Can you be a Christian and a Liberal? Doug Giles doesn’t think so.

In a wonderful example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, Conservative pundit Doug Giles argues that A Christian Can Be a Christian or a Liberal, But He Can’t Be Both. This rant is interesting not because it regurgitates popular Conservative disinformation about how Christians are losing their “rights” in America despite being the majority religious group, but because it’s another in a growing trend of articles from the Conservatives that tries to paint being a Liberal as being synonymous with being an atheist/agnostic/secular humanist which, as well all know, are Satan’s offspring. It’s clear that for Doug the only “true” Christian are those of a Fundamentalist Evangelical bent who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God. In an interesting twist he makes the claim that Liberalism has been hijacked by the forces of Secularism that is somewhat similar to claims that the Republican party has been hijacked by the Fundamentalist Christians:

Liberalism has been hijacked by bizarre special-interest thugs who spit on the Word of God and believe that the Bible has no place in public life, (except maybe in a museum where people can look at it from time to time).

The Christian who has a bent to the liberal left needs to understand something: while he is skipping around the maypole with his rose-colored glasses on, if it were up to the modern, secularized liberal establishment, he would be more restricted than Bill when Hillary’s in town. Yes, if the Christophobic thugs had it their way, Christians would be relegated to a marginalized spiritual ghetto on the sidelines of life.

Note that it’s not enough that Secularists don’t believe in the Word of God, but they also spit on it. I do like his invention of the word ‘Christophobic’ though. That’s a pretty clever way to play up the idea that Christians are in danger from us nasty Secular Liberals of finding themselves unable to express their faith outside of their homes and churches, which Doug appears to feel are the “spiritual ghettos” of life. Doug continues with:

For the naïve Christian voter who thinks he can toss a ballot in the Nuevo liberal direction, please know that a vote toward the secular left could leave you bereft of sacred liberties. Thanks to the aggressive ludicrous liberal lug nuts’ anti-Christian agenda, your vote for a liberal, Christian, is a vote for …

Nice use of alliteration there. We’ll take each of these claims in turn and see how much merit they hold:

1. Christianity to be scrubbed from government and whatever turf the government owns. Thanks to the liberals, the Ten Commandments have about as much acceptance in our government and their properties as Rush Limbaugh would at Al Franken’s family reunion. Yes, the Judeo-Christian principles that formed the rock-solid foundation of this great American Experiment are now aggressively fought against by the lascivious left.

If… if… the secularists continue to stay behind the wheel of this American bus, you can kiss all semblance of Christianity good-bye in this heretofore God-graced government. Saint, you might as well say farewell to our government’s recognizing Christmas and adios to Good Friday if you’re going to vote the liberal ticket. If the secularists have it their way, Easter will be behind your keister, and you can kiss the Cross good-night as an acceptable public symbol that represents your faith and our nation’s recognition of Christ’s atoning work.

It is true that the entanglement of Christianity with Government in this country has been under unprecedented attack the past few years and, honestly, it’s been too long in coming. Doug repeats the false claim that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and then tries to paint the attempts to extricate Christian dogma from areas it shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place as an attack on this fictional foundation rather than the rectifying of a wrong that has been allowed to persist for too long already. The simple truth of the matter is that the government has no business endorsing one religion over any other which is exactly what its doing when it posts copies of the Ten Commandments in government buildings or on government property. The Christian Right’s argument that this doesn’t amount to an establishment, but rather a “recognition of our country’s religious heritage” is utter bullshit. The Christian Right would have you believe that America has grown to become the great nation so many of us feel it is solely because of the contributions of Christians thusly making their dogma worthy of special recognition by the government above all other creeds.

From there we enter into the slippery slope argument with dire threats that the Secular Liberals will cancel Christmas and Easter if they gain control. Here Doug is promoting the idea that being a Secular Liberal is synonymous with being an atheist. It is true that there have been atheists who have tried to have Christmas as a Federal holiday overturned as a violation of the First Amendment, but not all Secular Liberals—or even all atheists—agree with this idea. Many of us agree with the Supreme Court in it’s past rulings that there are “legitimate secular purposes for establishing Christmas as a legal public holiday.” Even if a day were to come where the SCOTUS decides that Federal recognition of Christmas, Easter, and other such holidays is a violation of the establishment clause it’s debatable how much of an impact that would really have beyond determining whether or not Federal employees get the day off. The laws surrounding the issue are mainly there to allow Federal employees these days off with pay and don’t place any requirements on anyone else to observe these holidays. Your employer is free to make their own determination on whether or not you get the day off or whether or not you get paid for it. Truth is that there’s not really a need for the government to endorse any particular holiday, religious or otherwise, but there’s not necessarily any harm in it doing so and certainly some secular benefit in doing so.

Finally, in regards to his claim that you can “kiss the Cross good-night as an acceptable public symbol” if you vote for a Secular Liberal politician, it’s hard to say how realistic that statement is without knowing what he means by “public symbol.” The initial implication I get from that statement is that displaying the cross in public by anyone will be outlawed, which is quite simply ridiculous. Not only isn’t there any Constitutional grounds for such a law, but I don’t know anyone who even thinks such a law should be passed.

In regards to it being a symbol which the government should make use of in official seals or as monuments on public land then there is definitely a conflict with the establishment clause as it gives the appearance that the government favors the Christian religion above all others. The outrage expressed by the Christian Right over the removal of these symbols of their faith from places they don’t belong shows that even they recognize the special status having those symbols in place grants their religion.

2. Secularism to be continually mainlined into our public school system. Thanks to rabid vapid secularism, our public schools and universities would rather you be a Rocky Horror super freak than a Christian. If your beliefs run to the bizarre or the banal, or if you want to smoke the same philosophical crack that Caligula, Nero, Castro or Lenin freebased, they’ll accommodate you.
Our schools are totally open to anyone and to anything, unless, of course, you’re a Christian.  And if that’s the case, then you’re likely to get more sympathy from a badger with minimal sleep than you will from liberal educators who are hard at work making your life hard. A vote for the secular left is a vote for Christianity to continue to be officially vilified on campus and Christians to be ostracized in campus life.

Once again we see Secularism being touted as a great evil without any explanation as to what, exactly, Secularism is. I especially loved his description of it being both “rabid” and “vapid” which in some ways is a contradiction in terms. Doug makes a lot of claims here without providing any substantiation for them. I don’t know of any public schools or universities that have made it clear they’d rather your kids show up as a “Rocky Horror super freak” than a Christian or which welcome people with bizarre and banal beliefs with open arms while being openly hostile to Christians. Nor do I know of any Liberal educators who go out of their way to make life hard for Christians—unless you count the ones who refuse to teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory. I would challenge Doug to provide a single example of a university that officially vilifies Christians.

3. Public officials, employees and appointees to be pressured to hide their faith in the closet and suppress their public displays of belief in God lest they be grouped with Hitler, Osama, or Mussolini and then fired. Not only will the liberals aggressively work to prohibit the State from green lighting and recognizing Christianity as a legitimate and positive force in our land, they will also attempt to stifle Christians from influencing the path of government.

Doug’s obviously making a reference to former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore here. What Moore engaged in went far beyond merely displaying his faith in public to abuse of his office to promote his religious views as superior to all others. Bush has managed to publicly express his religious views consistently without a single call for his impeachment, but then he hasn’t tried to sneak any multi-ton representations of the Decalogue into the White House foyer in the middle of the night either. The fact that Moore did this in the dead of night shows he realized what he was doing was crossing the line.

Additionally the government doesn’t have any business in green lighting and recognizing any religion as a legitimate and positive force in our land, let alone Christianity. Can you imagine the outcry from the Religious Right if, say, the Muslims wanted the government do the same for their religious viewpoint? For that matter, what about if it were the Wiccans? As for influencing the path of government, as long as they can vote they can influence the government. That’s part of why Christianity has managed to entangle itself to the extent it has so far.

4. Public attacks on churches and Christians and attempts to restrict them in the private sector. Consider this, Christian pastor and Christian lay person looking to vote for the ludicrous left: the secular Mafioso’s intent is to make your ministerial life difficult, your evangelistic work taxing and your voice minimized. And good luck, pastor and church committee, in trying to buy property and get zoning with the anti-Christian libs at the helm.

This is just utter bullshit plain and simple. Secular Mafioso? This guy’s gift for hyperbole is limitless it seems.

5. The continued media endorsement of the same putrid hedonistic stuff that sunk ancient Rome. Yes, with the liberals in place, expect more weird crap in movies and on television. Expect to see more paintings of Christian symbols/ saints smeared with elephant dung. Expect Christianity to be bashed and vilified and Christians made out to be buckled-shoed morons with three teeth and an IQ of 50. Expect the culture to coarsen. Expect your kids to continue to be exposed to things that only rock stars see backstage with groupies. A vote for a liberal is a vote to see Christians continue to receive special ridicule and be flogged more than a piñata during a Cinco de Mayo festival.

Aside from being an amazing bit of whining, the implications inherent in the above are chilling. Doug seems to suggest that if we hand the reins over to his Conservative Fundy Politicos of choice that we can expect to see new restrictions on the freedom of expression and special rights for Christians against being criticized and ridiculed. The Christian Right seems hell-bent on destroying as much of the First Amendment as they can manage. They’re all for the bit about freedom of religion (or at least their religion), but they can’t stand the establishment clause and they want all manner of restrictions on the freedom of speech. You can almost read the above paragraph as suggesting that a vote for Conservative Christians is a vote for increased entanglement in government and the diminishing of any rights the Christians don’t consider sacred themselves.

My ClashPoint is this: Modern liberalism tosses the scripture out on several different levels. How a true believer in the Christ defined by the scripture can buy into what Jesus, the prophets and apostles said and also what these secular thugs say is beyond me. In addition to liberalism’s obvious and odious pro-holocaust-like abortion stance, its anti-biblical view of marriage, its scripture-slamming aggressive secularism, and its feckless view of our nation’s defense, liberalism completely clashes with the Christian worldview. Secular liberalism’s aggressive desire to eradicate Christians’ rights should cause Christians to be concerned.

This is pretty standard rhetoric here including the suggestion that somehow “Christian’s rights” are being eradicated by Secular Liberals. As distortions of the truth go, it’s pretty impressive. Most of the issues Doug brings up in his screed don’t have anything to do with rights, Christian or otherwise, and for those few items that are what he’s arguing for is the restriction of non-Christian’s rights. Clearly Doug is advocating for a government that not only favors and endorses the Christian religion, but which actively restricts any minority viewpoints from so much as complaining about Christianity’s special status. The only real Christian in Doug’s book is a Fundamentalist Christian and his argument attempts to cajole the moderate Christians into becoming more Fundamentalist by trying to paint Liberals with a very broad brush in a you’re-either-with-us-or-against-us approach to fear mongering.

49 thoughts on “Can you be a Christian and a Liberal? Doug Giles doesn’t think so.

  1. Wow.  Lot’s to that post and I can’t get to all of it right now.  I’m working on a past (have been for a week) regarding the Church and politics in America.  Basically, I think Giles is spot on on some points, but sorely missing it on others. 

    My post will be in response to a recent series by Dr. Mark D. Roberts with the same title – The Church and Politics in America.  Mark Roberts earned his BA, MA, and PhD from Harvard and has an intersting story.

    I don’t agree with everything Mark has wrote in that post (that’s why I am writing a response), but it really convicted me because as anyone who reads my blog knows, politically I’m a right-winger. 
    The Church and Politics in America

  2. Whee. This is funny in a weird way. But then I’m reasonably safe here in Europe wink

    If you guys ever get your country christianized in the way these goons want it, we will probably become more secular as a response.

    Hey Spocko – you forgot ‘pink’ as a synonym for ‘liberal’. No, really. Rogets thesaurus on the web. No if THAT isn’t a big proof of the real liberal intentions. I mean – PINK!

  3. It seems to me that Conservative/Liberal and Religious/Irreligious are two different axes of existence (except to those on the ends of the spectrum, where if you don’t believe in My One True Interpretation of What Christianity Means, then obviously you are Going Straight To Hell, You Fascist/Communist).

    But, then, as there are any number of self-identified Christians who’d likely condemn me to just such a fate, what do I know?

  4. I generally agree with your analysis of that article.  I can’t stand political dogma that doesn’t support itself (especially when it’s tied that closely to religious dogma).  I mean, I’m probably guilty of the same thing, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay for other people to do it!

    But what I really don’t like is politics tied so closely to religion.  Religion should for sure inform one’s politics (if it doesn’t inform your beliefs then what is it doing?), but I tend to laugh when people tell me that I have to vote one way or another based on my belief in Jesus.  I’m certain that God is not sweating over the outcome of our election, so I’m not sure why so many of his kids are.

  5. I see somewhat of a different problem and it has nothing to do with liberals.  The conservative party of this country has become increasingly myopic in its focus and estranged a good deal of Americans.

    These newly labeled ‘liberals’ aren’t so much traditional leftists as they are disconcerted with the direction of the right and have been forced to find a comfortable position elsewhere.  Our two party system is rapidly becoming one of the Christian-Right extremist and all others.  Unfortunately, there is are a lot of positions within the all others category.

    By all accounts, Christ was a liberal.  Those poor, poor Christians and their multi-billion dollar tax free spiritual ghettos.  For shame on those heathens hoarding all that poverty from them.

  6. I guess this guy wouldn’t like my “Jesus was the original bleeding heart liberal!” bumper sticker.

  7. I’d argue that they certainly can be.

    Well, so could I (as I am one myself, or at least closer to “Conservative” than most here)… was just wondering about the esteemed Mr. Giles’s thoughts.

    The article reminded me of the other one you destroyed, about Atheism and Patriotism.

    The “Religious” part of “Religious Right” is about as nasty as anything I’ve ever seen from the most extreme Michael-Moore-wannabe dems.

  8. You know I actually know one or two people who are fundamentalist Christians (by fundamentalist I just mean literalists in regards to scripture) who are in fact politically quite liberal.  They think that the world was literally created in six days, that God has condemned homosexuality, and that abortion is tantamount to murder. 

    However, they also believe that God granted free-will for a reason and that people should be allowed to follow their own consciences.  Now despite the fact that I think some of their beliefs are a little nutty, I have to respect their tolerence for opposing viewpoints (though they could have a little more tolerence for different views instead of going with “the bible said it so it’s true” approach). 

    So I would argue that conservatism (sp? it just looks funny to me) and Christianity are by no means necessarily conjoined.

  9. Having suffered through the entirety of Doug’s fact-free “I’m trying to be quoteable” article, I can now safely put him with Ann Coulter in my list of writers who are so far beneath my contempt as to not merit a discussion of anything they say.

    All non-Republicans are Traitors.
    No Christians are liberal.

    Whatever.

  10. I find that most Fundmental Christians are pretty tolerant. It’s just the nutjobs that give us all a bad name. Try to ingore those who are stupid. I do. I myself am a liberal republican and techinally (depending on who you ask) am a fundmental christian. So we do exist. And we arnt all the close minded fools that troll around forums looking for people to call sinners. smile

  11. It can help the discussion if you remember that there are two types of fundamentalists.

    The normal fundamentalists belive that the bible is the literal and true word of God.

    The other type, which I have taken to calling “capital F” Fundamentalists typically belive that the government is full of satanists, that entertainment of any form is evil, and that the word “God” has at least 4 syllables.

  12. If I had the money, I would pay to see this man thrown into the bull runs in Spain, to some pagans with assault rifles and trigger fingers, or best of all, thrown in an asylum where he belongs.

    Vile christian conservative extremists, how do they pass for human?

  13. Funny thing about all this christian liberal bashing is that Christ was extremely libetral. The sermon on the mount is probably the most liberal speech ever uttered in a public place. I would go so far as to say that you can’t be conservative if you are truely following the teachings of Christ.
    IMHO, there are few to no American christians that deserve the title. What was that commandment about using god’s name in vain?

  14. *Praises azimov for telling it how it is*

    Reminds me of a bumber sticker telling how jesus was a social activist liberal, so damn true.

  15. Hmmm, How can being Liberal be a bad thing and Conservative be a good thing?

    Here’s fundamentally how…

    If you are liberal with MY money, that’s bad,
    If you are conservative with MY money, that’s good.
    Government is NOT spending its own money,
    they are spending YOURS and MINE!

  16. I was born and raised a Lutheran of Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and my grandfather was a chaplain of the same synod. When I was young Christianity was very appealing to me, but as I became older I began to realize that this belief in an inerrant Bible was just a book written by a bunch of flaming fools. The Bible is a load. Adam and Eve and their offspring did not populate the Earth. Noah didn’t float on his ark twenty feet above the highest mountains, where he and the animals could not even breathe at that altitude. Eight people didn’t go into any ark and only eight come out and sinfully screw the planet back into human population. It is all a bunch of nonsense that only makes sense to someone who doesn’t want to think for himself, and let’s some church do his thinking for him. Liberals, on the other hand, truly prove that stupidity is a choice, and they will still be whining when they bankrupt this country. I say, let the Christians and liberals get together and destroy each other. Seems to me like whatever higher power that may be has decided to let exactly that happen.

  17. So, it’s the liberals that started two wars for oil and are wasting treasury funds hand over fist to continue escalating same?
    Can’t take care of trivial things like the nation’s healthcatre when there is Arab oil reserves to “protect”. Right? Not enough money for “everything”, aye?
    Suck it.

  18. “Asimov” you’re not. It is voices like yours that will keep liberals from getting elected, and expose their true nature of “nanana i don’t have to listen.” If you want anybody to suck it, grow a longer neck and suck it yourself. And, try and support what you are saying instead of just spew it out your hole.

  19. Yes, Les, I do. I have lots of liberal friends, and we usually have civil discourse, though not infrequently we say things that piss each other off we can take the heat. But, excuse me, someone tells me to “suck it” the suggestion of such a thing is just disgusting and definitely out of order. I only came across this site by entering “christians and liberals are stupid” into Google. I read the article, and agree with the author on most points. I also felt compelled to write my comment. I didn’t plan to make a home here. So, anyway, cheerio!

  20. Liberals, on the other hand, truly prove that stupidity is a choice, and they will still be whining when they bankrupt this country.

    You come here, post crap like that, and don’t expect a turn in kind? What the hell is wrong with you? If you would take a look at the present total of the cost of the wars we presently wage, you will find your Christian buddies hands all over the purchase orders and the reason we can’t do much of anything else for OUR PEOPLE! Saying liberals are bankrupting this country denies 8 years of Reagan and eight more years of Bush Jr. The very idea that liberals are spending all this money right NOW is completely and utterly stupid.
    And btw, I know how to spell Asimov. I loved him and the spelling is intentional, so suck that too moron.

    I say, let the Christians and liberals get together and destroy each other.

    Another idiotic statement. Conservative Christians kill, Liberals try to tolerate and empathize. To class them both as warmongering equals is ridiculous.

    Seems to me like whatever higher power that may be has decided to let exactly that happen.

    Really? “he” has decided “that”. In the dogma provided with these fairy tales “he” sent his only begotten extremely LIBERAL son to stop all the conservative fundamentalisim with…………….peace. Did he not? 
    Like I said idiot. Just bend over and suck it as you have not a clue as to where you are.

  21. Oh, and one more thing idiot. I realize my post is very intolerant of you in particular and that is usually frowned upon in liberal circles. Re read your AM radio drivel and you will quickly realize why I no longer suffer fools like you.
    So, anyway, cheerio, and go harass another site over birth certificates or something equally Earth shattering.

  22. Asimov,

    Somehow I think if I met you face to face you would be more civil, if not I’d just have to teach you some manners the good ole fashion way. With a whoopin’ that would tell you that telling me to suck it will get your puny lil’ lib ass kicked. So, suck that, dickless. Anytime, any place. Look me up on my site, puss! Or use the fuckin’ phone book!

  23. In all seriousness, one thing I want to point out before I leave this blog is that neither Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. represents conservatism at its best. Reagan, well, nah not at relatively 20% taxation no. Kennedy, yes JFK, gave speeches where he advocated taxes at approximately 5%. Now, there was a truly great Democrat, except that he was engaged in a number of extramarital affairs, including Marylin Monroe.

    As I said, I am not going to make a home here, but the URL is saved in my history so I came back tonight. Geesh, this Asimov guy is pissing me off. Is he the local troll?

  24. Dear Les,

    I understand you to be a man of civility and a thinker. I recently was engaged by a user by the name of Asimov on your site who was insisting that I “suck it.” I would think that such a user should be moderated. He led me to fly off the handle, I admit, but that should be understandable when you got some jerk in your face that keeps taking his pecker out of his pants and saying “suck it.” I bluntly told him that I would rather do him harm, which is not usual for me to lower myself to such behavior.

    I have Christian friends, I have Liberal friends, I have friends out to the left and out to the right. I myself am very conservative. I am so conservative that Reagan himself is turning in his grave with shock and disbelief. But, I truly feel that the gates have opened, the chain has been cut, and the beast has been unleashed to open his jaws. If you could please moderate your site so as to restrict such foul comments as come forth from the thing called Asimov, I think the world would be a better place. He is the type of guy who drives off people like me before people like you and I can gracefully disagree.

