Gallup: Only two percent of conservatives don’t believe in a higher power
posted at 2:51 pm on July 28, 2008 by Allahpundit
The number’s even smaller when you remember that 21% of “atheists” believe in God. The few, the proud, the heretics:
Gallup decided to present the data in video format for some reason so you’ll have to sit through two minutes to see how the numbers by party identification compare. I never know what to make of the fact that I belong to such a tiny minority within my own side; there’s no reason I can think of why faith should be some essential part of conservatism and plenty of reason why it shouldn’t, i.e. cynicism about human nature should correlate to some degree with a more general skepticism, but 50 150 million right-wing believers can’t be wrong. (Actually, they can!)
Anyone want to try explaining this?
It’s unclear how they’re dividing “East” from “South” so I can only guess that the entire coast is being placed in the former category, which will drag the number of believers upwards as you cross the Mason-Dixon line. If not, then that is one indigo-blue bloc the Dems have got going from Washington down to the southern tip of Cali. WaPo looks at the numbers and sees doom for the GOP out west in the decades ahead if those numbers continue, but we’re already doomed in the coastal states. The question really is Arizona and New Mexico. Given the size of the very Catholic Latino populations there, are we really in that much trouble? Er, yeah — but not because of religion.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I guess it all depends on what it is you want to conserve. Some people want to conserve America as a Christain nation. Others want to conserve the tradition of limited government and understand that Christianity leads to that, in ways that nothing else does.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 6:45 PM
This merely shows that you don’t know anything about the Establishment Clause. It’s entirely possible to not have an Established National Church without having some “wall of separation between church and state”, which the Founders never envisaged. They also never acted as if such a thing existed even after passing the First Amdt.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 6:49 PM
But I would be interested to see you try to give examples of why your assertion is true.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 6:50 PM
You need Jefferson to tell you “hands off”? That’s what the establishment clause is – the Congress will not tamper with the people’s religious beliefs.
Now, if we’re talking about driving out religious faith, then you’re just inserting secularism – which is a belief system/religion in itself – where Christianity once stood. Everything you think is interconnected; you can’t separate your morality from your thought process.
emailnuevo on July 28, 2008 at 6:52 PM
This merely shows you don’t know anything about human nature. Religious leaders wouldn’t suppress their ambition on the honor system. They’d exploit any loophole left to them to seize political power for themselves. Best not to tempt them.
And what do you think it means when you say, “this is a Christian nation?” Really, you’re the last person I’d trust to keep our government from enforcing Christianity.
RightOFLeft on July 28, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I’m sorry, I’m not certain what we’re disagreeing on. I don’t need Jefferson to say, “hands off.” People like Pat Robertson and Flenser, here, do.
RightOFLeft on July 28, 2008 at 6:56 PM
How absurd! That is not what the Establishment Clause is.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 6:57 PM
We’re disagreeing, I think (now I’m not sure), on the possibility of a separation of church and state. Now, if that means a man shouldn’t “push his morality,” that’s a load of hogwash. That’s his job as an elected representative. If you mean “We shouldn’t have a church of America,” well, you’re right.
emailnuevo on July 28, 2008 at 6:58 PM
What part of it is in any way unclear to you? It’s a nation of Christians. A Christian nation. Founded on Christian principles.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:00 PM
What exactly do you think that Pat Robertson, that boogy-man of yours, is going to do to you?
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:02 PM
I should be free to worship, or not, as my conscience dictates and expect equal treatment under the law. The only way that right is protected is to construct a wall of separation between church and state, even if it means you can’t put up a Christmas tree in a courtroom.
RightOFLeft on July 28, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Can you elaborate on this? Why are you only free to worship or not if there exists some “wall of separation between church and state”?
And what’s your problem with Christmas trees in a court-room?
Let’s see you unpack some of these emotions of yours.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:05 PM
In contrast Allah, there’s no reason I can think of why atheism should be an essential part of anything except the subject of history books, for several hundred million reasons, namely the death count amassed in the last 100 years. Torture, slavery, and rape wish they could be as brutal as atheism, but even they cannot do so, because combined they make up only a small part of the crimes of atheistic regimes. There is also tyranny, famine, endless wars of vanity, and genocide.
Really Allah, you don’t have to believe in God, but don’t pretend that history smiles upon atheists. Fact is, wherever people found faith to be expendable, countless atrocities followed. Even Islam, a most foul and brutal faith by comparison, cannot even concieve of the death count atheist regimes managed to generate between 1910 and 1960.
BKennedy on July 28, 2008 at 7:09 PM
I can agree with some of that. Our very ideas about liberty are a kind of morality. I think we disagree about what measures are necessary to keep our state from impinging on religious liberty. If the state allows itself to perform the rituals of Christianity, rather than making laws that respect our shared moral traditions, then I think we have a de facto establishment of a state religion. It’s the ritual that worries me, we probably agree on most issues of morality. I was raised a Christian, after all.
