Unwanted Advice for Candidates On The Faithiness Trail

I am frequently annoyed at the frequency with which words like faith, morals and religion are flung at me from candidates. Perhaps I'm closer to meeting Titania and Goodfellow then I think, but I'm fairly confident that I'm still awake in America and religion and politics are (ideally) separate. Also, when did faithful and moral become synonymous? I still live in a world where they are mutually exclusive and am slightly dismayed at the amount of people believing these two distinctly different words skip around whilst holding hands! I thoroughly enjoyed this blog; thanks a lot!

CCNL: I didn't ask for a history lesson. I suggested that you need a civility lesson.

Arminius, Arminius, Arminius,

Strange that you need a Reality Challenged Muslim lady to do your verbal spanking. Are you under some kind of pagan spell??

And what again are your basic religious beliefs??

Jihadist!

Echoing Daniel, welcome back, and please stay! Ramadan can't be that distracting.

BTW, your greatest fan, the Confused Croissant, a.k.a. 'Pussycat', needs a good verbal spanking.

Hi Jihadist. You're back. I hope all is well.

Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Finally got something correct i.e. Jihadist, the Mindless into Mindlessness

On bad prose, bad verse, bad spelling, bad grammar and then some again here in this thread. I miss everything and nothing then.

Mindlessness marches on what with nitwits and twits and dimwits and dim bulbs and spiritual airheads such as moi into the multibillion year old sacred turtle.

One can ban us, one can insist on registering us in this blog to prevent us from defiling the blog with bunk and bile, but one can never avoid us in real life.

Oh, Ramadan to all, even if it means nothing or something or everything, to someone or anyone or no one.

Cheers and out again.

J the Mindless into Mindlessness

[Newbie Bio:
Name, Eric Leger, age 30, current southern transplant, anti-theist, lapsed English major, relatively liberal and proud of the label in the original sense, goth and proud of the label in the not-so-original sense, and (have fun with this one) legal assistant/bill collector for high end corporate debt with a law firm.]

I have to say that I was initially a bit disenheartened by Obama's seeming willingness to get into a "I'm more religious than you" tug of war. I'm fairly anti-theist so you can see how that would come about. Still, it confuses me. The few people I know that seem to be truly devout, whatever faith they may believe in, act almost as if it was something sacred and not for public consumption and are no more willing to drag their faith out in an attempt to gain something or sway someone about an unrelated issue than they would be to parade the intimate details of their sex life with their beloved for, say, a raise. Simply because it would cheapen it for them to be used as a tool for other ends.

It would seem to me that the very people that are, apparently, impressed/affirmed/mollified/etc by these acts are the same ones that should most be offended by the tawdriness of it. Well, regardless, it is as is and I assume it's that they simply either want surface reassurance or have the same sort of faith themselves.

I'd dearly like to see an end to it but I'm not hopeful. The more I follow subsequent elections the more I notice that emotion is the sole driving force. The girl that cleans my apartment was telling me that her friend in college quit work for the summer to campaign for Obama, though it could as easily have been either. She touted how amazing he was, what a good president he'd be, etc etc etc to her and all her friends. The girl that cleans, amy, having just finished a paper where she was asked to compare the top 3 platform issues of some past candidates asked her what Obama's top three issues were. The friend that had spent her summer helping Obama's campaign as a voulenteer couldn't answer after a few moments of thought, then got offended and said "What does that matter anyway?? What matters is what he's LIKE not what he THINKS."

I think that about says it all.

Would I like to see a secular president? Sure. What I'd settle for, however, is exactly as Susan said; one who responds to religious questions with a rebuttal that regardless of his/her religion that wasn't the issue and reaffirmed the need for separation. One that intended on replacing some of the bricks that Bush has managed to knock out; notably with his faith based initiative programs lack of funds separation and accounting as well as his moves to push women's reproductive rights back to the feudal age. I mean what next? Hanging your blood spotted marital sheet out the window after your wedding night to prove your wife was a virgin? I think many people might have missed the point, not here per se but in general. It's not about what the candidates do or don't personally believe. It's about whether they intend on ACTING on those beliefs when in office and basing policy on them. We're a country of many faiths and none and the President has a duty to represent them all to the best of his or her ability to the advantage of none and the exclusion of none.

(Please forgive the run-ons and any spelling error's, it's been a long day at the office, I'll endeavor to be both more accurate as well as concise next time)

2 + 2 = 4,

Jesus is/was the son of God (if it exists) just as we are all sons and daughters of God,

Heaven (if it exists) is a spirit state i.e. therefore there was no physical resurrection of the simple preacher man nor a physical ascension nor an assumption of said simple preacher man's mom.

Myths can't sin. i.e. there was no original sin and therefore no immaculate conception.

Angels i.e. "pretty, wingie, talking, flying thingies are the myths of the ancients:

Some history-

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

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

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

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

CCNL wrote: "Stating the facts of reality, history and science is not belittling."

It depends on how you go about stating those facts.

Notsogreatscot,

Stating the facts of reality, history and science is not belittling.

Sorry for the double post - I needed to clarify that the following was directed at CCNL.
___________________________________________________

You are free to believe or not believe as you wish. That's freedom.

I don't go much for the myths either - except that I find them to be useful for providing insight about the people who wrote them.

However, I don't see that any benefit comes from your belittling of the beliefs of others.

You are free to believe or not believe as you wish. That's freedom.

I don't go much for the myths either - except that I find them to be useful for providing insight about the people who wrote them.

However, I don't see that any benefit comes from your belittling of the beliefs of others.

Common Sense, Common Sense, Common Sense,

But as a good student, you are learning all the flaws and errors of religion and we assume you know how to scroll past reiterations after said learning is complete.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:
“VOODOO AND HOODOO?”

IRT:
“Of course those still believing in voodoo, hoodoo and myths will be free to practice whatever "do no harm" activities they choose as is their First Amendment rights. Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny will continue to reign supreme under the protection of the Bill of Rights.

But of course, reality, history, and science will continue to decrease the numbers of those still believing in such nonsense. “

ANS:
“That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

He, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed—Albert Einstein.”

Only the closed mind of the brain dead scientists don’t believe in God, so don’t look to science to convince anyone there is not a God. Your liberation is an escapade to a dead end, if you think there is no God, and that God and His Church is a myth.

Voodoo is a pagan atheistic practice of black magic induced by hallucinating drugs. Hoodoo is a flim-flam belief in black magic deceptiveness. Mythology is a pagan dead-end practice that profited no one, not the Greeks, and not the pagans.

Santa Clause is different, and has quite a bit of merit. And the Easter Bunny is a juvenile pagan practice that is for children.

Only the spiritually blind can dispute the aura of Christmas, the inspirations it exacts, the literature, novels and the films of Christmas it has inspired are pervasive, enduring, and profitable for one's soul. Christmas is a season of giving for the love of others.

The real Santa Clause is the Spirit of Christmas, an Angel of Love sent from Heaven during the Christmas season that ubiquitously imbues the world and all who inhabit it. Unquestionably, the world is encompassed by the Christmas Season, by its power, its aura, its meaning, and its effect.

Those who don’t believe in Christmas, the Humbugs of society, are unloving, and are ungenerously self-aggrandizing because Christmas is a season of self-giving. In their cold heartedness they love only themselves and the mundane vanities of the world are their only asylum.

The Godless live in a spiritual malaise, and are ineluctably haunted by an obtuse emptiness. Since they believe they came from nowhere, and will go nowhere in the end; a mundane abode of darkness overshadows them every moment of their lives.

They are dead to the world and dead to themselves because their purpose in life, in the end that has no meaning except to exist in the fleeting pleasures of life that they obsessively seek without fulfillment.

On that first Christmas day, “Mary brought God’s Son into the world and gave Him to all mankind,” and eternal light was brought into a world of darkness to light the hearts of all. The Lover came to the beloved; the beloved became the lover, and the lover became the beloved.

The aura of Christmas is a story of the Perfect Lover infinitely giving Himself to us, and we responding in mutual reciprocity. Christmas is a celebration of a soul’s ineffable dream for the perfect love coming true, for the desire of God is written in every human heart.

So in this beautiful season of Christmas, do not be foolish. Reach for the hand of God! Open the door of your heart to the Infinite Lover. Let His love delirious intoxicate you; His infinite tenderness inebriate you! Feel the thrill of eternal joy and happiness! Let the Mad Lover take you to the celebration of the world’s greatest birthday party.

Do not ask that your Christmas and New Year be happy and merry. Ask that they may be Holy, then happiness and joy will ensue. Then the Mad Lover will come to consume you His beloved, whom He has uniquely created, because of His merciful compassion and intimate love for you.

Hence, Cardinal John Henry Newman adds:
“Then the greater your distress, the more He will comfort you!
The more you are scorned, the more He will love you!
The more you are insulted, the more He will exalt you!
The more you are forgotten, the more He will remember you!
If abandoned, He will draw you closer to Himself!”
--Cardinal John Henry Newman.

“In the end, it was always said of Scrooge that he knew how to keep the Christmas well.” Can that be said of you?

So don’t be foolish; come and rejoice at this Christmas feast, the greatest birthday celebration in all the world. Come and be filled with the joys and gifts of the Christmas Spirit (Santa Clause) who comes down from Heaven and encapsulates you with the aura of his love!

Then you will receive from His beloved Mother the world's incomparable Lover, and you will be eternally enriched with the magnanimous blessings of Christmas.

Then the Christmas Spirit wrap you in His arms with His aura of eternal love, touch the deep recesses of your heart with immeasurable joy and happiness, and the Lover will behold the Beloved, and will abide with you as long as your love is captivated by His presence.

CCNL - to the contrary my good man. Your own membership in a trinity (of sorts) gives you a big headstart on heaven - CCNL, JJ, and Harold.

Relentless proselytizers and reiteraters all......

Anon, Anon, Anon,

Reiteration, that great form of education, will cease when passages from the OT, NT, koran and Book of Mormon/Moroni stop being thumped upon us.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

The Evolved Commandments/Rules of Personkind as summarized by two statements:

1. Do no harm!!!

2. Treat your neighbor as yourself!!!!

August 30, 2008 4:36 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Finally, finally CCNL, you have distilled your posts to what I can agree with! :))

Now, if only you would restrict your cut and paste only to this........

Holy Cow, a clone of god-talking, trinity-shining Thomas Baum has just been made and he was named Common Sense. Odd, very odd choice of names.

Quickly now, inform BO and JM about the great news. I hear they are looking for some direct contact with Heaven.

