Well, gee whiz, cherry pick one quote out of a half dozen. Once again, you condemn the source. Do you deny he said it? Do you deny that he also once said:

or:

or

Er, whatever the heck he meant by that…

or the programs he's tried to put in place (faith-based community something or other)

Dingo and BapometsAdvocate, has a thread on grammar pedantry...

The third-hand Mazen quote about going to war is the only really scary quote that you listed, and its provenance is highly questionable. If anyone believes any palestinian leader about anything then caveat emptor.

The 3 things you just listed - I don't deny that Bush said any of those things. They also don't scare me in the least. I guess I'm a Jesus freak. Who knew. I heard God's call, government getting out of churches way to do good, using the word 'crusade' even....big deal. If those things really shock you, OK. We disagree.

I get your point but at least try this on for size. Take the word corn which is also dual use.

25% of the corn is rotting.

25% of the corn are rotting.

Is would be preferred in this instance. I think maybe we are running into a situation where the rules are not always consistent and we are getting into common usage. I'm not sure for instance that 'the American public' and 'Americans' can be strictly substituted. Still I'm presently persuaded your are is more likely to be correct in the title. However I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.


Hey DG this is not a generic discussion but directly has to do with the title of this thread. If anyone thinks they are being distracted from the 3 questions I will close my end of it but I think sometimes these little matters need some attention. Don't want to be lowering AD's grammatical standards.

Condemning the source is more than adequate in this case, as the same study also believed that:
- 1 in 5 Americans believe that Scientists will find proof for Aliens
- 1 in 3 believes that Cancer will be cured
- 1 in 3 believes a draft will happen

This study is a load of bologna, mired in bad math and poor statistics. I can't imagine that people really think these things.

Furthermore, it's interesting that a liberal picks out the ONE reference to Jesus, as if the other statements were perfectly sane. Absurd.

If you are going to discount the many sources and quotes I provided, that's fine. But if you'd dug just a little deeper on the Theocracy Watch website, you would find that the religious right's (or whatever your preferred term is) influence on politics in this country is much more widespread and serious than you'd like to believe. Maybe that's OK with you. It isn't OK with me, or the laws of the United States.

Religious people, even religious wackos, have every right to petition the government to pass laws that they like. So do oil companies and the ACLU.

I didn't discount your sources. Except the one quote, I acknowledge everything you said that Bush said.

I'm not going to surf over to something called "theocracy watch" because I find it a laughable premise. Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell, etc. are never ever going to turn this country into a theocracy. Not gonna happen. At the furthest out, they will get a little moralit law passed here and there around the fringes, which is their right and certainly won't kill us. And it's not "against the laws of the United States" to pass a law based on a religious belief. Perhaps the Supreme Court could keep this in mind, since they debate in a room that features a depiction of Moses and the 10 Commandments on the wall...

*Edited to remove attempt to bypass profanity filters* are you talking about?
I was responding to the debate questions as they were posed, and responding to carlitoswhey's questions about my response.

Actually, going form today’s standard dictionary of words and the separation clause it would be illegal to make laws pertaining to religion, I tired though a long time ago attempting to explain this, even if I tried to explain as I would to a child the emotional attachment to religion from the other party would just claim its not true, though of course someone can probably just claim to me having established my opinion

I don’t doubt Jesus existed, I really don’t, but guess what, I don’t find him or Gandhi that much different, or any of those types for example, save Gandhi just did not happen to get to be as cool as Jesus.

Also its not just a law here and a law there. I have read up on the Christian right and its motives, its far and beyond a simple law here or a law there, and you yourself profess basically on the same when saying like it will hurt anyone.

I don’t want to join some subjective minded version of the Borg anytime soon, so whatever locutus type religions icon that is desired to worship is fine, save again its not when those same people basically do carry out like the borg attempting to basically conquer human consciousness and behavior of course.

To the topic, how about is 25% of the American public psychotic?, from the poll I would have to say yes, but then again from a great many things it would be easy to say yes.

The simple aspect of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will simply die off if the Christian right gets what it wants, there is no freedom in religion. To Iran, where death to secular and liberal thought is mainstay, so that religious theocratic rule is not challenged and the insanity of subjective perceptions can rule, to once again religion being the major cause of death and destruction to human life still to this very day.

I've looked into the Chicago Manual of Style for guidence on this, and it's clear as canned muck. But I'll take a swag at it just for smirks:

the verb Is starts the sentence, and 25% is the object of clause Is 25%. Here, 25% acts as a modifier of the phrase of the American public, giving the object of the phrase relative size. A quarter of the American public could be psychotic.

Okay, get rid of all the modifiers and specific nouns: Is 25% of that this? Are 25% of those this?

So . . . and Chicago supports this, the object of the prepositional phrase is more important than the subject for determining verb agreement, but there is no subject of this sentence other than the object of the prepositional phrase! Aha! There's gotta be an oddball name for this situation, a perfect plu antyundum or something.

Seems to me that the singular form of IS is what works better, and this all does come back to what the real meanings of IS are.

I really needs a drink right now.

Yeah, psychotic is the topic's word choice, not mine.

However, we are talking about this because there is not an Extraterrestrial Right (that I know of) that can swing blue states into purple then red; nor has any president since John F Kennedy (according to what was his name, Agent Moulder?) been so devoted to pleasing the Extraterrestrial-Seeking Community. So the ET thing might be crazy too, or even the whole survey might be flawed. But, either way, American citizens have to wake up and start thinking about the role our various religion beliefs plays in our political sphere. And I don't need a survey to tell me that this Left Behind kind of Christianity is one of them.



I congratulate the city of Chicago for not only also burning, albiet for a significantly less dramatic reasons than Atlanta, but for bringing us the greatest soul singer of all time, AND the next President of the United States.

Unfortunately, however, for the second year running, Atlanta, not Chicago, is home to the world's busiest airport. I'll trade you for that Senator of yours.

Speaking of which, here's what Senator Best Seller List had to say in a keynote address last summer:

(http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote/index.html)



To its credit, I think the religious right is about far more than, as its often been pegged, prostylizing in preperation for the second coming, constitution be damned if impeeds Gods work. In a very real way, I think the Religious Right is the most active agent in addressing the issues our two parties have dropped between the gaps.

In our culture the Democrats so heavily address the economics of society: how many guns are on the city streets, how many Americans are without jobs or health insurance, how many after school care programs have gone unfunded. We don't often contemplate or account for other causes of unemployment, crime, illiteracy, etc. We've left that to the Republican Party -- who'd rather leave the economics as they are -- giving the GOP the room to embrace the other half the equation, the more societal, even spiritual half, which the Evengelical Right is all too happy to address.

However, I do not think they've found all the right answers.

For example, I do not think banning gay marriage will create safer families, though I admittedly see how its legalization will shake society considerably. Democrats have to consider this, and I think the current rush to legalize Gay Marriage has been poorly conducted. The civil rights movement won over the hearts of the nation first with images of peaceful marches brutally supressed, not to mention Emmett Till, the Arkansas Schoolhouse, etc. Then, after a majority of the nation was behind MLK, LBJ signed the bill. The Gay Marriage movement does NOT have this majority behind it, and in that sense, they are, as they've been accussed of doing so, behaving like 'activist judges.' I think we who want Gay Marriage legalized have first to convince the nation -- or suffer a painful backlash. It's the correct way for Democracy to unfold.

I do not think the War On Terror -- so implicitly accepted by the Christian Right that, beyond our borders it's easily seen as a Christian-on-Muslim War -- makes the world safer for Christianity. On the contrary, anyone can see that the ignoble treatment of "enemy combatants" in Guatanamo Bay furthers the image of a United States as a nation disrespectful of the Islamic faith; I cite as evidence the rumors founded in sentiment, not fact, that US troops were defecating on the Qu'ran in the detainment camps. And in turn, we breed contempt among the Muslim street towards Christianity; and we are probably past the point of no return.

I could go on and on. So lastly let me just say that, while an absolute belief that Christ is returning to Earth in 2007 is beyond reasonable, we would nevertheless be foolish to dismiss the Christian Right as a 'psychotic' movement. A look at the direction of our two parties, the direction of our society, etc., perhaps reveals that we are living in psychotic times, and Christianity has responded in turn.

In no different words its easy to draw comparisons between the Christian right and the religious right which rules Iran, simply because they are apples from teh same tree really, the same type specie of perception. Conservative religious perception is nothing more then the dark ages.

Now you can talk about how maybe the religious right is not this and that, I am looking at what they want to do and indeed do overall, and I find it all rather disturbing.

I try to find nice words to describe it but they simply don’t exist. When people like myself view cultures like Iran, the ability to find something rational about it simply escapes my ability to encapsulate in thought or words save for bluntly its irrational.

