What the lamestream media told you
Mitt Romney has clinched the Republican nomination for president with a win in the Texas primary.
The Associated Press delegate count shows that Romney surpassed the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination during Tuesday's primary. Early returns show Romney posting a big win in Texas.
What they neglected to tell you
The Associate Press's delegate count is at best an educated guess, and at worst pure speculation.
Here are the facts:
1. Mitt Romney has 591 legally bound delegates. The rest of the delegates are up for grabs, and it's anyone's guess who they belong to.
2. Ron Paul has been getting the majority of delegates in most states, and if crowd enthusiasm is a metric of delegates (which it has been thus far), Ron Paul is extremely likely to win the majority of unbound delegates in Texas.
3. Even if Mitt Romney miraculously got all of the bound delegates, he still would be far from clinching the nomination. The numbers just do not add up, it is mathematically impossible (not astronomical, impossible) For Romney to clinch the nomination at this point. There aren't enough total bound delegates available.
In summary, the AP and all the media outlets who listen to them are either complete idiots or liars. Mitt Romney has not clinched anything, in fact he is so far from clinching the nomination, that Ron Paul may very well have the majority of delegates.
Now, moving onto Texas:
*The delegate allocation system for Texas according to 2012 rules are as follows:
Texas delegate breakdown:
155 total delegates
44 at-large delegates
108 congressional delegates
3 automatic delegates
At-large allocation: Up for grabs, completely unbound.
Congressional district allocation:
As Rule 38, Section 8 of the Republican Party of Texas rules describes, delegates are allocated to candidates in proportion to that candidate's share of the statewide vote.2 There is no threshold for receiving delegates. However, there is a threshold to receiving the assignment of particular delegates. If a candidate does not receive 20% of the vote statewide, then that candidate is not eligible for congressional district delegates unless he or she receives at least 20% of the vote in any given congressional district. All that really means is that a candidate under 20% statewide and 20% in all congressional districts will gain statewide, at-large delegates to "fill out" their allotment of delegates. Meanwhile, candidates, say Mitt Romney, well over 20% both statewide and on the congressional district will gather the assignment of the most delegates from the congressional district level as a means of completing the full allocation based on the overall statewide vote while the candidates further back will be assigned at-large delegates.
Election of these delegates will take place at the state convention on June 7-9.
Automatic delegate allocation:
The three Texas automatic delegates are free to pledge themselves to a candidate of their choosing. The national committee positions are elected to four years terms at one of the state conventions held every two even-numbered years. Those positions are term-limited after two consecutive terms. That means that committeeman and RNC legal counsel Bill Crocker -- serving since 2004 -- will be replaced in his role as committeeman at the state convention. Committeewoman Borah Van Dormolen was elected in a runoff in 2009 and is still in her first term. The party chairperson is elected every two years and can serve no more than four consecutive terms. Current chair, Steve Munisteri, was first elected to the post in 2010. He will be up for reelection at the state convention but will not be term limited.
(excerpted from http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2012/05/2012-republican-delegate-allocation_29.html)
For the real delegate count for the 2012 election, see this site: http://thereal2012delegatecount.com
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Julian Assange vs. The World: Views on Justice and Morality
When morality is decided only with those with the power to enforce justice, justice becomes a perversion, just as absolute power corrupts absolutely. To say that right and wrong can only by those with the power to do so, is to remove all intrinsic meaning from "justice" save for the exchange of power itself. Assuming the exchange of power to be the rightful appropriator of justice as the statements condemning Julian Assange's actions explicitly connote, morality is reduced to no more than the primitive imposing of the ruling party's interests by force, and with the case of the United States, military budget, technology, strength, and strategic authority.
Particularly since Julian Assange's leaks have targeted corruption dealing predominantly with the U.S. military-industrial complex, to write off his role as a mere "actor" and his actions as "wrong", is to demonstrate a disturbingly superficial conception of human ethics, as well as a pitifully naive understanding of the United States government, their actions in the Middle East, and impact of our military presence globally. These are issues that need to be addressed, and our own government failed to address them.
Julian Assange is not a criminal or a saint, he is an inevitability, the natural response to a nagging need for transparency in governments and corporations worldwide. If he did not create Wikileaks, someone else would have, so I would further note that scapegoating him only demonstrates your ignorance of human nature, particularly regarding the reactive nature of humanity. The same type of vigilantism that created Wikileaks, that created Occupy Wall Street, that created Anonymous, that created the Ron Paul movement and the Tea Party, that created every single fictional and factual superhero that we have had throughout history. They are all projections of human nature, and part of the great jigsaw of humanity that we all are part of, down to the core of our very DNA.
