Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Rev. Wright at the National Press Club
Sen. Barack Obama's controversial former pastor, Jermiah Wright, has recently concluded a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The AP's gloss:
"I served six years in the military," Barack Obama's longtime pastor said. "Does that make me patriotic? How many years did (Vice President Dick) Cheney serve?"
Wright spoke at the National Press Club before the Washington media and a supportive audience of black church leaders beginning a two-day symposium.
He said the black church tradition is not bombastic or controversial, but different and misunderstood by the "dominant culture" in the United States.
He said his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has a long history of liberating the oppressed by feeding the hungry, supporting recovery for the addicted and helping senior citizens in need. He said congregants have fought in the military, including in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"My goddaughter's unit just arrived in Iraq this week while those who call me unpatriotic have used their positions of privilege to avoid military service while sending over 4,000 American boys and girls to die over a lie," he said.
From a Wash Times article about a speech Wright gave yesterday in Detroit:
While the TV sound bites that were constantly played on news programs often used only brief parts of his most incendiary remarks, the full statements from which they were taken were often broadcast or published in full context by numerous newspaper and periodical accounts at the height of the controversy that they sparked last month in the senator's campaign.
Among the full statements Mr. Wright has made in his sermons:
· "The government gives [black men] drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
· "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Mr. Wright said in a sermon five days after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Questions remain about Mr. Obama's relationship with the church.
Mrs. Clinton of New York raised the issue in her campaign and in their last primary debate with Mr. Obama in Philadelphia.
For "Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack ... would have been just intolerable for me. And, therefore, I would have not been able to stay in the church," she said.
For the curious, I recommend checking out the official version of the Wright-approved "Black Value System" which is a statement of principles for Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ. The BVS, among other things, pointedly rejects "the pursuit of middleclassness" as a strategy through which "captor" majorities neuter the threat of revolt by "captive" groups. The BVS represents a stark alternative to a more-integrationist model of social uplift of the sort originally espoused by the NAACP and others.
reason's Dave Weigel looked at the Wright-Obama kerfuffle here.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 10:08AM|#
In the speech last night Rev. Wright actually said white and
black peoples brains are different.
And Obama still wants to associate with this racist bigot?
Neil|4.28.08 @ 10:32AM|#
Heres your precious link
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/04/at_detroit_naacp_wright_says_b.html
"He also devoted time to explanations on why black and whites learn
differently (a left brain/right brain thing) and the black
church."
He says we have different brains. yeah that will play real well
with swing voters. Racist bigot.
|4.28.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Nick,
I'm no defender of Wright, but I would note that the U.S. has a
long tradition (at least in the Protestant churches) of calling
down God's wrath upon (if that is what Wright is actually doing
here - not quite sure) the polity until some reform of said polity
is taken. This goes right back to nearly Plymouth Plantation and
can be seen in declarations about the Peqout War, the French &
Indian War, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, various economic
dislocations, etc.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 11:26AM|#
He said the black church tradition is not bombastic or
controversial, but different and misunderstood by the "dominant
culture" in the United States.
After watching the whole sermon in context, I'd say that it was
*willfully* misunderstood by members of the dominant culture. Being
one of them, I find myself disgusted at the media for only taking
the most emotionally charged sentences of the sermon out of context
and then looping them endlessly to provoke outrage.
I mean, honestly, what is a more Christian message than "do not
elevate nations as idols over God" and "violence begets violence to
no good end"?
Icl|4.28.08 @ 11:27AM|#
He did not say that white and black peoples brains are different. He said that our cultural differences make us perceive language and music differently. He gave specific examples. As someone who studied ethnomusicology, I have to completely agree. The whole point of his speech was that different does not mean inferior.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 11:27AM|#
fyodor,
Neil doesn't do linkies. He must think they are socialist or black
magic or something equally sinister.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 11:27AM|#
I cant find a transcript but in the speech he said white people
are "left brain" and black people are "right brain".
If saying brains are different due to racist isnt bigoted I dont
know what is. If a conservative said this hed be crucified by the
MSM.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 11:28AM|#
I always thought Wright sounded like an angry Ron
Paul.
And is right about the same proportion of the time in their
respective areas. (Like, somewhere in the mid 60%s).
Episiarch|4.28.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Obama now has his own personal loose cannon (essentially) on staff, as the press now know that following Wright around is guaranteed story. Well done, Barack; you've managed to partially equal one of McCain's weak points--that he may fly off the handle and say something really stupid.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Neil --
It occurs to me that I have done you a disservice by speaking for
you on the issue of why you don't link.
What *is* your reason for not supporting your arguments with easily
checkable facts?
|4.28.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Nick,
In other words, Wright (from what little I know of him) appears to
be part of a long tradition in American political, religious, etc.
discourse. That the media hasn't picked on this is a bit odd to
me.
hittin\', runnin\' and laughin|4.28.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Godammit, Neil, you wanna come down off of that fucking cross?
|4.28.08 @ 11:34AM|#
I'd like to see Rev. Wright debate Bill Cosby, given that the
latter appears to be a champion of "middle-classness," although Mr.
Cosby doesn't seem to agree on the neutering effect claimed by
Wright.
Maybe this has already happened and if so, could anyone point me to
a link with transcript or video?
|4.28.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Nick,
Oh and the sort of historical analogy I am thinking of are those
Protestant preachers who argued that one moral ill or another
(slavery is one that comes to mind but there were others) was the
cause of God's wrath as it was exercised through the Revolutionary
War.
Episiarch|4.28.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Something is funky with the reason servers and some posts are
not showing up immediately, and then appear later in the correct
place in the thread. I didn't see Neil's link until just now, but
it was the second post. If he hadn't said to go back and look I
would have never seen it because I assumed I already read that
section of the thread.
Reason editors take note.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 11:38AM|#
He look at this Obama lemmings:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_race_ap_poll
fyodor|4.28.08 @ 11:41AM|#
If a conservative said this hed be crucified by the
MSM.
And defended by right-wing talk show hosts and bloggers. Yawn.
|4.28.08 @ 11:43AM|#
[grr] Raw meat! [grr]
The question is... which does Wright want more? A black president
or the failed election of a black president so he can scream about
it from the pulpit?
I think feminists come down hard on the "want woman president" side
of the question over Clinton, but I'm really not sure about the
Obama question. Many leaders in the black community see themselves
as only being able to trade on rage. What does Obama really get
them in the end as president?
Neil|4.28.08 @ 11:43AM|#
"
The question is... which does Wright want more? A black president
or the failed election of a black president so he can scream about
it from the pulpit?"
Thats exactly right. Wright is going to sabatoge Obama so he can
scream about how racist America is. Too perfect for my side
LOL!
alan|4.28.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Just stop it already with the pathetic justification of Wright.
Some of you who routinely slam conspiracy theories let Wright off
the hook for his statements on AIDS and CIA attempts to poison the
black community with the influx of drugs.
If you want to see a slick politician/pastor in action, I urge you
to find a transcript Wright's speech he made in New Orleans in the
week after Katrina.
Obama had no business being associated with this bile filled idiot
whether his motivation was cynical to help him get on the inside of
Chicago's black political establishment, or if it really was the
some search for authenticity he describes in his memoir, it showed
an incredible lapse of judgment and good sense on his part.
|4.28.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Neil,
I'm not going to defend Obama but the Gallup tracking poll
(http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm) doesn't show a gap
remotely that large (as of the 26th at least).
Neil|4.28.08 @ 11:46AM|#
Dont worry Alan Im sure Joe will be here soon to tell us how wonderful Wright's sermons are and how we just dont understand black culture.
icl|4.28.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Fyodor,
I don't remember right-wing talk show hosts criticizing McCain for
his willful association with the real bigots such as Ross Parsley
and John Hagee
Neil|4.28.08 @ 11:49AM|#
McCain didnt sit in Hagee or Parsley's church for 20+ years and say he was their "Spiritual mentor" icl. Thats a BIG difference.
|4.28.08 @ 11:49AM|#
Have you been reading Salon SugarFree?
That was essentially the argument put forward by Joan Walsh.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/04/27/wright_moyers/
I can't help but wonder: Maybe Wright needs Obama to fail to
justify his pessimistic view of American promise. The whole thing
is very sad.
|4.28.08 @ 11:52AM|#
I understand why liberals should be suspicious of Obama for consorting with Wright, but I don't get why conservatives should be. Wright sounds like every other fundamentalist Christian preacher - white or black, they all basically follow the same tenets. If anything Wright should help Obama in the general, but a lot of Democrats should be wondering if they want to put someone with ties to a person as far rightwing as Wright in office.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Neil,
Any statement about "Right Brain" and "Left Brain" is being used
metaphorically to talk about different learning styles. Culture and
experience can be as much the source of different learning styles
as underlying biology. Wright seems to be attributing differences
to culture and making the point that different is different, not,
to use his words "deficient."
His willingness to lump people into groups "black" and "white" and
assume that says something important about their culture may be
racist, but his discussion of learning styles doesn't seem to say
what you seem to imply.
If it is legitimate to talk about "black culture" his comments are
not controversial.
If it is not legitimate to talk about "black culture" his comments
are part of that illegitimate discussion.
|4.28.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Neil,
So the length of relationship is the determining factor then? I'm
not quite sure why.
icl|4.28.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Neil,
McCain stood on stage next to Hagee and said that he was proud of
his endorcement, and he did call Parsley his "spiritual
advisor.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Calidore would you take your children to listen to someone like
Rev. Wright? Would you? He took his SMALL CHILDREN to this mans
sermons for years on end to hear anti-America, anti-white,
anti-semitic, conspiracy theory rhetoric.
Did McCain ever take his children to a service like that? No, hes
an Episcopalian.
What Obama did by taking his daughters there is borderline child
abuse.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Just stop it already with the pathetic justification of
Wright. Some of you who routinely slam conspiracy theories let
Wright off the hook for his statements on AIDS and CIA attempts to
poison the black community with the influx of drugs.
Um, it is not a conspiracy to say that the US government reacted
with at least criminally negligent lethargy if not *intentional*
lethargy when dealing with HIV/AIDS because in the beginning the
disease seemed only to affect groups that polite white Christian
people couldn't bring themselves to give a shit about, and its
management required advocating things (like usage of *demon*
condoms) that were ideologically inconvenient.
Compare, if you will, the government's treatment of HIV/AIDS with
the "epidemics" of Legionnaire's Disease and Toxic Shock Syndrome.
What you read should disgust you; I know if I were Wright, I'd be
fucking pissed.
Who here is justifying Wright exactly?
I am, for one. I find the sound-bite view of his sermons and views
that has been produced and propagated despicable and in need of
some countering.
ed|4.28.08 @ 11:55AM|#
What is it about "black culture" that makes them want to be yelled at by an angry maniac every Sunday? Any wonder it's "the most segregated hour of the week"?
|4.28.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Neil,
Or let's put it this way: can you defend whatever statements McCain
has made about Hagee?
|4.28.08 @ 11:56AM|#
"I served six years in the military," Barack Obama's
longtime pastor said. "Does that make me patriotic?
So i guess now any criticism of the moonbat left by anyone is now
an attack on their patriotism.
Anyway as the Rev swings at strawmen lets take a moment to remember
that he sucks not cuz he is unpatriotic but because he spits hate
and lies on a regular basis.
|4.28.08 @ 11:56AM|#
One thing being missed in the whole Black Value System, Black Liberation Theology discussion is something Rev. Wright said explicitly in the Moyers interview and is obvious to anybody remotely connected to the Chicago Black community: Trinity is competing with the Nation Of Islam for believers. Black Christians have to deal with taunts of joining the "white man's religion" every day. Wright's "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian" mission statement has to be constantly defended on his home turf. To take that debate and equate it to the Prussian Blue fanbase - people who face zero persecution on a daily basis - is the sign of a partisan hack.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 11:56AM|#
McCain didnt sit in Hagee or Parsley's church for 20+ years
and say he was their "Spiritual mentor" icl. Thats a BIG
difference.
Yeah, it's way worse. It means that McCain is willing to stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with those who would twist the Christian
tradition into hate-filled bile purely for political advantage,
rather than because of some spiritual or historical affection.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Calidore McCain didn't sit in Hagee's church for 20+ years, get
married there, have his children baptized there, bring his small
children to listen to racist manicial screaming every Sunday.
So, no, its not the same thing. Get over it, because theres no
equivalence here. NONE!
|4.28.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Neil,
I'm not quite sure how Obama's relationship should be referenced in
any defense of McCain and his relationship with Hagee.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 12:02PM|#
Calidore for the last time McCain was never a member of Hagee's
Church. He didn't know about all the statements he made when he
recieved his endorswement, which is entirely believeable because
again he NEVER went to that church.
Obama, OTOH, was a member for 20+ years (and took his children to
listen to) hate filled, anti-white, anti-semitic, anti-American
sermons.
Whats more he gave hundereds of thousands of dollars to that
church.
Did McCain donate to Hagaee or Paresley?
|4.28.08 @ 12:04PM|#
I predict that, in response to this post, Obama will gain a few points in the polls.
|4.28.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Neil,
I'm not quite sure why Obama's relationship should be referenced in
any defense of McCain and his relationship with Hagee. Why should
that be the case?
Please explain.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Neil, every time you mention that McCain never went to Hagee's
church, you reinforce the notion that McCain is a run-of-the-mill
political whore who will cozy up to anyone purely for the
votes.
I'd rather the guy who takes the good with the bad for twenty years
than the guy who would sell his soul for a five-minute photo op
with a snake.
javier|4.28.08 @ 12:05PM|#
I guess maybe I am a little cynical. But I understand why Obama continued to go to that church. I agree that wright is crazy. However, I have hung out with crazy people just so that I can get laid much less cinch up the black support in one of the largest urban areas in the country. Wright's church was the largest on the southside + Obama wanted the support of black southsiders = obama went to that church.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Neil,
No matter how loud you scream it from the mountaintops, most people
will not find Obama's association with Wright a big enough issue to
prevent them from voting for him.
It is a deal breaker for you?
I doubt it, since you wouldn't have voted for him anyway. If
someone is looking for an excuse not to vote for Obama, then Wright
may work as a handy shorthand.
Obama is running for president, not Wright.
Most people recognize the importance of that distinction.
But, I guess, if that is the only dirt you got...throwing it with
vigor is your only option.
Episiarch|4.28.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Isn't this entire discussion really just this, every single
time?:
Neil's side: THIS IS GOING TO SINK OBAMA!
joe's side: NO IT'S NOT CHECK THE POLLS!
Neil's side: THIS POLL SAYS DOWN!
joe's side: THIS POLL SAYS NO CHANGE!
Neil's side: WRIGHT IS SCUM, WHY IS OBAMA WITH HIM?
joe's side: WHAT ABOUT MCCAIN?
Neil's side: IT'S NOT THE SAME!
joe's side: IT'S WORSE HE'S JUST AN OPPORTUNIST!
Neil's side: DOESN'T MATTER IT'LL STILL KILL HIM IN THE
GENERAL!
joe's side: NO IT WON'T!
And then we have endless dueling poll links.
Naga Sadow|4.28.08 @ 12:07PM|#
As one who was raised deep woods baptist, I gotta ask. What's the problem with Wright? Sounds like a typical pastor to me. Fire and brimstone sells when your preaching from a pulpit.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 12:08PM|#
NM Ive talked to several Reagan Democrats who are deeply disturbed by his association with a racist preacher.
|4.28.08 @ 12:08PM|#
dbcooper,
Thanks for the link, but it was really just a rather obvious
observation on my part. That Wright keeps running his mouth is
quite telling. It only hurts Obama, and anyone who cares about what
Wright said/says wasn't and wouldn't go to his church anyway.
|4.28.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Dislcaimer:
I probably won't be voting for either McCain or Obama in the
general election.
|4.28.08 @ 12:10PM|#
SugarFree, oh I quite agree with you. And I suspect we will see a LOT more of this over the course of the year ...
Neil|4.28.08 @ 12:11PM|#
Yeah this will follow him all the way to November. Drip, drip, drip. Hes anchored to Wright like a ten ton weight and this will drown him in a sea of his own hateful racism.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 12:13PM|#
As one who was raised deep woods baptist, I gotta ask.
What's the problem with Wright? Sounds like a typical pastor to me.
Fire and brimstone sells when your preaching from a
pulpit.
He's black and therefore scary. The funnier part is that the
excited fire & brimstone stuff seems to be rarer from him than
from many of his paler colleagues in the more colorful
traditions.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Neil,
And...?
Reagan Democrats may have been looking for an excuse not to support
Obama, and can use the Wright controversy as a shorthand.
It will allow them to vote Republican without the potential guilt
associated with crossing party lines when Bush has done such a good
job of making Republicans pariah.
Guilt by association is a lame argument no matter how it is
used.
Hold people accountable for their own views and actions, not those
with whom they are associated.
Otherwise you are making the same error in thinking that Wright
makes....that is:
Thinking that membership in a group, club, political party, race is
all you need to know to understand the individual.
alan|4.28.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Who here is justifying Wright exactly?
I am, for one. I find the sound-bite view of his sermons and views
that has been produced and propagated despicable and in need of
some countering.
Do you really need more than two minutes of historical footage of
Bull Connor speaking to know you are dealing with a racist. Give me
a God damned break.
|4.28.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Neil,
BTW, McCain didn't have to go to Hagee's church to know about at
least some of the views that many find controversial; for example,
with regard to Hagee's Katrina statement it was made on NPR and was
as far as I know reported broadly in the press.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Did your Baptist backwoods church ever tell you AIDS was invented by the US government to kill black people, or say "Goddamn America" or print complimentary statements about Hammas in thier church bulletin?
