 1600. By the standards of ancient and primitive people, we are all fabulously wealthy and we enjoy godlike powers. We can do things that people in 1800 never imagined, in their wildest dreams or worst nightmares. We can talk to friends anywhere in the world, and see recorded events that happened years ago. . . . Our scientists explore other planets with remote control robots. Then too, with a half-hour notice, our military could annihilate any nation on earth, destroying thousands of cities, and killing a hundred million people."

- From "Cold Fusion and the Future" in which a group of elderly scientists & I out-Obama Obama in the Hope Department, downloadable here:

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

Recommended by Arthur Clarke and many distinguished professors. If you are looking for a combination of down-to-earth realism and visionary hope, read Clarke, or try hanging around with a gang of several hundred 80-year-old superannuated electrochemists and the physicists: the greatest generation, who helped build the atomic bomb, and who are now battling tremendous academic rivalry to bring you cold fusion.

Myths are more or less futile attempts at explaining what is perceived as facts. Since there are myriads of historic and geographic backgrounds, there are myriads of myths. Religionists mistake the description for the object described. They mistake "attempt at description" as the factual object.

The statement: "This is an apple" is not an apple. It may even describe an odd-shaped pear, lol!

Hope articulates a plausible future and says it might happen. Faith articulates a preposterous future and says it WILL happen. Hope is for optimists, or for those who need optimism. Faith is for the ignorant, and for those who crave ignorance.

Hi, Terra, and all...

It's interesting how the discussions about hope seem to be placing certain pro-piety people *against* hope, at least any hope *not* part of their views of their Bible... ...and I think I see in some of them how much of the denial involved in issues like the war and the economy and the environment may in fact *be* about despair, in a way...

Continue being in denial and vote what you think is your pocketbook's interests... Claim only more piety can save you when that doesn't work... that the situation and people are *so bad* that only divine intervention can put an end to it, perhaps.

Ie, if they say 'Only God can help us,' they conveniently don't have to feel bad about obstructing the real solutions.

It *takes* some faith and hope... In the future, In each other, and our *own* ability to make the changes we must, together, in order to step back from certain brinks and get to work on what needs doing.

Now, I'm not using the uncharitable definition of 'faith' that some atheists use, or the somewhat media-abused reckoning 'faith' as the same as 'believing really hard in certain religion,'

As myth goes, well, myths can be troublesome if people insist they override fact, or are literally true in the same way as facts are. One nice definition of myth is 'a story that may have never happened, but is always true.'

We are *not* purely-objective creatures, and we *need* myths and songs and stories to find and celebrate some *meaning* to our existences: it's quite possible to respect and celebrate these things without forsaking reason: likewise, some good oratory, and a leader who *can* get up before people of both reason and hope and say, "Yes, we can," has a lot of appeal, not because it's his particular personality, but because much of this nation has grown heartsick and weary of being told, "No, you can't. Obey religion, buy stuff, support a President who won't change course even when almost the whole nation doesn't want to go where you're leading..."

I think something people don't realize is that he's promising to *lead* where we want to *go,* ...we're not hiring him to make our decisions *for* us, in that dictatorial way of a Bush, but rather as someone who'll *represent us.*

All of us, I'd say. It seems to me that a lot of Republican personalities claim that if they get a slim victory, that that entitles them to act *against* the wishes of half the country, rather than build consensus.

The acclaim for Obama is different. Certainly the liberals among us need energizing, and he brings that energy.

But he's not representing Barack Obama or some limited extremist 'base...' he's representing the America my father put his life on the line for, and the America my generation was taught to believe in. People have been saying that we can't *have* that America for a while now.

I say, yes we can, too.

As a Pagan my Gods come from myth. I know they are mythic and not fact...but myths are not fairy tales either.

A myth is a story with a purpose. It tries to explain the way the world is. Myths also try to explain the relationship between gods and humans.
I think they are more then that...they tell a human truth in a way that a culture and people can understand.

In the myth about Pandora, she is given a box and told to keep it safe. Well as anyone knows tell someone not to do something, they will do it to see what will happen. She opens the box and all the ills of the world is let loose. All but hope... This tells us that in humanity no matter what happens we always have hope.

This is an ancient myth that tells an ancient truth...one that still speaks to us.

I want hope, and as an old woman I remember the hope given by John Kennedy, his brother Bobby, I remember the speeches of MLK...I remember reading the speeches of Franklin Roosevelt and Sir Winston Churchhill. Each of these people saw us through hard times...Each were larger then life and gave hope that together we can be more and do more...and we were and did.

Like Obama's grandmother who worked in a Bomber factory while her husband was with Patton's army...My Mom wired airplanes...people worked together. The government gave us hope that together we could accomplish what ever we put our minds to.

Hope is huge...it enables people to live when all logic fails...it enables us to put one foot in front of another. Like Obama said...nothing is accomplished without first inspiration and hope.

terra

Friend,

The details of Obama's January fund-raising illustrate just how much his campaign has been able to chart a new path for the presidential race. He brought in $28 million online, with 90 percent of those transactions coming from people who donated $100 or less, and 40 percent from donors who gave $25 or less, suggesting that these contributors could be tapped for more. (Donors are limited to giving $2,300 per candidate during the primary season.) More than 200,000 of the campaign's nearly 300,000 donors in January were first-time givers to Obama.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/20/america/20obama.php

An exerpt from an email I recieved from the Obama campaign:

We learned something extraordinary since I wrote to you last night.

We've crunched all the numbers and discovered that we are within striking distance of something historic: one million people donating to this campaign.

Think about that ... nearly one million people taking ownership of this movement, five dollars or twenty-five dollars at a time.

We're already more than 900,000 strong, including over half-a-million donating so far this year. This unprecedented foundation of support has built a campaign that has shaken the status quo and proven that ordinary people can compete in a political process too often dominated by special interests.

Unlike Senator Clinton or Senator McCain, we haven't taken a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. Our campaign is responsible to no one but the people.

One million donors would be a remarkable feat -- something that's never been done before in a presidential primary and something no one ever thought would be possible for us. And your generosity made it possible.
~~~~~
I doubt if my 15.00 and 20.00 has helped all that much. But this is where Obama is getting his money...from the people that want to wash this administration and way of doing business out of our lives.

terra

I'm very grateful for the responses from Jeff P. and Susan J. for their responses to my initial post; however, their responses are inconsistent. For example governments, religions, etc... are *ALL* human constructs, all are "human institutions" (I don't know Jeff's views on religion, however since Susan does not believe there is a supernatural force at play to lend special attributes to religion, religion for her is just as much a human institution as a government).

For example, governments can be just as "totalitarian" as some religions and some religions can be just as "democratic" as some governments ---- so, in general, operationally "hope" in politics can play the same role as "faith" is operationally applied in religion.

Yes, I agree that there *should* be a difference between "faith" in religion and "hope" in politics --- and that difference *should* be based on facts and logic to determine that which is true or at least that which is most likely to be true versus fiction or that which is not as likely to be true. Regretfully based on what Jeff P. and Susan J. have advanced I see no real meaningful differences in *their* application of "hope" to the human institution known as government vs "faith" in that other human institution known as religion.

If you don't subject to rigorous questioning the assertions made by "hope" based politicians as you subject "faith" based assertions of the religious,
then their is no meaningful difference --- your politics has become your religion. I submit that many do not subject their political views to any more rigorous questioning than they apply to the religion. Moreover, it is my impression that many apply a different level of questioning between the two political parties. This is a bias we must all guard against.

As a practical exercise to serve as example of what I mean, of my way of constructing a meaningful difference (and as I would suggest for all to do) I would say "hope" should be replaced operationally with "rational expectations" (as based on facts and logic learned in economics and human behavior --- but especially economics, the science of making decisions on the allocation of scarce and valued resources).

Now operationally, for me, "faith" can be considered to be "irrational expectations".

What are the rational expectations of a government policy that might be enacted by any political party that in some way takes away profits for the production of pharmaceuticals? Or policies that reduces (or increases) wages for those in the Health Care industry in general? Or *even more generally* what about government policies that reduce the rewards for the most highly productive people in our society (who are just honestly applying their talents and ambition in our free economy)? Or to go to the even more general question: What happens when government policy tries to fiddle with the Natural Law of Supply and Demand in a Free Society for economic goods and services? Yes "...Hope allows us to experiment with doing things differently in the effort to obtain a different result. And, like science, rational hope demands further modifications if the hope doesn't pan out." But science (even the dismal science of economics) can indicate their exists limits that no political party or candidate can overcome --- to ignore these Natural Laws is to pass from "hope" to "faith".

By the way, Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal", but did he really mean that we institute the human institution of government with the notion that all men should end up with equal or near equal economic outcomes in life because they all have equal talents (e.g. all have the same IQ, same athletic abilities, same musical abilities, etc...and all these talents and abilities have, or should have, the same economic value?). Is there to be majority mob rule to achieve such equal Populist outcomes? I think not. However I do agree, yes, we all should have an equal right to *pursue* happiness.

Friend and Efave
A productive discussion from you two.

Yes: myth has many uses and tells many truths. it describes archtypes of human feeling and experience.

it's just that the characters and settings are generally without correlates in the "real world".

Friend - I agree: "I don't see myth as the opposite of fact, in the context discussed, but as a device to try to explain complex cultural and personal situations, like puberty and 'Why am I here'."

Myth is not the opposite of fact, it is also not the same thing as fact and I think you'll agree it is certainly not the "inerrant word" of God.

"Truth(s)" is another word that needs parsing. It a legal sense, it means "facts." In a literacy sense or philosophical sense, it can mean "good things," "ideas to live by" or "ideas (whether they be fact, fiction, myth, legend or folk tale) that have stood the test of time."

I fear that "truths of the bible" is often used - especially by preachers - as a substitute for "myths of the bible" - knowing full well that their congregation hears it as "facts of the bible."

Thank you, Concerned The Christian Now Liberated and E Favorite, I always enjoy reading what you have to say and have learned a lot about early Christainity from some of the links given.

I don't see myth as the opposite of fact, in the context discussed, but as a device to try to explain complex cultural and personal situations, like puberty and 'Why am I here'.

Certainly, these stories can be used for both good and evil, and can be both accurate and inaccurate, in terms of our modern society.

Congratulations to "Jeff P." who succinctly explains why faith in religion is a different matter from hope in politics. I'd add only that faith is different from hope, period, in all human spheres. Hope must be based on possibilities rooted in reality, in the world of nature and of human relations. Faith, by contrast, can and often is based entirely on refusing to confront reality or consider evidence that runs contrary to one's beliefs.