Particularly since Julian Assange's leaks have targeted corruption dealing predominantly with the U.S. military-industrial complex, to write off his role as a mere "actor" and his actions as "wrong", is to demonstrate a disturbingly superficial conception of human ethics, as well as a pitifully naive understanding of the United States government, their actions in the Middle East, and impact of our military presence globally. These are issues that need to be addressed, and our own government failed to address them.
Julian Assange is not a criminal or a saint, he is an inevitability, the natural response to a nagging need for transparency in governments and corporations worldwide. If he did not create Wikileaks, someone else would have, so I would further note that scapegoating him only demonstrates your ignorance of human nature, particularly regarding the reactive nature of humanity. The same type of vigilantism that created Wikileaks, that created Occupy Wall Street, that created Anonymous, that created the Ron Paul movement and the Tea Party, that created every single fictional and factual superhero that we have had throughout history. They are all projections of human nature, and part of the great jigsaw of humanity that we all are part of, down to the core of our very DNA.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
J.P. Morgan and the Fed
I think a lot of people don't realize that even before government bailouts, investment firms would bail out banks and corporations in order to protect their own investments. J.P. Morgan together with Rothschild loaned out huge amounts (3.5 million ounces) of gold (not money, gold!) in order to get us out of the panic of 1893, and Morgan joined with a coalition of bankers in order to get America out of the panic of 1907. Morgan's actions in the 1893 and 1907 panics directly resulted in the creation of the Federal Reserve, as summarized in the following (cited) excerpt from Wikipedia:
"Vowing to never let it happen again, and realizing that in a future crisis there was not likely to be another Morgan, banking and political leaders, led by Senator Nelson Aldrich devised a plan that became the Federal Reserve System in 1913.[15] The crisis underscored the need for a powerful mechanism, and Morgan supported the move to create the Federal Reserve System."
See that last part? Morgan *supported* the Federal Reserve System? Do you know why? The logic is obvious: Because the central bank is controlled by the Federal Reserve System, there is no more need for greedy investors like Morgan to protect their investments, and thus they can reap all the benefits of risky investments, but without all the risks! The problem with the Federal Reserve is that it takes all the risk out of the bank and investment firm system, allowing greed to run rampant, bad investment do go wrong, and if worse comes to worse, the benevolent Fed will bail all the big boys out at the 99%'s expense!
It's the biggest Ponzi scheme in the world, where the people at the top benefit most, and the common people who lack the pockets and connections for investments, get their faces shoved in the dirt and silenced with petty welfare benefits. What I don't get most, is that Occupy Wallstreet folk are expecting the government to save them from greedy banks and the corporations. Help us? The Fed is the one that reinforced greedy investments, created corporate monopolies, and encouraged economic inequalities in the first place! J.P. Morgan wanted the Fed to be created, and we can be sure that he did everything in his power to ensure his role in creating the Federal Reserve System protected all of his risky investments long after his death. J.P. Morgan, an incurably greedy scumbag to the very end!
"Vowing to never let it happen again, and realizing that in a future crisis there was not likely to be another Morgan, banking and political leaders, led by Senator Nelson Aldrich devised a plan that became the Federal Reserve System in 1913.[15] The crisis underscored the need for a powerful mechanism, and Morgan supported the move to create the Federal Reserve System."
See that last part? Morgan *supported* the Federal Reserve System? Do you know why? The logic is obvious: Because the central bank is controlled by the Federal Reserve System, there is no more need for greedy investors like Morgan to protect their investments, and thus they can reap all the benefits of risky investments, but without all the risks! The problem with the Federal Reserve is that it takes all the risk out of the bank and investment firm system, allowing greed to run rampant, bad investment do go wrong, and if worse comes to worse, the benevolent Fed will bail all the big boys out at the 99%'s expense!
It's the biggest Ponzi scheme in the world, where the people at the top benefit most, and the common people who lack the pockets and connections for investments, get their faces shoved in the dirt and silenced with petty welfare benefits. What I don't get most, is that Occupy Wallstreet folk are expecting the government to save them from greedy banks and the corporations. Help us? The Fed is the one that reinforced greedy investments, created corporate monopolies, and encouraged economic inequalities in the first place! J.P. Morgan wanted the Fed to be created, and we can be sure that he did everything in his power to ensure his role in creating the Federal Reserve System protected all of his risky investments long after his death. J.P. Morgan, an incurably greedy scumbag to the very end!
Monday, April 16, 2012
Libertarians versus Progressives- Implementation: the Real Conflict of Interests
Ron Paul supporters: The biggest threat to our liberty, is actually people just like us: passionate, knowledgeable, morally-conscientious, intelligent, and nonconformist. When the progressive movement (our greatest philosophical threat!) started in the late 1800s, it was was not started by large corporations, psychopaths, corrupt pharmaceutical companies, greedy bankers, or communists (although communist philosophy did play the biggest role overall, so yeah I guess it was started by communists).....It was started by people who wanted to make the country a better place to live in, and also people that wanted to liberate Americans and make life more free.
Yes their ideas about freedom and quality of life were (and are!) radical and arguably delusional, but so are ours. Social Progressives make the same arguments against us that we do against them, that libertarianism enslaves the people, empowers corporations, creates socio-economic corruption, promotes an idealistic, utopic, and ultimately unworkable system, that we are ignorant, naive, asinine, and are unwittingly attacking the very freedom we stand for.
We share most of the same core values with Social Progressives, and libertarians and progressives attack each other for upholding the same exact values, and yet we are at odds, because we are in disagreement over implementation. This is a very sad state of affairs, because we all want the same exact things, and yet we are unable and unwilling to compromise because of an ages-long disagreement that, you might be surprised to know, date backs to before this country was even born! (Research the strained relationship between Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, and early social progressive Alexander Hamilton for more details on this, I'll write a post dedicated to this later on). We all want the same things, but because we disagree on implementation, we are natural political enemies to each other, each others' every action, belief, idea, and piece of rhetoric a direct attack on the others' crusade for a better America and brighter future!
What can be done to resolve this paradoxical and horribly divisive political conflict of interests? I honestly don't know, but the first step to understanding each other is to know why we don't understand each other. So understand this, loud and clear: We aren't much different from liberals, we are in fact almost exactly the same in every way! We have the same personalities, same intelligence, same self-awareness, same thirst for knowledge, same desire to make both our country and the world a better place, same basic attitudes about life, same individualism, same conviction, same love of liberty even. We have all of this in common, and the only reason we don't get along-- the only real reason at all has both nothing to do with any of those things, and everything: Implementation! This is the only thing we have that's really different from liberals and social progressives, and that is the cause of the conflict of interest that America has faced since before the country began, and that we face even more than ever before today!
Yes their ideas about freedom and quality of life were (and are!) radical and arguably delusional, but so are ours. Social Progressives make the same arguments against us that we do against them, that libertarianism enslaves the people, empowers corporations, creates socio-economic corruption, promotes an idealistic, utopic, and ultimately unworkable system, that we are ignorant, naive, asinine, and are unwittingly attacking the very freedom we stand for.
We share most of the same core values with Social Progressives, and libertarians and progressives attack each other for upholding the same exact values, and yet we are at odds, because we are in disagreement over implementation. This is a very sad state of affairs, because we all want the same exact things, and yet we are unable and unwilling to compromise because of an ages-long disagreement that, you might be surprised to know, date backs to before this country was even born! (Research the strained relationship between Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, and early social progressive Alexander Hamilton for more details on this, I'll write a post dedicated to this later on). We all want the same things, but because we disagree on implementation, we are natural political enemies to each other, each others' every action, belief, idea, and piece of rhetoric a direct attack on the others' crusade for a better America and brighter future!
What can be done to resolve this paradoxical and horribly divisive political conflict of interests? I honestly don't know, but the first step to understanding each other is to know why we don't understand each other. So understand this, loud and clear: We aren't much different from liberals, we are in fact almost exactly the same in every way! We have the same personalities, same intelligence, same self-awareness, same thirst for knowledge, same desire to make both our country and the world a better place, same basic attitudes about life, same individualism, same conviction, same love of liberty even. We have all of this in common, and the only reason we don't get along-- the only real reason at all has both nothing to do with any of those things, and everything: Implementation! This is the only thing we have that's really different from liberals and social progressives, and that is the cause of the conflict of interest that America has faced since before the country began, and that we face even more than ever before today!
A Truly Free Healthcare Plan!
Update: A friend of mine brought it to my attention that my healthcare plan had the reasons why it works, but didn't mention what the healthcare plan was!
