Atheism - The "Neutral" Enemy

Is Atheism neutral?  This question arises because within politics it is often easy to find people on both sides, liberals and conservatives, that believe atheism is a neutral position.  Part of the problem comes from the effective re-branding of atheism.  The atheist movement has made an intentional effort to redefine atheism as a simple lack of belief in a deity.  This watered down definition is not really what it means to be an atheist however.  Noe-atheism, as it is called in some philosophical circles, tries to include everybody that simply lacks a belief in god.  When we talk atheists though, what we really mean are those who reject the existence of God or a god.  We don't mean the person that hasn't considered the question; we mean the person who has considered it and concluded positively that there is no god of any sort. 

This definition is important because it contains the direct answer as to whether atheism can be neutral at all.  If somebody has already drawn a conclusion then they are NOT NEUTRAL.  Most politicians or political groups that go out to try to eliminate religious belief in politics do not just lack a belief.  They have taken a position against God and rejected all religious belief.  Of this belief, the 1828 edition of the Webster dictionary has this to say, “Atheism is a ferocious system that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us, to awaken tenderness.” Do we want leaders who have rejected our belief system?  This is what gets me, politics is precisely where belief SHOULD be expressed.  Leaders should lead based on BELIEFS.  The atheist REFUSES TO BELIEVE there is a God.  It’s not scientific.  It’s not the default belief. Most of all, it IS NOT NEUTRAL.

  

So what's the point of this?  I guess the more I look at the world, the more I see believers getting sucked into the mentality that leaders should govern outside of their religion.  The assumption has become that the atheist position is not only neutral, but also the default.  These so called believers need to be slapped because this is total nonsense.  First off, as pointed out atheism cannot be neutral (I also touch on it in my other post: Is Religion Bad?).  Second, all these believers need to realize the default position is belief.  Look at the history of the world, look at the primitive tribes that exist today, look at the studies of belief, and look at the kids of the world.  BELIEF IS DEFAULT.  Atheists always try to act like belief is learned and that atheism is the natural way.  This however is complete false!  A quick look at primitive tribes or study of ancient history shows that the default has always been BELIEF in a deity.  We might learn our particular religious belief system, but we don’t have to be taught to believe.  G.K. Chesterton covered this in his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter “The Ethics of Elfland.”  Dr. Alvin Plantinga also discusses the idea of a properly basic belief frequently – he actually lists belief in God as properly basic.  My point is Christians need to wake up and stop acting so dumb about atheism.  Understand that to be an atheist is to REJECT the Christian view.  It doesn’t mean the person that never considered your position, but rather the person that considered and chose to reject belief in God.  This is an opposing view to Christianity, not the pre-Christian belief.  Those who lack belief need to be educated.  Those who rejected it need to be opposed.

When we vote for leaders, when we encounter laws, we need to reject the liberal view that religion should be separate.  Religion should permeate politics!  Governing should be done based on a belief system other than atheism.  The U.S. government cannot promote a single religion, so why do we not get up in arms when they promote the religion of atheism?  People need to be educated that atheism isn't a neutral position; it is the partner of liberalism, the enemy of conservatives, and in direct opposition to Christianity. 

Mob Rule- The Liberal Plight

The tyranny of liberalism surfaced again this week.  After a regular court case, involving the now well-known George Zimmerman, we saw all the liberals come out in force.  Liberals, focused on two things: race and guns.  They are ready to overthrow our entire justice system and force somebody to suffer at the hands of a mob rather than watch our judicial system work.  I’m amazed at the level of ignorance of this generation.  Without any effort the liberals believed prohibiting same-sex marriage was being denied some kind of equal rights.  Liberals cheer every time a politician takes away guns from the people.  Now, liberals take to the streets, assaulting bystanders, blocking freeways, and holding protests.  Why? Because they didn’t get the verdict they wanted in a court case that has nothing to do with them.  Where was the uproar over the Supreme Court’s betrayal of our rights in the Obamacare ruling? Of course they don’t protest that, the liberals got what they wanted – more government power and less individual rights.   But when a man with a family, and clearly an absolute lack of evidence, isn’t convicted because there is REASONABLE doubt, these idiots protest.  Liberals should be ashamed of their stupidity, but they’re just too ignorant to even see the shame in their actions.

