Government Money For Religion Equals Government Favoritism Of Religion

"Hmmm, apparently Farnaz is not one to live up to her promises. For one who uses at least three aliases, we should expect such conduct."

Interestingly, the proof of the multiple aliases is on display prominently in this thread. Look carefully at the posts in which her sign-on name doesn't match the alias she's writing under.

For example, in her post of Feb 10, 3:18 a.m., she signed on as the Yael alias but then wrote a "Dear Yael" message and signed it "Farnaz."

Another, more recent example: her post of Feb. 16, 9:52 a.m. She signed on as Farnaz but wrote a "Dear Farnaz" message and signed it "Yael."

I guess it's tough keeping up with the finer details of having several personas.

Miss Susan Jacoby,

I’m not implying that the Washington Post might be deliberately leaving other atheist panelists out of this post. I’m asking a question based on an observation.
Thanks for your reply, it certainly answered the question.

But please don’t leave, stay with us, I do enjoy reading your posts.

Susan Jacoby

The question has been raised about why I am the only atheist who posts regularly on this blog, and the writer implied that The Washington Post might deliberately be leaving other atheists out. This is absolutely untrue. None of the "On Faith" panelists is required to post regularly, and many choose not to. We all have other, demanding professional lives, and I will undoubtedly post less frequently when I am in the final months of finishing my next book. The reason I post more frequently than some other atheists is probably because I started my journalistic career as a reporter for The Washington Post and feel a personal connection to the newspaper itself.

Hmmm, apparently Farnaz is not one to live up to her promises. For one who uses at least three aliases, we should expect such conduct.

Dear Farnaz,

There was more than one Shinui scandal, and the party is now all but defunct.

Labor exists and is strong but has moved toward the center.(I think it should change its name.)

Sorry, I don't speak French.My languages are Hebrew, Arabic, and English.

Of course, Israel censors, not as much as your country, but the government doesn't want the people knowing certain things.If an Israeli holds a government or military post, is a journalist, or professor, he has greater access.

Sincerely,
Yael

I absolutely agree with your post, Susan. But you’re the only panelist out of 16 to mention the key elements against this government’s religious favouritism funding issue. Why aren’t there other atheist or agnostic panelists posting?
There are about 11 panelists which are either ministers, presidents, holy professors or pastors. There’s one songwriter-worship leader (???), one professor of buddhist studies, one leader of interfaith alliance and one rabbi. And you.
Just like we have so many different religious opinions, maybe we could also profit from other atheistic or agnostic points of view.
Is it the newspaper’s decision to leave them out?

"I always think that when hate against gay people is codified into law and into state Constitutions, and when "faith based" groups try to justfy gay hatred, it just stinks more and more. More and more people notice how awful it is, and more and more people notice that it is not gay people who are weirdo freaks with a bizarre life style, but it is the anti-gay religious fantatics who are the weirdo freaks with bizarre life style choices...So, I say, let the curtain rise, and let us see how this all plays out."

Danielinthelionsden,

This is an interesting point. The more an embattled minority is publicly vilified, the more likely it is that the general public will look at this minority more carefully...and see that there's nothing truthful in the haters' claims.

Along the same lines, people can make a statement with their pocketbooks. Several years ago, when the Salvation Army had that big brouhaha over not hiring gays, their donations went down. Same thing with the Boy Scouts. People started giving their money to less judgmental charities.

Ultimately, the more hate-filled religious groups will lose out, because they'll both reject government terms for financial support and find themselves getting less money from a public sector that has learned about their intolerance.

At that point, they'll either have to learn tolerance or have to accept their severely -- and increasingly -- constricted place in public life.

Most of the socalled "faith based" relligious organizations who want government money are also anti-gay, very anti-gay. They are not going to compromise on this matter. So no matter how you argue any of the points, there is going to be a big stink over these programs.

This probably is not bad for the progress of rights for gay people and for the expansion of marriage rights to gay people. Formerly, gay people were silent, and it was taboo to consider or discuss anything like gay marriage. Any mention of gay marriage would only make people laugh. Gay people were mocked, cast out, beat on, and worse.

Now, it is a topic of discussion. Religious people do not laugh anymore. They talk, talk, talk, about how bad gay people are, how being gay is an abomination, how they don't hate gay people, just the sin. In fact, that is their sloagan repeated endlessly, that they don't hate gay people.

So, it is probably a good thing to maintain the government sponsored "faith-based" programs so that we can continue the discussion about gay people and what makes them so awful, or why they are not really so awful.

I always think that when hate against gay people is codified into law and into state Constitutions, and when "faith based" groups try to justfy gay hatred, it just stinks more and more. More and more people notice how awful it is, and more and more people notice that it is not gay people who are weirdo freaks with a bizarre life style, but it is the anti-gay religious fantatics who are the weirdo freaks with bizarre life style choices.

So, I say, let the curtain rise, and let us see how this all plays out.

To Persiflage--I agree with you. Hope conversation can be peaceful no matter the controversial topics.

Hmmm, Yael aka Farnaz aka Observer12 aka Observer31 noted: "Farnaz has quit this blog, and with my last post, you are now officially Judenfrei. Congratulations. " This statement was made 02/09/09.

So who is the Farnaz who made the commentary on this blog on 02/12/09??

DEAR YAEL,

RE: Your post of February 12, 2009 12:52 AM

Yes, I now know of the election results, and I confess I was surprised at such a far swing to the right. It becomes understandable as one looks back, of course. What was the "Shinui scandal"?

Alas, my modern Hebrew is not good, and if you posted to me in that language, I would probably have trouble deciphering. I gather from your comment on your ancestry that you don't speak Farsi. My third modern language is French, in which I am fluent. Do you speak it?

Yael: "It's not always easy to access this site. I'll explain another time."

I'm sure it isn't. I've heard more than once that Israelis have difficulty accessing certain American sites, which, by the way, have one thing in common. Yet, we're told there is no censorship,etc. When you have a moment, I'd really like to know what is going on.

About the Sudanese refugees, I have posted the link to Elie Wiesel's foundation and a couple of others where I think they will do some good. There may be more to say on this in a couple of weeks.

Warmest regards,

Farnaz

Daniel - I think you're on point with your summary. I've stayed mostly out of the recent fray, but whatever your feelings for him, Onofrio is a singular and even rare talent on this blog.

His background knowledge is broad and uncommon, and in particular his extraordinary abilities with language are unmatched hereabouts, at least in my relatively long experience over the last couple of years - and we've seen some exceptional writers. His individuality cannot be in question. He has much of the unique to offer, in my opinion.

I sincerely hope tempers abate, and relative cordiality can be re-established. There are highly opinionated and oft-times knowledgeable posters congregating in the vicinity. It's too easy to establish factions, and disagreement is a given. The recent topic of the Holocaust has taken people to places that we seldom (and perhaps too infrequently) go.

As our inherently thoughtful poster DITLD proferrs, we post first for ourselves to clarify our thoughts, and secondly, to see what responses said thoughts might provoke in others. Forever invisible strangers are we, that share a moment or two over time and space. As Chris Everett opined, why muck up the opportunity with rancor and hostility?

Peace to one and all -

To Timmy and Onofrio and others: Susan Jacoby has another piece on the Washpost.com On Faith site which addresses Darwin's 200 B-day. If you have been arriving at Jacoby's postings in a different manner than the On Faith site and therefore might be missing her Darwin post, google Washpost.com then click on News, then scroll down a bit and look to the left under the opinions column and you will see buttons for On Faith and Postglobal. Of course click the On Faith button and go to the main page and you will see to the right Jacoby's posting on Darwin. Both very religious people and people who accept Darwin are discussing things--and the conversation is pretty civil at that. Enjoy!

On the Farnaz controversy: Farnaz could be Yael, but Onofrio has been around before the two and often posts clearly different things than the previous two. Onofrio could possibly be the most dextrous writer of all of us.

On whether government should fund religion, I would rather see as much government money placed on the most intelligent and scientific among us as we seen to be having the most serious problems in matters that can only be solved by science--particularly global warming and the need for alternative fuels.

On whether science and math are equal to religion because all three supposedly depend on faith, of course all knowledge eventually fades into hypotheticals which may or may not be religious but which perhaps can be subsumed under the word faith, but the ground--and this is very important--is very different in math and science and between religion. The former two provide sound basis for our believing in them, but religion gives us little to chew on. Religion generally asserts the truth of things which occurred in the past--and which therefore are largely out of our reach. In fact religion largely has as its proof the "book", and that the book came from God is proof of the book--something of a circular argument which not only is not science, it is something of a logical error which can be recognized without science (which is to say Aristotle and Plato before science could have applied logic and made this criticism).

S, Cromett,

"Good point, but I would go farther and say that if I heard God talking to me, I'd assume I was hallucinating"

Yeah, me too. But if we admit that our faith in the scientific method is unshakable, then The Modertate is going to say we belong to a religion. What's an atheist to do?

"It is no use, Yael. The threadlings here are convinced that you and Farnaz are one. It is a fixed perception that will not be undone....They even think that I am not my own self, because I stood with Farnaz when she was furious."

Onofrio,

This is because all "three" of you sound alike.

If you really want to fool people into thinking that your personas are three different people, try not using the same figures of speech -- e.g., "my own self," "your own self," etc.

Not to be a pill here, but I am the one who first suggested that Farnaz and Yael were one and the same person, based on the similarity of writing style, mood, and gratuitous mutual fawning.

Nevermore,

Just FYI, there are some good discussions going on elsewhere in "On Faith." Check out the Otterson and the Mohler responses.

So far, both appear to be bicker-free zones.

The continuous bickering about Farnaz/Yael/Orofrio debacle is getting really tiresome.

This blog has become a continuation of the Wiesel blog and I am sick of the conspiracy theories, the accusations flying around and the general tone of the participants.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You are acting like Kindergarteners, not adults.

See ya, wouldn't want to be ya!

"Onofrio"

"Mode Rat"

The consistent thing about the Farnaz/Yael writer is exactly that kind of name calling. This point to you being another character. Not certain yet, but trending that way.

Also taking umbrage the way you are now is consistent beyond the name calling.

Have a nice day, "You all".

Onofrio and Yael

I do not understand what you are talking about or what you want. None of us here know each other. None of here know for sure if any one of the other's of us is "real." So what?

So, just what is a League of Gentlemen? I don't know a single person here, much less belong to any sort of "League."

If you have something to post, then post it. If not, then don't. It is just a blog. It is not that serious or that big a deal. It is not like arguing or fighting with your neighbors, your family, or even your true enemies. As someone said here, it is really brain-storming.

In fact almost everything that I post is a for me, not for others, so that I can sort out my own thoughts. When the threads become narrowly tangled in acrimonious back-and-fouth accusations, then who has time to follow what each hurt comment means?

Here is my story again: I am not Jewish and know little about Jewishness. I have met alot of people who don't like Jews, which I cannot "relate" to. In the presence of these people, I try to remain quiet, but even the "look" on my face, which I assume is "disapproving" gets me into trouble with them.

Like I said, if you have thoughts to post, then post them; if not, don't. There are a million, gazillion other things to do, rather than to dwell on any imagined hurt feelings from a blog such as this.

Timmy2 writes:
"
I have no doubt that my faith in the scientific method could be shaken some day, I just can't imagine by what? I guess just God talking to me. That would be the only thing I could think of."

Good point, but I would go farther and say that if I heard God talking to me, I'd assume I was hallucinating.

Shawn Cromett

(Who hopes the various personality conflicts on this blog will subside so we can actually discuss subjects on substance rather than argue. I've gotten to the point that I skim over 90% plus of the posts, which is a shame.)

"Favoritism toward religion" misses the point. I see the establishment clause as precluding government from playing favorites among religions. With the charity program, this could be accomplished by either treating all religious charities fairly, or by forbidding any religious charities from getting the money.

While the former would present some obvious logistical problems, the latter is much more problematic from a constitutional perspective because it gets government into the business of determining what constitutes a religion. (There are cases when that determination is almost required for practical reasons, such as religious symbols on fallen soldiers’ headstones.) A blanket exclusion of the religious charities, allowing only secular charities, would probably bring about a discrimination lawsuit, with the courts telling the Executive Branch to change to the treat-all-religions-fairly strategy. Plus, it would be very easy for the religious groups to skirt the exclusion by forming the equivalent of dummy corporations.

Hello The Moderate,

Welcome back.

YOU: (on "Is math religion?") Is a religion defined as something taken on faith? If so, then yes.

Well that's not exactly the definition of religion. I think you know what we mean by "religion". And I think you know that math is not one.

I don't think mathematicians take math on faith, but rather as current theory. Religious faith is different. I think you know that. To say that math is a religion is a semantics game. There are good reasons to believe math axioms, and even still they are only regarded as current theory. But there are no good reasons to believe in most religious myths and yet they are taken by the faithful to be everlasting and unchangingly true.

YOU: (on "Is science a religion?") Unshakable faith in Scientific Method is.

I have no doubt that my faith in the scientific method could be shaken some day, I just can't imagine by what? I guess just God talking to me. That would be the only thing I could think of.

YOU: "everything that is known by reason is based upon faith. Faith in the unproven premises for the argument"

It's not the same as religious faith. It is with good evidence. Religious faith is entirely void of evidence. In fact, religious faith is in the face of overwhelming evidence against.

There is no doubt in my mind that Onofrio is real and separate from Farnaz. I neither despise nor negate Onofrio. I just want him to play nice. And I think his intention on this thread is to do so, and to honor the truce, and so will I.

There is however no doubt in my mind that Yael1 is Farnaz. I note several language and tone similarities, and identical post formatting. The timing of Yael's arrival having never been heard from before, and yet being completely up to date on all of the posts between all of the posters going back weeks. The very same race card demagoguery and the list of those who were fighting for the "Judenfrei" zone was identical to Farnaz's list.

it's just a little too coincidental.

Timmy2
Arminius
Themoderate

I have gone through all the posts on this thread and was surprise to observe that Farnaz-Yael –Onofrio etc were the creation of a purposeful mind. I agree with Timmy2 Arminius and Themoderate what they posted about this matter.
The conspiracies is in their nature, for this reason ultimately they suffer. How they tried to manipulate a simple brain storming discussion forum, such as this, what to talk of serious world affairs.
Rael’s explanation that the post was cut paste of Faraz from another blogs do not seems to hold true.
I am amused to reproduce what “Rael” has to say in this regard.
quote:
"Are you too going to join the Leaugue of Gentlemen and deny my existence?"

All of these postings that deny the existence of you and Farnaz are like the other antisemitic postings.She does not exist to them as a real person because Jews do not exist to them."
Unquote.
Thanks Timmy for taking note of this matter.

Yael1,

It is no use, Yael. The threadlings here are convinced that you and Farnaz are one. It is a fixed perception that will not be undone.

They even think that I am not my own self, because I stood with Farnaz when she was furious. Onofrio has become a casualty of that virtual war on Elie Wiesel's thread. Everything I write to you now, they think Farnaz writes. To them, it's like the Trinity talking to itself.

I who defied the deniers am now denied and despised. None will regret my passing. I am a digital stench in their e-nostrils, certes.

I daresay, at times I did sing. At times, there was delight. But that avails nothing now. River flows away.

I could stay and contend for this and that. There is much I would still say, but no matter how germane it is, it will not be heard, methinks. Like the subaltern Farnaz spoke of.

To any who read this - I AM NOT FARNAZ. Any biographical information I've included in my posts pertain to a real human being, living right now in Sydney, Australia - ME. It's all 100% real. Any verse I've posted under my name is in fact mine, Onofrio's. It's mine.

Yael, Farnaz was right. You do have a beautiful name. Peace to you.

Adieu

ONOFRIO,

Only I'm going to post to Farnaz if she reads my posts,but only now I will write to you to say something about this that you wrote to Daniel.

"Are you too going to join the Leaugue of Gentlemen and deny my existence?"

All of these postings that deny the existence of you and Farnaz are like the other antisemitic postings.She does not exist to them as a real person because Jews do not exist to them.You had the courage to fight antisemitism so you became a Jew to them and then you stopped existing as a real person.You are a "ghost" like me. Arminius said I'm a ghost.That is the way it has always been.Jews and people who don't hate them are ghosts and devils.My English is pretty good but it isn't so good now because I'm angry.
I'm sorry.I hope you can understand me.

Yael Chne Ayalon
Tel-Aviv

TIMMY2 MISTAKENLY WRITES. SCROLL DOWN FOR MY ANSWER.

timmy2 :
Yael,

I think you meant to sign in as Farnaz for your second last post.

February 10, 2009 3:51 AM |
***********************
BELOW I PASTED MY SECOND POST THAT TIMMY2 IS REFERRING TO. AS YOU CAN SEE, I SIGNED IN AS MYSELF. I CUT FARNAZ'S POST FROM MR. WIESEL'S THREAD AND PASTED IT HERE.YOU CAN SCROLL DOWN TO THE POST AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THE FIRST DATE IS FROM FARNAZ'S POST ON MR. WIESEL'S THREAD.THE SECOND DATE IS FOR MY POST ON THIS THREAD.
STOP BEING PARANOID.

yael1 :
Dear Yael,

Thank you so much, but there are, as you note, many other good people who blog here. Among them, there are other Jews, but they don't blog here often. Sparrow has disappeared. You are correct about that, but I doubt she was driven away by antisemitism or by accusations like those of KJohnson3, the naif. (Scroll down.)

People stop blogging for many reasons. I'm afraid, though, that you have anticipated me. I do not want to lose hope, and I deal with enough evil in real life. I have also got a family, a career, and right now, a grant that I occasionally need to work on. This grant is now providing social services on a nonsectarian basis.
Because I wrote it, I have some lingering obligations to the funders. It takes up time, but it has already saved lives.

Onofrio, Persiflage, DITLD, Chris3 and others whose names don't come readily to mind are a pleasure to read, and they are courageous. Maybe, soon Onofrio will post on Thoth, DITLD will post his wonderful musings, Persiflage will post on Buddhism, etc.

Yael, I will be on the lookout for your posts. You have a beautiful name. Thank you for writing to me.

Warmest regards,
Farnaz Mansouri

February 9, 2009 4:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments

February 10, 2009 3:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments

FARNAZ

Farnaz2 :
Dear Yael,

If you are not me, and I think that notwithstanding Arminius's (uncivil) accusations, you, like Onofrio, walk about embodied, can you update me on the election? A Jerusalem friend writes that it's the tightest in Israeli history, with the same report coming from Cairo.

Warmest regards,
Farnaz

February 10, 2009 9:16 PM
************************
Dear Farnaz,
By now you know what the election results are.There is a lot to say and it is not good.I will say a little bit now.Some things were to be expected.Most of the Haredi have moved further to the right.The Ethopians have been Likud voters form the beginning, but the Haredi have courted them.So far Netanyahu has prevailed with them, but we don't know how long that will last.Some of them went to the Haredi.The left has also moved to the right.Kadima was our only hope now.

As I look back I feel sad.Sharon never looked for the Haredi.He looked to the Shinui, but there was the scandal, etc.I knew that once the Palestinians attacked Sharon at the Temple Mount it was over for Labor, but I did not see the country moving in this direction.My husband says we will soon be a mirror of the US.We don't want that.

I also saw your post on the Sudanese refugees.It's true that we need help.We make them citizens, of course, and Mr.Wiesel's foundation has helped us.Your "friends" didn't seem interested.Thank you Farnaz because you care.Do you speak Hebrew?You can see my ancestry,of course,but I was born in Israel.

I didn't know if I should write here or on Mr. Wiesel's thread.I hope you read this.If you click on here,don't go back to his thread because I'm not going to post there. I'm not going to post here either.Only I will write if you write to me.Please type my name in large letters so I will see it.

Also, sometimes it will take me time to write to you.It's not always easy to access this site.I'll explain another time.

Yael

GabrielRockman wrote:
"Darwinism is a religion. It is a set of beliefs, for which there is very good reason to believe them to be true, but for which there lacks undisputable evidence. Christianity is the same way - it is a set of beliefs for which there is very good reason to believe them to be true, but it as well is not backed up by any indisputable facts."

On the contrary, there is *much* indisputable evidence for evolution by natural selection, and every advance in knowledge since Darwin's time has only served to further confirm it (genetics, DNA, paleontology, geology...). Further, Darwin, Wallace and others arrived at their hypotheses by following the evidence; *not* by taking the word of some unknown authority (scripture), or by starting with a concept and then searching for evidence in its favor.

Religion is religion. Evolution is settled science. No "faith" involved.

You say there is "very good reason" to believe that religious beliefs are true - do provide us with a couple.

I believe I missed the final chapter about Farnaz and her many aliases.

It was obvious from Yael's first commentary that said commentary was from Farnaz.

And that then makes at least three aliases for Farnaz i.e. Observer12, Observer31 and Yael.

Will Farnaz be back and what new alias will she use??

Daniel,

You were among those whom Farnaz praised for your antisemitic efforts on the other thread. So it is surprising that you seem to have escaped being smeared by the conspiracy theory that has been revived by TheModerate, to wit:

That Farnaz is a fake and I am just one of her guises.

So what do you think, on the issue of Onofrian ontology. You were there in the thick of things, along with me. Are you too going to join the Leaugue of Gentlemen and deny my existence?

I really hoped this thread would be a fresh start, but TheModerate has some sort of score to settle, aided by the gone-but-back-again Arminius.

I'm not asking for allies, just the admission that I am not a cipher...

To Arminius and Timmy

The story of Farnaz is hard to understand.

I am somewhat regretful that I got in the middle of it. I wish E-Favorite would come back. I liked her.

Perhaps, Susan Jacoby might have an opinion about Farnaz. Was she a real person?

Arminius,

Re your rejoinder to my question:
"Have you reneged so soon regarding my actuality?"

You:
"That is a snide comment. And I've had enough of your infantile hissy fits. F*** off."

It was a direct question, Arminius. Nothing snide about it, unless you have problems with "renege".

A treacherous Scott, you are, to be sure.

Given your coarse belligerence toward me, I most definitely will not be effing away as you demand.

You seem to feel at liberty now to deal in crude jests about copulation in canoes. And this from the man who sulked about the debased tone of earlier blogs.

Perhaps you should slink off in tears like you almost did earlier. Now that WAS a "hissy fit", certes! I did not wish it then, but I would not mind if you carried it through now. No Who-like comebacks this time...

Being the topic of Darwinism brought up by G. Rockman in this thread, allow me to recycle a post I made in another thread about the idea that “students need to hear "both sides" of Darwin's Theory of Evolution -- the "strengths and weakness". This was the post:

I’m not against biology teachers to explain the weaknesses of the evolution theory. It will take a teacher no more than 30 seconds to say that there is no scientific weakness about the central theory because evolution is a proven fact. Then the rest of the curse will be dedicated to teach biology as they teach it today.

Also I’m all for the idea that biology teachers should teach ID and cover all the scientific aspects of the bible that support this theory. That will be a hell of enriching single course for students. Think about your children been requested to work in the following projects:

- Chemical components of a fruit that was intelligently designed to kill humans but only makes them to be aware of good/evil behaviors and to discover nakedness.
- Development phases of a female body from a male rib.
- Biological impact and statistical chances that a human body survive within a whale’s mouth.
- Evaluation of the interaction of all existing species at a given moment in a single vessel. Include a chapter on the incidence that a single environment can have on species from different climatic regions. Another chapter on how the interbreeding laws can be suspended for the descendant of the living creatures in the vessel.
- Propose a reasonable explanation on how kangaroos migrated from Mount Ararat to Australia without leaving fossil traces. Include a chapter on kangaroo’s long haul swimming abilities. An optional topic in this project could be the evaluation of the Australian Olympic gold medalists as descendant from kangaroos.
- Identification of new species that appeared as a result of the earth turning from flat to round.

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

Arminius,

"I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but your snide reply makes me regret that offering."

Benefit of what doubt? Snide reply to whom? I never started the snide here, Arminius. I asked whether you had reneged. I was under the impression you at least acknowledged my existence. It is not much to ask.

This conspiracy annihilationism is contemptible. Why are you again party to it?

"Mode Rat"

I mean it!

"Mode Rat"

Mend your acity

Good night all.

Timmy, we do need to have that discussion about the foundations of math and science. It is a favorite of mine. Of course you do raise good points.

"Onfrio"

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

TheModerate,

Hypothetical?

How IMmoderate! Such insinuation can be levelled at anyone who posts here, including you.

Par example: You just singled out Mary Cunningham of London for praise. You are having a cosy entente with Arminius, who expresses approval of Timmy. Ipso facto, there must be a composite Modermaryarminitimmy prowling the thread reducing all else to non-existence!

BS!

Withdraw your hypothetical smear! The conspiracy theory ends NOW!

"Onforio"

I do not despise you, or even the "Farnaz/Yael" writer. However, your unique existence apart from that entity remains hypothetical.

Arminius,

Have you reneged so soon regarding my actuality?

TheModerate,

"Further we must also admit the possibilities that Merry Anonymous, and Onofrio were also products of this writer's fertile imagination, as has been suggested."

I protest! I am most definitely my own actual self, and no figment of anyone's fertile fancy!

You may despise me all you like, but I will not accept annihilation by conflation.

Arminius:

Timeo cerevasiam dilutam.

Which, if my "Internet Latin" does not fail me means something like:

Beware of light beer.

Arminius,

I think you may be right about this. I agree that Timmy did a good job on point. Apparently he did take a beating for doing it. One lesson might be that people playing the race/ethnic card are playing other games too. The "Farnaz" writer did drive a lot of very good people off the blog. For example, Mary Cunningham was always interesting. I hope she will return some day. We may have to identify troll behavior and simply ignore them.

I am going to tease him a bit on science a bit, here presently, and see if I can get a rise out of him.

Timmy,

"Is math a religion?"

Is a religion defined as something taken on faith? If so, then yes. All good math is axiomatic. For example, the axioms of Euclid's geometry, the axioms of the Complete and Ordered field, the Peano Axioms of arithmetic. What is an axiom? An unproven (and possibly unprovable) statement taken on faith if you want the benefits of the mathematical systems thereby engendered.

Is science a religion?

Unshakable faith in Scientific Method is.

Is everything a religion to you because we have proof of nothing?

No. But everything that is known by reason is based upon faith. Faith in the unproven premises for the argument.

TheModerate,

Interesting analysis of the Farnaz/Yeal conundrum. It does rather fit in with my theory that he/she/it is a true internet troll, with a very complex plan to completely destroy blogs - which was done. Sign in, post lots of nice things, make friends, then introduce a new virulent discussion usually based on a current thread, attack at random, try to divide and conquer, and post many, many times, even with unrelated stuff - such as poetry.

I think Timmy did a good job of confronting the offender.

Timmy,

A forensic discussion of "February 10, 2009 3:18 AM":

I have been doing a little reading of the ridiculous thread from last week. I always wondered if you and Arminius was being paranoid about the writer of "Farnaz" writing several other characters as well. The "Yeal" append signed: "Warmest regards, Farnaz Mansouri" certainly shows beyond any reasonable doubt that you and Arminius were right about that. The possibilities seem to be:

A. The "Yeal" character (who signs as "Yael Chen Ayalon Tel-Aviv") is a figment of the "Farnaz" character's imagination.
B. The “Farnaz” character is a figment of the “Yael” character's imagination.
C. Both are figments of a very interesting fiction writer's imagination.

It seems very likely that, whoever this fiction writer may be, he/she is neither "Farnaz Mansouri" nor "Yael Chen Ayalon". Interestingly, the fictional "Yeal" character plays a game of accusing others of being anti-Semitic to generate guilt with cries like "Judenfrei". Of course, the "Farnaz" character also played this to the hilt, flitting from thread to thread, throwing insults here, and bigoted remarks there. It must be recognized as possible, and consistent with the pattern of this mendacious writer, that the story of "Farnaz" is completely fictional.

Further we must also admit the possibilities that Merry Anonymous, and Onofrio were also products of this writer's fertile imagination, as has been suggested. It should also be recognized that the writer may not be Jewish at all.

A discussion of how to reduce the effectiveness of this kind of tactic seems in order.

Timmy, good responses to GabrielRockman.

Mr. Rockman, Darwinism--or if you prefer, Wallace's theory--is based on facts. It might be proved wrong in the future in spite of current facts, but for now the evidence is pretty overwhelming.

To give one example of the "religion" of Darwinism, as you say, take the field of medicine. It is well known that bacteria (the harmful kind) are in a race with medicine, which is to say medicine is developed which will destroy bacteria before it can evolve into a form for which medicine will be no cure, but then bacteria does evolve making it necessary that new medicines are developed.

Certainly funding goes to medicine as an example of your "religion of Darwinism". It goes to medicine because the facts are clearly laid out and the potential payoff is nothing other than increased health for the human race. If you take antibiotics you "believe" in Darwinism. In fact you have to accept it as fact regardless of whether in the future it will be proved wrong.

