Augustine must be turning in his grave

In yesterday's TIA Daily, Robert Tracinski wrote about an article in Christianity Today: an interview with the author of a book about a survey of religious attitudes among American youth.

The following quote from that interview caught my eye:

"Based on our findings, I suggest that the de facto religious faith of the majority of American teens is 'Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.' God exists. God created the world. God set up some kind of moral structure. God wants me to be nice. He wants me to be pleasant, wants me to get along with people. That's teen morality. The purpose of life is to be happy and feel good, and good people go to heaven. And nearly everyone's good."

"And nearly everyone's good."

Well, it sure looks to me like Original Sin has been a huge failure!

Richard Land shoots himself in foot

Came across a post today on Bruce Prescott's blog about Southern Baptist Convention PAC head Richard Land. This statement struck me as a doozy:

'I've got more in common with Pope John Paul II than I do with Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.' . . . 'We both say all human life is sacred, that marriage is between a man and a woman, that homosexual behavior is contrary to God's will.' All this is just 'more relevant' he says, 'than whether I'm Catholic or Protestant.'

So, of course, I just had to comment on it. Here and here. (So it took me 2 entries to say what I wanted to say - hey, I'm new at this comments thing!)

Seriously, it really does look to me like he's saying that his beliefs - that "all human life is sacred, that marriage is between a man and a woman, that homosexual behavior is contrary to God's will", whatever - are ultimately more important than which version of the Bible he believes in. To me, this sounds awfully close to saying that his beliefs are more important than the Bible. If that's not what he is actually saying, outright.

So much for Biblical "inerrancy" and "infallibility"!

Really, now, just how strong can the Religious Right possibly be when its leaders indulge in bone-headedness like this? Now, of course, such a sentiment is to be expected from someone as obviously dictatorial as Land, but sometimes such people have the sense not to give themselves away like that in public. Unless, of course, they are so far gone that they think the public will follow whatever marching orders they care to dish out, regardless.

Finally, somebody stands up to Spitzer

Congratulations to the US Chamber of Commerce for showing that they have the cojones to expose Eliot Spitzer for what he really is: a vicious bully in the mold of Rudolph Giuliani, who started his career by destroying Michael Milken. As reported in today's TIA Daily:

New York State's economic dictator, attorney general Eliot Spitzer, has so intimidated New York corporations that he faces little home-grown opposition in his bid for the governorship. Fortunately, the US Chamber of Commerce has decided to launch a campaign against him, exposing his shakedown tactics against American businesses. The Chamber is also launching a welcome (but rather timid) campaign to roll back some of the draconian controls passed during the Enron hysteria. Thanks to TIA Daily reader Josh Aaron for recommending this link.

http://tinyurl.com/5cqlh

"US Group Is Taking on Spitzer," Bloomberg via International Herald Tribune, January 5"

'Spitzer's approach is to walk in and say, "we're going to make a deal, and you're going to pay $600 million to the state, and you're going to get rid of this person and that person, and if you don't do it by tonight, we're going to indict the company." ' Donohue said. 'It is the most egregious and unacceptable form of intimidation we've seen in this country in modern times.' The New York regulator's initiative against trading abuses within the mutual fund industry led to settlements totaling more than $3 billion in penalties, restitution, and fee cuts. Spitzer's office is now investigating allegations of collusion among insurers. The chamber also plans to fight efforts by institutional investors and labor unions to allow shareholder nominees on corporate proxy ballots, and will encourage Congress to amend the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley corporate governance law, Donohue said."

Ayn Rand and Fred Phelps?

The following appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Monday. It's from James Taranto's "Best of The Web" column. For those of you who may not be familiar with Westboro Baptist Church, it is the home base of Topeka, Kansas's own Fred Phelps - if that name does not ring a bell, visit http://www.godhatesfags.com/. Be warned: you may want to wash your computer - and yourself - afterward.

That Taranto is even mentioning the Ayn Rand Institute and Westboro Baptist in the same paragraph is outrageous. That he may be implying that the two are in any way morally equivalent is monstrous.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006106&ojrss=wsj

Idiotarian Tidal Wave

Tsunami news got you down? The Ayn Rand Institute come to the rescue with some comic relief, an article titled "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims" by David Holcberg:

Every cent the government spends comes from taxation. Every dollar the government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted from an American taxpayer first. . . . The question no one asks about our politicians'"generosity" towards the world's needy is: By what right? By what right do they take our hard-earned money and give it away?

The funniest part, though, is the opening paragraph:

As the death toll mounts in the areas hit by Sunday's tsunami in southern Asia, private organizations and individuals are scrambling to send out money and goods to help the victims. Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own.

Which of the tsunami victims are at fault for their suffering? That would be the Swedes, according to an outfit called the Westboro Baptist Church (motto: "God hates fags"). "Thank God for Tsunami & 2,000 dead Swedes!!!" declares a Dec. 29 news release from the group, which refers to Sweden as "land of the sodomite damned." Well, maybe every tsunami has a silver lining, but what about the 148,000-plus dead non-Swedes? Can't God do a better job of avoiding collateral damage?

To be fair, the Ayn Rand Institute takes the position that "government should not have the power to legislate morality," which would seem to be at odds with the Westboro view of homosexuality. But Sweden does have very high taxes and other socialist economic policies of which Ayn Rand definitely wouldn't approve.

The way I feel sometimes

The businessmen he met seemed to wish to evade the subject of his trial. Some made no comment at all, but turned away, their faces showing a peculiar resentment under the effort to appear non-committal, as if they feared that the mere act of looking at him would be interpreted as taking a stand. Others ventured to comment: "In my opinion, Rearden, it was extremely unwise of you. . . . It seems to me that this is hardly the time to make enemies. . . . We can't afford to arouse resentment."

"Whose resentment?" he asked.

"I don't think the government will like it."

"You saw the consequences of that."

"Well, I don't know . . . The public won't take it, there's bound to be a lot of indignation."

"You saw how the public took it."

"Well, I don't know . . . We've been trying hard not to give any grounds for all those accusations about selfish greed--and you've given ammunition to the enemy."

"Would you rather agree with the enemy that you have no right to your profits and your property?"

"Oh, no, no, certainly not--but why go to extremes? There's always a middle ground."

"A middle ground between you and your murderers?"

"Now why use such words?"

"What I said at the trial, was it true or not?"

"It's going to be misquoted and misunderstood."

"Was it true or not?"

"The public is too dumb to grapple with such issues."

"Was it true or not?"

"It's no time to boast about being rich--when the populace is starving. It's just goading them on to seize everything."

"But telling them that you have no right to your wealth, while they have--is what's going to restrain them?"

"Well, I don't know . . ."

"I don't like the things you said at your trial," said another man. "In my opinion, I don't agree with you at all. Personally, I'm proud to believe that I am working for the public good, not just for my own profit. I like to think that I have some goal higher than just earning my three meals a day and my Hammond limousine."

"And I don't like that idea about no directives and no controls," said another. "I grant you they're running hog-wild and overdoing it. But--no controls at all? I don't go along with that. I think some controls are necessary. The ones which are for the public good."

"I am sorry, gentlemen," said Rearden, "that I will be obliged to save your goddamn necks along with mine."