Category: Uncategorized

Mitt Romney, creative theologian:

Romney was also right that “every single human being is a child of God.” This is at the root of the belief system of many liberals who are religious. Romney was echoing — unconsciously, to be sure — none other than Bill Clinton, who declared in a 1992 campaign speech that “all of us must respect the reflection of God’s image in every man and woman.”

John 8:42-47
The Children of the Devil
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Now, let me point out that the reason I’m not supporting Mitt Romney has nothing whatsoever to do with his religion. I’d vote for an atheist libertarian a hundred times over before I’d even think about the possibility of supporting a big government Baptist like the Huckster or a Rockefeller Republican like Romney. Also, I have no doubt that many Christians will have more than a few reservations about various elements of my theological interpretation of the Bible, and furthermore, it is not within my capacity to judge whether Mitt Romney is a Christian or not.

It is, however, quite clear that his declared theology as revealed in his speech yesterday is at some variance with the Bible. I have no idea if this is more reflective of his Mormonism or his being a politician; the fact that he shares that belief with Bill Clinton tends to suggest the latter.

Plastic Christmas trees? It’s an idea less palatable than a Hannukah ham:

Last year, an estimated 9.3 million artificial trees were sold in the United States, up 2 million from five years ago. And while the real tree harvest was triple that, the numbers are of major concern for growers because artificial trees can be used year after year. It has reached a point where half the trees put up in American households are made of plastic, industry experts say. The rest of the bad news for growers is that it is getting harder to tell which trees are real.

I’m sorry, but if you’re going to put up an artificial Christmas tree, you might as well just go with a menorah or an aluminum pole. Now, I respect those Christians who elect to focus solely on the spiritual aspects of Jesus Christ’s birth, but if you’re going to celebrate the traditional ones as well, by all means do it right!

I’d like to say that I’m shocked that a left-wing ex-priest with a radio show in San Francisco would be indicted on child porn charges. I’m not shocked, but I am a little surprised, since a more natural association with the words “liberal”, “ex-priest”, “San Francisco” and “indictment” would be “child molester”. Although, I suppose this fails to take into account the fact that the man is a talk show host, not a teacher:

In a shocking development from San Francisco, longtime liberal talk show host Bernie Ward has apparently been indicted on charges related to child pornography.

I’m not sure that his lawyer’s proposed “writing a book” defense is likely to be all that effective, though. If it is, publishers will soon be inundated by a tidal wave of book proposals about selling cocaine for the Medellin cartel.

In order to help the various new readers who are likely to stumble upon this place once the book comes out, I thought it might be helpful to provide a basic cast of characters to serve as a reference work. If there’s someone you think should definitely be on it, please nominate them in the comments here along with a short description, two sentences max. They can be past or present regulars, who knows, perhaps some old friends will come back to visit.

For example, one might consider Nate aka Der Hausfrauhrer. Cowboy, motorcycle aficionado and Keeper of the Harem. Likes: motorcycles, women, the Tennessee Titans. Dislikes: Yankees, damn Yankees and bringing up the rear in the VPFL. Red Flags: The War of Northern Aggression. Or Bane, aka The Reaper’s Hairball. Ex-soldier, full-time sociopath and dedicated admirer of peasant women. Likes: guns, women, Red Alert. Dislikes: people. Red Flags: Yes.

Only Voxologisti require AKA, as this will be a link to their blog. Nominate away and don’t nominate yourself.

Another week, another public shooting. One can only conclude that either there is a new federal gun control law in the works or the Supreme Court has already decided to announce that there is no individual right to bear arms, all emanations, penumbras and Constitutional text notwithstanding:

A man opened fire with a rifle at a busy department store Wednesday, killing eight people in an attack that made holiday shoppers run screaming through a mall and barricade themselves in dressing rooms. The young shooter, who left a note predicting, “Now I’ll be famous,” wounded five others, two critically, then took his own life…. The shooter, identified by police as 20-year-old Robert A. Hawkins, was found dead on the third floor with a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

So, what are the odds that the late and unlamented Mr. Hawkins was:

a) an evangelical Christian
b) a practicing Jew
c) a Muslim
d) an agnostic or non-practicing individual raised religious
e) a militant atheist

All of these options are of course possible, but they are not equally likely. We shall wait and see….

The only serious question about Mike Huckabee is whether he’s Clinton redux or Bush II redux. Either way, his habitual dishonesty is not open for debate:

Jennifer, you make a good point in that Huckabee is very convincing at expressing regret. That’s why he is doing so well in the polls: Because he is so good at sounding good, no matter whether what he says holds water or not. You miss the most relevant point, though, Jennifer: What he says is an outright lie. Here is the big whopper in what you quote from him: “Nobody, not me, not Jim Guy Tucker, not Bill Clinton, not that parole board, could ever imagine what might have transpired.. ” This is, to put it kindly, a crock of manure. The whole point of the Murray Waas story out today is that Huckabee was warned repeatedly and convincingly EXACTLY what was likely to transpire if DuMond were to be released, and he ignored all those warnings. Meanwhile, the evidence presented is absolutely overwhelming that he strongly intervened with the parole board to secure DuMond’s release — and he seems to have lied about that too. Just like he lied about whether or not he was “ordered” by his state’s courts to impose a particular tax hike, and just like several other now-documented misrepresentations he has made about the circumstances of his tax hikes.

The ready willingness of American evangelicals to fall for demonstrably dishonest politicians is one of the very few areas in which I feel some measure of agreement with atheist critics of American evangelical Christianity. But a blithe statement of “he touched my heart” is no more inherently truthful than “it’s for the children”.

Of an atheist in his own childish intellect. Kwazy Atheist writes:

Where did you get the idea anyone needs an objective (you mean universal?) standard with which to criticize another person.

Because you do if that criticism is to be any more meaningful to the other person than simply stating “me no likee”. This isn’t a Christian issue, every serious atheist intellectual from the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett on down recognizes this. That is why they are constantly attempting to invent an objective, universal moral standard out of thin air – usually some variant on humanism or utilitarianism – to serve as a substitute. Unlike you, they not only admit the existence and relevance of the objective, universal Christian standard, they recognize its necessity. As I told you previously, your thinking on this issue is literally two or three orders of magnitude below the level of that which is being discussed here; the amusing thing is that you still haven’t realized that you’re in over your head.

You certainly don’t have one that you can verify as the true objective standard.

>
The key word there is “verify”. The objective Christian standard cannot be verified to be true, certainly not by the method of objective data combined with subjective interpretation known as “science”, but it unquestionably exists. You, on the other hand, cannot even attempt to hold another individual to an alternative moral standard because it does not exist. This is the “warrant” issue upon which Doug Wilson hung, drew and quartered Christopher Hitchens in their debate. In Hitchens’s defense, he did know enough to attempt to evade the issue until he was cornered, you, on the other hand, have blithely stepped onto the gallows, wrapped the rope around your neck and hung yourself, all the while proclaiming the nonexistence of the rope. That is why everyone is so amused by you.

If I want to be just like the Kwazy Kwistians all I have to do is say, “And behold, here then is thy objective standard!!” And why you say, “where did that come from?” I’ll tell my it came from the same place yours came from.

There is an element of truth in that statement. Being an atheist and therefore lacking any claim to an objective and universal moral standard, you have irrationally latched onto the Christian standard still dominant in your culture as a moral parasite, sans only those aspects of it that most directly conflict with your momentary desires. None of this changes the fact that without that parasitism, you possess no basis to criticize the morality or immorality of another individual regardless of their faith or lack of faith.

The rational atheist never uses the words “evil” or “should”. They do not exist for him, all that exists for him is “do what thou wilt”. The irrational atheist like Richard Dawkins or little Kwazy here is are much less dangerous creatures, for as Michel Onfray rightly describes them, they are simply crippled Christians who have rejected their God while clinging to most of His values.

Bane is vastly underwhelmed by what looks to be the penultimate generation of science fiction writers:

Sci-fi sucks. I used to party with the last of the Old Guard, the Haldemanns and the R. R. Martinesque types. Even then, they were going bad. Now, they are all appearing to be a pack of out and out communists and Trotskyite pinkoes. Self confessed, and proud to be so.

And this takes their written product and makes it as dreary as can be, and not worth reading. I just gave up on Charlie Stross’s ‘Accelerando’ after about five pages. Dreary drivel, with no soul, just like its creator. And he and his kind give each other awards and book contracts. The fish is rotten from the nose to the tip of its tail.

While I very much disagree with the Reaper’s Hairball when it comes to Stross, who is one of the very few interesting writers in science fiction today, he’s right on target with regards to science fiction in general. I used to absolutely devour science fiction, now I’m on the SFWA’s novel jury and I have to force myself to wade through one miserably unreadable book after another to the point that I’m completely losing interest in the genre.

There are the occasional exceptions, of course. For all that he personally resembles the very sort of liberal pinko that Bane abhors, John Scalzi writes science fiction that is quite popular precisely because he’s one of the few SF authors writing in the enthusiastic old style.

Science fiction has changed a lot, unfortunately, not for the better. It used to be adventure literature for young men, now it’s romance literature for middle-aged women. That’s why young men now play science fiction-based computer games instead of reading science fiction novels and so-called science fiction publishers churn out book after book about sexy vampires, seductive were-seals and strong independent forty-something single women looking for love in space.

It’s not a crime, but it should be.

Forget all of the various tax-and-spending issues. Forget all the Arkansas evidence that he’s Bush II redux. He’s openly pro-smoking ban. And now he’s being endorsed by the National Education Association. Any more questions?

The 16,000-member New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association has chosen to recommend to its members Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary, according to a source within the state NEA.

Richard Dawkins attempts to demonstrate the superiority of atheist morality by defending adultery. Considering the historical evidence, it appears to be a subject about which he is not only passionate, but personally well-informed:

No, of course sex outside marriage is not a public matter, and yes, of course it is forgivable. Only a person infected by the sort of sanctimonious self-righteousness that religion uniquely inspires would apply the meaningless word ‘sin’ to private sexual behavior. It is the mark of the religious mind that it cares more about private than public morality.

Just what, precisely, is the difference between “private” and “public” morality? It seems to me that they’re exactly the same thing, an individual’s standard of right and wrong, but applied in different social spheres. Is Dawkins seriously attempting to suggest that a single individual can possess different MORALITIES that apply depending on the environment in which that person happens to find himself at the moment?

The underlying presumption — that a human being has some kind of property rights over another human being’s body — is unspoken because it is assumed to be obvious. But with what justification? In one of the most disgusting stories to hit the British newspapers last year, the wife of a well-known television personality, Chris Tarrant, hired a private detective to spy on him. The detective reported evidence of adultery and Tarrant’s wife divorced him, in unusually vicious style. But what shocked me was the way public opinion sided with Tarrant’s horrible wife.

Presumably the same justification that exists in any other contractual relationship into which one voluntarily enters. As John O’Sullivan surmises, it sounds very much as if Richard Dawkins is heading fast toward his third divorce. At this point, he appears to have a real shot at surpassing fellow atheist icon Bertrand Russell, who only managed three divorces and four wives before clocking out.

I think there are perfectly reasonable societal and Biblical cases to be made for polygyny. Richard Dawkins’s defense of his apparent desire to cheat on his wife is not coming close to any of them. Perhaps he should consider converting to Islam, which would allow him to indulge in his favorite hobbies of attacking Christianity and collecting wives without being so easily dismissed as a typically amoral atheist.

UPDATE – It’s so hard when one’s idols are tarnished:

“My first thought was that RD doth protest too much. Perhaps he got busted for cheating on his significant other at some point and is still miffed. RD IS still human after all. I certainly agree with RD’s views on religion and, there’s no question, on the truth of evolution…but RD’s position on the Tarrant situation was quite shocking to me.”

“Sadly, it is a common cry of theists that atheism leads to a lack of morality and, as a “spokesman for atheists”, I think RD has done us a disservice here.”

Actually, the atheists who were capable of understanding The God Delusion know that he did them a disservice there too.