To hope that we might devise a better health care and health insurance system, for example, is perfectly reasonable. As Jeff noted, these are human institutions. What humans have done, humans can change. To have faith that our present system will, in the absence of political change, provide the same care to the poor and the middle class as it does to the rich is absurd. I forget who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. That is also the definition of blind faith. Hope allows us to experiment with doing things differently in the effort to obtain a different result. And, like science, rational hope demands further modifications if the hope doesn't pan out.

Anon:

I forgot to add the "two Americas" that are divided regarding the role of a central government.

One believes, in a Reaganesque way, that the "Government" is the major cause of our problems in the world, and have effectively and systematically used the last 7 years to rid it of any morality, integrity, and effectiveness.

The other believes that government should reflect the will of the people, in a democratic republic, where a vote actually means something, and that the role of government is to assure that the least of us are at least served in a way that assures the right of pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. I've seen less in practical application of that goal from religion as I have from that aspired to by government.

Friend - You're right - myth is not a bad word -- like all words it has a meaning - which you noted, and its meaning is not "fact."

Friend,

You are so very correct as unfortunately myths have been used to:

1. make a simple preacher man into a "tri"god,

2. send unbaptized, stained children to a weird state of limbo,

3. create prophets/"profits" who fortold saviours, guilt trips, salt statues, global floods and all the other mostly mumbo jumbo of the OT,

4. create "pretty/ugly, wingie, talking, flying thingies to protect or tempt us,

5. rapture some of the few lucky ones but condemning the rest to another weird land,

6. change bread and wine into body and blood on a 24/7 basis,

7. endow on one male, "celibate" Catholic priest, infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra,

8. create conversations between a warmongering, illiterate, greed/lust driven Arab and a pretty thingie in some hot cave some 1400 years ago,

9. create conversations between the "Mormon-con" and a pretty thingie in the USA some 200 years ago.

10. a talking, just born Buddha.

No need to go on as the picture is clear that myths are for books of fiction not operating manuals for religions.

Anon:

"How is faith in religion different from hope in politics?"

It may be because politics is a human institution, capable of change, subject to empiricism (in theory,) supposedly representative of the people.. Religions form communities that are not democratic--they are totalitarian in nature--God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

If you want to know the two Americas, just move out of your comfortable surroundings--or if that is prohibitive, read a few books: I might suggest "Deer Hunting With Jesus," "Nickled and Dimed," "Richistan," for a start. Do a little service in a homeless shelter. Work a day or two at a food bank. Spend some time under a bridge in a big city.

Respectfully, Jeff

Susan Jacoby's latest article "Hope Is Not A 'Cult of Personality'" is a bit strange to me given that Ms. Jacoby purports to represent those that value facts and logic over mere personal beliefs absent good support from facts and logic.

How is faith in religion different from hope in politics? How can Susan be a supporter of John Edwards without the asking of critical questions (e.g. Who exactly are the "two" Americas? If it is simply rick vs poor, are the rich rich because they generally just earned it through having a rare and valued talent? or did the "rich" steal it from its rightful owners --- the "poor" in John Edward's terms?, etc....). By the way, was all the money John Edwards got via medical lawsuits based on sound science?

It appears to me that Ms. Jacoby doesn't apply the the same level of rigor to questions of political faith and hope as she does to religious based faith and hope (and assertions thereto related).

Myth isn't a bad word.

"A mythology is an organization of symbolic images and narratives, metaphorical of the possibilities of human experience and the fulfillment of a given culture at a given time."

Joseph Campbell

We shouldn't take these metaphors as actual events in human history since these stories were written by people who don't have the global, scientific, and historical perspective we have and it creates ethnic, religious, and national divides that keeps us apart from each other.

I saw your interview with Bill Moyers, thank you.

I need to investigate more on where Obama's money is coming from in order for me to consider him over a third-party candidate.

And the angry, young man I once was speaks to me through screaming guitars:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBNrY&feature=related

Susan, this is one of your best postings. Your arguments are clear and persuasive. Hope and justice supercedes faith, and Obama knows that.

Susan, this is one of your best postings. Your arguments are clear and persuasive. Hope and justice supercedes faith, and Obama knows that.

“It needs intelligence to read the Bible. People who dismiss it as myth don't understand that it was intended to be that way. The Bible was written in a way in which fools would see it as myth but on the other hand, it was tailor-made to be understood by the wise.”

So – not only does a person have to hear and accept God’s word to get into heaven, they have to be “wise” enough to not be taken in by God’s little trick of making facts look like myth.

Clever guy, that God – always thinking up ways to keep people out of heaven.

And he loves us.

As the Zen masters say, there is nothing outside your own mind to be find anywhere....there is no objective reality.

Religion is ultimately a lost cause because it projects all kinds of objective realities where there are none. Religionists and mystics have never experienced anything whatsoever apart from their own mind, and yet people in the billions continue to believe adamently in a separately existing realm full of divinities with God at the top of the heap. The mystery of the mind and how it creates all of existence is the single most profound phenomenon in the universe.

How could a separately existing reality ever be possible?? Your entire existence is mind-created and quantum physics will support this contention, unless you prefer the idea of an infinity of parallel universes.

Unfortunately we're stuck with religionists as national leaders for the foreseeable future - they inevitably turn to religion for vision and inspiration when clear thinking and spontaneous intelligence would be ever so much better.

Friends,

since reason is of the devil (Martin Luther), or "ignorance is bliss" (but WITHOUT irony, according to the bible!), Saint Spiderman sure as hell will be catapulted to heaven right away. An exemplary candidate for eternal bliss.

Unless - well, let's give an ever so faint chance even to Spiderman to evolve.

"we communists stopped using the eptithet Fascist about 19 years ago cuz we realized it made us look re-dic=u=lous.Guess you didn't get the memo."

