Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[kandrathe]

On the one hand we have Obama and his one year of accomplishments, and "On the other hand, we have Jesus’ miracles that everyone still remembers, but which only benefitted a few."

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article868683.ece

But, you will notice they didn't go so far as to claim that Obama is greater than the prophet Muhammad.

In related news...

Danish police shoot intruder at cartoonist's home

<blockquote>"A 27-year-old man was shot and wound by Danish police when he and two others tried to enter the home of Kur Westergaard, a cartoonist who originated a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed sporting a turban in the form of a bomb. The cartoon, which ran in a Danish daily newspaper, in 2005 sparked outrage and riots throughtout the world. At the time, both Westergaard and Denmark itself were excoriated by the press in Muslim countries and assaults made on Danish embassies, consulates, and personnel.

Following the publication of the offending cartoon, Muslim organizations in the US and elsewhere convened public meetings to instruct non-Muslims in the Muslim doctrine that no such depictions of the originator of Islam should be permitted. Following the January 1 attack on Westergaard, police vehicles were in evidence outside his home. No bomb was detected. Westergaard’s assailant was wielding an axe when he was shot down by police. The attacker has now been hospitalized. Westergaard said that he locked himself inside his saferoom at home when he detected the assault. The assailant then tried to knock down the door to the saferoom where Westergaard waited with his five-year-old grandson. This is not the first time Westergaard has been threatened. In February 2008, the 74-year-old cartoonist was saved by police from another deadly assault by three suspects."</blockquote>

Welcome to the jihad.

edit: better source for the 2nd article.

[--Pete]

Hi,

On the one hand we have Obama . . . On the other hand, we have Jesus . . .

Obama does have one big advantage -- he actually exists.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

That's an opinion piece from a Danish paper. Not quite sure where you are going with this.

[roguebanshee]

On the one hand we have Obama and his one year of accomplishments, and "On the other hand, we have Jesus’ miracles that everyone still remembers, but which only benefitted a few."

Denmark isn't even remotely as religious as the US, so an American president trying to improve things is naturally going to be more popular than some random religious figure.

[kandrathe]

Obama does have one big advantage -- he actually exists.

Technically, so did Jesus. It's his divinity and continued existence which some doubt.

[kandrathe]

That's an opinion piece from a Danish paper. Not quite sure where you are going with this.

I enjoy the humorous juxtaposition of the two news events. Islamic extremists upset by something as banal as a cartoon drawing repeatedly attempt to kill the artist, however, when in a similar fashion, the main figure of Christianity is likewise impugned by a person in the Danish press there is hardly a whimper of protestation. I'm not suggesting there should be moral outrage, because I understand that this is one persons opinion, and it may be shared by some other Danes, but hardly would be the position of everyone who read the editorial. I feel the same way about the infamous cartoons, in that, while crass, they are an expression of one person, and published by one paper, but hardly express the sentiment of an entire nation.

What I found humorous was that this person avoided life threatening outrage by attacking mere Christianity this time. It highlights one of the differences between West notions of freedom of expression, and those from the Middle East.

[Jester]

What I found humorous was that this person avoided life threatening outrage by attacking mere Christianity this time. It highlights one of the differences between West notions of freedom of expression, and those from the Middle East.

While actual assassinations and beatings are usually restricted to abortion doctors and overt homosexuals, rather than cartoonists, plenty of wacko Christians regularly threaten violence and death to those who attack their beliefs. Look at the kind of mail someone like P.Z. Myers or Markos Moulitsas gets from Christian fundamentalists. I don't think the "east/west" contrast is quite as stark as you imply. Fanatical vs. free, perhaps, but no religion is without its lunatic fringe.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Technically, so did Jesus.

