Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, May 18, 2007
David Limbaugh :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens
by David Limbaugh
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


I was actually surprised to hear writer Christopher Hitchens' attitude toward Reverend Jerry Falwell's death, given the good sense this liberal has exhibited on the war issue.

As a war supporter, I have been heartened by Hitchens' fervent and eloquent support for the Iraq war. I didn't quite understand how his war support could be reconciled with his liberalism considering liberals' near-uniform opposition to the war, but I was nonetheless grateful for it.

Naively, I even speculated that Hitchens was on the verge of an ideological conversion. But after watching him on "Hannity and Colmes" about the departed Falwell, I realized his anti-Christian and anti-theistic worldview is, for now at least, an insuperable barrier to any ideological transformation.

Indeed, I now surmise that his very support for the war is rooted in his contempt for Muslim extremism, which he appears to conflate with orthodoxy of all other religions. I don't know whether Hitchens considers strong evangelical Christians, like Falwell, to be as evil as jihadists, but he made clear he has abundant contempt for them.

Some might object that Hitchens' contempt is particularly reserved for Falwell or, at most, a small group of "extremist," vocal Christian conservatives. To be sure, Hitchens made disparaging references to Falwell personally, calling him "a vulgar fraud and crook," by which Hitchens, in fairness, did not mean to indict Christians generally. But many of his other references were broadsides directed at garden-variety Christians.

Hitchens said, "Jerry Falwell made a career out of sponsoring dislike and superstition, said that people he didn't like were going to hell, said the United States deserved to be attacked by Islamic fascists, said that he believed that people would be raptured into heaven, leaving all the rest of us to wallow behind."

Leaving aside Falwell's regrettable comment about 9/11, for which he repeatedly apologized, one wonders what beliefs Hitchens is referring to as superstition. Given the subject of his recently released book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," I think it's fair to infer he is talking about Falwell's belief in Christian doctrine, not just Falwell's occasional objectionable outburst.

Obviously, those who believe in the rapture are despicable in Hitchens' view, and, though this may stun some of you, that includes many people. Even more believe in heaven and hell -- an overwhelming majority, excepting those who subscribe to "universal salvation."

As intelligent as Hitchens is, he manifests woeful ignorance about basic Christian doctrine in mischaracterizing Falwell as believing that people he didn't like were going to hell, just as he has, elsewhere, in describing the evangelical's concept of salvation as works-based. While I can't readily prove a negative, I would be shocked to discover that Falwell preached that "people he didn't like were going to hell."

Christians are commanded to love everyone, including those they believe are "lost." They do not believe that those they don't like are doomed for hell. Rather, they believe the Bible teaches we are all doomed unless we have saving faith in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins. Christians are not the ones pronouncing judgment on their fellow man in this regard, but believe God has revealed, through Scripture, his plan for divine judgment.

Apart from Hitchens' recklessly sloppy error in lumping Christians with Islamofascists and his implied indictment of Christians across the board, to say nothing of his indictment of those of other religions, I was struck by the irony of his viciousness, meanness and hatefulness in attacking Falwell essentially for being vicious, mean and hateful.

Many liberals, like Hitchens, rail against "hate" as the worst imaginable sin, yet exude a magnitude of hatred that the conservatives they condemn as hateful couldn't begin to possess. Hitchens refused to back down from his excoriation of Falwell on the very day of his death, saying, "I don't care whether his family's feelings are hurt or not. But if they are, they can take comfort from the extraordinary piety and stupidity, and generally speaking, uniformity of the coverage of the man's death."

Even more revolting was Hitchens' response to CNN's Anderson Cooper's question of whether he believed in heaven and whether "you think Jerry Falwell is in it." Hitchens said he did not believe in it, but "I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to."

It would take an extraordinarily warped perspective for someone as mean-spirited as Christopher Hitchens to believe he is entitled to righteous indignation at those -- like Christians or conservatives -- he presumably believes to be mean-spirited.

But Hitchens will get a pass for his abominable behavior from the liberal media because he is a liberal -- notwithstanding his heresy on the war -- and liberals are not to be condemned for their hatred because the objects of their hatred deserve to be hated.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read David Limbaugh's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
An aside
I don't know how many Catholics visit this site. I'm Catholic. Falwell struck me as extraordinarily bigoted and offensive. He did not exhibit the Christian morality I understand as a Catholic. So I can understand why Hitchens would be for the Iraq war but against Falwell. I don't know if I would use his language, but I can understand.

quote about hitch
"Obviously, those who believe in the rapture are despicable in Hitchens' view".

evan though i am an athiest i found hitchman's coments overly harsh. however your essay mischaracterizes his rapturial view. hitch does not believe that people that believe in rapture are despicable. clearly, he just belives that they are stupid and dangerous. hard not to dispute that. rapture indeed.

Of course...
There was also his statement that the antichrist is alive and a Jew, unless that was a hoax (the statement).

Hitchens
Make no mistake about it, Hitchens supports the war because it is essentially a fight againts Islamofacism.

Hitchens' profound hatred is on anything related to God and religion.

When he said on the very day of Falwell's death, "I don't care whether his family's feelings are hurt or not. But if they are, they can take comfort from the extraordinary piety and stupidity, and generally speaking, uniformity of the coverage of the man's death." ...and "I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to",

this guy is filled with hatred. Just look at his look and they way he speaks. Devil incarnation?






It's simple, really.
Christopher Hitchens is not a liberal; he's a socialist.

Liberals will sometimes, grudgingly, tolerate religion, or at least put on an acceptable facade of doing so. Socialists never will. Religion, particularly the Christian religion, is an alternate source of moral guidance and authority that socialists cannot abide.

Once in a great while, a socialist can be shocked or goaded into supporting one or two sensible policies that would appear antithetical to socialism generally, but the underlying ideology will still be there. The socialist ideology cannot allow a competing system of moral absolutes to coexist with it in peace -- and isn't that an ironic use of the word "coexist?"

eddred
The concept of the Rapture is found in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6. The Bible does not specifically call it the "rapture", but that is what is meant by Jesus' return for the body of believers prior to the Tribulation. Hope that helps.

