Schaum

You wrote, " Atheists do not "believe" there is no god; atheists believe there is no proof of the existence of god. Two very different concepts."

Have you taken a poll, not a scientific poll, but a poll of absolutely every atheist that is, was or will be and found out that this is what they "believe"?

I thought atheists were allowed to think for themself and that there is no "dogma" and yet you have clearly said here that this is what "defines" an atheist, what about an atheist that believes that there is no god, is this person not an atheist, according to you, because he or she does not believe as you believe?

Actually, what you put forward as a "dogmatic statement" on atheism would more accurately be call agnosticism, would it not?

You also wrote, "One must wonder about the credibility of a god-believer who comes to an atheist's thread in the expectation of being taken seriously."

I am not Jihadist who you referred this statement too but I used to be a "God-believer", as you put it, until God revealed to me that God Is and not only that but that God Is a Trinity.

As far as "being taken seriously", that is up to the reader/listener whether or not they actually read/listen to what is being said rather than taking a smug, superior attitude toward others that they disagree with.

As should be obvious, there are those from both the theist and atheist "mind-set" that take a shine toward these attitudes and there are those from both the theist and atheist "mind-set" that actually "listen/read" to others.

Sure does seem to be a whole lot more "talk" going on in the world than "communication".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

By the way, my congratulations. I didn't know it was possible to cram so many prepositions into one sentence.

Jihadist whined:

"And here I was, missing the sharp, spicy delicious posts by Norrie Hoyt and the vuvuzela posts of CCNL.

"You'll do, to represent one of the current crop of athiests in On Faith to having a Jihad to show the Rigth Path to Logic, Reason and Truth according to Atheism to those who defied the laws of gravity. I go by the theory of relavity and principles of relativism."

Thats not all you are missing.

Right Path to Logic, Reason and Truth according to Atheism? Are you privy to any instructional material that tells "Atheists" what "Atheism" teaches? I'm not. There is no "Atheist ideology", no "Atheist teaching/scripture", no "Atheist Path" -- except in the minds of the ill-informed and delusional god-believers. Atheists do not "believe" there is no god; atheists believe there is no proof of the existence of god. Two very different concepts.

Is that simple enough for you to understand? One must wonder about the credibility of a god-believer who comes to an atheist's thread in the expectation of being taken seriously. Yet another delusion. I can understand your fascination with CCNL.

Not to worry. Nuanced thinking is something about which you will never need to be concerned. You, on the other hand, might want to reexamine your generalizations, leaps in logic and outright illogical assertions which defy gravity!

Posted by: Schaum

******************************************

Excellent!

And here I was, missing the sharp, spicy delicious posts by Norrie Hoyt and the vuvuzela posts of CCNL.

You'll do, to represent one of the current crop of athiests in On Faith to having a Jihad to show the Rigth Path to Logic, Reason and Truth according to Atheism to those who defied the laws of gravity. I go by the theory of relavity and principles of relativism.

My brother had bipolar disorder, which was pretty untreatable. In theory, there is alot, medically, that can be done, but in the real world, the current system of mental health care cannot do much to help severly ill people. For instance, they cannot force him to take treatment that he does not want to take. And they cannot share any information about his illness or treatment with his family, if he with-holds permission. So, I and my family, had to endure the problem, alone, ourselves, without any kind of valid medical assistance or help.

He never threatened suicide, nor tried it before, but he did cause an awful lot of problems. I feel relieved, in a way, like I have taken off a lead jacket that weighed me down for so long, that I did not even feel its weight, until, now, it is gone.

There are only a few people in the world that you REALLY love and who REALLY love you in return. And now, of those few people, I have one less. He caused us alot of problems, but just having him around, alive in the world, he helped alot too, just by being. When I hurt my knee and couldn't drive, he drove me around. Now, I feel more alone.

What he did does seem a little mean. But if I find myself being angry at him, then I realize that he is gone, gone, gone forever, and he won't get to do it again better next time.

I just feel that it is kind of weird that a person so severly ill is encouraged to buy guns, and I wonder, maybe if things had been a little different, might he have killed me too? and other members of my family? I was in the house just a couple of hours before he returned, and I feel very lucky that I left before he came back.

I hope we all treasure our second amendment gun rights, that encourage guns for everyone, even psychotically ill people, like the VA-Tech killer, and like my brother.

One do tend to see Americans as, well, Americans, once they opened their mouth and one hears their American accent, or rather accents, including the southern ones, regardless of skin shades.

Posted by: Jihadist
----------------------------
That is good! I hope that one day, all Americans can say the same.

"Except that living is, at least initially, the default value. It is suicide that is the choice."

Nevertheless, one could argue that simply accepting the default condition is selfish, while making the difficult choice is unselfish.

Jihadist:

"One do tend to see Americans as, well, Americans"

Yes, one do, don't one.

Psolus:

"One could argue that living is the ultimate act of selfishness."

Except that living is, at least initially, the default value. It is suicide that is the choice.

Jihadist wrote:

"Since when has a self-declared atheist have a more nuanced thinking on God in "On Faith"? "

Not to worry. Nuanced thinking is something about which you will never need to be concerned. You, on the other hand, might want to reexamine your generalizations, leaps in logic and outright illogical assertions which defy gravity!

DanielintheLionsDen

All I can say is, that you will see your brother in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Jihadist wrote:

"Just because atheists say they are 100% certain there is no God, all believers are delusional, does not mean all atheists are 100% informed, knowledgeable, logical, rational, reasonable or correct on everything."

Please quote your sources/authorities/references. I am an atheist, and I know of no atheists who make any "100% certain" claims that god does not exist. Atheists say there is no proof for the existence of god. That does not mean that his existence is a proven impossibility. I think, however, that you have sufficiently illustrated that YOU are delusional.

Posted by: Schaum

*******************************************

"Atheists say there is no proof for the existence of god. That does not mean that his existence is a proven impossibility."

Since when has a self-declared atheist have a more nuanced thinking on God in "On Faith"?

All they ever did before was to source from, use as references, the current "authorities" of atheists and atheism, i.e. Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett et al, quite copiously, and to consistently state that there is no God, God don't exist, God is a delusion, and believers are delusional.

Okay. Just because neo-nuanced atheists say there is no proof for the existence of god, but that does not mean that "his" existence is a proven impossibility, all believers are delusional, does not mean all atheists are 100% informed, knowledgeable, logical, rational, reasonable or correct on everything.

Jihadist

For several years, a married couple lived accross the street from me; the man was from Venezuela, and the woman was from Iran; neither spoke the other's language; English was their linqua franca, I believe that is what they called it; and they had a beautiful daughter who only spoke English. They were a beautiful family; perhaps the extra effort in communication and their difficulties in immigration made their little family more prescious to them, than I would say the average family seems to realize.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen

*******************************************

Hello Daniel,

My immediate ancestors are a multicultural and multireligious couple. Not devout at all in their original respective faiths save for really enjoying religion related festivities. Perhaps they are secretly dismayed, but not saying it, to see their offsprings are more religious than they are.

Not quite easy for them initially, to have a family across race, religion and continents, but they adjusted and adapted as best as they can for us, their offsprings, and are very good parents.

Of course they have arguments like other couples and so do we, their offsprings, with each other and our parents over things families argue about, even where to vacation as a family.

I really don't know if knowing more than one languages is a good thing for me, even if it helps to be multiligual. And certainly not good when I don't switch mentally to at least 80% of the language I am speaking and writing. The grammar and choice of words used are all too often wrong consequently very funny to the listener or reader and rightly so.

I blame it to living in Malaysia where I can unthinkingly mix three languages in one sentence in my informal speech and writing, no one bats an eye, understand me fully and not reprimand me for such language mixing, murdering and butchering. They do the same after after all.

JIhadist,

Re: YOur post

ON "intermarriage." It is all over America, among peoples of all social classes. I live in New York City, in Brooklyn. Stop by next time you're in the US.

We can drive from here to the hinterlands of Long Island, and then west if I can figure out what to do with husband and child.

The "color" of America is changing. However, there are monoculturalists all over the place, bigots, all over.
"Niched" is a good word. Many of us are "niched" in different ways. My Honduran friend and his Japanese wife have made a new niche. :)

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2

*******************************************

Next time I am in the United States, I will certainly pay more attention to couples and families and their various hues.

One do tend to see Americans as, well, Americans, once they opened their mouth and one hears their American accent, or rather accents, including the southern ones, regardless of skin shades.

Jihadist

"As you know, the American Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery, specifially, whether Congress had the authority to ban slavery from the newly conquored lands of Mexico, since Congress... "

Posted by : Danielinthelionsden

*******************************************

Daniel,

Thanks for that elaboration and clarification in your post as I don't know American history extensively and in depth.

Regards

J

"Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness..."

One could argue that living is the ultimate act of selfishness.

DITLD:

"When people kill themselves, they do not think about what it will do to those that they leave behind. If they even had an inkling of the pain that they would cause, they wouldn't do it."

I'm really sorry for what has happened in your family. Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness, but it is an individual's right to be wrong, I think. Basically, I suspect that most suicides are so overwhelmed and enveloped in their own pain, for which suicide is the escape, that they CANNOT rationally consider the pain that it causes others.

Are you going to be ok? There are good support mechanisms for survivors of suicide victims.

Also from Wikipedia:

"Size of the Court
The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, but Article III authorizes the Congress to fix the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices. As the country grew geographically, Congress increased the number of justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: the court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863.

At the request of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act (1866) which provided that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court should have eventually reached seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. However, this law did not play out to completion, for in the Judiciary Act of 1869,[74] also known as the Circuit Judges Act, the number of justices was again set at nine, where it has since remained.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937, seeking to appoint an additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement; under Roosevelt's proposal, such appointments would continue until the Court reached a maximum size of 15 justices. Ostensibly, the proposal was made to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but the President's actual purpose was to pack the Court with justices who would support New Deal policies and legislation."

The suggestion that Roosevelt's attempt to increase the size of the court was an attempt to pack it with support for his policies is conjecture. I'm willing to take FDRs "ostensible" reasons as what he claimed them to be.

The fact remains that there is no Constitutional requirement for 9 justices. I've been searching, and so far I can also find no constitutional requirement that a SCOTUS justice must be a lawyer. If that is true, perhaps we should have at least one justice who was released from death row after DNA proved his conviction/death sentence was erroneous.

Barfiero wrote:

"Good to see you have returned, Schaum."

Why, thank you. Two heart attacks can really slow you down.

Psolus wrote:

"Are catholics allowed to have opinions that disagree with the pope and the catholic church?"
_________________________________
Ask Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062801787.html

DITLD,

It would make sense for you to be angry. I don't have the right words--I keep groping--but I think it would make sense for you to be angry.

Dear DITLD,

I am more sorry about your brother than I can possibly say.

Daniel, there is absolutely nothing you could have done to stop your brother. I don't mean to sound all knowing because God knows I know very little. But I do know from my own limited personal experience, from the experiences of others, that those who are intent on suicide will eventually succeed in ending their lives.

It seems that sometimes, for some people, things seem to get better, but, particularly, if they have certain psychiatric problems, it seems that biochemistry and even ordinary life circumstances can combine to make life unbearable.

You say that if people knew how much pain ending their lives would bring to others, they would not end them. Is it not possible that knowing how much you cared about him prolonged your brother's life, kept him going for as long as he possibly could?

You always communicate deep understanding, wisdom, compassion. You are an amazing person, DITLD, a natural philosopher, just, wise, decent, compassionate, as everyone on this blog would say.

You've experienced a tragedy, and you need to take very good care of your self, now, let others help you, be there for you. It is good that you let us know about this.

Farnaz

Good to see you have returned, Schaum.

And DANIELINTHELIONSDEN, I have a brother who is slowly committing suicide by bottle, he doesn't care how it affects those who love him ... he just doesn't care. It's the most brutal thing I've experienced. I can't imagine how you must feel about what your brother has done to you and your family. But I can imagine it must be worse than how I feel about what my brother is doing.

That someone we love thinks their misery is more important than their own lives, than the lives of the people who love them ... it's can't be understood I think.

Farnaz

My brother killed himself 39 days ago.

A few days after his funeral, we got his National Rifle Associate membership card in the mail.

He bought his gun with money that he received from Social Security disability pension, for being mentally ill. He had another gun before that, which I swiped and tried to give to the police, but they wouldn't take it because they said I did not have the right to give someone's private property away. So I hid it in my closet. But it didn't do any good; he just got another one.

When people kill themselves, they do not think about what it will do to those that they leave behind. If they even had an inkling of the pain that they would cause, they wouldn't do it.

The NRA and people who support them, and who support the proliferation of guns for the entire population, likewise cannot imagine the destruction that they bring about and promote in the world, people like poor dumb Sarah Palin.

I am telling you all this because you are a kind and sympathetic person, and I have not been feeling very well, lately.

Jihadist

For several years, a married couple lived accross the street from me; the man was from Venezuela, and the woman was from Iran; neither spoke the other's language; English was their linqua franca, I believe that is what they called it; and they had a beautiful daughter who only spoke English. They were a beautiful family; perhaps the extra effort in communication and their difficulties in immigration made their little family more prescious to them, than I would say the average family seems to realize.

Hi Schaum,

I made the comment about the Civil War. Well, there was a lot of stuff going on there. I was just trying to explain to Jihadist the differences in the black Baptist tradition and the Southern Baptist tradition. I felt like she sincerely did not know, and would appreciate information, which I dished out off the top of my head, and may not have been all exactly right, but close, I hope.

On the number of SCOTUS justices--Interesting

"[I]n the Judiciary Act of 1869,[74] also known as the Circuit Judges Act, the number of justices was again set at nine, where it has since remained."

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

There is no constitutional mandate/requirement for 9 supreme court justices. There were 6 until FDR expanded the number.
----------------------------------------
No, the SC has had nine members since 1837, except for a few years in the 1860's when it up and then down again.

FDR tried to pack the court by adding justices that wouldn't rule New Deal programs unconstitutional, but did not succeed. It was probably his political low point as President.

I'm happy now. :) (Smiley)

Psolus wrote:

"Are catholics allowed to have opinions that disagree with the pope and the catholic church?"

Heard anything from Galileo lately?

Jihadist wrote:

"Just because atheists say they are 100% certain there is no God, all believers are delusional, does not mean all atheists are 100% informed, knowledgeable, logical, rational, reasonable or correct on everything."

Please quote your sources/authorities/references. I am an atheist, and I know of no atheists who make any "100% certain" claims that god does not exist. Atheists say there is no proof for the existence of god. That does not mean that his existence is a proven impossibility. I think, however, that you have sufficiently illustrated that YOU are delusional.

My bad: the previous response mistakenly identified Jihadist as the author of the claim that the Civil War was fought to settle the question of slavery.

Schaum returns! :) (Smiley)

Jihadist wrote:

"As you know, the American Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery,..."

Actually, it was not. The question of slavery was settled by the Emancipation Proclamation. The Civil War was fought because a group of southern states decided separate itself from the union and form its own government. The Union said "no" to that idea, the Confederacy said "try and stop us", and the rest is history.

There is no constitutional mandate/requirement for 9 supreme court justices. There were 6 until FDR expanded the number. I think Obama should appoint about three more: at least one gay, one atheist and one non-lawyer.

DITLD, et al,

Got another email from Schaum. I think he's okay.

JIhadist,

Re: YOur post

ON "intermarriage." It is all over America, among peoples of all social classes. I live in New York City, in Brooklyn. Stop by next time you're in the US.

We can drive from here to the hinterlands of Long Island, and then west if I can figure out what to do with husband and child.

The "color" of America is changing. However, there are monoculturalists all over the place, bigots, all over.

"Niched" is a good word. Many of us are "niched" in different ways. My Honduran friend and his Japanese wife have made a new niche. :)

Jihadist

As you know, the American Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery, specifially, whether Congress had the authority to ban slavery from the newly conquored lands of Mexico, since Congress had claimed a tratitional right to govern territorial areas, where the Constitution did not specifically apply.

With the political split between the North and the South, many institutions also split between North and South, including most Protestant Churches. When the war was over, and the North and South were politically re-united, many of the separated institutions remained split between North and South, and did not re-unify for years, even decades, and in the case of the Baptist Church, never.

The founding principles of the Southern Baptist Church were to justify slavery in a slave society; probably most modern Southern Baptists would prefer not to think on that or dwell on that, but well, that is the history.

The Southern Baptist Church has a pretty harsh and thuggish Jim Crowe history; perhaps the passage of time has moderated things a little, but this is the heritage, and it is a church mainly for white-people-only, where blacks need not apply, although this too may be abating somewhat these days.

Most black Baptists Churches have emerged from a tradition that is far different than that of the Southern Baptist Church. These facts, somewhat, support your previous statements.

My point is that there is a range of Catholic opinion in this country, and I'm tired of atheists casting us as backward thinking conservatives just because we are believers.

Posted by: dcmom

*******************************************

I don't suppose all atheists regard former President Kennedy as a "backward thinking conservative"? He certainly is not a "conservative" in his extra-marital affairs, the handling of the Cuban crisis, initial intervention in Vietnam, civil rights among others. A man of his time doing what he believe is the right course of action on public policy and international relations.

No reason to have fear and loathing of atheists. I don't quite get rabid and foaming at the mouth spectacularly enough in being dumb and called stupid as a "religionist" as I certainly, most definitely don't know nor understand fully on everything here on earth and beyond.

Just because atheists say they are 100% certain there is no God, all believers are delusional, does not mean all atheists are 100% informed, knowledgeable, logical, rational, reasonable or correct on everything. They obviously do have preferences, prejudices and biases like everyone else. And they can be wrong, whether they admit it or not.

Mike Huckabee got 9% of the popular vote in the Arizona Republican primary; considerably less than he got in Vermont, the home former Senator James Jeffords (14%). (McCain actually did better in Vermont than Arizona.)

Arizona voters are not ignorant just because you disagree with them on law enforcement jurisdiction issues.

Do you think it is a coincidence that Republican Senators who bash an old dead black man are all from states in the racist Huckabee Bible belt of ignorance - Alabama, Texas and its latest addition Arizona?

Farnaz,

- Certainly statistical correlations between church membership and educational level, may "stand up", give or take, plus or minus a few point.

- I'm not one who equates formal education with intelligence, wisdom etc either. There are geniuses, bright sparks, really talented ones out there without access to education, or can't afford further education, especially in developing countries.

- As always and obviously, the majority group influence, dominate, determine and define the minority group from politics to culture.

- And certainly, the dominant group, from politics to business to the academia, dominate the assumptions, the studies, the discourse, the policies on and for the "minority" group.

- I said African Americans remain a world apart in "some ways". Yes, it is a generalisation, but not a "gross" one, but more a niched one from church to music to food. Of course, some "mainstream" Americans love pulled pork sandwiches, Michael Jackson etc. and thus they are mainstreamed, but still niched in personal preferences on food and music.

- Baptist churches in the south seem still divided into Southern Baptist church and African-American Baptist churches. Perhaps membership is due to who lives in the neighbourhood where the church is located. Perhap not.

- As for inter-marraige, I wish there are surveys done as to who did that. All I know of intermarraiges in the US are the high profiles ones like between Obama's parents and Tiger Woods. That's due to BBC and CNN.

- You ask - "Are we differentially oppressive?". Yes, and we can be oppressed by something or someone, and we can and do oppress on some things on someone else in personal words and actions, in public discourse and policies.

- As for Kagan, all that fuss over her admiring Marshall is perhaps her opponents not being able to dig out real dirt on her, say, a history of groping an assistant, not paying taxes, having a illegal alien as a maid and such.

- Here, it would take a scandal like a videotape of a sex act posted in YouTube and streamed into cellphones, or corruption, or financial mismanagement of hundreds of millions to remove a potential or current public official. And of course, all those wilting discussions and damning one liners in Facebook and in Twitter by the public making the public officials antsy. Some public officials regard Facebook and Twitter almost like a scourge of God, or Satan incarnated, or hell on earth. It should be, on and for them.

dcmom,

Why are you upset that people "bash" (not sure what you mean by "bash") other people that you apparently disagree with?

Why are you a catholic, when you disagree that much with the pope and the catholic church?

Are catholics allowed to have opinions that disagree with the pope and the catholic church?

DCmom

I do not dislike people for being any particular religion, fundamentalist, or Catholic. I have co-workers, neighbors, and even blood relatives who are Catholics, and I do not judge them for it, nor dislike them for it, nor even bother about it at all, in any way.

HOWEVER... !!!

... the Catholic Church, as a whole, is pretty weird, if you ask me. As an organization of influence, which it forcefully seeks to to impose upon society, it is malevolently and flamboyantly homophobic. It is hard not to notice. If I do not comment openly with my own tongue and vocal chords, it is hard not to at least comment to myself, within the confines of my own mind, what a terrible, terrible organization the Catholic Church is.

In my own dealings with Catholics, I find that they, themselves, are the harshest critics of Catholicism, and say things, really about their own church, that I would not say at all.

I am just an innocent third party, who sometimes finds myself in the middle of this Catholic Civil War, which is exactly what it is.

dcmom

You wrote, "I'm getting tired of atheists bashing Catholics."

Isn't it something that some, not all, of the seemingly self-styled tolerant and open-minded atheists, in their writings on these posts, shout out their bigotry, prejudice, self-righteousness,..., to all the world in their "blanket" condemnations?

This is not limited to atheists, by any stretch, this very human condition of "looking down" on "others" is very much alive among theists also.

As I have said many times, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof; God looks at the person, not the "label".

I, for one, cherish my Catholic Faith, but I happen to believe that there are many "Catholics" that would not consider me "Catholic" at all.

Of course, I also say, that if one is Catholic, than one should also be catholic.

If God's Plan is not ultimately for ALL, than it would not be GOOD NEWS, it would not even be good enough news, it would be horrific news.

Hang in there, He hung in there for us, ALL OF US, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Posted by: dcmom "I'm getting tired of atheists bashing Catholics. Most Catholics do not blindly follow the Pope's recommendations on political and social issues. My Catholic church has an active gay and lesbian group and urges parishioners to vote on the totality of moral issues, not just abortion. My point is that there is a range of Catholic opinion in this country, and I'm tired of atheists casting us as backward thinking conservatives just because we are believers."
-------------------------------
That is wonderful that you and the church you attend are more open minded than most. But the problem comes from the fact that those with the most narrow view are usually the most vocal, so the outside world will see them as the ambasadors of your faith. The people who get the interviews or write the blogs are those who are most emotionally obvious and often the more extreme views of the community. I happen to know several catholics who are very open and have a much more live and let live attitude toward gays and abortion (to name a few) but they are not the people who whip up the voting base or how go on talkshows.

The moderates of all walks of life are being drowned out by the fringe (both sides). I am an atheist (and a lesbian) but I have no issue with people such as your self who chose to follow any particular faith and to life your lives according to it as you see fit. Its all the rest who feel the need to force me, (by law if they can) to live my life as THEY see fit.

Speak out so the world can know the few do not really speak for the many.

I'm getting tired of atheists bashing Catholics. Most Catholics do not blindly follow the Pope's recommendations on political and social issues. My Catholic church has an active gay and lesbian group and urges parishioners to vote on the totality of moral issues, not just abortion. My point is that there is a range of Catholic opinion in this country, and I'm tired of atheists casting us as backward thinking conservatives just because we are believers.

B R E A K i N G -- N E W S:

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=179983

The "Religio-Jealousy-Psychotic" & "Pre-Apocalyptic" & Anti "W H i T E -- C R A C K E R" & "SATANiC -- VERSUS" Lover & [wannabe] Islami, Big-Mouth, G-D Player {Dr. Of Allah, NOt G-D?) Mr.? "Louis F A R R A K H A N" said (in Letters sent to targeted Jewish Orgs in U.S.A.) THAT

"We [Nation of Islam] could charge you [K A F I R or None-Believers//Gentiles/Heretics..] with being the most deceitful so-called friend, while your history [C H U M A S H//B i B L E] with us [Q U R A N//K O R a n] shows you have been our worst enemy," he wrote."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam
____ iMportant FACT: Ironically, Like the recently mass-massacred A H M A D i Y Y A (Heretics of Lahore, Pakistan or Massacred K U R D S by TURKEY, IRAN, IRAQ, SYRIA et al) THAT; The "Nation Of Islam" is considered as a "HERETiC"[NOt True Islami], a Break-away Religion believing in "U.F.O."s, Mother-Ships etc..; Yet are undergroundly, "FRiENDS" with the Outlawed HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH & other 'Enemy-Combatants, NETWORKs, Here, Within America's.

Secret: MEMBERS of the NOI, sell Heroin, Hashish, Pot & Other Smuggled Drugs to their None-Islami Neighborhoods (to poison KAFiR's of course) From:

various Islamic-Nations own secretive/sneaky clandestine Islami-Underground partnerships (who bring it to NOI Member/Dealers/Pushers in CHICAGO, iLL et al) and inturn Launder/Wash the Islamic-Smugglers-Int'l proceeds via NOI's own I.R.S. granted 501 (3) c "Not For Profit" (instead Prophet?) Privilege. So, NOI does not have to smuggle from Muhammad Landa. Instead; Muhammadan Brothers & Sisters from the Abroad (Legals & Illegal Islamis) bring it to NOI.

_____ Emergency Request To LOCAL, STATE & FEDERAL Jurisdictions & INTERNATiONAL Officials: THAT: The "Nation Of Islam" (NOI) must be "Illegalized/Out-Lawed" HERE in the United States Of America's. WHEREFORE:

"WE, The People" Pray that the "NOI", as 1st (first) step, to have it's I.R.S. Tax-Exempt Status Revoked. And Other Relief, Remedy Allowed under Current, Rules, Regulations, Statutes etc.. allowed under the Color-Of-The-LAW(s), The Constitutions here in U.S.A. & Elsewhere, ASAP!

ELSE: W A R N i N G: Death TO: Nation of Islami & Similar Situated HATE orgs; Here & Anywhere On OUR (not NOI & Islami Ummah.) NEBULA-Built, but Bless'th & Miraculous, a Sin/Curse FREE S.pace-S.hip Earth!

Lets Prevent Assassinations of Diabolical Dangerous & Insulting NOI Officialdom & or prevent a REVOLUTION or a Racist Hate War, Here in Sweet sweet (too much Freedom) America!

____ Note: "K A F I R" to US, is an insult against our Holyi-Cosmic-Feelers-Faith, Religion, Belief. Calling US "K" is worse than calling Afro-Americans the "N" Word. This is NO "CARTOON"! This is Serious Biz!

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

cc: Eboo Patel, Brad Hirshfield, This.

I've looked up some numbers, and African-Americans are much less secular than their education distribution should suggest.

http://pewforum.org/Income-Distribution-Within-US-Religious-Groups.aspx
Click: Full Report to download a PDF

From Page 57, the Secular Groups by education level; presented with Af-Am education levels from Wiki:

Education, Secular, Black
Less than HS, 06, 28
HS Grad, 09, 30
Some College, 10, 28
College Grad, 12, 10
Adv Degree, 16, 04

That should work out to about 9% seculars among blacks based on education alone. But on Page 43, they're only 4-4.5% secular (whites are 12%).

excellent article, thought provoking.

Jihadist:

Re: Your post

I'm not entirely sure I'm following you on all points. Regarding "statistical" correlations between "church" membership and educational level, I think they stand up for the most part, but I'm not one who equates formal education with intelligence, wisdom, and the like.

Of course, the "statistical" problem is that it folds everyone under the umbrella of the dominant group and its assumptions, pitiful though they sometimes are--Is that part of your point?

As for African Americans remaining "a world apart," I think that may be too gross a generalization. It's a different world for many. Blacks and whites marry. Asians, blacks, whites, browns, and Latinos marry. My friends, as one of them remarked, resemble the population of the UN.

Is everything fine? No. Do we have separate histories? Yes. Does everyone get it? No. And do we all get it along every different dimensions? Are we differentially "oppressive"? Ever read anything by Patricia Williams, for example?
------------------------------
Anyway, Kagan may be all right. We need a true liberal on the Court, though, and she isn't quite there.

Of course. And? So? Point?

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2

*******************************************

Hmmmm, won't let me be general to be polite, eh.

- Someone here talking about African-Americans being mostly "religious" rather than "secular"?

- Their ancestors were dragged from their homeland against their will. They were made to be slaves against their will. They were taught a religion, a language not their own. They were given names like those who owned them. They were kept apart in schools for so long.

- They developed their own space and niche in language, in religion, in music, in food. Or there won't be the so-called "black" lingo, "black gospel", "soul food", "black universities, "black" churches and such.

- And some "secularist" here talks about African-Americans being mostly "religious" and not secular because of their "level of education" and all the fuss over affirmative action in colleges for African-Americans?

- It beggars belief, it is beyond belief that some "secularist" can't or won't see the obvious with regard to African-American history, who remain a "world apart" in some ways from other so-called "mainstream" Americans in their daily life, even in churches.

- Even Obama went to a "black" church before he was President and living in Chicago. And regardless of his level of education, is he is a religious sort, a secularist sort, a religious secularist sort?

- The culture of African-Americans to this casual observer, is created not because they want to, but because they have to, to adapt and survive.

- Perhaps we should also consider being "secular" or "religous" is tied to an individual or group history and current reality of being oppresssed, deprived or marginalised.

- Becoming "secular" due to religious oppression, and becoming "religious" due to "secular" marginalisation do happen for individuals or groups.

Posted by: Jihadist
-------------------------

Of course. And? So? Point?

American churches have traditionally held a complex role in our culture, in many ways liberatory. Well-to-do black churches serve a variety of functions, among them "networking," just as they do in EuroAmerican functions.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2

*******************************************

- Perhaps we should also consider being "secular" or "religous" is tied to an individual or group history and current reality of being oppresssed, deprived or marginalised.

- Becoming "secular" due to religious oppression, and becoming "religious" due to "secular" marginalisation do happen for individuals or groups.

There's no question African-Americans are more religious (in the sense of "opposite of secular") than the general US population:

http://pewforum.org/African-Americans-and-Religion.aspx

Why? Secularism still correlates with education levels, and blacks' is lower. The status of cause and effect of these two facts is highly debatable.

Posted by: WmarkW

******************************************

The hundreds of millions of Chinese in China, many Vietnamese and Cubans being "secular" by certain specific and narrow defination has nothing to do with their level of education.

The "HuffPost Religion: What scientists think about religion" on the main page of On Faith would be highly debatable for some as per level of education, field of study and career shaping one towards becoming or being "secular" and in forging attitudes towards the "religious".

DITLD, et al,

Just to let you know--I received an email from Schaum.

WmarkW,

In truth, there are some sacred cows although dealing with the anti-gay bias of many African American churches is, IMO, not "against blacks." IN fact, this is the sort of imbecilic binary thinking of which both the left and right are often guilty. (No offense--and I mean that.)

The anti-gay bias among Muslims and Hindus is likewise not addressed, although it is okay to deal with that of the numerically miniscule Haredi.

And, then, there are the "Untouchables" not only in India, but in Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc., enslaved peoples, numbering in the millions.

These omissions, people say, are symptomatic of "political correctness." I think they are symptomatic of racism and hypocrisy. And I am not alone.

As for Republicans and secularism, the Republicans need to rid themselves of religionist spokespersons. Arguably, the problem is more serious among the Reps than it is among the Dems.

Farnaz, OK it was under the general comments.

OnFaith never says one negative word about the influence of religion among blacks. Which is something I've also pointed out about Susan a few times; and is also true of Dawkins, Dennett and Harris. It's like secularists think voting for Democrats is the test of good religion.

To: Alles

FYI--

"Supreme Court to allow sex-abuse suit against Vatican to proceed"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062805003_Comments.html

Mark, I mean the general comments section. If you go to the Main Page, click here:

YOUR VIEWS (COMMENT HERE | 35 POSTED)--just above the thumbnails.

Farnaz, the Main Page is a pretty big place. Could you give me a hint about what link you're under.

BTW, in liberal circles it's sometimes popular to associate conservatism with ignorance, particularly on diversity-type issues like the Arizona illegal immigrant crackdown.

Here's a YouTube vid of a Democratic County Supervisor advocating boycotting Arizona, which according to her does NOT border Mexico.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQp8M0bkarM&feature=player_embedded

WMarkW:

Re; Your post on African Americans and religion/secularism

First, as you suggest, religious belief and secularism are not synonymous. Second, African American churches have traditionally held a complex role in our culture, in many ways liberatory. Well-to-do black churches serve a variety of functions, among them "networking," just as they do in EuroAmerican functions.

Some of the positions held by many African American churches are reactionary, eg., their anti-gay bias, of which I have seen the consequences in the lives of gay black men and women.

For reasons that are unclear, OnFaith continues to associate anti-gay bias with conservative "White" churches. That is misleading. OnFaith needs to know that gay black men and women are human beings and the bias against them by many African American churches needs to be addressed. I have mentioned this to David Waters more than once, and others have done the same.

If this interests you at all, please see my posting on the Main Page.

There's no question African-Americans are more religious (in the sense of "opposite of secular") than the general US population:

http://pewforum.org/African-Americans-and-Religion.aspx

(It's also more than obvious that the Republican party today is not their political preference, to address another silly post.)

Why? Secularism still correlates with education levels, and blacks' is lower. The status of cause and effect of these two facts is highly debatable.

Susan Jacoby,

EXCELLENT essay, Susan

Agreed it would be good to know Kagan's views as they bear on her appointment, that is, to the extent that we can.

You are, of course, correct when you say jer memo on taxpayer funding for religious institutions "does not tell us how she would vote on a specific faith-based funding issue today."

And, of course, she is a "political animal" like her soon-to-be colleagues.

Let us face it. Post Bork, the hearings themselves are often near farsical. Idiotic they were with the buffoon Thomas, and, to an extent, with Roberts. Questions that could have and should have been pursued during the Roberts hearings were not.

When they concluded, I knew little more than I had. He had, he had shown, a good sense of humor, as may have also been the case with Caligula in his cheerier moments. I, myself, was not cheered, but did not anticipate some of the worst that followed, eg., that his court would so mess up campaign financing that the Congress would need to fix it or that it would open the door to increased fire arm use by hitherto disenfranchised maniacs, among others.

As for church/state separation,
case after case questioning the legality of faith-based initiatives has been lost.

We can only continue to hope one will make it to Court and succeed.
--------------------------------
Indeed, anything can happen. On a peripherally related matter, this SAME COURT declined to hear the anticipated Vatican appeal (based, predictably, on its "sovereign nation" status) concerning a case of sex abuse. The case against the Vatican will go forward. While some are trying to minimize the consequences of this, IMO, they are enormous. The subpoenaed documents may well lead to additional lawsuits, and the unique status of the RC as (1) sovereign nation and (2) tax exempt religion may finally come into question.

Very important, the way for the survivors and survivor/heirs of two hundred Franciscan Nazi priests who owned, operated, and managed concentration camps, etc., to sue the Vatican is now open. The priests in question cut living people to shreds with scissors and watched them bleed to death, impaled them in water and watched them drown, incited lay Catholics to slaughter seven thousand Serbian Orthodox, Jews, and Roma.

The Nazi Franciscans stole what their victims had and deposited it in Vatican Bank, which laundered the money. For sixty years, the Vatican has refused to settle. The attorneys for the plaintiffs lost on appeal since the RC is a "sovereign nation," and are appealing again, having pledged to take the case against Vatican Nation to the Supreme Court. Given the decision NOT to hear the recent Vatican appeal in the sex abuse case, one might assume that the Nazi Franciscans' victims will be, at last, permitted to seek a measure of justice.

We'll see....

Wasn't it Democrats who were responsible for Jim Crow laws? You know, guys like Robert Byrd, Democrat, and former Exalted Cyclops in the KKK.
You're just another lefty trying to rewrite history.
Posted by: wkhendrickson
-------------------------------------------
Yes, the parties traded places on race issues in the mid-60s. So far, the Republicans are ahead.
========================================
Have they really traded places? Byrd just died two days ago. He was actually in the Klan. There aren't any republicans that were in the Klan. How many democrats have accidentally blurted out in the last year and a half how surprised they are that Obama can speak proper english or made otherwise derrogatory comments towards the guy? Harry Reid and Chris Matthews come to mind. It was blown off by the mainstream media because they are big liberals, but those were extremely rascist comments those guys made. No republicans have said anything close.

Do you mean what's my justification for saying this, or what's my explanation for why it's happened?

Posted by: WmarkW

*******************************************

Yes, an explanation, an elaboration, a short one if you prefer, as to why that happened. Or you would not have said so here.

And I just found out what "Tea Party" means in the current American political landscape and the context it is used.

Meant:

".... WE [i] AMERiCAN's need a "ATHEiST & or AGNOSTIC" Scrt Justice;.."

Oooppss.

IT is Good that there is a "GOOD", coincidentally (or Prophetically) via "Manifest Destiny" or via the "Invisible Hand" in "thurGOOD" & a MARSHAL in marSHALL?

ON: "The 3-Darlings (Babes) From The Hudson" (N.Y.C.) RUTH, SONiA + ELENA?

Note: Now WE [i] AMERiCAN's need a "SECULAR" Scrt Justice; To replace Too many Catholics. Maybe a Hindu Sct Also & Eventually a Islami Sct Justice, aye?

Guess What? THAT's where i [WE] R' Heading! [The Right-Way/Path/Destiny..).

Note: It could also one day become (not in me "PhoTiMES"), JUSTly for a time via holyi-"TiME"(TEMPerature), of an ALL-Lady's U.S. Sct. Judgeships too.

Imagine The Possibilities; But ONLY iN America, only in Sweet Sweet U.S. Of A's. The ENVY of the World at large still.

Secularism has made almost no inroads among blacks?
Why?
Posted by: Jihadist
-----------------------------------
Do you mean what's my justification for saying this, or what's my explanation for why it's happened?

And pray, what does this term "Tea Party" means, as seen to be used quite often recently in "On Faith" by panelists and posters/bloggers.

Later Democrats saw churches as an adjunct to the failing schools of minority neighborhoods. And it works because secularism has made almost no inroads among blacks.

Posted by: WmarkW

*******************************************

Secularism has made almost no inroads among blacks?

Why?

Wasn't it Democrats who were responsible for Jim Crow laws? You know, guys like Robert Byrd, Democrat, and former Exalted Cyclops in the KKK.

You're just another lefty trying to rewrite history.

Posted by: wkhendrickson
-------------------------------------------
Yes, the parties traded places on race issues in the mid-60s. So far, the Republicans are ahead.

Wasn't it Democrats who were responsible for Jim Crow laws? You know, guys like Robert Byrd, Democrat, and former Exalted Cyclops in the KKK.

You're just another lefty trying to rewrite history.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) reported darkly that Kagan had once praised Marshall for his view that "it was the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government."
==========================================
It is the role of the court to interpret the constitution PERIOD. It's not your role to twist the constitution to do what you believe is right. A court full of justices that struck down laws at their whim would be horrifying. How corrupt and drunk with power would they become over their lifelong tenure? The foolishness of a mind polluted by liberalism is astounding.

From George Will's column Sunday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/24/AR2010062403178_2.html
William Voegeli, contributing editor of the Claremont Review of Books, writes: "The astonishingly quick and complete transformation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from a law requiring all citizens be treated equally to a policy requiring that they be treated unequally, is one of the most audacious bait-and-switch operations in American political history." Discuss.
---------------------------------------
Before becoming a justice, Marshall was of course instrumental in establishing (what should have been) the constitutional principal that we're all citizens with a floor of basic rights in a republican government, that a majority can't vote to take from a minority.

Then as a justice, he decided that the constitution didn't have to mean anything he didn't want it to. School busing destroyed communities as whites flew from cities rather than make their kids part of a social experiment. Affirmative action changed from guaranteeing equal opportunities to promising equal results.

Marshall was against church entanglement, because in his time it meant people like Jerry Falwell trying to establish Christian academies to keep kids out of desegregated schools. Later Democrats saw churches as an adjunct to the failing schools of minority neighborhoods. And it works because secularism has made almost no inroads among blacks.