RightOFLeft on July 28, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Flies in the face of prayer in the Capitol and days of thanksgiving and prayer, which were common in Jefferson’s day.
I half-agree, but I don’t like the “kick out the Christmas tree.” The Supreme Court has Moses and Mohammed in the frieze! Plus, aren’t you then infringing on my right to worship?
A Christmas tree in a courtroom (besides being sort-of…distracting) should be up to the judge or janitor or whoever is in charge of the room. That doesn’t mean you’ll be treated lesser or treated poorly (besides, everyone knows Christmas trees used to be pagan symbols anyway!).
emailnuevo on July 28, 2008 at 7:11 PM
So, I think we’re at Christian in the Congress is ok, but government-funded Christmas specials not ok.
The proper stance for government is hands off, but if the locals want the Ten Commandments at their courthouse, I think they should have it. That’s not imposing anything. Also, letting students pray or carry Bibles. Now, making students pray (which, as Hitchens notes, can’t be done anyway) is upsetting; but if a teacher invites students to pray, and they come, they should be allowed to pray, I think.
I never liked those singing trees.
emailnuevo on July 28, 2008 at 7:15 PM
I already did elaborate on this. Given the chance, a minority of Christians would exploit every loophole available to impose their religion on the rest of us. The phrase “Christian nation” exposes your agenda. How else do you want me to interpret that, other than raw theocratic ambition?
RightOFLeft on July 28, 2008 at 7:15 PM
This may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with whether America has a “wall of separation betwenn church and state” as a constitutional matter. All you are telling me is that you think it should have one, lest you have to be affronted by the sight of a Christmas tree.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:15 PM
LOL!
You still keeping dodging the questions I ask. Try again. You even quoted the question and then did not answer it.
Try to respond.
As a statement of fact? Are you at all fimilar with such things, or is everything about your feelings?
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Please explain the mechanism by which “a minority of Christians” would “impose their religion on the rest of us”.
Another question for you to ignore.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Poot.
It’s not part of the Constitution. Deal with it.
Christmas tree! Bah.Your paranoia is unwarranted.
davidk on July 28, 2008 at 7:20 PM
A big part of the problem here is that you don’t have the foggiest idea what an “establisment of religion” means. (You also seem to be cluless about the rituals of Christianity – Christmas trees ain’t among them.)
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:23 PM
A God would not create a world without secularism…otherwise there would be no free choice.
And you are correct, a true Christian does not expect miracles, believes in them, but does not expect them.
What people of faith have to offer, is their trust in mankind. And atheists can learn from that. That is why no atheist has ever built a hospital, or started an education system, that is why their are no “atheist relief groups”, they don’t trust man or they don’t put their trust in mankind.
Atheists live off what the faithful have provided. That is their lot in life. And the faithful freely give it, that is the path they have chosen.
right2bright on July 28, 2008 at 7:25 PM
His point, with which I disagree, is that without Jefferson’s wall, human nature says that certain people will use whatever power they can to enshrine their beliefs (more than just morality, he means also ritual/practices) as national law.
Now, I think the first amendment protects each and every one of us from government interference, so if someone tried to make us bow to some altar or even some mosque, it would be unconstitutional and deliberately and forcefully resisted. By contrast, Jefferson’s principle just excludes one religion in favor of another (usually Christianity for secularism) rather than protecting all involved.
But we currently have both in our country, so this is all theory, I suppose.
emailnuevo on July 28, 2008 at 7:25 PM
I’m quite fond of Christmas trees. They can be beautifully decorated, and add a nice touch to public places. I’m not threatened by them at all.
I don’t care much for Christmas, though, for reasons that have nothing to do with Christianity, but let me keep my Christmas trees.
Anna on July 28, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Fact:
Theists founded America and comprise most of its population.
Fact:
Most theists in America are Christian.
Corollary:
The founders generally shared the values of most of the people in America.
Conclusion:
The principles the founders enshrined in their documents, specifically the DoI and the Constitution, were Chrsitian principles. Therefore, America is a “Christian nation” insofar as most or all of the ideas which have made it the greatest nation in history stem from the principles of Christianity. Add in a love of liberty and a suspicion of expansive government, and welcome to America.
BKennedy on July 28, 2008 at 7:27 PM
I think we should always be asking ourselves, “can we do a better job realizing the ideals of liberty on which our nation was founded?” Like we were talking about earlier, I think the revolution never ended. We still have an obligation to find revolutionary ways to protect liberty. I don’t accept the argument that because our founders acted a certain way, that we’re bound to repeat what may have been grave mistakes on their part.
Like Churchill (I think) said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.” We’ve still got some work to do to form an even more perfect union.
RightOFLeft on July 28, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Well, this thread has been most informative, but it’s time to bid y’all adeiu. Gotta start the bedtime rituals.
Anna on July 28, 2008 at 7:31 PM
That’s the standard left-wing position. I’m sure Ginsberg and Obama would agree with you.
But as usual, you just throw your opinions out there with nothing to back them up. Why not explain what you think “the ideals of liberty on which our nation was founded” are?
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:33 PM
How will we know when we’re arrived?
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:34 PM
My point is that I don’t know what creative ways you guys will come up with to crush my conscience under your heel. As a practical example, I’m not too thrilled about my prospects of a fair trial in a courtroom that explicitly endorses a Judeo-Christian morality. What place does, “thou shalt have no other god before me” have in a courtroom? Other than to intimidate infidels into renouncing their evil ways?
I trust ordinary Christians to treat me fairly. Your leaders and extremists, I’m not so sure about.
RightOFLeft on July 28, 2008 at 7:35 PM
We won’t.
RightOFLeft on July 28, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Hitchens’ Hubris
aengus on July 28, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Gee, that’s helpful. So we have a permanent revolution without even any end goal?
That does not strike me as a “practical matter”, without more information. Why not stop all the shucking and jiving and just say what’s on your mind?
Of course since you’ve ignored every other question I’ve asked you I’m sure this will be no different.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Lets see if you have a conscience first, then we can worry about whether it’s being crushed under anyones heel.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Why not explain what you think “the ideals of liberty on which our nation was founded” are?
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:43 PM
“For in Adam all die.”
Akzed on July 28, 2008 at 7:43 PM
I’m forgetting an important point. I don’t see the first amendment as “the atheist protection clause.” It also protects Christians, and every sect of Christianity (too many to count), and non-Christian believers. It was only a few generations ago that my great grandparents were chased from Europe, to the midwest, to Arizona – often at gunpoint – for their heretical brand of Christianity, with the government’s enthusiastic support. Whether you’re Catholic, Buddhist, Protestant, or Atheist, look back far enough in America and you’ll find probably find a Christian holding a gun to your ancestors asking you to get out of town. We like to think it can’t happen in a modern society. I say, why take the chance?
RightOFLeft on July 28, 2008 at 7:44 PM
While I agree with “we have an obligation to defend liberty,” I don’t agree with “can we do a better job than the founders?” Or, rather, my answer is a most emphatic no. I think it’s here our philosophies diverge.
For the record, part of Christian doctrine (which I wish was more effectively broadcast) is that, yes, we Christians are wretched, too. Only through Christ is there anything worth liking. Thus the hymnal phrase, “I will not boast in anything – no gift, no power no wisdom – but I will boast in Jesus Christ, his death, and resurrection.” So any uncomfortability you feel in a courtroom would be the same as a Christian, as we fall too (remember that Christ established that any transgression of the law was a transgression of all the law – so your “have no other gods before me” is no less, properly, than “thou shalt not covet.”)
emailnuevo on July 28, 2008 at 7:44 PM
So I’m of the 5% of moderates on that, eh? Weird.
Seixon on July 28, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Is there some reason why you don’t answer questions?
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 7:59 PM
I’m afraid that I don’t believe you. And as always you provide nothing to back up your claims.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 8:01 PM
No, just an end goal that may not be possible to perfectly realize. This is why the founders wrote about a “more perfect union.” They wisely acknowledged the possible shortcomings of their revolutionary vision.
That’s clever.
I think we can all define liberty without any trouble.
Let me turn it around for you – how are your rights being violated by not having the ten commandments hanging in a courtroom? How are your rights being violated if third-graders in Berkeley don’t have to pledge allegiance to God? Why is it so onerous that you can’t use government resources to practice your religion? Has your faith been compromised, or your ability to practice your religion to the fullest extent necessary been abrogated? Have you experienced even a little persecution at the hands of our government for your Christianity? Will you accept government endorsement of religion so easily when it doesn’t conform exactly to your narrow beliefs?
RightOFLeft on July 28, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Big deal, it’s the national average.
srhoades on July 28, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Are you for real? I think you’re just trying to provoke a reaction. Well, you got it. It’s been fun, peace.
RightOFLeft on July 28, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Anna, I’m so sad that you have such a cruel and (false) conception of God and who He is..
God is not cruel.
God is ABSOLUTELY LOVING. That is His nature as He is Love.
Read the parable of the prodigal son..
The Father sees the son coming from a far distance, and He runs to him and kisses him!
He doesn’t say “I’ll only love you if you right the wrongs you have done to me”…He runs to him from a great distance and kisses him before he says anything.
You see the prodigal son rejected the Father yet the Father still loves him because that is His nature.
The Father loved the son so He respected his decision to reject him but yet He waits for him and still loved him.
SaintOlaf on July 28, 2008 at 8:13 PM
That’s not my idea of who your God is at all… that’s the type of deity I would be. If I believed in that sort of thing.
Which I don’t.
