Happy Give-Thanksing.
Apologies, Coffee drinkers, for failing to deliver two steaming cups in a row. You may boycott me if you wish.
Stupid is as Stupid Does:
I have said for years that if our nation falls, it will be because of one underlying cause from which all other problems will be derived: the lack and erosion of civil virtue. With civic virtue comes civic knowledge, and through that knowledge citizens can take not only an active part in our nation, but also a meaningful part. A citizenry that lacks civic virtue cannot have adequate civic knowledge, and thus, they can not make meaningful contributions. What contributions that they do make, will be poor, and perhaps even detrimental.
Let me be clear on one thing. We are losing our civic knowledge, which is a clear indicator that our civic virtue has long since began to erode. Want proof? Two-thousand five-hundred eight American adults, with education levels ranging from advanced degrees to no high school diplomas, were given 33 multiple choice questions on various subjects pertaining to "civil literacy," or American history and institutions, by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). The results are appalling. The segment from Harvard, unsurprisingly, did the best with a 69.56. Fifty-six percent of the Americans who took part in this test could identify Paula Abdul correctly - as a judge on "American Idol." Easy, right? But only 21% recognized a phrase from the Gettysburg Address. Only 24% are aware that the establishment of an official religion is barred by the First Amendment. I'm sure they all know that it entitles them to all sorts of "free speech" though, since they all yammer about that even if they're cursing in a restaurant.
You are not inoculated to failure by getting a college degree, either. A bachelor's degree will net an average score of 57%, or failing. Tens of thousands of dollars spent on a bachelor's degree will translate into a score increase of 13 percentage points over those with "merely" a high school diploma. College EDUCATORS scored a 55.
What, you might ask, is scarier than a citizenry whose ignorance leaves them ripe for manipulation by politicians hell bent on subverting the Constitution? How about politicians who don't know what the Constitution says? The ISI's report says, "Elected officials score lower than the general public." Imagine that.
You can take ISI's quiz, HERE if you'd like. I scored an 84.8, which while far and away better than most, still saddens me.
I must say one thing, in full disclosure. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute traditionally has a conservative bent, so some of the economic-based questions probably have "ISI correct answers" that a liberal typically wouldn't agree with. I didn't like that aspect, even though I'm not even remotely an economist - and because I'm not, I didn't really "get" some of the answers. But while I can argue that those questions are biased, questions asking which speech a certain popular phrase came from are fair game, and Americans failed them as frequently as they did the biased questions.
But take a look at the summary page on the test results. Conservatives, who would agree with the ISI's assertions on the economic questions, fared worse than liberals. You can peruse other portions of the test, such as the major findings, additional findings, and the survey method. I think that after weighing all evidence, one can come away from this firmly convinced that we're in trouble.
"Office of the President-Elect?":
As you may have recently seen, Barack Obama has taken to giving press conferences in front of a podium labeled "The Office of the President Elect." This has sparked a great deal of discussion in the media, to include the so-called blogosphere. It is also preposterous. When this first came out, many bloggers and pundits, including a surprisingly high number of liberals, were somewhat taken aback by Obama's use of this term and podium adornment, feeling it was cheap showmanship. Then Obama's defenders brought to bear the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, interpreting that this act created such an Office. And then there was all sorts of apologizing and retractions, made reluctantly by most conservative bloggers, who in their apology just criticized something else.
But there was no need to apologize or retract anything. There is no Office of the President Elect. What the Presidential Transition Act does is give support to the President-elect and his staff in order to ease the transition. It gives office space, if the President-elect asks for it. Office space is not an Office (proper noun). It allows the President-elect and Vice-President-elect to use the mail in the performance of transition related duties. Free mail use does not an Office make. Let me repeat for those of you who are easily swayed by feeble arguments that office space equals and Office: The so-called Office of the President Elect, while used before Obama, exists not in reality, but in the minds of ego-maniacal politicians with a flair for showmanship. See, an Office (proper noun) must have powers associated with it, otherwise it's not an Office. Do you see the difference between the two? There is no Office of the President Elect. Obama has no power to do anything. There may be office space for the President-elect, but no Office of said person. Obama has even said as much, which makes his use of the "Office" even more absurd.
Further, Obama technically isn't the President-elect yet. That doesn't happen until the Electoral College convenes in December. Nevertheless, I have no problem calling him the President-elect. The Electoral College will elect him. But I do have a problem with these faux-Offices with no power invented solely to make someone appear more authoritative. You're going to be the President, buddy, stop with the theatrics. Especially when you've already been criticized before for such things.
