USA is a Christian nation - Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Fox
USA is a Christian nation - Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Fox
A couple of weeks ago Bill O'Reilly's Factor on Fox News invited Sarah Palin to talk about the philosophical underpinnings of the United States Constitution. It was humorous to say the least. Palin instructs us to "Just look at the documents written by the founding fathers.", and argues that the national slogan is "In God We Trust" as printed on the national currency. Meanwhile Bill O'Reilly argues that some courthouses have statues of the Ten Commandments, and he feels this is direct evidence of the United States' Christian heritage.
I know this is old hat, Fox News and Christian fundamentalists have been trying this angle for ages. Yet, it never ceases to amaze me that one can say "This is true, just go look at x" and convince millions who never go look at x, but take their word for it.
The founding fathers, as most of you know, were mainly deists who didn't particularly like Christianity. The other two arguments have no direct relation to the founding of the nation or the drafting of the constitution.
I know this is old hat, Fox News and Christian fundamentalists have been trying this angle for ages. Yet, it never ceases to amaze me that one can say "This is true, just go look at x" and convince millions who never go look at x, but take their word for it.
The founding fathers, as most of you know, were mainly deists who didn't particularly like Christianity. The other two arguments have no direct relation to the founding of the nation or the drafting of the constitution.
Re: USA is a Christian nation - Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Fox
Additionally, O'Reilly refered to the "Judeo-Christian philosophy" of the founding fathers. What is striking about this is the major differences between Judaism and Christianity, the absense of Islam in that statement and the difference between philosophy and theology. Bill might have said "Judeo-Islamic-Christian theology", but I'm sure he left Islam out for a reason.
I would think that Islam and Judiasm are closer in theology than Christianity is to either one of them, and that is because the distinct characteristic of Christianity is the view that Christ was the prophecied Messiah, whereas neither Judiasm or Islam believe it to be true. Islam merely honors Jesus as a great prophet, whereas Judaism rejects his piety all-together. And yet, Christianity finds itself allied to Judaism and not Islam.
I would think that Islam and Judiasm are closer in theology than Christianity is to either one of them, and that is because the distinct characteristic of Christianity is the view that Christ was the prophecied Messiah, whereas neither Judiasm or Islam believe it to be true. Islam merely honors Jesus as a great prophet, whereas Judaism rejects his piety all-together. And yet, Christianity finds itself allied to Judaism and not Islam.
- Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: USA is a Christian nation - Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Fox
I would say there are definite differences between a 'sophisticated' Protestand Christianity and Torah Judaism, but they are in fact almost one and the same animal in terms of core values, world view, etc. What many people don't know about Judaism is that the so-called Old Testament, what you read in your Christian Bible, is not really that stressed in historical Judaism. What are stressed, and what are referred to, are the endless volumes of commentary on the Torah texts that have been crafted and handed down to posterity. It is in that 'coversation' that most Torah Jews find what interests them. (There is also the Oral Tradition, which includes Qabalah, and opens into vast speculative territories that, as far as I know, esoteric Christianity cannot match).
It is mind-boggling the amount of time that has been spent thinking about the Biblical dispensation, the stories in Torah, and all that came out of it. Billions of man hours, millions and millions (?) of lives given exclusively to study, conversation, argument, and the forging of ethics and morals. The ethics that arise from this long long process are in most regards (IMO) 'superior' to Christianity, if only in the sense of more thorough, more insightful, more applicable, perhaps more down to Earth. Christianity excels because it is a truly universal religion, a gentile possession. But it is not a whole lot more than Biblical and Torah Judaism put into another vessel. It is still Torah Judaism essentially.
_________________________________________________
Noah Webster "All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”
Attributed to George Washington:
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]
Benjamin Franklin:
“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."
Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”
On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
Noah Webster:
“ The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.”
“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
[Source: 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language]
Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49]
“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” [Noah Webster. History. p. 339]
“The Bible was America’s basic textbook
in all fields.” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5]
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
.......click here to see this quote in its context and to see John Adams' quotes taken OUT of context!
Samuel Adams:
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]
“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]
John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.
“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61
Elias Boudinot:
“ Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”
John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations. "A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"
___________________________________________
And this?
And this?
And this?
___________________________________________
It would seem that many of them were men of a distinct religious orientation, and pretty obviously Christian.
It is mind-boggling the amount of time that has been spent thinking about the Biblical dispensation, the stories in Torah, and all that came out of it. Billions of man hours, millions and millions (?) of lives given exclusively to study, conversation, argument, and the forging of ethics and morals. The ethics that arise from this long long process are in most regards (IMO) 'superior' to Christianity, if only in the sense of more thorough, more insightful, more applicable, perhaps more down to Earth. Christianity excels because it is a truly universal religion, a gentile possession. But it is not a whole lot more than Biblical and Torah Judaism put into another vessel. It is still Torah Judaism essentially.