This irrationally comes from the ability of the human mind, the ability of imagination, the entire slate of issues that compromise what can be abstracted in the word subjective. When you deal with a subjective reality you ask for anything to be able to exist because what its an opposite of is objectivity, there is no room for fact to exist, there is no desire to fact to exist, its which hunts...

So in turn asking for religious rule is asking for a theocracy, which in turn is asking for a subjective reality overall.

I do not want to hand humanity to that, or myself moreover. I don’t know how to say it any better then that.

Yes, and its true that the democrats make mistakes by not playing to religion, but I don’t want any political body to play to religion, I don’t want a religious government, I don’t want the address of the nation to follow a prayer, I simply will not support it at any rate.

Look at the political party I support, little to no votes, what do they represent, science, or really, methodology for fact, I could only imagine what the Iraq war would look like if fact was allowed to exist, but we cant say that because overall its your opinion or mine or someone in powers view that matters, because we live in some subjective void of fact, confused, ignorant and overall lacking any really ability to produce concrete aspects of reality to debate or digest, this would be forever there reality humanity would be left to face if ruled by a theocracy, the only thought allowed to exist is whatever thought what ever current subjective minded ruler of such a corrupt system would allow under the guise of religion.

I could simply see religion getting its way and people that are not heterosexual heading for "correction" camps, along with massive amounts of book burnings, purging of secular and scientific thought, anything that could possibly be the enemy of the state, a subjective state. Bush is already shown the reality of this, and the Christian right constantly shows the truth of it. Today is ban on gay marriage, tomorrow its bans on gays, after that its bans on anything not towing the line of some subjective reality ruled by some subjective religion.

On first blush that would make sense however predestination beliefs are often the source of great political energy. Consider Kismet the Muslim idea of fate. Calvin was a predeterminist and had a very powerful effect on European and American political history. The premillennial dispensationalists like Falwell and Robertson take their beliefs in Biblical prophecy and apply them to the politics of the ME, primarily in the area of supporting Israel's seizure of the Biblical Holy Land.


Where have you been? Have you seen how much our ME policy is driven by religious considerations(See above)? And which party are they inclined to congregate at?

From the AP's review of the cited poll,
1. What are the social and personal forces that give rise to this kind of thinking?

Supermarket tabloids. They poll a few dozen "psychics" every year for their early January or late December issues. The return of Christ has been high on such lists for as long as I can recall. Along with alien invasions, a cure for cancer, major wars, violent storms, global warming, ice ages, tooth fairy sightings, ad nauseum. Polls asking for psychic predictions are hardly worthy of serious discussion. Here's one example:Another famous expression of these predictions was Conan O'Brien's 1999 skit called "In the Year 2000", which was so popular he has revived it frequently, without even changing its name to reflect the current year.

2. Do you think these kind of beliefs have political implications and if so how do they play out?

If the poll had been conducted among a representative sample of likely voters and conducted in a more serious context, then yes, 19% of them beliving that aliens are soon to make contact would be a serious political problem, just like global warming hysteria has recently, and just like ice age fears did in the 1970s. The poll was conducted after the November elections, so a huge percentage apparently expect Democrats to pass Charles Rangel's bill to reinstate the draft, yet voters who claimed to be voting against a draft voted overwhelmingly Democrat. Go figure.

The poll was not conducted among likely voters, but a sample of 1000 adult Americans who haven't gotten the memo that most telephone surveys are bogus these days. The question was not phrased as "what events are you certain will happen in 2007"-- it asked for their "predictions for 2007", which is an obvious reference to the supermarket tabloid-style predictions that are part and parcel of New Year humor. But seriously, is anticipation of Christ's return truly psychotic? Although this is not a religious discussion, it is important to note that the Christian bible does teach that Christ is returning, and that Christians should live their lives as though he could return any day now. Furthermore, MSNBC reported a NEWSWEEK poll with the following results:
With 82% of Americans generally believing the Christian bible's story, and the bible telling them to live life anticipating Christ's imminent return, only 25% thinking to include that would seem to be an amazingly low percentage, but the bible also says the exact date can't be known, so that might be why all 82% didn't choose to predict Christ's return this year.

The 82% who believe Jesus is God or the son of God seem to have more and more political implications as their first amendment rights are slowly eroded away in the court system, but maybe that's just wishful thinking.

3. To what degree do you think either party is propped up by people who think this way?

As for the people in the topic's poll (or more accurately, those who actually believe the validity of predictions of aliens, droughts, plagues, cures for the common cold, the return of Elvis, the end of the world, etc.), there's plenty of fringe kooks in every political party who believe all kinds of wacky things. The "lets invest trillions to control global weather" wackos prop up the Dems in close elections, while the "God told me you need to give me a million dollars" nutcases are well represented everywhere. As for the "Jesus is returning imminently" psychos (a.k.a. somewhere between 82% and 25%), WND's analysis of a Rasmussen poll says, A Pew Research report said: Here's an interesting Harris Poll and more Religion polls at the PollingReport.

HuffPo tries to convince us that bible-believing Christians are psychotic, and because bible-believing Christians helped elect Bush and other Republicans, the Republicans are too heavily influenced by psychotics. Rush Limbaugh frequently makes the opposite claim, that about 40% of Democrats might occasionally be somewhat reasonable, but because 60% or more of the Democrat base are wackos(evironmental activists, feminazis, other Rushisms) the radical psychos have crashed the Democrat party. Ralph Nader says they're both right, because he's the sanest person on the planet.

Partisanship at its worst.

But the topic's poll has nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with real beliefs. It's obviously part of the traditional American custom of making oddball predictions to celebrate the New Year, dressed up as infotainment to help the propaganda rags compete with tabloids. Whether the men coming to get us this year will be wearing space suits, robes, rhinestones and sideburns, tinfoil hats, or white coats, it makes little difference-- predictions are a form of humor this time of year. Those who take New Year predictions seriously while calling other people psychotic should invest in a better insurance policy on their glass houses.

Is 25% of the American public psychotic?

If you define psychosis as the belief in the imminent return of Jesus, then more like 77% to 82% of the American public are psychotic, assuming the more serious polls are to be believed. Cenk Uygur is the only sane person around, and the rest of us have lost our marbles. Yeah, right.

Well I found your post quite funny and somewhat instructive. I do wonder a bit though how you manage to equate the folks who believe in the imminent (Like this year) return of Jesus as being roughly on par with those who believe we are in a human induced global warming phase. It would seem the matter of evidence would be distinguishing. I'm also not aware that a belief in the near time arrival of extraterrestrial aliens closely associates itself with an active political interest in Middle East policies.

Thanks.

Both are supported by some degree of evidence, but people who have faith in either philosophy tend to see only the evidence they want to see and disregard the evidence that doesn't support their own beliefs as absurd mythology. Those who don't share their passions frequently view them as raving lunatics.

I posted several links in a comment in another topic about the scientific evidence that the cult of antropogenic global warming fanatics choose to disregard in order justifying proposals to dump trillions into bogus attempts at controlling the weather, garner votes for their party, and revive the dubious political career of famed Internet Inventor Al Gore-- or, at least that's how it seems to some. The other topic discusses such points in more depth.

The Christian bible is pretty clear that the right answer to "do you anticipate the imminent return of Christ, possibly within the next few days?" is "yes" (even for preterists, but from a slightly different perspective). It's a question more about spirituality than the material world, so the relevant evidence would naturally be more spiritual than scientific. Many of those who disagree have a deep and abiding faith that spirituality is synonymous with psychosis. To them, the only evidence that ever matters must be physical in nature. Many reject spiritual evidence without giving it much thought-- but if they care to understand what the other 82% of America thinks about them, they should come to grips with the fact that they cannot scientifically disprove the existence of God nor many other spiritual claims; so, in effect, they take their assumption that spirituality doesn't exist as a matter of faith. Sure, it is a faith based on the presence of alternate explanations which are often quite reasonable from a certain scientific point of view, but the mere presence of alternate explanations cannot disprove the existence of a spiritual realm ruled by an unbounded, omnipotent God, whose existence is supported by tons of spiritual evidence.

My point is simply that those who are absolutely convinced about some (any) point of view and the evidence supporting it tend to view those on the other side of the fence as deluded, misled, high, mentally deficient, or ignorant of the evidence, which are not usually fair assessments. Quite often there is a reasonable case to be made for both points of view on contentious issues, in which case the question boils down to a matter of which underlying principles one is willing to take on faith, including the non-existence of any god interested in disguising himself in nature to those unwilling to first believe. But I'm probably skating on thin ice even by mentioning such things, considering we're supposed to be avoiding religious topics on AD. And the poll the HuffPo article was discussing is a completely different phenomenon, anyway; the custom of making outlandish predictions to celebrate the New Year.


