Catholic Church Morally Confused.
Archbishop Raymond L. Burke (formerly of St. Louis, now at the Vatican) said today that, "At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a ‘party of death’ because of its choices on bioethical questions."
Once again the Catholic Church has demonstrated its inability to distinguish moral from immoral, good from bad. (Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil - Isa 5:20) In this case, they confuse being pro-fetus with being pro-life. Standing up for the fetus when it contributes to the destruction of the mother's life, the life of the family, and damages society, is not pro life. It is putting the life of the unborn ahead of the lives of persons who are our neighbors and friends. To ruin the lives of the mother and her family and to multiply suffering in order to bring into this world another mouth that cannot be fed or clothed, another child who will suffer from lack of health care, lack of education, and lack of opportunity is neither moral nor favorable to life.
If the Catholics were defenders of life, they would promote contraception and family planning throughout the earth, they would energetically take up the cause of universal health care, and they would demand that the wealthy contribute from their surplus to alleviate the suffering of the poor.
Until we see that day, they are simply morally confused.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Exercise can be a total waste of time.
There's this guy who "works out" at the same gym I do. He has a handsfree bluetooth headset in his ear when he walks in the door. He talks on his phone the whole time. He is in the locker room changing clothes talking to a series of people ("I've got another call coming in, I'm going to have to let you go"). He talks loud enough that everyone can hear his side of the conversation. Then he goes to work out. He sits on the machines talking on the phone between sets ("Hold that thought a minute, I've got to do another set"). Then when the conversation gets intense, he just leans on the machine for fifteen minutes trying to explain to somebody on the other end of the line why the contract is delayed and they are loosing money on the deal. Then after his workout it's "I'll get back to you, I'm standing here without any clothes on, I've got to go take a shower." I've even seen him talking on the phone while he is in taking a piss.
It is a complete waste of time for this individual to come to the gym. He is getting zero benefit from his workout. In fact the workout is an additional stress in his day that is damaging his immune system and is likely to make him sick.
Ninety percent of the beneficial effects of exercise are associated with being focused. The physical benefits (strength, endurance, etc.) come from the intensity of the exercise and the form. If you can easily carry on a conversation through it, it's not intense enough to produce a benefit and there is no way you can be focused on the form if your mind is off on a cell phone someplace. A significant component of every lift is psychological. You have to psych yourself up for every rep in every set. To lift enough weight to produce improvement requires concentration.
Ninety percent of the stress relief benefits of exercise are associated with being focused on the here and now. Exercise helps with stress because it takes you away from the stressors of work, family, and society and takes you to a place where it is just you and that weight. It works because you stop thinking about everything that is stressing you out if even just for an hour; you focus on a simple goal, and with concentration and effort you can reach it.
Ninety percent of the social benefits associated with exercise are lost if your workout partner has to stand and listen to you talk on the cell phone instead of interacting with you and developing that relationship that becomes the important social aspect of exercise. Yeah but this guy doesn't have a workout partner. (I wonder why.)
But I forget. This guy is not there to gain the benefits of exercise. He is there to show the world how important he is. He cannot be out of touch with his people for even an hour. His opinions are so vital to his co-workers, family, and friends that they have to have constant access.
What an ass hole.
There's this guy who "works out" at the same gym I do. He has a handsfree bluetooth headset in his ear when he walks in the door. He talks on his phone the whole time. He is in the locker room changing clothes talking to a series of people ("I've got another call coming in, I'm going to have to let you go"). He talks loud enough that everyone can hear his side of the conversation. Then he goes to work out. He sits on the machines talking on the phone between sets ("Hold that thought a minute, I've got to do another set"). Then when the conversation gets intense, he just leans on the machine for fifteen minutes trying to explain to somebody on the other end of the line why the contract is delayed and they are loosing money on the deal. Then after his workout it's "I'll get back to you, I'm standing here without any clothes on, I've got to go take a shower." I've even seen him talking on the phone while he is in taking a piss.
It is a complete waste of time for this individual to come to the gym. He is getting zero benefit from his workout. In fact the workout is an additional stress in his day that is damaging his immune system and is likely to make him sick.
Ninety percent of the beneficial effects of exercise are associated with being focused. The physical benefits (strength, endurance, etc.) come from the intensity of the exercise and the form. If you can easily carry on a conversation through it, it's not intense enough to produce a benefit and there is no way you can be focused on the form if your mind is off on a cell phone someplace. A significant component of every lift is psychological. You have to psych yourself up for every rep in every set. To lift enough weight to produce improvement requires concentration.
Ninety percent of the stress relief benefits of exercise are associated with being focused on the here and now. Exercise helps with stress because it takes you away from the stressors of work, family, and society and takes you to a place where it is just you and that weight. It works because you stop thinking about everything that is stressing you out if even just for an hour; you focus on a simple goal, and with concentration and effort you can reach it.
Ninety percent of the social benefits associated with exercise are lost if your workout partner has to stand and listen to you talk on the cell phone instead of interacting with you and developing that relationship that becomes the important social aspect of exercise. Yeah but this guy doesn't have a workout partner. (I wonder why.)
But I forget. This guy is not there to gain the benefits of exercise. He is there to show the world how important he is. He cannot be out of touch with his people for even an hour. His opinions are so vital to his co-workers, family, and friends that they have to have constant access.
What an ass hole.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The Rise and Fall of the American Empire
In this place, in this time
homosapiens glimpsed freedom
and lacking the courage to take the plunge
retreated from the precipice
to the comfort of tradition, superstition, and authoritarianism
choosing demagogues with simplistic black and white answers
over the complexity of color.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Came across an article by N. Gregory Mankiw that highlights the classical fallacy in libertarian reasoning. The article was published in the New York Times in July of 2007 and titled ‘Fair Taxes? Depends What You Mean by ‘Fair’.” Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard. He was an adviser to President Bush and was an advisor to Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
Mankiw says:
Of course there is an easy way to bridge this philosophical divide. Professor Nozick has the moral perspicacity of a hyena. His theory that the rich should be permitted to trample the poor just because they can is morally and ethically reprehensible to the core and all thinking caring Americans should reject it out of hand. I say noblesse oblige.
Nozick makes the classic libertarian error of treating the “state” as if it were an entity separate from the people and then structuring his discourse around an adversarial conception of the relationship between the people and the state. This is only the case if the “state” is a king or dictator. In a democracy, the government is us. The decision to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, in fact, arises “out of the voluntary exchanges and actions” of the people, acting through the government to carry out their will. Thank God the people have a better developed moral sense than Professor Nozick and his libertarian buddies. When individuals (or any segment of society) forget their moral obligations, it is in our best interest to remind them or if necessary compel them to act. This is critical for our protection and for the benefit and stability of society.
Mankiw says:
“None of these calculations, however, say whether the rich are paying their fair share. Fairness is not an economic concept. If you want to talk fairness, you have to leave the department of economics and head over to philosophy.
“The quintessential political philosopher of modern liberalism is John Rawls, the author of the 1971 classic “A Theory of Justice.” Professor Rawls concluded that the primary goal of public policy should be to redistribute resources to help those at the very bottom of the economic ladder. If Professor Rawls were alive today, he would most likely want to raise the top income tax rate of 35 percent in order to finance a more generous safety net. And for much the same reason, he would probably raise taxes on the middle class as well.
“Professor Rawls would get a vigorous debate from his Harvard colleague, the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick. In his 1974 book, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” Professor Nozick wrote: “We are not in the position of children who have been given portions of pie by someone who now makes last-minute adjustments to rectify careless cutting. There is no central distribution, no person or group entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how they are to be doled out. What each person gets, he gets from others who give to him in exchange for something, or as a gift. In a free society, diverse persons control different resources, and new holdings arise out of the voluntary exchanges and actions of persons.”
“To libertarians like Professor Nozick, requiring the rich to pay more just because they are rich is little more than officially sanctioned theft.
