Now, let's not laugh with too much uproarious contempt. She — and you know who we're talking about — was prodded with an invasive question:
Let's talk about your faith. And we warned people the questions tonight would be pretty personal.She is responsible for showing up at the Compassion Forum, "an evening with the Democratic presidential candidates to focus on the issues of faith and compassion and how a president's faith can affect us all."
So I want to ask you. You said in an interview last year that you believe in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. And you have actually felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions. Share some of those occasions with us.Oh, holy hell, no! She couldn't say that, could she? And she'd dug her own hole by having already claimed to have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions. Was the Holy Ghost embracing her on this occasion?
The reason I'm resurrecting that old religiliciousness is that Hillary's possible 2016 opponent is getting kicked around for saying he would "punt" on some pushy question about religion (an effort to get him to misspeak about evolution). Scott Walker was in London, ostensibly to talk about foreign trade, and "asked... if he is comfortable with the idea of evolution," said "I'm going to punt on that one..." and: "That's a question a politician shouldn't be involved in one way or another."
Imagine letting politicians decline to talk about religion! Imagine sparing them the need to show up at a "Compassion Forum" and blather about God's constant companionship. Imagine getting absolutely serious about the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3:
[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.It's only the bullshitters and hypocrites who can nail these political probes into religious beliefs. That doesn't mean those who say they're "punting" — or it's "above my pay grade" — aren't bullshitting too. It's just that these really are questions a politician shouldn't be involved in one way or another.
पोस्ट्स
९६ टिप्पण्या:
We know Hillary opposes gay marriage because God opposes it. Wait, that was Obama in 2008. Obama now knows that God is in favor.
I think he should phrase punting on a question a lot better. This is a question he has to be able to anticipate.
ANd what a strange way to ask a question, too: Are you comfortable with the idea of Evolution? I think it would be easy to say yes, and then add that the question really is asking absolutely nothing.
The funny part of his "punt" comment isn't that this son of a preacher is suddenly very very shy (ashamed?) about expressing his religious beliefs, rather it is the double-fail of him making an American football reference while overseas as well as making it sound like he was looking for a prostitute.
Seriously, if the President had committed such a gaffe then Althouse would bring it up more often than she re-posts the Nazi swastika.
"asked... if he is comfortable with the idea of evolution..."
Walker should have said I am uncomfortable with government regulation of ideas and of the Internet.
I hope I live long enough to see the time when the first presidential primary is held on inauguration day.
So many shills in the crowd asking questions to which she has practiced answers.
American Snipee
The incredible true...um...the truly incredible story of how Hillary Clinton became least dead sniper target in US history.
"I was...there...I felt, you know, God's love embrace me"
@madisonfella
They punt in Rugby too.
Unfortunately for the governor, however, it may be Mr Webb’s final question that dogs him on the campaign trail in the weeks and months to come. Asked to say whether he believed in evolution, Mr Walker said he would “punt”.
“No, really?” responded Mr Webb. “Any British politician, right or left wing, would laugh and say, ‘Of course I believe in evolution’.”
http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2015/02/scott-walker-politely-avoids-foreign-politics-in-uk
Perhaps madisonfella has forgotten that for the past few years, the NFL has played games in England, attended by thousands. They surely are familiar with "punting".
You know, that sport played in the United Kingdom, Australia, and other parts of the former British Empire that American Football evolved from.
Evolution is a theory, not fact.
The reason I'm resurrecting that old religiliciousness is that Hillary's possible 2016 opponent is getting kicked around for saying he would "punt" on some pushy question about religion (an effort to get him to misspeak about evolution)
Bu bu but what Obama??? er, I mean what about Hillary?????
Is it a religious test to ask if young earth creationism should be taught in science class? Or to ask about support or opposition to gay marriage? I suppose some might object to interracial marriage on religious grounds, too. I curious as to where the line is drawn regarding what is and isn't a religious test.
Are you comfortable with the idea of Evolution?
"Oh, I don't know. On the couch, maybe. It can be a little overly warm and rough. In bed, definitely not. Definitely not in bed."
Wasn't it the claim, back in the day, that you voted for Bill Clinton and Hillary came along as part of the package, and that was a good thing?
Two for one?
So it's good to know that it might appear as if Hillary Clinton is all by herself sitting at the Resolute desk in the Oval Office, but the reality of the situation is that God, Himself, is sitting there, just as well.
"Evolution is a theory, not fact."
Oh God, not this again.
"It's just that these really are questions a politician shouldn't be involved in one way or another."
You're right, but they happen...all the time, regardless.
Republican Candidate: "I believe in evolution."
Media: "He's a lying sack of shit. He'll take us back to dark ages!"
Democratic Candidate: "I believe in God."
Media: "Oooh, that's clever!"
The majority of people in the United States believe in creationism or God guided evolution. As much as the "I loves me some science" left may decry this situation, the fact is that from a political standpoint "punting" on evolution is the smart thing to do.
Its not like the people wailing (in joy) about Walker's answer were going to vote for him anyway.
"Oh, he subscribes to views I find not just wrong-headed, but evil (though from a materialistic view point evil is a null concept, but never mind that,) but he accepts evolution (which I couldn't give a scientifically coherent description of even if given all of Stephen J Gould's books and a month to prepare) so I guess I will vote for him because 'SCIENCE.'"
And as for the Professor's comments concerning religious tests, I may not be a constitutional scholar, but even I know that applies to actual laws.
Religious people are just as free to support and vote for people who share their faith as the "I love me some science" people are to support and vote for their fellow travelers.
Geez, even when she's full of it she's boring. That alone makes the idea of her presidency unbearable.
From the guy that wrote a book called "Unintimidated". LOL
"I have felt the enveloping support and love of God and I have had the experiences on many, many occasions where I felt like the holy spirit...."
This is a description of personal spirituality, couched in traditional Christian terms. Though I don't agree with Hillary on much, I see no reason to snark at any attempt to express her feelings on this topic. No one is 100% saint or sinner.
And, anyway, she'll give me plenty to snark at as soon as she runs for President.
Also, I don't laugh at Hillary Clinton's or anyone else's description of their relationship with God. I might not agree with her politically, I might even think her evocation of God is a cynical ploy, but I am commanded not to judge whether she is sincere or not.
"Is it a religious test to ask if young earth creationism should be taught in science class?"
No, it's just irrelevant since decisions about what is taught are the province of school boards
"Or to ask about support or opposition to gay marriage?"
No, it's just irrelevant since the issue is headed for the Supreme Court.
Punt does not, as far as I know, imply avoiding the question for any religious reason other than NFL
Two Weeks Notice: Hugh Grant meets Sandra Bullock after a date where she drank too much
Lucy: We didn't... Last... We didn't...
George: It was a magical night. You made sounds I've never heard a woman make before.
Lucy: We didn't...
George: Not physically, but spiritually, you were the best I've ever had.
Lucy: Whatever I did or didn't do or said or didn't say... ...it was all a little mistake.
George: Well, nothing happened.
Lucy: That's a relief.
George: I'm very busy. I have work to do. You stay there and relax.
Lucy: Okay, I'll see you later.
Governor Walker needs a Jesuit on his team. Or, at least, an Episcopalian. Someone who could explain that creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Richard Hofstadter wrote about the two religious trends in American society - the traditional, intellectual sort that sought to reconcile religion with science and the "enthusiastic" denominations that rejected such reconciliation.
The former sort enables one to discuss worldly issues more easily than does the latter.
Of the course the Brits believe in evolution. Most of their best men were killed in war or became Americans.
We look at them like we look at chimps. Amused and puzzled that we have common ancestors.
The Jesuits and Episcopalians? Speaking of evolution, those two groups will be gone in 100 years.
Imagine letting politicians decline to talk about religion! Imagine sparing them the need to show up at a "Compassion Forum" and blather about God's constant companionship.
Nobody held a gun to her head.
Imagine getting absolutely serious about the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3
Why spoil the fun?
Dog is her co-pilot.
@Unknown, YEC being taught in a science class has constitutional questions beyond whether or not the outline of a curriculum should ever be decided at federal level. For now, anyway.
Furthermore, gay marriage as an issue does not become moot based on a ruling, just as abortion (wait is that another litmus test issue?) wasn't mooted over 40 years ago.
Likewise, make sure to keep tabs on whether Mr. Walker knows how to find the water closet, told his children to go potty, wipes with a nappy, or tosses anything.
Because the distinction between pop and soda is crucial...
Hillary sounds her best when she is talking about her faith.
"Dog is her co-pilot."
Some pilots in her employ are not so fortunate.
I think she sounds best when she talks about duck hunting
I've read Hillary's response to the question multiple times now, and you know what, I think she's actually sincere.
The language she uses is congruent with the theological language that a literate Methodist would use to describe their relationship with God. If she wanted to bullshit the crowd, she could have a given a much more boilerplate answer than to go on & on about the presence of God's Grace in her life. That is, unless she's playing a game of "deep bullshit" in a situation where "shallow bullshit" would do just as well.
Trust me, I'm as surprised by this judgement of mine as you are. Maybe she, like all of us as we age, is becoming more aware of her mortality, and is trying to get right with her God. Much stranger things have happened.
We'll have to see when she returns whether she puts "a new face" on all this.
@ YoungHegelian
Being sincere about your faith and being a Machiavellian politician are not incompatible. Anyone who thinks they are has never served on a church council.
@RH,
Being sincere about your faith and being a Machiavellian politician are not incompatible.
Word, dat! I knows my Medieval & Renaissance history!
It wouldn't be her political machinations that would lead me to doubt her faith. It would be the crowd that she runs with, who I suspect are often not kind to people of faith
WWED?: Did Hil channel Eleanor Roosevelt over Jesus? Or could Jesus just not relate?
What I find fascinating about her situation is the idea of Bill becoming the first lady.
The reason I'm resurrecting that old religiliciousness is that Hillary's possible 2016 opponent is getting kicked around for saying he would "punt" on some pushy question about religion"
Why is it that Democrats are never questioned about their secular 'religious' beliefs? One can make a better case for creationism than for Marxism in its various manifestations such as income redistribution and AGW.
Still Walker could have said that evolution is consistent with the laws of Nature which are also God's Laws and that would pretty much shut up the smug British questioner.
Campbell Brown, CNN, From the transcript:
We are calling it the Compassion Forum, an evening with the Democratic presidential candidates to focus on the issues of faith and compassion and how a president's faith can affect us all.
The "Compassion Forum". I mean, could the name reek any more of Social Gospel?
"Still Walker could have said that evolution is consistent with the laws of Nature which are also God's Laws"
Excellent answer, I wonder why GOP politicians don't use it since its pretty much standard doctrine in most Christian denominations.
Sarah Palin: I read a lot of news.
Interviewer: Name a newspaper you read.
Sarah Palin: There are so many it's tough to name just one.
Conclusion: Palin's a liar and an idiot, rightfully called on her BS.
Hillary Clinton: I've felt the presence of the Holy Spirit many times.
Interviewer: Name some times you've felt the Holy Spirit.
Hillary Clinton: There are so many times it's tough (and wrong somehow) to name just one.
Conclusion: Clinton's smart and not BSing, it's ok to dissemble about personal religious beliefs and at this point what difference does it make?
Governor Walker should review the 2012 primary debates and note particularly how Newt Gingrich handled impertinent questions. That was the only bright note in that goat rodeo.
It wouldn't be her political machinations that would lead me to doubt her faith. It would be the crowd that she runs with, who I suspect are often not kind to people of faith
Suddenly Hillary is like Jesus!
A lot of people sound facile when they talk about their faith. I could do without the sunset thing, (Why is it always a sunset? Why not anything? Why not dirt? Why not insects? Why not dust or hair or leaves or the physical properties of things that allow us to use them to make all kinds of incredible things?) but otherwise, I think she speaks authentically on this topic.
"It didn't have to be a hard time. You know, it could be taking a walk in the woods and finding a goddamned tick on me."
Ralph Hyatt said...
"Still Walker could have said that evolution is consistent with the laws of Nature which are also God's Laws"
Excellent answer, I wonder why GOP politicians don't use it since its pretty much standard doctrine in most Christian denominations.
2/12/15, 11:19 AM"
Thank you. Not only is it standard doctrine in most Christian denominations (can't imagine how it isn't so in any Christian denomination) but it is the standard doctrine of all God based religions. In essence all God based religions conclude that the Moral Code and the Laws of Nature are the equal and opposite side of the coin. In short ritual and ceremony led to faith, faith leads to morality and morality to the Moral Law which is the counterpoint to the Laws of Nature and both manifestations of God. Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't see how any monotheistic religion wouldn't accept this position. So after meandering around I agree with you and wonder why GOP politicians have such a hard time using it. And unless the Democrat candidate is an atheist I don't see how such a candidate would be able to disagree with a GOP candidate expressing this position.
The funny part of his "punt" comment isn't that this son of a preacher is suddenly very very shy (ashamed?) about expressing his religious beliefs, rather it is the double-fail of him making an American football reference while overseas as well as making it sound like he was looking for a prostitute.
How is using "punt" a fail? Even if the audience is completely unfamiliar with the metaphor, the meaning is clear in context. But Brits are aware of American football, the BBC covered the Superbowl, and the NFL schedules games in London (and may eventually expand there). Would it be a fail if David Cameron, interviewed by the NYT, used a British colloquialism to decline answering a lame-ass question?
When, in actuality, if Hillary has any core belief other than in her own self-aggrandizement, it's not so much Christianity as it is the Cult of the State. (Unless she's one of those "Christian Leftist" theocrats who manage to wed secular superstition with the theistic.
The "Compassion Forum"? I'm going to guess that they're using the c-word in its usual, bastardized, "liberal" sense. (And by "liberal" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellator.") That is, "willingness to spend other people's money without their consent."
"I remember when 'liberal' meant being generous with your own money."--Will Rogers.
It seems to me that if you're reduced to declaring the use of the word "punt" during an interview in London some sort of gaffe then:
1) You are really hurting for disparaging material
2) Your dislike for Walker might be a little extreme. He is just a politician. He is not Hitler or the Anti-Christ.
@cubanbob:
Re Evolution: "Not only is it standard doctrine in most Christian denominations (can't imagine how it isn't so in any Christian denomination)."
For any traditional Christianity, it is. However, once the enthusiastic sects began teaching literalism, the war was on. As part of their belief that no one needed a hierarchy to interpret God's Word, they taught that the common layman was as capable as anyone to understand was "was clearly stated in the Bible" because it was all literally true as written. (Of course, they then proceeded to instruct everyone what it all meant, you know, just in case. Unfortunately, the fundamentalists aren't very big on irony.)
The problem with the Republican Southern strategy is that the region is rife with fundamentalists who brook no deviation from their "enthusiasm."
Oh, brother. If she were not going to Hell before, she certainly is now. :)
Interviewer: Name a newspaper you read.
Politicians should always answer The Chipping Cleghorn Gazette
"Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution?" A sleazy pickup line from the 70s is being recycled as a trick question for a straight white Republican male candidate. Or maybe the reporter was coming on to him?
The question about evolution is a question about science, not faith.
You can believe in creationism. But if you believe in creationism you are ignorant and uneducated.
Evolution is a theory, not fact.
This statement shows a profound misunderstanding about what the word "theory" means in science.
Giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt,I'm assuming the God she's referring to is either Mammon or Moloch.
Hillary: "my faith in God required me to cover for a serial rapist..."
God: "We need to talk..."
I think she's sincere. This text that you're quoting? That's how Christians talk. And sure, there's hypocrisy. She gets angry a lot. So do I! She sins a lot. So do I! She forgets to be a Christian.
I think she should get sharp questions about abortion. Here's my question for Hillary:
"Do you think Mary should have had a constitutional right to abort Jesus? What would you say to her if she asked you about whether she should have an abortion?"
That's the sort of question religious people need to be asked. You push them to take their religious talk seriously, to apply it in their day-to-day life.
What you don't do, what's none of our business, is judge her spirituality. That's for God to judge. If she's lying, she's in big trouble with God. And if she's been to church at all, she knows that.
Her talk is very personal and she is avoiding political subjects. That's what people do in church!
Bill is an expert at this sort of personal approach, and she's learned a huge amount from him. I'm sure there was a political calculation here. But what she's saying is the way Christians often talk.
Did anybody notice that she stayed married to Bill Clinton after he humiliated and embarrassed her in a very public way? I did. Was that a political calculation? If so, it's also how religious people are supposed to behave.
I think her spirituality is genuine and she fools herself a lot. But that's common. I do that too. It's a common sin. I would not mock her spirituality and Christians need to tread lightly here.