Nor am I. Perhaps you could elucidate that point for us. I don't think I tried to make the case that people interested in middle east policies are as loony as those who think the little green men are coming over for a chat... I'm having trouble finding where I might have hinted at such an idea, and am coming up short. Regardless, I am unaware of any sizable contingent thinking an interest in mideast policies is a psychosis, so if anything I typed leads the reader to form such a conclusion, it was unintentional; you have my apologies.

For the record, I am quite possibly psychotic. I don't think I'm psychotic, but such is the nature of psychosis. Until an absolutely perfect understanding of reality is available, we have no way to know who is psychotic and who isn't. From such a perspective, it is likely that we are all psychotic (out of contact with reality). Perhaps some more than others.

(Edited to add... this all assumes we've taken the term "psychosis" out of its clinical context, which seemed evident from the HuffPo column.)

I would say global warming is supported by scientific evidence and Biblical ideas are supported by revelation or faith in somebody else's testimony, not direct evidence.


I'm not acquainted with the idea of spiritual evidence, spiritual faith certainly.


I think you are moving a little far afield. The issue isn't the existence of God, which as you imply can't be proved or disproved, but whether it is a little strange and maybe divorced from reality(Psychosis?) to believe that Jesus will be returning this year. The author is in a bit of wonderment how anyone could reasonably arrive at such a conclusion. Apparently there is no objective basis for such a claim and even the Bible leaves the matter of his return somewhat open ended.


Can we get back on point here? The idea of human induced global warming is based on a massive amount of evidence that has been modeled and peer reviewed by a host of scientists. For instance one of the evidence sources are ice cores from the arctic and antarctic region that measure carbon gasses in air and temperatures going back as much as 400,000 years. One thing they find is that there is a high degree of correlation between the percentage of carbon gas in the air and air temperature. That is a major basis for predictions of future temperature rises due to our exhausting huge amounts of carbon gas into our air. We also have short term evidence from air studies done over the last 150 years or so. The belief that Jesus is going to return in 2007 offers nothing comparable by way of evidence that I know of.


Faith in the supernatural offers its own personal rewards no doubt, but evidence and careful observation in an environment of challenge is how knowledge is developed. We didn't discover that the earth circled the sun by praying about it.
,


If you will recall I asked a couple of questions related to the political implications of the belief in the imminent arrival of Jesus. Christians who believe this are often evangelical Republicans who think that Biblical prophecy is telling them that because of the restoration of the Jewish state of Israel the end times are near. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would be examples of people who believe this. This actually has a political effect on our policies in the ME, causing us to be more inclined to support Israel as a way of supporting the idea of God's Biblical plan. There is no comparable political belief about extraterrestrials, who you seemed to equate, which is why I made my above remark.

Thanks for proving my point. Some don't consider the bible as spiritual evidence, others do.

...
The connection is that many base their belief in the existence of God on the belief that the bible is true; anticipating the imminent return of Christ is primarily believed by this same group because it is commanded in their bible.
The assumption that there is no such thing as spiritual evidence (or that theological evidence is inherently less objective than scientific evidence, etc.) is probably why it might seem far afield to mention that the bible tells Christians to anticipate Christ's imminent return. The stats I posted on belief in the literal truth of the bible may not seem to everyone to connect with the bible saying Christians should anticipate Christ's imminent return. One person rejects spiritual evidence out of hand as if it cannot possibly describe anything real (if real, then psychosis wouldn't be bandied about); while someone else who believes in the reality of spiritual reason may consider those who try to deny it are having a break with reality by limiting their minds to the confines of the physical world. I'm not saying either side is necessarily right... just that both can make an equally strong case against one another-- within their respective world views-- a case which will be immediately rejected by the other side as foolishness.

If AD were a religious site, I might ask you to cite evidence that the bible equivocates about whether or not Christ is returning, but alas, this is probably one of the contentious religious issues AD would like to avoid, so I'll just agree that some Christians believe the issue is open-ended, and leave it there. However, those who believe the question is currently open-ended usually believe that the command to anticipate the imminent return of Christ was made moot about 70 AD when Christ appeared in a vision to one Christian, John the Revelator (although only angels, not Jesus, appeared to John in the physical world). So, some believe the bible indicates Christ has already returned, while others believe Christ is returning at some point in the future. To many who do not believe in either form of return, both groups might be considered delusional or psychotic.


Me off topic? I conveniently linked away to my post in the global warming topic where I give copious links to scientific evidence that your assertions in this thread could be incomplete or wrong, therefore those who fervently believe it on such incomplete scientific evidence are exercising a high degree of faith that they're not as wrong this time around as many of the same climatologists allegedly were in the 1970's about the impending ice age. Were they psychotic then? Are they psychotic now?

How do I make the connection between believers in significant anthropogenic causation of global warming (herein shortened to anthropogenesism or anthropogenicism a neologism of mine) and other people of faith? If we are to assert anthropogenicism is not a psychosis, one must first prove the anthopogenic model to be real; but the model simply hasn't been sufficiently tested on a global scale, and it doesn't even sufficiently explain the Medevial Warm Period or any of the other intervals between ice ages that were much warmer than our post-industrial world, based on the same evidence often cited in support of the anthropogenic theory. It doesn't even address the evidence that increases in global temperature can actually cause an increase in greenhouse gasses (only the other way around). The evidence that anthropogenicism reflects reality is extremely thin, so to believe it out of proportion to the conclusiveness of its evidence, one must make a leap of faith that their conclusions are not wrong. Perhaps not quite so large a leap of faith as the existence of spiritual evidence, but a leap of faith, nonetheless. A leap of faith that, if wrong, would mean that anthropogenicists like Al Gore might qualify under a loose definition of psychosis. (Such as the belief he created the Internet, perhaps? )

The bible. As for the date, any date between its writing and the actual second coming will do. It says Christians must be prepared for Christ's return at any date, perhaps on the date they least expect. 2007 is as valid a year as any; in fact, each and every year is closer.

If we first assume spirituality cannot offer evidence, then we shouldn't wonder why we can find no evidence concerning spirituality. Let's evaluate a little logic, which I admit is not what Dingo had asserted, but perhaps a generalized case as I currently understand it:

Thesis: There is no real evidence of a particular spiritual assertion.
Assuption: Spiritual evidence isn't real evidence.
Postulate: The only possible evidence for any spiritual assertion would be spiritual evidence.
Finding: The only evidence of the spiritual assertion in question is spiritual evidence.
Conclusion: Based on our assumption and postulates, our findings indicate our thesis is a tautology.

The reason the conclusion is incorrect is that the assumption is essentially a restatement of our thesis or cyclic to our thesis. These are a common logical errors/fallacies in reasoning (we all fall prey to them sometimes, pardon the pun). Why won't such a construction hold up? It does not prove anything to assume something (essentially, spiritual evidence doesn't exist), and then go through some process that essentially concludes the same thing or a minor transformation of it (essentially, spiritual evidence doesn't exist). To prove there is no evidence for something which, by its nature, can only have spiritual evidence, one must first assume, if only "for the sake of argument", that spiritual evidence exists. Otherwise, the only thing to conclude is the assumption we made in the first place (or a close approximation of it), which isn't very useful.

Agreed, but seminaries and other such institutions among various religions serve the same role with respect to spiritual knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, so this phenomenon is hardly unique to science; if historians are to be believed, the philosophy of science seems to have emerged from quite similar theological disciplines, not the other way around.

Assuming there was no prayer involved also strikes me as a bit presumptuous, as does ignoring the debate within theological circles surrounding the core issue. Many famous scientists and philosophers in many diverse intellectual disciplines have been far more prolific as theologians. Ever heard of a guy named Isaac Newton? Blaise Pascale? John Locke? Such thinkers quite often applied scientific methods to theology. They quite often got the ideas for their scientific experiments from testing extrapolations of theological principles into the physical world. They quite often credited their spirituality as the source of their inspiration. These great minds never dismissed spirituality as if it were not real-- spirituality was just as real to them as the physical universe, but merely of a different nature, subject to different rules, but at least equally valid in the quest for truth.

Regarding the connection between aliens and interest in mideast policy...


Not directly. The question was vaguely worded so I couldn't really tell if you were asking about the respondents to the survey (19% of whom believed in imminent alien contact) or only those 25% who anticipate the imminent return of Jesus. So, I answered both.


And as I noted, 77% of Republicans believe in the literal truth of the bible, as do 59% of Democrats and 50% of others (and about 67% overall, in the source I cited). This is the same bible that instructs Christians in no uncertain terms to eagerly anticipate the imminent return of Jesus. That's about 3 out of every 4 Republicans, about 3 out of every 5 Democrats, about 1 out of every 2 others, and about 2 out of every 3 Americans overall. (If this is a psychosis, it is truly a mass psychosis, isn't it?)

Of course, not all of these are going to interpret highly symbolic bible prophesy exactly the same way, but the call to live life as though Jesus might return very soon is not one of the more hotly contested points of scripture, because it is so clearly stated. Some folks may interpret prophesies here and there as signs that the end times are getting closer and closer; but almost all mainstream bible prophesy interpreters will footnote these interpretations with a reminder that whether or not the right signs are present, Christians have had the command to eagerly anticipate Christ's imminent return for many centuries now, so whether or not these signs have been properly interpreted doesn't really change how Christians are supposed to live their lives; it only gives them a bit of encouragement. Precursor events (wars, rumors of wars, etc.) might have to happen over and over again until the time is finally right; how many times is not known. The point these guys generally try to make is that there is a valid interpetation of prophesy that indicates that the conditions are right for Christ's imminent return, which is really a given, but they've merely found the pieces that would make the puzzle fit. Good for them, but whether or not God wants to seize the opportunity would still be up to him, or so they say.

If you will carefully review the topic post and it's title, it focuses heavily upon the psychosis of Christian beliefs or respondents to a particular New Year Predicitions survey, and not at all about the middle east.

I see. I was unaware I had made any equation or comparison between the alien cult and interest in Mideast policy because I was responding directly to the topic post, which made no reference to Mideast policy beyond a passing mention of a book that had many themes. The focus appeared to me to be on the prominently featured poll in which 19% believed in imminent alien contact. My apologies for the confusion.

I would rather not address the relationship between Christian premillenialism and political Zionism because it wasn't directly introduced in the topic post, and the real social problem in the Mideast, if it can be simply stated, is too much hatred rationalized by one past offense or another. Religion and paranoia about American Zionism are only two of many lame excuses for people attempting to justify their various hatreds, all-to-often expressed as oppression or mass murder. Others may disagree.

Here in reality, American foreign policy is governed by enlightened self-interest, even among those who have religious beliefs. Most will agree, whether from self-interest or spiritual enlightenment, that they don't want to see mass murder of Israelis at the hands of Palestinian extremists, nor the oppression of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis. Their dilemma is that one side of the conflict seems to be more often, more severely, and more popularly hateful/violent than the other, although neither side is blameless; a position which we have discussed at length in another topic about whether the Jewish people are a race.

Seamus you appear to be taking this thread way off topic and frankly I don't know how to pull you back in. I'm not saying you don't have some interesting perspectives but they have moved far away from the three questions that are suppose to anchor this discussion. I notice you think I have moved off topic as well so maybe it would be better to wind it down. I can't, for instance, really fit a conversation about whether a Biblical explanation is just as evidentially sound as a scientific one into anything to do with the 3 questions. It's pretty much taking us into theology. Nor does a free standing dissertation on American ME policy seem consistent with my questions either. You also at times seem confused about what the topic is about and what I'm saying.

Still thank you for the interesting dialog.

PS. I did find some of your comments on the cross fertilization of science and theology provocative.

My apologies. Considering this is your topic, I will defer to your assessment of what is on topic and what is not. For the sake of any others I may have led off-topic, here's a summary of the topic questions and links to the referenced articles:

Are a large number of Americans certifiable?
The poll discussed by the HuffPo Article.

Let me try to address the questions for debate directly, without making any kind of comment at all about religious beliefs.

To answer the question that appears in the title of this thread, clearly the answer is no. Whether or not I think that a particular religious belief is correct or not, it is not a sign of psychosis. (The only exception would be when someone has a belief which is clearly delusional, and religious in nature. For example, the mother who kills her children because God tells her to. These are cases of individual mental illness, and have nothing at all to do with religious beliefs shared by many people.)

1. What are the social and personal forces that give rise to this kind of thinking?

I assume you mean beliefs such as "Jesus is likely to return this year." Well, this is starting to get into religious beliefs, so without debating their validity, let me just say that they result from one's culture, one's upbringing, one's family, one's experiences, and so on. With the exception noted above, they are not the result of mental illness.

2. Do you think these kind of beliefs have political implications and if so how do they play out?

3. To what degree do you think either party is propped up by people who think this way?

In the United States in 2006, devout Christianity is usually associated with social conservatism, although certainly not always. As a result of this, the Religious Right openly claims to be responsible for the success of the Republican Party in recent years. Although it is certainly true that the vast majority of members of the Democratic Party are Christians, it is clear that, overwhelmingly, self-identified "evangelicals" or "Bible-believing Christians" are loyal to the GOP. (I use these terms in quotes because even the most liberal American Christian is likely to be evangelical and Bible-believing, but not a fundamentalist nor a Biblical literalist.)

