More Faith-Based Tomfoolery: McCain And His Anti-Muslim Spiritual Guide

Mr Mark;

I just wrote a response to your last comment about Beethoven's ninth. But the big hand came down from above and scooped it away; after all that work.

Regards.

Here's the youtube link to Olbermann's "Worst Person", minus the "http://www"

youtube.com:80/watch?v=UPwq6lQ8-iY

Hi, Mr Mark – Your problems were definitely worse than mine. I could post a test message, but nothing I tried to fix the message I wanted to send would work.

No need for an apology, I just wanted to point out the human tendency to see a nefarious plot or divine intervention in situations we do not understand.

On the bright side of public communication about atheism, last night on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown, the “Worse Person in the World” award went to that state rep in IL who publicly berated an atheist activist who was testifying at the statehouse. Maybe the transcript is up by now at MSNBC and I don’t doubt that there will be a youtube of it too. Olbermann presented atheism as a completely acceptable position and presented the legislator as wacky for seeing atheism as a threat. It was all about separation of church and state, with no deference to religion at all.

All this talk of censorship reminds me of the toupee fallacy, where a person thinks he can always spot a toupee because he knows when he recognizes one but is unaware of when he doesn't.

Who knows what disruptive posts are being successfully prohibited? Perhaps posts that go on for hundreds of lines. Perhaps thousands of netbot posts of grad school gibberish. My recollection is that those sorts of posts were getting out of hand, but now they're not.

Dear E Fav -

I'll be the first to admit that I felt a great deal of frustration with this site over the weekend. Like everyone else, I have had posts embargoed from time to time, but in the past, I would simply go back and delete an embedded url or hyperlink and the problem would be solved.

My feeling that I had been banned arose when this new problem occured on both Saturday and Sunday. I tried MANY posts in many forms, and every single one of them was blocked. There was no way for me to ask fellow posters on the site if they were experiencing similar difficulties as I was unable to post a single sentence on the site to ask the question. At the same time, I was keenly aware of new posts appearing on the site from many others.

My frustration was further compounded by the fact that I had spent about 30 minutes crafting a considered and lengthy response to Observer's post. To have the thing embargoed for no apparent reason and to have it blocked over and over again after I thought I had removed any and all of the usual "WaPo can't handle the blogothon" causes we've all encountered really pissed me off. That led to a series of test postings, all with the same "you're under review" results.

Now, you're right. I could have gone in early to work Monday, and rather than posting my Cartman-esque, "I'm being censored, screw On Faith, and I'm going home" screed, I could have asked if anyone else was having similar problems. But, I didn't. My bad, and I apologize for letting my, er, religious fervor get the best of me.

That said, there will come a day when the technical shortcomings of this site will outweigh the appeal of posting here, and that day may not be too far in the offing for me. My recreational time has become quite limited in the past three months, and if I'm going to spend the time blogging, I prefer to do it somewhere that's technically dependable.

So, I'll hang for a while longer, but only because the company here is so enjoyable (and that goes for GaryD as well)...and because it's sort of neat to be involved in a "religious" site where the atheists are clearly winning each and every battle.

To E Favorite:

God, in this case Jesus, evidently wanted to communicate something to all humanity. He choose to speak trough a person, the actual writer of the Book of Revelation. But suddenly more people need to be involved because some parts of the book are His words but others are not.

The question is, did Jesus really said "I will strike her children dead"?

How humanity can be sure that the messages in the bible are well interpreted when in one book are more than five schools of thought? If scholars do not agree among themselves, who has the truth?

IMHO there is too much noise in the communication channel with the apparent most powerful force in the universe.

Best wishes to all,

JAC

I just checked Revelations in my Catholic Bible, which they call "The Apocalypse" and there are no red letters in it, meaning it is definitely not Jesus speaking.

He only spoke in red letters. Everybody knows that.

The usual revisonism Anonymous and arguably false.

Read Mr. Goldberg's excellent book The Fascist Left.
The only difference between Hitler and Stalinn was that Stalin killed everyone he thought a threat while Hitler pretty much limited his depredations to Jews gypsies and Homosexuals (No wonder the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem thought him such a wonderful guy) while Moussolini didn't run any death camps at all and in fact put Italian lives at risk to save Jews on more than one occasion.

To J.Commenting:

When I asked if Jesus said "I will strike her children dead" from the Book of Revelation, it was because I really was surprised that Jesus can say something like this. You wrote:

“You have it exactly right. In the Bible (Rev. 2:23), Jesus promises to do precisely what pro-lifers rail against: the slaughter of innocent children as a direct result of the transgressions of their mother.”

Not being familiarized with the bible, what I read is what I read, not necessarily word by word, but some phrases don‘t leave room for imagination or interpretation. So I tend to agree with you and thanks for your comment.

Wikipedia mention a number of schools of thought on how to read the Revelation: as prophesy, as history, multi level of meanings being literal one of them, aesthetic/literary and patristic. Why is it so complicated to read the word of God?

To Arminius:

You said that you suspected that the early christians that wrote Revelation were going down on some really heavy drugs.

Instead of unleashing thunders to make you duck and cover, Spiderman2 et all simply kept mum.

The reason could be that you probably helped them casting doubt that the words of the Book of Revelation were Jesus words.

BTW, many of the posters will be real happy if there were many “christians” like you.

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

Regarding perceived censorship –It reminds me in some ways of how people react to religion. It does surprise me that the immediate reaction some people have to their posts being blocked is that they are being censored. Mr Mark is not the first to react that way, and it’s not just an atheist thing either. Not only is it the immediate reaction, it’s the only reaction. It’s accepted without analysis – never considering that it could be the result of a website error or a minor glitch in the post itself. It’s also accepted without any action or investigation, for instance, contacting the blog owner, which would be the LOGICAL thing to do, or asking other posters if they are having similar problems. Someone here did ask Susan to intercede, assuming it would take an authority to solve the problem.

Why this perception of lack of control, immediate refuge in belief without evidence, presumption of being mistreated and appeaing to authority rather than solve it on ones own?

It seems comparable to presuming that if we can’t explain something, it means God did it. It seems similar to the sense of expecting to be punished for one’s sins.

Just A Comment:

You have it exactly right. In the Bible (Rev. 2:23), Jesus promises to do precisely what pro-lifers rail against: the slaughter of innocent children as a direct result of the transgressions of their mother.

I like that word, "tomfoolery."

Before going off on a censorship tirade, drop the http and www's on any web page addresses you have in your comments. Apparently full web addresses are no longer allowed.

Also if the link (e.g. Readers’ Responses) to the does not come up under the panelist's commentary, change the text size (under View) to a smaller size and retry. The page designers only allow so much text to be viewed. Text that does not fit such as the Readers responses line, will be hidden.

Dear Andrew -

Good post, but I must correct you on your misconception that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is in any way a religious work.

The words are by Friedrich Schiller, who worshipped the god of reason. Schiller developed the concept of the "Beautiful Soul," which is a human whose emotional development has been guided by reason. From Wikipedia: "a human being whose emotions have been educated by his reason, so that Pflicht und Neigung (duty and inclination) are no longer in conflict with one another; thus "beauty," for Schiller, is not merely a sensual experience, but a moral one as well: the Good is the Beautiful. "

His "Ode to Joy" as set by Beethoven is a hymn to brotherhood. The god mentioned is the god of nature, not of any religion.

While we're speaking of atheistic composers, there's the case of Brahms who in writing his "German Requiem" ignores the Latin text of the Catholic Mass and, instead, quotes liberally from the Lutheran Bible - without once mentioning the name Jesus Christ. How about that?!

The last anonymous was me...

As an atheist and a lover of classical music, people sometimes ask me how I can listen to Bach's religious pieces when I don't believe in a sky god.

It did bother me somewhat...the religiousness of some of Bach's compositions...and Beethoven's ninth too...but there's no denying the tingles I get on the back of my neck listening to great music, religious or not.

Of course, Bach would have written wonderful stuff even had he been atheist. Like Michaelangelo would have painted magnificent murals even if he'd realized that god was just an idea; an hypothesis.

However, I do prefer Bach's un-religious pieces,
like The Art of Fugue, the Musical Offering,and the violin sonatas, and keyboard music. He's the composer I always come back to.

E-favorite and Mr. Mark

What a coincidence! I have sung Faure's Requiem twice.

Here is a story about that:

When Francois Mitterand died, they sang Faure's requiem at his funeral, from Notre Dame Cathedral, in Paris, I think. It was broadcast on television, perhaps on CNN. Because France is a number of time zones ahead of us, it was in the middle of the night or very early morning. And so, I was sick in the hospital, and in the middle of the night, I could not sleep and turned on the TV, and I saw Francois Mitterand's funeral being broadcast live, and I heard them singing the requiem by Faure in Latin, and I sang along to it, in Latin. And the nurses thought I was very sophisticated fellow.

This is what I am remembering. I feel sure that it must have happened, but maybe I just imagined it; I am not quite sure; sometimes my memory of things gets a little confused.

After posting this, I think I would like to do some google searches, to see when Mitterand died, and what time of day was his funeral, and to see if they really sang Faure's requiem at his funeral. I am not sure if I can find such details, but I would like to try.

It is funny how all the dissonant threads of life are all strung together in such a curious way, that your posts should make me think of that.

I get chills down my spine just hearing Mr Mark mention the names of Faure’s pieces!

The last post was mine, of course.

garyd:

"Mr Cromett your lack historical knowledge is all too apparent."

Given my history degree and political science background, I would be inclined to disagree. In fact, your lack of knowlege is obvious to professionals in the field.

"The founder of Italian Fascism believed himself to be a socialist and the only difference between he and Joe Stalin on almost evey political issue was that he thought it quite possible for one to be both a socialist and an Italian and he was no where near as paranoid. In fact prior to WWII most American leftist found a good many things to be admirable about Italian Fascism Russian Communism and Hitler's Nazi Germany before Hitler began to act on his obscene plans to exterminate undesirables principally Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies and he didn't think much of Slavs either though he found some of them quite useful for getting the ovens turned on to receive the corpses of the others."

Mussolini did start as a socialist, but quickly became disenchanted with socialism and turned violently right, with an emphasis on violent. Political scientists ALL place Fascism on the extreme right of the political spectrum. He started persecuting and murdering real socialists and Communists soon after taking power. Mussolini wasn't as murderous as Hitler, of course, but he was a thug, none-the-less, and many of his subordinates even worse. American leftists by the 1930s had turned away the facist regimes, though many were still foolishly were enamored of Stalin. By the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, many leftists, including Americans, were putting their lives on the line to fight the fascists, including the large Italian Army contingent sent to Spain by Mussolini, as well as the much smaller German Condor Legion. The good old conservatives like Lindberg were still sucking up to Hitler at that time.

Mr Mark
You're a jewel. I'll listen to it, my wife is just about as excited to learn about the piece you mention.

I still get chills in my spine when we sing Handel's Messiah.

You're absolutely correct, it could have been the dictionary or encyclopedia or phone book and it would be just as moving, but wow these guys were some beautiful minds.

Dear Jeff P -

Yes, the Fauré Requiem is a beautiful piece. I've sung it a number of times. Most people are familiar with the "Pie Jesu" movement which has become something of a classical "hit" among the soprano set. I like the Fauré version of the Requiem as he underplays the "Dies Irae" text. He's much more concerned with providing a vision heaven, rather than hell, to his listeners.

I enjoy the Requiem by Duruflé even more than the Fauré. There's a good CD available of both Requiems conducted by Robert Shaw on Telarc, probably runs about $10 these days.

The great pieces of classical choral music are religion's one great contribution to humanity, even if one must discount the texts being sung.

Good stuff. But then, Fauré, Bach and the others could have set the phone book to music and it would have been just as beautiful.

Mr Cromett your lack historical knowledge is all too apparent. The founder of Italian Fascism believed himself to be a socialist and the only difference between he and Joe Stalin on almost evey political issue was that he thought it quite possible for one to be both a socialist and an Italian and he was no where near as paranoid. In fact prior to WWII most American leftist found a good many things to be admirable about Italian Fascism Russian Communism and Hitler's Nazi Germany before Hitler began to act on his obscene plans to exterminate undesirables principally Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies and he didn't think much of Slavs either though he found some of them quite useful for getting the ovens turned on to receive the corpses of the others.

For Mr. Mark

I have also had some of my posts disappear. I cannot believe that I was blocked or censored, because they were totally and completely innocuous and harmless. I too sent them from my home computer, late at night. I am suspecting that there is somethig different late at night that causes posts to disappear. I have also had posts be delayed for a day or two, and then suddenly appear. I think that it probably costs money to make the software work, and the WaPo is not spending it. But you can't blame them, it is their blog and their money. Actually, THEY should be paying US to write for THEM, don't you think?

Yes, Meg, you're correct. That's the book I received: The Portable Atheist. Should be fun.

Arminius,
That link to the music has been held for "approval" again. I wonder if it's something to do with having a web prefix or something. Anyway, I'll try again later!

Jeff P;

I got the book right, but the title wrong.
I should have said The Portable Atheist,but I was trying to do a few other things at the same time and clang...I erred. The Portable Atheist edited by Hitchens is, in effect a handbook, and a good one.

I agree with you on Mark Twain. He's incredibly funny and always so right on. I'm always quoting this one;
"The quiet confidence with which I know the other man's religion to be folly, makes me suspect that mine is also".

Why can't other religious people see it that clearly? Do you have to be a genius to see what Twain saw? Does religious indoctrination blind people to that observation? Apparently yes.