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Ive talked to several Reagan Democrats who
are deeply disturbed by his association with a racist
preacher.
Do you own a time machine?
Can I try it out?
Neil|4.28.08 @ 12:14PM|#
NM his membership in a racist, hate-spewing bigoted church says a lot about Obamas supposed superior "judgement" doesnt it?
Neil|4.28.08 @ 12:15PM|#
Again, how many of you would take your five or six year old children to hear one of Reverend Wright's "Goddamn America" sermons?
|4.28.08 @ 12:15PM|#
Wright has to be eating this up. You don't become a big dollar preacher with a multi-million dollar home by caring more about your parishioners than you do about your own self promotion. Episarchic is absolutley right. The media is going to follow this guy around looking for a crazy quote and a good story for the rest of the election cycle. Even their cheerleading for Obama won't overcome their desire for a good quote. Wright meanwhile will love the publicity and the attention a lot more than he cares about Obama being President. If I were Obama, I would put a contract out on the guy. Wright would be a lot more usful dead than alive.
|4.28.08 @ 12:17PM|#
What the fuck's a Freedom Swatch?
Beats me, but the snap-on faceplate comes in over a dozen
colors.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Its FreedomsWatch, and I've capitalized the letters now in my handle to avoid any further confusion.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Neil,
NM his membership in a racist, hate-spewing bigoted
church
Is that what Trinity is?
Really?
Doesn't ring true to me.
But since that "club" is bad, then all members of that club must be
bad too.
And all Republicans are greedy oppressors too!
|4.28.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Neil,
I'm an atheist. The only reason I go to church is to hear cathedral
choirs or organ music.
As anyone with even a miniscule amount of experience with religion
in this country knows the U.S. chock full of preachers, etc. who
make sermons on Sunday morning which some folks outside their
congregations would find controversial. That's just par for the
course and is an example of the rich religious diversity in the
U.S.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 12:23PM|#
So NM you wouldn't have any problem taking your small children
to hear one of Wright's sermons?
What about you Clidore? Would you have any problem with them
hearing that? If so, what do you think of parents that would
subject their children to that kind of nefarious propaganda?
robc|4.28.08 @ 12:25PM|#
NM,
Any statement about "Right Brain" and "Left Brain" is being
used metaphorically to talk about different learning
styles.
Its as bad as agreeing with joe, but I got to agree with Neil here.
Talk about right/left brain is discussing physical differences, not
some metaphor. Or, at least, it should be. If you want to talk
about learning styles, use the phrase "learning styles". Right/left
brain means something literal (and within any race, you are going
to have both right and left brained people).
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Neil,
I would have no problem taking my children to Wright's
sermons.
I trust in my own ability to help my children learn how to
critically appraise what others say. I think most parents do a good
job of conveying their values to their children in spite of the
negative input they get from many venues in our culture.
My god, imagine how much worse it is to subject my kids to a State
of the Union Speech by GWB? Deprogramming that would take more
effort than deprogramming Wright's message.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 12:27PM|#
robc,
Right/left brain means something literal
Not really...at least not in neuroscience.
|4.28.08 @ 12:28PM|#
"As anyone with even a miniscule amount of experience with
religion in this country knows the U.S. chock full of preachers,
etc. who make sermons on Sunday morning which some folks outside
their congregations would find controversial. That's just par for
the course and is an example of the rich religious diversity in the
U.S."
Yes and people get really pissed off about it. The most bitter
personal conflicts I have ever seen occur at churches and usually
over something a pastor said in a sermon. That is why Obama's claim
that he didn't really know what was going on or pay any attention
doesn't ring true. Bullshit. Everyone who regularly attends a
church knows exactly what each pastor thinks and how they preach.
People often avoid certain services because they know this or that
minister will be doing the service. The idea that someone who goes
to church every Sunday and not just on the high holidays could not
be aware and have an opinion on what the pastor thinks and preaches
is just crap. Only someone who never actually goes to church could
buy that line of bullshit.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 12:29PM|#
If so, what do you think of parents that would subject their
children to that kind of nefarious propaganda?
Oh, wow, you are sheltered. But I imagine that the responsible
thing for a parent to do would be to expose their kids to all sorts
of ideas (regardless of their relative "repugnancy" or whatever)
and then help the child analyze and dissect and criticize the ideas
to help them assess their worth and prepare the child for the day
when they become an adult and have to make such decisions and
valuations for themselves.
But I imagine your "take 'em out back and shoot 'em for
collaboratin' with enemy" approach works too. For a while. Till
they grow up to be like you.
Ugh.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 12:30PM|#
John I bet he really believes in the stuff Wright says too, thats why he never said anything. Hes expecting swing voters to buy that line but they wont, they can see right thru it.
|4.28.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Neil,
I might to go to such a sermon. Then again I'd also have no problem
with my children reading the Prioress's Tale (even though it is
chock full of anti-semitism*) or Marx's "Communist Manifesto." One
cannot hermetically seal children off from a world where they might
encounter that what one doesn't agree with. Indeed, though this may
sound patronizing but visiting Wright's former church sounds like
an interesting cultural encounter to me.
*Not that I am suggesting that Wright is an anti-semite.
|4.28.08 @ 12:31PM|#
"I trust in my own ability to help my children learn how to
critically appraise what others say. I think most parents do a good
job of conveying their values to their children in spite of the
negative input they get from many venues in our culture."
So you would go to a church that preached things that you
completely disagreed with? Why? Yeah, I am quite sure that your
children could attend Wright's church and not turn out to be raving
racists. But why the hell would you waste your time dragging them
there every Sunday like Obama did if you didn't agree with what was
being said?
Bingo|4.28.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Wright is a lot more palatable than the evangelicals that want to bring about the "End Times" by declaring war on every foreigner that isn't Christian. I'll take kooky "black people think like this and white people think like this" over "Jesus wants us to nuke the enemies of Holy Israel otherwise the Anti-Christ will win"
Neil|4.28.08 @ 12:32PM|#
So, NM, I guess it'd be alright with you to take your kids to listen to an Aryan Nations rally too?
Mojotron3000|4.28.08 @ 12:33PM|#
Aren't the same people who are worried about Obama's ties to Wright the same one's who were defending RP about the Survival Report? As disgusting as they are, at least Stormfront has the honesty to be upfront about where they stand and why, unlike Neil and his ilk who claim concern.
|4.28.08 @ 12:36PM|#
"Wright is a lot more palatable than the evangelicals that want
to bring about the "End Times" by declaring war on every foreigner
that isn't Christian. I'll take kooky "black people think like this
and white people think like this" over "Jesus wants us to nuke the
enemies of Holy Israel otherwise the Anti-Christ will win""
Honestly, I haven't been to anything approaching an evangelical
church since I was 14 years old and trying to get a date with a
girl who happened to be one, but I don't remember hearing one thing
even close to that. Further, I would like to see some links to some
people who actually say that and how many followers they actually
have. I bet they don't have near the followers Wright has. Lastly,
I wouldn't go to their church or want anything to do with them
either. Just becuase Wright isn't the only nut in the world doesn't
mean he is not a nut himself.
|4.28.08 @ 12:38PM|#
"Aren't the same people who are worried about Obama's ties to
Wright the same one's who were defending RP about the Survival
Report?"
That is a good point. Of course the hypocrisy goes both ways.
Reason barbequed Ron Paul for those ties but doesn't seem to have a
problem with Obama's ties to Wright.
alan|4.28.08 @ 12:41PM|#
That is a good point. Of course the hypocrisy goes both
ways. Reason barbequed Ron Paul for those ties but doesn't seem to
have a problem with Obama's ties to Wright.
I detected disgust in Gillespie in the above post. It was a kind of
nudge, 'Obama lovers save yourself the personal embarrassment of
defending Wright, follow the link, Wright is a creep.'
|4.28.08 @ 12:41PM|#
John,
I think that the "End Times" movement (or whatever label one wants
to use) makes up a significant element in the body politic. This is
one of the reasons that "End Times" literature sells so well I
think.
Fluffy|4.28.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Here's why I won't condemn Wright:
Because the people demanding that I condemn him are scum, and the
reasons they want him condemned are scumbag reasons.
With respect to Alan, very, very little of reason that
neoconservative scumbags want Wright condemned have anything to do
with his statement about AIDS. [We'll leave aside the question of
the CIA and drugs, since the CIA's admitted involvement in drug
smuggling means that no one gets to complain about conspiracy
theories about the CIA and drugs ever again. They fucked up; now
that justifies any theory anyone wants to promulgate about the CIA
and drugs. Forever.]
They want him condemned because he said that God should damn
America for what it has done to blacks via its drug and prison
policies. I don't expect everyone to agree with this statement, but
I certainly don't see that it's beyond the pale of either political
or theological discussion.
They also want him condemned because he said that America's bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjust and terroristic. While I come
down on the side of finding those bombings justified, I also
certainly don't think the position is completely beyond debate. The
position that holds that the bombings were not justified isn't my
position, but it's a defensible and legitimate position.
As is the position that the 9/11 attacks were the fruit of the
actions of the US in the world. Wright uses more religious language
than I would [of course] to express this position, but trying to
place this argument outside the bounds of acceptable discussion is
a scumbag move.
So hey, if you want me to say that Wright is a chump for thinking
AIDS was invented by the government, fine. He's a chump. But if you
want me to say that anyone who thinks that US drug and
incarcerations policies are damnable and that Japan should not have
been attacked with atomic weapons and that 9/11 was blowback to US
policy is a scoundrel who should be denounced and silenced, go fuck
yourselves.
|4.28.08 @ 12:45PM|#
John,
BTW, given Paul's eschatology it is not surprising that there has
long been a focus on the "End Times" in Christian culture.
alan|4.28.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Calidore | April 28, 2008, 12:41pm | #
John,
I think that the "End Times" movement (or whatever label one wants
to use) makes up a significant element in the body politic. This is
one of the reasons that "End Times" literature sells so well I
think.
The preachers at protestant churches I attended after a falling out
with the Catholic church in my early twenties never really preached
this sort of gospel, but Hal Lindsey was popular
with the the members of those churches, and I even have a copy of
The Late Great Planet Earth given to me by one of them.
However, Hagee is a different matter. I think he is extremely
dangerous, and we should devote more time to exploring why McCain
sought his support, but at the same time, he has no real influence
on McCain.
|4.28.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Fluffy,
Any HIV/AIDs conspiracy is of course the outgrowth of documented
past medical-related conspiracies (involving black Americans
specifically as well as Americans in general). The Tuskeegee
experiments are merely just one example of this.
|4.28.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Most people I know were raised in churches in religions they do
not really agree with or at least had more "extreme"
interpretations of their beliefs. Granted most of my friends are
Catholics /Jews turned atheist, but I also have a fair amount of
Protestants and others among my friends and family who don't agree
with half of the "official" or professed beliefs of their
church/clergy.
this is one of the main reasons I consider religion a joke- I know
very very few people who are really strict believers in the sermons
but many of them DO attend church regularly. When I was a kid, the
primary reason my peers attended church was for social reasons
(meeting girls, recreation), tradition, or just for something to
do. I imagine this is the same for many people. Many adults take
their children to church on Sunday just because its their tradition
and what they do. They do what their parents did and they go to the
same church as their community and peers. There are millions of
bland white people who go to churches with bigots and no one really
cares.
What I can't fathom is how any so-called libertarians could fault a
preacher for opposing government policies.
Oh, what? He's BLACK? Oh , ok. yeah, umm, yeah socialist..commie
anti-American blah blah blah...
|4.28.08 @ 12:51PM|#
What's the problem with Wright? Sounds like a typical pastor
to me. Fire and brimstone sells when your preaching from a
pulpit.
Your traditional fire-and-brimstone speech is directed at your own
congregation for their own shortcomings.
Not saying that there aren't exceptions, but there's a lot of Black
Liberation Theology that doesn't really have a counterpart in white
churches, as far as I can tell.
|4.28.08 @ 12:51PM|#
What Obama did by taking his daughters there is borderline
child abuse.
But Neil, that's true of all churches.
|4.28.08 @ 12:51PM|#
alan,
Well, it says something that appear to be what amount "End Times"
tourism to Israel. At least that is the impression that I have
gotten.
Matt|4.28.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Odd thing is, when the Democratic party collapses in the next couple decades, it will be largely because men influenced by Reverend Wright begin to vote Republican. All it would take is another 5-10% of the black vote; up by the bootstraps Bill Cosby republicans just might do it.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Fluffy | April 28, 2008, 12:43pm
What you said.
Pretty much all of it.
Any HIV/AIDs conspiracy is of course the outgrowth of
documented past medical-related conspiracies (involving black
Americans specifically as well as Americans in general). The
Tuskeegee experiments are merely just one example of
this.
Also, see my post @ 11:54 am.
|4.28.08 @ 12:58PM|#
R.C. Dean,
Your traditional fire-and-brimstone speech is directed at your
own congregation for their own shortcomings.
No, a traditional fire and brimstone speech is as often as not
directed to those inside and outside the church (or inside and
outside the religious grouping). That's also part of a long
tradition, this one coming straight out of the Old Testament (e.g.,
The Book of Ezekial).
|4.28.08 @ 1:00PM|#
The BVS, among other things, pointedly rejects "the pursuit
of middleclassness" as a strategy through which "captor" majorities
neuter the threat of revolt by "captive" groups.
This makes me wonder if Obama is even "black enough" to be a member
of the church.
And I managed to avoid a reference to the word "uppity."
Oh, crap.
alan|4.28.08 @ 1:00PM|#
fluffy, what you wrote is reasonable. The motives of the
attackers do matter, as it is used to cudgel Obama when he isn't
the only one in the race with questionable ties. I tend to put the
election horse race to the side when looking at this matter,
though. My problem isn't so much with Wright's relationship with
Obama, but Wrights relationship with the black community. He is a
patheogen, a sociopathology. The sort of slick preacher that
reasonable people from the time of Voltaire have been fighting
against to clear the air for reason.
Yes, the CIA fucked up. But the context that the conspiracy mongers
put that matter in is a lie. The CIA was trying to make some quick
cash to fund rebels through the extremely profitable (thanks to
prohibition) drug trade, an not by some magical means creating a
demand that would foster a black genocide. Wright knows the reality
here, he is an educated man, but he is so bent he would spread lies
damaging to the minds of those in his congregation.
To many people are all too willing to let the Wright's of the world
off the hook when it is necessary for the well being of our society
not too.
|4.28.08 @ 1:03PM|#
alan,
So you are arguing that Wright is a 'Sophist' in the Platonic
sense* of that term?
*I think the actual Sophists get a really bad wrap myself.
dhex|4.28.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Your traditional fire-and-brimstone speech is directed at
your own congregation for their own shortcomings.
not necessarily. there's a sinful, wicked world out there with
fornicators and heavy metal fans and homosexual atheist jews with
communistic tendencies.
or at the very least, it's a distracting place of the flesh that
removes people from god; therefore it is to be shunned.
What Obama did by taking his daughters there is borderline
child abuse.
life's a bitch and then you die
that's why we get high
cause you never know when you gonna go
on the plus side, at least their church services weren't that
boring. on the other hand, i'm sure neil's aren't, either - he gets
to hang up on that cross while plaster jesus is out for
renovations. problem being that crucifixion is habit formin', and
when you get a fixin' for some 'fixion you kinda get stuck that
way. (no pun intended)
dhex|4.28.08 @ 1:05PM|#
The CIA was trying to make some quick cash to fund rebels
through the extremely profitable (thanks to prohibition) drug
trade, an not by some magical means creating a demand that would
foster a black genocide.
but you can see how this might strain the credibility they had,
right? as in "no no no we just helped people sell drugs to fund
wars!"
|4.28.08 @ 1:06PM|#
their church services weren't that boring. on the other
hand, i'm sure neil's aren't, either
Those snakes are totally cool, dude.
|4.28.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Can we please have more Obama/Clinton threads around here? They're just so gosh-darned informative...
Neil|4.28.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Im a Conservative Jew (aka Masorti Judaism for those of you in Israel and Europe).
alan|4.28.08 @ 1:18PM|#
but you can see how this might strain the credibility they
had, right? as in "no no no we just helped people sell drugs to
fund wars!"
Did they ever have credibility? My problem here is with reality
versus fantasy.
alan,
So you are arguing that Wright is a 'Sophist' in the Platonic
sense* of that term?
That is right. Preachers in the black community have enormous
influence, and Wright displays a fundamental lack of
responsibility. In that link
Gillespie provided was some rhetoric about personal responsibility,
not succumbing to anti-intellectualism, seeking an education (the
listing of General Semantics caught my eye there), and then out of
left field comes that crazy ass shit about finding the talented ten
percent among Blacks and killing them. It is as if, the crazy ass
shit is what pays for the mansion and the rest of it is there to
immunize Wright from criticism.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 1:19PM|#
Neil,
So, NM, I guess it'd be alright with you to take your kids to
listen to an Aryan Nations rally too?
While I appreciate that more vigor is the only tactic you've got on
this issue...wrapping the Aryan Nation up with Trinity and child
abuse all in one neat little package is over-stepping.
But, I guess vigorously asserting the same idea over and over again
is gonna lead to inflated claims eventually.
You did make me "LOL," however.
Only because I predicted you would go there.
|4.28.08 @ 1:20PM|#
He's a great friend of Israel.
Right up until the time he asks his "best friend" to please lie
down in the mud so he can cross the stream to Salvation without
getting his shoes wet.
Sucker.
alan|4.28.08 @ 1:22PM|#
Neil | April 28, 2008, 1:16pm | #
Say what you will about Hagee but hes a great friend of
Israel.
