Monday, March 18, AD 2024 9:29pm

Are You A Racist?

obamaflowchart21

Hattip to Powerline.  Jimmy Carter, incredibly enough one time President of the United States, believes a good portion of the opposition to Obama is racist.  Hmmm.  With Mr. Carter’s record on race, one could suspect that he might have a passing familiarity with racism.  The Obama administration quickly indicated that President Obama does not agree with his predecessor.  However, moogrogue at Missourah.com thoughtfully put together the above chart so that we may determine if we are racists according to the view enunciated by President 39.  Too bad Billy Carter is deceased and can’t be questioned about his elder brother’s statement.  I am sure it would be quotable and colorful as was this observation about his family: 
“My mother went into the Peace Corps when she was sixty-eight. My one sister is a motorcycle freak, my other sister is a Holy Roller evangelist and my brother is running for president. I’m the only sane one in the family.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
101 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 8:37am

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 8:42am

Well, if you have to rant that you aren’t a racist, it probably means you are. It’s like not trusting the guy that has to say trust me. If he has to plead to be trusted that says it all doesn’t it??

You probably think Fox news is ‘fair and balanced’ too right??

Andy
Andy
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 8:54am

Joe,

Yeah, there’s nothing like declaring innocence that proves guilt, right? Give me a break.

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 8:58am

Well, if you declare your innocence when directly questioned, then yes, you are right. But if you offer a defense to something WITHOUT being accused, that says something.

And yes many times declaring innocence is a way to hide the truth.

“i did not have sexual relations with that women”

“saddam hussein has a stockpile of WMD.”

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 8:59am

One million wrong people don’t make it right.

Does that mean islam is the #1 religion because there are more of them than any other religion??

Jay Anderson
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 9:11am

Methinks Joe is entitled to a refund on that “formal education” he was bragging about earlier.

Did he really get “formally educated”?? I’m starting to think he isn’t “formally educated”, or at least with a “formal education” I wouldn’t pay for.

/paraphrase

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 9:19am

Joe,

You can add to your list “Abortion will not be covered in the Health Care bill.”

Joe Hargrave
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 9:24am

Unbelievable.

Are you guys going to let this troll hijack every discussion?

As for myself, following the chart above, I made it all the way to the very last “RACIST!”

paul zummo
Admin
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 9:26am

Hoe (the troll, not Hargrave):

When did you stop beating your wife?

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 10:17am

It’s scary that they only reason all of you don’t murder and rape people is because of the spaghetti monster in the sky. Enlightened people don’t need to be threatened to know how to behave morally.

It’s also deliciously ironic to get you guys to act very unchristian towards me.

Your jesus must be proud.

Go ahead and ban me. Censorship. That’s how religion deals with differing opinions so I suspect nothing less.

Chris M
Chris M
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 11:11am

Joe,

We’ve heard all this trope before. It’s old hat. At least be original if you’re going to come onto someone else’s blog and make an ass of yourself.

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 11:11am

Well now, there’s an intelligent argument. You must have seen “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs” this weekend.

Jay Anderson
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 11:12am

I knew it was only a matter of time before Joe misapplied our own standards against us. Standards, I might add, to which he refuses to hold himself.

LOL!

Only slightly arrogant, I suppose, to think that you get to set such terms of debate for yourself.

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 11:18am

Christians, like all humans, only have standards when it suits them.

That’s what ‘sinning’ is. Dropping your standards momentarily for personal gain or survival, and NO ONE on this blog can honestly say they’ve never done that.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 11:24am

“It’s scary that they only reason all of you don’t murder and rape people is because of the spaghetti monster in the sky.”

It’s actually more sad to me, than it is scary to you, that you have absolutely no rational basis for any good thing you do.

I presume that you typically only believe in things that have evidence to support them.

There is no scientific evidence for good or evil. You have belief without scientific evidence. You have faith.

The only difference between us is that we acknowledge it and embrace it within a logically consistent framework, whereas you deny it. You live in a contradiction. One day, if you are honest with yourself, if you are humble enough to admit that you don’t know all there is to know, you will realize that.

Philosophy 101, my fellow Joe – you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”. In a random universe, rape and murder are just rape and murder. That we find such an idea appalling and unbearable suggests that we are designed/evolved to strive for moral truth, which cannot exist without God. God is the logical conclusion of all of the striving, hopes, and desires of humanity.

DarwinCatholic
Reply to  Jay Anderson
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 11:28am

Folks,

Look, I agree our visiting atheist here is just spouting off, but either ignore it or take the time to be substantive on it. Responding at the low level that he’s taking just takes up space and does little to actually answer the objections of unbelievers. (I don’t think you’re required to take up lots of time answering him, because I doubt he’s really inquiring at the moment, but there’s not much point in just sniping back.)

JoeFromQC,

Enlightened people don’t need to be threatened to know how to behave morally.

No one needs to be threatened in order to behave morally, and I think any serious reading of the moral theology of Christianity will show you that this is not what Christian moral thinking consists of. However, it is actually rather difficult to come up with any clear understanding of what is “moral” without admitting the existence of any sort of absolute. Behavioralists come up with various “we instinctually see certain actions as good because they’re good for the species” but these don’t actually provide us with morality in the sense that humans naturally desire it in that they don’t provide absolute guidance. It’s easy to explain biologically why we can’t have people consistently killing and raping their neighbors, but it’s actually advantageous to do so occasionally and in certain circumstances from a biological point of view. However, as humans we have a fairly innate sense that moral laws ought to be absolute — that rape is actually _wrong_, not just a bad idea most of the time.

And that’s before you even get into where it’s even possible to assert free will from a materialist point of view. If you hold that we are no more than our physical selves, then it’s hard to say whether people actually have any more responsibility for their actions then other animals do. In which case talking about doing “wrong” is rather fuzzy.

So before lashing out at religious people as if they are fools when it comes to addressing moral questions, it might be a good idea to sit down and consider the internal tensions of your own professed position. They’re certainly not less.

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 11:39am

>>>It’s actually more sad to me, than it is scary to you, that you have absolutely no rational basis for any good thing you do.

No, you have it wrong. I do good things FOR rational reasons. I like the people I’m helping, I want my neighborhood to be nice, etc.. Those are RATIONAL reasons to do good.

Believing you’re going to be eternally punished by an unconditionally loving god for not being good is IRRATIONAL.

>>>I presume that you typically only believe in things that have evidence to support them.

Presuming is like ASSuming buddy. That’s the problem. Belief and evidence are contradictory statements. To have faith or believe in something means you hold truth to be counter to the evidence provided.

>>>There is no scientific evidence for good or evil. You have belief without scientific evidence. You have faith.

That is just not true. There is no FAITH that convinces me Mr.Garrido is evil. If you need ‘faith’ to tell you that kidnapping an 11 year old and fathering 2 children with her is evil, you have serious problems you should go seek help for.

>>>One day, if you are honest with yourself, if you are humble enough to admit that you don’t know all there is to know, you will realize that.

HA!!! Well once you quit playing high and mighty maybe YOU will see the truth. I’ve never stated that I know all there is to know. That’s your team that does that.

>>>Philosophy 101, my fellow Joe – you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”. In a random universe, rape and murder are just rape and murder. That we find such an idea appalling and unbearable suggests that we are designed/evolved to strive for moral truth, which cannot exist without God. God is the logical conclusion of all of the striving, hopes, and desires of humanity.

No, what makes us feel those emotions is OUR EVOLVED BRAIN. There are still tribes of people who have NEVER heard a word of the bible and have all those human qualities. Get over yourselves.

e.
e.
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 11:55am

This post reminds me of last year’s round of remarkable logic (or, rather, reprehensible fallacy):

If you don’t vote Obama, you’re racist!

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:01pm

Where to begin. Let’s start with faith. Faith is believing in what is revealed to us by another but not seen by myself directly. The Church would certainly agree with you that if there is empirical evidence then faith cannot contradict that.

What you would seem to be referring to would be faith in God as you yourself have faith in may things – science for one. But belief in God is something that is apparent from reason alone and does not need faith. For example Aristotle held that there was the unmoved mover (God) apart from any religious claims. See his argument here:

http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.com/ontological/aristotleontological.htm

Now this argument again is from pure reason. Thus for Aristotle the existence of God was given from reason.

Now as for the personal God of faith and of Jesus, that becomes an argument from Revelation and the reliability of witnesses to Jesus’ life and resurrection. This does require a level of belief as I did not see him rise personally from the dead. Much as you take as articles of faith a number of scientific propositions as you did not prove them yourself.

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:02pm

Not voting for Obama doesn’t make you racist.

But needing to repeat your non racism ad nauseum makes people wonder.

If I went to the corner with a sign that said ‘I am not a sexual offender’ every day, pretty soon SOMEONE would rightfully get worried and check my background.

The more you rail against something the more you are trying to hide something about yourself.

e.
e.
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:05pm

No, you have it wrong. I do good things FOR rational reasons. I like the people I’m helping, I want my neighborhood to be nice, etc.. Those are RATIONAL reasons to do good.

