Thomas Sowell continues his brilliant insights into the current presidential campaign. Speaking of Barack Obama’s comments on how average folk in small towns are ”bitter” and “cling to guns or religion,” Sowell points out:
In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a “clarification,” when people react adversely to what was plainly said.
Obama and his supporters were still busy “clarifying” Jeremiah Wright’s very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to “clarify” Senator Obama’s own statements in San Francisco.
People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.
However inconsistent Obama’s words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.
Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings. (Read the complete column here.)
Perhaps Obama made those statements– which were given at a supposedly private function– because he actually believes them. His voting record and associations seem to suggest that is the case. I have not heard him clearly apologize or retract the sentiment behind the statement. If he believes what he said, at least we know the truth. No further “clarifications” are necessary.
Over on my blog I commented on this that we now have a pretty clear idea of how religious Obama really is. He joined the church he did for political reasons, not because he actually believes in anything. (He also learned that what plays well locally may not play well nationally.) He, like Clinton and other Leftists are all at heart atheists — that is why they deify the state.
Good insight Troy. I know Obama doesn’t take the Bible too seriously because he called a reference to homosexuality in Romans Chapter 1 “obscure.” Regardless of what one may think about homosexuality, there is nothing obscure about the book of Romans. It is the Magna Carta of the entire Bible!
Blessings,
Frank
Frank (and Troy),
This may be the first thing we’ve agreed about on your blog. I don’t think Obama really is that religious. Of course, I generally see that as a good thing, cause he won’t be influenced by the religious community and will worry about earthly concerns that actually matter. And while I’m not a fan of the fact that he has to hide the truth, the choice is between him, Hillary, or McCain. And in my opinion, that’s not even a choice.
I don’t see it as a good thing, because humans have a deep need for religion, and if we don’t satisfy it theologically, we will invent gods to replace God with. Leftists tend to deify the State — and, quite frankly, themselves. I can’t say I’m any more happy with someone who says, “I am certain I know what is best for everyone because of my superior reason” than I am with someone who says, “I am certain I know what is best for everyone because God told me.” That kind of certainty is what caused the Gulag, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, and 9-11.
Liberals deify themselves? Being sufficiently liberal myself I’d really like to hear the rationale for that claim.
Most cannot imagine anyone greater than themselves, and so don’t believe in God.
uh huh….
Well, I think your characterization is absolutely wrong, but I’m not going to sit here and say “Actually, most liberals tend to be very… yada yada yada” as we’ll simply be debating our opinions which won’t change. Although, I would like to point out that the this behavior can accurately be described by the word narcissism, leaving the concept of deification of the self to those who actually do so in a literal sense, like Kim Il-Sung.
Also, most liberals do believe in god. The atheist population in this country is only ~2.5%, (according to the recent Pew Foundation survey) and lets assume that nearly all of them are liberal, and that the 38% of people who self identify as democrats (according to Gallup, and these are the serious democrats, not including the “leaners”) are our liberals. My calculations indicate that this would mean that non-believers account for 6.5% of liberals (include agnostic, and assume they are all liberal, not so likely a proposition, and it goes up to 13%), hardly close to “most.” Even if we allow that only half of self identifying democrats could truly be called liberal, these numbers go up to 13 and 26, still a minority.
jjberg wrote: “Liberals deify themselves? Being sufficiently liberal myself I’d really like to hear the rationale for that claim.”
For a starting point, permit me to point you toward two blog articles I wrote, the first in the wake of Obama’s gaffe in San Fransisco (with a follow-up here), the second discussing Justice Scalia’s ferocious deconstruction of Justice Stephens’ argument that capital punishment violates the 8th Amendment.
The core principle of American liberalism is hubris: the liberal knows better than all other groups how all should run their lives, and feels the danger of proceeding in any direction other than the one he prescribes is so great that coercion is justified in order to force people to do what he insists they should do, against their will. Hundreds of examples are available to illustrate. I point to just a few.
Mr. Turek,
It is sad that you are unable to answer my question. I don’t know what it means, but I have no intention of reading your book, as a result. I expect I will get the same non-sequitors.
Paul
Paul,
What is your question?
Blessings,
Frank
Just because someone doesn’t identify themselves as an atheist doesn’t mean that they aren’t. You can typically tell which people don’t really believe in God by their behaviors and beliefs. I don’t believe for one minute that either Obama or Clinton believe in God. It’s pretty clear that Obama joined his church for political reasons, considering where he was running for office. He has all but confessed that he did so because he needed some kind of connection to the “black community,” and he thought joining the church he did would do that. My pastor growing up used to say, “Going into a church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going into a garage make you a car.” And saying publicly to a population who say they won’t vote for an atheist that you are a Christian certainly doesn’t mean you believe in God. I see almost no evidence of belief in God from the Left, whose ideology is and always has been fundamentally atheistic, going back to and including Rousseau and the French Revolution.
Mr. Turek,
Thank you. Here is my question.
It seems a major question is whether “I don’t know” means something. The Darwinists and many scientists seem to pull this out as a premise for not believing in God. What do you think?
Paul
Plumb Bob,
The irony is astounding. It is apparent that you are of the right wing persuasion, and from your presence on this blog, I’m sure you are probably a member of the Christian Right.
There is no mainstream group that offends more often than the Christian Right when it comes to telling people what to do. If you want to talk about coercion, the threat of eternal damnation in hell is a pretty strong coercive tactic. I think telling the public that society needs to follow “God’s word” (which the Christian Right is certain that it interprets correctly) “or else” demonstrates a pretty good example of someone who knows “better than all other groups how all should run their lives.”
Liberals, for the most part, ask only that everyone be allowed a chance to live their life as they want, so long as in doing so they do not infringe on the right of other to do the same.
Paul,
Yes, I think “I don’t know” may sometimes be used to avoid believing that God is the cause. But the point I’ve been making is this: it’s not that we merely lack a natural cause for, say, the specified and irreducible complexity in life, but that this is actually evidence FOR an intelligent cause.
Blessings,
Frank
JJ,
As an atheist, how can it be MORALLY wrong for conservative “Christian Right” people to impose their morality on you?
Blessings,
Frank
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” is the basis for all morality. No God necessary.
Kendenny,
How is there any objective morality without God? It’s just your opinion against that of Hitler or Bin Laden.
Frank
Frank,
I already told you. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Ancient people knew this long before Jesus ever said it. How can your morality different from Bin Laden’s as both come from God?
Ken
OK I already know how you’re going to answer that. You’re going to say that Bin Laden doesn’t worship the One True God ™. So substitute Fred Phelps (God Hates Fags).
Kendenny,
I’m not asking you how you KNOW murder is wrong, but WHY is murder wrong. Saying that it’s good for society begs the question as to what good is. Besides, if Hitler can get away with it, why shouldn’t he murder to get what he wants?
There is no objective good or bad unless there is an objective standard beyond human beings and human nature. How can materialistic atheism account for a non-material standard?
Blessings,
Frank
What is your evidence that this statement is true? “There is no objective good or bad unless there is an objective standard beyond human beings and human nature.” There is none.
Human nature defines what is good and bad, not some imaginary being.
Does an animal need God to tell him that being alive is preferable to being dead?
Kendenny,
Is material all there is, or do you believe in a non-material realm?
Frank
Yes, the physical universe is all there is. If there is anything outside the universe it is impossible for us to detect or have any knowledge of.
Ken
Ken,
Your two statements are logically contradictory.
1. The physical universe is all there is.
2. If there is anything outside the universe…
Statement 1 is an absolute statement that is unconditional and allows for no possibility of anything else.
Statement 2 is conditional and allows for the possibility of something else.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
So Ernie do you have any evidence that anything outside the physical universe exists, or are you nitpicking my argument without offering anything of your own?
Yes, please follow the arguments made in the “Who Made God” thread. My main discussion is with Mr. Crowell and I am waiting for him to answer a specific point before continuing. If you would like to join in the more formal side of the discussion, then I urge you to address the main proposition and first argument I have made. Please indicate if they are acceptable from the logical standpoint, that is, the proposition is precise, that the argument is valid, and that at least the first premise is true so that if I can prove the second, minor premise to be true then the argument will be sound and the conclusion true.
I assure you I will be presenting a very specific example that answers your question.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
There is much evidence of evolution. All life forms share metabolic processes, without doubt. For example, the Krebs Citric Acid Cycle. More basic processes are shared. It seems the only issue is whether God invented the Big Bang. Here the Dawrinists have no proof that there is no God. Their thinking is “I don’t know.” Or as diehard Darwinist Richard Dawkins thinks, life on earth was the result of aliens.
The Big Bang doesn’t even fall anywhere within the realm of Darwin’s theory. Claiming that Darwin’s theory should make any statements about the Big Bang is as ridiculous as claiming that the theory of general relativity should describe how the process of evolution works. “Darwinism” is not a world-view. It is a scientific theory.
The onus of proof lies with he who makes the claim, not he who disputes it. To borrow (as I tirelessly do) and modify an argument from Bertrand Russel: If I claim that there is a small china teapot suspended in orbit between Earth and Mars, but that it is too small to be seen with any sort of telescope technology we currently possess, there is no reason for you to believe me, and you can certainly ignore anything I say about said teapot because I haven’t demonstrated any proof for it’s existence. You would not be expected to prove that it doesn’t not exist before stating that you don’t believe in its existence.
Also, by your own logic, you seem to indicate that the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that Indra, Vishnu and Shiva are not really the gods to be reckoned with. Prove to me that we should not indeed be striving for nirvana, worshiping Allah, or attempting to attain the Tao. To invoke Steven F Roberts, When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours”
To be honest, the main reason I wanted to respond to this post was only because of your last phrase (I just couldn’t resist taking on everything else though). We’ve been over this a few times in different locations, but it’s really starting to piss me off. The claim that Dawkins believes life on earth was the result of aliens is absurd. It represents one of the gems of manipulation exhibited by the Expelled crew. Dawkins explains his purpose in invoking such a possibility here.
I reject your profanity, which is devolution. Not that I am guilt-free. Let us keep these debates family oriented. Our children are watching. Let me climb down from my high-horse now.
Let Dawkins’ performance speak for itself? One could demolish him as a witness because of his awful performance. But this is not about personalities. He is one of many gifted people working on the theory of evolution.
The Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory are related. Both assume our existence depends on probability. I mean it is truly difficult to see how we are here when quatum mechanics (closely related to probability theory) is considered. An electron being in two places at the same time? What is that about?
Paul
Paul Henri: “Or as diehard Darwinist Richard Dawkins thinks, life on earth was the result of aliens.”
This is a lie – this is not what Dawkins thinks.
it’s not worth it. i’ve tried. he, and others, just insist on being intellectually dishonest about it
Most cannot imagine anyone greater than themselves, and so don’t believe in God.
This actually has nothing at all to do with why I don’t believe in God, as somewhat of a social liberal and an atheist. No, the reasons I don’t believe in God are numerous; the things I enjoy about religion — the community, the expression of emotion without necessarily having to explain why or how one feels a certain way, the compassion, etc. — have nothing to do with God. They are natural human courses of interaction. I actually did a blog about this on my personal myspace, which you can read at the link at the end of this post.
But in any case, the reason I disbelieve in God is simple: I feel what the religious wrong is trying to call “the work of God.” They say that if you feel it, you’ll know it’s God right away — for example, on TBN last week, they aired a program where a man made the statement that “every time you feel a sense of awe at the world around you, when you feel something greater than yourself, that’s God talking.” I feel this, and yet I disagree with one fundamental principle: that it is “God talking.” I feel that is my own sense of humanity, reminding me how small and insignificant I and others like me really are in this vast, awesome universe.
The Christian belief in God goes directly against this feeling — it insists that, not only are we not insignificant, we are the center of the universe, created by the supreme deity that supposedly controls it all, for the sole purpose of serving this deity. That makes no sense to me.
So I guess what I’m saying is, the reason I disbelieve in God has more to do with the Christian description of God than it does with the atheist description.
P.S. Liberals aren’t anti-Christian. One of my extreme-leftist conspiracy-theorist friends (he thinks G.W. blew up the world trade center, go figure) is a hardcore Christian, and so is his wife. He also hates John McCain and the Republican party 0_0 I really wish you’d quit acting like we don’t have any Christians on our side.
[/In before "but liberals aren't real Christians!"]
qvg , buy xanax ujjhhggg , buy alprazolam 74411 , cheap diazepam #HGF *& , buy carisoprodol online tgeew , buy generic viagra khjg , buy phentermine cod wsxsw , levitra lk , generic meridia mk8vgvg , prozac nation 33201 , buy soma online 7458 , buy tramadol jtrkkjg , online lorazepam