Monday, September 15, 2008

I'm Surprised...

I am shocked that national security wasn't on any one's list but Tom's. That is my #1 concern. Actually, I am more than shocked. I am stupefied... It is as if since we haven't had any more terrorist attacks here in the U.S. since 9/11 that people believe that there haven't even been any plots to do harm! There have been many that have been caught before another attack could happen... here and abroad.

You know... there are a lot of bugs in Mississippi. We had Terminix come out and spray regularly in an attempt to keep them out of our home. They use some sort of compound made out of chrysanthemums (or something like that) that was very effective. After they had come out we would have a line of dead bugs around the house. Of course, we would still get a certain number inside the house no matter what we did. My husband and I had different approaches to handling those situations. He would look around for something with which to kill the bug (usually a roach or a spider) like a shoe or a magazine. Sometimes he would scoop up a spider with a piece of paper and then put it back out in the yard. I'm not sure if he's ever actually killed a roach. He would either spend so much time looking for something to kill one with that it would get away or he would tap it with a shoe and it would thank him for the massage before taking off on its merry way. I, on the other hand, rarely had a bug get away from me. To me, it was much more important to know that it was dead... even if I had to get it with my bare hands or feet. My husband would get mad because when I killed a bug there was usually a need for some Spackle and paint.

We need an effective line of defense around our borders and we don't need to be playing around when someone gets through. Period. As far as I'm concerned there's been a little too much tapping and not enough gumption to get some hands dirty. We most definitely should have gone into Afghanistan. Iraq? Well, there were no WMD's... Is freeing a country from the tyranny of a dictator a good thing? Yes... but we should have known upfront that that is what was going on. AND we should have gone in with more troops. Are we there for the oil? If so, we sure as heck don't need to be. We have our own.

My #2 concern is the threat of/gradual loss of some of our freedoms.

I am a former homeschooler so obviously I don't take kindly to someone else telling me what to do or how to do it. I especially didn't take it kindly when I was told I needed to lower my expectations for my dyslexic daughter and go along with the school's "individual educational plan" in which she would have only been required to test orally and do 5 math problems a day instead of 30. I'm sorry but the real world doesn't work that way. No one cares what your individual problems are and you have to learn how to function within society, which includes the ability to read, write and do at least basic math. I am for school choice... whether that be public, private, charter, school voucher, or homeschooling.

We currently have the right to bear arms. If that is outlawed then all the law abiding citizens will be without and the criminals will still have theirs.

Religious freedom seems to be increasingly becoming religious freedom... unless you are Christian.

My #3 concern is the economy. Why isn't it higher on my list? Because the economy is constantly changing.

I seem to recall that taxation without representation was a bit of a problem back in the day... seems to be a bit of a problem again.

What about the environment? I'm all for recycling, coming up with better and less wasteful ways of doing things, and for finding alternative fuel/energy sources. What I am NOT for is this weird American flogging of itself. It's as if there is a great segment of people crying out in some masochistic need to have someone tell us how bad we are. Personally, I'd rather be inspired to change...

Question:

1. What about Iran... Pakistan... Georgia... North Korea?

I've decided to leave the discussions after my posts in the comment section because they are easier to follow that way. I think the flow of it becomes disjointed when I pluck some out and put them into the body of the text. If I add something (that I want people that might not read the comments to see) it will continue to be in red so that those that follow the comments will be able to easily see where I've added something.

I do want to address OSO's comment and his belief that the terrorists just got lucky on 9/11 and that they are no more a threat than they were pre 9/11. WOW. I strongly urge everyone to go here. Please take the time to read the entire article.

Also... The big shake up today is 158 year old Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Something jumped out at me here...

To help cushion the fallout, 10 banks created a $70 billion fund to lend to firms that are having trouble financing their assets in the markets. The Federal Reserve also said it will be willing to lend money in return for a wider array of collateral including stocks.

Now, y'all know I am uneducated... is there a reason that this should be of concern (where the FED is concerned) ???

25 comments:

One Salient Oversight said...

I know I'll get hounded for saying this, but, the terrorists just got lucky on 9/11.

Post 9/11 there have been a number of terrorist attacks around the world perpetrated by Islamic extremists. London, Madrid and Bali to name the major ones. But, in context, their efforts are not somehow worse than any of the efforts of terrorist organisations pre 9/11.

Look at terrorist organisations like the IRA or the Red Army. Where are they now? They're gone. Bin Laden and his group of cave dwelling Islamic Fundamentalists are no real threat to the US any more.

The "threat" that America has from terrorists now is nowhere near as bad as the threat of nuclear war from the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1990. This is not some deranged pollyanna type of thinking here - has any terrorist organisation attacked the US on American soil since 9/11? No. Despite all the fear and the stories and the rumours, terrorist activity in the US is zero.

Two Dogs said...

Trying to keep my comments short, I think that folks know where I stand on killing Muslims.

1. All on the other side of the planet, the sit-rep that concerns me most right now is Bolivia. Of course, those morons are controlled by Muslims, too. And yes, it ties in directly with Democrats hugging trees. If we drill our own oil, Muslims starve, which is good, and that is cheaper than going after them in their countries and creates more wealth for us. Please don't try to NOT understand that. Things are falling apart rapidly in Central and South America. Chavez is another concern and he is again, controlled by Muslims. Communism in our hemisphere was disallowed when Reagan was in office and he was a moderate. Of course, the Democrats screeched like burned children when he tried to keep Nicaragua from becoming Communist. Remember Oliver North?

These seemingly political issues are all addressed by developing a personal philosophy. I want my country to be the strongest, most powerful and wealthy nation on the planet. Others disagree and I say, "Let them go to a loser country then."

Two Dogs said...

And OSO ignores the fact that Sharia Court decisions are being recognized in Great Britain. So, Muslims are a real threat to freedom.

Sorry, if anyone is thinking that I am making a blanket statement about Muslims being murderers, it's because I am. If ONE Muslim would come out and try to take the reins of their sixth century religion, it would be really cool. But, it ain't gonna happen.

BLBeamer said...

At the risk of sounding defensive, I didn't pick national security because we are doing something about it. Whether or not you agree with the approach we've taken or are taking, it is hardly an area that is being ignored. As OSO points out, we have not had an attack since 9/11 and there have been arrests made, and some convictions, of individuals accused of attempting other acts.

The items I selected are areas where either we're doing nothing, or we are speeding down the wrong road blithely ignoring the "Bridge Out" signs.

As far as the economy is concerned, the government's policies are what got us into the current situation, so I have little confidence they have the wherewithal to get us out of it.

Two Dogs said...

blbeamer, I am doing that "pointing to the nose" thing on your last comment.

Two Dogs said...

It keeps killing my link. i ain't crazy.

And Deddy just gotta back up what I say about Muslims taking over GB, 'cause sure as shooting, I shall get called an alarmist.

Times Online.

Roland Hulme said...

Two dogs - Britain basically pulled the plug on itself when it allowed sharia law to be recognized.

This is why I'm so vehemently opposed to religion having ANY involvement in government. Coffee Bean said that she feels her rights as a Christian are being infringed on - I have to disagree.

With a born again Christian in the White House, the religious right making up a full quarter of the electorate and debates about things like teaching intelligent design and creationism in school even being DISCUSSED (instead of discredited) proves that Christianity still has a strangehold on this country.

Although if the alternative to that is the apologetic rubbish being allowed in Britain, I think we're probably better off!

As far as national security goes - I'm with one salient oversight. I think that's one area we're pretty secure in. If you've travelled anywhere by plane recently, you'll realise we are unlikely to have another 9/11.

As for national security itself? I don't want unconstitutional and immoral stuff like the patriot act and guantanamo bay to rob us of our freedoms in the interests of 'protecting us.' I'd rather live FREE and at risk than safe and a prisoner.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq - I was all for Iraq, until I see thousands of brave American soldiers dead and billions of dollar being poured down the drain. I mean, we can't afford to refill FDIC's coffers, yet we can afford to waste billions in foriegn adventures?

Bush Snr. was clever about Iraq. He set a goal, he accomplished it, he withdrew.

Two Dogs said...

Disclaimer: I am Catholic, not born again, just born. Comment follows disclaimers.

