David thanks so much for this post and video. I live in a similar area as the video, bigoted un-informed staunch Republicans but totally unaware of the issues. You are correct; in that these are not "bad" people and we must in some way, find a channel of communication if we are to move forward as a nation. I was struck how hostile these folks got as they struggled to answer your questions but that is a natural response when one cannot articulate a reason for their position. I have always been an independent but if you send me the necessary forms I will officially sign as a Democrat.

by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:29:46 AM

  (0+)

David,

These are all archetypal characteristics of authoritarian personalities. Authoritarian people, as a caste group (about 23-percent of the nation’s populace), have a Manichean mindset – a dualist viewpoint – one who only sees the world as good or evil; no nuance, nothing abstract or ever vague. Personal responsibility is wholly omitted among authoritarians, as personal liability requires introspection – the ability to think cerebrally, not viscerally. They are provincial-minded in every respect. You can easily speculate on your own as to which side you, as well as I, fall in this clash of Manichean thinking.

Moreover, study after study shows that authoritarian personalities struggle with facts, which do not fit their own deluded narrative of the world, and they will act out virulently when their flawed and unsubstantiated belief system is challenged – facts, figures, reports and history be dammed. No amount of reason or rationale will influence their reactionary and intractable – fully immutable position – that they are right, America is always right and these two ideas are mutually and inescapably exclusive. They buoy these two untenable notions and tether them to the “God is on America’s side” meme. This bizarre phenomenon of marrying God and Country, as a beyond reproach defense mechanism –and safeguard against the truth – is known as “Conflation through Cognitive Dissonance.”

In addition, their “leaders” tend to be charming, disarming, almost irresistible, yet completely morally bankrupt, amazingly incurious, and stridently unethical (Sarah Palin is a classic “High Threat” authoritarian).

Authoritarian people also compartmentalize their thinking, creating an impermeable barrier that fosters an incompatible paradigm of duplicitous thought processes, which are utterly Orwellian (This is why they make astonishing statements that resonate with doublespeak, such as “War is Peace”, mantras). They are openly hostile toward intellectuals, takes pleasure in deriding academia, liberals, and immense pride in their willful ignorance (Ignorance is Strength).

Most people strive to assimilate into their surrounding, trying to find a nature homeostasis of civil interaction, whereby authoritarians do exactly the opposite – they act out raucously, sometimes violently (We see this now at McCain/Palin rallies). This is scientifically backed by numerous universities and decades of study done by Dr. Robert Altemyer, at the University of Manitoba. You cannot negotiate with authoritarians; you can only mitigate their influence in society by ensuring they do not obtain positions of power or influence. No amount of rational though can persuade them as they are wholly irrational, quite literally, mentally unstable and deluded. For these reasons, and many others, it’s time to diminish severely their capacity to have any voice – be it in politics, the mainstream media, or any other place of influence, including our schools.

Finally, on the issue of religion, as it relates to the Theocrats and their credulous coterie, blindly obedient faith—the uncritical view that fantasy trumps fact—is the indisputable and unpardonable transgression of humanity, it is the wedge that divides our universal commonality into a chasm of intolerable intolerance. When compared to Greek and Roman mythology, the contemporaneous tripartite Abrahamic-based religions are no less bizarre; they are only the ephemerally accepted folklore of yore – the zeitgeist of our time. Accordingly, proclaiming piousness and quoting apocryphal scripture does not give one the privilege to make a statement of fact sans sufficient and irrefutable evidence, of which, in regards to religion or God, there simply is none.

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:35:38 AM

  (0+)

A truly fine written piece. It is reasuring to know there are people on the same page. Thank you.

by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:13:43 PM

  (0+)

The conservative psychological management of uncertainty and fear.


Here are some more disturbing facts about authoritarian personalities. 88 studies involving 22,818 individual subjects concluded that there is a clear tendency for conservatives to score significantly higher on measures of dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative complexity than are moderates and liberals.

They show a marked decrease in cognitive complexities, suffer from lowered self-esteem, act on fear, anger, and aggression, and suffer extreme mental rigidity.

In essence, authoritarian minds have great difficulty in critical thought, deductive reasoning, struggle with gray area issues and are motivated by perceived external and internal existential threats without the application of introspective thought.

They are reactive, thus reactionary, rather than pensive or progressive in nature – they would rather conquer than contemplate.

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:46:54 PM

  (0+)

I have an old hippie friend----the real deal, 2 masters degrees, navy pilot and dropped out 30 years ago to live the life he wanted. He has always said, "people do not want a president smarter than they are", i.e. Dubya. I use to argue with that but I think it may be true. People fear/dislike what they cannot comprehend.

by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:46:54 PM

  (0+)

Editor's note: This comment was flagged for "slander".  In my opinion, it does not meet the criteria for slander and falls within the acceptable norms of civil discourse.