Let me be clear, Zimmerman is not my hero.  He doesn’t represent conservatives, he’s not a great hope, and he means nothing to me.  However, this country is important to me and the liberals destroying it are completely inept. We have a court system and we have laws.  The man was granted a trial with a juror of his peers and he was acquitted.  HOW DOES THAT IMPACT YOU OR ME?! It doesn’t.  There wasn’t chaos in the streets when O.J. Simpson was acquitted and there shouldn’t be anything now.  Or maybe the difference is because O.J. is a black man.  Is that the truth behind the matter?  Are all these liberals nothing but a bunch of racists who are so ignorant that they would abandon that which makes our country free and try to abolish our freedom through mob rule?  Apparently our president hopes so.  Because as the outrage began to fade and as the Zimmerman ruling started to not be the main headline, Obama made a point to hold a press conference on Friday and fan the flames of racism once again.  The messiah of liberalism does NOT in fact want unity, he wants mob rule with a strict divide.

Liberals are trying to force mob rule mentality down our legal system, trying to make the legal system bend to the will of people and abandon justice, due process, and protection from double jeopardy and our executive branch is HELPING!  Americans should be protesting LIBERALISM!  It is emotionalism run rampant and rational thought cannot stand with it.  These people are idiots. Liberals are joining hands to try to punish Zimmerman for that which he was acquitted of.  Trayvon Martin was not a saint!  Zimmerman is not a saint!  The justice system worked and because there WAS REASONABLE DOUBT the man was not found guilty.  Let it go liberals. This verdict has nothing to do with the thousands who are protesting; these people are just ignorant liberals, fueled by a biased media, and lead by the great ignorant leader Obama and his failed appointment Eric Holder.

  

Think for a minute, what do you want America to be?  Should we be free and let the system work (and this system was rigged AGAINST Zimmerman and yet there was still wasn’t enough evidence against him) or should we sentence and condemn people based on the feelings and emotions of a racist mob?  Protesters raided Wal-Mart, shut down freeways, beat innocent people while shouting, “This is for Trayvon!” (This is probably an accurate portrayal of what he would do, as Trayvon referred to himself as a “gangsta.”)   It seems the simplest explanation of all emotional ignorance is one thing – racism.  At the end of the day, the liberals have shown THEY are the racists and THEY are the simpletons, and THEY are party of ignorance and emotion is what they rule by and justice is nothing but what THEY FEEL should be done. 

As I said, Zimmerman is no hero of mine, but neither is Trayvon.  People should get over it and move on.  I suppose there isn’t much hope of that with the ignorant party running things and the most ignorant leader in charge of our country, but deep inside these people should know better.  Perhaps instead of listening to the liberals, they should listen to reason.

Presuppositions: Let's suppose I'm Right

After recent discussion with some people, it has come to light that people don't seem to understand presuppositions.  This becomes an issue when in a discussion with somebody, when sharing a view, or in a debate.  So because of this I decided it would be good to write a brief article about presuppositions.

What is a presupposition? It is to pre-suppose a certain idea to be true (or more technically, an implicit assumption).  It's not a bad thing, and often times not a conscious thing, but it can be a hindrance when trying to share with others.  A presupposition can lead to a belief that you suppose to be fact, but in reality it is just a belief.  We could even call them simple beliefs or basic assumptions.  With any discussion there needs to be some agreement otherwise there can't even be a discussion.  (Often times in debates I feel like no progress is made because there are too many presuppositions involved that one party takes for granted while the other party tries to expose them.)

Alright, so that explains the essence of them, but let me provide an example.  When somebody says something like, “Well I was there and I saw it, so I do know.”  This simple statement assumes a lot.

It presupposes there is such a thing as knowing.

It presupposes perception can be trusted.

It presupposes that you have a mind.

It presupposes that there is reality.

It presupposes that the whole world is not in your head.

You could keep listing out a bunch of presuppositions for this one statement.  As you can see, a simple statement ASSUMES A LOT.  Now, people might say, “Well, you have to assume those things otherwise you're just unreasonable.”  But that statement, in itself, assumes - it assumes there is something that is reason (or rational might be a better word) and it assumes we all share it.  This doesn't make the statements above any less true, it just shows we have to assume certain things in our communication.  We might not even realize we are assuming these things.  The other important note is that even though we find most of these statements true by default, some philosophers or want-to-be philosophers don't find all the above statements true.  So even though we assume that things are basic and accepted, it doesn't mean we are correct in that assumption - some people do not accept these basic assumptions.  I truly believe the people opposed are wasting their time because at some point you have to assume something in order to communicate with others, but nevertheless I need to be aware of the person's presuppositions in order to effectively communicate with them.  Something like solipsism makes it impossible to progress a conversation, so knowing the person is a solipsist would save you a massive headache later.  

Nevertheless the point remains that we assume so much when we make statements that sometimes it is our presuppositions that are actually blocking discussion.  A religious person and an atheist cannot debate science unless they agree on the presuppositions involved.  Without such agreement, an argument can't even begin to develop because people will just keep expressing beliefs and never realize the other person is disagreeing because they don't even agree with the things being presupposed. 

This topic comes up because of a recent debate I had.  To the other individual I was simply playing games because I kept pointing out that he was simply stating a belief, not a fact.  Now, the point isn't about him, but that it completely blocked communication because an argument could not even be made because there was no agreement on the presuppositions.  Rather than produce a fruitful debate where people can learn, it ends up going nowhere because people don't realize how much they assume about their position.  I can honestly say most debates make no progress and run in circles because of a lack of understanding of what each person assumes to be true when they begin.

Understanding presuppositions is really simple.  Seeing what somebody is assuming when a statement is made, doesn't always seem to be.  I find that in life, work, or debate people often don't understand the weight carried by simple statements. 

Government Scandals and Complacent Citizens

The past few weeks have revealed several scandals that are making their way through government right now.  What's astonishing is the complete lack of liberal attention.  One would think that when the government starts to abuse its power to intimidate and harass people of a certain view (the IRS scandal) that would be enough to make people doubt government.  With the release of the information about the government being involved in huge amounts of data mining on U.S. citizens living within the U.S. people should have erupted in an uproar, but they haven't.  Obama said it's about protecting the citizens from terrorists, but with how the abuse of power within the IRS came, I personally wonder what Obama’s idea of a terrorist is.  After all, this is the same president that refused to call radical Islamic extremists, terrorists.

Unfortunately, the lack of an uproar around these scandals shows the effectiveness of liberal brainwashing.  The schools have made people believe in government, the media has defended government at every turn, and the movies (and their pathetically crazy stars) all spread liberal ideals.  When government turns on the people, the people sit still because somehow they believe the lies in spite of the obvious evidence to the contrary, it shows that slowly the liberal message has began to penetrate deep into the lives of Americans.  Even if you could possibly rationalize and somehow show logically that current power grabs and oppression of government are perfectly fine, do you think you could make the next leap to say that after they've gone this far they won't go any further?  Where people fail to be outraged the government will press forward.  Governments ALWAYS try to increase their power and maintain their power, and when people don't demand the government to abide by their terms, the government will demand the people to abide by the government's terms. 

Complacency is a real threat to the American people.  By the time government pushes to an extent that outrages ALL the people, it will be too late to stop the government.  Liberals need to wake up! These aren’t just attacks on conservatives; these are advances on all Americans.   Unfortunately the Christians in this country won’t react unless it directly impacts them and their reactions will be minimal because they’ve bought the liberal lies that Christianity should not be part of government.  The liberals won’t react because they believe in government and love taking away from others to give to themselves.  Conservatives will react but with only a minimal reaction because of the divide in beliefs – where some so called conservatives have believed the liberal lies and really are doubting conservativism, others are trying to appeal to the liberals for fear of being ostracized, and therefore the few that speak out will be drowned out as extremists. 

Obama and his administration are dirty and oppressive.  They've attacked the rights of Americans and expanded the power of government.  Astonishingly, they are the people that have released the documents showing what they're doing (mostly to push other scandals out of American minds) AND yet people still somehow believe the liar.  Obama’s entire administration and the liberals in the senate (I include worthless John McCain as a liberal and his fellow worthless democrats with a republican tag) need to be cast out.  The IRS should be shut down permanently and we should begin a path of a true republic.

In one sense, this all sounds extreme.  It seems like an overreaction of sorts, but then I realize what is taking place and how silence is looked at as acceptance.  With that in view, understanding that government agencies are striking out to silence conservative groups through the IRS and that the same government was trying to get names and addresses of people with views against liberalism (and that were supporting these conservative ideals with donations), I know this government has stretched too far.  Take into account the retrieval of phone records, the collection of all data related to the internet usage of American citizens, and the looking to expand toward drone usage on American citizens living in the United States if the government deems them a terrorist, and I think the view becomes a little less extreme.  Maybe it isn't full blown big brother at this moment, but if we don't try to protect our privacy and freedoms now, it will not be long before it is.

Conservatives need to be intelligent and act on THEIR ideals instead of acting in a manner in which they think the liberals will approve or at least give the least resistance.  There shouldn't even need to be a debate about big government and how dangerous it is at this point, given the recent events, but people remain unconvinced.  I believe it's time to sound extreme, but at the same time we need to educate people on our view so they realize how down to earth and relevant it truly is.  If people are shocked, that is fine, but if we don't speak out and we don't try to educate the American people that is unacceptable.  I fear America will give up due to complacency and ignorance, but I hope Americans can still rise up like they have in the past and show what makes this country great – and prove me wrong.

The Indifferent Christian: Destroying Christianity from Within

I have been thinking about the idea of same-sex marriage and why it has been so successful within the Christian church.  It's interesting that it has gained ground within the church at unprecedented speeds.  I feel it shows a symptom of a massive problem within the church.  There are two primary reasons for this growth of an anti-Biblical, morally wrong, view:

•          Indifference, because the person associates gay marriage as an individual decision and irrelevant to the church.
•          Relativism, because the person believes that religion is supposed to lead us to happiness.

 The problem with indifference is that it allows liberalism to advance without opposition.  When Christians start ignoring issues due to a lack interest it drives liberalism.  Why? Because liberalism isn't indifferent and it continues to push anti-religious views at all times.  People that take no position are not playing neutral ground; in fact they are helping advance secularism.  The only thing that stands in the way of liberalism is conservatism. Christianity is by design, conservative.  It defines dogmas, doctrines, and moral laws that stand as a hedge against secular ideals.  Not only is the Christian supposed to defend conservatism, Christianity is supposed to push out into the rest of the world in an attempt to eliminate secularism.  Liberals advance secular ideals, trying to remove the hedge established by religion and eradicate religion.  Therefore, Christians need to sustain that barrier and offer a defense against the advance of liberalism. 

 

Indifference makes a Christian fail in their responsibility to share God with others.  Since the line is drawn in the Bible that a person is either for or against God, meaning there is no neutral ground to play, a Christian is commanded to go out into the secular world and share the word of God.  It is not in order to allow people to live how they want and believe in God, but rather to transform people and their way of life into a way that conforms to God.  This is what liberals hate – that Christians think others need to change.  However, Christians are not required to force the change, but rather to share the truth.  Changing things in a person's life is a matter of the individual submitting to the God and being obedient to Him.  It is not a matter of doing things to be religious, but rather believing (and therefore becoming religious) and THEN doing things as a result of that belief.  Each side is trying to conform the other, so don't be fooled, but the liberal does all things in the pursuit of the destruction of moral law and Christians share the message out of love and then the individual conforms because of their love for God and His moral law.

 

Liberalism tries to impose liberalism on everybody by putting down every other belief system.  It is not the liberal way to believe all views are equal and should be tolerated; in fact, true liberalism only wants to have people that embrace all the same liberal ideals.  Watch the liberals explode on a Christian about trying to impose their views on others, but then watch the same liberal talk about how Christians refuse to accept others.  It is obvious that not all views are tolerated because the liberal doesn't tolerate the Christian.  But they don't stop at condemning the Christian; liberals attempt to paint Christians as intolerant, oppressive, ignorant, and not belonging anywhere in the public circle.  The liberal assaults Christianity every opportunity they get and seek to silence the Christian voice from being heard.

 

So when the indifferent Christian comes along and offers no voice, then the only voice heard is liberalism and the liberal has achieved their goal.  Silence from Christians is the ultimate liberal goal and when they don't even have to work for it, Christianity fails and liberalism succeeds.  I know a lot of Christians have refused to vote or refused to speak out against political views because they believe that Christians shouldn't be in politics.  But the ignorance of this indifferent position is astounding!  If Christians aren't involved in politics and if Christians don't fight for a voice in the public arena, then liberalism wins without a fight.  There is no right to complain about the direction of the country, the problems of your government, or a law that limits religious freedom (like same-sex marriage), if you do not participate in trying to stop it.

 

My quote at the top of my blog from G.K. Chesterton states, “Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up” captures one side effect of indifference.  The more Christians don't offer a voice, the more barriers that were established to protect Christianity are torn down.  After all the fences are torn down because worthless Christians would not offer not opposition to the removal of these fences, then WE ARE GUILTY of the fall Christendom, not the liberal.  Indifferent Christians are responsible for the destruction Christianity, because by refusing to take a side, they actually surrendered to liberalism and its quest to silence the voice of Christian reason. 

 

The fences that were put up were done to protect the integrity of Christianity.  Being indifferent to these positions is the same as agreeing that they should be removed.  Christians have been indifferent long enough; the result of it can be seen in the watered down, irrelevant Christianity that takes no position that is different than the secular view of the liberal.  Divorce, abortion, same-sex marriage are all issues where too many Christians were indifferent and have resulted in a Christianity that is just as much secular as the society that we are supposed to change.

A Need to Look Back

Upon the successful capture of the second Boston bombing suspect last week, some interesting questions were raised.  When the government put the whole city on lock-down the people of the United States said next to nothing.  Essentially, martial law was initiated and there wasn't even a complaint from the citizens – well nothing that drew any attention.  So one question arises, what kind of event is necessary or what level of intensity must an event create before the people will allow the government to lock-down a city?  Right now it was a bombing, will later it be a robbery of a gas station?  It's amazing that the freedoms and liberties that are forefathers cherished so much can so easily be tossed a side.  I still do not know whether or not I disagree with the government's actions, but it does press the issue as to when else the government might feel inclined to lock-down a city or neighborhood.

Anybody that followed the news through the week also noticed that there was a mountain of false information with only a little true information being passed through.  News media used to gather facts and then report facts.  Even though the information age has driven society to the point of demanding instant feedback, shouldn't there be a level of accuracy demanded before something is reported?  I know somebody will say that due to the chaos of the events the truth was hard to get at or due to the nature of the situation evolving there wasn't enough time to verify the information.  This however doesn't mean the news should not be held responsible.  Between the use of social media and the continuous river of rumors that were reported people not directly involved in the bombings were impacted – some in a negative way (like the original teenager that was reported as a suspect).  The ravenous people that were devouring all the media threw at them expected there to be some degree of truth in the reporting, when in fact there was very little.  Maybe the people should be held responsible for putting such a high demand on the media or for consuming the information without processing.  It should at least raise the questions, “Who is responsible?” and “What is a reasonable expectation of the media?”  At some level there has to be some sort of accountability to hold people to.  This isn't about a law or passing some new regulation, but about the people putting forth a demand of accountability.

Now that the excitement has settled and the suspect has been caught, it’s time to start looking at the ramifications of the week.  Questions need to be asked about the rights of all Americans, about our information gathering, about the media, about the role of government, and about accountability.  There is a danger that we will walk away from the situation just thankful to have captured the person who committed the crimes and not learn the lessons we need to as a country.  The last time I remember martial law was after hurricane Katrina and it was a mess.  People were not happy about it (I was doing work down there 3 days after the hurricane), but they made due because of the devastation that had just occurred.  Now we moved from natural disasters that incurred damage on a grand scale, to a bombing that was relatively small (it doesn't make it less tragic or the losses suffered any less important – those families still need support and prayer).  In the pursuit of justice it is possible to become unjust.  Sometimes the line becomes blurry the further down the path somebody goes and we as a nation have to be diligent to protect ourselves from a government blazing ahead in a quest for “justice.”  The greatest chance for a government to go astray is when people stand watching and cheering and it is our responsibility to make sure we hold them accountable. 

Again, I must emphasize that I'm not explicitly saying that the way the situation was handled was wrong.  My desire is to make sure people realize that we can't celebrate the capture and not analyze the rest of the events.  People need to be aware that sometimes by simply not asking questions it is looked at as a sign of approval.  I don't want the media to think they can continually feed me rumors and false information and I don't want the government to think that the next time something bad happens they can lock-down the city.   What seems to be lacking from people, or maybe it just hasn't been fierce enough to garner a response, is the outright questioning and analysis of the events from last week without attention to the bomber.  The best magicians use distraction to achieve their illusions.  While the eyes and ears are focused on one thing, something subtle is taking place somewhere else.  If we are not careful, we stand to suffer a greater loss than being tricked by a magician because the media and government will not be afraid to try the same things again in a different setting.   It's not about conspiracy, but about responsibility.  Complacency cannot be allowed to take over in the aftermath of events like the bombing last week.

In the Face of Tragedy, Unity

It has been a tough week for America.  Earlier in the week we had the Boston bombings and then we had the explosion of the fertilizer plant in Texas.  What amazes me about America is that it always seems to come together after tragedies.  Right now we have one of the most polarized divisions in the history of the United States and there doesn't seem to be an end to it in sight.  However, after the bombings there was a moment where you could see what makes this country so amazing.  It was in this moment where the people seemed to stand up and say, “We will not be defeated!”  And that is the mentality that seems to only come in the face of grave tragedies.

Now, I’m not going to take the liberal stance and say things should always be that way and that we should just hold hug and move on.  There is real division and it comes over a passion to drive this country toward continued greatness.  A true conservative doesn’t admire Europe and doesn’t look to the government to make the country better – a true conservative looks to the people living here.  Conservatives fight against liberal ideals with such aggression because they refuse to become something other than what this country is.  This country was not build on a defeatist attitude, but rather through drive and passion to never lie down until the battle was won.  When tragedies, like the ones from this week, happen, it seems there is a moment where the entire country remembers that drive and passion and unites – but it is only for a moment.

I wonder though how long this response will keep up.  When will the defeatist attitude of liberalism win out and leave our country surrendering after a tragedy rather than fighting?  The pursuit of liberalism weakens this nation.  President Obama is the weakest president to lead this country in years.  He is ignorant and dangerous because he is willing to surrender the United States.  Now, I don’t mean in the literal sense, but rather that with each bill, each tax, each agenda he fights for, the president demonstrates that he is willing to give away the rights and freedoms of the people to secure government power.  He holds to no values and instead is willing to compromise to make happy but with no ultimate goal in mind. I do have my doubts that he would be willing to fight on in the face of defeat, but that’s only speculation.  The point is, if we as people are willing to give up our money, our guns, our rights, and our freedoms, I wonder if we will still stand as a country in the face of tragedy and shout, “WE WILL NOT BE DEFEATED!”  Is the country at risk for becoming a country of surrender?

The divisions in this country and the strong beliefs need to keep empowering people to fight the battle.  It should drive people to fight on because they care so deeply about the future of the nation.  I fear that as we decide to make sacrifices in order to be united, this country will learn to give up rather than to fight on.  Passion, beliefs, and values need to continue to motivate people to be active and engaged in the shaping of this country.  In spite of the obvious corruption throughout government; in spite of the weakness of our president; in spite of the overwhelming feeling that this country is lost, people must fight on.  When we give up the fight for what we believe in, then we as a nation failed.  This current polarization being experienced is because there is still such a passion for this country and a desire to make it remain great.  However, because the vision for the future of this country comes from such a weak leader, there is a great schism that is created and the desire for a great country becomes something to divide on rather than to unite around.  Strong leaders unite people around a vision and weak leaders create rifts among the people, only drawing people that share their same values.  Unfortunately, it seems that the only time this country will unite under our current leader is under circumstances of tragedy because our president is a weak leader. 

The good news is I think these tragedies show that this country still can unite.  However, we face a crossroads now that will determine the future: do we continue down the path of surrender or do we stand together in the path of conquering.  This country is in desperate need of a good leader with a strong vision.  I do not see one coming any time soon though, from the liberals or the conservatives.  So now it is up to the people of this country to make sure we stay strong.  It is up to the people to fight on. 

Remember the fallen in these tragedies and pray for their families.

Liberal Hypocrisy: The Lies That Build the Pillars of Liberal Thought

After reading several different news stories this week that focused on the repercussions suffered by people who made some kind of comment about gay marriage, homosexuals in general, or the “transgender”, I decided it was time to discuss the hypocrisy of liberalism.  Two things liberals tend to express pride in are open-mindedness and tolerance.  Apparently, in the mind of a liberal, tolerance and open-minded thinking are the paths to a better society. 

The firth thing to note is that both of these so called virtues are LIES.  A liberal is not open-minded.  Rather, liberals only accept ideas that coincide with their views.  If a person has a view that takes an objective and authoritative stance against the liberal’s view, then the liberal will reject that view without so much as listening to an argument.  It is impossible to reason with a liberal because they are closed off to the every view opposed to theirs.  No rational argument can be made to defend abortion, yet it is common place now and the liberal will never listen to the logical and rational arguments that completely decimate any defense of abortion (check out this blog for some articles on abortion: Shameless Popery).  However, rather than go into all the political areas where the liberals fail to have a valid defense, the point of this is to say that the liberal rejects certain views whole heartedly without argument or justification.  This means, that the trumpeted open-mindedness is actually a farce.  Liberals are actually opposed to views against their own and hence they are close-minded in reality, because they are not really willing to listen or even process arguments.  If they were, liberalism would have faded away long ago because it has the most irrational and illogical defenses possible (As I discussed in another article, Bad Argument, Good Strategy: The Success of Liberalism in America).

Tolerance, the other pillar of liberalism, is just as much a lie as the open-minded claim of the liberal.  Have you seen how liberals treat people that are opposed to their views?  Look at Dana White from the UFC suspending a fighter indefinitely for his comments about a transgender fighter (Read here).  Liberal mayors fought against allowing Chick-Fill-A restaurants in their towns because the CEO of the chain is opposed to same-sex marriage (Read here).  When boxer Manny Pacquiao spoke out against homosexuality, a Hollywood mall banned him over his comments (Read here).  The liberal DOES NOT tolerate views that they deem as intolerant.  Instead, the liberal works hard to silence every other view in order to have only their views remain.  It is the liberal ideal to have all in agreement with liberal views, not to have all live in harmony with opposing views.  Speaking out against same-sex relationships is enough to get a person fired, banned, and prevented from opening a private business in their cities.  This is complete intolerance of others rather than tolerance.

Despite the obvious errors of their positions, liberals will still run around trumpeting the ideals of open-mindedness and tolerance so don't be fooled by it.  The only thing the liberal tolerates is people who hold the same beliefs as them. 

---

Side note:

A quick side analysis of open-minded and close-minded.

First, technically speaking there is no difference between open-minded and close-minded. By claiming to be open-minded you are suggesting that you are more open to ideas than not. Close-minded is simply being open to far less ideas. Both are being open to some and closed to others. Now the real problem is that mathematically speaking they're both equal (which is why I say, technically speaking there is no difference).

If we say:

The open-minded are open to 95% of the views and ideas. Meaning they are willing to at least consider them and process them.

The close-minded are open to 5% of the views and ideas. Meaning they will not consider or process the other 95% of ideas.

Because there is an infinite number of ideas, opinions, positions, and propositions we could say that open-minded people are open to 95% of infinity and closed-minded people are open to 5% of infinity. Because they are both ratios in terms of infinity they are both undefined and are therefore equal.  Ratios of infinity are complete irrational and incomparable mathematically.

So the open-minded tag to define the liberal thinking is irrelevant.  Only in terms of a finite list of ideas, opinions, positions, and propositions can there be a distinction. This makes the whole claim of open-minded and close-minded seem rather pointless - just a thought.

Bad Argument, Good Strategy: The Success of Liberalism in America

 Watching the news this morning was frustrating.  The news has one goal, pushing liberalism on people, and it shows.  If a conservative is on the show, they're actually a liberal that might hold to one conservative view.  The pastors they bring on are of two varieties: liberal or radical beyond rational thought.  Every opportunity is taken to add degrading statements about conservative thought.  The news is guilty of not offering better arguments against a conservative view but rather trying to make conservative views look foolish without presenting any argument.  Whether it be the choice of words used when presenting stories, or the so called "conservatives" they have on the show.

That is the funny thing about liberalism - its take over of the U.S. society has not been because of better arguments but rather by manipulation.  Essentially America is being driven through liberal schools, television, news programs, movies, and magazines.  The church in the U.S. has become secularized simply due to each generation being more and more influenced by those different outlets.  Has better Biblical scholarship really been discovered to change the church? No, rather it is the power of influence from controlling every major outlet of information.  Of course the church is at fault for letting such power be acquired without even attempting to have a voice in it, but nevertheless the decline is a demonstration of the power of influence and not of logical argument.

Liberalism is an emotion driven movement.  It focuses on trying to make people feel as if they are missing something and that "something" is keeping them from obtaining happiness.  True conservatism is based on objective moral standards.  True liberalism is based on subjective moral standards.  If there is any doubt that liberalism is irrational and emotional, one need only look at the issue of abortion to see how unreasonable liberalism truly is.  But even in the matter of abortion, the church has failed to take a solid stand (outside of the Catholic church of course).  By becoming part of the subjective moral movement, the protestant church has lost the foundational difference between secular society and religious society - objective moral standards.

Where is the rational thinker like G.K. Chesterton and where are the pastors like A.W. Tozer?  They're being drowned out and thrown out of the churches because they think rationally.  The irrational liberal movement has penetrated the inner circles of protestant strongholds and rational, logical, and intelligent thought is not only the enemy of the state, but also of the enemy of the church.  On this Easter Sunday, it appears to me, more than ever, that this country is in danger.

Happy Easter...

I’m not gay, but some people I love are. Yet I still do NOT support same sex marriage!

 I’m opposed because:

1.Marriage is completely EQUAL right now. Homosexuals CAN marry, but they must follow the same rules as everybody else no matter what religion or race; they must marry somebody of the opposite sex. What they are asking for is inequality and NOT equality.

2.I value my freedom of religion more than another person’s ability to have sex with whomever they want with the blessing of society. Nobody is stopping homosexuals from having relationships or even having the state recognize the union (civil unions anybody?). The push for same sex marriage is for a complete blessing from all of society to try and alleviate any moral questions regarding their relationship. The push for same sex marriage directly impacts my ability to practice my religion and exercise its principals.

3.It is an unhealthy practice associated with all sorts of risks and problems. Unlike other activities that are associated with these risks, we ignore it and brush off the studies because they’re “religiously motivated” or because it’s sex, which Americans tend to associate with freedom. The impacts of these relationships nevertheless exist yet tend to be an indirect impact on the friends and acquaintances of practicing homosexuals. Numerous articles and studies show the statistics. This one article contains many sources and studies at the bottom and summarizes the findings:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

4.The Bible is opposed to the practice of homosexuality. Anybody that claims to be a Bible scholar ,or wants to throw verses out there as if I somehow neglect other portions of the Bible, can try to challenge my position, but you will lose – no joke =) .

5.Even without the Bible and religion, I can say that homosexual practices weaken a species.

Weaken in two ways:

• It ENCOURAGES relationships where people do not procreate leading to a decline in population (a trend that you don’t want in survival of the fittest mentality.) 

• It leads to shorter life spans (yep, homosexual men tend to live 20 years less than heterosexual men – it’s an average so YES there are people that live even longer than heterosexual men, please understand how averages work).

So, IF survival of the fittest rules, then homosexuality doesn’t belong (terribly brutal sounding, good thing I’m not an atheist and forced to take this position). 

Random Notes:

Don’t say it will make them happy and they should have the right to be happy. No American has the right to be happy; we have the right to PURSUE happiness (think there was a similarly titled movie). And besides, how would we settle who gets to be happy? I’m happy without same sex marriage and somebody else says they’d be happy with it, who wins the happiness fight?

If you don’t like studies, don’t blame me. Instead, take some time and find me studies that show these studies to be wrong.

If you don’t believe me about the impact on religious freedom, take half a minute to go type in Google something along the lines of “Gay couple sues Christian” and see how many results come up.

Hey look, I just assumed you were too lazy and provided a link:

Google Search Results

If you’re offended by this post – you’re an idiot.