1

Hi Joe,

Foley, Cunningham, Sherwood, Delay, and Weldon. That pretty much sums up this election.

Democrats, according to you, may be dumb, but these days they don't seem to be as likely to end up in jail.

The do-nothing 109th Congress set the bar really low. Really low. They may have been just about the worst Congress ever. And they lost. So I have three words for you. I recommend that you take them to heart.

Get over it.

Missteps aside, and your Monday-morning armchair quarterbacking, the Democrats could phone it in and still outdo the 109th Congress. Corruption, thankfully, still has its consequences. And that's wonderful news for our democracy.

2

Marco,

Democrats, according to you, may be dumb, but these days they don't seem to be as likely to end up in jail.

You have a point there. No matter if they get caught in an FBI sting operation (Murtha), get caught with a freezer full of cash (Jefferson), get impeached as a corrupt judge (Hastings), or help Jack Abramoff (Reid), Democrats manage to avoid going to jail. They are definitely above the law.

Missteps aside, and your Monday-morning armchair quarterbacking, the Democrats could phone it in and still outdo the 109th Congress.

I don’t know. If the past few weeks is any indication, the new Congress is going to give the 109th a run for their money.

Corruption, thankfully, still has its consequences. And that's wonderful news for our democracy.

Yes, corruption does have its consequences. If you’re a Democrat the consequence is that you get reelected. (See: Reid, Dorgan, Murtha, Hastings, Jefferson, Conyers, Gov. Donald Siegelman, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, Chicago Mayer Richard Daley, any Democrat in Illinois…)

3

Joe,

I thought your last post Monday was one of the most off-target pieces you ever published.

Today I can't find one thing to quibble with.

I couldn't believe how incoherent Rangel was when I followed the link. I know Rangel pretty well, I've even talked to him in person, but I didn't realize he had actually told Democrats to vote against the draft bill.

Likewise, I wasn't aware of the CAIR fundraiser. Jeez louise!

Thanks for the entertaining and informative broadside.

4

Good post, Joe.

It stings to have lost the 2006 election to the Democrats. Really, it does. But that's over and done with now and there is no use crying over spilled milk.

So now we get to see what they do with our country over the next 2 years. Let's hope its a lot better than it has been over the last 2 weeks, before they even got started.

5

I find it odd (or perhaps very informative) that mr Carter is salivating at the possibility of destroying one of the ONLY two political parties in the US...single party nations dont have a very good track record and given the level of corruption exibited by the republicans over the last few years when it appeared unlikely that they would ever lose an election again...just imagine the depth it will reach if and when their grip on the reigns of power becomes unchallenged.

6

LudVanB,

Actually, we have had only one major party a couple of times in our history. It doesn't stay that way long, because new parties quickly form. Major parties self-destructing now and then is a good thing. It tends to bring new ideas to the table.

7

Speaking personally, I haven't voted consistently Democratic since I voted for Jimmy Carter. So perhaps I'm not the best critic of the party, but it seems to me that the class-warfare leadership (Waxman, Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, Hastings, Conyers, Rangel, etc., etc.) are the very leftists that engineered the upset during Clinton's administration. If these same people return to power I can't imagine that their ideology has become any more palatable to the red state conservative majority.

I think the Democrats have a real opportunity to revitalize the party in an historic sense, and as a former Democrat I'd like to see them do that. But given the first steps so far, I see no sign of that happening.

Again, speaking personally, I don't agree with the "thesis" that corruption explains the result of the election. Both parties are utterly corrupt and the party ideologues on both sides are contemptible. I think the lack of progress in Iraq and the sense of motionlessness and senseless violence there spurred the voting public to demand a different approach, a new vision. I don't think it's the Murtha/Kerry vision that the public wants, but I'm no Barone so I'll watch and wait to see what the Democrats finally do offer on that front.

I was relieved that McCain-Feingold finally got the negative advertising and money out of campaigns, though. We've been saved again by our wise ones.

8

Murtha's not in power now. Daniel Pipes is irrelevant, except for the fact that his support for the Iraq debacle has totally demolished his credibility.

Rangel wouldn't have needed serious consideration for his bill if a) Bush had policies that took care of our troops, and b) folks like you stayed in the military.

Really, the Democrats aren't in power yet. Bush and Cheney are still in power, although frankly, their hypothetical departure to South America to escape prosecution and Nancy Pelosi's ascencion to the presidency would only help America.

Let's see what happens in January.

9

RE The Stupider Party: Karl Rove’s Plan to Destroy the Democrats.

What's the political destruction of the democratic party have to do with being an "evangelical"?

Does the GOP stand for God's Own Party or something?

John

10

Joe,
Summing it up in one sentence: They eat their own.
:0
Happy Thanksgiving.

11

So it was the secret strategy of the Republicans to let the Democrats win control of the House and Senate?

I guess this sort of "reasoning" is consistent with Evangelicalism. You pride yourselves on your ability to ignore facts and reason in favor of your fantasy world peopled with god, satan, jesus, angels, demons, fairies, unicorns -- whatever.

You remember when Bush told Pat Robertson that he believed there would be no casualties in the war in Iraq? I suspect he thought God had told him this was going to be like one of those great miraculous Israelite vistories of old.

People who take pride in their ability to believe such delusions have no business governing anyone.

12

Mumon

“Murtha's not in power now.”

