A Reply to David Frum

PoliticsDecember 2009 • Views: 3,898

David Frum quotes my post about Minnesota Governor Pawlenty and his support for teaching “intelligent design” creationism to public school children, and takes exception to my remarks: A Problem for Pawlenty.

Johnson’s comment seems to me radically unfair. Pawlenty is a model of sensible modern conservatism. His answers to Newsweek’s barbed questions indicate an instinct for practical compromise, even as he eschews any personal support for creationism.

Well, I don’t know which interview Frum read, but the Newsweek interview I quoted makes it exceedingly clear that Pawlenty absolutely does personally support creationism. Quote:

Where are you personally?

Well, you know I’m an evangelical Christian. I believe that God created everything and that he is who he says he was. The Bible says that he created man and woman; it doesn’t say that he created an amoeba and then they evolved into man and woman.

That’s creationism, David — and not even the pseudo-scientific “intelligent design” type. It’s pure Biblical literalist creationism. Pawlenty explicitly rejects the scientific theory of evolution, and in a particularly ignorant fashion: his reason for rejecting evolution is that it isn’t mentioned in the Bible, and you don’t get any more creationist than that.

It’s curious that Frum doesn’t even address the other part of my post, about Pawlenty’s anti-gay statements, which are just as troubling as his support for creationism. Pawlenty wants to specifically deny medical benefits to same-sex couples, although he voted in favor of this policy in the 1990s. And he justifies this switch with a bizarre homophobic fantasy about cross-dressing elementary school teachers who do not exist.

In this, he’s mirroring the modern GOP’s shift from a party that used to stand for personal liberties, to a much more radical and atavistic party beholden to the religious right.

If “Pawlenty is a model of sensible modern conservatism,” as David Frum seems to believe, he’s also a model for how badly the party has gone into the weeds — creationist, anti-science, and anti-gay. And by defending this attitude, David Frum shows me again that I made the correct decision to break with the GOP and the right wing.

Jump to bottom

307 comments

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:50:29am

Frum's a partisan and he's trying to salvage what he can, but it doesn't work for me.

[deleted] Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:50:43am

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:51:49am

I don't get political pundits sometimes. You hand them a banana. It looks like a banana, smells like one, feels like one, tastes like one, has the cellular structure and genetic composition of one, and yet they tell you it's really a 1968 VW bug.

SteveMcG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:52:04am

"Barbed questions"?

Locker Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:52:08am

Yea his bolded text is obviously wrong. The guy came right out and said he's a creationist, proudly even. Pretending otherwise seems to be very dishonest.

jaunte Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:52:56am

Frum is ignoring two real problems and trying to move the conversation to two invented problems:

1) How will Catholic voters feel about a candidate who left the church?
2) How will evangelical voters feel about a man whose conversion narrative is so pragmatic?

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:54:53am

re: #5 Locker

Yea his bolded text is obviously wrong. The guy came right out and said he's a creationist, proudly even. Pretending otherwise seems to be very dishonest.

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who even said they believed in G-d.

Racer X Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:55:56am

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who even said they believed in G-d.

Oh, you're going straight to hell for that remark.

;-)

Obdicut Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:56:21am

The anti-gay stuff just doesn't fly with younger generation, even with evangelicals.

It seems pure idiocy for the GOP to not just hold onto it, but even ramp it up in some ways.

darthstar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:56:38am

re: #4 SteveMcG

"Barbed questions"?

Really...it's not like Pawlenty was asked to name a newspaper or magazine that he actually reads or anything complex like that! (/)

Jetpilot1101 Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:56:46am

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who even said they believed in G-d.

Not everyone who believes in God is a raving homophobe, creastionist, nutbag. That's a heck of a litmus test and in my opinion, rather closed minded.

FrogMarch Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:57:30am

"Well, you know I’m an evangelical Christian. I believe that God created everything and that he is who he says he was. The Bible says that he created man and woman; it doesn’t say that he created an amoeba and then they evolved into man and woman."

The thing is - most Christians believe God made man, (the heavens and the earth). That personal belief doesn't speak to their feelings on science, but this is what Christians believe.

baier Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:57:38am

creationist, anti-science, and anti-gay

But he's a fiscal conservative, so what's the problem?
//

SteveMcG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:58:07am

I can't help but wonder at the shallowness of the creationists. I'm sure it's a lot easier to believe that God is some sort of magician who snapped his fingers 6,000 years ago and zap, there were Adam and Eve. Doesn't it make GOd seem more impressive that we were created from ameobas and Dinosaur poo and evolved over billions of years? If you are a creationist, don't you have to take the Bible literally, but then again, the Bible isn't always consistent. I grew up hearing about the divine mystery of faith, but if you are a creationist and a literalist, where is the mystery?

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:59:23am

In this, he’s mirroring the modern GOP’s shift from a party that used to stand for personal liberties, to a much more radical and atavistic party beholden to the religious right.

This is one of the reasons I'm finding it harder and harder to support any Republican candidate; if they aren't outright on the crazy train and headed off the cliffs they are standing at the switch it just passed and saying "it looks like a good direction"...

darthstar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:59:30am

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who even said they believed in G-d.

Then you're left with Pete Stark in California as your only candidate, as he's the only self-professed Athiest in the US Government. Every single other serving member says they believe god exists - as they understand him/her/it.

Spirituality isn't bad. Fundamentalist extremism, however, is.

freetoken Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:59:41am

re: #1 Thanos

Agree. David Frum may be one of the more reasonable voices in the partisan pundit-o-sphere, but he still wants to put lipstick on the pig, so to speak. Perhaps he has resigned himself that if he is going to have to live with a party that is embracing all the planks of the RR platform then Pawlenty is a less-bitter pill to swallow than Palin or Bachmann.

baier Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:00:14am

re: #12 FrogMarch

The thing is - most Christians believe God made man, (the heavens and the earth). That personal belief doesn't speak to their feelings on science, but this is what Christians believe.

I believe that the world was created 35 years ago by a divine entity named Earl McKlasky, a former Manager at KFC. Every other story you hear is bullshit, and mine is the one that should be taught in school.

Racer X Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:00:53am

God created everything a long time ago. We have been evolving ever since.

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:01:09am

re: #17 freetoken

Agree. David Frum may be one of the more reasonable voices in the partisan pundit-o-sphere, but he still wants to put lipstick on the pig, so to speak. Perhaps he has resigned himself that if he is going to have to live with a party that is embracing all the planks of the RR platform then Pawlenty is a less-bitter pill to swallow than Palin or Bachmann.

That and he might also be trying to re-establish more cred with some who are over the edge?

baier Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:01:55am

re: #19 Racer X

God created everything a long time ago. We have been evolving ever since.

We created god a long time ago, he has been evolving ever since.

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:02:21am

re: #11 Jetpilot1101

Not everyone who believes in God is a raving homophobe, creastionist, nutbag. That's a heck of a litmus test and in my opinion, rather closed minded.

No, it's rather I'm in touch with reality and not prone to mystical thinking.

FrogMarch Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:02:22am

re: #18 baier

I believe that the world was created 35 years ago by a divine entity named Earl McKlasky, a former Manager at KFC. Every other story you hear is bullshit, and mine is the one that should be taught in school.

Not my point. But, ok. Me too! Earl rox.

Racer X Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:02:46am

re: #18 baier

I believe that the world was created 35 years ago by a divine entity named Earl McKlasky, a former Manager at KFC. Every other story you hear is bullshit, and mine is the one that should be taught in school.

There are two types of people in the world - regular, and extra crispy. Oh and now there are some grilled (they evolved from the extra crispy).

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:02:51am

re: #21 baier

We created god a long time ago, he has been evolving ever since.

Bingo...

darthstar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:04:09am

re: #21 baier

We created god a long time ago, he has been evolving ever since.

Time for my favorite Xenophanes quote: "If horses could paint, they'd paint gods as horses"

Racer X Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:04:41am

re: #21 baier

We created god a long time ago, he has been evolving ever since.

re: #22 Walter L. Newton

No, it's rather I'm in touch with reality and not prone to mystical thinking.

I think this is where science and faith should remain totally separate.

badger1970 Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:04:53am

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who even said they believed in G-d.

G-d and politics don't mixed. I would prefer to have politicians as soulless creatures so they wouldn't invoke His name every time they get caught doing something they shouldn't have.

FrogMarch Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:07:34am

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who even said they believed in G-d.

Now certainly it's clear the "right" pushes the mix of religion and politics - and that is often sticky and inappropriate. But certainly we have a long tradition in this nation of combining the two. Obama is a Christian. I wonder, (and maybe someone should ask him) if he believes God created the heavens and the earth? I'm not stipulating the young earth belief - but the general belief among Christians. Certainly we know Obama is "pro-science" and that is fine "cool" whatever. But, what are his Christan beliefs, I wonder...
Ah - maybe that's the point. Keep it to yourselves - oh precious politicians.

Racer X Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:07:43am

Regina Spektor- Laughing With

Youtube Video

SillyAllah Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:08:07am

Well said.

Surabaya Stew Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:09:45am

Common knowledge of Minnesota being a liberal state and all may have clouded the vision of others as well. For example, I was very surprised to find out about Pawlenty's support of creationism; I thought that kinda crap might happen in certain states not bordering Canada, but not in the "progressive" land of 10,000 lakes. (Pawlenty also comes across rather well on television, perhaps this is another reason for my surprise at his intellectual disconnect.) Perhaps Frum is in self-inflicted denial about who his last, best hope for the GOP really is.

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:10:37am

This smells most to me like "see I'm a conservative, I criticized Charles Johson" (then I got clubbed with a clue bat.)

Since all of the R front runners are Creationist, you have to ask yourself "which is least likely to cater to the RR in Policy". Pawlenty probably a bit less than Palin, but to suspect he wouldn't kowtow at all is really naive.

Sam N Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:12:20am

re: #22 Walter L. Newton

No, it's rather I'm in touch with reality and not prone to mystical thinking.

I understand where you're coming from, but given a choice between supporting a candidate that might possibly win, and supporting a write-in, I'll typically go with the former. You have to say you believe in god to get elected in most parts of this country.

Surabaya Stew Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:12:38am

re: #16 darthstar

Then you're left with Pete Stark in California as your only candidate, as he's the only self-professed Athiest in the US Government. Every single other serving member says they believe god exists - as they understand him/her/it.

Spirituality isn't bad. Fundamentalist extremism, however, is.

And even Pete Stark goes to a Unitarian Church weekly! Face it, no congressman can get elected without belonging (or appearing to belong) to an organized religion. Even believers who choose to worship in private aren't accepted by the average voter.

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:13:15am

re: #34 Sam N

I understand where you're coming from, but given a choice between supporting a candidate that might possibly win, and supporting a write-in, I'll typically go with the former. You have to say you believe in god to get elected in most parts of this country.

Tragic, isn't it?

Jaerik Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:14:08am

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who even said they believed in G-d.

That comes across a bit too close-minded to get through to anyone, so I offer you a more targeted statement as an alternative:

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who said they believe G-d has a part in public policy.