And there are countless other examples of evolution in action. In fact more and more biologists are discovering that evolution does not necessarily take a great deal of time, but can be observed in action--which is to say more and more examples from nature are being discovered which demonstrate evolution can occur quite rapidly. In fact biologists are having to revise the belief that the state of humans has essentially remained unchanged for the last ten thousand years. Now biologists know that humans changed quite a bit in the last ten thousand years and we are evolving as we speak.

Read a book on the Darwin/Wallace theory of evolution before you speak of it as a religion, as something based on mere belief, as if many of us have suddenly decided to wish that such a thing is true, like people wish to believe in God.

Susan:With all due respect to Obama's desire to broaden the program beyond the honeypot for right-wing evangelical groups that it became under President Bush, it is impossible to dole out money for programs directly administered by religious institutions without doing violence to the separation of church and state.

How is giving money to anyone violating separation of ch. and st. when a religion is not being established?

All religions are historically and theologically flawed as seen from hindsight, modern knowledge and common sense. Until these flaws are corrected, no US taxpayers dollars should go to faith-based organizations representing said religions as these flaws ooze religious terrorists and right/left-wing holier than thou organizations.

Gabrielrockman,

"All religions can line up for government funding if they so wish. There is no discrimination there"

Line up, yes.
Receive? Well now that's up to somebody in Government isn't it. An arbitrary decision gets made. Believe me, the Rastafarians have applied for funding as have hundreds of other religions.. They got rejected. Someone in Government makes a decision on the applicant. Someone in a government who's leader can not get elected unless HE not only professes to believe in the Judeo Christian God, but HE can also show a clear record of Church attendance, in a Christian church.

Of course this is not the law, but come on, nudge nudge wink wink... ipso facto. Non-Christians need not apply.

Yes all religions can line up. At the Christian window.

Hi GabrielRockman,

YOU SAID: "Christianity is the same way - it is a set of beliefs for which there is very good reason to believe them to be true, but it as well is not backed up by any indisputable facts"

So it is the same as Darwinism? Equally plausible? Is that what you are saying? You seem to be suggesting that both Darwinism and Christianity have equally "very good reasons to believe" them to be true. This is news to me. I can of course go on all day long with the very good reasons to believe that Darwinism is true. Can you do the same with Christianity? Can you in fact, name just one "very good reason" to believe that Christianity is true?

Please.

Darwinism is not a religion.
Is math a religion?
Is science a religion?
Is everything a religion to you because we have proof of nothing?

I think you need to go to a dictionary and read the definition of religion a few times over.

All religions can line up for government funding if they so wish. There is no discrimination there. Because it does not discriminate, it does not favor, endorse, or support any one religion by allowing religious charities to receive funding.

Darwinism is a religion. It is a set of beliefs, for which there is very good reason to believe them to be true, but for which there lacks undisputable evidence. Christianity is the same way - it is a set of beliefs for which there is very good reason to believe them to be true, but it as well is not backed up by any indisputable facts.

Our whole education system, both public schools, and through our funding of colleges, especially through the funding of research at colleges supports Darwinism over Creationism. Our government does give at least a little bit of money to education, does it not?

I believe that the big bang happened. That is different than knowing that the big bang happened. I have not discounted the possibility that something else may have happened instead. I have not stopped my search for the truth.

In mathematics, when someone produces a theory, that doesn't make mathematicians accept it as fact. It does quite the opposite - it makes them strive to prove it right or wrong. Before a theory is proven one way or another, almost all mathematicians do have their opinion of whether the theory will be correct or not, but that does not cloud their ability to pursue a legitimate proof. In fact, the lack of a personal opinion on a theory does cloud your ability to prove it right or wrong.

One of the best examples of this is the Brouwer fixed point theorem. It is named after the person who proposed the theorem, but that person decided later in life that he did not believe the theorem to be true, even though most mathematicians disagreed with him, and the theorem was one that he proposed.

Beliefs can change. Facts cannot.

Hi Gabriel Rockman,

Yes, no doubt Muslims would become quite adept at gaining funding as well, and why wouldn't they be? They can see what a sweet deal the Christians have. But that now only covers 2 of the many many religions that exist in the US. Imagine if all of those other religions started lining up for this faith based dough demanding an equal share to make it fair. Religion is a special case, it is a very sensitive thing, and poor people should not have to get their social support from the government through any religion. It is coercive even if it does not intend to be. It's just the nature of religion.

YOU SAID: And if you want to talk about government funding of religion, the religion of Darwinism (of which I am a member) gets no objections at all to the amount of funding it gets.

A) Darwinism is not a religion, even if you claim to be a member. It does not resemble a religion in any way.

B) Can you show me a single government funding bill that gives money to Darwinism? Do you mean science funding in general? Are you saying that science is a religion? faith based? I am unaware of any government funding for darwinism directly. Can you cite an example of such a thing?

YOU SAID: I subscribe to a system of unproven beliefs, including evolution. I understand that I believe in the Big Bang THEORY and the THEORY of Evolution.

If they are just theories, why do you BELIEVE them. Just view them as theories as I do, and then you don't have to belong to the religion of science, you can just be a true scientist. One who does not believe, but continues to explore, with rational thinking.

I do not BELIEVE in the big bang. (so I don't capitalize it)
I do not BELIEVE in evolution. (again, no capitalization)

These are theories to me about how things are, and they represent the most credible theories that we have so far. No BELIEF is necessary. It's an ongoing exploration.

Timmy2 - Muslims have become quite adept at gaining funding as well, much to the chagrin of some conservatives who cannot tell the difference between Islam and Islamists. This is not to the exclusion of other religions, and if it was, rest assured that our judicial system would shoot it down.

And if you want to talk about government funding of religion, the religion of Darwinism (of which I am a member) gets no objections at all to the amount of funding it gets. I subscribe to a system of unproven beliefs, including evolution. I understand that I believe in the Big Bang THEORY and the THEORY of Evolution.

Ken16,

YOU SAID: "Congress is enjoined from creating a state church and from interfering with the free exercise of religion. Cooperating with a faith based organization to accomplish a social good transgresses neither"

Actually government funding of faith based organizations transgresses both in my mind. It's about the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Let's face facts, in the US, "faith based" means "Christian". This money is going to Christian charities at the exclusion of all other religions. If they cannot spread the money evenly amongst all religions then giving it to one particular religion to distribute is sending a message that the state is favoring, supporting and or endorsing one particular religious faith.

Ken16 - Why should the constitution be allowed to get in the way of your political idealogy? That's what FDR thought when he tried to alter the constitution after all his unconstitutional laws kept getting shot down. If FDR can do that, and can deepen our economic troubles through the worst period of our history, and get praised in history books, why should one expect socialists of today to let the constitution get in their way?

Pointing to the constitution doesn't work. Anything that's in there that is inconvenient is simply "outdated" and "obsolete", and new terms are arbitrarily thrown in there instead. Our right to bear arms is no longer in our constitution, but the right to universal, overly expensive, incompetent, government provided healthcare has replaced it.

Government funding for faith based organizations is a more efficient use of tax dollars. The funding supports the work those organizations do that coincides with the aims of government and who can generally do with less expense and greater effect because those organizations are closer to the problems and not insulated by layers of bureaucracy.

The concern about "violation of separation of church and state" reveals constitutional ignorance. There is no such thing to be violated. Congress is enjoined from creating a state church and from interfering with the free exercise of religion. Cooperating with a faith based organization to accomplish a social good transgresses neither.

Rubytues63 makes some good points.

While I still feel that government needs to gradually work it's way around to eventually not funding through religious organizations, one thing atheists could do if they really want to see that happen, is to become more charitable themselves and to get more involved in organizing secular charities of all kinds. If our cry is that atheists can be good without God, we really ought to show it with more secular based community organized charities (christians welcome). I think such an organization could not only spread good will and charity, but also the message that with or without belief in a supernatural deity, compassion is innate within all human beings. There is common human goodness.

The line our founders wisely drew between church and state is a porous line. It only goes one way. It limits the government's influence over the church, but not the other way around.

The term "separation of church and state" does not come from the constitution, it comes from a judicial interpretation of the constitution, one that could very easily be overturned in the future.

So many people complain about funding effective charitable activities done by religious organizations, that opposite to "charitable" activities by the US government, have the intended end result of making those they help not reliant on further help. The US's anti-poverty measures are designed to keep those they help reliant on future help - afterall, they lose funding if people no longer need them, and what bureaucrat in his right mind will aim to be successful enough to lose his job?

But why do they not complain about funding an ineffective ponzi scheme that would be illegal if done in the private sector, and one that places an incredible burden on the future generations?

I guess it's much easier to complain about effective government programs, than it is to complain about ineffective ones.

Nevermore,

FYI, those Yael posts back and forth between me were from days ago, this is not a new thread. We've all moved on now. But thank you for your peace making efforts.

"Isn't it enough that churches are tax exempt (I don't understand why they are), we have to fund their little "community outreach" projects as well?"

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

By "little projects" are you referring to the Southern Baptist Convention's partnership with the Red Cross?

The same partnership that provided 8 million meals to people in the South post Katrina?

The same partnership that, in 2004, served their ten millionth meal to disaster victims?

Said one Red Cross official during the Katrina emergency, "The Southern Baptists have bent over backwards. They have gone from flexibility to pure fluidness, and they are just so pliable to our needs."

This same official went on to say, "Standing in 105 degree temperatures, the crews there were serving 6-7,000 meals at a time with “never a complaint, never a word of discouragement. Never anything but the peace of Jesus"

I agree with this point of view. Some religious organizations may do good for hopeless people but it is still random and uncertain. As one minister put it, he recalls that around Thanksgiving his church gave out turkeys and food to some poor people, but what happens to them the other 365 days a year?

The Salvation Army is a wonderful organization but individuals not government should be supporting them Case in point, which I am personally acquainted with, a woman who was an ordained minister of a Christion demonination and a social worker applied for a job with the Salvation Army and was declined because her husband was Jewish.

In order to be truly fair, it is necessary that tax payer money be used to help people who need in a purely secular manner.

The problem with government is its inefficiency. Take Social Security for example. 42 cents of every dollar allocated to the Social Security Administration goes for ‘administration’, not benefits. Now we are being told that there is not enough money for benefits; that instead of retiring at 65 we must work until at least 67; benefit dollars may be cut in order to make the program financially sound. I have heard of no effort to cut bureaucratic costs so that benefits remain constant. The government does not know how to go on a financial diet so citizens take up the slack. Which brings up the question: Are the real beneficiaries of Social Security the elderly or the bureaucracy?

Private charities (religious and otherwise) are required to administer their programs using a much smaller percentage of each dollar. Religious charities had a distinct advantage in that many (if not most) of their staff members are unpaid volunteers and their workplaces paid for by church operating funds, not charity dollars. Churches already have branches in every neighborhood in America and have been handing out food, clothing, and sometimes money to the poor and homeless for decades. Let’s get things straight – if the government decides to use religious institutions to distribute help to the poor and homeless – the government is not doing the church a favor…

…The church is doing government a favor.

Go ahead, waste 40 or 50 percent of every dollar building a workforce and distribution network capable of distributing this kind of money. Not even the American Red Cross or Peace Corps is set up for this kind of operation – neither has the neighborhood presence and manpower to run this kind of operation – and neither is more efficient that the church.

So here is a challenge for you Susan. Put you disdain for God aside for long enough to be a good steward – be an unpaid volunteer at a site that gets this aid into the hands of those who need it and go to bed that night knowing that you have done some good.

Religious organizations in African American, Latino, and poor white neighborhoods are an entrenched fixture where the money needs to go. They are in the best position to get the money directly to the people govt. is trying to help.

One would think that your primary concern would be for the effectiveness of the programs instead of clinging to your petty ideology. Funny how the constitution is alive when you wish to mold it to your wishes, but static when it strays.

