Just to be absolutely clear for everyone: a religious congregation that endorses a political candidate can lose its tax exempt status. Consult an attorney experienced in tax exempt law, your state nonprofit association, or read the IRS's guidance published in FS-2006-17, February 2006.

Dr. King may not have "endorsed" Lyndon Johnson, but he campaign vigorously to defeat Barry Goldwater. "You know who to vote for!" was his not-particularly-cryptic conclusion. His aides would respond with a rousing "All the way..." leaving the "LBJ" off of their chant. Meanwhile young Richard was feverishly campaigning for the guy who opposed the civil rights bill - yet he shamelessly and clumsily invokes King to it serve his ends. I'm also struck by the fact that Land fails to mention that the first time Palin went out on the campaign trail and mentioned Hillary Clinton before an audience that wasn't hand-picked for the initial roll-out, Clinton's name was booed. Also, Ferraro has never intimated she's considering voting for McCain in anything I've seen - and I've read quotes of Ferraro where she specifically rejects the notion of voting for McCain as some sort of protest by Hillary fans. I think Ferraro has more respect for Clinton than to say things that foolish. There's a factor of disingenuity with this guy. Or ignorance. Or both. Life is too short to untangle all of the baggage Land brings to these discussions.

Far out. When these guys talk about sex, they sound like Martians. Martians who watch human porn and take notes in order to further their understanding of this strange sexuality business, which both intrigues and distresses them. Thus, the bizarre calculus of casual sex, the formulas for which they offer up as some kind of wisdom. Do we really absorb souls through our genitals? Can we really count them? And it is really madness to imbibe more than one? Fascinating! So much for Fermi's Paradox! They live!

yea this guy richard couldn't sound more out of touch

And just like Dan Quayle is no Jack Kennedy . . . . . Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher

There were some interesting points made here - Richard's view of affirmative action, for example - and these guys represent a lot of people, so I appreciated the discussion. My problem with this sort of conversation is that Jesus and the Bible are brought up as if they have some explanatory value. They might be able to bring me around to their point of view on affirmative action, and maybe even abortion, but if the way they go about making the case requires me to believe in some imaginary, magical person, than it'll take some time. Sometimes it seems like the divide between the religious and secular is unbridgeable.

Quoting jmoe: My problem with this sort of conversation is that Jesus and the Bible are brought up as if they have some explanatory value.

Are you one of those people that likes to waste shelf space? All you will ever need to know is in that one book. Don't you know?

"Life is too short to untangle all of the baggage Land brings to these discussions." I realize that he believes he can offer a path to eternity, but if it means I spend it with folks like him, I think I'll take a pass.

From an 8/8 interview with this guy "who doesn't endorse candidates": Land: If (McCain) picks a pro-life running mate, it will help to ease their (i.e. social conservatives') concerns and confirm to them that, while he may not have been their first choice, he may not have been their second choice, that it's better to vote for a third class fireman than it is to allow a first class arsonist to become president... CBSNews.com: Who’s on the list of people mentioned for VP that you think would most excite Southern Baptists and other members of the conservative faith community? Richard Land: Probably Governor Palin of Alaska, because she's a person of strong faith. She just had her fifth child, a Downs Syndrome child. And there's a wonderful quote that she gave about her baby, and the fact that she would never, ever consider having an abortion just because her child had Downs Syndrome. She's strongly pro-life. She's a virtual lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. She would ring so many bells. (end clip) "First class arsonist" - nice. And the second thing on this "Christian" idiot's list is lifetime membership in the NRA - Oh, Jesus ! Lordy lordy. Turn the other cheek and

Bob - if you have folks on representing the Christian point of view, wouldn't it make sense for them to actually exhibit some coherent connection to the teachings of Christ ? Somehow I don't think "lifetime membership in the NRA" would be #2 in the long-haired dude's prioritization of moral values. Oh I get it - you're offering us necessary exposure to a big macher in the rightwing "religion" racket.

Somehow I don't think "lifetime membership in the NRA" would be #2 in the long-haired dude's prioritization of moral values.

But then again: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...otes060706.DTL

Quoting graz: And I bet you would be willing to give up tax exempt status for your churches.
A(wo)men

Hi, graz.