Evolutionists must hate.
Hitchens hatred is based in evolution. If man evolved there is NO original sin. If there is no original sin, then there is no Jesus Christ. If there is no Jesus Christ, then Israel ceases to have a divine origin and its religion too is false.
Evolutionists, atheist's and humanists must hate Falwell because he believed, correctly so, that if a person does not repent and accept Christ as Saviour, that person and people are damned. This is the root cause of Islams hatred for the Christian and the liberals hatred of bible believers. A persons morals damns them, because God will not accept them...thus the hatred of Falwell and all christians and especially GOD.

Hitch
Love him or loathe him, I have to give Hitchens some begrudging respect for having the balls to go on natinal tv and say what he said about Falwell. To be fair to him he did point out (to Hannity I think) that he has always said those things about Falwell, even when he was alive and that he isn't going to change his opinion about someone just because he has been invited on television to give his opinion. Well, he certainly gave it. I'm sure he would have said it to his face if he had ever been given the opportunity. One thing you can't say about Hitchens is that he is two faced; he clearly doesn't care who he upsets. If Fox or CNN had wanted someone to give a fawningly servile eulogy they should have stuck with Ralph Reed. But supporters of Falwell should not be surprised that he was not popular; if you make a career (and an awful lot of money) out of fire and brimstone preaching, don't expect everyone to be your biggest fan. As for all of this hand wringing from the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter about how nasty it is to speak ill of the dead - well, your own medicine tastes pretty bitter doesn't it? Frankly, in this case Hitchens is right in many respects.

eddred
As a man of faith I find it unsettling that you would refer to believers of the Rapture as "total morons". I would in no way refer to such believers in that way as I would refer to Catholics who believe in Purgatory as total morons since there is no direct Bibical reference to such place.
What was not mentioned on the History Channel is the actual idea of the Rapture. The belief is centered on the idea that before the coming of Christ, the world will go through a period called "the Tribulation"(Matthew 24:21: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.) during which all will be tested before the coming of Christ. There is a view called "Pretribulationists" which suggest that before the testing God will remove the faithful because "...thou have kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation which shall come upon all the earth to try them that dwell on the earth".(Rev.3:10) The whole concept is that since Christians have been tested here on earth, those found blameless need not be tested again and actively participate in the Tribulation in Heaven.
In addition to afsarge's reference to 1 Thessalonians, the idea of the Rapture is mentioned by Christ in Luke 17:34-37, in which the Savior speaks: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left"(Luke 17:34).
As for "tipping us off" those of us who read the Bible already know. As for "start giving a crap about the envirement(sic). You should cause your in it for the LONG HAUL" we do care about the enviroment and we don't worry about when the end is coming because the Bible tells us that when that day is going to come only God knows. Peace unto you!!!

tanabear
Hitchens has always said that Iraqi leftists support the war in Iraq, something which your average leftist doesn't want to think about. I assume that that explains his support for the war better than the quote you dredged up.

Porretto
You say socialists will never tolerate religion. You've got to be kidding. If there's anything that characterizes our age, it's the incredible fact that just about every socialist has become a fellow traveler of Islam. Hitchens is one of the sensible ones who refuses to participate in this folly. But just about everyone else is caught up in it. How often does one hear socialists complaining about the murder of Theo van Gogh? Almost never. They never want to talk about it, but if he had been murdered by a Christian, it would have been front-page news for at least a year.

JFP
You write - "If there's anything that characterizes our age, it's the incredible fact that just about every socialist has become a fellow traveler of Islam."
Well blow me. That's a "fact" is it? What does the word "fact" mean in the parrallel universe you reside in? Do you have any evidence to back up that "fact"? Because it sounds like something you've just made up off the top of your head to reinforce the prejudices that you hold. Which by the way, have zero basis in what I would call fact.

Critical Bill
Its curious why we are blessed with your presence. Is Limey land so perfect nowadays as to leave you with no flaws to deal with? Or perhaps you are driven by the goodness of your heart to provide us naive colonials the benefits of your superior sophistication?

Gently99
Erm, not sure what your point has to do with the thread but I will indulge you... as you know I have been a regular on these boards for a long time, but the last three weeks have been very hectic at work and I've actually had to earn my living for a change. So haven't been here much. But I'm glad to see that rather than answer any points I might make all you can come up with is that tired old line about my being British. I thought that my being absent for a while from Townhall might have ended that but obviously not. So judging by the standard of your post, Gently, you need me more than ever...

Judge Not
Those that rely on the Bible alone for validity of both doctrine and morality do not understand what it means to be a Christian. The Bible has been interpreted in as many ways as there are Protestant denominations. Protestants like to say the Bible is inerrant, yet they refuse to believe Jesus concerning the Church he built that fulfilled the faith of Abraham and superceded the Bible as the authoritarian source for doctrine and morality. Those that judge Falwell should see to their own salvation that they have now endangered.

falwell
I agree with hitchens. Falwell was a bigoted reconstructionist who, if he had his way, would have america a segregated theocracy with harsh laws against blasphemy, homosexuality, and women's rights.

tanabear
--Anyone who adheres to the ethics of the Marquis de Sade will probably feel offended by someone promoting moral virtues. Slate listed some of Falwell's most "outrageous" quotes:

Falwell, "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again, and Christians will be running them."

This I agree with.--

So did Hitler...

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people."

(From a speech made on April 26, 1933 at the negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933)

--Falwell, "There is no separation of church and state."

This is also true, and agree with it.--

In other words, you have no problem with theocracy, a la Saudi Arabia and Iran. Keep in mind that this is totally unconstitutional and un-democratic and would, quite possibly, lead to civil war in the US.

--Falwell, "Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men; that's their problem."

40% or more of NOW is made up of Lesbians.--

This is a red herring and has no bearing on Falwell's true view of women as nothing more than a man's property. Granted the bible supported his views, but feminism is a threat to religion because then men cannot subjugate them to their 'proper place.'

Leviticus 27:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation.27:3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.27:4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.27:5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 27:6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.

--Falwell on 911, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen."

I don't agree with the whole quote but he got a lot closer than most people. Rudy Giuliani being a recent example. --

9/11 was a result of religious fanatacism, almost identical to Falwell's own views, go to the following quiz and see how well you do.

http://www.funnystrange.com/quiz/

Hitchens' emotionality
Hitchens' blew it on Hannity with his hysterical angry, vengeful comments on a dead man's grave. Hitchen's is a socialist--far to the left--so why should one be surprised?

His book is a rehash of the God is Dead movement of the 60's. Like so many liberals he just get over that decade like the rest of us who grew up.

Falwell was not anti-Catholic
Falwell was definitely protestant. He said he was a Calvinist. However, he was not hostile to Catholics. My wife’s niece is Catholic and she graduated from Liberty University. She thought very highly of him, as it seemed most of the students on campus did.

Ann and Hitch
Hitch is like the Ann Coulter of aethism. He is descisive and biting in his choice of language just like Ann. Once he comments on a person or topic its like permanent ink (won't wash off). He doesn't back down or apologize. He fancies himself a modern Voltaire. I like him just like I like Ann, but take everything with a grain of salt and in moderation.

falwell - did what he thought was right
why doesn't falwell get any credit for his integrity? he did what he thought was right.

hitchens analysis is a bit of a mixed bag. he seems to paint all religious with a broad brush. islamic terrorists are "religious" and they murder a lot of people. Christians are religious, therefore they kill a lot of people. it really does not follow. all religion is bad. i have read some of his anti-religious writings and they are pretty weak. he is good at ad hominem attacks as his means of argument, but it comes accross more as a bully than anything else.

it is amazing that he speaks this nonsense and gets away with it.

he is such an elitist intellectual. he thinks he is so smart and has all of the answers. does he really?
what has he done?
cure cancer?
solve the energy crisis?
anything really?

of course not! he writes books. so what. so did Dr Suess and Dr Sueuss sold a heck of a lot more and in the end will be a lot more relevent.

with all that "intelligence" you would have imagined that he would have done something uselful with it. he is like a lot of these "smart" people. when it comes down to solving problems and getting their hands dirty, they do not measure up. he probably did not go into useful fields because he could not hack it.

in addition, he has no class. he does not have to give false praise but to wish anyone to hell is low.



moses
--why doesn't falwell get any credit for his integrity? he did what he thought was right.--

So did Bin Laden, does he deserve credit for his integrity?

Barry Goldwater...
Barry said all that needed to be said about the likes of Jerry Falwell...

"The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism." ~Barry Goldwater

I Can't Believe It!
For the very first time in TH history, one of the columnists wrote an articl about an Atheist and didn't end up being a total bigot. Way to go, David.

As an Atheist myself, even I thought that Hitch's remarks about Jerry Falwell were overly harsch and polarizing. I have no problem with saying that the good Reverend spent his days doing everything he could to incite hatred toward gays, Atheists, liberal women, etc. (and let's not forget that he did it all for money) But calling him a "troll" and other such terms only weakens the righteous position.

DA
"This is a red herring and has no bearing on Falwell's true view of women as nothing more than a man's property. Granted the bible supported his views, but feminism is a threat to religion because then men cannot subjugate them to their 'proper place.'"

Mr. Falwell and the Bible did/do not promote women as property nor to be put "in their proper place, but rather both promote women to be equal with men/husbands. IMO, you're right that feminism is a threat to religion but not because of what you say but because it incites women to be angry/hostile towards men and to constantly view themselves as victims.

Which feminism?
The variant that conservatives rail against is the alternate definition of "gender feminism" as coined by Christina Hoff Sommers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_feminism

"In current usage, gender feminism may also describe feminism which seeks to use legal means to give preference to women in such areas as spousal abuse, child custody, sexual harassment, divorce proceedings, and pay equity...critics argue that this amounts only to reverse discrimination and encourages political, legal, social and economic rent-seeking activity based on gender."

In short, gender feminism is gender supremacism, a rough parallel to male chauvinism.

will
I don't know anything about these attributed quotes, and I wasn't perched on a hydrogen cloud when the earth came to be, but I do know this: In a supposed democracy, NO THOUGHT can be destructive & harmful (isn't that a bit redundant) to democracy. The very ideals of democracy promote discourse and the discussion of ALL ideas, not just the ones people like you and Hitchens cherry-pick as proper for democracy. Both of you need to get of your high horse and let people believe what they want. The difference comes with action; if religious zealots of any form act to impede the rights of others, danger to democracy exists. If they're just minding their own business, believing what they want, then to deny them would make you the terrorist, now wouldn't it?

yankette
--Mr. Falwell and the Bible did/do not promote women as property nor to be put "in their proper place, but rather both promote women to be equal with men/husbands.--

I am going to have to say that you are ignorant about your own religion. Have you actually read the bible? Do you know about women's sufferage? Do you know how women have been treated by the judeo-islamo-christian religions over the past 4000 yrs? 1st I have some questions for you about the bible.

How many young virgins were offered up to be gang raped and murdered to save the cowardly men?
How many virgin daughters were sacrificied to god?
How much was a woman worth compared to a man?
How many innocent women were stoned for being whores?
How many female disciples were there?
How many female priests were there?
Who was given money if a virgin was raped?

Now, bible verses:

Collosians 3:18: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

I Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

2 Timothy 3:1-7 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands....
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

I Corinthians 11:3,4,7-12But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Exodus 21:2,7: If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

Leviticus 12:1,2,5: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days

Now, quotes from religious leaders and theologians:

“She was the first in the transgression therefore keep her in
Subjection.”

ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM.

“What does it matter whether it be in the person of mother or
sister; we have to beware Eve in every woman.”

“How much better two men could live and converse together than a man
and a woman.”

ST. AUGUSTINE.

“No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise.”

“I should have no compassion on these witches; I should burn them all.”

“The Devil can so completely assume the human form, when he wants to deceive us, that we may well lie with what seems to be a woman, of real flesh and blood, and yet all the while 'tis only the Devil in the shape of a woman. 'Tis the same with women, who may think that a man is in bed with them, yet 'tis only the Devil; and...the result of this connection is oftentimes an imp of darkness, half mortal, half devil.…”

“Women...have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children.”

MARTIN LUTHER

"Woman is the gate of the devil, the path of wickedness, the sting of the serpent, in a word a perilous object."

St Jerome

"created to be man's helpmeet, but her unique role is in conception . . . since for other purposes men would be better assisted by other men."

Thomas Aquinas

Now, quotes from women's suffragists:

“The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in
the way of women's emancipation.”

ELIZABETH CADY STANTON women’s suffragist also the writer of the ‘Women’s Bible’

“The religious persecution of the ages has been done under what was claimed to be the command of God.”

“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.”


“To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom.”

Susan B Anthony

This is funny...
Bootlicker and family hanger on Limbaugh writes a decidely pro-Falwell column and the comments posted are overwhelmingly anti-falwell all on TH. Will wonders never cease.

I suppose
that when Hitchens dies and comments will be made that what he said about Farwell will long be remembered as characteristic of him. Isn't that what many critics of Farwell are going? They remember a couple of unfortunate comments but dismiss his charity, his hopefulness and positive nature. They overlook the churches he has established and the university that teaches fundemental values of kindness, faith, charity etc. sending young people out into the world who will replicate what they have been taught. Some seem to ridicule this preferring abortion, sloth,crude language, anything goes behavior.

I think about...
" loco writes: Friday, May, 18, 2007 2:09 PM
I suppose
that when Hitchens dies and comments will be made that what he said about Farwell will long be remembered as characteristic of him. Isn't that what many critics of Farwell are going? They remember a couple of unfortunate comments but dismiss his charity, his hopefulness and positive nature. They overlook the churches he has established and the university that teaches fundemental values of kindness, faith, charity etc. sending young people out into the world who will replicate what they have been taught."

Hitler and the autobahns he created that gave germans, jobs (much to the chagrin of the French and Poles who found themselves at the other end of them). The construction projects such as the concentration camps that gave the Jews jobs as well. The public book burnings that opened up the book shelves for new books glorifying hatred of verything they could not stand. Ahhh, fond memories.

Just another
Vein popping angry militant atheist, who cares?

I used to like Hitchens
But no more. Now I know what the Bible meant "beware of false prphets". Shoulda known, my fault. I will say Hitchens has totally painted himself into a corner. He alienated the left with his strong stance on the war, now he has alienated the right with his atheism. Good job in marginalizing yourself Hitchens.

stonesean
And how is that differrent from every other group? They all want theirs views followed 100%.

I don't know Lolo...
I don't know Lolo, most folks that I know in the real world seem to understand that life is give and take.

Talk radio and the internet is a different story.

If I were to provide my own interpretation of what Goldwater was saying it was that he has sworn an oath to the Constitution, not to any religion.

Nowhere in the constitution do the words God, Bible, Christ, or Christianity appear.

The word "creator" does appear, because most of the founding fathers were Deists. Meaning they believed the universe had a creator, but that he did not interfere with the affairs of men. Some (like Jefferson) were even Atheists!

As a non-believer, I find folks like Falwell most distasteful due to his attempts to convince the American public that our country was founded on the principles of any one religion.

"LOCO... GAY ATHEIST"
I don't think further commentary is necessary.

Handy pedophiles
A guy named "handy" shouldn't talk about ANY kind of sexual deviancy; the irony is TOO sick!

ALSO, the idea that reason and religion are mutually exclusive comes only from selectively ignorant people who fail to acknowledge the historic faith of scientists who formulated the scientific method.

chris
-- idea that reason and religion are mutually exclusive comes only from selectively ignorant people who fail to acknowledge the historic faith of scientists who formulated the scientific method--

"To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason."

Martin Luther

Critical Bill
You complain about what I call a fact. So, what's your take on the situation? I said it's a fact because of the following:

1. Every socialist I know of is now a fellow traveler of Islam, or else remains silent when other socialists talk warmly of Islam.
2. The Chronicle of Higher Education about a year ago had an op-ed piece by Phyllis Chesler warning about the dangers to women from Islamic expansion. Not a single letter that was printed agreed with her.
3. Besides Hitchens and a few others, I know of no socialists who are writing books warning about the dangers of Islam.
4. There are people like George Galloway who have publicly called for the left and Islam to unite.
5. As far as I know, no leftist responded to David Horowitz's book by saying he was wrong about an alliance between leftists and Muslims.
6. Not a single leftist I know of has heard of Bruce Bawer's book.
7. The very fact that there is now a word "Islamophobic," and that leftists seem to regard it as a problem, while I regard it as something positive, suggests what I am saying is right.
8. I heard a curator at the British Museum, who is almost certainly homosexual, worry about someone who hated Muslims, though in fact he should be worrying about what they will do to him when they get power.

Well, I could go on and on. If you've got some evidence countering all this, fine. I'd be happy to know that I'm wrong, but the evidence that I'm right is all around me.

DA
You APPEAR to be implying that my statement conflicts with Martin Luther's. It does not.

Faith and intellect are two different things. A Christian recognizes that there are purposes and ideas and a Trinity that are beyond the realm of understanding and reason - a spiritual realm.

In the physical realm, we look at everything realizing that the "laws of nature's God" confirm our faith in God and His Word. If you're willing, you can find the names of scientists throughout history and into the present who share this view of God and the world.

JFP
Well we'll have to agree to differ. But I wonder: How many socialists do you know? How many muslims do you know? How many socialists do you know that have converted to Islam? Presumably you have a long list of former socialists who have converted to Islam since you claim it s a fact that almost all of them have - well, name names? I know a handful of socialists, both ex and current. Not one of them has converted. Here in the UK there are a fair few mulsim politicians - not one of them is what you would call a socialist and there are a handful firmly on the right of the political spectrum. You make a sweeping generalisation and call it fact when it is in far from it - that generalisation is based on what, a couple of obscure books and op-eds because you have blindly accepted every word you have heard that demonises muslims. Look, I'm not saying that the extreme end of islam is not a problem - it sure is. Those that I know (and I sit next to a musim at work, speak to muslims almost daily and have played lots of sport with and against muslims) are perfectly normal people. Come on, how many do you know? And how many socialists do you know? I would be prepared to bet that the answer is not very many of either... the evidence you have is not "all around you". The evidence you have comes from reading what bigots write and hearsay mixed with your own prejudices. That is no basis for fact.

chris
--You APPEAR to be implying that my statement conflicts with Martin Luther's. It does not.

Faith and intellect are two different things.--

You did not say intellect, you said:

--the idea that reason and religion are mutually exclusive--

Martin Luther's quote said:

"To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason."

They seem to conflict, pretty clearly.

--A Christian recognizes that there are purposes and ideas and a Trinity that are beyond the realm of understanding and reason - a spiritual realm.--

The idea of the trinity is simply a rationalization that christians attempt to keep from admitting that they are polytheists [especially catholics who also worship a plethora of saints].

--In the physical realm, we look at everything realizing that the "laws of nature's God" confirm our faith in God and His Word. If you're willing, you can find the names of scientists throughout history and into the present who share this view of God and the world.--

Let me remind you that a 1996 survey of all members of the National Academy of Scientists found that only 7% believed in a personal god.

It does not really matter, though. What really matters is whether or not the religious ideologies [any of them] can stand up to scrutiny. In the end, they don't.

Word-parsing and plain speaking
First, the word-parsing: Stonesean wrote, "Nowhere in the constitution do the words God, Bible, Christ, or Christianity appear. The word "creator" does appear...."

The second sentence is literally false, though I'll give SS the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant "Declaration of Independence."

The first statement is only true in the Clintonian word-parsing sense. The Constitution ends, "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."

Now, while all the atheists here assembled rush to their keyboards to protest that this is "ONLY A DATE" and that, for some unknown reason, the signers of the Constitution would frivolously date the most important document they would ever sign from both a confirmable, knowable, historical event and simultaneously from a fictional birth in which none of them believed, comes the plain speaking:

100 million murdered in the name of atheism in the last century, and still counting.

docnolcat
--The word "creator" does appear....--

It does not appear in the constitution. It does appear in the declaration of independence, but it is the constitution that dictates the laws of the country. Also, creator does not signify the christian god, but could simply signify some creative force that helped to begin the universe.

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."

That was the standard dating system of the time and is irrelevant.

--100 million murdered in the name of atheism in the last century, and still counting.--

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

Get your facts straight. Millions were killed based on a nationalistic ideology called communism. No one was ever killed in the name of atheism.

If you want to get into a 'who killed more' pissing contest, religion will lose every time. Religion has killed far more than even communism and keeps killing. From over 600,000 in Iraq to millions in Africa, religion continues its slaughter. The religious do not only kill with weapons, though, but ideology. Bishops have said that AIDS is bad but condoms are worse. This type of religous ideology is going to continue to kill untold numbers per year. If you want to look historically, then how many people were killed by the early expasionists in the name of religion [over 8 million Incans alone]. How many people killed during the crusades? How many jews burned by hitler because of their supposed deicide? How many innocent women burned as witches? How many people burned as heretics? How many people stoned for being homosexual? How many apostates beheaded?

And then are people like Jerry Falwell; dominionists and reconstructionists. People who would like nothing more than to destroy our democratic Republic and institute their own christian version of sharia law. I wonder, is that where you fit, docnolcat?

What is a deist?
A deist does not believe that God interjects himself into creation to produce laws-of-nature-defying miracles, but deists, like Christians, believe that there is a God who is the supreme moral authority over humanity. These shared beliefs are expressed in our nation's founding legal document, the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

The signers argued that the British crown had violated the laws of a higher authority - God. Virtually all Westerners believed in God, and while disagreeing over various details, they shared the common views cited in the first paragraph.

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that rule of law - the idea that law outranks government and not vice versa, that all humans are equally protected by and equally subject to the law - originated under monotheism.

Alan K. Henderson
--Perhaps it is not a coincidence that rule of law - the idea that law outranks government and not vice versa, that all humans are equally protected by and equally subject to the law - originated under monotheism.--

Are you talking about the book that condones genocide, murder, rape, slavery, polygamy, and incest. I am sorry, but my morals are much better than the 'good' book's.

Atheism and relgion don't compare to...
The root cause of the murders under Communist and nominally religious governments is authoritarian government, not atheism or religion. Such governments murder to gain power and to remove perceived threats to such. Arabs would have conquered North Africa with or without the veneer of Islam. Saddam didn't need a Muslim cleric's blessing to kill those hundreds of thousands. Ferdinand of Aragon would have had his pogrom with or without the Vatican (which was coerced into authorizing the Inquisition by the threat of pulling troops that guaranteed the Vatican's continued existence free of French, Austrian or Islamic conquest).

Governments also murder for the other reasons that individuals do, and not just lust for wealth and power - but wealth and power motives tend to dominate history.

Mobs have also been known to engage in violence. Unruly mobs have the same motives that governments do.

If you were to remove religion from human history, it wouldn't be less violent. Humans would simply find other excuses to justify their vengefulness and covetousness. And Communism proves you don't need religion to be as totalitarian as the Wahhabis.

Where are the bigots?
There are two groups in America that are coming into focus as the next demograph to hate, exclude adn silence: the Conservative Right and Fundamental Christians. Falwell was both and suffered for it. But the blasts of hate, especially from the Left are widening and will one day reach into the churches. Pelosi has already carried that hatred to the floor of the House and used it on the Reps.

And one more thing. These who hate and despise all that the Conservative and Religious Right stand for have two problems. 1) They have an absolutely incredible ignorance of the Word of God. (the Koran, too). 2) They are blind to the fact that when God was run off from American society, thanks to M.M. O'Hare and company, our country began to decline. Put on a time line, that becomes an undisputable fact.

One goo thing for sure, God loves you, all of you!

The charges:
Genocide: If God is creator, God has the authority to wipe out parts of creation, either directly or through proxies. When the task was delegated to Israel, it was "notarized" with miracles visible to the entire nation of Israel - the parting of the Red Sea, the pillar of fire in the desert. The following article addresses the issue:

http://religiouscrossroads.tribe.net/thread/7ea44193-e482-4257-9836-d9743476ab43

Murder: uh, what Bible are you reading? Murder is killing outside of due process. The Bible reports murders, but I don't recall it condoning any.

Rape: The Bible looks down on that sort of thing.

http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topical_resource.php?source=1&tid=4060

Slavery: The Israelites were authorized to take prisoners of war as slaves, and to allow temporary indentured servitude as a payment for debts. As for Paul, he was concerned with building the church and not political reform. He told slaves and masters how to treat each other without saying good or bad about the institution. He *did* undermine the institution of slavery by telling masters to treat slaves as brothers - read the book of Philemon.

Polygamy: Mosaic Law granted certain leniencies for the Israels, such as divorce on grounds other than infidelity. Jesus himself said that monogamy was the ideal: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." The Old Testament does demonstrate that polygamy has disastrous consequences - one cannot read about Abraham's and Isaac's domestic lives without concluding otherwise.

Incest: I guess you're referring to the first generation of humans after Adam and Eve. In "When Critics Ask" Dr. Norman Geisler argues that the problem of genetic deformity from incest didn't exist at the time, and that was long before the Law of Moses condemned it (Lev. 18:6). (He's an old-earth creationist, so we're talking more than just a few thousand years.)

Snark versus reason
DA's remark is worthless, except as a springboard to address a few Bible myths.

To counter my suggestion, one would cite an example of a non-monotheistic culture that innovated rule of law on its own without monotheist influence. DA does no such thing.

There is the implication that the presence of X bad philosophies in a book disproves the existence of Y good philosophies in that same book. Utter silliness. I didn't say anything about overall morals, anyway - I addressed one specific moral.

alan k henderson
--Genocide: If God is creator, God has the authority to wipe out parts of creation, either directly or through proxies.--

This is still genocide. Actually, it is even more vile that god is, supposedly, murdering people for acting as he made them. Your analogy, that god created them and can destroy them, does not work, anyway. If I have a child, the I created them. Do I have the authority to kill them if they make me unhappy?

Examples of genocide:

Leviticus 26:7 And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.26:8 And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword
--God wants his people to chase and kill others; i.e. genocide.

--Murder: uh, what Bible are you reading? Murder is killing outside of due process. The Bible reports murders, but I don't recall it condoning any.--

Numbers 11:1 And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.
--God murders people for complaining

*where was the due process, they complained because they were starving and were murdered for it.

--Rape: The Bible looks down on that sort of thing.--

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

Why are they keeping only the virgins alive? Let me give you a hint. It is so they can RAPE them.

--Slavery: The Israelites were authorized to take prisoners of war as slaves, and to allow temporary indentured servitude as a payment for debts. As for Paul, he was concerned with building the church and not political reform. He told slaves and masters how to treat each other without saying good or bad about the institution. He *did* undermine the institution of slavery by telling masters to treat slaves as brothers - read the book of Philemon.--

Leviticus 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them "for a possession"; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

*Here is the bible supporting SLAVERY, not indentured servitude [which is a form of slavery]. But thank you for pointing out how contradictory and erroneous the bible is.

--Polygamy: Mosaic Law granted certain leniencies for the Israels, such as divorce on grounds other than infidelity. Jesus himself said that monogamy was the ideal: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." The Old Testament does demonstrate that polygamy has disastrous consequences - one cannot read about Abraham's and Isaac's domestic lives without concluding otherwise.--

It condones polygamy, god allowed these people to take multiple wives. Now you are just begging the question.

--Incest: I guess you're referring to the first generation of humans after Adam and Eve. In "When Critics Ask" Dr. Norman Geisler argues that the problem of genetic deformity from incest didn't exist at the time, and that was long before the Law of Moses condemned it (Lev. 18:6). (He's an old-earth creationist, so we're talking more than just a few thousand years.)--

Actually, I wasn't. But you have pointed out an obvious area where incest would be required. Also, old earth creationism is a farce. If each day in the bible was supposedly millions of years, then all of the plants created in Genesis 1:11 would die before he created the sun in 1:16.

Here is what I was referring to:

17:15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
20:2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.

*Abraham took his sister Sarai for his wife.

alan k henderson
--There is the implication that the presence of X bad philosophies in a book disproves the existence of Y good philosophies in that same book. Utter silliness. I didn't say anything about overall morals, anyway - I addressed one specific moral.--

Bad philosophies in a book that is touted as both the ultimate in morality and innerrant does, indeed, say something about its overall morals. After all, these verses have been used for thousands of years to eliminate both the competition and the unwanted.

Tanabear
Aren't you all excited and just a-quiver now that the right wing has an all-new, s-s-satan-loving, mass-murdering, baby-munching neo-Hitler???

Trashing Clinton was getting to be such a bore, Rosie won't be on daytime TV so we have to go back to soap operas, and Jimmy Carter just doesn't care.

Worse, I think TH columnists were beginning to run out of enemies - you can only write so many burnt earth diatribes about feminists, homosexuals, atheists, pro-choice people and immigrants. Given that actual ideas are almost non-existent here, targets of trash are always welcome to keep the engine running.

Slavery
The slavery section deserved additional commentary. When observing the institutions set up by the Law of Moses, one must not presume that all of them are inherently good. Sometimes, as with no-adultery divorce and polygamy, it's God saying "I'll tolerate it for now." Monarchy is another example; the Bible clearly illustrates that the king, more often than not, is a fink, as 1 Samuel 8 prophesies.

Slavery was a widespread institution in that time, and the Law of Moses put certain limitations on it. The *trading* of slaves was *not* authorized, and in 1 Timothy 1:9-11 lumped with other activities "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God." Slaves were not absolute property with the same rights as my DVDs; humans are the absolute property of God alone.

Slavery really didn't start to abate until the 1800s, when what may have been the first post-Reformation ecumenical movement - Anglicans, Quakers, Methodists, etc. - successfully lobbied British Parliament to end the practice. Obviously these folks didn't fall for the fallacy cited two paragraphs earlier. (The Dissenting faiths would certainly place the established church of Israel in the "I'll tolerate it for now" category.) Slavery did't jive with the image of humans of all stations being equally valuable to God ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" - Gal 3:28). Christianity ended slavery in the West.

I'll address the other charges after I empty the clothes dryer.

alan k henderson
--Christianity ended slavery in the West.--


The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors…For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything! In preference to the gospel, as preached by these divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writing of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke put together have done!”
Frederick Douglass

The other charges
Genocide, Murder:

"Your analogy, that god created them and can destroy them, does not work, anyway. If I have a child, the I created them. Do I have the authority to kill them if they make me unhappy?"

God did not use materials belonging to someone else to create life. Human reproduction uses materials that belong to God alone.

In the grander sense, we really don't own anything. Everything belongs to God, and we are granted permission to help ourselves as long as we do so honestly. But at least one thing is off-limits: no human can own the life of another human being. Thus murder is not acceptible.

God authorizes deadly force on three occasions: individual self-defense, just warfare, and just capital punishment.

God cannot murder unless there is some authority over God, in which case he's not really God but some intermediary - in which case this faith ceases to be monotheism.

Polygamy:

I don't care what those Political Correctness crap tolerance-and-diversity classes say. Tolerance means to put up with something, not to like it. You have not demonstrated that God condoned polygamy. In fact, it flies in the face of Matthew 19:4-5:

'"Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'"'

Incest:

Abraham wasn't being completely honest with Abimelech:

'Abraham replied, "I said to myself, 'There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.' Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife. And when God had me wander from my father's household, I said to her, 'This is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, "He is my brother." ' "'

Abraham's marriage would appear to fall under the "I'll tolerate it for now" category, given Leviticus 18:9: 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.'

The Hebrew word for "daughter" is sometimes used loosely, meaning direct descendent; she could have been a niece (also a Levitical no-no) or grandniece. Still, the Bible is full of stories about God working with seriously flawed people to act as his agents.

Okay, so Douglass was part moonbat
He didn't know that there was a religious abolitionist movement in this country?

Isn't scapegoating the entire church for the actions of some just as wrong as scapegoating all atheism for the actions of the Communist subset?

alan k henderson
--God authorizes deadly force on three occasions: individual self-defense, just warfare, and just capital punishment.--

Show me just capital punishment or self-defense or any justice in this verse:

Numbers 33:4 For the Egyptians buried all their firstborn, which the LORD had smitten among them: upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.

You are begging the question. The god of the bible is evil by today's evolved standards.

--in which case this faith ceases to be monotheism.--

The faith never was a monotheism, it was always based on multiple pagan gods and rituals [ie all of the blood sacrifices]. It became worse with the NT and the worship of the idol jesus, who was another god.

--Polygamy:
I don't care what those Political Correctness crap tolerance-and-diversity classes say. Tolerance means to put up with something, not to like it. You have not demonstrated that God condoned polygamy. In fact, it flies in the face of Matthew 19:4-5:
'"Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'"'
Incest:
Abraham wasn't being completely honest with Abimelech:
'Abraham replied, "I said to myself, 'There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.' Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife. And when God had me wander from my father's household, I said to her, 'This is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, "He is my brother." ' "'
Abraham's marriage would appear to fall under the "I'll tolerate it for now" category, given Leviticus 18:9: 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.'
The Hebrew word for "daughter" is sometimes used loosely, meaning direct descendent; she could have been a niece (also a Levitical no-no) or grandniece. Still, the Bible is full of stories about God working with seriously flawed people to act as his agents.--

Thank you for pointing out those obvious contradictions in the bible, I may use those in future debates. However, God still condoned those acts of polygamy and incest, otherwise he would have, and easily could have if he existed, commanded abraham not to marry his half-sister and Esau and Jacob not to have multiple wives.

--Okay, so Douglass was part moonbat
He didn't know that there was a religious abolitionist movement in this country?--

I cannot believe that you'd stoop that low. Douglass was one of the greatest abolitionists that the US had seen. He experienced it first hand. Of course he knew that there were some northern churches in the abolishionist movement but there were also many freethinkers and atheists [lucretia mott, susan b anthony] not to mention Thomas Paine who'd written against slavery 60 yrs before the abolishionist movement. I should also mention that the majority of religious abolishionist were quakers who were considered to be heretics by some of the early protestants [some were even hanged for the offence].





alan k henderson
--Isn't scapegoating the entire church for the actions of some just as wrong as scapegoating all atheism for the actions of the Communist subset?--

It would be more accurate to say scapegoating all of the communists because of the activities of certain communist regimes.

All christians are christians.

All atheists are not communists.

All communists are communists.


Murder
According to Christianity, every sin carries a death sentence. Most of those sentences are waived. Sometimes they are carried out; on rare occasions (as at Sodom and Gommorah) by WMD proportions.

Egyptian society was hardly innocent. (They were already guilty of worshiping false gods.) Everyone experienced the plagues firsthand. The plagues showed up when Moses said they'd show up, and the Hebrews were getting spared. These were miraculous signs that the Egyptian deities were powerless and the real God was in town. Repentant Egyptians could have approached the Hebrews about defecting; if any did, there is no record. But most if not all saw the miracles and willfully defied the power behind them.

The last plague fell solely on bystanders. But those firstborn over the age of accountability (1) were not innocent of sin, and those under the age avoid an eternal fate worse than physical death.

We're not omniscient beings, so we don't know what history would have been like if the firstborn had been left alone. Christians trust that an omniscient God knows more about the future than we do, and that from these harsh divine punishments the long-term effects outweigh the short-term shocks.

(1) http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html

Polygamy, great people, and Commies
I didn't point out any contradictions. Levitical law was not in place at the time of Abraham's lifetime. God had different covenant with Abraham.

God did not command any of his agents to remove all sin from their lives. We're humans - none of us have the will to do so. You cannot read "God condones X" into God's refusal to intervene in X. There is a difference betweem "tolerate" and "condone." Learn it.

----

What's so shocking about the idea that some great people have their flashes of lunacy? Great people aren't 100% cogent.

Found the entire speech:

http://afgen.com/douglas.html

He repeatedly makes sweeping generalizations about "the church" in the United States - and sweepingly credits "the church" in England for fighting to abolish slavery. Bad move. I can imagine members of his audience muttering "What about me?" everytime he points at the inaction of "the church." (And not all church folks fought for abolition in the UK.) It would have been better to abandon the hyperbole and complain that *few* churches take that stand. Don't alienate the churches that are already on your side, Mr. Douglass.

Douglass' sentiments about the British abolitionists supports my claim that Christianity brought about the end of Western slavery. Britain was where the movement started, after all.

----

Communism is evil, because it defines honest trade as theft, and prescribes theft (which is called "liberation") to eliminate all private commerce. The abuses of the communist regimes are the natural consequence of Communism, because a) it prescribes a dictatorship of the proletariat, and b) the people drawn to lead such dictatorships tend to be murderous thieves.

Not all Commies are guilty of the gulag, but they are all myopic for not recognizing what happens when a state abolishes private property and private commerce, and what sort of thuggish mindset is disproportionately attracted to that sort of activity.

Lest we remind
Falwell's occasional objectionable remark?

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/foulwell.htm

Limbaugh, like so many others on both sides, make innumerable mistakes of thinking that people are as polarized as they are, they are not. More people are of sound mind who can view each situation and issue with intelligence, thought, rooted in responsible decision making. Either political party claiming they “own” an issue is about as mythological as god or global warming.

Anytime someone starts attributing a "belief" of any kind to one party, they themselves are no longer in consideration of being logical or intelligent.

Because you don't think
"I didn't quite understand how his war support could be reconciled with his liberalism considering liberals' near-uniform opposition to the war,"

Because you don't think issue to issue you merely want to box people in to certain attributions to make it easier to attack them. Your shortsightedness is truly remarkable.

“insuperable barrier to any ideological transformation.”

The transformation should be for you, Mr. Limbaugh, as science reveals much and the myth of god has revealed nothing. If you really believe your god to know all and take care of you, then stop paying for insurance of any kind since prayer seems to be your answer to request.

“I don't know whether Hitchens considers strong evangelical Christians, like Falwell, to be as evil as jihadists, but he made clear he has abundant contempt for them.”

Yes, he does. If you had even read any of his books or his writings on the subject you’d know this before spouting off. ALL RELIGION is POISON. Again, your blind view of life thinking that only your religion is the “right” religion negates the other options for the people of this world.

However, your acknowledgement of other religions then negates your own so how could you believe others have a different view. This is the same rhetoric you spout off about regarding politics – it’s why you’re so narrow-minded.

“Leaving aside Falwell's regrettable comment about 9/11” once again Limbaugh, your apologist attitude comes through the writing. You would never give a pass to your opposition on such a statement. You’re a fraud of the worst kind.

“As intelligent as Hitchens is” much more than you could eve hope to be Limbaugh; you tread lightly my friend on thin ice. Hitchens would clean your clock in ANY debate with you.

“Christians are commanded to love everyone” the fatal flaw in EVERY religion. COMMANDED TO… you do nothing unless told – you have no responsible mindedness to do good because it’s good to do; because it advances mankind; because it benefits all. You do it because you’re told to – like a parent to a child – delegating the responsibility to someone other than yourself.

This above all proves your fraudulent nature and the charlatan personality of religion. You only do good deeds because it advances your chances of “getting into heaven” or having your parent, “god” look upon you favorably. What a load of tosh. You're contemptable in every sense of the word.

Henderson
TSUNAMIS

HURRICANES

TORNADOS

AIDS

CANCER

DIABETES

WAR

Shall I go on?

“Whatever He does, it is ALWAYS right and good.” Try saying that to someone after one of the above mentioned situations and see what response you get. Two words and they won’t be happy birthday.

alan k henderson
--But those firstborn over the age of accountability (1) were not innocent of sin, and those under the age avoid an eternal fate worse than physical death.--

Now you are holding your god to a different standard. If I were to kill your son or daughter to punish you, I would rightly be seen as a monster. If your 'god' does it to hundreds of thousands you see it as okay. This is the kind of thinking that allowed figures such as hitler and stalin to murder millions. They were seen as larger than life, almost as gods, and people blindly did their bidding using rationalizations similar to yours.

--Levitical law was not in place at the time of Abraham's lifetime. God had different covenant with Abraham.--

So Abraham was 'above the law?' God couldn't have told him that these things were wrong?

Christopher Falwell
Yeah, I'd agree with those who suggest Hitch-man is projecting his own tendencies onto Falwell. Since this is no place to argue theology (the media sure don't get it!), I won't bother, except to note that, in Hitch's materialist world, it presumably makes no sense to condemn Jerry F for anything. (Whose "morality" did he violate--Kim Il-Sung's?) But it's telling that Hitch still wishes damnation for a man he hates. The Left seems thus inclined, ranting about hell for those they despise--just like a jihadist!

Maybe Hitch *is* a bloody Marxist; their leaders often excelled at hellish works.

You don't get it
Genocide, murder:

What have I said earlier? God owns everything, God is the highest authority of existence. With no higher level of government above him, he certainly has the authority to implement capital punishment.

Israel teaches us an important lesson: God delegates only a smidgeon of that authority, even under a theocracy. Sins fall in two caregories; man-vs-man-and-God, and man-vs-God-alone. Only God can authorize criminalization of the latter - he is the sole plaintiff - only God can write a constitution that criminalizes such sins. He has not authorized any more theocracies after rescinding the first, so human governments are authorized to prosecute only the former.

The principle of equitable punishment - "eye for an eye" - places this restriction: human punishment must be assessed on the basis of the level of injury inflicted ON THE HUMAN PARTY. All sins grieve God equally, on the basis of what they do to the relationship between the sinner and God, but all sins do not harm humans equally. Human capital punishment is thus severely restricted. Assuming this principle is followed, capital punishment is not murder, any more than a fine is theft.

Hitler and Stalin make my point. They stole authority that didn't belong to them. They murdered because they believed that some lives were less valuable than others, and becuase they rooted the value of a life to be gauged by the individual's conformity to the totalitarian ideal in question. Christianty teaches that we are *not* God, that only God owns a person's life, that we better damn well be careful that we don't let Caesar take what isn't Caesar's.

Incest and polygamy:

Abraham was not above the law. Right and wrong never changed. God has implemented varying degrees of leniency over time with direct enforcement. One sign of that leniency is the fact that he doesn't kill us all for our man-vs-God-alone crimes, starting from scratch without so much as a few refugees in an ark.

You fail to consider the possibility that God regards divorce as a greater ill than Abraham's (or Jacob's) marital arrangements. You also fail to note that God never picked prophets on the basis of moral perfection - considering that humans aren't morally perfect. The prophets didn't earn their offices - they were chosen because God had specific missions for them.

I guess the thread is over
I will say this on an optimistic note.

The logic should be easy to understand; if everything exists at the whim of God, everything is God's to remake or rescind. The logical conclusion is that even our own lives don't really belong to ourselves, there's an authority higher than us who holds the deed. And humans have no power or legal standing to change that.

But do not be lost to what we have in common. Those of us who beleive in the ideals of the Declaration of Independence agree on who **doesn't** own an individual's life, thoughts, or honestly-gained property. Whether or not those things are ultimately deeded to God, they are **not** deeded to some human entity aside from the individual in question. Government can bill us for services rendered (as a business does), but it doesn't own our stuff. Parental authority is near-absolute, but even that has limits (which could make up a whole new comments thread). Disagreement on the God-human relationship doesn't preclude lots of agreement on the human-human relationship.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.