Video: Pelosi’s daughter covers creationism
posted at 12:37 pm on January 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I went looking on YouTube for clips from “Friends of God” to peg to NRO’s review, but the pickings were slim. We’ll have to make do with this, which is useful insofar as its subject lies on the cultural fault line and useless insofar as it implies not only that Christianity = creationism but that all Christians approach the subject with the comic illogic exhibited by Buddy Davis.
It’s not as derisive or nasty as it could have been, but Pelosi’s obviously presenting it as a type of freak show. Rewarding as entertainment, not so much as documentary.
The movie re-airs today at 1:30 and 10 p.m. and at various times over the next month. Exit question for our Christian readers: Agree or disagree with the following paragraph from the NRO article?
The biggest lesson of the film is that normalcy is in the eye of the beholder. When Pelosi shows thousands of people singing “I am a friend of God,” a club of skateboarders “skating for Christ,” or even an impassioned sermon, those familiar with evangelicalism see nothing odd. However, your average New Yorker or San Franciscan, or even your suburban neighbor who has never walked through the door of a church, sees something very strange indeed. Turning a hobby, such as skating or cruising cars, into an outlet for proselytizing may come across as artificial, even manipulative. The fervor of emotional worship, multiplied by thousands of worshippers, can leave those without that experience scratching their head. “There’s something very strange about these people,” says Pelosi to Haggard about the enthusiastic worshippers, “They’re so happy.” Happy, perhaps, but disconcerting nonetheless — or all the more — to many liberals. In an interview with the gay magazine The Advocate, she says, “A lot of New York liberal Democrats who go to the megachurches come back talking about how scary they are.” To those who have never been a part of evangelicalism, the lingo, the constant referrals to the Bible, the personal lifestyles defined mainly by their biblically imposed limits, religious passion, even the pure power of thousands of people at a rally, can be terrifying. Evangelicals would do well to understand this, not to conform to the broader culture, but to speak a language those outside the church can understand.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »
Pigeons are flown in, full grown from HERE
Pigeon , Wisconsin
shooter on January 30, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Yes, it does.
reaganaut on January 30, 2007 at 5:14 PM
AP, what if you’re wrong? what if God does exist? And we don’t “know” for sure - no one does. That’s why it’s called faith. There are too many extraordinary events/miracles that happen that need explanation. To me, that’s where faith in God comes in - as the explanation for things I can’t explain - the power of prayer, meditation, faith. It’s all good stuff.
pullingmyhairout on January 30, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Esthier, you are making a straw man, I do not disagree with you.
I said that Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Adam, Moses, Elijah, ect. HAD FAITH. Not blind faith, but they had faith that God would do what he said he would do.
Why are you arguing with me?
Keljeck on January 30, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I don’t want to speak for honora here, but it seems to me she’s saying that grace should not be an excuse to engage in sin. (Romans 6:1) Christians do have a positive responsibility to avoid sin and live holy lives.
Slublog on January 30, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I never said it couldn’t be rejected. In fact, I thought I stated exactly the opposite.
No, God gives this grace to all. The point is that no one deserves it, and nothing anyone does will change that. God is gracious in spite of us, not because of us.
My point is not that God, or Christianity itself is not virtuous but that we as people/Christians are not virtuous. We’ve just accepted the gift that others didn’t. That’s literally the only difference.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Well, it seems that Ms Pelosi’s romp among the primatives has accomplished what she set out to do. By focusing on the eccentricities of a goof-ball variety of harmless people she gets everyone all tangled up into believing that’s what a Christian is, and boy oh boy, they look stupid. She wanted them to look stupid, so she didn’t stint on the visual message nor her choice of subjects to put under her magnifying glass.
Well, if that woman had been really interested in the truth about Ameicans practicing their Christian faith, she would have hauled her pampered ass and her film crew out to Sierra Leone or Liberia or Nigeria or Burkina Faso and spent a few months following American missionaries, supported by collections of small churches, living in what we would call deplorable conditions, filming their work, their church planting, their sacrifices to help the people they have agreed to live with, how to make their lives physically better and spiritually brighter. Maybe hold a bowl of food for a woman who’d had her hands cut off by Foday Sanko’s rebels, in order to feed her toddler child, whose hands had also been chopped off as an infant. Anyone hear about the Baptist missionaries who fled into the bush in Ivory Coast with the dozens of orphan Liberian kids they were taking care of - hiding for days on end with the children in the forest as rebels rampaged through the mission? Filmmakers like Pelosi can’t be bothered to show that kind of people - just average husbands and wives, from boring small home town, USA, being heroic.
If people want to see what missionaries and average Africans are up against in the Third World, and need a film to help visualize it - try “Tears of the Sun.” I could hardly watch it - it’s fiction, but the only major liberty it took was to give false hope that rescues out of those situations ever occur.
Perhaps a film of that memorial service in India held a couple years back, the surviving widow and the sisters of an American missionary and his two young sons who were trapped in their vehicle as they sleep and burned alive by Hindu ultra radicals. Before hundreds of Indians attending the service and the India media, the widow forgave the killers of her husband and sons.
Liberals love to whine that US humanitarian aid is a smaller part of our GNP than other countries, but they never count that American private donations, led by Christians, outstrip all others, with generous Americans giving their time, their money, their sweat to help others here in American and overseas.
How about Ms. Pelosi showing a film of all those high paid American doctors donating their time and skills to fly to Third World countries and perform surgeries, nurses who work voluntarily in clinics, who collect unwanted but useable medical supplies to ship or hand-carry to poor clinics?
It’s one thing for a Leftie like Pelosi to crank something like this out, it’s another to fall for it.
