Skip to content

From the Pen of David Horowitz: October 10, 2009

October 10, 2009

david_p

I first became aware of politics, in the ordinary sense, during the presidential election of 1948. My parents and their friends belonged to the Democratic Party and had voted for Roosevelt. It was what they called their “mass work”—going to where the people were, in order to lead them to something better. This had been the Party line since the days of the Popular Front, when under orders from Moscow the comrades abandoned their “ultra left” position and stopped calling Roosevelt a fascist. “Communism is twentieth-century Americanism,” the Party leader Earl Browder had said, promoting the spirit of cooperation during the war against Hitler. But the postwar conflict over Eastern Europe had changed all that. William Z. Foster had replaced Browder, and had summoned progressives to an all-out resistance to “fascist America.”

As the election of 1948 approached, the Democrats split into three factions. On the right, the Southern Dixiecrats were angry at Truman’s support for civil rights, and formed a new party behind the candidacy of Gov. Strom Thurmond. On the left, the Communists were upset with the Truman Doctrine, which promised support for “free peoples” who were resisting Stalin’s conquest of Eastern Europe. They regarded Truman as a “warmonger” and formed the Progressive Party to oppose him behind the candidacy of Henry Wallace. The fact that Truman was a strong proponent of civil rights had been eclipsed in their eyes by his anti-Communist policies. Their allegiance to the Soviet Union took precedence over their concern for anything else.

Radical Son

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Gmail.com. Please include:

  1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
  2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
  3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
  4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)
Advertisements
78 Comments
  1. Michael Suda permalink
    October 10, 2009 4:48 am

    David H. is just what Saint Louis U. needed, it is sad! My brother has already called SLU and told them there would be no more donations. I am going to call this week. I do appreciate the TRUTH in Newsreal and Frontpage. Thank You Michael Suda

  2. Julie Trevor permalink
    October 10, 2009 4:51 am

    “Their allegiance to the Soviet Union took precedence over their concern for anything else.”

    Substitute ‘Leftist Utopian View’ for Soviet Union and it perfectly describes the Left/Neo-Communists today.

  3. Cas Balicki permalink
    October 10, 2009 7:40 am

    “Their allegiance to the Soviet Union took precedence over their concern for anything else.”

    What this simple plain language hides is the very human quest to live beyond self; this for lack of a better descriptor is a religious impulse. I remember from my youth that no matter how vile the outcome of communist oppression there was always a socialist paradise somewhere in the world, if it were not the Soviet Union than it was China, Cuba, or Albania. I loved the idea of Albania being that paradise, because no one I knew had any real knowledge of Albania, so none could argue that it was not paradise. There is a certain “Lost Horizon” aspect to a leftist credulity that tries to elevate it—The Left that is—above the mundane impulses of leaden conservatism.

    The practical question raised by this impulse to the idyll is, is it possible for humans to live without hope. The short answer would appear to be no. In past more so than today that hope was vested in a religious/spiritual dimension that left no room for doubters who believed in only what they could see. And what they could see was what Marx saw, which is to say society’s enslaving chains. “Workers of the world unite” became this new religion’s rallying cry, and religion it was and still is as adherents are forced by its creed to accept the infinite perfectibility of man, something that the religious would aver can only happen after we’ve shed this mortal coil.

    It is no small irony that atheists and believers are driven by the same impulse, the same need to hope. The problem, of course, is the check on the impulse to dominate dogmatically the other. Sadly, the 100 million people killed in the twentieth century prove that one can never move beyond Dostoevsky’s most haunting and powerful question. In Brothers Karamazov he asks whether the killing of a baby could be justified if its consequence was to cure all the evils of the world. The answer must always and everywhere be no.

    • Jonathan permalink
      October 10, 2009 8:09 am

      I see the point you are making. But, “hope for utopia” is for the working classes, but it is “lust for power” that drives the elites leading the mob. Use hope to marshal the raw humanity with limitless promises couched in dialectic rhetoric and cerebral philosophizing. These “useful idiots” become the engine to achieve power. The elites prey upon their most basic weaknesses and baser instincts. The promise of a better life without working for it.

      Marxism is a scam, pure and simple. Used to rip out monarchies and plutocracies and replace them with newer ones. The primary difference would be the cultural richness of the old orders, generally characterized by high art and craftsmanship, Marxism replaces them with bleak gray and stale utilitarianism. Even the clothes. Yuck.

      I think the real challenge for conservatives is one we aren’t addressing adequately. And that is, to START figuring out ways to short circuit the scam in real life. After 100 years, the pattern is all too familiar in so many places, including America. We keep talking; they take over. Our Constitution was inadequately suited for preventing socialism and all the other things the founding fathers feared most. Lesson learned. Too late.

      • Swemson permalink
        October 10, 2009 11:33 am

        Jonathan says:

        “Our Constitution was inadequately suited for preventing socialism and all the other things the founding fathers feared most. Lesson learned. Too late.”

        Maybe not…

        Maybe BHO will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back…

        If we can’t find a way to get rid of him real fast, he’s going to tear everything down..

        Solving the central problem is the same as trying to reform junkies..

        The masses are addicted to the idea that someone’s going to give them something for nothing.. BHO might finally prove to all of them the there’s no free lunch..

        If he does, we just might have a chance to fix those parts of the constitution to prevent this from ever happening again…

        NO FORM OF COLLECTIVISM has ever worked, and none ever will….

        Hopefully one last pig push towards that make-believe utopia, will expose it and those who try to organize it for the frauds that they are !

        • Jonathan permalink
          October 10, 2009 3:06 pm

          I hope you are right, Swenson. I really do.

          But I think that no such change can be made now without some considerable upset of the normal landscape. Politics would get too much in the way to accomplish what needed to be done without resorting to other methods. And socialists don’t like to take steps back, unless they are getting twice as many forward. And, then, there is the cultural damage that has been done that would need undoing as well.

          If you all would appoint me leader and invest enough trust in me to grant me emergency powers and unmitigated pragmatic support, I could fix the problem. It would take about a decade though… and I promise to step aside once the job is done.

    • Cas Balicki permalink
      October 10, 2009 12:02 pm

      Jonathan, without hope your ‘elites’ are simply in the business of selling envy, class envy if you want a Marxist term. Although envy may be a powerful force in an individual, it is not a very powerful collective or societal force and one that is easily spent. The principle weakness of envy as a social or motivating force is that every unrestrained revolution, in time, devolves to basics, this because the maw that is revolution has consumed everything in its path. When all become equal the only thing left to take is life itself. It is usually at this point that the killing stops, because there is little to be gained by more killing. Even the worst dictators must eventually stop killing or in some way restrict their killing, for if they don’t they themselves risk being killed.

      The question to ask is what gets the revolutionaries to the point where killing can be justified on a moral level: Appetites, cupidity, lust for power? If I want your car and kill you to take it, I’m not likely to kill for another car, at least not until a sportier set of wheels rolls around, am I? The point being that appetites eventually sate, so some greater motivator must spur on both the elites and masses, and that motivator is always comes in the form of hope or, its near relation, utopian vision. There is no death or no number of deaths for that matter that cannot be justified in a zealot’s black heart once it is possessed of the incontrovertible truth. That others may not share that dream is to their prejudice. It is worth remembering that one of the victims of the 9-11 hijackings was a little girl on her way with her parents to a first visit to Disneyland. In her case Dostoevsky’s question, which was likely never asked, should have been answered with a resounding no.

      • Jonathan permalink
        October 10, 2009 3:20 pm

        Hope. Envy. Equality.

        Whatever words you wish to use. But the elites sell something to the masses to movitate them. But whatever comes out the end of the revolution, it is always the same. One plutocracy destroyed. Another takes it’s place. Kim Il Sung’s grandson is now the hereditary king of North Korea. Raul Castro takes his brother’s place on the throne of Cuba. The elites of China wear no gaudy robes and crowns. Only simple Mao suits. They have no royal baronies or fiefdoms to control – nothing but the entire landmass of China is under their control.

        But however we view this allure of socialism, we cannot deny that it is a powerful and persuasive social force that might indeed be “easily spent” as you describe. But “easily” is a relative term.

        I think the answer to your final question is that socialists start with the premise that morality is relative. Whatever brings the end justifies the means. Basically, socialism is an immoral structure that is foisted upon civilization by immoral men. Fidel Castro was nothing more than a more modern version of Atilla the Hun. And the left in America is even more “progressive,” but only because they have enjoyed such spectatular success with incrementalism. Were America not a place with a deeply ingrained respect for law and order in the populace, violence would have broken out long ago. Ultimately though, I think the socialists here will have to resort to violence to finish overrunning the nation. My hunch is that it will outwardly manifest in a racial or ethnic war.

        • Swemson permalink
          October 10, 2009 4:01 pm

          Not if we kill those bastards first….

          And I’m afraid that’s what we’re going to be forced to do to defend ourselves…..

          Thomas Jefferson’s tree of liberty is in serious need of refreshment RIGHT NOW !

  4. Joe W permalink
    October 10, 2009 2:13 pm

    Why does it have to be up to politics to deliver this “Paradise”?

    Why can’t people just draw a wage, take it home, and let their home be their paradise? Or their church, or some fabulous afterlife?

    Paradise is what you make it, and the only problem with political paradise is that once everyone is living in paradise, it ceases to be a paradise.

    For example, My paradise is a nice house outside the city, where it’s quiet and nobody bothers me. It’s that simple and I don’t need the government to give it to me, nor do I need to oppress people to get it. I just need to work hard and then stay out of everyone elses way.

    ’nuff said.

    • Julie Trevor permalink
      October 10, 2009 3:17 pm

      Joe,
      I think everyone here would agree – but in the Leftist view, you have a nice house outside the city and that’s not fair to those who live in small run down apts in the city so you should move into something less elegant so you can give your “excess” to those who want it.
      Julie

    • Swemson permalink
      October 10, 2009 3:21 pm

      Well said Joe !

      • Cas Balicki permalink
        October 10, 2009 4:50 pm

        Let me say at the outset, Joe W. that I agree with you whole heartedly in that every man must find his own paradise. But when it comes to politics, progressivism, and revolution we are forced to contemplate the logic of societal waves that sweep away an individual’s right to his peace. Why your urge to peace on the outskirts of some city is not good enough in the quasi-progressive model is that it is too much yours and not enough ours.

        Don’t get me wrong, I personally don’t want a part of your paradise, but as Julie so rightly writes, the progressives only see happiness as a zero-sum game in that your happiness comes at the expense of some other’s discontent. When stated this plainly the zero-sum argument seems patently ridiculous, because we are only discussing “happiness.” Yet change the word happiness to money and suddenly any excess wealth that you may have to buy your piece of paradise must have come at someone else’s expense, which logic instantly turns you into a running dag capitalist unworthy of social support. That your wealth may indirectly enrich others in never imagined in the presence of another’s immediate suffering. The hypocrisy of the purblind Left is that it does not also see the inverse in that your poverty does nothing neither directly nor indirectly to alleviate that same suffering, but, sadly, this myopia is seminal to envy.