But it didn't work with Mark Twain. His genius was about his perception of things; and the ability to articulate it.

Thanks for your comment Arminius.

I would like to share with all concerned with this blog that I found a new post from Susan. You can go to Susan Archives, April 2008 and voila!

Pope Benedict and American Catholicism: On The Titanic's Deck
April 7, 2008 3:42 PM

The most significant fact about American Catholicism appears in a recent report on the changing U.S. religious landscape by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: although 31 percent of Americans were raised as Roman Catholics, only 24 percent consider themselves Catholics today. One in ten adult Americans--a stunning figure--have left the church for another religion or have abandoned organized religion altogether. The saying, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic," a favorite maxim of the nuns in the parochial schools I attended, is no longer true.

......

Just a Comment:

Interesting, very. I consider myself a Christian, something disputed by others on these blogs. IMHO, Jesus would never have said anything like that stuff in Revelation. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Book of Revelation is solid proof that some of those early Christians were goin' down on some really heavy drugs.....

Duck and Cover! Head for the bunker! Bring the beer! Incoming from Spiderman2!

Arminius

The following post was blocked yesterday in other thread. Today I could go trough without the web site address, which is a bible online.

Mark, you are not the only one fighting the intelligent design of this portal. This is the post without the bible online address>

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 in .... [address censored].

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

Jeff P,

Damn, I'm sorry I missed that link! My experience with being blocked is that it mostly happens at night. For no apparent reason. I have included links before, and they went through.

Arminius

Mr. Mark--you're through!

I was blocked the other night trying to send a link to Arminius--

I was sending him a way to download a beautiful piece of music (from Faure's Requiem) called Requiem Agnus Dei--

The block said it was under consideration by the host of the blog...

I thought (my gosh this is the only time I've been "evaluated," and it happens when I'm trying to send a link to a beautiful religious musical choral piece...) Go figure.

Meg:
I received the "Atheist Handbook" for Christmas! Your description of it makes me want to read it next. You might enjoy "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan--he writes with such clarity that he literally makes me laugh at points--

I also laughted and laughted at the wit of Mark Twain's "Letters from the Earth." If I had the opportunity to meet some already-dead author, it would be a hard choice but I'd love to spend an afternoon with Twain.

Jimbo:
I hope you're correct, and that the interest in reading philosophy, critical thinking literature, and contemporary theologians willing to buck the "system" such as Crossan and Borg will thrive and grow in this coming generation. It can only serve to improve humanity.

This is Mr Mark's test from his home computer. If this gets through Cato, I'll assume I'm not banned.

Meg;

So many books on atheism these days. I've never seen anything like it. Yes Atheists Handbook is a beauty. and in paperback too. I like that.

Try also "God; The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor J Stenger. Brilliant and illuminating.

Also Michael Onfray's "In Defence of Atheism" and Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age".

And these books are SELLING. People want to read them. I think people are getting fed up with religion; which is looking more and more ridiculous and irrelevant as the modern world moves on.

Religion will join astrology and alchemy on the sidelines of society by the end of this century.
This I believe.

CCNL,

My second reply: As for Crossan, again, Ruether differs. In part, she takes issue with the theology, itself. She also makes a point others have made, one you probably know, that Jesus represents a much earlier development in Judaism than the later unified deity. I don't know how she would describe herself today, at eighty, but she continued to represent herself as a Catholic, sans the divinity of Jesus,opposing the notion of "dying for our sins," saints, etc.

Another interesting thing: Hyam Macoby, also a demythologizer, like Crossan, in a sense, adduced evidence that Paul from Tarsus, was always Paul from Tarsus, never Saul. This, I find interesting, and very plausible, as his views are so radically different from anything of the Judaism of the period as to be unrecognizable. I'm thinking, for instance, of sex. Judaism held marriage as an obligation. It was part of Tikkun Olam, "healing the world." For many Jews, marriage still represents a part of that obligation.

I am no literalist. I recognize that there is mythology and factuality in the Bible (Tanakh) and in the New Testament. But there are many factors to consider, some of them unavailable from secondary sources. The Old Testament is not identical to the Hebrew Bible, not only in terms of its books, but in terms of its language. Translations from the Hebrew Bible are taken from the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Translations of the Old Testament are taken from the Greek. There are subtle differences, but some are significant. They may not go to fact, but they surely go to theology.

Then, too, no observant Jews rely on the Tanakh, exlusively! How could they? They rely on Talmud, which contains numerous readings in dialogue and in conflict. They rely on the ongoing thinking of scholars.

Reconstructionist Judaism does not require belief in the deity, but then, again, belief is not an issue for Jews in the way it is for Christians.

Serena

Just got my copy of "The Atheist's Handbook". Deeelightful!! So much good sense to feed on with pieces by Hume, and Spinoza, Shelley and John Stuart Mill,and Einstein and Mark Twain, and Carl Sagan and john Updike,and A.J.Ayer and Bertrand Russell and many others. Five hundred beautiful pages of honest searching for what is real and knowable in this amazing world of ours. Superstition! Get thee behind me!
I'll take reality.

Dear Meg -

Thanks for your kind words, but I'm not "back" yet (see my last post for an explanation).

What I'm saying is, "touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my home computer: but go to my On Faith friends, and say unto them, Mr Mark ascends unto his home computer, and you to your home computer; and he to his Mac, and you to your Mac. where Mr Mark hopes to blog On Faith as before, free of the strictures imposed upon him by the 'no blogging during office hours' rules of his current employer..."

;)

Woops!

Welcome back Mr M.

And oh yeah Susan...Mr Mark is one of just a few who uses his real name.

Susan.

Is there any likelyhood that Mr Mark has been barred by some upstairs suit for making unacceptable comments on these threads?

If you check Mr Marks comments you will find he's always blunt but never rude. He's a most articulate atheist who has strong views about the silliness of religion and how dangerous it is. Views like his should be praised not silenced, I'm sure you agree.

Is there any way you can just check?

Thanks kindly.

Dear Arminius, E Fav, Andrew et al -

Thanks for the kind words. I'll give it a go again from home over the next few days and see if there's any change. If I'm not blocked from home, then fine...I'll continue posting (much to the chagrin of GaryD and Angela).

But I work for a living, and it's not kosher for me to blog from the office. I'm only posting now as we had a short day and office hours have ended.

Hope to see you all in the future.

Mr Mark

Religious belief, of any kind, becomes by definition, closed, separative and ultimately violent. Once you take the first step into childish irrational belief systems, any subsequent violent behavior can be justified or, just as bad, tolerated.
The question is not whether there are "nice" Christians, Muslim or Jews, and "bad" versions.
The question is why do you think you need belief? Why do you want to follow? Why do you need a book or a priest to be generous and kind?
Believers believe out of fear or greed. They want to avoid something or get something.
All the money spent supporting preachers, priests, rabbis, imams, ayatollahs, churches, mosques and synagogues could be spent directly helping people. Believers give because they want to get, which is not giving. It’s a business transaction.
All the talk of tolerance and compassion is babble to make believers feel better.
It’s like prayer. It’s a placebo. It lets you think you’ve done something when you’ve done exactly nothing but talk to the air.
Terrorists at least do something, ugly, hateful and despicable as they are. The good news is, terrorists are revealing religious belief for what it is. The Christians tried terrorism during the Crusades. Now the Muslims are taking their turn at displaying the ignorance of religious belief.
You want to do something. Take the first step. Walk away from religious belief. Life is better on the sane side.

GARYD:
“More nonsense from the masters of same.
Fate who thought he was rebutting me essentially proved I was correct every step of the way.
What we call liberalism in the US given that classical liberalism champions the little guy against government owes in reality far more to Fascist Italy than it does to Jeffersonian liberalism.”

Fascism is a RIGHT wing belief, speaking of the master on nonsensical arguments…

“The Bush government hasn't been terribly right of center sorry about that. And Katrina was just a foretaste of what's to come no matter who wins the oval office. Our government is in dire need of reduction to manageable levels. It simply can't get any larger and more complex without crippling both itself and us.
We are already at a point where 100% of us will draw some sort of government check at some point in our lives and not infrequently at several points in our lives. And substantial numbers of us- as much as 1/3 will never receive a check not drawn on either state federal or local government.
We ceased to be a government of the people by the people and for the people the minute the congress of the United States signed off on LBJ's Great Society. From that day forth we have become increasingly a government of the Bureaucrats by the Bureaucrats and for the bureaucrats.
And have lost and will continue to lose ever more freedom because of it."

One can't have economic freedom if the system is rigged to suck all the wealth out of the system and give it to a few at the top of the system. It has nothing to do with government bureaucracy and everything to do with unfettered capitalism pushed by the Republicans. We are now seeing the result of deregulation and the weaking of those bureaucracies you whine about in our current and growing financial crash in the lending markets. As with almost all your arguiments, they are pure nonsense and ignore the facts.

There are many who will say that real communism has never been tried to which I will answer that it can't be because the paradox at it's core is that you can't do from each according to his means to each according to his needs without having a very large very intrusive bureaucracy that frankly is over the long haul inimical to human freedom.
And Human freedom absent economic freedom is little more than an oxymoron.”

Oddly enough, those pesky Europeans make nonsense of your argumentas they have a higher standard of living, longer life expectancy, and cheaper medicare than we do here. Stop buying into all the simplistic libertarian myths and look at reality. For once.

And I have just as much contempt for Communism, which has almost all the silliness of religion, only without any gods.

CCNL,

Thank you for your reply. Constantine and the Sword is a thoughtful analysis, but Ruether's book is entirely different, much more scholarly, drawing continuously on both books of the Christian Bible, and on pre-Biblical history. Quite frankly, it's brilliant, as is so much of her other work. Although she has some difficulty presenting things from a Judaic perspective, even when she thinks she is, in subsequent theological writings, not necessarily dealing with anti-semitism, she has done a much better job of it.

For me, the hardest part was going through the New Testament and other Christian references at the fairly dense level she presents them. I read the book with three reference texts beside me, something I doubt you would have to do!

I didn't suggest the book to you because I thought you were bigoted. Quite the contrary. I recommended it, and I still do, given your interest in history and your theology, which from what I can gather runs parallel to hers; in some ways, it appears to be identical.

I hope you get the chance to peruse it!

Serena

Serena,

I really appreciate the book reference i.e. Faith and Fratracide. Twelve years of Catholic education by the good monks and nuns of St. Francis, James Carroll's book, Constantine's Sword and Professor Crossan's many books however have eliminated any anti-Jewish neurons that may have crept into my brain.

This however does not change the history of the Bible/Old Testament/Judaism i.e. mostly moral myths. Ditto for Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism.

Well here's my political 2 cents worth:

In our current highly-political climate, I think I can now better understand the position of a Republican: intuitively knowing the precariousness of our situational existence, it is better to take the position of “strength and security” to ensure our legacy—to understand that there will always be givers and takers, and innovators and abusers. It may be better to allow the natural course of things—economically, politically, and monetarily—to “evolve” in such a way, without intervention (particularly governmental,) to influence things as they might otherwise naturally “evolve.” The system would do best on its own, and self-interest would be ultimately in the best interest of the community at large, so to speak. Our most precious ideas might be those that boost confidence in rugged individualism and opportunity, patriotism (loving and fighting for what is “ours,”) and institutions that unite us and give us affirming confidence (church, successful business, uniformity in voting and political power, tradition) in order to secure and guard our “way” of life. Our very continued existence might depend upon our emphasis on strength, tradition, and security. Republicans understand that what we have is not accidental—it was obtained by sheer determination, conquest, and the lives and deaths of very real people making very real sacrifices.

And I can better appreciate the worldview of a Democrat: also knowing intuitively that our situation is precarious, but desiring to be “progressive;” realizing that the natural “evolution” of the marketplace doesn’t result in fairness and equality, but in enormous differences in the distribution of wealth and power; seeing this, government is looked to as a potential solution instead of a threatening problem, and somehow should endeavor to serve as a baseline “equalizer” to aid the “least of these…” since the contributions of generous individual human beings fall short of that goal. As corrupt as the political machine might be, it still ideally should serve as a method of human service, with its primary intention being the focus on serving the greater number without giving outrageous advantage to the few. Its mechanisms rely less on self-importance, and more on the collective good—not only for citizens of our country, but for citizenship within the world. Also, I can see a Democrat’s “progressive” stance in the sense that the idea of human progress will be change, adaptation, and the ability to break with traditional “values” and ritual as humans evolve and as world populations grow, and human needs and ideas of morality and justice evolve (and hopefully improve) as well. Democrats seem better to understand the need for harmonious existence with the Earth, ecologically and in ways that reflect individual responsibility to that end.

Both camps seem to me to be occasionally optimistic, and sometimes neither seems to get it altogether correct. We should know by now that the world outside of our comfortable lifestyles can be a particularly nasty place. And it was only a fraction of geological time since we were more often at each other’s throats for meat instead of being concerned about our “pursuit of happiness.” At times of disaster, we see that very dog-eat-dog behavior surface without much hesitation. It seems to me that in a very real sense Republicans understand this and are prepared to, in the unpleasant rebuke by Democrats, say “I’ve got mine, so you get yours” while understanding that Democrats unhesitatingly denounce this in words, but live it out in coastal-state American reality. And it also seems to be true that Republican criticism of the Democrat having no “values” is easily refuted by the very real, publically scandalous, and ultimately human behavior of the elected Republicans and their political base. Democrats do understandably hesitate to endorse the righteous sentiments of “values voters.” “We have our own values, thank you very much...” might be their reply to such self-righteous voters.

There it is.

Ibrahim Mahfouz writes:

You are describing only your God; the Old Testamrent's God of the Hebrews.

AND

I have the double distinction of being called bigot by Jews and Muslims. I must be doing something right.

Well, it would seem that the responses you get would indicate otherwise. Then, there is the added fact that you call Susan Jacoby, an atheist, a Jew. On what, pray tell do you base this assertion?

Serena

When reminded that fully 70% of the American public was unsupportive of the war in Iraq,
VP Cheney was heard to remark, 'So What!?'

Precisely - that's the attitude we all know and despise so thoroughly as voters. This is the Bush mentality through and through........

For all those who remain unconvinced that the Bush administration and his coterie of neocons and war policy architects (Perle, Wolfowitz, et al) is and has been right of center from the start, I recommend Eric Alterman's daily column (and archives) at the Media Matters website for up-to-date postings regarding our 'progress' in Iraq, and other interesting topics of social merit and public interest. Bush administration violations have been enumerated countless times, so no point in doing it here again. He has set a fine table for John McCain to feast at - if the voters allow it, that is.

Of course Eric's book 'Why We're Liberals' is also highly recommended. Our liberalism as it pertains to social policies directed at our well being as a society can be traced back to our two (distantly related) Roosevelts, at least in part. I don't think we have to go back to fascist Italy - Mussolini and his brownshirts were never that popular in the USA as I recall - or even in Italy, given his fate at the end of WWII. Alas, the trains have never run on time since his demise........

We certainly don't need to be fretting overly much about religion - McCain is not likely to be professing his devotion to God at every turn if elected. All he wants to do is make the trains run on time again..........

Mr Mark,

Don't weird out on us here. I don't agree with you often, but yours is a valuable voice. I get blocked too, usually at night, for no apparent reason. Hang in there!

Arminius, a Christian

Mr Mark - please settle down - you sound a bit paranoid. If they banned atheists from this site, it would shut down!

I had a few posts that wouldn't "send" a week or so ago - and received the same message. I sent a message with only the word "test" in it and it went though.

Posts on other on faith essays went through.

I suggest you try again - and contact David Waters directly, if that doesn't work.

Susan - great article - for a blog posting

Mr Mark;

Don't quit so hastily. I can't believe you're being deliberately blocked. It makes no sense.

The rest of us sinners would have been booted ages ago...we've all voiced controversial views.

I've had 3 or 4 comments disappear too...and I seemed blocked for a few days...I think its the brainless system...not human selection.

We need you Mr Mark. Yours is a voice for reason over superstition; and there aren't too many of those on these blogs.

Say it isn't so Mr Mark.

DZ (the Atheist) asks:
“Based on what evidence do you claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is the ideological parent of any U.S. Muslim organizations. You don't get to fabricate linkages to support your bigotry”.
Later he repeats:
“You still didn't provide any evidence showing a link between the Muslim Brotherhood, a very extreme organization, and American Muslim organizations’”

Moi: I answered your question on the thread where it was asked. I copy it here for your benefit.

“I base it on the following: The founder of CAIR(Council on American Islamic Relations), the largest of the US Muslim organization, publicly stated that the aim of his organization is to make Islam the dominant religion of the US. This is a Muslim Brotherhood doctrine.
Read the following:
"CAIR itself has had ties to terrorism. The nonprofit lobby group is a foreign-funded spin-off of a Hamas (A variety of The Muslim Brotherhood) front group, and it has seen several of its executives convicted of terror-related crimes since 9/11."

‘Kemal Nawash, head of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, finds that CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that "almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states."

The Muslims who know much more about what goes on in these organizations did not refute my statement, and here you, a professed atheist, rush to defence of CAIR, ISNA et al. This is probably what is meant by “Ignorance is a bliss”.

PS. Every time I quote the links to the above statements my post gets blocked

More nonsense from the masters of same.

Fate who thought he was rebutting me essentially proved I was correct every step of the way.

What we call liberalism in the US given that classical liberalism champions the little guy against government owes in reality far more to Fascist Italy than it does to Jeffersonian liberalism.

The Bush government hasn't been terribly right of center sorry about that. And Katrina was just a foretaste of what's to come no matter who wins the oval office. Our government is in dire need of reduction to manageable levels. It simply can't get any larger and more complex without crippling both itself and us.

We are already at a point where 100% of us will draw some sort of government check at some point in our lives and not infrequently at several points in our lives. And substantial numbers of us- as much as 1/3 will never receive a check not drawn on either state federal or local government.

We ceased to be a government of the people by the people and for the people the minute the congress of the United States signed off on LBJ's Great Society. From that day forth we have become increasingly a government of the Bureaucrats by the Bureaucrats and for the bureaucrats.

And have lost and will continue to lose ever more freedom because of it.

There are many who will say that real communism has never been tried to which I will answer that it can't be because the paradox at it's core is that you can't do from each according to his means to each according to his needs without having a very large very intrusive bureaucracy that frankly is over the long haul inimical to human freedom.

And Human freedom absent economic freedom is little more than an oxymoron.

Dear On Faith Friends -

I was blogging OnFaith from my home computer this weekend, and every post I wrote was being embargoed by the blog owner (the blog owner being technically inept, my posts from work seem to escape the dreaded "under review" black hole, ergo, this response today).

Apparently, I've been flagged as an undesirable voice on this forum. I guess I'm no longer welcome here.

As I can't and won't waste office time posting here, that does it for me. Bye-bye to all the friends and engaged opponents I've made here over the past year and a half.

To my atheist friends - good luck. Your days here may be numbered as well.

As always,

Mr Mark

Hi DZ.

How are you doing? Still beating back the superstitionists I see.

It ain't easy being a non-believer, is it DZ?
Still, it's a lot easier than it used to be, back in the good old days when religion ruled the world.
They would have burned us back then.

Back then we probably wouldn't have been atheists anyway. The groupthink would have been impossible to escape. We would have been as devout as everyone else.

Just read Heloise and Abelard (by James Burge) and was struck by the total dominance of religion back a thousand years ago. It was everywhere all the time; and probably impossible not to believe what everyone else believed so fervently. That Heloise was quite a gal...and Abelard would today be an atheist for sure.

So at least we are free these days to think as we wish, and believe that which makes more sense.

Meg

Ibrahim Mahfouz:

I am neither Jew nor Muslim. I am an atheist. You still didn't provide any evidence showing a link between the Muslim Brotherhood, a very extreme organization, and American Muslim organizations. You fabricated your slur, and that is bigotry. Show evidence, and I will apologize. But, you can't, can you?

Andrew;

It/s like two Muslims stranded on a desert island.
One is Sunni, the other is Shia. Despite what they have in common, they will kill each other because of their differences.
Religions are ancient superstitions that defy common sense. The world will be a better place when we finally dump them all. ALL!

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!"

That's religion!

lets make the joyful joke, with Arcadians!

- hey you, what is your profession?
- i make presents sir

- you, over there, what is your profession
- i make presents sir

- spartans, what is your profession?
- hoh, hoh, hoh!

have a nice day, see you soon.

yes i am joking, i am exhausted with these discussions of Yours in USA! have an aggreement and come here, if You please, please : )

once a day we have letters from St Vitus and Ignatius, but Roman and Greek take time to learn, You know, and Hollywood is in Los Angeles, far from New York, takes time to wend to, but i know German and English, are these two sufficient?

Susan JAcoby, if You want to see the text of the last gathering, here You are.

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/04/dr_king_has_been_killed/all_comments.html

in the exam paper, in front of me, one of the questions is why did Williams Bush hang Saddam Huseyin. there are not any choices. what would You say for this?

this is important to calculate the atonement. or maybe He shall put a harmony to the music here. do You sing while You cook, Mr Parsley? where is Your music from?

could Williams Bush grow the fourth leaf of clover for the donkeys to eat, or shall they go on with three leaves? Merlin is in the center of Anadolu, but the swords in the houses on the walls date back to 1920s, and there are blood stains unpaid yet, and not shining either for they are unused.

do You have any idea for the safety of our heads, dear Rod Parsley? we could use knives and axes, for relativity, but the most use of axes is about the planetary orbits, with gentle discussions about the possible means and media for communication.

and we are not able to talk about Nasreddin and Yoghurt yet, from Milky Way and Sheep, for the only food we can bake is bread and cake for a period of time from now on. if we have time to taste a sweet bread or paste is a great chance and light for our houses, that we parse from the Lady of this Land.

and You know Israel, Vatican, Iran and Russia are noisy around, they have a break as far as i hear.

we are cooking, Mr PArsley, would be delicious if You could participate in the kitchen.

we are yet studying Hake's Pearl. we shall be seated soon in the New House of Michael, if you could note this to your schedule, Rod Parsley.

could we go on with the basics of Episcopal Church please, to have a similar vocabulary, we have just started the elementary level of apostels and saints.

to catch up with the advanced level of St Germain, and scientology, we need more practise and equipment, at least for this classroom in Asia.

Serena writes:
Ibrahim Mahfouz
“Second, it would seem that your God is the exclusivist. I base this on the treatment of Jews (3,000,000 in exile) from middle eastern countries, Christians (most of whom have fled), and Hindus (ditto).”
“A strange God, your God, as you yourself, a bigot, clearly demonstrate.”

DZ writes:
Ibrahim Mahfouz
“Based on what evidence do you claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is the ideological parent of any U.S. Muslim organizations. You don't get to fabricate linkages to support your bigotry”

I have the double distinction of being called bigot by Jews and Muslims. I must be doing something right.

in Quran, 53:49 Chapter Star Necm, there is Sirius Star, Scotland and Wolves.

is this "emergency drill" today, in Israel, to emerge Genesis, for Dr Hill who mows and sews?

Thank you, Susan. It is refreshing to read some sense in this wilderness of spidermen and other soon to be extinct species.

In Oliver Sacks' "The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat" it becomes obvious that through some exterior influence, brain-washing, accident, other biographical mishaps apt to destroy any residue of reason capacity, a person is wired to HONESTLY believe that his wife is a hat (insert any other word or concept for "hat" used by religions and other fairy tales).

And, of course, the man who mistook his wife for a hat must HONESTLY think and feel that everybody who thinks otherwise is stupid! It is so obvious that his wife is a hat! Here we have the reason why the spidermen MUST think everybody else is stupid! His wife IS a hat, isn't she?!

as Islam is after Israel and Abraham, is Rod Parsley talking about Israel and JAcobsons? is He after Noah?

CCNL:

Have you read Faith and Fratricide by Harvard theologian, Rosemary Ruether?

If so, I'd like to know your thoughts on it. If not, you might want to. The book is a classic, mandatory in many religious studies programs. It would seem to be right up your alley, biblically speaking.

Serena

Ibrahim Mahfouz wrote:

Jacoby says:
“Each god was intensely patriotic, and detested all nations but his own”.
You are describing only your God; the Old Testamrent's God of the Hebrews.

A lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing. First, Susan Jacoby is not Jewish. Second, Jews do not have an Old Testament; Christians do. Jews have the Bible, also called the Tanakh.

Second, it would seem that your God is the exclusivist. I base this on the treatment of Jews (3,000,000 in exile) from middle eastern countries, Christians (most of whom have fled), and Hindus (ditto). I also base this on the treatment of foreign born Muslims in other Muslim countries.

A strange God, your God, as you yourself, a bigot, clearly demonstrate.

Deb Chatterjee:

I haven't always agreed with you. In fact, I generally haven't, but when I read the posts of most Muslims who visit this blog, I start having second thoughts. At any rate, I'm glad to see you back. You say what you think and you don't speak out of ignorance. You have at least read the Qu'ran.

One of my qualms is that if you looked at the Christian Bible, you might find a great deal that is objectionable. And if you looked back, indeed, if you looked around, you would see the violence, verbal and otherwise, that it, too, inspires in many people.

I wish you could meet a couple of my Muslim friends. We speak about religion, I as a Jew, they as Muslims. They, like you, are articulate and well-educated.

Serena

I would like to know who on this board watched all of Rev. Wrights sermons? Not just the continuous loops that were played 24/7...those clips that were taken 6 years apart?

Did anyone bother to google Rev. Wrights sermon "Audacity of Hope"?

Has anyone heard what was even the sentence before the seperate clips and after them?

So, people will judge a man's 40 years on 30 seconds of clips, fit together to give the view that the person wanted. Fine Christian that from such a lie you can decide wether a man is good or not, a Christian or not.

We were lied to about Iraq and hundreds of thousands of innocents died or had life changeing injuries...a nation that was the Cradle of Civilization has been ruined. For what? so that a lieing warmonger could play at GI joe. So liers prosper right?

It's disgusting..and so are those whose minds are so easily led...after all this country has been through

terra

1/4 of America are Catholics - a church that is against preemptive war (Iraq), against the death penalty and against abortion.

Catholics have repeatedly been called unpatriotic so there goes your great agnostic quote.

Both the left (Jacoby etc.) and the right (Hagee etc.) hate the Catholic positions because they show each of the opposing groups hypocrisy.

I am proud to be a Catholic for this (among many more important reasons).

Jacoby says:
“Each god was intensely patriotic, and detested all nations but his own”.
You are describing only your God; the Old Testamrent's God of the Hebrews.

I hope everyone read Doonesbury today. And the theme - 70% of our current national debt was created under the guidance and trusteeship of two Bushes and a Reagan. Got to love those fiscally conservative Republicans!!

McCain is only promising to do more of the same, so what's not to love about John Boy??

Voters that love the GOP need to get much, much smarter about economic realities......

Observer:

--"I know you [Mr. Mark] are a Muslim hiding behind a Christian name. I read a number of your comments and I know a Muslim when I hear one." (5/3)

--"How can you be sure about Mr. Mark’s identity? The fact that he admits his ignorance of the Muslim religion means nothing. Most Muslims are ignorant of their religion’s theology except for some of its rituals." (5/5)

While I suppose it's possible that Mr. Mark is some kind of wily-yet-ignorant Muslim in disguise, the written evidence he's left behind on these blogs would seem to argue overwhelmingly, both in content and sophistication, against that position.
But hey, don't take my word for it, I'm just a Zoroastrian poser.

Mr. Mark
You advise me to read a book once in a while, while in the same breath admit that your knowledge about the ideology that poses an existentialist threat to the whole Western Civilization is “superficial at best”. If you simply read some of my posts your knowledge of Islam would be substantially more than ”superficial”. At the same time you behave as if you know more about Christian history than all the Bible scholars and those who wrote about that history throughout the past 2008 years (and not 1500, as you maintain.)
You “debunk ’my claims about the martyrdom of all the original disciples by alleging their execution was due to their “obstinacy”. Supposing that was true, but what called the attention of the authorities to these simple people in the first place? Is it not because they were preaching a Gospel that was considered by the ROMANS AS A THREAT TO THEIR RELIGION AND TO THEIR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT?
You don’t seem to be aware of the contradictions between your original claim, that ‘Jesus did not exist” and the later claim about his followers.
TJ
You say
Observer writes: "I know you are a Muslim hiding behind a Christian name. I read a number of your comments and I know a Muslim when I hear one."
That's the funniest thing I've read here yet.
Moi:
How can you be sure about Mr. Mark’s identity? The fact that he admits his ignorance of the Muslim religion means nothing. Most Muslims are ignorant of their religion’s theology except for some of its rituals.

And what about people like me? The reason I asked GaryD what he means by "leftest" is because he often refers to me as a "lefty" with my "lefty" allies and "lefty" supporters.

But I almost never post a comment on economics, government, or finance. Those are not my particular interests, and I do not have alot to say on those things. Mostly I post my thoughts on the nature of subjective consciousness and how it relates to religion and being a Christian. So for that, I am a lefty? And what about my suppporters and allies? Mostly, on the nature of my beliefs, I am completely alone. So, what makes me a lefty? I think it is sort of same as saying someone is "fat." It is just intended as an insult.

Dear Fate -

Excellent post to GaryD, but it will fall on blind eyes.

The RW approach to government is simple: privatize profits while socializing the costs. Example: the Bear-Stearns sale to JP Morgan.

For all their empty rhetoric of business being guided and policed by "market discipline," what did Bushco do when a corporation's marketing policies got them in trouble? Did they let "market discipline" step in and let BS go under, as simple market discipline would have demanded? No. They provided $30 BILLION in capital to JPM to buy the thing (BTW - if a single corporation like JPM has the power to demand that the Fed provide them money to do business or they won't play ball, what do you think is going to happen when China decides to demand terms on the billions of dollars Bushco has borrowed from them over the past 7 years? Want to go after terrorists hiding out in Iran? China will say, "no you don't...they're a valuable trading partner." Want to build that high-tech defense shield in Europe? "Nuh-uh," says China, "not with our money you don't.")

On the other hand, if you're a homeowner whose mortgage is in trouble - due in large part to the free-wheeling dealings of BS and others - you're sh*t out of luck. In the case of a non-corporate financial meltdown (ie: middle-class individual citizens), "market discipline" suddenly kicks in, and if you lose your home through foreclosure, well, that's just good old capitalism at work, isn't it?

Why isn't the government providing $30-billion in mortgage relief to strapped homeowners? Simple - because some buddy of Bushco is waiting in the wings to buy up properties at fire-sale prices, the better to sell those properties to some new sucker looking to get in on the cusp of the latest "new market reality."

And on and on it goes, fueled by the likes of GaryD and others who are ready to provide an excuse for ANY Republican-devised horror, most often by playing their ever-handy blame-the-victim card...at least until some problem effects them directly. Then, it's the all-too-familiar "but the Dems in Congress didn't provide enough oversight" whine that's carted out to keep the Republicans-can-do-no-wrong blinders in good working order.

garyd wrote: "At the far right of the political line we have Anarchy at the far left totalitarianism."

Its a lot more complicated than that. Communism is considered "left" yet totalitarian. Hippies formed communes, many of the ones that survived had strict rules and even kicked some members out. Our forefathers applied anarchy (Boston teaparty) to win freedom.

We have just read how Bush's administration, which I assume would be considered more right than left, has had a hands off approach at the FAA, EPA, and other governmental oversight agencies. That is not leaning toward totalitarianism, that is leaning toward anarchy, yet they are considered on the right.

garyd wrote: "Both extremes are noxious. But the far left is much more dangerous to human freedom."

America was born out of anarchy, a revolution that brought forth freedom. France did too. In fact, freedom usually comes from the imposition of a little anarchy toward totalitarian governments. Don't forget the revolt in Tiennamen Square, anarchy that was promoting freedom but was put down by a totalitrian government. Did recent gains in freedoms such as the freedoms blacks gained in 1964, or women have gained over the last 30 years, was that accomplished by totalitarian means or applying anarchy? Anarchy is what brings freedoms forth. Totalitarianism is what removes freedom and what maintains the lack of freedom.

garyd wrote: "ON the left we tend to find people who believe for all solutions to every problem that the government is the answer."

That is another over simplification. I have never heard anyone say that government should solve all problems. I have heard from those considered to be "left" that government CAN solve problems. On the right we hear that government IS the problem, meaning problems should remain problems since government cannot or should not solve them. On a case by case basis this can be argued. I know of no one who thinks crime should not be controlled by government. I also know of no one that thinks the government should make personal decisions for you, such as when to get married or whether to have children. The simplification of all government control or no government control is a red herring.

garyd wrote: "On the right people who at best think government is a necessary evil at best."

Then why is our current right-wing administration doing everything it can to not use government to fix real problems, like New Orleans, like planes that were not inspected, like mercury in our water? And why is communism, where the government controls everything, considered "left"?

I think your confusion comes from considering anarchy as bad and somethig to always be avoided, while totalitarianism, as a necessary evil at times, brings order. But what you ignore is that anarchy shakes up the status quo and allows for necessary change. Totalitarianism allows for no change. Freedom is by definition the ability to change, one's mind, one's way of life, one's choices. Totalitarianism by its very nature is against change and therefore against freedom.

So you have it backwards. The far right is more dangerous to human freedom, as communism and nazism showed, while anarchy which created the USA and freed france from a monarchical government, promotes freedom. Now anarchy has been good when applied toward breaking totalitarian holds over freedom, but it is not somethng you want forever, so anarchy is the necessary evil, not totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is an evil that restricts freedom and is not necessary at any time.

GARYD - which country are you talking about?? The right wing in this country thinks government is there for their exclusive manipulation and personal benefit - and to fulfull their ideological compulsions. Where would they be without government as their pawn?? We've got Iraq, don't we??

This idea of smaller government is really absurd anyway. Look at the current budget - is it getting smaller?? Smaller government is a myth that's bandied about by the far right of the Libertarian persuasion...most of them live in Texas, don't they??

There is no left wing in this country anyway. You're probably thinking of 'liberals' when you throw out the 'far left' idea. In fact, a large majority of people in this country share liberal ideals when surveyed - regardless of how they indicate political party preference.

Your ideas apply elsewhere - but certainly not here in this political reality.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

During the movie intermissions, please pass out flyers with the following information:

"Just as Christianity is self-destructing from the weight of its flaws and errors to include physical resurrections, holy ghosts, and "voodooing the hoodoo" aka "miracles", Islam is analogously self-destructing as noted below:

Islam's reliance on "pretty wingie thingies" and "demons of the demented" for authenication is coming to a fast close. As it does, Mecca will no longer be a shrine to these fictional characters and will simply become a historical tourist attraction. Disney will be constructing another Disney World there featuring roller coaster-chariot rides to the fictional heavens, a water park at the Grand Mosque along with a Hall of Religious Embellished Characters featuring talking figures of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed and his eleven wives.

Hmmm, Mohammed's figure would be saying something like:

"I was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who 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. "

Observer:

--"I know you [Mr. Mark] are a Muslim hiding behind a Christian name.I have read a number of your posts and I know a Muslim when I hear one."

You can't buy this....

Hello Spiderman2:)

Thanks for your post. You are something else. You know something about Malaysians who reads between lines in literature and given to metaphors and allusive speech? Oh, let's get silly here....

You are given to analogies and metaphors, albeit, some mixed and mismatched, no? So many thoughts going on with you and crammed in interesting sentences.

"We keep them inside the cage but stupid people (atheists, secularists, liberalists, Islamists, "mahathirists", "jacobyists") let the tigers out. Why? It's because they are stupid. Got my point?"

Mahathirists? Jacobyists? Very creative. You forgot religionists such as you and I. We are also an "ist". Add monotheist and theist too. And anti-theist, and anti-antitheist not listed. All the "ists" are dangerous, no? when set loose or break loose from "containment" of their respective belief/non-belief cells into other cells of completely different belief/non-belief that they may not quite completely grasp.

Yes, we have tigers where I live. Indigenous to the jungle here, most are free in designated protected forests. As you noted about tigers, Malaysians also say - never provoke a tiger, never wander and blunder into its domain/territory, give it its space, let it be or risk it attacking you as self-defence of you being where you should not.

Yes, I got your point about those of us of whatever belief or non-belief becoming "tigerish" and lashing out whenever provoked. And it is "stupid" to provoke the tiger inside us. As a "zookeeper" in this manimal kingdom here, you also seem to have deliberately provoked some "tigers", no?

Yes, you are driving the point all wants to have their own domain and territory (belief/non-belief) undisturbed, wants others to keep out, and will fight when attempts are made to provoke, or to control and contain by force or externally.

So, you are implying that all be contained in their respective "cells" in "zoos" where they will do no harm to other "species" and now "stupid" people as listed by you are unlocking the gates of provocations for the "beasts" to come out, rampage and create havoc.

Can't stop discussions on faith and those prone to use more colourful and provocative language and ways to describe the "other" they wish to provoke. The line between an honest, sincere discussion and one that is hate/inciteful speech or fighting words is not clear to many.

You are right, some provocations are really unnecessary for they do lead to regrettable outcomes with beastly words and actions in reaction instead of cool and considered discussions. Extremists of all beliefs and non-beliefs are stupid then.

Oh, by the way, I agree with "Just A Comment" on his or her post. Beliefs is really evolving, niching and customised according to one's personal preference and needs. No more one belief to fit all even in the same faith group. Some strip it down, some add on all sorts of accessories to the main core or vehicle of their belief.

Yes, let's go for a car/vehicle analogy on beliefs, such as :

Al Qaeda is the Sherman tank of Islam - rampaging and blasting away.

The Catholic Church is the Rolls Royce of Christianity - stately, grand, old fashioned with some snobbish atttitudes towards other vehicles.

The Southern Baptist Church is the Ford truck of Christianity - taking the sideroads and the backroads of faith towards its destination and very hardy too.

You've had your fun proving your point here. This weekend I going to zone out with my family and watch really fun, ridiculous and mindless Brigette Lin movies such as Dragon Inn, Fire Dragon, Swordman II, the East Is Red. Bette Davis' eyes has nothing on Brigette Lin's stare and glare. She is magnificent and made very bad movies very watchable.

A good weekend to you.

Cheers

"J"

At the far right of the political line we have Anarchy at the far left totalitarianism. Both extremes are noxious. But the far left is much more dangerous to human freedom.

ON the left we tend to find people who believe for all solutions to every problem that the government is the answer.

On the right people who at best think government is a necessary evil at best.

Mr.Mark asks:

"How do we know that Jesus existed?"
I know you are a Muslim hiding behind a Christian name.I have read a number of your posts and I know a Muslim when I hear one. Accordingly the quick and dirty answer would be "read your Quran". You do not believe the myths of your book? Well I do not either so let us tackle the question from a different perspective.

The Dead Sea scrolls had all the books of the Old Testament except one ;Esther. In the book of Isaiah who lived about 700 years before the time of Jesus had many prophesies about Jesus. Christians rely heavily on that book and to a lesser degree on the psalms of King David in deciphering the prophecies about Jesus. The Jewish historian Josephus lived during the first Century AD , and while he was born few years after Jesus resurrection, yet he was very aware of him and his movement. He witnessed the Jewish and Roman persecution of his followers. The history of the Church have record of many of the early Christian martyrs as described below.

“Christian Persecution: Many of the Early Disciples Died for their Faith
Christian persecution was a dramatic part of early church history. For anyone who holds that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was a man-made hoax conspired by a group of disciples should check out the legacy of martyrdom. Eleven of the 12 apostles, and many of the other early disciples, died for their adherence to this story. This is dramatic, since they all witnessed the alleged events of Jesus and still went to their deaths defending their faith. Why is this dramatic, when many throughout history have died martyred deaths for a religious belief? Because people don’t die for a lie. Look at human nature throughout history. No conspiracy can be maintained when life or liberty is at stake. Dying for a belief is one thing, but numerous eye-witnesses dying for a known lie is quite another.”

How do we know that Moses existed? Because of the dramatic change in the lives of a Hebrew tribe. The dramatic change in the culture of the civilized world could not be explained except by a cosmic event which is the teachings of a humble carpenter from Galilee.

Buzzmaster, Buzzmaster, Buzzmaster,

Modern analyses:

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

perspective:

In that the works of Aristotle were "lost" in the West after Christianity became the dominant religion and intellectual caretaker in the 4th century or so, Aquinas owed a huge debt of thanks to the Muslim scholars in the East who preserved them. Perhaps he doesn't laugh at them quite as loudly as he does at other of Hell's damned--by way of repayment.

Ma'am...I'm THEBUZZMASTER. I'm hear to tell you I do agree with you on some of your issues.And as far as your ideas and feelings on the leaders of the Countries of this world who are going to lead
their countries in the way they believe, it should be done.
Now as far as your comments on 'SPIRITUALLITY' of these leaders,they will be the ones answering to GOD in the end.And the God I am referring to is the Father of JESUS CHRIST.Our LORD AND SAVIOR.And it will be your own personal relationship with GOD that all people on earth will need to worry about.

Why are presidential candidates these days so ostentatiously religious? I wouldn't blame Jimmy Carter. He was responding to a trend - the rise of a secular society. As religion has declined as a central force in the lives of many Americans, so have presidential candidates had to show their faith . That way they reassure the populace that they hold traditional values in this changing society.

You doubt that society has become more secular? Look at the most popular churches. They have compromised mightily with old time religion as they introduce the modern to attract and hold the congregations of today.

Spidey,

Why are you so consumed by hatred, instead of liberated by Christ's message of love?

I will pray for you.

Arminius

Arminius wrote : "I am Christian. I don't call people who disagree with me stupid."

Christian means believing what Christ believes. You seem to believe in anything including evolution which is a devil's idea.

Jesus Christ called the Pharisees as children of the devil and even fools, which is worse than stupid.

I'm not sure what Bible you are reading.

I don't invent what I say. If you disagree to everything that I say, it's because you're not christian. I presume you don't even believe in Hell. Do you?

"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: " Luke 24:25

Spidey, you are wrong.

I am Christian. I don't call people who disagree with me stupid. God forgive me, I am tempted to make an exception in your case. Why are you so hostile and defensive?

Neal - you make a good point in comparing Aquinas to thinkers like Spiderman2 because it's not so far-fetched .... while Spiderman has an utter dislike of Catholics, he should be impressed by Aquinas, who is held to be the supreme logician of Catholic theology and on a par with Aristotle as regards the power and persuasion of his logical thinking. Nobody does Catholicism better than (Saint) Thomas Aquinas.

Catholic theology has not been more clearly enunciated since the 13th century, you might say. And without Thomas Aquinas, where would the Protestant Reformers be, we could reasonably ask?? Luther, Wesley, and Calvin should have been so logical!

On the other hand, he clearly just made stuff up as he went along. Reading his rationalization of the Trinity and the role of Christ as savior is quite unconvincing, for example. In order to buy Aquinas, it really helps to be a believer to begin with - and many were, and many did. And that's really the point...believing without substantial proof is a self-confirming endeavor. You get better at it with time.

He was quickly canonized as a pillar of the Church, whereas his fellow Dominican and near comtemporary in the 13th century, Meister Eckert, was pilloried for being a true mystic. Eckert said that he and God were one - that's not what Aquinas said. He said that he and God were two - and that's the way the Church likes it to this very day.

Imagine the arrogance of Aquinas celebrating the suffering of the damned, while the righteous true believers are saved in Christ - and looking forward to their own personal vision of God as their eternal reward in heaven. Pure delusion and a powerful 12th century ego trip indeed. This is not love of your fellow man - far from it.

We can begin to see the origins of religious fundamentalism long before the Protestants got a handle on the business of sin, damnation, and salvation.

The Dominican Order was deeply involved in the Inquisition, and visited great suffering on multitudes of innocent victims at the order of various Popes.

The illogic of religious self-righteousness hasn't changed since Aquinas. What exactly do people get out of persisting in this nonsense??

STUPIDITY IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.

Stupid people would view this as intolerant comment. Why am I not amazed?

Fate, reading the Bible does not mean one understands it. If you can't understand the analogy of the tiger, how much more the very complex analogies and metaphors that are so abundant in that Holy Scripture?

Arminius, I don't know how your brain is structured. Believing in God makes a person wise. I can't understand why you remain a fool. If many atheists find "christianity" foolish, it's exactly because they equate you with that doctrine. If I were not a believer, I would think the same way if the "christians" I listen to are like you.

What else do you believe? List them all and we'll see if it's still curable.

I could not agree with you more, Susan. It would be interesting to see some research on just when we started down this slippery slope of de-secularizing presidential politics. My personal impression is that Jimmy Carter was a major contributor. He loudly proclaimed that he was a Southern Baptist who had been "born again." I wonder if he has any regrets?

Ken:--"Intelligent results are not inevitable for rigorous logicians, just results that flow inevitably from their premises."

I'm reminded how particularly true this is of untestable religious premises. Thomas Aquinas, in his "Summa", was able to logically take the premise of the existence of a Just God and conclude, Spiderman2-ishly, that not only would the saved in Heaven *not* feel sorrow for the damned in Hell, they would actually feel joy in the knowledge of their suffering.

Ah, yes, 'absolute truth'. An interesting exercise might be to define 'absolute truth' and give three examples.

Also, is there such a thing as 'subjective truth'? One might argue that it appears in courtrooms every day.

Another thing - given an 'absolute truth', on what legs does it stand? You might be suprised to find that those legs have no proof, but are axioms such as Euclid's.

Mind experiments are in order here.

Arminius

Ken writes: "When there exist mutually contradictory claims to absolute truth it is reasonable to say that all can't be true. It is not reasonable to conclude that all must be false."

On the basis of their mutual exclusivity, no, I agree. By the same token, it wouldn't be reasonable to conclude that any one of the must be true either.

To conclude that one must be true, one would have to provide solid evidence that it is so. The fact that nobody has been able to do this in 1500 years or so is a compelling strike against all the competing claims. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. These claims don't even have paltry evidence that supports them, let alone extraordinary evidence.

If you have evidence to offer that doesn't include "I just know it", "Jesus whispered it in my ear", "the bible says so", or other such idiocy, please share it.

Dear Mr. Fate

I agree with you on most of your points.

Fundamentalism is a psychological state and is not necessarily religious. Communism and Naziism were both a kind of Fundamentalism which are psychologically, very close to Fundamentalist Christianity or Islam. Most Christians deny, deny, deny; they don't want to believe it, but it is true; true that Fundamentalism is about voluntary mental conformity to dogma or doctrine and not about relgious thought at all.

Born-Again-Fundamentalist-Christian-Evangelicals like to prove their superiority to atheists by pointing out that Communism and Nazism were atheistic movements, but they conveniently forget to point out that they were also Fundamentalist movements, as well.

I also agree with Mr. Fate, that people do not seem to realize where they come from, nor where their relgious belief comes from. They do not seem to realize that their religious heritage is provided to them by the previous generation, that what they may inherit at any given time in history, and at any given location upon the earth, is merely a setting, where the formation of an inner will comes into being, and operates to movitate our personalities, and that this setting is very different from place to place and from epoch to epoch, and is based on many, many things that have only a virtual existence, or said another way, have no existence at all, other than as markers, and interpretive categorizations within our own minds.

If you believe in God, and if you are a Christian, you cannot believe that any person "set" on this earth, within the "setting" of their birth can be any more or less favored by God, merely by the "accident" of their birth. And therefore, to assert and assume the superiority of one religious truth over another is absurd, and that there must be something more than such a silly way of looking at things.

Of course, you silly people reading this, you know who you are, I do not expect you to change your silly sense of superiority over the heretics, apostates, and infidels, merely because I have pointed how silly this all is.

The President is the President to all the people.

There is no religious qualification for American citizenship.

What, about that, is so hard to understand?

As a moderate christian I believe that religion should be kept out of government. No one can run for office just using his beliefs as the main of his or her campaign. I don't think our founders would like what has happened to our country. I personally am glad that I lived through the great depression and WW2, Korea and all the other so called wars. The old saying, cherity begins at home, makes a lot o sense to me. Being over 80 years old I am sorry to see the shape our country is in and I pity my grandkids and greatgrandkids for the sorry mess we let out country get in

As a moderate christian I believe that religion should be kept out of government. No one can run for office just using his beliefs as the main of his or her campaign. I don't think our founders would like what has happened to our country. I personally am glad that I lived through the great depression and WW2, Korea and all the other so called wars. The old saying, cherity begins at home, makes a lot o sense to me. Being over 80 years old I am sorry to see the shape our country is in and I pity my grandkids and greatgrandkids for the sorry mess we let out country get in

I'm surprised that GaryD and others haven't remarked that Mr Kuznetsov's problem comes down to a lack of faith. After all, it isn't even May yet! The world may still end as he predicted.

I wonder if there's a religious term for those who lose faith a mere month before a prophecy comes true? Lutherans, perhaps?

Daniel in the Lion's Den wrote: "Also, I would like to agree with "Agathodemon" that the President is the President to ALL the people, not just to a favored group or sect nor even political party. To appeal for support among different relgious groups, is, in my opinion, unprincipled and unethical, and leaves everyone else high and dry."

But that is what these religions that push their religious views in politics want, to leave everyone else high and dry. Religions, and those who are strict adherants, generally are not democratic. They are not interested in plurality. They are not interested in debating the tenents of their beliefs. So if abortion is believed to be a sin, then it is a sin for everyone, not just them, and that is the end of the discussion. And they believe everyone should abide by their belief which they elevate beyond being a belief to be truth, a level no religion has ever met or can meet.

The problem as I see it is that those with strict utopian views of the world that demand the rest of the world adhere to those views tend to use politics to achieve that end. And it does not have to be a religious movement. Communism and the Nazi's both imposed their strict views on peoples, many of which did not elect to have them imposed. Religions which get into politics to impose their views of right and wrong on everyone else should first have their tax exemptions revoked, then become a political party and stop pretending to be a faith.

Jesus never elevated himself. That is part of his attraction. He never worked to change laws. He never admonished the politicians of the day. He never tried to get his agenda into government. He never tried to have people arrested for breaking his code of ethics. He simply spoke and explained, and many, through self reflection, agreed with him. That is what Jesus' christianity was about, spreading the word and having it freely adopted, not having it imposed through law. But many who today call themselves christians have no understanding of Jesus or what he was about, and like the communists and nazis, have a utopian view of the world which would exist if only people were forced to believe as they do and adhere to their beliefs through laws. History has shown this to be a dangerous way of moving an agenda, but many people do not study history, just as they do not study their own religiou s history and think Easter and Christmas celebrations are about christianity, even though the bible does not mention eggs, bunnies, trees in the house or gift giving. They have no clue that people, not God, invented the religious traditions they follow, its customs, its rules, even what scriptures are part of the religion never acknowleging that many other scriptures were cut out of the religion.

Sorry, for the long post, I got carried away... In short, all religions should get out of politics, let people determine laws through democratic processes and stop using faith as a condition for a job. Anything else is un-Christ-like.

Ken said:
"When there exist mutually contradictory claims to absolute truth it is reasonable to say that all can't be true. It is not reasonable to conclude that all must be false."

Let's apply Ken's logic to the following three claims of absolute truth:

1. The human heart is constructed of Velvetta Cheese
2. The human heart is constructed of Swiss Cheese
3. The human heart is constructed of Cheddar Cheese

Is it really unreasonable to conclude that all three claims may be false?

Ken said:
"When there exist mutually contradictory claims to absolute truth it is reasonable to say that all can't be true. It is not reasonable to conclude that all must be false."

Ken,

All claims of "absolute truth" without hard evidence are contradictory to reason. Your claim is no different. Therefore is it completely reasonable to conclude that none of them are true until proven so.

Dan R. sez:

"Ms. Jacoby takes great pains to dismiss people who speak with any kind of authority about matters of faith."

And what, exactly, constitutes being an "authority about matters of faith?" None of the "authorities" agree with one another - from which parts of the "sacred texts" are utter BS to which parts MAY be based in history, to what sect of a particular religion one joins, to what basic religion one follows as being the one "true" faith (hint: 99% of the time, it turns out to be the same religion that was followed by their parents. God moves in mysterious ways...).

By anyone's reckoning, we're ALL authorities in matters of faith. Strangely, it's the authorities standing with both feet in the fantasy side of the reality/fantasy matrix that seem to be the most-respected "authorities" when it comes to matters religious.

And, BTW - having read a number of Susan's books, I'd say she more than qualifies as being an authority in religious matters, and by that, I mean someone who has actually studied the subject outside of the nonsense most people hear from their local pulpit.

Reason is instrumental, not foundational. Nothing is as remorseless as the binary logic of computer chips, yet GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out, was one of the first four letter acronyms coined by computer engineers. Intelligent results are not inevitable for rigorous logicians, just results that flow inevitably from their premises.

Ms. Jacoby's gross misunderstanding of the Constitution's "Congress shall establish no church" phrase, Now Liberated's constantly reinserted boilerplate cherry picking of the ludicrous Jesus Seminar's jury-rigged results, the frequent attempts to pit faith against reason that reveal a profound misunderstanding of both, all point to unexamined presuppositions that perch precariously on epistemological quicksand.

Some of us have reasoned carefully enough to move beyond Ms. Jacoby's own solipsistic and provincial American Unreason that defines reason as anything with which she agrees.

Describing Rod Parsley as McCain's spiritual advisor is absurdly wrong, and appears to be deliberately misleading. But who needs truth when it interferes with bashing.

An individul who claims "his personal private beliefs" aren't instrumental in helping him decide where he stands on certain issues is a liar. They are not beliefs if he doesn't believe enough in them to act on them.

A man (or woman) is elected based on how their views represent those of the people who elect him or her. Our constitution established a representative republic, not a direct national plebiscite. If they act differently from what the voters expect, they are not reeelcted.

Jesus claims "No one comes to the Father except through me," and John writes that the denial that Jesus was God in the flesh is the Spirit of the AntiChrist. It is therefore necessarily an article of faith for a Christian that Islam is blasphemy and a false religion. It does not follow that Christians hate its practitioners or seek to destroy it. There are many more mosques in the Bible Belt than there are churches in Saudi Arabia.

"The objective fact, the one that can't be disputed with logic and reason, is that NO one religion is "better", more "legitimate" or "truthful" than another..."

This assertion is itself not objectively factual nor logical and easily disputed on both points. Historical and archealogical research can buttress some claims while undermining others. If feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are not "better" than human sacrifice in your mind you have nothing worth contributing to this discussion. When there exist mutually contradictory claims to absolute truth it is reasonable to say that all can't be true. It is not reasonable to conclude that all must be false.

"Tomfoolery" is probably the best description of our current beliefs about the concept of a deity (I would also nominate tomfoolery's close cousin "nincompoopery").

Both terms express perfectly the foolishness of belief in any sort of diety.

In fact, if there is a god, may he strike me dea

Ms. Jacoby takes great pains to dismiss people who speak with any kind of authority about matters of faith. As learned men attempt to discern between the faith based upon their culture and historic text, she likewise exercise self-appointed discernment to minimalize and discredit. At the same time, she offers us her ultimate solution, the "Great Agnostic", Ingersol. I find the arrogant agnosticism of those hostile to faith, just the opposite of the Jesus in the Bible and the lives of reborn Christian believers (not perfect, but changed).

Mr. Mark:

Your question seem particularly relevant in that John Hagee and others' attempts to influence US foreign policy IN THE REAL WORLD are based on their claim that their god ceded a large chunk of Middle East real estate, in perpetuity, to Israel. Before I vote for McCain, the only candidate to *solicit* a Hagee endorsement, I'll personally need to see a notarized copy of that closing statement.

GaryD

When you refer to "leftests" and "lefties," just what are you referring to?

It is my understanding that during the French Revolution, the terms "left" and "right" came about to desribe where the members of the National Assembly sat, and later, where the members of the Emergency National Convention sat. The Convention, you may recall, was comvened to draw up a new Constitution, which was to replace the first Republic, which was torpedoed by an uncooperative King, who met his fate and was beheaded, for his uncooperativeness. They used the name "Convention" as a tritube to the Convention which met in Philidelphia, to write the American Constitution. Unfortunately, all of Europe declared war on France, and in the emergency, the Convention could not write a Constitution, but instead, was forced into emergecny rule of the nation.

The people who sought to advance the Revolution towards more and more radical actions sat more to the left, and the people who sought to moderate the Revolution sat more to the right.

How does your use of the word "lefty" co-incide with this original meaning? I do not think you know what you mean, but just say it as a reflex, a kind of name-calling, like saying someone is fat, or ugly, or a lefty. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your meaninging and intent.

"The problem is the exaggerated respect that Americans have for all religion."

Yes, yes, yes.

Also: no, McCain should actually loudly and frequently praise Parsley throughout the campaign. Heck, I'll get behind ANYTHING that makes him lose in November.

I would like to correct my last post, so it will make more sense, not that it should matter much; not very many people here make much sense; why should I be any different?

I said:

"So, if a person is not authentically black, then he cannot be President?"

The "NOT" was a mistake; I wanted to say:

"So,if a person IS AUTHENTICALLY black, then he cannot be President?"

Also, I would like to agree with "Agathodemon" that the President is the President to ALL the people, not just to a favored group or sect nor even political party.

To appeal for support among different relgious groups, is, in my opinion, unprincipled and unethical, and leaves everyone else high and dry.

But I am not fretting, because I believe this tendency among polliticans will be self-limiting as more and more people feel themselves circumscribed; as church-goers who doze off in church may be offended or fearful that they must offer a critique of their pastor's every sermon; as pastors worry that any provocative thing that they may say to keep their flocks awake may later be used against them; as the general pettiness of religious bickering becomes more and more of a nusiance and even a silly distraction, which is EXACTLY what it is.

Do I have a problems with Obama. Sure. None of them have to do with him being black. (Though leave it to the anti conservative bigots to make that assumption)

But I wasn't addressing that in my posts. And let's not forget that it was leftists who first questioned whether Obama was Black enough. My problem with Obama stems from the fact that his solutions seem to be centered around the notion of more government at a time when we already have more government than we can afford.

By the Mark it's a bit early for the annointing yet.
Remember those FBI files the Clintons had? How many of those super delegates were in them?

Fate,

I am with you - a Christian should live his life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. Trying to reason with Spidey is a lost cause, I'm afraid. He lives in the vengeance parts of the OT and also in the weirdness of Revelation. He has, seemingly, twisted 'Love your neighbor' from 'What would Jesus do?' into 'Who would Jesus bomb?'.
He has my pity.

Arminius

spiderman2 wrote: "If I don't love my neighbors, I should have released all the tigers. Got my point? The Bible is full of analogies. You should read it sometimes so your mind would sharpen a bit. And share it with Jacoby too, would you?"

You assume I do not know the bible. How did you determine that?

Yes the bible is full of analogies, but one I do not remember is the goodness in calling people you disagree with, or do not believe as you do, "stupid people".

If you have read the bible more than once you would know that Christ was about tolerance, not worrying about what other people think or believe but rather what YOU think and believe. Christ told in his teachings that the battle for one's soul is not between you and other people, it is between you and God, and what other people say, think, believe or do has nothing to do with you and your belief. Christ went all the way, even allowing himself to be put to death by the Romans rather than run away or organize a mob to protect him, either of which he could easily have done. And those who did a lot more than simply not believe as he did but tortured,

So when I read you judging other people as "stupid" based on their beliefs, I immediately wonder whether Christ thought people were stupid who did not agree with his sermons. Do you think Christ thought of others as stupid? Do you think Christ would approve of you thinking other people, who do not believe as you, to be stupid? In my christian teachings I would consider it a sin to think this way. But a being of christian mind I forgive you, and hope that one day you will see that anger, hate, intolerance and labeling of others you disagree with can lead and has led to violence, war and a generally bad day, for everyone.

IF we were adults in this country, any political discussion of religion would center on whether or not the claims made by religion have any basis in reality.

We discuss how to best fight terrorism - there's a basis in reality to do so.

We discuss how to best fix the economy - there's a basis in reality to do so.

We discuss the need for and extent of social programs - there's a basis in reality to do so.

And on it goes. You can advocate either side of any real political argument, but what you cannot do - at least, if you hope to win the argument - is to base your argument on pure fantasy and opinion. Only in the field of religion is opinion and myth allowed to substitute for fact. Only with religion is "faith" accepted as an excuse to continue believing something when all the facts clearly say otherwise.

So, let's have the religious discussion, beginning with the first question that demands a fact-based answer: did any of these religious icons like Moses, Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed actually exist, or are they purely mythical characters, most likely created to further ancient political agendas?

Isn't the main point of the article that religion shouldn't be a part of campaigning for political office? All the talk about who is more beholding to whom is irrelevant isn't it? Political office holders are supposed to represent all of their constituency - aren't they? If their personal religious belief system precludes representing anyone, then they are not qualified to be be a political office holder. All the religious posturing by Angela, GaryD, and Spiderman2 are irrelevant. I sometimes think that they are a three headed snake sent to confuse the issues.

So, if a person is not authentically black, then he cannot be President? That seems awfully exclusionary. I think that this way of thinking is a little thoughtless, and WASP-centric.

And isn't the automatic, reflexive, mindless patriotism, expressed in the phrase "God Bless America" just a little PC? What if a person does not think that way? Does that make a person an enemy of the state?

A preoccupation with patriotism and with nationalist symbols is a specialized interest. Suppose that is not my interest? Does that make me a bad person? What about people who are not interested in football? Are they bad too?

GaryD,

OK GaryD. If you just want to continue to bash Obama and then apply a painfully obvious double-standard to McCain, that's your choice.

And here I thought all Christians were supposed to be honest and fair-minded? Silly me.

Jesus must be very proud to have you worship his ideals so consistently!

Susan Jacoby's essay made alot of sense. On the other hand, many of the posts amount to mindless babble.

From these posts...

we know that Islam should be destroyed...

we know that God hates stupid people...

we know that if two Christians do not have identical subjective feelings about the Holy Spirit, one of them is not a true Christian (we just don't know which one) and...

we know that Obama is a bad guy because he did not quit going to church.

I do not see any point in arguing with pointless babble. Some people say that mixing religion with politics is not good and others have a spirited defense of this practice. I do not think I need to say anything about it, but just look at the level of discourse here to see if it is a good thing or a bad thing.

Dear GaryD -

You seem to have a real problem with Obama. How on earth are you going to make it through the next eight years with him as president?

Does obama have to renounce all the haters at Daily Kos and Huffington Post? The subterfuge that somehow Parsley and McCain are joined at the Hip is so laughably absurd that only a leftist would buy it.

Yeah yeah yeah he denounced what he said but did not renounce their association. He can't without ceasing to appear to many to be authentically black whatever the heck that means...

Fate wrote : " Yes, it seems quite clear that "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is not part of your belief system. What religion did you say you follow? "

If I don't love my neighbors, I should have released all the tigers. Got my point?

The Bible is full of analogies. You should read it sometimes so your mind would sharpen a bit. And share it with Jacoby too, would you?

GaryD said:
"And you think Obama's refusal to renounce Pastor Wright wasn't exactly the same?"

GaryD,

If you think Obama has refused to renounce Pastor Wright, you have not been listening to Obama at all.

Here's a recent piece from the New York Times, March 15th, 2008:

On Friday, Mr. Obama called a grab bag of statements by his longtime minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., “inflammatory and appalling.”

“I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue,” he wrote in a campaign statement that was his strongest in a series of public disavowals of his pastor’s views over the past year.

So when do you think we will hear a similar renouncement of Parsley from McCain? I'll give you a hint ... the day after never.

Hey Mike,

If Ms. Jacoby is so boring, why do you keep coming back for more?

My thinks thou dost protest too much!

spiderman2: "Don't taunt us coz we have lots of tigers (hehe). We keep them inside the cage but stupid people (atheists, secularists, liberalists, Islamists, "mahathirists", "jacobyists") let the tigers out. Why? It's because they are stupid. Got my point?"

Yes, it seems quite clear that "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is not part of your belief system. What religion did you say you follow?

Spiderman2 wrote: "Nobody will destroy Islam except itself"

In fact Islam and the other major organized religions will not destroy themselves. They will transform their enterprise to deliver a different product.

The customers' needs are evolving, slowly but surely, away from the supernatural and unproven myths.

They are evolving toward more mundane personal needs mixed with some level of spirituality. People like to meet to share problems, help each others and get inspired to do good things.

Peace and best wishes for all,

JAC

Amen, sister.

Jihadist wrote : "Okay then, destroy Islam as a "false" religion as one of the "true believers". "

You didn't get my point. Nobody will destroy Islam except itself. STUPIDITY IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE. Before it would be destroyed, it will rule the world first and showcase it's stupidity. Remember those people who were attacked by the tiger in a SF zoo? They showed their stupidity first by taunting the tiger, before the tiger killed one of them.

If not for the zoo keepers (light bearers), the other two would have been killed also for sure. God said that if not for the true believers, nobody would be left alive on doomsday.

Don't taunt us coz we have lots of tigers (hehe). We keep them inside the cage but stupid people (atheists, secularists, liberalists, islamists, "mahathirists", "jacobyists") let the tigers out. Why? It's because they are stupid. Got my point?

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist and your Shiite/Sunni Brothers and Sisters,

In your latest "obfusing", you noted:

"Okay then, destroy Islam as a "false" religion as one of the "true believers".

It is not destruction of Islam that is needed. It is the correction of Islam that is needed in view of the flaws and errors of said religion just as all religions need to be corrected and "deflawed".

And again one more time for your perusal: The first four major flaws/errors of Islam!!!

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.

This is worthwhile to repeat many times:

Brad wrote: "For those of us with faith, it is deeply a part of who we are, the decisions we make and, for me, part of my reasoning on most of life's questions."

Then FATE replied: "That is just fine in your personal life since that most likely does not affect me, and my beliefs do not affect you. But when you take your personal beliefs into public office, or into a public job such as a doctor or pharmacist or judge or policeman, you need to put your beliefs aside and obey the laws and do your job. Faith is important for the individual. It is very bad when it overrides democracy, your public duties, or the law."

Well said FATE, I agree 100%. To CTCNL, please consider to add something like this to your repertoire.

Best wishes to all,

JAC

Wow, is there any more boring and predictable writer in the world than Jacoby.

We get it. She hates religion and has contempt for any who have faith. Yawn.

Hello Spiderman2:)

Having fun? Can I join in as a rambling woman? I'm good at rambling and babbling.

You : Don't blame us true believers coz we just carry your weight and once the plank breaks, it's not we who failed but it's your increasing heavy weight which breaks it.

Moi : I take it when you say "true believers" you mean only Christians. Never mind. I'll see you in hell then. Surely enough room there for the both of us.

You : Blame your stupidity and not the light bearers. When there is light, you open your eyes and not close it.

Moi : Light upon light, God doth guide whom It will to It. Sometimes, the light is too blinding for some and hence, they shut their eyes. Or sometimes, those holding the light are blinded by that light and can't see others too well.

As you are on an economic angle on the reaction on the Geert Wilder film, "Fitna"....

Boycott Dutch Clogs!

Yes, we all saw that bit of "Fitna" on the Net.

So, is it better for Muslims to:

(a) ignore the film

(b) accept the film

(c) take to the streets and rage and rampage in protest against the film

(d) boycott Dutch products

(e) recommend the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to Mr. Geert Wilder for promoting interfaith dialogue and goodwill

How about "ideas" as a product, as in the marketplace of ideas?

You : I thought that only a few muslim have this "terrorist tendencies" but after hearing former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad issued a threat of banning all Dutch products, it seems like this "terrorist tendency" is actually endemic in ALL muslims.

Moi : Terrorist tendencies? Nahhh...just getting market savvier as consumers with choices on products. Ideas as a product in the marketplace.

There is copyright law for one, for published works such as movies, books etc. Got to have permission and pay royalties if you use an item by someone else too if the copyright is in effect.

So, we have a Danish cartoonist who drew a caricature of the Prophet PBUH suing Mr. Wilder for using his cartoon in "Fitna" without permission.

Anyone can say anything in the marketplace of ideas. Anyone can buy or otherwise in the marketplace of consumer products. There is choice, choice, and choice.

Ideas are like other products - good, bad, defective, shoddy etc and consumers free to accept or reject, and producers should not complain if consumers don't like it or to buy it.

Consumers chose to "buy" ideas financially (in books, movies, magazines) and mentally, or to reject or cast aside, or to come out with a competing product, or react against what they deem as dangerous or defective products.

Of course anyone can agree or disagree on any idea, and chose to disagree in any way he or she chose.

Of course the packaging and presentation of ideas as a product is important too for consumers.

Of course some consumers don't take to certain products due to culture and taste, as in while the French eat snails, Indian vegetarians don't.

Of course there is over 192 countries in the world to sell products from ideas to iodines and consumer chose which brand they prefers.

So, why should anyone force a product on consumers if they don't want them, don't like them?

Of course the former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia can say anything he wants, including calling for the boycott of Dutch products. He would be pleased that you pay more attention to him on this than many Malaysians do.

Malaysians are more seized by his call for the current Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Badawi, to resign after a poor showing of his political party alliance's in the recent general elections in March 2008 in Malaysia.

Of course Malaysian don't care for Dutch tulips and Dutch Gouda cheese. We love orchids more and we don't eat cheese except in pastas, pizzas and in Big Macs, and Dutch cheese are not used in those.

All the same, I'll urge Malaysian men to boycott the Amsterdam sex shops. We don't want Malaysian men to be terrorised into fear by the tall and strapping and Dutch ladies of the night.

You : What if the rest of the world bans Malaysia's products coz it has a stupid former prime minister? Is that reasonable? Judging from the threats he issued, he would probably say that it is reasonable.

Moi : There is over 192 countries in the world. In 2006, Malaysia is the US's tenth largest trading partner. In 2007, it is the 16th. Why? Because Malaysian exporters expanded their products in new markets in burgeoning Asian, African and Latin American markets instead of the US and Europe. Especially the Middle East markets.

And by the way, boycotting Malaysian products exported to the US means boycotting many US products in fact. For instance, all the Dell computers are assembled in Malaysia. Much to learn about globalisation, market forces, and free markets.

And talking about boycotts, when the Danish cartoons on the Prophet PBUH came out, my friends and I showed our displeasure by going into Starbucks and chewed on Danish pastries with great vigour and relish. So there. That ought to show the Danes not to slander the Prophet PBUH and insult us with those cartoons. It was a most satisfying and fulfilling form of protest. We got up feeling sated.

Mr. Geert Wilder is a right wing Dutch politician. He would be characterised as an extreme right wing conservative in the United States.

Is it my imagination, or do there seem to be quite a number of right wing types here?

And interesting choice of words used thus far in this thread - "dimwitted nitwit", "airheads" to add to my vocabulary. I see that "moron" is back in use again. So, when is "idiot" coming in?

Okay then, destroy Islam as a "false" religion as one of the "true believers".

Cheers

"J"

Reasonable Not Hateful: "the eyewitness accounts of those that saw Christ after he was resurrected" described the physical appearance of Christ as...???
What about eyewitness accounts before resurrection?
Imagine I'm Dragnet's Joe Friday: Help me out here, did someone get a good look at the guy? What's he look like?

Reasonable not hateful: 'You reject out of hand the eyewitness accounts of those that saw Christ after he was resurrected also, I assume? Based on what? "That it is impossible"'

Eyewitness testimony isn't particularly reliable. Who cross-examined these witnesses? Did the biases of the supposed witnesses taint or alter their memories of the purported event? Would they have any vested interest in modifying or even fabricating their testimony?

Reasonable Not Hateful and other Bible Thumpers,

As noted by Pope John Paul II and St. Aquinas Heaven (if it exists) is a spirit state i.e. there can be no bones there or bodies to include the theological glorified body. So where are the bones? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, buried with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.

Actually Professor Crossan spends little time analyzing the question about glorified bodies since the physical Ascension, according to his analyses and those of many Catholic universitiy theologians, did not take place nor did the apparitions. See his book, The Historical Jesus.

In his book, In Search of Paul p. 343, Crossan did address 1 Cor 15: 44-45, "When buried it is the physical body, when it is raised it will be the spiritual body. There is of course the physical body so there has to be a spiritual body. "

When non-believers question certain Christian interpretations of the Bible they're criticized for not knowing theology. When Christian scholars disagree with those same interpretations they're denounced as being "liberal". When Christian denominations disagree they're condemned as being "false". When it comes to the book that is supposed to illuminate the path to Heaven only one thing is obvious, we stand about as much chance of getting it right as a hayseed playing his third game of 3-card Monte (since they always let you win the first two games.)

We do Tommy?

You reject out of hand the eyewitness accounts of those that saw Christ after he was resurrected also, I assume? Based on what? "That it is impossible"

To so called liberated:

Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit as a person- and the org language of the OT speaks of God in the plural- just because our feeble minds can't understand something completely does not make the concept of God, or Jesus as the atoning savior, something that should be rejected out of hand because theologians of questionable nature make speculative comments on what is.
-------------------------------------
Susan J. hates religion so much she wants to turn the concept of sep. of church and state on its head and make it something the founders had no intent for.

Reasonable not hateful

"Your real liberation lies in the resurrection of JC, which you reject out of hand, based on faulty assumptions of liberal theologians."

Actually, we reject the resurrection because there is no objective evidence of it, and it seems like nonsense to accpt such a claim based on no evidence.

To Reasonable Not Hateful:

We know more about the physical appearance of Socrates than Jesus. Why so? The son of god lives on Earth and no one gets a good look at him?!?!

CTCNL:

I see that you are still spouting nonsense.

Jesus is the liberation you need, not liberal theologians' and their speculation on what happened to Jesus or Abraham.

Your real liberation lies in the resurrection of JC, which you reject out of hand, based on faulty assumptions of liberal theologians.

And you think Obama's refusal to renounce Pastor Wright wasn't exactly the same? Sorry but the unintended consequences of McCain-Feingold essentially guarantee that no one is going to get through this race with clean hands.

You dimwitted "nitwit"! How dare you think your terasecond on earth gives you any knowledge to question not only God, but the role God plays in any of our lives... you're a real moron!! Read some history and maybe you'll see how God and his "real" prophets have directed and impacted the decisions of many kings and Nations... You must be kidding! You're such an airhead!

GaryD,

Thanks for the gratuitous compliments in place of a well-reasoned rebuttal. I guess when your argument fails, you are left with nothing but flattery to make your point and I am flattered!

At least you have fair enough to concede that McCain's pandering to religious bigots is merely a show for political gain. I guess there is hope for you yet!

"candide:
Most clergy are so ill-educated, so ignorant, so ridiculous that I wonder why people bother with them. They are truly the blind leading the blind."

A degree in theology is exactly equal to a degree in astrology or parapsychology. The important course for these buffoons is "fleecing the flock 101".

Whatever message gets your audience to open their wallets is THE TRUTH.

A president of the US should be strong and orgainized and know the diffreance of religon and polotics.....they shouldnt be combined

Just as Christianity is self-destructing from the weight of its flaws and errors to include the mumbo jumbo of physical resurrections, holy ghosts/spirits , 24/7 blood sacrifices, and "voodooing the hoodoo" aka "miracles", Islam will analogously self-destruct from its foundations based on "pretty/ugly, wingie, flying, talking thingies and an Arab who "talked to these thingies" and at the same time was an illiterate, warmongering, lust and greed driven, womanizing false prophet/fortune teller.

Brad wrote: "I respect Susan's opinions, but disagree 100 percent. If a person has spiritual beliefs, you cannot expect them to separate that from their campaign."

Any candidate who puts faith over country and the law has no business running for any public office. We have a representative government. That means, as a candidate, that you must represent your constitutes, not your personal beliefs, in your governmental duties. If a candidate has beliefs that they cannot set aside to meet the demands of their constituents, they should not be running for office. This is how stem cell research has been stiffled by Bush against the majority of this nation that favors the research.

Brad wrote: "For those of us with faith, it is deeply a part of who we are, the decisions we make and, for me, part of my reasoning on most of life's questions."

That is just fine in your personal life since that most likely does not affect me, and my beliefs do not affect you. But when you take your personal beliefs into public office, or into a public job such as a doctor or pharmacist or judge or policeman, you need to put your beliefs aside and obey the laws and do your job. Faith is important for the individual. It is very bad when it overrides democracy, your public duties, or the law.

Your ignorance is showing Freestinker. To be sure that isn't unusual when atheists discuss religious things.

That you are also a leftist is apparent in your ridiculous attempt to equate 20 years of soaking up Jeremiah Wright's ridiculous diatribes with a fifteen minute stop over to garner some endorsements that like it or not McCain knows he is going to have to have if he wants to win the election. Please note this is almost certainly the one of the unintended consequences of McCain-Feingold.

I do not care about a candidate's spirituality, far too much attention is paid by the candidates, and their campaigns, to pandering to clearly out-of-touch with all reality knuckle-dragging wingnuts, like Pastors Hagee and "Sprig Of" Parsley.

The sooner religious hypocrites like Hagee and Parsley are forcefully called on their BS, the better off our society will be, and one good start to this would be to revoke any tax-exemptions these two particular swine are claiming for themselves and their churches.

The objective fact, the one that can't be disputed with logic and reason, is that NO one religion is "better", more "legitimate" or "truthful" than another, as rabid extremists like Hagee, Parsley and Usama bin Laden have shown with their clear hatreds time and time again.

And for Parsley and Hagee, perhaps they should reread-if they've ever read it to begin with-Matthew 23, in which Jesus' words can just as strongly apply to the phony religious leaders-Parsley and Hagee-today as they did back then.

Yes. Freestinker, Obama is a Christain. And he is also a thinking man who is capable of making a destinction between spiritual and natural things. I must admit that I have never attended any Latino or Asian churches but, I have visited numerous White & Black churches and have heard things said that would make exceptional "loop cycling" stuff for any racist to spout for reasons to not like either Obama or Mc Cain. But all of that aside, I think that anyone running for public office should have some spiritual background in order to uphold those things that not only the Bible tells us is right but, our own conscieous should let us know. Such as treating everone, regardless of economics, race, or religion (or lack there of) right and fair. You not only should listen to one of Rev. Wright's complete sermons but, go back and listen to Rev. Martin L. King's sermons. Today they would be much more inflamatory and the same people who now say he was such a great leader would be treating him the same way as Rev. Wright has gotten treated. Actually, back in the 60's he was treated worse. Read a little history sometime...

"Yours is a self-fulfilling prophecy: I never looked for God and ergo never found him, so I can only conclude that he doesn't exist."

Gideon,
I'm pretty sure Susan Jacoby was using "evidence" in the scientific sense of the word. If there were really testable evidence and proof for the existence of god(s) then why hasn't it been published in a scientific journal? If there were really a proof for the existence of god(s) that stood up to the scientific method, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the faithful to make it widely available?

You seem to have completely missed Ms. Jacoby's point that atheists, agnostics and freethinkers put more stock in that which is tangible, testable and provable by the scientific method than that for which there is no scientific proof. Comparing scientific inquiry with spiritual vision quests is like comparing apples to oranges. Your Jonas Salk analogy is poorly formed.
If you care to continue playing semantics, I would assert that your belief may be your "evidence" for your faith, but it simply is not proof.

I respect Susan's opinions, but disagree 100 percent. If a person has spiritual beliefs, you cannot expect them to separate that from their campaign. For those of us with faith, it is deeply a part of who we are, the decisions we make and, for me, part of my reasoning on most of life's questions. I agree that people need to think for themselves and nobody should take what their cleric/pastor says without question. But don't belittle me because I have faith and it invariably influences my rational thoughts.

Most clergy are so ill-educated, so ignorant, so ridiculous that I wonder why people bother with them. They are truly the blind leading the blind.

Watch FITNA. Their aim is world domination and the Bible prophesied that they will be successful in achieving that, if only for a year or two, with the help of atheist and evolutionist continents of course. Stupidity should rise to the top first and shine like a supernova before it "falls down greatly", to borrow Jesus Christ's words.