I don't consider myself a conservative Christian (just a Christian, who sometimes agrees with conservatives), but I feel the urge to mount a defense of Mr. Land on the narrow NRA point:
First, the NRA comment simply acknowledges the obvious fact that the Southern Baptist demographic disproportionately supports gun rights. He's not arguing that this position flows from Jesus' teaching at all--some third factor (rural, southern, white, age?) may account for it.
Second, even if his statement did imply this connection (and I stipulate that he would be wise to more carefully disclaim the implication if he doesn't intend it), I don't see why Jesus' life would point in either direction. See Matthew 10:24, John 2:15.
Finally, I hate the Christian identification with Republican politics more than most. Unfortunately, Christians are not the only group that ends up supporting positions (at times seemingly inconsistent with the group's essential character, though I don't feel this is one such case) simply because a DIFFERENT position (e.g. pro-life) is more important to them and alligns them with a party. It's the nature of "faction".

The progressive's problem with Palin is the same that they have with all of that Ilk. They want to force their values on the rest of us. If you want to live your life based on 2000 year old stories feel free just leave the rest of us out of it and keep your imaginary friend out of my medical care.

Look: Hello again.

It is commonly reported that men have significantly more sexual partners than women, but it is also a mathematically problematic claim. The problem being, if men are having sex with more people, who are they having it with?

Quoting brucds: Bob - if you have folks on representing the Christian point of view, wouldn't it make sense for them to actually exhibit some coherent connection to the teachings of Christ ? Somehow I don't think "lifetime membership in the NRA" would be #2 in the long-haired dude's prioritization of moral values.

So if a person believes in the right to protect their homes, hunt for food or plink for pleasure.....they're incoherant of the teachings of Christ? Just another dismissal in the 'cling to guns and god' tradition that the Obama campaign is doing everything (in public anyways) to correct. Kind of funny that liberals will be going after any church that speaks favorably of McCain/Palin and yet look the other way when Tavis Smiley tries to control which political pamphletts are to be distributed in black churches.

Quoting brucds: "Christian" idiot

Quoting brucds: knuckledragging

Quoting brucds: There's a factor of disingenuity with this guy. Or ignorance. Or both. Life is too short to untangle all of the baggage Land brings to these discussions.

Quoting brucds: "Life is too short to untangle all of the baggage Land brings to these discussions."

Five of the first thirteen posts, terms like 'Idiot' and 'knuckledragger'.....quoting

Also to "harkin" - as a matter of clarification - to put gun ownership out there as #2 on your list of concerns as the top representative of a group of alleged Christians is sick. Read your goddam New Testament. I believe in the 2nd Amendment and think a lot of gun control people are delusional, but I'm appalled that a guy whose main job is interpreting Christian values would make that one of his main issues at all, much less mention it second. Richard Land is a phony. It's that simple. So are you.

Also, I didn't click your link because I really don't care, but I can't stand Tavis Smiley. I think he's as phony and overstuffed as "Rev" Land. Try making an argument on merit, not "but, hey some other guy...." And for what it's worth, I've been targeting mostly "evangelical" and "fundamentalist-leaning" churches in my neighborhood as part of my Obama campaign work. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. The more political they are in a righteous cause, the better so far as I'm concerned. Of course, these churches are black, so they don't count when "evangelicals" get discussed. Only white people need apply. If you've been reading this I had to correct Land on the his implcation that Martin Luther King never entered the electoral fray on behalf of a particular candidate. My opposition to Land is on the merits of what he's pushing, not that he's pushing public policy from a Christian perspective. Ultimately my argument is with his knuckledragging, retrograde, uniquely "white" interpretation of what Christianity is about.

To the more intelligent commenter on this: " He's not arguing that this position flows from Jesus' teaching at all--some third factor (rural, southern, white, age?) " He's speaking as the ethical issues guy of a very large "Christian" church, so yes the implication is that these are the key concerns based on Jesus teachings. BUT of course some third factor enters in - primarily "southern" and "White". This was a church that was founded on America's original sin. The denomination would not exist were it not for it's defense of slavery and segregation over many, many decades. They've cleaned up their act because survival depended on it, but that's the end of the political spectrum that the Southern Baptist Convention represents historically and today. I never said you can't believe in the Second Amendment and be a Christian, but it's more than passing strange that after the nod to an extremist position on denying choice on the question of abortion (Palin runnng for governor supported the notion of a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion - and if she had her druthers, she'd force your daughter to carry a child to term conceived

I feel guilty, but I just couldn't listen to these two guys. Why do self-identified "religious" leaders have so little appeal to un-churched believers in the Judeo-Christian tradition ?

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: I feel guilty, but I just couldn't listen to these two guys.

Why do self-identified "religious" leaders have so little appeal to un-churched believers in the Judeo-Christian tradition ?

Bias, deception and dogma.

I should quit posting, but I have to say that kidneyfailure at 1:20 am has put up a comment for the ages. "Every time the name Trig is mentioned Obama's stock drops another point." It would be hard to make this stuff up if you wanted to viciously caricature the utter emptiness of modern "conservatism" - either as a governing strategy, a tangle of notions passing as "philosophy" or an alleged agenda for "reforming" our republic. It's come to the party of Dick Cheney, Jack Abramoff, DeLay, Rumsfeld, "Brownie", Trent Lott and Ted Stevens hiding behind a five-month old baby named Trig. Gotta love these guys. (But don't you liberals DARE drag the governor's family into this. It's OFF-LIMITS ! Do you hear me ? OFF-LIMITS !!!)

Quoting Ocean: Bias, deception and dogma.

And don't forget arrogance. Everything they say comes cloaked in the attitude that because of their religious beliefs, they are inherently superior.

Quoting bjkeefe: And don't forget arrogance. Everything they say comes cloaked in the attitude that because of their religious beliefs, they are inherently superior.

True. Thanks!

"Bias, deception and dogma". 1) I didn't see bias in the conversation. Help me out there?
2) Deception. AKA rhetoric. When Obama uses it you aren't offended, because he does not conjure up all your negative associations with white evangelicals. I can provide examples if you wish.
3) Dogma. Well, yes. They self-identify as followers of the CHRISTIAN DOGMA. That's what it means. If you believe (for whatever reason) that your doctrine is literally true + from God, you exhibit a certain unwillingness to budge on what you consider to be fundamental. Is that inappropriate? As to the initial issue of appeal, your criticism is fair enough. Perhaps they aren't the most charismatic. But substantive critiques are more interesting.

commenter - "If you believe (for whatever reason) that your doctrine is literally true + from God, you exhibit a certain unwillingness to budge on what you consider to be fundamental. Is that inappropriate?"
Not for followers of, as you characterize it "Christian Dogma" in the sense of biblical literalism. But let's not pretend that this is Christian thinking in its entire in our era. Further, I'd love to hear a theological discussion of "Christian dogma" and the notion that "your doctrined is literally true + from God." That's quite a leap that, I dare say, most self-identified Christians don't actually make. Most understand faith in much more subtle terms than that, even if it's not articulated via some sophisticated theological or biblical exegesis. If we want a historical discussion on the subject of Christianity in American politics, I'd suggest Michael Kazin, the biographer of William Jennngs Bryan, and Taylor Branch, the biographer of Martin Luther King. And no discussion of Christian ethics and American policy would be complete without examining in depth major Christian thinkers who immersed themselves in political action and discourse, ranging from Dorothy Day to Reinhold Niebuhr to, dare I say it, Pat Robertson and

Quoting Morningsider: "Bias, deception and dogma".

1) I didn't see bias in the conversation. Help me out there?
2) Deception. AKA rhetoric. When Obama uses it you aren't offended, because he does not conjure up all your negative associations with white evangelicals. I can provide examples if you wish.
3) Dogma. Well, yes. They self-identify as followers of the CHRISTIAN DOGMA. That's what it means. If you believe (for whatever reason) that your doctrine is literally true + from God, you exhibit a certain unwillingness to budge on what you consider to be fundamental. Is that inappropriate?

As to the initial issue of appeal, your criticism is fair enough. Perhaps they aren't the most charismatic. But substantive critiques are more interesting.

I'm assuming you are addressing these questions to me, but not sure. The quote that you cited was a response to this question: "Why do self-identified "religious" leaders have so little appeal to un-churched believers in the Judeo-Christian tradition ?" These religious leaders appear to have a very well defined way of interpreting the bible. It is dogmatic, rigid, doesn't accept alternative interpretations. Bias derives from that dogmatic position. Everything has to be interpreted through the bible. If someone presents an argument, otherwise reasonable, it will be denied if it in any way contradicts

I just got a dumbass "cocern" email from the BH comments nanny - who I've proceeded to block from any further personal annoyances - and checking back I note that one of my first comments here on the sorry "theology" of Richard Land has been "erased" from the visible comments. I'm repeating it with one word modified: Jesus Christ - women are not allowed to be pastors in Southern Baptist churches ? What kind of knuckledragging (crap) is this?

Quoting brucds: Jesus Christ - women are not allowed to be pastors in Southern Baptist churches ? What kind of knuckledragging (crap) is this?

The Roman Catholic kind. From what I understand, the Southern Baptists rely on Paul's exhortations about Christ being the head of the man, and the man the head of the women, a chain of command thing, whereas the Catholic logic is that Christ was a male, so females need not apply. I read a story once that when Billy Graham's daughter addressed a group of Southern Baptists, the men turned their chairs around.

On Ocean's point about bias and the other objections to male-female relations in Christian communities: Does anyone dispute that these 'biases' flow (or plausibly can flow) directly from an honest effort to interpret the documents?
If not, then your beef is with the documents themselves. I will not answer for all anti-woman actions performed by "christians" while resorting to the fig leaf of scripture.
I do, however, contend that the Bible describes different roles for men and women, including a posture of leadership for the husband, relative to his wife.
I recognize that secular thinkers hate this outcome, but it's part of the way (I believe) God ordered the world. The women I know who believe this sometimes question it, but overall cherish their place within the family.
Finally, my understanding is that new data supports the contention that male-female personality differences are not merely culturally imposed (wouldn't Bob Wright agree?). I simply contend that these differences (like all other aspects of our biology) were intended by God and accounted for in his instructions to us. Is my belief logically problematic or morally abhorrent to the anti-Land commenters?

"the Roman Catholic kind" - well, um, yeah. (But apparently, not exactly. Incidentally, I consider the influence of St. Paul one of the most malign on the subsequent evolution of Christianity. Ref. Land's ridiculous "honeymoon" line.) Whatever the antiquated psuedo-theological gyrations, this "no women need apply" business is very creepy, just as is the imposition of celibacy on priests.

The Roman Catholic kind.

I would remind people who want to crucify Palin (pardon the expression) that Joe Biden belongs to the Catholic Church, the number one anti-choice institution on the planet, which is as resistant to female clergy as Ahmadinejad, which opposes condoms and which views homosexuality as deeply immoral. Let's see: McCain is a reborn Baptist, Obama has been saved by his Lord Jesus Christ, Biden is a member of the most sexist church on Earth and Palin is a speaking-in-tongues anti-abortion activist. So what? It's ridiculous to go after these candidates for their beliefs or for what is preached in their churches. Instead, you have to hear what they say on the issues and what they commit to doing as national leaders. Who cares what Biden claims his supernatural beliefs are? He is committed to appointing liberal pro-choice judges if he ever becomes president.

"Is my belief logically problematic or morally abhorrent to the anti-Land commenters?" Yeah. I wasn't a big fan of the "Hamm" rationalizations for slavery or keeping black folks out of the Mormon priesthood either. I don't really take a guy who put primacy on avoiding any intimate relationship with a woman altogether and whose attitude toward marriage was that it's "better to marry than to burn" as the last word on appropriate roles for men and women in the modern world. And speaking of the admonitions of St. Paul and the importance of adhering to them, what's the divorce rate among white evangelicals compared to the average American ? You know the answer, of course, don't you.

I'm not going after the candidates...I'm going after blowhards like Richard Land who pretend to be final arbiters of Christian morality, but use an almost absurdly selective and/or incoherent set of measures and extreme dogmatism as their frame of reference. Joe Biden is a typical Catholic who is smart enough to take the bureaucrats who dominate his church and their top-down dictates with a grain of salt, but still values the faith of his fathers enough not to leave the church based on what are some pretty deep disagreements with the conservative hierarchy. Kinda like me not leaving for Canada, rather than endure Bush speaking for my beloved country over eight, long years that have been debilitating to the nation. The facts are that guys like the current Pope and Rev. Land are dinosaurs, still in our midst, but not a very likely represention of what the future of their institutions - broadly defined - are going to look like. Already the evangelicals are losing the ideological battle over gay acceptance with their younger flock in droves.

Quoting brucds: "the Roman Catholic kind" - well, um, yeah. (But apparently, not exactly. Incidentally, I consider the influence of St. Paul one of the most malign on the subsequent evolution of Christianity. Ref. Land's ridiculous "honeymoon" line.) Whatever the antiquated psuedo-theological gyrations, this "no women need apply" business is very creepy, just as is the imposition of celibacy on priests.