I guess the progressive democrat party douchebags here and elsewhere would have been fine with Walker saying: "That's above my paygrade." ...Right, didn't think so. Well, at least now he can say "I misspoke". That's always a sufficient excuse for the libtard lynch mob.
Reading that transcript is really interesting. Thanks for the link, Althouse!
Do you notice how her rhetoric shifts? She's harsh, mean, attacking Obama. But the moment she's asked a very fundamental and obviously religious question, her rhetoric softens. She stops being an attack dog.
We all know how the Clintons compartmentalize. But look at the transcript. Read it and see if you see the gear shift that I'm talking about.
If this was a debate and the subject was "Religion makes people nicer," I might start with this transcript.
Saint Croix: You defend Hillary Clinton's lies to the US public over her husband's adulteries, rapes, gropings, malfeasance of State Troopers, lying under oath, personal destruction of former sexual partners, use of administration personnel to publicly lie for him, as acts that a Christian would do.
One thing the nuns and priests taught me was that there is no honest penance, nor expectation of forgiveness of sin, without recognition of the sin (obviously lacking in Hillary, who to this day will tell you it was all lies by the VRWC) and conscious effort to avoid future recurrence of the sin (obviously very absent in Hillary, but then at this point, what does it matter).
Hillary talks like a Christian in public and acts like a totalitarian dictator in office.
By her acts let her be known.
And let it be noted that Althouse correctly describes Hillary as a 'bullshitter and hypocrite."
Let it be hoped Althouse will refrain from voting for this bullshitter and hypocrite in 2016.
You defend Hillary Clinton's lies to the US public
wow
I Walker's place, I would have said, "That's neither here nor there, we have separation of church and state in the US. It's not a question up for vote."
That lets them know that we do not have an official church like they do, and also it is none of their business what he thinks on that issue.
All other things equal, I would prefer a Christian or a Jew to a secularist for a political office. All things are not equal, however, and I would prefer for President George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln, none of whom was a conventional Christian to William Jennings Bryan.
I found what Hillary! said about her faith perfectly understandable and acceptable, albeit gratingly inarticulate. But her conduct in decades of public life shows that the faith has not been able to overcome her inclination to misbehavior.
He should say,
"Evolution? Didn't President Obama evolve on his views of gay marriage? I'm not evolving. I am what I say I am."
What percentage of reporters have read Darwin? I tried to read Freud one time. And Nietzsche. I tried to read Kant. These guys are all specialists in their fields and can be tough to read. You have to be serious about your education to read stuff like that. I read Darwin's Black Box, that was fascinating.
My take on the media is that they don't read Darwin. They read Darwin bumper stickers. They are twitter hacks.
I know Republicans have to be nice, or funny, or anything-but-mean, but for fuck's sake, when they question your intelligence, you should push back a little. And that's all this is, an I.Q. test.
"I punt." On the I.Q. test?
The media is constantly attacking the intelligence of Republicans. That's the subtext of this question. Are you stupid? But the text of the question is totally softball. You can smack that question any number of ways.
If you punt, and I don't mind the punt metaphor, the ball is going to come right back at your face. They know you don't like the question now. You're going to get repeated questions. They're going to keep hammering you, trying to get your secret.
Actually I do hate the punt metaphor. Who punts on first down? In Europe?
My developing position on Scott Walker is that he is a very good governor, but (so far, anyway) a very bad campaigner. I don't want to say "Rick Perry." He's not that bad. But a national campaign can be rough on a Republican.
Are you going to punt your way to victory?
Notice how the press is hot after Walker, digging into his college years and his religious beliefs while Clinton hides out.
Let's see a detailed article on HRC's employment on the Watergate Committee. With the money quote from Jerry Zeifman.
The government can't give a religious test, but the voters can use whatever reason they want.
When you punt a journalist's question, it's a bit like Obama. "I vote present." That's what a punt is. Obama punts on governing. Walker punts on campaigning.
Imagine a debate. They ask him a question. "I punt."
In a way it's super-brave. "I'm not playing your game." That's what he's saying. But there's an arrogance there. "I don't have to answer your question." Okay. How long will that work?
I will be very impressed if Scott Walker does to the media what he did to the unions. Unions? Whatever. That's not really a thing in the South. But media? If he takes on the media? And not in attack dog Newt Gingrich style, but in calm midwestern no-style-at-all. I would be amazed. Man, I would cheer, if a Republican would step forward and really and truly put the media in its place.
Jeez! To all you people thinking the British draw a blank at "punt" or "punting," get over it.
As has been pointed out, the term is used to describe a similar play in rugby, which predates American football.
The Brits have been familiar with American football since WW2. More so with the post war American bases in the UK, with military intramural teams emptying into local pubs after matches. In London, those teams would play in Hyde Park, and the annual Embassy/Navy HQ Marines vs. Navy would draw a huge crowd of both Americans and Brits, when I lived there in the late 70s.
There were also the American High Schools on USAF/RAF bases. I went to London Central High School at USAF High Wycombe/RAF Daws Hill. In 1978, my Senior year, we got a visit from a TV crew and a couple of hosts from their equivalent of Today or GMA. Because there was huge curiosity over the broadcast of the Super Bowl that year (IIRC), they decided that our LCHS Bobcats would be a perfect way to explain two things to the British public: American football and cheerleading. The idea was the guy host would suit up and trail the team for a day from PT in the gym to field practice, and the woman host would do the same with the cheerleaders. The coaches, players and cheerleaders would explain it all along the way. The day would end with the hosts participating in a scrimmage complete with students in the stands yelling our heads off. Now, of course, the host would score the winning touchdown, but in the pregame huddle, our history said, "Lads, don't hold anything back! I want the audience to really get a feel for this!" We looked at each other and shrugged our shoulders. Early in the scrimmage, dude "completes a pass," and we totally cold cocked him on the tackle. Took him ten minutes to stop speaking gibberish. Meanwhile, woman host is cheerleading her little heart out, having a great time. Guy host scores winning TD, screaming cheerleaders rush the field and guy host gets a shoulder ride by the team. Broadcast nationwide a week later. Good time was had by all.
A few years later, the NFL invasion of the UK began. The rest is history (/sarc). Believe me, when an American like Scott Walker uses the term "punt" in England, they know exactly what he means and they sure get it in terms of politics.
The news would have been worth watching if he'd said, "Evolution? You mean DEVIL-ution?!"
And for the jerkwads giggling, ala Beavis &Butthead, that "Walker said 'punt," heh heh, 'punt.' Dude, heh heh, 'punt.''" Yes, "punt" is slang word used in reference to prostitution, and like most slang is derivative. It's pretty old slang, and refers to this , which has always had romantic and sexual connotations. In sexual slang, a punt is a "John" who cruises the street, much in the same way a river punter cruises up and down a pastoral stretch of river. Gee, everybody go get their shocked faces.
It's also everyday slang for a wager.
Posted on wrong thread in error...deleted.
Re: Hillary and the Holy Spirit: It does read sincere if you've ever had or heard people talk about experiences of this nature. She was raised in a religious time and environment. It's not going to completely go away. Perhaps it's been oprah-fied or compartmentalized. Wasn't there a claim she spoke with Eleanor Roosevelt for First Lady advice as a therapeutic exercise? Bill made a joke about it recently, so no clue if it was true.
Even Bill sounded sincere when he spoke of his death mask vision to Diane Sawyer. And if he was using even that as a bullshitting opportunity: no words.
Ah, fuck it. Seems we can't hyperlink on Blogger now.
In the above post, I'm referring to the flat bottomed, pole driven boat called a punt, which you can read about here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_boat
Damn. Blogger sucks weasels.
Science will never know say if a trillion years ago and a trillion miles away a single gamma ray was altered by God. This would be enough to cause or prevent a mutation which changes an entire species in only a relatively few generations. Science doesn't even know if events happen by chance or are all deterministic.
"I think she's sincere. This text that you're quoting? That's how Christians talk."
That doesn't make it sincere. I mean she's a virtual chameleon: "I ain'ty no wayyyzzz tyrreed"
Regarding Mary and abortion question. "What difference at this point does it make"?
As far as punting on evolution, like Walker did Evolution really shouldn't be an issue, one way or another. Politicians in this country got along just fine governing pre-Darwin and even after, when there was incredible backlash against the Theory. It's only been very recently in our history that the Evolution Test has been used to denigrate faith as a "gotcha!" Faithbased disbelief in the Theory = ignorance and stupidly is the image portrayed in culture.
Now, while I understand that there is a preponderance of evidence to support the Theory, I also understand the importance that many have with their personal faith. I'm a disbeliever in god and gods, but I respect and love those of faith. Evolution as a theory is an issue of the secular realm, and as such, has nothing to do with faith, but evidence. A preponderance of evidence supports the Theory, but I always hear people say, "I believe in Darwin/Evolution/Natural Selection," I have to laugh at them, because they don't grasp that science is not about "belief." There are no absolute truths in science, you sanctimonious assholes. That's the nature of science. You've crashed and burned before you can turn your gotcha against those of faith.
A politician - read Republican - like Walker is smart to punt on this, and to keep punting, until the game is over, one way or another. No matter how he answers the question, it's going to keep coming up, because it's the nature of the press to attempt to score gotchas on questions that have nothing to do with politics and governance. Science is not about belief, feeling, comfort or any illustration of emotion, but that's how the idiots in the press (And many commenting here) approach this non-issue.
As far as Hillary speaking on her faith? Again, as an atheist, her faith does not matter to me beyond how it informs her support of Western Civilization.
While I may be an unbeliever, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with those who fight and defend the core tenets of Western Civilization against encroachment, no matter their faith or lack of it.
Hillary's words of faith lend nothing one way or another to the overwhelming evidence that her political beliefs are dedicated to wrecking and bringing down Western Civilization and its contributions to our country and the rest of the world were it has taken root.
If she's sincere in her faith, well bully for her. I respect that, but what does that mean within the secular realm?
Freder Frederson said...
The question about evolution is a question about science, not faith.
You can believe in creationism. But if you believe in creationism you are ignorant and uneducated.
2/12/15, 1:15 PM
Freder Frederson said...
Evolution is a theory, not fact.
This statement shows a profound misunderstanding about what the word "theory" means in science.
2/12/15, 1:16 PM"
As a practical matter a creationist in the white house is far less harmful than any garden variety global warming believer.
JHapp said...
Science will never know say if a trillion years ago and a trillion miles away a single gamma ray was altered by God. This would be enough to cause or prevent a mutation which changes an entire species in only a relatively few generations. Science doesn't even know if events happen by chance or are all deterministic.
2/12/15, 8:28 PM"
People overlook when discussing random chance that random chance only works with what the laws of nature permit.
Evolution is a chaotic process, a physical process, that can be observed, replicated, and reasoned with deduction, not induction or created knowledge. However, evolutionary creation is simply an article of faith. The determination of human origin is outside of both the scientific and philosophical domains.
Eric Holder basically said that Obama was lying about opposition to gay marriage from the beginning. This is the democrat/liberal playbook.
Do you think Hillary is really a religious person? Her religious faith is about as legitimate as her dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.
She and the dems are just saying the things that need to be said because coming out as an atheist usually will not get you elected.
Ha- I love Eric's idea posted at 4:35 pm. Very Reaganesque ("I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience,")
Chef Mojo said... Again, as an atheist, her faith does not matter to me beyond how it informs her support of Western Civilization.
Here's the faith behind an early American civilization:
++
This is the age of the fifth sun. After the destruction of the fourth sun, the gods gathered together to decide who would become the next sun. Tecciztecatl, proud and rich, volunteered, but they needed someone else. So Nanauatl, a poor god, was chosen. A huge bonfire was built, and when the time came, Tecciztecatl attempted to throw himself into the flame, but his fear overwhelmed him. Nanauatl closed his eyes and jumped. Ashamed, Tecciztecatl follows him into the fire. Eventually, two bright suns rose in the sky. Angry that Tecciztecatl continues to follow Nanauatl, the other gods throw a rabbit at him, dimming the sun and leaving an imprint of a rabbit on his face. This is why the Aztecs say there is a rabbit in the moon.
But even though they now had a sun, it would not move. The gods knew that they had to sacrifice themselves in order for the sun to move and the people that they had created to live. So, the world of the fifth sun, the Aztec world, was created through sacrifice. Men had to repay the gods with sacrifice to keep the universe in balance. This is why the Aztecs sacrifice; to prevent the fifth sun from being destroyed like the other four before it.
++
I like gods who throw rabbits at each other.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा