I've just spoken to de lawd his own self, bypassing the ever-popular Jaysus, and Goddd hisself has tol' me that from here on out, all games where his name is invoked will end in either a tie (if the sanctioning organization provides for such) or, otherwise, endless "sudden death" or overtime play until all they players are dead from exhaustion.

Makes sense to me. Thanks to the Omniverse for having inspired me in this way. And, uh, Jesus, it's called a "Hail Mary". Get over it. It's a compliment.

All this just confirms what I have suspected all along: way before the prayer circles were so blatant, professional football was our national religion-of-choice. I see basketball is now gonna make a run for the number two spot. Elvis remains in third - and dead.

Every time. Without fail. First some Xtian decides to holler at us that we're blaspheming football and undermining the same fine values that allow us to murder foreigners while sacrificing, like Isaac almost did, our own children, then the ever-so-hip atheist/agnostic front (not to be confused with the band of a similar name, just so we've established hipness cred here) show up, like clockwork, to throw around some names of some dead guys like Einstein and Freud to shore up their own unprovable belief system or...dare I call it...a RELIGION? The beauty of a belief system, you idiots, is that it's not based on proof, or fact or empericism or anything but what someone chooses to believe. And the aim is a personal truth that is rooted in an experience that no one can prove happened, IF it ever happens to the Seeker who claims to have had it. For the luvva Christ, is it that complicated? God, the Universe, Krishna, Allah, the One, The Friend, the Hummingbird, the Void, Osiris, Jesus, Mary and Joseph do not give a rat's ass about the outcome of a football game OR what happens to anyone who chooses to play in one. "It rains on the just and the unjust alike." Can I be arrested for using that quote? Hey, it was totally out of context, it came out of a Bible, so it's probably not true anyway. Has anyone ever done a STUDY to see if that really happens? Does anybody really care? Am I humming a bad Chicago song?

And so does this ridiculous sham of an article. Is this the best Salon can come up with? Jesus! But back to J Shmoj for a second (and that pen name sounds suspiciously Arabic to me): where you get your facts mon? At the risk of "outing" a loved one (you'll never figure it out with that well-informed brain of yours), I'll just say that I am personally close to several NSA operatives who are fluent in Arabic as well as several other languages and one is my next-of-kin. And yes, A-rabs are able to master English, as well as us 'Muricans can master Arabic. Do you honestly believe these people, who have caused so much hell on three continents are dumb enough to hang out here in the USA making murderous plans while yakking in Arabic? Farsi? Urdu? If they were that stupid even our brainless Chief Executive could have brought me the head of Bin Laden by now. But no! The American public is as ignorant of the problems involved in cracking domestic-based terrorist cells as they are of how a bill gets through Congress! Just keep on believing the NSA is making up "cut-up" sentences out of Joe Schmoe's emails, telephone calls, etc., and that no one in the Agency speaks Arabic - or Farsi - Urdu. You damn fool! First of all, any emails you've sent in your lifetime have most likely passed through NSA hands - it's not anything new - and those people in the (thank God!) only outlaw agency left under the aegis of the US government actually know what they're doing. Which is more than I can say for some contributors to this thread. If we're still able to post these letters it ain't because Allah was willing!

J Schmoj. That doesn't sound Arabic at all. More like the other side of the wall. Sorry.

Laura Miller closes her most excellent piece on Spinoza by saying: "For reasons that may always remain an enigma, when we look deep into Spinoza's (famously beautiful) eyes, what we see is very often a reflection of ourselves, perhaps even our best selves." This, it has always seemed to me, precisely what Spinoza was trying, in his own passion, to explain to us: the God is Us and He is precisely the part of Us that we cannot see except in the eyes of others. Which may explain his lack of faith in romantic love: there are too many others to love, too much to love, to box ourselves in so.

Miller then, in the same breath, refutes the ultimate good in all that Spinoza urged us toward, namely that we do not start and do not end but, as "children" or the Universe, we always are, always have been and always will be, by saying: "If Spinoza was right about the universe, he's not around (anywhere) to either appreciate the irony of this or to rail against our solipsism. And that's just one more reason for us to love him so much."

It would seem that according to Spinoza, he is now more readily to be looked upon than when he was concretely with us. And that is the promise which was stolen by the first organized religion and has been by every one which has ever followed. Now to get back to that "quiet, pious life." Amen, good sir.