Remember her statement to Hannity: “YOU people want to destroy America!”
Agenda anyone?
naliaka on January 30, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Why does there need to be a “habitus”? God can very well give us a gift absent of any responsiblity on our part. And we can not demand how God gives that gift, but we do have the power to reject it.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Bad news for me, then. Although Thomas doubted Jesus and Jesus seemed to handle it well enough.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 5:20 PM
I believe that this:
was Luther’s arguement about sinners as dung heaps covered in snow and declared righteous(sorry for the jargon) even though in their hearts they are still dung.
I think honora’s argument is that with gift of grace, the dung heap is tilled and something new and truly righteous is created anew since the Christian is a new creation and this would fit with the idea that nothing unholy gets into heaven.
DrM2B on January 30, 2007 at 5:22 PM
You’re certainly welcome in my tent, since conservatism is a political philosophy and not a religion. How you arrived at it, be it through belief in the Bible or any other book, or even because you reached that point all by your own self, is absolutely none of my concern. It’s also none of my business.
I’m interested in where you are, not particularly in how you got there. Unless you want to share, of course, but it has absolutely zilch to do with whether I consider you a conservative or not.
Even if you ARE a heathen bastich ;-)
Misha I on January 30, 2007 at 5:23 PM
I wasn’t actually arguing with you but with a point honora made. Sorry, I think I got you confused in my discussion.
But how am I making a straw man? I realize I misunderstood you, but there are others here who feel the way I thought you did.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 5:23 PM
If that is what honora is saying, then I agree.
However, while we do have such a responsiblity, we can not do so without Grace and we can’t even have Faith without Grace.
Grace comes first because that is what Christ gives, because of Grace we can have True Faith, and because of True Faith we can act on our responsibily to avoid sin.
In Christianity, morality comes from Faith through Grace. Morality can’t come from us directly.
We can emulate and/or regulate morality to a point, but we can’t be truly sinless without placing the Grace part of the equation first.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Maybe, but I’d still argue that it isn’t the Christian him/herself who is holy but Jesus’s sacrifice which makes a Christian holy.
My point is that nothing a person does can make him/her holy, Christian or not.
If it’s accepting that gift that tilts the dung or whatever, fine, but the principle difference here is still something outside of us.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Yes, but Thomas eventually believed. What will it take for you to believe? A miracle? I’m not being bit**y, I’m just curious.
pullingmyhairout on January 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM
He’s tough like that.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM
I guess I was easily misunderstood. I was just saying that faith is a necessity in salvation. You cannot be saved without having faith. So the idea that the prophets had no faith is absurd. They had faith that God would follow through with his plans. To do that they did need faith in the existence of God.
For instance I cannot be sure that I am typing on this computer right now, but I can feel it and by my faith I agree with my eyes. They had faith they saw God, they had faith that the evidence was clear. They believed what they could not be certain of, but were certain of it regardless.
Keljeck on January 30, 2007 at 5:30 PM
I agree, but would say it this way:
If it’s ‘rejecting’ that gift that tilts the dung or whatever, fine, but the principle difference here is still something outside of us.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 5:31 PM
I missed this earlier. But to be fair, this isn’t what I was talking about. I was talking about the struggle you referred to. I don’t see how struggle with faith is virtuous.
I’m just a Christian. The denomination labels give me a headache sometimes.
I agree. Like someone else wrote, Romans 6:1 certainly applies here. But I see no virtue in the struggle to believe.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 5:34 PM
I can accept that.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Maybe so, but Thomas finally did believe and said to Jesus
And id the following verse, Jesus replied:
“
jman on January 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM
AP said:
That Jesus…he’s a pretty good guy!
nailinmyeye on January 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM
AP, realistically, a thread like this, weekly, might be the conservative party’s salvation. Maybe, just maybe it would claim that ‘large tent’ it talks about, often.
Idealistically, I’d love to join the AP/Kid/Professor party, and I’d love to party with you.
All I know is that I don’t know. However, I find all the pandering to and the belittling of religious people offensive. Also, I’m irritated when non-believers push their ‘beliefs’ to the obscene (i.e. what’s printed on money, cross in San Diego year-long fight, religious holiday displays, etc.)
Professor Blather made the excellent point on multi-culti and the world leftie hypocrisy about it.
I read every word on this thread and how I miss: Soothsayer, Kralizec and Janos Hunyadi.
Enriques equivalence - shame, shame. I have no problem with your atheism, just with your equivalence amongst the religions you site.
P.S. honora, wrote you a letter on the O’Reilly thread.
Entelechy on January 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM
I would agree if we said it such:
That while Faith is a necessity, Grace is the necessity.
Grace comes first, then Salvation, and then because of Grace and Salvation we can have True Faith.
If we embrace the gift of Grace, we’re good to go.
If we reject the gift of Grace, then we’re out of luck.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 5:39 PM
And TOASTERS?
They used to be only spring loaded on one side, so if you put the bread in the wrong side it wouldn’t pop up.
There is a VAST difference between religion and being spiritual, or spirituality.
I’m a Christian but don’t like ‘religion’, or, religion that has man-made laws not of Christ, and/or church musts or demands.
Jesus is my guide, to the best of my ability, I want to live as He did. He also promised we could do so.
The confusion above lies in the fact that some folk don’t believe that Jesus Christ HAS proved everything we need in performing scores of miracles, dying on the cross and ARISING from the dead, this while taking on all the sins of every human being in the world forever…whether you believe in Him or not.
Also, it’s not science vs. God, it is science with the intelligence that God gave us. God made the atoms, the neutrons, the stars, the flowers, etc.
Science, it’s not a secret.
shooter on January 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Let me clear up a little on this analogy.
I said tilled, its a farming thing where you take the dung and mix it up in the earth and teh dung changes from dung to flowers or wheat or corn.
The grace given to a Christian changes the and gives them the power to change. Their work gains merit because it is connected with the saving grace of Christ. Christ asked his followers to work and be virtuous. Mt 5,6,7..etc. If it is just Christ laying it on me and I can do nothing good or bad then it is pointless to have faith or anything else for that matter - God will just have his way with me and be done.
DrM2B on January 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM
The second coming, I guess. When I try discussing this with religious friends, it inevitably devolves into them saying, “Well, I feel it. I feel God there.” How do you answer that? You can say, “Well, lots of people feel lots of things that aren’t really there,” which usually leads to one of two reactions: (1) anger, or (2) “Yeah, I know, but I really feel it.”
To me it seems analogous to deja vu. You feel like you’ve done something before, yet you have no memory of having done it. What’s the likelier explanation for that: an errant neural impulse routed through the memory part of your brain or a magical “Groundhog Day” existence where you’re reliving the same events over again but only occasionally when deja vu strikes do you have any sense of it?
Flame away.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 5:41 PM
That reminds me of a Catholic sermon I heard. The guy was talking about how God is all about suprises and he loves to surprise us, so heaven will be infinite suprises. I thought about it for a second and I realized that in order to be suprised you have to be ignorant.
God can’t be particularly elated that we are so suprised. I doubt that he is happy about our struggle to believe. He doesn’t want that, really it’s our fault. He’s happy that we finally learned something, but he doesn’t want us to struggle or be suprised.
Keljeck on January 30, 2007 at 5:41 PM
If you think that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time or that the Earth is only 6,ooo years old, then you have a problem with both reality and verifiable evidenced backed by several different scientific principles and disciplines. Whether or not you should be made fun of for such beliefs would be a personal decision.
Any principle, idea or theory can and has been misused for the purpose of a cause, ideology or politics. Religions for example are currently being used in such endeavors.
Evolution, or for the most adherent xians, evilution, has nothing to do with eugenics, socialism, communism, sunspots, acne, hot flashes, chronic halatosys or any other percived ills. Evolution does not even address the origin of life. That is biogenesis or abiogenisis.
Let people worship or not worship what they will.
Gene Splicer on January 30, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Yes, then after faith comes good works. Following naturally of course. It is all the work of God’s Grace.
Keljeck on January 30, 2007 at 5:44 PM
I wrote a short paper on this in the early Nineties, in which a newspaper article referred to Christian Coalition candidates as ’stealth candidates’, because they weren’t forthcoming on controversial political issues.
I pointed out two things, worth repeating: Many politicians (too many?) keep their views on controversial issues as secret as they can — why alienate potential voters?; and secondly (something NR would well to understand), that there is nothing secretive about fundamentalist Christians.
If you want to know something about them, ask them. As I said in my paper, it doesn’t surprise me that many members of the modern media don’t go to Church, but certainly they can find a Church parking lot on a Sunday morning.
Frank_D on January 30, 2007 at 5:45 PM
I take it AP has a firm grasp of what’s hot and what’s not on here now.
… post 231
darwin on January 30, 2007 at 5:51 PM
None the less, evolution is still a theory and does have some large holes in it. It is taught in our schools as fact and many teachers are not even allowed to discuss anything that does not support it.
jman on January 30, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Allah, I can only speak for myself, but I don’t think anyone here wants to flame you. If anything, I just think some of us felt flamed by your desire to leave a party with us in it.
I’m not saying that you said it just like that, but that is the message that some saw.
You did afterall make your third party comment in response to comments Christians made, not in response to something a politician did that did not represent your view.
And again, this isn’t a flame at all.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 5:55 PM
It’s the leading theory, and holes or not, that doesn’t entitle crackpot theories to equal classroom time. We have a very poor understanding of how the brain works, but that doesn’t mean phrenology should be taught alongside neurology.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 5:56 PM
I don’t know why you take that personally, though. It’s not like I’m saying, “Ew, Christians! Get away!” It’s about advancing one’s political interests, not demonizing you or anyone else.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 5:57 PM
C.S. Lewis says it for me:
And no, I’m not calling you the Green Witch. Yes, I know don’t make a very good Narnian, but I love Narnia nonetheless.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Your discussions with your friends border on the philisophical mind/body question. A question that the best philosophical minds out there have been struggling with for centuries as well.
I wouldn’t hold it against them (or myself) that they can’t define what that ‘feeling’ is. The existence of a spirit or, even simpler than that, the existence of a nonphysical something, like the mind (as opposed to the very physical brain) is not as simple to prove/disprove as many might think.
I know (in the religious sense) because I know Him. I have a personal relationship with Him. I can’t give that experience to someone else any more than I can give the experience of riding an Ahkel-teke stallion at break-neck speed to another person. I wouldn’t be able to explain either of those experiences beyond how they feel/felt, but, that’s an indication of a fault in the language, not a fault in the experience. ;)
JadeNYU on January 30, 2007 at 6:03 PM
You claimed you wanted a third party in direct response to Christian posts here without saying anything about advancing a political interest.
You didn’t specify any issues where you differ with the Christians to say where we are hindering anything in the party that you would like to see done or not done.
You may as well have said that.
Or rather, you got responses from Christians here as though you had said that, from my perspective, and I can understand why they would react that way.
And I’m not trying to criticize but to just explain why it was taken personally. Your statements seemed to be about Christians, not issues.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 6:06 PM
What “holes”? Scientists do not argue about whether evolution occurs or is occurring. The only argument is in regards to the mechanism involved.
