Psst… Hey kids… College is a waste of time. Back in the day it was the only way to get a higher education, but now all you need is iTunes and/or a web browser. Well, unless you need one of those fancy diplomas that get you jobs that allow you to feed yourself with things that you can’t order by number, but really, don’t be so shallow. It’s all about the learning.

In the last year or so, many major universities (like Stanford, Harvard, Yale and MIT) have started offering their class materials online for free, and I’ve recently started to take advantage of this incredible opportunity for continuing education. I just finished listening to a Stanford course (downloaded from Stanford on iTunes U) called Historical Jesus given by first century Biblical scholar Thomas Sheehan. If the idea of spending about 15 hours listening to lectures on this topic appeals to you, I highly recommend this course.

Anyway, I came to this class with the reasonably firm belief that Yeshua of Nazareth had never existed. If we look for extrabiblical accounts of Jesus the pickings are slim. Chronologically, the closest such account to the supposed life of Jesus is the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, which is a reference to Jesus by Flavius Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93AD (about 6 decades after the supposed death of Jesus). It’s certainly more than a little sketchy that a man who had such tremendous impact wasn’t considered a worthy subject to write about for generations after he was dead, and that the first non-Christian to do so was a guy who wasn’t born until several years after the date given for the crucifixion. So if you’re looking for contemporary accounts, you come up totally empty. And, even if the Testimonium is good enough for you, its authenticity is hotly debated. Most scholars consider it to be at best an exaggeration of the original reference by later Christian scribes and at worst a completely fraudulent interpolation. If you’re interested in details of those arguments, they can be found in the Wikipedia articles to which I have linked above. Beyond that, there are no other extrabiblical references until well into the second century, by which time the authors are almost certainly influenced by early Christian accounts, and not by history.

As for the Biblical accounts, the earliest of which (the first Pauline Epistles) come more than 20 years after the crucifixion, I had always dismissed them out of hand as being biased, and therefore unreliable. However, this course opened my eyes to several techniques which can be used to sift potentially real information out of the largely (if not completely) mythological gospels. The most compelling of these (as far as I can concerned) are the criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment.

The criterion of multiple attestation (or “the cross section”) focuses on those sayings or deeds of Jesus that are attested in more than one independent literary source (e.g., Mark, Q, Paul, John) and/or in more than one literary form or genre (e.g., parable, dispute story, miracle story, prophecy, aphorism).[source]

To really begin to understand the implications of this criterion, you first need some understanding of the relationships amongst the gospels. Since the gospel of John is so late in comparison to the three synoptic gospels (usually dated around the last decade of the first century) and so different from them, let’s ignore it for now. The two-source hypothesis is widely accepted, and seems the most sensible to me. This is the theory that Mark was the first of the canonical gospels to be written and that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark extensively. However, there is also a good deal of other material that is identical in Matthew and Luke, but not present in Mark. In this theory, this material is attributed to a theoretical and undiscovered gospel (called Q by scholars) which was read and copied by both. So, in Mark and Q, we have two independent and relatively early accounts of Jesus. If you accept the earlier dates given for the writing of the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas (discovered in Nag Hammadi), there are three such independent sources. The criterion of multiple attestation says that anything which appears in two or all three of these sources is probably historically accurate. I won’t go into what overlaps, but for this discussion, it is sufficient that overlap exists.

Now let’s have a look at the criterion of embarrassment.

The point of the criterion [of embarrassment] is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Four Gospels. [source]

In short, this criterion states that anything appearing in the gospels which seems to undermine the message of early Christianity or embarrass the founders is probably either true (and well-known enough that it couldn’t have been left out completely) or a modification of an even more embarrassing account. A good example of this is the story of Jesus submitting himself to baptism by John. If Jesus is actually the son of god, it doesn’t make sense in the Christian worldview for him to take this subservient position to a mere prophet. When this story first appears in Mark, it is softened by a reference to a passage in Isaiah in which the talks of (supposedly) John as “preparing the way” for the messiah. Matthew and Luke soften the story even further, including Luke’s account of a fetal John the Baptist leaping for joy in the presence of a fetal Jesus. By the time John’s gospel rolls around, the baptism has been completely eliminated. The crucifixion (a shameful way to die) and Peter’s denial of Jesus in the passion story are further examples of this criterion.

This article doesn’t do justice to any of these arguments, but there is plenty of material available online for you to research on your own if you’re interested in greater detail. The point I was trying to make is simply that using these methods of viewing New Testament books, there may actually be useful historical information which can be gleaned. So am I now a believer in the historicity of Jesus? Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but I am far less certain about his nonexistence. I think the worst you can say about the existence of Jesus is that it’s an open question.

~I AM~

Super Tuesday has come and gone, and (drumroll please)… nothing really changed. Oh. Well, today Mitt Romney dropped out of the race, so that will save a little time, and as much as it hurts me to do so, I’m letting go of Ron Paul, as well. Realistically speaking, his candidacy is as dead as the Constitution.

This time we’re going to look at the positions of the candidates on Islam. As I’ve said many times in this forum, most American politicians demonstrate a fundamental (no pun intended) misunderstanding of the teachings of the Qur’an, simply regurgitating the latest platitudes the 24 hour new stations are offering about the “religion of peace.” Let’s see how the candidates for the highest office in the land stack up on this critical issue.

Clinton: In 1996, the White House hosted a celebration of Eid ul-Fitr with the American Muslim Council. Then first lady Hillary Clinton accepted the gift of two Qur’ans, one for her and one for her husband. She said that Chelsea already had one and had taught her and Bill a good deal of what they knew about Islam. That same year, she said to the L.A. Times that Islam was “a guide and pillar of stability for many of our people” (source) and talked to the Chicago Sun-Times about Islam’s “universal values - love of family and community, mutual respect, education, and the deepest yearning of all - to live in peace.” (source)

As First Lady, Hillary routinely hosted the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the American Muslim Council and the American Muslim Alliance at the White House. All of these groups have been linked to terrorism and/or calls for the destruction if Israel. (source)

Over the years, Clinton has received numerous campaign donations from radical Muslim groups, but to the best of my knowledge, she has returned all such donations.

I’d love to offer something more current, but she doesn’t say much about Islam these days.

Huckabee: I’m going to let Mike Huckabee’s own words speak for him.

“We […] have to recognize there is a real threat to us with radical Islamic Jihadism. […] Anybody who will kill their only children to get at you will kill your children, too. […] Anybody who gets in the way of not being a part of establishing this theocratic utopia on earth is subjected to being annihilated. […] Understand that the heart of this movement goes all the way back to the seventh century. […] The nonsense that I hear is that if we leave them alone, they leave us alone. That’s just a deadly recipe.” (source)

“The Administration has never done an adequate job explaining the theology and ideology behind Islamic terror, never done an adequate job of convincing us of their ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is “Know your enemy,” and most Americans don’t. […] Very few Americans are familiar with the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian radical executed in 1966, and the Muslim Brotherhood, whose call to active jihad, influenced bin Laden and the rise of Al Qaeda. […] Qutb raged against the decadence and sin he saw around him and sought to restore what he considered the “pure” Islam of the seventh century. […] To him, the only answer was a return to a theocratic caliphate without national borders, and he saw nothing decadent or sinful in murder to achieve that end.” (source)

Huckabee really gets it. I guess it takes a religious fanatic to recognize religious fanaticism in others. It’s a shame I’d rather chew off my right arm than vote for him.

McCain: John McCain has drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid…

“I admire Islam. I think that there’s a lot of good principles in it. […] These forces of evil have perverted what’s basically an honorable religion.” (source)

…and would rather blame the Internet than the Qur’an.

“The transcendant challenge of the 21st century is the challenge of radical Islamic extremism. […] The fact is that everywhere in the world, thanks to cyberspace[…] you’re seeing the spread of this radical Islamic extremism in a very dangerous way.” (source)

All the other quotes I found echo the same PC nonsense.

Obama: Barack Obama’s religious background has been the subject of much debate. His account is that he has never practiced Islam. There are reports from people who knew him as a child in Indonesia that he attended Muslim religious classes and went to mosque for Friday prayers with his stepfather. I personally believe that he is truly a Christian, as he says, but the jury is still out on some of the evidence that has been presented. There’s plenty to read on that elsewhere. If you have any good links on either side of this issue, please put them in the comments section.

As for his position on Islam, I can’t find any meaningful statements he has made on the issue. That could be because any Google search on the relevant keywords turns up only pages accusing him of being a Muslim or offering evidence that he’s not, but come to think of it, I never remember him talking about it in a debate.

~I AM~

…and then there were 6. My job got a bit easier after Florida as John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani both dropped out of the race, so their positions no longer need to be considered in this series. I suppose I could probably eliminate Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, also, as neither of them really has a shot at the nomination, but as long as they keep them in the debates, I’ll keep writing about them.

So, this time, I’ll take a look at the candidates’ positions on gay rights. Like abortion, this isn’t a strictly religious issue, as there are people with strong secular opinions against both (see almost any post by the Raving Atheist for secular opposition to abortion). However, since most opposition is of a religious nature, I’ll include it.

Clinton: Hillary Clinton received an 89% rating on this issue from the Human Rights Campaign in 2006. She supports civil unions, and believes that marriage is an issue for the states. She voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. While she once supported Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, she now favors its elimination so that gays can serve openly. Hillary supports giving gays and lesbians equal adoption rights. In 2002, she voted to add sexual orientation to hate crime legislation.

Huckabee: I’m sure no one will be surprised by the results on this one. Mike Huckabee opposes legislation to protect gays from employment discrimination and hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity as criteria. On marriage, Huckabee says on his campaign web site “I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.” He signed similar legislation in Arkansas in 2006. He also opposes civil unions and gay and lesbian adoption and foster parenting. Finally, he doesn’t “think” he would change the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

McCain: Like Huckabee, McCain opposes protecting gays from employment discrimination and including sexual orientation in hate crime laws. On same-sex marriage, McCain’s web site says “The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.” Despite this, he opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He supports Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell because he feels that open homosexuality in the military is potentially risky. If he has ever taken a public stance on gay adoption, I wasn’t able to find it.

Obama: During his tenure in the Illinois legislature, Obama sponsored legislation that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He receive an 89% rating (same as Clinton) from the HRC in 2006. In the Senate, Obama co-sponsored legislation to include sexual orientation in hate crime laws, and he believes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should include sexual orientation. He opposes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, saying that “The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve.” He supports civil unions, and opposes gay marriage, citing his religious beliefs as the basis for his position. He did vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Obama supports equal adoption rights for gays and lesbians.

Paul: Ron Paul opposes the the Employment Non-Descrimination Bill, which includes sexual orientation. He opposes all hate crime legislation, so he can’t really be judged on that issue here. He opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a federal amendment defining marriage as heterosexual. In 1999, he voted for a measure to ban gay adoptions in Washington, DC. He thinks Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is “a decent policy.”

Romney: In 1994, during a run for Senate against Ted Kennedy, he sent a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, saying “…as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.” However, he now opposes nondiscrimination laws for gays, supports Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, opposes gay marriage and civil unions, opposes gay adoption, supports the Federal Marriage Amendment and opposes the inclusion of sexual orientation in hate crime laws. Massachusetts was the first state to allow gay marriage, and Romney lobbied the highest court in the state and the state legislature to eliminate it. Oops.

That’s it on gay rights. There’s more to come in this series. I may wait until after Super Tuesday for the next installment. I think I’ll have a lot less to write.

~I AM~

Welcome to the second installment of Candidate Scorecard in which I will examine the eight major candidates’ positions on stem cell research, an issue that has become very important to me as of late.

Clinton: Hillary Clinton has pledged to lift the ban on stem cell research when she takes office and has criticized President Bush for putting ideology before science. Last year, she voted for a bill that would expand embryonic stem cell research. She cosigned a letter to the president from 58 senators in 2004 asking him to expand the federal policy on stem cells.

Edwards: John Edwards cosigned the same letter.

Giuliani: When asked in a debate last year whether he would expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, Rudy Giuliani said “As long as we’re not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we’re not having human cloning, and we limit it to that, and there is plenty of opportunity to then use federal funds in those situations where you have limitations. So I would support it with those limitations.”

Huckabee: Asked the same question as Giuliani in the same debate, Mike Huckabee said “I would concur. I don’t think it’s right to create a life to end a life. That’s not a good health decision.”

McCain: Again, in the same debate, John McCain responded “I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It’s a tough issue. I support federal funding.” In 2007, he put his vote where his mouth is, voting to expand stem cell research. He was also a cosigner of the same 2004 letter to the president as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Obama: As president, Barack Obama would promote stem cell research, expand the number of cell lines available for research and ensure ethical standards. He introduced legislation in Illinois that would ensure that only embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that donors would have to provide written consent.

Paul: Ron Paul would not provide federal funding for stem cell research because he believes that the constitution doesn’t provide the federal government with the authority to fund any such project. As a result, he voted against stem cell research twice during his tenure in the House.

Romney: Mitt Romney would outlaw cloning to create new stem cells and would outlaw embryo farming. He would allow surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization to be used. He also believes that adult cells “reprogrammed” to become stem cells are just as useful. He wants to use government funds for this and only allow private funding for work with embryonic cells. When the Harvard Stem Cell Institute sought protection for a cell line, Romney refused to support them, stating that “Lofty goals do not justify the creation of life for experimentation or destruction.”

That’s it for stem cells. Stay tuned for additional issues.

~I AM~

I have recently been too busy to post. Watching all four daily presidential debates takes up a lot of my time. One thing you can certainly say is that it’s been an exciting political season. There isn’t really anyone I’m excited about voting for, but It’s still fun to watch.

So, now that we’re down to just 8 candidates, I think it’s time to look at their stances on religious issues. Of course, I’m not suggesting that anyone (even evangelical atheists) should vote on only these issues, but as our secular nation continues its slow, silent slide toward theocracy, we should certainly be aware of how much influence is exerted on each of the candidates by their big imaginary friends. I have to pluralize that just for Mitt Romney. I lot of other people can’t seem to agree whether or not it’s the same god, so I won’t assume.

So, let’s take a look at Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Obama, Paul and Romney on abortion. There’s a rumor going around that Alan Keyes is also running for president, but if he can’t be bothered to tell us, I can’t be bothered to include him. It’s not a good sign for your campaign when you show up at a debate and even the media pundits aren’t sure why you’re there, but it’s always seemed to work for Dennis Kucinich, so maybe it’s a strategy I just don’t understand

Clinton: Hillary Clinton has stated repeatedly that she wants abortion to be “safe, legal and rare.” The health plan she proposed under her husband’s administration would have included RU-486, and she fought to get Plan B on the market for years. Her personal ethical code would have prohibited her from having an abortion. As first lady, she led efforts to make the adoption process easier. In 2006, Clinton pushed to increase federal funding for abortion providers. She supports late-term abortions only when the mother’s life or health is at risk. She voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. Her voting record received a 100% rating from NARAL and a 0% rating from the NRLC.

Edwards: John Edwards believes the right to choose is constitutionally protected. He voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions. His voting record received a 100% rating from NARAL.

Giuliani: Rudy Guliani claims to personally oppose abortion but support a woman’s right to choose. If a federal ban on all abortions came across his desk as president, he said he would “probably” not sign it. In his 2000 senate race, he ran as a pro-choice candidate. Giuliani wants to seek a bipartisan way to reduce abortion and increase adoption. He would not have an abortion “litmus test” for judicial appointments. In a questionnaire from NARAL in 1997, he said he supported Medicaid funding for abortion with no restrictions, opposed parental notification for minors and opposed a ban on partial-birth abortions. In the 1990s, Giuliani made at least six personal contributions to Planned Parenthood. In a debate, Giuliani said it would be “OK” if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

Huckabee: Mike Huckabee opposes states’ rights on moral issues, such as abortion. He stated that he would deny federal funds to any organization that promotes abortion. Huckabee led Arkansas to pass a state constitutional amendment stating that life begins at conception. He said in regard to Giuliani’s position that hating abortion but supporting choice is akin to hating slavery but allowing it to be practiced. Huckabee said that he would have signed the South Dakota legislation banning all abortion, even in cases of rape or incest.

McCain: John McCain said in 1999 that he would not support the repeal of Roe because American women would be forced to have illegal and dangerous abortions. He has said over and over again that this comment was taken out of context and that he has always felt Roe was a bad decision. He wants to prosecute abortion doctors, not the women having abortions. McCain supports abortion in the case of rape and would not require proof of rape. He opposes partial-birth abortions and federal funding of abortion.

Obama: Barack Obama supports Roe and voted against parental notification and a ban on partial-birth abortion. He also voted to spend $100 million on reducing teen pregnancy through education and contraceptives. He has stated that he is afraid an abortion ban would force women to seek unsafe abortions. His voting record received a 0% rating from the NRLC.

Paul: Having delivered 4,000 babies, Ron Paul says he is sure that life begins at conception. He wants the federal government completely out of the abortion debate, believing that it is a state issue. He would remove federal funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors for abortions and also voted against making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. He voted for a ban on partial-birth abortion except to save the mother’s life. His voting record received a 0% rating from NARAL and a 56% rating from the NRLC.

Romney: Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice candidate, pledging never to waiver on a woman’s right to choose. After taking office, he quickly changed his mind and vetoed any law put before him that would have expanded abortion rights. He also promoted abstinence education in Massachusetts schools. He is opposed to punishing women for having partial-birth abortions. If a ban on all abortions came across his desk as president, he would be “delighted” to sign it into law. Romney has stated that his position on abortion when running for governor was the “defining mistake” of his life. As governor, he vetoed emergency contraception for rape victims but, in 1994, endorsed legalization of RU-486.

This series will continue over the coming weeks, covering stem cell research, gay rights, school prayer, separation of church and state, creationism and Islam. Stay tuned.

~I AM~