Maybe not literally until Jan 1st, but we all know he will be part of the majority then. Do you really believe his ethics or policy positions or influence over Madam Speaker will magically transform themselves at 12:01 A.M. Jan 1st 2007?

“Daniel Pipes is irrelevant, except for the fact that his support for the Iraq debacle has totally demolished his credibility.”

You need to more precisely define this one. Are you saying because he is wrong about Iraq (in yours, and admittedly many other’s opinions) his views on CAIR are not bearing on or connected to the true nature of this organization? If you are wrong about “tastes great” instead of “less filling” can I say you are irrelevant when it comes to a discussion about bioethics?

“Rangel wouldn't have needed serious consideration for his bill if a) Bush had policies that took care of our troops, and b) folks like you stayed in the military.”

Are you really defending Rangel’s incoherence and insincerity which you must admit is an obvious charade whatever the merits of his position on Iraq?

a) As far as Bush’s policies if did more of whatever you mean by “took care of our troops” would it really change Rangel’s views. By his own admission his draft initiative is meant to serve as a disincentive to go to war, not something to do with taking “better care” of troops already in conflict.

b) How long does Joe have to stay? Again Rangel is not proposing the draft because volunteerism is not sufficient, he is attempting by his own admission to put a brake on the POTUS proclivity to commit troops to war.

“Really, the Democrats aren't in power yet. Bush and Cheney are still in power,”

No they are lame ducks now and have no power to enact anything; if they did you would be the first to raise the alarm that they should wait for the new congress.

“Although frankly, their hypothetical departure to South America to escape prosecution and Nancy Pelosi's ascension to the presidency would only help America.”

How could a hypothetical departure change reality?

“Let's see what happens in January.”

I’ll hold you to that one.

13

Problem with reality

“I guess this sort of "reasoning" is consistent with Evangelicalism. You pride yourselves on your ability to ignore facts and reason in favor of your fantasy world peopled with god, satan, jesus, angels, demons, fairies, unicorns -- whatever.”

What fact(s) do you offer to disprove the existence of Satan?

14

The fastest way to destroy the Democratic Party is to put the Democrats in charge.

I worry about collateral damage during the time required.

I also worry about what the Christian response to this could become -- "Left Behind Fever", i.e. withdrawing into Personal Pietism and End Time Prophecy as a pure escape. Yesterday I got an email from my old college roomie in 18-point boldface about how The Coming One World Government Is Already Here and that God was telling him to "Draw Closer To Me" and how he was "memorizing passages".

15

So when will you be changing the name to The Republican Outpost?

16

So when will you be changing the name to The Republican Outpost?

This is not a zero-sum situation. My disdain for the Democrats does not translate into a net gain for the Republicans, or vice versa. I truly do believe that the GOP is the Stupid Party. And I think it is increasingly clear that the Democrats are the Stupider Party.

I’ve only been in D.C. a few months but it’s already been long enough to see that the people we send here care more about themselves than they do about the people who elected them. Most of these politicians and there staff are living in a bubble. For example, they see nothing wrong with campaigning on an anti-corruption platform and then giving the most corrupt politicians positions of leadership. They're truly that clueless.

17

Rob,

So when will you be changing the name to The Republican Outpost?

I think that would be a great name.

Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, George "W" Bush -- it's a grand ole party.

It's true that Nixon and Kissinger and many others were abominable, but political parties are human institutions (just like churches). You don't have anything against human institutions, do you, Mr. Ryan? Or are you above the petty mewlings and squabblings of ordinary mortals?

18

ScotttheCanuck,

I think the question is, "What real factual evidence is there for satan, god, a divine jesus, angels, demons, etc.?"

If you want to claim that these things are real, then it's up to you to offer some evidence.

Turning this thing on its head this way is akin to saying, "We must all believe every bit of nonsense that can be dreamed up -- until it can be disproved."

19

I'm glad the reps have a loser like Rove. All they need now is James Carvil. I'd also be curious to see the list that the reps could give to things they improved, and degraded or destroyed.

20

How amusing. The Democrats haven't taken over yet - and they won't until January - but already they're getting graded. Kinda jumping the gun on this one, Joe.

And no, I'll dispute your assertion that the Republicans are not as stupid as the new Majority Party. Republicans have worked very hard at killing our troops, inflaming the world with hatred toward us, and selling our natural resources at a loss to crony insiders. Say what you like about the Democrats, but in the post-LBJ world, they generally haven't done things like that.

Around the world, following this recent election, the overwhelming attitude seems to be that of relief. They don't call us the "reality-based community" for nothing. The Jesus freakers and the bible thumpers have held sway too long in the halls of power and it's time to send 'em back to the church pews where, hopefully, they won't cause too much more damage.

As the new Majority Party realists take control, expect to see some hard decisions made. Some will be popular, some won't. But then, the best medicine is oft a bitter draught.

21

Maybe this blog should be called the Evangelical Republican Outpost?

I wonder how many people have been converted to Christianity and how many have decided they want nothing to do with evangelical christianity based on the discussions on this blog?

My guess is everyone writing here has made up their minds about all the issues anyways, so it really doesn't matter.

Many of the discussions by the evangelical christians here basically boil down to this: my viewpoint is based on what the bible says and if you don't have the same viewpoint you are always just plain wrong about whatever issue is being discussed.

I believe the bible is God's word to us, but many others simply do not. How do we get them to change their minds? And if they never change their minds, how do we relate to them?

While I do believe the Bible is God's word, nevertheless it is a book written, collected, and translated by many different people over a long period of time. It's not a perfect book and it would be helpful to know the context of the periods and cultures it was written. It seems to me that some people are making an idol of the bible and have actually distorted it's message by doing so.

P.S. I'm not trying to disrespect this blog, I'm glad this forum is available for people to express their viewpoints.
John

22

ScotttheCanuck,

I think the question is, "What real factual evidence is there for satan, god, a divine jesus, angels, demons, etc.?"

Problem with Reality

"If you want to claim that these things are real, then it's up to you to offer some evidence."

Rubbish. I affirm the infallibility of scripture which tells us that these things exist. ( With of course the exception of fairies, unicorns and whatever.)

"Turning this thing on its head this way is akin to saying, "We must all believe every bit of nonsense that can be dreamed up -- until it can be disproved.""

Not at all, I am only referring to Christianity as revealed in Scripture.

You are the one that must provide evidence to support your view since you seem to claim that things must be supported by "evidence" to be believed.

But how do you define evidence. Is there a certain amount of evidence required before you can "believe" something? How much?

By what authourity is this established? Do you have a god? Do you decide the amount of evidence? Do you submit it to some sort of tribunal for evaluation?

What "evidence" do you offer to prove that murder is wrong?

What "evidence" do you offer to support the claim that evidence is required to believe something.

"You pride yourselves on your ability to ignore facts and reason in favor of your fantasy world peopled with god, satan, jesus, angels, demons, fairies, unicorns -- whatever.”"

Here you clearly state I am ignoring "facts" that disprove the existence of these things. So again I challenge you; what are these fact(s) that Satan does not exist?

23

"If you want to claim that these things are real, then it's up to you to offer some evidence."

We find ourselves alive in a universe that has a finite lifespan. There is no truly plausible explanation for how the natural processes of this universe have brought about our lives. Given that science supports these two statements, it seems foolish to have a worldview that excludes a supernatural Creator.

Now when you ask for evidence as to why you should believe that Jesus is this Creator, you are implying that I should be able to point to something tangible and say, "Look there at that rock, there is your proof!" There is evidence enough to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection; have you never looked into it? But if that is insufficient, don't you know that when I say "God", I am referring to a something beyond the tangible? God is a spirit, and he has given you a spirit to seek and find him. You cannot mock someone for their inability to draw the invisible. Likewise you cannot laugh when a Christian cannot show you that a spirit exists. A spirit operates in the spiritual realm. Don't blame my inability to offer evidence for the existence of the spiritual realm as your reason for tuning it out.

24

So Joe,
Since we're name-calling - if the Reps are stupid, the Dems stupider, what does that make Rove? So Pelosi's not Delay and Rangel's a nut; um, ok - you'd rather have Pelosi a Delay-copy and a lucid Rangel? I don't think so.

25

Hey Drew: You caught my attention when you said, "But if that is insufficient, don't you know that when I say 'God,' I am referring to a something beyond the tangible?"

Actually, I'm quite curious about that. When you say, "God," exactly what is it that you mean? Is God a big white-haired guy sitting in a throne? Does he look like us? Does he talk? Is he a phlogistan-like essense that permeates all space and matter? Is he a blind watchmaker or an active presence?

I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by "spirit" or "god" and if you could clarify your meaning a bit more precisely it would be most helpful in interpreting your statements. Regards - R.

26

Rove calls you guys, "The nuts," and you still think he's worth giving the time of day? He really is nothing but a scumball who is willing to slander and vilify any person who stands in his way.

27

Here's a tidbit that Joe and other vets would find interesting...

Rove's own tendency to be sick-minded originates with his mentor Segretti. The 2000 GOP primary was a chance for Rove to hone his skills in dirty tricks. His target then was Senator John McCain who appeared to be within striking distance of Dubya in South Carolina after the then-GOP maverick's surprise upset victory in New Hampshire. Rove's operation proceeded to target McCain with false stories: McCain was a stoolie for his captors in the Hanoi Hilton (this from a lunatic self-promoting Vietnam "veteran"); McCain fathered a black daughter out of wedlock (a despicable reference to McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter); Cindy McCain's drug "abuse"; and even McCain's "homosexuality."

28

ScotttheCanuck,

You wrote, "I affirm the infallibility of scripture which tells us that these things exist."

This is silly. “I have an old book. It claims to be true, and I believe it. I don’t have to have any evidence!”

What is evidence? How much is enough? Who decides if it’s convincing? Let’s apply the same standard to god, the devil, etc. etc. as you would apply to anything else. Can you do anything to demonstrate that satan or god or an angel or a divine jesus is real? Introduce me to one of them? Show them to me? Speak to them and get a (non-imaginary) reply? Ask them to do something to show that they are there? Maybe write their names on a piece of paper? Move the furniture?

No.

But you want me to prove that they are NOT there. If you could come up with a scrap of evidence, it might be worth trying to verify or disprove it. But there is none.

There are a million things (actually more than that) for which there is no evidence – that pigs can fly, that there is an entire civilization of trillions of microscopic, invisible, undetectable humans living under the nail of your left pinky toe, that there is a Ming vase orbiting the sun about twice as far away as Pluto...

