No Message Reaches Lunatics

Osama Bin Laden, must, above all, be remembered as a former CIA asset, rather than a representative of Islam. Quo Bono? Muslims?

CIA nitpicks. They didn't Fedex money and weapons directly to OBL. No, they financed "the nexus of Hekmatyar and Bin Laden", later known as Al-Qaeda. With pleasure. And they sent weapons directly to OBL associates, even according to Norman Solomon at FAIR describing the media's and Republicans' and Pentagon's Al-Qaeda lovefest of the 80's, supporting the most vicious and violent psychopaths.

Brzezinski's plan, implemented under Carter BEFORE the Soviet invasion, was to LURE the Soviets to INVADE Afghanistan, so then there would be an excuse to drive them out and bog them down. He said so.

Republicans ramped-up this plan, which was backed by the Heritage Foundation and their THREE Al-Qaeda lobby groups (i.e. for "the people of Afghanistan"). The Christian Coalition said it was UNPATRIOTIC to not support the Islamic Radicals, and that any Cong that voted against this did not deserve a seat! Well.

Years later, the Republican Policy Committee -- donning tinfoil hats? -- produced a detailed and footnoted "conspiracy theory" report that said that Al-Qaeda was still running joint ops with the Pentagon and private Pentagon proxy MPRI, and that President Clinton signed off on this. This report was in 1997, and other reports show this continued through 1999, 2000, and even late 2001, AFTER Sept 11. "Osamagate" details this with footnotes, and notes that apparently the RNC itself buried their own report.

The Osamagate article concludes that this evidence does not necessarily prove that Sept 11 was an "inside job", but it DOES necessarily prove that it was not what they told us it was, because you cannot have an "outside enemy attacking you" when you are at the same time running joint military operations with that very "enemy".

However, the sensible overall conclusion is that the GWOT is a complete fraud. What do YOU call it when (allegedly) an 'agent of the Pentagon/CIA' attacked us on Sept 11?

What do you call it when the boldest public pronouncements FOR a bloodbath on American soil (as absolutely necessary to kick-start the GWOT) came from Neo-Con think tanks like PNAC and AEI, as well as other "liberal" think tanks like Brookings, CFR, and TLC? I'll tell you what I call it: POLICY.

nwgukdype lncystqf jhuvpyaw kueqz bhigv lnvcyha yqcohief

nwgukdype lncystqf jhuvpyaw kueqz bhigv lnvcyha yqcohief

nwgukdype lncystqf jhuvpyaw kueqz bhigv lnvcyha yqcohief

I agree with Susan completely.
I will add a complaint most news media that I think masks this religious insanity. When the news broadcast refers to the Iraq killing they call it
"sectarian" war or violence. I object to the term sectarian even though it is correct. My reason is that it tends to hide the word "religious". I'll bet that if a street interview were performed, like the kind Jay Leno does, at least 30 % of the Americans asked would not know what sectarian means.
Therefore, it is important that the source of this kind of violence be recognized as religion. More specifically, it should be recognized as religious FAITH which accomplishes violence because it denies rational thought.

I agree with Susan completely.
I will add a complaint most news media that I think masks this religious insanity. When the news broadcast refers to the Iraq killing they call it
"sectarian" war or violence. I object to the term sectarian even though it is correct. My reason is that it tends to hide the word "religious". I'll bet that if a street interview were performed, like the kind Jay Leno does, at least 30 % of the Americans asked would not know what sectarian means.
Therefore, it is important that the source of this kind of violence be religion. More specifically, it is religious faith which denies rational thought.

The message that reaches lunatics like Bin Laden is, "Eat steel, craven dog!" More seriously, we should take a lesson from the late Gen. McArthur, who dealt with Muslim terrorists by having them executed and buried inside the carcasses of freshly killed pigs, making sure one of the terrorists watched and then released him. The terrorism stopped because Muslims polluted by the bodily fluids of pigs could not enter heaven. So much for promises of virgins!

Give them their wish--make them all martyrs! We developed the neutron bomb--let's test it on the known Al Quaeda camps.

duckthup- not only have other small minds in the world had this idea, it was met with an overwhelming yawn-

the cartoons were reprinted from february to september by countries all over the world-
the united states beat them all by printing in over 27 papers!

the pettiness and low malice of it just eventually showed it for the mean provocative thing that it was- (and not especially clever or funny either)

your theory had been put into practice and is a miserable failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_that_reprinted_Jyllands-Posten%27s_Muhammad_cartoons

This situation can be very easily resolved, once and for all. The solution will only require that every newspaper in the free world devote its front page to cartoons, ridiculing Allah (peace on him) and Mohammed (peace on him, too), for a whole month. By the end of that time, all of Islam will have self-destructed in a paroxysm of snits, hissy-fits and terminal apoplexy. WARNING: This will not be pretty.

My only regret here is that I cannot think of a similarly uncomplicated, cost-effective and efficient stratagem to dismantle Christianity... but, oh well... one thing at a time. One only does what one can.

If the Jihadist ever returns, hopefully she will not continue to feed off the flaws of others while not coming to grips with the significant flaws of Islam.

Jihadist's gone? She's bored with atheists and Christians or is it just Ramadan? Too bad. She's worldly and funny. I'll miss her.

Michael,

Are you trying to infer that I am nuts?!? (LOL!)

Well, I am not insane. I might be called crazy, but only because I don't have enough money to be merely eccentric.......

Arminius:

Yeah, I can see having someone tell you you're nuts is insulting - difference in religions or not!

Unless, of course, one is actually nuts - difference in religions or not. :)

GO KATHY!!!!

Hey, to each his/her own. One man's idol is another man's joke. This is a free country, and she can say what she wants. The fact is, she worked hard for what she has, and no one else but her should be 'thanked'. For those that take offense to her statements: what do you care what someone outside of your religion thinks about your religion?

Christianity as a whole takes a very 'we are betterh than thou' stance - indicating that all others should follow them, (i.e. missions, etc), that theirs is the only true religion, etc. It's total crap.

Why should I have reverence for your beliefs, of which I do not share? Respect for your beliefs, but not reverence.

That said, from my history lessons, Jesus was a decent person. It's the rest of christianity that messed it all up.

I think I like Kathy a bit more today.

Tonio and Michael,

Even though I am a religious type, when someone tells me they are an atheist, I reply with something like 'OK' or 'That's fine'. I used to be an atheist, so I know where they are coming from, and do not object. Religion is personal, or the lack of it. And yes, if I, a believer, have an atheist say that I am borderline nuts - yes, that is insulting.

Tonio -

"Freestinker, religious people often pray for non-religious people in another way, one that is deeply offensive. That's where they say "I'll pray for you" or "I'll pray for your soul" when you tell then you don't share your beliefs. "

I completely agree with that. I have had experiences that match that, and even moreso. I've had people tell me I will burn in hell. (my response is "I don't believe in hell either"). I've had people say, "how can you live that way?", " how do you have morals?", etc etc.

I feel it is extremely insulting to my beliefs for someone to say they will pray for me when I've just told them I don't believe in a god. (or gods).

? - what would be the opposite? (atheist saying ??? to a person declaring faith?) I don't think there is one (maybe "you're wrong" that sounds about as insulting...)

Freestinker, religious people often pray for non-religious people in another way, one that is deeply offensive. That's where they say "I'll pray for you" or "I'll pray for your soul" when you tell then you don't share your beliefs.

When religious people pray for me I thank them (for expressing kindness toward me) even though beyond expressing empathy, sorrow, compassion, and hope I personally don't believe that any gods exist to hear or do what the prayers ask. I certainly accept the well wishes but I still do not put much stock in pleadings to imaginary omnipotent puppeteers.

If wishes were fishes, I know where I'd be,
Casting my net in the dark rolling sea;
And if my net's empty when it comes back to shore,
I'll throw it away and go fishing no more.

Ms. Jacoby
Don't you think the problem is with the books the religious books of the proselytizing religions rather than interpretation by some followers? I remark here that not all religions believe that they have the monopoly on truth and that other religions are wrong. So called eastern religions do not take this position. But at least 2 (or may be all three) Abrahamanic religions do. So unless something can be done about these basic position taken by these religions the world will continue to have problems.

Oh sorry That above comment is mine↑

terra

Arminius,

I truly do understand what you are saying. It is wonderful that people would want to help with their prayers. I would accept all prqayers..but you see I would also want my words...my clergy.

Would any other clergy know what Goddess to call to for my healing? It is not just pretty words, but communication to our Gods.

Do you believe that your God would pay attention if you called on Pan or Apollo? Would the Pentacle mean to you what it does to me? Your cross does not mean to me what it does you.

Though all prayers are welcome as far as appreciateing the kindness of the people...

Prayers to us are more then pretty words. They are communicating with our Gods in the most focused and intense way.

Most of the time our elders die alone without their own clergy, because we are Wiccan. We want our own words, our own prayer as well as those of kindness.

terra

to mr. mark

it isnt necessarily the extremists who should be compromised with, and I dont know jacobs well enough to align her with her the likes of aethistic thinkers such as Dawkins or Harris, but religious moderates have come under nearly as much fire as the extremists these days. My point is not that Hitler, or the inner members of the Nazi party who should be negotiated with, but that there was some point in which "moderate" people began to work out an agreement. Moderation is becoming an increasingly dirty word, and it ought not to be. it is moderation that is able to find if not a perfect solution, at least a workable one.

A Hermit,

Again thanks for another reminder as to separation of states. Walls can take many forms. The Czech "wall" apparently is a mutual agreement. Too bad others cannot come to a similar agreement.

And with the koran as the "bible" of Muslims, can we really believe anything they say???

Off-topic, but interesting.

Fundamentals of math and religion in the same course.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/Story?id=3543453&page=1

Daniel,

Just curious..not sure I understand what you are saying to Mr. J. Are you saying that Christians invented the word blasphemy?

thanks,

W-Man

Terra,

This is a bit difficult. I understand that you feel like this prayer was uncalled for by you. But I think that I was in a Moslem/Hindu/Jewish place, and they came in to pray for me, I would be grateful It is the heart that counts - those of us who pray - well, we all are on a path up that Mountain. Many paths, but the top of the Mountain belongs to all.

Daniel, I don't know if fundamentalist Christians invented them since the Arabic (or Farsi, Pashtun, etc.) equivalents are used today in the Middle East, but they have a use when everyone, or nearly everyone, lives in a society that has one religion, especially if church and state are intertwined. Like in Alabama. :)

Daniel,

Yes, agreed. Fundamentalism can be considered as a pathological condition. My 'knee-jerk' comment was in reference to their strict adherence to a set of rules, said rules never to be gainsaid. At heart, all fundamentalists are alike in rejecting all of humanity that does not agree with them. The differences are cultural, as you say - some kill more willingly than others.

Arminius,

I understand your view, and for my daughter it works.

All prayers do work...but, would a Pagan Chaplain be allowed to pray over a Christian in the hospital? In all this country there is ONE paid Pagan chaplain for prisons..and none for hospitals.

It becomes a case of being second class citizens. It was also a case of the rudeness of not asking if it was ok, taking it for granted that it was Christian so of course it was ok.

It is always nice to have people care enough to say a prayer for you. But as much as I appreciate the words and the thoughts behind them...they are not of my religion. The language is different, the symbols are different. They do not mean the same.

It would be like me saying a prayer to my Goddess over you. It's nice, but does not quite do it. Words have power and when you are ill and afraid you need the right words, no matter what faith you hold.

terra

Dear Mr. J

I hear those two words ALOT!!

Blasphemy and Apostasy.

And I am sure tired of it. Isn't it a little like calling someone gay, or fat, just to hurt their feelings? These are the names that fundamentalist Christian have invented with no purpose other than to cause injury and hurt feellings towards their fellow Christians.

I wish someone would quote for me from the Bible why Christians are supposed to do that.

"Two terms that Christians throw around strike me as absurd: blasphemy and apostasy. In both of these terms is implicit a sense of entitlement, of institutional Christianity, which is a politicization of religion, and not relevant to personal beliefs. Christianity is, above all else, personal, and not political or institutional. If someone says something that you find offensive, then that is their right because we live in a democracy. If you additionally think that it is blasephemous or apostasy, so what?"

Yes, although you don't hear those terms much anymore (at least I don't). In a secular, pluralistic society like the US, they don't have much clout since the blasphemer is likely not an adherent to the religion he/she is blaspheming, and we have many apostates running around these days. You can be called a blasphemer by those within the religion of which you are also a member, but not in society as a whole.

In a theocratic society, of course, it's a different matter. That accusation can lead to harsh penalties. Perhaps those in our society who use the terms long for the days of theocracy.

There is nothing wrong with strict adherence to basic principles. The problem is "what principles?" As long as you are able to look at things sensibly, and accept truths, even that you do not like, and face wisdom, even that is unwanted, as long as you do indeed reserve your mental capacities to think, and not merely to conform, I guess that should be alright.

Daniel,

Yes, agreed. Fundamentalism can be considered as a pathological condition. My 'knee-jerk' comment was in reference to their strict adherence to a set of rules, said rules never to be gainsaid. At heart, all fundamentalists are alike in rejecting all of humanity that does not agree with them. The differences are cultural, as you say - some kill more willingly than others.

TDAY:

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

..religious extremism

....religious confusion

Fundamentalism is more than a "knee-jerk." It is a profound psychological state, not of believing morally, or in good and against evil, but of profound mental conformity of mind to the doctrine at hand. To those engaged in this mental conformity, it is piety and self-entitlement; to everyone else, it may approach a nihilistic rejection of all, that is not subsumed in the mental conformity. This can lead to flying planes into skyscrapers. If the fundamentalist Chritians of America do not seem as bad as the fundamentalist Moslems of the Arab Middle East, it is only becasue they have many moderating influences on them from birth, in our more open society, and Islam does not; other than that, they are dangerously similar; mirror images of each other, in fact.

Only used traffic laws to bring it down to earth, Daniel.

We have believed, for the 28 years we have had children in our home, in teaching each of them the importance of marriage and to abstain from pre-marital relationships that scripture clearly covers. And we believe that strict adherence to things such as these will eliminate many of the ills that so many people experience needlessly in their lives.

This is where I am coming from regarding fundamentalism. Sometimes strict adherence is not a bad thing. Rather, it can keep you from needless heartache and pain.

Daniel,

Well done on both posts.

I happen to be a liberal Christian in the deep South. To me, blasphemy is eating pork barbecue without beer. (LOL) Apostasy - well, what can I say? Eating barbecue with a coke? Ridiculous. If you don't like beer, drink whatever, I won't be offended. Neither will God be offended.

Yes, a fundie does not think, he/she knee-jerks to a set of rules. Belief is not a set place, or even a destination. It is a journey.

Counterpoint:

Okay, I think I see where you're going.

Secular societies, that is those which are not held "in check" to certain behaviors by religion-based law, have more freedom, but all freedom comes with a price. You focus on the higher divorce rate and the decline in "traditional" families. I focus on the increased opportunities for all members of society, regardless of their religion, race, sex, etc., to pursue their hopes and dreams, and the reduction of institutionalized prejudice.

You may see the fundamentals provided by your religious view as all-important. But we live in a pluralistic society, and not every one agrees. I don't see "humans getting in the way," since I view society as a completely human construct.

To me "fundamentalist" means mental conformity to doctrine, in which the main point is the dedication to mental conformity, which is a single goal, under which all other thinking, namely the doctrine, is already mapped out, and nothing to bother about. That is the beauty of fundamentalism, it's so easy, no thinking, no muss, no fuss, just mental conformity. It is not, in fact, a serious religious pursuit, but some kind of pschological state. Obeying traffic laws is not relevant to discussions of fundamentalism, and minimizes the seriousness of the topic.

Two terms that Christians throw around strike me as absurd: blasphemy and apostasy. In both of these terms is implicit a sense of entitlement, of institutional Christianity, which is a politicization of religion, and not relevant to personal beliefs. Christianity is, above all else, personal, and not political or institutional. If someone says something that you find offensive, then that is their right because we live in a democracy. If you additionally think that it is blasephemous or apostasy, so what?

Evolution is pretty much accepted as scientific fact. If any one person chooses not to believe it, that is their choice. It is not a religion or a philosophy to believe in or not to believe in; it is an accumulation of facts and data, available for review, or not.

Among serious scientific circles, there is no controversy about evolution or intelligent design: evolutuion is accepted as true, and intelligent is religious speculation, not science. Intelligent design argues that an intelligent designer must exist, because how could such a designer not exist? You may believe that; that may make sense to some people; fine. But it is not science and it is not proof.

If you ask an atheist, "how can you not believe in intelligent design?" He can reply "Like this: I don't believe it." And your argument is over.

Trying to overturn accepted scientific findings about the nature of the world does not promote any arguments regarding the validity of Christianity. It is, in fact, not Christian, but a fundamentalist add-on, which, in my opinion, is just one more thing that undermines the credibility of Christian fundamentalist doctrine, in general.

Anonymous,

Bring your guitar, you will be welcome.

Counterpoint,

From my reading, the term "fundamentalist Christianity" doesn't seem to mean fundamentalist in the general sense. It's used most often to describe Christian doctrine that reflects a literal or nearly literal reading of the Bible. I'm not sure if that would include more extremist flavors of American Christianity such as Dominionism or premillenial dispensationalism.

>>Arminius:
>>Anonymous, you said:

>>"Someone who spends some of their time 'correcting' Christians on the lack of love they show...just showed up in the forum with a dagger."

>>I am well aware of the dichotomy. Please consider it a metaphor, and a rallying of the troops. If we all manage to gather together and make a show of it, it will be singing and dancing, not fighting.

Arminius,

Duly noted. Thanks.

And by the way, all of you, tho I may seem a fundamentalist, and I probably am, I have many friends not unlike all of you. I see you all as sincere, caring human beings and I wish the best for all of you...yea, verily ...wish the best for us all in this home of ours. We may not agree on much of anything...but Id sure like to fire up my Ephiphone Les Paul guitar and join in with the singing and dancing. :-)

All the best to you all

ahh anon,

My dagger only cuts out the bovine excretion.

I am interested in Greek philosophy...did you mean Heraclitus? Why thank you for that compliment. He thought that dullness and stupidity are innate human traits.

Thank you for proving him right.

terra

You obviously did not fully read my post. I did not blame schools. I agree that parents are not ensuring their kids adhere to rules these days. The fundamental family, if you will, is breaking down. That aspect, though, does have something to do with secularism.

Fundamentalism, with regard to religion, can keep a society in check, provided we humans dont get in the way i.e. changing laws meant to keep us all from greif...such as sexual promiscuity, etc
The spread of disease and broken marriages over the past few decades is a sad testimony to our dismissing some of our fundamental views we once held, overall, as a society.

Terra,

My FH and I went to get our marriage license yesterday morning and we were asked to "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God." My look of shock startled the probate court officer. Sorry, didn't notice the steeple on our way in.

Arminius,

It is quite a substantial stein, being pewter and all. Don't worry, it will be empty. I'll be sitting in the back emptying it until someone gets too close. WHOP.

Anonymous, you said:

"Someone who spends some of their time 'correcting' Christians on the lack of love they show...just showed up in the forum with a dagger."

I am well aware of the dichotomy. Please consider it a metaphor, and a rallying of the troops. If we all manage to gather together and make a show of it, it will be singing and dancing, not fighting.

"thanking a deity suggests that maybe you're significantly better than everyone else, in a divine sort of way ... god's chosen football player, or actor, or comedian."

Excellent point, Jay. While I don't know if that is the celebrity's intention, that is certainly the logical conclusion of such statements. That applies to the belief that all events in the universe are the work of deities - it's logical to conclude that the events are rewards or punishments from the deities, even natural disasters.

Terra,

If the prayers for your daughter were compassionate and well meant, I do not think that there is any reason to be bothered. I am Christian, but if I were in a hospital bed and a Wiccan/Pagan, or a Moslem, or a Jew, or a Hindu came in to pray for me, I would be grateful.

Counterpoint:

If someone wants to adhere to what constitutes "fundamentalism" in their religion, that's their business.

When they try to push their fundamental beliefs onto me or my family, via changes in law or policies, then it becomes my business.

When they try to change the way science is taught in public schools because it conflicts with their fundamental beliefs, then it's also my business (as a citizen very interested in science education and the husband of a teacher).

Speaking of school rules, a lot of the problem arises from the fact that in decades past, parents were more involved in ensuring that their kids adhered to the rules. Teachers have taken on much of the burden of enforcement, and are more often in conflict with parents over what their kids do. Many public schools do have strict rules (including uniform policies, rigid attendance requirements, and the like). You can't put all the blame on schools or on "secularists".

I sense you think that we should have more religion in our schools (your kind of religion I would guess), which goes back to my 2nd paragraph above.

Carefull, all...

Someone who spends some of their time 'correcting' Christians on the lack of love they show...just showed up in the forum with a dagger.

Could it be that well known philosopher..Hypocritees

My daughter went into the hospital a couple weeks ago for some investigative surgery. The nurses came in and without asking her or me began praying. It was fine with my daughter, she is Christian. And I just sat there...
But what if my daughter was not a Christian?

What right does anyone have to just pray over you without asking?

My daughter is fine, but that experience really bothers me. What kind of care would I get from those nurses if I said, "sorry I am Pagan".

terra

Andrea,

Welcome to the gathering host! I would suggest a better main weapon than a stein, so get yourself a sword or spear or dagger. But keep a supply of steins to throw - just make sure they are empty first!

Terra, dear Lady,

Get your dagger and shield. My father was born in Ireland, with solid Scot ancestry. Welcome! The host gathers.....

Oohh...can a German join in? I could whop someone in the head with my beer stein!

Arminius,
Mind if a lady with a dagger and shield joins up?

I have a bit of the Irish, from both sides of the tree...along with Greek and Roman.

terra

I believe there are some on this blog who are seeming to portray fundamentalist Christians in more of a extremeist light. Incorrectly I might add.

Even in the case of civil matters, all of us, to a degree, are practicing fundamentalists of the traffic laws, for instance, that all motorists are encouraged to pay strict adherence to. 35mph in a 25mph school zone doesnt cut it. A 'hollywood stop' at a stop sign can get you a ticket.

Fundamentalism, simply defined, is strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.

In generations past, strict and literal aherence to school rules, for instance, constituted a more structured and respectful student body in our school systems. Today, with strictness and adherence to rules being ridiculed more and more by secularists and others, we see our school systems struggling to keep order far more than they had to, say, 30-40 years ago.

There is a fundamental (no pun intended) reason for this.

Jay S, you said:

"Public displays of one's religious beliefs have always embarrassed me. They also seem to be counter to Jesus's teachings on the subject, so they don't strike me as very Christian either.

And you are correct. Check out Mattthew 6.

>>As someone pointed out years ago, when you are rescued from a burning building by a firefighter and you thank god for your survival, aren't you dishonoring the person who put his life at risk to save you?

Another common reality in an example such as this: What if the fireman were a believer also, and he/she joined in with the person he/she rescued in thanking God for His direction and help? Many I have known feel it an honor to have been there to help and wish not to be recognized. It is called humility.

If you win an award, shouldn't you be thanking all the people who helped you get there instead of your imaginary friend?

>>Again, another reality: There are believers who also win awards. Yes, they convey their thanks to those around them who support and help them. Rightfully so and duly noted. But also, the believer who wins an award sees clearly that their talents are not from their own strengths alone, but a gift from God, who is real to them...not imaginary. The eternal giver of life who created the wondrous mechanism of the human body and mind. Something that mankind cannot due. That is why all thanks ultimately belong to God.

Arminius and Tonio: good points.

I guess for some of us on the outside of religion, and I'll speak just for myself, the spectacle of someone thanking god for their accomplishments seems like self-congratulation. Thanking those here on earth who helped you is a humble gesture, but thanking a deity suggests that maybe you're significantly better than everyone else, in a divine sort of way ... god's chosen football player, or actor, or comedian.

Public displays of one's religious beliefs have always embarrassed me. They also seem to be counter to Jesus's teachings on the subject, so they don't strike me as very Christian either.

Daniel,

Very nice post, thank you. We seem to think alike in many ways. Keep it up, please.

Jay,

"If you win an award, shouldn't you be thanking all the people who helped you get there instead of your imaginary friend?"

Was Griffin suggesting that people who thank Jesus at those award shows are simply doing it for show? If so, I could see her point. Whatever her motive, I think it's mistake to automatically suspect her of trying to tear down religion.

Still, focusing on that aspect of entertainment award shows is like criticizing a serial murderer for using an illegal gun. Those shows are massive exercises in self-congratulation and self-gratification by the entertainment industry. Saying they are in bad taste would be giving them a dignity they neither have nor deserve. Monty Python's "British Showbiz Awards" lampooned these pitiful spectacles as well as anyone could.

Jay S, you said:

"As someone pointed out years ago, when you are rescued from a burning building by a firefighter and you thank god for your survival, aren't you dishonoring the person who put his life at risk to save you?"

I would submit that if you thanked God without thanking the firefighter, then you have not really thanked God.

Wiccan,

You said to JD,

To me, this is a Christian:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

YES!!! YES!!! Waving my claymore and dancing, shouting my war cry - A Bellandaine!!! (Clan Scott).
Now where did I put that woad.....

Daniel, well said. You're more tolerant than most of us here (and I include myself).

Dogmatic ideology is always something to be wary of, whether it comes from a religious source or not.

As I've said many times to those who like to bring up communism when they criticize atheism, no one I know who is atheistic has any more sympathy for communism than they do for theocracy. Any form of authoritarianism is antithetical to what the vast majority of us want, regardless of our views on religion.

As a Christian, I believe in God.

I am never offended at any of Susan Jacoby's essays, opinions, or comments because I do not perceive any of her barbs to be directed at me. I actually find myself more drawn to her than to many other essayests here, because she is often more thoughtful and seems more intelligent. I always understand her point of view, and all that she consistently says, and it all makes sense to me, even if I do not agree with everything she says.

Atheism is not a problem for me. It should not be a problem for anyone, who is confident in their own beliefs. The threat that atheists present is actually an internal, psychological threat, that maybe they are right and I am wrong, but that is not the atheist's problem; that is my problem.

I do not regard fundamentalist religion serously, but consider it actually to be some sort of psychological defense mechanism, and if unchecked, and not moderated by competing ideas, may consume a whole society such as Naziism did in Germany, or Islam has done in Arab countries. (I use the example of the Nazis because the fundamentalist phenomenon is not necessarily religious, but may be also non-religious).

As far as thinking, intelligent people go, I know for sure that I have alot more in common with atheists than with fundamentalist Christians, which by they way are the MINORITY of Christians, although, they do have the biggest heads.

The debate about thanking god a/o Jesus has been around for awhile.

As someone pointed out years ago, when you are rescued from a burning building by a firefighter and you thank god for your survival, aren't you dishonoring the person who put his life at risk to save you?

If you win an award, shouldn't you be thanking all the people who helped you get there instead of your imaginary friend?

True, some people do both ... and I really don't care who other people thank in any event. It reflects on them, not me.

I don't know anything about Kathy Griffin or her career, but I certainly see the point of her humor. Tasteless perhaps, but she made a point.

Anon:

I haven't been a teenager for 10 years. All I am saying is, yea, she could have worded it better, but it's still the point of it that should be looked at. WHY THANK JESUS?

"So, in your humble opinion, you are all knowing and know that all of the people quoted have nothing at all to say and to take seriously."

Nope, did not say that at all. I said many quotes are out of context, or are from scientists who are not biologists. Hell, I've seen S.J. Gould (an evolutionist) quoted on such lists. As I recall, biologist Niles Eldridge is one quote on your list, and he is anything but an evolution doubter. Many quotes from biologists concern actual controversies within evolutionary science (just like any other science), but are not attacks on whether evolution is real or not. It's all in the context.

Again, any of us could collect a scad of quotes from a range of people to make whatever point we want. It still comes down to evidence. And your cartoonish creation model has no evidence, whereas evolution has too much to summarize here.

"JD:
Wiccan, you have absolutely no idea what Christian is. And now because a devil worshipper tells me I'm not oooooooooooooooooh I'm crushed. But just so that don't come across too dogmatic or iow's Jocoby ignorant, please, proverbial monkey that fell from the proverbial tree, tell me what a Christian is."

JD-

To me, this is a Christian:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

This is my sister, this is Pastor Ralph, this is Arminius, this is the standard I judge Christians by. Many attain that standard. You do not. You mock me, saying, "Wiccan, You tout to knowing the truth. Your posts are arrogantly full of it and might I add full of you. How self condemning you are but do not see it do you?"

But what I said was:

"Mr. Mark-

JD KNOWS the TRUTH, and therefore does not need to think. ;-)

September 11, 2007 5:47 PM"

You call me a devil worshipper, not caring to learn about Wicca and its tenets, content with labeling me as evil. You have won this and all arguments in your mind, and have no desire for honest, respectful conversation, no need for give and take. As I said, you KNOW the TRUTH.

Given the evidence so far, JD, you are not a Christian. However, if you can show me otherwise, I'm willing to change my mind and apologize.

Am I the only one more concerned with the fact that Kathy Griffin won an award?

Concerned The Christian; I'd like to remind you of all the good Muslims who denounced the attacks, of the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks and the fact that the Czech and Slovak Republics still aren't separated by a wall.

Just in case you've forgotten...;-)

Regards

A Hermit

A. Hermit,

Thanks for the reminder. Apparently they did not dispatch any rich oil sheiks. I will add the attack to my growing Islamic sponsored terror list:

The attempted arson/bombing of two UK airports by the seven Muslim doctors, the 9/11 terrorists, AQ "suiciders" in Saudi Arabia, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Filipino koranics and the UK and Spanish train bombers.

And who funds/supports these acts of terror? The Third Axis of Evil??

I'm not familiar with Kathy Griffin's act. My hunch is that she was trying to be outrageous for the sake of outrageousness, as opposed to comedians like Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks who encouraged audiences to question deeply held assumptions.

Bill Donohue is the last person who should be accusing anyone of "hate speech," given his history of anti-Semitic remarks.

Anon - don't let the make-up confuse you....them's people just pretending - but they do resemble Homo Erectus to an uncanny degree!!

I prefer Planet of the Primates for the sake of accuracy.

"The worst enemy is one whose doctrines are founded in hate and are thus beyond debate."
---Tasha Learner

What happened on 9/11 has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the black hearts of the people who planned, participated, and financed this attrocity.

Susan, you are right when you write that there is nothing we can say to these people.

>>the rest of the educated world wonders how fundamentalists in the USA cling to this nonsense despite libraries of fact to the contrary.

Probably because the fundamentalists, as you refer to them, are more in touch with reality...realizing that 'Planet of the Apes' is science fiction.

>>Why the fuss over her speech?

...must be a teenager...many think the same way.

You know, I was raised by a father that despised such rhetoric. A decent family man who had respect for anything that stood for that which is good, including Jesus Christ, and taught the same to his children.

Your apathetic comments are just another proof of the twisted-thinking society we dwell in. Excellence in human character is becoming a thing of the past, it seems.

Anon - I think someone said it earlier ---- we
don't come from monkeys. Hominids (including ourselves and the great apes) all come from a common ancestor (chimps and humans have almost identical DNA (99+%). Just pick up any book on physical anthropology and trace our development over the last few million years - modern man seems to have appeared perhaps 100,000+ years ago or so and aside from cultural changes has remained pretty much the same since then.

We lived contemporaneously with Neanderthal but they just up and disappeared (for the most part). Why creationists wouldn't welcome all of creation as glorious, along with the recognition of our common DNA heritage is kind of a mystery - humans may be at the top of the food chain but a chain it is, nevertheless - we are homogeneous with other lifeforms to the literal core (research shows that all mammals dream for example - they must have a psyche, no??). Self-identity???

Religionists that choose to believe that we came from a different planet, dimension, sphere or heavenworld need a reality check .... the rest of the educated world wonders how fundamentalists in the USA cling to this nonsense despite libraries of fact to the contrary.

"Cannot remember the last suicide bombing in Saudi Arabia against the Saudi government and "royal" family"

As usual, CC, that's because you just aren't paying attention....

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0422/p05s01-wome.html

Wiccan, you have absolutely no idea what Christian is. And now because a devil worshipper tells me I'm not oooooooooooooooooh I'm crushed. But just so that don't come across too dogmatic or iow's Jocoby ignorant, please, proverbial monkey that fell from the proverbial tree, tell me what a Christian is.

Anon:

Why the fuss over her speech?

Jesus didn't get her the award, her work did. She did it. I can never understand why people thank God or Jesus when they win something or do something extraordinary, yet don't thank Him when something bad happens. All you ever hear is "why?". Why did you let this happen God?

I'll tell you why. It's not God's fault, it's yours. The person is the only one responsible for his or her actions. If you can do something really well, don't think God gave you the gift, be more appreciative of your own talents. God doesn't care about sports or awards.

I didn't say someone is dishonest who believes something I don't think is true. "Honestly", you should read what I wrote before you comment on it.

I said someone is dishonest who says he knows something which he doesn't know and worse, I might add, tries to convince others of this "knowledge". Did your undergraduate teacher endow you with such logical wisdom?

Regarding the evolution quotes, I'm satisfied with my findings and the commments of others.

Perhaps the liberal and moderate Christians tuning in here, who presumably believe in the same God as Anon, will be interested in going through the "Church of God" list of experts who disavow evolution.

Or maybe some of them, besides Arminius, will come on here and express their own views on the subject.

You cross the line to say someone is dishonest if what they believe to be true is simply just not true to you. Sorry, I had many teachers, even thru undergraduate school, that fumbled over the hypothesis that you deem 'true'. To each his own.

One believes they came from monkeys...one believes they are not evloved from the animal realm- past, present or future..and have a higher potential than the animal realm. Both honestly believe such.

Who are you to say someone is dishonest?

Not on subject..but a testimony to the debase irreverence that is becoming prolific in our land.
..especially toward religion. Bear in mind the majority of Christians strive to follow Christ's example. For His example and name to be mocked is nothing short of vile.

Kathy Griffin's Jesus remark cut from Emmy show

Comic Kathy Griffin's "offensive" remarks about Jesus at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards will be cut from a pre-taped telecast of the show, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences said on Tuesday.

Griffin made the provocative comment on Saturday night as she took the stage of the Shrine Auditorium to collect her Emmy for best reality program for her Bravo channel show "My Life on the D-List."

"A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus," an exultant Griffin said, holding up her statuette. "Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now."

Asked about her speech backstage a short time later, an unrepentant Griffin added, "I hope I offended some people. I didn't want to win the Emmy for nothing."

The speech drew fire from a leading Roman Catholic group, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which condemned Griffin's remarks as "obscene and blasphemous."

"It is a sure bet that if Griffin had said, 'Suck it, Muhammad,' there would have been a very different reaction," Catholic league president Bill Donohue said in a statement posted on the group's Web site. He called on TV academy president Dick Askin to denounce Griffin's "hate speech" and on Griffin to apologize.

An edited version of the Creative Arts Emmys is set to air on cable television's E! Entertainment Network on Saturday, the night before the live Fox network broadcast of the main Primetime Emmy Awards.

"Kathy Griffin's offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast," an academy spokeswoman said on Tuesday. An "abbreviated version" of her acceptance speech will air, instead, she said.

Griffin's reaction to the imbroglio, according to a statement issued by her publicist: "Am I the only Catholic left with a sense of humor?"

"This person" only said:

It is dishonest to claim to know something which you don't know. That is all. What funny neuron combination made you jump to the conclusion that I think I am god?

And again:
The moment a so-called "scientist" leaves the realm of doubt, openness to falsification and curiosity and tries to state facts where there is not the slightest evidence he cannot be called a scientist anymore - he fell for wishful thinking, which, I admit, would also be a possibility among scientists, lol - we all wish something!

>>Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Anon,

For $99.99, National Geographic will tell you what tree you fell from. https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

CTCNL,

Thanks, but I know where the miracle of birth and my origins are from.

But NG is interesting reading..especially the articles on different cultures and people.

Hmmm, strange that there has been so little terror in corrupt Arab countries. Cannot remember the last suicide bombing in Saudi Arabia against the Saudi government and "royal" family. Ditto for Syria and Libya. You would think that at least of few rich oil sheiks would have been dispatched by now. Well at least the SA sheiks are buying $20 billion dollars of "defense" weapons from us with those oil profits. Ahh, the wonderful cycle of capitalism. Even Georgetown U. profits from it all.

Would rich oil sheiks be sponsoring terror to keep oil prices high??? Hmmmm????? Ahh, the complexity of it all.

Anon,

For $99.99, National Geographic will tell you what tree you fell from. https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

Yo, Jay S

So, in your humble opinion, you are all knowing and know that all of the people quoted have nothing at all to say and to take seriously.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ROFL to the 10th power

such gall.

yeah, right.

If thats what you think, you must illuminate on your own.

But, not worried here...either.

Hey Anon:

Your tired old list of experts challenging evolution is pretty lame. I've seen this floating around for years and it's been shown to be full of misquotes, quotes out of context, and quotes from alleged experts who have never done squat in the field of biology.

So what? I can fabricate a list of quotes from religious experts (and not to so expert) which show that god is a fantasy and atheism is the only true answer to the god hypothesis. We can start with quotes from Mother Teresa.

If that's the best you creationists can do these days, I'm not the least worried.

Anonymous -

Religion is all about emotions - it's tenets are relatively fixed and unchanging over the centuries
because religion doesn't change or (ok let's say it - evolve) through experience. Why? Because the experience has already been defined beforehand
(eg. doctrine and dogma). Religion is predictable in the extreme - and comforting for that reason. Everybody is doing it!!

Science is all about understanding the phenomenal world abeit with mathematical strategies and devices very hard to comprehend by us ordinary mortals - for example, as esoteric as quantum theory is (and seemingly contrary to common sense) it has never failed to be proven correct in it's assumptions over countless experiments...
Science changes and evolves without a doubt or it wouldn't be science. It's really hard to imagine that a bonified scientist would deny the reality of evolution and natural selection as it is typically considered a major cornerstone of all science, not just biology (since it employs all the sciences including physics in it's pursuit of knowledge). Indeed, evolutionary theory has changed pretty dramatically since Darwin's day, since much of today's collateral science was 'undiscovered' at that time (genetics and modern physics in particular). Explaining the 'origins' of the evolutionary process is another matter - Richard Dawkins goes so far as to credit Darwin with the grandest original cognitive discovery in the history of human thought (admittedly he's a tad pre-disposed along those lines anyway)....

Taking the long view, and when you consider that human knowledge and understanding is pretty likely to continue evolving far beyond our present position, it could be that God is an interim invention - an explanation for creation that just won't hold up over time. Or perhaps our understanding of what God really is will evolve with our expanding comprehension of reality. One thing is for sure - change will occur (although probably not among true believers in our lifetime).

On a personal level I give full credit to the spiritual validity of true mystical experience over the centuries, but to my knowledge never once has it denied or controverted the evolutionary process as the basic operational mechanism for our ever-changing physical and material existence - transcendance and the nature of consciousness is another matter for another discussion.

Dear Religious Extremists,

Before you lay down your life for the christ, the prophet, or any other conduit to the almighty, consider this.

Consider that the deity to which you are sacrificing yourself in all likelihood simply does not exist.. that the reward or promise of an afterlife of blissful companionship with the great one is pure bunk... that you have been sold out, sold down the river, sold a fantasy, sold snake oil, by people who use you for their own ends.... that EVEN IF a deity of some sort were to exist, and were sentient, and knew who you were, it would certainly not approve of you usurping his power in his name...and destroying any part of his creation, including yourself.

After considering that and if you still decide that terror is a valid form of religious expression, of love for your deity and of your fellow man, know this.

Know that I will gladly snap your neck, shoot you in your sleep, or disembowel you as necessary. If I am not fortunate enough to have the specific opportunity, I will continue to pay, until my death, the armed forces of my country to search you out and do it in my place, overtly or covertly. Know that 9/11 has raised a smoldering anger that can only be assuaged by your conscious rejection of mass murder and suicide as an affirmation of faith and duty to your higher power.

If you still cannot bring yourself to reject it, then there is no future here for you on this earth--and in neither heaven nor hell.

Sincerely,

--FIUS

>>It is dishonest by anonymous to try to prove religion by "converted" scientists.

So, this person can judge people as dishonest. An atheist playing god. Now thats an oxymoron, folks.

It seems this person thinks that a 'converted' scientist has no intelligence. What gall.

Care to comment on all the other quotes and who they originated from?

Anonymous:

Evolution is a proven science. The evolution of primordial life has always been a subject of great controversy but the evolution of species is incontrovertible and proven, in my mind, beyond a shadow of doubt.

If you will, please read up on the current genetics data concerning the human species and how certain population of humans were able to adapt to specific environments. In addition, please read up on the data concerning the differentiation of fruitflies at http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/28/fruit.flies.enn/ (a much more simpler reading than another article I was about to link)

Evolution is a true science that can be proven prospectively, but hard to validate restrospectively due to the lack of usable genetic samples. This lack of validation, however, does not prove that its basic principles are false as it can be validated prospectively

The unanswerable question "what was before the beginning", which also is the question as to the "watchmaker" can bring any human mind to all sorts of fantasies, no matter if he may be religious or "scientific" (in quotation marks!). The moment a so-called "scientist" leaves the realm of doubt, openness to falsification and curiosity and tries to state facts where there are none he cannot be called a scientist anymore, at least not on this topic, no matter how many Ph.D.s or other merits in a special field he might have.

It is dishonest by anonymous to try to prove religion by "converted" scientists. It is a contradiction in itself, it is an oxymoron. A person who substitutes "faith" for the lack of knowledge proves only this lack, nothing else.

>>Any scientist who is only mentioned in documents of a conservative church is a little suspect as a scientific expert, don’t you think?

By whose wisdom are they suspect....yours?

Is it your 'tactic' that you presume to know this particular scientist may not be an expert? Do you know this man?

Since you seem to know all..I guess I will wait on your comments on all quotes that were listed. This should be interesting.

And sorry, but Ms Jacoby has come across with very similar sentiments toward all believers in God...very derrogatory.

Anonymous – thought you’d like to know, I googled “Gerald Aardsman, Ph.D.,” one of the many experts you quoted in your voluminous list of evolution deniers, and found him only three times, all referring to the Church of Christ documents that included the very voluminous list of evolution deniers that you copied here. Any scientist who is only mentioned in documents of a conservative church is a little suspect as a scientific expert, don’t you think?

And while I'm clarifying things, the crazy, evil believers Jacoby referred to were Islamic extremists and anti-abortion extremists who kill doctors.

Maybe these kind of tactics you used in your post - distortion, lies, name-calling – work in the so-called “Christian” circles you run in, but they won’t work here – and they make you and others calling themselves Christian look really bad.

Susan Jacoby said:

>>There is no point in trying to talk to any of these people. They are utterly delusional (crazy, in lay terms) as well as evil.

Such a kindhearted, secularist author...isnt she?

It is utterly amazing how so many non-believers in God on this blog point their fingers at believers and cynically retort just as many derrogatory and cutting remarks.

Well, Ms Jacoby...you werent elected grand poo-bah of all opinion. Those who oppose your views have just as much right to pin the appropriate adjectives on you also... hypocrite.

I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University)

"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."
(Dr Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist)

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."
(Dr A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University)

"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted."
(Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency."
(Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History)

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
(Dr Ambrose Fleming, President, British Assoc. Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought)

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words."
(Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267)

It is possible (and, given the Flood, probable) that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years."
(Gerald Aardsman, Ph.D., physicist and C-14 dating specialist)

"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists."
(Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose)

"The best physical evidence that the earth is young is the dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling ... the magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet ... To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phoney science."
(Thomas Barnes Ph.D., physicist)

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
(Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist)

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University)

"It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
(Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, p89)

"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
(Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolutionist: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985) p 342.)

"When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them."
(C Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General)

"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
(Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist)

"Although bacteria are tiny, they display biochemical, structural and behavioural complexities that outstrip scientific description. In keeping with the current microelectronics revolution, it may make more sense to equate their size with sophistication rather than with simplicity ... Without bacteria life on earth could not exist in its present form."
(James A Shipiro, Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms, "Scientific America, Vol.258, No.6 (June 1988))

"Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth's land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order ... it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods."
(John Woodmorappe, geologist)

"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order."
(H.S.Hamilton (MD) The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed."
(N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist)

"None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another."
(Luther Sunderland, science researcher)

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self- important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
(John Reader, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805))

"The evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before."
(Wolfgang Smith Ph.D.)

"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation."
(Niles Eldridge, PhD., palaeontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History).

Darwin's Own Confession

"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
(Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties")

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
(Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician)

"As yet we have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."
(Chester A Arnold, Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, University of Michigan, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947, p.7)

"The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
(John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95)

"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."
(Dr David Raup, Curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago)

"Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides means of 'seeing' Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them."
(David Kitts, Ph.D. Palaeontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol.28 (Sep.1974) p.467)

"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They've discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philisophical position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory."
(Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition (Santee, California: Master Books,1988) pp.7-8)

"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
(Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist)

"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"
(S Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London:Croom Helm, p.422))

"If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze."
(Evolutionist Herbert Nilson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden:Verlag CWK Gleerup Press, 1953, p 174)

"In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge ... or even a new enzyme."
(Gordon Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper and Row, 1983, pp 34, 38)

"The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."
(George Simpson, palaeontologist and Evolutionist)
Fossils

"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."
(Tom Kemp, Oxford University)

"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools ... Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..."
(William R Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p.150)

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places."
(Francis Hitching, archaeologist).

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply."
(J.O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science)

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them."
(David Kitts, palaeontologist and Evolutionist)

"... I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."
(Dr Eldred Corner, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p.97))

"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation."
(Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/palaeontologist and former evolutionist)

"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128] ... one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism ... [p.127] If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle. [p.128]"
(Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's destiny: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp127-8)

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain."
(R H Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.10 (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p.168)

"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem."
(Dr Niles Eldredge, Palaeontologist and Evolutionist)
DNA
DNA is DeoxyriboNucleic Acid. Chromosomes are thread-like structures made of DNA and protein. There are 46 chromosomes in man.

"The set of genetic instructions for humans is roughly three billion letters long."
(Miroslav Radman & Robert Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication, Scientific America, Vol. 259, No.2 August 1988, pp40-46)

"DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism - a miniaturised marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet."
(Paul S Taylor in The Illustrated Origins Answer Book page 23)

"... Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court ..."
(Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space)

"The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first - the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? ... there is virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words.'"
(George Howe, expert in biology sciences)

"...An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence."
(Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley and Robert L Olsen: The Mystery of Life's Origin, Reassessing Current Theories (New York Philosophical Library 1984) pp 211-212)

"Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA ... All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threatening ... if mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilised egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion."
(Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication... Scientific America. Vol. 299, No 2 (August 1988, pp 40-44. Quote is from page 24))

"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection - quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology."
(Arthur Koestler, author)

"Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life."
(David A Kaufman, Ph.D., University of Florida, Gainsesville)

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate....It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect ...higher intelligences...even to the limit of God...such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, well-known British mathematician, astronomer and cosmologist)

"Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century."
(Michael Denton, 'Evolution, A Theory in Crisis' page 358)

"Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process ... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back ... Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
(I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America).

"The notion that ... the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
(Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle)

"The theory of Evolution ... will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has."
(Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known philosopher)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes.'"
(K.Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich)

"Far from being an established fact of science that it is so typically portrayed to be, evolution is, in reality, an unreasonable and unfounded hypothesis that is riddled with countless scientific fallacies."
(Scott M Huse, The Collapse of Evolution (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp 127)

"Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology - professors and textbook writers included - have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it ... College students, having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit knowledge. Education becomes a fraud."
(George Kocan, Evolution isn't Faith But Theory, Chicago Tribune 9 Monday April 21 1980)

"Scientists who go about teaching that Evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining Evolution we do not have one iota of fact."
(Dr T N Tahmisian, a former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission physiologist)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
(Dr Louise Bounoure, Director of Research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, Director of the Zoological Museum and former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg)
(Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Ph.D.,D.Sc.,Dr.es.Sc., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Santee, California: Master Books, p.154). Dr Wilder-Smith's personal conclusion is as follows:
"I, as a scientist, must postulate a source of information to supply the teleonomy or know-how, I don't find it in the universe, and, therefore, I assume that it is transcendent to this universe. I believe, myself, in a living God who did it. I believe that this God, who supplied the information, revealed Himself in the form of a man - so that man could understand Him. We are made to understand. I want to understand God. But I can only do it if He comes down to my wavelength, the wavelength of man. I believe that God revealed Himself in the form of Christ, and that we can serve Him and know Him in our hearts as the source of the Logos - all information is necessary to make the universe and to make life itself ... Look at the beauty of nature around us. When you consider that it all grew out of matter injected with information of the type I have been describing, you can only be filled with wonder of the wisdom of a Creator, who, first of all, had the sense of beauty to do it, and then the technical ability. I am filled with wonder as I look at nature, to see how God technically did it and realized the beauty of His own soul in doing it. The Scripture teaches perfectly plainly, and it fits in with my science perfectly well, that the one who did called Himself THE LOGOS. That Logos was Jesus. Jesus called Himself the Creator who made everything - 'for Him and by Him'. Now, if that is the case, then I am very happy and filled with joy that He made the Creation so beautiful and that He also valued me enough to die for me, to become my Redeemer as well."
For further information on Wilder-Smith's views on Teleonomy send for The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory: Information Sources PO Box 8000, Costa Mesa, California 92628 USA

Hmmm, strange that there has been so little terror in corrupt Arab countries. Cannot remember the last suicide bombing in Saudi Arabia against the Saudi government and "royal" family. Ditto for Syria and Libya. You would think that at least of few rich oil sheiks would have been dispatched by now. Well at least the SA sheiks are buying $20 billion dollars of "defense" weapons from us with those oil profits. Ahh, the wonderful cycle of capitalism. Even Georgetown U. profits from it all.

Would rich oil sheiks be sponsoring terror to keep oil prices high??? Hmmmm????? Ahh, the complexity of it all.

Jihadist,
Please don't go. Why? Your intelligent conversations and balance will be sorely missed. If you have to leave, please return.

May Allah be with you,

terra

"But the 9/11 hijackers were not hard-up individuals. The Glasgow terrorists were medical professionals. So what is motivating them to kill themselves and others?"

They may not have been poor themselves, but its still the poverty and perceived oppression of their people that motivates them, in the same way that rich intellectuals like Karl Marx were motivated to take the side of the working classes in 19th C Europe.

There's also the problem of corrupt Arab governments that have been propped up by the West, the hypocrisy over Democracy (consider the support of western Governments for the canceling of elections and imposition of martial law in Algeria...I'm not defending the extremism here mind you, but the issues are far more complex than poverty and religion and being political problems they require political solutions. That means talking to people, diplomacy and even compromise.

Regards

A Hermit

Dear Jihadist,

Please don't leave. We still have to pillage Charing Cross Road and there is much pasta to consume. Ramen.

I will miss you and your curious, irreverent mind.

Maurie

I wish people wouldn't bring up WW2 in relation to terrorists, because it reminds me that it was a war in which terrorism was used by all sides.

The mass bombing of civilan centers was no doubt meant to sway implacable, fanatic, enemies (or was it weak-willed enemies? I forget) and bring the war to a swift end. Didn't really work out that way, though. Conventional firebombing raids killed alot more people than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but didn't end the war. They never really ran out of people willing to die for the cause, as long as there was a chance they might harm the enemy in return . They only surrendered when that chance faded.

So if talking to terrorists does no good, and killing large quantities of them won't sway them from their course, what's left to try?

Anonymous - Man evolved in at least 30 different places on earth at different times.

I'm not sure what you meant by this statement, but it is certainly not true.

Anatomically modern humans arose within the last 200,000 years, most probably in East Africa. A number of migration events out of Africa occurred over the last 100,000 years. One group of migrants managed to travel around the Indian Ocean and down into Australia and New Guinea by 45,000 years ago. All humans now living are descended from that East African population. That is our current understanding of human evolution, though the details will surely be modified as more data comes in.

>> I would suggest reason but no one has listened to reason yet as Miss Jacoby noted in her essay.

Reason is something that makes some kind of fact intelligible. Evolution is hypothesis, not fact.

Arminius: "The hatred spewed here by so-called 'Christians' nauseates me."

I figured as much. Thanks for saying so. Now - how about getting some of your compatriots - fellow liberal Christians - involved here. We don't see enough of them. Why not?

If you can't interest them in joining the discussion, at least try to find out why they're not interested.

That's a nice side effect of the woad we'd 'paint our butts blue' with, btw. Doesn't just look scary on Mel Gibson, it's antiseptic.

"Arminius:

"Reaching for my shillaheh. We'll paint our butts blue, and rush into battle. The Gauls, by the way, were sometimes fond of running to the fray totally nude, carrying only a wicker shield and a spear."

Shillelagh.

You'd rush into battle nude, too, if people were using relatively-blunt weapons that'd force fibers into the most minor of wounds and turn em septic. :)

Chimps have been observed at war with each other. It's obviously economically inspired, territory being the object with the winning gang killing a few and driving the rest of the losers away.

They kill an eat at least one of the losers. They're more human than humans.

Man evolved in at least 30 different places on earth at different times. Many false starts, hundreds for sure and maybe thousands with dead end critters that didn't survive.

Man is still evolving. Is this just another false start?

World population is at the breaking point right now. Like the chimps, man will as always resort to violence justified by the need to feed.

I would suggest reason but no one has listened to reason yet as Miss Jacoby noted in her essay.

Everyone admires the tough guy. He's the one that is needed to win the fight for available food when there's too little to feed all. Hitler was one of them. He was just another human being very human like chimps.

"So, we have evolved from our 'cousins', yet they are less violent than we are?
That simply means humanity is regressing, and our cousins are, at least, at status quo...correct?
I often wonder why some of our 'cousins' did not get to evolve into 9-5 workday, home-building, vacationing types like some of us 'former primates' did. Any thoughts?"

Yeah. We didn't evolve from modern apes and monkeys, we evolved alongside them from a common ancestor.

>>So, if we have a common ancestor...why so much difference in us and 'modern' apes?

>>By the way, why didnt the modern ape progress more than the ancient ape?

BTW, humans ARE primates.

And our propensity for conspecific violence is probably a byproduct of our big brains.

>> Nice try...not convincing.

If chimps were smart enough to build AK47s instead of just twigs for extracting termites, they might be killing each other at the same rate we do.

>>So how did we get so smart and our brother chimps, which whom they and we have a common ancestor as you state above, missed out?

I don't know what you mean by regressing ... are we supposed to be less violent because we have higher intelligence? Or are we just clever enough and have the resources to engage in violence more effectively?

>>If you dont think that a species that becomes more violent is not regressing.....well, glad I dont live in your neighborhood.

What happened to the other primates who were sentientor on the road to sentience? Good question. It's quite possible there was only room for one in Africa and Eurasia (us) and we may have killed off any sibling species.(>>Is that a guess or a fact?) There are a lot of dead branches on the human evolutionary tree. (>>oh yes...agreed)

Actually non-human social primates seem to spend less time working for what they need (food, water, mating opportunties) than we do. If you could get by naked, free of possessions, in a small band, eating raw plants and the occasional animal for protein, you'd have more free time for grooming out ticks, lounging, and socializing. And running like hell from the occasional predator.

>>((((Yawn)))))

Not a bad life, necessarily, but that big brain seems to expect a whole lot more.

>>Boy, our brother chimps sure missed out on the big brains, didnt they.

Laurie Wolpert writes:

"If nobody is talking and trying to reach a compromise, than what occurs is simply war until one side is utterly destroyed. Even World War 2 was concluded with a peace treaty."

True, but nobody negotiated with the extremist Hitler, did they? Hitler adopted a scorched earth/to the last man policy. It was the less-fanatical members of the German Army who negotiated the end of the war after Hitler's suicide, and that treaty was one of Germany's unconditional surrender.

Who are the moderate fanatics we should compromise with, and will they accept unconditional surrender, as did Germany?

While I appreciate your nod to history, your analogy isn't apt.

JD,

I am Christian; I cannot see you as one. I suggest you read the message of Jesus in the Gospels, and get out of the 'smite mine enemies' stuff in the OT.

Reaching for my shillaheh. We'll paint our butts blue, and rush into battle. The Gauls, by the way, were sometimes fond of running to the fray totally nude, carrying only a wicker shield and a spear.

So be it! Where's my shillelagh and woad?

Although Jacobs makes a good point about the futility of merely talking to extremists, (an interesting point that was echoed by President Bush made when guiding us towards the Iraq war), her approach to just "stop the extremists" seems ultimately to be the one that has already been attempted, recently as well as throughout history. If nobody is talking and trying to reach a compromise, than what occurs is simply war until one side is utterly destroyed. Even World War 2 was concluded with a peace treaty. The other thing that jacobs seems to be missing is that by categorizing extremists as evil, she is actually speaking the language of absolutism. After all these fanatics are people who were once children, and may love their dog, help their neighbor etc etc. The language of evil is always developed by negating anothers humaness, i wonder if Jacobs realizes what her comment implies.

Wiccan,

Gladius be damned, I've got my claymore! Celtic to the core! All glory to Boudicca, the Furor Celticus of my ancestors is in full swing.

JD, I have worked alongside Christians, I know Christians; my sister is a Christian. JD, you're no Christian.

Arminius, grab your gladius and scutum, I've my spatha. Got no problem going Boudica on this twerp. Christian, indeed. The nerve.

RP-S:

I've read some of de Waal's publications years ago; didn't read this one. Thanks!

One way to think about human-on-human violence and its counterparts in other species is in terms of cost-benefit.

When you don't have weapons that allow you to kill from a distance, you have to consider the cost of close-contact battle. Even a predator has to consider if a prey animal poses a risk. Same for engaging in one-on-one with a conspecific rival, such as an alpha male who is standing between you and a potential mate. Injury can mean death, and its better to back down and try again another day, unscathed. That's why stereotypical submission postures are so common in many species ... it gets both participants out of a nasty situation that could leave one or both in a bad way.

Human ego is what drives us to escalate violence, plus our ability to kill from a safe distance ... something non-humans don't have to deal with. Even a lion knows when to take a powder, but humans often lack that discretion.

Mike,

Nice come back.

"Is that absolute"?

Funny how those who are relativists are the ones quick to make absolute statements. It must be hard to live a contradictory lifestyle....

I'd like to recommend an excellent book called;

"Primates and Philosophers;How Morality Evolved"

by Frans de Waal.

This is a serious study of where morality came from,and why and how it came to be.
Religion is mentioned once or twice in passing,but the rest is solid inquiry.
The primates mentioned in the title,are not the clerical kind,but our pals the chimpanzees,who behave a lot like us.

When I was young and seeking guidance I bought The Ethics of Aristotle to help me figure things out,about life and why we do things,and how we should behave to each other,and so on.

Martin wrote:

"anyone who believes in absolutes is absolutely evil"

Is that an absolute?

"So, we have evolved from our 'cousins', yet they are less violent than we are?
That simply means humanity is regressing, and our cousins are, at least, at status quo...correct?
I often wonder why some of our 'cousins' did not get to evolve into 9-5 workday, home-building, vacationing types like some of us 'former primates' did. Any thoughts?"

Yeah. We didn't evolve from modern apes and monkeys, we evolved alongside them from a common ancestor.

BTW, humans ARE primates.

And our propensity for conspecific violence is probably a byproduct of our big brains. If chimps were smart enough to build AK47s instead of just twigs for extracting termites, they might be killing each other at the same rate we do.

I don't know what you mean by regressing ... are we supposed to be less violent because we have higher intelligence? Or are we just clever enough and have the resources to engage in violence more effectively?

What happened to the other primates who were sentientor on the road to sentience? Good question. It's quite possible there was only room for one in Africa and Eurasia (us) and we may have killed off any sibling species. There are a lot of dead branches on the human evolutionary tree.

Actually non-human social primates seem to spend less time working for what they need (food, water, mating opportunties) than we do. If you could get by naked, free of possessions, in a small band, eating raw plants and the occasional animal for protein, you'd have more free time for grooming out ticks, lounging, and socializing. And running like hell from the occasional predator.

Not a bad life, necessarily, but that big brain seems to expect a whole lot more.

Wheat is now 3x it's all time high while the government says there's no inflation.

A loaf of bread, 99% wheat costs about as much as a bushel of wheat. Wheat was $2.50/bu. Today it's over $8.50/bu and rising. Bread will be $8.50/loaf in no time.

What you gonna feed all those millions of kids JD? Let them eat cake?

Attention pregnant women who don't want the kid.

Send it to JD to raise.

The 'God' people on this post are making God sound altogether too human for comfort - eg. the threat of eternal reckoning, etc. that is certain to be imposed by the Father of All Fathers for bad children and outright non-believers.....we will all be getting our just desserts on that fateful day just up ahead unless....... (the Demiurge of the Gnostics??)

Leaving the Old Testament behind for a moment, humans are the only creators (of other humans) that we can be sure of. It would seem to me that deciding not to carry a pregnancy to term (a deeply personal decision) would have fewer spiritual consequences than slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent women and children - the collateral damage of every war .... including the one we're engaged in just now ... that is, if God were a just God. What utter nonsense!!!

But back to the Old Testament - the fundamentalist extremists that are claiming to be the sons of Allah (or Yahweh) are murderers pure and simple....the insanity of fanaticism. Curiously, intelligence and education are no deterrant whatsoever. For these believers, personal responsibility is gone - they have become automatons for the glory of God. In this way they are cult-like, but they are not martyrs by any stretch. To my knowledge martyrs were never mass murderers - and not for a moment do these self-programmed little robots see the irony as their homicide discredits their beloved Creator in the most extreme fashion.

The Myth of Bin Laden is a ruse that is identical with the fictional spiritual leadership of Jim Jones and David Koresh for their respective believers - but unfortunately on a global scale (same outcome). I'll side with Karma on this one - for suicide bombers of all descriptions, burning in a Hell of your own making is a more likely outcome than a bevy of vestil virgins.

That said, the invasion of Iraq was never for a single instant in time ever justified - our hands are not clean, and the devastation continues. As in Vietnam, there will never be an opportune time to depart or an easy way out.

Dear Susan,

You of all people would know.

JD writes:
"Dear Mr Mark, I'm just taking your opinion of God to its logical extension. God is Soverign. I know now you can't deal with that but eventually you WILL HAVE to deal with it."

No I won't and neither will you or anybody else. Why? God doesn't exist, so don't get thy panties into a wad.

I know that many Xians believe that there's some god of retribution just waitin' there after death to give a big ol' comeuppance to the atheists/rationalists/different religionists/intellectuals, but there ain't. Perhaps it gives the downtrodden solace in this life to believe that the "bad guys" will "get theirs" in the afterlife, but it won't happen.

Truth be told, even one concerned that god MIGHT be waiting in the wings to hand down an eternal smackdown has a couple of easy outs: one - make sure you're buried in a chariot of iron ("And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." - Judges 1:19! That's the ticket! God can't defeat the chariots of iron, so it stands to reason that anyone buried in one is just as safe from god's eternal wrath as they would be from his earthly wrath.

The other out: make sure you're buried in Nazareth as - according to Mark 6 - Jesus could do "no mighty work" in his hometown, save cure a few sick people. Obviously, god's power doesn't work in Jesus' hometown...or, maybe it's one's hometown (prophet without honor in his hometown=no power in said hometown).

The real point is that the Bible shows that the Biblical god is far from omnipotent. If he can't defeat simple chariots or iron, what would he do against a battleship?

These are the deep questions of faith. :)

Hi, PaganPlace, Wiccan, E Favorite, Lep -

This is the wildest Charlie Foxtrot of a 'discussion' I have ever seen here. We gotta join forces.

For those who do not know me, I am a practicing liberal Christian. The hatred spewed here by so-called 'Christians' nauseates me.

"D:

"Wiccan, You tout to knowing the truth. Your posts are arrogantly full of it and might I add full of you. How self condemning you are but do not see it do you? That is the nature of fallen man in a nutshell. It is said born again Christians are like fellowship meaning a bunch of fellows in the same ship. Non believers are like a nutshell."

Funny how nuts are better-engineered for getting to shore than these 'ships' you speak of. :)

Being 'all in the same boat,' notwithstanding, JD....

What if we're not actually dancing around the edge of your abyss, but rather living a life that just so happens to look...

Exactly like this?

The odd thing about the religious is their avoidance of any truth that interferes with what they believe about the world.They lie all the time.
Some call it denial,I call it lying,lying to oneself and to anybody else;anything but face the icy cold truth. Gods are make believe,and there's no escaping death. As far as we know,THAT is the truth.
I understand why they shy away from that kind of truth,it's scary;and our own death is difficult to comprehend,and easy to deny.
But after a while,one gets over it.Death is real.
God and Heaven,aint.

JD,

I would also save the baby...as I am at the last half of my life, and the baby is full of promise.
By baby you do mean a living, breatheing, born person...right?

Because I would hate to give up what time I have left for the fetus to just be miscarried anyway.

As far as my sex urges? LOL....I am 59 and been married since I was 18. Thanks for the compliment.

Namaste JD...Namaste.

I mean, anyone ever think of that? Two hundred fourty *million* ears of evolution, and people are simultaneously getting fat and freaking *out* cause they can't completely control a situation that's only a few thousand years old.

What are people trying to sell you?

And you're looking for 'eternity?'

Dammit, people, we only just got started.

I think, Answers, that many of our modern maladies would be remedied if only we found a way to accept that our bodies and beings are certain kinds of animals that need certain kinds of stimuli, not boxes and beatings.

Too often society is this thing people are supposed to be forced to adapt to in order to buy the privileges of certain things which are instinctual and needed for us to be healthy organisms.

I remember being a bike messenger in the tall glass buildings of the yuppies, barely getting by, barely able to keep riding on what I was paid....

And said uppies looking at me like, "You little b***"

Cause they pay in the thousands to get a *chance* to go ride once in a while.

Standing there in an elevator, barely able to fricking stand, ...being envied by guys in Armani suits.

Realizing that, while they thought I was less than dirt, they envied me.

Cause they were caged.

Not that I didn't have worse cages of my own.

I mean, you try step-and-fetching at 35 miles an hour in traffic with a terminal illness, but.. hey.

Could just be that we aren't all about what we're *said* to be about, with some unnatural, bestial/and/or dirty drives to guiltily account for or buy by surrogate.

Could be....

We're more than all that.

Could be, this modern life wouldn't be all so painful if we just organized a bit better.

Or I could be an evil commie sinner intent on stopping you from righteously ending the world in gouts of flame and yawning crevasses eating sinners.

But hey.

Your choice.

Mr Mark -- sometimes you are sooooo dense. God is better than the human abortionist because He is God and He is better at everything. That's why we worship Him - whether He's doing abortions, moving mountains or weeping with us over the destruction from the last hurricane He couldn't or wouldn't stop.

Jay S - we usually have great turnout - I'd say at least 40 for the 4th of July - some wearing red, white and blue atheist t-shirts.

If you're ever in the DC area, check out http://atheists.meetup.com:80/530/

"Things are sounding a wee bit out of control in the atheist realm."

Yes, we're just a bunch of wild and crazy guys (and gals) engaged in an orgy of free-thinking.

BTW, questioning authority does not always equate to opposing authority. It does mean always being ready and willing to challenge claims that come from authority (or those who would claim the mantle of authority) in terms of their basis in reality, their legality, and their propriety.

In other words, what every citizen of a secular democracy should do, but too many don't.

Wiccan, You tout to knowing the truth. Your posts are arrogantly full of it and might I add full of you. How self condemning you are but do not see it do you? That is the nature of fallen man in a nutshell. It is said born again Christians are like fellowship meaning a bunch of fellows in the same ship. Non believers are like a nutshell.

Jay S. stated:

>>Humans, with our big brains, weapons technology, and propensity to harbor grudges, really developed the art of murder.

>>I have some background in primatology, so I'm not just swinging out on a limb here.

So, we have evolved from our 'cousins', yet they are less violent than we are?

That simply means humanity is regressing, and our cousins are, at least, at status quo...correct?

I often wonder why some of our 'cousins' did not get to evolve into 9-5 workday, home-building, vacationing types like some of us 'former primates' did. Any thoughts?

"Monkeys will bash each others' brains in... Does your your "monkey morality" approve of murder?"

I don't have the numbers (if they even exist), but I would bet my paycheck that non-human primates of all species kill each other at a far lower rate than do humans. They are too busy foraging for food and avoiding non-primate predators to spend time killing each other. It was quite a surprise to researchers some years back when a group of chimps was observed killing a chimp from another band ... it had never been seen before despite years of observation. Most contacts between rival ape or monkey troops involve lots of histrionics but little violence.

Humans, with our big brains, weapons technology, and propensity to harbor grudges, really developed the art of murder.

I have some background in primatology, so I'm not just swinging out on a limb here.

Fanatics have touted atheism. A fact of history.

Morality, with regard to humans especially, has its base from the 10 commandments, given long before Christ, but a strong base of human morals before and after Christ. God...being the author of all that is right, just, moral and good.

Aristotle himself concluded, "We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God" (Metaphysics 12.7; 1072b 28-29).

Mr. Mark-

JD KNOWS the TRUTH, and therefore does not need to think. ;-)

Dear Mr Mark, I'm just taking your opinion of God to its logical extension. God is Soverign. I know now you can't deal with that but eventually you WILL HAVE to deal with it.

Dear Miss JD

You are not a serious person. You sound like a 12 year old girl, except that would be an insult to the 12 year old girl. LOL (oops -oh my - did I say that?? LOL!!!)

"Because Islam is so much more dominating and monolithic in Arab countries, the fundamentalist impulse is more radical than in Europe or America."

That's actually a good point Daniel; the West has become more tolerant, more democratic and more amenable to human liberty as it has become more secular. We have largely rejected superstitious belief in a God as a basis for morality and legality. Kind of reinforces the point I was trying to make with you earlier, actually...

Regards

A Hermit

JD -

Thanks for stating that your god does indeed kill the innocent.

How does that make him better than the human abortionist? How does that make a human abortionist worse than god? Truth be told, the human abortionist is simply following god's example, striving to be more like god.

Do you think before you write?

No Message Reaches Lunatics

Susan your pic next to the heading of this thread is kind of freaky.

E Favorite:

Damn! We gotta crush this movement before it gets too organized. Tell me where that picnic is and I'll try to break it up.

I know there are some atheist/agnostic organizations, and some other groups like First Amendment advocates with lots of atheists/agnostics. I consider the membership of these latter groups more as secularists in that they include religious folks as well.

I know of some local meetings of skeptic groups, but they are not that well-attended. It's that streak of independence, I think, that makes us hard to organize. Or we just don't identify that strongly with our atheism as a label.

Dear Mr Mark, A God who is so soverign that He can take life as well as give life at His own leasure. You should be careful what you ascribe to Him because the God who would kill the innocent would have absolutely NO problem killing the guilty. Maybe you should concern yourself less with His Justice and more with His mercy.

To Tonio and Jay S

There is something to this train of thinking that the 3 of us have touched upon. (For once, I feel I am actually getting something out of interactions on this forum).

And that is that fundamentalist religion has a basis in fear of a dangerous world, in which many decisions are demanded, and much thinking is required. It is alot easier, simply, to reduce it all to a single decision: the decision to conform ones mind to a fundamentalist dogma.

It can be Christian fundamentalism, or Islamic fundamentalism: the psychological state is identical; the phenomena are identical.

Because Islam is so much more dominating and monolithic in Arab countries, the fundamentalist impulse is more radical than in Europe or America. Because there is so much else going on in Europe and America to compete with Christian fundamentalism, it is thereby moderated.

Fundamentalism really is all about fear and confusion. I know alot of fundamentalist Christians, and despite their devotion to Jesus in whom they put all their faith and trust, many such people are a real mess; lurching from one dramatic personal crisis to another, when every little thing is magnified to cosmic importance, as has been noted here earlier. And the only remedy is a dramatic appeal to God's mercy, a cycle repeated and repeated.

All religious people aren't like. But alot of them, especially the born-again fundamentalists, are really into the drama of it all!!!

Colin said, "And morals were around long before the Christian religion started up. Morals come with being human.
We can see altruism and empathy in our cousins the chimp.It is a survival strategy which works for humans too. You don't need a bible to tell you to do unto others.Even monkeys know,that if they don't do unto others,others wont do unto them. You can watch it at the zoo."
Guess what else you can watch at the zoo... www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrYL7bYPsEE

Monkeys will bash each others' brains in... Does your your "monkey morality" approve of murder?

Peace,
RT

Richmond T. Stallgiss, atheism is an attribute of communism, a stated goal. Communist dictators and states did not want religious worship of gods to interfere with worship of the state.

Worship is the common word here, rather than theism. Communism is just another idealogy, fascism, baathism, religion. Some are far more evil than others, no doubt about that.

To state that since a communist claims to be an atheist, therefore an atheist must be a communist ... well, that's is stupid.

Atheism is not a belief to most of the atheists I know, it is the absence of belief - this is a clearly understood taxonomic difference to us.

And I can tell you for a fact that none of us could ever swallow communism any more than we can swallow religion. To me communism occupies the same place in the occupation of the human mind that religion does. Blind uquestiong faith is required, an entire morality based not on any common sense but rather based on arbitrary external stuff - like gods or "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Idealogy is idealogy, from a taxonomic point of view. They are largely interchangeable from the point of view of the power-mad idiots who keep running our species into the ground.

If humanity would stop itself from so willingly suspending its sense of disbelief ... what a world.

I would consider the religious to be the same way I consider the astrologists, if only you people could keep it to yourself.

JD-

Gosh! You're just so smart, and witty, and full of Christian love! Bet you see the Christ in everyone you meet, right? I can tell that humble service and charity is your forte.

Hmmm? None of the "abortion is murder" mongers have engaged my post to JD from 2:16 today on abortion/Jewish law/god the abortionist.

Why am I not surprised?

TDay

Atheism has not had periods of fanaticism,because it was never a movement or a religion or a groupthink of any kind. Communism was (and still is) a movement and an ideology,and still exists in China,Laos and a few other isolated spots on the map.
An atheist is someone who believes there are no gods,and I'm sure there are communists who both agree and disagree with that position.
And morals were around long before the Christian religion started up. Morals come with being human.
We can see altruism and empathy in our cousins the chimp.It is a survival strategy which works for humans too.You don't need a bible to tell you to do unto others.Even monkeys know,that if they don't do unto others,others wont do unto them.
You can watch it at the zoo.
Its evolutionary in that the fittest survive,and getting along with others helps make us fitter,
especially when we live in a sharing community,
where we are all dependent on each other.
And there were deep thinkers long before Jesus, who thought about and taught ethics. Aristotle's Ethics were written more than three hundred years before Christ was born.
You give Christianity too much credit.

'crazy anti-abortion christians'

'We should be a group of free-thinking, independent skeptics who question authority ... any authority'

Things are sounding a wee bit out of control in the atheist realm.

"K, you delude yourself. What are you doing on a religion forum? How funny. K, is that your pants on fire?"

This isn't a religion forum, it's "On Faith."

"On" meaning "regarding". Which means it's open to discussing the pros and cons of any faith-based
philosophy and alternatives to faith-based thinking.

Why not ask what Susan Jacoby, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins are doing here, now and in past discussions?

If it weren't for the non-believers, this would be a pretty boring religion site.

TDay

Atheism has not had periods of fanaticism,because it was never a movement or a religion or a groupthink of any kind. Communism was (and still is) a movement and an ideology,and still exists in China,Laos and a few other isolated spots on the map.
An atheist is someone who believes there are no gods,and I'm sure there are communists who both agree and disagree with that position.
And morals were around long before the Christian religion started up. Morals come with being human.
We can see altruism and empathy in our cousins the chimp.It is a survival strategy which works for humans too.You don't need a bible to tell you to do unto others.Even monkeys know,that if they don't do unto others,others wont do unto them.
You can watch it at the zoo.
Its evolutionary in that the fittest survive,and getting along with others helps make us fitter,
especially when we live in a sharing community,
where we are all dependent on each other.
You give religion too much credit.

Jay S - Actually, depending on where you live, you WILL see atheists passing out leaflets - freedom of speech and separation of church and state info.

I've also recently been to a 4th of July atheist picnic and have a halloween party coming up.

Louella - if you interested, google "atheist" or "Humanist" and your hometown and see what comes up. You too, Jay.

Terra Gazelle, re: your post September 11, 2007 1:45 PM

If I had to choose your life or the babies life I would choose the baby. At least the baby can be raised up to love life and not indescriminately kill life simply because they can't control their sex urges responsibly.

Daniel:
You are SO cute! You are the result of too little bible reading! LOL. Can't tell the difference between you and terra. What exactly qualifies you as a Christian? Going to a Catholic church?

Karl Martin said, “it's a small step to conclude that the Creator is equally anxious that you slaughter everyone who doesn't express their adulation, in the same way that you do. The religious texts contain incitement to violence; anyone who keeps the easy, peaceful rules, while ignoring the exhortation to kill and conquer, is just a garden-variety hypocrite. It's *all* the Word of God, right? So who is the individual believer, to pick and choose which of God's commands to keep, and which to dismiss?”

1) Karl… it’s a small step? Huh? Wha? Maybe you don’t ‘get’ Christianity. The NT does not contain incitements to violence, and the OT is in part a historical record that documents the good and the bad history of the Israelites and their rocky relationship to God. As far as Jesus followers are concerned, we are supposed to love our enemies and consider the outsiders, poor, hungry, and desolate to be our neighbor.

It’s not up to the individual believer to pick and choose. Wesley, an influential Methodist taught that Scripture is to be interpreted through the lens of tradition, reason, and experience. Discernment is a collective endeavor that involves the community of believers together as well as the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself preached that the greatest of the commandments was to Love God and to Love your neighbor and that all the rest of the Law was subject to these two greatest commandments that are actually found in the OT.

So if you want to be a lone gunman and interpret the Bible as “Kill all infidels” that’s your (very poor) interpretation, … it’s nothing close to the Christianity practiced by most people throughout the world.

2) As for those on his forum… I am consistently hearing the refrain that “if the economy plummeted, you would see the return of Christian fanaticism in the United States” What I find interesting about this thesis is that it somehow blames fanaticism on Christians, when in fact most of you are already conceding that it’s not Christianity itself that is the problem but the poor economic conditions that drive social upheaval and ideological desperation. When the Soviet economy tanked after WWI their society went to hell and it wasn’t because of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1917

It was because of the economy! And the *godless communists* played a part in the chaos.

3) As for keeping church and state separated, I must remind y’all that Thomas Jefferson (the Christian Deist) started the ball rolling in Richmond, Virginia with his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

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

Anyhoo, I hope our economy doesn’t tank and I hope that the less-crazy of us can all get along.

Peace,
RT

K said, "How am I, a man who has always been free of religion..."

K, you delude yourself. What are you doing on a religion forum? How funny. K, is that your pants on fire?

Louella, you are not alone. We are everywhere.

But you won't find any atheist prosletyzers coming to your door, or handing out pamphlets on street corners, or inviting you to the annual atheist picnic or "Origin of Species" study group.

We're not that organized. I don't want us to be that organized, because sooner or later that leads to ideology. We should be a group of free-thinking, independent skeptics who question authority ... any authority (think "herd of cats").

I thought bin Laden rose to popularity because the United States placed troops in Rihyad after the Persian Gulf war. Once the casualties pile up, people forget the reasons why and focus only on winning. Winning makes all the bloodshed worth it.

Its encouraging to see intelligent people coming out and finally speaking up about the gibberish that is religion.Its great to read.I thought I was alone.
And those crazy anti-abortion christians make me glad I left the church.

Id like to present the other side of the story.

Atheism, too, certainly had its periods of fanaticism, such as in communist countries. Thankfully, too, most of that has been tamed by the rise nations such as ours, where high moral and ethical standards, based largely on Christian values, has blessed this land with much more opportunity for all, far surpassing anything remotely comparable such as was found in the USSR for instance.

One would have to wonder, too,if the US, or another industrialized nation were a largely atheist population and were devastated by a catastrophe (natural or manmade), how quickly Christian values and belief in God would re-emerge?

"Jay, I've long suspected that the growth of extremist Christian movements in America in the last few decades is largely a reaction to the social changes in the 1960s, particularly the civil rights and women's rights movements. John Rushdoony and Rev. Bob Jones based their opposition to integration and interracial marriage on their religious beliefs, and James Dobson and the Promise Keepers interpret Christian doctrine to mean that men should be in charge in marriages."

Tonio: I agree, there does seem to be a lot of angst among some believers with changes since the 1960s. Women's rights, birth control, minorities achieving (or getting close to) parity with whites. I'm sure in their view, their nice cozy white-male-Christian-dominated order was turned upside down by the 60s cultural revolution.

But at least the vast majority of our conservative US Christians have not turned to violence to try to rectify what they see as wrong. Not that I agree with their agenda (far from it), but if it stays political, within our secular democratic system, it can be dealt with in a civilized (non-violent) manner.

That's a fundamental difference between the secular West and the theocratic Middle East.

"Are you aware that Hitler wanted to bring back polytheism?"

Actually, he didn't. He used the Norse mythology as interpreted by Richard Wagner and other German nationalists to further his own cause, just as he perverted Christianity ("Gott mit uns"). Hitler was not a member of the Thule Society, although he received support from them, and several of his associates were Thule. But he did not want to bring back polytheism. In fact, he specifically stated that he did not want to bring back Wotan because it was weakened because it was supplanted by Christianity. He wanted to supplant Christianity with a state religion worshipping God and His representative on Earth, the Fuehrer. (Aryosophy).

Hermit:

True, you don't have to go back 200 yrs. Like I said, the 1950s was not a golden era (well, maybe if you were a white male heterosexual conformist). Neither was much of the 1960s. We have come a long way to reaching true equality, but we ain't there yet.

"How were non-whites treated in the US just a couple centuries ago?"

Never mind a couple of centuries ago; I had a conversation with a gentleman at the American Jazz Museum in Kansas City last summer in which he described his childhood in the city in the late `50's/early `60's Not allowed to live anywhere outside a 12 block radius, denied access to an education, to the voting booth, to legal representation, to clean water and proper sewage...and be sure you never look a white man in the eye...pretty appalling stuff, and all defended in the pulpit as being in accordance with "God's plan".

That's within my lifetime, and I'm not that old...really I'm not!

Regards

A Hermit

"I wonder though if the US, or another industrialized nation with a largely Christian population, were devastated by a catastrophe (natural or manmade), how quickly Christian fanaticism would re-emerge? The US could be one major disaster away from a theocracy. Secular democracy is a fragile thing."

Jay, I've long suspected that the growth of extremist Christian movements in America in the last few decades is largely a reaction to the social changes in the 1960s, particularly the civil rights and women's rights movements. John Rushdoony and Rev. Bob Jones based their opposition to integration and interracial marriage on their religious beliefs, and James Dobson and the Promise Keepers interpret Christian doctrine to mean that men should be in charge in marriages.

"I can respect anyone who is willing to die for his religion."

I can't. I respect those who die to protect their country, their community, their family from a real threat to survival. But to die for mythology? I may feel sympathy for their delusion, but not respect.

Daniel, good insights. Perhaps that "strange psychological state" you describe is as simple as terror in the face of monumental change, which the Arab world experienced in the 20th century. The wealthy and educated are not immune to that terror, nor are they immune to the temptation to seek false security in absolutist religious doctrine.

Why single out acts of violence, as 'religious extremism?' After all, once you accept that the Creator of the Universe is immediately and pressingly concerned with what you eat, when you eat it, how low you bow, what direction you face while bowing, whether or not you sever the last few millimeters of one of your appendages, it's a small step to conclude that the Creator is equally anxious that you slaughter everyone who doesn't express their adulation, in the same way that you do. The religious texts contain incitement to violence; anyone who keeps the easy, peaceful rules, while ignoring the exhortation to kill and conquer, is just a garden-variety hypocrite. It's *all* the Word of God, right? So who is the individual believer, to pick and choose which of God's commands to keep, and which to dismiss?

"My experience of Christians is that they are not generally "fanatical" in the dangerous pejorative sense. They can be as foolish as the next guy but that's not a uniquely religious trait."

Christianity certainly had its periods of fanaticism. Thankfully, most of that has been tamed by the rise of secularism in government combined with science/technology that improved our standard of living.

I wonder though if the US, or another industrialized nation with a largely Christian population, were devastated by a catastrophe (natural or manmade), how quickly Christian fanaticism would re-emerge? The US could be one major disaster away from a theocracy. Secular democracy is a fragile thing.

I can respect anyone who is willing to die for his religion. Anyone who is willing to kill for his religion, or concept of morality, is a fricking nut. JD and Rev, I can't see any difference between you and the most diehard Islamic terrorist. Full of judgement, full of hate, supremely sure that God wants exactly what you want...

And you have the nerve to tell others to confess their sins? Got a mirror?

K said "How am I, a man who has always been free of religion, to know the difference between the moderates and the fanatics? The safest bet is to assume you are all fanatics rather than that none of you are. " and "I did see only one self-identified christian (Daniel I think it was) blasting you for the fanatics you are, and I appreciate hearing that."

K, please mark me in your census of self-identified Christians who think JD and Rev are out of line. I am a traditionalist-leaning *moderate* to boot.

Also, I think your "safe bet" is absurd. You can easily identify the dangerous fanatics from their ridiculous statements and actions, but the moderates tend to blend in with the benign silent majority. I could make a "safe bet" and say that all atheists are hedonsitic godless communists, but the other word for that kind of betting is "prejudice."

Let me be clear... I DON'T think atheists are all hedonistic communists but I am saying that I *could assert* that as a "safe bet" and it just wouldn't be true.

My experience of Christians is that they are not generally "fanatical" in the dangerous pejorative sense. They can be as foolish as the next guy but that's not a uniquely religious trait.

-RT

"The family of man has certainly had their ups and downs.
I fear, though, we are on a downward spiral again, morally speaking. The topic at hand being only one aspect of such."

Were people in the past, even in the fairly recent past of the US, that much more moral than they are now? Or are we just more aware of what some consider immorality because of technological advances in communication?

How were non-whites treated in the US just a couple centuries ago? What about women? What resources were available to the desperately poor, or the sick? What options were available to those with few financial resources to obtain a good education and pursue their dreams?

Really, was the past so golden? I've heard the same argument from older folks who think the 1950s was the golden age. From what I've seen of that decade, I'm glad I didn't have to grow up in it.

This time certainly is not perfect, and we have many problems, but I can't think of a past era that didn't.

D wondered if alot of believers are insane.

Indeed they are.

The churches are filled up with people who have gone nutz nutz nutz over religion. But because alot of crazy people are crazy over religion, that does not mean that all religious people are crazy.

I think that Christians might do a little better at restraining those among us who are are struggling with mental illness, and whose symptoms often appear in a familiar idiom, that of Christian piety. They sometimes gain the upper hand, when people treat them with an excess of deference.

Yes, it is true, Mr D, a man can go crazy from too much Bible-reading.

Mary Cunningham wrote:

'Re: message to the Islamic militants

But I hope you all know it's death cult, don't you? Nothing very religious about it. Nothing at all.'

Reply:

Mary,

I hope you know that Christianity and Zionism are death cults don’t you? Just ask the millions of slaughtered innocents (mostly women and children) in Iraq and Palestine, and the millions of families driven into refugee camps.

Jay S.

The family of man has certainly had their ups and downs.

I fear, though, we are on a downward spiral again, morally speaking. The topic at hand being only one aspect of such.

To Jay S

You are right, alot of the terrorists come from middle class, professional, or even wealthy backgrounds. This is not a reaction to poverty and ignorance. They exist in a sort of "in-between" world of Medieval Islam and the Modern West, and they are not at home in either world.

They end up in a strange psychological state; educated, modern, aware of science and technology, willing participants in consumerism and pop-culture; yet simultaneously, riven with fundamentalist Isalmic derision of all things modern that pose a threat to its supersitious and primitive dogma: until they make at some point a commitment, a fundamentalist commitment, of mental conformity to that dogma, to surrender all freedom to that one and single decision, that is to be always in mental conformity; no other decisions are necessary; no futher thinking is necessary; from the Islamic point of view, it is pius; from the modern Western point of view, it is nihilistic, the belief in nothing, the destruction of everything. Because, to me, that is what fundamentalist conformity of thought, be it religous or otherwise, ultimately leads to: nihilism; only the conformity of mind counts; nothing else counts.

This is my struggle to understand what motivates these people. It is not poverty; it is not ignorance; it is indeed the prevailling dominance of a religion such as Islam with little or no other plausible competition, suddenly confronted with all the cacophonous variety that the rest of the world (especially America and Europe) has to offer that drives these people into their nihilistic madness.

"It is very sad how the tides have turned so much..where those who embrace the inherent moral decency of cherishing human life beginning at conception, something that has been so prevalent, so important for centuries before us..that excellence of character that can only be found in humans..and now, some are referring to such people as lunatics.

"Such a sad time we live in."

Sad: Oh, it's not that bad. Would you prefer living under a theocracy (there are some other countries that can accomodate you)? Were things so much better a few centuries ago, under authoritarian kings, dogmatic religious rulers, and the occasional inquisition while scrabbling for your survival?

Human life was much cheaper then than it is now.

It is very sad how the tides have turned so much..where those who embrace the inherent moral decency of cherishing human life beginning at conception, something that has been so prevalent, so important for centuries before us..that excellence of character that can only be found in humans..and now, some are referring to such people as lunatics.

Such a sad time we live in.

Aww, Jihadist, heading out?

You're not so bad for a rich person. :)

"Thank you so much for all your posts. I learn from them. Keep the posts sharp and challenging as ever on who we are, what we believe in, how and why.

Best regards and all the best to all of you.

J"

It's gotten awful Internet here in general... I understand the frustration. Gods help us if we end up believing what they tell us to think of each other.

Try not to stress about the place settings and remember it's a feast you may be at. :)

Blessed be.

Although I have moral qualms about abortion, I become frustrated when many pro-life groups also oppose contraception. Some of the groups that worked on South Dakota's antiabortion law actually favored outlawing contraception.

Dumb question - why would anyone opposed to abortion also oppose methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies? I would think that pro-life groups would be handing out condoms at public events, begging people to use them. Instead I suspect that some of those groups, particularly the fundamentalist Christian ones, believe that non-procreative sex is immoral. That would explain their opposition to other sexual practices that do not harm others, such as masturbation and homosexuality.

JD and Spitz ... are you guys straw men thrown into this mix just to get a rise out of the commentors?

You are so perfect an example of what the author has been saying in this piece ... I have to wonder.

I did see only one self-identified christian (Daniel I think it was) blasting you for the fanatics you are, and I appreciate hearing that.

So it goes like this: I hear the fanatics screaming and yelling and throwing their tantrum, their desire to force their view of things on everybody is quite evident. In the more peasant-prone areas of the world their descire to force their view on everybody is actualized, isn't it?

When I *don't* hear the moderates chastising these people, all I hear, are these people.

How am I, a man who has always been free of religion, to know the difference between the moderates and the fanatics? The safest bet is to assume you are all fanatics rather than that none of you are. that those of you who are silent about your fellow believers are hiding you agreement with them rather than fighting against it.

I guess to do that you would have to admit that certain believers are insane ... I don't suppose you want to associate belief and insanity that way, but your silence has driven me to just that conclusion.

Hermit: "I have to disagree with Susan this time; even fanatics recognize self interest. Bin Laden is as much a politician as anything, and those who follow him can be persuaded to abandon his program if the politics are right."

I'm not so sure. Yes, the alleviation of poverty, strife, oppressive govt., etc. can turn some from committers of violent acts to constructive citizens. But the 9/11 hijackers were not hard-up individuals. The Glasgow terrorists were medical professionals. So what is motivating them to kill themselves and others? It's religious ideology. As a non-believer, I can't begin to get my brain around what these individuals are thinking, but it clearly is a strong motivator. Their self-interest is clearly not self-preservation, it is martyrdom and the advancement of religious domination through whatever means necessary.

And, no, I don't see room for compromise or polite discussion with such people.

Dear Susan -

I often fear it's the moderate religious lunatics we should be worried about, rather than the extremists. That particular fear is reinforced daily reading the posts at On Faith.

Ms Jacoby

Number of living, functioning, thriving, heart-pumping fetuses killed: millions

Number of abortion doctors killed: a few.

Neither are right.

Your reasoning is flawed and truly reflects the wrong direction that mankind has embarked upon.

Rev Spitz -

Care to comment on my post to JD on Jewish law, when a fetus becomes a full-fledged person, and your god's role as the world's biggest abortionist?

Thanks.

Dear JD -

Re: abortion. Halacha (Jewish law) states that a pregnancy becomes a full-fledged human being when the baby's head emerges from the birth canal. Prior to that, it is considered a "partial life," which is not the same status as a full-delivered life (Source: www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm). This belief is based upon their reading of the Bible.

Are they wrong?

When, in your opinion, JD, does a fetus become a human being? At conception? Because if that's the case, then god is the biggest abortionist around as fully 25% of pregnancies in the USA do not go full term due to NATURAL CAUSES like miscarriages and stillbirths.

Care to comment?

Creative half? How many "creative" abortion techniques do you justify terra? What a peach you are. LOL.

Wow, all this hate and bitterness. Seems like JD and the Rev need a chill pill.

Dear Rev Spitz

Do you think of yourself as a "maniac for Christ?" because that is what I think you are. A terrorist is someone who throws a bomb into a public square, to kill innocent people, not because the terrorist has anything against his victims, but merely to forment "terror" in the community, to futher his aims at disrupting the social and political community of his perceived enemies, against whom he may be waging some kind of real or imagined war, hence the word "terrorist." Terror / terrorist! Terror / terrorist! Get it? It's not hard.

By contrast, you call Susan Jacoby a terrorist, simply because she holds an opinion that is different than yours.

Wouldn't you say that qualifies you as a "maniac" of some kind, that you do not know the difference between a terrorist attack, and a difference of opinion? By expanding the meaning of the word "terrorism" to include any discomfort that you might feel at someone else's contrary opinion--don't you think that minimizes and marginalizes the terrorist attack on our nation 6 years ago, and diminishes the suffering of the victims?

Why don't you say the prayers to Jesus that you choose to say, and let Susan and me and everyone else say whatever prayers we might be moved to say? Wouldn't that be better?

Rev. Spitz,

: )

Sorry but your remark to Susan put this in my head.

Well the Christians all are humming
Cause they say their God is coming,
Our God came three times this evening
And that's good enough for me!
~~~
I know I am evil and going to hell...
terra

Rev Spitz. WTF.

Abortion is different than terrorism.

Are you really a Rev?

That's a great prayer that everyone should say when they are turning to God to repent, but in the context of your opening it is totally inappropriate and hostile to throw that out there.

I was going to write a prayer for you to say ... about guarding your tongue... but I figured the Holy Spirit would convict you to write your own prayer.

-RT

JD,
Give that Right Brain a vacation...try useing the more creative half.

terra

Dear Susan
Your ad hominem attacks on those who save the lives of unborn babies about to be murdered by a babykilling abortionist shows you are the terrorist. You want to allow the murder of thousands of unborn children by denying them the defense needed to save their lives. You need to repent of your sins and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour.

SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

Dear JD

Being a "maniac for Christ" is not the same as being a Christian. There is a lot of hard, hard thinking and hard, hard living that goes into being a Christian; you have automatically dissqualified yourself from anyone mistaking you as a follower of Christ.

I would suggest that you stop reading the Bible and put it away, sell it, or give to someone who might be interested in it because it has not been doing you any good. I might also suggest that you stop going to church, because that does not seem to be doing you any good either. You are not helping the cause of Christians or Christianity at all; you are just proving Susan Jacoby's point, about "lunatics," and giving us all, Christians, a very, very bad reputation.

And by the way, you are not only creepy, you are dense. What do your comments have to do with 9/11? I will tell you: you told Susan to take her place next to and Bin Laden, and if you will notice the official date just below, in the left hand footing of this comment, today is September 11, 2007, which is the sixth anniversary of Bin Laden's attack on the World Trade Towers.

Now do you get it? Or do you need me to make it even simpler?

Oh and JD,
I chose to have my babies..it was my choice. I happen to know how to not need a doctor if I chose not to have them. And with the internet all a woman has to do is Google...

There are also knitting needles and nail files oh and the good old clothes hanger...

Of course women will always abort if that is what she wants. All you and your ilk would do is cause more pain and more death. So much for being pro life.

terra

Terra, bottom line is YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM involves the DEATH of innocent BABIES.

Russel D, are you ok? LOL.

JD,
No infact I am PRO CHOICE...got that? I am not PRO ABORTION. But I do respect the mind of the woman who it involves and her doctor to decide what is best for her. You do have the concept of what Choice means don't you?

You claim to be pro life, but are disrespectful of life. How are you treating those on this forum? Disrespectful and with hate. What you are for is having power over others...and what is more powerful then to force a woman to produce from her body. Athoritarian concepts give egos a big boost specially when you have no power over yourself.

Why is it you that claim to respect life, can only talk about death. Christ's death.
Well since I am not Christian and only worship life I will leave your God's sacrifice to you.

As for radical abortionists...what pray tell is that?

I am old enough to remember pre R v W. And the women that jumped down steps, went to back alley butchers...that took drugs (Quinine) to cause an abortion. I remember the headlines of women found in pools of blood, women dieing of horrible infections..of being hurt so bad that they could never be Moms at all.

So tell you what, you want babies to be born, you have them...until you know what it is like to be that woman with that decision...be quiet.

terra

K... I agree with you that we shouldn't make it our life's work to sing cum-ba-ya with the most sadistic koo koos out there... sometimes you have to draw the line and say that you are not going to tolerate extremism.

...but at the same time I personally believe that "love thy enemy" is a good thing and not weak. You can love people without being a weak do-nothing w.r.t their evil behaviour.

Peace,
RT

While I agree that it is likely not possible to talk a fundamentalist/extremist of any stripe out of his/her fanaticism of choice, I would not go so far as to say that talking isn't worth the effort.

There is the miniscule chance of success.

And even if you don't succeed, the more you talk, the more they talk back, and the more you learn about how their minds operate and how to deal with them.
So far, we've learned a great deal about what doesn't work. Hopefully, we'll figure out something that DOES work before too many more lives are lost. Too many have already been lost - civilians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, whether it was the World Trade Center or a Bhagdad market, soldiers, and even the hijackers themselves. If they could plan and execute 9/11, just think what beneficiaires to humankind they could have been had they put the same amount of thought, planning, and effort into it.

Jihadist, you will be missed. Namaste.

JD:

You are really not making very much sense at all. I bet you loved the Rev. Jerry Falwell, didn't you?

Terra Gazelle,
I bet you were/are all for the radical abortionist cause..right? You like all things easy...black-white, no thought, no pondering. Believing what the pro abortionist tells you, that the "thing" in your womb is NOT a viable human being.

I just saw a report that says there are brain differences between those who are comfortable with authoritarian concepts and those who are not. So your comments on someone that is Pro Abortion is not just gross and disrespectful, but just a symtem of your Right Brain malfunction.

With luck the miracle of medicine will soon beable to fix that. Though I doubt it. Only God's sacrifice of Christ AND His resurrection can fix what ails you.

JD

Hitler did not want to bring back Polytheism...he used certain symbols as a way to move the people in the direction he wanted. He used nationalism and past glory...he read the myths and added his meanings, not what the ancients meant them to teach.

He took the swastika, that was an ancient symbol of peace and harmony and made it one of hate and fear. Just like Satanists wear the cross upside down, Hitler used the Swastka backwards. He used the rune Sowelu as his insigna for the SS...that rune means Victory and Strength...but also healing.

That rune is a symbol, one of an ancient Germanic alphabet.

To say that Hitler wanted to bring back polytheism is less then half the story. Whose Pantheon? What would the myths be? Would it be the stories of enlightenment or of bravery in war and glory of death? You have to take the myths as a whole...not pick and choose.

So please...do not use Hitler to discriminate against Pagans and their beliefs. Even your European ancestors had polytheist religions...and some were Germatic I am sure.

terra

The hearings are going on re Iraq mess as I write this.

I thought the US was not going to engage in nation building. So bring that up.

I know the Jews ared dedicated to never letting others forget WW II, but let it go now. This is now and not about pathetic Hitler. Many other groups have been just as mal treated as the Jews, so let it go already.

Richmond T. Stallgiss, one day during the year 1944 Hitler said: it's raining.
This morning the weather dude on my local tv said: it's raining.

Therefore, my weatherdude is a nazi.

Your attempt to 'appeal to nazi' there is pointless, it certainly doesn't make your point for you now does it?

There are plenty of jerks in the world who want to mess with you, or me or us, and we can make a good faith effort to get along with them, and in fact this effort will result in a more calm state for all concerned. The point is, knowing the difference between the jerk and the fanatic, having the strength to deposit your feel-good principles in the trash when it is appropriate to do so.

Trying to hug everybody, to think that just because you can hug the jerk and have a good result is validation of the idea that you can hug the fanatic and receive the same result ... that is idiotic. It is a perfect-world fantasy. It can get you killed.

Re: Jihadist's departure

Anyone have any idea as to why she's departed? Meant to tell her that her comparison of religion to an appendix fails on many counts, the most important being whilst men and women will die for their religion (what we are talking about today); no one chooses to die for her appendix.

Re: message to the Islamic militants

None. But I hope you all know it's death cult, don't you? Nothing very religious about it. Nothing at all.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

..religious extremism

....religious confusion

Well, it's simply swell that there's so much agreement here, but what is the question, and where are the proposed answers here?

Jacoby thinks the solution to the unasked question is to keep silent, I suppose. Well, THAT aught to help things. Keep mum and keep shooting. Good job.

Everyone else seems to agree that Muslims are bad, no matter what they say, and that Christians are less bad. At least in the last 50 years. Congrats; your cookie is in the mail.

So, what do we agreeable folks do now to assist the world through this trying time? I mean, we seem to have all these Mensa members hanging around this chat, so.....

Pierre... False dichotomy... I am neither pitifally ignorant... nor a liar.

Here is some homework for you

http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/violence.html

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

Hitler used religion... but he didn’t have faith in God… he only cared about the will to power.

In any case, history is replete with examples of immoral atheists and immoral theists who abuse power and commit human atrocities. Insofar as they were extremists, we can all agree that they needed to be stopped. And again I say, the crazies are the problem, regardless of religious affiliation (or disaffiliation).

Peace,
RT

JD,
I bet you were/are all for the war..right? You like all things easy...black-white, no thought, no pondering. Believing what the power people tells you.

I just saw a report that says there are brain differences between those who are comfortable with authoritarian concepts and those who are not. So your comments on someone that is Pro Choice is not just gross and disrespectful, but just a symtem of your Right Brain malfunction.

With luck the miracle of medicine will soon beable to fix that.

terra

In my mind, the point of trying to "understand" people like bin Laden and Hitler is not to buddy up to them, make nice-nice and sing cumbaya, in the hopes that they will change their way of thinking.

The point is to learn about their appeal, to understand their rise to prominence and the conditions which made it possible, so that we can try to avoid contributing to the similar rise of others, and ideally, reverse or at least address those contributions we have made to those conditions. IN other words, we need to learn from history, and if possible, try to address historical mistakes.

In the case of bin Laden and today's radical islamists, the lesson is obvious, though lost on so many - the US needs to assert its power to impose a peace on Israel and the Palestinians. No, that won't change Bin Laden's mind about us, but it would go a long way towards shrinking the pool of young men who are so easily convinced that Islam is under attack by the West and the only solution is jihad. The plight of the Palestinians is the original rallying cry for Islamists, and we need to begin by addressing this issue.

Richmond T. Stallgiss:

Anyone who claims that Hitler was an atheist is pitifully ignorant or a liar.
Which are you?

Danie, I take it your a supporter of abortion too LOL! And exactly what does 9/11 have to do with what I said in my post? Talk about republican creepy, your post is it.

Felt like kicking myself.

Felt like kicking myself.

K said “At the same time we need to free ourselves of this phony can't-we-all-get-along empathy espoused by the weak.”

Someone has been reading too much Nietzsche. Hitler also hated the weak morality of the Jew.

Martin said: “Anyone who believes in absolutes is absolutely evil. There is no difference between a Christian who talks about the destruction of those who stand in the way of their ideals, and a Muslim who talks of annihilation of the infidel.”

Martin, you are *absolutely* right. Also… When was the last time you heard any Christian make a statement about destruction of those who stand in the way of Christianity? Never! When was the last time you heard an atheist say that we needed to tackle the faith enemy among us… oh yeah.. .*you* said that “America can never be safe until the evil within is tackled as much as the evil outside.”

Russell D said: …” Are you aware that Hitler wanted to bring back polytheism?”

Nope… but that I will chew on that thought… My first impression is that it doesn’t mean he believed in them. Hitler wanted people to worship the Fasces.

Peace,
RT

Dear JD

Gee, what a creepy thing to say. What a complete jerk you are to say such a thing on the this 9/11 anniversary. Dear Susan, I don't know if it is possible to apologize for other people, but I, at least, am sure sorry for JD's remarks, and would hope that most Christians would feel the same.

Killing anyone in the name of any religion is beyond comprehension.
Just goes to show that Marx was onto something:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."

Gosh Susan you convieniently left out the murder YOU ENDORSE of the millions and millions of babies slaughtered by abortion. THAT makes you an accomplice to murder Susan. Take you place next to Hitler and Bin Laden.

It looks to me as if the govt of the USA is another group of people to whom there is no point to try to talk.
While in general your arguments are right, even obvious I would say, careful to unidirectional thinking. Obvious unilateral statements together with no memory of the other side of the medal get people asleep and brings catastrophes for humanity. Old and recent history should have learnt us something, shouldnt they?

By the way, great congratulation to James and his arguments which I love.
Yours
R.

A good Nazi is a DEAD Nazi.
A good Religious Extremist is a dead Religious Extremist.

This war on terror can only be won the way "that" war on terror was won. Agree or disagree? Hitler was a terrorist. WW2 was a war on terror.

Terror is a mental thing, scare people into doing what one wants them to do. All three great faiths are terrorist organizations, use fear to get wht the high holy ones want, money. Their MO is revealed at http://www.hoax-buster.org It's the demon on the nebol bridge from which they get their power.

You don't know what the nebol bridge is? The nebol bridge is the joiner of this life to the next life. All faith is in an angel of God that blocks the nebol bridge only allowing "the chosen" to go on to the next life. All others are cast into hell. Hell lies beneath the nebol bridge.

Good news. Angels can be shot, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul for OFFICIAL picture(s) of angels fighting. Fortunately or unfortunately, as one might see it, the bullet that gets the angel on the nebol bridge must enter the heads of those with angels on their nebol bridges, religious extremists, terrorists.

As Hitler would not listen to reason we can expect those with angels on their nebol bridges won't listen to reason either.

Patton has gone on to the next life. One must wonder what he did when he found an angel on the nebol bridge blocking his path. From the film, "Patton" we saw his attitude about jackasses blocking his, (Patton assumed he owned all bridges) bridges. It's an odds on favorite the angel of God has already been shot, twice.

Would it have made any difference to tell the 80% of Americans who supported the invasion of Iraq that the last two super-power invasions, Vietnam by the U.S. and Afghanistan by the U.S.S.R. devastated those countries and their neighbors, Cambodia and Pakistan.

Would it make any difference to tell Americans that we are responsible for destroying Iraq: The educated middle-class are refugees in neighboring countries, the most extreme religious types and the most regressive sheiks have been armed to the teeth, infra-structure has been leveled, a bloody civil-war started, and orders of magnitude more civilians killed than killed by all jihadist attacks.

Would it make any difference to tell Congress that we have provided financing and arms to kill Palestinians by the thousands and steal their land for the last 50 years.

Before vilifying others as extremists whom we can not talk to, perhaps we should look at ourselves.

"When a person believes his guidance is coming from outside of the human sphere, then rational discussion, debate, and reconsideration of one's options become just background noise."

I agree with Jay. Religious moderates are really in a weak position in trying to refute the doctrines of the religious extremists. The moderates and the extremists agree that their god wants certain things from humans, but they strongly disagree on what the god wants. There is no evidence for any claim about the intentions of deity, and this lack of evidence affects the moderates and the extremists equally. So it's useless for the moderates to argue that their god wants believers to love each other instead of persecuting unbelievers.

K:

"So james, just what does our understanding of their pain do for us?"

It's a matter of us not becoming the enemy.

If our primary motivator is, "They are a threat to me and it is justified to destroy them for that reason," then we are exactly like them. That is unacceptable to me.

James

I think that as a mean of democracy we should always reach out to those misquided and ill-informed people in shallow conditions that bare no ressemblance to the way we live.

To say Al Qaïda is something on its own and just a product of religious fanatics is maybe interesting for US internal consumption, but doesn't really address the facts of practical life in the source countries of islamist extremism.

Those facts are: poverty, dictatorship, repression, no democratic or modern rule of law. It's the moment that makes the thief and it's the disregard that allows for our misfortunes

Anyone who believes in absolutes is absolutely evil. There is no difference between a Christian who talks about the destruction of those who stand in the way of their ideals, and a Muslim who talks of annihilation of the infidel.

The greatest tragedy is that after 9/11 America allowed itself to be hi-jacked by another kind of fundamentalism as expressed by the blinkered arrogant unquestioning fundamentalism of the current Republican leadership. Who talk of Freedom whilst stealing that very Freedom from Americans. Islamist/Evangelical same person different creed. Coulter, Falwell, Bush, Bin Laden, etc etc all examples of the worst of Humanity. America can never be safe until the evil within is tackled as much as the evil outside.

It's getting harder to love America when it is being poisoned by those who wrap themselves in the flag whilst destroying the nation itself. Bin Laden and Bush will be cell mates in Hell. Here's hoping the American people finally recover their sanity and in turn undo the harm done by years of appalling leadership from Reagan to Bush (including the Clintons) that has eroded the worlds respect for America.

A friend of America.

Jihadist,

Damnit, you can't go! I don't always agree with you, of course, but your different perspective is important here. Pay no attention to Concerned.

I have to disagree with Susan this time; even fanatics recognize self interest. Bin Laden is as much a politician as anything, and those who follow him can be persuaded to abandon his program if the politics are right.

Even if it's just to understand their motivation and by so understanding being able to better predict their next moves there is always value n talking. The alternative is the Texas tough-guy approach which has been such an utter disaster in Iraq and increasingly in Afghanistan.

As Winston Churchill put it "jaw-jaw is always better than war-war".

Hamas is a case in point. They were convinced, by a lot of talking, to call a truce and participate in a democratic process. Then they won, and the reaction of the West and Israel was "we can't talk to these people; they weren't supposed to win". So much for democracy; and now instead of being forced to actually behave like a responsible government they are free to return to the way of violence. More talk would have been better in that case.

A Hermit

Faith is often an excuse for self-worship, meglomania, egomania or what the Bible simply called pride. Many scientists and academics are equally guilty of bigotry and arrogance in the mis-named pursuit of knowledge, often more accurately called pursuit of promotion. In both cases, people seek to bolster their self esteem by slandering, mocking or even killing others they don't agree with. (I won't name names, but you know them when you see them.) Pride is a sick and pathological behavior which seems to be everywhere, these days. The sad part is that the most prideful and arrogant are the most pathetic and insecure people you can meet, once you get to know them. I don't know what the answer is, but maybe if we're all more aware of those times when we are attaching too much importance to our own pet beliefs, we can help work towards more tolerance and peace.

Richmond:

Are you aware that Hitler wanted to bring back polytheism? Food for thought...........

As predicted a few days ago:

"The Jihadist will be back. She like other "liberal" Muslims has to feed on other peoples' flaws. That way they don't have to consider their own flawed religion and states of militaristic Islam like the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran based on the "holey not holy hallucinator", "pwtfft"s and plagiarized messages."

So james, just what does our understanding of their pain do for us?

And yes, it is self-centered, I prefer to live rather than die for somebody else's misery.

It seems you are asking that we embrace their aberration rather than defeat it. This is beyond silly, beyond stupid, it is suicidal. what perfect world do you live in where people only have "bad opinions" but never act on them?

You are correct though in one sense, we need to understand what drives these people, but it is in the same sense we need to understand the behavior of a dangerous predator.
This understanding is not empathy, it is not commiseration, it rather gives us a greater ability to predict their actions given specific circumstances.

Once we more fully understand the neuropathology of religion and faithist beliefs we may be able to free our species of this particular aberration.
At the same time we need to free ourselves of this phony can't-we-all-get-along empathy espoused by the weak.

The sad global truth of Islamic Terrorism is moving brave men to find their voices:

"Wahabism is rooted in an especially strict austere minority Islamism traced back to the fanatical Puritanism of the Bedouin zealots in Saudi Arabia. It believes that the ultimate sacrifice of a soldier is to give his life for a cause and that cause is jehad or holy war. The Al-Qaeda terrorist network found this tolerable given the historical Islamic suicide wars of AfIt. This gave substance to justify terrorism as a means where a warrior legacy of “heroic masculinity” (perceived to be at the roots of the great Islamic empires in the past) was resurrected within a framework of an anti-modern and anti-secular holy war. Wahabism teaches that the martyrs’ acts of suicide grant ideological compensations that would be reaped by their living communities, and that a harvesting of suicide martyr compensations would hasten the creation of “public spheres” for the hitherto silent to find voice and articulate alternative visions and paths to secular globalization and democratic governance.

Wahabism is totally opposed to the Sufism, the main guiding force for ages of the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent that talked of peaceful and harmonious co-existence with other religions. It is high time the UPA government did a service to this glorious Sufi tradition by encouraging and supporting those Indian Muslims who raise their voice against the xenophobiac Wahabism that is dividing not only the Indians but also the other “world citizens”. "

Finally I can agree to a post by Ms. Jacoby in the "On Faith" discussion. Religious extremism is a perversion of faith and an excuse to murder people. Both religious and secular individuals should drive this evil to the dust, prosecuting religous extremists and handing them heavy penalties. I would even go so far as to seek the penalty for these individuals if these people vocally advocate individuals to conduct terror strikes and have irrefutable proof of being responsible for the recruitment of young men to terrorist idealism. I don't care if they are christian extremists, islamic extremists, anti-semites or anti-islamic extremists, they should all be handed the maximum penalty for the advocation of terror and murder on the basis of hate. Its time to stop tolerating these religious perverts and take back our religion from the whackos that have stolen it.

Great essay.

Crazies come in all flavors from Christians (Fred Phelps) to Muslims (Osama Bin Ladin) to godless atheists (Hitler).

Backatcha, Jihadist!

Rory,

"I am agnostic and for many years was deeply concerned by the influence of evangelical Christians in the United States. However, the last decade has revealed that without a doubt they are as dangerous as neighborhood ice cream men compared to radical Muslims."

First, let's be clear that the threat isn't necessarily from evangelicals but from a subset that includes fundamentalists and Dominionists.

Second, you're right that the radical Christians don't pose the same threat to our lives as that posed by radical Muslims. But we cannot discount the threat that the former pose to our freedoms. Institutions such as Regent University and Patrick Henry College openly seek to turn America into a theocracy, although they don't explicitly use that word.

It is not accurate to say "There is no point in to talk to any of these people."

I suspect what you really mean is, "Talking to them will not achieve the outcome I want, in the timeframe I want."

That is a rather different proposition -- frankly, a self-centered and somewhat shallow one.

Who said it's all about you, and what you want, anyway?

Remember, someone has to be in tremendous pain internally to want to kill someone. How much worse must the pain be to want to kill thousands, millions, a race? How much must someone hurt to feel that the only way to be satisfied in life is to subjugate the whole world, or kill it trying?

The pain may be too severe to address with words, but I would say, there is no point in pretending that such pain does not exist. Further, it's actively detrimental to cling to thoughts and actions that make that pain worse. That doesn't mean giving them what they want, but it does mean greater understanding.

I agree with Jacoby's essay.

When a person believes his guidance is coming from outside of the human sphere, then rational discussion, debate, and reconsideration of one's options become just background noise. Those of us who are focused entirely on the terrestrial (rather than the celestial) struggle daily with the questions of right and wrong, debate about which path to take, question any and all ideologies, and realize we don't have all the answers. We know that there is not always a right solution, but that there are usually some solutions better than others.

I suppose that makes us weaker in some respects when faced with a person who is programmed to operate with complete certitude and to kill and die for a cause without second thoughts. After all, our hesitation can be our loss. But, how does one successfully fight such people without ultimately becoming more like them?

We must deal with reality here. We can easily see how unchecked, unfettered, unreasoning and unresisted religion has completely poisoned so many of the people in the world where islam holds them captive.

They are killing each other, and they want to kill us. The various claims of "It's a religion of peace" from the self-described moderate muslims seems to be for our ears only, these claims mean nothing to the bin ladens.

The moderates are powerless against this because they must admit to the lunacy of part of their religion in order to fight it - they know deep inside that to admit to any scrap of lunacy is to open the door to a full examination of the totality of the lunacy that their religion is.

It's not just islam, it's the nature of religion itself.

And it is quite fascinating to hear the christians defending themselves while crapping all over the muslims ... just fascinating.

So the moderate muslims say "It's not islam, it's just a couple of fanatics"

And the christians say "It's not religion, it's just the wrong religion"

Do you see a pattern here?

what is the recipe for a fanatic religion?

Well first, add religion ...

"...there is no significant difference--apart from the number of his followers--between a Bin Laden and, say, a Christian anti-abortion extremist who thinks he has the right to kill doctors who perform abortions."

I disagree. While certainly the point at which any religious person becomes fanatic enough to kill others is common to all faiths, the sheer volume and rapidity with which this occurs in the Muslim faith dwarfs all other religions put together. The number of people killed by "fanatic Christians" in the last 50 years amounts to a slow day in the annals of Muslim terror. Look at the results: An "anti-abortion extremist" takes pot shots at an abortion doctor vs. Osama Bin Laden killing 3,000 people in a single day. I don't recall extremist Christians agitating for nuclear weapons, while by contrast most radical Muslims would applaud nuclear attacks on the US or Israel.

I am agnostic and for many years was deeply concerned by the influence of evangelical Christians in the United States. However, the last decade has revealed that without a doubt they are as dangerous as neighborhood ice cream men compared to radical Muslims. It is not even close. I strongly recommend that secularists and atheists come to realize that we have managed just fine for hundreds of years with "radical" Christians in our midsts, but that intolerant, radical Muslims are about to overthrow Europe from within after a few short decades of immigration. This is not a liberal or conservative viewpoint - it is a human rights viewpoint. If you value democracy, women's rights, gay rights, free speech, and ironically freedom of religion, you cannot continue to morally equate "radical" Christians (tiny minority) with "radical" Muslims (99% of them).

How could I forget everyone who makes On Faith threads interesting, educational and informative for me:

Paganplace, Wiccan, Lepidopteryx, Terra Gazelle, Mary Cunningham, Pablo, Canyon Shearer, Peter Huff, Norrie Hoyt, Maurie Beck, Ba'al, Russell D, Andrea, Mr. Mark, Arminius, Concerned the Christian Now Liberated, Tonio, Ryan Haber, A Hermit, Minimalist, Godfrey.

Thank you so much for all your posts. I learn from them. Keep the posts sharp and challenging as ever on who we are, what we believe in, how and why.

Best regards and all the best to all of you.

J

Hello Ms. Susan Jacoby

I forgot to say goodbye to you. Just to say I've really enjoyed reading your essays and will miss nitpicking. Some of your atheist fans don't have the capacity for self-criticism. Last bite:)

As for your current essay - on Hitler, Nazi Germany, and Shoah, the Wansee Protocol is chilling, is it not?

As for terrorist leaders, they, like the fellows who attended the Nazi Wansee meeting, are smart, educated and cooly calculative in their ethno-nationalistic objective.

Some do think killing others to ensure a "way of life" for one's country and people regardless of cost to innocent others is equally dubious and spurious.

By the way, Osama's primary objective is to get the US out of the Middle East, bring down the Saudi regime etc. That global domination bit of converting everyone to Islam is just fluff. Just like anyone talking about bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East is fluff. Both sides use force and violence to impose their respective objectives.

Imagine that - "militant" neocons with the most powerful army in the world arrayed against "militant" Salafist rag tag terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere. Both are crazy, delusional and evil in costing so many lives (a.k.a. collateral damage or murder depending on who's the victims) and in not giving people choices.

Again, just to say here I had so much pleasure in reading your essays. Anyone who love poetry is a person after my own heart. Anyone who embrace believers on their side for seperation of church and state is right by me.

Now, if only more of the hoi polloi atheists are savvier and less into easy catchphrases and lazy labellings Oh, another "last" bite.:)

Thank you, best regards, and peace be with you, always

J