Martin Luther King: The Irreplaceable Man

Spiderman2 wrote:

"And I will give him the morning star" Rev 2:28

For me it sounded like something beautiful and well written in the bible, and I assumed that must have a profound meaning as S2 explained: "a very deep metaphor".

The trouble is that metaphors need context to be understood, so I went to read the source.

What I found few verses before was that a woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, was misleading "my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols."

Then Jesus says: "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead."

If my interpretation is correct the whole meaning of the metaphor is: behave and you will get "morning stars", that is, good things like eternal life, no trip to hell and even mundane kingdoms, otherwise, bed of intense suffering and killing of your children.

Can anybody please help me with this: did I understood correctly that Jesus was the person talking and that he indeed said that was going to kill her innocent children?

Also, is this the Jesus that is praised as just and pure love?

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

TO SORCERERSAPPRENTICE:

On your post of 4-5-2008 at 5:01 PM you wrote, "Imagine God as a seething infinity of virtual energy with consciousness.", actually God is not energy but is a Being of Love, Pure Love.

You also wrote, "Back on earth, Martin Luther King demonstrated that a good heart is the essence of true spirituality. It is not mind, but heart that defines goodness.", Martin Luther King also used his mind to try to articulate.

Putting into action, in whichever way, that one feels God is guiding someone is at least attempting to do the "Will of God".

We are all different people and we all have different "jobs" to do but shouldn't at least trying to be a decent human being be a part of everyone's "job".

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO GABY:

On you post of 4-5-2008 at 4:33 PM you wrote, "Sounds like mumbo-jumbo....but.....", guess what it might sound like "mumbo-jumbo" to people that have not had an experience like you have referred to, but it doesn't sound like mumbo-jumbo to me.

You also wrote, "One think I KNOW for sure IT is always with my and with everyone. There is no escape from IT because we all come from IT and we will all return to IT."

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO SPEED 123:

On your post of 4-5-2008 at 2:06 PM you wrote, "Who are you to say who is more Christian? This is a chat board for debate not for your evangelical lectures and anti-intellectualism...", I haven't said who is "more Christian", I said it is God, Who can look into the heart and as for a "chat board...", I thought it was for anyone and everyone, not just the ones that you approve of.

You also wrote, "Faith and reason are both gifts from God - and it seems that you reject the latter with false claims of "sola scriptura.", I have heard the term "sola scriptura" many times and I suppose it means different things to different people but one of the things that I have said is, that the bible can lead you to God but that it seems that there are some that the bible apparently does not lead them to God considering that some use the bible to justify plenty that is, to say the least, less than good.

You also wrote, "As for following Jesus, have you given away all of your possessions? Left your family/wife and become a priest to teach the glory of God?

If not, you are being hypocritical.", first off you are not God and I am not God and when God chooses someone and that someone says "Yes", whatever "job" God gives to that person is what that person should attempt to do, and by the way the Divine Commission is to "PROCLAIM THE GOOD NEWS", not to teach the glory of God, is it not?

And it is "GOOD NEWS" not 'good enough news'.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Perspective what it arose out of doesn't matter and that feeling of alienation is common to lower level members of any race based organization. It also appears to be the driving force of a good many Islamic suicide bombers.

What does matter is the fact that responding to hate with hate only multiplies the hatred and blocks any possibility of reasonable dialog between reasonable people. Haters regardless of race creed or color are not reasonable.

Spiderman2 aka CanyonSheare, Bible Thumper, Fortune Teller and Severely Brainwashed in that Old Time Religion,

Your comments, "And I will give him the morning star" Rev 2:28 and

"This is a very deep metaphor and the bible is awashed with metaphors. Unless atheists can unscramble these metaphors in which some already accurately describes our current world events , they should be cautious of their unbelief,"

brings out another reminder:

"Fools are those who have read only the bible. God cannot be proud of such lazy creations!!!!"

also again:

What "voodooer of the hoodoo" blessed you with such stupidity in the field of fortune telling and interpretations of said stupidity???

The reality of it all is that the "pew sitters" and "bowers" are coming to grips with the flaws and errors in their religions and in ten years the religions of today will be unrecognizable or extinct as the "pretty and ugly wingie flying thingies" are finally buried in the piles of utter nonsense.

I believe Jacoby's stupidity derives from her ignorance of religion. She bunches all religions as one and the same. I hope my previous posts from other blogs would help her understand that there are some religions that are not stupid, although they may not be perfect too. (She is smart though to understand that there really are idiotic religions)

"And I will give him the morning star" Rev 2:28

This is a very deep metaphor and the bible is awashed with metaphors. Unless atheists can unscramble these metaphors in which some already accurately describes our current world events , they should be cautious of their unbelief.

Concerning her belief that the First Amendment was a secular doctrine, she may need to read these :

YOYO wrote : "How many Muslims are given that kind of intellectual freedom do you think? Or Mormons? Or Evangelicals for that matter? "

Baptists (Evangelical) are NOT considered members of their particular churches unless they become born-again and choose for themselves to be baptised as an INDEPENDENT-THINKING individual. Unlike other religions, they don't become members thru their PARENTS' CHOICE (which, by the way, is the root cause of dictatorship in society. Catholic and Islamic countries, historically, are ruled thru dictatorship).

Freedom of Conscience is a primary baptist principle and , thru the years, it has rubbed off to America's political system and even to other nations (Catholic/Islamic included).

Baptist principles have molded this country but you just don't know it. Separation of Church and State was a bi-product of that principle and it was they who insisted that it be put in the First Ammendment.

If ever you wonder why we want Separation of Church and State, it's because if we don't let our parents or church decide for our faith, why would the state? Got it?

Welcome to the United States of America.

(I want to state though that baptist is not a perfect religion. I don't think there is one. But to damn all religions and be an atheist is a very foolish decision.)

*******

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Perspective,

Hmmm, your lists are my lists and vice versa to ensure completeness of thought.

CCNL - I didn't want to steal your thunder. After all, you're the guy with the lists!

The article was interesting. Now I'm more interested how Susan grew up to be an atheist.

My impression of Susan was like a wicked witch. After reading the article, snowhite comes to my mind.

