It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => General Board => Topic started by: IronDioPriest on February 25, 2011, 08:11:42 PM
-
I missed the drama somehow - probably because I don't really "dig in" there very often, and usually just read the front page. But something huge went down there, and a whole bunch of long-time, very gifted contributors got the ban-hammer.
I wish them the best as they move forward after this turmoil. Their site is an important part of the conservative blogosphere, and always worth a read.
These two threads and their comments will give an idea of what happened and who was involved, if'n yer interested, that is...
An Explanation (http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/02/24/an-explanation/)
Vassar Bushmills and His Friend, Mick Hensley (http://www.redstate.com/texasgalt/2011/02/23/vassar-bushmills-and-his-friend-mick-hensley/)
-
Cliques can become a real bee eye itch. I spend a fair amount of time at Red State because they have some good information. I do mostly stay on the front page because I don't care to play some of the games that were talked about. We all need to realize when we are being childish, and correct those actions.
-
I always miss out on the action.
Oh well. I haven't spent as much time at RedState since the election ended. I've been at other places when I have had the time to spend on this sort of thing.
I do agree with one of the points made in that first post...you would only see the same names on the front page...almost never was someone promoted to the front page from a diary. That's one of the reasons that I thought of promoting our site on theirs. At least here you can start a topic and write as much as you like. I don't know if we ever got anyone to join from there, though.
A lesson to be learned is that the ban hammer is a very dangerous tool and should never be used frivolously. An extreme example of that would be the LGF maniac. Ah well...
-
I don't know if we ever got anyone to join from there, though.
I don't remember if it was RedState, but a comments section on one of those sites is how I found this forum. So it does work!
-
Been there, done that, got the war wounds.
-
The fallout won't be on just them, though. Others will take sides and still others will take sides with the ones taking sides. Fracturing, fracturing.
Human behavior just sucks as a rule, framing those few fleeting moments of nobility.
-
I have visited Red State on occasion and have left comments. I forget the issue, but I made some comment that was ill-received by the "clique" on one occasion and the response seemed a bit strange to me. That left a bad taste in my mouth for those folks over there. I remember being personally attacked for posting my opinion regarding some issue. On a Conservative Issue forum.
Strange.
-
I'm having a hard time imagining any confrontation that would lead to the banning of Vassar Bushmills. His commentary was often lifted from the diaries to the front page, and he is a very gifted writer, and from everything I remember, a very articulate, strong conservative.
-
I remember being personally attacked for posting my opinion regarding some issue. On a Conservative Issue forum.
Uh huh.
-
Speaking of rifts, I just noticed that pablodefleurs is gone. What happened?
I tried searching for his most recent posts, but no luck.
-
Speaking of rifts, I just noticed that pablodefleurs is gone. What happened?
I tried searching for his most recent posts, but no luck.
I asked him to discontinue posting fantasy scenarios under which the President of the United States would be assassinated. Instead of understanding and complying, he chose to delete his account.
There is a history with that guy, for anyone who doesn't know. He was banned 3 or 4 times at powerline, and kept coming back with new usernames, and every time, he escalated until he'd get banned again. Same thing at CT, banned once, was allowed back, and I've no doubt he'd have been banned again. At IAF, I had to ask him a couple times to cool it, and each time he did, he'd escalate again a short time later.
Now it seems as if he believed that a new forum without the proboards ToS was going to be a license to threaten violence and fantasize about the death of the President again. I asked him to stop, hoping he would, and would stay. Apparently he feels the need to find a place where he can make his threats, and apparently I made my point that is was not going to be here.
The guy is a walking contradiction, and wound up tight as a spring. Jesus oozing out his ears on the one hand, total lack of boundaries and self-control on the other. I wish him the best, and I seriously hope he doesn't lose it.
-
It's a shame to lose anybody but it is what it is. We do need some basis in reality and leave the nonsense to the libs of the world. We have enough to deal with in the hear and now that we don't need to imagine anything. Think Old Jim.
-
Wow, I didn't know about all that history. I never interacted much with him, though.
When I was looking around IAF for threads to salvage, I found a comment of his that seemed to indicate that he favored the "Young Earth" hypothesis, i.e. that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Needless to say, I strenuously disagree with that.
I better quit right there before I open up another rift. ::unknowncomic::
-
I hear they are looking for new talent at Redstate.
-
...When I was looking around IAF for threads to salvage, I found a comment of his that seemed to indicate that he favored the "Young Earth" hypothesis, i.e. that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Needless to say, I strenuously disagree with that...
I disagree with it too, but not strenuously. It's wasted energy on those who believe it.
Many Christians would strenuously disagree with me, but I think that the Old Testament is a mixture of Jewish history, history with mythological components, messianic prophecy (which I do believe to be God-inspired), and the foundational law upon which our entire civilization is based. I believe that the Old Testament is, in aggregate, a God-inspired compilation that provides us with what God needs us to know about His nature and our relationship to Him, and that literal interpretation of time-lines is not a requirement for God to endow that knowledge upon us.
On the other hand, I believe the New Testament to be a well-supported historical document.
That's a long way of saying that as a Christian, Young-Eartherism is a step too far for me. God doesn't expect us to close our eyes after he went to the trouble on the cross to open them for us.
-
...When I was looking around IAF for threads to salvage, I found a comment of his that seemed to indicate that he favored the "Young Earth" hypothesis, i.e. that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Needless to say, I strenuously disagree with that...
I disagree with it too, but not strenuously. It's wasted energy on those who believe it.
Many Christians would strenuously disagree with me, but I think that the Old Testament is a mixture of Jewish history, history with mythological components, messianic prophecy (which I do believe to be God-inspired), and the foundational law upon which our entire civilization is based. I believe that the Old Testament is, in aggregate, a God-inspired compilation that provides us with what God needs us to know about His nature and our relationship to Him, and that literal interpretation of time-lines is not a requirement for God to endow that knowledge upon us.
On the other hand, I believe the New Testament to be a well-supported historical document.
That's a long way of saying that as a Christian, Young-Eartherism is a step too far for me. God doesn't expect us to close our eyes after he went to the trouble on the cross to open them for us.
I agree completely with that! That's a relief. You wouldn't believe how long I hesitated before posting my last comment, because I really wasn't looking to start a fight. I wasn't too worried about you reacting negatively, but I didn't know who else might.
There are lots of serious professional scientists, in all disciplines, who are religious believers and have no problem with the evidence showing the Earth and the Universe to be billions of years old. They don't see a contradiction with their faith. If I was religious, I'd take it as evidence that God's Creation is even more awesome and magnificent than a literal reading of the first book of Genesis.
Not that there's anything wrong with the first book of Genesis, either. I see it as part of our cultural and literary history. The Apollo 8 astronauts read it when they orbited the Moon on Christmas Eve 1968, and that was a memorable event. I was only 10 years old at the time, but if it was happening today, at age 53, I would still find it moving.
-
I for one hopes Pablo comes back. He is a gifted writer and as a Christian myself when it came to his Christian posts especially wrt apologetics……….. I thought they were outstanding.
I did not read the post or post of controversy. I cannot condone or support the assassination of a president, however, I would not be at all upset to see obama removed form office by impeachment……… disgraced and humiliated. I feel he is destroying our American Ideal and to see him being lead out of the office in humiliation would not cause me to lose sleep.
Posting as a Christian is really hard. On one hand we have our sinful nature to contend with, therefore it easy to go off on a subject in an angry, course, and crude manner. And we sometimes have thoughts and feelings that are contradictory to our Christian walk. Jesus talks about righteous anger, the struggle for me………… is the anger justified. I have to always remember my chief goal in life is try to win as many people over to Yeshua Jesus Christ the only true Messiah as possible (through the power of the Holy Spirit). To be the best example I can be for Him. I want the population of Heaven to increase and the population of Hell to decrease. I really like people. I guess I am what is considered a people person and it pains me greatly to think many will go to hell. Many times I have to hold my tongue as I do not want to bring disgrace on my Lord and Savior. God forbid if I am the cause of somebody to stumble and reject our Lord.
-
...When I was looking around IAF for threads to salvage, I found a comment of his that seemed to indicate that he favored the "Young Earth" hypothesis, i.e. that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Needless to say, I strenuously disagree with that...
I disagree with it too, but not strenuously. It's wasted energy on those who believe it.
Many Christians would strenuously disagree with me, but I think that the Old Testament is a mixture of Jewish history, history with mythological components, messianic prophecy (which I do believe to be God-inspired), and the foundational law upon which our entire civilization is based. I believe that the Old Testament is, in aggregate, a God-inspired compilation that provides us with what God needs us to know about His nature and our relationship to Him, and that literal interpretation of time-lines is not a requirement for God to endow that knowledge upon us.
On the other hand, I believe the New Testament to be a well-supported historical document.
That's a long way of saying that as a Christian, Young-Eartherism is a step too far for me. God doesn't expect us to close our eyes after he went to the trouble on the cross to open them for us.
I agree completely with that! That's a relief. You wouldn't believe how long I hesitated before posting my last comment, because I really wasn't looking to start a fight. I wasn't too worried about you reacting negatively, but I didn't know who else might.
There are lots of serious professional scientists, in all disciplines, who are religious believers and have no problem with the evidence showing the Earth and the Universe to be billions of years old. They don't see a contradiction with their faith. If I was religious, I'd take it as evidence that God's Creation is even more awesome and magnificent than a literal reading of the first book of Genesis.
Not that there's anything wrong with the first book of Genesis, either. I see it as part of our cultural and literary history. The Apollo 8 astronauts read it when they orbited the Moon on Christmas Eve 1968, and that was a memorable event. I was only 10 years old at the time, but if it was happening today, at age 53, I would still find it moving.
Others may disagree with the both of us, and that's their prerogative - and I'd hope they'd feel comfortable sharing. I think we ought to be able discuss sensitive matters without people getting too upset. I responded to your initial comment because I think it's an interesting subject, and I want us to have interesting discussion - and I wanted you to know that your comment was not out of bounds in any way.
-
...Many times I have to hold my tongue as I do not want to bring disgrace on my Lord and Savior. God forbid if I am the cause of somebody to stumble and reject our Lord.
That is a difference between you and Pablo de Fleurs. I wouldn't accuse him of causing others to stumble - that's God's call to make. But as I said, he was a walking contradiction. Posting eloquently about Christianity on the one hand, and gnashing his teeth like a demon on the other.
Being human, we all will contradict the spirit of Christ in us from time to time. When we do, we recognize it, and seek God's help to avoid doing so in the future. Pablo embraces his hatred in both fists, and when he is not teaching about Christ, he is wailing and gnashing his teeth.
All I asked him to do was dial it down a notch, for the sake of us all. He chose to remove himself from the community, and I am not displeased that he did.
-
I for one hopes Pablo comes back. He is a gifted writer and as a Christian myself when it came to his Christian posts especially wrt apologetics……….. I thought they were outstanding.
I did not read the post or post of controversy. I cannot condone or support the assassination of a president, however, I would not be at all upset to see obama removed form office by impeachment……… disgraced and humiliated. I feel he is destroying our American Ideal and to see him being lead out of the office in humiliation would not cause me to lose sleep.
Posting as a Christian is really hard. On one hand we have our sinful nature to contend with, therefore it easy to go off on a subject in an angry, course, and crude manner. And we sometimes have thoughts and feelings that are contradictory to our Christian walk. Jesus talks about righteous anger, the struggle for me………… is the anger justified. I have to always remember my chief goal in life is try to win as many people over to Yeshua Jesus Christ the only true Messiah as possible (through the power of the Holy Spirit). To be the best example I can be for Him. I want the population of Heaven to increase and the population of Hell to decrease. I really like people. I guess I am what is considered a people person and it pains me greatly to think many will go to hell. Many times I have to hold my tongue as I do not want to bring disgrace on my Lord and Savior. God forbid if I am the cause of somebody to stumble and reject our Lord.
You are the person I thought of as a complete opposite of what one was likely to encounter with Pablo in the case of disagreement over different points of view.
You can disagree without being disagreeable. He doesn't seem to be able to do so, at least when it comes to matters of faith.
Nothing like being chastised by being told one should be spending less time online and more time "reading your Bible" as a method of gentle enlightenment.
Yeah, that last was sarcasm 'cause I'm still pissed about it.
-
From my travels around the internet, I've found that there are two topics that have a high potential for escalation into ugliness. One is evolution/creation and the other is abortion.
The reason why us GCPers ended up at Conservative Talk in the first place was "an abortion thread that went nuclear" as someone put it. After a thread that went on for several days, the previous administrator suddenly yanked the whole board offline. We were greeted by a white screen and the words "Grouchy Conservative Pundits has been permanently deleted".
Due to his prior involvement with CT, it was Mike C. who got us temporary accommodations there while we set up a new place. It's pretty ironic that he's also the reason why I'm posting here and not there now.
-
...After a thread that went on for several days, the previous administrator suddenly yanked the whole board offline. We were greeted by a white screen and the words "Grouchy Conservative Pundits Gulf Coast Pundit has been permanently deleted"....
::thinking:: FIFY! ::thumbsup::
-
From my travels around the internet, I've found that there are two topics that have a high potential for escalation into ugliness. One is evolution/creation and the other is abortion.
The reason why us GCPers ended up at Conservative Talk in the first place was "an abortion thread that went nuclear" as someone put it. After a thread that went on for several days, the previous administrator suddenly yanked the whole board offline. We were greeted by a white screen and the words "Grouchy Conservative Pundits has been permanently deleted".
Due to his prior involvement with CT, it was Mike C. who got us temporary accommodations there while we set up a new place. It's pretty ironic that he's also the reason why I'm posting here and not there now.
I was wondering about that and would not discourage you from adding to that anything you choose, I'll just ask you to do so in the protected (members only) section of the forum "Official Forum Business". And now that I've written that, I'm unsure if that section has been made off-limits to lurkers as it was at IAF.
-
From my travels around the internet, I've found that there are two topics that have a high potential for escalation into ugliness. One is evolution/creation and the other is abortion.
The reason why us GCPers ended up at Conservative Talk in the first place was "an abortion thread that went nuclear" as someone put it. After a thread that went on for several days, the previous administrator suddenly yanked the whole board offline. We were greeted by a white screen and the words "Grouchy Conservative Pundits has been permanently deleted".
Due to his prior involvement with CT, it was Mike C. who got us temporary accommodations there while we set up a new place. It's pretty ironic that he's also the reason why I'm posting here and not there now.
I was wondering about that and would not discourage you from adding to that anything you choose, I'll just ask you to do so in the protected (members only) section of the forum "Official Forum Business". And now that I've written that, I'm unsure if that section has been made off-limits to lurkers as it was at IAF.
The entire "official forum business" section is readable by registered members only.
-
...After a thread that went on for several days, the previous administrator suddenly yanked the whole board offline. We were greeted by a white screen and the words "Grouchy Conservative Pundits Gulf Coast Pundit has been permanently deleted"....
::thinking:: FIFY! ::thumbsup::
Heh! My memory is questionable in the best of circumstances.
-
From my travels around the internet, I've found that there are two topics that have a high potential for escalation into ugliness. One is evolution/creation and the other is abortion.
The reason why us GCPers ended up at Conservative Talk in the first place was "an abortion thread that went nuclear" as someone put it. After a thread that went on for several days, the previous administrator suddenly yanked the whole board offline. We were greeted by a white screen and the words "Grouchy Conservative Pundits has been permanently deleted".
Due to his prior involvement with CT, it was Mike C. who got us temporary accommodations there while we set up a new place. It's pretty ironic that he's also the reason why I'm posting here and not there now.
I was wondering about that and would not discourage you from adding to that anything you choose, I'll just ask you to do so in the protected (members only) section of the forum "Official Forum Business". And now that I've written that, I'm unsure if that section has been made off-limits to lurkers as it was at IAF.
The entire "official forum business" section is readable by registered members only.
Okay, good, 'cause I went looking in the Admin section for confirmation and I've no idea how you made that so.
-
From my travels around the internet, I've found that there are two topics that have a high potential for escalation into ugliness. One is evolution/creation and the other is abortion.
The reason why us GCPers ended up at Conservative Talk in the first place was "an abortion thread that went nuclear" as someone put it. After a thread that went on for several days, the previous administrator suddenly yanked the whole board offline. We were greeted by a white screen and the words "Grouchy Conservative Pundits has been permanently deleted".
Due to his prior involvement with CT, it was Mike C. who got us temporary accommodations there while we set up a new place. It's pretty ironic that he's also the reason why I'm posting here and not there now.
I was wondering about that and would not discourage you from adding to that anything you choose, I'll just ask you to do so in the protected (members only) section of the forum "Official Forum Business". And now that I've written that, I'm unsure if that section has been made off-limits to lurkers as it was at IAF.
The entire "official forum business" section is readable by registered members only.
Okay, good, 'cause I went looking in the Admin section for confirmation and I've no idea how you made that so.
It's in "permissions"
ETA: No, scratch that. You determine who can see what when you set the board up. You can change it by modifying a board.
-
I wrote something in response but I am shelving it for the time being.
Sorry to see Pablo go.
As to Redstate and their troubles, this is a phenomenon that I have seen played out over and over on Internet discussion sites. The cliques, the drama, the Machiavellian intrigue - all that sh!t bores me to tears and offends me. But it reminds me of that mouthwash commercial from years ago: "I hate it but I use it".
I've mentioned (without details) similar troubles I've seen and had at FreeRepublic. Some individuals decide that their notions are the only acceptable notions and employ every tactic - no matter how underhanded - in order to hold that hill. So I did what I never thought I'd do - I sought alliances with like-minded individuals to fight fire with fire. Together we presented a vastly more formidable foe than our scattered and independent efforts ever did.
I believe that the goals of my group differ greatly from our adversaries. We recognize that bad press can ruin a conservative site and that our real enemies on the left are looking for every advantage they can find. They will exploit every chink in our armor. My adversaries at FR are too caught up in their vantage point to focus on the greater enemy.
My quick read of the Redstate mess looks disappointingly similar to what I've seen at FR. Factions or cliques get to internecine warfare and forget our true mortal enemies. It's damned unfortunate.
-
For my own part, I accept Christ as the savior of Man. I also believe the Earth is 4.5 billions years old, and that biological evolution is a reality. I've never found the two irreconcilable, but I know many people do. Regardless of position, there is little to be gained from militancy. Considering the work that needs to be done, I don't want to see rifts formed around doctrinal minutiae.
-
Wow, I didn't know about all that history. I never interacted much with him, though.
When I was looking around IAF for threads to salvage, I found a comment of his that seemed to indicate that he favored the "Young Earth" hypothesis, i.e. that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Needless to say, I strenuously disagree with that.
I better quit right there before I open up another rift. ::unknowncomic::
Rickl,
Don’t ever feel like you cannot discuss something here. I may passionately disagree with you especially if we are discussing Christianity but I will do my best never to humiliate, name call etc. I too, will do my best to respect you and your views and hopefully the worst that will come out of it is we will agree to disagree and live on to defeat liberalism.
My best friend who I love like a brother is an atheist I think really an agnostic but I will leave it there. My neighbors, and even some of my family are passionately liberal, so I am used to being in the minority in my beliefs, however I will make no bones about it I am a passionate Zionist born again Messianic Christian Believer. The only thing I ask if we debate is try not to speak ill of Yeshua Jesus Himself. You can call me any name you want…………. a big nosed stupid dumb dago Italian jerkwad……….. whatever but I love my Lord and I hold him in deep and Holy reverence.
Any way you discussed Young vs Old earth…………
Here are a few articles amoung hundreds dealing with the age of the earth wrt to a Christian viewpoint.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5639 (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5639)
http://www.skepticfiles.org/origins/gish-ros.htm
(http://www.skepticfiles.org/origins/gish-ros.htm)
I do not have the time right now but I would be happy to discuss later if we want to.
As far as evolution; I graduated with a degree in molecular genetics and cellular biology - summa cum laude (but you would never know it as I am a terrible writer thanks to inner city public school education). I was accepted to medical school (but threw it all away as I liked drinking and girls more) I have dissected and studied dozens of human bodies in my graduate work. From that knowledge gained and the Bible I do not believe in Darwinian evolution.
Anyway I have gotten in many debates about evolution and most end not in the evidence for/against but rather…………if there is a God why is their suffering. Again, I will be happy to discuss these issues, but for now I want obama/liberalism defeated.
-
I have visited Red State on occasion and have left comments. I forget the issue, but I made some comment that was ill-received by the "clique" on one occasion and the response seemed a bit strange to me. That left a bad taste in my mouth for those folks over there. I remember being personally attacked for posting my opinion regarding some issue. On a Conservative Issue forum.
Strange.
I had the same thing happen to me. I forget what the issue was, too, but the some sycophants jumped on me like a couple 'a bums on a baloney sandwich.
Trap led me here, so I'm your statistic, Trap!
I stopped going over there when Ericson preemptively banned any talk about 9/11 or birth certificate issues.
I did recognize they had a good political commentary, but there's enough elsewhere. I don't think I even got the satisfaction of self-deleting! It wasn't an option.
As far as PdF...I, too, was puzzled by the contradiction between his profession of faith at every opportunity and his incredibly dark and irresponsible comments on certain subjects. I know I agreed w/ him on the impending need for taking up arms, but I don't think I really day-dreamed out loud.
But, damn, he didn't even last a week!
My views...my views...yeah, the planet's, like, really really old. :)
I have seen too much scientific evidence and made too many observations, personally, to not believe evolution.
For the larger part of human history, religion was science, as much as it was a means to order a society to best facilitate co-existence. It's difficult to be productive when your killing for greed or sleeping with somebody's wife. That stuff's detrimental to progress, to say the least.
I do recognize that the Judeo-Christian ethic, on which Western Civilization is largely founded, is clearly the most successful. I'm sure that separating the teachings from teh belief may lead some to say I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too, but I don't think it's a full-subscription-or-nothing kind of deal. I strictly adhere to the philosophy of "Do unto others...", but don't ever waste my time on petty revenge.
My $.02!
-
I got the boot but I asked for it.
Got out in front of myself & pushed it.
-
When you talk about planetary age..........my youngest summed it up one day pretty well...........
when he said something to the effect of the 90's.......and that would be the 1990's.......
"the 90's seemed like ancient times....." ::speechless::
in 75 years, who's going to really give a sh*t one way or the other, life is too short and if your whole life revolves around a blog you got issues that need more than a doctors help...........
so in the mean time...........
maybe we need one of these: ::beertoast:: http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,246.new.html#new (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,246.new.html#new)
-
Politics and religion...two subjects which can cause angst among those discussing thier beliefs.
One thing I try to do regarding posts on any message boards. I try not to allow any disagreements in one thread bleed over to others....I'm not always successful, but it is a goal. We may disagree in a thread....but completely agree in another.....I do my best to keep the subject matter separate. I believe I get a better understanding of stances and people this way.....Plus, the disconnect helps when choosing what stock, mutual fund, ETF, bond, etc, to invest. ::USA::
Whether it is a political board or a fishing board, certain subjects, other than the boards primary objective, will come up. Your personal religious beliefs or other beliefs for that matter,(whether we agree or disagree) will not create a disconnect, at least with me, over our shared conservative values.
So heres to debate, disagreements, arguments, jabbing, poking, prodding and ridicule......I do not expect to agree on every point...on any subject matter....Just remember to ask for Gods forgiveness if you mke me mad.....LOL...kidding.
-
This is why I don't do religion. No percentage in it. Nobody ever wins or loses because nobody changes their mind.
-
I love the way this thread has progressed. Really.
This thread discussion is an example why militant Islam is a mortal danger to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hari Krishnah's, whatever. Muzzies don't want to enter into a polite, philosophical discussion. They want to cut your damned head off with a rusty scimitar.
-
I love the way this thread has progressed. Really.
This thread discussion is an example why militant Islam is a mortal danger to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hari Krishnah's, whatever. Muzzies don't want to enter into a polite, philosophical discussion. They want to cut your damned head off with a rusty scimitar.
They want to cut each others heads off too. That doesn't mean that we need to argue over Religion at least not ours.
-
Wow, I'm out a few days and once again miss out on all the fun. Well, OK, not all it was fun I see. Wish Pablo well. One thing is for sure, he's passionate, I just hope he isn't too zealous in his future dealings.
-
Generally I keep my spiritual business private. I'm the last person to be telling anyone how to express their faith.
Several years ago I found myself unemployed. It was a dry spell and so I looked beyond my chosen field to whatever honest work I could find. I saw an advertisement for a assistant position at a Christian organization (ain't gonna name them).
I applied and almost immediately got a call to come in and interview. The interview itself was interesting because of the additional religious component. They were impressed with my presentation even though it had been years since I had done that kind of work, but they were insistent on pigeon-holing me on the degree of my religiosity.
I explained my exploration of comparative religion, my study of Taoism, Confucianism, Islam, and Christianity and how this knowledge had all served to define my faith. But they wanted to know which "brand" of Christianity I practiced.
I explained that I considered faith and religion a deeply personal thing. I reminded them that my personal work ethic was peerless. I was rarely sick and consequently could trust that I would be on the job. I got along well with my co-workers and had several letters of recommendation to support that. That wasn't good enough for them and I didn't get the job.
Oh well, always was a rebel... ::eyes::
-
Litmus tests, no matter what the flavor, suck. This nation was founded upon the principle of advancing by merit, the only limit being your own ambition. Having said that, there is the long forgotten tradition of treating corporations, public or private, like individuals and possessing the rights accorded to them. I can neither find fault with a religious organization hiring who they believe is the best fit for their company, nor do I find this violates the principle of merit. Equal opportunity of choice, not equal opportunity of outcome, for both parties, is what matters, yes?
I trust it you found an acceptable home after all?
Hate to see a fellow rebel not land on his feet!
;)
-
I have never been able to resolve (what seems to me to be) the contradiction between the theory of evolution and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy.
Entropy (simply stated because I'm not even remotely a scientist) is the natural and inevitable movement of things from an ordered state to a disordered state. Entropy has been called "time's arrow," in that it establishes what things will be in the future (and why traveling backwards in time is impossible).
The theory of evolution, on the other hand, suggests that things (in this case, biological entities) become naturally and inevitably more complex over time...that is, creatures evolve from single cell to multi-cell organisms, for example.
I have also been intrigued by Michael Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity."
Further, I do not know that there has ever been a documented case of evolution in a currently living species. Species are becoming extinct all of the time (part of natural selection) and we continue to discover new species but there just does not seem to be any evidence of an existing species undergoing evolution. It seems that there would be and that it would be a quantifiable situation.
Geological records, on the other hand, are not really interpretable any other way.
Pretty cool paradox, eh?
EDIT:
And, opening up yet another can of worms, it seems to me that natural selection and the theory of evolution would demand that homosexuality would be an evolutionary dead end and would have ceased to exist as an inherited trait thousands of years ago. I find this amusing because on the one hand you have those who insist that homosexuality is strictly behavioral (i.e. a lifestyle choice) and on the other hand you have those (usually militant homosexual advocates) who insist that it is in their genes and they have no choice in the matter whatsoever.
Curiously, the militant homosexual advocates seem to come down on the side of supporting evolution I suppose because it eliminates the presence of a deity (and the inevitable moral consequences thereof) from their lives. And yet, it also seems that evolutionary science would tend to dictate that homosexuality cannot and should not exist. Further, with the advent of DNA decoding and genetic mapping, militant homosexuals seem to be, mostly, extremely opposed to the identification of a "homosexual gene." I have heard that their opposition stems from the notion that they would be able to be "identified" through genetic testing, effectively outing them, and also that prospective parents might genetically engineer any trace of homosexuality out of their future children.
The left is quite fond of saying how science can be quite troubling when it gets in the way of one's dogma and yet they have no trouble whatsoever ignoring that same thought when they run up against it.
-
OK Trap, I deem thee Mr. Paradox! ;D
What's with all the facts and logic? Don't ya know this just infuriates the Left?! ::pokeineye::
And bringing up homosexuality! Now all the heterophobes will be gunning for us! ::thinking::
May thy stick always be sharp and pointy! ::pokeineye::
::thumbsup::
-
OK Trap, I deem thee Mr. Paradox! ;D
What's with all the facts and logic? Don't ya know this just infuriates the Left?! ::pokeineye::
And bringing up homosexuality! Now all the heterophobes will be gunning for us! ::thinking::
May thy stick always be sharp and pointy! ::pokeineye::
::thumbsup::
Just questions that I would like to see posed by someone, anyone with a microphone. I'm not holding my breath.
-
OK Trap, I deem thee Mr. Paradox! ;D
What's with all the facts and logic? Don't ya know this just infuriates the Left?! ::pokeineye::
And bringing up homosexuality! Now all the heterophobes will be gunning for us! ::thinking::
May thy stick always be sharp and pointy! ::pokeineye::
::thumbsup::
Just questions that I would like to see posed by someone, anyone with a microphone. I'm not holding my breath.
I hear ya. It's one of the reasons I find it difficult to watch Hannity's show...I like him personally, but that guy has to have the record for missed home run opportunities...follow up's on libiot absurdities that should be obliterated easily...I can't take that kind of frustration so I seldom watch his show any longer...
-
OK Trap, I deem thee Mr. Paradox! ;D
What's with all the facts and logic? Don't ya know this just infuriates the Left?! ::pokeineye::
And bringing up homosexuality! Now all the heterophobes will be gunning for us! ::thinking::
May thy stick always be sharp and pointy! ::pokeineye::
::thumbsup::
Just questions that I would like to see posed by someone, anyone with a microphone. I'm not holding my breath.
I hear ya. It's one of the reasons I find it difficult to watch Hannity's show...I like him personally, but that guy has to have the record for missed home run opportunities...follow up's on libiot absurdities that should be obliterated easily...I can't take that kind of frustration so I seldom watch his show any longer...
Hannity has a formula. It works. So he doesn't think there is any room for improvement. Honestly, if I had millions of bucks to play with and I was in the debate business, I would hire up the absolute best possible debate coach I could find and do the work necessary to be the best in my field. Limbaugh is actually doing this right now with his golf game and it is a textbook example of how getting the best coach (and doing the work) pays off.
O'Reilly isn't smart enough to pull it off but I think that Hannity is and is just not interested in improving his game. I think of it as intellectual and professional laziness. It would be like going to college, learning a trade or craft and then never, ever attending a seminar, lecture, etc. because, hey, you went to college...you know everything there is to know about_________ and there is no way that you need improvement.
Mark Levin is, by comparison, a devastating debater. Comes from an education in law and, more importantly, continual self improvement.
-
Funny you should mention debate, Mark Levin and Hannity. On the radio show yesterday, Hannity asked the caller if he would like to debate Levin on the constitutionality of collective bargaining under the "right to assembly" passage. The caller's proposition was that the right to unionize was protected by the constitution. Poor Hannity could not even muster much of a response.
-
I get sick of Hannity always saying, almost deferentially, "African-American".
-
I get sick of him saying "....ya know".... I also get sick of him latching onto a given talking point and repeating it over and over, but I think that is his function and purpose. I don't think his show is meant for debating. I think it is meant as a backdrop for the repetition of talking points. The guests he has on only serve to facilitate that repetition.
I wish everyone in the country had access to Jason Lewis' syndicated show. His debating skills and his knowledge of any given topic are second to none. He's so good that even when he takes positions that I disagree with, I find myself trying to justify my own positions against his argument. I rarely come away from listening to him argue a position that I disagree with, 100% confident that I have been right. Although lately he seems to be advocating legitimate US engagement with Islam and withdrawing ourselves from entanglements and interests in the Mideast, and that's been pissing me off big, and I disagree with him there. But even so, he makes a case, and one is prompted at the least to examine and re-examine their own held positions.
-
Yeah he (Jason Lewis) used to have a show in Charlotte. He was good. Every now and then he'll make a phone-in on his old station's other shows.
-
Yeah, Jason is bugging me with the foreign policy stances of late too, but that has never been his strong point, his strong point has always been in domestic issues and legal issues...in those areas he can put things into perspective quite well in terms everyone can understand. It's almost like his libertarian roots are being slowly gathered in by Ron Paul's brand of isolationism.
-
Speaking of Jason Lewis, you can listen to his radio show online at 106.1 Rush Radio at 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern time.
http://www.wrdu.com/ (http://www.wrdu.com/)
I do hate his intro., though. The use of the introduction of Jason by Bush, Sr. just grates on my last nerve. Jason Lewis, Jason Lewis, Jason Lewis . . .
Dang Jason, give it a rest will ya?
-
I get sick of him saying "....ya know".... I also get sick of him latching onto a given talking point and repeating it over and over, but I think that is his function and purpose. I don't think his show is meant for debating. I think it is meant as a backdrop for the repetition of talking points. The guests he has on only serve to facilitate that repetition.
Don't forget: "I gotta tell ya" and/or "I gotta be honest"
Again, if I had his money and his show I wouldn't be satisfied with my performance. I would at the very least hire someone to give me an electric shock every time I used one of those phrases.
And yeah, that's his formula and he's sticking with it no matter how shallow and ridiculous it makes him look. He is a stalwart conservative...on that there is no doubt but he is intellectually and professionally lazy. And irresponsible...when you are in a position such as his you are responsible for putting the absolute best face on (in this case) conservatism as possible. He arguably does not. If you were to hold him up as our poster boy I would cringe.
Contrast with Limbaugh who insists on being the best. Hannity is comfortable being number two and has no game plan to be number one.
Contrast with Beck who works his ass off and may not be number three much longer because of his hard work. I have issues with Beck as well but they aren't intellectual and professional laziness.
The worst thing that ever happened to Hannity was losing Colmes. Colmes was and still is a light weight but at least he had a staff that did opposition research and he worked at it as best he could. Now that Hannity has no foil at all he has slipped even further into intellectual and professional laziness. If FNC was smart about it they would go out and hire the absolute best liberal mind they could find, put him up against Hannity so that he was forced to "do the work" that he currently avoids. Nothing would be better for Hannity than to have his head handed to him a few times.
-
...He is a stalwart conservative...on that there is no doubt but he is intellectually and professionally lazy. And irresponsible...when you are in a position such as his you are responsible for putting the absolute best face on (in this case) conservatism as possible. He arguably does not. If you were to hold him up as our poster boy I would cringe.
Contrast with Limbaugh who insists on being the best. Hannity is comfortable being number two and has no game plan to be number one.
I have a little different take. I do agree that Hannity comes across at best, as disinterested in exploring the world beyond his talking points. But I don't know if that is attributable to intellectual and professional laziness. It may be. But it also may be that he is doing exactly what he intends to do to satisfy the demand for his brand in the marketplace. Perhaps he and the people (both employers and listeners) who believe he deserves to be where he is view his role in the marketplace as being the best at delivering talking points and staying on message without deviation. If that is the case, then he is an expert. Evidence for that expertise would be his #2 in the nation radio program, surpassed only by the great Rush Limbaugh, whom no one can realistically hope to surpass until Rush dies or retires.
So Idunno. Can't stand listening to Hannity for more than a minute or two at a time myself. But I don't know if I agree that it's because he's lazy. It may be because he's selling something I don't need.
-
Speaking of Jason Lewis, you can listen to his radio show online at 106.1 Rush Radio at 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern time.
http://www.wrdu.com/ (http://www.wrdu.com/)
I do hate his intro., though. The use of the introduction of Jason by Bush, Sr. just grates on my last nerve. Jason Lewis, Jason Lewis, Jason Lewis . . .
Dang Jason, give it a rest will ya?
He's had that intro for eons...don't think it will ever change...although a sprucing up for the 21st century would be a good idea... :P
-
Although lately he seems to be advocating legitimate US engagement with Islam and withdrawing ourselves from entanglements and interests in the Mideast...
Will you expand on that a bit? I don't listen to him, so I'd appreciate a bit more clarity.
-
I remember when Jason’s show first aired here (1992?) on the old talk station 1500 KSTP. On one of his first shows some lib called in and he destroyed his argument and left the poor man stuttering. It was awesome because it was in the early infancy of conservative radio in this area and I never heard anyone quite like him other than Rush at the time……........ But as Libertas says he seems he now is becoming a bit of an Isolationist.
One of my favorite talkers now is Dennis Prager. I have listened to few with Dennis’s wisdom and insights. He excels in debating in all issues of life.
As far as Christian talkers/debaters go I like Dr. Michael Brown. He has wisdom and insight like Prager and is very kind and respectful of those who disagree with him.
-
Although lately he seems to be advocating legitimate US engagement with Islam and withdrawing ourselves from entanglements and interests in the Mideast...
Will you expand on that a bit? I don't listen to him, so I'd appreciate a bit more clarity.
He's taken some very controversial stances re; Islam lately... that people are overreacting to the threat of Islam, that we cannot be at war with 1.5 billion people so we'd better start engaging Muslims and listening to their concerns, that our supposition that the Iranian regime is not essentially rational in spite of its rhetoric is misguided, that our support of Israel should not be any more unconditional than our support of any other country, that it's not our job to address human rights injustices in the Islamic world....
I bet I don't need to go on, do I?
As I said, he's really been pissing me off lately with this ultra-libertarian - almost Paulian - stance re; Islam. The guy cannot be touched when it comes to economic issues and domestic policy in general. But he's lost me and many others in regard to foreign policy as it relates to Islam. And he knows it. He sees it as his mission to call it as he sees it, and understands he's rocking people's worldview. He hasn't changed my mind one iota, but he has gotten me to look at our involvements with Islamic regimes with a more critical eye, and ask myself some questions about cause/effect, cost/reward, etc.
-
I bet I don't need to go on, do I?
Newp. Thanks.
I'd be interested in exploring Lewis' point of view in its own thread.