All Comments (180)

Mr Mark;

I just wrote a response to your last comment about Beethoven's ninth. But the big hand came down from above and scooped it away; after all that work.

Regards.

Here's the youtube link to Olbermann's "Worst Person", minus the "http://www"

youtube.com:80/watch?v=UPwq6lQ8-iY

Hi, Mr Mark – Your problems were definitely worse than mine. I could post a test message, but nothing I tried to fix the message I wanted to send would work.

No need for an apology, I just wanted to point out the human tendency to see a nefarious plot or divine intervention in situations we do not understand.

On the bright side of public communication about atheism, last night on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown, the “Worse Person in the World” award went to that state rep in IL who publicly berated an atheist activist who was testifying at the statehouse. Maybe the transcript is up by now at MSNBC and I don’t doubt that there will be a youtube of it too. Olbermann presented atheism as a completely acceptable position and presented the legislator as wacky for seeing atheism as a threat. It was all about separation of church and state, with no deference to religion at all.

All this talk of censorship reminds me of the toupee fallacy, where a person thinks he can always spot a toupee because he knows when he recognizes one but is unaware of when he doesn't.

Who knows what disruptive posts are being successfully prohibited? Perhaps posts that go on for hundreds of lines. Perhaps thousands of netbot posts of grad school gibberish. My recollection is that those sorts of posts were getting out of hand, but now they're not.

Dear E Fav -

I'll be the first to admit that I felt a great deal of frustration with this site over the weekend. Like everyone else, I have had posts embargoed from time to time, but in the past, I would simply go back and delete an embedded url or hyperlink and the problem would be solved.

My feeling that I had been banned arose when this new problem occured on both Saturday and Sunday. I tried MANY posts in many forms, and every single one of them was blocked. There was no way for me to ask fellow posters on the site if they were experiencing similar difficulties as I was unable to post a single sentence on the site to ask the question. At the same time, I was keenly aware of new posts appearing on the site from many others.

My frustration was further compounded by the fact that I had spent about 30 minutes crafting a considered and lengthy response to Observer's post. To have the thing embargoed for no apparent reason and to have it blocked over and over again after I thought I had removed any and all of the usual "WaPo can't handle the blogothon" causes we've all encountered really pissed me off. That led to a series of test postings, all with the same "you're under review" results.

Now, you're right. I could have gone in early to work Monday, and rather than posting my Cartman-esque, "I'm being censored, screw On Faith, and I'm going home" screed, I could have asked if anyone else was having similar problems. But, I didn't. My bad, and I apologize for letting my, er, religious fervor get the best of me.

That said, there will come a day when the technical shortcomings of this site will outweigh the appeal of posting here, and that day may not be too far in the offing for me. My recreational time has become quite limited in the past three months, and if I'm going to spend the time blogging, I prefer to do it somewhere that's technically dependable.

So, I'll hang for a while longer, but only because the company here is so enjoyable (and that goes for GaryD as well)...and because it's sort of neat to be involved in a "religious" site where the atheists are clearly winning each and every battle.

To E Favorite:

God, in this case Jesus, evidently wanted to communicate something to all humanity. He choose to speak trough a person, the actual writer of the Book of Revelation. But suddenly more people need to be involved because some parts of the book are His words but others are not.

The question is, did Jesus really said "I will strike her children dead"?

How humanity can be sure that the messages in the bible are well interpreted when in one book are more than five schools of thought? If scholars do not agree among themselves, who has the truth?

IMHO there is too much noise in the communication channel with the apparent most powerful force in the universe.

Best wishes to all,

JAC

I just checked Revelations in my Catholic Bible, which they call "The Apocalypse" and there are no red letters in it, meaning it is definitely not Jesus speaking.

He only spoke in red letters. Everybody knows that.

The usual revisonism Anonymous and arguably false.

Read Mr. Goldberg's excellent book The Fascist Left.
The only difference between Hitler and Stalinn was that Stalin killed everyone he thought a threat while Hitler pretty much limited his depredations to Jews gypsies and Homosexuals (No wonder the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem thought him such a wonderful guy) while Moussolini didn't run any death camps at all and in fact put Italian lives at risk to save Jews on more than one occasion.

