Having grown up in the household of a fundamentalist christian, I recognize in pence the adamance of a person, who being desperate to avoid finite death, was intellectually dishonest with himself. The outward manifestations include claims of absolute truth, zealotry, and proclamations based on private interpretations of biblical myth. —. Allowing a man like this near state (and military) power is terrifying.
This is why I no longer listen to NPR, and why I will never donate to them again. Throughout the campaign, they gave equal time to Hillary voters and to trump voters, as if the views of both were equally valid, morally and ethically. Then, no followup analysis or critique. — I am disgusted beyond the point of return now. The US is now a corporate entity, putting the profits of its overlords over people and the planet.
So, you're a smart person who voted for a catastrophically narcissistic man-child who thinks China invented global warming, who denigrates women, and doesn't appear to have much, if any curiousity about science, the products of science, or how the world works -- got it. -- if voting for less health care, less education, environmental degradation and general despoiling of the planet is your educated choice, you deserve what you get. Many of us didn't and don't.
What the hell does the content of your comment have to do with Prof Cole's post? -- And, is there any logical reason why a person who has money cannot empathize, or strive to empathize, with people who are disabled? Trump can rally calls for jobs to return to the US -- nobody is calling him out on that. Streep called him out for being a nasty, evil, uncaring person, which he is. --- You're the one who is being disingenuous, not her.
‘so twentieth century’ so appropriate’. --- Yes, well, I'd like to think religion itself is so twentieth century. And, I think that for many people who are now in their 20s, religion is being looked at as divisive and not worth the trouble. If true, I view that as a positive development.
I generally find myself agreeing with much of what Prof Cole writes, but I have a difficult time with the idea that a majority of US voters will soon vote for a Muslim. The hatred runs deep, as do memories of 9/11. --- Then, of course, you have G W Bush who said that God told him to smite Saddam.....
I don't want anybody in the white house that relies on faith in some G/god/s to decide who to bomb. I want somebody with some humanity, a rational mind and a desire to discover the facts, wherever they take them.
Yes, well Drumpf has set the stage over the past several years, hasn't he? Saying that Obama's birth certificate wasn't real, etc etc. He deserves all the criticism he is getting, given all the name calling he has done over the past 18+ months. Trump has no class -- period.
What do you envision? Comey, caffeine-infused via coffee IV drip, sorting through all those emails by himself? FBI has an $8bln+ budget and 35,000+ employees. Get a grip.
I'd suggest that you dial it back a bit when you carve out a certain demographic as a target for your "particular anger." It's not just 50+ somethings voting for don drumpf. Nearly everyone I know in my neighborhood that is over 50, despises the guy. The lines of demarcation aren't so easily drawn. Dig deeper.
"I personally admire people of strong faith and conviction" -- why?! The stronger or more adamant the conviction, the more I distrust and question what a person has to say. Faith is nothing more than magical, wishful thinking -- often based on embraced ignorance. A person can believe whatever they choose, and while I respect their right to believe in, say, a green unicorn living on the dark side of the moon, I don't respect them as a person for believing it. And when they attempt to force their beliefs on children (especially) and on other adults via the law, they can bugger off! Respect their right to believe? -- ok; respect their beliefs? -- no.
I watched the debate in full, and had a difficult time staying away from my alcohol. Fiorina clearly came across as a war monger who will bankrupt the country with military spending. Trump lacks depth and rationality, and seems to say whatever just now came into his head. Rubio is a scare mongerer, talking endlessly about threats real and non-existent. Walker strikes me as evil -- I can easily visualize him going to W Bush's house to drink and torture animals with Ted Nugent. Cruz appears to be an insane caricature of Grandpa from the Adams family. Jeb had the audacity to claim that his brother had kept us safe, conveniently forgetting about 911. Collectively, they are a sad collection of quasi-human beings. --- I'm very worried for the future of this blue dot upon which we stand.
Quite right Prof Cole! From my recollection, there is no mention of a wedding ceremony in the bible. Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding celebration, but no mention of a ceremony. Abraham went into the tent with Sarah and "knew" her, that's it -- no ceremony there either. The authoritarian, Victorian mindset of Christian fundamentalists is so tediously grinding and tiresome; why can't they just leave other people alone?!
Bill: did you not read the article? Apparently the city is not cutting water off to industrial customers that haven't paid their bills, but is doing so w residential customers. Why?
I think Christianity absolutely endorses a form of government: a kingdom (Jesus as king of the Jews. And if you don't think God is authoritarian, just read the old and new testaments!).
Jesus said ~~ "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and onto God the things that are God's." I know a couple of fundamentalist Christians who don't vote because of that verse. Personally, I wish the rest of them would follow suit, and leave me alone to pursue happiness in peace.
Perhaps the authorities should insider a Solomonian approach and threaten to tear the structure down if they can't behave!?
BTW, Jesus also said (paraphrasing): believe in my daddy or we will send you to hell (that we created). -- So, really, the hate, and "for or against me" bullshit started early, yes? It apparently helps explain a lot of divisiveness in the world.
Perhaps Perry isn't as wooden-headed as he appears! The charge of "cult" is very likely to spark a negative emotional response from many mainstream Christians toward Mormonism in general, and Romney in particular. If so, it can only help Perry. Whether Perry can capitalize on such a development is another discussion.
The characteristics of a cult don't seem to be strictly articulated, but loosely defined as a closed, exclusive, relatively small group holding extremist positions (as perceived from outside the cult).
I find it amusing that many religious groups advertise themselves as mainstream, but have to demonstrate their "mainstream-ness" by distancing themselves from extremists (i.e., like labeling other groups as "cults").
In some sense, arguing over whether Mormonism is a cult is a moot point. What I find offensive about Mormonism (and many other religions) is their claim to absolute truth (while being unable to demonstrate any validity to their claims), their exclusivity, their claim that their leader has a direct telephone line to "God," and that they excommunicate "adherents" who don't follow church dictates (e.g., people who challenge church leaders, are polygamists, etc.).
Further, if you read the Book of Mormon starting at the beginning, you only have to get into Chapter 4 of 1 Nephi verse 18, before the author is murdering another human being because "the voice of the spirit" told him to do so -- "I smote off his head with his own sword" and then stole his clothes!
While I suspect many Mormons would say I'm an undiscerning infidel for taking such a passage literally, and that if I sought spiritual guidance I would be able to put such a passage into proper context, I call bullshit on the whole proceeding.
In terms of bloodthirstiness, the Mormon's G/god doesn't seem to be any better or worse than the g/God of the Bible. Neither are worthy of worship. Their deeds and actions wouldn't withstand scrutiny of any self-respecting Homeowners' Association in the USA, and nobody would want them as a neighbor!
Conclusion: it's going to be an amusing, if not depressing, year leading up to the next election. I predict that I'll go into the voting booth, hold my nose, and vote for the least offensive candidate. Right now it's a horse-race.
You said: "If we believe there should be no sex before marriage, does that mean we have to condone those who revel in sex as recreation? No, but if they are not engaging in illegal acts, we must look the other way. Unfortunate, but true."
Personally, I find your religious beliefs (as manifested in these comments) to be invalid and detestable -- but, our freedom of religion allows you to believe and practice it, as long as it's not violating any laws...
So, everyday, I look the other way, even though artifacts and other manifestations of religious beliefs are impossible to avoid in my daily life (and I indirectly have to subsidize these beliefs through tax exempt status for your religious institutions), e.g., your crucifixes, your fishy fishes, and your inane promises to save my soul. "Unfortunate, but true" -- I can say that too!
What would be nice to see from the religious right is more "looking the other way." That is, more tolerance for people who believe differently than you, and whose right to belief differently is just as valid as yours..
I see Juan has let you leave your skid marks all over these comments. Are you sure you're European? And from Germany?
Then maybe you ought to sit on your hands for another 60 years.
As an "american" I've lived in Europe (germany to be specific), UK, Canada and US.
Most Europeans I've met appear to be more thoughtful than you, and can easily differentiate one "american" from another. Not all of us know "so little about countries and histories." I bet most "americans" know a few basic facts about your country's activities during the 1940s.
If you actually read my post, you'd see that I was critical of Iraq and Afghanistan (although not as critical as Iraq).
As for the US now acting "too weakly" in Libya, perhaps the Europeans could pick the slack for once.
I have read your blog for years and respect your opinions, well-formulated that they are, and the vast knowledge reservoir that they are built on.
However --- I think the most important sentence fragment in your column is this one: "since their publics . . . almost universally desperately did not want to be in" . . . pick a country: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
It's difficult to look at Libya as a separate data point, when we have been lied into Iraq (still there), stumbled into a permanent quagmire in Afghanistan (still there), and now Libya. Quite frankly, even though I voted for Obama, I don't believe him on the war front anymore. And then there's Guantanamo and individual rights in this country, which he has not restored.
We are being hammered at home -- jobs are scarce, the housing market is underwater, the Repugs are taking advantage of the situation by further skewing the economy in favor the of the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class . . . . and I don't have to regurgitate all the problems we have at home.
What happened to "government for the people and by the people"?
The politicians seem, collectively, to be in the pockets of the corporations, and these wars are draining the national treasury while we are losing our technological, innovative and educational edge.
Finally, there are wars and injustices all over the world -- most of which we don't hear about unless they are sensational enough to make the network news orgs some money. If you look at history, war on this planet seems to be the norm, not the exception. But, here in the 21st century, why must we perpetuate it?
As for the UN imperative, that's not all that solid a ground to built an argument on, given the dismissive attitude we have with the UN whenever we don't agree with it.
Having grown up in the household of a fundamentalist christian, I recognize in pence the adamance of a person, who being desperate to avoid finite death, was intellectually dishonest with himself. The outward manifestations include claims of absolute truth, zealotry, and proclamations based on private interpretations of biblical myth. —. Allowing a man like this near state (and military) power is terrifying.
This is why I no longer listen to NPR, and why I will never donate to them again. Throughout the campaign, they gave equal time to Hillary voters and to trump voters, as if the views of both were equally valid, morally and ethically. Then, no followup analysis or critique. — I am disgusted beyond the point of return now. The US is now a corporate entity, putting the profits of its overlords over people and the planet.
“What I actually wish is that we can could get rid of” - royalty.
So, you're a smart person who voted for a catastrophically narcissistic man-child who thinks China invented global warming, who denigrates women, and doesn't appear to have much, if any curiousity about science, the products of science, or how the world works -- got it. -- if voting for less health care, less education, environmental degradation and general despoiling of the planet is your educated choice, you deserve what you get. Many of us didn't and don't.
Guardian reports a 22,000 pound dropped in Afghanistan. Is that report mistaken? Thanks
your daily attempt at trolling is getting tiresome John -- Why don't you move on?
What the hell does the content of your comment have to do with Prof Cole's post? -- And, is there any logical reason why a person who has money cannot empathize, or strive to empathize, with people who are disabled? Trump can rally calls for jobs to return to the US -- nobody is calling him out on that. Streep called him out for being a nasty, evil, uncaring person, which he is. --- You're the one who is being disingenuous, not her.
I agree that greed and insanity are still problems. --- Having faith requires you to give up your intellectual honesty and intellectual integrity.
‘so twentieth century’ so appropriate’. --- Yes, well, I'd like to think religion itself is so twentieth century. And, I think that for many people who are now in their 20s, religion is being looked at as divisive and not worth the trouble. If true, I view that as a positive development.
I generally find myself agreeing with much of what Prof Cole writes, but I have a difficult time with the idea that a majority of US voters will soon vote for a Muslim. The hatred runs deep, as do memories of 9/11. --- Then, of course, you have G W Bush who said that God told him to smite Saddam.....
I don't want anybody in the white house that relies on faith in some G/god/s to decide who to bomb. I want somebody with some humanity, a rational mind and a desire to discover the facts, wherever they take them.
