Tuesday, November 03, 2015

Ben Carson on abortion and rape/incest

Presidential candidate Ben Carson opposes nearly all abortions.  In other words, rape/incest is “killing babies” as are a couple who openly make love, find out she’s pregnant, and then abort the child under the presumption that they don’t want to take responsibility for their actions.  As if this needs to be explained, they are not the same action.  A woman who is forcefully raped, had no intention of having a child, and then has to endure a nine month pregnancy—well Ben Carson wouldn’t know anything about that because (a) he’s male, and (b) he has never had to experience what those women have had to endure.  It is an absolutist, extremist position just like his comment that being gay is “a choice” based on some gobbledegook about ‘when they go to prison their straight and when they get out their gay.’  Because some women who are raped might keep the child and produce a healthy, productive human being doesn’t mean ALL women should have to be forced into that position.  That’s what Doctor Carson believes in his religious thinking.  It’s ironic and sad because for all the talk of loving life and being “pro-life,” he doesn’t fully love life if a woman doesn’t have that choice under law. Even sadder is this is a candidate who now leads the GOP field who has extremist and homophobic positions.

Monday, March 10, 2014

The word "i"

(Huge props to the late great Ayn Rand.)

"I" have rights that no-one else can claim.
For "I" am of one mind, and one body.
"I" choose the friendships and institutions "I" think are of value.
"I" choose them not based on blood or societal influence.
"I" choose them because they are of distinct and selfish pleasure.
If "I" choose to never ever give one ounce of time or monies to charity in my lifetime, that is still a superior ideal than by compulsion.
If "I" choose what is deemed by others to be the wrong path in life, that is still superior than being forced into the right path.
If a god created my existence, "I" thank you, but "I" am not chained to you for "I" am of free will to determine my own fate.
If "I" choose to love another more than myself, "I" still have to consciously relinquish the "I" in me for that other.

No matter how hard bureaucrats, religionists, the majority, or society has tried throughout history to extinguish the "I" with "We", they can never do so, for "I" is mine by natural right.
They can imprison me, or even incinerate me, but they can never take away the "I" in me.
"I" am indeed (self)ish, and "I" apologize to no-one for such an ideal.
For to get to "We" one has to start with "I".

Monday, February 24, 2014

What's wrong with the conservatives? (in quotes)

"Republicans don't believe in capitalism as much as Democrats believe in socialism." -Jason Lewis

"The Republicans stand for nothing except to oppose the Democrats." -self

"The Republican philosophy is not to win back America but to not lose through the 'gradual' erosion of capitalism towards socialism.  One example of this is another debt-ceiling increase; another more grotesque example is the reeling from Democratic race-baiting.  Republicans would say it's the Democrats fault.  I tend to think it's their fault because they refuse to fight back." -self

"If it takes the Tea Party to rejuvenate excitement into the Republicans, that's a problem." -self

"The Democrats are far better at language than Republicans.  They have made 'socialism' sound embracing and kind while 'capitalism', as in to capitalize, or prey upon others, be a discouraging word." -self

"The great hypocrisy of the Republicans, as the party of 'individualism', more freedoms, less government controls, advocate a singular definition of marriage through legislated controls.  On the other hand, the Democrats, as the party of less individual freedoms, more government controls, are the ones more than any other who spearheaded a plural definition of marriage, which equates to more individual liberties." -self


The following are quotes from the genius Ayn Rand. I have added bold to define the two party's:

"The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.

     - In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins (partisan races).

     - In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins (Democrats).

     - When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side (Republicans); when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side (Democrats)."


"What are the 'conservatives'? What is it that they are seeking to 'conserve'?

It is generally understood that those who support the 'conservatives', expect them to uphold the system which has been camouflaged by the loose term of 'the American way of life'. The moral treason of the 'conservative' leaders lies in the fact that they are hiding behind that camouflage: they do not have the courage to admit that the American way of life was capitalism, that that was the politico-economic system born and established in the United States, the system which, in one brief century, achieved a level of freedom, of progress, of prosperity, of human happiness, unmatched in all the other systems and centuries combined—and that that is the system which they are now allowing to perish by silent default.

If the 'conservatives' do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone.

Yet capitalism is what the 'conservatives' dare not advocate or defend.  They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism . . . Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society." -Ayn Rand


(I've never fully understood the argument from depravity but have included it to show the complete quote.)

"There are three interrelated arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith—the argument from tradition—the argument from depravity.

Sensing their need of a moral base, many 'conservatives' decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God.  Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.

Intellectually, to rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies--that one has no rational arguments to offer.  The 'conservatives' claim that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, prosperity, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith--that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.

Consider the implication of that theory.  While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the 'conservatives' concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism.  It is the kind of victory that the communists' irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits....

Now consider the second argument: the attempt to justify capitalism on the ground of tradition.  Certain groups are trying to switch the word 'conservative' into the exact opposite of its modern American usage, to switch it back to its nineteenth-century meaning, and to put this over on the public.  These groups declare that to be a 'conservative' means to uphold the status quo, the given, the established, regardless of what it might be, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible.  They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old....

The argument that we must respect 'tradition' as such, respect it merely because it is 'tradition,' means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them--with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them?  The affront to a man's self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man's nature are obvious.

This leads us to the third—and the worst—argument, used by some “conservatives”: the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity.

This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.

Dictatorship—this theory asserts—believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.

The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists." -A.R.


"Today's 'conservatives' are futile, impotent, and, culturally, dead.  They have nothing to offer and can achieve nothing.  They can only help to destroy intellectual standards, to disintegrate thought, to discredit capitalism, and to accelerate this country's uncontested collapse into despair and dictatorship." -A.R.


"So much for those American 'conservatives' who claim that religion is the base of capitalism--and who believe that they can have capitalism and eat it, too, as the moral cannibalism of the altruist ethics demands." -A.R.


"The 'neo-conservatives' are now trying to tell us that America was the product of 'faith in revealed truths' and of uncritical respect for traditions of the past (!).

It is certainly irrational to use the 'new' as a standard of value, to believe that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is new.  But it is much more preposterously irrational to use the 'old' as a standard of value, to claim that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is ancient.  The 'liberals' are constantly asserting that they represent the future, that they are 'new', 'progressive', 'forward-looking', etc.--and they denounce the 'conservatives' as old-fashioned representatives of a dead past.  The 'conservatives' concede it, and thus help the 'liberals' to propagate one of today's most grotesque inversions: collectivism, the ancient, frozen, status society, is offered to us in the name of progress--which capitalism, the only free, dynamic, creative society ever devised, is defended in the name of stagnation." -A.R. 


"What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and, while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?

These are the 'conservatives'—or most of their intellectual spokesmen." -A.R.


"Today’s culture is dominated by the philosophy of mysticism (irrationalism)—altruism—collectivism, the base from which only statism can be derived; the statists (of any brand: communist, fascist or welfare) are merely cashing in on it—while the 'conservatives' are scurrying to ride on the enemy’s premises and, somehow, to achieve political freedom by stealth. It can’t be done." -A.R.


"Capitalism is not the system of the past; it is the system of the future—if mankind is to have a future. Those who wish to fight for it, must discard the title of 'conservatives'.  'Conservatism' has always been a misleading name, inappropriate to America. Today, there is nothing left to 'conserve': the established political philosophy, the intellectual orthodoxy, and the status quo are collectivism. Those who reject all the basic premises of collectivism are radicals in the proper sense of the word: 'radical' means 'fundamental'. Today, the fighters for capitalism have to be, not bankrupt 'conservatives', but new radicals, new intellectuals and, above all, new, dedicated moralists." -A.R.

Monday, March 09, 2009

Dennis Prager: The Side Not Seen

Dennis Prager is a conservative thinker who has a nationally-syndicated radio program on the Salem Radio Network. His support lies with the Republican Party to which listeners can hear his criticisms of liberals, the Democratic Party, and secularism in general. I had listened to Prager's program extensively for a good 3-5 years during the beginning and middle of the decade. I found his program to be quite insightful and hold many fine moral principles. However, as time went by, I started to question his principles as well as the way his program was presented. In general it wasn't anything I could actually prove, but my sense was things were not quite what they seemed. So after doing a little digging, I've come up with the following on why Mr. Prager isn't all that he seems, especially to his loyal fan base.

There appears to be quite a difference between nationally-aired political programs and what one can find on their local programming. The latter ten to take call-ins without screening their callers. In the experiences that I've had, they just say "Please hold", or something to the effect. Prager claims to have "debated the best", but in order to believe that it begs the question of why his program screens callers. The question has been answered with things like filtering the rude, obnoxious, vulgar callers. However, I have to wonder why these shows already have the technology in place to edit vulgar language out since there is a delay in transmission from the time the call-in takes place to when the listener receives the signal. In effect, the main reason is either censorship, or Prager hasn't ever really debated libertarians.

He has been criticized for turning down the volume of callers' phone connections so that he can have the last word. [1]

Although Prager centers himself as a "conservative Republican," opposing modern liberalism and the Democratic Party, his underlying philosophy is quite different and often undetected. As noted below, Prager would best be described as a 'virtue socialist' since he supports government intevention in non-economic areas:

Another justification for socialism is the vague concept of "virtue." Under this kind of socialism, society is manipulated toward the goal of creating a society based on certain religious ideals. The individual is largely left alone in his economic activities, but his non-economic activities are regulated if not banned, even though those activities are conducted between consenting adults with a clear and honest agreement regarding their association.

This form of socialism is as destructive of individual liberty as the more recognized Marxist form of socialism. Bizarrely, the proponents of virtue socialism refuse to recognize their socialism, despite their constant invocation of terms like society, the greater good, and the majority, in the context of manipulating them using government fiat -- classic rhetoric of all socialists. [2]

Europe has given the world Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, racism, and socialism, all rotten ideas that have caused immeasurable human suffering. But for Europeans and their ideological twins on the American left and at universities, ideas are not judged by their ability to ameliorate human suffering or reduce evil, but by their complexity and apparent profundity. An idea is not good because it produces good – that’s unromantic American pragmatism – it is good because it sounds good. -D.P. [3]

Prager's political philosophy holds remnants of elitism and mysticism (a leader of doing 'God's work'), socialism, totalitarianism, and other examples of religious tryanny (since there is no end in sight to the control over human conduct they seek). He is also a hyprocrite since he claims the 'moral idiocy' of a generation but doesn't consider his own god-driven rule is lacking a visible endorsement from, namely, God. Prager refers to the Bible as the sole truth of his politico actions since human is fallible and cannot be trusted to live in freedom, for freedom is at the core of his disdain. In other words, for humanity to reach its highest heights, suppression needs to be enacted since Prager is citing a 'divine text'.

In his column Internet Anonymity Is As Destructive As Internet Porn, Prager believes that the way to a more civil discourse is through the depletion of free speech. This couldn't be further from the truth:


There are a number of huge flaws with this idea, though:
1. Incivility on the internet is a nuisance, but not a threat; if you are seriously offended and hurt by something said by an anonymous commenter or blogger, then you need to grow a thicker skin. Not to say you can't be seriously annoyed by this sort of thing- just that we're not usually talking about serious threats to someone's reputation or physical well-being. An ad hominem by an anonymous poster is hardly going to hurt someone's reputation, and it really shouldn't hurt their feelings. The primary effect of the ad hominem nuisance is often that it prevents the anonymous poster's legitimate arguments from ever getting a fair hearing from the "victim." [4]

I have come to realize that the great divide in values is not between those who believe in God and those who do not but between those who believe in a divine text and those who do not. -D.P.

This seemingly innocuous statement of his personal belief is far more dangerous in its sweeping world view that anyone who does not follow a fundamentalist literalist interpretation of the Bible is politically wrong. I have no doubt that Prager would happily endorse violent enforcement of Biblical literalism if he had the power to achieve it. That is what characterizes Christian Reconstructionism, more about it here and here. I find such statements and his advocacy of culture war, and his entrenched position on the air in radio far more disturbing and dangerous than his ludicrous column on married male female sex relations. [5] -Daily Kos

While not convinced Prager would resort to violence to enforce his values, he nonetheless is a supporter of mandating religion upon society. He has elements of Christian Reconstructionism since he believes "that every area dominated by sin must be 'reconstructed' in terms of the Bible." [6] Prager fails to grasp that only those who benefit from socialist law are the ones on top of the food chain: meaning him. His forcible measure will do little to actually convert society to his thinking since about the only thing humans have ever had in common with one another is that we are human. Prager is making the same mistake history has seen when religion tries to interfere with liberty. It will produce reaction, not conversion. And since biblical adherrents are also often socialists (for they don't believe in the "individual" to begin with), they tend to place the responsibility back on the bible, not themselves. (They believe in their individual rights but not anyone else who differs from their morality.)

In Blasphemy: How the Religious Right Is Hijacking Our Declaration of Independence, Alan Dershowitz highlights some of Prager's faulty reasoning behind Congress-elected Keith Ellingson's decision to use a book other than the Bible on the swearing-in on the oath:

As if to demonstrate that intolerance once practiced against Jews can also be practiced by some Jews against other minorities, a Jewish right-wing talk show host named Dennis Prager led a campaign to disallow the first Muslim elected to congress (in November 2006) to take an oath of office on the Koran. Prager insisted that congressman Keith Ellingson should not be allowed to do so—not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.

Prager’s bigotry was immediately condemned by Jewish organizations across the ideological spectrum. This is what the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith said:

Prager is flat-out wrong when he asserts that Representative Ellingson’s use of a Koran would be “damaging to the fabric of American civilization.” To the contrary, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “no religious test shall ever be required” to hold public office in America. Members of Congress, like all Americans, should be free to observe their own religious practices without government interference or coercion.

Prager’s patriotic prattling in misinformed on the facts, too. No Member of Congress is officially sworn in with a Bible. Under House rules, the official swearing-in ceremony is done in the House chambers, with the Speaker of the House administering the oath of office en masse. No Bibles or other holy books are used at all. Members may, if they choose, also have a private ceremony with family and friends. At these unofficial ceremonies, Members frequently solemnize the event by taking on oath while holding a personal family Bible.

Prager ridiculously asserts that permitting Rep. Ellingson to take the oath of office would “be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.” What he fails to understand is that what truly unifies all Americans is a value system built on religious freedom and pluralism, not dogmatism and coercion.

Prager presents intolerant, ugly views. His comparison of Ellison’s desire to “choose his favorite book” to that of the right of racist elected to public office to use Hitler’s Mein Kampf is outrageous.


In other words, the Constitution—according to the absurd reasoning of Chancellor Kent and Justice Brewer—would allow discrimination against Muslims and Buddhists, because they are religious “impostors,” but not against Christians, because that is the true religion. That, of course, is precisely what Dennis Prager is proposing, though he would probably describe our true religion as ‘Judeo-Christian.’ This is a poor provenance on which on which to base a claim that we are, as a matter of constitutional law, a Christian nation.

A few hypocritical examples:

Prager writes a column on Socialism Kills but doesn't see how his own religious rule over society is consider socialist.

His column on Why the Democrats Use 12-year-olds is contradictory since several years back he had his young son on his program and asked if he 'agreed' on one of his political positions. Well of course he's going to agree. He's your son.

Other contradictory examples:

His topic on nature, he states, "We are indeed to be responsible stewards of nature, but for our sake, not its." If Prager were reading the literal truth, the bible quite clearly states we are to caretake nature and its inhabitants not just for our sake, but its.

The romanticizing of nature, let alone the ascribing of divinity to it, involves ignoring what really happens in nature. I doubt that those American schoolchildren who conducted a campaign on behalf of freeing a killer whale (the whale in the film "Free Willy") ever saw films of actual killer whale behavior. There are National Geographic videos that show, among other things, killer whales tossing a terrified baby seal back and forth before finally killing it. Perhaps American schoolchildren should see those films and then petition killer whales not to treat baby seals sadistically.

If you care about good and evil, you cannot worship nature. And since that is what God most cares about, nature worship is antithetical to Judeo-Christian values. -D.P. [7]

Here Prager uses a very weak and straw man argument on the basis that since children don't see the "wild" portion of nature, we as humanity shouldn't apparently value nature. He doesn't even begin to address that adults value nature despite knowing 'the survival of the fittest'. Prager's underlying motivation for writing this is because the left control the environmental topic. That has bothered Republicans going back to the '70s and the environmental movement. And they continue to have little voice on the matter due to their own failure. You would think that since God and God's creation, Nature, go hand-in-hand, that Prager would have an appreciation for it. I actually agree with some of his points on green extremism, but it's quite odd to me that Prager isn't very sympathetic to his creator's creation.

In Thank God For Moral Violence, Prager makes some relatively decent points on the use of moral violence vs. immoral violence. However, the title of his column is disturbing because he attributes a moral campaign to fight immorality, with God. Prager once said that there have been far more secular wars than religious wars. Well the point he misses is that there ARE religious wars. And if religion is such a great thing, wouldn't there be like zero wars in history? Because the entire point is a matter of tolerating other view points. Like religion, Prager is a socialist, and since socialism is a "collective" vision, he is continually seeking to push his morality above others. Prager presumably sees no end in sight to the wars America can wage on immoral foreign soils, even if those pocket wars pose no security risk to our country. There is little hindsight to the thought of letting humanity decide their own fate provided it doesn't interfere with the survival of others. I am not trying to attribute Prager to the likes of Hitler or Stalin. I'm simply saying there is no end in sight to the intervention he seeks over other immorals since he ascribes his mission to what he believes God wants, which is stomping out all immorality. While American troops dying for the betterment of other nations is a noble one, it does bring into question why those nations are dependent upon America to do the dying for them.

As a graduate student in international affairs at Columbia University, I specialized in the study of totalitarianism, especially, though not only, the communist variety. I found the subject fascinating, but I never for a moment imagined that any expertise gained in this field would prove relevant to American life.

Sad to say, it has turned out to be the most valuable subject I could have studied. The totalitarian temptation is not confined to Nazis and communists; it can rear its head in any society and gradually destroy it. And as the Soviet dissident joke notes, one quick way to identify totalitarian threats to liberty is to identify those who falsify the historical record on behalf of their cause. [8]

A person who actively seeks to control who are who cannot marry on a wide scale such as a national level, is a nationalist. Since Prager is bothered by how "other" countries handle this topic too, that makes him a totalitarian for he seeks to control the globe. For such an "expert" on totalitarianism, it is amazing how he doesn't view himself as such. I can be thankful he doesn't have the power to achieve his aims.

Dennis Prager's Inconsistent Arguments


During the week of 10-5 to 10-9-09, Prager claimed that one can be against same sex marriage while basically not holding prejudisms against said. No, that would be an impossibility. One cannot claim divinity through the use of government coercion (heterosexual mandation). See, his issue is morality (of which many things I agree with), but his actions are just as immoral for he seeks to use government and the socialist method of legislation. Marriage is defined by the individual, and there is no such thing as Prager claims to the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. The only way for heterosexual marriage to be destroyed is if heterosexuals be not able to marry. And since that is not exactly under any serious threat -- guess what? It's a clever engineering to justify to himself that not only is he not a homophobic, but that his goal is of divine origin through biblical terms. One simply cannot say they don't mean any ill will towards another group by preventing certain activities. And there certainly is no ownership over marriage. The only reason a singular definition has allowed to exist this long is through legislation, albeit still tyranny. Mr. Prager certainly has no extraordinary rights over anyone else. It doesn't matter how good it sounds in moralistic terms in the Prager camp. If one has to commit another form of force to maintain the status quo, they're committing a different yet similar immoral.

Monday, June 02, 2008

In Smite of Our Fore Fathers

Locke, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson--
their cause hijacked, collectivism won;
"A republic, if you can keep it,"--
Ben must surely be having a fit!;
Aristotle knew, Von Mises did,
Ayn Rand had a clue, the people hid;
God, religion, and mysticism,
Tyranny hasn't produced much wisdom;
The Declaration of Independence,
of which the Religious Right took offense;
The Constitution was written as a taper,
Dubya said, "It's just a god-damn piece of paper!";
Do you remember the Bill of Rights?
"Sorta," and flicks the cigarette light;
War and imperialism were enacted,
our youth were forced into being drafted;
Abroad we fought Russia and Communism,
at home the Smoking Ban equates to Nazism;
Oil prices, healthcare, and gay rights,
stems from which suit has the most might;
The Blues & Reds take credit for being the ones,
but it is closer to the Libertarians;
"All for One, and One for All,"
the saying has been our fall;
We live under a doctrine of hate,
no answers, just circles of debate;
Like droids marching in a world of denial,
our best attempt is to give a plastic smile;
Billy Joel said "We Didn't Start the Fire,"
that depends on if Frank Luntz is for hire;
Where have I heard this song before?
Oh yes, in the pages before.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Democrats are overachievers; Republicans are underachievers

The RNP are failures. Our fore fathers built America on a Republic, and it is anything but today. Republicans really don’t even comprehend what America once was. Their really only goal is to be “less worse” than the Democrats. The Constitution, liberty, etc. is a bunch of passé blah to them. (“The Constitution is just a god damn piece of paper.” –George W. Bush)

On the other hand, the Democrats are winners. Not in head-to-head principles per se, but they’ve won the emotional debate. (No? Then ask yourself why Republicans often call themselves “compassionate conservatives.”) Democrats own the media, too. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. all have liberal leanings. The main conservative channel out there is really only FOX.

Despite opposition accounts, Republicans are more unpredictable. It’s true Democrats will not confront their socialism at times, but everyone knows they’re tax & spenders. Everyone basically knows they’re socialists. Democrats really have an internationalist agenda with Europe as its model. Should a Democrat get in office, nobody is really that surprised if spending and/or social programs should explode to the point of setting new records. But if a Republican spends a bunch or becomes decidedly liberal, people are like, WTF?!

Republicans are usually predictable when it comes to giving you more of your tax dollars back. But many other areas you cannot be for certain. Spending is even open game now (if it ever wasn’t in the first place?). You cannot be for certain a Republican will be true to their conservancy. That knowingness of who they truly are isn’t as inherent as it is with the Democrats.

Democrats, like Obama, pride themselves on socialist terms like “we” and greater environmental protections. Republicans kinda hang onto the ends of the blue coattails because they fear losing the compassion debate. Democrats tend to spout all kinds of social ideals on various subjects. As Ayn Rand notes, Republicans still tend to use the jargon “faith” and “tradition.” In that regards, the Blues have better jargon for they think in terms of “future” and “progressive.” Republicans call to the past – whatever that means? But they don’t comprehend what their past is. They just take pride in knowing that polls like approval ratings from say two years ago are a 30-20 percent in favor of them. They’d say, “Well, hahaha, at least we’re not as bad as the Democrats!” The idea that they should have great principles, first, is secondary to the one of being mildly better than the Democrats. The Blues tend to win more by evasion since they know their ideas cannot be debated in the open. The Reds – oh boy! – know they can win the open debate but in the end follow suit many times.

Since the Democrats know their ideas cannot be openly debated, they win the emotions debate, or the vagueness of media and pictures, to get an edge. Republicans haven’t really figured out with any consistency how to beat them over the years. It’s true the RNP have held more presidential offices. That would, to them, account as impressive, worthy of a moral victory. But when you think about what America was built on, and how a party that can offer nothing has slowly transformed America into something other than its beginnings, it is they who are the overachievers.

Religion's socialist tyranny

The Bible was written by many authors over a long period of time, but it was written during a period known for its “Holy Wars.” This was a period of bloodshed and tyranny. It’s important to note many of The Bible’s tones were created by people who wanted to control humanities conduct by injecting fear in the text to prevent/scare people into submission of their supposed sins. (An entry into God’s Kingdom for being good is just one of them, though no one has actually empirically been able to prove this.)

Religious prophets and/or authoritarians have a history of upper class. They seek to find answers that are not necessarily there in the text, justifying biblical tones that contradict logic and common sense. For some it’s based on emotional vices; the need to cling onto their beliefs at all costs. They are special people who are praised for their foresight and desire an everlasting legacy. They seek that attention because to a certain extent it’s natural to want to be loved and appreciated. However, the foundation of their religious values lives in some contradiction.

For instance, Genesis 1:3-5, “On the first day God created light,” but then later in 1:19, “And the evening and the morning were the fourth day,” implying a contradiction since it’s impossible scientifically to have a morning created three days after the sun was created – for light is morning (!). Or from the Infidels website: “In the Bible, words having to do with killing significantly outnumber words having to do with love.” “If the Bible were really the work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God, one would reasonably expect it to be obviously superlative in every respect – accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout – as compared to anything that could possibly be conceived by human intellect alone.”

Now I could sit here and go through every biblical contradiction, but the reality is some minds just are not going to be changed. Religion is predicated on tribalism (social groups). Caste systems are designed to protect people from reality. Therefore there is a strong association of reality denial between The Bible, religion, and prayer. They seek to engulf the individual’s mind to a higher power, but it usually isn’t God. Rather it’s usually a religious authoritarian claiming to be the cipher of an Almighty. They provide no empirical evidence for their second sight – and they seek none for they loathe the scientific method. They might dismiss the examples above because science asks them to prove their positions. They want not to because otherwise their beliefs start to fall apart at the seams. And yet at the same time they try -- though fail – to use the scientific method to claim the Bible is the truth because the Bible exists and therefore is the truth. No other visible requirement is necessary.

Religionists/prayerists stubbornly adhere to socialism. Neither really believes in the individual. You might hear a religious person talk about how they’ve spoken with God, that they speak “tongues” with their Creator. It rarely – if ever – is questioned what they said, or why they are given special gifts to talk with God while the rest of us are not. They say that you have to be a deep believer in order to communicate with God, though their communications are vague and never given the detail necessary to solidify their position. Notice how some believe prayers are answered while there are a whole host of other examples that are not answered. Disease has been cured. Therefore it was by God’s hand. It had nothing to do with human engineering. But many of the other instances of good Christian people who die of disease-related ailments are simply discarded.

The kind of people I want to be around are the cancer patients who believe they will beat the disease. Those who place their life in God’s hands are essentially saying they do not have the strength to confront their condition. Whatever conclusion they reach, they determine themselves. The man who called his wife on his cell phone right before his hijacked plane hit one of the World Trade Center’s essentially gave his life up because he didn’t have the strength to confront reality and fight back. That of course isn’t suggesting he would’ve lived anyway, but the terrorist pilots course might have been altered had he decided to try and break down the door of the cockpit. In essence, prayer is a good in the sense that it lifts the human spirit. The dark side is that prayer lifts people away from reality.

If a religious person said that they believe religion creates better people, better values, and more peaceful communities—that’s great. But it needs to be left at that. Religion is a private institution, and the unseen, the mystical revelations, the claiming of God’s word, can never be entered into political law for liberty can only be run on the conscious. Since religions quota is socialism, it is always seeking to engulf the individual no matter how kind its intentions. (Religion is anti-individual, anti-mind.) Religionists never really get around to answering that if God is The Almighty power, why does God need humans to speak on its behalf in the first place? Otherwise their socialist tyranny comes into question. The idea that God created humanity with a free will to choose its own fate explains to me that it isn’t religion I fear, but people in religion I fear.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

biblical flaws -- miscellaneous

Jesus is God's Son
Either Jesus was a fictional character or he took far too much credit for being the eyes of God. Mysticism places more value in the unseen than seen. It becomes a problem when one (authors of scripture) claims to be the spokesperson of a higher power that really doesn't require the assistance of its creation(s). It would seem God, The Almighty, can emit the message clearly to its people at any time. That thought either cannot or rarely is ever challenged in biblical circles. Because, to them, "God works in many ways" but the one direct example of just appearing in front of us all on the doorstep. Again this appears to be another creation debate, but in fact I'm suggesting that "God's Plan" is simply a hands-off approach in which humanity is to figure out life's obstacles for themselves. Many of these ideas were self-generated by religious icons who took empowerment too seriously.

If God is forgiving and loving, then a belief in Hell is contradictory. It establishes once again that God is vengeful and therefore no better than humanity. For God created humanity with a free will to decide the path they so choose. Not to punish them when God had the choice and power to create a same-face collective.

The Devil
The belief in such implies that an entity consumes people whole. However, to believe that people get their evilness from a Devil is to imply they are not responsible for their actions. For example, if a criminal commits a crime, it is deemed the evil spirit caused the problem because they consumed their soul. In effect modern jurisprudence doesn't need to exist for individuals are not responsible for their own conclusions.