To J.Commenting:

When I asked if Jesus said "I will strike her children dead" from the Book of Revelation, it was because I really was surprised that Jesus can say something like this. You wrote:

“You have it exactly right. In the Bible (Rev. 2:23), Jesus promises to do precisely what pro-lifers rail against: the slaughter of innocent children as a direct result of the transgressions of their mother.”

Not being familiarized with the bible, what I read is what I read, not necessarily word by word, but some phrases don‘t leave room for imagination or interpretation. So I tend to agree with you and thanks for your comment.

Wikipedia mention a number of schools of thought on how to read the Revelation: as prophesy, as history, multi level of meanings being literal one of them, aesthetic/literary and patristic. Why is it so complicated to read the word of God?

To Arminius:

You said that you suspected that the early christians that wrote Revelation were going down on some really heavy drugs.

Instead of unleashing thunders to make you duck and cover, Spiderman2 et all simply kept mum.

The reason could be that you probably helped them casting doubt that the words of the Book of Revelation were Jesus words.

BTW, many of the posters will be real happy if there were many “christians” like you.

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

Regarding perceived censorship –It reminds me in some ways of how people react to religion. It does surprise me that the immediate reaction some people have to their posts being blocked is that they are being censored. Mr Mark is not the first to react that way, and it’s not just an atheist thing either. Not only is it the immediate reaction, it’s the only reaction. It’s accepted without analysis – never considering that it could be the result of a website error or a minor glitch in the post itself. It’s also accepted without any action or investigation, for instance, contacting the blog owner, which would be the LOGICAL thing to do, or asking other posters if they are having similar problems. Someone here did ask Susan to intercede, assuming it would take an authority to solve the problem.

Why this perception of lack of control, immediate refuge in belief without evidence, presumption of being mistreated and appeaing to authority rather than solve it on ones own?

It seems comparable to presuming that if we can’t explain something, it means God did it. It seems similar to the sense of expecting to be punished for one’s sins.

Just A Comment:

You have it exactly right. In the Bible (Rev. 2:23), Jesus promises to do precisely what pro-lifers rail against: the slaughter of innocent children as a direct result of the transgressions of their mother.

I like that word, "tomfoolery."

Before going off on a censorship tirade, drop the http and www's on any web page addresses you have in your comments. Apparently full web addresses are no longer allowed.

Also if the link (e.g. Readers’ Responses) to the does not come up under the panelist's commentary, change the text size (under View) to a smaller size and retry. The page designers only allow so much text to be viewed. Text that does not fit such as the Readers responses line, will be hidden.

Dear Andrew -

Good post, but I must correct you on your misconception that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is in any way a religious work.

The words are by Friedrich Schiller, who worshipped the god of reason. Schiller developed the concept of the "Beautiful Soul," which is a human whose emotional development has been guided by reason. From Wikipedia: "a human being whose emotions have been educated by his reason, so that Pflicht und Neigung (duty and inclination) are no longer in conflict with one another; thus "beauty," for Schiller, is not merely a sensual experience, but a moral one as well: the Good is the Beautiful. "

His "Ode to Joy" as set by Beethoven is a hymn to brotherhood. The god mentioned is the god of nature, not of any religion.

While we're speaking of atheistic composers, there's the case of Brahms who in writing his "German Requiem" ignores the Latin text of the Catholic Mass and, instead, quotes liberally from the Lutheran Bible - without once mentioning the name Jesus Christ. How about that?!

The last anonymous was me...

As an atheist and a lover of classical music, people sometimes ask me how I can listen to Bach's religious pieces when I don't believe in a sky god.

It did bother me somewhat...the religiousness of some of Bach's compositions...and Beethoven's ninth too...but there's no denying the tingles I get on the back of my neck listening to great music, religious or not.

Of course, Bach would have written wonderful stuff even had he been atheist. Like Michaelangelo would have painted magnificent murals even if he'd realized that god was just an idea; an hypothesis.

However, I do prefer Bach's un-religious pieces,
like The Art of Fugue, the Musical Offering,and the violin sonatas, and keyboard music. He's the composer I always come back to.

E-favorite and Mr. Mark

What a coincidence! I have sung Faure's Requiem twice.

Here is a story about that:

When Francois Mitterand died, they sang Faure's requiem at his funeral, from Notre Dame Cathedral, in Paris, I think. It was broadcast on television, perhaps on CNN. Because France is a number of time zones ahead of us, it was in the middle of the night or very early morning. And so, I was sick in the hospital, and in the middle of the night, I could not sleep and turned on the TV, and I saw Francois Mitterand's funeral being broadcast live, and I heard them singing the requiem by Faure in Latin, and I sang along to it, in Latin. And the nurses thought I was very sophisticated fellow.

This is what I am remembering. I feel sure that it must have happened, but maybe I just imagined it; I am not quite sure; sometimes my memory of things gets a little confused.

After posting this, I think I would like to do some google searches, to see when Mitterand died, and what time of day was his funeral, and to see if they really sang Faure's requiem at his funeral. I am not sure if I can find such details, but I would like to try.

It is funny how all the dissonant threads of life are all strung together in such a curious way, that your posts should make me think of that.

I get chills down my spine just hearing Mr Mark mention the names of Faure’s pieces!

The last post was mine, of course.

garyd:

"Mr Cromett your lack historical knowledge is all too apparent."

Given my history degree and political science background, I would be inclined to disagree. In fact, your lack of knowlege is obvious to professionals in the field.

"The founder of Italian Fascism believed himself to be a socialist and the only difference between he and Joe Stalin on almost evey political issue was that he thought it quite possible for one to be both a socialist and an Italian and he was no where near as paranoid. In fact prior to WWII most American leftist found a good many things to be admirable about Italian Fascism Russian Communism and Hitler's Nazi Germany before Hitler began to act on his obscene plans to exterminate undesirables principally Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies and he didn't think much of Slavs either though he found some of them quite useful for getting the ovens turned on to receive the corpses of the others."

Mussolini did start as a socialist, but quickly became disenchanted with socialism and turned violently right, with an emphasis on violent. Political scientists ALL place Fascism on the extreme right of the political spectrum. He started persecuting and murdering real socialists and Communists soon after taking power. Mussolini wasn't as murderous as Hitler, of course, but he was a thug, none-the-less, and many of his subordinates even worse. American leftists by the 1930s had turned away the facist regimes, though many were still foolishly were enamored of Stalin. By the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, many leftists, including Americans, were putting their lives on the line to fight the fascists, including the large Italian Army contingent sent to Spain by Mussolini, as well as the much smaller German Condor Legion. The good old conservatives like Lindberg were still sucking up to Hitler at that time.

Mr Mark
You're a jewel. I'll listen to it, my wife is just about as excited to learn about the piece you mention.

I still get chills in my spine when we sing Handel's Messiah.

You're absolutely correct, it could have been the dictionary or encyclopedia or phone book and it would be just as moving, but wow these guys were some beautiful minds.

Dear Jeff P -

Yes, the Fauré Requiem is a beautiful piece. I've sung it a number of times. Most people are familiar with the "Pie Jesu" movement which has become something of a classical "hit" among the soprano set. I like the Fauré version of the Requiem as he underplays the "Dies Irae" text. He's much more concerned with providing a vision heaven, rather than hell, to his listeners.

I enjoy the Requiem by Duruflé even more than the Fauré. There's a good CD available of both Requiems conducted by Robert Shaw on Telarc, probably runs about $10 these days.

The great pieces of classical choral music are religion's one great contribution to humanity, even if one must discount the texts being sung.

Good stuff. But then, Fauré, Bach and the others could have set the phone book to music and it would have been just as beautiful.

Mr Cromett your lack historical knowledge is all too apparent. The founder of Italian Fascism believed himself to be a socialist and the only difference between he and Joe Stalin on almost evey political issue was that he thought it quite possible for one to be both a socialist and an Italian and he was no where near as paranoid. In fact prior to WWII most American leftist found a good many things to be admirable about Italian Fascism Russian Communism and Hitler's Nazi Germany before Hitler began to act on his obscene plans to exterminate undesirables principally Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies and he didn't think much of Slavs either though he found some of them quite useful for getting the ovens turned on to receive the corpses of the others.

For Mr. Mark

I have also had some of my posts disappear. I cannot believe that I was blocked or censored, because they were totally and completely innocuous and harmless. I too sent them from my home computer, late at night. I am suspecting that there is somethig different late at night that causes posts to disappear. I have also had posts be delayed for a day or two, and then suddenly appear. I think that it probably costs money to make the software work, and the WaPo is not spending it. But you can't blame them, it is their blog and their money. Actually, THEY should be paying US to write for THEM, don't you think?