"They are... reactionary, rather than pensive or progressive in nature – they would rather conquer than contemplate."

Are you claiming that pensive and progressive are one and the same? Sure... okay. I guess it only works if you work it. And you're working it here, Mr. Ranelli.

And what is conservatism? "A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change" - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism . Gradual implies deliberate thought and an avoidance of brashness, does it not? Your use of the adjective "reactionary" might apply to an ultraconservative ideology but certainly not a conservative one.

It seems, Mr. Ranelli, that you are using the broad brush approach – yet again – on conservatives. And true to your established talking point, you're lumping just about all of them into the "authoritarian personality". It must be intellectually "tasty" for you to think that the progressive mindset is so much more...well, darn – pensive or progressive in nature to the fear-filled and aggressive conservative mind.

I'm certain the late William F. Buckley, Jr. would readily disagree with you, Mr. Ranelli, but you do seem to liken yourself against such a benchmark.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:57:13 PM

  (0+)

Thou doth do protest too much.

Just kidding. But you must admit. When anyone mentions conservative mindsets, you get offended.

Research is pretty clear that there are different basic personality types, and liberals and conservatives come out, as expected, on opposite sides of various scales that measure different aspects of human responses. Groups are defined based on their personality traits, much as you just did in your comment.

Liberals are more accepting of differences and change, and conservatives prefer status quo conditions, especially when they favor the conservatives. Personality differences must underlie the different mindsets, wouldn’t you agree?

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:05:44 PM

  (0+)

John, I have no problem with discussing any isms.  I offer my opinions in an attempt to balance out the pendulum swing of others.  My guidelines when posting tend to focus on the reasonable, most likely about the issue - with a conservative perspective.  Conservative meaning slow change as opposed to rapis is usually the preferred.

I think stereotyping and deliberate misrepresentations to promote one's political agenda are primary causes of America's sharp polarity today (as witnessed by close election results).  And the trenches seemingly are being dug deeper - not filled in.  This is what I find troubling in discourse today. 

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:48:34 PM

  (0+)

"For these reasons, and many others, it's time to diminish severely their capacity to have any voice – be it in politics, the mainstream media, or any other place of influence, including our schools."

Mr. Ranelli, you sound like Animal Farm's Squealer with your shocking statement above...

"Squealer: Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"

Thank you, Mr. Ranelli, for displaying the true intellectual might of the Progressive man. Shut "those vile others" up so that "we" can have a better democracy. Priceless! You never cease to entertain me – especially with your pontificating on about "cognitive dissonance" and "compartmentalization" that you exemplify boldly with your above-referenced comment.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:30:29 PM

  (0+)

that Jesus said his Kingdom is not of the world of man, nor worldly things then things are not about your Nation or any Nation.  They are not even about this world & what man define's as success in worldly terms.

Two types of people Jesus railed most against were the Rich & the Religious Political Factions of that time in Israel going as far to tell the vast majority of them that their father was the devil who was liar & murderer from the beginning.

The Book of Revelation lists many Beast Kingdoms/Nations.  Just to even love & worship an indivual Beast Kingdom/Nation one might quite possibly be worshipping the Beast & the Image of the Beast.  Your Nation may well be a Beast Kingdom.  There are many who consider your Nation to be Mystery Babylon that builds the globalist system of the Beast.  I don't know if that is exactly true, but there is a high probability of that such thing.

It is a well known manipulation/ploy educated people have used throughout time to use God's name in vain in what is really nothing more than their own evil ambitions upon the earth.  It is a well know manipulation for a Nation that wants it's own glory upon the earth to create external & internal enemies.  This keeps people confused & living in fear when I agree with what Ron Paul said that blowback comes from what your Nation does to other people around the globe both covertly & overtly.

by shadow dancer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1115 comments [121 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:52:25 PM

  (0+)

If these Bible thumpers would simply read the Book they claim to live by they would find that the very first real "Christians/Anointed Ones" lived communal lives. They took care of one another! Read the Book of Acts!!!

Their Jesus is not the "Anointed One, the Christ/Messiah!" Prior to Jesus only Priests, Kings, and Prophets were allowed to be Anointed with the Holy Oil as described in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament that contains 250 shekels of "kaneh bosm/cannabis." Jesus came to make Anointed Priests of all men with eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to understand and distribute the Holy Oil freely. Prior to the Anointing a person is only on the way to becoming a "Christian." Johns water baptism is incomplete, again read the Book! Jesus baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit. There is water in water, there is Fire in Chrism!

These people are in fact being led by the counterfeit spirit of antichrist which means literally; "opposed to or against, Anointed!!" Their teachings are but rules taught by men! They have no foundation, they spew venom.

The whole World  has been led astray for almost 2000 years, but the Light is now coming on for those with eyes to see!

Kaneh bosm! The Tree of Life!

Food, fuel, shelter, medicine, pleasure, spirituality, unity!

by Garry Minor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:25:41 PM

  (0+)

Editor's Note: This comment was flagged by a reader and was allowed by another editor to remain, but with the complaint that there were grammar errors, that it was off track and "seems to be drivel." It was deemed unacceptable, but was not deleted.

This editor strongly disagrees with this action. Do a quick sampling of comments on this site and you will see enough typos and misspellings to fill the Grand Canyon the commenter mentioned. The author brought God into the discussion and the commenter responded with his beliefs. The comment may not be to the liking of some, but if you read a little more closely it does respond directly to the article if not in the style some are accustomed to. If the original flagger or editor wants, they can contact me and we can discuss it. Cheryl Biren-Wright cheryl@opednews.com

_____________

God doesn't  loose elections, He knows all and  He  puts in Bad Kings, just like he puts in Good Kings.  Bible thumpers?  At least we have faith in something,  You think we were created as a joke, as do just live like we want?  What happened in Noah's Ark, or Sodom and Gamora?  Mear Bible fairy tales...  Have you not heard the chariot wheels have been found in the Red Sea by shallow water...  how do you explain the Grand Canyon? 

God puts bad Kings in office to wake America up..  I know you don't believe it, but America was founded on Christian principles   .. in order to become a State they had to have Christian Beliefs and believe in the 10 commandments and believe Jesus was the only way to salvation...   Read the motto of the State of South Dakota   1889  under God the people rule.   The Supreme Court of South Carolina   What constitutes the standard of good morals?  Is it not Christianity?

Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania1776  We the People of Pennsylvania grateful to Almighty  God for the blessings of Civil and Religious Liberty and humbly invoking His guidance do ordain and establish this Constitution ... and before each member of the Legislature takes his seat  shall make and subscribe the following declaration   " I do believe in one God, the creator and Governour of the Universe, the rewarder of good and punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old Testiment and the New Testiment to be given by the Divine Inspiration. 

One can laugh at the Bible Thumpers, but read America's God and Country by Wiliam J. Feder and learn the truth about how  AMERICA was really started.......  I'd rather believe in the Truth taught by Jesus than the Lies of the world taught by Satan    ...   God is not a sadist ...  Satan is ...  shows how powerful   Satan  has become in America ....

One last thing.........  EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW     even yours...  believe it or not

by Don Bybee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 116 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:22:09 PM

  (0+)

 Sarah Palin and her supporters are provoking MURDER. The bible says to "think it or lust it" is to have done it. If someone shoots Obama, then flit will hit the shan and even crackers like me, will hit the streets and fight against racism. Palin is one evil wicked radical extremist, talibanish "christian". This god you speak of, this god is not love. This christian god that lives in Palin is evil and hateful.

George Bush arrests peaceful protesters and throws them in jail. Bush arrests Journalists and throws them in jail. Bush doesn't arrest abortion clinic arsonists and murderers. Bush doesn't arrest KKK ppl when they threaten or act out their radicalism. Bush arrests peacemakers. Bush doesn't arrest people that yell "KILL HIM" when it is a Democrat. You and I both know had someone yelled that out at McCain, they'd be sitting in the slammer. End of story. Bush is evil. Cheney worships Satan. You christians installed these money changers and you want MORE of these type? Never in the constitution is the word "christian" even mentioned--never! Never is the word "Jesus" mentioned in the constitution NEVER. Pick up a constitution and prove it to yerselves. The Founders never had any intention of promoting religion. Just the opposite. The rightie posters prove your point David.

I'll repeat it, Up is down. Religion kills and history proves it, because almost every war was due to religious clashes.

I'm a POW as well. A "prisoner of W."

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:41:49 AM

  (0+)

It is a shame that we must throw Christ out with those who may not represent Him correctly. I am sure I can find plenty of loons in the non-Christian crowd and equally dismiss everyone else who shares a similar lack of faith. But is that fair?

For the record, I like Mr. Swanson's writings, and have supported many things he has endevoured to do but it saddens me that in a heated political climate, there is this need to trash all Christianity because Sarah Palin doesn't get it. There must have been a more even handed way to present the case than to mock God and those that may simply believe differently than David. I do not believe that I am "playing with action figures" - and I have plenty of rational thought, yet I also believe that God is very very real. Oops, there goes your sterotype as well as the dangers of making broad sweeping generalizations. This was a sad piece because not everyone who believes in Christ behaves the way some of the people you caricature do David. But I feel your anger.

Two other comments. One, I may hate what I hear at McCain rallies but to go as far as to say that they are "inciting murder" is flat out wrong.

Lastly, to the editor who flagged the comment - why? I read your reason as being that you thought it was drivel and it had mispellings? Are you kidding me? I have never seen a response flagged for grammar on this site which leads me to conclude that it must have more to do with the fact that YOU think it is drivel and guess what? Too bad. It is still this person's opinion and you should have no business being the thought police. I would not have approached it as he did but he had the right to respond didn't he? Especially in the face of something that he obviously found offending? I have had maniacs hijack my threads without anything being done but this guy says what he believes and he is flagged for "drivel???"

Drivel. That is what your flagging of that comment was. Please remove the flag and think better of its implications.

Be well all.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:34:25 AM

  (0+)

I agree with you, Anthony.  Although I have to admit the last 8 years have tried my faith.

One of the reasons I started writing was because it was incomprehensible to me that G.W. with his constant lies and deceit, lust for war, and greed for both wealth and power could be being held up as the paragon of "Christian" virtue by so many people who believe themselves to be Christians.  That is why I wrote "Standing in Awe of Bush's Christianity" among other pieces.  It saddens me that to so many people the measure of your "Christianity" or your "patriotism" is how willing you are to kill other people in the name of God or country.  The reason I have pretty much stopped writing is because, in my opinion, if people could not figure it out from what I, and others like you, had already said, they never WOULD figure it out.  BUT I have been encouraged by the fact that every day in this country people are standing up to evil.  The prosecutor in one of the cases at Abu Ghraib quit, for instance.  AND it does appear Obama will be elected in spite of the attitudes David mentioned in his article.  Soometimes I envy the ignorant their certainties.  Life must be easier if you KNOW rather than if you actually THINK for yourself.

Lonna Gooden VanHorn

by Lonna Gooden VanHorn (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:08:11 AM

  (0+)

Anthony,

For the record, and anyone else for that matter, I flagged the comment. It did not have anything to do with grammatical errors, although there are plenty, as well as some in this person’s bio. I flagged it because this person has an agenda. When you make absurd statements such as, “I believe America was founded on Christian Principles…God is in contol [sic] of America's destiny [sic]”, then it becomes clear the person has agenda. You may express your beliefs and opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. This is not, in any way, a Christian nation, nor is the Christian God, or any other supernatural being, in control of America’s destiny. We, the people of this planet, and the natural laws of the universe are the only things that govern this world, not fictional deities derived from apocryphal scripture written by nomadic tribesmen more than two millennium ago.

Sorry, Anthony, we have irreconcilable differences on this topic, but Christian fanatics, such as Mr. Bybee, do not get a free pass, nor does religion itself – religion is not beyond reproach, as some might like it to be. I find you to be an excellent writer and a sane, sensible person, but I have to pose the idea that your restraint and moderation about your own faith gives cover to proselytizing zealots, such as Mr. Bybee. It is a matter of reason and rationality for agnostics and atheists to challenge and confront 'moderates of faith' with the uncomfortable notion that God may indeed not exist and 'ostensible moderation' may be the bedrock from which religious extremism is forged.

We could have an endless debate about contemplative religion, but I am certain it would end in gridlock and even antipathy, which is not my intent. There is no amount of debate that would change my views (I do not have any beliefs, which is an important distinction to note) sans irrefutable evidence of the existence of God, or any god, for that matter. Currently, no such evidence – that any god, of any denomination – exists and man has in vain searched for it for thousands of years without success. Man, in fact, has created many gods that befitted him and then destroyed those same gods; casting these once inerrant deities onto the scrap heap of history when God or gods no longer proved useful or sustainable. As I said in an earlier comment, When compared to Greek and Roman mythology, the contemporaneous tripartite Abrahamic-based religions are no less bizarre; they are only the ephemerally accepted folklore of yore – the zeitgeist of our time. Faith, by its very definition, is the belief in something without proof, and I cannot enter into such irrational endeavors. As a matter of fact, religion is the only place in society that we take things on “faith”, without tangible, logical, palpable evidence grounded in reason, truth, and facts.

In fairness and in the interest of continued collegial discussion, your article where you felt alone as a Christian due to how other Christians were treating you (I am paraphrasing from memory) was sincere and moving. However, there is, in my opinion, a reason you feel that way. The vast majority of professed Christians do not comport with the tenets of your belief, they fiendishly wield religion as a bludgeon to subjugate or silence dissent while they eviscerate any force or form of an egalitarian, secular society that puts people first. It is used as a justification, in the name of your God, as subterfuge to commit a litany of crimes against humanity under the guise and false banners of religion.

My second observation is a matter of simple fact – the world’s stage is moving away from religion and shedding this divisive, dangerous relic of an archaic, no longer relevant, ancient worldview. Secularists, Nonreligious, Agnostics, and Atheists account for 1.1 billion people worldwide. Approximately 12-percent of Americans are Atheists, and another nine percent are Agnostics. Yet, when compared to the rest of the world, we are the most religious nation on earth. It is we, the U.S., that is outmoded and not in-step with the other 95-percent of the inhabitants of this planet.

The rest of the enlightened, Western World scoffs at our manic, reactionary religiosity. They snicker at our charlatan purveyors of piety, which are ubiquitous in America, who strip people of their money because they fall prey to these sham swindlers due to credulity and bogus hopes and empty promises of an afterlife if they give these quacks money.

Why does God always seem to need more money? This is a reasonable question, which is easily answered. God if He were to exist doesn’t need money; greedy, amoral, people posing as false prophets need money – and lots of it. Yet, tens of millions of dollars are given each year to religious firebrand piety purveyors, such as the utterly insane Pat Robertson, while wages stagnate, people are losing their homes, the climate is in crisis, people are dying in needless wars, many suffer in poverty, and our government is in tatters. Why? Because people are desperate and destitute, so they turn to religion looking for answers, when all else seems hopeless.

This is not a winning strategy for bringing about change and a progressive society.

The reality is that I respect each and every human life, but I do not have to respect their religion and beliefs, as it is wholly an unsustainable and wasteful paradigm. We savagely attack one another over everything from politics to sports teams, but when it comes to religion, we are told to remain mute. It is this silence that allows the propagation of extremism and without a rational discussion about the role religion plays in our world, where all dissenting view are expurgated from the conversation, we end up with people so inerrant in their beliefs, with NO evidence, that they fly planes into buildings at over 400 MPH, all in the name of their god. Only the light of reason – that man made god out of ignorance, fear and unscientific observations – will humankind be free from the oppressive heat of debates about imaginary deities, such as this one. David is right to challenge these people, as sunlight is truly the best disinfectant.

Digressing, the main reason I flagged the comment was the irrationality and obvious purpose Mr. Bybee intended by signing up to OEN just a few days ago – to disrupt and cause commotion. I may utterly disagree with you on religion, but the inane, driveling inculcations being made by Mr. Bybee, are those of a zealot, and not a levelheaded person, such as you.

Simply look at this one declaration of a litany of madcap ramblings, “I'd rather believe in the Truth taught by Jesus than the Lies of the world taught by Satan    ...   God is not a sadist ...  Satan is ...  shows how powerful   Satan  has become in America ....”

Lies of the world? This is clearly a fanatic who is not in touch with reality on any level, dangerously deluded and lacks any ability to make a cogent statement or argument!

His presence on OEN is a growing movement of interlopers who infiltrate blogs for the sole purpose of provocation. There is nothing coherent about his comment. It is rambling, drifting, nonsensical, and premeditated to derail the thread with jumbled unintelligible statements. Mr Bybee is what is known as a “thread assassin.” Rogue operators spoiling for a virtual confrontation and their motive and ammunition is to hijack a thread, using various methods, ranging from simple ad hominem attacks, ridicule, mockery, to impish endeavors that all fall under the umbrella of pure provocation. Previously, here at OEN, no matter how touchy the debating was amongst members, it was just that, deliberating the issues. And the deliberations were nearly always aimed at trying – not always successful – but attempting to find a symbiotic position, compromise or concession.

Not so any longer.

It is time we push back against and mitigate or eliminate the Mr. Bybee’s of the world whose only reason for joining places like OEN is to create conflict and strife.

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:19:15 PM

  (0+)

"For the record, and anyone else for that matter, I flagged the comment... I flagged it because this person has an agenda."

Mr. Ranelli, I trust you see the elitism in your rationale for flagging? You are now acting upon the previously-mentioned words of Squealer, "No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"

Your zealousness on this issue is fascinating to follow.

"We, the people of this planet, and the natural laws of the universe are the only things that govern this world, not fictional deities derived from apocryphal scripture written by nomadic tribesmen more than two millennium ago."

And yet, does not "God help... those who help themselves?" – Benjamin Franklin.

"It is a matter of reason and rationality for agnostics and atheists to challenge and confront 'moderates of faith' with the uncomfortable notion that God may indeed not exist and 'ostensible moderation' may be the bedrock from which religious extremism is forged."

It has nothing to do with reason and rationality, Mr. Ranelli, although those are tools used to impugn the spiritual. The attacks upon the religious-minded have far more to do the agnostic's or atheist's fear and/or resentment of another's belief system that is incomprehensible to them. Intolerance, then - this being spiritual, is what propels the atheist to attack the religious. The vehemence of your actions (e.g., flagging the comment in this thread) support this assertion of intolerance – especially where you're attacking another's beliefs. Tsk, tsk, Mr. Ranelli; how very proletariat of you.

"There is no amount of debate that would change my views (I do not have any beliefs, which is an important distinction to note) sans irrefutable evidence of the existence of God, or any god, for that matter."

So much for a symbiotic position, compromise, or concession, huh?  Talk about your absence of pensiveness or... dare I say... progression on this issue. Does this, then, make you an authoritarian personality, Mr. Ranelli?  We are men of action, Mr. Ranelli, and lies do not become us.  You have no intention of striking a compromise with one of the... "faithful", do you?

"Currently, no such evidence – that any god, of any denomination – exists and man has in vain searched for it for thousands of years without success."

We've been here before, Mr. Ranelli. Recall that your are dismissing – yet again – the reason/faith debate. You instead, rely solely upon your vaunted, Vulcan logic to make your path through this Universe. Well, good for you but it sounds statically cold to me.

"As a matter of fact, religion is the only place in society that we take things on "faith", without tangible, logical, palpable evidence grounded in reason, truth, and facts."

Mr. Ranelli, how totally naïve of you! Religion is the ONLY place? What of science - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html ? Yes, the Laws of Nature exist but why do they exist – Cosmology 101? What is your response to that, Mr. Ranelli? They exists because they do...? Isn't that faith? I think you need to go back and possibly think about a redo on this statement.

"The vast majority of professed Christians do not comport with the tenets of your belief, they fiendishly wield religion as a bludgeon to subjugate or silence dissent while they eviscerate any force or form of an egalitarian, secular society that puts people first. It is used as a justification, in the name of your God, as subterfuge to commit a litany of crimes against humanity under the guise and false banners of religion."

Aha – so now we see where the fear and resentment of this atheist comes from!

"Yet, when compared to the rest of the world, we are the most religious nation on earth. It is we, the U.S., that is outmoded and not in-step with the other 95-percent of the inhabitants of this planet."

Where do you get YOUR facts - click here , Mr. Ranelli? There are several nations way ahead of America on the label of being the "most religious". And I think your use of 95% (America at 300,000,000 being 4.9% of the total world population at 6,100,000,000) fails to reflect the removal of the agnostic/atheistic percentage. Let's get it right, shall we?

"The rest of the enlightened, Western World scoffs at our manic, reactionary religiosity."

Why are you granting other nation's such control over your country, Mr. Ranelli? Personally, I could care less what the UK thought of America because we cannot control their actions as much as they cannot control ours. And yet, you're seemingly compelled to grant them...intellectual weight? Why?

"Why does God always seem to need more money?"

I think you know the answer to this question. It's not God but man that seems to need more money. This is a baited question and has very little reasonableness about it.

"This is not a winning strategy for bringing about change and a progressive society."

Why must it be a progressive society; why not a democratic or republican society that is respectful of all voices? You, though, want to, "...[D]iminish severely their capacity to have any voice – be it in politics, the mainstream media, or any other place of influence, including our schools." Dude, like, whoa. You sound a wee bit like Der Führer here, Mr. Ranelli - http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/angrif09.htm .

"Digressing, the main reason I flagged the comment was the irrationality and obvious purpose Mr. Bybee intended by signing up to OEN just a few days ago – to disrupt and cause commotion. I may utterly disagree with you on religion, but the inane, driveling inculcations being made by Mr. Bybee, are those of a zealot, and not a levelheaded person, such as you."

Cannot this claim of zealotry be claimed of you but in the reverse to this subject, Mr. Ranelli? I think it quite possible.

"His presence on OEN is a growing movement of interlopers who infiltrate blogs for the sole purpose of provocation... It is time we push back against and mitigate or eliminate the Mr. Bybee's of the world whose only reason for joining places like OEN is to create conflict and strife."

You are actively using cognitive dissonance here, Mr. Ranelli. These sentences are akin to one of Squealer's many mission for Napoleon in Animal Farm:

"As Napoleon was deceiving the neighboring farmers he was also tricking his own animals. The scapegoat was again Snowball. 'Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball.' In fact many of the claims begin to sound ridiculous to the objective mind. Of course, Squealer's mission is to keep everything subjective in the minds of the animals."

You are "the" Squealer here, Mr. Ranelli, clocking your attack in the humility of only looking to better humankind. Again, I find your comments on this thread fascinating because it makes more clear comments you've made previously and elsewhere here and others places where you post.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:40:00 PM

  (0+)

Well done sir

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:33:50 PM

  (0+)

sorry frank, i have to disagree here.

Christian fanatics, such as Mr. Bybee, do not get a free pass, nor does religion itself

People with all religious beliefs - whether you deem them fanatic or not - do get a free pass here as much as anyone here gets a free pass.  Actually, If I step back and take a look I find your long reply to Anthony describing Mr. Bybee's belief system to be quite rigid and offensive.  Why do you cling to the idea that everything has to be based on your framework of facts? Why is it so important to you that you would eliminate someone's personal beliefs on a site that invites all points of view? Not looking for a fight here, just that you were quite free to leave several exhaustive comments on this thread, but one guy who holds beliefs that don't make sense to you can't have them here?

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:55:03 PM

  (0+)

YOUR flag said you flagged it for spelling and drivel. The spelling argument was ridiculous, as I assume you agree with now.

The drivel argument is one of YOUR opinion. I have no intention of re addressing all of the points you made slamming people of faith. In your disdain of the intolerant, you have become what you loathe but you think you know better, one of the things that makes you abhor people of faith.

There was not "drivel" Frank, there was just a dissenting opinion to what the author wrote and what you believe. I find it funny that you think this guy is a thread killer, when that is all i deal with when I have the temerity to suggest people vote. Yet they are allowed to ruin work with impunity.  

Hope all is well.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:28:45 PM

  (0+)

If mis-spelling is used to rate the worth of a piece or is that peice---I'm dead. But I still think David's piece is a very good one. To tell the truth, his writing and use of language does require the reader to think past the usual but I believe it is genuine. I get mail from my old "theology guru" and he would fully agree with David, in that we have been used and abused by these politicans holding a bible in one hand and a gun in the other. There is a great deal of phony theology out there and using the founding fathers to support this is not only bad theology, it is false history. If Christ were around, we would do the same thing as before, because we are still the same people. If he were female or black he would not last a day and just as before, we would shrink away in the crowd when the cops arrested him.

Stay strong friend.

by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:20:32 AM

  (0+)

There are just as many unethical, greedy, immoral, folks within any belief system. I do not throw out all progressivism because of them. You cannot paint with that broad a brush. I speak out all the time of abuses by people of faith. But I do not mock God in the process. I do not blame God in the process. I do not seek to insult everyone within a belief system because some people are corrupt within it. But I hear ya.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:39:16 PM

  (0+)

old Indian never installed anyone in office.  Be that as it may Jesus's original disciples did live as communalists but they were in a mammon based system while at the same time in this land know as Turtle Island then the Tribes were living as Tribal Communalists in a non-mammon way of life that did have free trade that streched over the land mass of what would be called now many States.

It is not that God installs bad, wicked, or evil rulers it is that God allows human beings to chose & God will let evil rulers rise to positions of power in the world especially when the Nation State began.  The Israelites asked God for a King because in their envy they wanted to be like the other Nations.  God told them a King would enslave them which shows you God actually knows what he's speaking about when he speaks. 

But God knew the Israelites in their hearts didn't want what he wanted for them so he gave them a King.  They ended up with both King Herods & the Caesar's of Rome.  The men who founded your Nation stated they patterend your Nation after Rome.  This meant the end of the Native tribal way of life because now the Native Tribes had a King/Caesar/Pres.  The rest is fairly much history to what's happening today.

The Israelites were a Tribal people with Jesus being the Lion of Judah because he was born of the Tribe of Judah.  His names animal symbols & paradoxical symbols as Lamb of God & Lion of Judah.  The Native people's crime, we were just camping out upon the earth, hunting, & fishing, ect.

Jesus's crime.  He told people the truth.  Jesus actually taught his Father's Spiritual Kingdom, not religion.  Jesus did not give any indication he came to start a new religion.  All men of themselves did was turn Jesus back into religion thinking they could please God with religion when it was the Good Samaritan that Jesus praised, not the religious priest that left the man helpless without even seeing if he could help him.

Jesus warned of false teacher, false prophets, & wolves in sheep's clothing.  Men just turn things back into the Political Religious State & started murdering, torturing, & stealing in Jesus's name instead of Caesars.

Now through Cause & Effect some 2000 years later this is how things are now upon planet earth.  Time flys when your having fun.

by shadow dancer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1115 comments [121 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:29:48 AM

  (0+)

And God gave them what they wanted, knowing it would not be what was best for them, but it was what they wanted. Talk about being careful what you ask for.

Then they chose their king based on the most crucial of all criteria: he was unusually tall. What a way to choose a king!

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:35:32 PM

  (0+)

But my beliefs are totally opposite of Sarah Palin.  I think; rather than blindly accept what anyone else says.  I read the Bible and my understanding of the message of Jesus is that it is only by choosing to love one another can the vision of heaven be realized.  To say that God supports war and killing is totally going against the teachings of Jesus.

Osama bin Laden says God (Allah) supports killing of Americans; that is no different from Sarah Palin saying the God supports our war in Iraq.  I suggest that those who say their religion supports the killing of those they disagree with are fanatics who use a false religious teaching to promote their political agenda.  I consider Osama bin Laden, George Bush, and Sarah Palin religious fanatics as they teach a false doctrine (that God wants us to kill each other).

Forget religious teachings - think for yourself.  If some nation invades my country and kills my son, my father, my daughter, my mother, my friend, my neighbor, what would I feel and think?  Would I feel love or hate?

I suggest that when Jesus taught that we should turn the other cheek and to love our enemies he understood that violence results in more violence;  only peace and love promote peace and love.  The only real way to fight terrorism is to choose a policy of love and peace of all mankind not revenge and violence.

My Bible says "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God".

Think for yourself and reject those who are attempting to deceive you with false teachings.

by Philip Pease (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 209 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:30:03 PM

  (0+)

Cheryl,

Allow me to try and clarify my position on what a "free pass means." I am not advocating suppression merely because people disagree with me, as this is what you seem to suggest my inference was all about. Not true at all. As a person of reason, who eschews all supernaturalism, I do not feel it is appropriate to give religion a free pass, meaning, as I stated, it is not beyond reproach. I do not mean any disrespect to you, but you expressly stated that you found my comments, "offensive." Why?

People are free to express their religious views, but I am under no obligation to stand mute, offer fealty deference or to respect their beliefs or religion.

Religion is a vigorously debated topic and as someone who just complete work as a co-author on a book that takes a critical look at religion and its role in society, I can state with reasonable certainty, the world is trending away from religion, the U.S. and the Middle East withstanding.

I don't want to pen another epic reply about religion but here is my view on it, in a brief summary:

All religions, by their very nature, are illogical, fruitless journeys for the weak of mind. Faith is a deceptive and disingenuous path that is a stark dichotomy of danger and delusion. I see faith as a poor attempt to bridge the unknown-a lazy one, barren and hostile toward science and reason, intellect and progression. It requires no evidence, or even credibility, but merely faith itself-which is simply an irrational endeavor into self-delusion out of an innate need, perhaps to assuage one's own internal doubts about life. I find these ideas personally astonishing and crippling-I see them as a hollow crutch for people who have doubts, fears, and struggle with mortality. Denial of man's own mortality is the sole purpose he clings to an Iron Age creed and a nonexistent supernatural deity. Ignorance plays a part, but it is more about temporal rejection and acceptance of our own fate and fears. Blindly obedient faith-the uncritical view that fantasy trumps fact-is the indisputable and unpardonable transgression of humanity; it is the wedge that divides our universal commonality into a chasm of intolerable intolerance. Accordingly, proclaiming piousness and quoting apocryphal scripture does not give one the privilege to make a statement of fact sans sufficient and irrefutable evidence, of which, in regards to religion or God, there simply is none. (This material is under copyright© and may not be reproduced without permission.)

I hope this helped.

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Friday, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:25:07 AM

  (0+)

doesn't matter much what comment or person to which your remarks were directed. just seems to me these are the kinds of statements that in general we at oen consider offensive or ad hominem:

inane, driveling inculcations...zealot...litany of madcap ramblings...clearly a fanatic who is not in touch with reality on any level, dangerously deluded and lacks any ability to make a cogent statement or argument...rambling, drifting, nonsensical....It is time we...eliminate the Mr. Bybee’s of the world.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 17, 2008 at 6:51:11 PM

  (0+)

I have had comments scrubbed for far less egregious attacks (and some worse, lol). But movign past this Frank, here is the thing...

I did not respond to you disagreeing with the commentor. I responded to you exercising your authority as an editor in trying to remove them. You did not "disagree", you tried to censor. THAT was the point. If you had merely responded to the commentor, maybe we could have had a good exchange about the merits of all arguments, but you tried to stop the conversation, and whether you want to admit it or not, you did so simply because you disagree with him.

I know deep down, you do not ascribe to that.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:45:23 PM

  (0+)

1. "For these reasons, and many others, it’s time to diminish severely their capacity to have any voice – be it in politics, the mainstream media, or any other place of influence, including our schools.

There you have the quintessential Progressive definition of free speech: first, you have to agree with me. Then you get to speak.

2. Compare and contrast: the Bible vs The Church of Bogus University Research

You can't do this:

"... proclaiming piousness and quoting apocryphal scripture does not give one the privilege to make a statement of fact sans sufficient and irrefutable evidence."

But this is absolutely OK:

"This is scientifically backed by numerous universities and decades of study done by Dr. Robert Altemyer, at the University of Manitoba."

3. "This is why they make astonishing statements that resonate with doublespeak, such as 'War is Peace' "

When you have a moment, please give us a link to a single example of this.

4. Authoritarian Personality

Perhaps this is all only political hyperbole, but in case it's not, please give this some serious thought. You're suggesting a personality disorder that would render a sizable part of the population incapable of the basic skills required to survive and function in society. It would mean that education is futile; that democracy as we understand it is impossible.

by tim bristol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments) on Friday, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:32:18 AM

  (0+)

"I just want you to know that when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." -- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. June 18, 2002

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:20:13 PM

  (0+)

Thank you, Mr. Garrett.  You have opened my eyes considerably. 

Mr. Ranelli, I stand corrected on point #3.

by tim bristol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments) on Saturday, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:38:37 AM

  (0+)