Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Mary Grabar :: Townhall.com Columnist
Atheistic Democracy: An oxymoron
by Mary Grabar
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Who won Tuesday's presidential debate?


“In America religion is the road to knowledge, and the observance of the divine laws leads man to civil freedom” Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America

In response to the recent assault by “tolerant” atheists, I am going to explain why it is necessary to maintain our Christian heritage in order to sustain our democracy. This is for the benefit of the “scientists” who presume themselves the authorities on everything and who have penned tomes with such ostentatious titles as The God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation, God: The Failed Hypothesis, and other works that rehash the arguments from ages past. They all have committed the common error of mistaking the empirical method for the whole of knowledge. It wouldn’t be too bad if they all just went off by themselves into their own little self-created hells where they snarl and snipe (called “free-thinkers meetings”) because a Christian might say “God bless you” or wear a tiny crucifix around her neck. Judging by the comments in reply to my column “Letter to a Stupid Atheist,” I have to conclude that this is one of the most miserable groups of people on earth. And as my adjective for them implies, they are not very smart, for there is no analogy between a female dog and a columnist, a claim they make through the name they call me in their blogs and letters.

But more importantly, whenever they assault Christianity, we need to remind them of the foundations of their freedoms.

First, the fact that they live in a country founded upon a belief in “inalienable rights” imparted by their Creator should give them a hint. The very notion of democracy is based on Christian principles—a historical fact, though one not really emphasized in our public school system. But I noticed as I was reading an article in 1999 in The Atlantic Monthly by Francis Fukuyama: “In the West, Christianity first established the universality of human dignity. . .” Yes, the Greeks had a democracy, but it was not a democracy for women and slaves. It was the radical Christian notion of equality--that there was neither “Jew nor Gentile,” and that even prostitutes could repent--that forms the basis of our democratic values.

This of course presupposes the notion of sin, or if you don’t like that old-fashioned word, imperfection. Christianity acknowledges the universality of human sin in addition to the universality of dignity. Therefore the Christian recognizes the limits of government because of the limitations of the (fallen) people who make up the government. The ultimate arbiter is God, not man the Scientist. Who is the ultimate arbiter for the atheist? Sam Harris? Richard Dawkins? Adolf Hitler? To whom will they appeal when they cannot decide their infernal debates?

The atheist, nonetheless, against all evidence, believes in the “progress” of science. He believes it can replace religion. And he believes that we are marching towards perfection. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that. But what do we do before we reach perfection? Which scientist do we turn to to save us? How do we make decisions now? Or if we mistakenly believe we have arrived at The Answer Through Science do we form our culture to that formula? But how do we know it’s perfect? Doesn’t each generation believe itself the most advanced? Didn’t the flappers? Didn’t the hippies? What do we do about the past generations that made mistakes?

This is where the idea of forgiveness comes in. The atheistic world view, since it does not allow for sin, does not allow for forgiveness. Instead, each successive generation smugly thinks of itself as more “advanced” than their predecessors. Grievances build up and with them a desire for retribution. Think about the demand for reparations, the young flocking to the despot Louis Farrakhan, the incessant “reminders” of “injustice” through music, art, and literature. The ruse has to be kept up. Revenge is called for, revenge even for the great-great granddaughters and sons. And thus we have groups who claim superiority—the opposite of the idea of equality. The aggrieved form the privileged, and superior, group, and thus we have the ridiculous notion that a black person or a Native American “cannot be a racist.” (I quote a former English professor as he was explaining the near-death beating of a white truck driver just for driving his truck while the Rodney King riot was going on.) Under the atheistic, secular view, only certain groups can be guilty of sin, and only certain groups deserve dignity. Such race-based favoritism is opposed to the Christian notion of fairness. But atheists believe in the Power of Their Own Minds and reforming society to bring about a utopia. Their Own Minds have come up with affirmative action, as well as forced euthanasia to “alleviate suffering,” concentration camps, and communism.

Thus the state replaces God and those with the physical or economic power dominate. They all presume that this is the “general will.” Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mary Grabar earned her Ph.D. in English from the University of Georgia and teaches in the Atlanta area. She is a Pushcart Prize-nominated poet and published fiction writer. Visit her website and get on her mailing list at marygrabar.com
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: Clarification for Synthesizer
I think you misread my conclusion regarding the coral rings.
6,000 years ago there was virtually no difference in the number of days in a year, only a small fraction of a day.
400 MILLION years ago, there were around 400 days in a year.
I realize that is an estimate based on current measurements of deceleration, but the article you cited seems (at least to me) to agree quite closely with what I intended to demonstrate.

I got my numbers from
http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html

Generally, I tend to trust measurements of these types from NASA more than posts on google groups.