Not really, or at least no more than Heracles, Fionn mac Cumhaill, Gilgamesh, or any other legend which ultimately traces back to one person, but has been embellished by the deeds of others and by imaginary events. That there was a very charismatic rabbi who preached peace and love in the region of the Sea of Galilee sometime close to 30 CE is very likely, but historically unsupported. That there were political leaders who's mission was to restore the throne of David in the 100 BCE to 70 CE time frame is definite, we have some of their histories. That some political and religious leaders where crucified at one time or another in Roman Judea is definite. And that a person who only spent a few hours on a cross (one of the reasons for crucifixion was that it was a slow death, usually taking from a day to a week to claim its victim) might appear dead but still survive is very probable, indeed at least one such case is recorded. Stir these elements together, add a dash of the mystery religions (especially Mithraism) and you get "the anointed one". Pass the traditions orally among groups contending to be dominant for at least half a century, then clean up the whole mess for political reasons about three centuries later (Nicea, 325 CE) and you end up with a composite of a person who probably never existed and a religion he probably wouldn't have endorsed if he had existed.

The widespread objective study of religion would be the fastest and most honest way to destroy the nonsense and superstition that all religions are based on. Unfortunately, what we really get is Sunday school in its many manifestations. The truth *will* set you free, which is exactly why the world's religious leaders will never permit it to become part of the common education.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

While actual assassinations and beatings are usually restricted to abortion doctors and overt homosexuals, rather than cartoonists, plenty of wacko Christians regularly threaten violence and death to those who attack their beliefs.

Not every red neck is a Christian. Yes, there are radical lunatics even in Christianity. But, where has it ever been implied (by me) that all Christians are peaceful or perfect? Pointing to these aberrations as representative of Christianity is like pointing to Ted Kaczynski as an example of a typical university professor. On the other hand, seldom a day goes by without a homicide bomber somewhere in the Middle East extinguishing themselves along with a few dozen or hundred innocent civilians.

P.Z. Myers and Markos Moulitsas deserve some angry letters for their selective insensitivity, but then again so do Mapplethorpe and Madonna. No one deserves hate mail, or death threats. However I find it incredible that otherwise smart people go out of their way to defend the sensitivities of some, feel obliged to trample on the sensitivities of others, then ask incredulously what the big deal is all about. When you slay or desecrate sacred cows, you will anger the masses. Oh, and yes, you do become a target of wing nuts.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you like without consequences. In a civilized society no one should fear violence or death for their free expressions, however, anger, derision, isolation, loss of employment, and public shunning are all real possibilities.

[kandrathe]

That there was a very charismatic rabbi who preached peace and love in the region of the Sea of Galilee sometime close to 30 CE is very likely, but historically unsupported.

Ignoring the written pre-Christian and early Christian sources, I'd say that historical corroboration amongst Roman, Jewish, and Pagan historical writings at the time lends credibility that there was a Rabbi named Jesus, who was baptized by John, had a brother James, was a charismatic healer who raised the ire and suspicion of the Sanhedrin, and was brought to Pontius Pilate for execution by crucifixion.

As for the crucifixion, a consensus of scholars believe he was put on the cross Thursday morning and died sometime early Friday April 3, 33 AD. The story recounts that Roman soldiers were about to shorten the length of his suffering through crurifragium, but the thrust of a spear piercing of the pericardial sinus secondary to cardiac tamponade convinced them that he was already dead.

I actually agree that more people should delve deeper into understanding the text and authorship of these early religious writings. For myself and many of the people that I know, giving your life to Christ means much more than a warm fuzzy spiritual good feeling in your gut. For us it means dedication to using your time and effort to affect a positive change such as was done by that radical Jewish Rabbi some 2000 years ago. To be willing to walk away from your own wealth and self succor to feed and clothe the poor, and to care about the downtrodden.

Sometimes around here a bowl of hot soup is a miracle.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ignoring the written pre-Christian and early Christian sources, I'd say that historical corroboration amongst Roman, Jewish, and Pagan historical writings at the time lends credibility that there was a Rabbi named Jesus, who was baptized by John, had a brother James, was a charismatic healer who raised the ire and suspicion of the Sanhedrin, and was brought to Pontius Pilate for execution by crucifixion.

Do you have any sources or references for this? Because in my readings, I've found that most of the Jesus tale is uncorroborated by anything else. The few parts that are corroborated are individual events, not necessarily attributed to the same person, and sometimes anachronistic for someone whose ministry would have been around 30 CE. The mentions of Jesus in pagan and Jewish sources that I know of all date from the end of the first century CE on -- they are not contemporary with his life. What is said in those accounts is simply a repetition of what was said in the gospels which may very well have been the sources of those accounts.