Susan,

I whole-heartedly agree with you. Doling out federal dollars to "fath-based" institution is indeed a violation of separation between church and state.

Isn't it enough that churches are tax exempt (I don't understand why they are), we have to fund their little "community outreach" projects as well?

In these days, where every dollar counts to save our economy, this is definitely a program we can do without.

Timmy2,

Don't add fuel to the fire.

The other blog was archieved and if you all want to continue fighting, please take it there.

Enough is enough!

Yael1,

Stop it already. This is a new subject. Timmy2 wasn't accusing you of anything. Farnaz mistakenly logged in as Yael and Timmy pointed out that mistake.

No accusation of any kind! Quit being so paranoid.

Christianity is against MY religion. Therefore I don't have to hire a christian. Any religion that teaches a personified god is an abomination to TRUTH. I don't want to hire someone I wouldn't otherwise associate with. And I'm not even taking tax dollars, but under the current rules I should.

fr pabrahamsson:

>... at one recent Strong Bonds retreat at Fort Wainwright in Alaska, they contracted, to provide what were listed as "social services," a company called Unlimited Potential, Inc. They are actually an evangelical baseball ministry with a military ministry whose mission is: "To assist commanders and chaplains in providing religious support to military service members and their families by sharing the life-changing Gospel of Jesus Christ through the medium of baseball..." and "to use our God-given abilities in baseball to reach those who do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and to also encourage and challenge those who do." And, what did this single "faith-based" expenditure for just one Strong Bonds event cost tax-payers? $38,269...

That is an appalling waste of money that could be MUCH better used in REAL programs to assist military families, such as community food baskets, REAL mental health programs for spouses AND kids, etc.

Susan - I agree, only the complete elimination of governmental support to faith based programs solves the problem.

You wrote: "Faith-based government subsidies will be what any president wants them to be..."

Isn't that exactly what the establishment clause was intended to prevent?

Yael1,

"Are you accusing me of something?"

Yes. You are Fanraz.

"That is very uncivil"

Nothing is more uncivil than accusing the bloggers that you list of being people who were intent on creating a Judenfrei zone. Such slimy race card playing will achieve the very opposite affect that you are going for I'm afraid. But keep it up if you feel you must.

Timmy2

"Yael,

I think you meant to sign in as Farnaz for your second last post."
*************

Timmy2,
Are you accusing me of something?That is very uncivil.Please have the decency to tell me what you are accusing me of.

Yael Chen Ayalon

Yael,

I think you meant to sign in as Farnaz for your second last post.

Greetings to: timmy2,kjohnson3,ccnl,sami,azisk,pseudo,marycunningham,arminius,justilthen,

You have succeeded where Iranian murderers failed.
Farnaz has quit this blog, and with my last post, you are now officially Judenfrei. Congratulations.

Yael Chen Ayalon
Tel-Aviv

Dear Yael,

Thank you so much, but there are, as you note, many other good people who blog here. Among them, there are other Jews, but they don't blog here often. Sparrow has disappeared. You are correct about that, but I doubt she was driven away by antisemitism or by accusations like those of KJohnson3, the naif. (Scroll down.)

People stop blogging for many reasons. I'm afraid, though, that you have anticipated me. I do not want to lose hope, and I deal with enough evil in real life. I have also got a family, a career, and right now, a grant that I occasionally need to work on. This grant is now providing social services on a nonsectarian basis.
Because I wrote it, I have some lingering obligations to the funders. It takes up time, but it has already saved lives.

Onofrio, Persiflage, DITLD, Chris3 and others whose names don't come readily to mind are a pleasure to read, and they are courageous. Maybe, soon Onofrio will post on Thoth, DITLD will post his wonderful musings, Persiflage will post on Buddhism, etc.

Yael, I will be on the lookout for your posts. You have a beautiful name. Thank you for writing to me.

Warmest regards,
Farnaz Mansouri

February 9, 2009 4:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments

I do have a lot of faith in Obama. My hope is that he has an eight year plan to slowly ease back on all of these "faith based" funding programs and gradually shift the money into his new secular public service army that he is recruiting through the internet.

Other than this hope, I guess the best we all can do is continue to speak out against any government involvement or funding of religious programs. It's such a no no. The founding fathers would be deeply disturbed if they read the post by PABRAHAMSSON.

The issue of government involvement in religion is a critical one. A completely overlooked "faith-based initiative" is the current U.S. military. Unprecedented funding has been allocated for chaplain-run, faith-based marriage programs, faith-based family programs, Christian religious education for military children, faith-based suicide prevention and other mental health programs, etc., and by faith-based, I mean Christian based. One of the worst, and most well funded of these programs is the Army's Strong Bond's program, a faith-based program operating under the guise of a pre-deployment and post-deployment family wellness and marriage training program. To give you an example of the kind of faith-based money being spent by the military on such programs, at one recent Strong Bonds retreat at Fort Wainwright in Alaska, they contracted, to provide what were listed as "social services," a company called Unlimited Potential, Inc. They are actually an evangelical baseball ministry with a military ministry whose mission is: "To assist commanders and chaplains in providing religious support to military service members and their families by sharing the life-changing Gospel of Jesus Christ through the medium of baseball..." and "to use our God-given abilities in baseball to reach those who do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and to also encourage and challenge those who do." And, what did this single "faith-based" expenditure for just one Strong Bonds event cost tax-payers? $38,269. Of course, the U.S. military doesn't have an office called the Military Faith Based Initiative Office, but a rose by any other name.....

By Chris Rodda, Senior Research Director, Military Religious Freedom Foundation

Greetings to: timmy2,kjohnson3,ccnl,sami,azisk,pseudo,marycunningham,arminius,justilthen,

You have succeeded where Iranian murderers failed.
Farnaz has quit this blog, and with my last post, you are now officially Judenfrei. Congratulations.

Yael Chen Ayalon
Tel-Aviv