too bad we can't get rid of fascism via memo.

“the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. that, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group”

fdr

Another thoughtful discussion - could this be a trend?

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

Is that all you can say? Why am I ignorant? Please explain. If you can't, then ask your evolutionist teachers if they have an explanation. I've searched and there are no answers. Have you searched? Or did you just choose to be ignorant to have a "blissful life"?

God said that there is Hell. Did you also chose to ignore or be ignorant of God or hell to have a "blissful life"?

If you define ignorance as blissful, I find that amusing. For me ignorance is scary. I search because it scares me to be ignorant.

Yes, ignorance is bliss. That's what the ignorant says coz that's their only consolation.

Spiderman, Spiderman, Spiderman,

And you have a PhD in Physics, Electrical Engineering and also Bible Studies????? or just a high school education in bible thumping??

Spiderman, I guess ignorance must be bliss. I hope you and God will both be very happy, all alone, together, in Heaven.

Barak Obama IS inspirational, and he IS charasmatic. I have always thought that these were good qualities to have. What a turned upside down world we now live in when these traits are seen to be bad.

President Bush can barely communicate a simple thought as good as a third grader. Now, we are so used to such a President that a candidate who can speak in inspirational tones is thought to be odd, and confusing.

I do not know what kind of President Obama would make. But, we don't know that about any of the candidates. It is completely unpredictable. You just look at the candidates, make your choice, and hope for the best.

I can understand it if a person says that they like another candidate better. I can understand it if Republicans say that McCain's political objectives more closely resemble their own beliefs. I can understand if Clinton fans are frustrated that a rival may defeat her.

But to challenge Obama's credibility because he is inspiring and because people throng to hear him speak, that is just plain cynical and silly; that is the bitter commentary of regret and recrimination, that some people acquire with their advancing years.

I suppose by these standards, Abraham Lincoln was probably about the worst President we ever had, because many of his speeches rose to poetry, which people still read, with interest, today. I suppose that makes him a bad person and a bad President?

Has President Bush ever said even one sentence that anyone cared to remember, even the next day? I can't think of any.

GaryOd (love ya, my man, dude, white guy)

You write
According to what he revealed of his economic plans Obama is a firm believer in the fascist belief that government can solve all our problems.

That is apparently where Obama things we should place our hope.

A coupla points Gary-O:
1. we communists stopped using the eptithet Fascist about 19 years ago cuz we realized it made us look re-dic=u=lous. Guess you didn't get the memo.

2. Based on the evidence, I would opine that Barack is SLIGHTLY more intelligent than you are, and that therefore he DOES NOT think Government can "solve ALL our problems."

LIKE, that using the powers of Government to go t o war in Iraq MAY JUST create MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT aolves, if you get my gist.

love you madly
Henry

Every person can copy a Windows program by just simply copying its binary composition. That is how CDs are copied. An ordinary person can copy it but it doesn't mean he knows how it was made.

The same is true with evolutionists scientists. The best they can do is just copy bit by bit the composition of DNA but they don't know what's really behind it.

The stupidity begins when these same scientists seems to know it all when they really don't know anything. They know how humans evolve when they don't even have a clue why DNAs exist and what's behind the intelligence governing it.

They are like little kids who just learned how to copy a Windows program and start acting like they have doctorate in computer science. They are like idiots on the loose.

And the idiots are let loose to every school in America. That's where the dumbing begins and Jacoby is one of it's casualties.
It needs intelligence to read the Bible. People who dismiss it as myth don't understand that it was intended to be that way. The Bible was written in a way in which fools would see it as myth but on the other hand, it was tailor-made to be understood by the wise.

To the likes of Susan and and the rest of secularists here, sorry guys, your brains lacked something. Tsk,tsk. Just be resigned to the fact that there are really 2 Americas and you all belong the one described by Susan herself - DUMB.

Fortunately, there will be future wars and true to nature's basic law, it will weed out all the dumb (nature's basic law is ONLY THE SANE WILL SURVIVE). Look what happened to Europe during WW1 and WW2. They are the so called pro-rationalism or pro-intellectualism -- products of the "age of enlightenment". It's from that region in which evolution and communism started. Thru "rational thinking", they made monsters out of themselves and started killing each other. If not for America (In God We Trust), Europe would have rot by now.

For Jacoby, secularism or forgetting God is rationalism. Well, she's wrong. Nature's basic law is still working and guess what? There's still another WW to come to finish off the remaining dummies.

It is true that pigs will fly. Jesus described the unbelievers as pigs. In the said coming destruction of pigs, their flesh will fly but their skeletons remain.

According to what he revealed of his economic plans Obama is a firm believer in the fascist belief that government can solve all our problems.

That is apparently where Obama things we should place our hope.

As the saying goes, "Hope springs eternal in the human breast". It arises as a countervailing force to the challenges and setbacks we face, and it has twin wellsprings.

First, we have hope for our descendants and their future generations. This is based partly on logic: in general, the arc of human wellbeing has been an upward one throughout human history, so it's not unreasonable to wager that this will continue to hold true.

Although, with our current issues of resource depletion, climate change and despoliation of environments, this type of hope may require a willing suspension of disbelief -- it doesn't really require a deeper faith.

This is the type of hope that leaders and societies try to tap into; the hope that looks towards a better world in which to live.

There's another kind of hope, hope for ourselves personally, in the face of our physical mortality. This is the hope born of belief in the immortality of the human spirit. This is the hope that says, we cannot be perfect in this life -- that we will inevitably fall short -- but that we will be granted other opportunities to learn and grow. This type of hope does, specifically, require faith and it is beyond the purview of politicians no matter how eloquent they may be.

