Tuesday, March 27, 2007

The anti-Enlightenment

Not long ago my old boss, Bill Maher, was a guest on “Larry King Live,” when, in one particularly vitriolic outburst, he declared that his well known and oft-voiced contempt for religion came from his belief that “religion is the antithesis of science.”

This, of course, would come as a big shock to the millions of scientists, such as Albert Einstein, who were not only deeply religious, but who saw in each new scientific discovery only further proof of God’s existence. After all, as the saying goes, if there’s a clock clearly there has to be a clock-maker.

Further, it would take one of those impossible coincidences that the Modern Liberal relies on so heavily to explain how it is that the two most religious nations in the Western World – the United States and Israel -- are also arguably the world’s two most scientifically and technologically advanced.

In fact, with just the slightest bit of thought, Maher himself would have to recognize the abject silliness of his protestation, for if he were to stub his toe or feel a little tightness in his chest, I doubt he would order his driver to take him to the “Atheists’ Hospital of Greater L.A.” but instead would scream “take me to Cedar Sinai” (or the Presbyterian Hospital at Columbia University or Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New York.)

While Maher’s claim that religion is antithetical to science is also easily debunked every time one drives past a university like Notre Dame, Brigham Young or Brandeis, it does serve as yet more proof that it is Maher’s own philosophy – the philosophy of Modern Liberalism that so dominates today’s Democratic Party – that is the antithesis of science.

After all, when being “politically correct” supersedes being factually correct, when conclusions are drawn not for their scientific value but to advance a political agenda,
we have moved beyond the realm of science to what Victor Davis Hanson calls the “post-Enlightenment” and which I argue is truly the anti-Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment saw a quest for dispassionate truths. This quest is antithetical to the agenda of the Modern Liberal who sees truth itself as the enemy. This is because the central tenet of Modern Liberalism is that it is the quest for truth that is the root of all evil.

The “thinking” is that, if no one ever thought they were right there would be nothing to fight about and with nothing to fight about, surely there’d be no war. Without war there would be no poverty or the need for crime and thus mankind would finally live in the utopia they envision.

In “The Closing of the American Mind,” Professor Allan Bloom’s effort to understand the lack of scholarship amongst his students, Bloom says that they believe that “the study of history and culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; man always thought they were right and that led to wars, persecution, slavery, xenophobia, racism and chauvinism.” Bloom continues that, with the Modern Liberal, “the point (now) is not to correct the mistakes (of the past) and really be right; rather it is never to think you’re right at all.”

The positions the Modern Liberal takes, then, aren’t based on the effort to be right but rather to undermine these convictions in others.

Maher’s mindless hatred of religion is paralleled by the left’s mindless acceptance of the non-scientific myth of global warming. This agenda-driven canard, whose purpose is to undermine the belief in the truth of America’s exceptionalism by turning America’s greatness – her productivity, ingenuity, creativity and prosperity – from evidence of her exceptional rightness into proof positive of her evil, is so devoid of scientific fact that the only way to sustain the lie is by intimidating dissenting voices, offering up hysterical scenarios, engaging in pure demagoguery and even threatening the lives of some of the nation’s leading scientists.

This “culture war” is not a battle of ideas. It’s a war against truth being waged by the left in the hopes of creating a utopia devoid of war, poverty, crime and injustice. Since religion is the effort to be right morally and spiritually while science is the effort to be right in the physical world, it is not surprising to find the left so passionately against both.

73 comments:

Mark said...

Evan;

Having so recently discovered your concise clarity (through the Heritage Foundation lecture), I am delighted to see that you're back to regular blogging. You are a breath of fresh air.

Mark Alger
http://www.babytrollblog.com

Anonymous said...

Glad you're blogging again. Also glad to see you got linked on Drudge- get ready for a lot more readers.

Anonymous said...

You have given me hope again. Now I know how to fight back. I became scared when I realized they are getting scientists fired for coming to different conclusions then the ALGORE camp on Global Warming. These people are dangerous, and I think will eventually resort to violence to have their way. It is the dawn of the dark ages again, I am afraid. Glad to see you post. I have a link to your website on my links list. Sorry I am anonymous, but they are bullies and I don't want them to know where I am just yet. I am serious, some of these folks are lunatics.

Anonymous said...

FYI: Albert Einstein was not deeply religious at all. You should check your facts, my fellow member of the tribe.

I just watched half of your YouTube speech at the The Heritage Foundation.

Seriously: You're like Ann Coulter with short little legs. All fury and absolutely no light and no truth whatsoever.

Nothing you said rang true in even the remotest way. Here's to hoping it was a bad bit, or that you wake up and recognize how impossibly wrong on every one of your inane and puerile talking points.

Mush as I eschew labels, you are indeed a moron.

Good day!

Matthias said...

OK, I can't leave this alone... Albert Einstein was religious... that's why he had problems with quantum physics (because he felt that the probabilistic nature of quantum physics took determinism and power out of God's hands). Read Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy for more information.

It's actually kind of fascinating how this fits in with Sayet's theory. Everyone knows Einstein was good (brilliant man, pacifist), so he couldn't have been religious, because that would have made him discriminatory, or "evil". Since he must either be "good" or "evil" the liberal reader finds the need to jettison some of the facts that don't fit. The most convenient one to jettison is Einstein's religion, so out the window it goes!

Onto something more important and interesting... is there a transcript of Mr. Sayet's talk? It would be awesome to see that online in all its excerptable glory.

Anonymous said...

I watch your speech on Harritage Foundation and I was pleasantly shocked how right you are. I wish more Hollywood people would talk and think like you. You are a fresh breath of air in an ugly hollywood world. I will send it to all my friends. God Bless You and please don't stop.
nicole from Romania

Anonymous said...

the best description of stupid liberals I have ever heard.

Elizabeth in Los Angeles said...

Finally, someone has identified and articulated perfectly, not only the basic ideology of American liberalism in 2007, but why and how it became pervasive. Congratulations to Evan Sayet for his notable article "The anti-Enlightenment." Even more impressive is his speech given at "The Heritage Foundation." Sayet should be heard by every American. Particularly resonant were his comments addressing how intelligent and often decent people have adopted a creed which questions the very existence of evil in regard to human behaviors. The offshoot of this movement has been the unfortunate and widespread refraining from all personal judgements across contemporary American society. How common it now is to hear the words "I don't like to judge" or "evil is relative." Ironically, the same voices unfailingly are the first to tag "America" as "evil" and consistently judge all aspects of what this nation has done or is about to do. But cynicsm is rampant, and an easy, rather lazy form of expression for the frustrated. Alternatively, Sayet has courageously put forth a smart and reflective point of view to question the status quo, that same old song which has been played ad nauseum in recent times to our great detriment by the entertainment media and by a majority in academia. Bravo from one who grew up liberal too! Elizabeth in Los Angeles

EB said...

