Accusations of flip-flopping are projections of shadow

Now, here's some interesting number crunching. An article entitled Bush By Numbers: Four Years of Double Standards, by Graydon Carter, was reprinted at Truthout.org. This is certainly an accounting you won't find the Bush campaign doing. This piece is an edited extract from "What We've Lost". It is equally condemnatory of the U.S. corporate press given how it illustrates how poorly Americans are informed.

Here's another good one from the Washington Post, entitled Who's the Flip-Flopper?, by Richard Cohen,
Thursday, August 5, 2004
. It appears as if Bush has a long, long string of flip-flopping to explain. I swear, the twit is worse than Tricky Dicky ever was.

Comments

Re:More comments about Bush

What would be the point? Do you really think Mr. Face would read, reflect or repent? Or even shorten his posts to a manageable length. No, I'd be wasting my effort. So, why not have him report something about Canada?

Re:More comments about Bush

Thank you. When we are at Lake Erie, and the wind is just right, we do occasionally get Canadian news. I'll watch for those neo-facists and the censorship problem. Is there any country functioning at the level of perfection you personally demand?

I think it is a shame that we in the USA get so little news about Canada from our MSM. We get smug, self-righteous Canadian born Peter Jennings, but that hardly makes up for the paucity of news.

Re:More comments about Bush

Hey, nice diversionary tactics! But I guess being a bush supporter you've had lots of practice.

s/

Re:More comments about Bush

I don't demand perfection; just a damned sight less imperfection.

"Perfection" is the goal of the ultra-conservatives and republicans. It's a pity, though, that the Christian Taliban have no capacity for learning the lessons of history, or they might learn something from the failed attempts of the Islamist Taliban to achieve perfection. In their search for "perfection", they finally outlawed paper bags as offensive to God.

I've got to ask myself on that one: If God is offended by paper bags, then why did he create trees?

As for it being a shame that you get so little Canadian news in the U.S.,
up here we think it's a shame that you get so little news at all
.

Re:More comments about Bush

Perhaps the purchase of a short-wave radio would bring knowledge to you...not just of Canada, but other faraway places...

Still Traipsing and Tracking

Or do you, like the majority of Americans, suffer from a deficiency of education?

I would have gladly offered any data produced by your research repository over at AlterNet however the folks their seem to be preoccupied with Bush burning and Fox hunting.

  • Percent of postsecondary attainment for age group 25 +

    United States 46.5
    Canada 21.4


    Statistical Abstract of the World, Third Edition

  • In 1999, 87 percent of the adult population ages 25-64 in the United States had completed at least an upper secondary education – a higher percentage than in all other G8 countries presented. (Canada 79%)
  • In 1999, the graduation rate from first university programs of medium length (3 to less than 5 years) was higher in the United States than in all G8 countries except the United Kingdom.

    NCES Comparative Indicators of Education in the United States and Other G-8 Countries: 2002

  • Re:Check your loafers Fang,

    Ah, another Republican smear campaign.

    You failed to make a point here, Tomeboy. All you did was to post something suggestive of impropriety without showing how it proves impropriety. Your House Speaker just did the same thing to George Soros, mouthing a negative affective connotation in which he effectively accused Soros of being a drug dealer, but stopping short of actually saying so.

    It has been clearly shown that George Bush had no just cause for the invasion of Iraq and the mass murder of 11 to 15 thousand innocents.

    It has been clearly shown that George Bush is a wishy-washy flip-flopper par excellence.

    It has been clearly shown that George Bush is a draft dodger.

    Check your loafers Fang,

    because you’ve stepped in it again.

    It is equally condemnatory of the U.S. corporate press given how it illustrates how poorly Americans are informed.

    Care to explain your truthout.org golden boy Mr. Carter?


    Vanity Fair Editor Got $100,000 for Suggesting a Movie
    New York Times May 14 2004

    Graydon Carter, editor in chief of Vanity Fair, received a $100,000 payment from Universal Studios in 2003 for suggesting years earlier that the book ''A Beautiful Mind'' be made into a film, executives involved with the film said. The payment was confirmed by a spokeswoman for the magazine...