    If you understand what I mean, I hope you find the time to clean up the mess on the thread where he and me had our exchange. I was hoping to have a graceful discord with people more like yourself when I posted. I love arguments and debates of substance. I hate it when people like Asimov think that the Internet is their “bitch.” His type is not unlike the common criminal in prison looking to work his way into some innocent person’s asshole. I hate them types with a passion, so I hope you understand my grievance and take action.

    Thank you,

    Douglas Gross

    !!!email undeliverable!!!

  25. I wish someone would moderate Joe Wilson, Ann Coulter, and Sarah Palin. Oh, and Dick Cheney.

    Les, get on that for me, please?

  26. Hmmm…was surfing around for sites about christian liberals and came on this one and read through the posts and comments. I have to wonder if Les read the entire book he is talking about or just went through and bit off the pieces he could chew. I am a liberal and a christian, and I read this particular book once. It is a joke if you ask me, but I think it was a bit taken out of context. I believe in an historical-critical interpretation of the Bible rather than an historical-contextual. As far as the politics go, christians try to say not to be political, but the Bible is actually a very political book. If you take a serious look at the Bible christians have always been opposed to government. So you shouln’t be too surprised when they hate big government, and it isnt any wonder they hate liberalism. The Bible also says that government will grow stronger and stronger under christ when he returns. So if you believe that there is only good things set to happen. I dont know if I believe very many people here would even give Jesus the time of day but who am I to pass judgement.

  27. I suppose it depends on which book you’re talking about. The essay I was criticizing in the original post wasn’t a book at all, but an article at Town Hall by Doug Giles. Perhaps he has a book from which that essay was taken, but if he did he didn’t mention it at the time.

    As for the Bible, I’ve read that front to back many times over and I reference it often. My take on it is the it’s-a-load-of-fairy-tales interpretation. With regards to Jesus I think it’s safe to say that all of us here would love to meet him, but that whole not-existing thing makes that problematic. Which is a shame as some of the ideas attributed to him aren’t half-bad.

  28. I was referring to the Bible. It is rare that people who criticize it have much knowledge of it. I know a theologian who thinks that even just reading the Bible isn’t enough to be able to understand all of the cultural and historical aspects of it. I am glad you have taken the time to read it. Too bad Bible classes usually rely on the historical-contextual interpretation, otherwise I would recommend a Bible study. I still cling to the historical-critical interpretation, because that interpretation does not give a fairy tale aspect to the Bible, much of the stories in it that are considerably unbelievable are accepted as the result of the stories being exaggerated or changed through telling.

  29. Roamer writes…

    I was referring to the Bible. It is rare that people who criticize it have much knowledge of it.

    The same could be said of quite a few of the people who claim to believe and follow it.

    I agree that reading the Bible alone leaves out a lot of the cultural aspects from the time it was written and I’ve read more than a few books by Bible scholars, both theologian and secular. 

    I’ve done my time with Bible studies back when I was a believer. It was reading the Bible that led me away from my faith. As an atheist I fully encourage people, particularly True Believers™, to take the time to read and study it in-depth as most have not. As Isaac Asimov once said:

    “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”

  30. You are right. Most believers do not know what they need to know about the Bible, and I would say most of them get their information from a one-way source, that of their own church’s particular beliefs. People need to criticize, but not condemn. I still find many answers in the Bible, but were it not for Jesus’ teachings I wouldn’t believe it at all. Thus, I am Christian. I separate my political convictions from my religious convictions, because there are few Christians that believe in government intervention against immoral practices in the private sector, and that just doesn’t make sense to me. I go an opposite route than you, however, I think that there were crucial books left out of the Bible, and I have read them also. Many of them I can understand why they were discarded, but others I think deserve more merit. Religion and politics are a fork in the road from the standpoint of people like Doug Giles. To him you either go left or right, there is no straight path, but I do not believe that God would make our choices as impossible as that. I would have to write a book myself to enlighten anyone as to my perspective and how I derive what I believe, but I will save that project for a rainy day. It is past my bedtime.

  31. As Isaac Asimov once said:

    “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”

    See, this is why I lurk around here from time to time. You’d be hard pressed to find such a referance anywhere else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.