For everyone else, the point was, if the daily rings of a devonian coral display 400 days in a year, they could not have been formed in the past 6,000 / 100,000 / or even 1,000,000 years ago - They would HAVE to have been formed hundreds of millions of years ago. That is the only magnitude of time that could allow for such a large difference in the rotation speed of the earth.
--------------
This forum seems to be winding down, so let me say that I hope to be able to share thoughts again elsewhere with Dr Who, scooternyc, Apollo, synthesizer (once I understand where you are coming from), and sjt18 (sorry I didn't get to all of your points)

replies to John M, sjt18, Dr Who
> 400 daily coral growth bands
> Synthesizer: The reason is Tidal Slowdown. The earth slows it's
> rotation from friction, tidal movements, and core movements at a
> rate of about 2.3 milliseconds per day per century. This is almost
> undetectable over short periods of time, but it is the reason that
> leap seconds are added the clock every so often.
> 6,000 years ago, a day (1 earth rotation) was only .138 seconds
> shorter than now. 100,000 years ago, a day was approximately 2.3
> seconds shorter.
> In the Devonian period, 354 to 417 Million years ago, a day was in
> the area of 2.5 hours shorter. Since there is no friction in space, the
> slowdown does not affect the revolution of the earth around the sun
> (1 year). So, if you do the rest of the math, you can see that a year
> would range around 400-410 days.

Sounds good. Is this plausible?:

6,000 years ago, a year had 400 days;
today, a year has 365.25 days.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
coral, in
Go Away, Flood Geology
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981223232528.26657B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

> the resource I recommended to you
> has an interview with the president of a national organization for
> science education.

What again was your resource?

> She was confronted with the fact that Haeckel's
> embryo drawings are presented in school textbooks as fact even
> though they're known to be flawed and/or fraudulent.

1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel's fraudulent embryo depictions; 1956 Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net

> Horse pictures, the ascending picture of man from ape to hs, and
> various other discredit or questionable proofs are left in textbooks
> also because they "teach important" truths.

the fraud known as the fossil horse series
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980816003836.28616B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Anthropologist Loren Eiseley concerning Piltdown. Cited in
http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-8-what-creation-book-says-about.html#t224
I'm looking at this Eiseley in Fix (1984), 13, which is where the
author of that website article apparently got the Eiseley. In looking
at the Fix bibliography, the Eiseley is highly-probably originally in
McKern, Thomas, ed. 1966. _Readings in Physical Anthropology_ (NJ:
Prentice-Hall).
The amount of subjective speculation indulged in for
years over the Piltdown "fossil," and to which many
leading authorities contributed, can now be viewed
historically as a remarkable case history in self-
deception. It should serve as an everlasting warning
to science that it is not the theologian alone who
may exhibit irrational bias or give allegiance to
theories with only the most tenuous basis in fact.
That scientists in the early years of a new discipline
should have been easily deceived is not nearly so
embarrassing as the rapidity with which they
embraced the specimen solely because it fell in with
preconceived wishes and could be used to support
all manner of convenient hypotheses. The
enormous bibliography in several languages which
grew up around the skull is an ample indication,
also, of how much breath can be expended
fruitlessly upon ambiguous or dubious materials.

> Early exolutionists believed the universe was static and
> eternal. We now KNOW it is expanding and appears to have had a
> beginning.

The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/443d6bc0b02dd25e?dmode=source

> he thinks Bishop Ussher's 6000 years is
> badly flawed. My belief is that he's probably close.

Do you think astronomers see light coming from stars millions of lightyears away?

> it's as if physics were
> designed to cause life to come into existence.

2001 Gerald Schroeder, 1999 Paul Davies, 1992 Hubert Yockey, & 1968 Michael Polanyi: [Davies]"life cannot be 'written into' the laws of physics" presently known
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33b2blF3tdum0U1%40individual.net

on "order" and varieties of "complexity"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com

> Name three "science" statements from the bible.

Does this qualify as one?:
Time had a beginning.

erroneous claims in the Babble
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156770348.117388.43940%40i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> If evolution turns out to be
> untrue....OK!....

Meaning of "evolution"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net

> I think it was Hawking that said that evolution allows an atheist to
> be intellectually fulfilled.

No, Dawkins.

Dawkins vs. an atheist philosopher
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411180756.6c069f04%40posting.google.com

Hawking is not an atheist
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980927230202.15518B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981023223535.2360A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981002001223.7287B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

> the suggestions I saw there. All have been shot
> full of holes by secular scientists...
> and none deal with the
> information/coding required for life.

1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net

How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net

> IOW's, the people YOU trust
> have provided disproofs for every idea presented on that link.

atheism of the gaps
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1163208112.842963.215980%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

> contamination in
> the environment would destroy it before it got started.

control - f/ "find" for: contam
1984 Dean Kenyon
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-34j9b2F4a5gioU1%40individual.net