The Sanity Inspector Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:15:07am

re: #14 SteveMcG

I can't help but wonder at the shallowness of the creationists. I'm sure it's a lot easier to believe that God is some sort of magician who snapped his fingers 6,000 years ago and zap, there were Adam and Eve. Doesn't it make GOd seem more impressive that we were created from ameobas and Dinosaur poo and evolved over billions of years? If you are a creationist, don't you have to take the Bible literally, but then again, the Bible isn't always consistent. I grew up hearing about the divine mystery of faith, but if you are a creationist and a literalist, where is the mystery?

The universe is supremely complicated to the point that chance can be a practical explanation, if not an ultimate one. Was it chance that sent an asteroid smashing into the Earth 65 million years ago, redirecting the course of reptile and mammal evolution? It's as good a word as "God did it," and conveys exactly as much information. The difference is that "chance" is open to ever deeper investigation, whereas "God did it" is a closed door.
-- [Link: www.sciencemusings.com...]

darthstar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:15:14am

re: #28 badger1970

Why do people drop the 'o' in god? It's not like god is the n-word...Me, I simply use the lower-case g for god as it is inclusive of any god people believe in, including the Christian one. I see god as a metaphor for the self...a way of explaining away things we can't understand or don't want to accept (what happens after we die, are we alone in the universe, or are there other earths with humanoid or other life-forms on them with societies, Sarah Palin, etc.)...someone to give faux-credit to when you catch a long pass for a touchdown in a big game, but don't hold responsible when you fumble or throw an interception.

A Man for all Seasons Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:17:45am

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who even said they believed in G-d.

You wouldn't vote for me? I believe in God with my whole heart. I would never push my belief on someone else....And I don't think Religion and God are equal..Religion hung Jesus on a cross...So religious freaks crack me up.
My life has been a miracle....I am deeply humbled to be here

darthstar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:17:51am

re: #35 Surabaya Stew

I used to go to a Unitarian church...cool place, actually.

Spiriituality isn't about some great spook in the sky who can send you to eternal damnation and suffering by fire if you don't accept his insecure demands for exclusive loyalty and worship.

Four More Tears Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:18:51am

I have little patience for any god that tells my neighbor how I should live.

Ben Hur Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:19:10am

Is the issue that he believes it, or that he wants it taught in schools?

badger1970 Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:19:59am

re: #39 darthstar

My understanding that it's the polite way of expressing.

Ben Hur Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:20:59am

re: #39 darthstar

Why do people drop the 'o' in god? It's not like god is the n-word...Me, I simply use the lower-case g for god as it is inclusive of any god people believe in, including the Christian one. I see god as a metaphor for the self...a way of explaining away things we can't understand or don't want to accept (what happens after we die, are we alone in the universe, or are there other earths with humanoid or other life-forms on them with societies, Sarah Palin, etc.)...someone to give faux-credit to when you catch a long pass for a touchdown in a big game, but don't hold responsible when you fumble or throw an interception.

I know that Walter does it out of respect.

I gather the insistence of using the lower case "g" on a noun is precisely because of the opposite.

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:21:51am

re: #37 Jaerik

That comes across a bit too close-minded to get through to anyone, so I offer you a more targeted statement as an alternative:

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who said they believe G-d has a part in public policy.

Well, thank you for putting words in my mouth.

If I was a dishonest person, a dishonest politician, then maybe I would use your suggested language "I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who said they believe G-d has a part in public policy."

But no, I think mystical thing is a flaw in human intelligence, and if I had my way, if it was MY perfect world, I don't want candidates putting any "faith" of any sort in a deity.

And at the same time, most Lizards here know that I am extremely respectful of other Lizards who have a belief in G-d. I even use the "G-d" form most of the time in deference to our Jewish Lizards.

My statement is honest, but I realize I can't get my way all the time. But I'm not going make statements like you suggested just to be more ecumenical.

Jaerik Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:23:12am

re: #39 darthstar

Why do people drop the 'o' in god?

Some of the more quirky branches of Christianity and Judaism believe the word "God" is simply an English translation of the actual tetragammaton, and thus shouldn't be written down.

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:23:22am

by most people's standards I'm probably damned to hell, and I could care less...what difference does it make what other people think?...sadly the whole question of piousness is a non issue and certainly has no place other than in your own mind...it's disgusting, people sticking their nose where it doesn't belong

Ben Hur Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:23:39am

re: #47 Jaerik

Some of the more quirky branches of Christianity and Judaism believe the word "God" is simply an English translation of the actual tetragammaton, and thus shouldn't be written down.

Or erased.

MandyManners Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:24:29am

re: #47 Jaerik

Some of the more quirky branches of Christianity and Judaism believe the word "God" is simply an English translation of the actual tetragammaton, and thus shouldn't be written down.

"Quirky"?

darthstar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:25:27am

re: #44 badger1970

My understanding that it's the polite way of expressing.

Thanks.

re: #45 Ben Hur

I know that Walter does it out of respect.

I gather the insistence of using the lower case "g" on a noun is precisely because of the opposite.

Actually, Ben, I explained my use of the lower-case g. If I'm referring to the biblical God, I capitalize as it's considered a proper noun, for example, one would say that there are angels in Heaven, but there are Angels in Anaheim.

darthstar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:26:32am

re: #51 darthstar

Please forgive the comma splice above. Shit.

Ben Hur Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:26:48am

re: #51 darthstar

Me, I simply use the lower-case g for god as it is inclusive of any god people believe in, including the Christian one.

I guess I misunderstood the above.

sagehen Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:27:19am

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who even said they believed in G-d.

That limits your options to write-in candidates.

darthstar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:28:32am

re: #50 MandyManners

"Quirky"?

I'm guessing quirky is an understatement as well. After all, avoiding spelling out the word isn't that far off from 'no images of Allah' when you get right down to it.

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:29:19am

re: #54 sagehen

That limits your options to write-in candidates.

Limit? That really is almost unlimited options, isn't it?

Racer X Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:29:50am

re: #40 HoosierHoops

You wouldn't vote for me? I believe in God with my whole heart. I would never push my belief on someone else...And I don't think Religion and God are equal..Religion hung Jesus on a cross...So religious freaks crack me up.
My life has been a miracle...I am deeply humbled to be here

Hoops - I'd vote for ya!

darthstar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:29:55am

re: #53 Ben Hur

I guess I misunderstood the above.

No problem.

sagehen Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:30:56am

re: #55 darthstar

I'm guessing quirky is an understatement as well. After all, avoiding spelling out the word isn't that far off from 'no images of Allah' when you get right down to it.

Not really. The full word god is a generic, G-d refers to a specific one.

MKELLY Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:31:38am

So all you gents that accept science and not a Creator please explain how the universe was created without violating the First law of Thermodynamics.

Also, then you accept that your rights that are enumerated in the Constitution come from some person and not from our Creator. If your rights come from the whim of a man they can be lost the same way.

In the beginning God said let there be light. Sounds like the big bang theory to me.

sagehen Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:31:57am

re: #56 Walter L. Newton

Limit? That really is almost unlimited options, isn't it?

Okay, sure. An unlimited number of can't-possibly-win options. Good luck with that.

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:33:02am

re: #39 darthstar

It's a Jewish tradition, explained a little better here.

[Link: judaism.about.com...]

I personally do not do it, and I do not mean disrespect to anyone by not doing so, because I am agnostic and regardless I do not believe that the English word "god" is a proper name, especially not of the Jewish or Christian god. Even in that article, it states the only real prohibition on writing god in Jewish law only applies to written Hebrew, not English.

Achilles Tang Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:33:10am

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who even said they believed in G-d.

So, you don't vote?

Racer X Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:33:35am

I type, therefore I am.

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:34:07am

churches as tool for politics...

MIAMI — Fearing that millions of illegal immigrants may not be counted in the 2010 census, Latino leaders are mobilizing a nationwide drive to urge Hispanics to participate in the survey, including an intense push this week in evangelical Christian churches.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:34:36am

re: #60 MKELLY

So all you gents that accept science and not a Creator please explain how the universe was created without violating the First law of Thermodynamics.

Also, then you accept that your rights that are enumerated in the Constitution come from some person and not from our Creator. If your rights come from the whim of a man they can be lost the same way.

In the beginning God said let there be light. Sounds like the big bang theory to me.

When you can actually explain what the First Law of Thermodynamics is to all us plebs and why you think it applies here, then maybe someone will bother answering that.

darthstar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:35:34am

re: #59 sagehen

Not really. The full word god is a generic, G-d refers to a specific one.

Oh, damn...you just gave me an idea for a poster that could make millions. "Gods Playing Poker"...Buddah laughing at his good fortune, Poseidon stewing over his 7-2 off suit, Shiva could have an ace up one sleeve and a king up another...of course, Jesus would have to be the bartender...just need to print it on velvet and I'll be rich, rich, I tell you...

darthstar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:36:46am

Okay...time to go play with family for a while.

Have a beautiful day everyone.

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:37:18am

re: #60 MKELLY

Also, then you accept that your rights that are enumerated in the Constitution come from some person and not from our Creator. If your rights come from the whim of a man they can be lost the same way.

If they are taken away it will be by zealots of either philosophy or religion. The rights don't come from "some person" - they come from the force of law established through legislation, elected officials, and consensus on what's right. There are even protections specifically against the tyranny of the masses in our bill of rights.

In a theocratic world where bible thumpers reigned any minimal rights granted would come from some person using justification similar to that of the Taliban or the "Divine Right" of Kings.

Summer Seale Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:38:34am

re: #60 MKELLY

1) Your rights do come from society. I know people don't like to hear this, but your "rights" are granted to you. It kinda sucks, but that's the way life is. You have no real natural "rights" other than the ones that enlightened minds accept to give to each other. Go to North Korea and see what kind of "natural rights" they are endowed with. I personally find it distasteful in the extreme, and I do absolutely impose the natural rights I believe in on to other cultures, but that's because I grew up thinking that way in a society which accepts this.

And yes, I do believe that I'm better than the dictatorship of North Korea because I do think this way. But I recognize that my rights can be taken away by a dictatorship anytime they wish in different circumstances. Sorry to say, but God doesn't have any say in it whatsoever. That's why we fight so hard for our rights - because we give them to ourselves based on what we think is right. Nobody else puts his hand in and gives them to us.

2) The big bang doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics if you apply string theory and quantum theory to it on different levels with newly discovered equations which could, in effect, explain the whole thing with Membranes. Rather than spout off nonsense that you don't even comprehend, maybe you should read up on discoveries made within the last few years, and theories which have been modeled to try to come up with actual solutions, even esoteric as they are, instead of just saying "God did it". At least scientists and mathematicians are trying to explain what you just callously dismiss as "the work of God". Don't be a fucking idiot.

Please. =)

MandyManners Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:38:36am

re: #55 darthstar

I'm guessing quirky is an understatement as well. After all, avoiding spelling out the word isn't that far off from 'no images of Allah' when you get right down to it.

Yeah, and a buncha' Jews and Christians are gonna' slaughter those who spell out the name of God. Watch out! Fatwa's coming to me!

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:39:15am

David Frum suggests that Charles's assessment of Pawlenty is radically unfair. What's radical is Pawlenty's suggestions that "intelligent design" (creationism) be taught as alternative theory and I assume he means within a science class context.

The truth of the matter, for the millionth time, is that intelligent design is not even close to being an alternative theory and if it where to be studied in a class room setting it could only logically be done in a class of social studies or political science and taught for what it is: a social, psychological and political phenomenon.

Mark Pennington Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:39:18am

Gov Pawlenty and evangelicals-where he stands on hotbutton issues.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/08/04/gov-pawlenty-and-evangelicals-where-he-stands-hotbutton-issues

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:39:31am

re: #66 ArchangelMichael

When you can actually explain what the First Law of Thermodynamics is to all us plebs and why you think it applies here, then maybe someone will bother answering that.

First law is a standard talking point of Discovery Institute, they don't understand it and so mis apply it, don't expect an answer that makes sense.

fizzlogic Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:40:05am

When I became disenchanted with conservatism and left the GOP, I thought maybe I might enjoy reading Frum's site. What I read was nothing more than the same BS that drove me away packaged as if it wasn't as hard a sell. His Pawlenty support illustrates this exactly.

Mark Pennington Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:40:09am

Charles is right and David Frum is wrong.

Charles Johnson Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:40:26am

re: #60 MKELLY

Also, then you accept that your rights that are enumerated in the Constitution come from some person and not from our Creator.

Please tell me which part of the US Constitution says human rights come from God. In fact, please tell me where God is even mentioned in the US Constitution.

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:40:30am

re: #74 Thanos

First law is a standard talking point of Discovery Institute, they don't understand it and so mis apply it, don't expect an answer that makes sense.

Usually they yammer on about the 2nd law. This is the first time I've heard any of them mention the first.

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:40:51am

re: #63 Naso Tang

So, you don't vote?

I vote candidate, not party. And read my original statement "I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who even said they believed in G-d."

I don't care what a person believes personally. As soon as they make it public policy, if it becomes some part of his/her campaign, I PROBABLY wouldn't vote for them.

Reading is comprehension.

Ben Hur Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:41:34am

re: #77 Charles

Please tell me which part of the US Constitution says human rights come from God. In fact, please tell me where God is even mentioned in the US Constitution.

Only in the Declaration.

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:41:50am

re: #78 ArchangelMichael

Usually they yammer on about the 2nd law. This is the first time I've heard any of them mention the first.

I'm assuming he just got confused, and wanted to see that play out before I mentioned that fact, now you spoiled it :)

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:42:11am

re: #81 Thanos

Doh!

A Man for all Seasons Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:42:16am

re: #60 MKELLY

So all you gents that accept science and not a Creator please explain how the universe was created without violating the First law of Thermodynamics.

Also, then you accept that your rights that are enumerated in the Constitution come from some person and not from our Creator. If your rights come from the whim of a man they can be lost the same way.

In the beginning God said let there be light. Sounds like the big bang theory to me.

Stick around.. Ludwig will tear you a new ass with membrane theory..( He is a string guy) And Kelly.. Next time you go to court try invoking the rights God gave you...Cause they are all written by man..No matter how flowery the founding fathers make it sound...Don't mix God, Laws and science..
It won't end up well for you here

MandyManners Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:42:51am

re: #77 Charles

Please tell me which part of the US Constitution says human rights come from God. In fact, please tell me where God is even mentioned in the US Constitution.

Some get the Constitution confused with the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Ben Hur Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:43:43am

re: #84 MandyManners

Some get the Constitution confused with the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Earlier:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:44:09am

re: #75 trendsurfer

When I became disenchanted with conservatism and left the GOP, I thought maybe I might enjoy reading Frum's site. What I read was nothing more than the same BS that drove me away packaged as if it wasn't as hard a sell. His Pawlenty support illustrates this exactly.

how did you become disenchanted with conservatism?

Ben Hur Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:44:23am

re: #71 MandyManners

Yeah, and a buncha' Jews and Christians are gonna' slaughter those who spell out the name of God. Watch out! Fatwa's coming to me!

Allah is capitalized.

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:45:08am

re: #83 HoosierHoops

Stick around.. Ludwig will tear you a new ass with membrane theory..( He is a string guy) And Kelly.. Next time you go to court try invoking the rights God gave you...Cause they are all written by man..No matter how flowery the founding fathers make it sound...Don't mix God, Laws and science..
It won't end up well for you here

He won't be back for a while, look at his profile, hit and run poster. And not very clever.

And no, I wouldn't vote for you. There is no way I would put you in a political position, I don't do mean things like that to friends.

A Man for all Seasons Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:45:20am

re: #70 Summer

You really need to post here more often
Regards

Surabaya Stew Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:46:06am

re: #41 darthstar

I used to go to a Unitarian church...cool place, actually.

Spiriituality isn't about some great spook in the sky who can send you to eternal damnation and suffering by fire if you don't accept his insecure demands for exclusive loyalty and worship.

The Unitarians that I have met in life so far all seem to have their heads screwed on pretty tight, so thats a pretty good endorsement of the faith. Speaking of which, last month I took one of those online "spirituality" tests which promised to match up my "beliefs with the most appropriate religion. Seems I scored a 100% fit for Unitarianism, 70-odd percent for my adopted creed of Episcopalian, and a measly 16% compatibility with my original Catholic Church. Perhaps there's a lesson in there....

fizzlogic Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:47:26am

re: #86 albusteve

It all began with Rush Limbaugh defining conservatism as against abortion, not as the conservative (limited) use of government.

Charles Johnson Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:48:02am

re: #73 beekiller

Gov Pawlenty and evangelicals-where he stands on hotbutton issues.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/08/04/gov- pawlenty-and-evangelicals-where-he-stands-hotbutto n-issues

Reading that article, it's striking how much farther to the right Pawlenty has gone in recent years. On every social and scientific issue, he's now toeing the religious right line.

This is an excellent demonstration of the religious right's death grip on the GOP. Even someone who seems to start out as a moderate is forced to get increasingly more extreme, in order to stay in office.

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:48:55am

re: #91 trendsurfer

It all began with Rush Limbaugh defining conservatism as against abortion, not as the conservative (limited) use of government.

Rush Limbaugh defines or shapes your ideology?

eneri Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:49:06am

I for one am glad there is a voice crying in the wilderness, i.e. you. Do you know of any others?

Charles Johnson Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:49:51am

re: #93 albusteve

Rush Limbaugh defines or shapes your ideology?

Rush Limbaugh: The Most Influential Conservative in America

fizzlogic Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:50:12am

re: #93 albusteve

Obviously not. That's why I no longer identify as conservative or Republican.

Surabaya Stew Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:50:31am

re: #77 Charles

Please tell me which part of the US Constitution says human rights come from God. In fact, please tell me where God is even mentioned in the US Constitution.

The only place that God is explicitly mentioned is in the signing portion of the esteemed document:

"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."

This wasn't done as a sign of faith, it merely established that the date used is in fact based on the Julian calendar.

baier Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:50:47am

re: #84 MandyManners

Some get the Constitution confused with the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

let's also recognize that the US was founded well before the Renascence of modern science.

MandyManners Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:51:06am

Off to visit some friends as the neighborhood Merrython continues!

100

Mark Pennington Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:51:29am

re: #92 Charles

Reading that article, it's striking how much farther to the right Pawlenty has gone in recent years. On every social and scientific issue, he's now toeing the religious right line.

This is an excellent demonstration of the religious right's death grip on the GOP. Even someone who seems to start out as a moderate is forced to get increasingly more extreme, in order to stay in office.

Exactly. A moderate does not have a future in the current GOP.

101

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:51:33am

re: #92 Charles

Reading that article, it's striking how much farther to the right Pawlenty has gone in recent years. On every social and scientific issue, he's now toeing the religious right line.

This is an excellent demonstration of the religious right's death grip on the GOP. Even someone who seems to start out as a moderate is forced to get increasingly more extreme, in order to stay in office.

excellent point...some our coming out of the closet, but even more are falling into the void for political purposes...he's a young up and comer and knows who butters his bread....bought and sold

102

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:51:53am

re: #73 beekiller

Gov Pawlenty and evangelicals-where he stands on hotbutton issues.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/08/04/gov- pawlenty-and-evangelicals-where-he-stands-hotbutto n-issues

That's really a great link outlining all of Pawlenty's RR legislative efforts. It's very clear to me that he's a Dobson pawn.

103

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:52:11am

re: #98 baier

let's also recognize that the US was founded well before the Renascence of modern science.

And before Abolitionism.

104

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:52:24am

re: #100 beekiller

Exactly. A moderate does not have a future in the current GOP.

And that's just the way they want it.

105

lawhawk Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:53:09am

re: #92 Charles

Is it that they're moving harder to the right to stay in office, or is it that he's positioning himself for the inevitable presidential run, when the far right has a disproportionate say in the primaries, just as surely as the far left pushes Democrats seeking a run for the President to move to the left in the Democrat primaries?

106

Blueheron Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:53:11am

re: #11 Jetpilot1101

Not everyone who believes in God is a raving homophobe, creastionist, nutbag. That's a heck of a litmus test and in my opinion, rather closed minded.

To me evolution is simply how G-d created the earth and all on it. I see nothing contrary in that view.

107

baier Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:53:25am

re: #103 Gus 802

And before Abolitionism.

I initially included abolitionism and suffrage in my post but decided to keep it to the point of creationism.

108

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:54:10am

re: #95 Charles

Rush Limbaugh: The Most Influential Conservative in America

he certainly doesn't speak for me...I don't care how influential these people are it does not sway my principles...I draw a very distinct line between conservatism and the GOP...therefore I'm dead in the water

109

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:54:44am

re: #105 lawhawk

Is it that they're moving harder to the right to stay in office, or is it that he's positioning himself for the inevitable presidential run, when the far right has a disproportionate say in the primaries, just as surely as the far left pushes Democrats seeking a run for the President to move to the left in the Democrat primaries?

It might be ok if he were "just paying lip service" as many Dems do, but instead this is a record of actual legislation and vetos. He's not paying lip service, he is one of them.

110

fizzlogic Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:55:12am

re: #108 albusteve

Here's Rush Limbaugh defining conservatism:

MP3 Audio

111

Fred72 Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:55:40am

re: #60 MKELLY

So all you gents that accept science and not a Creator please explain how the universe was created without violating the First law of Thermodynamics.

If you REALLY need it explained:

[Link: lmgtfy.com...]

112

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:56:03am

re: #73 beekiller

Gov Pawlenty and evangelicals-where he stands on hotbutton issues.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/08/04/gov- pawlenty-and-evangelicals-where-he-stands-hotbutto n-issues

Reading that just makes my head spin. What a throwback.

113

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:56:08am

re: #110 trendsurfer

Here's Rush Limbaugh defining conservatism:

[Video]

I don't give a shit about Rush Limbaugh...he can define whatever he wants

114

Blueheron Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:59:10am

re: #39 darthstar

Why do people drop the 'o' in god? It's not like god is the n-word...Me, I simply use the lower-case g for god as it is inclusive of any god people believe in, including the Christian one. I see god as a metaphor for the self...a way of explaining away things we can't understand or don't want to accept (what happens after we die, are we alone in the universe, or are there other earths with humanoid or other life-forms on them with societies, Sarah Palin, etc.)...someone to give faux-credit to when you catch a long pass for a touchdown in a big game, but don't hold responsible when you fumble or throw an interception.

Jews drop the o so that G-d's name printed on a piece of paper isn't somehow defiled.

115

Ben Hur Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:00:08am

re: #114 Blueheron

Catch up!

116

Surabaya Stew Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:00:37am

Post-theists just can't catch a break these days:

[Link: www.latimes.com...]

117

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:00:48am

The only break with the RR I see here is his stance on AGW back in 2007; I wonder where he would stand today if pinned to the mat?

118

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:01:27am

re: #116 Surabaya Stew

Post-theists just can't catch a break these days:

[Link: www.latimes.com...]

Another day in Hooterville.

119

MKelly Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:02:37am

You are correct I should have said the Declaration. My bad.

Summer you put "" marks around words I did not use. I wish I was as smart as all you guys to call people you don't know vulgar names. So enlightened.

The first law says that neither energy nor matter can be created nor destroyed. If neither can be created how did the big bang take place.

String theory is just that and does not get around the first law.

I do in fact believe there is a Creator, God, if you like. Otherwise the science I accept falls apart at the very beginning.

I would think all you that like the precautionay principle would believe in God. Sixty or seventy years of righteous living against a eternity of Hell. That is a real payoff.

120

sagehen Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:02:59am

re: #94 eneri

I for one am glad there is a voice crying in the wilderness, i.e. you. Do you know of any others?

If you're looking for old-school conservative writers (not the people who use conservative as a brand name for something that would make Goldwater and Reagan throw up)... Daniel Larison and Connor Freidersdorf are both pretty good.

121

The Curmudgeon Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:03:05am

Even if Pawlenty were only moderately creationist -- whatever that means -- he would still be unacceptable. It's essentially the same as a candidate who is moderately a flat-earther. Once it's obvious that someone is crazy, there's not much else to be said.

122

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:03:21am

re: #115 Ben Hur

Catch up!

Uma Thurman's joke from Fox Force Five!

123

Charles Johnson Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:03:28am

re: #117 Thanos

The only break with the RR I see here is his stance on AGW back in 2007; I wonder where he would stand today if pinned to the mat?

He's already backing away from that, too.

124

Ben Hur Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:03:48am

re: #122 ArchangelMichael

Uma Thurman's joke from Fox Force Five!

LOL!

Just watched that again recently.

125

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:03:56am

re: #118 Gus 802

Another day in Hooterville.

"If you're an atheist and don't believe in God and still want to hold office, I have a problem with that," Edgerton said. "And the constitution of North Carolina has a problem with that."

there you have it...the money quote

126

Blueheron Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:04:56am

re: #62 ArchangelMichael

It's a Jewish tradition, explained a little better here.

[Link: judaism.about.com...]

I personally do not do it, and I do not mean disrespect to anyone by not doing so, because I am agnostic and regardless I do not believe that the English word "god" is a proper name, especially not of the Jewish or Christian god. Even in that article, it states the only real prohibition on writing god in Jewish law only applies to written Hebrew, not English.

True but there is custom amongst many Jews who will not fully write G-d's name in English. I do but then again.......

127

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:06:27am

re: #125 albusteve

"If you're an atheist and don't believe in God and still want to hold office, I have a problem with that," Edgerton said. "And the constitution of North Carolina has a problem with that."

there you have it...the money quote

And the preceding paragraph:

H.K. Edgerton, a former local NAACP president who has paraded wearing a Confederate Army uniform and waving a Confederate flag, said his lawyer was preparing a lawsuit against Asheville.

128

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:07:44am

re: #119 MKelly

[snip]
I would think all you that like the precautionay principle would believe in God. Sixty or seventy years of righteous living against a eternity of Hell. That is a real payoff.

I would think that I like to be honest with myself. You're suggesting that someone should be dishonest with themselves just in case you are right. I prefer to be true to myself.

129

MKelly Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:09:05am

re: #111 Fred72
That is about the second law. Did not mention second law.

130

wrenchwench Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:09:31am

re: #120 sagehen

If you're looking for old-school conservative writers (not the people who use conservative as a brand name for something that would make Goldwater and Reagan throw up)... Daniel Larison and Connor Freidersdorf are both pretty good.

Daniel Larimer has a bunch of racists linked to in his left sidebar.

131

wrenchwench Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:10:07am

re: #130 wrenchwench

Daniel Larimer has a bunch of racists linked to in his left sidebar.

Oops, Larison.

132

A Man for all Seasons Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:10:20am

I'm off for 2 weeks..My boss told me I should watch the movie 4 Christmases..
So It just started..See you guys in a while

133

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:10:24am

re: #119 MKelly

No, not really :

The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to or removed from the system and the work done on or by the system or we can say " In an isolated system the heat is constant".

134

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:10:50am

re: #125 albusteve

"If you're an atheist and don't believe in God and still want to hold office, I have a problem with that," Edgerton said. "And the constitution of North Carolina has a problem with that."

there you have it...the money quote

Here we see H.K. Edgerton on the left.*

Guess who's on his left? That's white supremacist lawyer Kirk Lyons.

Original article here:

Neo-Confederate Kirk Lyons on race, immigration and what could be his final flag case

135

Blueheron Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:11:56am

re: #115 Ben Hur

Catch up!

Huh?

136

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:12:22am

These four laws are:

* Zeroth law of thermodynamics, about thermal equilibrium:

If two thermodynamic systems are separately in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.

If we grant that all systems are (trivially) in thermal equilibrium with themselves, the Zeroth law implies that thermal equilibrium is an equivalence relation on the set of thermodynamic systems. This law is tacitly assumed in every measurement of temperature. Thus, if we want to know if two bodies are at the same temperature, it is not necessary to bring them into contact and to watch whether their observable properties change with time.[15]

This law was considered so obvious it was added as a virtual after thought, hence the designation Zeroth, rather than Fourth. In short, if the heat energy of material A is equal to the heat energy of material B, and B is equal to the heat energy of material C. then A and C must also be equal.

* First law of thermodynamics, about the conservation of energy:

The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to or removed from the system and the work done on or by the system or we can say " In an isolated system the heat is constant".

* Second law of thermodynamics, about entropy:

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value or we can say " in an isolated system, the entropy never decreases". Heat energy cannot be transferred from a material of lesser to a material of greater.

* Third law of thermodynamics, about the absolute zero of temperature:

As a system asymptotically approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value; also stated as: "the entropy of all systems and of all states of a system is zero at absolute zero" or equivalently "it is impossible to reach the absolute zero of temperature by any finite number of processes". Absolute Zero, at which all activity would stop if it were possible to happen, is −273.15°C (Celsius), or −459.67°F (Farenheit) or 0 K (Kelvin or Absolute).

137

freetoken Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:12:34am

Speaking of AGW, the nut-o-sphere is latching onto a new paper (self-published in the Arxiv site, and now included in one of the Elsevier publications) by a professor (Qing-bin) at the University of Waterloo, that supposedly disproves CO2 as the most important driver of AGW, and furthermore claims the globe is cooling.

Expect to see it referenced by deniers for years to come.

Oh, and also coming across the wires... Lew Rockwell is pimping a video site of "documentaries" that just happens to be a hotbed of truther vids... Is Trutherism coming back into style?

138

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:13:21am

Treading where Angels fear to go...

About that Biblical description of creation. There is no Ex Nihilo in there. Read it carefully. There is a whole lot of info. about separating and organizing however.

Also if the word day is correctly translated as epoch or period of time that helps mitigate some bad assumptions about the creation narrative.

There is a lot of detail missing about the nuts and bolts of exactly "how" things were created- detail that is left up to us to discover along with the truth of all things. Somehow God saw fit not to leave us bereft of physicists and mathematicians to flounder with dark ages interpretations of the scriptures.

I am a full fledged believer in God (and actually believe in two way communication with Deity) but reading things into the Bible or letting our preconceived notions influence our interpretation to the point we deny the evidence of the blessings of intelligence, reason and knowledge just isn't respectful of the gifts God gave us.

I'd rather contemplate how the latest discovery of stellar nurseries on the edge of known space fits into God's designs than believe that the earth is covered with a black sheet with holes. (Note to the symbolism impaired: that is a metaphor not an assumption about literal beliefs... If you think I thought you believed that perhaps this is a clue into your interpretation of the Bible.)

Now I'll sit back and hear from y'all about how I'm a godless heathen or a superstitious cultists depending on your point of view.

139

Jaerik Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:14:14am

re: #46 Walter L. Newton

My statement is honest, but I realize I can't get my way all the time. But I'm not going make statements like you suggested just to be more ecumenical.

Fair enough. I actually tend to agree with you -- I'm an atheist who long since stopped equivocating by saying I was an "agnostic." That having been said, I also think the propensity to believe in a higher power is built into our psyche, and some non-trivial segment of humanity will always tend towards inventing something to scratch that itch.

So rather than waiting forever for the rest of the world to think my way, I'm willing to accept a rational alternative: that people can believe in whatever god they want, but as long as they keep it out of public policy, (and thus out of my life), the practical effect will be the same.

140

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:14:45am

re: #134 Gus 802

Here we see H.K. Edgerton on the left.*

Guess who's on his left? That's white supremacist lawyer Kirk Lyons.

Original article here:

Neo-Confederate Kirk Lyons on race, immigration and what could be his final flag case

nice portrait of three lunatics...a black neo-Rebel, a while supremist lawyer and some shcmuk that guilty by association....what a country eh?

141

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:15:42am

re: #140 albusteve

nice portrait of three lunatics...a black neo-Rebel, a while supremist lawyer and some shcmuk that guilty by association...what a country eh?

Seriously. It's enough to make me want a drink in the middle of the day.

142

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:16:36am

re: #141 Gus 802

Seriously. It's enough to make me want a drink in the middle of the day.

hey!....good idea!

143

ovoid Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:17:17am

re: #39 darthstar

Why do people drop the 'o' in god? It's not like god is the n-word...Me, I simply use the lower-case g for god as it is inclusive of any god people believe in, including the Christian one. I see god as a metaphor for the self...a way of explaining away things we can't understand or don't want to accept (what happens after we die, are we alone in the universe, or are there other earths with humanoid or other life-forms on them with societies, Sarah Palin, etc.)...someone to give faux-credit to when you catch a long pass for a touchdown in a big game, but don't hold responsible when you fumble or throw an interception.

While there can be specific rules and injunctions for believers to use when referring to their specific god(s) by name, "God" is properly spelled with an uppercase G when used as a name. Use lowercase when it is being used generically: "a god", "your god", etc. This is confusing to people who think that capitalization is some form of affirmation of belief; it isn't. There is really no need to politicize this.

144

Cannadian Club Akbar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:17:24am

re: #141 Gus 802

Seriously. It's enough to make me want a drink in the middle of the day.

I think you know where I stand.

145

brookly red Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:18:09am

re: #141 Gus 802

Seriously. It's enough to make me want a drink in the middle of the day.

/seems like my cue...

146

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:18:32am

re: #125 albusteve

"If you're an atheist and don't believe in God and still want to hold office, I have a problem with that," Edgerton said. "And the constitution of North Carolina has a problem with that."

there you have it...the money quote

I'd love to see him point to the part of the North Carolina Constitution that "has a problem with it."

147

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:18:43am

re: #139 Jaerik

Fair enough. I actually tend to agree with you -- I'm an atheist who long since stopped equivocating by saying I was an "agnostic." That having been said, I also think the propensity to believe in a higher power is built into our psyche, and some non-trivial segment of humanity will always tend towards inventing something to scratch that itch.

So rather than waiting forever for the rest of the world to think my way, I'm willing to accept a rational alternative: that people can believe in whatever god they want, but as long as they keep it out of public policy, (and thus out of my life), the practical effect will be the same.

Then we basically agree.

148

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:20:00am

re: #146 ArchangelMichael

I'd love to see him point to the part of the North Carolina Constitution that "has a problem with it."

[Link: www.godlessgeeks.com...]

149

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:20:27am

re: #148 Walter L. Newton

[Link: www.godlessgeeks.com...]

"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

150

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:20:32am

re: #146 ArchangelMichael

I'd love to see him point to the part of the North Carolina Constitution that "has a problem with it."

Yikes. Here it is:

ARTICLE VI - SUFFRAGE AND ELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE

Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.

The following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.

Third, any person who has been adjudged guilty of treason or any other felony against this State or the United States, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of corruption or malpractice in any office, or any person who has been removed by impeachment from any office, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.

151

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:20:50am

Hat trick...

152

djughurknot Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:21:52am

Weird. I remember when I thought Frum was one of the few conservative pundits with any sense left. This is not helping that fading perception or that dwindling number.

153

Bubblehead II Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:22:51am

re: #145 brookly red

Still to early for me. Besides, I am going to have to log off when I start. I have noticed a tendency to let the beer take over the keyboard and that is going to get my dumb ass banned one of these days.

154

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:22:57am

re: #151 Walter L. Newton

Hat trick...

(I was away)...it's right in the article itself... from like 1861

155

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:23:04am

re: #4 SteveMcG

"Barbed questions"?

Any question, asked by a journalist, which might intend to elicit an answer a politician does not want to deliver on the record is, by definition, 'barbed'.

156

freetoken Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:23:17am

BTW, an emerging nontroversey of the day appears to be that an ornament on the Obama's christmas tree features and image of Mao.

I kid you not.

157

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:23:49am

re: #156 freetoken

BTW, an emerging nontroversey of the day appears to be that an ornament on the Obama's christmas tree features and image of Mao.

I kid you not.

You kid me not that he has a Mao ornament?

158

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:25:03am

re: #6 jaunte

Frum is ignoring two real problems and trying to move the conversation to two invented problems:

Catholic voters, by and large, will consider his religion to be his own business, and not related to their vote.

I don't know what rubric evangelical voters use to judge a conversion experience, but I assume his can be worked on before the election.

159

freetoken Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:25:07am

re: #157 Walter L. Newton

I kid you not that Breitbart is going with the story.

160

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:25:10am

re: #149 Walter L. Newton

re: #150 Gus 802

I was wondering if he was doing some "creative interpretation", apparently not.

These are blatant and are automatic bullshit.

161

Nevertires Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:25:17am

re: #148 Walter L. Newton

The ones in that link that reference belief in "supreme being" leave it wide open for the Spaghetti Monster enthusiasts/followers, etc. I would have thought they would have more clearly defined the terms.

162

Cannadian Club Akbar Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:25:36am

re: #153 Bubblehead II

Still to early for me. Besides, I am going to have to log off when I start. I have noticed a tendency to let the beer take over the keyboard and that is going to get my dumb ass banned one of these days.

IIRC, that is the Ir** F*** rule. (didn't want to mention names)

163

brookly red Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:25:41am

re: #153 Bubblehead II

Still to early for me. Besides, I am going to have to log off when I start. I have noticed a tendency to let the beer take over the keyboard and that is going to get my dumb ass banned one of these days.

well it was a joke but yes, drinking can make one (or let one really) say regrettable things...

164

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:26:14am

re: #146 ArchangelMichael

I'd love to see him point to the part of the North Carolina Constitution that "has a problem with it."

It's right next to the passage that says God formed the State of North Carolina from the rib of Jesse Helms.

165

The Sanity Inspector Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:26:40am

re: #155 SanFranciscoZionist

Any question, asked by a journalist, which might intend to elicit an answer a politician does not want to deliver on the record is, by definition, 'barbed'.

:) Just like "out of context" means "before an unsympathetic audience".

166

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:26:46am

re: #14 SteveMcG

I can't help but wonder at the shallowness of the creationists. I'm sure it's a lot easier to believe that God is some sort of magician who snapped his fingers 6,000 years ago and zap, there were Adam and Eve. Doesn't it make GOd seem more impressive that we were created from ameobas and Dinosaur poo and evolved over billions of years? If you are a creationist, don't you have to take the Bible literally, but then again, the Bible isn't always consistent. I grew up hearing about the divine mystery of faith, but if you are a creationist and a literalist, where is the mystery?

The more strident literalists, I think, are sort of scared of a God who's more complicated than they are.

As a religious person, I regret to inform them that them's the breaks with any sort of religion more evolved than building shrines to volleyballs.

167

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:26:55am

re: #163 brookly red

well it was a joke but yes, drinking can make one (or let one really) say regrettable things...

like..."I love you, baby"

168

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:27:02am

re: #160 ArchangelMichael

re: #150 Gus 802

I was wondering if he was doing some "creative interpretation", apparently not.

These are blatant and are automatic bullshit.

I would say that in this instance the NC Constitution is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.

169

brookly red Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:27:05am

re: #156 freetoken

BTW, an emerging nontroversey of the day appears to be that an ornament on the Obama's christmas tree features and image of Mao.

I kid you not.

/I don't hold it against him, it comes standard in the K-Mart assortment pac...

170

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:27:17am

re: #161 Nevertires

The ones in that link that reference belief in "supreme being" leave it wide open for the Spaghetti Monster enthusiasts/followers, etc. I would have thought they would have more clearly defined the terms.

Every one of those state constitutions that have any reference to some mystical being of any sort should be amended by the citizens of those states, or who ever can make that change.

171

brookly red Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:27:39am

re: #167 albusteve

like..."I love you, baby"

TMI

172

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:27:50am

re: #149 Walter L. Newton

"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Sounds like a good place for don't ask don't tell to me.

Admittedly I identify with leaders who are also men and women of faith but that passage is dubious in light of the federal constitution and bill of rights.

173

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:28:43am

re: #168 Gus 802

I would say that in this instance the NC Constitution is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.

this stuff has been over ruled by the USSC

174

brookly red Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:28:52am

re: #168 Gus 802

I would say that in this instance the NC Constitution is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.

that didn't work out so well last time...

175

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:29:05am

re: #161 Nevertires

The ones in that link that reference belief in "supreme being" leave it wide open for the Spaghetti Monster enthusiasts/followers, etc. I would have thought they would have more clearly defined the terms.

like Southern Baptist and Evengalicals... No Papists, Mormons or freaks need apply. /

176

Ericus58 Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:29:09am

re: #156 freetoken

I would think that Mao would have thought having himself on the tree would be against all his beliefs, yes?

177

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:29:29am

re: #26 darthstar

Time for my favorite Xenophanes quote: "If horses could paint, they'd paint gods as horses"

Can anyone find this poem for me? I think it's Blake. The child speaks to a lamb, and a tiger, and a snail, and they all describe God in their own image?

Ends with

"He is my Father, sirs, I said,
And in my image, He was made!"

Anyone know?

178

Bubblehead II Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:30:11am

re: #156 freetoken

Link?re: #156 freetoken

BTW, an emerging nontroversey of the day appears to be that an ornament on the Obama's christmas tree features and image of Mao.

I kid you not.

And a Drag Queen as well.

This page has links to some other blogs ranting about this.

179

Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:30:18am

re: #172 DaddyG

Sounds like a good place for don't ask don't tell to me.

Admittedly I identify with leaders who are also men and women of faith but that passage is dubious in light of the federal constitution and bill of rights.

Sounds like a good place for a state constitutional convention to remove it. I identify with leaders, period. Would you prefer a pure leader over a dubious leader but a believer?

180

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:30:21am

re: #174 brookly red

that didn't work out so well last time...

Which case?

181

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:31:04am

re: #172 DaddyG

Sounds like a good place for don't ask don't tell to me.

Admittedly I identify with leaders who are also men and women of faith but that passage is dubious in light of the federal constitution and bill of rights.

I would object to any notion of "don't ask don't tell to me" in this matter.

182

JamesWI Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:32:00am

re: #168 Gus 802

I would say that in this instance the NC Constitution is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.

Over at Hotair when this story first broke, you had people claiming that State constitutions trump the U.S. Constitution. Other legal scholars were trying to argue that the First Amendment is not incorporated to the states (i.e. a state constitution could limit the free press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion) but the Second Amendment has been incorporated. I kid you not . . . This is why I refuse to get worked up when the right wing shouts about 'liberal activist judges shredding the Constitution." They don't even know what the Constitution is.

183

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:32:13am

re: #180 Gus 802

Which case?

the Big One....1861-1865

184

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:32:20am

re: #159 freetoken

I kid you not that Breitbart is going with the story.

C'mon. Wasn't he one of the reindeer?

Commie and Mao and Donner and Blitzen...
/

185

brookly red Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:32:33am

re: #180 Gus 802

Which case?

civil war snark... no real case.

186

Bubblehead II Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:32:50am

re: #162 Cannadian Club Akbar

No, that one states that if you think you are to drunk to post, then you probably are. My new rule is that if you are going to drink, don't post. Sort of like drinking and driving. Don't do it..

187

Jaerik Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:33:03am

re: #166 SanFranciscoZionist

The more strident literalists, I think, are sort of scared of a God who's more complicated than they are.

As a religious person, I regret to inform them that them's the breaks with any sort of religion more evolved than building shrines to volleyballs.

I would say it's more fake humility.

It requires a certain humility to believe there's a supreme being who, by nature of his supremacy, is inherently unknowable and outside the bounds of human comprehension.

The problem is, that's never the case. That only serves as an easy logical "out" when backed into a corner. The rest of the time, they know exactly what God thinks. He's not just unknowable and omnipotent, he's their personal buddy. He's got their back! And apparently he works via some kind of prayer-driven American Idol-like voting system to make his decisions.

188

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:36:13am

Ornament-gate!

Oh brother. Big Government (Breitbart) started this stupidity.

189

brookly red Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:36:57am

re: #184 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

C'mon. Wasn't he one of the reindeer?

Commie and Mao and Donner and Blitzen...
/

Blitzen gives me the creeps...

190

Mad Al-Jaffee Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:37:23am

re: #184 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

C'mon. Wasn't he one of the reindeer?

Commie and Mao and Donner and Blitzen...
/

Santa must be a big ol commie. He dresses in red and gives away goods to people who don't have jobs!

191

MKelly Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:37:34am

re: #128 Walter L. Newton

I would think that I like to be honest with myself. You're suggesting that someone should be dishonest with themselves just in case you are right. I prefer to be true to myself.

No Walter I am not. Be honest with youself. To thine own self be true. What I am saying is I see the idea of the PP be cited as a reason to do something. When to me the deepest truest test of the PP would be to understand that your soul will last for eternity either in Heaven or Hell and I'd want to be on the side that is Heaven.

It is your soul and your life live it as you choose but harm no one needlessly. A good life lived whether you accept God or not is still a good life, but it ends there.

192

Thinking Mans Republican Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:37:43am

re: #119 MKelly
"I would think all you that like the precautionay principle would believe in God. Sixty or seventy years of righteous living against a eternity of Hell. That is a real payoff.

I think this sums up the difference between the religious, and the moral atheists.

The religious behave "righteously" for a reward, or because of a fear of punishment, which in my mind is childlike, or even Pavlovian.

An atheist behaves "righteously" because it is the right thing to do, to treat others as you would like to be treated. Not due for a potential reward, or to avoid potential punishment.

I've had it out with a few otherwise reasonable, "righteous" religious folks, who not knowing my views, declared that they didn't see how someone who doesn't believe in god could be a moral person. IMHO, it is more moral to act a certain way because you know something is right, than it is to act that way because you might get a spanking (here, or in some afterlife) if you don't.

193

Charles Johnson Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:37:47am

re: #178 Bubblehead II

Link?re: #156 freetoken

And a Drag Queen as well.

This page has links to some other blogs ranting about this.

This foolishness never stops. There are 800 ornaments on that tree, and they were sent in by local community groups.

And the Mao picture is an Andy Warhol print.

This kind of ridiculous crap is turning the right wing into a laughingstock.

194

freetoken Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:38:28am

re: #178 Bubblehead II

And here we thought the nut-o-sphere couldn't get any more ridiculous...

Anyway, while the nutters are waxing apocalyptic I'm going to go sell some silver (hmmm.... maybe I should count out 30 pieces?). Silver prices are high now and it's a good time to sell if you've got a few extra bars lying around.

195

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:39:19am

re: #55 darthstar

I'm guessing quirky is an understatement as well. After all, avoiding spelling out the word isn't that far off from 'no images of Allah' when you get right down to it.

No branches of Judaism permit images of God. And I'm still getting over the shock of seeing repros of the Sistine Chapel paintings in college.

196

Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:39:51am

A whole lotta stupid.....

Jane Norton, GOP Senate Candidate, Sits Silently As Obama Called A Muslim (video)

Appearing at a recent coffee-shop event with Colorado voters, Norton sat silently while a female attendee declared twice that President Barack Obama is a Muslim and while a male attendee insisted that the president -- who he deemed "an idiot" -- wanted to let babies die on the side of the road "with the garbage."

Tea Party!

197

freetoken Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:39:59am

re: #193 Charles

Is it time for ... "O for Ornament"?

198

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:40:18am

re: #193 Charles

This foolishness never stops. There are 800 ornaments on that tree, and they were sent in by local community groups.

And the Mao picture is an Andy Warhol print.

This kind of ridiculous crap is turning the right wing into a laughingstock.

Mao Warhol search.

199

Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:41:32am

re: #198 Gus 802

Artsy communism!

200

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:41:34am

re: #191 MKelly

No Walter I am not. Be honest with youself. To thine own self be true. What I am saying is I see the idea of the PP be cited as a reason to do something. When to me the deepest truest test of the PP would be to understand that your soul will last for eternity either in Heaven or Hell and I'd want to be on the side that is Heaven.

It is your soul and your life live it as you choose but harm no one needlessly. A good life lived whether you accept God or not is still a good life, but it ends there.

where is there?...in some sort of eternal limbo?...as I've asked before, what about the Bushman?...where do they go?

201

Nevertires Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:41:58am

re: #192 Thinking Mans Republican

If I had the power to upding - I would bestow one for this post.

202

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:42:32am

re: #199 Killgore Trout

Artsy communism!

I'd save those ornaments. They'll probably be worth a bundle sometime in the future.

203

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:42:39am

re: #199 Killgore Trout

Artsy communism!

do you have a Che poster in your shop?..a tee shirt?

204

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:43:30am

re: #60 MKELLY

So all you gents that accept science and not a Creator please explain how the universe was created without violating the First law of Thermodynamics.

I am not a gent. I also accept both science AND a Creator. Since I am not a physicist, OR the Creator, I can't help you on the thermodynamics problem.

Also, then you accept that your rights that are enumerated in the Constitution come from some person and not from our Creator. If your rights come from the whim of a man they can be lost the same way.

I believe with Jefferson that man is endowed with certain right by his Creator, and that the best an earthly representative democracy can do is enshrine these in law. However, I consider that to be an extremely worthwhile thing to do. As did Jefferson. And, as I believe, does God.

In the beginning God said let there be light. Sounds like the big bang theory to me.

OK, so you are down with science? Clarify.

205

brookly red Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:43:32am

re: #203 albusteve

do you have a Che poster in your shop?..a tee shirt?

/tacked up on the wall inside of your garage?

206

The Sanity Inspector Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:43:40am

Sidebar: Ten years ago David Frum wrote a very interesting pop-sociology book:

For half a century, Americans have been asked to choose between two myths about their country's recent past. In one, the heroes are the parents; in the other, the children. In the parents' myth, the middle years of this century were a time of peace and prosperity, the well-deserved reward for enduring the Depression, defeating the Nazis, and resisting communism. In the children's, those same years were a dark epoch of racism, sexism, and homophobia, when Hollywood liberals flinched every time the doorbell rang, fearing it was the FBI come to tell them they couldn't write screenplays any more. In the children's myth, Americans huddled frozen and miserable (like Pepperland under the dominion of the Blue Meanies in the Beatles' Yellow Submarine) until the brave, joyous protesters of the 1960s liberated them. In the parents', a golden age of patriotism and duty was wrecked by draft-dodging, pot-smoking, hippie-turned-yuppie lowlifes. It is like the extinction of the dinosaurs: One minute giants are walking the earth, then suddenly--CRASH!--a comet smacks the planet and the giants are replaced overnight by tiny rat-like creatures.
--David Frum, How We Got Here: the 70's, the decade that brought you modern life (for better or worse), 2000

207

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:43:49am

re: #202 Gus 802

I'd save those ornaments. They'll probably be worth a bundle sometime in the future.

especially the BO on Mt Rushmore ornament...some real Americana there

208

Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:44:07am

re: #203 albusteve

do you have a Che poster in your shop?..a tee shirt?

I am not now nor have I ever been an art owner.
/McCarthy panel testimony

209

Bubblehead II Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:44:13am

re: #193 Charles

/You mean it isn't?

210

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:44:39am

re: #207 albusteve

especially the BO on Mt Rushmore ornament...some real Americana there

Ornament!

211

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:44:41am

re: #179 Walter L. Newton

Would you prefer a pure leader over a dubious leader but a believer?

Yes - but inspiration is a part of a good leaders repitoire. I am suspicious of anyone who feels they need to use their personal relationship with God or lack of belief in God as a calling card for a career in politics. Character is one of those things I'd rather see demonstrated than spoken of.

212

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:45:02am

re: #181 Gus 802

See above.

213

Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:45:07am

Since people have been enjoying the Calvin and Hobbes snowmen cartoons....
The Most Disturbing Snowmen Ever (PHOTOS)

214

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:45:27am

re: #208 Killgore Trout

I am not now nor have I ever been an art owner.
/McCarthy panel testimony

since when is a tee shirt or a Christmas ornament considered art?

215

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:45:49am

re: #212 DaddyG

See above.

Got it. Thanks.

216

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:46:13am

re: #87 Ben Hur

Allah is capitalized.

/

So is Elohim. You have to capitalize there, otherwise it's just grammatically confusing.

217

Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:46:40am

re: #207 albusteve

The Christmas ornaments were recycled. Instead of throwing them away or buying new ones they sent them to local artists and schools to be redecorated and reused.
Fiscal responsibility!

218

Jaerik Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:46:41am

re: #193 Charles

And the Mao picture is an Andy Warhol print.

T-minus 30 seconds until someone retroactively says that Warhol was a communist and advocates burning all his work.

For the children.

219

brookly red Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:47:00am

re: #214 albusteve

since when is a tee shirt or a Christmas ornament considered art?

OK, first you take the t-shrit, then you pour a pitcher over it... art!

220

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:47:19am

re: #217 Killgore Trout

The Christmas ornaments were recycled. Instead of throwing them away or buying new ones they sent them to local artists and schools to be redecorated and reused.
Fiscal responsibility!

Find Mao.

221

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:47:22am

re: #193 Charles

And the Mao picture is an Andy Warhol print.

Only an artsy goddamned communist heathen would know that!

222

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:47:59am

re: #221 ArchangelMichael

Only an artsy goddamned communist heathen would know that!

/

Surely a sign of fine arts elitism!

223

Sharmuta Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:48:29am

This is very disappointing coming from David Frum. He's otherwise a very modern conservative, but if even he can't see the problem with the theo-cons, what hope is there?

Welcome to one party rule.

224

Slap Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:48:45am

re: #163 brookly red

From James McMurtry, "Too Long in the Wasteland":

"....but whiskey don't make liars,
it just makes fools.
So, I didn't mean to say it,
but I meant what I said.
Too long in the wasteland musta gone to my head."

225

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:48:46am

re: #220 Gus 802

Find Mao.

Mickey Maos

226

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:49:03am

re: #193 Charles

If you go hanging ornaments of Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow...

227

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:49:33am

re: #97 Surabaya Stew

The only place that God is explicitly mentioned is in the signing portion of the esteemed document:

"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."

This wasn't done as a sign of faith, it merely established that the date used is in fact based on the Julian calendar.

But, but, but, see, SEE! They were Christians! And they said YEAR OF OUR LORD!!!111!!! THat's Jesus they're talking about!!!11!!! Told you we were a CHristian nation!!! TOLD YOU!!!1111

/Oh, do I gotta?

228

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:49:33am

re: #192 Thinking Mans Republican

The religious behave "righteously" for a reward, or because of a fear of punishment, which in my mind is childlike, or even Pavlovian.

I beg to differ on this point. Fear of punishment is not central to many of the worlds great religious traditions. While consequences are a part of life (this one or the next) my personal primary motivation to be righteous is because of the postive effect it has in the now and those who I love.

My relationship with God is one of student and disciple and I believe that by taking His counsel and aligning my actions with what I know to be true I will receive additional knowledge and achieve a fullness of Joy.

Hardly fear of punishment. Athiests need to stop trying to mind read believers and vice versa.

229

researchok Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:49:50am

re: #193 Charles

This foolishness never stops. There are 800 ornaments on that tree, and they were sent in by local community groups.

And the Mao picture is an Andy Warhol print.

This kind of ridiculous crap is turning the right wing into a laughingstock.

To paraphrase the Bard, 'They dost protesteth too much'.

Anything to to have us take our eyes off the ball of what is really important- the elevation of our society and nation.

230

Mad Al-Jaffee Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:49:51am

re: #213 Killgore Trout

Since people have been enjoying the Calvin and Hobbes snowmen cartoons...
The Most Disturbing Snowmen Ever (PHOTOS)

Reminds me of the ones Calvin (from Calvin & Hobbes) used to make.

231

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:50:05am

re: #103 Gus 802

And before Abolitionism.

Well, before it really got off the ground.

232

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:50:37am

re: #106 Blueheron

To me evolution is simply how G-d created the earth and all on it. I see nothing contrary in that view.

That's the opinion of the Catholic Church, and I find it to make perfect sense.

233

Thinking Mans Republican Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:51:35am

re: #228 DaddyG

You can beg all you want. The person I was addressing was crystal clear in his motivation, and it was unequivocally fear of punishment, and potential for reward:

"I would think all you that like the precautionay principle would believe in God. Sixty or seventy years of righteous living against a eternity of Hell. That is a real payoff."

234

Mad Al-Jaffee Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:52:09am

re: #225 ArchangelMichael

Mickey Maos

Mickey Che

235

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:53:36am

re: #156 freetoken

BTW, an emerging nontroversey of the day appears to be that an ornament on the Obama's christmas tree features and image of Mao.

I kid you not.

You can get Mao tree ornaments?

Does he have Stalin on another branch?

236

Jaerik Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:54:59am

re: #235 SanFranciscoZionist

You can get Mao tree ornaments?

I'd argue Santa himself is pretty Socialist. And he does wear a big red suit.

237

Jeff In Ohio Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:55:06am

re: #200 albusteve

Walmart.

238

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:55:42am

re: #235 SanFranciscoZionist

You can get Mao tree ornaments?

Does he have Stalin on another branch?

Can't you see! Mao on a Christmas ornament in the White House!11!!!

This is why we need the John Birch Society now more than ever!111!111

/Quiver.

239

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:55:53am

images on posters at a rally are extreme, disturbing and inciteful...pictures of mass murderers hanging on the WH Christmas tree are frivoless...I get it now

240

MKelly Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:55:54am

re: #204 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, so you are down with science? Clarify.

Love science. So I guess that in today lingo I am down with science.

241

Slap Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:56:01am

re: #228 DaddyG

While I appreciate your eloquence in your description of your belief, I feel I should at least mention that, at least for me, the "mind reading" of believers on this issue is not much of a stretch if one frequently encounters Thumpers who feel it their duty to let us filthy heathens know that we're headed to hell for our beliefs and behaviors. At every opportunity.

(Hopefully not necessary: I deeply respect your belief.)

242

Four More Tears Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:56:01am

re: #236 Jaerik

Heh. Commie Claus.

243

brookly red Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:56:26am

re: #235 SanFranciscoZionist

You can get Mao tree ornaments?

Does he have Stalin on another branch?

all these folks swinging from trees is disturbing...

244

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:56:43am

re: #178 Bubblehead II

Link?re: #156 freetoken

And a Drag Queen as well.

This page has links to some other blogs ranting about this.

One of the commenters says the Mao is part of an Andy Warhol image on the ornament.

Still might be prudent to remove it, if so.

Hedda Lettuce, as far as I am concerned, can stay up.

245

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:56:44am

re: #237 Jeff In Ohio

Walmart.

it's better than the answer I got from the other person

246

Guanxi88 Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:57:35am

re: #239 albusteve

images on posters at a rally are extreme, disturbing and inciteful...pictures of mass murderers hanging on the WH Christmas tree are frivoless...I get it now

You're learning.

247

RogueOne Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:57:42am

I'm going to have to disagree RE: the Mao ornament.

It isn't the President or the First Lady's fault that the ornament is on the tree but that isn't the point. It is incredibly uncouth for the White House tree to have an ornament with a portrait of a mass murdering totalitarian dictator. If it were another totalitarian mass murdering dictator, one who liked Christmas, would you all be just as forgiving?

The asshat who thought it would be funny, and who has done things like this in the past, should be the one who draws the heat. Maybe he can explain why he thought it was a good idea but I doubt it.

[Link: thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...]

248

Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:58:19am

re: #220 Gus 802

Find Mao.

There's a British flag and some half naked men just above Obama's right shoulder.

249

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:58:30am

re: #200 albusteve

where is there?...in some sort of eternal limbo?...as I've asked before, what about the Bushman?...where do they go?

I'm sure they know.

250

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:58:46am

re: #233 Thinking Mans Republican

You can beg all you want. The person I was addressing was crystal clear in his motivation, and it was unequivocally fear of punishment, and potential for reward:

"I would think all you that like the precautionay principle would believe in God. Sixty or seventy years of righteous living against a eternity of Hell. That is a real payoff."

That statement is BS in light of faith too. Precautionary living in case God lives is not a substancial kind of faith.

Aside from that your comments seemed to be a general statement about people of faith. I was not aware from the context of your post you were responding to only that one comment. Forgive my misunderstanding.

251

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:58:57am

re: #248 Killgore Trout

There's a British flag and some half naked men just above Obama's right shoulder.

I see! Towel snapping?

252

Mark Pennington Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:59:02am

re: #193 Charles

This foolishness never stops. There are 800 ornaments on that tree, and they were sent in by local community groups.

And the Mao picture is an Andy Warhol print.

This kind of ridiculous crap is turning the right wing into a laughingstock.

They've become sad, weak, impotent losers as well.

253

SixDegrees Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:59:15am

re: #60 MKELLY

In the beginning God said let there be light. Sounds like the big bang theory to me.

Actually, according to the physics of the Big Bang, light wasn't able to propagate through the Universe for the first half million years or so of it's existence.

So if you're trying to hang your religious beliefs on a scientific hook, Biblical infallibility just circled the drain and you just became an atheist.

254

Sharmuta Wed, Dec 23, 2009 11:59:20am

re: #233 Thinking Mans Republican

I don't think you thought out your user name very well.

255

Racer X Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:00:09pm

re: #220 Gus 802

Find Mao.

Really nice picture!

256

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:00:15pm

re: #236 Jaerik

I'd argue Santa himself is pretty Socialist. And he does wear a big red suit.

Nope not really. Santa does not work for or represent a government. He is not financed by anyone's tax dollars, and he doesn't take presents from one group to give to another.

Individual charity and goodwill ≠ socialism or communism.

257

Stanghazi Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:00:21pm

re: #220 Gus 802

Find Mao.

I looked. Cannot find it in that photo, but it appears to be Ronald Reagan to the left of FLOTUS.

258

Blueheron Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:00:47pm

re: #232 SanFranciscoZionist

That's the opinion of the Catholic Church, and I find it to make perfect sense.

Thank you. It makes sense to me also.

I am totally lost when the Lizards are discussing 'science' or their particular version of science such as physics. :(

To me archeology and biology are fascinating but is rarely discussed here so I do try to be a part what everyone else thinks is fascinating even tho I have no clue what 'quantum physics' means :X

So now I will sit down and shut up :))

259

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:00:58pm

re: #241 Slap

While I appreciate your eloquence in your description of your belief, I feel I should at least mention that, at least for me, the "mind reading" of believers on this issue is not much of a stretch if one frequently encounters Thumpers who feel it their duty to let us filthy heathens know that we're headed to hell for our beliefs and behaviors. At every opportunity.

(Hopefully not necessary: I deeply respect your belief.)

That's why I included the vice versa... :-) I've been told what I "really believe" many times by Thumpers and I don't appreciate it either.

Thanks for the respect. I feel it brother! (or are you sister?)

260

Jaerik Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:00:59pm

re: #256 ArchangelMichael

You do understand the difference between socialism and communism, right?

261

Ben Hur Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:01:02pm

re: #248 Killgore Trout

There's a British flag and some half naked men just above Obama's right shoulder.

I saw that elsewhere.

It actually says Hawaii and has the Union Jack on it for some reason.

There's also one with a famous transvestite (NTTAWWT).

262

Guanxi88 Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:01:03pm

re: #247 RogueOne

I'm going to have to disagree RE: the Mao ornament.

It isn't the President or the First Lady's fault that the ornament is on the tree but that isn't the point. It is incredibly uncouth for the White House tree to have an ornament with a portrait of a mass murdering totalitarian dictator. If it were another totalitarian mass murdering dictator, one who liked Christmas, would you all be just as forgiving?

The asshat who thought it would be funny, and who has done things like this in the past, should be the one who draws the heat. Maybe he can explain why he thought it was a good idea but I doubt it.

[Link: thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...]

The ornament is obviously a reference to Lee Atwater.

263

Bubblehead II Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:01:12pm

re: #235 SanFranciscoZionist

Why yes, You can.

Mao Tse Tung Ornaments

264

MKelly Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:01:13pm

If neither energy nor matter can be created nor destroyed where did the energy or matter come from for the big bang to happen?

First Law of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:

E = mc2
In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (m) times the square of a constant (c). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.

265

Sharmuta Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:01:15pm

It's not that I don't care, it's that I know the fight ain't fair

Youtube Video

266

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:01:22pm

re: #218 Jaerik

T-minus 30 seconds until someone retroactively says that Warhol was a communist and advocates burning all his work.

For the children.

I'm opposed to burning art, but if it has to be someone's, I wouldn't actually miss Warhol.

Botticelli went through a religious conversion experience late in life, and brought all his work in his posession to throw on Savanarola's fires. Sometimes I just think about that and twitch.

267

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:01:47pm

re: #260 Jaerik

You do understand the difference between socialism and communism, right?

Yes but it is irrelevant to the discussion of a mythical toymaker.

268

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:02:07pm

re: #255 Racer X

It is come to think of it.

re: #257 Stanley Sea

Can't find Mao or Reagan either.

269

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:02:48pm

re: #261 Ben Hur

I saw that elsewhere.

It actually says Hawaii and has the Union Jack on it for some reason.

There's also one with a famous transvestite (NTTAWWT).

Hedda Lettuce is a drag queen, not a transvestite.

270

Ben Hur Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:03:07pm

re: #200 albusteve

where is there?...in some sort of eternal limbo?...as I've asked before, what about the Bushman?...where do they go?

They've never been the same since the Coke bottle incident.

271

Jaerik Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:03:10pm

re: #267 ArchangelMichael

Yes but it is irrelevant to the discussion of a mythical toymaker.

I'm actually floored that you feel personally obligated to defend capitalism from a lame-ass joke about a mythical toymaker being a socialist.

272

Thinking Mans Republican Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:03:26pm

re: #250 DaddyG

Apologies from me as well. I am merely reacting to the fact that I have never really felt as though I was mind reading, or needed to. Hearing and listening to vocal opinions about the relationship of belief in god, and corresponding ability to behave morally, yes....mind reading, no.

In fact, to be honest with you, some of the biggest, most amoral hypocrites I have met have their buts in pews every Sunday, as though that makes up for their actions the other 6 days and 23 hours in the week.

273

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:03:54pm

It is stupid (IMO) that a Mao ornament is on the White House Christmas tree no matter who drew it. That being said, on a tree with hundreds of ornaments, who would think to say,

"Oh, by the way. Make sure we don't hang any ornaments with murderous dictators on them."

274

Mark Pennington Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:04:10pm

re: #244 SanFranciscoZionist

One of the commenters says the Mao is part of an Andy Warhol image on the ornament.

Still might be prudent to remove it, if so.

Hedda Lettuce, as far as I am concerned, can stay up.

Yeah, I don't get what's so bad about a drag queen ornament. I have a picture of myself with RuPaul framed and hanging in my study. I'm not afraid to display it, by God! :D

275

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:04:35pm

re: #258 Blueheron

Thank you. It makes sense to me also.

I am totally lost when the Lizards are discussing 'science' or their particular version of science such as physics. :(

To me archeology and biology are fascinating but is rarely discussed here so I do try to be a part what everyone else thinks is fascinating even tho I have no clue what 'quantum physics' means :X

So now I will sit down and shut up :))

Wait for an evolution thread. There will be more biology then!

276

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:04:40pm

re: #220 Gus 802

Find Mao.

There is a Texas longhorn above the first lady's right shoulder. Secret Bush propaganda from Carl Rove... sneaky! /

277

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:04:42pm

re: #271 Jaerik

I'm actually floored that you feel personally obligated to defend capitalism from a lame-ass joke about a mythical toymaker being a socialist.

I was not defending capitalism, I was taking minor offense to "being nice" and "helping others" being compared to socialism. It's not the same thing and it's thrown around here far too much as if it's gospel.

278

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:05:05pm

re: #269 Gus 802

Hedda Lettuce is a drag queen, not a transvestite.

Eddie Izzard describes himself as an executive transvestite.

279

SixDegrees Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:05:14pm

re: #255 Racer X

Really nice picture!

There's an ornament with a prominent picture of Ronald Reagan just next to Michelle's elbow.

280

SixDegrees Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:05:36pm

re: #279 SixDegrees

There's an ornament with a prominent picture of Ronald Reagan just next to Michelle's elbow.

Well, closer to her shoulder, actually.

281

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:05:47pm

re: #263 Bubblehead II

Why yes, You can.

Mao Tse Tung Ornaments

You can have an entire Mao Christmas, apparently. Which makes no sense on so very many levels.

282

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:06:16pm

re: #267 ArchangelMichael

Yes but it is irrelevant to the discussion of a mythical toymaker.

How did Geppetto get involved with this?

283

Gus Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:06:30pm

re: #279 SixDegrees

There's an ornament with a prominent picture of Ronald Reagan just next to Michelle's elbow.

Ah, now I see it.

284

lawhawk Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:06:40pm

re: #193 Charles

So, just because Andy Warhol decided to make pop art out of the leader of one of the most heinous regimes in history (whose body count is probably above 70 million), and some community group thinks it okay to use the Warhol pop-art as a Christmas ornament, it's okay?

I think it speaks to Warhol's warped sensibilities to turn Mao into "art", followed by the idiocy of the community group that thought including Mao on their ornament was a good idea.

285

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:06:48pm

re: #269 Gus 802

Hedda Lettuce is a drag queen, not a transvestite.

But did she teach in a Minnesota public school? That's what I want to know.

286

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:07:08pm

re: #270 Ben Hur

They've never been the same since the Coke bottle incident.

The God's must be crazy reference earns an upding!

287

Jack Burton Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:07:28pm

re: #282 SanFranciscoZionist

How did Geppetto get involved with this?

Making commie wooden robots?

288

albusteve Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:07:48pm

re: #281 SanFranciscoZionist

You can have an entire Mao Christmas, apparently. Which makes no sense on so very many levels.

have yourself a Maoie Maoie Christmas

289

Guanxi88 Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:07:55pm

re: #284 lawhawk

So, just because Andy Warhol decided to make pop art out of the leader of one of the most heinous regimes in history (whose body count is probably above 70 million), and some community group thinks it okay to use the Warhol pop-art as a Christmas ornament, it's okay?

I think it speaks to Warhol's warped sensibilities to turn Mao into "art", followed by the idiocy of the community group that thought including Mao on their ornament was a good idea.

Please! There is absolutely NOTHING negative or controversial about Mao or Che iconography. Nothing at all. Anyone telling you otherwise is obviously a Beckist racist.

290

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:08:07pm

re: #273 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

It is stupid (IMO) that a Mao ornament is on the White House Christmas tree no matter who drew it. That being said, on a tree with hundreds of ornaments, who would think to say,

?

Yeah. I suppose, the times being what they are, it would have been smart to have an intern take a quick look at each of them, and check to make sure nothing weird went up, but--hell, it's a CHRISTMAS TREE, not a treaty.

291

Mad Al-Jaffee Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:10:06pm

re: #281 SanFranciscoZionist

You can have an entire Mao Christmas, apparently. Which makes no sense on so very many levels.

I'm dreaming of a red Christmas....

292

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:10:08pm

re: #272 Thinking Mans Republican
I refer to that as cheap salvation (the idea that an expression of faith does away with the need for righteoussness). But I risk being roasted as a heritic if I say more... ;-)

293

The Sanity Inspector Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:11:49pm

re: #260 Jaerik

You do understand the difference between socialism and communism, right?

Socialism isn't bloody. Whenever socialism does turn bloody, it's renamed communism.

294

Slap Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:12:08pm

Mao?

295

MKelly Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:12:36pm

re: #233 Thinking Mans Republican

You can beg all you want. The person I was addressing was crystal clear in his motivation, and it was unequivocally fear of punishment, and potential for reward:

"I would think all you that like the precautionay principle would believe in God. Sixty or seventy years of righteous living against a eternity of Hell. That is a real payoff."

Did the word "you" mess you up. I did not say I live the life because of any idea of fear, or reward. However, there is a reward spoken of and that is Heaven. I was just pointing out that your soul, to my mind, would be an important place to use the PP. I believe Kant noted living life as if there is a God just in case and beside as I noted earlier a good life lived is still a good life.

296

The Sanity Inspector Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:13:10pm

re: #268 Gus 802

It is come to think of it.

re: #257 Stanley Sea

Can't find Mao or Reagan either.

I think I found Reagan.

297

bubba zanetti Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:14:30pm

re: #294 Slap

Trout?

298

Thinking Mans Republican Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:14:37pm

re: #295 MKelly

The prosecution rests.

299

DaddyG Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:16:17pm

re: #294 Slap

Mao?

Great! I was looking all over for that.

300

Slap Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:17:03pm

re: #297 bubba zanetti

Wackawacka.

301

Slap Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:18:12pm

re: #299 DaddyG

Kliban's estate is evidently protecting the brand fairly well -- it ended up on the 5th page of my search results....

302

The Sanity Inspector Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:21:05pm

re: #284 lawhawk

So, just because Andy Warhol decided to make pop art out of the leader of one of the most heinous regimes in history (whose body count is probably above 70 million), and some community group thinks it okay to use the Warhol pop-art as a Christmas ornament, it's okay?

I think it speaks to Warhol's warped sensibilities to turn Mao into "art", followed by the idiocy of the community group that thought including Mao on their ornament was a good idea.

For some reason in our culture, Mao has a cloaking device that shields him from the consciences of otherwise good people. I blame the 60s Left, myself--otherwise the man who was responsible for the deaths of more than 35,000 Americans would have more opprobrium attached to his memory.

303

Guanxi88 Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:25:19pm

re: #302 The Sanity Inspector

For some reason in our culture, Mao has a cloaking device that shields him from the consciences of otherwise good people. I blame the 60s Left, myself--otherwise the man who was responsible for the deaths of more than 35,000 Americans would have more opprobrium attached to his memory.

Fortunately, though, there's no cause for alarm that this beast's words and iconography would ever be adopted here. After all, it can't happen here.

304

Cforchange Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:00:24pm

Frum would only dream of 300+ replies to a post on his site. LGF is definately filling an unserved constituency.
It's so underwhelming that in the face of deep challenge, the GOP chooses to embrace the nary fairy. Maybe all this evangelizing has assembled a collection of people who just are not capable period. Afterall, if you're "following" how can you lead?

305

jpkoch Thu, Dec 24, 2009 5:30:14am

Pawlenty is in the same boat of those other Creationist weirdos, Newton, Pascal, and Kant. Really, this is a non-issue. First, in most states it is the State Superintendent for Education who runs the schools; that position is usually an elected one, and is totally independent of the governor's reach (except for budget formulations). Curricula, teacher certifications, etc... are more dependent upon the input of the NEA than the executive. This is a straw man.

And I think Pawlenty's views are in line with the vast majority of religious people's views concerning God and creation. It is a Dogma, and article of faith shared by Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc... does holding this view automatically make one ineligible to hold office? What about our constitutional prohibitions against applying "religious tests"?

BTW, I am not Evangelical but Catholic. And the Vatican has no problem reconciling many ideas of evolutionary biology with Catholic theology. However, the Church still insists on the Universe being created. Pelosi, Kerry, Patrick Kennedy, and John Carey are Catholic. Should they step down?

306

hlazar Thu, Dec 24, 2009 6:25:53am

Creationism is the link between the science of Evolution and the religious belief in a Creator Divinity. I'd much prefer believers who accept science and find a rational connection between real science and their actual beliefs. Teaching creationism in philosophy classes for seniors is not wrong. it just doesn't belong in biology classes.

307

Charles Johnson Thu, Dec 24, 2009 11:18:17am

re: #306 hlazar

Creationism is the link between the science of Evolution and the religious belief in a Creator Divinity.

No, it really isn't. Creationism as it currently exists in America is a flat rejection of science, not a link to it. And that includes "intelligent design" creationism -- there's no science in it.

I'd much prefer believers who accept science and find a rational connection between real science and their actual beliefs.

And there are many scientists who have no trouble doing that. Politicians, on the other hand, are in the business of pandering to the most people in order to be elected, and that's why Pawlenty espouses ID -- he thinks it's a "moderate" version of creationism that will fool enough people on both sides of the aisle to get him the votes he needs.

Teaching creationism in philosophy classes for seniors is not wrong. it just doesn't belong in biology classes.

If it's taught as part of a course on frauds and pseudo-science, no problem. If it's treated as a legitimate scientific theory, no way.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

A Reply to David Frum

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud