Most often conservatives, especially evangelical, are portrayed as followers ("easy to command" anyone?). However, there is wide variety among those that claim the label of "evangelical." Case in point, Christian conservative philosopher and professor John Mark Reynolds bluntly describes Rush's recent pronouncements at CPAC as a "bad speech."
I don't watch Glenn Beck and I really don't care too much about this, but recently in a discussion here Glenn Beck was brought up as espousing conspiracy theories about FEMA camps. It turns out he does have a story coming up on them, but he has used Popular Mechanics to debunk them (as they did with the 9/11 theories).
The issue of abortion has long been one of the most contentious policy discussions in our nation, but perhaps gay marriage will (or already has) replaced it as the hot button culture issue. A simple reason for this may be that abortion survivors are few and far between, so no one is confronted with the personal side of the issue. That is not the case for gay marriage.
Because the issue of marriage is so contentious and yet vital to the existence of our nation, are there ways in which both sides can compromise or at least engage in the matter in a much more civil tone?
Molotov Mitchell says Harvey Milk drank the Kool-Aid. Mitchell asks, if Pastor Jim Jones was part of Milk’s life, why was that not in the film? Because it was a hagiography, not a biography.
French physicist and philosopher of science Bernard d’Espagnat recently was awarded the Templeton Prize, the largest annual prize in the world, which seeks to reconcile faith and science. What makes d’Espagnat’s work noteworthy, particularly to the Templeton Foundation is the contention that a “veiled reality” exists behind the science.
I know this is a dead horse, but honestly is the irony not dripping from this statement at the Yahoo Newsroom blog, after President Obama made an impromptu and inappropriate joke about the Special Olympics on Jay Leno:
But in a way, it's heartening to hear our politicians stumble over words, mangle syntax and make inappropriate jokes. It shows politicians are human, too. Sometimes.
Really? I'm sorry, did the last eight years not happen?
One of the grossest sins of leftist ideology is the practice of reverse racism – that is, accepting racist and hateful remarks against the majority, while reviling even basic criticisms of trends in minority populations, let alone the common-sense use of profiling in criminal investigations.
So while it is wrong to keep minorities, for instance, out of colleges due to their race, it is perfectly acceptable to keep qualified whites out in order to place less qualified minorities in their place. In liberal ideology, two wrongs certainly CAN make a right.
Nowhere is this thin-skinned, holier-than-thou, feigned or real horror at 'blasphemous' remarks more obvious than when talking about minorities, esp. black Americans, and especially the first black president.
Now, some will argue that comparing blacks to monkeys hearkens back to the days of harsh racism, and they would be correct. But does that mean that we can NEVER compare Obama to a monkey or a ghetto thug when the analogy is appropriate, or just satirical and biting?
Does that mean that any resemblance between the actions of Obama and the ills of the black community, be they out of wedlock childbirth, high incarceration, crack addiction, thuggery, pot use, or obsession with bling and 40oz beers, is racist? Are comparisons to Darth Vader racist too, since Vader was 'black'?!?
The real issue is that we have so overcomensated for the oppression of minorities in the past, that now such criticisms or humor are the equivalent of blasphemy speech. Why can we no longer offend others with humor, ridicule, or comparisons to animals? We may find such things uncivil and rude, but should rudeness be illegal? And one-sided rudeness?
But lets get even 'darker,' if I may.
One of the conservative PACs that send me emails is SaveCalifornia.com. Here's their latest, somewhat alarmist missive, which I wanted to share. And while their tone is a little over the edge, at what point do we get alarmed? Are we like the proverbial frog in the kettle, not seeing our rights erode gradually? Should we be alarmed that Christian bookstores are being forced to hire homosexuals, or that fertility clinics are being forced to service lesbian couples, or that doctors may be forced to do abortions against their consciences?
Maybe it is time to be alarmed and to fight.
Charles Krauthammer ripped Obama for his speech and executive order completely removing the restrictions which Bush had placed on embryonic stem cell research. He called the whole ceremony, "morally unserious."
Think about that question for a minute. Is it wrong (morally, politically, patriotically) for a citizen to wish publicly that their President will fail? If you are honest with yourself and remove yourself from the current situation the answer may surprise you?
I don't want to get in the middle of Ann Coulter and Keith Olbermann trying to out petty one another in their little degree contest, but I have to wonder if I really did get a journalism degree. It seems that everyone else who has one is a liberal and it is starting to show … well, starting to show even more.
"Evolutionists have done to science what hypocrites have done to
religion. They leap through the so-called paleontological record like a
Disney cartoon kangaroo, making statements that have more to do with an
overripe imagination rather than with true science. They are
unregulated speculators with ridiculous theories that are leaving the
minds of todayís youth bankrupt, and they need to be held to some sort
of intellectual accountability. Iím just one incompetent idiot thatís
trying to do that."
The Sacred Sandwich, one of the best Christian humor sites (see also Lark News, Purgatorio, and Stuff Christians Like), has a great post today entitled If Paulís Epistle to the Galatians was Published in Christianity Today. My favorite bits are:
Paul Apostle says that he hopes the Galatian teachers will cut off
their own privates? What kind of Christian attitude is that? Shame on
Martha Bobbitt; Boulder, CO
His diatribe against the Galatian church is just more of the same
misguided focus on an antiquated reliance on doctrine instead of love
and tolerance. Just look how his hypercritical attitude has cast
aspersions on homosexual believers and women elders!
Recently around the world, scores of people gathered together to celebrate the birthday of a man, whom they revere. The organizers called it a “global holiday that transcends separate nationalities and cultures.” They said prayers and sang hymns, including O life that makest all things new, Our foundersí faith weíll sing of thee, and Morning on morning. The holiday was, of course, Darwin Day.