Pence has no class either; nor discernment. Look at the people he hangs out with.
Yes, well Drumpf has set the stage over the past several years, hasn't he? Saying that Obama's birth certificate wasn't real, etc etc. He deserves all the criticism he is getting, given all the name calling he has done over the past 18+ months. Trump has no class -- period.
What do you envision? Comey, caffeine-infused via coffee IV drip, sorting through all those emails by himself? FBI has an $8bln+ budget and 35,000+ employees. Get a grip.
I'd suggest that you dial it back a bit when you carve out a certain demographic as a target for your "particular anger." It's not just 50+ somethings voting for don drumpf. Nearly everyone I know in my neighborhood that is over 50, despises the guy. The lines of demarcation aren't so easily drawn. Dig deeper.
"I personally admire people of strong faith and conviction" -- why?! The stronger or more adamant the conviction, the more I distrust and question what a person has to say. Faith is nothing more than magical, wishful thinking -- often based on embraced ignorance. A person can believe whatever they choose, and while I respect their right to believe in, say, a green unicorn living on the dark side of the moon, I don't respect them as a person for believing it. And when they attempt to force their beliefs on children (especially) and on other adults via the law, they can bugger off! Respect their right to believe? -- ok; respect their beliefs? -- no.
"The invocation of ISIL was meaningless." -- If so, why'd he do it?! There had to be some intent there.
I watched the debate in full, and had a difficult time staying away from my alcohol. Fiorina clearly came across as a war monger who will bankrupt the country with military spending. Trump lacks depth and rationality, and seems to say whatever just now came into his head. Rubio is a scare mongerer, talking endlessly about threats real and non-existent. Walker strikes me as evil -- I can easily visualize him going to W Bush's house to drink and torture animals with Ted Nugent. Cruz appears to be an insane caricature of Grandpa from the Adams family. Jeb had the audacity to claim that his brother had kept us safe, conveniently forgetting about 911. Collectively, they are a sad collection of quasi-human beings. --- I'm very worried for the future of this blue dot upon which we stand.
Quite right Prof Cole! From my recollection, there is no mention of a wedding ceremony in the bible. Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding celebration, but no mention of a ceremony. Abraham went into the tent with Sarah and "knew" her, that's it -- no ceremony there either. The authoritarian, Victorian mindset of Christian fundamentalists is so tediously grinding and tiresome; why can't they just leave other people alone?!
Bill: did you not read the article? Apparently the city is not cutting water off to industrial customers that haven't paid their bills, but is doing so w residential customers. Why?
I think Christianity absolutely endorses a form of government: a kingdom (Jesus as king of the Jews. And if you don't think God is authoritarian, just read the old and new testaments!).
Jesus said ~~ "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and onto God the things that are God's." I know a couple of fundamentalist Christians who don't vote because of that verse. Personally, I wish the rest of them would follow suit, and leave me alone to pursue happiness in peace.
Perhaps the authorities should insider a Solomonian approach and threaten to tear the structure down if they can't behave!?
BTW, Jesus also said (paraphrasing): believe in my daddy or we will send you to hell (that we created). -- So, really, the hate, and "for or against me" bullshit started early, yes? It apparently helps explain a lot of divisiveness in the world.
Prof Cole,
Perhaps Perry isn't as wooden-headed as he appears! The charge of "cult" is very likely to spark a negative emotional response from many mainstream Christians toward Mormonism in general, and Romney in particular. If so, it can only help Perry. Whether Perry can capitalize on such a development is another discussion.
The characteristics of a cult don't seem to be strictly articulated, but loosely defined as a closed, exclusive, relatively small group holding extremist positions (as perceived from outside the cult).
I find it amusing that many religious groups advertise themselves as mainstream, but have to demonstrate their "mainstream-ness" by distancing themselves from extremists (i.e., like labeling other groups as "cults").
In some sense, arguing over whether Mormonism is a cult is a moot point. What I find offensive about Mormonism (and many other religions) is their claim to absolute truth (while being unable to demonstrate any validity to their claims), their exclusivity, their claim that their leader has a direct telephone line to "God," and that they excommunicate "adherents" who don't follow church dictates (e.g., people who challenge church leaders, are polygamists, etc.).
Further, if you read the Book of Mormon starting at the beginning, you only have to get into Chapter 4 of 1 Nephi verse 18, before the author is murdering another human being because "the voice of the spirit" told him to do so -- "I smote off his head with his own sword" and then stole his clothes!
While I suspect many Mormons would say I'm an undiscerning infidel for taking such a passage literally, and that if I sought spiritual guidance I would be able to put such a passage into proper context, I call bullshit on the whole proceeding.
In terms of bloodthirstiness, the Mormon's G/god doesn't seem to be any better or worse than the g/God of the Bible. Neither are worthy of worship. Their deeds and actions wouldn't withstand scrutiny of any self-respecting Homeowners' Association in the USA, and nobody would want them as a neighbor!
Conclusion: it's going to be an amusing, if not depressing, year leading up to the next election. I predict that I'll go into the voting booth, hold my nose, and vote for the least offensive candidate. Right now it's a horse-race.
@ charles
You said: "If we believe there should be no sex before marriage, does that mean we have to condone those who revel in sex as recreation? No, but if they are not engaging in illegal acts, we must look the other way. Unfortunate, but true."
Personally, I find your religious beliefs (as manifested in these comments) to be invalid and detestable -- but, our freedom of religion allows you to believe and practice it, as long as it's not violating any laws...
So, everyday, I look the other way, even though artifacts and other manifestations of religious beliefs are impossible to avoid in my daily life (and I indirectly have to subsidize these beliefs through tax exempt status for your religious institutions), e.g., your crucifixes, your fishy fishes, and your inane promises to save my soul. "Unfortunate, but true" -- I can say that too!
What would be nice to see from the religious right is more "looking the other way." That is, more tolerance for people who believe differently than you, and whose right to belief differently is just as valid as yours..
PAUL:
I see Juan has let you leave your skid marks all over these comments. Are you sure you're European? And from Germany?
Then maybe you ought to sit on your hands for another 60 years.
As an "american" I've lived in Europe (germany to be specific), UK, Canada and US.
Most Europeans I've met appear to be more thoughtful than you, and can easily differentiate one "american" from another. Not all of us know "so little about countries and histories." I bet most "americans" know a few basic facts about your country's activities during the 1940s.
If you actually read my post, you'd see that I was critical of Iraq and Afghanistan (although not as critical as Iraq).
As for the US now acting "too weakly" in Libya, perhaps the Europeans could pick the slack for once.
Juan --
I have read your blog for years and respect your opinions, well-formulated that they are, and the vast knowledge reservoir that they are built on.
However --- I think the most important sentence fragment in your column is this one: "since their publics . . . almost universally desperately did not want to be in" . . . pick a country: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
It's difficult to look at Libya as a separate data point, when we have been lied into Iraq (still there), stumbled into a permanent quagmire in Afghanistan (still there), and now Libya. Quite frankly, even though I voted for Obama, I don't believe him on the war front anymore. And then there's Guantanamo and individual rights in this country, which he has not restored.
We are being hammered at home -- jobs are scarce, the housing market is underwater, the Repugs are taking advantage of the situation by further skewing the economy in favor the of the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class . . . . and I don't have to regurgitate all the problems we have at home.
What happened to "government for the people and by the people"?
The politicians seem, collectively, to be in the pockets of the corporations, and these wars are draining the national treasury while we are losing our technological, innovative and educational edge.
Finally, there are wars and injustices all over the world -- most of which we don't hear about unless they are sensational enough to make the network news orgs some money. If you look at history, war on this planet seems to be the norm, not the exception. But, here in the 21st century, why must we perpetuate it?
As for the UN imperative, that's not all that solid a ground to built an argument on, given the dismissive attitude we have with the UN whenever we don't agree with it.