Yes, on his sleeve. I know that many would have a definition of “on his sleeve” that evokes an image of someone that browbeats others to believe lest they go to hell. But the people that evoke that image (which is extremely rare to encounter), actually are trying to get all people to shut up about faith generally, but especially to never say the name of Jesus or cite Holy Scripture as the basis of, or reference point for, an objective argument about anything affecting their man-as-god lives.
The name of Jesus Christ flowed as naturally from Snow’s lips as would a recitation of the day’s headliner that Tony knew personally.
Tony knew Jesus personally and knew that scripture holds the answers to our problems much as Reagan did.
Tony, along with Cal Thomas and Fred Barnes, made it easier for this Bible-Believing Gamecock Baptist, that used to think Jesus was a Democrat, to become a Republican.
[And let me make it clear that Jesus is neither a Democrat or a Republican.]
I was just then becoming aware of the invidiousness of the Democratic Party’s hostility to people of faith, when Tony Snow offered hope of a refuge in the political world for a Christian.
But, I was inspired to write this blog not only because of my love for Tony, but also because I did not see enough emphasis on his defining orthodox Christian faith on Fox News or conserrvative internet blogs, but even more importantly, not from his most famous former employer, President George W. Bush:
Laura and I are deeply saddened by the death of our dear friend, Tony Snow. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Jill, and their children, Kendall, Robbie, and Kristi. The Snow family has lost a beloved husband and father. And America has lost a devoted public servant and a man of character. Tony was one of our Nation’s finest writers and commentators. He earned a loyal following with incisive radio and television broadcasts. He was a gifted speechwriter who served in my father’s Administration. And I was thrilled when he agreed to return to the White House to serve as my Press Secretary. It was a joy to watch Tony at the podium each day. He brought wit, grace, and a great love of country to his work. His colleagues will cherish memories of his energetic personality and relentless good humor. All of us here at the White House will miss Tony, as will the millions of Americans he inspired with his brave struggle against cancer. One of the things that sustained Tony Snow was his faith - and Laura and I join people across our country in praying that this good man has now found comfort in the arms of his Creator.
Mr. President, I love your own Christian witness, but why can’t you bring yourself to say the name of Jesus even at this moment to accurately memorialize a man that never hesitated to say The Name?
President Bush, this is a teachable moment. You think you would offend a Muslim? an Atheist?
Tony is with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is in the arms of his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, not merely “his creator.”
A second inspiration for this column was that I heard no one on TV, in their recitation of his bio, that before being given his own radio show, Snow frequently served as a guest host for Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated program.
Below is a wonderful excerpt from a column and link from March 2007 by Cal Thomas entitled the The Tony Snow I Know
Before being given his own radio show, Snow frequently served as a guest host for Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated program.
Snow says his deepening faith didn’t happen overnight. It began with realizing “how many people loved me.” He said a lot of life is figuring out you’re not in charge and figuring out who is. He started to pray, he said, and began to sense a growing presence of God in his life. He said after his first cancer surgery many people sent him letters that included Bible verses. Among his favorites was Psalm 91:2-3: “I will say of the Lord, ŒHe is my refuge and my fortress, my God in whom I trust. Surely he will save you from the fowler’s snare and from the deadly pestilence.’” After his first cancer surgery, Snow said he had to stay in bed and he began reading the Bible more, “learning to pray” and to ask God to “draw me closer, please, (which) develops a hunger that is also a form of joy.” He said colleagues frequently ask him what he will do after the White House? He says he might have had an answer before, but now he has no clue. “I put everything in God’s hands.”
You made it Tony, to the Promised Land. Say hello to Martin.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
Legal Editor for The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” - The Chief Justice
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
July 12th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“You made it Tony, to the Promised Land.”
He made it to Israel?
July 12th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Who is Martin?
July 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Alex quit trying to be funny.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Yes, the Christian Bible holds the answers to all our problems:
* Got unruly children? Check. Stone them.
* Hungry? Check. Eat some “four-legged” insects.
* Have a skin condition? Check. Tear your clothes, mess up your hair, cover the lower part of your face, yell out “Unclean! Unclean!”, and spend the rest of your life in isolation.
* Did your crazy uncle escape from the asylum and have sex with your dog? Check. Kill the dog.
* Are rapists trying to attack your male friend? Check. Offer up your virgin daughters to the rapists instead.
* Can’t think of a good way to win over your crush? Check. Rip off 200 men’s foreskins and give them to her father as a present.
* The fruit trees in your back yard not giving enough fruit? Check. Curse them!
* Want your cattle to be striped instead of plain-colored? Check. Just make your cattle look at striped sticks while they’re copulating, and they’ll have young with stripes on them.
* The problem of slavery? Check. Just make your slaves be more obedient. Tell them God said so.
* The problem of general wrongdoing? Check. Slaughter an innocent animal and fling its blood all over the place–it’s all good.
Yeah, Cockstradamus, it’s a good thing we have the Bible around to give us all our answers.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
It’s obvious Josiah went to the same school of interpretation as Jesse Jackson. Good post, Mike.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Nice post, Gamecock. I can’t believe he’s gone.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Nos. 1 and 2
Martin Luther King’s Promised land is Heaven.
#3 You are civilized.
#4 But for the smiley face, you would bot be civilized!
Nos. 5 and 6 Thanks brothers.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Josiah:
God loves you.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Aw, you mean I can’t speak out against a hateful, extremist religious text that advocates murder, rape, genocide, bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, racism, slavery, voodooesque medical procedures, and astonishing disdain for science and reason AND be civilized…?
July 12th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
CBL #8,
And you would know that, how?
July 12th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I agree. Bush should say the name Jesus rather than “his creator”…
#5 Ditto
July 12th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
My condolences to Tony Snow and all his family and friends. You guys may not believe this, but I actually talked with on instant messenger for a few times back in the late 90s. I was a teenager then. He had the screen name TonySnow and would answer IMs from people who IMed him, and I did a couple times. I don’t remember how I found him. I think he did one of those live chats or something. I remember him filling in for Rush a few times, and he was on a show called Equal Time a few times.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Clarence,
That is pretty cool. I just hope for your sake it wasn’t a stealth screenname for the person otherwise known as “Maf54″.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
But seriously, RIP, Mr. Snow. You were one of the good guys.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
#9 You would have to cite chapter and verse in context re advocacy of each and every item on your list for me to take you seriously.
July 12th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Gamecock #15,
Murder: Deuteronomy 13:7-12
Rape: Judges 21:10-24
Genocide: Joshua 10:40
Homophobia: Leviticus 20:13
Misogyny: 1 Timothy 2:11-12
Racism: Leviticus 25:44-46
Slavery: Titus 2:9-10
Voodooesque Medical Procedure: Leviticus 2:2-32
Astonishing Disdain For Science & Reason: Umm, Genesis chapters 1-3???
July 12th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Voodooesque Medical Procedure in post #16 was supposed to be Leviticus 14:2-32 *
July 12th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
#16
None advocate. DT, JU, JO, 1 TM are history. LV doesn’t advocate any -phobia, rather, it pronounces right from wrong. Titus doesn’t advocate slavery, rather it describes proper Christian behavior within an institution that existed in that civilization, some of which was voluntary. You must understand that America is an Oasis in a world history of sorry, and that one way people ensured that they ate was to be a slave.
Genesis is hostile to science how? Show the verse. I guessyou better go to the Hebrew given your legion ignorance.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Is it possible to be opposed to something without being called a “x-phobe”?
Simple answer: no, not in the mind of the liberals and libertarians who refuse to recognize that there is right and wrong, not just whatever makes people happy.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Gamecock #18,
You clearly haven’t even read your own holy book, which is hardly surprising, considering you claim to believe in it (I can’t see how anyone who has clearly read and understood the Bible could possibly believe in it.)
The passages I gave you all describe abominable acts and attitudes that are being advocated by either God himself or by a person or group of people who are understood to be representative of God’s will.
How exactly would a text passage containing a supposedly divine assertation declaring homosexual relations to be “evil” not promote fear of and bigotry toward homosexuals amongst those who actually believed that the declaration was from God?
In order to help you see the idiocy of your defense of the book of Titus, I would like for you take the two sentences you offered in apology for Titus and replace the word “slavery” with “prostitution,” and the word “slave” with “prostitute.” If you need a more plainview Biblical advocacy of slavery, check out Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:1-7, and my personal favorite, Luke 12:47-48, in which Jesus says that if a slave does wrong without knowing it, he is to be only “lightly” beaten.
What on earth do you mean “Genesis is hostile to science how”?
You mean, other than teaching that the universe, the earth, and the origin of life all came into being in 6 days, or that the earth was around before the sun, or that vegetation was growing on the earth before the sun existed, or that women come from the male rib bone? Um, talking snake???
Just take alone the notion that the Bible propagates in putting the earth’s age at around 6000 years. The scale of that error is equivalent to believing that New York and Los Angeles are 25 feet apart.
My word!
July 12th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Act #19,
I love the implication that all libertarians are moral relativists, which I find exceedingly humorous, considering that the entire philosophy of libertarianism is based on belief in the absolute universal moral value of liberty (hence the name).
July 12th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“And this is His commandment: That you believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and LOVE ONE ANOTHER!”-1 John 3:23
Josiah,
Does the bible say those things about those particular sins? Yes! Why? Because God was trying to show in the Old Testament what the penalty for sin is.
“The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”-Romans 6:23
Then you missed the part in the bible about how we are all depraved and sinners, lost and hopeless…..except for one little thing.
“But God demonstrates His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ DIED for US.”-Romans 5:8
So what are the two most major points in the bible? Back to my original scripture quotation of 1 John 3:23, it is to recognize that God loves us and sent His Son to die in our place…..and LOVE ONE ANOTHER.
God bless the family of Tony Snow, and everyone in the world!
July 12th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
RIP Tony Snow.
Congrats to the rest on turning Mike’s tribute into your own personal views on the Religious beliefs of a dead man who left behind a family.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
#20 God cannot, by definition, be abominable. Some acts are considered evil, including murder, rape and sex outside marriage. We are taught to hate the sin and love the sinner. Phobia implies a mental disease.
Your slavery/prostitution angle is not analogous.
Check out the Hebrew on “day” and get me an eye witness of that first single cell god Darwinists worship.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
#22 Thank you.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
#23 Atheists are so tolerant, they simply cannot abide the name of Jesus Christ being spoken without denouncing it.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
#26, thanks Gamecock!
Although I personally like Alex and Josiah, please do not lump us “atheists” together. Most of us who are agnostic (or atheist) have no problem with the word Jesus Christ. It is just that we don’t want to hear it in our Public schools, unless it is in a history and rel. studies class.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Simple answer: no, not in the mind of the liberals and libertarians who refuse to recognize that there is right and wrong, not just whatever makes people happy.
I believe in right and wrong. I just don’t think that it’s found in the Bible.
#23 Atheists are so tolerant, they simply cannot abide the name of Jesus Christ being spoken without denouncing it.
I don’t really think much of Jesus, and I mean that in a literal sense: he just doesn’t cross — ooh, I made a pun — my mind, often. I dislike his moral teachings, too, but I don’t pay much regard to them in general because they’re not very widespread, except by some on the far-left. Most Evangelical Christians tend to ignore his messages because they know how ridiculous they are, if practically applied. Most Christians just like Jesus because he said some cool things about being nice to people. If that’s all Christianity is to people, then whatever. But if you take the Bible seriously, then Jesus was an utter pacifist.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Alex, which version of the bible are you talking about?
July 12th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
“I love the implication that all libertarians are moral relativists, which I find exceedingly humorous, considering that the entire philosophy of libertarianism is based on belief in the absolute universal moral value of liberty (hence the name).”
Then perhaps you should do a better job of getting the non-relativists into the head of the party. I don’t doubt their are pro-life and pro-values libertarians, but they certainly are not the face of the party.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Kristofer:
Forgive Gamecock’s generalization, but Josiah is like those Phelps folks that go around to soldier’s funerals proclaiming that “God hates f@gs”. Josiah gives atheists a bad name. He’s the PETA activist to your personal vegetarianism.
Perhaps God is about to call him out of the darkness?
July 12th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
David #22,
I noticed that, in responding to me, you completely glazed over the issues I brought up and merely pick and chose the nicer sounding verses of the Bible. All you really did was show that the God of the Bible is a schizophrenic, bipolar, emotionally-sadistic character.
Gamecock #24,
Wrong. Hatred of sinners = AOK (Psalm 5:5). Phobia does not necessarily imply a disease. Buy a dictionary. “Phobia. A persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.” A persistent, irrational fear of homosexuals and/or homosexuality would be a phobia of such things. Thus “homophobia.”
And my slavery/prostitution “angle” IS analagous. In many circumstances, it could just as easily be said that prostitution is “one way people ensured that they ate.” That doesn’t change the fact that both institutions are abusive and degrading, but at least prostitution doesn’t necessarily violate human liberty, as slavery does.
I’m familiar with the “Gap” Theory of Genesis, but the amount of time that is implied in the word is meaningless if the legend still says that the earth was around before the sun and that even vegetation was growing on earth before the sun existed.
I point to your implication that atheists are “intolerant” as further proof of your need to invest in a dictionary. Disagreeing (even VERBAL disagreement!) does not equal intolerance.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Act #30,
Are you implying that I’m a member of the actual Libertarian Party? If so, I’m not. I’m a lifelong Republican with a libertarian philosophy.
CBL #31,
Yes. I’m just like that.
If God’s trying to call me out of the darkness, he’d better start doing a better job. I was a fundamentalist, evangelical “Jesus Freak” studying to go into the ministry less than a year and a half ago. I’ve read every single theology and apologetics book there is. If God has any new evidence of his existence he’d like to toss my way, he’s more than welcome.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Alex, which version of the bible are you talking about?
Any.
Then perhaps you should do a better job of getting the non-relativists into the head of the party. I don’t doubt their are pro-life and pro-values libertarians, but they certainly are not the face of the party.
I’m not a Libertarian Party member — the organized party is an utter joke and doesn’t understand the war against jihadism. I’m a registered Republican.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Josiah:
So, in less than a year, you went from evangelical to rabid anti-evangelical. It seems like you are the only one here exhibiting an irrational behavior.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Josiah: I understand where you’re coming from, but your view of the Bible seems to be unfairly skewed.
In terms of murder and genocide, only God is justified in giving and taking a life. God-ordained capital punishment is definitely in the Bible.
As for your rape reference, that is indeed a historical passage but God’s opinion is not recorded. The Bible is willing to expose the flaws of humanity (including the great heroes of the Bible like King David — the Bible does not hide the fact that he committed adultery and murdered an innocent person in the process).
The other allegations you have posted have compelling counterarguments too (which one can find on the standard Christian apologetics web sites). However, if one does not think that a First Cause was necessary for the origin of this universe and the origin of the nanotechnology that we call “life”, then it is probably not worth debating the other points. This is the primary issue: can undirected stochastic mechanisms acting on nature generate information such as that found in DNA? The mathematics say no.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Josiah — The best atheists are the ones that grew up Christianized. I grew up going to Sunday school every week, volunteering at the church, lectoring as an adult when I was a freshman in high school, taking church trips. (I was the pastor’s favorite kid, for God’s sake; the one always relied upon to come through when other youth weren’t being devout!) You can even look at some of my political writings from when I was 15 and 16 and I was a pretty hard-line Christian conservative. But religion just doesn’t stand up under even a basic understanding of philosophy, logic, cosmology, or psychology. So I had to re-evaluate my worldview.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Josiah is so tolerant and respectful he can’t let a passage memorializing a great man go by without expressing his grief at all the damage caused by the Bible and Christianity.
Way to be classy, Josiah.
Tony Snow was a great man.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
He said nothing about Tony Snow in his denouncement of religion.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Josiah says:
I’m guessing… but I suspect that John Calvin wrote more by the time he was your age than you have ever read.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
CBL #35,
Haha. Yes. Less than a year and a half ago, in terms of religion, I was more irrational than probably you or Gamecock. I’ve since come to my senses.
WiseGuy #36,
So as long as God ordains genocide and bigotry, it’s all right. Okay.
Believe me when I say I’ve read virtually every single argument and counterargument both for and against Christianity and atheism. If you’ve got any new, remarkable ones that absolutely compel any rational human being to accept Christianity, feel free to send it my way.
I’m quite familiar with the argument you posted at the end of your comment. Define what you mean by “information” in this sense and I’ll show you how that line of argument is complete BS.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I think it goes like this, Alex.
“If you can’t say something nice (about a person who’s being eulogized), don’t say anything at all.”
Tearing down Tony’s religion = saying something not nice about Tony.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
ogrepete #38,
See post #39.
CBL #40,
What’s your point?
July 12th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
#42 ogrepete,
Your logic there is so incredibly flawed, I’m not even going to respond to it. If you have half a brain, you’ll see the irrationality of that statement yourself in a few moments, I’m sure.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Swing voters do not like religion and politics mixed.
Will you people just lay off it?
July 12th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
“What’s your point?”
Josiah:
1. You are young, foolish, and relatively ignorant. No offense.
2. John Calvin wrote over 50,000 (quick estimate) pages of theological thought. So, please do not base your arguments on your supposed expertise from having read a few apologetics books. See #1.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I know I am changing course on this post, but I thought I would give you a quote from Senator Ted Steven’s this afternoon.
From the Anchorage Daily News
“Stevens told us reporters he believes Republican presidential contender John McCain is seriously considering Palin as a vice presidential running mate.
“People come up and ask me (Steven’s) what is she like and how is she doing (Capitol Hill)?” Stevens said. “I’ve been asked that, and I’ve told them I think she would be a good vice president.”
Yeah!
You are correct Gamecock, there is a God after all.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Tearing down Tony’s religion = saying something not nice about Tony.
Perhaps Tony liked to listen to the Dave Matthews Band, too, which I loathe. If I say that, am I saying something ‘not nice’ about Tony? No, I’m saying something ‘not nice’ about the Dave Matthews Band. Likewise, Josiah is saying something ‘not nice’ about Christianity, not about Snow.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
CBL #46,
Oh, of course. How could I forget the famous law of the cosmos that states that age is always inversely proportional to wisdom/knowledge.
Oh, and thanks for reminding me of the other universal law that states that there is a direct positive correlation between the amount of pages you write and the truth of the words you have written.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Really?
This is what’s happening now?
You guys make me want to gag myself.
Back to Tony Snow- I saw an interview today with Snow and NBC White House correspondent David Gregory, with whom Tony Snow sparred on almost a daily basis. The interview wasn’t about White House policy or Bush or Obama or Rove or anything like that- it was about his family and his battle with cancer. Moving in a way, because it showed the real side of two genuine men who put aside politics and shared some emotional moments while discussing family and the meaning of life.
Regardless of whether or not you believe in the Bible, Tony Snow found fulfillment in it. He wasn’t a murderer or a rapist or a misogynist or a homophobe or any of that, as some seem to believe the Bible teaches and advocates, but he was a loving family man who devoted his life to his wife and kids and loved his country. If you choose to read and study the Bible and find that you can’t believe it, then that’s absolutely your freedom and prerogative. But I don’t see a problem with Tony Snow believing the Bible if he doesn’t believe the things you claim the Bible to advocate. He was a good guy, regardless of faith, and he will be missed.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Josiah,
I didn’t glaze over the issues. I was offering what IS the message of the COMPLETE bible. I’m a dispensationalist evangelical, and so I view the bible like a giant puzzle. Every piece has to fit into place in order for us to understand it completely. I also believe that the earth is way older than most christians think it is. I base that on what the bible says. Referencing Jeremiah chapter 4, and the original hebrew from Genesis 1, but these things are completely irrelevant. You see, my faith commands me to make a defense of the faith.
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.”-1 Peter 3:15
But I don’t have to defend my personal beliefs….I only have to defend the personage of Jesus Christ, His Holiness, His Love, His Kindness, His Mercy, His Death on the cross, His Resurrection, and His Power to bestow grace on those who love Him. But He commanded me also to Love everyone. So I leave you with one last passage:
“Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.”-Colossians 4:6
So I say this….bless Josiah, in your eyes oh God and grant mercy and grace upon him and his words this day. Also, please bless those Father who are defending the gospel and its message of love and grace, and especially break all of our hearts that we would submit humbly to your love and think of others before ourselves. Bless Tony Snow’s family, and end the argumentative nature of our hearts that we may ALL be tollerant and understanding towards others while being a gracious representative of the new nature we who are in you live in. Amen.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
This was an excellent post in remembering the life of a very fine Christian. Thank you for writing this. The quote you gave about Tony saying “..a lot of life is figuring out you’re not in charge and figuring out who is.” shows the peace that passes all understanding resided in Tony.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
50 is reasonable, 51 is…yeah.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
David #51,
YES, I am totally with you on this one. Every piece of the Bible has to fit. EVERY piece. That means no picking and choosing and only talking about how God is love and God is mercy. It means accepting the fact that the Bible says very plainly that this schizophrenic God character commands genocide, murder, bigotry, and displays an appalling lack of understanding where medicine and science are concerned (a lack of understanding that would almost think the words came not from an omniscient deity but from, oh, say, a bunch of primitive desert dwellers about 4000 years ago–well fancy that!).
Furthermore, once again, believing that the “days” spoken of in Genesis chapter 1 are 24 hours or a billion years each is irrelevant if you believe that the earth (and even vegetation on the earth) was around before the sun was. And that the sun came about in a completely different time period than all other stars. Because clearly the sun is not a star.
Come ooooon! Talking snake! Four-legged insects! Stone gays! Can you not see how horrid of an ancient text this Bible is, and how 95% of its moral dictates are utterly ridiculous?
July 12th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I wonder how the Republican party stays together?
July 12th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
#50 Robbie,
I don’t think Tony Snow will mind.
Besides, when did the rule come about that this was going to be solely a Tony Snow tribute thread? The original post asserted some debatable remarks such as “scripture holds the answers to our problems,” a notion which I think I was perfectly justified in challenging.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
55 — We’re the real Big Tent Party.
Only the Republican Party could house a homosexual, neo-conservative, laissez-faire capitalist anti-theist like me and an anti-gay, paleo-conservative, protectionist Calvinist like Doug Forrester.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Besides, when did the rule come about that this was going to be solely a Tony Snow tribute thread? The original post asserted some debatable remarks such as “scripture holds the answers to our problems,” a notion which I think I was perfectly justified in challenging
It’s not like we personally knew him or anything, either — I don’t think we’re ‘defiling his memory’ by starting a debate in one of myriad tribute threads around the net.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
#54: Bravo.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
#57 Alex,
Don’t forget the heterosexual but pro-gay rights, constitutionalist, Austrian economist, pro-life, atheist over here.
For better or for worse… Gotta love the GOP.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Josiah,
A great man once made a very amazing statement.
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a good moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great moral teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
The man who made the above statement was named C.S. Lewis. He was an atheist, that was trying to prove God did not exist, and ended up accepting Jesus Christ as God. I agree with him whole heartedly. Either Jesus was a lunatic, or He is who He said he was, and that is the Son of God. I believe He is the Son of God and savior of the world. If you do not, and instead think of Him as a lunatic, than it is pointless for me to convince you….because I CAN NEVER CONVINCE YOU. You can only convince yourself, and you seem to have made up your own mind just as God gave you the free will to do so. So I say, kudos to you and your happiness in a world without God. If there is such a thing.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Alex - Steve Forbes
Doug - Pat Buchanan
Josiah - Arnold S.
Great!
July 12th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
David #61,
I’ve read everything C.S. Lewis ever wrote, and, even as a Christian, I took issue with the “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” theory, because it’s a false trichotomy. Even as an evangelical, I remember being able to think of tons of other possibilities, such as “Isn’t ‘honestly mistaken’ a possibility?”
I find it far more likely that Jesus may never have actually claimed to be God, and that such claims were attributed to him later on in the legends that were eventually written down as the “gospels.”
As for happiness in a world without God, I can honestly say I’ve never been as happy about life as I am as an atheist. For one thing, because there is no afterlife and, thus, life is more scarce, I find life is more valuable (kind of the same as the economic principle). And because there is no omnipresent Heavenly Father, I’ve found my family connections on Earth to be far more valuable. There is so much beauty and complexity and opportunities for learning and understanding in a Godless world. That’s one of the worst misunderstandings about atheism–we’re generally not nihilists. There is so much to learn and experience and enjoy in this life that anyone who sits around moping and not taking advantage of every waking second would have to be a fool.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
bob #62,
Arnold S??? Pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, economically liberal, anti-gun, Arnold S??? Nooo wayyyyy! More like Ron Paul.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
#64:
You have my pity if the best libertarian Republican you can come up with is Ron Paul.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Autocrat #65,
If Ron Paul isn’t the best libertarian Republican currently in office in your estimation, then I accept your pity.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
#66:
Ron Paul:
Libertarian? Yes absolutley. Republican? Not in a million years.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Autocrat #67,
Ron Paul is what all Republicans would be if they took the positions they claim to believe in to their logical conclusions.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Ron Paul is a hardliner on illegal immigration and vehemently pro-life. He also voted for DOMA.
He’s a pretty hardline Republican except on foreign policy.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Alex,
Are you a full blown atheist, or agnostic?
I also have to disagree with Alex, there are different versions of the Christian bible, which tell/teach us very different beliefs.
Everything is interpretive. The Qur’an mostly preaches about love and community, yet many of those “so-called” followers interpret passages for war and evil. This is what the Qur’an says about Atheists.
YUSUFALI: To you be your Way, and to me mine.
PICKTHAL: Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
SHAKIR: You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Alex - Steve Forbes
Doug - Pat Buchanan
Josiah - Arnold S.
Heh. This is kind of fun.
So which political figures would the rest of the R408 crew be?
July 12th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
62 — Austrian refers to a school of economics, not a nationality! Haha.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Josiah,
Yes, your interpretation could be possible I suppose. But what is the greater chance….that someone attributed something to him less than 60 years after His death(the entire new testament was written by 95 A.D.), or that He actually made those claims….not to mention that if He hadn’t it would leave hundreds of prophecies unfulfilled. We know He was a historical figure, because He was written about by non-christians as well and around the world. So I find it highly unlikely that His words were simply attributed to Him.
I would also say this. I don’t personally find the bible to promote anything hateful at all. Everyone can interpret anything how they see it, so it is absolutely within my right to see it that way. Not to mention that Christ himself spared someone from the death that the law would call on them to bare.
John 8:2-12
2Now early[a] in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught[b] in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded[c] us that such should be stoned.[d] But what do You say?”[e] 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.[f]
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[g] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience,[h] went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,[i] “Woman, where are those accusers of yours?[j] Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and[k] sin no more.”
12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
July 12th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Sorry but I don’t support the gold standard. I also believe, contrary to Paul, that there are evils in this world and hiding are under a desk will not make them go away. Bury your head in sand and you make your ass more vulnerable
July 12th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Alex, Are you a full blown atheist, or agnostic?
I’m a full-blown atheist and an anti-theist.
Some of you might be surprised that I’m simultaneously defending Christianity as a non-violent religion on another forum, as I speak…
July 12th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I find it far more likely that Jesus may never have actually claimed to be God, and that such claims were attributed to him later on in the legends that were eventually written down as the “gospels.”
There’s next to nothing in the Synoptic Gospels equating Jesus of Nazareth with God, and there’s absolutely nothing that does so in the earliest Gospel, Mark.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Alex #72,
LOL, Nice catch!
David #73,
You don’t think it’s possible that grandiose legends can spring up about someone less than 60 years after their death? Come on. Do I really need to bring up all the examples? I don’t doubt very much that Jesus of Nazareth was a real figure in history. I just doubt that most of the legends about him that were recorded many years after his death are true.
If you’re going to interpret away all the mean, nasty parts of the Bible, why even bother with the Bible at all?
As a side note, most scholars believe there is good reason to believe that John 8:2-12 is not part of the original manuscript and was added in much later. Although, I guess debating whether it’s part of the original manuscript is kind of pointless if it’s all legend anyway.
Autocrat #74,
You don’t have to support the gold standard to be a libertarian on monetary policy. You can support anything other than government monopoly of the money supply.
I didn’t know Ron Paul believed that there are no evils in this world. I AM with Dr. Paul on the belief that we can’t annoy the Muslim world into submission and that the current big-government foreign policy we employ isn’t authorized in the Constitution. You should read “Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” sometime.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
#75, interesting…….I always figured you for an Agnostic, being an intellectual and all. I presumed your beliefs were more scientific.
BTW…..I am Christie Todd Whitman (re: DaveG #71)
Alex is not Steve Forbes.
I cannot find one GOP politician that fits Alex’s profile. I want to say David Dreier, but Dreier is not honest with himself yet, personally and in his votes.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
DaveG #76,
Right. But most Christians point to the whole “The Father and I are one” thing, and the fact that Jesus said “I Am” (which they usually believe is a reference to the name God told Moses to refer to him by).
July 12th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Why on Earth do you Ron Paul cultists call him “Dr. Paul”? He’s a goddamn gynecologist. His being a doctor has absolutely nothing to do with his politics, and yet you attach the title of ‘Doctor’ to his name to make him sound more credible. I should start doing that — “Dr. Rice today said that…”
July 12th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
#76
Luke 22:70
Then they all said, “Are You then the Son of God?”
So He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.”
Jesus did even in the synoptic gospels claim to be the Son of God, the savior of the world……and many people called Him that and He never denied it.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Kristofer #78,
I would have said Christopher Hitchens, although A). Hitchens is not a politician, and B). I’m unaware of Hitchens’s views on non-religion/non-foreign policy related things. There’s only one atheist in office in America that I’m aware of (Pete Stark).
July 12th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Alex #80,
Because it’s shorter than typing Congressman Paul and more recognizable than just writing “Paul.”
July 12th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
#75, interesting…….I always figured you for an Agnostic, being an intellectual and all. I presumed your beliefs were more scientific.
I’m an “agnostic” in the same way that I’m agnostic about leprechauns. There’s no evidence for any sort of supernatural being, just as there’s no evidence for leprechauns. But I’m not an ‘agnostic’ about leprechauns. Technically, we’d have to be agnostic for both, applying the ridiculous standard of ‘well, there’s no evidence, either way!’ — but no one does that, and rightfully so. The default position is non-belief.
Alex is not Steve Forbes.
I cannot find one GOP politician that fits Alex’s profile. I want to say David Dreier, but Dreier is not honest with himself yet, personally and in his votes.
Why is the politician being gay a mandate for matching me? My homosexuality has extremely little to do with my politics. Steve Forbes fits rather well, though his focus on economics, rather than war-related issues, makes the comparison a tougher fit than I’d first thought. (Joe Lieberman sort of comes to mind, almost: I may disagree with John McCain and several Republicans on a host of issues, but the war trumps all. But there must be a better fit than him. I wouldn’t be a Democrat, even if the war against jihadism went away tomorrow, while Lieberman would.)
July 12th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Alex #80,
Actually, your comment about “Dr. Rice” made me laugh, because I have an old business card in my wallet from 2006 that says “Josiah Schmidt — Ohio Chairman of Americans For Dr. Rice — Dedicated to Drafting Dr. Rice for President in 2008.”
*cough*cough*
Yeah… my religious views weren’t the only views that have changed in the past couple of years.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
I would have said Christopher Hitchens, although A). Hitchens is not a politician, and B). I’m unaware of Hitchens’s views on non-religion/non-foreign policy related things. There’s only one atheist in office in America that I’m aware of (Pete Stark).
Hitchens is indeed an atheist and anti-theist. He doesn’t speak much about social issues, though — though neither do I, unless I’m provoked. I don’t care much about them. He seems to be coming around to be more sympathic to the right on economic issues, having recently endorsed Grover Norquist’s “Leave Us Alone”. I admire Hitchens a lot, though, and I’ve even borrowed his ‘contrarian’ label to describe myself in several circumstances. I own four of his books.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
#84 Alex,
Exactly! I don’t see how Christians can say that we have to call ourselves agnostics because we admit it’s “possible” there is a God. Most Christians would admit it’s “possible” there is no God. Why don’t they have to call themselves “agnostics” then? Why don’t we just call ourselves “agnostic” about EVERY belief of which we don’t have full 100% certainty?
July 12th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Thank you for bringing some sense to this discussion Alex.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Ron Paul is a gynecologist????????????????????
That says it all.
#72, Oh, as in Friedrich Hayek!!! Now I get it. Sorry.
#80, Dr. John McCain (Falwell gave him that doctoral degree).
July 12th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Alex #80, Actually, your comment about “Dr. Rice” made me laugh, because I have an old business card in my wallet from 2006 that says “Josiah Schmidt — Ohio Chairman of Americans For Dr. Rice — Dedicated to Drafting Dr. Rice for President in 2008.” *cough*cough* Yeah… my religious views weren’t the only views that have changed in the past couple of years.
Ah! I was a huge proponent of drafting Condi before it was apparent that Rudy was, indeed, going to run. Even after Rudy threw his hat in the ring, I was holding out for Condi to run, but alas.
I briefly flirted with realism, myself, for a while, during the later part of 2007 and early 2008, but I came home to neo-conservatism recently and have been more vigorous than ever about it, as you’ve seen both on the site and in our conversations.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
#80
I don’t have a problem with people referring to Ron Paul as Dr. Paul. Especially since it gives honor to the fact that he has helped to bring so many people into this life. Dr. Paul is what the republican party should be….with the exception of his foreign policy….though I even agree with him on that most of the time. He’s pro-life, anti-spending, for a strong national defense, he’s the best on the immigration issue, he doesn’t care about the gay thing at all(which is totally awesome since I don’t care weather a gay person wants to call their relationship a marriage, my “faith” guides my belief in it and marriage shouldn’t be governed at all), and well I quite simply like Dr. Paul a whole heck of a lot. He’s a confessed Christian as well, and doesn’t want to force his beliefs on anyone….which I totally agree with and respect.
My thing is that I want to educate people about Christianity and Christ, and then let them decide for themselves.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Exactly! I don’t see how Christians can say that we have to call ourselves agnostics because we admit it’s “possible” there is a God. Most Christians would admit it’s “possible” there is no God. Why don’t they have to call themselves “agnostics” then? Why don’t we just call ourselves “agnostic” about EVERY belief of which we don’t have full 100% certainty?
They don’t feel like they have to apply that standard, because belief in God is widespread.
As the saying goes — If one person believes it, it’s insanity. If one hundred people, a cult. If a million, a religion.
Thank you for bringing some sense to this discussion Alex.
To what are you referring? (I assume everything, of course — ho, ho, ho! Haha…kidding.)
July 12th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Alex #90,
Really? I didn’t know you were a “Condista” at one point. That’s interesting that our presidential preference path has been so similar: Condi-Rudy-Paul (I seem to remember you nominally supported Paul for a couple weeks after Rudy dropped out, hah…)
July 12th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I don’t have a problem with people referring to Ron Paul as Dr. Paul. Especially since it gives honor to the fact that he has helped to bring so many people into this life. Dr. Paul is what the republican party should be….with the exception of his foreign policy….though I even agree with him on that most of the time. He’s pro-life, anti-spending, for a strong national defense, he’s the best on the immigration issue, he doesn’t care about the gay thing at all(which is totally awesome since I don’t care weather a gay person wants to call their relationship a marriage, my “faith” guides my belief in it and marriage shouldn’t be governed at all), and well I quite simply like Dr. Paul a whole heck of a lot. He’s a confessed Christian as well, and doesn’t want to force his beliefs on anyone….which I totally agree with and respect.
I like him a lot, too. If it weren’t for the war against jihadism, I’d have supported his bid for the presidency!
July 12th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I like how several people here are saying they agree with Ron Paul on almost everything except foreign policy, which is fascinating considering how intimately interwoven foreign policy is with fiscal policy, monetary policy, and all other sorts of domestic policy.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Really? I didn’t know you were a “Condista” at one point. That’s interesting that our presidential preference path has been so similar: Condi-Rudy-Paul (I seem to remember you nominally supported Paul for a couple weeks after Rudy dropped out, hah…)
Condi’s race and sex did play a role in my being excited about supporting her, I will admit. I just would have reveled in having an outstandingly-qualified nominee that would also allow me to laugh in Democrats’ face forevermore about having the first black and first female president. Just a little bonus, y’know? Always fun to laugh at the Democrats.
I did nominally support Paul for a couple of weeks. (Which was during my flirtation with ‘realism’, not coincidentally.) It was during my anti-McCain temper tantrum, and the breathtakingly depressing realization that my other option was, well, Mike Huckabee.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
I like how several people here are saying they agree with Ron Paul on almost everything except foreign policy, which is fascinating considering how intimately interwoven foreign policy is with fiscal policy, monetary policy, and all other sorts of domestic policy.
I agree completely: if we fail in this foreign policy front, domestic policy and monetary policy ain’t gonna mean much.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
#84, Alex, I luv ya, but you are such a snob.
In describing yourself, the first word you used was; “Homosexual”. So yes, that is what I looked for, since you clearly promote your sexual identity with your politics. I think that is great, but it is a habit you have. It is no different than Christians on this site that identify their Christian beliefs with their politics (and you attack them for it, btw).
“Only the Republican Party could house a homosexual, neo-conservative, laissez-faire capitalist anti-theist like me.” - Alex Knepper
July 12th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Just so you all know, I’m very proud to be a part of this completely Big tent republican party. It’s awesome to me that we can all come together and every once in awhile stick it to the dems and liberals….even though we all disagree on “something”.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Alex #97,
Lol. “If we fail”? I’d say this Wilsonian big-government foreign policy has been failing quite magnificently for about the last 80 years.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
#84, Alex, I luv ya, but you are such a snob.
If being an atheist makes you a snob, then sign me up for the snob lobby (snob lobby…snobby?).
In describing yourself, the first word you used was; “Homosexual”. So yes, that is what I looked for, since you clearly promote your sexual identity with your politics. I think that is great, but it is a habit you have. It is no different than Christians on this site that identify their Christian beliefs with their politics (and you attack them for it, btw).
I promote it sometimes to provoke the theists, sometimes to illustrate that the party is a Big Tent (a not-so-subtle reminder), sometimes for other reasons — do you like this better?: “Only the Republican Party could house a neo-conservative, laissez-faire capitalist homosexual anti-theist!”
Or reverse the original order and put anti-theist at the start and homosexual at the end. I didn’t want to stuff all of the things that made it unusual for me to be a Republican in one section. Just a linguistic choice, is all.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Lol. “If we fail”? I’d say this Wilsonian big-government foreign policy has been failing quite magnificently for about the last 80 years.
It’s not a grand quest to democratize the world for its own sake (’making the world safe for democracy’). It’s about democratizing the Arab world — over a long period of time; the public has no patience at all — to make the Arab world safe for America. It actually went rather swimmingly after World War II, even in Japan, where one wouldn’t have expected Western-style democracy to work. It’ll be tougher in the Middle East due to the presence of Islam, obviously (and I don’t expect Western-style democracy, with all of its liberties, to work there; a modified version will suffice), but we don’t have many options, here.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
#101, that is not the reason you are a snob, you are a snob (and I say that with the utmost complement), in the way you; “I promote it sometimes to provoke the theists”.
“Condi’s race and sex did play a role in my being excited about supporting her, I will admit.” This is proof you play indenity politics, and a reason why I used Congressman Dreier as an example. So it does not matter in what order you use. “Only the Republican Party could house a neo-conservative, laissez-faire capitalist homosexual anti-theist!”
July 12th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
“If we fail”? I’d say this Wilsonian big-government foreign policy has been failing quite magnificently for about the last 80 years.”
That is what our friends in western Europe say, yet they all live in freedom because of this policy.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
103 — Ah-ah-ah, don’t take my remark out of context!
I was excited about Condi’s race and sex because I could use it to bash liberals over the head with.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Alex #102,
“Democratizing the world for its own sake” sounds very noble (still sounds ‘grand’ to me…), but what gives you and the politicians you support the right to take the money of American taxpayers to do such a noble deed for the rest of the world?
How is laying waste to and militarily occupying the holy lands of the Middle East going to make Americans safer?
Japan had the benefit of heavy American subsidization post WWII, but rest assured their system is not rooted in liberty and capitalism. They are Western-friendly, but relatively statist and economically liberal, and they are going to have some big financial problems coming down the road. Also, they didn’t have soil they considered to be eminently holy that we occupied and said we would be willing to occupy indefinitely. If you want the story of how Germany recovered after WWII, do some research on the Austrian economics that I and Congressman Paul crazily adhere to.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
#105, this is a blog, we all take each others remarks out of context”.
“I was excited about Condi’s race and sex because I could use it to bash liberals over the head with.”
So you were not using identity politics, but using her (Condi’s) indenity and politics to bash liberls? Ah-ah-ah, still identity politics, just as a weapon, not a belief.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
It sounds as if the Libertarians are angry at Kissinger, not the current Bush policies.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
“Democratizing the world for its own sake” sounds very noble (still sounds ‘grand’ to me…), but what gives you and the politicians you support the right to take the money of American taxpayers to do such a noble deed for the rest of the world?
Nothing. I don’t support doing “noble deeds for the rest of the world” for their own sake.
How is laying waste to and militarily occupying the holy lands of the Middle East going to make Americans safer?
Well, if that’s all that you think that we’re doing, then you’re absolutely right: it’s not. I’m more inclined to believe that we’re fighting Islamic terrorists and trying to stabilize a country — as opposed to leaving tomorrow and letting Iran come in to institute an Islamic Republic and possibly incite genocide.
Japan had the benefit of heavy American subsidization post WWII, but rest assured their system is not rooted in liberty and capitalism. They are Western-friendly, but relatively statist and economically liberal,
And most importantly, they aren’t blowing anyone up or invading any countries…
There’s something called “the perfect being the enemy of the good”.
and they are going to have some big financial problems coming down the road. Also, they didn’t have soil they considered to be eminently holy that we occupied and said we would be willing to occupy indefinitely. If you want the story of how Germany recovered after WWII, do some research on the Austrian economics that I and Congressman Paul crazily adhere to.
I said absolutely nothing about Germany’s economic recovery. Nothing whatsoever. Stop assuming things. You should know better than to think that I’d extol the Marshall Plan.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Kristofer #108,
I’ve found that most people who are libertarian in regards to foreign policy are most angry at Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
So you were not using identity politics, but using her (Condi’s) indenity and politics to bash liberls? Ah-ah-ah, still identity politics, just as a weapon, not a belief.
Yes, but she had already met my qualifications for candidates. I’d have supported her, anyway. I was just excited because it was a chance to get liberals pissed.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I’ve found that most people who are libertarian in regards to foreign policy are most angry at Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
FDR? Are you kidding?
July 12th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Alex #109,
And I’m more inclined to believe that as fast as we’re killing Islamic terrorists, we’re creating new ones, and that Iraq can never be “stabilized” as long as we occupy Muslim holy lands and make it a rallying point for jihad and a magnet for a neverending flow of Muslim fighters.
Even more importantly, we had the benefit of them not being Muslim.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Alex #112,
Are you surprised?? Really??? “FDR” is a curse word in constitutionalist circles.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
114 — Oh, I thought you meant as a foreign policy figure.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Alex #115,
I did. They admire him in the sense that at least he used a constitutional declaration of war to get into WWII, but it’s generally assumed that FDR was itching to get into war in the first place and that he and Truman had generally idiotic big-government foreign policy ideas apart from the war itself.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
And I’m more inclined to believe that as fast as we’re killing Islamic terrorists, we’re creating new ones, and that Iraq can never be “stabilized” as long as we occupy Muslim holy lands and make it a rallying point for jihad and a magnet for a neverending flow of Muslim fighters.
If we create semi-liberal democracies, however, we can leave the fighting to them. Our ultimate goal should be to create nations in the mold of Turkey: hardly Western, but hardly Islamist.
Will this work? Maybe. It could, so we should try it. We don’t really have many options, here, short of total withdrawal from the Middle East. And we can’t even do that, since we’re too reliant upon Saudi oil. We’d either have to wait for further production from Africa (especially Southern Africa; Angola in particular is booming, lately) and our own country, or develop alternative energy sources, which looks unlikely, in the short-term.
But even that’s just a short-term fix. Our only good option is to try to change the Middle East.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
FDR was a protestionist and allowed the Nazi’s and Japan become a threat to America.
Teddy R. moved America from a isolationist state to a “global” participant.
Funny enough, GWB ran as an isolationist (minus FT) in 2000, but the media forgets this.
#111, Alex did you know that “Think Condi” is trying to get the NAACP to endorse Condi for VP, at the same time McCain shows up in Cincinnati for a speech to the NAACP convention?
July 12th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I did. They admire him in the sense that at least he used a constitutional declaration of war to get into WWII, but it’s generally assumed that FDR was itching to get into war in the first place and that he and Truman had generally idiotic big-government foreign policy ideas apart from the war itself.
No one cares about that, though.
Hardline Libertarians would probably decry the war powers that he used, domestically (sedition laws under the Smith Act, internment, free speech restrictions, etc.), as acts of high treason ushering in a dark night of totalitarian evil — to say nothing of his socialist economic policies (which I, obviously, loathe, and would love to see rolled back).
July 13th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Alex, the problem with the Arab nations is not democracy, it is poverty and corruption (and yes, you can argue that this must be achieved through democracy).
Islamic nations with “low” levels of poverty, have less islamic radicalism.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Alex #117,
I find it fascinating that–
A). We think we have the right to create governments over other people groups.
B). Despite the fact that the more tension we create between us and Middle Eastern countries, the harder it is for us to get oil. Especially when history has made eminently clear that the best way to maintain a steady access to Middle Eastern oil is to maintain friendly relationships with the countries that have it, and not meddle in their affairs or threaten war with them.
I’d say our only good option is to follow the Constitution and the seasoned and battlehardened experience and wisdom of the Founders.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Kristofer #120,
Funny enough, Islamic nations with “low” levels of being occupied by and having corrupt dictatorships subsidized by the American government also have less anti-American radicals.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Alex, the problem with the Arab nations is not democracy, it is poverty and corruption (and yes, you can argue that this must be achieved through democracy). Islamic nations with “low” levels of poverty, have less islamic radicalism.
No, it is not “poverty and corruption” that begets radicalism. It’s Islam. The further away that a country gets from Islam, the less radicalism there is, and the less poverty and corruption there is. You’ve identified the variables, but you have the relationship wrong.
I find it fascinating that– A). We think we have the right to create governments over other people groups.
I do think this, yes.
B). Despite the fact that the more tension we create between us and Middle Eastern countries, the harder it is for us to get oil. Especially when history has made eminently clear that the best way to maintain a steady access to Middle Eastern oil is to maintain friendly relationships with the countries that have it, and not meddle in their affairs or threaten war with them.
That’s not true. The Saudis need our money to have influence. It’s quite the pact, I must say.
Ah, ‘maintaining friendly relationships’ — so what becomes of such relationships when they don’t want them to stay friendly? When they’re harboring Islamic terrorists? When they’re actively trying to subvert U.S. interests? Please. Friendly relationships are two-way streets.
I’d say our only good option is to follow the Constitution and the seasoned and battlehardened experience and wisdom of the Founders.
So what would they say about al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups (Hezbollah [which is Iran-backed], Islamic Jihad) trying to obtain a nuclear or biological weapon?
July 13th, 2008 at 12:08 am
#121,
“B). Despite the fact that the more tension we create between us and Middle Eastern countries, the harder it is for us to get oil.
No, we made is harder to get oil in the 60’s and 70’s because we did not “create governments over other people groups” in arab nations, we let many of them move to the Soviets for that. We learned out lesson. In 1943 FDR almost approved a plan to invade Saudi Arabia, for thr oil. Now we just send the American workers to run the industry.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:09 am
I would go so far as to say that I’m the realist and that Josiah is the idealist — ah, if only we’d have ‘friendly relationships’ with people, then all of our troubles would go away!
July 13th, 2008 at 12:11 am
#122, wrong!
“Funny enough, Islamic nations with “low” levels of being occupied by and having corrupt dictatorships subsidized by the American government also have less anti-American radicals.”
Yemen, Iran, and Syria have the most-anti American sentiment, and I don’t see US troops there?
July 13th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Iran does NOT have the most anti-American sentiment among its citizens! Its citizenry is apparently one of the most pro-Western in the entire Middle East.
Among its government, yes; its people, absolutely not.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:16 am
@1
America is the promised land… DONT EVER FORGET THAT ISRAELI FIRSTERS
May the lord be with you and your family Tony.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Alex- “No, it is not “poverty and corruption” that begets radicalism. It’s Islam. The further away that a country gets from Islam, the less radicalism there is, and the less poverty and corruption there is. You’ve identified the variables, but you have the relationship wrong.”
Really? Then explain the UAE to me? Lower levels of corruption, economic freedom and moving to some free elections. They are also a strict Islamic state. In fact foreigners live side by side with locals.
Some people use religion to promote their hatred, some use other philosophy’s like communism. I know Alex, you think religion is the reason why we have hate an war, but it is not true.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Alex #123,
If our relationships with Islamic nations turn sour, it should be because the Islamic nations wanted it to, not because we pissed them off by meddling in their affairs and rattling sabres at them. It would be unfortunate if another country decided they hated an America that was employing a foreign policy of non-interventionism and a domestic policy of liberty (though we’d be pretty hard to hate–see Switzerland), but if it did happen, we certainly wouldn’t have the right to strongarm them back into being our friends…
What about the countries that are harboring members of Hamas and Hezbollah? Why don’t we invade them? Oh, that’s right, because Hamas has never attacked us and has no desire to, and Hezbollah only attacked us when we were occupying their homelands in Lebanon and has totally left us alone ever since we left. Why don’t Hamas and Hezbollah attack us?
The point is that “harboring Islamic terrorists” is unfortunate, but it’s not our federal government and military’s job to purge Islamic extremism from the world, just to defend our country from those who are actually fighting with America (and not provoking unnecessary antagonism against us would be a good part of that whole defense thing).
It is most in the U.S.’s interests to employ a humble, non-interventionist, Constitutional foreign policy and to preserve liberty here at home, but it’s not in our interest to have a global military presence and try to strongarm other countries for cheap oil.
Kristofer #124,
No, we made it hard to get oil in the 60’s and 70’s because we picked sides in a foreign war and unconstitutionally subsidized a foreign military.
It’s too bad Eisenhower didn’t take a cue from FDR there. (see “Operation Ajax”).
July 13th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Kristofer #126,
Not wrong.
Sure, Iran clearly has the most anti-American sentiment. But can you tell me how many Iranians have suicide bombed us? Here’s a hint–zero.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:25 am
“Iran does NOT have the most anti-American sentiment among its citizens! Its citizenry is apparently one of the most pro-Western in the entire Middle East.
Among its government, yes; its people, absolutely not.”
Listening to that propaganda again ah? Ahmadinejad will be re-elected next year.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Want to take a stab at WHY Ahmadinejad will be elected? I can tell you it’s not because Iranians agree with him on theology.