Yes, Meg, you're correct. That's the book I received: The Portable Atheist. Should be fun.

Arminius,
That link to the music has been held for "approval" again. I wonder if it's something to do with having a web prefix or something. Anyway, I'll try again later!

Jeff P;

I got the book right, but the title wrong.
I should have said The Portable Atheist,but I was trying to do a few other things at the same time and clang...I erred. The Portable Atheist edited by Hitchens is, in effect a handbook, and a good one.

I agree with you on Mark Twain. He's incredibly funny and always so right on. I'm always quoting this one;
"The quiet confidence with which I know the other man's religion to be folly, makes me suspect that mine is also".

Why can't other religious people see it that clearly? Do you have to be a genius to see what Twain saw? Does religious indoctrination blind people to that observation? Apparently yes.

But it didn't work with Mark Twain. His genius was about his perception of things; and the ability to articulate it.

Thanks for your comment Arminius.

I would like to share with all concerned with this blog that I found a new post from Susan. You can go to Susan Archives, April 2008 and voila!

Pope Benedict and American Catholicism: On The Titanic's Deck
April 7, 2008 3:42 PM

The most significant fact about American Catholicism appears in a recent report on the changing U.S. religious landscape by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: although 31 percent of Americans were raised as Roman Catholics, only 24 percent consider themselves Catholics today. One in ten adult Americans--a stunning figure--have left the church for another religion or have abandoned organized religion altogether. The saying, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic," a favorite maxim of the nuns in the parochial schools I attended, is no longer true.

......

Just a Comment:

Interesting, very. I consider myself a Christian, something disputed by others on these blogs. IMHO, Jesus would never have said anything like that stuff in Revelation. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Book of Revelation is solid proof that some of those early Christians were goin' down on some really heavy drugs.....

Duck and Cover! Head for the bunker! Bring the beer! Incoming from Spiderman2!

Arminius

The following post was blocked yesterday in other thread. Today I could go trough without the web site address, which is a bible online.

Mark, you are not the only one fighting the intelligent design of this portal. This is the post without the bible online address>

Spiderman2 wrote:

"And I will give him the morning star" Rev 2:28

For me it sounded like something beautiful and well written in the bible, and I assumed that must have a profound meaning as S2 explained: "a very deep metaphor ".

The trouble is that metaphors need context to be understood, so I went to read the source in .... [address censored].

What I found few verses before was that a woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, was misleading "my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols."

Then Jesus says: "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead."

If my interpretation is correct the whole meaning of the metaphor is: behave and you will get "morning stars", that is, good things like eternal life, no trip to hell and even mundane kingdoms, otherwise, bed of intense suffering and killing of your children.

Can anybody please help me with this: did I understood correctly that Jesus was the person talking and that he indeed said that was going to kill her innocent children?

Also, is this the Jesus that is praised as just and pure love?

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

Jeff P,

Damn, I'm sorry I missed that link! My experience with being blocked is that it mostly happens at night. For no apparent reason. I have included links before, and they went through.

Arminius

Mr. Mark--you're through!

I was blocked the other night trying to send a link to Arminius--

I was sending him a way to download a beautiful piece of music (from Faure's Requiem) called Requiem Agnus Dei--

The block said it was under consideration by the host of the blog...

I thought (my gosh this is the only time I've been "evaluated," and it happens when I'm trying to send a link to a beautiful religious musical choral piece...) Go figure.

Meg:
I received the "Atheist Handbook" for Christmas! Your description of it makes me want to read it next. You might enjoy "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan--he writes with such clarity that he literally makes me laugh at points--

I also laughted and laughted at the wit of Mark Twain's "Letters from the Earth." If I had the opportunity to meet some already-dead author, it would be a hard choice but I'd love to spend an afternoon with Twain.

Jimbo:
I hope you're correct, and that the interest in reading philosophy, critical thinking literature, and contemporary theologians willing to buck the "system" such as Crossan and Borg will thrive and grow in this coming generation. It can only serve to improve humanity.

This is Mr Mark's test from his home computer. If this gets through Cato, I'll assume I'm not banned.

Meg;

So many books on atheism these days. I've never seen anything like it. Yes Atheists Handbook is a beauty. and in paperback too. I like that.

Try also "God; The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor J Stenger. Brilliant and illuminating.

Also Michael Onfray's "In Defence of Atheism" and Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age".

And these books are SELLING. People want to read them. I think people are getting fed up with religion; which is looking more and more ridiculous and irrelevant as the modern world moves on.

Religion will join astrology and alchemy on the sidelines of society by the end of this century.
This I believe.

CCNL,

My second reply: As for Crossan, again, Ruether differs. In part, she takes issue with the theology, itself. She also makes a point others have made, one you probably know, that Jesus represents a much earlier development in Judaism than the later unified deity. I don't know how she would describe herself today, at eighty, but she continued to represent herself as a Catholic, sans the divinity of Jesus,opposing the notion of "dying for our sins," saints, etc.

Another interesting thing: Hyam Macoby, also a demythologizer, like Crossan, in a sense, adduced evidence that Paul from Tarsus, was always Paul from Tarsus, never Saul. This, I find interesting, and very plausible, as his views are so radically different from anything of the Judaism of the period as to be unrecognizable. I'm thinking, for instance, of sex. Judaism held marriage as an obligation. It was part of Tikkun Olam, "healing the world." For many Jews, marriage still represents a part of that obligation.

I am no literalist. I recognize that there is mythology and factuality in the Bible (Tanakh) and in the New Testament. But there are many factors to consider, some of them unavailable from secondary sources. The Old Testament is not identical to the Hebrew Bible, not only in terms of its books, but in terms of its language. Translations from the Hebrew Bible are taken from the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Translations of the Old Testament are taken from the Greek. There are subtle differences, but some are significant. They may not go to fact, but they surely go to theology.

Then, too, no observant Jews rely on the Tanakh, exlusively! How could they? They rely on Talmud, which contains numerous readings in dialogue and in conflict. They rely on the ongoing thinking of scholars.

Reconstructionist Judaism does not require belief in the deity, but then, again, belief is not an issue for Jews in the way it is for Christians.

Serena

Just got my copy of "The Atheist's Handbook". Deeelightful!! So much good sense to feed on with pieces by Hume, and Spinoza, Shelley and John Stuart Mill,and Einstein and Mark Twain, and Carl Sagan and john Updike,and A.J.Ayer and Bertrand Russell and many others. Five hundred beautiful pages of honest searching for what is real and knowable in this amazing world of ours. Superstition! Get thee behind me!
I'll take reality.

Dear Meg -

Thanks for your kind words, but I'm not "back" yet (see my last post for an explanation).

What I'm saying is, "touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my home computer: but go to my On Faith friends, and say unto them, Mr Mark ascends unto his home computer, and you to your home computer; and he to his Mac, and you to your Mac. where Mr Mark hopes to blog On Faith as before, free of the strictures imposed upon him by the 'no blogging during office hours' rules of his current employer..."

;)

Woops!

Welcome back Mr M.

And oh yeah Susan...Mr Mark is one of just a few who uses his real name.

Susan.

Is there any likelyhood that Mr Mark has been barred by some upstairs suit for making unacceptable comments on these threads?

If you check Mr Marks comments you will find he's always blunt but never rude. He's a most articulate atheist who has strong views about the silliness of religion and how dangerous it is. Views like his should be praised not silenced, I'm sure you agree.

Is there any way you can just check?

Thanks kindly.

Dear Arminius, E Fav, Andrew et al -

Thanks for the kind words. I'll give it a go again from home over the next few days and see if there's any change. If I'm not blocked from home, then fine...I'll continue posting (much to the chagrin of GaryD and Angela).

But I work for a living, and it's not kosher for me to blog from the office. I'm only posting now as we had a short day and office hours have ended.

Hope to see you all in the future.

Mr Mark

Religious belief, of any kind, becomes by definition, closed, separative and ultimately violent. Once you take the first step into childish irrational belief systems, any subsequent violent behavior can be justified or, just as bad, tolerated.
The question is not whether there are "nice" Christians, Muslim or Jews, and "bad" versions.
The question is why do you think you need belief? Why do you want to follow? Why do you need a book or a priest to be generous and kind?
Believers believe out of fear or greed. They want to avoid something or get something.
All the money spent supporting preachers, priests, rabbis, imams, ayatollahs, churches, mosques and synagogues could be spent directly helping people. Believers give because they want to get, which is not giving. It’s a business transaction.
All the talk of tolerance and compassion is babble to make believers feel better.
It’s like prayer. It’s a placebo. It lets you think you’ve done something when you’ve done exactly nothing but talk to the air.
Terrorists at least do something, ugly, hateful and despicable as they are. The good news is, terrorists are revealing religious belief for what it is. The Christians tried terrorism during the Crusades. Now the Muslims are taking their turn at displaying the ignorance of religious belief.
You want to do something. Take the first step. Walk away from religious belief. Life is better on the sane side.

GARYD:
“More nonsense from the masters of same.
Fate who thought he was rebutting me essentially proved I was correct every step of the way.
What we call liberalism in the US given that classical liberalism champions the little guy against government owes in reality far more to Fascist Italy than it does to Jeffersonian liberalism.”

Fascism is a RIGHT wing belief, speaking of the master on nonsensical arguments…

“The Bush government hasn't been terribly right of center sorry about that. And Katrina was just a foretaste of what's to come no matter who wins the oval office. Our government is in dire need of reduction to manageable levels. It simply can't get any larger and more complex without crippling both itself and us.
We are already at a point where 100% of us will draw some sort of government check at some point in our lives and not infrequently at several points in our lives. And substantial numbers of us- as much as 1/3 will never receive a check not drawn on either state federal or local government.
We ceased to be a government of the people by the people and for the people the minute the congress of the United States signed off on LBJ's Great Society. From that day forth we have become increasingly a government of the Bureaucrats by the Bureaucrats and for the bureaucrats.
And have lost and will continue to lose ever more freedom because of it."

One can't have economic freedom if the system is rigged to suck all the wealth out of the system and give it to a few at the top of the system. It has nothing to do with government bureaucracy and everything to do with unfettered capitalism pushed by the Republicans. We are now seeing the result of deregulation and the weaking of those bureaucracies you whine about in our current and growing financial crash in the lending markets. As with almost all your arguiments, they are pure nonsense and ignore the facts.

There are many who will say that real communism has never been tried to which I will answer that it can't be because the paradox at it's core is that you can't do from each according to his means to each according to his needs without having a very large very intrusive bureaucracy that frankly is over the long haul inimical to human freedom.
And Human freedom absent economic freedom is little more than an oxymoron.”

Oddly enough, those pesky Europeans make nonsense of your argumentas they have a higher standard of living, longer life expectancy, and cheaper medicare than we do here. Stop buying into all the simplistic libertarian myths and look at reality. For once.

And I have just as much contempt for Communism, which has almost all the silliness of religion, only without any gods.

CCNL,

Thank you for your reply. Constantine and the Sword is a thoughtful analysis, but Ruether's book is entirely different, much more scholarly, drawing continuously on both books of the Christian Bible, and on pre-Biblical history. Quite frankly, it's brilliant, as is so much of her other work. Although she has some difficulty presenting things from a Judaic perspective, even when she thinks she is, in subsequent theological writings, not necessarily dealing with anti-semitism, she has done a much better job of it.

For me, the hardest part was going through the New Testament and other Christian references at the fairly dense level she presents them. I read the book with three reference texts beside me, something I doubt you would have to do!

I didn't suggest the book to you because I thought you were bigoted. Quite the contrary. I recommended it, and I still do, given your interest in history and your theology, which from what I can gather runs parallel to hers; in some ways, it appears to be identical.

I hope you get the chance to peruse it!

Serena

Serena,

I really appreciate the book reference i.e. Faith and Fratracide. Twelve years of Catholic education by the good monks and nuns of St. Francis, James Carroll's book, Constantine's Sword and Professor Crossan's many books however have eliminated any anti-Jewish neurons that may have crept into my brain.

This however does not change the history of the Bible/Old Testament/Judaism i.e. mostly moral myths. Ditto for Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism.

Well here's my political 2 cents worth:

In our current highly-political climate, I think I can now better understand the position of a Republican: intuitively knowing the precariousness of our situational existence, it is better to take the position of “strength and security” to ensure our legacy—to understand that there will always be givers and takers, and innovators and abusers. It may be better to allow the natural course of things—economically, politically, and monetarily—to “evolve” in such a way, without intervention (particularly governmental,) to influence things as they might otherwise naturally “evolve.” The system would do best on its own, and self-interest would be ultimately in the best interest of the community at large, so to speak. Our most precious ideas might be those that boost confidence in rugged individualism and opportunity, patriotism (loving and fighting for what is “ours,”) and institutions that unite us and give us affirming confidence (church, successful business, uniformity in voting and political power, tradition) in order to secure and guard our “way” of life. Our very continued existence might depend upon our emphasis on strength, tradition, and security. Republicans understand that what we have is not accidental—it was obtained by sheer determination, conquest, and the lives and deaths of very real people making very real sacrifices.

And I can better appreciate the worldview of a Democrat: also knowing intuitively that our situation is precarious, but desiring to be “progressive;” realizing that the natural “evolution” of the marketplace doesn’t result in fairness and equality, but in enormous differences in the distribution of wealth and power; seeing this, government is looked to as a potential solution instead of a threatening problem, and somehow should endeavor to serve as a baseline “equalizer” to aid the “least of these…” since the contributions of generous individual human beings fall short of that goal. As corrupt as the political machine might be, it still ideally should serve as a method of human service, with its primary intention being the focus on serving the greater number without giving outrageous advantage to the few. Its mechanisms rely less on self-importance, and more on the collective good—not only for citizens of our country, but for citizenship within the world. Also, I can see a Democrat’s “progressive” stance in the sense that the idea of human progress will be change, adaptation, and the ability to break with traditional “values” and ritual as humans evolve and as world populations grow, and human needs and ideas of morality and justice evolve (and hopefully improve) as well. Democrats seem better to understand the need for harmonious existence with the Earth, ecologically and in ways that reflect individual responsibility to that end.

Both camps seem to me to be occasionally optimistic, and sometimes neither seems to get it altogether correct. We should know by now that the world outside of our comfortable lifestyles can be a particularly nasty place. And it was only a fraction of geological time since we were more often at each other’s throats for meat instead of being concerned about our “pursuit of happiness.” At times of disaster, we see that very dog-eat-dog behavior surface without much hesitation. It seems to me that in a very real sense Republicans understand this and are prepared to, in the unpleasant rebuke by Democrats, say “I’ve got mine, so you get yours” while understanding that Democrats unhesitatingly denounce this in words, but live it out in coastal-state American reality. And it also seems to be true that Republican criticism of the Democrat having no “values” is easily refuted by the very real, publically scandalous, and ultimately human behavior of the elected Republicans and their political base. Democrats do understandably hesitate to endorse the righteous sentiments of “values voters.” “We have our own values, thank you very much...” might be their reply to such self-righteous voters.

There it is.

Ibrahim Mahfouz writes:

You are describing only your God; the Old Testamrent's God of the Hebrews.

AND

I have the double distinction of being called bigot by Jews and Muslims. I must be doing something right.

Well, it would seem that the responses you get would indicate otherwise. Then, there is the added fact that you call Susan Jacoby, an atheist, a Jew. On what, pray tell do you base this assertion?

Serena

When reminded that fully 70% of the American public was unsupportive of the war in Iraq,
VP Cheney was heard to remark, 'So What!?'

Precisely - that's the attitude we all know and despise so thoroughly as voters. This is the Bush mentality through and through........

For all those who remain unconvinced that the Bush administration and his coterie of neocons and war policy architects (Perle, Wolfowitz, et al) is and has been right of center from the start, I recommend Eric Alterman's daily column (and archives) at the Media Matters website for up-to-date postings regarding our 'progress' in Iraq, and other interesting topics of social merit and public interest. Bush administration violations have been enumerated countless times, so no point in doing it here again. He has set a fine table for John McCain to feast at - if the voters allow it, that is.

Of course Eric's book 'Why We're Liberals' is also highly recommended. Our liberalism as it pertains to social policies directed at our well being as a society can be traced back to our two (distantly related) Roosevelts, at least in part. I don't think we have to go back to fascist Italy - Mussolini and his brownshirts were never that popular in the USA as I recall - or even in Italy, given his fate at the end of WWII. Alas, the trains have never run on time since his demise........