I give Paul a pass. I don't like him, as he strikes me as an insufferable busybody, but he taught inclusiveness of gentiles, who were to be free from the Old Law, and forgiveness through grace alone, as opposed to John, who emphasized the demonstration of faith through works and desired to keep the Old Law (which is a precursor to the Protestant work ethic). I can't accuse Paul of sexism. He was operating in a different world. But here in 'modern times,' we see it is psychologically and culturally embedded. The lid was barely kept on the simmering Hillary resentment, even by Dems, but Palin's emergence was like coming around a corner and yelling, 'Boo!' The defenses were not prepared.

Quoting Morningsider: On Ocean's point about bias and the other objections to male-female relations in Christian communities:

Does anyone dispute that these 'biases' flow (or plausibly can flow) directly from an honest effort to interpret the documents?

I imagine the "documents" means the bible. And, yes, a literal interpretation of some parts of the bible may lead to the idea that men-women relationships are to be regulated by religion.

... then your beef is with the documents themselves. I will not answer for all anti-woman actions performed by "Christians" while resorting to the fig leaf of scripture.
I do, however, contend that the Bible describes different roles for men and women, including a posture of leadership for the husband, relative to his wife.

You probably know that for many Christians, the bible shouldn't be interpreted literally, or that because of the contradictions found, there is flexibility in what contents are accepted and what concepts may be interpreted in non-literal ways. Non-religious people, agnostics and atheist wouldn't, of course, be involved with religious text as mandate, or ruling of any kind. They may find it interesting as a book with literary, philosophical and/or moral value. Or not like it at all.

Finally, my understanding is that new

Quoting Wonderment: I would remind people who want to crucify Palin (pardon the expression) that Joe Biden belongs to the Catholic Church, the number one anti-choice institution on the planet, which is as resistant to female clergy as Ahmadinejad, which opposes condoms and which views homosexuality as deeply immoral.

Let's see: McCain is a reborn Baptist, Obama has been saved by his Lord Jesus Christ, Biden is a member of the most sexist church on Earth and Palin is a speaking-in-tongues anti-abortion activist.

So what?

It's ridiculous to go after these candidates for their beliefs or for what is preached in their churches. Instead, you have to hear what they say on the issues and what they commit to doing as national leaders. Who cares what Biden claims his supernatural beliefs are? He is committed to appointing liberal pro-choice judges if he ever becomes president.

Agreed. FWIW, and I'll wager not much to you, her former pastor said he never saw her speak in tongues. As far as the abortion issue, Obama's put himself way out there, too. Remember, Palin moved from a Pentecostal church around 6 year ago...why? To be more politically palatable. As far as she or

Do you really see abortion being outlawed? If anything, slightly tightened restrictions will focus everyone's attention on prevention, early detection, RU-486 funding, etc.

Outlawed? Yes, absolutely. If McCain wins, Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned. States will approach abortion the way they now approach the death penalty. We will have a Red/Blue outcome of "life" and "choice" states.

So as long as you are not trying to tell me that I have to live my life according to your beliefs, or you are trying to subject me to something that derives from your belief, we are OK.

Ocean, one thing I've learned after 20+ years of arguing with religious people is that this ground rule is the one that real die-hards simply refuse to accept. Some do. But most don't. Whether it's through government or the courts, they feel that they have every right to craft our society to meet the image of their religious beliefs.

Quoting Wonderment: Outlawed? Yes, absolutely. If McCain wins, Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned. States will approach abortion the way they now approach the death penalty. We will have a Red/Blue outcome of "life" and "choice" states.

I question this. And as I said the choices must be approved. I recall at the time that Roberts and Alito were approved, there was talk that they were replacing two conservatives. I don't think dems will stand for the lib justices to be replaced by conservatives. Besides, haven't Roberts and Alito shown themselves not to be rubber stamps for Bush?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Ocean, one thing I've learned after 20+ years of arguing with religious people is that this ground rule is the one that real die-hards simply refuse to accept. Some do. But most don't. Whether it's through government or the courts, they feel that they have every right to craft our society to meet the image of their religious beliefs.

I know. I grew up hearing my father arguing with religious people. And in my experience, most of them do it because they think that they are helping you reach salvation. It's hard to have them understand the non-religious position.

I am not a Christian myself, but I would ask our two Christian friends to listen to Governor Palin's convention speech and count the number of sarcastic, belittling lines she uttered against Barack Obama's character. This is a man who, regardless what you think of his politics, embodies the American dream. A man with a beautiful family and an exemplary record of selfless service and brilliant accomplishment. I have made a small study of the Bible and of ancient Greek. It was astonishing to me when I discovered the derivation of the word "sarcasm." It is from the Greek 'sarkazein,' which means literally, "tearing the flesh." That's exactly why sarcastic remarks are often called "cuts," and the process of uttering them is called "cutting someone down." Ms. Palin is a master at this form of rhetoric. I would invite both of you good men to consider that all of the New Testament accounts of Jesus' passion describe him being beaten almost to death with a scourge, which was a whip with embedded pieces of bone, metal and stone. Its purpose was to cause untold suffering by tearing the flesh of its victim. Finally, I will close my little homily

Quoting Bokonon: I have made a small study of the Bible and of ancient Greek. It was astonishing to me when I discovered the derivation of the word "sarcasm." It is from the Greek 'sarkazein,' which means literally, "tearing the flesh." That's exactly why sarcastic remarks are often called "cuts," and the process of uttering them is called "cutting someone down." Ms. Palin is a master at this form of rhetoric.

That's politics. I would accept it at face value, if it were also clear that christian
principles that are ignored during campaigning, were also exempt from application in governance.
Ethical standards could be maintained without any religious litmus tests or consultation of bibles or preachers for legislating.

Quoting Bokonon: I am not a Christian myself, but I would ask our two Christian friends to listen to Governor Palin's convention speech and count the number of sarcastic, belittling lines she uttered against Barack Obama's character. This is a man who, regardless what you think of his politics, embodies the American dream. A man with a beautiful family and an exemplary record of selfless service and brilliant accomplishment.

I have made a small study of the Bible and of ancient Greek. It was astonishing to me when I discovered the derivation of the word "sarcasm." It is from the Greek 'sarkazein,' which means literally, "tearing the flesh." That's exactly why sarcastic remarks are often called "cuts," and the process of uttering them is called "cutting someone down." Ms. Palin is a master at this form of rhetoric.

I would invite both of you good men to consider that all of the New Testament accounts of Jesus' passion describe him being beaten almost to death with a scourge, which was a whip with embedded pieces of bone, metal and stone. Its purpose was to cause untold suffering by tearing the flesh of its victim.

Finally, I will close my little homily

Bokonon, thanks for that. Even as an atheist i found your post inspiring (although I have major sarcastic tendencies of my own to reconcile.) I find the kindness aspect of Christs's message to be incredibly compelling. too bad that's not the side that many Christians choose to focus on. Short side-story: after a particularly bad breakup with an ex, I was extremely bitter. A friend of mine told me about this guy who had spoken at her church. His name was Fred Luskin and he's a Psych researcher at Stanford who focusses his work on forgiveness. My friend sent me an audio tape of the talk he gave at her church and it was spellbinding. It was all about the power of forgiveness and how most people don't even make the effort even though it leads to peace ie- holding a grudge makes you miserable, whereas forgiving will make you happier. He pointed out that this was the quintessential message of Jesus, but one that is frequently overlooked, even in churches dedicated to Him. I'm not sure if I've managed to forgive my ex 100% (it was pretty nasty) but I really took to

Uncle Eb, Thanks. I love Jesus as a teacher, but I don't worship him, and I stumble over his followers so often.... I completely agree that forgiveness is the key to peace. It's simple, but very hard, if you know what I mean. I, too, was a master of sarcasm when I was younger. I stumbled on the derivation of the word a number of years ago, and was literally stunned. I don't believe there's another instance in my life where a word's etymology caused me to change my behavior, but that sure did. Read The Gospel According to Thomas for a large number of aphorisms of Jesus. It was rejected by the early Church because of its Gnostic elements. But many scholars believe it to be a very faithful rendering of Jesus' words, with little or no narrative; no miracle stories, no resurrection, no virgin birth. It's puzzling at times. it reminds me a little of the Tao Te Ching. Loved the joke about Jesus and Pilate.

I completely agree that forgiveness is the key to peace. It's simple, but very hard, if you know what I mean.

Big YES to both Bok and Uncle E. Understanding forgiveness transformed my life and healed a lot of my psychological pain. I also realized that it was a concept at the heart of both Judaism and Christianity. The most important Jewish holy days -- Rosh Ha-shana and Yom Kippur (coming up this month) -- are all about forgiveness, and of course it's at the core of the Jesus teachings. I don't know much about Islam, but I'm sure it's basic in the Koran too. Forgiveness is one of those deep spiritual areas of life where atheists and theists can share their deepest values in profound ways.

I think in the long run, Roe isn't a very strong piece of 'legislation.' It wasn't viewed favorably by some:

Legal criticisms by liberal scholars
Liberal and feminist legal scholars have had various reactions to Roe. One reaction has been to argue that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way.[23] Another reaction has been to argue that the ends achieved by Roe do not justify the means.[24]

William Saletan has written that "Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference."[25] In a 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal, Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision which "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."[26] Ely added: "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure."

Similarly, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe has noted that, "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment

Bok, thanks, I will check out the GoT. Not sure if I will ever give up sarcasm (it seems to be built into by bone-marrow) but I try to be less nasty with it. One of the things I loved about Luskin's message was that he was also a realist. "You don't have to forgive Hitler." By the way, every time I see your footer-quote I think it is a quote from the Tool song "Eulogy": "he had alot to say...he had a lot of nothing to say we'll miss him." Great tune, with very interesting lyrics.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Not sure if I will ever give up sarcasm (it seems to be built into by bone-marrow) but I try to be less nasty with it.

Yeah, me too. I was just thinking about how sarcastically I've written here about Mickey Kaus. I just seem to slip into that gear without thinking.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: One of the things I loved about Luskin's message was that he was also a realist. "You don't have to forgive Hitler."

Forgot to say previously that I went to his site based on your recommendation and liked what he had to teach very much. Thanks for the heads up.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: By the way, every time I see your footer-quote I think it is a quote from the Tool song "Eulogy"

Nope, don't know those guys at all. It's actually my lame attempt at a (somewhat paranoid) epitaph for my tombstone. My sarcastic take on a writer's life, poorly lived. ;-)

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: "You don't have to forgive Hitler."

Wouldn't it be nice if you could do that too? The search for compassion isn't always easy. Not too long ago I came across some wise words from Saint Teresa of Avila. I don't know what the exact translation is, but I'll write it in Spanish and in my approximate English translation:

Saint Teresa of Avila:

The lapidary definition of the devil is yours: “That poor forsaken one, who cannot love”.

(Es vuestra la lapidaria definición del diablo: "Aquel pobre desgraciado, que no puede amar".)

This is the deepest expression of compassion, and therefore, forgiveness. Isn't it impressive that a bunch of agnostics and atheist can engage in this kind of talk?

There a lot to be said about the moral nuances of abortion, and Roe v. Wade is not the greatest SCOTUS decision ever. But when tweaking abortion rights you have to remain clear about what the right wing ultimately wants: criminalizing the termination of any pregnancy and reducing civil rights in general. Anti-abortion activists often also have, as everyone knows, a full Biblical agenda: abstinence only, creationism, prayer in schools, anti-Muslim militarism, pro death penalty, anti-assisted suicide, censorship of "offensive" literature and art, and discrimination against gays and lesbians. Would a McCain court immediately result in fascism? No. Would it help advance most components of the above Biblical literalist agenda? Yes.

Quoting Wonderment: There a lot to be said about the moral nuances of abortion, and Roe v. Wade is not the greatest SCOTUS decision ever. But when tweaking abortion rights you have to remain clear about what the right wing ultimately wants: criminalizing the termination of any pregnancy and reducing civil rights in general.

Anti-abortion activists often also have, as everyone knows, a full Biblical agenda: abstinence only, creationism, prayer in schools, anti-Muslim militarism, pro death penalty, anti-assisted suicide, censorship of "offensive" literature and art, and discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Would a McCain court immediately result in fascism? No.

Good post.

Quoting Wonderment: Would it help advance most components of the above Biblical literalist agenda? Yes.

True. Especially since McCain will be dragging the fundamentalist Palin along with him, and she will become the presumptive Republican front-runner for the White House after McCain leaves office. The worst consequences of the McCain administration may not be his own conservative policies, but the ultra-conservative policies of Palin, his likely successor. A vote for McCain in 2008 is a vote for Palin in 2012 or 2016. And there is no doubt that Palin is totally committed to an ultraconservative, Christian worldview. I don't know if anyone on this forum has ever actually

geez, my heart bleeds for the poor "pro-life" democrats. Aren't pro-choice Republicans at least EQUALLY marginalized? Isn't this also a bad thing?