David the King?

Picking up from my articles of the last couple of days, I was reminded of the new controversy surrounding King David and his successor, Solomon. This was covered in an article in the National Geographic in which they discussed the argument between a small group of atheist Jews (Yes, there are some) who are determinedly rewriting everything their predecessors and quite a number of the contemporaries have done to uncover Israels past and the history of the Jewish nation. This is a major challenge even without the "nay sayers" rewriting everything.

One reason is that much of the archeology which supports the Jewish accounts - most contained in the Old Testament - lie in land controlled by Muslim governments. A second reason is that, in the course of the history of this region, things have been torn down, rebuilt, destroyed, buried and built over during the last 2,500 years, starting with the Babylonians, the Assyrians and on through Alexander the Great, the Romans and eventually the Arabs, the Crusaders and the Turks. Nearly all of them intent on erasing everything about the Jews for one reason or another. All the Jewish records that survived the Hellenic invaders and the Maccabean revolt were finally destroyed by the Roman Army in 70 - 73AD.

So, one can understand the frustration of one of Israels leading archeologists when she is forced to confront one of her own students who is telling tourists that everything she has written or uncovered in her life's work - is rubbish. The problem is in the dating. The chief anti-Bible archeologist is a Dr Finkelstein who has redated everything his companions found, asserting it is all at least 100 years younger than David or Solomon. He is following the common tactic of so many in the anti-religion camp - cast doubt on the source book, and you undermine everything else. By calling into question the status of King David, he calls into question all claim Israel has to an illustrious history. All Jews look back to the Kingdom of David and Solomon as the Golden Age of their people and it is the fact that the only comprehensive record of this is in the Bible that annoys the likes of Finkelstein. He and his supporters want to pull the rug out from under the Orthodox Jewish community - so they attack the root of their faith. The encyclopedia gives the following on David ...

His life is conventionally dated to c. 1040–970 BC, his reign over Judah c. 1010–1003 BC, and his reign over the United Kingdom of Israel c. 1003–970 BC. The Books of Samuel, 1 Kings, and 1 Chronicles are the only sources of information on David, although the Tel Dan stele records the existence in the mid-9th century of a Judean royal dynasty called the "House of David". David's life is very important to Jewish, Christian and Islamic culture. In Judaism, David, or David HaMelekh, is the King of Israel, and the Jewish people. Jewish tradition maintains that a direct descendant of David will be the Messiah. In Islam, he is known as Dawud, considered to be a prophet and the king of a nation.

The dating is supported, but the argument revolves, as the article in the National Geographic suggests, around the status of the "king" - was he a jumped up hill tribe chief, or something more? Finkelstein and his faction can't get rid of the Stele, it is far too well known and far to authentic, so now they play with the dating.

One has to recognise, as any true Biblical scholar will tell you, that the books of Chronicles, Kings and Samuel are fragments reassembled after the Babylonian exile. The original Court Records of Israel and Judah having been destroyed by the conquerors as was the custom in those days. The books are the remembered records and may not be entirely accurate, but they are a record.

It can only be hoped that the Finkelsteins of this world will, eventually, be exposed and discredited. Until then the likes of Dr Mazar and her supporters must continue fighting. More than just some dusty ruins and shards of pottery depend upon it.

Twelfth Day of Christmas - Epiphany

Today is the Feast of the Epiphany, the day the "Wise Men" arrived in Bethlehem after, presumably, a two year journey. There are, of course, some arguments about the date of Jesus' birth, but you need to remember that the monk who worked out the dating didn't use a scientific method, or even an archeological one. He worked some 600 - 700 years after the events and his method was, by modern standards, rather crude. It certainly wasn't helped by confusion over names and dates of reigns.

Herod the Great died in 4 BC. We know that now, but the monk didn't. Luke apparently got Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa mixed up and may even have got Herod Archelaus into the mix. Remember that Luke was Greek and used a different dating system to Matthew, a Jew using the traditional Jewish calendar. Luke was also collecting his information for his Gospel some 20 years after the crucifixion and we have all had experience of talking to our grandparents about family history. It goes along the lines of "now it would have been 1941 or maybe 1942 - it was the year that Grace fell out of the tree. That was 1937 dear ..." Matthew had the advantage of having lived and walked with Christ, so his dates are probably more reliable.

