We must cleanse the Republican Party of the moderates who stand in the way of party unity and purity.
With the election of 2008 already days behind us, it’s time to shift our focus to the election of 2012. The main order of business now is to rid the Republican Party of the few remaining moderates who stand in the way of party unity and party purity.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Glenn Contrarian
C-shop - "Even "Troopergate" turned out to be a red-herring: she was cleared of all wrongdoing on november 3rd." IIRC, there were TWO committees investigating Palin. One was a bipartisan Alaskan congressional committee, and the other was directed by Palin to investigate herself.
Guess which one FOUND wrongdoing on her part (the very day she declared she'd been found innocent by that panel), and which one found her completely blameless?
As with all my claims, I'll provide references on demand...and apologize profusely and hang my head in shame if I can't back up what I say.
27 - Glenn Contrarian
If Palin runs in '12, then it's because GOD will have "shown her the way".
At least that's her belief.
THIS is from the same one who told students that our forces in Iraq are there 'on a task from God'.
Y'know, I'm STRONGLY Christian...and if God decides someone's gonna do something, then that someone will be successful...which obviates the error in Palin's belief, and in Bush's belief that 'God told him' to invade Iraq.
Yet another example of religion being used as an excuse for power....
28 - Lisa Solod Warren
I wonder that G-d has time for all that nonsense. I mean, when She and I were having lunch the other day, She was so busy texting and and taking calls She could hardly finish her meal. I, frankly, heard nothing during the whole conversation about Sarah Palin, although we didn't discuss her specifically. I was trying to get Her to talk about Afghanistan and commit to a position on Palestine. And we never did get around to what Her final thoughts were on the latest re the bailout.
29 - Zedd
Winston,
It's rather creepy when all of the mean ideas that are articulated by this party are streamed out all at once.
I find it interesting that the most staunch Republicans on this site don't recognize them. That that is what is being said in those rah rah speeches that they say speak to the REAL America. Scary.
30 - Lee Richards
RE #27:
It'll be fascinating to see if God tells Palin, Huckabee, and Romney all the same thing or if they'll be getting different messages.
31 - Glenn Contrarian
Lee - isn't it obvious? They'll have a conference call with Palin's African witch doctor, Huckabee's anti-anything-but-straightenizer robot, and a polymarital Mormon bishop.
32 - Clavos
I thought only little girls had lunches/teas/conversations with their imaginary friends, Lisa?
My little niece used to have some very colorful imaginary friends, but being the progeny of an atheist family, none were gods.
Now that she's ten and a "young lady," (her words) she's moved on to real people.
33 - Lisa Solod Warren
Oh, dear, Clav. Don't recognize blasphemous sarcasm anymore? And I had such high hopes for you, I did. I certainly recognize joshing, as my old Dad used to call it, I do!
34 - Clavos
"Don't recognize
blasphemoussarcasm anymore?Right back atcha, Warren.
35 - Lisa Solod Warren
Yours was not sarcasm. It was gentle joshing. As I pointed out.
36 - Dave Nalle
THIS is from the same one who told students that our forces in Iraq are there 'on a task from God'.
Glenn, that's a blatant misrepresentation of what she said, and you ought to know better.
Dave
37 - Cannonshop
#36 Dave, taking people out of context is a time-honoured tradition in Politics, just like invoking god is a time-honoured tradition in war.
The belt buckle motto of the german army after Bismark was "Gott Mit Uns", an invocation to the almighty imaginary friend most people believe in. Telling soldiers "God is with you", that "You are doing the Lord's work", and "God is on our side" are cliches (in various languages) likely going back to the first time a group of man-apes took on another group of man-apes with rocks and sticks over a watering hole.
Read some of Roosevelt's speeches during the Second World War, or the speeches given by Wilson in the first, or the rhetoric of the Spanish-American war, War between the States, war with Mexico, war for Texan Independence, 1812, or the Revolution. God is always invoked by both sides. EVERY TIME.
What I find humourous, is that Glenn and his friends manage to find this offensive, rather than simply banal.
38 - Glenn Contrarian
C-shop and Dave -
Why do I find Palin's quote offensive, and why do I feel justified? Easy. I take my Christianity quite seriously.
IMO, a REAL Christian would NEVER make such a statement unless that is precisely what that Christian believed. A Christian doesn't make off-the-cuff throwaway remarks concerning what is and what is not God's will. A Christian has reverent fear of God and everything that has to do with God.
Every time one invokes the Name of God or claims what is or is not His will, one had better be completely sober and solemnly serious about it.
That, sirs, is why I feel no compunction about exposing what I strongly feel to be hypocrisy on Palin's part...and on the part of everyone who has ever made such statements in a manner unworthy unto our Almighty God.
Both of you are probably feeling a cynical bile rising right now. If you want to turn this into a religious discussion I'm happy to do so, for I'm stronger on religion than on any other subject. I think it's best, though, to keep our focus on politics, on the purpose of this section of BC.
39 - Christopher Rose
Go on then, as talking seriously about Palin is about as worthwhile as watching a tree grow, albeit less pleasant, I'll bite.
This is meant as a fairly serious question rather than simply taking a cheap shot. I could understand somebody being an admirer of Jesus Christ (setting aside any questions as to his actual existence or not) but don't get why any genuinely intelligent or even mildly curious person could actually believe in the existence of gods?
40 - Clavos
5...4...3...2...1
41 - Lee Richards
Re #36:
Dave, Why don't you tell us precisely what she does believe about God and his will for her and the world, including her beliefs about the Almighty's views on science, education, human freedom, and constitutional government?
Every self-centered utterance she makes(those that are half-way coherent anyway) indicates a mind preoccupied with being on a mission from God.
42 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris #39 -
You asked - so please be patient.
I really try to base my beliefs on fact, rather than base facts on my belief. I've been a member of the Church since the early 90's, and I'll spare you the doctrine that keeps me strong therein (unless you ask for it, in which I'll happily help you find it).
But one of my major goals in life is to be a published writer (just like a million other nobodies, I know). Last year I was perusing some of the most recent quantum physics research and I found something very interesting.
Before you read any further, go get some coffee. You'll need it.
Ever hear of the double-slit experiment? You probably have, but if you haven't I'll explain. That's the one where a light is shone through a slit, and then through another two slits. The light that comes out of the two slits should be only two bars of light...but there are four bars of light that shine through.
That's one of the major proofs espoused by those who support something called the "Many Worlds Interpretation", or MWI for short. Before you dismiss this out of hand, be aware that Stephen Hawking also supports this theory.
MWI holds that when a quantum particle changes state, it changes not just to one other state...but to every other possible state, thus explaining the double-slit experiment above. We can see the results of one new state of the particle, but every other state is each in its own new reality. In other words, every time a quantum particle changes state, it changes state in to every other possible state, and a new reality branches from each of those states...and this would hold true for every quantum particle in this universe and every other reality which obeys the laws of quantum physics
Which would mean that not only would a new reality be created in every quantum moment for every new quantum state for every quantum particle in the universe...and for every possible combination of possible quantum states for every quantum particle in the universe.
Hey - I'm NOT making this stuff up, mind you!
To put it in simpler terms, the explosion of new realities in every single moment of quantum time under MWI would be to the Big Bang as the Big Bang is to a single electron.
You can visualize it like this: the trunk of a tree is the original reality. Each time a quantum particle changes state, a number of branches begin, this number of branches equal to the number of possible states...and a new set of branches comes from each branch, each discrete moment in quantum time.
It's possible for us to know what is in the past. Quantum particles can be entangled across time, so we can theoretically access information from further down the trunk of the tree of reality...but if we accessed information from quantum particles entangled with particles from a future branch, we could never know if that branch is the one where we - you and I - would recognize as 'our reality'.
If MWI is right, then it is almost certain that in some reality, you ARE the world's dictator-for-life, and in another one you're a beggar, and in another one you're...well, use your imagination, for the possibilities really are infinity minus one (but of course there is NO guarantee that any of those possibilities actually exist).
Okay - follow me so far?
Now what could all this possibly have to do with religion? Easy. If every quantum particle MUST change state into EVERY possible new state, then the process is PREDETERMINED in every sense of the word...and that would mean that everything in every reality is predetermined.
And predetermination by a higher power has long been the province of God.
Take two aspirin and reply in the morning.
P.S. Before you get the notion that since all is predetermined, that we no longer have a choice in our actions, I mulled over that one too for some time...and came to realize that while "I" will end up on every possible branch downstream from "me" on the tree of realities, I can, by choice and force of effort, can choose which downstream branch that I wind up on.
Hey - you asked for it. Careful what you ask for....
43 - Christopher Rose
Glenn, so basically your belief in the existence of gods is based on a theoretical statistical possibility? Convincing stuff, sign me up!
44 - Lee Richards
"And predetermination by a higher power has long been the province of God."
Glenn, with this statement, you move from the science of theoretical physics to the untestable realm of metaphysics.
You don't believe in your religion because of light particles. Better to just express your faith and address your doubts.
45 - Dr Dreadful
Glenn, where did you see that description of the double-slit experiment? Or have you tried it yourself?
The double-slit experiment that I'm aware of creates not four bands of light, but an alternating pattern of light and dark bands, and is the classic demonstration of the wave nature of light.
Furthermore, if the photons change to every possible state, logically in this experiment we would not see only four bands of light, but rather a diffuse glow.
(I'm rather hoping Duane will tootle along at some point to contribute his usual commonsense scientific assessment to the discussion.)
46 - Rose
I think were GC is going with this (and quantum physics) is that how the quantum packets of light behave appears to be predicated upon whether they are observed or not. When observed light behaved as descrete particles. Take away the observation and the light flowed like water, and ceased behaving as matter.
The conclusion that is being arrived at is that the fundimental building block of the universe isn't matter but consciousness. And so everything has conciousness but in varying degrees of complexity. And matter cannot exist without consciousness. Ergo, god... or some such creating force.
47 - Baronius
Christopher, why don't you write an article on religion and post it in the Culture section?
48 - Matthew T. Sussman
Rose already has completed such an article. Much like his opinion of God, the article doesn't exist.
49 - Baronius
Matthew, hilarious. I actually "LOL"-ed.
50 - Glenn Contrarian
*chuckle*
Many's the time I saw some nut-job fundamentalist trying to use science to 'prove' God, and I'd always laugh about it.
Now I'M in the same position...so I'd better learn to laugh at myself, huh? That should teach me a lesson about mocking others....
For all the naysayers, I challenge you to disprove MWI...and if you can't, then all of existence on every reality is predetermined. Google it, do the research, and think objectively for yourselves.
It's not as if I trust my eternal soul to Stephen Hawking - I certainly don't! I have faith for my own reasons - and Christopher asked me to (in so many words) 'prove' God exists. I couldn't prove He exists...but I presented what may very well be His footprints....
Prove MWI wrong, and then let's talk.
51 - Clavos
That WAS funny, Suss!
52 - Lee Richards
Glenn,
It seems contradictory to claim that God predetermines(that is foreordains)"everything in every reality" but that you can, by your choice and force of effort, choose the reality that you want. How do you and God work that out?
And, if the theory of MWI as you have stated it, turns out by observation and experimentation to be demostrably factual, wouldn't it work just as well or maybe better with a natural rather a supernatural explanation?
53 - Christopher Rose
Baronius, here's your article: There are no gods, despite the efforts of a bunch of manipulative con men to take advantage of a bunch of well intentioned but vulnerable to superstition people.
Suss, I think you should stick to writing about American Rugby.
Clavos, you think? Occasionally.
54 - Christopher Rose
Glenn, that wasn't a remotely coherent explanation of either science or your belief in the existence of a deity. Please ignore the muppets who can't actually hold an online conversation and have another go...
55 - Baronius
Chris - Yeah, I've got a pretty good idea of what your article would be. You make that same argument a lot. It just doesn't really belong in the Politics section.
56 - Clavos
Chris,
How would you know?
57 - Cannonshop
#39 Put gently, Glenn...
Bullshit. You claim it's because you hate "Hypocrisy", but the truth is, you hate Sarah Palin, and you've hated her since she was first revealed as McCain's number-two. If you hated "Religious Hypocrisy" where's the venom for Joe "Devout Catholic-except when it's not convenient" Biden? I Get that she's not your brand of christian, Glenn. Perhaps if I were entrapped and enraptured with belief in the one, specific, all-powerful imaginary friend I could have more sympathy for views relating to percieved heresies, but you're flaying the wrong fish-unless god's willing to step in with a signed affidavit supporting your view on what is, and isn't christian, (which, come to think of it, might be questionable in itself-supposedly Hell got all the Lawyers...) You're basically trying to rend someone you don't even know for saying something in a soundbite you don't happen to think is "christian" because it's in support of a war you, Glenn, oppose.
And people tell me Fundies can't separate god from State...
58 - Jet
Cannon, it's not that fundies can't separate God from State, it's that they didn't know that there was a difference, and are fighting to keep the heathens from taking away the fact that state and church are one entity.
59 - Jet
There's a coherent sentence in there somewhere, you just have to look for it.
60 - Cannonshop
Apologies, guys, I'm a bit wiped out and probably not thinking, or posting clearly tonight. I'm off to bed.
61 - Ruvy
Glenn,
Having read your various posts on the matter here, I'm not going to argue religion with you. Suffice it to to say that you are a believer, and man enough to admit when you are wrong; a trait I've not seen in certain non-believers whose names need not be mentioned here.
Like you, I believe in G-d, and like you I believe that science and religion work convergently, rather than in opposition to each other.
I frankly do not think you can use science to prove G-d's existence. The limitations that we have as humans, the blinkers we all have, prevent that.
But, I would also suggest to you that you can prove the concept of "free will" on a molecular level.
The book, "The Truth of the Bible Code", also known as "Cracking the Bible Code", by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, deals with this, explaining the behavior of molecules, and how they do not act in a fashion that would indicate "predestination".
In recommending this book to you, I'm not pushing the beliefs that I have respecting equal letter skip messages encoded in the Torah. That is an entirely separate issue. Although that is the main topic of the book, it has a rich series of appendices that give a very different view of the convergence of religion and science from the kind usually seen. The last chapter or penultimate chapter of Dr. Satinover's book deals with the molecular behavior I described. This book is not the easiest read, but the appendices alone make it well worth buying.
I leave which Christian you choose to condemn - or not condemn - to you. This is your bailiwick, not mine. I had hoped that Sarah Palin, even though many of her beliefs are anti-thetical to mine, was a person who could be made to understand my political message with respect to Israel, or more precisely the political message that those with whom I agree carry. But she proved an inept campaigner, and incapable of combatting Mr. Obama. And truly, the race was between her and Mr. Obama, even though McCain topped the Republican ticket.
And that race is over.
Now we all get to live - or die - with the consequences.
62 - Jet
Ruvy, there is one irrefutable fact. Our star is too small to have produced heavy metals like lead, Iron and gold etc. when it formed. The resulting debris cloud that formed the planets wouldn't have them either. The only way they could've been present when earth was formed was by the supernova explosion of a star that held this real estate where we live now billions of years ago.
Only then could the heavy metals such as iron could've formed in the intense gravity of the collapse of the previous star.
So let's say God destroyed the previous star in favor of the one we had now, because the one we have now would hold and support life better.
Why later did he flood our planet to wipe out his "inconceivable considering he's god) mistakes to start over, instead of just blowing it up Sodom and Gamorah style and starting over a 3rd? or 4th? time?
63 - Jet
Ruvy, your logic gets more and more twisted, it's like blaming car accidents on Chistians because the vast majority of people who are involved in them are christian.
the vast majority of bank robbers are probably christian too, but that's no excuse to blame them...
64 - Christopher Rose
Baronius: my two lines words in #53 are everything I would care to say on the subject. Who needs an article in any section of this site to say that?
You clearly are happy to wallow in your mystical obscurantism but I much prefer to bathe in the light of knowledge.
Clavos: Trust me, having read every single one of your comments here, I know you pretty well. Grumpy old man is your preferred style of expression...
65 - Ruvy
Jet, come to this posting with a clear mind a strong cup of coffee, not to mention a magnifying glass. You'll need all three. And don't tell me to provide the Cliff Notes version, either. This IS the Cliff Notes version.
My understanding of cosmology, chemistry or geology is not good enough to debate your assertions about a supernova being a prior tenant in this region of the galaxy. Let it simply stand that a supernova is not the only possibility for the production of heavy elements in the solar system. There may have been other disturbing factors. Absent evidence of a supernova, the assertion of one in the neighborhood is tenuous.
Therefore assumptions that are built upon that assertion, i.e. - God destroyed the previous star in favor of the one we have now, because the one we have now would hold and support life better - are equally tenuous.
But that is not the real question you are tossing out, is it?
We do not know the actual events that occurred with respect to the Flood. A careful reading of the Hebrew can indicate that the Flood was only in the Middle East, and could have been coincident with the overflow of the Atlantic into the Mediterranean when the last ice age finally came to an end. There are enough Flood "myths" world wide to indicate that one did occur, but the devil is always in the details.
Then there is the matter of the tevá, the ark. Its measurements in the standard cubits that we believe to have been in use do not make sense. One would need a far larger boat to accomplish the purpose sought, even only for animals in the Middle East (the largest of which would have been camels [2], horses [2], cave bears [2] and lions [2]). There are other problems with the amót (cubits) in the story of the Flood, but I don't want to give you a headache - yet.
Then there is the issue of the destruction of S'dóm and Amorá (Sodom and Gomorrah). The ground near the Dead Sea was high in radioactivity even before the Dimona nuclear plant was built. Why?
Events occurred around the Dead Sea which are not clear, and which indicate a far more careful reading of the texts (not the so-called Higher Criticism garbage) is required, along with a very careful look at the original stories other than the Torah of events in the region. For this, you need to look at the stories of the Sumerians.
Jet, you speculate into G-d's motives without a clear mirror of the events described in the Torah. Speculating with a clear mirror is bad enough (something you criticize me of), but with an unclear mirror? Let me illustrate just looking at a few lines in the Torah itself.
Genesis 1:1 With Wisdom G-d created the heavens and the earth.
This is a general statement, giving a basic background into how G-d accomplished the ex-nihilo task of creating the universe. The translation "in the beginning" is just plain wrong - the word b'reshít is not a grammatical fit in Hebrew and ought to be b'rishoná. The term Wisdom is drawn from one of the very few other places where reshít occurs in the Bible, and how it is translated and understood - Wisdom or Prime Cause.
Genesis 1:2 v'ha'áretz hayitá tóhu v'bóhu v'Hóshekh 'al p'nei ha't'húm v'rúaH elohí-m m'raHéfet 'al p'nei ha'máyim
I go to the Hebrew here because many translations can be pulled out of these words. In normal use, ha'áretz means "the land". But there is no land yet! So to translate this as "and the land" is a mistranslation.
tóhu v'bóhu is generally used in Hebrew to indicate Chaos, complete and absolute disorder in things. (the other term commonly used, balagán, is from Russian, and just means a ballsup, terribly common among a disorganized people like Israelis). Could tóhu v'bóhu mean the absolute disorder of electrons jumping around like madmen just seconds after the Big Bang? This seems to be the most promising way to look at all of this.
Finally, we get "and the Divine Spirit (or a Divine Wind) hovered above the surface of the waters", which is the basic translation of v'rúaH elohí-m m'raHéfet 'al p'nei ha'máyim. Water? That's hydrogen and oxygen. You don't get to oxygen on the periodic table until you get to helium. It's heavier. Whatever this actually means, water formed billions of years after the chaos immediately following the Big Bang! So, in one single sentence, the Torah has spanned bilions of years. Mind you, this is within the sentence itself.
Genesis 1:3 And G-d said 'let there be light', and there was light.
This event could (according to Kabbalists, m'kubalím) have occurred as long as 30 billion years ago, before the Big Bang itself, 15 billion years later. On the other hand, not all scholars agree with this. The Kabbalistic interpretation I suggest is counter-intuitive to the seeming natural order of events, one after another, and could also refer to the creation of photons (which presumably would have been a near immediate result of the Big Bang).
This is just the first three lines of the Torah stripped of all the Bible thumping lieralism that "people who can draw their moral lessons in no other way" use. Do you wonder why Maimonides, the greatest Jewish rabbi who ever lived, called the Creation "a story cloaked in parables"?
Now, you have my permission to have a headache from all this. And I haven't even attempted to answer you!
66 - Jet
Ruvy, the sun uses helium to make other elements by smashing them together using gravity. Heavy metals need either a very massive star, or the intense gravity well of a collapsing star just before it explodes in a supernova.
Our sun is too small and once it does die in about 5 billion years, it'll probably throw off its extra mass and rather than explode, it'll expand and then contract into a dwarf star and eventually fizzle.
67 - Jet
Ruvy, trust me I already know that you give people headaches without even answering their questions.
It's been a given for some time.
68 - Ruvy
Jet,
You assert that there was a supernova here prior to the sun, and suggest that the proof is found in the gold wedding bands my wife and I wear. I'm not inclined to argue, being somewhat less educated in cosmology than you are. But I've never seen this assertion before, and would like to ask a friend of mine who is an amateur astronomer.
He could search the literature faster than I possibly could, or ask friends of his.
What I did say is that there may be other events that occurred that caused this kind of disturbance in the solar system that would create heavy elements. There may be more than one way to skin a cat.
Of course, if you are right, you have the basis for one kick-ass article on cosmology.
69 - Zedd
Chris,
I don't think that most ministers of the gospel are con men. Most believe. There are multitudes however, of jerks. There are also a lot of nut cases who align themselves with a deity in order to claim the ultimate mandate. Which brings to mind the British monarch. They have basically said that they are cool because god said they are and you guys have to feed them and their progeny for all eternity. I haven't seen your rants about them. Did I miss that piece?
Faith comes from human beings understanding that there has to be a prime mover and that not everything is quantifiable; that reductionism doesn't work. There are factors that cause a massive change in the progression or expected evolution of things that create the unimaginable. They see that to be the hand of a designer. Then there is the spiritual element that cant be quantifiable. When you experience it, you just know.
Off course you don't believe. But don't knock it simply because you don't get it. Live and let live.
70 - bliffle
An explanation of the double-slit experiment is in Wikipedia here
As usual in so many scientific experiments, the results often modify the underlying theory, and often lead to variations on the original, suggesting that one be judicious in drawing conclusions based on experimental results.
71 - Ruvy
Jet,
Why later did He flood our planet to wipe out His (inconceivable considering he's G-d) mistakes to start over, instead of just blowing it up Sodom and Gamorah style and starting over a 3rd? or 4th? time?
You were a seminary student, Jet? You don't know the answer to this? Even a dumb Jew who knows virtually nothing, like me, can tell you.
Genesis 6:5 - "And G-d saw that the evil of man was great in the land and every product of his thoughts were only evil all day."
So He decided to rid the planet of people and their contamination, leaving fish to survive. Why destroy everything, in other words, when fish could evolve into something better? Or, if the idea that only the Middle East was to be destroyed (discussed above in comment #65), the surviving Children of Cain could possibly do a better job of it, in spite of the bad example Cain had set?
Recreating an entire planet from nothing just might not have been in G-d's plan.
72 - Jet
You just called yourself a dumb Jew, and you're bitching about how everyone treats you?
73 - Ruvy
Jet,
If I remember right, you were a sculptor or an artist of a similar nature. If something doesn't necessarily come out right, would you out of hand destroy it, or conserve what you could, and fix what needed to be fixed, using such tools as you deemed necessary?
74 - Jet
Okay "dumb Jew" God created the world, he didn't need to put anyone on a boat, he could've waved his mighty hand and divorced the earth of all that he dispised, saving all that was good,
WITHOUT REQUIRING A HANDMADE BOAT, and the hassle of collecting everything two-by-two.
And how did we know other men didn't make their own boats and survived the flood?
The proof is they didn't need a damned boat, since god was watching over them.
...or was that something that god couldn't do?
75 - Jet
God didn't need tools to fix the earth or the people on it Ruvy.