Two for today

It seems that I am not commenting as much on actual news and politics any more, as I am on people who fully expect the world to do as they demand, while they do as they please, and no one is allowed to question them on it.

The first for today, is once again something from DC, in this case, Harry Reid responding to someone pointing out that he blatantly lied about Mitt Romney during the 2012 elections. During a speech in the summer of 2012 Reid said “Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.” referring to Romney, accusing him of never paying taxes. Romney, of course, responded, and I believe, made his returns available. Now, having been proven to have lied, and never responded when Romney called him on his statement, his only responses is “Well, they can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?” after being called a “McCartheyite” (referring to Senator McCarthey from the 1950’s). I’m sorry, had a Republican accused Obama of never paying taxes, only to have Obama prove he had, there would have been calls for all but public hanging, yet Reid jokes about ruining a man’s election run, and nothing is done?

I believe there are good people in the House and Senate, but they are in an extreme minority, their voices silenced. Sadly, there is little to be done, as to impose term limits, or have any legal action when our “illustrious leaders” break the very laws they pass, must be put in place by those same people. We are left with but one option, vote someone else into their office. I personally worked on a campaign in Tyler, TX in the 2004 election, where an incumbent Democrat was defeated. For those who don’t know, that area is a largely Democrat part of Texas, and Mr. Sandlin was the incumbent, which in a national election means you normally need to work very little to be re-elected, but he was defeated. So, the question here is simple, is it worth enough to you to work to oust those simply working to keep a cushy job and power, or not?


Next, we move to more of a societal issue, that being the attitude of (most) atheists today. Like any group, it’s not 100% of them believe or act as this next bit demonstrates, but sadly, those who simply want to live their lives are lumped in with the bad apples, and most of the “not bad apples” do little to nothing to correct the view of their group. In a great display of irony, these are the very people who trumpet the “not all XXX are bad” line regarding groups where horrible things are done in group XXX’s name. They say nothing about those members of the group who do those things, just “they’re not all bad, so stop complaining,” but when it comes to a lone Christian making a comment, or a lone wacko doing something terrible who might have been Christian, they jump all over “Christianity did this” completely ignoring their previous mantra of “it was a small percentage of the group” and so on.

In this case, it was an article postulating the possible discovery of the childhood home of Jesus of Nazareth. Note, from the author’s words, no claim that “this is Jesus’ house” was ever made. The question was asked, the evidence presented, and theories presented, that’s it. From there, the “Friendly Atheist” begins to liken this article’s theory to pure lunacy. Yes, I can say that while there is no proof that X happened in my home 100 years ago, there’s no proof it didn’t, so it may have, about anything, and as you can’t prove the negative, well, that’s the point. However, this “friendly” post about the article ridicules Christians and the entire article, all but saying “Jesus is a myth, so to find his home is impossible,” while comments simply spiral out of control attacking the mere fact that there are people who are Christians.

I have personally been called stupid, ignorant, and worse, simply because I am a Christian (also for being a Republican, a Conservative, and simply for being from the American south, but those are topics for a different day) as if this ends all discussion. So, my question is this, why is this even tolerated? The very people screaming that I, as a Christian, must “tolerate” people who believe differently than I do, or who’s “lifestyle choice” (and it’s not a choice either) is not in accordance with my beliefs, but for me to point out the childishness of their words is “attacking them on a personal level.”

Yes, I am a Christian, and no, I am not a scientist, so I can’t, and thus, won’t speak on the science behind the origins of life on this planet, or how humans have gotten to the place we are today, based on historical evidence of physical and mental changes. I don’t argue for or against the “big bang” for two reasons, there will never be fool proof evidence without time travel, and as I point out regularly, the physical act of creation could very well have been exactly what is called the big bang, simply caused by God commanding it to happen. I don’t question that humans have changed, or evolved, over time, because we are now on average taller, less hairy, smarter, and so much more, but I do question abiogenisis and the “we just evolved, there is no God” argument. When I do, I often get the “no one alive today was there? Great argument idiot” response, no reasoned discourse, but animosity and hateful attacks.

In a nutshell, you want respect, you earn it, you don’t demand it. I respect the Office of President of the U.S., just not the man in it right now. Second, to claim that “life just appeared and evolved to where we are today,” in my mind, is to boil human life, and all life on the planet, down to a “cosmic accident,” which to me, is just wrong, and often leaves me wanting to slap the living daylights out of the person refusing to act like an adult, then simply say “you’re an accident of the cosmos, so I choose to slap accidents of the cosmos” to simply get them away from me, but I then choose to remain an adult, and let them show themselves for the intellectual infants they are.

I am an educated and, I like to think, intelligent man, and I welcome civil and reasoned debate. However, when you stoop to name calling and emotional attacks on someone, you not only prove to be that same intellectual infant, you take all credibility away from your argument. Research, bring facts, use logic, and remain respectful. You’ll find more often than not, while you and the person you’re arguing with, or debating, but you will be able to part amicably, and continue your debates. Who knows, you both may just learn something, even if neither of you ever convinces the other.

Smokey out

Leave a Reply