You realize that at the heart of the Dispensational creed is the
idea that your immolation in an apocalyptic fire will save Hagee
and his people being spared tribulations, right?
|4.28.08 @ 1:22PM|#
I'm just glad that this whole Obama/Wright thing is shining a
light upon this "not unusual"* wretchedness that is the black
church.
*Quote from black superdelegate and ABC "This Week with George
Stephanopoulos" contributor, Donna Brazille
dhex|4.28.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Once again Im Jewish.
then you *really* need to get off the cross, bro. these guys
totally fucked up the last dude.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 1:23PM|#
So you would go to a church that preached things that you
completely disagreed with? Why? Yeah, I am quite sure that your
children could attend Wright's church and not turn out to be raving
racists. But why the hell would you waste your time dragging them
there every Sunday like Obama did if you didn't agree with what was
being said?
Maybe the sermon isn't the primary benefit Obama and his family see
in attending church?
Maybe he sees more good things in the sermon than bad things and
feels like he can help his children filter the message.
Lot's of reasons, it would seem, could explain the
decision...
Here's one I would bet influences most church goers...it is close
enough to their home and their friends go there.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 1:24PM|#
"You realize that at the heart of the Dispensational creed is
the idea that your immolation in an apocalyptic fire will save
Hagee and his people being spared tribulations, right?
"
Well his religion is bullshit and isnt true, so I dont care about
those beliefs if hes helping out Israel. His nutjob fantasy isnt
going to come true so Israel may as well take advantage of his
help.
|4.28.08 @ 1:25PM|#
alan,
A lot of Israelis find the support of Israel by "End Times"
evangelicals* to be rather problematic.
*Of course all Christians I would guess believe in an end times, it
is just a matter of emphasis for some.
|4.28.08 @ 1:26PM|#
By the way, if blacks really are more right brain than left brain, shouldn't their be a lot more left-handed blacks (left-handedness is highly correlated with right-brainedness)?
|4.28.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Well his religion is bullshit and isnt true, so I dont care
about those beliefs if hes helping out Israel. His nutjob fantasy
isnt going to come true so Israel may as well take advantage of his
help.
How odd- that's what he said about you.
|4.28.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Neil,
The sorts of policies that "End Times" evangelicals might support
could prove to be rather problematic in the here and now.
|4.28.08 @ 1:28PM|#
"Maybe he sees more good things in the sermon than bad things
and feels like he can help his children filter the message."
Maybe flowers come out of his ass to. Bullshit. He went there
because he was a half white guy from Hawaii trying to make it in
politics in a black neighborhood. He went there for purly cynical
and calculating reasons. Given that, I don't see how he can
complain when people hold it against him for purely cynical and
calculating reasons.
|4.28.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Neil,
BTW, it is interesting that you would have no problem with someone
who you say has a "nutjob fantasy" for a POV in light of your
comments about Obama's relationship with Wright (in light of the
comments of Wright that you find disfavor with).
Neil|4.28.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Actually, Hagee is an evangelical who doesnt even try to convert Jews. He actually preaches AGAINST it, so I dont know if he would call Judaism "bullshit".
alan|4.28.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Calidore | April 28, 2008, 1:25pm | #
alan,
A lot of Israelis find the support of Israel by "End Times"
evangelicals* to be rather problematic.
*Of course all Christians I would guess believe in an end times, it
is just a matter of emphasis for some.
Reminds me of a time in 2000 when a visiting Israelis journalist
told me that groups of Christians would show up in Israel on tours
and want the Jews to 'perform for them like it was Galilee 33
A.D.'
Neil|4.28.08 @ 1:30PM|#
I wouldnt take my children to Hagees Church calidore.
However yeah I might ally with him for purely political
reasons.
Bingo|4.28.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Also I appreciate Wright's anti-authoritarianism and find the evangelicals willingness to cede everything to the right kind of authority to be a lot scarier.
|4.28.08 @ 1:33PM|#
alan,
Ha!
I guess they don't realize that Judaism is quite different today as
opposed to the Second Temple period.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Maybe flowers come out of his ass to. Bullshit. He went
there because he was a half white guy from Hawaii trying to make it
in politics in a black neighborhood. He went there for
purely cynical and calculating reasons. Given that, I
don't see how he can complain when people hold it against him for
purely cynical and calculating reasons.
That's a pretty fucking disgusting thing to say (especially the
bold parts).
It's akin to saying "hey, John. You go to a church but I don't
think it's because you love God. I think it's because you want to
find more clients for [whatever business you're in]."
|4.28.08 @ 1:41PM|#
By the way, if blacks really are more right brain than left
brain, shouldn't their be a lot more left-handed blacks
(left-handedness is highly correlated with
right-brainedness)?
I'm left-handed. Why am I not black?
|4.28.08 @ 1:46PM|#
Neil,
You spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about what other's
kids are exposed to.
Admit it... you work for Hilary, don't you?
|4.28.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Why am I not black?
What makes you think you're not?
But look on the bright side- maybe you're related to Thos.
Jefferson.
|4.28.08 @ 1:52PM|#
As expected, the only people condemning Obama on this thread, as in the country as a whole, are those who would never have voted him anyway.
TallDave|4.28.08 @ 1:56PM|#
"I served six years in the military," Barack Obama's
longtime pastor said. "Does that make me patriotic?"
Yeah, well, Benedict Arnold served in the military too. It doesn't
give you an automatic pass for everything you do.
I see Wright's still using the Milhouse excuse -- "What about all
the days I DIDN'T wear culottes to school? Nobody talks about
that!"
Still, I was impressed by Obama's Fox News appearance with Chris
Matthews. Now, if this primary would finally end so he can start
pandering to us centrists instead of the Kos Krowd...
Neil|4.28.08 @ 1:58PM|#
Well Joe what do you think it says about Obama's judgement that he let his children listen to anti- white and anti-America hate speech for years and years?
|4.28.08 @ 1:58PM|#
Can I just issue a general condemnation of politics because we
are at the point where a loony-toon Christian, no matter what color
he is, is getting so much play in the press?
I am SO tired of the Jesus-and-politics snake-oil salesmen on both
sides of the fence getting disproportionate amounts of attention. A
sane society would relegate Wright to the street corner, hustling
for cash with Fred Phelps.
The right Christian tells me I have to be guilty for tolerating
gays and being lustful of women. The left Christian tells me I have
to be guilty over slavery. It's all a load of guilt-hustling crap
and I'm sick of it.
TallDave|4.28.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Ayn,
I think it's because they breed more successfully.
I dated a girl whose parents were 7th Day Adventists, and real
serious about the whole religion thing. 6 brothers and sisters, and
none of the girls were even allowed to cut their hair till they
were 18.
|4.28.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Well Joe what do you think it says about Obama's judgement
that he let his children listen to anti- white and anti-America
hate speech for years and years?
What do you think it says about McCain's judgement that he's
friends with Rod Parsley, spewer of right-theocrat crap and hater
of the gays?
Neil, just for the lulz, I hope that Obama wins and Wright is in
charge of your cherished-President's "faith-based initiatives"
office. The only reason that evangelical claptrap has any kind of
political sway these days is because of Reagan prostituting the
party for a bunch of ignorant redneck hillbilly jerks. Thanks.
|4.28.08 @ 2:02PM|#
So, whose politics would you worry about more: someone whose
relationship with a looney clergyman who said scary things about
politics was based around receiving the sacraments, performing
ceremonies, receiving spiritual and biblical instruction, and doing
good works in the community?
Or one whose relationshpo with a looney pastor who said scary
things was based entirely on politics?
The one who invited said clergyman onto his campaign for reasons
that had nothing to do with ideological affinity, and who removed
him because of his political statements?
Or the one who invited said clergyman onto his campaign
specifically because of his political statements?
|4.28.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Neil | April 28, 2008, 1:58pm | #
Well Joe what do you think it says about Obama's judgement that he
let his children listen to anti- white and anti-America hate speech
for years and years?
He didn't. You're simply misrepresenting was Wright said for
political purposes. And people are beginning to realize that.
dhex|4.28.08 @ 2:03PM|#
i think putting wright in the same category as phelps is a bit unfair, to say the least.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 2:04PM|#
"
What do you think it says about McCain's judgement that he's
friends with Rod Parsley, spewer of right-theocrat crap and hater
of the gays?"
McCain is an Episcopalian, probably the most mild-mannered
Christian denomination the world over. So please, find something
offensive his Episcopal priest said on the order of Wright, and
then we can talk equivelance. Ok?
|4.28.08 @ 2:05PM|#
If Neil were not a spoof, and was actually the McCain buttboy he poses as, he would know that McCain loudly and prominently stated that he had left the Episcopal Church and was now a Baptist. Like Hagee.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Theres a big difference between being ENDORSED by a preacher and
ATTENDING THEIR CHURCH for 20+ years!
BTW, since we're talking endorsements, Farakahn endorsed Obama and
said "once people find out who he really is, all this Jewish
support will go away". Well, hes actually right about that LOL!
dhex|4.28.08 @ 2:06PM|#
joe, your partisan heterosexist language ill serves you.
and i'm only half-kidding.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 2:06PM|#
John,
He went there because he was a half white guy from
Hawaii trying to make it in politics in a black
neighborhood.
Why was the bold clause included in your line of reasoning
here.
I don't follow the logical path from this to Trinity.
|4.28.08 @ 2:07PM|#
So, we're left with Southern Baptist vs. Congregationalist
(UCC).
Personally, I find it repugnant to judge people based on their
religious denomination, and said so when Mitt Romney was the issue,
but if that is the standard Neil wished to use, he should at least
have his facts straight.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 2:07PM|#
Ok so hes a baptist now. Please find something his preacher said on the order of Wright.
|4.28.08 @ 2:08PM|#
Theres a big difference between being ENDORSED by a preacher
and ATTENDING THEIR CHURCH for 20+ years!
Yes. The former indicates a political affinity and the latter does
not.
BTW, since we're talking endorsements, Farakahn endorsed
Obama...
Without that endoresement being sought. Unlike McCain's endorsement
by Hagee.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Hey Joe would you leave your church if the preacher said that
abortion is murder and should be outlawed, that the war in Iraq is
right, that gays go to hell, and that women should stay home in the
kitchen?
If you heard that during a sermon, what would you do?
|4.28.08 @ 2:10PM|#
|4.28.08 @ 2:10PM|#
i think putting wright in the same category as phelps is a
bit unfair, to say the least.
Maybe. I'm just tired of the Representatives of the Sky-Fairy
hijacking public discourse today. I'm starting to understand why
Hitchens is a raging alcoholic.
Please find something his preacher said on the order of
Wright.
Dude, seriously, who cares? You think religion is BS and then you
keep trying to make hay out of what some religionista said. It
shouldn't freaking matter.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 2:11PM|#
John,
BTW,
He went there because he...
I realize the "it seems to me" is probably implied since this is
obviously a statement of your own opinion rather than a statement
of fact, but a polite hedge now and then can help you seem less
shrill.
Neu Mejican lessons in polite discourse now available for only
$19.95 ;^)
|4.28.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Neil,
My church has said that abortion is murder and that gay people go
to hell.
It's my church, I'm not going anywhere, and I don't talk politics
with the priest.
Why you righties wish to pollute your spiritual lives with enforced
political orthodoxy continues to elude me.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Well Joe what would your priest have to say before you left the
Church?
What if he said the Jews are collectivley guilty to this day for
killing Jesus, would that be enough to get you to leave?
|4.28.08 @ 2:14PM|#
That's really why the right is freaking out about this; THEY
don't distinguish between God and Ceasar - between spirituality and
politics - so they assume that nobody else does, either.
At least, the ones who are freaking out in good faith.
|4.28.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Neil,
I'm going to quietly and reverently whisper your name when I pull
that beautiful lever for Obama in November. Hearing you rant makes
me just want to vote for him more.
|4.28.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Neil,
What if he said the Jews are collectivley guilty to this day
for killing Jesus, would that be enough to get you to
leave?
That might do it. A statement of religious doctrine - not the
priest's personal opinions about politics, but a statement of
religious doctrine - that offended my moral sensibilities would
motivate me to leave.
FYI, I'm not sure you know this, but the RCC has denounced the
doctrine you mention for over four decades now.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 2:19PM|#
And what if he said "Goddamn America! Goddamn America! Thats what the Bible says!" Thats not religious doctrine?
|4.28.08 @ 2:20PM|#
"America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Sadly, the transcript can't do justice to his little
hand-fluttering illustration of a chicken roosting.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Timmy, and I'm going to think of your name when OBama goes down the a major defeat thanks to folks like Rev. Wright and Farakahn dragging him under.
dhex|4.28.08 @ 2:23PM|#
I used the term "clergymen" because we are talking about two
men.
i'm talking about the term "buttboy."
|4.28.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Why you righties wish to pollute your spiritual lives with
enforced political orthodoxy continues to elude me.
For fuck's sake, joe, you don't think the left has a
politico-spiritual orthodoxy of its own? Ever attend one of those
lefty church bake sales and sniff up the rank horseshit pinko dogma
they sell along with cookies?
I'm with Ayn Randian -- I'm sick of the Worshipers of Pure Fucking
Fiction driving the agenda, left or right.
Fuck you and your pope, fuck you and your messiah, fuck you and
your allah, fuck you and your jesus, and fuck you and your fucking
fuckhead god.
|4.28.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Neil | April 28, 2008, 2:19pm | #
And what if he said "Goddamn America! Goddamn America! Thats what
the Bible says!"
I expect the clergy to uphold the tradition of denouncing the evil
done by governments. I have absolutely no problem with Wright's
"God and Government" sermon - the one you've made a point of not
watching or reading, but choose to pontificate about anyway.
Thats not religious doctrine? No, it's not. Do you not
know what the word means?
Neil|4.28.08 @ 2:30PM|#
How about Wright saying that Jesus was black, that the Israelites are black, and that Jesus was "lynched by racist Italians"?
MK2|4.28.08 @ 2:30PM|#
"Fuck you and your pope, fuck you and your messiah, fuck you and
your allah, fuck you and your jesus, and fuck you and your fucking
fuckhead god."
Except for the Sacred Market, Jamie. Don't fuck with the
Market.
Hail Market,
Full of grace,
Prosperity is with thee.
Blessed art thou among systems,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Capital.
Holy Market,
Mother of Goods,
pray for us consumers now,
and at the hour of our bankruptcy.
Amen.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Oh, forgot about him saying Italians have "garlic noses". That should help Obama in New Jersey LOL!
|4.28.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Jamie,
For fuck's sake, joe, you don't think the left has a
politico-spiritual orthodoxy of its own?
An orthodoxy? No. There certainly are political opinions flying
around among the religious left, but there is not anything like the
enforcement of political orthodoxy you find among the religious
right.
You can be a Republican and still be considered a find, upstanding
person in lefty churches. Sadly, the opposite simply is not true of
their opposite numbers.
You don't see religious-left preachers blaming natural disasters on
God's wrath at low marginal tax rates and evolution denial.
Fuck you and your pope, fuck you and your messiah, fuck you and
your allah, fuck you and your jesus, and fuck you and your fucking
fuckhead god. For someone who likes to congratulate yourself
for being more rational on the question of spirituality, you
certainly are emotional. In my experience, most of you atheists are
far more angry at God, the church, and some Sunday school teacher
that angered you, than the rational skeptics you like to pose
as.
|4.28.08 @ 2:36PM|#
How about Wright saying that Jesus was black, that the
Israelites are black, and that Jesus was "lynched by racist
Italians"?
None of those are relgious doctrines, and none of them are untrue.
The Romans were extremely racist, the Jews (they hadn't been
Israelites for several centuries there, which you would know if you
weren't a spoof) were darker-skinned Middle Easterners who were
subject to that racism, and those racist Romans did kill him, in an
agonizing public manner, as an act of state terrorism against his
fellow Jews.
I have no problem with that at all. The "garlic-nose" bit was
uncalled-for, though.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Joe I said "ancient Israelites" because Wright and his ilk also think all the Jewish prophets were black africans. I guess you do too now.
|4.28.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Joe I said "ancient Israelites"
No, you didn't.
because Wright and his ilk also think all the Jewish prophets
were black africans
Since you can't even accurately depict your own words in a comment
you wrote four minutes ago, why exactly do you think anyone would
consider you a credible source when describing Reverend
Wright's?
|4.28.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Except for the Sacred Market, Jamie. Don't fuck with the
Market.
Oh, stick a hot poker up your ass. The market, you shit-sampler, is
based on reality, the rational and sometimes irrational choices of
millions of individuals working and living on earth. This is unlike
the teachings of, say, the dumbfucks and the leaders of the
dumbfucks who weekly bow down to an invisible asshole who
apparently is so disgusted with his own creation that his whole
goal is to throw you off of it into a furnace or onto a cloud.
|4.28.08 @ 2:44PM|#
You said Israelites, "Neil," because your Jewishness is as
phoney as everything else about your spoof identity.
No actual Jew would use the word "Israelites" to refer to the
residents of Judea and Samaria in the first century. You might as
well have called them Hebrews.
|4.28.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Neil,
I dunno about the Jewish prophets, but does anyone know what the
Natufians, etc. lloked like?
dhex|4.28.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Congratulations.
in such a heady religious thread, i figure "practice what you
preach" is as good a doctrine as any to stand up for, joseph.
You can be a Republican and still be considered a find,
upstanding person in lefty churches.
i would cautiously label this with a "depends on the church you go
to." i've heard some funny ha-ha / not so funny ha-ha stories about
some of the more lefty churches in my neck of brooklyn.
|4.28.08 @ 2:52PM|#
most of you atheists are far more angry at God, the church,
and some Sunday school teacher that angered you, than the rational
skeptics you like to pose as.
joe, I have plenty good reason to be angry, and it's not just some
petty vengeance I'm after WRT religion.
