The Problem I Have with Social Conservatives and Religion

"Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous, treasonous in my opinion." --Rick Perry referring to Ben Bernanke, on a campaign stop in Iowa

Ok, Mr Perry, don't you think you're being a little melodramatic here? Before you go painting people as unpatriotic infidels, maybe you should think about the fact that there are a good number of Americans who don't believe in the same things you do.

The rise of Christian social conservatives representing the GOP disturbs me. Just the other day I saw a Pew poll saying that the unity between fiscal and social conservatives is getting stronger, based on one common point alone--a deep dislike and distrust of government. Mitt Romney, a centrist Republican, even hailed the Tea Party recently. It's not that I don't like conservatives. When it comes to fiscal conservatives I can't agree with their economic opinions, but I don't have anything against them personally. Social conservatives, I have bigger beef with, because social issues like abortion, gay rights, etc etc are by nature emotional issues. You can't really argue that with data or figures, and those who try to are just being dumb and not convincing anyone. The other thing about super right social conservatives like Bachmann and Perry that I can't accept is their untrammeled application of religious, i.e. Christian, beliefs on politics and governance. As an atheist and a liberal, I can't find a single thing in common with them. And we're supposed to be living in the same country. I don't want someone who I have nothing in common with to be my President. I'm sure there are many, many Americans who feel the same way I do. Just looking at my circle of friends, my family, the people I know, I don't think they would support a presidential candidate with those beliefs. And I know I live in LA, a bubble for liberals. I think if you polled even a Republican from the Carolinas they would not support someone so extreme. Well, if either of them secure the GOP nomination I'll just shake my head and make sure I vote in November. There is NO WAY (knock on wood) that they will make it to the White House. There just isn't. They don't have enough in common with voters like me, and they don't seem like they'll be able to temper themselves to appeal to a broader mass. Anyway...

Not to be too philosophical, but I wonder why people even question whether it's possible for morality to exist without the "guidance" of religion. I totally believe it. I am a living example. I have my own moral compass that evolved and stuck with me free of any religious beliefs. I know not to harm another person, not because the Bible says so, but because to me it's just wrong. I don't need religion to tell me to do good, to be honest, to be righteous. Other people who do good deeds inspire me. My parents inspire me. To be totally, brutally honest, if you're someone who needs religion to tell you what the "right" thing to do is, that is a weak conviction. If you know to do good because of some internal, even unexplained, source your compass will waver much less.

And that is what I really believe, served straight up. No frills, booyah!

Ryan Lizza on Michele Bachmann

"There may “be occasions when Christians are mistaken on some point while nonbelievers get it right...Nevertheless, the overall systems of thought constructed by nonbelievers will be false—for if the system is not built on Biblical truth, then it will be built on some other ultimate principle. Even individual truths will be seen through the distorting lens of a false world view.”--Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth as quoted in in Ryan Lizza's "The Transformation of Michele Bachmann," The New Yorker

Now I understand why she's crazy. She believes in ideologues who want to wage the equivalent of a Christian jihadist war on non-believers. So what happens to non-Christians in a Christian-run state where all non-Bible based beliefs are not tolerated? Disturbing.

An Insightful Faith-Based Argument, Sendai

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/a-reasonable-argument-for_b_831185.html

Interesting argument by the rabbi. I usually tune myself out to faith-based arguments since they tend to make me not believe rather than believe, but this piece points to the teetering foundation of faith upon which science is based. We believe in the legitimacy of science not because it is grounded in concrete and naturalistic principles (which in many cases it is not, precisely because there is no foreseeable 'beginning' rooted in testable, prove-able conjectures), but because we believe in the value and superiority of a theoretical framework created by us, man, to explain the world around us. And in doing so, we have taken a leap of faith. Makes you think.

In either case, definitely a more convincing argument than Bill O'Reilly's.


God or not, we are at the mercy of Mother Nature. She may be the most powerful of all. And I'm praying she has mercy on Japan.

Tragedies like this make me wonder why humans bicker and fight with each other and are willing to take each other's lives for petty reasons. Because when a 40-foot tsunami wave washes away your life in a matter of seconds, nothing else fucking matters.