Monday, February 28, 2011

Random Quotes. A Lot of Them...

Wanna party?  
Random Quotes.  A Lot of Them...

Look, some of you could view this entire post as lazy since I simply copied an entire article and highlighted certain parts that were especially egregious to me. However, I ask you to think about that for a few seconds.  I was just going to pick a few random quotes for a short, quick post... but I could. not. pick. just. one. Enjoy

Those Pesky Social Issues
Posted by Tom Minnery

In this age of the Tea Party, some believe that conservatives should place all their emphasis on tax and economic issues, and push those pesky social issues — such as the right to life, and the definition of marriage — to the back burner. Some are just plain tired of us social conservatives.

But the fact is, any consistent conservative is a social conservative. Here’s why:
When we take a closer look at what it takes to maintain a strong and free nation, with a prosperous, engaged and productive citizenry, it becomes clear, first of all, that social and economic conservatives have a lot in common.

Both groups believe something that is vital: that healthy and productive citizens come from healthy and productive homes. This is the overwhelming conclusion of modern social science, and a mountain of academic research boils down to this: Every child needs a mom and a dad, committed to each other in marriage, to give him or her the best chance of success in life.

But marriage today is one of those messy social issues best left alone, say many small- government conservatives. Well, not so fast. Family breakdown builds a huge appetite for government. The first-ever meticulous study of the costs to taxpayers of divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing was released in 2008. It puts that cost at a staggering $112 billion per year for all levels of government, for such services as welfare, criminal justice and remedial education. One sure path to smaller government is more intact families.

Sometimes reporters ask us why we don’t take on more trendy issues at Focus, like poverty. Our response is that we do fight poverty, every day, in the most effective way possible — by encouraging husbands and wives to love each other, and stay committed to their children.  
Some conservatives, because they lean Libertarian, believe that matters of faith should be mostly private because public religion threatens individual liberty. Actually, moral principles preserve our freedoms, and here is why that is true: All conservatives believe in the concept of ordered liberty — that is, the freedom to do what one wants to do, within the limits of what one ought to do. And from where does that “oughtness” come? It derives from the shared moral principles that must inhabit each heart, as a kind of internal moral gyroscope that tells each of us what is right and what is wrong.

In the West, these principles find their source in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, and if we lose that collective sense of “oughtness,” then individual liberty degenerates into selfishness, and eventually into social chaos. And, at that point, it is only the loaded gun and the barbed wire fence that can preserve order. (WHAT?)

Our Founders understood this, and that is why they were so bold about proclaiming the importance of religion in the new nation.  John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” And, of course, at the heart of the new nation was a profoundly religious concept. It is the conviction that our freedoms are gifts of our Creator, not of any government or king. It is this that makes our country unique.

All citizens benefit from the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, even those who personally reject the Creator, as they have the freedom to do. That is because moral precepts make good laws, as they bring order to liberty. “Thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not commit murder” are direct from the pages of Scripture, but so far not even the most militant atheist advocates the revocation of laws that derive from these religious commandments.

Beware those who would put conservatives into separate pigeonholes. They either have mischief afoot, or they have not thought deeply enough.

*shudders* OK.  Very quickly:
  • Charitable work involving the poor is “trendy.”  
  • They don’t do actual charity work because their “real work” is forcing their worldview onto others.
  • Conservatives believe in freedom and liberty as long it is within the confines of conservative social norms.  
  • Of course that conservative social norm is derived from the Judeo-Christian god.  
  • Without Judeo-Christian god and values humanity devolves into sin and immorality.
  • If that happens “only the loaded gun and the barbed wire fence that can preserve order.”
  • The Founders created the United States to be Christian.
  • EVERYONE benefits from the Judeo-Christian  moral tradition.  Even lowly atheists.
  • All laws are derived from these religious laws. Even atheists don’t want these “religious” laws overturned.  

Chew on that folks. are there other parts of the article you want to challenge?  Does Anonymous want to make a dismissive statement about science in a post where I don’t mention science? Please leave a comment.  

Monday Morning Quotes: Unknown


I wasn't going to consider using this quote since there was no one to attribute it to.  That was until I read the last sentence.



“Christianity’s grasp on black people makes it almost impossible to admit that you’re a black atheist. We have to hide our non-belief, otherwise we are excluded. And if we give voice to any objection or doubt, we’re ostracized and isolated — or just banished! So any time religion comes up, it’s simpler to just change the subject or say nothing if you can’t bring yourself to fake an ‘amen.’ …

But don’t use my name ‘cause my mother told me when she saw me reading God is Not Great that if any of her children actually believed 'that mess,’ she’d have one less child.”




Sunday, February 27, 2011

Random Quotes of Gibberish: Alan Keyes

Government doesn't endow people with the ability to procreate the species. The Creator takes care of that. Like all unalienable rights, those associated with the natural family exist in consequence of this endowment. A couple that cannot, by nature, procreate has no claim to those rights. Nor can government grant them a semblance of it without impairing the claims of one or both of the parents biologically implicated in the physical conception of the child. The DOMA simply makes more explicit the government's obligation to secure the Creator-endowed unalienable rights of the natural family. This obligation precludes government from fabricating other rights that impair them. In this respect, granting homosexuals the right to marry is like granting plantation owners the right to own slaves.



This statement is gibberish.  Let’s outline it.

  1. a) Government does not equip people with the ability to reproduce.
  1. b) The “Creator” does.  
  1. Like all unalienable rights (rights that cannot be transferred); the existence of the “natural” or “traditional” family is granted by this Creator.
  2. A couple that cannot reproduce has no claim to the rights of a family.  
  3. The government cannot grant an “unnatural” family rights or partial rights.  
  4. Any granting of these rights or partial rights to an “unnatural” family by a government impairs the rights of “natural” parents. (I think? Is it just me or is this really convoluted?)  
  5. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines the government’s obligation to enforce the Creator’s granted rights to the natural family.
  6. This obligation precludes government from fabricating similar rights to the “unnatural family; since that would impair the rights of the “natural family.
  7. “In this respect, granting homosexuals the right to marry is like granting plantation owners the right to own slaves.” (I couldn’t interpret or clarify this statement.  It’s too batshit crazy).  

Amazing.  

  1. a) no, the government has no right to interfere with human reproduction (savvy readers may also catch the other implications of this statement).    
  1. b) unsupported claim.
  2. see 1b.
  3. Incorrect. Heterosexual couples that cannot reproduce “naturally” can seek medical assistance or adopt. This statement would seem to imply that that is also wrong.   What of elderly couples that wish to marry? There is a very low likelihood of reproduction in that marriage.
  4. I thought the government doesn’t grant reproductive rights. How does it have the right to take them away?
  5. How does it impair anyone’s rights? I hear this argument so often and it has never been made explicit. I demand an actual explanation of how that would impair anyone’s rights!
  6. The government’s obligation to secure god’s plan. Nope. That doesn’t violate the First Amendment of the Constitution at all. Also, so much for the government staying out of people’s lives.  
  7. The government is not fabricating rights.  Human rights are not fabricated. It is staying out of individuals private lives.  
  8. A complete non-sequitur.  A crazy, crazy non-sequitur.  

Thank you, Alan Keyes, for illustrating the theocratic nature of yourself and your fellow DOMA advocates.  

Sunday Morning Hate: James Dobson

James Dobson is an ulcerated pig anus.  

On politics:
“God has called us to be His representatives in our nation and in our world. Select candidates who represent your views and work for their election.”
How does this NOT violate the 501(c)(3) regulations?


On child rearing:
"[P]ain is a marvelous purifier. . . It is not necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child. However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely."
"By learning to yield to the loving authority... of his parents, a child learns to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life — his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers."

On Marriage:
“My observation is that women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership.”

On sex education:
“One of the problems with sex education... is that it also strips kids - especially girls - of their modesty to have every detail of anatomy, physiology and condom usage made explicit.”
1) Abstinence-only programs are suspect. 
2) Why “especially girls”?



On homosexuals:
"[The homosexual] agenda includes teaching pro-homosexual [sic] concepts in the public schools, redefining the family to represent "any circle of people who love each other," approval of homosexual adoption, legitimizing same-sex marriage, and securing special rights for those who identify themselves as gay. Those ideas must be opposed, even though to do so is to expose oneself to the charge of being "homophobic."
“Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.”



During an interview on ABC’s This Week:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Dr. Dobson, ...in the Daily Oklahoman, [you were] quoted saying, "Patrick Leahy is a God's people hater. I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people." Now, Dr. Dobson, that doesn't sound like a particularly Christian thing to say. Do you think you owe Senator Leahy an apology?

DR JAMES DOBSON: George, you think you ought to lecture me on what a Christian is all about? You know, I think -I think I'll stand by the things I have said. Patrick Leahy has been in opposition to most of the things that I believe. He is the one that took the reference to God out of the oath.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But Dr. Dobson, excuse me for a second. You use the word hate. You said that he's a "God's people hater." How do you back that up?

DR JAMES DOBSON: Well, there's been an awful lot of hate expressed in this election. And most of it has been aimed at those who hold to conservative Christian views. He is certainly not the only one to take a position like that. But I think that that is -that's where he's coming from. He has certainly opposed most of the things that conservative Christians stand for.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apology?

DR JAMES DOBSON: No apology.


Regarding 9/11:
"Christians have made arguments on both sides of this question. I certainly believe that God is displeased with America for its pride and arrogance, for killing 40 million unborn babies, for the universality of profanity and for other forms of immorality. However, rather than trying to forge a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the terrorist attacks and America’s abandonment of biblical principles, which I think is wrong, we need to accept the truth that this nation will suffer in many ways for departing from the principles of righteousness. "The wages of sin is death," as it says in Romans 6, both for individuals and for entire cultures.


Friday, February 25, 2011

Friday Link Dump 2/25/11


The Hubris of Holism - Victor Stenger.

In addition, I have read Robert Lanza’s work and yeah...it’s shite.  

The Origins of Religion - Victor Stenger!


Alcohol Exposure Makes Fish Anti-Social - There are “one to two of every 1,000 birth cases” in the United States each year with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder? Horrid.  



Benny Hinn Sued For Adultery - “Hinn is estimated to be worth hundreds of millions, money largely scraped out of the Social Security checks of the gullible elderly and the desperately ill. He travels the world in a $36M personal Gulfstream jet in between stays at his numerous opulent mansions.”









Gaddafi has lost it ...If you are anything other than a power hungry dictator who doesn’t care about other humans you would step down in lieu of all the violence. Dick.  

Bahrain's army deliberately kills peaceful protesters with live rounds - Viewer Discretion is Advised.  Remember this the next time some asshole yells about “TYRANNY” on Facebook from his office cubicle and says that the US government is a dictatorship.  

Not yet.

Help Nathan Fillion Buy Firefly  - I'm not a "Browncoat" but I am SciFi nerd who knows the pain of a show cancelled prematurely. #Enterprise


Response to an Apologist's Critique of New Atheism


Steve: “This is perverse.”  

Adam:

"To be beatified, a dead person must be declared by the Church to have prompted a miracle. The Church says a 49-year-old French nun was miraculously cured of Parkinson's disease months after John Paul's death after she and fellow nuns prayed to him.

For John Paul to become a saint, the Church must declare that a second miracle occurred after the beatification ceremony."

Something good happened after he died. It must be a miracle!  I can't wait to see what they identify as the next miracle. Maybe a woman who had an abortion will miraculously get pregnant again.

Jack: Well no matter how it works, according to any of the Christian faiths no form of birth control is 100% effective. :P



Watch a “Real Time with Bill Maher” Audience Member Go Crazy - Truthers.  You can’t take them anywhere.  



God says animals must suffer more - Seriously, do not watch if you get queasy at the sight of blood.  This is pretty disturbing.  




Because the Internet hates you - Sorry about that.  I couldn’t resist. I offer this as an apology.  


Amazing video shows the relative sizes of all the planets and stars - Missed a planet, but this is still very cool.



The things I end up finding for this site.... - mock this.  mock it without mercy.  


Hackers warn Westboro Church: Stop now or else - So what does WBC do?  Egg ANONYMOUS on.  Oh sooo stupid.