Anna on July 28, 2008 at 8:20 PM
No, I don’t think that we can.
I never said that they were. If you bothered to read anything I wrote you might have noticed this. Or is it that you read but cannot comprehend?
I’m not religious. Stop assuming that I’m an inverted version of you.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 8:22 PM
It’s been tedious and boring, as most efforts to communicate with the left are.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 8:23 PM
That’s because western atheism is a religion unto itself and all its disciples think they have to launch on a mission to evangilize until the whole nation is as faithless as they are. They are worse than the Moonies or Jehovah’s Witnesses when it comes to their dogma. It think it comes out of the strong Judeo-Christian underpinnings of society.
In my observations, eastern cultures are more live/let live for a variety of societal/cultural/historical reasons.
highhopes on July 28, 2008 at 8:26 PM
That’s because the British colonies had a state church which important men were expected to belong. The view changes somewhat if you start looking at the important men that founded the non-British areas of America like Louisiana or California.
highhopes on July 28, 2008 at 8:29 PM
AP, remember these folks? I guarantee you they aren’t conservatives.
Conservative atheists are honest atheists.
spmat on July 28, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Putting aside the formal issue with the syllogism above for a moment, one might ask why the founders didn’t just cut & paste the Bible into the founding documents, or at least footnote them with references to the laws in the Pentateuch.
Certainly Christianity shaped the founders and Western culture (for the better), but they emphatically wanted the government to exist outside the sectarianism among particular churches.
dedalus on July 28, 2008 at 8:34 PM
I dunno. Some far left loons want to kill people off due to overpopulation. Does that count as cynicism about human nature? Most likely you’re such a small minority because conservatives tend to be people who consider tradition important and are in no rush to change something that works pretty well while liberals are more likely to dismiss traditional beliefs to search for “something better” (and it comes as no surprise to me that they’ve managed to find hell instead).
Darth Executor on July 28, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Rubbish! An elected representative’s job is to represent all his/her constituents. He/she does that within the context of his/her faith. I have far more respect for the (few) Catholic politicians who vote pro-life on the basis of their faith than the countless “Catholic” politicians who make statements about being against abortion at the same time they pass legislation that runs counter to their faith.
I realize that the above statements could be viewed as contradictory. Elected representatives should vote to kill children in the name of all the “folks back home” with different values even if their particular faith is against it. I think that logic is a cop out. Unless a politician lied about his faith, it’s truth in advertising. Don’t vote for the Catholic if you favor the murder of unborn life.
P.S. My working thesis is that many of these fault lines were far less obvious when the GOP and Dems had members of all political stripes. With polarization, it is virtually impossible to be a pro-life Democrat or an anti-gun Republican these days.
highhopes on July 28, 2008 at 8:47 PM
A Catholic politician might also have to oppose birth control if he wants to apply his faith to those he represents. Such a position would make it unlikely for a Catholic politician to get elected. There is a point where a politician realizes that some tenants of their faith reside in one realm and but others need to be applied in the political realm. Abortion would fall into the latter category, and the Vatican has made this point emphatically. But it is interesting to think through which articles of a given faith a politician must push into public policy and which he can treat as a “private belief”.
dedalus on July 28, 2008 at 9:01 PM
It is good to know that I am in the upper 2 percentile!
TheSitRep on July 28, 2008 at 9:19 PM
I finally got a chance to see the film Amazing Grace over the weekend. For those unfamiliar with it, the story deals with William Wilberforce’s crusade against the British slave trade at the end of the 18th century. Wilberforce was inclined to go into solitude with his faith until convinced by others that he could do more from his seat in Parliament “in the world” but not “of the world.” There were many sympathetic politicians who could not afford to vote against slavery because of the special interests of their constituencies. It was a film with no real heroes because the slave trade was an economic issue as much as it was a human rights issue and the politicians involved faced real consequences from their actions.
Isn’t this the same thing you are saying? Politicians cannot freely express their faith because of consequences? I’m happy to argue the opposite. The times when we need politicians to live up to their faith and basic human decency is at times when doing so leads to “consequences.”
One American example that comes to mind is James Wilson. Swing vote between Franklin and Dickinson in the Pennsylvania delegation to the Continental Congress that ratified the Declaration of Independence. He was apt to vote with popular sentiment (Dickinson and against independence) until he had to make a choice. History records it that he didn’t want to be the vote that thwarted indepence. I think it more an example of a politician unable to avoid the consequences of his actions.
highhopes on July 28, 2008 at 9:36 PM
That’s why you get to ride on the special (short) bus. ;-0
highhopes on July 28, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Rubbish. If your constituients require you to do something against your faith, then you don’t run for office.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 10:02 PM
That’s true. But they did not want or expect the government to exist outside of Christianity as a whole. Given that they created “government by the people, of the people, for the people” and that “the people” were Christian, that would be impossible.
flenser on July 28, 2008 at 10:06 PM
What if your consituents wanted you to gas jews? If I wanted to run for office under those conditions I’d say **** the constituents, lie to get to power and then bring down the hammer.
Darth Executor on July 28, 2008 at 10:34 PM
A lot worse. A practitioner of any other religion may, in a moment of weakness, doubt that his God exists. It is impossible for any Atheist to ever do that.
I sometimes suspect that the occasional Atheist may figure out that his God is an incredibly asinine and pathetic a–hole. But it’s hard to be sure, because none of them care.
logis on July 28, 2008 at 10:36 PM
But AP keeps runs Hitchens stories 3X a week anyway.
jgapinoy on July 28, 2008 at 11:33 PM
keeps running
jgapinoy on July 28, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Jefferson was conscious of the people’s will changing. He seemed to believe that there would be violent expressions of liberty for centuries and that it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. While he believed that Christianity was the highest form of religious belief he certainly had his own customized interpretation of it, and probably thought that the people’s views on religion might evolve over time. Perhaps he thought the nation would always be Christian but he didn’t tether the will of the people to it.
dedalus on July 28, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Thanks for pointing out the Wilberforce film. I’ll have to check it out. I’d agree that a politician leading by conviction rather than following by poll numbers is admirable. I guess I’d question, though, whether all personal religious belief and practice translates effectively to the public square. Birth control, dietary laws, Sabbath observence, divorce are some areas where a politian might personally adhere to his faith but not feel compelled to legislate them for all his constituency.
dedalus on July 28, 2008 at 11:54 PM
The numbers are particularly odd in view of the fact that most Americans are (even today) fairly common sensical, and there is nothing more obviously absurd (in the literal, logical sense) than any form of religion.
Atheism isn’t dogma; it’s simply the result of applying reason to observations.
But, apparently, it’s very difficult — even in the modern age in an advanced, scientific civilization like America — for most people to overcome the early teachings of their parents, and so the beliefs get perpetuated from one generation to the next.
JDPerren on July 29, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Rock on AP, you are right as rain. And me thinks flenser sounds abit like Red Pill….
AprilOrit on July 29, 2008 at 1:27 AM
America is by no means fully Collectivised yet. Once it is then yes, the beliefs (or non-beliefs or whatever they choose to call them) of whoever happens to be in power from one day to the next will be – by definition – “common sense.”
In the meantime, America is and will remain a place where a person’s beliefs are precisely that: his beliefs. Nothing more than that, and nothing less than that. And just because that particular notion violates everything that YOU consider to be common sense doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re one tiny bit more “scientific,” “logical” or “advanced” than any other scatter-brained feeb is.
BTW, did anybody here see that South Park episode, where Cartman went to a future where everybody was Atheist. Against all odds, that didn’t magically result in a world of infinite intelligence and enlightenment. Instead, everyone split into “non-religious” factions fighting a “non-religious” war, with one side zealously fighting on behalf of reason and the other side committing genocide in the name of logic. It was a classic.
Every religion has its foiables but when it comes to self-righteousness, the Atheists take the cake. The craziest Muslim extremist in the world at least understands that he HAS beliefs; the Atheist severs that last tiny thread back to objectivity: whatever he believes from one moment to the next constitutes the only TRUE reality. And everyone with a belief not matching his own doesn’t simply worship a false God. No; in the Worker’s Paradise, everyone who doesn’t practice Atheism is deemed mentally defective.
logis on July 29, 2008 at 1:34 AM
Moost Americans are also Christian. Apparently belief in “absurdity” does not interfere with common sense.
Considering you have no way to prove your asserion and believe it only based on faith, that sounds an awful lot like a dogma. For comparison, my dogma is “Jesus Christ is Lord. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and none can come to the Father except through him.”
My dogma deals in an all-powerful, all loving God in matters of truth, righteousness, and justice. Yours is a self-serving delusion that asserts atheism is the only reasonable conclusion one can reach.
This is why atheists get the scorn of every single major world religion. They are inherently unreasonable because they believe only they hold the key to reason.
That regimes run by atheists have been the most unreasonable in history means nothing to them. “Reason” is still their Way, their Truth, and their Light, despite the fact every society they have ever run has been an unreasonable, brutal, murderous tyranny. Armageddonjad is the exception that proves the rule, and just in case you hadn’t noticed, he’s on top of a an actual theocracy, not a republic that atheists pretend will become a theocracy.
“Overcoming the early teachings of your parents” makes you a rebel, not an enlightened being. Or are you going to tell me the Che-adoring doped up hipie moron who thinks his parents are conservative tightwads is a Rhodes Scholar simply because he overcame the early teachings of his parents?
BKennedy on July 29, 2008 at 7:15 AM
“There are people who say that there is no God. They say that because THEIR HEART IS INHABITED BY THE SPIRIT OF PRIDE that whispers lies against the Truth and against God’s church. They think that they are cleverer and smarter, but actually they don’t even understand that these thoughts do not belong to them but are COMING FROM THE ENEMY; if someone receives them into his heart, he will become related to the Enemy and will turn like him. And God forbid that anyone die in this state.”
Saint Silouan
SaintOlaf on July 29, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Ha ha, good one.
But you see, you got it wrong.
The short bus is for the flat Earthers and people of one book.
TheSitRep on July 29, 2008 at 8:54 AM
I disagree, Wilberforce is a hero….almost singlehandedly he ended the slave trade, and transformed the culture of britain……
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 9:42 AM
That’s true. But they did not want or expect the government to exist outside of Christianity as a whole. Given that they created “government by the people, of the people, for the people” and that “the people” were Christian, that would be impossible.
flenser
They expected the country to exist regardless of the religious beliefs of those elected to govern. Folks like you make it seem like Christianity is a monolithic religion. There are enough schisms and splinters to warrant that it stays the hell out of the governing process outside of minor lip service.
Krydor on July 29, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
and as we’ve seen as america has become less religous, we have more laws, more government, less freedom
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 10:09 AM
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Missed the point entirely. You also aren’t looking at the US constitution through the lens of history. What was Christianity in the 18th century? What you call Christianity, regardless of what sect you follow, would not be recognizable by those that founded the USA.
Krydor on July 29, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I quoted John adams. please.
don’t know what you’re smoking.
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I quoted John adams. please.
don’t know what you’re smoking.
right4life
So, you’re saying that John Adams’ understanding of Christianity is compliant with of modern mainstream America in the 21st Century? Fascinating.
Here’s and Adams quote for ya:
The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. Read over again all the accounts we have of Hindoos, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Teutons, we shall find that priests had all the knowledge, and really governed mankind. Examine Mahometanism, trace Christianity from its first promulgation; knowledge has been almost exclusively confined to the clergy. And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated and applauded, but touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes.
* Letter to John Taylor (1814)
Krydor on July 29, 2008 at 11:33 AM
your understanding of christianity, history, truth, logic, etc are sadly lacking.
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM
They left out the part stating that 33% of these conservatives believe the bible to be literally true. Talking snakes, wooden boats that somehow hold multiples of every animal including dinosaurs and non-stop contradictions throughout. And they wonder why educated people won’t let them commadeer public school science classes. Silly HypoChristians….
DanKenton on July 29, 2008 at 12:12 PM
your understanding of christianity, history, truth, logic, etc are sadly lacking.
right4life
Coming from a guy who abridged a famous Adams quote to bolster his position all I have for you is a derisive snort. The second sentence means little without the first one.
Seeing as how Adams was not a Christian in our sense of the word, what does he actually mean? Heck, he was barely a Christian in the sense of the 18th Century. He was a Unitarian with no belief in eternal damnation. You still want him?
He understands the need for religion, but not state religion. There’s a myriad of issues that led Jefferson and Adams to make damn good and sure the Christian God was not mentioned in the Constitution.
We can play dueling quotes, but the omission of God in the Christian sense was intentional. I may be wrong, but you seem to be saying otherwise.
Krydor on July 29, 2008 at 12:25 PM
uh the first sentence bolsters my point, thanks!
its not really hard to figure out what he said, he wasn’t talking about christianity in particlar, since he didn’t mention ‘christiantiy’ so why you are bringing up christianity is a mystery to me. its rather obvious he was talking about religion restraining the evil within a person, and without that restraint, you end up with a dictatorship.
uh yeah they didn’t want to setup a state religion. other than that your ‘issues’ are BS. like everything else you write.
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 1:41 PM
and all the centuries of you atheist wackos trying to discredit the bible has failed.
how does it feel knowing you’ve failed?
when you say ‘science’ you really mean atheist religion classes, which is what they have become thanks to your hairygod darwin and his laughable lie of evolution.
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 1:44 PM
oh yeah krydor, I looked at your blog:
now I remember you. you’re that darwiniac wacko I’ve talked to before. add to the list of things you’re lacking is science.
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Say what you will about Unitarianism, it’s not the feel-good garbage of today. It’s “God the Father only.” That’s why it differs from Trinitarian Christianity, which affirms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
To try and spin the disbelief in Jesus’ deity (chiefly; there are other disagreements) into “barely a Christian” is sort-of misleading. While Unitarian Christianity is heretical (Arius and Athanasius had this fight a looong time ago) it wasn’t that loose. Even Wikipedia acknowledges he said to Tom Paine, deist-of-the-month:
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.
emailnuevo on July 29, 2008 at 2:06 PM
I never know what to make of the fact that I belong to such a tiny minority within my own side;
Hey Allah, I’m right there with ya…lonely at the top isn’t it?
winewife on July 29, 2008 at 3:26 PM
its not really hard to figure out what he said, he wasn’t talking about christianity in particlar, since he didn’t mention ‘christiantiy’ so why you are bringing up christianity is a mystery to me. its rather obvious he was talking about religion restraining the evil within a person, and without that restraint, you end up with a dictatorship.
I suspect we have our wires crossed, as my initial post in this thread was addressed to flenser.
So, I started talking about Christianity in relation to the US Constitution and you interject and have the GALL to say that wasn’t what you were talking about. Well, it was what I was talking about and what you responded to. To say that wasn’t the topic at hand is crap, and I suspect you know it. Such things explain why HA will not institute the ability to edit posts.
ID remains garbage. Those that think it is science are idiots on the scale of flat earthers. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, for they are charlatans of the highest degree.
I wish you would have mentioned the pics of me onstage with Maiden. That was awesome.
Krydor on July 29, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Say what you will about Unitarianism, it’s not the feel-good garbage of today. It’s “God the Father only.” That’s why it differs from Trinitarian Christianity, which affirms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
emailnuevo on July 29, 2008
I know what it is, and it wasn’t mainstream in Adams’ time. Hell, it’s hardly mainstream now. Tibits like that help put the why’s into focus.
Krydor on July 29, 2008 at 4:02 PM
my concern was this post of yours:
why would you want christianity out of the governing process? do you want judaism out of the governing process? how about islam? sounds like you just want atheism as the governing religion, and we’ve all seen what that does.
my response was to indicate that religion is needed for our form of government, even Adams admitted this. when we have a people unrestrained on their own, as we do now, then we have more government restraints, as we do now.
oh I have the GALL to say all sorts of things to morons like you. I wasn’t talking about christianity in particular, since the quote I gave from adams mentioned religion, not christianity. and your post seems to want all religions out of government, except atheism of course, or do you just hate christians? do you have a final solution in mind for christians? since we are to have no role in government, what role do you see for christians in society? perhaps as a dhimmi, as in muslim societies? discrminated against, abused, etc?
yeah thats why you darwiniacs are so terrified by it, that you have to try to silence and supress it. you cannot win the argument, so you have to treat anyone who disagrees with your hellish faith of evolution as they did sternberg. sue, silence, harass, intimidate…thats the language of the evolution these days. definately not science.
evolutionists are the charlatans, as dawkins illustrated when he said ID is ok if its aliens, just can’t be God…evolution is all about atheism.
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Failed? You’d better rethink that statement. I don’t see ID being taught in our local schools nor will it anytime soon. And at a 33% literal belief rate in the bible, I wouldn’t go around bragging that you’re winning. In fact, it’s not even a passing grade. Face it, you’re a hollow little person who needs to believe in a death-worshiping religion whose main marketing scheme is guilt and fear. Your ridiculous Right4Life moniker only applies to fetuses, not adults which is simply another example of the major double-speak you pathetic wet-heads practice. Jeebus is coming alright…wait for it….wait for it….wait for it….
LOL
DanKenton on July 29, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Why is it garbage? Dawkins admits that to believe in evolution, you first have to allow for a huge stroke of luck. Once you cross that barrier, of course, you can buy Neodarwinism, but what makes competing theories “garbage”? (I distinguish evolution from adaptation, which of course happens.)
Why is the belief that things like the complexity of cells, even the most basic of which require long chains of precise DNA, and the strength of the force holding atoms together divided by the force of gravity between them (10 to the 36th power), show evidence of an intelligent designer, garbage? Martin Rees is at least more polite about disagreeing with the theory.
emailnuevo on July 29, 2008 at 4:28 PM
ever hear of louisiana? they’re going to be teaching the flaws, which are so so many, in evolution…the damn has cracked. The truth is winning, thats why you darwiniacs have to try to sue, silence, and harass, all who disagree, you’ve lost the argument, otherwis you wouldn’t act like that.
get a clue, christianity is the largest religion in the world, and its growing by leaps and bounds around the world….and the people who believe in evolution hasn’t changed in decades…all those lies to no avail!! LOL
you’re just a pathetic little loser, ie a typical darwiniac! you can’t defeat christianity, and your ideas are just a bunch of lies!! Jesus has already won…and you’ll find out someday…to your horror
have a nice day!!
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 5:57 PM
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Did your pastor tell you that? You’re completely wrong you imbecile. Christianity, with ALL OF ITS SUBGROUPS, accounts for roughly 33% of the world’s religions but of course you being a wet-head jeebus freak don’t consider the other sub-groups “true christians” so don’t go taking credit for the Mormons, JW’s and the many other religions that happen to fall under the “christian” umbrella. You stupid jeebus freaks like to claim them all when the argument suits you but don’t like to associate with guys like Mitt Romney (who believes in Christ and was baptised) because he doesn’t go to your tamborine-banging, tax-evading crap-shack you call the house of jeebus.
Come on Right2Die, put the purple Nikes on already and drink the kool-aid.
DanKenton on July 29, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Even though we were taught evolution, we still believed that God created it all. I do not know anyone who doesn’t believe this in my immediate circle.
AprilOrit on July 29, 2008 at 6:38 PM
When has 2% of a population ever been right on anything?
Guardian on July 29, 2008 at 6:39 PM
In the first place, Christianity is growing rapidly in South America and Asia, as well as Africa. It’s having trouble growing (the rise of the new atheism, etc.) chiefly, if not only, in the Western world. Just for perspective, Islam made news recently when it passed, in number of believers, Roman Catholicism – and given that Islam is the 2nd largest religion in the world, and that Roman Catholicism does not take into account the Protestant or Orthodox Christian faith, I think right4life’s point is valid. At 33%, which is more or less true (2.1-2.6 bil out of 6.7), it is still the largest religion. And it is still growing.
We don’t consider Romney/Mormons “Christian” because we a)don’t think Joseph Smith was a prophet, and b)don’t think there are three heavens. Most of us also believe in damnation, too. There are more reasons, theological and otherwise, we can get into (they don’t have the Book of Jasher, which they claim to need); but remember that we didn’t make the rules. At best, it can be argued by a secularist, St. Paul did. As for JW, the Watchtower has been and is heretical, as well.
The unbridled hatred for Christianity is sort-of off-putting,though, coming from someone so obviously ignorant of its doctrines. The problem is the (false) belief that rejection of Christianity keeps one from “drinking the Kool Aid,” when in reality, ascribing to atheism takes just as much faith as ascribing to Christianity. As people more important than me have pointed out, it takes faith to believe Julius Caesar really ruled Rome.
emailnuevo on July 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Intelligent design doesn’t show evidence of a designer. That’s on of its many flaws. It claims to prove statistically that Darwinian evolution can’t account for speciation – ineffectively – but even granting that they’re doing the math right (they’re not), they completely ignore the epigenetic processes that Darwin couldn’t have known about. The irreducible complexity argument has been debunked so thoroughly that creationists hardly bother mentioning it , anymore.
There is no evidence that a designer has been tinkering with genomes, or manufacturing new species every few million years. Let’s pretend there was, though. Just how many miracles do you think God needed to create the life? Assuming you believe in God, your choices are:
a – 1 miracle, creating the universe and all its laws such that life would arise as a natural consequence of creation.
b – 1 miracle to make the universe, 1 miracle for every single species that has ever existed, another miracle thrown in to wipe out the dinosaurs when they got too uppity, and any future miracles he may feel like performing. Maybe his plan really was to make a super-race of intelligent bears or something, intelligent design can’t rule it out.
Evolution fits the evidence of an ancient Earth, with progressively more complex lifeforms appearing over it’s history. The bible directly contradicts both of these well-established observations, but at least it offers an explanation. Intelligent design can’t be bothered to actually look for evidence of the designer’s motives.
Evolution hypothesizes a specific range of mechanisms for change which have been directly observed. The results of these mechanisms have been indirectly observed in the fossil record. Intelligent design claims the mechanisms are necessarily degenerative, despite the clear evidence of the fossil record, and despite being unable to offer an alternative mechanism. The bible says something about dragons and sea monsters and a big-ass ark that apparently got round the globe in a few days to pick them all up.
The bible is more scientific than intelligent design, because at least it makes falsifiable claims (plainly, since they’re so easily falsified).
Forget that evil Dr. Dawkins supports evolution for a moment. So does virtually every biologist on the planet. Why is that? Its not some atheist conspiracy. Even among Christian scientists, evolution is overwhelmingly accepted. Intelligent design has been around for ten years without gaining traction among the people who actually do science (despite its political success). Why? Because it’s pretty damn silly to the people who’ve spent their lives learning how to do science. How to measure things just so, how to make and test inferences; the erudite art of mathematical analysis. Scientists earned their expertise through honest labor, which is why its so offensive to see con-men like Dembski and Behe take advantage of people’s sincere religious beliefs so they can sell a few books.
/rant
RightOFLeft on July 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Pardon my offenses against grammar in the previous post…
RightOFLeft on July 29, 2008 at 7:47 PM
I do feel sorry for you, you must be in a great deal of pain, such stupidity and hatred has to hurt.
hey moron, I was correct, christianity is the largest religion in the world by far. truth hurts doesn’t it? oh and the mormons would agree with me on much more than they would with you. they are my allies, not yours.
read it and weep loser…
link
it may be growing even faster in china!!! atheism is a spent force, a lie, and everyone knows it!! how does it feel to base your whole life on a lie?
keep posting your spittle-laden lies….I enjoy seeing you atheist wackos become unhinged!! truth hurts doesn’t it??
ps: your hairygod darwin had to steal his idea from wallace!! and his theory is as laughable as you are! LOL
right4life on July 29, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »