Video: Dole, NRSC hammer Democrat for attending atheist fundraiser

posted at 1:40 pm on October 29, 2008 by Allahpundit

Dole’s ad is getting attention but it’s the NRSC’s that’s really something to see. Smart politics, especially in a southern state, and a lesson to Obamaphiles that for all the smears circulating on the fringe about The One being a Muslim, things could be worse. Evidently, if he were an atheist, the RNC itself would be running commercials hammering him for that fact.

It’s a lesson to conservative atheists, too. (All two percent of us.) This is what your dirty “godless money” is being used for.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Dude, You’re losing it.

SaintOlaf on October 29, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Sod off you nutter. You are the sole HA exception which proves the rule, Christian America is generous of spirit.

JiangxiDad on October 29, 2008 at 5:08 PM

What an awesome ruse christians have. If a person is good and a christian, he is good because he was a christian. If a person is terrible and a christian, he cannot be a real christian. Its true cause the bible said so. Kind of like, There is a God, its in the Bible. The Bible is true, God said so.

muyoso on October 29, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Its not a ruse. Hitler was not just terrible, he was an anti-Christ who wanted to wipe Judeo-Christian morality from the Earth. His mishmash of neo-pagan beliefs including Aryan racial superiority and Norse mythology. The Nazis tore German society away from Christianity, and tried to turn it to pagan beliefs.

aengus on October 29, 2008 at 5:14 PM

JiangxiDad on October 29, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Who is the “nutter”?

You just accused me of wanting to put jews in ovens and kill all jews.

You are the “nutter” my friend.

SaintOlaf on October 29, 2008 at 5:15 PM

You just accused me of wanting to put jews in ovens and kill all jews.

SaintOlaf on October 29, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Would just be showing a little wuv to your enemies…

btw, I bet ur cute in a dress :)

JiangxiDad on October 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM

btw, I bet ur cute in a dress :)

JiangxiDad on October 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM

I think you’re losing your mind man….is there a gas leak in your office or something?

SaintOlaf on October 29, 2008 at 5:19 PM

I didn’t mean to argue DR’s case for him, I just wanted to offer an alternative.

Fair enough. Taking your argument on its own merits, I’d still say it doesn’t quite explain goodness as survival and being good often conflict.

Even think about it gives me a headache. It’s like trying to look up your own nose without a mirror.

All the good questions are like that.

I suppose it’s impossible to know for certain though in the absence of a recorded history.

I wonder all the time why people should do evil things, and all I’m certain of is that the question is hard as hell to answer.

RightOFLeft on October 29, 2008 at 5:02 PM

That too is one of those large questions. Why does evil exist?

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 5:21 PM

I keep getting Right4Life and RightofLeft mixed up (do I even have it right, now?)
I think one is more stable than the other, and I think they have opposing views on a lot of issues, but the cues I use to quickly identify names just don’t distinguish between the two.

Count to 10 on October 29, 2008 at 4:12 PM

It’s Right4Life. He’s a Christian but he’s gone a little off the deep end on his accusations.

From what I can tell, RightOfLeft is an atheist but he seems pretty sane.

muyoso on October 29, 2008 at 2:00 PM
aengus on October 29, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Let’s put it this way, Muy, so you might understand it better.

Let’s say instead of the Bible and Christianity, it’s the American Law. Instead of a self-proclaimed Christian, you have an American Criminal… let’s use Bill Ayers, he’s sufficiently unrepentant.

Bill Ayers goes out and blows up the Pentagon, and has his friends blow up cops’ homes. He’s a really bad guy, most people would say downright evil. But he’s also an American, or so he claims. All his official documentation and paperwork have “American” written in the slot.

Now I, for one, would have no problem with saying someone as downright despicable and a committer of such heinous actions without any desire to repent or feel remorse should be stripped of the title “American”, and unless you happen to support Ayers and his cause I think you’d agree. He may have once fit the description of an American, but he has broken the American Law and shown no remorse nor does he intend to repent, so for all that matters the title should be revoked from him.

So why in heck is it “circular logic” to do the same with a so-called “Christian” who does the exact same thing with the Christian Law?

When you can answer me how that is different, then perhaps your argument will have merit. Until then, though, you’re just a lunatic raving at the moon because The People You Don’t Like (Christians, in this case) aren’t knuckling under your taunts.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 29, 2008 at 5:21 PM

I think you’re losing your mind man….is there a gas leak in your office or something?