Your Lord and Savior seriously said "But I tell you that anyone who
looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her
in his heart". I mean, Jesus deserves pimp-smacked for telling
people they'll go the fiery Gahenna for having natural, sexual
thoughts.
The church that Wright is in charge of is just as crazy as
yokeltarian, snake-handling churches; they get all fervent about
the Lord smiting down sinners, they just believe in emphasising
different sins.
Frankly, I hate race politics. And Wright does nothing but pimp and
pump race-politics. He's as filthy as the rest of them.
Ali|4.28.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Neil-
Are you in 3rd grade or something? Even 3rd graders could do better
than that.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Yeah Joe, this sounds real tolerant and saane:
"The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to
the black community ... Black theology will accept only the
love of God which participates in the destruction of the white
enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in
Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their
oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God
is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his
love."["
Thats not me speaking, BTW, thats James Cone the founder of Black
Liberation Theology.
Fluffy|4.28.08 @ 2:53PM|#
most of you atheists are far more angry at God, the church,
and some Sunday school teacher that angered you, than the rational
skeptics you like to pose as.
A very, very long annoyance can easily transform itself into anger,
Joe.
The history of religion's resistance to skepticism is a tale of one
corruption or injustice or act of intellectual dishonesty after
another. Particularly in the Judeo-Christian tradition. As its
cosmogony, history, and moral theory were exploded in turn as
absurdities, Judeo-Christianity first tried to suppress the
arguments of those who would expose its flaws, then denied they
were valid and tried to argue against them, and then when finally
routed took refuge in claiming that the discredited elements of a
formerly seamless garment of religious thought were "metaphorical".
And most religious believers recapitulate that phylogeny day after
day after day. It's supremely annoying to deal with people whose
ideas continually morph from one absurdity to another in order to
escape refutation [before ultimately digging into trenches on the
transcendental plane to avoid the necessity of justification
altogether].
dhex|4.28.08 @ 2:56PM|#
It's supremely annoying to deal with people whose ideas
continually morph from one absurdity to another in order to escape
refutation [before ultimately digging into trenches on the
transcendental plane to avoid the necessity of justification
altogether].
you could shorten this to "It's supremely annoying to deal with
people."
to save time and whatnot.
|4.28.08 @ 2:56PM|#
You don't see religious-left preachers blaming natural
disasters on God's wrath
No, just on man's ego.
|4.28.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Fluffy, as usual, does it better.
If you study the history of Christian society, every time some
tenet of faith or doctrine is proven wrong or ridiculous, the
Christians just morph it into something else so it semi-conforms
with common knowledge.
The rate at which the RCC shoves saints through is so appalling; I
could say that my local, recently-passed priest healed my nebulous
back injury via Divine Touch and the throng would be ready to
pronounce him canonized.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 2:58PM|#
"No, just on man's ego."
Or in the case of Wright on the Amerikkkan white man's
government.
Brandybuck|4.28.08 @ 2:59PM|#
I'm not voting for Obama, but not because he has a
diarrhea-mouth pastor. I'm not voting for Obama because he is a big
government socialist (dressed in big government progressive
clothing).
I guess that means I'll have to turn in my Cosmotarian membership
card.
|4.28.08 @ 3:00PM|#
"i would cautiously label this with a "depends on the church you
go to." i've heard some funny ha-ha / not so funny ha-ha stories
about some of the more lefty churches in my neck of
brooklyn."
I have found churches to have, at least among the regulars, some
pretty personal disagreements about things. People get really angry
about things that go on in churches. I have no doubt that in a lot
of churches left and right, you can feel pretty out of place if you
don't go along with whatever the predominant view of the world is
and there is always a predominant view.
The fact is either Obama believes all this looney stuff that Wright
puts out or he doesn't. I tend to think he doesn't. But if he
doesn't believe in it, why the hell did he go to church there for
so long and get so chummy with Wright because there is no way that
Obama didn't know how Wright thinks. Yeah, Obama may be a good
Christian and all of that, but there are lots of Christian
churches, why this one and not only this one but this one for
twenty years? The only answer I can see is that Obama went there
because Wright is big in the black community and it gave him
political connections. Basically, Obama is a typical opportunistic
politician who is not above associating himself with vile fruit
loops as long as said vile fruit loops get him where he needs to
go. The problem is that now that Wright has become a problem, Obama
can't just walk away. In an ideal world, Wright would have retired
to his multi-million dollar gated suburban estate and laid low
until the election was over. But, as I said above, you don't get to
be a millionaire preacher by putting your parishioners' needs above
your own. Wright loves the publicity and attention and is not going
to go away.
|4.28.08 @ 3:00PM|#
joe,
In my experience, most of you atheists are far more angry at
God, the church, and some Sunday school teacher that angered you,
than the rational skeptics you like to pose as.
I'm sorry that has been your general experience, however, it should
be noted that I would guess that most atheists live their daily
lives without even thinking about religion. That is my general
experience at least.
|4.28.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Either way, joe -- left or right on the spiritual spectrum --
there's a certain disgusting air of glee when lefty peddlers of
ecumenical shit or righty peddlers of ecumenical shit talk about
natural disasters.
We either got it coming because we like ass sex, or we got it
coming because we shop at Wal-Mart.
Since I like both of those things very much, yeah -- I'm fucking
angry.
And again, fuck your pope. Right in his old, wrinkly ass.
|4.28.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Ayn Randian,
Your namesake condemns people for their thoughts and feelings just
as vociferously. Which is as it should be - philosophies of
morality and ethics are supposed to dictate to us about the proper
way of thinking. I have no problem with calls to discipline your
thoughts, whether it's Buddha the atheist telling us to abjure all
worldly desire, or Jesus telling us to abjure some of it.
Neil,
I'm sorry if denunciations of racist theology - of gods that only
look after white people, and endorse their oppression - annoys you.
No, wait, I take that back. I am very, very glad that denunciations
of racist theology annoy it. It makes me happy thinking about
it.
Fluffy,
There are going to be people who disagree with you about
theological matters. Try not to turn into Jamie Kelly over it. I
mean, does he sound like a happy person?
|4.28.08 @ 3:02PM|#
I guess that means I'll have to turn in my Cosmotarian
membership card.
No, you won't. Committed Cosmotarian here who simultaneously hates
Rev. Wright (and all the other guilt-peddlers) but doesn't care
about Obama's relationship to him.
However, I'm not voting for Obama for the very reasons you
mentioned: I see no evidence he's going to end the war, end the war
on drugs, or any other "left" issues that drive me. I do see
evidence, however, that he's going to bail out the irresponsible
(WRT the mortgage 'crisis') at the expense of the responsible.
He'll probably move to nationalize health care.
|4.28.08 @ 3:05PM|#
But if he doesn't believe in it, why the hell did he go to
church there for so long and get so chummy with Wright because
there is no way that Obama didn't know how Wright
thinks.
Oh, if only he'd written an entire chapter of a book describing how
he came to worship at that particular Congregationalist
church!
Oh, wait. He did.
Obama (an agnostic at the time) approached Wright because Obama was
a community orgnaizer and Wright was a leader in that community,
and Wright converted him by teaching him about Jesus.
This has been known to happen on occasion.
Fluffy|4.28.08 @ 3:05PM|#
It's as if there was some group of physicists in the early
1800's who had an all-encompassing proof of the nature of the
universe that was composed of proof-sections A, B, C, D, E, F and
G.
But when A was disproven by experiment they burned the guy who
disproved it at the stake.
And when B was disproven by paleontological research they said,
"Nuh-uh, nobody proved anything."
And then C and D were disproven and they said, "Um, yeah. Remember
when we said that C and D were literally true? We were just
kidding. Those were obviously metaphors."
And then when somebody actually sat down to read E and F, it turns
out that buried in those "proofs" was text that said, "Please note:
these sections are only true if slavery was a good thing, and if
exterminating everyone in a city when you capture it is a morally
good thing to do." And they defended this by saying "Well, you have
to understand that people had different standards back when we
first did this proof".
And today, left with only a dubious G, the advocates of this theory
of physics somehow still command the affections of large groups of
the population - majorities even - and claim an exclusive set of
insights to physics, and demand respect for their arguments and
denounce the people who laugh at them or get annoyed at their
method of arguing as "intolerant bigots".
That's pretty much exactly what it's like. It looks different to
you if you're inside it because you think religion is a special
type of activity where it's OK to be dicks like our imaginary
physicists would obviously be being, if they existed. I just
disagree.
|4.28.08 @ 3:05PM|#
I have no problem with calls to discipline your thoughts,
whether it's Buddha the atheist telling us to abjure all worldly
desire, or Jesus telling us to abjure some of it.
I know you have some vision in your head of Jesus as a "wise old
Buddha" telling us to abstain where abstention is needed, but the
Gospels don't back that up in the least.
Jesus doesn't say "Don't go overboard with the lust, now...too much
of a good thing can be bad for you"...no no, he says "Sexual
thoughts make you sinful adulterer."
Try not to turn into Jamie Kelly over it. I mean, does he sound
like a happy person?
He's enraged in this current topic, but given that he's eliminated
a bunch of mystic guilt-garbage, I'd bet he's happier than the
young man who thinks he's going to hell every time he has a
pubescent thought about some young lady (or young man).
Icl|4.28.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Neal,
You are willing to allign yourself with a bigot, just because he
"supports" Israel? I am Jewish also, although I am more secular
than religous. I do support Israel, but people like Hagee scare the
shit out of me. If there is anyone who could bring about the
destruction of Israel, it would be Hagee.
|4.28.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Try not to turn into Jamie Kelly over it. I mean, does he
sound like a happy person?
I'm not an angry person. I just play one on the InterPipes.
|4.28.08 @ 3:08PM|#
"Either way, joe -- left or right on the spiritual spectrum --
there's a certain disgusting air of glee when lefty peddlers of
ecumenical shit or righty peddlers of ecumenical shit talk about
natural disasters."
Who was the guy a few years ago who said he always "rooted for the
hurricane"? Did anyone watch the History Channel show on what would
happen if the human race just disapeared one day? They had one guy
on there who seemed absolutely estatic about the idea of mankind
becoming extinct. I would also point to the 2007 Alan Weisman book
"A World Without US", which has to be one of the most bizzare books
of the last 20 years. There is a real creepy "someday we will get
ours" sense to a lot of people on both the left and the right.
dhex|4.28.08 @ 3:09PM|#
one can eliminate one kind of garbage and just replace it with
the next semi-coherent structure that floats along.
i.e. sam harris.
|4.28.08 @ 3:10PM|#
... converted him by teaching him about Jesus. This has been
known to happen on occasion.
Mostly in prison.
ed|4.28.08 @ 3:10PM|#
First of all, if you believe in god you're already a little bit insane. What's marvelous about this whole controversy is that marginally insane people are upset with someone who believes in the same balderdash as they do but is more vociferous about it and doesn't bother to hide his own bigotry and perceived victimhood. Wright's brand of tribalism is bizarre to most whites, I'd guess, but those serene, civilized, and quiet white churches are full of tribalists as well.
|4.28.08 @ 3:12PM|#
"Obama (an agnostic at the time) approached Wright because Obama
was a community orgnaizer and Wright was a leader in that
community, and Wright converted him by teaching him about
Jesus."
So Obama does believe what Wright says? I am trying to be fair to
Obama and give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he really
doesn't believe all of the crazy stuff that Wright says. But, if
what you are saying is true Joe, then Obama does beleive it. Why
else would Wright have been able to convert him? Think about it
Joe, if some snake handling evangelical tried to convert you, they
wouldn't get very far. Why? Because you don't agree with them about
things like homosexuality and public morals and any number of other
things. Yet, Wright was able to convert Obama. That tells me either
Obama is really cynical or actually buys what Wright has to
say.
|4.28.08 @ 3:16PM|#
What's marvelous about this whole controversy is that
marginally insane people are upset with someone who believes in the
same balderdash as they do but is more vociferous about
it
You can see the same kind of cognitive dissonance in the Left v.
Right.
RIGHT: Invade Iraq but not the Sudan!
LEFT: No, do the opposite!
ME: WTF? Why do either?
|4.28.08 @ 3:17PM|#
That's pretty much exactly what it's like.
No, it's not. At least, not for me. Most people don't ask of their
religion that it explain the physical phenomena of the world.
Religion is rightly about things that cannot be proven. As a
criticism of, say, Young Earth Creationists and Biblical
literalists, that was a fine argument, Fluffy, but it really has
nothing to do with the Immaculate Conception, the Transfiguration,
or the meek inheriting the Earth.
Ayn Randian,
Jesus doesn't say "Don't go overboard with the lust, now...too
much of a good thing can be bad for you" Neither does
Buddha.
He's enraged in this current topic, but given that he's
eliminated a bunch of mystic guilt-garbage, I'd bet he's happier
than the young man who thinks he's going to hell every time he has
a pubescent thought about some young lady (or young man). So
you see the spittle-flecked rage he is so easily driven to, but you
JUST KNOW that he's happier than any Christian believer, because he
agrees with you. OK.
John,
Pray tell, which seminary did that one d00d you say on the History
Channel attend?
Alan Weisman - he's a Catholic nun, right? Why are you bringing up
the History Channel and stuff that has nothing to do with religious
people?
|4.28.08 @ 3:19PM|#
"I served six years in the military," Barack Obama's
longtime pastor said. "Does that make me patriotic? How many years
did (Vice President Dick) Cheney serve?"
A fair point. But Cheney's got him where it counts: the flag lapel
pin.
He said the black church tradition is not bombastic or
controversial, but different and misunderstood by the "dominant
culture" in the United States.
True, probably.
"My goddaughter's unit just arrived in Iraq this week while those
who call me unpatriotic have used their positions of privilege to
avoid military service while sending over 4,000 American boys and
girls to die over a lie."
Ouch. Well said.
"The government gives [black men] drugs, builds bigger prisons,
passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless
America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for
killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn
America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn
America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is
supreme."
This doesn't seem that unreasonable, apart from the "government
gives black men drugs" bit. Although one could say that the
problems related to drugs in African American communities are
exacerbated by our country's drug policies, policies written
largely by whites.
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more
than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never
batted an eye,"
Yep, this is true as well.
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and
black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we
have done overseas is now brought back to our own front yards.
America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Very insightful, and he had the courage to speak the truth only a
short time after the 9/11 attacks, when most everyone else was
pretending that we were perfect.
Hillary Clinton:"Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon
after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the
attack
That strikes me as a (probably purposeful) misreading of the
Reverend's words.
Episiarch|4.28.08 @ 3:21PM|#
What's marvelous about this whole controversy is that
marginally insane people are upset with someone who believes in the
same balderdash as they do but is more vociferous about
it
No, what is marvelous about it is watching the hysterical
rationalizations from both sides as to why their guy is OK but the
other guy is scum when they both do similar things (i.e. associate
with religious shitheads for political gain).
I can only hope for more of this. The pretzel-twisting of logic and
argument is nothing short of amazing.
|4.28.08 @ 3:22PM|#
So Obama does believe what Wright says?
Wright says a lot of stuff. Obama appears to agree with him when he
says "Jesus is your savior" or "You have a responsibility to help
the poor, the sick, and the downtrodden."
On the other hand, he has said he does not believe that the U.S.
government invented AIDS, and I've seen no reason to
disagree.
Do you actually think you've developed a good measure of the man
and his beliefs from the 40 seconds of cut-n-pasted sound bites
that people with a political agenda keep feeding you? Heck, you
can't even accurately describe the point he was making in the "God
and Government" sermon, and yet you think you're in a position to
know what Wright taught Barack Obama about Jesus?
Don't be a dupe your whole life.
|4.28.08 @ 3:24PM|#
joe, I am having a difficult time understanding why someone who
fancies himself a tolerant progressive would support such
reactionary, Puritanical nonsense like the words of Christ and
pretty much the entire New Testament.
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
There's your first evangelical, spouting off nonsense again.
|4.28.08 @ 3:27PM|#
joe,
Do you ever get angry while commenting here?
Most people don't ask of their religion that it explain the
physical phenomena of the world.
I'd say that you are quite wrong in this assertion. Large swaths of
humanity (certainly more than a majority) apparently think exactly
that - which is why claims of miracles and other events where God
works in history are so common.
Religion is rightly about things that cannot be
proven.
Then why do so many religious people try to prove say that the tomb
was actually empty? Visit a Christian bookstore some time. On the
shelves there you will find lots of texts on Christian
apologetics.
Ayn Randian,
|4.28.08 @ 3:27PM|#
John, did you even know that Wright has a long digression in the
"God and Government" sermon - the one where he shouts that God
damns America when it sins - about how enlightened white leaders
like Harry Truman were able to make great strides in improving the
lives and opportunity of black people in the United States? Or that
he talks about how terrible things were under Jim Crow, and how
much better they are now?
I'll tell you, if he's trying to be a racist, segregationist,
anti-American preacher, he needs to find another line of work,
because he's not very good at it. Heck, he even managed to get
himself made the pastor of the largest church in a majority-white
denomination.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Really? The same Harry Truman he essentially called a terrorist for the atomic bombings later in the sermon?
|4.28.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Ayn Randian,
joe, I am having a difficult time understanding why someone who
fancies himself a tolerant progressive would support such
reactionary, Puritanical nonsense like the words of Christ and
pretty much the entire New Testament.
Could it be, perhaps, that you don't know the gospels very well,
and are confusing them with the doctrines you've heard from certain
religious figures in your life?
