Editor's Cut

The Real Mother’s Day Tradition

posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 05/10/2007 @ 11:52am

"Arise then, women of this day! Arise all women who have hearts, whether your baptism be of water or of tears!" So begins the original Mother's Day proclamation of 1870, written by Julia Ward Howe, who also authored "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" as an anti-slavery activist in 1862.

In a new video by Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films, in collaboration with CODEPINK, Gloria Steinem explains the original intent behind Ward Howe's Mother's Day idea: "Mother's Day really was in its origin an anti-war day, an anti-war statement. Julia Ward Howe was sickened by what had happened during the Civil War--the loss of life, the carnage. And she created Mother's Day as a call for women all over the world, to come together, and create ways of protesting war, of making a kind of alternate government that could finally do away with war as an acceptable way of solving conflict."

"Say firmly: 'We will not have questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us reeking of carnage for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy, and patience….'"

The video renews the original Mother's Day call for women's leadership in pursuing peace, offering support for the organization No More Victims as a concrete way to take action and help Iraqi children who have been wounded in the war.

Alfre Woodard explains her motivation to take part in the video and support this Mother's Day renewal: "My mother used to say all the time, ‘I look after people's kids, because one day I know somebody will look after my kids. I feed people's kids, because I know somebody one day will feed my kids.' That informs a lot of who I am as a mother. That I know I'm not only parenting Mavis and Duncan, but I'm responsible for every child that comes through."

"Let them meet first as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead. Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace… to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace."

Women are indeed taking action this Mother's Day to "promote the great and general interests of peace" as Ward Howe advocated nearly 150 years ago. The Peace Alliance will be promoting H.R. 808--Representative Dennis Kucinich's legislation that would create a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. The bill now has 65 cosponsors and on Friday "Peace Pies" will be delivered to 150 Senators and Representatives from 38 states to encourage them to sign onto the bill. (A pie will be delivered to Sen. Hillary Clinton at her New York City office at 11:00 am.) There will be a sliver missing from each pie, representing less than 1 percent of the federal discretionary budget required to establish the proposed cabinet-level department.

Similar efforts to create ministries of peace are taking place throughout the world, including in England, Italy, Israel, Japan, and Canada. Here in the US the annual cost would be less than the current cost of just one month of war, according to Peace Alliance Executive Director, Dot Maver.

"Julia Ward Howe was a visionary," Maver says. "The Peace Alliance and each of the 50 individual state campaigns are working to establish a US Department of Peace to help make her dream of a world without war a reality."

"Why do not the mothers of mankind interfere in these matters to prevent the waste of that human life of which they alone bear and know the cost?" Ward Howe wrote in a journal entry.

CODEPINK certainly will continue to "interfere" in these matters of war. Its activists will be in DC on Thursday to lobby Congress on the Bush War and the Defense Budget, and also attend some notable hearings including Rep. John Murtha's on Contracting in Iraq (where Robert Greenwald and Nation contributor Jeremy Scahill are scheduled to testify). Throughout the weekend there will be theatre, film, discussions, a "Rock the Media" event, receptions, and other activities to promote peace and reinvigorate the original intention of Mother's Day.

The weekend will culminate with a Kids Peace March and Festival on Sunday, and a "Mother of A March" on Monday – when Cindy Sheehan calls on all mothers to surround Congress and demand an end to the occupation.

"From the bosom of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own, it says ‘Disarm! Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.'"

Chocolates are great, and should be given frequently and generously to mothers, partners and friends alike. But there is nothing – nothing – sweeter than peace. Julia Ward Howe understood that, and this weekend we mothers resolve once again to pursue her cause.

Comments (74)

  1. Ms vanden Heuvel, don't you find it a BIT ironic that the ONLY mother in the Presidential race, not only voted FOR this war, supported it enthusiastically (upto 18-24 months ago), and STILL refuses to apologize for her vote for it???

    Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 1:09pm

  2. Yes, Katrina, there is nothing sweeter than peace, but, like chocolate, it is sometimes necessary to move away from it. I think Howe understood that too. She certainly did when she wrote the Battle Hymn

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/10/2007 @ 1:30pm

  3. While I undersatnd the sickness the carnage of the civil war and the 4 year 600,000 casualties generated and I appreciate the devestation to the familys of the 3500 Men and women killed in Iraq...a day should be set aside to remember them specialy, but Mothers Day? Ok..

    But maybe we need a day from the CODEPINKS and the other usual suspects to commerate the 40,000+ killed on the highways or the murdered in the Nations Capital and the rest of the big city ,ah,..victims..if life is the focus of the demonstrations, but if it is polituical and anti Bush,..well...

    Posted by john maasch at 05/10/2007 @ 1:42pm

  4. In interpersonal relations, there is a cultural, social, legal and political ban placed upon individuals in just about every nation, society and culture of the world from using any form of violence whatsoever as a means of conflict resolution. Yet, in the run up to the war in Iraq, the majority of Americans rose up and approved of the President's plan to use violent means to settle diplomatic conflicts over inspections for weapons that every reputable and unmanipulated intelligence organization knew did not exist there at the time.

    In interpersonal relations, individuals caught in a relationship evincing symptoms of violence and abuse, individuals are counselled not to stay and fight it out with the aggressor, but to get out of the situation immediately, if not sooner. This is universally recognized as the only way to end a cycle of violence in interpersonal relations. Yet, our President continues to counsel us as a nation that we must give in to the cycle of violence, escalate that cycle of violence, and keep fighting unless or until we either kill every single one of our opponents or they submit to American force, authority and unilateral demands. Ironically, in this instance, the US was the original aggressor in Iraq, not the respondent to aggression.

    When it comes to morality, every religion on this planet contains within its tenets a proscription against killing. In the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Islamic tradition, there are no occasions during which killing of one human being by another is justified. "Thou shalt not kill," is the simple and complete comandment. No conditions like: 1) unless your life is in danger or your family or loved ones lives are in danger, or 2) self defense, or 3) to apprehend a criminal who is escaping, or 4) capital punishment for some offense against individuals, nations, societies, cultures or any other group. In the Bible, there is no condition under which it is alleged God accepted killing of one human being by another as acceptible. Nations have codified this by enacting laws to protect indioviduals and groups from homicide. Yet, for some strange reason, this self-professed Christian who has conversations with God not only tells us we must kill other human beings to save our culture and our way of life, and as revenge for what occurred during 9/11 (for which Iraqis had no role), but also stands for capital punishment. (* Some may suggest that the phrase "an eye for an eye..." gives humanity the moral authority for taking others lives if the others deserve capital punishment or during war. However, that passage is cited inaccurately when cited out of context in that frame of reference since the whole passage, in context, concludes with "Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord." The point of that passage is that God takes care of punishing the unjust, it isn't humans' place to do that. Jesus continued that teaching in two ways - one when he stopped the stoning of Mary Magdalene ("Let he who among you who is without sin cast the first stone") and the other when he taught humans to "...turn the other cheek." There is no moral authority in the Bible for ever taking another life in any circumstance whatsoever. I see Bible thumpers demand an end to abortion, but, nealy always, the very same people are perfectly happy to support the prosecution of a war and capital punishment.

    I'd like to see the end of these hypocracies and an end to barbarism. In that vein, I agree with the stance taken by Julia Ward Howe.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 2:23pm

  5. In the Bible, there is no condition under which it is alleged God accepted killing of one human being by another as acceptible.

    Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 2:23pm

    I'm sorry...what "Bible" is that? Not this one-

    "The Lord has sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." Genesis 17:14-16

    Genesis 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

    Genesis 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

    Genesis 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

    Genesis 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ...continued until ...Genesis17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

    Joshua 8:22 And the other issued out of the city against them; so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, and some on that side: and they smote them, so that they let none of them remain or escape.

    I Samuel 14:12 And the men of the garrison answered Jonathan and his armourbearer, and said, Come up to us, and we will shew you a thing. And Jonathan said unto his armourbearer, Come up after me: for the LORD hath delivered them into the hand of Israel....leading to I Samuel 14:14 And that first slaughter, which Jonathan and his armourbearer made, was about twenty men, within as it were an half acre of land, which a yoke of oxen might plow.

    II Kings 1:10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

    And let's not let Jesus off the hook, who's telling the Jews that they are forgetting the commandment of God to KILL those who "curseth father and mother"...

    Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (7:9-10)

    Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

    Mark 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

    Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 2:48pm

  6. OK, I'll stand corrected in theory on the basis of the things you said. Then, I'll just shake my head and wonder at the morality of apologists for murderers, under any and ALL circumstances as well as the religious traditions that make the apologies and find acceptances for murder in any circumstance.

    Oh, and I'll leave it to the apologists for murderers to rationalize in their own minds the clear contradictions in the cites Masks lists and the cites I mentioned. Just, clearly inconsistent, incongruous and hypocritical. And, anyone who bases their belief systems on this mismashed hodgepodge of moral and ethical hypocracy and inconsistency, well, good luck getting to that heaven you believe in.

    I'll continue to steer away from superstition - which is all religion is.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 3:09pm

  7. Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 3:09pm

    Heck, LENN, LVLIBERTY can give you "evidence" that God/Jesus would support NUKING whole cities.

    BTW, I agree with you on your "steering".

    Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 3:23pm

  8. "Why do not the mothers of mankind interfere in these matters to prevent the waste of that human life of which they alone bear and know the cost?" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Becuase they are too busy banging on the glass ceiling, and trying to pay for and justify making the "poor women" raise thier children.