HOW DID SNOWHITE TURN INTO A WITCH? I hope Susan can give us (believers) a favor, by writing about it akin to Anne Rice's article about her conversion from "vampire" to christianity.

Perspective,

On your list of people we should fear, you forgot to include the "tanned" terrorists of Islam and their recent activities as dictated by their founder and his book of "peace" aka the koran:

To wit,

Mohammed was a "tanned", illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/ hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" aka "pretty wingie thingies" 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 "tanned 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.

A partial, contemporary body count caused by said "tanned" terrorists:

1a) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto,

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

2) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4000 US troops and 82,682 – 90,207 Iraqi civilians iraqbodycount.org/

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

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

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

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

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

GARYD - my take is that black separatism as a group movement arises out of feelings of separation and alienation based on a long history of exclusion and discrimination that has occurred and continues to occur in more ways that you or I could imagine - right here and right now.

As to the Black Liberation and Black Muslim movements, we should ask from whence do these come about? Clearly there is a feeling of power, belonging and a sense of common destiny and community that's inherent in most group memberships. People that feel disenfranchised from the greater culture still have these needs as social creatures. Somehow they will be met.

Naturally these organizations that arise in part from feelings of social deprivation often have a political dimension, and a very likely place for these kinds of groups to arise in the black community would be in a church-centered theologically based milieu, given how embedded church related and religiously based activites are in a great many black communities. I say this from the perspective of South Carolina - and also from a purely observational and personally non-religous point of view.

Of course white supremacist groups are infused with 'christian' values and hyper-patriotism that make Black Liberation theology seem pretty tame by comparison.

My impression is that the Black Liberation movement is exceedingly small within the larger black community, as is the Black Muslim movement. My work environment and the surrounding community environment are probably in the neighborhood of 50% black, and yet I hear little or nothing about these movements - although there are a handful of Black Muslims in my work environment that stand out because they're typcially friendlier than other employees. Should I be suspicious??

Malcolm X was as you say was apparently killed by his own people because he defied leader Elijah Muhammed. This murder was politically motivated and singularly rare and as we see today, was not a foreshadowing of anything particularly violant or threatening related to the emergence of the Black Muslim movement in the USA. And while Louis Farrakhan is not a particularly endearing person, so far nobody has successfully pinned Malcolm X's murder on him.

The truth is white folks have little to fear from the black community, and everything to fear from their own white leaders. As to mass murderers and serial killers throughout the decades - ranging from whacked out suicide cults, to domestic terrorists blowing up federal buildings and mail parcels, to school shootings, family planning center shootings, mall shootings, shootings at the local plant and stock brokerage firms and the neighborhood MacDonald's, and from Ted Bundy to the Green River killer.....and last but certainly not least, our devastating and unforgettable political assassinations and near assassinations - all were almost without exception perpetrated by white men.

Yes indeed, let's put things in perspective.

“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Perspective since you don't seem to have much perspective, Does the Name Malcom X ring any bells almost certainly slain by His own group. Several cops at least some of them black two subject off a movie some years back.

Preach enough hate murder will be done by some one.
That's the problem with both those groups - actually all four of them - They demonize people and preach hate. You cannot stop the racial divide by filling it with hate.

GARYD - perhaps you'll enlighten us with examples of deaths due to the Black Liberation movement and the Black Muslims?? And while you're researching history so diligently could you provide examples of deaths at the hands of the KKK and various white extremist movements??? There are plenty of these at hand.........

I know your research will be free of any kind of prejudice whatsoever - are you from Texas, by the way???

Your inclinations are apparent to all posters - and you say you're inspired by the Bible??

You have no credibility buster .........

Excellent work Ms Jacoby it is nice that someone else grasps the historical perspective quite probably the single worst event in the history of American Race Relations since Reconstruction.

You missed part of it though. Never forget that there are two sides of the racist coin.It was Martin Luther King who was also the only voice of sufficient stature within the black community that could have headed off the Black Liberation Theology movement and it's Black Muslim next of kin. Both of these are every bit as bad for Race Relations as the KKK and the Aryan Nations movement.

Who would ever imagine that the best of people and the worst of people would emerge from the
Quantum Vacuum?? This is what science will determine to be the source of all things before much longer.

Imagine God as a seething infinity of virtual energy with consciousness. This transcends religion, to be sure. How is it that we should appear at all?? This is the heart of the mystery.

Back on earth, Martin Luther King demonstrated that a good heart is the essence of true spirituality. It is not mind, but heart that defines goodness.

Arminius, my Friend,

You said: "As to my faith. Because of a profound spiritual experience, which I won't go into here, I came to know that God IS, and that He is with me. NOT provable. "

I must have had a similar experience, the only difference is that I did not look to the Bible to explain it to me. I just inherently know. I don't really call IT God because I don't want people to confuse IT with the old religions.

One think I KNOW for sure IT is always with my and with everyone. There is no escape from IT because we all come from IT and we will all return to IT.

IT is what IT is.....

Sounds like mumbo-jumbo....but.....

Have a wonderful weekend.

With the assassination of MLK, we will never know if he would have come to grips with the flaws and errors of Christianity. Considering his intelligence, one would assume he would.

I can almost hear that speech now.

"After careful review my fellow Christians, it is apparent to my mind and soul that we have been fed significant mumbo-jumbo with respect to the life of Jesus.

Brothers and Sisters stop and read about the real Jesus. Develop a new view!!! Jesus was a simple, illiterate preacher man. The Beatitudes are pure Jesus. His giving to Caesar what was Caesars is pure Jesus. The rest was embellishment upon embellishment of the life of said simple preacher man!!! The "miracles" were added to compete with the local "voodooers of the hoodoo", the resurrection was added to compete with Roman and Greek gods and the "pretty wingie thingies" and "demons of the demented added to continue the fear and superstitions of the ancients!!!!!

Free at Last, Free at Last"!!!!!!!!

Speed123,

Thomas Baum is actually pretty decent and polite, I've conversed with him before. I certainly don't always agree with him either, but he is ethical in his posts. I also don't see how he is being anti-intellectual.