Let's try to avoid confusing a person who has beliefs which we think are non-factual with a person who is mentally ill.

If I may be so bold, there are a few minor points in this thread that are worthy of some clarification.

Firstly, 19% of Americans believe that extraterrestrial life will be discovered in 2007. That is not psychotic, it is entirely rational. And though I would not add 'in 2007', I would be one of those who believes this will happen in the near future.

Extraterrestrial life does not mean small green men in silver saucers who speak in upper-class British accents. It means bacteria or amino acids on Mars or on the moons of Europa or Callisto. Frankly, the fact that the number is only 19% means that most Americans do not carefully follow space exploration.


That aside, I believe there is a difference between Religious, and believing in the return of Christ in the next 11 and a half months. I am reminded of Private Secretary Bernard in the best comedy series of all time, 'Yes Minister' with his irregular verbs. I am Religious, You are a fundamentalist, He/She is a lunatic cultist.

I am religious. Protestant, as with much of the country. I do not believe that Christ will return this year, or next year. And by the way, if he should happen to return, I believe he will have serious words with many in this country who take decidedly irreligious action in his name.

I have no problem at all with polls that say the country is by majority religious. I take serious issue with people believing that Christ is loitering about in a celestial car park waiting to make his triumphant return. Hopefully when he returns, he will not arrive in the US via American Airlines, it would be embarassing to fingerprint and strip-search the savior due to his Middle-Eastern appearance.


There are crazy people in the world. I am certain the percentage of crazy people in each country is exactly the same. The United States is a unusually religious country for the first world, so more of the craziness manifests itself in religious ways. Don't read too much into it.

2. Do you think these kind of beliefs have political implications and if so how do they play out?

One of the two Borders in Fort Worth is closing January 20. They had 25% off on everything in the store. I bought several books including one entitled The Bible According to Mark Twain.

I was rereading some of his ”Letters from the Earth” the other night and started wondering with what humor Twain would approach the above question.

I realize I am a poor substitute for Mark Twain, but please indulge me a I try to capture what I think might have been his take on the matter.

For purposes of answering this question, I am going to assume that the Jenkins, LeHay position – premillennial - found in the Left Behind series is entirely correct, though I have serious doubts about this as well as the amillennial and postmillennial positions.

http://www.biblesearch.com/articles/articl15.htm

Me substituting for Mark Twain:

I emerged from slumber about nine-thirty the other morning, either this or I was still in a dream state.

MSNBC was covering a breaking story. Anchor Norah O’Donnell was talking to Tom Brokaw. Wow, this must be big for Brokaw to be working it.

It seems that overnight a series of strange things had occurred.

Tom Brokaw: “To recap, overnight something mysterious things happened. Traffic accidents occurred when driverless cars plowed into traffic, airplanes fell from the sky, disc jockey’s at Christian radio stations were cut off in mid-sentence, but the big news Norah, is that the President of and the Vice President of the Unite States are both missing."

Norah O’Donnell: “Tom, does anyone know what’s going on?”

Brokaw: “Some are saying that the long anticipated rapture has occurred. At this time, that’s about as good an explanation as we have.”

O’Donnell: “With the President and Vice President missing, who is in charge?”

Brokaw: "We don’t know. Nancy Pelosi is in her office and someone is looking for a Bible on which to swear her in, but there’s a roadblock. Some remaining Republican Congressmen are saying that while the Constitution has provisions for dealing with dead or disabled Presidents, it says nothing about those who are missing or perhaps raptured.”

O’Donnell: “It sounds like we may have a full-blown Constitutional crisis on our hands.”

Brokaw: “That’s correct Norah. At this time both remaining Republicans and Democrats are looking for federal judges. At this point we don’t know which federal district or appellate justices are available. NBC News has not been able to make contact with Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Chief Justice Roberts. However, a majority of the court, Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter reported for work this morning.”

O’Donnell: “Tom, it’s time for a commercial break. We’ll resume this earthshaking story after these important messages.”

Whether this was a dream or something I fabricated is beside the point. Those of you who yearn for the “rapture” or hurl invective at Nancy Pelosi, as did the undisclosed member in this line, might be careful.



You may get more than you bargained for.