    As for Hillary, she is too busy banging on the marble ceiling, and trying to build her "commander in chief" credentials by supporting this awful war, and then trying to pretend that she could have executed it better, and now offering symbolic legislation to reverse her war authorization that will not bring back to life all of the mother's sons that she sent to die for a lie.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/10/2007 @ 3:25pm

  9. Heck, LENN, LVLIBERTY can give you "evidence" that God/Jesus would support NUKING whole cities.

    BTW, I agree with you on your "steering".

    Posted by MASK 05/10/2007 @ 3:23pm | ignore this person

    1 Samuel 15:3

    As disturbing as that might be.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/10/2007 @ 3:29pm

  10. "Say firmly: 'We will not have questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us reeking of carnage for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy, and patience….'" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    I think Codepink would re-write it this way:

    "Say firmly: 'We will not have questions decided by irrelevant agencies, WE WILL CHAIR THOSE COMMITTEES AND DECIDE THOSE SAME DECISIONS OURSELVES. Our husbands shall not come to us reeking of carnage for caresses and applause, WE WILL SEND OUR OWN SONS TO DIE FOR MY RIGHT TO WORK SO THAT WE CAN DRIVE SUVs AND LIVE IN MCMANSIONS. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy, and patience…, MOSTLY BECAUSE WE WERE TOO BUSY WORKING AND DRINKING FAIR TRADE COFFEE TO TEACH THEM ANY OF THOSE THINGS AND THE MINIMUM WAGE NANNY WAS TOO STUPID TO TEACH THEM.'"

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/10/2007 @ 3:35pm

  11. "Say firmly: 'We will not have questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us reeking of carnage for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy, and patience….'" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    I think Codepink would re-write it this way:

    "Say firmly: 'We will not have questions decided by irrelevant agencies, WE WILL CHAIR THOSE COMMITTEES AND DECIDE THOSE SAME DECISIONS OURSELVES. Our husbands shall not come to us reeking of carnage for caresses and applause, WE WILL SEND OUR OWN SONS TO DIE FOR MY RIGHT TO WORK SO THAT WE CAN DRIVE SUVs AND LIVE IN MCMANSIONS. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy, and patience…, MOSTLY BECAUSE WE WERE TOO BUSY WORKING AND DRINKING FAIR TRADE COFFEE TO TEACH THEM ANY OF THOSE THINGS AND THE MINIMUM WAGE NANNY WAS TOO STUPID TO TEACH THEM.'"

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/10/2007 @ 3:36pm

  12. "The Lord has sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." Genesis 17:14-16

    A statement of a perpetual condition between God and some other entity (and you may educate me who if you like, but I sure don't know who - is Amalek Satan?). Nonetheless, nothing in this citation says humans should or could enjoin in this war or that this war is to be prosecuted by violence of any kind. Maybe it does on later, but not what you wrote here.

    Genesis 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

    By whom? This does not say by humans. If you want to correlate with the cites I mentioned for the sake of consistency, then, put to death by God not humans. Got another cite that says it's humans to do this?

    Genesis 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

    So, God said kill slaveholders and slave traders?

    Genesis 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

    And, merely issuing a curse to parents earns death according to God? Such a wonderfully loving, understanding, forgiving God you have here.

    Genesis 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ...continued until ...Genesis17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

    Now, for not believing in this God but some other god or goddess, whether or not the individual ever even heard of or was taught about this God, that individual would be put to death by God. Again, how forgiving, how understanding, how loving, and espeecially how just is this God you so adore.

    Joshua 8:22 And the other issued out of the city against them; so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, and some on that side: and they smote them, so that they let none of them remain or escape.

    This is a statement alleging a fact of history, not a statement by God it is ok to kill.

    I Samuel 14:12 And the men of the garrison answered Jonathan and his armourbearer, and said, Come up to us, and we will shew you a thing. And Jonathan said unto his armourbearer, Come up after me: for the LORD hath delivered them into the hand of Israel....leading to I Samuel 14:14 And that first slaughter, which Jonathan and his armourbearer made, was about twenty men, within as it were an half acre of land, which a yoke of oxen might plow.

    Does not say here God gave anyone permission to kill anyone. Also does not say here God actually intended to deliver the men for the violent engagement, it only say here that a man, a fallible human made the remark, which was nothing more the the same kind of self serving remark that Bush constantly utters to support his war.

    II Kings 1:10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

    I wold offer a different interpretation of that which you insinuate by including this here. This says God did the killing by fire. God did not give Elijah the right to do the killing. God took care of it. This is, again, in perfect harmony with my own reading of an eye for an eye cited above.

    And let's not let Jesus off the hook, who's telling the Jews that they are forgetting the commandment of God to KILL those who "curseth father and mother"...

    Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (7:9-10)

    Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

    Mark 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

    Well, here it says Jesus cited Moses as the authority for killing those who do not honor their parents, not God specifically. Though I will concede, in the scheme of this theology, Moses spoke as a proxy for God, Jesus attributes this law to Moses and not to God through Moses. Being the alleged son of this God, Jesus should know the accuracy of who said it. He hangs it on Moses. Also it goes on to say, "... let him die," not kill him. This is not a direct admonition to kill anyone, but to, again, let God do his job and kill the perp.

    Oh, final point, if you accept Mash's version of what these things mean, you accept a God who uttered contradictory statements (those presented by Mash and those first presented by me). Now, to be contradictory, or to say things that are mutually exclusive as both being moral imperatives is to make an error. To make an error is to be fallible. To be fallible, by definition, is to be other-than-God. So, are we reading a book by God or Satan or humans made up by humans to fulfill needs of ancient humans for a variety of survival needs?

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 3:37pm

  13. Heck, LENN, LVLIBERTY can give you "evidence" that God/Jesus would support NUKING whole cities.

    BTW, I agree with you on your "steering".

    Posted by MASK 05/10/2007 @ 3:23pm

    Sodom and Gamorah ?

    Posted by john maasch at 05/10/2007 @ 3:53pm

  14. God did the killing (through his proxy an angel) at Sodom and Gamorrah, not humans. God did not abdicate his responsibility to humans, he executed his responsibility himself.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 3:55pm

  15. I find it hilarious that it is constantly Christians in this country who want to find excuses upon which they can find moral authority for killing. Don't get me wrong, I am not indicting Christianity or all Christians. There are a lot of Christians who do not believe in killing, look at the Quakers. But, you do not find athiests in this country are the people begging the rest of the country to kill more people. It is always the Christians who take that position.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 3:58pm

  16. Oh, and I guess, "Do unto others..." is another one of those things that gives any human the right to take any other human life in any situation?

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 4:01pm

  17. Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 3:37pm

    LENNONIST, not sure what point you're trying to make. On one hand you eschew the "Christians" who use the Old Testament to justify killing and provide opposite interpretations of the verses....

    but then you say that the Bible is a book "made up by humans to fulfill needs of ancient humans for a variety of survival needs"....

    you don't need to do both. Either the book is the "Word of God", but is being interpreted wrongly....or is just a collection of stories by imperfect men and doesn't need ANY interpretation to be considered flawed. (since even the Bible says nothing Man makes can be perfect...hehe)

    As for your interpretation analysis, it's mostly correct. Although there are many examples (Joshua for one) where God DOES bless and sanctify those humans (like Joshua) who carry out war and wholesale slaughter of other people. Thereby by any legal standard, ABETTING that murder, if not endorsing it.

    Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 4:24pm

  18. Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/10/2007 @ 4:16pm

    Actually, celebrations of maternity go back to the Romans and the Cybele and "Matronalia" festivals. So you actually have to give credit to....PRE-Christian Romans!

    "rouse their minions and denegrate more servicemen and women and their families outside of Walter Reed just for more good fun as they have in the past!" ---Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/10/2007 @ 4:20pm

    Curious...when did they do that?

    Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 4:26pm

  19. Mask, I am simply trying to point out the moral hypocracy in Christians, and it does seem to me (though I could be wrong and am willing to admit that about this next statement) to be primarily the Christian right who are the only ones left who support the war. You are the individual who argued against my position. Therefore, I supported my contention. I also believe this discussion is imperative to efforts to bring people together in a consensus on the war and the need to conclude it. As far as the comments I made that indicate my disdain for religion, well, I just don't want the world thinking I am a Christian myself. I also find it significant to point out that it is, by and large, the non-Christian Americans who have steadfastly opposed the war from the bewginning, not the Christians who, in my dealings with them, like to take a tone of moral superiority with everyone who doesn't buy into their propoganda and hypocracy.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 4:36pm

  20. God said to Moses in Exodus 17:14 "Write this in a book as a memorial, and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/10/2007 @ 4:29pm

    Look carefully at the wording from the Rabbi whose position is included here, this says God will do the blotting out, not humans. The italicized part then says something with regard to God authorized the nation of Israel to exterminate these enemies. Well, that ain't what the Biblical quote cited says, it says God will do it. This is still not a Biblical authorization for a human to take any other human life.

    LV, I didn't say God did not have the authority, according to and in the Bible, to take human life. I said God reserves that express right solely for himself in the Bible. I have yet to see anyone here cite an accurate passage from the Bible wherein God says, hey you, go kill someone, and I'll make you a hero for it as opposed to damning you to hell for it. Oh, and by the way, every word written in the Bible was written by men who also had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, for from that position did their power flow.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 4:45pm

  21. Heck, LENN, LVLIBERTY can give you "evidence" that God/Jesus would support NUKING whole cities.

    Posted by MASK 05/10/2007 @ 3:23pm

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/10/2007 @ 4:29pm

    See? Told ya. Don't buy into that "Prince of Peace" stuff about Jesus either....as LL can clearly show, Jesus would have whole-heartedly endorsed us vaporizing a couple million Chinese during the Korean War (and threatening a few million Russians with it), in order to grant Douglas MacArthur a "real" victory on the Peninsula. When it comes to total war, the Son of God likes a winner and a radioactive loser, not some pansy-ass "turn the other cheek" "all men are brothers" crap!

    BLOG | Posted 01/10/2007 @ 11:47am Comments for "Surge Homeward" by Katrina vanden Heuvel

    3-5 nuclear weapons against China and a threat to Russia to keep in line or they would have been next would have given the world a much better opportunity for peace than we have seen as a result of not letting MacArthur achieve the victory that we should have.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm

    Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 4:52pm

  22. With regard to athieism, LV, you argue against it from the position of a believer, and you present arguments only from a single point of view.

    There is a movement in philosophy called existentialism. A particular and significant tenet of most of those who adhere to that philosophy is that, in a universe where there is no God, we are all required to be our own saints. In other words, existential athiests take the position that it is a moral imperative to be kind to others, to help others, to care for those less fortunate, not to steal, lie, kill, cheat, etc.

    It isn't athiests who will go to a Planned Parenthood and endanger lives and sometimes injury or kill people because of their terrorist activities. Nope. It hasn't been athiests who have supported the death penalty. It isn't athiests who sought to prosecute this war and who want to continue to perpetrate the atrocities on the innocent Iraqi people. Nope, it's Christians doing that.

    With regard to the greedy, the mighty and the powerful that LV alludes to and insists are athiests, name three. I'll tell you three names of Christians who exemplify every single one of those attributes: George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice. The entire current culture of the US exemplifies all those vices, and you Christian rightwingers are the ones who keep isisting this is a Chruistian nation. You can't have that both ways.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 4:54pm

  23. Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 4:36pm

    Wasn't picking a fight, LENN....just pointing out that you can save yourself a lot of energy.

    No point in saying "The Bible was written by flawed men for their own spiritual agenda" AND say that "it's a poor interpretation that says 'God approves of mass slaughter'." As LL clearly shows, the Biblical God is a bloodthirsty ol' bastard...if Men wrote it (less "divine inspiration") that's not surprising. If it IS the "Word of God", we got a maniac at the wheel of the Universe...hehe.

    Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 4:56pm

  24. Oh, and with regard to God and killing and the death penalty, all you Christians, answer this one for me please from your own consciences and beliefs. There have been some varifiable instances where the wrong individdual was put to death in capital punishment. So, now, the verdict is, the State of... or the US of A finds so and so guilty of such and such and sentences them to... My question is, so, when a whole society takes a life in error, it is murder, is it not? And if it is murder, then are not all individuals who are a part of that body co-responsible for the murder? Is this not aiding and abetting, or accessory? Legally, it is, as the Nuremburg trials have established.

    You may not consider enforcing the death penalty on an innocent as being murder, but I do. And, again, I see nothing in the Bible that says, oh, poor children, if you get the wrong perp and kill in error, I'll absolve those sins. Nope.

    Again, good luck getting into your heaven.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 5:01pm

  25. Not trying to argue Mask. I am discussing here, not arguing. And all I wanted to do was have an accurate portrayal of the arguments included, most especially my side of them.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 5:03pm

  26. Jesus, who gave his own life rather than fight to save it and rather than incite his followers to save him. Jesus, who said turn the other cheek. Jesus, who said let he who among you is without sin cast the first stone. Jesus, who refused to incite a violent revolution from Rome even though that is what a huge proportion of his followers wanted and expected of a messiah.

    I could never see that guy saying kill any human under any circumstances.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 5:06pm

  27. Oh, and I don't want someone who doesn't think well for themself to come into this blog, see all the posts and think I just acceded to the arguments presented that God does believe there are times when killing is ok according to the Bible, when, as far as I can tell from all my reading (and yep, I've read it cover to cover numerous times), that just isn't the truth. I'd hate to think some kid turned to Christian superstition because I was too lazy to point out the fallacies and inconsistencies and improper attributions of the Bible insinuated by someone else.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 5:24pm

  28. "Jesus, who gave his own life rather than fight to save it and rather than incite his followers to save him. Jesus, who said turn the other cheek. Jesus, who said let he who among you is without sin cast the first stone. Jesus, who refused to incite a violent revolution from Rome even though that is what a huge proportion of his followers wanted and expected of a messiah."

    I could never see that guy saying kill any human under any circumstances."

    Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 5:06pm

    LENNON, the whole purpose of the life of Jesus and his dying on the cross was to fullfill the will of God and save man from God's ultimate wrath. If you have any understanding of the scriptures, it was our disobediance that separated us from his divinity.

    Posted by ACook at 05/10/2007 @ 6:20pm

  29. "There is a movement in philosophy called existentialism. A particular and significant tenet of most of those who adhere to that philosophy is that, in a universe where there is no God, we are all required to be our own saints. In other words, existential athiests take the position that it is a moral imperative to be kind to others, to help others, to care for those less fortunate, not to steal, lie, kill, cheat, etc."

    Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 4:54pm

    Hate to pop your existentialism bubble but, your particular philosophy was derived/emulated from the old Hebrew, Christian and Muslim holy texts. There is no way folks of your ilk could have developed a view or a position on morality, civility, kindness, caring for your neighbors, etc. Even writers like Neitzche felt that some parts of the holy scriptures were useful, even if he didn't believe God existed. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why he decided to take his own life because he couldn't separate his morality from the will of God.

    Posted by ACook at 05/10/2007 @ 6:33pm

  30. ..."There have been some varifiable instances where the wrong individdual was put to death in capital punishment."

    Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 5:01pm

    What capital cases are your referring to? Don't include the commuted sentences.

    Posted by ACook at 05/10/2007 @ 6:43pm

  31. I'm not going to discuss theology or existentialism with someone who already has expressed a bias wherein you claim that an athiest is incapable of arriving at morality without previous existence of scriptures. That's absurd, because, there has been morality among humans long before there were scriptures from your fairy tale one true God. The Jewish religion, according to their own accounting, arrived upon the scene less than 6000 years ago. meanwhile, scientists can show that humans, that is homo sapiens, have been on the planet for over 10,000 years, at the least.

    As far as the wrong person being executed is concerned. That is a matter of public record. By the way commutation of a sentence means the person was let go. I am talking about executions. So, commutation of sentence has nothiung to do with it. If you doubt me, feel free to look it up yourself. If you choose to play ostritch, that's cool too. I have no concern whatsoever with your level of being informed.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 7:35pm

  32. Or misinformed as ther case may be. And, since you prefer to seduce your mind with superstition, the likelihood that I could provive you with a fact that you would accept is less than zero. So, see, I won't bother.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 7:36pm

  33. Oh, and Mr. Cook, did you know that Jesus was the last of (sorry I forget it was either) four or six messiahs during the life and rule in Roman controlled Palestine by Pontius Pilate? Oh, they were all killed. Someday, just for a giggle, try reading Josepheus account of the life and rule of Pilate. In it, this historian states as fact things that do not agree with alleged facts in the Bible. For instance, the Bible has three or four days between when Jesus was picked up by the authorities for inciting terrorism in the region. His official charge was being King of the Jews, meaning, in the eyes of Rome and Roman law, Jesus had set himself up as a political leader in opposition of Rome (somewhat, but not too, different from how Al Qaeda sees itself in Iraq today). In the Josepheus book of history, Jesus didn't last the three days. He was picked up one night, tried and executed the next day.

    It's no wonder so much of the country still believes George Bush on any topic, they believe in superstition, myth and inaccuracy.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 7:45pm

  34. Oh, and as far as whether or not Jesus was God... well, that was determined by the Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D. Until then, there was close to a 50/50 split among Christians as to whether or not Jesus was divine. It suited Constantine's needs to make him a god. The Emperor was consolidating the Empire. However, there were so many religions, each with their own mysteries, but all the mysteries seemed to correspond to one another. That created unrest and skirmishes in the Empire. That was expensive and troublesome for the Emperor. He sought to gain control of the masses through one religion. In order to successfully pull that off, Constantine needed to circumvent the belief people had in resurrected divinities, which were rife throughout all mythologies. The best way to solve that problem, was to have Jesus be a resurrected god as well. Over the next century or two, that consolidation worked.

    Earlier, the schism in Christianity occurred with the arrival of Paul. When Peter went to Rome, he didn't teach that Christ was divine. Paul was the one who made that initial innovation, and he wasn't even one of the apostles and never knew Jesus.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 8:01pm

  35. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why he decided to take his own life because he couldn't separate his morality from the will of God.

    Posted by ACOOK 05/10/2007 @ 6:33pm

    ACOOK, could you tell me Friedrich Nietzsche's cause of death?

    Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 8:20pm

  36. "Perhaps that's one of the reasons why he decided to take his own life because he couldn't separate his morality from the will of God."

    Posted by ACOOK 05/10/2007 @ 6:33pm

    "ACOOK, could you tell me Friedrich Nietzsche's cause of death?"

    Posted by MASK 05/10/2007 @ 8:20pm

    Mask, as the story goes, it is assumed that he died from pneumonia.

    Posted by ACook at 05/10/2007 @ 9:23pm

  37. One more thing LENNON, never assume the people you blog with are only males. I'm a woman, who happens to be a nurse, married going on 25 years and have 3 beautiful sons.

    Posted by ACook at 05/10/2007 @ 9:34pm

  38. Sorry Ms. or Mrs. Cook, depending upon your preference of the title you prefer. Congratulations on the length of your marriage and your children.

