For the Ron Paul Supporters…
Progressives love Ron Paul! At a time like this, how could they not? He’s a man of honor. He has the courage to truly challenge the status quo. He opposes tyrannical practices such as empire-building, pillaging the environment, and charging citizens a federal income tax against the will of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings. He wants to rid us of the federal reserve, which has been robbing us for as long as most of us have been alive. Whether you agree with him or not, he has progressives salivating - and a little confused, considering most of these progressives used to vote either Democrat or third party.
Those progressives should also understand Ron Paul’s positions on religion. As a man of God, he opposes abortions, and he opposes euthanasia . . . hardly the positions of a secularist. He believes this country was founded on Christian principles, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
He even supports prayer in school . . . or at least, he supports allowing the states to decide for themselves.
Witness the way he refers to “secularists” in this article, written by Paul in 2005:
Here Ron Paul admonishes leftists for their “War on Religion”, because it has destroyed the Christmas spirit:
In this quote from Ron Paul, he makes his distaste for separation of church and state very clear:
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.
This troubles me, because he claims to be a strict adherent to the Constitution… and here he claims that the Constitution is “replete” with references to God. If you take a look at the constitution (http://www.house.gov/paul/constitution.html), you can count the number of references it makes to God. My count: not once.
Share ThisPerhaps “The Secret” Is Onto Something?
I thought that perhaps the most disturbing part of The Secret’s message was that the author claimed to have lost weight when she stopped dieting and started thinking thin. In order to make that happen, she stopped hanging around overweight people to ensure they wouldn’t taint her pristine vision of a thin, healthy body. If she was forced to be around someone who was overweight, her solution was simply to pretend the person was skinny… and get the hell away as soon as possible.
Despite my disgust at the suggestion to spend time only around thin people if you’d like to be thin, a NY Times article now claims that there is empirical evidence showing that people who hang around fat people tend to get fatter.
I wonder what happens if, instead, you hang around kind and tolerant people? Just a thought.
Read the NY Times Article Here
Share ThisSam Harris on Tucker
Sam Harris explains how liberal political correctness vastly underestimates the power of Islam over its practitioners’ power of reason.
Share ThisPhotos of the “Creation Museum”
I should warn everyone with the ability to reason that these photos may be disturbing…
Click Here for a Tour of the Museum!
Share ThisNew museum says dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark
Share ThisLike many modern museums, the newest U.S. tourist attraction includes some awesome exhibits - roaring dinosaurs and a life-sized ship. But only at the Creation Museum in Kentucky do the dinosaurs sail on the ship - Noah’s Ark, to be precise.
And Now for Today’s Joke…
A man escapes from a prison where he’s been locked up for 15 years. He breaks into a house to look for money and guns. Inside, he finds a young couple in bed. He orders the guy out of bed and ties him to a chair. While tying the homeowner’s wife to the bed, the convict gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then gets up and goes into the bathroom. While he’s in there, the husband whispers over to his wife: “Listen, this guy is an escaped convict. Look at his clothes! He’s probably spent a lot of time in jail and hasn’t seen a woman in years. I saw how he kissed your neck. If he wants sex, don’t resist, don’t complain, just do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is obviously very dangerous. If he gets angry, he’ll kill us both. Be strong, honey. I love you!”
His wife responds: “He wasn’t kissing my neck - he was whispering in my ear. He told me that he’s gay, thinks you’re cute, and asked if we had any Vaseline. I told him it was in the bathroom. Be strong. I love you, too.”
Share ThisCould We End Up With a Creationist in the White House?
So… it seems three of the candidates for President of this country in the Republican primary are creationists. When asked if they believed in evolution, they said absolutely not.
Facts are overrated in the Republican party, it seems. I understand, of course. Facts just confuse things. If you want to make life as simple as possible, and reduce the amount of thinking it would require in order to understand the world, just attribute everything to a giant invisible man in the sky. Why confuse matters with reality?
One of these men may soon have his finger on the button.
Share ThisHitchens Debates “Can Morality Exist Without God”
Here, Hitchens debates Al Sharpton to determine whether morality can possibly exist in the absence of God:
Share ThisChristopher Hitchens Discusses Jerry Falwell
Hitchens debating Sean Hannity about the existence of God several day prior to Falwell’s death:
Share ThisLast Night’s ABC God Debate Was Unfortunate
Last week I mentioned there would be a debate about the existence of God on ABC.com, which would then be covered on Nightline.
The debate was between actor Kirk Cameron, preacher Ray Comfort, and two atheists from the “Rational Response Squad”. As I feared, it was a disappointment.
If ABC wants to have a serious discussion about this, why not call for intellectuals of each side of the debate? Religion obviously has its share of nuts, and atheism has its share of ineloquent speakers. Does that mean these are the people we should hand a microphone and ask to represent each side?
Luckily, the nuttiness of the Christian side was over-the-top. I only wish the atheists had been prepared with better responses. For example: Ray Comfort claimed he could prove, scientifically, the existence of God. In order to do that, he used the example of a painting, and explained that the painting could not exist without a creator. Case closed.
Is that it?! That was their highly anticipated “scientific proof” for the existence of a god?
The response was reasonable, but any more intellectual atheist could have crushed their argument to the point of sheer embarrassment. This is nothing more than the design argument… the same argument that has been torn apart by philosophers for years. The complexity of the universe dictates that it couldn’t have just “come together”… it had to have been designed.
This is the argument levelled against evolution, and yet, it’s also the argument that puts evolution in the winner’s seat. The debators did point out the most glaring flaw in the argument - if you’re going to argue that God exists because there must be a designer, then who created God? They should have put the argument in a better framework: If the argument is that the complexity of nature proves that there must be a designer, then it follows that the designer would be more complex than his creation. If the designer is complex enough to have the power to create our vast universe and all its life, then what could possibly have created him? The argument falls apart completely. But what was left out completely, and this is much more important, is that evolution elegantly explains existence without these glaring faults. The choice is not between “the universe was designed by a Creator” or “the universe just fell into place”. Evolution dictates that the universe’s complexity evolved over billions of years. It didn’t start this way, and it didn’t just fall together. It evolved into progressively greater complexity.
Please, ABC, if this is the best you can do to present a religious debate, just stay out of it.
Share This