“There is no easy way to bridge this philosophical divide, but the political process will, inevitably, try to forge a practical compromise among those with wildly divergent views.”
Of course there is an easy way to bridge this philosophical divide. Professor Nozick has the moral perspicacity of a hyena. His theory that the rich should be permitted to trample the poor just because they can is morally and ethically reprehensible to the core and all thinking caring Americans should reject it out of hand. I say noblesse oblige.
Nozick makes the classic libertarian error of treating the “state” as if it were an entity separate from the people and then structuring his discourse around an adversarial conception of the relationship between the people and the state. This is only the case if the “state” is a king or dictator. In a democracy, the government is us. The decision to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, in fact, arises “out of the voluntary exchanges and actions” of the people, acting through the government to carry out their will. Thank God the people have a better developed moral sense than Professor Nozick and his libertarian buddies. When individuals (or any segment of society) forget their moral obligations, it is in our best interest to remind them or if necessary compel them to act. This is critical for our protection and for the benefit and stability of society.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
So I keep running into these people who walk around all day with a pissed off attitude.
Most of the time there are one of two things going on with these people.
1. They think that people will see that they are all pissed off and say, “Oh my goodness, he is all pissed off, we must change the world so he will be happy.”
2. If they think they are God’s children, they may be thinking that God will see that they are all pissed off and will say, “My child is all pissed off, I must change the world so he will be happy.”
Well I’m just fucking sorry. Nobody, not even God, is going to change the world so that you will be happy. You are just going to live the rest of your life with a pissed off attitude and then you are going to die.
The solution to this is pretty obvious. You have to figure out how to be happy in the world the way it is and you have to spend all that energy you’ve been spending being pissed off on making this world a better place, not just for yourself, but for others and generations yet to come.
Most of the time there are one of two things going on with these people.
1. They think that people will see that they are all pissed off and say, “Oh my goodness, he is all pissed off, we must change the world so he will be happy.”
2. If they think they are God’s children, they may be thinking that God will see that they are all pissed off and will say, “My child is all pissed off, I must change the world so he will be happy.”
Well I’m just fucking sorry. Nobody, not even God, is going to change the world so that you will be happy. You are just going to live the rest of your life with a pissed off attitude and then you are going to die.
The solution to this is pretty obvious. You have to figure out how to be happy in the world the way it is and you have to spend all that energy you’ve been spending being pissed off on making this world a better place, not just for yourself, but for others and generations yet to come.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
It is common in this country for political candidates to be asked if they believe in evolution. What is the correct answer to this question? The candidate should say something to the effect that:
"Evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are either useful or they are not useful. They are not something you believe in or don't believe in. Religious propositions are matters of faith or belief. The scientific theory of evolution is not a religious proposition."
"Asking if someone believes in evolution is like asking if they believe that the number of electrons in the outer ring of an atom is a determining factor in the chemical bonds that the atom will form. This isn't a matter of belief. The issue is, can the model (the one that says there are electrons in orbits around the nucleus of an atom) be used to predict the chemical bonds that the atom will form. It can, despite the fact that particle physics tells us it is a gross oversimplification of the nature of electrons, atoms, and chemical bonds. As a result, we need to keep teaching this model to students in high school chemistry."
At this point the interviewer is likely to push the candidate to commit to a belief with some question such as, "So do you think that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor?"
The candidate should respond:
"The hypothesis that humans and other primates have a common ancestor is one of the most useful and beneficial hypotheses to emerge from the scientific theory of evolution. Much of the scientific advancement of the past century in medicine, biology, physiology, psychology, sociology, ethology, and numerous other disciplines depends on this hypothesis."
Interviewer: "So then you are saying humans and monkeys have a common ancestor."
The Candidate who wants out of this should respond: "I said the hypothesis is useful," and refuse to answer further questions.
The Candidate who wishes to clarify should respond:
"In science, a hypothesis can be confirmed or falsified. Scientific experiments are designed to test a hypothesis by figuring out what evidence would confirm or falsify the hypothesis, and then examining the evidence. Over the past 150 years people have identified dozens of lines of evidence that could be used to falsify this hypothesis and lines of evidence that would confirm the hypothesis. Every time the evidence is examined the hypothesis has been confirmed. In fact, now we can't imagine what kind of evidence could be marshaled to falsify the hypothesis that we haven't already looked at."
"The last great hope for falsifying the hypothesis was the speculation that human DNA would contain something (some genes, some sequence, something) that could not have come from the common primate ancestor. The results are in. The human genome has been sequenced and it is completely consistent with the hypothesis that it came from the common ancestor. There is nothing in it that is non-animal like. In fact, 98.8% of our DNA is identical to that of a Chimpanzee. In addition, our DNA is much simpler than we thought it would be. A few decades ago, scientists figured that in order to produce a creature as complex as humans it would take at least 100,000 genes. We actually only have about 30,000 genes. Only one of those genes is not present in the chimpanzee DNA and it is one that influences the size of the forebrain. Nearly all our genes are identical to the Chimpanzee genes. That is because the life processes in us are virtually identical to those in other primates. Only about 1.2% of our genes(about 300 genes)are different from the corresponding Chimpanzee gene (ie: the Chimpanzee has the same gene but in a slightly different form). For example, the gene that controls the growth of body hair in the Chimpanzee does the same thing in us. The human gene, however, shows signs of having been damaged by a mutation and as a result we have less body hair. Mutations (the basis for evolutionary change) frequently make genes work less efficiently. Sometimes that results in selective advantage for the organism."
"Evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are either useful or they are not useful. They are not something you believe in or don't believe in. Religious propositions are matters of faith or belief. The scientific theory of evolution is not a religious proposition."
"Asking if someone believes in evolution is like asking if they believe that the number of electrons in the outer ring of an atom is a determining factor in the chemical bonds that the atom will form. This isn't a matter of belief. The issue is, can the model (the one that says there are electrons in orbits around the nucleus of an atom) be used to predict the chemical bonds that the atom will form. It can, despite the fact that particle physics tells us it is a gross oversimplification of the nature of electrons, atoms, and chemical bonds. As a result, we need to keep teaching this model to students in high school chemistry."
At this point the interviewer is likely to push the candidate to commit to a belief with some question such as, "So do you think that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor?"
The candidate should respond:
"The hypothesis that humans and other primates have a common ancestor is one of the most useful and beneficial hypotheses to emerge from the scientific theory of evolution. Much of the scientific advancement of the past century in medicine, biology, physiology, psychology, sociology, ethology, and numerous other disciplines depends on this hypothesis."
Interviewer: "So then you are saying humans and monkeys have a common ancestor."
The Candidate who wants out of this should respond: "I said the hypothesis is useful," and refuse to answer further questions.
The Candidate who wishes to clarify should respond:
"In science, a hypothesis can be confirmed or falsified. Scientific experiments are designed to test a hypothesis by figuring out what evidence would confirm or falsify the hypothesis, and then examining the evidence. Over the past 150 years people have identified dozens of lines of evidence that could be used to falsify this hypothesis and lines of evidence that would confirm the hypothesis. Every time the evidence is examined the hypothesis has been confirmed. In fact, now we can't imagine what kind of evidence could be marshaled to falsify the hypothesis that we haven't already looked at."
"The last great hope for falsifying the hypothesis was the speculation that human DNA would contain something (some genes, some sequence, something) that could not have come from the common primate ancestor. The results are in. The human genome has been sequenced and it is completely consistent with the hypothesis that it came from the common ancestor. There is nothing in it that is non-animal like. In fact, 98.8% of our DNA is identical to that of a Chimpanzee. In addition, our DNA is much simpler than we thought it would be. A few decades ago, scientists figured that in order to produce a creature as complex as humans it would take at least 100,000 genes. We actually only have about 30,000 genes. Only one of those genes is not present in the chimpanzee DNA and it is one that influences the size of the forebrain. Nearly all our genes are identical to the Chimpanzee genes. That is because the life processes in us are virtually identical to those in other primates. Only about 1.2% of our genes(about 300 genes)are different from the corresponding Chimpanzee gene (ie: the Chimpanzee has the same gene but in a slightly different form). For example, the gene that controls the growth of body hair in the Chimpanzee does the same thing in us. The human gene, however, shows signs of having been damaged by a mutation and as a result we have less body hair. Mutations (the basis for evolutionary change) frequently make genes work less efficiently. Sometimes that results in selective advantage for the organism."
Thursday, February 21, 2008
School Vouchers and Segregation: The school voucher system promoted by conservatives will result in establishing a segregated school system at tax payers expense. The voucher system is presented to Christians as an opportunity to have your children educated in a Christian environment and as an opportunity to return to a morals based education system. While these goals may be laudable, the real effect of the voucher system will be to return the country to a system of segregated schools. This is why the voucher system is so strongly advocated by reconstructionists, segregationists, and white supremacist groups.
We should only accept a school voucher program if the vouchers can only be used in racially balanced schools. (Hide and watch the conservatives run from that one.)
We should only accept a school voucher program if the vouchers can only be used in racially balanced schools. (Hide and watch the conservatives run from that one.)
So I am pro-life but not pro-fetus; pro the life of the baby and the life of the mother and in fact all life. The pro-fetus group calls themselves pro-life but they are actually only pro-fetus. As soon as that baby is born, they want nothing to do with it. They want nothing to do with making sure the baby is properly fed, they want no responsibility to assure it is properly clothed, or that the baby gets a good education and that the mother has the resources to give the baby a chance to grow up to be a productive citizen.
In fact, some people in the "pro-life" movement are strongly opposed to using taxpayers money to protect mothers and children. I have met "pro-life"-ers who say things like "if we make it too easy for these people, they will just have more welfare babies." The implication is that they want to make sure that the mother gets punished for having a baby out of wedlock: "If she suffers enough and sees how bad she and the baby have it, maybe she won't be so quick to have another illegitimate child."
Ok. So making babies suffer is a family value.
Wait a minute. These people are not only not pro-life. Their position is immoral to the core.
It is immoral to bring an unwanted child into this world and then structure society to assure the child will suffer for a lifetime for the "sins" of his or her mother.
I'm sorry. Whenever a "pro-life"-er plays the morality card, those of us who actually care about morality need to scream at the top of our lungs and call attention to the moral fraud this group is perpetrating on our nation.
A constitutional amendment to protect the fetus should only be considered if the amendment also provides for protection of the baby and mother. (Hide and watch the conservatives run from that one.)
In fact, some people in the "pro-life" movement are strongly opposed to using taxpayers money to protect mothers and children. I have met "pro-life"-ers who say things like "if we make it too easy for these people, they will just have more welfare babies." The implication is that they want to make sure that the mother gets punished for having a baby out of wedlock: "If she suffers enough and sees how bad she and the baby have it, maybe she won't be so quick to have another illegitimate child."
Ok. So making babies suffer is a family value.
Wait a minute. These people are not only not pro-life. Their position is immoral to the core.
It is immoral to bring an unwanted child into this world and then structure society to assure the child will suffer for a lifetime for the "sins" of his or her mother.
I'm sorry. Whenever a "pro-life"-er plays the morality card, those of us who actually care about morality need to scream at the top of our lungs and call attention to the moral fraud this group is perpetrating on our nation.
A constitutional amendment to protect the fetus should only be considered if the amendment also provides for protection of the baby and mother. (Hide and watch the conservatives run from that one.)
Sometimes Baptist preachers say things from the pulpit that are utter nonsense. While this is never excusable, when a small time country preacher does it, it is at least understandable. Mike Huckabee is running for leader of the greatest country in the world. When he demonstrates himself to be ignorant and uninformed, he demonstrates he is unqualified to be president. "We really don’t need a lot of law if we’re people of morality," Huckabee said at the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, according to a report in the Lynchburg News Advance. "There are only 10 basic laws that we need … the reason that the law is more complicated is because we try to find clever ways around those 10."
Some preachers have a penchant for proclaiming that the ten commandments are the foundation of all morality and the basis for our legal system. This is historically and factually inaccurate.
The constitution of the United States is careful to protect us from the ten commandments. Enforcement of the first four commandments is prohibited by the separation clause. For example, the first commandment states "you shall have no other gods before me." Yet religious freedom cannot exist unless people are permitted to worship other gods. That is what religious freedom is. Just as I have the right to take the name of other peoples gods in vain and they must be guaranteed the right to take the name of my God in vain (in violation of the third commandment). Religious freedom is clearly in conflict with these commandments.
Our legal system is based on British common law, which is based on Roman law, which was based on Greek, Persian, and Babylonian law. Many of the laws of the Old Testament are virtually quotes from Babylonian law which was based on the Code of Hammurabi. Only three of the ten commandments have any status in our legal system at all; it is illegal to steal, illegal to bear false witness, and murder is against the law. These three things did not come into our legal system through the ten commandments. These things are against the law in much older codes than the ten commandments and the Old Testament. Most of the commandments are not part of our legal system at all. For example, there is no law that requires you to honor mother and father, coveting is not against the law, and adultery is not against the law. In other words the ten commandments have virtually no relationship to our legal system.
The ten commandments make a very poor foundation for morality. Slaves are mentioned twice in Exodus chapter 20 and coveting your neighbors wife is a property issue. The wife is listed after the house and before the ox and ass. Who can argue that a code that condones slavery and treating women as property is an appropriate foundation for morality.
Sometimes you hear it said that outside of Christianity, there is no morality. ("If you invite an atheist to dinner, you'd better lock up the silver.") The implication is that if we don't incorporate Christian percepts in government and schools then there is no basis for morality in society and chaos will result. This is also historically and factually untrue. Throughout history there have been great, non-Christian, non-Jewish civilizations that have had high standards of morality that pre-dated or were developed totally independently of the Old Testament. Today, there are totally secular societies, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and pagan societies that have and operate on very high moral standards that they did not get from the Old Testament. Humans are moral creatures. Morality is essential for stable human societies to emerge. The Hebrews developed moral standards for their society, but they did not invent morality. Some of my atheist friends have higher moral standards than many of the Christians I know. Morality does not come from God and does not presume a God for its existence.
Some preachers have a penchant for proclaiming that the ten commandments are the foundation of all morality and the basis for our legal system. This is historically and factually inaccurate.
The constitution of the United States is careful to protect us from the ten commandments. Enforcement of the first four commandments is prohibited by the separation clause. For example, the first commandment states "you shall have no other gods before me." Yet religious freedom cannot exist unless people are permitted to worship other gods. That is what religious freedom is. Just as I have the right to take the name of other peoples gods in vain and they must be guaranteed the right to take the name of my God in vain (in violation of the third commandment). Religious freedom is clearly in conflict with these commandments.
Our legal system is based on British common law, which is based on Roman law, which was based on Greek, Persian, and Babylonian law. Many of the laws of the Old Testament are virtually quotes from Babylonian law which was based on the Code of Hammurabi. Only three of the ten commandments have any status in our legal system at all; it is illegal to steal, illegal to bear false witness, and murder is against the law. These three things did not come into our legal system through the ten commandments. These things are against the law in much older codes than the ten commandments and the Old Testament. Most of the commandments are not part of our legal system at all. For example, there is no law that requires you to honor mother and father, coveting is not against the law, and adultery is not against the law. In other words the ten commandments have virtually no relationship to our legal system.
The ten commandments make a very poor foundation for morality. Slaves are mentioned twice in Exodus chapter 20 and coveting your neighbors wife is a property issue. The wife is listed after the house and before the ox and ass. Who can argue that a code that condones slavery and treating women as property is an appropriate foundation for morality.
Sometimes you hear it said that outside of Christianity, there is no morality. ("If you invite an atheist to dinner, you'd better lock up the silver.") The implication is that if we don't incorporate Christian percepts in government and schools then there is no basis for morality in society and chaos will result. This is also historically and factually untrue. Throughout history there have been great, non-Christian, non-Jewish civilizations that have had high standards of morality that pre-dated or were developed totally independently of the Old Testament. Today, there are totally secular societies, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and pagan societies that have and operate on very high moral standards that they did not get from the Old Testament. Humans are moral creatures. Morality is essential for stable human societies to emerge. The Hebrews developed moral standards for their society, but they did not invent morality. Some of my atheist friends have higher moral standards than many of the Christians I know. Morality does not come from God and does not presume a God for its existence.
Friday, January 18, 2008
I am so tired of having my religious beliefs and convictions, my values, trampled, ignored, mocked, and denigrated by the evangelicals. I am tired of having morally reprehensible positions shoved down my throat in the name of Jesus. I am tired of the evangelicals arrogance. I am offended that they think they speak for God.
Mike Huckabee has said that AIDS is a plague and that this is the first time in history that carriers of a plague have not been isolated from the general population. Huckabee has proposed isolating AIDS victims. He has been asked about this recently and refuses to back away from the position.
Aside from the profound ignorance reflected in this position (AIDS cannot be passed through casual contact), I'm trying to picture how this would work. I guess we could round up people with AIDS and move them to some kind of concentration camp. I'm picturing chain link fences and concertina wire with heavily armed guards. If they try to leave we could shoot them and bulldoze their bodies into trenches.
It seems to me that Huckabee's understanding of Jesus view of the future of America is looking a lot like Hitlers view of the future of Germany. How can this man call himself a Christian. Why don't Christians everywhere rise up with one voice and condemn this man.
Let's think about this further. This gay guy is the CEO of some company. He is doing really well. He drives a BMW, he and his partner live in a really nice condo on the 15 floor of a high rise downtown. He's been opening stores in several states and is considering taking his company public when he and his partner contract HIV and ultimately are diagnosed with AIDS. In Huckabee's America, the government would arrest these two, confiscate their property, place their corporation under some sort of government takeover, and haul these guys off to some camp in Idaho or Arizona or someplace.
No they wouldn't. If Huckabee started concentration camps for AIDs victims, the only people who would be there are blacks and hispanics. The rich guy with the condo and the BMW would hire fancy lawyers who would keep him out.
Huckabee wants us to believe that he knows what God wants for America. No, this man has never met Jesus, the Christ, the Son of Love!!!
Mike Huckabee has said that AIDS is a plague and that this is the first time in history that carriers of a plague have not been isolated from the general population. Huckabee has proposed isolating AIDS victims. He has been asked about this recently and refuses to back away from the position.
Aside from the profound ignorance reflected in this position (AIDS cannot be passed through casual contact), I'm trying to picture how this would work. I guess we could round up people with AIDS and move them to some kind of concentration camp. I'm picturing chain link fences and concertina wire with heavily armed guards. If they try to leave we could shoot them and bulldoze their bodies into trenches.
It seems to me that Huckabee's understanding of Jesus view of the future of America is looking a lot like Hitlers view of the future of Germany. How can this man call himself a Christian. Why don't Christians everywhere rise up with one voice and condemn this man.
Let's think about this further. This gay guy is the CEO of some company. He is doing really well. He drives a BMW, he and his partner live in a really nice condo on the 15 floor of a high rise downtown. He's been opening stores in several states and is considering taking his company public when he and his partner contract HIV and ultimately are diagnosed with AIDS. In Huckabee's America, the government would arrest these two, confiscate their property, place their corporation under some sort of government takeover, and haul these guys off to some camp in Idaho or Arizona or someplace.
No they wouldn't. If Huckabee started concentration camps for AIDs victims, the only people who would be there are blacks and hispanics. The rich guy with the condo and the BMW would hire fancy lawyers who would keep him out.
Huckabee wants us to believe that he knows what God wants for America. No, this man has never met Jesus, the Christ, the Son of Love!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
