The Worst Angels Of Our Nature: Rage And Racism On The Campaign Trail

Your so-called "absolute standard" of course itself belongs to the category you define as "just different preferences as for what one believes."

Everybody can put the tag of "absolute truth" to any nonsense he believes.

There never has been any proof of your belief except your faith. Stick to it and be happy. If it were provable truth, it would cease to be faith, and your house of cards would instantly crumble.

Faith is defined by the impossibility to prove its content.

Peter Huff wrote: "I have shown you that everything is relative and subjective outside of knowing God"

No Peter, you have only shown that YOU believe everything to be relative outside of knowing God.

You have admitted in the past that God sometimes speaks figuratively. Why can't Exodus be an example of God speaking figuratively? You believe an omnipotent God created the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago. Why couldn't the same God have actually done the job 14 billion years ago, and left it for us to figure out when we were ready to grasp the concept?

You also wrote: "Faith is the basis for belief in anything. You have faith. Will you own that?"

Sure, I can own that, but science is about putting faith in things that can be observed. We can observe things like the Doppler effect, cosmic microwave background, radioactive decay rates, and yes, natural selection. I don't recall any biblical passages that tell us anything about the rate that other galaxies are moving away from us, the ratio of potassium isotopes in the earth's crust, changes in the observed phenotypes of peppered moths, or the emergence of new flu viruses.

Final comment on your post Frederic2,

FRED: "The worst catastrophes in world history have been perpetrated by possessors of "truth"."

No, the worst catastrophes in world history are when people believe a lie instead of the truth. In the twentieth century alone over 100,000,000 people have been murdered at the hands of atheistic regimes that squash the truth. More people are believing the lie of evolution than at any other time in history. This has led to a lessening of the worth of life. If all we are is biological bags of matter, does it matter what one bag does to another?

FRED: "A guy who pretends to be in final possession of truth must be regarded with utmost suspicion: By definition, he cannot tolerate any non-truth, no matter its incontestable degree of evidence."

There again, there is no truth unless there is an objective, absolute, ultimate standard for truth. What is yours?

FRED: "These people are dangerous. There is only one small step from truth possessors to mass murderers (as already documented in the OT)."

The most dangerous people are those who have no standard for truth but themselves. They are a law unto themselves. (Judges 21:16)

FRED: "Today's truth possessors tend to obliterate all progress that has been made in human development in the last couple of centuries, just take a look at Palin's witch belief. She is a devout Christian, just like Peter Huff."

Establish your standard for truth and we will talk. I expect to hear nothing but silence as is the norm for those who breathe hot air, but have no substance for their words.

Furthermore Frederic2,

FRED: ""Truth", an observable object, changes as it is observed."

The only thing I agree with from that statement is that only God sees every aspect of an object since He made it. We only see it in part, but that does not mean that we cannot know that something is true or not as long as we operate in His framework.

The object DOES NOT change, we may not perceive it as it truly is, and in this sense to think truly one must think God's thoughts after Him, but that does not mean that truth can be true and not true at the same time. Truth, to be truth can never be false.

It reminds me of the tale of the blind men who are brought before an elephant and each one feels a different part of its body and comes away with a different opinion on what it is, but the truth of the matter is that the elephant is still an elephant, not something else.

So for example, you say that when a traffic light turns red speed up and proceed, I say come to a stop and wait until it turns green and that you are wrong in your evaluation. We both have contrary viewpoints; can both be right? All you need to do to find out it to keep speeding up every time you see a red traffic light. Your logic will soon come to a crashing halt.

And again, without an absolute standard there is no such thing as truth, just different preferences as for what one believes, but don't call it truth. You do not operate in the world in this manner, so again your worldview cannot make sense of truth unless it keeps borrowing from the Christian worldview.

One other point, it is impossible to deny absolutes. This applies to truth as an absolute. As soon as you say "there are no absolutes" (or for that matter "there is no truth" your argument self-destructs) you have stated an absolute, that in order for your statement to be true it must be false, since you have already stated one. Now you have to re-qualify what you have said, "there are no absolutes except for this one absolute, that there are no other absolutes."

Hello Frederic2,

FREDERIC2: "Truth is in the eye of the beholder. In case you have ever heard of Werner Heisenberg: "Truth", an observable object, changes as it is observed."

So what you are saying is that truth is relative, it changes depending on how you look at it. So for one person 2 + 2 = 4, for another 2 + 2 = 5?

I love the quote on the cover of D.A. Carson's book, "Telling the Truth - Evangelizing Postmoderns",

"In the past...evangelism was rather like hanging washing on a clothesline that was already in place....The problem in trying to reach postmodern people is that there is no clothesline...The great challenge before the preacher is to put up the clothesline." (Colin S. Smith, "Keeping Christ Central in Preaching")

What in effect you are doing is to say that nothing is true until you make it true Frederic2. But in doing so you undermine the very fabric of logic and destroy a coherent and rational framework for truth. As Bahnsen puts it in "Pushing the Antithesis, The Apologetic Method of Greg L. Bahnsen",

"The Law of Identity states that "A is A." This means that if any statement is true, it is true; it cannot be both true and not true simultaneously. That is, anything that exists in reality has a particular identity and is not something else...A thing may be a cow but not simultaneously a cat...The Law of Contradiction states that "A is not not-A." That is, no statement can be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. A person cannot be both alive and not alive simultaneously and in the same way...The Law of Excluded Middle states that, "A is either A or not-A." That is, every statement must be either true or false exclusively, there is no middle ground. For instance, we either say that something is either a chair or not a chair, it cannot be neither a chair nor not a chair." P. 202, 203

So let's get real here Frederic2. Give me some examples of where truth can be true in the eye of the beholder in dealing with what is real. Cat gotcha tongue?

One of those anti-liberal anonymous nitwits attacking Susan with the weird argument that rich people are "fined" is obviously thinking that the conditions which enabled him to make more than 250000 (less than 5% of US citizens) are paid by god. We have seen the awful results of those right-wing morons. Who pays your education to enable you to spell correctly (that at least is to your credit), to build the roads that enable you to drive to your office, the schools, the hospitals, the bridges, the police, the fire fighters etc. etc.

The hilarious part of this egomaniac greed philosophers is they usually call themselves Christians. What a perversion of the Christian concept to scorn every less fortunate guy (less than 250000) as undeserving trash. Middle class? Or even poor (roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some time within a 10 year time span.)? Who is that? Why aren't they rich? It is their own fault!

From a European angle this is a jaw-dropping infantile view on how a society functions. (I know, I know, when you read a word starting with "soci...) your knee jerks already towards what residue is left in your brain.)

With such people (as represented by McCain/Palin) the US would continue to degenerate into a third world banana republic.

And a final word to PH:

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. In case you have ever heard of Werner Heisenberg: "Truth", an observable object, changes as it is observed.

The worst catastrophes in world history have been perpetrated by possessors of "truth". A guy who pretends to be in final possession of truth must be regarded with utmost suspicion: By definition, he cannot tolerate any non-truth, no matter its incontestable degree of evidence. These people are dangerous. There is only one small step from truth possessors to mass murderers (as already documented in the OT). Today's truth possessors tend to obliterate all progress that has been made in human development in the last couple of centuries, just take a look at Palin's witch belief. She is a devout Christian, just like Peter Huff.

Final thoughts,

SCOT: "I was specifically referring to the need of those who think they know "God's absolute truth standard of right" to attack those who think differently."

Well unbelief is an attack and denial against God. Atheists and unbelievers are constantly assaulting the Word of God, with little consequence for eventually we will all answer to Him, some by the merit of Christ and some on their own merit.

In attacking your unbelief I am just pointing out to you that your arguments are firmly planted in mid-air, they have no foundation, no standard but that of the imagination, no rational starting point, for Chance is your master.

SCOT: "I don't think of exploring God's creation (a.k.a science)as putting myself, or my beliefs, ahead of God's. As I said earlier - I don't think any of us are meant to have all the answers."

You may not think of doing that, but that is exactly what you do by equivocating science with God. First you make God out to be a process, then you use that process to deny the one and only true God, then you admit that none of use have all the answers, so how do you know that you have any?

When you explore God's natural revelation that displays His majesty and might and then deny Him, you try to turn His truth into a lie by calling Him a liar. (Romans 1:18-25)

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who perish, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased to save those who believe." (1 Corinthians 1:18-21)

To continue,

SCOT: "However, you seem unable to defend your statement "I'm certain of the truth" on its own merit without attacking the beliefs of others."

I attack other beliefs for the very reason that they are untrue, and I rely on the Word of God to refute these ill founded beliefs.

I'm certain for a number of reasons, one being that you can't make sense of anything without first beginning with the Christian God, the only God.

Another reason is because of His grace and mercy to me in that while I was in rebellion to Him He saved me, gave me a new spiritual nature, paid the price for my wrongful acts in His Son who sacrificed His life in my place, suffered the wrath of a just and righteous God in my place, meet the complete standard of the law when He became man to fulfill all the righteous requirements of the law, again in my place, and as dying in my place God now recognizes that I am just because of my standing in Christ as my Savior, my Redeemer, my Victor, my All. So all that I could not do He has done for me! There is no merit of my own, no boasting of anything that I can or could do and now He lives through me, for God has counted me crucified in Christ in His death on my behalf, and as the Apostle Paul said, I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. That is the victory of the Christian life. Christ is life!

SCOT: "I wrote earlier that ""Experience has taught me not to trust anyone who claims to have all the answers"."

Scot, experience and feelings mean nothing if they reflect what is untrue. Faith in Christ is more than feelings or experience - it is trust, dependence and reliance as well as relationship with God.

Hello Notsogreatscot,

Hi Peter - I'm sorry, but this conversation has become pointless. You wrote: "Just to show that any worldview that does not rest in the God of Christianity has no answers to metaphysical, epistemological or axiological questions."

SCOT: "If you recall - we started with me asking you if you had an objective standard other than your faith to base your belief in."

I have shown you that everything is relative and subjective outside of knowing God, so nothing can be made sense of because it becomes a question of who says so and why are they right. So you borrow from the Christian worldview anytime you discover what is true.

And I pointed you to the Word of God, a standard outside of myself in which all the questions I have been asking you from your worldview to explain, have an answer. You have yet to demonstrate that you can answer any of these questions outside of the Christian worldview, which goes back to my original assertion that without first presuming the Christian God this world cannot be made sense of.

SCOT: "If you don't, that's fine, faith is a very good basis for religious belief, but you need to own that."

Faith is the basis for belief in anything. You have faith. Will you own that?

SCOT: "It is true because I believe it to be true" isn't really a an objective standard (or a logical argument), nor is "the bible is true because it says so"."

No, you have it wrong, it is not true because I say it is true, it is true because God says it is true, and the only objective standard is the omniscient God. And yes, the Bible is true because it is the Word of God. He confirms it in more ways than I could mention.

You say it is not, so who are you or who am I? What gives you the authority to declare what is and is not true? What do you base that authority on? Is it objective, unchanging and absolute?

Hi Peter - I'm sorry, but this conversation has become pointless. You wrote: "Just to show that any worldview that does not rest in the God of Christianity has no answers to metaphysical, epistemological or axiological questions."

If you recall - we started with me asking you if you had an objective standard other than your faith to base your belief in. If you don't, that's fine, faith is a very good basis for religious belief, but you need to own that.

"It is true because I believe it to be true" isn't really a an objective standard (or a logical argument), nor is "the bible is true because it says so". However, you seem unable to defend your statement "I'm certain of the truth" on its own merit without attacking the beliefs of others.

I wrote earlier that ""Experience has taught me not to trust anyone who claims to have all the answers". I was specifically referring to the need of those who think they know "God's absolute truth standard of right" to attack those who think differently.

I don't think of exploring God's creation (a.k.a science)as putting myself, or my beliefs, ahead of God's. As I said earlier - I don't think any of us are meant to have all the answers.

I believe that all of the "operational" or "proximate" experiences of human beings are coarse and unreliable when it comes to knowledge and knowing, and that there is an aesthetic of knowledge which some people seek, but which they may only occasionally glimpse but never fully realize, and that there is the contrasting hum-drum surface experience of everyday things, which we all come to know not very well, but "well enough," which includes church, and Bible-study, and different kinds of religious rituals and practices, and yes, even praying to an unknowable God which is, yet somehow, imagined, in order to regard as the object of thought and contemplation, this hum-drum world of ours which we do not know well, with its multiplication of reflected images, through the eyes of millions, that make such complicated and cacophonous variations to everything that we perceive.

Are only pro-abortionist allowed to post?

Hello Notsogreatscot,

One other thing I would like to set straight. If you will notice how many times I have asked an unbeliever to explain how or why they know something to be valid where are the answers? Is it an argument from silence? Is that how the issues are discussed?

I have tried to answer each one of your claims, as also those of other unbelievers, but where is their replies to my questions?

Is I don't know or "I am comfortable with not having all the answers" or "Science...is...a process that requires constant reevaluation of your ideas as new information becomes available" the best that can be said?

No, I'm certain of the truth, just not your "truth."

Hello Frederic2,

FREDERIC@: "and, not to forget, god dictated all that in 21st century American English!"

Do I need to answer this? Since the translations came from the original languages when there is a point in question to the original language we go. If translation between languages were not possible there would be no communication between different language groups. We both know this is not the case.

FREDERIC2: "When dictating to one guy (Mark, e.g.), god obviously quite often forgot what he had dictated to the other guy (Matthew, e.g.), hence the thousands of discrepancies found in the "inerrant" collection of papers in the bible, precluding any "literal" understanding."

Please can you demonstrate one discrepancy and we will see if it cannot be logically explained?

FREDERIC2: "But it is fun to explain it using metaphors: I cannot conceive of any possible nonsense that cannot be explained away using metaphors: A metaphor can easily be used to explain its logical contrary."

How the Bible is interpreted depends on the language used, whether figurative, narrative, poetic, etc., and the Scriptures always interpret themselves. For instance when John the Baptist speaks metaphorically of "the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world" it is clear in the context of the passage that he is referring to the Lord Jesus Christ. (John 1:29)

You either interpret the passages plainly and as the Author intended them to be taken, or you read into them what the reader wants them to say. The one method is exegesis, the other eisegesis.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

PS. I abbreviated your name to save time.

SCOT: "Why are you always asking me for answers? I should think that someone as certain of the truth as you claim to be could defend your ideas on their own merit."

Just to show that any worldview that does not rest in the God of Christianity has no answers to metaphysical, epistemological or axiological questions. Philosophies that attack the truth of Christianity self-destruct when examined closely.

For this reason, I want you to defend what you believe so that it can be shown for what it is.

SCOT: "For my part - I am comfortable with not having all the answers. Science isn't a god, it is a process - a process that requires constant reevaluation of your ideas as new information becomes available."

Science seems to be one of the crutch you are resting on. It is what you place before God, along with the thought that you can decide for yourself what is true and right and good independently of God, so you break one of the Ten Commandments - Thou shalt have no other gods before me. What are gods but idols, things constructed either in your mind or physically to take the place of God. (Exodus 20:3-5)

As for your constant scientific re-evaluation, how do you know when you finally have it right? What certainty do you have that what you believe is true?

and, not to forget, god dictated all that in 21st century American English!

When dictating to one guy (Mark, e.g.), god obviously quite often forgot what he had dictated to the other guy (Matthew, e.g.), hence the thousands of discrepancies found in the "inerrant" collection of papers in the bible, precluding any "literal" understanding.

But it is fun to explain it using metaphors: I cannot conceive of any possible nonsense that cannot be explained away using metaphors: A metaphor can easily be used to explain its logical contrary.

Hi Peter, you wrote: "I hope you have some answers?"

Why are you always asking me for answers? I should think that someone as certain of the truth as you claim to be could defend your ideas on their own merit.

For my part - I am comfortable with not having all the answers. Science isn't a god, it is a process - a process that requires constant reevaluation of your ideas as new information becomes available.

Hi Notsogreatscot and Frederic2,

Let me direct you to a web address that nicely explains the predicament of the unbeliever.

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa500.htm

Also, Al Molher Jr. offers some answers to the objections of the Christian faith and the trustworthiness of the Bible in which he reiterates that if any part of the Scriptures are in error we can no longer say that the Bible is the Word of God. Once that happens what is the basis for human knowledge?

Once one passage is under dispute, the question comes down to what other passages may be disputable?

The human Biblical authors wrote down exactly what God wanted them to write as guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Copies of their original manuscripts were sent to other churches and copies of these were sent on again, so you have a wealth of manuscriptural evidence. The challenge of translation is to get to the original language texts in which there are many copies and that God has preserve.

http://sgm.edgeboss.net/download/sgm/na/2008/na08-session3.mp3

Hi Frederic2,

FREDERIC2: "As soon as you invent an entity (God) that is all-mighty, all-knowing etc., there are no limits of what you can attribute to that entity created by your own imagination. In that respect Peter Huff is at least consequent to a degree."

And without Him there is no accounting for how you can account for anything. Would you care to try? For instance, what do you contribute the standard of ethics to in order to make sense of them?

FREDERIC2: "Of course, given that this entity is created by the human mind (PH and his predecessors and colleagues), it is of no use whatsoever to use reason or evidence as arguments against someone whose center of thinking ("faith") is defined by the negation of reason and evidence."

Actually you have it wrong, the human mind was created by God and you cannot have reason or evidence without Him. What is the foundation of your epistemology - Chance? Explain how any meaning or purpose can come from Chance? How did it begin?

Point number two, we all have faith, it is just what it is in and how you can make sense of it.

I can understand your frustration, you do not have any answers, so any questions asked are to be avoided because you do not want to appear foolish. Bold claims if untrue on my part, if you do have answers.

Continuing Notsogreatscot,

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "How does one decide which version is objective, true, inerrant and infallible? What objective basis does one use?"

When in doubt on a translation of a particular word or phrase or paragraph we have a rich source of manuscripts in which to check out the original language meaning, but even more than this we have God's oath that He would preserve His word.

So I say on the most objective basis there is, the self-attesting Word of God. You always want to appeal to a higher authority, but there is none higher to appeal to. And God will hold unbelievers accountable for not believing His testimony about His Son.

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of the light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." (John 3:19-21)

You want me to appeal to something other than God when anything other than God cannot make sense of things? In His light we see light!

I hope you have some answers?

Hi Notsogreatscot,

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "There are many versions and translations of the bible. Even the oldest greek copies we have don't agree."

The question comes back to you. What evidence will you accept? The answer is none, without the revelation of the Holy Spirit of God, because you do what a skeptic does best, you doubt.

That is not to say that the evidence for the Christian faith is flimsy or unsubstantial, for the facts are what God made them to be. It is just that no matter what evidence I offer you you will be skeptical, for the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:14) That is just plain from God's holy Word.

But in our discussions the point I am making is that you cannot make sense of anything unless you first presuppose God, and not just any god, but the God of the Bible.

The testimony of the Scriptures bear witness to the fact that they are the self-attesting words of God. The prophecies of the Old Testament show that what was predicted happened, not by chance, but by God's plan in history of redemption. There is a difference between God's plan and possibility or probability. What He says happens.

Over three hundred prophecies alone testify to the coming of the Messiah, where He would live, details of His life, how He would die, His resurrection and how this relates to those who believe as well as to those who will not believe.

You have an interwoven tapestry and picture of the Lord Jesus in every book of the OT. You have eyewitness accounts of those who saw Him and lived with Him of His life, death, burial and resurrection. You have the Olivetti Discourse that predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the phenomenon of the spread of Christianity against incredible odds after His resurrection.

You have archaeological evidence, historical evidence in names, places, events that all back up the veracity of the Scriptures yet you will not believe it.

You have over 24,000 part or complete manuscripts of the New Testament alone that confirms it is the Word of God. You have over 80,000 quotations of the Bible from the early church fathers that confirms the preservation of God's Word, just like He said He would.

So there is nothing I can do to convince you but to ask you how do you make sense of life without supposing this God of the Bible? How do you answer the tough questions of life? How do you make sense of anything? You can't for you have no lasting, solid foundation or standard.

And that is what you are unable to explain, why I should believe what you are selling. Your worldview has no way of knowing why things are the way they are, what difference it makes or to its importance. Your worldview is all meaninglessness.

To continue Notsogreatscot,

ME: "So do you believe your faith in atheism is true because someone has told you it is true or is it true because you have told yourself that it is true?"

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "Sorry - I never claimed to be an atheist. I claimed to believe in science and scholarship. There is a difference."

Okay, so you are not claiming to be an atheist. Therefore you believe in gods or a god, or God? Which is it? What makes your god(s) the true god? What is your god like?

If science is the god you bow down to, what makes it right and true? We both know that science of origins is constantly being revised as "new" or "greater" knowledge is learned. How do we know we finally have it right?

Whose science and whose scholarship?

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "I don't claim to have all the answers. I don't believe that we are meant to be able to have them all, but I keep seeking just the same."

So how do you know you are right? You do not have the ability to know it all as you have yourself just admitted. What makes you think you have any of it right when you have no accounting for any of it? What is the chance that you are wrong in your belief?

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "If I were to concede that the bible contains absolute truth, it would still be with the caveat that none of us has the capacity to grasp it as God intended."

There again you pit your feeble knowledge against that of God. He has said that there is a correct way of handling His Word and therefore a true interpretation is possible. (2 Timothy 2:15)

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "Experience has taught me not to trust anyone who claims to have all the answers."

As for myself, I never claimed to have all the answers, only God has, but I did claim that without God you can't make sense of this world in answering anything.

You have no foundation to base anything on as certain without God - have you? Please give me examples of why it is certain if you do. Let's test it out.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

ME: "If you dig deep enough into any argument you will find, I'm sure, that it rests on circular logic. Eventually it will fall back on itself. The question is, is it true and can it explain itself?"

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "I disagree. The question isn't how well one source explains itself, but do multiple independent lines of data and reasoning lead to the same conclusion."

Where do your sources come from?

The question is what are you using to get to your conclusion? Are you using science to prove science. Whose? But you start presuppositionally. You assume something to be true in order to prove something else true. Not seeing all the different aspects of the fact(s) or how the fact(s) is/are interconnected you assume certain things to be true that may not be.

Maybe two or multiple lines of reasoning do lead to the same conclusion. So what makes that right/true? How do you establish right or truth? The standard you are suggesting, if you are suggesting science, is constantly revising itself.

No, the question comes down to more than that. The question comes down to what is the foundation for the certainty of knowledge? Please tell me!

Another question is how did knowledge originally come about?

Another question is how can knowledge be certain in a world that supposedly came about by possibility; by a blind, random, chance happenstance?

How does thinking which is non-material/abstract come from a material world? Is it just the way my biological bag of matter reacts to the stimuli that creates the way I look at the world? Why should any two minds or bags of matter react the same let alone millions and billions in a world of possibility where nothing is predictable. How can you predict anything on possibility and probability? You never know when it will change.

You have some answering to do. How do you make sense of this?

As soon as you invent an entity (God) that is all-mighty, all-knowing etc., there are no limits of what you can attribute to that entity created by your own imagination. In that respect Peter Huff is at least consequent to a degree.

Of course, given that this entity is created by the human mind (PH and his predecessors and colleagues), it is of no use whatsoever to use reason or evidence as arguments against someone whose center of thinking ("faith") is defined by the negation of reason and evidence.

Peter, in an earlier post you wrote: "Here is the rub; why is your interpretation of the fact the one that has the true meaning? How can anything have meaning unless it has an ultimate, absolute, objective basis or standard to derive meaning from?"

There are many versions and translations of the bible. Even the oldest greek copies we have don't agree.

How does one decide which version is objective, true, inerrant and infallible? What objective basis does one use?

Hi Peter!

You wrote: "If you dig deep enough into any argument you will find, I'm sure, that it rests on circular logic. Eventually it will fall back on itself. The question is, is it true and can it explain itself? "

I disagree. The question isn't how well one source explains itself, but do multiple independent lines of data and reasoning lead to the same conclusion.

You also wrote: "So do you believe your faith in atheism is true because someone has told you it is true or is it true because you have told yourself that it is true?"

Sorry - I never claimed to be an atheist. I claimed to believe in science and scholarship. There is a difference.

You also wrote: "I have given you a lot of questions to answer."

I don't claim to have all the answers. I don't believe that we are meant to be able to have them all, but I keep seeking just the same.

If I were to concede that the bible contains absolute truth, it would still be with the caveat that none of us has the capacity to grasp it as God intended. Experience has taught me not to trust anyone who claims to have all the answers.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

Peter Huff wrote: "If it is not you, then which subjective human are you going to use as your reference point and why should I bow down to their subjective opinion?"

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "Hi Peter, I didn't ask you to bow to anyone, and I won't."

So how does that answer the question Scot? I'm not asking you what you will and will not do, just how you explain what your highest reference point or standard is and why? Is it something that you can make sense of? Let's put it to the test.

ME: "Faith is only as good as what it is based on and whether what it is based on is true."

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "This seems like circular logic - you believe what you think to be true because your faith tells you that it is true."

Your logic seems circular to me too. If you dig deep enough into any argument you will find, I'm sure, that it rests on circular logic. Eventually it will fall back on itself. The question is, is it true and can it explain itself?

I keep pointing you to the God of the Bible because only He can make sense of the why. Why would I not point to the highest authority in the universe, the only One that is not contradictory and the only One that is objective and absolute? You still have to establish one that is not whimsical and that doesn't change.

So do you believe your faith in atheism is true because someone has told you it is true or is it true because you have told yourself that it is true?

In other words, when you look at the evidence/the fasts, do you judge them then use yourself as the final arbitrator in determining what is true and what is false? Does it start with you and end with you? Then that is circular reasoning.

Or when you look at the facts/evidence do you use someone else's conclusion as the final arbitrator? In that case your evidence is based on someone else's and someone else's on top of that, and round and round we go, but where does it stop and how can you determine it is true?

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "I will get back to you with more responses when my wife isn't waiting for her turn on the computer."

I hope so. I have given you a lot of questions to answer. BTW, I will be busy this weekend so it will probably be Sunday evening before I can reply to you. So take your time. Thanks!

You accuse McCain & Palin of making racist comments, then you attribute what the crowd was shouting back to them. Have you been asleep? It wasn't a poor Obama supporter that was attacked for carrying a sign, it was a McCain supporter that was beat up by an Obama fanatic. It wasn't the republicans that said Palin should be gang raped, or that Hilary should be "taken out back", it was the Obama supporters.

You are supposed to be a reporter. A jounralist that reports news and events. You have failed miserably at it. Shame on you.

Peter Huff wrote: "If it is not you, then which subjective human are you going to use as your reference point and why should I bow down to their subjective opinion?"

Hi Peter, I didn't ask you to bow to anyone, and I won't.

You also wrote: "Faith is only as good as what it is based on and whether what it is based on is true."

This seems like circular logic - you believe what you think to be true because your faith tells you that it is true.

I will get back to you with more responses when my wife isn't waiting for her turn on the computer.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

If you are this bitter now, your life will be a torment under President Obama, unless of course, your people have him assasinated.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN :
POSTED ON OCTOBER 21, 2008 12:15
“MEAN AND VINDICTIVE?”

IRT:
Take your mean, vindictive, Republican, racist sour grapes elsewhere.

ANS:
Ever heard of Rashid Khalidi. Does it matter?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=57231

Open your eyes; take off your myopic blinders that obstruct your objectivity. Does the truth matter to the voracious vindictive left? The truth for the left is hemlock.

The Left's response is always vitriolic, scurrilous and, derisive; it’s their only defense to avoid the truth. Who is crying racism? Not Palin, not McCain. If anyone is a racist, try the race-baiting Dems.

The morally blind Dems have no scruples exploiting children. They have defended the murder of nearly 50 million unborn, some 3,500 are murdered each day. “The greatest violation of truth is abortion”—Mother Theresa.

During the Bush campaign, the pharisaical Dems used the daughter of a Black man that was dragged through a town chained to the back of a pick-up truck to accuse Bush of murdering her father. The Dems charged Bush was responsible for the church burnings in the South. Did the left cry racism? No, they vilified Bush.

The real racists are those who close their eyes to the likes of Rep. John Lewis (D.Ga.) who is a scurrilous surreptitious racist who stood on the House floor and compared Bush to Hitler starving the poor. Is not Lewis stirring up violent racism? He just attacked McCaine and Palin for stirring up the specter of George Wallace.

When Obama is criticized, he answers with racism and says McCain is desperate. Susan Jacoby has injudiciously bought both of those canards. The left wing will unabashedly swallow anything the media is willing to stuff down their throats that denigrates the opposition, true or false.

Racism is Obama’s facade that indict others to stave off an inquiry into his own past, but he had no qualms about investigating “Joe the Plumber,” or the Dems sending hordes of character assassins to Alaska to malign Palin. Now these hypocrites are lamenting investigating Obama’s past links to terrorism.

The Dems divide and conquer the poor and the less fortunate by class warfare, contrasting the rich against the poor, the minorities against the majorities. They deride and scandalize the upper classes against the lower classes.

A strategy of the Communist Manifesto, is to divide the classes and conquer, the proletariats v. the bourgeoisie.

The Dems’ misguided compassion destroys the poor’s incentive and locks them in abject poverty and Abortion. Jesse Jackson, before it became politically expedient not to, said Abortion is Black Genocide. . Bill Cosby has said that 70 percent of Black Pregnancies are out of wedlock and over half end in abortion.

Planned Parenthood subsidized by the government, strategically places it aboratoriums in poor and Black areas to exploit them.

The loathing pseudo elitists and so-called intellectual left-wing prigs are being impaled by Palin’s storming tsunami-like arrival on the political scene. Her personality, and exuberance, to the angst of the left, has connected to and excited her party’s base .

Palin, the nemesis of the pernicious left has provoked frustration and disappointment in the left’s ranks. The New York Times, in retaliation, did a scandalous hit piece on Cindy McCain that had more vicious canards in it than truths.

“Because Palin proved you don't need the Sisterhood to pierce the glass ceiling. In her single calculated comment about women, she said, "This is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.

Got that? It wasn't Gloria Steinem that put me on this podium. It was my made-in-small-town America traditional social values combined with old-fashioned patriotism and Alaska-instilled pioneerism.— Barbara Kay/ WSJ.” Palin is the curse of the radical feminist.

Hundreds of “character assassinating” paid scandalmongers and Dem muckrakers went to Alaska to strike with disgust or revulsion Palin’s integrity.

Saturday Night Live personified its lack of moral integrity, comforted in rhetorical disdain, and awash in satirical squalor depicted in black comedy Palin’s husband as father of his daughter’s child. The left then impugned the real father of the child as being forced to marry their daughter.

Let those cowardly hypocrites, who hide behind satirical anonymity, tell that to Sara Palin’s husband, Todd, face to face. Virulent attacks on Palin’s family are slanderous, but for the left, the end justifies the means

Thirteen-year-old girls are used and exploited by being featured in an Obama campaign ad that mocks Palin’s character and family.

Young little children are being used and victimized by the Dems to denigrate Palin and her family. Obama, an advocate of Abortion and teaching kindergartners "sex-ed," would not protect a child after surviving a botched abortion. Want the Culture of Death holding your life in its hands? Then Vote Obama.

If there is any virulent racism and violence being stirred up, it’s without question from the rabid cacophony of the strident Dems, and Rep. John Lewis’ (D-Ga.) manifestly exemplifies such ignominy.

Hi CCNL,

Concerning your article posted on October 21, 2008 12:53 AM. I see the same article posted on almost every forum that you seem to enter. So your hatred towards the God you deny continues.

The question is what makes your opinion true? Do you base it on fallible men with a liberal, higher criticism persuasion that only came about within the last two hundred years? Is that why I should believe it? Does it all boil down for you to a battle of the two camps - liberal verses conservative scholars, or is it just liberal, period?

Hi Notsogreatscot,

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "Unless you accept the antique argument that the gospels were written by the apostles they are named for (and it is obvious that neither you nor Farnaz accept this), it is simply not possible to prove (or disprove) Jesus' existence."

Here you go talking about what is possible and not possible again. This is puzzling for reasons I will state below.

As Greg Bahnsen said in "Van Til's Apologetics,

"Unless as sinners we have an absolutely inspired Bible, we have no absolute God interpreting reality for us, and unless we have an absolute God interpreting reality for us, there is no true interpretation at all." p. 652

So lets go deeper into that statement. You as an atheist look at the "facts" of history with the notion that they are possible, probable, impossible or improbable. You call the shots. But to interpret the facts you put on the fact the meaning that you take it to mean, as distorted by your own subjective conditioning and bias, as Bahnsen or Van Til have said. So you are not looking at the fact for what it is (i.e. the meaning that God as the maker of the fact says it is - unless of course you think God's thoughts after Him and interpret the fact as He has revealed it) but you bring your worldview and bias into the picture to interpret it.

Here is the rub; why is your interpretation of the fact the one that has the true meaning? How can anything have meaning unless it has an ultimate, absolute, objective basis or standard to derive meaning from? Again you are talking of qualitative values when you assign meaning to anything and say "This is true" or "This is the right view."

Why are you the ultimate authority in determining what is possible and what is not possible, what is fact and what is fiction?

Furthermore, in an atheistic worldview which started by chance and works on probability and possibility anything can happen for there is no foundation to it, which destroys your groundwork for logic, uniformity of nature, reasoning, truth, morality, etc.

In other words, how does a worldview based on chance, possibility and probability make sense of history or anything? How can you do anything but doubt historical reliability? Since there are so many different interpretations of what happened in the past how can you ever be sure of anything historical?

Without God all you can do is guess that something is more probably true than something else. Only with God can you make sense of history or for that matter anything, because all knowledge and every fact has as its basis God. There is only certainty in God.

"Therefore let all of Israel know FOR CERTAIN that God has made Him both Lord and Christ - this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36 NASB)

I too am dismayed and depressed by the current stirrings of racism and hatred on the campaign trail. Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin should denounce racism and recommend that their supporters consider that we are all one people and in this together. This election isn't about being a winner or loser. It is a way for free people to uphold democracy. Anyone who screams for the murder of their candidate's opponent is delusional at best. Ignorant comments like "Arab" and "Welfare Hero" toward a candidate's opponent should not be tolerated. It's downright juvenile and demeans our democracy. We are all one people. We are Americans. Dividing and conquering is not what this country needs right now. We need to truly become the UNITED States of America. Mr. Obama is multi-ethnic and comes from a diverse background. Diversity should never mean the "N" word. Nor should "welfare" or "the redistribution of wealth." Fear mongering is a tool for those who are fearful of change...even though change is a natural process and means that we are evolving as a people and a society. There must be change. These fanatical racist zealots must know in their hearts that their fear and hatred are misguided. Ignorance, intolerance and racism are NOT bliss and should be denounced by all the candidates.

Hello Notsogreatscot,

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "Hi Peter - long time no see. You wrote: "The question is how do you know what you believe is true, what objective standard do you reference for truth and knowledge?"

NOTSOGREATSCOT: "I would pose the same question to you. It seems that your faith leads you to a premise that the bible is the only source of knowledge. That's wonderful, but you don't seem to see that others don't consider faith to be an "objective standard" to reference their own knowledge against."

Faith is only as good as what it is based on and whether what it is based on is true. Since we all have faith in something, whether God, ourselves, others, science, a man-made philosophy, a man-made religion, etc., it goes back to the foundational or core beliefs. Do they answer, or are the capable of answering the tough questions in life? As you have seen by the number of dialogs I've had with atheists, they always brush off these tough questions because they cannot make sense of them. They have no answers.

So for one, the impossibility of the contrary. Without God who is the absolute, objective, unchanging, ultimate reference point and standard whose subjective standard are you going to believe? Most likely your own. You act as your own god, determining what you will and will not accept as right and good and true; the final arbitrator. So the question is what makes you right, good, true? Please make sense of it for me why I should bow down to your opinion. If it is not you, then which subjective human are you going to use as your reference point and why should I bow down to their subjective opinion? Is Susan Jacoby your guru? How about Sam Harris or do you look to Christopher Hitchens? Why are you/they your ultimate source or reference point?

I'll be waiting for your answer....zzzzzzzzzz.

Here's someone who sums it up nicely,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79WkECHuQN4&feature=PlayList&p=29A798396AD739CB&index=0

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
SARA PALIN

"The Secret Service confirmed Friday that it had investigated an episode reported in The Washington Post in which someone in Palin's crowd in Clearwater, Fla., shouted "kill him,", meaning Obama on Monday.

There was "no indication that there was anything directed at Obama," Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren told AP. "We looked into it because we always operate in an atmosphere of an abundance of caution."

“I AM SARAH, WATCH ME ACT”'
BARBARA KAY

"Palin isn't "redefin[ing] the feminist ideal," as Jonathan Kay put it yesterday in his column's misguided paean to Palin as a kind of multi-function iFeminist for the postmodern woman. Ideology based behavior of any kind is irrelevant to Palin, and millions of other small-town women -- and always was. Love of family, community, country -- not conspiracy theories -- is what guides their political compass.

The ultimate American individual, Palin wasn't ever committed to any collectivity but America itself. She was never "I am Woman, hear me roar." She was always,

"I am Sarah, watch me act." Palin represents what would have happened to American women without a feminist revolution. For legal and social equity for women was bound to arise organically through political and cultural reform, as more and more women entered university and the work force, a process well underway before feminism became an organized movement.

In a free society, a cat may look at a king. Feminists thundering disdain at Palin's lack of experience (as a surrogate for their panic over her indifference to feminism) would do well to remember the trajectory of their own movement's cat that looked at the patriarchy.

Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, the 1963 book that kicked off the modern feminist movement, was no Adam Smith or Karl Marx. She was a political nobody, a bored, disgruntled housewife who mistook her own tiny world of white, urban, middleclass, university-educated peers as representative of all American women.

In fact, Friedan's true acolytes always were, and remain, "dormitory feminists," a small, but noisily aggrieved iceberg calved from the real female masses Palin so brilliantly champions.

What were Friedan's credentials for changing the world? Friedan studied psychology at Smith College, dabbled in journalism, flirted with communism (it shows in feminism's Marxist stripes), mothered three children and gave domestically violent tit for tat to her husband in a failed marriage before writing her famous book. Some r�sum�.

The "methodology" behind her "research" consists of her interpretation of a 1957 questionnaire she sent to former Smith College classmates. Friedan claimed that 60% of her respondents "could not honestly say" they found homemaking "totally fulfilling." From this, she concluded that the home was a "comfortable concentration camp" for mothers, all of whom (even if they mightn't admit it) suffered from "the problem that has no name."

And yet she emerged from her utter political obscurity and academic amateurism as the matriarch of an enormously consequential movement. Following the book's landslide success -- one of its direct offshoots was the disruption of the Miss America pageant Mr. Kay details in his column -- Friedan became the guiding force for the National Women's Political Caucus and the National Abortion Rights Action Council (NARAL). Her reign had more impact on American life than the work of any 50 vice-presidents combined.

So feminists, enough with the hypocrisy. Show some respect for Sarah Palin, who is far more credentialed to advance America's interests than Friedan was for yours.

It may cause some "discomfort," the medical parlance for pain, but if, as I believe, we have just seen the curtain begin to fall on the sexually adversarial, anti-family wing of the feminist movement, Sarah Palin's -- er-- rear-guard invasion of Obama and, by extension, the feminism-marinated liberal establishment, will already have performed wonders for America's cultural health.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
SARA PALIN

“I AM SARAH, WATCH ME ACT”'
BARBARA KAY
“How I wish I'd been the proverbial fly on the wall watching the changing expressions on Barack Obama's face as Sarah Palin delivered her already-legendary speech at the Republican convention last Wednesday.

I imagine his pre-speech expression as alert, but relaxed paternalism, like a chief surgeon set to supervise a lowly resident's clumsy initial attempt at an appendectomy. Then puzzlement as the surgeon realizes that he's to be the patient, and finally horror as, strapped to the table and, before a nation of fascinated onlookers, he is subjected to ... a palinoscopy!

Oh, she got through to him all right. For eight months, critics haven't really laid more than glancing blows on Obama, because they were jabbing away at his exterior. Sarah got him right in the gut.

Humor is permitted entry to dark cavities closed to straight criticism, so Palin used steady-handed wit as her probe. As every comedian and experienced public speaker knows, failed on-stage humor is first cousin to death. Factor in the supreme importance of the occasion, an audience of 39 million voters, the greedy gaze of slavering media hyenas and the enormous additional risk of "dissing" an African-American saint: What we witnessed on that Minnesota stage, my friends, was an awesome demonstration of raw courage.

Palin's mockery tickled Obama's worrisome polyps of swollen self-regard (the "Styrofoam pillars"), his history of words over action ("two memoirs, but no major bills"), his curious pattern of risk avoidance (unlike community organizers, mayors have "actual responsibilities") and his tendency to solipsism (presidential journeys are not "voyages of personal discovery").

Peggy Noonan, doyenne of American political-trends commentary, was galvanized by Palin's performance: "It is starting to look to me like a nation-defining election ... This campaign is about to become: epic," she wrote in the weekend Wall Street Journal.

I agree. But win or lose the election, Sarah Palin has already altered the cultural landscape of America, possibly of the Western world. In years to come, social archeologists will mark her speech as the official beginning of an end to the gender wars, and, one hope, a return to trust and collaboration between the sexes.

Because Palin proved, you don't need the Sisterhood to pierce the glass ceiling. In her single calculated comment about women, she said, "This is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity."

Got that? It wasn't Gloria Steinem that put me on this podium. It was my made-in-small-town America traditional social values combined with old-fashioned patriotism and Alaska-instilled pioneerism.

Sarah Palin has already altered the cultural landscape of America, possibly of the Western world. In years to come, social archeologists will mark her speech as the official beginning of an end to the gender wars, and, one hope, a return to trust and collaboration between the sexes."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
SARA PALIN
“I AM SARAH, WATCH ME ACT”'

Bill Ayers:
I FIND A LOT OF ANARCHY APPEALING..

Obama didn’t know Tony Rezko was a convicted criminal. He didn’t know the Rev. Wright is a cultural terrorist bomb thrower though Wright was like a father to Obama for twenty or more years. Though Ayers, who said I find a lot of ideas of anarchism quite appealing and served with Obama for eight months on Woods Foundation after Ayers said it, Obama said Ayers was reformed, not withstanding Ayers, after 9/11, stomping on a flag said he wished he could have been more successful.

Obama's ties to Muslim groups and individuals supporting terrorism are very disturbing. Obama's favorite Kenyan politician, Rail Odinga (above), a fellow Luo tribesman, is busily killing Christians and turning a blind eye to al Qaeda. Obama seems to be fine with his "cousin's" actions.

Obama's Muslim-Outreach Adviser tied to Muslim Brotherhood, quits

“The Muslim Brotherhood must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Mohammed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the [Muslim Brotherhood] Group in North America,” May 22, 1991

Moreover, Obama had a father, a stepfather and mother who were radical Muslims and Obama attended Muslim madrassas that weren’t Muslim, and his Muslim reach out director had to resign because of his association with an FBI unindicted imam caused his resignation.

The Secret Service confirmed Friday that it had investigated an episode reported in The Washington Post in which someone in Palin's crowd in Clearwater, Fla., shouted "kill him,", meaning Obama on Monday.

There was "no indication that there was anything directed at Obama," Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren told AP. "We looked into it because we always operate in an atmosphere of an abundance of caution."

In 2000, Mr. Asbahi briefly served on the board of Allied Assets Advisors Fund, a Delaware-registered trust. Its other board members at the time included Jamal Said, the imam at a fundamentalist-controlled mosque in Illinois.

Palin, at a fundraiser in Ohio on Friday, told supporters "it's not negative and it's not mean-spirited" to scrutinize Obama's iffy associations.

John Lewis vs. John McCain - First Read - msnbc.com Oct 11, 2008 ... You and Ms. Palin and your followers are indeed stirring up racial divisions

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/11/1534130.aspx

From NBC's Carrie Dann
Georgia congressman John Lewis -- a civil rights leader and a man once deemed by John McCain as one of the "wisest" men he knew and one whose advice he would seek as president -- today likened the "negative tone" of McCain's campaign to that of incendiary segregation advocate George Wallace in the 1960s.

"What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history," Lewis wrote in a statement first posted on Politico's website. "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."

Noting that Alabama governor and presidential candidate George Wallace "never threw a bomb" but ‘created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights’

Lewis attributed the 1963 bombing of a Birmingham church to the racial division sown by Wallace's political rhetoric.

"As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all," the statement continues.

"They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better."

“The McCain campaign responded with a strongly-worded statement."

"Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale," reads the statement from McCain.

"The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign

I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.

CCNL wrote (I think he was quoting Crossan): "The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea."

Josephus wrote ~60 years after Jesus is believed to have lived, Tacitus ~20 years after Josephus. They don't really count as contemporary (to Jesus' lifetime) sources.

Unless you accept the antique argument that the gospels were written by the apostles they are named for (and it is obvious that neither you nor Farnaz accept this), it is simply not possible to prove (or disprove) Jesus' existence.

Hi Peter - long time no see. You wrote: "The question is how do you know what you believe is true, what objective standard do you reference for truth and knowledge?"

I would pose the same question to you. It seems that your faith leads you to a premise that the bible is the only source of knowledge. That's wonderful, but you don't seem to see that others don't consider faith to be an "objective standard" to reference their own knowledge against.

Hi CCNL,

CCNL: "Tis interesting that Professor JD Crossan and the Jesus Seminarians agree with Farnaz2 in that there was no Last Supper i.e. no bloody eucharist and there was no trial of Jesus by the Jewish priests et al."

So you can produce some liberal scholars with their own slant on history to support your favored views. Big deal, I can do the same to favor my views. Plus I would contend that the scholars I referenced were more fair to the evidence than yours. You are not proving anything other than your biased views are held by others with the same objective, the same plan, to discredit the Conservative Christian worldview that the Bible is the inspired, infallible word of God.

The question is how do you know what you believe is true, what objective standard do you reference for truth and knowledge?

Tis interesting that Professor JD Crossan and the Jesus Seminarians agree with Farnaz2 in that there was no Last Supper i.e. no bloody eucharist and there was no trial of Jesus by the Jewish priests et al.

Hi TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1,

The issue that gets me about Obama is his stand on abortion. His economic position is certainly more in depth and dynamic than anything McCain has come up with, but his moral judgment scares me. To be for Planned Parenthood and all that it stands for and has stood for is another issue entirely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPk_Al2hvqs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo&feature=related

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

Take your mean, vindictive, Republican, racist sour grapes elsewhere.

Obama will probably be the next President. But there is no need for people like you to despair. I think that your "types" will probably make sure that, one way or another, he will not finish his term.

SUSAN JACOBY
"The Worst Angels Of Our Nature: Rage And Racism On The Campaign Trail"

“Bill Ayers and Other Cultural Terrorists:

As more information leaked out, Obama countered that Ayers is reformed, though after the 9/11 fiasco, Ayers was pictured, stomping on an American flag, while regretting he couldn’t had been more successful in blowing up the Pentagon and the Capitol. Obama said he was just eight years old when Ayers attempted these atrocities, and it was reported Obama said what Ayres did was repugnant.

Of course, what else could Obama say? However, Obama said the problem with terrorists is we don’t understand what is causing their radicalism. He blamed it on poverty though the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and weren’t starving to death and neither was bin Laden.

The escalated effort to attack Obama's character dovetails with TV ads by outside groups questioning Obama's ties to Ayers, convicted former Obama fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko and Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He and Obama live in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood and served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Obama left the board in December 2002.

Obama was the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school-reform group of which Ayers was a founder. Ayers also held a meet-the-candidate event at his home for Obama when Obama first ran for office in the mid-1990s.”

By a slip of the tongue on CBS, Obama said “my Muslim religion” and had to be corrected to say his “Christian religion.”

Obama's Muslim-Outreach Adviser Resigns”—by Glenn R. Simpson and Amy Chozick for the Wall Street Journal, August 6, 2008.

“Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, who was appointed volunteer national coordinator for Muslim American affairs by the Obama campaign on July 26, stepped down Monday after an Internet newsletter wrote about his brief stint on the fund's board, which also included a fundamentalist imam.

Jamal Said, is an imam at a fundamentalist-controlled mosque in Illinois. The eight-year-old connection between Mr. Asbahi and Mr. Said was raised last week by the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, which is published by a Washington think tank and chronicles the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide fundamentalist group based in Egypt.

Obama’s Muslim organizer Web sites, some pro-Republican and others critical of fundamentalist Islam, also have reported on the background of Mr. Asbahi. He is a frequent speaker before several groups in the U.S. that scholars have associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

“The Muslim Brotherhood must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”—Mohammed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the [Muslim Brotherhood].

In 2000, Mr. Asbahi briefly served on the board of Allied Assets Advisors Fund, a Delaware-registered trust. Its other board members at the time included Jamal Said, the imam at a fundamentalist-controlled mosque in Illinois.

The Justice Department named Mr. Said an unindicted co-conspirator in the racketeering trial last year of several alleged Hamas fundraisers, which ended in a mistrial. He has also been identified as a leading member of the group in news reports going back to 1993....

Should this not be reported? There’s too many coincidences in Obama’s resume not to be a matter of concern to voters and Obama has been less than candid about his relationships. Do not birds of the same feather all flock together?

The new Jewish Encyclopedia, not the archaic one on the web, is a good source of information on this. The Bible, that is the Tanakh, is also quite informative!

For those like me who are sick of this endless, mindless confused repetition and would prefer it went away.

From--you guessed it--Wikepedia

The Sanhedrin, or any other Jewish court was forbidden to sit at night (Ex 18:24) nor could it meet during a festival, as it was the last night of the Passover Festival that had begun seven days earlier (Num 28:18). See "seder service is planned for the last night of Passover" [2] and "the last night of Passover... Observant Jews make a festive meal that night." [3]

Scholars in the area of biblical criticism take these inconsistencies with Jewish practise to indicate that such a trial most likely did not take place.

Btw. 1. Observance of Passover has continued in much the same way since the beginning. The only reason to violate it is to save a life and I mean to save a life, not make someone feel better. The life must be in imminent danger.

Btw. 2. In the world as we know it, the equation of wine with blood, flesh with bread, the eating of the two is/was inconceivable for Jews. See the laws governing the Kashrut. No blood of any kind may be consumed symbolically or in any other way. No meat with blood, nothing with blood. Not hard to grasp really.

For those like myself trying to catch up with the conclusions and references of/used by NT and historic Jesus exegetes:

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

: “ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.
WaPo blog blocked this paragraph for some reason “While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

From Professor John P. Meier of Notre Dame:

"His study of the historical Jesus paints a picture not unfamiliar to Christians—Jesus was indeed the real historical figure that the New Testament says he was. Yet the New Testament is not a modern history book.:

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- (read them all at wiki.faithfutures. Crucifixion org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

I have no problem with Jesus. However, the atheist CCNL does.

He wishes to empty Jesus of his divinity and worship him at the same time. This is problematic, but it should be CCNL's business, not a platform with which to harrangue others with endlessly repetitious posts. Contrary to what he thinks, repetition of this sort does not result in "learning," but in aversion. It is a self-defeating conversion effort that CCNL is up to. He must convince others in order to convince himself of the rightness of his perspective.

Another of CCNL's problems is with supersessionist ideology, which, evidently, persists in his New Age Christianity/Catholicism. I've posted a bibliography that includes reference to this pernicious way of thinking, and also gives perspectives different from CCNL's on a number of matters. Thus far, he, evidently, hasn't read any of it since learning is not what he's about; engaging difference is not what he's about; dialog is not what he's about.

Were CCNL to leave the Tanakh for the people for him it was written, not only would he improve his moral well-being, but he would cease annoying others. Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide, is foundational, but the articles I posted below are a good beginning.

The atheist CCNL should read them, recognize his past errors, and try another path. The battle he's currently in is with himself and Jesus Christ. It cannot be resolved by his trying to "convert" others. That has only alienated them and will only make his own personal plight worse.

The simple Jewish preacher man aka Jesus sure gets to Farnaz2. Very strange for a professed atheist Jew!!!!

For another perspective on Christian (Catholic, etc.) theology, for those interested in more than pretty wingy things.

Begins here and continues below.

Link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4044/is_200404/ai_n9403804/pg_11

TRUTH AS EMPIRE: A TROUBLING METAPHOR IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
Encounter, Spring 2004 by Bessler-Northcutt, Joe

Using these methods of interpretation, Christians argued that Jews did not understand their own scriptures. Instead, their heroes and great festivals such as Passover prefigured the coming of the Incarnate God among men as a Jew. Yet the Jews' rejection of Jesus as the Messiah was itself evidence that the Jews were blinded to the meaning of their own prophetic texts. Writing between 160 and 170 in his "Passover Sermon," Melito of Sardis describes the typological interpretation that informs his sermon:

"Type" and "truth" (or "reality") are paralleled over and over, as old and new, temporal and eternal, terrestrial and celestial, mortal and immortal, etc. And the type is discarded when the truth arrives; it is replaced by the fullness of which it was the foreshadow.28

Related Results
The new anti-Zionism and the old antisemitism: transformations.
Bonhoeffer's many faces - theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Cover Story
Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History.(Review) (book review)
Daniel Goldhagen and the role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust.(A...

For Melito, the pattern was clear:

But when the church arose, and the gospel was shed abroad, the type was rendered useless, yielding its power to the reality; and the law came to an end, yielding its power to the gospel. Just as a pattern is left empty when its image is surrendered to reality, and a parable is made useless when its interpretation is made known, so also the law was finished when the gospel was revealed, and the people was abandoned, when the church was established, and the type was abolished when the Lord had appeared.29

The text of Melito's "Passover Sermon" is itself an angel of death, announcing that because Jews had "murdered" the God who so lovingly sought to heal them, they no longer deserved to be a covenantal people. The charge of deicide, issued by Melito, justifies in his mind - and for many Christian interpreters after him - the violence of declaring the Jews to be enemies of God.

A number of Christian theologians have demonstrated the violence at work in Christian supersessionism. Clark Williamson and Rosemary Radford Ruether are two prominent examples of theologians who have called Christian theology to account for its centuries of anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish commitments. Ruether has rightly pointed out that anti-Semitism is the "left hand of Christology."30 Yet one should not isolate the typological strategies of Christian supersessionism from their wider role in developing Christianity's imperial theology.31 If anti-Semitism is the left hand of Christology, imperialism is its right.

EMPIRE: A NECESSARY METAPHOR?

If the early followers of Jesus found in the rhetoric of martyrdom, sacrifice, and resurrection images to both vindicate the humiliation of the cross and to unmask the Romans' ideology of peace through imperial control, they did not develop a specifically Christian imperial model of truth. Nor is there reason to think that all Christians were intent on developing such a model. Nonetheless, when contemporary Christians speak of "tradition" they tend to affirm the development of the imperial tradition as something like a natural evolution from the faith of the New Testament communities. By illuminating the rhetorical choices at work in the apologetic literature, I hope to convince readers that the development of a Christian imperial theology was not natural but strategic, not an evolution but a set of decisions, made not by all, but by some whose influence increased as the model became increasingly useful.

I do not claim that this turn to imperial theology was a "wrong turn" or rejection of Jesus. It is clear, for example, from the many martyrs of the early church that at least the memory of Jesus' noble death was profoundly important in resisting Rome's imperial cult, and in capturing the imagination both of those suffering oppression and those cultural elites observing that oppression with increased suspicion of their own empire. But if Christian theology's embrace of imperial metaphors was not a completely wrong turn, it was not completely right one. If important to Christianity's early survival and growth, the metaphor slipped easily into ideologies of power and superiority. Theology's continued reliance upon the metaphor "truth (or faith) as an imperial land," and its various entailments in the modern and postmodern periods, has become profoundly disturbing.

Related Results
The new anti-Zionism and the old antisemitism: transformations.
Bonhoeffer's many faces - theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Cover Story
Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History.(Review) (book review)
Daniel Goldhagen and the role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust.(A...

In the language of logos and truth, with their Hellenistic entailments of the eternal and the temporal, flesh and spirit, wisdom and foolishness, Christians subsumed the authority and power of the Roman Empire that had humiliated and crucified Jesus. In addition, the use of typology and allegory helped enfold the "old" covenant with Israel into the "new" Christian movement. On both fronts, Christian apologists began to frame an imperial theology that subsumed other kingdoms of thought within the land of Christian truth. Yet Christian theology could subsume both Greek and Jewish thought because its Christian apologists could claim plausibly that Christianity came after, or followed, the truly great developments of the Hellenistic and Jewish cultures. Due, in part, to the modern criticisms of the Platonic and Aristotelian worldviews, the death of allegory in poetry, and the rise of democracy, it has been difficult for Christianity to subsume the modern Western cultural system that followed it.

Democratic systems of government, capitalistic systems of commerce and trade, scientific approaches to knowledge, and the philosophical turn to the subject undermined the entwined hierarchies of imperial government and Greek philosophy that had given Christian symbols both their intelligibility and their cultural power. With the collapse of the modern West's own imperial structures of colonialism, and with the moral critiques of both feminist and liberationist discourses, fueled by the new political and moral tradition of human rights, it is clear that particular claims to absolute truth function to legitimate the social and political power of some over others. In light of these profound shifts, and perhaps especially now, in postmodernity's philosophical turn to language, and the new situation of religious pluralism, it is important that we pursue, as Paul Knitter has suggested, a "new model" of truth.32

While traditionalists still loudly proclaim the absoluteness of Christian truths - Orthodox or fundamentalist - and insist upon Christian societies, moderates have moderated the imperial claims. Yet, even here in the moderate schools of revisionist and postliberal theology one still finds the defenses of that imperial consciousness. It is time to acknowledge that the metaphor of truth as an imperial land is no longer appropriate, either intellectually or morally, as a guide to Christian faith or Christian theology.

Farnaz2 Author Profile Page:

Another perspective on the moral consequences of entities like CCNL Bagel and Imaginary Friends: Harvey the Giant Rabbit, M. Jesus Christ, M. Yehoshua Messiah, Glinda, the Good Witch, and the Seven Dwarfs.

Supersessionism

Part I: What is supersessionism?

The word "supersessionism" comes from the Latin super ("on," "upon," or "above") and sedere ("to sit"), as when one person sits on another person's chair, thereby displacing the other person. Christian theological super-sessionism -- as espoused, for example, by Augustine (5th century) and Martin Luther (16th century) -- makes the claim that, following the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christians replaced Jews in God's love and favor and in the divine plan of salvation. According to the superses-sionist view, God repudiated the Jewish people for their rejection of Christ. As a result, God's covenantal rela-tionship with Israel was abrogated, to be taken up by the Church; and the Mosaic Law (Torah) was annulled, to be replaced by the law of Christ. Christians inherited all the promises of God to Israel in the Bible; Jews retained all the Bible's prophetic criticism and condem-nation. Jewish biblical interpretation was discounted, and the "Old Testament" was assigned only a provisional validity. Judaism came to be regarded as merely a his-torical and social entity at best, and, at worst, a dead faith, the victim of a Pharisaic-rabbinic obsession with legalistic piety.

In supersessionist theology Jesus' ministry is understood as having been in direct opposition to Judaism. In conse-quence, Jesus is completely removed from his first-century Jewish context, and he becomes the primary obstacle between Christians and Jews.

Part II: Why is supersessionism a problem?

Implied in the claim that Christians displaced Jews in the covenant with God is the notion that Jews should stop being Jews and become Christians. This ideology under-girds a "teaching of contempt" for Jews and Judaism that has marred relations between Christians and Jews for two millennia. Over the centuries anti-Judaic attitudes buttressed by displacement theology have produced evil fruit: legislation designed to discriminate against and suppress the Jews, and open acts of violence -- forced baptism, child stealing, population expulsions, and mur-derous pogroms. Habits of hatred ultimately paved the way for the Nazis' "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem."

The supersessionist theology that created so many bur-dens for Jews has proved to be a problem for Christians as well. Supersessionism distorted Christian doctrine as it developed in the early Church. It continues to influence much contemporary Christian theology and is continually reinforced by the preaching and teaching presented in many churches. To our shame, moreover, supersessionist attitudes have fostered among Christians demonstrably un-Christian behavior.

Supersessionist theology raises crucial questions that a responsible Christianity cannot afford to ignore. For example, if Jews have been displaced in the divine plan of salvation, how do Christians account for Judaism's continuing existence and for the many faithful and theologically profound people who have been a part of the Jewish community? If a newer revelation displaces an older one, hasn't Christianity been displaced by Islam? Most significantly, what does supersessionist the-ology imply about the morality and faithfulness of God? If God's promises to the patriarchs and matriarchs of the people Israel could be nullified by the coming of Jesus Christ, what guarantee do Christians have that God's promises to anyone are reliable? The glaring weaknesses in displacement theology ought to make it obvious to Christians everywhere that supersessionism must be abandoned.

Part III: What can be done about supersessionism?

Before discussing those things that Christians can do to reverse the pernicious effects of displacement theology on our minds and hearts, it should be acknowledged with thanksgiving that thoughtful people in many denomina-tions have been working for a number of years to identify and eliminate the vestiges of supersessionism that still taint our faith. Devoted Christians everywhere need to expand these efforts and continue to work until every trace of the "teaching of contempt" has been eradicated.

Overcoming supersessionism is not an insurmountable problem, but it is a complex one. It requires the Church: (1) to question the appropriateness and credibility of its teachings about the God of Israel and the Israel of God, (2) to confront the implications of those teachings, and (3) to reexamine the major doctrines of the Christian tradition in light of what the Church will have learned in the process about itself and its relationship to Judaism and the Jewish people.

Moreover, the Church must reappraise its approach to the Bible. Christians need to acknowledge the anti-Jewish polemic in the Christian Scriptures and under-stand the historical reasons for its presence. In addition, we must recognize the religious importance of the Hebrew Bible in its own right and establish a proper understanding of the relationship between the two testaments. We must also develop more appropriate ways of interpreting scripture. Most fundamentally, we must acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth lived his life, from the manger to the cross, as a Jew; and we must interpret Paul and his theology in the context of the Judaisms of the first century of the Common Era.

On the most elemental level, it is in the story Christians tell of divine interventions in human history and God's relations with humankind that we image our basic convictions and our understanding of reality and the nature of Christian life. If we are to overcome super-sessionism, we must change the way we tell this story.

Finally, we Christians must change our attitudes and behavior toward the Jewish people. We must jettison Christian caricatures and stereotypes of Judaism and learn how Jews understand their own religious beliefs. We must be in conversation with Jews as we do our theology. We must reexamine our efforts to convert Jews to Christianity, concentrating our energies instead on engaging with them in witness and service. Above all, we must teach respect for the Jewish people and for Judaism as a vibrant faith having its own integrity and witness to the world.

But back to the lynch-mob hysteria at the McCain and Palin rallies? How can this be defended? It is just plain common sense that inciting people to lynch-mob hysteria against a black candidate for President is bad and immoral.

It is ironic, isn't it, that people who do not believe in Evolution are so crude and animalistic in their behavior? Why is ignorance abd low brow culture something to be proud of? Why is refinement, the expansion of interest in the world, the developement of aesthetic appreciation of life, something so terrible?