Oh, btw, Paul, like all of us, was a human being with his own
failings, and culturally-informed understanding of God's
message.
Calidore,
Do you ever get angry while commenting here? Not with so
little reason. Jamie Kelly went on that little rant merely because
there are people who don't agree with him.
I'd say that you are quite wrong in this assertion. You're
probably right about that, I phrased my statement about what should
be in terms of what actually is. My bad.
Then why do so many religious people try to prove say that the
tomb was actually empty?
Because that can't be proven.
As Aquinas said, the purpose of Christian apologetics is to show
that its doctrines cannot be disproven, not to prove them.
The point of religion is faith. If every word of the Bible was
proven to be literally true tomorrow, I don't think I'd ever go to
church again.
|4.28.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Neil | April 28, 2008, 3:33pm | #
Really? The same Harry Truman he essentially called a terrorist for
the atomic bombings later in the sermon?
Yes. Mull that over. He said both, in the same sermon.
Although I'll correct you on one small matter - he didn't say
"Harry Truman" nuked Hiroshima and didn't bat an eye. He said
"We."
|4.28.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Sort of like the Old Testament prophets, who didn't say "King So and So did such and such," but "Israel."
alan|4.28.08 @ 3:39PM|#
Now I am beginning to think Joe is performance art.
Don't be a dupe your whole life.
That was obviously intended for self parody for other people to
comment on later, and accuse you of a lack of self awareness after
defending the indefensible Wright.
|4.28.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Wow, alan, that you so funny, I didn't notice you neither
offered an argument, nor refuted one.
You could have saved yourself some effort by just typing "joe
bad."
If he's so indefensible, you should have no trouble taking apart my
defenses, or Elemenope's, or any of the other people who've offered
them.
We're waiting.
|4.28.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Could it be, perhaps, that you don't know the gospels very
well, and are confusing them with the doctrines you've heard from
certain religious figures in your life?
Uhh, nope. I used to be a religion major and strongly considered
"The Calling" before I realized how ridiculous it all was.
Oh, btw, Paul, like all of us, was a human being with his own
failings, and culturally-informed understanding of God's
message.
See, this is the exact thing Fluffy was talking about. Cafeteria
Christianity at its worst: when an Apostle makes a statement very
clear and you, realizing how crazy it sounds, says "well, that's
just human flaws". How about removing it from the Sacred Scripture,
then?
alan|4.28.08 @ 3:47PM|#
Joe, you are not being serious. You think this is some sort of
game being played, verbal gymnnastics, a trampline
for rhetorical acumen. You are unwilling to deal with the problem
that Wright represents, but unlike you, I really do give a damn
about the black community. When I see dysfunction I will call it
for what it is, you are only concerned about getting one particular
person elected in November for symbolic reasons that will have no
effect upon the underlying reality.
|4.28.08 @ 3:49PM|#
When I just heard Rev. Wright's sound bites, I thought they were inflammatory. But when I read the transcript for context, I realize now he's just a complete lunatic.
|4.28.08 @ 3:50PM|#
"John, did you even know that Wright has a long digression in
the "God and Government" sermon - the one where he shouts that God
damns America when it sins - about how enlightened white leaders
like Harry Truman were able to make great strides in improving the
lives and opportunity of black people in the United States? Or that
he talks about how terrible things were under Jim Crow, and how
much better they are now?"
Well Joe that is the nature of being nuts. You say some things that
make sense and then proceed to go off the rails on other things. I
am quite sure that I could find a lot of things that evangelicals
say about God and love and self reliance and such that you would
agree with. Now, when they got to the part about how homosexuals
are going to burn in hell and they are corrupting our children, you
would say "wait a minute". Now my question is why didn't Obama say
the same thing when the good Reverend Wright got to the part about
the government inventing AIDS to kill black people? Just because
you agree with the guy on some things doesn't excuse the really
crazy things he says.
alan|4.28.08 @ 3:52PM|#
An Obama presidency will not cleanse even one mind of dogma; an Obama presidency will not make even one more individual more prosperous than they were before.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 3:53PM|#
See, this is the exact thing Fluffy was talking about.
Cafeteria Christianity at its worst: when an Apostle makes a
statement very clear and you, realizing how crazy it sounds, says
"well, that's just human flaws". How about removing it from the
Sacred Scripture, then?
You know, it's funny, because Rev. Wright in his interview talked
for a little while about "wrestling with sacred scripture", i.e.
the process of tangling with the fact that the words are supposed
to be divinely inspired, and yet seem to suggest sanction for all
sorts of nefarious and/or immoral behavior, like slavery,
wife-beating, etc..
His comments were certainly a little more cogent on the issue than
what I would expect from, say, Hagee.
I keed, I keed. :)
I said a little more. They were a *lot* more cogent.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 3:54PM|#
A Reagan presidency will not cleanse even one mind of communism;
a Reagan presidency will not make even one more individual more
free than they were before.
Fun game, alan. Do another!
|4.28.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Jamie Kelly went on that little rant merely because there
are people who don't agree with him.
That's a lie and you know it.
I've pointed out repeatedly on this topic alone, and in countless
other posts over the last four years, with numerous examples, the
illogical hypocrisy of religious types like you.
|4.28.08 @ 4:01PM|#
the process of tangling with the fact that the words are
supposed to be divinely inspired, and yet seem to suggest sanction
for all sorts of nefarious and/or immoral behavior, like slavery,
wife-beating
I don't see this as any more intelligent. It's like arguing over
the symbolic meaning of the Wolf's consumption of Grandma in
"Little Red Riding Hood." Draw the appropriate moral lesson,
discard the crazy stuff, and stop taking fairy stories
literally.
Old Testament scripture does in fact, say some of the
craziest stuff one will ever read. Why semi-rational people in 2008
keep trying to force the square peg of reactionary trash into the
round hole of an advanced society, I will never know.
alan|4.28.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Excuse me, I mean, Ronald Ray-Gun. Misty eyed sentiments are for lesser mortals, you have an entirely different kind of tiger by the tail here.
|4.28.08 @ 4:03PM|#
"the process of tangling with the fact that the words are
supposed to be divinely inspired, and yet seem to suggest sanction
for all sorts of nefarious and/or immoral behavior, like slavery,
wife-beating, etc.."
When did an "Apostle" ever endorse slavery or wife beating?
Certainly, there is some of that kind of stuff in the Old
Testiment, but the OT didn't have Apostles, it had prophets. It is
problematic, but that is why I am not Jewish. Sadly, Christians
tend to cherry pick out of the Old Testiment to further whatever
their pet beliefs are. If you are some nitwit who wants to beat
your wife and keep her at home in a stay, you can probably find
something in the Old Testiment that if read carefully enough, gives
you the okay.
|4.28.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Cafeteria Christianity at its worst
You don't get to decide what's best.
Were you as rational about this as you like to pretend, you would
actually have to look at a passage, consider its cultural context,
and see if the thesis "this reflects his culture" holds up. But you
don't, because you don't want to rational about this. You want to
condmen, for you own reasons, and no one has needed to be informed
or fair to condemn.
Fluffy|4.28.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Most people don't ask of their religion that it explain the
physical phenomena of the world. Religion is rightly about things
that cannot be proven.
Religion wasn't always about things that cannot be proven,
Joe.
In fact, the men who first developed [or "received", if you prefer]
the doctrines of Judaism, Christianity and Islam would have
strenuously disputed that there was any distinction whatsoever
between what religion could and couldn't prove and what God would
or would not reveal to his chosen mouthpieces.
The substance of my complaint about religion is that religion has
taken refuge in the realm of the unprovable as a strategy for
surviving its utter humiliation in every realm where anything was
remotely provable.
It is annoying to me that rather than discard a set of doctrines
which were repeatedly and undeniably beaten like Rodney King by
skeptics of every stripe, religious minds just hid.
[By the way, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception only makes
sense in the context of the various doctrines surrounding the
"fall", and those doctrines only were developed as embroidery to
the "history" revealed in the Book of Genesis. The history in the
Book of Genesis, of course, was asserted to be literally true by
ALL religious for centuries, and was begrudgingly admitted to be
false only recently, after which it is immediately rehabilitated as
"metaphor". The Immaculate Conception is no longer
necessary if Genesis is only metaphorical, but that
doesn't stop the Catholics from pretending it all still fits
together.]
Looking at the way religious thought has hidden away to evade its
various refutations, I ask myself Why? Why would people
insist on sticking with Christianity, despite its atrocious record
of error? Why bother? And the only answer I can see is that
religion sought to preserve itself because it is the nature of
corrupt institutions to seek to survive, and the beneficiaries of
those institutions to dissemble in order to maintain them. And it's
just really, really annoying.
Think of how annoyed you get at the silly things Neil says. Then
imagine somebody being that silly for centuries at a stretch, and
never letting go. Ever.
|4.28.08 @ 4:07PM|#
alan,
You think this is some sort of game being played, verbal
gymnnastics, a trampline No, I think that people who make
arguments should be able to back them up. Otherwise, they're just
talking out of their asses to make themselves feel better, or to
manipulate people without regrard to the truth.
E.g., unlike you, I really do give a damn about the black
community,/i.
Go fuck yourself, alan.
|4.28.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Ayn,
I want to hear your rundown of crazy things the "Apostles" actually
said. If you really are a religion major, then you should be able
to give me at least four or five examples off the top of your head.
Not Old Testiment stuff, but New Testiment stuff. I am curious to
see which things bother you so much.
|4.28.08 @ 4:10PM|#
John,
Well Joe that is the nature of being nuts. You say some things
that make sense and then proceed to go off the rails on other
things.
That's just the point - he's not off the rails in that sermon. Were
you to actually educate yourself, try to actually know what you're
talking about instead of being led around by the nose by any
Republican with an editing program on his PC, you would realize
that the statements you describe as "going off the rails" are not,
in fact, anything objectionable.
It's not a question of his sane statements stacking up next to his
insane statement. That is not what the term "context" means. The
issue here is that you do not understand the meaning of the sound
bites you're describing as "off the rails," because you've made a
point of not finding out.
dhex|4.28.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Why semi-rational people in 2008 keep trying to force the
square peg of reactionary trash into the round hole of an advanced
society, I will never know.
because it clearly doesn't really damage the day to day operations
of taxes and breeding very much, now does it?
as someone who is both a libertarian and a rand fan, surely you can
appreciate the balance of the person with having to interact with
the outside world, no?
Fluffy|4.28.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Were you as rational about this as you like to pretend, you
would actually have to look at a passage, consider its cultural
context, and see if the thesis "this reflects his culture" holds
up. But you don't, because you don't want to rational about this.
You want to condmen, for you own reasons, and no one has needed to
be informed or fair to condemn.
No, Joe.
Wrong.
Mystical claims to insight and revealed truth only have credibility
if the information comes directly from God.
If the information is claimed to come directly from God, being
incorrect in even the slightest detail destroys the credibility of
every last word.
There is no point to reading anything that Paul says on any subject
[other than the academic interest one might have in doing so]
unless he was inspired by God. That means he doesn't get to be a
product of his time, he doesn't get to have cultural biases, and he
doesn't get to make any mistakes that later Christians have to fix.
He has to be absolutely right or the whole thing is a con.
The epistles are just another shoddy self-help text if they aren't
a revelation. A literal revelation.
You're actually engaging in exactly the kind of annoying conduct
that works atheists into a lather.
Episiarch|4.28.08 @ 4:12PM|#
No, I think that people who make arguments should be able to
back them up.
Except when it comes to faith, I presume.
|4.28.08 @ 4:13PM|#
Then educate me Joe. Explain to me how believing that the government started AIDS is anything but crazy? What context could possibly make that anything but really nasty nonsense?
|4.28.08 @ 4:13PM|#
Now my question is why didn't Obama say the same thing when
the good Reverend Wright got to the part about the government
inventing AIDS to kill black people?
Because while that statement is factually incorrect and a bit
looney, it is neither insane nor disgusting, like the assertion
that Jews are collectively guilty of deicide. Wright's statement
tells us nothing about his moral compass or his decency. It tells
us that he has a naive, conspiracy-laden view of politics, like a
lot of people.
Dissing the government just doesn't have the same effect on some of
us that it has on you, John - at least, that it has on you when
done by a black person.
Episiarch|4.28.08 @ 4:15PM|#
I have to note that it is a very positive aspect of these forums that right now, on this very thread, joe and John are simultaneously arguing with each other over Wright yet at the same time in close agreement regarding religion and their support for it.
alan|4.28.08 @ 4:15PM|#
I've already backed the argument up in the day in the discussion
earlier with elemepope, and put to rest the 'quote out of context'
bullshit three hours ago before you tried to ressecutate that
corpse.
Sorry, I don't do encores.
But I will tell you this, I've enjoyed reading your comments in the
past, but your willingness to defend Wright and even try to parse
his bat shit crazy mental meanderings into a positive disgust the
fucking hell out of me.
|4.28.08 @ 4:16PM|#
"If the information is claimed to come directly from God, being
incorrect in even the slightest detail destroys the credibility of
every last word."
That assumes that you understand and can correctly interpret the
mind of God. Humans are utterly incapable of understanding the
universe in any ultimate sense. It is not God's fault we got the
message wrong or the nature of our being makes it impossible to
communicate ultimate truth in anything but metaphorical terms. Only
athiests are arrogant enough to assume that they have an ultimate
grasp of reality.
|4.28.08 @ 4:18PM|#
When did an "Apostle" ever endorse slavery or wife
beating?
When Paul wrote "Slaves, obey your masters."
If you took that out of it context (ie, in the middle of an
exhortation to set your minds on higher things, rather than earthy
politics), made a poing of knowing nothing about the society of the
day, and threw in a dash of politicized know-nothingness, you could
waive that sentence around and pretend it's an endorsement of
slavery.
But that's the sort of thing that somebody pushing a political
agenda without regard for the truth might do.
|4.28.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Episiarch,
I know. I need to stop picking on Joe. He is right about religion
and God on this one.
|4.28.08 @ 4:20PM|#
I have to note that it is a very positive aspect of these
forums that right now, on this very thread, joe and John are
simultaneously arguing with each other over Wright yet at the same
time in close agreement regarding religion and their support for
it.
Kumbaya.
Now, on with the bitch-slapping.
|4.28.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Fluffy,
If religious people have discarded the doctrines that can be proven
false, and have recognized that their faith is a faith, which
doesn't inform them about physics, that isn't hiding. It's
adapting.
Darn those religious people, who used to make claims about their
religion that they couldn't support, and then stopped! How
annoying!
Episiarch|4.28.08 @ 4:20PM|#
He is right about religion and God on this one.
Well, he and you agree about religion and God on this
one.
Since I agree with Fluffy, I would vehemently disagree that you or
he is right.
Fluffy|4.28.08 @ 4:20PM|#
It is not God's fault we got the message wrong or the nature
of our being makes it impossible to communicate ultimate truth in
anything but metaphorical terms.
Right, except for that couple of millennia where the Bible was
decreed to be the literal word of God, and if you disputed that you
were fucking toast.
You do realize that if your statement here is correct, there is no
reason to read the Bible or associate with any organized religious
sect, right? That you have resorted to an argument that necessarily
and unavoidably discredits all religion in order to "protect" it
from refutation, but will continue to live your life as if you have
not done this?
|4.28.08 @ 4:21PM|#
"When Paul wrote "Slaves, obey your masters."
That is a good example. Part of the problem I think is that people
misinterpret Christianity as offering some kind of salvation in
this world rather than the next. Paul was not saying "slavery was
good". Paul was saying that it doesn't matter that you are slave in
this world, you won't be in the next if you beleive.
Episiarch|4.28.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Kumbaya. Now, on with the bitch-slapping.
I have to say something nice once in a while, Jamie. You
fuckhead.
|4.28.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Humans are utterly incapable of understanding the universe
in any ultimate sense.
That statement reveals everything you need to know about most
religious people's regard to reason and science.
|4.28.08 @ 4:24PM|#
Fluffy,
You should learn more before you condemn that which you don't know
about.
Modern Catholicism, for example, does not teach that the words of
the Bible "come directly from God," but that they are "inspired by
God."
No, it does not disprove God that human understanding of his
message is fallable.
But, hey, since Christian understanding of this doctrine has been
able to incorporate new information, I guess that means we're all
corrupt and deluded.
That's ok. You don't need to understand something very well to hold
it in contempt. You know everything you need to know about the
subject. For your purposes.
|4.28.08 @ 4:24PM|#
"You do realize that if your statement here is correct, there is
no reason to read the Bible or associate with any organized
religious sect, right? That you have resorted to an argument that
necessarily and unavoidably discredits all religion in order to
"protect" it from refutation, but will continue to live your life
as if you have not done this?"
It doesn't mean that at all. First, there are degrees of
correctness. It maybe that we got the message really wrong but over
time we started to figure out what it really was. Second, it also
is the case that even though individually we don't grasp the full
reality of the universe, we can get a piece of it through metaphor.
The story of the fall is a good example of this. Why is it that
mankind continues to fail and do evil even though everyone claims
to be doing what is best? Because we can't help ourselves. We are
tainted with sin to such a degree that even when we try to do the
right thing, we often end up doing more harm than good.
Just becuase you don't understand the mind of God and can't know
ultimate through except through him, doesn't mean there are not
degrees of knowing below that ultimate truth.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 4:25PM|#
I'm definitely on the side, personally, of defining religion as
the sickly-smelling effluvia of dead cultures' psychological waste
gathered into rank, unkempt piles of jaundiced observations and
lucky charms, organized and ranked according to their supposed
magical efficacy and the potency of the dopamine rush they provide
to their regular users.