With Catholicism supporting evolution, I believe it will play a major role too. Maybe some sort of a grand 3 stooges act ? Yes, finally, the 3 grand stooges will soon rule the world. And true to their billing, it would be a raucus event but certainly, not funny.

And it will all end with a BIG BANG. Firecrackers flying everywhere. Or should I say, nukes?

DOOMSDAY? "Naah, it's just a fantasy..." Yes, it is, and atheist/secularists, evolutionists, false religions, liberal idealogues and everything false are all rapidly increasing to fulfill that "fantasy". It won't be called doomsday if they are few who are to be destroyed.

It's a fantasy that is becoming more real as the days goes by.

A quote from myself (hehe) : " Stupidity is self destructive, you know. You could be pointing that hammer you're holding now towards yourself."

Im just a light bearer (so you can see where you're going) and I don't want any kind of destruction to happen to anyone. But you should understand that "STUPIDITY IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE" and you can prove that statement even thru science. In fact Darwin had it wrong when he thought that it's the strong who will survive. Actually, it should be "it's the foolish who won't survive". Those with defective mindset or defective DNAs is culled out.

Going back to "STUPIDITY IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE", that is the real cause of Doomsday. Stupidity will rule this world and just like gravity pulling down everything that has weight, the self-destructiveness of stupidity will pull itself down and depending on how big that stupidity is, the same will be its destruction. It is called DOOMSDAY because of the IMMENSITY or MASSIVENESS of their STUPIDITY.

They are all stupid or FOOLS, in the words of God. In Doomsday, you won't see some supernatural act of God, but, what you would see are super stupid act of men.

Below is an example of how man can be so stupid even with a very high degree of education.

*****

When Pastor Jeremiah Wright made a misrepresentation of Christianity, almost all Christians were appalled by his diatribe. Nobody was angry over who uploaded that video on the net.

On the other hand, when some muslims "misrepresented " Islam and somebody (Wilder) uploaded them on the net, what we see are all muslims clamoring for the head of Mr.Wilder. What did Mr. Wider do? He just compiled the video so you muslims would censure those people who are "misrepresenting" you.

All of muslims' reaction mirror those of the barbarians seen in those videos. Instead of making speeches condemning those barbaric act, they are all clamoring for Mr.Wilder to be punished. WHAT COULD BE MORE STUPID THAN THAT?

I think there would come a time when after all the dust of the coming greatest war settles down, the surviving muslims will burn the book which caused all this Grandest Stupidity to occur.

*******

Is there anything wrong with FITNA? It just showed the videos of muslims recording themselves and their actions. If you want to stop another FITNA coming out sometime in the future, then restrict all muslims from having a video camera. Simple as that.

I thought that only a few muslim have this "terrorist tendencies" but after hearing former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad issued a threat of banning all Dutch products, it seems like this "terrorist tendency" is actually endemic in ALL muslims.

What if the rest of the world bans Malaysia's products coz it has a stupid former prime minister? Is that reasonable? Judging from the threats he issued, he would probably say that it is reasonable.

The man is a doctor so I'd like to ask him this question. Hey doctor, is there a medicine for the kind of illness that you have? Better find a cure before this world comes to an end. And I'm talking about your world. Stupidity is self destructive, you know. You could be pointing that hammer you're holding now towards yourself.

******

All you atheists, evolutionists, secularists here are each holding that hammer. There is a true God and a false god, a true belief and a false belief and if you can't distinguish which is which or think that He doesn't exist, then you are the greatest fool.

Don't blame us true believers coz we just carry your weight and once the plank breaks, it's not we who failed but it's your increasing heavy weight which breaks it. Blame your stupidity and not the light bearers. When there is light, you open your eyes and not close it.

Just as Christianity is self-destructing from the weight of its flaws and errors to include the mumbo jumbo of physical resurrections, holy ghosts/spirits , 24/7 blood sacrifices, and "voodooing the hoodoo" aka "miracles", Islam will analogously self-destruct as noted below:

Islam's reliance on "pretty wingie thingies" and "demons of the demented" for authenication is coming to a fast close. As it does, Mecca will no longer be a shrine to these fictional characters and will simply become a historical tourist attraction. Maybe Disney will construct another Disney World there featuring roller coaster-chariot rides to the fictional heavens, a water park at the Grand Mosque along with a Hall of Religious Embellished Characters featuring talking figures of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed and his eleven wives.

McCain should simply point out these facts and then move on to address the economy, illegal immigration and fighting the war on terror and aggression.

Spirit Guide...........

Is that about as useful as a Life Coach?

I agree wholeheartedly with GaryD; the Holy Spirit is the only guide we need: to convict us of sin and keep our consciences clear. Moral values and helping the oppressed should be of utter importance but I must say people in politics tend to lean where the voters are on a specific topic. In some cases, it's blatant hypocrisy and the voters will know you by your fruit (your values, what you do more than what you say). Also, secularism doesn't have a stamp on moral conscienceness....Don't generalize....There are kind people all over the world...atheists, agnostics, believers....and there are also very wicked people (atheists, agnostics and so-called believers). Again by their fruit you shall know them whether we decide to put our head in the sand for a specific candidate, we will all suffer the dire consequences of the action of the voter.

In fairness, John McCain did say that he didn't agree with all of John Hagee's ideas. I'd like to know exactly with which of Hagee's ideas he *does* agree.

BOB decides who is Christian and who is not. All praise BOB!

GaryD,

You argued that Obama was guilty by association with Rev. Wright. Pastor, spiritual advisor, sage, witch doctor, whatever. That's a distinction with very little difference in the context of your argument.

Both candidates have willfully associated themselves with bigots. The difference is that Obama has forcefully denounced the views of Rev. Wright while McCain has actively and recently solicited support from his bigots without a peep of denouncement.

How do you explain that?

Interesting the Irish Catholic bigots on Faux news aren't pouring kerosene on this fire like they do with Rev. Wright.

Bob,

Glad to know you are the final arbiter of who is a Christian and who is not!

Jesus must be very proud to have you on board to decide these things for everyone else!

great post. unfortunately, i don't think we'll ever have a viable candidate who doesn't bring religion into the mix, or who boldly declares that she/he truly believes in the separation of church and state. that would be ralph nadar, and we see how far he's gotten in the political realm. there are far too many fearful people in this country who have nothing to cling to except religion and some screwed-up notion of patriotism (that is entwined in religion). their identities rely on labels such as "christian" "patriot" "mother" "father" etc. complete the sentence "i am a..." and see how many labels you come up with that define your identity and then think of who you'd be if you didn't cling to those labels. scary, huh?

as michael stated, americans know more about brittany spears than they do about politics because it's easier to turn a blind eye to what's really important then to face it head on and realize that we've made a mess of things. this is a nation of children who have not grown up to accept any responsibility for their actions and the impact on the rest of the world. we take it for granted that we are always right because we're americans and because god said so. but just as rome fell, just as all empires fall, so will this one. we need a revolution from within, we need people to wake up and see that the rich are raping this country on a daily basis for their own insatiable needs. they love that the majority of this nation keeps their head down and thinks that god will take care of things. they love seeing black pitted against white, gay pitted against straight, atheist pitted against nonatheist because these issues take the heat off them. so keep fighting for things that don't matter while our civil liberties fall away, our hard work amounts to nothing, and our grandchildren's futures are sold off in the name of big oil.

Amen, sister!

Or something.

"That's a sweeping generalization and false assertion. The fact that YOU haven't found any evidence does not prove that none exists. Millions argue to the contrary."

Well, Gideon, the fact that certain extraordinary demands made on the basis of extraordinary claims made on the basis of *very thin authorities and arguments* may not be *entirely* disprovable doesn't mean they deserve authority over the rest of the world.

It's actually very simple. Your Bible and your view of it, out of all the infinite and equally-un-disprovable possibilities of the universe ...don't get special authority in a government based on reason.

I certainly believe some things that many might be inclined to think are highly-implausible... as implausible as any given thing one might think of.

I *don't* however claim everyone must obey these things in some way 'cause I say so.'

Who would have guessed, I believe in Gods.

I don't, however, believe in Gods who ever ever ever demand we dumb down.

But, when you say, "You can't prove the non-existence of one and only one God who just happens to insist you do as I say even in contradiction of all evidence, reason and observation,"

...Well, that's a whole other matter entirely.

Don't expect too many angry atheists to see the nuance right around here, but, actually, yeah. You're being unreasonable. Based on some thin possibilities.

" Michael:

Why are Americans so hung up on faith? We're idiots, of course! As an American I feel qualified to speak on this subject."

*facepalm.* Granted.
There are other Americans, though? :)

" Most Americans don't believe in evolution, a fact that gives me great comfort considering we will soon be electing a new President."

Exactly which evolutionary pressure would you feel comforted by a President dismissing *now?* :)

" More Americans can tell you what the tabloids said about Britney Spears last week than can tell you anything that was said by any of our Presidential candidates. In a nation made up of people like that, we'd better have faith! "

Or.... we could stop focusing on verious indignances about the moral titillations Britney Spears gives certain types and demand the media pay attention to things more important than selling Christians more 'sin' to get titillated about while wailing 'O tempora, O Mores,' ...and actually do their jobs? :)

"It's unfortunate so many Americans care more about faith than reason though. The God so many profess to believe in gave us reason, yet we refuse to use it. Perhaps "idiots" isn't quite strong enough a term..."

Strong terms seem to be in vogue.

I believe the phrase is, 'Much heat, no light?'

"Barbers, at least, deal with physical reality--the hairs on the heads in front of them--and not with supernatural beliefs for which there is no evidence."

That's a sweeping generalization and false assertion. The fact that YOU haven't found any evidence does not prove that none exists. Millions argue to the contrary.

If Jonas Salk didn't look for a cure for polio he would never have found it. If you never make any effort to explore spirituality, you'll never find God. Yours is a self-fulfilling prophecy: I never looked for God and ergo never found him, so I can only conclude that he doesn't exist.

Why are Americans so hung up on faith? We're idiots, of course! As an American I feel qualified to speak on this subject. Most Americans don't believe in evolution, a fact that gives me great comfort considering we will soon be electing a new President. More Americans can tell you what the tabloids said about Britney Spears last week than can tell you anything that was said by any of our Presidential candidates. In a nation made up of people like that, we'd better have faith! It's unfortunate so many Americans care more about faith than reason though. The God so many profess to believe in gave us reason, yet we refuse to use it. Perhaps "idiots" isn't quite strong enough a term...

Freestinker said "It's curious that you don't apply that same standard to Obama? He is a Christian after all, is he not?"

No, he's not! Its just a cover up of what he really is. Just look at that church and what it preaches. There's nothing Christian about it. Jesus Christ would not be found in that church if He were alive today, because they preach nothing but heresy. So no, Obama is NOT a Christian. He just attends that church to get the Christian vote which is 75% of the USA. Nice try though Obama.

I never said that Wright was Obama's spiritual Guide I said he was his pastor. There is a difference.

I hate to tell you this but thanks to campaign finance reform their isn't a candidate out there that isn't going to have to take some money from people he is less than thrilled with. That doesn't mean he shares their views only that he needs their money.

Get back to me when the rest of the Revco money gets back to Obama's buddy who will likely need it to pay his lawyer.

GaryD said:
"How come Parsley and Hagee are all of a sudden McCain's spiritual guides when as far as anyone knows he hasn't been in attendance at either church for 30 days let alone 20 years?"

OK. McCain's association with religious bigots is much more recent ... so that makes associating with religious bigots OK or less relevant? Please.

GaryD said,

"FYI Christians have only one spiritual guide and that is the Holy Spirit."

It's curious that you don't apply that same standard to Obama? He is a Christian after all, is he not?

GaryD

"How come Parsley and Hagee are all of a sudden McCain's spiritual guides when as far as anyone knows he hasn't been in attendance at either church for 30 days let alone 20 years?
McCain suddenly became a Baptist before starting running for president this time, after being a lifelong, and seemingly luke-warm Episcopalian. Strange how that works. No cynical manipulation of religion for political gain there . . .

"FYI Christians have only one spiritual guide and that is the Holy Spirit."

Yeah, right, the Holy Spirit. Since no one actually has conversations with the Holy Spirit people turn to religious authorities and religious writings. That statement is as nonsensical as the university student who told me once that the King James Version of the Bible alone was the true word of God because English was God's chosen language.

Susan, I'm so looking forward to reading the Age of Unreason!

Just as Christianity is self-destructing from the weight of its flaws and errors to include physical resurrections, holy ghosts, and "voodooing the hoodoo" aka "miracles", Islam will analogously self-destruct as noted below:

Islam's reliance on "pretty wingie thingies" and "demons of the demented" for authenication is coming to a fast close. As it does, Mecca will no longer be a shrine to these fictional characters and will simply become a historical tourist attraction. Maybe Disney will construct another Disney World there featuring roller coaster-chariot rides to the fictional heavens, a water park at the Grand Mosque along with a Hall of Religious Embellished Characters featuring talking figures of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed and his eleven wives.

Hmmm, Mohammed's figure would be saying something like:

"I was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who 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. "

Bottom line, leave Christianity and Islam to self-destruct leaving both out of any election debate.

How come Parsley and Hagee are all of a sudden McCain's spiritual guides when as far as anyone knows he hasn't been in attendance at either church for 30 days let alone 20 years? FYI Christians have only one spiritual guide and that is the Holy Spirit.