    One last point I wanted to make earlier on the issue of Ms. Cook's allegation that athiests are, de facto, amoral. It has been my Assessment, resulting from every conversation I've had with Christians simce I was a teenager, that Christians do right in order to avoid the punishments and wraths of God and the potential end result of hell. That never enters into the frame of mind of an athiest. An athiest who lives according to the moral tenet that one must be their own saint, does so solely on the basis of knowing that doing the right thing is its own reward, and there are no fears of punishment or eternal damnation causing them to do what they know they should do anyway.

    Seems to me, all the politicians wjho lie to us, or who have sex with their interns, or who act as predators on the youths acting as pages in Congress are all Christians, not athiests. The terrorists are fundamentalists in their own religion. Tim McVeigh was a Christian. We can go on. I am, here, only dealing with a very few, relatively recent events.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 10:19pm

  39. Frank, I've seen all those explanations too. I ain't a voting for HBilary either. I'd sooner slit my wrist than vote for her. Plain and simple, if it's Hilary against a repub, I'll either vote Green or not vote, more likely, not vote. That is a protest. That is my way of not being complicitous in the absurd actions my government takes far too often now.

    Get with the program Democratic Party, give us a real chioce, a real difference in position, or lose my vote, and tens of millions of people just like me.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 10:21pm

  40. Her name is Cindy Sheehan.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/10/2007 @ 10:10pm | ignore this person

    She has become a clown and has turned off millions who would otherwise supported her, when she went looney lefty sitting in that ditch in Texas with 6 protesters, Ol Jesse and 500 media...

    another gem Frank...you seem to pull the most divisive personalities for the rest of the world to worship as you...it just doesn't take.

    So are so eaily duped...

    Another one of your heros, M Moore, has pissed the bedd in his own again...instead of getting support from the middle America about health care for the soldierrs, which is very valid, and taking the patients to Canada where the middle Americans can have a good understanding from the land he loves for health care, where does he go? Cuba...God dammed Cuba..the one place most Americans middle feel is a joke and Castro the problem, not the US...I don'tthink he is seious about helping but getting another "Oscar" for,.... fiction..?Cuba..no credibiblity.

    Desined for controversy and not solutions...just like Sheehan..

    Posted by john maasch at 05/10/2007 @ 10:25pm

  41. Posted by ACOOK 05/10/2007 @ 9:23pm

    How did he "take his own life" with pneumonia, ACOOK? Inject himself with a virus, ol Fred?

    Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 10:27pm

  42. Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/10/2007 @ 10:12pm

    Better explain it to Joe Trippi, FRANK (see latest article here)

    Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 10:28pm

  43. So...I wouldn't really want to delve into theology on a political thread, but I feel like this is a context where it's both valuable and the topic has already been broached.

    The first thing I want to address is the Old Testament. I realize that there's a lot of stuff there about God slaying civilizations or ordering Israel to, and although the "God has a right to kill" argument may pull some weight, I think it's difficult to reconcile with God's perfect love. I actually don't think it's unfair to suggest that maybe the Old Testament wasn't God-breathed in its entirety. Maybe some of the content there was injected by people who had a vested interest at play. I also don't think that this is any way antithetical to Christianity unless Christianity somehow entails that everything in the Old Testament holds for all times and all places (which it unambiguously doesn't, see Jesus' violations of established Sabbath practice).

    I think that in situations where there's a conflict like this, the standard for determining whether it's the Word of God is simple: is it consistent with what Jesus would and did endorse? For a being who proclaimed that God is love, and that love for God and one another is the foundation of all commandments, I simply don't think it is.

    The next important issue to move on to is the question of Jesus' divinity, because the argument raised against it (about Constantine) is fairly interesting. However, the only way that argument actually works is if there weren't already clear indication from the Gospels and from the letters of Paul that Jesus was in fact divine. Those indications exist; Jesus proclaims the right to not only overturn much of what the Jews understood as settled law, but also to forgive sins. No one but God has the right to forgive sin. No one but God can say "the Father and I are one." No one but God can claim to be "the way, the truth and the life," which of course is not to say that none besides Christians can be saved (a viewpoint that I think is deeply mistaken). At this point, I think C.S. Lewis' trilemma is appropriate; if Jesus is not God, and said the things the Gospels and Paul claimed he said, he is either a liar or a lunatic. Neither of these are remotely substantiated by evidence.

    As a quick sidenote, there is no basis for assuming that Jesus came to Earth for the sole purpose of rescuing us from a wrathful God who desired to destroy us.

    Next, on the charge under which Jesus was arrested. I think the Passion accounts adequately deal with this; he claimed to be a King and the Romans either interpreted his claim wrongly (seeing him as a political figure) or chose to give in to the demands they were under (which is consistent with Pilate's extremely vulnerable political position). If you could also show me where the Bible claims that Jesus was in Jerusalem for three days prior to execution, that'd be great.

    Finally, on the "Christian are bad people" argument. You're right; there are many Christians whose actions aren't consistent with what Jesus preached and lived for. I agree with you that this is bad, though I think it's fully consistent with the idea that all human beings are fallible and often fall into corruption of one form or another. That said, we can all certainly do better, no doubt about that.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/10/2007 @ 11:53pm

  44. "At this point, I think C.S. Lewis' trilemma is appropriate; if Jesus is not God, and said the things the Gospels and Paul claimed he said, he is either a liar or a lunatic. Neither of these are remotely substantiated by evidence."

    THRAWN, you and Mr Lewis forget one important thing...

    Jesus....never claimed ANYTHING. HIS FRIENDS did. They were the ones supposedly "quoting" him. So maybe Mark, Luke, John, and Matthew were the "liars or lunatics".

    Posted by Mask at 05/11/2007 @ 07:09am

  45. Let us all remember the good that comes from war. The end of slavery, the continuity of the United States, the protection of our country from Japan and Germany. And oh yeah the creation of the United States and our Freedom.

    Posted by abell12ct at 05/11/2007 @ 09:24am

  46. Posted by ABELL12CT 05/11/2007 @ 09:24am

    And let us remember that those wars were NOT fought by incompetents, nor continued for FOUR YEARS AFTER the fall of the enemy capital, nor lost 70% of the American people's support, nor were paid for with deficit spending on a scale which endangered the financial future of the United States, nor got progressively WORSE as the war raged, rather than better.

    Posted by Mask at 05/11/2007 @ 09:56am

  47. Just to slightly change the direction here for a moment- In the spirit of Howe's intent, a sincere happy, radical, peaceful Mother's Day to all. I tend to forget the origin of Mother's Day when I get my rant on about sending cards and flowers and chocolates one day a year as per the Hallmark Holiday department of guilt. Then I realize that's pretty much true for every holiday and the economic engine that drives them and I don't have to buy in if I don't want to. Should be a simple choice, like "imagine all the people living life in peace." But I mean really, who has the time to make their own cards these days and it is soo much easier to run to Walmart.

    Happy Friday (Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, July 4th (USA! USA!), New Years Day, MLK Day and Father's Day greetings to follow.) *Labor Creates All Wealth*

    Posted by seejack at 05/11/2007 @ 11:54am

  48. The next important issue to move on to is the question of Jesus' divinity, because the argument raised against it (about Constantine) is fairly interesting. However, the only way that argument actually works is if there weren't already clear indication from the Gospels and from the letters of Paul that Jesus was in fact divine. Those indications exist; Jesus proclaims the right to not only overturn much of what the Jews understood as settled law, but also to forgive sins.

    Posted by THRAWN 05/10/2007 @ 11:53pm

    The only accounts of what Jesus is alleged to have said or taught come from the gospels. Those were all written after Jesus was already dead for decades. The men who wrote them were making their livelihoods off talking about Jesus. Nonetheless, we will never know if they were claiming a divine Jesus at the time or not. You see, the Bible was transcribed over and over again, by individuals. Each region did their own transcribing. In the early days, a Pope was not the one world leader of Christianity (Catholicism). A Pope was a local leader. Rome had a Pope. So did every other city that had a Christian segment in it. Each of these Popes had their own agenda, and had their Bibles written by their scribes to fit that Pope's agenda. This is one of the main reasons why Constantine had to have his religious leaders go over the largely discordant texts from one area to another so they might be made harmonious again, with just one specific curricula contained in the newly codified Bible. Constantine, by the way, was raised a pagan, but turned to Christianity for an interesting reason. He was having trouble defeating a particular enemy. His wife was a Christian. She had given him a crucifix. During the battle, he decided to finally try praying to Jesus. Shortly thereafter, the battle turned and Constantine emerged a victor. With this, Constantine decided to accept Christianity as his "true" religion. However, it waited a long time before he determined to force his new religion on his people. The efforts to enforce Christianity on the entire Roman Empire led to uprisings. Ultimately, Constantine decided to allow people to believe in other religions as well, but they had to accept Christianity into their lives at least in addition to whatever else they chose to believe. It was up to the passage of centuries, and the death of previous generations of people who believed in other gods and goddesses before Christianity really took hold, and in many ways, it was also due to the fall of the Roman Empire.

    In the 4th to 8th centuries, the invading hordes that usurped and broke the Roman Empire into pieces, each took on Christianity after it had defeated whatever Roman leader was in control. As that occurred, one after another, each horde ended up taking on Christianity as a result as well. Nearly always, this was again because the new leader found that the Christian god gave him mmore victories over his enemies than his own pagan gods.

    Interesting how a religion based on love and peace and brotherhood attracted its followers and gained in power over the centuries due to war and killing isn't it.

    Anyway, bottom line here is that the Bible, for some 10 centuries or so was copies by writing, again and again, by fallible humans, by hand, who followed the orders of whoever was in charge at any particular time and in concert with the political and social concerns of governance as this process continued. It wasn't until after the invention of the printing press that Bibles became set.

    There is a book titled "Misquoting Jesus" that can give you much more detailed information on this. Also, reading historical accounts from historians rather than getting all you information on the period for solely the Bible might be a way to find out that there are numerous errros in it.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2007 @ 1:29pm

  49. I actually don't think it's unfair to suggest that maybe the Old Testament wasn't God-breathed in its entirety. Maybe some of the content there was injected by people who had a vested interest at play. I also don't think that this is any way antithetical to Christianity unless Christianity somehow entails that everything in the Old Testament holds for all times and all places (which it unambiguously doesn't, see Jesus' violations of established Sabbath practice).

    Posted by THRAWN 05/10/2007 @ 11:53pm

    I dunno about other religions, I was raised Catholic. However, I was taught the the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, uttered by God to men and written down by them to be given to the people thereafter. It is supposed to be infallible, like God since it was uttered by God. Now, it is true that it has been changed by humans over the centuries, and not even the Catholic Church disputes that. So, that means the Bible is no longfer solely the word of God to man. That also makes it fallible and containing errors. Now, the guys who did all the rewriting, did so after the Council at Nicea, and according to the determinations made by Constantine, in other words, after it was ordered by the Emperor that Jesus would be a resurrected divinity following the lead of Paul, not of Peter (the rock Jesus wanted to build his church upon). So, at that point, some gospels were extracted, ever wonder why there are only 4? All 12 wrote one, as did Judas and Mary Magsalene. Only 4 because those were the ones Constantine approved, and those 4 were altered to include Jesus divinity and resurrection.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2007 @ 1:37pm

  50. I wasn't suggesting thaqt all Christians are bad people. I was trying to point out, because I was attacked earlier on the basis of admitting I am an atheist (well, I guess you people would think so, though I have my own belief system and I believe in a higher power, a uniting force, just not one that conciously manipulates, makes demands of, rewards, or punishes humans) as being de facto immoral. That is patently absurd to say, when one doesn't even know me. Actually, that is a kind of bigotry. I may be, but that person has no clue if I am or not. My point was, we are all human, all fallible, all prone to doing things of good and bad. However, it is my impression that Christians do so because of threats of hell and promises of heaven, not intrinsically because something either is or is not the correct thing to do. Whereas, an atheist has not such moral dilemna. There are no rewards or punishments in an atheist's system of belief, so an atheist seeks to live rightly because it is the correct thing to do and for no othe real reason. That was the point of that.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2007 @ 1:44pm

  51. Whether anyone agrees with Cyndy Sheehan in entirety or not, she makes this point and she makes it well: no mother should have to find out that (or have), her child (was) lied to death.

    Posted by brantl at 05/11/2007 @ 2:13pm

  52. I like you and your message(s) Lennonist, even absent my presumption your moniker is to honor John, the artist, formerly a founding member of the Beatles. Anyway, I'm curious to know your opinion if there's any substantive difference between an atheist and a non-theist. There was a recent article on this in The Nation but I don't recall a semantic distinction being stated.

    Lastly, my son thinks you're an agnostic because of your belief in a higher power. As an existentialist fellow travelor, if you will, maybe even a pantheist, I'm "only intolerant of the intolerant."

    Happy Mother's Day All!!

    Posted by lewwelge at 05/11/2007 @ 2:56pm

  53. You're diligent in your obvious determination to publicize the traitorous acts of these war criminals still in charge of prosecuting this occupation. "Preemptive and unprovoked attack" was the terms I read earlier on CNN describing the executive branch's rush to war against Iraq in early '03. Well, Sadam and his sons are dead and, according to Mike Ferner, president of Veterans for Peace, our country is continuing to ennact genocidal policies against the people of Iraq, Shia or Shiite or otherwise.

    Thanks again for your thoroughgoing efforts to enlist activist support against this abominable "stay the course" socio-pathology.

    Posted by lewwelge at 05/11/2007 @ 7:44pm

  54. I like you and your message(s) Lennonist, even absent my presumption your moniker is to honor John, the artist, formerly a founding member of the Beatles. Anyway, I'm curious to know your opinion if there's any substantive difference between an atheist and a non-theist. There was a recent article on this in The Nation but I don't recall a semantic distinction being stated.

    Lastly, my son thinks you're an agnostic because of your belief in a higher power. As an existentialist fellow travelor, if you will, maybe even a pantheist, I'm "only intolerant of the intolerant."

    Happy Mother's Day All!!

    Posted by LEWWELGE 05/11/2007 @ 2:56pm

    Beautiful. I will treasure this post, Lew, as a fellow fellow traveler.

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/11/2007 @ 9:57pm

  55. Lew, you son is correct. I've been using the term atheist, but in reality, I consider myself a non-theist. I just didn't think that term would be sufficiently communicative and figured someone on here would call me an atheist, so was willing to take on the mantle. Yes, my nic is to express my gratitude to the memory of John Lennon, and my personal alignment with most of his ideas.

    Thank you for your kind comments Lew and New Dawn!

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2007 @ 11:28am

  56. The women's world favors cooperation rather than competitive conflict to resolve differences. Perhaps Jesus came to restore women's rightful place in the big scheme of things. He came into the middle of paternal order with a new message. I guess the blockheads still don't get it thus, murder and mayhem is still with us.

    Posted by luluford at 05/12/2007 @ 11:36am

  57. Agnosticism means one isn't sure if there is a god or not and allows for the possibility there is.

    Non-theism is essentially a synonym for atheism. Here are some quotes from a site ( http://members.aol.com/nontheism/believin.htm )regarding non-theism.

    "The Non-theist view on belief can be derived from a collective concept of mathematics known as 'set' theory. Without being too rigorous, the general idea useful to Non-theism is that for reasons of completeness, every set of things, events, or whatever we wish to investigate or imagine, includes, by definition, the 'empty' set, 'null' set, or non-thing non-event. In other words, every possibility of being includes the possibility of not-being, or the 'null' set. Indeed, it can be demonstrated that the null set is unique for all sets in being the only set which is universally a subset of all sets including itself. Informally, it is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously!" [my own note here: this sort of thinking, in a way, turns the notion of God into a non-thing in a sense in that one can see god as being the only thing that is common to all other specific sets, and since the null set is the one thing we can point to as being common to all sets, that names god and the null set synonomous in that sense).

    "If this concept is too difficult to imagine, consider an example from integer theory. We all know that there exist positive and negative integers, and that the point between the two sets is zero. But what IS zero? We can't hold it in our hands because it isn't there. The "'symbol' may be there, but not the content. In "set" theory, terms such as 'null set' and 'empty set' are preferred to zero, but the general idea remains unchanged."

    "Now try to balance your checkbook without the 'null' set. If there is no such thing as zero you might have faith, but you may still overdraw your balance. By definition, there is no such thing as zero, but unless we BELIEVE that there is such a thing, we can never balance our checkbooks, because we need it to be there between that which is, and that which is not!"

    "In a nutshell, this is the Non-theist view on belief. We Believe in nothing! Not because we want to, but because we have to! We could dress it all up in a fancy costume and call it a god, but then it wouldn't be nothing any more. It has no name, it has no form. By definition, it isn't there at all, yet there is no thing of which it is not a part, not even the no thing. It wasn't born, and it can't be destroyed. It was there before time began, and it will still be there after there is no more time."

    "But now we must consider the concept as a 'Limiting Factor.' To the intellectually challenged, 'belief in nothing' implies 'not believing in anything.' But this is naive. Given the Non-theist view that nothing requires belief, or P>Q, the contrapositive must be expressed as non-P>non-Q, or everything (not nothing) requires not-belief. In other words, everything that is not nothing does not require belief, and therefore the only thing which does require belief is nothing. More colloquially, the implication of believing in nothing is not believing in everything, and here we have arrived at our limiting factor to faith."

    "Even the non-rigorous will admit that as a guiding principal, 'not believing in everything' makes good sense. Non-theism presses this point one step further, however, by claiming that only 'nothing' requires explicit belief, and that therefore everything else is subject to further investigation and verification."

    "Consider that for many generations after the proverbial apple bounced off the head of Isaac Newton, educated hominids 'believed' in the 'Law of Gravity.' Then the Sputnik went up, and the 'Law of Gravity' -- subject to further investigation and verification, went out. Similarly, educated hominids once 'believed' that our earth was the center of the Universe, and that some 'god' had selected our planet as the appropriate place to sacrifice his darling son in salvation for all life-forms in the Universe, a naive and preposterous conclusion that only amplifies our own importance by trivializing the possibility of other intelligent life forms."

    "To the Non-theist, that our planet, our existence, and our experience, should be the only viable map of reality against which all other worlds of existence and experience should be quantified and categorized, gives more credit to us than to genuine belief, faith, or religion. At the same time as we view ourselves as the 'Select' of some god or gods of our own choosing, we beggar the concept of belief and faith, and trivialize religion to a set of ethno-centric procedures and self-serving occasions."

    "Non-theism addresses this issue by believing in nothing, having faith in whatever we can accomplish given work effort and conservative expectations, and practicing a religion which only celebrates life and learning. As such, Non-theism is not a 'death wish' religion in which some life post mortem is viewed as a reward for the life well lived, but rather a 'living' religion from which there is always more to learn." [I would quibble with the use of the word religion here at all, since, technically, non-theism isn't a religion, but a belief system or philosophy.]

    This help?

    I don't see myself as an agnostic because the kind of "higher power" to which I alluded earlier does not correspond in any way to traditional views of what is god, or what constitutes a god. I make no allowance for the existence of a possible god as currently defined by human beings. So, in that sense, I would not accept the moniker of agnostic.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2007 @ 12:29pm

  58. Here are a few more quotes from the same website:

    "Non-theism differs from other, theologic based belief systems, at the most fundamental level which include notions that are to be considered 'cast in stone,' or otherwise derived from ancient writings considered to be variously 'holy' -- which is to say, 'impermeable.' As such, Non-theism does not have a 'Holy' book, nor does it hold to a set of 'commandments,' imagined to be handed down by some deity, and therefore to be accepted as 'de facto' for all time. In the Non-theist view, a 'cause and effect' understanding for human behavior is more compelling than sets of mindless prescriptions of the form 'Thou shalt' and 'Thou shalt not.'"

    "In general, Non-theism does not subscribe to the notion that there exist prescriptions for human behavior which remain applicable for all time. There are rather 'reasons' why an act such as killing, for example, is seldom a productive response to problem resolution, for which the prescription of 'Thou shalt not' merely begs the question. Kill whom, what? Under which conditions? Who would gain? Besides the victim, how many others would be forced to share in the cost? Are there not 'other' choices that could be as or more effective without the necessity of taking a life? Has the matter been 'discussed' with others for the benefit of additional perspective? And so forth..."

    "The proscriptions just say 'No,' and thereby never invite us to contemplate the process. Some may argue that some acts are just too horrible to contemplate, but that is not the point. Human beings are not like computers which respond to sets of rules. Human beings tend to act and react based on conditioned behavior, and if that conditioning does not include a sensitivity to the process of reason and logical analysis, they tend to act more on impulse than rules."

    "Consider that if a simple rule such as 'Thou shalt not kill' were effective, there would be no such thing as murder, since the proscription has been with us since before the time of the Moses. Yet murder is no thing of the past -- who on 'death row' has never heard of the proscription? It doesn't work, yet the theologic religious continue to believe that all we need is MORE of what doesn't work."

    "To the Non-theist, proscriptions and rules for human behavior considered sacred and holy, while doing nothing to address issues of cause and effect beyond blame and punishment, are like the old joke about the lunatic optician. 'Doctor,' the patient says, 'the peepers just don't focus as they once did.' Thinking for a moment, the doctor takes off her glasses and hands them to the patient. 'Try these,' she says, 'they work fine for me.' The patient tries them on, but the prescription is so far off that everything appears as a blur. 'I can't see anything at all with these,' he says, for which the lunatic doctor responds, 'well they work fine for me, just try a little harder...'"

    "'Trying harder' for proscriptions doesn't work -- especially when all we have to offer is a mindless subscription to the same old rules and slogans. And even where a proscription might work for one, there are an infinite number of different types of human, and hence no one proscription that works the same for all. Non-theism differs from theologic religion by rejecting 'God Ordained' rules and commandments in favor of teaching reason and logical analysis. As such, Non-theism is very 'process oriented,' where theism is very 'rule structured.' Believing in Nothing, we question dogmatic rules. We need to know why; we need to understand the process, and we accept this as a natural function of how humans process information."

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2007 @ 12:39pm

  59. And fiinally, here's a real basic explanation of the differences from the sme website:

    "Theists: 'Gods are real--it is through religion that we come to know them.'"

    "Atheists: 'Gods are a red-herring, religion a humbug and swindle.'"

    "Agnostics: 'Gods?... Religion?... Who cares!'"

    "Non-Theists: 'Gods aren't necessary. Religion, faith and belief are fine.'" [To that last remark I would add a qualifier: ...fine for you if you require them to keep you from committing acts that are in opposition to universal principles. Universal principles, I believe are based upon love, and are all life affirming, cooperation affirming, and creation affirming. To me, anything that runs in counter to universal principles debases the individual (or group if applicable) and is universally destructive.]

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2007 @ 12:48pm

  60. Billions in Oil Missing in Iraq, U.S. Study Says

    By JAMES GLANZ

    Published: May 12, 2007

    Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq's declared oil production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a draft American government report.

    Using an average of $50 a barrel, the report said the discrepancy was valued at $5 million to $15 million daily.

    VVVVVVvvvvVVvVVvvVvVVvvVvvvVvVVvvvv

    Ex-CIA official, contractor face new charges

    Pair face 30 fraud, corruption charges tied to Cunningham scandal

    Updated: 12:10 a.m. CT May 12, 2007

    SAN DIEGO - New charges have been filed alleging that a former top CIA official pushed a proposed $100 million government contract for his best friend in return for lavish vacations, private jet flights and a lucrative job offer.

    The indictment, returned Thursday, replaces charges brought in February against Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who resigned from the spy agency a year ago, and Poway-based defense contractor Brent Wilkes. The charges grew from the bribery scandal that landed former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in prison.

    Foggo and Wilkes played high school football together, and after graduating in 1972, they roomed together at San Diego State University, were best men at each other's weddings and named their sons after each other.

    Foggo, the former No. 3 official at the CIA, resigned from the spy agency after his house and office were raided by federal agents.

    VVVVVVvvvvVVvVVvvVvVVvvVvvvVvVVvvvv

    On Iraq, 50% Trust Dems, 38% Prefer GOP

    As the House of Representatives narrowly passed legislation requiring most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by September 2008, 50% of Americans say they trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle the situation in Iraq. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 38% trust Republicans more on this topic. Those figures have been relatively constant for several months. On the eve of Election 2006, 49% trusted Democrats more on Iraq while 42% placed their trust in). the GOP (see history

    A separate surve fyound that just 30% of Americans give the President good or excellent marks for his handling of the situation in Iraq.

    Men prefer Democrats on Iraq by a narrow 48% to 43% margin. Women, however, have a very strong preference for Nancy Pelosi’s party. Fifty-two percent (52%) of women trust Democrats while just 35% have more confidence in Republicans.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/content/pdf/2174

    VVVVVVvvvvVVvVVvvVvVVvvVvvvVvVVvvvv

    Most women in U.S. now live without spouses

    Census finds 51% live without husbands

    By Sam Roberts Published: January 16, 2007

    For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without husbands than with them, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.

    In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without spouses, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

    Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/16/news/women.php

    VVVVVVvvvvVVvVVvvVvVVvvVvvvVvVVvvvv

    How birthrates color the electoral map

    The Baby Gap: Explaining Red and Blue

    by Steve Sailer

    The American Conservative, December 20, 2004

    Clearly, the "issues" that so excite political journalists had but a meager impact on most voters... If a demographic or regional group supported Bush's "humble" foreign policy in 2000, they supported his Alexandrine ambitions in 2004, and vice-versa.

    Still, this doesn't mean voters are choosing red or blue frivolously. Indeed, voters are picking their parties based on differing approaches to the most fundamentally important human activity: having babies. The white people in Republican-voting regions consistently have more children than the white people in Democratic-voting regions. The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get...

    http://www.isteve.com/babygap.htm

    VVVVVVvvvvVVvVVvvVvVVvvVvvvVvVVvvvv

    Monday, February 26, 2007

    Self-Destructive Behavior

    What is self-destructive behavior? According to WrongDiagnoses.com, self-destructive behavior can be defined as: ...behavior in which one has a tendency to do harm to oneself, either as a direct or indirect result of their actions; frequently marked by impulse, but also includes chronic, injurious behaviors. (Click here for reference)

    Why do we do it? From a spiritual perspective, it is clear that we have been targeted by an enemy that is out to do us harm. And, sometimes, the best way he can harm us is through ourselves.

    http://urbanchristianz.blogspot.com/2007/02/ self-destructive-behavior.html

    VVVVVVvvvvVVvVVvvVvVVvvVvvvVvVVvvvv

    Iraq Attack Leaves 5 GIs Dead; 3 Missing

    AP | May 12, 2007 09:10 AM EST

    BAGHDAD -- Seven U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi army interpreter came under attack Saturday morning during a patrol of a Sunni insurgent stronghold south of Baghdad, leaving five dead and three missing, the military said.

    Troops were searching for the three missing, using drone planes, jets and checkpoints throughout the area, according to the statement. Soldiers were also asking local leaders for information.

    VVVVVVvvvvVVvVVvvVvVVvvVvvvVvVVvvvv

    The Social-Studies Teacher and the Emotional Needs of Adolescents

    Bruno Bettelheim

    The School Review, Vol. 56, No. 10

    In periods of developmental growth the individual either can progress toward the next developmental stage or can remain stationary. If he already feels insecure, if he fails to master adequately the problems which confront him at the monent, there is little incentive to progress. The insecure person is usually too afraid to try newer and more complex things. Instead, he clings to the old developmental tasks which he knows and which, therefore, seem less threatening than the new ones.

    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-6773%28194812%2956% 3A10%3C585%3ATSTATE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&size=SMALL&origin= JSTOR-reducePage

    VVVVVVvvvvVVvVVvvVvVVvvVvvvVvVVvvvv

    Preventing Destructive Behavior by Harnessing the Power of Peers

    Tragic events such as school shootings have presented us with images of adolescent aggressive and antisocial behavior. There is a national search for answers. Fortunately, a long-term commitment to basic behavioral research at NIMH is now paying off with the development and implementation of interventions to address these vexing problems.

    http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/teens.cfm

    VVVVVVvvvvVVvVVvvVvVVvvVvvvVvVVvvvv

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2007 @ 1:44pm

  61. OK, so I know it's been a few days, but I want to hit on some of the most important religious discussion, since I think it's gotten pretty interesting.

    The only accounts of what Jesus is alleged to have said or taught come from the gospels. Those were all written after Jesus was already dead for decades. The men who wrote them were making their livelihoods off talking about Jesus. Nonetheless, we will never know if they were claiming a divine Jesus at the time or not. You see, the Bible was transcribed over and over again, by individuals. Each region did their own transcribing. In the early days, a Pope was not the one world leader of Christianity (Catholicism). A Pope was a local leader. Rome had a Pope. So did every other city that had a Christian segment in it. Each of these Popes had their own agenda, and had their Bibles written by their scribes to fit that Pope's agenda. This is one of the main reasons why Constantine had to have his religious leaders go over the largely discordant texts from one area to another so they might be made harmonious again, with just one specific curricula contained in the newly codified Bible...

    Anyway, bottom line here is that the Bible, for some 10 centuries or so was copies by writing, again and again, by fallible humans, by hand, who followed the orders of whoever was in charge at any particular time and in concert with the political and social concerns of governance as this process continued. It wasn't until after the invention of the printing press that Bibles became set.

    Posted by LENNONIST 05/11/2007 @ 1:29pm

    I've truncated the post to preserve what I feel was most important from it, and I have a number of responses. Before I get to them, though, I have to say that I'm fascinated by the history here. I know very little about Constantine and his interactions with other empires, so it's interesting to see how that played out.

    That said, though, it's important to note that your argument is contingent on one really important claim: there were no cohesive ideas of Jesus' divinity until around the time of Constantine. There are a number of problems with this.

    First, your claim that the Gospels are our only source of information about Jesus are false. I mentioned one other source that's really important, namely Paul. He was writing within 5-10 years of Jesus' death, but what's especially significant comes in 1 Corinthians 15. In that chapter, he relays a creed that he has been given to him by leaders of the church community. This creed recounts extremely important details, particularly about Jesus' death and resurrection, that predate the Gospel accounts. Paul is particularly important as a source because he used to be a persecutor of Christians. Second, the Gospels themselves weren't written all that long after Jesus' death either; Luke-Acts, understood to be the latest of them, was almost certainly written by AD 65 since it stops short of Paul's death (an extremely important fact given its extensive focus on Paul). This is important not only because we're now dealing with early sources who had the ability to know whether their beliefs were based on truth, but also because this was a time when they didn't have anything to gain (and in fact had a lot to lose) in preaching about Jesus over and against many of the Jewish traditions they had inherited and internalized. I'm also fairly certain (though I'll need to check up on this) that we have copies of these texts from the First Century, so it's unclear what basis we would have for suggesting that they were significantly modified. If others were left out, it was often because they weren't credible (take a look at the Gospels of Thomas or the Cross Gospel as good examples). Also, the fact that these texts were written by human beings isn't mutually exclusive with them being inspired in some direct or indirect capacity.

    Also, I really don't follow the null-set argument; could you clarify that a bit? If it's claiming that anything which exists also has the potential to not exist, that seems problematic. I also fail to see the real distinction between "belief in nothing" and "not believing in anything," since "nothing"="no thing," i.e. "not anything." The attack on Christianity later on seems to be nothing except a combination of ad hominems and question-begging assertions.

    That said, I think all the discussion here is incredibly interesting, and appreciate all of the contributions up to this point.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/12/2007 @ 2:13pm

  62. No chicken or the egg on religion...

    Scratch any circular logic: man is religious because of religion.

    We created religion because: 1. our better nature is curious, seeks all truth equally and thus moral and 2. our lesser nature is insecure, seeks protection and thus superstitious.

    All experience can be described as metaphor ala verbage and/or math. Repeating history for control, does provide an active ethic signpost via truth and exposing fear. That is the battle.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/12/2007 @ 2:47pm

  63. Why didn't Mrs. Howe just name it "Mothers Against War Day"? She didn't think it through very well.

    I think I'll start a new holiday that focuses on the plight of the poor and dispossessed. I'll call it "Beach Day". Surely it will stay true to it's manifesto.

    Posted by Person at 05/12/2007 @ 8:15pm

  64. Posted by THRAWN 05/12/2007 @ 2:13pm

    THRAWN, on the credence you give Paul, a simple question...

    How much time did he spend with Jesus?

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2007 @ 11:06pm

  65. I mean, I guess that is a response; Paul did not directly spend time with Jesus while he was alive, and I'm not sure you would give much credence to him seeing a vision. In fairness, I think you probably should give it substantial weight given the transformation that it created. Two other considerations are relevant, though. First, the Gospels were written relatively early, so I can put a pretty decent amount of weight on them, especially since they reinforce the very early theology in Paul himself. Second, the creed he cites came from the early church and was vindicated by disciples, unless you believe that he's not reporting the facts accurately. In order to make that claim, though, you'd need some pretty good evidence.

    Bottom line: Paul and the Gospels are independently reliable sources, because they were dealing with recent and trustworthy information.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/12/2007 @ 11:10pm

  66. And speaking of religion-- how many of our US presidents have been/will be Freemasons? 10-20-30-40-50-60-70% or more? How much time will they spend with Jesus?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/13/2007 @ 03:19am

  67. Posted by THRAWN 05/12/2007 @ 11:10pm

    Well, first....Muhammed had visions, THRAWN. So using that standard, he ranks as high as Paul.

    Second, how "early" is early? 5 years after the Crucifixion? 10? 20 years?

    Third, I think you're looking at it from a "reverse angle" on Paul's vindication by the disciples. It wasn't that THEY were backing up him on SOME aspects of his writings...it was that HE was borrowing from THEM to back himself up. Back to Muhammed, do you think that "the disciples back up Muhammed on HIS view of the divine ispiration of Jesus" or that Muhammed added the "God's prophet" status of Jesus to his writings, to back up HIS view of God?

    Even if we accept the Apostles' view of Jesus (though they were "quoting" him, as Jesus wrote nothing down)...accepting that Paul (Saul of Tarsus) is "just as good" as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who KNEW and spoke with Jesus....leaves you open to ANY post-Apostle Christian writer as being "divinely inspired"...including such figures as Joseph Smith (LDS).

    Posted by Mask at 05/13/2007 @ 09:53am

  68. If you're black or a women, can you be a Freemason?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/13/2007 @ 11:22am

  69. Thrawn, I am enjoying the discussion as well. May I share that you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that the Bible was re-written by humans to fit the agendas the superiors of thise humans had. They re-wrote this stuff so many times over the centuries, and with so many divergent agendas, one cannot be certain of anything that is in the book anymore from the point of being historically accurate.

    Another issue, when all you use as a source of material is the Bible (and I said Bible, not gospels, thus intentionally including Paul's materials), you are working with source materials that are neither unbiased nor openminded. The various authors of the Bible all have a stake in promoting their own position. The Bible is a book with its intent being twofold, and one of the purposes is to evangelicize. That being a purpose, it is in the business of proving it's point of view. Hence, it is not unbiased, and every participant has something to gain by asserting their own point of view.

    Also, with regard to Paul, let's look at him for a moment. Now, if indeed, he had a mystical experience on the road to Damascus, then we have to accept at face value his Biblical entries as being, at least, statements made in good faith and emanating from some kind of mystical, otherworldly experience. That, of course, still does not mean it was divinely inspired. He could have simply eaten some good peyote and had a wild hallucination. Now, as you say, he was a soldier who had as one of his duties responsibilities for punishing and policing Jews. However, on this road, it is alleged, he had a vision of Jesus' divine nature.

    Did he have this because, at that point in his life, he was broke, unemployed, wandering around, and in some fear because all the Jews knew he had been a captor and torturer of their brethern? Did he see other Christians evangelicizing, being fed, being taken in and cared for, being treated special, like a dignitary? Did he desire these things for himself? Did he, then, make up the story of the vision in order to become part of this new class of people?

    We'll never know. There is no proof Paul wasn't either just stoned out of his gourd or making it all up to advance his station in life. He was very adept at this new enterprise, as his rise to the top of the heap of early Christians proves. There isn't any prooof that he wasn't honest, either. But, logically, what is most likely?

    I still suggest you read the book Misquoting Jesus.

    Open minds that arrive at a determination on their own after researching every possible contradiction to their own belief system come away more certain of their beliefs than ever. If they have their belief system devalued, in their own eyes because of their research, they can take solace in knowing they have opened their minds to larger realities and have walked out of the fog of someone else's shadow to determine for themselves a belief system that works for them.

    Hope you enjoy Thrawn

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/13/2007 @ 1:51pm

  70. Back to the topic: Does everybody know this hit song from 1915 (words by Alfred Bryan, music by Al Piantadosi?)

    (Verse 1:)

    Ten million soldiers to the war there have gone,

    Who may never return again.

    Ten million mothers' hearts must break

    For the ones who died in vain.

    Head bowed down in sorrow

    In her lonely years,

    I heard a mother murmur thro' her tears:

    (Chorus:)

    "I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier,

    I brought him up to be my pride and joy,

    Who dares place a musket on his shoulder,

    To shoot some other mother's darling boy?

    Let nations arbitrate their future troubles,

    It's time to lay the sword and gun away,

    There'd be no war today,

    If mothers would all say,

    'I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier.'"

    (Verse 2:)

    What victory can cheer a mother heart,

    When she looks at her blighted home?

    What victory can bring her back

    All she cared to call her own?

    Let each mother answer

    In the years to be,

    Remember that my boy belongs to me!

    (Repeat chorus.)

    HAPPY MOTHERS' DAY!

    Posted by JakobFabian at 05/13/2007 @ 6:02pm

  71. Happy Mothers' Day indeed; I think the mothers definitely deserve it. :)

    Unfortunately, I just can't skip over the religion stuff. Two areas I want to deal with:

    The first one I'll just call "how soon is soon enough?" I would argue that, beyond any doubt, 15-20 years is absolutely soon enough, and stuff written within 40 years is probably still going to be pretty reliable. In fact, many historical accounts are still accepted today despite being written hundreds of years after the events they depict. When it comes to evaluating Paul and the Gospel writers, that's incredibly important, because they (especially Paul and the extraordinarily early sources he draws from) meet this standard in spades. I've already made uncontested arguments about how the people who knew Jesus almost certainly wrote within 20 years of the crucifixion. Moreover, I've argued that Paul wrote within 5-10 years, and the central creeds and ideas that he drew some of his work from were even earlier than that AND coming from the core of the church. In fact, Mask, your argument about Paul and the apostles turns against you. Since we know that he was writing really early, to the extent that he borrowed from them, it means that they were writing even earlier.

    Second, "why'd he do it?" A lot of motivational issues have been raised, but I don't think any of them are adequate. Lennonist, you may be right that later authorities had political motivations for the particular ideologies that they encouraged. This isn't exclusive with my position at all, though; to suggest that it is commits the genetic fallacy. That means that the only really relevant standard is whether there is good evidence to suggest that the texts accurately reflect events and beliefs of the time, and I think it's pretty clear that they do. In fact, your argument about motivation for the disciples turns against you; they clearly had no financial or political motivation since they were being persecuted at the time, and insofar as they had a spiritual motivation, that gave them a further incentive to make sure that their belief system was credible to other people, especially since it would require a radical shift in their belief system. This gains even more credibility, because, despite the fact that Paul could POSSIBLY have had some incentives to convert, he had to be so completely convinced that what he saw was real that he would be willing to enter a group of people who probably wouldn't trust him for a cause that he could likely be killed for. It just doesn't seem like the presence of hallucinogenics (which I don't remember really grew naturally in ancient Israel) are really a plausible counter-explanation, and they're certainly not the kind of explanation that would make sense of what Paul in particular saw.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/13/2007 @ 7:02pm

  72. Thanks so much contributors, for the fascinating discussion. Especially given your erudition, Lennon, it's exceeding ironic that it's been said for decades that "conversation is a dying art," while ostensibly maintaing the prescribed convention to refrain from talking "religion" or "politics." They're now the only non-banal topics of general interest, IMHO, but are consciously avoided by sensualist and sensationalist voyeurs like, too often, me/us.

    Trusting Mother's Day has afforded to you all, each and every one, thoughtful opportunities for self-reflection and social comity, when necessarily roused from sublime repose and/or leisure. Peace.

    Posted by lewwelge at 05/13/2007 @ 9:07pm

  73. And to all the Moms that weren't able to celebrate Mother's Day----

    Female Fatalities: 74 - 2.18% of Total- (3396) US

    Date Name Rank Branch Nationality Cause of Death

    05/02/07 Soenksen, Katie M. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    03/03/07 Moyer, Ashly L. Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    02/07/07 Parcell, Jennifer M. Corporal U.S. Marine US Hostile - hostile fire

    02/07/07 Harris, Jennifer J. Captain U.S. Marine US Hostile - helicopter crash

    01/28/07 Stewart, Carla Jane Specialist U.S. Army Reserve US Non-hostile - vehicle rollover (M-1114 HMMWV)

    01/20/07 Gabbard, Marilyn L. Sergeant Major U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - helicopter crash

    01/17/07 Valdivia, Jennifer A. Petty Officer 1st Class U.S. Navy US Non-hostile

    01/07/07 Loncki, Elizabeth A. Senior Airman U.S. Air Force US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    12/12/06 Davis, Gloria D. Major U.S. Army US Non-hostile

    12/06/06 McClung, Megan M. Major U.S. Marine Reserve US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    11/26/06 Dunn, Jeannette T. Sergeant U.S. Army US Non-hostile

    10/01/06 Lannaman, Denise A. Sergeant U.S. Army National Guard US Non-hostile

    09/19/06 Huff, Ashley L. Henderson 1st Lieutenant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb

    09/19/06 Lanham, Jane Elizabeth Lieutenant Commander U.S. Navy US Non-hostile

    09/14/06 Hartman, Jennifer M. Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb

    09/12/06 Perez, Emily J.T. 2nd Lieutenant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    09/04/06 Gunterman, Hannah L. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Non-hostile

    06/05/06 Jaenke, Jamie Petty Officer 2nd Class U.S. Naval Reserve US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    04/08/06 NavarroArellano, Juana Lance Corporal U.S. Marine US Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire

    03/16/06 Pinson, Amanda N. Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack

    03/11/06 Duerksen, Amy A. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Non-hostile - weapon discharge

    03/01/06 Priest, Tina M. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Non-hostile - weapon discharge (suicide)

    01/07/06 Campbell, Jaime L. 1st Lieutenant U.S. Army National Guard US Non-hostile - helicopter crash

    12/24/05 Maravillosa, Myla L. Sergeant U.S. Army Reserve US Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack

    12/23/05 Reali, Regina C. Sergeant U.S. Army Reserve US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    12/10/05 Atkins, Julia V. Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    10/28/05 Banaszak, Debra A. 1st Lieutenant U.S. Army National Guard US Non-hostile - suicide

    09/28/05 Jacobson, Elizabeth Nicole Airman 1st Class U.S. Air Force US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    08/14/05 Green, Toccara R. Specialist U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    07/19/05 Johnson, Lavena L. Private U.S. Army US Non-hostile - weapon discharge

    07/14/05 Jameson, Tricia L. Staff Sergeant U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    06/23/05 Valdez, Ramona M. Corporal U.S. Marine US Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb

    06/23/05 Clark, Regina R. Petty Officer 1st Class U.S. Naval Reserve US Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb

    06/23/05 Charette, Holly A. Lance Corporal U.S. Marine US Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb

    06/05/05 French, Carrie L. Corporal U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    06/03/05 Villar, Linda J. Civilian U.S. Dept. of the Army US Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack

    04/18/05 Huff, Sam W. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    04/15/05 Ramirezgonzalez, Aleina Specialist U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack

    03/04/05 Salem, Adriana N. Specialist U.S. Army US Non-hostile - vehicle accident

    03/01/05 Robles, Lizbeth Sergeant U.S. Army US Non-hostile - vehicle accident

    02/16/05 Bell-Johnson, Katrina Lani Specialist U.S. Army US Non-hostile - vehicle accident

    02/09/05 Housby, Jessica M. Sergeant U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    01/29/05 Heald, Barbara Civilian U.S. Dept. of the Army US Hostile - hostile fire - rocket attack

    12/13/04 Time, Tina Safaira Sergeant U.S. Army Reserve US Non-hostile - vehicle accident

    12/04/04 Gasiewicz, Cari Anne Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    10/11/04 Osbourne, Pamela G. Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - rocket attack

    10/06/04 Cawvey, Jessica L. Sergeant U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    10/04/04 Sparks, Gina R. Staff Sergeant U.S. Army US Non-hostile

    09/05/04 Morrison, Shawna M. Sergeant U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack

    07/22/04 Reed, Tatjana Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    07/11/04 Tarango-Griess, Linda Ann Sergeant 1st Class U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    06/06/04 Hobart, Melissa J. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Non-hostile - illness

    05/20/04 Jackson, Leslie D. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    05/08/04 Rubalcava, Isela Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack

    04/09/04 Witmer, Michelle M. Specialist U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    04/07/04 Felder, Tyanna S. Specialist U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    03/09/04 Holland, Fern L. Civilian U.S. Dept. of the Army US Hostile - hostile fire

    03/07/04 Jones, Gussie M. Captain U.S. Army US Non-hostile - illness - heart attack

    02/16/04 Frye, Nichole M. Private 1st Class U.S. Army Reserve US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    01/31/04 McGeogh, Holly J. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    01/13/04 Hines, Keicia M. Sergeant U.S. Army US Non-hostile - vehicle accident

    01/02/04 Hampton, Kimberly N. Captain U.S. Army US Hostile - helicopter crash

    12/14/03 Voelz, Kimberly A. Staff Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

    11/08/03 Jimenez, Linda C. Sergeant U.S. Army US Non-hostile - accidental fall

    11/07/03 Swartworth, Sharon T. Chief Warrant Officer (CW5) U.S. Army US Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack)

    11/02/03 Vega, Frances M. Specialist U.S. Army US Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack)

    11/02/03 Lau, Karina S. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack)

    10/26/03 Bosveld, Rachel K. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack

    10/25/03 Cannon, Jakia Sheree Seaman U.S. Navy US Non-hostile

    10/01/03 Ramos, Tamarra J. Specialist U.S. Army US Non-hostile - unspecified injury

    10/01/03 Gutierrez, Analaura Esparza Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - grenade

    09/15/03 Peterson, Alyssa R. Specialist U.S. Army US Non-hostile - suicide

    07/09/03 Valles, Melissa Sergeant U.S. Army US Non-hostile - weapon discharge

    03/23/03 Piestewa, Lori Ann Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - ambush

    Female Fatalities: 74 - 2.18% of Total (3396)

    Copyright 2003-2007 by iCasualties.org

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/13/2007 @ 11:33pm

  74. Hear hear

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/14/2007 @ 11:11pm

Katrina vanden Heuvel Katrina vanden Heuvel

Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Health Care Bill Advances, as Harry Reid Trumps Sarah Palin | The death panelist-in-chief rallied her followers to "KILL THE BILL." But 60 senators decided to follow the real leader.
John Nichols
14 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
133 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
79 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
207 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
65 Comments