Now that the pure product is no longer usable in polite company, it
is cut by intervening philosophies (Plotinus and neo-Platonism,
black liberation, and every fucking thing in between.) And as with
drugs they so resemble, purer is not always healthier or better,
and the cut product is definitely cheaper to produce.
That isn't to say there isn't much of social, cultural, historical,
or philosophical worth to be found there. There is. It just seems
like an awful lot of crap to wade through to get there.
Joe, implying that Atheists are by-and-large simply "mad at God"
(or instruments of the corporeal edifice of God) is part and parcel
with implying that Democrats are by-and-large simply "mad at rich
people". Neither are particularly true except for the occasional
bitter outlier. That I endorse a (fairly Nietzschean) hermeneutical
criticism of religion should be taken at face value, and it is a
disservice to not take people like me at face value when you have
no good reason to believe otherwise.
|4.28.08 @ 4:25PM|#
John,
Ephesians 6:5-9 appears to if not endorse slavery at least tolerate
it. Colossians 4:1 appears to be more of an endorsement of
such.
|4.28.08 @ 4:27PM|#
You're actually engaging in exactly the kind of annoying
conduct that works atheists into a lather.
Yes, disagreeing with you, and not holding to the juvenile,
easily-caricatured beliefs that you would like us to. I image
that's quite irritating, to someone who has such a raw need to
believe Christians are illogical.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 4:27PM|#
In reflection, the hermeneutic is at least as Freudian as it is Nietzschean, the way I wrote it there.
|4.28.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Humans are utterly incapable of understanding the universe
in any ultimate sense.
Oh, now we get to it. Humans are incapable of seeing, because they
have human eyes. Incapable of knowing, because they have human
brains.
God, Rand had you picked out in the friggin' 50s, man.
I don't understand why you haven't just shut yourself up in a room
and do nothing but pray...I mean all this that you're doing is
meaningless, because you can't understand anything about the way
the world works, not from physics to economics to biology...none of
it. Humans are ugly, sinful, blind monsters who can only be saved
by the Sky-Fairy's "Divine Grace".
|4.28.08 @ 4:27PM|#
"That statement reveals everything you need to know about most
religious people's regard to reason and science."
I totally believe in science. Science can predict but it can't tell
us why or what something is beyond describing its characteristics.
Science makes the trains run on time, but not much else.
Episiarch|4.28.08 @ 4:28PM|#
If religious people have discarded the doctrines that can be
proven false, and have recognized that their faith is a faith,
which doesn't inform them about physics, that isn't
hiding.
But this is the utter illogic of faith. You yourself said above
that if all of Christianity were actually proved true, you would
stop believing.
So you don't believe in Christianity. You worship the concept
of faith itself. You believe that the only thing that matters
is believing in something that cannot be proven. I guess
it just has to be something that isn't too silly or has
history.
To me, that's just 100% nuts.
|4.28.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Except when it comes to faith, I presume.
Statements about faith are not arguments. They can't be - by
definition, they are statements not arrived at through logic.
They're statements of faith.
People who try to prove their religious convictions through
Aristotelian logic are barking up the wrong tree.
|4.28.08 @ 4:29PM|#
John,
The problem is that the new world never came; the soon to come new
world which Jesus promised in the early gospels didn't come. So
understanably people start looking for justice to answered in the
here and now or for their religious view to trump that of
others.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Yeah like Objectivism doesnt have an awful lot of the
characteristics religion does.
Theres a God (reason), its prophet (Ayn Rand) and Holy Books (her
works).
Same with Marxism.
|4.28.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Yes, disagreeing with you, and not holding to the juvenile,
easily-caricatured beliefs that you would like us to.
No, joe, it's the shape-shifting Christianity that irritates us.
"The Bible is the inerrant Truth!..except for where it's obvious
that Paul was influenced by the culture of his times..."
And the parts that we're supposed to take as "cultural
idiosyncracies" are always the parts that make Christians look like
yokely morons.
|4.28.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Modern Catholicism, for example, does not teach that the words
of the Bible "come directly from God," but that they are "inspired
by God."
So?
Just because modern Catholics teach that, means it's impermeable to
criticism, cannot be challenged philosophically or historically,
and must be taken on "faith" alone?
Oh yes, we are talking about faith a mental disorder.
The "good," moral points of Christianity had already been fleshed
out by a hundred moral philosophers before Jesus came tripping
along, joe.
I don't need no fuckin' German stick figure in a funny hat to tell
me shit-all about moral philosophy when I can arrive at certain
similar conclusions just by the simple idea of
self-preservation.
dhex|4.28.08 @ 4:30PM|#
I don't understand why you haven't just shut yourself up in
a room and do nothing but pray...
i'm going to guess it's similar to the reasons why you don't just
atlas-shrug-a-doodle-do into the sunset.
everybody's got to live in the world, regardless of the array of
characters, fictional and otherwise, which populate their psyche
and give coherence to the formless ebb and flow of existence.
|4.28.08 @ 4:31PM|#
"God, Rand had you picked out in the friggin' 50s, man. "
If you ever bothered to read anything beyond Rand, you would know
that Kant picked up on that idea a hell of a long time before
Rand.
You can understand lots about physics and biology and the world
around you fucking nitwit. But you can only understand those
through the lense of temporality and our experience. You can not
"know" those things in any sense beyond how we percieve them. That
is great if you want to build a rocket to go to the moon or invent
a new drug. It doesn't do a damn thing if you want to know anything
deeper.
|4.28.08 @ 4:31PM|#
I burn down your cities--how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in Me
That's why i love mankind
Randy Newman
|4.28.08 @ 4:32PM|#
John,
Explain to me how believing that the government started AIDS is
anything but crazy?
Given what we know about Tuskeegee, and about the government's
negligent non-response in the early 80s, I don't see it as so off
the charts to make the connection, especially for someone who is
naive about politics and prone to conspiratorial thinking, as many
naive people are.
It's funny how closely you identify with the govenrment when it's
critic is black. You don't just disagree with that conspiracy
theory; you actually become defensive, as if you've been attacked
yourself.
dhex|4.28.08 @ 4:32PM|#
I don't need no fuckin' German stick figure in a funny hat
to tell me shit-all about moral philosophy when I can arrive at
certain similar conclusions just by the simple idea of
self-preservation.
then why are you so angry?
|4.28.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Yes, disagreeing with you, and not holding to the juvenile,
easily-caricatured beliefs that you would like us to.
Good rebuttal joe! Well thought-0out! I know you're always
imploring us to develop our arguments against you with ideas and
evidence, but I had no idea you were such a master yourself!
BTW, "easily-caricatured" is a complex modifier that does not need
a hyphen.
|4.28.08 @ 4:34PM|#
then why are you so angry?
I'm angry because I don't need no fuckin' German stick figure in a
funny hat to tell me shit-all about moral philosophy when I can
arrive at certain similar conclusions just by the simple idea of
self-preservation.
That's why.
|4.28.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Joe,
To the extent that someone would beleive that AIDS is the result of
a government conspiracy, that is the horrible legacy left here by
things like Tuskegee. Yes, such a legacy exists, but aren't leaders
such as Obama and Wright supposed to fight that legacy rather than
foster it? If Wright were just some guy you met in a bar saying
that, I could see your point. But he is not. He is a serious
community leader in Chicago. Doesn't he have a duty not to put out
such nonsense?
|4.28.08 @ 4:36PM|#
You can understand lots about physics and biology and the
world around you fucking nitwit.
"Turn the other cheek, but first call those who hate you a 'fucking
nitwit.' "
That there's in the Buy-bull.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 4:38PM|#
i'm going to guess it's similar to the reasons why you don't
just atlas-shrug-a-doodle-do into the sunset.
I'll admit, I LOL'd at that.
|4.28.08 @ 4:38PM|#
i'm going to guess it's similar to the reasons why you don't
just atlas-shrug-a-doodle-do into the sunset.
No one's ever asserted that "shrugging" is the proper course toward
happiness. Atlas Shrugged is an acknowledged work of
fiction, wherein fictional people do fictional
(and impossible) things.
If we could get the faithful to acknowledge the Bible the same way,
we'd all be a lot better off.
It's funny how closely you identify with the govenrment when
it's critic is black.
ORLY? Wanna guess what my response is to a 9/11 Truther? Wanna
guess what race they usually are? How about the black helicopter
people?
Don't play cheap racial poltics, joe.
|4.28.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Episiarch,
So you don't believe in Christianity. You worship the concept
of faith itself.
Faith is an inherent part of Christianity. Without that Pascalian
leap, there is no point to it.
I guess it just has to be something that isn't too silly or has
history. It has to be something that connects you to God, and
to your fellow members of your religious community. There are a lot
of aspects that go into whether a particular faith is right.
Yes, it's illogical. If one were to go about designing a bridge
like this, there would be a legitimate reason to hold such a person
in contempt. But no one is building a bridge, or even trying to
explain lightening, using this process.
Look it at this way: it's like your soul going to the gym.
|4.28.08 @ 4:40PM|#
I've already backed the argument up in the day in the
discussion earlier with elemepope, and put to rest the 'quote out
of context' bullshit three hours ago before you tried to
ressecutate that corpse
No, you didn't. You simply made a facile and inaccurate comparison
to a vastly different situation, and ignored the relevant details
that make the situations so different.
Fluffy|4.28.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Joe,
The bottom line is this: once upon a time there was a group of men
who claimed to have exclusive information from God about phenomena
across the range of human existence. They made various claims to
have direct knowledge of the creation of the universe. They made
claims to have direct knowledge from God about the creation of Man.
They claimed direct knowledge from God about history, to the point
of constructing elaborate genealogies to trace known figures back
to a primordial first man.
All of those claims were later exploded.
But you want to pretend that it's "adaptation" when you cling to
the theological doctrines first promulgated by these men.
You do realize that Judeo-Christian theology is largely an
epiphenomena that arose from centuries of priestly discussion of
the various historical and teleological claims you now blithely
dismiss as metaphor, right? That they would not exist, and would
have no reason to exist, if those claims were not at one time
thought to be literally true?
Darn those religious people, who used to make claims about
their religion that they couldn't support, and then stopped! How
annoying!
The current claims religion makes would not exist and
would not have been granted a hearing by anyone if it were not for
the claims that have been discarded.
Christianity was painstakingly constructed over time to
specifically conform itself with Old Testament prophecy.
Without the claims that could not be supported, these religions
should not exist at all. So I am willing to admit it: what
annoys me about religious people is that these religions should
have died when such a large body of material concerning them was
debunked, and I find the fact that they did not die to be evidence
of the capacity of human beings to be dicks and refuse to admit
they are wrong.
|4.28.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Anyway, I think it is pretty clear that the NT authors did not view the ownership of slaves as a sinful activity. That they could not make that leap demonstrates the limits of the moral universe that they lived in. In their defense I would note very few (if any) individuals prior to the 1700s viewed slavery as an institution as an immoral one. Indeed, to many intellectual giants like Aristotle it was a "natural" institution. Now religious people (along with secular figures inspired by the humanism of the Enlightenment) were involved in getting abolitionism going, however, such persons and groups almost invariably came from the marginalized periphery of religious believers like the Quakers.
|4.28.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Epi @ 3:21
I can only hope for more of this. The pretzel-twisting of logic
and argument is nothing short of amazing.
And in my opinon quite entertaining.
Since the "accepted" thing to do here is to support one's opinion
with "evidence", preferably external, (and preferably other than
wikipedia) I offer this, as supporting evidence (no external links
required)- pretty much everything that has transpired on this
thread, before and since the time of the above quote.
Episiarch|4.28.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Statements about faith are not arguments. They can't be - by
definition, they are statements not arrived at through logic.
They're statements of faith.
I've read Kirkegaard, joe, I have heard all this before.
I will reiterate and restate what I said above. You believe not in
God or Jesus or Xenu, but in faith itself. You seem to
feel you gain something (I have no clue what it is) by believing in
something which cannot be proven, as if by making this leap of
faith, you have done something positive.
But really, all you have done is made an irrational decision. Why
do you feel that there is anything redeeming in this?
|4.28.08 @ 4:44PM|#
You do realize that if your statement here is correct, there
is no reason to read the Bible or associate with any organized
religious sect, right?
This is what's known as "letting the perfect be the enemy of the
good."
Because we cannot understand the will of God perfectly, we
therefore cannot understand it at all.
Nope, doesn't work like that.
I could throw several centuries of bodily-humor theory at you to
make the same refutation of science (and often see this done by
so-called rational people on global warming threads), but since I'm
not motivated to believe that science is false and dangerous, I
have no motivation to make such an irrational statement.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 4:46PM|#
I've already backed the argument up in the day in the
discussion earlier with elemepope
All these days as an elemecardinal, and finally I've been elevated!
Huzzah!
|4.28.08 @ 4:48PM|#
You know, when John wrote the phrase "...in any ultimate sense,"
it wasn't just fancy punctuation. It actually changes the meaning
of his statement "Humans are incapable of knowing the universe in
any ultimate sense."
Just pretending that those last four words aren't there, and
attacking him for making a statement he didn't make, is willful
ignorance masquerading as sophistication.
Episiarch|4.28.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Look it at this way: it's like your soul going to the
gym.
What does this even mean? It's like your soul doing 20 reps of
incline press if you believe in unprovable things? How do you
benefit from such belief?
Or is the "benefit" taken on faith too?
|4.28.08 @ 4:52PM|#
joe,
What does "any ultimate sense" even mean? Ultimate in what way? Who
is defining what "ultimate" is? And if one cannot know it in any
ultimate sense then how does one know that exactly? If one does
know that, one seems to know at least one "ultimate" is: ultimate
knowledge of what cannot know.
Full Disclosure: To me the universe seems knowable enough for my
concerns.
|4.28.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Fluffy,
Modern religion was born of mythology, just as modern chemistry was
born of alchemy.
I don't care. It's good that time and effort have burned away the
false and pointless elements. It's good that relgion occupies its
rightful sphere these days, instead of making unfounded claims to
knowledge it doesn't possess.
None of this tells us anything about the truthfulness of religion,
in its rightful sphere.
|4.28.08 @ 4:54PM|#
I don't need no fuckin' German stick figure in a funny hat
to tell me shit-all about moral philosophy when I can arrive at
certain similar conclusions just by the simple idea of
self-preservation.
You don't seem to have worked out "Do unto others..." very
well.
love,
joe, who hasn't actually made any arguments about religion being
necessary for the development of morality, because he doesn't
believe that.
Fluffy|4.28.08 @ 4:55PM|#
This is what's known as "letting the perfect be the enemy of
the good."
Because we cannot understand the will of God perfectly, we
therefore cannot understand it at all.
No, it's not.
The Bible was held out for centuries to be the word of God, as
revealed to its authors.
If those authors could not understand the will of God, why should I
read their book and not some other one?
Why shouldn't I just write down some nonsense of my own in crayon
on a brown paper bag and call it the word of God?
More annoying religious behavior: elevate a text that only is
relevant if it is authoritative, but then when there's something
embarrassing in it deny that any text can be authoritative because
it's all just too freaky-deaky from our silly little brains.
I could throw several centuries of bodily-humor theory at you
to make the same refutation of science (and often see this done by
so-called rational people on global warming threads), but since I'm
not motivated to believe that science is false and dangerous, I
have no motivation to make such an irrational statement.
Science can survive error, because its entire reason for being is
to provide a methodology to gradually work through errors.
Religion can't survive error, because its hucksters claim divine
inspiration.
If a scientist declares that the world will end next Tuesday and it
doesn't, we can send science back to the drawing board.
If a prophet says that God has personally told him that the world
will end next Tuesday and it doesn't, everything else he says God
told him is revealed to be stupid and only you'd have to be
stubborn or an idiot to say, "Well, that whole 'end of the world'
part was wrong, I guess, but let's keep the rest of this material
and make a religion out of it!"
|4.28.08 @ 4:56PM|#
joe, who hasn't actually made any arguments about religion
being necessary for the development of morality, because he doesn't
believe that.
Now I am really confused. You acknowledge you don't religion for
science: they are two different realms. You acknowledge you don't
need it for morality.
So, you don't need it for the "is"s of the world, and you don't
need it for the "oughts", either...so what the hell do you need it
for?
|4.28.08 @ 4:59PM|#
You believe not in God or Jesus or Xenu, but in faith
itself.
No, I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and
Earth...
What you mean to say is that I recognize that the worth of religion
comes, at least partially, from the act of faith. Yup. Guilty. But
there is no such thing as "believing it faith itself." Faith needs
an object.
Why do you feel that there is anything redeeming in
this?
No one can answer that for another person. It's subjective, and
individual, and personal. I cannot - the wisest man who ever lived
could not - explain the answer to you, because it cannot be proven.
Nor can it be disproven.
Yes, I've made the decision to be irrational about theology and
ritual, and other things that aren't about building highway
bridges.
I'm not going to insist you understand that, and I'm not going to
apologize for it. It's what I choose, and you
Fluffy|4.28.08 @ 5:01PM|#
So, you don't need it for the "is"s of the world, and you
don't need it for the "oughts", either...so what the hell do you
need it for?
Joe wouldn't like it if I said this was about him, so it's not
officially about him, you know, but in my experience that
are lots of Catholics who just like churches.
And singing.
And having somewhere to go on Sunday morning.
Many, many people defend religion from attack because they are
simply attached to it as a cultural artifact.
But noooooooooo, there's nothing annoying about that at all.
alan|4.28.08 @ 5:01PM|#
Elemenope | April 28, 2008, 4:46pm | #
I've already backed the argument up in the day in the discussion
earlier with elemepope
All these days as an elemecardinal, and finally I've been elevated!