_________________________________________________
Noah Webster "All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”
Attributed to George Washington:
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]
Benjamin Franklin:
“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."
Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”
On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
Noah Webster:
“ The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.”
“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
[Source: 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language]
Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49]
“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” [Noah Webster. History. p. 339]
“The Bible was America’s basic textbook
in all fields.” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5]
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
.......click here to see this quote in its context and to see John Adams' quotes taken OUT of context!
Samuel Adams:
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]
“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]
John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.
“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61
Elias Boudinot:
“ Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”
John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations. "A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"
___________________________________________
And this?
And this?
And this?
___________________________________________
It would seem that many of them were men of a distinct religious orientation, and pretty obviously Christian.
I can't go on. I'll go on.
Re: USA is a Christian nation - Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Fox
"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385. (From your last post)
Ok, well let us be clear on a few things. Jefferson's version of Christianity is quite a lot different from what most people term "Christianity". Jefferson himself stripped out all of the miracles and superstitions contained within the Bible, in his writing of the Jefferson Bible - which I have not read, so don't quote me on it.
I can sympathize 100% with Jefferson's statement "I am a real Christian", I feel that I am, but I'm unable to make this statement because of all that it colloquially entails. I don't go to church, I don't pray, I don't perform any rituals (Christmas, Easter, or otherwise - I don't celebrate 'holidays'), nor am I a JW, I belong to no congregation, and I do not feel as if God is any more a concrete conscious 'I' than I am. And it is within this view that my statement rings true and has meaning. The founders who identified themselves as Christians were often Deists who were heavily influenced by Baruch Spinoza. Spinoza himself was born a Jew, yet he became sympathetic to all religion the same and renounced all of them. Spinoza's deism was not a disbelief in God or a disbelief in Christianity or Judaism, but rather an escape from the shackles of dogma. Spinoza was a monist and viewed God as the originator.
When considering Spinoza's God and the moral teachings of the Bible, one is forced to consider the 'laws of nature' as the concrete implementation of the moral order. Whereas, it seems to me, and might have seemed to many 'deists' that the bulk of "Christianity" believes in a supervening God, a God who is separate from nature and it's relativistic laws, and is capable of intervening in the natural order. To some this is quite unnecessary and even ridiculous, why should that be so? Why would God create a universe that does not already do what he wants? If the moral teachings of the Bible, Judaism or even Islam are empirically true, then they can serve as excellent guides to wisdom, although there may not be any claims to material fact. That is, there may be no claim to the rotation of the stars or the earth. There may be empirical statements within it which were simply taken for granted during the Bible's authorship. However, the Bible is primarily a statement of moral fact and transcendentalism. Really, the transcendental philosophy provides a basis for the moral statements, a bit like having a scientific theory that explains the evidence. The statements are only testable by living a life, the statements cannot in-fact be tested in a laboratory because they depend entirely on one's own perceptions.
This view of the Bible is extremely tricky, but not any trickier than reading much poetry. Many things in our environments are anthropomorphized by humans constantly. We are constantly referring to things as if they have will and intent. Hold that thought in mind for a minute while we discuss the illusory nature of self-hood. What does it mean to say that a human being has "intent"? It is to say that they have premeditated some act, but who has done it? If there is no supernatural entity within the mind-brain that premeditates, then there is only an endless causal continuum, just like everything else. So perhaps the mistake is when we assume that we possess intent anymore than a falling rock. Or, everything possesses intent the same as us. Or, third option, there simply is no duality, everything does and does not possess intent. There is only an illusion of some things possessing intent and some things not possessing it. Straddling this dividing line between what is "human" such as purpose, meaning and intent, and what we deem to be non-human containing no purpose, no meaning, and no intent. Perhaps ultimately the whole notion that we have these things is merely fundamental egoism. The central illusion of being some singular self-sufficient ego that is cut-off from reality. It is not therefor that the universe has purpose, because that is simply falling into one side of the dichotomy. It is both and neither, as are we. In that view it is perfectly tolerable to refer to God and various forces or laws as possessing some intent, understanding or other human characteristic. It is expedient in that pursuit to view the totality of one's own interactions with reality as a relationship with(in) God.
In views like this, and I'm not attributing all of this to Spinoza or the "Founding Fathers", there is a drastic difference in the understanding and the heart when compared to run-of-the-mill Christianity. And I suspect that Christendom has become far more commercialized and political since industrialization, the internet and mass media. It is much more of a fad now, although even Kierkegaard remarked extensively on the state of Christendom when compared to the core Biblical teachings. As much as to ensure that if one was loved by their peers they are headed on the wrong path.