SaintOlaf on October 29, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Maybe. Or maybe it’s a jew thing. I find myself wanting to defile you and other christian boys and girls sexually. It’s in the blood man. You know how it is. You’re an expert on jew danger. You like to kiss?

JiangxiDad on October 29, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Wow!

SaintOlaf on October 29, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Good and evil originate from our emotional senses. No one survives to adulthood with those senses perfectly formed (or even intact, in pathological cases like Che). If you have kids, you do your best to protect them from life’s little traumas; but despite the best efforts, we seem to spend our first 20 years or so giving each other brain damage, which affects our ability to make moral calculations.

To take the example of someone ruthless like Cleopatra, who seemingly subverted what we consider good moral practices to her own benefit, I don’t think we can judge her by contemporary standards of morality. She was the product of the brutal necessities of ancient life. Her ruthlessness may even have promoted social stability (the best way to avoid a war of secession is to eliminate any rivals to the throne). Morality is progressive, if not completely relativistic. I don’t think we can judge her for not living up to ethical standards that hadn’t even been imagined yet. (This line of reasoning should be familiar to any Christian who’s read the Old Testament).

I’m starting to ramble a bit, and I’m not even sure I’m still addressing the point, so I’ll leave it at that.

RightOFLeft on October 29, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Now I, for one, would have no problem with saying someone as downright despicable and a committer of such heinous actions without any desire to repent or feel remorse should be stripped of the title “American”, and unless you happen to support Ayers and his cause I think you’d agree. He may have once fit the description of an American, but he has broken the American Law and shown no remorse nor does he intend to repent, so for all that matters the title should be revoked from him.

Grue in the Attic on October 29, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Ayers was born an American and was an American citizen during his bombings decades ago. He’s even referred to as a “Domestic Terrorist” to differentiate him from foreign terrorists. He was a pretty bad guy, but he’s an American citizen in the same way the 2 million or so convicted felons in prison are Americans, just mostly really bad Americans and really bad people.

Timothy McVeigh was an American, a military vet, and for parts of his life a practicing Catholic. He was also a terrorist who destroyed the lives of many families in Oklahoma City.

dedalus on October 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM

That too is one of those large questions. Why does evil exist?

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 5:21 PM

I have no idea. I just know I don’t find the various religious answers very persuasive.

RightOFLeft on October 29, 2008 at 5:59 PM

SaintOlaf

Oh, not that dude again! That embarrassment to the name “conservative”! I thought he and RedPill and Apocalypse went and moved in Mike Huckabee’s house or something.

Tzetzes on October 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM

Hey, I may be godless, but my money isn’t. It’s got the same “In God We Trust” as all other US legal tender!

Anna on October 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM

What an awesome ruse christians have. If a person is good and a christian, he is good because he was a christian. If a person is terrible and a christian, he cannot be a real christian. Its true cause the bible said so. Kind of like, There is a God, its in the Bible. The Bible is true, God said so.

muyoso on October 29, 2008 at 2:00 PM

I guess this could be an awesome ruse if the main purpose of one’s definition of a “real Christian” is to win arguments with atheists over whether Christians are good guys or not. However, there is another possible explanation.

I know this is going to sound pretty far-fetched, but stick with me here. People who are practicing Christians, however much some of them may like to mix it up with atheists in debate, might not be forming their definition of a Christian based solely on what will let them win arguments. It could be that they actually are just forming their definition based on whether someone is genuinely trying to follow Jesus’s teachings, in the way that they interpret them (I know, this theory is a little out there already).

Now at least in the west, and to be fair, in many other parts of the world too (though sadly not all), the idea that genocide and mass murder are not good things is pretty common.

Therefore, it could be argueds that if a person is Christian, odds are very high that they think Jesus really doesn’t like genocide, since otherwise, given that they really don’t like genocide, they probably would be disinclined to be following Him.

But stick with, cause it gets quite a bit complicated here – since genocide seems like it might be a pretty bad thing, I think maybe some folks go a bit further than “Jesus doesn’t like it” and actually conclude “If you are shoveling people into ovens by the truckload, you probably don’t really care about following Jesus, since I know Jesus doesn’t like this stuff, and you really should know that too.”

It just seems to me that that could be what they are thinking.

