Got a promotion at work.  No time to blog.  But here's a list of all previous postings, for quick and easy reading.

Date	Posting	Favorites
2-Nov-06	The Rise of the Secular Conservative, Part 1	*
3-Nov-06	The Rise of the Secular Conservative, Part 2	*
5-Nov-06	Religious Language Doesn’t Belong in Political Discourse
15-Nov-06	The Vietnam Comparison, a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
21-Nov-06	Better Responses to Dennis Prager
24-Nov-06	Make a Difference Before 2008	*
30-Nov-06	…And Man Created God	*
3-Dec-06	Just Found: A New Constitutional Right
7-Dec-06	7 Conservative Principles	*
14-Dec-06	Inconsistent Liberals and Christmas Displays
26-Dec-06	2007 Predictions, or Something…
26-Dec-06	Masculinity is a Threat
2-Jan-07	Defending the Rich
4-Jan-07	Find and Replace: War on Terror
5-Jan-07	How Muslim’s Take Advantage of Free Societies	*
6-Jan-07	Sources of Moral Values	*
8-Jan-07	The Nature of Representative Democracies	*
15-Jan-07	Christian Maturity
18-Jan-07	What is Discrimination?
26-Jan-07	Immune From Criticism
4-Feb-07	Rush Limbaugh, God, and Global Warming
17-Feb-07	Read the Obama Test	*
12-Mar-07	Liberals Are Not Opposed to Terrorism
29-Mar-07	Primary Super Tuesday
11-Apr-07	Disagreeing with the President
21-Apr-07	NBC Was Right: Cho Video is Factual and Relevant
12-May-07	Media Bias Test

 
-tsc

Hugh Hewett is particularly good at exposing liberal journalists on his radio show, and occasionally callers to C-SPAN try to catch journalists by trying to get them to admit their liberal biases.  Journalists have become good at dodging these traps in the name of personal privacy and the appearance of objectivity.  But there are ways around their verbal acrobatics.

Here's how you lay the trap for a liberal journalist who won't admit he is a liberal:

Question 1: Do you think it's possible for an individual to have personal opinions on a subject (even controversial personal opinions) and yet maintain an objective position when writing a column, editorial, or news piece?
YES    Without a doubt, the journalist will say yes, because that is what they claim to do every day.  They know they are liberal deep down, but they truly believe they can maintain an objective outer layer.  Go to question #2.
NO    It's inconceivable that the journalist will say no, but saying no should provide you with more than enough opportunitites for follow-up.  After all, that means no one can be objective unless they have no opinions.  Start trying to pin him down on political topics like war, taxes, etc. just to see if he reveals an opinion.


Question 2: Do you think your viewers/readers share your understanding that objectivity is possible even when the writer/speaker has personal opinions?
YES    Most journalists should say yes because they realize the average citizen has opinions but knows when to disguise those opinions (e.g. work, social settings).  Plus, the smart ones don't want to suggest readers/viewers aren't smart enough to see the difference.  Your trap is now set -- go to question #3.
NO    The journalist that says no has a very low opinion of his audience.  Apparently we're all ignorant and don't understand the subtleties of life as well as our media overlords.  While the journalist has successfully avoided the trap, you know something else that demonstrates his opinion of the rest of us.

Question 3: Great, so we agree (this builds a common bond with the journalist).  It's possible for you to have a liberal or conservative opinion on something but remain objectives, and you agree that readers/listeners are sophisticated enough to know this, too.  I guess you wouldn't object to sharing some of your opinions, knowing that it doesn't get in the way of your objectivity?

When was the last time you voted for a Republican for President?

Are you for or against abortion?

Are you for or against the war in Iraq?

Is there evidence that mankind is causing global warming?

Insert additional questions here...

Since you've probably been cut off by this point, there's very little else you can do; hopefully everyone got the point.  If you still have an opportunity for a question and your journalist played along by answering your last round of questions...

Conclude with this question: Do you think your viewers/readers could predict your opinions based on your columns/editorials/news reports, or have you failed to be completely objective?
This one could provide a little enlightenment because it's likely the journalist's opinions have been readily apparent from his work, and the concept of objectivity is understandably moot.  Regardless of the answer to this last one, you will learn a lot about your trapped journalist.

-tsc

 We conservatives regularly level the claim that the mainstream/drive-by media are biased liberal.  That bias manifests itself through choice: media outlets receive multiple leads and stories and choose 1) what to publicize and 2) what viewpoint is presented.  Personally, I would prefer that news reports limit themselves to the facts of a situation, and opinion-makers use different segments to handle #1 and #2.

Everyone wants mainstream media to publish reports of [unnamed Democratic representative] and her corruption for steering contracts to her husband.  The media doesn't, so we claim this is liberal bias because a choice is made to not present the news.  If media didn't choose, if media published all the news that's factual and fit to print, this story would have legs.

So why do conservatives complain when NBC shows the Cho video?  If they hadn't, they would have made a choice to suppress relevant facts regarding the story (in this case, motive) even though it's offensive to the victims' families, but it's not like conservatives to stand up for the "offended class." 

I don't want the news media to make choices when presenting the news.  I want them to present factual and relevant information and allow the audience to draw its own conclusions.  If we want the media to make choices in the news they present, we can't complain when they make a choice we don't like.  Should they show footage of the twin towers falling?  Should they show video of Bin Ladin?  Should they show archive footage of the Columbine shootings?  Should Cho's video be on the air?

I'm open to being persuaded on this issue and I don't know that I've thought it through completely, but it really doesn't bother me that the Cho footage was put on the air.  And I'm tired of the preaching from the right.  If we don't want NBC to be biased, we should ask them to always release information that's factual and relevant.  The Cho video is both. 

-tsc

I must admit, I'm confused by one of the common liberal refrains regarding war and our President.  I heard the specific quote from a liberal columnist today, but I know I've heard it many times before, particularly from Hollywood anti-war types:

"Disagreeing with the President is a good thing."

Why exactly?  I get that it's good to live in a society where disagreement is possible, and I understand that the ability to disagree is foundational to a functioning democracy/republic.  But that's not what these people are saying.  They're saying that the act of disagreement itself is a good thing.  Why?

Who actually likes disagreement?  If my wife wants to have pizza, but I want to go out for Mexican food, we disagree.  It would be better if we agreed.  There would be no friction, we could make a decision more quickly, etc.  Disagreement is not a likeable thing.

But disagreement is a necessary thing.  So why do liberals take pride in their disagreement when they should take pride in our right to disagree?

-tsc

I keep hearing about all these primaries that are moving up on the schedule, and how they're essentially going to decide both candidates on one Super Tuesday nine months before the general election.  Oh yeah, and anyone who doesn't get in really early won't have enough money to get the primary votes, so late-comers don't have a prayer.  This concerns me because I like Newt, and he will be a late-comer if he gets in the race.

But this focus on a Primary Super Tuesday assumes one very important outcome: EVERY RACE ON THAT TUESDAY WILL GO TOWARDS A SINGLE CANDIDATE FOR EACH PARTY.  Right?  Because the only way it's decisive is if every state goes toward, say Obama and Rudy.  Then everyone else is clearly out of luck, right?

What no one considers is what happens IF EVERY RACE HAS A DIFFERENT WINNER. 

You see, the reason the primary system sucks now is because a few states have early primaries and each candidate focuses their attention on those states only.  Whoever wins the first two or three becomes the automatic frontrunner, so voters in later states change their voting behavior.  That's why it's so important to win in the early states, because the later states will be influenced by the results of the early states and it cascades across the country.

By having all (or most) of the primaries on one day, none of the early states can influence the later states, so we get a true sense of what the people want in each state.  If we get an honest outcome from each state, and each state picks the same candidate, we get a true frontrunner.  But we also have the opportunity to get a different winner in each state, which means following the early primaries, we still have a toss-up.  What can be more exciting than that?

So picture this: Each candidate raises and spends as much money as possible ahead of Primary Super Tuesday.  On Wednesday, everyone wakes up to find that no clear winner came out of all primaries.  But everyone is broke and donors don't know who to give money to for the later primaries and the general election.

What a mess, right?  Not for a late starter (like Newt), who can come charging in with a full campaign warchest, since he didn't waste it for all those months on the primary campaign trail.  For the right candidate, under the right circumstances, a Super Primary Tuesday could be a huge windfall, and current frontrunners could find themselves out of money with nine months to go. 

Let's not forget this is a marathon, not a sprint.

-tsc

I'm starting to believe that liberals aren't really opposed to terrorism.  In fact, I think they're "sympathetic to the cause" in most cases.  Sure, conservatives have given them the benefit of the doubt until now, but it may be time to call a spade a spade. 

Conservatives tell themselves that liberals simply disagree on moral grounds (e.g. war is bad); or they disagree because they're playing the role of opposition party; or perhaps they actually have another plan that won't be revealed until they reach the Oval Office.  These rationalizations help us believe the people on the other side of the aisle aren't really that different from us.

But what if liberals aren't actually opposed to terrorism?  I'm not saying they're FOR terrorism, but maybe they're not really AGAINST it either...
 
Some examples might help:

• Insurgents -- Insurgents aren't really terrorists, they're just freedom fighters standing up to the evil empire.  What better way to support terrorism than to gloss over the actions that drew the U.S. into war, characterize their continued bad actions as minor compared to those of the great Satan, and provide a euphemism with "freedom" in the title?
• Palestinians versus Israelis -- A classic case of blaming the victim for the actions of the aggressor.  I can't take credit for it, but my favorite way to summarize this argument goes like this: If the Israelis lay down their weapons, will the killing stop?  Of course not.  But if the Palestinians lay down their weapons, will the killing stop?  Absolutely.  This tells who really is to blame.
• Danish cartoons -- Cartoons that portray Mohammad are bad, and it's necessary for the “Muslim Street” to riot around the world.  How do liberals portray these riots?  Justifiable, of course, since it was inappropriate for the cartoonists to violate religious precepts.  Rioting is the logical response, naturally.
• Eco-terrorism -- Violence is acceptable when it's in the name of Mother Earth, at least as far as liberals are concerned.  Green Peace sinking a whaling boat?  No problem.  Burn down a Hummer dealership?  Perfectly justifiable.

So there you go, four examples of liberals NOT opposing terrorism.  The only comparable example I can think of from conservatives would be an abortion clinic bombing.  But when an abortion clinic is destroyed, conservatives widely denounce the killings, whereas liberals rationalize their kind of terrorism away, as I documented above.

It's as bad as supporting the troops but not supporting the war.  By calling it a civil war, by calling terrorists "insurgents" and "freedom fighters," liberals diminish the importance of this fight.  They undermine those who are fighting terrorism and, consequently, help the terrorists.

Some might think I've gone too far, but I'm tired of liberals euphemizing and glossing over terrorist activities.  It's time somebody called them on it.

-tsc

I love this article.  Perfect example of how facts debunk liberal views all the time.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_barack_obama_test.html

Key quote:

You might be a liberal if you think

• We spend more on defense than we do on health care and other human services.
• Our health care system is worse than other developed countries because the free market has failed and our government doesn't spend enough on health.
• The rich pay less in taxes than the poor.
• The U.S. is one of the worst offenders in producing global warming gases, and keeps on polluting while other countries are cutting back.
• The biggest problem with Islamic terrorism is the resulting backlash against Muslims.
• AIDS affects everyone equally, gay and straight.
• We have high rates of rapes and sexual assault because of the availability of guns.
• There was no good reason to invade Iraq in 2003, certainly not the threat of WMD.
• More lives would be saved by making helmets mandatory for motorcycle riders than would be saved by making them mandatory for pedestrians or car drivers and passengers.
• President Bush is stupid.

Future Nobel Prize winner Rush Limbaugh, spent much of his Friday program discussing global warming. He spent a lot of time reviewing the lack of science involved in the debate, which makes me happy, but his second hour explaining how the “god of creation” wouldn’t destroy the planet through global warming did not make me happy. I return to my original Secular Conservative premise: conservatism stands on its own; argue with reason and logic and leave the religious language out of the debate.

Before I get into some quotes from Rush’s program, let me be clear that I am not arguing for global warming; I’m arguing against Rush’s invocation of God in the global warming debate.

Rush Limbaugh: “I’m saying as a believer in a loving God and the God of creation that there is a complexity to all this that makes it work that we cannot understand, that we cannot really control, that we cannot destroy, and that we really can’t alter in its massive complexity… I believe in the God of creation and I believe as such [that] we’re insignificant in all this. I am, just as a human being, offended by the notion that the automobile I drive and the way I air condition my home and the way I barbeque outside… I refuse to believe that a loving god creates creatures able to do everything we are able to do, to solve various problems… that that is going to lead to an apocalypse.”

Why does this argument have to depend on a god of creation? In the scientific view, where we are created by natural processes, a Big Bang, and millions of years of evolution, there is the same level of complexity (some might even argue that there is more complexity in the evolutionary view), so the argument still holds up. I could restate this as, “Knowing the size and complexity of the natural world, we cannot understand or control or destroy or alter its massive complexity. I’m offended by the notion that my automobile or my air conditioner can have any impact on a world that is as old and complex as ours is.” There’s no need to invoke the God of creation to argue that man is insignificant in affecting an old, complex planet.

Rush Limbaugh: “In the context of my belief that God is a loving god and created all that is for beautiful and wonderful reasons, and that we are turning this creation into what it’s never been before in terms of the quality of human life, I don’t see how that can lead to destruction of what God created.”

This argument is illogical on its face. Rush is saying that the sheer beauty of creation means that it can’t be destroyed. Naturally beautiful things can be destroyed; they are destroyed every day. Beauty is not an argument against global warming, so God’s creation of beauty is not very convincing.

Rush Limbaugh: “But at the same time, I don’t believe that that loving God would create a being like me or you who could conceive of such a place as paradise or heaven or whatever you want to call it if it weren’t true. That would be an ultimate act of cruelty.”

So the ability to conceive of such a place means it must exist? Otherwise God isn’t loving? I find this one particularly silly. Apparently Rush is saying that, because God created us with the ability to conceive of heaven, heaven must exist. I’m not sure how this relates to global warming; it’s probably just an extension of his earlier argument for beauty.

How do we expect to convince people that conservatism is better when we make arguments like these?  This is my call to all prominent conservatives:

Advocate conservatism using reason and logic because you will reach and convince a wider audience. It’s not necessary to invoke a higher authority when you discuss conservatism.  It can actually hurt the cause.

Here is my summary of the global warming debate:

• Is global warming occurring? Maybe, but I don’t know. I’ve heard that the earth’s average temperature has been rising ever since the last ice age, so I’m open to the idea.
• Is mankind causing global warming? No, we’re simply not that much of a factor. Temperatures have been rising since before we developed the gasoline engine; a single volcanic eruption emits more toxins into the air than all of our automobiles; and the ecosystem knows how to clean and repair itself – just look at the shrinking ozone hole.
• Is global warming bad? No, because it creates more livable area on the planet. Those in the north should love the idea of global warming because it will allow them to make use of land in those areas where crops were planted many centuries ago.

-tsc

 

While browsing through a local used bookstore I noticed a book entitled Christian Maturity (probably this one). I must admit that I did not pick up the book to read the jacket, let alone read the entire book, but the title nonetheless got me to thinking about the religion that I grew up with. Is it possible that the author had something new to offer? Of course, but I was not willing to find out because I have read too many other “Christian Living” books promoting strong faith (read “do good works”) and a full understanding of what Jesus should mean in one's life. I didn’t need to read another book telling me what it meant to be Christian. Instead, I began to think about what true Christian maturity would mean.

Christian maturity means having a full understanding of the religion that you believe in. Frankly, most believers do not understand their religion, and those that think they do are basing this assertion on an understanding of what they have been taught by others. But true Christianity is not the religion that has been popularized by the numerous denominations and sects over the last several centuries. Christian maturity requires you to reevaluate the meaning of all that you hold dear and not simply accept those things you've been taught since childhood, because not evaluating the basis of belief is irresponsible and dangerous.

"Institutional Christianity seems fearful of inquiry, fearful of freedom, fearful of knowledge—indeed, fearful of anything except its own repetitious propaganda, which has its origins in a world that none of us any longer inhabits."

-John Shelby Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die

The Basis of Belief
We do not fully understand the Jewish culture of Jesus’ time, and everything we have been taught about Christianity comes from centuries of gentile teachings about a Jewish man. To understand Jesus the man and Christianity the religion, it is necessary to understand the Jewish people as well.  The Jews did not write and tell stories the way that we do, which means that we must understand their storytelling to understand their stories. They create characters based on historical people to emphasize certain qualities; they insert angels and even God himself into a story in order to reinforce faith; and they exaggerate time and place to fit the pattern of Jewish history. Am I saying that the Bible is full of lies and falsehoods? Of course not. Did they use hyperbole to make their stories more interesting and to emphasize accepted cultural norms? Yes. More importantly, did the Jews write these stories to be read as true factual accounts of history? Almost never.

What's The Point
Why am I, a secularist, writing on this topic?  My reason for blogging is to emphasize conservative principles through reason rather than religious language.  We conservatives accuse liberals of resorting to emotional appeals, but I would argue that religious conservatives are guilty of the same error.  The arguments I hear from Christians are founded on unshakeable faith coming from immature belief.  I don't mind that you believe, but I would prefer your belief be founded on rational thinking, which is not incompatible with religious belief.

-tsc

• My opportunity to affect policy decisions is my vote for a representative
• The representative that I vote for should most closely believe what I believe so that s/he will make decisions similar to my own
• The representative is being elected to REPRESENT me, so there is no need to come back and ask me what I think
• Representation means the person is acting in my stead
• If I don't like the decisions my representative makes, I will vote against him/her at the next opportunity

To those who say that we get our values from religion and, in particular, the Bible, I'd like to attempt a response.

One recent argument, as part of the fray from Ellison taking his oath on the Koran, suggests that the Constitution is sufficient to provide Americans with values, and the Bible itself isn't necessary. Dennis Prager opposes this argument by saying that the Soviet Union had a similar constitution, but didn't adhere to it, so there must be another source of values.

"For the United States, [the source of our values] has been the American Christian's understanding of the Bible." (January 4th broadcast)

Knowing how Dennis likes to be logically consistent, I think even he can appreciate how his Soviet constitution argument actually undermines the biblical argument. The argument is basically that

a) The constitution states certain values

b) But those values are not upheld in practice

c) The written word is not the demonstration of values, which come from the actual behavior of people

d) Therefore, if people's actions don't match the values espoused in a constitution, the constitution is clearly not the source of values

If we apply this same logic to the Bible (note the parallel arguments):

a) The Bible asserts certain values

b) Hopefully no one honestly believes that biblical values are upheld in practice, like slavery, genocide (Joshua 6), incest (Genesis 19), and gang rape (Judges 19). Clearly, these are not our values, but they were all practiced by biblical patriarchs.

c) The written biblical word is not the demonstration of values, and our actual behavior differs.

d) Therefore, since people's actions do not match the values espoused throughout the Bible, the Bible is clearly not the source of values

So what is the source of our values? I'm leaning towards the Richard Dawkins response: the moral zeitgeist.

“In any society there exists a somewhat mysterious consensus, which changes over the decades.”

“The consensus has no obvious connection with religion. It extends, however, to most religious people, whether or not they think their morals come from scripture.”

“Modern morality, wherever else it comes from, does not come from the Bible. Apologists cannot get away with claiming that religion provides them with some sort of inside track to defining what is good and what is bad… They cannot get away with it, not even if they employ that favourite trick of interpreting selected scriptures as ‘symbolic’ rather than literal. By what criterion do you decide which passages are symbolic, which literal?”

The obvious answer is the moral zeitgeist.

-tsc