So, Is America A Christian Nation?

At a press conference in Turkey, President Obama tersely disapproved of the idea that the United States is a Judeo- Christian nation and instead offers “We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

Adam Lee, in an article he wrote for Big Think, says that America is most definitely not a Christian nation. Adam cites various biblical notions of what government should be and lays out a flimsy case for how these conceptions fall diametrically opposed to the postmodernist’s idea of democracy. Adam writes:

———————————————————————————————————————-

“Even more to the point, the Bible’s ideal government is unequivocally a theocracy: a country where the church and the state are one, where there’s an official religion which all citizens are required to profess, and where law is made by the priests. There was no religious freedom in the ancient Israelite kingdoms: all people were required to worship the same god in the same officially approved ways, on pain of death. For instance, when Moses comes down from Mt. Sinai and finds the Israelites worshipping a golden calf, his immediate response is to order the butchering of everyone who participated in idolatry (Exodus 32:27).”

———————————————————————————————————————-

Adam continues:

———————————————————————————————————————-

But America’s Constitution is more than just a secular document; it’s literally godless. It doesn’t claim that the ideas it contains were the product of divine revelation. It states that governing power comes from the will of the people, not the commands of a deity. It doesn’t assert that God has specially blessed this nation or shown it special favor – in fact, it never mentions God at all. And it mentions religion in only two places, both of them negative mentions: in Article VI,  which forbids any religious test for public office, and in the First Amendment, which forbids Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion.

———————————————————————————————————————-

This is to echo the tired old argument of the whole Constitution, and the bill of rights, as having been founded on enlightenment principles –a cultural movement during the 18th century where leading intellectuals, through reason, sought an emancipation from religious dogmatism and the abuses that stemmed from church and state. And, in that sense, I agree that America is not a Christian nation inasmuch as Iran is an Islamic one.

But, surely, this is to miss the point of what is meant when Christians say that America, and pretty much the whole West for that matter, has been founded on Christian principles and ideas. The idea of the individual –that each must be treated as an end and not merely as a means to one– is undeniably a product of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The Israelites were the first of their time to have adopted the idea of a monotheistic God who wasn’t just a tribal deity for whom a specific group of people fell subservient to, but was the creator of everything himself from whom the image of man was fashioned.

This very concept of man being fashioned in God’s image was the green shoot for the idea that each man, being a reflection of God himself, is of commensurate worth and has intrinsic value that surpasses everything else in creation.

Christianity took this idea and elevated it further; man wasn’t only made in God’s image, giving him a special place in creation, but was also of such great import to the whole scheme of things that God himself decided to condescend and make the ultimate sacrifice through Jesus for his restoration. The Christian doctrine of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection raised man’s worth to the utmost limit. This lofty Christian notion of man’s place in creation was an utterly novel idea during its time, and has undeniably had a far-reaching influence on how the dignity of the individual was to be held for centuries to come.

John Locke, who is regarded as one of the most influential of the enlightnement thinkers, and who is credited for developing the natural-rights theory from which most of the West’s political traditions are based, wrote that all people were equal, independent and had a natural right to defend his “Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions”. This, ofcourse, became the basis for the phrase in the American Declaration of Independence “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Locke’s political theory was central to the American revolution. Ironically –for the secular revisionists, anyway– the pillar from which Locke was able to erect his political theory was his theology. Because of this, Locke said with respect to his theory on natural rights, “The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.”

So, while Obama and Mr. Adam Lee may be right in saying America is not a Christian Nation –at least not in the way they understand what that statement means– it’s undeniably the case that Western moral principles have been wholly derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

It’s untenable to suggest that it’s possible to construct a completely secular foundation for universal human rights. So, these neo-atheists, in my mind, are either engaging in historical revisionism, or are, rather insipidly, denying that America is a theocracy. If it’s the latter, then they’re tilting at windmills.

Christopher Blames Religion For Everything. Literally.

A decade after 9/11, Christopher Hitchens writes a diatribe about the reasons for the attack being so over-analyzed to include “half-baked obfuscations” like the alleged U.S. complicity in the social evolution of transnational terrorism. He’s undoubtedly irked by the notion that Western involvement in the Middle East, at least to a certain extent, sparked the 9/11 attacks. To the Hitch, there is no other root to radicalization. He’ll have none of it. In fact, anyone making even just microscopic implications of this will be accused by the Hitch of engaging in Bin Laden apologia.

According to Christopher, the reason for the 9/11 attack is quite plainly because Al Qaida is “simply evil”. (well, at least he avoids doing a Bill Mahr, who butters his simplicity with populism; Christopher Hitchens demands we take the simple
explanation of Al-qaida being “simply evil” no matter how overly-simplistic the majority seems to think this conclusion is.)

Hitchens laments we analyze too much to the point of absurdity, yet argues for the similarly absurd conclusion that the overly simplistic fact of Al-qaida being “sworn to a medieval cult of death” is the only meaningful explanation for the attacks. He could have just as well argued that they really did it for the 72 virgins, and would have made just as much sense –which is to say, not much.

It’s ironic though that he advocates against simplism when arguing against the fact of Christian Influence among the founding fathers; He has quite repeatedly, and rather ignorantly, made the claim that statesmen who participated in
signing the Declaration of Independence and established the United States Constitution were largely free from any Christian influence, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Mr. Hitchens again argues against simplism when he gleefully speculates that Martin Luther King jr. may have very well feigned piety and cynically used the pulpit to give himself more credence. The overly simplistic explanation of religion being a significant motivating factor in Mr. King’s fight for civil
rights was completely glossed over by Mr. Hitchens despite that King himself often alluded to his Christian beliefs when giving anti-segregation speeches.

Alas, Mr. Hitchens reverts back to advocating simplism when arguing that Hitler was in fact a Christian on account of his being baptized as one. Nevermind the fact that he had conflicting views about religion as seen in his writings.  Christopher will matter-of-factly state, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that Hitler was undeniably a bible-thumping Christian.

There seems to be a trend to Hitchens’s analyses.

Yes, Mr. Hitchens wants you to quit the over-analysis and take the simple, less complicated, and painfully obvious conclusion, as long as it suits his case that religion is a disease we ought to be emancipated from. Ironically, if the simple conclusion proves the antithesis of this anti-religious tripe, he’ll happily contrive an over-analyzed one as a replacement.

This display of mental calisthenics shouldn’t really surprise anyone, however; it has always been glaringly obvious that Mr. Hitchens comes into any issue with the supposition that ‘religion poisons everything’ –which is the subtitle of his book.

Let’s Not Sing Kumbaya Just Yet.

Surely it’s only a matter of time till Gaddafi gets his final comeuppance, but I’m not sure we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya at the prospect just yet. It’s been recently made clear that some of the anti-Gaddafi rebels have ties to Al Qaida. In fact, Abdel-Hakim Belhaj, commander of the anti-Gadhafi rebel
force that now controls Tripoli, was once a leader of a Libyan islamic group with ties to al-Qaida, and had been, in the past, handed by the Libyan government to the CIA to be tortured.

It’s also a bit unsettling that the fractious mess that is the anti-Gaddafi rebels, who are largely seen as the protagonists, are guilty of indiscriminate shooting into civilian areas and of arbitrary abductions of suspected Gaddafi sympathizers.

Gaddafi certainly deserves all that’s coming to him, and I’m not his apologist, but the reality is that, as seen in the intelligence documents recently found in Tripoli, he was a willing U.S accommodationist. Gaddafi is arguably a sadistic
psychopath. But, after the Iraq war, he at least proved to be a controllable one. So far, there is no evidence that the anti- Gaddafi rebels and its National Transitional Council will be disposed to do the same.

I think the Arab Spring having reached Libya is by and large a good thing. Whether it will be the same for the U.S in the long run remains to be seen.

Bill Keller, Another Nut Bag.

What’s the difference between Christianity and a belief in space aliens? Apparently, there is none, according to Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times. He writes:

“If a candidate for president said he believed that space aliens dwell among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him? Personally, I might not disqualify him out of hand; one out of three Americans believe we have had Visitors and, hey, who knows? But I would certainly want to ask a few questions. Like, where does he get his information? Does he talk to the aliens? Do they have an economic plan? [...]Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are both affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity — and Rick Santorum comes out of the most conservative wing of Catholicism — which has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction.”

Because we all know space aliens have just about as much existential relevance as God.

God, on the Christian view, is only the creator and ontological ground of morality and all being. Space aliens are little green men with protruding foreheads. Obviously there’s not much difference between the two. Bill is a Genius.

Somebody lend this guy a brain.

Smart People Say Really Dumb Things Too.

This is evidence that even Nobel Prize winners can say some pretty dumb things. Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist says of a twitter joke about the economy and the recent earthquake:

People on twitter might be joking, but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage.

If they come up with an award for the dumbest thing an ostensibly smart person had said, many will be nominating Krugman.

By this reasoning, we should be seeing “a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth” in Japan in 3..2..1..

Oh wait, that never happened, and may never be likely to happen in the aftermath of such an event.

Krugman’s analyses, just like the one where he asserts that governments can borrow unabated without affecting interest rates, are always scarcely based on
historical facts.

I think this is generally the problem in the world of economists today; it doesn’t matter what they’ve got monumentally wrong, and in what frequency, everything will eventually even out as long as they get something right, which is bound to happen at some point with all that guessing.

(Update: It’s been pointed out that the Krugman Google plus account which made the inane claim may be a fake.)

GOP Candidates Debate. Hillarity, Then Pain, Ensues.

If you missed the Iowa GOP debate, you’re lucky. But if you insist on chastizing yourself some more, this piece might make you sufficiently propitiated by showing you the kind of idiocy that had transpired. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised about the brain-numbing responses that were given. It’s likely America has collectively lost somewhere in the range of 2 I.Q. points for having been subjected to this inane departure from reality, which, under normal circumstances, could have only been justified as a carefully scripted piece of performance art.

One of the more notable things the audience had the misfortune of witnessing was Bachmann’s utterly senseless assertion “In the last two months I was leading on the issue of not increasing the debt ceiling. That turned out to be the right answer”. Ofcourse, this left the audience members, who fall at the higher end of the intelligence bell curve, with wide gaping jaws of incredulity.

I don’t think any of the candidates won. They’ve all accomplished the opposite of what they’ve intended to do –which was to seem like they had some idea on what the hell they were talking about. But, I guess if winning in this instance meant succeeding in making yourself look comparably less of an ass, then Romney won.

U.S. Congress Is A Fail.

Forget about those private jet riding CEO’s of Wall Street, the blame for this whole disaster lies soley on the pinheads at congress.

Standard & Poor has downgraded the United States of America’s credit rating primarily because it felt that Washington isn’t serious about adjusting its fiscal policies to address and align revenues with liabilities. S&P believes these fiscal
gaps that were created during the last recession will still be a problem for the U.S. in the long term. And it’s not like these drawn out conclusions are unjustified given the whole charade that went on in congress these past few days, having only reached an agreement on the debt crisis at the last minute.

Make no mistake about it, the U.S. is in another recession. And if anyone should get a metaphorical lynching, it should be the members of this lame-duck congress. Republicans don’t want tax increases, Democrats don’t want entitlement reform, accusations of sabotage are being thrown about, spittle
flying left and right, nobody can agree to anything till the last minute. The resultant face palming by the American people as a response to the whole ignominious fail sent sound vibrations all the way to the S&P which then decided to issue a downgrade. Adding to the hopelessness is the fact that S&P had Enron at AAA even as it was going bankrupt, making one wonder exactly how deep in fecal matter the United States financial situation is in for it to have been withheld the AAA rating.

Ladies and gentlemen, the shit has now hit the proverbial fan. You know who to thank.

NASA Evidence Undermines Global Warming Alarmism

This is why people shouldn’t immediately dismiss climate-change skeptics as uninformed blockheads. There is evidence that humans have some fault, but none that’s of the hard variety. I think, among us average chaps, the reasonable position to hold with respect to this whole issue is that of an agnostic. While I’m tending to believe we humans do contribute to climate change, whether this contribution is significant and whether we have the ability to make an atom of difference about it by driving around in Priuses is another matter.

In the meantime, global-warming alarmists, if they want to be taken seriously, really ought to tone down the fear-mongering a bit in the face of this new evidence.

The Op/Ed Wars. Murdoch Is The Next Maddoff.

"Prison can do what to the anus?"

The phone-hacking debacle that has placed media titan Rupert Murdoch under
parliamentary investigation has amusingly pitted a couple of op/ed writers against each other. Op/ed columnists at the liberal media outfit The New York Times are cheerily rejoicing in Murdoch’s comeuppance, while at least one writer (I’m sure there’s more to come) of the Wall Street Journal, a Murdoch owned outfit, has been keen to point out the former’s double standards in it’s demonization of the use of hacked information while patently supporting and disseminating the similarly ill- gotten ones of Wikileaks.

Of course, I’m with the Times on this one. It won’t take a few brain cells to figure
out who’s barkering. It’s abundantly clear that these quasi Murdoch apologists know very well who butters their bread. Funny they don’t feel the need to distance themselves from the coming excoriation. It won’t be good for Murdoch; his wrinkly aged anus could possibly be headed for sore-dom. And that’s only partially a metaphor; I think we all know what prison boys fancy themselves doing to the lower end of the next man’s alimentary canal.

Oh boy, oh boy! Hope to see more fighting words in the days to come!

David B Hart’s Profound Prognostications

David Bentley Hart is, I think, the most profound, well-spoken, and insightful Christian philosopher of this time. I was initially tempted to relegate his book ‘Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies’ to the bin of all things anti-Dawkins, until I heard him at a British radio station engaged in discussion with Terry Sanderson, president of the UK’s National Secular Society, on the new atheist goal of achieving the complete secularization of society and the confinement of religion to the private sphere. Needless to say, I was quite impressed with the points made by David Hart and thought his book warranted a second look.

The purpose of the book was to show how our current Western morality was, in large part, founded on Christian teachings, and the removal of which will lead to the erosion of morality’s foundations. David’s arguments are quite persuasive in that they completely undermine the secular-humanist notion that an emancipation from religion will lead to a much more moral society. He writes:

What interests me—and what I take to be demonstrable and important—is the particular ensemble of moral and imaginative values engendered in numberless consciences by Christian beliefs. That such values had political and social consequences I certainly do not deny; I feel fairly safe in saying, for instance, that abolitionism—as a purely moral cause—could not easily have arisen in any non-Christian culture of which I am aware. That is quite different, however, from claiming that Christianity ineluctably or uniquely must give rise to, say, democracy or capitalism or empirical science. It is to say, rather, that the Christian account of reality introduced into our world an understanding of the divine, the cosmic, and the human that had no exact or even proximate equivalent elsewhere and that made possible a moral vision of the human person that has haunted us ever since, century upon century.

David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, p. 202-203

I also appreciate the fact that David avoids being evangelistic and relies on the data, his knowledge of Western philosophical traditions, from classical antiquity to postmodernity, and a deep understanding of world history and culture to make his case. And a compelling case it is.

Here’s an excerpt from one of his most finest articles on the web where he makes the same point he does in the book, albeit a bit more evangelistically:

The only cult that can truly thrive in the aftermath of Christianity is a sordid service of the self, of the impulses of the will, of the nothingness that is all that the withdrawal of Christianity leaves behind. The only futures open to post-Christian culture are conscious nihilism, with its inevitable devotion to death, or the narcotic banality of the Last Men, which may be little better than death. Surveying the desert of modernity, we would be, I think, morally derelict not to acknowledge that Nietzsche was right in holding Christianity responsible for the catastrophe around us (even if he misunderstood why); we should confess that the failure of Christian culture to live up to its victory over the old gods has allowed the dark power that once hid behind them to step forward in propria persona. And we should certainly dread whatever rough beast it is that is being bred in our ever coarser, crueler, more inarticulate, more vacuous popular culture; because, cloaked in its anodyne insipience, lies a world increasingly devoid of merit, wit, kindness, imagination, or charity.

This guy writes the way Mozart composes. He is, I think, the only apologist who yields the rhetorical gifts of ‘the Hitch’, yet is orders-of-magnitude more sagacious in virtue of his philosophical training. David writes:

I am tempted to say, then, that the cross of Christ is not simply a sacrifice, but the place where two opposed understandings of sacrifice clashed. Christ’s whole life was a reconciling qurban: an approach to the Father, a real indwelling of God’s glory in the temple of Christ’s body, and an atonement made for a people enslaved to death. In pouring himself out in the form of a servant, and in living his humanity as an offering up of everything to God in love, the shape of the eternal Son’s life was already sacrificial in this special sense; and it was this absolute giving, as God and man, that was made complete on Golgotha. While, from a pagan perspective, the crucifixion itself could be viewed as a sacrifice in the most proper sense—destruction of the agent of social instability for the sake of peace, which is always a profitable exchange—Christ’s life of charity, service, forgiveness, and righteous judgment could not; indeed, it would have to seem the very opposite of sacrifice, an aneconomic and indiscriminate inversion of rank and order. Yet, at Easter, it is the latter that God accepts and the former He rejects; what, then, of all the hard-won tragic wisdom of the ages?

I think the above quote from the same article is worth mentioning because it showcases David’s profoundly penetrating and unassailable wit.

David’s full article ‘Christ and Nothing’ can be found here –it’s a wonderful read.

Ofcourse, the book  ’Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies’ is available at fine bookstores everywhere.

I’m loving this guy.