I share your sympathy for the more esoteric aspect of Judaism, certainly Judaism has enjoyed much more variety of prose. I've heard that it is not really a matter of speculation whether or not humans continue to exist after death. Rather, such questions are considered rather unintelligible. I don't know if that is true, but I have gotten my feet wet in Qabbalah and discovered many interesting things.
The point of all this is simply to make clear that the founding fathers statements sympathetic to Christianity are not entirely indicative of their personal beliefs, nor are they any indication that the Constitution was drafted with Christianity in any regard. I myself consider Christianity to be a boon as well as a bane. I'd almost rather have Christian neighbours than New-Age neighbours, though I'm not either, nor neither myself. I enjoy the aspects of all traditions which are true, not so much the ritual, the symbolism, and so forth. It is my personal opinion that no religion factors directly into the drafting of the constitution. The document should be viewed in the context of an evolving socio-political system spanning all of civilized human life. Various historical events lead to the independence of the United States. Off the top of my head, one major influence would be the Magna Carta. A lot of what is in the Constitution are duplicates of what was in the Great Charter and other documents. These have nothing at all to do with religion directly, but everything to do with evolving civilized order. You can probably find ways of making the basic tenants of the Magna Carta connected with religion.
Historically, much of the Americas were being populated by religious minorities such as Puritans, Mennonites, Deists and Naturalists. America was the land of religious freedom as much as it was freedom of anything else. Fundamentally it became about basic human freedom, the right to liberty, freedom from religious dogma, freedom from totalitarian rule. The right to earn one's own fate. That being the vision has nothing solely or directly to do with Christianity. There is no doubt that the founders commented on Christianity or spoke of their convictions, but the United States was not determined to be a Christian nation. I understand that some of them believed Christianity was a boon, but themselves did not have strong beliefs.
In closing, it's not just; Oh gee-golly-willikers weeze a Chrishtun nation and that thar how it be. That doesn't help us at all, it only serves to falsify history and polarize a country. And, don't take this wrong because I've no attachment to the country myself. I share the vision somewhat, but I've no care for its emblems, slogans or borders.
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385. (From your last post)
Ok, well let us be clear on a few things. Jefferson's version of Christianity is quite a lot different from what most people term "Christianity". Jefferson himself stripped out all of the miracles and superstitions contained within the Bible, in his writing of the Jefferson Bible - which I have not read, so don't quote me on it.
I can sympathize 100% with Jefferson's statement "I am a real Christian", I feel that I am, but I'm unable to make this statement because of all that it colloquially entails. I don't go to church, I don't pray, I don't perform any rituals (Christmas, Easter, or otherwise - I don't celebrate 'holidays'), nor am I a JW, I belong to no congregation, and I do not feel as if God is any more a concrete conscious 'I' than I am. And it is within this view that my statement rings true and has meaning. The founders who identified themselves as Christians were often Deists who were heavily influenced by Baruch Spinoza. Spinoza himself was born a Jew, yet he became sympathetic to all religion the same and renounced all of them. Spinoza's deism was not a disbelief in God or a disbelief in Christianity or Judaism, but rather an escape from the shackles of dogma. Spinoza was a monist and viewed God as the originator.
When considering Spinoza's God and the moral teachings of the Bible, one is forced to consider the 'laws of nature' as the concrete implementation of the moral order. Whereas, it seems to me, and might have seemed to many 'deists' that the bulk of "Christianity" believes in a supervening God, a God who is separate from nature and it's relativistic laws, and is capable of intervening in the natural order. To some this is quite unnecessary and even ridiculous, why should that be so? Why would God create a universe that does not already do what he wants? If the moral teachings of the Bible, Judaism or even Islam are empirically true, then they can serve as excellent guides to wisdom, although there may not be any claims to material fact. That is, there may be no claim to the rotation of the stars or the earth. There may be empirical statements within it which were simply taken for granted during the Bible's authorship. However, the Bible is primarily a statement of moral fact and transcendentalism. Really, the transcendental philosophy provides a basis for the moral statements, a bit like having a scientific theory that explains the evidence. The statements are only testable by living a life, the statements cannot in-fact be tested in a laboratory because they depend entirely on one's own perceptions.
This view of the Bible is extremely tricky, but not any trickier than reading much poetry. Many things in our environments are anthropomorphized by humans constantly. We are constantly referring to things as if they have will and intent. Hold that thought in mind for a minute while we discuss the illusory nature of self-hood. What does it mean to say that a human being has "intent"? It is to say that they have premeditated some act, but who has done it? If there is no supernatural entity within the mind-brain that premeditates, then there is only an endless causal continuum, just like everything else. So perhaps the mistake is when we assume that we possess intent anymore than a falling rock. Or, everything possesses intent the same as us. Or, third option, there simply is no duality, everything does and does not possess intent. There is only an illusion of some things possessing intent and some things not possessing it. Straddling this dividing line between what is "human" such as purpose, meaning and intent, and what we deem to be non-human containing no purpose, no meaning, and no intent. Perhaps ultimately the whole notion that we have these things is merely fundamental egoism. The central illusion of being some singular self-sufficient ego that is cut-off from reality. It is not therefor that the universe has purpose, because that is simply falling into one side of the dichotomy. It is both and neither, as are we. In that view it is perfectly tolerable to refer to God and various forces or laws as possessing some intent, understanding or other human characteristic. It is expedient in that pursuit to view the totality of one's own interactions with reality as a relationship with(in) God.
In views like this, and I'm not attributing all of this to Spinoza or the "Founding Fathers", there is a drastic difference in the understanding and the heart when compared to run-of-the-mill Christianity. And I suspect that Christendom has become far more commercialized and political since industrialization, the internet and mass media. It is much more of a fad now, although even Kierkegaard remarked extensively on the state of Christendom when compared to the core Biblical teachings. As much as to ensure that if one was loved by their peers they are headed on the wrong path.
I share your sympathy for the more esoteric aspect of Judaism, certainly Judaism has enjoyed much more variety of prose. I've heard that it is not really a matter of speculation whether or not humans continue to exist after death. Rather, such questions are considered rather unintelligible. I don't know if that is true, but I have gotten my feet wet in Qabbalah and discovered many interesting things.
The point of all this is simply to make clear that the founding fathers statements sympathetic to Christianity are not entirely indicative of their personal beliefs, nor are they any indication that the Constitution was drafted with Christianity in any regard. I myself consider Christianity to be a boon as well as a bane. I'd almost rather have Christian neighbours than New-Age neighbours, though I'm not either, nor neither myself. I enjoy the aspects of all traditions which are true, not so much the ritual, the symbolism, and so forth. It is my personal opinion that no religion factors directly into the drafting of the constitution. The document should be viewed in the context of an evolving socio-political system spanning all of civilized human life. Various historical events lead to the independence of the United States. Off the top of my head, one major influence would be the Magna Carta. A lot of what is in the Constitution are duplicates of what was in the Great Charter and other documents. These have nothing at all to do with religion directly, but everything to do with evolving civilized order. You can probably find ways of making the basic tenants of the Magna Carta connected with religion.
Historically, much of the Americas were being populated by religious minorities such as Puritans, Mennonites, Deists and Naturalists. America was the land of religious freedom as much as it was freedom of anything else. Fundamentally it became about basic human freedom, the right to liberty, freedom from religious dogma, freedom from totalitarian rule. The right to earn one's own fate. That being the vision has nothing solely or directly to do with Christianity. There is no doubt that the founders commented on Christianity or spoke of their convictions, but the United States was not determined to be a Christian nation. I understand that some of them believed Christianity was a boon, but themselves did not have strong beliefs.
In closing, it's not just; Oh gee-golly-willikers weeze a Chrishtun nation and that thar how it be. That doesn't help us at all, it only serves to falsify history and polarize a country. And, don't take this wrong because I've no attachment to the country myself. I share the vision somewhat, but I've no care for its emblems, slogans or borders.
- Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: USA is a Christian nation - Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Fox
You've brought up so many points. It is certainly a pretty interesting conversation. Even an important one. I can only respond to this at the present moment:
Animus writes: "Historically, much of the Americas were being populated by religious minorities such as Puritans, Mennonites, Deists and Naturalists. America was the land of religious freedom as much as it was freedom of anything else. Fundamentally it became about basic human freedom, the right to liberty, freedom from religious dogma, freedom from totalitarian rule. The right to earn one's own fate. That being the vision has nothing solely or directly to do with Christianity. There is no doubt that the founders commented on Christianity or spoke of their convictions, but the United States was not determined to be a Christian nation. I understand that some of them believed Christianity was a boon, but themselves did not have strong beliefs."
I think one of the ways to proceed to test this assertion: "That being the vision has nothing solely or directly to do with Christianity", would be to try and locate, in another culture, in another civilization, in another epoch of history, a matrix that gave birth to anything comparable to those values and achievements you describe as: "America was the land of religious freedom as much as it was freedom of anything else. Fundamentally it became about basic human freedom, the right to liberty, freedom from religious dogma, freedom from totalitarian rule. The right to earn one's own fate".
My take is that we get so used to a certain understructure of values that it is like the water the fish swims within: he doesn't really ever think about the water, it is just there, and he exists within it. You know, I read relatively recently William Prescott's history of the Conquest of Peru and he describes the extremely elaborate organization of Incan culture. Some of his 'history' is doubtless a little fantastic and even novelesque, but he does seem to peice together a vision of a society in which the individual as individual, with goals, aspirations, a sense of his own fate, personal motives, hopes, dreams: this individual simply was not conceived to exist, was not allowed to exist. Society was an organic entity and the binder of society was pure authoritarianism. The culture achieved a spectacular organization and was in the process of increased expansion when the Spaniards stormed on the scene. The only reason I bring up this example is to describe a culture that arose with no relationship to Mediterranian culture and 'Biblical values'. I suppose you could examine, say, Chinese civilization and see what its ultimate values are or were, or other oriental civilizations, or civilizations that preceded the Roman-Christian state.
The point is that (I believe) you could never separate the men who conceived 'the Constitution' (and all that surrounded it and came out of it) from the matrix that produced it. In the sense of 'dissection' you could try to cut into those men and try to isolate the religious parts from the strictly rationalistic parts, and you'd wind up with a mess because all that produces us as persons is so interwound. The woof and weft of what historically and intellectually and emotionally produced us (the Mediterranean world: Judea, Greece, Rome and Alexandria and the cultural accomplishments that arose from that) could never be separated one from the other. The melding is so extensive.
While I completely empathize with what I imagine as your horror in seeing this utterly bizarre figure Sarah Palin becoming a national defender of such lofty things as 'Western values', which to me are precious and worthy of defense, the fact of the matter is that 'America' was formed by some very, very high-thinking people, and that the groundwork they laid down allowed for an incredible structure to be built on it. If we really and truly were (as Palin says) to "roll up our sleeves and get back to the common sense conservative principals upon which America was founded and made this nation a great nation", there would likely take place a renaissance or some sort of giant reform, but who's to say what direction that would take? What has been called Postwar Radicalism: anti-bomb, anti-impersonalism of means of production, pro-personalism of the Catholic radicals, the beat poets, Ginsberg, Kerouac, the folk revival, the student movement---this whole manifestation (in my view) arises almost directly in a straight line from Biblical values (Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day of The Catholic Worker for example), the American Trascendentalists, the spirit of Walt Whitman and this palpable connection with people and soil, as well as from a tangible protestantism/puritanism which is and was the foundation of American culture. The lines are very, very clear and this is not whimsical invention on my part. In this sense, America is a country and a culture that at almost every juncture brings forward from itself expressions of religious/Biblical value. America is so wedded to spiritual/religious impulses that (I repeat) it is impossible to separate them.
"In closing, it's not just; Oh gee-golly-willikers weeze a Chrishtun nation and that thar how it be. That doesn't help us at all, it only serves to falsify history and polarize a country. And, don't take this wrong because I've no attachment to the country myself. I share the vision somewhat, but I've no care for its emblems, slogans or borders."
I can so much relate to this. It is interesting to examine 'causation' in this context: that we are the products of molding forces, choices others have made. So---and only if I read you right---we also have been 'caused' to feel and embody a sort of contempt, and as a result of this contempt, we are separate, either above or just to the side. We have a very thin allegiance, but we can't even think in terms of nationalistic pride, or hardly even loyalty to our institutions, our cultural matrix, and in a very real sense to 'our people'. If you really examine it, it is strange and even abnormal.
In a certain sense we who have been caused to think (is it thinking or is it, at the core, emotional?) like this become not the friends of America, but the antagonists of America, and consciously or unconsciously ally ourselves with a grand ressentiment of all that 'America' represents, and this I mean globally. I am not at all judging it, just noting it. (With the last 2 paragraphs I am likely not referring to you but to a 'subculture of attitude' which I have been a part of and know).
________________________________________________
This site may interest you: Chabad.org. These are people who base their life and teaching on the 'Oral Tradition' which is often deeply mystical. (Not for this video but for the whole site).
Animus writes: "Historically, much of the Americas were being populated by religious minorities such as Puritans, Mennonites, Deists and Naturalists. America was the land of religious freedom as much as it was freedom of anything else. Fundamentally it became about basic human freedom, the right to liberty, freedom from religious dogma, freedom from totalitarian rule. The right to earn one's own fate. That being the vision has nothing solely or directly to do with Christianity. There is no doubt that the founders commented on Christianity or spoke of their convictions, but the United States was not determined to be a Christian nation. I understand that some of them believed Christianity was a boon, but themselves did not have strong beliefs."
