The Blogging Epic, Part Eight: The Cantina Patrons
Posted by Adam Graham in : Blogging Epic, theContinued from Part Seven:
To find out how this all started, see Part One
Before I begin responding to the mostly rowdy patron’s at Pam’s House Blend, I realized there was one other significant point of Russ’ I didn’t cover. Here it is:
Furthermore, our rights ARE subject to change and amendment, regardless of the existence of God or not. We used to have the right to own slaves, then we didn’t. We used to have the right to drink beer, then that right was taken, then it was given back. Women used to not have the right to vote, but then it was granted. All of this was done by changes and amendments and a Supreme Court that views the Constitution, not the Bible, as the supreme law of the land.
I think what Russ and I have is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights we have. The key point to remember with the left is they make a lot of things “rights” that really aren’t. First of all, there is no right to drink beer. Today, the State of Idaho could ban beer. The 21st Amendment which repealed prohibition says clearly:
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Secondly, when I refer to our rights being from God, I harken back to the Declaration that tells us that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. As such these rights exist whether they are recognized by the state, because they don’t depend on the State’s recognition for them to legitimately be our rights. As Thomas Jefferson said:
Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?
Part of the problem and a real danger with the left is how it creates new rights out of thin air. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights numerous rights are spelled out such as the right to Social Security. (Article 22), the Right to Vacation and Holidays (Article 24), the Right to Education. (Article 26), the right to Participate in the Arts (Article 27), and the right to Personality Development (Article 29). While such things may or may not be things the state should promote, they’re certainly not on par with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What has happened is that through a multiplication of rights, the left has denigrated the term. Its simply a higher legislation.
The founders gave us simple list of rights in the Declaration and told us they were from the Creator. (Life, liberty, and happiness.) and then left the rest to the States and people to deal with throughout our history. The danger of legislating so many rights is that we devalue them, so that in the process of creating new rights, we’ll put them on the same station as those that truly are important and vital to our society.
Now that that’s done, lets move over to the commenters.
Lets start off with Holly from Julien’s List:
Thanks Russ! Please tell Adam that Christian-specific God stuff in public places makes many non-Christians feel as if they’re being raped or poisoned.
I’ll say this as nicely as possible. Many Non-Christians need to get over it. There’s an LDS book section at Wal-Mart, there’s Menorahs on Captiol Hill and many government buildings. The culture is filled with pagan and satanic imagery during the Halloween season. Yet, somehow I manage to survive without filing a single lawsuit and rarely even complain about it. Most of it doesn’t even really bother me.
Russ decided to respond to Holly.
Holly, he won’t get it. Adam takes his Kool-Aid in an IV drip. He can’t see the point because in his mind, his God is the right God and the rest of us are wrong.
Ah, and the left can’t see its wrong because it desperately wants there to be no God or no effective God. They’ve come to save us, you see. With all those special new rights. They’ve even come to save us from ourselves, subverting our Constitution in the name of making our society better and saying the Constitution’s living and growing.
Russ almost grasps a key fact in here, though. The reason we disagree comes down to a fundamental issue of worldviews. Russ views the world through a liberal humanist lense and I through a traditional Christian lense. Thus for either of us to ever change the other’s view on anything, we have to change the way the other person’s view of the world. Thus why I generally don’t engage in these discussions. This one was just too tempting.
I thought I’ve made some great points in this series, but I doubt any of it will pursuade Russ. He’ll either come up with a response or just ignore it.
I believe that the freedom of religion most Evangelicals pay lip service unto just means “okay, we’ll tolerate your heretical beliefs, so long as you recognize ours are superior.”
Talk about persecution complex. Charles Krauthammer (who is Jewish) wrote:
The attempts to de-Christianize Christmas are as absurd as they are relentless. The United States today is the most tolerant and diverse society in history. It celebrates all faiths with an open heart and open-mindedness that, compared to even the most advanced countries in Europe, are unique.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin opposes the War on Christmas and attempts at secularization. He writes
We Jews aren’t chic any longer. Not too many people care for Jews these days. Europe, including England, makes little secret of how it feels towards Jews. If possible, they care even less for Israel. All Moslem countries, more than a billion angry people frequently at one another’s necks, are magically unified over hatred for Jews and resentment over that little patch of sand in the Middle East which Jews turned into a country. Much of Africa and most of Russia feels the same way. Hate the Jews.
It is very challenging for a small group of people to survive with no friends.
But wait! There is one group of people who unconditionally love Jews and the Land of Israel. These people are called Christian conservatives. They are made up of Catholics, and Protestants, Baptists and Lutherans and many others. Although theologies differ widely, they all share a deep conviction that God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai. They all fervently believe that in so doing, God presented humanity with a blueprint for life. Needless to say, these views should be shared by every Jew committed to his faith.
Also for more on this subject see Part Four to see why the fear of theocracy is a very silly one. There’s not enough consensus among Christians as to who the heretics are to begin cordoning off who is and who isn’t.
Oddjob took issue with my attacks on Sweden, pointing out that Sweden had an established church. Indeed, Sweden still has an official church. This would be a case against establishing an offical state church. As this is not my position, its a red herring and is also not a possibility.
The establishment of a church in Great Britain has certainly not done wonders for Britain where the percentage of Brits who attend Church stands around 14%. As a report observes, “Organized religion in the UK has severely declined to the point where it is generally overlooked and ignored.” The Church of England is thus kind of like the royal family, just without the juicy sex scandals.
Odd job went on to suggest that I needed to change my argument:
If Adam is honest with himself, instead of trying to support an imaginary America that never existed, he’ll start from first premises.
As a Fundamentalist Christian (or so I assume him to be), that necessarily means the Bible takes preeminence over everything else. If one sits down and reads it thoroughly and searchingly, sooner or later one realizes that in the entire thing there is no support for any form of government except one:
THEOCRACY.
Well, I don’t agree that the Bible says only theocracy is acceptable, but he hits a point for the leftists. Why instead of claiming that guys who lived 200 hundred years ago thought homosexuals should get married through stretching our Constitution to the point of meaningless in the “Living Constitution” doctrine, why doesn’t the left admits it wants to remake our country in its own image?
One reason: they can’t get the votes. That’s why they rely on the courts.
Russ responds to a libertarian commenter (our buddy Michael) with this:
I agree, Michael. A purely socialist government would be bad for economic freedom. And a purely capitalistic government would be equally bad (history has proven it). That’s why I favor just enough government oversight, regulation, and social safety net to keep corporations honest, sick people tended to, elderly people cared for, poor people fed, schoolchildren educated, and opportunity afforded equally to all, but not so much as to unduly restrict free economic exercise. You know, the kind of system the US had between the New Deal and the Reagan administration, when we became the dominant economic superpower, and you and plenty of others became multimillionaires while more and more people escaped poverty and there was a solid middle class.
So, what does want to go back to? Jimmy Carter and the great Malaise. Lets go ahead and talk about taxes. Before Reagan took office the top marginal tax rate was 70%. Before the Kennedy-Johnson years, it stood at 91%. At the height of the FDR, the top marginal rate was 94%. Does Russ really want to take us back there?
The Prime Rate hit 21.50% during the Carter administration, with high inflation. That’s where Russ wants to go back to. Well, I don’t.
Russ also said later on that its wrong to think that “I think it’s dandy for irresponsible young women to have had eleven first trimester abortions.”
I would love to hear his explanation of why he doesn’t. After all, if its just a woman’s body than what does it matter whether its one or one hundred?
Walt of Wally Whateley’s House of Horrors had this to say:
Having read Adam Graham’s screed, I really don’t think I’d count him as someone I’d want to call a friend. He sounds like one of those Phelpsians who prays for his enemies’ deaths.
I’ve had former “friends” who revealed to me that they thought that way, and I responded correctly, by deleting them from my address book, Christmas card list, and my life.
Nice to know you practice tolerance and understanding. By the way, I’ve actually gotten angry e-mails from a member of the Phelps family.
Well, that’s about it. Thus, in eight parts ends the Blogging Epic. Thanks for reading.











Comment by The Random Yak [Visitor]
Adam – this was an excellent, well written post. Well-considered, nicely done.
You also provided a link that will prove invaluable. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a resource I’d read in the past but forgotten to consult recently. Thank you for correcting that grievous error (and providing material for months to come). I’d wondered what I was going to do after Christmas – thanks for the present.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Thanks, Asia Pundit has a good post on it too.
Comment by "Radical" Russ [Visitor]
Russ also said later on that its wrong to think that “I think it’s dandy for irresponsible young women to have had eleven first trimester abortions.” I would love to hear his explanation of why he doesn’t. After all, if its just a woman’s body than what does it matter whether its one or one hundred?
The difference is in the application of the law vs. the application of my personal opinion. In the eyes of the law, the woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body whether it’s one or a hundred. In my opinion, she should have gotten herself some reliable birth control or a hysterectomy after the first or second abortion if she doesn’t want kids but does want to have sex.
But my distaste over her irresponsibility does not give me license to duct tape her thighs together, nor should it give the state license to force her to bear a child.
Comment by Michael [Visitor]
wow , I have been trying to responde to Russ but it won’t take my response.
Grrrrr
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Michael, I don’t see the need to point anything out in her defense as I quoted her entirely. To be fair, later on the post she complimented my kilt.
Comment by Michael [Visitor]
Yes, but I wondered if you missed her point based on what you said in reply.
Keep in mind that these people know you largely by comments made about you by Russ. Some of his dry humor might be lost in the translation.
Russ decided to respond to Holly.
Holly, he won’t get it. Adam takes his Kool-Aid in an IV drip. He can’t see the point because in his mind, his God is the right God and the rest of us are wrong.
By the way, be sure to disinfect the area where you apply that iv drip. You don’t want to get an infection.
Comment by Marla Jefferson Randolph Stevens [Visitor]
You’ve misinterpreted my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather’s intent in the Declaration because you don’t embrace the Enlightenment’s idea of God. Until you do, you can never properly interpret the Declaration, understand the penumbral rights, nor comprehend the Constitution — particularly the Bill of Rights. Sad.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Care to elaborate on the “enlightment’s idea of God?”, Marla.
Comment by Michael [Visitor]
“Well, aside from personally insulting me, you’re wrong. The former is a fault of discipline, the latter is a lack of knowledge, and there is no correlation or causation between the two.”
.
First off stop making silly comments. I was not attempting to insult you.
Because you clearly do not understand the economic systems and how they work, you cannot make an informed opinion on more complicated matters. You need the foundation first. That is not an insult. It is a fact
You need to be able to handle the economic machinations of a small business (personal finances) before you can handle a medium size business. It would follow that you would need to graduate before tackling a large business or several ventures at the same time.
Certainly there are some people who understand all these factors but cannot put them into practice. For them it is a matter of discipline rather than knowledge. If this is the case than you would be able to handle your checkbook but still not be able to handle the US economy until you have a better understanding of economics.
Now that leaves me with only one incorrect assumption, that being that you cant balance your check book because you lack the necessary understanding of how to do so. Am I to be blamed for assuming you should have the discipline by now?
This comes back to my basic problem with you. You lack the ability to look at yourself honestly. Here is how I based my comment.
In a previous thread I stated that the new bankruptcy laws were a positive move. You countered this and particularly ridiculed the idea of forcing people to take a course on money. You gave me all the reasons why people are forced into bankruptcy. NOT ONE REASON YOU GAVE had to do with a lack of discipline. You made plenty of excuses and blamed most bankruptcies (as well as your own) on unexpected medical emergencies. The closer truth is that people cause their own financial problems and thus need help understanding that fact so that they won’t keep repeating the same mistake over and over again. I noted from earlier comments that you continue to make poor decisions on economic matters. The car you couldn’t afford for instance. So if I was led to believe that you lacked the knowledge rather than the discipline that was your own fault.
Now I will be brutally honest. You are in denial. you just can’t help making stupid decisions because you lack discipline? You looked at a car purchase and made it despite clearly knowing it was a bad choice????? Sit that ass down and think!
Comment by Michael [Visitor]
Albert Einstein was said to be awful at basic arithmetic, but he understood the universe on a mathematical scale. I successfully run an IT network of 380 desktops and 20 servers for a major corporation, but my own home PC is a virus-infected half-dead piece of junk. Some doctors smoke cigarettes, doesn’t mean they don’t understand the pulmonary system.
russ
Yea but that doctor understands the requisite facts regarding the human anatomy. You damn well better be able to handle that home PC if you are working on all those desk tops and servers.
What is the PC you own? Operating system? Ram? hard drive ? disk drives etc.?
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Well, in Russ’ defense, when I think about it you’re talking about two different areas with personal finance and macroeconomics. The second is a matter of theory, the first a matter of personal practice.
Now, Russ’ personal handling of his finances should rightly disqualify him from running for Congress (because then your point is very valid), however not from making broader arguments about the US economy.
In addition, not every doctor is a wise doctor in the way he handles things personally. Many doctors, for example, still smoke despite what medical journals have to say. In addition, when I was working in tech. support, some tech. agents didn’t even have a home computer.
Regardless, I prefer good arguments to bad ones. Russ is not wrong on ecomics because he’s made poor economic decisions, he’s wrong because he’s wrong and explaining the flaws in his theories is going to more productive than explaining the flaws in his own financial management.
Comment by Michael [Visitor]
Well, in Russ’ defense, when I think about it you’re talking about two different areas with personal finance and macroeconomics. The second is a matter of theory, the first a matter of personal practice.
Adam
Adam . This is the definition of Macroeconomics:
Macroeconomics is the economics sub-field of study that considers aggregate behavior, i.e., the study of the sum of individual economic decisions.
A person needs to understand fundamentals individual economics before he can graduate to Macroeconomic theory in the same way one needs to grasp introductory Spanish before moving on to advanced Spanish. Russ has proven to be lacking when discussing various economic theories as previously noted. ( mixing Feudalism and capitalism to name just one example) Therefor I concluded that Russ simply lacks the base knowledge to handle either his financial affairs or to offer a valid opinion on more complicated economic issues.
That is a perfectly valid and fair argument.
Comment by Michael [Visitor]
Keep in mind when you debate that you assume the person you are addressing is logical and acting in his own best interest. I assume if Russ knows how to handle finances he will put that knowledge to work properly.
Sure there could be some over riding factor such as addiction (in the case of the doctor who smokes),mental illness, or lack of discipline which causes a person to disregard what he knows. But is a separate issue distinct from the argument we are having. I can’t be expect to know every persons personal failings.
As I noted, he specifically stated in another thread that he did not need a class to help him avoid making the same mistakes which caused his previous bankruptcy. He categorically stated that he was not to blame and that his financial dilemma was the result of an unforeseen medical emergency.
If Russell’s problem is simply a matter of discipline he should still be able to speak confidently about personal finances. In much the same way the doctor who smokes can have a perfectly valid opinion on the causes of lung cancer.
But from what I have read from Russell’s statements I conclude he lacks the requisite knowledge to run his affairs properly. Also he has a problem which exacerbates the issue. He needs to address both or he will be doomed to repeat his failure. When I do my blog I am going to include the information he needs to know regarding personal finance and macroeconomics. I will teach an easy to understand course. Anyone reading will quickly and easily be able to discuss such matters with confidence. The issue he has with discipline is a separate matter. It also will effect other aspects of his life negatively. But that is for a therapist. Although I am well versed on such issues I do not have the demeanor to deal with them.