We certainly don't need to be fretting overly much about religion - McCain is not likely to be professing his devotion to God at every turn if elected. All he wants to do is make the trains run on time again..........

Mr Mark,

Don't weird out on us here. I don't agree with you often, but yours is a valuable voice. I get blocked too, usually at night, for no apparent reason. Hang in there!

Arminius, a Christian

Mr Mark - please settle down - you sound a bit paranoid. If they banned atheists from this site, it would shut down!

I had a few posts that wouldn't "send" a week or so ago - and received the same message. I sent a message with only the word "test" in it and it went though.

Posts on other on faith essays went through.

I suggest you try again - and contact David Waters directly, if that doesn't work.

Susan - great article - for a blog posting

Mr Mark;

Don't quit so hastily. I can't believe you're being deliberately blocked. It makes no sense.

The rest of us sinners would have been booted ages ago...we've all voiced controversial views.

I've had 3 or 4 comments disappear too...and I seemed blocked for a few days...I think its the brainless system...not human selection.

We need you Mr Mark. Yours is a voice for reason over superstition; and there aren't too many of those on these blogs.

Say it isn't so Mr Mark.

DZ (the Atheist) asks:
“Based on what evidence do you claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is the ideological parent of any U.S. Muslim organizations. You don't get to fabricate linkages to support your bigotry”.
Later he repeats:
“You still didn't provide any evidence showing a link between the Muslim Brotherhood, a very extreme organization, and American Muslim organizations’”

Moi: I answered your question on the thread where it was asked. I copy it here for your benefit.

“I base it on the following: The founder of CAIR(Council on American Islamic Relations), the largest of the US Muslim organization, publicly stated that the aim of his organization is to make Islam the dominant religion of the US. This is a Muslim Brotherhood doctrine.
Read the following:
"CAIR itself has had ties to terrorism. The nonprofit lobby group is a foreign-funded spin-off of a Hamas (A variety of The Muslim Brotherhood) front group, and it has seen several of its executives convicted of terror-related crimes since 9/11."

‘Kemal Nawash, head of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, finds that CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that "almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states."

The Muslims who know much more about what goes on in these organizations did not refute my statement, and here you, a professed atheist, rush to defence of CAIR, ISNA et al. This is probably what is meant by “Ignorance is a bliss”.

PS. Every time I quote the links to the above statements my post gets blocked

More nonsense from the masters of same.

Fate who thought he was rebutting me essentially proved I was correct every step of the way.

What we call liberalism in the US given that classical liberalism champions the little guy against government owes in reality far more to Fascist Italy than it does to Jeffersonian liberalism.

The Bush government hasn't been terribly right of center sorry about that. And Katrina was just a foretaste of what's to come no matter who wins the oval office. Our government is in dire need of reduction to manageable levels. It simply can't get any larger and more complex without crippling both itself and us.

We are already at a point where 100% of us will draw some sort of government check at some point in our lives and not infrequently at several points in our lives. And substantial numbers of us- as much as 1/3 will never receive a check not drawn on either state federal or local government.

We ceased to be a government of the people by the people and for the people the minute the congress of the United States signed off on LBJ's Great Society. From that day forth we have become increasingly a government of the Bureaucrats by the Bureaucrats and for the bureaucrats.

And have lost and will continue to lose ever more freedom because of it.

There are many who will say that real communism has never been tried to which I will answer that it can't be because the paradox at it's core is that you can't do from each according to his means to each according to his needs without having a very large very intrusive bureaucracy that frankly is over the long haul inimical to human freedom.

And Human freedom absent economic freedom is little more than an oxymoron.

Dear On Faith Friends -

I was blogging OnFaith from my home computer this weekend, and every post I wrote was being embargoed by the blog owner (the blog owner being technically inept, my posts from work seem to escape the dreaded "under review" black hole, ergo, this response today).

Apparently, I've been flagged as an undesirable voice on this forum. I guess I'm no longer welcome here.

As I can't and won't waste office time posting here, that does it for me. Bye-bye to all the friends and engaged opponents I've made here over the past year and a half.

To my atheist friends - good luck. Your days here may be numbered as well.

As always,

Mr Mark