Huzzah!
With the religious discussion going on, I think that would qualify
as a Freudian slip. As for the promotion, you are most welcome,
sir!
Joe, could you or could you not using your own ability apply your
knowledge of the world around you deduce from two minutes of a Bull
Connor clip that he was a racist?
|4.28.08 @ 5:03PM|#
so what the hell do you need it for?
Deep-seated, primordial, subconscious and seldomly acknowledged
fact that joe is going to soon be occupying a hole in the dirt with
maggots eating away what once was vibrant, pink, blood-filled
tissue, and that everything he's ever done, all the people he's
ever known and every precious experience will soon be blacker than
a steer's tuckus on a moonless prairie night.
In other words, he's going to ...
DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE
DIE.
And no, not the German "the."
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 5:03PM|#
What does this even mean? It's like your soul doing 20 reps
of incline press if you believe in unprovable things? How do you
benefit from such belief?
Interestingly enough, there does appear to be certain circuits in
the brain that are stimulated and reinforced in people who
regularly digest concepts that include a conception of the
infinite. This section of the brain lights up fairly consistently,
and seems to be reinforced and better developed in mathematicians,
(to a lesser extent) physicists, and (drumroll) religious ascetics
and meditators of various doctrinal stripes.
It isn't crazy to say that to think of the great "mysteries" does
help the brain exercise certain conceptual skills. Now, for it
being "soul exercise" that would require a belief in something
silly, like a soul.
|4.28.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Obama got another superdelegate, BTW: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/28/obama-picks-up-superdelegate/
alan|4.28.08 @ 5:12PM|#
I pretty much figured one would be trotted out today when I
heard Wright say this:
x x views?
REV. WRIGHT: As I said on the Bill Moyers show, one of our news
channels keeps playing a news clip from 20 years ago, when Louis
said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion.
He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say,
the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and
Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me
as if I'm anti- Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20
years ago.
Make of it what you will, but parsing
Farrakhan is a no no in America's political establishment.
|4.28.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Fluffy,
If those authors could not understand the will of God, why
should I read their book and not some other one?
Once again, you fail to incorporate the concepts of "perfect" and
"good" into your thinking.
Nor have you yet contended with the difference between material and
spiritual truth.
This is what I meant about juvenile, simplistic faith.
You hew to this vision of faith that exists for the purpose of
being easy to refute, no matter how many times people tell you
that's not their faith.
Episiarch|4.28.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Now, for it being "soul exercise" that would require a
belief in something silly, like a soul.
Death is scary, as Jamie was sort of pointing out, and souls are a
nice faith-based unprovable exit hatch from ceasing to exist.
Neil|4.28.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Alan anyone who is not a liberal elitist and/or has an IQ of
over 30 gets it.
Obama is being pounded for it right now in the media, btw. Hillary
might get it if they keep it up LOL.
|4.28.08 @ 5:20PM|#
joe @ 5:12 proves he hasn't been reading Fluffy very
closely.
Is your faith and the Sacred Scripture inerrant or not, joe? It's a
very simple question.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 5:29PM|#
Joe, I agree that it is easy to make the "perfect" strawman to
bash Christianity, but in some sense the Christians have done it to
themselves by endorsing a "if you aren't perfect, you are an evil
sinner!!!1!!1!eleventy-one!" treatment of the imperfections of
aspiring Christians (to say nothing of others!).
The psychological damage of this is incalculable. What do you think
happens to the psyche of a teenage boy when you tell him that
considering unspoken the girl-next-door's tits to be hot is an
affront to the LORD? This practically invites criticisms of
impossible perfection as the desired goal of Christianity, leaving
itself open to the attack that it considers all imperfection as
failure.
Whether this is what was intended to be the way Christian religion
was to be practiced is fairly unlikely, and yet here we are, stuck
with the ways religions are actually practiced (rather than some
normative wishlist of true Christianity which would leave us all in
"no true Scotsman" territory).
|4.28.08 @ 5:30PM|#
OMG God just struck joe down!
Well it's been a long match, but it looks like we have a
winner.
Take a bow Episiarch.
Fluffy|4.28.08 @ 5:33PM|#
You hew to this vision of faith that exists for the purpose
of being easy to refute, no matter how many times people tell you
that's not their faith.
Dude, come on. Our entire discussion has been about the way the
religious side of the argument has dishonestly hidden itself in new
configurations to try to recover from the shellacking
Judeo-Christianity received beginning at the time of the
philosophes.
I absolutely understand that your faith is not the same as the
faith of Catholics of the high Renaissance. As I've said a few
times now, that's precisely what is annoying about it.
You hew to this vision of faith that exists for the purpose of
being easy to refute
No, I hew to the vision of faith that the custodians of your
religion promulgated to the world for almost two millennia. When
the jig was up on that vision of faith, they were not gentlemanly
enough to leave town, but came up with your version of faith and
foisted it on the world instead. I just refuse to play along,
because both iterations of that faith depend on the credibility of
their authors and of their custodians for their truth value, and
that means I can judge them both at the same time.
|4.28.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Whether this is what was intended to be the way Christian
religion was to be practiced is fairly unlikely
I would say that, given that the progenitor of the whole shebang
set up a lot of those impossible standards, it was meant to be this
way.
Why? To be controlling; none of us can ever achieve Christian
perfection, we're all just worthless sinners, so we have to spend
more time and energy "controlling" our natural humanity for some
kind of perverse "perfect". And, of course, only the Church fathers
can help us, so we have to spend more time (and money) in their
sanctuaries, avoiding Hell.
It's designed to be an impossible standard; if you could achieve
it, then you could claim godhood status.
|4.28.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Questions for joe:
Does joe believe in spreading the Gospel, or is it just that joe
feels all warm and fuzzy with the faith he was raised into?
Does joe believe that the world would be a better place with more
Christians, or religious people in general?
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 5:41PM|#
I would say that, given that the progenitor of the whole
shebang set up a lot of those impossible standards, it was meant to
be this way.
Who, Paul? Yeah, he was kind of a dick. Nobody makes a zealot like
a good ol' convert.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 6:06PM|#
300+ comments. Lemmee guess. Neil and joe pissing contest,
right?
Actually, for the most part, no. It's been Fluffy and A_R trading
shots with Joe over the validity of religious belief.
|4.28.08 @ 6:10PM|#
Joe is just trying to hide my brilliant post with miles of crap
about god:
joshua corning | April 28, 2008, 11:56am | #
"I served six years in the military," Barack Obama's longtime
pastor said. "Does that make me patriotic?
So i guess now any criticism of the moonbat left by anyone is now
an attack on their patriotism.
Anyway as the Rev swings at strawmen lets take a moment to remember
that he sucks not cuz he is unpatriotic but because he spits hate
and lies on a regular basis.
Fluffy|4.28.08 @ 6:34PM|#
Well, Corning, not any criticism. Just the ones that,
you know, actively assert anti-Americanism and a lack of
patriotism.
Read every Wright-related post at the Corner for the last few
months and see if any of them assert that:
1) Wright is anti-American and not a patriot; and
2) Obama's patriotism is suspect because he knows Wright.
Hell, Patty Noonan's column just the other day basically said that
because Obama is friends with Wright, it means that he hates the
Wright brothers.
|4.28.08 @ 6:38PM|#
Who, Paul? Yeah, he was kind of a dick. Nobody makes a
zealot like a good ol' convert.
Thass true...ever have a conversation with an ex-smoker or some
joker who has been through the twelve steps? [or former
Catholics...hmmmm]
Egad.
No, I was referencing the Big J himself, given that your example
of
What do you think happens to the psyche of a teenage boy when
you tell him that considering unspoken the girl-next-door's tits to
be hot is an affront to the LORD?
was spoken by him. Anybody who said "Lustful thoughts are sins"
clearly intended to deny human nature, and to make people feel bad
about it makes Jesus an asshole.
|4.28.08 @ 6:40PM|#
So i guess now any criticism of the moonbat left by anyone
is now an attack on their patriotism.
Just like how the right took up "victimhood politics" because it
worked so well for left, now has the left picked up the "military
service = unquestionable patriotism", because the right has used it
so effectively.
I just want to say this: military service gives you authority to
speak on military matters, and military matters ONLY.
Servicemembers viewpoints should not be considered more valid or
revered just because they volunteered to go to war. The end.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Much better discussion than I would have believed would develop
out of this topic.
I disagree with dbcooper...
Here's the thread winner:
"In reflection, the hermeneutic is at least as Freudian as it is
Nietzschean, the way I wrote it there."
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 6:47PM|#
For what it is worth, I believe that a close reading of
Revelations will reveal that Paul was the anti-christ and has led
many away from the important message found in Jesus's
teaching.
Which are worth reading, regardless of whether you believe they are
perfect, divine, or God-inspiring/world creating.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 6:52PM|#
No, I was referencing the Big J himself, given that your
example of
What do you think happens to the psyche of a teenage boy when you
tell him that considering unspoken the girl-next-door's tits to be
hot is an affront to the LORD?
was spoken by him.
You have more faith that the gospel's have accurately recorded the
words of the Big J than I do, for sure.
By the time Matthew was written, I am not sure everyone's
recollection maintained the appropriate fidelity. A half-century
long "pass it along" game will always allow in some
distortions.
Not to mention that there may be a different message lurking in the
actual bible passage than the interpretation you give it.
Kolohe|4.28.08 @ 6:57PM|#
I just want to say this: military service gives you
authority to speak on military matters, and military matters ONLY.
Servicemembers viewpoints should not be considered more valid or
revered just because they volunteered to go to war. The
end.
I would be even more limited than this. It gives you some personal
insight on how things actually work (or don't) at whatever level
you wound up. But as for 'grand strategy' stuff - i.e. anything
decided on a political level - it makes you no more (or less)
qualified than a 'civilian' who gives the matter proper study and
thought.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 6:59PM|#
No, I was referencing the Big J himself, given that your
example of
What do you think happens to the psyche of a teenage boy when you
tell him that considering unspoken the girl-next-door's tits to be
hot is an affront to the LORD?
was spoken by him. Anybody who said "Lustful thoughts are sins"
clearly intended to deny human nature, and to make people feel bad
about it makes Jesus an asshole.
Well, I think that that is somewhat mitigated by two factors:
1. He was busy criticizing a society and religious power structure
that was obsessed with "ritual cleanliness". He was essentially
running around shouting at the top of his lungs:
"You think you're clean? You think you're FUCKING clean? You think
that's gonna save your scrawny ass? YOU AREN'T CLEAN! NOBODY'S
CLEAN!!! YOU'VE THOUGHT ABOUT TITS, TOO!!!" at all the arrogant
holier-than-thou religious leaders of the day.
2. And he followed up the above with "but I love you anyway."
In short, I think his point was that everyone sins, and that
forgiveness and humility must be part-and-parcel of holiness, not
just piety or cleanliness.
I agree that he overestimated the amount to which human beings can
control their urges, and also wildly underestimated the extent to
which people two millenia hence would no longer have his context
(nor his tone of voice) to suss out what he might have meant beyond
the bare meanings of his words.
Because of these faults among his decently accumulated virtues, I
consider him to be a very wise and crafty rabbi, but no deity's
son.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 6:59PM|#
That "half-century" is, of course, the shortest estimate...and
assumes that Matthew was written by Matthew.
If not, which is likely, the chance for fidelity goes down
considerably.
Note, much biblical scholarship follows pretty rigorous scientific
methods and is carried out both by people of faith and atheists.
Some denominations make of doctrinal point regarding the
fallibility of the source texts and place emphasis on the
individual's personal faith and personal relationship with god and
the universe.
That, of course, exempts those denominations from some of the
arguments made above.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 7:03PM|#
I realize, of course, that my comments may now result in a discussion of whether "scientific methods" really apply in fields like archeology or history...
Barry|4.28.08 @ 7:03PM|#
"The BVS, among other things, pointedly rejects "the pursuit of
middleclassness" as a strategy through which "captor" majorities
neuter the threat of revolt by "captive" groups."
And staying poor (while hoping to strike it rich in music or
sports)is really a threat to the status quo.
Wright (and the leftist social-worker industry) want a perpetually
dependant underclass that needs their "help".
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 7:13PM|#
Nice interpretation LMNOP...
Congrats on the thread win, btw.
Thanks. First the elevation to "elemenepope" and now this. I'm on a
roll, tonight! :)
As to whether scientific methods apply, re: archaeology and
history; I'd say that Neil Postman's argument (following the
consequences of Popper) that social "sciences" function more to
create coherent narratives than to test falsifiable hypotheses is
fairly persuasive, though that should not in any way be taken to
suggest that their methods are less rigorous...just not strictly
"scientific".
Geotpf|4.28.08 @ 7:15PM|#
CNN played extensive clips of Wright's press conference. He was hamming it up and having a good ol' time. Heck, about 80% of what he said made sense (all until he was asked about his comments that the US government created AIDS to kill black people or something).
|4.28.08 @ 7:32PM|#
If a prophet says that God has personally told him that the
world will end next Tuesday and it doesn't, everything else he says
God told him is revealed to be stupid...
This, from somebody who would pose as the arbiter of rationality.
You would fail freshman Logic with a statement like that.
If a prophet is wrong about something material in the world, it
means he is wrong about everything.
But only prophets! Not anybody else, oh no. Only the people Fluffy
finds annoying.
|4.28.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Ayn Randian,
Is your faith and the Sacred Scripture inerrant or not,
joe?
Yes, sacred scriptures tell eternal truths, which men were inspired
by God to write.
The problem is, they're only human, and the truths they gotten
glimpses of are often beyond human understanding, so they have to
use allegorical language, sometimes without understanding that's
what they're doing.
Scripture is not an unerring source of knowledge about the material
world. It's not TV Guide. The truths it reveals are of a different
kind. It is annoying when atheist fanatics, and other varieties of
religious fanatics, fail to understand that.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 7:40PM|#
But only prophets! Not anybody else, oh no. Only the people
Fluffy finds annoying.
Oh come on, Joe. Prophets take their claim to be prophets from
their having access to a supernatural unerring authority. That
raises the standards on them *a little*.
|4.28.08 @ 7:41PM|#
LMNOP,
but in some sense the Christians have done it to themselves by
endorsing a "if you aren't perfect, you are an evil
sinner!!!1!!1!eleventy-one!" treatment of the imperfections of
aspiring Christians (to say nothing of others!).
Yes. They shouldn't do that. This, and your next example, make a
great many assumptions about how all Christians live their
faith.
|4.28.08 @ 7:45PM|#
Fluffy,
If you are driven to so much distraction by the fact that
Christianity was able to reform itself, that's too bad for
you.
It says nothing about Christianity, or the truths it reveals, that
it has come to understand the world and the concept of truth
better.
You can keep referring to this reformation using words like
"dishonest" and "hide," but all those terms do is draw a little
frown next to the word "reform."
Yup, the faith has changed. Had it not, perpetually aggrieved
atheists like yourself would be annoyed that it HADN'T
changed.
Not my problem.
|4.28.08 @ 7:48PM|#
Ayn Randian,
I would say that, given that the progenitor of the whole
shebang set up a lot of those impossible standards, it was meant to
be this way. Ditto for that atheist, Buddha.
A man's reach should exceed his grasp. It gives us something to
work for. If you think Jesus of Nazareth, who could have gotten an
army of Jewish nationalists at his back by snapping his fingers but
decided to be tortured and murdered instead, was simply trying to
exert control, you don't know very much about the subject you're
holding forth about.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Scripture is not an unerring source of knowledge about the
material world. It's not TV Guide.
I LOL'd earlier, but for this one I ROFL'd.
Yes. They shouldn't do that. This, and your next example, make
a great many assumptions about how all Christians live their
faith.
Well, to be fair both to reality and to Christianity, I made an
assumption based on a great deal of observation of the actual
behavior of a goodly number of Christians. Certainly not all
Christians do this, perhaps not even most. However, the most
popular ways to teach, experience, and live Christianity these days
have copious amounts of the very thing which you (rightfully, I
think) criticize.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 7:52PM|#
LMNOP Calidore,
RE: scientific
I concur.
Of course the narratives that are created even by "hard science"
are not strictly "scientific" in the strictest sense...Only
specific hypotheses that help support those narratives.
|4.28.08 @ 7:53PM|#
Jamie Kelly,
Does joe believe in spreading the Gospel, or is it just that
joe feels all warm and fuzzy with the faith he was raised
into?
Yes, but conditionally. joe would heartily endorse spreading the
good news, and encouraging people with a void to find sustenance
from it, but if someone is happy and fulfilled by their Shinto
faith, and they don't get anything from reading the New Testament,
there's no point in hammering away at them. A kind, devout old
Shinto lady isn't going to be better by converting to
Catholicism.
Does joe believe that the world would be a better place with
more Christians, or religious people in general?
Why, better off with more of the right sort, but worse off with
more of the wrong sort, of course.
|4.28.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Hrrm,
Without reading too much of this thread I suspect ya'll are making
much ado about nothing. Or at least not 350+ posts worth of
something.
That having been said, I am not about to read the thread to see if
I am Wright right so carry on.
|4.28.08 @ 8:00PM|#
LMNOP,
Prophets take their claim to be prophets from their having
access to a supernatural unerring authority.
And this makes the prophets themselves infallible? No, it does
not.
