What would make someone "deplorable"?

Written August 22, 2017 in Facebook

A lot of people take exception to candidate Hillary Clinton's description of many of the so-called President's supporters are "deplorable." As a political tactic, it was a mistake. As far as accuracy, I present the following.

In Alabama, two Republicans are fighting for the nomination to run for the U.S. Senate, and since this is a very "red" state, the winner of the nomination is very likely to win the election. What is interesting is that BOTH candidates are ardent supporters of the so-called President. THEY ARE ARGUING BETWEEN EACH OTHER ABOUT WHO SUPPORTS THE PRESIDENT THE MOST. The candidate that the so-called President did NOT endorse, Roy Moore, however, is something akin to the American Taliban, and the Taliban are almost, but not quite, owed an apology for this comparison. Yet, the American pseudo Talibaner is ahead in the polls.

Why? He appeals to the most "deplorable" instincts in Alabama's Republican voters apparently. Is this right?

From Huffington Post: "In February, several months after being suspended from court for defying federal orders on same-sex marriage, Moore appeared on the radio show of a pastor who has claimed the Bible calls for the death penalty for gay people. He’d appeared on pastor Kevin Swanson’s program several times over the years, and there was a clear affinity between the men who believe they are two lone crusaders for Christ. Moore lamented to Swanson: “Our problem today is we’re denying that there is even a God or that he has sovereignty over our country.”

When the pastor asked him: “What does one do when God’s laws conflict with man’s laws?” Moore responded, “God’s laws are always superior to man’s laws.” It’s an extreme view that would put an elected judge far outside the bounds of the legal mainstream: The U.S. government relies on its judicial branch to maintain checks and balances and uphold the law of the land. But, for Moore, there’s no contradiction. The Vietnam veteran and lifelong Christian holds the view that the U.S. Constitution is a kind of extension of the Bible, and that the Founding Fathers intended their America to be a Christian nation."

Here is a tidbit about a section of the American public: "23 percent of Americans still think that same-sex relationships should be illegal..." (Gallup polls) http://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/.-.-rights.aspx#!mn-topics . Would these be more likely Clinton supporters or the supporters of the so-called President.

To get more specific, here are some facts about Alabama: " Public Policy Polling (PPP) revealed... that 21 percent of likely GOP voters polled in Alabama believe that interracial marriage should be illegal."

Alabama Republican voters also thought Obama was a Muslim (45%); and evolution is fake (60%). (2012) https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf

American Taliban. Supporter of the President. Leading in the polls for the Republican Alabama Senate nomination. If he is elected, would those voting for him be "deplorable"?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-moore-religion_us_59c2bd8be4b063b2531781a2?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

A Newsday article covered the slaughter of Coptic Christians in Egypt that left dozens dead.  Muslim extremists took credit for the killings.  Go to http://www.newsday.com/long-island/killings-shock-long-island-s-coptic-christians-1.13669730

The article features a brief interview with a Coptic Christian couple on Long Island who were understandably upset with the massacres.  To quote from Newsday, "Still, they did not blame Muslims in general. “It’s not a question of religion,” Nabil Awad said. “It’s a question of terrorists. Some people put in their heads that this is the way you are going to heaven, if you kill a Coptic Christian.”

It is admirable that they obviously do not blame Muslims in general - they should not and they do not.  But to absolve the concept of religion is incredible.  The murders were precisely all about religion - it is the religion that inspired the terrorists to perpetrate the terrorism.  As Mr. Awad said, "Some people put in their heads that this is the way you are going to heaven, if you kill a Coptic Christian.”"

This is not socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, conservatism, anarchism, liberalism, communism or fascism or any secular ideology at work; it is a fundamentalist religious ideology at work, the religion of the followers of ISIS or Al Qaeda.

It is incredible but typical that many religious persons will deny the completely religious motivation of religious terrorists in an effort to absolve the concept of religious belief from any blame - but they are just in denial.  Holding a belief beyond question, holding a belief that is at complete odds with the evidence and holding a belief no matter how much misery it continues to create is the exact problem and it is the problem we continue to refuse to acknowledge.

What are they worried about?  Religion or some ideology is not a person; religion does not have feelings; it does not even have rights - people have rights.  Yes people have rights to believe what they choose to BELIEVE but they do not have the right to DO anything they want.  You should be able to say the obvious truth about a religion, that is part of the right of religious freedom - and who is harmed by your opinion?  Well, there is an answer to that question; the person who has their "feelings" harmed is the person that has placed their religion or the very concept of religion beyond question, and cannot objectively judge the value of religion by its consequences - even when dozens of innocent people are killed because of it.  There should be and there is no right to never having your feelings harmed.

Until it is generally admitted by most of humanity that evidence matters, that everything can be questioned, even one's faith and the faith of others, and that what really matters are the consequences of our actions and beliefs, we will not have a winning argument against those who have a deep faith in their murderous ideologies.

The Terror in Orlando: Is Something Good Because God Says So?

It is perhaps the central philosophical/theological question of all: Is Something Good Because God Says So?  Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?

What do YOU believe?

The perpetrator (I will not repeat his name here) of the horrific killings in Orlando, Florida earlier today, June 12, 2016, probably believed the following; that gays were an abomination and that God (the one that he believed in, not the one YOU might believe in) endorsed the killing of gays and their sympathizers.

From the Koran (7:80 - 7:84) "And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty."

The "rain" referred to above is probably something like "brimstone" which would lead to the death or "the end of the guilty."

This is not much different than the following from the Old Testament which is actually more clear in  its viciousness: (Leviticus 20:13, New International Version) "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

One would think that since the source of belief in the Christian God and the Muslim God (and Jewish God) are the Holy Books quoted above, that opposition to homosexuality would be common among Christian and Muslims.   One would be correct in thinking that.  It is only very recently in the history of Christian society that homosexuality has approached majority acceptance and indeed not nearly all American or other Christians are on board with that opinion just yet.  Ted Cruz was infamously endorsed for President by a Pastor this year who prefaced his endorsement with his reminder that homosexuals should be executed according to his infallible Bible.  Ted was pleased with the endorsement.  (Go to "Why Is the Media Ignoring Ted Cruz’s Embrace of ‘Kill the Gays’ Pastor?"" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/post_10496_b_8544540.html .)

So I ask you again; what do YOU believe?  Is Something Good Because God Says So?  Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?

Of course I can hear you objecting by saying that the "True God" would NEVER tell you to do something that is wrong.  The problem is that the perpetrator of the horror in Orlando would agree.  Yes, ISIS would agree.  Bin Laden would have agreed.  ALL the terrorist fanatics would agree.  That is the problem - if God says to do it, it becomes the RIGHT thing to do.  It becomes the thing you MUST do.  This argument is of no use.

This leaves basically the final feeble argument against where we are inevitably heading; the objection that the perpetrator did not believe in the one "True God."  His God was a "false" God and the answer/solution is to believe in the "True God."

What is a "false" God?  Answer:  Basically a "false" God is what  the other guy believes in.  What you believe in is the "True God."  And what your "True God" says to do is, of course, "good."

And, of course, the perpetrator believed he worshiped the one and only "True God."  That was his opinion and your opinion is no more than that - an opinion.  As much as you'd like to transform your opinion on the  nature of the "True God" into a fact, you cannot do it anymore than the perpetrator could do it.  At the very best all you can do is present the evidence for the one "True God" and test your conclusion.

Unfortunately even believers often admit that their God cannot be tested.  The Book of Job reminds us "who are we to question God?"  The evidence for which God is the "True God" is not evidence at all; instead belief in the "True God" is built upon faith - and faith is supposedly a gift from very the same True God whom we are trying to test and by no definition of the word can "faith" be considered reasonable evidence.  Furthermore I have never heard a rational process for determining which faith is a "True  Faith" and which faith is not.  To claim that there are many contrary "True Faiths" is to accept that sometimes 2 = 3.  Is a God that is Jesus the same as a God that is not Jesus?

Is your faith the "True Faith"?  Is your Holy Book the "True Holy Book"?  Is your God the one "True God."  For all of these questions the perpetrator of this act of terror and all other religiously inspired acts of terror, would  answer "yes".  These fallible humans all elevate their fallible opinions to indisputable facts.  Conversely, reasonable persons understand that the "facts" they believe are true are conditional and probable - not certain and taken on faith.  Reasonable persons use evidence, logic, and science and accept that "facts" can be tested and subject to disproof.

Those who instead rely on faith for determining their absolute truths all uniformly and conveniently claim that reason, evidence and science cannot answer the deepest questions of human existence while implying that their personal opinions CAN answer them in an absolute manner.  This certainty on the part of the faithful in knowing the Truth is seen as a virtue by them as opposed to the incredible danger and arrogance it actually presents.  The scientific viewpoint is uncertain, conditional, testable and ultimately far more  humble.

If you have managed to read this to this point, I will ask one final time: Is Something Good Because God Says So?  Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?

Explaining Donald Trump and Why Most Media Outets Will Not Do This

Why is Donald Trump leading in the polls for the Republican race for the presidential nomination?  Is it his focus on brilliant solutions to our most pressing problems?  Is it his personal demeanor which gives his supporters the confidence that he has the temperament to be the leader of the free world?

Nahh!

It's because his supporters are mostly birthers who believe that President Obama is a secret Muslim.

In other words his supporters support Trump because they identify with his outspoken ignorance, his inability to admit mistakes and his trait of speaking in very angry ego-maniacal tones.  These supporters gravitate towards people who are certain even if they're certainly wrong.  For many, certainty is a virtue while doubt is a vice.

Now here is something that certainly will not bother Trump supporters although it may interest others; the evidence for the above conclusions.  A poll from the Public Policy Polling group on 9/3/15 asked some very good and timely questions.  Go to 

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/trump-supporters-think-obama-is-a-muslim-born-in-another-country.html .

66% of Trump supporters believe that Obama is a Muslim.  Only 12% believe he is a Christian.  Yup, Obama is one of them gay-loving liberal Muslim jihadists!  Only 21% of Trump supporters believe Obama was born in the United States while at the same time 40% of them actively believe that Sen. Ted Cruz WAS born in the U.N. (Cruz was born in Canada.)

Check that out - birthers were totally aghast that Obama became President since he was a Muslim foreigner while ignoring the undisputed fact that Ted Cruz was indeed born abroad and is only a natural born citizen by virtue of the fact that his mother was born in the U.S., which would also be true of Obama (if indeed he was born in Kenya) since no one argues that Obama's mother was born anywhere but in Kansas!

So why will the Media ignore the above?  Why do they almost never mention the fact that Trump, for a while, was birther #1?  The answer is simple; because to point this out would be to insult the intelligence and sanity of most of his supporters and perhaps a majority of Republicans, which is a large portion of the Media's audience/customers.  Please keep in mind that this does not mean ALL Republicans are willfully ignorant and of dubious sanity - John McCain certainly does not fall into this camp, for example.  Oh yeah, is it any coincidence that Trump turned on McCain much to the delight of Trump's supporters?  I guess that is the price John McCain has to pay for not being totally ignorant or insane.

Democracy and Ignorance

A Harris Interactive Poll just released is frightening and sobering, which is truly an understatement. The Poll reveals that large portions of the American voting public have little grasp of some pretty unchallenged facts while holding some delusional opinions, to put it mildly.

The Poll asked some hot-wire questions: "... here are some things people have said about President Obama. Please indicate for each whether you believe it is true or false." You can find all the questions and a breakdown of the responses by political affiliation and education here: http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777

It apparently is pointless to prove how nuts some of these beliefs are since they have been proven false many times over, but since these beliefs are easily disputed, here we go again.

The Obama is a foreigner, Muslim, not legally president stuff which can be shown to be objectively false has been well covered at Snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp and http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp.

The other items in the poll are, more or less, opinions. Is Obama a racist, Wall Street catering socialist(!) who wants to take our guns and who wants the terrorists to win?

Take the craziest of the above ideas: let's say that Obama "wants the terrorists to win" is the craziest idea; why on earth would he want this? What possible motive could a US president have in wanting terrorists to win against his own country?

Could it be that Obama is a Muslim and, of course, all Muslims want the terrorists to win? This is simply another certifiably nutty idea besides being totally untrue in its depiction of Obama as a Muslim. In fact, I would bet that the majority of those who believe that Obama is a Muslim think that being a Muslim means being a member of a race, such as Caucasian, or that it's a nationality, such as Canadian. It is just ignorance, stupidity and arrogance.

Add to this nonsense the impossible to ignore real world escalation of American efforts by the Obama administration in Afghanistan to FIGHT THE TERRORISTS, then it becomes simply undeniable that this opinion is just crazy.

Yet 23% of Republicans believe that Obama wants the terrorists to win! 57% of Republicans, versus 15% of Democrats think Obama is a Muslim! In my humble opinion, it is obviously fine to take issue with many of Obama's policies. However to believe that Barack Obama (or George W Bush before him) wants bad things to happen to the country is idiotic. It is possible that presidential policies can lead to American misery, and they have, but even W did not ruin our country on purpose!

But the cherry on top of American and particularly right-wing insanity is the belief of 24% of Republicans and conservatives that Obama may be the anti-Christ. This indicates a belief that there actually could be an anti-Christ, which is crazy enough, but it also supports a belief that, conveniently, their current political opponent is equivalent to the greatest evil of all time. What could be more evil than the anti-Christ?

I'm sure that this kind of idiocy is not confined to the right wing; many left wingers shared extreme beliefs about President Bush and his administration, including the nonsense that he somehow allowed or planned the 9/11 attacks as opposed to merely being incompetent or ignorant. But it would seem that the left wing nuttiness was truly confined to the extremes. 24% of Republicans believe that Obama is the anti-Christ and 57% think he's a Muslim and 45% think he's not legally the president. This is no fringe movement - if this Harris Poll is accurate (it would be good to review their methodology which was not perfect but may not have affected the results) insanity is now a component of mainstream Republicanism.

Where is this all coming from? What is the cause of the outright rejection of obvious facts or the formulation of ridiculous and illogical conclusions?

Could it be the mainstream and acceptable indoctrination of the average person into believing the planet is about 6,000 years old, that the universe is governed by an invisible man somewhere up in the sky and that death is not the end for us.

Maybe this indoctrination works not only to get us to believe the impossible, but to disbelieve the obvious.