Warren: An Excellent Choice for the Invocation

[gdnp]

HANNITY: Achmedinejad ... I think we need to take him out. Am I advocating something dark, evil, or something righteous.

WARREN: Well, actually the bible says that Evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped.

HANNITY: Through force?

WARREN: If necessary. And in fact that is the legitimate role of government. The bible says that God puts government on Earth to punish evildoers -- not gooddoers, evildoers.

OK, that that's not an explicit "yes" to Hannity's question, but is it not an unequivocal endorsement of the state-sponsored assassination of Achmedinejad? It sure sounds like it to me.

Warren has stated, in a roundabout way, that evil has to be stopped through force if necessary. Do you disagree? He has not stated whether force is necessary in this case or whether assassination is the necessary force. He leaves those questions open. Yes, it is a belligerent statement, but it is a far cry from calling for an assassination.

 

[gdnp]

Right. The more exposure to liberal professors, the more likely you will be indoctrinated into their political ideology. Conservatives are less susceptible to peer pressure and maintain their individuality. They also manage to avail themselves of knowledge from higher learning institutions without fixing their lips to liberal professors posteriors.

Yeah, I suppose that's one interpretation.

 

[hgc]

Warren has stated, in a roundabout way, that evil has to be stopped through force if necessary. Do you disagree? He has not stated whether force is necessary in this case or whether assassination is the necessary force. He leaves those questions open. Yes, it is a belligerent statement, but it is a far cry from calling for an assassination.

Here's my take: Hannity made a straightforward statement in support of assassinating Achmedinejad. He then asked Warren if that was morally wrong or right. Warren responded to that question by making the biblical case for government to punish evildoers. He didn't segue into a different topic. He didn't equivocate in his response in regards to "taking out" the person mentioned in particular or anyone in general. He was ever so slightly oblique by not answering directly with "yes, you can do it." But his answer was exactly that. Either that, or his entire response is complete non sequitur.

Just my opinion.

 

[Skeptic]

If LBJ had, in 1964, picked a preacher who was anti-black, would you have supported that move?

If such a preacher were to be present in his swearing-in ceremony TOGETHER WITH and perform the rites TOGETHER WITH a pro-Black preacher (say, MLK, Jr.), like Obama's doing?

Absolutely.

That, if it could have been done, would have sent exactly the correct message, of unity despite differences. It would hardly have "forced" LBJ to not pass civil rights legistlation, and may have stopped some violence.

The problem in 1964 would have come from the other side: to find an anti-Black preacher willing to stand publicly together by MLK.

 

[drkitten]

Right. The more exposure to liberal professors, the more likely you will be indoctrinated into their political ideology.

Or, alternatively, the less educated and more ignorant you are, the more likely you are to vote conservative.

Conservatives are less susceptible to peer pressure and maintain their individuality.

Conservatives are so stupid as to be unteachable.

They also manage to avail themselves of knowledge from higher learning institutions without fixing their lips to liberal professors posteriors.

They also manage to avoid collecting knowledge from higher learning institutions by simply not attending and not graduating.

I'm so glad you're around, Cicero. You embody every negative stereotype of conservatism and drive people into the arms of rational liberalism.

 

[Skeptic]

Conservatives are so stupid as to be unteachable.

(Sigh)

I couldn't have asked for a better example of the smug, self-important, close-minded (pseudo-)liberal view: "they disagreed with me EVEN AFTER I told them they're wrong, so they just must be TOO STUPID to understand what I'm saying -- don't they know all the superior people are liberal???"

This isn't real liberalism, of course -- it's mere class snobism, the sort of behavior typical of what someone once called the "herd of independent minds". It's being a liberal not so much because one thinks it's the correct worldview, but mostly because one wishes to emulate "all the right people", much like other people wish to drive the same car their role models drive, or wear the same dress their heroine wears in the latest fashion magazine.

(In any case, there's precious little evidence the political fads the "intellectual elite of progressive liberals" supported in the last 100 years -- from Communism to Eugenics to "Great-Societism" to Fruedian psychoanalysis, to name a few -- is any better, on average, than the equivalent fads on the part of the "stupid conservatives", such as creationism, for instance. Creationism is a dumb fantasy, but no dumber or fantastic than Communism.)

Naturally it is these kind of "liberals" that are the rudest and most dismissive of conservatives -- for exactly the same reason it is those who buy a certain brand of car purely for show and status that are the most dismissive of those who drive a different car. Those who buy the same exact car because they simply like it, usually care much less what others drive. After all, it's no fun buying car X or holding political view Y for social status unless you get to flaunt your superiority with them, is it?

But -- such rude fools aside -- most liberals are of the "bought the car I liked best" variety, afer all. They're not any ruder, more threathening, or less tolerant to hearing others with different views speak than most conservatives. This I can say after years of experience in a liberal university. If "close mindedness" means "intolerant", most liberals are no more, or less, "close minded" than most conservatives (political pundits on both sides calling the other side "intolerant" notwithstanding.)

Now, we all have "core" belief in which we are more close minded than in our other beliefs. In areas of "core" conservative belief, conservatives tend to be just as hard to move as liberals about their own "core" beliefs ("hard to be moved" and "rude to anybody who disagrees" are not the same thing, naturally). So it isn't that there's anything particularly "liberal" about the mere fact of being close-minded about something.

However, the core is much larger and homogenous in the liberal worldview: there are, it seems, a LOT more things you MUST believe are THE OBVIOUS TRUTH if you are a "liberal" than if you are a "conservative". The result is comulative close-mindedness on the liberal side, since on very many social, economic, and political issues, the conservative will be willing to more possiblities more objectively than the liberal -- because it isn't part of his "core" worldview, while it is part of the liberal's "core" worldview.

 

[drkitten]

(Sigh)

I couldn't have asked for a better example of the smug, self-important, close-minded (pseudo-)liberal view: "they disagreed with me EVEN AFTER I told them they're wrong, so they just must be TOO STUPID to understand what I'm saying -- don't they know all the superior people are liberal???"

You didn't read the post to which I was responding, did you?

 

[Skeptic]

Well, you have written this:

I'm so glad you're around, Cicero. You embody every negative stereotype of conservatism and drive people into the arms of rational liberalism.

While I originally of course thought that your claim conservatives are "stupid" is sarcastic (i.e., a mirror image of Cicero's claims), this last sentence convinced me you are serious, and you do think Cicero is a typical conservative.

Now, re-reading this, I see that I was wrong. It is not that I necessarily agree with your criticism of him, but, I agree you did not mean to imply all conservatives are like what you think Cicero is like.

I therefore of course withdraw my claim that you are one of those sort of liberals. However, my general point about such "liberals" stand.

Alas, I am somewhat paranoid about this, I am sure. You see, the problem is, I have met quite a few "liberals" who DO act in the smug self-important way I describe, so I am quick to believe others are like them (as, alas, some on this forum are, as well).

Note that, just like you (on second thought) am not claiming most conservatives are like you think Cicero is, I am not claiming most liberals are like I though you are.

 

[Andronicus]

Do you have cites to support this? Everything I've been able to find suggests that the more education you have, the more likely you are to vote Democrat. (Example.) (Example 2.)

I can't find the article after a quick search, and as the fact was unattributed I'm not sure it would be real helpful in any event. (I believe it was a story linked by RealClearPolitics.com .) I will concede in a quick review, the Gallup Poll web site had an article which stated in 2004 those with post-graduate degrees voted slightly more for Kerry, which is the opposite of my understanding (from the article I can't find).

 

[gdnp]

However, the core is much larger and homogenous in the liberal worldview: there are, it seems, a LOT more things you MUST believe are THE OBVIOUS TRUTH if you are a "liberal" than if you are a "conservative". The result is comulative close-mindedness on the liberal side, since on very many social, economic, and political issues, the conservative will be willing to more possiblities more objectively than the liberal -- because it isn't part of his "core" worldview, while it is part of the liberal's "core" worldview.

I disagree, but there may be some confirmation bias on both sides. Take, for example, the claim that Bush is not a "real conservative" because he was not sufficiently aggressive in balancing the budget. Or that Lieberman or Guliani were not acceptable VP choices because they were pro-choice. There seem to be more conservative single issue voters: gun control, abortion, taxes, even gay marriage. It seems to me that liberals are much more diverse and much more tolerant of dissent. You are not marginalized for being antiabortion or pro-nuclear power.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Right. The more exposure to liberal professors, the more likely you will be indoctrinated into their political ideology. Conservatives are less susceptible to peer pressure and maintain their individuality. They also manage to avail themselves of knowledge from higher learning institutions without fixing their lips to liberal professors posteriors.

This is just less than acute. Dumb, even. Probably learned at the knee, or thereabouts, of a conservative perfesser. Teachers have a difficult enough time getting students to master the subject matter they are supposed to without concerning themselves with political ideology.
At least here, at Whatsamatta U.

 

[Skeptic]

I disagree, but there may be some confirmation bias on both sides.

That there's bias on both sides is of course true. The point is, the progressive worldview has (historically) concerned itself more with social issues, while the conservative one has concerned itself with more private issues, e.g., religion.

It might seem absurd to believe Jesus is actually in a piece of bread after a priest says certain words in Latin, but if THAT is your dogma, you will be relatively open to different views about, say, economic policy, since it doesn't touch that issue. But if your dogma is that Marx was right (say), which is equally silly, you are committed to a specific economic view.

Since, in practice, most issues people discuss are social and economic and not theological, this means in practice liberals have many more dogmas to defend.

 

[eeyore1954]

What is so hard to reconcile about this choice Obama is against gay marriage and Rick Warren is against gay marriage. They both claim to be in favor of equal rights for gays. Rick Warren is a Christian and Obama is a Christian.

 

[gdnp]

That there's bias on both sides is of course true. The point is, the progressive worldview has (historically) concerned itself more with social issues, while the conservative one has concerned itself with more private issues, e.g., religion.

It might seem absurd to believe Jesus is actually in a piece of bread after a priest says certain words in Latin, but if THAT is your dogma, you will be relatively open to different views about, say, economic policy, since it doesn't touch that issue. But if your dogma is that Marx was right (say), which is equally silly, you are committed to a specific economic view.

Since, in practice, most issues people discuss are social and economic and not theological, this means in practice liberals have many more dogmas to defend.

I disagree with your historical analysis. Conservatism has had a long history in the US and has focused on both economic and social issues. It is only during the last few decades that conservatism became dominated by religious conservatives, in particular evangelical Christians, an influence that has already waned. I was pretty young at the time, but I do not recall Goldwater's core values to have been explicitly religious. Economic policy, social policy, and defense policy dominated.

And once again, I think there is far more diversity of opinion in the liberal Democratic party than in the conservative Republican party.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Right. The more exposure to liberal professors, the more likely you will be indoctrinated into their political ideology. Conservatives are less susceptible to peer pressure and maintain their individuality. They also manage to avail themselves of knowledge from higher learning institutions without fixing their lips to liberal professors posteriors.

Curiously enough, many of these "individual" conservatives seem to recite the weekly talking points of hate-clowns like Hannity and Limbaugh in perfect synchrony. A coincidence? I think not.

Your own whinings about "liberal professors" are, I note, hardly original. Indeed, they appear to have been translated from the German; though for some reason the word "Jewish" has been lost in translation.

Meanwhile, I am having some difficulty in remembering any time at which my professors expressed any political opinions whatsoever: I think they were too busy teaching me math. I was therefore obliged to form my own opinions; just as, indeed, I was obliged to produce my own results for my PhD thesis. You see, the ability to engage in independent and original thought is an essential precondition of academic success; but something of a handicap if one aspires to be a successful "dittohead".

Of course, it must be acknowledged that my views on what happens in universities are based merely on what I found out for myself by actual experience, whereas yours are founded on the much more appealing basis of what conservative poltroons have taught you to recite.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Since, in practice, most issues people discuss are social and economic and not theological, this means in practice liberals have many more dogmas to defend.

Surely for every liberal dogma there is an equal and opposite conservative dogma, namely that the liberal dogma is wrong.

 

[Alt+F4]

That, if it could have been done, would have sent exactly the correct message, of unity despite differences.

I understand the unity despite differences message, but the political spectrum in the U.S. is so broad, where does one draw the line?

Shouldn't NAMBLA, the boys from Stromfront and the United Daughters of the Confedercy be included in this unity umbrella just as much as the San Francisco Boys and Girls Choir?

Since not every political ideology can be included in a ceremony as short as the inauguration, choices had to be made. Why Rick Warren and not the Grand Imperial Wizard of the KKK?

 

[Alt+F4]

Surely for every liberal dogma there is an equal and opposite conservative dogma, namely that the liberal dogma is wrong.

The conservative kooks who don't like Obama say he does not meet the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency. If McCain had won the liberal kooks would be saying the same thing about him (McCain).

 

[Skeptic]

Why Rick Warren and not the Grand Imperial Wizard of the KKK?

Because, despite the "diversity 'n' respect" crowd's "he's a racist Nazi!" rants against Warren, which is their usual method of showing disrespect towards anybody whose views diverge from theirs, Warren is in no way, shape, or form, the same as the Grand Imperial Wizard of the KKK. I dislike and disagree with him on a lot, as I do with most evangelical preachers, but to claim he's the same as the KKK or NAMBLA is absurd.

Incidentally, the sole practical result of the "diversity 'n' respect" folks labeling anybody they dislike as a "racist" (or "homophobe" or "fascist" etc.) is that such words lost most of their meanings through overuse. Obama would certainly never invite, and should not invite, a real racist (of course, a real racist would probably refuse the invitation). He would never invite NAMBLA or the KKK precisely because he does not want to suggest they are a legitimate part of America (they must be tolerated due to free speech, but must not be accepted or legitimized). But that Warren is called a "racist" or a "homophobe" by the usual gang of left-wingers? So what? These guys call everybody who disagrees with them a "racist". No wonder Obama ignores them.

 

[Alt+F4]

I dislike and disagree with him on a lot, as I do with most evangelical preachers, but to claim he's the same as the KKK or NAMBLA is absurd.

Exactly my point regarding the diversity of the political spectrum in the United States. My politics/worldview belief is that the choice of Rick Warren is absurd, yours do not.