A Mixture of Religion and Politics

I find it heartening to see religious people of different denominations in this country lay down sectarian sniping to make common cause on important social and moral issues.  

Mike Potemra plumbs a little-explored area of the Scott Brown phenomenon:  His ecumenism.  Brown is a Protestant but enjoys hearty Catholic support.  They don't agree on every issue, but he doesn't pander and they don't stomp their feed insisting that he toe the line.  Refreshing.

Embedded in his interesting and short article, I  found this gem that reminds us that we are in no danger of a theocratic takeover:

As my friend Paul Mankowski, S.J., once remarked, the Catholic Church’s moral agenda would be much advanced if every Catholic in Congress was replaced with a Mormon or a Muslim. (First Things - Joseph Bottums)

Catholic Politicians can't even get it right on Social Programs

What about individual almsgiving and acts of personal charity—concepts that greatly predate the existence of the modern welfare state? Indeed, the seven corporal works of mercy, which are included in the Catechism, are directed toward individuals, not governments.

We’re not saying that there shouldn’t be any government programs, but, at the same time, we recognize that the Church is open to different means on how to achieve important goals for alleviating human suffering.

As Doctor Tom Coburn, Republican Senator from Oklahoma has observed, "spending other people's money is not compassionate."

Minarets

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was quoted as saying "Values such as tolerance, dialogue, and respecting others' religions should never be put to a referendum," he also warned of "the consequences of anti-Islamic acts."
-- Khaleej Times

At first such a statement coming from Iran seems hilarious, but when examined more closely one can be assured that the statement is heartfelt and honest, for in Iran such values would never be put to a referendum, they would be put before a council of mujtahid, or male Islamic scholars, what we in the west know as a sharia council.

One need look no further than the case of Hamid Pourmand, an Iranian Assyrian Christian imprisoned under the laws of the "tolerant" Islamic Republic of Iran to understand the perspective of the Iranian government on religious tolerance.

To those of us raised under the principles of western democracy and tolerance the Swiss action appears abhorrent, but one must look more closely at the hue and cry raised by Muslims around the world when it comes to the actions of Swiss voters. How can the firmest advocates of a ban on Christian churches in their entirety in Saudi Arabia voice outrage over a ban of minarets on mosques in Switzerland?

You would most likely hear not a peep from Islam had the Swiss banned the construction of any additional steeples on churches within its lands, more likely the action would be hailed as tolerant and understanding gesture of tolerance and acceptance towards Switzerland's Islamic minority. Their issue is not freedom and tolerance but the advancement of Islam and their outcry should be recognized as such, had voters in Albania or Kosovo chosen to ban churches would they be kicking up such a fuss?

The West needs to approach this debate as an internal matter, is the Swiss ban internally consistent with our values, while ignoring the outcry from the Muslim world. We should not give value to the hypocritical voices of Islamic governments feigning outrage at religious discrimination. The debate is not about whether or not the ban is discriminatory against Muslims, but whether or not the ban is consistent with our values of freedom, tolerance and expression.

The Swiss ban on minarets is a perfect example for those of us enamored with the concept of direct democracy on why the founding fathers intentionally chose to avoid it. So you have to ask yourself, taking the Islam/Muslim aspect out of question... should the Swiss have banned the construction of minarets?

Rifqa Bary: The Muslim Girl and the Christian Pastor

The Christian Come Hither

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - The fate of a 17-year-old girl who ran away from her Ohio home because she says she feared punishment for converting from Islam to Christianity could be decided in an Orlando courtroom Friday.

The teenager disappeared last month and police used phone and computer records to track her to the Rev. Blake Lorenz, pastor of Orlando, Fla.-based Global Revolution Church, who she had met through an online Facebook prayer group.

My first thought was, this one's easy.

Send her back to her family and prosecute Reverend Blake Lorenz for luring a minor child.

Yes, I know about the Muslim husband who cut his wife's head off in New York, as well as the Muslim father in Georgia who strangled his daughter to death because of his twisted, 7th century sense of honor. We also have the Texas "honor" killings.

Still in question is whether this young lady, Rifqa Bary, is in that kind of danger. He parents found out awhile back, and they were mad as hell, I'm sure. But she's still alive, which says something in her father's defense.

Too many things don't smell right. 17 year old girls are famous for being drama queens, even more so than Muslims are for decapitations. I saw the YouTube video and all I kept thinking was, she's saying exactly what those church people want to hear. And this whole episode is quite an advertisement and money boost for the pastor who used the internet to lure her to Florida. Striking a blow against Islam is just icing on the cake.

Could this be merely a cultural and generational clash gone viral?

I'd like to know more about what went on back in Ohio. How are her grades? Are boyfriends or some other teen-parent conflict behind this? Any parent can tell you how a simple matter can spin out of control when angry parents and emotional teens are involved. Religious conviction in the mix just makes the situation hotter. Her Christian faith could be sincere and her parents could be really mad, but that doesn't prove her dad will kill her.

Hillary Clinton and Marian Wright Edelman Would be Proud

The family unit is sacrosanct, and unless lawbreaking is going on, no judge or pastor or anyone else has any business poking their nose in. This is a fundamental freedom that conservative Christians usually stand up for.

I guess if you agreed with preemptive war, it's not much of a stretch to support preemptive justice. It's all well and good until Uncle Sam decides to bust up your Jesus Camp and liberate your brain-washed kids from your home and your authority.

To those who are convinced this is a black and white case, ask yourself this question: If this were a 17-year old girl from a fundamentalist Christian family running into the arms of an imam, would you still be sticking up for the girl and the mosque?

Once again, you can't use the honor killing excuse. If such arguments were valid, the Branch Davidian episode could be used to outlaw Christians having custody of their children.
It remains to be seen if this girl's life is really in danger. I trust the good judge in Florida will sort that out in due time,

One thing's for certain: Reverend Blake Lorenz must be prosecuted under Florida law for Luring a Minor.

* Update: I posted this over at Free Republic and got over 60 comments. You can read them here. Although debate was empassioned, it never stooped to the level of the kook left sites. Conservatives are good people, especially Freepers.

ABC News
Breitbart
Bailaman
YouTube - Rifqa Bary

The Face of 21st Century America: Can the GOP Capitalize?

The Obama Jokerizer has been fingered!

This is the face of 21st century America. He laughs at the Obama hype but wasn't much of a Bush fan, either, disagreeing with our adventurous foreign policy under the last president. He also seems socially conservative, but would vote for Dennis Kucinich.

"After Obama was elected, you had all of these people who basically saw him as the second coming of Christ," Alkhateeb said. "From my perspective, there wasn't much substance to him."

Alkhateeb's assessment of Obama: "In terms of domestic policy, I don't think he's really doing much good for the country right now," he said. "We don't have to 'hero worship' the guy."

The GOP should be seeking this young man's vote
True conservatism is chary of foreign entanglements as well as bloated government schemes at home. True conservatives also view cults of personality, even conservative ones, with skepticism.

This young man represents a generation that isn't hung up on 20th century terms. Socialism is not fraught with cold war baggage for them. After all, social networking is all the rage.

This is a generation with a keen sense of right and wrong. A generation with morals that largely (with exceptions) concord with our traditional Judeo-Christian heritage, although their morality may not be derived from Christianity.

How can the GOP attract young voters?
Stand for freedom. Let The Constitution be your guide. Stop preaching religion, but stand up for the rights of the religious and irreligious alike to peacefully practice their beliefs in the public square.

The GOP should stand for freedom to demand our politicians write bills that ordinary people can understand, not catalogs of legalese that benefit only state-favored corporate entities.

Freedom to be a freak, a garishly painted transvestite, a global warming denier with a gigantic carbon footprint, a global warming hypocrite with a gigantic carbon footprint, an atheist, a tree worshiper... People gotta be free, and as long as your freedom does not impede anyone else's, we're all good.

Could such a freedom message alienate religious folk? Consider this typically clueless twaddle from the El Lay Times:

A series of sex-related scandals over the last few years has undercut the party's assertions of moral authority and, worse, may serve to reinforce the doubts that many evangelical voters have traditionally harbored about the unholiness of the political realm

The unholiness of the political realm? I am not an evangelical, but I doubt many are looking to a political party for holiness and "moral authority." That would be like looking to Hollywood for patriotism. There is a natural affinity between the GOP and Christians--preaching freedom instead of morality won't imperil that.

Conservative Reconquista
Our morbidly obese feral government is on the verge of massive myocardial infarction. It has stuck its snout into every corner of society, and people are fed up. Including tuned in young people who see oldsters siphoning off their future. If this isn't a golden opportunity for conservative revanchists, I don't know what is.

Freedom Message Can Win It For Republicans
A Republican party that stands for liberty, as envisioned by our founders, could regain its mojo. A Republican party that vows to roll back government regulation could actually find itself in power again.

Jim DeMint, as quoted in a Cato article, has a pitch perfect campaign message based on freedom and states rights:

... the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions….

We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them.

Moderate and liberal Republicans who think a South Carolina conservative like me has too much influence are right! I don’t want to make decisions for them. That’s why I’m working to reduce Washington’s grip on our lives and devolve power to the states, communities and individuals...

It’s the Democrats who want to impose a rigid, uniform agenda on all Americans. Freedom Republicanism is about choice — in education, health care, energy and more. It’s OK if those choices look different in South Carolina, Maine and California.

CATO rightly asks how DeMint can square this federalist philosophy with his support for an anti-gay marriage amendment to the US Constitution. Can states decide for themselves or not?

Issues like these are not easily resolved, but they provide much more productive debate than arguing over how to out-Democrat the Democrats. And intelligently addressing these issues may just attract a few voters who haven't yet sprouted gray hair.

Cato - DeMint
El Lay Times - Evangelicals
El Lay Times - Joker Unmasked
WSJ - Demint

Gay New Hampshire: An Ominous Harbinger

New Hampshire's legislature has approved gay marriage in that state. I don't agree with gay marriage, but they did it the right way. I believe it is a states rights issue and that it should not be decided by mullahs in black robes.

The governor, God bless him, insisted that churches should not be coerced into doing anything against their beliefs. While I applaud his intentions, here's what I have a problem with:

Lynch, a Democrat, called it "a day to celebrate in New Hampshire." The law, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2010, clarifies that religious institutions and their employees are free to determine whether to participate in weddings between gay and lesbian couples and whether to recognize same-sex unions granted by the state and other religious groups.

If a legislature can grant rights to a church, it can also take them away. According to the Founding Fathers and The Constitution they authored, religious liberties come from God, not a politician. The law should be struck down because it pretends to grant the God-given right of religious liberty that has already been guaranteed by the First Amendment to The US Constitution.

This is the first shot over the bow of religious liberty.

Boston Glob

The Pontiff & The Supermodel

According to The Telegraph, First Lady of France Carla Bruni has taken the Pope to task over his stubborn, rigid, ultra-conservative stand on contraception. How dare he not sway with the winds of popular opinion!

The Italian-born former supermodel risked angering believers in France and beyond by declaring that the Pontiff's proclamations showed that the Church needed to "evolve".

In March, the Pope sparked controversy while on an Africa tour by saying that the AIDs pandemic which has crippled the continent "can't be resolved with the distribution of condoms; on the contrary, there is the risk of increasing the problem".

Mrs Bruni-Sarkozy said: "I was born Catholic, I was baptised, but in my life I feel profoundly secular.

"I find that the controversy coming from the Pope's message – albeit distorted by the media – is very damaging.

"In Africa it's often Church people who look after sick people. It's astonishing to see the difference between the theory and the reality.

"I think the Church should evolve on this issue. It presents the condom as a contraceptive which, incidentally, it forbids, although it is the only existing protection," she told Femme Actuelle, the women's magazine.

A French Catholic (is that an oxymoron?) currently pulling duty as Sarko's third wife is standing on a very rickety podium from which to criticize the leader of the Catholic Church. How can a human being "evolve" the law of God, anyway?

I will agree with her on the point concerning AIDS and condoms. If people are already engaging in immoral behavior, it's futile to proscribe condom use. That's like telling a bank robber to not light up during the crime because state law prohibits smoking in public buildings.

Society is increasingly hostile to religious messages. We don't like being told what to do. I admire Pope Benedict, Rev Billy Graham, Rabbi Boteach, and any other religious leader who speaks God's truth regardless of its popularity. When's the last time you heard anyone criticize Eminem's morality?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5345389/Carla-Bruni-criticises-Pope-Benedict-XVI.html

God Is Not Dead

Christianity Strikes Back
John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge have written a book entitled God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World. If you don't have time to read the book you can read an article in The Times that summarizes this good news story about Christianity's success in the new millennium.

Micklethwait and Wooldridge bring glad tidings. Despite the predictions of crabby existentialists and snooty modernists, Christianity has not withered away.

From Russia and Communist China (more Christians than Communist Party members), to the continent of Africa, Christianity is on the march. Although atheism has increased in the US, the vast majority is still Christian, and more dedicated than ever due to outside forces shaking believers out of their sense of complacency.

Practicing Christians are happier than the "free-thinkers"

One of the most striking results of the Pew Forum's regular survey of happiness is that Americans who attend religious services once or more a week are happier (43 per cent very happy) than those who attend monthly or less (31 per cent) or seldom or never (26 per cent).

The correlation between happiness and church attendance has been fairly steady since Pew started the survey in the 1970s; it is also more robust than the link between happiness and wealth. Attending church weekly, rather than not at all, has the same effect on people's reported happiness as moving from the bottom quartile to the top quartile of income distribution - and is a lot easier to do.

More Christianity, less crime, less social deviance

James Q.Wilson, perhaps America's pre-eminent criminologist, summarises a mountain of evidence from the social sciences succinctly: “Religion, independent of social class, reduces deviance.”

The authors' use of Ned Flanders and The Simpsons to press their case makes this an interesting and entertaining read.

Times Online
God is Back

The Religion of Darwinism

Canadian David Warren has written a brilliant piece cutting Darwin down to size.

The Darwinian account is merely belied by the fossil record, which has provided none of the inter-species "missing links" that Darwin anticipated, and which instead yields only sudden radical changes.

But "Darwinism" survives, especially in the English-speaking world, not as a quaint historical theory, but rather as a cosmological doctrine. The hard-core Darwinist is a "religious atheist," whose faith in the non-existence of God is anchored in the unshakeable conviction that everything in this world that looks designed and purposeful will eventually be explained by random, gradual, purely "natural" (as opposed to supernatural) processes. And he defends himself by the method of the hedgehog: for when attacked he rolls up into an impregnably tautological ball.

I won't spoil his brilliant and surprising conclusion. Go read the whole enjoyable essay at Mr. Warren's website.

The Evangelical atheist

Militant atheism was furthest from my mind this Christmas season, yet has been brought to the forefront by some recent comments on the post of "We had a Merry Christmas". It struck me as odd why such a benign post would elicit such a response, then it occurred to me that the response in and of itself was evangelical, so to speak... soliciting converts to 'the truth'.

Of course, as soon as I googled "Evangelical atheist" I was rolling on the floor, for the third hit down on the page was a link to Urban Dictionary which read:

"evangelical atheist - 2 definitions - See [asshole] An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of). ." Don't believe me? Google it.

Ted Peters had this to say on the subject "It used to be that atheists didn’t bother anybody. They simply stayed home from church on Sunday and avoided praying. The social impact was minimal. "

Click here for the rest of a well reasoned article in response to Richard Dawkins: http://www.counterbalance.net/new-atheism/index-frame.html

It is not the argument that I find of interest, but the fanatical and zealous way in which it is delivered. This is not the calm and reasoned presentation of logic, but a vicious diatribe. It is the irrational extreme of Denis Diderot's "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest". It is the mindset of the soviets, that in 1918 summarily executed 10 orthodox hierarchs and founded The Society of the Godless (an actual organization, not a commentary on soviet society). It is this 'enlightened' viewpoint that resulted in the closing of hundreds of churches, the slaughter of 80 bishops, and a quick trip to the Gulag for thousands of clerics.

One wonders if the fanaticism of the response would have been directed at the author had he "had a happy solstice"? Or if some underlying rage at either organized religion or Christianity is the root cause. I would like to point out to our secular friend a tenet of that most secular of documents, "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights": "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." I might also point out that the founding document of our nation, in instituting the separation of church and state, says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I might point out Mark Vuletic's (an atheist) words on the subject: Atheism has a comparatively small public voice, but it is a voice that many believers hear. However, when they listen to this voice, they often hear little more than slurs and insults. When interacting with atheists, believers are frequently met with the same arrogance and condescension, the same hatred and vitriol, the same bigotry and prejudice, as atheists so often receive from believers. In short, believers tend to encounter in atheists exactly what they have been taught to expect... If we wish to shatter once and for all the myth that atheism and immorality are inseparable, we must not deny believers the compassion, tolerance, patience, and understanding that humanists are supposed to extend to all.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/moral.html

One wonders why someone so obviously convinced of their own moral, logical, and scientific superiority needs to resort to such vile rhetoric in attempting to convince others of the superiority of their position. I have had many friends in my life who have been non-believers, and while the majority of them were more appropriately termed agnostic, I have found the atheists among them to be rather vain, based upon the supposed 'infallibility' of their beliefs. I generally find anyone with absolutist views, whether atheistic, scientific, or religious to be rather intolerable. Even that great philosopher of the Scottish enlightenment, David Hume, contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt.

One often finds atheists who advance the argument that religion has been the cause of most of the evil one finds in the historical record, while overlooking the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. They also overlook the great contributions to peace that science as brought, like Bows and Arrows, Guns, Bigger Guns, and that all encompassing advance of apocalyptic Biblical (or Bhagavad Gita) proportions, the H-Bomb. The argument that religion is evil overlooks the common factor in all evil, us. It is not the nature of religion that institutes such occurrences as the Spanish Inquisition, but the flawed nature of man. One might make the argument that evil stems from absolutism, for most if not all of the evil in our history has stemmed from absolute positions, be it fascist, communist, racist, or theist. It is the belief in one's absolute superiority that propagates throughout history as manifestations of absolute evil, horror, and inhumanity.

While a firm advocate of the separation of church and state, I have always believed that religion, in the form of comparative theology, should be taught in school. Separation of church and state seeks to prevent the establishment of a state religion (Establishment Clause), it was (IMHO) never intended to erase religion from society (Exercise Clause), and while it is possible to separate religion from state, it is virtually impossible to separate religion from culture. Religion, like art and science, is part of the cultural heritage of man, all men, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or any number of other faiths. In a free public context such displays promote interaction and tolerance.

The 'Christmas Tree Controversy' is one that is particularly irksome. The public expression of faith should be something cherished in our society, the freedom of religion (not freedom from religion) being one of our great nations founding principles. It seems that far from offering religious freedom, we are in the foolishness of political correctness attempting to ban religion from the public space, as if it were something shameful in this enlightened age that should be hidden away like porn... it's okay, but only in the privacy of your own home. I would have no problem with a creche in the town square, any more that I would have a problem with a Jewish, Muslim, or any other display. Living overseas, I can say I took no offense to Buddha's Birthday celebrations and found them educational, and even fun. I take no offense at being greeted with "Īd mubārak" (Blessed Eid), nor would I take offense at being invited to have a Happy Ostara (Wiccan) . To take offense at the proffered good will of others, whatever the reason is petty and small.

What I do take offense at, although I would not prohibit them, are atheist displays such as the one in Olympia, Washington that read "At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." I don't oppose the viewpoint, I don't believe it but I don't recommend banning it, but that the display is more of a negative assault than a profession of belief. It is no more acceptable than fundamentalists pointing out Jews as the killer of Jesus in a Hanukkah display or the protesting by the Westboro Baptist Church at the funerals of military members. By all means celebrate your beliefs, celebrate Galileo's Birthday (Feb 15) if it makes you happy, put a whole calendar of Scientific Holidays together, but a 'celebration' putting down other peoples beliefs and customs should be beneath you.

All of this serves to illustrate one main point, that extremism is not the sole domain of religion, one can find extremists of all points of view from religion, to science, to politics, to sociology. The only rational approach is one of cautious restraint and dialogue. No one has ever advanced their own position by attacking the beliefs of others, unless that advance came solely from intimidation.

Until you come to the table with something positive to offer, you just come across as vulgar, barbaric, and mean...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

~Finntann~

Imagine Whirled Peas

Look out, believers! Self-appointed Enlightened Ones have decided to craft a charter to make the world's bowl of Mixed Religious Nuts all get along. The goal? Only universal tolerance and world peace.

A website launched Friday with the backing of the technology industry and Hollywood elite urges people worldwide to help craft a framework for harmony between all religions.

The Charter for Compassion project on the Internet at www.charterforcompassion.org springs from a "wish" granted this year to religious scholar Karen Armstrong... in California (where else?)

"The chief task of our time is to build a global society where people of all persuasions can live together in peace and harmony," Armstrong said.

Good luck with that lady! I've seen the world, and it ain't in the mood for joining hands and singing that Coca-Cola song around the Christmas tree. It's more in the mood for Beethoven's Eroica or anything by Wagner that involves loud booms.

But I don't want to be accused of cynicism, so here's my stab at a world peace religious charter:

I have a dream that one day the world's door knockers and tambourine shakers can all get along.

The head cutter will lie down with the bible thumper.

The three big monotheistic faiths will combine their religious texts into one book of harmonious diversity, The Toranible.

That the monotheists and the dualists can combine their faiths into a new, confusing trinity of creative destruction, or destructive creativity, or whatever.

Twelver Shia can all drive Mazdas in a nod to Zoroastrians.

Nietzscheans and televangelists can acknowledge each others' will to power.

Christian eco-sinners can buy enviro-indulgences from Reverend Al Gore's Church of Gaia.

This is fun; try it yourself! Fortunately for us believers, this kind of feel-good babble-blather, like a UN resolution, makes the participants feel good, but is largely ineffective. Everyone can go back to their own religious text now.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081114211405.6b9pjnso&show_article=1

Netherlands Famed Liberalism Used Against Them

Here's a blast from the recent past.

I am a huge fan of classic liberal democracy. It is the foundation of our modern western world. Enemies of freedom are using legal jujitsu to put an end to it. How crafty: Using a society's freedoms to defeat that society.

A Dutch cartoonist has been arrested for anti-Islamic cartoons that violate Dutch law prohibiting violence-inciting speech. Imagine that... Christianity on the old continent could have been saved if good Christians had just bombed and killed those who criticize it. Pelagius has a good article on the whole sorry episode.

Well, at least the guilty cartoonist didn't get slaughtered on the streets of Amsterdam, like Theo Van Gogh did.
This is another wakeup call, but we're still sleeping...

Atheist Encounter

A few weeks ago I followed a provocative link while surfing and ended up staggering into a website popular with atheists. The author was lampooning the virgin birth and Marian apparitions, with readers gleefully piling on with vulgar jokes and comments. I asked a simple question and boy, did I get my hat handed to me. Here is my initial comment that brought what felt like the wrath of God down upon me:

So you're an atheist. Why be so derisive of those who don't share your views? Also, I ask your intellectually superior readers to examine the rolls of history's greatest minds. There you will find believers and non-believers alike.

Why is it so many critics of religion swaddle themselves in smug condescension? I guess everybody's gotta believe in something.

I suppose I brought it on myself with references to intellectual superiority and smug condescension. You can read the whole article and the sorry thread that follows here. My comments start at # 141. You will notice I never criticized their (non)belief, nor tried to convert anyone. That didn't save me though. They flamed me mercilessly.

I still wonder why so many atheists are not satisfied with merely disbelieving, but must make jolly fun of mocking the Almighty and his believers. It is insecurity? There also seems to be a lot of anger in their comments. Many non-believers take their non-belief quite personally. I wanted to know why.

I really upset the faithful when I opined that non-belief becomes a belief with its own orthodoxy. Those who question that orthodoxy become the target of witty, sarcastic derision or worse, angry personal attacks. Keep questioning, and then the comments get angrier. When I pointed that out, it seemed to only engender more anger. From there it became a downward spiral of charges and countercharges, each accusing the other of smugness and condescension.

I have also noticed that atheism and the use (or misuse) of logic go hand in hand. Atheists see themselves as supremely logical, while we believers are illogical, superstitious boobs. Our historical accounts are worthless, although they are of the same kind we trust to inform us of the battle of Marathon or Tamerlane. Rather than use logic as a rapier to slice and dice confusing issues, bringing order out of chaos, they misappropriate it as a blunt instrument to bludgeon those unfortunate enough to stumble into their presence.

Well, Dinesh D’Souza has the antidote. He uses Kant’s philosophy to refute atheism. We learn from him that those who try to prove or disprove the existence of God with traditional logic are committing what philosophers call a category error. God exists outside of time and space and is not subject to natural laws. Indeed, miracles are a contravention of the laws of nature. Just because you cannot see something doesn't mean it does not exist. Anyway, D’Souza breaks it down so ordinary people can understand it. I recommend you check it out.

Finally, I am not nearly as smart as Kant or D'Souza, or the Atheist Richard Dawkins, but I know this: Arguing over the existence of God is futile. It cannot be proven or disproved as can a mathematical formula. Men and women have provided historical testimony. You can choose to believe them or not. Meanwhile, science cannot prove how life spontaneously came into being.

Obama: "My Muslim Faith"

You can't make this stuff up...

Mr. Obama referred to "My Muslim faith" Sunday on George Stephanopolus' show. I'm not one of those who think he is a closet Muslim, but this still has me laughing.

"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come."

Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted with, "Christian faith."

"My Christian faith," Mr. Obama said quickly. "Well, what I'm saying is that he hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim. And I think that his campaign's upper echelons have not, either. What I think is fair to say is that, coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith -- something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time."

I've been standing up for Obama against friends and coworkers who think he's really a Muslim and now he goes and does this...

Evangelicals, Catholics Agree with 80% of What Obama Says

That didn't take long. Catholic Bishops are popping up all over to slap down Nancy Pelosi's ignorant comments regarding abortion and the Catholic Church. In no uncertain terms, the Bishops have stated that willful procurement of an abortion is a sin, and it always has been, going all the way back to the beginnings of Christian practice. I guess Madam Speaker has been too busy scheming against the president to read her catechism.

What really caught my eye though was this provocative statement in the WashingtonTimes article:

"The push for the Democratic Party is to have a new position on abortion," said Steve Waldman, editor of the religious Web site beliefnet.com. "When you look at Catholics and Evangelicals, you see that they agree with 80 percent of what [Mr. Obama] says, but there's this stumbling block with abortion."

I couldn't believe my eyes. How could this man, Steve Waldman, of a web site called beliefnet.com, say such an ignorant thing?!

Answer: He's ignorant. And his web site is a squishy, perfumed bog of it's-all-good spirituality that does harm to every religion it features. Do you love your God and your faith? Then stay away from this empty, flowery, New Age wisp of nothingness. There might be a few feel-good prayers there, but if you need serious spiritual guidance, go see your pastor or rabbi.

Now, back to this absurd statement that Catholics and Evangelicals agree with 80% of what Mr. Obama says:

Do Catholics and Evangelicals support Mother Earth worship proposals like cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050, effectively rewinding our economy back to the frontier days?

How about Obama's belief in socialistic government solutions over free market ones to cure every perceived ill?

Do Christians want a nanny state instilling values in their kids, or would they rather do it themselves and tell the bureaucrats to butt out?

Do Catholics oppose school vouchers and school choice, as Mr. Obama does?

Do Evangelicals support President Obama reaching out to anti-semitic wackjobs like Ahmedinejad of Iran?

No! The answer to all of the above is No. I don't know what Steve Waldman's religion is, but I suspect it's feel-good progressivism with some Gaia worship thrown in. Seems he's recently found a new messiah as well.

He sure loves preaching the Democratic Gospel, calling all Christians to abandon their evil conservative ways and join with the gay marriage, pro-abortion, Hollywood values Democratic party. It's a natural fit, right? Nancy Pelosi thinks so.

Global Warming (Despite Cooler Temperatures)

Looks Like 2008 may end up being the coolest year of the young century. Imagine that, in the midst of all this global warming...

China became the world's biggest polluter in April of this year... Self-righteous USA critics have yet to shift their scorn eastward.

We could be in for more cooling for the next decade or so. Doesn't Mother Nature know the science is settled?

BBC reports all this grudgingly, and inserts all manner of caveats and finger shaking scolds, admonishing us naive global warming deniers to not let our guard down.

This is all temporary! Professor Dinglebulb from the Department of Settled Pseudoscience has a computer model that shows the earth catching fire in 2018 unless we forsake our SUVs, cut industrial output by 75%, and recycle our own feces. China and the rest of the the non-western countries are exempt, of course.

Many of the more enlightened Gaia worshipers who follow the Reverend Al Gore are the very same people who mock God and make fun of us bible clinging hicks who worship him. They aver religion is a scam devised by crafty pastors to threaten and control their fearful flocks. Meanwhile, these same concerned global citizens calculate their carbon footprint (examine their conscience) and buy carbon offsets (purchase indulgences) while hanging on Al Gore's every admonition (listening to the preacher) and demanding we all change out polluting ways (repent!). Believe us, don't believe your senses (have faith).

My religion has historical eye-witness testimony and roots that go back thousands of years--theirs was started by an angry and imperious former Vice President who refuses to debate his critics. So who's callin' who naive?

Religious Tolerance in America

The NY Times reports that we are a quite religiously tolerant nation, thank you. I'm proud of that. I am a religious man. I'll talk about it to anyone who asks, but I don't see any reason to be obnoxious about it. Three points in the article caught my attention and serve to highlight the anti-religious bigotry that thrives at that intolerant leftist flagship known as the New York Times:

"The findings seem to undercut the conventional wisdom that the more religiously committed people are, the more intolerant they are, scholars who reviewed the survey said."

Hmmm... those smug religious nuts aren't so intolerant after all!

“It’s not that Americans don’t believe in anything,” said Michael Lindsay, assistant director of the Center on Race, Religion and Urban Life at Rice University. “It’s that we believe in everything. We aren’t religious purists or dogmatists.”

He's taking aggregate data gathered on a population sample and applying it to each person in the population, a big logic error. It doesn't follow that each individual has many beliefs because the aggregate group expresses many beliefs.

“It could be that people are not very well educated and they are not expressing mature theological points of view,” said Todd Johnson, director of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Slam! You religious nuts don't even know what you believe!

Here's my two cents: Like most Americans, I interact with a religiously diverse community in my daily dealings, and have done so all my adult life. I'm too busy working out my own salvation to worry over the salvation of others. Besides, I'm not God: It would be very presumptuous of me to wield the Lord's winnowing fan. I know what I believe, and I believe it to be true, otherwise I would be looking for a new house of worship. This survey shows that other Americans share my attitude.

We Americans have learned to be tolerant because we are religiously diverse. The alternative would be chaos. We've learned how to disagree with one another without cutting off heads or blowing things up. We also know that our God is bigger than some buffoon who mocks him by crafting religious icons of elephant dung or submersing a crucifix in a jar of urine. I am not the flaming sword of God. Yes, I should defend my religious beliefs, and even share them when appropriate. But no, I don't need to kill anyone to make my point.

It's no surprise the NY Times just doesn't get it. They still think terrorism is all President Bush's fault. And after all, he's a religious nut.

Link: NY Times Article on Religious Tolerance

Oops! Sorry About Those Trampled Legal Rights!

Here's a real case of government overstepping it's authority, as opposed to the imaginary ones conjured up by the lunatic left.

Where are Senators Feingold, Levin and that liberal lion, Ted Kennedy? Where's Eddy Vedder, Bruce Springsteen , Rosie O'Donnell and the rest of the Hollywood left who are so concerned about citizens falling into the hands of an angry government?

Answer: This doesn't fit their template. Standing up for religious nuts just doesn't satisfy unless they're angry, scraggly bearded America haters. Plus, no one has been able to connect the Bush administration to this clear violation of these peoples' legal rights.

Free Speech, Religion, and the Fed Up British Man

Does free speech include the freedom to criticize the religious views and practices of others? By now, I suppose everyone has seen the video of the British man calmly explaining why he is fed up with Muslim demands on Europe and the old continent’s capitulation. He doesn’t really insult Islam, but he sure slams some of its more radical practitioners, especially the Saudis. He is very well-spoken and stays away from wild claims as he presses his case.

If you applaud him, as I do, you must be prepared to accept speech like this as well. Yes, it’s the same guy. He’s an atheist who criticizes Christians with equal gusto. And he is liberty’s best friend. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other. I am free to practice my religion, as long as doing so places no demands on you. You are free to criticize my religious practices, and I am free to criticize your non-practice.

This balance has worked well for us in the US, but Europe is struggling. Scared Europeans are self-censoring in the name of political correctness. Or perhaps out of fear at being stabbed on the street. Our country was founded on religious tolerance and free speech. We need to guard both. If the first video delights you but the second one angers you, you have some soul searching to do, because you are in danger of becoming no better than those you criticize.