That said, if we accept the fact that it was Herod the Great that ordered the killing of children in Bethlehem , our calendar is out by about 6 years. In other words we are now living in 2018 if we really want to be that accurate. The old monk did a pretty good job working on the ages of people when they died who were known to have been taught by people, taught by people, taught etc., right back to the Apostles and Jesus himself. To get to within six years by that method was pretty good. Other items mentioned in the Gospel accounts also point to 6BC being the correct date, since there were a number of major astrological events in that and the years immediately following.

Tradition has it that the three "Magi" were one from Europe, one from "the East" and one from Africa and the names ascribed to them around 1000 AD reflect that. Their significance is that they represented people outside the Jewish nations and tribes. In other words, they were the first "sign" that Christ was for all peoples and nations and not just for Israel and Judea. Having called on Herod according to the accounts of their visit, they found their way to Bethlehem and there they found Jesus and his parents. They "returned home another way" after a warning that Herod planned skulduggery and then we hit the next question mark on the Gospel account.

Why would Herod order the slaughter of all boys between newborn and two? The simple answer is, of course, that he was "playing safe" but there is a further complication. There is no record of such a slaughter being ordered in Bethlehem and Herod himself died in 4 BC. The Holy Family would not have been living in the stable for two years and there is no suggestion in the Gospels that they were when the Magi arrived. So what actually happened?

A recent archeological find turned up a mass grave of children's skeletons. Could this be the result of the slaughter? Quite possibly, the skeletons and the grave are of the right age and period, though it is difficult to date children's skeletal remains after so long accurately. There is also a suggestion that a plague may have been the agency of death - but then why only children and only in this place? Just to throw in another wobbly, the Governor of Syria named by Luke actually held this office from 10 - 14AD, but he was present for the exile of Herod Archelaus in 4 BC and probably organised a census then as Judea was made a "Province" of Rome under the Governorship of Syria. Enter the Roman Governors and the progression that brought Pontius Pilatus to Jerusalem in the period covering the crucifixion.

Why would Herod have been afraid of a "carpenter's son" (especially one about whom rumour no doubt already questioned his parentage) unless there was a strong possibility of a legitimate claim to the throne Herod occupied? We know that Joseph was a descendent of David, but that, in itself, hardly made Jesus a legitimate possible heir. It is much more likely, and a careful consideration of later clues in the narrative, that Joseph was a man of means, well connected among the Jewish nobility and therefore a threat to the usurper Herod and his heirs. Herod certainly had no scruples in murdering his wife's (He had inherited the throne through her) relatives, getting rid of several far more legitimate claimants to his throne, including his wife's brothers, several cousins and an uncle. It's quite possible that the "slaughter of the innocents" in Bethlehem was limited to certain families standing a little too close for Herod's comfort to the throne.

The gospel writers are being careful, remember they are writing in an environment when making a statement that might offend someone powerful could get you crucified, so the allusion is broadened and the blame moved safely to the now long dead tyrant. One thing is clear. The birth had taken place within two years of the arrival of the Magi. Nor did Joseph hang about. And here we have another small clue to his connections - a "flight" into Egypt was an expensive trip, not something any mere peasant could even contemplate.

Does this change the way I see Jesus, the Magi or my faith? No, all it does do is underscore the need to understand the background and to enjoy the tradition, will seeking the reality. Faith, to be strong, needs to recognise reality and to see how the realities around those who wrote the Gospels, wrote the letters and compiled the Biblical canon shaped and directed their writing and their actions.

The Magi have been and are now on their way home - and Joseph has Mary and the child Jesus probably heading for Joppa and a ship to Egypt! Welcome the Magi, because they are you and I.

Life Choice?

There are definitely times when I despair for Christianity and the debate surrounding some of the candidacy for the US Presidential race is raising that specter again. Once again it is idiots whipping up a storm about "Gays" and "gay Rights," and once again they are reaching for their Bibles and their narrow interpretations of it to support their crusades. Fundamentalists of all religions tend to do untold harm to both the message of a faith and to those who try to follow it honestly and prayerfully. The extremists, though, always manage to steal the limelight and cloak themselves in the fable - at least in many media reports - as "the one true interpreter" of that Faith.

I was reminded of this when I read this report in the Guardian (NOT my usual paper!) I find myself, once again, wishing I could take the book they so abuse and bash it into their heads until they get to understand it. It seems that once again, the focus of the "conservatives" (I've always considered myself to be one, but now I'm not so sure!) is on lifestyles, specifically, those now labelled "Gay." Yes, there are three clear references to this in the Old Testament and a possible one or two (If you really stretch the imagination!) in the New. Once more all the Fundamentalists - those who want to "interpret" everything literally in the Bible are up in arms and claiming, yet again, that the choice of lifestyle is - choice! They refuse to accept the plethora of medical evidence to the contrary and continue to shout and scream about people in this category being "evil." It makes me want to foam at the mouth and bite someone in the hope I'll give them rabies!

First of all, the Bible is NOT one book, it is a library all on its own. All of the books in it were written at different times and in many different languages. Not all of it is "history" and will someone please, please, please, tell the American Fundamentalist sects that it was not written in English! Nor was most of it written in Hebrew! The original books were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and possible even in Persian in places. The modern Bible as we have it is a translation of, for the Old Testament, the Hebrew canon known as the Talmud for the King James Version (Which came from Babylon/Persia) and the Hellenic Greek version known as the Septuagint for the Vulgate version used by the Early Church and by the Roman Catholics and Lutherans. Until the invention of the printing press and movable type, it had to be copied by hand and, inevitably, mistakes were made by copyists. Eventually, in around 1500, it was agreed that there should be one "Authorised" text and hundreds of copies were examined to find the most reliable - and those became the text we have now.

The KJV (Published in 1611) drew on a completely new set of sources. The Talmud for the Old and the most reliable copies they could find of the originals for the New. This is why the KJV has fewer books in it than the Vulgate.

Right, that's the history out of the way, now to "interpretation."

You cannot interpret or understand the text of this collection without knowing what you are looking at and what it represents. Nor can you understand it outside of the setting of the book you are reading. In other words, the background is important. Why? Put simply, because the writers of the Biblical Books didn't write down all the background details, just the important bits - so they left out everything the reader was expected to "know." Why? Remember, paper wasn't easily come by, they wrote on papyrus which came from Egypt, or on hides, which had to be prepared and cost an arm and a leg. So you didn't waste space with details your reader should know. Except that they didn't consider the idiots who would read it 2,500 years later, insist that it should be read literally, in a different language and with a totally different understanding of the culture and events it is describing.

Modern readers also fail to understand that Genesis is an "Epic" rather like a Norse Saga, it has elements of fact in it but it is presented as a collection of folk memories and poetic explanations for an agrarian society. It is not a scientific treatise! Nor is it a "factual" "history." Daniel, Job, Ruth and Esther are "stories," and written to render theological argument and discussion accessible to the writers audience - again, probably never expecting it to be read and interpreted in a different culture 2,000 years on! The Psalms are poems and prayers, again, written at different times and in different places and circumstances - and certainly NOT all written by King David. Please people - learn the background history!

The Bible certainly does, in Leviticus, condemn same sex acts. But elsewhere there are suggestions that several of the characters in it were, if not actively engaging in those acts, at least in 'partnerships' with others of their sex. You cannot read these things literally. Christianity as a whole condemns the act, not the person, though, at the moment, with all the scandal of abuse in the Roman Church, there is a tendency toward both. This flags up another of the problems with the interpretation many fundamentalists place on certain texts from the Bible.

In the Middle Ages a tendency developed to seek texts which supported certain policies, doctrines and actions. In part the Reformation tried to sweep that away - but the allure for the newly free and self proclaimed "prophets" of various Protestant Factions soon brought it back, with a vengeance. In the process the whole Gospel message of love and redemption in and through Christ got buried beneath an avalanche of Old Testament fire and brimstone. And the Fundamentalists love that!

The Guardian article is concerned with homophobia, a dreadful word in my view, introduced amid a plethora of new "phobias" which we are now told are "institutionalized" in just about everyone and everything. I reject that, but I do accept that a very small minority of extreme fundamentalists in all religions are "institutionally" afraid of homosexuality. The associate it with a disease, and are afraid their children may be "corrupted" by catching it. Frankly that is best described by a word I can't use here.

In the 1960s a certain Dr Kinsey claimed 10% of the US male population was homosexual. That has since been debunked (And Kinsey and his wife exposed as sexual predators and voyeurs), though the number remains a significant portion of the population. It is also extremely likely to be the same proportion in every population. It is not a "disease" transmitted by contact or association, someone not inclined that way is most unlikely to even consider trying it. Why, therefore, can we not get past this and recognise that just as people are different colours, have different beliefs and cultures and lifestyles - they are still among God's children? They don't "choose" to be that way - I remember being asked by a Gay man once, "would you choose to be a member of a hated minority if it was up to you?"

So please, don't fall into the trap of seeking texts in the Bible to support your fear. Please, will somebody call a halt to the proliferation of Fundamentalist sects and interpretations of this really good and useful book? Please stop making ALL Christians look ridiculous! I don't mind your worshipping in your own way and even pondering on the meaning of scripture - I do, a lot - but I do mind very much being made to look like some hatefilled bigot by idiots who can't accept that, if they actually looked at what the stories say and what science tells us - there is no conflict and certainly nothing to fear!

Please will somebody stop the abuse of the message of the Gospel by the selection of out of context texts to fight their political battles and express their very unChristian ideas?

The Book of Jonah (Another of the allegorical "story" books) tells the story that Jonah, having gone to Nineveh after trying to evade the call to do so, is angry that, when the city repents and turns back to God, the Lord does not destroy it. He takes umbrage and goes into a monumental sulk. God challenges him with the words; "Have you any right to be angry?" Perhaps that is something those who parade their "faith" and throw about texts to "prove" their points should take time to consider. The Gospel challenges us to embrace those who are different and to show compassion - not to stand in the market place and shout condemnation!

I guess you can tell I am cross  ...

Budget Deficits

If the history I was taught is correct, "Deficit Budgeting" and "Income Tax" were invented in the late 1780s by Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger to fund Britain's war with Revolutionary France. I think we're still paying for that set of bank loans, never mind the one's successive government's have taken out since then. Thanks to One Happy Dog Speaks, I was reminded of this with her short YouTube clip ...

She gives a very good example based on household figures (by simply reducing the US National numbers to something approaching normality for a family) and I reproduce her summation here -

By simply removing the last eight zeros you get -

A household budget:
* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts: $385

Interestingly, Income Tax, at 1 penny in the pound, came to an end after 1815, but was reintroduced in 1914 and has been a millstone round our necks ever since. It was supposed to replace all the taxes on food and other "interesting" little government fund raisers, but, as you've probably realised, as the Bureaucracy and graft associated with the Civil  Service grew, so did the need to increase the tax take. Income tax has shot up from the original 1% to a whopping 50% for top earners in the UK and the average is around 25% before taking into account the add on taxes from VAT, Road Tax and the share we all pay toward Corporate Tax, Employers Contributions and so on. The US Debt is $14 Trillion and rising and the UK debts racked up by Liebor and Brown are similarly frightening, yet the Left, Liebor and the Guardianistas, can't seem to grasp the fact that the kind of budgeting they love - tell us where you keep your money and we'll take it and spend it for you - can no longer work.

I do find it strange that so many don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that no government in the world actually "owns" the money supply. Everything they have comes out of the pockets of the tax payers. In the days of the "Gold Standard" the money governments printed and issued was actually underpinned by the value of the "Treasure" in their Treasury. That is no longer the case. Every government in the world would be bankrupt tomorrow if their citizenry simply refused to pay the rapacious taxes imposed upon them by the self serving, greedy and venal politicians and their chums in the Civil Services ...

Some taxes are necessary. We do need to ensure that pensions are provided and that those in genuine need are assisted, that roads are maintained and water, sewage and so on are dealt with. But why do we need 6 million civil servants and of the order of 2,000 MPs, MEPs, MSPs, MAs and all their associated hangers-on to govern a small island nation of 60 million inhabitants when we once ruled an Empire stretching round the globe with 460 MPs, 300,000 seamen and soldiers and 3,000 civil servants? There is something seriously wrong with a nation that needs so many bureaucrats - one 5th of the total workforce!

2012 and all that ...

The Postulant recently sent me a link to a science blog which discusses, from a geologists perspective, all the hype about the date 21-12-2012, the supposed "end of the world" date as calculated - in some interpretations - in the Mayan Calendar. In the blog Highly Allochthonous (Yeah, I know, I had to look that one up! To save others the trouble - it means a geological deposit that originated somewhere else.) the author describes the geologists responses to some of the more "way out" theories about the "end of the world." Their predictions make music to my ears, the only one I don't agree with is the comment about "carbon balances" - and that only because I do believe humanity is changing aspects of our climate, but not the way Greenstrife and other eco-terrorists claim. Put simply, if you increase the human population beyond what the land and its resources can support you get increased run-off when it rains, you get crop failures, you get droughts and you get floods somewhere else. Focussing on CO2 is misleading and time (and money) wasting!

Highly Allochthonous predicts -

In 2012:

• The Earth’s tectonic plates will continue to move across the mantle at a few centimetres a year. Earthquakes and volcanoes will result in the usual fashion.

• Based on the last century of seismic activity
, there will be 10-20 earthquakes with a moment magnitude greater than 7.0, with a good chance that at least one will exceed magnitude 8. Most of the largest are likely to be associated with subduction zones, with the consequent risk of a tsunami if they rupture at shallow depths.

• There will be more than a hundred earthquakes between magnitude 6 and 7, which have the potential to cause considerable damage if the rupture occurs close to a major city.

• As Erik Klemetti will tell you, volcanic eruptions happen all the time, and in 2012 they will continue to do so. Some will fairly harmlessly ooze lava; others will behave more explosively, mimicing this year’s Pliny-winning Puyehue-Cordón Caulle in Chile. But unless something really spectacular happens, akin to Mount Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991, all of these eruptions will be eclipsed by breathless speculation about any slight seismic activity that occurs beneath Katla, the Yellowstone caldera, or any volcano in the Pacific Northwest.

• In a number of places, too much rain will fall in too short a time, and flooding will result. When this occurs in a rich western country, there will be relatively low casualties, a large bill for damages, and lots of media coverage; when it happens in a poorer country, casualties will be higher and many more people will be displaced, but the media will pay far less attention.

• The Earth’s magnetic poles will migrate a few tens of kilometres from their present position. This may lead to a few airports re-marking their runways, but is not a sign that the field is about to reverse. If you hear talk of the dipole field’s recent weakening and this being a sign of the field gearing up for a reversal – and in my opinion, it’s at least a few centuries to soon to tell – remember that the whole process takes 5,000 to 10,000 years. Come December 22, your compass will still point north.

• Scientists will continue point to the serious consequences of climate change as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (which will continue to inexorably rise). The climate itself will continue to push up past the ‘normal’ range in which our civilisation developed and is tuned to flourish in. The resulting extreme weather events – be they heatwaves, floods, or unusually powerful storms – are far more likely to be attributed to mystical cosmic cycles than our disruption of the carbon cycle.

Read the whole of their enlightening post here. I've deliberately left the links in, even though some of what is said about the climate has now been amended and is being challenged - particularly the infamous and patently falsified "hockey stick" graph.

As I remarked in my previous post on all the Doomsday scenarios some folk just feel so utterly drawn to, there does seem to be something about our current society that simply thrives on dreaming up these dire events and outcomes! At least these geologists point up the realities behind some of the more exciting ones. Personally I can't wait to see the excuses that will have to be dreamed up when 21 December rolls past just as it always has.

Postscript: This is why the Hockey Stick is, in my opinion, fraudulent.

A Bishop who stands for Faith ...

Bishop +Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, is a main of conviction. He doesn't mince his words and speaks from the heart. His background is interesting, because he converted to Christianity, specifically the Anglican version of the Catholic Faith as a teenager. He stands out as an intellectual and, as you would expect, is an expert on both Muslim and Christian theology. That he is an outstanding scholar of both the Bible and the Quran goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway! He is now Director of the Oxford Centre for Training, Research, Advocacy and Dialogue.

I take the liberty of reproducing his response to David Cameron's New Year message in it's entireity -

In his recent speech on the place of the Bible and Christianity in our national life, David Cameron showed how the political development of the nation is inextricably bound up with Christian ideas. He challenged the Church, and specifically the Church of England, to provide moral and spiritual leadership. Such a challenge is long overdue, but the role of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in national life is more important than the status of any particular church. Whether or not this or that church provides what the Prime Minister is asking for, this tradition must remain central to our public life. 

Much of what Mr Cameron said is music to my ears. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Many obstacles will confront him if he tries to give effect in legislation to things he has said in his speech.

One issue is religious literacy in the Civil Service, Parliament and local authorities. What Mr Cameron said about Christian ideas being embedded in our constitutional arrangements is no longer understood in the corridors of power. A disconnected view of history and the fog of multiculturalism have all but erased such memory from official consciousness. A concerted programme is needed if this literacy is to be recovered. Church leaders can help with remedial action, but this has to do with the place of Christianity in schools, and the teaching of history. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, knows that history cannot just be about dates and personalities, but must be a narrative of a nation’s emergence from the mists of time. For such a project, the place of Christianity is absolutely central. Education on citizenship cannot ignore the fact that our cherished values have biblical roots.

The proper relation of religion to science is also vital. Young people must be taught to appreciate both the experimental methods of science and the ultimate values which religion offers. Such a conversation must take place in the classroom if we are not to continue being divided by “scientistic” and religious fundamentalists.

Mr Cameron reminded us that inalienable human dignity is founded on the biblical idea that we are made in the image of God. But to whom does this extend? And are there circumstances when a person might lose such dignity?

It was for these reasons that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act recognised the special nature of the human embryo and established an authority to regulate scientific work involving embryos. I support the Coalition’s desire to trim the quangos, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is not perfect. But we need a body, perhaps modelled on the US President’s Council, that can consider the moral implications of developments in bioethics.

As Mr Cameron reminded us, the value of equality comes from the biblical teaching, confirmed by science, of the common origin of all humans. This has to do with the equality of persons, not necessarily the equal value of all behaviour or relationships. Equality of all before the law is a development from the Judaeo-Christian influence on the law, but so is respect for conscience. I would hope that legislation initiated by this Government will, increasingly, respect the consciences of believers. Legislation in America provides for the “reasonable accommodation” of religious belief at work. If such a doctrine had been in place in Britain, we would not have seen the absurd dismissals – and absurd judicial decisions that upheld them – of Christians and others because they could not do certain tasks on account of their faith.

The Prime Minister is aware of the vast scale of social service, prison work, relief of poverty and the like that churches and their agencies undertake. He is right to expect their help with his vision of citizens working for the common good. Churches will welcome greater participation in building up communities. But they cannot simply be surrogate service-providers. What they do springs from their beliefs; the authorities must respect these, if there is to be genuine collaboration. Let us hope and pray that the Prime Minister’s recognition of the importance of Christianity in public life provides a springboard for such co-operation in this New Year. 

 The highlight of the final paragraph is my emphasis. Herein lies a major problem, in the mishmash of bad and anti-church legislation Blair and his vile party left us, Local Authorities are already demanding that services provided by church groups must not include any religious element. Until that is addressed and the anti-church bureaucrats are weeded out, no proper service can be provided on the lines Mr Cameron wants. The solution is in his hands.

Resolutions ...

Are not something I generally subscribe to, but I was very amused by a comic strip called "The Grizzwells" in which the lead character, Gunther Grizzwell (A Grizzly bear if you don't know the strip) makes a resolution that he's going to take up unicycling. When asked why he replies, "because he has no intention of keeping it ..."

I guess that's one way of looking at these "New Year Resolutions" - make one you know you won't keep. Then you won't feel guilty about not keeping it.

Another friend presented a list of ten things he wanted to achieve this year, with a list of ten things he didn't do last year. No. 6 on the second list caught my eye and my sympathy. "Ripping into some idiot who doesn't know the first thing about the subject he's talking about," is certainly one I can chalk up as a resolution to keep this year. I really do have to learn to walk away from those who make statements about climate, religion/faith and historical events with little more than the Daily Mail or the Guardian slanted abridged, edited and twisted version of any of them as a basis for their "knowledge" of the subject. People like that don't want to know the truth, they operate entirely with closed minds on the premise that "facts confuse me; my mind is made up and I don't want to know the facts."

OK, there's my resolution. I'm going to have to work hard on it ...