CCNL - your own reality lies just ahead, so why are you so concerned with others? As Thomas Baum says, be ready - for what, who can say?

You're bothersome to other people that are on the road to find out........that might not be the most constructive use of your time.

Susan Jacoby: "Obama should remind those Debbies and Debras that his faith leads him to a pro-choice position, while McCain's leads him to allow the religious right to control women's bodies."

You can't have been reading all the comments on your blog except those that echo your views!

Notsogreatscot,

Of course those still believing in voodoo, hoodoo and myths will be free to practice whatever "do no harm" activities they choose as is their First Amendment rights. Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny will continue to reign supreme under the protection of the Bill of Rights.

But of course, reality, history and science will continue to decrease the numbers of those still believing in such nonsense.

CCNL: So your argument is that no religion qualifies for "free exercise" protections under the 1st amendment, because their "flaws and errors" disqualify them from being religions at all? Who gets to decide that?

Nosogreatscot,

Noting the flaws and errors of the various religions is not a violation of the first amendment since said flaws and errors remove all the religious aspects of said religions i.e. what is left is simply the Evolved Commandments/Rules of Personkind as summarized by two statements:

1. Do no harm!!!

2. Treat your neighbor as yourself!!!!

CCNL - so you are calling for a repeal of the 1st amendment and a government that is anti-religion?

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED

You wrote, "Thomas Baum, "god/trinity talker" and "Moses of the NT",

Gee, a whole commentary without one NT passage "thumped" upon us. There is indeed hope for the world!!!"

Haven't you been reading what I have been writing, in case you haven't: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

That is the "Good News" that we are to Proclaim, remember "Gospel" means "Good News".

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

NotSoGreatScot,

Who else with the proper leadership role can put the religions of the world in the proper perspective of history and reality? The Pope? The Bishop of Canterbury? The current Mormon "profit"? The Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani? These purveyors of myth and guilt are not about to eliminate their cushy jobs!!!

Time for a US Secretary of Separation of State and Religion whose major function would be to present the flaws and errors of religion???

CCNL - the question is not whether the scriptures of every major religion are filled with mythology.

The question is:

What does it do to the freedom of religion in the US to have a president commenting on them, particularly if he frames the comments as being about "flaws and errors"?

"Second, using the bible to show some people that they have twisted it beyond recognition, even in spite of the fact that some will not be able to see that."

I hope that will be enough to sway them. I see the goal as convincing them that everyone's freedom should be a given, including their own. I don't want to coerce anyone, I just want to be left alone without being coerced myself. You're certainly right that the desire for security can be a threat to freedom. I just see a difference between threats to freedom from secular motivations, such as a desire for power or security, and threats to freedom from religious motivations, such as the belief that one's gods want freedom reduced. One of my grievances against the media is that it rarely airs the views of Christians such as yourself, focusing on the extremists.

Farnaz,

Thanks, very much. That poem went to the heart.

Hi Arminius,

I love this poem by one who shares your sentiments!

Farnaz

Manners


For a Child of 1918

My grandfather said to me
as we sat on the wagon seat,
"Be sure to remember to always
speak to everyone you meet."

We met a stranger on foot.
My grandfather's whip tapped his hat.
"Good day, sir. Good day. A fine day."
And I said it and bowed where I sat.

Then we overtook a boy we knew
with his big pet crow on his shoulder.
"Always offer everyone a ride;
don't forget that when you get older,"

my grandfather said. So Willy
climbed up with us, but the crow
gave a "Caw!" and flew off. I was worried.
How would he know where to go?

But he flew a little way at a time
from fence post to fence post, ahead;
and when Willy whistled he answered.
"A fine bird," my grandfather said,

"and he's well brought up. See, he answers
nicely when he's spoken to.
Man or beast, that's good manners.
Be sure that you both always do."

When automobiles went by,
the dust hid the people's faces,
but we shouted "Good day! Good day!
Fine day!" at the top of our voices.

When we came to Hustler Hill,
he said that the mare was tired,
so we all got down and walked,
as our good manners required.

Elizabeth Bishop

Thomas Baum, "god/trinity talker" and "Moses of the NT",

Gee, a whole commentary without one NT passage "thumped" upon us. There is indeed hope for the world!!!

Susan,

You are right beyond any doubt, registration of bloggers for "On Faith" should be required. Further, all who register should be required to have a handle, and 'anonymous' will not be accepted.

I find your ignorance alarming for how
educated you profess to be. Have you investigated a correlation between education and arrogance?

I have read several articles and excerpts from one of your books which was enough for me to plainly see that you are a bigot with an inferiority complex, you seek to tear down the less educated and judge their worth upon their knowledge. As an "educated" person I'm sure you can recognize the contribution that Socrates has made to our current governmental system, an illiterate man who changed the face of the world, who professed knowledge only of his own ignorance. I believe you need to take a lesson from, arguably, the greatest western philosopher to live. Your lack of compassion tells me no matter how educated you are you will always be an ignorant fool.

TONIO

You wrote, "Simple - some of them claim that the Bible entitles them to take away the freedom of others. Your freedom and mine should not be subject to anyone's religious beliefs."

First off, one of the things that I meant is that worrying about it does no good.

Second, using the bible to show some people that they have twisted it beyond recognition, even in spite of the fact that some will not be able to see that.

Third, the simple fact that Jesus never forced Himself on anyone, so what or Who gives anyone the right to force themself or their belief upon anyone else, if it isn't voluntary, it is not a belief but coersion and Jesus, contrary to what some people might think, was and is not into coersion.

Being a "Christian" is at least trying to be one, it is not trying to force others to be one, also being a "Christian" is more than believing that Jesus is God-Incarnate and it is more than saying that Jesus is God-Incarnate.

Just like God is One and yet a Trinity, the bible is one book and yet to some people quite a few books, I, personally, think of them as chapters rather than books but that is just "semantics". One thing tho with using this ["semantics"] is that one may be less apt to slice and dice the bible to conform to someone's preconceived notions.

You also wrote, "The dominionists also see themselves as having a "job," a God-given mission to reduce human freedom, although they would probably not describe it that way. How would you protect freedom from being reduced by such people?

My "job" is to speak out to the whole world, not just the United States, that God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] whatever that will be exactly, I do not know.

If anyone thinks that God became One of us to force himself on us, they have not a clue.

If anyone thinks that Jesus came here to set up a theocracy, they have not a clue.

My "job" is to speak of what I know about God and how I see what is in the bible based upon what I know about God.

We live in the USA, at least I do, and this country was set up so that people could freely worship, to a point, however they wished. I do say "to a point" for the simple fact that some things should not be allowed such as throwing virgins into a volcano, for instance, this may seem an extreme example, but you get my point.

Without seperation of church and state, there would be no freedom of religion and the founding fathers, I believe, were truly inspired in this regard, as I mentioned earlier, Jesus was not into coersion, no matter what some "Christians" thru the ages seem to have thought.

Freedom of and by conscience is freedom but "freedom" by decree is not freedom at all, also forced "religion" is absolutely meaningless.

Another thing that you may have noticed is that there seem to be some that are more interested in security than freedom, so freedom is actually being chipped away in more ways than one, not to worry.

I can not and will not tell you or anyone else what they can do to help keep in place, what I happen to consider a very christian thing, which is the seperation of church and state but there are many that want to force themselves on others and not just in so-called "religious" matters.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Of course reason and verse are not antithetical! I love great poetry. That's precisely why I don't try to publish my own, either here or elsewhere.

One of the great drawbacks of the internet, for all its virtues, is that it encourages people who are horrible writers (or poets) to think that their scribbling deserves as much exposure as that of a true literary artist. It's precisely because I love poetry so much that I don't inflict mine on anyone but friends at their birthday parties. I also have some very nice drawings that have received great approval from family and friends (especially children). That doesn't mean they're any good, except as a personal hobby.

One of the essential, perhaps the most important, elements of achievement is being able to tell the difference between what you do well and what you do poorly.

Hi Priver,

Thanks for the recommendation! I'll check it out.

Farnaz

Ah, the Muse-inspired Pseudo,

Hello, my friend! I was thinking of you earlier--to be expected since the "issue" of poetry had come up. Great Rhymer, you've outdone yourself this time!

There has been a dwindling of interest here, sad to say. Thankfully, Arminius has been persuaded to stay, but Mr. Mark has done the atheist equivalent of swearing off. Haven't seen a post from Gerry, Jihadist, the Y Guy, et al, in quite awhile. The bigotry, incivility, etc., has gotten to them, I fear. It has gotten to me, to DTLD, on occasion.

There is, first of all, the inanity of the questions, for example, that horrific communion "confession" of Quinn's designed to offend, the affaire de Edwards affair, the religion and politics question, repeated over and over. This is not to say she should stop raising the problem, but it needs to be analyzed, engaged in nuanced ways if it is to be revisited (forever). Someone needs to tell this to Quinn. As for the panelists, on more than one occasion, I've wanted to suggest to them that they need not feel obligated to blog on every question. Quality declines with quantity, for some.

Some, I think, don't comprehend the intellectual and/or ethical level of some who had blogged here and of some who are still holding on. Among the panelists are a couple with good creds. Why not give evidence of them? Why assume that since this is WaPo, no one with a measurable IQ is reading?

Oh well, maybe all the rage and drek here in the nature of the blogging beast. Or maybe I'm just suffering from Labor Day weekend blues.

At any rate, I enjoyed your verse, Pseudo!

Farnaz

"there was no religion in it, apart from the obligatory "God Bless America" stuff at the end.

Actually, he quoted scripture, but that was all right with me. Dial and pray, the F & V business, I could live without. Being who I am, I liked the linking of A Dream Deferred to Martin's I have a dream speech, as did Martin, hence his speech. Credit, Barack, should be given where credit is due. And MLK, you are not.

The man is an excellent performer, though, no question. It's been a good night for political theatre all around. Even Old John did well as gracious, well-groomed-older-but-still-attractive-civil statesman.

And, yes, BO got concrete, occasionally overly so. Someone should have told him.... One thing about Clinton, she's got a sense of the real, knows where to stop, knows that some of those who listen are listening for the real. Now, he, well he's going to lead us to the promised land.

He's marching TO Washington. (He's not. He didn't. That was someone else.) He's going to recruit new teachers and pay them a fair wage. Interesting since, like a few of his other promises, teacher recruitment and salaries have nothing to do with the presidency (or the Congress), although they should, if only to raise hope that those other Fed "initiatives," the ones designed to minimize educational opportunity might be called into question.

I did like some of the speech, liked when he talked about that which a president could, theoretically, do, some of which will always be theoretical, some not. I dunno.

I kept hearing ancient lyrics prophesying-- "There'll be pie in the sky when you die."

The same could be asked of bloggers.

Are they atheists, anti-theists?

What religion/denomination?

Views - traditional, radical or controversial?

My impression is that almost 99% of bloggers are atheists/anti-theists.

Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are next.

Mainstream Christians and pagans are very few.

Susan Jacoby is right. This forum is about religion intersecting with politics as covered by one of the most important mainstream international newspapers.

Religion is being represented mostly by academics and popular figures, among them some represent very controversial views.

Go through the list of panelists who have posted thus far and ask the following questions:

1. What religion (atheism) do they represent?

2. What are their religious qualifications?

3. What are their academic qualifications?

4. How popular are they? How many books have they written?

5. What exactly is their area of work?

6. What sort of religious view do they represent - traditional, radical or controversial?

7. To what extent are they involved in politics?

8. To what extent are they involved in interfaith work?

9. What are the good works they do, outside of their professional work?

DrRP says:
"I say, unbelievers have to force the Democratic party to choose between them and the middle of the road religious folks that Obama is currenty pandering to, otherwise the pandering will never end. You don't have to stay away from the polls, you just don't have to vote for president."

Then at best you have to take what you get without complaint, and at worst, you contribute (in a negative way) to getting precisely what you don't want. Sounds to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I don't think we're at a point where we can realistically expect to "force" the party to make such a choice as you suggest - they're bright enough to know that it would mean consigning the party to the political rubbish heap for many years to come.

I just watched Obama's acceptance speech, and I thought it was wonderful. For Pete's sake even *Pat Robertson* waxed rhapsodic about it. He said it was one of the all time great speeches - and there was no religion in it, apart from the obligatory "God Bless America" stuff at the end.

The best part was that it was obviously a lovely night in Denver, in spite of James Dobson calling the faithful to pray for torrential rain to start just before Obama's speech.

But guess what (and please don't take this to mean that I'm hoping for this)- looks like Gustave might turn into a big hurricane and hit the Gulf Coast just about in time for the Republican convention. There's even talk of postponing. (Bet that would cost big bucks!)

Gee, if I were a fundie, I might just have to wonder whose side God was on...

Good to see you on, Arminius. I was afraid you'd really left for good. Now if Mr. Mark would just come back...

Susan Jacoby is right. This forum is about religion intersecting with politics as covered by one of the most important mainstream international newspapers.

Religion is being represented mostly by academics and popular figures, among them some represent very controversial views.

Go through the list of panelists who have posted thus far and ask the following questions:

1. What religion (atheism) do they represent?

2. What are their religious qualifications?

3. What are their academic qualifications?

4. How popular are they? How many books have they written?

5. What exactly is their area of work?

6. What sort of religious view do they represent - traditional, radical or controversial?

7. To what extent are they involved in politics?

8. To what extent are they involved in interfaith work?

9. What are the good works they do, outside of their professional work?

For NotSoGreatScot's eyes only:

So you don't have to wait for BO or JM to address the flaws and errors of the major religions:

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

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Current crisis:

Realization that the Jews are not god's not chosen people.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus).

Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

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

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

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

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

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology. .

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

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

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

Current crises:

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) -

"Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

Current crises:

The caste system and cow worship/reverence.

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

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

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

Hi Farnaz, you said:

"Thanks so much! There is a lot of mathematical thinking involved in both the the Q'ran and the Tanakh. Do you know anything about this?

Where do you recommend I start reading?"

I've heard that as well, but unfortunately I don't have much of a grounding in it. I wish I did. :)

As for reading... beyond 'Temperament' for the musical angle.. I'm not sure. The Kybalion, maybe for the 'Cliff's notes' version of Hermetic philosophy. I know it's all interconnected with the major theological systems. Beyond that, I don't know. I've only begun to study these types of things myself, unfortunately.. and there's so much to grasp and so little time.

But each thing you read will leave clues to point you in the direction you want to go.. and probably some directions you certainly didn't expect. That's what I'm finding.. and I'm loving the journey.

Blessings on yours. :)

So Susan won't show she's poetical.
Thinks she reason and verse antithetical?
So she her writes opinions;
In prose for her minions;
With theology thats mostly heretical.

And for those who do wonder
Whose verses it is that he plunders...
Not the Verses of Susan
Is he presently usin'
For that would be a bad blunder.

Neither is Pseudo Obama
Not got his political drama.

And neither is Pseudo McCain
So being has nothing to gain.

And of course Pseudo is not Farnaz
Still lacking her nifty panache.

"The rest is silence."

--Hamlet

Religion and public affairs. Morality and public affairs. A vocabulary with which to discuss this lofty topic? Lucidity and public affairs?

John Milton, "Aereopagitica"

H. L. A. Hart, "Law, Liberty, and Morality"
The Hart-Fuller Debate

JJ has invaded with his usual madness. Can we have him booted out? Look soon for a personal attack on me by him.

NOTiCE TO SUE , in FEDERAL COURT: NEWS CORP., Washington Post, NYP, NYT et al.

--

NOTiCE TO SUE , in FEDERAL COURT: NEWS CORP., Washington Post, NYP, NYT et al:

-
According to Federal LAW, "i" Jacob JO...Z, herein NOW, Electronically serve'd "NEWS CORP., Et Al" as per after many many Warnings.

By: http:////.......({..J..}).......({..O..}).......({..Z..}).......({...E.}).......({..V..}).......({..Z..})........dot...... US

LiVE, FROM:CONEY ISLAND NEW YORK YA!

NOTiCE TO SUE , in FEDERAL COURT: NEWS CORP., Washington Post, NYP, NYT et al:

Note To Alot Of WAPO's socalled PRE-APOCALYPTiC 'Moderator(s)", YE All

Are SUPER-STUPiD-STiTiOUSLY Devilishly Jealous of O.U.R. “EC{CLATi}-ON” NEW RelIGiON from Old!

Wow! EC{LAT} 'Not Allowed!
Wow JOK{TAN} 'Not Allowed!

Thank You 'onfaith' & 'postglobal' for allowing me to go Forward in U.S. FEDERAL COURT, after giving al ye Many many FAiR Warnings: For Religious Discrimination, Theft of iNTELLECTUASL Property, Plagiarism etc!

August 28, 2008 6:04 PM

.
Live From: CONEY ISLAND NEW YORK YA!

Thank You 'onfaith' & 'postglobal' , after giving Ye many “FAiR” warnings, for allowing me to go Forward in U.S. FEDERAL COURT For 1) Religious Discrimination , 2)Theft of iNTEELECTUAL Property , 3Plagiarism .………………..nth etc!

By: http:////.......({..J..}).......({..O..}).......({..Z..}).......({...E.}).......({..V..}).......({..Z..})........dot...... US

Originally Posted On 'onfaith' Moderators SUSAN K. SMiTH

Orig posted on 'ONRELIGION' posted On Moderators Susan K. Smith site Posted August 28, 2008 6:04 PM

Posted on 'ONFAiTH' moderator Sue Thistlethwaite site August 28, 2008 6:43 PM

Posted on 'POSTGLOBAL' on moderators STEVEN MUFSON site August 28, 2008 6:48 PM

Posted on Moderators Sally Quinns site 'ONFAITH' August 28, 2008 6:59 PM.

Posted on Modereator Deepak Chopra cite August 28, 2008 7:15 PM.

What will motivate Obama to take a strong stand on the seperation of church and state if unbelievers all come out in this election and vote for him? This is still a democracy, and it works like this: if you vote for someone who has a certain position, she/he interprets that as your support of that position (or at least that you are neutral on it), and the position doesn't change. I have heard the argument that McCain will appoint all these Justices that don't understand seperation of church and state, but you know, every election the Democrats come out and tell the left that you have to support them, because the alternative is too terrible to consider.

I say, unbelievers have to force the Democratic party to choose between them and the middle of the road religious folks that Obama is currenty pandering to, otherwise the pandering will never end. You don't have to stay away from the polls, you just don't have to vote for president.

CCNL wrote:

"The next president needs to publically address the flaws and errors of the major religions. "

Sorry - I don't wish to hear the President's view on this, any more than I want to hear the Pope's view on who the next Supreme Court nominee should be. It cuts both ways.

I agree with Susan. The next President needs to talk about the importance of maintaining a strong separation of church and state, as it is the foundation on which we build true religious freedom.

Hi Susan,

I'm with Arminius on this. Poetry makes things happen, no matter what some may think.

And consider the possibilities for satire! Rick Warren, religionism (not belief), letting one's hormones get the best of one, dial and pray, etc.....A bit of verse to inspirit an essay? The new New Journalism? You could be a pioneer!! (Mixing genres is the rage, you know, what in the past might have been called a pastiche, of sorts.)

And, pleeze, do delve into your drawer of verse, and share. Aspiring poets, amateurs, dilitantes, and the poetically gifted, alike, would be eternally grateful. Promise. Or, a rhyme on the current topic?

What say you?

Farnaz

Oh, good grief, Susan! Swallow your pride and put some of your poetry here! I'd bet a lot of money that you can write blockbuster limericks.

A gifted essayist named Susan
Won't show us her poems - no reason.
It is hidden away -
But she knows, but won't say,
That poetry is always in season!

Farnaz--

Unfortunately--and it's really a shame--questions about sexual matters invariably elicit a huge response. It doesn't speak well for the nature of our preoccupations as a culture.

Writing poetry, of course, is a whole different universe from writing journalistic essays. What I'm opposed to is not writing bad poetry but spreading it as a virus across the Web. I really think that there's a gift involved in writing poetry (and great fiction as well) that is beyond the workmanlike integrity required of a good nonfiction writer. I have a great deal of bad poetry in my drawer, and no amount of work is apt to make it worthy of seeing the light of day. Except, of course, to my indulgent relatives.

Best,

Susan

Thomas, "god talker, trinity visionaire, come follow me", Baum,

There is significant doubt that the simple preacher man aka Jesus actually said "Come follow me" as the passage fails the required multiple attestations and strata testing.