Disclaimer 2: Darwin's theory regarding natural selection does NOT state that a virus "evolves" into a resistant virus, the theory instead states that a virus "evolved" into a man. Comment follows directly.

Oh NOES! Not ID. If you actually defend that opposition to ID with some ridiculous statement regarding natural selection, seriously, you need help, Roland. Normal people know that Darwin's theory regarding evolution and natural selection was discredited by DARWIN! There is an explanation for man being here, but natural selection/evolution is not it. You know, that's proven by failure for a long, long time. Failure begun before every single modern drug has been introduced, marketed, and sold to the public. Including aspirin.

Here, lemme help those that hate the belief in God. Darwin's intermediate creatures all had an inbred understanding to migrate to the Mariana Trench and dig until they were invisible? Coupled with the FACT that all of those intermediate evolving creatures possessed bodies that were genetically evolved to NOT fossilize, right? And the light sensitive cells that became the eye flew out of the new moon encrusted sky with the magic bumblebees?

Now, that, my friend, is science! Well, it is according to imbeciles who have been scouring the entire globe for over 160 years to find a single shred of evidence that even marginally supports Darwin's theory. Alas, they have failed. Next theory, puhleeze!!!!

Roland Hulme said...

Oh, good gravy, Two Dogs... I don't even know where to begin...

Evolution... It's a fact. It's been witnessed in a laboratory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Now we know - for a FACT, incontrovertible - that evolution takes place, it proves that the Hansel-and-Gretal trail of fossils detailing the development of bacteria-to-fish-to-amphibian-to-reptile-to-mammal-to-ape-to-man is only a theory in the same way gravity is a theory.

To teach anything different is the height of dogmatic stupidity.

As for intelligent design? Well, I agree - it's a perfectly reasonable argument to say that a higher power put the cells of life on this earth, billions of years ago. But there's no evidence to prove it, so you might as well tell kids that santa claus created the universe. It's all unprovable.

Evolution, on the other hand, isn't unprovable. There's cold, hard, factual evidence to support it.

Roland Hulme said...

Just to clarify, Two Dogs - there's nothing wrong with being a Christian. The Bible is allegorical, but filled with some great spiritual truths.

But hopefully the example in Britain will prove to even the most devout Christian that religion MUST stay out of politics, or else the same thing could occur in America.

Two Dogs said...

Nothing wrong with being a Christian? Roland, how offensive that you think that I need or want your permission to believe as I do. And your opinion on keeping religion and God out of our government flies in the face of every single person that wrote their name on our Declaration of Independence. To a man.

And on evolution, I preempted your argument by my preceeding comment, because it is well known how evolutionists shall argue. With semantics, not science, however there is still no proof, not even a smidgeon of a inkling of any evidence that evolution has ever occurred on this planet.

But you lead with --> the old argument that e coli evolved into e coli. Granted e coli is a bacterium, but it is the same "Virus into virus" argument. Again, that is NOT evolution, that is adaptation to stimuli of manipulation. The "Theory of Evolution" teaches that e coli EVOLVED into man. In 159 years not one iota of any evidence proving that theory has been discovered. Not even a slug into a worm. Zero, zilch, nada, donuts. Sane people would have moved on one hundred years ago, but "scientists" have to prove that God doesn't exist and natural selection is the best that they can come up with. Granted, they have a theory, so they keep trying despite how many years pass of proving their theory WRONG. On the Origin of the Species was published in 1859.

And you also brought up the "theory" argument. Again, I say, there has never been one shred of evidence of natural selection, next THEORY <--I said theory in my last comment too, puhpuhpuhleeeeze, can we move on? Or at least set a timeline for withdrawal from the failures. Tell me, please anyone, how much longer are the kids in public school going to taught that there is evidence of evolution when there has never been in 159 years?

Can we start on my theory that has exactly the same amount of proof as natural selection? It begins, "There once was a magic cabbage that lived in a one room cabin in the middle of a glade, next to a babbling brook on the planet Nebulon"......you can find the exact amount of proof for mine as you can for natural selection. And that is a fact.

You can argue all you want that there is evidence of evolution, but none has ever been discovered on this planet by anyone. Please, if you cite just one single circumstance, just one, will you call a scientist and give it to them so we can have the very first evidence that Darwin was not a Godless moron? If you can find it, you will make one scientist a very rich person.

Two Dogs said...

typo : that is adaptation to stimuli OR manipulation

BLBeamer said...

Roland, I'd like to probe a little bit about your assertion that the religious right is fully 25% of the electorate. I just don't believe it. How does one measure such a thing?

For the sake of argument, though, let's say your assertion is true. So what? Certainly they don't vote as a bloc. I don't think you can even find agreement among them on any 5 "hot topic" policies.

For the sake of further argument, let's say they do vote as a bloc. The fact that nothing even approaching 25% of Congress is allied with the religious right tells me that they are spread thinly and really nothing to worry about. They are just another, noisy interest group like [insert name here].

Roland Hulme said...

"And your opinion on keeping religion and God out of our government flies in the face of every single person that wrote their name on our Declaration of Independence. To a man."

Well, except Jefferson, Adams, Paine and about a dozen others. Atheists and theists to a man. Read a history book sometime, dude.

http://rolandhulme.blogspot.com/2008/04/thomas-jefferson-on-bible.html

http://rolandhulme.blogspot.com/2008/03/america-is-secular-nation.html

Two Dogs, I can hardly argue with you if everything you quote as 'fact' is nothing but your own wishful thinking.

You say there's no 'proof' of evolution - yet there is. Reams and reams and reams of it. More documentation and fact than you could possibly read in a lifetime. Yet you 'choose' not to believe it. Belief is a choice, sure. But because you 'choose' not to believe something doesn't stop it being true.

Nobody can prove that God does or does not exist, so it's an entirely valid belief.

We CAN prove that the earth was made some five billion years ago, that single cell organisms evolved over millions of years into the creatures that exist now (including man.)

Evidence exists to prove all this and if you argue that it doesn't, you really ought to step AWAY from the computer screen and get your arse to a library.

Hey, BLBeamer - 25% of the electorate apparently identify as 'evangelical Christian' - according to a couple of statistics online (the figures differ between 1/3 and 1/4)

No, Christians don't necessarily vote as a 'bloc' - but interestingly they did in 2004. That's a pretty powerful force to be reckoned with. My argument is that Christians are an incredibly powerful political force (if they can ever quit bickering and agree on something.)

The liberal left does target Christianity and religion as an 'enemy' - but I'm saying that Christianity has nothing to fear any time soon.

BLBeamer said...

Hi, Roland - I don't equate evangelical Christianity with the religious right. Jim Wallis identifies himself as an evangelical Christian as does James Dobson and I'd be surprised if they have ever agreed on a single thing in their entire lives. For the record, I'm an evangelical Christian and I don't believe I agree with either one of those guys on much of anything.

I'm not disputing that 25% of the population claims to be evangelical, I just have never seen a satisfactory description of "the religious right."

How did Christians vote as a bloc in 2004? Are you equating evangelical Christians = religious right = plain ol' Christians?

Two Dogs said...

Theists believe in one god. Moot point. More follows.

Roland, I will not take that jab about reading history personally. I read history as a hobby. About 1000 books or more in my lifetime. Put your cup on though.

Jefferson wrote most of the Declaration of Independence. Agreed, Mr. Purveyor of History? Who endowed these inalienable rights according to Jefferson? Our Creator. So the country was completely founded upon God's basic principles as understood by Jefferson. Not an aetheist, huh?

Want more EVIDENCE of your asinine wrongness or will you just admit your intellectual dishonesty about those three guys?

Oh well.

John Adams: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Wow! Adams must have hated God!

Paine: Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.

Paine believed that government forming a religion was bad, but how did he feel about religion influencing government?

Paine: Every religion is good that teaches man to be good; and I know of none that instructs him to be bad.

Well, there you go. Not an aetheist, huh?

As far as reams and reams of evidence of evolution are concerned, how does writing a paper prove anything? You just wrote of bunch of hooey and it took me all of one minute to debunk your fabrications. It is necessary for a secular society to diminish the existence of God with everything that they do, Roland.

However, there are reams and reams of global warming studies that completely contradict the thermometer. One is evidence or proof, the other is just talk and Roland hooey.

Find one single shred of evidence that supports evolution, find a slug-weasel, a Butter-squirrel. Never been found before. There is NO EVIDENCE, ROLAND, there are people that get paid to find it, yet they NEVER HAVE IN 159 YEARS!

And you have tried to belittle Christians with comments like, "there's nothing wrong with being a Christian" and the classic, "Nobody can prove that God does or does not exist, so it's an entirely valid belief."

Roland, reel in your ego, you are wrong on a monumental scale.

Just Me said...

I think what Coffee Bean was implying about Christians' dwindling freedoms is that a handful of vociferous non-Christians are quick to jump all over anything that could be construed as promoting Jesus Christ as anything beyond a teacher.

It's already been established here that our nation's founders were men of faith. (Recommended read if you haven't: Young Patriots.)

The separation of Church and State was intended to prohibit the government from forming its own religion, a la the Church of England, or naming a national faith.

Kind of like what happened with Roe vs. Wade, which was an issue on right to PRIVACY, not abortion, or Affirmative Action, which has often been stretched and twisted well beyond its noble and necessary purpose into the land of reverse discrimination.

It's pretty bad when I get into a conversation and I feel like I should duck and cover the minute I say I'm Catholic. Someone says, "I'm Christian," and they're immediately dismissed a "Bible-thumping Jesus freak" like it's some kind of incurable communicable disease.

It stinks.

Two Dogs said...

Just Me, that is why I lead with the Catholic disclaimer. You need back-up, gimme a holla'. We fish eaters gotta stick together.

Roland Hulme said...

Fortunately Jefferson et. al. were far from fish eaters.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

I see what you've done, Two Dogs. You've googled 'was Jefferson a Christian' and found a couple of websites that argue he was, by throwing out a few out of context quotes.

I suggest you expand your research. Read his autobiography or the letters between him and John Adams and you'll find the man's true spiritual beliefs.

"The whole history of the Gospels is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

And perhaps, most tellingly of all, his argument against the idea of America being found on 'Christian morality.'

"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

If you want to play the game of quoting Jefferson to 'prove' or 'disprove' his Christianity, by all means go ahead. You will lose.

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Anyway. Onwards to the next issue, that of Christianity and the foundation of these United States. I will agree that the majority of the founding fathers WERE Christian. But that doesn't mean that America is a 'christian nation.'

How about the opening lines of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by John Adams and most of the original founding fathers:

"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." 4 November, 1796.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are EXPLICIT in referring to 'a creator' or 'nature's God' rather than a single uniform deity like you're suggesting.

Jefferson, in his autobiography, stated explicitly that the principle behind America's foundation was to offer inalienable rights and protections to (and I quote) "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

Separation of Church and State is a vital principle because it tolerates ALL religions through the EXCLUSION of all religions from government business.

Next point - evolution.

I don't know what to tell you. I've given you links to a scientific experiment, repeated many times, that proves that within hours, bacteria can evolve to better suit their environment. That's what happens in HOURS. Imagine what happens in billions of years. Man, as it happens.

To claim that there's no evidence of evolution is not just wrong, it's a blatant lie. There is TONS of evidence.

Now onto somebody with some sense and rationality - BlBeamer.

The figures I'm quoting are:

"The 2004 survey of religion and politics in the United States identified the Evangelical percentage of the population at 26.3%; while Roman Catholics are 22% and Mainline Protestants make up 16%. In the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, the figures for these same groups are 28.6% (Evangelical), 24.5% (Roman Catholics), and 13.9% (Mainline Protestant.)

So a quarter of the United States (some eighty million people) are classed as evangelical Christians. But you're absolutely right. Congress is in no way 25% evangelical and Christianity seems to be 'fair game' for attack, whereas nobody would dare attack Islam or Judiasm in the same way (in case the politically correct mafia accuse them of Islamophobia or Anti-Semitism.)

Two Dogs said...

Disclaimer: I rarely "Google" anything at all. The internet is a great tool, but legitimate research is lacking here in my opinion, hence all the AGW folks and the evolutionists. I would assume that since Roland offers many opinions about the lack of belief in the framers, despite the very existence of the word "God" in every single legal document surrounding the USA'a founding, you know that evidence that keeps debunking his "facts," maybe it was he that Googled "how do I support my hatred of God and all things God-like and make it appear that I have a clue upon which I speak."

Roland, when you argue with semantics, we all get dumber.

Evolution is NOT a virus adapting to its environment. Natural Selection and Darwin's Theory of Evolution states that a virus eventually evolved into man. That is by definition what it is. Proving over and over again that a virus can adapt to stimuli doesn't even begin to explain the intellectually dishonest conclusion that man would be born from those experiments given enough time. The simple fact of the matter is that if evolution from virus to man was occuring at any time in the past, there would be billions, nay! trillions of failures, so many more than successes that we could not swing a dead cat without hitting one of those failures. That would make the odds of finding a failure instead of a success much more likely. To date, not one failure found. Odd. Quit being flat-out dumb. You cannot cite a single source for one shred of evidence of evolution otherwise you would be on every single MSM show blathering until the cows come home. Evolution is simply really bad science to disprove God and the fact that you continue to argue with the exact same point proves that you have no clue about the very thing you are defending. A virus evolved into the same virus. Wow! And I am the dumb ol' hick rube. Thank goodness for hick rubes, then!

I have no idea why you think that pointing out specific things that lend one to believe that the framers were not Christians, or at least VERY religious people, helps your point, but I shall drop this discussion. It's like trying to get a child to eat his breakfast. You were shown that you were dreadfully wrong, what you do with that information is your responsibility. However, I might suggest that in future debates with people that are clearly your intellectual betters, insulting them might not be the way to go for you Roland. You make yourself look silly.

Roland Hulme said...

Two Dogs wrote: "Blah blah blah same old crap I said before blah blah blah I refuse to accept blatant evidence shoved in my face blah blah blah I'm obviously much smarter than you blah blah blah."

You know, what makes Coffee Bean so great is that she approaches things with an open mind. She listens to other people's opinions and then makes her own mind up (and is confident enough to disagree.)

I like to think I'm fairly open minded, too. There are more than a few topics people like Tom have made me rethink (global warming.)

Your problem is you have your 'beliefs' and you're unwilling to look beyond them, despite evidence to the contrary. You've chosen what you WANT to believe, instead of actually BELIEVING what you believe.

I suggest you open your mind.

"Self-conceit often regards it as a sign of weakness to admit that a belief to which we have once committed ourselves is wrong. We get so identified with an idea that it is literally a "pet" notion and we rise to its defense and stop our eyes and ears to anything different." John Dewey

Two Dogs said...

Roland, I appreciate your response. Please try to take your own advice. Of the two of us, one of us has actually shown the other proof or concrete evidence, the other person has simply followed the first personsaying exactly what the first person said the second would say.

The act of being closed minded is ignoring the obvious when it is shown to you.

Your very statements were preempted by me. I debunked your responses before you even typed them. That is the nature of thought.

"I am going to say this, how do I say it simply enough for children to understand?"

One of us is closed minded and the other is not.

Which one of us is which?

We know your opinion, but then again you cannot accept the truth when it rolls up to you in a one hundred forty-five foot long gold-encrusted houseboat and spoon feeds you facts.

Roland Hulme said...

Hmmm. And yet I've been saying exactly the same thing about you!

I guess this is the case of the unstoppable force (i.e. science and progress) meeting the unmovable object (i.e. damn, stubborn, irrational human nature.)

Two Dogs said...

I agree with your last comment, Roland.

BLBeamer said...

Thanks, Roland. I was only pointing out that for all the negative press "the religious right" gets, they seem to be a not very powerful political force. It really seems to be out of proportion to the influence they wield. Financially and noisily powerful they may be, perhaps, but certainly nothing like their most vocal opponents. I just don't think we have anything to worry about from them imposing theocracy or conducting a theonomic coup d'etat.

I do see some anti-Christian statements in the press and on certain blogs. Some of them display blind ignorance or bias but as a Christian I say that if Christians truly lived their stated beliefs there would be less room to stand for those who cry "hypocrite". Furthermore, persecution comes with the territory. The Christian church is not exactly a stanger to martyrdom in its history. In fact, our Founder promised we would get persecuted.

Do we believe Him or not?