Memo to Candidates: Pick A Feel-Good Pastor

I would like to point out a topic that seems to be completely ignored on this thread as well as those of the other panel members answering to this question. None seem to mention the fact that seems the most prevalent in this argument. Even since removing Wright as his political candidacy's religious adviser, Obama has been supporting Wright and his "racist" church financially. In 2006 was the most prominent of these financial boosts, when Obama donated $22,500 to the Trinity United Church of Christ where Wright is pastor. This shows that, regardless of the moral implications of being a devoted member of a church that has a pastor with such controversial views, there is support coming from Obama. Whether or not one can say that Obama feels this way on these issues, one can at least deduce that he is supporting in nonetheless. Why would Obama continue to endorse something that he doesn't believe in. Personally, if I were to put that much money into a religious organization, I would want to find one the matches my views, not settle for one that differs on such effective and controversial topics as these racial and religious issues that Wright is being criticized for.

P.S.: this thread has done the best job of really digging into this issue in the way that I feel is the most effective. Many of the other threads are talking about what Obama should do now, and how he should renounce the church and its pastor for his political career to get back on track and such things. But the real issue seems to be, what is this candidate thinking, and does he believe these things. Whether or not he admits the beliefs, that is the question, because I don't want to be duped by him into thinking that he is in a state of belief that is false, because then I may feel that I could be voting for a person when I don't actually even know what I'm voting for. I want to know the person that I could be voting into what comes out to be arguably the highest seat of power in the world. If I am going to even consider voting for this person, I want to know who he is and what his views are, not what is the most beneficial statement he could make for his political career. Thank you for making that your focus.

Ms. Jacoby,

Folks: New American Heritage Dictionary

2: the great proportion of the members of a people that determines the group character and that tends to preserve its characteristic form of civilization and its customs, arts and crafts, legends, traditions, and superstitions from generation to generation.

After listening to one of your inane diatribes on PBS I was struck by the anti-intellectual nature of your criticism of the term "folks" as used by President Bush to relate public policy and its implications to the group most directly and weightily effected.

What segment of society would you prefer leaders to direct their primary attention, other than that defined by folks?

Perhaps it would be the group you belong to, both extinct and extant, most accurately described by the author Daniel J. Flynn in his book, "Intellectual Morons".

I remain mystified how Flynn failed to include a chapter highlighting your tortured and inconsequential life.

Without a modicum of respect,

Keith Eaton

That we are only now having this conversation about the deep wounds of race in the year 2008 should in and of it self be alarming. That Barack had both the dignity and the ability to address such an interesting video of his pastor with such grace and eloquence is a further testament to his ability to lead a nation; emaciated through the lack of sustenance such real dialogue and richness of vocabulary the leader of the free world should have. Such nourishment lures me further into his being and I am more comforted and sated than before the controversy began.
Not because I agree with Pastor Wright, but that I am politically worn enough to raise my head above the hubris of an election year that will surely bring far more interesting “video’s and email records, etc.” that somehow mysteriously turn up like stains on a Lewinsky dress. We should be well prepared for the plethora of “Watergate material” that will surely spew forth from the fountain culling the “masses” of information newly made available to the current administration in hot pursuit of “terrorist cell activity”.
Are we really shocked that a pastor is using wild inflammatory rhetoric from the pulpit of which he preaches? Really? Have we heard a pastor on the news, morning shows showing something different? Oh yes, as long as it is some vitriolic jeremiad of Armageddon that is considered an absolute, never mind that such a just God will also slaughter and righteously so, millions of so called non believers. Are preachers not supposed to instill a passion? Surely we would all say yes, oh but not that way….Not that way of forsaking America who is always right and always number one. Oh and drop your contribution in the basket on the way out.
Obama did not cut and run, he addressed it and inclusively so. He brought us all in to the conversation together. When I hear people talk about this as if it is some abomination of truth, then I am saddened. I do not care to hear more of the same old diatribe of unsubstantial lines that dismiss the truth and deny the facts.
Even though this is a surefire attempt to discredit and place doubt in the minds and hearts of the American people, who feel disempowered and disassociated from the echelons of power, no longer able to hear past the greasy palms of K street; This leader turned it into a dialogue at the possible expense of the position he seeks.
I was leaning towards Hillary; after all she has been investigated like no other before her. In my life, it is the women who have stayed up all night with the sick, including me. It is the women who have rolled up their sleeves and done the work while the men have taken the glory. The more they talk about what Hillary is wearing, the more I get angry too.
Herein this insidious beast lays the conundrum and the concern: How will the two most disenfranchised, pained, abused groups in our world reconcile when both feel the taste of victory as never before? How will we civilly, yet forcefully make our case and our voices be heard over the din of the war drums constantly playing in our everyday lives as a reckoning we all must face?
We must not allow a sensationalizing press to ensnare a Noble yet impassioned citizenry that is finally waking up to a sobering reality. Our world has been hijacked by ministers, priest, pastors and elected officials. It has been degraded by celebrities, CEO’s and thugs all stealing a piece of freedom thus enabling the dismantling of our constitution and our basic dignity in pursuit of fruitless desires.
This pastor is theater, we the audience.
I am quite frankly just glad to hear someone with a command of the English language; I bet he can pronounce nuclear too. Please let us have someone raise the bar of conversation, please let someone be a real leader and educate not continue to play to us like a sound bite obfuscating an agenda to complicated for our little minds to wrap around.

For Thomas Baum

The quote that you cited was not directed at you in particular; it was just a general observation, about people in general.

I was speaking specifically about evolution because Parker seemed to want an argument about it, and I was trying to tell why he should go ahead and believe whatever he wanst regarding evolution, and that it is not a very interesting or fruitful thing to argue about.

I only mentioned you because I wanted to point out that I was not saying that I have any special knowledge or absolute and infallible knowledge, although I do believe I have discovered the aesthetic of knowledge, which is a very different thing.

TO DANIEL IN THE LION'S DEN:

You wrote, "But then I went on to say that they lack the aesthetic of knowledge, that is an interest ih knowing things for the joy of knowing, and for the fulfillmnet that knowing things about the world brings".

If this is directed to me, you are wrong about that.

Sometimes I think that when people are only interested in the how of things, they are sometimes the ones that aren't interested in really learning.

I am not a scientist by any stretch but thinking about different things such as how the hydrosphere, for instance, works in not only getting water to the crops but also in washing the trees and vegetation and buildings and such and also to replenish the fresh water that we need to survive and since we have gotten so good at dirtying up the fresh water supply could some of the increase of violent storms have anything to do with the wisdom that God put into His creation to clean up enough water and make enough fresh water for His children, do you ever think of things such as that?

The sheer diversity of the natural world is absolutely amazing but doesn't it seem sometimes that with all of the fancy "toys" we have come up with, that we sometimes try to analize the natural world to death rather than actually going out into it?

To me the world that God made is much more interesting than the mathematical formulas that we reduce it down to.

By the way, I like math but I guess it is just the everyday type math that I like, but hey we are all different, thank God, or this would be a really boring place, would it not?

Another thing that I would like to mention is music, and I tell you a lot of times God speaks to me better in some of the so-called secular music than in some of the so-called sacred music.

Not only do we try to put God in a box but don't we also try to put each other in a box?

Take care, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I posted this this morning, but it didn't take. It was for Parker, but could also be a reply to Thomas Baum

Parker has misunderstood me. He was under the mistaken impression that I was claiming certain and absolute knowledge with regards to evolution. To me evolution is just a broad principle which has gained scientific consensus. All I said is that evolution is settled scientific consensus, which anyone may disregard if they choose to. But then I went on to say that they lack the aesthetic of knowledge, that is an interest ih knowing things for the joy of knowing, and for the fulfillmnet that knowing things about the world brings. Obviouly, everyone does not have the same feeling about knowledge. And so I called these people apathetic towards knowledge.

I am not really very interested in nit-picking arguments about what different Bible verses might mean, or the finer points of evolution; I am more interested in the problem of knowing and knowledge, and how do we know the things that we do, and why there is so much confict on what is considered valid and invalid knowledge.

This is far afield from the question, but then, the question was sort of dopey, wasn't it?

TO WHOMEVER:

There seems to be many, many people that have become specialists and experts in their fields, does it not?

If people would actually get off of their "pursuit of knowledge" long enough to actually take a look at reality, the big picture, so to speak, what would they see?

I am not saying give up your looking for the "how" of things as opposed to [is there a "why"?] but to honestly look beyond your own little niche in this world and take an honest look at reality.

Is all of this "knowledge" making the world a better place or is the world crumbling before our very eyes and we are just too blind to see?

Take care, be ready, night is coming but the dawning of the seventh day [the new heavens and the new earth] will just as surely arrive in due time [God's Time].

God's Plan which He has had since before creation is unfolding before our very eyes.

See you [ALL OF HUMANITY] in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO PARKER:

You wrote quoting Darwin, " In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant".

Does the 20th Century to name just two events, the 1st World War and 2nd World War seem like the struggle between our higher and lower impulses was less severe?

Or does it seem like a goodly portion of the world had to crush very brutally "the higher impulses"?

Any comments?

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Ms. Jacoby is correct that a church is a "community of values." But it is much more. First, it is a community of people who have relationships that stretch back through years or even decades. These relationships are often longer in duration than the tenure of any one pastor (although Rev. Wright has been at Trinity for a very long time).

Second, it is a community in relationship to the larger community around it. It is the outreach of a church into the larger community that often attracts new members, and the quality of that outreach is one reason that keeps them there.

Third, for the faithful, a church is a place where they worship God. The quality of worship that they experience in a particular church has to do with all sorts of things. A person may disagree stridently with the pastor on many issues, but feels that the importance of joining others to worship God trumps those disagreements. Hence, they may speak out about those disagreements and still attend the church.

A church is an odd institution: A person attends by choice (hence, that choice reflects back on the person who made it), but it also functions very much like a family, and a person may feel some obligation or need to attend even when they disagree with the sermons.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

I see you had a short trip. Did you take the time to finally address the flaws of Islam?? One who makes continued comments about race relations in America should at least make some mention of the severe discrimination in Islamic countries but alas we see again you fail miserably in addressing it just like you fail to address the other flaws of Islam. Such avoidance makes all your commentaries mute!!!!!

How did this question get back here and how did this thread morphed into a discussion on science instead of Barack Obama's speech on Pastor Wright?

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

Hello Chris Everett:)

I've just read your response to my post in Sam Harris's thread.

Here's my version of ARGHHHHH!!!!!! Small argghh! in fact to make you go ARGHHH some more.

Yes, so it is said the religious mind is committed to the outcome, namely its particular faith's doctrine - most are for love, peace, understanding of fellow men; for justice and justness. In reality is another matter.

And yes, the scientific mind is committed to a particular process, namely the scientific method.
But how will the scientific process and method overcome racism?

And most certainly, science will always have gaps for there is still much to learn and understand on nature, the universe, man.

Pretenders to knowledge? Everyone thinks they know something about anything. We are all pretenders of and to knowledge - but limited to what we were and are taught, by what we read, by what we understand and our own experiences.

And what Pastor Wright said has nothing to do with religion or science.

Okay, the only belief system with a form of institionalised racism (at the risk of offending Hindus) is Hinduism's caste system and classification, including dalits.

Some scholars attributed it not only to (I'll generalise and simplify it here) division of labour and specialisation as a form of social control, but also racism by the fairer-skinned Aryans who invaded the Indian sub-continent thousands of years ago on the darker skinned Dravidians of the Indian subcotinent. It is supposed to keep the whiter Aryan "purer" and not polluted, and the darker skinned Dravidians and others before the Aryans arrived, subjugated.

Or so it seems. While most of those in the Brahmin caste are fair, there are quite a number of dark skinned ones. But then, who is to really know who is a Brahmin is until and unless he or she tells you so, or one actually visits his or her home. Or that the caste system actually works according to its objective judging by the existence of darker skinned Brahmins.

Only a denialist would say the bigotry due to race is nothing. From Latin America to Africa to Asia, being fairer skinned is regarded more favourably. Some Japanese ladies actually have operations to shortened their colons to make their skin fairer.

And years ago, there were ads for a skin whitening product that screamed, "White is Beautiful", but not anymore. And one can find skin whitening creams in all departmental store in Asia. Very sad. Very pathetic.

Some chemists (scientists) came up with that skin whitening cream as a possible solution to deracinate us, to make race and the colour of one's skin immaterial?

Or should I blame advertisers in promoting say, Heidi Klum and Giselle Bundchen, as the epitome of beauty?

And there are words too giving "dark" and sinister connotations such as black magic, blackmark, blackball, blackmail, blackmarket, black heart, black list, good guys wear white and bad guys wear black and black hats, one is in a "black" mood, Africa is the "dark" continent, the plague is the Black Death, and I could go on and on......

African-Americans are bambazoled every day in the media and language with this like this?

The world is black and white? Life is not fair nor are people? It blackens our heart to think so? Our moods are dark? We have a dark side? And when the darkness of ignorance and fear fall over us..?

Can't think of any more uses and abuses of the words "black" and "dark" from the top of my head.

So, if any Caucasian wants to complain about Pastor Wright being racist, we'll have to whitewash him.

Oh man! Even a white lie is good. Can't win with institutionalised language on "black" and "dark" as oppposed to "white". More negative connotations associated with "black" and "dark" than with "white". White dwarfs and white elephants don't count. Nor does Enlightenment to bring us all out of darkness of hearts and minds and into civilisation and such.

I'll have to put out a white flag on this, no?

Au revoir for now.

"J"

Chris and Mr. Mark,
Good ending. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? You're happy with the scientific method exclusively; I'm happy with all three methods of obtaining knowledge, insight, understanding, a basis for happiness and growth, and joy in the journey of life. Much joy to you both.

Interesting thread. I've heard it said that the religious mind is committed to the outcome, namely its particular faith's doctrine; whereas the scientific mind is committed to a particular process, namely the scientific method.

Science will always have gaps - fertile ground for pretenders to knowledge.

Dear Parker -

Yes, science is full of ifs, ands and buts. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Again - you seem to want science to don the religious garb of absolutism. But absolutism is the bane of the scientific mind, process and theory. The only absolute in science is that there are no (or few) absolutes. That is the core strength of science, and that's what makes science far and away a better way to explain existence than religion.

Science looks at the available evidence and suggests plausible reasons for what the evidence implies. The most-plausible reasoning emerges as the best theory and eventually becomes settled science (like evolution).

Religion posits OPINION and CONJECTURE and holds the same to be absolute, even as those absolutes rise and fall with the whims of the ensuing centuries and the zeitgeists of the world's populations. The religious mind prefers an "absolute" to an "if," even if that absolute is based entirely in conjecture, myth or fantasy.

In short, the religious mind prefers to see life through absolutes, even if the religious mind's definition of "absolute" bears no resemblance to the meaning of the word in common parlance.

That's why the "ifs, ands and buts" of science ring more true than the "absolutes" of religion, because science's "ifs" are more absolute than religions absolutes...which are closer to conjecture than are sciences "ifs."

Mr. Mark,
I enjoyed your comment; the giraffe example was a bit unwieldy, but it's your game we're playing.
Interested in the subject, I just read the following article:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life

What I noticed is a lot of "if's" and "may's" and "potential's", but not only no "fete accompli" but nothing near a "fete accompli"--still a lot of disagreement over the origin of the origin of the original self-replicating substance, it would appear. Sorry, I wasn't won over, although the reading is interesting.

Parker writes:

"I also have yet to read that a scientist has produced either the mathematical/chemical proof or the physical proof by demonstrated experimentation that inorganic material became organic material such that a one-celled animal arose from the inorganic material."

I've noticed that you have a penchant for adding conditions to things that make it impossible for these things to occur.

Take your quote above. In the 1950s, the Miller-Urey experiments proved (chemically) that organic precursors could, in fact, form out of inorganic material. These experiments are so easily reproducible that they are standard fare in high school biology classes. These experiments did not prove that evolution DID happen this way, only that it COULD have happened this way (under the right set of conditions).

With that in mind, one can easily provide an example to answer your statement, at least *up to the point* that you add the unscientific and unreasonable condition, "such that a one-celled animal arose from the inorganic material." With that qualifier, you are putting conditions on the formation of organic life that science is not putting on said formation. Indeed, the Miller-Urey experiments do NOT show a one-step transition from inorganic materials to organic single-celled organisms. Like most evolutionary processes, there are any number of small steps involved over perhaps millions of years before a single-celled organic life form may have emerged from inorganic material, and ONE of those steps MAY HAVE BEEN the formation of an organic PRECURSOR (amino acid) from inorganic material as demonstrated in Miller-Urey.

To make the point, let me put on my "think like Parker" hat and - by example - make a more-outlandish demand than you do: where is the experiment that proves inorganic material evolving in a single step to a giraffe? It doesn't exist. Therefore - in Parker's way of thinking - evolution is bunk and the ONLY answer for the existence of the giraffe is "goddidit."

The point is that evolutionary science has never said that organic material evolved to organic material in a single step. THAT is a condition that YOU and the ID apologists make. It is a red herring that has no bearing on the scientific theory at all, any more than my giraffe example has any bearing.

Hope this helps. We're all here to learn.

Daniel ITLD,
I suppose I am being defensive with the following comment, but:
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you know with absolute unquestionable factual knowledge that inorganic materials came together on this earth at some point millions of years ago in a "random chance" way that allowed life to arise from out of that inorganic matter, and then that life continued in such a way that all life forms we see around us today evolved from that starting point.

If you think science has sufficiently proved that, then we differ. I don't consider that apathy; I consider it a difference of opinion. I'm not inferring anything about what happened beyond that starting point--I'm interested in the starting point.

I've enjoyed all of your comments. You are an interesting person. I know I'm a fish out of water here, so I'll go on my way. Take care, all--I feel no resentment toward any of you. I consider you to be good people, not mislead, not mean-spirited, not anything with negative connotations. We'll all be fine going our separate ways.

More for Parker

I am not trying to pick on you; I am trying to help you understand, although I am not very hopeful.

Evolution has been picked apart and re-explained over and over on this forum, since I have been looking at it, which has not been very long. So, it is really a question of knowledge, and knowing versus apathy towards knowledge. It's no use going over the same thing repeatedly, only to be met with uncomprehending apapthy.

I am no expert on evolution, and do not have the expertise, time, or energy to teach it to people who do not believe it in it. I think that would apply to most other people who post here.

However, there is plenty of information about evolution that you can acquire from all kinds of sources, if you care to, that is, if you can overcome your apathy towards understanding. If you review all of this information and still disagree with the consensus of science and of scientists, then that is your point of view and your way of looking at things. You can contrast your opinion to scientific consensus, and perhaps you may persuade others that you are right and science is wrong, but the consensus of science will remain, as it has, that evolution is a settled matter.

I agree with Daniel. If you're challenging Darwinian evolution you should present something central to the theory that you take issue with.

NCAE,
Thanks for adding your insights about memetics. Looking at our real world, though, I tend to think there is a lot of tribalist behavior that is inconsistent with the notion that everyone has decided we are all just "one tribe". That may be what we would wish everyone would think, but the behavior is inconsistent with it. There would be no war if that were the case, because war doesn't advance the "single tribe."

But I join in wishing everyone would look around the world and say, "Hey, we're all one tribe--let's learn to get along and to help each other out, and take care of this world that is a fragile place."

For Parker

I was saying that you are apathetic towards knowledge. Just what does that mean? I feel as though I know what it means, but if you do not know, there is not much point in my trying to explain it to you.

As I said before, I think that you misunderstand evolution. I briefly scanned the quote that you posted. Even if it may have been written by Darwin, it does not cover what I think of as "evolution." And I don't have much to say about the quote. To me evolution refers to the development of life into the forms that exist today, over a period of millions of years.

The development of human society may have some parallels but it is something different. You are mixing "apples and oranges."

I do not think that there is anyone here who can tell you what your cited quote means or interpret it for you, or give you the answer or the argument that you are looking for. I do not feel that it is particularly relevant to the establishe criteria of evolution; that is about all I can say about it.

You are as free as anyone to find out as much as you want on evolution. You can join in agreement with the scientific consensus that it is true, or you can believe otherwise; you can always maintain belief in things outside of and contrary to scientific consensus. But then, that gets us back to the subject of apathy towards knowledge.

Parker,

What is it you find controversial about your Darwin quotes? I would say that he's going beyond nature and into culture in the chapter your are excerpting (as indicated by the chapter title), so he's somewhat out of the realm of genetic variation, but as I said before, he's in the realm of memetics. He also seems confident that the traits we value (i.e. that we consider "progress") will remain so. As I said before, I don't think that's necessarily the case. But what about the idea that whatever traites obtain in the future, they will *by definition* be taken *as* "progress," even if they would have offended today's sensibilities. I think we see that in the cultures of yesteryear - we don't value "glory" much any more, and we seldom aspire to wipe out the next town over either. Some of us don't even want to stone homosexuals to death.

For Not Confused About Evolution:

I believe you; we all see people like this every day; people like this post here every day.

It's a real problem.

There is a great apathy among people towards knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge. The only "knowing" that these people do is sensual reaction to the landscape in which they find themselves, and implementation of cultural beliefs which they may inherit. They are lacking, as though blind, in the esthetic appreiciation of knowledge, of knowing truth for the sake of its own appreciation.

So? What can be done? Perhaps merely repeating over and over their mistakes, and correcting them over and over, but it is a very long and tedious process, requiring probably a whole life time.

I do believe that people who are apathetic towards knowledge are beyond learning by normal means, and are beyond all reasonable attempts at education, but will only begin to understand, when they are ready, which, for many of them, may be never.

Daniel ITLD,
I think I can infer that I am being called "apathetic." That's OK with me. I have yet to find anyone who will read the quotes I just posted from Charles Darwin and either defend them or refute them coherently.

I also have yet to read that a scientist has produced either the mathematical/chemical proof or the physical proof by demonstrated experimentation that inorganic material became organic material such that a one-celled animal arose from the inorganic material. Therefore, all theories that assume that such has happened or can happen are just that--theories. Your collective debunking helps all of you feel better, and that's fine with me, but I don't consider myself any less apathetic than any of you. Sorry--we're just apathetic in different areas.

Parker,

Great quotes! Much of what Darwin wrote there is now what we call memetics.

As for his confidence in increasing virtue and future generations, we now live in a global environment where we are essentially one single tribe, so cleverness and cooperation don't seem needed for population survival. In fact, the whole "numbers game" of evolution seems driven now almost entirely by birthrate, which correlates negatively with most of our most "noble and enlightened" traits. Devo here we come?

Mr. Mark says "Faux scientists never have and never will do so for the simple reason that their claims are not testable...which means that their claims are not theories and are not scientific."

It's worse than that. Many pseudoscientific claims are "scientific" in that they are testable (astrology, ESP, prayer, etc.). Sometimes their proponents have no interest in subjecting their belief (and income) to scientific scrutiny, so it never gets done except when real scientists volunteer their own time, money and effort towards debunking. Other times they gin up fraudulent analyses that claim the truth of their belief (psychic phenomena have many such bogus studies). And sometimes the people simply don't know enough about the scientific process to do credible analysis. You have to keep in mind that unless they are crooks, they are stupid.

It's really quite depressing when you consider how stupid many people are, and how they are often the same people who are utterly confident in their beliefs. I recently ran across a guy who claimed to be a professional author of philosophy books, and we got to talking about the origins of ethics. I said that I thought ethics had their origins in the instincts we have evolved as social animals. He disagreed, on the grounds that we didn't evolve, we were designed (except for amoebas, which evolved). But he wasn't "stupid" enough to think God did it, he know it was super-smart aliens that have been around for "trillions of years!" To the obvious question of how the aliens got so "super-smart," he said they were designed by even smarter aliens. You can see where this leads. I didn't get around to the problem with the trillions.

What I noticed most was that the deeper he got into his nonsense, the more gleeful he was and proud of himself for having such rare knowledge. I think that's part of the allure of pseudoscience (and religion). It lets someone who wouldn't otherwise have an exceptional thought or idea be as exceptional as their imaginations will let them. It doesn't take much reinforcement from like-minded numbskulls in order to be psychologically satisfying. This guy's girlfriend was a nutritionist who specialized in "antibiotic-resistent viruses." I'm not making this up.

For Mr. Mark

"Knowledge" is a very difficult concept to pin down and define. But I do not think it is even necessary to define either science or knowledge to people who have, basically, an apathy towards the appreciation and the acquisition of knowledge; when you have an appreciation for knowledge and the scientific methods of its acquisition, you know it, and you know among your friends and peers who has it and who does not have it. In all of this, evolution is settled science, settled among scientists who are motivated and interested enough to find out about it.

It is not settled for people who have a basic apathy towards knowledge. but that does not matter; it is irrelevant.

How do you motivate an apathetic person? I do not know; it is up to them to express some interest or forever to remain in the dark.

The following quotes are straight from Darwin:

“We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilized nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)

“Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)

“With increased experience and reason, man perceives the more remote consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding virtues, such as temperance, chastity, &c., which during early times are, as we have before seen, utterly disregarded, come to be highly esteemed or even held sacred.... Ultimately our moral sense or conscience becomes a highly complex sentiment- originating in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellow-men, ruled by reason, self-interest, and in later times by deep religious feelings, and confirmed by instruction and habit.
“It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.
“We compare the weakened impression of a past temptation with the ever present social
instincts, or with habits, gained in early youth and strengthened during our whole lives, until they have become almost as strong as instincts. If with the temptation still before us we do not yield, it is because either the social instinct or some custom is at the moment predominant, or because we have learnt that it will appear to us hereafter the stronger, when compared with the weakened impression of the temptation, and we realise that its violation would cause us suffering. Looking to future generations, there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant." (Charles Darwin, Descent of Man)

I'll let you folks explain what he meant.

Parker,

Oh. We certainly know more about evolution than Darwin could have imagined, considering that he developed his theory before the field of genetics existed. But I have heard numerous modern evolutionary biologists commend Darwin for having discovered the fundamental dynamic of evolution, even if he didn't know the mechanisms behind variation (i.e, mutation and sex). His work stands today.

Dear Parker -

I must agree with the comment just posted by NCAR. Where do you get the false impression that real science is deserting Darwinism, or Darwin's theories? How could real science desert something upon which rests so much real science? Perhaps my statement that science has moved beyond Darwin was confusing to you. But to take my statement to suggest that Darwin's theories were no longer operational would be to suggest that Doubleday's version of baseball had ceased to inform the present-day version of the game, not to mention that I qualified my statement on Darwin by writing, "the basic premise of species evolving from simpler forms that predate them is still operational."

Yes, it's true that the faux- and pseudo-scientists make that claim, but it's a claim that's as valid as saying the moon is made of cheese. Faux-scientists like those who infest the Discovery Institute are laughed at not only by real scientists, but by the nation's courts (read the Dover decision, for example).

Maybe you're confused as to what constitutes real science as opposed to faux science. There's an easy way to know the difference: real scientists submit their theories to independent testing, falsification and peer review. Faux scientists never have and never will do so for the simple reason that their claims are not testable...which means that their claims are not theories and are not scientific.

The jury is NOT out on Darwinism and evolution, neither has the verdict been overturned on appeal. The jury has been in for over a century, and the verdict is reaffirmed every day of the week - evolution is a fact just a surely as the sun's rising is a fact, and no amount of linear thinking (or grasping at semantic straws) will change that fact.

Empty bromides like the one you floated are laughable, ignorant or both. Please stop. You hurt yourself as a debater by making such ridiculous claims.

Back at ya...

For Parker

What makes you think evolution has been rejected by science? It is settled science, isn't it?

I believe that there is an aesthetic quality to the appreciation of knowledge and to the scientific methods of its acquisition, which some people experience, but to which other people remain apathetic.

I feel that you may have this apathy.

Not Confused,
My comment was in reference to Mr. Mark's earlier comment, when he wrote,
"Let's talk Darwin. The FIRST thing any reputable scientist will tell you is that evolutionary theory - like any other legitimate scientific theory - has moved way past anything that Darwin could have imagined. To insist - as you seem to be doing - that evolutionary theory MUST be governed by the knowledge set/thoughts of the man who came up with the theory 150 years ago is to apply a RELIGIOUS stricture to a scientific proposition. It doesn't work that way. So, while the basic premise of species evolving from simpler forms that predate them is still operational, we know much more about the details of how this happens than Darwin ever did know or ever could have imagined."

I read that comment as a rejection of some of Darwin's theories, which is why I made the comment I made.

Parker,

Why do you think that "Darwin's theories are being rejected now by science, that he is no longer considered a valid reference point for discussing 'natural selection'?"

That's totally incorrect. Darwin's fundamental principles of variation and natural selection as the drivers of evolution (including speciation) have been validated by an enormous amount of data from a large number of different fields, from cosmology to molecular biology.

I hope you're not letting yourself be duped by the Discovery Institute.

Daniel ITLD,
Thanks for your comment. I enjoy your thoughts. I realize I was using the term "evolution" loosely--there is ample room for different uses of the word based on Webster's dictionary. I would love to see the media pick up and have it be extended to educational systems and governmental decision-making systems that Darwin's theories are being rejected now by science, that he is no longer considered a valid reference point for discussing "natural selection." I would love it. 'Hope it happens.

Have a great day.

I am a little suprised that they took this quesstion away, and then they brought it back.

For Terra Gazelle, I am pretty sure they don't censor much here; they seem to censor "bad" words. I have had a few posts published that I later wish they had censored, and I have had some very bland vanilla comments that disappeared. I think the system is a little creaky and doesn't always work right, and sometimes stuff disappears.

For Parker, I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. I think that you attribute more to it than is actually there. For example, there is no such thing as "progress" in evolution, except the notion of the "progession" of events, as time "progresses" and things happen in a "progress" of succession. It does not automatically mean "better and better." We see the position of mankind is "better and better" when you look at all of human history, but that would not necesarily apply to evolution. Therefore, if there is a set-back in evolution, you would not call it "dis-evolution" or devolution, it is still just more "evolution" as speices mutate and adapt to a changing environment, or die out. And also, evolution cannot be related to morality or ethics, nor to religion, either; in that, you are projecting your own thinking into it.

For Chris Everett, when I saw my concept of "imaginary landscape" in writing, and as you replied to it, I do not now think it is a very useful concept, and even may seem a little silly. But what I was thinking of was really more like "culture" and since we all readily know what "culture" is, then I do not need a new name for it.

However, when I saw my concept of the esthetic of knowlege in writing, and your reply to it, I liked that very much. That is an interesting new insight for me, that knowledge based on science is a higher esthetic, like poetry, art and music, that some people "get" and that others do not, that some people appreciate, and that others do not, that some people pursue actively, and that others regard with apathy.

That helps me understand how some people navigate the utility of science as a reaction to their immediate and natural landscape, yet still do not understand or appreciate science, itself.

Mr. Mark,
I did read and appreciate your thoughts. I suppose we shouldn't be seeing the use of the term "Darwinism" any more based on what you wrote. What should we be seeing in it's place?

I think based on observations of the world that things in the universe are not static, and that changes in mankind go in both directions--upward and downward--i.e., there is a "disevolution" going on as well as a progress, and that is perfectly compatible with universal laws I can observe. I like Darwin's writings, and haven't read anything comparable or as in-depth and internally consistent as his logic on the subject of evolution or whatever you want to call it.

As to your other question, my answer would move along the same line of thinking and observation, with respect to Adam and Eve and Enoch: a "dis-evolution" of understanding about God, speculations galore, points of time of "restoration" of revealed knowledge, then repeated "dis-evolution" once again. This has happened over and over again on earth. But it gives us all now the opportunity to make any kind of choice we want to make about God and we will find ourselves in company with whomever we want to find ourselves in company with. No "forced" choice by a Being who doesn't use "force" as part of how He/She operates. I know people love to call this "circular reasoning", and if that works for them to make them feel good about having chosen differently, then that's fine with me. (I mean that.) This world is all about such things: choices, consequences from choices, learning by experience.

Thanks again for your comments. I enjoyed them.

Parker -

Thanks for you comments, but I have two questions:

1. Why no comment on my post on evolution? Do you disagree with what I wrote?

2. Why do you think god decided to send a messiah who looked a lot like a contemporary pagan savior and nothing like the OT model?

A couple days ago I wrote a long post on what I thought about the comments made on Katrina...I was censored.

So here is a milder and shorter version.
For those who say that is what folks deserve when they settle in flood prone areas...
Do you know that New Orleans is the busiest port in the country? Did you know that this country gets most of it's gas from lines that start in New Orleans...That it is New Orleans that foreign oil comes? That refineries line up around New Orleans?

That it was faulty levees that allowed in the Lake water, made by the gov. It was not the Gulf, it was not the Mississippi...it was Lake Ponchutrain. Just a couple of decades ago there was 140 to 200 miles of bayou between New Orleans and the sea, it’s now down to 30. And what caused this lessening of barrior...Oil. Trenches created by oil exporation that has been created since the 1930's. Oil that went to you for your cars and businesses and heating and to help America progress.

So who is to blame for the flooding of the midwest? Who is to blame for Hurricane damage in other places...who is to blame for mudslides and fires? Some idiot US senator said move New Orleans...Move 300 years of history, cobblestone streets, French and Spainish arcitecture...generations of people, move where?...No pay the people of New Orleans for the oil that goes through our ports and our land and ruins our shoreline and infestructure...and we get nothing for it. Not one cent. Nothing to fix anything not a thing to bring abundance to the hopeless poor.

New Orleans is there because that is the place of the Mississippi,the port and the gulf of mexico. Move them and we will think about moving the most unique city of New Orleans.

terra

TO JIHADIST:

Thank you for the Easter greeting.

May God plant a big smile in your heart.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the Kingdom is going to be beyond anyone's expectations, if anyone happens to have any.

As it says, "Eye has not seen, ear has not heard" and The Kingdom is Inclusive.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO ARMINIUS:

Thank you for you post and I again wish you a Happy Easter.

As far as being a realist rather than an optimist or a pessimist, it is hard to honestly look at this world from purely a natural view and not be completely sickened considering all of the heartache going on in so many places.

In the preceding sentence, I wrote, 'in so many places', actually it should be said that the heartache is absolutely everywhere at one time or another, is it not?

If there were not heartache in our own lives or those we know, would we ever be able to look past our own little reality to see that there are other people out there and that in reality all of them are our brothers and sisters.

Sometimes, it seems that to be an optimist you almost have to put on and constantly wear a pair of so-called rose colored glasses or bury your head in some dark place and pretend that all is well, when in reality, maybe all or at least some in your own life is well but there are plenty of others out there hurting big time one way or the other, reality or not?

Sometimes, it seems to be a pessimist is to overlook all of the good that some do or at least try to do and also to overlook the beauty and awesomeness of creation and to forget about all of the people, who happen to be just part of God's creation, that God has put into your life.

Have you or anyone else out there ever noticed that sometimes in your most bleakest times, someone or something happens in your life, totally unexpected, and some people continue to look at these happenings as coincidences.

I, for one, thank God that some of these "coincidences" have happened to me and that they have happened when they did.

You know, it can be nice to have Someone to thank and when you know that God is real you can not only thank a person for something but you can also thank God for creating that person.

Also, have you ever looked back at something in your life that at the time seemed and was pretty crummy but that in time, turned out to be one of the more important things to have happened in your life?

It doesn't matter if people believe that Jesus is God-Incarnate because it is True whether they believe or not and since He Is God and became a human being, He became the Brother of all other humans, no matter what some of the people that call themselves "christian" say, pretty obvious, don't you think?

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Ok,
So out of the 40 years of sermons, all over the world this man's whole life is sumed up in 30 seconds of sound bites, put together by political enemies?

Has anyone seen or read all the sermons that these sound bites came from? I doubt it.

Here are some other sound bites...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ&feature=related

So where is the one person that claims Obama has ever said anything like those sound bites? Where is the video showing Obama making those statements...where is the person who is basking in that 15 minutes of fame? 12 years Obama was in the eye of the target in Ill. Discover what he did in the Ill. senate...how he did create childrens healthcare...Kidcare.Where Hillary's claim to haveing anything to do with SChip was found to be an untruth.

What amazes me is that on Fox news the men are fighting about who brought out this problem with pastor Wright. I would like to know why would anyone go through years of sermons to find the ones they did...there are 6 years between sound bites. They want you to think that this is what this man and church is about...it's not. But like the swiftboat slimeing of Kerry...turning a hero into a joke, we will get what we deserve...if we cannot use better judgement and common sence we will again have what we have had the last 7 years...or the chaos we had before that.

Needless to say I am a Obama supporter...I find it totally refreshing and promising to have a leader that will tell us what we need to know, instead of what is expedient for the powers that be. Who talks to us as adults and not as half wit children. We have the options of what we get...

terra

Parker, Parker, Parker,

The OT is in trouble historically from the start.

Adam and Eve and the time line are so mythical it simply envelopes the rest of the stories in a cloud of fiction.

The NT is also in trouble historically from the start with four books and various epistles with differing accounts or in some cases only one account in all the books and epistles. Two of the most glaring single attestations of important events are the "miracles" of the changing of water to wine and the raising of Lazarus.

And all of this is followed 1800 years later by the fiction of Joe Smith and his "Mormon-con".

Another enjoyable piece of insight, courtesy CCNL's other link reading (thanks):

Borg summarizes his view of the historical Jesus in these words: "he was a spirit person, subversive sage, social prophet, and movement founder who invited his followers and hearers into a transforming relationship with the same Spirit that he himself knew, and into a community whose social vision was shaped by the core value of compassion" (op. cit., p. 119). By "spirit person," Borg means that Jesus was a "mediator of the sacred" for whom the Spirit or God was a reality that was experienced. Based on his experience of the sacred, for the historical Jesus compassion "was the central quality of God and the central moral quality of a life centered in God" (op. cit., p. 46). Jesus spoke against the purity system in sayings like "blessed are the pure in heart" and in parables like that of the Good Samaritan. The historical Jesus challenged the purity boundaries in touching lepers as well as hemorrhaging women, in driving the money changers out of the temple, and in table fellowship even with outcasts. Jesus replaced an emphasis on purity with an emphasis on compassion. The historical Jesus spoke an alternative wisdom in aphorisms and parables that controverted the conventional wisdom based upon rewards and punishments.

CCNL,
Thanks for the enjoyable link reading, including the following delightful nuance:

''I think the basic historicity of the text is valid and verifiable,'' said Susan Grossman, the rabbi of Beth Shalom Congregation in Columbia, Md., and a co-editor of ''Etz Hayim.'' As for the mounting archaeological evidence suggesting the contrary, Rabbi Grossman said: ''There's no evidence that it didn't happen. Most of the 'evidence' is evidence from silence.''

''The real issue for me is the eternal truths that are in the text,'' she added. ''How do we apply this hallowed text to the 21st century?'' One way, she said, is to make it more relevant to women. Rabbi Grossman is one of many women who worked on ''Etz Hayim,'' in an effort to temper the Bible's heavily patriarchal orientation and make the text more palatable to modern readers. For example, the passage in Genesis that describes how the aged Sarah laughed upon hearing God say that she would bear a son is traditionally interpreted as a laugh of incredulity. In its commentary, however, ''Etz Hayim'' suggests that her laughter ''may not be a response to the far-fetched notion of pregnancy at an advanced age, but the laughter of delight at the prospect of two elderly people resuming marital intimacy.''

Anonymous,
Sorry if my comment offended you or any modern-day Jewish. I think that at this point there would be maybe three or four people who may read these comments, of whom I doubt if any are Jewish. But if there are, they are welcome to write in and explain how Mr. Mark was correct in saying what they were/are looking for in a Messiah, and can take issue with how I characterized the Jewish leadership of 2000 years ago. Otherwise, I missed your point. You might as well go ahead and explain yourself better. Adieu.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

By the time my grandchildren start to rationalize about religion, Christianity to include Mormonism will have beem deflawed.

A quick synopsis of the current flaws:

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

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations. He has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

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

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

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

Chris E,

Any thoughts on Parker, the obvious missing link?

I ask, as a Christian, able to reconcile Christianity and science, hoping to ward off justifiable replies from among Jews who may take Parker, as representative of something other than pre-Neanderthal man.

Therefore, I ask if the scientific journals have anything to say about Parker, or if, perhaps, you would like to take up the subject.

Well, then, CCNL, enjoy the scratching, and if your grandchildren have grandchildren, they can enjoy the scratching, too. Far be it from any of them to depart from the path of their illustrious soldier/statesman/Man of La Mancha forefather, conquering the angels one masterstroke of the keyboard at a time. (Just kidding, sort of.) Peace to you, thou conquering hero.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

All of "Mormon-con" leaves one scratching his or her head!!!!

Mr. Mark,
I had assumed you knew about the Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses. You can look it up and read the whole thing in about an hour in lds.org. but I have no doubt it will have you scratching your head.

As to "an instant", that brings up time which in God's "world" is so far different than in our world that 1) we can be in the same "instant" as 2000 years ago--a spec of eternal time dimension, and 2) God sees everything in the present.

Just because the Jews didn't understand those principles and needed a Messiah to save them from the troubled world they lived in (much of which they had brought on themselves by disobedience mostly having to do with how they treated each other and the poor among them), doesn't mean a different kind of Messiah wasn't there for them to have understood. The promised Messiah is easily understood in reading the OT. The Jews are blinded by their traditions and knowledge base that preclude getting inspiration as they read.

'Fun writing to you. All the best.

Dear Parker et al -

I look forward to continuing this discussion. However, I'm taking off now for the weekend and won't have access to a computer until Monday.

I'll try my best to catch up then.

Have a great weekend (I understand there's some holiday or something this weekend. Hmm. Musta missed it).

Actually, I'm listening to Wagner's "Parsifal" right now. It's the closest I'll come to observing Easter these days...

;)

Dear Parker -

You lost me with the Adam & Eve reference. Did you mean Joseph & Mary? I don't think so.

BTW - my referencing the Messiah of the OT is important. Yahweh promised that the advent of the Messiah coming to earth would instantly usher in an era of peace and justice ON EARTH. The fact that this has not yet happened is why the Jews discount Jesus as being the Messiah. As god is eternal and unchanging, why would he promise one type of Messiah and change his mind? Either he fulfills his promises or he doesn't. He has yet to deliver the messiah promised in the OT. Why would one believe that Jesus is that messiah? Where was the promised immediate era of peace and justice ON EARTH? It sure didn't happen with the birth, life and death of Jesus, did it?

More importantly, why would a Jew believe Jesus was the promised messiah when his life story (virgin birth, death & resurrection) sounds a whole lot like the life stories of the pagan gods who were RIFE in Mid-East cultures in Biblical times while sounding NOTHING like the story of the messiah promised in the OT?

Why would a Biblical-era Jew believe Yahweh had discarded HIS OT version of what attributes constituted a messiah and had instead adopted the PAGAN view of what constituted a savior?

While were on the subject, why do you? Same question.

Your thoughts on this are welcome.

Dear Parker -

I appreciate your comments.

Let's talk Darwin. The FIRST thing any reputable scientist will tell you is that evolutionary theory - like any other legitimate scientific theory - has moved way past anything that Darwin could have imagined. To insist - as you seem to be doing - that evolutionary theory MUST be governed by the knowledge set/thoughts of the man who came up with the theory 150 years ago is to apply a RELIGIOUS stricture to a scientific proposition. It doesn't work that way. So, while the basic premise of species evolving from simpler forms that predate them is still operational, we know much more about the details of how this happens than Darwin ever did know or ever could have imagined.

To attempt to box CURRENT evolutionary thinking into the strictures of Darwin's world view is akin to taking Major League Baseball to task for not adhering to baseball as it was created by Andrew Doubleday, or to imagine that helicopters can't fly because they use rotors rather than fixed wings to achieve lift-off (not to mention that fixed wings are quite different from early ideas of man achieving flight, ie: by imitating the flapping of birds' wings).