253-. The Rich Man: (1a) Mark 10:17-22 = Matt 19:16-22= Luke 18:18-23, (1b) Gos. Naz. 16a;

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb253.html

Hi Susan,

You write:

"Farnaz notes that it is easy to write sonnets if you don't concentrate on doing it well. That could be said of any kind of writing, but who wants to read badly written poetry or prose? Some of the bloggers you most object to (and rightly so) are people who couldn't care less about grammar, logic, or proper spelling--all requirements for literate prose. One of the reasons I'm so in favor of registration for entrance to the blog is it cuts down on semi-literate discourse.

Second, "On Faith" is not meant to be a blog about theology or philosophy per se, althugh those subjects are bound up with religion. (There are many such blogs in the Web.) The Washington Post is a newspaper, and Newsweek is a news magazines, and the questions therefore are oriented toward the relationship between religion and public affairs."

My comment on the ease of wrting mediocre sonnets was, of course, partly meant in jest. On the other hand, I would maintain that one doesn't get to write a decent, let alone, good poem, story, play, essay from the get go. Writing anything requires practice. Writing any piece well requires revision. Note the number of drafts Hemingway would put a single sentence through. See Yeats's endless revisions, Fitzgerald's etc.

The same goes for essays, which the OnFaith panelists write. All too often, as I mentioned earlier, the questions are inane. Quinn's communion saga is an excellent case in point: her having done it, publicizing it, describing it as nauseating, deliberately sparking controversy goes not to "religion and public affairs," but to narcissism and benighted self-promotion. I am indebted to another blogger for this example.

Unsurprisingly, the quality of the panelists' essays rose (or sank) to the level of l'affaire de communion. They need not have. The essays could have considered relevant issues, raised intelligent questions, etc. Yelling doesn't do it for many who blog here. (Revision, getting a better handle on one's audience, etc., help to avoid it.)

We have been through Edwards' adultery (twice), the religion and the election problem ad nauseum, with no development in ideas, no progress in thought. Pointless questions, endless repetition have, in part, brought us to where we are. Audiences, "the public" rises to or sinks with the occasion. At times, the blog is the equivalent of reality tv, occasionally of the Gerry Springer show. The insults, tone, (lack of) evidence in some of the panelists' essays set the stage for the brawling that takes place on the threads. Hence, folks one would like to see remain take off for greener websites.

Quinn needs to think through what she wants to do with this blog, either continue on with the status quo or elevate the discourse. If OnFaith is to concern religion and public affairs, this excessively broad topic, can and should be analyzed to invite substantive replies from panelists and bloggers. Otherwise, we can look forward (or backward) to more of the same, with the inevitable dwindling of interest.

Regards,

Farnaz

Tonio,

It is puzzling to me too that so many viewpoints arise from the reading of the bible that one starts seriously to wonder if these people are of the same religion. You are correct on this, however: the Spideys and Dobsons live in Revelation and the Old Testament, and have no use for what Jesus actually taught.

You are not mistaken - the Dobsons of the world are truly frightening. How they have twisted the faith that I love into a message of hate makes me very, very angry.

"Do remember that he is on record as being against any forcing of religion."

Arminius, I certainly agree - that's why I am asking these questions to Baum, because he would give serious and thoughtful answers. In reading Matthew Chapman's "40 Days and 40 Nights," I was impressed by the number of Christians in Dover who stood up for the First Amendment. I admit to being confused as to how different people can read the same scriptures and come to drastically different conclusions about their gods. (One answer could be that the Dobsons focus more on the Old Testament.) And obviously there are plenty of people who seek to reduce human freedom for non-religious reasons. I see the Dobsons as much more frightening and dangerous because they seem to honestly believe they're doing the right thing, although I may be mistaken.

The Dominionists, the Chalcedon Foundation, theonomy, Beverly and Timothy LaHaye, Concerned Women for America, these are all Conservative Christian influences that seek to replace the currently operating Constitution with a new and "Christian" Constitution and to replace the (secular) laws of man with the so-called laws of God.

Anyone can google these references, and see for themseleves.

Tonio,

Good questions for Thomas Baum. Do remember that he is on record as being against any forcing of religion; he said, in an earlier post here, "Anyone who tries to shove God, the bible or any other "holy book" down other's throats know nothing about God...". T Baum has no more use for the tactics of the Spideys and Dobsons of the world than you or I do. The difference is that he would approach the problem in some other way - I don't know what, but it would not involve anger.

"Why worry about what other people claim the bible means"

Simple - some of them claim that the Bible entitles them to take away the freedom of others. Your freedom and mine should not be subject to anyone's religious beliefs.

"You can do what you think that you should do but my 'job' is to tell the whole world that: 'God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable'."

The dominionists also see themselves as having a "job," a God-given mission to reduce human freedom, although they would probably not describe it that way. How would you protect freedom from being reduced by such people?

>>Now it's elitist to visit your granny if she lives in the 50th state to join the Union.

Wait. I thought his Granny lived in one of those states past the number 50 that Obama mentioned earlier in the campaign...you know, one of the 57 states.

Wow, doesnt he know how many states he has? It (the number of states in our country) is a little more static than, say, count of houses when someone who has financial advisors and staff that do most of their investing, buying and selling. Much more likely to not know how many investments you might have at any given moment. States? Weeelllll, thats another story of itself.

TONIO

You wrote, "On one hand, I deeply appreciate your support for the separation of church and state. On the other, I'm concerned that using a faith principle as support may inadvertently enable the dominionist position."

I had to look up what "dominionist" meant because I have never heard of it before.

Then you wrote, "Someone like James Dobson could easily claim that your reading of the Bible is wrong and that his is right, that you're wrong about God and that he is right."

It doesn't matter to me what others may think of my "reading of the bible", Jesus flat out said, "My Kingdom is not of this world", as in "the new heavens and the new earth".

I have met God and God is a Trinity and God is a Being of Pure Love, it doesn't matter whether anyone believes me or not, some people who call themselves "Christian" seem to know nothing about God except for His Name, some may know the bible cover to cover and spew out quote upon quote but nevertheless all that some know is the bible, not God.

Why worry about what other people claim the bible means, when what it means will come to pass in God's Time and there are going to be some very surprised people no matter what "label" that they put upon themselves.

You also wrote, "Shouldn't we also refute Dobson on secular principles?"

You can do what you think that you should do but my "job" is to tell the whole world that: "God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable".

As I mentioned earlier, I have met God, also God chose me to speak and I am trying to speak in whatever way and by whatever means that I can.

God is not even close to being like what some people think that He is and I am talking about some of those that know His Name.

Jesus is God-Incarnate but there is so much utter vile bile that is being spewed out in His Name that I can understand why some would not want to have anything to do with Him.

People that know nothing about God should not even attempt to speak for Him but we all have free will and God will not stop them, that is up to them.

Some people seem to take the bible and try to figure it all out, I have never tried to figure it out but if something comes to me, I will speak.

There are some things that I know, there are other things that I believe and then there are still others things that I do not know and/or believe and I try to be specific when I say something concerning God.

By the way, God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Do you know that in the bible it says, "True Religion is taking care of widows and orphans", which to me means looking out after those that are worse off than we are and don't you think that absolutely all of us are worse off than others in one way or another?

So this means that we should all be looking out after one another, don't you think?

Rather than trying to cram down other people's throat how they should live and what they should believe!

Jesus also said, "Come follow Me", He did not say follow My teachings, He did not say follow the bible, He did not say follow My Church, the invitation that He extended to us is, "COME FOLLOW ME".

There can be many, many different ways of following Jesus and do you know what, some people are better followers of Jesus that don't even believe that He is Who He Is than some that believe that He is God-Incarnate.

All that we can do is the best that we can whether we have a specific "job" or not.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum,

On one hand, I deeply appreciate your support for the separation of church and state. On the other, I'm concerned that using a faith principle as support may inadvertently enable the dominionist position. Someone like James Dobson could easily claim that your reading of the Bible is wrong and that his is right, that you're wrong about God and that he is right. Refuting Dobson on religious principles may not be enough, because that would seem to be simply one faith versus another faith. Shouldn't we also refute Dobson on secular principles?

For anyone who is interested from the previous discussion last night about Fibonacci Numbers, I googled "Fibonacci Numbers in Nature" and came up with a number of links. Here is one:

http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/fibslide/jbfibslide.htm

This is a slide show, which I could not get to play, but you can scroll down and read the commentary and look at the pictures. The part about flower petals is readily understandable. As it progresses, it gets a little harder. But you can get the idea. I do not know anything about this link or who made it; I just picked it because it did not seem too complicated, and had alot of pictures.

I am not sure how these numbers relate to poetry, except that on some fundamental level, there are mathematical relationships in everything. In music, the math is easily descernable. If you look at a page of complex musisical notation, it should be obvious that a great deal of math is involved. But also, the music is divided up into measures, with a time-signature that denotes the counting and time-length of notes. And the scale of sounds is divided up into numbered steps, and you can even zoom in on the wave nature of sound, and the idea of wave-length, and "eigen-value" to perhaps correspond to something like "octaves."

Anyway, there are some things about Fibonacci Numbers. I think that to just about anybody, layman and scientist alike, these numbers are an intersting curiosity of nature and the world.

Susan Jacoby, left-wing crackpot, works for me!!!

A roundup of responses to your comments this morning:

Farnaz notes that it is easy to write sonnets if you don't concentrate on doing it well. That could be said of any kind of writing, but who wants to read badly written poetry or prose? Some of the bloggers you most object to (and rightly so) are people who couldn't care less about grammar, logic, or proper spelling--all requirements for literate prose. One of the reasons I'm so in favor of registration for entrance to the blog is it cuts down on semi-literate discourse.

Second, "On Faith" is not meant to be a blog about theology or philosophy per se, althugh those subjects are bound up with religion. (There are many such blogs in the Web.) The Washington Post is a newspaper, and Newsweek is a news magazines, and the questions therefore are oriented toward the relationship between religion and public affairs.

Third, I don't apologize for saying that John McCain will appoint another right-wing nutcase to the Supreme Court. I spent a good deal of time reading Antonin Scalia's and Clarence Thomas's opinions when I was writing "Freethinkers," and they belong to a weird alternate universe. Right-wing crackpot also works for me.

I appreciate all of your comments.

Priver,

Thanks so much! There is a lot of mathematical thinking involved in both the the Q'ran and the Tanakh. Do you know anything about this?

Where do you recommend I start reading?

Farnaz

PS. I don't have guts. This ability to speak with only one part of my brain operative developed in college when I took the required Public Speaking class. I was so terrified during my first speech that my knees were literally knocking one another, a phenomenon I had previously thought existed only in the minds of American animation artists. Part of my "talk" involved a poem of Wilfred Owen that I knew well, but as I spoke I couldn't understand, maybe even hear, what I was saying. In the end, though, everyone seemed to think I'd done a good job. It wasn't much fun but it was then that I discovered whatever it was that I discovered.

With students today, one has to try everything. It's all so different, and one has to use all available resource to engage them. They also seem to sense when one genuinely wants to, and, thankfully, tend to be good sports!

As usual the topic has wandered off into Republican/Bush War bashing and therefore it is time for an update on the USA Taxpayers Wars on Terror and Aggression:

An update (or how we are spending or how we have spent USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression)

The terror and aggression via a Partial and Recent Body Count

1) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4,149 US troops (3,371, combat 778 non-combat) and 86,664 – 94,561 Iraqi civilians http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

Other elements of our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!!

3. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot.

4. NK has finally started to destroy in nuclear weapons’ capabilities.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots. The country of Georgia was invaded by Russia. Both parties to blame? Oil pipelines involved? USA missile defense systems in Poland involved? NATO expansion involved Probably!!!! US Navy ships and US troops now in the area should prevent further "cold war" dustups.

13. The terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends. Radovan Karadzic was finally captured on 7/23/08 and is charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the law of war -- charges related to the 1992-1995 civil war that followed Bosnia-Herzegovina's secession from Yugoslavia.

14. And of course the bloody terror brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

Farnaz,

Math is embedded in music from the most basic meter/rhythmic sequences to the most obscure method of comparing strings and frequencies to one another to figure out the best way to put a piano together. One thing I learned is that someone once designed a piano with 19 keys in one octave that in the picture they had looked like an organ on acid.

You'd really like this book. It clarified some things I've heard musicians talking about with no real idea of what they were saying before.. and then took me completely by surprise by the references to Hermeticism that's embedded in this.

I just wish I could explain it better.. but then again people have spent their whole lives trying to understand it and not gotten it.

You've got more guts than I do, trying to explain something that is so hard to understand on it's own to kids who may have no idea where you're coming from. The folks who studied this stuff found math in nature, in art, music, poetry... and the list goes on. Math that we still use today.

I do recommend the Corpus Hermetica.. the more modern version of a lot of the older Hermeticism, explained in more simple terms- if that's even possible. :)

Blessed be!

Priver, et al,

Last math-everything-interrelations thoughts.

I once organized a conference on math across the disciplines--don't ask. At all events, the most brilliant speaker was a visual artist, unsurprising, I suppose. One thinks if perspective, Leonardo, etc.

Another time, in giving a talk to students on the writings of explorers, I decided to grab on to anything that could get my points across. I used pictures, music, and math on which I had no handle. It addressed how advances in geometry influenced building and navigation. At the end of the talk, I was to segue from the "explorers" to humanism, to help my listeners see what it meant for Renaissance folks to depart from a totalistic theocentric universe, their enthusiasm at the sense of new worlds upon new worlds, the evidence of this perspective in literary conceits, etc.

Hearing myself discourse on things with little sense of what I was saying, I kept a lookout for eyes glazing over. At the end, one of the students came up to me and told me that he finally grasped some of the points his prof. had been making about literary developments. How? Why? Queried I, profoundly curious.

"It was what you said about math and navigation. I'm a math major."

I asked him if he could tell me what I'd said, but he laughed. (I believe he thought I was joking.)

Farnaz

I will check this out more tomorrow, and see if I can't find a good link that encapulates Fibonacciness and if so, I will post it. But I am too sleepy now.

Religion has no place in politics. There is nothing wrong with being Spiritual and the idea that there is some Benevolent All Pervading Intelligence and a connection between all being and that compassion results in the creation of the best future reality for all. But it stops there the rest is mostly Dogma and Fiction.

There is nothing wrong with Spirit being aggressively involved in Politics, in other words giving truth, wisdom and compassion a voice and presence. We need more of this.

http://buddha.me

And the classic quote from infinite play

"Religion is a creation of man, not God, and is subject to flaws"

http://divine.me

Especially in the interpretation

Have you all ever witnessed Church politics? These people are supposed to be representatives for God and Spirit?

This is not to say certain writings are not divinely inspired and are void of spiritual insight and wisdom, but many of the have become tainted by source disconnected ego and organized religion has become an egoic institution to control and subvert, propagators of division, illusion and fiction.

http://illusions.me

I am sure all the great spiritual teachers are appalled at the commercialization of their work and it’s use in judgment and persecution.

The issue at hand is that our Presidents swear to uphold the Constitution, not the Christian Bible. If they find a conflict, and cannot fall on the side of the Constitution, they have no business running for the office.

Article II, Section I:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If he or she cannot hold to that, because of religious beleifs, then he or she should not run for President of the United States of America.

The Fair Faith and Credit Clause, along with the Equal Protection Clause, are inclusive.

Priver,

What I meant about Bernstein is that math still figures heavily in music, in ways, that I don't quite understand. It's also interesting how many relatively modern poets were interested in math, science and/or numbers, music. Keats was a physician as was William Carlos Williams. Eliot and Stevens were good with numbers. Yeats had the psalter and claimed to hear a high-pitched sound when he felt a poem coming on although he first wrote out his verse ideas prose (and a great prose stylist he was not). Metrically, Keats and Yeats were brilliant, and IMHO, Eliot, as well. Keats revised the sonnet, and Yeats's prosody is so stunning that it has been taken up by linguists, among them Roman Jacobson.

Hi DITLD,

Re: Fibonacci numbers

It's coming back to me now. There are all these beautiful, magical, spiritual, mystical, scientific things in the world, these numbers among them.

Farnaz

Priver,

Thanks, Priver! Wow! Talk about esoteric. Our tribes are related. I'm a Sfardic Jew, so we didn't say Oy Vey when I was growing up in Iran, although we certainly should have. I'm amazed that the Kabbalah figures together with all the rest. Some don't think the Kabbalah belongs in the mystical tradition since it is so highly connected with Eretz Israel, that is, since so much relates to the temple, etc. Frankly, the connections among music, math, and the spheres I know a little about, very, very little.

Some time ago, though, in one of my more ambitious moments, I fought through an essay by Leonard Bernstein, intended for the musically unenlightened. I guess he figured his readers would at least have access to a flashlight.

Give me anything with language, including linguistics, algebra, even statistics, and I'm fine. Otherwise, well, I'm not.

Farnaz

I agree, that there seems to be something wrong with the questions here. I do not know what it is, though, but often there is not any satisfaction in thinking about these types of questions, these are not the questions that trouble me late at night.

I know what Fibonacci numbers are. They are numbers derived from a Fibonacci Series. A Fibonacci Series is a series of numbers that is generated by adding the previous 2 numbers together. Of course, you start off with 0, then 1, then you get the next number by adding the previous 2. Here is the Finonacci Series:

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, and so on, like that, as far out as you want.

The ratio of any two adjacent Fibonacci Numbers approaches 0.62 which is called the Golden Ratio, because it seems to appear often in nature and in human artifacts, art, and architecture. Also, adjacent Fibonacci Numbers are often observed in nature, especially in organic sturctures in plants and animals. This Fibonacci Golden Ratio does not have a precise representation in nature like Pi, (you know circles and geometry and all that) but it appears enigmatically in odd an unusual ways.

I know that I have not explained it well, but the realization of these puzzle-like sequences to be found in nature, and to be derived from such a semmingly pointless and meaningless series, this is a wonderful realization, which makes the world more wonderful, for being aware of it.

"I hate to do this to you, but could you just give us a brief idea of what hermetic thought consists of?"

Oh Dear Lord and Lady- (I need all the help I can get)- as my ancestors would say... OY VEY.

I can't say I understand it well enough to even get close to being able to explain it except to say this. It's the system that originated in 1st-3rd CE that synchronizes early Gnostic, Semitic, and Greco-Eyropean traditions that were in existence. The Semitic version became the Qabala. (the real one, not the Madonna cult.)

Basically it's the underlying system that is the foundation for which the Western religious traditions all came out of. This is where alchemy comes from. Not literally turning lead into gold but striving for inner enlightenment. It's based on the earth as center of the universe and the idea that man spends his life searching to rejoin the Divine mind again.

Much of early mathematics, and music, comes out of this system, including Fibonacci numbers (though I don't understand the how of it all) and Pythagoras's tuning of strings using mathematical ratios. The growth of vocal and other music from monotone to using perfect fifths.

The reach of Hermetics is mind boggling, to this day.

Hi, Farnaz et al,

I will google the Fibonacci number thing anon. I am currently immersed in the Democratic Convention - both Bill Clinton and John Kerry delivered pretty good speeches.

Hi Frederick,

I'm with Arminius--Don't sweat the typo's. I didn't even notice yours. Sympathetic magic is exactly what I was groping for--Thanks! And I've even got Frazer on my shelves, so I can look it up.

Farnaz

Hi Arminius,

The business about the connection between sonnets and Fibonacci numbers is in a book titled "The Penguin Book of the Sonnet" edited by Phillis Levin. To understand, I googled Fibonacci numbers and tried to put together what I read about them with Levin's commentary. Her book is wonderful, btw. She doesn't have much of Petrarch, but one can find his work on the web.

At any rate, since you asked, I did for you what I should have done for myself, meaning google "sonnets and Fibnacci numbers." Quite a number of sites came up in the search results; some of them look promising.

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?encquery=027e41d5997349aee28a24e5e4424c7699df44fd6f16c54a8ffd9fc9ca695d47&invocationType=keyword_rollover&ie=UTF-8

ack!!!

"with full understanding that I am wrong"

should be "with full understanding that I MAY BE wrong"

but maybe that is a Freudian slip and I know Farnaz is right subconsciously :)

Farnaz says: "Actually, I didn't know that cave paintings were meant to be educational. I'd always thought of them as--I can't summon the word--a sort of dry run to occasion a good yield."

This sounds like sympathetic magic, which Frazer defines in his (master)work "The Golden Bough".

I think the term is sympathetic...anyway, the idea being that the representation or manipulation of an item that looks like something in the real world can affect that very real thing. So a "caveman" would paint a picture of a mammoth, hoping that he could do some "voodoo" or something to help him bag the mammoth in the real world.

This is certainly a believable theory. I suppose I am more inclined, with full understanding that I am wrong, that the original value of these representations was pedagogical.

In other words, a shaman or chief or whatever wants his tribe to to stay full, so he makes drawings of all the game animals so they will not be forgotten when gathering gets scarce.