        Small wonder that religion is deemed the opiate of the masses by those desirous of social change, for where God once might have made up for another’s dearth of blessings, He no longer exists. The progressive, especially the atheist progressive, sees only this life. All greater good is now temporal in that it must be found on earth and in this moment. Take God out of the equation and the question is rightly asked: What worthwhile thing do we live for? By worthwhile I mean what might each of us do to render our lives worthy of remembrance? The answer, although different for everyone, revolves around something greater than our self, something greater than our own self-interest, and something greater than a God that does not exist. Hence progressive ambition moves toward children, society, or environment, for all these are destined to survive the individual.

        • Joe W permalink
          October 10, 2009 4:56 pm

          Have you ever noticed that while those progressives want us to live in abject poverty, and give up all our money so others can have it, their own money is safely locked away where the government can not get at it?

          I have never actually seen a progressive donate money to a food kitchen, or cook a meal for Ronald McDonald house, or even foster children for the CPS. But boy, can they tell me how to live my life, and say that I’m not giving enough.

          I hate to tell them, but life is not a zero-sum game. For every winner, there is a loser, and in America, there can be lots of winners. The only losers are those that drop out of school and work for minimum wage forever. No, they aren’t the losers, the losers are those that depend upon the government for life.

          • Cas Balicki permalink
            October 10, 2009 5:21 pm

            Yes I have. I might add that this entirely in character because the progressives view is one that incorporates a constantly expanding role for government—the collective—in private life. The direct result is that the individual is freed of responsibility. Why should the individual help anyone when society is responsible for that person’s circumstances and fate?

          • Jonathan permalink
            October 10, 2009 5:23 pm

            Marxism isn’t about prosperity in the way Americans traditionally understand prosperity. It’s about what the state can provide to everyone equally in a controlled economy absent consumer demand pressures. “Controlled” means that consumers can be eliminated if potato quotas cannot be elevated sufficiently. People are, after all, merely instruments of the state.

            Joe, the problem with your paradise is this: You’re helping kill the planet. It takes too much to guarantee your home, your wage, your lifestyle. It isn’t fair to the planet. So, we must halt the progress driven by capitalism and reverse the destruction wrought by technology.

            Of course, the elites will still have planes and SUVs and all the electricity that their mansions need to run properly. But the masses will be relegated to something between modern day China and Somalia, in terms of life style.

            Incidentally, about religion, Marxism has evolved somewhat from the old “opiate of the masses” of the old guard. The post modern progressive says: “Opium? It’s a good thing as long as we control it.”

            • Swemson permalink
              October 10, 2009 8:30 pm

              I hope you’re just being sarcastic, and YOU don’t really believe this yourself:

              “Joe, the problem with your paradise is this: You’re helping kill the planet. It takes too much to guarantee your home, your wage, your lifestyle. It isn’t fair to the planet. So, we must halt the progress driven by capitalism and reverse the destruction wrought by technology.”

              Because if you do, you’re delusional and you belong in a padded room…

              Extreme environmentalism has become the cool new hip communism… It’s anti-man, and it’s BULLS*~T !

              They believe all sorts of nonsense, and they believe it with a religious fervor…

              They’re so whacked out that they think CO2 is causing the planet to get dangerously too warm…

              If you’re drinking all that Kool-Aid you’re in for a rude awakening !

              • Jonathan permalink
                October 10, 2009 10:00 pm

                I don’t know Swemson. You’ve read a fair share of my posts. I suppose you read this one at least. Do you think I’m being serious, or sarcastic?

                • Swemson permalink
                  October 10, 2009 10:49 pm

                  I read it a few times…

                  It’s late… & I’m Old…

                  And the BULLS*~T level of everything I see & hear lately is on such an overload these days that sometimes I don’t even remember where TF I am…

                  BTW: There’s was some big news that just came out about those loons…

                  It seems that the global warming hoax is about to go up in smoke…

                  The coverup has already begun…

                  The dog ate the data !

              • Jonathan permalink
                October 10, 2009 10:05 pm

                Also Swemson, you need to remember. The environmentalism may be just another “useful idiot” victim group used to tear down capitalism, a mere pretext for the elites to manipulate and seize power over all resources. But, you’ve seen the record of environmentalism under communism, haven’t you? Not impressive. Do YOU think the Marxists are really serious about saving the planet? Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. I guess it depends on what the central bankers really want to accomplish with their global utopia.

                My guess is they want to depopulate the planet by about 3 billion people, for starters.

                • Swemson permalink
                  October 10, 2009 10:45 pm

                  Of course they don’t care about the environment.. all they care about is power, and everything they say it its pursuit is a lie…

                  • Jonathan permalink
                    October 11, 2009 7:47 am

                    There you go. And yet, everyone keeps dancing according to the tune of leftist lies, rather than to the music of what their agenda is.

                    In my book, the GOP is worthless. There needs to be a new, viable third party opposition to the Dems and the GOP, based on Reagan conservatism, but committed to amending the Constitution to fix the loopholes favoring the advance of socialism. Like an amendment outlawing federal deficits, and confining federal expansion to no more than a set percentage of the total full time workforce – say 8 percent. Oh yeah, and outlawing anything that transfers economic or political sovereignity outside the US, and outlawing citizenship benefits for non-residents.

          • Julie Trevor permalink
            October 10, 2009 5:30 pm

            Joe,
            I live in VT which has the highest number of non-profit organizations per capita and about an equal number of very wealthy Leftists who deposit their money in them – aka “foundations”. Great way to ensure continued high income while protecting their assets from the very policies they endorse.
            Julie

        • Swemson permalink
          October 10, 2009 5:53 pm

          Cas wrote:

          “Take God out of the equation and the question is rightly asked: What worthwhile thing do we live for? By worthwhile I mean what might each of us do to render our lives worthy of remembrance? The answer, although different for everyone, revolves around something greater than our self, something greater than our own self-interest, and something greater than a God that does not exist.”

          To which I respond:

          HORSE HOCKEY!

          “What worthwhile thing do we live for?”

          Our own rational happiness !

          “what might each of us do to render our lives worthy of remembrance?”

          Kind acts, generosity, the creation of art, great literature, & advances in science, the list goes on forever….

          “The answer, although different for everyone, revolves around something greater than our self,”

          Don’t make the mistake of believing that all atheists are progressive leftists.. WE’RE NOT !

          With the exception of motor nature, which we’ll probably NEVER understand in it’s entirety, everything GREAT & MEMORABLE, that has been created by man, comes from the curiosity and creativity of ONE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN MIND.

          From Beethoven’s concertos, and Van Gogh’s paintings, and Shakespeare’s plays, and Walt Whitman’s poems all the way to Hemingway’s novels, and beyond… ALL of the greatness that MAN HAS CREATED, comes from the selfish quest of one man’s individual mind to satisfy his dreams and creative goals…

          One of the paradigm shifts that the world is experiencing now, and which you have no choice but to adapt to, is the diminishing influence that your fairy tales & superstitions are having on mankind… The current world crisis of Islamic terrorism, is helping to make millions of people aware of this…

          More murder, misery and mayhem has been committed in the name of god, than any other source, and that’s been true throughout human history.

          MAN CREATED GOD (gods actually… there have been thousands) a long time ago to help explain what he couldn’t understand…

          THE MORE WE LEARN, THE LESS MAN NEEDS THOSE ANCIENT SUPERSTITIONS, AND THE SOONER WE’RE DONE WITH THEM, THE BETTER !

          • Cas Balicki permalink
            October 10, 2009 6:32 pm

            “THE MORE WE LEARN, THE LESS MAN NEEDS THOSE ANCIENT SUPERSTITIONS, AND THE SOONER WE’RE DONE WITH THEM, THE BETTER !”

            Current thinking holds that there are some 100 billion galaxies in the universe. As the equipment we use to scan space improves the more galaxies farther away come into focus. It would, therefore, not be hyperbole to say that the universe, which is vast by any definition, may, in fact, be infinite. All the stuff that makes up these 100 billion galaxies, perhaps infinitely more than 100 billion galaxies, is thought to have originated some 14 billion years ago in less than one second from a point with no physical dimensions.

            Yup, I agree, the more we learn the less miraculous our superstitions appear to be.

            • Swemson permalink
              October 10, 2009 8:14 pm

              And when faced with that ULTIMATE QUESTION:

              “So where did all the crap that went BANG come from ?”

              I answer:

              I DON’T KNOW !

              People with weak ego’s & without intellectual integrity, rather than saying those 3 simple words, say they came from god..

              It’s not hard to be honest…

              Just say: I DON’T KNOW !

              • Julie Trevor permalink
                October 11, 2009 5:44 am

                Swemson,

                Some people are open to the possibility that ‘it’ could be God or ‘it’ could be precisely explained by science; and some of us hold that if perfectly explained by science ‘it’ could have been intelligently designed. But as you say none of us knows.

                Julie

                • Swemson permalink
                  October 11, 2009 1:20 pm

                  Sorry Julie:

                  You’re getting two different things confused with each other…
                  ……………………………………………………………………………………..
                  Some people are open to the possibility that ‘it’ could be God or ‘it’ could be precisely explained by science;
                  ……………………………………………………………………………………..
                  Those people are not forming any opinion at all, they’re simply saying “I don’t know WTF caused all of this.. anything could be true”

                  That’s not THINKING ! And those kind of people never really contribute anything to the furtherance of mankind…

                  To them I’d suggest reading Aristotle’s 3 rules of logic.

                  ……………………………………………………………………………………..
                  and some of us hold that if perfectly explained by science ‘it’ could have been intelligently designed. ……………………………………………………………………………………
                  They can think whatever they want, but that’s the most absurd idea of all… In fact it’s a contradiction in terms….

                  A scientific investigation of any question, conducted through the application of the scientific method, cannot by definition yield a non-scientific conclusion…..

                  What HAS happened, on innumerable occasions, is that people tried to solve problems using science and logic, and fail to come up with a viable answer, so rather than admit to their FAILURE to find the answer, they use the age old convenient excuse, and attribute the cause to god…

                  Not only is that thought process intellectually lazy, but it’s also a fruitless exercise in that it never gets you anywhere.

                  My car won’t start so I tow it to a mechanic who can’t figure out what the problem is…

                  So I tow it to another mechanic who also can’t figure out what the problem is…

                  And then I tow it to another mechanic who also can’t figure out what the problem is…

                  After a few more attempts I come to the conclusion that only god knows what the problem is…

                  Great, I have an answer !

                  But he’s never going to show up and fix the damn car for me… so what good did ymy conclusion do for me…
                  ……………………………………………………………………………………
                  But as you say none of us knows. [ the answer ]
                  ……………………………………………………………………………………

                  BINGO !

                  • Julie Trevor permalink
                    October 11, 2009 7:52 pm

                    Swemson,

                    “A scientific investigation of any question, conducted through the application of the scientific method, cannot by definition yield a non-scientific conclusion…..”

                    Agreed, and scientific method does not conclude all the answers. It is imperfect but the best design we have to achieve answers.

                    That scientific method cannot currently answer the questions raises the concern of whether scientific method is a valid tool or perhaps there is something that cannot be explained by science.

                    As you and I agree, we simply do not know.

                    Julie

                  • Swemson permalink
                    October 12, 2009 12:01 am

                    Julie:
                    ……………………………………….
                    That scientific method cannot currently answer the questions raises the concern of whether scientific method is a valid tool or perhaps there is something that cannot be explained by science.
                    ……………………………………….

                    Well science has answered a hell of a lot of questions in the last hundred years or so, and those questions have been around for thousands of years… So I wouldn’t be out looking for another way to find the answers just yet…

                    It’s been doing pretty good so far !

                  • Julie Trevor permalink
                    October 12, 2009 5:45 am

                    Swemson,

                    “Well science has answered a hell of a lot of questions in the last hundred years or so, and those questions have been around for thousands of years… So I wouldn’t be out looking for another way to find the answers just yet…”

                    I agree that science has answered much however the point of this entire discussion is whether science can explain the origins of man, universe, matter, etc or if there is an other explanation.

                    Fortunately (or perhaps not) scientists are rarely satisfied with the conclusions obtained via scientific method and seek to either invalidate them or explain them further; that is unless there is $$$$ attached to not debunking the science i.e. Mann Hockey stick theory of global warming and suppression of a medicinal adverse effect evidence from the required reporting to the FDA (Phen-fen).

                    Until such a time as a Perfect Superior Science is available; unaffected by the scientists motives/bias/special interests, I and many like me are open to the idea that something other than scientific method or the conclusions obtained via their application might be possible.

                    Topic for a different day: Are scientist ruining their reputation by adhering the global warming theory?

                  • Swemson permalink
                    October 12, 2009 11:23 am

                    Julie:

                    ……………………
                    “I agree that science has answered much however the point of this entire discussion is whether science can explain the origins of man, universe, matter, etc or if there is an other explanation.”
                    ……………………

                    Well give it a chance darlin… Man has been hanging onto a fairy tale for thousands of years, and all of a sudden we’re discovering amazing things… Maybe it can, maybe it can’t… my guess is that maybe it can’t.. at least not in our lifetimes…

                    But let’s say it can’t, when faced with those questions why can’t we just say “I DON’T KNOW”

                    What is it that compels you to have an answer in the first place…?

                    All religions have a component of the mysterious & unknowable… only god knows, etc… if that’s the case, what makes you so presumptuous to believe that ANY man can KNOW the answers

                    ……………………
                    “Fortunately (or perhaps not) scientists are rarely satisfied with the conclusions obtained via scientific method and seek to either invalidate them or explain them further;”
                    ……………………

                    Not quite right…. it’s not because they’re not satisfied…

                    The way science works is that someone gets an idea… then he does experiments or research to test out the idea… if the evidence supports the idea, it becomes a theory. Scientists are ALWAYS striving to be right, so they share their data with their colleagues so that they can try to replicate their results
                    ……………………
                    “Are scientist ruining their reputation by adhering the global warming theory?”
                    ……………………

                    A hell of a lot of INDIVIDUAL scientists are…

                    Are you implying that because they’re scientists, they can’t be dishonest or greedy ?

                    What’s worse in your mind…

                    A scientist pushing junk science for $$’s, or a priest who teaches that sex is sinful molesting an alter boy ?

                  • Julie Trevor permalink
                    October 13, 2009 2:24 am

                    Swemson,

                    “But let’s say it can’t, when faced with those questions why can’t we just say “I DON’T KNOW”

                    I do believe we say I don’t know. Saying I don’t know means we do not have the answer. You have gone on ad infinitum in your posts that you are a atheist. An atheist denies the existence of God. You are rejecting your own question “when faced with those questions why can’t we just say “I DON’T KNOW”
                    _______________________________________________
                    “What is it that compels you to have an answer in the first place…?”

                    Because I belong to the human species whose brains have evolved from the primitively driven survival brain (eat, sex, kill) to one of higher intelligence thinking, reasoning, and most important knowing when further discussion of a topic is pointless; like now.

                    Julie

                  • Swemson permalink
                    October 13, 2009 11:52 am

                    Julie;

                    You make a major false assumption above when you write:

                    “An atheist denies the existence of God.”

                    This is not at all uncommon.

                    Atheists do not say: There is no god”

                    Atheists say that they’ve never seen any evidence to suggest that a god exists…

                    The only thing harder to prove than the existence of a supernatural being, is proving that one doesn’t exist..

                    It’s impossible to prove a negative…

                    You make another mistake when you say that you’re compelled to have an answer because:

                    “Because I belong to the human species whose brains have evolved from the primitively driven survival brain (eat, sex, kill) to one of higher intelligence thinking, reasoning, and most important knowing when further discussion of a topic is pointless; like now.”

                    The truth is that your human “curiosity” compels you to SEEK an answer. It doesn’t compel you to make one up if you can’t find one…

                    That’s what religion does… and it’s only one of the many reasons why I despise religion.

                  • Julie Trevor permalink
                    October 13, 2009 1:00 pm

                    Swemson,

                    If I’m wrong about the definition of Atheist, I’m in good company – it was the first def listed on the web.

                    Also:

                    “The truth is that your human “curiosity” compels you to SEEK an answer. It doesn’t compel you to make one up if you can’t find one…”

                    I didn’t make one up. People much more intelligent than both of us put together have attempted to explain the origins & endings of everything known to our consciousness.

                    Truth is, I don’t know if there is a God and you don’t know if there isn’t

                    Julie

                  • Swemson permalink
                    October 13, 2009 2:01 pm

                    Julie:

                    If I’m wrong about the definition of Atheist, I’m in good company – it was the first def listed on the web.

                    You are… and as I said above, it’s a common mistake…

                    There’s a fine line here semantically, that helps to explain it..

                    When asked if he believes in god, the agnostic say “I’m not sure”, and the atheist say “no”

                    Many immediately assume that he’s saying that there is no god, when he’s merely saying that he doesn’t believe in one.. i.e., has never seen any evidence to support such a belief..

                    “The truth is that your human “curiosity” compels you to SEEK an answer. It doesn’t compel you to make one up if you can’t find one…”

                    I didn’t make one up. People much more intelligent than both of us put together have attempted to explain the origins & endings of everything known to our consciousness.

                    I know that YOU didn’t make up the god myth Julie, I was referring to man in general

                    Truth is, I don’t know if there is a God and you don’t know if there isn’t

                    I never said there isn’t

                    But the REAL question here is, what evidence have you seen to make you think there might be a god ?

                    🙂

            • Swemson permalink
              October 10, 2009 8:17 pm

              BTW: You’re almost there..

              You said:

              “Current thinking holds that there are some 100 billion galaxies in the universe. ”

              You’re right…. current THINKING… not current BELIEF…

              The two are not the same, and whenever you try to mix the two, you wind up in trouble…

              • Joseph White permalink
                October 13, 2009 1:53 pm

                Swemson,
                Since you can not prove the theory of evolution, and we can’t empirically prove the existence of a higher power, that just leaves what we believe.
                As for me, I’ll gladly believe that we were created by a higher power and that we were made to be good stewards of the world. That is what gives me comfort and joy.
                That is not to say that I don’t believe in evolution at all, I just don’t believe (Since it can’t be proven,) that we are descended from primates.
                I am more than willing to believe that the first man upon this world was homo habilis, and that we’ve evolved out of being afraid of thunder and lightening and living in caves, to being the almost complete ruler of this world.
                I would posit that when man grew into wondering what was out there and where he had come from, he thought of god as that which had placed him here. Early spirituality was heaven/earth centric, and it’s only the early church that got rid of the goddess that was half of creation and gave all her power to the male god. From there, it was easy to say, “Our god is a god of war, and we will kill anyone that gets in our way, and women have to say so in the world.”

                I feel that if you lose that wonder in creation, then you have lost that integral part of man that gives rise to imagination.

                • Swemson permalink
                  October 13, 2009 2:34 pm

                  Joe;

                  First let me say that I respect the manner in which you’re making your argument, and have no intention to be rude in my reply. But you make a few mistakes in what you just said:

                  Since you can not prove the theory of evolution, and we can’t empirically prove the existence of a higher power, that just leaves what we believe.

                  Scientific knowledge and faith based “knowledge” are two entirely different creatures.. Once you understand how the “scientific method” works, you’ll see that Darwin’s theory has in fact been proven.

                  The way it works is that a scientist gets an idea, investigates it, and comes up with a theory as Darwin did. As with all scientific theories, other scientists involved in similar issues, examine the theory, and start to replicate his data and to test the theory against new evidence in order to prove or disprove the theory. Darwin’s theory has probably been subjected to more challenges than any scientific theory before or since, for the obvious reason that it poses a direct challenge to the legitimacy of all religious thought (god created man)

                  The fact is, that in all that time, NOBODY HAS EVER COME UP WITH ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS DARWIN’S THEORY….. Anecdotal evidence perhaps, but no empirical evidence and that’s a fact.

                  Now thats NOT to say, that another, better theory might show up one day, but it would first have to be proven against a virtually staggering body of evidence that supports Darwin, and therefore nobody in the scientific community gives it any credence whatsoever.

                  As for me, I’ll gladly believe that we were created by a higher power and that we were made to be good stewards of the world. That is what gives me comfort and joy.

                  You’re of course free to do so, but anyone who persists in believing fairy tales when good scientific answers are available, is simply deluding himself… sorry.. that’s the way it is… If there was no empirical evidence to challenge creationism, it might be different… but there is.

                  That is not to say that I don’t believe in evolution at all, I just don’t believe (Since it can’t be proven,) that we are descended from primates.

                  And precisely what evidence has brought you to that conclusion ? Are you a biologist ?

                  I am more than willing to believe that the first man upon this world was homo habilis, and that we’ve evolved out of being afraid of thunder and lightening and living in caves, to being the almost complete ruler of this world.

                  And precisely what evidence has brought you to that conclusion ? Are you a biologist ?

                  I would posit that when man grew into wondering what was out there and where he had come from, he thought of god as that which had placed him here. Early spirituality was heaven/earth centric, and it’s only the early church that got rid of the goddess that was half of creation and gave all her power to the male god. From there, it was easy to say, “Our god is a god of war, and we will kill anyone that gets in our way, and women have to say so in the world.”

                  Joe, that’s all fine, as long as you admit that the subject has now switched from a scientific argument to “another kind” of argument…

                  Most people feel differently about religious questions than they do about all others.. so much so, that you frequently hear people refer to those questions as being “holy” or “sacred” or “not to be questioned”. Darwin makes people so nuts, that in MANY cases they have done blatantly dishonest things in order establish a legitimate challenge to his theory. Now they call it “intelligent design” which is merely a repackaging of creationism, designed to \trick people into thinking that it was science, which it most definitely not. There was an excellent documentary on NOVA about the recent court case in Dover PA.

                  In his decision, the judge (a conservative Bush appointee BTW) said in his introduction the following:

                  After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while intelligent design arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, intelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

                  I strongly recommend watching the video… not to try to talk you OUT of your belief in god… but rather to PROVE how dishonest and deceitful a bunch of righteous christians actually was in their attempt to force their local school district to mandate the teaching on creationism in a 9th grade science curriculum.

                  • Swemson permalink
                    October 13, 2009 3:58 pm

                    Joe;

                    Sorry;

                    Here’s a link to part one of the video I referred to above, it’s called Judgment Day:

                    You’ll find links to parts 2 through 12 on the page…

                    I’m curious as to what your reaction to it will be…

                  • Joseph White permalink
                    October 13, 2009 6:21 pm

                    That is not to say that I don’t believe in evolution at all, I just don’t believe (Since it can’t be proven,) that we are descended from primates.

                    And precisely what evidence has brought you to that conclusion ? Are you a biologist ?

                    I have spent 14 years studying biology and the biology sciences, and so far, nobody has found the missing link between chimpanzee/monkey/ape, and man. So far, every link they think they’ve found is nowhere close to the intermediate form between primates and man. Besides, if Man were descended from monkey/ape/primate, we’d see continuing evolution from primates to homo-sapien, which we haven’t seen yet.

                    am more than willing to believe that the first man upon this world was homo habilis, and that we’ve evolved out of being afraid of thunder and lightening and living in caves, to being the almost complete ruler of this world.

                    And precisely what evidence has brought you to that conclusion ? Are you a biologist ?

                    Again, I have studied biology sciences and paleontology on and off for 14 years, and there is not a scientist that I know of who can definitely say, “We were evolved from primates,” while there are paleontologists who can say that Homo Habilis was a tool user and spoke language.

                    If Darwins Theory of Evolution had been proven, it wouldn’t be a theory, it’d be a law of evolution.

                    I have studied Darwin journey on the Beagle and the evolution he was speaking about was the evolution of populations of animals that had been cut of from the rest of the world and had filled specialized niches.

                    I suppose that what you believe in, is dependent upon what you think.
                    If you believe we are descended from primates, then you might think we can never rise above our animal forbearers. If you believe we were created in a divine image, then you might think we can rise above the base instincts and live in communities and put all the BS behind us.

                    Do you think that our planet riding in the perfect orbit, where life could grow, was a cosmic accident, or were we placed here for a purpose? Scientifically, even the scientists don’t know that for sure. And there was even a scientist that says he’s discovered the God wave, so who’s to know for sure? I only know what I believe, and I choose to believe that we can rise above our animal instincts and live together.

                    In addition, I’d like to ask you a small favor. Please don’t lump the average christian in with the fundamentalist or muslim. We follow the philosophy of a man who wanted everyone to get along with each other and never claimed to be God. However, unlike the average militant, most christians understand science and know that the world is more than 6000 years old.

                    I’ll look at your other link as soon as I get some time.

                  • Swemson permalink
                    October 13, 2009 7:14 pm

                    Joe:

                    That is not to say that I don’t believe in evolution at all, I just don’t believe (Since it can’t be proven,) that we are descended from primates.

                    I’m not a biologist, and I’m certainly no expert on Darwin. I’ll also admit, that from everything I hear, not every single step in the evolution of all creatures has been discovered, although I do know that a very important one that was considered one of the “missing links” was in fact discovered in the recent past, and that when found, it fit precisely the description Darwinian theory predicted.

                    I understand that many religious folks are particularly sensitive to the primate to man link… From what I understand, and I may be wrong about this, all of the various primates alive today, descended from one or more earlier primates, and each went their separate ways so that there may be a number of missing links in the chain of descent from other previous primates, all long gone…. I think the image you invoke when you say that, conjures up the idea of a man having a modern day chimp or gorilla in his tree, which sounds a bit foolish to me….

                    In short, I think that the “theory” has indeed been proven, even though some specific links have not yet been found, and… when you consider the amount of time involved and the number of all those links involved, that surprises me not at all….

                    If Darwins Theory of Evolution had been proven, it wouldn’t be a theory, it’d be a law of evolution.

                    That’s an interesting question, and I don’t know the answer.. If forced to guess, I’d say that it may just be a historical matter of time…..

                    Aristotle postulated 3 “laws” of logic

                    Newton came up with the “law” of gravity

                    The various “laws” of physics have even been questioned by physicists speculating on how matter might behave near a black hole & other such far out science that’s well above my pay grade…. Hopefully someone else will wase in on the question of when a theory becomes a law…

                    I suppose that what you believe in, is dependent upon what you think.

                    ??? That remark seems to be a silly tautology at best…

                    If you believe we are descended from primates, then you might think we can never rise above our animal forbearers. If you believe we were created in a divine image, then you might think we can rise above the base instincts and live in communities and put all the BS behind us.

                    This is merely speculation for which I doubt any answer is possible, especially since you mix “supernatural” variables with scientific questions… and that just never works….

                    Do you think that our planet riding in the perfect orbit, where life could grow, was a cosmic accident, or were we placed here for a purpose?

                    I think that random matter accumulated and was shaped by what we know know of as the laws of physics….

                    The second part of your question is moot, since I have zero evidence of the existence of any supernatural being, and that means that I certainly can’t comment of said hypothetical being’s motives

                    Scientifically, even the scientists don’t know that for sure.

                    That has no meaning to me…. Scientists know certain things based on evidence and experiments…. other things are simply NOT YET known….

                    And there was even a scientist that says he’s discovered the God wave

                    Some people think that chickens have lips… so what…

                    I only know what I believe, and I choose to believe that we can rise above our animal instincts and live together.

                    You can’t pick and choose scientific facts and mystical beliefs and then weave them into a coherent system. You wind up with gibberish if you try, and if CHOOSE not to believe certain scientific facts because they don’t fit into your fairy tales & superstitions, then you’re just being delusional….

                    In addition, I’d like to ask you a small favor. Please don’t lump the average christian in with the fundamentalist or muslim. We follow the philosophy of a man who wanted everyone to get along with each other and never claimed to be God. However, unlike the average militant, most christians understand science and know that the world is more than 6000 years old.

                    Joe, while I truly despise ALL religious thought, I certainly would never say that some aren’t more offensive to me than others…

                    Obviously, Islam is the most disgusting perversion of any kind of rational thought that we’re aware of, so there’s a hierarchy of religions in terms of how I view them.. The least offensive to me is the spiritual beliefs of many of the Native Americans… I probably would choose Buddhism over all of the others, once again, only in terms of being LEAST offensive… The ancient Greeks gods were pretty imaginative and sometimes entertaining, but you’re really talking about the group known as the judeo-christians.

                    As with the others, there are some that I find more offensive than others… The mormons to me seems more like a family of organized crime than a real religion, and the catholics are by far the most hypocritical, but they all disgust me… because they’re anti-mind, and therefore anti-man. Religion isn’t about god Joe, it’s about the clergy, and their desire to have control over mankind.. & as such I don’t see the church asa being all that different from Obama, Chavez, Stalin, Marx, and Genghis Kahn…

                    They’re all part of the same evil game to me…

                  • Julie Trevor permalink
                    October 14, 2009 5:48 am

                    Joseph/Swemson;

                    I was once told “the theory of evolution is not at odds with the religious view of creation; what is significant is that at some point in that evolutionary process man was ensouled”

                    What say you?
                    Julie

                  • swemson permalink
                    October 14, 2009 10:17 am

                    Julie;

                    That’s not true…

                    They’re very much at odds with each other. Religious zealots have been attacking Darwin for over 100 years… it makes them crazy, and for good reason. Darwin (the theory, not the man) is hostile to religion in that it shatters the entire “god created man in his own image” myth….

                    The top authority IMHO on this subject today is Richard Dawkins.. a British biologist…and you can find much material on this subject at his website:

                    http://richarddawkins.net/

                    Dawkins gave an amazing speech on the subject at a TED conference 2002. I highly recommend it… It’s actually quite entertaining, and not at all a dour lecture.. It will also explain why I’m so hostile to religion….:

                    I hope you’ll take the time to watch it..

                  • Julie Trevor permalink
                    October 14, 2009 4:47 pm

                    Swemson,
                    No doubt you believe what you say; I respect that. I thank God, I don’t think like you…
                    Julie

                  • swemson permalink
                    October 14, 2009 6:08 pm

                    Julie;

                    I respect you too, but it’s YOUR choice as to what you think…. not god’s….

                    Our consciousness is volitional, and THATS what makes us so unique…

                • Julie Trevor permalink
                  October 14, 2009 2:25 pm

                  Swemson, it is true. I know you don’t want to believe it, but it is true. Christians can believe in the theory of evolution and not be in opposition to their faith. Just because a scientist hasn’t been able to document where in the evolutionary path the ensoulment of man occurred , does not make it an untruth.

                  As you say “why can’t we just say we don’t know”?
                  Julie

                  • swemson permalink
                    October 14, 2009 3:35 pm

                    Julie;

                    You misinterpret my words when you say:

                    I know you don’t want to believe it, but it is true. Christians can believe in the theory of evolution and not be in opposition to their faith.

                    Why would I not want to believe that people who think irrationally are not continuing to think irrationally about this particular issue…? If people can be delusional, then they can obviously also be only partially delusional..

                    I’ve already said that there is a conflict between religious and scientific thought, and pointed you to the Dawkins video which explains this far better than I can…

                    Many great scientists, including Einstein, believed in god, so I can’t possibly disagree that many do believe in both, but if one type of belief is delusional, then someone who believes in BOTH the myth AND the true scientific answer is even more of a contradiction… but that’s far more true of recent years than it was even 50 years ago. The real statistics about how many people reject any idea of a god today are pretty astounding… and when confronted with those statistics, religious people invariably REFUSE to believe them… Further proof of the irrationality of religious thought…

                    But the thing which you say that really troubles me is the following:

                    Just because a scientist hasn’t been able to document where in the evolutionary path the ensoulment of man occurred , does not make it an untruth.

                    The very idea of a SCIENTIST trying to document a supernatural event (ensoulment) is completely absurd… And no scientist worthy of the name would ever even think to try….

                    How can you make such a statement, knowing as you do that Darwin’s basic theory challenges the very idea that god created man?

                    So all I’m willing to agree to is that

                    1: religious people do not think rationally…

                    2: religious beliefs and scientific knowledge are incompatible

                    3: and that evolution scientists have never and will never even consider the question of “ensoulment” except as a joke at cocktail parties.

                    You simply have to stop seeking the answers to religious questions through science, using scientific terms.

                    It can’t possibly work… it’s like asking a physicist to prove through the laws of physics, that Moses indeed could have parted the Red Sea………….

                    See Aristotle’s 3rd law of logic…

                  • Jonathan permalink
                    October 14, 2009 4:03 pm

                    Julie and Swemson, I’ve been kind of watching the thread with interest.

                    I agree with your position Julie, that many Christians can rightly find agreement with evolution in the mechanisms of genetics, adaptation, natural selection, etc. Just as Christians can find philsophical comfort in the Big Bang theory, if they pause long enough to consider the issue before reacting emotionally or on heresay punditry.

                    Swemson is correct in asserting the ultimate disagreement between the two factions lies in the first cause.

                    Many evolutionists argue for the position that life on earth may have been “seeded” from extraterrestrial sources even outside our galaxy or solar system. We are thus open to the possibility that we may NEVER know the ultimate source of life creation. And that is why evolution is the wrong forum for either party to be arguing about ultimate origins of life. The effort ought to be focused on evaluating the evidence in the here and now, and looking to advance into newer evidence.

                    It seems a little odd that the Darwinist public pundits are so dogmatic in the rather premature conclusion that nature has to be the ultimate origin of life. Education is the nexus of what’s at stake; who gets to influence kids’ metaphysical worldviews and assumptions.

                    We ought to reject any and all propositions that science is limited to the search only for natural explanations. Isaac Newton, among others, would have ridiculed that notion. Science is about uncovering and investigating evidence in the pursuit of truth and following the threads of evidence whereever they lead.

                    Albert Einstien was ridiculed by the Nazis for practicing “Jew Physics”. The same sort of political agenda is at work in this arena. Advance leftist dogmas, undermine traditional Western assumptions. That’s ALL this is about.

                    Swemson, all speeches aside, you have no reason to be hostile to religion. It’s a bias you have based on some predisposition or some past experience. Why not join the people who can see benefits in both science and religion? It would make you a more fulfilled conservative.

                  • swemson permalink
                    October 14, 2009 5:57 pm

                    Jonathan:

                    I’ve tried to make it clear that I’m intentionally stirring the pot for a very specific reason… if you find this thread interesting, I highly recommend watching the brief vide that I referred Julie to above

                    Please understand that I am not suggesting this out of a desire to change anyone’s mind, merely to explain why the two disciplines are so antithetical to each other.. The speaker is far more eloquent than I, and h makes his case in a rather entertaining way….

                    When you say:

                    I agree with your position Julie, that many Christians can rightly find agreement with evolution in the mechanisms of genetics, adaptation, natural selection, etc. Just as Christians can find philsophical comfort in the Big Bang theory, if they pause long enough to consider the issue before reacting emotionally or on heresay punditry.

                    I think what you’re actually referring to is the fact that many religious folks with fine intellects can’t help but recognize the incongruity of science and religion, and who, due to their life long emotional attachment to their religious beliefs and family traditions, subconsciously attempt to find some common ground, where none really exists, simply so they’re not forced into the uncomfortable position of having to actually make a choice between the two.

                    When you say:

                    Many evolutionists argue for the position that life on earth may have been “seeded” from extraterrestrial sources even outside our galaxy or solar system.

                    You’re merely repeating one of the many fringe ideas that arise from people who have trouble accepting Darwin for both scientific and religious reasons. They both stumble and fail due to the problem of irreducible complexity. To suggest that life was “seeded” from another world simply shifts the question from how did life begin here to how did life begin somewhere else…

                    When you say:

                    We are thus open to the possibility that we may NEVER know the ultimate source of life creation. And that is why evolution is the wrong forum for either party to be arguing about ultimate origins of life. The effort ought to be focused on evaluating the evidence in the here and now, and looking to advance into newer evidence.

                    You’re merely reaching for an escape… Do you REALLY suggest that we search for the ultimate source of life creation….. in the here and now, and ………. advance into newer evidence. All you’re doing here is showing that you’re getting desperate to get away from the real evidence, which by definition MUST be in the past… not in the future.

                    When you say:

                    It seems a little odd that the Darwinist public pundits are so dogmatic in the rather premature conclusion that nature has to be the ultimate origin of life.

                    You finally fall down completely… Scientists aren’t dogmatic, preachers may be but not scientists… Scientists never promulgate :laws” based on their feelings or innermost beliefs… only theologians can do that, for the simple reason that they NEVER have any scientific evidence to support the beliefs.. Again, you’re confusing the two disciplines… And all you’re saying is that YOUR religious beliefs make you FEEL that their conclusions are premature… show me some empirical evidence that contradicts their conclusions, and THEN we’ll have something to talk about….

                    When you say:

                    Education is the nexus of what’s at stake; who gets to influence kids’ metaphysical worldviews and assumptions.

                    You again lose sight of my point here…. which is simply that while you’re free to teach children the history of metaphysical thought in a variety of different venues, that in a SCIENCE classroom, Darwin is the ONLY theory regarding the question of the origin man that can be taught…. JUST IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM !

                    Personally I don’t think it’s right to even begin to discuss kids’ metaphysical worldviews and assumptions. until they’re well into their teens, and of course, since I am an atheist, I think the ONLY proper place for teaching anything relative to religion is in history classes, as it is indeed and major influence in the history of man, and later, in a course on comparative religions in a college philosophy curriculum.

                    When you say:

                    We ought to reject any and all propositions that science is limited to the search only for natural explanations. Isaac Newton, among others, would have ridiculed that notion. Science is about uncovering and investigating evidence in the pursuit of truth and following the threads of evidence whereever they lead.

                    You’re simply wrong.. Science would not be science if it sought any kind of evidence based on supernatural thoughts…. Science can ONLY work through logic and rational inquiry, and no matter how hard the religious right tries to fight for it, the American people will never allow you to try to sneak your religious ideas into a science classroom again…

                    And when you say:

                    Swemson, all speeches aside, you have no reason to be hostile to religion. It’s a bias you have based on some predisposition or some past experience. Why not join the people who can see benefits in both science and religion? It would make you a more fulfilled conservative.

                    You really lose me…

                    I certainly do have MANY reasons to be hostile to religion, and we all witnessed one of the most dramatic of those reasons on 9/11 when a bunch of religious fanatics flew those planes into the WTC. And that’s just the latest in a long line of murderous brutality that religion has wrought on mankind since the beginning of mankind’s history…

                    I’ve heard all the standard replies.. “Christianity isn’t beheading people”.. fine… Islam is obviously the MOST uncivilized of all religions… no argument, but they’re all harmful to man, in that they discourage rational thought by making us satisfied with simplistic and convenient answers to so many questions… Christianity denies the most basic and fundamental aspects of what it means to be human, when it preaches the revolting doctrine of original sin… It pure BS, and it’s designed for one reason and one reason ONLY, and that’s to give the clergy a tool with which to control their flocks.

                    And frankly you insult me when you suggest that if I accept religious bulls*^t, I’ll be a “more fulfilled conservative.”

                    First of all, I’m NOT a conservative, I’m a Libertarian… and that DOESN’T mean I agree with everything in their playbook either….

                    Which brings us once again to the real reason why I’ve been getting so militant on this subject of late..

                    I believe that there’s a portion of the voters who voted for Obama, not because they liked what he stood for , but because they were voting AGAINST the republicans because they fear the influence of the religious right on any republican / conservative candidate.

                    With few exceptions thus far, no religious person I’ve discussed this with has agreed with me….

                    Most presidential elections are won or lost by 1 or 2% of the vote, and some have been closer yet. I can’t tell you how many rational, hardworking and patriotic Americans I know who are literally disgusted by the way the right is always carrying on about gay marriage and abortion. Our country is facing the biggest crisis in its history right now, and rather than talking EXCLUSIVELY about the major topics like the economy, and the war against radical Islam, many of us seem to be more concerned with this religious crap, and the democrats know this and capitalize on this and the right keeps trying to pass legislation that’s based on their religious principles, and don’t even have a clue about what they’re doing to themselves…..

                    I willing to admit that I’m not sure how big that voter block is… but I’m betting that it’s more than half a percent, and quite possibly as much as 2 to 3%, and considering what we have to lose (our country !) if we don’t push these damn commies out of office real soon, I say that we MUST explore every single possible source of votes… If polling data could prove that I’m right, then I don’t care how important religion us to some one the right, they’re just going to have to shut the hell up about it from now on…

                    Considering the consequences in the next few election cycles, we MUST do everything we can….

                  • Jonathan permalink
                    October 15, 2009 3:16 am

                    Swemson, I’ll be looking forward to watching that video today. I’ll comment on your post above later, beyond this one small remark now…

                    You say: “I think what you’re actually referring to is the fact that many religious folks with fine intellects can’t help but recognize the incongruity of science and religion…”

                    I respond: No, what I’m referring to is the fact that there is nothing incompatible between science and religion at all. The Big Bang theory supports the general supposition of Genesis, and evolution is irrelevant to the question of ultimate cause. Asserting that religion and science cannot reconcile is to adopt a construct of politico-science in the service of deconstructing Western culture. The hard reality is that science is included in the list of institutions corrupted by Marxist ideology, among other things.. Seperation of church and state is a desirable thing. Seperation of science and state is even more desirable.

                    Nowhere is that reality more apparent than in the global warming hoax. It puts evidence to the assertions that science can and is biased toward leftist conclusions.

                    Science is losing its veneer of intellect above reproach. The days of wide eyed worshipping public are drawing to a close, as more and more the world appears to be immune to the sanctifications of the higher calling.

                    More later… must sleep… can’t concentrate… zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……..

                  • swemson permalink
                    October 15, 2009 12:20 pm

                    Johnathan;

                    I must respectfully disagree with you when you say:

                    No, what I’m referring to is the fact that there is nothing incompatible between science and religion at all. The Big Bang theory supports the general supposition of Genesis, and evolution is irrelevant to the question of ultimate cause.

                    You’re losing sight of the main issue here…. If I understand it correctly, the best theory that science can offer on the first origins of life at present is that it began as some kind of cosmic accidental combination of certain elements / molecules / water / temperature and electricity…. Of course, until someone can replicate that in a lab, it remains just an unproved theory. But regardless of exactly how the first tiny primitive microscopic life form came about, Darwin takes it from that point to today, which is obviously in conflict with the central idea the god created man…

                    Tying genesis to the big bang theory, is meaningless, especially considering how speculative the big bang theory is.. It certainly isn’t anywhere near as universally accepted as Darwin’s theory or evolution.

                    Our history also demonstrates how consistently religion has attacked science… (Gallileo etc..) .. The priests knew then and they know now… They’re just saying whatever they have to say to hold onto their gig…

                    You then try to deflect the incompatibility of science and religion by pointing to political influences, and that’s just nonsense… As I’ve said before, to me, politicians and the clergy are almost identical in that they both seek the same goal, power over mankind… And they’re both equally dishonest…

                    Of course the left (marxism) uses science dishonestly.. they’re dishonest about everything.. so why should this issue be any different… Global warming is a perfect example of that, but you’ve just fallen into a trap here, because climate change has been dishonestly used by both the politicians AND the church…

                    We’ve had 4 cases of climate catastrophe in the last 100 years…. with that much BS in so short a time, doesn’t it make you wonder how people can possibly be so stupid to keep falling for the same lies… ?

                    The fact is that mankind has ALWAYS seen climate change as being catastrophic, but when we look at the earliest history, we find that it wasn’t government that was using it to control people, it was the church… Climate change was used by the early witch doctors in just the same way, except back then, it was sold as proof that god was unhappy with man’s sinfulness , and that therefore the people had best do what the priests said if they wanted to survive.

                    I’m sure that science is being seen by some as losing it’s integrity in the GW hoax, but that’s no different than the way in which the idea of capitalism has been tarnished by the left…. Capitalism gets the blame for all of the problems brought about by the left’s interference in the free market system. By throwing $50BB into the scientific community in order to achieve their goals, the left has corrupted some scientists in the same way…. No matter what they touch they destroy….

                    When you really think it through, I think that you’ll find that my hatred of the left is really no different than my hatred of religion… they’re basically just 2 different BS stories being used by two factions who are pursing a common goal…

                    And we certainly agree that science must be separate from government..

                    Ayn Rand said:

                    If free scientific inquiry is redundant, then government sponsored scientific inquiry is a contradiction in terms

                    And in recent years, she’s being proved right every day…

                  • Jonathan permalink
                    October 15, 2009 2:51 pm

                    Swemson,

                    I will be back with you on Saturday morning. Work intervenes in the fun. Haven’t had time to watch the video yet, but I will Friday night.

                  • Jonathan permalink
                    October 17, 2009 1:05 pm

                    “You’re losing sight of the main issue here…. If I understand it correctly, the best theory that science can offer on the first origins of life at present is that it began as some kind of cosmic accidental combination … it remains just an unproved theory. … Darwin takes it from that point to today, which is obviously in conflict with the central idea the god created man…”

                    Darwin could coexist with God if he had to. But Marx and Lenin can’t. That to me is the main issue. Using the evolution debate to undermine the nation, as a necessary milestone in revolution. The Scopes Monkey Trial was one of the first of such subversions played out in the public forum. Christianity is in direct competition with Marx. Ironic! Wasn’t “Jesus the first communist?”

                    There is a diversity of opinions in Christianity regarding how Genesis can be interpreted with current scientific understanding. To me, it is no different than the controversies Galileo or Copernicus created with their discoveries. But once politics and group think were swept aside by time, people began to reason that there was no problem after all. Christianity was not undermined by the shape of the planet. What was an issue was “infallible Popes” being proven fallible. And that is sad, because the Bible never called for popes in the first place, and definitely never said faith made men infallible.

                    I don’t believe anyone is disputing the fundamental rightness of Einstein’s work in revealing the Big Bang. The pursuit of quantum physics assumes the bang happened, or attempts to negate it. But there is a prevailing assumption for a beginning. Perhaps you now see no relationship between the singularity event and Genesis, but you will if you pursue the matter.

                    I see no conflict between science and religion. In my book, there can’t be. There can only be disagreements between interpretations of evidence and the validity of conclusions.

                    But religion is no different than science in its susceptibility to corrupt men. The Bible makes that point abundantly. No greater amount of warnings are issued to the flock than those concerning the corruption of faith, the abuse of it, the exploitation of it. Christains have known this from the get-go. Mortal men respond to the obvious issues raised by Darwin in their own way. There would be no need for politico-scientists like Dawkins to drive them home to a particular point of view that serves the left… unless leftism is the agenda. It is the left that has made evolution a center piece of its subversive program. I’m sad to say that Christianity has responded rather ineptly. A defensive posture based on pointless irrelevancies and bad reasoning. And ditto for the Big Bang argument.

                    The theory of evolution makes not one iota of difference in the daily endeavours of the average religious person, and they know it. Personally, I would pursue truth and beauty irregardless of some cosmic accident, all things being equal. However, a fundamental theistic background shapes my choices in the pursuit. There would be a marked difference in those choices were it otherwise.

                    More later, on the video. I will post it as a new comment rather than a reply.

                    Ayn Rand: She is to capitalism what Einstein was to cosmology. But neither of them were good theologians.

                  • swemson permalink
                    October 17, 2009 5:33 pm

                    Jonathan;

                    I see religion as being completely incompatible with science. It’s as if we have two roughly parallel roads trying to reach the same goal….. the answers to the central mysteries of life….

                    That’s a bit of poetic license of course, as their goals are not really the same… But take them back to their earliest roots, and look at how they’ve developed…

                    Religion on one hand has slowly and gradually had to adjust (modernize) it’s positions in order to not look ridiculous in front of the people… but along the way, it treated the innovators, such as Galileo, like heretics and criminals..

                    Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live. –Thomas Jefferson

                    Religion has contributed a long and dreadful history of war and violence.. the Inquisition, the crusades, the burning of witches in Salem Mass.. and look at the vicious cruelty that islam brings down upon its own women today…

                    The only good that I can see as having come out of religion, is that from time to time, the church employed certain individuals, who made major contributions to the culture of mankind…. Bach comes to mind… as well as Michelangelo of course….

                    In general however, Religion has always held man back from advancing knowledge and the betterment of human society.

                    Now let’s look at science:

                    As a whole, it has no specific purpose. Science occurs when a free and rational human mind becomes curious about a specific problem or question, and then, out of his own curiosity, seeks the answers and the solutions.. In the course of doing so, look at all that science has created, from cures to diseases, to all of the modern tools and conveniences that help us live safer, happier and more productive lives….

                    Both of these roads are concerned with the answer to the ultimate questions about life and the universe..

                    Religion, for thousands of years now has had a nice, simple and convenient answer.. god created it all….

                    Science on the other hand, for the last several hundred years, has been learning more and more, a little at a time at first, about the secrets of the universe and of life….. Does it know all of the answers yet… of course not.. and it may never will… But it continues to make progress, and along the way, as a serendipitous benefit of all of it’s efforts, new things keep being created that add to our lives…

                    Religion is static… it’s been sitting on the same BS story for centuries, and fighting against science every step of the way for one and only one reason, and that’s because the clergy wants to maintain its ever diminishing hold on mankind.

                    I’m an atheist… but the high points in my life have always been when I experienced things that brought me into a state that I can only assume is the equivalent of religious rapture… I feel that when looking at Van Goghs “Stary Stary Night”, I feel that when I listen to Rachmaninoff’s 3rd piano concerto. I’ve experienced it when seeing some of the buildings designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.. I felt it while watching the astronauts stepping gingerly out of the first Apollo capsule to land on the moon.

                    If I could say that I WORSHIP anything, it would have to be the greatest accomplishments of the individual human mind. That’s what has been responsible for virtually all of the greatest glories of mankind.

                    Religion teaches us to be satisfied with simplistic answers to complex questions… as such religion is anti-mind…. and anything that’s anti-mind, must also be anti-man…

                    That’s why I hate religion…

                • Julie Trevor permalink
                  October 15, 2009 4:11 am

                  Jonathan said:
                  “Science is losing its veneer of intellect above reproach”

                  Absolutely true. Ask anyone on the street if they believe anything science related – they likely will say no. As someone with a lengthy career based in science I am genuinely concerned that desire for money/funding has vastly superceded evidence. Fortunately I am not alone and far greater thinkers than myself are sounding the alarm.
                  Julie

                  • Joseph White permalink
                    October 17, 2009 6:28 pm

                    Swemson,
                    Your beef with religion is that it has fought against science for most of history. Did you ever wonder who funded Galileo’s research? I read a very fascinating book called, “Galileo’s Daughter,” which had letters from his daughter, who was a nun, and himself, in which he kept saying that he was a faithful and pious man, and one who did everything in his power to not make the church look bad.
                    The pope at the time was a good friend of Galileo, and defended him to the best of his ability, as were half of the papal council. One small branch of Catholicism, an extremist branch fought to get him expelled from the church.
                    Galileo had supporters from other faiths as well, notably in London, France, Germany, and Scotland, who confirmed his findings.
                    The Church at that time was the supporter of science, and every once in a while, they tended to get too literal as to the translations of the bible, and what they believed.

                    I prefer to think of it like this: “Science is for the advancement of mankind, but unchecked science can lead to disaster. Science is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. There are some things that transcend even the brightest minds, and that leaves the question. What more is there? Is there nothing else?”

                    or something even you might could agree with, “Any science suitably advanced enough, will appear as magic to a lesser civilization.”

                    As a person who understands science, I have seen the scientist or more accurately, the fanatics say, “We can kill unborn babies and harvest their stem cells. We could cure every disease and change mankind.” And just four months ago, scientist came out and said that embryonic stem cells could cause unchecked cancer, and that mature stem cells were the way to go.

                    Religious people, who believe in life, instead of death, stopped the killing of unborn children, just for the sake to medical research, because they believed that all life is precious, and that no baby should be killed.

                    A short while ago, you agreed with me that religious philosophy wasn’t a bad thing.

                    Would you consider (No matter how far out it may seem,) that religious belief (IE a belief in the creator,) was the forerunner of modern ethics, and that without ethics, there would be nothing (no matter how far out there,) that wouldn’t be tried?

                    I wish there was another to communicate with you, because as much as I like this place, we are going off topic, and you, I, and Julie could have some really creative blog posts, if we had our own forum.

                  • swemson permalink
                    October 17, 2009 8:05 pm

                    Perhaps we should…. but my interest in this debate now, is primarily in how an understanding of these concepts can be used to help us save our country from the destruction that the communists in the White House are planning for us… After we save America, we can return to more scholarly pursuits… If you want to discuss this aspect of the topic privately, you, Julie and I, I’d be delighted to participate. We can forward eMails with tel #’s etc to each other through David… No problem….

                    Look.. I understand your religious thinking…. but the fact is that it’s based on supernatural superstitions, not on science.. and every religious person with any serious intellect, is constantly looking for ways to reconcile the two disciplines… You don’t want to be forced to choose between one or the other.. I get it…

                    But please don’t twist my words.. I never said that religious philosophy wasn’t a bad thing. What I said was that many of the rules and ethical standards that come from religious thought are identical to mine… even though I come to them through logic rather than through faith… But in general, religious philosophy is a horrible thing in my mind for a couple of basic reasons:

                    Ayn Rand, through the heroic characters in her books said that the purpose of a man’s life is his own happiness, and that he should seek his happiness, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor others to himself.

                    Religion preaches that a life of altruism is the highest purpose that a man can achieve.. that sacrificing himself to others is the ultimate virtue.

                    Many have misinterpreted exactly what Ms Rand meant by those words above… but that doesn’t matter…

                    Marxism isn’t concerned with the individual… only with the collective. It’s one of the basic premises of an evil failed system that’s sole purpose was the achievement of power over many by the ruling elite…

                    By denying the sanctity of the individual in peaching a life of altruism, religion does the same thing, except its goal is to keep the power in the hands of the clergy.. the man who “devoutly knows” that his purpose in life is to serve others, is far easier for the priest to manipulate and control….

                    There’s also original sin, & the concept of hell, which the clergy has used for thousands of years as a BS threat to keep its flock in line, and other anti-mind and anti-man aspects to it, but the bottom line is that it’s all a con, a hustle, a fraud… and fewer and fewer people are buying into it each and every year.

                    I understand how important this religious heritage is to most people, and I’m not out to destroy it all… that can only happen with the passage of time… I remember my Grandmother, at the age of 101, saying goodbye to me and the other grandchildren. When it was my turn, I was 35 at the time, she asked me if I was still “going to temple for friday night services” etc, and I said of course I am grandma… I’m not out to hurt anyone…

                    I’m only trying to make some people understand that bringing their religious beliefs and principles into the political debate, is partly responsible for our current political dilemma.

                    And considering how serious our situation is right now, I say that even if there’s only a small chance that there’s validity to my theory, then we owe it to our grandchildren to try everything that we can to save our country before it’s too late…. And unfortunately, it may already be too late.

  5. October 11, 2009 8:28 am

    Jonathan,
    Third parties do not work at a national level. They are a road to disaster.

    Politics is all about coalition-building and compromise. You have to get a coalition of 51% in order to assume power. It’s impossible to do that by splitting up parties. So many people (both on the Right and the Left) are completely blind to this reality. They’d rather try and evangelize to get 51% of the country to agree with them than let a diversity of views into a party. This is a pipe dream of a strategy — ridiculously unpractical.

    Further, here’s something a lot of people don’t really get: the GOP and the Dems are best understood as coalitions of many different parties. I mean to the outside observer it could be strange that the GOP contains such a variety of views. What are business-oriented libertarians doing in the same party as religious conservatives? They’re together for a reason.

    In countries with multiple parties what ends up happening is those parties end up forming alliances to the point where a dozen parties start acting more like two.

    You need to think practically. Third parties are not practical.

    • Jonathan permalink
      October 11, 2009 9:53 am

      We’ll agree to disagree. I think times change, I think America is changing, and I think most of the pundits in the ivory towers and the out of touch places are missing it. People are alarmed; noone is speaking to their latent fears about what COULD happen in America if the left wins.

      All we see are two wings arguing over how to advance the left without looking too much like authoritarians. Virtually all European countries are multi-party, as are those of most of the world. There is no reason why the US can’t or won’t become so. If for no other reason than that people are becoming more diverse in their issues. For instance, we have theocons, neocons, paleocons, New Cons… and they can’t long co-exist in one GOP. The left will fracture too. You just wait and see.

      Such currents of change are happening throughout the world, not just in the US. The capitalist free market limited government American mainstream is impatiently waiting for a leader to emerge – a visionary who will speak like the people at the town hall meetings speak, instead of in the stale, outdated policy wonk rhetoric. People are sick of the debt, the deficit spending model, the lying. Just wait until the dollar collapses; you haven’t seen anything yet.

      I can guarantee you with certainty that, not only will there be a third party, there will be a fourth, a fifth and probably even a sixth. This will occur within 50 years, given a few presuppositions such as the USA survives that long in it’s current form. It’s a guaranteed certainty.

  6. Joseph White permalink
    October 13, 2009 8:40 pm

    Swemson,

    I went to the nova site and viewed all 12 of the segments with an open mind. What I realized is, that even though I am a christian, I would have been one of those science teachers that thought that Creation Science (Intelligent Design) shouldn’t be taught in science class.
    As a scientist, I know that the scientific method is important to our discovery of things unknown. Creation Science (ID) can not be proven, but that doesn’t mean that I set aside my beliefs as well.

    In addition to being a scientist, I have also read the Bible numerous times, and I do know that Genesis 1 and 2 are poetic readings on how early man believed his world came to being. They are by no means factually proven. In addition, most of the Bible is set up in parables (Stories meant to educate morality,) and again, there is no factual proof. The only things that can be proven are the geneaologies of important people and the corroboration of what 1st century roman historians said about Christ and his followers.

    I have seen no mention of dinosaurs in the bible, which I think happened because at the time the Bible was written, they hadn’t gotten down to digging for history’s sake.

    I tend to agree that most religion is for the sake of power, not the wellbeing of the people. However, if we replace the word religion with philosophy, I think the basic message is still sound. “Do unto others as you’d have them do to you,” “Love your neighbor as you love yourself,” “Do not steal,” “Do not commit murder,” “Do not covet your neighbors property, wife, children,” “Respect your elders,” “You can not serve two masters.” Those are the basics of civilization. Once you lose those basics, you have people doing things just because they can, and because it feels good.

    As a sound, reasoning human being, I’m going to take Pascal’s side here, “None of us can prove that God doesn’t exist, however, I’ll make this wager. If after we die, we find out there is no God, I will have just wasted my time believing in something greater than myself. If you are wrong, then you have wasted your life.”

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    • swemson permalink
      October 13, 2009 9:14 pm

      Joe:

      And now it all comes together…

      I can’t tell you how wide the smile is on my face right now….

      This is precisely my goal in stirring the pot whenever the subject of religion comes up here…

      You wrote:

      I tend to agree that most religion is for the sake of power, not the wellbeing of the people. However, if we replace the word religion with philosophy, I think the basic message is still sound. “Do unto others as you’d have them do to you,” “Love your neighbor as you love yourself,” “Do not steal,” “Do not commit murder,” “Do not covet your neighbors property, wife, children,” “Respect your elders,” “You can not serve two masters.” Those are the basics of civilization. Once you lose those basics, you have people doing things just because they can, and because it feels good.

      And that is exactly why I’d like nothing better than to live is a society of people who follow the basic moral and ethical codes of the judeo-christian religions…

      Although we have a few minor differences on some of the less important rules (commandments), I agree with them all.. I just arrive at them via a different path than you do…

      “Thou shalt not steal”

      Of course we shouldn’t, because if everyone stole, and property rights were not respected, then we’d be living in chaos…

      Etc, etc, etc……

      I come up with the same basic moral and ethical rules that you do, except I arrive at them through logic…. and this is why that despite our different beliefs, I know that we can be friends…

      We have a few minor differences to be sure…

      I don’t buy the idea that sex is original sin…

      I also don’t respect my elders if they’re not worthy of respect….

      But I doubt if you’d have big problems with that because you’ve proved above, that you are truly a “right thinking” man… You’re smart enough to NOT take the bible literally, and to separate out the good lessons from the rest of the myths….

      The only place where we might run into problems, is that I don’t believe that man’s primary purpose in life is altruism of ANY kind.. Indeed I believe that all of the glories of mankind were created out of one individual’s selfish desire to seek his own truth, and to satisfy the questions generated by his own curious mind…..

      You close by saying:

      As a sound, reasoning human being, I’m going to take Pascal’s side here, “None of us can prove that God doesn’t exist, however, I’ll make this wager. If after we die, we find out there is no God, I will have just wasted my time believing in something greater than myself. If you are wrong, then you have wasted your life.”

      I respectfully beg to differ with you here for two reasons….

      1: If you’re wrong, you won’t find out anything after you die…

      2: And if I’m wrong, I think that the god that YOU believe in will welcome me, NOT because of what I’ve said or believe, but because of how I’ve lived my life…….. an honest, productive, moral and ethical life according to the same principles as his…

      And there we are….

      Good night my friend… !

      🙂

  7. Jonathan permalink
    October 18, 2009 8:37 am

    Swemson says:

    “I’m only trying to make some people understand that bringing their religious beliefs and principles into the political debate, is partly responsible for our current political dilemma. And considering how serious our situation is right now, I say that even if there’s only a small chance that there’s validity to my theory, then we owe it to our grandchildren to try everything that we can to save our country before it’s too late…. And unfortunately, it may already be too late.”

    Well, thanks to the Marxist control of the schools and universities, Swemson, your efforts to bring understanding are being greatly assisted by official taxpayer funding. I would say that we are only a couple of generations away from asserting humanism as the official state religion. Can’t we see the improvements in America already? Just look at how far we’ve come in the last 70 years toward a more scientific approach to… the economy for one thing, in spite of those theocentric documents from yesteryear.

    But seriously, atheism leads inevitably to Marxism. That’s the weakness in Ayn Rand’s worldview. But, a secular state in America is a pipe dream anyway for no other reason than the fact that Islam is overrunning Europe, and will probably come here next to fill the vacuum.

    American history demonstrates ample evidence that Christianity was central to our life for the first 120 years of our nation. It also demonstrates that we never designed America to be a theocracy, but a republic. Had it been otherwise, America would have looked much like the Middle East or perhaps medieval Europe. I do not agree with Bush One that atheists cannot be patriots. But I believe that our current dilemma is caused entirely by two things. The rise of secular humanism in all it’s many forms, and the abject failure of the church in America to live up to most of the claims made about them by their political enemies. Thus, we have the drift toward government becoming god. Contrary to what cultural Marxists claim, the Christians of America are anemic, weak, divided and preoccupied with the very sorts of self-interest that Ayn Rand extolled as virtues. The Christians of America are largely 90 percent humanist in their outcomes. Ayn Rand should mostly love them. They reason in daily life much as she recommended.

    It is undeniable and absolute that ALL the institutions of this country are in the hands of the leftist-humanists. And, this realignment coincides quite neatly with the decline of our nation, starting noticeably in the late 1950s. Today, science, like religion, can be blamed equally for the ills of the world. Not one of the top ten problems of the world at this moment can be laid at the feet of religion so much as they can be laid at the feet of science. Marxism may hate religion. But it has a real beef with science and technology. That’s why Dawkins sounds foolish. His assistance to the left is subverting science. He is “useful” to the cause, but the Marxists despise science more than they do Jesus.

    Having watched the Dawkins video you provided, I must say that I heard nothing new. It’s the Marxist worldview tailored to an audience of university science students on an issue that energizes them. It sounds as though Dawkins was on a community organizing tour of America, stumping to organize “militant atheists” into another victim category for the left. How tidy. He threw in some good insults of George Bush that went over well. The best part of the speech is when he actually admitted that Darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist.

    • swemson permalink
      October 18, 2009 2:05 pm

      Your conclusions as stated above are so irrational and contradictory, that I wouldn’t know where to begin in trying to dissect it and bring some sense to it.

      You’re just spouting the same twisted nonsense that all bible thumping loons do..

      “Atheism inevitably leads to Marxism” ?

      Damn… that transcends stupidity all the way to insanity.

      Thanks for providing another example of how religion can screw up a rational mind.

      • Jonathan permalink
        October 18, 2009 4:43 pm

        No. I don’t usually hear any Christians saying the things that I say about this subject, the things you call “twisted nonsense.” That’s what bothers me most about conservatives in general. Many of the founding fathers believed exactly what I think now.

        I would give serious consideration to this business, because you may find that you are only masquerading as a conservative. I think you just cannot admit that the humanist worldview is being revealed as a failure.

        • swemson permalink
          October 18, 2009 6:26 pm

          Does your delusional view of the world around you know no limits.. ?

          When did I ever claim to be a conservative ? (other than as it refers to fiscal policy)

          • Jonathan permalink
            October 19, 2009 12:00 pm

            I am aware that you have claimed to be a libertarian. And a fiscal conservative juxtaposed with atheism, a la Ayn Rand.

            And that’s why I mention that your atheist worldview can’t possibly bring about conservative policies. Traditional Constitutionalists in America should be Jeffersonian in their approach to religious pluralism. But atheists will always tend to be hostile and repressive toward those of faith. They will tend to do it politically by any means necessary. That is only one of the reasons that Christians commonly charge that atheists will not assent to moral absolutes. Jefferson once said that he cared not if a man believed in no gods or twenty gods. But I suppose he failed to realize that atheism as an institution would never reciprocate in kind. A free society can never be free when anti-freedom elements are allowed to abuse freedom. This lesson has sadly been lost on conservatives.

            Your disdain for the feelings and beliefs of those of faith in this thread alone demonstrates the “militant” Dawkins approach of the left using atheism as an instrument of public policy. I wonder to what extent Dawkins advocates his militancy? Have you ever wondered? Firing squads? Ghettos? Or just denial of access to the public forum as you advocate?

            I think that I’ve illustrated the point I came here to make. That atheist and theistic minds cannot possibly coexist within the same movement against Marxism.

            • swemson permalink
              October 19, 2009 1:07 pm

              You make several errors here.

              First, atheism is NOT an institution

              Religion, which encompasses many different institutions, basically claims that everything was created and is controlled by god (forgive the oversimplification)

              Atheists (there IS no church of atheism) are people who have seen no evidence to support the god belief .

              You say that atheists will always tend to be hostile and repressive toward those of faith.

              Obviously you think that I too am hostile and repressive like that, but that’s not the case. As I’ve said several times in these blogs, I don’t care what any religious people think or believe, unless and until they try to impose their beliefs on me through the force of law.

              My objective HERE is simple. I believe that there are many on the left who are indeed hostile towards religion, and who perceive the republican party as being controlled by the christian right… I didn’t say it is, I said that many PERCEIVE that it is, and I believe that some % of them, actually favor small govt, low taxes, a strong defense etc, but vote democratic because they are afraid of, or disgusted by the religious right… remember, I’m not referring to all christians here, I’m referring to the zealots who parade around picketing Planned Parenthood, and who constantly rail against gay marriage…

              On today’s FrontPage there’s an article by Michelle Malkin about another horrid far left politician, and the first descriptive thing she says about her is:

              Scozzafava is an abortion rights advocate who favors gay marriage./

              She illustrates my point by saying that first, before getting into what I consider to be the REAL problem with her as a potential congresswoman, that she’s a far left tax & spend dem with ties to a socialist group that’s tied to ACORN..

              I’m not out to destroy religion, and never go out of my way to ridicule religious people in real life… but I intentionally stir up the pot here in these blogs, to make the point that our country is crumbling right in front of our eyes because a bunch of communists who really ARE hostile to religion, have conned the American public into think that they were something other than what they actually are, and that when we on the right overtly display our religion, we provide them with a target that they’re using quite effectively against us…

              Sarah Palin is the best example of the point I’m trying to make…. She made the left virtually apoplectic… and why ? Certainly it had nothing to do with her record as a governor, or her looks, or her speaking style.. It was because of the forthright and direct way in which she threw her religious and moral principles in their face…. I love Palin, I think she’s smart, honest and trustworthy, and would make a fine president.. her religious beliefs wouldn’t dissuade me from voting for… To me, the important thing is that I respect her principles, regardless of how she arrived at them…. But the left demonizer her so effectively because of her religious beliefs, that she probably cost the republicans lots of votes because of that.

              I may think religion is a silly waste of time, but I’m not against it… It teaches people to live by the same ethical standards that I live by, why would I be against that?

              What I’m against is COMMUNISM, and all other forms of collectivism, and I believe that if the right can just keep their religious views to themselves, for the next few election cycles, that we improve our chances of taking our country back from these evil people.

              I’ve been an atheist for over 50 years, and this is the first time that I’ve ever gotten involved in this debate… The reason why I’m doing it now, is because our country has never before been as vulnerable as it is today, to what these communists can eventually do to us… We’re in a crisis, an emergency, and as the old saying goes, desperate men do desperate deeds.

              I may be wrong, in thinking that we wouldn’t pick up enough votes to make it worthwhile to do this… but elections are often won by 1% of the vote or less, and I have good reason to believe that the advantage we’d gain if we can do this might well be even more that a percent or two….

              Look up the Pew Research Conter’s study on religion in America today..

              http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations

              The 4th largest group, with 16.1% of the population, is non-believers. Most religious people don’t believe that number, but in fact there’s good reason to believe that it’s actually much higher than that….

              If you think about this rationally as an American, rather than emotionally as a christian, you might just see that I’m onto something here…

              We’re in BIG trouble here, and if America is going to be destroyed, as appears likely right now, what the heck do we have to lose?

              S

              PS: Your comments about Dawkins are absurd…. His “militancy” comes from 9/11, perhaps the most brutal example of the evil that religion has brought down upon mankind in all of human history…. His militant atheism, is simply one in which he no longer automatically shows respect to people’s religious beliefs “because they’re “holy” or “sacred” or “unquestionable”. Dawkins isn’t even a political activist, he’s a biologist. The main thrust of all of his writings and speeches on the issue relate to the disgusting and dishonest way in which religious zealots try to attack Darwin…

              Try to find another form of exercise besides jumping to conclusions !

              • Jonathan permalink
                October 20, 2009 3:37 am

                Atheism as a tool of the left for the purposes of subversion is an institution. It is institutionalized as a strategy and victim group for expunging religion from the American public forum. It is an institution in America that exists for the sole purpose of attacking a certain segment of the Christian population that is most associated with the Republican party and opposition to the Democrat party. The easiest way to identify members of this institution is by their selective bigotry.

                Perhaps nothing illustrates the radical agenda of institutional atheism better than their insistence that the religious right controls the GOP and is on the verge of declaring a theocracy in America. Nothing could be further from the truth.

                America cannot be saved by converting it to something other than what it was created to be. I for one will do nothing to cooperate with any so-called “conservative” movement that seeks to somehow establish some sort of post-modern, multicultural mongrel society that is somehow magically free of all socialist influence. Such a society cannot and will not be able to resist the coming onslaught of Islam.

                • swemson permalink
                  October 20, 2009 10:01 am

                  Well at least you consistent…

                  Atheism as a tool of the left for the purposes of subversion is an institution. It is institutionalized as a strategy and victim group for expunging religion from the American public forum. It is an institution in America that exists for the sole purpose of attacking a certain segment of the Christian population that is most associated with the Republican party and opposition to the Democrat party.

                  Atheism is not a movement, or an institution or any kind.

                  Atheists, a small but growing group of RATIONAL INDIVIDUALS, simply look at your silly superstitions in a bemused way, and wonder how a rational human mind could believe in such utter nonsense…

                  Perhaps nothing illustrates the radical agenda of institutional atheism better than their insistence that the religious right controls the GOP and is on the verge of declaring a theocracy in America. Nothing could be further from the truth.

                  As typical of most religious loons, you have these fantasies which you fabricate completely in your own warped mind, and then proclaim them to all as if they were facts… Nobody believes any such thing… You’re simply DELUSIONAL.

                  “Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear” Thomas Jefferson

                  • Jonathan permalink
                    October 20, 2009 12:06 pm

                    Why can you not avoid acting like a leftist when debating, Swemson? You’re the one being emotional and irrational. It’s a pattern with you. Lets look at your statements in this thread:

                    “Maybe BHO will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back… If we can’t find a way to get rid of him real fast, he’s going to tear everything down.. ”

                    “Religion isn’t about god Joe, it’s about the clergy, and their desire to have control over mankind.. & as such I don’t see the church asa being all that different from Obama, Chavez, Stalin, Marx, and Genghis Kahn…”

                    “Darwin (the theory, not the man) is hostile to religion in that it shatters the entire “god created man in his own image” myth….”

                    “Extreme environmentalism has become the cool new hip communism… It’s anti-man, and it’s BULLS*~T ! They believe all sorts of nonsense, and they believe it with a religious fervor… They’re so whacked out that they think CO2 is causing the planet to get dangerously too warm… If you’re drinking all that Kool-Aid you’re in for a rude awakening !”

                    I wonder how many of these folks share your worldview, Swemson. Virtually all, I would wager. And every specific person you mentioned in these quotes who isn’t overtly atheist is aligned with your general views, I wager. Including Obama. Excepting Darwin. Darwin had the honesty to admit he was an agnostic, the only true logical stance for anyone rejecting theism.

                    But then again, he was a scientist living in an age before Marxism, and before politic0-science came to be dominated by the institution of politico-atheism. That’s one real problem I have with these blankety-blank Marxists, Swemson. They politicize EVERYTHING.

                  • swemson permalink
                    October 20, 2009 12:36 pm

                    You see everything in such a twisted manner that you’re now beginning to bore me… Every single observation you make is 180 degrees opposite of the truth.. and it’s obvious as to why… Religion has simply rotted your brain.. what a shame !

                    You say I act like a leftist, and yet I’m probably further to the right than anyone you know… But to be fair, perhaps we define “right” differently.

                    My ideal society is one with a pure laissez faire free market capitalist system, where all individuals are free to pursue their own happiness as long as they don’t violate the rights of others…

                    You’ve got this absurd idea in your head that all leftists are atheists, and that all atheists must therefore be leftists… are you just stupid or what ?

                    You’re obviously freaked out over the fact that I continue to stand my ground, and answer every challenge with straight rational answers, which you find so hard to accept that you’ve become obsessed with me.. so much so that you’re now scanning through my other posts to try to trap me… The problem is that everything I said in your post is 100% correct… It’s you who has a twisted view of reality.

                    But you’re not satisfied being just a religious whacko,

                    Darwin had the honesty to admit he was an agnostic, the only true logical stance for anyone rejecting theism.

                    you’re also an environmental whacko as well, since you apparently believe that CO2 has any meaningful effect on climate change… IT’S THE SUN STUPID.. and if you believe otherwise, you’re a brain dead zombie…

                    The bottom line is that you prove how delusional you are every time you open your mouth, so this is goodbye.. I shan’t waste any more of my time on you.. you’re beyond hope…

                    T.S. Elliot once said that he was a Marxist, of the Groucho sort…

                    So now you can go tell your pals that I’m a Marxist too.. !

                    Go… and never darken my towels again ! Groucho Marx

                    T.S. Elliot once said that he was a Marxist, of the Groucho sort…

                    So now you can go tell your pals that I’m a Marxist too.. !

                  • Jonathan permalink
                    October 20, 2009 2:06 pm

                    Swemson. Still acting like a leftist to the end. Oh wait.

                    “I can’t be a leftist because I believe in free market economics. Of course, I can still have a culturally Marxist worldview, but that’s beside the point. And of course, being a leftist, I can make broad sweeping suprematist generalizations about my opponents, but they’d better not reciprocate in any way that makes me feel bad.”

                  • Jonathan permalink
                    October 20, 2009 2:08 pm

                    Oh yeah, Castro, he can’t possibly be a Marxist because he believes in capitalism too. So does communist China.

    • swemson permalink
      October 20, 2009 2:20 pm

      How can anyone capable of operating a computer be such a blithering idiot ?

      What part of the word GOODBYE do you not understand?

      • Jonathan permalink
        October 20, 2009 5:23 pm

        I don’t think you’re an idiot, Swemson, even though you are ideology bound into a very narrow paradigm.

        Goodbye? You keep coming back. I understand the word perfectly, but I keep talking because I know you will keep coming back. I control you through your stubborn pride.

        But I am serious. You really are very much a cultural leftist.

  8. Jonathan permalink
    October 18, 2009 9:29 am

    Swemson,

    As you are fond of Jefferson, I submit my own favorite quote of his. Jefferson’s faith in Christ has always been an inspiration to me. He was reserved in his public expositions of religion, but yet he was not reluctant to acknowledge God. In his second inaugural address he says,

    “I shall need the favor of that Being in Whose hands we are, Who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a land flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; Who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power; and to Whose goodness I ask you to join me in supplications, that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants; guide their councils and prosper their measures thatwhatsoever they shall do shall result in your good, and secure the peace, friendship and approbation of all nations,”

  9. Jonathan permalink
    October 18, 2009 9:49 am

    Swemson,

    As it is appropriate to the discussion of religion and science, here is a good Jeffersonian quote that relates:

    “The Eastern States will be the last to come over, on account of the dominion of the clergy, who had got a smell of union between Church and State, and began to indulge reveries which can never be realized in the present state of science. If, indeed, they could have prevailed on us, to view all advances in science as dangerous innovations, and to look back to the opinions and practices of our forefathers, instead of looking forward for improvement, a promising groundwork would have been laid. But I am in hopes their good sense will dictate to them, that since the mountain will not come to them, they had better go to the mountain; that they will find their interest in acquiescing in the liberty and science of their country, and that the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it. and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor is a religion of all others the most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.”

    Letter to MOSES ROBINSON, iv, 379. (March 1801.)

Comments are closed.