NYT lefty op-ed contributor goes nuclear on Dinesh D’Souza

posted at 12:30 pm on January 22, 2007 by Allahpundit

Alas, with good reason, it appears. I haven’t read the book, but according to Alan Wolfe, the author of the op-ed, not only does D’Souza come off as decidedly lukewarm in his animus towards jihadis, he regrets that American conservatives didn’t side with Muslims in opposing publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

Barnett already wrote the post I wanted to write about this, but let me quote Wolfe’s conclusion:

At one point in “The Enemy at Home,” D’Souza appeals to “decent liberals and Democrats” to join him in rejecting the American left. Although he does not name me as one of them, I sense he is appealing to people like me because I write for The New Republic, a liberal magazine that distances itself from leftism. So let this “decent” liberal make perfectly clear how thoroughly indecent Dinesh D’Souza is. Like his hero Joe McCarthy, he has no sense of shame. He is a childish thinker and writer tackling subjects about which he knows little to make arguments that reek of political extremism. His book is a national disgrace, a sorry example of a publishing culture more concerned with the sensational than the sensible. People on the left, especially those who have been subjects of D’Souza’s previous books, will shrug their shoulders at his latest screed. I look forward to the reaction from decent conservatives and Republicans who will, if they have any sense of honor, distance themselves, quickly and cleanly, from the Rishwain research scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Well said. But here’s something else that’s well said which Wolfe doesn’t deem worthy of mention. The phenomenon it describes will be instantly familiar to any right-wing blog reader who’s ever followed a link into nutroots territory. It’s D’Souza, writing in (of all papers) the San Francisco Chronicle:

Sen. Robert Byrd compares Bush to Hermann Goering and the Nazis. Hillary Clinton accuses him of “turning back the clock on the 20th century … systematically weakening the democratic tradition. … There has never been an administration more intent upon consolidating and abusing power.” Sen. Ted Kennedy charges that “no president in America’s history has done more damage to our country than George W. Bush.”

What emerges from these comments is the indignation gap — the vastly different level of emotion that leftists and liberals employ in treating bin Laden and his allies as opposed to Bush and his allies. First there is the ritual qualification. “I’m no fan of bin Laden” or “Bin Laden is not a very nice guy.” Having gotten these hedges out of the way, the leftist proceeds to lambaste Bush and the conservatives with uncontrolled ferocity…

I’m not suggesting the two groups actually like each other. Actually, they despise each other. Leftists like Pelosi, Barney Frank and Michael Moore despise bin Laden and his fellow radicals because they are religious fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic holy law…

But the man who threatens the Islamic radicals and the American left even more than either group threatens the other is Bush. Leftists don’t like radical Muslims like bin Laden but they absolutely hate Bush. Why? Because from the left’s point of view, bin Laden threatens to impose sharia in Baghdad but Bush threatens to impose sharia in Boston. Bin Laden is the far enemy but Bush is the near enemy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Conservatives need to distance themselves, poste haste, from this argument.

Fred on January 22, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Yeah, I think Dinesh’s problem is that he thinks the U.S. Christian Right can find common ground with the worldwide Muslim Right based upon their mutual devotion to a “higher power.”

Of course, there would be some disconnect between devout Christians and devout Muslims in terms of figuring out what’s a more important priority for appeasing that “higher power.” Is it treating homosexuals like second class citizens? Or is it suicide bombing Jews? Or is it merely criminalizing any consenting adult behavior considered “immoral” by the righteous believers? Questions, questions, questions.

But I think that Dinesh has a point that brain-dead religious believers can probably on some level unite in their desire to impose their narrow-minded beliefs on others. I mean, considering we can never know what God wants, let’s unite in our shared belief that God wants us to police immorality as defined by our hopelessly out of date “holy” texts. And if that means stoning gays, then let’s stone us some gays.

Why can’t we just unite around the idea that the existence of God is so highly improbable that it’s not worth talking about? There is no God, people. And it’s okay, you can still have a fulfilling life without God. Imagine how nice it would be to just treat people with dignity rather than judging them all the time because they don’t conform to your personal view of an imaginary “higher power?” Wouldn’t that be great?

Imagine no God…Is there anything more beautiful?

Enrique on January 22, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Some wondered why so many in occupied europe worked with the Nazis to deport jews. The truth is there is always those in any society who hate their neighbors more than those that live in foreign lands.

Quisling most likely hated fellow Norweignans than the Nazis. Many Vichy worked with the Nazis to help deport Jews.

For some in the US the main enemy is the US. Just look at a nut like Noam Chaomski. He hates his fellow americans more than anyone else. They are the enemy in his veiws.

Why ? Simply because we dont agree with his utopian veiw of the world and wont create his “ideal” state. Its because we are corrupt or we are “mislead” by a grand conspiracy that seeks to prevent the truth from coming out.

