Our old pal Larry Darby is back, and if you thought the term "Judeo-Christian" was meaningless, wait till you see his new term: "Judeo-Marxist". He released a statement to the press saying that he's now a Christian (at least he accepts Jesus' moral teachings - I accept many of them too, but that doesn't make me a Christian). And he can't imagine why atheist groups didn't support his run for attorney general in Alabama:
Darby, a Montgomery lawyer who received more votes in Huntsville than Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson, released a long written statement Friday saying that others in the atheist community had turned their backs on him.
"Contrary to expectation, many atheist member organizations or many groups that allegedly represent free thinkers were quick to jump on the Judeo-Marxist bandwagon and dis(a)ssociate themselves from me," Darby wrote.
Contrary to whose expectations? Darby's? That only reinforces the obvious reality that the man is delusional. Did he really expect to get support from the freethought community given his holocaust denial? That's just nuts. And you've gotta love that phrase "Judeo-Marxist". I'll take idiotic catchphrases for $1000, Alex.
- Log in to post comments
Somehow I doubt very much that the usual jubilant trumpeting of "Former Atheist Finds God" will be forthcoming here. Pity. They can have him.
This is a bit off topic, but I was struck by your statement that you accept many of Jesus' teachings, even though you are not a Christian.
I realized I was an atheist about four years ago now, and the more distance I have from Christianity, the more I wonder exactly what people mean by "Jesus' teaching." Perhaps I am overlooking something, but the only teaching I can think of which a non-Christian could accept seems to me to be the Golden Rule, which actually predates Jesus by several hundred years at least. The rest of his teachings are very religiously bound - the Beatitudes, the Law and the Prophets, etc. Which teachings do you mean, exactly?
Oh, and incidentally, I think this is my first comment here. I'm a long time reader, and your blog, along with the Cato Blog and Positive Liberty have greatly influenced my political thinking over the past several months. Thanks, and keep up your great work here!
I think there are other principles attributed to Jesus in the gospels that are also very compelling. "Whatever you do to the least of these, my brethren, you do unto me also" is a powerful statement of shared humanity. It reminds us of why it shouldn't be only those actively being oppressed fighting against the oppression, it should be all of us who care about freedom. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a powerful statement against hypocrisy. Overall, I think Jesus played a role in Judaism very similar to the one that Buddha played in Hinduism - he argued against the emphasis on ritual and heirarchy that had built up over the centuries and made a case for taking the religion back to its roots. He put the emphasis on how you treat other people rather than on whether you followed the letter of the voluminous laws. I think that, in and of itself, is morally important (which is not to say that his followers have consistently understood that, of course).
Darby makes my eyes roll so far back in my head that it's almost painful. I really wish that jackass would just go away. I get emails from a mailing list of his from time to time, and I have no idea why. Is it because I'm a member of American Atheists? I don't know. They go to my junk hotmail account anyway and I just delete them. But just seeing his name annoys me.
Judeo-Marxist is... man, I don't even know how to start responding to that one.
I realized I was an atheist about four years ago now, and the more distance I have from Christianity, the more I wonder exactly what people mean by "Jesus' teaching." Perhaps I am overlooking something, but the only teaching I can think of which a non-Christian could accept seems to me to be the Golden Rule, which actually predates Jesus by several hundred years at least. The rest of his teachings are very religiously bound - the Beatitudes, the Law and the Prophets, etc.
Ultimately the precept that I took to heart and lived by to the best of my ability during the several years I spent as a non-christian is one that I believe truly is great. The idea of love as a lifestyle. In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul emphasises loe above all else. And what he is talking about is exactly what Ed describes above. We have a shared human expierience and a driving need to get along - period. In fact Jesus really didn't teach religion at all - he taught people how they should treat each other - the fact that many espousing to be Christians put religion above faith is not Christ's fault - he warned against just that and Paul reiterated it by clearly stating that love replaces the old laws completly.
These discussions always seem like a dog chasing its tail. This is just one view of passages where many views exist. Any and all statements of unverified nature should start as 'allegedly' so and so taught. I.E. a faith matter. even if I agree with your take on it.
It's funny that people will argue over the intention of the founding fathers and the constitution written just a few hundred years ago, individuals we have much more material on and still have trouble discerning what they really thought on issues, but in religious matters people prattle on that they know what someone thought 2000 or longer years ago with far less. We live in a bizarre world.