Cruz: ‘Any President Who Doesn’t Begin Every Day On His Knees Isn’t Fit To Be Commander-In-Chief Of This Nation’

Nov 10, 2015

Ted Cruz was the third Republican presidential candidate to appear at the “National Religious Liberties Conference” in Iowa yesterday, an event organized by extremist right-wing pastor Kevin Swanson, who earlier in the program proclaimed that, according to the Bible, “the sin of homosexuality … is worthy of death.”

Swanson introduced Cruz by stating that Jesus Christ “is king of the President of the United States whether he will admit it or not and that president should submit to His rule and to His law” before asking Cruz to share his opinion on how important it is for “the President of the United States to fear God.”

Cruz, predictably, asserted that fear of God is absolutely vital, declaring that “any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander-in-chief of this nation.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch/4dkVu14Q_bw

73 comments on “Cruz: ‘Any President Who Doesn’t Begin Every Day On His Knees Isn’t Fit To Be Commander-In-Chief Of This Nation’

  • Just what is he advocating? Asking an invisible friend do the heavy lifting of your job as president.

    Given that this invisible friend has never once been documented to answer prayer, this activity
    1. is a waste of valuable time
    2. deludes the president into thinking problems will be handled, so he need do nothing

    Cruz is suffering from extreme wishful thinking. Imagine what a naive twit he would be dealing with Putin.



    Report abuse

  • And we in Europe are scared of all these Muslims crossing into our borders…
    We should be more afraid of our so-called allies across the ocean.. One can only hope the democrats win the next election, because the candidates put forward by the republicans all have something profoundly wrong about them.. they´re all morons (and probably mormons as well ..)



    Report abuse

  • I would rather not have my president on his knees begging to an invisible god for “guidance” on how to run the country.
    I hope he/she knows before they run for the job.



    Report abuse

  • @OP- Cruz, predictably, asserted that fear of God is absolutely vital, declaring that “any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander-in-chief of this nation.”

    Of course we already know, that any Republican candidate who has not been on his knees to corporate sponsors is unlikely have funding for a campaign!



    Report abuse

  • Where do the Republicans find these characters ? It seems Rubio is where the smart money is going. Young, good looking, “self made”, speaks well, and with teeth that would disgrace a Hollywood film star’s for their sheer scintillating qualities. A real snake if ever I saw one, but one hoping to appeal to the Latino vote. As for Cruz starting the day on his knees, the poor bugger is only one step behind Rick Perry, praying for rain in Texas, on the loony ladder. Unfortunately for Perry the rain came 3 years too late, and then too much of it in certain places. God is just so ‘unknowable’ ! And Perry has dropped out. As for Carson and his pyramid grain store idea, you really wonder how much in touch with reality, these would be presidents, are .



    Report abuse

  • no need to throw up, you´ll get something dirty.
    what I mean to say is that there are quite a few things people are afraid of/ are made scared of, and the attention in Europe at the moment ist the influx of refugees from a predominantly muslim country..
    what we should be more afraid of though, is the possibility of yet another a-hole (and yet another from the bush family, I might add…) having the bloody chance of becoming president of, still, the strongest country around (still the USA.. but for how long?)



    Report abuse

  • Puppet rulers who are stooges of foreign powers are traitors to their own people.

    Would-be puppet rulers who are stooges for imaginary king-delusions, should be safely kept in mental institutions, along with those who think they are Napoleon, Hitler, Julius Caesar, Genghis Kahn etc., and well away from any military chains of command!



    Report abuse

  • This whole theistic office requirement is an election fallacy that all candidates have to abide by. Very sad but very true. The “Evangelicals” (mostly from the south and most of whom have never read the bible) live every aspect of their lives based on thoughts of God/Jesus, the bible…etc…. Candidates like Santorum, Cruz and Huckabee shower in this religious rhetoric and are highly praised for it, it’s truly amazing. Although everyone knows that religion should play no part in running for office, it just isn’t so for >30% of the population.

    The saddest part of all this is that no candidate is willing to stand up to it (from either party) as it would be considered “political suicide”. Most of the politicians are not religious but just play along to ensure that their lack of religiosity does not cost them votes…..

    As for comparison with the current Muslims fleeing to Europe, these unfortunate folks will be very decent and accommodating until they are well established and then their religious indoctrination will drive them back to their beliefs and conflicts may arise. Let’s face it, Germans like pork. Still don’t understand why Saudi Arabia and the UAE countries do not want any of these unfortunate Arabs but are somehow willing to build 200 mosques in Germany at their own expense. It will be interesting to see how this beautiful act of charity transforms life in Germany in the next 5 to 10 years



    Report abuse

  • @OP- “National Religious Liberties Conference” in Iowa yesterday, an event organized by extremist right-wing pastor Kevin Swanson, who earlier in the program proclaimed that, according to the Bible,

    This is the usual fully blinkered fundamentalist theism.
    It is clear in the video introduction that inside their tiny mental bubble, which these people present as “national”, their own brand of Christian fundamentalism equates with “religion”, as if no other religions or viewpoints exist.
    The claimed supposed “freedom” is exclusive to their type of Christian! – along with the “freedom” to impose their dogmas and bigotry on everyone else!

    As with YECs, those with DK confidence who don’t even know what religious freedom is, think they are going to preach and dictate to everyone else, on the basis of their self-centred ignorance of the subject, worn as usual with pride, as a badge of “authority”!!



    Report abuse

  • 15
    fadeordraw says:

    While I appreciate that US politicians must pander to that, obviously large, section of the US electorate who are adherents of Christian super-naturalism, my big confusion is about why any voter would want someone who believes in a life after earthly existence. It’s all about the betterment of yours, your families’, your children’s, your children’s children, etc. experience on the planet. To my way of thinking, any politician considering other than earthly existence (let alone a better life after death) is in a huge conflict of interest. Why would anyone vote for them?



    Report abuse

  • I really do think that if a Republican is elected in 2016 we will not make it to the 22nd Century. I hope I am wrong, but it is a strong hunch.
    And I’d like to give Cruz a good kick in the ass. That SOB is the lowest type of humanity.



    Report abuse

  • Thank you for that thought. I can now see that this is Cruz bravely standing up to the homophobia of Swanson. First republican I have heard not only say it’s ok to have a gay president, not even that it’s preferable but that it’s obligatory.
    Now that’s some affirmative action we can all get behind.



    Report abuse

  • I’d like a reference there. Wikipedia page on ‘religious affiliations of presidents of the United States says
    No president has declared himself to be irreligious, agnostic, or atheist.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

    It’s hard to tell whether someone is or isn’t an atheist if their job positively discriminates in favour of deists. In all likelihood most of them are atheists now, even if they weren’t then, since decomposing animal matter is not capable of thought, let alone belief.



    Report abuse

  • Just had a conversation with my Professor friend.
    I told him if Trump wins we are finished. If Hilliary wins, the repubs will be trying to obstruct goverment and the right wing nuts and fundies will get even more violent.
    I’m concerned. I’m a minority in addition to being an atheist. I’m going to hide for the next two years.



    Report abuse

  • Maybe “strongest” in the military sense.
    Close to last in education. Close to last in infant mortality. Close to last in general health care. Close to last in treatment of their veterans.

    But these idiots have their guns and military. (I am one of them, sorry)



    Report abuse

  • …looks so sad…

    That’s not sad, that’s Poor Ted’s “resolute” look, a staple behavioral attribute of conservative religious fundamentalists fighting the good fight.



    Report abuse

  • …why any voter would want someone who believes in a life after earthly existence.

    Its not just the belief in life after death, it’s also the associated belief that one must do good works (in benefit of the community) to earn that afterlife, and that without those beliefs a president (or anyone) would not (could not) choose to do good works.



    Report abuse

  • Same with Rubio and all the rest. These assholes don’t care about the environment. I think you’re relatively safe as a minority (depending on where you live) and as an atheist – but we as a species are in great danger. I too have a professor friend – many in fact – and he assured me that climate change is very, very serious. We are in more danger than most people know or are willing to admit.
    And as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer ( a cliché but true) we will eventually have uprisings in the inner cities and elsewhere. Then military law will be brought in, and then a benign or not so benign form of fascism will begin to emerge This could easily happen, and most people won’t even notice the shift toward fascism. It will not be called that. And we’ll still have TV and the rest of the media (to lull us all, and make us think that everything is okay).
    I’ve reconsidered: perhaps I was wrong; when times are bad, politically and economically, minorities are often scapegoated and paranoia sets in as well. And atheism, secularism, reason, will suffer too; who was I kidding? You’re right.
    It’s analogous to a pre-cancerous state; we are living in a pre-fascist state. Isn’t full-blown fascism yet, and hasn’t yet metastasized but the conditions are “favorable” for a Trump or a Cruz or a Carson. Then all bets are off, perhaps.



    Report abuse

  • Doug
    Nov 12, 2015 at 7:52 pm

    why any voter would want someone who believes in a life after earthly existence.

    Its not just the belief in life after death, it’s also the associated belief that one must do good works (in benefit of the community) to earn that afterlife, and that without those beliefs a president (or anyone) would not (could not) choose to do good works.

    Except in many cases it’s also the associated belief that one must do evangelising works (in benefit of promoting the religious meme) to earn that afterlife, as a priority over the actual real-life benefits to the community.

    and that without those beliefs a president (or anyone) would not (could not) choose to do “good” [evangelising] works.

    Although they might do works to benefit the interests of their voters, rather than promoting a dogmatic religious belief!



    Report abuse

  • …one must do evangelising works…

    Of course. Much like what we see here day after day, promoting the non-religious meme(s). After all, we are all human social animals who want to help ourselves and bring others along with us, wherever it is we might be going. Don’t you think that by promoting your favorite meme(s) you are helping others as well as yourself? (If not, then what’s the point?)



    Report abuse

  • That is an interesting take on it, Doug. I’m fully on board with us being social creatures, but I always saw this site as an attempt to undo the social damage wrought by the prevalence of thousands of years of various forms of theism. I’m not sure that would be classified as a meme.



    Report abuse

  • I am a US citizen and find the Republican candidates this year to be an idiot clan.

    Unknown to Ted Cruz, the four most destructive aspects of nations today are:

    1. Religion
    2. Ignorance
    3. Overpopulation
    4, Corruption

    All four of these feed each other like carnivorous parasites.



    Report abuse

  • Dan, I hope I am wrong. But over the past eight years minorities have already been targeted. It won’t stop if Hillary is elected. It will get worse. The other option is a Trump win.
    There is just shit on the tracks ahead I’m afraid.



    Report abuse

  • I can assure you that Cruz is smart enough to be aware of your number two: ignorance. He, and all the rest of the Republicans, rely upon “the stupid majority.” (Mailer) So long as more than fifty percent of the country remain “stupid” they will continue to benefit from that. They rely on that, pray for it, I am sure. Ask Carl Rove. He might even admit it.

    And why are “we” ignorant? Let’s not forget the manufacturing of consent:

    “Manufacturing consent is related to the understanding that indoctrination is the essence of propaganda. In a ‘democratic’ society indoctrination occurs when the techniques of control of a propaganda model are imposed — which means imposing Necessary Illusions.

    Chomsky’s Propaganda Model says American media have ‘filters’ — ownership, advertising, news makers, news shapers — which together emphasize institutional memory, limited debate and media content emphasizing the interests of those in control.

    “Noam Chomsky used a CASE STUDY of how American media covered two foreign atrocities, Cambodia and East Timor, to illustrate the propaganda model at work — mainstream media (New York Times was the example used) showed bias in favor of the status quo and power elites and did not covered both atrocities in the same manner, by paying extensive attention to the one (Cambodia 1975-79) and ignoring the other (East Timor 1975-79). If media were not an instrument of propaganda, they would have covered each equally.

    “When media news coverage of issues is bias in favor the status quo, these are the results:
    1. ownership of media is held by major corporations with interests and goals similar to power elite elements of society
    2. people with different views, ‘dissenting voices,’ are not heard much
    3. the breadth of debate is limited
    4. the official stance and institutional memory prevail and become history
    5. people’s interest and attention are often diverted away from issues about which they could become concerned.

    “These attributes come to limit a society in part because mainstream mass media play their part by imposing what Chomsky calls Necessary Illusions, which make certain the masses of the populace won’t become curious and involved in the political process and will continue submitting to the ‘civil rule’ of the power elite (maintaining the status quo) — thus, the masses (80%) are marginalized and diverted while the political class (20% who vote and participate in democracy) are indoctrinated into the status quo.” —Author unknown



    Report abuse

  • My four for the US look like this. This isn’t exhaustive, but are they are most characteristic in my view.

    Ideology (as religion, libertarianism supported by faith.)
    Inequality (as a just dessert)
    Ignorance (as a badge of trustworthiness)
    Individualism (State/government phobic)

    (Other countries have their own lists and quite as depressing, but the US does have a unique and generative culture, just sadly bringing quite a raft of collateral damage too.)



    Report abuse

  • Much as I would love memes to be scientific and have a rigorous definition, they do not.

    We can only talk of cultural ideas, and they come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and with all sorts of properties.

    Losing religion as a result of education, cultural mixing, loss of utility is not that active force that a would-be meme implies. Active cultural opposition to religion per se is not the major cause of irreligion in the world. Sure, Atheism, (or New Atheism) is a political force (much more a contender for meme status) promoting the well being and fair treatment of those who are atheist or more pertinent still an active roll back of undemocratic and unwarranted influence in the public space, akin to secularism which term is more appropriate.

    The big question for you, Doug, is do you want to help your own group or do you want to help everyone. Secularism is about finding a way to protect everyone’s interests. Now if memes were scientific that would be a meme to promote.

    (I do have a meme theory which I think can be made scientific but not here not now…)



    Report abuse

  • So you equate atheism with cultural trends?

    Hi Vicki, and thank you for challenging me to clarify my “opinion”.

    I never used the word “atheism”. The term I used was “non-religious meme” (to contrast with the good Mr. 4discussion’s term “religious meme”). I think it is quite obvious that if there can be religious memes, then there can be non-religious (irreligious?) memes. As you suggest, I would not equate atheism with a “cultural trend” (a term which you seem to be using as a substitute for “meme”), but I do think anti-theism can be.



    Report abuse

  • Anything that comes from an informed individual understanding cannot be a meme. Everyone here has worked out the improbability of religious based ‘facts’ for themselves and are not acting from a meme based response.



    Report abuse

  • The big question for you, Doug, is do you want to help your own group or do you want to help everyone.

    Is it not possible that “my own group” is “everyone”?

    Secularism is about finding a way to protect everyone’s interests. Now if memes were scientific that would be a meme to promote.

    Why does a meme have to be scientific to be worthy of promotion? By saying that memes are not (cannot be) scientific, yet they must be if they are to be considered worthy of promotion, it seems you have painted yourself (and perhaps the rest of us) into a corner (or is it a rock and a hard place?).



    Report abuse

  • Doug
    Nov 14, 2015 at 10:35 am

    The term I used was “non-religious meme” (to contrast with the good Mr. 4discussion’s term “religious meme”). I think it is quite obvious that if there can be religious memes, then there can be non-religious (irreligious?) memes.

    The absence of a meme cannot really be a meme – as becomes obvious when applied to other activities.
    A meme is a specific acquired behaviour pattern, which is culturally passed on.

    I don’t think it is quite obvious that if there can be stamp-collecting memes, then there can be non-stamp collecting (absence of stamp-collecting) memes.

    No! An Amazon tribe which has never experienced a postal service does carry cultural “non-stamp-collecting” memes, and neither do others who do not participate in that hobby!

    It is a common error of theists, to think of an absence of (their assumed default) theism and theistic thinking, as a mirror image of their theology and faith-thinking, but atheism/secularism really is no such thing.
    Each religious meme has a specific form, so it would be silly to pretend that there is a meme throughout most of the world, for lacking Buddhism for example.



    Report abuse

  • Is it not possible that “my own group” is “everyone”?

    Entirely so. I just wasn’t sure if that was the case.

    Memes are not yet a scientific theory. (Meme theory is pre-scientific and may one day become scientific.) In discussions like this there is a risk therefore that something declared a meme may appear to have more substance and definition than it could possibly warrant. I’m simply urging that we use simpler and more developed terms like cultural idea or movement or trend to better understand what the thing is and who or what drives it and how.

    I propose the trend to irreligion is mostly not a coherent or organised movement, in any real sense, it having started in the eighteenth century as a result of education, Enlightenment moral thinking, increased travel and cultural mixing further down in societies and religion failing to meet the needs of new situations or responding well to new facts.

    Things that just happen like that cannot constitute a singular (irreligious say) movement, for example, they are utterly disparate phenomena with their own separate cultural drivers.

    The drive to secularism, by contrast, is undoubtedly a culural movement, which is the broadest aspect of (New) Atheism, and is the drive to clean up the religious privilege within the public space, and has many enlightened religious folk fighting for it too. (Secularism truly is for everyone. We have religious folk on this site on video declaring they are “openly secular”.)



    Report abuse

  • “Individualism.” You mean the libertarian brand of it.
    That’s not even individualism (which is essential); it’s savagery, a call for corporate tyranny. (It would also destroy the economy.) Worse than state tyranny. It’s power given into the hands of private, unaccountable tyrannies.
    “Ideology”: another one of those words that have morphed into something bad. There is good ideology, not just bad. How can we come up with a better way of organizing society than we have now, without employing ideology? There is a gamut of ideologies concerning socialism, for example, that does not, or need not, include religion.



    Report abuse

  • The absence of a meme cannot really be a meme…

    Who brought “absence” into the discussion? (Hint: it wasn’t me.)
    As I stated earlier, the term I used was “non-religious meme” (to contrast with your term “religious meme”). You appear to be claiming that there is no such thing, yet here you are (apparently every minute of every day) promoting them.

    A meme is a specific acquired behaviour pattern, which is culturally passed on.

    A meme is a unit of cultural transmission. Those who have a non-religious world view and believe in a non-religious way of life (some of whom are atheists, no doubt) transmit non-religious memes.

    I don’t think it is quite obvious that if there can be stamp-collecting memes, then there can be non-stamp collecting (absence of stamp-collecting) memes.

    The mistake you’ve made here is that the “non-” prefix does not necessarily mean the same thing as the “a” prefix (used so effectively in the word “atheism”). Non-stamp collecting can mean “against stamp collecting” (e.g. “stamp collecting is for wimps”). In the same way, “non-religious” can (and often does, even at this distinguished discussion site) mean “against religion” (e.g. “religion destroys lives”), thus my earlier comment in reply to Vicki in which I referred to “anti-theism”.

    An Amazon tribe which has never experienced a postal service does [not] carry cultural “non-stamp-collecting” memes, and neither do others who do not participate in that hobby!

    When we talk about those who might promote (carry) non-religious memes, we’re not talking about people who have an absence of knowledge about this particular subject matter. We’re talking about people who (usually) know (and may have participated in) the subject thoroughly and belief that it is a serious problem that must be resolved.

    To paraphrase your earlier comment:

    …in many cases it’s also the associated belief that one must do evangelising works (in benefit of promoting the non-religious meme) to achieve that resolution and that way of life, as a priority over the actual(ly professed) real-life benefits to the community.



    Report abuse

  • Try not to despair, alf1200. There are a lot of humane, good people in this country.
    But I agree; we (and minorities in particular – and that includes atheists) are really up against it.
    I too am pessimistic but every once in a while (like just now) I have moments where I feel hopeful. (I hope I am not deluding myself.)



    Report abuse

  • Doug
    Nov 14, 2015 at 8:56 pm

    The absence of a meme cannot really be a meme…

    Who brought “absence” into the discussion? (Hint: it wasn’t me.)

    Perhaps you should look up “none” in a dictionary!
    Definition of NONE – 1: not any 3: not any such thing 4: no part : nothing ie. an absence of any of it!

    As I stated earlier, the term I used was “non-religious meme” (to contrast with your term “religious meme”).

    An absence of any or all religions is not equivalent to “a non-religious meme” such as stamp-collecting.

    You seem to have missed the point I made about non-Buddhists! (non-Hindus etc.) The absence of specific religions is not a meme! There is no such thing as an all embracing “religious meme”. There is a diversity individual religious memes.
    Likewise there is no such thing as a “non-religious meme”. (meaning an absence of religion in life) Memes are specific – not vague generalities.

    You appear to be claiming that there is no such thing,

    Not at all!
    I even gave you the example of the stamp-collection meme (as a non-religious meme), to illustrate that the absence of a stamp-collecting meme was not a meme in its self!

    yet here you are (apparently every minute of every day) promoting them.

    The promotion of science which I do is carried out by both religious and non-religious persons.
    It is anti-error rather than anti-religion per se.

    Once again, the lack of participation in religious meme activities is not a meme, just as the lack of participation in the Buddhist activities of the Buddhist meme is not a meme in its self!

    A meme is a specific acquired behaviour pattern, which is culturally passed on.

    A meme is a unit of cultural transmission.

    Which is the transmitted specific behaviour pattern I described.

    Those who have a non-religious world view and believe in a non-religious way of life (some of whom are atheists, no doubt) transmit non-religious memes.

    There are no “standard” religious or non-religious world views. Individual religions pass on distinct memetic individual beliefs (not some all embracing “religious belief” meme)

    While both the religious and non-religious may have additional memes, the rejection of a local religion is not a meme, (as I clearly illustrated with the non-Buddhist example).

    Do you really claim that your world view is a non-Buddhist meme and a non-Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli meme???

    The absence of a personal religion or god-belief, is simply not a meme, as it does not confer any particular world view. It is simply a rejection of unjustifiable superstitious beliefs.

    The rest of your post is simply a denial of this, wrapped up in semantic confusion.



    Report abuse

  • Earlier you wrote:

    Except in many cases it’s also the associated belief that one must do evangelising works (in benefit of promoting the religious meme) to earn that afterlife, as a priority over the actual real-life benefits to the community.

    Were you referring to a particular religious meme, or were you referring to “the” (as in “the one and only”) religious meme?

    And just now you wrote:

    It is simply a rejection of unjustifiable beliefs.

    Is this not a “non-religious” meme you just transmitted?



    Report abuse

  • Doug
    Nov 15, 2015 at 7:33 am

    Earlier you wrote:

    Except in many cases it’s also the associated belief that one must do evangelising works (in benefit of promoting the religious meme) to earn that afterlife, as a priority over the actual real-life benefits to the community.

    Were you referring to a particular religious meme, or were you referring to “the” (as in “the one and only”) religious meme?

    No! I was referring to the list of religious memes which have these requirements in their dogmas. (In particular [but not exclusively] some memes of Xtian and Muslim sects/denominations.)

    And just now you wrote:

    It is simply a rejection of unjustifiable beliefs.

    Is this not a “non-religious” meme you just transmitted?

    Rejection of dubious beliefs using evidence and reason, is not a meme specific to any particular culture!
    It is a learned behaviour in individuals who have reached the “formal operations level” of mental maturity. http://www.simplypsychology.org/formal-operational.html

    Your comment seems to lack any reference to the very clear explanations re. non-Buddhism etc.



    Report abuse

  • Your comment seems to lack any reference to the very clear explanations re. non-Buddhism etc.

    Because those “explanations” are (still) irrelevant.

    No! I was referring to the list of religious memes…

    Oh, okay. So “the religious meme” means “the list of religious memes“. I see. (And your emphasis on “many cases” clearly illustrates my “semantic confusion” regarding the words you wrote.)

    Rejection of dubious beliefs using evidence and reason, is not a meme specific to any particular culture!

    Who said it was? (Hint: It was not me.) All I said is that it is a meme (to which you seem to agree), and that you just transmitted it (to which I assume you would not attempt to disagree).

    The idea of promoting the religious meme was introduced into this discussion by you! I understand that you have an issue with my use of the “non-” prefix. (I would offer “non-conformist” as one example where “non-” is equivalent to “anti”.) Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had used the term “anti-religious meme” to contrast with your term, but I suspect you would (will) still object to that.



    Report abuse

  • Doug
    Nov 15, 2015 at 9:08 am

    Your comment seems to lack any reference to the very clear explanations re. non-Buddhism etc.

    Because those “explanations” are (still) irrelevant.

    They are absolutely relevant to (specific to particular religions) religious memes, and your pretence that there is some converse false equivalence of a “none religious meme” of rejecting a particular religion or religions.
    That is why I quoted your imaginary “non-religious meme” of rejecting religions other than the one you have in mind – illustrating that false equivalence. They may go to places you don’t want to look, but claiming they are “irrelevant” is simply denial!

    No! I was referring to the list of religious memes which have these requirements in their dogmas. (In particular [but not exclusively] some memes of Xtian and Muslim sects/denominations.)

    Oh, okay. So “the religious meme” means “the list of religious memes“. I see.

    I would have thought that it was fairly straightforward, that it referred to the many religions/sects which contain the memes I initially quoted.

    (And your emphasis on “many cases” clearly illustrates my “semantic confusion” regarding the words you wrote.)

    You do seem to be performing various mental gymnastics, to misunderstand the basic straightforward English I have written!



    Report abuse

  • By Individualism I intended government phobia as a classic manifestation. A lack of trust by most Americans (notably right of centre compared with Europe) in the ability of the state to act beneficially on their behalf. Libertarianism (a movement advocating selfishness in Hitchens’ words) is only a more intellectualy organised version of this.

    Ideology fails by having dogma and the US love dogma because it is easier than thinking and they have no societal structure to support anything smarter. That much ideology is well intentioned is quite beside the point. It is a solution looking to find its problem too often. Instead of idealism I and the former poster here Quine (not W V) who coined both the term and the idea advocate Betterism. Making better is something we might manage as an ongoing process, not unlike evolution, responding to immediate concerns for harms and underperformance. Policy based on facts, reason and immediate need rather than some ideal assumed as universally wanted, may in its serial, course-finessing application eke out a kinder and more collegiate path and an ability to grow consensus rather than enforce it. We don’t always know whar we want, we have never done this before. Never again should we blithely believe “to each according to his needs” does the trick when not only are those needs uniquely individual but often not readily apparent even to ourselves.



    Report abuse

  • “Ideology” from the book Tower of Babel by Robert C. Pinnock ,1999:

    “Whether or not we think that supernatural design is true, it is
    ideological to begin with the answer that one desires.”

    by Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

    ….and “faith” is believing that something is correct without any evidence in the natural universe.



    Report abuse

  • The word can be used that way, and the word “prejudiced” might have been used to, by your author, and it has other uses. As I said, socialism (whether you’re for it or not) includes a gamut of ideologies. You don’t own the word. Neither did your author(s?)

    i·de·ol·o·gy
    ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē
    noun
    1.
    a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

    archaic
    visionary speculation, especially of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.

    And faith is not believing what is correct, necessarily.



    Report abuse

  • You do seem to be performing various mental gymnastics, to misunderstand the basic straightforward English I have written!

    Is that how it seems – that I’m purposely misunderstanding you? Funny that, as from my perspective it seems that you are purposely being difficult to understand. Your “English” may seem basic and straightforward to you, but that doesn’t mean it is. Any “mental gymnastics” on my part are in an attempt to understand.

    I apologize for my error in using the incorrect prefix. Here is my correction of the offending comment:

    Alan4discussion wrote:

    …one must do evangelising works…

    To which I intended to respond:

    Of course. Much like what we see here day after day, promoting the anti-religious meme(s). After all, we are all human social animals who want to help ourselves and bring others along with us, wherever it is we might be going. Don’t you think that by promoting your favorite meme(s) you are helping others as well as yourself? (If not, then what’s the point?)



    Report abuse

  • phil rimmer

    I’d like to ask Phil something. It’s off the topic but I don’t have his number or email. I humbly ask for your indulgence, moderators.

    Phil, can you recommend a good book on physics and one on astrophysics and maybe a nice book that explains Einstein’s theory of space/time and relativity? Is there a writer like Dawkins in the area of physics? (No one, except maybe Asimov, is as good at writing about science for non-scientists as Dawkins, but maybe there is someone like him.)



    Report abuse

  • Thanks, David! I will check it out, but I need books too.
    I want to learn what Einstein (a relative of mine; I kid you not) had to say about space and time. And I need to learn more about all the other things you mentioned too.
    Do you like my new photo?
    -Dan the narcissist (joke…I think)



    Report abuse

  • With moderate ability modesty is mere honesty; with great ability it is hypocrisy.
    -Schopenhauer.

    Hey, David, what do you think of Glenn? This is one of my pet peeves, and maybe I have too much time on my hands, but if Glenn is “wise”, as someone just said, then what is Dawkins?



    Report abuse

  • So picking out an example

    a system of ideals of economic policy.

    Yet to pretend that say free-market capitalism is in anyway comprehensively virtuous, measuring as it does, with exquisite finesse, the value folk place on the vibration in their car versus their children’s education, given the unimaginably complex nature and varieties of societies and the need to have common ownership, or some other safeguard, for the atmosphere (say), and the need to put an economic value on local and global political stability it fails as the rule to be followed.

    Increasingly folk are ceasing to be idealists, no longer using their revered paradigm as a single decider of public policy but rather as just a tool in a burgeoning toolkit.

    When Michael Shermer an avowed and vocal libertarian announced he would no longer identify as one because that was stupid, whilst he may advocate some of the same policies he ever did, he will only do it in response to the immediate evidence and reasonableness of the case. He sees libertarianism fails to answer some problems.

    As quite a left of centre person (I think the state is ideally placed to invest in its citizen talent, particularly mitigating harms because children don’t deserve the misfortune of their parents) I may now very reasonably engage with someone like Shermer and know we might negotiate a way forward. There is no face to lose. Pragma rules the day not Dogma.



    Report abuse

  • I could recommend books on just about anything but physics. Since doing it at Univerity I have kept up to date reading popular magazines like New Scientist or Scientific American or in the narrow areas I needed in my work (like plasma physics) by buying weighty tomes or borrowing them from the local university library.

    Though a full university course Feynman’s Lectures (1963) remain astonishing and just a few of the lectures run up from the simplest of understandings. He had a capacity for creating the impression of understanding by eliminating much of a subjects daunting prospects. About ten percent may be accessible but some of the rest, reading the lecture intros and conclusions will give you an utterly non patronising feel for the subject. Borrow from a library, though, PDFs exist on the web.

    For that matter very many major courses are on the web. My Eduport app. is brilliant.

    In popular writing I’m sure Cox is good (though he is a little partial in some of his views) and writes outside of his area of expertise sometimes. John Gribbin was good. Putting science in a historical perspective is often a good way to understand why we needed to know X.

    Wiki is increasingly wonderful especially following up the references.

    I’ll look up popular stuff when I can and get back to you.

    I like the pic.



    Report abuse

  • Hey, David, what do you think of Glenn?…

    We all have varied tastes. Some like red wine. Some white. Some like philosophy. Some football. Some people tell us what is good and what is not. Some people put you down if you drink this wine, like that band or have that artist on your wall.

    But I say, if you like it, it’s good. If you like a piece of music. It’s good. If you like a piece of art. It’s good. That is the only test. If you like Jaclynn Glenn, then she’s good. If you don’t, then she’s bad. Her target audience is not you or I, so we view her work through our mature and coloured eyes. But given her following, which is huge, a lot of people must like her.

    In my dotage, I try just to absorb the ideas and arguments, and pixelate the source. If I view the source, I colour the arguments and the ideas, which is the stuff I really LIKE.



    Report abuse

  • Krauss / Link

    I have nothing against Krauss, guys. I made one remark on the thread about nothingness. There’s a video of Krauss and Dawkins having a discussion. Krauss kept asking Dawkins how life arose from nothing. Obviously it didn’t. It had to have evolved from what was once inorganic nature, although that is, admittedly, hard to fathom. Dawkins looked annoyed. He knows damned well that life did not come from nothing. That question irritated me. I also think he is awfully long-winded. Apart from that I am sure he’s a great guy, and I will check out the link.



    Report abuse

  • Cooperativism, a good thing, is part of the vast gamut of political/social ideologies. I was just saying that not all ideologies are negative.
    You have made the word your own.
    Free market capitalism is bad ideology.
    What am I not getting?



    Report abuse

  • he’s a great guy

    One reaches the pinnacle of success when [ “toasted” ].

    long-winded

    Not so with his ‘Scientific American‘ articles of past – written with succinct prose. A shame they’re no longer featured.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.