Hence we see the “Truthers” and others spew their obnoxious crap. Not because its true but because they hate and this is there way to express their hate. 911 is a victory for them because it exposes the US as weak and in need of a “Change” in the right direction.

Remember Hitler came to power in a weakeden Germany. Lenin came to power when Russia was at its weakest. Those that want to control the US want it weak as it gives them more power.

Hence why many on the left want the US to fail. Because they want to control it and they can only do that by having the US fail.

Not to say they are or will be as evil or wicked as Hitler or Stalin. Its just they want to use the same route to come to power that they did.

William Amos on January 22, 2007 at 12:54 PM

Why can’t we just unite around the idea that the existence of God is so highly improbable that it’s not worth talking about? There is no God, people. And it’s okay, you can still have a fulfilling life without God. Imagine how nice it would be to just treat people with dignity rather than judging them all the time because they don’t conform to your personal view of an imaginary “higher power?” Wouldn’t that be great?

Imagine no God…Is there anything more beautiful?

My faith’s beautiful enough, its less about religion then it is about people who demand that only they are right and everyone else is dead wrong. Maybe I have a different view on this being a part of a minority that everyone seems to want to kill but our faiths have gotten along well enough in the past and continues to do in democracies where one side isn’t trying to usurp everyone elses. And these same ‘brain dead religious observers’ won’t ‘unite’ because each of them believes they’re right and the others are wrong. It shows a complete lack of knowledge about religion and its nature with a smug arrogance of one who thinks he has evolved past that ‘irrational point’.

By the way, if there was ‘no G-D’ then there’d still be war’s galore, just with different banners.

Defector01 on January 22, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Why can’t we just unite around the idea that the existence of God is so highly improbable that it’s not worth talking about.

Begin religious flame war in 3…2…1..

armylawyer on January 22, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Imagine no God…Is there anything more beautiful?

Enrique on January 22, 2007 at 12:47 PM

The WOT isnt about religeon its about contol.

And in that sense Islamics and the far left are very much alike. The want full control without any democracy.

William Amos on January 22, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Frankly I’m going to wait and see. D’Souza has been quite smart and on point in the past. I’m going to at least do him the courtesy of judging him on his own words and not an NYT abridgment of them.

see-dubya on January 22, 2007 at 1:07 PM

I think this may be the Barnett column you were referring to.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 22, 2007 at 1:07 PM

NRO had a great discussion of D’Souza’s book on Friday. The consensus seemed to be consistent with Barnett’s post, as they were running away from D’Souza’s argument faster than the left.

thirteen28 on January 22, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Ok…here ya go…

Imagine no God…Is there anything more beautiful?

I’m sure Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and a whole host of others would agree.

.

GT on January 22, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Imagine how nice it would be to just treat people with dignity rather than judging them all the time because they don’t conform to your personal view of an imaginary “higher power?” Wouldn’t that be great?

My god teaches me to treat people with dignity, even if they don’t conform to my ideas of what is right. To me, that’s what religion is all about.

And from what I’ve seen, the atheists of the world have a much harder time accepting people who don’t believe the way they do (ie, Christians), than the other way around.

Hack Ptui on January 22, 2007 at 1:13 PM

See, its retard comments like Enrique’s that bolster my initial thought that conservatives (especially religious conservatives) need to distance themselves from D’Souza’s argument with alacrity.

This is how orthodox Christians get lumped in with fundamentalist Islamists by mush headed liberals who have a burning need to practice a little old time moral equivalency. Can’t you hear them already? “See, I told you those knuckle dragging Pentacostals down the street want the same things as Osama. What’s the difference?”

D’Souza is handing people like “Enrique” extra ammo for arguments like that.

Fred on January 22, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Why can’t we just unite around the idea that the existence of God is so highly improbable that it’s not worth talking about? There is no God, people.

Imagine no God…Is there anything more beautiful?

Enrique on January 22, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Such complete arrogance coming from a person who believes he was created by accident due to a random mixture of muck in dirty pond water.

Gregor on January 22, 2007 at 1:14 PM

There is no God, people.

Geez, if only you’d mentioned that earlier…

Seriously, don’t confuse religion with God, which is exactly what you’re doing.

Pablo on January 22, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Why can’t we just unite around the idea that the existence of God is so highly improbable that it’s not worth talking about.

Begin religious flame war in 3…2…1..

armylawyer on January 22, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Feh. Just changing the subject, that. Not even worth our time.

I would like to read his book, since I have enjoyed his work previously and then make up my mind.

CrimsonFisted on January 22, 2007 at 1:27 PM

armylawyer on January 22, 2007 at 12:59 PM

I mean the flamer was changing the subject not you. After I hit submit, I thought it sounded funny. I was meaning it wasn’t worth rising to that comment by Enrique.

CrimsonFisted on January 22, 2007 at 1:29 PM

D’Souza’s Illiberal Education was excellent and whose What’s So Great About America left me walking around with a soul smile for months.

Can’t defend this book, because I haven’t read it. The title sounds over the top (I mean, is the thesis if the book really that the American left is responsible for 9/11?) Yikes. But he gets the benefit of the doubt from me and I’m not throwing him under the bus until I’ve read his whole argument.

His prior work and the left’s antagonism toward it are two good enough reasons to pay for the hardcover edition and consume it – - post haste.

RushBaby on January 22, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Such complete arrogance coming from a person who believes he was created by accident due to a random mixture of muck in dirty pond water.

Gregor on January 22, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Does this mean that atheists admit to being nothing more than pond scum? (wink)

.

GT on January 22, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Dinesh D’Souza once again demonstrates he has no idea what America is actually about. Robert Spencer lit him up as well.

PRCalDude on January 22, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Let me pose a question for the masses. Is it more improbable that there is a higher power or that everything is an accident and coincidence. Just look at the human body, how many functioning parts? Never mind the Earth or Space, just look at the human body. Is it more probable that the human body was conceived and planned by an unknown, or just happened over time in a wholly unplanned, random act of chance? Either way, you God-less elites, there is a great deal of faith that must exist in either scenario. You have faith in a higher power or faith in chance………

ritethinker on January 22, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Either way, you God-less elites, there is a great deal of faith that must exist in either scenario. You have faith in a higher power or faith in chance………

ritethinker on January 22, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Atheists derive their true about the universe from the presuppostion that there is no God. From there, they confirm their presupposition by showing how things occured naturalistically. It’s a circular argument.

PRCalDude on January 22, 2007 at 1:51 PM

that should read “derive their truth”

PRCalDude on January 22, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Atheists dont want there to be a God because that then means they are God (in their minds)

William Amos on January 22, 2007 at 1:57 PM

is it me or does Enrique find a way to insert “there is no God” into every debate regardless of the subject?

EnochCain on January 22, 2007 at 1:59 PM

Enrique,

Listen to the Bahnsen-Stein debate and get back to us when you become a serious scholar.

PRCalDude on January 22, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Is it more probable that the human body was conceived and planned by an unknown, or just happened over time in a wholly unplanned, random act of chance?

ritethinker on January 22, 2007 at 1:40 PM

No, they’re right. A tiny pile of murky pond scum formed all by itself into a living creature with arms, legs, a heart, lungs, a brain, nose to smell with, eyes to see with, a nervous system to allow feeling of touch, functioning ears, and even a reproductive system (both male and female) … and out of this vile, oozing, nothingness was created a tad pole which then transformed over billions of years, all by itself, into creatures which were able to create automobiles, light bulbs, computers, televisions, telephones, nano technology, and spacecraft with the ability to travel to distant stars.

Oh yes. Let’s not forget that the pond itself sat bubbling on a round piece of space rock which sat floating in space, rotating around a ball of fire, sitting in the middle of a galaxy created due to a massive explosion of gas and dust which then formed all by itself into what is now called Earth.

And let’s just ignore the billions of other galaxies which inhabit the unknown vastness of space. Let’s just assume that they all happened to be created in the exact same way, out of massive explosions of gas and dust.

But most importantly … let’s just completely ignore the question of “where did the gas and dust come from?” Or, “why did it explode?” Or, “what created the space that the gas and dust floated around in?”

It all makes perfect sense to me.

It’s just like Enrique said …

“The existence of God is so highly improbable that it’s not worth talking about.”

Gregor on January 22, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Frankly I’m going to wait and see. D’Souza has been quite smart and on point in the past. I’m going to at least do him the courtesy of judging him on his own words and not an NYT abridgment of them.

see-dubya on January 22, 2007 at 1:07 PM

yea. me too. if his argument here is the same one i read a couple of years back, it’s basicly that the west needs to engage islam critically as urgently as we need to engage islamism militarily. within that argument, he questions whether the wages of the leftwing war of social deconstruction hasn’t left us open for moral attack.

i actually sympathise with his apparent critisism of spencer.

jummy on January 22, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Dinesh D’Souza once again demonstrates he has no idea what America is actually about. Robert Spencer lit him up as well.

PRCalDude on January 22, 2007 at 1:39 PM

“once again”?

what else of his have you read?

jummy on January 22, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Imagine no God…Is there anything more beautiful?

Enrique on January 22, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Imagine, no hospitals, education, relief funds (red cross, united way, etc.), that is what you get with no God. How many hospitals, and schools were built by atheists? What contributions have atheists made?

right2bright on January 22, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Ironically enough studying darwin and astrophysics and genetics and biology has given me a far greater love and greater proof that G-d exists because of the baffling odds against our creation. Must mean someone had a hand in it, though for an atheist’s sake i can’t prove it.

I still think one can believe in science and have a strong faith; Judaism has never said you can’t believe if you agree with science.

Defector01 on January 22, 2007 at 2:18 PM

I’m going to assume that Enrique is just a troll, or an athiest who is always looking to pick a fight. I think it’s a waste of time to get into an argument about the nature of God on this thread, especially since there is a much more compelling topic regarding D’Souza’s book.

I think D’Souza is crazy. His fundamental problem is thoroughly exposed by Robert Spencer and others, that the problem is not America, the problem is Islam (not “religion” in general, Enrique. When was the last time you saw Quaker suicide bombers?). If Islam weren’t full of constant exhortations to subjugate, kill, or covert the entire world, there’d be no war on terror.

That said, I’m not all gung-ho with American culture either. I hate the Hollywoodization of culture (especially as it affects young children), and I’m not going to get all weepy-eyed about a culture that has allowed over 47 million abortions, or deliberately starves people like Teri Schiavo to death. I wish American culture were more conservative, obviously. But I’m not stupid enough to convince myself that even if it were more conservative, it would placate the “Radical” Muslims or even “traditional” Muslims. D’Souza’s argument is appeasement by another means.

The only way the Cuture War affects the War on Terror is that as the culture increasingly becomes degraded and more liberal, American culture seems less worthy of fighting for. That doesn’t mean, obviously, that Americans won’t continue to fight. But it does affect morale. How hard would you fight for a culture if a hospital was involuntarily starving an elder relative? Or would you fight for a culture that ran roughshod over you because you didn’t get promoted or hired because you weren’t a minority, or a woman? The point is, America has a lot of internal cleaning up to do. The cleaning up has nothing to do with how Muslims view us, since they will always think of us as infidels. But the cleaning up, if done properly, can probably motivate more of us to fight the War on Terror. Every GI during the 40′s was proud to fight because they were proud of their country and their culture. Even blacks, who were segregated in the army, had optimism that their fight during the war would lead to a change in culture at hope (which it did).

D’Souza is crazy to make the argument that Muslims will be appeased if American culture is fixed. But it is correct to note that every victory the left chalks up in the Culture War will hurt our fight in the War on Terror.

Sydney Carton on January 22, 2007 at 2:27 PM

i can’t take that article seriously either. it reads more like fear and shock than disgust. he tries to score points by sqeezing the “mccarthy was wrong regardless of whether he was right” rind, even performing the “have you no shame” schtick on him.

but more suspicious is his protection of the people d’souza examines, pretending that someone like robert jensen isn’t problematic, who once stated on medved in unambiguous terms that his opposition to the wars in iraq and afghanistan is that it is a capitalist rather than socialist state doing it, and that he’d reverse his opposition to the war if it were being waged by the soviets or similar power. if somebody like that, someone who get’s probably three times as much airtime as d’souza himself, is to wolf too fragile a morsel for any critisism to amount to more than bullying, it reeks of protectionism.

i’m going to read d’souza’s book and make up my own mind, thank you.

jummy on January 22, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Because from the left’s point of view, bin Laden threatens to impose sharia in Baghdad but Bush threatens to impose sharia in Boston. Bin Laden is the far enemy but Bush is the near enemy.

Hence Rosie O’Donnell’s claim (and others on the left as well) that “radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam.” (paraphrasing her exact words a bit). Regardless of what you think about D’Souza’s other views, he is at least half correct on this one point. Leftists believe that Christians (as well as W.) are the NEAR enemy.

Of course, I’d like to hear the leftists explain why there are already 31 comments posted on this thread, and thus far, not a single Christian has threatened to kill Enrique for insulting God (where’s SoothSayer when ya’ NEED him? – just kidding, okay?). How are we EVER going to vindicate Rosie O’Donnell at this rate? (/sarcasm off) The trolls here on HotAir STILL haven’t been able to explain to me why we haven’t seen any reports of teenage suicide bombers that were traced back to Jesus camp — either.

As for me, I’d simply like to make a motion that we nominate Enrique to be our “duly elected messenger” chartered with the task to deliver the news to God that He doesn’t exist. Anybody care to second that motion?

CyberCipher on January 22, 2007 at 3:08 PM

The trolls here on HotAir STILL haven’t been able to explain to me why we haven’t seen any reports of teenage suicide bombers that were traced back to Jesus camp — either.

CyberCipher on January 22, 2007 at 3:08 PM

And even if the day comes when such a thing actually happens … it will not be due to actual scripture or instruction from the Christian Bible. This is what separates Christianity from Islam. One would be the act of a delusional madman, and the other would be a devote follower of the Qur’an/Islam.

Those who compare the two know nothing of either.

Gregor on January 22, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Of course, I’d like to hear the leftists explain why there are already 31 comments posted on this thread, and thus far, not a single Christian has threatened to kill Enrique for insulting God

i think that might be covered under the same provisions by which disregarding race is a form of racism and all hetero sex is rape. it would be something in the order of “the christians appear to have not threatened murder, which is just how the christo-fascists get away with it.”

jummy on January 22, 2007 at 3:20 PM

jesus camp…
one of these days i’ve got to go back to that youtube thread and collect all of the death threats and proclaimations of pogroms against christians from that youtube thread.

jummy on January 22, 2007 at 3:23 PM

As for me, I’d simply like to make a motion that we nominate Enrique to be our “duly elected messenger” chartered with the task to deliver the news to God that He doesn’t exist. Anybody care to second that motion?

CyberCipher on January 22, 2007 at 3:08 PM

What the heck. I’ll second it.

PRCalDude on January 22, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Romney continues to fall from grace

A few conservative allies began pressuring him to compile “The Mitt Romney Deception ” last fall, when the former governor began campaigning as a conservative aspirant for the White House in 2008.

In addition to quoting Romney from his Senate campaign, the report excavates several little-known items. One is a photograph of a pink flier that Romney aides distributed at a gay pride march in Boston in 2002. “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride Weekend!” the flier states. “All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.”

Another item quotes Kathleen Henry, chairwoman of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, saying Romney proposed doubling the commission’s budget in fiscal year 2006, to $250,000. “It’s really huge,” said Henry, quoted in a Globe story. “It says to us clearly that he gets the service for what it really is.”

Conservatives responded instantly.

“Through phone conservations and e-mail, it’s making its rounds and there is a growing tide of concern within pro-family organizations that the governor has some real explaining to do,” said J. Matt Barber , policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America.

The conservatives are not the only ones taking notice. Camenker’s usual targets on the left are enjoying the spectacle of the unrelenting activist trying to derail the campaign of a politician they dislike.

“I love it,” said Marc Solomon , campaign director for the gay rights group MassEquality. “It’s sort of ironic, but I think that in this case, Brian Camenker actually has a point, and I think that’s the first time I’ve ever said that. He is highlighting Romney’s just total political expediency on issues related to gays and lesbians.”

Gregor on January 22, 2007 at 3:32 PM

I’m with see-dubya. I’ll really have to read the book to know exactly what he’s arguing (as we all should). It seems improbable to me that Dinesh blames 9/11 on leftists but not Muslims; he should be too smart for that.

We’ll see.

PaisleyCow on January 22, 2007 at 3:36 PM

is it me or does Enrique find a way to insert “there is no God” into every debate regardless of the subject?

EnochCain on January 22, 2007 at 1:59 PM

Those who talk about God like Enrique did are actually quite devoted, sometimes more devoted than those who claim to believe in God, because they actually have God in their mind, even negatively.

Enrique’s post betrayed his words. God is a very real consideration for him, which is why he so vociferously complained about God and God’s existence, a clear indication that Enrique is a sincere seeker of Truth, wrestling with his confusion and personal inner conflict.

That devotion to God, albeit appearing “negative” in Enrique’s post, could one day transform Enrique into a strong advocate for devotion to God and His purpose, and by his example, lead others into the path of joy, love, and devotion as well.

Could we look back on this day at sometime in the future and say “I remember him, Enrique. He was angry and trashed the existence of God and those who believe in God as brain-dead religious believers” but now he is completely devoted to God?”

William

“Lan astaslem.”

I will not submit. I will not surrender

William2006 on January 22, 2007 at 3:42 PM

Now, Barnett and Scott Johnson at Powerline have read it; the latter found it sickening. So I don’t have I hopes for this book at all. I just think that D’Souza is smart enough that he’s worth reading even when he’s wrong.

see-dubya on January 22, 2007 at 3:43 PM

And, most important of all, conservative religious believers in America should join forces with conservative religious believers in the Islamic world to combat their common enemy: the cultural left.

In order for this to work, wouldn’t it require us to convert to muslims? How can conservative muslims “join forces” with infidels? I realize that I’m somewhat exaggerating this (he does appear to differentiate between “radical” and “conservative” muslims, but I think the line is somewhat blurry nowadays).

I have not read his book, so I’ll reserve my judgment (but it does seem like a ridiculous notion

Rick on January 22, 2007 at 4:14 PM

In order for this to work, wouldn’t it require us to convert to muslims? How can conservative muslims “join forces” with infidels?

Rick on January 22, 2007 at 4:14 PM

This is a great example of the fundamental lack of understanding of Islam.

In Islam – as guided by the Qur’an – it is forbidden to “join forces” with “non-believers.”

There are far too many who fail to grasp this basic concept. Islam demands that Muslims refused to accept us, except for the purpose of slavery and collecting taxes.

This is not just a concept of “radical Islam.” It’s the QUR’AN! The words of their prophet!

Gregor on January 22, 2007 at 4:29 PM

Rick …

In case it wasn’t clear, I agree with you 100%. The first line was not directed at you.

Gregor on January 22, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Oh God, no God, tomato, tomahto. Here’s the thing kids: part of the whole God schtick is the idea that it is fundamentally unprovable. Were it provable, there would be no need for faith. No faith, no religion.

Why does the Nicene creed begin: “I believe in God?” Not worship or love, but believe.

We’ll talk about the concept of hope next time…..

;^)

honora on January 22, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Oh God, no God, tomato, tomahto. Here’s the thing kids: part of the whole God schtick is the idea that it is fundamentally unprovable. Were it provable, there would be no need for faith. No faith, no religion.

Why does the Nicene creed begin: “I believe in God?” Not worship or love, but believe.

We’ll talk about the concept of hope next time…..

;^)

honora on January 22, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Here’s another prime example of the atheists’ condescension toward Christians. She acts as if we believe in a vacuum, as if there is no external evidence for the faith we profess. Do yourself a favor, examine your own presuppositions to determine where your truth comes from before you deride ours. Do yourself another favor: listen to the Bahnsen-Stein debate, if you’re brave enough.

PRCalDude on January 22, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Here’s the thing kids: part of the whole God schtick is the idea that it is fundamentally unprovable.

honora on January 22, 2007 at 4:33 PM

When someone discovers proof that the Earth, the sun, the galaxy, all of mankind, and the entire universe were all created by accident or chance … let me know.

Last I checked, atheism is also unprovable.

Gregor on January 22, 2007 at 5:55 PM

When someone discovers proof that the Earth, the sun, the galaxy, all of mankind, and the entire universe were all created by accident or chance … let me know.

Last I checked, atheism is also unprovable.

Gregor on January 22, 2007 at 5:55 PM

So being an atheist requires one to have “faith” in something that is “fundamentally unprovable”?

But…but…but…

Rick on January 22, 2007 at 6:01 PM

honora,

What? Are we supposed to be deterred somehow or intimidated by your caustic remarks? As far as I’m concerned, your snooty, condescending sarcasm only betrays your innate feelings of inadequacy. Perhaps rightly so.

Speaking of “beliefs,” it painfully obvious to me that you haven’t been following astronomy and physics for the past ten years, HAVE YOU? If you think belief in God is a stretch, try “dark matter.” Of course, THAT wasn’t meta-physical ENOUGH — so now the astronomers have their “dark energy” to go with it. Then again, there’s that whole “string theory” thing. Oh yeah, and BTW, all of this stuff is completely unverifiable by ANY scientific experiment known to man. Nevertheless, there a lot of university professors making a lucrative living off of this kinda’ stuff. Next thing ya’ know, they’ll be on television asking little old ladies to send their money in before the Great Cosmic Force “calls them home.” (Surprise, surprise –there are snake-oil-salesmen in the halls of our so-called scientific institutions, as well as in the religious establishment.) And, if the physicists weren’t bad enough, we got the biologists with their whole Darwinian cult thing goin’ on. But mercifully (for the readers), I’ll let go of it here.

In stark contrast, at least the vast majority of the theologians (and their followers) don’t try to pass-off their “beliefs” (“faith” is a more accurate term) as “science.” They should get points for honesty on that count alone. (BTW, that’s WAY more honest than YOU are, honora, with the people that post comments here on the HotAir web-site).

Oh, and BTW, I’ve noticed that there are some other well informed individuals lurking here at HotAir that can tell you ALL about the scientific facts that DO, at the very least, suggest that there are other forces at work in the universe besides random chance — not that you’d listen, of course. If there’s one thing we can ALL be certain about, it is that a liberal’s mind is closed to the facts (scientific or otherwise).

But it is well with my soul, honora. You just keep-on believing in that “cold fusion”, okay?

CyberCipher on January 22, 2007 at 6:42 PM

is it me or does Enrique find a way to insert “there is no God” into every debate regardless of the subject?

I’ll cop to that. I feel that the conservative movement in the U.S. is damaged by this unhealthy attachment to God. I think we need to move past it. Let’s work on the things we know for sure are true, i.e., free markets for free people, etc. Let’s get over trying to appease this absentee creator.

So that’s why I keep bringing it up. My way of trying to remind conservatives what’s important – capitalism and limited government.

And yeah, I’m an ass. But at least I try to word things in a clever manner – try getting that from Michael Newdow.

Exit question: If many Muslims incorrectly think that God wants them to suicide bomb people, is it that much of a stretch to think that perhaps your own conception of God might be flawed? Like on the basic premise that he exists at all? That’s where I started pondering in early 2005, and I ended up in Atheism Land. Maybe you will too. Just sayin’.

Enrique on January 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Frankly I’m going to wait and see. D’Souza has been quite smart and on point in the past. I’m going to at least do him the courtesy of judging him on his own words and not an NYT abridgment of them.

see-dubya on January 22, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Amen!! I have read all of Dinesh’s books and the man is a textbook conservative and American. I would read his book before assuming what others have said is true. I plan on picking up my copy asap.

RobertCSampson on January 22, 2007 at 7:38 PM

I feel that the conservative movement in the U.S. is damaged by this unhealthy attachment to God….
So that’s why I keep bringing it up. My way of trying to remind conservatives what’s important – capitalism and limited government.

Enrique on January 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Funny thing, and all this time I’ve been worried that many Christians have an unhealthy attachment to capitalism.

Speaking of appeasing something that is DECIDEDLY absent, there’s that whole ‘limited government’ thing. Are you SURE that you can prove that it exists (anywhere in the universe)?

How about we compromise? I’ll let you worship conservatism, and I’ll worship the one true God — and make no mistake, you may call yourself an atheist, but conservatism is nevertheless your god. We ALL have SOMETHING that we put first in our lives–whether we admit it, or not.

CyberCipher on January 22, 2007 at 7:38 PM

If many Muslims incorrectly think that God wants them to suicide bomb people, is it that much of a stretch to think that perhaps your own conception of God might be flawed?

Enrique on January 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM

If many scientists are routinely having to correct earlier incorrect theories on things as simple as what causes cancer and what is good for you, is it that much of a stretch to think that perhaps your own conception of the origins of the world might be flawed?

Gregor on January 22, 2007 at 7:43 PM

Exit question: If many Muslims incorrectly think that God wants them to suicide bomb people, is it that much of a stretch to think that perhaps your own conception of God might be flawed? Like on the basic premise that he exists at all? That’s where I started pondering in early 2005, and I ended up in Atheism Land. Maybe you will too. Just sayin’.

Enrique on January 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM

A fair question. In other words, how do we know that the Bible describes God accurately? There is no short answer to this, but I think I could direct you to the right resources, if you’re truely interested.

PRCalDude on January 22, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Exit question: If many Muslims incorrectly think that God wants them to suicide bomb people, is it that much of a stretch to think that perhaps your own conception of God might be flawed? Like on the basic premise that he exists at all? That’s where I started pondering in early 2005, and I ended up in Atheism Land. Maybe you will too. Just sayin’.

Enrique on January 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM

So if someone has a “flawed thought” than others may have a flawed thought? Well yeah, if you have a flawed thought than others on this blog may have a flawed thought. If one scientist has a flawed thought, than others may have also. It does not mean the two are connected. One thing is for sure, your logic is flawed. If I think that suicide bombing is wrong from a Christian point of view, and you think it is wrong are we both flawed or correct? That is one way you determine the correct path, with discernment. You think building hospitals and schools are wrong (or at least atheists do not think them worthy to build), I think they are right to build…who has flawed thinking now? If you do think they are worthy, show me some examples of atheist built schools or hospitals (you have several hundred years of examples).
If there are none, can I assume your thinking is flawed?

right2bright on January 22, 2007 at 11:00 PM

Since liberals are masters at renaming just about anything to their advantage, i.e. taxes=common cause/good, let us drop the term “capitalism” for good. It is a Marxist invention and meant by him and his followers to be something negative.

Free markets from now on, “kids”, as we are lovingly referred to by our friend honora.

Entelechy on January 22, 2007 at 11:49 PM

Exit question: If many Muslims incorrectly think that God wants them to suicide bomb people, is it that much of a stretch to think that perhaps your own conception of God might be flawed? Like on the basic premise that he exists at all? That’s where I started pondering in early 2005, and I ended up in Atheism Land. Maybe you will too. Just sayin’.

Enrique on January 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM

I’m so glad you decided to ponder in 2005 and came up with the greatest revelation of all time – I guess that means books should be written about your discovery. You are the man!! You have solved the MYSTERY, dude.

Seriously, I hope you aren’t still smoking whatever it was you were smoking back in 2005 – it can’t possibly be good.

Rick on January 23, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Exit question: If many Muslims incorrectly think that God wants them to suicide bomb people, is it that much of a stretch to think that perhaps your own conception of God might be flawed? Like on the basic premise that he exists at all? That’s where I started pondering in early 2005, and I ended up in Atheism Land. Maybe you will too. Just sayin’.

Enrique on January 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM

There is no equivalency between Muslim belief in killing all non-believers-infidels, and non-Muslims believing in God.

Muslims believe that Allah commands them to kill infidels and gain heavenly reward if killed in war against nonbelievers.

Enrique,

Your attempt to dissect whoever you are addressing in that quote is rather strange. Are you attempting to read their mind, or are you attempting to tell them what THEY think and believe?

For example this piece “perhaps your own conception of God might be flawed?” What is the purpose of that statement? Are you attempting to attack the person you are addressing in a round about way, or are you merely projecting your personal conflicts with your own belief or disbelief in God?

“The basic premise that he exists at all?” That is for each and every individual to arrive at on their own, not for someone else to tell you what to think or not to think.

Your comments on this pace betray a deep devotion and desire to resolve your conflicts about your own concept of God and His existence. That speaks volumes.

It is quite likely that you possess a deep potential for deep devotion to God and you are at this time undergoing a sincere search, albeit experiencing, confusion about this.

I wish you well in your journey, in your search for Truth.

William

William2006 on January 23, 2007 at 3:39 AM

Here’s another prime example of the atheists’ condescension toward Christians. She acts as if we believe in a vacuum, as if there is no external evidence for the faith we profess. Do yourself a favor, examine your own presuppositions to determine where your truth comes from before you deride ours. Do yourself another favor: listen to the Bahnsen-Stein debate, if you’re brave enough.

PRCalDude on January 22, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Let’s look at presuppositions (is this a word? talk about redundant) shall we? I am a fervent believer in God. My point, which I thought was rather simple, apparently not, is that faith is a concept that unhinges on uncertainty.

honora on January 23, 2007 at 10:15 AM

honora,

What? Are we supposed to be deterred somehow or intimidated by your caustic remarks? As far as I’m concerned, your snooty, condescending sarcasm only betrays your innate feelings of inadequacy. Perhaps rightly so.

Speaking of “beliefs,” it painfully obvious to me that you haven’t been following astronomy and physics for the past ten years, HAVE YOU? If you think belief in God is a stretch, try “dark matter.” Of course, THAT wasn’t meta-physical ENOUGH — so now the astronomers have their “dark energy” to go with it. Then again, there’s that whole “string theory” thing. Oh yeah, and BTW, all of this stuff is completely unverifiable by ANY scientific experiment known to man. Nevertheless, there a lot of university professors making a lucrative living off of this kinda’ stuff. Next thing ya’ know, they’ll be on television asking little old ladies to send their money in before the Great Cosmic Force “calls them home.” (Surprise, surprise –there are snake-oil-salesmen in the halls of our so-called scientific institutions, as well as in the religious establishment.) And, if the physicists weren’t bad enough, we got the biologists with their whole Darwinian cult thing goin’ on. But mercifully (for the readers), I’ll let go of it here.

In stark contrast, at least the vast majority of the theologians (and their followers) don’t try to pass-off their “beliefs” (”faith” is a more accurate term) as “science.” They should get points for honesty on that count alone. (BTW, that’s WAY more honest than YOU are, honora, with the people that post comments here on the HotAir web-site).

Oh, and BTW, I’ve noticed that there are some other well informed individuals lurking here at HotAir that can tell you ALL about the scientific facts that DO, at the very least, suggest that there are other forces at work in the universe besides random chance — not that you’d listen, of course. If there’s one thing we can ALL be certain about, it is that a liberal’s mind is closed to the facts (scientific or otherwise).

But it is well with my soul, honora. You just keep-on believing in that “cold fusion”, okay?

CyberCipher on January 22, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Alrighty then….I’m delighted you are “well with your soul”. You might want to consider a little work on your mind….

honora on January 23, 2007 at 10:21 AM

When someone discovers proof that the Earth, the sun, the galaxy, all of mankind, and the entire universe were all created by accident or chance … let me know.

Last I checked, atheism is also unprovable.

Gregor on January 22, 2007 at 5:55 PM

See above comments.

And don’t be cute, you’re smarter than that. If you are looking at this strictly from a logic POV, the only logical conclusion is agnostic–not knowable.

honora on January 23, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Let’s look at presuppositions (is this a word? talk about redundant) shall we? I am a fervent believer in God. My point, which I thought was rather simple, apparently not, is that faith is a concept that unhinges on uncertainty.

honora on January 23, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Sorry. You inserted yourself into a conversation between us and the resident atheist. I mistook you for one.

PRCalDude on January 23, 2007 at 12:00 PM

Sorry. You inserted yourself into a conversation between us and the resident atheist. I mistook you for one.

PRCalDude on January 23, 2007 at 12:00 PM

No problemo. Easy to get confused on who said what, why, when. I applaud you on your civility!

honora on January 23, 2007 at 12:19 PM