Is the Former Miss Alaska Runner-up a Smart Choice?

Palin: The Unexpected Choice

Now that all of the hoopla surrounding the vice presidential pick of Sarah Palin by John McCain has passed over, I feel it necessary to give my input. I have heard CNN and MSNBC analysts describe it as a “helpful, and strategic move to gain Hillary’s supporters,” but also an “ironic and possibly hypocritical move on McCain’s part.” These have all come from the mudslinging die-hards on both sides, and from both the media and local reactions. Personally, I feel that this pick helped McCain in two main ways.

One, he may actually attract some of Hillary’s former supporters. This decision obviously took a long time to make, and I am guessing that it was no impulse choice. He made the right move by waiting to see who Obama chose, and in seeing that it was not Hillary, went for the “Hail Mary pass” as described by one CNN analyst, and chose Palin. (And I’m sure we all noticed the timing of it simply hours after Obama’s rockstar-esque speech at the DNC.)

Two, he may also get the “unintelligent” aesthetic voters who are currently undecided. Palin obviously has looks upstaging Hillary and of course Mr. McCain, and the shallow citizens out there will look at her and think, “I’d like to see some more of that.” This is only a small percentage of people, because I hope that the average voter is more intelligent than this, but some of the apathetics who may not have otherwise voted will swing in and lend a vote to the McCain-Palin ticket.

As I quoted earlier, there is one obvious and probably detrimental effect of this choice: McCain has been highly critical of Obama’syoung age and inexperience, and then chooses a running mate who has a lower number in both categories. I know that many have said that a young person may be a wise choice for McCain to compliment his old age, but I think this is taking it to the extreme. He could have at least chosen one of his former primary rivals to get the classical conservative vote he is missing, or possibly Joe Lieberman to get a stronger handle on independents.

Either way, the choice of Palin is definitely a shocker, and is going to be a hit or miss for McCain. He had better hope that there are no serious blunders on her record that will come out to harm, instead of help him.

Rebellion or Intellect?

At some point in life, almost everyone has either pondered atheism, or met someone who was an atheist. It is a word that has many strings attached to it; for some it has a positive connotation, but to others, a fire burns deep within them containing a hatred for the “Godless unbelievers.” Also, there are those who are just plain indifferent, and think that, “it may be right for some, but not for me.”

As an atheist, I feel it necessary to share some of my experiences when revealing this aspect about me to others. I have heard almost every generic reaction there is. Everything from, “how can you possibly think that when the overwhelming majority of the world believes in some sort of god,” to, “excellent, I am one as well, it’s good to meet another person fighting the good fight.”

As a college student, the most common reaction that I get from anyone well into their adult life is that, “Oh, you’re just a young college kid rebelling against your upbringing, you’ll come back to the church eventually.” Not only is this statement disrespectful to atheists and college students, but especially to me personally. It has the connotations that any opinion a young person has is illegitimate simply because they are young, that any atheist is simply rebelling against something and has not come to their worldview rationally, and that I embody all of the above.

With that said, I would like to say that I am aware that there are plenty of people out there who do fit this description. Many get mad at their church at some point or another for whatever reason, and claim that they don’t believe. Some people just get bored with going to church and don’t really care in either direction. Regardless, neither of these types are what I like to call an “intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

An “intellectually fulfilled” atheist:

-Has done their research on both sides of the issue.

-Knows their material scientifically.

-Knows the theology behind many different religions.

-Has come to their decision rationally and in a non-rebellious way.

An “irrational” atheist:

-Has never read the works of Darwin, Dawkins, Stenger, Neitszche, Hawking, or any other famous scientist, philosopher, evolutionary biologist, physicist, or naturalist.

-Is not familiar with the secular humanism movement. (Albeit not all intellectual atheists are part of this, though it is very common.)

-Cannot hold a calm and intellectual argument with a creationist or believer of any type.

-Will have a more explosive reaction toward preachers and evangelists, and show their insecurities and lack of comfort in their own doctrine.

These are not all of the aspects to define someone one way or the other, just a few general guidelines and signs to look for. Also pertaining to the argument that any young atheist is simply rebelling and will at some point re-convert to the religion of their upbringing, I would like to point out exactly which types are honestly more likely to go back, and which ones are not.

When someone is simply rebelling, they have obviously had a bad experience or were given a reason to rebel. This can sometimes lead to becoming an “intellectual atheist,” but not in most cases. I would like to argue that the rebellious type is the one that is actually more likely to re-convert, simply because they are not well versed in the material, and will have the beliefs ingrained by their parents as their primary source of reasoning, and will at some point revert to this type of thinking. This could be like the old saying, “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree,” or it could be argued that it is a genetic occurrence. For someone who is well versed in the material of science, theology, and philosophy, they will have a sound reasoning for their initial decision for unbelief, and will not usually stray from this reasoning as easily. The same could be argued that this is a genetic occurrence, but that is for an psychologist or geneticist to decide.

There is also a difference between being an atheist, and being an antitheist. Many antitheists see the evils of religion, but may still have a personal god. An atheist can be an antitheist, or vice versa, but they do not necessarily go hand in hand. The main point that I am trying to make is that not all atheists are rebellious, and they shouldn’t be looked at as such. People need to stop with the fallacious attacks and actually try to prove the other person wrong logically; and that goes for anyone in any type of argument or debate. Just remember, rationality and rebellion have nothing to do with one another, and the same applies for rebellion and atheism.

The Un-American Christian Right

The agenda of the American Christian right defies what this nation was founded on, and violates all proper logic in the electoral system. The basic values of the christian right consist of pro-life stances in all possible areas, teaching “family values” in public schools, and imposing Christianity into our political process.