    ...But the payment of consulting fees to a magazine editor who controls coverage of industry subjects has no precedent, according to executives in the publishing and film industry as well as journalism scholars...

    Re:More comments about Bush

    What would be the point?

    What is the point of engaging in mutual dialogue and the free exchange of ideas? Well, aside from the chance of learning something, even idle conversation can be enjoyable in its own right.

    Do you really think Mr. Face would read, reflect or repent?

    Ah, yes, the old republican cant: He does not think like us and therefore he is a heretic.

    Correlate that with the born-again fundamentalist attitude detailed in:

    The Book of Jerry Falwell
    Susan Friend Harding -2000
    ISBN 0-691-09589-6
    Dewey # 280.4 H263

    One point Ms. Harding covers in her book is how born-again christians talk only with other born-again christians, because in their point of view, if someone isn't born-again they are fit only to be preached at until they convert.

    In any event, when I refute your postings, I attack the points you bring up. I do not merely dismiss them or you as a waste of time and effort.

    Or even shorten his posts to a manageable length.

    Aren't you in a profession that is supposed to promote reading? Or do you, like the majority of Americans, suffer from a deficiency of education? Or is it simply that you have the attention span of a butterfly?

    (About your grammar, by the way: hyphenated words are not to be broken. You can call me Mr. Fang-Face, or Mr. DreamWeaver. Mind the spelling. And the above quoted phrase is an interrogatory; it takes a question mark.)

    And what about the idea that librarians are supposed to deal in information and information retrieval?

    Very bad showing, here, nbruce.

    No, I'd be wasting my effort.

    To repeat myself: One point Ms. Harding covers in her book is how born-again christians talk only with other born-again christians, because in their point of view, if someone isn't born-again they are fit only to be preached at until they convert.

    However, given your previous intimation that you have no ability to follow complex reasoning, I suspect that what you really mean here is that you find it too hard to think and can't see any personal profit in the endeavour.

    Attempting to learn something new is wasted effort? Well, I suppose it might be if you have a mindset where unpopular or dissenting opinions are treason, unAmerican, and heretical.

    So, why not have him report something about Canada?

    Because if you won't learn anything about your own country and political systems you won't learn anything about anybody else's.

    Besides, we've already elected a crop of parasites once this year. It's your turn. Don't blame me if you didn't take advantage of the opportunity to go on at length about the shortcomings of the neo-fascist ilLiberal Party of Canada when you had the chance.

    Re:More comments about Bush

    "Since you disagree with Fang, it would be better to explain why you do so and refute his charges if you can." Daniel to Norma

    Daniel, your standards for my comments puzzle me. I don't always agree with what you say, and that is why I don't usually ask for more. I read them, and move on.

    You enjoy the thesis type comments, loaded with links. I prefer hit and run. I thought Zell Miller perfectly answered Mr. Face's meanderings with his down home, to the point folksiness. So I posted it. Disagree if you wish, but please don't lay down those "he says, she says" rules here.

    If you personally don't like my style, e-mail me and perhaps we can work something out.

    More comments about Bush

    "I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

    He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

    I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel." Zell Miller

    Re:More comments about Bush

    A strength becomes a liability when it is inappropriately or excessively applied. Bush's "strength" of sticking to a course of action is applied excessively, and means that he is inflexible. By applying it inappropriately, he is inflexible on the wrong issues.

    And kindly explain to us how it is that a man with "a good heart" can perpetrate the mass murder of civilians (11-15 thousand, maybe as high 37,000) through military force.

    Whatever happened to the idea of surgical strikes? Was that a flip-flop or simply a bare faced lie -- a bearing of false witness -- from start to finish. Even before the bombs started falling I knew that there was nothing surgical about one thousand pounds of fulminating high explosives. How is it compassionate to blow up a bunch of lunching civilians on the off chance that your target might be hiding in the basement of the building in which they are eating? Ever hear of: Thou shalt not commit murder?