As for the crucifixion, a consensus of scholars believe he was put on the cross Thursday morning and died sometime early Friday April 3, 33 AD.

Again, where are you getting this? While *some* scholars do postulate a Thursday crucifixion, they do so primarily to satisfy the 'three days in the grave' prophecy. A Thursday crucifixion, Friday death still leaves you a day short (as does a Friday crucification and death).

The story recounts that Roman soldiers were about to shorten the length of his suffering through crurifragium, but the thrust of a spear piercing of the pericardial sinus secondary to cardiac tamponade convinced them that he was already dead.

Right. Because sticking a spear into somebody and having a clear liquid seep out is a valid test for life. The Romans were not in the habit of taking corpses down from crosses -- indeed, the denial of a traditional burial was an important part of the punishment.

I actually agree that more people should delve deeper into understanding the text and authorship of these early religious writings.

If approached skeptically, yes. Great claims require great proof.

For myself and many of the people that I know, giving <strike>your</strike> our life to Christ means much more than a warm fuzzy spiritual good feeling in <strike>your</strike> our gut. For us it means dedication to using <strike>your</strike> our time and effort to affect a positive change such as was done by that radical Jewish Rabbi some 2000 years ago. To be willing to walk away from <strike>your</strike> our own wealth and self succor to feed and clothe the poor, and to care about the downtrodden.

Please be consistent in your use of the first person -- I don't want you using *my* time and effort to do anything. And I surely do not want you to give *my* life to Christ -- it has been done far too often by your predecessors to mine and I have no desire to perform an Auto da Fé.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

For myself and many of the people that I know, giving your life to Christ means much more than a warm fuzzy spiritual good feeling in your gut. For us it means dedication to using your time and effort to affect a positive change such as was done by that radical Jewish Rabbi some 2000 years ago. To be willing to walk away from your own wealth and self succor to feed and clothe the poor, and to care about the downtrodden.

Sometimes around here a bowl of hot soup is a miracle.

Just stay away from the healthcare though. It riles up the others.

[Vandiablo]

For myself and many of the people that I know, giving your life to Christ means much more than a warm fuzzy ... To be willing to walk away from your own wealth and self succor to feed and clothe the poor, and to care about the downtrodden.

Sure, as long as it's easy -- just food and clothes, but not health care. Not gonna give THAT to someone who "doesn't deserve it", as you put it so clearly.

[kandrathe]

Sure, as long as it's easy -- just food and clothes, but not health care. Not gonna give THAT to someone who "doesn't deserve it", as you put it so clearly.

Just a nit. Our government is changing laws about health insurance, not seeking to make health care affordable. I believe the recent changes will make health care more expensive, less available, and of lower quality. It takes government to figure out how to mess things up that badly.

It may seem odd, but my feelings about what the government forces us to do are very different from the compassion I feel we should show to each other freely. Bad things happen, and good people do something about it. Not because we are forced by the laws and government to do it, but because we are compassionate and caring beings who form societies. Government is not the glue that holds a society together, it is merely an agreed upon coda that attempts to give us justice. It cannot give us equality, as that is measured in the character of each individual.

Democracy at gun point. Enforced compassion through legalism. And, worst of all, we've sold our kid's futures to bankers dooming them to indentured servitude for many decades.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It may seem odd, but my feelings about what the government forces us to do are very different from the compassion I feel we should show to each other freely.

Not at all odd. We all seem to agree on the problems (for the most part). That's because the problems are now and were created in the past. We disagree on the solutions, and that's because those will work or fail in the future The future is harder to predict, as most sports fans realize on Monday morning.

Besides, I know your type -- there's an old British Royal Navy saying that an English sailor never minds a shirt as long as he doesn't have to wear one. :)

--Pete

[Vandiablo]

Just a nit. Our government is changing laws about health insurance, not seeking to make health care affordable. I believe the recent changes will make health care more expensive, less available, and of lower quality.

That's a huge "nit".

Changes in laws about health insurance can make a huge difference in accessibility of health care.

Been to the ER lately? You'll find a lot of people there getting treatment for stuff that should have been prevented by an earlier trip to a doctor. If a patient's condition is life-threatening, the ER is required to treat it (which I agree with, and you ought to too with your "compassion"). The hospital, even while giving cut-rate care to the uninsured, often loses money on this, and the patient is bankrupt afterward.

This in turn has made our health care more expensive, less available, and of lower quality. Already. So if, as you say, you are concerned about that, you should want things to be different.

It takes government to figure out how to mess things up that badly.

No, it doesn't. We've had private insurance companies running things for decades now, and it sucks.

My insurance company tells my doctor what he can and can't do with me. In other words, they set "policy". Now it would be great if the policies driven by private insurance companies were in the best interest of my health, or to optimize the country's health care system. However, the policies are there with the primary aim of creating a profit for the company. Those of you that feel that competition between companies will fix everything should remember that the health insurance industry is exempt from anti-trust legislation (just like Major League Baseball).

The real problem is that health care is too expensive for fair private sector insurance. It may be that it is impossible for a company to be fair and still make a profit. IMO we're at that point, so the solution should not be to let things continue the way they are.

It may seem odd, but my feelings about what the government forces us to do are very different from the compassion I feel we should show to each other freely.

Yeah, right. I think you showed your true feeling with the "doesn't deserve it". Let them die. You know, the "them" that is not you. My entry into this thread is that I feel that your "compassion" isn't as great as you think it is.

My own compassion could use work, but I am not claiming to be compassionate. Just ask my wife, who often reminds me how insensitive I often am. (Hi Honey, I love you!) But I tell you what -- I seem to have more compassion for the people who cut my grass than you do.

Bad things happen, and good people do something about it. Not because we are forced by the laws and government to do it, but because we are compassionate and caring beings who form societies.

What good are societies that help medical research if the resulting treatments are not available to you?

Government is not the glue that holds a society together, it is merely an agreed upon coda that attempts to give us justice.

I don't really care whether health care is paid for by government or private insurance, just so long as it's not creating injustice. You feel that the government will fail, I feel the private sector has already failed.

It cannot give us equality, as that is measured in the character of each individual.

That would be a great joke if it were at all funny. Government in this country was used to propagate and curtail slavery, to promote and end segregation, and to deny and grant suffrage. Maybe government cannot "give equality", but it is government -- past, present and future -- that removes significant injustices that prevent equality.

Democracy at gun point. Enforced compassion through legalism. And, worst of all, we've sold our kid's futures to bankers dooming them to indentured servitude for many decades.

Cats and dogs living together, etc etc.

Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

That's no biggie. What would be cause for alarm would be if they felt Obama is greater than The Beatles :P

[Thecla]

We've had private insurance companies running things for decades now, and it sucks.

Really, Van, I think you're being much too harsh on the role of the private sector in the current health crisis.

I have, for example, been touched by the compassionate way in which drug companies have addressed and brought to public awareness such crippling issues as erectile disfunction over the last several years.

[eppie]

I actually agree that more people should delve deeper into understanding the text and authorship of these early religious writings.

I am sure there are great internet forums for that.

For myself and many of the people that I know, giving your life to Christ means much more than a warm fuzzy spiritual good feeling in your gut. For us it means dedication to using your time and effort to affect a positive change such as was done by that radical Jewish Rabbi some 2000 years ago. To be willing to walk away from your own wealth and self succor to feed and clothe the poor, and to care about the downtrodden.

Sometimes around here a bowl of hot soup is a miracle.

You and many of the people you know were probably better of doing all your 'good for humanity' under a slightly less barbaric umbrella than that of organized religion. If not, just do like the pope set last week.....only god will end the worlds problems.....in other (my) words....please don't vote.

By the way, a nice stick for the Obama haters; why o why do I have to spend hours in line waiting to board an airplane while a guy that was known by security agencies to possibly have slipped into extremism is allowed to board 2 planes without being fully strip searched?

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't really care whether health care is paid for by government or private insurance, just so long as it's not creating injustice. You feel that the government will fail, I feel the private sector has already failed.

Unfortunately, what seems to be coming out of the witch's brew is the worse of all possible worlds. The insurance companies not only are not being eased out of the loop, their position in the loop is being augmented. There isn't a real health care reform in the works, just a mandated health insurance scheme which, between government incompetence and private sector greed, will probably decrease the quantity and quality of health care for all while greatly increasing the cost.

I agree with you, the private health insurance sector has failed. Making that failed system the foundation of the new, government mandated system, does not seem a promising plan. The one ray of hope is that the wall against socialized medicine in this country will have been, ever so slightly, breached. That may make it possible, when this bloated plan explodes, to generate a better version. My greatest fears on this issue are that this plan may be only a slight failure, and drag on for years, or that the failure of this plan will result in a backlash against socialized medicine instead of an awareness that the failure was because only a half-hearted attempt had been made.

--Pete

The Beatles? Hmmm, wasn't there a rock group by that name that was wiped out when a giant rolling stone impacted the Earth? Back about the time dinosaurs ruled IBM?

[kandrathe]

Unfortunately, what seems to be coming out of the witch's brew is the worse of all possible worlds. The insurance companies not only are not being eased out of the loop, their position in the loop is being augmented. There isn't a real health care reform in the works, just a mandated health insurance scheme which, between government incompetence and private sector greed, will probably decrease the quantity and quality of health care for all while greatly increasing the cost.

Exactly. However, I believe the way to remove the problems of the private sector mess are to disentangle it from government. No mandates, and no subsidies. Let insurance companies compete for business equally. The way to gut insurance companies is to make health care very affordable, and this would be a blessing for the entire world. So far in my lifetime I've never seen where when the government subsidizes or controls an industry that the prices go down. The forecasts I've seen indicate that there will still be 35 to 40 million people uninsured, the supply and quality of medical care will drop, everyone from the poor to union workers to the elderly will pay more, and overall less people will receive health care. With that in mind, then yes, a total government take over of medicine would be preferable to this worst of all conditions where the government forces people to buy over priced insurance to pay for over priced medical care. Big medicine and big insurance special interests win, with enough pork thrown in to reward the crafters of the legislation and the sweeten the deal for the hold outs.

For Van, "Changes in laws about health insurance can make a huge difference in accessibility of health care. " Well, yes, and in this case I would hazard to claim it will be toward the negative. There is that incentive that if you are too poor to afford insurance you will be fined at 2.5% of your gross income. But a $1250 fine would be less costly than the $10000 you'd have to pay for health insurance through the open market. For many that would be $1250 that would go toward rent, food, or other sustenance. On the other hand, insurance companies will need to pass along the costs of the mandate that they must not deny anyone for pre-existing conditions, so the premiums will rise across the board by 20 to 50%.

Contrary to your perceptions, I'm not a hard hearted bastard. I do want people to be healthy, and get medical care. Which is a different goal than universal 100% health insurance coverage. At a minimum, I would recommend a high deductible catastrophic plan just in case something bad happened. But, if health care were more affordable people would use it as needed without the need to file claims to insurance companies. For example, for my recent wisdom tooth extractions, the costs for the penicillin, Vicodin, and medicinal mouth rinse combined were less than $20 at the pharmacy, so it's not even worth worrying about filing the claim to get the insurance company to pay for it. If the government were paying for it, who knows what the prices would have been. What I don't want is for insurance companies to get rich by government mandate, or the people to be taxed so heavily to pay for huge profits of the big business of medicine. If every dollar taxed for providing medical care actually was spent on medical care I would be less concerned (although, I still think we should have transactions directly with our service providers rather than 3rd parties).

One thing no one has discussed has been to concept of making it easier for patients to afford needed health care without bankrupting themselves. Here is a novel concept, make medical school affordable and produce more doctors and nurses. Another one, how about we make building hospitals and clinics some of those shovel ready projects, rather than siphoning off billions to bail out banks, and other big money special interests.

Focus on increasing the supply of health care, and you will lower the price.