Muhammad, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny:
Germany's first Professor of Islamic Theology, Muhammad Sven Kalisch, recently asked that someone kill him as soon as possible. Kalisch has concluded, through years of theological research, that the Prophet Muhammad probably never existed. But the man who converted to Islam at 15 insists that he's still a Muslim; he just wanted to subject Islam to the same amount of scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism, noting that German scholars first questioned the accuracy of the Bible in the 19th century.
Kalisch was slow to come to his conclusion, however. When he first arrived at Munster University in 2004, he was criticized as being too conservative, defending sharia, adamantly. But he read books questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, and felt that while he had dealt with Christianity and Judaism, he needed to deal with his own. So he did, obviously. He also questions the veracity of the Qu'ran, saying, "God doesn't write books." Not surprisingly, Kalisch has been declared an apostate, which in Islam means that he must be killed.
Kalisch has some guts, I'll give him that, even though I really don't care whether or not Muhammad was a real person. The fact doesn't make Islam's or Christianity's present day followers any less real.
This issue was first brought to my attention in the 15-16 November issue of "The Wall Street Jounal."
I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving. I'll try to Brew some more tomorrow. Enjoy the Coffee and the Turkey.
Word of the Day: Emollient (adjective): 1. Softening or soothing. (noun) 1. Something that softens or soothes.
On This Day in History: The Roman poet Horace died (8 BCE). Pope Urban II declares the First Crusade (1095). Alfred Nobel signs his last will and testament, effectively establishing the Nobel Prize (1896). The first Mac's Thanksgiving Day Parade is held (1924). Lyndon Johnson is told by the Pentagon that the number of troops in Vietnam must be increased from 120,000 to 400,000 if planned operations are to succeed (1965).
"Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people." - Carlespie Mary Alice McKinney.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
27 November 2008
05 March 2008
Morning Coffee (112)
Greetings Coffee Quaffers. Icy today, so watch your step. Never fear though, the Coffee’s hot and fresh, as always. Okay, sometimes it’s less than fresh, but it’s always hot. Despite running a wee bit late on occasion.
It’s 3 AM…:
Perhaps you’ve read about Clinton’s commercial in which the phone rings at three in the morning in the White House, while your darling children are asleep in their beds. Something bad is happening, and someone is calling the President. Who do you want answering that phone? The phone rings and rings; six times it rings. But the rings build tension; ringing phones build tension in a way that few things can. And by that sixth ring, you the viewer are desperate for someone to answer it. Who do you want answering that phone? Clinton thinks that you want her to. So she does. She does and she’s fully dressed with perfect make-up. Remember, this is three in the morning. No matter, she’s on top of things. We feel safer because she was prepared to answer that phone and get to work. Right?
Well that commercial, and others, seems to have worked. Clinton scored surprising victories in yesterday’s primaries, winning Ohio and maybe Texas. Texas is a strange state, as it holds both a caucus and a primary. Clinton won the Texas primary, but the initial reports have Obama winning the caucus.
Yesterday, I prophesized that Clinton would win Ohio but not Texas. I’m not genius; a lot of pundits thought the same based on poll numbers. Since I was just sort of guessing (based on some knowledge of Ohio), I was only slightly surprised that Clinton won in Texas. Had I actually spent time analyzing and had a vested interest in the outcome, I would have been more surprised.
So what does Clinton’s big win mean? Little other than she stopped Obama’s win streak. Newsweek reports that Clinton has virtually no shot of securing the nomination even if she were to win the next 16 contests in a row. The math is against her. Only time will tell.
In other news, Clinton has hinted that she might consider sharing the ticket with Obama. Obama’s said that consideration of a joint ticket is premature. That might be a tough ticket to beat for Republicans. At the same time, would Obama even want to do it? Being Clinton’s VP for four or eight years might sour the public’s opinion of him, and gone forever would his claim to being new and fresh.
Eight Questions is the Limit:
Much press has been made about the lack of tough questions and probing that journalists have subjected Obama to. That changed yesterday when a number of reporters in Texas started hammering him on a few things. He denied that one of his aides met with Canadian officials, and responded poorly to inquiries about his ties to former fundraiser Tony Rezko, who is presently on trail for corruption.
So comfortable is Obama in the presence of reporters that when he began his news conference he encouraged reporters to “dive in” saying that he had no preliminary statement. They did. And he didn’t handle it too well. About Rezko and the release of documents, he said, “These requests, I think, could just go on forever. At some point, what we need to try to do is respond to what’s pertinent.” Reporters continued until an aide stated that there would be one last question. Obama made for the exit, and uttered, “C’mon guys, I just answered, like, eight questions.”
Eight questions. That’s all he’s good for, apparently. Especially when it gets hot. Do you think that he’ll be able to summon the intestinal fortitude to answer more than eight questions when his administration runs head on into a crisis? I’m sorry, but once he’s elected, his time for flowery speeches will be minimal. It’ll be time to actually do things, and journalists will eventually get over their love affair with him and begin to ask hard questions. Seeing as though the President is answerable the People, he will be compelled to answer, because the questions will not stop. There will be far more than eight questions. Just ask President Bush.
I must point out my (and others’) favorite portion of the exchange. Regarding the meeting between an Obama aide and Canadian officials, which he denied having happened prior to the release of a memo proving that the incident did occur came out, Obama said, “That was the information I had at the time…” Interesting choice of words, considering President Bush and his administration have uttered much the same about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Republican Nomination Secured:
McCain is the Rebublican nominee. Anti-climactic considering the hoopla surrounding the Democratic campaign, I know. Still, it’s a remarkable turnaround for a man whose campaign last summer was nearly bankrupt and considered to be dead. Huckabee has bowed out of the running, which is unfortunate simply because his was the funniest of campaigns. What else can we say about this?
High on Mt. Sinai:
It’s possible that the roots of modern Judeo-Christian religion are the result of drug use. Benny Shannon, a researcher and professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has suggested that Moses was under the influence of the bark from the acacia tree, which has psychedelic effects and is mentioned in the Bible.
Drug use in religious contexts is pretty common. Native Americans do it. As did early Muslims (hashashins for example), and probably a thousand other examples of which I’m unaware. Regrettably, Shannon’s study will be latched upon by all sorts of reprobate fools who will attempt to validate drug use or knock religion. To me, it’s merely another piece of the puzzle. Regardless of whether Moses’ drug use was real or even influenced his teachings, the fact remains that his monotheistic syllabus was propagated throughout the world. I should mention, for those who won’t read my source, that this is a theory, not a proven fact. But it’s still interesting. Chew on it…as you would the bark of the acacia tree if you so desire.
Word of the Day: Rhadamanthys (noun) (see rhadamanthine; adj): 1. A son of Zeus and Europa, rewarded for the justice he exemplified on earth by being made, after his death, a judge in the Underworld, where he served with his brother Minos and Aeacus. 2. An inflexibly just or severe judge.
On This Day in History: Emperor Julian moves from Antioch with a 90,000 man army to attack the Sassanid Empire (363). Julian would die as a result of this campaign. Julian’s goal was to check the growing might of a competitor and to retake lands lost by Constantius II. His troops performed admirably against the Sassanid armies, but were unable to take the capitol of Ctesiphon. Julian then decided to return to Roman borders, but his column was ambushed. He rushed into battle without wearing his armor, and was stabbed in the stomach with a spear. Julian was also known as “the Apostate” because of his desire to return the Empire to paganism, and he even attempted to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem to foster religions other than Christianity. Because of this, it is possible (but unlikely) that one of his own soldiers, a Christian, killed him, a theory that was propagated by the early Church, which called the killer a saint. The Boston Massacre took place on this day; five Americans were killed by British troops (1770). The Nazis win 44% of the parliamentary election vote (1933).
“People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.” – Otto von Bismarck.18 January 2008
Morning Coffee (95)
Good morning, Coffee aficionados. Since the injection of topic headings into the smooth flowing Morning Coffee, writing sufficient introductions has become a challenge. I guess that’s the problem with any digital media; a problem associated with our “have-it-now” attitude. Readers ignore grandiose prose, and wish to delve into the meat. “Get to the point,” they say. No time to enjoy reading for the sake of reading. I suppose the topic headings allow the reader to scan the Coffee (and it’s apparent that scan is all they do considering the amount of time they spend on the actual site) and consume what they want without having to “wade” through any ancillary garbage. In turn, I suppose that’s why topic headings are so inflammatory – they must grab the reader. Thus dies literature, and reading comprehension…
Huckabee the Bible-Based Constitutionalist:
Luckily, I don’t have to give equal billing to all the candidates. If I did, I would have to Brew at least five times a day, seven days a week. My seemingly chronic criticism of certain candidates does not mean I endorse others. It just means that they might say things that are more absurd than others. I only have so many hours to write, so I choose the best material from what’s available. And since I am unable to produce original reporting on anything, I can only expound upon what is already written. And sue me; I go for the easy targets sometimes. It’s their fault.
I actually think Huckabee’s an overall swell guy. But then he opines on something that should have been left unsaid. It’s interesting to me how the choice of words changes depending on the audience. Still, anyone who is a serious contender for the Presidency should realize that in this day and age, anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion, no matter if it’s to an obscure, private audience.
Huckabee was recently interviewed by the spiritual/religious website Beliefnet.com. It is here that you get some insight on Huckabee. As I read this interview, I found myself continuing to say, “Wow…” Not in awe, but that incredulous “Wow” that you utter when you are sort of perplexed. Like “Wow, he really said that?”
I implore you to read the interview yourself when presented with the opportunity, but I’ll give a few examples for those short on time. I first uttered “wow” while reading his response to the question of whether or not he’s felt God’s presence during the campaign. Of course, he uses the tried and true “a friend of mine sent me/told me such and such”, which politicians use to humanize their responses. His friend/classmate quoted Luke, Chapter 12, something about when “you stand before the assembly, give no thought to what you shall say for the Holy Spirit will give you the words in that hour.” He feels that the Lord gives him the wisdom and responses that are needed. That sounds a lot like prophetic inspiration to me. So if we elect Huckabee, we’re actually getting Godly wisdom along with a charismatic preacher, right? So we’re sort of electing God, since He’s sort of speaking through Huckabee. So, what’s the problem? Obviously we need to vote for (anoint) Huckabee as our theocrat, er, President. Well, that’s neat and all, but much like it is for sports teams and Grammy Award winning musicians, I’m sure that God gets an inordinate amount of credit for political victories, successful campaign speeches, and debate answers. Anyone who’s after the type of voters who read Beliefnet.com interviews would probably answer these questions in a similar manner.
Next up is the issue that turned me onto this interview, that being the topic of Constitutional Amendments. Huckabee was asked to elaborate on why “we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God’s standards,” which is apparently what he has suggested recently. He says, rightfully, that the Constitution was created so that it could be changed. But then he goes on to say that the Bible was not written to be amended, as if comparing the two offers us some validity to his theological opinions. He clearly forgets, however, the fact that the Bible has been amended, and on more than one occasion (never mind the innumerable different interpretations). To the point, he wants a Constitutional Amendment(s) that protects marriage (no gay marriage) and bans abortion. CNN reported that he said to Beliefnet that those two things “could open the door to polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality.” I didn’t see this statement in the interview, but it could be somewhere else on their site. If this statement is true, I must state that Mr. Huckabee is highly irrational. I’ve never seen anything that suggests that gay marriage and/or abortion is a “gateway drug” to those things. I simply do not know how he could arrive to this conclusion. I’m perplexed. It’s absurd. If I’m a woman, and I get an abortion, or if I’m a man who wants to marry another man, I am somehow predisposed to molesting children, having multiple spouses, and intercourse with animals? Please, please, please stop this insanity. Christians should be above such things. After all, long ago they had heinous crimes and behavior wrongly attributed to them by Roman pagans, who called them cannibals (among other things) because they ate the body and drank the blood of their savior god.
It’s scary that Huckabee wants the Constitution to be more aligned with God’s standards, although I am duly relieved that he has no aspirations (yet) to make things like tithing part of Constitutional law. But it sounds too much like religious law for my tastes. If I wanted to live under the yoke of “sharia” I would move to Iran. Having the Constitution specifically address morality issues like gay marriage and abortion is demeaning to the document. In fact, an argument could be made that the very thing violates the First Amendment, considering that it prohibits an establishment of religion. Nothing says “state sanctioned religion” like aligning the document closer to God and the Bible.
My suggestion to Mr. Huckabee and his ilk is to forget about changing the Constitution to reflect the Bible’s teachings and to instead concentrate on slavishly following the (very loose) moral code established in their book themselves. If they (or anyone for that matter, Christian or otherwise) believe that marrying a member of the same sex is wrong, they should simply not do it. If they feel that abortion is wrong, don’t do it. It’s rather simple. I do not particularly want to see a multitude of gay married men and women (nor do I not want to - I simply do not care who marries who), but I’m not clear on why this must be constitutionally mandated. I’m not entirely clear on why it needs to be made against the law. Until someone presents me with a scientific study that unequivocally links abortion and gay marriage to child molestation, polygamy, and sex with farm animals, I cannot support any sort of Constitutional amendment banning those things. Furthermore, these acts taken individually are all illegal without any additional qualifiers, so what is the issue?
One could further argue that it is the Constitution itself that shields us from a theocracy and should thus legally supersede the Bible completely. Huckabee paints a rosy picture of his faith and is proud that his Bible cannot be amended. This is fine. But then he goes on to say that without this malleable document, the Constitution, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people and women couldn’t vote, etc. It was required to be changed because it wasn’t always clear as it should have been. That is interesting. I find the comparison of the Bible and the Constitution to be paradoxical. How often has the Bible’s clarity been misconstrued, and led to the mistreatment of groups of Homo sapiens because they weren’t considered people? How long has the Bible and its derivatives been used to justify the treatment of various “peoples” and women and children? The Constitution and its message can not be so easily subverted. And the Bible cannot, like our great Constitution, be amended or changed. It’s only been available in the vernacular for one quarter of its life, and only then after the deaths of a number of would be translators. Whatever the Good Book’s merits, and they are few, I do not want the document that serves as the basis for my government to be based upon or more closely aligned with the Bible.
Okay folks, I’ve rambled on incoherently enough on this issue, and for that I apologize. It’s hard to write well in my present environment as there are many things that distract me from what’s important. But I stand by my assessment. Huckabee’s view is wrong, and this view will only serve to pervert our Constitution. The minority will not be protected as it is in our present system, but will instead be marginalized and eradicated. This is what religion in government does.
No time to sanity check my material today. I’m sure my vast readership will call me on any discrepancies.
Word of the Day: Theodicy (noun): A vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil.
On This Day in History: Pope Pius IV reopens the Council of Trent for its third and final session (1562). The Council of Trent embodied the ideals of the Counter-Reformation; a response to Martin Luther’s heresy. Importantly, anyone who interpreted the Bible differently from the Church was a heretic.
“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.” – John Morley.
Huckabee the Bible-Based Constitutionalist:
Luckily, I don’t have to give equal billing to all the candidates. If I did, I would have to Brew at least five times a day, seven days a week. My seemingly chronic criticism of certain candidates does not mean I endorse others. It just means that they might say things that are more absurd than others. I only have so many hours to write, so I choose the best material from what’s available. And since I am unable to produce original reporting on anything, I can only expound upon what is already written. And sue me; I go for the easy targets sometimes. It’s their fault.
I actually think Huckabee’s an overall swell guy. But then he opines on something that should have been left unsaid. It’s interesting to me how the choice of words changes depending on the audience. Still, anyone who is a serious contender for the Presidency should realize that in this day and age, anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion, no matter if it’s to an obscure, private audience.
Huckabee was recently interviewed by the spiritual/religious website Beliefnet.com. It is here that you get some insight on Huckabee. As I read this interview, I found myself continuing to say, “Wow…” Not in awe, but that incredulous “Wow” that you utter when you are sort of perplexed. Like “Wow, he really said that?”
I implore you to read the interview yourself when presented with the opportunity, but I’ll give a few examples for those short on time. I first uttered “wow” while reading his response to the question of whether or not he’s felt God’s presence during the campaign. Of course, he uses the tried and true “a friend of mine sent me/told me such and such”, which politicians use to humanize their responses. His friend/classmate quoted Luke, Chapter 12, something about when “you stand before the assembly, give no thought to what you shall say for the Holy Spirit will give you the words in that hour.” He feels that the Lord gives him the wisdom and responses that are needed. That sounds a lot like prophetic inspiration to me. So if we elect Huckabee, we’re actually getting Godly wisdom along with a charismatic preacher, right? So we’re sort of electing God, since He’s sort of speaking through Huckabee. So, what’s the problem? Obviously we need to vote for (anoint) Huckabee as our theocrat, er, President. Well, that’s neat and all, but much like it is for sports teams and Grammy Award winning musicians, I’m sure that God gets an inordinate amount of credit for political victories, successful campaign speeches, and debate answers. Anyone who’s after the type of voters who read Beliefnet.com interviews would probably answer these questions in a similar manner.
Next up is the issue that turned me onto this interview, that being the topic of Constitutional Amendments. Huckabee was asked to elaborate on why “we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God’s standards,” which is apparently what he has suggested recently. He says, rightfully, that the Constitution was created so that it could be changed. But then he goes on to say that the Bible was not written to be amended, as if comparing the two offers us some validity to his theological opinions. He clearly forgets, however, the fact that the Bible has been amended, and on more than one occasion (never mind the innumerable different interpretations). To the point, he wants a Constitutional Amendment(s) that protects marriage (no gay marriage) and bans abortion. CNN reported that he said to Beliefnet that those two things “could open the door to polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality.” I didn’t see this statement in the interview, but it could be somewhere else on their site. If this statement is true, I must state that Mr. Huckabee is highly irrational. I’ve never seen anything that suggests that gay marriage and/or abortion is a “gateway drug” to those things. I simply do not know how he could arrive to this conclusion. I’m perplexed. It’s absurd. If I’m a woman, and I get an abortion, or if I’m a man who wants to marry another man, I am somehow predisposed to molesting children, having multiple spouses, and intercourse with animals? Please, please, please stop this insanity. Christians should be above such things. After all, long ago they had heinous crimes and behavior wrongly attributed to them by Roman pagans, who called them cannibals (among other things) because they ate the body and drank the blood of their savior god.
It’s scary that Huckabee wants the Constitution to be more aligned with God’s standards, although I am duly relieved that he has no aspirations (yet) to make things like tithing part of Constitutional law. But it sounds too much like religious law for my tastes. If I wanted to live under the yoke of “sharia” I would move to Iran. Having the Constitution specifically address morality issues like gay marriage and abortion is demeaning to the document. In fact, an argument could be made that the very thing violates the First Amendment, considering that it prohibits an establishment of religion. Nothing says “state sanctioned religion” like aligning the document closer to God and the Bible.
My suggestion to Mr. Huckabee and his ilk is to forget about changing the Constitution to reflect the Bible’s teachings and to instead concentrate on slavishly following the (very loose) moral code established in their book themselves. If they (or anyone for that matter, Christian or otherwise) believe that marrying a member of the same sex is wrong, they should simply not do it. If they feel that abortion is wrong, don’t do it. It’s rather simple. I do not particularly want to see a multitude of gay married men and women (nor do I not want to - I simply do not care who marries who), but I’m not clear on why this must be constitutionally mandated. I’m not entirely clear on why it needs to be made against the law. Until someone presents me with a scientific study that unequivocally links abortion and gay marriage to child molestation, polygamy, and sex with farm animals, I cannot support any sort of Constitutional amendment banning those things. Furthermore, these acts taken individually are all illegal without any additional qualifiers, so what is the issue?
One could further argue that it is the Constitution itself that shields us from a theocracy and should thus legally supersede the Bible completely. Huckabee paints a rosy picture of his faith and is proud that his Bible cannot be amended. This is fine. But then he goes on to say that without this malleable document, the Constitution, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people and women couldn’t vote, etc. It was required to be changed because it wasn’t always clear as it should have been. That is interesting. I find the comparison of the Bible and the Constitution to be paradoxical. How often has the Bible’s clarity been misconstrued, and led to the mistreatment of groups of Homo sapiens because they weren’t considered people? How long has the Bible and its derivatives been used to justify the treatment of various “peoples” and women and children? The Constitution and its message can not be so easily subverted. And the Bible cannot, like our great Constitution, be amended or changed. It’s only been available in the vernacular for one quarter of its life, and only then after the deaths of a number of would be translators. Whatever the Good Book’s merits, and they are few, I do not want the document that serves as the basis for my government to be based upon or more closely aligned with the Bible.
Okay folks, I’ve rambled on incoherently enough on this issue, and for that I apologize. It’s hard to write well in my present environment as there are many things that distract me from what’s important. But I stand by my assessment. Huckabee’s view is wrong, and this view will only serve to pervert our Constitution. The minority will not be protected as it is in our present system, but will instead be marginalized and eradicated. This is what religion in government does.
No time to sanity check my material today. I’m sure my vast readership will call me on any discrepancies.
Word of the Day: Theodicy (noun): A vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil.
On This Day in History: Pope Pius IV reopens the Council of Trent for its third and final session (1562). The Council of Trent embodied the ideals of the Counter-Reformation; a response to Martin Luther’s heresy. Importantly, anyone who interpreted the Bible differently from the Church was a heretic.
“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.” – John Morley.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)