After a recent Los Angeles Times editorial used the platform of the evolutionists versus creationists debate to leap into an excoriating criticism of three Republican candidates who professed faith in Christianity, the top three Democrat candidates on June 4 stood in the public limelight and offered their testimonies to YAHWEH — The Almighty who the LA Times' editors apparently believe is merely a figment of the imagination of more than a billion people around the world.
Presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton testified during a forum on June 4 — hosted by Sojourners/Call to Renewal — it was her faith in God (YAHWEH) that got her through her marital troubles. Prayers sustained her, she recalled. John Edwards admitted he was a sinner and sinned daily — and prayers also sustained him through his son's death in 1996 and his wife's battle with cancer. Still, despite his "deep and abiding love for Lord, Jesus Christ," Edwards believes the United States ought not be considered a Christian nation.
Barack Obama preferred to view the issues pertaining to war in terms of just and unjust rather than a perspective of good versus evil, which he believes would otherwise lend itself to a less critical view of the actions of our own nation.
But with all three of the Democrats candidates having an abiding belief and faith in an invisible God, and all three of the top Republican candidates joining them in that belief, it appears that the LA Times — which had its say about such silly notions of electing leaders who profess profound preference for policies rooted in revelations from the bible — is devoid of a single legitimate religion-free candidate to endorse.
Surely, the position of the LA Times editorial board — as expressed less than two weeks ago regarding three candidates who are professing Christians — also applies equally to Clinton, Edwards and Obama, each of whom declared their faith in Jesus of Nazareth to the nation today. The Times' editors criticized only the Republican candidates as unfit for leadership of this nation by stating, "Three men seeking to lead the last superpower on Earth reject the scientific consensus on cosmology, thermonuclear dynamics, geology and biology, believing instead that Bamm-Bamm and Dino played together."
With all of the presidential candidates declaring a love for Jesus Christ and dependency upon faith in God and daily prayers for strength and guidance, in whom will the LA Times editors place their trust? Surely the coined phrase placed upon the nation's currency is meaningless to such evolved intellects in Los Angeles. So how then can any editor at the LA Times worth his paycheck find solace in an endorsement of any candidate that bends his knee to an invisible God?
And let's not pretend that any of these candidates subscribe to both the notion of creation as well as the science of evolution. The two are not compatible. One will be accepted whole and the other challenged in whole or part, but Christianity — and the words and deeds of Jesus Himself — contains far too many contradictions to the theory of evolution for any Christian to walk that line for too long without falling onto one side or the other.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I guess that part of the delusion you share with the 6 candidates who have so far declared their allegiance to fairydust and moonbeams, is that you're incapable of counting. These 3 republicans and 3 democrats are less than half of the field in this election so far. There are nice, rational candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Bill Richardson to vote for.
And BTW, I don't remember any of the candidates shouting out 'YAHWEH' like some sort of god-drunk freak.
Dave
2 - wdufkin
Bravo
3 - Lee Richards
Mike is a would-be prosecutor who has neither facts, evidence, credible witnesses nor law on his side, so he pounds the table a lot.
4 - SteveS
It's obvious that you put Creationists under the whole Christian umbrella. A slam against Creationism is a slam against Christianity to you, but not to others.
For example, the three Democratic candidates might profess a belief in God, but none have supported Creationism.
And also, dismissing Creationism isn't classified as hatred except in the mind of the paranoid.
5 - SteveS
Example.
From Barack Obama:
"It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels."
Yet you paint a dismissal of Creationism as a slam against him. I can find nothing on Edwards or Hillary about Creationism.
6 - Lee Richards
Just as "Intelligent Design" is thinly-veiled Christian-fundamentalist creationism, so to is this article a sermon, masquerading as political commentary.
Evidently Jesus has revealed to his followers that he desires or needs elective office, now that the divine right of kings didn't work out.
7 - zingzing
this article is just so over the top and ridiculous. as you yourself point out, everybody knows that a bunch of those republicans you so desperately love for one issue or another are just taking christians for a ride. they don't give a fuck about religion. all they want is their four-eight years of earthly power.
8 - zingzing
whoop-when you're not busy making a fool out of yourself, you're busy picking out who is going to make a fool out of you next.
9 - Dave Nalle
Good point, Steve. While only three of the Republicans raised their hand to admit to rejecting evolution, I know for a fact that Ron Paul who didn't raise his hand is still extremely - even frighteningly - religious.
Dave
10 - Lisa R
Stop trying to pull us Jews into your arguements. The Christian concept of creation, god, etc is not the same as the Jewish concepts. We Jews do not believe in the existance of hell, the devil, the Christian concept of sin, etc.
Furthermore, there is no conflict between the story of creation as described in the Tanach (Jewish Bible) and the theory of evolution. One of the greatest Jewish sages once said: Those who cannot reconcile science and religion do not understand one or the both.
11 - duane
I would have to agree with zingzing (#7). All this religious talk from politicos is just condescension and pandering.
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. --- Aristotle
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. --Napoleon Bonaparte
Mike, you try to make the same points here as in your previous article about the LA Times. You ignored most of the comments made on that thread, ditched it, and rewrote more or less the same stuff here ("things unseen", "shifting sands," etc.).
Also, in the way of a general critique, you touch upon too many topics, leaving a rather incoherent piece. It starts off fine, with a discussion of presidential hopefuls and their positions vis-a-vis religion. Then you bring it home with your criticism of the LA Times and their statements concerning the same issue.
But then the article devolves to the evolution vs. creationism "debate," then the Big Bang, Satan, Moses, disparaging remarks about evolutionists, the limit's of Man's knowledge, and so forth.
It appears as though the bit about the LA Times is just a red herring, a jumping off point for you to demean science, scientists, and those who look to modern science for answers to scientific questions.
A suggestion: write a few distinct articles in which your points are laid out for the reader, provide some backup information or supporting argument for each point that you're trying to make. Your last two articles are so full of arguable statements that it's almost impossible for the commenters to have a decent discussion, because you're all over the map. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that you write not just to pound the pulpit but to engender some meaningful, focused debate.
Without this focus, your central thesis (which is what?) gets lost in the tangents.
12 - MBD
Nallecon says...
"I know for a fact that Ron Paul who didn't raise his hand is still extremely - even frighteningly - religious."
Frighteningly?
Do you see boogey men everywhere? Do you wear magic glasses that helps you see them?
What has Ron Paul ever said or done to justify your statement?
Are you just throwing shit against the wall to see if it will stick?
13 - MCH
"There are nice, rational candidates like Rudy Giuliani...to vote for."
- Vox Nalle
Since when are serial adulterers "nice and rational"...?
14 - Dr Dreadful
Ah yes, Rudy 'Rational' Giuliani, who against all advice insisted on siting the NYC emergency control center in the largest, most conspicuous, most bombable building in the whole city.
About as rational as stripping naked, smothering yourself in honey, lying down on top of an ant's nest and expecting a good night's sleep.
15 - SteveS
Since the book you link to, Mike, is your own and has nothing to do with the article at hand, I would think that a critical comment on it is appropriate. What one puts on Blogcritics should be available to scrutiny, especially one that is nothing more than a gratituous plug.
EHarmony claims it can match people perfectly based on Christian ideals, much like the claim of your book.
Unfortnately, divorce rates among conservative Christians are significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.
I know a well-meaning intent is there, Mike, and I give you credit for that, but it's made me wonder....is it possible for a Creationist to fall in love with and live with, an Evolutionist and vice versa?
Or, in a world where disagreement is viewed as hatred, is a higher divorce rate inevitable?
16 - sr
Just what we need. Another blog on creation and evolution. Im sure the comments will add to our fun on Blogcritics.
17 - MBD
Just what we need. Another comment on comments that adds nothing to the other comments.. Im sure your comment will add to our fun on Blogcritics.
18 - Dr Dreadful
MBD, your last comment moves me to comment that commenting about comments on comments that add nothing to other comments isn't worth commenting about. Care to comment?
19 - sr
I new this would be fun especially from my favorite funney men, Laurel and Hardy.
20 - Dr Dreadful
Here's another fine thread you've gotten us into.
21 - zingzing
"Unfortnately, divorce rates among conservative Christians are significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics."
you know why? because they meet, deny themselves sex, marry, have sex... then realize they're no good together.
heh. bite my head off if you think it ain't true.
22 - SteveS
Could be, zingzing. I tend to think it comes from their rigid perceptions of marital roles. They believe in the 1950's model of Father Knows Best where the man rules the castle, and the woman is submissive and stays home. Society turned from this as a rigid example and uses it as a flexible guide in order to accomodate diverse relationships. Not so the ultra-conservative. They cannot bend their roles, and like the tree that cannot bend, in a big gale, it breaks in half.
Growing up in the Bible Belt, that has been what I have seen time and time again. Your mileage may vary.
23 - MCH
"I new this would be fun especially from my favorite funney men, Laurel and Hardy."
- sr
Hey Clavos, look, he spells funny with an "e,"...quick, time to snipe in...
24 - MBD
funney IS funny.
25 - MBD
Did I preempt Clavos?
Sorry.