Now the latter two mentioned are what I am referring to when I say it defies what our country was founded on and is at best unconstitutional. Teaching “family values,” in other words, means teacher led prayer in our schools, and for some, using the 10 Commandments as the source of morality in our schools and courtrooms. This can also fall under the imposition of Christianity in our political process. The reason that these ideas are un-American is simply because of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Any type of teacher led prayer or postings of the Commandments is directly recognizing a religion of the state, something that is explicitly spoke against in this amendment. Prayer is a religious action, not an intellectual or educational one. My other problem with the 10 Commandments being posted in classrooms, courtrooms, or any government run or funded program, is that the first three of them have absolutely nothing to do with morality. They are religious “rules” and stand for no human decency or morality, simply a law of “God.” So why even bother with posting these when some of them don’t even stand for something right and true?

Now we come to the pro-life stances. The top 3 categories that a pro-life stance can be applied to are abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. Now it doesn’t take someone of the Christian right to have these stances, and I am not even saying that the stances themselves are wrong, I am simply refuting the motives behind why these particular Christian activists hold these views. As a child of the Catholic school system, I had this drilled into my head time and time again; “Pro-life in all areas is the only Christian way to think.” I am perfectly aware that not all Christians are pro-life in all areas, but this particular teacher felt this way. When it comes to abortion, the stance is that all life is sacred, no matter how small. I will ignore the unscientific nature of this statement, and the contradictions within the church on this, but what I cannot ignore is that this is a stance rooted in religion. What I mean is that the thinking goes: “God created life, an unborn baby is life, therefore the unborn baby is sacred and cannot be aborted.” I will also not get into the fallacies of this type of thinking, but just see that it is rooted in the idea of God. This goes for all of these pro-life stances, and the problem then is that members of these evangelical Christian groups do not even think critically about the issue, simply take their stance because it is that of the “religious side.” However, I am aware that not all Christians are like this, and I am also aware that many pro-life people actually came to their conclusions through critical thought and not through a religious agenda.

A final issue that I feel the Christian right causes the most harm on is gay marriage, and the initial rejection of any member of the LGBT community. Almost any person who is against gay marriage, or a civil union of any kind, will say that they have “religious problems” with the issue. This means that because of their religion and what they have been taught through it, they feel it necessary to reject on an entire community of people, an outcast them from any type of fair and equal treatment. This could mean simply calling it “marriage” instead of a civil union, or even recognizing their partnership through the state for tax benefits. All of this discrimination is purely on the grounds of religious beliefs, and this is one of the many reasons why religion can be bad not only for society, but especially for our political process.

If you do not want to take my word on any of the claims I have made about the Christian right, simply go look up statements by Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, two of the influences for the Christian right, and you will find an abundance of awful and flat out evil slandering. Finally, I would like to address the notion that we are a Christian nation and that is what this nation was founded on. On the contrary, were founded on a secular democracy for a reason. Some of our founding fathers were Christian, some were deists, namely Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, but they all found common ground in the fact that religion and government should be completely separate, and that is why the Constitution was written the way it was. So our nation was founded on a secular government and a democratic process, and that is why the Christian right agenda defies everything this wonderful nation stands for and was built on.

Things are Getting Ridiculous…

As I was sitting at work yesterday and watching the press conference with President Bush, I became amazed and how ridiculous people are getting with their criticisms of him. Without even seriously listening I heard comments such as, “he will no doubt go down as the worst and dumbest president in history,” or, “what an idiot.” I was sitting there listening to these comments by various bystanders and couldn’t get over that the average American honestly does think they are smarter than the President they elected. Believe me, I have plenty of criticisms of Bush and his policies as I’m sure the next guy does, but I have always tried to avoid the ad hominem when discussing him. Intelligent and well informed criticism should be welcomed and even praised, but comments like these are just unacceptable; especially when given by someone who obviously doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

McCain’s Major Flaws

Now just because of the title, don’t take me as a bleeding heart liberal, because I’m not, but I’m also no arch-conservative. And also await the next post of Obama’s flaws, because yes, he has some too.

One of the tendencies that McCain has that honestly scares me the most is his emphasis on “experience,” but has no real evidence to show that it has been experience that will be effective to his presidency. I am aware of his long military history (which I greatly respect), and his political past, but neither of these proves he will be a better Commander in Cheif. The main point I am getting at is his mistakes when speaking about the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and can’t seem to factually keep a damn thing straight. If his experience is such an assett to his campaign, then he should at least have a much higher intellect when discussing foreign affairs, which he has not proven yet. The Iraq situation is very delicate and needs a critical and constructive eye to handle; but this doesn’t necessarily mean the candidate who happens to have lived longer, or the one who has lent more support to President Bush’s policies.

One of the attractions of McCain, as well as many Repub’s is their economic stance and fierce backing of the capitalist system through a free market approach. Now I am no foe of this ideology, but I want someone intelligent to be running the show. What I mean is someone who doesn’t blatantly say they don’t fully understand economics; namely McCain. So it comes down to whether we want an under-informed free marketeer, or an intelligent supporter of a government interventionist system. 

And all of these points don’t even address his seemingly out of control temper. Please do not take any of this as an endorsement for Obama, just a hard eye on what seems to be the candidate who has taken less heat thus far.

Introduction

I started this blog as a way of writing in my freetime. I plan to cover many issues from current affairs in politics and religion, to anything culturally entertaining. Who knows how often I will update or what topic I will cover, that will just have to be a surprise.