    The Republican party cant, and Bush's in particular, that God is on their side is at least an outright blasphemy. God is above earthly politics. Read the bible story of when Christ was in the marketplace and the pharisees sought to trick him. Pay attention to what Christ said to them about the Kingdom of God being not a kingdom of this earth. Ever hear of: I am the Lord, thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me? How is it that every bible-thumping, pulp-pounding, pompous ass sets himself up as a higher authority over God by proclaiming to know the mind of God?

    Can you say: hypocrisy?

    A straight shooter? After saying one thing about dozens of programs and then doing the opposite of what he'd said he would do? Puh-leeze!

    Every indicator I've seen says that Bush is a spineless puppet of the military-industrial complex and a dupe of the ultra-conservative wing.

    Re:More comments about Bush

    So, Mr. Face. Anything interesting happening in Canada these days?

    Re:More comments about Bush

    "So, Mr. Face. Anything interesting happening in Canada these days?"Does this mean that you are not in a position to refute Fang's charges? After all, in his original journal entry, he provided backing articles for his charges which cited specfics.You offered us an RNC speaker whose quote offered no evidence of why the President is such a steady leader. This same speaker later lost his prime seat to watch the President's acceptance speech.Since you disagree with Fang, it would be better to explain why you do so and refute his charges if you can. Unsupported comments and odd little offtopic lines about Canada do not an argument make, nor do they serve Truth.

    Re:More comments about Bush

    Yes. One of our elected officious told the truth about Bush's missile defense program and called it "a coalition of idiots". Our ass-kissing prime minister attempted to chastise her for it publicly, but that blew up in his face.

    The CHOI-FM censorship issue is still up in the air.

    The neo-fascist control freaks are making noise about a universal ID card again, and apparently it's going to start with electronically fingerprinting and photographing all of you American control freaks. As well as the honest Americans. I guess your paranoia is contagious.

    There's lots more going on. Just check out our own indy media web sites.

    Re:Still Traipsing and Tracking

    You're going for quantity over quality. Since you like tout how good you are at looking things up, try looking up "Jacques Barzun" and then actually reading what he has to say about education.

    Re:Still Traipsing and Tracking

    Since you like tout how good you are at looking things up, try looking up "Jacques Barzun" and then actually reading what he has to say about education.

    Terrific rebuttal. A real throwback to playground debate but unfortunately we are not discussing dinosaurs or baseball cards.

    I've a better idea.

    Perhaps you save myself the trouble and yourself the embarrassment by ceasing with these absurd generalizations supported by unabashed backpedaling?

    All Christians are born again

    I just wanted to point out that all Christians are born again. As Paul points out in Romans 6:"Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. "Ideally, this rebirth should lead to "the fruits of spirit" listed in Galatians 5,"In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness,gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law."It's often hard for unbelievers to tell that there HAS been a change, especially when we Christians are dimissive or hateful of others, but our spiritual rebirth is a fact. Once we have been "born-again", it is our responsibility to live a life in service to our Lord and to exhibit those "fruits of the Spirit" listed above. All of us fail to live up to that at times, but it is our responsibilty.Since some Christians do dialog with non-believers, and ALL Christians, are born-again, I have to disagree with your claim that "Born-again Christians ONLY talk with other born-again Christians." Some probably do, and those folks should reexamine their faith commitment in light of who Jesus fellowshiped with and took seriously.The rest of us are happy to talk w/o threat of forced conversion.

    Thanks for facts

    Appreciate your use of statistics in defending our education levels. Nice quip about Alternet too.

    Re:Thanks for facts

    Thanks for the kind thoughts here Daniel. More importantly, thanks for capitalizing the C in Christian.

    Make no mistake, the sophomoric message here from our mutual friend with his little "c" is disrespect. Fine.

    I say let him save his big W's for Wiccan.

    Re:Still Traipsing and Tracking

    A real throwback to playground debate but unfortunately we are not discussing dinosaurs or baseball cards.

    No, I wasn't; I was discussing your misapprehension that quantity trumps quality. A point you completely ignored with your red herring. Perhaps you should save yourself the embarrassment of basing your "rebuttals" on logical fallacies.

    Thanks for the laugh

    I say let him save his big W's for Wiccan.

    Ah, yes, another "Since he's not with us he must be a satanist" assumption.

    I'll give you points for attaining a new level of ignorance here, Tomeboy. I actually did snort in amusement.

    Mind you, I do not have the reasons to oppose Wiccan that I have to oppose C/c/khristianity. No Wiccans ever tortured seven-year-olds to confess to heresey before burning them at the stake, or rioted over the very idea that Catholics should be allowed to read a Catholic bible. Nor are they attempting to enslave the reproductive faculties of women, constitutionalize the suppression of free speech or misohomonism. . . .

    Re:All Christians are born again

    "I just wanted to point out that all Christians are born again. As Paul points out in Romans 6:"

    I certainly agree with you on this. "Born-again Christian" is redundant since you can't be a Christian without being "born-again." That said, it is a term that makes many main-line Christians extremely uncomfortable because they would prefer to believe in their own works and boot-strapping, the opposite of "born-again."

    Re:All Christians are born again

    Wouldn't only a born-again Christian believe that all Christians must be born-again? Do Catholics see Christians as born-again?

    Re:All Christians are born again

    I just wanted to point out that all Christians are born again. As Paul points out in Romans 6:

    An interesting point, but a technical one. I doubt if Jerry Falwell's adherents will see it that way. Among christians (non-capitalized because it is not a proper noun), a Born-again Christian is one who has strayed and who undergoes an epiphanous conversion back into the fold. The tendency among these people is toward zealotry if not fanaticism, and true to the black/white thinking of the zealous, "you are either of us, or you are against us." What I take from Dr. Harding's writings about her
    time studying and interviewing Falwell and his movement, is that the Born-again have a certain stand-offishness when dealing with the "unsaved". Moreover, they see proselytization as their primary mission. Hence, Harding asserts, they approach each encounter with an attitude of: If you are not saved, then you must be saved; if you are saved, then we are together.

    Then, too, there is the matter of self-identification. There are fairly few points in the bible (of which there are many different versions, so another group noun) that are not obscure references. Some parts are subject to frequent enough mention -- the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, the crucifixion -- that they are rather well known. I don't think you could find anyone who has not been "saved" who would call themselves born again because of Romans 6.

    Since some Christians do dialog with non-believers, and ALL Christians, are born-again, I have to disagree with your claim that "Born-again Christians ONLY talk with other born-again Christians." Some probably do, and those folks should reexamine their faith commitment in light of who Jesus fellowshiped with and took seriously. The rest of us are happy to talk w/o threat of forced conversion.

    "Dialog" and "fellowship" as action words? Puhleeze!

    "Verbing weirds language, man."

    Let's keep the nouns as nouns, thank you.

    I would say that -- lets call them the saved -- certainly do speak only with others who are saved and only talk at the unsaved. (Some religionists are so fixated on being saved that even other christian denominations aren't good enough to be called christian and members of those unclean churches are heading straight for hell-fire.) But the whole system of born-again fundamentalism seems to be based on exclusivity.

    One evening in June 1986, several thousand people from the Detroit area came to hear Jerry Falwell preach at Temple Baptist Church in the white working-class suburb of Redford. [...]

    As Falwell approached the Temple Baptist Church pulpit on that warm summer evening, the men and women seated around me seemed to settle in for a delightful and edifying evening. Sometimes they amened and chuckled as if they were listening to an old friend recount a favorite tale. Other times, they seemed to hold their breath as if watching a dramatic uplifting epic unfold. I, on the other hand, felt increasingly disappointed, headachy, irritated, lost, and dismayed. I had hoped that by
    listening to Falwell deliver this sermon live, I would come to a better understanding of how his oratory produced his national moral authority and leadership in the 1980s. Falwell's sermon that night, instead of giving me fresh insights, stopped my thoughts. My mind went blank. Within minutes and for the duration of his sermon, I felt as outside the community of fundamental Baptist belief as I ever had.

    Eventually, I came to understand that the capacity of Falwell's rhetoric to expel outsiders such as me, to viscerally define and exclude us, was one aspect of its power. Unlike witnessing rhetoric, which both constitutes "lost" outsiders and invites them in -- indeed, steadily paves the way and prepares a house for them -- Falwell's Moral Majority rhetoric brooked no liminal listeners. It was advanced, industrial strength, conservative, born-again Christianity. No lost souls, only the saved
    and surrendered, need apply. [...]

    My professional anthropological training and four years of listening to fundamentalist Baptist language enabled me to bracket the ways in which I disagreed with Falwell on political and moral issues. But they did not protect me from the exclusionary forces at work in his rhetoric. I was irritated by his full-volume, double-barreled baritone voice. I found his wording often awkward and inelegant. His list of woes seemed to me arbitrary, cliched, and at moments quite loopy. His reasoning struck
    me as, well , unreasonable, irrational. I could not avoid thinking that he sounded self-righteous, intolerant, and judgmental. In short, I was undergoing a modern, or liberal, reaction to fundmentalism. I was reacting to the militancy of Falwell's language, to the very quality that distinguishes more moderate Christians and non-Christians from fundamentalists. Their militancy rendered fundamentalism unfit for modern public life from a moderate point of view, at the same time it drew a line in
    the sand for fundamentalists. Falwell's implicit as well as explicit message to me that night was that I was on the wrong side of the line; I was beyond the pale. No matter how much I consciously resisted his explicit message, I could not resist the implicit ways the forms of his speech excluded me. --Susan Friend Harding, The Book of Jerry Falwell, pg 152/153 - 165/166

    How can you have a meaningful conversation with someone who does not even take you seriously as a human being because you don't share his religious views? You might talk to your dog, but how much credence do you give to the idea that his barking back at you constitutes a conversation?

    Re:All Christians are born again

    I'm one Catholic who sees himself as "born-again", though I'm the first to admit I often fail to live up to my new family's values as expressed in the Gospels.Here are some sections on being reborn from the official Catecthism of the Catholic Church:ARTICLE 1THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM1213Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word."I. What Is this Sacrament Called?1214This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."1215This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."--------------------As Fang implies, popular culture often confuses "born-again" with "narrow-minded fundamentalists." I share many of Fang's criticisms of Jerry Falwell and his ilk whose "Christianity" seems to be solely focused on drawing up lists of sinners and attempting to write their sectarian moral code into national law. Some fundamentalists, Falwell and Robertson come to mind, also would have you believe that God has endorsed the Republican party and annointed our every war.We are a free country and they can say that, but I'm not going to let them hijack the Christian faith without a fight. That includes reminding people that all who call upon Jesus Christ as their savior are indeed born again. That we don't all show signs of that rebirth is our fault and not that of God.

    Re:All Christians are born again

    An interesting point, but a technical one. I doubt if Jerry Falwell's adherents will see it that way.

    If you mean that Falwell would say that some who call themselves Christians are nominal Christians and thus aren't born again, then you are right. That's a view that I suspect Daniel (a Roman Catholic), Falwell (a Southern Baptist), and I (a conservative Presbyterian) would all share. If, however, you are asserting that Falwell thinks that there can be a sincere Christian believer who isn't born again, then you are simply wrong.

    Among christians (non-capitalized because it is not a proper noun), a Born-again Christian is one who has strayed and who undergoes an epiphanous conversion back into the fold.

    Most people believe they should know something about the subject on which they are speaking. You, however, have demonstrated that you are ignorant of Christian (capitalized, because it is a proper noun) doctrine. I don't know who Harding is, but if you got this understanding of regeneration from her book, then all her anthropological expertise didn't enable her to record correctly the teachings of her subjects. As confused as Falwell's theology probably is (I don't know the details), I would be utterly flabbergasted if held the view you cite. He would probably also have a tough time finding a pulpit in the Southern Baptist Convention if it were known that this was his view of regeneration.

    What I take from Dr. Harding's writings about her time studying and interviewing Falwell and his movement, is that the Born-again have a certain stand-offishness when dealing with the "unsaved".

    Doubtless there are some who are like that. But let's also consider some other non-believers' experiences with Christian fundamentalists. There are some good comments in a thread over at Tim Blair's place. Let me draw your attention to the comments of Steve in Houston, and Andrea Harris (who loves the word "fuck"), both of seem to have had multiple fundie encounters without coming away with the impression left by Dr. Harding. They aren't anthropologists, but that may be an advantage in some ways.

    Moreover, they see proselytization as their primary mission. Hence, Harding asserts, they approach each encounter with an attitude of: If you are not saved, then you must be saved; if you are saved, then we are together.

    Have I proselytized you or anyone else here on LISNews? Perhaps I should, just you you can point and say "See!" I think evangelism is crucial, but I certainly don't "approach each encounter with an attitude of: If you are not saved, then you must be saved; if you are saved, then we are together," and frankly I don't know many Christians who do. I have made a point of not using LISNews as a vehicle for evangelizing people against their will. I realize that there are Christians who believe in button-holing others, and I think that is both annoying and un-Biblical. I may well post to my journal on matters of reason and belief, but I don't as a rule try to force or trick people into listening to the Gospel.

    There are fairly few points in the bible (of which there are many different versions, so another group noun) ...

    By "versions" do you mean translations, or manuscript copies? If you mean that there are many translations, well, who knew. If you mean manuscript copies, demonstrate that you have a clue on this matter by citing one example of well-attested variant readings for a passage, the difference between which results in a change in a central Christian doctrine. And, if I may paraphrase you, try looking up "Bruce Metzger" or "Kurt Aland" or "Barbara Aland" and find out what they had to say on the topic of New Testament textual criticism.

    I would say that -- lets call them the saved -- certainly do speak only with others who are saved and only talk at the unsaved.

    Somewhere in this thread was a reference to "projection". Perhaps the person who has shown himself so ignorant of this subject, and who for all I can tell is simply parotting what he has read in an book, should check out the plank in his own eye before worrying about the sliver in Daniel's, nbruce's, GregS's, or tomeboy's.

    As for the language of exclusivity, well, Falwell didn't make it up:
    John 6:43-45,
    John 6:60-66,
    Matthew 25. You may think Falwell or me a fool for following Jesus. That's fine. I won't shout you down for saying so. But I think you would have to admit that we would be inconsistent and possibly even hypocritical if we claimed to follow his teachings and yet felt free to pick and choose what we liked.

    How can you have a meaningful conversation with someone who does not even take you seriously as a human being because you don't share his religious views?

    If you seriously wish to impute this attitude to all conservative Christians, then I think it is you who is not taking us seriously as humans. You simply lump us all together as if your observation were deductively true of us all. That's as bigoted as anything Falwell does.

    There are obnoxious Christians who make themselves, rather than the Gospel, the cause of the offense they give. I know I've done that. However, what you write fits so little of what I see of the Christians I know, that I'm compelled to think it has become an ideé fix with you. The reality of the matter is more complex than you seem to think.

    Re:All Christians are born again

    An interesting point, but a technical one. I doubt if Jerry Falwell's adherents will see it that way.

    If you mean that Falwell would say that some who call themselves Christians are nominal Christians and thus aren't born again, then you are right.

    No, that's not what I meant. Falwell and those of his ilk do not consider those of other christian sects to really be christian at all; only hell-bound heathens. One of the faults of religious extremism -- whether in Christianity or Islam -- is that nobody is ever holy enough, and one of the faults of human nature is to view any outsider as less than human.

    The anthropologist Robert Redfield has argued that the worldview of many people consists esentially of two pairs of binary oppositions: human/nonhuman and we/they. These two are often correlated, as Johnathan Z. Smith observes, so that "we" equals "human" and "they" equals "not human." --Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan, pg xviii

    The more fanatical the group, the more demonized The Other is by default.

    Most people believe they should know something about the subject on which they are speaking.

    Yes, ChuckB, you certainly should, and this is quite an amusing statement coming from someone who later admits he doesn't even know who Susan Harding is much less having read her work, yet went on to dismiss her writings because his prejudices were offended.

    Here are the sources for my studies in comparative religion:

    Muslims in Canada: A Question of Identity Ahmad F. Yousif -1993 ISBN 0-921252-27-7 Dewey # 305.697 Y82

    Moonwebs: Journey into the Mind of a Cult Josh Freed -1980 ISBN 0-88893-020-8 paperback Dewey # 289.9 F853

    Islam: An Introduction Annemarie Schimmel -1992 ISBN 0-7914-1328-4 Dewey # 297 S335

    Belief in God in an Age of Science John Polkinghorne -1998 ISBN 0-300-07294-5 Dewey # 261.55 P765

    Science & Religion: Opposing Viewpoints -1998 ISBN 0-89908-431-1 Dewey # 215 B458

    The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft Ronald Hutton -1999 ISBN 0-19-820744-1 Dewey # 133.43 H985

    Buddhism and Zen Nyogen Senzaki and Ruth Strout McCandless -1953 '87 ISBN 0-865447-315-3 Dewey # 294.3 S478

    Televangelism and American Culture: The Business of Popular Religion Quentin J. Schultze -1991 ISBN 0-8010-8319-2 Dewey # 269.26 S387

    Scripture Twisting James W. Sire -1980 ISBN 0-87784-611-1 Dewey # 220.6 S619

    The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America Wyn Craig Wade -1987 ISBN 0-671-41476-3 Dewey # 322.42 W121

    The Preachers (A study of televangelists) James Morris -1973 ISBN N/A

    The Variety of American Evangelism Ed: Dayton & Johnston -1991 ISBN 0-87049-659-X Dewey # 277.3 V299

    How to Found Your Own Religion Frances J. Phelan C.S.C. -1963 ISBN N/A Dewey # 817.5 p51

    The Buddhist Religion Richard H. Robinson -1970 ISBN N/A Dewey # 294.3 R663

    Hebrew Myths -- The Book of Genesis Graves & Patai -1964 ISBN N/A Dewey # 222.11 G78

    The Reference Shelf: Islamic Politics Edited by Andrew C Kimmens -1991 ISBN 0-8242-0784-7 Dewey # 320.917671 I82

    A Delusion of Satan: The Real Story Behind The Salem Witch Trials Frances Hill ISBN ? Dewey # ?

    Deviance and Moral Boundaries Nachman Ben-Yehuda -1985 ISBN 0-226-04335-5 Dewey # 302.542 B479

    Is God A Racist?: The Right Wing In Canada Stanley R. Barrett -1987 ISBN 0-8020-5748-6 (cloth) Dewey # 305.800971 B274

    Evil and World Order: World Perspectives #49 William Irwin Thompson -1976 ISBN 0-06-014276-6 Dewey # 909.82 T37

    The Book of Jerry Falwell Susan Friend Harding -2000 ISBN 0-691-09589-6 Dewey # 280.4 H263

    The Origin of Satan Elaine Pagels -1995 ISBN 0-679-40140-7 Dewey # 235.47 F133

    Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend Jeffrey S. Victor ISBN 0-8126-9191-1 (cloth) Dewey #364.1 V643

    Highroad to the Stake: A Tale of Witchcraft Michael Kunze -1982 trans: William E Yuill -1987 ISBN 0-226-46211-0 Dewey # 133.4 K96Y

    The Rushdie Affair: The Novel, the Ayatollah, and the West Daniel Pipes -1990 ISBN 1-55972-025-5 Dewey # 823.914 R953S

    Price of Honor: Muslim Women Lift the Veil of Silence on the Islamic World Jan Goodwin -1994 ISBN 0-316-32028-5 Dewey # 305.486971 G656

    (Also see her article Buried Alive: Women Under the Taliban, and pay attention to the fact that there are "christian" groups who are every bit as bloodlusting.)

    You might also take note from my Have Read List, that there are a number of titles from the Opposing Viewpoints, Opposing Viewpoints Digest, and Reference Shelf series of books. These books proffer both sides of the arguments in the issues the books cover. The better to consider both sides.

    I look forward to perusing your list of sources.

    The titles dealing with Buddhism don't really belong on this list, by the way, because Buddhism is the philosophy and way of life Christianity was supposed to be; Buddhism is not supposed to be a religion. Like the Universalist/Unitarian Church, it welcomes religionists of all denominations and does not forbid them from practicing their faith according to the dictates of their conscience. Of course, the peaceful nature of Buddhism is just as at odds with born-again/fundamentalist/biblical
    literalist/fill in the blank Christianity as the peaceful teachings of Christ are, and it's not even founded on biblical authority, so it is seen as some kind of paganism. Hell; there are "christian" churches that won't even allow Yoga.

    Christian (capitalized, because it is a proper noun)

    Adjectives are not nouns. The word christian is used as both. And even where it is used as a noun, it labels a way of life or a group of religions, not any specific denomination.

    You, however, have demonstrated that you are ignorant of Christian (capitalized, because it is a proper noun) doctrine.

    I wasn't discoursing on doctrine, I was discoursing on exclusionary attitudes. If you'd like to touch upon that subject, however, I'll be happy to point out to you that there is no such thing as "Christian Doctrine" because "Christian" is not a specific religion/denomination/sect/church/ whatever. Every church founded on Christianity pretty much has its own doctrine, and most of those doctrines are parallel, but some are tangential. In the doctrine of my religion -- The Humanist-Christian Faith of
    Fang-Face DreamWeaver -- fags and lezzies are not morally disordered and intrinsically evil; niggers are not the cursed seed of Ham; jew-boys are not Christ-killers; Wiccans and dissenters are not for burning at the stake, it is not all right to murder gynecologists, it is not all right to enslave the reproductive faculties of women, etc, etc, etc. My doctrine is based upon an attitude of positivity that is anethema to the fanatic's attitude of negativity.

    You want to lecture me about complexity? Did you take into account any factors of psychology and sociology such as the phenomena of groupthink or acculturation and anomie? Or did you simply base your argument on doctrine and look no further?

    Do you have any idea of what projection is? Here's a clue:

    Jungian psychologists call this process "projecting one's shadow." According to this theoretical notion, our "shadow" consists of all those things about ourself which are the opposite of our basic values but nevertheless are still part of our identity. Our "shadow" is everything about which we feel guilt, shame, and regret. It is hidden, in a sense, from our daily thoughts about our conduct because it is too painful to think about. So, we deny the existence of our "shadow" and
    condemn it by condemning the moral "evils" which most outrage us in others. The essence of this process is denial and projection. As the cliché points out: we hate most those qualities in others which we dislike most in ourselves. --Jeffrey S. Victor, Satanic Panic, pg 205

    Here's another clue: anybody who says, "I believe Bush because he's the president", or "It says so in the bible", is not thinking at all. The only rational reason for believing someone is because there is a discernable, factual basis for what they've said.

    And I would contend, ChuckB, that if you are so sensitive you feel targeted by comments made about a group to which you do not belong but which has some relation to the group to which you do belong, then you might be less rational than you have attempted to draw yourself here.

    Anybody who is interested in doing a quick and dirty study of comparitive religion can peruse some of my quotations files:

    Susan Harding

    Islamism in the Middle East and the Christian crusades

    Good/Evil Interactions in Society

    Syndicate content