Perhaps it is a mix of both (sympathetic magic and pedagogical value).

The only reason I lean toward the latter is that there is good evidence that our ancestors were quite poor hunters, and lived primarily on gathered foods. So that what to even hunt might be easily forgotten in times of plentiful gathering. So it would make sense to somehow record, via art, what species are good to hunt and so forth.

Farnaz, my friend,

Do not despair! I won't insist on an explanation. Can you point me to a web site?

Hi Priver,

Here's the poem. I hate to do this to you, but could you just give us a brief idea of what hermetic thought consists of?

The Idea of Order at Key West

She sang beyond the genius of the sea.
The water never formed to mind or voice,
Like a body wholly body, fluttering
Its empty sleeves; and yet its mimic motion
Made constant cry, caused constantly a cry,
That was not ours although we understood,
Inhuman, of the veritable ocean.

The sea was not a mask. No more was she.
The song and water were not medleyed sound
Even if what she sang was what she heard.
Since what she sang was uttered word by word.
It may be that in all her phrases stirred
The grinding water and the gasping wind;
But it was she and not the sea we heard.

For she was the maker of the song she sang.
The ever-hooded, tragic-gestured sea
Was merely a place by which she walked to sing.
Whose spirit is this? we said, because we knew
It was the spirit that we sought and knew
That we should ask this often as she sang.

If it was only the dark voice of the sea
That rose, or even colored by many waves;
If it was only the outer voice of sky
And cloud, of the sunken coral water-walled,
However clear, it would have been deep air,
The heaving speech of air, a summer sound
Repeated in a summer without end
And sound alone. But it was more than that,
More even than her voice, and ours, among
The meaningless plungings of water and the wind,
Theatrical distances, bronze shadows heaped
On high horizons, mountainous atmospheres
Of sky and sea.
It was her voice that made
The sky acutest at its vanishing.
She measured to the hour its solitude.
She was the single artificer of the world
In which she sang. And when she sang, the sea,
Whatever self it had, became the self
That was her song, for she was the maker. Then we,
As we beheld her striding there alone,
Knew that there never was a world for her
Except the one she sang and, singing, made.

Ramon Fernandez, tell me, if you know,
Why, when the singing ended and we turned
Toward the town, tell why the glassy lights,
The lights in the fishing boats at anchor there,
As night descended, tilting in the air,
Mastered the night and portioned out the sea,
Fixing emblazoned zones and fiery poles,
Arranging, deepening, enchanting night.

Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon,
The maker's rage to order words of the sea,
Words of the fragrant portals, dimly-starred,
And of ourselves and of our origins,
In ghostlier demarcations, keener sounds.

Wallace Stevens

Farnaz,

You're absolutely right. I've been lucky enough to meet a few of the type of individuals that you describe. One without a full college education due to illness but taught himself Gaelic so well that they wanted to send him overseas cause they thought he was a native speaker.

It appears to me to be the best way that some religious traditions survive throughout the years- and a way for people to maintain their historical roots and ancestral ties.

Oh God, Arminius, I'd like to be enlightening, but the thought of trying to put the concept into words terrifies me. I'll need to try and screw my courage to the sticking place, and get to it tomorrow, if that's okay. If I can't put it into my own words, I'll just type in the relevant passage from the book--with the, of course.

Farnaz

Priver,

RE: Memorization

This sort of thing still goes on in nonwestern countries, often among the middle class and elite.
That is, they memorize poetry in different forms, then learn to extemporize their own verse. Met some people with Ivy League US educations who can do this, both in their native languages and in English.

Outside of the "West," memorization is greatly prized. True, it can be used in lieu of critical thinking, but it can also facilitate it. My friend's ninety-two-year-old American mother is a case in point. She attended school when this country thought memorizing a virtue. She read Burke's Conciliation with America when she was in the fourth grade, and still remembers a significant amount of it.

Sometimes, when she reads a page, she recalls whole paragraphs verbatim. I've seen this sort of thing again and again. Memorization is also highly prized in Iran.

Hi Farnaz,

I had to laugh at your trying to figure out the numbers.. only because I've done exactly the same thing. You're braver than I am. :)

The book is really fascinating because there's a lot of information that is based on Hermetic thought in there early on, (which I still don't fully understand even after a two day course on it) and he talks about some of the biggest minds of the time and their contributions.

I don't think I'm familiar with that poem. Where might I find it?

Farnaz!

Sonnets and Fibonacci numbers? WTF?!? Please enlighten me!

Arminius,

The Bards in Ireland were known to have extensive training in poetic meters in their Gaelic language. They actually kept the language exactly the same for over 500 years in order to keep the stories alive. It was taught orally first, one line at a time, for the student to memorize in a dark, rather empty room until they had the pronunciations correct and THEN they may be given a candle and quill to write it out. Then after the part needed is memorized exactly then the meaning was explained and the next part added.

It's no wonder it would take 20 years to complete formal training.

Just to APPLY to study with Bard a prospective student had to have knowledge of at least 10-15 poetic meters and other forms of verse.

They weren't the only ones who did, either- but the schooling is absolutely fascinating to learn about.

Hi All,

Yes, the oral tradition. Makes one think of Homer and Arminius. Priver, "Temerament" sounds fascinating. I'm reading a book on sonnets which discusses their relation to Fibonacci numbers. In me, you see one with whom the word "numbers" is not often associated. Nevertheless, I forged ahead, looked the darned things up--Fibo numbers that is--made the connection, had an identity crisis, and lost my insight. (I had to go back and do it all again.)

There is a great urge to synthesize as what we've been reading and what we see around us attests to.
It can sometimes be demonic, this desire, no?

Do you know Wallace Stevens' beautiful poem, "The Idea of Order at Key West"?

Hi Frederick:

It's funny you mention that. I just finished a book that talks about how music shaped western civilization called Temperament: How music became a battleground for the great mind of western civilization. It traces a lot of history of musical string tuning methods and how they inspired the thinking of the day, and vice versa. It broke my brain but I really found it interesting.

Frederick,

Don't sweat the small stuff, typos plague us all.

The pedagogical origin of verse is very probable. A culture that cannot write will depend on oral tradition to pass on knowledge. Poetry is a powerful tool to enable memorization of this stuff. Oral transmission of epic poetry is pretty well documented. But you can depend on it that shamans were involved, people being people.

Organized religion began with agriculture and cities, IMHO.

Hi Arminius and Frederick,

Actually, I didn't know that cave paintings were meant to be educational. I'd always thought of them as--I can't summon the word--a sort of dry run to occasion a good yield.

The jewelry business is interesting, but then, too, aren't there all sorts of fetishes, etc., meant to ward off evil spirits and the like?

As for jewelry and status, they still play well together, although in my circle, cost doesn't factor in. The item must be "interesting" or "exotic" or ancient.

In college, I had an atheist biology teacher who wrote a book on magic, religion, and science, not to debunk the first two, but to consider inter-relations. Athiest/agonostic westerners outside of "academia" often refuse to see overlap, but it does exist, I think.

And then, we have our own Arminius, expert in the Odyssey. Would that we could all read it again on this thread, keep the cyclops where cyclops belong.

sorry that "I" should be an "it"

Man...this blog needs to get with the times (editing, formatting text, etc.)

Actually there's a strong and believable theory that the advent of art was indeed (a) status-related and (b) pedagogical.

(a) in our ancestral past, the people who were dominant could afford to invest time and energy into decorative jewelry to announce their status to the tribe (a form of peacock feathers, which is certainly extant in our own time).

(b) the earliest cave paintings are of animals, which were likely painted as educational tools for hunting preparation.

Well, this is all probably common knowledge, but it is nonetheless fascinating, and, I existed in the time of shamanistic relgion, if such religion was even practiced then, and predates any organized religion that we know of.

Good Evening, Farnaz,

Good points. I think you may be right, the questions asked here tend to binary opinions, and thus setting a bonfire under the extremists on either side. A lose-lose situation, for sure.

Actually, as you know, we all tend to introduce our own subjects. As you mentioned, a great example is that glorious outpouring of enjoyable if rather juvenile poetry that we had some time ago.

It may be true that music, art, poetry, dance have their origins in religion, perhaps by Cro-Magnon men painting on cave walls while they sang and danced to drums and crude flutes....

F

Actually, I quite agree with the main thrust of Farnaz's post.

A question like:

"How has the evolution of religion coincided with the evolution of art?"

or

"How did Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection impact 20th Century music?"

or some such would be highly interesting, and a welcome change from "John Edwards cheated on his wife, why doesn't she cut his balls off?" or "Why did I eat communion when I shouldn't have?"

Hi Arminius,

The thing is the blog title's itself OnFaith, but has little to do with belief. In the main the panelists are asked questions that go to the lowest common denominator, peripherally related to religion, at best, and unsurprisingly respond with low or middle brow posts. Quinn's chosen topics invite binary thinking--moral/immoral; deluded/realistic; rational/irrational, etc.--which neither writers nor bloggers have the time or desire to resist, hence, some of the hostility.

As for the rest, there are the bigoted and paranoid, who see in this site no reason not to fully let loose with their craziness. There are those who do not know that the theater is crowded, who unintentionally offend others, and refuse to engage them. Better to remain in the darkness. Blackout.

Frankly, I would like us to select our own topics whenever Susan's essay seems to have exhausted response. We could learn about one another's interests, etc. People knowledgeable in art and music could bring their expertise here, and poetry
has been known to quiet troubled hearts on this thread. (Susan likes it, too.)

Limericks, parodies, sonnets, villanelles. Did you know that sonnets and villanelles aren't that hard to write so long as one isn't obsessed with writing them well? Sonnets, interestingly, have mathematical theory behind them.

Then, too, where does art have its roots? Religion, as you know--metaphor, allegory, etc.

Frederick,

If we are agreed on separation of church and state - I am very adamant about that - then at least we agree on a common good. I'll leave it at that, I know that there is little use to discuss any form of belief with you. Let us agree to disagree, and leave it with that.

Ah...I see.

So you justify your prior moral shortcomings in identifying me as your "sworn enemy" by belittling me in the present.

In any case, Christian virtues, or the lack thereof, aside (they are overrated), as others, I hope you don't stop posting here.

I think we're ultimately on the same side of the church and state separation argument.

Frederick....

No longer are you my 'enemy', a term I used after fatigue and two beers over the line. You simply do not have what it takes to qualify.

In other words, yawn.... zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Hate to spoil your fireworks, Arminius (my self-described "sworn enemy"), but Zac looks like a one-hit wonder.

