Comments on: Replacing God http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/04/09/replacing-god/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: ruminator http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/04/09/replacing-god/comment-page-1/#comment-77422 ruminator Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:51:38 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=5756#comment-77422 I'm not qualified to know whether or not the world is threatened by global warming. However, I don't doubt that many people believe it, including scientists. They could all be wrong. Let's just suppose "environmentalism" is not a subterfuge for the purpose of marginalizing Christianity in America and elevating the president to some stature beyond that of elected president. It's a field of study warranted by pragmatic concern, as in "only you can prevent forest fires." How would that imply that religious freedom in America is threatened? I don't get it. Even if you think global warming is bunk, environmentalism, (or the study of the environment) is the field of inquiry through which that conclusion could be reached. Someone will opine that contemporary environmentalism is not the study of the environment but rather a mania generated by a need to believe in a greater cause, i.e. a religion. Is Obama trying to change the way we think? Maybe. When President Bush said "I believe that God wants me to be president" he was trying to change the way I think. If environmentalism is Obama's religion will that mean people have to stop talking about Jeremiah Wright? You can't have it both ways. I’m not qualified to know whether or not the world is threatened by global warming. However, I don’t doubt that many people believe it, including scientists. They could all be wrong.
Let’s just suppose “environmentalism” is not a subterfuge for the purpose of marginalizing Christianity in America and elevating the president to some stature beyond that of elected president. It’s a field of study warranted by pragmatic concern, as in “only you can prevent forest fires.” How would that imply that religious freedom in America is threatened? I don’t get it.
Even if you think global warming is bunk, environmentalism, (or the study of the environment) is the field of inquiry through which that conclusion could be reached.
Someone will opine that contemporary environmentalism is not the study of the environment but rather a mania generated by a need to believe in a greater cause, i.e. a religion.
Is Obama trying to change the way we think? Maybe. When President Bush said “I believe that God wants me to be president” he was trying to change the way I think.
If environmentalism is Obama’s religion will that mean people have to stop talking about Jeremiah Wright? You can’t have it both ways.

]]> By: ruminator http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/04/09/replacing-god/comment-page-1/#comment-77373 ruminator Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:12:15 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=5756#comment-77373 Considering the author's noting that "while abroad, Obama expressed deep appreciation fot the Muslim faith." Two questions: 1. Didn't President Bush make a point of saying "we are not at war with the Muslim faith population" and therefore could not Obama's statement be heard as an acceptable extrapolation of that sentiment, and that the time has come for such an overture? 2. If a head of state from a predominantly Muslim country were to announce "I appreciate the Catholic faith and how they have done a lot of charity work and how the Pope denounces violence as a way to resolve conflict" wouldn't we be saying to ourselves "hey I think I like this guy." What would other Mulims think of it? I don't know! Maybe the point is they aren't saying that. But is it possible that Obama is trying to build a bridge? To what extent and with what language should Obama exhort the Muslims to condemn Al Qaeda and disassociate themselves from them? Don't ask me! Glad I don't have his job. Considering the author’s noting that “while abroad, Obama expressed deep appreciation fot the Muslim faith.”
Two questions:
1. Didn’t President Bush make a point of saying “we are not at war with the Muslim faith population” and therefore could not Obama’s statement be heard as an acceptable extrapolation of that sentiment, and that the time has come for such an overture?
2. If a head of state from a predominantly Muslim country were to announce “I appreciate the Catholic faith and how they have done a lot of charity work and how the Pope denounces violence as a way to resolve conflict” wouldn’t we be saying to ourselves “hey I think I like this guy.”
What would other Mulims think of it? I don’t know!
Maybe the point is they aren’t saying that. But is it possible that Obama is trying to build a bridge?
To what extent and with what language should Obama exhort the Muslims to condemn Al Qaeda and disassociate themselves from them? Don’t ask me!
Glad I don’t have his job.

]]> By: michaelbp http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/04/09/replacing-god/comment-page-1/#comment-77368 michaelbp Sat, 11 Apr 2009 05:10:56 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=5756#comment-77368 Why is the shadowy "ruling elite" so often trotted out as the source of the country's problems, and why does this author, like so many others, insist upon empowering the ubiquitious "elite" with such absolute control over our lives? Is the author truly convinced that Pres.Obama, acting as their alleged agent, believes that "man, not God, is omnipotent?" Has she indeed convinced herself that the president aspires to "take control of every facet of life in America?" For my part, I have yet to see any true evidence that the president, while leftist in his policies, might be so mentally unbalanced as to embrace such a belief (unlike, for example, the sociopathic totalitarian ruler of North Korea). Yet, based upon my reading of her article,it appears that this is precisely what Nancy Morgan would have her readers believe. That she herself might possess such a belief at this point would, at best, indicate that she is obsessed with a delusion. Moreover, her effort to imply that the president's historical knowledge regarding the policies of former communist dictators vis-a-vis religion somehow demonstrates a concurrence on his part with those policies, only goes to show that she has chosen to abandon reason in presenting her case against Obama's policies. Why is the shadowy “ruling elite” so often trotted out as the source of the country’s problems, and why does this author, like so many others, insist upon empowering the ubiquitious “elite” with such absolute control over our lives? Is the author truly convinced that Pres.Obama, acting as their alleged agent, believes that “man, not God, is omnipotent?” Has she indeed convinced herself that the president aspires to “take control of every facet of life in America?” For my part, I have yet to see any true evidence that the president, while leftist in his policies, might be so mentally unbalanced as to embrace such a belief (unlike, for example, the sociopathic totalitarian ruler of North Korea). Yet, based upon my reading of her article,it appears that this is precisely what Nancy Morgan would have her readers believe. That she herself might possess such a belief at this point would, at best, indicate that she is obsessed with a delusion. Moreover, her effort to imply that the president’s historical knowledge regarding the policies of former communist dictators vis-a-vis religion somehow demonstrates a concurrence on his part with those policies, only goes to show that she has chosen to abandon reason in presenting her case against Obama’s policies.

]]> By: DCNorthwest http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/04/09/replacing-god/comment-page-1/#comment-77362 DCNorthwest Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:42:36 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=5756#comment-77362 There is definitely a case to be made for environmentalism as religion. But I don’t think the Obama administration is simply substituting environmentalism for Christianity as some sort of ‘new national religion.’ (I’m not sure if that’s what the author is arguing or not). The author grants Obama far too much power. His proposition that “we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” has no prescriptive bearing on whether or not America is, in actuality, a Christian nation. America is a Christian nation if the basis for it’s ‘Christian-ness’ is based on demography. Certainly Jesus is the most popular religious figure in the US, and certainly a majority of US citizens either profess a belief in a Judeo-Christian God, or attend a Christian church, or refuse to elect a Mormon to the presidency, etc. In this sense, America is very much a Christian nation, in spite of what anybody says. Even Obama. America is a secular nation if its founding documents determine its religions (or a-religious) character. The US Constitution is heavily informed by Enlightenment principles in which political legitimacy is rooted in the people - through democracy - as opposed to divine mandate. That is what it means to be a secular nation. I would argue, in this sense, that America is a secular nation since its founding documents are secular. It is correct to use the term ‘Christian’ to describe the character of the nation. But it is not correct to describe America’s political structure as ‘Christian,’ since the documents upon which our political system is based make no reference to Christianity as a definitive component. In a demographic-characteristic sense, America is a Christian nation. It is pluralistic in this sense as well. But in a political-institutional sense, America is not a Christian nation anymore than it is a Jewish or a Catholic nation, even while Christian, Jewish, and Catholic precepts inform our laws and national morality. Obama’s claim that we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, I would argue, is informed by the political-institutional description of the nation, and so is therefore correct. We should remember that God - as a source of political legitimacy - has been outdated since the French Revolution, and the US is founded on the principle of separation of civil and clerical spheres as a result. The Pope has been discredited as a political leader ever since the Reformation in the 16th Century. And all this business about drawing parallels between Pol Pot, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, dictatorship, and Obama indicates a simplistic understanding of what political dictatorships entail. Obama is not a dictator. Bush was not a dictator. It’s a foolish claim that hardly warrants serious consideration. Obama has not asked for our blind faith. If anything, he has significantly raised the bar for the intellectual agility of American Presidents. He is a pragmatic and ideologically flexible statesman. He welcomes debate. Joe Biden is his VP for precisely this reason - to avoid groupthink at the highest levels of political activity. There is definitely a case to be made for environmentalism as religion. But I don’t think the Obama administration is simply substituting environmentalism for Christianity as some sort of ‘new national religion.’ (I’m not sure if that’s what the author is arguing or not).

The author grants Obama far too much power. His proposition that “we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” has no prescriptive bearing on whether or not America is, in actuality, a Christian nation.

America is a Christian nation if the basis for it’s ‘Christian-ness’ is based on demography. Certainly Jesus is the most popular religious figure in the US, and certainly a majority of US citizens either profess a belief in a Judeo-Christian God, or attend a Christian church, or refuse to elect a Mormon to the presidency, etc. In this sense, America is very much a Christian nation, in spite of what anybody says. Even Obama.

America is a secular nation if its founding documents determine its religions (or a-religious) character. The US Constitution is heavily informed by Enlightenment principles in which political legitimacy is rooted in the people – through democracy – as opposed to divine mandate. That is what it means to be a secular nation. I would argue, in this sense, that America is a secular nation since its founding documents are secular.

It is correct to use the term ‘Christian’ to describe the character of the nation. But it is not correct to describe America’s political structure as ‘Christian,’ since the documents upon which our political system is based make no reference to Christianity as a definitive component.

In a demographic-characteristic sense, America is a Christian nation. It is pluralistic in this sense as well. But in a political-institutional sense, America is not a Christian nation anymore than it is a Jewish or a Catholic nation, even while Christian, Jewish, and Catholic precepts inform our laws and national morality.

Obama’s claim that we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, I would argue, is informed by the political-institutional description of the nation, and so is therefore correct.

We should remember that God – as a source of political legitimacy – has been outdated since the French Revolution, and the US is founded on the principle of separation of civil and clerical spheres as a result. The Pope has been discredited as a political leader ever since the Reformation in the 16th Century.

And all this business about drawing parallels between Pol Pot, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, dictatorship, and Obama indicates a simplistic understanding of what political dictatorships entail. Obama is not a dictator. Bush was not a dictator. It’s a foolish claim that hardly warrants serious consideration.

Obama has not asked for our blind faith. If anything, he has significantly raised the bar for the intellectual agility of American Presidents. He is a pragmatic and ideologically flexible statesman. He welcomes debate. Joe Biden is his VP for precisely this reason – to avoid groupthink at the highest levels of political activity.

]]> By: Obama Won ~ God Is Now Passe « Evynn’s Weblog http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/04/09/replacing-god/comment-page-1/#comment-77338 Obama Won ~ God Is Now Passe « Evynn’s Weblog Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:41:53 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=5756#comment-77338 [...] clipped from www.intellectualconservative.com [...] [...] clipped from http://www.intellectualconservative.com [...]

]]>