The good old days

I remember back, waaay back -- had to have been, maybe, January of aught-eight, so we're talking 80, maybe even 90 days ago -- participating in online discussions about the Democratic primaries. This will just sound crazy to you young 'uns, but way back then, you could actually do that online without fisticuffs or weird, out-of-nowhere accusations.

I see some of you looking skeptical, but you kids'll just have to take my word for it. It was another time -- another world. I was there. It might have been a very long time ago, but I remember.

People would ask one another which way they were leaning and then they'd just, you know, talk about it. "I like Bill Richardson," they would say, "but I'm leaning toward John Edwards." Or, "I like John Edwards, but I'm leaning toward Chris Dodd." Or even -- and you kids today will just find this impossible to believe, but I swear it's the truth -- "I can't make up my mind between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I like them both."

And the thing is -- again, I know you won't believe this, but it's true -- the thing is that back then we had conversations like that all the time and I don't remember ever, not even once, hearing any hostility over such expressions of preference or support. If one person liked Candidate A and the other liked Candidate B, this wouldn't be perceived as some kind of attack on Candidate A. If Candidate A gave a good speech you could say, "That was a good speech" without people screaming at you to stop attacking Candidate B.

Some of you kids are looking confused. Let me explain. Back then, back when your parents and your grandparents were several months younger than they are today, we had this idea about primaries as forums in which voters could support rival candidates. The thing that was different, the thing you kids today'll have a hard time understanding, was that even though these candidates were rivals, running against one another, both were still viewed as legitimate.

What? Yes, really. As legitimate. Both the candidates themselves and the fact of their candidacies. It wasn't like today, when the very act of running for office is perceived as an insult to one's rival, when merely being in the race is taken as evidence that one is some kind of fifth-column front for right-wing attacks against ...

Stop shaking your heads. It's true and even though you kids don't like to hear it things were better back then. There were civil debates on the issues that made you proud to be a part of the party ... Stop laughing! It's true, I ...

Oh, just forget it. Kids today.

Comments

[David]

No way, man. If you want to mess with the kids, you'll need to make your fairy tales more plausible. Maybe try something about supporting a whole family on one income.

[David]

OT, but: the ad I see on the side of the page after posting the previous is for Ben Stein's "Expelled": "No Intelligence Allowed. Big science has expelled smart new ideas from classrooms..."

Hee.

[zzyzx]

The problem is that Clinton is in a bad position. The only way she can win the nomination is if Obama has a massive stumble. Once a certain segment of Clinton fans (the mydd/hillaryis44 hardcores) realized that, it became their goal to try to create that. Things went downhill from there.

[Robb]

At the county Dem convention yesterday, there was actually a complete lack of the Obama/Clinton sniping, as well as a complete lack of anything exciting (a stump speech from our Governor might have been, but there wasn't anything new - especially since she's running against the same guy she beat 4 years ago).

I too miss the civil discourse that's been replaced by polarization. It would be nice thing for our country if there were more than 2 political parties as well - there might be less Manichean condemnation of the other as the supreme evil (it'll help when we don't have an executive branch that is Evil). But in the Democratic primary (binary?), there's only going to be exponentially more tension and have insults & epithets thrown around until a real decision is reached.

*****

Maybe try something about supporting a whole family on one income.

C'mon, that's almost as ridiculous as gas being priced below $1 a gallon at the pump, or "vinyl" "records".

*****

Obama Fo' EVAH!

[MikhailBorg]

"No Intelligence Allowed. Big science has expelled smart new ideas from classrooms..."

Apart from the claim of "smart new ideas", the existence of "Big Science", and the thought that the moviemakers' arguments comprise "Intelligence", that sentence is SO accurate.

[Ursula L]

I think that part of the reason why so many people were, if not indifferent, at least not feeling strongly about the nomination was that, with the exception of a few of the earliest primary states, everyone sort of assumed that the nomination would be wrapped up early, without them having a chance to have their vote mean anything.

It was an unconciously sullen acceptance - "I prefer this or that nominee, but my preference won't matter, so I'll be supporting whomever gets chosen for me."

Now, with the later primaries actually meaning something, people who were resigned to favoring whomever the first states chose now find themselves having to seriously consider the party nominations for the first time.

And they aren't used to thinking in terms of voting in a primary. You have strong feelings about the general election, but with a primary vote, you need to take things a bit more in stride. But, as with any habit, it takes practice, and people just aren't in practice for voting in primaries where their vote makes a difference.

Plus, all the frustration of having to accept nominees chosen without your input for years is coming out in more extreme emotion over the issue than they might have if they took it for granted that their primary vote would always matter. Think of the tendancy towards electoral violence in emerging democracies, where people may not have had a chance to vote in the past, and aren't sure if the system will be stable enough so they'll be able to vote again in the future. The outcome of this vote is more important to you when you aren't sure you'll have another chance.

Overall, though, I'm glad the primary is running long, however much angst it may temporarily raise. Votes should count, and a party nominee should represent the whole party, not just the handful of people who live in states with early primaries.

The very length of the primary could be a big point in favor of the Democrats, overall - a party that sets up a system that allows the primaries to mean something and as many votes to matter as possible shows better small-d-democratic values than a party which rigs things for a fast, but not representative, result.

[Spalanzani]

"Back then, back when your parents and your grandparents were several months younger than they are today"

I love it.

[Nadine]

I am a new reader of your journal. I was referred to your journal by a friend of mine, who has read a lot of your journal. I am curious about your Christian beliefs. What exactly do you believe? Are you involved with any kind of church? Perhaps you could refer me to a past post that answers these questions. I wouldn't want to trouble you to explain all of this in s new entry.

I am a former pentecostal/Assemblies of God Christian and I really appreciate all the insight that you offer, especially in the most recent posts on Left Behind. I am twenty four years old and haven't been heavily involved with a church since I was eighteen because I realized that many devout believers are self-righteous elitistst. Of course, my father still tries to shove Jesus down my throat constantly, but I'm reluctant to swallow. Also, I'm both a secular college graduate and a democrat, which the church tends to view like some kind of heinous crime.

Honestly, I want to be a Christian. I just haven't figured out how to be a believer without being a faker. You seem like you might know a thing or two about that.

[fermion]

I think it's partly a fear reaction. When people like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney were the presumed Republican frontrunners, Democrats felt pretty confident of doing well regardless of who won the primary. McCain seems like more of a threat, and suddenly it's a lot more important to make the right decision.

[Lauren]

@Nadine: I don't have much insight to offer, but I hope you find what you are looking for. I'm not a Christian, but I think if more Christians were like Fred, we'd all be better off.

[Tony V]

This is clearly a veiled attack at slacktivist against Obama because he wants Hillary to stay in the race.

Seriously though, I think most of the people frustrated would calm down a lot if they felt this election would be over in the next month or so. It's the concern that the primary will last till August and leave a crippled Democratic general election candidate, that is really pushing buttons. I know it stresses me out. And with wanting to end 8 years of utterly disastrous Republican rule, before we get enmeshed in war with Iran in another 4, I think stress over the party killing itself in a dumb way is entirely justified.

[practicallyevil]

Mathematically speaking, Hillary Clinton has very little chance of winning the nomination although she has every right to continue campaigning. However it appears the republicans decided to consolidate early in the primary race so they can begin there offense on both candidates as soon as possible. The sooner a nominee is picked the sooner a counter attack can start against the Republicans.

From a purely political stand point HIllary conceding would be advantageous for the Democrats. On the other hand McCain isn't throwing too many punches at this point, and while there may be slight jabs between the candidates nobodies doing a character assassination on each other so there is no real harm in continuing the race, especially considering Obama doesn't yet have enough votes to win the nomination.

[Raka]

zzyzx: The problem is that Clinton...

*whaps zzyzx gently on nose with rolled-up newspaper*

[zzyzx]

OUCH!

[Robb]

@ Nadine

I have to say that you're on a site that's both terrifically advantageous and simultaneously very perilous to your [please pardon the Velveeta-cheesiness of this phrase] spiritual quest. Fred is sharply critical of many of the more errant cultural aspects of Christianity. Remember that people will fuck up everything, and Fred has done a great job deconstructing how the sins of man have worked their way into the cultural fabric of American Christianity. But that's not all there is - the metanarrative of people worshipping & seeking to understand & serve their creator has almost nothing to do with the hyper-prophetic bullshit that L&J and their ilk have propegated. You're well served to see Fred take to task those that pervert a Gospel of love, forgiveness & peace into a disgusting amalgam of authoritarian political patriarchy, but just don't make the mistake of assuming (as some of the commenters on here do) that there's nothing good there to pervert.

BTW - you're far from alone in being a college student/semi-erudite human/Democrat who feels alienated by most incarnations of the American church. Hell, I went to Bible college and I still get looked at funny (though admittedly, I have largely 180'd from my former fundie ways). FWIW (and I absolutely hate saying this, just because it's something so meaningless to so many people), I'll be praying for you. Look for those that love mercy, live justly, and walk humbly - they're out there.

*****

On the other hand McCain isn't throwing too many punches at this point

There's a great reason for that.

[aunursa]

However it appears the republicans decided to consolidate early in the primary race so they can begin there offense on both candidates as soon as possible.

Alas, I can't find the link, but I read today that the McCain campaign has been instructed not to go after Hillary right now ... because they would prefer her an the general election opponent. Also, I've noticed that conservative blogs have sharply increased their attacks on Obama and not so much Clinton (except for obvious blunders, like her Bosnia remark.)

[Coward]

@Robb:
> > On the other hand McCain isn't throwing too many punches at this point
> There's a great reason for that.

Because he can't get his arms high enough?

/me ducks

[Robb]

Because he can't get his arms high enough?

(ba-dum-bum - BAM!)

[mcc]

Seriously though, I think most of the people frustrated would calm down a lot if they felt this election would be over in the next month or so.

So I've personally had kinda strong feelings on this election from the beginning, so maybe I'm not the most reliable observer, but... The problem I'm kinda feeling at this point is that it seems like at some point the Clinton campaign stopped being a campaign in favor of Hillary Clinton and started being a campaign against Barack Obama. And since this happened at about the same point that the sheer numbers of the race made it practically infeasible for Clinton to actually win, this has meant that since that point the Clintons' campaign against Barack Obama has really been more like a campaign in favor of John McCain.

Once things start to feel like this, it seems like bitterness is going to be kind of inevitable. There is some level in which it seems unreasonable to fault Clinton for fighting as hard as she can for the nomination as long as she has some chance of getting it-- that's her right, that's her job. But if at a certain point it starts to seem that chance is gone but she's fighting anyway? Or if it seems like she's no longer fighting Barack Obama but fighting the Democratic Party itself? (We're arguably at the point where Clinton is not just echoing the McCain campaign's talking points but actually participating wholesale in the Republican institution of campaigning by fanning anti-liberal resentment-- trying to pass herself off as a gun enthusiast while denouncing those liberal elitists from the northeast or whatever.) It seems like even people who would normally like Clinton might be kind of uncomfortable with where things go from there. And there doesn't seem to be any clear limit on how far this will go, or when it will end-- the incremental, proportional nature of the Democratic primary system that makes it implausible for Clinton to win at this point makes it just about as implausible that Clinton could ever be definitively knocked out of the race.

What is the appropriate way to react to a situation like this? Your post seems to quite clearly say (in part) that you'd consider it wrong to be hostile toward a candidate just for running. It seems clear Clinton has been the recipient of unearned hostility of exactly this type from the beginning-- it does seem clear Clinton wasn't in any reasonable sense the one who introduced hostility into this primary. But the Clinton campaign does in this last quarter of the race (as their chances diminish and the only options they realistically have left are nuclear ones) seem to have transformed into a vehicle of hostility itself. Exactly what are the rest of us supposed to do in response?

[Richard Hershberger]

Nadine: "I'm both a secular college graduate and a democrat, which the church tends to view like some kind of heinous crime"

This may be true of "the church" in the sense of the particular branch of Christianity you grew up with, but it certainly isn't true of "the church" in any broad sense. You need to go shopping. Try some of the churches that have been around a bit longer.

[Dash]

Hello, Nadine, and welcome! I think you'll enjoy it here. Fred is very insightful, and his discussions about the Left Behind series are interesting precisely because his take on Christianity is so very different, and, IMO, much more authentic. Reading his posts is kind of like listening to Julie Child explain what is wrong with that laminated "French pastry" from the supermarket by way of getting you to start thinking about what a real French breadstuff would be like.

For the discussions of faith, you might want to try reading through the postings on the Left Behind series, including the comments. You'll find lots of good discussion about various aspects of religion.

Now, as it happens, you showed up precisely when good old Typepad decided to go completely haywire, kind of messing up the links in the sidebar, so the best way to get to the early LB postings--and I recommend starting there--is to go to Right Behind, where you'll find, if you scroll down, convenient links to the Left Behind archive. I recommend the earlier posts and their associated comments because that's where a lot of interesting issues were first raised and got hashed out, or at least hashed over.

I am totally the wrong person to ask about being a good, intelligent, kindly, integritous* Christian, but, just to toss some ideas out there, you might want to read some of the work of Philip Yancey and Randall Balmer, both evangelicals frustrated with aspects of current evangelicalism. Patrick Henry (no, not that one!) has a book called The Ironic Christian's Companion, which is pretty good, as far as I've gotten in it, and Forrest Church's writings tend to be interesting and worthwhile.
__________________________________________
*One way to be integritous is not to go around making up words on the fly, like, um, "integritous." But "integrity-having" was too much, even for me.

[Dash]

Hello, Nadine, and welcome! I think you'll enjoy it here. Fred is very insightful, and his discussions about the Left Behind series are interesting precisely because his take on Christianity is so very different, and, IMO, much more authentic. Reading his posts is kind of like listening to Julie Child explain what is wrong with that laminated "French pastry" from the supermarket by way of getting you to start thinking about what a real French breadstuff would be like.

For the discussions of faith, you might want to try reading through the postings on the Left Behind series, including the comments. You'll find lots of good discussion about various aspects of religion.

Now, as it happens, you showed up precisely when good old Typepad decided to go completely haywire, kind of messing up the links in the sidebar, so the best way to get to the early LB postings--and I recommend starting there--is to go to Right Behind, where you'll find, if you scroll down, convenient links to the Left Behind archive. I recommend the earlier posts and their associated comments because that's where a lot of interesting issues were first raised and got hashed out, or at least hashed over.

I am totally the wrong person to ask about being a good, intelligent, kindly, integritous* Christian, but, just to toss some ideas out there, you might want to read some of the work of Philip Yancey and Randall Balmer, both evangelicals frustrated with aspects of current evangelicalism. Patrick Henry (no, not that one!) has a book called The Ironic Christian's Companion, which is pretty good, as far as I've gotten in it, and Forrest Church's writings tend to be interesting and worthwhile.
__________________________________________
*One way to be integritous is not to go around making up words on the fly, like, um, "integritous." But "integrity-having" was too much, even for me.

[Cat]

Forgive a poor Canadian's ignorance...

I heard about this flurry of activity in all these primaries months ago, but very little since. Aren't they done yet? When do they pick somebody?

[Robb]

Forgive a poor Canadian's ignorance.

Absolutely not! How dare you not be intimately familiar with the details of the ridiculously complicated U.S. electoral system! Surely your puny government there (with it's single federal legislature - no spare Parliament, 'eh'?) will have mandated a law commanding you to know all about your mighty [obnoxious] neighbor to the South?

Aren't they done yet?

You have every right to be confused, in all seriousness - there was a bunch of primaries all together, but then nothing from early March until April 22nd, when Pennsylvania votes. Just about everyone down here though it would have been done by now too, but not so much.

When do they pick somebody?

Well, it may end up being something rather familiar to a Canadian: there will be a series of votes at the party convention*. Of course, since we only have 2 real political parties, things tend to be dumbed down & simplified. Nuance & discussion (as Fred has noted) has been thrown out the window, to be replaced by. . . [insert subtle jab at Hillary & her supporters here]

* Having lived in Alberta 4 years, I got semi-entranced by Canadian politics, and I try to make it a point to watch CBC news when I can. I watched Stéphane Dion's nomination to Liberal party leader with an absolute fascination, because it was so different from the U.S. process, yet . . . I dunno, it's hard to describe. Y'all are doing a lot of things right up there, imho.

[Jesurgislac]

mcc: The problem I'm kinda feeling at this point is that it seems like at some point the Clinton campaign stopped being a campaign in favor of Hillary Clinton and started being a campaign against Barack Obama. And since this happened at about the same point that the sheer numbers of the race made it practically infeasible for Clinton to actually win, this has meant that since that point the Clintons' campaign against Barack Obama has really been more like a campaign in favor of John McCain.

This is probably because when the media realized that Hillary Clinton almost certainly couldn't win the race to be the Democratic candidate, instead of actively campaigning against Clinton, they turned their attention to campaigning against Barack Obama, since he may well be the one facing McCain now in the autumn.

In a week where the President of the United States admitted casually to knowing that prisoners were being tortured by the US, that the whole senior administration sat around a table in the White House and discussed methods of torturing prisoners, and the Bush administration announced that they were going to continue spying on their own citizens without a warrant, everyone seems to have spent a whole lot of time debating whether or not Barack Obama was being condescending.

[Rosina]

the Bush administration announced that they were going to continue spying on their own citizens without a warrant,

But if they want authorisation, Poole Council can tell them how to get it...

[Dash]

Cat: I heard about this flurry of activity in all these primaries months ago, but very little since. Aren't they done yet?

Well, it was supposed to be over by now, but, um, . . . we ran out of reality shows, and the people must be entertained? The planned show with Gitmo inmates fighting lions and such in the arena was cancelled because Congress feared it would impinge on the rights of the lions, so they have to find another way to keep us occupied? They're having trouble getting a fair throw with the fuzzy dice off George W. Bush's rearview mirror?

Actually, we're not sure what is going on. But that's normal.

[Nadine]

Thank you to everyone for the warm welcome and all of the suggestions for where to start. I truly appreciate the openness and honesty here. It's so refreshing.

[Amaryllis]

Hi Nadine,

here's one more reference for you: Internet Monk's "Looking for a Church.." post.
Hope that helps to clarify what you might be looking for.
As to how to actually find such a church, well, let me know if you figure that out!

[elef]

The idea of shopping for a church intrigues me. Since Nadine is searching for a spiritual home, would anyone here suggest also looking into the various branches of Islam? or Buddhism? or Judaism? Presumably, Nadine, you are discouraged with the Christianity of your background. Why doesn't that mean looking into other religious traditions?

Sorry - I guess as an unrepentant atheist I just don't understand.

[Bugmaster]

Personally, I've always liked Wicca. It doesn't promise salvation in the afterlife, or some punishment from beyound the grave; it promises the ability to affect reality by will alone right now. Of, and if you start throwing fireballs at people, you'll still get back 3x what you dish out, so you might as well be nice.

If Wicca actually worked, I'd totally join it.

[Chuck]

If Wicca actually worked, I'd totally join it.

I can say that of so, so many religions.

[aunursa]

elef: Since Nadine is searching for a spiritual home, would anyone here suggest also looking into the various branches of Islam? or Buddhism? or Judaism?

I advise against Judaism. You would subject yourself to up to 613 commandments, including several that would restrict your lifestyle (dietary and Sabbath laws). Plus conversion would make you a potential target of anti-Semitism. Prayer and many religious and traditional songs are in Hebrew.

[Jeff]

I advise against Judaism. You would subject yourself to up to 613 commandments, including several that would restrict your lifestyle (dietary and Sabbath laws). Plus conversion would make you a potential target of anti-Semitism. Prayer and many religious and traditional songs are in Hebrew.

Unless you go with a Conservative or Reform Jewish congegation. aunursa is correct WRT Orthodox Judaism, but not any of the other "flavors".

[aunursa]

What I meant to add is that the percentage of Hebrew in the various songs and prayers varies depending on the movement.

All Jews are subject to the various commandments. Observance levels vary among the movements -- both by individuals and by the movements themselves. Also, Orthodox movements will not recognize Conservative and Reform conversions. That issue may or may not be important to a potential convert. (The Orthodox do recognize Jews-by-birth as Jews (except in the unusual situation that one's maternal ancestor was a Gentile who did not have a halachic conversion.) Conservative recognition toward a Reform conversion may depend on the particular rabbi or authority.

[Bugmaster]

I know I was kind of glib about Wicca earlier, but that's only because I find the whole idea of "finding a religion that's right for me" somewhat... well... odd. Yes, the Orthodox Jewish God is pretty hardcore in all of his requirements, some would say unreasonably so, but if he actually existed, then you'd be silly not to believe in him. There are lots of things that exist today which are quite unpleasant -- Microsoft, the IRS, Iraq, gravity -- and yet I still believe in them, and so do most other people.

Instead of looking for a religion which is comfortable, or spiritually uplifiting, or morally righteous, I would rather look for a religion which is true... Assuming I believed in religions at all, of course.

[Craig]

This is completely off-topic*, but it's so stupidly funny I have to share. From the Family Research Council's recent spam...er, newsletter:

Faithfully Liberal?

It was meant to be a dialogue about faith in the public square, but last night's "Compassion Forum," broadcast by CNN and hosted by Messiah College, may have revealed more about the agenda of those within the ranks of religious liberals than it did about this year's presidential candidates. While the event was endorsed by pro-family champions like former Senator Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, organizations like FRC, which have historically addressed faith issues, were not invited to participate or even submit questions to the candidates. Instead, the event's radical board, which included pro-abortion and homosexual advocates, used the forum as an opportunity to chip away at the traditional agenda of the faith-based community. The bulk of last night's program was taken directly from the playbook of the Religious Left, focusing not on the issues closest to Christians' hearts but on climate change, AIDS, and global poverty. Although I have argued that those are important issues that demand the church's attention (in fact, in concert with Bishop Harry Jackson I've written an entire book on the subject), our priority as Christians should be as those of the Founding Fathers; protect the sanctity of human life, preserve marriage, and defend religious liberty. Unfortunately, with the help of some of our friends, the Religious Left is trying to realign, and thereby dilute, the values voter message. Have the concerns of our day changed? Yes, of course. But the prioritization of those issues must not. As our own Declaration of Independence states, it is for "life" and "liberty" not "global warming" that government was instituted among men. As Democrats vie for the Christian vote, we must remember that it is not the church that should be affected by their message. Rather, their message should be affected by a faithful church.

I know, same ol' same ol', but you don't often see these people flat out saying, in effect, "who cares what that Christ guy said, the liberals and their gays are invading!!!"

*well, perhaps not entirely, given Nadine's questions, but still...

[PurpleGirl]

Ah, to be back in the 1950s or 60s... I miss state favorite sons being featured in the first round of convention voting...

[aunursa]

Bugmaster: Yes, the Orthodox Jewish God is pretty hardcore in all of his requirements, some would say unreasonably so, but if he actually existed, then you'd be silly not to believe in him.

It depends. If God exists, and if He gives you sufficient reason or evidence to believe in His existence, then it might be silly not to believe in Him.

Also it might depend on whether there are any benefits to belief or penalties for non-belief.

[aunursa]

Instead of looking for a religion which is comfortable, or spiritually uplifiting, or morally righteous, I would rather look for a religion which is true...

Kent Brockman: I'd like to alert our affiliates that we will be ending our show early tonight. Join us tomorrow when our topic will be "Religion: Which is the One True Faith?"

[Robb]

@ Craig

Dammit, now I'm going to be pissed off for the rest of my work day. . . I can't stand that political tunnel vision of so many American Christians. Tony Perkins needs to be shot found out in a scandal involving gay sex & meth some horribly hypocritical scandal that forces him to . . . . bah! Too mad to articulate.

A Pox upon you & your ilk, Tony Perkins.

*****

"Ilk" is fast becoming one of my favorite words. ilk ilk ilk.

*****

Instead of looking for a religion which is comfortable, or spiritually uplifiting, or morally righteous, I would rather look for a religion which is true...

Who's to say that those are mutually exclusive? Truth (not necessarily objective, factual truth, but that which is perceived to be good, accurate & true by the observer) is an immensely comforting concept to hang on to. Why do you think so many fundamentalists (Muslims, Christians, Atheists, etc) fight so hard to actively discredit and/or ignore that which threatens their metanarrative foundations? People need to know that what they know is True (regardless of whether or not the concept of truth is uniformly defined). Is there not something that feels satisfying about moral justice?

Granted, these things are highly subjective, but in general, I think people search for meaning in religion, which many times does overlap with truth, but not always.

*****

On the subject of factual truth, I'm currently reading this, which is fascinating.

[Selcaby]

In my experience*, Judaism isn't about divine truth so much as it's about cultural identity and family identity. That's why they don't actively seek converts.** The attitude I've met is that if you're not Jewish that's fine, and God may still have something good planned for you (the afterlife isn't discussed nearly as much as it is in Christianity), but we are who we are and this is what God has instructed us (and not others) to do. And if you decide you don't believe in God, that doesn't stop you from being Jewish. Besides, your grandmother wouldn't like it if she found out you were an atheist. Come to the seder. We'll skip the boring bits, or at least read them in English because we're not all that good at Hebrew.

* i.e. my mostly non-observant family. Can't speak for anyone else.
** My atheism was cemented when I realised that the reason there are so many more Christians than Jews is that Christians tend to think everyone should join their religion, and Jews don't. Truth counts for much less than the will to grow. Then I started thinking, what if the real true religion is something that hardly anyone believes? How would I ever know? It wasn't much of a step from there to deciding all religions were wrong.

[Doctor Science]

Dykes to watch out for sums up the current state of the Democratic primaries quite well.

[Raj]

@Robb: Vinyl what?

[Bugmaster]

Truth (not necessarily objective, factual truth, but that which is perceived to be good, accurate & true by the observer) is an immensely comforting concept to hang on to. Why do you think so many fundamentalists (Muslims, Christians, Atheists, etc) fight so hard to actively discredit and/or ignore that which threatens their metanarrative foundations?

I'm not sure what "metanarrative foundations" are, but I don't think I'm fighting to preserve them. At least, I don't think I am. It's tough to tell. And yes, in the short term, "truthiness" (as Colbert would put it) is very satisfying. However, I'd argue that holding on to beliefs which are unlikely to be true is harmful in the long run, especially to the believer, emotionally as well as physically (f.ex., if you believe that your god gives you the power of flight, but in fact he doesn't, you're in for a world of hurt).

If I was shopping for a religion, I'd want one whose claims are at least reasonably likely to be true. For example, I'd hate to live my life avoiding any contact with delicious, nutritious pork, only to die and discover that Zeus is the One True God, and he doesn't care what I eat.

Of course, you should be careful... Do too much shopping, and you might end up as a godless atheist...

[Jenny Islander]

Re shopping for a church: C.S. Lewis suggests simply trying the nearest church to your home. If you don't feel welcome or something seems off, try the next nearest church. Etc.

[aunursa]

selcaby: The attitude I've met is that if you're not Jewish that's fine, and God may still have something good planned for you ... And if you decide you don't believe in God, that doesn't stop you from being Jewish.

I am not aware of any passage in the Hebrew Bible where Jews are specifically commanded to belive in God.

[Bugmaster]

Isn't "I am the Lord thy God, though shalt have no other gods before Me" one of the very first Commandments ?

[aunursa]

"I am the Lord thy God" is a declaration, not a commandment.
"though shalt have no other gods before Me" prohibits idolatry.

[aunursa]

"I am the Lord your God" is regarded in Judaism as the first of the Ten Commandments. But, as I said, it's a declaration, and does not explicitly demand belief, as would be the case were it phrased "Believe that I am God" as positive commandments are.