Usually when you point out that people's fear of life without God are really self-evidently just their own hidden desires and proclivities, they go away.

...but I'm waiting.

Hi, Farnaz,

Agreed. The politicians and the extremists will always ruin any thinking person's evening.

Oh, well, at least we might have a duel here between two extremists: Zac on the extreme religious right, and Frederick, who is the antipenultimate raging non-believer. Might be some good fireworks. I'm not going to get involved, life's too short to be dealing with such people all the time.

All power to shields, Scotty!

Hi Arminius,

"McCain's maverickiness disappeared when he acquired political prostitutiness."

Yup. Political prostitutiness does all the mavericks in. Also, a sad moment when honest persons of the evening are upstaged by politicians.

Zac enlightens us with:

"The founding of this nation was on Christian morals and the principles of the Bible and the truth that we as people on this planet are accountable to a Holy God who will judge all. Deviation from that has led to increased crime, moral perversion and confusion (for instance thinking homosexuality is legit), depression, hopelessness, fraud and selfishness."

Lets put aside the obvious historical ignorance. That much will probably (hopefully?) be remedied by a college education.

So then, we are left with Zac's fears of life without God.

You can tell alot about a person by his fears of life without God.

Specifically:

(a) increased crime
(b) moral perversion
(c) moral confusion
(d) homosexuality
(e) depression
(f) hopelessnes
(g) fraud
(h) selfishness

You will excuse me if I would not trust Zac very far. I would pity him somewhat for his depression and hopelessness. As for the homosexuality .... hey, that's A-OK with me, Zac. Whatever floats your boat.

Anon,

I don't usually answer an anonymous, but I will here. I agree I was too harsh, and I regret it. I have been on a very short fuse here, and I must get a grip on it. I owe some sort of apology to Zac, but for the life of me I don't know how to word it. I still strongly disagree with what Zac said, but, by damn, I could have replied to it a lot better. Maybe my sabbatical should have been longer.

Arminius: "Zac, you are ignorant, stupid, and bigoted. Go crawl back under your rock, we can always find you by following the slime trail.

Susan Jacoby does not attempt to force her views on anyone, she simply expresses them with force. She supports me, a Chistian who believes in the separation of church and state, despite her atheism.

I don't really know why I bother to say this. People like you are totally beyond reach of any reason or compassion."

This is an awfully strong tone to use, Zac is right in one regard, the fact that she "labeled" some as a "nutcase" was totally inappropriate for her to do and she should apologize.

I mean after all aren't we suppose to be leaving those sort of terms behind so we can all come to some sort of agreement to reside in peace with one another despite our differences in the way we believe.

I don't support Zac's views about the constitution because I believe in the separation of church and state but the rest of what he called Susan on needed to be said.

Linton, "I won't waste my ink on McCain and right-winged nutcase etc are biased, discriminatory and offensive) Let's report news fairly guys. This is exactly why many people in America don't trust the news. I'm actually doing an article in my jouralism class on it right now."

I too was appalled by this statement when I read it. She is certainly void of professional to say the least and even though I am a Christian I believe that everyone has the right to choose their own faith.

But the name-calling which depicted her bias opinion really was "a turn off" with trusting her article's information. It is obvious that she is discriminatory and has biases against certain sects, groups, and beliefs. No thank you to reading her articles and putting any trust in them.

Zac, you are ignorant, stupid, and bigoted. Go crawl back under your rock, we can always find you by following the slime trail.

Go read some history, O Ignorant and Stupid One. The fathers of our country enshrined the separation of church and state in our Constitution, with the forbidding of any religious oath of office, and in the First Amendment. The Constitution of the United States... have you even heard of that? Or do you wish to destroy it?

Susan Jacoby does not attempt to force her views on anyone, she simply expresses them with force. She supports me, a Chistian who believes in the separation of church and state, despite her atheism.

I don't really know why I bother to say this. People like you are totally beyond reach of any reason or compassion.

I think your journalism is majorly biased towards your own hatred of Christianity and its values being propagated in America. It's interesting that you say right-wing conservatives want to impose their beliefs on others without mentioning that every day the media wants to impose its beliefs on America. You are being hypocritical. This country is in a war of ideologies and every day there are forces wanting to 'impose' their beliefs on this country. The founding of this nation was on Christian morals and the principles of the Bible and the truth that we as people on this planet are accountable to a Holy God who will judge all. Deviation from that has led to increased crime, moral perversion and confusion (for instance thinking homosexuality is legit), depression, hopelessness, fraud and selfishness. I could go on and on. The separation of church and state was the beginning of a dark mindset that wants to extract all mention of God from the public view. You cannot separate your faith from the rest of your life: public, private, political etc. For those that have a problem with Christians in politics, sorry but we live in a democracy and we have every right to decide what is moral and acceptable in this nation. We will not be intimidated by your accusations of us being intolerant or your false ideologies that politics and personal faith don't mix. As for Ms. Susan whoever, stop imposing YOUR atheism on others who don't want to hear your opinions. (comments like: I won't waste my ink on McCain and right-winged nutcase etc are biased, discriminatory and offensive) Let's report news fairly guys. This is exactly why many people in America don't trust the news. I'm actually doing an article in my jouralism class on it right now. I think I'll cite your article as one of my examples.

Hi, Paganplace,

Right you are - it is too easy to get sucked into this arena and lose all perspective. I realized that the anger and bitterness I was accumulating here was twisting me into something I did not like. So I withdrew for a few days, and the sun came out again. (Never mind that it rained the whole damn time at home, the sun shone on me!) This is a lesson that I should have remembered from other events in a long life. I shall never forget again.

All the damn blogs and discussion groups in the friggin' universe are no substitute for being able to look a friend in the face.

And, I'm glad you unplugged, Arminius, and I'm glad you're back. Especially cause I missed any farewells. :)

This little funhouse is *not the world.*

It's a hall of mirrors. But it's always good to take time to reflect. :)

I tend to shut it off without warning any time it seems prudent. And I think there's an unfortunate tendency for a medium like this to drive away moderates... (and sometimes, their convenient assumptions) and leave we who like debating or arguing or just trolling to stage this little shadowplay.

It's not the world. It's a bunch of words. What comes of it, who can control?

Mr Mark,

I hope you stop by to read this. I am back here on Susan's blog only. So far it is largely free of infestation. I have no use for any of the other blogs here.

As you said, with a few days off, the world got sunnier. That is what I did. But I checked in here, read Susan's essay, and felt I had to say something. We could use your input. And, sadly, we might need your combat experience.

Well, Ms Jacoby:

"Increasingly influential faithy voices within the Democratic Party have urged that the Democrats push liberal religion as a rationale for their public policy positions, just as the Republicans have pushed conservative religion."

This is an equivalency that, ironically-enough, the Religious Right likes to draw. So they can sa 'Yes, it's about faith and ours is more 'decisive,' ...

But the intention of being inclusive of religious voices is not to 'push liberal religion as a rationale for liberal, secularist positions,'

...but in fact to show 'liberal, secularist positions' are in fact *perfectly consistent* with non-right-wing Christianity.

That people need not give up their particularly-influential-but-too-often-media-led religion to support policies that *actually make rational sense.*

Too much, lately, the GOP and TV preachers and right-wing radical talk radio have actually been *allowed* to think that general storming about in a moralistic manner constitutes 'Faith,' whatever the actual results.

Senator Obama is a Christian. A pretty devout one.

OK.

It's what he *brings to the nation* that's important, not where he says it comes from. As long as it ends up in good government, and, moreover, *allows the flocks of Christians who are used to being told that what's *bad for them* is actually *good for them* by theocrats and those who exploit the theocratic impulse.

There are right-wing Christians I wouldn't trust my back to on a dare, and some Christians I'd trust with my next incarnation.

So where are we?

Back to policy.

Some folks just need 'permission.'

Let's not forget that, but also let's not get in the way of it.

The real things that need doing, need doing from any religion's eyes, or any thinking person's eyes, or any feeling person's eyes.

Let's roll with *that.*

And not let certain types get carried away. :)

Dear Susan -

I am one of those others who has realized with Arminius that this blog isn't worth participating in at this time. The nut cases have free reign while legit posts continue to be embargoed for no seeming reason.

In addition, the quality of conversation has dropped considerably here of late. Racism and sexism are openly championed. Name calling and personal attacks far outweigh honest and respectful dialogue. And that just accounts for 99% of the posts from the devout Christians! Those from the ardent right-wingers are in a league unto themselves.

I haven't posted to the blog for a few days and the world has seemed sunnier for it. What's that tell you? I only stopped by today as a friend sent me an e-mail asking if I had read your latest. Since your columns are always the center of discourse on this blog, and as I've made far too many comments on them, I thought it best to bid you a fond farewell, as did Arminius.

Keep up the good work, Susan. I'll check in down the road, sometime between Obama winning in November and the day gw bush is delivered in shackles to The Hague.

Best to all,

Mr. Mark

Shawn Cromett,

Thanks, and that was a good extrapolation on 'pandering'. I have a serious weakness for playing around with words....

Priver,

If you want to know something of what I believe the core of the Christian faith is, read the posts of Thomas Baum. Pay no attention to interlopers who disparage those who know just what Jesus truly taught.

Prostituti-faithiness? Hmm...sort of returns the word "pandering" to its roots!

Thanks for not departing, Arminius.

To the "god talking" Thomas Baum,

Gee, I thought god would have revealed that to you. If not, the referenced president would be the next president of the USA. I don't think he will be consulting you.

Hi Arminius,

It's exactly what I do from time to time. Take some time OFF. I definitely understand how you've been feeling, and I feel bad at not always being around to back you up.

What really gets to me is that you, as a Christian, keep getting told by other people that your Christianity is somehow bad/wrong/invalid. Often using the most vile terms, too.

To do that to someone of their own faith who is just trying to include others not like them and honestly dialogue with people as much as possible is repellent to me.

Farnaz,

McCain's maverickiness disappeared when he acquired political prostitutiness.

"Faithiness" is a very funny word.

Hi, Wiglaf!

Been to visit the J C Lizard lately? I think I must do that soon.

Hi Arminius,

Good point about McCain! Also, what happened to his maverickosity?

Farnaz

Hi, Priver!

Good to have you on board here, and thanks. One reason I wanted to leave is that the ignorance, venom and bigotry that I encountered were making me very angry and bitter. So I unwittingly took Daniel ITLD's good advice and took a few days off. Makes a difference.