Ahhh, never mind, forget the whole damn thing. Your theory makes much more sense – its clearly just a clever ruse the Christians made up so that they could trick poor, unsuspecting atheists in arguments on the internet. Good thing you figured it out.

RINO in Name Only on October 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM

I’ve been seeing the adds down here in Raleigh, and listening to the resultant convo on local talk radio, and Kay Hagan is losing her sh*t over these, as are some of the callers to radio stations, such as the Brad and Britt show on 101.1 in the am. Haven’t seen seething like this for quite some time from the local left.

Hagan is even threatening to sue over the adds. Bit thin skinned, eh?

William Teach on October 29, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Hey, I may be godless, but my money isn’t. It’s got the same “In God We Trust” as all other US legal tender!

Anna on October 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM

LMAO

dedalus on October 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM

My point being, McVeigh and Ayers are at fault for their crimes, not the American Law that they decided to break. While Muy claims that blaming the “christian” who doesn’t follow Christian Law is circular logic, we don’t blame American Law for when people like Ayers commit their crimes. Therein lies the double standard.

I for one wouldn’t be opposed to stripping citizenship – or at least, a few more priviledges – from felons, myself, but I’m probably in the minority.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 29, 2008 at 6:15 PM

I don’t think we can judge her for not living up to ethical standards that hadn’t even been imagined yet. (This line of reasoning should be familiar to any Christian who’s read the Old Testament).

RightOFLeft on October 29, 2008 at 5:40 PM

I actually disagree, but I’m more of the opinion that moral are absolute and outside of us.

Some kids are traumatized in their youth and suffer because of it, others have a perfectly normal and happy life yet still become “monsters” later on. There’s no real rhyme or reason there.

As to Cleopatra, she did what was good for her which wasn’t necessarily what was good for her country. Yes, having more than one heir is problematic, but she could have just as easily removed herself from the equation rather than removing others.

And as to the Old Testament, not everything written inside it is something Christians are to emulate, and that was true even back then. David took up a lot of women, but that doesn’t mean he was supposed to. Kings were supposed to only have one wife, specifically so that they wouldn’t be led astray by any of them as David was. His story is instructive, like stories from the Grimm Brothers.

Nearly every horrific thing in the Old Testament is a warning against sinning. There are some things that people would consider evil now that wasn’t considered evil then, but that doesn’t make the people today correct.

I do agree that society’s morals change, but I don’t agree that morality itself is relative only that our perceptions of it are.

I just know I don’t find the various religious answers very persuasive.

RightOFLeft on October 29, 2008 at 5:59 PM

I understand.

I personally do but only because of my experiences, not with religion but with God.

I believe that evil is necessary in a world where free will exists. I don’t think it’s possible to choose be good without it being possible to also choose be evil.

I’m in the process of reading The Fountainhead. If you’ve read it, you may already know what I’m talking about. In it, there’s this one character who seems to be something of a guide to others and especially his niece. He talks repeatedly about virtues and about how we should love everyone equally, but that concept is just completely absurd. It isn’t possible to love everyone. If that’s the only emotion you have, then it isn’t really love but rather another form of indifference, since you are then treating no person, no matter how intimate the person may be, different than you would treat a stranger.

It’s the differences possible in our actions and feelings that allow us to be individuals.

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 6:20 PM

The fact that Jews still persecute Christians in Israel to this day?

SaintOlaf on October 29, 2008 at 4:44 PM

Hmmm, I thought they were persecuting the Palestinians.

No, wait, they’re Muslim, so it doesn’t matter, right? You keep that standard up.

I’m pretty sure Jews aren’t the ones doing the persecuting in every country where Christians are persecuted, unless Jews have started crying “Allahu Akbar” before decapitating them.

You’re insane. You’re an utter loon. You’ve no doubt got a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in your library and even though it is a 120 year old hoax you believe every word of it.

The world will one day be a better place because of your absence.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2008 at 6:24 PM

Hey, I may be godless, but my money isn’t. It’s got the same “In God We Trust” as all other US legal tender!

Anna on October 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM

In that case, I guess we can let you donate. :)

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 6:26 PM

In that case, I guess we can let you donate. :)

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 6:26 PM

Yay!

And I guess it’s my husband’s money, really, and I think he’s a believer. So it’s all good.

I’m really starting to think the conservative atheists should band together against the Atheist Aholes that are more anti-theist than anything. We’re like the Taiwan of atheists or something, or Pepsi One. We don’t believe in gods, but that’s about the only common thread anymore. And it would possibly save us from the bashing that goes on in threads like these (and I don’t approve of Christian/Jewish bashing either).

Anna on October 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM

I’m in the process of reading The Fountainhead. If you’ve read it, you may already know what I’m talking about. In it, there’s this one character who seems to be something of a guide to others and especially his niece. He talks repeatedly about virtues and about how we should love everyone equally, but that concept is just completely absurd. It isn’t possible to love everyone. If that’s the only emotion you have, then it isn’t really love but rather another form of indifference, since you are then treating no person, no matter how intimate the person may be, different than you would treat a stranger.

I haven’t read The Fountainhead but you make a good point.

In Leviticus 19 Christians are commanded to “love the stranger as yourself”. However this command is often misinterpreted as leading to blind altruism–one of Ayn Rand’s stated reasons for opposing Christianity.

In Matthew where Jesus, asked what is the greatest commandment, quotes two verses from the Torah: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” (Matt 22:37-39.)

The key to understanding this teaching is that love of God comes first. It is the love of God that disciplines us toward the good and restrains our self-aggrandising impulses, including the impulse to display conspicuous compassion for others.

An unconditional love of neighbour apart from love of God would lead us to mad acts of do-gooderism or self-sacrifice.

aengus on October 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM

one of Ayn Rand’s stated reasons for opposing Christianity.

Yes, she’s very vocal about that, especially in Atlas. If I believed Christianity was as she believed it to be, I’d likely come to the same conclusions she did.

Anna on October 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM

You don’t talk about this stuff much with your husband? That’s a little hard for me to imagine but mostly because it’s the exact opposite of my relationship. My husband and I met in high school and immediately started debating everything it’s possible to debate at that age.

He was an atheist; I was a passionate Christian.
He was a liberal; I was a conservative.

I can’t even remember it all looking back now, but we used to talk for hours on these subjects often getting very angry at each other. It stressed me out at the time too wondering how we’d ever work things out as I kept falling for him despite what I thought was my better judgment.

He’s a Christian now, after one very strange night when he decided he’d been running from God (he was raised as a Christian), and we’ve come together on a few other issues here and there, but we’re still mostly opposites and still can’t seem to get enough of talking about it.

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 6:50 PM

And it would possibly save us from the bashing that goes on in threads like these (and I don’t approve of Christian/Jewish bashing either).

Anna on October 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM

And I agree with you on this. I wish the bashing would stop. There’s no reason for it.

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Some kids are traumatized in their youth and suffer because of it, others have a perfectly normal and happy life yet still become “monsters” later on. There’s no real rhyme or reason there.

That could be a case like Jeffrey Dahmer, but I think he was a sociopath from the beginning. It seems to me there is a reason, then: his emotional responses were mis-calibrated to being with.

I’m in the process of reading The Fountainhead. If you’ve read it, you may already know what I’m talking about. In it, there’s this one character who seems to be something of a guide to others and especially his niece. He talks repeatedly about virtues and about how we should love everyone equally, but that concept is just completely absurd. It isn’t possible to love everyone. If that’s the only emotion you have, then it isn’t really love but rather another form of indifference, since you are then treating no person, no matter how intimate the person may be, different than you would treat a stranger.

It’s the differences possible in our actions and feelings that allow us to be individuals.

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 6:20 PM

I haven’t read it, actually. What she describes is moral relativism, isn’t it? How we exercise our values depends on the context. Like one of my favorite bible verses -

To everything there is a season,
a time for every purpose under the sun.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill and a time to heal …
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn and a time to dance …
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to lose and a time to seek;
a time to rend and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace.

In other words, moral relativism. It’s not consistent with an absolute moral law, handed down for all eternity by God. This is my biggest problem with the particular brand of Christianity that sees the world in moral absolutes: it stops moral progress.

RightOFLeft on October 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM

You don’t talk about this stuff much with your husband?

Oh, we talk about it some when it comes up, but he’s not sure himself. It’s like he believes, but you’re not going to find him in church (unless we’re visiting his parents). Other days, his beliefs are more abstract. We both believe that faith is a highly personal thing, and religion is one of the few topics that will make us fight.

My husband has made me become more fiscally conservative, and more fiscally minded period. I have made him a little more laid-back about social issues (he’s fine with my mom, after all). We met when I was pregnant, a very transitory stage for me (I was becoming more adult in my thinking), and assuming fatherhood of Sophie changed him too. We used to agree more about religion (we even discussed finding a church together), but we diverged… and we’re okay with that. Our children will still have morals, and guidence – because we love them.

Anna on October 29, 2008 at 7:08 PM

To everything there is a season,
a time for every purpose under the sun.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill and a time to heal …
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn and a time to dance …
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to lose and a time to seek;
a time to rend and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace.

In other words, moral relativism. It’s not consistent with an absolute moral law, handed down for all eternity by God. This is my biggest problem with the particular brand of Christianity that sees the world in moral absolutes: it stops moral progress.

RightOFLeft on October 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM

I’m not in much of a mood to debate further – and I’m leaving soon – but I’d just like to state that I fail to see how anyone can interpret that as an authorization for moral relativism.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

I don’t think that’s moral relativism either – I always thought that relativism is like saying “Well, A does X, which is good/bad, and B does Y, which is also good/bad, so A = B.”

And that’s an wonderful verse, and it reminds me of much of Kahlil Gibran’s poetry (or however it’s spelled).

Anna on October 29, 2008 at 7:19 PM

I’m not in much of a mood to debate further – and I’m leaving soon – but I’d just like to state that I fail to see how anyone can interpret that as an authorization for moral relativism.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Yeah, I think I’ve probably lost about enough productivity for the day, but now I pretty much have to say something. I don’t interpret it as an authorization (on what authority?). It’s just a poetic statement of fact: the value of an action doesn’t exist independently of the precise state of the world at the time it’s taken. Good is only absolute in the sense that it’s always possible to do the best you can.

RightOFLeft on October 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM

That could be a case like Jeffrey Dahmer, but I think he was a sociopath from the beginning. It seems to me there is a reason, then: his emotional responses were mis-calibrated to being with.

So some people are just born evil? That seems wrong.

In other words, moral relativism.

I don’t see how. The activities described are amoral. One is not immoral or moral for dying or sewing or mourning.

it stops moral progress.

RightOFLeft on October 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM

For Christians anyway. Then again, I don’t believe morals should progress. I think that’s one of the flaws of modern thinking.

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 8:00 PM

“Kay Hagan ought to be rewarded for inviting nonbelievers into her platform.” (Their emphasis)

Oh no, not shunning atheists!?

Typhonsentra on October 29, 2008 at 8:57 PM

Oh, we talk about it some when it comes up, but he’s not sure himself. It’s like he believes, but you’re not going to find him in church (unless we’re visiting his parents).

That sounds like a lot of people who were raised in church. At some point you have to decide if you really believe that or not.

We both believe that faith is a highly personal thing, and religion is one of the few topics that will make us fight.

I completely agree. Christianity in my mind is about nothing else but a relationship with God. Many try to make it about other things like legalism or hell, and that really misses the entire point.

At least you both care enough to fight about it.

I’m a Christian, so obviously I’m convinced that Christ is the answer; however, I think it’s very important for everyone, including Christians, to think critically and passionately about this issue.

My husband has made me become more fiscally conservative, and more fiscally minded period. I have made him a little more laid-back about social issues (he’s fine with my mom, after all).

I know the feeling. When I met my husband, I was practically legalistic, not in the sense that I felt everyone had to live up to those standards but in the sense that I felt I had to.

I’ve cut myself more slack since being with him and changed my mind on a lot of issues.

We met when I was pregnant, a very transitory stage for me (I was becoming more adult in my thinking), and assuming fatherhood of Sophie changed him too.

I didn’t realize you were pregnant before him, though that does explain your comment on the other thread about you dating past.

We used to agree more about religion (we even discussed finding a church together), but we diverged… and we’re okay with that. Our children will still have morals, and guidence – because we love them.

Anna on October 29, 2008 at 7:08 PM

You’re very much right that they will, though I’d still recommend trying to find a church. It’s not just to instill morals. There’s a community you find at a church (at least the right church) that you can’t get anywhere else outside of your own family.

From the little I know of you, it sounds as though you could use that sometimes, especially while your husband is away. My mother had Hepatitis C and then breast cancer pretty much back to back. Before that church was more like an obligation, but after being diagnosed, the church came together in a way it hadn’t done before all to help her out, from cooking her dinners to just being there for her.

Then again, I’m not one to talk. Ever since I left my hometown for college I haven’t really been able to find a church where I feel comfortable.

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 8:59 PM

That too is one of those large questions. Why does evil exist?

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Amos 3:6,
shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Proverbs 16:4,
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Daniel 11:35,
And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end:

To answer your question, God created evil to try the righteous.

NeverLiberal on October 30, 2008 at 12:48 AM

The fact that Jews still persecute Christians in Israel to this day?

SaintOlaf on October 29, 2008 at 4:44 PM

Hmmm, I thought they were persecuting the Palestinians.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2008 at 6:24 PM

So the Jews in Israel aren’t persecuting Christians huh? Christians in Israel might disagree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EII5Km3jN3U

NeverLiberal on October 30, 2008 at 1:02 AM

To answer your question, God created evil to try the righteous.

NeverLiberal on October 30, 2008 at 12:48 AM

That’s a contradiction in terms. God, being holy can have nothing to do with evil by the very definition of the word evil.

According to the Bible, evil did not exist in the world until Adam and Eve brought it here by their disobedience, if we’re going purely by the Bible.

Esthier on October 30, 2008 at 9:26 AM

With whom you associate is important, as Ms. Dole knows and Ms. Hagan is discovering.

To get the sense of that statement, one merely has to look at how the left is treating Palin’s videotaped welcome speech to an Alaskan separatist party, or how the right treating Obama’s documented interactions with Ayers and Doehrn.

Of course, it’s not the left that Ms. Dole is appealing to with this ad — they tend to be nonreligious; it’s the center-right, who do tend to be religious, and are the “peelable” votes from Ms. Hagan. That Ms. Hagan’s campaign is screaming about the ad indicates that it is indeed hitting home.

unclesmrgol on October 30, 2008 at 11:31 AM

I am agnostic. But, I believe there are many spirits under god. The Pledge Of Allegiance is important to me. As is In God We Trust on our money! Just because I think different. Doesn’t mean that religion is not true. I just wonder how some religions don’t use the same Bible. I still pray. I respect wisdom from different sides. I just can’t understand a person trying to tear down something that is what made our Country. No wonder the youth of today are so confused. No wonder so many blind people are flocking to a man of no substance. We have to have something inside our hearts to keep us sane.

sheebe on October 30, 2008 at 11:46 AM

One of the disappointments of moving here to NC is Dole. I think she is great, and always admired her, but her time it up. I hate this Kay Hagan, she is a disgusting liberal, and I want Dole to win.
But Dole has sat on her great name, and lost that “fire”, even in her complacency she does more then any liberal, but she could do so much more, but she is tired and comfortable. This is why Republicans need to start refreshing their ranks, so we don’t have this possible loss to a democrat.

right2bright on October 30, 2008 at 12:18 PM

I have always wondered why someone is so obsessed with something that doesn’t exist…

right2bright on October 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM

According to the Bible, evil did not exist in the world until Adam and Eve brought it here by their disobedience, if we’re going purely by the Bible.

Esthier on October 30, 2008 at 9:26 AM

I just quoted chapter and verse that very clearly says that he did. Adam and Eve’s alternate choice of evil was already there before they chose it. God put the “evil choice” there for them. God does not do the evil himself, he simply allows it to exist as a means to try the righteous.

NeverLiberal on October 30, 2008 at 1:11 PM

I just quoted chapter and verse that very clearly says that he did. Adam and Eve’s alternate choice of evil was already there before they chose it. God put the “evil choice” there for them. God does not do the evil himself, he simply allows it to exist as a means to try the righteous.

NeverLiberal on October 30, 2008 at 1:11 PM

No, not really. Those are very shallow responses.

And the tree wasn’t evil. The act of disobedience in eating from it was.

God didn’t make disobedience evil, it simply is.

Esthier on October 30, 2008 at 1:31 PM

It’s a lesson to conservative atheists, too. (All two percent of us.)

I am at my desk, weeping like a baby. My heart is so full of grief for all of you.

apacalyps on October 30, 2008 at 2:52 PM

For Christians anyway. Then again, I don’t believe morals should progress. I think that’s one of the flaws of modern thinking.

Esthier on October 29, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Maybe progress isn’t the right concept, so much as fulfillment. If the religious model is wrong – if we don’t live forever, if we’re not being weighed on some cosmic scale of justice – then we’re doing this living thing all wrong.

RightOFLeft on October 30, 2008 at 3:15 PM

“Jesus wept.” John 11:35

apacalyps on October 30, 2008 at 3:25 PM

democrates the Party of Death and higher taxes

unseen on October 30, 2008 at 4:13 PM

“So the Jews in Israel aren’t persecuting Christians huh? Christians in Israel might disagree.”

The Muslims are killing the Jews in Palestine. Can the same be said of the Jews?

davod on October 30, 2008 at 7:45 PM

The reaction from Hagan and her sugar daddy, Chuck Schumer, were so predictable. They were outraged OUTRAGED! that Dole would air this ad. Nothing in the ad accuses Hagan of being an atheist. She just assumes it does. Funny how that works, eh?

SouthernGent on October 30, 2008 at 9:05 PM

Fibber Kay Hagan: Atheism you can, er, not believe in?

Mr. Wednesday Night on October 30, 2008 at 11:14 PM

It’s disappointing to see any group of people proclaim that there is no God, but as a Christian, it is even moreso with the secular, leftist, atheist Jews. These were God’s chosen people, according to the Bible.

Were is the key word.

The jews are no longer the “people of God”.

The Christians are the “people of God”.

The jews lost that status as they rejected the Incarnate Word of God Himself and persecuted His followers.

Yes the Jews have been responsible for persecuting Christians for 2,000 years and they still do it to this day.

Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

SaintOlaf on October 29, 2008 at 2:53 PM

So the Jews are no longer the people of God? I seem to remember the Apostle to the Gentiles saying,

1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Written by Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. Written TO the churches of Rome, AFTER the rejection of Jesus collectively by the Jews. So at the very time you say the Jews were no longer God’s people, Paul was saying just the opposite.

I think I’ll hold with Paul.

If you really want to see the relationship of Jews and Christians, go read Romans, chapters 9 – 11. Be prepared to do a little studying, though.

But I’ll throw out a little preview: God didn’t replace the Jews with the Christians as His people so much as add the Christians to the Jews as His people.

Which is exactly why evangelical Christians have become known for being friends of the Jews.

Sorry for getting off topic, but I try not to let people get away with claiming that the Jews are no longer God’s people. That is exactly the kind of false doctrine that makes Jews suspect Christians of hating them. I consider it scandalously close to the old Blood Libel.

theregoestheneighborhood on October 31, 2008 at 1:54 AM

If Hagan is an Elder at her church then it is relevant that she attended a fundraiser at the Godless Pac.

davod on October 31, 2008 at 4:59 AM

PS:

One of the “Godless” members, in discussing the fact that few, if any, in Congress support their ideals, said it is a long term project to change their minds.

This is the same as Ayes and his teaching of revolution is more important than teaching the three Rs. After twenty years Ayers has achieved his goal.

Given enough time, and plenty of Sorus money, the Godless will achieve their goal.

davod on October 31, 2008 at 5:04 AM

…all the smears circulating on the fringe about The One being a Muslim…

I never thought O’Bama was a muslim. He’s more like AP, an atheist. He was brought up a dhimmi in Muzzieland, and joined an atheistic “church” when he got back to the US. O’Bama doesn’t believe in God. Notice he never corrects, or chides, anyone for calling him “Messiah”. O’Bama is a blasphemer and a heretic. And, quite possibly, the Anti-Christ.

Don Carne on October 31, 2008 at 5:18 PM

This ad not only cost Washington Based Senator Liddy Dole her seat but probably cost NC for McCain.

Thanks Liddy.

Monkei on October 31, 2008 at 8:28 PM

“So the Jews in Israel aren’t persecuting Christians huh? Christians in Israel might disagree.”

The Muslims are killing the Jews in Palestine. Can the same be said of the Jews?

davod on October 30, 2008 at 7:45 PM

The lions are killing the impalas. Can the same be said of the hyenas? Let me know when that matters.

The Race Card on October 31, 2008 at 11:43 PM

And, quite possibly, the Anti-Christ.

Don Carne on October 31, 2008 at 5:18 PM

Jesus 2.0

The Race Card on October 31, 2008 at 11:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3