Or perhaps humans have only ever mistakenly believed that they themselves, or anyone else, has communicated with God.

There is better evidence for these two, than the Bible story. Delusion and spontaneous mystical experience also. Kind of the point. Your motivation for rejecting these (not this specifically, but as a mode of illustrating the short-fall of reason), more reasonable, conclusions, is that they are uncomfortable to you, or you would rather another answer.
That seems to me, to be unreasonable. — AmadeusD

How do we differentiate between hallucination or spontaneous mystical experience and God? Could God not speak through those means? He's described as communicating through dreams. It's silly to ask for "evidence" here because no one knows what that means. What would qualify as evidence? Could you give me some examples? Some criterion? Rational inquiry is limited here as it is limited in life.

How do we differentiate between hallucination or spontaneous mystical experience and God? Could God not speak through those means? He's described as communicating through dreams. It's silly to ask for "evidence" here because no one knows what that means. What would qualify as evidence? Could you give me some examples? Some criterion? — BitconnectCarlos

I think you're missing the specific point i'm making here, which accepts your criticism of what's being asked.

I agree, if God was termed to speak through dreams, they would be, essentially, indistinguishable phenomena. But then, that flies in the face of the nature of God. I think we can appeal to the traditions/texts themselves to write off certain suggestions. But, this is hte not the point i'm making.

The point i'm making, is that:

Could be aliens. Or we could be hallucinating.
— BitconnectCarlos

There is better evidence for these two, than the Bible story. Delusion and spontaneous mystical experience also. — AmadeusD

The only reason to move on from these suggestions and either propose 1) a totally different explanation, for which we do not have evidence; or
2) Increase the above hypotheses in the way you have done (adding divine sourcing) is unreasonable. THe theories, and their exploration, do not require, invoke or hint at the divinity you're adding to it. This isn't even a point about probability (though, given my initial response around using the text to deduce probabilities still stands strong, it could be an additional one). It's about the sheer unreasonableness of just saying "I don't like that; i'll seek a different truth".

I respond in the proceeding way to elicit response, not to give my view, necessarily:

how do we understand/frame disability? Such content is revealed to Moses and has deep repercussions. — BitconnectCarlos

I do not think it has any repercussions, as I do not believe (and do not believe it reasonable to believe) that it ever happened. How we understand disability is as much an empirical discussion as it is a 'moral' one. What to do about it is another discussion. And here, I would posit, you run into your discomfort and so require a truth other than the following:

"What we do about disabilities and disabled people, such as they are, is something on each individual to find within themselves, and on society to merely represent the former in aggregate".

So, if that's uncomfortable, or looks like it might result in something emotionally difficult for you, you need another 'truth'. That might be one 'revealed to Moses'. But it is a story, like any other. I just don't understand foregoing reason to achieve comfort. I have this aversion to discussion around Psychedelics and their purported effects. May we can come to terms by analogizing..

I think we can appeal to the traditions/texts themselves to write off certain suggestions. — AmadeusD

On the contrary, Scripture (Genesis for sure, possibly Exodus?) does very clearly describe God as communicating through dreams. It is characteristic of the Elohist source (E).

The only reason to move on from these suggestions — AmadeusD

I don't need to. If God communicates through dreams he can also communicate through what we'd call hallucinations. I'd wager hallucination is more likely than aliens. Ezekiel surely hallucinated and saw visions.

But it is a story, like any other. — AmadeusD

Story doesn't mean false. Neither does myth. It may be embellished. I admit this is where my intuition kicks in. The story, imho, is just too sophisticated to have been written by ancient man inventing something.

There are other ancient accounts of disability -- maybe it is a curse by the gods, or maybe it's just a medical issue to be pitied as the Greeks posited -- but the story of the Hebrew Bible on this one is on a different level. I am referring to Exodus 4, by the way. 4:11 IIRC. God's dealing with Moses's concerns over his speech condition. There's many layers to the dialogue but the God character shows unbelievable compassion and (imho) wisdom towards the issue.

It just gets me wondering. It's like the dialogue is too good to be true. It is superior to any modern treatment of the issue in literature or film that I know of.

I just don't understand foregoing reason to achieve comfort. — AmadeusD

And what would "reason" tell us? To look within ourselves? :roll:

On the contrary, Scripture (Genesis for sure, possibly Exodus?) does very clearly describe God as communicating through dreams. It is characteristic of the Elohist source (E). — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think you're adequately engaged with this exchange.
This does not say anything, whatever, about the claim quoted. That said, I appreciate what you are saying there and would further that point, to say when it runs into empirical problems, there's no good reason to remain with the Scripture.

I don't need to. If God communicates through dreams he can also communicate through what we'd call hallucinations. I'd wager hallucination is more likely than aliens. Ezekiel surely hallucinated and saw visions. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. And there's good reason to think Ezekiel was schizophrenic.

This goes directly to my point. There is absolutely no reason to even consider the possibility of 'divine intervention' unless one, arbitrarily, isn't comfortable with the Hebrew Patriarchs being mentally ill, but well-meaning.

Story doesn't mean false. Neither does myth. It may be embellished. I admit this is where my intuition kicks in. The story, imho, is just too sophisticated to have been written by ancient man inventing something. — BitconnectCarlos

Generally, historically speaking, it does. The Bolded is basically what I was trying to tease out. This all boils down to your personal discomfort with something.

It is superior to any modern treatment of the issue in literature or film that I know of. — BitconnectCarlos

Given we have more complex, more morally interesting stories from older periods than the Biblical, I cannot see how its reasonable - which was all I was speaking about/around. Regarding current moral writing, I cannot understand how it's possible this story strikes you with more import than does say Reasons and Persons, or Animal Suffering. Warm fuzzie feelies?

I don't think you're adequately engaged with this exchange.
This does not say anything, whatever, about the claim quoted. That said, I appreciate what you are saying there and would further that point, to say when it runs into empirical problems, there's no good reason to remain with the Scripture. — AmadeusD

I don't understand how God communicating through dreams "flies in the face" of his nature or "runs into empirical problems." The Bible is our primary reference point for God... unless you've had some personal experience you'd like to share. Genesis informs us that it is in his nature to communicate through dreams.

This all boils down to your personal discomfort with something. — AmadeusD

I'm massively impressed by the sophistication of an account of a phenomena/how to frame it.

Given we have more complex, more morally interesting stories from older periods than the Biblical, I cannot see how its reasonable - which was all I was speaking about/around. Regarding current moral writing, I cannot understand how it's possible this story strikes you with more import than does say Reasons and Persons, or Animal Suffering. Warm fuzzie feelies? — AmadeusD

Show me a better literary account of disability than the one presented in Exodus. Also, I would like to know which stories you're referring to. I would figure the Bible is the greatest work of literature... at least western literature, that exists. I know of no better ancient account of disability. Or modern, for that matter.

I don't understand how God communicating through dreams "flies in the face" of his nature. — BitconnectCarlos

It doesn't, so that's a reasonable response. But you have (imo, wilfully) misread the point. God communicating in any way that cannot be teased out from an hallucination or dream proper would. God is not taken to be hiding and fucking with us, on any account other than Bill Hicks'. But again, not my main point.

Genesis informs us that it is in his nature to communicate through dreams. — BitconnectCarlos

Given the preceding exchanges, this feels like a cop-out. ITs clearly my position that Genesis doesn't inform us of much, if anything. So you're pushing hte rock uphill with this claim. That you rely on Genesis to support that which, elsewhere, is not supported, speaks to my point.

unless you've had some personal experience you'd like to share — BitconnectCarlos

Plenty. But they are drug, or mental-illness-induced for the most part. Also, to my point.

I'm massively impressed by the sophistication of an account of a phenomena/how to frame it. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. But the reason to think it has some providence other than a human mind? Your discomfort with the potential that a human mind invented it. Standard. But not reasonable.

Show me a better literary account of disability than the one presented in Exodus — BitconnectCarlos

"better" begs the question, by ignoring it. why? Because you are religious and therefore disposed to this opinion. I personally think Enki and Ninmah is a better story.

I would figure the Bible is the greatest work of literature... at least western literature, that exists. I know of no better ancient account of disability. — BitconnectCarlos

This explains a lot, but gives me no reason to think your opinions relies on anything but discomfort with the counterfactual: It is not. It is inconsistent, Morally reprehensible, the source of untold suffering across thousands of years, stokes and encourages division, hatred and violence (which it does - Lets not pick and choose. It does. ), it is extremely badly written in terms of chronology, grammatical consistency, ideological consistency and form.

So, I am disposed to ignore the Bible in lieu of better writing, in your specific type of example. :)

wasn't aware the Ten Commandments had changed. What do they say now? Or have they added more, to make up for the five which were lost when Moses dropped the third tablet, according to Mel Brooks? — Ciceronianus

There are all sorts of ways to count the decalogue. It's not even clear there are 10 and only 10.

But, in any event, my reference to the commandments isn't limited to the decalogue. There are 613 Commandments. https://www.jmu.edu/dukehallgallery/exhibitions-past-2018-2019/the-613-mitzvot.shtml

If there were only those 10 rules, we'd all wear garments combining linen and wool like barbarians, violating the rule of shatnez.

do you follow Reform Judaism? — Leontiskos

That's where you'd find me on Friday night.

"better" begs the question, by ignoring it. why? Because you are religious and therefore disposed to this opinion. I personally think Enki and Ninmah is a better story. — AmadeusD

I quite enjoyed this story! The lesson is that most disabilities can be accommodated by society and that the disabled can serve a role in realistic proportion with their condition. For instance a man without legs can still be a skilled metalworker. A good lesson although the ending where not even Ninmah can help the very disabled is a little sad. I'd give it B tier. Good - especially for deep antiquity!

In Exodus 4 God deliberately assigns a man with a speech disability the task of talking with the Egyptian head of state and leading a nation. You see, in the Enki and Ninmah account the man with the speech problem would have been assigned a silent profession. But no, not here. God gets infuriated with Moses's insinuation that he should not lead on account of his disability but instead of punishing Moses while burning with anger he helps him by assigning him his brother as an aid. The story not only affirms the dignity of the disabled by affirming that they were created with divine intentionality, but also conveys that those who struggle are not intrinsically barred from certain elite professions like leadership. S tier. Divine revelation.

By the way I am not particularly religious (it's been years since I've attended services), just a reader of books. I just call it as I see it.

Sure. But the reason to think it has some providence other than a human mind? Your discomfort with the potential that a human mind invented it. Standard. But not reasonable. — AmadeusD

Even if so, God is the cause of the everything, which includes our thoughts and imagination. I'd settle for "divinely inspired."

Thank you for sharing this story with me.



Enki & Ninmah for those interested (4 minute video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxR8YYId4lE

In Exodus 4 God deliberately assigns a man with a speech disability the task of talking with the Egyptian head of state and leading a nation. You see, in the Enki and Ninmah account the man with the speech problem would have been assigned a silent profession. But no, not here. God gets infuriated with Moses's insinuation that he should not lead on account of his disability but instead of punishing Moses while burning with anger he helps him by assigning him his brother as an aid. The story not only affirms the dignity of the disabled by affirming that they were created with divine intentionality, but also conveys that those who struggle are not intrinsically barred from certain elite professions like leadership. S tier. Divine revelation. — BitconnectCarlos

I have to say, I find absolutely nothing praise worthy in this story. It seems like weirdo childish moralising about things that don't make a huge amount of sense - and works, only in the infantalising context of a pre-school. The underlined, particularly require a certain type of suspension of other faculties I value, to make a lot of. But, this is a religious commitment. I wont have that avenue open, as you do (though, i comment again on that immediately below haha).

the ending where not even Ninmah can help the very disabled is a little sad. — BitconnectCarlos

It is realistic. Some people are disabled. Not differently-abled. The blind cannot be surveyors (the the typical sense - don't get hair-splitty).

By the way I am not particularly religious (it's been years since I've attended services), just a reader of books. I just call it as I see it. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. And i appreciate that. I'm actually probably, for a non-religious person, much more toward valuing religious text than most atheists (though, I am necessarily agnostic. Atheism fits perfectly too and reaches wider). But, I would posit that to come to the conclusions you have, there need be a resistance to, at least some of, the objections leveled at the Bible as a piece of literature. As noted before, I see several extremely obvious and pervasive literary problems with the Bible. It isn't a good work of literature unless it's got some Religious reality to it. IN that sense, its chaotic and self-contradictory tense is actually helping me take it more seriously. If there were not these aspects, it would be clearly the writings of a iron age buffoon.

Even if so, God is the cause of the everything, which includes our thoughts and imagination. I'd settle for "divinely inspired." — BitconnectCarlos

So, as noted, the entire basis for your reasoning is avoiding hte possiblity that these facts make the potential reality of God less likely. If the scriptures are trash, why would you continue the belief? But its too hard to lose. So, apparently, the scriptures aren't trash. That seems to be the reasoning. I suppose, I could here ask:

Imagine God is not the source of anything prior to human cognition. It is an invention. THe bible is written by hand of Human, sourced by the Mind of human.

Is it still the perfect piece of Lit?

You're very welcome. I quite enjoy these historical oddities.

Or perhaps humans have only ever mistakenly believed that they themselves, or anyone else, has communicated with God. — wonderer1

"Or they're... talking to themselves" - Metatron

Heh. They nearly got it right

I have to say, I find absolutely nothing praise worthy in this story. It seems like weirdo childish moralising about things that don't make a huge amount of sense - and works, only in the infantalising context of a pre-school. — AmadeusD

Ok -- I'll add some more context. Moses likely stutters. He is "slow of speech" so it's a reasonable inference to make (and one made by religious tradition, although he could have some form of aphasia possibly). Can a stutterer lead a nation? Take on speaking roles at work? It's a grey zone imo. One could easily conclude that the stutterer ought to navigate himself to silent professions or professions that involve minimal speaking. That would be a fairly typical view.. pragmatic. "Know your place." But such pragmatism is ultimately stifling. And it applies to other conditions as well. I love how empowering the dialogue is. Think about you would deal with a son who stutters chronically. Should he shy away from speaking roles? Leadership positions?

It is realistic. Some people are disabled. Not differently-abled. The blind cannot be surveyors (the the typical sense - don't get hair-splitty). — AmadeusD

It's not always clear where the line is though. Is the stutterer disabled or differently abled? Yes, natural limits exist but we should test them. Strive for better. That is how we uplift. "On Earth as it is in heaven."

As noted before, I see several extremely obvious and pervasive literary problems with the Bible. It isn't a good work of literature unless it's got some Religious reality to it. IN that sense, its chaotic and self-contradictory tense is actually helping me take it more seriously. If there were not these aspects, it would be clearly the writings of a iron age buffoon. — AmadeusD

I would recommend reading it with commentary and consider that most public copies are Christian-biased and problematic translations. I don't know which version you've read. You've read the entire thing? You really didn't like any of it?

So, apparently, the scriptures aren't trash. — AmadeusD

I certainly don't think scripture is trash. Some are better written than others though. You do know that the English translations are just translations.

THe bible is written by hand of Human, sourced by the Mind of human.

Is it still the perfect piece of Lit? — AmadeusD

Still an amazing work of lit. And I do believe it was written by humans.

Can a stutterer lead a nation? Take on speaking roles at work? It's a grey zone imo. — BitconnectCarlos

Not a stutter, but he doesn't seem someone created to lead with his voice.

One could easily conclude that the stutterer ought to navigate himself to silent professions or professions that involve minimal speaking. — BitconnectCarlos

I think that's a little far, But i'm, generally, with you.

But such pragmatism is ultimately stifling. — BitconnectCarlos

This seems to be a Universal consideration not derived from, or even best embodied in the Bible. It is probably best embodied in Shamanism. "..From each.." and all that. Your point is not missed, but It is absolutely irrationally bandied imo - but this goes to our 'grey area' elsewhere mentioned.

Think about you would deal with a son who stutters chronically. Should he shy away from speaking roles? Leadership positions? — BitconnectCarlos

I would recommend, unless it was his deep desire to speak publicly, to avoid it, yes. It would be odd to think someone incapable of clear, anxiolytical speech, should be encouraged to endure that suffering because it would make someone else feel a bit better about their moral position (this speaks to the other point about disabilities being preclusive in some cases). Mendable, or flexible, or progressive disabilities are a bit different because across time we need differing approaches to the same individual. But, realistic ones at all points. Stuttering, being one. If you need six weeks of speech therapy, apply for the job in six weeks.

It's not always clear where the line is though. Is the stutterer disabled or differently abled? Yes, natural limits exist but we should test them. Strive for better. That is how we uplift. "On Earth as it is in heaven." — BitconnectCarlos

That much is true, but the person with the disability should be encouraged to be realistic and not strive for something ultimately unattainable. Stuttering being a really bad example of the concept is one reason the story isn't great. It's soft as heck, in that regard. Try someone who is heavily dyslexic wanting to be a public record scribe. If you are not capable of adequately reading large amounts of complex text, you are disabled as regards a job that requires it. Nothing moral about it. Facts. But this should be borne out by hte individual. I would think allowing disabled people to choose their own work was morally good, but it allows for the disappointment above - particularly mental disabilities. You're talking about eccentricities, so far. And no one in Heaven is disabled.

I would recommend reading it with commentary and consider that most public copies are Christian-biased and problematic translations. I don't know which version you've read. You've read the entire thing? — BitconnectCarlos

In multiple versions, multiple times since the age of 7 when I first attended a few Sunday School sessions with friend's families. I tend to take commentaries more seriously - These are the people who claim to use the book. They are the ones I care about hte actions of. Not the fictitious weirdos in the book.

I certainly don't think scripture is trash. Some are better written than others though. You do know that the English translations are just translations. — BitconnectCarlos

Agreed. Do you ream Aramaic, or ancient Greek? Demotic? I've never seen a version, translated by anyone, that wasn't liable to the same criticisms.

Still an amazing work of lit. — BitconnectCarlos

I see.

The followers of pagan gods didn't take the position taken by Jews and Christians regarding God or religion. A pagan didn't claim that the god they were worshipping at any particular time was the only god, nor did they believe that all must worship that god and no other. That wouldn't occur to a pagan, nor was it the position of the Empire in pagan times. — Ciceronianus

Well, like I said, the God of Abraham is more "jealous" than the pagan gods, but you are inferring from this that Abrahamic religions necessarily impose their God/religion on everyone else, which is theologically and historically false, although there were certain circumstances in which forced conversions occurred.

and led Christians to kill Hypatia — Ciceronianus

Hypatia's death was largely politically motivated, as almost always holds in these cases. Religion and culture go hand in hand, and therefore political leaders have a vested interest in a unified religious/cultural landscape. The Roman executions of Christians were also politically motivated in this way.

See: Hypatia: Myths and History

Yes, but it is also what happened in Germany, a strong Christian nation when the Nazi party rosed to power. I look at videos of Hitler and he is not at all appealing to me, but he was seen as very charismatic. So is Trump charismatic to some.

Also, the Nazi party never stopped campaigning. It went to the rural areas and questioned people about what made them angry and then their speakers used this gathered information as subjects of speeches. They rented large buildings for these speeches and at times, used entertainment to attract people.

This follows Christianity and the Prussian control of education that kept education focused on technology for industrial and military purposes. I think we underestimate the power of public education and the importance of culture. This brings me to the subject of the Protestant opposition to the Catholics having control of the US. This is a power and authority issue and nothing is more powerful at any time in history than what people believe is the "power and glory" of God. (Bush jr. and the invasion of Iraq to oppose evil.) We adopted everything German that we opposed in world wars. This blend of controlling education and setting its priority on preparing for war, and then the politics, and religion that go with this superpower. We are Nazi Germany (Holy Roman Empire) on steroids and it is awful that the Christians do not see this. Is there any chance of raising their awareness?

You bring up awareness of what technology has to do with the problem. The Evangelical preachers with modern media have a huge advantage compared to the Nazi party doing surveys and then renting a dance hall to rile up support for the Nazi party.

↪Hanover, ↪Athena asked if there were a problem with the "God of Abraham religions that we might resolve with reason. ↪Ciceronianus suggested that it's "not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so". I am just pointing to a common root, the place from whence the idea that faith trumps rationality might issue. — Banno

I think you are right. But we can not be sure without a good fight. By that, I mean making a strong effort to raise awareness. This may not change the minds of strong believers but it may build the strength to oppose this threatening tragedy.

Then comes the prediction of a Blood Bath. :chin: Our history is a history of blood baths that we learned about when Protestant-controlled schools taught the young about the Holy Wars and Chruch. We know during the US civil war both sides claimed God was on their side. I think we should take the threat of a blood bath seriously, and throw all our energy into raising awareness of history and why the US broke away from Christian Europe and created a New Social Order.

In the book "Preparing for War" the author mentions how the belief that we are in the last days plays into this coming Holy War. What can we do to raise awareness?

Thank you for bringing Hypatia's into the discussion. Can you expand on your comment about cultural/political importance. What Christians are loath to do is acknowledge what made America great was the people they call pagans. All around us is complete denial that Christianity pulled us into the Dark Age of ignorance and that did not end until the power of the Church was broken and Protestism with all its divisions was unable to gain the power of the Church on a national level, until maybe recently? Evangelicals lining up with political power could be the New Rome?

Is there any chance of raising their awareness? — Athena

Yes.

The Evangelical preachers with modern media have a huge advantage compared to the Nazi party doing surveys and then renting a dance hall to rile up support for the Nazi party. — Athena

Despite modern media, religion has been in steady decline in the US for decades now.

I think you are right. — Athena

Well, thank you.

But the "we" might indicate a certain parochial nature in this thread. I am not a 'mercan.

Dow nunder, we have had a fair run of atheist Prime Ministers, back at least to Whitlam in the early seventies. Only three PM's since then have been overtly Christian, Rudd, Abbott(ed.) and Morrison. Indeed too much of a display of religiosity will count as much against a politician as in their favour. Outright evangelism is a political death sentence.

My suspicion, and it might be interesting to gather information on this, is that Overt Christianity in democratic political figures is a curiously 'mercan trait. In more democratic countries folk are not much interested in the religious virtues of their politicians. Other things far outweigh them.

There is a tone of 'Mercan chauvinism in your posts. But your democracy is broken by far more than a touch of religious thinking.

I agree with all of this, being able to draw from the UK, Ireland, NZ and Aus.

Christianity is rarely mentioned, even if when it actually is important to the person (Judith Collins over here is a good example. Most mentions of her faith were by the opposed media).

Dow nunder, we have had a fair run of atheist Prime Ministers, back at least to Whitlam in the early seventies. — Banno

I had you pegged as an Englishman. :gasp:

Only two PM's since then have been overtly Christian, Rudd and Morrison. — Banno

Not Abbott?

I had you pegged as an Englishman. — Leontiskos

A couple of generations back, yes, amongst other things.

Not Abbott? — Leontiskos

Ooo I stand corrected. I was looking after my mental health by forgetting the onion eating dropkick ever existed.

A couple of generations back, yes, amongst other things. — Banno

Now I'm curious. Did you move to Australia a couple of generations ago, or did your ancestors merely live in England? I'd love to be half-right.

Ooo I stand corrected. I was looking after my mental health by forgetting the onion eating dropkick ever existed. — Banno

:grin:

Two grandparents English-born immigrants, the others, five or six generations back, were convicts, guards and settlers, Scots, English and Irish.

- Okay, interesting. 'Looks like I was all wrong.

Ah well. I'm just a lawyer who reads a lot, but I have a blog as well.

There is a tone of 'Mercan chauvinism in your posts. But your democracy is broken by far more than a touch of religious thinking. — Banno

Please explain. Do you mean you think that I think the democracy in the US is superior to all other nations? If so why do you think that?

I so envy Europeans who in my opinion have a much better sense of democracy than Americans, and on the internet, I met a Syrian Professor who was amazing in his knowledge of democracy as it came from Greek philosophy and through the history of that region. Maybe we can establish some talking points?

No one saw democracy in the Bible until there was literacy in Greek and Roman classics. That literature is essential to defending democracy and Americans stopped transmitting a culture based on that literature when liberal education in grade schools was replaced with education for technology and moral training was left up to the Church. God has not chosen Trump to be our leader. But evangelicals believe Trump is God's choice. These people have a lot of power.

I am, trying to keep the focus on the subject of the thread. This is a matter of power and authority and the abuse of religion. In America Protestants were thrilled with science that was part of the break from Catholicism. Now they believe telling people to wear masks, wash their hands, and get vaccinated is a conspiracy of the government that did those things to have control over us, not because science says that is the best way to deal with a pandic. What is happening here, happened in Germany only today it is rural Evangelical Christians causing the problem not Nazis. The Evangicals can get the upper hand because of mass ignorance and emotional appeal, just as Nazis were able to win by being emotionally appealing to rural people with a strong belief that God is in control and evil is real like Satan and devils.

My suspicion, and it might be interesting to gather information on this, is that Overt Christianity in democratic political figures is a curiously 'mercan trait. — Banno

This doesn't bother me. It means they're trying to do what's right. That's not my assumption, it's in the historical record. Since the early 20th Century, American presidents have tried to be do-gooders. I'm not really sure about European leaders. I wonder if they have as little moral compass as the Europeans I've seen on line.