Arminius

To Thomas,

Who are you to say who is more Christian? This is a chat board for debate not for your evangelical lectures and anti-intellectualism...

Faith and reason are both gifts from God - and it seems that you reject the latter with false claims of "sola scriptura."

As for following Jesus, have you given away all of your possessions? Left your family/wife and become a priest to teach the glory of God?

If not, you are being hypocritical.

TO SUSAN JACOBY:

You wrote, "Of course, psychobabble (like books extolling religion)", and you also wrote, " But if you spend most of your time writing anonymous screeds on the Web,".

I would like to say something about both Judaism and Christianity.

I do not consider either Christianity or Judaism a religion even tho there are many that do and there are many that have turned them into religions rather than the relationships with God that they should be.

The Jews are the Chosen People for the simple reason that God chose and formed them, before God chose Abraham there was no such people.

Being the Chosen People does not mean that the Jews are better or anything at all like that, it just means that God chose them.

If Christianity is just a religion to someone then they have missed the whole point of it.

There may be various ways to be a "Christian" but if you aren't ultimately trying to take up Jesus's invitation to, "Come follow Me", then I guess you are just kidding yourself.

As far as writing anonymously, I always put my name at the beginning and my full name at the end unless I forget, even tho I am nowhere near that formal in person.

I was reading thru some of the postings and one of the things that I noticed is that some of the people that have rejected FORMAL religion with it's attendant DOGMA AND RULES AND RITUALS seem to be more CHRISTIAN in their hearts than some who have embraced the dogma, rules and rituals yet don't seem to have any room left for GOD, of course only God can look into someone's heart but if we listen, we can sometimes hear what flows from the heart.

Another thing that I have noticed is that for some people the only way for, other's, to have an open mind, is for the other to only accept what they, themselves, consider open-mindedness, is that being open-minded or just another way of being close-minded and if you think about it, is there also some arrogance involved?

As I have said before and I repeat: The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Does it seem rather odd that some of the "religious" and some of the "non-religious" seem to get equally upset about this statement?

Does anyone think the the above question is something to think about or to just dismiss it out of hand because of the preconceived notions that both the "religious" and "non-religious" have formed about anyone that is different from themselves?

If God was anything like what some of the people that believe in Him, who would want to have anything at all to do with Him?

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] at the dawning of the seventh day.

A little from Revelations and a little from Genesis.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Think about this: a 60 year old religious person that believes that God exist even if there is no evident proof of his/her existence, but still does this:

1. Attends religious services and prays for 8,580 hours, based in an average of 3 hours per week during 55 years.
2. Has contributed with 10% of his earnings to his/her church during 45 years, which means $300.000 assuming that the person made an average of $50K per year.
3. His time and money supports an organization that he/she knows has made very bad things in the past, and most probably still keeps doing things that are not right.

On the other hand that person feels that what she/he is doing is to follow the faith of his/her parents. They sincerely think that they are being really faithful to his parents and their faith.

In addition, most of the time (not always unfortunately) the person is inspired by the minister and parishioners to do good things. They help each other while sing, clap and have fun making friends.

You could say they are satisfied customers: they get back what they pay for.

If you take away the supernatural and unproven myths, and change the old leadership, in this market space you can develop a new product more in tune with the current world.

This could be good business and no need to kill each other because unproven beliefs.

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

Arminius,

You have me there and that is an interesting fact that I will use in some morbid cocktail discussion; however, modernity has brought us unrestricted warfare against civilian population (both by conquering armies and by despotic national governments).

Is it progress when non-combatants are killed by the 100s of millions during the last century.

The Romans et al may have triumphed on the battlefield; however, us moderns have mastered whole sale liquidation of our own people...

Ironic that modernity has brought unrestricted "total war," isn't it?

Arminius - Actually the best choir I sang in was my last church choir. I can carry a tune, but am not much in the voice department.

I've never sung the ninth - maybe someday. I've seen lots of operas and always cry at La Traviata.

I got misty eyed recently at a stage production of My Fair Lady.

Jeff P is right about the Faure Requiem. Get his "Cantique de Jean Racine" too. They usually come together.

Speed123,

Being a history nut, I can't resist another addendum here on the unsavory subject of man's ability to kill his fellow man.

Can you name the battle that killed the most men in a single day? This is discounting the nukes on Japan, and the firebombings there and in Germany.

Most likely you would go to WWI, probably the Somme. The Brits lost 20,000 dead in the first day. A good guess, but you would be wrong.

The battle that accurate historical records exist for that is the record breaker happened in 216 BCE. That is correct. Cannae, Hannibal against the Romans. In a battle that has been studied by generals ever since, in one day the Carthaginians killed over 60,000 Romans. Killed, not wounded. And before you dispute the numbers, remember that the victors write the histories. The Romans won the war, and they freely admitted that horrible number of dead.

The lesson is - what have we really learned?

Arminius

E Fav,

Seems that I must look up the Faure Mass. If great music can reduce you to tears, then we have something in common, to be sure. Ever sung Beethoven's Ninth? That one completely shreds me when I hear it! Singing in a really good choir must be an incredible experience. My touch with the power of the human voice has been the few times I have been privileged to hear great opera live.

Arminius

Speed123,

Dresden, Flanders Field, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Iraq... yes, the number of the fallen are greater. We are better at it now. Also, there are more people to kill. But the intent is the same as the cavemen killing off a tribe downriver to gain better fishing and hunting grounds. The problem is not so much technology as us - as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

There is one difference, I will admit: nukes. The ability to destroy an entire nation in 30 minutes does change the equation.

Arminius

Chris Everett:

"The only thing I'm sure of is that I'm not sure of anything."

Are you sure of that?

Just couldn't resist.

Jeff P - I've sung the Faure! and wept in the middle of it - during a rest, luckily, but hearing all the voices around me was overwhelming.

Arminius - If I saved my critical remarks only for people who had written fewer books than I have, a lot of useful criticism would be lost. And I do think that criticism was useful.

But how does that ax compare to the nuclear bombs used on Japan or the machine guns and chemical gas used in WW1 or the fire bombing of Dresden?

Or even the hundreds of thousand killed in Iraq in the name of "progress and democracy?"

Misplaced idealism/progress + modern weaponry = hell on earth...

In my opinion, proportion is key.

Speed123,

Ah, yes, technology. I confess to being utterly fascinated by it. But modern technology has no hammerlock on the double-edged sword.

Consider the lowly stone age flint hand axe. That is a product of technology, primitive though it may be. But have you ever tried to make one? If you succeed (I have not!), you have a marvelous tool that can cut up your hunting kill, harvest edible plants, and shape wood for your fire or a shelter. But it can also be used to bash and slash an enemy.

Be careful what you wish for....

Arminius

Very true; however, modernity has also brought mass depression, isolation, mass unrestricted warfare, anxiety, extensive pollution...

Not to be pessimistic; however, it is also a double-edged sword - like all things.

Well, all I can say is that on a daily basis, I'm thankful that that "unimproved ends" technology allows conscious sedation for kids undergoing painful procedures, hope for parents whose leukemic kid is undergoing inductive chemotherapy with about a 95% chance of 5-year survival based on evidence-based chemotherapeutic regimens, the chance that a vaccine will reduce morbidity or mortality (and thankfulness that we don't still see polio or smallpox or haemophilus or as much pneumococcus due to these current vaccines,)a notification from hundreds of atmospheric scientists who are giving us a "heads up" that we may be causing catastrophic global warming and that we should heed some warning, and many other "blessings" from science that affect all of our lives, all of the days of our lives.

That technology seems to make real differences for real people every day may be spiritually pointless, but I don't see many folks opt to go to their preachers with their diabetic ketoacidosis instead of to the Emergency Room.

And if the "unimproved ends" means the end of life, in the meanwhile I sure have enjoyed being able to talk to you at the convenience of my desktop computer, with a Dr. Pepper in hand and the cat curled up in my lap.

Goodnight all.

Jeff, understandable; however, I always like the Thoreau quote on technology as "an improved means to an unimproved ends."

I lump Jacoby into the militant atheist group, so I tend to get into defensive (offensive) mode when on the threads...I will change my approach next time.

Arminius,

Chesterton does a great job of using logic to explain belief; it is not so much drilling dogma as explaining the sanity found in faith etc.

Happy weekend to all!

Speed:
apology accepted, and I hope you'll accept mine. I hate it when I feel personal about a negative post.

I also have to confess a certain "fanship" to Susan Jacoby, because I celebrate her cause. I truly think she cares about our nation and, through her writing, is attempting to shake us from our mental complacency, and to have us ask the important questions.

I think MLK was also more about that, than about his Christian message.

I am all too aware that there is no infallable "knowledge," and agree there is no infallability of reason. They are both transitory, but there is some utility in realizing that, and being willing and able to always look for a better answer.

As a physician, I spend much of this year's professional reading learning why last year's reading was wrong.

However, I do believe in the process. As imperfect as it is, it's the best we got. The method of scientific inquiry is the best method the human mind has discovered, and it is only by being infallably certain that we guarantee disaster.

Speed123,

Thanks, I'll see if I can find the Chesterton work. Mind you, as someone more spiritual than purely religious, I have no use for orthodoxy and am highly suspicious of dogma!

Arminius

And Arminius, nice pick with "mere Christianity"

Since I am in book mode, can I recommend GK Chesterton's "Orthodoxy"? This is along the same lines as CS Lewis (they were contemporaries); however, I found it much more engaging and it will might change your mind on the idea of "orthodoxy, dogma" etc.

Happy reading!

(although, it seems Susan thinks us plebs too lazy/thick to do so ;)

E Fav,

Please ease up on Susan. Yes, she can be imperious, to a fault. But she has written more books than I have, and maybe you too. Also, I appreciate the fact that she reads our replies and comments on them.

Arminius

From an Emo Phillips routine...

Two men meet.

"Christian or Jew?" asks the first man.

"Christian" says the second.

"Me too ! Protestant or Catholic?"

"Protestant."

"Me too," crows the first man.

And so the questioning continues, until the two men discover
they are both not only Baptists, but Northern, Conservative,
Fundamentalist Baptists of the the Great Lakes Region.

When the first man finally inquires, "Council of 1879 or Council of 1912?

the reply is "1912."

So he cries "Die Heretic!"

Jeff:

Nice answer, although we can agree to disagree and I apologize to all for my earlier aggressive postings (Jacoby tends to get me a bit riled)

Since you believe the infallibility of reason and don't see the threat the exclusive "tyranny of reason" can I suggest reading Giambattista Vico's "New Science"?

A great work of history and philosophy that disputes the claims of empiricists (Descartes et al) and claims the fallibility of reason alone in the study/governance of men.

PS- James Joyce based Finnigan's Wake on this text.

Check it out on Amazon.

Susan Jacoby says, “Those of you who think my books are about atheism apparently spend all of your time perusing blogs instead of reading actual books” and then “But if you spend most of your time writing anonymous screeds on the Web, you probably don't have much time to spend in bookstores.”

Susan, I wish you would spend less time insulting your readers – even if they are just readers of your blog. I saw you twice in person and you did the same thing, commenting on people with “no life” who spend their time talking “anonymously” on blogs. If you think it’s such a low pursuit, perhaps you could spend less time blogging and more time writing actual books.

Jeff P,

Interesting post! Thanks, I think I understand you a bit better. I commend your efforts to help others very much. Also, I am in the process of finally reading C S Lewis' 'Mere Christianity'.

"Reason can exist quite nicely with wonder and awe, instead of faith.". Agreed. To elaborate, anyone, belief, faith, or not, who has no feeling of wonder and awe has not really looked at the universe. But note that wonder and awe are also a driving force of my faith.

It is entirely possible to be spiritual without doctrine. That is where I came from. I am investigating the doctrine, on my journey, and I approach it with doubt and skepticism. As you know, some I accept. But not all, not all!

Arminius

E-Favorite:
I think the most beautiful Choral piece ever written is Faure's Requium. I don't care if he's written about the realms of heaven or Cinderella, it is stunningly beautiful music and I hope you get to sing it someday!

Hi, E Fav,

Glad you're here.

Bach's B Minor Mass is an incredible work. I would consider it an honor to sing it - if I could sing! I have been known to sing along with Carmina Burana, if I have had enough beer first. "O Fortuna, Velut luna, Statu variabilis..."

You are correct in that emotion does enter into my faith. But does not rule it.

Arminius

And Arminius,
I know there are a variety of Christian types. Having been a Lutheran Christian for 46 years, and growing up in Bible-belt Texas, I've pretty much seen it all. "'Preachin' Jesus Cowboy Style" roadsigns on farm roads are not far from "Discover Your Destiny" roadsigns for the megachurches along the interstate.

There are two generational preachers in my family, and I'm married to a person who has completed her second year of post-graduate theology study, and her mom (my dear-old mother in law) is a Presbyterian minister. I'm literally surrounded by "belief." My kid attends confirmation classes. My two best friends are preachers. All of my past girlfriends married pastors... (what does that say?)

I expect I've read as much CS Lewis as anyone who posts here, and have served on as many committees and driven nails into Habitat Houses, scooped soup into bowls at the Salvation Army, and delivered packages to bridge-families as often as many Christians who have posted here.

I think the primary difference in your attitude with that of other Christian posters (Dan in Lion's Den is similar to you) is that you personally confess and acknowledge, even celebrate uncertainty, even where your creed is certain. I think Marcus Borg (who is also an Episcopal panelist here, who I greatly respect) gets around this by suggesting he finds his god in the "thin places," a few of which are the non-thinking repetition of the creeds (that he doesn't take literally) or the immersing of self into the rhythm of a hymn.

Disagreeing with Speed123 once again, I think we can have a very "whole" and meaningful existance without imagining a supernatural realm where in some future all will be made right, the lion lays down with the lamb, and we live in peace with justice served by the supreme judge.

Reason can exist quite nicely with wonder and awe, instead of faith. I've not found many atheists who post here seemingly devoid of wholeness for lack of their faith-component. Is it possible to be "spiritual" without doctrinal? I would suggest yes.

Hi, everyone – nice to see you all here.

I’m singing in a secular choir after about 17 years of singing in an Episcopal church choir. Right now we’re working on Bach’s Mass in B minor – a haunting and very difficult piece. I’ve got a practice tape that I play whenever I can – in the car, in my office.

Even though I don’t believe a word of the Mass, I know the Latin very well and get excited by the words set to such stirring music. Words, for example, such as: “Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum et vitam venturi saeculi.” That is, “ And I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” I love the way the excitement builds as each part comes in - “Et exspecto” Et exspecto, -- “I’m hoping, I’m looking, I’m expecting….” I love the thrill of the runs, no matter how difficult, as the five sections bounce over each other to arrive together at the final “Amen.”

I don’t know, Arminius – maybe that’s how you feel about your faith.

Arminius, thanks.

Speed123: noted.

My message was a personal one to Arminius, and though posted on a public site, I think he understands well what I was trying to get across. I have read many of Arminius' posts and, as he describes in his reply, he's considered a heathen by many of his own. I respect and trust Arminius very much.

I'm afraid your earlier comments have bankrupted your credibility for me.

Go read some more, especially about how Christianity has served as the basis of "men" considering themselves equal among each other, or whatever nonsense you posted in that vein.

Speed123,

Your post was a good one. Keep in mind that, early on, you came across much to harshly.

Jeff P's comment was directed to me, and I took no offence at it. I have tried to explain to him that his definition of 'Christian' is a bit too restrictive.

You are right, 'moderate' is hard to pin down. A gray area for sure. I consider myself moderate.

Arminius

Jeff P,

Rest easy, friend. I have a saying that I live by: if you want to hurt my feelings, ya better get up real early and pack a lunch, 'cause it ain't gonna be easy!

You must accept that Christians come in a great variety. I certainly consider myself Christian, but I am progressive - liberal, in fact. We Episcopalians have a gay bishop; I have no problem with that whatsoever, but I am grieved that a schism has developed.

Obviously my own definition of Christianity is a work in progress. Also, like Daniel in the Lion's Den, also on these blogs, I am considered a non-Christian by the conservative gang. I don't lose a minute's sleep over that.

I am in complete agreement with Susan that the loss of reason in America is a disaster not just waiting to happen but already in progress. Please keep in mind that a true moderate Christian has no problem with reason and science. Do not confuse us with the Fundies, that is a classical example of guilt by association. I do enjoy duking it out verbally with the Fundies here, but it is, in the end, a pointless exercise. I'm not sure Spiderman2 even considers me human - he has already told me I am not Christian. Again, no sleep lost.

Arminius

Jeff states: "Sorry to put it this way, but in short I don't consider you a Christian! That's a total compliment!"

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous statement...it is like someone saying you couldn't be a true atheist, since you are too nice a guy...

As for moderate v immoderate, these are boxes that don't fit.

I am am against preemptive war and against abortion because they both violation the dignity of human life. I am for workers rights and against the death penalty but against gay marriage.

Am I conservative or moderate??

As I said earlier, secularists and materalists are very narrow minded on these matters - as are fundamentalists.

It takes both faith AND reason to make a person complete.

Rationalists cling to reason (look at the communists to see how that worked out) and fundamentalists only have faith.

Catholics (and anyone can be one!); however, have and use both faith and reason.

Andrew,

I hold to my faith, and I hold to the truths of science. Every minute of every hour of every day. I view them both as valid paths, and see no conflict. Further, in the church of my youth, one of our priests (Episcopal) was also a nuclear physicist. He obviously had no problem with it either.

So if you are going to call me nuts, no problem. If I am nuts, then it is a gentle and beautiful madness that harms no one, and I never, ever push it on anyone else. Deal with it.

Arminius

Arminius:

LOL, I was afraid I might have hurt your feelings on that one, and driving back from work already had in my mind how I'd respond if I heard from you; I don't know how you'd take this, but it's meant to be a complement: I haven't ever considered you among the "Christian" group who regularly post here with the intent on either 1) saving us heathen 2) convincing us that our dis-belief is illogical or 3) shaming us into repentance.

Sorry to put it this way, but in short I don't consider you a Christian! That's a total compliment!

Perhaps Jesus wouldn't consider himself a Christian either, if he were to come back and dissect his church currently. In fact I very much doubt he would. And I doubt MLK would rally his legacy around the fact that he "believed" in the right thing, or did the correct church rituals.

As for the deaths of the Christian-parented children, it's not a far-fetched thing to see these folks (as another reviewer described) totally "faithful" and even going as far as demonstrating the faith of Abraham with his sacrificial son Isaac as God says basically, "I'm in control." There are too many "promises" in the Bible to refute their good intentions. They simply trusted God. Same benign-appearing thing in my view as believing that God would choose against childhood vaccines, or blood transfusions, or that there should be a distrust against public school systems because they are godless.

Thankfully, we're willing as a secular society to draw the line where, in at least some cases, parents don't have jurisdiction to perpetrate their religious beliefs onto their kids.

It's a whole other topic, but where I fear the biggest potential disaster lies is precisely where Susan writes about--we can't afford to be so irrational as to begin to distrust the scientific method and empirical thought to the extent it seems we do--we will all suffer the consequences of a nationally decreasing IQ.

Arminius;

One can hold two opposing ideas in one's mind at the same time....but only as long as it takes to decide which one makes more sense. Holding them doesn't necessarily mean believing both when believing both makes no sense. That can't be what Fitzgerald meant.

Nobody would see any virtue in believing in 'what makes no sense'; except, of course,for religions, which rate it as one of the highest of virtues.

Chris,

That was a very thoughtful and good reply. Thanks.

By definition, an absolute truth must be absolute for everybody, whether they know it or not. And this, as you infer, is a slippery slope. As you, I am not sure of much of anything in the long run. Of course, any investigation into particle physics and quantum theory will show one just how damn fuzzy the universe really is. And, of course, the more we know, the more we know we don't know. Yet we run our lives by de facto absolutes, and many of them are subjective. Ain't life fun?

My joking reply about absolute truths is this:
1. Death
2. Murphy's Law
3. The speed of light in a vacuum
....and I'm not really sure about #3.

As to my faith. Because of a profound spiritual experience, which I won't go into here, I came to know that God IS, and that He is with me. NOT provable. But it is an absolute truth to me. I can't really even describe it. That is the core of my faith. From there I started reading the Gospels. After four very skeptical readings, I was pretty well convinced, at least about the core teachings of Jesus. Also, His last days, His passion, and his resurrection are real to me. Please don't ask me to explain that one! I simply cannot, and I am well aware that it defies reason.
To me the Bible is NOT everything you need to know carved in stone, no, it is a doorway, an entry to a lifelong seeking. And believe me, it ain't easy.

Arminius

Arminus,

The only thing I'm sure of is that I'm not sure of anything.

Of course I realize that I could be in the Matrix or something, but I believe in objective reality, so for me, objective facts are, for all intents and purposes, absolute truths.

Explanations of the facts (e.g. gravity, evolution) are true to the extent that they comport with the evidence, but are contingent on additional evidence so are not absolute.

I experience an "interior life" of thoughts and emotions, whose occurrence is factual as far as I'm concerned. But when it comes to "explanations that comport with the evidence" of interior experiences, I think it's still a mystery.

Maybe the distinction is between truth and wisdom, where wisdom is the ability to cultivate a desirable interior life.

What constitutes your faith?

Jeff P,

IMHO, anyone who lets their children die is not even Christian, let alone a moderate one. Further, Speed123 has shown that he is not moderate by his attitude. Apparently, we have different definitions.

Arminius, a moderate Christian

I think Harris's point was that moderate religions give cover for fundamentalism... he might have used the word 'enable'.

If it's virtuous to be religious then it's very virtuous to be very religious. After all, everything we do we do for Allah. How more virtuous can you get than blowing yourself up for HIM? Everybody knows HE'S REALLY UP THERE. It's common knowledge.

And yes the earth is flata like a pizza Mr Columbus so carefula you don'ta sail over the edge. Itsa commona knowledge.

Susan I too sadly have come to the conclusion that "moderation" of religious belief can be a dangerous seedbed of irrational thought.

I expect, in every sense of the word, those families who let their kids die without medical care recently while they prayed over them and waited on God's promises were "moderate" in their beliefs as far as not being militant, not the bomb-the-abortion-clinic types.

I agree with Chris Everett that we can fully respect the people, and can wholeheartedly and fully disrespect, and even advocate against, their belief systems.

And if people like Speed123 think they lend more credence to their condescending dribble by being sarcastic, rude, and worse, it seems to reflect poorly on them that those of their own belief system call them down on it. I expect Speed123 is a "moderate" Christian, and his is the garbage that flows onto these posts.

Chris, you said:

Two opposed ideas in my mind at the same time:
1. Science is the process for discerning truth.
2. Revelation is the source of absolute truth.

First, you did not retain #2 in your mind, you immediately rejected it. I retain faith and science always.

Second, your #2 statement has nothing to do with my faith. It is not based on anybody's revelation, and it cannot claim absolute truth (except to me) because it is spiritual, and not approachable by reason.

Third, do you have any 'absolute truths'? Do you have any 'subjective truths'?

Arminius

OK - a last parting comment.

I have read a book or two, including "the Closing of the American Mind" by Alan Bloom and it seems that Ms. Jacoby owes a debt of gratitude to his work.

While I do not know if Susan is a nihilist, George Santayana states that "Nietzsche loved mere life with the pathetic intensity of the wounded beast"

While "the saints and the true philosophers have seen all things in the light of eternity - that is, as they are in truth - and have consiquently felt a reasonable contempt for mere liviing and mere dying; and in that precisely lie moral greatness. Here nietzche could not follow; rationality chilled him; he craved vehemence."

Does Ms. Jacoby crave vehemence, as well?

Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins certainly do...

Arminus,

Two opposed ideas in my mind at the same time:
1. Science is the process for discerning truth.
2. Revelation is the source of absolute truth.

Retained ability to function:
Idea #2 is false.

Chris

What about the aesthetic of knowledge? Am I expressing it right? I am not sure. I am trying to compare "knowledge" to music or art, something that you "get" or you "don't get." And I am trying to describe this feeling by using the word "aesthetic."