The notion that anyone should waste any time trying to disprove these things is absurd.

What I said in my post was that you ignore facts and reason in favor of fantasies. The fact I’m referring to is that there is no evidence for these silly things. The reason I refer to is the logic that says it’s ill advised to believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Drew I.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

But I think that science offers a far more plausible explanation for life in the universe than the "explanation" that an intangible, infinitely complex, all knowing, all powerful god somehow just was here and made it all. This is no explanation at all.

Likewise, there's no tangible evidence for jesus' divinity.

Please forgive me if I seem to mock and make fun of this stuff. I used to be one of you. But now I see the danger in reliance on faith above reason.

It worries me that human reverence for faith above reason is one of the things that gives us IEDs and suicide bombers. I am quite convinced that if many "evangelicals" had been born in Iraq and been raised by so-called Islamo-facists, they would be out blowing people up in the name of god.

That's why I believe that it's time to start challenging this faith business.

29

I am quite convinced that if many "evangelicals" had been born in Iraq and been raised by so-called Islamo-facists, they would be out blowing people up in the name of god.

In whose name did atheistic communists and facists kill people? Did it really make a difference to the folks killed? You know, there are evangelicals all over the world, in many countries (China and some Middle Eastern nations spring to mind) they are persecuted much more severely than the US military ostensibly persecutes Iraqis, yet they don't strap bombs to themselves. Why is that?

30

ou know, there are evangelicals all over the world, in many countries (China and some Middle Eastern nations spring to mind) they are persecuted much more severely than the US military ostensibly persecutes Iraqis, yet they don't strap bombs to themselves. Why is that?
***
Evangelicals in China are bombed, murdered, tortured and raped? Wow, is this what Fox is pushing now?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061117/soldier_90years_061117/200

31

...Of course we do have our government and military available to do an awful lot of kiling on our behalf. Gotta love plausible deniability.

32

But your comment about Evangelicals not blowing people up, and my comment about our government (led by the Big Evangelical who thinks Jesus told him to do it) blowing people up misses the point. What I'm suggesting is that if you'd been born in Iraq, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or whatever, and you'd been taught a particular brand of radical Islam, you'd be out there making your IEDs.

The problem is a faith that justifies holy war -- that says, what my god tells me to do is more important than my life or your life.

Rationality, and a reliance on something as simple as the golden rule (around way before it showed up in the old testament or in jesus' teaching) to guide our behavior is far superior to blind faith in a "holy" book that can be used to justify any sort of murder and mayhem.

33

Raven: "When you say, 'God,' exactly what is it that you mean?"

Tough question! The question, however, is not "what," but "whom." When I am praying to God, I know I am praying to someone who hears and understands. This is not an out-of-body experience or any sort of ecstatic or mind-altering ritual; it is more like talking to a person before you, yet one who you can trust perfectly. One who knows you fully, one who loves you more than you can love them. Am I making any sense?

Problem with Reality: "Please forgive me if I seem to mock and make fun of this stuff. I used to be one of you. But now I see the danger in reliance on faith above reason."

No need for an apology. I don't feel mocked.

Curiously though, you speak as though faith and reason are like oil and water. Yet faith's very foundation is reason. Otherwise we are not talking about faith, but tradition. Or lunacy.

34

my comment about our government (led by the Big Evangelical who thinks Jesus told him to do it) blowing people up misses the point.

I must have missed when W. said that Jesus told him to blow up people. Are you sure it wasn't Karl Rove?

What I'm suggesting is that if you'd been born in Iraq, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or whatever, and you'd been taught a particular brand of radical Islam, you'd be out there making your IEDs.

I guess I could say that if you'd been born in China during the "Cultural Revolution" or Cambodia during the "Killing Fields" you'd be killing anybody who wears glasses or professes a faith other whatever brand of Marxism is in vogue that year, but I won't; probably because I don't hate atheists as much as you hate Christians.

The problem is a faith that justifies holy war -- that says, what my god tells me to do is more important than my life or your life.

This is the reason the atheism is an evolutionary dead-end. For the atheist nothing is more important than their own life and comfort.

Rationality, and a reliance on something as simple as the golden rule

Absent a higher authority, what is rational about loving those who would harm you or doing good to those who would kill you?

35

PwR: "Rationality, and a reliance on something as simple as the golden rule (around way before it showed up in the old testament or in jesus' teaching) to guide our behavior is far superior to blind faith in a "holy" book that can be used to justify any sort of murder and mayhem."

Now with what evidence do you justify letting the Golden Rule guide your behavior? Certainly there is no science behind it. Perhaps the word that would best summarize your reasoning is INTUITION.

Ironically, however, I would say that God's existence is intuitively understood. The capacity, nay, the desire to acknowledge a Father God is custom built into the human machine. Of course, it seems that when the man finds conflicts between this "God-intuition" and his intellect, he immediately suppresses the "God-intuition" as a mere fantasy that was never meant to be present after all.

I would say that the conflicts of faith and intellect need to be fully pursued before the answer that reconciles them is found. True faith does not gloss over the questions, but passionately seeks to find the answer. If I indeed follow this "God-intuition," I will want to know why the facts do not seem to be congruent with it.

I believe there's more irony to the matter of faith... The athiest needs more faith than the Christian to get by. It's a matter of logic: based on the laws of thermodynamics we know that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed (by non-supernatural means). That being said, how did the universe come to be? In and of itself there is no explanation for its existence. Thus, an athiest must believe that the universe has always existed. But wait again, doesn't the Law of Entropy say that the universe is becoming more and more chaotic? Doesn't that make us believe there was an ultimate starting point of order? Given the facts as we understand them, I believe it's rational to conclude that an outside source, beyond the bounds of what we call "natural," has created this universe.

36

Ucfengr,

... atheism is an evolutionary dead-end. For the atheist nothing is more important than their own life and comfort.

And where did you glean this useful tidbit of information?

37

Problem with Reality -

You're statement about 'If you were born in Syria..' assumes there is no God. If there was no God, and all religion was a myth, then yes, how you lived would depend on what myth you were taught.

However, if there *is* a God (the sort Christianity proposes) then He is real and knowable and personal. Thus, no matter how I'm raised (for the record, I was raised in a left-wing anti-Christian household), I have a chance of meeting God, finding out what He's really like, and living accordingly. I wouldn't be a suicide bomber because *God's not like that*. I would be merciful and just because *God is like that*.

Which is why you have people in Syria, who were raised in just the way you describe, who in fact encounter Jesus Christ for themselves, become Christians, and live (or die) with the consequences.

38

Drew I:

Are faith and reason like oil and water? If faith requires me to believe something irrational (like the virgin birth, for example) it is antithetical to reason, or if it causes me to abandon the truly open minded pursuit of truth, then it is antithetical to truth.

ucfengr:

About W thinking Jesus told him to invade -- I was thinking of when he was asked about whether he was concerned about his own father's conviction that invading would be a huge mistake. His response was that he felt it was more important to listen to a "higher father."

To your comment, "I guess I could say that if you'd been born in China during the "Cultural Revolution" or Cambodia during the "Killing Fields" you'd be killing anybody who wears glasses or professes a faith other whatever brand of Marxism is in vogue that year, but I won't; probably because I don't hate atheists as much as you hate Christians."

First, I don't hate Christians. I just think you're dangerously deluded -- as is anyone who places faith above truth and reason.

As far as the cultural revolution and killing fields go, it's true, I started out an Evangelical -- eventually I abandoned that faith in favor of an honest, open minded pursuit of truth. I suppose you're right, if I'd been a true believer -- that is, in Evangelical mode -- in China or Cambodia, maybe I would have been able to justify participation in all the killing, along with all the other true believers. Fortunately, I think I've left that kind of dangerous faith behind.

Now as to atheism being an evolutionary dead-end, and for the atheist nothing being more important than their own life and comfort, of course I'd do almost anything to protect/defent/provide for my family -- that's easy to understand from the standpoint of natural selection.
On top of that, I'd recommend the book "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright. There's a lot of interesting science in there regarding the evolutionary origins of altruistic behaviors.

About the golden rule, first, it's not about loving those who would harm you or doing good to those who would kill you. It's about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

And there's actually some interesting science out of game theory that demonstrates that doing unto others (or something quite close to it) is actually one of the most successful strategies for social behavior.

Drew I.,

See the little bit just above about the rational, scientific pointers to golden rule behavior.

Your "God-intuition" comments are interesting -- I used to think that C.S. Lewis arguments along these lines were compelling. Essentially, he agrued that if there were no god -- no supernatural reality -- why would so many people all over the world have dreamed one up? But ultimately I had to conclude that this is a weak argument. There are a lot of persistent and popular beliefs that are indisputable nonsense.

But your thoughts about the atheist position requiring more faith than the theist don't make sense. Where did the universe come from? I don't know. I don't pretend to know. Maybe science will get us closer to the answer to this question in the future.

But to assert that there was an infinitely complex, intangible, omnipotent, omnicient god out there who predated the universe and started it all doesn't explain anything at all. It just makes the problem worse. Where this god thing came from is a much bigger problem than where the basic elements of the universe came from.

And it's not rational. It's getting to a hard question and saying, "...uhh... a miracle occurred!" to answer it.

Best to be honest about it and say, "Tough one. I don't know. But we're still trying to figure it out." (Note -- you might say that I must be an Agnostic then. And if you really want to pick nits, you'd be right. I can't be 100% sure there's no god. Just like I can't be 100% sure there's no Ming vase orbiting out there beyond Pluto. But pretty well convinced by the evidence I've seen so far that the answer is no.)

39

Alot of posts here speaking about believers in government who persue a war. As if athiest are more loving in their wars. Do you think Stalin was better? The aspersion here is that theism intrudes on rational thought and only liberal theology is safe for a president.

I wonder what the libs here would have Joe do, support the party that openly opposes his faith? Before anyone spouts the liberal values being more biblical tripe please read this.
http://www.dispatch.com/features-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/11/15/20061115-G1-02.html

40

Sorry for the double post.

Problem with Reality : I just don't understand your drive here. You have determined that their is no loving eternal father. That point in your logic has filled you with what? You go to evengelical blogs and pronounce your freedom?
You sound like the homophobic shouting at gay people. Nature abhors a vacuum. You have become an anti-theist. I hope you find peace.

If there is no God your existence and this blog are pointless.

41

Brian, I looked at your site and wonder just how factual the information is. I know, for example, that people in the state of Miss. are the biggest givers to charity in the US, but how does one define exactly who is conservative and who is liberal? Also, since conservatives are richer than libs, is Brooks factoring in the poor old lady (of bible fame) type of comparison into his analysis? Lastly, what has been the effect of a Bush type of conservatism on US poor and middle class. A few facts I found..
Number of Americans who spend more than a quarter of their income on health care: 14,300,000»

Percentage change since 2000 in the average amount U.S. workers spend on out-of-pocket medical expenses: +93»

The Census Bureau reported that there were 35.8 million Americans living in poverty in 2003, an increase of 1.3 million over 2002, and that the number of people without health insurance rose from 43.5 million to 45 million.»

42

And where did you glean this useful tidbit of information?

Matthew--You seem like a nice person and I am sure there are individual atheists that are willing to rise above themselves, but they are the exception. If you look at the "rational" countries in Europe, where is the evidence that they are willing to fight for their culture? Is there any doubt that they would happily accept "dhimmitude" as long as they can keep the 35 hour work week and 6 weeks of annual vacation?

43

I'm feeling expansively magnanimous today. Family and friends are gathered, it's a bright, sunny morning and there's an awful lot to be thankful for. We can fence and riposte tomorrow, but today, happy Thanksgiving everyone.

44

"Matthew--You seem like a nice person and I am sure there are individual atheists that are willing to rise above themselves, but they are the exception. If you look at the "rational" countries in Europe, where is the evidence that they are willing to fight for their culture? Is there any doubt that they would happily accept "dhimmitude" as long as they can keep the 35 hour work week and 6 weeks of annual vacation?"

Well i see we ve degenerated from spiritual discussion to right wing crackpot blogosphere conspiracy theories...i guess the road was a short one indeed

45

ucfengr writes:
42
And where did you glean this useful tidbit of information?
____
Good question. Some I got from Harpers and the other I will double check on, (I'v had that info a few months now and can't remember) I too wish everyone a great Thanksgiving.

46

Problem with reality

"Let’s apply the same standard to god, the devil, etc. etc. as you would apply to anything else."

So what is this standard? Let us see it written out, please include your first principle which somehow must affirm (if I follow you) that before something is to be believed there must be "evidence". Of course you must supply "evidence" that this is a valid first principle itself,(this is apparently by your own standard since you must have evidence in order to believe it)in other words you must be in possesion of "evidence" that nothing is to be percieved as true unless there is "evidence".

"Introduce me to one of them? Show them to me? Speak to them and get a (non-imaginary) reply? Ask them to do something to show that they are there? Maybe write their names on a piece of paper? Move the furniture?"

This is your problem not mine. I do not rely on "evidence" to know they exist, my first principle is the infaliability of scripture as being God's revealed word to us. He assures us that these things exist. Though he does not mention unicorns fairies or lepruchans.

"This is silly. “I have an old book. It claims to be true, and I believe it. I don’t have to have any evidence!”"

Again you are relying on your world view which apparently requires "evidence". I agree you have a big problem if you believe your old book without "evidence" while maintaining that nothing can be believed without "evidence".

47

tidbits,
www.harpers.org/Census.html

http://www.naeyc.org/ece/critical/facts1.asp

48

Drew I

"About the golden rule, first, it's not about loving those who would harm you or doing good to those who would kill you. It's about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you."

What then do you say to the pedophile who insits that the children he abuses are actually enjoying a loving "man-boy" relationship. Many of them sincerely believe this and they could use your golden rule to justify it.

49

So, the brilliant Karl Rove tricked the Democrats into taking back congress.

Then we'd better watch carefully in case those clever Soviets tricked us into winning the Cold War. They could strike at any moment.

And the French! Oh No! All those cunning defeats over the last three centuries are a ruse, a mere ploy, and they are now poised for world domination.

Now I get it. Thanks for enlightening me.

Right.

50

By the time 2008 rolls around, the voters will gladly vote in a Republican President and Congress.

51

You seem like a nice person and I am sure there are individual atheists that are willing to rise above themselves, but they are the exception. If you look at the "rational" countries in Europe, where is the evidence that they are willing to fight for their culture? Is there any doubt that they would happily accept "dhimmitude" as long as they can keep the 35 hour work week and 6 weeks of annual vacation?"

Well i see we ve degenerated from spiritual discussion to right wing crackpot blogosphere conspiracy theories

WTF--I'm looking real hard, but I just don't see a "right wing crackpot conspiracy theory" in the first post. Maybe you could explain the "right wing crackpottery" in the first post.

52

Russell ,
I am not sure about his methodology. I am sure he will be persecuted if it is not up to snuff.

Anactodally, The free clinic I volunteer in is staffed by conservatives. When I offer the libs at my job the oportunity they beg off. 6 years and counting. One nurse who is very liberal worked with me for about 2 years. Very giving soul but unfortunatly was stealing drugs from us. I go to a local park and grill burgers for the homeless every once and a while and have offered my liberal friends the chance to put their life in line with their words to no avail. Conversely martini night is always well attended, so it's not me their avoiding.

They like the idea. But the actual dirty work is avoided at all cost. They actually think I am selfish because I do not believe in income redistribution or open borders. Still my friends.

53

Brian in Idaho,

You asked, what's my drive, why do I post here?
Here it is in a nutshell:

Many of you Evangelicals have this thing about trying to use the political and legislative process to promote your religion and impose your morality on people who don’t share your beliefs.

This is a bad idea for (at least) two reasons:
1. There’s nothing in jesus’ example or teaching that would support this
2. It leaves you open to be seduced into supporting politicians who hold out the (false) promise of carrying out your legislative agenda

These same politicians – with support from 78% of Evangelicals – have done an awful lot of damage – much of it threatens to degrade my kids’ future
Biggest deficits ever
More terrorism and terrorists than ever
The middle east in a shambles
Thousands of U.S. military dead, thousands more terribly injured, more than a half million Iraqis killed
Our nation’s moral standing and prestige destroyed
The biggest threat to all of us – global warming – ignored

In short, my kids’ future messed up because of the way you folks vote

Your vote influenced by your wacky irrational beliefs

I woke up and decided to reject your nonsense

Perhaps some of you will do the same

54

problem with reality

"your wacky irrational beliefs"

So PWR what is your world view? Let us examine it. You must consider it rational and "non-wacky" so lets hear it.

What is your first principle?

What is your standard of morality?

55

Many of you Evangelicals have this thing about trying to use the political and legislative process to promote your religion and impose your morality on people who don’t share your beliefs.

This is a bad idea for (at least) two reasons:
1. There’s nothing in jesus’ example or teaching that would support this

Jesus was a spiritual leader, not a political one, but their was nothing in his teachings that said Christians shouldn't involve themselves in the running of their government. Many of Jesus' early follower were were involved with the government (tax collectors and soldiers were specifically mentioned). Jesus never told them they must leave their profession to follow him, he only told them they should not abuse their power.

BTW--Can we please stop this "claptrap" about Christians wanting to "impose their morality" as if it something unique to Christians. Their are plenty on the left who support law against drugs and prostitution and laws in favor of compulsory education; what is this other than imposing your own strict morality on those who disagree with you?

2. It leaves you open to be seduced into supporting politicians who hold out the (false) promise of carrying out your legislative agenda

Again, why is it you think this is a problem unique to Christians? The country is full of dishonest politicians of all religious and political stripes who will say anything to get elected. The country is also full of honest politicians of all religious and political stripes who honestly attempt to enact whatever legislative agenda they ran on, but are unable to. So what? This is an argument that we need more honest politicians, not that one side should surrender.

These same politicians – with support from 78% of Evangelicals – have done an awful lot of damage – much of it threatens to degrade my kids’ future
Biggest deficits ever

This is a bit misleading. Granted deficits are too large, but relative to the size of the economy they are pretty small. And let's be honest Republicans have at least attempted to deal with some of the larger issues, such as Social Security, that will impact us down the road. You may not like their proposed solutions, but I haven't seen much from the other side.

More terrorism and terrorists than ever

Since 9/11, there has been no successful, major terrorist attacks against the US. Prior to 9/11 they were relatively common. While I am not crazy about the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq, I would rather have IED's in Iraq than truck bombs in New York City or Washington DC.

The middle east in a shambles

The Middle East as been in a shambles since the end of WW1 and arguably for quite a while before then. Changing Middle Eastern countries into Western style democracies may be a fool's errand, but what we were doing before wasn't working, at least give the current administration credit for trying to change the paradigm.

Our nation’s moral standing and prestige destroyed

Moral standing and prestige with who? France, Germany, Russia, and China? I am not sure I would want to live in a country that these countries held in high esteem.

The biggest threat to all of us – global warming – ignored

Yes, millions, if not billions of people don't have access to adequate food, water, and medical care right now, but you want to spend trillions on a hypothetical problem 100 years or more down the road.

56

Ucfengr,

Well said, very cogent points all.

However...

your reasoning was not quite so tight in comment 42:

... If you look at the "rational" countries in Europe, where is the evidence that they are willing to fight for their culture? Is there any doubt that they would happily accept "dhimmitude" as long as they can keep the 35 hour work week and 6 weeks of annual vacation?

You seem to be saying that the rational (i.e. faithless or god-less) nature of the Europeans has softened their collective will to survive, to fight, to be mensches.

But if you push this kind of logic too far, it collapses.

Where did these "rational" European countries come from? Why, they all used to be good Christian nations not that long ago. In fact, they were the Protestant and Roman Catholic heartland.

So what you are actually saying is that god-less countries are doomed to become weak and feckless, and Christian ones are doomed to become god-less ones. Of course, if I am misrepresenting your views, please jump in here and correct me...

57

You seem to be saying that the rational (i.e. faithless or god-less) nature of the Europeans has softened their collective will to survive, to fight, to be mensches.

That's about the size of it.

So what you are actually saying is that god-less countries are doomed to become weak and feckless, and Christian ones are doomed to become god-less ones.

I don't think I am saying that at all. Actually current trends might indicate a pretty significant religious revival in Europe. Unfortunately it will probably be led by radical Islamists as opposed to Christians.

58

Brian, You are right to a certain extent. Libs probably don't go out as much to the public to help give out food like you mentioned. On the other hand, they may do things as good but in different ways. That said, evangelicals beat the libs on that point. This may seem O/T, but I just read a book about an army vet who risked his life to build schools for the downtrodden in Pakistan. The Taliban are the product of hate mongering radical Sunnis from Saudi Arabia. They bring suit cases full of money to build these radical schools and promise big money to poor Pakistanese. Its called Three Cups of Tea.

59

I don't think I am saying that at all. Actually current trends might indicate a pretty significant religious revival in Europe. Unfortunately it will probably be led by radical Islamist as opposed to Christians.
________________
There is only a grain of truth to this fear the radical Islamist "revival" in Europe. By and large most Muslims in Europe are on our side. They helped the British foil the latest plane plot and they were upset with Bin Laden's US attack. One should be very careful to who they listed to when it comes to these matters. One should be cynical.

60

There is only a grain of truth to this fear the radical Islamist "revival" in Europe. By and large most Muslims in Europe are on our side.

I think there is more than a "grain of truth". You might ask Theo Van Gogh his opinion, or wait you can't, radical Muslims in HOLLAND killed him. Seriously though, it wouldn't take a majority of "radicalized" Muslims to significantly change Europe, look what a handful did in Spain.

61

By the sounds of it, I don't think I would have bothered with the opinions of the late Mr. Gogh. Read on Wikipedia about him. If this is all you can come up with in a country of 17 million people ,its a little thin. One should have perspective. You're right about what a handful could do though. But does that mean we should lose our heads over it or should they take logical steps to prevent further occurrences. There are millions of Muslims in Europe, can a few bad apples tarnish the lot?

62

PwR: "In short, my kids’ future messed up because of the way you folks vote"

Ah, yes...it's always for "the children," isn't it? I haven't had a good tag-team moonbat swarm with Rob Ryan, Mummon, Raven and PwR in a long while, so just to raise your blood pressure a few notches I'll point out that in broad statistical terms one of the largest demographic markers to divide "you" from "us" is that "we" are the ones who actually have enough children to sustain the population.

Note to Rob Ryan: You may want to stop advocating for your political views long enough to correct Mr. PwR's grammar in the above quote. As written "future" is the acting subject, and "messed up" is used as a transitive verb with no stated object.

63

Any one else here wondering if ex-preacher changed his name to Problem with Reality? Even if not, same old same old..in the end, it comes down to what you believe, not what you can prove. What you can prove is decidedly and extremely limited...Kierkegaard had a very keen awareness that doubt and unprovability are not threats, but cornerstones to faith. Faith takes a leap. Of course, theories offered up by science sometimes require a leap, as well..and thus...choice.

64

Hey guys... Anyone here remember what happened to the two kingdoms of Isreal for repeatedly making stupid decisions? I think if this were a true evangelical debate, it would transcend above Karl Rove and Nancy Pelosi. Matter of fact, I believe the reccent election, selfishness, blindness and lack of commitment to finish anything difficult on the part of the majority of the American people is symptomatic of a far deeper problem..... As is our removal from public discourse the same God we profess to trust on our coinage, or the fact that we the people LARGELY passively condone senseless sinful acts as abortion with doing, or speaking minimally about it.... etc, etc.

No, I think it is time for us on the right, specifically on the conservative right to really think about the dangerous agenda before us by the newly elected democrats, and both the LONG and SHORT term damage they will inflict on our culture and nation, from the war, to domestic social policy. Now is not the time to hide away either and "wait for the judgement", but to become more actively involved than ever, and PUSH harder than ever against the evil left!! This may be our last chance, you never know. We are charged by our faith to fight for what is right till the last man standing... until that day of judgement, be in just on our nation, or the whole world.

So, with this, it is time to protest, write, rudely interupt town meetings, vote, walk the streets, and legally confront those who are going to lead us the wrong way.... It is our civic duty as believers to fight for what is right, regardless the cost. That is one thing the left has to our advantage.. they DO have the passion, witness their demonstrations, etc... while those of us on the right sometimes become comfortable and complacent.... That was a terrible mistake.

That means those on the right that avoided participating to "punish" a few bad apples made a dangerous mistake... They litterally did throw the baby out with the bath water, and to the peril of an entire nation.

Some would say that two years is a short time, and that we can fight to win back what we lost. I am sorry, as quickly as the Dems plan to act, with now a powerless executive, two years is too damned long, and too large a window for some dangerous things to happen.

Think about what you just did America.......... And, for you evangelicals out there, think about this question..... Just as in the case of Isreal and Judea in the old testament, how long will God let a nation created in his name (ours for example) continue the way we have chosen? Judgement has to come sometime in some form correct??

Aaron.

65

Cheesehead says: Note to Rob Ryan: You may want to stop advocating for your political views long enough to correct Mr. PwR's grammar in the above quote. As written "future" is the acting subject, and "messed up" is used as a transitive verb with no stated object.

Why should I correct his grammar when it is so much more fun to correct your misunderstanding of it? Let's have another look at PwR's words:

"In short, my kids’ future messed up because of the way you folks vote"

This is a sentence fragment; it has no verb as such. As you state, "future" seems to be the subject. However, "messed up" appears to be a participle modifying the subject; it is a verb form acting as an adjective. If the writer chose, he could add a linking verb, like "is", "could be", or "will be", to make his fragment a sentence. This linking verb would come after the subject and link it to the modifier.

If I'd known I was going to be called a "moonbat", I'd have kept up with this thread. Sometimes, in an effort to avoid the boring, we miss the good stuff.

Keep fighting the good fight, Cheesehead.

66

I like effen lifestyle. Work hard, party hard - vip all the way to a-list nightclub

67

mortgage idaho refinance

68

Here some linkz,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]

69

Here some linkz,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]