Have had some good and interesting thoughts about how my outlook and the Pagan outlook are alike in some ways. Will get back to you on that.

hello arminius,

sincerely,
wiglaf

ps. i wrote a limerick for you on a previous thread. also, don't go.

Hi, Farnaz,

McCain has braviness, but does he have braininess? I kinda doubt it.

Arminius,

Please don't leave. Your voice is definitely a welcome sight for those of us who are looking for genuine discussion of others' point of view.

I haven't been able to find too many other Christians willing to talk to a Pagan or atheist without the use of some four letter words. And to find agreement with in so many areas is really rare.

Hello, Friend Thomas Baum!

I'm glad to be back, and I am glad you are here. As always, you speak the core truth of Christianity so much better than I can. Thank you, and God bless.

Arminius

Neologistically speaking, momentous questions arise as to candidates'

Family valuosity

OR

Family valuousness

I think we are truly privileged to be on a blog where the moderator chimes in too. 'Faithiness' will be part of my vocabulary now. It well defines the hypocrites shouting on the street corners, and does not describe those who simply live their faith, whatever it is, with no outward display.

ARMINIUS

I'm glad that you decided to stay, as I have said before, we are all in this together. Hang in there, He hung in there for us, ALL OF US.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The word "faithiness" is of course derived from Colbert's truthiness, and it was coined by a blogger on my Secularist's Corner page. Unfortunately, I don't know the person's real name, but thank you, whoever you are. I like this word very much because it implies a sort of packaged faith for public consumption, rather than personal and private faith--what Quakers call "the inward light."

THE SKEPTIC

You wrote, "Separation of Church and state is good for everyone--not just atheists."

I totally agree and you know what, so does Jesus.

Jesus did not come down here to set up a theocracy and He said as much when He said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's".

Anyone who tries to shove God, the bible or any other "holy book" down other's throats know nothing about God, they might know His Name but they know nothing about God, they might know that God is a Trinity but they know nothing about God, they might even know that Jesus is God-Incarnate but know nothing about God maybe it is just too simple, knowing that God is a Being of Pure Love.

If it doesn't come from within the person, it can not be imposed from outside of the person.

I would like to repeat something tho, "God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof." This should be self-explainitory whether people believe that it is true or not.

People should, and actually can not help but, let their beliefs influence how they live their life but they should not try to impose their beliefs on others.

Beliefs are not just beliefs in God, there are many kinds of beliefs, some good and some not so good.

As I have also said before, it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Sherry,

I am a liberal Christian - but I say, good for you! I have known some traditional conservatives - i.e., true conservatives, not neocons - and respected them very much. No true conservative would pander to the religious right. Goldwater would have told Dobson, Falwell, and Co. to shove it.

Hi Arminius,

Great! Glad to hear it, and I'll bet Gaby, DITLD, and a whole lot of others are, too!

Warmest regards,

Farnaz

Thanks, friends, for the support - you have made my day brighter. I'll be here in this blog.

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED

You wrote, "The next president needs to publically address the flaws and errors of the major religions."

Are you talking about the next president of the United States or the next president of the major religions?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The only reason I will vote for Obama is for the sake of the Supreme Court.

At heart, I continue to be a Republican, in the ilk of Barry Goldwater. However, I can not abide the Religous Right's take over of my party.

Surely Thomas Jefferson would not be electable in this day and time.

Arminius,

I second DITLD and Farnaz! It would be a shame to lose you. I don't post often any more, but still check in the read the essays and the comments. Please reconsider.

Lisa E.:

Susan's essay was neither snarky nor condescending. Actually, she is right on target. I am a republican as well, but will vote Obama this time around. McCain smells too much like Bush and he has lost every ounce of respect I once had for him.

Ender writes:

"Considering the Great American Insanity where some 50% of the nation not only believe but look forward hopefully to the return of a dead Jewish myth to end the world ASAP"

Ender, this is a Christian myth, has nothing to do with Jews living or dead. And if you look around among Christians, you'll find that said myth is thriving.

As for getting the American Christian right to vote for Obama, you could spread the word about his Faith and Values "initiative," replete with Dial and Pray.

Moi, I'm voting for him in spite of it. (Could live without it quite nicely, though.)

I am a conservative Republican and a McCain supporter. I don't see a role for religion in the campaign. That doesn't mean it doesn't have one or won't play one, I simply can't imagine what it would be.

Once again Susan comes through with a snarky, condescending essay. What a great voice for atheism.

I agree with Susan wholehearedly, but, then I also agree with the part where Obama already has my vote because of the long term damage McSame can do if he gets to pick one Supreme Court Reichwingnut Justice.

Considering the Great American Insanity where some 50% of the nation not only believe but look forward hopefully to the return of a dead Jewish myth to end the world ASAP, I would vote for Obama if his acceptance speach included sacrificing a live goat to the god Baal. Whatever it takes to get the American Xtian right to vote for a black man and centrist, or anyone that does not share the same agenda with the current gang in the offal office.

There will be time enough after the elections to fight the good fight for separation of church and state and equal rights that aren't dependent on your ability to purchase them.

I read the essay, and again, from my point of view, it is a "no-brainer." But there is no point in going on about it. The Democrats are seeking to "out-pander" the Republicans in their pursuit of votes. And the voters ask for it, by responding to the pandering. So, apparently, this is the way it has got to be, for now.

But I wanted to comment on something I noticed in Susan's wording. She used the word "faithiness." I believe that this may be a take-off on Steven Colbert's use of the word "truthiness." In fact, in the use of this word, he has created a new suffix which seems to have caught on. It is the suffix "...iness" to diminish a word, so that "truthiness" means "sort of truthful." (Of course it only works with some words but not with others, according to some improvisaional rules of English word formation, that I do understand).

So you could sprinkle some grains of sand on your front walk to get that feeling of "beechiness." You could refer to a penny-pincher's "giftiness."

And you could mix religious commentary into a political campaign to give it some "faithiness." And you could participate in the Saddleback Megachurch debate, to convey a sense of "churchiness."

So, now we have the faithiness of the Conservagentsia!

What relgion.

Where do I join up?

Hi Arminius,

I know what you mean. There are altogether too much aggression, bigotry, accusations, etc., on this site. Frankly, I think that, at times, the questions, themselves, are so simple-minded and gossipy as to invite this sort of discourse. You'll note that, when responding, not every panelist does his/her best to discourage it consistently, either. What I would like to think of as "insensitivity" on the part of some, who refuse to engage when challenged. None of this goes to candid, substantive dialogue.

The upshot is that there has been a falling off of some of the regulars one would have liked to see continue on. I confess I have enough stress from other sources. On the other hand, I do miss
some of those who used to blog here. I took a few days off, occasionally reading the comments, but not posting, which was quite good for my mental health.

Arminius, the last thing in this world I'd want to see is you leaving the blog. I was actually worried about you and decided I would write to you if I didn't see your name on this essay. Please reconsider. Yours is a voice of sanity, decency, wisdom, intelligence.

I like Susan's idea about registering. I also think Anonymi should be "banned." Monikers required.

We need you Arminius.

Farnaz

I would advise them not to wear underpants in case they leave some marks or sperms for laboratory investigation as did Bill Clinton and was caught.

Better use DNA-proof condoms and be safe and make love in a swimming pool and drain water out after wards!

The next president needs to publically address the flaws and errors of the major religions. These flaws and errors have been summarized many, many times and will not be reproduced on this thread.

Until these flaws and errors are corrected, we will continue to waste our time wallowing in original sin, atonement quilt, and mythical "pretty, wingie thingies" and their mumbo jumbo "revelations".

Daniel ITLD,

Thanks, I will be looking in to this blog frequently, because Susan manages to get it policed when necessary. Also, she seems to attract a better quality of blogger.

Do yourself a favor and read her essay - it is excellent.

Susan

I think you make good points and appreciate your voice of reason.

I wonder if the "faithful" realize that there are over 20,000 protestant denominations in addition to Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism, schisms in Judaism, as well as in Islam—all adhering to a different doctrinal variant. How will the majority of these “faithful” feel when an extremely vocal group from the “Long Tail” of religions becomes the de facto state religion? As an atheist, I’m glad that our Founding Fathers had the foresight to recognize that a state religion would be divisive and instead favored a secular form of government. It really makes me wonder why there is such a push to combine religion and government. Separation of Church and state is good for everyone--not just atheists.

Arminius

I have not read Susan's essay yet, but I thought I would check out the comments. I hope you are not really leaving permanently. When I get frustrated with the level of comentary here, I don't come to this site for a few days, until I am all calmed down about it, and then I start over again, fresh. You should try that, instead of leaving forever. I too have noticed that the tone of the ranters seems to be increasing and the frequency of intelligent comments seems to be getting less and less, among all the various panelests.

Susan,

I am a devout, albeit, middle of the road, Catholic actually studying for a master's degree in theology but so it might appear that we don't have much in common yet you are the first one I read on this site. I agree that we need to weed out the ones who would destroy this site and that too many have left. In that spirit I used my full name.

I am very concerned about the separation of church and state so I appreciate your efforts in that area very much. You gave great advice above but I don't think Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain will be listening.

Hi, Susan,

Thanks for the reply. I will be checking in from time to time.

BTW, this essay of yours really hit the nail on the head with a large hammer. Keep it up, and thanks for supporting believers like myself who are passionate about the separation of church and state.

Arminius

What is needed, I think, is registration of bloggers for "On Faith" (which is required for my Secularist's Corner posts). After the conventions, I am going to make a strong pitch for this to the powers that be. Once people are required to register under their own names for admission to the blog (even if they use another monikor when they post) it really cuts down on the number of nut cases. As you say, it's not just my thread but many others. I'm very sorry to lose you, because your comments are always interesting, but I understand.The percentage of quacks has definitely risen; you're absolutely right.

Best regards,

Susan Jacoby

Hello, Susan Jacoby,

Because of the dominance of JJ's untra-long posts, which have ruined at least half a dozen blogs here in the past few days, and because of the general abandonment of On Faith by those who can rationally discuss the offered questions, I am withdrawing from here.

I am not alone. You might have noticed that the percentage of idiots here has risen. It is not worth it any more to fight the ignorance.

If someone could patrol the blogs and smash JJ before he hogs 95% of a blog - he has done that at least twice today - it might be worth coming back.

I do want you to know that, despite our differences, I appreciate your disdain of BS, your cutting to the truth, and your wit and sarcasm. Please carry on.