Just caught your Heritage speech and loved it. I don't share all your positions but well said anyway. I just finished a tour with the Peace Corps and am back in Hollywood.

I would suggest that in those two Liberal arenas being a Moderate, which I am, is potentially deadly to any professional ambitions.

Anyway, good stuff.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your words and efforts to bring back common sense!! It's encouraging whenever I hear a person, especially someone in the public eye, say that it's not crazy to use facts rather than emotions to form opinions.

Don R. said...

Evan,
Powerline linked to your Heritage Foundation speech. And now I've discovered your blog. Excellent!
I'll be buying your books, as you have clearly and concisely explained to me what is wrong with the treasonous Democrats. Thank you.

Little Rock AR USA

Nice Deb said...

You're cool!

Derek said...

Evan,

I really enjoyed your Heritage Foundation lecture. I consider myself a left leaning moderate (when I say left leaning, I'm talking about the left as presented by thinkers like Thomas Jefferson with a focus on civil rights and basic inherent freedoms according to the Constitution, the document that helps make us such a great country), and I found your criticisms of liberals to be both apt and true. There are plenty of pundits who criticize the right (I'm talking about thought provoking criticism meant to create dialog and debate not the propaganda that Michael Moore spews), but frankly it's refreshing to hear educated criticism of liberals and the general hypocrisies of the groups. People on the far left love free speech, as long as you agree with them. Funny how if they had their way the right would not even be entitled to a say.

After coming from the University of Oregon it's comforting to hear someone addressing the flaws of the left that I saw everyday on a campus where thought from outside of the extreme left was stifled and attacked by professors on a regular basis (and not in the manner of debate, but in verbal assaults and poor grades on opinion papers that express views different from those regurgitated daily in class, at least I figured the last part out, but I hated having to sacrifice my integrity for success in the future), and material presented to students was incredibly biased texts with the clear goal of indoctrinating impressionable young minds into the views of professors who are nothing more than armchair nihilists who remove themselves from regular society through the insular community of academia and yet still readily attack the society they shun and while not participating as a normal citizen or attempting to provide solutions to problems they see (the far left is good at pointing out problems, but they leave solving them to the rest of us). All the while they abuse their academic position to manipulate students into a reflection of their own beliefs rather than teaching the students, providing them facts and an education upon which to create their own opinions and viewpoints.

Well that was a bit of a tangent, but I think my point came across. In my opinion we need both the left and the right, because different opinions allow for debate that leads to solutions and progress (our government is founded upon the idea the compromise path to progress in my view), but like you point out the modern left (especially the extreme left as there are some on the left who realize that stagnating is foolish and that offering solutions and engaging in genuine political debate is the only real path to progress) doesn't offer an opinion (that might lead to conflict) they only offer criticism and nay-saying, and the insistence that every viewpoint but theirs is wrong (which is the view that everything else is wrong).

Of course, I'm in general not a fan of the extreme right either (in particular religion should not be used to create policy because even among people of the same religion and denomination religious beliefs vary person to person, separation of church and state protects that). In my experience extremes write everyone else off as being wrong, and they are unwilling to engage in debate which is at the very heart of democracy. It's easy to think something is wrong, but to go the difficult road and actually debate and discuss issues and to allow the exchange of ideas perhaps we can come up with something that's not only right, but right for everyone.

Well that was a tad long. I suppose I'm not the typical person who takes interest, but keep up the good work, I look forward to your book, and I also look forward to seeing more of your public speaking on videos, and perhaps live if you're ever in my area.

Derek Payne

Anonymous said...

Mr. Sayet-
As right as you are about the psychology and intent of the leftist thinkers (your YouTube video was brilliant), you simply cannot argue that religion is based on science and truth. That is not to say that truth is not absolute and morality objective. These are absolutely true- but their objectivity comes from being in accordance with reality, the world in which we live. Truth and morality does not come from the whim of some unseen god.

Also, your example of the United States and Israel as being the two most religious nations and also the best is a non-sequitor. You are attempting to imply a causal relationship where there is none. The rest of the Western civilization replaced the whim of god with the whim of society. Essentially, there is very little difference. Also, you fail to note that many of Arab nations supplying the terrorists are extremely religious themselves. They simply believe in a different god. If you look in both the Koran and the Bible, you will find textual support for violence, and non-violence, in both. Don't get me wrong, I much prefer American Christians to Muslims, but that is because the average American Christian is not nearly as fundamental as the majority of Muslims.

I will grant you that the Christian religion is preferable to the nihilism of the left, because religious people at least seek to gain values. However, the reason America is so great is not because of her religion, but, rather, in spite of it.

Brett McS said...

I think Evan is even being a bit too kind to modern day leftists.

They want history to show a uniform litany of war and degradation, as that would in some measure justify their stand. But the galling truth is that (a) the rise of the free market ("Capitalism") intoduced an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity (18th and 19th centuries) and (b) the rise of Communism introduced a world of persecution and destruction.

This uncomfortable contrast is behind the attempt to destroy the study of history and the use of reason in the academic world.

Me said...

You would be a lot more convincing if you didn't make stuff up.

(1) "impossible coincidences" -- no, it's not an "impossible" coincidence that humans exist. The chances of it are statistically small, but it simply is not "impossible." You could write "improbable" and you would gain 1000 credibility points.

(2) Brandeis is not like Brigham Young or Notre Dame. It is a secular institution. There is no religious instruction at Brandeis, no requirement of religion, no religion-based rules. Moreover, it's funny that you mention Einstein. Brandeis was originally supposed to be "Einstein University" but he declined.

(3) All your examples about Cedar Sinai do not disprove Maher's point. When you are taken to Cedar Sinai, what kind of care are you given? Do a bunch of rabbis stand over you and pray instead of a doctor administering an injection? Is there a religious requirement for employment at Cedar Sinai? No and no.