The more you think of it, the more difficult it is to define knowledge and knowing. And people who seemingly know nothing seem get along ok, without worrying about it or puzzling over it for even 5 minutes.

Knowledge is not necessary for a human being to conduct and enjoy a happy life.

But knowledge as an accurate reflection of reality, is an aesthetic beyond the capacity of many people to appreciate. It is not brain-washing that makes people turn away from knowledge; it is merely apathy and inertia; some people have the little spark in them that makes them want to know things, and may actually find the acquisition of knowledge to be thrilling, and others are blank, and only care about their next meal, and the next television program, and the next movie, and the next fad, and the next social event, and the next Bible-study class, and that is all they care about.

And though knowledge is hard to define, it is something that some people can discern and appreciate more easily than others. And it is also easy to tell if others have this similar appreciation for the aesthetic of knowledge, or if they are just blank.

I call myself a Christian, but many others call me a heretic and an apostate. Perhaps I am one of these moderate religious people. But I do think that what I believe is not really what you would call religion. It is what I have scoped out for myself, and not anyone else's prescribed theology. In this, I think that perhaps, I am a little like what Susan was describing.

Susan,

My respect for you grows. I am Christian, a man of faith, and liberal about it. I also have a healthy scientific skepticism, and accept all of science. Unlike Chris, I can accept both. At the same time. With no problem. Here's a quotation that Chris can think about:
"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. "
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

Arminius

But Susan, I just KNOW I'm right! ;)

For Chris Everett:

I happen to be online, and, as usual, I find your comments thoughtful and thought-provoking. But in fact, "moderate" religion; ie., religion that allows itself to be modified by secular knowledge, is the offspring of earlier forms of orthodox fundamentalism--not vice versa. Religious fundamentalists have not evolved. They are what they were in the past, but they appear more extreme today because there is a much greater gap between fundamentalism and the sum of modern knowledge.

I disagree with Harris and Dawkins on this point precisely because moderate modern religion represents a vast departure from the kind of fundamentalism that pretends to be in possession of absolute truth and wishes to impose fundamentalist values on everyone else. Human beings (some of them are atheists) walk around with all sorts of irrational beliefs that have nothing to do with religion, but as long as they do not attempt to force their beliefs on the rest of us, they pose no threat.

As for Ms. Jacoby, very nice answer and I agree with you about Oprah's guru.

That being said, you still have not answered the accusation that you are put forward an anti-rational argument in your attempt to downplay/discredit the role of Christian philosophy in King's movement.

It was not based on secular universalism or atheism...

I would assume that you would agree that the relativism is true catalyst for anti-rationalism that you decry in your book (at least Rand would say so).

So why employ relativism to explain King's drive for equal rights when the movement was based on a Christian-derived theology of Personalism?

Did I get blocked? I said I was sorry ;)

As for Chris, they say that "only mad men and materalists have no doubts."

That was Chesterton, in case you were wondering.

More for Speed123

By the things you post, and the attitude that you have for your fellow man, which includes non-Christians as well as Christians, you do not seem to believe in "the inherent and universal dignity of all men..." There is a real disconnect in the very ugly attitude that you present to the world, and what you say you believe. When I read your posts, you have me feeling all kind of schizophrenic. Is that your purpose?

Susan,

Thanks for everything, but I'm with Dawkins in asserting that "moderate" religion is a major anti-rational force in American life or in the world. Faith itself, by definition, cannot coexist with scientific skepticism, compartmentalizers and non-overlapping magisteria apologists notwithstanding. Faith simply has no place in the vision of a world where knowledge OF the world comes FROM the world, so conversely, a world where religious faith exists CANNOT achieve this vision. That's the baseline intrinsic opportunity cost of religion, no matter how "benign."

But the mere fact that you have to qualify non-anti-rational religiousness as "moderate" indicates that you DO believe, correctly, that "extreme" religion is anti-rational. But where do these extremists come from? They are the inevitable outliers spawned from the seed bed of "moderate" religion. From that perspective,they cannot be separated FROM "moderate" religion - they are part of it.

As for the glass ceiling, what about Ms. Hirsi Ali? What about Julia Sweeney?

Dear Mr. Speed1123

It is impossible to slander Christianity; you are getting it confused with political institutions, and your own feelings.

I am afraid you are mixed-up, and frustrated.

Your nit-picking arguing about this comment here slanders that institution there is totally and completely irrelevant to religion, and religious belief.

And once again, you and your kind of stopped the conversation and derailed it. Is that you goal in life? If so, I would judge you to be a right successful fellow.

Great Comback, Susan!

Never mind Speed though, he has eaten his religious mumbo-jumbo with a silver spoon when he was yet a baby!

TO CHRIS EVERETT:

You wrote, "Keep in mind that it was the example of a Hindu, Mahatma Gandhi, that Dr. King emulated".

And we should also keep in mind that it was Jesus who Mahatma Gandhi emulated.

Also, a saying that is attributed to Mahatma Gandhi is that, He would not become a Christian because of "Christians", that should speak volumns about what Jesus is about and what some of the people that call themselves "Christians" are about, don't you think?

Maybe some people would be better off if they looked to Jesus rather than "Christianity" if they think that nothing of any value, even in this life, has not come from what Jesus taught not even considering what His Life and Death ultimately means.

Has anyone ever thought about when Jesus said, "Give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's", that the seed of seperation of church and state was planted?

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I can't help but be amused by the occasional references on this thread to my not having broken into the "boys' club" of atheists. Those of you who think my books are about atheism apparently spend all of your time perusing blogs instead of reading actual books. My 2004 "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism," deals only tangentially with atheism, because--as I state repeatedly--18th- and 19th-century freethought ran the gamut from liberal Christianity, through deism, through various movements that sprang out of reform Judaism, to agnosticism and outright atheism. The atheist end of the spectrum, until the 20th century, comprised a distinct minority.

My new book, "The Age of American Unreason," is about the decline of American intellectual life and cultural standards during the past 40 years. There is a chapter on antirational religious fundamentalism in the book, but atheism--pro or con--is beside the point of my essential argument. Although I respect Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, I don't share their opinion that "moderate" religion is a major anti-rational force in American life or in the world. But I do think that they've performed a major intellectual service by making atheism a less unspeakable subject for public discussion.

My books are works of history, which is why they are in the history--not the philosophy or religion--section of bookstores. But if you spend most of your time writing anonymous screeds on the Web, you probably don't have much time to spend in bookstores.

And oh yes. It would be very nice if my newest book (which, I should point out, has been on The New York Times Bestseller List for five weeks) sold as well as Richard Dawkins's books have. It would be even nicer if "The Age of American Unreason" sold as many copies as Oprah's psychobabble guru, Eckhardt Tolle, has managed to do. Of course, psychobabble (like books extolling religion) outsells any works, on whatever subject, written by people who value evidence and reason. I do belong to the latter club, and it includes both boys and girls.

Speed123, Your statement that "the inherent and universal dignity of all men... was first introduced by Christianity" is just plain nuts!

Buddhism is but one counterexample. It precedes Christianity by 500 years and has as its fundamental premise the universal dignity not only of all men, but of all sentient beings. And Buddhism follows in the footsteps of Vedic philosophy, which also affirms the universal dignity of all sentient beings, and precedes Christianity by thousands of years.

Dr. King's sense of human dignity was nurtured in the context of the Christian community that he grew up into, but by no means would he have ever said that human dignity was a peculiarly Christian virtue. Keep in mind that it was the example of a Hindu, Mahatma Gandhi, that Dr. King emulated by opposing social injustice with unwavering respect even for the dignity of the oppressor.

I am not being a jerk, I am simply responding to Jacoby's consistent and anti-intellectual slander of Christianity - even if it was rather subtle in this particular piece.

Pointing out her extreme bias and twisted logic is a matter of fact, although the "glass celling" comment was rather jerky and I apologize for that.

Speed123

Whatever your minor points might be, the larger point is that you are a pretty lousy example of what a Christian should be. Because the fact is that Ms. Jacoby wrote a very nice piece, and you responded to it like a jerk.

I do not particulary appreciate your haughty, superior attitude; by what arrogant right do you claim superiority to anyone? Your "Christian" values? It does not seem like a valid claim to me.

Speed123,

Susan did not downplay religion, she gave it credit, and, more, stressed that the beliefs of MLK went beyond one man's view, religion, or belief, and applied to all. The Southern white bigots must always be mentioned because they were there. I knew all too many of them, and still despise them for their twisting of Christianity.

Arminius,

The point was not to associate all Christians with Southern denominations, it was to disassociate King's work from its Christian theological / philosophical foundations and end by associating local intolerance with Christian in a general sense.

Downplay the benefits of faith to humanity (King's Christian-based belief in Personalism and non-violence), and highlight the any negative associations (even if those involved do not represent the faith - i.e. southern segregated society)

Speed123,

Susan did NOT associate all Christians with the South, but with the right wing. Her words: "the hard-core right-wing, almost entirely Christian, white segregationists whose response to the civil rights movement was to build up a separatist network of white Christian right-wing schools in the South."

That is entirely true. I grew up in the South in that era, '50s and '60s.

PS - I hate Fox. I listen to NPR for news and read the NYTs - even though it drives me nuts at times.

Arminius,

I have nothing against civil atheists; however, she does the standard extreme-atheist rhetorical trick of implying that if a person did good things (i.e. King) he must have done it despite his being religious, and not because of it....and if he did bad things, he must have been religious - despite whatever evidence to the contrary.

So, while Jacob downplays King's Christian based philosophy (which it was) she then highlights Christianity as a obstacle by associating it with Southern bigots.

Very simple trick and one that is "anti-intellectual" and dishonest.

As for the boys club, it is true. Is there a glass celling, Susan?

Speed 123, you pathetic loser. Why don't you refute her point by point?

Let's hear your version of Historical Fact.

Boy's club of atheism? What a pathetic loser.
Get lost, or better yet, you might still have time to catch the Fox News network.

Speed123,

Jacoby gave credit to MLK's religious base: "As a secularist, I also want to point out that the power of King's moral appeal, while rooted in his own faith, transcended all religions." Being a non-believer, she did not stress it, but said absolutely nothing against it.

You say she got her facts wrong - where? Which ones?

Susan you rock. Thanks for a contribution that I'm sure Dr. King would be proud to read.

After 40 years, the following reminders still hold true with respect to Catholic and other Christian Churches-

a) parishes especially in the US need to integrate.

b) real estate agents should be reminded that denying minorities access to white neighborhoods is a serious sin.

c) interracial marriage should not be frowned upon.

Interesting that she rails against "anti-rationalism" when her own arguments are anti-intellectual and obviously biased against historical fact of Dr. King's life and philosophy...

Ever hear of being objective, Jacoby?

PS - did you break into the boys club of atheism, yet? Doesn't look like it based on book sales.

Funny that there are only male leaders (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Bennet etc) for this "rational and equal" movement...

Typical extreme atheist point of view...intolerance and a denial of the importance of Christianity to Dr. King's movement.

Jacoby likes to site the fundamentalists who opposed King in the South, yet leaves out the theology of Personalism which King based his non-violent actions on and the inherent and universal dignity of all men that was first introduced by Christianity.

As much as atheists hate this fact, Christianity was the foundation and motivation for King's work and life.

Stop twisting and selectively using facts, Jacoby...then again, if you did that, you would have no "argument" to make....

Religion!

Big Muslims make little Muslims.
Big Mormons make little Mormons.
Big Hindus make little Hindus.
Big Catholics make little Catholics.
Big Buddhists make little Buddhists.
Big Evangelicals make little Evangelicals.
As children we have little or no say in which religion we will be made to believe is true.
Whichever religion it is,we will probably believe
that it is the one true religion.And we may even be willing to hate and kill those of a different religion.
It has been said many many times...these religions cannot all be true.
But they can all be untrue;which logic should tell us is indeed the case.

Excellent Susan. A very moving piece. Thank you.

Thank you, Susan, for a great tribute to a great American. Surely the best essay you have done here.

King's dream marches on.

Arminius

Great Essay, Susan! Well done!