Hi Susan,

This is a satirical look at the atheist's inability to answer the big questions of life by their worldview. A warning, the language is a little strong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9eBmmZ7sK4&feature=PlayList&p=29A798396AD739CB&index=15

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
"The Worst Angels Of Our Nature: Rage And Racism On The Campaign Trail"

IRT:
“I tremble for my country--by the rage that has been expressed at Republican campaign rallies during the past two weeks.

ANS:
“Do not accept anything that lacks love; it lacks truth. Do not accept anything that lacks truth; it lacks love and is a lie.”—Edith Stein.

You might be more worried about Obama, Acorn, the ACLU, and the company they keep, than Sara Palin telling the truth. ACORN, a social syndicalism for Socialism, has just about collapsed our financial system, the integrity of our vote, and the majority are non-the-wiser.

The ACLU is surreptitiously undermining our Judeo-Christian heritage that has sustained our nation in its greatness throughout our history, in spite of our oligarchical and scurrilous amoral Court that has assisted the abortionists in their murder and infanticide of nearly 50 million unborn. Obama won't give protection to a child surviving a botched abortion.

Better is it to ask Obama to tell the truth, than muffle Palin for speaking out the truth. When confronted about his past, Obama downplays his involvement with criminals and subversives by claiming his critics stem from racism, and McCain desperation. It appears that Jacoby has swallowed both. Is truth immaterial?

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the United States an injunction that compelled the State of Illinois to enforce the motor voter law.”

Obama headed the “Most Effective Minority Voter Registration Drive,” reported Chicago Magazine. From the U.S. Court Of Appeals, 7th Circuit docket for ACORN v. Edgar, “Appellees, United States and others, sought to force appellant State of Illinois to comply with the provisions of the National Registration Act of 1993 (motor voter law).

Note that Obama supports auto licenses be given to illegal aliens. Hence, licenses for illegal aliens could give them voting access. It is reported that 75 percent of subpar loans were held by illegal aliens and nearly 100 percent failed.

Obama claimed that Bill Ayers was just someone in the neighborhood until it was discovered that Ayers was instrumental in launching Obama’s Senate Campaign from Ayers’ living room.

Moreover, Obama is rated as the most liberal Senator in the Senate. That includes Kennedy. Obama is further to the left than Clinton who nearly destroyed our country until Bush save us from total destruction. We may not be as lucky this time.

Further, Obama served on the Board of the Woods Foundation with Ayers that funneled some $200,000 into subversive organizations that Obama helped train, and that indoctrinate little children in the doctrines of materialism and anti-patriotism. Is Obama’s relationships just insignificant, or casual acquaintances?

Stanley Kurtz:
"As the L. A. Times puts it, 'Obama’s task was to help far South Side residents press for improvement in their communities.' Part of Obama’s work, it would appear, was to organize demonstrations, much in the mold of radical groups like Acorn.

Speaking up in defense of Obama on the asbestos issue is Madeleine Talbot, who at the time was a leader at Chicago Acorn. Talbot, we learn, was so impressed by Obama’s organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.

And what exactly was Talbot’s work with Acorn? Talbot turns out to have been a key leader of that attempt by Acorn to storm the Chicago City Council (during a living wage debate). While Sol Stern mentions this story in passing, the details are worth a look: On July 31, 1997, six people were arrested as 200 Acorn protesters tried to storm the Chicago City Council session.

According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Acorn demonstrators pushed over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session.”— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and an NRO contributing editor.

An update from Farnaz2's guardian pretty wingie thingie-

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

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

Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide is foundational.

For another perspective on Christian (Catholic, etc.) theology, for those interested in more than pretty wingy things.

Begins here and continues below.

Link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4044/is_200404/ai_n9403804/pg_11

TRUTH AS EMPIRE: A TROUBLING METAPHOR IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
Encounter, Spring 2004 by Bessler-Northcutt, Joe

Using these methods of interpretation, Christians argued that Jews did not understand their own scriptures. Instead, their heroes and great festivals such as Passover prefigured the coming of the Incarnate God among men as a Jew. Yet the Jews' rejection of Jesus as the Messiah was itself evidence that the Jews were blinded to the meaning of their own prophetic texts. Writing between 160 and 170 in his "Passover Sermon," Melito of Sardis describes the typological interpretation that informs his sermon:

"Type" and "truth" (or "reality") are paralleled over and over, as old and new, temporal and eternal, terrestrial and celestial, mortal and immortal, etc. And the type is discarded when the truth arrives; it is replaced by the fullness of which it was the foreshadow.28

Related Results
The new anti-Zionism and the old antisemitism: transformations.
Bonhoeffer's many faces - theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Cover Story
Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History.(Review) (book review)
Daniel Goldhagen and the role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust.(A...

For Melito, the pattern was clear:

But when the church arose, and the gospel was shed abroad, the type was rendered useless, yielding its power to the reality; and the law came to an end, yielding its power to the gospel. Just as a pattern is left empty when its image is surrendered to reality, and a parable is made useless when its interpretation is made known, so also the law was finished when the gospel was revealed, and the people was abandoned, when the church was established, and the type was abolished when the Lord had appeared.29

The text of Melito's "Passover Sermon" is itself an angel of death, announcing that because Jews had "murdered" the God who so lovingly sought to heal them, they no longer deserved to be a covenantal people. The charge of deicide, issued by Melito, justifies in his mind - and for many Christian interpreters after him - the violence of declaring the Jews to be enemies of God.

A number of Christian theologians have demonstrated the violence at work in Christian supersessionism. Clark Williamson and Rosemary Radford Ruether are two prominent examples of theologians who have called Christian theology to account for its centuries of anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish commitments. Ruether has rightly pointed out that anti-Semitism is the "left hand of Christology."30 Yet one should not isolate the typological strategies of Christian supersessionism from their wider role in developing Christianity's imperial theology.31 If anti-Semitism is the left hand of Christology, imperialism is its right.

EMPIRE: A NECESSARY METAPHOR?

If the early followers of Jesus found in the rhetoric of martyrdom, sacrifice, and resurrection images to both vindicate the humiliation of the cross and to unmask the Romans' ideology of peace through imperial control, they did not develop a specifically Christian imperial model of truth. Nor is there reason to think that all Christians were intent on developing such a model. Nonetheless, when contemporary Christians speak of "tradition" they tend to affirm the development of the imperial tradition as something like a natural evolution from the faith of the New Testament communities. By illuminating the rhetorical choices at work in the apologetic literature, I hope to convince readers that the development of a Christian imperial theology was not natural but strategic, not an evolution but a set of decisions, made not by all, but by some whose influence increased as the model became increasingly useful.

I do not claim that this turn to imperial theology was a "wrong turn" or rejection of Jesus. It is clear, for example, from the many martyrs of the early church that at least the memory of Jesus' noble death was profoundly important in resisting Rome's imperial cult, and in capturing the imagination both of those suffering oppression and those cultural elites observing that oppression with increased suspicion of their own empire. But if Christian theology's embrace of imperial metaphors was not a completely wrong turn, it was not completely right one. If important to Christianity's early survival and growth, the metaphor slipped easily into ideologies of power and superiority. Theology's continued reliance upon the metaphor "truth (or faith) as an imperial land," and its various entailments in the modern and postmodern periods, has become profoundly disturbing.

Related Results
The new anti-Zionism and the old antisemitism: transformations.
Bonhoeffer's many faces - theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Cover Story
Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History.(Review) (book review)
Daniel Goldhagen and the role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust.(A...

In the language of logos and truth, with their Hellenistic entailments of the eternal and the temporal, flesh and spirit, wisdom and foolishness, Christians subsumed the authority and power of the Roman Empire that had humiliated and crucified Jesus. In addition, the use of typology and allegory helped enfold the "old" covenant with Israel into the "new" Christian movement. On both fronts, Christian apologists began to frame an imperial theology that subsumed other kingdoms of thought within the land of Christian truth. Yet Christian theology could subsume both Greek and Jewish thought because its Christian apologists could claim plausibly that Christianity came after, or followed, the truly great developments of the Hellenistic and Jewish cultures. Due, in part, to the modern criticisms of the Platonic and Aristotelian worldviews, the death of allegory in poetry, and the rise of democracy, it has been difficult for Christianity to subsume the modern Western cultural system that followed it.

Democratic systems of government, capitalistic systems of commerce and trade, scientific approaches to knowledge, and the philosophical turn to the subject undermined the entwined hierarchies of imperial government and Greek philosophy that had given Christian symbols both their intelligibility and their cultural power. With the collapse of the modern West's own imperial structures of colonialism, and with the moral critiques of both feminist and liberationist discourses, fueled by the new political and moral tradition of human rights, it is clear that particular claims to absolute truth function to legitimate the social and political power of some over others. In light of these profound shifts, and perhaps especially now, in postmodernity's philosophical turn to language, and the new situation of religious pluralism, it is important that we pursue, as Paul Knitter has suggested, a "new model" of truth.32

While traditionalists still loudly proclaim the absoluteness of Christian truths - Orthodox or fundamentalist - and insist upon Christian societies, moderates have moderated the imperial claims. Yet, even here in the moderate schools of revisionist and postliberal theology one still finds the defenses of that imperial consciousness. It is time to acknowledge that the metaphor of truth as an imperial land is no longer appropriate, either intellectually or morally, as a guide to Christian faith or Christian theology.

Another perspective on the moral consequences of entities like CCNL Bagel and Imaginary Friends: Harvey the Giant Rabbit, M. Jesus Christ, M. Yehoshua Messiah, Glinda, the Good Witch, and the Seven Dwarfs.

Supersessionism

Part I: What is supersessionism?

The word "supersessionism" comes from the Latin super ("on," "upon," or "above") and sedere ("to sit"), as when one person sits on another person's chair, thereby displacing the other person. Christian theological super-sessionism -- as espoused, for example, by Augustine (5th century) and Martin Luther (16th century) -- makes the claim that, following the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christians replaced Jews in God's love and favor and in the divine plan of salvation. According to the superses-sionist view, God repudiated the Jewish people for their rejection of Christ. As a result, God's covenantal rela-tionship with Israel was abrogated, to be taken up by the Church; and the Mosaic Law (Torah) was annulled, to be replaced by the law of Christ. Christians inherited all the promises of God to Israel in the Bible; Jews retained all the Bible's prophetic criticism and condem-nation. Jewish biblical interpretation was discounted, and the "Old Testament" was assigned only a provisional validity. Judaism came to be regarded as merely a his-torical and social entity at best, and, at worst, a dead faith, the victim of a Pharisaic-rabbinic obsession with legalistic piety.

In supersessionist theology Jesus' ministry is understood as having been in direct opposition to Judaism. In conse-quence, Jesus is completely removed from his first-century Jewish context, and he becomes the primary obstacle between Christians and Jews.

Part II: Why is supersessionism a problem?

Implied in the claim that Christians displaced Jews in the covenant with God is the notion that Jews should stop being Jews and become Christians. This ideology under-girds a "teaching of contempt" for Jews and Judaism that has marred relations between Christians and Jews for two millennia. Over the centuries anti-Judaic attitudes buttressed by displacement theology have produced evil fruit: legislation designed to discriminate against and suppress the Jews, and open acts of violence -- forced baptism, child stealing, population expulsions, and mur-derous pogroms. Habits of hatred ultimately paved the way for the Nazis' "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem."

The supersessionist theology that created so many bur-dens for Jews has proved to be a problem for Christians as well. Supersessionism distorted Christian doctrine as it developed in the early Church. It continues to influence much contemporary Christian theology and is continually reinforced by the preaching and teaching presented in many churches. To our shame, moreover, supersessionist attitudes have fostered among Christians demonstrably un-Christian behavior.

Supersessionist theology raises crucial questions that a responsible Christianity cannot afford to ignore. For example, if Jews have been displaced in the divine plan of salvation, how do Christians account for Judaism's continuing existence and for the many faithful and theologically profound people who have been a part of the Jewish community? If a newer revelation displaces an older one, hasn't Christianity been displaced by Islam? Most significantly, what does supersessionist the-ology imply about the morality and faithfulness of God? If God's promises to the patriarchs and matriarchs of the people Israel could be nullified by the coming of Jesus Christ, what guarantee do Christians have that God's promises to anyone are reliable? The glaring weaknesses in displacement theology ought to make it obvious to Christians everywhere that supersessionism must be abandoned.

Part III: What can be done about supersessionism?

Before discussing those things that Christians can do to reverse the pernicious effects of displacement theology on our minds and hearts, it should be acknowledged with thanksgiving that thoughtful people in many denomina-tions have been working for a number of years to identify and eliminate the vestiges of supersessionism that still taint our faith. Devoted Christians everywhere need to expand these efforts and continue to work until every trace of the "teaching of contempt" has been eradicated.

Overcoming supersessionism is not an insurmountable problem, but it is a complex one. It requires the Church: (1) to question the appropriateness and credibility of its teachings about the God of Israel and the Israel of God, (2) to confront the implications of those teachings, and (3) to reexamine the major doctrines of the Christian tradition in light of what the Church will have learned in the process about itself and its relationship to Judaism and the Jewish people.

Moreover, the Church must reappraise its approach to the Bible. Christians need to acknowledge the anti-Jewish polemic in the Christian Scriptures and under-stand the historical reasons for its presence. In addition, we must recognize the religious importance of the Hebrew Bible in its own right and establish a proper understanding of the relationship between the two testaments. We must also develop more appropriate ways of interpreting scripture. Most fundamentally, we must acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth lived his life, from the manger to the cross, as a Jew; and we must interpret Paul and his theology in the context of the Judaisms of the first century of the Common Era.

On the most elemental level, it is in the story Christians tell of divine interventions in human history and God's relations with humankind that we image our basic convictions and our understanding of reality and the nature of Christian life. If we are to overcome super-sessionism, we must change the way we tell this story.

Finally, we Christians must change our attitudes and behavior toward the Jewish people. We must jettison Christian caricatures and stereotypes of Judaism and learn how Jews understand their own religious beliefs. We must be in conversation with Jews as we do our theology. We must reexamine our efforts to convert Jews to Christianity, concentrating our energies instead on engaging with them in witness and service. Above all, we must teach respect for the Jewish people and for Judaism as a vibrant faith having its own integrity and witness to the world.

More on Rabbi Wolpe, a recent On Faith guest panelist:

"Rabbi David Wolpe shocked the Jewish world when he gave a Passover sermon that suggested that the Exodus as described in the Torah never took place. He has surveyed the available evidence from the Torah, the archeological record from the Sinai, and the archeological record from the Levant and concluded that the story of the Exodus is impossible. Rabbi Wolpe is not an atheist. In fact he has debated Sam Harris, a prominent atheist, yet he is convinced the Exodus is a fable.

Rabbi Wolpe is still a believing Jew (ed. unlike Farnaz2) who thinks that the story of Exodus has great power to inspire people today. However, he believes that power is in the metaphor of the story and does not require it to be literally true."

NB, Susan Jacoby,

You are cited in one of my recent posts.

Arminius,

No problem. I'm done for the moment. Arguably, Le Croissant can read. His brand of Christian ideology is corrupting him, and you never know. It may not be too late for him to see this.

As well, Jews who read this blog may become more vocal. A couple already have.

Enjoy the game, my friend.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

The Croissant baits everybody.

My attention here will be spotty. Game 7 of the ALCS is on, and it's a nail-biter.

Arminius,

If you have time, glance at the material I posted. Then look at CCNL's Jew-baiting posts, intended, primarily for Christians.

The irony is that while much of the theology is changed, he still believes in pretty wingy things like the Q Gospel.

Now is it mere coincidence that the displacement ideology, the triumphalism remains?

I don't think so.

Farnaz,

Thanks for the explanation, we're on the same page now. You are, with good reason, mad as the proverbial hornet, and I was worried that I had been included as a target. Debating with the Croissant won't convince him, but, yes, it surely will help others.

Arminius,

I'm not yet at the point of challenging the Gospels with authorities equal, in some cases, superior to those of CCNL. The weakness of the Q Hypothesis, however, is self-evident.

I don't know that one can "buy" into anything. Christianities are interpretations. Episcopalians have called for the "reform" of the NT, as I would imagine you know. If you don't, I'd think it wouldn't surprise you.

Farnaz,

I do not ever intend my remarks to be the be all and end all of Christianity. I speak for myself only, this is my journey, no one else's. I came into Christianity from the outside, and (fortunately) started on the Gospels. It took four readings before I bought into (most of) it.

Arminius,

I don't see you as a bigot in any way. However, it is extremely offensive and, I daresay, arrogant for anyone, particularly, a confused croissant, to explain the "reality" of another's religion or culture to them. It is rightly called imperialism, racism, etc.

This in no way suggests that these labels apply to you. It is difficult for people like me who post here to know precisely how to deal with this and related issues. Why, for instance, would I want to quote well respected authorities on the nonexistence of Jesus? What good would it do for decent people like you or Thomas Baum?

On the other hand, it might do a lot of good for others. I have posted a bibliography that includes such assertions. The Quelle Gospel is really a joke in some circles as is Josephus, I daresay. Anyone interested can look in the Bib I posted. If I must, I'll quote the relevant authorities. It hasn't yet come to that.

Rosemary Ruether is more interested in the ideology of Christianity. She does not contest Jesus' existence.

Arminius,

Thanks again. Much of what I posted should make the point better than I have. Your earlier email is not the be all and end all of Christianity, and I say this with no offense intended. As you can see from my posts, reform is underway. There have been efforts to rid Christianity of its pernicious supersessionist, triumphalist narrative for quite awhile now.

CC Bagel, Donut, and Imaginary Friends. Follow the link for the entire article. Much, much more to follow.

Cintinued from my previous post. Note, especially, typology. Bagel, if you can get to a library or order from Amazon, get Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide.

I do not claim that this turn to imperial theology was a "wrong turn" or rejection of Jesus. It is clear, for example, from the many martyrs of the early church that at least the memory of Jesus' noble death was profoundly important in resisting Rome's imperial cult, and in capturing the imagination both of those suffering oppression and those cultural elites observing that oppression with increased suspicion of their own empire. But if Christian theology's embrace of imperial metaphors was not a completely wrong turn, it was not completely right one. If important to Christianity's early survival and growth, the metaphor slipped easily into ideologies of power and superiority. Theology's continued reliance upon the metaphor "truth (or faith) as an imperial land," and its various entailments in the modern and postmodern periods, has become profoundly disturbing.

Related Results
The new anti-Zionism and the old antisemitism: transformations.
Bonhoeffer's many faces - theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Cover Story
Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History.(Review) (book review)
Daniel Goldhagen and the role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust.(A...

In the language of logos and truth, with their Hellenistic entailments of the eternal and the temporal, flesh and spirit, wisdom and foolishness, Christians subsumed the authority and power of the Roman Empire that had humiliated and crucified Jesus. In addition, the use of typology and allegory helped enfold the "old" covenant with Israel into the "new" Christian movement. On both fronts, Christian apologists began to frame an imperial theology that subsumed other kingdoms of thought within the land of Christian truth. Yet Christian theology could subsume both Greek and Jewish thought because its Christian apologists could claim plausibly that Christianity came after, or followed, the truly great developments of the Hellenistic and Jewish cultures. Due, in part, to the modern criticisms of the Platonic and Aristotelian worldviews, the death of allegory in poetry, and the rise of democracy, it has been difficult for Christianity to subsume the modern Western cultural system that followed it.

Democratic systems of government, capitalistic systems of commerce and trade, scientific approaches to knowledge, and the philosophical turn to the subject undermined the entwined hierarchies of imperial government and Greek philosophy that had given Christian symbols both their intelligibility and their cultural power. With the collapse of the modern West's own imperial structures of colonialism, and with the moral critiques of both feminist and liberationist discourses, fueled by the new political and moral tradition of human rights, it is clear that particular claims to absolute truth function to legitimate the social and political power of some over others. In light of these profound shifts, and perhaps especially now, in postmodernity's philosophical turn to language, and the new situation of religious pluralism, it is important that we pursue, as Paul Knitter has suggested, a "new model" of truth.32

While traditionalists still loudly proclaim the absoluteness of Christian truths - Orthodox or fundamentalist - and insist upon Christian societies, moderates have moderated the imperial claims. Yet, even here in the moderate schools of revisionist and postliberal theology one still finds the defenses of that imperial consciousness. It is time to acknowledge that the metaphor of truth as an imperial land is no longer appropriate, either intellectually or morally, as a guide to Christian faith or Christian theology.

For another perspective on Christian (Catholic, etc.) theology.

Let me know when the light begins to dawn, CC Bagel. There is a lot more where this came from. And then, we'll get to your imaginary friends.

Link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4044/is_200404/ai_n9403804/pg_11

TRUTH AS EMPIRE: A TROUBLING METAPHOR IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
Encounter, Spring 2004 by Bessler-Northcutt, Joe

Using these methods of interpretation, Christians argued that Jews did not understand their own scriptures. Instead, their heroes and great festivals such as Passover prefigured the coming of the Incarnate God among men as a Jew. Yet the Jews' rejection of Jesus as the Messiah was itself evidence that the Jews were blinded to the meaning of their own prophetic texts. Writing between 160 and 170 in his "Passover Sermon," Melito of Sardis describes the typological interpretation that informs his sermon:

"Type" and "truth" (or "reality") are paralleled over and over, as old and new, temporal and eternal, terrestrial and celestial, mortal and immortal, etc. And the type is discarded when the truth arrives; it is replaced by the fullness of which it was the foreshadow.28

Related Results
The new anti-Zionism and the old antisemitism: transformations.
Bonhoeffer's many faces - theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Cover Story
Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History.(Review) (book review)
Daniel Goldhagen and the role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust.(A...

For Melito, the pattern was clear:

But when the church arose, and the gospel was shed abroad, the type was rendered useless, yielding its power to the reality; and the law came to an end, yielding its power to the gospel. Just as a pattern is left empty when its image is surrendered to reality, and a parable is made useless when its interpretation is made known, so also the law was finished when the gospel was revealed, and the people was abandoned, when the church was established, and the type was abolished when the Lord had appeared.29

The text of Melito's "Passover Sermon" is itself an angel of death, announcing that because Jews had "murdered" the God who so lovingly sought to heal them, they no longer deserved to be a covenantal people. The charge of deicide, issued by Melito, justifies in his mind - and for many Christian interpreters after him - the violence of declaring the Jews to be enemies of God.

A number of Christian theologians have demonstrated the violence at work in Christian supersessionism. Clark Williamson and Rosemary Radford Ruether are two prominent examples of theologians who have called Christian theology to account for its centuries of anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish commitments. Ruether has rightly pointed out that anti-Semitism is the "left hand of Christology."30 Yet one should not isolate the typological strategies of Christian supersessionism from their wider role in developing Christianity's imperial theology.31 If anti-Semitism is the left hand of Christology, imperialism is its right.

EMPIRE: A NECESSARY METAPHOR?

If the early followers of Jesus found in the rhetoric of martyrdom, sacrifice, and resurrection images to both vindicate the humiliation of the cross and to unmask the Romans' ideology of peace through imperial control, they did not develop a specifically Christian imperial model of truth. Nor is there reason to think that all Christians were intent on developing such a model. Nonetheless, when contemporary Christians speak of "tradition" they tend to affirm the development of the imperial tradition as something like a natural evolution from the faith of the New Testament communities. By illuminating the rhetorical choices at work in the apologetic literature, I hope to convince readers that the development of a Christian imperial theology was not natural but strategic, not an evolution but a set of decisions, made not by all, but by some whose influence increased as the model became increasingly useful.

Farnaz, you wrote,

"Really. You don't say. Certain is the dumping of the dietary laws? According to whom? For whom? And most importantly by whom?

Do you see what I mean? "

Well, no, I don't see exactly what you mean, but I will try to answer, best I can. Please remember that I am not preaching, I am answering the question.

Both Matthew and Mark record Jesus saying that it is not what enters your mouth that defiles you, but what comes out of it. This is generally taken to mean the overthrow of the dietary laws. In some manuscripts of Mark there is a paranthetical comment saying just that, but it is considered to be a later addition.

For whom? Those who are Christian. I make no judgment.

More for all Muffinists among us, and their number is legion.

Violence Unveiled:
Supersessionism Dangerously Veiled

by Dr. Rosann M. Catalano

Things fall apart ...
the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide
is loosed,
and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence
is drowned ...

William Butler Yeats
The Second Coming

Accounts of what can no longer be termed "unspeakable" acts of violence and terror assault us daily. News-papers and televisions capture the carnage and chaos that increasingly suggest the near-death of civility and the sure unraveling of the fabric of culture and society. How are we to under-stand the escalation of violence that threatens us as individuals and as a society? What are we to do in the face of the societal and cultural disintegration that follows in the wake of such terror? This worldwide esca-lation of violence, and the unsettling questions it raises, is the subject of Gil Bailie's book, Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads (Crossroad,1995).

Disturbingly relevant in the wake of the June bombing of the United States military installation in Saudi Arabia and the July bombing of Atlanta's Centennial Olympic Park, Violence Un-veiled warrants our attention on three counts: first, because it is a literate, riveting, persuasive, passionate, and intelligent work; second, because it is likely to play a significant role in reshaping public perceptions of the links between religion, culture, and violence; and third, because it is a deeply dis-turbing book that veils a subtle, but no less dangerous, Christian supersessionism and triumphalism.

I first heard of Violence Unveiled in June of this year at the annual meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of America. An interest group, convened to discuss theological responses to Bailie's book, generated intense and animated conversation long after the session ended. Clearly, Violence Unveiled had gripped the imaginations of my colleagues, and seemed to me well on its way to becoming the book to read if you could read only one book this year outside your discipline.

Critical reviews only confirmed my intuition: professional praise for Violence Unveiled has been impressive; criticism of it, sparse. Perhaps because I am leery of anything that comes so highly recommended, I was completely unprepared for what I read. Violence Unveiled is, in a word, remarkable. Bailie brings to his analysis of the interplay of violence, culture, and the sacred a breathtaking command of myth, poetry, the Bible, history, literature, and current events that is reminiscent of Susan Jacoby's intelligent and still relevant study of the relationship between justice and vengeance, Wild Justice: The Evolution of Revenge (Harper & Row, 1983). So captivating is Bailie's prose, so impressive the breadth of his knowledge, so compelling his argument, and so timely the topic that I fear the Christian supersessionism and triumphalism so deeply em-bedded in Bailie's argument will go unnoticed by the general reader.

Supersessionism (also known as displacement theology), along with the triumphalist view that accompanies it, is a collection of attitudes, prejudices, and stereotypes that has plagued the Church for two millennia. Sustained by a naive and pre-critical understanding of history, the Gospels, and the relationship of the two Testaments, supersessionism holds that God repudi-ated the Jewish people because they rejected Christ. As a consequence of that rejection, God invalidated the covenant with Israel, replaced the Law of Moses with the Law of Christ, made a new and eternal covenant with the Church, and made Christians the exclusive and rightful heirs of all God's promises.

Historically, the twin ideologies of Christian supersessionism and triumphalism have supported a "teaching of contempt" for Judaism and the Jewish people that has marred the history of
Violence Unveiled ...
veils a subtle
Christian
supersessionism and
triumphalism.
relations between Jews and Christians in violent and tragic ways. Eradicating such errone-ous "teaching" continues to be among the greatest challenges facing the Church in a post-Shoah world. The enormous ambiguity I feel toward Violence Unveiled rests on an uneasy sense that, at root, Bailie's solution to a world marked by escalating violence itself veils an anti-Judaic attitude that has traditionally fostered habits of hatred and legitimated demeaning and deadly acts of violence toward the Jewish people for two thousand years.

In Violence Unveiled, Bailie makes accessible to a wide audience the ground-breaking work of the French cultural critic and theorist, René Girard. At the heart of Girard's theory is the contention that violence undergirds the foundations of culture. According to Girard, human beings are mimetic by nature, that is, we imitate those we most love by desiring what the beloved desires, and now possesses. That is to say, human beings are deeply driven by the desire to possess what belongs to the beloved. Desire turns to envy; envy to rivalry; and rivalry creates an untenable conflict at the heart of our most intimate relationships, namely, the conflict generated by feelings of intense anger and rage directed at those we most love for possessing what we most desire. Such deep conflict, if left unresolved, undermines the stability of society and threatens its very preservation. Girard maintains that society attends to this conflict, and the destructive, violent impulses it generates, by creating the cultural myth of the scapegoat -- the witch, the heretic, the outsider, the disease-bearer, the Jew -- who is arbitrarily identified and selected as the source of the conflict. Ridiculed, tortured, expelled, murdered, or sacrificed, the scapegoat both satisfies and discharges the violence embedded deeply in our psyches while simultaneously keeping safe society's most important relationships. Scape-goating thus prevents the chaos and disintegration that would otherwise follow when imitative violence is left unchecked, and spirals out of control.

For Girard, religion plays an essential role in the cultural myth of the scapegoat. Its societal function is to create, maintain, and mediate a sacrificial system that ritually and symbolically reenacts the violence done to the scapegoat. Religion suc-cessfully mediates the cultural myth of the scapegoat by veiling the violence, which is integral to the myth, under the mantle of the sacred. With the violence thus concealed, the scapegoat undergoes a curious transformation. By delivering society from its most destructive impulses, the scapegoat is transformed from the "despised and rejected" of the people to the "savior" of the people. The sacrificial system that is at the heart of religion is thus structured around rituals that sym-bolically reenact the necessary violence that saves society from itself. Participation in these rituals satisfies, sustains, and, perhaps most importantly, contains both the individual desire and the cultural necessity of imitative violence. In so doing, religion legitimates violence by veiling it with the status of "sacred."

In Violence Unveiled, Gil Bailie argues that Christianity has unveiled the violence at the heart of the sacrificial system. Relying on Girard's theory of the relationship of violence, culture, and religion to analyze contemporary American life, Bailie turns to the Bible for his solution to the problem of the escalating violence that threatens us. He contends that, beginning in the Hebrew Bible, and coming to full and definitive completion in the New Testament, the mythology of scapegoat sacrifice was ultimately exposed and thus rendered ineffectual by a tradition that gradually took the astounding position of identifying with the victim. According to Bailie, the death of Jesus completed this gradual move. It definitively broke humanity's need for and reliance on the sacrificial system that both satisfied and perpetuated our violent nature. Like many before him, Jesus was offered as a sacrificial victim and scapegoat in the interest of society. The unique and ongoing contribution of Christianity begins, however, with a post-resurrection community that definitively broke the cycle of violence by refusing to veil Jesus' death in lofty religious rhetoric. Instead, it testified without equivocation that Jesus had been murdered at the hands of an unjust society. The resurrection, Bailie tells us, is a bold proclamation announcing that the cycle of sacred violence has been broken and can remain so if we renounce and reject the power of imitative violence; if we seek not to exact vengeance; if, instead, we become makers of peace. Having exposed, or demythologized, the myth of the scapegoat, Christianity holds out to the world its best hope for breaking the cycle of violence by offering an alternative, nonviolent way of living.

I conclude this review of Violence Unveiled by noting two assumptions that undergird Bailie's thesis, and about which I have serious reservations. The first is his understanding of the Bible, especially his assumption concerning the relationship of the two Testaments; the second, his contention that Chris-tianity, having irrevocably unveiled the violence at the heart of all religions, and thus, at the heart of all cultures, offers humankind its best hope for breaking the cycle of violence that continues to threaten its very existence.

First, Bailie's solution to the problem of the escalating violence that threatens us turns on his understanding of Sacred Scripture, and it is this that I find most problematic, and most dangerous, about his project. For Bailie, the Bible is a unified story that tells of the gradual unfolding of God's self-revelation to humankind, a story that came to its definitive and full expression in Christ Jesus. The Testaments are thus inextri-cably bound together by a single story-line. This "single story" reading of the Bible implies that Israel's story, although an essential part of God's story, is, nonetheless, an incomplete one; that the "New" Testament (and, by implication, Chris-tianity) is, in fact, the "final" chapter that completes God's story begun with Israel. Without the New Testament, the Hebrew Bible (and, by implication, Judaism) is, by God's design, "incomplete." That is to say, Judaism and the Jewish people can never fully enjoy what God initiated with them at Sinai because Sinai's fulfillment was accomplished in and by Jesus alone, and preserved forevermore, and fully, by Christianity.

My concern with such supersessionist and triumphalist notions is that they privilege Christianity over all other religious tra-ditions, thereby creating an ethos that allows Christians to view the "other" in ways that have proven to be both dangerous and deadly. Without diminishing the real and difficult issues that Christianity and Judaism must resolve as regards the way in which each understands the relationship of the two Testaments, and, by implication, the relationship of the two faiths, it is, I believe, to the detriment of both traditions if either argues that God's love, mercy, and good-ness are exhausted in one's own story, or that each has nothing enduring to learn from the other about the One who is creator and sustainer of all that is.

The second assumption that undergirds Bailie's argument, and about which I have apprehension, is his assertion that the post-resurrection community broke the cycle of violence preserved in the sacrificial system of first-century Common Era Judaism by refusing to speak of Jesus' death in traditional religious terms. That the nascent Christian community turned instinctively and quite naturally to its own religious tradition in its struggle to understand the meaning and significance of what had been revealed regarding Jesus of Nazareth is beyond dispute. What "language" was it to use if not that of the Hebrew Scriptures? In the biblical idiom of the only scriptures it had, the Christian community found poetic, metaphorical, and theological motifs through which it could articulate what was at the heart of its religious experience. Bailie seems to suggest that, unlike the sacrificial language of the Hebrew Bible that veils the violence at the root of religion, the sacrificial language Christians use to talk about the meaning of Jesus neither veils nor conceals violence, but instead, clearly and unambiguously reveals the mystery of God. But Chris-tianity is preserved and embodied by a people and by institutional structures that are always in need of self-critical examination and reform, always in need of the self-correcting power inherent in a people who understand the sinful, and thus ambiguous, ways in which they witness to the love and mercy of God. The power of Christianity to be an instrument of God's redeeming love for the world resides not in its perfec-tion, nor in its unambiguous proclamation. The power of its witness rests instead in its ability to know itself, like Peter, as one who has betrayed the Lord, but who in his brokenness knows the God of all hope as one who always works with the weak of the world to repair and redeem it. Supersessionist and triumphalist thinking sells Christianity short by neutralizing its own capacity for self-critical, and thus, self-correcting, reflection.

These reservations notwithstanding, I recommend reading Violence Unveiled. While I have serious doubts regarding Bailie's theological "solution" for our violent world, his analysis of the erosion of our social stability remains compelling. Recog-nizing that we shall not long survive in a world marked by escalating violence, we may be tempted to turn to solutions that are themselves violent. Violence Unveiled argues convinc-ingly that our cries for vengeance, understandable though they may be, are not viable alternatives to the violence that surrounds and threatens us. Gil Bailie does not flinch in setting before us this harsh fact.

Another perspective on the moral consequences of entities like CCNL Bagel and Imaginary Friends: Harvey the Giant Rabbit, M. Jesus Christ, M. Yehoshua Messiah, Glinda, the Good Witch, and the Seven Dwarfs.

Supersessionism

Part I: What is supersessionism?

The word "supersessionism" comes from the Latin super ("on," "upon," or "above") and sedere ("to sit"), as when one person sits on another person's chair, thereby displacing the other person. Christian theological super-sessionism -- as espoused, for example, by Augustine (5th century) and Martin Luther (16th century) -- makes the claim that, following the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christians replaced Jews in God's love and favor and in the divine plan of salvation. According to the superses-sionist view, God repudiated the Jewish people for their rejection of Christ. As a result, God's covenantal rela-tionship with Israel was abrogated, to be taken up by the Church; and the Mosaic Law (Torah) was annulled, to be replaced by the law of Christ. Christians inherited all the promises of God to Israel in the Bible; Jews retained all the Bible's prophetic criticism and condem-nation. Jewish biblical interpretation was discounted, and the "Old Testament" was assigned only a provisional validity. Judaism came to be regarded as merely a his-torical and social entity at best, and, at worst, a dead faith, the victim of a Pharisaic-rabbinic obsession with legalistic piety.

In supersessionist theology Jesus' ministry is understood as having been in direct opposition to Judaism. In conse-quence, Jesus is completely removed from his first-century Jewish context, and he becomes the primary obstacle between Christians and Jews.

Part II: Why is supersessionism a problem?

Implied in the claim that Christians displaced Jews in the covenant with God is the notion that Jews should stop being Jews and become Christians. This ideology under-girds a "teaching of contempt" for Jews and Judaism that has marred relations between Christians and Jews for two millennia. Over the centuries anti-Judaic attitudes buttressed by displacement theology have produced evil fruit: legislation designed to discriminate against and suppress the Jews, and open acts of violence -- forced baptism, child stealing, population expulsions, and mur-derous pogroms. Habits of hatred ultimately paved the way for the Nazis' "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem."

The supersessionist theology that created so many bur-dens for Jews has proved to be a problem for Christians as well. Supersessionism distorted Christian doctrine as it developed in the early Church. It continues to influence much contemporary Christian theology and is continually reinforced by the preaching and teaching presented in many churches. To our shame, moreover, supersessionist attitudes have fostered among Christians demonstrably un-Christian behavior.

Supersessionist theology raises crucial questions that a responsible Christianity cannot afford to ignore. For example, if Jews have been displaced in the divine plan of salvation, how do Christians account for Judaism's continuing existence and for the many faithful and theologically profound people who have been a part of the Jewish community? If a newer revelation displaces an older one, hasn't Christianity been displaced by Islam? Most significantly, what does supersessionist the-ology imply about the morality and faithfulness of God? If God's promises to the patriarchs and matriarchs of the people Israel could be nullified by the coming of Jesus Christ, what guarantee do Christians have that God's promises to anyone are reliable? The glaring weaknesses in displacement theology ought to make it obvious to Christians everywhere that supersessionism must be abandoned.

Part III: What can be done about supersessionism?

Before discussing those things that Christians can do to reverse the pernicious effects of displacement theology on our minds and hearts, it should be acknowledged with thanksgiving that thoughtful people in many denomina-tions have been working for a number of years to identify and eliminate the vestiges of supersessionism that still taint our faith. Devoted Christians everywhere need to expand these efforts and continue to work until every trace of the "teaching of contempt" has been eradicated.

Overcoming supersessionism is not an insurmountable problem, but it is a complex one. It requires the Church: (1) to question the appropriateness and credibility of its teachings about the God of Israel and the Israel of God, (2) to confront the implications of those teachings, and (3) to reexamine the major doctrines of the Christian tradition in light of what the Church will have learned in the process about itself and its relationship to Judaism and the Jewish people.

Moreover, the Church must reappraise its approach to the Bible. Christians need to acknowledge the anti-Jewish polemic in the Christian Scriptures and under-stand the historical reasons for its presence. In addition, we must recognize the religious importance of the Hebrew Bible in its own right and establish a proper understanding of the relationship between the two testaments. We must also develop more appropriate ways of interpreting scripture. Most fundamentally, we must acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth lived his life, from the manger to the cross, as a Jew; and we must interpret Paul and his theology in the context of the Judaisms of the first century of the Common Era.

On the most elemental level, it is in the story Christians tell of divine interventions in human history and God's relations with humankind that we image our basic convictions and our understanding of reality and the nature of Christian life. If we are to overcome super-sessionism, we must change the way we tell this story.

Finally, we Christians must change our attitudes and behavior toward the Jewish people. We must jettison Christian caricatures and stereotypes of Judaism and learn how Jews understand their own religious beliefs. We must be in conversation with Jews as we do our theology. We must reexamine our efforts to convert Jews to Christianity, concentrating our energies instead on engaging with them in witness and service. Above all, we must teach respect for the Jewish people and for Judaism as a vibrant faith having its own integrity and witness to the world.

Another side of Jewish history:

"It’s easy to be confused by the word ‘conservative’ in the title Conservative Judaism. It simply means that—at least in the past—the ‘Conservative’ Jews have preferred to retain some traditions that Reform Jews reject, while avoiding the ‘extreme’ literalism of Orthodox Jews. This middle course has given lip-service to the ‘divine origin’ of the Torah, while embracing modern claims that the ‘human element’ in the Bible entails errors.1

Reflecting ‘the latest findings in archaeology,’ a new commentary on the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) was released last fall by the US-based United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Called Etz Hayim (‘Tree of Life’), it is the first commentary on the Torah to be published by Conservative Jews since 1936. A report in the New York Times (9 March 2002) shows just how far Conservative Jewish scholars have gone in their rejection of God’s inspired account of human origins and early history.

The New York Times article, titled ‘As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting,’ opens:

‘Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

‘Such startling propositions—the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years—have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity—until now.’

One contributor to Etz Hayim, rabbi David Wolpe of Los Angeles, says that the rejection of the Bible as literally true ‘is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis.’ In the back of the new commentary are 41 essays—some quite radical. In one essay on ‘Ancient Near Eastern Mythology,’ Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, says that modern scholarship links the Genesis account of origins and the Flood to Mesopotamian myths, e.g. Gilgamesh (but see Was Genesis copied from pagan mythology?). In another essay on ‘Biblical Archaeology,’ Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, questions the Biblical account of Jericho, arguing that the town was apparently empty and unprotected when the Hebrew people settled the area. "

Rabbi Wolpe was a recent guest panelist for the On Faith blog.

"What has not been settled is just how much of the Old Covenant was tossed out. It is certain that all the dietary laws were dumped."

Really. You don't say. Certain is the dumping of the dietary laws? According to whom? For whom? And most importantly by whom?

Do you see what I mean?

Arminius,

Thank you for your reply. You may have a Covenant. I have no problem with that, and neither does anyone else so far as I know. However, to assert that the Covenant, the Tanakh, has now been tossed is supersessionist ideology writ large. What Christianity needs to do is rid itself of this. Leave the Tanakh to the people for whom it was written.

Islam asserts that Jesus was not the son of God, that any who believe this are doomed to hell. It further asserts he was not killed. Since Mohammad was the last prophet, it ends with him. Do you understand.

If you did read anything on Christian Supersessionist ideology, displacement ideology, replacement ideology, you would know that your post, however unintentionally, is entirely consistent with it. The clearest most articulate explication of the consequences of expropriating another people's sacred text, the Tanakh, deeming it "Old" (sic) replacing it with the "New" (sic), is Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide. Ruether, a Catholic, is formerly of Harvard.

Farnaz,

I had never heard of Christian Supersessionist, so I googled. All I can do is answer for myself, not for all Christians. I hope you realize by this time that I do not blame Judaism for anything whatsoever. There are many paths up the mountain, mine is only one, and I do not claim its superiority.

As to covenants. That Christianity has a New Covenant is true, in the words of Jesus himself. What has not been settled is just how much of the Old Covenant was tossed out. It is certain that all the dietary laws were dumped. The Two Great Commandments did not supersede the 10 commandments, they just condensed them into positive statements which fit the message of Jesus much better.

I'm not sure how far I will go in this with you. I am a seeker, not a debater.

Arminius,

Christian (by which I mean all Christian denominations, incl. Catholicism) supersessionist ideology, also called replacement and displacement ideology, is not a new topic in Religious studies. If you google Christian Supersessionist ideology you will find numerous sources on the web. Most of them include information on Christian contempt for Judaism and Jews, the economic, political, and social implications of the pernicious "displacement" view.

Some also suggest that Supersessionists consider the implications of Islam for their various Christianities. The Vatican published an apologia/condemnation on/of Supersessionism in the 1990s, but so long as it maintains its typological (essentialist)stance, it cannot rid Catholicism of replacement perspectives, as numerous Catholic commentators have pointed out.

Arminius,

In contemporary dictionaries either "dwarf" or "dwarves" is acceptable, although the former is the first entry for plurals, and, hence, more common. If, however, you prefer "dwarves," please go ahead and use it.

I have a nine-year-old and am aware of the various transmutations of Glinda as Baum continued his work. I prefer "witch," but you are correct about "sorceress" and are free, of course, to use it.

Finally, all the BS which CCNL and OTHERS spout about what to us J people is the Covenant, does not make it so.

Unfortunately, the Covenant has been co-opted and misinterpreted, the subject of replacement ideology, supersessionist ideology, that deems it "Old." This is true, Arminius. I kid you not.

There are an enormous number of people who believe they have a "New" Testament (sic) that replaces the Covenant. Worse, they've never actually read the Covenant, which was written over the course of centuries, mainly in Hebrew but also in Aramaic.

These people, call them whatever you'd like, feel absolutely free to pronounce upon the Covenant, I swear to God.

Hi, Farnaz,

Harvey certainly resembles a 6 ft rabbit, but technically he is a pooka. A little known fact about Glinda is that, while she is the good witch of the north in the movie, in the books (ca 1900) she was either the good witch or sorceress of the south. Note that on the authority of none other than J R R Tolkien, the plural of 'dwarf' is 'dwarves'. Being a multilingual philologist, he knew what he was talking about. See the addendum in 'Lord of the Rings'.

As to Jesus being imaginary, the lack of direct historical proof does not make it so.

Hi you guys and gals,

I came across this site today for all you atheist's out there. Since the DJ is working from a presuppositional argument I thought I would include it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79WkECHuQN4&feature=PlayList&p=29A798396AD739CB&index=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rutwC081kcw&feature=PlayList&p=29A798396AD739CB&index=5

BTW, there are 24 videos on atheism. I have only listened to the two so far. I liked what I heard! Please enjoy! (-:

CCNL Bagel and Imaginary Friends:

Harvey the Giant Rabbit, M. Jesus Christ, M. Yehoshua Messiah, Glinda, the Good Witch, and the Seven Dwarfs.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ASTORIA :
OCTOBER 18, 2008 3:32 AM

IRT:
UNYIELDING POLITICAL BELIEFS

“The results, if supported by further research could have implications for the everyday hair-pulling discussions about politics, Hibbing said. Often, he said, individuals with strong, opposing views will become frazzled over why the other person can't "see the light."

ANS:
Being frazzled is a sign of lost control of one’s comport. The normal healthy proper educated man, both spiritually and physically, has an autonomous control over his emotions and concupiscence.

His reason for the most part controls his emotions. However, that does not deny man just anger caused by arrogance, unconscionable outrageous behavior, and extortionate disrespect. But man remains under rational control.

IRT:
"But if I realize that maybe you do experience the world somewhat differently than I do and you see threats where I don't or vice versa and you just feel it differently, that might increase our tolerance a little better," Hibbing told Live Science."

ANS:
All knowledge must be based on reason. If it contradicts reason, it is false and not knowledge at all. If one has false information and acts upon it, he acts irrationally.

Now something “cannot be” and “be” at the same time under the same circumstances. That would be refutable of the first principle of thought, as Aristotle points out in his treaty of Fundamental Principles. So in as far as one’s knowledge is factual and one’s judgments are logical, then one can’t have a view that is the opposite of the factual view and both views cannot be right.

Second we know when a thing is true by the fruits it yields and its conformity to reality.

Abstractions of knowledge from the world of reality, or in the First Degree of Abstraction only convey certain aspects of the object known. We can only know that which exists and not what is potential. Hence we plant a rose bush, and potentially it will produce roses, but we cannot predict how many roses it will actually produce until it does.

In the Second Degree of Abstraction, Mathematics, we have more certitude. We can predict things in mathematics, (because of its less attachment to matter) that we can’t always predict in the First Degree of Abstraction because there is less unknown in Mathematics than in the First Degree Abstractions.

Hence, in Mathematics, if we have one apple and get another, we will always have two under the same circumstances, viz. 1+1 will always = 2, though a rose bush will not always produce the same number and size of roses. In the First degree of Abstraction our knowledge is uncertain and the certitude is not as great because the knowledge attached to material beings is not always known because much of its being is not actual but potential.

IRT:
He added, "It might make it a little easier to appreciate why political disputes are so difficult to get around. They're almost ubiquitous."

The results might also help to explain the seemingly unyielding beliefs of some individuals with strong political views.

"There are a lot of people with strong political beliefs and they just won't change. They build the world around their existing beliefs," Hibbing said. "And we're trying to figure out where those existing beliefs came from."

ANS:
Strong beliefs are built around the belief's consonance to reality and the fruits they bear. If one has the facts and denies these facts are true then he acts on his false belief and he acts irrational.

If one’s inability to perceive the truth because of his predispositions, proclivities, and his egocentrism has blinded him to the truth, his emotions and desires overpower his reason and judgments and he acts on false information causing him to make erroneous judgments.

Man’s conscience can be made inoperative by not exercising it and feeding it the truth. Therefore, when man doesn’t seek the truth but prefers to wallow in his own desires and biases, he blunts his reason and his ability to perceive the truth and make sound judgments. That's not caused by biology but by his inability to control his passions.

Truth does not depend on what one thinks; truth is that which exist. False knowledge is no knowledge at all in the sense false knowledge doesn't exist because error is a lack of truth.

Man must always seek the truth because of his nature. The intellect by its nature always seeks the truth, and man always acts for the good that is truth.

However, though man always acts for the good, he can act for what he thinks is an apparent good or an apparent truth and therefore act wrongly. Man, unless physically impaired, acts not because of his biological effects, but because of his intellect and free will. Man’s intellect commands his body to act. Because of man’s free will, man is held morally responsible. If man’s beliefs were biologically caused, he couldn’t be morally responsible.

IRT:
“Fierce individualists, Americans figure that we choose our own political beliefs, but actually it could come down to biology.:”

ANS:
To say our beliefs are determined by biology is to deny man has a free will and that man is not responsible for his own acts. That is nonsense. Hence, our whole judicial system would be rendered unjust because we would be holding a criminal responsible for a crime he could, not avoid naturally.

IRT:
Individuals who are MORE EASILY STARTLED BY THREATS are more likely than others to support protective policies, such as military spending, the

ANS:
Man is startled by threats because he has an innate inviolable right to self-defense, and a natural desire to survive, or live.

True belief is based in true knowledge. Belief in error is fragile and irrational when acted upon. Truth is independent of thought; truth cannot contradict truth. Man rationalizes to the truth through his experiences and the aid of virtues, an operative habit essentially good, as distinguished from vice that is an operative habit essentially evil.

"A habit is a quality in itself difficult of change, disposing well or ill of the subject in which it resides, either directly in itself or in relation to its operation. An operative habit is a quality residing in a power or faculty in itself indifferent to this or that line of action, but determined by the habit to this rather than to that kind of acts.

Virtue then has this in common with vice, that it disposes potency to a certain determined activity; but it differs specifically from vice in that it disposes it to good acts, i.e. acts in consonance with right reason.

Thus, temperance inclines the sensuous appetite to acts of moderation conformably to right reason just as intemperance impels the same appetite to acts of excess contrary to the dictates of our rational nature. “

Of course, certain acts cause certain physical and biological occurrences. Hence, a lie detector measures the biological responses when a person doesn’t tell the truth. However, the truth doesn’t change and man’s conscience causes the biological changes.

Knowing the truth and refuting it can be measured on the detector but it doesn’t change the belief of the liar; he knows he is lying.

Strong beliefs are not caused by stress or biological occurrences, but because of a belief’s consonance with reality. Wrong beliefs are beliefs that have faulty information, as do wrong judgments. If one has the correct information and denies the truth, he acts irrationally for his own perceived benefit not because of biology.

Since man’s intellect was wounded by the remnants of Adam’s Original Sin man is subjected to unreliable judgments. Therefore, God, when called upon, can intercede in man’s search for the Truth. Thus, it is written, “With man nothing is possible; with God all things are possible.”

The virtue and gift of prudence is given to man by God through his Church and the Holy Spirit. It is a necessity for proper thinking.

“It is to be observed that prudence, whilst possessing in some sort an empire over all the moral virtues, itself aims to perfect not the will, but the intellect in its practical decisions. Its function is to point out which course of action is to be taken in any round of concrete circumstances.

Virtue is the power preservative and promotive of life. It is adequacy of ideas, reasonable conduct, and conformity to intelligent nature: finally that "the highest virtue of the intellect is the knowledge of God who is all reality itself"

Prudence indicates which, here and now, is the golden mean wherein the essence of all virtue lies. It has nothing to do with directly willing the good it discerns. That is done by the particular moral virtue within whose province it falls.

Prudence, therefore, has a directive capacity with regard to the other virtues. It lights the way and measures the arena for their exercise. The insight it confers makes one distinguish successfully between their mere semblance and their reality. It must preside over the eliciting of all acts proper to any one of them at least if they be taken in their formal sense.

Thus, without Prudence, bravery becomes foolhardiness; mercy sinks into weakness, and temperance into fanaticism. But it must not be forgotten that prudence is a virtue adequately distinct from the others, and not simply a condition attendant upon their operation.

Its office is to determine for each in practice those circumstances of time, place, manner, etc. which should be observed, and which the Scholastics comprise under the term medium rationis. So it is that whilst it qualifies immediately the intellect and not the will, it is nevertheless rightly styled a moral virtue.”

The History of the Jews and the Simple Preacher Man aka Jesus- short version:

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

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Current crisis:

Realization that the Jews are not god's not chosen people.
www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

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

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

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

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

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

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals (e.g. the Osteens and Dr. Graham) and atonement theology.

My Dear Muffinist CCNL Bagel,

It is kind of you to spread the news that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down through divine intervention.

Mais, évidemment vous ne lisez pas de français. Permettez-moi d'aider. Mosquitos do not rule, but, rather, abound; among them is your own deluded self avec imaginary friends. Thus far, we count Harvey the Giant Rabbit, M. Jesus Christ, M. Yehoshua Messiah, Glinda, the Good Witch, and the Seven Dwarfs.

In case you missed it: (from the last government/NSF study)

"Mosquitos rule !!!!! Joshua was one of their billions of successful targets. Ditto for "bloody" orthodox Catholics, blood-spilling "Islamics", other mythical Jews and singing Mormons. Pagan blood is an extra treat!!!!"

CCNL:

Since, unlike bewildered Astoria, you may actually comprehend French, and, en tout cas, would not rush hysterically to post laughable web translations, I will address myself to you in that language. French is my L2, easier for me than English, and it is Observer12's native language.

Vous n'êtes pas tout à fait corrects, CC Bagel, mon ami. Certainement, il y a des mosquitos comme Observer12 remarqué. Deux exemples sont votre esprit malade et votre ami imaginaire M. Jésus Christ.

Susan Jacoby wrote: "On the one hand, some bloggers think there was nothing racist about the comments I recounted"

Then again the president of the Chaffey Community Republican Women said she didn't see anything racist about circulating a picture of Obama on a food stamp with pictures of watermelon, fried chicken and ribs around him in their newsletter. Some people have a huge capacity for self delusion.

Anonymous wrote: "NOBODY is talking about race, except Obama and democrats!"

The aforementioned president of the Chaffey Community Republican Women also said she received the image they circulated "in number of chain e-mails". Clearly there is an undercurrent of racist discussion out there that is coming from folks opposed to Obama.

One need look no further than UK1981's feeble attempt to link Obama with Malcolm X on this very thread to see that the undercurrent is there. (Obama was a toddler when Malcolm was killed, what sort of "ties" could they have had?)

Astoria, Astoria, Astoria,

Again, Hmmm, "Fierce individualists, Americans figure that we choose our own political beliefs, but actually it could come down to biology. "

"Could" is the operative word.

A theory based on the stress level of 46 corn growers from Nebraska?? Give us a break!!!

And what "pork bill"/NSF grant was this waste of taxpayers money in??

And the answer is????

It wasn't a question to be answered actually.

"A couple of months later, the same participants underwent tests for their so-called startle reflexes."

The testing was unrelated, again to the already formed political views.

"The results might also help to explain the seemingly unyielding beliefs of some individuals with strong political views. "There are a lot of people with strong political beliefs and they just won't change. They build the world around their existing beliefs," Hibbing said. "And we're trying to figure out where those existing beliefs came from."

This is an interesting conclusion.
It seems to indicate that it is the fear itself, that is the impetus that moves one towards a set of beliefs.

The argument as to how much religious views are movtivated by fear is another one. But, I am a believer, and fully admit that my faith is catalyzed by fear on many occasions.

The test, suggests, what the McCain camp is already well aware of. Their base is strongly motivated by fear. The tactics used seem to confirm this- even if they will deny it out loud.

So, for me, it is interesting, and relevant to the article written by Ms. Jacoby.

That is a fine repsonse, but Ithink you are confusing religious faith and beliefs with political views.

It wasn't stress reactions affecting the decision making process.

It was a matter of those who already had made the decision,were known to tend, or to support more security based issues that protected them had the stronger fear reactions.

So, the decision wasn't based on a reaction to stress stimuli- the decision was already made.

It was that they found that people who ALREADY supported those views- were more fearfully inclined.

people acting under stress- it was that those who had the stronger fear reactions

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ASTORIA :
OCTOBER 18, 2008 3:32 AM

IRT:
“Political Views Driven by Biology
By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer
18 September 2008

Participants who scored high on the skin and blinking stress tests also tended to support military spending, warrantless searches, death penalty, the Patriot Act, obedience, patriotism, the Iraq War, school prayer and the concept of Biblical truth.

And they tended to oppose pacifism, immigration, gun control, foreign aid, compromise, premarital sex, gay marriage, abortion rights, and pornography.”

ANS:
There are many studies that show when man is under stress he will react differently than when not under stress because man has an innate instinct to live or to survive And so when his life is threatened he does things he normally doesn’t do.

There is a true story that a man was pinned under a truck that was crushing him to death and another man lifted the truck up enough to drag the man out. His strength came to save another’s life.

On the other hand, belief in the truth does not whimsically vaporize in the face of stress. If knowledge were sustained by reason and virtues like prudence, temperance, fortitude, compassion, and love for man, than even in the face of death, would not have an affect on one's belief the martyrs would not disavow their belief in God. Only false beliefs destroy the individual.

In Scripture, a mother watched her sons be thrown into a fiery furnace to force her and them to renounce their faith in God. It was to no avail for the vultures. The family's belief was stronger than any stress that was possible. Maria Gorretti was assaulted and stabbed by a rapist whom she forgave before she died. Her belief sustained her in her greatest stress.

However, when one is not under stress, and one is in control of his faculties, he returns to his normal self.

The intellect is controlled by reason; its purpose is to control one’s emotions, one’s will, one’s desires, appetites and concupiscence. Moreover, man is endowed with a conscience as well.

Man's conscience is an innate power of the intellect that aids man in distinguishing right from wrong. However, the intellect, whose formal object is truth, must be fed truth to sustain it; the food of the intellect is knowledge.

Knowledge is truth; it perfects reason in that man can make right decisions that are conducive to both his physical and mental well being. The more man’s intellect is perfected by knowledge, the more he is perfected because he becomes more capable of controlling his appetite and making right choices and not rash judgments.

Does the environment have an effect on reason? It does to the extent we perceive things by obtaining knowledge through our senses. In so far as we can obtain knowledge through our senses and our actual experiences, we can make rational judgments. If our senses are faulty, so too is our reception of what we perceive, and therefore, our reason and judgments will be false.

Man by the nature of his intellect seeks the truth, which is the sustenance of the intellect. If he does not seek the truth, man is capable of believing anything. Moreover, he is suspect to paranoia and schizophrenia and delusions and doubt.

Conscience must be developed, just as an athlete develops his body, as does a great mathematician must constantly deal with numbers and problems is continuously practicing. If you ever noticed a good accountant, he can handle numbers even without a calculator. Numbers become a natural habit, as does the virtues that make man a virtuous person. They make man capable of sound and inscrutable judgments.

There are many gifts from God that perfect man in truth. "The gift of the Holy Ghost, by coming into the soul endows it with prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude, and at the same time God strengthens man against every kind of temptation by His sevenfold gift.

It is said that the virtues are given us that we may do good works, and the gifts, that we may resist temptation. But neither is this distinction sufficient. Because the virtues also resist those temptations which lead to the sins that are contrary to the virtues; for everything naturally resists its contrary: which is especially clear with regard to charity, of which it is written (Canticles 8:7): "Many waters cannot quench charity.” Once one grasp the truth he will not relinquish it, it will always remain. Hence, 1+1 = 2 no mstter what arguments are made against it.

In the sense of Christianity, man’s intellect was covered in darkness, namely, he is subject to fallibility, because of Adam’s Original Sin. Hence, the perfect man must be perfected by the graces that God gives man through his Church. Without these graces, man struggles to be righteous.

“Thus, God gives to man as a gift the moral virtue of Prudence. Prudence is an intellectual habit that enables us to see in any given juncture of human affairs what is virtuous and what is not, and how to come at the one and avoid the other.

Hmmm, "Fierce individualists, Americans figure that we choose our own political beliefs, but actually it could come down to biology. "

"Could" is the operative word.

A theory based on the stress level of 46 corn growers from Nebraska?? Give us a break!!!

And what "pork bill"/NSF grant was this waste of taxpayers money in??

I FOUND THIS TO BE AN INTERESTING ARTICLE., AND RELEVANT TO THE ARTICLE AND TOPIC.

Political Views Driven by Biology
By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer
18 September 2008

Fierce individualists, Americans figure that we choose our own political beliefs, but actually it could come down to biology.

Individuals who are MORE EASILY STARTLED BY THREATS are more likely than others to support protective policies, such as military spending, the Iraq War and the death penalty, finds a new study.

Researchers over the years have put forth several factors to explain a person's political beliefs, including religion, culture, genetics and everyday experiences.

While the new study involved a relatively small number of participants and doesn't topple any of these ideas, it adds physiology as another driver of political leanings. It suggests, at least for those with strong political views, that some people are somehow built differently than others, either through genetics or life experiences or both.

Stress and politics

The study involved 46 Nebraska residents, chosen for having strong political beliefs from a larger population of randomly selected individuals. The participants answered survey questions on political beliefs, personality traits and demographics.

A couple of months later, the same participants underwent tests for their so-called startle reflexes. The researchers measured levels of skin moisture as indicators of stress and anxiety for each participant as he or she looked at threatening images, including a large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it. Similarly, participants also viewed three non-threatening images (a bunny, a bowl of fruit and a happy child) placed within a series of other images.

The researchers also measured the intensity of the participants' eye blinks in response to sudden, jarring noises. Harder blinks are linked with a heightened state of fear, the researchers say.

Participants who scored high on the skin and blinking stress tests also tended to support military spending, warrantless searches, death penalty, the Patriot Act, obedience, patriotism, the Iraq War, school prayer and the concept of Biblical truth.
And they tended to oppose pacifism, immigration, gun control, foreign aid, compromise, premarital sex, gay marriage, abortion rights and pornography.

Those who were less startled by threatening images and noises were more likely to favor foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control.

The researchers found no significant differences in the stress tests of participants when viewing the non-threatening images.

They also didn't find any real difference between men and women regarding their jumpy responses, though females did tend to be a little less supportive of defense spending and more supportive of pacifism, said researcher John Hibbing, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Unyielding political beliefs

The results, if supported by further research could have implications for the everyday hair-pulling discussions about politics, Hibbing said. Often, he said, individuals with strong, opposing views will become frazzled over why the other person can't "see the light."

"But if I realize that maybe you do experience the world somewhat differently than I do and you see threats where I don't or vice versa and you just feel it differently, that might increase our tolerance a little better," Hibbing told LiveScience.

He added, "It might make it a little easier to appreciate why political disputes are so difficult to get around. They're almost ubiquitous."

The results might also help to explain the seemingly unyielding beliefs of some individuals with strong political views. "There are a lot of people with strong political beliefs and they just won't change. They build the world around their existing beliefs," Hibbing said. "And we're trying to figure out where those existing beliefs came from."

The research, which will be detailed in the Sept. 19 issue of the journal Science, was financially supported by the National Science Foundation, ManTech Corporation, and University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

. Farnaz- first you chided Ms. Jacoby with

"1. There is no such thing as "pseudo-word" with or without the hyphen, except, perhaps, for "pseudo-word."

"But there is such a thing as pseudoword in Jacoby's sense. The Pseudoword Dictionary deals with such constructions."

Live and learn,oui?
You are welcome.

Farnaz commented to Ms. Jacoby

"There are things you can do to bolster your self-esteem."

Probably being a published author and panelist on WAPO suits her pretty well.

Can you not find things to bolster your own self esteem?
Besides making snide insults in French?

Farnaz-
This cretin Astoria developed a facility with the mouse. I do not know where this putz and its buddy CCNL come from, but frankly I cannot take some much more. Why don't you take Jacoby in the features?

But which is the problem? The lunatic cretin is on the same intellectual level of as the essay writer. If I should decide to take the last(Ms. Jacoby) in the features, therefore I have the obvious advantage of this blog.
I would have explored " pseudo-word" in any case, would have found the source. You do not see Observer, the lunatic cretin clicked the mouse for me?

Since you have such a low opinion of me- abd equate my intellectual capacity with Ms. Jacoby's- Why say it in french?

Yes, Farnaz, I am your easily manipulated monkey- and I found this information to save you the trouble-
How clever you are! I'm sure WAPO is recognizing your obvious superiority and is working on getting you your spot on the panel right now.
OBSERVER-
"Cannot we get rid of this Astoria gnat? And CCNL?"

No, not likely.

And what kind of bizarre insult is cretin dement anyway?

Stay in school kids!

Mosquitos rule !!!!! Joshua was one of our billions of successful targets. Ditto for "bloody" orthodox Catholics, blood-spilling "Islamics", other mythical Jews and singing Mormons. Pagan blood is an extra treat!!!!

Observer,

Actually, this definition of pseudoword draws on linguistics. But there is such a thing as pseudoword in Jacoby's sense. The Pseudoword Dictionary deals with such constructions. They're the sorts of things she probably had in mind. You understand why although from one perspective this is troubling, from another it is not?

Goodnight, my friend,

Farnaz

Observer,

What follows isn't for your edification, of course. But you see here is pseudoword. There is even a pseudoword dictionary, which is fun! Of course, "classism" isn't in it, nor is "journalist," etc. Évidemment il n'a pas de trait d'union, mais alors nous nous occupons de deux tricots arrogants. Trois vraiment. Mais vous devez vous reposer. J'y publierai en temps voulu.
What I don't know is whence my Wikipedian inclinations.

PSEUDOWORD
A pseudoword is a unit of speech or text that appears to be an actual word in a certain language (at least superficially), while in fact it is not part of the lexicon. Within linguistics, a pseudoword is defined specifically as respecting the phonotactic restrictions of a language. That is, it does not include sounds or series of sounds that do not exist in that language: it is easily pronounceable for speakers of the language. Also, when written down, a pseudoword does not include characters of strings of characters that are not permissible in the spelling of the target language. "Vonk" is a pseudoword in English, while "dfhnxd" is not. The latter is an example of a nonword. Nonwords are contrasted with pseudowords in that they are not pronounceable and by their spelling, which could not be the spelling of a real word.

CLASSISM
Classism is prejudice and/or discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic class. Like all forms of prejudice and discrimination it goes both ways. It includes individual attitudes and behaviors, systems of policies and practices that are set up to benefit the upper classes at the expense of the lower classes. Classism is grounded in a hierarchy belief system that ranks people according to socioeconomic status, family lineage, and other class related divisions. This system leads to a drastic income and wealth inequality.
Contents
* 1 Classism
* 2 Internalized Classism
* 3 Individual versus structural

CLASSISM
Charges that a person, act or institution is classist often provoke argument. There is frequently intense disagreement between the parties over background facts, such as whether modern industrialized societies are economically stratified into discernible classes (and if so, how much); and there is also often disagreement over matters of understanding, such as whether negative treatment is due to prejudice against members of certain classes, or whether it is a rational reaction to "personal" traits of the person being so treated.

People who generally tend to find charges of classism against 'lower' classes to be unfounded or unreasonably harsh often characterise the perceived prejudice as expressive of class envy. Those who argue classism is especially pervasive or fundamental to the society that they live in often identify classism as the expression of systematic economic exploitation by the 'higher' classes, and may connect it with an explicit notion of class warfare — but it is important to note that any particular accusation of classism does not, as such, presuppose any such claim, just as people may agree on examples of overt white supremacism, while disagreeing intensely over how widespread or deep-seated racist attitudes are in their society. It could also be said that classism is 'popular' with resentful lower classes, looking for scapegoats as to their lower standard of living.

Internalized Classism

Internalized classism is the acceptance and justification of classism by the subordinated groups, namely people without endowed or acquired economic power, social influence, and privilege. The effects of internalized classism are infrequently recognized by the person or by others. It is often difficult to determine the boundary between the consequences of one’s action and that of political forces over which one does not exert direct control.

In comparison to other countries it is difficult to distinguish between the classes in the United States. As a result, class differences are often recognized as individual differences or demographic characteristics. This causes difficulty when it comes to addressing the issue of classism because of the lack of clarity, perception, and communication about class. Class mobility is also limited by classism; because of the effects of classism and the internalization of classism one seldom is able to achieve a different class standing other than the one they were born into. Internalized classism is not rooted in the intrinsic characteristics of the individual but rather from the individual’s exposure to systematically negative social conditions. The individual is actually internalizing the experience of being in those negative social conditions, and not properties about themselves.

The manifestation of internalized classism is the felt sense of the individual being different or looked at as “the other.” When it comes to internalized classism shame and anger is omnipresent. Because of the negative connation with being poor or working class the individual often takes this in and apply it to themselves rather than their situation. Even if one is able to change their class status class the internalization of classism does not diminish. Individuals who were able to change their class status still report that they feel like impostors and in a place that they do not belong and the fear of being poor again is still around.

Individual versus structural

Like racism, classism can be divided into (at least) individual classism and structural classism. Individual classism is a matter of the prejudices held and discrimination practiced by individual people (such as making jokes or stereotypes at those of lower class).

Structural or institutional classism is a passive form of classism that occurs when institutions or common practices are structured in such a way as to effectively exclude or marginalize people usually from lower classes, which can be due, in part, to widespread individual classism within the organization or the society, but does not need to be.

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

External links

* Class Action - website
* [1] Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance, sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance.
* „Extending Our Analysis of Class Oppression“ - PDF document
* "Foundations of Class and Classism. 2002" - PDF by Chuck Barone
* Inequality.org Compendium of statistics, news, and opinions on inequality in the U.S.
* [2] Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance, sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance.(ORIGINAL ARTICLE).Allison C. Aosved and Patricia J. Long.

Farnaz,

Ne pouvons pas nous nous débarrasser de ce moustique Astoria? Et CCNL?

Bonsoir Farnaz,

Ce crétin dément Astoria a développé une facilité avec le maus. Je ne sais pas où ce putz et son copain CCNL viennent de, mais franchement je ne peux pas en prendre beaucoup plus. Pourquoi vous ne prenez pas Jacoby dans les caractères ?

Sure there are- ask Stan Freberg-

"Freberg here. Good news for language buffs - the dumb words "waitron" or "waitperson" are dead as a linguistic doornail. These awkward substitutes for "waiter" or "waitress" have not gone over well.

William Safire, the language pundit of The New York Times, reports they're pretty much out of use now. He said for one thing, waitresses didn't mind being called "waitresses." Good! Another triumph for common sense.

Every time I called out in a restaurant, "Oh, waitron," everybody laughed. How, then, did these clumsy PSEUDO-WORDS actually end up in new dictionaries? Ah, publishers, nervously trying too hard to be politically correct. They should have checked with me or William Safire.

I say if a word sounds dumb, it's doomed."

Even William Safire wrote about a pseudo dirty-word--

"Irony is what is in the fire here. The trick of alluding to a word by its first initial may be quickly overcome (''What the hell do you mean by the 'H-word,' Papa?''), but the ineffective parental practice has been given a new dimension: now the -word construction is used to express mock horror at a plain word too blunt for the pusillanimous to allow to pass their lips. I joined the voguish parade of those using spurious unmentionables recently, explaining in this space that the D-word had become the chosen euphemism in Washington for the now-naughty detente.

This vogue will probably peter out in a few years, after we go through the alphabet and begin to get confused about what a given letter is supposed to signify. Already The Washington Post has done in print what cannot be done easily in speech, ostentatiously leaving blanks in a pseudo-dirty word: ''The only way even to begin to do these things is to raise t---s.'' Tough Medicine, Bitter Choices"

Maybe you would argue with Mr. Safire about etymlology and definitions- I am not that confident.

How 'bout absotively, or fabulicious?
Posilutely or what is that word Rachel Ray always says? I have blocked it mentally from my mind- but when she says it, I scream inside.

Of course there is the super pseudo word of all time-
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Susan Jacoby:

""Classist." A pseudo-word, belonging to the dreary language of ideology-based academicese, designed to obliterate distinctions and discrimination in thought."

1. There is no such thing as "pseudo-word" with or without the hyphen, except, perhaps, for "pseudo-word."

2. There is such a word as "pseudo-intellectual.

3. Your post is reminiscent of Spyro T. Agnew and Dan Quayle. Are you related to either one of them? "Joe Six-Pack" is above this sort of thing.

3. "academicese": English is increasingly friendly to new coinages, but has its limits. This one is scary, on the level of "impacted." Have you or have you not ever used the monstrous "famously" in your essays? (ans. Yes)

Classism is part and parlance of educated and semi-educated discourse.

Here are two other -isms you might want to ask someone to explain to you:

sexist: 1965, on model of racist, coined by Pauline M. Leet, director of special programs at Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, U.S., in a speech which was circulated in mimeograph among feminists. Popularized by use in print in Caroline Bird's introduction to "Born Female" (1968).

racist: 1932 as a noun, 1938 as an adjective, from race (n.2); racism is first attested 1936 (from Fr. racisme, 1935), originally in the context of Nazi theories. But they replaced earlier words, racialism (1907) and racialist (1917), both often used at first in a British or South African context.

"I do look down on people who don't read"
There are things you can do to bolster your self-esteem.

Arminius-
I like Foxist, like sexist or Islamist, both heavy negatives- or elitist- while something like Foxian, or Foxite, would be a more friendly decriptive term- indicating an inclusion-
What say you?

There is no doubt now, Joshua was not only a Six-Packer but also a Foxist since all he did was follow the whims of one violent, "filiciding" Yahweh. Then we have the illiterate, no collar, Jesus Six-Pack and Mahound Six-Pack.

Susan,

"I do look down on people who don't read and who get their so-called ideas from Fox News (or, for that matter, from television in general). I'm a Foxist. Sue me."

Well done, I agree. But should that not be something like 'Anti-Fox'? A better term is needed. I would, out of context, interpret 'Foxist' as 'pro-Fox'. Am I wrong?

Thanks for the new term Ms. Jacoby- I'll use it in the future and credit you with it's formation.

I have to admit, I am a Foxist also.

Susan Jacoby

"Classist." A pseudo-word, belonging to the dreary language of ideology-based academicese, designed to obliterate distinctions and discrimination in thought. The implication is that because I recounted the ignorant rant of one blue-collar man, I must think that all blue-collar workers are equally ignorant. As I explicitly stated in my column, I hope that this man's ignorance is not representative of the majority of Americans--blue-collar, pink-collar, or white-collar. Of course there are many people without college degrees who are more intelligent than people with doctoral degrees. Who said otherwise? I just didn't happen to be sitting in a bar next to a stupid Ph.D., or I would have recounted that conversation. I promise to do so at the earliest opportunity, even though I know someone will accuse me of looking down on all professors.

The wisest person I ever knew was my grandmother, who only finished eighth grade because she was the oldest of eight children and had to go to work picking onions, at age thirteen, to help her parents make ends meet. Gran always regretted never having been able to go to high school, and she spent her whole life reading to provide herself with the learning and education that her family's economic circumstances had denied her as a girl and young woman. She would have been apalled by my Joe Six-Pack's ignorance.

I do look down on people who don't read and who get their so-called ideas from Fox News (or, for that matter, from television in general). I'm a Foxist. Sue me.

Guardian.uk

Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain's Conference on Political Islam, Sharia Law and Civil Society
October 10, 2008 , Conway Hall, London

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain's first international conference on Political Islam, Sharia Law and Civil Society held at Conway Hall on October 10 was a resounding success. Nearly 300 people came together to discuss issues ranging from apostasy, the freedom to criticise and renounce religion, Sharia law and civil society and creationism, faith schools and religious education. Held on the International Day against the Death Penalty, the conference was a stark reminder of the many killed or facing execution for apostasy in countries ruled by Islamic laws.

The conference was opened by Fariborz Pooya (head of Iranian Secular Society), the conference's Master of Ceremonies. After a welcome from Giles Enders on behalf of Conway Hall and Zia Zaffar on behalf of CEMB's Executive Committee, the audience watched a clip from Patty Debonitas' film ‘Breaking the taboo.' Maryam Namazie, the CEMB's spokesperson, then gave an opening address, saying that the political Islamic movement used rights and anti-racist language for western consumption so that it could go about its business as usual. She said: ‘While Islamic organisations here talk in PR speak, they, their courts, their schools, their leaders are nothing but extensions of Islamic states.' She went on to say ‘In the end, political Islam matters to people because it affects their lives, their rights, their freedoms. And that's why only a movement that puts people first can mobilise the force needed to stop it.'

This was followed by Plenary 1 entitled ‘Apostasy laws and the Freedom to Renounce and Criticise Religion' chaired by Caspar Melville, editor of the New Humanist. Panellists were Mina Ahadi (head of the Council of ex-Muslims of Germany); AC Grayling (philosopher and author), Ehsan Jami (former head of the Council of Ex-Muslims of the Netherlands), Fariborz Pooya, Hanne Stinson (Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association) and Ibn Warraq (author). The panellists called for the immediate release of all those imprisoned for 'apostasy'; an abolition of the death penalty; and a cancellation of laws wherever they exist that punish the right and freedom to renounce or criticise Islam.

After lunch, comedian Nick Doody entertained the crowd with a routine critical of religion. This was followed by Plenary 2 entitled ‘Sharia Law and Citizenship Rights'. It was chaired by Andrew Copson (Director of Education and Public Affairs of the British Humanist Association); panellists were Mahin Alipour (head of the Scandinavian Councils of Ex-Muslims), Roy Brown (International Humanist and Ethical Union's Representative at the UN Human Rights Council), Johann Hari (journalist), Maryam Namazie and Ibn Warraq. The audience overwhelmingly supported the following resolution at the end of the plenary: The conference calls on the UK and European governments to bring an end to the use and implementation of Sharia law, which is discriminatory against women and children in particular, and to guarantee unconditional equal citizenship rights for all.

The audience then watched a remake of the right wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders' film entitled Fitna Remade by Reza Moradi.

After a break, Richard Dawkins (scientist, author) provided his criticism of Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation for which his site has been banned in Turkey, which was followed by questions and answers from the audience.

This was followed by Plenary 3 entitled ‘Creationism, Religious Education and Faith Schools,' which was chaired by Keith Porteous Wood (Executive Director of the National Secular Society). Panellists were Richard Dawkins, Terry Sanderson (President of the NSS), Joan Smith (journalist and activist), Bahram Soroush (Labour Solidarity Committee Public Relations Officer), and Hamid Taqvaee (leader of the Worker-communist Party of Iran). The audience showed their unequivocal opposition to faith schools here.

Maryam Namazie closed the conference by calling on the participants to mobilise around March 8 - International Women's Day – to step up opposition against Sharia law and political Islam. As she had said earlier: ‘In the end, political Islam matters to people because it affects their lives, their rights, their freedoms. And that's why only a movement that puts people first can mobilise the force needed to stop political Islam. And it must – it will – be stopped.'

Throughout the day, various CEMB representatives spoke with the media, including the BBC, Al Arabiya TV, Italian state TV, The Wall Street Journal, CNS News, The Guardian, etc. Film footage and photographs of the conference along with media coverage are available on the CEMB's website (www.ex-muslim.org.uk).

For more information, please contact Maryam Namazie, exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com or call +44 (0) 7719166731.

Free To Think For Themselves

At a gathering of courageous ex-Muslims, the value of rational thought and personal choice were triumphantly reaffirmed
Comments (215)

* AC Grayling
*
o AC Grayling
o guardian.co.uk,
o Thursday October 16 2008 10.00 BST

I enjoyed a rare privilege last Friday, October 10 (which was world day against the death penalty), attending a gathering of brave and principled people to whom the death penalty might be applied in a number of countries around the world because of their beliefs or lack of them. This was the conference organised the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain to discuss apostasy – the "crime" of which all members of the Council are guilty – and associated questions about the place of religion and free thought in civil society.

The members of the Council of Ex-Muslims are people who, having thought things through for themselves, have put aside the religion they were made to accept as children – a common enough feature of the adult attainment of reason among many – but in this case the religion is Islam, which regards apostasy as punishable by death.

I wonder how many reading these words have sat in a gathering of people not a few of whom have received death threats because they think for themselves, and who have chosen a path not only personally dangerous but full of difficulty in relation to their families and communities – and who have done so because of reflectively chosen principle. It is a striking experience. In our relatively peaceful and tolerant western dispensations, disagreements of principle are rarely matters of murder; which is why some people find themselves incapable of grasping what last Friday's gathering signified.

The symbolic import of the conference was great; the substance of the discussions was absorbing and important. It was about the nature of apostasy, the freedom to choose whether or not to have a religion, and to criticise religion whether or not one subscribes to it; the question whether there should be one and the same law for all or whether Britain's Muslim minority should be allowed to apply sharia law to itself; and the question of faith schools, religious education and creationist doctrine. The themes all related to the place of the individual in civil society, and whether religious doctrine should be allowed to impose itself on those unwilling to be governed by it or – as with children – powerless to resist it.

The conference was opened by the head of the Iranian Secular Society, Fariborz Pooya, and addressed by the extraordinary and courageous Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, who subjected Islamism – political Islam – to scrutiny, arguing that it serves as an agency of Islamic states with serious implications for the lives, rights and freedoms of individuals, many of whom have left their countries of origin precisely to escape the repressive political and social climates there – countries with "moral police" and the death penalty for, among others, gay people, lovers who engage in extra-marital sex and people who reject religious orthodoxy.

A source of frustration for many is that they are lumped into "the Muslim community" whose self-elected spokespeople are more representative of the Islamic states that many in their "Muslim community" have fled: which is why the Council of Ex-Muslims makes a point of calling itself this, to reinforce the point that not everyone who was born into a Muslim community has to be permanently forced into homogenised membership of it. Another reason is to encourage the many closet "apostates" in that community that there is life and succour outside it.

Among those who spoke were Ibn Warraq, Joan Smith, Richard Dawkins, and the founder of Germany's Council of Ex-Muslims, Mina Ahadi, a woman as extraordinary and admirable as Maryam Namizie. It is a speaking fact that the lead in these eminently important and courageous movements is taken by women: from Lysistrata to the Northern Ireland women's peace movement, despite all the obstacles and prejudices that women have historically faced, they give a lead and an example which puts their opponents to shame.

The conference was supported by the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association, so that the dozens of ex-Muslims present had the support of over 200 others who believe in the right of individuals to think for themselves and who treat people as human individuals, not merely as bearers of overriding identity labels stuck to their foreheads by tradition and religion. A friend who is a crown court judge once told me that he is always pleased when a member of a jury affirms rather than swears the oath on the Bible, because it indicates independence and maturity of mind. Indeed: that was what was on display last Friday at Conway Hall.

One of those speaking at the conference, my friend Ibn Warraq, recently edited a book on apostasy in Islam, which combines a scholarly overview of doctrines on apostasy in the various schools of Islamic law, with a collection of powerful personal testimonies by those who came to leave Islam either for another faith or none. It was interesting to compare the accounts there given with those in Louise Anthony's book Philosophers Without Gods, which collects similar accounts by ex-Christians and ex-Jews. The personal cost in family and community terms of rejecting the doctrines of any of these religions is very similar; only in Islam does the danger of being murdered for doing so remain.

But, horribly, it is a genuine danger. That is why some of the speeches made during this conference, and some of the remarks from the floor, were filled with a passion and concern that were as real as they were moving. Not least among the matters that surfaced several times in different contexts was the question of the position of women in Islam. To take just one issue: in sharia law a woman is worth half a man, and thus among many other things receives half the inheritance that a man does. Like other provisions of sharia law, this is a stark example of contrast with the laws of England and Wales and with Scottish law, in both of which principles of justice do not countenance systematic discrimination on the basis of sex. By the oppressive requirements of conformity with community practices, many women in Muslim communities in Britain are obliged to observe the practices that the community prefers, across the whole range from whom they marry to what they wear.

The establishment of sharia law courts would accordingly mean their often being obliged to suffer the injustice of deep discrimination. As with genital mutilation as practiced in some communities, and honour killings in others, that cannot be tolerated: relativism – which alas underwrites the views of some, like Rowan Williams, on this subject – has no place here.

Nothing of what was discussed at this important and moving conference was anything but real: real lives subjected to death threats, discrimination, coercion and stigmatisation – and all because the people involved think for themselves, a right that the rest of us take for granted and, when it is threatened, jealously guard. It was a gentle and informal affair, with the relaxed flavour of a works outing: but there can have been no one there who did not at some point reflect that it was a juicy opportunity for some maniac to get rid of a whole raft of apostates and atheists in one big bang.

The great thing is that the conference would have been a victory for what it represented if that had happened. As it was, it was anyway a victory and a much happier one: a victory for its brave sponsors and their brave cause.

ACGrayling

Farnaz:

Do you want to do Aquinas?

Farnaz:

Re: Your posts

I'd prefer taking my cues from you. You're welcome to start with Assisi. I've put together a substantial list from the beginnings of recorded Catholic history to the present. Will suggest how to divvy up later.

I see your point about CCNL Putz/Moron seeing the light about Joshua (Yehoshua?), and will try to ease up on him. Don't know how to proceed with his Jewish education/conversion that you think he's begun. Baruch Hashem. (Blessed be the Name?)
Leaving that up to you. Maybe you're right. Good he understands how God worked through Joshua.

Correction to my last post: "They'd get a mean look in their eyes as if they just smelled something UNpleasant."

My, we are getting less and less civil these days. Rather than sniping at each other, why don't we just ignore posts by those who have nothing valuable to say. I'm always glad to read thoughtful posts by those contributors of whatever view, even those I disagree with, but my time is far too valuable to waste on nonsense.

I do find it interesting how some of the readers of this blog read so much into Susan's essays that I don't. But then, human nature is a fascinating study.

Of course, if the stories of Joshua slaughtering all his enemies to include women and children, are, as most Conservative Jews believe, simply myths from the ancient past, then we are registering inhuman/monstrous conduct similar to that of roving bands of mythical vampires and/or werewolves.

CCNL:

Moron:

Meant to write, "l'autre crétin dément." Putz

Hello Observer,

If you don't mind, I'd like to post Assisi and some others. I'm sick of Crysostum to tell the truth. I mean the Nazis took liberally from both of them, but more from the latter. I'd like to post a few things of nazi priests and bishops like Hudal, if you don't mind. And a few contemporary racist priests, ministers, etc. Maybe, we can divide things up by period and nations?

But you go right ahead and start wherever you'd like. CCNL (Confused Bagel, Donut, etc.) has begun to see the light, conceding the divine intervention of Hashem (Baruch Hashem) in Joshua's great victory. This is a tremendous step forward, and he should be praised and reinforced for this great conversion experience. I have posted relevant texts in Hebrew below. (Do you read Hebrew, Observer?)

This is a good time to educate him further. Let us rejoice in the providential semi-awakening of Bagel.

Goodnight, my friend,
Farnaz

CCNL:

Moron:

As I mentioned a couple of days ago Jesus did not choose you to speak for him. You started something just now that's not going to stop any time soon, putz. We're going to get posts from the middle ages to the present quoting saints, "crusades," bishops, Popes, sacred writings of all Catholic sorts, all of which will make the hair of rational people stand on end.

It is generally well understood that you are an antisemitic, antiIslamic, racist homophobe. You are outclassed on this none too selective blog in every imaginable way, with the single exception of le autre cretin demente Astoria.

Happy reading, putz. I imagine the juicier posts will be in English rather than Latin. I shall be contributing some myself. I could start with John Chrysostum, but think I'll start with Francis of Assisi. I shall wait until tomorrow to see what appears before making my final decision. Putz

C

CCNL: I suppose in the interest of accuracy, we should refer to Joshua as Yehoshua. I'll have to give this some thought. Perhaps it would be better to give his name in Hebrew.

What follows is suitable for this discussion, don't you think?

מִזְמוֹר לְתוֹדָה

1הָרִיעוּ לַיהוה

כֹּל הָאָרֶץ

2עִבְדוּ אֶת־יהוה בְּשִׂמְחָה

בֹּאוּ לְפָנָיו בִּרְנָנָה

3דְּעוּ כִּי־יהוה

הוּא אֱלֹהִים

הוּא עָשָׂנוּ

וְלֹוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ

עַמֹּו וְצֹאן מַרְעִיתֹו

4בֹּאוּ שְׁעָרָיו בְּתוֹדָה

חֲצֵרֹתָיו בִּתְהִלָּה

הוֹדוּ לֹו

בָּרֲכוּ שְׁמֹו

5כִּי־טוֹב יהוה

לְעוֹלָם חַסְדֹּו

וְעַד דֹּר־וָדֹר אֱמוּנָתֹו

CCNL:

Here is ch. 1 for you; I shall return anon with the rest.

'א קרפ עושוהי

הרוסמ ביתכ

,ןונ ןב עושוהי לא הוהי רמאיו ;הוהי דבע ,השמ תומ ירחא יהיו א,א עושוהי
.רומאל השמ תרשמ

,הזה םעה לכו התא ,הזה ןדריה תא רובע םוק התעו ;תמ ,ידבע השמ ב,א עושוהי
.לארשי ינבל םהל ןתונ יכונא רשא ,ץראה לא

לא ,יתרביד רשאכ ,ויתתנ םכל ,וב םכלגר ףכ ךורדת רשא םוקמ לכ ג,א עושוהי
.השמ

,םיתיחה ץרא לוכ ,תרפ רהנ לודגה רהנה דעו הזה ןונבלהו רבדמהמ ד,א עושוהי
.םכלובג ,היהי--שמשה אובמ ,לודגה םיה דעו

היהא ,השמ םע יתייה רשאכ :ךייח ימי לוכ ,ךינפל שיא בצייתי אל ה,א עושוהי
.ךבזעא אלו ,ךפרא אל--ךמיע

יתעבשנ רשא ץראה תא ,הזה םעה תא ליחנת התא יכ :ץמאו ,קזח ו,א עושוהי
.םהל תתל םתובאל

,ידבע השמ ךוויצ רשא הרותה לככ תושעל רומשל ,דואמ ץמאו קזח קר ז,א עושוהי
.ךלת רשא לוכב ,ליכשת ןעמל--לאמשו ןימי ,ונממ רוסת לא

רומשת ןעמל ,הלילו םמוי וב תיגהו ,ךיפמ הזה הרותה רפס שומי אל ח,א עושוהי
.ליכשת זאו ,ךיכרד תא חילצת זא יכ :וב בותכה לככ ,תושעל

הוהי ךמיע יכ :תחת לאו ,ץורעת לא--ץמאו קזח ,ךיתיוויצ אלה ט,א עושוהי
{פ} .ךלת רשא לוכב ,ךיהולא

.רומאל םעה ירטוש תא ,עושוהי וציו י,א עושוהי

יכ :הדיצ ,םכל וניכה ,רומאל םעה תא ווצו ,הנחמה ברקב ורבע אי,א עושוהי
,ץראה תא תשרל אובל ,הזה ןדריה תא םירבוע םתא ,םימי תשולש דועב
{פ} .התשרל םכל ןתונ םכיהולא הוהי רשא

.רומאל ,עושוהי רמא ,השנמה טבש יצחלו ,ידגלו ינבוארלו בי,א עושוהי

הוהי :רומאל הוהי דבע השמ םכתא הוויצ רשא ,רבדה תא רוכז גי,א עושוהי
.תאזה ץראה תא םכל ןתנו ,םכל חינמ םכיהולא

;ןדריה רבעב השמ םכל ןתנ רשא ץראב ובשיי ,םכינקמו םכפט םכישנ די,א עושוהי
.םתוא ,םתרזעו ,ליחה ירוביג לוכ ,םכיחא ינפל םישומח ורבעת םתאו

הוהי רשא ץראה תא ,המה םג ושריו ,םככ ,םכיחאל הוהי חיני רשא דע וט,א עושוהי
ןתנ רשא ,התוא םתשריו ,םכתשורי ץראל םתבשו ;םהל ןתונ םכיהולא
.שמשה חרזמ ןדריה רבעב ,הוהי דבע השמ םכל

רשא לכ לאו ,השענ ,ונתיוויצ רשא לוכ :רומאל עושוהי תא ,ונעיו זט,א עושוהי
.ךלנ ,ונחלשת

ךיהולא הוהי היהי קר :ךילא עמשנ ןכ ,השמ לא ונעמש רשא לוככ זי,א עושוהי
.השמ םע היה רשאכ ,ךמיע

רשא לוכל ךירבד תא עמשי אלו ,ךיפ תא הרמי רשא שיא לכ חי,א עושוהי
{פ} .ץמאו קזח ,קר :תמוי--ונווצת

ב עושוהי

Right you are, CCNL. Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and God made the walls crumble at his feet.
So it is written in the TANAKH. Blessed be the Name. Baruch Hashem.

OMG Farnaz- Is there anyone who doesn't qualify as a racist to you?
Who even mentioned Jews? Nobody!
How does every subject turn into accusations of anti-jewishiness!
It gets to be a bit much.

We learn much from example and from what we read:

"Joshua killed “everything that breathed” in each of the cities that he conquered, “as the Lord God of Israel commanded.” 6:21, 8:24-40, 11:8-21

• A family is stoned and burned to death (along with their animals) to punish the father (Achan) for looking at “the accursed thing.” “So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger.” 7:24-26

• God gets right in and fights with the Israelites. He “slew them with a great slaughter” and even “chased them along the way.” What a guy. 10:10

• God threw down “great stones from heaven” so that he could kill even more people than the Israelites “slew with the sword.” 10:11

• God makes the sun and moon stand still so that Joshua could get all his killing done before dark. It was the first Daylight Savings Time. 10:12-13 "

Powerful interest groups use race as a way of dividing people with the same economic needs. In this way, a very smart guy once said, people become alienated from their own interests.

Some of the most middle-class, self-professed liberals I have ever met are anti-Jewish racists. They vary with respect to how they are complected.

Some "white" people who consider themselves "enlightened" are so patronizing and self-aggrandizing, that they are an embarrassment and not only to people of color. These "champions" fail to see how their own activities reinscribe racial privilege.

Classicism can be as dangerous as racism. So it was and to some extent still is in England.

Lighter-skinned peoples of diverse ethnic groups self-segregate from darker-skinned peoples. In the US, this phenomenon is known as colorism.

Sheldon Champagne hates Jews in the name of Jesus Christ Almighty. He "loves" black people but lives in a gated community with the rest of his pale-face friends.

Like Observer12's father, I too know working class people whose analytical skills, literacy, etc., far exceeds those of their economic "betters" (oppressors).

Some of my old friends and family members are Joe six packs. I come from Western PA and I didn't realize how racist it was until I went back during the primaries to canvass for Obama. Some people were obviously disgusted to see a white person actively supporting a black guy for president. They looked me up and down as if checking for signs that I was inferior to them in ways they had not immediately noticed. Some used the N word, while more sophisticated people would way "I'm not prejudiced against colored people, but..." They'd get a mean look in their eyes as if they just smelled something pleasant.

It was shockingly bad and made me very glad I'd gotten out.

I also realize that if I had not been covered with Obama paraphernalia, the people I encountered would have treated me very differently and I may never have never known of their prejudice.

Susan,

In the interest of Crystal Clarity, a good friend of mine, I will elaborate on the problem with your "Joe." Am I correct in assuming that his given name is not Joe Six-Pack? Giving him that moniker and endowing him with the qualities you did is classist. You could have recounted the conversation without designating him thus.

All this, however, begs the question of why we need to read these endless anecdotal reports by "journalists." Quite simply, they (the little stories) are dumb.

"And most of you are still confused about what being a Jew means. Being a Jew has ethnic and cultural connotations that don't always have something to do with religion. If I'm talking about a Jew's religious beliefs, I call him or her a secular Jew, an Orthodox Jew, a Conservative Jew, or a Reform Jew. And there are some other variations as well."

Susan:

Tsk,tsk yourself. You are quite confused about Jewishness/Judaism, yourself, unsurprisingly, since it is suis generis. However, we are now, in the process of making it "generis"

As for Joe Six-Pack, if he was Polish, chances are he was born Catholic. If he were Jewish, he would have been called Jewish, since to the Polish is/was to be Catholic for most Poles. Jews could have lived there for a thousand years and still they would be Jews. Racism is rife among the Polish Catholics of Poland as you no doubt know. The word for this is racism.

Now, there are some Polish Catholics (practicing or atheist/agnostic/cultural) who recognize racism when they see it. The willy distinguish between Polish Catholics and Polish Jews, not between Poles (of Catholic descent) and Jews.

The dichotomy you "explain" naionality vs. Jewishness/Judaism is a result of the Diaspora and thousands of years of persecution and bigotry. Now you will hear English Catholic, English Anglican, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. England of course is deeply racist, still, does not put Catholics on an equal footing with PRotestants, isn't fond of Jews, etc.

But the racializing explanations you use are quite passe for many of us J people. Hence if we are Jews, you are Catholics, Protestants, etc. You may also have nationalities. As for us there are many Jews of many ethnicities. I am a Sfardic Jew. I'm also an Iranian American. Then you have your Eastern Orthodox Christians and your European PRotestants, etc.

In other words, you are a cultural Catholic, secular Catholic, atheist Catholic, whatever. So long as my Jewishness or Judaism is at issue, and it always will be, so long will your Catholicness. You may also be a German-American, etc.

Despite what you think, you Know nothing about Jews, and I do mean nothing. Your are talking about people who differ greatly along all the many identity lines a group can differ.
-------------------------------------------------
JOE SIX-PACK

Anecdotal slur. Defamatory fable. Classist and offensive. Next time tell us about Champagne Cheney, also purple with rage, who said used the F word on the Senate floor.

Susan Jacoby

One of the most interesting aspects of the comments about Joe Six-Pack is that they take two separate tacks. On the one hand, some bloggers think there was nothing racist about the comments I recounted---perhaps because they agree with the comments but don't like to think of themselves as racists. On the other, they assert that my memory was bad or that I made up the dialogue (or that I'm lying about the racist epithets because I can't use them on this blog). When Joe looked at me and said, "You know who 'these people' are," hia meaning was unmistakable.

You may call me a fool, and disagree with everything I say--fair comment--but I assure you that I don't have the imagination to make things up. That's why I'm a journalist and an historian and not a novelist.

Kert, Kert, Kert,

Repetition is a great educational tool. Hopefully you are learning and have submitted a bill to your religious leaders for years of false preaching and promises. I have, requesting a return of over $100,000 in "offerings" for the last 40 years. I will use the money as per the topic to buy stocks at great prices.

"THE QUESTION
Fears about the economy. Anger on the campaign trail. Which concerns you most? How should we respond?

Hi again Persiflage,

PERSIFLAGE: "Peter Huff - I thought you were Canadian? If so, it would appear that you don't have a horse in this race......or is there a Canadian running for President that I'm not aware of?"

Well we live in a global culture and the United States has a tremendous impact on the rest of the world, so I take interest in your politics. Your president-elect will be a very influential man.

PERSIFLAGE: "Maybe you just kidding about that Canadian citizenship thing. So how do they handle the pro-choice issue in Canada? Here we have Roe v Wade."

No kidding about being Canadian. As for the pro-choice, that is why I voted Conservative in this past election on October 14, among other reasons. The Liberals were the ones who lowered the standard in the first place, both for same-sex marriage and for a woman's right to choose. If my memory is correct, these issues all began to surface under the leadership of Pierre Trudeau.

The question then as now was who comes closer to God's absolute standard of right, especially on matters of life and death.

CCNL,

Can you please stop posting the same thing on every blog. It never has to do with the topic.

Your extremely "logical" argument about religion isn't convincing anyone. People have always had a desire to worship God and many will continue to do so one way or another.

By the way, money given to religion is not yours. I doubt you gave any of it to begin with. It was given by people who wanted the money to support what they believe in and their causes. It is not up for grabs. Besides, you'd be pretty surprised home many schools, colleges, hospitals, orphanages, as well as many other social programs would be shut down. Society as a whole would truly suffer.

Christianity will slowly fade from society as will Mormonism and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. "Pretty and ugly wingie thingies" simply do/did not exist. Associating the Singularity (if one exists) with these mythical assistants and opponents mocks the concept of God the Almighty.

The Good Words were articulated via reason and common sense by the ancients. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were attributed to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. It is time to get our money back!!!!!

Said money would go a long way in paying mortgages!!!!

I've ready Ms. Jacoby's adition to the blog and I'm a little suspicious. First we were supposed to believe that "Joe" is a racist because he's white and isn't in favor of the bailout. Now that many bloggers have shot that down, she gives us more detail as to his racism. Seems a little convenient but you can make your own judgement.

Honestly, even if the guy did make some racial slurs, I think they are largely irrelivent. There are always several wackos out there on both sides and I generally try to ignore them. I'm not sure "Joe" was being racist in his comments, excluding the alleged racist slurs.

I think that Joe is mad for the same reason many other people are mad. We all know that certain politicians go to certain groups: by race, social class or other. They promise them things to get elected and they often win elections.

These politicians went to government and created programs, one of which was to get people into houses. It was officially for poor people but we all know that race was a major factor in what where the money went(Wink, wink). Of course we are called racists if we point this out. They created legislation to get people into houses they couldn't afford. Mind you that "Joe" and others were subsiding this legislation through taxes.

Now these mortgages are forclosing and these people are losing houses they couldn't afford (go figure). These forclosures are a big part (but certainly not all) of the current financial crisis. Now the politicians are trying to get more money to bail out many of these people, so they can keep their office. So we continue to give these people money to stay in houses they can't afford, instead of making them do what the rest of us do: Buy a house you can afford or wait until you can afford a house.

I'll tell you that I am angry too over how this happened, not at any person or group but of the whole culture that caused this. Let stops creating favors for everyone and allow people to earn what they get. I may disagree with Joe on many things but I agree wholeheartedly on this.

I think I was toohard on you Ms. Jacoby, so I'm sorry for that.
Your article showed great passion and courage.

VICTORIA IN ASTORIA
I see you kept your word and efficiently fixed the post problem.
Don't mind me Ms. Jacoby-

If Joe were mischaracterizingyou, I'd fly to your defense in a New York minute.

I'm just an unidentified person on a blog, Ms. Jacoby.

Your point was already well-taken, I just find it odd that you would push the glaringly obvious buttons of Joe, when it seems you get thrown so easily when someone pushes your own.

"I didn't solicit this man's comments; he forced them on me because we were sitting next to each other and there were no empty seats in the airport bar."

No one can force an opinion upon me if I choose not to react.
Maybe you saw an opportunity for a juicy article-
We all encounter Joe's in our lives, some more than others.
Maybe you really don't meet many people like Joe.
and that is why it is so unusual to you, to write about it.
Now old Joe is running around New York, probably hating liberals and (racial epithet implied) even more-
Whereas I was mildly nauseated by the Joe's of the world- I'm feeling a sympathy for his sense of frustration and powerless now.
That's what happens when 2 extreme views juxtapose against each other, and only one view is presented.
The pendulum starts to swing the other way.
I hope you encounter more Joes, and your own views get challenged more.
It is how we reach a more equilibrious POV.
Peace Ms. Jacoby- I'm with you on your original points

Ms. Jacoby,
How does further hyperbole justify anythiing?
We all encounter such people- how WE react is what others gauge us by- No one is suggesting that you are responsible for Joe's reactions. Only your own.
Another's bad behavior is a poor deflection from examining our own part, and Joe isn't here.
Next you'll be saying Joe kicked a puppy. (That is hyperbole, BTW)

Susan Jacoby

I've just found out that a glitch in the "On Faith" software posted "Anonymous" at the top of many comments, including my own. I'm told this has now been fixed for future comments. We'll see. Anyway, several people mentioned this on the thread, and I've tried to get it corrected. .

Again, back to the subject of Joe Six-Pack. How people say things is as important as what they say. The reason I said his faced flush purple with rage is that, although it's a common expression, I've never actually seen anyone's face change color that way. I can't begin to tell you how angry this man was, and the physical description is important. When someone's eyes widen, or his hands shake, or he grimaces,it's important. That's why it's much easier for most people to lie via e-mail or the phone than face to face.

Second, I think a great many commenters didn't like this essay because they don't want to face the fact (and in this, they're no different from many members of the media) that racism is a powerful factor in the thinking of huge numbers of Americans about a wide variety of subjects--including this election and who is responsible for the country's economic problems. I didn't solicit this man's comments; he forced them on me because we were sitting next to each other and there were no empty seats in the airport bar. But once he started talking, I saw this as a look at someone who wasn't censoring himself--as he might have in a less anonymous social situation. In fact, he also used racial epithets that I didn't include because they're banned from the site.

Joe made it clear to me that his comments were racially motivated. Wink, Wink. "You know exactly who `these people' are." If some bloggers think that Joe was really talking about Chinese-Americans or good white folk from small towns, and that I did him an injustice--well, you're welcome to your illusions.

Peter Huff - I thought you were Canadian? If so, it would appear that you don't have a horse in this race......or is there a Canadian running for President that I'm not aware of?

Maybe you just kidding about that Canadian citizenship thing. So how do they handle the pro-choice issue in Canada? Here we have Roe v Wade.

regards -

Ms.Jacoby stated-
"And there is absolutely no reason why I should respect such views,..."

It is possible to have conversation with those whose views are the antitheseis of one's own, and still treat that person,themself, with a degree of kindness and respect.

Reporting Joe's words and stating your disagreement are one thing-
but hyperbolic characterizations, seem unecessary to the point made- and kind of mean-spirited- Joe Six Pack isn't here to defend himself-

The contempt for Joe and his views rang loud and clear in your writing- It is likely that Joe also picked up on this-

'whose face literally turned purple with rage'
'He exploded again.'
'reeking of class and racial resentment and absent any awareness of...'
'uneducated and angry as my Joe Six-Pack'

Here are Joe's words-

"That's always the excuse with these people, that they've been unlucky, that they're poor little victims."

"These people." I wanted to ask who "they" were and what separated them from "us," but I didn't have to. He exploded again. "You have a whole group of people who don't really want to earn what they have. These bad home loans, THEY'RE LIKE special treatment for blacks who want to get into the best universities. You want it, you don't have to work for it, the government will give it to you."

You stated again-
"And I do not respect the belief that the main cause of our economic woes is the desire of poor African-Americans to get something for nothing."

Maybe Joe actually believes the economic woes are caused by poor African-Americans, but those are not the words he said.

He compared bad home loans to affirmative action-
He said the situations are LIKE each other, not that they are interchangeable-

You are sayng they're interchangeable, not Joe.

And now you're painting Joe as a racist, for sayng the word black?
While you simultaneously justify your own usage of the word Jew in the past.
And say yourself-
"It is not a slur to describe someone as being of Polish, Irish, Italian, Jewish, or African-American background. "

That's right Ms. Jacoby.

And it doen't morph into a slur just because you disagree with the person using the designation.

Instead of using your energies to defend your own actions, another possibilty would be to observe your own treatment and apply a little of that critical outward eye inward.

Maybe you could have been a little less condescending towards Joe, and your conversation may have enlightened him a tiny bit-
People just want to be recognized-

Your article was good- your points well expressed.
Joe's visceral reactions seem an unnecessary addition and your treatment of him seems overly cartoonish.
If you had left out the hyperbolic additions, I may have accepted Joe as proof of the unreasoning attitude of Joe's in general(with limits).
And it would have led me to consider your good points substantiated.(At least in this instance
But I really feel anecdotal incidences prove nothing except that people say and do things.

Hi Anon,

ANONYMOUS: "Thank you for stating exactly how I feel! I've been very concerned about the unconscious and deliberate inciting rantings of Sarah Palin. It's beyond my belief that anyone could support the outrageous and obviously ignorant claims of the John McCain campaign. What happened to "Christianity?"

Yes, it is not a proud moment for Christians, but what are the underlying ethical beliefs of the candidates and the parties and which of them is the lesser of two evils?

Unfortunately McCain/Palin have crossed the line in conducting a clean campaign but what is the alternative - a vote for anything goes ethically?

When a candidate cannot recognize when life begins or take measures to protect the rights of unborn persons or is willing to open up the definition of marriage to include those of the same-sex, that will have every small special interest group vying for equal rights. Are you going to vote for that candidate in order to be possibly better of economically while sacrificing morally? Which is more important? Since you are stating a moral consideration I would say the second?

Hi TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ,

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "The ACLU is in the process of obliterating our Judeo-Christian heritage that has made this nation one of the greatest nations in history, not to mention the undermining of that traditional moral system that is undergirding of our judicial system and our social order."

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "In the real world, truth matters; in the alternate world nothing matters but accomplishing ones subjective proclivities irrespective of the destructiveness and the devaluation of human life they engender."

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "The left will do anything for the right to have their unborn child murdered to solve the problems of their promiscuous ways. Billy Jean King had her unborn child murdered to play in a tennis match."

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "The Court substituted the reckless view of their own subjective morality in "Roe v. Wade" by substituting their own capricious immoral view of what a human person was by redefining "person." Of course, that’s immaterial to the radical antagonists on the left where the end justifies the means."

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "The subversion and corruption of our moral foundations by the barbarians on the left is destroying our national integrity."

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "Obama is a fanatical materialist that embellishes the socialistic ideas that have failed for centuries. They have destroyed nations personified in Fascism, Communism and all forms of atheism. Such ideologies have invited the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Famine, Pestilence, War, and Death."

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "Obama is a compassionate proponent for the Culture of Death, a pro-abortionist, and an expressed advocate of infanticide, gay marriage and the amoral Justices that dominate the Supreme Court."

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: "Morality matters even though the Court and the radical left don't think so. To them morality is a subjective matter of opinion which renders them both standard-less and meaningless."

Good points and well thought out! I'm with you on this one. This election in your country boils down to whether you are going to vote for economic or ethical issues. A vote for Obama and the Democrats may (does anyone know?) mean better ideas on how to revamp the economy and may work out better for the average Joe (but there again, when you increase the taxation of the big multinational corporations that fuel the economy, they may just look for other market in which to do business thereby taking with them countless jobs) but ethically you are on a slide with values when you have a candidate that cannot differentiate why abortion and a woman's right to choose or why same-sex marriage is wrong.

Obama and the Democrats will just open the flood gates that much wider to an anything goes policy.

When a country cannot distinguish where values comes from or what makes them objective and absolute, or will tolerate anyones while selling its soul to the Devil, you are looking at the decline of what made America a great country - "In God we trust."

I've been travelling a lot, so I really haven't had time to look at the comments as I usually do. Here's something else about all of the objections to my recounting the conversation with Joe-Six Pack. I did not present him as representative of all Americans, or all blue-collar workers, or all owners of Polish delis in Milwaukee. This was one conversation in a bar in an airport. But there is no question that his is the worldview that right-wing Republicans are trying to exploit. We shall see on November 4, as I noted, how prevalent these views are. And I'm sure it's easy to hear similar views at any country club, and I would report them if I heard them, but somehow I don't get invited to such clubs.

And there is absolutely no reason why I should respect such views, whether they come from a presidential candidate or anyone else. As I've often said about religion, people have the right to believe whatever they want, and I must respect that right, but I don't have to respect the belief itself. And I do not respect the belief that the main cause of our economic woes is the desire of poor African-Americans to get something for nothing.

test

Susan Jacoby--

And by the way, I did not identify Joe as Polish. I identified him as the owner of a Polish deli--
which is how he identified himself to me. In Milwaukee (as in New York, for that matter), people expect different specialties when they walk into a traditional Polish, Italian, German, or Jewish deli. They're all dying breeds of course. Why wouldn't you say exactly what a man does for a living? It's quite interesting that all of you saw "Polish" but not "deli."

And most of you are still confused about what being a Jew means. Being a Jew has ethnic and cultural connotations that don't always have something to do with religion. If I'm talking about a Jew's religious beliefs, I call him or her a secular Jew, an Orthodox Jew, a Conservative Jew, or a Reform Jew. And there are some other variations as well.

Because you don't like hearing what "my" Joe said, you naturally want to think of this as an invented slur. Believe me, I didn't like hearing
it either. And yes, I do have a good short-term memory. But it would have been hard to forget this conversation even if I hadn't written it down a half-hour after the fact.

It is not a slur to describe someone as being of Polish, Irish, Italian, Jewish, or African-American background. Had Joe started talking about religion, I would have identified him by whatever religiou he identified himself. Tsk, tsk, you really shouldn't assume that every person of Polish descent is a Catholic.

Thank you for stating exactly how I feel! I've been very concerned about the unconscious and deliberate inciting rantings of Sarah Palin. It's beyond my belief that anyone could support the outrageous and obviously ignorant claims of the John McCain campaign. What happened to "Christianity?"

One has to believe that the potential dangers to Obama as President would be very great - and a reason that Colin Powell abstained from ever considering a Presidential run (I believe this came from his wife in an interview some years ago).

Back in those days, Powell was thought to be a republican that democrats would probably have supported - it is however doubtful that he would ever have secured his own party's nomination.

The fact that Palin has associated herself with such impulses of potential violence, as she whipped her pro-gun Wisconsin zombies into an anti-Obama frenzy. either points to a vast kind of historical and cultural ignorance on her part, or something more insidious. Either way, it goes to character.

In any event, it was a clear reminder of the kinds of dangers inherent in an Obama Presidency - and the fact that in spite of knowing this from day one, Obama courageously proceeds. This too goes to character.

Two characters - and the vast distinctions between the two are most revealing. It goes to show why Obama will be President and why McCain will not.

My "youth was punctuated by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert F. Kennedy.." I remember November 22, 1963, in the halls of Mount Ogden Junior High in Utah where Mormon boys shouted in glee, "they finally got the Catholic ba*tard!

The same enemies of the Kennedy brothers and King are the enemies of Obama. America has not changed that much. The children and the grandchildren of the religious right of the 60's and 70's learned their religious and racial intolerance well and, because of this, I fear for the life of Obama.

If the terrorists Palin who incited and then watched with her big stupid grin do, in fact, assassinate Obama, there will be another civil war - not in the voting booth but in the streets. Evangelicals and neocons who worship the Second Amendment may find themselves with it pointed at them right between their eyes. There are too many armed Americans sick and tired of being bullied by these fascist stooges in the name of patriotism and poor old Jesus.

Sorry- that last post was mine-

I had a tortoise shell cat who came from the street and would keep having babies and then disappear and come back pregnant and have more babies.
I called her fertile Myrtle, and it later morphed into Mummy Turtle.

What is up with McCain's proposal for Troops to Teachers, where troops could come home start teaching right away and not have to take tests or accreditation of any sort.

Does anyone think this is a good idea?

From CCNL:

Christianity will slowly fade from society as will contemporary Mormonism and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. "Pretty and ugly wingie thingies" simply do/did not exist. Associating the Singularity (if one exists) with these mythical assistants and opponents mocks the concept of God the Almighty.

The Good Words were articulated via reason and common sense by the ancients. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were attributed to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. It is time to get our money back!!!!!

I am fond of both Joe Six-Pack and Joe the Plumber, even more fond of the Plumber, since getting a plumber's license isn't easy, nor doing a plumber's work. It's too late for this to figure in a presidential debate, but maybe it will bring some perspective on Joes of all social classes, professions, nationalities, etc. Perhaps, one day all the Joes in the world will get together and down a few. Then we can work on the Kens, Myrtles, Sheldons, etc.

The DIY Plumbing Poem

By: brokenroadjourney

Page 1, We have all tackled a Do-It-Yourself project at some point in our adult homeowner lives. As you know, they usually don't go quite as smoothly as we anticipate for them to. One would think a sloooow, or NO draining kitchen sink would be easily remedied and quickly resolved. Well, maybe.... but then again... maybe not. I wrote this for my Sweetheart, in the light of our own "little adventure" with some kitchen plumbing...

MY FLOOR IS WET, MY HEART IS BLUE

NOW I HAVE SO MUCH WORK TO DO...

THE PIPE IS LEAKING, THIS IS GREAT!

SOMETHING SMELLS LIKE BAD FISH BAIT....

LOTS OF SOGGY SLIMY GREASY MOLD

LET'S JUST SEE HOW THIS UNFOLDS. .

MAKE A HOLE TO FIND THE PIPE

JUST BREAK THE WALL, IT'LL BE ALRIGHT

OOOPS WENT TOO FAR, TIME TO POUT

I'M ON THE INSIDE LOOKING OUT...

UNDER MY CABINET FROM WHERE I SIT

I CAN SEE THE GRASS AND EVEN TOUCH IT.

KICKING MY FOOT OUT GETTING MAD

IT HITS THE PIPE AND THAT IS BAD

CAUSE THEN IT BROKE AND MY FOOT WENT ON

TO HIT THE WALL WHERE PART WAS GONE

AND NOW I WAS STUCK WITH FOOT OUTSIDE

WISHING THERE WAS SOME PLACE TO HIDE

i WAS LAYING THERE, BODY IN FOOT OUT

TRYING TO FIGURE ALL OF THIS OUT

I WAS SO MAD I WAS SEEING RED

WHEN THE WRENCH FELL ON MY HEAD

IT KNOCKED ME OUT AND WHEN I CAME TO

I REALIZED I KNEW JUST WHAT TO DO.

I GRABBED THE WRENCH AND HIT THE WALL

OVER AND OVER I WAS HAVING A BALL

I GOT MY FOOT LOOSE, NO LONGER MAD

BUT THEN I SAW WHAT A MESS I HAD

THE WALL MADE A SOUND, THE WINDOW FELL

I WAS IN SHOCK, WHAT THE HELL?

I JUMPED BACKWARDS GOT OUT OF THE WAY

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS ! WHAT A DAY!

NOW THERE WERE BRICKS ALL OVER THE FLOOR

THATS WHEN I THOUGHT - I'LL JUST MAKE A DOOR!

I RIPPED OUT THE CABINETS, AND HAULED THEM AWAY

MOVED THE COUCH TO PLUG IN THE FRIDGE TO STAY.

BUT WHEN I MOVED THE FRIDGE IT HIT A BRICK

WHICH THEN CAUSED THE WHEELS TO STICK

BUT PUSHING HARD TO GET IT LOOSE

IT FELL OVER OVER AND COOKED MY GOOSE

IT HIT THE WALL, WHICH MADE THE SEAM

THAT HELD THE ROOF SUPPORTING BEAMS

IT STARTED SAGGING AS I LOOKED

AND THEN I KNEW MY GOOSE WAS COOKED.

NOT MUCH TIME, SHE'D BE HOME SOON

FEELING NAUSEOUS i STARTED TO SWOON

WHAT COULD I DO TO COVER THIS MESS?

WHAT i CAME UP WITH YOU'LL NEVER GUESS.

SHE PULLED UP OUT FRONT HER FACE WHITE AS SNOW

I RAN TO HER SIDE, HER EYES ALL A GLOW. . .

SHE LOOKED THE REMAINS OVER, I STOOD RIGHT BY HER

THERE WASN'T MUCH LEFT AFTER THE FIRE....

YOU SEE NOW BABY IT'S ALL RIGHT WE'RE ALL OK

THERE JUST WASN'T MUCH ELSE THAT I COULD SAY

IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE WIRING, WHAT STARTED IT OUT

AND THEY HAD TO GAIN ENTRY BY KNOCKING THAT WALL OUT

BUT IT SPREAD SO QUICKLY, AND TIME WAS VITAL

INSURANCE WILL FIX THE HOUSE, WAS MY RECITAL

MY THROAT WAS DRY, MY KNEES WERE GETTING WEAK

NEXT TIME I WILL CALL A PLUMBER FOR THE DAMN LEAK. . .

© Copyright 2008brokenroadjourney All rights reserved. brokenroadjourney has granted theNextBigWriter, LLC non-exclusive rights to display this work on Booksie.com.
© 2008 Booksie | All rights reserved.

Joe the plumber was mentioned 21 times by McCain, and 4 by Obama.

Joe Six Pack meet Joe the Plumber

A round of drinks for all my friends.
(Charles Bukowski)

Arminius- I'm not clear about this-
Where do you REALLY stand on beer?
Pro-Beer or No-Beer?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
"The Worst Angels Of Our Nature: Rage And Racism On The Campaign Trail"

IRT:
“Like everyone else, I am worried about the economy and the financial panic I sense around me. But I am absolutely terrified--I tremble for my country--by the rage that has been expressed at Republican campaign rallies during the past two weeks. It is a rage that partakes of the worst forces in American history--xenophobia, racism, anti-intellectualism, religious fanaticism, envy, and utter contempt for truth and reason.”

ANS:
You might be more terrified about Obama, Acorn, and the company he keeps. When is Obama going to face the truth? Every time he is confronted about his past, he defends himself by downplaying his involvement with ACORN, by claiming racism, and McCain desperation. Palin tells the truth, and she's attacked as a fomenter of violence.

Obama claimed no connection to ACORN, but when his inextricably connected to this subversive organization was exposed, he then admitted to a casual contact with ACORN, though it was more than casual, not to mention he allocated some $800,000 to an ACORN subsidiary to get out the vote for his campaign.

Obama told us that Bill Ayers was just someone in the neighborhood until it was discovered that Ayers was instrumental in launching Obama's Senate Campaign in his living room with ACORN. Obama served on the board of the Woods Foundation dispersing funds to ACORN subversives to force political change by bullying tactics.

Obama is nose deep in ACORN who is steeped in voter fraud across the whole nation. ACORN is a vowed organization that is attempting to bring down the capital system and undermine the integrity of the voter system. ACORN is in the process of collapsing two of the most vital processes in our nation and has been quite successful at it.

The ACLU is in the process of obliterating our Judeo-Christian heritage that has made this nation one of the greatest nations in history, not to mention the undermining of that traditional moral system that is undergirding of our judicial system and our social order.

Obama backs both of these subversive seditionist organizations who back him, notwithstanding his concurrence for the five Apocalyptic Justices who just threw out traditional morality as the basis for Civil Law.

Hence, Justice Stephens, in the “Lawrence v. Texas” case, found that traditional moral values serve no legitimate purpose to the State.

If our traditional moral values serve no legitimate purpose to the State, what does. The Court answered that. It found egregious errors by the Founding Fathers in writing the 4th and 5th Amendments that protected human life and guarantee the inviolability of our inalienable rights.

The Court substituted the reckless view of their own subjective morality in "Roe v. Wade" by substituting their own capricious immoral view of what a human person was by redefining "person." Of course, that’s immaterial to the radical antagonists on the left where the end justifies the means.

Incredulously, seventy-five percent of sub-par loans were held by illegal aliens, and nearly 100 percent failed. These loans were a Dem ploy to capture the Hispanic vote at the cost of Americans and generated by ACORN and protected by the Dems.

Should your vote count; is Socialism that has plagued Europe since Marxism, preferable over capitalism? Then vote Obama. He was a counselor for ACORN, whose goals are Socialism and the destruction of the integrity of our financial and voting systems.

In the real world, truth matters; in the alternate world nothing matters but accomplishing ones subjective proclivities irrespective of the destructiveness and the devaluation of human life they engender.

The left will do anything for the right to have their unborn child murdered to solve the problems of their promiscuous ways. Billy Jean King had her unborn child murdered to play in a tennis match.

The subversion and corruption of our moral foundations by the barbarians on the left is destroying our national integrity.

Obama asked are you better off now than you were eight years ago. Instead, ask are you better off before the Dems controlled both the House and Senate. What was you paying for gas before the Dems came into power, for electricity, and for heating your home?

Obama is a fanatical materialist that embellishes the socialistic ideas that have failed for centuries. They have destroyed nations personified in Fascism, Communism and all forms of atheism. Such ideologies have invited the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Famine, Pestilence, War, and Death.

Obama is a compassionate proponent for the Culture of Death, a pro-abortionist, and an expressed advocate of infanticide, gay marriage and the amoral Justices that dominate the Supreme Court.

He voted, three times and denied it, against a bill that would have protected a butcher posing as a doctor from finishing the abortion after he botched it. Why? Because a "person" is not necessarily a human person to him.

Morality matters even though the Court and the radical left don't think so. To them morality is a subjective matter of opinion which renders them both standard-less and meaningless.

I love how these liberals can write about hateful conservatives without mentioning the liberal hate in the comments right beneath them.

I do have to admire the discipline of the liberal media. They have all jumped on this story with one voice at the exact same time. Very impressive partisan spinning, liberal media, very impressive.

It's laughable that with all of this conversation about partisan hate, none of the pundits have the barest level of honesty required to admit that their liberal commenters are full of hate themselves.

Susan, if you're watching the debate, you have seen John and Barack debating the plight of another Joe, the plumber. (NB: Plumbers are all the anecdotal rage, these days.)

My personal favorite is Myrtle,the Merrymaker, but no one seems interested in her. :)

From CCNL

Let us go back 2000 years to find Jesus Six-Pack converting bad beer into blood and/or great wine depending on the event. So of the two candidates which one is closer to this first century CE embellished simple preacher man???

Farnaz,

Well, all of us have our list of tags we don't want applied to us. I don't mind being called Christian first, American next, because in a real sense I am both equally, and they don't interfere. I'm not sure that's a good example, because I am not in a minority religion here, just a minority denomination. But, by damn, nobody better call me a conservative, a republican, or, worst of all, a neocon! (LOL) Oh, well.... as for you, I think of you first as a web friend.

As for Joe Six Pack. I learned in the army that there are many of these guys, and most of them, despite having a few hangups and a lack of education, well, by damn, I was no better or worse than them, and we got along fine. (The fact that I am fond of beer helped!) That lesson alone made my time in the army worthwhile. I have never forgotten it.

I don't think of Susan as a bigot. She is bitingly sarcastic, and that can come across as bigotry.

Farnaz-

Re: Your post

Right on! These "anecdotal slurs," as you call them, are part and parcel of the idiocy we see all around us. As for the working class, my father was a cab driver, truck driver, TV repairman. His depth of knowledge, overall literacy, analytic abilities, writing skills far surpassed Jacoby's. Not all of his friends were as literate as he was, but most of them were very smart.

For Palin, Joe Six-Pack is one kind of manipulative ploy. For Jacoby, it's another. And, yes, since she said he was Polish, she probably means Catholic, which I once was, no thanks to my wise father who thought the whole thing a crock. My mother, however, prevailed for awhile. Why Jacoby needs to resort to all this bigotry is beyond me.