It is possible to tap into something and not get all the details
right. And then, of course, there are false prophets. Between the
two of these factors, religious people with modern minds do not
trust in the unerring pronouncements of prophets. Regardless of
whether people seeking to discredit religion entirely try to
convince you that we do.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 8:00PM|#
A nice talk regarding truth in science
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/194
Murray Gell-Mann (the quark guy)...
|4.28.08 @ 8:02PM|#
Elemenope,
Well, to be fair both to reality and to Christianity, I made an
assumption based on a great deal of observation of the actual
behavior of a goodly number of Christians. Certainly not all
Christians do this, perhaps not even most. However, the most
popular ways to teach, experience, and live Christianity these days
have copious amounts of the very thing which you (rightfully, I
think) criticize.
I can't argue with that. You are right, there are far too many,
still.
My kung fu, of course, is the best. As is my mother's pasta sauce.
Of course.
|4.28.08 @ 8:07PM|#
if someone is happy and fulfilled by their Shinto faith, and
they don't get anything from reading the New Testament, there's no
point in hammering away at them.
So, like you were told before, you're in love with the idea of
faith in general, not YOUR faith.
In your faith, you've been commanded to "make disciples of
all nations" because "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No
one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will
know my Father also."
So I suppose while you're all warm and fuzzy about little old
Shinto lady and her comforting beliefs, you're condemning her to
hell and sinning against God yourself by not "hammering away."
Mad Max|4.28.08 @ 8:08PM|#
Haven't read all the posts, so I'll just say to joe -
Ha ha ha! (strokes beard). My kung fu is the best, and nobody can
defeat me, not even you, Wong Fei-Hung! Ha ha ha!
|4.28.08 @ 8:11PM|#
so they have to use allegorical language, sometimes without
understanding that's what they're doing.
Which is a complete and total reversal of pronouncements made by
the pope and the Magisterium declaring the Scripture (as combined
with Sacred Ritual) to be the unerring Word of the Lord.
What's sad to me is you won't cop to the fact that Christianity
changed because it was proven wrong on so many temporal
issues. You've just shifted the debate so the circuit is complete
and the logic is circular.
|4.28.08 @ 8:14PM|#
So, like you were told before, you're in love with the idea
of faith in general, not YOUR faith.
I can only speak for myself.
Of course I think my faith is the best one, but I temper that idea
with some humility, some appreciation of the differences between
people, and of the inherently subjective, personal, culturally- and
historically-bound nature of one's relationship with and
understanding of the divine.
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father
also."
And what the "I" means in that statement has been the subject of
centuries of dispute. Jesus, personally? His religious doctrines?
The light of the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit come in the same
form to everyone?
That nasty little paragraph you ended with a perfect example of the
juvenile, straw-man version of faith I've been talking about. It
is, of course, possible and common for a Christian to understand
that teaching otherwise than the flat-brained, straight-line,
thuggish spin you put on it, but there are two particular varieties
of thugs who find that spin incredibly appealing.
|4.28.08 @ 8:22PM|#
Which is a complete and total reversal of pronouncements
made by the pope and the Magisterium declaring the Scripture (as
combined with Sacred Ritual) to be the unerring Word of the
Lord.
The Magesterium has not taught that the Bible is literal truth in
my lifetime, nor that Scripture, except for the few sections of the
Gospels that quote Jesus, is the Word of the Lord.
You don't know your subject matter, A.R. You spout these
half-informed misinterpretations, and presume to hold me to account
for not agreeing with them?
What's sad to me is you won't cop to the fact that Christianity
changed because it was proven wrong on so many temporal
issues. Actually, I've acknowledged that about a dozen times
already. I've put up a whole passel of comments about reform, and
faith learning its proper sphere, which make exactly that point.
You're just out of sorts because I won't make the irrational leap
you wish of me, to claim that being proven wrong on the literalness
of the creation story means that the deeper truths that have
nothing to do with literal readings about material matters have
been disproven as well.
|4.28.08 @ 8:25PM|#
Jesus's words were very clear, joe. I'm not the one putting spin
on things here.
I'm curious, joe, why can't I just take the entire story of Jesus
as a misinterpreted allegory? Why not the whole Bible?
Which fables of the Bible do you take to have actually happened,
factually speaking, and which are just "metaphorical
allegories"?
|4.28.08 @ 8:31PM|#
Lord knows, atheists don't fear death.
Nope.
And they certainly don't create any big, heroic belief systems to
help them cope with it.
Or cryogenically freeze themselves. Or greedily read posts on web
sites about physical immortality.
As someone who looks at the teachings about the afterlife as being
one of the biggest struggles of my faith - as in, not being sure
there even is one - it's amusing to see that singled out by the
armchair psychologists as the grand explanation for why I choose to
have a religious life.
|4.28.08 @ 8:31PM|#
You don't know your subject matter, A.R.
No, joe, I really, really do know my subject matter, and so do you.
You just don't like where it leads under the proper interpretation,
probably because of deep cultural roots and/or familial
associations with the Church.
Face it: you'll take as allegorical those things which don't
conform to what you know is right, and you'll take as literal those
things that are benign and/or "good" in your view.
You're just out of sorts because I won't make the irrational
leap you wish of me
I am not the one who believes in an omnipotent Being, in the face
of no evidence for its existence.
Your faith is, by definition, irrational.
|4.28.08 @ 8:33PM|#
Lord knows, atheists don't fear death.
Strawman.
nd they certainly don't create any big, heroic belief systems
to help them cope with it.
Like what?
I'll repeat the question, since you missed it: Which stories in the
Bible should be taken as allegory, and which as literal Truth and
historical fact?
|4.28.08 @ 8:34PM|#
Jesus's words were very clear, joe.
Uh huh.
The above statement is the equivalent of a fifty foot blinking sign
reading "I'm an intolerant asshole."
Yup, crystal clear. They could only possibly mean the one thing you
want them to mean. Of course. All of those people who find
different meanings in them...they're just wrong.
If there's on thing we can sure about, it's that people who don't
take religion seriously can reliably hit upon the ONE TRUE MEANING
of the Bible at a glance.
Which fables of the Bible do you take to have actually
happened, factually speaking, and which are just "metaphorical
allegories"? They all happened, in one sense or another. It's
just a matter of figuring out the proper sense.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 8:35PM|#
Ayn Randian,
As anyone who has read Rand should be aware, it is not the truth of
the words that matters the most in the formation of a belief, but
the way those words resonate with your understanding of the
world.
How much of Rand's objectivism should be taken as literal truth,
and how much as metaphor aimed at deeper understanding?
Which version of Objectivism is correct? Ayn Rand's orthodoxy or
the heretical teachings of The Atlas Society?
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 8:36PM|#
And this makes the prophets themselves infallible? No, it
does not.
It is possible to tap into something and not get all the details
right. And then, of course, there are false prophets. Between the
two of these factors, religious people with modern minds do not
trust in the unerring pronouncements of prophets.
I agree, but then again I didn't say "infallible", only *slightly
higher standards*. I think it isn't too much to ask of a divine
source that *many* or even *some* of the physical details will
accord with what we found out later through arduous scientific
means, even allowing for poetic language or hard concepts given the
contemporary state of understanding and language. Not all of these
errors can be explained as the product of wanting for the proper
metaphor.
Regardless of whether people seeking to discredit religion
entirely try to convince you that we do.
Though I'm usually pretty gentle (a "sheep in wolf's clothing," as
one of my friends with faith said), I *am* one of those people.
Unlike my compadres, I don't usually whip out the whole "look how
many scientific mistakes Isaiah made". Cause that's mean, partially
unfair, and not my style. I do think that the "inerrant word" thing
does clash some with the whole "whoops, rabbits don't chew cud and
Pi isn't equal to 3" thing, and these things ought to be addressed
instead of minimized for the convenience of the modern mind.
|4.28.08 @ 8:38PM|#
No, joe, I really, really do know my subject
matter
No, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't claim that the Roman
Catholic Church teaches Biblical literalism, or that the entire
Bible contains the unerring transcription of the divine word.
If you knew your subject matter, you wouldn't have so misused the
term "the Word of the Lord."
You're holding forth on doctrine you don't actually know, and
insisting that everyone else agrees with you, when they plainly
don't.
You know what? I don't need to waste my time with you anymore.
You've simply devolved into "Nuh-uh, you know I'm right."
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 8:39PM|#
Your faith is, by definition, irrational.
Joe admitted that, like, two hundred posts ago.
If you're gonna fight, fight fair.
|4.28.08 @ 8:40PM|#
Your faith is, by definition, irrational.
I believe I stated that six hours ago.
You, on the other hand, wish to claim that your beliefs are
rational, so i still get to ping you for your faulty logic.
|4.28.08 @ 8:44PM|#
You, on the other hand, wish to claim that your beliefs are
rational, so i still get to ping you for your faulty
logic.
Incredible. You hide behind your faith and assert it as
unassailable because it doesn't deal it facts, but you have the
audacity to "ping" people for their perceived errors.
You can't reason someone out of something they weren't
reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift
Guess we both learned a valuable lesson.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 8:45PM|#
367? joe and Neil must be here.
Joe's a recent arrival and Neil quit like six hours ago.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 8:48PM|#
Ayn Randian,
Doesn't look like you learned much today, from an outside view
based on your posts, at least.
|4.28.08 @ 8:50PM|#
A guy named Ayn Randian, asking what big, heroic ideas atheists
build to make up for their smallness in the universe?
A guy who calls himself Ayn Randian?
Dude.
Look inward for once.
|4.28.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Doesn't look like you learned much today, from an outside
view based on your posts, at least.
Get out of my head, Neu!
Oh, wait, you're not in there, so you wouldn't know.
|4.28.08 @ 8:52PM|#
A guy named Ayn Randian, asking what big, heroic ideas
atheists build to make up for their smallness in the
universe?
What do they build, joe?
Why are you so insistent that man is small in the universe? I
suppose you only care about physical, literal size, rather
than the size and power of ideas.
Which is fine; just don't uplift yourself as some kind of "lover of
humanity"...you think man is just a speck, powerless in a vast
void.
Mad Max|4.28.08 @ 8:54PM|#
Wait - just read a few more posts.
Way to go, joe!
And props to Neu Mejican for the comments on the Objectivist
mythology.
|4.28.08 @ 8:54PM|#
I think it isn't too much to ask of a divine source that
*many* or even *some* of the physical details will accord with what
we found out later through arduous scientific means, even allowing
for poetic language or hard concepts given the contemporary state
of understanding and language.
I do.
God isn't a physics book. He isn't a TV Guide. God uses, and the
people trying express His message use, concepts that their audience
will understand, to reveal deeper truths.
Not all of these errors can be explained as the product of
wanting for the proper metaphor. They are the proper metaphor,
if they revealed the underlying meaning to the people who heard
them.
That's why it's a mistake to focus on the surface things, or to
read the Bible without always keeping an eye on the society of the
time.
Neu Mejican|4.28.08 @ 8:54PM|#
Ayn Randian,
I tried to include that hedge in my statement.
I have no idea what you learned today.
Objectively speaking, of course.
;^)
Seriously, are you an Ayn Rand literalist, or do you buy David
Kelly's argument that it is a living system that will continue to
evolve through the efforts of her followers?
Is the belief system that makes up Objectivism fixed or
mutable?
|4.28.08 @ 8:54PM|#
They all happened, in one sense or another. It's just a
matter of figuring out the proper sense.
Shorter joe: "I don't know. I'm gonna make it up as I go and pick
what I like from my faith."
|4.28.08 @ 8:57PM|#
You hide behind your faith and assert it as unassailable
because it doesn't deal it facts, but you have the audacity to
"ping" people for their perceived errors.,/I.
Yup. If you wish to make arguments based on logic, use coherent
logic, or your claims of logic will be shredded.
I haven't made any claims that my faith is logical.
Guess we both learned a valuable lesson. You didn't realize that
faith is called faith because it's based on faith? Glad I could
help.
For my part, I already knew that people who try to use logic to
understand faith will fail.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 8:58PM|#
Geez. I leave for five minutes and everyone gets all
nasty.
Not really fair to accuse A_R of not learning anything. You could
more narrowly accuse him of not learning something specific, like
"humility", but nobody on this board is particularly humble,
so...
Gonna chuckle a little on the whole "for a guy named
Ayn_Randian..." thing though. Fair or not, the low-hanging fruit is
sometimes the juiciest.
|4.28.08 @ 8:59PM|#
I tried to include that hedge in my statement.
My fault. My Apologies.
Seriously, are you an Ayn Rand literalist, or do you buy David
Kelly's argument that it is a living system that will continue to
evolve through the efforts of her followers?
well, I'll say this first: I'm not even sure Ayn Rand was an Ayn
Rand literalist. It would have been pretty arrogant for her to
assume that she had the Final Say on all things Objectivism. I
don't believe she ever asserted such a thing (though there are
those who have).
I would say, of course Objectivism is going to evolve,
because man is always learning new facts. I'd say there isn't a lot
of room for change, though...most likely in politics, if anywhere.
Oh, and definitely in art...there's no way that "romantic realism"
is the end-all be-all of art.
I don't know if I see much change coming from metaphysics,
epistemology or ethics, however.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 9:00PM|#
And, for the record, mankind *is* basically a speck in the void
.And it's a big-assed void. Like, Bedonkidonk big.
"Powerless", whatever that may mean, is open to debate.
|4.28.08 @ 9:02PM|#
I haven't made any claims that my faith is
logical.
in that you assert that faith is good for people, you have. That's
really what is at the root of the discussion: is a dose of
irrationality good for people?
Even if it is true that people need ritual and dogma, the Christian
Church sucks at providing people life-enhancing spiritual
fulfillment...which, of course, is why it keeps moving the
goalposts.
|4.28.08 @ 9:02PM|#
What do they build, joe?
I'm not going to answer that. I think it would do you good to
ponder it.
... the size and power of ideas
Getting warmer. Go with that.
Why are you so insistent that man is small in the
universe? I don't. I was using that term to characterize
atheists.
..you think man is just a speck, powerless in a vast void.
I think I made in the image of God, and on my better days, that my
soul is immortal. I'm not on the side that insists humanity is just
its material form. That would be you.
Mad Max|4.28.08 @ 9:05PM|#
While there have been many (misconceived) attacks on
Christianity's attitude toward women, what about Objectivism's
attitude?
Like Catholicism, Objectivism sets one woman apart for special
veneration. Unlike Catholicism, the women to be venerated is Ayn
Rand, a bed-hopping hack novelist and would-be philosopher.
As for other women, Objectivism (if we *literally* interpret their
holy books) sees them at best as incomplete, just waiting to be
raped by a Real Man (TM).
|4.28.08 @ 9:05PM|#
Shorter joe: "I don't know. I'm gonna make it up as I go and
pick what I like from my faith."
Hmph. First, he's Mr. Big Ideas. Then, suddenly, there is no role
for the individual in understanding the universe.
It doesn't bother me that you so mischaracterize the experience and
struggle of faith. You don't know anything about it, and it
shows.
|4.28.08 @ 9:07PM|#
I'm not going to answer that. I think it would do you good
to ponder it.
Shorter joe: "I'm gonna cop out and pretend it's a "lesson".
And I see Mad Max is trolling. Knock yourself out, kiddo.
|4.28.08 @ 9:08PM|#
You don't know anything about it, and it shows.
Get over yourself, joe. No one gives a holy damn about your
struggle.
Feel free to come down from the cross anytime.
|4.28.08 @ 9:08PM|#
in that you assert that faith is good for people, you
have.
No, the link between "good" and "rational" exists only in your
head.
Much of what is good in the world is wholly irrational.
It is only the cramped, cold, barrenness of your chosen ideology
that leads you to believe otherwise.
|4.28.08 @ 9:09PM|#
I write pretty short comments.
And my meaning is pretty clear, all by itself.
My, you are the bitter one.
|4.28.08 @ 9:12PM|#
My, you are the bitter one.
Hardly! I've been laughing over here pretty much the entire
time.
Much of what is good in the world is wholly
irrational.
Like...?
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 9:15PM|#
My turn to be a little mean. ;-0
I don't know if I see much change coming from metaphysics,
epistemology or ethics, however.
It's hard to make progress from a philosophical dead end.
OK, well, there are places to go with the ethics. Though her ethics
is kind of like what someone would write who read Nietzsche the way
fundies read the Bible. That is, fucking wrong. But just because
she read Nietzsche like a 'tard doesn't mean her *conclusions* were
wrong.
I'm not nice to Randians. Cause they're not nice to anyone else.
(Is that a stereotype? Perhaps. Ah well. I'm sure you're a nice
fellow, A_R.)
:)
|4.28.08 @ 9:18PM|#
Jesus's words were very clear, joe.
Uh huh.
The above statement is the equivalent of a fifty foot blinking sign
reading "I'm an intolerant asshole."
Oh, I see...the only thing to be clear about is that Jesus's words
weren't clear. The only thing to be intolerant about is
intolerance.
God uses, and the people trying express His message use,
concepts that their audience will understand, to reveal deeper
truths.
So, God intentionally created man so that man would not immediately
and clearly understand Him? Of course you realize how nonsensical
that is.
Elemenope|4.28.08 @ 9:19PM|#
Like...?
Why is it we drive in parkways, but park in driveways?
Why are Canadians so damned infuriatingly nice?
Why do cats put up with human inferiority?
Why do authors that can barely write dialogue gain a
following?
Why do religions persist in the face of psychology, science, and
modern life?
Why are people always wrong on the Internet?
|4.28.08 @ 9:21PM|#
That is, fucking wrong. But just because she read Nietzsche
like a 'tard doesn't mean her *conclusions* were wrong.
All true. There's so much misunderstanding with Rand, it's
incredible.
Like the presumption that she worshiped impossible superhero idols
for example. For some reason, people miss that Atlas Shrugged
anthropomorphizes an entire class of men, the middle class...the
productive and thinking class. They think Ayn Rand literally
only likes dudes like John Galt
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245