I think one of the ways to proceed to test this assertion: "That being the vision has nothing solely or directly to do with Christianity", would be to try and locate, in another culture, in another civilization, in another epoch of history, a matrix that gave birth to anything comparable to those values and achievements you describe as: "America was the land of religious freedom as much as it was freedom of anything else. Fundamentally it became about basic human freedom, the right to liberty, freedom from religious dogma, freedom from totalitarian rule. The right to earn one's own fate".
My take is that we get so used to a certain understructure of values that it is like the water the fish swims within: he doesn't really ever think about the water, it is just there, and he exists within it. You know, I read relatively recently William Prescott's history of the Conquest of Peru and he describes the extremely elaborate organization of Incan culture. Some of his 'history' is doubtless a little fantastic and even novelesque, but he does seem to peice together a vision of a society in which the individual as individual, with goals, aspirations, a sense of his own fate, personal motives, hopes, dreams: this individual simply was not conceived to exist, was not allowed to exist. Society was an organic entity and the binder of society was pure authoritarianism. The culture achieved a spectacular organization and was in the process of increased expansion when the Spaniards stormed on the scene. The only reason I bring up this example is to describe a culture that arose with no relationship to Mediterranian culture and 'Biblical values'. I suppose you could examine, say, Chinese civilization and see what its ultimate values are or were, or other oriental civilizations, or civilizations that preceded the Roman-Christian state.
The point is that (I believe) you could never separate the men who conceived 'the Constitution' (and all that surrounded it and came out of it) from the matrix that produced it. In the sense of 'dissection' you could try to cut into those men and try to isolate the religious parts from the strictly rationalistic parts, and you'd wind up with a mess because all that produces us as persons is so interwound. The woof and weft of what historically and intellectually and emotionally produced us (the Mediterranean world: Judea, Greece, Rome and Alexandria and the cultural accomplishments that arose from that) could never be separated one from the other. The melding is so extensive.
While I completely empathize with what I imagine as your horror in seeing this utterly bizarre figure Sarah Palin becoming a national defender of such lofty things as 'Western values', which to me are precious and worthy of defense, the fact of the matter is that 'America' was formed by some very, very high-thinking people, and that the groundwork they laid down allowed for an incredible structure to be built on it. If we really and truly were (as Palin says) to "roll up our sleeves and get back to the common sense conservative principals upon which America was founded and made this nation a great nation", there would likely take place a renaissance or some sort of giant reform, but who's to say what direction that would take? What has been called Postwar Radicalism: anti-bomb, anti-impersonalism of means of production, pro-personalism of the Catholic radicals, the beat poets, Ginsberg, Kerouac, the folk revival, the student movement---this whole manifestation (in my view) arises almost directly in a straight line from Biblical values (Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day of The Catholic Worker for example), the American Trascendentalists, the spirit of Walt Whitman and this palpable connection with people and soil, as well as from a tangible protestantism/puritanism which is and was the foundation of American culture. The lines are very, very clear and this is not whimsical invention on my part. In this sense, America is a country and a culture that at almost every juncture brings forward from itself expressions of religious/Biblical value. America is so wedded to spiritual/religious impulses that (I repeat) it is impossible to separate them.
"In closing, it's not just; Oh gee-golly-willikers weeze a Chrishtun nation and that thar how it be. That doesn't help us at all, it only serves to falsify history and polarize a country. And, don't take this wrong because I've no attachment to the country myself. I share the vision somewhat, but I've no care for its emblems, slogans or borders."
I can so much relate to this. It is interesting to examine 'causation' in this context: that we are the products of molding forces, choices others have made. So---and only if I read you right---we also have been 'caused' to feel and embody a sort of contempt, and as a result of this contempt, we are separate, either above or just to the side. We have a very thin allegiance, but we can't even think in terms of nationalistic pride, or hardly even loyalty to our institutions, our cultural matrix, and in a very real sense to 'our people'. If you really examine it, it is strange and even abnormal.
In a certain sense we who have been caused to think (is it thinking or is it, at the core, emotional?) like this become not the friends of America, but the antagonists of America, and consciously or unconsciously ally ourselves with a grand ressentiment of all that 'America' represents, and this I mean globally. I am not at all judging it, just noting it. (With the last 2 paragraphs I am likely not referring to you but to a 'subculture of attitude' which I have been a part of and know).
________________________________________________
This site may interest you: Chabad.org. These are people who base their life and teaching on the 'Oral Tradition' which is often deeply mystical. (Not for this video but for the whole site).
I can't go on. I'll go on.
- Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: USA is a Christian nation - Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Fox
Animus wrote: "I can sympathize 100% with Jefferson's statement "I am a real Christian", I feel that I am, but I'm unable to make this statement because of all that it colloquially entails. I don't go to church, I don't pray, I don't perform any rituals (Christmas, Easter, or otherwise - I don't celebrate 'holidays'), nor am I a JW, I belong to no congregation, and I do not feel as if God is any more a concrete conscious 'I' than I am. And it is within this view that my statement rings true and has meaning. The founders who identified themselves as Christians were often Deists who were heavily influenced by Baruch Spinoza."
What is a JW?
It would seem to me utterly problematic to define who is and who is not a true Christian. It would seem to me that you'd have to compare attitude and choices with that of Pauline Christianity to see where you stand. From a 'strict' Christian view (of Pauline-influenced Christianity) Jefferson would be seen as an ally but perhaps not a 'true practitioner'. I personally am interested in Christianity simply because of its vast reach and influence and because the core doctrines, no matter what age they surface in, seem always to have an incredible result. Possibly the best expression of Christianity I have come across, and I have not really looked into it extensively, is Quakerism. There is a general strain of protestant Christianity that is totally committed to Biblical values, has a deep distrust of 'priests', and seems to remain free of the herd-characteristics that are such a big part of mainstream and commercial Christianity.
Possibly, from this protestant perspective, the only argument you'd get would be about prayer and your view that 'God' is no more (or less?) conscious than we are.
"When considering Spinoza's God and the moral teachings of the Bible, one is forced to consider the 'laws of nature' as the concrete implementation of the moral order. Whereas, it seems to me, and might have seemed to many 'deists' that the bulk of "Christianity" believes in a supervening God, a God who is separate from nature and it's relativistic laws, and is capable of intervening in the natural order. To some this is quite unnecessary and even ridiculous, why should that be so? Why would God create a universe that does not already do what he wants?"
It almost seems like one of the first postulates in order to even entertain the idea of the Christian God is that 'he' is a God who comes utterly from outside the creation. He is a God that is sort of 'anti-creation'. He is a God who takes a stand against the laws and determinism of his own creation. Such a (Christian) God never could arise within the natural order as natural order, and this God only arises in the consciousness of man, and that is the meaning of course of the fact/metaphor of being liberated from 'slavery in Egypt'. It is a very peculiar and far-reaching idea. It is strange that in this 'model' there is a messanger who is given the task of rounding up the lost children drowning in materialism and taking them on journeys, movements through space and time, and the revelation of a progressive understanding that no one, of their own, would ever want to respond to. It is a burden. Taken as both a fact and a metaphor, whatever is actually happening there, is a little incomprehensible and perhaps not a little mysterious.
What is it in our consciousness that is 'supervening' seems to me to be a good question.
"To some this is quite unnecessary and even ridiculous, why should that be so? Why would God create a universe that does not already do what he wants?"
To approach an 'answer' I think one would have to go outside of the rather narrow Christian doctrines. They do have that tendency: to remain restrictive and exclusive. I have found at least some conceptual possibilities that could 'answer' your question in Vedic philosophy. But, it is all in a pretty fantastical realm. In brief, these vedists propose there are different levels to God's energy and to God's manifestation. At the pure center, there is pure expression of God's divinity and a literal sphere or 'loka' where God's energy is expressed (and of course God is expressed in personalist terms, as a personal consciousness). From there proceeed infinite gradations. They talk about 'God's external energy' and 'God's internal energy' and see this material universe as an expression of God's external energy. Our place or sphere or location is seen as a marginal world: we have consciousness, which is seen as 'divine', and we have the choice to move in the direction toward 'God's internal energy' or---agains according to our choices---away from 'God's internal energy' and toward or into the 'God's external energy'. Well, it is only fair to mention that they do recognize 'demonic' worlds, worlds of 'rebellion' to the 'internal energy of God' and they do see evolution as occuring within a dualism. Either you proceed in one direction or your proceed in the other. (And there are dangers attached to remaining passive or intert).
Consciousness seems to become aware of a strange duality: you can take it in one direction (divinity) or in another (demoniac). Awakening is 'divine' but there are also 'entities' hanging around that will take that 'divine consciousness' right back down into materialism again. And that is one of the reasons why The Machine is a danger for our present age. I guess The Machine would be a perversion of the divine gift (consciousness, intelligence) giving itself over to creating 'mechanisms' that reproduce or accentuate materialism all over again: that recreate 'Egypt' and the whole entrapping snare. But this is not at all the purpose or intention of (divine) consciousness.
Strangely, one almost needs an extremely personal understanding of God in order to propose a 'divine' outcome for Man. There has to be a superior intelligence that originates 'all this' and who plays a game with his creation: catch me if you can, know me if you can.
Why would such a God create a universe not doing what he wants it to do? I think that the answer is that, if you can imagine such a universe, such a universe must exist. God must be all possibilities, so why should he be limited to just one, ours?
What is a JW?
It would seem to me utterly problematic to define who is and who is not a true Christian. It would seem to me that you'd have to compare attitude and choices with that of Pauline Christianity to see where you stand. From a 'strict' Christian view (of Pauline-influenced Christianity) Jefferson would be seen as an ally but perhaps not a 'true practitioner'. I personally am interested in Christianity simply because of its vast reach and influence and because the core doctrines, no matter what age they surface in, seem always to have an incredible result. Possibly the best expression of Christianity I have come across, and I have not really looked into it extensively, is Quakerism. There is a general strain of protestant Christianity that is totally committed to Biblical values, has a deep distrust of 'priests', and seems to remain free of the herd-characteristics that are such a big part of mainstream and commercial Christianity.
Possibly, from this protestant perspective, the only argument you'd get would be about prayer and your view that 'God' is no more (or less?) conscious than we are.
"When considering Spinoza's God and the moral teachings of the Bible, one is forced to consider the 'laws of nature' as the concrete implementation of the moral order. Whereas, it seems to me, and might have seemed to many 'deists' that the bulk of "Christianity" believes in a supervening God, a God who is separate from nature and it's relativistic laws, and is capable of intervening in the natural order. To some this is quite unnecessary and even ridiculous, why should that be so? Why would God create a universe that does not already do what he wants?"
It almost seems like one of the first postulates in order to even entertain the idea of the Christian God is that 'he' is a God who comes utterly from outside the creation. He is a God that is sort of 'anti-creation'. He is a God who takes a stand against the laws and determinism of his own creation. Such a (Christian) God never could arise within the natural order as natural order, and this God only arises in the consciousness of man, and that is the meaning of course of the fact/metaphor of being liberated from 'slavery in Egypt'. It is a very peculiar and far-reaching idea. It is strange that in this 'model' there is a messanger who is given the task of rounding up the lost children drowning in materialism and taking them on journeys, movements through space and time, and the revelation of a progressive understanding that no one, of their own, would ever want to respond to. It is a burden. Taken as both a fact and a metaphor, whatever is actually happening there, is a little incomprehensible and perhaps not a little mysterious.
What is it in our consciousness that is 'supervening' seems to me to be a good question.
"To some this is quite unnecessary and even ridiculous, why should that be so? Why would God create a universe that does not already do what he wants?"
To approach an 'answer' I think one would have to go outside of the rather narrow Christian doctrines. They do have that tendency: to remain restrictive and exclusive. I have found at least some conceptual possibilities that could 'answer' your question in Vedic philosophy. But, it is all in a pretty fantastical realm. In brief, these vedists propose there are different levels to God's energy and to God's manifestation. At the pure center, there is pure expression of God's divinity and a literal sphere or 'loka' where God's energy is expressed (and of course God is expressed in personalist terms, as a personal consciousness). From there proceeed infinite gradations. They talk about 'God's external energy' and 'God's internal energy' and see this material universe as an expression of God's external energy. Our place or sphere or location is seen as a marginal world: we have consciousness, which is seen as 'divine', and we have the choice to move in the direction toward 'God's internal energy' or---agains according to our choices---away from 'God's internal energy' and toward or into the 'God's external energy'. Well, it is only fair to mention that they do recognize 'demonic' worlds, worlds of 'rebellion' to the 'internal energy of God' and they do see evolution as occuring within a dualism. Either you proceed in one direction or your proceed in the other. (And there are dangers attached to remaining passive or intert).
Consciousness seems to become aware of a strange duality: you can take it in one direction (divinity) or in another (demoniac). Awakening is 'divine' but there are also 'entities' hanging around that will take that 'divine consciousness' right back down into materialism again. And that is one of the reasons why The Machine is a danger for our present age. I guess The Machine would be a perversion of the divine gift (consciousness, intelligence) giving itself over to creating 'mechanisms' that reproduce or accentuate materialism all over again: that recreate 'Egypt' and the whole entrapping snare. But this is not at all the purpose or intention of (divine) consciousness.
Strangely, one almost needs an extremely personal understanding of God in order to propose a 'divine' outcome for Man. There has to be a superior intelligence that originates 'all this' and who plays a game with his creation: catch me if you can, know me if you can.
Why would such a God create a universe not doing what he wants it to do? I think that the answer is that, if you can imagine such a universe, such a universe must exist. God must be all possibilities, so why should he be limited to just one, ours?
I can't go on. I'll go on.
- Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: USA is a Christian nation - Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Fox
Thanks, Tomas. I admit I was getting paranoid. The only thing I could come up with was Jah Wey or Jewish Weasel.
I can't go on. I'll go on.