Hi Arminius,

First on identities. Jacoby is forever identifying Jews as Jews, not according to their nationality. I and others have found this offensive. To be, bigoted across the board, said "Joe" should be designated Catholic. To eliminate bigotry altogether, his religion and ethnicity should have been omitted from the anecdote. Best would have been to spare us the inflammatory fable altogether.

As you can see, Jacoby's representation of Joe Six-Pack is offensive to me, not only for its nationality slur but for its classicism. And, as I have indicated, this is not the first instance. I'm going to forgo the textual analysis that supports my claims regarding since its already been done by others. (Scroll down.)

The anecdotal slur has become a standard feature of the now old New Journalism, and is part and parcel of the dumbing down of America. As I said, in my previous post, Jacoby and others have been taken to task for the intellectual surrender that the technique represents and invokes. It also evokes anger, as you can see from other bloggers, and understandably so.

Joe Six-Pack may be a cab driver or blue collar worker whose analytic ability outshines yours, mine, and Jacoby's put together. I know more than a few such people, and you probably do, too. On the other hand, Sheldon Champagne (see Observer12's post) may be, often is, a bigoted moron.

All I'm asking for is a little more intellectual rigor.

Farnaz,

First, in defense of Ms Jacoby, most people in journalism have a good short-term memory. It's almost a requirement.

Second, I don't think that calling someone Polish has a stigma anymore. Anyway, the guy volunteered it.

Third, Joe Six-Pack is not necessarily an insult. See Victoria's post on that. Except that I have a college degree and am liberal, I could easily be mistaken for Joe Six-Pack. Well, maybe not... I don't like football and I am not a NASCAR fan.

Last post was mine.

"As soon as I boarded the plane, I took notes detailing everything about this conversation."

Like Observer12, I'm astonished at your memory. These anecdotal slurs, a fixture of contemporary essays, have so often come under attack by readers that we now have Jacoby's dubious effort to lend hers credibility.

Even if factual, however, it says nothing of typicality, representativeness. By the way, regarding "Joe's" identity, you say only that he is Polish. Was he Catholic? I ask because Polish usually so signifies. Since, when you speak of Jews, you identify them only by faith, the same practice should obtain for all other identities,

So let us forget Joe's Polishness then. And simply refer to him as Catholic.

Or, we could simply drop the bigotry and classism altogether, and let "Joe's" religion, etc., alone. Indeed, we could commit to using nondiscriminatory language in all our essays. That would be my recommendation, Susan.

I read and re-read this column several times to double-check that Jacoby makes it clear Joe Six-Pack is white (Polish deli; turns purple with rage) whereas Joe himeself never specifies the race of the people who got home loans they couldn't afford. He was talking about freeloaders and chislers - every race and ethnic group has them - and if Jacoby wasn't blinded by her own biases she could have easly realized this once she memorialized their conversation and saw the words in writing. There's only one racist here, and it ain't Joe.

NOBODY is talking about race, except Obama and democrats!

They're talking about legitimate concerns that American patriots should have about someone trying to become President. Apparently not YOU, but many Americans would be concerned by a candidate who's grown up mentored by Communists, Marxist professors, and sat in a church, having no problem listening to anti-white, anit-American hatred for 20 years. That's why Republicans are concerned. I guess the hatred fostered by those around Obama isn't a problem?

I'm just a little confused about your sudden concern with "hateful rhetoric" right now? Aren't you the one who so rabidly hates George W. Bush?

Let's see if this takes-
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2008/10/palin_in_2012/allcomments.html

SPARROW- in response to your comments-
"That's a ridiculous over exaggeration of Ms. Jacoby's comments. It was a description of an encounter and IF YOU HAVE NEVER MET SOMEONE LIKE THAT,YOU JUST DON'T KNOW."

(I TRY, WHEN I BLOG HERE-TO ONLY CRITIQUE WHAT I AM OR KNOW WELL PERSONALLY)

Here is a bit from "Can Palin broaden base for 2012?" VICTORIA Oct-15 @ 2:53AM
Jihadist asked me specifically to elaborate on Joe Six Pack for her-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2008/10/palin_in_2012/allcomments.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now my take- Here is the caricature version-
Joe Six-pack is a blue collar working class guy- (always a white guy)
He is a 'regular Joe'. (also an expression) and likes to drink beer (the six pack part), and not wine. he's nationalistic, and socially conservative. His wife goes to church for him. He also has a natural distrust and suspicion of intellectuals(liberals), and you rightly observed that-

As for Nixon's Silent Majority- besides pumping up some maybe mythical maybe real shadow support-
my DAD IS ONE- he could also be a smart version of Joe Six Pack- he has alot of the elements-
(I TRY, WHEN I BLOG HERE-TO ONLY CRITIQUE WHAT I AM OR KNOW WELL PERSONALLY)
So please, no storm of anger over the definition- I reserve the right to define my own family.

Joe Six Pack gets a bad rap from elitist mentality types though-
His concerns are very real- likely he served his country in the military- he goes to work every day, and tries to do the right thing- and sometimes sees those around him profit and prosper without really earning it.
When he sees his taxes going to government handouts- his frustrations are valid- he never asked for anything- and maybe had to sacrifice his own education or dreams to do the right thing.
I cannot entirely blame his anger-

My entire home city was filled with Joe Six Packs- Pittsburgh PA- steel capitol of the world for a century until cheap japanses imported steel closed all the mills down in the 70's.
So, they're my people, and I've been fighting with them all of my life- (I was born a natural liberal) but I still love them and have lived their struggle.

You also asked-
"Do they mind this term being used by Ms. Sarah Palin?"

Sadly, no- they seem so happy to be silent no more, and seem to relish the attention. I think it makes them feel powerful and important- and that is a major part of her appeal to voters-
her speeches are peppered with compliments and affirmations that those dark feelings inside need to be expressed, deserve to be expressed, and it is ok- you betcha- not only ok- but patriotic.
as a matter of fact- another insane GOP attendee at her speech screamed "KILL HIM!!!"
AGAIN-
when she mentioned Obama's name.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again, I try to comment on what I know-

Ms. Jacoby wrote- re: Joe
'whose face literally turned purple with rage'
'He exploded again.'
'reeking of class and racial resentment and absent any awareness of...'
'uneducated and angry as my Joe Six-Pack'

and
'As soon as I boarded the plane, I took notes detailing everything about this conversation.'

It indicates to me that Ms. Jacoby had no desire to understand Joe, nor soften his mentality- or appeal to his better better angel of his nature-

Her characterization was exaggerated-
Call me crazy, but I really do believe everyone should be treated with some degree of respect-
His anger could have rightly been directed at the bankers-
I mean, the guy is headed to new York-
She could have used the opportunity to ease Joe a little more gently, that's all.
Now Joe is running around New York- reinforcing his intransigent views- and probably becoming more firmly entrenched in his us vs them POV-

well- it's all about intention.
Clearly Ms. Jacoby is smarter than Joe-
Joe had some a**hole views-
But a person can be smart- but also gracious and kind. As a matter of fact- I think the onus is on the smart to be more patient- more gracious-
because they (or we) know better-

If it were Joe tearing Ms. Jacoby a contemptuous new one-
I'd be repelled by his hyperbole as well.

Joe may have been extreme in his views- but a tiny bit of repsect could have gone a long way.
I believe you have to leave people better than you found them, and Ms. Jacoby left Joe worse.
That's just my opinion Sparrow.
I talk to Joe every single week.

The author doesn't really comment on validity of the "Joe-six-packs" points. They are actually very valid. I would like some proof from someone if they believe contrary.

Noticing that races and economic classes are treated differently in this country is not racism. I actually think it is very accurate. I don't know if everything he said is true but he seems to get the point. Often because of social class or race, you can get preferential treatment on things. This goes too far when people try get things for these people to even things up. This is largely what led to the mess we are in now. I am all for personal responsibility.

Let's look at the facts of the issues and not just label people because they see things differently.

Hi

After reading thru some of these posts, something that I thought of quite awhile ago comes to mind.

Has anyone ever heard the expression: "America is a melting pot"?

Does it seem more like a "simmering pot" than a "melting pot"?

As God-Incarnate, Jesus, said, "Why try to take the speck out of your brother's eye when you have a beam in your own".

Is it easier to blame everyone else or does it just seem that way?

Some of the expressions that are used: "It's a rat race", "Going out to make a killing rather than going out to make a living", "Dog eat dog world", do any of these speak volumns about the situation now?

Isn't it sad that when some are just trying to put a roof over their families' head they are spoken of in, shall we politely say, a sub-human manner?

As I have said before: "It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows" and as I have also said: "God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof".

We have free will and whether or not we take responsibility for that free will is our choice, which also happens to be part of our free will.

I thank God for God's Plan and that His Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

IN REPLY TO (IRT
SUSAN JACOBY
The Worst Angels Of Our Nature: Rage And Racism On The Campaign Trail
IRT:
So it’s not a bipartisan affair, it’s all McCain's and Palin's doings. Hence a couple of rednecks scream out something and the whole campaign is reckless. When did telling the truth by Palin become a detriment to a campaign? It would be refreshing if Obama did the same.

Obama has covered up so many times about ACORN you cannot believe anything he’s said. Clinton was the consummate liar of the Century; it appears Clinton can’t begin to compete with Obama.

Biden in his debate with Palin had misspoken eleven different times. I never heard McClain or Palin calling him a liar.

If you want to hold the McCain Campaign to be responsible for every kook who cries out some ridiculous remark then you must have closed your eyes to the Obama campaign.

I saw the particular rally that was said to be conjuring up out-of-controlled imbeciles, and I saw many interviewed who were at the campaign. They said that it was the media stirring up angst and rebellion in order to protect the true Obama from justified criticism.

I don't think I heard Obama apologizing for Saturday Night Alive having Palin's daughter being knocked up by Palin's husband, nor that Palin's new born was really her daughters.

Login not showing up for me, either. The last post was from Athena4.

"Those people" who are getting their homes foreclosed on are probably "people like us" who are "hardworking Americans" whose jobs have been sent overseas, or have staggering medical costs, or had to choose between putting gas in their cars and food on the table or paying their bills.

And yes, I am afraid of what's happening. I just read that an Obama campaign office in Philadelphia got a hate-gram complete with unidentified white powder in it. This is not America!

Log in isn't showing up- previous post is mine. -sparrow4

That's a ridiculous over exaggeration of Ms. Jacoby's comments. It was a description of an encounter and if you have never met someone like that, you just don't know.

Ms. Jacoby wrote:"The trouble begins with the notion that there is some special wisdom in the virtuous, uneducated Joe Six-Packs of this nation."

It's more complicated than that really- Joe six-Pack is a myth used by the republicans to fool voters into thinking the GOP believes in them and has their best interests at heart. they point a finger at Obama and call him elitist- the guy who didn't grow up with a trust fund and a portfolio and 7 houses. McCain and Palin want to use Joe six Packs because they thing he's stupid enough to fall for their party line. And sadly, some are. the democrats care far more about them and have far more respect for their intelligence.

Do I think Joe Six-Pack is all America? Hell no! I think he has been manipulated by the Republican Party. I think he knows it and he is angry at being manipulated and afraid because he feels powerless. He wants someone to blame and as we all know, the republicans have a few scapegoats they want to use.

From CCNL:

For a fair and thorough analysis of the backgrounds and issues of the candidates, read:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

And don't forget to VOTE !!!!

McCain is an erratic madman with no plan, just a greedy lust for the presidency.

The GOP ticket is pathetic: An angry old troll and the Avon Lady.

It must be terribly humiliating to be a Republican right now.

I am also very repulsed by the lynch mob that has become de rigueuer of the McCain campaign.
The point would have been much less polarized and had a greater rational impact, if it were not followed by an equally nasty anecdotal vilification of and contempt shown for "Susan's"
Joe Six Pack.

The comments were potent enough in their expression without the tit for tat.
Actually, it's punch got lost when
Ms. Jacoby felt she had to accentuate the hatefulness by repaying it in kind.

oops- the anon is me. sign in foiled again! (and I meant Harlem, not jarlem. A little fumblefingered tonight)
-sparrow4

joe six-pack is a cynical marketing ploy by a party whose members are mostly wealthy and white and would run screaming from the room if a real joe Six Pack were to walk in. It's used by a woman whose combined income with her husband is a quarter of a million dollars a year, owns several properties and boats and has political power.these people identify with "small town America" as much as Paris Hilton identifies with a young girl in Jarlem.

So there's several things happening here- a real contempt for the average American voter, and a real belief that Joe Six Pack is too stupid to get the joke. So stupid in fact, that the Republican party doesn't even have to give them any real issues, but like the Romans and their circuses, toss out a few sacrificial gladiators to the lions and let er rip.

Palin thinks being able to hunt and dress a moose gives her a real connection to Joe Six Pack, but in fact, she thinks she is far superior. which is why she has no compunction about whipping up racism and fear mongering. Ayers is really a red herring- they know it. But if you want to talk about scary associations with a real basis in fact, how about McCain and Gordon Liddy? Or McCain and Hagee, McCain and William Timmons (who has ties to Saddam Hussein), Palin and Muthee, Palin and the AIP- should I go on? Because there are others.

everything McCain and Palin have done is a smokescreen for a campaign out of ideas, out of ethics and out of steam.

From CCNL:

There is no doubt that the FBI and the Secret Service videotapes all the crowds at the various campaign speeches. And there is no doubt, they keep tabs on said hate mongers if indeed what Susan is saying is true. The networks are covering these same speeches. Are they not featuring these hate comments or is there some sinister political gimmicks going on to embellish all these "outbursts"????

Oh the shallow selective outrage! Holier than thou! Hypocrite! The democrats are pristine and would never resort to such things! They have only had sweet positive uplifting messages. Sweet lips that never told a lie!
Please save me elite Obama - I'm Joe Six Pack - I am stuk in the hartland and nead yore help

Janet-

"I mean this new sign-on policy hasn't changed a thing and is a pain in the ass."

True. What was the purpose?

I mean this new sign-on policy hasn't changed a thing and is a pain in the ass.

I posted, my name RMack appeared, then the next thing you know it has me as anonymous. Somebody didn't like my comment. Must be a fascist monitor, eh? Susan is incapable of reason, or so her article indicates. What was she doing in the 60's, "not paling around with...."?

Observer12-

"Note to journalists: Now, we have a mob scene. When you create an uncivil public sphere, you cannot control where the incivility will ultimately go."

Fair enough. I also agree with you about the Joe Six-Pack crap--A great contribution to civility, sophomoric and trite.

McCain's in a bind. He had to cultivate the extreme right to get Republican support. In the process, he probably lost some moderates in his party. The Palin pick hurt him with them with them for sure.

There is a lot of fear for Obama's safety. I doubt whether we can say what motivates a potential assassin, so I'd never say that this verbal garbage may be dangerous. I would say that it makes some of us scared for the candidate and that it gives sensationalizing blogs like OnFaith the opportunity to rant.

It's been said before on this thread, but it's worth repeating. The incivility in this election year began with unbridled sexist attacks against Hillary Clinton, which continued throughout the Democratic Primary season and which were led by the media. Some of Susan Jacoby's fit right in this category.

So bad did it get that Obama supporters wrote to newspapers and blogs in protest. Whilst thus engaged, the media could not be bothered to deal with issues although again and again the public requested them.

Note to journalists: Now, we have a mob scene. When you create an uncivil public sphere, you cannot control where the incivility will ultimately go.

It's disgusting that Republicans are blaming the poor for the current financial meltdown. I heard a quote recentley, "You can't be a republican if you don't kick the poor when they're already down".

These people say, "why did they buy a house they couldn't afford, end of story"?

Well, why not ask why the Investment banks on Wall Street borrowed more money than they had in the bank? They say for every 5 dollars they actually had, they were borrowing $30.....

How is this not the exact same principle?

Stop blaming the poor people who got screwed with bad morgages. I'm sure there is (some) blame there, but it's quite pathetic to single them out. We all know there is plenty of blame to go around.

And DON'T EVEN TRY to say that Republican's pushing for deregulation had no part in this.

Susan-

It's miraculous that you remembered so much of "Joe Six-Pack's position" that you can quote it verbatim.

Anything else? Vera White-Wine? Sheldon Champagne? Louie Liqueur? Al Aperitif? Barbara Brandy? Scarlett Skotch? Gene Gin? Victor Votka?

Ever consider journalism school?

To all the clueless anonymous posters:

Please read Observer12's post for directions. To post without a handle is a violation of common courtesy.

Anonymouses:

TO INCLUDE YOUR HANDLE on a post for this thread, click on "preview," then type in your moniker, and click on "post."

I've never been a political person until this election, I just can't stand it anymore- how in the world do you on the right have the nerve to spin this as the liberals / democrats / Obamas fault?
WHO has been in power the past eight years??
You had your chance and you screwed things up badly. Your party and your president also signed on to this so called 'socialist' bailout yet somehow you blame Obama for it. It's under YOUR
president that 4000 American soldiers have died in Iraq, that the NSA is spying on Americans, that we've had what- 2,3 recessions? sorry, I've lost count. It is the Right that drug its feet on civil rights, on women's rights. YOU are the ones who constantly have to be drug kicking and screaming into modernity. If Democrats are the party of liberals and radicals the Republicans are the party of the racists and fascists.

Here's one for ya since you're dragging out rushhhhh's old "character matters" argument: what about the character of someone who pals around a person who gives people advice on how to kill government officials?
http://www.theseminal.com/2008/05/05/media-taking-notice-of-mccain-liddy-connection/

Observer12:

"What's up with all the Anonymouses?"

Exactly. We have a plague of people either too stupid or lazy to think up a handle, or too cowardly to do so. This can be fixed - hopefully it will be done, and handles will be enforced as on other blogs.

I am amazed reading all these comments. I am puzzled and concerned with the comments that are lacking substantial evidence or are incendiary in nature. for example there is this "anonymous" reader equating Obama with racial epithets. It is sad to see how low some people can go to raise up their own ego. Then there were some others confusing free speech with ignorance or just plain stupidity. People/human parrots. who just repeat what they hear in tV or some other places, rather than doing their own search for the truth.
The fact is you can speak all you want but it is important to be a responsible citizen when you do it.
The bottom line, John Mc Cain said that he was going to run a clean campaign but so far has failed to do that. Instead he has unleashed Sarah palin who does not know what newspaper read or what the Supreme Court decisions have been the past ten years
Obama is not guilty free, either- The difference is McCain is bringing in the worse of this nation, the kooks.

What's up with all the Anonymouses?

OK...
The Anon that talked about Kos? I am a member of DailyKos and there has never been any bad talk about Christians on that site,and if there are they get shut down fast. Believe it or not...there are Christians that belong to that site. Which proves you have never been there...really Anon check things out before you make a statement like that.

DailyKos is the favorite whipping post of the Republican party...of course we are merely a Liberal blog...that is enough to gain their hate. DK is filled with very intelligent folks and wonderful writers.

terra

Susan,

Please ditch the rose colored glasses, selective hearing, or whatever else is unreasonably narrowing your focus and pay more attention to what is going on around you.

While you may rightly decry overtly racist slurs and calls for death against a candidate, I quite assure you that this is not limited to Republicans. While I spend no time on the campaign trail (a benefit of being gainfully employed), I spent plenty of time in the 2000 post election campaign, and at numerous other lesser campaign events.

Not only has have Democrat rank and file behaved as rank and vile: being outclassed by no one in those repugnant behaviors; but Democrat leaders have opened promoted a racist message that immediately seeks to silence opposition and, in the case of many black leaders, nursed the worst instincts of their followers.

The Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac debacle was not only predictable but predicted. It was Republicans that warned about it -- McCain in particular. The old threadbare response from Democrats: According to Maxine Waters, Harold Raines was being politically "lynched" and that there was no situation that needed addressing. Plenty of other Democrats were willing to turn this rather clear case of bad policy needing fixing into both a race and class issue. Obama of course was "present" in Washington through a lot of this and had nothing to say about any of it. He of course votes with the party that formented much of the current economic crisis and his votes to block any form of action remains his only statement at the time when leadership would have made a real difference.

It was not some "rank and vile" supporter that had Jeremiah Wright -- the racist black liberation theoligian as a preacher and spiritual advisor -- it was the Democratic candidate himself: Barak Obama.

It is regrettable that anyone at all holds racist views. I consider this both an intellectual defect and a moral one. It is also regrettable because there are plenty of reasons for holding Obama and the Democrats in low regard besides the ones I reference here.

Surely you can do better than this missive with a fallacy of selective observation as the principal support for your thesis.

Welcome to the real world, study the history of campaigns... there has always been a lot of political hate in this country. It is standard operating procedure for political parties and candidates to highlight, emphasize, scapegoat & create futher divisions. The best learn to single out minority ethnic groups and hopefully pit them against each other. Wheher it's southern dixiecrats, or Hitler, Mussolini, or the Spanish nobility... all used fear & race in their path to rule. In the US common racist & generally "populist" movements in the south encouraged "Whitecapping" and KKK like attacks on negroes, whereas in the early 20th Century much anti-Asian and anti-Indigenous people policies were enacted(including forced removal from lands & even scalping). It's no surprise to me to see thinly veiled racism and overt xenophobia at play today, CNN's Lou Dobbs & Fox's Bill O'Reilly have built hugely populist media careers on it. The "right" excels at this type of game, and for good reason. It usually works.

This article is very interesting, polarizing but interesting. There are those whose lives and mouths are so filled with vitriolic language no reasoning is possible. Does that mean that all of these people belong to one particular group? I think not. Many people have experienced challenges to their personhood, unacceptance in school or housing markets due to race, gender, financial/economic background, or place of birth. Receiving negative commentary about ones personhood tends to not allow compassionate response, whether it be a caucasian, under educated, or African American well educated. All people feel protective of WHO they are and how they have become who and what they are. I truly believe that the time has come and actually has always been, for us to put aside our rancor and know that all of us have our blisters, losses and pain. It is not my perogative to judge what pain another may encounter, nor what foible encountered. It is my perogative to be all that I can be and hold up those who are weaker or more heavily encumbered. No matter what ideology, theology or philosphy we hold to ourselves we need to not hold others to match us, for then we are held to match the One who is unmatchable.

MCCAIN AND OBAMA are both ELITEIST. They only care for their agenda as is quite obvious.

A vote for either is a vote against the Republic.

McCain and Obama could it get any worse? I doubt it. We had to fight FASCISM and COMMUNISM before who would have thought that LIBERTY loving people would have to RESIST these forces in the land of the free????

Thank you Susan. Your article is an excellent piece on how sane people can stray into the borderline insane by ignorance - or, in Sarah Palin's case, by deceptive pre-programming and hypocritical attitude. And from there things can slide down to the insanity hole. The Wall Street gave us and example lately, and, as you point out, it can happen to political campaigns as well.

Unfortunately, the road to glory, power, and admiration is also the place where the weeds of envy, jealousy, and wrath for revenge grow. And the history of politics and power has been strewn with skeletons and torrents of blood since the era
of Alexander the Great. But civility at our days is considered a given - except to misguided politicians. But promoting hostility in campaign speeches is a fallacy and it is certainly unacceptable. But for people who feel they are on
the losing side, they may feel that they have nothing to lose. And that is where the McCain campaign is right now.

Also I find unacceptable some some attacks against you here by the think-alikes of Joe Six Packs. And as the adage goes, In every basket of fruit, you should expect to find a few rotten.
Congratulations for your insightful article. Nikos
Retsos, retired Pol.Sci. and History professor

I am more worried about the hate that McCain and Palin is surrounding themselves with, then I am the economic meltdown.

I remember the hate of the late 50's and 60's...MLK murdered, little girls in a church, three activists in Miss and after...a man wrapped with a chain and pulled apart from the back of a truck...a young gay man beaten and left to die on a fence...

Strange fruit
by Lewis allen

Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.

McCain and Palin has allowed their rallies to be a safe haven for hate. They lie and reve up the violence. Obama is not involved with ACORN and ACORN has not been convicted of anything, but heck lets presume they are ...but the org that fights for the poor and powerless is a good scapegoat. And really people can you think? ACORN registers...they do not have a thing to do with how people vote. Mickey Mouse can register 100 times but if he has ID that says he is Mickey Mouse he gets to vote once. McCain is a l i a r.And is willing to create chaos to win. But then it is a Republican thing. Anyone remember Max Cleland? The triple amputee, Viet Nam vet, hero that lost because some republican associated him with Bin Laden? Hate, li es, race bateing, hatemongering...McCain will try it all.And Palin says she has nothing to lose.

"I hope that this Joe Six-Pack was just one Joe Six-Pack, and that there are many other blue-collar Americans who do not share such views, reeking of class and racial resentment and absent any awareness of the ways in which unexpected blows of fate can derail the honest efforts and hopes of hard-working people. We will, I suppose find out on Nov. 4. "

HOW THE HECK ARE WE SUPPOSED TO FIND THIS OUT ON NOVEMBER FOURTH???

I am sorry for the people that lived beyond their means, or had hard times, or whatever BUT,

TOO MANY ELITEST POLITICIANS PLAY ON THE HEART STRINGS FOR THEIR PET PROJECTS -Then they TAKE OUR OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE, OUR MONEY, AND OUR FREEDOM AWAY BY FORCE - AND THE NAIVE THINK THIS IS FOR THE BEST. -- NOW THAT IS TERRIFYING!!!!
I SUGGEST READING DAVY CROCKET'S NOT YOURS TO GIVE.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately I had an experience I will never forget while traveling on business by rental car throughout the state of Ohio . I landed in Columbus and rented a car to take me on various appointments throughout the the state. My radio was tuned to Rush Limbaugh and curiosity led me to listen. Lunch and dinner stops kept me abreast of the conservative station news. I literally couldn't get rid of this nonsense. I tried but to no avail. Ignorance seemed to be everywhere. I literally thought I entered the twilight zone. The folks I met along the way were the Palin crowds. I found it shocking. I did try to understand their reason and cause but left the state with a great deal of concern. Intellectual concerns aside. These folks hopefully were not typical.

Great article. John McCain has gone from being a man I most admired on the Republican side to man whose judgment is seriously in question. What thinking person knowing anything about Palin would select her as a running mate? No thinking person would. She was picked on a roll of the dice--literally, we're lead to believe. We don't need a man who would gamble our future like this. Palin is bad for America--a person who has set out to be a divider in order to conquer a job. A job! Truly sad.

Did you see Kerry going on with his speech as they repeatedly tazed that kid in Florida?

OBAMA has espoused a global poverty initiative - This will tax the American people for a pet project - one that does not even benefit Americans.

OBAMA supported renewal of the PATRIOT ACT doesn't that worry you in the least? You should be terrified.

OBAMA supports the activity in IRAQ - Even though no war has been declared.

OBAMA supported the bailout - Does that bother you?

If none of these things bother you you may as well vote for Obama or McCain as they are selling the same product.

Most Joe whatever's I meet have been deluded to believing the banks, the government, and the insurance companies are their freinds.

So we have a Non Free market economy, NO civil liberties, and we are losing our sovereignty, the Constitution is ignored and THIS is what you are worried about???? I have heard just as much hate speech from Obama supporters.

I can not vote for the EVIL OF TWO LESSERS!!! I will not vote for either of these two.

Doesn't anybody even care about LIBERTY any longer?

I was ten when JFK was assassinated. When Bobby was shot, then MLK, I felt insecure and confused. I didn't understand how people in the U.S. were killing our greatest leaders. If we thought so little of ourselves, I felt that Russia might very well nuke us, and we'd have to use the duck and cover drills we learned in school.

I got that same feeling again, listening to Palin and some of her followers. She is too young to even know what this is about.

Hitler pushed similar buttons, which turned some people who were latent anti-Semites, into blatant anti-Semites. Once you start letting that ugly thing out of the box, it is hard to put back in. Her rhetoric is reprehensible, and at some point, I hope she gives her followers specific instructions to respect President Obama.

Susan Jacoby asks of "Joe Sixpack":

"Wasn't it possible that many of the homeowners facing foreclosure had simply not understood what it would mean for their monthly payments if the rate on the mortgages went up by, say, 5 percent?"

Sure, it's possible. Many people are ignorant, and can't do simple math or understand basic facts of economics. (Interest rates ALWAYS go up again.)

I do. That's why I chose a fixed rate mortgage at a higher rate, on a smaller house. That's why I can still make my house payments with ease.

It's also, ultimately, why I'm no longer a Democrat.

So, blame the math-ignorant.
Blame the banks and lenders who said "Bad credit? No credit? No problem!"
Blame the government policies that encouraged those banks and lenders to do so.
Blame the activists and the politicians who pushed for those policies.
Oh, look where that needle of blame inevitably leads back to... but wait, those aren't Republicans we're pointing at! Oh, My!

By the way... I've yet to see Obama's head photoshopped onto Hitler's, (or, for that matter, a chimpanzee's) so apparently Democrats are still ahead in the hate game. Of course, if somebody photoshopped Obama's head onto a monkey, it'd be racist. Comparing Bush to one is just funny. If it prospers, none dare call it hypocrisy.

There doesn't seem to be a concensus as to what reason is. I do know that bigots are rarely willing to discuss anything and choose to stubbornly stick to the same hand-me-down beliefs for the rest of their lives. That purple-faced rage expressed by Joe Six-Pack is a typical reaction of a conservative to an offer of a different point of view.
As America seems to have appointed itself the Greatest Country on Earth and who feels it appropriate to tamper in other countries' affairs, I hope with all my heart that you choose the leader who is willing to unite and care for the world and not divide and destroy it. Please remember that global decisions you make can affect the rest of us in very significant ways. Enough of us from other parts the world have lost faith in your ability to lead and see your current government as irresponsible cowboys and certainly not as effective world leaders.
Also, since Americans seem to be so into their Bibles, open them, read the gospels and see what Jesus had envisaged for the world. It was not a world of warmongering and self-worship!
Obama seems to be a decent and expansive human being.
I'm from Australia. Please vote for Obama on our behalf America! Vote for a better world!

Nice job on a blatantly bias article, but what else would i expect from a paper with absolutely no journalistic integrity and even less credibility. I surely hope the American people are more intelligent than you seem to think they are. Using one person to try and characterize an entire segment of the population is absolutely ridiculous. Using the same slant with regard to race, this would easily qualify as racism. I by no means agree with anything of the hatred your "Joe Six-Pack" spouted with regards to race. Your vile attempt to connect this obvious idiot to the overwhelming majority of Republicans truly exposes you for the fraud and coward you are. If you had the tiniest speck of integrity, you would be trying to expose the causes of this current economic meltdown. I'm sure many of the people who obtained these sub-prime loans had absolutely no idea what could happen, but ignorance should not excuse anyone from the consequences from their actions. I should not have to pay, via my tax dollars, for someone's inability to read the fine print. Buying a home is, for most Americans, the biggest economically consequential decision they make in their live. To go about this process without due diligence means that you suffer the consequences, at least that what it means in a free market economy. The root cause of this entire crisis is legislation passed going as far back as the Carter administration, but most notably the Clinton administration, with the passage of legislation aimed at "affordable housing." This legislation, under strict, forced lenders to eliminated the process of "redlining," which was characterized as a process through which lenders eliminated applicants based on racial, social, and economic cases. I'm sure this happened in the extreme minority of cases, but by no means defined the process. In most cases, applicants were eliminated on the basis that they could not pay, and for that reason alone. After the passage of the Affordable Housing Bill of 1992, the only way lenders could justify lending to extreme high risk applicants was the creating of sub-prime loans, with adjustable interest rates and hefty penalties to mortgage recipients. In many cases, credit, income, and even citizenry checks could not be carried out, resulting in applicants getting loans that they would not be able to afford if the interest rates change (which, over the long term, they will), and even illegal aliens obtaining mortgages. As recently as 2005, John McCain, along with many other Republican Congressmen, addressed this issue via an investigation into Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the holders of over 50% of mortgages. Most banks package sub-prime loans together in certain amounts, and sell them as investments, which most often times end up in the hands of either Freddie or Fannie. Franklin Raines, a Senior Economic Advisor to the Obama campaign, was CEO of Freddie Mac during this period, and bought up many of these sub-prime loans. He knew that these loans were extremely risky investments, and bought them anyway so he could inflate the "value" of Freddie Mac assests, and meet bonus numbers. All of this has exploded during the foreclosure crisis, a good 2 years after Raines left the company with $90 million dollars over the course of 6 years. With home prices crashing, and Freddie and Fannie were now the proud holders of millions of mortgages in which the balance on the loan was now more than the house was worth. The story is the same with many of the banks that are now going under. They bought up these sub-prime loans, loans that they knew were extreme risks, to drive up asset figures in order to meet bonus numbers. Now, the solution of Obama and his Democratic cronies, as well as many spineless Republicans, is to use your tax dollars, to bail out these companies who made bad decisions. This plan is blatant socialism, in which the government owns a huge share in many of these companies. Even if they are eventually returned to the private sector someday, we have created a riskless environment in which these companies know they can take unacceptable risks in the hopes or reaping great reward, all at the expense of the taxpayers. So before election day, ask yourself who is really on your side, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Barack Obama; who have lined their pockets with money via campaign donations from Freddie and Fannie, and continue to protect them. Or instead, you could vote for McCain who; for all you may disagree with him (and believe me, there are a few issues I passionately disagree with him on), won't make the biggest leap towards socialism and redistribution of wealth this country has ever seen. Look beneath the surface of Barack Obama, beyond the carefully chosen, purposefully deceptive words, into the actual details of his plan. A plan which includes tons of "refundable" tax credits, which is congressional speak for "you don't even have to pay taxes to get them." In the past, that used to be called welfare. Now it's being used to deceive Americans into thinking their taxes will be lower, when the overwhelming majority won't even qualify. Plus, when you factor in that Obama has pledged to let the Bush tax cuts expire, many Americans will pay more in taxes, not less; and certainly not the 95% that Obama speaks of. In addition, 50% of small business fall into the "over $250,000" category that will see a tax increase. A small business owner is not simply going to let their own incomes get heavily slashed, many will lay off workers and pass the cost on to consumers. It's easy to envy the wealthy because they have more money, but do not most of us aspire to be wealthy. We want to provide for our children the best we can, and a bright future. Ask yourself, "When is the last time I was employed by a poor person?" We rely on the wealthy for jobs, as well as the opportunity for us to become wealthy ourselves. It comes down to the simple philosophy, dare I say a Conservative philosophy, that we know how to spend our money, or not spend it, better than the government does. Just look what has happened to social security, housing, and just about every other program the government has gotten its hands on. The simple choice is that Barack Obama would see spending increased and more money funneled from you to the government, while John McCain would see spending lowered, cancerous earmarks eliminated, and a lower tax burden on the American people. There you have it, people. An intelligent, well thought out argument from someone Susan Jacoby would seek to characterize as a bigoted, backwards, racist idiot with absolutely no clue when it comes to, well, anything. No political idealogy has a monopoly on idiocy, intolerance, or racism. Susan Jacoby, however, doesn't have the journalistic integrity to tell you that.

Looking at our nation's history, the recent iteration of this nonsense has been going on for 40 years. For many on the left, THEY ARE DONE. Look at the stats on firearms and ammunition being purchased all around the country. It is way up. If you think all those sales are from the right, you're not paying attention. This is not the left of the limp-wristed 1960s. This is an angry left, full of progressives who are DONE with "xenophobia, racism, anti-intellectualism, religious fanaticism, envy, and utter contempt for truth and reason." These Joe Sixpacks should sit down and be quiet, or the consequences could be extremely severe.

These rhetorical strategies by the populist, far right wing of the Republican party are terrifying. Anger and irrationality allied with a cynical veteran in a time of economic crisis spells risk for rise of a fascist movement. Ms. Jacoby deserves credit for naming and confronting this ugly crowd before their intolerant, hateful conduct can hurt someone. Only journalists can remedy this sort of nonsensical appeal. After a movement grows to the point that vulnerable minorities are targeted and injured, it will be too late. Before that point, the law is not equipped (nor should it be) to intervene. Thank you for this article.

"They fight for freedom by restricting it". & "They would elect the lord Satan himself into office if he wore a flag pin and said he was pro-life. We must educate them secretly somehow. maybe with subliminal messages during half-time shows".
-----
This comment by "anonymous" is very insightful. The incendiary remarks of Senator (General?) McCain and his militaristic Gov. Sarah Palin lead me to believe that, were they elected, our freedoms would continue to be diminished, fear and division exacerabated, and all in the name of THEIR God -- who apparently likes war and killing a lot more than mine.

OMG, I can't believe how what a bunch of kool aid drinkers read your article.

Have you been to a KOS convention and the amount of hatred there is for conservative christians? Have you heard of Christian girls being sold on the sex trade just because they're christian in Darfur?

Have you heard the names they call Sarah Palin, just because she's a successful woman who does not believe in liberal ideology?

You sound so righteous in pronouncements, you claim to accuse people of intolerance but yet you are intolerant of people who disagree with your socialist views.

Sick!

Wow. Judging by the article and the comments here, it looks like we ARE in some big trouble. The real problem, in my humble opinion, is the need to win. Whether Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, Christian or Muslim, Man or Woman, we have this deep, innate need to be right. I see it on the soccer fields as parents go NUTS at a bad call, or when their kid gets passed over to be the Star. Out of the overflow of the heart, our conversation flows. We all need to look at our own hearts and pray for humility.

This could be the worst article that I have read in a long time, and to make it even worse I actually tried to stomach the comments below it.

I get a kick out of you sad, liberal, baby killer, live in the gray, yet someway think they are CHRISTIANS who will vote for Obama. You people only confirm Gods Sovereignty, and that there is an elect.

I feel so sorry for you sad lost souls, I would urge you to go to church, but I am not even sure today’s church is the right answer.

You people are fools, America is MAD AS HELL at the Democrats for attacking the economy to win an election, for voter fraud, and for failed economic policy and idiotic leadership in congress since 2006.

NOT TO MENTION the slimy democrats underhanded dealings with regard to Fannie and Freddy. Obama is the 2nd biggest campaign recipient of this FAILED socialist endeavor.

You mingle hate with anger, because your political correctness has made you too blind to know the difference!

Are you kidding me? Are you really freakin kiddin me? You honestly can't believe what you are spewing here...what about sandra bernstein et al....all democraps.

you are guilty as the politicans of your last line of your attempt at fueling the hateful left....
Any reporter who provides fuel for the worst sort of American fire, or remains silent in the face of bigotry and threats of violence, is a disgrace to this country- and should be tried for treason.

Susan Jacoby, you are not a journalist, you are a disgusting hatemongering disgrace to this country

http://www.deathbydemocraticparty.com

Please just go away. Do you really take yourself serious? You seem to be okay with a President who makes close friendships with truly scary people, yet some knucklehead one in a crowd is what you Worry about? Talk about racist, how about good old Reverend Wright (sp?). Are you going to excuse your candits racism which is real? Please pull your head out of the sand and really look before you speak. I don't have time for your tunnel vision and small mind.

Ms. Jacoby, have you been blind to the rage on the Obama campaign trail? You are speaking of the "rabble-rousing" Palin, but conveniently disregard Obama's associations with Louis Farrakahn, Jeremiah Wright, and other hate-mongers? What about all the hatred and obscenities I get from the passing cars because of my McCain stickers? Actually, I sense a fair amount of hate in your very own article. High time to examine the angels of your own nature, Susan.

While I don't care for comments made at campaign rallies and view them as the product of uninformed citizens I do protect their right to voice their thoughts even those that may be objectionable. In case you may have forgotten this is protected in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. In your indignation I would hope you remember the dispicable things said in Pastor Wrights Chicago Church of which Senator Obama was a longstanding member. Was he asleep at every service, unaware of the thoughts and passions of a minister he likened to an uncle, or was he complicit in his silence of agreement? There has been enough from both sides and as an Independent I must say I am embaressed by both parties. It makes me wonder why I spent 25 years as a Marine Officer defending behavior such as this. Rather than the verbage I would appreciate a straight answer from both candidates or at least I don't know Sir but will find out. How about some answers on ACORN, Wood Foundation contributions, voting present instead of up or down, Fannie Mae contributions to his campaign, why he remained in his church? How about some answers on the Keating 5, support for bi partisan legislation on immigration, business tax specifics, troopergate. You see it goes both ways although I do feel that the media is more than a little slanted . Let all of us spend the next 3 weeks looking and focusing on middle of the road solutions to complex issues. Let's look at the candidates and their stands and records rather than soundbites and canned replies. why not do something novel and ask each how they intend for us the citizen to pay for any of these solutions and programs with a 10 trillion dollar national debt and 62% of our federal tax dollar going to pay entitlement programs. And for good measure my jaded friends remember that it is the Congress that initiates legislation and not the President.

The insanity of this 'article' has no limit.
Have you not seen the "Abort Palin" stickers? Have you not seen the vitriol and hate directed at her because she doesn't share the liberal view?
Have you never been to one of the anti-war hate rallies?
Another one of these comments talks about killing Bush/Cheney and other Republicans. Your party is filled with hate.
To top it off, are you seriously saying the people who signed contracts they didn't understand are not to blame, just the banks that gave them money? Are you insane? If you reward the stupid you get more stupid. If you reward the irresponsible you get more irresponsibility. These are facts of life.
The hate shown at Obama rallies is scary. The hate shown in Obama's church is scary. Obama's father was more Arab than black. That is not opinion, that is fact. Just because you want it to be otherwise does not change facts.
If Obama's relationship with a white terrorist is racist then there is nothing left in life that you won't call racism.
If you are scared that some Joe *might* pick up a gun but are NOT scared of Ayers who DID pick up a BOMB and DID KILL people with it there is no hope for Democrats. That Obama does not care about his bomb-toting friend speaks volumes about his judgment and character. That Obama sits in a hate-mongering 'church' speaks volumes about his judgment and character.

Susan,

It is so sad that this country has come to this condition and that people are the way they are now days.

It is really scary to see these McCain rallies and how the people react....what has come of this once so wonderful country. Mr. McCains running mate is not much better but probably worse and thinks she knows everything.

Just last night my ladyfriend and I went to a restaurant and someone told me and I agree with her I hope Obama and Biden win in 08 as we need a country united not divided.

How many people know where Mr. Obama's mother is from and how many people are involving race and religion in their decision when they vote on election day?? It is no ones business what church anyone goes to on Sunday.

Mr. McCain as you can tell just goes back and forth and always so nervous not calm like Mr. Obama.

"This post is right. It feels horrible when people at Republican rallies shout 'kill him'.

I am sure the Democrats would not consider saying such things (Even if we wanted too)

Ofcourse Bush is evil and it has been seriously considered how one is to execute him for his War Crimes......."
____________________

Ok, my hypocrisy meter is totally pegged. Someone tell me this post was a joke and a jab at the Dems. Am I right? Has to be, otherwise there's no hope for our two party system.

joe sixpack is a derogatory term for idiots who care about nothing but their next beer, the fact that a person would self-identify as Joe Sixpack is emblematic of the ignorance and apathy of such a group of self-identified "joe sixpacks". The fact that the media and others confuse "joe sixpack" with "blue collar" is even more disheartening. If the joe sixpacks were not apathetic/ignorant and were therefore not easy to manipulate with emotional platitudes (i.e. Palin) they'd realize that McCain=Massive tax cut for the rich, Obama=tax cut for non-rich.
Where the line blurs is the fact that the derogatory "joe sixpack" overlaps with the self-identified joe sixpack in health care. Apparently this overlap coupled with the media's embrace of "joe sixpack" as a euphemism for "blue collar" has led people to disregard the fact that working class people benefit more with an obama presidency.
You want your employer to provide you with health insurance? you want your taxes to be reduced? Then vote for Obama.
I'm sick of this bs that only rich people vote for Obama, I live below the poverty line paycheck to paycheck making my next payment for school instead of buying food, and I'm voting for Obama!

Susan,
I agree with your column. I am a pro-life Christian woman and I will not vote for Sarah Palin. Jesus preached that hypocrites were the worst kinds of sinners, and she is the worst kind of hypocrite.

What is not being expressed here is that Sarah Palin considers herself a good Christian. I am not sure where in the teachings of Jesus she has found that inciting violence, lying, personal vendettas and the passing judgement on others is acceptable. Where is the tolerance and forgiveness that Our Lord taught? I find none of it anywhere in Palin's present or past behavior. She appears to have no moral compass.

I am ashamed of her attempt to paint a person as a terrorist or guilty of treason when it is not true; that is not only un-Christian, it's un-American. Palin says she is "pro-life" but then she needs to explain why she is also pro-war and pro-death penalty.

Obama strikes me as a good Christian. He is not a terrorist. He is the father of two children and there is no evidence that he has ever had affairs, gambled or done other things to which I object strongly -- but John McCain has admitted to numerous affairs, and left his first wife after she was disfigured in an accident. He gambles and has a long history of lying. I cannot fathom how any true Christian could vote for him.

I do not always agree with my pastor. This does not mean that I could not find inspiration in some of his sermons. I read the Audacity of Hope and it was very moving.

I belive that Barack Obama is a good decent man.

I love the democrats that don't believe they are capable of doing these things... I guess they are wrong. Thank God for the foreign press who are the only ones that report everything going on in these elections.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5537

and today we heard the democratic candidate say he was never involved with the a.c.o.r.n. organization, except for a short time 13 years ago. Here is what a.c.o.r.n. had on their own web page until it was scrubbed over the weekend.

http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/chicago-the-barack-obama-campaign.pdf

Or maybe this one will help more. This is the democratic candidate in 2007 telling a.c.o.r.n. and all it's subsidiaries what he intends to do for them as soon as he is in office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU

Ms. Jacoby if you are not going to report all of the truth, you might want to ask the editors to move your column out of a section designed to promote faith in a higher power.

Susan, you're not the only one scared. The list of conservative Republicans turning their back on McCain since his reckless and dangerous pick of the unvetted Palin grows longer everyday. The Republican party has become the Party of Dumb. When 'belief" trumps knowledge and science, the dark ages are upon us.

The sad part of this is that, if we don’t take the education of the “Joe-six-pack” seriously, our position in the world as a supper power is numbered.

I find what has happened at this rallies so offensive, backward and scary. The McCain campaign has given format to the worst element of the right wing. In this, the McCain/Palin team showed a total lack of leadership. As much as I want to disagree with representative Joe Lewis’ statement regarding this, I am afraid his take on this mater is right on the money.

I believe the American people should reject the McCain/Palin ticket and do so completely. We should make it clear to our politicians that some lines should not be crossed!

Thank you for this Susan. A few weeks ago I had I dinner with my own dear brother, raised in the same house with me and what I suppose you would call a country club Republican who has lost a lot of money in the stock market, who told me much the same thing as your Polish deli owner. What McCain, Palin and the GOP are enabiing and encouraging is sick and ugly and is doing great harm to our country. I do not feel that I can confront my brother since our family relations are already shaky. I cannot believe that such hatred will be allowed to infect the next generation. Absolutely immoral.

It is time to say what no one will ...

This election is about the passing of WASP power and the end of dominance by old white men like me. America is getting more diverse and browner. Groups that are losing power and privilege in this change are getting desperate - old, white rich males and fundamentalists.

For some time, those willing to be unscrupulous have been willing to prey on Joe Six-Pack and others, by telling them that someone else is getting advantages at their expense. Of course they would not admit that the problem was themselves - robber barons and reaganomics, so they blamed the mythical BLACK welfare mama driving a cadillac. Never mind the millions, no ... billions, NO ... TRILLIONS that the fat cats skimmed off the top of our economy.

The unspoken truth is that this is all about exploiting race for power and hence profit. The code words are "different", "risky", etc., but they stand for BLACK. The goal is to scare Joe Six-pack into voting for them one more time.

Well, this makes me mad. Many of my friends and relatives are white Joe Six-Pack and others are black. And the people that want to prey on them in my Georgia six pack vernacular: "Ain't wuffashi*t"

This post is right. It feels horrible when people at Republican rallies shout 'kill him'.

I am sure the Democrats would not consider saying such things (Even if we wanted too)

Ofcourse Bush is evil and it has been seriously considered how one is to execute him for his War Crimes.

Not only in America do people insist that he should die for all that he has unleashed on the American public but across the world. Especially in the UK and Europe where rallies are held for the ten best ways to 'kill Bush'.

There has hardly been any TV channel in the US that has not encouraged Chenny's death. After all his greed has helped kill millions.

Wanting to kill 'Republicans' has been quite rightly expressed on virtually every channel apart from 'Fox' who are now understanding that a Dead Bush would improve their election prospects so McCain is distancing himself from him (too late).

But a Dead Obama doesn't bear thinking about. It just proves the terrible racist depths we are now enduring with 8 years of that awful Bush.

Although I have read a lot about killing of Palin, this has not been expressed on the mainstream news which may at this point be inappropriate. A lot of people have suggested that McCain should have died in Hanoi but this is hardly a death threat.

Democrats can at least hold their heads up high.

We have not stooped to character assasination or unwarranted death threats like the War mongers.

Obama/Biden 08

At last...a voice of reason. I share your fear of the climate of hate surrounding this election. As a Christian I am so ashamed to hear the very people who want to lead us speaking in this manner. We all have thr right to our own beliefs but we do not have the right to incite hate and violence. How can they call themselves "religious" and speak these thoughts? I weep for my country as I pray.

The writer is blind to the reality of the situation.The socialistic approach being taken by the Democrat party and their leaders and Obama is making many folks angry.The Acorn problem is not helping anything and the results of the election are going to be tainted with corruption.
I for one am an angry person ,I see my country going to hell,what do you expect me to do---just sit around and watch my country that I fought for be taken over by a bunch of socialist.

While I am an Obama supporter and a staunch liberal, I also grew up in the kind of small, working-class midwestern town where people like this Joe Six Pack live, and I think that this blog post is a little unfair.

What Susan forgets in talking about Joe not understanding that people lose their jobs, don't understand mortgage terms, etc. is that, actually, it's Joe and his friends who often have to worry the most about it. For that reason, they don't buy large houses that they can't afford, they keep their credit in good order so that they get fixed-rate mortgages - these people have saved up for YEARS and sacrificed for years so that they could buy modest homes within their means, and so, yeah, I can see how they don't have much sympathy for people who made the same amount of money as them, but bought above their means. Of course, that's not everybody who lost their home, but lets be honest - it is some of the people. And nobody - nobody - HAD to put nothing down or get an adjustable rate mortgage - those are things you do when you have bad credit or don't have the money for a down payment. Guess what - my working class parents rented for the first 30 years of their marriage in order to save up enough money to put a down payment on a $60,000 house. Of course they are going to view people who made similar salaries to them but bought even a $100,000 house (which is very modest in many areas) as living above their means. And they're right.

As to the racist overtones of this particular Joe Six Pack's comments, I think the other thing that us "professional" liberals forget is that it's rarely our jobs/promotions that are in danger of being filled by someone else due to affirmative action. It is the working class jobs - police officers, postal workers, etc. that often have to worry about this. I continue to be a firm supporter of affirmative action, but I honestly can't say I'd feel the same way if, like both my father and my older brother, I lost out on multiple promotions that kept mysteriously going to minorities and women. I get that the Joe Six Packs of the world might not understand all of the historical nuances at work, but have a little sympathy for the fact that nearly every policy that helps one group, hurts another. Affirmative action often hurts working class whites, at least in the short term. That doesn't mean it's a bad policy, but I think it isn't necessarily a sign of ignorant that the people being hurt by the policy don't embrace it with open arms.

Susan,

Do you have ANY idea how condescending and derisive you sound to 'non-Democrats'? Wow. Thanks be to God (if thats allowable) that the Dems will save us from our ignorant mouth breathing selves. I guess I should be thankful its at least posted as an editorial/opinion, and not as factual coverage of a news story. I guess all the postings on the DU and other liberal websites that have called for less than savory things to happen to Bush, Cheney and Co over the past several years only count as rational thought and free speech. Please. I have no intention of voting for McCain but the Obama supporters need to stop the "If you don't vote for me your a rascist" screed. Not helping your selves.

Wow, Susan... this is the single worst piece of journalism I have read since this debate started! The truth of the matter is that John McCain has defended Obama on several occasions, saying that he is a decent human being and no one needs to be scared if he takes office. The republican campain should not, and will not take responsibility for what some "Joe Sixpack" says during a rally! McCain has ignored racist and dishonerable shoutouts on many occasions. He has even disagreed with with those people in order to maintain focus on real issues. I guess I should sit in on a Obama rally and write down what I hear being said by his supporters, and then turn around and write a piece of garbage article on how violent and racist the Democrat campaign is, especially their leader. Does this make sense? I think not. Next time write an article that has some content, instead of jumping on the "McCain is angry" liberal bandwagon.

David Gergen said about a week ago he feared that there could be blood in the streets if McCain/Palin don't temper their remarks more and avoid catering to the crazy's. Apparently Palin has put the country's peace and unity below her own political ambition. I don't care what her current stand on abortion is, this is just not Christian.

Thank you very much for speaking out. The media also is to blame treatig the situation as normal.
Thank you again

A very thoughtful and sound article, thanks.

Rather than evaluate your article on its own merits, the dissenters here resort to name calling, righteous indignation, finger pointing, and ranting. But then, that's what their right wing talk show idols teach them, that it's always someone elses fault, that we don't need to think too much about our problems, just have lots of rage and fear. Strong and wrong. That's it.

The truth is the truth, no matter who says it, where it is said, or read, or heard.

You know, there are plenty of us Christians who are Obama supporters who are disgusted with this, too. And I don't see how religion takes all the blame when the charge is over absurd allegations of terrorism.

I couldn't have said it better myself! Thank God I'm not the only one who feels this way! Lets' just hope there are more reasonable people voting in this election than there are JOe and Jane Six-Packs.

I'm afraid Susan's column merely contributes to the same xenophobia that she appears to revile. By mouthing the DNC talking points she marginalizes all criticism of Obama/Biden. Can you imagine having a US president that we could never criticize for fear of being called "racists?"

It's not a clever way to silence dissent; but it is obvious and effective. Shame on you Susan. You should be encouraging people to speak out and not adding your voice to the Great Censor.

McCain finally took a more tempered tone at rallies only AFTER he saw that this manifested extremism wasn't catching on and that his poll ratings were actually getting worse. AFTER that he decided to be the voice of reason and rational thinking. Why else did he take so long to discourage these KOOKS if he in fact is. These are FRINGE candidates folks and it will be a sad day in America if they are ever elected.

Let there be no doubt Susan Jacoby is a person looking to boost her readership. She likes the big play - she should be looking at Obama rather and his weatherman and malcolm x ties instead. It only goes to show what washington post includes these left wing liberal writers given the power to poison the system. She reminds me of my ex-wife. THank God Greyhound, she's gone! Susan likes sensationalism and there is venom on her lips. Get a real job Susan!

Susan, I think the real issue here is that the person that your are belittling here has been taken advantage of on all sides.

Every "educated", "Smarter than you", and "Liberal Minded" type of person that comes along with "Right Way" of doing things ends up stealing from them. From Obama's Third Wave Marxism to Europe's broken socialism models they all steal from hard working folks trying to take care of their family.

Every "educated" person that comes along, simply looks at "Joe Six Pack" and assumes he does not know how to take care of himself or his family and needs to be taken care of by folks more smart than he.

Fact is you need "Joe Six Pack" way more than he needs any of you. Their simple values of taking care of their family and despising folks who do not contribute to the productivity of goods, services, and the general welfare of his neighbor are virtues. Sorry I'm sure to you and your type virtue is a dirty word that should not be mentioned.

The willingness to fight to protect what they have and the anger they portray at thieves of freedom, justice, and property are not only justifiable, but are demanded during difficult times.These folks spend their lives working very very hard at jobs you and your elitist ilk would never consider doing.

To see an arrogant elitist stand in front of a crowd and tell them that no matter how hard they or their children work the government says you should never make more than 250K per year or they will punish you with fines (higher taxes) is an affront to people who know how hard they have worked for far less.

Further to say not only will we fine you but we will give your money to undeserving folks or people who made bad choices in life so they may live at the same or better level than you is an extra kick to the head.

Its not the "Joe Six Packs" you should be afraid of in this world. They have every reason to be mad and angry. Its the elitist, the smarter than the average Joe folks that destroy countries, dreams, and hope in the world.

Stalin, Marx, Hitler, Lennon, Obama, and Mao in your circles I'm sure are admired for their intellect and foresight. Collective thinking and oppression of the individual and free thought rules their intellectual teachings. These folks who in the name of government steal, rob, and kill their people by the millions are the ones that EVERYONE should be afraid of.

So go drink a beer with "Joe Six Pack" and get an education about the real world. Bring a pen and paper and document the simplicity of how the world is outside of the University and the Upper East Side. Understand that they live in a world of personal responsibility where they take ownership of their mistakes and don't go running to the government to give them what they may of lost for risking to improve their existence. More importantly try to understand to them the government getting involved in their personal business and telling them how to live is the greatest loss of freedom one could endure.

Great article. Thank you so much.

I am on a "toot" today, as I feel like we are back in the 60's again. I have emailed The White House since I consider the McCain campaign a threat to our national security, and I would like to see our security people citing the McCain campaign for reckless endangerment of the crowds, and inciting violence towards a public official. The other emails I sent were to my State Representatives letting them know that I will not vote even for a Republican dog catcher if this incendiary rhetoric isn't stopped. I hope others are doing this also. If nothing else, think of all the young people watching these horrid, angry racists. We're trying to raise my grandchildren to be intelligent and inclusive and to have a world perspective, McCains campaign is undermining real American values.

Angrymiddleclasschic:

Read my prior post. I am very liberal, but have no bias against Joe Six Pack. Unless - I am in Georgia - he does not support the Braves!

Sportin' Life,

First, thanks for using your handle. This plague of 'anonymous' people is most annoying.

Next - you are right. I live in Georgia, and 'Joe Six Packs' make up the majority here. Like most people everywhere, they are not naturally hateful, but just want to make a life and get along with their neighbors. Sure, a certain percentage of them are like the unfortunate one that Susan met. But we must not employ 'guilt by association' here to condemn the whole group.

What the hell, I am well educated, but am undergoing bankruptcy and foreclosure. And I drink beer. Am I an over-educated Joe Six Pack? Well, then, so be it, maybe I am in good company.

I agree violence, racism, and bigotry are wrong, but I also feel you’re not asking the right question: WHY IS JOE SIX PACK ANGRY?

He's right: "THOSE" people knew they couldn't afford the homes and obtained loans anyway.

People need to learn to LIVE within their means, bottom line.

And yes, blue collar workers are very angry in this country. They should be. We have people in plants losing their jobs by the thousands in this country. They slave on production lines to support their families while we have able bodied AMERICANS lounging around on welfare in the projects doing nothing but selling drugs and creating more children. What about THOSE people??? Is that a racist comment? No, it's the truth.

The people who work in this country are tired of supporting the people who don't and can.

I feel your blog is very biased towards Joe Six Pack due to your liberal beliefs. Maybe if you walked a mile in his shoes, you might gain some much needed insight as why he feels the way he does...

"I hope that this Joe Six-Pack was just one Joe Six-Pack, and that there are many other blue-collar Americans who do not share such views, reeking of class and racial resentment and absent any awareness of the ways in which unexpected blows of fate can derail the honest efforts and hopes of hard-working people."

I want to assure you that there are many, many blue collar Americans who reject "Joe's" kind of thinking, Susan. (Surely you know that already!)

What infuriates me even more than the contempt John McCain shows for the office of the Vice-Presidency by picking Sarah Palin is the contempt he shows for working people in thinking that she is what they are looking for in a champion.

I spent many years of my childhood living in a trailer park. That's not because my parents were ignorant, stupid, resentful, lazy, or racist. They were and are none of those things. But at that time they were very very poor.

They are still of modest means, despite lifetimes of hard work. They are both Obama supporters, and they are both horrified by the campaign McCain has chosen to run. It's a disgrace the way obscenely wealthy politicians like him stoke division among different groups of people in order to win power.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the concepts of "narrow-mindedness" and "liberalism" tend to be mutually exclusive. That said, I don't think it appropriate to equate all so-called blue collar workers with ignorance, or indeed with the proverbial "Joe Six-Pack" label. Embracing ignorance (whether by the left or the right) is unproductive at best, and dangerous at worst.

Quote >>>>>>>>>
Anonymous:

Actually Susan...it is narrow minded liberals like you...that I find a bit scary.

Don't blame McCain and Palin. Who brought this Ayer and Pastor Wright in the first place? It was Hilary's people. Now, she's pretending that she didn't know about it (watch her recent interview). Neither McCain nor Palin said it untile NY Times brought this issue again. So, they are just following up with Hilary's people had left. With the troubled economy, I will vote for a leader who is experienced.

From CCNL,

A reminder about Christian Economics 101 should make the current situations a bit easier to stomach:

To wit:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree. But still no greed there.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed. Paul was guilty of minor greed?

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free". Major greed on his part!!

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. Obvious greed!!!

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Thank you, Susan, for speaking out for reason and reasonableness, and for calling hypocrisy and hatred what it is: the gravest threat facing our nation.

Throughout this general election campaign, the Republican side has spewed vitriol 24 hours a day, and now - belatedly - laments hateful behavior by those who have been absorbing the GOP's vitriol.

Finally, some less-irrational individuals within the McCain campaign are seeing that spewing filth is not the way to endear the public to your candidate. And finally, John McCain is actually providing a few specifics about his programs.

The problem for McCain, however, is that his "specifics" appear to be proof of what Obama has been saying all along: just more of the same policies that got us into this mess.

Which goes a long ways toward explaining why McCain's campaign relies on rumor and innuendo - because they have absolutely nothing to offer.

Actually Susan...it is narrow minded liberals like you...that I find a bit scary.

Rarely do I agree with all of the postings I read but on this occasion I agree 100%....I too am scared at what may have been unleashed.....

Susan,

I know you read the replies, so could you talk to the powers-that-be and get your blog up to standard by requiring a handle? Thanks in advance.

Sometimes I feel like the world is getting too complicated for the average human. The "joe six-pack" in this article sounds genuinely concerned and likely believes all that he spouted. The advancement of our society depends on the elevation of the education of the "joe six-pack." It amazes me that, conveniently, almost all they stand for contributes to the continued lack of education they sustain generation after generation. The want smaller government and always create a bigger one to get there. They fight for freedom by restricting it. They would elect the lord Satan himself into office if he wore a flag pin and said he was pro-life. We must educate them secretly somehow. maybe with subliminal messages during half-time shows.

As a registered Republican, I am not going to cast a vote for president on November 4th. I consider a vote to be a "seal of approval" and I do not approve of Mr. McCain's support of racism. And that's what it is, have no doubt!

I loath to say it, but the "Joe six pack" you met is absolutely not alone in his thinking. Living in Southeastern PA, I know the educated and the uneducated, and both camps have people believing in this type of ignorance and hatred. I have hope, but education is the key. Unfortunately, education is the last thing the ignorant want and the ignorant keep reproducing.

Conservatives, and especially Republicans are defined by three characteristics:
Dishonesty, Hatred and Greed.
To determine a person's political orientation, one need ask only one question (assuming an honest answer is forthcoming):
Which is more important: You, or other people?

Amen.

This "racism" is a sentiment, it is an expression of an ideology. see my web
http://sites.google.com/site/counterism/