The implementation is actually implied in the article, but it's so remarkably simple and obvious you probably didn't even see it. It's the healthcare plan almost everyone had before healthcare, and has been around since prehistoric times:
Take care of yourself! If you need to know how, there are plenty of books on plant biology, self-help, natural hygiene, and holistic medicine that work just fine, and all of which you can find growing wild. Everything we need for a healthy life has already been provided to us by nature!
1. My healthcare plan is completely personalized.
2. An unbeatable rate of $0 per lifetime, & requires no taxes or fees.
3. It's all-natural, and completely healthy.
4. It's additive and adulterant-free.
5. Doesn't fund corrupt pharmaceutical companies.
6. Doesn't rely on inefficient production and distribution systems.
7. Zero abuse and experimentation on humans or animals.
8. My healthcare plan has guaranteed coverage not dependent on a law, agency, system, company, or anything else for that matter.
9. My healthcare system encourages active awareness and knowledge of one's health rather than blind acceptance.
10. Ensures you have complete control over your healthcare.
The implementation is actually implied in the article, but it's so remarkably simple and obvious you probably didn't even see it. It's the healthcare plan almost everyone had before healthcare, and has been around since prehistoric times:
Take care of yourself! If you need to know how, there are plenty of books on plant biology, self-help, natural hygiene, and holistic medicine that work just fine, and all of which you can find growing wild. Everything we need for a healthy life has already been provided to us by nature!
I have an amazing healthcare plan, and unlike the so-called "free healthcare" that various countries around the world provide and American politicians are trying to enforce as law here, my healthcare plan truly is free.
Here are 10 reasons why my healthcare is far superior to Universal Healthcare:
1. My healthcare plan is completely personalized.
2. An unbeatable rate of $0 per lifetime, & requires no taxes or fees.
3. It's all-natural, and completely healthy.
4. It's additive and adulterant-free.
5. Doesn't fund corrupt pharmaceutical companies.
6. Doesn't rely on inefficient production and distribution systems.
7. Zero abuse and experimentation on humans or animals.
8. My healthcare plan has guaranteed coverage not dependent on a law, agency, system, company, or anything else for that matter.
9. My healthcare system encourages active awareness and knowledge of one's health rather than blind acceptance.
10. Ensures you have complete control over your healthcare.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Why I'm Libertarian Even Though It Doesn't Work; the Government/Society Divide
Credit to @John Shirley and @Joe Cosby for inspiring this post, which BTW is shamelessly copied from a Facebook comment thread, found here for those that would like it in context:
If you believe that Libertarianism is impractical, I would agree with you completely. But the fact is, if I were to choose between happiness and order, and freedom, I'll choose freedom without hesitation. I'm an idealist and frankly I don't believe in any government. Libertarianism is in many ways just a political movement, philosophical foundation, and intellectual rationale for anarchists to rally under. In many ways, most libertarianists are just a convoluted mix of anarchists who want to be taken seriously. Anarchy generally isn't taken seriously as a form of government by anyone but anarchists. Libertarianism on the other hand-- well, just look at the huge crowds Ron Paul drew!
I don't believe that the states should have the power either, this would just be a transitionary step to to a stateless society. Pretty much like Communism, but the opposite approach. Anarcho-Communism, if you will. There is a philosophy like it called "Anarcho-syndicalism", although it gets the same treatment you've given to Libertarian beliefs, as being unrealistic, and rightfully so, because it isn't. My unrealistic beliefs (and their benefits in comparison with the existing system) regarding this are here, if you're interested :-)
@John Shirley response: "If you like you can say idealistic. I have often said that anarchism would be good in a society of mature people. But mature, to me, also means relatively unselfish people who don't pollute the environment, who aren't easily biased against (non criminal) types of people. And I think we're at least a 1000 years from that society"
My response: I agree for the most part. I just believe that for the same reason (people are selfish) controlling people doesn't work each. So Anarchism breeds chaos and exploitation, and Strong government breeds FUD and corruption. Right now the best-case scenario would lie somewhere between the two, something that America had fairly consistently throughout the 19th century, but somehow most people "forgot" about after the (now supposedly-dead) American Progressivism Era. That kind of balance is what I believe America needs, and it would make for the best realistic compromise IMO.
@John Shirley's response: "I think a feeble government (as opposed to one that's healthily empowered, not undemocratically empowered, not oppressively empowered) is more likely to promote corruption and especially to allow people to prey on other people, in business, in labor, and so on. But once someone's got the toxic meme of "government is bad and scary" in their system it's difficult to get it out of them. They don't perceive good govt as what it really is: an extension of the will of the people. Government IS a social bond. Government is us, you and me, and people we appoint. Government is modulated by consensus. It varies in quality, it varies in democratic ideals, but actually it works far better than social spinelessness."I agree with you that a degree of robust regulation is necessary to ensure socio-economic fairness, my disagreement is that it should be done primarily by the government. To minimize corruption, the majority of affairs should be regulated and optimized by Society, with the government's role being as a supporting role and overseer, kinda like the archetypal husband-wife relationship.
If I am understanding you correctly, we are in agreement on all points but on which roles the actors take on. For you, the situation is reversed: Society is more intuitive (like a wife), and is thus best suited to the supporting and overseer role, rearing the children healthily while the husband (the government) has the final say and what the children can and cannot do, and what freedoms they are permitted. The government is more rational and effective at managing people, and so is more suited as the metaphorical head of the household that is America.
This makes a great deal of sense, and I am inclined to agree with you in sight of this relationship, except that at least in the last several years, the government has proven itself to be both less rational and more spineless than the Society supporting it.
If you believe that Libertarianism is impractical, I would agree with you completely. But the fact is, if I were to choose between happiness and order, and freedom, I'll choose freedom without hesitation. I'm an idealist and frankly I don't believe in any government. Libertarianism is in many ways just a political movement, philosophical foundation, and intellectual rationale for anarchists to rally under. In many ways, most libertarianists are just a convoluted mix of anarchists who want to be taken seriously. Anarchy generally isn't taken seriously as a form of government by anyone but anarchists. Libertarianism on the other hand-- well, just look at the huge crowds Ron Paul drew!
I don't believe that the states should have the power either, this would just be a transitionary step to to a stateless society. Pretty much like Communism, but the opposite approach. Anarcho-Communism, if you will. There is a philosophy like it called "Anarcho-syndicalism", although it gets the same treatment you've given to Libertarian beliefs, as being unrealistic, and rightfully so, because it isn't. My unrealistic beliefs (and their benefits in comparison with the existing system) regarding this are here, if you're interested :-)
@John Shirley response: "If you like you can say idealistic. I have often said that anarchism would be good in a society of mature people. But mature, to me, also means relatively unselfish people who don't pollute the environment, who aren't easily biased against (non criminal) types of people. And I think we're at least a 1000 years from that society"
My response: I agree for the most part. I just believe that for the same reason (people are selfish) controlling people doesn't work each. So Anarchism breeds chaos and exploitation, and Strong government breeds FUD and corruption. Right now the best-case scenario would lie somewhere between the two, something that America had fairly consistently throughout the 19th century, but somehow most people "forgot" about after the (now supposedly-dead) American Progressivism Era. That kind of balance is what I believe America needs, and it would make for the best realistic compromise IMO.
@John Shirley's response: "I think a feeble government (as opposed to one that's healthily empowered, not undemocratically empowered, not oppressively empowered) is more likely to promote corruption and especially to allow people to prey on other people, in business, in labor, and so on. But once someone's got the toxic meme of "government is bad and scary" in their system it's difficult to get it out of them. They don't perceive good govt as what it really is: an extension of the will of the people. Government IS a social bond. Government is us, you and me, and people we appoint. Government is modulated by consensus. It varies in quality, it varies in democratic ideals, but actually it works far better than social spinelessness."I agree with you that a degree of robust regulation is necessary to ensure socio-economic fairness, my disagreement is that it should be done primarily by the government. To minimize corruption, the majority of affairs should be regulated and optimized by Society, with the government's role being as a supporting role and overseer, kinda like the archetypal husband-wife relationship.
If I am understanding you correctly, we are in agreement on all points but on which roles the actors take on. For you, the situation is reversed: Society is more intuitive (like a wife), and is thus best suited to the supporting and overseer role, rearing the children healthily while the husband (the government) has the final say and what the children can and cannot do, and what freedoms they are permitted. The government is more rational and effective at managing people, and so is more suited as the metaphorical head of the household that is America.
This makes a great deal of sense, and I am inclined to agree with you in sight of this relationship, except that at least in the last several years, the government has proven itself to be both less rational and more spineless than the Society supporting it.
Why Having the Bible and Creationism in Schools Is a Bad Thing!
Kudos to @Cristina Chance for inspiring this post!
I have good reason for my opposition to teaching the Bible in schools, despite being a Christ-follower. It's a great sentiment, but it's only going to still up trouble. It's better than banning atheism (which would only create more pro-atheism sentiment), but still, they have to consider the social ramifications of their actions. That, and to be honest, I'm not pro-Old Testament, there's a lot of racism, war-mongering, nationalism, and other hateful crap. I'm pro-New Testament, and particularly pro-Gospels, but even then I don't think it should be taught in schools. A lot of parents don't want their children to read the Bible, and I know a lot of friends who have Christian parents and hated the Bible being forced down their throats. The Bible may be a good thing, but it should be shared lovingly, not integrated into something as broad as the public school system, that's what private school is for.
"It's also an elective so it's not mandatory" Well that is a relief (this helps prevent anti-sentiment backlash!) but it still encourages an approach to the Bible that no one (to my knowledge) who wrote the Bible intended: as a source of knowledge. The Bible has some great knowledge and insights in it, and can be a great source of historical knowledge and commentary, but it was originally intended as a collection of letters, written to various people to help them with their various roles in God's plan for them /etc.. While such a function could be made possible in a public school course, It's more likely that especially in light of the inevitable clash between Creationists and Evolutionists, such an approach to the Bible will be lost in translation even if it is used to teach the Bible.
Creationists will claim that the creation story / various reference of the Bible prove that God created the world, and evolutionists will claim the Bible is outdated and fallacious and that the theory of Evolution isn't just a theory, that it's backed by a mountain of evidence and is a rigorous science. The Bible being taught in schools will almost certainly generate controversy, and has more often than not been misused as a propaganda machine for people (such as teachers) to insert their own bias, commentary, and interpretation of what the Bible means into their material. So even for Christians and Bible lovers, this is a lose-lose situation, because even if the Bible is taught in its proper context (letters written to men and women of God, etc.), there is still a very high potential for abuse and bad odds of the Bible not being abused. I think this is a case of people looking at the potential benefits of the Bible being taught in schools (more awareness of God and his love for us), without looking at the many drawbacks and consequences of such. Sure is sounds like a great idea, but like many other great ideas (like that wonderful revolutionary idea "Communism"), some things are only great theoretically.
I don't personally agree with the theory of evolution, with its "evolved by accident" and "survival of the fittest" egocentric paradigms, although I do believe in the world evolving in God's image from a pattern he set in place, in a chaos theory/fractal fashion. I also have good reason to believe that the creation story actually supports my evolutionary beliefs more than traditional creationism.
But the problem with creationism being promoted by Christians as an alternative to evolution (or vice versa) is that they're not compatible: to begin with, the foundation is different- Creationism is based on Faith, while Evolution is based on fact. To quote Paul, "Faith is the essence of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." By contrast, all of natural science is based on empirical observation, which is based entirely and things that are seen. So really when people try to argue one over the other, they are completely missing the point. It's comparing apples and oranges. Evolution is supported by empirical evidence, and even if that evidence is only currently correlative when it comes to the evolution of man, it still is taken a lot more seriously by scientists than Creationism for obvious reasons: it's based on fact. Creationism is not, and so is naturally seen as nothing more than a stumbling block to reason, which most scientists view as faith's natural enemy (more accurately though, its faith's natural opposite and together these two forces promote Balance!
So the big problem with Creationists comparing their beliefs to evolution, is that you can't convincingly argue faith with facts- not only is this counterintuitive, but it makes Creationist arguments inherently fallacious and thus self-defeating. When Creationists try to present their arguments of biblical creation by using the Bible as a historical precedent and prophesy as proof of intelligent design, they more often than not alienate non-believers and make fools of themselves. Not only that, but they also prove that they themselves are completely missing the point, by presenting their faith in such a way that implies that it needs to be proved. If you have so great of faith, why do you have the need to justify your beliefs in the eyes of others. If there is no doubt in your mind, why should you have anything to prove?
When Creationists defend their beliefs so desperately and using such un-faith like methods, I have to wonder if they themselves doubt their faith. Why else would they need to defend their beliefs with something so spiritually inferior and sophistic as facts? Shouldn't Faith-filled Christians be above that rubbish? I don't think there really is any valid reason for anyone who's beliefs are based faith to try to justify them with facts, and even if there was, faith and reason are so different in their nature that trying to justify one with the other is just asking for trouble!
I have good reason for my opposition to teaching the Bible in schools, despite being a Christ-follower. It's a great sentiment, but it's only going to still up trouble. It's better than banning atheism (which would only create more pro-atheism sentiment), but still, they have to consider the social ramifications of their actions. That, and to be honest, I'm not pro-Old Testament, there's a lot of racism, war-mongering, nationalism, and other hateful crap. I'm pro-New Testament, and particularly pro-Gospels, but even then I don't think it should be taught in schools. A lot of parents don't want their children to read the Bible, and I know a lot of friends who have Christian parents and hated the Bible being forced down their throats. The Bible may be a good thing, but it should be shared lovingly, not integrated into something as broad as the public school system, that's what private school is for.
"It's also an elective so it's not mandatory" Well that is a relief (this helps prevent anti-sentiment backlash!) but it still encourages an approach to the Bible that no one (to my knowledge) who wrote the Bible intended: as a source of knowledge. The Bible has some great knowledge and insights in it, and can be a great source of historical knowledge and commentary, but it was originally intended as a collection of letters, written to various people to help them with their various roles in God's plan for them /etc.. While such a function could be made possible in a public school course, It's more likely that especially in light of the inevitable clash between Creationists and Evolutionists, such an approach to the Bible will be lost in translation even if it is used to teach the Bible.
Creationists will claim that the creation story / various reference of the Bible prove that God created the world, and evolutionists will claim the Bible is outdated and fallacious and that the theory of Evolution isn't just a theory, that it's backed by a mountain of evidence and is a rigorous science. The Bible being taught in schools will almost certainly generate controversy, and has more often than not been misused as a propaganda machine for people (such as teachers) to insert their own bias, commentary, and interpretation of what the Bible means into their material. So even for Christians and Bible lovers, this is a lose-lose situation, because even if the Bible is taught in its proper context (letters written to men and women of God, etc.), there is still a very high potential for abuse and bad odds of the Bible not being abused. I think this is a case of people looking at the potential benefits of the Bible being taught in schools (more awareness of God and his love for us), without looking at the many drawbacks and consequences of such. Sure is sounds like a great idea, but like many other great ideas (like that wonderful revolutionary idea "Communism"), some things are only great theoretically.
I don't personally agree with the theory of evolution, with its "evolved by accident" and "survival of the fittest" egocentric paradigms, although I do believe in the world evolving in God's image from a pattern he set in place, in a chaos theory/fractal fashion. I also have good reason to believe that the creation story actually supports my evolutionary beliefs more than traditional creationism.
But the problem with creationism being promoted by Christians as an alternative to evolution (or vice versa) is that they're not compatible: to begin with, the foundation is different- Creationism is based on Faith, while Evolution is based on fact. To quote Paul, "Faith is the essence of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." By contrast, all of natural science is based on empirical observation, which is based entirely and things that are seen. So really when people try to argue one over the other, they are completely missing the point. It's comparing apples and oranges. Evolution is supported by empirical evidence, and even if that evidence is only currently correlative when it comes to the evolution of man, it still is taken a lot more seriously by scientists than Creationism for obvious reasons: it's based on fact. Creationism is not, and so is naturally seen as nothing more than a stumbling block to reason, which most scientists view as faith's natural enemy (more accurately though, its faith's natural opposite and together these two forces promote Balance!
So the big problem with Creationists comparing their beliefs to evolution, is that you can't convincingly argue faith with facts- not only is this counterintuitive, but it makes Creationist arguments inherently fallacious and thus self-defeating. When Creationists try to present their arguments of biblical creation by using the Bible as a historical precedent and prophesy as proof of intelligent design, they more often than not alienate non-believers and make fools of themselves. Not only that, but they also prove that they themselves are completely missing the point, by presenting their faith in such a way that implies that it needs to be proved. If you have so great of faith, why do you have the need to justify your beliefs in the eyes of others. If there is no doubt in your mind, why should you have anything to prove?
When Creationists defend their beliefs so desperately and using such un-faith like methods, I have to wonder if they themselves doubt their faith. Why else would they need to defend their beliefs with something so spiritually inferior and sophistic as facts? Shouldn't Faith-filled Christians be above that rubbish? I don't think there really is any valid reason for anyone who's beliefs are based faith to try to justify them with facts, and even if there was, faith and reason are so different in their nature that trying to justify one with the other is just asking for trouble!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)