Finally, I simply think you're fighting a windmill. You've defined "Modern Liberalism" -- micharacterized it completely, and now you're fighting against your own definition of it. Have you ever read Don Quixote?

KGS said...

Finland needs to hear your refreshing views, as an expat American living here for twenty years....I am up against far much more than the average American.

Regards,
KGS

www.tundratabloid.blogspot.com

bigwhitehat said...

On the subject: You are so right on. I am amazed how intelligent adults can be stuck in the mindset that I gave up at age 20.

Off the subject: I was just introduced to you and your work by seeing the video of a speech you gave at the Heritage Foundation. You were stellar. I tip my stetson to you sir.

Anonymous said...

Caught the Heritage Foundation lecture on You Tube via an LGF comment. You nailed it! It all rang true – I went back to school last year at a technical college here in Australia to find a maths teacher praising Cuba, bullying and delinquency rampant and a “progressive” mindset so narrow that I gave up. It was like my high school more than twenty years before but worse, because the now the rot is officially sanctioned.

Your remarks about how art has been affected went to my heart. The modern mantra in this area goes: Forget about beauty, smear some faeces on a canvas because the truth is squalid and life sucks.

And they wonder the suicide rate keeps rising. Truly this Liberalism is a death-cult, which is why Islam is ascendant. Glad to have discovered you.

PanEcclesiastes said...

I am glad to see an entertaining voice making your points. It's harder to promote the truth to the apathetic than it is to find it.

I have an example right here beside me. The Graves of Academe by Richard Mitchell, The Underground Grammarian.

While I find it engaging, it is the book I used to try and teach my high school senior daughter to read with. It made her cry.

She thought because she was making A's in an advanced senior English class at a "premier" public school that she was immune from the accusation of illiteracy. Yet there we would sit, reading together, she in her copy and me in mine, because no matter how small the words or short the sentences she couldn't understand it. The implacable existence of the thin book with a torn jacket on the plywood table showed the sweet lies of hundreds of degreed professionals in huge buildings, delivered
in every class,
all day,
Monday through Friday,
9 months a year,
for 13 years,
nearly two thirds of her life.

I recommend it to you ISBN 0-316-57508-9.

You can read it for free online from the publisher and copyright holder, no piracy, at http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/.

Or you can have my extra copy.

Anonymous said...

I really enjoyed your explnation of the "Modern Liberal." It was very well thought out, but I think your term is too broad. There are many liberals, such as those at the new republic, who you would have much in common with.

I think what you are talking about is the so called "progressive" movement, whose Orweleian title means the exact opposite. This is the Deniis Kuchinich part of the Democratic party.

Yaacov Ben Moshe said...

Evan-
Ijust viewed your Heritage foundation talk. You are exactly on target. I am linking to your blog. I have an idea for project that is as much fun as it is constructive. Here is a proposal for you- http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/2007/03/hammy-awards-proposal.html

Bill D. Cat said...

What ever you do please keep talking .

Stacie said...

Looks like Dianne Feinstein needs to get a lawyer...talk about corruption!
I wonder how the snake oil salesmen...I mean the MSM is going to spin this?

Reed said...

Just another who discovered you online through the Heritage lecture. And just another who came of age but in the Bay Area of the late-70's and eventually found himself on the right because the party of the left moved so much.

It was in the '90's that I found myself on the right. I was once a very active member of the DFL party and really couldn't take the whining anymore (which I recognize now as the sound of the party being dragged further to the left). But what you said was all true, and there are so very many people who know that, but sit alone thinking that they must be wrong since every poll and every pundit and every news article or program tells them they're wrong--failing to show or document other views and opinions, except to demonize them as ignorant.

But I think this lack of journalistic standard is not conspiratorial as others on the right suggest, but a manifestation of yours and Bloom's contention of the rise of what I have termed ill-educated; and now those who have been ill-educated are teaching. These are the people, the generation, that has been taught to take tests and regurgitate the answers and the knowledge that those who created the tests (usually government employees) have determined as worthwhile.

I could go on, but I'll leave the rest for when I mount the soapbox for the little weekly newspaper I publish.

I'll be looking for your books, and any speaking engagements you might have in Minnesota--if Al Franken allows you in.

Anonymous said...

the importance of what you say does not depend on this, but for the sake of truth Albert Einstein has never been religious, other great scientists were and are religious, but the percentage of the believers is less then then what you find in the average population.

Anonymous said...

Forget what I just said about Einstein not being religious. Of course he was. I was off my meds. Sorry.

rasqual said...

Intellect in action is a precision munition (or at least can be). Indiscriminate denial of human rationality ends up being an ideological carpet bombing run through culture, with collateral damage to history itself.

K T Cat said...

Great blog, Evan. You've convinced me to start a new series of posts on my own. Here's the first.

I saw your speech over at No Pasaran and to me, it's the Unified Field Theory of Modern Popular Culture. I've yet to find something from the left that it doesn't explain.

Anonymous said...

I saw your talk to the Heritage Foundation. What I found refreshing is that you made all of your points not needing any extra-documentary reasearch, meaning, I didn't need to look anything up to know that you are in the level. It struck me that it was all common sense. I was drving my car back to work pondering "wrong thinking" when I pulled behind a car with a bumper sticker that said "When facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the Flag and carrying a cross". It occured to me that when ignorance comes to America, it will be covered in bumper stickers.
I guess it's already here...

Thank you again as I forward the Hertiage Foundation link to everyone I know.

Me said...

Why do you insist on just plain-old lying?

Quotes, all from Albert Einstein:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

"My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."

Maclaren said...

I'm speechless--thank God you aren't! Keep it up--only LOUDER!!

Kate

Robbie Hingston said...

I just watched your Heritage Foundation lecture and it really struck a chord. Understanding liberals has been almost a hobby of mine for a few years from my perspective of a charismatic fundamentalist christian upbringing influenced by evangelicals that forms a base for a libertarian leaning conservativism.

I apologize for that sentence!

When Liberals talk about fundamentalists like they're a campfire horror story that they think is real I have no idea where they get it from. Although I no longer count myself one, fundamentalists are the best people I know. That's one thing I sought to understand and your lecture and post explain it - fundamentalists think that there is a Right and that they are Right, violating the One Commandment of Liberalism.

The idea that Liberals don't beleive in truth sounds crazy, but it reminds me of a person I was talking to on an online forum who saw the history of people dying over what they beleived to be true to be proof that there was no truth. People disagree over what they think is true - to the point of being willing to die for it - therefore there must be no actual truth.

This point shows the Modern Liberals in stark relief to the classic...

J.S. Mills said:
"...The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature..."

But when Mark Steyn criticized the EU or a European country (maybe France?) because its people didn't seem willing to die for it, the person he said it to argued that that was exactly what made it better.

Thanks for your willingness to "come out", as they say in your neck of the woods Evan : )

atacama7 said...

I found the Heritage Foundation's lecture linked to Instapundit and was completely mesmerized Evan. Not only are you an excellent extemporaneous speaker - it's just so impressive to see someone who speaks well - but the content of your speech was tight, your respect for the listener untiring, your language tailored and astute, the humor very much aligned with the lecture and the extensions of some of your references were, quite frankly, deliriously brilliant.
I will follow your work, and look forward to your book. All I can respond with is a simple, humble WOW!!!!!

Anonymous said...

In the US there is still a fight against the liberal disease, here in Europe the patient is already in coma. We need hundreds of people like you come here, spread over the different countries, give your tv and radio-shows, and maybe, just maybe the patient (Europe) might come alive again. Europe is the US without the conservative movement. I assure you: it is stonecold dead spiritually and it is so for no other reason, non, than the madness you described so well at the Heritage Foundation. You are a charming, funny, insightful conservative. We need hundreds of you. Come here!

Steve A. said...

Mr. Sayet,

I LOVED your talk at the Heritage Foundation. I can't believe I haven't heard of you before. Thank you for finally making sense of the madness that surrounds us.

My question to you and all the folks out there who agree with you is this: what are we going to do about it? In your speech you rightfully say that we need to take back the schools, universities, the media, and Hollywood. The problem is that nothing will change if the only people who hear your ideas are folks at stuffy places like the Heritage Foundation and political junkies like me. We have to bring the message to the People, the folks who don't listen to speeches and read political books. And the only way to do that is with very simple but powerful slogans, sound bites, images, etc. A new kind of public relations campaign is what's needed. First we have to strip away the label of liberal and progressive from those who are neither. We have to come up with another label that more accurately describes them and is easily understood by the average person. "Indiscriminates" just won't do it and "Utopians" isn't much better. Once we decide on the right word, we have to make it stick through repetition and creative avenues such as a catchy song and/or an image produced by a talented cartoonist and/or a privately financed comedy film that exposes and ridicules them. Conservatives don't like engaging in these methods but it's the only way to counteract the constant bombardment from the media, Hollywood, and the schools/universities.

Thanks for your time and keep it up!

Anonymous said...

Evan- Great speech at Heritage. Best of luck to you. I come from a NYC (Queens) Jewish liberal background same as you. I started turning conservative in 1990 when I voted Republican for governor of the state I lived in. I've gotten more conservative ever since. Nice to see you mention Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.com. That's one website I go to every day

Just look how Iran toys with the 15 British Navy Men. This is the real Islam in action. Liberal like to lie to themselves about the nature of Jihad. They like to fall for the Muslim spin that it means inner struggle.

redgold34 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
redgold34 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Brilliant, sir. Spot on.

Mad Man Moon said...

I enjoyed watching and listening to your presentation to the Heritage Foundation. You provided "food for thought" and a nice platform for debate.

I am a traditional libertarian conservative, with my views formed by the philosophy of Goldwater and by extension, Reagan. Truth be told, the Heritage Foundation and speakers such as yourself have little to do with conservative ideals. To the contrary, the Neo-Conservative movement, and the founders of it, have managed to defile a philosophy that is core to the republic by rejecting fiscal responsibility, making a mockery of individual privacy and liberty, and engaging in a deliberate and expensive policy of nation building.

What's alarming to me, is that according to those of your ilk, my traditional conservative views are now considered liberal. How in the world did we get to the point were up is down and night is day? How is rejecting unnecessary surveillance and honoring a tradition of individual liberty and privacy a liberal position? How is it that expecting limited government, full disclosure by the government and minimal intervention by the same has become a liberal position? Does this mean that we should now be categorizing CATO as a liberal organization? Up is down. Night is day. So odd.

Yet, as I grow older, I am willing to embrace this alliance that once seemed so foreign.

Your comments regarding indiscriminate thinking and liberals were very amusing. It's nearly impossible to argue against because you paint it as circular in nature. At the same time, it's patently illogical. "It is because it is because it is, and well, that can't change". Nice play for psuedo-intellectuals.

The flaw, and it's a major flaw, in your argument is that in order for it to be "proofed" you must carry it out to it's infinite degree. It is all or nothing. Ones and Zeros. The light switch is on or off. Great in theory, hardly pragmatic in real life. Absolutes rarely work.

Yet, you speak in absolutes. You speak of good and evil. Right and wrong. As if there is only one or the other. Wouldn't life be wonderful if it were only that simple? You content that because liberals have a philosophy against discrimination, they must be absolutely indiscriminate to fulfill their philosophy. This is rubbish and you know it. Such an approach would prevent a liberal from arguing a counterpoint with you, simply because they believe that everyone is right and no one is wrong.

What I found most disturbing about your talk, is the repeated references to "The Elite", liberal media and the "indoctrination" found in schools. This philosophy mirrors the approach taken by Marx and Lenin so closely that it has taken on the resemblance.

Repeatedly, the Neo-Conservatives denigrate the "elite" in much the same way Marx sought to establish a message of class struggles ("they think they;re better than you").

The now-tired assault on the so-called-liberal media seeks to quash viewpoints not inline with yours and write them off as pure, uneducated, bias. Essentially, you are telling people not to bother listening to any other message than the one coming from the government. Incredibly chilling.

Finally, the repeated references to "indoctrination" in schools. Of all, this is likely the most absurd and most alarming of the Neo-Con trick bag. First, it goes against logic. If the fear you spread were true, there would be no GOP. There would be no Neo-Con movement. Only a bunch of socialists brainwashed from day one.

Yet, the frightening message is that allowing your child to be educated, allowing your child to think freely, is dangerous. It threatens our nation. It threatens our future. If this is a real concern, then do not look to the government. Look inward, for as a parent you have failed in your responsibility if it is the schools that establish the values of your child. But do not let that get in the way of fostering a "They" hysteria within your ranks.

In all three, you imply that information is bad. Education and free thought is bad. Analytical thinking and shades of gray are bad. You sir and your colleagues are embarking on a philosophy not unlike the one the United States fought against for fifty years.

My only comfort? That millions of independent, libertarian minded conservatives started the process of righting the ship last fall. I can only pray that the process continues and todays non-conservative GOP gets the message.

bigwhitehat said...

I have presented you with the Thinking Blogger Award.

I don't expect you to participate in any meme activity but, this was a good way to introduce my readers to your blog.

Anonymous said...

Sir;
You contradict thought in its purest essence with some of your speech. Why you don't stand up and speak your own free mind, rather than that of a politician's POV. What a shame.

BTW: Ted Kaczinski nailed liberalism in his manefesto in ways you will never understand. If his mrssage to kill is overlooked he goes in depth to points most people could agree with; conservative or liberal.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, my meds wore off there for moment. I'm beter now.
Sincerely,
Theodore Kaczinski
Leavenworth, Kansas

Marcelo Vignali said...

I just saw your video on You Tube; it's quite an enlightening presentation. You covered a lot of the same thoughts I had as I moved away from the democratic party...but presented in a much more concise way.

A Jacksonian said...

A very good presentation, with some quibbles from me, but overall a good description of how the mindset works on an operational basis. What is left out is that there is a general theme, beyond pure anti-everything, to this, which was summed up by John Fonte a bit ago with The Ideological War Within the West and longer view in this piece on Liberal Democracy vs. Transnational Progressivism. I will, of necessity, extract out the themes of Transnational Progressivism so that one may get the flavor of it:
"Groups are what matter, not people. You are "Black" or "Christian" or "Mexican" or "Afghan" or "Sunni", you are not yourself. You also don't get to choose your group; it's inherent in what you were when you were born. Someone else will categorize you into your group, and you will become a number, a body to count to decide how important that group is. And your group won't change during your lifetime.

The goal of fairness is equality of result, not equality of opportunity. It isn't important to let individuals fulfill their potential and express their dreams, what's important is to make groups have power and representation in all things proportional to their numbers in the population. Fairness is for groups, not for individuals. The ideally fair system is based on quotas, not on merit, because that permits proper precise allocation of results.

Being a victim is politically significant. It's not merely a plea for help or something to be pitied; it's actually a status that grants extra political power. "Victimhood" isn't a cult, it's a valid political evaluation. Groups which are victims should be granted disproportionately more influence and representation, at the expense of the historic "dominant" culture.

Assimilation is evil. Immigrants must remain what they were before they arrived here, and should be treated that way. Our system must adapt to them, rather than expecting them to adapt to us (even if they want to). The migration of people across national borders is a way to ultimately erase the significance of those borders by diluting national identity in the destination country.

An ideal democracy is a coalition where political power is allocated among groups in proportion to their numbers. It has nothing to do with voting or with individual citizens expressing opinions, and in fact it doesn't require elections at all. A "winner take all" system, or one ruled by a majority, is profoundly repugnant because it disenfranchise minority groups of all kinds and deprives them of their proper share of power.

National identity is evil. We should try to think of ourselves as citizens of the world, not as citizens of the nations in which we live, and we should try to minimize the effects of national interests, especially our own if we live in powerful nations."


These are, of course, antithetical to the concept of the universal rights of man and the ability to be an individual without respect to group affiliation. The end-point of this outlook is the removal of the Nation State as a conceptual framework and a return to a stratified society in which an Elite group decides on who gets what rights and what a 'fair' outcome is based on cumulative rights and level of being a 'victim'. This goes under the much older heading of Empire, in which Nations do not exist and a given group rules over mankind. The Progressivists see themselves as the 'enlightened' ones and fit to do that ruling, and this bothersome and biased Nation State business as a necessary thing to scrap to get to their final rulership. By re-instating barriers based on race, gender, religion and such, they seek to make a static, stratified society that will not change over time.

Terrorist organizations, especially the Islamic Fascistic types, but others including the more Communist oriented Shining Path and FARC, also look to use this as an operational paradigm by using the means of warfare outside the strictures of the Nation State. In doing this and using violence that is warfare, but without any limits, they seek to delegitimize armed forces in support of Nation States, which is a problem that a few military analysts like Gwynn Dyer, have been worrying about for some decades now. Transnational Terrorism works hand in hand with their Progressive counterparts to wear away the Nation State framework and begin imposing their own, restricted views upon humanity. They may have different ideas of what those views *are* and who will *rule*, but the removal of the Nation State must be done to bring about their different utopias, and brings them together in common cause.

I do agree that many of the Left to react in a non-critical, knee-jerk anti-everything mode, there is a set of core concepts that are not just in the opposite, but have an end-point in mind to work *towards*. If anything, that is far worse than sheer knee-jerk opposition. It isn't that the 'Imagine' removes all the bounds of Nation States, but to get people to that harmonious end in which all rules are forever set, there needs to be an Elite that will inform the populace of what is allowed to be thought, and what isn't.

While the more conservative Right has a general idea of Nation State support, the outlook of putting economics before human liberty is something that is not, in actuality spreading freedom but *is* giving means and opportunity to terrorists to procure more and deadlier arms at lower cost and risk. By having no strictures nor reciprocity nor support of human liberty attached to trade, that 'free trade' is undermining those concepts and giving rise to very low-cost terrorism that can cause continued casualties from small groups without much in the way of economic cost to them. That comes to no good end either, by allowing the enemies of human liberty to arm up and distribute their opposition on a global basis, they are no longer amenable to the tools of the 20th century Nation State. If the Foreign Policy and economic policy outlooks of the latter part of the last century *were* effective, we wouldn't have a transnational terrorist problem and internetworking of those groups and of terrorism with organized crime. From Left and Right we cannot continue on with failed policies and ideologies that put this concept of the universal rights of man at risk.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

That is all quite true; modern liberals are ALL about not providing ANY judgements about anyone or any situation -- and I believe it revolves partly around themselves not wishing to be judged in kind. Being non-judgmental in a world that absolutely SCREAMS for judgment and discrimination (I might suggest one examine the definition of, say, a "discriminating" taste) is a recipe for defeat when dealing with the realities of life. You, Evan, actually have the balls to say what I believe many persons are thinking but cannot articulate because they lack the command of language and presence you possess, or are conquered by fear of being the Square Peg in their immediate social Round Hole.

Please continue on. Provide information about your forthcoming book and I'll wager you'll have many buyers.

I placed your Heritage Foundation video on my blog and, when the book is published I shall likewise feature it on my blog.

BZ

Anonymous said...

Albert Einstein is not a good example, but one can easily replace Einstein with other historical figures, such as the founder of genetics, Gregory Mendel, famous mathematician Kurt Gödel, Johannes Kepler and the greatest scientist of them all, Isaac Newton. The idea that Cedar Sinai should not get any credit for its work because the doctors use medication and do not solely relay on prayer is absurd, and quite frankly irrational. No where in the history of Judaism or Christianity have individuals remained idle and simply prayed. In fact both have advocated faith through works. Religious believers can act and pray simultaneously. If the argument presented by this particular poster was valid, one would have it that Christians do not eat, but rather pray for their nutrition. Not only is the argument logically invalid, it is also historically inaccurate.
To understand the abandonment of rational thinking in liberal circles, one need to look no further then the humanitarian departments, where secular post-modernism is the official dogma. The creed of post-modernism is the rejection of objective truth. It is the belief that all truths are relative to a culture, country, government, or individual, and thus it has as its first principle that all perspectives are justified. Add to this the widespread belief on the Left in the End Time prophecies of global warming, the new age religion of environmentalism, the extremism of the animal rights movement, and the bizarre and pathological belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories, and one begins to wonder whether or not G.K Chesterton was correct when he said “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything”, and in the secular post-modern world, anything is justified.
The reason the “modern liberal” is unable to draw distinctions is because of the obsession with equality. Since they hold as a self-evident truth that all things should be equal, when things turn out not be equal, the Left has to pretend they are, or they will blame this inequality on some outside evil force: capitalism, the United States, Israel, big business, the oil companies, globalization, sexism, racism, or any other form of discrimination. The basic idea is that all inequalities are the result of some form of discrimination. For example, since our prisons are mostly filled with black men, we have a "racist criminal justice system". Since women make less money, on average, then men, we have a "glass ceiling". Since third world countries live in poverty, this poverty is because of “globalization” or “culture imperialism” or simply because of how prosperous the United States is. Since the Palestinian people use terrorism to kill Jews, this must be a result of an evil Israeli state. Therefore, in principle, they believe in moral equivalency, which is a direct result of their obsession with equality. Do to the fact that they hold discrimination as the sole cause of inequality, as long as inequality remains, the Left believes discrimination remains, and as long as discrimination remains, there is some great evil to fight. Discrimination becomes the only evil, but since discrimination is the ability to draw distinctions, the modern liberal believes making distinctions between good and evil is evil in of and itself. This is the reason liberals attacked President Regan for calling the Soviet Union “the evil empire” and the reason they attacked George Bush when he used the term “axis of evil”.

Me said...

Honestly, most of the arguments Sayet advances are so simplistic and illogical that is it almost not worth my time to respond to them. Moreover, with Einstein, Brandeis and many other things, Sayet is simply WRONG on the facts, which also takes away from his credibility.

Regarding Cedar Sinai, I ask again, is there a religious requirement work there? Do you have to be Jewish, or believe in a god or gods? No and no. The doctors who work there do not necessarily pray. Some may, but some may not. The care that you are given there is not necessarily dependent on prayer.

You write: "No where in the history of Judaism or Christianity have individuals remained idle and simply prayed." Again with the blatant error in facts -- have you heard of Christian scientists who don't believe in medicine? Surely you have.

Sayet's argument about Cedar Sinai et. al. is simply not logical. It is somehow supposed to prove that Maher's contention that religion is the antithesis of science. Well, religious-based hospitals were originally full of witches' brews and mostly hospice care, not scientifically based medicine. Relgiion institutions for the most part have been against scientific progress (Galileo, everyone's favorite example). The fact that these religious hospitals are now associated with advanced science is in spite of religion and thanks to the science of medicine, not vice versa. Hospitals are mostly secular institutions, nowadays. I really don't see how the hospitals argument disproves anything Maher says.

Anonymous said...

There is no logical connection between the views of “Christian Scientists” and religion in general. Throughout all of history, Jews and Christians have built great civilizations on their own accord. Nowhere is it written in the Bible that all things must be accomplished by prayer alone – in fact it says exactly the opposite. This idea is so stupid, that it is hardly worth debating. Based on your reasoning, you would have it that anyone who actively feeds himself, instead of relying on prayer, is not religious by definition. The very idea that mastication is in opposition to religion is laughable. You have to be smarter than that. If you begin to learn about the history of the Catholic Church, you would understand that science is largely the product of Christianity. Even Galileo, who the Church did not treat favorably, was a devout Catholic. One of the founders of the scientific method, Roger Bacon, a 13th century Franciscan friar, wrote:

Whoever wishes without proof to revel in the truths of things need only know how to neglect experience. This is evident from examples. Authors write many things and the people cling to them through arguments, which they make without experiment, that are utterly false. It is commonly believed among all classes that one can break adamant only with the blood of a goat, and philosophers and theologians strengthen this myth. But it is not yet proved by adamant being broken by blood of this kind, as much as it is argued to this conclusion. And yet, even without the blood it can be broken with ease. I have seen this with my eyes; and this must needs be because gems cannot be cut out save by the breaking of the stone. Similarly it is commonly believed that the secretions of the beaver that the doctors use are the testicles of the male, but this is not so, as the beaver has this secretion beneath its breast and even the male as well as the female produces a secretion of this kind. In addition also to this secretion the male has its testicles in the natural place and thus again it is a horrible lie that, since hunters chase the beaver for this secretion, the beaver knowing what they are after, tears out his testicles with his teeth and throws them away. Again it is popularly said that cold water in a vase freezes more quickly than hot; and the argument for this is that contrary is excited by the contrary, like enemies running together. They even impute this to Aristotle in the second book of Meteorology, but he certainly did not say this, but says something like it by which they have been deceived, that if both cold and hot water are poured into a cold place as on ice, the cold freezes quicker (which is true), but if they are placed in two vases, the hot will freeze quicker. It is necessary, then, to prove everything by experience.

You are attempting to create a false dichotomy between science and religion where none exist. Bill Maher, and yourself, are arguing against straw men. As Roger Bacon has hinted at, the Christian should not be in the business of telling God what to do, rather, the role of the Christian is to discover what God has done – this is what we call science.

Me said...

Um, no. What we call science is trying to explain the world around us through the scientific method. It has nothing to do with God. In fact, the idea that the world around us is simply what god has wrought is kind of problematic, since, if god has supernatural powers, and does not have to follow the scientific method, the results of his work may be very hard to explain through the scientific method, don't you think?

Anyway, if you truly believe this, "If you begin to learn about the history of the Catholic Church, you would understand that science is largely the product of Christianity," then i don't think we have much left to discuss.

Anonymous said...

I will just get to the point, because your comments are nothing but rambling and incoherent nonsense. Science is a method used to understand how nature operates. The Christian understands nature to be God's creation, and thus the scientific method is the method of understanding the mind of God, and how God has created the universe. This is a perfectly logical theology, and one that is accepted by many. There is no argument in existence that proves the logical incapability of science and religion. The first principles of the atheist may differ - they only see nature, where as the religious see nature's God. We understand that if there are Laws of Nature, it is reasonable to assume a lawmaker, which we understand to be God.

You are absolutely correct that we do not have much left to discuss, because I understand history and you remain ignorant. You apparently lack the knowledge to further this discussion.

Me said...

Shouldn't got be subject to analysis under the scientific method? :) As in, how to explain god with science?

Also, "god did it" is not a scientific explanation of anything.

Anonymous said...

"Shouldn't got be subject to analysis under the scientific method? :) As in, how to explain god with science?"

Not sure what this means.

"Also, 'god did it' is not a scientific explanation of anything."

Neither is "nature did it". The Christian believes God created everything - what we want to understand is how He created the universe. In practice, the theist practices science in the same manner the atheist does, the only difference is that the theist believes nature was created, whereas the atheist believes nature is self-evident. The fact is throughout most of history, scientist were motivated by their belief in God. An atheist may call scientific laws "nature's laws", whereas a theist would call it "God's laws".

The difference between the two beliefs has little to do with science. It has to do with metaphysical assumptions. The theist believes existence was created with a purpose, whereas the atheist believes existence has no purpose - that it is the byproduct of random events.

Me said...

But you see, how god created the universe could very well be a different question from scientific inquiries like "where did the universe come from?. They're not the same.

As for my first question: Science is the pursuit of trying to understand the world around us. Theoretically, everything can be explained through scientific methods, or at least we can make an attempt to. Since in your Christian worldview, God created everything, can we examine God through the scientific method, like we examine everything else? If not, why is god exempt?

Anonymous said...

"But you see, how god created the universe could very well be a different question from scientific inquiries like 'where did the universe come from?'. They're not the same."

Eventually you come to the point where existence itself was created or if not created, self-evident. Theism holds that the universe is the product of perfectly rational mind, and thus that the universe was created. Atheism would thus hold that the universe was not created, but that it simply is. In other words it has no explanation in principle.

"As for my first question: Science is the pursuit of trying to understand the world around us. Theoretically, everything can be explained through scientific methods, or at least we can make an attempt to. Since in your Christian worldview, God created everything, can we examine God through the scientific method, like we examine everything else? If not, why is god exempt?"

The Christian believes you understand the Creator through His creations, and you understand His creations through science. Science deals with what can be measured through the senses, meaning it deals with natural explanations, since God is held to be the Creator of nature, God cannot be of nature, and thus God exist outside of space and time. It is impossible to empirically examine something that is by definition non-empirical.

Me said...

But see, this is the illogical heart of "christian science," and why science is not completely compatible with religion. There is nothing exempt from the critical eye of science, except this illogical, extranatural God. Why make this exemption? Just because.

That is not scientific, because it provides no logical basis for the exception. It's just a tautology, "God is exempt. Why? Because he's God." all of the characteristics you attribute to god are not provable. It's a tautological circle.

I hope you see the problem.

Me said...

Furthermore, you write "Eventually you come to the point where existence itself was created or if not created, self-evident. Theism holds that the universe is the product of perfectly rational mind, and thus that the universe was created. Atheism would thus hold that the universe was not created, but that it simply is. In other words it has no explanation in principle."

ATheism doesn't hold that the universe "just is." All atheism holds is that is was not created by God. Atheism holds that we should strive to find answers through science, rather than just stopping the inquiry at "god did it." Maybe we don't know the answer; but certainly is not "it just is."

In fact, it is the the theistic idea that provides no explanation, because it says "god did it," and then says, as you did, that God is exempt from scientific inquiry. So, the inquiry is stopped, there is no explanation of where god came from, who created god, if anyone, did god evolve, etc.

Anonymous said...

"ATheism doesn't hold that the universe "just is." All atheism holds is that is was not created by God. Atheism holds that we should strive to find answers through science, rather than just stopping the inquiry at "god did it." Maybe we don't know the answer; but certainly is not "it just is."

Eventually all inquiry must end, or it must regress to infinity. Atheism accepts the existence of nature is a brute fact, where as theism explains existence through creation. Again, God made everything, but nobody is suggesting that "God did it" is a sufficient response, although theism believes it is neccessary. It is akin to saying "nature did it" without any explanation is to how nature did it. For any question, I could respond "nature did it". Why does the earth orbit the Sun? Nature did it. Therefore your comments about "God did it" are irrelevant. The fact is that if the universe was created there has to be a Creator. What else do you call this Creator other than God? Therefore atheism does hold that the universe was not created - instead, it most likely assumes that the universe has always existed.

"In fact, it is the the theistic idea that provides no explanation, because it says "god did it," and then says, as you did, that God is exempt from scientific inquiry. So, the inquiry is stopped, there is no explanation of where god came from, who created god, if anyone, did god evolve, etc."

Nobody created God, because God is a neccessary being. It is imposssible for Him not to exist.

Your other comment, which I commented on above, is like saying that person A built a car. If someone were to ask, "where did this car come from", the correct answer would be "person A", but most people want to know how person A built this car, and for that we could get into much more detail, but the details do not mean that person A no longer built the car. The theist would say of course God did it, but how?

God has to be exempt from scientific inquiry because it is nonsensical to suggest otherwise. God cannot be bound by His own laws - He created the laws. God does not depend on existence - existence depends on God. The only possible way to understand these laws to observe them. Science accepts the laws as given, what theism attempts to explain is why the laws exist in the first place. I see only three options:

1. They are necessary;
2. They are the product of chance;
3. They were created.

Me said...

the watchmaker argument is almost quaint, and i'm not going to debate it because it's been debunked many times by those much smarter than me.

this is not a scientific statement: "Nobody created God, because God is a neccessary being. It is imposssible for Him not to exist."

You have to prove his existence with empirical or mathematical evidence. You could analogize the above to some argument like, the orbit of a planet is not perfect, and that must mean that there is a planet that must exist to pull it off the first planet's axis. But once you find the new planet, you subject it to the same scientific inquiry as the original planet. What you are suggesting is that "god must exist" and we need not actually locate him, and even if we did, we cannot subject him to scientific inquiry. This is not scientific. Sorry.

Yes, scientific inquiry regresses into infinity. That is why people didn't stop at finding the atom, and looked inside the atom, and them inside its components to find quarks, and so on. The mere fact that many scientific questions remain unanswered is not any evidence of god's existence.

Anonymous said...

"the watchmaker argument is almost quaint, and i'm not going to debate it because it's been debunked many times by those much smarter than me."

I never made such an analogy. What I did was point out the logical fact that if the universe was created that it needs a creator. You stated that atheism holds that the universe was not created by God, which is incorrect, because if the universe was created, it has to be created by God.

"What you are suggesting is that "god must exist" and we need not actually locate him, and even if we did, we cannot subject him to scientific inquiry. This is not scientific. Sorry."

You are not comprehending basic concepts. You cannot empiricaly analyze that which is by definition non-empirical. It would be akin to asking someone to see the color red with their ears. It just cannot be done in principle. God exist outside of space and time because He created space and time. The supernatural, by defintion, cannot be naturaly examined.

"The mere fact that many scientific questions remain unanswered is not any evidence of god's existence"

Straw man argument. Nobody ever said it was. Nor is the fact that things remained unaswered evidence of God's non existence. In fact you are the one that said "Yes, scientific inquiry regresses into infinity." Are you now suggesting that understanding is impossible? Apparently you are the one suggesting science is limited. I am suggesting a complete understanding.

Me said...

"God exist outside of space and time because He created space and time. The supernatural, by defintion, cannot be naturaly examined."

How do you know this? Through empirical scientific inquiry? If not that, then how?

Me said...

Also, just wondering where you got the idea that someone "created" the universe. Why is that any more plausible than that someone created the tree outside my window?

Anonymous said...

"How do you know this? Through empirical scientific inquiry? If not that, then how?"

It is part of the concept of God. We know nature exist, but we do not know how it exist. It is plausible to assume that something created it. If something created it, this something has to exist outside of space and time, because He created space and time. God cannot be bound by the very laws He has created. Therefore, if God does exist, God cannot exist within space and time.

"Also, just wondering where you got the idea that someone 'created' the universe. Why is that any more plausible than that someone created the tree outside my window?"

If God created the universe, then God created the tree outside your window; in fact, He created all the trees. I know I did not make the tree, and I know you do not make the tree. Therefore, either nature has always existed, or something created it. If the universe is eternal, then I suppose creation is impossible, but if the universal is not eternal - has not always existed, then its creation needs to be explained.

Anonymous said...

Doug in Colorado provided the following:

"I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein
from an address presented at The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in 1940
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/einsteinsgod/einstein-scienceandreligion.shtml

WildMonk said...

Anonymous,

May I suggest that it is a dead end to "debate" this guy any longer? He is a very good demonstration of Sayet's point: the Left will remain aggressively ignorant while posturing, playing with semantics, purposely 'misunderstanding' your point, changing the subject, etc.

You won't convince him of anything because he's not actually debating you. He's masturbating with you.

WildMonk said...

Evan,

You have done a great job of capturing something important and essential about the Modern Left. I understand your drive - I embarked on a similar effort a few years ago (see http://www.wildmonk.net).

I just couldn't get over the disturbing sense that there was something very, very wrong with the rapidly expanding array of attacks on America and the Liberal Democratic project from the European and Post-Modern Left.

My approach is more abstract than yours (I spent much more time trying to understand the historical roots and intellectual foundations) but I think you do a far better job of simply cutting to the heart of the matter.

If you do take the time to read the piece, feel free to write to me at the address shown on the site.

Me said...

Wildmonk,

All i'm showing here is that the belief in god is not based in science, e.g., empirical evidence, reasoning, logic, etc. It's based in faith, and so any dissection of it goes round and round in tautological circles.

I think this undeniably poses a big problem for the compatibility of scientific inquiry with religion, because it requires exeptions to scientific inquiry, it requires that all be analyzed with logic and scientific inquiries except for the lord almighty.

Sayet expounds on the value of rational thought, logic, etc., but it seems to me that he's not being honest if he wants to exempt some things from that kind of analysis. It's hypocritical.

PS I suppose I should be flattered that you assumed I'm a man.

The Gunslinger said...

Nice work, Anonymous.

"Me" began the argument insisting that religion was incompatible with science.

She was so out-gunned, out-debated and out-thought, that she never stood in one place long enough to score a point. She dodged and weaved all over the place.

It was pretty fun to watch.

She never even addressed her own point--and her climactic pronouncement: You can't prove the existence of God by science.

Boy, there's a "duh" for you.

Perfect example of what Sayet is saying: Modern Liberals literally do not know how to think.

Shame.

Spencer said...

What a delight it was for me when I watched and heard you on YouTube. As a disappointed and reluctant Republican, I'm so pleased and encouraged by your clarity and RIGHTNESS!

Spencer said...

My big disappointment is that human cloning isn't perfected yet. The world could use a bunch more of you!

Kelly said...

On the subject of Religion and Science...I want to add something.

In my faith there is a verse of scripture that says, "The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

I was watching a show on a scientific study of the nature of the universe and how everything has its laws, its regular orbits, and on and on. In was quite amazed that they admitted, in this show, that something had to set things in motion.

Just how much MORE faith does it take to believe that there is NO GOD?

It is so refreshing to hear this from someone of your background. Because of your background you carry a LOT of clout. People will listen to you because of that.

I also saw your Liberal mindset video and have posted a link to it on my own blog.

Keep it up!!!

Anonymous said...

Re: Heritage Foundation Speech

I listened to your talk and by the end was excited that you so clearly articulated the obvious.

If Rush heard this talk, he would blush with envy.

I hope you get a chance to address the Republican Convention in 2008.

Brooks