You may also be confusing the generic label of theory with how any scientific pursuit uses the term. Nothing is ever a fact considering that to be valid it must also have the potential to be falsifiable.
Teachers are not banned from discussing ID or CS as long as they do not try to claim that these are in any way, shape or form backed by legitimate science. ID and CS cannot stand up to such scrutiny since they are not based upon natural, verifiable and falsifiable premises.
Gene Splicer on January 30, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Actually, schools have been fined (a million dollars in one case) for merely mentioning ID.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 6:19 PM
I think what offended some is idea that (and I’m not saying this is what you said, but possibly how it has been perceived) that you need to find a party that doesn’t have Christians in it in order to find a party that will work for you.
It lumps a very large group of people with a very wide array of views (indeed, one of the only things Christians seem to agree upon is that Jesus came and died for our sins. Even then, many of us get accused of having a ‘different’ Jesus) on matters that are religious as well as political. There are Christian’s that vote Democrat…that support abortion….that want open borders….that believe wealth is distributed not earned….just as there are Christians that believe exactly the opposite as well as Christians that believe everything in between.
The implication (perhaps unintentional) in your statement being that you don’t want to drink out of the same water fountain as the conservatives because the Christians have tainted it….which is fine, but, usually something like that needs some specifics (i.e. the Christian’s drool when they drink ;) ). People would be less likely to take offense if you said, I would like a third party because I believe that the Christian influence has led the convervatives to focus mainly on gay marriage, abortion, and other issues I don’t care so much about….or something along those lines. However, that would then raise the issue of whether those things are due to the influence of the Christians or if it’s a larger American culture thing.
I’m a devout Christian (born and raised) and my number one issue is fighting terrorists in their own homes and not in mine. Being 4 blocks away from the WTC on 9/11 is the last time I want to be anywhere near terrorists.
How is national security as a number 1 priority a bad thing for the conservatives? Or, is there a chance, that all Christians aren’t identical?
JadeNYU on January 30, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Also, evolution (long-term macro evolution) does not have verifiable and falsifiable premises either.
I’m not arguing against evolution, so please, no one try to respond to me as though I am here.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Evolution? I guess after 233+ comments on religion, that would have to come up.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 6:26 PM
I’m jumping back in, and perhaps I’ve missed something… but that sounds a bit hostile AP.. and I’m not sure who you were talking to, and perhaps they said something that most believers in creation (aka the Bible) don’t support… But we don’t want “creation” (which isn’t a “thing”, it’s just accepting the Bible as a literally true history) taught in schools. We just want unbiased truthful science taught.
Evolution is not science. It’s a world view and a ridiculously baseless theory. It’s not even “based on” science. Science constantly flies in the face of it, yet the blind faith of Darwinists forces them to try to fit the contradictory evidence back in to the fairytale, without ever questioning the fairytale itself.
Again, it’s already been falsified
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200612.htm#20061214a
And I could give you thousands more smaller examples, but let that one sink in for a while (and no, it’s not some “crazy” religious nut… it’s an analysis of the findings/writings of evolutionists). Are you even aware that evolutionary thinking contributes nothing to science? In fact the only thing it does is hold back science when study of certain things is put on the back burner because of evolutionary assumptions. Only when these “scientists” actually get around to studying things do they realize they CONSTANTLY conflict with their assumptions, and turn their faith on it’s head.
But the evolutionist is such a blindly religious nut they can’t accept evidence and report it for what it is… they always have to pay homage to their lord and savior Darwin. By saying idiotic things like “shows it must have evolved quicker than we thought”… Even though the evidence/findings showed nothing about how a species evolved at all.. simply that it couldn’t have evolved the way they had assumed. Is that science? No, it’s called lying.
Again, I suggest people look at this scary “creationist movement” before speaking on it… not a video of a lesson for small children (obviously they aren’t talking advanced biology to 4 year olds) by some leftwing nut. What you call “creationists” are about the science. Darwinists are about fitting contradicting science in to their fairytale. No one (well, almost no one) is asking for the Bible to be taught in school. Just real science, without all the evolution BS.
RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 6:28 PM
For Allah here is a guy taking on God from his basement apartment.
Its a movement I tell ya !
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2833103&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
The Blasphemy Challenge
Host of Internet Challenge Says God ‘Most Likely Doesn’t Exist’
By JOHN BERMAN, ETHAN NELSON and KARSON YIU
Jan. 30, 2007 — Brian “Sapient” is an average-looking 30-year-old guy who works out of his basement in Philadelphia. His job? Well, Brian is taking on God.
“Wow, that’s a dramatic way of putting it,” says Brian, who asked that “Nightline” not use his real last name for safety reasons. But however he defines his challenge, Brian is on the cutting edge of a new and emboldened wave of atheism.
There isn’t any good reason to believe in God,” asserts Brian. “It’s that simple.”
Watch the story on “Nightline” tonight at 11:35 p.m.
What’s wrong with God?
“What’s wrong with the tooth fairy?” asks Brian. “There’s nothing wrong with something that most likely doesn’t exist.”
There are an estimated 20 to 30 million atheists in the United States these days, and some of them say they feel like a persecuted minority.
“Atheists are completely vilified. And it’s OK,” says Kelly, an atheist who works alongside Brian and also asked that her last name not be used.
“It’s actually OK to hate atheists,” Kelly said. “We are like the last group that people overwhelmingly agree that it’s OK to hate us, because there’s an absurd caricature of atheism out there.”
William Amos on January 30, 2007 at 6:31 PM
What???? Christians maybe, but I’ve never known anyone to hate someone for being an atheist.
What’s there to hate? They don’t believe. So what?
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 6:34 PM
It’s their beady eyes.
Slublog on January 30, 2007 at 6:36 PM
WOW. 247 comments. Must be a record.
BacaDog on January 30, 2007 at 6:39 PM
The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of the world’s scientists agree that evolution is a fact, yet you’ve managed to disprove them all, eh? And so thoroughly that you’re comfortable deriding the theory as “ridiculously baseless.” Reminds me of those guys who are absolutely 100% positive that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
I’m tempted to ask whether the global scientific community knows the truth but is conspiring to suppress it or whether it’s a simple case of mass ignorance. But I won’t; I don’t want this thread turning into a nuts and bolts point-counterpoint about Darwinism. Rather, I’ll simply invite all of our readers who want the Truth about evolution to visit RightWinged.com.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 6:39 PM
I’m not saying it’s o.k. to hate anyone. But, I do find it laughable that she’s saying there’s an absurd caricature of atheism out there.
Could that caricature have possibly been a result of people like Kelly and Brian that, in lieu of a real job, have decided to work out of Brian’s basement and take on God?
I don’t believe in the toothfairy, but I don’t have to spend my time taking the tooth fairy on either.
I don’t really care if they choose to have silly, fake jobs…but if I find out that they are on any sort of unemployment/welfare instead of getting a regular ole 9-5 like the rest of us (or, as is more often the case, an 8-6 and then you get to take the work home), then the hate will be unleashed!
JadeNYU on January 30, 2007 at 6:40 PM
BS. Given that only about 0.4 % of the population describes themselves as such, with 0.5% describing themselves as agnostic. What you’re talking about is the 13 or so percent that are “not religious.” The two aren’t synonymous.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Actually, that kind of thing is a lot closer to home. Volunteers from churches all over the country have been rebuilding New Orleans, since our local (Democratic) politicians are slow to disburse federal funding. Crews of people have been taking a week of their vacation and coming down here to gut and rebuild houses or do other cleanup/recovery work. It’s phenomenal - that kind of service and help, with no strings attached, has been a real testimony to people. The book of James, writ large.
Laura on January 30, 2007 at 6:44 PM
I don’t get why this assertion is so important here. Scientists have asserted things as fact several times over in the past only to change their minds.
The atom can be split, and I’m sure you have countless other examples up your own sleeve.
Who cares what scientists believe as fact? Maybe evolution is dead-on accurate in describing how humans came to be, maybe it’s not. But the truth of the theory has nothing to do with beliefs scientists hold to be true. The only thing they seem to be able to prove for a certainty is how much we don’t know about the world in which we live.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Nope, the vast, vast, vast majority of the world’s biologists agree that Darwinianism is a fact. That it is or isn’t doesn’t matter a hill of beans to any other branch of science, which is telling.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Rightwinged.
Get off it. Those are debates within evolutionary theory about specific matters. None of what you posted refutes the general pattern that evolutionists know to be the case: All life evolved from single cell organism, beginning in water then eventually moving to land, etc…
What you posted basically illustrates what we still don’t know about specific traits that are found in nature. True, it does show how much we still don’t know like the intelligent designers say. But the fact that humans are ignorant is not evidence for the existence of God.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Gene Splicer,
Funny, but historically speaking not true. It’s not an accident that the international eugenics movement became prominent 30-40 years after Origin of Species was published. And, though I hate to fulfill Godwin’s Law, it’s clear that Hitler was heavily influenced by Darwin (though to be clear, Hitler was not an atheist but a deist).
For the record, I accept evolution, so I’m not suggesting bad outcomes make something untrue. Sometimes the truth leads people to bad ideas rather than good ones…witness Christian wrestling or, more seriously, the crusades.
Allah,
Gabba-gabba-hey…I accept you as a true conservative. I also appreciate that you’ve been evenhanded when writing about Christianity here at Hot Air. I do sometimes wonder why you write about it so often…then again 300+ comments says a lot.
John on January 30, 2007 at 6:49 PM
sorry,
that second sentence of the second paragraph is redundant, but i wanted to give IDers the benefit of the doubt.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 6:50 PM
You can’t fight in here, gentlemen. This is the war room.
Seriously, I don’t want a debate about Darwinism here. It descends into scientific minutiae instantly and bores most of the other commenters to tears. If Randy wants to open a thread at RightWinged for it and post the link here, he’s welcome to do that.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 6:50 PM
I apologize Allah, but this thread is really getting a workout. I’m planning to watch Pelosi’s documentary tonight largely because of all this interest it has generated on this blog.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 6:54 PM
BacaDog, the “SotU non-event” thread has 309 comments - however, this one is not finished, by far.
I like it. This is the best the conservatives can do among themselves.
Entelechy on January 30, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Have spoken to every scientist? Or do you really mean: “Credible Scientists do not argue about whether evolution occurs or is occurring”
Microevolution is verifiable and I accept that. Macroevolution is not observable and I do not think the fossil record supports it. If are thousands upon thousands of fossils of complete organisms, shouldn’t there be an equal number of “missing links”?
jman on January 30, 2007 at 6:59 PM
I’m not particularly found of in-house fighting. Maybe my parents just didn’t yell at each other enough.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 7:00 PM
I agree with Allahpundit on this. The left wants to impose thier social agenda. “Evangelicals” are exactly as bad as the left wing trying to get gov’t to impose thier social agenda, it simply is a different agenda. That is a sellout of “concervative” principals, the gov’t is supposed to leave people alone. As long as debate is about what social policy should be as opposed to if gov’t should even be involved, then Republicans are going to lose elections.
Resolute on January 30, 2007 at 7:02 PM
What, demonstrate actually intellectual and philosophical diversity? Or just be asses to one another? Either one is fine with me as long as there’s a kiss-and-make-up session afterwards.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Absolutely right. I chose the more dramatic - a lot of people seem to think all that hard work is over. But the local heros work without fanfare. Isn’t the Mennonites who have been the first on the scene of tornados, hammers in hand, not giving money, but hard work, useful skills and a strong back? Churches were the first on the scene with food and water when Hurricane Andrew devastated Florida - before the big crews could even get in - the roads were so debris strewn.
As for evolution - if anyone is not aware that the cutting of man away from a Creator who gave him intrinsic worth - which is the ideology of evolution - better go back and do some research. Forget for a moment the science arguments, if you can, we’re not talking about that - what is vitally important in our daily lives is the natural logical conclusions that come from the evolutionary hypothesis: man has no more worth than anything else, no purpose, no future significance. A boy is a pig is a rat. PETA lives by this. Earth First! The communists- man exists for the purpose decided by the State.
No one can prove, either way, what happened in the past to start it all up - we have no witnesses. We cannot test it, it was a unique event. We can only deduce. Thus, we can argue for years and arrive at a stalemate, neither side convinced enough. So fair enough.
What affects us is the theology of evolution versus the theology of the Judeo-CHristian heritage. Several posters have expressed doubts that evolution theory could have such an effect, but it is historically recognized as the foundation for humanism and the degradation of mankind’s status in the world. It obviously doesn’t really matter to us today what happened so long ago, but if you were to throw yourself on the mercy of a court for the killing of a cougar that had been about to eat your child, would you want to be tried by a court made up of evolutionary-inspired PETA people or a court made up of people with a concept that man is more important than animals?
This is not a joke. This may not be hypothetical much longer.
naliaka on January 30, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Yes and no. Yes, it is the conservative way to keep government out of business. No, Evangelicals are not calling for something new. They’re basically calling for the United States to return, as a culture and as a government, to what it was 50-60+ years ago.
Cue the rejoinder involving racial segregation in 3..2..1…
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 7:10 PM
“Evangelicals” are exactly as bad as the left wing trying to get gov’t to impose their social agenda,
Right. Like keeping babies from being ripped out alive from their mothers womb, preserving marriage. Really bad stuff like that.
Timber Wolf on January 30, 2007 at 7:11 PM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. America naturally gravitates towards a Leave it to Beaver lifestlye. Evangelicals shoot themselves in the foot and destroy the party by trying to get it legislated.
Resolute on January 30, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Perhaps best of thread so far. I so appreciate my friends here at Hot Air. I feel like I am swinging in a hammock under the Big Tent. Blessings, all!
RushBaby on January 30, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Racial segregation,KKK, Jim Crow, can be placed at the feet of the Democrat Party, not evangelicals. Just go ahead and ask former KKK officer and KKK new branch planter, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, guiding star of the Democrat-controlled COngress. You can be sure he has lots of historical background for you. Knows it by heart, certainly.
naliaka on January 30, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Once again, we’re mixing apples and oranges. Evangelicals are a flavor (if you will) of Christianity. They do not think with the same brain and vote with the same punch card. I know evangelicals that are liberal, many that are conservative, and quite a few that find politics so disgusting that they just don’t want to be involved.
We need to remember that many of the things that we don’t consider to be ‘moral’ issues still have a philosophical underpinning.
As a conservative, I believe that the rights of the individual are the single most important thing for a government to recognize (note ‘recognize’ and not ‘grant’).
While this belief may be influenced by my Christianity, I would argue that it is much more influenced by western philosophy dating back to Ancient Greece.
Now, plenty of people who are not Christians also believe this.
However, plenty of people with a different personal philosophy (i.e. socialists, pinko commies, etc) see this as my personal philosophy being forced on them.
Whether it is due to religion or lack there of or something else entirely, we are all attempting to force our agendas on others. You take offense at the ’social’ agenda, but a socialist might take just as much offense at your belief in private property rights.
It seems silly to me to argue that, in politics, one group is trying to force something on another group. That is politics.
We can only strive to impose the system/values that cause the least amount of damage…..although, even that is a personal valuation that I would be ‘forcing’ on others.
JadeNYU on January 30, 2007 at 7:24 PM
This is what I mean. I agree with you on those principles. But the logic here is the same as saying that guns kill people so they should be illegal. Not everything that has a bad result should be illegal. If you can not agree that all of your principles should NOT necessarily be enshrined in federal law then you are not a concervative. You are simply a liberal with an alternate, conflicting, agenda to the Democrat party.
Resolute on January 30, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Interesting point, but not convincing. Sure, middle America might gravitate towards Ozzie and Harriet, which is where the majority of the Evangelical movement originates, but they aren’t the ones asking for the legislation to which you’re referring, i.e. institution of a Christian caliphate or some such.
Basically what I’m saying is that Evangelicals are asking for things like marriage amendments (which up till now were unnecessary), protection of prayer in public schools (which up till 1962 was unnecessary), and bans on abortion (which up till 1973 were unnecessary). America has lost control over its own destiny because it stopped paying attention after WWII. It wanted a breather, and the left stepped in the breach and took advantage of middle America’s sleepy fatigue.
Ozzie and Harriet middle America, the Evangelicals whom you seem to think are dangerous, are waking up and trying to take their country back.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 7:28 PM
spmat
fast enough?
naliaka on January 30, 2007 at 7:29 PM
This is a very thoughtful criticism about how evolution has affected man’s relation man. But I still think it is too simple. Evolution is not the sole reason. Hell, blame Nietzche. Blame Freud. Blame all the rationalists! They have had a role in deconstucting the “created in the image” model.
But in the end, don’t you have to hold man accountable for the evil perpetrated in the last 100 years rather than books? We can’t hide the world’s complexity by shadowing it in myth. It’s been done before, but it won’t work today.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Bleh, “who you seem to think…” Nominative case. My grammar are teh suck.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 7:33 PM
The solutions to all the problems you raise are to keep gov’t out of it.
Question prayer in school?
Liberal: no
Evangelical: yes
actual concervative awnser: what business is it of the gov’t?
The thing is a strong majority of Americans agree with the concervative awnser but they are fractured into different parties and the “Evangelicals” refuse to get on board meaning they hand these victoryies to the liberal by fracturing the R party.
Resolute on January 30, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Holy moley…(pun intended)…this one generated a LOT of discussion. This is the most amount of comments I’ve yet seen on any one topic…guess it struck a chord, as religion often does…
Now, being a Catholic myself, I too find many fundamentalists a little “over the top”. IMHO, there’s no need to dismiss the age of the dinosaurs, or deny evolution.
Dinosaurs are, for me, simply a pre-Adamic creation. For as a Catholic, the Earth was not created in 6 literal days…the Bible says for God “a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day”.
The fundies take it too far. Life on Earth does evolve, and that was all a part of God’s plan. I do deny that man evolved from apes…there’s still no scientific proof of that.
JetBoy on January 30, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Liberals and atheists think they are right and therefor only they should decide what the laws and policies should be concerning our society (schools, courts, taxes, etc.) Christians and other conservatives are not willing to let others decide these things for us so we fight their efforts. We have as much of a right to do so as the socialists and others have to try to force these things on us. We do not need to back down just because others are offended by us. Liberals offend me, maybe they need to back down so that I and others like me aren’t offended.
Rose on January 30, 2007 at 7:42 PM
I had to eat dinner (yes, life goes on) and couldn’t address the idea of faith that was mentioned way back when in this thread.
I don’t know much about him, but I think some understandings of religious faith may actually be closer to Kirkegaard’s idea of faith—that of making a “leap” of faith without basis in the rational world–rather than the Christian idea of faith–that of trusting in God who has made Himself known and given us reason to believe in Him.
This is part of my personal apologia regarding my Christian faith.
1. The New Testament is an accurate historical document attesting to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
For this I recommend reading John Warwick Montgomery’s History, Law and Christianity (which can be read in just a few hours) or F. F. Bruce’s The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable? The text of this book is online.
2. A person can therefore read the gospels as history and then an unavoidable question arises—what does the reader think about Jesus Christ? BTW, there is no middle ground, Jesus said, He who is not with Me, is against Me. See C. S. Lewis’ essay What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ? from his book God In The Dock.
Let me add that all three men mentioned above were/are intellectual scholars (Bruce and Lewis are deceased). None of their works are the mere nattering of a shallow, uneducated lightweight.
3. The desire and yearning for significance and justice within each person is also, in my opinion, an apologetic for Christianity. We each have significance because we are each made in the image of God. Our desire for it and our yearning to love and be loved is a reflection of the loving character of God. Even those who do not believe in God, for the most part will live their lives as if their lives have significance.
Our desire for justice—and who among us, whatever your code of morality may be, has not at one time cried, “That’s not fair!”—is a reflection of the holiness of God and a desire to see justice done. Even those who may rail against a God they say only exists in the minds of men to give condemnation and guilt trips, have at some point in their life cried out to see wrongs made right, even if only in their own life. The fact that this world is seriously skewed with wrong, injustice and suffering is a reflection, according to Christianity, that we have each turned aside from God and gone and lived life in our own way.
4. I think Francis Schaeffer said that to become a Christian, knowledge must precede faith. If history gives me enough reason to read the New Testament, then the New Testament gives me the knowledge I need to understand Jesus Christ, about repentance and sin and His death, and to be able to decide the question of faith. In the New Testament the phrase is presented as believing into Jesus. We don’t have a mere intellectual accession that He existed or is the Son of God, but we trust in Him—as Lord and Savior. One of my pastors gave the example of a chair, you may see the chair and believe it exists, but you do not believe in it, until you sit on it and rest there.
Paul said, “So faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” I highly recommend the gospel of John and Paul’s letter to the church at Rome for further reading on the Christian faith.
INC on January 30, 2007 at 7:43 PM
That’s interesting. I’ve been told that the actual Hebrew translates to a word closer to “age” rather than “day.”
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Heh. Yep. And good points, to boot. To be quite honest, there are parts of my Southern upbringing about which I’m very proud. There are others, uh, not so much. Our past is one of those. Especially our self-serving abuse of Christian theology.
It’s the reason why M.L. King was the right man, with the right message, at the right time. Those Christians who had not yet given over their souls to a corrupt system could listen to what he had to say, reject the system, and return to where they should have been all along.
Even still, it was not Christian culture that produced segregation any more than it was Christian culture that perpetuated slavery. In both cases, Christianity was held hostage to a political and economic framework that eventually had to be destroyed from without, cut out like a cancer. This surgery was accomplished, in both cases, under the auspices of a thoroughly Christian worldview.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 7:46 PM
This is not the ideology of evolution, it’s the fear lurking in the mind of the creationist at the thought of evolution. You think you have a monopoly on morality, and you hold up immoral idiots on the other side (PETA) as proof. Evolution is a scientific theory so well supported by the evidence that it comes as close to “fact” as any theory can. It is NOT a world view.
The strongest argument for the existence of god is that people seem to need to believe in him so much. But there are those of us who don’t feel that need, and yet still have a moral basis for our actions. We still ascribe worth to life, and to human life in particular, because I’m human. I don’t need your god to ascribe worth to my life (or yours), and I don’t need him to tell me the difference between right and wrong.
peski on January 30, 2007 at 7:50 PM
The problem with what you’re saying is the conservative answer requires no less legislation than the supposed Evangelical answer. The only answer that requires none, since it was accomplished by fiat by the judiciary in Engel v. Vitale, is the Liberal answer. Same problem with abortion and homosexual marriage.
All of these issues are the kind that can be decided, in absence of any substantive legislation addressing it, by the judiciary, which the Left controls lock, stock and head shop.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 7:51 PM
None. Therefore if a decision must be made, let it be made at the school board level and keep the federal courts out of it.
Coyote D. on January 30, 2007 at 7:52 PM
If belief in evolution is a fact then why are evolutionists so afraid of anyone pointing out problems with the belief? I’m not saying we should teach creationism but evolution does have problems and should be discussed completely instead of the problems being glossed over. An honest discussion of evolution is exactly what evolutionists do not want. A fact does not need this kind of protection.
Rose on January 30, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Peski,
Many, many, many people believe in conspiracy theories. Does that fact testify to their validity?
I know you are trying to be fair, but these are matters of faith. You can’t make a cogent argument for them, nor against them.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Rose,
I think you’re referring to the scientific community’s refusal to debate members of the ID movement. There reason for that policy had little to do with the validity of evolution, but rather that the fear that a debate would actual legitimized the movement in the eyes of the public. This, in hindsight, may not have been the best strategy.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 8:08 PM
What is your problem here AP, that you have to get personal? Rarely is evolution/creation ever the subject of my blog (which I’m unable to edit at the moment anyway)… So what is this about:
?
You don’t think that comes off rather dickish? All I said earlier is that we aren’t asking for the Bible to be taught in school. Just science. Not all the assumed evolution bullsh**. Why are you opposed to unbiased science being taught? I notice you didn’t challenge my point about throwing the E word in to the mix doesn’t add to any real science being done.
And do you have any idea how weak the “vast majority” argument is? All I have to say is “the Earth is flat”. How about global warming (though you may be on the fence there, so that’s probably not a good example). Anyway, do you have any idea what happens when mainstream scientists don’t accept evolutionary dogma?
Look, I don’t want to debate evolution here either, it’s too big of a topic. But what’s with the personal stuff? I mean, it would at least make sense if I had written a post on the issue and you linked to it because you found it ridiculous… but what does this have to do with you linking to me sarcastically as an authority?
At any rate, if you’re truly interested in this topic. I suggest looking in to the science (not what the “science community” says), and not taking the snapshot that folks like Pelosi paint for us of what opposition to evolution is all about.
I guess I’m just a little stunned you took it where you did. Seems like you’re being a little touchy about this or something. I’ll make one other recommendation for beginners, check out the DVDs Unlocking the Mystery of Life, and Priveleged Planet. (But don’t tell AllahPundit about the real, leading scientists appearing in them)
RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Even still, it was not Christian culture that produced
You’re fast too. And that’s a nicely stated summary, indeed. :)
naliaka on January 30, 2007 at 8:12 PM
The problem is that if any scientist debates evolution they are automatically dismissed as a religious zealot. Honest debate is not allowed.
Rose on January 30, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Rightwinged,
Let me just ask one question: Do you think by falsifying evolution (if you could) you have shown creation, and by extension, the existence of God, to be a fact?
Please don’t answer by promoting a Creationism DVD, textbook, or website.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 8:19 PM
96% of the world’s population? That’s a lot of tin foil…
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 8:19 PM
The Hebrew transliterates as yom, which can be translated as either “day” or as “age.” The word, in the context of Genesis 1-2, does not give a lot of help.
The reason is that the first two chapters of Genesis are not meant to be a scientific accounting of the origin of the universe. They are a poetic/literary account of the creation of the world, with the central theme being that “God created.”
6 days or 6 million years…it doesn’t matter. That isn’t what the text, or Christian faith, is about. I don’t care whether everything was created all at once, fully formed, or whether God created everything to look old, or whether it really did take billions of years for us all to get where we are. Any way I cut it, I believe that God was the initiator.
But, then again, straying into minutiae.
nailinmyeye on January 30, 2007 at 8:20 PM
So the reason that evolutionist hold so tightly to their theory is that the alternative is to believe in God. So there is an agenda.
Rose on January 30, 2007 at 8:21 PM
No, they want to conserve a “social agenda” that has existed for thousands of years. There’s a subtle difference. Also, what about the argument that abortion is demographically unsustainable? That’s not a religious argument, it’s a structural one.
aengus on January 30, 2007 at 8:22 PM
So recommending reading to people is now “promoting” creationism stuff… Linking is fine when it’s to point to current news articles, other blogs, etc… but when you point to something that opposes the great religion of evolution it’s unacceptable? Once again, gotta love that scientifically open minded evolutionary thinking.
Anyway, the simple answer to your question is no. No my simple question back is, what does that have to do with anything I’ve said?
RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 8:23 PM
spmat,
I like the tinfoil line. But seriously, just do a poll on the Kennedy assassination. You’ll find that the vast majority (probably 80%) of respondents favor the conspiracy theories. The ones that don’t, either plead agnostic or believe in other ones. So, I won’t be shocked if it gets up to 96%
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Sorry but this is incorrect. It clearly means “day”, because it is repeatedly mention that there was “evening and morning” on each DAY.
RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »