If You Think The Culture Wars Are Over, Think Again

OK, Peter, but it feels like you're arguing with me by proxy.

Don't slow down - I'm still waiting to hear about whales and the flood, among other questions.

Hi Pamsm,

PAM: "If you want to argue with me and my ideas, please do so directly, not through your replies to JAC."

I was addressing some of the issues JAC had by giving examples from other posts, specifically by you because they were the most easily accessible at the time. Actually, because of that post I created a Word document titled "Doubts from an atheist." I'm seriously thinking about going back to the earlier post from last year and capturing some of the doubting statements made by atheists for future reference.

Peter,
If you want to argue with me and my ideas, please do so directly, not through your replies to JAC.

Thanks.

omg...i totally got that name wrong: i'm thinking of the bumbling "aunt CLARA"... i don't know where i got "agatha" from...

btw, i don't mean to imply "aunt agatha" was mean - she was extremely nice, but incompetent.

peter, you said,
"Every religion contradicts every other religion in a number of very important areas. Therefore logically only one can be true if any are true."

agreed.

i read about "presuppositionalism". sounds like a high-falutin term for "i know you are but what am i" or "same to you but more of it".

you begin by presupposing the non-christian-fundamentalist's presuppostions are wrong, while presupposing your christian fundamentalist presuppostion that the bible is the accurate inerrant word of god is correct.

you reject off-hand others' presuppositions while presupposing things yourself. logical discussion with a presuppositionalist is by defintion impossible (because it is illogical for you to assume you've got the right presuppositions - especially given the content and errors in the bible).

now, i have NOT rejected the bible off-hand. i gave it plenty of chances, read it, read about it, talked to people about it and, well, mostly the problem was reading it. what i read shocked me in terms of the god-sanctioned violence, and the scientific ignorance. THAT cannot be the one correct expression of a PERFECT god. based on his behavior described in the bible, i (pre?)suppose it could point to some kind of mean, incompetent god (think "aunt agatha" on "bewitched"), but in other places yahweh says he's perfect. well, so there's a contradiction right there that "rules out" the bible/christianity as the (at most) one true religion.

JAC: "But more importantly, notice that if you could convince a single soul that this is a proof of god-gods’ existence, still you are far away of proving that the god-gods that originated life are the same that downloaded the Bible to the humans."

It is done by the impossibility of the contrary. Every religion contradicts every other religion in a number of very important areas. Therefore logically only one can be true if any are true. And that is the contention of the God of the Bible. He is the only living and true God. You either take that as your highest authority or you make yourself or something else as your highest authority. But check the internal and external consistencies of these other faiths.

And try and make sense of it without God.

JAC: "It’s not that complicated: first prove that god exists, then prove that the one you just proved to exist wrote the Bible. Further more, you don't need to prove that god exist, this was assumed in MUCKENFUSS words. You just need that your god or any god spoke trough the bible. Where is the link?"

You are no open to that proof. First you have to be shown that you have a belief system that cannot support itself or make sense of anything without first adopting from the Christian position. I hope God will show you that.

JAC: "While you look as a courageous, sincere believer and a person of deep faith, but you will fail in any course of Logic 101."

First explain where logic comes from in a naturalistic/atheistic world view? You use the terms. How can a non-thinking process create a thinking process? I like the quote, "Nothing - that which rocks dream about."

You have an evolutionary framework that says that life came from primordial inorganic soup bubbling away. Life arose from non-living matter is what your theory dictates. The absurdity of it all. So it is all about what rocks dream about. Bubble and brew, bubble and brew.

No can a non-conscious process produce something conscious? Haven't answered that one yet?

Pam tries to brush of where life and universe originated from as not being of prime importance, but until you get to these deep questions the others are questionable too. You can't say there is no reason for God unless your world view can make sense of such things. There are still only four causes as far as I can see as to life and origins. Three don't make sense.

Continuing JAC,

The problem with the evidence is that it is interpretive. No one was there. Scientist's build on the facts in one of two ways, either by trying to understand them as they relate to God, who made them, or by trying to find another explanation for why the fact is what it is and how, when, why it interacted with other facts to get here.

Second, by presupposing the God of Christianity as true, the answers to the question of life, origins, universe, etc., can be made sense of.

JAC: "(remember, these were MUCKENFUSS words). This is a poor argumentation about the existence of a god or gods as the origin of everything. To make sense or not of something is not an objective fact, but a subjective conclusion, thus not a factual proof."

Well, it has more to do with than just presupposing. There is the Christian experience of God and His interaction with us. But unless you take Him at His word and His word as the highest authority and standard for truth and morality and justice and origins, there is no objective standard. It is just Pam's idea that we all innately know the Golden Rule. Of course, I agree that we do, but for different reasons, that being that we are created in the image and likeness of God, so therefore we would, however much we suppress that knowledge by our evil actions.

The question is on an evolutionary fight for survival, why should I look out for the good of my fellow human if it is not to my benefit? And that, to some extent is what you see around you - man looking out for his own self-interests except where it is convenient to do otherwise.

As soon as we become the authoritative force objectivity disappears. If I compiled a list from these discussions over the last year and a half on On Faith forums, you would see how the atheist has no answers, no certainty, even in the science that he/she claims is so "accurate" - the very statements of Pam while in the next breath she countered what she had just said by her words.

Third, the highest proof in proving the Bible is the Bible. Yes, circular, but its internal integrity and unity speaks to this conclusion, that there is no higher standard to appeal to. You and many others claim the Bible to have many contradictions, but these apparent contradictions can be resolved by a good Bible scholar. I'm mediocre. It takes me a long time to sort out some apparent discrepancies.

Fourth, in comparison with other religious books the Bible stands alone in both its internal and external proofs.

Hi Justacomment (August 20, 2009 8:53 PM ),

ME: "For origins of life and the universe there are four possible causes. 1) Life and universe originated by chance or accident, 2) Life and universe originated by a supernatural cause, 3) Life and the universe has always existed, 4) It is just an illusion. Do you have another possibility?"

JAC: "Yes, there is one. And this one is the more likely to be certain: 5) As humans we don’t know and we may never know how life originated."

That is not a CAUSE for origins and life, plain and simple.

The only certainty one could have is if an objective, omniscient, unchanging, supernatural Being exists, and He has revealed it to us.

JAC: "Cope with this as a big boy."

Already done. (-:

PETERHUFF: "The proof is the impossibility of the contrary. I have challenged you guys (and gals) to make sense of anything without first presupposing the God of the Bible. You have not been able to do that. Until you can do that I leave my proof at these beginning stages."

JAC: "You state that by not been able to make sense of anything without presupposing the God of the Bible, this proves that "the bible is the word of god"

First, without an objective absolute standard where do you get objectivity from? Your scientists? They have been wrong before. As Pam said,

PAM: "I am *not* an astrophysicist, and don’t pretend to know what existed prior to the BB, or even if said bang occurred. I recognize that those working in the field, who have knowledge and specific education SUPERIOR to my own, think that this is what the CURRENT evidence indicates. I’m WILLING TO DEFER to them, while keeping an open mind and a healthy dose of skepticism."

OR,

PAM: "None of my convictions are ever so strong that they couldn't be instantly overturned by new evidence. Unlike your own."

OR,

PAM: "I don't have "complete trust" in anything. The evidence must be there. Nor do I believe anything with conviction (strong or otherwise) without facts in evidence."

To put it another way, they just don't know, they assume built on the framework they operate by.

BTW, Peter, since you’re always asking about origins, the latest issue (September) of Scientific American is devoted to origins – life, the universe, the mind, but also of cupcakes, stirrups, windshield wipers, ball bearings, teeth… You might want to pick up a copy. The section about life details the very latest puzzle piece to fall into place, just discovered in May of this year. Getting very close!

PH: “Each social group functions in a manner different from the others. There are no two that are identical or that hold to the same standard in all areas. So which one(s) should determine the moral "good" and moral "right" for the rest of us? … There is no fixed measure like you think there is. There is no objective standard.”

Golden Rule, Peter. That’s the standard. You persist in conflating my “society” with political governments – they are *not* the same. I’m talking about how people treat each other as individuals. This can be enlarged to the level of countries, but it won’t happen everywhere at the same rate. It’s subject to the problems that result from a social group being a small tribe of related individuals when our hard wiring was being laid down.

PH: “Murder and theft are justifiable depending on the circumstances in any society without an objective, absolute fixed and just measure or moral standard. It is a question of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’, the law of the jungle, the survival of those who can best adapt to the circumstances and get away with what they can without getting caught, and if it benefits others without hurting you, it is to your advantage, for then you have an ally for as long as it is socially beneficial to you. That is the law according to evolution.”

Wow, that’s quite a statement. Who taught you this garbage?

PH: “If you haven't noticed your country and my country use much of the world's resources and have an insatiable hunger for more and more. Everyone wants the American dream at the expense of those not so well of. Corruption and greed is world wide, but we in North America are not well versed in the needs of the rest of the world.”

Sure, people always want more, but this doesn’t make them bad, necessarily. Most never see the correlation between their “having” and someone else’s not having. Most people in my country and yours are pretty provincial, a product of our separation from most of the rest of the world by vast stretches of ocean. But when they’re shown problems, people care, and people give.

PH: “I just use him [Hitler] because he is an example of where a society can fall when it has no absolute, objective moral standard and measure to base evil on. It was a society well educated and in evolutionary doctrine.”

Also a country of people living under severe economic collapse and embarrassed by their loss in a previous war. They were ripe for the taking. But they’ve learned something now.

PH: “… it is all very well and good until this world is deemed unfit to support its population, then it is eliminate the weak, the old, the sick, the undesirables, those considered defective or useless to the rest of us.”

Pretty bleak outlook, but I’m not buying it. There are much better ways (like birth control) to prevent it ever coming to such a pass.

PH: “Take a look around the world Pam. What a mess.”

I disagree. It’s certainly not perfect, and some places are still quite terrible, but overall, it’s a whole lot better than it was 300 years ago, and much, much, better than it was 3,000 years ago. Baby steps.

PH: “Just because you live in a democracy, you see the democratic process as the fairest the world has to offer. You think that by educating others to your standard that eventually the world will all think the way you do. But hazarding a guess, I would think that over half of the world's population are controlled by dictatorships, military regimes, religious oligarchies or some other form of government other than a democracy. The frightening thing about your ‘right’ by cohesion and function is that it is a constantly changing flavor depending who is in power. There is nothing concrete to base it on, no foundational, objective standard and measure.”

Just because I live in a democracy?? No, Peter, the “goodness” of the right of people to participate in their own fate should be (and I believe is) fundamentally apparent to all – even those who don’t wish it, because they are the ones in power. And, for the last time, the standard is the good of the society (meaning “the people”).

PH: “Today gay marriage, tomorrow polygamy and whatever other fancy can be pushed and made acceptable by a minority until, by the pressure of tolerance it is adopted by the majority.”

The movement toward allowing gay marriage is a gift of science. We now know that being gay is not a “lifestyle choice,” but is rather a congenital condition beyond the control of the person in question. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for denying such a person the rights accorded to anyone else. Polygamy, OTOH, is not a viable lifestyle outside of a communal group – it would be very difficult financially for most men to support many wives and the resultant gaggle of children, no matter how it might appeal to them sexually. Consequently, there is no movement to have this made the law of the land, by any group that I’m aware of – certainly none of consequence. This is a favorite straw man of gay marriage opponents. I am surprised that you consider it objectionable, though, Peter, as it’s quite acceptable re the bible.

peter, you said,
"Many of the scientist's that support ID are not Christian either."

really?! who? please tell me.

you said,
"For me, the presuppositional basis is the only way to avoid the "he said, she said" view point that Pam is looking for me to do. Presuppostionalism attacks the underlying foundations and building blocks of a world view."

i'll look into "presuppositionalism" and get back to you.

thanks for your replies. "see" ya.

peter,
regarding "dissent from evolution", you said,
"From the ID perspective the two prominent ones that I know of are, The Discovery Institute and The Access Research Network. Many of the scientist's that support ID are not Christian either."

who are the ID guys names you meant to fill in? michael behe? stephen meyer? (ohh...look, there's a "steve". 1100 more to go...) michael denton? there's about 10 of them who keep turning up.

have you heard of the "wedge document"? these people are not in it to improve the state of science, it is “To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”

to that end, the document lays out a three-phase strategy:

1) scientific research and publishing – to make the case scientifically

2) public relations – to popularize the scientific debate

3) cultural confrontation and renewal – to enact laws promoting the new (old) supernatural science, thus enlarging (their) god’s role in science and society

they’re doing great with phases 2 and 3, which is remarkable given that THEY HAVE NO PHASE 1. they’ve just skipped over the science part. they have written ominous-sounding POPULAR BOOKS (not scientific papers, mind you) like "evolution: a theory in crisis" (ooohhh...), and "shattering the myths of darwinism" (aaahhh....) and "icons of evolution" (which i mentioned is my "moonie" jonathan wells).

they just haven't done any lab work, but they’ve appeared on t.v., and there’s even a popular movie about ID. since there’s no actual science, phase 2 is now: popularize the APPEARANCE of scientific controversy. sheesh.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

peter, you said,
"From the old earth perspective there is Hugh Ross."

in a way, i feel for poor hugh ross. YECs criticize him for being too loose with the bible, and scientists criticize him for being too loose with science. he admits the bible and science SEEM to be in conflict. he COMPROMISES BOTH by maintaining that the bible is science, but that we are misinterpreting it. the thinks the bible is full of scientific DOUBLE ENTENDRE.

ancient readers thought god was speaking in plain language, but modern readers, with a little creativity, can decipher the true meaning. he still thinks the bible is literally true, if properly understood. “in the beginning god created the heavens...” is big bang theory, while “...and the earth.” covers the next 10,000,000,000 years.

he won’t have anything to do with evolution. he says the “creation events” of genesis have been mistranslated as “days,” but as a para-literalist, is still stuck with the perplexing, incorrect, sequence. he places noah’s ark 40,000 years ago, and makes it a local flood, affecting noah’s “entire world.” to do this he adds over 1000 generations to the biblical account.

he doesn’t explain why noah spent 100 years building an ark for a one-year local flood, instead of riding it out in egypt or france. he explains, correctly, that scientific analysis of sediments around the tigris and euphrates indicates numerous floods over the ages.

but, being a “literalist,” he believes all humans are noah’s descendents. in order for this to make any "sense", we are to assume that all humans were local before the flood – so mankind did start over.

it was a local flood, and a global flood. it is clever, but wrong, scientifically and theologically. these are the lengths to which some go to save faith.

peter,
in answer to my "who are the scientific dissenters from evolution" you said,

"From an evolutionary/ young earth creationism framework there are a number of creationist sites such as AnswersinGenesis, The Creation Research Society, The Institute for Creation Research, and Taylor's Creation Moments to name a few."

i find these guys the least believable and the most intellectually disrespectful. this is obviously the "flood geology" crowd we've discussed. they say things like "the ocean is too salty (or not salty enough) to be billions of years old", then prey on the flock's scientific ignorance to explain how dumb regular scientists are to believe what they do.

i said,
"it was really shocking for me to hear the principle of the associated elementry/middle school tell me..."

gosh darn it... i meant princiPAL - "PAL"...the princiPAL is your pal...

onofrio, you said,
"And I have been told more times than I can count: "You weren't there, so how can you know?" They argue that God was there, so he's an eyewitness..."

yes, that's an appealing argument for them. what's funny to me is they think "eyewitness evidence" is the best kind of evidence. it's a big part of peter's "mental scaffolding".

also funny is how they only trust CERTAIN eyewitnesses. they completely disregard, like any rational person would, "eyewitness evidence" from the koran, or in any other scripture.

eyewitness evidence is just about the worst kind.

onofrio, you said,
"And I have been told more times than I can count: "You weren't there, so how can you know?" They argue that God was there, so he's an eyewitness, and the Bible is his eyewitness statement. QED. And this from educated folk."

no kidding. i totally know what you mean. as i've mentioned, people up at my fundamentalist church are SO nice. and they are well-"educated" - college degrees and so forth, lawyers, accountants, there's a navy admiral. these are smart, educated people. they are also intentionally mis-educated w/regards to science. it was really shocking for me to hear the principle of the associated elementry/middle school tell me with a straight face that noah got ALL the animals on the ark, then the globe flooded etc...

there are 3 general techniques i've found.
1) don't think about it.
2) distrust of science (and especially "know-it-all" scientists).
3) compartmentalization.

Walter,

Thee to Peter Huff:
"the egyptians didn’t even notice the flood. they were so busy building pyramids they missed the flood. their culture is continuous right through the flood. the carvings, pottery, gods and clothes are the same on "both sides" of the flood."

Some YECs have woken up to this problem, and have enlisted the fringe theories of Velikovsky (!) and others to posit a drastically compressed chronology of pharaonic Egypt. In short, they argue that the entire dynastic sequence begins well after the Deluge.

I have engaged in debate with YECs on this subect in other forums. They are completely immune to evidence. Even when you can demonstrate in detail the flaws in Bible-based genealogical aggregate chronology, the unassailable fall-back position is: *the Bible says so, so even if we don't know how, your *facts* are wrong.*

And I have been told more times than I can count: "You weren't there, so how can you know?" They argue that God was there, so he's an eyewitness, and the Bible is his eyewitness statement. QED. And this from educated folk.

Invincible ignorance...

Peter, I hope you'll actually read the page (all of it) that Walter gave you the link for (2nd link) in his 4:08 PM post. I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

Here's another:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar04.html

And the page that prompted the letter:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

PAM: "They are always able to find a certain number of followers who hope that some of the power and money will rub off on them (in case you’re missing it, I’m including your favorite whipping boy, Herr Hitler, in this category)."

I just use him because he is an example of where a society can fall when it has no absolute, objective moral standard and measure to base evil on. It was a society well educated and in evolutionary doctrine.

There are thousands of other examples replete throughout history.

PAM: "The rest of us, however, have always reserved the right to stop these people by imprisonment, revolution, war, subversion – whatever it takes. Sometimes we’re unsuccessful. Those in power have great tools at their disposal – they can use terror and brainwashing to keep people in line. But people tire of the yoke eventually. Dictators and military juntas are overthrown. King Johns are forced to sign Magna Cartas. Laws are written. Parliaments and democracies are instituted. Those who are most in touch with their consciences speak and write, and raise the consciousness of others."

Without an objective, fixed standard what makes their consciousness true or right? It is just their opinion, and sooner or later, when the population reaches more than your evolutionary values will allow, it will be thinned out by those very people who will want to decide the fate of the rest of us by their moral imperatives.

PAM: "Some countries are ahead of others in this evolutionary process. If you read “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by Jared Diamond, it will help you to see why it has happened where it has."

As mentioned above, it is all very well and good until this world is deemed unfit to support its population, then it is eliminate the weak, the old, the sick, the undesirables, those considered defective or useless to the rest of us.

No, the only way you can explain the word you hate to use, "evil", is that man has broken the absolute, objective standard of good set by his Maker and now everyone is trying to set the rules as he/she sees fit. That is why this world is in such a dysfunctional state.

PAM: "This, the principle of reciprocity, that Walter gave you the link for, is built into our genes by evolution from social ancestors. No one has to “decide” what is right or wrong, we all know it innately, unless we are mentally ill (sociopaths)."

That is just the point. Each social group functions in a manner different from the others. There are no two that are identical or that hold to the same standard in all areas. So which one(s) should determine the moral "good" and moral "right" for the rest of us? Should it be Iran's Ayatollah or North Korea's Kim Jong-il or your president? In your world view it is all subjective to what you perceive is the common good. There is no fixed measure like you think there is. There is no objective standard.

PAM: "This knowledge is what we recognize as “conscience.” It’s demonstrable in every human society in written history, including those that have no clue about Christianity. Murder is considered wrong in every society, as is theft."

Murder and theft are justifiable depending on the circumstances in any society without an objective, absolute fixed and just measure or moral standard. It is a question of the "haves" and the "have nots", the law of the jungle, the survival of those who can best adapt to the circumstances and get away with what they can without getting caught, and if it benefits others without hurting you, it is to your advantage, for then you have an ally for as long as it is socially beneficial to you. That is the law according to evolution.

Look around the world at your social cohesive units, even your United States or any other country for that matter. Each feeds of the other until it can't get what it wants, then it goes to war to get what it needs or wants, if it has the might to do so, or it does without. It is a matter of exploited and exploitation. The reciprocity is only there until it is no longer needed or valued.

PAM: "This is true among peoples who have never heard of the “ten commandments.”
There are, and always have been, people who choose to ignore their consciences for purposes of gaining power and/or money."

If you haven't noticed your country and my country use much of the world's resources and have an insatiable hunger for more and more. Everyone wants the American dream at the expense of those not so well of. Corruption and greed is world wide, but we in North America are not well versed in the needs of the rest of the world. What happens when your water dries up or your oil is cut off?

The reason why our consciences register murder and theft as wrong is because we as humans are created in the image and likeness of God. The reason why there is so much corruption, murder, theft and greed, to name a few, in the world, is because we suppress the truth of God in our unrighteousness. That is the plain, cold, hard truth.

Hi Pamsm (September 1, 2009 1:02 AM ),

PAM: "RIGHT= whatever promotes social cohesion and function
WRONG=whatever interferes with, or destroys social cohesion and function"

Take a look around the world Pam. What a mess. There is no agreement on social cohesion and unity. What functions for one society is considered wrong by another. There is always some group undermining the "good" of the rest.

Just because you live in a democracy, you see the democratic process as the fairest the world has to offer. You think that by educating others to your standard that eventually the world will all think the way you do. But hazarding a guess, I would think that over half of the world's population are controlled by dictatorships, military regimes, religious oligarchies or some other form of government other than a democracy. So social cohesion in these countries is enforced by might, just as it is in yours. The only difference in yours is that the might comes by the elected majority. Once the government is in power they push their agenda, both the "good" and "bad." And basically that is what determines right in your world view - might. It is just one societal preference against another. The measure is might, the survival of the fittest, whatever works to the advantage and cohesion of the particular social or cultural group. For some it is flying planes into buildings, for others such as South Africa under Apartheid it is cohesion by dominance over "less favored races", and the same can apply to Hitler's Germany. For China's Mao, it is subjugation and dominance by military might, in Iran or Saudi Arabia it is dominance by a religious oligarchy.

The frightening thing about your "right" by cohesion and function is that it is a constantly changing flavor depending who is in power. There is nothing concrete to base it on, no foundational, objective standard and measure.

Today gay marriage, tomorrow polygamy and whatever other fancy can be pushed and made acceptable by a minority until, by the pressure of tolerance it is adopted by the majority. It is a constantly fluctuating standard that suits those who control the military, the halls of higher education, the media, the gatekeepers or those who can best manipulate and use these institutions. But don't call it "right." How can something be right one minute and then wrong the next? In the naturalist's world, it is all a matter of who is in control sets the rules, so if this is achieved an atheistic, natural philosophy will influence the "ignorant religious" masses to its crimson velvet ideology, and then once the bait and switch is accomplished it is just hard concrete reality with no mercy to its opposition.

peter, you said,
"Obviously, you are not going to interpret the evidence the same way a Christian does."

there are many, in fact most, christians who "concede" evolution. google "ken miller" and "francis collins".

you said,
"Someone once said to me, and it stuck with me, "If you want to know what a person believes find out who influenced them." I'm always listening and looking for that evidence. Look at Darwin, and Marx. Find out who influenced them and what turned their mind from their earlier beliefs."

i think it is interesting, intellectually, to see chains of influence in great thinker's thoughts. but ideas stand on their own. darwin's views on politics (or evolution's social applications, e.g. "social darwinism") are irrelevant to the content of his biology theory.

peter,
re: implausibility of the flood. consider this:

"For numerous communicable diseases, the only known “reservoir” is man. That is, the germs or viruses which cause these diseases can survive only in living human bodies or well-equipped laboratories. Well-known examples include measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis and gonorrhea. Was it Adam or Eve who was created with gonorrhea? How about syphilis? The scientific creationist insists on a completed creation, where the creator worked but six days and has been resting ever since. Thus, between them, Adam and Eve had to have been created with every one of these diseases. Later, somebody must have carried them onto Noah's Ark.

Note that the argument covers every disease germ or virus which can survive only in a specific host. But even if the Ark was a floating pesthouse, few of these diseases could have survived. In most cases, only two animals of each “kind” are supposed to have been on the Ark. Suppose the male of such a pair came down with such a disease shortly after the Ark embarked. He recovered, but passed the disease to his mate. She recovered, too, but had no other animal to pass the disease to, for the male was now immune. Every disease for which this cycle lasts less than a year should therefore have become extinct!

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm :

peter,
re: the flood, you said,
"I don't know the exact date. It was global."

most literalists, tracing genealogies etc... place it between 2300 and 2500 b.c. i agree that the bible says it was global, but many (most) christians realize that's not possible.

1)there's not enough water on earth to cover the entire earth. of course given the ancient flat earth cosmology the ancients probably thought the flood waters could have spilled over the edges of the earth, or possibly drained through holes into the "underworld". of course, this all seems pretty silly today.

2)if there was a global flood, anthropologists should find that ALL civilizations on Earth were wiped out in 2500 b.c. (or somewhere thereabouts).

from ararat, we need only go as far as Egypt to see that civilization survived. the egyptians didn’t even notice the flood. they were so busy building pyramids they missed the flood. their culture is continuous right through the flood. the carvings, pottery, gods and clothes are the same on "both sides" of the flood.

egyptian civilization began around 5500 b.c. – 1500 years before the creation. we have records from dynasties beginning in 3100 b.c., and the kings list goes right through the flood. 2686 BC – 2134 BC is the “old kingdom” – one of three golden ages in egyptian history.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Kingdom )
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza )

go east to the indus valley. from 6,000 b.b. to the present there is cultural continuity. we see the same thing in china. at no time in history do anthropologists see ALL civilizations disappear.

so apparently noah’s descendants migrated to egypt, india and china (accompanied by the appropriate suites of animals) and developed the SAME CULTURES - including religion, architecture and clothing - as the people who lived there before the flood.

peter, you said,
"WALTER: "whether you accept the absolute ages supposed by scientists (and supported by plate tectonics and radiometric dating), you cannot deny the SEQUENCE of the fossils.

Why? Because it doesn't agree with your evolutionary scientist's "expert" interpretation of science?"

why? not because of "my experts". because the SEQUENCE (unless you think god is tricking us ( http://lordibelieve.org/appr_age.htm )), indicates the ORDER in time that fossils were deposited: "newer" fossils on top of "older" fossils - except in a now few well-understood cases like "overturned faults" etc...(plate tectonics: fact or fiction?)

i suppose you suppose all these fossils (most of which are of species no longer living) were deposited more-or-less "all at once" during the flood, possibly arranged by "differential sorting" and "ecological zonation" as proposed by woodmorappe, morris, price, whitcomb et. al. (flood geology)?

some scientists have played along and treated "flood geology" like a scientific theory. they imagined, "what evidence would there be had there been a global flood?"

none of these effects have been found. in fact, their effort shows that flood geology is largely an extended apologetic attempting to explain why we DON'T see any of the plain evidence we “should” see.

http://evolution.mbdojo.com/flood.html

pleasure. gotta go, for now.

peter, you said,
"It taking a while for the foundations to show signs of crumbling because every field of science is linked to evolutionary thinking."

i wouldn't quite go that far, but i would say that just about every "life science" is informed by evolution. so, think about it, if evolution is wrong, why are all these other fields (medicine, genetics, etc...) "working" so well? how can they work at all if they're based on something false?

peter, you said,
"For every scientific link you post I can get another that looks at the evidence from a different standpoint, a biblical one."

yes "biblical" people are the only ones concerned about the viability of evolutionary theory. their concern stems only superficailly from scientific evidence, it is more a "presuppositional" rejection of evolution that spurs their criticism.

you said,
"The difference between you explanation and mine, or the way we see things, is over two hundred and fifty years of evolutionary dogma as the central focus point. It taking a while for the foundations to show signs of crumbling because every field of science is linked to evolutionary thinking."

you are "projecting" when you say things like "evolutionary dogma" and "foundations crumbling."

evolution is not dogma. it evolves. e.g., originally no one thought birds were so closely related to dinosaurs. EVIDENCE, especially the china fossils led scientists to see the connection.

you make it sound like there is a "scientific conspiracy". like mainstream scientists privately realize evolution is false, but don't want their "dirty little secret" to get "out" to laymen. like scientists fear they'll lose their jobs, or like the relase of this info would send society into some sort of tailspin... it seems like you think mainstream scientists go to bed at night filled with angst that their careers, indeed their "worldview" is built on a false theory. is that what you think?

peter, you said,
"Mutated fruit flies still gives birth to fruit flies, no matter how many times they breeds, or how isolated it becomes from the large population groups."

i presume here you are making a distinciton between "macro" and "micro" evolution. these are terms largely used by creationists. macro-evolution is just a lot of micro-evolution. i know it's hard to imagine, but macro-evolution takes a looong time. and it is clearly the story told by fossils.

nonetheless, there are some "instances of observed speciation"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

peter,
re: transitionals. you said,
"I should have said transitional fossils or forms, not species."

actually, the distinction btwn fossils/forms/species would not have made a difference here.

you said,
"You talk about small changes that are so minute that the difference is almost indistinguishable, and that makes proving the transitional link from one species to another difficult."

ha! i said somewhere how when a new transitional fossil is found, creationists complain that 2 new gaps have been formed...one on either side of the new fossil. here you are saying the "gaps" are too small?

it's more like putting together a jigsaw puzzle and the "pieces" are fossils. every fossil is put where it seems to fit best. some new pieces interlock perfectly with "existing" pieces and others must be put "out in a blank space" somewhere. we can see a picture developing with the pieces we have. sometimes the "blank areas" (gaps...) get filled in with a surprising sequence of pieces, like the "new" dino-birds from china.

peter,
btw, which version (of the eternal, unchanging...) bible do you prefer?

i know people who absolutely swear by either the KJV or the NIV. (i have both.)

peter,
one quick one:
re: abraham and the amalekites.
i said,
"how did childless abram attack his descendants, the amelekites (gen36:12 and 14:7)?"

you said,
"You'll have to explain this further. I don't understand."

genesis 14:7 says,

"Then they turned back and went to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they conquered the whole territory of the AMALEKITES, as well as the Amorites who were living in Hazazon Tamar."

and genesis 36:12 says,
"Esau's son Eliphaz also had a concubine named Timna, who bore him AMALEK."

genesis 36 is describing abrahams descendents through esau. how is it possible that abraham (in genesis 14) attacked the amalekites (named after amalek) before amalek was born (in gen 36)?

thanks peter,
i'll review your comments and point out your errors... ;-)

you said,
" don't know how promising this forum looks with almost 400 posts. It is too bad the Washington Post did not have a forum we could go to that we didn't have to worry about barging in on someone else or it being shut down after a few more posts. I always feel like I'm intruding when I break into an active forum, unless I want to challenge a presupposition, but we've done it many times before."

i don't think these forums close after a certain number of comments. comments always slow down on susans's blogs after she posts the next one. we could just keep skipping to susan's second most recent posts - i've got no problem with that. or we could go to the blog of one of the less popular columnists and start when that thread is "fresh".

for now, let's assume that when this thread expires we'll go to susan's "religious gun nut" thread and figure it out from there.

From a presuppositional perspective there are Van Til, Bahnsen, John Frame and a host of others.

From an evolutionary/ young earth creationism framework there are a number of creationist sites such as AnswersinGenesis, The Creation Research Society, The Institute for Creation Research, and Taylor's Creation Moments to name a few.

From the old earth perspective there is Hugh Ross.

From the ID perspective the two prominent ones that I know of are, The Discovery Institute and The Access Research Network. Many of the scientist's that support ID are not Christian either.

For me, the presuppositional basis is the only way to avoid the "he said, she said" view point that Pam is looking for me to do. Presuppostionalism attacks the underlying foundations and building blocks of a world view.

WALTER: "3)who are some of the people who are lately challenging the "evil-utionist" paradigm? how many are named "steve"? and, most importantly, what is the evidence they are offering?"

You'll have to tell me. I don't know.

Obviously, you are not going to interpret the evidence the same way a Christian does. We rely on the very word of God and as many scientists of the past have said, "think His thoughts after Him."

So in answer to your question, there are a number of different groups that are questioning the ideas of Darwinism and evolution, including some Steve's and I'm sure Eve's.

From an historical aspect of the consequence of ideas, R.C. Sproul does a good job of showing how humanism/naturalism turns from God to man as the ultimate, especial prevalent in the eighteenth century and during the rise of Darwinian ideology.

http://www.ligonier.org/rym.php

Some of his current topics are "The Myth of Neutral Education", "Language, Logic and God", "Reasoning Against Reason", and "Has Science Disproved the Existence of God." But his series, "The Consequence of Ideas" and "Blueprint for Thinking" are just some of the series that explores deeper how ideas have influenced cultures and people.

Someone once said to me, and it stuck with me, "If you want to know what a person believes find out who influenced them." I'm always listening and looking for that evidence. Look at Darwin, and Marx. Find out who influenced them and what turned their mind from their earlier beliefs.

https://store.ligonier.org/product.asp?idDept=D&idCategory=PH&idProduct=CON01DC

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "1)how did childless abram attack his descendants, the amelekites (gen36:12 and 14:7)?"

You'll have to explain this further. I don't understand.

WALTER: "2)when was "the flood" (e.g. 2500 b.c.)? was it global or local?

I don't know the exact date. It was global.

"The waters rose...all all the high mountains of the earth were covered...to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished...Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." (Genesis 7:18-23)

Hi Pamsm,

I'm going to tackle some of your posts tomorrow. I have an early morning so I will sit down tomorrow night. Sorry to take so long. Thanks for being patient.

Walter (August 31, 2009 9:55 AM),

WALTER: "creationists suppose these “transitions” are impossible, but there they are in the fossil record."

That is a bone of contention. Your interpretation of the evidence says they are, mine does not. None of the fossils come stamped, "This is such and such and lived at such and such a time." There are so many factors that may be missing, since none of us were there.

WALTER: "furthermore, all these transitional fossils are found at just the right point in the geologic column."

That is the problem, are they, or is that just what you have been lead to believe?

http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html#anchorcolumn

WALTER: "whether you accept the absolute ages supposed by scientists (and supported by plate tectonics and radiometric dating), you cannot deny the SEQUENCE of the fossils.

Why? Because it doesn't agree with your evolutionary scientist's "expert" interpretation of science?

Walter (August 31, 2009 9:52 AM)

WALTER: "Fossils found in China in the last 15 years beautifully detail the evolution of birds from small feathered dinosaurs: http://darwiniana.org/dinobirds.htm#Birds ."

The evidence is arguable. For every scientific link you post I can get another that looks at the evidence from a different standpoint, a biblical one. The difference between you explanation and mine, or the way we see things, is over two hundred and fifty years of evolutionary dogma as the central focus point. It taking a while for the foundations to show signs of crumbling because every field of science is linked to evolutionary thinking.

More and more scientist's are questioning evolutionary hypothesis as the correct way of looking at science.

The ID movement being one of these along with young and old earth creationism, as well as philosophy.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds

Hi Pam, Walter, Justacomment,

I don't know how promising this forum looks with almost 400 posts. It is too bad the Washington Post did not have a forum we could go to that we didn't have to worry about barging in on someone else or it being shut down after a few more posts. I always feel like I'm intruding when I break into an active forum, unless I want to challenge a presupposition, but we've done it many times before.

Walter - August 31, 2009 9:50 AM

WALTER: "the whole notion of transition species is a misnomer. it assumes one species is changing into another species – that there are fixed species with gaps between them to be bridged. this is a useful way of looking at it, but it does not express reality. all organisms are always in transition – responding to selective pressures in the environment. rather than “missing links,” scientists have found a broad continuum of species. they argue about whether two fossils are the same species or if one is an ever-so-slightly-different “new” one. if the history of life on Earth were a movie, then the “fixed species” are just a product of where you stop the film. The fossil record shows many transitions (http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm ).

Okay, I get the distinction. I should have said transitional fossils or forms, not species. You talk about small changes that are so minute that the difference is almost indistinguishable, and that makes proving the transitional link from one species to another difficult.

As for all organism being constantly in transition, I would agree to the extent that we change within our kinds, but not change kinds. That is the distinction. God has given each kind the ability to adapt to their particular environment, but not change to a different kind. Mutated fruit flies still gives birth to fruit flies, no matter how many times they breeds, or how isolated it becomes from the large population groups.

Oh, Peter, where are you...?

peter,
we can post here, or if you like we can go to a new, but unused forum not likely to "close" soon. i'll keep checking back here for your responses. if this one closes i'll check susan's latest thread to see try to find you and/or suggest a new thread.

still eagerly awaiting replies.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1, you siad,
"Our religious heritage and its principles and values...are Christian, and they distinguish our nation from all other nations."

ha! do you really think that? we are founded on the secular principles of the enlightenment. what distinguished our nation from all others at the time of its founding was that it was NOT christian (or hindu or name your religion). ours was the first A-RELIGIOUS nation.

justillthen,
great post. TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1's post was bugging me too.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1,
you just don't get it do you? the proposal IS NOT to teach christianity in class. they shouldn't be going into the 10 commandments - except to the extent necessary to explain, say, why christians persecute each other (commandments 1-4...).

these "religion" classes should not teach christianity or even religion. they cannot be speaking to the truth of any doctrine. they should teach ABOUT religion and its EFFECT on american history.

Hello TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1,

Forgive me, but your post is too full of assumptions and erroneous propaganda for my stomach.

Our government was established by men and for men based on their beliefs of what should be the "inalienable rights" of men. Laws, rights and morality are all subjective. If it is an inalienable right to be 'free', for instance, that is given by God and cannot be taken away, slavery would not exist and there would be no bondage. Likewise murder would not exist, if it were a God given right, and it would not be 'written in stone' in the Ten Commandments.

The Founding Fathers formed the Constitution as a framework where common man was accorded equal standing and protections were put in place for that end. They were the penmen for numerous 'tribes' that had come here, often seeking shelter from more repressive regimes. There were good reasons for the formation of this great Democracy, but it was not Christianity that caused it, though Christianity did inform it.

The presumption that Christian morality is the one that is valid is both arrogant and ignorant. Morality is by nature mutable. If there is such a thing as a pure and unchangeable morality it does not play on this field. Everything in this realm is changeable, but change itself.

Shall we dialogue Christian morality as played out by early settlers, upon each other and particularly upon the Natives of this land? Even up to today Christian morality is a challenge to defend, if one does not only want to focus on the Disneyland aspects and takes a eyes open view. Hey, did you bring your AK to service?

"Man can legitimately choose what religion he believes in accord with his reason and free will, but he cannot subjectively choose his morality because it is based on his human nature."

The first part is true, and Constitutionally protected. The second statement is patently false. Come to the Dark Side, TTWSY and see.

You wish to indoctrinate the nations students into Christianity. There is a place for that and it is houses of worship. I prefer that institutions of education actually serve to better the mind, not cloud it with superstition and ignorance.

Do not get me wrong. I am a spiritualist and lover of God. But like anything here, there is no one way or one face to realizing that. Noone has a monopoly on Truth, and Christians certainly are included.

Lest we look at their legacy...

Texas is well with in its rights as a state to make such a decision. The federal government has nothing to do with these types of decisions. Read the constitution if you have any doubts.

WHY SPECULATIVE RELIGION SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS.

The establishment of our nation’s government was based on the existence of God who endows man with certain inalienable rights that are recognized by, but not given by man. Therefore, without the existence of a Transcendental Authority, there is no basis for man’s inalienable rights. For, if human rights were given by man, than man could take them away. Hence, our rights would not be inalienable.

Consequently, it is an imperative that religion be taught,(not as a ritual, but as a fundamental principle of human nature, and the purpose for religion and its fundamental principles, upon which our national heritage is based, should be fully known to complete the education of man.

It cannot just be any religion that is taught. Our religious heritage and its principles and values did not come from Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, or Pagan religions, nor from Pantheistic, Agnostic, or Atheistic ideologies; they are Christian, and they distinguish our nation from all other nations.

Moreover, it is essential that in the education of man, that man understand and rationally be able to defend the fundamental moral principles that are essential to all societies. These principles are the moral foundation that binds all men to society. They are universal and objective; they bind all humanity irrespective of one's religious, pantheistic or atheistic beliefs.

The moral principles that bind all nations are imbedded in the Ten Commandments that we inherit from our Judeo-Christian heritage. The Commandments are given to man from God. They are standards of Christian morality.

Man can legitimately choose what religion he believes in accord with his reason and free will, but he cannot subjectively choose his morality because it is based on his human nature.

Unfortunately, for Public School students, the Commandments are banned from the Public School, and even the mere mention of God is proscribed by a truculent Court that is destroying our moral culture that has sustained us since our Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution. Regrettably, man, educated without a sense of God, is not an educated man, and that is the enigma that burdens the Public Schools today.

WHY SPECULATIVE RELIGION SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS.

The establishment of our nation’s government was based on the existence of God who endows man with certain inalienable rights that are recognized by, but not given by man. Therefore, without the existence of a Transcendental Authority, there is no basis for man’s inalienable rights. For, if human rights were given by man, than man could take them away. Hence, our rights would not be inalienable.

Consequently, it is an imperative that religion be taught, not as a ritual, but as a fundamental principle of human nature, and the purpose for religion and its fundamental principles, upon which our national heritage is based, should be fully known to complete the education of man.

It cannot just be any religion that is taught. Our religious heritage and its principles and values did not come from Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, or Pagan religions, nor from Pantheistic, Agnostic, or Atheistic ideologies; they are Christian, and they distinguish our nation from all other nations.

Moreover, it is essential that in the education of man, that man understand and rationally be able to defend the fundamental moral principles that are essential to all societies. These principles are the moral foundation that binds all men to society. They are universal and objective; they bind all humanity irrespective of one's religious, pantheistic or atheistic beliefs.

The moral principles that bind all nations are imbedded in the Ten Commandments that we inherit from our Judeo-Christian heritage. The Commandments are given to man from God. They are standards of Christian morality.

Man can legitimately choose what religion he believes in accord with his reason and free will, but he cannot subjectively choose his morality because it is based on his human nature.

Unfortunately, for Public School students, the Commandments are banned from the Public School, and even the mere mention of God is proscribed by a truculent Court that is destroying our moral culture that has sustained us since our Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution. Regrettably, man, educated without a sense of God, is not an educated man, and that is the enigma that burdens the Public Schools today.

peter, you said,
"We might have to go searching for another forum to invade. If it happens go to Susan's more recent forum and we can take it from there."

well, it happened... do you mean here?

Farnaz,

For you I would suggest From Mathematics to Philosophy by Hao Wang. He extensively interviewed Kurt Gödel on his incompleteness theorem and the very general consequences for philosophy it has. The problem is that it can take a year or two to read even if you have the educational background when you start. Peter Kreeft's Socratic Logic can be a good preparatory volume which is also a slow read if done right. If you want a more breezy introduction to the topic, I would suggest Rebecca Goldstein's magnificent little volume called Incompleteness.

As for Derrida and Foucault, you can't be serious about that hoary old silliness? I read some of that stuff when they wrote it and you were in diapers. Just to begin with, how do you know anything without a viable epistemology? It was useless then and has not aged well. I would suggest Kieth Windschuttle's The Killing of History to you as a very well researched commentary on bankrupt postmodern methodology for some perspective. You can have the hermeneutics of suspicion for yourself too.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
RELIGION IN THE CLASS ROOM HISTORY OR DEVOTION?

IRT:
“It is disgraceful that the Texas State Board of Education, in considering textbook revisions, would even listen to the opinion of a preacher, the Rev. Peter Marshall,

ANS:
The Rev. Marshall may or may not be a historian but he apparently has knowledge of the Scriptures and religion of which are historical. Irrespectively, he has every right to be listened to, but not that he necessarily be believed.

I also hold that since God is the Creator of the Universe (and by all rational thought He is the Creator), than it is logical and a no-brainer that only a crackpot would believe it is impossible for God to intercede in His Creation. That God did or didn't intercede is debatable, not irrational.

What is ridiculous and absurd is to posit an ordered Universe, that every Science, by necessity must assume, and then to claim no one ordered it, viz. that there is no Natural Law and Intelligent Lawgiver.

In Cardinal Henry J. Newman‘s lectures on the “University,” he noted that a properly educated man is educated in accord to both his material and spiritual nature.

On the material side, education should include the studies concerning the corporality of man such as Communication, Literature, History, Science, and various Liberal Arts.

As to man's spiritual nature, education must address such things as Ethics, Morals, Philosophy, Virtue, and Vice. This includes Religion that has been an integral part of human nature since man's existence defining man’s existential existence and purpose.

Thomas Jefferson asked, “To whom shall we seek for our moral exigencies if not the Church?” Indeed, as we have, we certainly should not let our Court, awash in moral indifference define our moral comport.

The Court has usurped the sole authority of God’s Natural Law by redefining human nature in “Roe v. Wade.” It has incredibly legitimized immorality. In “Lawrence v. Texas,” the Court, in its moral obtuseness, has undermined marriage and the family by dignifying illicit sex with conjugal love, and consequently declared immorality a Constitutional right.

In addition, our Court has brazenly concluded that traditional morality has no standing in Civil Law although it is the basis for all Civil Law. All Civil Law is either based on moral human behavior, and man's natural needs, or is a contradiction of human reason and therefore is morally illegitimate and indefensible.

Since Christianity is the Constitutional basis and heritage of our inalienable rights, it is a crime against education not to include Christianity as an integral part of our education curriculum. Unfortunately, for Public Schools, they are proscribed from justifying the very purpose they were created for to form an educated man.

Hello Muckenfus,

We are all bots, Muckenfus. We are all conditioned programming, whether via genetics or tribal, social and cultural influences. You are as is Peter Huff as am I. It is rare that our awareness exists outside of the bounds of our conditioned mind.

The fact that the existence of "God", or some form of Causal Intelligence or whatever, cannot be proven to exist is of no surprise, and no concern to me. There is much that is unknown and unclear. Awareness, and consciousness itself, are among these phenomenon.

I had lengthy debate with several, Pamsm hot and opinionated among them, that were convinced that consciousness was essentially the firing of neurons and neurotransmitters, beginning at the birth of a life form and ending with death. Says science proves it.

Science does not prove anything, really, except that neurons exhibit brain function, and the assumption is that brain function is the requisite process that allows for consciousness, and so awareness, to exist.

There are no definitive proofs that 'Life' is dependent of physical anchoring. Science studies the known world. It probes and measures and experiments with what it can see of infer. There remain vast unknowns that science has no definitive answers for.

I am not an atheist, as I understand you are. But I am not much for most religions. I am not a Christian, and not Peter Huff.

You jump quickly to conclusions, for an atheist.

"I suspect that you are one of his kind."

Why? Because I rightfully said that your argument did not, in fact, dispel "God arguments"?

It did not. Said the bot...

Moderate,

Addendum 2: You will also want to read Bishop Casas and Cabeza de Vaca, available on the web. Add Roger Williams and his protests against the theft of the Americn Indians' land, on the web. Add Rev. Josiah Strong's tome in which he coins the phrase "manifest destiny," explaining the Christian destiny to expand westward. Add Emerson's initial protest and subsequent agreement, Thoreau's opposition.

Add Emerson's and Thoreau's opposition to the annexation of Texas.

Every educated person should be familiar with these texts. Ditto the uneducated.
Since you so value education....

Speaking of which, the contemporary philosophers I mention comprise a very, very short list. Add Judith Butler, more to follow.

Salutary for all....

Moderate,

Addendum: You might want to add Casas, Winthrop, Bradford, and Cabeza de Vaca to your list.

Winthrop--Massachusetts Bay Colony. Bradford, Plymouth of Plymouth Rock fame.

American history, educated blogger, is a good thing for all to know--educated and uneducated alike.

Moderate:

Re: Your posts

Our readings may certainly may differ. Are you familiar with the postmodern critique, which has guided much of the curriculum for the last thirty to forty years?

I am referring to such philosophers as Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, Lacan, Levinas, etc.? For the last fifteen to twenty years, Levinas has been it in so far as ethics are concerned.

How about Plato? Whom Muckenfuss quotes?

As for religion, I don't know exactly what you mean my 'Pagan." WE may cross paths there.

To judge from your earlier posts, history has not been part of your study.
When you take offense at the current critique of the AmeriChristian triumphalist narrative, remember it is not I who authored it. Your protests should be directed to the last forty years of scholarship, and even to that of decades earlier.
---------------------------------
It began with the Spaniards, themselves, some of whom, like Bishop Casas, Cabeza de Vaca tried endlessly to stop the horror. Their texts are on the web.

It was fortified by William Bradford, governor of Plymouth Plantation (Plymouth Rock), who praised God by quoting the Bible as he watched the AmerIndians burn to death, quoting his Bible, their burning courtesy of the "pilgrims" and Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony, whose governor was John Winthrop. See his journal.

Both Winthrop's journal and Bradford's are available on the web.

Name-calling does not challenge the foregoing. And then there is the question of why you'd want to call names in the first place, rather than consider the evidence. That is a sign of that "education" to which you keep speaking. And, btw., don't bother saying it was I who called names. It is you who have done this throughout this thread. Easily proven.

The question is why. It disproves nothing. Facts cannot be disproven. Why would you want to?

JusTilThen:

Peter Huff is a theobot. He is only able to regurgitate what his programmers have installed in his mind.

I suspect that you are one of his kind.

Muckenfus,

"The arguments for god are defeated."

You are as silly as CCNL if you think that argument defeats god arguments. A rational and reasonable strand of thought, but since when was any reasonable stance enough? There is more to the thing than logic, my friend.

Moderate,

Religion based on the OT, NT, koran, golden tablets is old, outdated and generally "over-thumped" therefore there is nothing new to report. As necessary, I "thump" updated synopses of the major religions for those eyes that have not seen. As you know, said synopses are taken from many contemporary OT, NT, koranic and historic Jesus exegetes.

As you probably have noted, Farnaz and her band of probability reinforcing waves continue to distract, obfuscate and blog-hog apparently in an attempt to hide the failings of Judaism. Such activity violates blog rules. You can "google" "their" activity to get a list of probability wave names so when you communicate with someone like "Muckenfuss" you know you are actually texting with Farnaz.

But if you taught your children well, you have done what you can.

With that thought, I must sign off now. Work comes early tomorrow. Best regards. Talk to you soon.

Yes, I do know that. I am in the Episcopal Church too, so that is why I described it as "our church". Having combed through the Gospels many times I find no support for the atrocious parts of Leviticus there. Still Christians have done much wrong in history that we have to come to terms with. So have religionists of all other sects, down to today. Then so have anti-religionists and non-religionists. We still have a long way to go. All of us.

Moderate,

You know I am Christian, Episcopal, and liberal.

Here's my take on it:
The core of my religion abides in the Gospels, and only in the Gospels.
Everything else is either commentary, interpretation, background, history, legend, myth, poetry, or outright dangerous nonsense.

That is where I am. I never, repeat, NEVER, insist anyone else follow my path. I will only talk about it when asked.

'Four Dead in Ohio'

I'll have to look that one up too. Brings back memories, not all joyful ones either. When the kids talk about the sixties I just tell them they should be glad they don't have to live through that.

"A correction here, if you please."

Yes, you are right about that. The clip I picked up had all four singers names. But only Crosby, Stills, and Nash were on Teach Your Children.

That is one thing our church is getting right. It is time to accept people who have been excluded for a couple of millennia.

Leviticus is a handbook for how to hate your neighbors who are different from you, and prescribes stoning for it. Scary stuff if you actually read it.

Well past time to leave that on the ash heap of history.

Moderate,

A correction here, if you please. I don't think that Young was in on the 'Teach Your Children Well' gig. Remember he was only with them for about a year, but he was there to write the immortal 'Four Dead in Ohio', the anthem of a generation.

Moderate,

My wife and I raised our kids to be tolerant and accepting, and it worked. The glorious thing about that time was the house was so often populated with a lot of kids, I loved it! I fed them, played with them, tried to teach them. This continued into their teens. For a number of years, I was a Dungeon and Dragons dungeon master for my son and his friends. The guys still talk about that. And my daughter, who is quite hetero, was from her freshman days in college a member of the Gay and Straight Alliance. One weekend she brought a bunch of them home to spend the night! I approved completely.

For the poetically inclined youngsters in the audience, like Onofrio, the song we are discussing goes like this:

Teach Your Children
Crosby, Still, Nash, and Young

You who are on the road
Must have a code that you can live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good bye.

Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

And you, of tender years,
Can't know the fears that your elders grew by,
And so please help them with your youth,
They seek the truth before they can die.

Counter Melody To Above Verse:
Can you hear and do you care and
Cant you see we must be free to
Teach your children what you believe in.
Make a world that we can live in.

Teach your parents well,
Their children's hell will slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

I just looked up Teach You Children Well on YouTube. Amazing what you can find there. Remarkable to hear that again. It still speaks to me. I guess to you, too. Glad to hear you taught your children well, too. It is the task of a lifetime.

Farnaz wrote:

"

Moderate,

It would seem that I have a lot to learn from you. Also, if you can deal with CCNL and Muckwhatever, you have a tolerance beyond mine. Actually, not tolerance, because I tolerate them, you have... compassion? Something like that, I would surmise. Something I strive for.

Yes, Farnaz is on a different wave length, beat of a different drummer and all that. Not necessarily a bad thing, no, but hard for me to reach. Unfortunately, she and I seem only to touch base on rather non-controversial subjects such as poetry and music. That's all well and good, but is seldom appropriate to the subject of the blog.

"And, oh yes, that board of ed has to be nail-biting tough, at least where I live, to avoid the death threats they will get. Yes, sadly, they will get them here."

Out here at least we don't have that problem, though we have plenty of others to be sure.

I liked that song too. My kids do not hate other races and religions. I kind of lost my parents over those issues. I guess it is better to connect to the future than the past, but it was a tough choice to have to make.

"As for the ankle-biters, well, life is too short to waste time with them."

Probably right there. Still, Mucky claims to be educated, so if she comes out of her shell a bit it may be possible to start a discussion of some sort, eventually.

I find a gulf between Farnaz and friends and my self, because I read a lot of current science, math, statistics, physics, classics, classical philosophy, Christian and Pagan theology, and hard science fiction. Not much of the people she mentions like Saul Bellow are just not in my portfolio. Might be something to them but the days have only twenty-four hours. I think she and her crowd miss many of my allusions, and I am sure I miss a lot of theirs. While we all read a lot, I suspect that the intersection is very limited. Anything smacking of twentieth century irony tends to bore the crap out of me, so it may stay that way.

I thought I would look into Hillel, just to find a point of intersection for a conversation. His sayings seem comparable in depth to Marcus Aurelius, and Epictitus, whom I enjoy. Not sure how much of his work survives, though.

Moderate,

Teach your children well... I love that song, and tried to teach mine well. I think I did pretty good.

I think Dennett's proposal is excellent, but I agree that the roadblocks will be high and hard. As I mentioned (last night?) I had a good comparative religion course, in college. I think the two clues for high school will be a tolerant board of education and a really dynamite teacher. And, oh yes, that board of ed has to be nail-biting tough, at least where I live, to avoid the death threats they will get. Yes, sadly, they will get them here.

I did think Dennett's idea was of some interest, but of great practical difficulty.

But along those lines I have an old friend who taught comparative religion in the public schools here who said that that she would read excerpts from the primary sources on Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Hillel and other leading figures. She said the kids really warmed up to the subject. It seems that they never got a straight transcription of any of the great religions. They wrote some thoughtful essays on the points of contact and of difference between them. None of the kids had a problem with covering many of the major religions. So there could be some hope with this kind of program. My friend told me that many of the kids remarked privately that they were surprised find that the leading lights of other religions were so reasonable.

Teach your children well, I guess.

Moderate, my friend,

My experience with CCNL has been dismal. He does not seen capable of discussion, only copy and paste. I really wish he would show some sort of spark.

Yes, last night was interesting, once, as you said so well, after all the assorted crap settled out of the way. My experience is that Farnaz can certainly be conversed with, but you must watch the subject matter.

As for the ankle-biters, well, life is too short to waste time with them.

Well Arminius old friend, we actually had an interesting discussion with Farnaz last night after the fur and feathers settled. Thought I might try with CCNL. He seems no harder to reach than Farnaz, and probably easier to reach than Mucky. Probably a fool's errand, but who knows?

Evening, Moderate,

Kinda sad, is it not, when there is no one here to talk to but the ankle-biters? Might as well go talk to a brick wall. At least that wall won't come back with some sort of pathetic insult.

CCNL,

What's up in your neck of the woods? Any new research? Not that I am likely to agree with it if you do, but there must be more interesting things to discuss then the internecine feud.

Any constructive new ideas?

Mucktard

"And CCNL (Cerebral Cortex Not Located) continues to think with his sphincter! Hard to believe, but even more vapid than Moderate!"

You know, I keep picturing you as a massively overweight pimply faced fourteen year old boy who got run off of /b/ because he couldn't keep up. Is that somewhere close?

Muckenfuss,

Addendum: My mother is fluent in French, went to France when young, and was not "understood" when she spoke the language. I've heard the same from Tunisians, Hatians, et al.

I am fluent, as well, and I've never had a problems speaking with other French speakers no matter where they are from. I wonder at French change in sociolinguistic sentiment. Surely, they have not closed down L'Académie française! :

Hi Colin,

Thanks for the post. Reading is the best thing in the world. Enjoy!

Will check out the Guardian.

Farnaz

Hi Muckenfuss,

Would still like to know more about your relocation to Cologne.

Serrendipitously, I had a brief chat with a colleague, a historian, who spent six weeks in Paris. It had been years since he'd been, and he was shocked at the change.

Parisians were friendly. I kid you not, were friendly to foreigners including Americans. Many now speak English, he says, and do not pretend they don't understand you when you attempt to communicate in French.

He attributes the change to diversity and the knowledge that not only the US and Europe, but the rest of the world had had it. Of course, there are numerous problems stemming from its influx of immigrants, entrenched racism, etc. But still....

And CCNL (Cerebral Cortex Not Located) continues to think with his sphincter! Hard to believe, but even more vapid than Moderate!

Hmmm, "colinnicholas"? Another atheist in a probability wave mode??

Farnaz;

Thanks for your comment. It's a busy time for me right now and have several books to read too.Enjoying Updike's "In The Beauty of The Lillies" about a priest who loses his faith. Very interesting indeed.

I usually enjoy your posts; ditto Persiflage and Onofrio and Muckenfuss et al. Keep up the good work. For a change of pace you might want to check out the comments page of The Guardian UK. It's a whole other world.
Bye for now.

"phantasmagoric"

"adjective

Of, relating to, or in the nature of an illusion; lacking reality: chimeric, chimerical, delusive, delusory, dreamlike, hallucinatory, illusive, illusory, phantasmal, phantasmic, visionary. See real/imaginary." And includes a description of probability waves both major and reinforcing!!!

"It is a useful construct, but as a system is suffers from an anthropomorphism problem. If you want to see how this goes wrong I recommend Susan Blackmore's TED talk on memes and temes. She concludes at the end that she scared herself with phantasmagoric "temes" (technical memes) in which "stage three replicators" would potentially take over the world. I felt like she was channeling L. Ron Hubbard as he constructed his baroque Scientology thought system out of whole cloth."
------------------------------------
LOL, and thanks for the reference. "Memes" is useful as a metaphor; had he honestly confronted the divide between science/sociology of knowledge, perhaps by including a sophisticated notion of tropes, he would have done better.

As it is "phantasmagoric" works well literally. Sometimes, my colleagues offer joking excuses for lateness, grumpy attitudes, etc., attributing them to having narrowly escaped flying memes on their drive into work, etc.

Yes, you're right! It's "Alma Winemiller." (It means "soul.") And remember all the good times out at Moon Lake? Sometimes it's just Moon Lake, but sometimes it is Moon Lake Casino.

I couldn't sleep last night, so I just thought I would take a peek at WaPo On Faith Forum. And then I just read and read. A couple of times, I had to duck, to miss flying projectiles coming out of my computer. But eventually, I came to the end, and went back to bed.

Farnaz,

"As for Dawkins and "memes," I now think there may be something potentially useful in the construct."

It is a useful construct, but as a system is suffers from an anthropomorphism problem. If you want to see how this goes wrong I recommend Susan Blackmore's TED talk on memes and temes. She concludes at the end that she scared herself with phantasmagoric "temes" (technical memes) in which "stage three replicators" would potentially take over the world. I felt like she was channeling L. Ron Hubbard as he constructed his baroque Scientology thought system out of whole cloth. Dawkins does the same with his ideas on evolutionary forces in ideas themselves.

Freud and Marx are other examples of constructs that became very influential but had absolutely no scientific basis.

Freud created ornate explanations for insanity that usually blamed the poor mothers for the problems of their children. Many of the conditions he purported to explain in his self contained hermetically sealed system of psychoanalysis have been subsequently proven to have basis in genetics and brain chemistry.

These systems are in fact religions because they do not question their premises, or bother with the scientific process of hypothesis formation and testing. Hence the evolve by becoming more ornate rather than more grounded in theory and observation. Bottom line is that they can be interesting and even fun, but people can be swept away by them.

Hmmm, the interaction of probability waves aka "muckenfussing" continues with phantom stories of global visitations?? No loss for pen names in these fictional/dilusional accounts??

I'm praying for Babylon & Gamorah , err...I mean America.

Muckenfuss,

I just realized you never wrote back about your relocation to Cologne. I envy you. I really do.

I'm supposed to go to Pakistan in January, a country I visit fairly often. This time, however, my daughter has said she would like to accompany me, so that trip may not happen. Things are too unstable there for me to bring her now. Usually, when I go, she stays with my sister and her family. She adores my little neice, Hagar, and has semi-adopted her, much to her aunt's amusement. In fact, had Plautus not moved in, my girl might have moved out.

At all events, visiting is not the same as relocating, something I've often dreamed of. You know Saul Bellow wrote that sometimes we must shut the front door. And I've always thought he was right. INtravert, in other words. Cancel the newspaper subscription for a few weeks.

That has been very difficult for me to try. Ditto, my life mate, although we did attempt it once or twice. The chief obstacle has been our upbringing: both of us were raised by very socially conscious parents, almost groomed to go out and fix things. Well, we haven't really repaired much, although we have glued some things back together so that they may last a few more years. But all this depletes us. WE don't know who we are until we see our girl again. Peace is what we need.

Some green thoughts in green shade.

Up later than usual, I see, DITLD. I was just about to turn off my computer....

I think you mean Alma Winemiller, and no, I caught your reference to Blanche D. immediately, and took off on it. NOte my comments on the kindness of strangers, Williams' confession that Blanche c'est lui, etc. I'd be surprised if Muckenfuss didn't pick up on as well. Rather a popular piece of theatre where Blanche's flame is so brutally put out.

Goodnight, Dan in the den.

I was referring to Blanche Dubois. I think Muckenfuss was referring to Blanche Hudson. And I think Farnaz was referring to Alma Winesap.

I think all of you guys should take a dip in the swimming hole, to cool off. But remember to dive in where the deep pool is; if you hit a rock, you won't come up till morning.

Les Deux,

Re: Moderate's post

I don't know that atheists/agnostics would have a spokesperson should a comparative religion course be offered throught the land's high schools; thus far secular humanist organizations been notoriously lax in banding together to oppose, e.g, tax exempt status for religious institutions, faith based funding. They've done nothing in the way of auditing these churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, a number of which have not shied away from using the "pulpit" to politic.

However, with curriculum at issue, I suppose a Murray O'Hare might emerge sans son, of course, but it's more likely that opposition would take the form of individual and small-group protests at first. The best way to avoid this would be to include skepticism from the start--the best way, and the most honest way.

As for Dawkins and "memes," I now think there may be something potentially useful in the construct. I used to think that what he in mind had been better elaborated by better by sociologists, anthropologists, literary and political theorists. Now, I think he was onto something a different but that it remains under-developed.

Looks like we have all hit the wall. Moderate has signed off, the Commissar is quiet, and the ankle-biting herd has apparently been fed and put to bed. Be back on the morrow.

Moderate,

A large can of worms is here to be opened!

You labor among the 'leaders' of our armed forces, in the very bowels of the most stupid bureaucracy on this planet? You have my pity.

I am a vet. As a lowly non-com, we had serious, and I mean serious, problems with majors, not colonels, whether bird or light.

The very idea of Rush Bimbo sounding forth about this subject will guarantee that I will not sleep well this night.

Farminius,

"Chesterton had it right, both sides must be heard."

Yes, and in their own words. Most text books are hash. When I found how much more interesting primary sources were than text books I pretty much stopped reading the text books. Not surprisingly, I found that many text writers did not understand the primary sources well. I have my doubts about text book publishers for this reason. That is another reason why I liked Dennett's proposal to include readings from leading representatives of the various religions.

Got to hit the rack now.

Farnaz,

"we face the problem of a universal commitment to education right through college"

Yes. When I was coming up the tuition at the state university was $15 a credit hour. Yes, $225 per semester. That was the only reason I could get a university education. Now, I don't see how a kid like I was could squeak through like I did. I am willing to pay taxes to help those coming after me, but the Reagan Revolution would not allow this. We had to pay about fifty times that amount to put our son through a state school these last four years. We have got to get back to offering low cost or free public education through the bachelor's level if we want to maintain the foundations of the nation.

Arminius,

About that Charlie Foxtrot. The cluster refers to oak leaves worn by colonels. This problem emerges with a vengeance in Washington institutions. As in: too many colonels spoil the broth. I work here, and I see it every day. The balance between local institutions and Federal will be delicate.

Can you imagine Rush Limbaugh howling about an Obama proposal to standardize a religion curriculum? The mind boggles.

Commissar,

Yes, of course, all tech quantum jumps have their problems and their opponents. For starters, let us not forget the Luddites. Many other examples abound. Here in America, local preachers stridently opposed the time zones imposed by the railroads to make the trains run on time. Why? Well, it was different, it was change, and we always did it our way.... also bicycles were opposed by preachers, who thundered that this invention of the devil would allow young people to ride away from their parents and go fornicate in the woods. Which I'm sure they cheerfully did, instead of doing it in the local hayloft. So what else is new?

Sure, there are dangers. There always are, whether we progress or not.

Farminius,

"On second thought, I'm not so sure that the atheists/agnostics would not object since I suspect they'd worry that their views would be unrepresented."

Interesting point that is. Who would represent the Atheists? During the thirty years I was one I sure didn't think that particular people like Dawkins represented my views. All that meme stuff is suspiciously like demonology to me.

Did you read the piece on Flew having become a deist? I had to smile about that one. Kind of parallels Francis Collins' journey, and for that matter my own. It says Flew became an Atheist at 15, which was about when I did. I became a deist about thirty years later. Collins' book presents a remarkably balanced portfolio of views and issues. It is a fabulous read. But still, who says it should be part of a curriculum? Personally, I would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in religion or atheism. But who says it should be selected for a standard curriculum? Lots of machinery to set up and understand.

"For example, I don't know a teacher who says that Leave No Child Behind is properly executed or helpful."

It's a mess. Assessment, however, though few know this, originates in the United Nations. This is an international affair; Schools in nations from Guam to Germany have developed standards, use rubrics to assess their students. The rate at which data is being submitted and compiled I know not.

Here, in this great wealthy nation, we face the problem of a universal commitment to education right through college, a commitment that our Congress, stymied by the earmarks it allots to itself, cannot meet, and therefore sabotages with, for example, financial aid programs that undermine university education, and at the pre-college level by refusing to mandate equal opportunity financially, even refusing to fine states that do not comply with federal court decisions.

It's not good. We are behind numerous developing nations in most disciplines. The latest proposal in the mix was mentioned, in fact, by Candidate McCain, use the community colleges to create "service positions," training some (whom, you may ask) to be security cards and the like.

I'm not kidding.

Moderate,

Chesterton had it right, both sides must be heard. That is why I insist on the non-believers being included, for one example.

The quest will be beset with problems, to be sure, a journey through a valley of thorns. Worth it, though.

Oh, yes, No Child Left Behind. Known among teachers as No Teacher Left Standing. Good intentions there, but we all know what road is paved with those. This is a signal warning to any attempt to teach a true comparative religion course on a national level. If it is left to local sources, then it will be what is known in military circles as a 'Charlie Foxtrot'.

Fuhrer

"I could argue that we live in a period of incredible tech advances. Note especially the internet, the power of which is most definitely not yet understood nor appreciated."

Yes, that's what I meant. This is the period of perhaps the most unsettling, destablizing advances in history--although it is interesting to read what Arnold wrote about technological advances in his day.

Still, globalization, virtuality, etc., have brought with them huge identity issues to which reactionary movements are a response.

Arminius,

"Ignore the ankle-biting herd. The only intelligent discourse here is with me and the Commissar."

At the moment, you have a good point. Happy to have a reasonable discussion anytime. I guess we will see how long it holds.

Arminius and Farnaz,

The Dennett essay was very interesting. I though that the following was very sensible.

"All major religious and non-religious groups would be invited to propose self-portraits, in effect, of their traditions, including all the material they would want others to know about them, within agreed-upon length limits."

In this regard, G. K. Chesterton pointed out that it is hard to learn anything of import about a religion or philosophy solely from its opponents. To gain any real understanding you must listen to the proponents, and then the opponents. Only in that way will you have a framework in which to place possibly valid objections.

The process he then describes for incorporating alternate views on the major sects and viewpoints after each has had the chance to explain its points of view seems to also make sense. Reminds me of the Councils of the fourth century in some ways.

As to the notion of teaching more about religion in schools with the strong proscription of the state advocating any particular one seems sound to me. The establishment of these readings would be a monumental task, though.

The other general problem is that we have a system of Government in which certain powers are reserved to the States. It is easy to reach for the Big Hammer of Federal Government to enforce Right Thinking and Good Standards, but it does fundamental violence to the foundations of the republic.

For example, I don't know a teacher who says that Leave No Child Behind is properly executed or helpful. That points up the problem of centralized decision making. Make a mistake at the Federal level and it is propagated across all fifty states.

Still the essay was good food for thought.

Moderate, you there?

Ignore the ankle-biting herd. The only intelligent discourse here is with me and the Commissar.

Commissar,

I will take your reply piece by piece, if you don't mind.

You said,
"On second thought, I'm not so sure that the atheists/agnostics would not object since I suspect they'd worry that their views would be unrepresented."

Indeed. But should not any curriculum have to be approved by the assorted interest groups? The non-believers must have a say in this.

You said,
And although the religious right, by which you mean Evangelical Protestant religionists, would object, I doubt they'd object to all aspects of the proposal. I can see some elements they might not have a problem with. Yes, they'd be heard loudest because they are most numerous, but, frankly, I don't think they would be alone."

No, not alone. But who out there besides them has the strength to protest?

"WE live in a reactionary period. As I've noted here before, our past "Great Awakenings" invariably accompanied huge advances in technology. (Go figure.) [snip]"

I could argue that we live in a period of incredible tech advances. Note especially the internet, the power of which is most definitely not yet understood nor appreciated.

You wrote,
"It is a mistake, though, to consider right-wing Christians "stupid." Some are, some aren't. Moreover, they are not of one piece."

Correct, monolithic they are not, they war against each other like Sunni and Shiites. But, remember here, my post about the GOP - that foul group can mobilise all those demons of the religious 'right'.

I will be frank, the religious 'right' scares the hell out of me.

Fuhrer,

Here's a link to a high school that offers Comparative Religion as an elective. Scroll down the page for a description. Two of the possible problems I mentioned are immediately visible: First, doubt is not mentioned. Second, it is designed, as they explain, broadly enough to accommodate three grade levels. Wonder what Persiflage would say.

http://www.mbhs.edu/departments/socialstudies/

It would be interesting to do a general survey of such courses. In his book, Dennett mentions successful courses in California....

Fuhrer,

On second thought, I'm not so sure that the atheists/agnostics would not object since I suspect they'd worry that their views would be unrepresented.

And although the religious right, by which you mean Evangelical Protestant religionists, would object, I doubt they'd object to all aspects of the proposal. I can see some elements they might not have a problem with. Yes, they'd be heard loudest because they are most numerous, but, frankly, I don't think they would be alone.

WE live in a reactionary period. As I've noted here before, our past "Great Awakenings" invariably accompanied huge advances in technology. (Go figure.) However, they have been deteriorating in quality. There was only one Edwards, whom many Christian theologians think was the greatest of their ilk. Now, whom do we have? No, this is not a Great Awakening. It is a Great Retreat, back to the caves.

It is a mistake, though, to consider right-wing Christians "stupid." Some are, some aren't. Moreover, they are not of one piece.

/b/Mucktard,

While you may not be Farnaz you do a remarkable job of using the same phrase structures of her other sock puppets. You and Sphincterella really do make quite a pair. Add CCNL at his worst and you could make it a threesome.

Speaking of books, I found you in an old one from my shelf. Funny thing was, it only had letters for a title, though. DSM, or something, I think it was.

And speaking of sphincters, only Goatsee could get Sphincterella's hand so far up yours as you have.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

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

Didn't that sound stupid? Its the style of your writing Muckenfuss. If you are really a person of education, you should be ashamed of your self, really.

Commissar,

OOPS! I forgot! The GOP would mobilize against it! Prepare for the Trailer Trash of the Tundra, St Sara the Moose-Slayer, to hit the trail again!

Commissar,

The atheists MUST be included in any curriculum, otherwise the course is useless.

What segment of the population would oppose it? You already know the answer, but I will try to outline it.

The non-believers could not object without totally discrediting themselves.

The Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and other minority religions here in America would not object.

The Roman Catholics would not object.

The middle part of Christianity, including my own Episcopalians, would welcome it with open arms.

There is a growing segment of the evangelists that would probably not object.

The LDS? That is a mystery.

HOWEVER.... we all know about the Religious Right, the Fascists of Christianity. There lie the seeds of a dreadful battle. I dwell in their stronghold, I know of what I speak.

Fuhrer,

Yes, Dennett is one way cool atheist. But teaching the history of doubt is also essential. Moreover, it wouldn't fly with atheists/agnostics if it weren't addressed, and, doubt, as you know entered early in the West with the Greeks. The Tanakh, itself, in late chapters introduces elements of skepticism.

But the nonbelievers wouldn't be the big problem in implementing such a minicurriculum, would they?

Which segment of the population to you think would object most loudly?

Commissar,

I found the essay, and read it. I read it with wonder and utter delight. There are beautiful gems of pure wisdom there, in a text that is beautifully written and hangs together so very well.

The Christian in me says "Dear God in heaven, why are we not doing this right NOW?!?"

The Celt in me says "HOLY S***! This dude is way cool! He be The MAN! We got yer back, dude!"

I do think he underestimates the hurdles ahead. I would be interested to know what the Texas board of 'education' would think of his proposal.

Fuhrer,

Dennett's essay is right here on this blog!
Just have a look at the main page. Do read it, and let us know what you think.

As for local school boards, there has been quite a stir about creating a quasi-national curriculum to go with national standards.

It will never happen, of course, in part, because it would necessitate a equitable funding for education and bring the Feds in to for accountability (not that they don't need overseers, themselves, but still).

Commissar,

I am not familiar with Dennett's proposal for a comparative religion course at the high school level. Can that be googled? I won't bother you for a link. Persiflage could definitely teach that, he has a good mind and is a good person. But yes, that is terribly iffy at high school - we all know how too many local boards of 'education' would react.

Muckenfuss,

" I'm planning to move to Cologne next August...."

Incredible and wonderful! Whence this decision?

Good Evening, Furher,

"You have railed at me for bringing up the Flying Spaghetti Monster from time to time. Do you really know what this is about?"

Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of these false accusations. Again, you've confused me with another blogger, although I can't recall anyone threading at OnFaith who objected to that great pasta deity.

Yes, I know what it's about. Loved it at the time, and love it now.
----------------------------------
Did you read Dennett's proposal for a comparative religion course at the high school level? Persiflage had intended to teah one.

[COLIN NICK, ADD PERSIFLAGE TO THE LIST. ONE OF THE MOST ERUDITE, ENGAGING BLOGGERS OF ALL TIME. (In my view)]

I blogged here on his suggestion. I think it's a good idea, would support it, if and only if, the doubts that accompanied these religions, the skepticism, was addressed religion by religion.

However, I do think implementaion at the high school level would be problematic. For one thing, the training of teachers would be costly. They would not be specialists, unless such courses were offered at different levels, the way English, math, or "social studies" is. Hence, there is also the risk of superficiality.

Farnaz:

"From Neistche to Plato? Quite the electic!"

Well, not really. The big reason I'm teaching this year is to make all the extra money I can. I'm planning to move to Cologne next August, and I need the money. I'm also selling off all my possessions, including books, and I'm rapidly re-reading old favorites (Meno is not a favorite, it is a mystery which remains impenetrable to me) before they go to the bookbuyer. The only thing I'm taking with me is my music library and clothes!

Muckenfuss,

"Beyond Good and Evil." From time to time a look at his pastiche. He's been all the rage these last thirty or forty years, no pun intended.

Tuchman's book, I loved, although the prose was so elevating I occasionally found it distracting. Son of a gun can write.

"Meno," you say? From Neistche to Plato? Quite the electic! What pulls these three together? (Love to hear how the Thessalians are doing these days, wisdom wise. Maybe, they could share?)

Good Evening, Commissar,

Ah, yes, the topic of discussion. The benighted Texas Board of 'Education'.

Being a man of the South, been there, done that. I am from Tennessee, the home of the fabled 'Monkey Trial', way back when, 1926 IIRC, where Clarence Darrow totally trashed W J Bryan in a debate after the trial itself. The fundies went underground after that until Reagan showed up. Religion, as such, should NEVER be taught in a public school!!! If they teach any religion, it should be a neutral comparative religion course. These things are possible - I had one in college, and it was well done, not judgmental at all. But at the high school level, it could be an iffy proposition.

You have railed at me for bringing up the Flying Spaghetti Monster from time to time. Do you really know what this is about? It is a very clever and well-crafted reply to the board of ed in Kansas, which was trying to force 'intelligent design' into the science curriculum.

Are you clear now where I stand on this subject?

Farnaz wrote:

"Do you ever read poetry? (I'm big on non sequiturs.)"

Rarely. Everyone in my family was an English teacher of some description or other. I od'd on that stuff at an early age.

Presently rereading two favorites: 'Beyond Good and Evil' (I ate Nietzsche with a spoon when I was an undergrad) and a quarter-century old book by Barbara Tuchman, 'A Distant Mirror'. After than I'm tackling 'Meno' one more time, then I'm giving it away.

Muckenfuss writes:

Do you have a way of contacting Doug White? I think he should drop in and publish some of the emails that Gabriele Kelly (the neo-nazi) sent him when she was stalking him.
------------------------------
No, sorry. He vanished awhile ago. Do you ever read poetry? (I'm big on non sequiturs.)

Muckenfuss, Old Pal,

"But ya didn't, Blanche, ya didn't. "

DITLD brought Blanche onto this very thread. Did you know that Williams said, Blanche, c'est moi?

Farnaz:

Isn't it hilarious? Moderate, the mental case ventriloquist's dummy, thinks that I am you and you are me! He has learned to think with his sphincter! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Do you have a way of contacting Doug White? I think he should drop in and publish some of the emails that Gabriele Kelly (the neo-nazi) sent him when she was stalking him. She is really a sick piece of work. Naturally she would ally herself with the alcoholic Arminius. Perhaps he trains her dogs for her!

Hi ColinNicholas,

You write: "The gold was provided by atheists like Mr Mark,Pamsm,and many others and what was Arminius doing?"

Please add your name to the list! Long time! I miss your posts on Voltaire, atheism, etc. Pamsm is great and stops by now and then. Alas, the brilliant, though oft ascerbic Mr. Mark left quite awhile back, give as his reason the bigotry and racism on this blog--he found it unbearable. Then there was Gerry, whom I was also quite fond of, Jihadist--wonderful--though not an atheist. And DITLD, who sadly only stops by on occasion.

WE did have for awhile the brilliant, gifted scholar/poet Onofrio, also an atheist, and one of the most multiculturally savvy bloggers I have yet to encounter. A truly decent sort, ditto the rest

And remember the Pagans? Now, they were a great, witty, articulate bunch.

Muckenfuss is quite cool, but lunacy gets to him, what can you do.

Colin, please blog here. I'm fading fast.
Miss you, and thanks for the kind words.

Farnaz

PS. I still hold out hope (just a little) for Arminius

Arminius writes:

Look, if I am going over the line here in my ongoing fight with Farnaz - and I freely admit that I started it - please let me know. Farnaz is a worthy opponent. I admit to throwing garbage at her in the past, and, yes, I am ashamed of it. But I am trying to manage this war on a higher level - if that makes any sense.
----------------------------------
Okay, but you'll have to define the battle, since I'm not quite sure what it is.

If we are to glance at the topic, surely, you don't agree with the Texas School Board's proposals....

Muckenfuss writes:

I'm curious, Farnaz...why do you bother with this lonely old alcoholic? He is a zero. You are so far beyond him. By the way: ask him if he knows what the NeoNazi does in bed at night with her dogs, and why her husband dumped her! Hahahahahah. That is quite a story.
Posted by: Muckenfuss |
-------------------------------
Hi Muckenfuss,

To answer your question, I guess I bother because I saw a different side of him back in the day, but I guess it's a new era.

Did you have a nice labor day? Hope so!

F

Arminius wrote:

"I did my utmost to roast his sorry a**. "

But ya didn't, Blanche, ya didn't. And you know why? Because you are an old, lonely, brokendown alcoholic. You can't keep up (in more ways than one)...you are impressive only in your sodden mind. Even Moderate is not as dull-witted and maudlin as you are! You couldn't roast peanuts. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH....you're just the village drunk.

Colin,

I have to say that you have always been equal to the task of contending with Arminius, and he has nothing on you for colorful. I have gotten into it with him at times fairly hot and heavy. Yes, he gets jacked up sometimes, and yes, it might take him a while to climb down off his high-horse sometimes. But at the end of the day he does have a conscience.

So what would be a good topic? The meaning of the life of Ted Kennedy? It is a tale of redemption, and service to the nation after a very bad start. What about the Liberal ethic he espoused? Anything theological or secular to discuss about it? Have we lost anything with his passing?

Thanks, JustTilThen,

I too struggle with the garbage-tossing, as you and others know. Yes, I do lose my temper, and live to regret it. Mostly. I once went after CCNL for a really nasty think he said to Jihadist, and I did my utmost to roast his sorry a**. I do not regret that. I have also defended my Pagan friends here - now, sadly but wisely, gone - with all my might. But I do regret other transgressions.

Peace be with you too, friend.

Arminius,

I remember her speaking Dear One to Gaby or Yael, some others maybe. Never to me. I rank in her world to Bigot Extrordinaire, Anti-Semite Spectacolaire I think...

As to "ankle biters", she has had a few. But then so has been the case with alliances on all sides at the Garbage Toss. Even respectful and humble low life supporters of any angle on a hot topic have earned such names, and worse.

All the more reason that religion is a dangerous subject to teach in schools... 'Tis a volatile substance, eh?

I am no moderator of behaviours. I have a hard enough time being self-restrained and self-policing. Yet.... I hope I am doing better as well.

Peace, Armimius.

Arminius;

I've always had a problem with you even back in the days I posted as Yoyo. I always felt that you were more to blame than anyone for the demise of those good old days of decent arguments and interesting exchanges. You simply slung mud. And you haven't changed much.

Hello, JustTilThen,

The 'Dear One' really puzzled me, but I remember Farnaz writing like that before. And I cannot comprehend Muckenfuss saying anything remotely like that. Oh, well, no great matter.

Look, if I am going over the line here in my ongoing fight with Farnaz - and I freely admit that I started it - please let me know. Farnaz is a worthy opponent. I admit to throwing garbage at her in the past, and, yes, I am ashamed of it. But I am trying to manage this war on a higher level - if that makes any sense.

Meanwhile, as to her pet ankle-biter Muckenwhatever - open season on that one.

Well, golly gee wiz, colinnicholas, you have a nice day too! I honestly don't remember ever having a problem with you before.

As to Mr Mark - that guy had my respect. When he left the blogs, he emailed a farewell to me, because the two of us had had so many grand arguments. I have never forgotten that, and I honor it.

Hello Arminius,

I would hardly think that I would get a "Dear One" anything from Farnaz. I have thought little of her positions or tactics, bright as she clearly is, and I have told her so more often than she probably cared, and certainly more than I cared for or enjoyed. Well, that is not altogether true. There are many here that find joy in expressions of distaste for other posters. It is one reason so many are accused of throwing insults instead of debate. And so my reference to slinging garbage. It is one of the reasons that I left here for awhile, and have no clear plans to return home for an extended stay.

But for an illumed spirit... Ah, one can hope.

Really Arminius you ought to be ashamed of yourself - you're still up to your old tricks like some teenager. You give faith a bad name.

Farnaz;

Caught most of your chat with Arminius the famed stone thrower and builder of alliances;
Arminius the gentle loving Christian bully who would have you grovel. Do not trust this cowardly rabble-rouser who has no argument but a bag of stones and insults to cast at those whose ideas threaten his irrational religious beliefs. To ignore him is to torture him. He's the poorman's DanielITLD in that while Daniel often makes good arguments for his religiousness quoting W>James and others, Arminius insults and name-calls and encourages others to do likewise.
Arminius talks about the past golden days on this thread; how ironic. The gold was provided by atheists like Mr Mark,Pamsm,and many others and what was Arminius doing? Same as now, having nothing to contribute he was hurling insults - to atheists, and accusing them of arrogance, or rudeness, or whatever. Never did he have anything worthwhile to say.

Hi, Moderate!

Yes, Muckracker the Ankle-Biter is up to his usual schoolyard insults. By the way, did you notice what he said to JustTilThen? "Dear one, we've missed you." This comment is pure Farnaz.
Up to now I have largely discounted CCNL's accusations, but I am starting to wonder....

Sphincterella Sock Puppet :

"And sphicter-think continues on and on."

Give it up. Go back to /b/. You add nothing to the discussion.

Hello Muckenfuss,

Yes, well, we are coming toward holiday time and you know what that means, often... Heading home to the old haunting ground of youth....

Joyous or distasteful, either way we tend to unearth the old ghosts. And some of those old apparitions just stick to the same old haunts and horrors and bit parts.

It is ever so refreshing to find an intelligent while deep and receptive spirit.... Makes it all worthwhile.

I am looking for such Encounters of the Profound Kind. Meanwhile I will bob and duck for as long as I can while I come in here. I have a horrible tendency to get engaged, which is not far away phonetically from enraged...

Peace on your pate, Muckenfuss.

Arminius,

Howler Mucknaz wrote the following:

"He is a zero. You are so far beyond him."

This seems to be a signature phrase of Farnaz sock puppets. It does suggest that CCNL is correct about the singularity of authorship of these sources. I guess that she feels a recurring need to reassure herself.

You know, Farnaz, when you have to praise yourself because everyone else has called you on your games, isn't it time to throw in the towel and let the decent folks get on with their conversations?

JustTilThen wrote:

"Ah, the smell of home sweet home...."

Dear one, we've missed you.

CCNL (Cerebral Cortex Not Located) wrote:

"And the Farnaz probability wave show aka "muckenfussing" continues on and on."

And sphicter-think continues on and on.

And the Farnaz probability wave show aka "muckenfussing" continues on and on.

Ah, the smell of home sweet home....

The same old slinging of garbage going on at the table, I see... Some things have a hard time dying a good death.

Poor Moderate...a shabby ventriloquist's dummy, shaking his fist in his all-consuming hatred and bigotry, fearful of what he does not understand, hating everything and everyone of whom he is afraid. Alas, these are the elements of mental illness.

It is me again. Please ignore that last comment I made. It's working.

Hi Walter, Pam, Onofrio and Justacomment,

I have tried twice to post in reply to your comments on Susan's other forum. I think the statute of limitations must have run out. Where do we go next? Any suggestions?

Howler:

"The world is a good place. Try to find your bearings in it."

Moderate:

Let go of your self hatred and fear. Seek treatment for your paranoia. There may still be time for you to live a useful and (dare one hope?) hate-free life. You can find the peace that your tortured soul is seeking, if only you will stop hating and fearing. The world is a good place. Try to find your bearings in it.

Howler Monkey:

Off to /b/ with you. Then again, you probably couldn't keep up there anyway.

But congratulations on being even more repetitious than CCNL. That deserves some kind of award.

Themoderate whines:

"Let go of your anger before it consumes you."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Now THAT is the pot calling the kettle black!

Farnaz,

"Heil, Fuhrer,"!?!

Why do you continue with this kind of insult?
What do you expect it to accomplish?
Let go of your anger.
Let go of your hatred.
Only looking within will let you see more clearly those around you.
On that path lies freedom.

Farnaz wrote:

"Loins are girded, Fuhrer. Ye Celts may be tough customers, but so are us Iranian Js."

I'm curious, Farnaz...why do you bother with this lonely old alcoholic? He is a zero. You are so far beyond him. By the way: ask him if he knows what the NeoNazi does in bed at night with her dogs, and why her husband dumped her! Hahahahahah. That is quite a story.

Part one.

Let me see if I understand Farnaz correctly. The Christians for all their professing of morality subdued or flat out killed this people and that. The Christians, a group of people that worships a Jew who died a couple thousand years ago and who inspired before he died a handful of Jews to spread his message. And a Jew named Paul converted to Christianity and was profoundly significant in spreading the message. Then the message spread here and there from its origin, THE JEWS and inspired more peoples, and as it gained more adherents it became more and more confident of its powers and began to actively subdue people.

Meanwhile back at the olive grove THE JEWS who rejected Christ remained who they are, THE JEWS--which is to say they did not try to spread out and convert peoples to Judaism because Judaism means THE JEWS--a people. A religion yes, but a religion which is exclusive, strongly linked to a people. And so, THE JEWS have had a difficult relationship to Christianity ever since. They insist on being THE JEWS and not converting to Christianity which is not associated with any particular people but is an inclusive religion. Anyone can be a Christian, and a black or white Christian is no better than the other for all are Christians.

Part two.

Meanwhile THE JEWS wandered here and there and miracle of miracles--and yes, it is a genuine surprise--they returned to their homeland--which is a sanctuary for THE JEWS. Israel is a JEWISH state. JEWS are to be in the majority--certainly--and anyone who is not A JEW cannot expect to be anything more than a guest. And it is absurd to speak of a person non-Jewish converting to Judaism and bolstering the population of the Jewish state because the person is not Jewish. However if one has children with a Jew the children are Jewish--they have Jewish blood.

And so it goes. Religions such as Christianity and Islam inclusive, yes, but forcing people into the fold--one converts or dies. And the religion of Judaism--which is correlated with the people THE JEWS, holds out from being converted to anything other than what they are--THE JEWS. And now the Jews in Israel are concerned about demographic trends, that they might be overwhelmed by the Muslims, who are a collection of disparate people under the banner of Mohammed. The real question is which is worse: being a member of an inclusive religion which demands that you convert or die or being a member of an exclusive religion virtually identical to a people which rejects anyone unless they breed with the Jews creating more Jews--for the children are Jews and nothing else. Correct me if I am wrong, but so far as I can tell that makes sense. Or none.

Loins are girded, Fuhrer. Ye Celts may be tough customers, but so are us Iranian Js.

"Sources of information about Hillel are meager and must be sifted from many legends which subsequent generations have spun about him."

www.answers.com

Well, Commissar, it has been a good fight for about 6 hours or so. Time to hang it up. Gird yer loins fer tomorrow!

Commissar, you sadly said this of me:

"You know nothing either of Judaism or of Christianity, but that is not why you are a bigot. It is because you have a hardened heart. Or no heart."

How do you know this? I know much of Christianity, and some of Judaism.

A hardened hart? I have that? When I just told you that I am reaching out to you? Not to attack, but to help, if I can? That is hate? Please explain.

Ah, Commissar, you continue your campaign of hate.

You apparently did not read my last post, where I said that I was quite aware of the source of the Second Great Commandment. Thus, from the terribly strange book of Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Just out of curiosity, Commissar, do you ever try to do this? It is not apparent in your posts here. I really do try to obey it. Check the last couple of sentences of my previous post.

I am not trying to rob you.
I am not trying to hurt you.
I am not trying to 'convert' you.
I am trying simply to reach out to you.
Why does this upset you?

Heil, Fuhrer,

Do you know who Hillel was? ARe you interested? Do you believe Jews have the right to Judaism? Do you think perhaps you should know something about it, just as Jews know something of your religion? He was a Tana, one of the Tanaim, a Pharisee, one of the great leaders of the Jewish people. Perhaps the greatest of the period, that would be Yehoshuah's period.

He codified "[T]hou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18.

Jesus was quoting, remember?

But, then, of course, you don't remember, since you know nothing of what has been said and written of him as your posts demonstrate.

You know nothing either of Judaism or of Christianity, but that is not why you are a bigot. It is because you have a hardened heart. Or no heart.

I leave you with these thoughts:

"[T]hou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18.

UNharden your heart.

"Would you have me amend Jesus?"

How, Commissar, can you amend Jesus when you refuse to believe that he actually existed, simply because you do not want to ever believe that He even might have exisited?

Also, Commissar, I am very familiar with the source of the Second Great Commandment.

And as for "Do you believe Jews have the right to Judaism?" My God, what planet do you live on? Have you heard nothing about what I have said about accepting anyone with a good belief? And to turn the question around, do you believe that we Christians have a right to Christianity? Somehow I think you would disagree with that. Please prove me wrong.

I'd like to believe there is hope for you, Commissar, but I have my doubts. You are consumed by an ancient hate, and you know not how to confront it. You lean on the ideas of others, rather than viewing them in light of what is in your own heart. To be brutally honest, I don't think you have a clue what you have in your heart. As one human to another, I urge you to look inward.

Okay, Furher, but Hillel was familiar with the Tanakh, which he was at work codifying.

"[T]hou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
-----------------
Hence, you need not "amend" him. Lev 19:18 is referenced in the New Testament. Perhaps, you might check.
-----------------
You write: This is the message of a guy known as Jesus. I'm not sure you have heard of him....

HOWEVER, I wrote: So, do you know who Hillel was? ARe you interested? Do you believe Jews have the right to Judaism? Do you think perhaps you should know something about it, just as Jews know something of your religion? He was a Tana, one of the Tanaim, a Pharisee, one of the great leaders of the Jewish people. Perhaps the greatest of the period, that would be Yehoshuah's period.
---------------------
NEXT time, get out your glasses, read my posts before you reply. NOw, how comes it that Jews know who Jesus was, but you don't know who Hillel was and post that you would amend him?

Think about this. I did answer from my heart. Would you have me amend Jesus?

YOU would amend HILLEL? Have you read Ethics of the Fathers? Do you know anything about Judaism? AT all?

I answered from my heart, Furher? Where is yours?
------------------------------------------
I will leave you with these thoughts, Arminius:

"[T]hou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18

Unharden your heart.

Moderate,

What you said to Faraz was beautiful. We are indeed on the same path.

Arminius

I will leave you with these thoughts, Moderate:

"[T]hou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18

Unharden your heart.

Okay, Furher, but Hillel was familiar with the Tanakh, which he was at work codifying.

"[T]hou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
-----------------
Hence, you need not "amend" him. Lev 19:18 is referenced in the New Testament. Perhaps, you might check.
-----------------
You write: This is the message of a guy known as Jesus. I'm not sure you have heard of him....

HOWEVER, I wrote: So, do you know who Hillel was? ARe you interested? Do you believe Jews have the right to Judaism? Do you think perhaps you should know something about it, just as Jews know something of your religion? He was a Tana, one of the Tanaim, a Pharisee, one of the great leaders of the Jewish people. Perhaps the greatest of the period, that would be Yehoshuah's period.
---------------------
NEXT time, get out your glasses, read my posts before you reply. NOw, how comes it that Jews know who Jesus was, but you don't know who Hillel was and post that you would amend him?

Think about this. I did answer from my heart. Would you have me amend Jesus?

YOU would amend HILLEL? Have you read Ethics of the Fathers? Do you know anything about Judaism? AT all?

I answered from my heart, Furher? Where is yours?

Farnaz,

I will leave you with this thought:

Somebody mistreated You.
Somebody mistreated your daughter.
So you will "get revenge" by mistreating somebody.

The problem is that they are not the same somebody.

That is the problem with all bigotry and prejudice. Including yours. However legitimate your grievances, that is the problem.

Let go of your anger before it consumes you.

Well, OK, Commissar, I will not fault what you say, except to say it is NOT from your heart, as I requested.

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?"

Now that is good, especially if you follow it with his reply of the converse of the Golden Rule.

But I would amend it, while taking nothing away from that wise man, to say this: "If I am not for my fellow man, then who will be for me?"

This is the message of a guy known as Jesus. I'm not sure you have heard of him....

Furher Arminius,

Arminius, I believe that every human being, whether Jewish, Christian, Pagan, agnostic, atheist, Muslim, Hindu, or other, has the RIGHT to self-understanding based on his/her identity. The same holds true for browns, blacks, reds, etc.

I believe that RACE is an ideological fiction, that it is a reification, that it does not exist.

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?"

Hillel's views. Do you know who he was, Arminius? I know who Jesus was, that is, if he existed. Btw., there are questions about Hillel's existence, though fewer than about that of Yehoshuah Messiah.

So, do you know who Hillel was? ARe you interested? Do you believe Jews have the right to Judaism? Do you think perhaps you should know something about it, just as Jews know something of your religion? He was a Tana, one of the Tanaim, a Pharisee, one of the great leaders of the Jewish people. Perhaps the greatest of the period, that would be Yehoshuah's period.

I believe that what one does in the bedroom is one's own business, providing, of course, s/he hurts no one.

I believe in the right to self-defense. I believe it is an obligation.
------------------------------------------
You write:

"My very good friend Gaby was severely burnt by one of her poodles. I will never forgive Farnaz for that."

I don't know what you're talking about, but sounds very much like "the Jews killed Christ."

Go to bed, Arminius. You are embarrassing yourself. It's not funny. Not Christian, either, is it?

Hi, Moderate,

Faraz has had other lap dogs, some much worse than the current incarnation. My very good friend Gaby was severely burnt by one of her poodles. I will never forgive Farnaz for that.

Simply put, I would not trust Farnaz with a burnt match.

Furher Arminius,

Arminius, I believe that every human being, whether Jewish, Christian, Pagan, agnostic, atheist, Muslim, Hindu, or other, has the RIGHT to self-understanding based on his/her identity. The same holds true for browns, blacks, reds, etc.

I believe that RACE is an ideological fiction, that it is a reification, that it does not exist.

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?"

Hillel's views. Do you know who he was, Arminius? I know who Jesus was, that is, if he existed. Btw., there are questions about Hillel's existence, though fewer than about that of Yehoshuah Messiah.

So, do you know who Hillel was? ARe you interested? Do you believe Jews have the right to Judaism? Do you think perhaps you should know something about it, just as Jews know something of your religion? He was a Tana, one of the Tanaim, a Pharisee, one of the great leaders of the Jewish people. Perhaps the greatest of the period, that would be Yehoshuah's period.

I believe that what one does in the bedroom is one's own business, providing, of course, s/he hurts no one.

I believe in the right to self-defense. I believe it is an obligation.

Arminius,

"I'm sure you have noticed, as have I, that when Farnaz gets involved in a combat on this web, she ALWAYS has a poodle at hand."

Yes, I have noticed that. It is possible that CCNL is right. It is also possible that she gets some friends to log on and play the part. We will probably never really know.

This latest one has a pretty low IQ, though. It is as repetitious as CCNL when he is in a cut-and-paste fugue, but even more simple minded. Maybe it is a shell script rather than a person. Who knows? Not a very good one though. Weren't people suggesting that what CCNL was a while back when he was so repetitious?

Nevermore:

CCNL and Farnaz? Now wouldn't that be a marriage made in heaven?

Commissar,

Ah, yes, facts. Lovely. The sun rises in the east. And so on.

What, Commissar, is in your heart? What is the soul of your foundation? Do you even have one? What do you really believe? Have you even ever asked yourself that question?

What is in your heart?

I know what is in mine. Do you? Or are you going to quote statistics?

What do you, in the last analysis, depend on? When the guns are drawn in harsh reality, do you search for 'facts'? Do you?

Bye Moderate,

Thanks for the good wishes. I'll see if I return once I come back. In the meantime don't let the High Priestress of Muck and all her many aliases take over the blog! I still remember David Dyer and his "harpsicord".
ROFLMAO!!!

Howler Mucky,

"This is hilarious!"

Nevermore:

Have a good trip. Perhaps we can resume the conversation when you return.

HAHAHAHAH. This is hilarious! The old, lonely drunken ventriloquist Armenius, his equally drunken and shabby dummy Moderate, and the wardrobe mistress, NeoNazi! There was never anything on TV this good! HAHAHAHAHHHAHA

Arminius,

YOu ask what I believe. I have studied this and share the views of the scholars I mention. I believe I made that clear in my post. In fact, I said so.

I base my views, my "beliefs," as you put it on facts, or on the closest we may come to them. Therefore, I cannot believe that an actual Abraham existed, although I share with Dever, the view that there may have been a nomadic leader upon whom the figure was based.

The above is an elaboration on what I just posted.

Oh, Arminius, before I log off for the night, why don't you ask the Jewish High Priestress when she has time to teach all those college courses. As far as I have seen, she spends her time 24/7 in front of the computer spewing venom!

Arminius,

YOu ask what I believe. I have studied this and share the views of the scholars I mention. I believe I made that clear in my post. In fact, I said so.

I base my views, my "beliefs," as you put it on facts, or on the closest we may come to them. Therefore, I cannot believe that an actual Abraham existed, although I share with Dever, the view that there may have been a nomadic leader upon whom the figure was based.

The above is an elaboration on what I just posted.

Farnaz,

The only bigot, racist, and utterly nasty person on here is you, followed closely by CCNL. Like I said you two should get married. One idiot deserves another!

Have a nice life in whatever mental hospital you recite!

Arminius,

YOu ask what I believe. I have studied this and share the views of the scholars I mention. I believe I made that clear in my post. In fact, I said so.

I base my views, my "beliefs," as you put it on facts, or on the closest we may come to them. Therefore, I cannot believe that an actual Abraham existed, although I share with Dever, that there may have been a nomadic leader upon whom the figure was based.

The above is an elaboration on what I just posted.

Arminius,

I am with you! One of these days we shall meet in person. Maybe at Reg's place! That would be great!

While I am gone, don't let the twit berate you or get your goat. She is really good at that, but I finally saw the light! She is a manipulative, nasty person who is about as Christian as the devil's mother! LOL

Be good my Friend! I'll be back in a month or so!

Damnit it to bloody HELL, Commissar!
Will you bloody wake up to f***ing reality?

I don't give a motherf****ing bloody stupid damn about how many scholars you dig out of forgotten religious sites. I don't car what anybody else thinks or believes here.

What do YOU think/believe, Farnaz? Do you have the simple courage to answer that without bowing and groveling to numerous so-called 'experts'?

Do you?

What are YOUR words?

Arminius,

I am one of those people who fight against this prejudice, this hatred. I always have, I always will.
I do not expect you to accept this. I am Christian, therefore in your eyes I can do no good unless I castrate my beliefs.
---------------------------------------
RAther than simply paste my previous response to this, I will take the time to reply again. But I can't spend all night on this.

I have posted the views of contemporary NT scholars, priests, ministers, twelve Orthodox clergy. If you wish to reject them, that is your affair.

I do not accept "the Jews," the "OT," the Sanhedrin, which did not, could not have met during Passover. I agree with the NT exegetes.

I agree with them that the blood/wine, bread/flesh business was not Judaic, was an import from the mystery religions. CCNL1 has posted on this, as have others on this blog. They've also posted on the Sanhedrin.

I believe with contemporary scholars that the Tanaim, of whom you evidently know nothing, were the leaders of the Jews. This is history, fact, born out by independent sources, which I've posted on this blog. These Pharisees were codifying the Tanakh and were putting an end to Temple culture.

I believe that Judaism is a living breathing religion, since that is what it is.

You do not have to agree with me, nor do you have to agree with all the scholars whose views I share. That is your affair. However, just as blacks don't wish to be called Negroes, I don't want to read about "the Jews," the "OT," etc., that Jews control the economy, the Congress, WaPo, and the weather.

I will always defend against this. As a Christian, it is YOU, not I, who should be the first to fight back against this bigotry.

Not much to ask, really.

MOderate,

BTW, have you notice how many people have logged on to tell you that you have a serious problem? How many you have driven away? Why do you think we do it?

Posted by: themoderate | September 6, 2009 10:54 PM
----------------------------
Yes, I've noticed. All the usual suspects. CCNL1, Nevermore, and you. Bigots are bigots. Racists, racists.

However, Jews are optimistic. I continue to hold out hope for you.

Arminius, I still believe in. I may be wrong. We'll see.

Farnaz,

"Good to see you've been following this blog."

No comprende??? I just said that I haven't been on this blog for months!

Parla inglese?????

Hey, Friend Moderate!

I'm sure you have noticed, as have I, that when Farnaz gets involved in a combat on this web, she ALWAYS has a poodle at hand. Always. And, of course, this poodle is trained to morph into a pit bull. As our recent acquaintance Muckraker has readily demonstrated, since he is eager to accuse us all of assorted crimes, thus leaving Farnaz out of the picture....

My God, is that idiot CCNL actually right about this? I really do not want to think that.

Arminius,

I am one of those people who fight against this prejudice, this hatred. I always have, I always will.
I do not expect you to accept this. I am Christian, therefore in your eyes I can do no good unless I castrate my beliefs.
---------------------------------------
RAther than simply paste my previous response to this, I will take the time to reply again. But I can't spend all night on this.

I have posted the views of contemporary NT scholars, priests, ministers, twelve Orthodox clergy. If you wish to reject them, that is your affair.

I do not accept "the Jews," the "OT," the Sanhedrin, which did not, could not have met during Passover. I agree with the NT exegetes.

I agree with them that the blood/wine, bread/flesh business was not Judaic, was an import from the mystery religions. CCNL1 has posted on this, as have others on this blog. They've also posted on the Sanhedrin.

I believe with contemporary scholars that the Tanaim, of whom you evidently know nothing, were the leaders of the Jews. This is history, fact, born out by independent sources, which I've posted on this blog. These Pharisees were codifying the Tanakh and were putting an end to Temple culture.

I believe that Judaism is a living breathing religion, since that is what it is.

You do not have to agree with me, nor do you have to agree with all the scholars whose views I share. That is your affair. However, just as blacks don't wish to be called Negroes, I don't want to read about "the Jews," the "OT," etc., that Jews control the economy, the Congress, WaPo, and the weather.

I will always defend against this. As a Christian, it is YOU, not I, who should be the first to fight back against this bigotry.

Not much to ask, really.

Arminius,

"I am one of those people who fight against this prejudice, this hatred. I always have, I always will."

Well said. I have seen you take bigots on vigorously so I know that you mean what you just said.

This blog used to be interesting, and it can be again, I think. We need to start policing the place with regular and conscientious reports of offensive comments.

Moderate,

"Honestly, would you classify what she does as self defense?"

Self defense.....?????? ROFLMAO!!!!

That person, has a serious problem and (s)he should see a shrink to discuss it and maybe get on meds.

Self defense about what??? All the garbage she used to tell us about her childhood, the many people she has seen killed, the Middle East that she knows like the back of her hand???? Give me a break!!!

I am leaving for Germany in a couple of days and won't be back for a while, but I would advise you and everyone else to just ignore her. (S)he is more that weird. I would call her a cyper stalker! Teaching college???? My rear end!

Nevermore,

You have my respect, my friendship, and, yes, my love forever. God bless you, my friend!

Arminius

Farnaz:

"Eugene O'Neill, whom I regarded as a...well...err...sphincter-retentive, repressed, self-obsessed, moralizing bore."

What I was calling to your attention was the constant address of other bloggers as sphincters by you and your friend Muckenfuss. Eugen O'Niell was beside the point of my comments. You and your friend Muckenfuss constantly assault people with small minded personal insults. As usual, you do not have the courage to face up to the fact that you are out of control. You call this ranting "self defense". You really should stop kidding yourself about it.

BTW, have you notice how many people have logged on to tell you that you have a serious problem? How many you have driven away? Why do you think we do it?

Wake up, Farnaz, you said,
"There are people dead in this country for the crime of being gay, of being black, of being Goodman and Schwerner and Chaney. There are also people, Americans, I call them, who fight against this all the time."

I am one of those people who fight against this prejudice, this hatred. I always have, I always will.
I do not expect you to accept this. I am Christian, therefore in your eyes I can do no good unless I castrate my beliefs.

Moderate,

You again refuse to deal with the substance of my post. It is you who began the "fouling" and, again, you only show up when I fight back.

On this thread, you "fouled the air" evidently because you objected to something I wrote about Eugene O'Neill.

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

Farnaz:

"Eugene O'Neill, whom I regarded as a...well...err...sphincter-retentive, repressed, self-obsessed, moralizing bore."

You really should try /b/. As the queen of sphincters you could live happily ever after there.

Posted by: themoderate | September 4, 2009 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
--------------------------------------------
This, as I mention in another post, is the prevailing view of O'Neill now. I came to it earlier, that's all.

Certainly, it did not warrant your vitriol.
At any rate, I'm tired of playing straight man here.

I exist, Moderate. Have dealt with racism for being brown, for being Jewish, and I'm far, far from alone. Were your child's teeth knocked out?

You know, as I said, I am the least of hatred's victims. So is my girl.

There are people dead in this country for the crime of being gay, of being black, of being Goodman and Schwerner and Chaney. There are also people, Americans, I call them, who fight against this all the time.

Hope you get to meet some, one day

Arminius, you are a better person than most on this site.

I have only come back to quickly check if things have changed. But they haven't! It's still the same gang slamdunking each other like there is no tomorrow!

I wish you well debating these cretins, but I think I'll talk to you at the other site that is monitored and where we can have fun!

To the rest of you, Arminius is a great person. One who gives his soul (if there is such a thing) to friends and family. He is a deeply spiritual person whom I found to be great to hang out with.

If anyone deserves respect here, it would be him!

Nevermore:

"I left months ago because of you, and the one time I check back, there you are spouting your crap as ever!"

Me too. When I come back it is always Farnaz spouting off against someone or other. You, me, Arminius, Timmy, Mary, and on and on. Honestly, would you classify what she does as self defense? I just can't buy that. This blog used to be raucous and rambunctious, but most people had some respect for each other at the end of the day, and a lot of interesting ground was covered. Now it is all about Farnaz' antisocial behaviors.

Maybe we should all start systematically reporting her offensive comments. If she improves the blog can recover. If she does not, perhaps she will be banned and the blog can recover.

Nevermore,

NIce to see you, too. I just posted to you although I did not include any vitriol. Did not call you names. Good to see you've been following this blog. Maybe you could read my earlier post to you.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 6, 2009 10:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Moderate,

You again refuse to deal with the substance of my post. It is you who began the "fouling" and, again, you only show up when I fight back.

On this thread, you "fouled the air" evidently because you objected to something I wrote about Eugene O'Neill.

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

Farnaz:

"Eugene O'Neill, whom I regarded as a...well...err...sphincter-retentive, repressed, self-obsessed, moralizing bore."

You really should try /b/. As the queen of sphincters you could live happily ever after there.

Posted by: themoderate | September 4, 2009 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
--------------------------------------------
This, as I mention in another post, is the prevailing view of O'Neill now. I came to it earlier, that's all.

Certainly, it did not warrant your vitriol.
At any rate, I'm tired of playing straight man here.

I exist, Moderate. Have dealt with racism for being brown, for being Jewish, and I'm far, far from alone. Were your child's teeth knocked out?

You know, as I said, I am the least of hatred's victims. So is my girl.

There are people dead in this country for the crime of being gay, of being black, of being Goodman and Schwerner and Chaney. There are also people, Americans, I call them, who fight against this all the time.

Hope you get to meet some, one day.

Thanks, Nevermore!

Good to see you again, please stay and join the fun. I, too, spent over a month out of here, only to find that Farnaz and her poodles ruled the roost.

Oh, and CCNL, you and Farnaz should get married...you two truly complement each other!

Nevermore,

NIce to see you, too. I just posted to you although I did not include any vitriol. Did not call you names. Good to see you've been following this blog. Maybe you could read my earlier post to you.

Farnaz,

"Further, if you read my post, you know I mention your continually taking offense when I defend myself against bigots."

What you are doing is not self defense. I go away for periods of time because you have fouled the atmosphere here, and when I check back in a few weeks, it is always you attacking someone else. You call them names, you accuse them of character flaws, and above all you attempt to cast them as "anti Semites". You need to get a grip on your fulminant anger before it consumes you. I have seen it happen, and you are well on your way. You need to let it go.

Hi Muckenfuss,

I don't know if you read my posts on Ginsberg, read "Wild Orphan" or my remarks on Kornfield. Hope so. Would like to know your thoughts. Have just reread something by Aachan Chah (spelling?) about war.

Will check back.

F

Ah, I see Farnaz is still polluting the airwaves!

Why don't you get a life outside of the WAPO threats, dear? I think that all of us would be happier!

I left months ago because of you, and the one time I check back, there you are spouting your crap as ever! You are a sorry creature, Farnaz, who has nothing better to do with your time than post on an online forum with malice and innuendo! You are no more a college professor than a mouse is an elephant. You hog this space like a fly going after roadkill.

To be honest, you should be ashamed of youself! You have done nothing on this blog but cause hate and dicontent! I despise you!

Texas is a backwards state as far as I am concerned. Yes, I know whereof I speak having lived there for 1 1/2 year and to be honest couldn't get out of there fast enough. We should give it back to Mexico!

Posted by: Nevermore531
--------------------------------------
Amen. However, I did spend some time there, too, and met some amazingly progressive folks.

We are now quite honest in high school and college texbooks about the theft of Texas, the Southwest, California. But honesty is not enough, is it?

The US will never return these lands, certes. However, we could develop a humane immigration policy that attempts to acknowledge our history, could we not.

Moderate,

All you do is accuse me and resort to name calling. Now, what does that tell us? You have yet to say anything substantive in reply to my post. You have already dealt with the first paragraph. There are several more. I await your reply.

And, please, do leave Arminius alone. What you are doing with him is not right.

Here. again, is the bulk of my post to which you refuse to respond. I reference earlier postings as you'll see. Kindly deal with facts and issues. E.g., if you can contest with facts, e.g., prove Joshiah Strong never wrote the book I cite earlier, coining the phrase "manifest destiny," etc., please do. Etc.
--------------------------------
I did not post to you. As I mentioned, the Christianist rhetoric regarding the annexation of Texas is a matter of fact, easily confirmed with google. This is fact, not prejudice.

Rev. Josiah Strong wrote the text giving religious authorization to Westward Expansion. Scroll down to an earlier post of mine that includes the source. On the this final phase of Indian genocide which continued until mid 20th century, use google.

Emerson and Thoreau reacted as noted.

All of the foregoing is widely known and is not bigotry.

Continues below

continued
There is nothing here that is bigotry. It was certainly AmeriChristian imperialism that took Mexico, the southwest, and California. If you have access to a library web site, especially a university library web site, you will find endless articles that say EXACTLY this, some of them written in religious studies journals by Christians.

For literary analysis of AmeriChristian imperialist texts, you might begin with "American Literature," which is often accessible to nonspecialists.
----------------------------
I apologize, but the only bigotry I've seen here has been from you. What I posted was fact. Even before I got to it, this is what you wrote to me:

"You really should try /b/. As the queen of sphincters you could live happily ever after there.
Posted by: themoderate | September 4, 2009 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment"
----------------------------------
This is characteristic of your behavior to me, of late. You have accused me of all sorts of things, and I have suggested you blog on whatever you'd like. I can dig out the posts if you'd like.

Further, if you read my post, you know I mention your continually taking offense when I defend myself against bigots. You protest when I use the definite article in reference to Christians/Catholics, but have nothing to say to the bloggers to whom it is a response, those who use the phrase "the Jews."

CCNL1 has said the most disgraceful things, but you only enter the picture when I reply. That has been a pattern of yours.
--------------------------
Perhaps, rather than falsely accuse others of bigotry, you ought to understand that they have the right to self defense and will use it. Also, accept the fact that a great deal of research has been done on the ideological consequences of Christianity of which I am the least of victims.

That does not mean all Christians are bad. It means that some, those with the courage to write about what must be changed, to seek change, are good.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 6, 2009 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 6, 2009 10:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Commissar,

Are you cowarding out? Tail between your legs?

Did you read nothing of what I posted? There was much music to support your Jihad against us Christians.

Here I am, trying to help you, delivering ammunition into the hands of my foes, and you weenie out. Shame on you.

Can you not talk? Can you not dialog? Can you not debate? Is it really only your way or the highway? Do you insist on the castration of my beliefs before you can post anything besides a lengthy piece of nonsense?
Do you have the courage to do this? To ADMIT that I am human, and EQUAL to you, and before the law, and thus due a reasonable and honest reply?

Can you do this? I doubt it, your fear, your ego, stand in the way. Why are you afraid?

Farnaz,

"Perhaps, rather than falsely accuse others of bigotry, you ought to understand that they have the right to self defense and will use it."

Your fulminating bigotry is on display for all to see. There is nothing false about it. You do not defend yourself so much as relentlessly and sometimes viciously attack people around you. Go back and read your own hateful prose. You have written it for all to see. You really need to get a grip on your self. You are out of control with anger.

"As America's children go back to school, how would you advise the Texas board? How should religion be taught in public schools? "

If religion were to be taught in public schools (which I hope will never, ever happen)then it should be taught in historial terms only.

There are those of us who do not believe in "scriptures" and have our own mindset as to a higher power. I would vehemently oppose anyone to indoctrinate my children.

Texas is a backwards state as far as I am concerned. Yes, I know whereof I speak having lived there for 1 1/2 year and to be honest couldn't get out of there fast enough. We should give it back to Mexico!

Farnaz:

"I assume you are sincere in your comments about my daughter."

Of course I am sincere. I am deeply sorry that this happened to your innocent daughter. Still, I tell you that I saw my parents inflamed beyond reason over a similar assault against me during school integration decades ago. I saw their anger distort and damage them over the years. And I tell you that you sound much the same as they did. I sympathize with your feelings on this but it colors all of your interactions with decent folks who have never harmed you.

For example Arminius has never done anything to you, or yours. So why is it so important to you to vanquish him and so many others you fancy to be your foes? Perhaps someday you will be able to read your own blog entries and see how relentlessly hostile to people you often are. From what I have seen, they mostly react to your personal hostility, not to your religious and ethnic background as you suppose. Take some responsibility for your own part in this. You might want to consider reaching out to people here as individuals and see what they are really like.

TO SUSAN JACOBY and DAVID WATERS,

I have frequently reported CCNL1's accusations that I AND others are blogging using multiple monikers.

Several months ago, Susan Jacoby asked that this stop, asked repeatedly, and David Waters posted that the offending comments would be removed. As I have written to David Waters, I do not have the time to go through every thread, reporting CCNL1's accusations, nor does anyone else have this kind of time. (The problem is the hours in the day, the days in the week, etc.)

Therefore, instead of writing to you, David, I'm asking here if there is some way for you to have these postings removed as they occur. They are dishonest, irrelevant, offensive, and disruptive. If you do not have the resources to get rid of them as they appear, then kindly let us know to whom we may address our concern, and, in the interest of the welfare of this blog, Susan's thread, we will be happy to help.

Here is CCNL1's most recent:

And on and on and on and on, the deception of Farnaz and her "Muckenfussing et al" probability waves continues. Now they are in their blog hogging mode. Typical weekend for Farnaz and her waves!!! And she is a teacher so one wonders what deceptions she pulls with her students.

Some of Farnaz's infamous probability waves previously detected:
Observer12, Observer31, Yael1, ivri5678, Billy8, nadinebatra, stadtbear, Spark1, Shark2, Spidermean3, DOUG_WHITE, FTH123, hsnkhwj, Zebra4, Whistling and pgibson.

It is unfortunate that the moderators of the On Faith blog cannot determine the true identities of the submitted email addressees. Farnaz's waves are evident from their timing and content to include in some cases being "straw-men" for her rants.

Posted by: ccnl1 | September 6, 2009 10:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
And on and on, the deception of Farnaz and her "Muckenfussing et al" probability waves continues. Now they are in their blog hogging mode. Typical weekend for Farnaz and her waves!!! And she is a teacher so one wonders what deceptions she pulls with her students.

Some of Farnaz's infamous probability waves previously detected:
Observer12, Observer31, Yael1, ivri5678, Billy8, nadinebatra, stadtbear, Spark1, Shark2, Spidermean3, DOUG_WHITE, FTH123, hsnkhwj, Zebra4, Whistling and pgibson.
--------------------------------------------
Preceded by this:
It is unfortunate that the moderators of the On Faith blog cannot determine the true identities of the submitted email addressees. Farnaz's waves are evident from their timing and content to include in some cases being "straw-men" for her rants.

Posted by: ccnl1 | September 6, 2009 5:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 6, 2009 5:20 PM
--------------------------------------------Scroll down for more.

Moderate,

I assume you are sincere in your comments about my daughter. As I mentioned earlier, her teeth were knocked out by Catholic parochial school girls when she was seven years old because she is Jewish. There had been numerous problems with this school and Jewish children, and though they have lessened they continue.
--------------------
I did not post to you. As I mentioned, the Christianist rhetoric regarding the annexation of Texas is a matter of fact, easily confirmed with google. This is fact, not prejudice.

Rev. Josiah Strong wrote the text giving religious authorization to Westward Expansion. Scroll down to an earlier post of mine that includes the source. On the this final phase of Indian genocide which continued until mid 20th century, use google.

Emerson and Thoreau reacted as noted.

All of the foregoing is widely known and is not bigotry.

There is nothing here that is bigotry. It was certainly AmeriChristian imperialism that took Mexico, the southwest, and California. If you have access to a library web site, especially a university library web site, you will find endless articles that say EXACTLY this, some of them written in religious studies journals by Christians.

For literary analysis of AmeriChristian imperialist texts, you might begin with "American Literature," which is often accessible to nonspecialists.
----------------------------
I apologize, but the only bigotry I've seen here has been from you. What I posted was fact. Even before I got to it, this is what you wrote to me:

"You really should try /b/. As the queen of sphincters you could live happily ever after there.
Posted by: themoderate | September 4, 2009 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment"
----------------------------------
This is characteristic of your behavior to me, of late. You have accused me of all sorts of things, and I have suggested you blog on whatever you'd like. I can dig out the posts if you'd like.

Further, if you read my post, you know I mention your continually taking offense when I defend myself against bigots. You protest when I use the definite article in reference to Christians/Catholics, but have nothing to say to the bloggers to whom it is a response, those who use the phrase "the Jews."

CCNL1 has said the most disgraceful things, but you only enter the picture when I reply. That has been a pattern of yours.
--------------------------
Perhaps, rather than falsely accuse others of bigotry, you ought to understand that they have the right to self defense and will use it. Also, accept the fact that a great deal of research has been done on the ideological consequences of Christianity of which I am the least of victims.

That does not mean all Christians are bad. It means that some, those with the courage to write about what must be changed, to seek change, are good.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 6, 2009 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

And on and on and on and on, the deception of Farnaz and her "Muckenfussing et al" probability waves continues. Now they are in their blog hogging mode. Typical weekend for Farnaz and her waves!!! And she is a teacher so one wonders what deceptions she pulls with her students.

Some of Farnaz's infamous probability waves previously detected:
Observer12, Observer31, Yael1, ivri5678, Billy8, nadinebatra, stadtbear, Spark1, Shark2, Spidermean3, DOUG_WHITE, FTH123, hsnkhwj, Zebra4, Whistling and pgibson.

It is unfortunate that the moderators of the On Faith blog cannot determine the true identities of the submitted email addressees. Farnaz's waves are evident from their timing and content to include in some cases being "straw-men" for her rants.

Hi Muckenfuss,

I don't know if you read my posts on Ginsberg, read "Wild Orphan" or my remarks of Kornfield. Hope so. Would like to know your thoughts. Have just reread something by Aachan Chah (spelling?) about war.

I'm done with Arminius, as I think you might be correct in your assessment. He has yet to apologize for his false accusations or to reply to anything in my posts, which took time to write. I think your assessment of his current state is correct.

As for Moderate, he should be ashamed of himself, for egging Arminius on, his dishonesty, vitriol, which if he keeps it up I will PASTE again.
--------------------------------------------
I am done with them. Hopefully, David will deal with the CCNL1 problem or let me know to whom I may appeal.

Otherwise, I'll check back for any posts you may write.

F

Moderate,

I assume you are sincere in your comments about my daughter. As I mentioned earlier, her teeth were knocked out by Catholic parochial school girls when she was seven years old because she is Jewish. There had been numerous problems with this school and Jewish children, and though they have lessened they continue.
--------------------
I did not post to you. As I mentioned, the Christianist rhetoric regarding the annexation of Texas is a matter of fact, easily confirmed with google. This is fact, not prejudice.

Rev. Josiah Strong wrote the text giving religious authorization to Westward Expansion. Scroll down to an earlier post of mine that includes the source. On the this final phase of Indian genocide which continued until mid 20th century, use google.

Emerson and Thoreau reacted as noted.

All of the foregoing is widely known and is not bigotry.

There is nothing here that is bigotry. It was certainly AmeriChristian imperialism that took Mexico, the southwest, and California. If you have access to a library web site, especially a university library web site, you will find endless articles that say EXACTLY this, some of them written in religious studies journals by Christians.

For literary analysis of AmeriChristian imperialist texts, you might begin with "American Literature," which is often accessible to nonspecialists.
----------------------------
I apologize, but the only bigotry I've seen here has been from you. What I posted was fact. Even before I got to it, this is what you wrote to me:

"You really should try /b/. As the queen of sphincters you could live happily ever after there.
Posted by: themoderate | September 4, 2009 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment"
----------------------------------
This is characteristic of your behavior to me, of late. You have accused me of all sorts of things, and I have suggested you blog on whatever you'd like. I can dig out the posts if you'd like.

Further, if you read my post, you know I mention your continually taking offense when I defend myself against bigots. You protest when I use the definite article in reference to Christians/Catholics, but have nothing to say to the bloggers to whom it is a response, those who use the phrase "the Jews."

CCNL1 has said the most disgraceful things, but you only enter the picture when I reply. That has been a pattern of yours.
--------------------------
Perhaps, rather than falsely accuse others of bigotry, you ought to understand that they have the right to self defense and will use it. Also, accept the fact that a great deal of research has been done on the ideological consequences of Christianity of which I am the least of victims.

That does not mean all Christians are bad. It means that some, those with the courage to write about what must be changed, to seek change, are good.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 6, 2009 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Moderate,

Your posting is gibberish. I have no sycophants. I was falsely accused, and instead of replying to my post, you again prove your hypocrisy by blaming the victim. This is your wont. You've continually done this, and I have not accused Arminius of being antisemitic.

It is you who are lying as you have done throughout. I wonder if there are any Christians out there reading what you are writing. Trust me. They will not like it.

In a second, I will re-paste what I wrote to you earlier. You are doing what you have historically done, except this time, I'm quite clear on your game.

Arminius has an excuse. You are no friend of his, Moderate. You are clearly his enemy, trying to get him to do that which he in other states of mind would not. He has an excuse. YOU Have NONE.

Hi, Moderate!

I'm glad you are here to join the joyous donnybrook! I have been slamming Farnaz at every opportunity. She keeps trying to change the subject...

ARminius,

I'm not interested in music that bashes Christianity.
----------------------------------
Daniel12,

An excellent introduction to Judaism may be found in Paul Johnson's "A History of the Jews."

Btw., Johnson is a Protestant, has subsequently condemned the use of the article with "the Jews."

On the Talmud, with which he appears unfamiliar, you may find him confusing. The elements he notes are there, but he is unable to explain how they work together. Still, it's a useful introduction.

After you've read it, if you read it, that is, let me know, and I'll recommend other texts that get into specifics.

Farnaz,

"E.g., I posted the link, definitively, showing that as I had said, I never called Arminius an "alcoholic." In fact, another blogger did."

As everyone well knows, you gratuitously wrote:

"The only ranter is this alcoholic, who also posts as the Moderate.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 4, 2009 11:19"

So you did and still do say exactly that to people when you are angry.

Arminius took offense at being gratuitously called an alcoholic. Your conclusion? He is "anti Semitic". How does that work?

Posting a link to one of your sycophants' echo of your libelous, and deranged rantings is no cover. Mentioning it in the same sentence as your delusional notions that people who dislike being libeled are "anti Semetic" illustrates your psychological problems perfectly.

So are you a deliberate liar? Or maybe you don't remember writing this because you were drunk blogging when you wrote it?

From Daniel to Farnaz. Let me see if I understand you correctly. The Jews are not the Jews. The Jews never originated the concept with respect to themselves of being the Chosen People. The Jews had nothing to do with Christ's death (sure the Romans did it, but the story goes the Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah and they still do today). The Jews...Well, what are the Jews Farnaz? It seems, coming from you, there is no description of the Jews. Are the Jews invisible and unknowable or something? Every description of the Jews is rejected by you, from insults such as claiming the Jews are trying to run big business (there is a conspiracy afoot) to even basic things such as whether the Jews are THE JEWS although I have heard plenty of times from the Jews that they are a people, like THE FRENCH, THE ITALIANS, et al. What are the Jews Farnaz, give us a clear description so we stop offending you, for it seems everything people say--including Jews themselves--is inaccurate to you. Personally I believe you are trying to be elusive as certain insecure people are, who when someone touches on what they stand for, their likes, dislikes, etc. say no, that is not me, and then say something which is what they are and then say no again--and on and on, so the person trying to make sense out of the person has on one hand a collection of things the person is, and on the other no after no by the person. Please tell us who and what you are so we keep from offending you. Personally I believe you will give nothing, or if giving something will say tomorrow that it is offensive to say that. So we are left with wondering who Farnaz is and feeling guilty for offending Farnaz whenever we think who and what Farnaz is. Please enlighten us Farnaz. At the least so we stop insulting you.

Commissar, apparently you are deaf, dumb, blind.

I have supplied you with links to music that bashes Christianity to hell and back.

Please do not lie to me again.

"I have challenged you with my references to anti-Christian screeds!"
------------------------
You've posted no such references. Arminius, please, for your own sake, stop. You won't like what you've done here when you read it tomorrow. No big deal, though, really. JUst stop.

Farnaz wrote:

"Also, have you read Jack Kornfield?"

Sure...Kornfield is de rigeur. And you guess correctly...I've never been fond of Ginsberg. He came to UI/Chicago once and gave a reading of some of his stuff. I was kind of underwhelmed. His self-deprecation also rings a bit false, I think.

Ah, yes, the expected diversion, into Tibetan Buddhism. Not a bad subject, but a sad retreat by the opposition.

Hey, Commissar and Poodle, I have challenged you with my references to anti-Christian screeds! You continue to ignore me, and now, in shameful defeat, attempt to change the subject.

Do you admit defeat, or will you, as I expect, continue to prevaricate?

My God, but you are poor opponents! Where is your spine?

ARminius: "this person, Farnaz, yes, YES!, is now hinting that I might have clones!!!!"

Yes, it is hard for me to believe it is you who have indulged in all these false accusations, not apologized when proven wrong, went on and on with vicious name-calling, have been unable to respond to a single well-founded point with substance.

But as I noted, I was hoping against hope. It is certainly you. PLease don't reply. Rest now. Listen to some quiet music. Read beautiful verse or, perhaps, the Bible. It works for you, you've often said.

I can't go on with this Arminius. It isn't fair--to you.

Muckenfuss,

Also, have you read Jack Kornfield? He's both an expert on Tibetan Buddhism and a therapist. Persiflage has read some of his stuff. I especially find helpful "A Path with Heart."

Muckenfuss,

You write:

If you were less intoxicated you'd probably realize that the word is spelled 'hypocracy'. You really need to sober up.
---------------------------------
I think Arminius is in trouble, has been for quite awhile. I can't help in and neither can anyone else who blogs here unless he starts to help himself.

Enough with this nonesense.
-----------------------------------------
Do yu not like Ginsberg, then? Have you read Howl? It's a whole 'nother poetry, but it's magnificent. Ain't Yeats, was not intended to be.

Arminius wrote:

"Do you have anything of substance to write, or are you just content with shooting rubber bands?"

Since you have never written anything of substance, I would not think that would concern you. Why don't you provide us with an essay on what it is like to be a lonely old drunk.

Hi, there, Muckraker!

Yeah, I sure as hell screwed it up.
I noticed that, and expected a reply such as yours.

Do you have anything of substance to write, or are you just content with shooting rubber bands?

Arminius wrote:

"The hypricracy is really too funny!"

If you were less intoxicated you'd probably realize that the word is spelled 'hypocracy'. You really need to sober up.

Farnaz really did say,
"I don't want to get all CCNL1 here, but do you think someone else may actually have been posting as Arminius all along"

This is, to quote Star Trek, 'Fascinating'!
The person who just submitted an overly long, boring, post berating poor, sad, pathetic CCNL for accusing her of being multiple persons.... this person, Farnaz, yes, YES!, is now hinting that I might have clones!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The hypricracy is really too funny!

Lord help us all, my very identity is being questioned! Why am I not surprised?

I AM Arminius, the Celt, a Christian, but with my claymore to back me up. The proud descendant of horse thieves and cattle rustlers on the border of Holy Scotland and Evil England.

If you want to know about Clan Scott, google 'Bold Buccleuch', and learn about the Scott who defied Elizabeth I.

Damnit, Commissar, why ain't ya dead? I've fired so many arrows.... here is one more.

More ammo for yer Jihad! And not a single thank-you yet....

The Rumor

Jesus
What's the reason
For these scars that will never heal
Hearts that no longer feel
Eyes that can no longer see

Jesus
What's the reason
For this child that will not survive
With all her dreams inside
Could she mean nothing to thee

And Jesus please tell me if you can recall
Just where you were when this sparrow did fall

Jesus
What's the reason
Every tear isn't weighed the same
Could you have died in vain
If we have short memories

And Jesus would you then come down from your cross
Return every nail and say we are lost

And in the dark we seek your silent company
For each hope that arrives and fades from memory
Still after all this time our loss you won't concede
For in the dead of night the rumor is
Your hands they still bleed
Still bleed
Still bleed
Still bleed

Jesus
It would seem then
That somehow you still trust
You have more faith than us
Perhaps that is how it should be

Muckenfuss,

You write: "Arminius...if that is who you really are..."

I don't want to get all CCNL1 here, but do you think someone else may actually have been posting as Arminius all along here? I mean all the insane accusations and so on....? Anyone could have picked up on his habitual use of "Parthian."

I suppose I'm just being hopeful here....

Hello Muckenfuss,

Hope you're still there since I must stop checking in here and focus on work. Daughter and Dad return tomorrow morning.

Did you happen to read "Wild Orphan," which I posted below, in response to Arminius's grieving for the poems we used to paste and post here?

I love that poem. Do you like Ginsberg?

Arminius,

I think you are out of control. I'm sorry for you. I truly am.

If you need someone to falsely accuse, viciously attack, etc., perhaps you had best listen to some quiet music or call it a night. You are not doing yourself any good here.

Goodnight.

Arminius writes:

"Now this blog is in the hammerlock of some who insist that it is Their Way or the Highway."

Arminius...if that is who you really are...you need to go sleep it off. Your alcohol stupor has so overcome you that you are beginning to sound like that pathetic neo-Nazi.

Highly recommended: John Berryman's eight-page short story, "The Imaginary Jew," about the Catholic poet's encounter with antisemitism in New York City.

Berryman was and is a much admired poet and teacher. Many owe their careers to him. Unfortunately, the full text of the short story is not on the web although considerable criticism is. It is frequently anthologized, easily found at local libraries.

Hi, there, Commissar Farnaz! I'm back!!!

Another Parthian shot.

Here is more info for your anti-Christian Jihad:
Check out the flip side of Jethro Tull's Aqualung album. That side is totally devoted to an incredible slam of organized religion, specifically Anglican. Note that I am Episcopalian, a cousin of Anglican. Note also that I agree with every word and note on that side. Note also, and note very well, that this did not shake my faith.

Here is a link to the best cut on that side, and this time there is good video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdz_G1VGJ4c

Enjoy.....

Arminius,

Knock off the invective, okay? I know both songs. Am not entirely illiterate when it comes to pop music.

Have posted a poem by Ginsberg that I love. Hope you like it.

A poem, I love.
----------------
Wild Orphan

Blandly mother
takes him strolling
by railroad and by river
--he's the son of the absconded
hot rod angel--
and he imagines cars
and rides them in his dreams,

so lonely growing up among
the imaginary automobiles
and dead souls of Tarrytown

to create
out of his own imagination
the beauty of his wild
forebears--a mythology
he cannot inherit.

Will he later hallucinate
his gods? Waking
among mysteries with
an insane gleam
of recollection?

The recognition--
something so rare
in his soul,
met only in dreams
--nostalgias
of another life.

A question of the soul.
And the injured
losing their injury
in their innocence
--a cock, a cross,
an excellence of love.

And the father grieves
in flophouse
complexities of memory
a thousand miles
away, unknowing
of the unexpected
youthful stranger
bumming toward his door.

Allen Ginsberg
New York, April 13, 1952

America, I'm putting my queer shoulder to the grindstone.

--Allen Ginsberg

Again to Commissar Farnaz:

Parthian shot #2:

Here is the link to the music. I don't expect you to enjoy it. Frankly, I don't think you are capable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfemABbfSpA

And if you can handle that, here is one I know you will love, by Blind Guardian, another metal band - Another Holy War. Big putdown of Christianity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apex8QvB8mw

ARminius,

Name-calling and blaming the victim do not speak well for anyone. You have ignored most of what I've written, have yet to engage in either sincere dialogue or honest debate.

I will not flame with you, will not deal with abuse.

Here again is my last post. Should you wish to engage in a sincere discussion, kindly do so.

Also, you repeatedly accused me of having called you an alcoholic, repeatedly called me a "liar," among other things, when I proclaimed my innocence. I posted the link showing that it was not I, but another blogger who made the accusation. You have yet to acknowledge this.
____________________________________________

Arminius writes:

Now this blog is in the hammerlock of some who insist that it is Their Way or the Highway.
-----------------------------------------
Forgive me, but I cannot allow this misrepresentation of what I posted to you to go without comment.

I repeatedly wrote that you are free to believe whatever you'd like. Scroll down.
Kindly allow me to do scholarly work, which I will do so in any case, to cite sources, to post references and bibliographies on this blog.

You cannot have a hammerlock on the discourse here. Just as you are free to post on your views, so am I, so is everyone else.

Those of us who respect the findings of contemporary methodology, of methods that have held up since the nineteenth century must be permitted to do so. This is not a dictatorial theocracy. Those of us who refer to contemporary work on American history, American historical texts, must be permitted to do so.

If you care to debate any of the numerous sources I and others have cited (including the Tanakh), I'd be happy to. If you wish to bring forth a scholarly source of your own, please do.

There is nothing objectionable in honest debate, Arminius. Facts are not bigotry. Someone is reported to have said, "The truth will set you free."

In the US, people are permitted, in fact, encouraged to defend themselves and to object to bigotry. Whether they take exception to being referred to as "the Jews," to being told that "the Jews killed Christ," that they control the economy, Congress, etc., or to the notion that gayness is sin or to sexism, they have the right to object.
------------------------
On poetry. I have continued to post the work of celebrated poets occasionally, and, then we have our own greats, right here on this thread! I, too, miss the verse and was tempted to post a limerick for you when I saw your posting on another thread. I miss all that, very much. :-{
-----------------------
In this country, we are permitted to defend ourselves against false accusations. Those who have been proven to be mistaken frequently apologize--in the interest of truth and good will.

YOU accused me repeatedly of saying you were an "alcoholic," and repeatedly called me a "liar" when I claimed innocence. I have posted the link showing that it was another blogger, not I, who said this.

To Commissar Farnaz:

I was listening to this song, by Savatage, a metal band, and I instantly thought of you.

I wish you good luck on your jihad against us Christians. Be very aware that we will fight back.

Here's my Parthian shot:

COMMISSAR
Do you see commissar
The night is darker
Do you think commissar
Their dreams are starker
Do you hear commissar
The night is breathing
Could it be commissar
We should be leaving
Now before the curtain
Does comes crashing down

Do you hear commissar
The night is silent
Do you think commissar
It is defiance
Do you see commissar
The mob has faces
Could it be commissar
The dark embraces
All as darkness will
And in that dark we'll drown

Cities, towns
We've torn them down
And all we've found
Are relics in a cemetery

But never fear
I will stay near
And to the dark
I will be your emissary

Knights on horseback
Bishops pacing
All are losing ground

The pawn is now a queen
He's moved across the board unseen
The move is down

I believe
That we've intrigued for far too long
But now i think the plot has ended

A quick retreat
Into the street
Admit defeat
And hope our moves will be defended

Across their throats
The blade does wander
They die without a sound

Who'd have thought we'd meet
As bones beneath the dragons feet
The wall is down

Arminius writes:

Now this blog is in the hammerlock of some who insist that it is Their Way or the Highway.
-----------------------------------------
Forgive me, but I cannot allow this misrepresentation of what I posted to you to go without comment.

I repeatedly wrote that you are free to believe whatever you'd like. Scroll down.
Kindly allow me to do scholarly work, which I will do so in any case, to cite sources, to post references and bibliographies on this blog.

You cannot have a hammerlock on the discourse here. Just as you are free to post on your views, so am I, so is everyone else.

Those of us who respect the findings of contemporary methodology, of methods that have held up since the nineteenth century must be permitted to do so. This is not a dictatorial theocracy. Those of us who refer to contemporary work on American history, American historical texts, must be permitted to do so.

If you care to debate any of the numerous sources I and others have cited (including the Tanakh), I'd be happy to. If you wish to bring forth a scholarly source of your own, please do.

There is nothing objectionable in honest debate, Arminius. Facts are not bigotry. Someone is reported to have said, "The truth will set you free."

In the US, people are permitted, in fact, encouraged to defend themselves and to object to bigotry. Whether they take exception to being referred to as "the Jews," to being told that "the Jews killed Christ," that they control the economy, Congress, etc., or to the notion that gayness is sin or to sexism, they have the right to object.
------------------------
On poetry. I have continued to post the work of celebrated poets occasionally, and, then we have our own greats, right here on this thread! I, too, miss the verse and was tempted to post a limerick for you when I saw your posting on another thread. I miss all that, very much. :-{
-----------------------
In this country, we are permitted to defend ourselves against false accusations. Those who have been proven to be mistaken frequently apologize--in the interest of truth and good will.

YOU accused me repeatedly of saying you were an "alcoholic," and repeatedly called me a "liar" when I claimed innocence. I have posted the link showing that it was another blogger, not I, who said this.

Good-by, Susan Jacoby.

I have enjoyed your posts here.
At one time I enjoyed the debates, when I could talk to wonderful Pagans, intelligent atheists, and compassionate Christians. That, over a year ago, was truly a Golden Age. We argued, debated, and ended up with mutual respect for each other. I made lasting friends there.

No longer. Now this blog is in the hammerlock of some who insist that it is Their Way or the Highway. No real discussion, no debate, just despite. And incredible spamming with countless off-topic discussions.

I joyfully remember a thread we had here, where we all posted poetry. ORIGINAL poetry, composed on the spot.

What we have seen here, sometimes, is lengthy posting of pasted stuff, whether poetry or whatever. Not much original thought.

I should never have come back here. It is a graveyard of creativity and of compassion and of companionship.

Moderate, I wish you well, but if I were you, I would stop beating your head against a brick wall.

Correction to previous post: Should have written, "the only disruption of Passover allowable for 3,000 years...."

Arminius writes:

Farnaz,

I will say this as gently as I can.
I have never blamed the Jewish people for anything. They are not responsible for the crucifixion, even though their leaders pushed it for political reasons.
-----------------------------
You are, of course, free to believe what you'd like. Contemporary theologians do not share your view. See Wikipedia, for a start.

Gnosticism, as I mean it in this context, is attaching more importance to the story than to the message. As Thomas Baum, whom you cite, states frequently, he refers to God, not to the manmade Gospels.

Forgive me, but thanks for not blaming all of us, "even though our leaders...."

Wikipedia. The leaders of the Jewish people were the Pharisees, who lived contemporaneously with Jesus, and who were working on codifying the Tanakh. THEY were the leaders. The ancient Jews looked to theologians for leadership. We still do.

There was no meeting of the Sanhedrin on Passover, then, or at any other time. Wikipedia, start there. The only disruption of Passover allowable for 2500 years involves the saving of a human life.

No blood or bread was ever consumed symbolically. JEWS MAY NOT INGEST BLOOD, ANY KIND, NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO. Kosher meat contains NO BLOOD. Use google. See Wikipedia. Crossan is only one who discusses this fiction. I"ve posted on this again and again.

As noted by many bloggers this was a theme of the mystery religions incorporated into Christianity.

You may believe what you'd like, Arminius, but to cite Christian/Catholic sources, as I've repeatedly done, is not to be a bigot. It is to be informed. It is curious to me that you will dismiss the "OT" as fiction, while insisting on the "NT" as the literal truth. Gnosticism, and dangerous, Arminius, as others have said to you--perhaps, you don't recall-- but you are free to believe what you'd like.

I am free to do scholarly work, and to cite it as I have often done. If you want my bibs on any of the foregoing, use google, and you'll find them on this web site.
-----------------------

YOU accused me repeatedly of saying you were an "alcoholic," and said I was a "liar" when I claimed innocence. I have posted the link showing that it was another blogger, not I, who said this.

TO SUSAN JACOBY and DAVID WATERS,

I have frequently reported CCNL1's accusations that I AND others are blogging using multiple monikers.

Several months ago, Susan Jacoby asked that this stop, asked repeatedly, and David Waters posted that the offending comments would be removed. As I have written to David Waters, I do not have the time to go through every thread, reporting CCNL1's accusations, nor does anyone else have this kind of time. (The problem is the hours in the day, the days in the week, etc.)

Therefore, instead of writing to you, David, I'm asking here if there is some way for you to have these postings removed as they occur. They are dishonest, irrelevant, offensive, and disruptive. If you do not have the resources to get rid of them as they appear, then kindly let us know to whom we may address our concern, and, in the interest of the welfare of this blog, Susan's thread, we will be happy to help.

Here is CCNL1's most recent:

And on and on, the deception of Farnaz and her "Muckenfussing et al" probability waves continues. Now they are in their blog hogging mode. Typical weekend for Farnaz and her waves!!! And she is a teacher so one wonders what deceptions she pulls with her students.

Some of Farnaz's infamous probability waves previously detected:
Observer12, Observer31, Yael1, ivri5678, Billy8, nadinebatra, stadtbear, Spark1, Shark2, Spidermean3, DOUG_WHITE, FTH123, hsnkhwj, Zebra4, Whistling and pgibson.

It is unfortunate that the moderators of the On Faith blog cannot determine the true identities of the submitted email addressees. Farnaz's waves are evident from their timing and content to include in some cases being "straw-men" for her rants.

Posted by: ccnl1 | September 6, 2009 5:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz,

I will say this as gently as I can.
I have never blamed the Jewish people for anything. They are not responsible for the crucifixion, even though their leaders pushed it for political reasons. Jesus was tried by Pilate, not by the Sanhedrin, and the Romans put Him to death. The Jewish people are blameless.

I accept any religion with open arms that is decent and good, for there are many ways up that Mountain.

I do not accept someone who insists that I censor my beliefs to fit their bias. I would never ask that of you.

Gnostics? Utter madmen. The Gospel of Judas is an exercise in madness. As is Revelation, even though it is not Gnostic.

Farnaz, the way of the Gospels is not easy. Faith is not a destination, it is a lifelong journey. It is, in fact, a Jihad, in one of the core meanings of that Arabic word, to wit, an inner struggle. I once told that to Jihadist (I wish she would return!), and she was impressed.

Thomas Baum is right about one thing: God IS Love. I know this.

And on and on, the deception of Farnaz and her "Muckenfussing et al" probability waves continues. Now they are in their blog hogging mode. Typical weekend for Farnaz and her waves!!! And she is a teacher so one wonders what deceptions she pulls with her students.

Some of Farnaz's infamous probability waves previously detected:
Observer12, Observer31, Yael1, ivri5678, Billy8, nadinebatra, stadtbear, Spark1, Shark2, Spidermean3, DOUG_WHITE, FTH123, hsnkhwj, Zebra4, Whistling and pgibson.

It is unfortunate that the moderators of the On Faith blog cannot determine the true identities of the submitted email addressees. Farnaz's waves are evident from their timing and content to include in some cases being "straw-men" for her rants.

Muckenfuss writes:

"Have you read his bildungsroman, "Another Country"? "

No, I have not read "Another Country". But your mentioning "Go Tell It..." reminds me that I did read that as an undergraduate. I wonder how much else I've forgotten from those years!
-------------------------
How well I know the feeling! Even worse, I seem to recall texts I read long ago better than those I've read recently.

:-{

Daniel12,

Re: "The Jews"

Interestingly, you're not alone. I explain the problem to Muckenfuss. If after you've read his post, you have questions, let me know, please, and I'll try to answer.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 6, 2009 2:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Arminius writes:

You are calling for the total revision and destruction of the Gospels, in accordance with your bias.

What if I call for the revision of what we now call the Hebrew Scriptures, formerly known as the OT? How do you feel about that? What would be left of it?

What you ask is the utter castration of my religion. I should have known better than to have any hope.
------------------------------
I am not calling for any reform of the Christian Testament. Langmuir, Ruether, Henderson, Amdersen, along with thousands of other Christians, Catholics are. Ditto twelve Orthodox Christian priests. Beware of gnosticism, Arminius.

I would suggest you read your co-religionists. Contemporary Christian/Catholic theologians have tossed the Trial as fiction. (See Wikipedia, for a start.) Referring to Jews as "the Jews," condenming us all through eternity for crimes none ever committed is universally deplored by current academic theologians.

If you object to their reform efforts, then it is to them you must go. Ruether is dead, the others alive. Wikipedia, if you can demonstrate that the Trial which they claim never happened, did, in fact, occur, will print your response.
-----------------------------
As for the Tanakh, there you go again. It was never known as the "OT," except to Christians. That is a very important qualification. Further, as noted, the Tanakh is not read literally.

As noted since I've posted here, it never has been. It internally criticizes itself, it is followed, after it was finished by numerous criticisms.

The great twelfth century theologian, Maimonides, in fact, thought a considerable amount that we now know was factual, e.g., the historicity of David, was fiction. FICTION. This he wrote. See "A Guide for the Perplexed."

Continues below

continued
David Wolpe, among others, does not accept the historicity of Moses, but his numerous essays on Moses' great judicial legacy are available on the Web, many of them, at least.

The Tanakh does not have to be reformed because, unlike the NT, it has never been taken literally. DO you Understand? Do you get it?

There is a formula for reading, Pardes, which would take me far too long to explain. Use google. As well, various parts are studied in conjunction with one anther and with the Talmud. One is always given a partner, perhaps several, and the significance of the passages are debated endlessly.

If one reads the Tanakh in Christian translation, one is already in trouble, since it is translated from the Greek. The Hebrew commentaries are not included. Would you know, therefore, that the sending away of Hagar, is hotly debated up to the present? That Hagar is honored in Judaism? That it is a very common Jewish name? My neice is named Hagar.

We accept that much probably did not happen. Some take Maimonides' view of the reasons for the stories; some take other views.

Now take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It takes the NT literally, says unbearable things about "the Jews," which the Vatican, on its web site, and elsewhere, takes pains to mitigate.

Many Catholics have criticized the most recent Catechism, as not going far enough in reform. They acknowledge that the trial never occurred. They know that Jesus, if he existed, did not, could not have said much that was attributed to him. I've posted sources again and again which you ignore.

If you object, it is to them, not I, that you must go. However, you would do well to bring your own exegesis with you.

This is fact, Arminius. You need to understand that. Don't blame Jews for it. Don't blame Jews for being told that they killed Jesus Christ, for having to hear that their central text is the OT, junk, for being told they control the economy, for being called "the Jews."

Don't blame Jews for the Jewish children who are still harrassed by the students at St. Mark's Church, etc.

It is YOU, not I, who should object to this, as so many other Christians/Catholics do.

YOU accused me repeatedly of saying you were an "alcoholic," and said I was a "liar" when I claimed innocence. I have posted the link showing that it was another blogger, not I, who said this.

Farnaz wrote:

"Have you read his bildungsroman, "Another Country"? "

No, I have not read "Another Country". But your mentioning "Go Tell It..." reminds me that I did read that as an undergraduate. I wonder how much else I've forgotten from those years!

To Farnaz from Daniel. I have difficulty understanding why you would get upset if people refer to the Jews as THE JEWS. You said people do not say THE CHRISTIANS, so why should people say THE JEWS. Correct me if I am wrong but a group such as the Christians or Islamic are not correlated strongly with a particular genetic identity. Anyone can convert to these latter two religions easily, there is no core group based on genetic identity by which we can say the "real Christians" or "real Islamic". These latter two religions are strongly inclusive. Not so with Judaism. People can convert to Judaism (I suppose, how true is this?) but they will not be real Jews because real Jews are called such because they have a similar genetic identity and trace themselves to the Jews of the past. This is why there are so few adherents to Judaism. If Judaism was not strongly correlated with genetic identity there would be more adherents. So the Jews are the Jews. They are a people. The Islamic or Christian are not "a people". This is why I call the Jews the Jews.

Farnaz,

You are calling for the total revision and destruction of the Gospels, in accordance with your bias.

What if I call for the revision of what we now call the Hebrew Scriptures, formerly known as the OT? How do you feel about that? What would be left of it?

What you ask is the utter castration of my religion. I should have known better than to have any hope.

Arminius,

Arminius,

I don't understand. I have always said this. As I noted below, there are many Christians, Langmuir is only one, many Catholics, including priests, twelve Orthodox Christians, most recently, who have called for the purging of what THEY CALL antisemitism in the NT. They have also called for the NT to be named the Christian Testament, which is now current in secular literature, and the "OT" the Tanakh,

Numerous Christians, generically speaking, and I've posted endless bibliographies, have called for the elimination of the Trial, which could never have happened, THEY affirm, and which has been a source of racism, torture, mass murder, etc.

Ditto, the phrase, "The Jews." Ongoing battles within the Vatican deal with supersessionist ideology, and there is material about it on the Vatican web site.

The phrase "The Jews" is condemned by those involved in this effort.

There is nothing new in what I posted to the Moderate, Arminius. And there are also those Christians on this very blog, OnFaith, who have supported me when I've fought back.

Bless them.

It is important to distinguish fact from bigotry. Everything I posted on the annexation of Texas is fact, as noted, as is that on Westward expansion. FACT. Not bigotry.

Antisemitism is part and parcel of the West. You can read Langmuir on this. He is a good beginning, but takes a taxonomic approach. (See my references on my post to the Moderate.) There are many other Christians, thousands, who have written on Christian (including Caholic, of course) antisemitism, its spread to the Middle East, its ideology, etc. If you are honestly interested, I'll post a bib again.

Everyone is entitled to defend herself. EVERYONE.

As I imply to the Moderate, when you read antisemitic postings, when you see references to "the Jews," "the Jews" who control the economy, the "mythical OT," the genocidal OT," it is you, as a Christian, not I, who should object.

It is you who should point out as so many Christians have that the OT is properly called the "Tanakh," that it is not to be read literally, that there are specific techniques for interpreting it, etc.

Continues below

Continued

Note, too, many Christians, have seen the NT God as intolerable, as holding humanity hostage for an offense commited by two people, as a sacrificail, wrathful deity who demands the death by torture of a human being. This, along with typology, has been taken to task in many disciplines. It is called upon in reading Casas' description of the crucifixion of AmerIndians in the name of Jesus Christ. If interested, go to any university library web site. There are numerous journals in which you will find attention to all of the foregoing. I will help you if you are interested and have difficulty.

I believe someone once said, "The truth will set you free." Calling facts bigotry is not the turth.

The rehabilitation of this deity is also a theme of Christian reformers.

To criticize ideology is not to be a bigot, Arminius. When you throw out the Tanakh as crazy junk, which you have done (will provide posts if necessary), and I or someone else responds with references to the Christian Testament, that is self-defense, and entirely acceptable.

I, too, am suspicious, Arminius. There is nothing in my post to Muckenfuss that I haven't said before. Why has it been so difficult for you to understand me?

And why did you accuse me of calling you an alcoholic when I did not? I provided the link.

I would like to trust you, Arminius, but hesitate.

Muckenfuss,

Re: Baldwin

The love of one human for another is free grace, saving grace--the only grace. Grace withheld damns both victim and withholder. Reading "Go Tell It on the Mountain" helps with this.

My article on the foregoing is safely in the mail, thank Whatever, but it has left me very sad. Here was a loving man, an imperfect man, who struggled, heroically, against homophobia, racism, and Christianism, yes, no bigotry here--that was what it was.

Would that all those Christians who have so hardened their hearts against gays could have known this man. He was about love. Love does not entail homophobia, threats of damnation, etc.

A great soul, he was.

Farnaz, you actually said,
"That does not mean all Christians are bad. It means that some, those with the courage to write about what must be changed, to seek change, are good."

Do you really mean that? This is the first hint that you might, just might, have some compassion hidden deep inside. Please elaborate, because, oddly enough, I am very suspicious of this. But by damn I'll gladly give you the chance.

Muckenfuss,

Correction to previous post. Meant to write: "his bildungsroman, "Go Tell It on the Mountain"?

Muckenfuss writes:

I read Giovanni's Room a couple of hundred years ago...as I recall it depressed me very much.
--------------
Yes, it is almost unbearable. Ditto, Another Country. Have you read his bildungsroman, "Another Country"? Semi-autobiographical with the Church a principle theme.

Baldwin suffered enormously, endlessly, but his central message was love, the love of one human for another, as grace, free grace--antinomianism.

Farnaz wrote:

"Btw., I had asked if you'd read much Baldwin. Remarkable writer, really."

I read Giovanni's Room a couple of hundred years ago...as I recall it depressed me very much.

Moderate,

I assume you are sincere in your comments about my daughter. As I mentioned earlier, her teeth were knocked out by Catholic parochial school girls when she was seven years old because she is Jewish. There had been numerous problems with this school and Jewish children, and though they have lessened they continue.
--------------------
I did not post to you. As I mentioned, the Christianist rhetoric regarding the annexation of Texas is a matter of fact, easily confirmed with google. This is fact, not prejudice.

Rev. Josiah Strong wrote the text giving religious authorization to Westward Expansion. Scroll down to an earlier post of mine that includes the source. On the this final phase of Indian genocide which continued until mid 20th century, use google.

Emerson and Thoreau reacted as noted.

All of the foregoing is widely known and is not bigotry.

There is nothing here that is bigotry. It was certainly AmeriChristian imperialism that took Mexico, the southwest, and California. If you have access to a library web site, especially a university library web site, you will find endless articles that say EXACTLY this, some of them written in religious studies journals by Christians.

For literary analysis of AmeriChristian imperialist texts, you might begin with "American Literature," which is often accessible to nonspecialists.
----------------------------
I apologize, but the only bigotry I've seen here has been from you. What I posted was fact. Even before I got to it, this is what you wrote to me:

"You really should try /b/. As the queen of sphincters you could live happily ever after there.
Posted by: themoderate | September 4, 2009 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment"
----------------------------------
This is characteristic of your behavior to me, of late. You have accused me of all sorts of things, and I have suggested you blog on whatever you'd like. I can dig out the posts if you'd like.

Further, if you read my post, you know I mention your continually taking offense when I defend myself against bigots. You protest when I use the definite article in reference to Christians/Catholics, but have nothing to say to the bloggers to whom it is a response, those who use the phrase "the Jews."

CCNL1 has said the most disgraceful things, but you only enter the picture when I reply. That has been a pattern of yours.
--------------------------
Perhaps, rather than falsely accuse others of bigotry, you ought to understand that they have the right to self defense and will use it. Also, accept the fact that a great deal of research has been done on the ideological consequences of Christianity of which I am the least of victims.

That does not mean all Christians are bad. It means that some, those with the courage to write about what must be changed, to seek change, are good.

Given that David Waters posted many months ago on the main thread that all accusations of "impersonation" would be removed, that CCNL1 continues to do this on every thread, that David cannot seem to have the offending posts removed as they come up, I think I will write him and ask if there is someone else we can appeal to.

This destructive practice should be stopped, the posts removed, as David said they would be.

Farnaz,

"... my then seven-year-old daughter, who scarcely knew what the word "Jew" meant, had her front teeth knocked out by Catholic parochial school girls who ganged up on her."

First, I remain deeply sorry to hear of your daughter having been mistreated. No one on this blog was involved, yet your pervasive and fulminating anger permeates every interaction you have with the innocent people here.

When I was a boy I was beaten and robbed by a group of black teenagers. My parents hated mostly all blacks forever after. Like you, they were rightly outraged that their precious child should have been abused. But like you they blamed people who had nothing whatsoever to do with it. And like them, you will probably carry your hatred to your grave.

I will say to you what I said to them; and probably to as little effect. You will never see others clearly through the lens of pain and prejudice that you cannot put down. As a bigot, as the they became and you have become, you will always mistreat the wrong people. When you let it go, you may begin to find freedom, but not until then.

Meanwhile, you must begin to understand that your gratuitously toxic personal behavior will cause people to react poorly to you, and stop blaming them. If you have the guts to face that it could be your first step on the path of understanding.

Muckenfuss,

Along the lines of my post on "the Jews," note too, that blaming the victim is part and parcel of this, as has often been witnessed here. E.g., I posted the link, definitively, showing that as I had said, I never called Arminius an "alcoholic." In fact, another blogger did.

Rather than apologize, the Moderate blames me for demonstrating my innosense. This is why so many Jews maintain that when it comes to antisemitism, no rational discourse suffices. Still, I first call attention, then criticize, then respond in kind.

The more intelligent bloggers recognize the strategy, and rethink their use of language and prejudices. Sadly, not all will ever be up to the task.

F

Muckenfuss,

Sorry, again, for the two-part posting. Couldn't do it in one. As for Zen and the Tao, yes, I'm interested, have been persuing it as best I can, given all my other commitments. Herein lies the problem, not a koan, but still. That which is most important for us we cannot attend to as we would.

Still, I may be able to get the book today, and, if so, I will.

Btw., I had asked if you'd read much Baldwin. Remarkable writer, really.

Muckenfuss,

When I wrote my earlier post to you, I had not yet seen your posting to me, I assume, so here is my reply. Hope you will comment on Zen and the Tao, as I request in my earlier missive.
-------------------------
Muckenfuss writes:

Farnaz wrote:
"I would try not to refer to Jews as "the Jews," "
Hmmm. This stumps me. What is offensive about "the Jews", as opposed to "the catholics" or "the gays" or "the martians". I am mystified here. Is it the article that is offensive? What does it imply?
-----------------------------------
You are referring to my reply to Daniel12. As Arminius implies in his denial, the phrase, which originates in the NT, is racist, literally.

It reifies Jews, designating them enemies of Christ, and has been used throughout the past two thousand years to persecute and slander. The phrase suggests that All Jews share common guilt, somehow know one another, and has been employed to accuse us of all sorts of things, such as "sticking together," "controlling the economy, " "the Congress," and more, all of it, at different time, manifest on this thread. Christians and Catholics are Christians and Catholics, while Jews are "THE JEWS."

Until quite recently, no one referred to Christians/Catholics with the definite article. As a courtesy, Christians, generically, speaking never refer to Muslims as "the Muslims," Hindus as "the Hindus," etc.

Times, however, have changed, and now, since Jews have been unable to change this element of offensive discourse directed at them, they use the definite article when referring the Christians/Catholics, and, generally, all other religions. This is in the interest of terminological consistency. Ultimately, the effect, in many discourses, seems to be a recognition that no religion is that of the universals, e.g., Christians/Catholics to which the other is the particular. Christians/Catholics are NOT the "humans," Jews the Others. Obviously, this has been a salutary develpment.

A related sort of binary thinking still characterizes concepts of men and women. Men are the Universal, women the particular. An inferior type of man.

Of course, change does not come easily. Just as some resisted abandoning the offensive word "Negro," still resist surrendering the notion that blacks are an inferior type of whites, so they resist constructive changes in language referring to Jews, regardless of our complections.

One has seen on this thread that bloggers like the Moderate, take offense, pointing out the numbers of Chrisitans/Catholics, denying that they have common interests, etc., i.e., all that use of the definite article employs. When the reasons for its use have been pointed out to him, he ignores them, and continues to shriek like a banshee, that it is bigotry to refer to the Christians/Catholics thus, but not to "the Jews."

Hi Muckenfuss,

Thanks very much for your reply. In fact, I might be able to get the book today, if not, certainly during the week.

When I posted to you earlier, I had not seen your posting to me. Here is my reply. Unfortunately, WaPo will only let me post it in parts. Sorry.

Continued

Most Jewish children in this country first hear the phrase as I did and as my daughter did: "The Jews killed Christ." I took this accusation to my mother, just as my daughter took it to me, asking, "But which Jews? WHICH Jews?" In other words, I assumed there was a specific referent. There wasn't, of course.

When immigrants of other faiths come here, they start using the definite article in the same way, and in the same unfortunate ways. But that too is changing as the definite article is now being more broadly applied, applied to believers of all religions.

Sociolinguistically, this is, of course, both interesting and promising, suggesting that change, progress in combating bigotry is possible.

I've posted extensive bibliographies on the various guises of antisemitism and the harm it does. On "the Jews," one who wrote extensively was the nonJew, Gavin Langmuir. A couple of times, his name came up in chats with another essayist here:

Gavin Langumuir. History, Religion, and Antisemitism.

--------------. Toward a Definition of antisemtitism.

Interestingly, those Christians/Catholics and Orthodox Christian priests who have called for the reforming of the NT to purge it of antisemitism have asked for the removal of the article in translations into languages in which it occurs.

Farnaz:

I'm assuming you mean The Tao and both main schools of Zen (or Chan) Buddhism in their unadulterated forms.

Taoism or the Tao boiled down to it's essential quality is basically the stream of life. What is, is...no muss, no clutter, no complicated "philosophy". This is a loose description, because The Tao cannot be described. If the Tao is described, it is not the Tao. A caution to be noted: Taoism as practiced in a "folk religion" manner is full of beliefs, practices, some dogma and some forms spiritism. This, of course, is NOT The Tao.

Zen or Chan Buddhism is often described as a merger of The Tao with the moral guidelines of the Lord Buddha's 8-Fold Path (I'll let you Google for a definition--the Eightfold Path is the moral foundation of all of the Buddhadharma.) Zen or Chan is similar to The Tao in many ways, including the lack of definition. Ie. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. In addition, Zen relies upon Zazen or Shikantaza simply sitting (as a form of meditation).

There are other subtle differences, but I don't have the scholarship nor the time, now to get into them. If you're sincerely interested, there are numerous excellent books written by extremely knowledgeable, intelligent authors on those topics.

One very excellent book, which you can find in most libraries, is The Tao of Zen.

Farnaz wrote:

"Moreover, this was also a problem first raised by Susan Jacoby. Ignoring him does no good because he simply keeps at it, not only on this thread but on others.

Any suggestions?"

Actually, I think we should keep CCNL (Cerebral Cortex Not Located) around for his comic value, sort of as the court fool. That lunacy about self-inflicted STDs was so hilarious, I still laugh about it.

TheModerate (in his customary drunken stupor) wrote:

""Arminius, you ARE a gay alcoholic. Just like TheModerate."

You have disgraced yourself as a bigot, and a liar. You add nothing here beyond content free name calling and hatred; just like your friends. Go back with the other frak 'tards in /b/ "The Sewer of the Internet". "

Goodness. It would seem that sphincter-think is contagious.

Hi Muckenfuss,

So...will you explain the connection between Zen and the Tao? Have I got that right?

All of CCNL1's false accusations, you will recall, David Waters said he would remove. One simply doesn't have the time to keep reporting them one by one as they come up and wait for David to act.

Moreover, this was also a problem first raised by Susan Jacoby. Ignoring him does no good because he simply keeps at it, not only on this thread but on others.

Any suggestions?
----------------------------------
But, really, I'm more interested in the conndection between Zen and the Tao.

Am working now on some lessons for my classes. Teachning can be fun, you know. You need to keep in mind the cultural context in which many students dwell, the numerous hours of employment they must commit to, etc., and go from there. We cannot arrange effective adtaptations to these things significantly. I know. At my own college, I've tried, but with only small success.

Still, good things can happen in classrooms between teachers and students.

Farnaz :)

PS. I tried for a smiley here, but I'm not sure it will appear when I post.

And on and on, the deception of Farnaz and her "Muckenfussing et al" probability waves continues. Typical weekend for Farnaz!!! And she is a teacher so one wonders what deceptions she pulls with her students.

Some of Farnaz's infamous probability waves previously detected:

Observer12, Observer31, Yael1, ivri5678, Billy8, nadinebatra, stadtbear, Spark1, Shark2, Spidermean3, DOUG_WHITE, FTH123, hsnkhwj, Zebra4, Whistling and pgibson.

Farnaz:

"Arminius,

On this thread, a blogger did suggest that you were an alcoholic. THAT BLOGGER WAS NOT ME. Neither did I ever say you were gay."

1. Repeating a libel does not make it true. It just makes you guilty too.

2. You yourself are a frequently besotted bigot. Many on this blog have been moved to call you on your flagrant drunk blogging, and suggest you go to sleep it off.

3. Go back to /b/ where you belong with Howler Mucky. They will love you there in the Sewer of the Internet.

Howler Mucky:

"Arminius, you ARE a gay alcoholic. Just like TheModerate."

You have disgraced yourself as a bigot, and a liar. You add nothing here beyond content free name calling and hatred; just like your friends. Go back with the other frak 'tards in /b/ "The Sewer of the Internet".

CCNL (Cerebral Cortex Not Located) writes:

"And the deception of Farnaz and her "Muckenfussing et al" probability waves continues. Typical weekend for Farnaz!!! And she is a teacher so one wonders what deceptions she pulls with her students."

I guess if he couldn't think with his sphincter, he couldn't think at all. Such a frightened, sour little soul. HAHAHHAHAHAH

Farnaz wrote:

"I would try not to refer to Jews as "the Jews," "

Hmmm. This stumps me. What is offensive about "the Jews", as opposed to "the catholics" or "the gays" or "the martians". I am mystified here. Is it the article that is offensive? What does it imply?

And the deception of Farnaz and her "Muckenfussing et al" probability waves continues. Typical weekend for Farnaz!!! And she is a teacher so one wonders what deceptions she pulls with her students.

Arminius wrote:

"You did accuse me of being gay, and an alcoholic. "

Arminius, you ARE a gay alcoholic. Just like TheModerate.

Muckenfuss,

I'm pretty much done here, mainly because I've got too much work to do. While it's a healthy distraction on days like today when I blissfully have the apartment to myself (daughter and Dad are visiting relatives) and am hot and heavy at penning a paper, when it gets nonsensical, it just becomes tedious.

At any rate, I've scribbled numerous posts to you on this thread, would have liked to know more about the relation between Buddhism and the Tao (have I got that right?), which, I believe, you posted on a couple of threads back.

Right now, I'm finishing off something on Baldwin's early work. Have you read much of him? A much under-rated writer, whose antinomianism is the focus of my essay.

I will be on the lookout for your posts, attempting to introvert in the meantime.

Good luck with your teaching! YOu know, there are, sometimes, remarkable moments in classrooms. I met with a freshman comp. class for the first time on Friday for two and one half hours. We read exerpts from Angelou's memoirs, noting her use of figurative language, fictional techniques. They were not only responsive but insightful.

Sometimes, a little beauty goes a long way. Sunrises, sunsets, mother birds feeding birdlings, my daughter's tireless efforts to get Plautus the Pup to pose in the park. (Try saying that five times fast!)

All the best,
Farnaz

Arminius,

On this thread, a blogger did suggest that you were an alcoholic. THAT BLOGGER WAS NOT ME. Neither did I ever say you were gay.

Also, in this thread you say refer to "tomorrow [when you] will be sober." On another, you apologize, say you had been drinking. Look at what you write, Arminius, and note WHO, NOT I, calls you an alcoholic. And you say I am a "liar."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/05/first_draft.html

Daniel12,

Thank you for your reply. However, I live in New York City, which many would consider "urban." In this city, my then seven-year-old daughter, who scarcely knew what the word "Jew" meant, had her front teeth knocked out by Catholic parochial school girls who ganged up on her.

The antisemitism on this blog has been the subject of comment by Sally Quinn on national television. You, yourself, refer to Jews, as "the Jews," on this thread, and Susan Jacoby did the same on the blog you reference. It is offensive. Surely, you know that.

Finally, I have not been harsh but truthful. The rhetoric of Rev. Strong authorized the Christianist westward expansion. I have given the reference to his text. For more information, use google. As for TExas, google will give you whatever you wish to know about the very similar racist Christian discourse that authorized the theft of Texas, the southwest, and California.

This was of no small interest to critics of the period, among them Emerson and Thoreau, whose objection to the annexation of Texas, stemmed in part from their fear that it would be a slave state, but only in part. Ultimately, Emerson, though not Thoreau, endorsed Westward Expansion, Indian genocide.

So, I suppose, you would suggest that Thoreau, too, should have "loved it or left it." That is not what this country is about.

It has ever been self-critical, and when it loses that ability, it will no longer be worth living in.

As for you, I would try not to refer to Jews as "the Jews," the Tanakh as genocidal.

My harshness, as you put it, is reactive. It would be more appropriate for you to reply to the likes of what I replied to, and so spare yourself my comments to them:

"You really should try /b/. As the queen of sphincters you could live happily ever after there.
Posted by: themoderate | September 4, 2009 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment"
----------------------------------
"And the probability wave, "Muckenfuss" continues to rant on and on on behalf of what deceptive and obfuscating wave?? Could it possibly be that of one Farnaz?? Hmmm????
Posted by: ccnl1 | September 4, 2009 11:07 PM"

Sorry Farnaz, I really know nothing about this Chosen People thing about the Jews. I suppose I could look it up now but...I really have no interest at the moment. Other things are on my mind. To be honest with you, I just assumed the whole Chosen People thing about the Jews because people say it and I believe I have read it in both Jewish and non-Jewish writings but my memory is at a loss. My memory never seems to work until I get inspired by something and then it seems my entire brain goes into play. But if you ask me to remember something I would say "what?" Anyhow, try not to be so harsh with people (and where I get off giving that advice I have difficulty understanding since I do the same thing) and people will meet with you half-way. And you should not bash America so much. Millions of Jews live in the U.S. because they know they are both safer here and can become wildly successful if they apply themselves. Maybe some of the things you say apply to backwoods Americans, but in an urban environment what you say sometimes sounds strange to the ears. At least from my experience urban Americans never really think about Jews at all unless something appears in the news. In the urban environment people are more concerned about whether you show up to work on time and stuff like that. Everyone is consumed with the day to day stuff and just view other people as part of the day to day stuff. If that makes any sense....

Arminius,

I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU OF BEING GAY. YOU ARE CONFUSING ME WITH SOMEONE ELSE. JJ, PERHAPS.

I HAVE NEVER ACCUSED ANYONE OF BEING GAY, AND HAVE STAUNCHLY DEFENDED GAY RIGHTS THE ENTIRE TIME I'VE BEEN ON THIS BLOG.

YOU CAN EASILY READ MY POST, SO KNOCK IT OFF. YOU ARE AVOIDING AN HONEST EXCHANGE WITH ME.

And, btw., Arminius, here is the post in which I refer to a blogger as an alcoholic. CCNL1 and the Moderate, who accused me of being Muckenfuss certainly show signs of warped vision; intoxication is distinct possibility. However, just as the Moderate, if indeed he is not CCNL1, left out the fact that he began an exchange with me with a disgusting insult (see my post below), so he left out the first part of the post he mentions to you. Now, that does strike me as just a big duplicitious, hardly moderate. Nothing the Moderate posts, in fact, demonstrates the slightest ability to moderate.

However, that is not my concern. I do not initiate chats with him, never have. I've even suggested he blog on whatever he likes; he need not engage me or anyone else.
That remains the case. The Moderate took exception to a comment I made on Eugene O'Neill. Scroll down. That is my view of O'Neill. Why it should garner such a hideous response from this blogger, I know not. I should point out that I'm not alone in my view. As I mentioned, I came to it earlier than most, but it is the one that prevails now. Whence the invective?
_______________________________

And the probability wave, "Muckenfuss" continues to rant on and on on behalf of what deceptive and obfuscating wave?? Could it possibly be that of one Farnaz?? Hmmm????
------------------------------------------

The only ranter is this alcoholic, who also posts as the Moderate.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 4, 2009 11:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

My God, Farnaz, you sad, foul LIAR!

You DID accuse me of that, and you damn well know it, unless you truly are insane.

And now you make the usual unfortunate defense, 'Baffle them with Bulls***', too many words for any sane person to wade through. Please try cutting to the chase.

I'll tell you this - given the choice of you, CCNL, and Spidermean2 as neighbors, I would gladly accept Bun-Bun and Spidey as neighbors. I could not trust you with anything, not anything.

And Arminius,

I did not accuse you of being an alcoholic. I wrote, "Methinks the Arminius drinks too much."
This was at a point when you were hurling horrific epithets to Onofrio and me, along the lines of what you are doing now. Rather than respond in kind, I simply stated an opinion.

YOU confirmed that opinion. You said you had been drinking and apologized.

Enough? I'm not going to continue replying to your flaming. I hope you are well. I'm glad to see you back, quite honestly, and hope we can move on from here.

If you wish to do battle with me, then have the courage to go it alone. Use your intelligence to come up with a topic on which we may have a substantive disagreement.

You did accuse me of being gay, and an alcoholic. TheModerate has just documented your accusation of him being an alcoholic.
---------------------
You most certainly did refer to the Jews of Wall Street, and also said that without the New York Jews, the economy would crumble.

I NEVER accused you of being gay. That is a lie. I have never accused anyone of being gay. To say someone is gay is to describe him/her. As I recall you said you were heterosexual.

Everything I have posted on this thread is factual, including the reference to Rev. Strong and the final solution to the Indian problem, westward expansion as "manifest destiny." The Christian rhetoric of the Lone Star Republic is a matter of record, endless record. Use google.
---------------------------------
As for the Moderate, I did not call him an "alcoholic," but another blogger, who has been ever vicious and not only to me.

The Moderate has joined this other in accusing me of posting as Muckenfuss, etc., but began with this, which began the chat between us, and which you are ignoring.
--------------------------------------------
You really should try /b/. As the queen of sphincters you could live happily ever after there.

Posted by: themoderate | September 4, 2009 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
--------------------------------------------
I have never begun a chat with him, but he cannot seem to leave me alone.

As for you, I'd also consider your remarks concerning the OT, dismissal of Moses, etc.
YOu find my comments about the Christian Testament offensive?

Well, Arminius, when Christian bigots blog endlessly about the sacred text of a people against whom they have practiced genocide, against whom they remain bigoted, then those people have the right to respond. And it is in the Christian Testament that the notion of "The Jews" begins.

As I have noted, and referenced, quite a number of Protestants, Catholics, and now twelve Orthodox Christian priests have called for the reform of the NT to make it less antisemitic, and for the "OT" to be the Tanakh, which it is.

Further, they have called for Jewish methodology in Tanakh reading to be taught to Christians/Catholics.

Ponder that.

Farnaz said to me,

"Oh, for heavens sake, Arminius. Grow up. You're in your sixties. Do you really think I'm going to battle with you? "

Yet another proof of her deep-seated bigotry.

I am old, yes, but by God, I can fight.

Susan Jacoby, are you listening?

Farnaz, you pathetic, sad, LIAR,

You did accuse me of being gay, and an alcoholic. TheModerate has just documented your accusation of him being an alcoholic.

You foul liar, I have NEVER, EVER, written about the 'Jews of Wall Street'. Where the hell did you unearth that piece of dung?

I DO NOT, NEVER, EVER TO JEWS AS 'THE JEWS'.
Please stop your binary view of Christians as either/or. I happen to be inclusive of all good beliefs, or non-beliefs. I do not expect you to comprehend that, your bigotry is too deep.

Your bigotry, your self-hatred, your fear of all that differs from your narrow path, simply cries out for help. Please seek it!

Hey, Moderate!

You there? We have a quest, a goal, a battle. Are there others we can mobilize?
--------------
Oh, for heavens sake, Arminius. Grow up. You're in your sixties. Do you really think I'm going to battle with you?

If I were going to chat with you, it would be on religion in a substantive way, myth, literature, or music.

That's about it.

YOu're certainly welcome to gather up the troops. I'm glad to see you back, have missed you, but won't do battle.
Sorry. :

Arminius,

I NEVER accused you of being gay. If you can show that I did, please do so. To say someone is gay is a description, not an accusation. And I believe you have said you were heterosexual.

And when you have written of the "Jews of Wall Street," or that the economy would crumble without "the Jews"?

Sorry, Arminius, when the Christians stop referring to Jews as THE Jews, we will do the same.

"The Jews" did not initiate this terminology. If you object to it, you should speak out against it when it is directed against Jews, as it most frequently is.

If you have issues about Israel, write about Israelis, not the Jews. Otherwise, I cannot understand your objections. It's a goose and gander thing. Terminological consistency.
-------------------------
The ImModerate cries over my reply to his post to me, but does not paste what I was replying to:

------------------------------------
You really should try /b/. As the queen of sphincters you could live happily ever after there.

Posted by: themoderate | September 4, 2009 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
------------------------------------

Hey, Moderate!

You there? We have a quest, a goal, a battle. Are there others we can mobilize?

Arminius,

The ImModerate cries over my reply to his post to me, but does not paste what I was replying to:

------------------------------------
You really should try /b/. As the queen of sphincters you could live happily ever after there.

Posted by: themoderate | September 4, 2009 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
------------------------------------

Of course, Farnaz, you are at a loss with me.

You stand justly accused as a liar and a fraud.

You have indeed accused me of being gay and alcoholic. Do you want me to look up the posts? I'll gladly do that.

My problem with you is that you despise, nay, HATE, anything Christian, and anyone who claims to be Christian.

What the bloody hell did I ever do to you or yours to deserve this hatred?

Answer me that, and maybe we can continue.

Meanwhile, sally forth with your pathetic mudslinging.

I really hope that Susan Jacoby, who reads these posts, is perceiving a pattern here.

CCNL,

"Could it be Farnaz and her wave generator??? Hopefully not since she professes to be a teacher so pure of heart!!!"

I have to agree with you on this one. There has been a lot of game playing here by a singular entity, or a small number of entities, pretending to represent a larger number. The consistency has been pretty remarkable.
-----------------
So the ImModerate, alter of CCNL1, agrees with itself. Not much of a surprise there.

ARminius writes:

Hello, Daniel12,

Thank you for your solid bashing of Farnaz. I have tangled with her on numerous occasions.

I have witnessed her accusing everyone who dared to differ with her on anything as being antisemitic. A few posts later she would claim that there is no such thing as a 'Semite'.

She also gets down and dirty, she is homophobic because she has accused those who dare to disagree with her as 'gay' (she did that to me), and also her usual accusation is 'alcoholic' (also thrown at me), with no basis whatsoever for either slur.

She is the poster child of how these blogs have degenerated into bigotry and general mud-slinging.
--------------------
Kindly show me what you mean by mudslinging, noting that I only replied to those who, in fact, did sling mud at me, notably the Moderate, and CCNL1, to whom I did NOT post, and then to Mary Cunningham, to whom I also did NOT post.

I believe I am permitted the same rights as you are, to defend myself. I also believe that on a blog and to bloggers who refer to Jews as THE Jews, I am permitted to refer to Christians/Catholics as THE Christians/Catholics, in the interest of terminological consistency.

A little logic please. Who is the author of the definite articlism viz "The" Jews.

As for your despicable accusation that say those who disagree with me are "'gay' or that I did that to you, kindly show the evidence. To say one is gay is not to accuse. I can recall very few other occasions when you were more offensive, but I can recall them.

As for your drinking, at the time I mentioned you might be, I did not accuse you of being an alcoholic. You were posting wretched insults to me and to Onofrio, and the problem was obvious. You, in fact, finally admitted it and apologized.

REally, Arminius, I'm at a loss with you.

Daniel12,

You write:

A few weeks back you were saying the Jews never referred to themselves as the Chosen People and that it was a Christian invention athough everyone knows the Jews have always referred to themselves as the Chosen People--except when it was dangerous to say so.
___________________________
"The Jews," you say. There are millions of Jews in the world, and there should, of course, be more. You know why there aren't.

"Everyone" does not know that "the Jews" (sic) say they are the chosen people, since "they" do not.

Now, I base my view on studies of the Tanakh, Talmud, Mishnah, and the most important of last two thousand years of Jewish theology.

However, if you can demonstrate that "the Jews" (sic) refer to themselves as the "chosen people" (sic) or that "everyone knows" that, I should certainly be interested.

If you can provide sources, please do so.
--------------
As for the rest of your rant, I've been kinder to and more tolerant of you than almost anyone else on this blog, notwithstanding your highly offensive nonsense on Jewish Geenyious and pretentious perseverance.

Go live in the Vatican if you reject the American commitment to free speech and self-criticism.

CCNL,

"Could it be Farnaz and her wave generator??? Hopefully not since she professes to be a teacher so pure of heart!!!"

I have to agree with you on this one. There has been a lot of game playing here by a singular entity, or a small number of entities, pretending to represent a larger number. The consistency has been pretty remarkable.

Arminius:

You got that one right. She was at it again just last night.

Arminius wrote:

"She also gets down and dirty, she is homophobic because she has accused those who dare to disagree with her as 'gay' (she did that to me), and also her usual accusation is 'alcoholic' (also thrown at me), with no basis whatsoever for either slur."

Farnaz wrote:

"The only ranter is this alcoholic, who also posts as the Moderate."

POSTED BY: FARNAZ1MANSOURI1 | SEPTEMBER 4, 2009 11:19 PM

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Q. E. D.

Again why should we even read what the probability wave, "Muckenfuss" has to say considering she/he is simply a wave front for the one wave generator on this blog???
Said generator is very active on the weekends knowing that the moderators are not watching. Could it be Farnaz and her wave generator??? Hopefully not since she professes to be a teacher so pure of heart!!!

Moderate,

I stand solid with you, despite whatever differences we might have. Thanks!

Arminius

written by roger dale wallace
-
-
All church world leaders and world leaders, they need to read this:
-
- The two state solution for Israel will not work, saith god
-
-
– W / 14 Vs.
1 The two state solution for Israel, it will not work, saith god– eternally forever.
-
2 I roger dale Wallace, I do say: Now, in our true generation. We shall see the coming of Jesus Christ, and will all people be ready for that coming and will all people go to heaven– forever?
-
3 Can anyone explain their desire unto god for a two state solution for Israel, as in explaining it unto god and unto Jesus Christ in that great judgment day — forever?
-
4 Our true kind god, he will eternally and forever, he will reject forever, all people who are found desiring and wanting a two state solution for Israel,
-
5 And in the great judgment, they all shall be damned– forever. And god shall reject them even now and forever. And it is because of their desire,
-
6 For wanting to divide Israel land away from god’s eternal true promise. That promise, it is a true promise, and it is found recorded in scripture for Israel.
-
7 Truly, our true kind god of recompense, he (god) shall forever, reject those nations who want Israel’s land truly divided in these days– forever.
-
8 And our god shall reject them forever, that is, if it be found, that they truly do desire a two state solution for Israel, in these days– unrepentifully forever.
-
9 Yes, our true kind god. He shall reject forever, all unpentiful to god nations in these days that do try to part the land of Israel, as Israel to become forever, a part of a two state solution in the middleast– forever.
-
10 And do remember O earth, a greater woe judgment, it will come quickly to America, saith god, and unto all nations, who purposely go against my (god) holy christian scripture, as that scripture: Is found forever, as concerning my (god) oath for the true land of Israel.
-
-
E-768RW 9-5-2009AD / roger dale wallace / roger wallace is author / beast / god / end time prophecy / the last days / prophecy / the two witnesses / the son of god / thevillaghecarpenter.info / washingtonpost.com / haaretz.com / blogger.com / wordpress.com / Jesus Christ / ynet / infolive / god’s oath / the judgment of the nations by roger dale wallace/ pleading with the heathen by roger dale wallace / they that worship the image of the beast by roger dale wallace/ the ark of the testament by roger dale wallace/ two state solution / Israel / gaza strip / a prophecy for Pope Benedict XVI
Posted by: rw1231 | September 5, 2009 11:43 PM

Arminius,

Good to hear from you again, too. I have always have thought that you offer much to the blog, so I am appalled to hear that you were ejected. As you know, I don't always agree with you, and don't expect to at all points in the future, but I find it an outrage that you were ejected for speaking your mind openly.

Welcome to the ranks of the politically incorrect who have been persecuted here for civil free speech. Spirited discussion is no crime, and I hope to have spirited discussions with you again, my friend.

written by roger dale wallace
-
-
All church world leaders and world leaders, they need to read this:
-
- The two state solution for Israel will not work, saith god
-
-
– W / 14 Vs.
1 The two state solution for Israel, it will not work, saith god– eternally forever.
-
2 I roger dale Wallace, I do say: Now, in our true generation. We shall see the coming of Jesus Christ, and will all people be ready for that coming and will all people go to heaven– forever?
-
3 Can anyone explain their desire unto god for a two state solution for Israel, as in explaining it unto god and unto Jesus Christ in that great judgment day — forever?
-
4 Our true kind god, he will eternally and forever, he will reject forever, all people who are found desiring and wanting a two state solution for Israel,
-
5 And in the great judgment, they all shall be damned– forever. And god shall reject them even now and forever. And it is because of their desire,
-
6 For wanting to divide Israel land away from god’s eternal true promise. That promise, it is a true promise, and it is found recorded in scripture for Israel.
-
7 Truly, our true kind god of recompense, he (god) shall forever, reject those nations who want Israel’s land truly divided in these days– forever.
-
8 And our god shall reject them forever, that is, if it be found, that they truly do desire a two state solution for Israel, in these days– unrepentifully forever.
-
9 Yes, our true kind god. He shall reject forever, all unpentiful to god nations in these days that do try to part the land of Israel, as Israel to become forever, a part of a two state solution in the middleast– forever.
-
10 And do remember O earth, a greater woe judgment, it will come quickly to America, saith god, and unto all nations, who purposely go against my (god) holy christian scripture, as that scripture: Is found forever, as concerning my (god) oath for the true land of Israel.
-
-
E-768RW 9-5-2009AD / roger dale wallace / roger wallace is author / beast / god / end time prophecy / the last days / prophecy / the two witnesses / the son of god / thevillaghecarpenter.info / washingtonpost.com / haaretz.com / blogger.com / wordpress.com / Jesus Christ / ynet / infolive / god’s oath / the judgment of the nations by roger dale wallace/ pleading with the heathen by roger dale wallace / they that worship the image of the beast by roger dale wallace/ the ark of the testament by roger dale wallace/ two state solution / Israel / gaza strip / a prophecy for Pope Benedict XVI

Hello, Daniel12,

Thank you for your solid bashing of Farnaz. I have tangled with her on numerous occasions.

I have witnessed her accusing everyone who dared to differ with her on anything as being antisemitic. A few posts later she would claim that there is no such thing as a 'Semite'.

She also gets down and dirty, she is homophobic because she has accused those who dare to disagree with her as 'gay' (she did that to me), and also her usual accusation is 'alcoholic' (also thrown at me), with no basis whatsoever for either slur.

She is the poster child of how these blogs have degenerated into bigotry and general mud-slinging.

Farnaz, you have lost all credibility. A few weeks back you were saying the Jews never referred to themselves as the Chosen People and that it was a Christian invention athough everyone knows the Jews have always referred to themselves as the Chosen People--except when it was dangerous to say so. And the Jews in the Old Testament were frankly genocidal with respect to all other peoples...And now you beat up on Western Civilization--Christianity to be specific, but still you mean Western Civilization, the white man--saying Westerners never really recognized the "other" (Jews, Hindus, Muslims and so on), but the fact is the very type of government everyone considers the best model for recognizing human rights was invented by Westerners: democracy. Your beloved Israel every day insists it is democratic and not leaning toward...in beating up on the Palestinians. The fact is for all Westerner's crimes against humanity no other people, no other civilization has demonstrated a society better on human rights than the democratic society of the West. All those "others" you say the West does not recognize do exactly the same and worse to not just the West but to themselves--they fight amongst themselves. Jews versus Muslims, Muslims versus Hindus, Muslims versus the West, Muslims versus themselves, Han Chinese versus ethnic groups within their country, Japanese very suspicious of foreigners for all democracy, and as the for the Native Americans, they were no innocents at all. If you have a problem with the West, Farnaz, get the f*ck out. Go to Israel or some other place with a "better rights record". Perhaps you and the guy Ender who posted here--he said Osama Bin Laden is a CIA agent or some such deluded nonsense--can leave arm in arm. No one will miss you and the West will just keep getting better and better on human rights, and everyone else will be behind, as they always have been. Unless you can describe a better government than the democracy invented by the West. Oh, wait, that must mean Israel....

To TheModerate:

Right you are, and thank you for having the courage to point out the faults of this person.

I am in my third incarnation here, having been thrown out twice, apparently for the crime of being a liberal Christian, and daring to oppose a certain person who accuses all who oppose her of being antisemitic.

I fully expect to be thrown out again.

To Mary Cunningham: we have had our differences, but we must remain allies here. You have my respect.

Arminius
A Bellandaine!

Mucky:

"More of your sphincter-think. I hope you are keeping it clean, so you will have clean thoughts."

Go back to /b/ where you will find fellowship. Content free name calling is an practiced at the Olympic level there. You should be right at home.

Mary Cunningham:

How nice to see you posting here again. As you can see the /b/tard hate speech has driven many civil and well meaning folk away.

The most charitable interpretation of /b/'s abominable behavior is that she stared too long into the abyss, and it has taken up residence in her heart; from whence it glares balefully at her fellow human beings.

She remains unshakable in her conviction that reactions to her gratuitous vitriol, vituperation, bigotry, and sheer personal effrontery are motivated by "anti Semitism" rather than her own abominable personal behavior. She shows absolutely no ability to take responsibility for her own actions, and remains absolutely immune to logic, reason, or facts. But, especially where her paranoid theories are concerned, she has no ability to deal with people as individuals, seeing them only through her stereotypes.

Good luck, and welcome back. I hope your skin has become thick enough to deal easily with what you will most certainly encounter here.

The final phase of AmeriChristian genocide of the indigenous peoples, which continues to the present, was blessed as the Christians' "manifest destiny" by a very, very CHristian human. There were other humans, not Christian, living in America, at the time, not only those slaughtered, note.

Strong, Reverend Josiah, D.D. Our Country: Its Possible Future and Its Present Crisis 1885.

Susan Jacoby,

I wonder if you might read the postings of Mary Cunningham and me. Herein lies what I have tried to communicate to you. She, and I mean no offense to her here, is a monoculturalist writ large. The same is often true of you in your postings.

The Christians/Catholics, believing and cultural, have spent the last two thousand years equating themselves with the "human." The rest of us are Other. In like manner, they have spent the last two thousand years making themselves "feel good," not infrequently through physical and cultural genocide.

The world now asks that they recognize their Others, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et al, as equally human, recognize their OBLIGATION to those others, that they can never see with theirs eyes. The obligation is to know that and learn from it.

This blog has been viral with antisemitism. I don't know if you read the thread of Elie Wiesel a few months ago or those on the killing at the USHMM, etc. They are just two recent examples. Quinn has addressed OnFaith's antisemitism on nationwide television. But not here. Not on this blog.

Other isms--white liberal-ism vis a vis blacks, homophobia, xenophobia, etc., abound.

Us natives are restless, Susan.

Why fasten on the Christians qua Christians at all since at the time of the Texas-Mexican war, the colonising Americans were 100% Christian (Protestant) while the defending Mexicans were similarly 100% Christian (Catholic). You might as well say "when the humans stole Texas from the Mexicans".
------------------------
No, you may not. They were CHRISTIANS. Not Hindus, not Jews, not Buddhists. So long as The Christians (Christians/Catholics) refer to Jews, as The Jews, for just so long will Jews and many, many others refer to Christians as The Christians.

Next time Mary Cunningham posts on The Jews, or explains that, "understandably," antisemitism only rears its ugly WaPo head in response to the postings of Jewish Neocons, perhaps, she will wonder why anti-Catholic sentiment does not appear in response to the acts and words of the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly. Perhaps, she will muse on why anti-Protestant sentiment did not arise as a result of the acts and words of Born twice Bush, born once Chaney, etc.

Except, she might note, it did. Not so that it was heard by the Christians/Catholics, but it was heard loud and clear in mosques all over the world. And it was also heard in the gatherings of many young Jews.
----------
Mary Cunningham has yet to understand that Christians/Catholics are no longer the equivalent of "humans," as she continues to delude herself. No, ma'am. Them days are long gone.

In the interest of terminological consistence, we Others of Mary Cunningham's now particularize as well. Yes, indeed, it was the Christians who stole Texas, much of the Southwest, and California. It was the Christians, at Plymouth rock, who burned to death the indigenous people, watched them melt, listened to their screaming while they quoted their Bible.

It was the same Christians who burned Jews in the same way for two thousand years, and, by Christian, I include Catholics, who were always at the helm. Always.

Them nazis weren't Buddhists, weren't Hindus. How did they prove they weren't Jews?

Their Baptismal certificates.

Mary Cunningham needs to grow up, face the new world. It isn't hers. It should be everyone's.

Muckenfuss,

One of the few to write intelligently on the Hillary Clinton as Jew phenomenon was Stanley Fish. Upon finding it in the Times, I was terribly pissed off for several reasons, among them, that I had just presented a paper on the phenomenon, just--meaning ten days earlier.

Also, while I have long recognized that Fish's reading of Paradise Lost is paradigmatic and am duly appreciative of his other contributions to academia, I have always sorrowed over his inveterate snobbery. There was nary a trace of it in his Times essay on Clinton as Jew. This could be a new day for the brilliant, though formerly limited, academic.

HIs Clinton as Jew essay is worth reading, if you have the chance. If I had not been certain that the notion was above my students' heads, I would have brought the it to their attention. Still fiddling with that old paper of mine, even as I write....

Muckenfuss,

A multi-part posting from me to you follows. I don't know what happened with the OnFaith censor but it evidently became confused.

At all events, it would be lovely if you could wend your way through and read it.

Warmest regards,
Farnaz

Muckenfuss,

Please do not depart from this blog. It has become increasingly bereft of substantive dialogue, thanks in no small part to CCNL1, whose efforts to destroy it have been evident from the first. He is best left ignored. Sincere and sober atheists, believers, agnostics, even religionists, should be able to blog intelligently.

The bigotry, ignorance, and populism of contemporary public discourse is, of course, everywhere evident. The presidential campaign was among the worst examples of this I've seen in recent history, indeed, perhaps, the worst.

Mary Cunningham informs us that the Mexicans from whom the Texas Protestants stole Catholic Mexico were Catholic.

Fabulously informative, Mary Cunningham is, as always, although she does overlook the genocidal conversion of Mexico by the EuroCatholics--a minor omission in that blogger's view, no doubt--but, in no small way, part and parcel to that nation's historic misery, as the desperately poor are continually reminded that there will be pie in the sky when they die.

As for the moral health of Texas, considering the endless oppression of Mexco by both its AmeriCatholic and AmeriChristian overlords, one hopes the Religious Texans will do the right Christian/Catholic thing for all concerned, including the more recognizably united states, and return to south of the border.

Continued
One of the best teaching periods for the development of critical thinking--I had them read the essays on this blog and elsewhere, noting the almost terrifying white condescension to Obama, the ignoring of his Christian prayer fests, dial and prays, included, his ad proclaiming that he would return jobs to America, fining those manufacturers who did not comply, etc. They were, like their instructor, nauseated.

I also had them follow the outright lies of the McCain campaign, false accusations, etc.

But mostly they were disgusted with the sexism in the attacks on Clinton, particularly, baffled at first, by the many women of a certain age, who participated in it.

continued
Paul Krugman, and a very few others, were not sufficient to restore their faith in
Americans.

The danger in this sort of teaching is that these students, who are notoriously quietistic, egocentric, will retrire further into their shells. We managed to convince, them, however, via citizenship projects, that they must understand that the future resided with them. Would this propagandistic, demagogic culture simply reproduce itself? Did they carry it around as a homunculus? Or might they initiate change?

They developed their own web site. Ten thousand logged in. Not bad. Hope was restored.

Muckenfuss, there are any number of brilliant bloggers who show up here. Mary Cunningham, who has declared herself my enemy, is not stupid. Then there are the obviously very smart such as you, Onofrio, Persiflage, ColinNick, Norrie Hoyt, Carstonio, etc.

Continued
One can blog on issues. One can attack bigotry with whatever one has in one's arsenal. In my lifetime, there will never come a day, when I stop reading about The Jews, or the OT. But I can address both, just as I can address homophobia, xenophobia, etc. In my lifetime, antisemitism, racism, none of the isms will end. Perhaps, in my daughter's, they will decrease.

Mary Cunningham informs us that the Mexicans from whom the Texas Protestants stole Catholic Mexico were Catholic.

Fabulously informative, Mary Cunningham is, as always, although she does overlook the genocidal conversion of Mexico by the EuroCatholics--a minor omission in that blogger's view, no doubt--but, in no small way, part and parcel to that nation's historic misery, as the desperately poor are continually reminded that there will be pie in the sky when they die.

As for the moral health of Texas, considering the endless oppression of Mexco by both its AmeriCatholic and AmeriChristian overlords, one hopes the Religious Texans will do the right Christian/Catholic thing for all concerned, including the more recognizably united states, and return to south of the border.

CerebralCortexNotLocated wrote:

"And why should we even read what the probability wave, "Muckenfuss" has to say considering she/he is simply a wave front for the one wave generator on this blog???"

For someone who doesn't want to pay attention, you pay a lot of attention. More of your sphincter-think. I hope you are keeping it clean, so you will have clean thoughts.

And why should we even read what the probability wave, "Muckenfuss" has to say considering she/he is simply a wave front for the one wave generator on this blog???

Said generator is very active on the weekends knowing that the moderators are not watching.

MaryCunningham wrote:

"MFuss is referring to the Myers-Briggs Personality test:"

You have a touching, though unimpressive, devotion to the obvious.

MFuss is referring to the Myers-Briggs Personality test:

www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html

Oh for goodness sakes! Stop giving esoteric personality stuff and answer the question F1M1:, why make a false differentiation between Christian America and Christian Mexico? Why fasten on the Christians qua Christians at all since at the time of the Texas-Mexican war, the colonising Americans were 100% Christian (Protestant) while the defending Mexicans were similarly 100% Christian (Catholic). You might as well say "when the humans stole Texas from the Mexicans".

Primarily because of the nature of the ongoing public conversations in this
country (e.g. religion, health care, greenhouse gas emissions, immigration policy
and criminal investigation of alleged war crimes by the Bush administration), I have become even more acutely aware of the ontological divides underlying the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) as well as various religious/secular
divisions.

I've become more convinced than ever that attempted communication across
one or more of these divides is almost always fruitless -- except in terms
of potential entertainment value, they're just no fun anymore. Chalk
it up to age and experience, perhaps.

So I've decided to stop trying, leaving that effort to the extroverts in this
ontological camp unless and until I someday have the time and inclination
to put my thoughts into a written piece of work or two.

There is some traffic from this blog that I'll be looking at this morning, and I can't exclude the possibility that I might
decide to drop a reply or two on some of that.

Otherwise, I'll be sitting in a corner of my study, knowing that if I wanted to say the sun came up in the east this morning, there would be plenty of folks (none of them INTJ's, thank god) ready to argue about it -- starting with the assumption that I'm the only person to have ever
contemplated such nonsense.

Farnaz1Manzur1 wrote: considering that the Christians stole the Lone Star State from Mexico,

Oh my! Say it’s not so Farnaz1. Say a university teacher has a better historical knowledge than you display. Say a high school or grade school teacher does better.

And don’t respond with your normal invective.

Just answer the question:

What religion do you think the Mexicans professed when ‘the Christians’ took their Texan lands from them? Hint: Mexico was colonised by Henan Cortes in 1519. Almost immediately the Spanish crown sent missionary priests to convert the Amerindians to (choose one or any combination);

a. Shintoism
b. Confucism
c. Catholicism
d. Church of England

And of course Farnaz's reinforcing probability wave, "Muckenfuss", continues with the offensive language. One wonders what these "people" are teaching our kids???

CCNL (Cerebral Cortex Not Located) wrote:

"And once again we see it is Farnaz who comes crashing into the beach blogs with all of her deceptive and obfuscating probability waves following her!! And she is allowed to teach???"

Ah, more sphincter thinking from the authority in the subject.

And once again we see it is Farnaz who comes crashing into the beach blogs with all of her deceptive and obfuscating probability waves following her!! And she is allowed to teach???

And the ImModerate (CCNL1) blathers on to itself.

Do get lost again, dear. You weren't missed, you know.

Farnaz:

I pity you. But even more, I pity your students. For they are innocent. Off to /b/ with you now. It is your level and place.

And the probability wave, "Muckenfuss" continues to rant on and on on behalf of what deceptive and obfuscating wave?? Could it possibly be that of one Farnaz?? Hmmm????
------------------------------------------

The only ranter is this alcoholic, who also posts as the Moderate.

The Moderate writes

You really should try /b/. As the queen of sphincters you could live happily ever after there.
---------------------------------
The ImModerate is too generous, but I would not think of taking from him his title of the Queen of /B/, among other things.

Sad to see, he still has found nothing in his life but a blogger to occupy his mind(lessness).

With that, I'm done. /B/ equals boring. Read a book. You said you'd left this blog, yet like that oft-mentioned bad penny you keep turning up. Not very Christian of you.

And the probability wave, "Muckenfuss" continues to rant on and on on behalf of what deceptive and obfuscating wave?? Could it possibly be that of one Farnaz?? Hmmm????

Farnaz:

"Eugene O'Neill, whom I regarded as a...well...err...sphincter-retentive, repressed, self-obsessed, moralizing bore."

You really should try /b/. As the queen of sphincters you could live happily ever after there.

ON another thread, it was suggested that we solve the problem by giving Texas away. I confess the thought had earlier crossed my mind. (No offense to Texans, intended.) But considering that the Christians stole the Lone Star State from Mexico, perhaps, after they have studied this historic event in their new curriculum, they might do the right Christian thing and return to south of the border.

When in college, I could never understand the exaltation of Eugene O'Neill, whom I regarded as a...well...err...sphincter-retentive, repressed, self-obsessed, moralizing bore.

What was this American obsession with O'Neill queried foolish me, when the nation had produced a great playwright. One.

Well, the tables have turned. The table have turned with a vengeance. Tennessee now has his day. Long, long overdue.

I have never depended on the kindness of strangers (or anyone else).

Mucky:

"Your sphincter is really getting a workout! Sitting on your brain explains a lot about you."

Would you be more at home on /b/?

BLANCHE:
I have the misfortune of being an English teacher. I attempt to instill in a bunch of bobby-soxers and drug-store Romeo's a reverence for Hawthorne and Whitman and Poe.

MITCH:
I guess that some of them are interested in other things.

BLANCHE:
How very right you are. Their literary heritage is not what they treasure above else. But they're sweet things. And in the Spring, it's touching to notice them making their first discovery of love, as if no one had ever known it before.

Muckenfuss,

The semester has started off well for me, perhaps, because I've reached the zero gravity level. I continually practice expecting nothing. Emptiness. The void.

These students inhabit a world that is waging an ongoing battle against truth, thought, justice, sanity, etc. Both the literate and illiterate are, at best, ill informed ethnocentric moral morons.

Against the literate, my students stand up well as thinkers. MOst of them have built in B.S. detectors, and they can spot it flying from far away. Against the illiterate, they are defenseless.

Curious.

Muckenfuss,

What on earth brought you back to teaching?

Farnaz wrote:

"I wonder if the autobiography will be included in the new Texas curriculum. Perhaps, too, they will include a word on CCNL1's theory on human STD self-transmission."

It is now clear what CCNL stands for: Cerebral Cortex Not Located.

Hows school? I'm doing this semester what I swore I'd never do again...teaching. I have two advanced sections of systems analysis and design. Started back the 24th, and already I am bored.

Muckenfuss writes:

"Doctrine of the rebirth of the soul in one or more successive existences, which may be human, animal, or vegetable.""

This is a direct quote from CCNL's soon-to-be-released autobiography, "Sphincter Thinking: How I Have Survived Without A Cerebral Cortex".
-----------------------------
I wonder if the autobiography will be included in the new Texas curriculum. Perhaps, too, they will include a word on CCNL1's theory on human STD self-transmission.

We know through the evidence of history, and in our own personal lives, and in the acrimonious comments that appear on this religious forum, that religion is a sore spot with many people, and the source of much disagreement, arguing, and fighting.

First, comes the frustration and angry words.

Then comes the accusations and recriminations.

Then, the discussion degenerates into a food fight, with mash potatoes and gravy and all sorts of things flying.

Next comes the vandalism, and destruction of opposing art forms.

Then, on to rock throwing...

...then gun play and next...

...bomb throwing.

Then you graduate up to your burnings-at-the-stake and your boilings-in-oil.

And then you got your torture on the wrack, and your slow strangulation.

And finally, you end up with your religious be-headin's.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, there's nothing worse than the religious beheadin's.

uh...sorry...nevermind...wrong thread...

peter:

false prophecy:

ez26, ezekiel prophesies in no uncertain terms that babylonian king "neb" will take and destroy tyre (make it a "bare rock" he says) and that it will never be rebuilt.

well, whoever wrote that got that last part right - it WAS never "rebuilt" because it was never destroyed... "neb" failed to take it, much less destroy it. it was later taken by alexander. it is still occupied today.

And the probability wave, "Muckenfuss" continues to rant on and on on behalf of what deceptive and obfuscating wave??

CCNL1 wrote:

"Reincarnation:

"Doctrine of the rebirth of the soul in one or more successive existences, which may be human, animal, or vegetable.""

This is a direct quote from CCNL's soon-to-be-released autobiography, "Sphincter Thinking: How I Have Survived Without A Cerebral Cortex".

Benjamin,

"By evolution and creationism, I meant the scientific world-view of the history of the Universe until now versus the religious view that involves a higher power's influence (not to say that there is no overlap)."

The latter is not specifically creationism, which is the belief that one or more gods created species all at once. There are people who accept evolution while also believing that one or more higher-power beings created the universe.

"I think my ideal situation for an educated adult in our society with some degrgee of eloquence would be that if a student with appropriate background asked the adult the question 'how/why are we here?', perhaps that educated adult would be able to present many different view points as an answer to that question."

The problem with the question is that "why" is a corruption of the concept of "how." More specifically, any claim of an inherent meaning or purpose to existence is a claim of "how" disguised as an opinion about "why." Whether the universe and life came about through some unguided process or though the deliberate action of "higher powers," both are claims about "how" and both must be treated as scientific hypotheses. Treating the question as a matter of belief implies that objective fact should be suborned to subjective opinion, like one can believe any height about Mount Everest. I'm not arguing for any particular claim of fact about the origins of the universe and of life. I'm saying that objective fact about these exists and waits to be discovered, whatever that fact happens to be.

The other problem with "why" is that it's inappropriate in terms of personal boundaries to have a belief about the meaning and purpose of others, even if the belief is a subjective opinion and not a claim of knowledge about inherent meaning. It's only appropriate to have such belief's about one's self.

"A complete education should enable the adult to convey a general summary of the Big Bang, Genesis, Deism, and hopefully other (and I hate to use this word) theories as to how we as a species/world have come to be as we are. I think that the "belief" of the adult should be irrelevant to the possession of this set of knowledge."

That knowledge and education help, but those are not really answers to the question of how we got here. I would shorten the answer to, "We have some ideas but we really don't know."

"I would say let the student (and I mean that in the widest possible sense) make up their own mind as to what to believe, if that is really the goal."

That might be appropriate if we were talking about subjective things where no objective fact exists, such as whether Hendrix or Clapton was a better guitar player. Again, I have a concern about using belief in realms of objective fact. It sounds too much like a denial of the principle of knowledge. And if the objective fact cannot be determined, why have a belief in that case at all? Why not simply admit that one doesn't know?

This question is not really clear. There is alot of confusion about what it means.

Actual religious instruction should not be taught in public schools because public schools are secular, which means, "not religious." They are secular to be fair to all of the taxpayers. students, and their families who have many different religious beliefs. That's just common sense, isn't it?

The other question is should religion be studied in school as a part of human culture and history? Should the phenominon of relgious belief and the varous human characterization of God be studied and discussed? Should Biblical references be discussed as they relate to the arts?

I think that all of these aspects of religion should be studied. The Medeival Catholic Church's political rule over "Christendom" and its eventual fragmentaion into its Lutheran, Calvinistic, Anglican, and other Protestant progeny should be studied, along with the subsequent study of the international and civil wars of religion in Europe, in which millions died, and which gave rise to the doctrine of "separation of church and state" in America,(even those those EXACT words do not appear in the Constitution).

But it is not practical to try and teach all of this in American public schools, because the politically influential Conservative Christian Fundamentalists will always take offense at any mention of religion that does not flamboyantly acknowlege that their beliefs about Jesus Christ must always be considered Supreme and Final over all other religions.

Just one more reason to cling to our heritage of secular schools and secular government.

Reincarnation:

"Doctrine of the rebirth of the soul in one or more successive existences, which may be human, animal, or vegetable."

From answers.com

Carstonio,

In response to your questions, I think I was just taking a short-cut with my terminology. By evolution and creationism, I meant the scientific world-view of the history of the Universe until now versus the religious view that involves a higher power's influence (not to say that there is no overlap). This sort of clarifies what I meant by "understanding of the world" in that the "two" groups of people (religious and scientific) have different justifications for the cause of our modern state of being.

I think my ideal situation for an educated adult in our society with some degrgee of eloquence would be that if a student with appropriate background asked the adult the question "how/why are we here?", perhaps that educated adult would be able to present many different view points as an answer to that question. A complete education should enable the adult to convey a general summary of the Big Bang, Genesis, Deism, and hopefully other (and I hate to use this word) theories as to how we as a species/world have come to be as we are. I think that the "belief" of the adult should be irrelevant to the possession of this set of knowledge. I would say let the student (and I mean that in the widest possible sense) make up their own mind as to what to believe, if that is really the goal. In an ideal world, I would just want the information to be out there in people's minds for their consideration.

CCNL1 wrote:

"So "edbyronadams" molecules were once upon a time all part of some wayward and single orangutan from the forests of Borneo?? He/she must have been such a well-behaved orangutan!!!!"

Your sphincter is really getting a workout! Sitting on your brain explains a lot about you.

Now, who is being absurd? My water molecules were once part of the ocean. My carbon atoms were once part of the forest and the air. My nitrogen atoms were once part of the air and the soil and my calcium atoms were once part of the reefs and the rocks.

Same with you.

Now, since Buddhism is an egalitarian philosophy, why would you impose a hierarchy upon the notion of reincarnation? That is a misuse of the notion. Furthermore, since this life is what is important, focusing on reincarnation instead of the here and now is a perversion of the Buddha's teachings in itself.

Sorry Daniel12 "Take how the U.S. treats a problem such as Afghanistan or Iraq. The U.S. essentially tries to apply the values it holds dear at home to those places. The inhabitants of those countries are just supposed to hold elections, to divide power intelligently," but this is naivete to the extreme.

Jeb Bush, Rummy, Cheney and a Republicnut cabal called the Program for a New American Century or PNAC began pushing for an invasion of Iraq in the mid nineties. They bought the back page of the NYT in '96 urging Pres. Clinton to invade Iraq. Through misplanning and ignorance the War against the People of Iraq failed, so now their puppet Obama is determined to get them the permanent presense they want in the region in Afghanistan and the route for the oil pipeline they want to pull oil from the 'Stans' and cut Russia out of the deal. The CIA operative Osama bin Laden claimed responsiblity for the 9/11 attack carried out by our own CIA so they could start the ball rolling.

Even Shrub wasn't stupid enough to believe democracy would ever flourish in those countries. They don't believe in it or respect it. We are there to spread our corporate empire and any other motive is a lie and a product of your imagination.

So "edbyronadams" molecules were once upon a time all part of some wayward and single orangutan from the forests of Borneo?? He/she must have been such a well-behaved orangutan!!!!

And "Muckenfuss" tries to reinforce his/her fellow probability wave, "Carstonio", with the normal deception and obfuscation!!!

CCNl1 wrote:

""Carstonio", another of the many probability waves on this blog, speaks but for whom???"

HAhahahahah. Still thinking with your sphincter, I see! What a moron.

"Any religion that requires a belief in the absurdness of reincarnation is itself absurd."

Posted by: ccnl1

The planets circle, the seasons cycle, the atoms that compose your body all cycle. But life, that is linear. You decide which view is a disconnect from the whole.

Any religion that requires a belief in the absurdness of reincarnation is itself absurd.

Meanwhile, a tycoon with boundless greed sues his most vulnerable fans...

Sung to the tune of: "Hail to the Redskins!"

Hail to Dan Snyder!
Hail thievery!
Shark on the warpath!
Screwing old D.C.!

Run or pass and score - Dan wants a lot more
Screw 'em, sue 'em!
Just to make income soar,

Scalp on, Scalp on, 'Till you have won
Some more Washingtons! Rah! Rah! Rah!

Hail to the Redskins!
Court victories
Shocking the conscience
Of fans on old D.C.

Inspired by CARSTONIO post:

***** God is only a metaphor for a beginning that we may never fully understand…

Part one.

Should religion be taught in public schools in America?

The easy answer to this question is that no, religion should not be taught in school unless we mean by religion comparative religion, which is essentially the scientific outlook (comparison and contrast) applied to religion. And the U.S. Constitution supports this view, is essentially a recommendation and even a plan by which power is checked by power, so that no matter the power--whether an old and familiar one or new and not anticipated--it is arrested in its movement, prevented from causing society to fall back into the archetypal patterns of society ruled by one man (which depending on how we feel is monarchy or its negative, tyranny) or a consortium (which depending on how we feel, is an aristocracy or oligarchy).

Part two.

But unfortunately things are not so simple. The very Constitution of the U.S.--its recommendations and plans--is something quite new in history. And "what it means", essentially democracy, is new itself. In fact as we learn in the old English classic on political philosophy, Hobbes's Leviathan, democracy is so new and perishable that not only an aristocracy gone negative--oligarchy--is preferable to democracy, but that monarchy gone negative--tyranny-- is preferable. And the reason why is that democracy has the negative--anarchy--which is the worst of the three negatives. Furthermore history shows that the positive we call democracy over its negative--anarchy--is the most difficult of the three positives to establish.

What this essentially means is that no matter how clear the U.S. Constitution is about separation of powers and checks and balances, it will always (at least for the foreseeable future) be subject to being interpreted in the light of types of one man rule or aristocracy (and I should mention theocracy can be one or the other or both) for the simple reason that these latter forms of government are more common and easier to establish historically. The democratic impulse views aristocracy not to mention monarchy negatively, but the democratic impulse has not demonstrated enough consistency, success, by which aristocracy or even monarchy can be considered definitively negative. In fact democracy in even the most advanced nations shows itself all too susceptible to its negative, anarchy. We see this in the constant political stalemates and other areas of life in which it is impossible to arrive at a decision. In other words, the very secularism a significant group of people feel is a given is actually, historically, a rarity.

Part three.

The United States essentially does not know how special it is, what a historical anomaly it is. Many will say what I apparently mean, the democracy of the U.S., is actually becoming quite common, from England to India, from Japan to Australia. But the problem is so many places of democracy are not the mixing bowl the U.S. is, they are all too often not even an attempt at a melange let alone a success at such. Homogeneous Japan and Israel are good examples. The U.S.--most certainly according to Hobbes--is deluded in its belief that democracy is quite easy to establish. One look at the world, the difficulty of getting agreement on anything from the proliferation of WMD to climate change shows that for all democracy worldwide its negative, anarchy, is more apparent. But the U.S. apparently is not bothered about facts on the ground. Not only at home do we have the press for more and more secularism--and no, do not tell me the Republican party is an effective restraint on such, an effective restraint on the secularism of the Democratic party--we have our delusion, our unfounded optimism extended to even foreign policy.

Take how the U.S. treats a problem such as Afghanistan or Iraq. The U.S. essentially tries to apply the values it holds dear at home to those places. The inhabitants of those countries are just supposed to hold elections, to divide power intelligently, to not demonstrate any type of aristocracy let alone monarchy, worldly or divine. Certainly the U.S. cannot properly fight in such nations--it is restrained by the very laws applied at home. In other words the U.S. cannot impose itself in aristocratic let alone monarchic fashion in those countries. And certainly powers such as Saddam Hussein or the Taliban are viewed negatively by the U.S.--although they are arguably exactly what those countries needed. Hobbes would say the U.S. is not only weak but ridiculous. Far from establishing democracy in such nations the U.S. is creating the negative of democracy, anarchy, and all because it is so hostile to any hint of aristocracy not to mention monarchy within itself that it cannot see that in those nations--let alone the world as a whole--that such "primitive political processes" are necessary. The foreign policy of the U.S.--especially the left wing--is nothing more than a recipe for anarchy.

Part four.

We see this anarchy slowly creeping in the very homeland. The U.S. constantly emphasizes multicultural habits at home and constantly speaks of keeping anarchy at bay (or rather does not speak at all about such) by education, never mind that of what this education is supposed to consist--this education which should exist specifically to keep anarchy at bay--no one apparently knows. Education in science? Historical studies? Comparative religion? Classes in Civics? And be honest people, how many people really have what it takes to be such ideal citizens? The evidence so far as I can tell is that perhaps ten percent of the people in the U.S. and none in such places as...well, we shall keep quiet about that, will understand these very words I have written. So how can I not sympathize with such ideas as capital punishment--severe justice in general--or even aristocracy,--or even monarchy? Certainly I feel that in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. must ruthlessly establish order--proceed in even tyrannical fashion--or just get out, for nothing else will work. Certainly not the compassion of liberals (Democratic party in the U.S.).

Conclusion: Why should the U.S. not be turned into a Christian, theocratic nation? Because the Constitution says otherwise? Because that is irrational? More irrational than the idiotic and common belief--especially on the liberal side--that the U.S. can just integrate these people and that in some sort of secular state utterly immune from anarchy? Amazing how so many say they are on the side of reason in the U.S. and then when one examines their prescriptions against unreason they are unreason itself. And no doubt it would be too much to ask any American citizen to read Hobbes's Leviathan. Might take away from that true uniter among us: television. Yes, it seems the antidote to anarchy must be images pressed into the mind to the point of stupor. No wonder democracy is believed to be easy to establish worldwide. So far as I can tell we should not only not have religion in school, we should not have school itself. What point is school when democracy can exist by television? And besides, with no schooling at all we have nothing to fear from religion. Everyone in fact will be happy. Television will be our new God.

771979,

What the Texas Board of Education should require to be taught about Islam:

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.

ccnl1 wrote:

"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.

Current crises: the legends, reincarnation and fat/skinny Buddhas- which one is it?"

Pretty weak criticisms from the eternal spiritual critic. There is no crisis in Buddhism, except the perpetual one of promulgating a completely egalitarian philosophy without the attendant institutions and their hierarchies.

Nobody should lose sleep over whether the Buddha was fat or skinny, although if he could stay fat after walking around India and teaching for fifty years, perhaps that is the sign that he was a miracle worker too.

"Carstonio", another of the many probability waves on this blog, speaks but for whom???

We Muslims believe in, "The best in this world as well as in the Hereafter." We are instructed in the Quran not to veer to extremes but adhere to ummatum wassatun (middle path) and refrain from excess of any kind and 99.99% earnestly strive to attain this middle ground, which is the most fertile ground in which to practice our Deen as Allah intended for us and lead a morally correct life: an Islam of peace, compassion, mercy, tolerance and justice for all. Islam is an entirely tolerant religion. Islam says tolerance is the only basis for peace in a society and where tolerance is absent, peace will be non-existent.

I believe that children should be taught different faiths in schools with the emphasis that none is superior to the other. We must find common grounds, common terms and similarities in various scriptures and convey the true message of Almighty God, Allah and Bhagwan etc to the young so that they do not grow up with prejudices, hate and discriminate against other's faiths., Without religious values and teachings a society can not distinguish between a sin, haram, halal, good and bad. We are all born with the 'Moral Within' and should encourage our children to explore and enhance it in their ego.

The world has one God. He is the Creator and the Master. The greatest proof of God's existence is the existence of Universe itself. There are some amongst us who believe that religion is a thing of the past and obsolete and there are people who do not know if God exists. The myth behind this is that it is without logic and evidence. Let us examine this argument and follow that believing in God does not require faith in the Unseen but is backed up by what we see around us, for example, the cosmological or the First Cause. We observe unity among the forces of gravity behind the orbit of the planets and our staying fixed to Earth. We need not go any further than our bodies and look at the wondrous anatomical, biological, and physiological functions of our brain, eyes, ears, nose, heart and every organ, and for the people of knowledge, there are signs of His plan at work.

God is transcendent and beyond all physical perception of man and it is through the medium of a celestial messenger that God causes His Will and Command to be revealed to His human messenger for the sake of mankind. I believe that the children must learn the fact that a society without ethics and religious values is fake and bound to collapse.

Most politically conservative Christians cannot discuss religion except in a Sunday-School style setting. They prove this everyday by their postings on this forum.

If anyone approaches them with a little curiousity about religion, they react like a steel-trap, SNAP, to ensare the prey, not to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion, but to "convert" them and to pray. (After all, they are saving people from being cast into the Lake of Fire).

How is this going to work in a classroom, where, even the teachers themselves have many and varied religoius beliefs, and where the students and their parents will be from many backgrounds? It is going to lead to dissension and conflict.

These politically consservative Christians are dominating and aggressive. They are not going to allow "normal" discussion of religios matters in school without attempts at conversion, and without seeking to impose their prayers.

I guarantee that if religion is taught in the schools not to their liking, they will be waiiling and crying on the schoolhouse steps, comparing themselves to the early Christian martyrs, waving their baby-killer signs and proclaiming the Godlessness of America.

Farnaz

The unreasoning and dominating proseletyzing of politically Conservative Christians makes it completely impossible to have any kind of course, curriculum, discussion, or even reference to religion in the public schools. Because of them, it wall always be a food fight. Better just to stick to "Dick and Jane and their dog Spot", to get the rudimetns accross, and then teach or learn the rest elsewhere.

Ruby, a very tiny segment were atheist and they were countering the Inquisition and Crusades where heretics were slaughtered for saying god is an imaginary friend. Why were Catholics mostly killed? Because most were Catholics ,it's simple statistics and don't pretend a few atheists can kill off hundreds of catholics. I suggest you find the Museum of Torture exhibit sometime and find out what christians did to heretics.

For Muckenfuss:

You said, “Christian people fled Europe because of religious persecution...by other christers. Christianity is, ultimately, a disease.”

Persecution is a disease of humanity. ‘Moral’ atheists do it too. Take the French Revolution for example…

The French Reign of Terror included a movement by atheists to dechristianize society. The leaders of the Revolution saw Christianity as a disease, just as you do. The government seized church property (stole might be a more accurate term), deported and killed members of the clergy (remember the guillotine?), outlawed both public and private worship and destroyed religious monuments.

The enactment of a law on October 21st, 1793 made all suspected priests and all persons who harbored them liable to death without trial or due process.

In November of that same year, these same leaders of the Revolution held celebrations in honor of the goddess “Reason” in Notre Dame Cathedral.

Is that who you worship – Reason?

The French Revolution killed between 150,000 and 250,000 people over a ten year period. No single group suffered higher losses than the Catholics.

The French Revolutionaries believed in a Freedom FROM Religion and look what their atheist morality achieved. I’m glad our Founding Fathers (even the atheist ones) were smarter than that. A Freedom OF Religion means exactly that.

OF, not FROM.

I pity my poor sister, a Texas public school history teacher. She'll have to teach this drivel.
Those poor cretins at the Board of Education (TBE) still haven't figured out after over 40 years, that religion belongs at home or in houses of worship, not in the classroom. As children and as parents, we were always battling some yokel who thought it was okay to offer prayers over the loud speaker, decorate with religious themes for holidays, etc. Most often, when challenged, the reason offered was, "Well, the kids voted on it and the majority thought it was ok." Then we would have to go into the fact that as much as 25% of a given classroom wasn't Christian and shouldn't be made to feel less than welcome before they would back off.
This, combined with the various lawsuits and court rulings regarding religious practices in various school districts should have made it abundantly to the TBE that they are travelling on thin ice.
The teaching of religion belongs in the classroom ONLY so far as teaching that it has had a role in much of history, but specific beliefs should be left out.

"While those influences are important, they are not the most important ones. "

To clarify, I mean "important" not in terms of influence but in value, because the goal here is for government to not give any religions privileged status over the others.

"Both evolution and creationism, despite their glaring differences, coexist and contribute to our modern understanding of the world."

Benjamin, would you explain? "Understanding of the world" seems vague - it could apply to the universe or it could apply to human existence. Evolution and other scientific conclusions are not intended as value propositions about the latter. The vast majority of the criticisms I've heard about evolution, even the secular criticisms, seem to be rooted in the belief that humans are special and superior to animals. Evolution is value-neutral like any other scientific conclusion. The conclusion that humans evolved from other life forms doesn't automatically mean that humans aren't special - that's merely the value interpretation that opponents are choosing to make.

Evolution and creationism are not opposites. Strictly speaking, evolution contradicts all religions' creation stories, but only if one reads those stories literally. Most religions treat their creation stories as allegories or parables, viewing the truth in those stories as metaphorical and not literal, and this holds for mainline Christian theology as well. What we call "creationism" is an attempt to pass off a value belief about humanity as a scientific conclusion. An allegorical reading of Genesis might contribute to understanding of human existence, but there's no reason to treat it as any more special than any other religion's creation allegory. No religion can claim any special status over the others.

"While that should be an acceptable view to have in a public school, you should be unable to deny the enormous impact the Bible and Christianity have had on American culture."

While those influences are important, they are not the most important ones. The zealots on the Texas school board, and their consultants, don't seem interested in an even-handed treatment of such influences. I suspect that they really want to turn all students in public schools in Texas into Christians. America is a nation of no one religion, and saying that America is a "(fill in the blank) nation" falsely and dangerously equates sectarian belief with patriotism. It essentially says that the nation belongs only to people who subscribe to that religion. It effectively tells people who belong to other religions, "We'll grudgingly tolerate your presence in our country, but you don't qualify as real Americans."

Firstly, religion should absolutely be taught in public schools. All major religions have acted to shape the history of the world and as a collective force, belief in a higher power has driven the path of human society and culture from the earliest days of organized civilization.

Now, the caviat to this is that no other area of study should be excluded from the public school curriculum because it conflicts with the belief system of the dominant regional religion. The most pertinent example--evolution. The pursuit of knowledge in the scientific realm should not be presented as a matter of belief, just as the study of religion in public schools should not be taught as either the right or wrong path. Both evolution and creationism, despite their glaring differences, coexist and contribute to our modern understanding of the world.

In the extreme cases for either side, consider how one might believe one side of the argument to be correct, and yet learn about both sides in schools. If you are a creationist parent trying to maintain that religious foundation in your children in public school, would you still not want your child to understand what others are talking about when they discuss evolution? Whether it is correct or not, it is a commonly accepted model for humanity's arrival at the current age. To deny your child an understanding of this idea is to promote ignorance instead of informed decision-making.

Instead, imagine you have a child in school and you put no stock whatsoever in the factual basis for the Bible and creationism. While that should be an acceptable view to have in a public school, you should be unable to deny the enormous impact the Bible and Christianity have had on American culture. This is a nation founded on freedom of religion. Therefore whether you actually believe the words of the Bible (or other religious texts for that matter) are true, you should not deny your child an understanding of its contents and implications on society.

The main battle of education should be against ignorance in general. All views should be considered in an academic arena. Any obstruction to that end must be removed. Those who attempt to deny this nation's children of a foundation in history and culture are performing a great disservice. And while I agree that the typically held understanding is that young, international students perform better on comparative tests than American children, in the highest levels of education, America is the undisputed center of achievement. Those same sucessful students from around the world flock to American universities and research centers to reach their potentials. What we must do as a country is ensure that American children are on the path that sets them up for sucess on the global stage and have all the advantages our country of opportunity can provide.

It Texans wants to perpetuate their image as having ignorance in ketchup-like squeeze bottles on their dinner tables, more power to them.

Peter, based on 1 Corinthians 2:14 you said “Faith is a gift for those who believe. You need God's help in seeing things as they really are (1 Corinthians 2:14)”. To believe on something I need solid reasons. If you say that first I need to believe, then God will help me to see the things as they really are, this doesn’t make any sense. For example, if the faith you refer to is the faith that God exists, and if I already have faith in God, why I need help from God to see the things as they really are?

Another example. My natural self was supposedly created by God. Based on Romans 8:7,8 you said that “Your natural self, the one that believes that evolutions is the answer to the riddle of life, is at enmity with God”. This doesn’t make sense. There is part of me that God created that is an enemy with God. This do not compute in my mind.

Peter, some of your phrases sound good and comforting, but they are utterly confusing or non meaningful. What I pray and beg for is for you to provide an unequivocal proof that God exists. A proof that is not based in what God tells you in your dreams or what God says trough the bible. Once you prove this, then the second step will be to prove unequivocally that God is asking something from me in order for me to receive something from Her/Him.

farnaz,
btw, agreed that implementation would likely be a problem as many (most?)christian teachers would have difficulty treating their precious "truths" like fables.

farnaz, you said,
"I've had this experience more than once with students in teaching American literature, in which Christianity plays no small role."

i've often (not here, but in person to friends) made the case that the way for christians to "get the bible back in (public) schools" is in history/literature/art classes. you can't study those things without knowing something about the bible. until the impressionists just about every "serious" western artist painted biblical scenes (or portraits). it's almost like they just couldn't think of anything else to paint.

again, in teaching this stuff, one doesn't need to say anything about whether david slew goliath, one can just say, "the story goes..." teach these stories like aesop's fables or the odyssey.

Schools are barely able to teach math, science, and reading to a level commiserate with other nations, and Texas wants to throw in religion?

Texas should be required to show that its students understand the Constitution + amendments, major supreme court rulings, and the development of major political parties before they are allowed to even start to open this can of worms.

Religion 101 as noted below can be taught in less than an hour. No need for special teachers. Actually a two sided handout will do the job. Next topic!!

Did you get the one on Tweety Bird being God?

Somebody must have been hung over when she wrote that one. %~}

Returned for the nonce
In poor rhymed parlance

The topics were boring
And soon had me snoring

Walter,

I agree that Dennett's proposal seems reasonable although he dismisses too easily some implementation difficulties, such as teacher preparation. It might be that we would need specialists at the high school level, special required courses for teachers at the middle and elementary school levels, once, that is, we figured out where in the curriculum this body of knowledge should go.

A second problem would be with atheist and agnostic students, some of whom find learning about religion almost unbearable. I've had this experience more than once with students in teaching American literature, in which Christianity plays no small role, most notably among the Puritans and in "discovery" narratives.

Dennett's suggestion that historic doubt be addressed does not go far enough, I think. Both the demands of intellectual honesty and those of atheist students suggest that the development and history of doubt, its various permutations would have to be woven through the curriculum.
This could, I would imagine, be done in connection with each religion as it is studied.

Pseudo,

You have returned!

There once was a school board in Texas
Whose doctrines were just so contentious
They viewed history classes
Through polarized glasses
And so made the books more tendentious

farnaz,
dennett's proposal is very reasonable. sounds like something i said below about not speaking to the veracity of any religions. i guess it's we should teach "about" religion, but not religion.

religionists should be careful here, though. the more people learn about all the world's religions, the more they'll see how similar they are. that's what did it for me. i took a "comparative religion" class in college. all religions take various stances on the various (inaginary) unknowables: soul, afterlife, the pre-universe, the soul in the afterlife, the soul before life, blah, blah, blah.... what i realized was how unlikely to be true any one configuration of (imaginary) unknowable truths is.

PERSIFLAGE and All,

Check out Dennett's essay. Here he is in his own words recommending that students be taught the world's religions. You will recall that I had mentioned his views on the subject several times, but could not locate a link.

An interesting piece he's written here,I think....

Another related thought: Peretz, the great Yiddish writer, was an atheist, opposed to religion. Yet, his writings, as many have noted, suggest that we need religion as a moral reference, both to guide us and challenge us in ways we might rightly oppose, the "we" being atheists.

While the topic does not concern religion per se, but fundamentalism, zealotry, extremism, as Susan so cogently argues, I wonder, might an approach such as Dennett's work against dangerously reactionary religionist trends? Might it help to bring about the kind of discourse Peretz envisioned?

pam, you said,
"Adams was one of the more devout of the FFs - he and Jefferson argued about it by post well into their dotage."

well, i'm much more familiar with madison and jefferson. was adams "christian", not "deist"? from what i've gathered about adams (we can largely toss out the public statements, but letters are like reading their emails!), adams had some kind of "god", but did't allow for "miracles" (e.g. resurrection). i don't know if that disqualifies him as "christian". these days i think it would - at least for most people, and certainly for the "troublesome" christians who want the bible taught in public school. nonetheless, he certainly understood the need for other people to have religion to help them behave...

pam, peter,
"see" you there (at pam's link).

Walter says:
"(btw, doesn't seem like adams was much of a christian...)"

Actually, Adams was one of the more devout of the FFs - he and Jefferson argued about it by post well into their dotage. But Adams wasn't at such a remove from the past couple of centuries of English history that he could fail to appreciate what had happened there, as it whipsawed from Anglican to Catholic and back, with all the attendant burnings and beheadings (Bloody Mary earned her appellation).

Religion 101 continued for those eyes that have not seen:

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 massacre in Mumbai, the assassinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, 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, reincarnation 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.

Current crises: the legends, reincarnation and fat/skinny Buddhas- which one is it?

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.

The final course note: Apply the Five F rule: "First Find the Flaws, then Fix the Foundations". And finally there will be religious peace in the world!!!!!

Walter, Peter,
We could use Susan's last one, which has only 9 comments - I think it's still open.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/08/ignorance_about_sexually_transmitted_diseases.html

ender2, you said,

"...do you teach christianity as history or as myth?"

there is no need to comment on the veracity of christianity. it should be taught (if at all in public schools) as a social phenomenon - in terms of its effects on american history. and especially like i said below, how hard jefferson, madison, adams et. al. had to fight to keep christianity OUT of our government. it was a new idea back then.

as john adams said,
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

from A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1788

(btw, doesn't seem like adams was much of a christian...)

"Christianity is, ultimately, a disease."

...because it is interested in what OTHER people think. when god (supposedly) said to moses, "no other gods" it ruined everything for the rest of us.

the 1st commandment is the worst sentiment in scripture. and from ex20 on, the bible is a collection of stories designed to reinforce it. in ex21, god begins to explain how the commandments are not merely suggestions. and He is not a nuanced god. the penalty for having other gods is death.

we don't generally kill people anymore, but the sentiment is there. the penalty shows how the commandments are not personal creeds. they apply to OTHERS. this horrible idea pervades all judeochrislamic scripture. the idea is to create a God-pleasing SOCIETY with only christians (or jews or muslims, depending on your bent).

Hmmm, the probability waves Muckenfuss and Carstonio have arrived. Can the probability waves Farnaz2 et al be far behind crashing these blog beaches with more deception???

I was raised in a Southern Baptist church where I was taught that Catholics were not Christians and probably had horns. Likewise, Jews killed Jesus and were tools of Satan.

Somewhere the Moral Majority decided that Catholics were natural allies in the battle to control women's reproductive rights, and that Israel had to get control of Jerusalem and rebuild the temple for Armageddon to happen and christians could get their reward and better yet prove they were correct. But, most evangelist and Baptist will still tell you that the Catholic religion doesn't provide salvation though some enlightened Catholics may be christians.

Since Catholism has been the dominant form of Christianity for most of its existance shouldn't that be the form of christianity taught if we were going that route?

And then, do you teach christianity as history or as myth? There is no historical evidence that jesus existed, and Constantine created the Catholic church to unify the empire and gain dominance for the Eastern Empire, so I'm pretty sure the historical angle isn't going to fly. So do you teach it as a collection of myths cobbled together from Judism, Zorastrianism and pagan religions? Or do you just skip reality altogether and teach is as literally hundreds of different realities that are mutually exclusive but all completely true?

No way. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves.

Texas should get their wish and succeed from the Union.

WalterInFallsChurch wrote:

"we should teach how people fled europe because of religious persecution (by other religious people)."

More to the point, Christian people fled Europe because of religious persecution...by other christers. Christianity is, ultimately, a disease.

Rubytuesday wrote:

"A Freedom of Religion - which the Founding Fathers did advocate, should not be confused with a Freedom from Religion - which the Founding Fathers did not."

That is your opinion.

Mine is that freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion.

RubyTues,

"You have it backwards. The principles Martin Luther spoke of were Christian."

No religion, including Christianity, can claim exclusive title to those principles. This blog, written by an evangelical Christian, explains the difference between MLK and Huckabee:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/01/king-and-huck.html

The blogger writes, "King's argument was ultimately a secular one: a call for justice in accord with the biblical prophets but also, even more so, in accord with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Huckabee's argument is ultimately a religious one: a call for the Constitution to be re-written in accord with the (alleged) fiats of his faith. By stating, explicitly, that he wants 'to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards' he is saying, precisely, 'You can't challenge this because it comes from a transcendent authority that can never be challenged.'"

Put another way, Huckabee's argument only works if one believes in Huckabee's god.

on topic...

i think americans should be educated about the role of religion in american history.

we should teach how people fled europe because of religious persecution (by other religious people). we should i think we should teach how once they got here, given the chance to form a new government, many wanted to become the persecutors by establishing their own religion as state and national religions. and we should teach how hard jefferson, madison, adams et. al. had to fight to keep christianity OUT of our government.

Ruby, you mean like when the gov't says let's teach the bible? Or do you mean that the FF created the 1st amendment and elaborate on it to the Danbury baptists by saying it created a wall between church and state? md457@hotmail.com

For DanielintheLionsDen:

You say, “That is one reason why we have a Bill of Rights written into our Constitution which includes one for religion.”

A Freedom of Religion - which the Founding Fathers did advocate, should not be confused with a Freedom from Religion - which the Founding Fathers did not.

Government control of beliefs is the devil the Founding Fathers wished to avoid. That's why they mention The Freedom of Religion in the same breath as they do the Freedom of the Press and the Freedom of Assembly.

"What is completely left out of most history curricula is the secular perspective."

The "secular perspective cannot be taught without reference to its historical antecendents which include the Treaty of Westphalia, the Thirty Years War and, shockingly, religion.

"They are already so indoctrinated with the idea that America is a Christian nation--and of course they haven't read the Constitution--that the the actual text of the document comes as a shock."

They also might be shocked that the phrase, "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution as well.

For Carstonio:

You say, “Martin Luther King often invoked his religious beliefs in the cause of civil rights, but he always translated these into nonsectarian principles.”

You have it backwards. The principles Martin Luther spoke of were Christian.

In his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, King quotes Isaiah 40:4 and makes allusions to Amos 5:24, not for the sake of rhetoric, but to capture the moral right of what he is saying. He invokes “God” not once in this speech, but numerous times.

In his ‘Mountaintop” speech, King cites the Parable of the Good Samaritan and quotes from the Books of Exodus and Amos to demonstrate that the morality of the Civil Rights movement is justified in the words of God. America’s problem (and I include most of the Christian Americans of that time in this group) is that we failed to grasp God’s higher morality until MLK showed it to us.

Jesus ministered to the poor, the disenfranchised and the outcast. If Christ did it, it is a Christian principle.

Jesus said God’s love does not apply only to the rich, the privileged and the powerful, but to everyone. If Christ said it, it is a Christian principle.

The Bible says that a Christian should be like a light on a hill. The fact that non-Christians noticed that light in Martin Luther King is a testament to his very Christianity. In other words, Martin Luther King was not great because he was less of a Christian than most of us. He was great because he was more of a Christian.

off topic, sorry...
peter, pam,
i was not able to post there. i think it's closed. we could continue our conversation here, but this blog is pretty active...or we could go to some unused blog like
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/willis_e_elliott/2009/09/religion_in_american_history_-_but_in_public-school_textbooks.html

What's even more irritating to me is that Christians view other religions with contempt. Not only that, they hate the other sects of Christianity as well!
They can't even come to a consensus on anything within their own religion, but they think nothing of trying to shove it down everyone's throat.

The Bill of Rights of the American Constitution was written about 142 years after the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War, the last and most destructive religious war in what is now Germany. To the rising German nation, this war was more destructive than either World War I or World War II, and delayed the formation of the German nation state by about 200 years.

To our forfathers, recollection of these events was about as recent our our recollection of our own Civil War. They knew all about these events and thought about them alot, even though most people now have long forgotten them.

That is one reason why we have a Bill of Rights written into our Constitution which includes one for religion.

They don't teach that in public schools, either.

"70 percent of Americans believe in God and their God-view influences their World-view. "

RubyTues, we can't assume that all those people are Christians. In any case, the issue is not the influence you describe. The real issue here is that a minority of religious believers insist that their belief should be the sole basis for making public policy. Martin Luther King often invoked his religious beliefs in the cause of civil rights, but he always translated these into nonsectarian principles. Mike Huckabee argued for policy based solely on his sectarian beliefs - his argument was "My god said so." The latter is a theocratic mentality, and that seems to be the mentality at work in the Texas controversy.

SJ wrote: "It is disgraceful that the the Texas State Board of Education, in considering textbook revisions, would even listen to the opinion of a preacher, the Rev. Peter Marshall, who declared that Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on the nation's sexual immorality. What could such a crackpot possibly know about history or anything else?"

Let's assume Marshall believes that (and let's also assume - since we cannot do more - that he is incorrect). How does it follow that this Yale U. and Princeton Seminary graduate knows nothing about anything? Plenty of people more knowledgeable about history (and much else) than you have entertained propositions that I'm sure you'd find equally "crackpot" but which do not necessarily invalidate their other opinions or nullify their knowledge.

"70 percent of Americans believe in God and their God-view influences their World-view."

You do not know this to be true.

If the stated percentage is accurate, all you can say for sure is that 70% of Americans claimed on a survey that they believe in a god and that their god-view influences their world-view.

I would think that if 70% of Americans actually believed in a god, and followed the teachings of their god, there would be few or no homeless, little or no poverty, universal health care, etc.

It would seem to me that conservative Christians would not want to expose too much about its history in America, given the atrocities they've committed against blacks and indians (among others) may turn off many students to the idea of following this religion.

But leave it to Texas to try to keep this country in the 17th century.

Jacoby writes, "What is completely left out of most history curricula is the secular perspective." A better word would be nonsectarian, in the broadest sense of neutrality among all religions. The nonsectarian approach would focus on the influences of not just freethought and deism, or not just evangelicalism, but both of these and other influences. Government neutrality among religions is not "secularism" because that word implies keeping religion out of all political discourse - the word falsely treats government and the "public square" as being the same thing.

There is so much misunderstanding about religion these days. Secularist criticisms fail to differentiate the views of liberal Episcopalians from conservative Southern Baptists. Most Americans are at a loss to describe how an otherwise ‘peaceful’ Islam can advocate jihad. Some people’s notions of Buddhism come from nothing other than old Kung-Foo movies.

If you think these things don’t matter, you’re wrong. 70 percent of Americans believe in God and their God-view influences their World-view. Because we do not try to understand each other, we tend to talk at each other instead of to each other - and nothing gets done. The Separation of Church and State has become our excuse for a wall of miscommunication and ignorance.

What do religious Calvinists, Quakers, Catholics and Atheists have in common? All fled England when the crown commanded people to worship in the Anglican faith or face the King’s wrath. You could not, by law, hold public office unless you were a member of the Church of England and this restriction hurt people of other faiths as much, if not more, than people of no faith. The English Civil War was not just a political war, but a religious one. The Anglicans won and the non conformist’s answer, believer and disbeliever alike, became America. They don’t teach you that in school.

Thomas Jefferson’s views on religious freedom were largely inspired by his experiences in Virginia, where the Episcopal Church was so dominant that is was the defacto state religion. There was even debate in the state legislature as to whether Virginia tax dollars should be used to fund the church, as it was in England. Was Jefferson’s stand against God or against a state-funded religious monopoly? They don’t ask that question in school.

Protestants are such a diverse group. I grew up thinking the term meant nothing more than ‘not-Catholic’, but there are three things that virtually all Protestants believe that Catholics do not. Do you know what they are?

There are six concepts that differentiate Christianity from every other religion in the world. Do you know what they are?

A little religious education, the right kind of religious education, would seem to be a very good thing. The difference between good and bad in the public schools, is that we should make sure we teach without advocating. I think Thomas Jefferson could live with that.

How should religion be taught in public schools??

Hmmm, by simply being truthful about the founders and foundations of the major religions.

e.g. (for those eyes that have not seen)

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 chosen people.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

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

Current crises:

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

3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination 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, all male hierarchies and strange banking and funding.

Susan said:

"It would certainly be an excellent idea to discuss the role of religion in American history from different religious and secular perspectives--as long as the perspectives were clearly labeled."

It would be nice, but it can never happen. Politically conservative and Fundamentalist Christians have become notorious for their flamboyant proselytism. They would seek to influence, contnrol, and dominate any school curriculum pertaining to religion.

In a way that they demonstrate in this forum everyday, they would proclaim, very loudly, the truth of the Bible, and then cite the very truth of the Bible as proof that the Bible is true, when in reality, truth would be nowhere in sight.

Because this type of proselytizing is a politically hostile practice, religious discussion in the schools must remain taboo.

As a child, I attended public schools in Virginia. My public education did not include anything about religion, so when I went away to college and took my first course in Western Civilation, my eyes were opened for the first time to all of the various misadventures of Christianity throuhout the ages. For example, I was completely unaware of the Age of Religious Wars in Europe, in which millions of people were killled as the Protestants and the Catholics worked out the finer details of their theologies.

Years later, I found a book in my local public library, which I believe was entitled, "A History of Chrstianity." It was about a thousand pages long, but I read it all.

This is the kind of book that should be taught in the public schools if learnning real history is what people are interested in. But this cannot happen because the politically conservative Christians would not allow it.

I say, teach the kids to read, and give them a good school library or public library card, and the ones who care enough to find out the truth, will.

OnFaith really needs to improve its server, so you can see the difference between timing out and taking a while to post.

I'm currently reading While Europe Slept by Robert Bowser about Muslim growth on that continent, and why the Europeans didn't see it as a threat to their way of life until it became a cultural clash.

One of the author's reasons is that Europe doesn't have Muslim-like Christian leaders, as America does. Few Europeans are religious and the ones that are believe in a theology of peace, brotherhood and charity. Their paradigm of a religious person is Mother Theresa, who fought poverty and built bridges to other cultures.

In America we have religious leaders like Ted Haggard and Pat Robertson, whose views are parochial, militaristic and anti-intellectual. Curtailing the teaching of evolution in a public school because it contradicts the Bible is something only very small, insular religious minorities in Europe would even consider, but is still popular in America and is the mainstream view in the Muslim world.

To defeat religously-exclusivistic Christian views, the analogy to Islamic states needs to clarified. And we need to find a way to show the difference is intelligence vs. superstition, not Allah vs. Yahweh.

I'm currently reading While Europe Slept by Robert Bowser about Muslim growth on that continent, and why the Europeans didn't see it as a threat to their way of life until it became a cultural clash.

One of the author's reasons is that Europe doesn't have Muslim-like Christian leaders, as America does. Few Europeans are religious and the ones that are believe in a theology of peace, brotherhood and charity. Their paradigm of a religious person is Mother Theresa, who fought poverty and built bridges to other cultures.

In America we have religious leaders like Ted Haggard and Pat Robertson, whose views are parochial, militaristic and anti-intellectual. Curtailing the teaching of evolution in a public school because it contradicts the Bible is something only very small, insular religious minorities in Europe would even consider, but is still popular in America and is the mainstream view in the Muslim world.

To defeat religously-exclusivistic Christian views, the analogy to Islamic states needs to clarified. And we need to find a way to show the difference is intelligence vs. superstition, not Allah vs. Yahweh.

Hi Pam, Walter,

Are you still able to post on the Health Care forum?