Two types of hope: one arising from our knowledge that our days here are numbered, and the other springing from our faith that this life is only a foreshadowing of what lies ahead.

LOL. Miss "Americans are Dunces" falls for empty rhetoric from a motivational speaker. Excuse me for not really caring that you think I am the dumb one.

What a joke.

"Hope - Change - Nice - Good"

Greetings, TommyO, from Knoxville,

I grew up in that area, Oak Ridge, and my heart is still in the mountains of East Tennessee. I live in Georgia now. Yeah, the Huckster carried this state too.

Got the email branding Obama as a Manchurian Muslim. I immediately replied to the sender that it was an obvious 'swift boat' attack, and sent links to sites that debunked this lie.

Arminius

Greetings from Knoxville, TN Susan!

Once again, very much enjoyed your talk during your recent visit.

FYI: There are those in my community that are wary of Senator Obama because they think he is a "muslin" [sic] and of course his sinister middle name.

Not a big suprise that "Ayatollah Huckabee" carried the Rebublican state primary here!

Jim (Seattle):

Oops... make that 'The words from Augustine'. My bad. I had Arminius on my mind, because Augustus was emperor then.

Arminius

Jim (Seattle):

Well, that was a bit of education, to be sure. Thanks.

As to my handle, it comes from the 1st century Germanic hero who defeated, and totally wiped out, three Roman legions in 9 AD (aka CE). For the record, I have no German heritage, I am Scots-Irish. I just have a vital interest in history.

The words from Augustus will require much thought. I'm not much for theology, I'm from the spiritual side.

Best,

Arminius

Hello "reality challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Typical "Jihadian" commentaries on anything and everything except the flaws of Islam.

Once again for your close perusal:

Islamic problems go beyond Islamic laws, the Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia. The base problems are in the flaws of Islam i.e.

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

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 greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Obama is criticised for being the candidate of
HOPE and
CHANGE.

As in " we all HOPE we can CHANGE the limited way of seeing the issues, conditioned by 40 years of the generational battles of the Baby Boomers (like me),

and see a NEW HOPe for
Protecting ourselves internationally without being bullies and know-nothings

Looking at Race in a now White-minority culture where our half black candidate is not guilt tripping or victimizing, but exhorting,

starting out anew without the partisan bile that characterized the Clinton years

or the Big Balls Macho approach to the world fed by Fear of Terror that Bush inaugurated and McCain promises to continue.

Empty Slogans??? or Natural, Pagan-like, Moon induced change??? Pray about it.

Love to you Arminius and Terra. meet you in Christian/Pagan Heaven (I'm there already).

I am NOT a rabid Obama Partisan. I just think that we need to clarify the messages and the momentum that the universe is sending us.

Arminius,

I assumed you were using the moniker of the 16th century Dutch pastor who has come to be known as the "anti-Calvin." You do sound like an Arminian. Is this really just a coincidence?

Here is what Augustine said:

"Despite everything, man, though but a small part of your creation, wants to praise you. You yourself encourage him to delight in your praise, for you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you."

This is the God-shaped hole. I think Victor Frankl called it the "existential vacuum." Bono sings about it in "Mofo". Pascal was pretty preoccupied with it. It's a space for God alone. We don't know why we're not satisfied, so we search for satisfaction in the things we stuff into the hole. Of course the point is that it is a "God-shaped" hole; only one thing will fit.

My best to you, Jacobus Arminius!

Arminius,
You are right...that was a big ooops.

I can not get over the change in the poor soul. He was a rather eccentric poster of good will before..and now he is just nutty.

terra

Jim in Seattle,

You said:
Jacobus Arminius,
I think it is the one that Augustine talked about.

... er....say what? Where did the 'Jacobus' come from? And what did Augustine talk about? I'm serious here, I really would like to know!

Arminius

And, oh, by the way, is not a "cult of personality" perhaps the result of that personality giving hope to the masses or at least some of the masses?

It may be false hope, it may be real hope, but it is telling that people look outside of themselves to find "hope" in someone else - to lead them out of the current state of helplessness and into hope. Or is it hopelessness?

A good weekend to all.

"J"
the non-Clintonian, the non-Barackian.
(I can't vote in the US after all)

Psalm 146
Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.
When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing.
Blessed are those whose help is the God of Jacob, and whose hope is in the LORD their God.

I pray for you Susan.

Arminius,E Favorite,Henry James,

Thanks boys...

Hope, empathy, love...its all in faith...but not neccessarily in religion. To me religion is a set of rules...while faith is what connects you to others and to that something greater then yourself, call it God, Akasha, or the greater good...

terra

Hi, Jihadist,

Much of what you say about Obama is close to the mark, my friend. There is more than a bit of hysteria, a longing for some road out of the partisan swamp we are in here in America. He gives us hope, perhaps based on belief, perhaps not. I, too, am something of a victim of it, although I am old enough to retain my skepticism.

I recommend that you read Terra's post above on Obama. He is real. I don't know, of course, what kind of president he would make; nobody does before it happens. Perhaps we will see.

Keep the posts coming.

Arminius

Jacobus Arminius,

I think it is the one that Augustine talked about.

"Cult of personality"?

Perhaps in totalitarian states people who support their unelected leaders are because of "cult of personality". In democratic states it is the "charismatic" leaders that made their people follow them to acts of atrocities, or towards acts of greatness.

Either way, a leader said to have a "cult of personality" or is "charismatic" is not exactly flattering. Both implied adulation of those accorded with such characterisations among some of their people at least.

Perhaps better to use the term "adulation" as felt by Obama fans for him? After all, most of his admirers are said to be "young". The young do tend to treat whom they love and admire, whose words spoke to them, resonated with them, like rock stars. I see no difference between the fans of Obama to John Lennon's and Bob Dylan's. Hero worship is not far or perhaps even apt.

As for "hope" and "justice", it is fair enough a wish. So is to hope for justice and that there be justice. But hoping for something is not the same as acting on something.

Certainly to have hope is an impetus to act. And to act, having hope is not enough. One must have "faith" in what one hope for - an unwavering faith to see our hopes realised regardless of challenges.

I don't see how anyone can seperate "hope" from "faith". The Obama fans perhaps saw that he gave them hope. Or he expressed their hopes best and they have faith, placed their faith in him to lead them to put into actions their hopes, including being just to all and justice for all.

Obama may remind many of human possibilities. It may or may not be realistic to put so much faith in one person. Only when when the Hoped One failed to deliver on hopes (I prefer the word expectations) raised, and public opinion and mood soured on him, when the public lost faith in him, can the pundits say perhaps - "Ah, Obama soaked them with his language of hope." "Oh, Obama was a charismatic candidate and magnetic speaker." "Well, there was an Obama 'cult of personality' among the young during the presidential primaries."

Thank you and best regards.

"J"

Jim (Seattle):

I'm still not sure I understand you. Sounds like you have a lot going for you - what's with the 'hole'?

You are absolutely right about one thing, though - Beethoven's piano concertos belong on that list!

Arminius

Jeff,

I am far from giving up hope. Hope defines the way I look at the world and understand myself. So I'm not going to shortchange myself when it comes to the object of my hope. Great literature, incessant study, a loving wife and beautiful children (many of them), satisfying work, and an increasingly convenient and pain-free life have not filled the hole.

You left the Beethoven piano concertos off of your list, friend.

Irving Berin didn't collect a penny on "God Bless America"

It was his gift to the country he loved.

J..take your meds.

First you are all for Romney...now for Clinton. Ok you are suffering from whip lash right?

So you think that Obama is responcible for what his pastor does? Does that mean that the thousands who followed Ted Haggard is responcible for his hanky panky with a gay hooker?

Pastor Wrightis no longer the Pastor of Obama's church.

So obcess about something else.

Jim:

Thanks for your response.

The growing life expectancy; eradication of Smallpox, near-eradication of Polio; any single photograph from the Hubble space telescope; unweaving the human genome; the internet; high-definition television; MRI angiography; Samuel Barber's "Adagio for Strings"; "Fiddler on the Roof"; solar energy; evolving computer technology; "The Thorn Birds"--these are a few things measurable, useful, lifechanging, and fully human.

I expect if we met, I'd be pleased to know you and that knowing would give me hope as well.

Don't give up hope friend!

Funny how Hillary and McCain criticize Obama's speeches...when giving their speeches.

BTW - I appreciate that Obama doesn't feel the need to end every speech with "God bless you." Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't.

Further BTW - yes, I voted for Obama in the CA primary, even though my early impressions of him weren't favorable or unfavorable. They were neutral. In the end, I think the country needs to break out of the 25+ years of Clinton/bush presidencies, and since McCain will suffer the largest defeat in US presidential election history, I had to go with Obama. That said, he's growing on me (I just bought his book to read as well).

Final BTW - I'm just finishing up Susan's new book, The Age of American Unreason. I recommend it.

Att: J A Y @ 5:P, et al;

Interesting.

Please see OBAMA & NATiON OF iSLAM & Wrong, not Rabbi Wrights Connection!

Excerpt:
"The title of Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama's book The Audacity of Hope was taken from a sermon written by Wright.[5] Obama first met Wright and joined his church while he was working as a community organizer prior to attending Harvard Law School. Obama's connection to Wright first drew attention in a February 2007 Rolling Stone article which described a speech in which Wright forcefully spoke about racism against African-Americans.[6] Citing the article and fears that any further controversy would harm the church, Obama scrapped plans of having Wright introduce him at his Presidential announcement. [7]

This only drew further interest into Wright's preaching of Black liberation theology which some conservative critics say promotes "a sort of racial exclusivity".[8] Wright has rejected this notion by saying that "The African-centered point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history."[9]

During the course of the campaign, Wright has also attracted controversy for his association with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam.[10] Wright travelled to Libya with Farrakhan in the 1980s. In 2007, Wright addressed this by saying "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Colonel Gadaffi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."[11] In 2007, Trumpet Magazine (published and edited by Wright's daughter) presented the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to Farrakhan, whom it said "truly epitomized greatness."[12] Wright is quoted in the magazine offering praise of Farrakhan "as one of the 20th and. 21st century giants of the African American religious experience" and also praised Farrakhan's "integrity and honesty."[13] In response, Obama noted his disagreement with the decision to give the award to Farrakhan; his statement was praised by Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League.[14]

In addition, Wright has said that Zionism has an element of "white racism", and that the attacks on 9/11 were a consequence of violent American policies and proved that "people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."[15]

--

Please See wiki article thanks:.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright

Jay,

You don't sound angry to me.

I should have put quotation marks around "unrealistic".

I don't believe that God compels people to do things like enslave others, start wars, kill, or even insult. I do believe that people are compelled to do these things and like to reference God so they don't have to be accountable for their freedom (Dostoyevsky - The Grand Inquisitor). I don't see any difference between "religious ideas" and human weaknesses, projections, and ambition. Religious ideas are human ideas. Religious institutions are human institutions. It is a fundamentally different question whether God actually exists and if so what this means (existentially) in the life of an individual.

As far as not having hope in humanity, I think history is on my side. What we can see, do, change, and measure today is by definition known, tried, and limited. Where is the hope in that? I'll pass on the systems designed to produce measurable outcomes and the good intentions behind them. Those are religious in their own way.

Peace to you.

Jim in Seattle,

That was very disappointing. What on earth are you really driving at? Why do you want to hide? You say you are a believer - well, then, please go read the incredible message of hope and optimism in the Gospels. Then go outside, where you can see, if you look, the hand of God at work everywhere. Then go among your fellow man, keeping in mind the second great commandment. Sure, you will see many bad things, too many. But so much good too! People do help one another, even those they do not know. The good is there. And it is NOT limited to believers.

Arminius
(Apologies to Jeff - you posted a good reply to him. But I had to get religious here.)

Another good essay, Susan. I watched your interview with Bill Moyers, and read your recent op-ed piece in WaPo - both excellent.

What I think Obama offers is inspiration. I used to feel it when I listened to Kennedy's speeches, and I felt it - electrifyingly - when I heard Obama's keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention. The contrast with the speeches of our current president is beyond immense.

It's not just the speechwriters, as many claim. Bush has changed speechwriters, but still sounds like a moron. It's the delivery, and the sense that the person speaking understands what he's saying and why he's saying it.

There's no real substitute for inspiration, and it's something that the American people haven't felt in a long time. It drives us to be better and to do more. It got us to the moon, and started the Peace Corps.

I see substance behind Obama's speeches - I don't think he's just talk - but don't discount the value of the words - those alone can drive us to better things. It wouldn't be the first time. Remember "give me liberty, or give me death"?

Susan, For the first time I am disappointed in your piece. It was pure political. I do think that Obama has evolved, intentionally, a following based on faith and not on substance. His alliance with the Rev jeremiah Wright who is anti-Semitic and Pro Louis Farrakhan makes this a religious position. Rev Wright is acknowledged as his "spiritual advisor". If this is not a reference to a "religious base" what is? JSG

Jim (Seattle):

I'll respectfully disagree. I don't mean to sound angry here.

These are tired arguments, look in the archives. It's all been said.

Small minded provincialism? "Narrowness of mind, ignorance, or the like, considered as resulting from lack of exposure to cultural or intellectual activity." Perfect example, maybe: "I'll stick with my unrealistic faith in God..."

Any reader could pick any item in your list and categorically describe it as being in direct coorelation to religious (or totalitarian) ideas.
I might remind you that currently Russia has a very religious leader--you know the one where President Bush described how he felt bonded because he was wearing a cross--how's our relationship with Russia recently? What war on earth presently doesn't have a religious pretext?

I'm sorry you have such a dismal lack of hope in your fellow human beings. Personally, I'm putting my hope in a future of what we can see, do, change, and measure today, and not in lofty "beyond human possibility" notions.

And I'm sorry if I sound provoking.

Here are some things that you can realistically "hope" for based on evidence and human possibility:

Slavery
Genocide, both political (Soviet Union) and racial (Rwanda)
Marital infidelity
Racism
Small-minded provincialism
Holocaust
War

You can have these products of human ambition. I'll stick with my unrealistic faith in God and "hope" for something beyond human possibility.

Here are some things that you can realistically "hope" for based on evidence and human possibility:

Slavery
Genocide, both political (Soviet Union) and racial (Rwanda)
Marital infidelity
Racism
Small-minded provincialism
Holocaust
War

You can have these products of human ambition. I'll stick with my unrealistic faith in God and "hope" for something beyond human possibility.

I agree that Obama consistently gives better speeches than any of the other candidates. All of the others are offering us ways to keep "everything going" for another 4 years; they are all a little boring; they offer us plattitudes, cliches; they pander and grovel, or just plain lust for power, unashamedly, not for any particular reason or with any goal in mind, but just to have power, and to keep the system going.

Giving a good speech is more than just reciting "purple prose" and coming up with clever rhetorical devices; if that is all a speech maker can do, then it would get old fast. But when someone gives a good speech, that means that he has communicated something interesting; that means that he has interesting and clever ideas, that people want to hear.

That is what makes Obama tower over the others, he is more interesting, and has more in the way of ideas to offer. He is more substantial than they are. His good speeches indicate that he has intelligence, intellect, and a good education. His speeches indicate that he is worldly, modern, and sophistocated. And I think he has a kind heart, too.

Susan-love your post. Watched your show with Moyers. Ordered the book!

"Hope" is a better word than "faith"--in all regards. To imply that faith describes a "feeling of connectiveness" is just about as helpful a description as describing God as "love." It's elusive, confusing, selective, and ultimately can be described with better terminology. As a non-believer it seems to me to be a cop-out to refer to warm-fuzzy feelings or feelings of connectedness as "faith" or to God as "love." Warm-fuzzies and love are uniquely wonderful, beautiful human experiences that don't require faith or the supernatural gods.

I'm reminded of a recent guest post that "celebrated" all religions and the bond among people of "faithful" religions. To me it was shorthand for "we should all celebrate each other's Gods, since ultimately it is probably the same God" and in fact, was a statement of deism more or less, but probably a more accurate description of what was going on. I doubt most of them would want to be counted as deists.

...sorry to be a party-pooper, but in religion and politics, let's get specific.

“Any columnist or editorial writer who uses that phrase, strongly associated in the 20th century with Nikita Khruschev's condemnation of Stalin and Stalinism, is either a careless hack or a deliberate slanderer.”

I’m glad I’m not the only one offended by the use of the phrase “cult of personality”. Effectively, it is no different than calling someone a “Stalinist stooge.” Alas Susan, as you pointed out so eloquently in your recent commentary on ignorance, in fact a lot of so-called pundits are as profoundly ignorant of history as most other Americans and when one uses a phrase maliciously, many others pick it up and use it in imitation without understanding what it really means. Perhaps I’m being too generous crediting most of the users of the phrase with ignorance rather than malice, but it is appalling in either case.

I see the irrational and irrelevant commenters are out in force today. As always, thank you Susan for your thoughtful commentary.

Instead of embracing religion, the candidates should point out the flaws in the various religions.

A synopsis of the flaws in the founders and foundations of the major religions for those that have not seen them before or did not take the time to look:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

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

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

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

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

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

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

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

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

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

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

"...one of the quirkier and smarmier accusations leveled at him by the Clintons is that his ability to deliver an inspirational speech is somehow at odds with the ability to offer specific solutions to problems."

Yes, and doesn't that smack of the tactics used against Gore and Kerry? [only in those cases it was their intelligent analysis of complex issues that was lampooned]

Terra, you said,

"Faith is more then religion...it's feeling a connection one to another. It's having experienced a life that teaches compassion toward others. This is the kind of faith that Obama has, and talks about."

Absolutely beautiful. Thank you.

Arminius

Obama, more than the other candidates of either party, brings a different perspective to politics. It's not just because he's black, but because he literally would not exist without the generosity of the United States government sponsoring kids from Africa to study in the U.S. I think that he brings a global view of things, rather than an isolationist one. Although McCain might have the experience to fight terrorism, there are a lot of other foreign policy issues out there that aren't related to terrorism, and can't be dismissed as easily as "they want democracy."

Truth be told, Obama wasn't my first choice. He wasn't even my second or third. But, between him and HRC, I chose the one that is the closest on the issues to what I believe in.

Obama, more than the other candidates of either party, brings a different perspective to politics. It's not just because he's black, but because he literally would not exist without the generosity of the United States government sponsoring kids from Africa to study in the U.S. I think that he brings a global view of things, rather than an isolationist one. Although McCain might have the experience to fight terrorism, there are a lot of other foreign policy issues out there that aren't related to terrorism, and can't be dismissed as easily as "they want democracy."

Truth be told, Obama wasn't my first choice. He wasn't even my second or third. But, between him and HRC, I chose the one that is the closest on the issues to what I believe in.

Heny James says: "Terra: love your "Faith is more than religion.. it's feeling connection one to another."

Me too. It gave me chills - and you're not even Obama!

Norrie

I hate to side with Terra against an Amherst Man, but I do think she is right.

Berger was assiduous in chasing bin Laden, and Rice hardly acknowledged his existence.

nd the other points are worth attending as well.

Terra: love your "Faith is more than religion.. it's feeling connection one to another.

Norrie,
You are wrong as to Sandy Berger. How exactly did he pave the way for 9-11? That is as bad as the far right idiots blameing gays, Pagans and the ACLU. Sandy might have taken papers...but they were COPIES.He did not hide them in some construction zone, under a truch or anywhere else. He went back and admited to his mistake and turned them over. Even the Archivist said that no papers were missing. So really, do not believe all the hype spooned out by the Republican liers.

As far as Mark Rich...maybe you need to research that case...and not from some blogger on RedState or the Fixed News.. The Clintons made huge mistakes, but lets be fair and not accuse them for things that didn't happen.Now if you want to jump on Bush for pardoning Libby.

I am not a Hillary supporter..I am so excited about Obama that I am even hopeing that I too can again be proud of my country. Because I haven't for a very long time.

It will not be long and the Repuke slime machine will be gearing up, aimed at Obama. Hillary already has, as far as his backing away from public financing...is Mc Cain going Public Financing? is Hillary saying she will if she gets the nod? Hillary lost any respect I had for her with helping the repubs dis Obama.

Hillary does have experience...not just as First Lady. Check into her bio. Obama is not just an empty suit either. He has accomplished alot and I think has the strength of character and honesty that will make a good president...without the baggage of a Clinton. He has more to offer.

But lets see things in truth, no one is all bad and no one is all good... Hillary would make a good policy driven president...but we need more. We need something bigger and grander...and I think that comes with attitude and vision... that Obama has.he also has all the folks behind him that was the advisors of Bill Clinton...even his champaign manager.

Faith is more then religion...it's feeling a connection one to another. It's haveing experienced a life that teaches compassion toward others. This is the kind of faith that Obama has, and talks about.

terra

Quick: tell me the details of McCain and Clinton's economic plan, as you heard them explain it in their last speech.

Can't do it? No one can. The American people don't vote on issue details.

E Fave is right: Obama gives better speeches, and the others scream sour grapes.

John McCain does claim that he has larger sexual equipment than Obama. Maybe racial stereotypes will work in Barack's favor on this one.

Did you notice he did not end his 'victory-Wisconsin' speech last evening with, "God bless you" or any other calling on the supernatural for help?

Go, Susan!

Funny how only Obama gets blasted for just giving speeches. ALL the candidates are just giving speeches right now. That's what people do to get elected -- go around the country giving speeches.

His speeches happen to be a lot better than everyone else's.

Hillary also tries to tar Barak by claiming he has no experience. Baloney. He's been a state and federal legislator longer than she's been in the Senate.

Hillary speaks of her experience as if she had been President for eight years, when she was merely an onlooker, as were all of us. She has no Executive Branch experience, though she implies that she does.

Her 1992 health plan was a Byzantine, unworkable, ridiculous, Rube Goldberg mechanism which deservedly failed.

She did nothing to get Bill to unload the bumbling and now criminal Sandy Berger as National Security Adviser, whose neglect and malfeasance paved the way for 9/ll, and who was continually mocked by Billary's White House staff, as an insider has related to me.

She also failed to keep Bill from granting a pardon to the international fugitive and crook Marc Rich, who had funneled money to the Clinton's causes.

Good values and good experience, Hill.

But then I guess being a self-proclaimed Methodist makes that all O.K.