Let me put it this way: to believe that evolutionary theory can not move beyond Darwin's 150-year-old thoughts is akin to believing that Christ's Second Covenant cannot exist as the NT must be governed by the First Covenant of the OT.

Make sense?

Second - your thinking on evolution reveals a few common fallacies that need to be dispelled. The first fallacy is that species continue to evolve ad infinitum. That's simply not true. There are many life forms on this planet that have been around for tens if not hundreds of millions of years and haven't changed. Some species of sharks, for example, haven't changed in 35-million years. Stromatolites on the earth today aren't much different than those those that existed billions of years ago.

The second fallacy is that all evolution is upward to some "better version" of a pre-existing life form. Again, this isn't true. Some life forms get to a certain point and then stop evolving, like sharks. Others continue to evolve upwards, as did man when compared to our primate cousins. And some get to a certain "upward" point and die out, like Neanderthal.

Third, you are mistaken to believe that evolution is ruled purely by chance. Indeed, Darwin didn't call his theory "evolution." He called it "natural selection." Last I looked, there is nothing "random" in selection. One doesn't randomly select anything. The very act of selection isn't random. "Chance" accounts only for random mutations that may OR MAY NOT lead to a feature of a species becoming dominant. Natural selection is the process of nature weeding out the less-built-for-survival organisms from those better suited for survival.

It's interesting to note that being "better suited to survival" is conditional. For instance, mammals (ie: us) had little chance to multiply when the dinosaurs ruled the world. Our mammalian ancestors were pretty puny creatures who could hardly compete with the dinosaurs for prominence. Then, the earth gets hit by a huge meteor, and, viola! the size of the dinosaurs works against them. They die out, and the puny mammals have an opening to multiply.

Short story: meteor bad for dinosaur, good for mammal. "Bad" news for the dinos equals "great" news for the mammals. The criteria for what constituted being "better suited for survival" on this planet changed in a cosmic moment.

Fourth fallacy - you mention human "progress," but progress is not an evolutionary concept. EVOLUTION IS DISPASSIONATE. Evolution is a PROCESS, not a PHILOSOPHY. "Progress" is a purely human philosophical prospect.

For instance, you might see human "progress" as the act of more humans becoming Xians, while I would see "progress" as being the exact opposite, ie: more humans abandoning religion altogether. Evolution sees neither view, because evolution holds no views.

So, why are humans here?

Who knows? It could be for as mundane a reason as the one given by George Carlin, ie: that we evolved simply to discover plastic, the better to encase the world in it so Mother Earth could better handle the next rational biological life form that tried its damnedest to destroy Her.

OR, we could be here for a more-lofty-by-human-standards reason, like our being the cosmos' attempt to become self-aware of itself. After all, neither the trees, nor the grass nor a black hole nor a supernova is aware that it exists. As far as we know, homo sapien stands as THE life form in the universe that exists to give the universe sentience, rationality and meaning. Without us, the universe has no awareness of itself. We provide the awareness upon which the universe is perceived.

Amazing, ain't it?

Mr. Mark noted: "(NONE of which is present in the Messiah template offered in the Bible's OT. Why is that?)."

You're not going to like my response to that particular question, but I felt like I might as well go ahead and answer it from my perspective.

I have no problem with there being pagan gods or invented gods--of course it makes sense that there would be in this very human world. My concept of Adam and Eve is that they knew about Christ and His saving mission, very plainly. Just because the OT doesn't talk about that plainly (which makes perfect sense since if it did, He would have been hunted and killed in childhood, of course) but gives plenty of hidden knowledge about Him, doesn't mean they hadn't been taught about His coming and the need for Him. We have plainer knowledge from the writings of Moses and Abraham, which of course many people scoff at but they make sense, and are corroborated by the Dead Sea scrolls.

So also of course there would be break-offs from what Adam and Eve taught their children and they taught theirs, etc. with all sorts of mixed up results in belief systems. This is totally understandable--happens with break-offs from churches today all the time.

Sorry to spoil your argument about paganism being the "father" or "mother" of Christianity. Peace to you, all in all.

Mr. Mark, and others,
I enjoyed your thoughts, and am probably off on a tangent that none of you want to go down, but I'll fill in more details.

Darwin wrote about the progress of mankind through evolution. He implied that progress was nearly inevitable, but not quite so. Now we have a larger universe than he imagined, don't we? So you scientists can't hide behind the "faith" that this earth is the only one with intelligent human-like beings. Why wouldn't evolution "work" on other planets in the limitless universe, after all? It actually would have to "work", given the laws of probability that say "here we are, with all of these perfect outcomes from chance." There have to be a vast number of "imperfect outcomes" in order for there to have been this "perfect outcome" given that random chance is your absolute rule.

So go down Darwin's road of logic, and add in that there are other worlds--perhaps thousands in the vastness of the multiverses. Where does the "progress" of humankind lead? To greater expressions of love than we now see, greater levels of unselfishness? I think so, though you may not, and I have read those kinds of "projections" for the future in reading Darwin. He thought "morality" would become instinctive, so saying in Descent of Man.

You come from a position of wanting the religious to stop believing in the supernatural, so that (I suppose) we will all turn our attention to "saving" our world and each other from "doing harm" as CCNL said, and not expect Divine Providence to do our thinking or our "saving" for us. I have no problem with the last part of that, but I am amused by what appears to be the scientific definition of the "supernatural"--anything that someone feels or interprets as an energy field or a light field or a sensation that can't be measured by instruments, reproduced in a laboratory, dissected, or quantified. In short, science as you seem to define it can only be known if it is measurable by human-made instruments. What if one of those worlds has more progressed instruments, due to more progressed science? what if "they" can measure what we can't measure?

I probably don't expect a response, but invite deep thinking about these issues.

Oh there "Reality Challenged", Malaysian Deflawer and Obfuscating Jihadist,

I continue to laugh at your attempts to distract us from a major issue of contemporary times, i.e. the violence promulagated by the koran which is based on the hallucinations of one warmongering, greed and lust driven, womanizing Arab. Please for once in your life, address the flaws of Islam!!!!!!

Dear Parker -

Thanks for your response.

I don't believe that I can provide an answer for your question, ie: what Mr Mark would do if he were a divine being, because you've loaded the question with a number of conditions (1. a 'divine being' who had offspring; 2. offspring or co-beings who hadn't 'arrived' but who were in a state of improvability, not a static unimprovable state; 3. a divine being who wanted to figure out a way to allow their progress, without defying laws that work in the universe or multiverses--rather, complying with those laws) that attempt to box me into some answer that takes as a given that the Biblical model of god is THE one-and-only template for what constitutes a god.

Perhaps more salient, your question - at least as I read it - proves a point: human beings have always defined what constitutes the attributes of a god, and not the other way 'round.

In this case, we have Parker defining what constitutes a god. Am I not surprised that he has defined god in the concept of the Christian model? No, I am not, any more than I am surprised that the early Xians looked around to the pagan religions to see what constituted THEIR gods, and grafted the concepts of virgin births, resurrections and eternal reign in a heavenly realm to Jesus (NONE of which is present in the Messiah template offered in the Bible's OT. Why is that?).

In addition, I have no doubt that were Parker and I felines, he would be asking me whether my feline divinity would mean free bowls of cream and endless mice to chase for those who I "made in my image."

No, I'm afraid I can't play that game, Parker. Truth be told, my visual image of god comes closer to the strange beast we see on South Park, while my visual image of Jesus much more resembles Jerry Stiller than the white-bread paintings of Jesus-sans-Jewish-features that litter the naves of most churches.

DITLD,

Interesting post. You distinguish the "projected landscape" of scientific knowledge from the "landscape of the imagination" that gives rise to magic and the supernatural. I see them as the same landscape. It's just that a person who applies scientific skepticism uses his imagination to come up with landscape models that are consistent with physical evidence. The resulting models represent knowledge for him. A religious person uses his imagination to come up with landscape models that appeal to emotion, a need for ultimate justice, a fear of death, etc, that become "true" for them. For scientists, things and ideas tend to be the objects of awareness. For religious people, feelings and people are more in awareness. Of course, these are just general musings.

It strikes me that there are two distinct types of "organizing principle" for our landscape models. One is "physical law," meaning that things must happen for a "mechanical" reason. Science and technology testify to the correctness of this view. The other is "moral law," meaning that the scales of justice must ultimately be balanced (or perhaps that everything must ultimately be for the best). This seems to be the foundation of the religious view. As far as I can tell, this view is necessary in order to avoid the conclusion that life is fundamentally ABSURD.

For Chris Everett

I have been thinking alot about the things that you have been saying lately, and trying to understand and reconcile all of the many different claims to certain knowledge that various religious people seem to have.

Perhaps when we are born, we are introduced into a "natural" landscape that we share with the animals, and the we experience its immediacy through our sensual perceptions. In this landscape, we do not need to know anything about logic or science or how things work; in our immediate landscape, we already know how things seem to work, and how everything is in a certain "pre-figured" balance. In our immediate landscape, we may act and live as though the world is flat, without ever caring or knowing what is its "true" shape, because as far as our immediate landscape is concerned, we do dwell on a flat surface which we call earth.

But then, being higher than animals, we also dwell in a projected landscape. We read books and we imagine places and experiences away from and outside of our immeidate landscape. We can devise mathmatical methods of logic, and we can do controlled experiments, as scientists may do, to extract information about the world. In doing this, we come upon a kind of knowledge that is more broad and more accurate than the knowledge that we use to navigate our immediate landscape. Many people do not understand this broad, valid, and accurate knowledge, and prefer to avoid its acquisition, and they continue on just fine without it. So, in a way, scientific knowledge is not necessary for a person to live, know, and understand his own immediate landscape; and to those of us who are interested in this knowledge acquired through our projected landscapes, knowledge becomes something that is esthetic, like art or poetry or music, something that is important, and that adds to the richness of the lives of those who seek it, but something that many people are not interested in, and reject.

And then, there is the landscape of imagination, which is closely related to "culture." In this landscape, we impart reality to things that are not real. In the imaginary landscape we find magic and the supernatural, God and the gods, Heaven and all of its variaitions, and it is built up into complex quasi-political systems of organized religions.

I do not believe that scientific knowledge will ever replace supstition and religious belief and dogma, because as I said before, the appreciation of knowledge is an esthetic quality that is beyond the capacity of many people who feel only apathy, and not appreciation, for knowledge. This belief does not make me pessimistic, just stoic, which I admit, I probably am.

Mr. Mark,
"some plan in place", eh?
That leads in a myriad of directions, but one could be this: "I wonder what I would do if I were a 'divine being' who had offspring (or even co-beings who hadn't 'arrived' but who were in a state of improvability, not a static unimprovable state) and wanted to figure out a way to allow their progress, without defying laws that work in the universe or multiverses--rather, complying with those laws." Well, I am comfortable with a plan such as we are living and breathing and being a part of.

But, go ahead and think deeply. What would be your 'plan'? I don't think atheists are barred from thinking about such things, are they, or is that a no-no since it implies there could actually be a plan? I honestly, truly, sincerely, would love to hear what your plan would be. You are a deep thinker. Your thoughts (other than shooting down what you don't agree with) might be interesting reading.

As to a finish of this particular set of comments, I want to make it unmistakably clear that I and many others I know and associate with think that scientific knowledge and religious knowledge (if based on real truth, not fake imitations of truth) are not only compatible but can go hand in hand to improve the lot of our species and our world. I still have yet to read any agnostic/atheist in our day who demonstates the far-sighted logic of Darwin. Perhaps you or Chris could study his writing and improve upon it. Have at it, friends.

Dear Chris E -

Thanks for your succinct and compelling post of March 21, 2008 10:02 AM. Were the owners of this blog to read it, they could well say, "game, set and match" and close the thing down, your post having put "paid" to any religious apologia that might be offered as counter.

Perhaps the difference between the scientific mind and the religious mind is that while the scientific mind accepts the absolute that there are no (or, few) absolutes, the religious mind demands only absolutes, even if said absolutes are constantly open to interpretation and change. How else to explain the myriad sects and changes to religious dogma, dogma that was so "absolute" at one point or another that people could have their lives ended over it?

Just as we of the scientific bent see all things through the objective prism, so the religious see all things through their absolutist prism.

It seems that the religious - including our friend Parker - demand that there be some plan in place to explain everything, even if that plan is childish, fantastic or mindless, while the scientific mind notices that not all plans are equal. After all, Thelma and Louise had a plan, and it took them right off the cliff, their faith notwithstanding.

Have a good weekend.

Chris Everett,
I've no doubt that you are much more of an expert on scientific topics than I am, but here is a brief article that addresses the topic of big bang that I found interesting. I agree that it is a fascinating subject.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/05/20070531_b_main.asp

All the best to you, sincerely.

Parker,

There are indeed a lot of unanswered questions (and there always will be). Many cosmological details are as yet unknown. In 1998, more accurate measurements of galactic red shift were made, based on the "standard candle" provided by a specific type of supernova. These measurements showed that the rate of expansion of the universe is INCREASING, contraray to the previous belief that it must be slowing due to gravitational pull. This increase gave rise to the notion of dark energy, which we now think may be the domanint attribute of the universe. But I have heard from a cosmologist friend that there are new doubts about it, though I don't know what they are. Science is a process of learning. It's usually the observed anomalies that give rise to improved theories. We went to the moon using Newton's theory of gravity, but we need Einstein's theory of gravity to make GPS work. Very facinating.

Gerry,
I hope I do not come across as trying to dissuade you from your belief system, since I quite like what you wrote about your "eternity". But for some of us, self included, life is not so dour and its stages of growth and change are not so self-centered as your comment about those stages appears. My heart goes out to the care-givers of the elderly, with the many frustrations and unanswered questions of why. (We're heading into a period where there will be more of those, aren't we?) For some, those care-giving experiences are part of the eternity of growth (in constant unconditional love and unselflish service) that your own statement about "eternal life" implied. Thanks again for it, as we go our separate ways.

Close I am 59. I don't recall having said that you were and idiot. You have however said at some points in time things that were to my mind nonsensical or idiotic. Saying such things doesn't make you an idiot per se. All of us human beings say at one time or the other down right idiotic things. Not all of us by any stretch of the imagination are idiots.

The problem with Pablum is that it's easy. It requires no effort on your part beyond swallowing. You are spoon fed it by a third party and if it isn't your mommy or daddy and you're older than 2 they likely don't have your well being in mind.

I'm not a big fan of any of these candidates we currently have. I believe based on what they have said and what there Web sites say that all of them are going to steal one or more freedoms from us in exchange for promises they cannot possibly keep.

Out side of perhaps Hillary I don't think any of them have a clue that they won't be able to keep those promises.

Chris Everett,
Thank you for your pleasant and detailed response. I have no qualms with what you said, though I think there are lately a lot of scientific findings that I read about that push into a lot of unanswered questions. What about gravitational pulls that seem to defy the common models? What if the mathematical assumptions that predict a uniform expansion are off by the slightest minute particle of an unobserved phenomenon? (What if it's not a uniform expansion?)

CCNL,
"Do no harm" is the best thing I've ever seen you write on the internet. Congratulations. Let's all join in that practice, shall we not?

Have a great day, all.

GaryD

You said that I am neck deep in faulty information. What information might that be, may I ask?

At least you did not call me an idiot while referring to me as "my friend."

I perceive you to be probably an elderly gentlemen. Is this faulty information? And you are full of sour grapes about something, I don't know what. Is this faulty information?

And if we were two people interacting in person, and not on the internet, I would probably just keep quiet out of respect for my elders, and the fact that a bunch of stuff must have happened to you that I don't know about.

So, if you will stop trashing everything I say that you don't agree with, and stop calling me a dumb, stupid, idiot, and stop saying that I swoon over Obama, and stop saying that I like to suck up pablum, and just say simply that you disagree (what would be so hard about that?), then I will try to ignore you forever, and I will try to regard you as just part of the landscape, just "GaryD."

Parker,

You don't seem to understand what science is. It's not just another system of belief that must be taken on faith. It's the process of developing explanations for the evidence we find in the world around us.

For example, the big bang theory didn't simply materialize in a burst of inspiration from some scientist that claimed to be some kind of prophet to whom absolute truth was "revealed." Instead, it developed as a common-sense implication of the observed fact that galaxies are receeding from us (and from each other) at a rate roughly proportional to their distance to us. The initial observations were made by Edwin Hubble in the 1930's (I'm not positive about the date) and have been independently confirmed countless times.

Now, the idea that the known universe started out with a bang seems pretty far fetched, and in fact the term "big bang" was coined as a derogatory one. So scientists tested the theory further by determining what it might predict, if it were indeed true. One thing they came up with was the cosmic background radiation. According to the theory of thermodynamics, the early universe was too hot to allow the formation of atoms; not until it was 400,000 years old or so did it cool off enough for electrons to be captured by protons, forming hydrogen atoms. (Thermodynamic cooling is also why the air coming out of a bicycle tire is cold.) When this happened, the universe let out a burst of red light (similar to the familiar laser light at the check-out counter). As the universe continued to expand, the wavelength of this light stretched too, so that today it is in the microwave region of the spectrum, and is irradiating us all from every direction.

Well, in the 1960's, microwave detector technology developed to the point where the background radiation actually WAS DETECTED! INCREDIBLE! Who would have thought that physical evidence could be the basis of an explanatory model that makes testable predictions about things as yet unseen? Roger Bacon, that's who!

So you see, scientific explanations are NECESSARILY rooted in evidence, not faith. This the exact opposite of religion, which demands faith without evidence, and even in spite of evidence. The only "evidence" you can provide to substantiate your belief in the Father and Son hypothesis is "there is a book that says it's true," "many powerful people have believed it's true," or "I just KNOW it's true."

You say "Just because science says it's so, doesn't make it so." This misunderstanding of science AS A PHILOSOPHY seems widespread among the faithful. Science doesn't claim to know everything. Science doesn't claim absolute truth. In fact, science REPUDIATES the notion that we can know absolute truth. All science says is the knowledge OF the world comes FROM the world. Knowledge gained in this way is UNIVERSAL among humankind, because we all live in the same world and can therefore SHARE the bases for our scientific explanations. Anyone who examines the evidence and rejects a scientific explanation in favor of a better one is... a scientist! This is how science advances.

History has shown that all other bases for knowledge of the world are in a state of mutual conflict, and also conflict with the physical evidence, especially with newly gained evidence. It's clear that non-scientific explanations, like those at the heart of religion, are myths and fables from a distant past, from an age of profound ignorance compared to today. Why anyone would cling to them is beyond me.

Parker,

"heaven" did not evolve. It is a desperate religious phantom, a proxy concept for ignorance, stemming from the then plausible question what might be behind the visible sky, which was seen as a "blue thing", not as space with some physical qualities to appear blue, as we know today. The ignorance of yore is doggedly maintained by you and your fellows.

Life after death: Please, which is the state of your imagined eternal life? Is it the first two cells, the embryo, the sweet ignorant infant, the half illiterate, socially incompetent adolescent, the busy greedy adult, the pitiful Alzheimer patient (the latter, logically, would be the most probable, since closest in time to eternity). Which of these states do you hope to perpetuate?

MY "eternal life" concept is: "I will always have lived and gone through a stunning course of evolution, together with loved ones, friends, and mankind, of which I am one part."

Thomas, I don't hope to see mankind in the kingdom. It would be hell. Just imagine to have to find your way through the terrible crowd of repenting sinners, lol.

Thomas Baum,

Happy Easter to you.

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

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

Happy Bugs Bunny Day to you.

And shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........the adults are still talking here.

Go organise the Easter egg and bunny hunt. More fun doing that out there for this Easter weekend instead of continuing a cyber blog brawl here.

And take it easy pussycat. Don't hog the chocs. Give some to other kids.

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

And for the hedonists,

Happy Playboy Bunny Day.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

I assume you are Parker, the Mormon. If so, anyone that buys into the Joe Smith con will believe anything.

"Do no harm" sums it up. There was/is no Moroni to help us accomplish it.

And Happy Bunny Day!!!!

To Chris Everett (if you come back):
Since you dangled a few carrots for someone to munch on, I'll oblige on this eve of Good Friday.
1) Your belief that "heaven" (whatever that would mean to you) and earth evolved from either a big bang or some other super-start of the universe requires just as much faith as my belief that the Father and the Son were organizers (not creators from nothing, but organizers using knowledge of the principles involved in those organizing processes) of the matter and energy that became our solar system and galaxy. Just because science says it's so, doesn't make it so--there are too many unanswered questions.
2-4) Your belief that this earth-life is the end of your existence is fine by me, but I have not the least glimmer of doubt that your existence will continue after this life, and where you live or, better said, how you live, will basically be a continuation of how you lived on this earth, whether or not you believed in a Savior who could give you a boost from the world you're creating for yourself. You evidently don't believe in a Creator, but you are creating the world you live in every day, and will continue to so create. So, may you enjoy your creation and the energy, hopefully based in love, that you give off to those around you. Peace to you.

CCNL,
I realize you will want to respond, so that last sentence applies to you, too. May all of your grandchildren have a peaceful, joyful weekend.

Daniel you are getting tiresome. I ask you to think and you accuse me of racism. It's a pretty pathetic dodge. Were I an actual racist I wouldn't bother with you at all as I would categorically believe you incapable of thinking things through.

The only reason I talk to you at all is because I think you are a smart guy who is currently neck deep in faulty information. I don't hold this against you, nor would I hold it against anyone else.

Do I make mistakes? Of course that is the one constant with us Humans we make mistakes. In fact I am beginning to wonder if I made one with you.

It's not that the Republicans "profess" a religious ideology - it's that they pandered to it and got into bed with it that made them such a threat to democratic rights. Obama's protestations of ignorance of this guy's worldview seems ridiculous to me, but I can accept that he doesn't espouse the same views because he hasn't been pandering to the black church in the same way that Bushco pandered to the white religious right.

On the other hand, since Obama became more "black" by speaking with more of a southern-black drawl (hell-o! he's from the North and didn't grow up "in the hood") and leading cheers like a revivalist preacher he's become more polarizing. He has been attracting fewer and fewer white voters, while shoring up his black base. If the preacher's comments are tainting his candidacy it's because they fit in very well with the style he's begun to adopt.

Daniel in the Lyons Den:

You see, as far as I could tell, there was nothing in the post that was worth censoring, and, actually, WaPo does exclude posts for reasons I don't know, by methods I don't know.

Hence, we have all had to suffer through the mindless posts of Jo, whild other material gets bumped. At all events, I shall try again now to say what I wanted to early this afternoon.

What continues to trouble is Wright's association with Farakhan, that he not only gave him a lifetime achievement award, but accomanied him to Lybia to meet Gadaffi.

Farakhan's Lybian connection and financing is old and well known. He lives in luxury off the suffering of others. His religion bears almost relation to Islam as any Muslim of any sect will tell you. He is a racist and a thug, albeit a successful one.

Given that Wright has, for years, been closely associated with Farakhan, and that Wright and Obama have been close for many years, we can conclude that when Farakhan endorsed Obama, he gave his support to an entity known to him.

Therefore, Obama's statement that he did not solicit Farakhan's endorsement does not quite satisfy. (Not that I don't believe Obama. Only an idiot would solict the support of Farrakhan in a presidential race.)

Obama would do well to shed light on the Farakhan connection since, obviously, questions persist.

Farnaz

Thomas Baum,

And a Happy Easter to you!

Odd, though, I had always pegged you as an optimist.

Arminius

TO CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

Time will tell.

Happy Easter.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas of God Visions and Moses of the NT Baum,

You noted: "I am not an optimist nor a pessimist but I am a realist." You must be kidding considering your "hallucinating" past!!!!

GaryD

You always have an excuse and a justification for your unjust, unfair, and mean-spirited comments.

Have you ever been wrong in your entire life. ever?

You glibbly repeat over and over that people regard Obama as the second coming of Christ. But, there is not an ounce, not even a speck of truth in any of that. Maybe in that case, you should stop saying it. Repeating a lie over and over again will not make it true.

So, how come you get to be rude, hateful, and obnoxious, and engage in exagerrated hyperbole, but Rev. Wright cannot do EXACTLY the same thing that you do, routinely?

Maybe you judge black people by a higher standard than yourself, or white people.

But why do you do that?

I think I like it better when you quote mindlessly from the Bible, because, that, at least, seems like a more run-of-the-mill kind of nuttiness, that I am more use to.

And as I said before, there is a lot of "hate America" in your many sour-grapes comments. How come you get to "hate America" but then you are so offended by other critics of America? You should not promote your own petty hatred of America, if you are not going to entertain critics with other points of view.

TO TERRA GAZELLE:

You wrote on your post of 3-19-2008 at 11:11 PM, "Here is the sermon by Rev. Wright that Obama took the title of his book from. I found it interesting in that I, a Wiccan can take a lesson from it."

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith and you know what probably might bother some people about that sermon, they just might have to think and look at the reality of this world, not just their own little personal reality but that there are other people in the world besides themself.

I am not an optimist nor a pessimist but I am a realist.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hyperbole to make a point, Daniel. The internet (I have other political sights at which I am a regular poster so it isn't just here) is currently upto its eyeballs in people whom I have chosen to call the Obamanators.

These are people for whom by an large Sen. Obama could read selected paragraphs from the encyclopedia Britannica and they would wax eloquent about his eloquence, and prate endlessly about how wonderful his speech was.

There is no denying that Obama is a gifted Public speaker and a very Charismatic Individual. I just wish he put that eloquence to better use than snowing the unwary. This last speech for example was a masterpiece of Misdirection in which for most of those already on his bandwagon it proved sufficient to merely change the direction from Pastor Wright's Bigotry to that of others 40 years. In doing this however he also produced the peculiar idea that we should all care about race when frankly race ought to be the last thing anyone is concerned about if one wishes to move beyond racism.

Susan Jacoby wrote:

"I hold Mitt Romney responsible for every reactionary view held by the Mormon leadership on matters involving race and sex."

EVERY reactionary view?!? That's going too far, in my opinion. A church member cannot be held responsible for every single opinion voiced in the pulpit. As Obama said, no one agrees with everything he hears in church.

If Romney was a full-time high official in the church, this would be more reasonable.

I think Wright's comments have been taken out of context and distorted. Many, many people -- both conservatives and liberals -- have said similar things. "God damn America" means more or less the same as: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever." Does anyone think that Jefferson was an extremist, or anti-American?

Farnaz

I think you should be able to tell by what gets posted here that the Washington Post has almost no filtering or censorship process; almost anything goes. However, any "bad" word in your post will cause it to be rejected. This includes the basic anglo-saxon cuss words, and partiuclary nasty slurs.

I think there must be some sort of software filter that checks for specific verboten words, so that you cannot even use them in an ironic, sarcastic, humorous, satirical, or even clinical way. They are simply banned. If you have to use one of these words, then try to spell in some sort of code with other characters, or using blanks, apostrophes, or astericks, but even then, the software still might detect it and reject it. Or just use a similar, more acceptable synonym.

Also, I have posted late at night, and the post disaapears. This has happened more than once. I have heard other people with the same problem. Something is different late at night at WaPo that makes this happen; I do not know why, but I am sure it has nothing to do with the content of my posts.

Then sometimes, something just goes wrong, and a post does not appear, and I am certain that is not being censored for content. When that happens, I wonder, that maybe I have done something wrong. But in any event, they obviously have a lot of problems making this system work. For instance, sometimes the posts go from top to bottom and other times from bottom to top, and you look for the post at the wrong end, and then post it again, and again, wondering where it is, when all along, it is appearing over and over, at the other end of the thread.

If you post gets lost, it seems to be human nature to wonder if you were censored. But, if that has happened to you, it was probably some other kind of glicth. I feel pretty sure there is not much moderation, review, or censorhip here.

Dear Letsbepeaceful,

I understand.

Peace!

Farnaz

Farnaz -

It wsa a bit difficult to tell the context from your post about the Jewish stories - all you said was that Wright had phrased it that way in a letter. A minister relating stories as a way to connect does not seem to me to be unusual.

Wright's praise for Farrakhan is a problem for me also. Although Farrakhan is associated with some charitable organizations, in general his pronouncements and speeches are very divisive with no obvious attempt to see the broader picture or to bring resolution - they seem to be performances to gain attention. Wright tends to do this as well. (by the way, I think your post did show up).

Unfortunately I agree also that this will not 'go away' for Obama, mostly because we still do have racial issues that we are literally scared to even discuss for fear of being called prejudiced or racist.

the bush line was directed at other posters and meant to be a bit funny, that's why i separated it - sorry

Farnaz:

I have had a number of posts blocked here for no apparent reason. Sometimes I think they block based on a random number generator.

Arminius

Letsbepeaceful wrote:

"Farnaz: there are plenty of 'Jewish stories" in the Bible - Adam and Eve, Daniel in the Lion's den, David and Goliath, Jacob, Moses, all the Psalms. The first five books of the Old Testament are the Jewish Torah. Don't fault any preacher for reading them. It would indeed be odder for a rabbi to read from the New Testament."

Please don't even mention Obama's clear eloquence in the same sentence as Bush's inept 'everything's fine' announcements"

Letsbe:

I honestly do not want to get sidetracked. Moreover, I would have thought it obvious that I was not "fault[ing]" Wright for reading the Bible. He told these "stories" to a person he assumed Jewish as part of his way of making a connection with her. That, Letsbe, would be like my attempting to connect with a Christian by telling Christian Testament stories.

As for rabbis, many rabbis are scholars in the secular sense and are familiar not only with the Bible, but with the Christian Testament, the Qu'ran, and other sacred texts.

There are plenty of Christian stories in the Christian Testament: the virgin birth, John the Baptist, Mary Magdalene, walking on water, etc. Depending on the context, a rabbi might well mention them--I have heard mention of some of them by rabbis on panels.

However, I would certainly hope that in trying to make a connection with a reporter whose surname is Christian, no rabbi would start telling Christian stories, later referencing this episode to show his good will.

I did not mention Bush in my post. Indeed, I mention him as little as possible.

My present concern is with why my post, which mentioned Farakhan, about whom I am knowledgable, is being censored.

I for one am very concerned about the things Rev. Wright is telling his congregation. As I understand it, he is making the following outrageous claims:

1) God created heaven and earth;

2) God had a son Jesus, who was born of a virgin (Mary);

3) Jesus was crucified, died, descended into hell, rose back from the dead after three days, and ascended into heaven, where his sits at the right hand of God;

4) God will eventually send everyone to either heaven or hell, depending on whether or not they believe Jesus is Lord.

I'd like to see Obama repudiate this outrageous fear mongering immediately. Of course, Clinton and McCain are also hanging around people who spread the same kind of toxic lies, so it's only fair to call all three to the mat.

To Terra Gazelle:

You are, of course, absolutely correct about Buchanan. I found it amazing that he gave Obama 2 out of 3 stars because of the quality of this speech and I suspect that given a republican had delivered the exact same speech, the Buchanans of the world along with the Limbaughs would be proclaiming the second coming.

To give you a feel for just how powerful this speech was, I've just finished a dialog with my long-term (30 years) friend who is a very conservative republican. In fact, Brian has never voted for a democrat for president in his 56 year life.

But, and this is a big one, he admitted to me today that if he was convinced that Obama would try to reduce the number of abortions in this country, he would genuinely consider voting for him. Now you don't know Brian, but I can tell you if Brian makes a statement like that you can take it to the bank. This is no small confirmation about the quality and intellectual honesty of that speech. And that's one of the points he made -- he called it principled and brutally honest and hoped that people would watch the entire speech and not rely on snippets from the cable channels.

I'm not convinced Obama did his candidancy any good by that speech but from my perspective and from Brian's, it should have. It's hard to imagine a more vivid demonstration of what it means to put your candidancy where your mouth is. It took a startling amount of courage.

In case you haven't guesses, I'm a white, 55 year old man who owns a small software company. This is the first time I've joined a campaign and the first time I've given money to one. These are a lot of firsts for a single campaign this late in my life (and Brian's). Maybe the end of the world is coming :-)

If we were all brave and bold, we would all stand up and properly confront those with whoom we disagree - we however are all human and therefore we stand or sit in silence, fearing being put down or criticized.

I agree that we need more openness regarding the race issue. Obama makes several excellent points about the baggage that we all carry. (GaryD: many of us are still very concerned about racial issues. Although they are not as overt or as frequent as they once were, we have had several incidents here in NYC recently that may or do have racial undertones).

Farnaz: there are plenty of 'Jewish stories" in the Bible - Adam and Eve, Daniel in the Lion's den, David and Goliath, Jacob, Moses, all the Psalms. The first five books of the Old Testament are the Jewish Torah. Don't fault any preacher for reading them. It would indeed be odder for a rabbi to read from the New Testament.

Please don't even mention Obama's clear eloquence in the same sentence as Bush's inept 'everything's fine' announcements!

I just received the following:

"Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

Return to the original entry"

I thought this an interesting reply, given the content of my post. Should it be meet with "approval," I would be interested in knowing why it was held.

Farnaz

Reasonable,

Rev. Wright used inflamatory language, that is true, but from what I've heard/read, his points were all valid.

Which opinions of Rev. Wright do you disagree with and why?

GaryD

Why do you think that people regard Obama as the second coming of Christ? You have used that phrase several times. I do not know anyone who thinks that about him. I, for example, think of him as man, as fallible and flawed as any man who ever lived. It is just that when I am presented with the current list of candidates, which basically now amounts to 3 people, he is the one that I prefer, of the the 3.

So, why do you keep making such extreme exagerations such as this? and in the process, belittling everyone else, who has an opinion that does not coincide exactly with yours? It is called democracy and pluralism; maybe it is hard for you to digest all these differing ways of thinking and believing, but it is not really anything new; every 4 years, since long before I was born, we have this peculiar thing, called an election.

And no matter which guy (or girl this time) wins, somehow, everything keeps going, each new day appears and fades, into the next one, and the sky doesn't fall, and society does not collapse.

So, why are you so hysterical and shrill?

I just don't get it.

Thank you, Former Christian, for your excellent analysis of Obama's speech. Between you and Pat Buchanan, I think I've got it!

Daniel My family all thinks me a lovable old fuzz ball but then they're Christians.

By the way as I said on the main page for this thread. The thing I find most interesting is how little difference Obama's speech made for anyone.

The unreasoning people that act as though he were the second coming of Christ (never mind that the chief thing his speech revealed was that he is first and foremost just another politician) still act like he is. And those who weren't enamored of him in the first place are even less so now.

The only difference is that it seems to be that a few of those Obama supporters whose brains still seem to function have figured out that while he may still win the Democratic nomination, he may have hurt himself big time in the general election this fall.

Former Christian,

Pat Buchanan is a far right republican shill...let it be a conservative going through the same thing and he would be throwing roses at him for that speach. He is on all the talking heads shows and is as obnoxious as any I have seen.

What upsets me is like on Anderson 360...three people on the panel...two republican and a Clintonite. The Clintonite again spreads the lie that Obama did not put his hand over his heart for the Pledge...when she should know by now, it was the Anthem. The hand does not have to go over the heart for it..and she brought up not wearing the flag pin. This is SO dumb...why give China money for a fake "look at me" patriotism.

I certainly agree with you, Obama is a breath of fresh air. I mean a man that tells the truth wether it helps him or not? and yes we are way out of practice of telling the difference between BS and truth, its been such a long time.

Like Obama said...those who were never going to vote for him still won't. Those who want what he stands for will hang in with him. I believe that if we allow the "swiftboating" to win again, we will forever have to go through this. We will never have an honest election that talks about what matters to us. It looks like between Hillary's lies and Rush Limbaugh's republicans Obama has the deck stacked against him. We will see who wins.

terra

Correcton:

I thought it was probably some little TOWN in Kentucky, or something...

GaryD

Thankyou for your explanation of that mysterious "pablum" that you keep referring to. I thought it was probably some little in Kentucky, or something. You have really moved the discussion forward in an enlightened and intelligent way. Maybe, someday, I will be as smart as you.

PS
I'm sorry your family don't like you.

Thanks to Farnaz for following up on Obama and Nation of Islam linkages. I too, was unable to find anything and so I've concluded they are as genuine as those given by Dick Cheney when he spoke about linkages between Saddam and al Qaeda.

I've been watching with great interest the reaction to Obama's speech by political pundits. In general, the media has been positive but conservatives feel obligated to find some fault with it.

An interesting person to watch is Pat Buchanan. As a former speech writer, he knows what comprises a good speech.

Generally, there are three components, two of which he indicated Obama hit out of the park. The third he questioned and it really is the only aspect of the speech that can be questioned, if you were objectively evaluating it.

The first criteria is laying out the facts in a coherent fashion that not only stood up to scrutiny, but built upon each other to make a bigger point.

From an intellectual, an organizational and an honesty perspective Obama couldn't have done much better. There are those that may quibble that it was too challenging intellectually for the average American and maybe, since it's been years since we've been challenged by a speech, maybe that part of our brain has atrophied. But all in all, it would be difficult for anyone to claim this was not a well-crafted speech.

The second evaluation criteria is delivery -- how well did Obama deliver the speech. Again, using some of Pat Buchanan's words, there are few people that can deliver a speech as well as Barack Obama. Knowing when to be emotional and when to tone down, his delivery is pitch perfect.

Now, the last criteria and the one that Buchanan falts him for is did it meet its objective?

Here the evaluation becomes much more subjective and that's why many of the pundits have chosen to evaluate his speech on this single criteria.

It's more subjective because everyone chooses what they think the objective is. If I were to say his objective is to cure cancer through this speech, it would be easy to shoot the hole speech down saying he did not meet his objectives. In fact, the basis for this entire discussion assumes one or more objectives for giving this speech. Pat Buchanan indicated that the real reason to give this speech is to win the nomination and in order to win the nomination he's got (as per Buchanan) to win Joe Sixpack from Pennsylvania.

You see, it's much easier to throw your own conclusion about the purpose of the speech and then shoot that aspect down (Buchanan concluded that he would not win over Joe Sixpack from this speech).

I read something different in his objective. I thought that what he did by giving that exact speech was to give you a glipse of what a country, led by President Barack Obama, would look like and let me tell you, I found it refreshing, exciting and more than a little uplifting.

I thought he gave this speech to show us that he can deal with both sides of the aisle, with two sides of the most difficult issues, and that he wasn't going to take the easy way out.

Just think about one other point. President Bush has given a couple of speeches on the economy and one on Iraq in the last week. None of his speeches do more than just skim over the periphery of these issues and most are comprised of little more than "I believe" or "I feel".

At his best, Bush can barely make it through a speech someone else has written for him and you really get the opinion that he could no more defend his positions than he could write the speech.

Barack Obama wrote that speech on race.

So Obama had his Rev. Wright moment and Bill Clinton had his Sista Soulja moment.

Or should we say Obama had his Rev. Wright moment and Dick Cheney had his shotgun mea culpa moment?

Is this whole episode about Obama and race, or is it about Obama being praised for any silly thing he says?

The thing about Bill Clinton and Sista Soulja was whether a candidate seeking white votes from African Americans could criticize any black person. So maybe Obama should confront a white liberal and slap him or her around some.

The thing about Dick Cheney's hunting accident is that it was an aberration that caught the public's attention at a slow point (holiday weekend). To make this comparison shows that Obama is more frivolous than we first knew.

And if of course Obama was actually giving a speech like JFK's speech on Catholicism, then shouldn't he expain that if elected he would not be answering to the resurrected spirit of Brother James Brown?

All these are heady topics to discuss at the Post's faith board on Good Friday, but there seems to be no content geared toward those who might navigate here on the most solemn day of the Christian calendar.

Sending the money to charity is reasonable. Rezco is a scary, motley crew, but unless and until the assets of the whole disgusting enterprise are seized, I see no reason for Obama not to have done what he did with the money.

Farnaz

Sending the money to charity is reasonable. Rezco is a scary, motley crew, but unless and until the assets of the whole disgusting enterprise are seized, I see no reason for Obama not to proceed in this way.

Farnaz

Reasonable,
Obama sent 150,000 to charity.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1077488

terra

So can anyone tell me what the sermons were that those clips were taken from?
I mean over 27000 minutes and all of 30 seconds taken out...so tell me, why the five years between the clips. Was all the sermons like those clips? Why not consecutive sermons...? Why those ones? Who would go through 5 years of sermons if they did not have to?

Were the other sermons not contreversal enough? Not inflammatory enough?

But really...what was the sermons? If the clips were taken where is the rest of them?

I want to hear what those clips came from. Don't you?
And Obama did a informative speach on Iraq...you know an issue..? So where is the conversation about that?

terra

Susan-
Any candidate, Pub or Dem, that listens to Wright's crapola and does not walk out, has lack of judgement that makes him/her devoid of the proper mind to be President.

Ash- Mark my words- any candidate that come out of the atheist closet will not be elected to President.

The only way a atheist will be president in this country will be if they stay in the closet.

Former Christian wrote to Yes! Time For A Change!

"I'd like to hear specifics about the claim that Obama is gaining secret help from the Nation of Islam. Do you have any evidence or are you making assumptions based on rumor?"

So would I.

Therefore, I spent a bit of time trying to track them down and found nothing, which is not to say that nothing is there. We await the response of
Yes! Time For A Change!

What I did find, much to my chagrin, was that Obama redirected $150,000 of contributions from Rezco, that Wright accompanied Farakhan to Lybia to visit Gadaffi.

As for direct expressions of antisemitism (at the Arun Gandhi level), I, again, found nothing. I did see a letter written by Wright, in which he refers to having told someone "Jewish stories (sic) from the Bible." That troubles me less than giving Farakhan a lifetime achievement award and visiting Gadaffi with same, although I imagine some Christians would be offended by an Imam or Rabbi referring to having told Christian stories from the Bible.

Given all this fondness for Farakhan, I am surprised that the revend used Malcolm X's words about the chickens coming home to roost. Malcolm used those words in reference to the Kennedy assassination, for much the same reasons that the reverend did with reference to 9/11. The problem is that Betty Shabazz thought, and many, many others think that Farakhan, the reverend's friend, is responsible for Malcolm's murder.

Well. . .The Rezco thing remains the most troubling to me of all of this, since it goes directly to Obama, and I will pursue it further.

As for the false analogy to his wife's grandmother, he does not go to her for "spiritual guidance" (May I add that cabs have passed me by, right now in 2008, because I am a brown person? That some of those cabdrivers are black, that black cabdrivers pass by black passengers in favor of white passengers all the time in New York? That doesn't mean that either those black passengers or I deserve the presidency any more than Clinton or anyone else does. Susan and everyone else has the right to support anyone they wish, but let us not use demagoguery in the process.)

Farnaz

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Unbelievable!!! You still don't understand. Listen up!!! It is all about the founder and foundations of the major religions. In your case, Mohammed and his embellishing, lying biographers. You cannot simply blame radical Islamics for the violence since every Muslim believes that the koran is inerrant but it is not. Its flawed passages are based on the hallucinations of spirits that only children believe in but it is the rock of your religion. The violence won't break until you shatter said rock for every Muslim!!!!!

Again, your imams and clerics have been feeding you errors, myths and lies for over 1400 years and you don't find that reprehensible???? Time to walk away into the great Reality!!!

Here is the sermon by Rev. Wright that Obama took the title of his book from. I found it interesting in that I, a Wiccan can take a lesson from it.

http://www.preachingtoday.com/sermons/sermons/audacityofhope.html

terra

Actually, Senator Obama talked to Americans like we were adults, and expected us to do some critical thinking of our own. He challenged us to say "no more" to racial divisions that are hurting this country. Too bad that you can't do that, GaryD.

Susan Jacoby wrote : "Isn't it high time for a secular humanist or atheist candidate..."

Talk to the "Great Leader" of North Korea and convince him to run for president here. Who knows, he might accept the offer.

His platform could be : No more holidays and independent journalism.

That would a positive change coz I would be seeing Susan finally working her hands on the farm all year-round and no room to publish her trash.

Wheeew...that would be a breath of fresh air. On that case, he could count on my vote.

So let's start the campaigning : Long Live Gteat Leader !!!

To: Yes! Time For A Change!:

I'd like to hear specifics about the claim that Obama is gaining secret help from the Nation of Islam. Do you have any evidence or are you making assumptions based on rumor?

Thank you for clarifying your comments Susan. I may have read your original post too quickly.

See President Bush. That wasn't so hard was it? You can admit to a mistake and the world will not end.

Susan, here are a couple of additional points.

I too would be happy to have an honest, atheist or person of undetermined religion (including no religion) run for high office. Whereas Obama cringed when his grandmother sometimes issued insensitive remarks, I cringe because Obama feels the need to express his faith publicly. The world seemed better off to me, when people could separate their personal beliefs from their governmental responsibilities. But to paraphrase Rumsfeld (oh no....) we are left with the political environment that we have, not the one that we wished we had.

To my knowledge, there has only been one outright atheist elected as a congressman, I beleive from California.

My modest hope is that Obama is elected and manages to substitute reason for god in government.

I'd like to point out that most of the posts published here are well thought out and although I disagree with many, I find a good deal of thought behind them.

However, some who have posted here have criticized Obama for not completely disassociating himself from Wright. Some of these criticisms seem genuinely angry and border on the incendiary levels that Wright is accused of. I find that to be a little strange.

A final comment on Katrina (and I'm still wondering how the dialog evolved into a discussion of Katrina). One of the FEMA executives, soon after it became apparent how extensive the damage was, suggested on a television interview that if you took a bomb about the size of that which was dropped on Hiroshima and dropped in on New Orleans and were somehow able to remove the radiation, the damage to the city and infrastructure would be comparable.

Now, I certainly don't know the relative damage of an atom bomb versus a category 5 huricane. But, if an atom bomb were dropped on any city in the United States, would anyone question whether the federal government should play a major role in the rescue, the recovery or the rebuilding?

All of this talk of local responsibility applies to situations where there is a local emergency service able to respond.

In the case of a disaster this widespread, no one would question whether the feds should take responsibility if this were a bomb of equal devastation. Why should we question whether the federal government should assume responsiblity when nature supplied the bomb?

Jihadist,

About time you are back. Lady, you are a class act!

Arminius

Withholding a post means I'll never post here again & thank you for your censorship.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:)

What? Not yet at the Vatican for Good Friday through Easter? And for the walk on Good Friday there? Want a hot cross bun? I'm still getting them.

Shhhhhhh.....the adults are trying to talk here.

Why don't you go out and play something romantic and exciting and expensive and with no end in sight? Here's a trillion.

After that, you can ask, demand all Muslims around the world to be held accountable and responsible for, to condemn and deplore, to disassociate and disavow, what some rabid, non-bona fide self-appointed imam in a mosque in Lahore or London said on race and religion.

Same religion, but wrong colour and still a problem, no? Wrong colour, wrong religion? Oh my!

And shhhhhh..............let the adults continue talking here. Please don't interrupt them.

Inflation. Recession. Crossanization - The Axis of No Hope, No Faith.

Take it easy pussycat.

The truth hurts huh,Daniel? Quit sucking up that leftist pablum and do some fact checking of your own. Pablum: weak tasteless old time baby food.

Obama is treating you and your fellows like babies and you and they rather than being incensed about such cavalier treatment are acting like he's the second coming of Christ. Wake up think for yourself and do some research somewhere other than the DU Daily Kos or Huffington Post. Unless of course you prefer to believe comfortable lies rather than figure out the truth for your self.

The biggest mistake one can make in a faith based organization is to stake one's life on the human leader rather than the fundamental premise of the faith.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/03/18/reporting-on-reverend-wright-and-getting-it-wrong/

What's pablum?

GaryD

Nonsense you idiot!

Rev. Wright is being characterized by snippets of sermons, that alone is a farce. A person should be judged on their actions, not their words. In this case, Rev. Wright and Obama's actions prove they are healers not dividers. Too bad we can't say that for the present President. Now that is a national conversation I'd like to be a part of...!

Susan Jacoby writes (in her comment below):

"And yes, you can choose your pastor but you can't choose your grandmother. But you can't choose the color of your skin, and that a black man might love an older black man who grew up at a time when life was much, much tougher for blacks is hardly incomprehensible."

This, together with the original post, is a wonderful bit of insight and clarity. Thank you.

I generally agree with your posts and your views. I do think you should keep this in mind, however:

Just because something is not religious does not make it good. Just because something is religious does not make it bad.

Daniel your allies of course are the other Obama worshipers who keep sucking up that pablum Sen. Obama pours out.

Bush did call repeatedly. Brownie called repeatedly.

The local people Mayor and governor are responsible not the feds for the initial evacuation. FEMA has said for nearly 20 years that you need to be prepared to survive on your own for up to 72 hours.

The feds were there in 48. For them that isn't bad.

Thank Zeus for the breath of fresh air that is Barack Obama! He should be elected president solely on his ability to make lemonade out of the lemons that have been handed to him in the past few weeks. I'm starting to believe that Obama could take an Iranian invasion of Iraq and turn it into a successful global initiative to end war forever.

To those who hope for Obama's - or any Democratic candidate's - downfall, I'd say they'll need to wait. Obama is too smart and too adroit to fall into the old political traps being sprung on him. Nothing is sorrier than a politician who brings a knife to a gunfight, and that's what Obama's opponents are bringing to this fight.

At the most-basic level, most Americans can identify with Obama's predicament of having a "crazy uncle" in their lives. Who among those of us of the white male persuasion have not at one time or another failed to stand up to racist comments made in our presence? Who among we Americans have not failed to stand in protest when bush and his minions have sought to dismantle our Constitution? We all - all of us - have an "Obama's crazy uncle situation" somewhere in our past...and possibly our present.

Here's hoping that we have the guts as a people to move this discussion onto the higher ground where Obama has placed it, and to hold this discussion openly.

It is understandable that when faced with a hard truth humans try to reason their way out of it in order to stay in their comfort zone rather than face the truth.

We are responsible to discover the truth and to make our decisions based on it.

We are responsible for choosing which 'shepherd' to follow and what doctrine we subject ourselves to week after week and year after year.

When a person gets into trouble it is normal to try to divert attention.

This was what Mr. Obama did in his speech.

I would also remind you that the Bush Doctrine is to deny, deny, deny.

Hurricane Katrina is a bit off topic but:

Citizens who want to live in proven weather danger zones should foot the bill. Ditto for citizens who live in active earthquake zones.

GaryD

What allies of mine are you referring to? I don't know anyone here, on this forum, nor do I have any political connections to them. personally. I am just a person, expressing my political preference, and the one I prefer is Obama. Is that a crime? Is that a sin? It is only in your own mind, the way that you read other's that people who like Obama are in collusion, when, after all, it is a political contest for President. This is America; that is what we have always done, every four years; if you don't like how it is going, I guess that is too bad. On another thread, I was accused of being racist against white people because the one I like best is black. If you ask me, I always detect a little "hate America" in alot of your posts, so you are hardly in a position to condemn anyone who has a criticism of America.

Regarding your comments on Hurricane Katrina and President Bush, and the Federal Bureaucracy, it is HIS Bureaucracy. President Bush is the CEO of the Executive Branch. He could have picked up the phone to his subordinates, anytime that he felt like it, to get things moving on Katrina, but he did not. I do not say that he hates blacks, he just did not care. It was as though he was expecting someone else to do his job for him. He was, and still is, too busy with his war, to worry or care about his other responsibilities.

And once again, I would like to point out that you are a pretty rude, even obnoxious guy. You can never make a comment without a nasty little dig at somneone. I am sensing that you may be a bitter old man. So good luck with your nastiness; I will certainly try, from now on, not to respond to you.

I could not agree less with Susan.

While it is a huge problem for Mr. Obama it should not be. We voters in this country have been reduced to nothing but sound-bite listeners and this issue makes for great sound-bites.

I long for a return to the "ignorance is bliss" time. Do I care if Mr. Obama's pastor made racist remarks? Heck no. Do I understand why the pastor would make such remarks? Heck yes. Its time to let candidates have personal lives again. Personal lives away from the press, away from the cameras, personal lives away from us.

I do agree with Susan that it is time for a discussion to occur about race. A discussion where real people put forward real feelings and real arguments. Not the false arguments that we are accustomed to hearing. These false statements coming mostly from us white folks. Like "its been 150 years, can't we get past this?". Or "Affimative Action has set everything equal, lets move on".

Can we not think outside ourselves? Outside our pretty little world? Take a look at the world and you will find its mostly shades of brown. Not white, not yellow, not red, not black. Brown and browner.

How many of us whites really embrace others of a different race? Not many of my generation. I am a child of the 60s who is proud to have my best friend be a black man, of being married to a Hispanic woman, and having many friends from Asia and India. I do treat everyone with a difference because there is a difference but what they do not see is a difference in me. I respect all with the same respect I show my parents and siblings. I treat my friends as if they were my family. Race, creed, color does not matter, the type of person does.

Thankfully, we are moving forward in race relations. Many whites feel as I do even here in the deep South. Will we ever elect an atheist as president? I think so. But only one who can separate from the normal God-bashing path that many atheists take. While I push my God on no one who does not want to speak about Him, please do not push your atheist theories on me. Only an atheist that can do that will win the majority of a people, who at last count, still say there is a God.

Daniel you and your allies are the only ones here with your heads buried firmly in the sand. Change? To What? The people responsible for the tragedy at Tuskegee are those with whom Mr. Wright, and Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are most closely allied politically.

Let me tell you a little secret. Governments in general suck. And the bigger they are the worse they suck. The people you support want more and bigger government meaning essentially that they are demanding that government needs to suck more than it already does.

Katrina was a disaster not because Bush hates black people but simply because the federal government has become so large and unwieldy that it takes days if not weeks just to get everything moving in the appropriate direction. And our three tiered system of government in which political animus can quickly combine with simple inertia to produce a momentous calamity, only aggravates the situation.

I agree with Chris Everett. You can just keep your head buried in the sand like GaryD, or you can "get real" to quote him.

One complaint about Obama has been that he does not wear an American flag lapel pin. Yesteday during his speech, he stood in front of 8 American flags; that's 8! eight!! EIGHT !!!

Count'em. EIGHT flags. Well, I suppose that should satisfy all of the flag worshippers; he stood in front of EIGHT flags.

He has now learned his lesson; he has acquired flag-consciousness. Now, on to the real issues.

Whatever you do, DON'T vote for Ralph Nader! We don't need four more years of Republican hegemony. Mr. Nader is UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED!

I youtubed Rev. Wright's "incendiary" comments and found them to be just fine. Sure, they're polemical and provocative, but they speak to truths that have been buried in pain, which might otherwise not be reached. And from what I saw, that pain wasn't channeled towards revenge or hatred, but instead was used to sensitize the congregants to pain and injustice everywhere.

Now if he would just stop spewing all that toxic, superstitious crap about God, Jesus and the friggin' Bible, I might want him as MY pastor.

Mr. Obama simply pointed out a generational difference in the experience of his grandmother and his pastor. That does not explain to me why he is willing to continue to attend a church and listen to sermons that damn the United States.

Mr. Obama's attempt to place this issue within the broader context of generational change in race relations is political manipulation at its worst. Shame on you, Barack Obama.

Both your grandmother and your pastor deserve better from you. Shame for accepting 'secret' help from the Anti-America "Nation of Islam" , in fact, without your Grandmothers knowledge all this time, until you have been exposed.

'Situational lieing' through his Baratone voice & slick selection of Words, not trick, THE PEOPLE, is a lame excuse!

SHAME OBAMA! Shame Oprah Winfrey! Shame Luis Farakahn! Shame REV. WRIGHT! Shame N.A.A.C.P.!

Since I believe that much of the content of Rev. Wright speeches that I watched on youtube contained truth despite being offended at his tone and damnation, I tried to defend that point of view in this blog because I thought that others would not know about that line of reasoning, which can be found in the writings of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, amoung others.

I just watched Obama's speech and I thought that he did a good job walking a fine line between what Rev Wright has said, the divisive nature of his speeches, and Obama's participation in his church.

But I still say, vote for Ralph Nader.

www.votenader.org

Oh there "Reality Challenged", "Malaysian Deflawer" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

You noted: "Disassociating oneself from a pastor, an imam, a rabbi, a political leader for what they do and said that is personally reprehensible to us could and should be the easiest thing to do.

Many regretable words and deeds are done by those whom we love and trusted just because they don't show, and we don't see and hear, or won't see and hear how they hurt others by their words and actions just because they don't say and do such to us."

Hmmm, your imams and clerics have been feeding you errors, myths and lies for over 1400 years and you don't find that reprehensible???? Time to walk away into the great Reality!!!

In case you forgot or there are some new Muslim "bloggers" here this evening:

The First Four Flaws/Errors of Islam,

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Susan,
I enjoy your writing style and some of your insights as well as your articulateness usually, but since you thought it suited your purpose to bring up Romney and Mormonism, I suppose it suits my purpose to suggest that there are reasons beneath the surface for LDS leadership positions in the past on the two issues you brought up in your aside. But as African-origin latter-day Saints grow in numbers throughout the world, you may find that it no longer suits your purpose to bring up an old problem on that score.

As to the other issue, Darwin wasn't friendly to your cause on that position, either, and isn't he considered a kind of master-mind for those who share your position on evolution from inorganic material? Perhaps you should re-read "Descent of Man" and may then realize that secularism has many sides to it that it seems to me would make it pretty difficult for one to dodge the aspersions that would be drawn upon to discredit such a candidate as you suggested in your close from running for president. But I would welcome someone like Emerson, if there were such a person in our time, running. Also, I agree with Arminius that a Lincoln-like president who would gather strong advisors with strongly varied opinions, and was willing to listen to them, would be heartily welcomed to lead our country. I for one wish it could be so.

In my usual manner of marginal relevance, I'd like to pick up on the remark on being passed up by taxis.

I used to drive hack in New York City, and I soon learned to pass up the younger black people. Black people below a certain age uniformly (I never had an exception) treat cab drivers like dirt. They order you around in a brutal manner, act as if you're all the cab drivers who didn't pick them up, act incredibly entitled because you're required by law to pick them up, and have you drive them to Harlem or Bushwick and tip you 25 cents. Or take you to Newark and not pay you at all.

After a certain age, they become (or became, at the time) civilized, and I tried to use my judgement. But I can see how some cabbies would deal with the problem by simply not picking up any black fares at all.

Susan,

I am sorry. I see you did respond, in part, to Former Christian. Perhaps, you will respond to him/her more fully, and to me.

Farnaz

Susan,

I would be interested in your thoughts concerning Former Christian's 4:08 post. The involvement with Farakhan, a racist, opportunistic thug, who may have been behind the murder of Malcolm X does raise questions.

My problems with Obama originated with his "feelies" approach to the election, perfect for the current state of US media. They grew to include his position on health care and immigration, at least as they are described on his website. On health care, he actually said that making it mandatory would be like requiring every homeless person to have a house. One would, and does, think that someone as smart and educated as Barack would know what a false analogy is. Learning that in 2005 and 2006, he voted for unconditional increased funding for the Iraq war was also not encouraging. His opposition to the war occurred before he entered the Senate, when his views carried as much weight as my own.

All of this was quite unfortunate, since I had and have serious doubts about Clinton, and would have liked the Democrats to come up with a convincing alternative. For me, that alternative would have been Edwards, a white Christian man, quite to the left of Clinton, who is to the left of Obama. Personally, I could not care less about a president's religious affiliation or lack thereof, whether or not s/he believes in God, whether or not s/he is likeable or inspiring. Can s/he do the job? But you see, exercising good judgement is part of the job.

This Farrakhan thing gets curiouser and curiouser. He is such a successful thug. He must know that in Hitler's evolutionary science Jews evolved from black people. Science did a remarkable expose on this about twenty years ago, remarkable only because it brought the German scientific community's denial into the light of science discourse. Mosse, of course, had written brilliantly on this topic earlier.

(Of course, black and Jewish are false binaries, as we know, but that is another matter. I, myself, am brown and Jewish.)

Farrakhan is not Former Christian's only concern. He makes several points, all of which, I think, lend themselves to intelligent dialogue.

I do hope you reply to him/her.

Farnaz

Hi, Jihadist!

Hot cross buns are not a tradition here in America. Must be a Brit thing.

Glad you are here. CCNL is rabidly foaming at the mouth on other threads, and he needs your gentle touch! (LOL!)

Arminius

Susan Jacoby : "And yes, you can choose your pastor but you can't choose your grandmother. But you can't choose the color of your skin, and that a black man might love an older black man who grew up at a time when life was much, much tougher for blacks is hardly incomprehensible."

I would think that while we can't chose who our past, current and future family were, are, and to be, we can and do chose our friends, our leaders, our priests, pastors, rabbis, imams. We can grow out of them. We can walk away from them. We can disassociate ourself from them.

People do fell out with and walk out, walk away from their family, including grandparents, parents, wife, children, for any given reason, including falling out of love, for irreconcible differences.

Disassociating oneself from a pastor, an imam, a rabbi, a political leader for what they do and said that is personally reprehensible to us could and should be the easiest thing to do.

Many regretable words and deeds are done by those whom we love and trusted just because they don't show, and we don't see and hear, or won't see and hear how they hurt others by their words and actions just because they don't say and do such to us.

Should trust and love be an acceptable reason to tolerate their regrettable words and actions? Especially one of some community importance in the public square?

What do we do about that? In third world, developing country politics, we would hurl accusations of nepotism and cronyism at our political aspirants and political masters in tolerating or defending or accepting words and actions by their family and friends.

And, oh yes, I am not voting for a secular humanist or an atheist just because he or she won't invoke God or religion. I am voting for him or her for her ability not only to deliver on what he or she said she would do - on the economy, on social issues (corruption, abuse of power, education, health) etc.

No one is saying just because someone don't believe in God and think religion is fiction is therefore deem to be more rational, logical etc and is going to be a more effective leader and public official. My non-believing Chinese Member of Parliament is a competent fellow and responsive public official and consequently recently re-elected. But I can't say for a few other atheists in our political leadership at the state and federal level. They talk it better than they walk it on public issues - the non-delivery sort of public officials on public expectations - from the state of the economy, schools, health, collection of garbage etc.

And I must say, a valiant effort to urge declared atheists, agnostics, apatheists, secular humanists, spiritual atheists, spiritual secularists, freethinkers to stand for public office in the US. Time for them to walk the talk.

And seperation of church and state is not the one and only public issue. He or she, and most likely he, may probably find himself out of office not because of his non-belief or stance on seperation of church and state, but in getting caught with a person who is not his spouse - mistress, prostitutes etc in a hotel room or a public rest room.

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

Hello Arminius and Daniel in the Daniel's Den,

Happy Easter to you both.

Some clients send our office hot cross buns. Those buns being a British tradition practiced here on Easter by Christians as this country was formally colonised by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What a mounthful of a full name for any country, eh? Is it a tradition over there - across the Pacific? I can't remember.

God bless.

Thanks and best regards as always

"J"

Daniel get real the only people concerned about race in this country are on the political left or are delusional (Rev Wright and the KKK being examples of the latter). I long ago took Rev King's dictim to heart and I suggest you and others ought to do the same.

Susan those were very astute comments. Obama has now indeed allowed himself to be hoist upon a petard of his own making. If he leaves the church of his youth over the indefensible statement of Pastor Wright he will find himself characterized by the more radical elements within the black community as "just another Tom selling his soul for the white man's dollar" And he is dependent on them to turn out the black vote for him to a certain extent and he will be even more reliant on that vote in the general election than he has thus far been in certain states in the Democratic primaries. If he doesn't it could very well cost him the general election in November.

Obama comes across as a decent human being and one with whom I'd cheerfully sit down over a cup of tea (I don't care for coffee)and discuss world events. Frankly however I trust neither his paucity of experience nor his leftist heritage enough to place him in charge of the country.

Susan,

It is always great to know that you read what we say, and reply to it.

I am with you in support of Obama.

Could you do everyone a favor here, and delete JJ's latest psycho-drool, which has taken up 3/4 of the space of this thread?

Arminius

Daniel ITLD,

Wow, good to see you here, allies are few and far between.

Right you are about Honest Abe. A wiser president we may have never had. As you say, he knew America was sliding down that slippery slope to a place about which none had a clue. So he chose to offer an olive branch to his foes, trading for their views. A lesson for today.

Arminius

"I hold Mitt Romney responsible for every reactionary view held by the Mormon leadership on matters involving race and sex."

Psstttt-- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hasn't held any views that could even remotely be considered "reactionary" on race for at least 30 years. And their views on gender, while certainly conservative, are by no means "reactionary." To report otherwise is to have one's head in the proverbial pile of sand, and does not speak well of the reporter's credibility.

By the way, I want to make it clear (if it isn't already clear to the people who read this thread) that I am an Obama supporter.

I think this was a great speech precisely because it spoke frankly of the racist heritage that lives in all of us (even those of us who have worked hardest to overcome it). When Obama said he could no more disown his angry black pastor than he could disown his sometimes racist white grandmother, that rang true to me. His pastor, and the experience of an older generation of black men represented by his pastor, is a part of him, just as his grandmother is a part of him. That he rejects both of their views on race does not mean he rejects them as human beings. And yes, you can choose your pastor but you can't choose your grandmother. But you can't choose the color of your skin, and that a black man might love an older black man who grew up at a time when life was much, much tougher for blacks is hardly incomprehensible.

Dear Arminius

Yes, you are quite right, Abraham Lincoln appointed a cabinet of rivals and even enemies. He did this because he had a GIGANTIC problem on his hands, and he did not have a CLUE about what to do. He did not want a bunch of "yes" men around him; he wanted to hear the awful truth.

I cannot imagine that a modern President would appoint rivals and enemies to his cabinet. But maybe Obama would. I hope so. I think the President should hear the awful truth, at least occaisionally.

America has racial problems. Barak Obama's association with the extremest Pastor is a good opportunity for racist people to justify why they do not like him. (At least they have stopped calling him a Muslim). But those people would never vote for him, anyway.

It is also a good discussion to have, in general, as painful as it might be. I do not think it helps Hillary, because she is being left behind, in the the dust-up and fog of this turmoil, while the spotlight remains on Obama, shining even brighter than ever.

He already has more convention delegates than she does, and she is not likely to catch-up. The question is, can Obama beat McCain?

The best thing I can say about McCain is that he is not as bad as Bush. But he is now older than Ronald Reagan was at the same time in Reagan's campaign. To me, he seems a little like a grouchy, stubborn old man. You might prefer this candidate for philosophical reasons, if in general, you think that a Republican Preseident would be better than a Democratic one. But when you hold the two men up for contrast, I think it is obvious which one would make a more competent, clever, and dexterious President.

Over the years, I too have disagreed with some of the views of my parents and in-laws. However, I told them that I didn't agree and we had in-depth conversations on the subjects. My question is did Obama ever tell the reverend he didn't approve of some of his remarks????

Former Christian:

You said, among other good stuff, "Wouldn't you rather have someone like Barak Obama in the White House, unafraid to work with people who he agrees with and disagrees with?"

YES! Like Lincoln, who put political enemies in his cabinet, so he would have the benefit of different views instead of operating in an echo chamber. Old Abe would have been proud of Obama. America needs Obama. We must at least try to heal the wounds.

Obama fesses up to his mistakes, something that can't be said about the knuckle-dragger currently slouching about the oval office. Obama will reach out to all, extend a hand of friendship even to his enemies. That reminds me of someone - guy by the name of Jesus.

Arminius

Someone said: Is Obama's judgment lacking when he supports a pastor who gives a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, one of the most destructive racist and anti-Semitic besides Hitler and Pol Pot?

This is an interesting question and fortunately, one in which Obama has handily answered.

No longer am I looking for a candidate that is so confident of his positions, that long after everyone acknowledges there were serious mistakes, the candidate cannot. Sound familiar?

Bush and McCain are still claiming that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Talk about big mistakes.

But when Obama has been confronted by a mistake what has he done?

In the case of Rezko, Obama called his own actions "plain stupid" and then opened himself up to reporters, for over an hour of questions on his relationship with Rezko.

Now, I don't know about you, but I find this kind of honesty refreshing. Admitting that he made a mistake, no, that he was stupid, is on the other end of the spectrum from Bush, Cheney, McCain and Clinton. It even gives one hope that someone can learn from their mistakes.

Now, about his pastor, what does he do?

He could have labelled the man a racist, much like Someone did and separated himself from the man completely. Or, he could have used this opportunity to explain why some black people feel this way; acknowledge why white people believe that they sometimes get the short end of the racial preferences stick and work to make things better.

Wouldn't you rather have someone like Barack Obama in the White House, unafraid to work with people who he agrees with and disagrees with?

And one more comment. It's real easy to say "this is going to be a problem for the Obama campaign". Those kinds of statements are gutless because who can argue with them and it doesn't tell anyone about your judgement, about how you feel. This comment goes for you too Susan.

Rather than say something like this is going to be a problem for Obama's campaign, make a commitment. Will you not vote for someone whose pastor has said some vile things? Why or why not? Will you vote for him only if he severs all ties to his pastor or will you look at his pastor, much like I look at Obama and everyone else. On some issues like working with the poor, I agree with his pastor. On his general condemnation of America, I disagree. Take a stand. Don't comment on how you think this issue will affect the campaign. Speak of that to which you know -- how will it affect your support for Clinton, Obama, McCain?

"What makes this country so great is religion"

Evidence of this, please?

"Isn't it high time for a secular humanist or atheist candidate,..."

"Sorry girl, but that just ain't gunna happen. Not then, not now, not ever. What makes this country so great is religion, and theres no way anyone can get rid of that. I'm not trying to be bigotrous (I just made that word up), because I'm not, but the fact is this country will NEVER elect a freethinker, secular humanist, Atheist, anti-Theist, Agnostic, or any other religion that falls in that realm. Thats just the cold hard facts."

Like say the notorious freethinker Thomas Jefferson? Too late, it's already happened.

Evangelical religion is what makes us a joke among most of the other industrialized nations.

Susan,

This is one column where I think you have missed the mark. First, are you saying that Obama must agree with everything his pastor says or else he must divorce him?

You said, "If you are a political candidate who is a devout member of a church, as Obama says he is, you surely must answer for whatever is preached from the pulpit of that church."

And answer he did. He admires the man who works to obtain health care for those that can't afford it -- even HIV infected people. He admires the man who tries to get jobs for people to which jobs are not readily available. And he condems those comments or approaches with which he disagrees.

Why does a person's minister have to match your feelings issue by issue? The answer is it doesn't and probably never will. Obama says he disagrees with his Pastor's condemnation of America, while understanding where it comes from.

I found that speech to be among the most memorable, powerful and gutsy speeches I've ever heard. Obama could have taken the easy way out and "thrown his pastor under the bus". He didn't.

He used this opportunity for laying the groundwork for better racial relations and speaking as a white, 50-year old man, I found it both uplifting and hopeful.

Condeming Obama for what his minister said is an easy criticism but does nothing for America. Tackling both race and religion is more of an undertaking than any one campaign can be expected to do.

Bringing this issue in front of America in such a way that is both hopeful and honest offers America a remarkable opportunity. I hope America grabs this opportunity.

Someone, you said:

"...but the fact is this country will NEVER elect a freethinker, secular humanist, Atheist, anti-Theist, Agnostic, or any other religion that falls in that realm. Thats just the cold hard facts."

---

Only a fool says never. The reality is that the secular and non-religious segments of this society are growing rapidly as a percentage of population, while religious percentages are stagnant. The Christian sects that are growing are doing so at the expense of other sects; their growth is cannabalistic. The time hasn't yet arrived, but we are moving closer to breaking the religious strangehold on public discourse. We'll all be better off when that happens.

Back to Obama, I suspect that his pastor's views are only going to be problematic to people who never would have voted for him anyway.

Wow, I hardly ever agree with you Susan, but this time I have to say I agree, with most of what you said. This is a HUGE problem for Obama, and one that will continue to haunt him, even during the general election if he is the nominee, which he most likely will be.

I don't think too many individuals believe that Obama agrees with his pastor. Thats not the issue. The issue is a matter of judgment. Is a man ready to be president who associates himself (considers himself RELATED to) with an anti-American, racist, religious bigot? Is Obama's judgment lacking when he supports a pastor who gives a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, one of the most destructive racist and anti-Semitic besides Hitler and Pol Pot? IMO, Obama is not qualified for the most important and powerful job on earth. Not just because of this controversy that has risen. This is just one major news story that I hope is FINALLY waking Americans up to the truth. If Obama is not mature enough to pick the right associations, instead of picking them so he isn't labeled a Muslim, then he is not qualified mature enough to lead this wonderful country.

"Isn't it high time for a secular humanist or atheist candidate,..."

Sorry girl, but that just ain't gunna happen. Not then, not now, not ever. What makes this country so great is religion, and theres no way anyone can get rid of that. I'm not trying to be bigotrous (I just made that word up), because I'm not, but the fact is this country will NEVER elect a freethinker, secular humanist, Atheist, anti-Theist, Agnostic, or any other religion that falls in that realm. Thats just the cold hard facts.