How is helping people you like, wanting your neighborhood to be “nice”, etc., all “rational” reasons to do good?

Sorry, but your rather conspicuous petitio principii leaves all wanting.

Believing you’re going to be eternally punished by an unconditionally loving god for not being good is IRRATIONAL.

Eternally punished by an unconditionally loving god for not being good is irrational?

If you’re going to use our religion against us, you might as well get it right: it is not our “GOD” who punishes us; it is we who deliberately choose against Him and, thus, by choice we opt for an eternal life absent of Him.

No, what makes us feel those emotions is OUR EVOLVED BRAIN.

I’m certain that its complex neuronal architecture is surely evidence that no such God exists and that everything man does is merely the result of haphazard neuronal firing having no actual teleological end whatsoever.

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:06pm

Phillip – Do you see how you have to bend over backwards to defend your position? Science is NOT an absolute belief. Science is adaptable. What is scientific truth today, may turn out to be something more or less depending on what we uncover in the future. Religion is the opposite. You HAVE to believe things AS THEY ARE. No matter how much is discovered you must still believe. Lemmings I tell you. Lemmings.

e.
e.
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:09pm

But needing to repeat your non racism ad nauseum makes people wonder.

Repeating non racism?

It’s “repeating non racism” to simply point out the logical flaw in the liberal’s libel: “If you don’t vote Obama, you’re racist”?

Clearly, you are the epitome of illogic; I’ll grant you that.

e.
e.
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:12pm

Science is NOT an absolute belief. Science is adaptable. What is scientific truth today, may turn out to be something more or less depending on what we uncover in the future. Religion is the opposite. You HAVE to believe things AS THEY ARE. No matter how much is discovered you must still believe. Lemmings I tell you. Lemmings.

Are you actually saying that Science does not require the same “belief” and “faith” as does religion?

Kindly produce for me a quanta so that I need not have simply “belief” or even “faith” in its existence; then, I shall have proof that what you say here is true!

My, oh my, you are worse than a lemming, as your lurid imbecility in these series of comments demonstrates.

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:13pm

>>>Actually Joe we had a lab experiment running in the last century in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Mao’s China as to what would happen when people forsook morality based upon God and embraced morality based upon human precepts. The results were not pretty to say the least. Without God morality is merely a matter of opinon and superior force to impose those opinions.

Well, if things like burning heretics at the stake, and the spanish inquisition, and the church allowing the holocaust to happen weren’t in the church’s past, you’d have a point. But…….

Not to mention you’re wrong about hitler. He fought against the ‘godless communism’ and considered himself religious, and believed ‘god’ was an active deity that supported the Aryan race.

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:13pm

Joe,

No. Again, it is rational to know that God exists. You can read Aristotle’s argument if you wish.

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:15pm

Aww, isn’t that precious. E thinks he’s smart… LOL

No one has said all of it is based on racism. But things like a poster that says Obama 08 with a picture of curious george on it. That is racist. You are fools if you think none of this is based on race.

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:20pm

It is never rational to believe in something that there is zero evidence for.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:24pm

Oh Joe.

“Belief and evidence are contradictory statements. To have faith or believe in something means you hold truth to be counter to the evidence provided.”

Belief is just another way of saying “hold to be true”. You are splitting hairs.

Also, why can’t faith or belief be held in the absence of empirical evidence? When you say “contrary to the evidence”, you are asserting that we’ve looked at evidence and rejected it. But the Christian faith has done no such thing; there is no material process or phenomenon that is not fully incorporated into a Christian worldview.

Rather, it is those aspects of life that materialism and the scientific method alone cannot explain – starting with the conditions for the existence of good and evil as objective categories independent of the human mind – that are completely rejected by the militant atheist.

But let us get to the very important thing.

I said:

“There is no scientific evidence for good or evil. You have belief without scientific evidence. You have faith.”

You replied:

“That is just not true. There is no FAITH that convinces me Mr.Garrido is evil.”

Then, what, I ask, does convince you? Personal feelings? Subjective experience? Why, these sound like the sort of things that believers have used to justify their belief in God for centuries. Not a very rigorous application of the scientific method there, is it? And yet there is a truth there all the same.

You’re trying to take the hard things in life – evils such as rape and murder, and our response to them as humans – and place them in a box that is “off limits” to rational inquiry and objective analysis. You declare that anyone who wants to explore them is sick and warped.

That’s not very scientific. It sounds like a nervous evasion.

“If you need ‘faith’ to tell you that kidnapping an 11 year old and fathering 2 children with her is evil, you have serious problems you should go seek help for.”

This is the ad homoniem that many atheists resort to when they cannot come up with a rational explanation for their beliefs.

You believe our default mode of existence is to accept and believe things without any scientific evidence to support them. I would say that that is exactly what religious people have always believed about man. Your faith stops with your morality; ours stops with the only possible condition for the existence of good and evil outside of our minds.

You declare this act to evil on the basis of no evidence. You have faith that it is evil.

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:26pm

The belief in the empirical is an act of faith. That’s part of your Scientism.

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:27pm

That should read “the belief in the empirical only…”

e.
e.
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:27pm

Apparently, a guy who thinks “If you vote Obama, you’re racist” is logical and possess such eloquence as to employ “LOL” is clearly clever.

Too bad it speaks more as concerning his incorrigible stupidity than anything else.

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:28pm

>>>Then, what, I ask, does convince you? Personal feelings? Subjective experience? Why, these sound like the sort of things that believers have used to justify their belief in God for centuries. Not a very rigorous application of the scientific method there, is it? And yet there is a truth there all the same.

No there isn’t. You saying something is true does not make it so. What convinces me that it is wrong?

Morality. You do not need faith to have morality.

If you need faith to tell you a middle age man kidnapping and fathering children with an underage girl is wrong, you need serious help. Like right now. Call a doctor.. Oh wait, just ask ‘god’ to heal you.. LOL

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:31pm

>>>Apparently, a guy who thinks “If you vote Obama, you’re racist” is logical and possess such eloquence as to employ “LOL” is clearly clever.

I never said those things. Typical. I can’t debate what he’s talking about so I’ll make stuff up.

>>>Too bad it speaks more as concerning his incorrigible stupidity than anything else.

Aww, how christian of you. Not really loving your enemy are you??

e.
e.
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:32pm

It is never rational to believe in something that there is zero evidence for.

Really, Joe?

Then, there goes most of the scientific theories that we simply take for granted.

e.
e.
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:34pm

“Morality. You do not need faith to have morality.”

Please provide proof that ‘morality’ is necessary or that it is even ‘rational’.

(Not that I deem you capable of even performing such a feat or that you are sufficiently intelligent to detect exactly the point of the inquiry.)

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:35pm

No, that’s not true. There is no scientific theory that hasn’t been tested. Newton didn’t just write “there is a law of gravity” He studied it, and found out the rate, and realized it was CONSTANT.

Religion says take this as truth but don’t question or test it.

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:36pm

>>(Not that I deem you capable of even performing such a feat or that you are sufficiently intelligent to detect exactly the point of the inquiry.)

Spoken like a true christian. Kudos to you sir.

TomSVDP
TomSVDP
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:38pm

JoeQC said: “Well, if things like burning heretics at the stake, and the spanish inquisition, and the church allowing the holocaust to happen weren’t in the church’s past, you’d have a point. But…….”

This is really, really digging back into the past though, if one is talking about the Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials. To stand back, talking of things 500 years ago really seems to dilute the point.

JoeQC sadly, must have been let down with his concept of the divine or religion. That is what I think.

e.
e.
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:38pm

“I never said those things. Typical. I can’t debate what he’s talking about so I’ll make stuff up.”

And we never posted up any such Obama poster with Curious George on it. So, perhaps it is you who should quit “making stuff up”.

“Awww, how Christian of you.”

I can’t help it if you’re yet another stupid modern-day Galatian incapable of grasping logic.

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:41pm

>>>I can’t help it if you’re yet another stupid modern-day Galatian incapable of grasping logic.

You serve your master well.

e.
e.
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:44pm

“You serve your master well.”

Thank you — so did St. Paul who said something similar!

JoeFromQC
JoeFromQC
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:44pm

>>This is really, really digging back into the past though, if one is talking about the Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials. To stand back, talking of things 500 years ago really seems to dilute the point.

So let me get this straight. The horrors of the past that secularism caused is list able, but the 1000’s of years of church oppression aren’t. Check.

>>>JoeQC sadly, must have been let down with his concept of the divine or religion. That is what I think.

You hit it on the head.. When I developed rational thought I said ‘You mean the people I trust have been feeding me LIES all these years??? It’s pretty disheartening until you realize they’ve been brainwashed and don’t realize they’re lying to you.

e.
e.
Monday, September 21, AD 2009 12:45pm

Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to provide demonstrative proof that ‘Morality’ is indeed *rational”… again, not that you’re actually capable of doing thus but, hey, here’s some charity on my part!

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top