The Soft Bigotry of Low Political Expectations

Photo credit: Thomas R Machnitzk

Photo credit: Thomas R Machnitzk

McCain, Romney, now Trump…

Not surprising, but hard to stomach nonetheless as America is swiftly on the decline.

Scientism, socialism, and practical atheism are the Marxist trinity of secular thought that currently plagues our nation. A rejection of all that is sacred and pure is  becoming the new normal. We’ve been thrust headlong toward a future path void of moral clarity, social direction, ethical guidance, personal discretion, and spiritual wisdom. We are as a rudderless ship.

Ted Cruz 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

Is the day of complete social decline just around the corner? A time in which the difference between good and evil will become indistinguishable. America may very well be on the brink. On the other side lies a cesspool of lawlessness, deceit, and propaganda.

Progressives, in particular, love to expand the grey areas. If the distinction between what is righteous and what is wicked is left undefined, the crusades of the godless activist becomes much more tolerable (and often under the guise of civil virtue).

There is a clear divide that lies between the seduced and the seducers. In the middle lies a majority aching to set the record straight. We want to work, live, and strive for a little peace and prosperity in this life as we prepare for the next. We greatly value and esteem all that has been achieved on behalf of liberty and freedom throughout the history of our nation.

A full rediscovery of our constitutional foundations should be soundly promoted as part of a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary effort to defeat the progressive, anti-American powers. We ought to be fighting informational, ideological, and intellectual fire with fire. Only then could we truly have even the slightest chance to challenge their perpetual and unabashed criminality. If we continue to play this sinister game amidst this dark political climate, we will merely be complicit in digging our own grave.

Woodrow Wilcox

ADVERTISEMENT

Too many years of forsaking the right thing for political expediency is what has got us into this mess. Yet, this sin epidemic plagues all of us. Beyond our national woes lies the inconvenient and uncomfortable truth that we are sinners in the hands of an angry God. The time of individual and national awakening and repentance is now!
In God We Trust?

That still waits to be seen…

(To be fair, there are very many, even in fairly staunch Conservative circles, who believe Trump IS the Answer… Including, Michael Savage, Sarah Palin and these guys)



This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

A.J. Castellitto is a freelance writer who resides in NJ with his wife and five children. He holds a B.S. in Counseling and Human Services from the University of Scranton and his writings have been published at The Center for Western Journalism, The Christian Post, Intellectual Conservative and Reformed Perspective Magazine.
A.J. Castellitto
View all articles by A.J. Castellitto
Print Friendly

CareNet

  • Stupid Atheist

    Let’s see, in one brief article those of my atheist ilk have been inferred to be: rudderless, lawless, wicked, sinful, deceitful propagandizing Marxists, void of moral clarity and lacking in ethics.

    The author’s point, that America suffers from horrid bigotry, is well made.

    Just not in the matter he’d intended to make it…

    • A. Castellitto

      Show me how atheism and freedom goes hand in hand? If we need to be a police & nanny state for secular humanism to reign than we are headed toward an anti-american rule

      • Stupid Atheist

        That’s a non-sequitur. Atheism is simply “not theism”.

        It would be like asking a vegan how not eating meat and freedom “go hand-in-hand”.

        And as a Will/Krauthammer-esque conservative infidel myself, you’re asking the wrong guy to defend big government…

        • A. Castellitto

          You are a minority my friend….. So you are more Rand Paul than neoconservative…. Not sure Will or K truly is ….. Sure you not more Hitchensesque in your thought?

          • Stupid Atheist

            “You are a minority my friend…”

            Granted. And I trust you, perhaps more than some, understand how important it is not to embrace minorities through our commonalities rather than oppress them over our differences.

            Insofar as Hitch was pro-life and was pro-Iraq interventionism, I suppose I’m guilty as charged…

        • A. Castellitto

          Most Republican atheists I know are ultimately attracted to big government candidates, they can’t help it. Their godlessness ultimately demands it …..not a non-sequitur, but a big gov by ideological default/necessity

          • Stupid Atheist

            We have a word for:

            “Most [fill in the group of people] are [fill in the disparagement]”

            …statements. It’s disheartening that we’re not disabused of that sort of thing here in the 21st century…

            • A. Castellitto

              That was not a denial….. Would you vote Ted Cruz?

              • Stupid Atheist

                If he were my only choice over Killary or Sanders, absolutely.

                As to the slight about which of us is inclined to gravitate toward a larger government candidate, I’ll offer the same thing I say to my leftist friends, only backwards:

                If you truly want the government out of our billfolds and boardrooms, you’d better be willing to keep them out of our bedrooms and bloodstreams as well.

                Eliminating the DEA would slash billions from the federal budget. Are you with me, my limited-government friend…?

        • A. Castellitto

          I have a question for you….. Do you think homosexuality and promescuity is good for society in terms of public and social health and the preservation of family and marriage ….. Im talking about the ideal standards….. We can also get into modern realities but let’s start with ideal social standards …… I loathe how everything defaults into a ‘hate’ perspective - that is intellectually dishonest. .. Traditional social and Biblical values was never hate

          • Stupid Atheist

            That’s a pretty convoluted question. What measure do you propose we use to quantify public health and social health?

            I’d note that Alan Turing was very good for social health in terms of lives saved when he cracked Enigma (and the public health of the collective of citizens whose lives he saved), as just the first example that comes to mind…

            • A. Castellitto

              Regardless, you may be more black and white than I am about SSM as most on the ‘pro’ side are….. You believe tearing down the institution of marriage and children being born to a mom and a dad is good for society or no?…. Do you believe that STDs are more prevelant when homosexual intercourse and promescuity in general is more prominent?….. Why can’t we discuss these things but default right to ‘hate’??? I thought atheists are about the facts?….nothing should be off limits, no?

              I’m not accusing you, I don’t know where you stand

              • Stupid Atheist

                “You believe tearing down the institution of marriage and children being born to a mom and a dad is good for society or no?”

                Again, you’ve conflated a couple questions.

                Do I believe tearing down the institution of marriage is good? No. In fact, I think the best way to preserve it is to keep government out of it altogether.

                Are children being born to a mom and a dad is good for society? In general, sure. But I also think a single-parent situation trumps a domestically violent pairing.

                Do I believe that STDs are more prevalent when promiscuity is more prominent? Yes. I also recognize that the worst spread of the deadliest sexually-transmitted diseases is among heterosexuals in third-world countries where the Vatican has convinced people that condoms are evil.

                “Why can’t we discuss these things but default right to ‘hate’???”

                Dude, you’re the only one who has used the word. Three times now. I don’t know who you’re arguing that point with, but it can’t be me…

              • A. Castellitto

                Okay, I may have you confused with another breed of atheist

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      If one chooses not to believe the monumental evidence for the Creator of the universe, and instead chooses to place their faith in the ludicrous idea that everything we see in the universe is the result of random occurrence, and by extension chooses to believe there is no objective truth or morality, then by definition one has demonstrated themselves to be rudderless, lawless, wicked, sinful, void of moral clarity and lacking in ethics (Marxism doesn’t always follow with atheism, but the two doctrines are highly compatible and in agreement on many key tenets, so…)

      You can’t have it both ways. You can’t reject objective truth and morality, attempt to establish a moral code based on nothing more than power and preference, and then expect a rational person to believe you’re morally well-grounded. That might work in the fantasyland of atheism, but it doesn’t pass the smell test in real life.

      • Stupid Atheist

        “If one chooses not to believe…”

        You’ll forgive me for interrupting your generous reply only six words in, but this is important:

        I don’t “choose” what to believe. I invite you to “choose” right this minute, to believe that the Earth is cubic rather than spherical, if you wish to prove me wrong.

        I lack the capacity to “choose” my beliefs. The best I could do is lie to you and pretend I DID believe it, in much the same way that I’d be lying if I told you the “monumental evidence” for god[s] were at all compelling.

        And the fact that mankind has apparently been arguing the issue since the first of our devout ancestors proclaimed their belief in Anu pretty much shoots down any assertion that the matter is settled by the evidence…

        • DCM7

          In other words, you’re speaking as though the atheist position is indisputably on a par, as far as evidence is concerned, with believing the Earth is spherical and not cubical… as though your position is so firmly, irrefutably proven to be true that any further attempt at proof would be redundant.

          That’s a cheap, utterly contemptible attempt at a logic trick, such as we’ve all seen countless times before.

          “shoots down any assertion that the matter is settled by the evidence”
          Unfortunately, human nature indeed keeps things from being settled by evidence… because certain beliefs (such as atheism) have to disregard huge chunks of it while pretending to embrace it all.

          • Stupid Atheist

            “In other words, you’re speaking as though the atheist position is …”

            I can save you some time: Atheism is the absence of a believe in god[s]. Period. So it’s not “on par” with any belief.

            That’d be like saying “not bowling” was on par with playing tennis.

            “That’s a cheap, utterly contemptible attempt at a logic trick…”

            Not feeling the brotherly love, neighbor. It was an illustration that we don’t “choose” our beliefs. We either do, or we do not, find the evidence for things compelling enough to accept them.

            The difference is our standards of evidentiary sufficiency or, better put, a matter of credulity…

            • DCM7

              ” Atheism is the absence of a believe in god[s].”
              It’s not really an absence of belief, because if you reject the Creator, you have to believe in something in his place. We have studied that “something” and found it wanting (and that’s a heavy understatement).

              “It was an illustration that we don’t ‘choose’ our beliefs. We either do, or we do not, find the evidence for things compelling enough to accept them.”
              Unfortunately, people do choose what they believe… and look at evidence through whatever distorted lens is needed in order to make it appear compelling.

              “The difference is our standards of evidentiary sufficiency”
              Though the lower standards are often claimed to be elsewhere than they actually are.

              “Not feeling the brotherly love, neighbor.”
              LOL… No, probably not. That can be hard to convey in an online discussion like this.

              • Stupid Atheist

                “It’s not really an absence of belief, because if you reject the Creator…”

                Dude, I hate to keep cutting you off at the knees before you get rolling, but I’ma keep hammering at this ’til it gets through: I’m unconvinced that there’s a Creator TO reject.

                “Unfortunately, people do choose what they believe…”

                Then I challenge you, this instant, to believe in all earnestness, that I have a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. Try as you might: Can you?

                “[Brotherly love] can be hard to convey in an online discussion like this.”

                I knew we’d find something to agree on if I hung in there… 😉

              • DCM7

                “I’m unconvinced that there’s a Creator TO reject.”
                I realize that. But that doesn’t change the fact that many perfectly intelligent people firmly believe there is a Creator, and have perfectly rational reasons for that belief. I can speak as one who would have abandoned belief in God a long time ago had I found myself having to check my brain in at the door in order to maintain it.

                “I challenge you, this instant, to believe in all earnestness, that I have a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. Try as you might: Can you?”
                Of course not, but then your question is basically a straw-man. I have no motivation whatsoever to try to believe you have a dragon in your garage. But many otherwise intelligent people have very strong reasons to want to believe things that happen to go against evidence. Of course, they may not have originally (or ever) been exposed to a clear, honest view of the evidence, so may not know better. But I see people arguing against clear, direct evidence all the time, because for whatever reason they refuse to face its implications.

              • Stupid Atheist

                “…many perfectly intelligent people firmly believe there is a Creator…”

                That’s the argumentum ad populi logical fallacy. Lot’s of people believed the Earth to be flat once. It wasn’t.

                = = =

                “…and have perfectly rational reasons for that belief…”

                …which also must be sound. And demonstrable.

                = = =

                “I have no motivation whatsoever to try to believe you have a dragon in your garage.”

                I have every motivation toward hoping I’ll see my dead father again one day. That lends no weight one way or another to the validity of the claim that it’s possible.

                = = =

                “I see people arguing against clear evidence all the time…”

                Because verification and falsifiability are how we empirically establish that which is demonstrably true from that which is NOT demonstrably true…

              • DCM7

                “That’s the argumentum ad populi logical fallacy.”
                Perhaps. So why do evolutionists/atheists constantly have to fall back on such a fallacy themselves? “All reputable scientists believe this.” “People who believe in creation are mentally ill.” Etc.

                “which also must be sound. And demonstrable.”
                And they are.

                “Because verification and falsifiability are how we empirically establish that which is demonstrably true from that which is NOT demonstrably true…”
                That’s exactly the process which evolutionism is constantly claimed to be subject to, and which it can easily seen to be conveniently and specially excused from.

              • Stupid Atheist

                “So why do evolutionists/atheists constantly have to fall back on such a fallacy themselves?”

                You’d need to ask those who do.

                = = =

                “And [god claims] are [demonstrable].”

                Then I eagerly await said demonstration. As does the Nobel committee.

                = = =

                “…evolutionism …”

                I’m perfectly happy to, for the sake of argument, pretend that evolution [and any other scientific discipline you are unhappy with] will be proven absolutely false at noon tomorrow.

                How will that in any way provide validation for any god[s]…?

              • DCM7

                “Then I eagerly await said demonstration. As does the Nobel committee.”
                Ah, yes, the old “if creation were real science, all real scientists (and the Nobel committee)” would automatically accept it. I’ve already hinted as to why that’s not the case.

                “I’m perfectly happy to, for the sake of argument, pretend that evolution [and any other scientific discipline you are unhappy with] will be proven absolutely false at noon tomorrow.”
                There are no legitimate scientific disciplines that I am unhappy with. You’re pulling the old “association” fallacy. And there has long been more than enough real, scientific evidence around to show evolutionism to be absolutely impossible. The fact that it persists under the official guise of “science” is demonstration enough that evidence does not settle things by itself.

                “How will that in any way provide validation for any god[s]…?”
                You have it backwards. God was there at the beginning. It is not that he needs to be “validated”; it’s that we need to recognize and acknowledge him. Evolutionism was invented as an attempt, in the false guise of “science,” to eliminate him.

              • Stupid Atheist

                “…there has long been more than enough real, scientific evidence around to show evolutionism to be absolutely impossible…”

                I’ve granted that I’m willing to pretend that to be the case to move us forward. You needn’t re-assert it. What you DO need to do is make the assertion relevant to the discussion.

                = = =

                “You have it backwards. God was there at the beginning.”

                “God was there” is no argument for “there is God”. Your second sentence is the conclusion. It is you that have it backwards, my friend.

                The failure of any science either IS or is NOT relevant to the existence of god[s]. If it IS, please tell me how. If it is NOT, I don’t see why it has entered the conversation in the first place…

              • A. Castellitto

                I don’t anticipate an ‘aha’ but if you get a moment…. http://www.americanclarion.com/2016/02/10/city-of-god-in-a-pagan-land-43098/

              • Stupid Atheist

                BTW Mark Levin had talked about the AC site last night. I don’t know if yours was the article he was referencing, because I just caught the tail-end of his remark. Mad props if so, though. Here’s what jumps out at me:

                “The Gospel is self-revealing…”

                Apart from the logical absolutes, tautologies don’t get us very far. It’s a “My Mom says I’m the smartest boy in the world, and she’s the smartest Mom in the world” kind of thing.

                = = =

                A brief case for Christianity:

                1) Problems with Darwin: Again, how does the shortcoming of ANY science get us to proving God? If I said I had a dragon in my garage, and you asked me to prove it, so I went off on a tangent about how zoology is a load of hooey, I’d be making a pretty weak argument;

                2) Biblical historicity: Archaeologists two-thousand years from now will find Marvel comic books that mention New York city. That won’t be proof of Spiderman;

                Jesus may have existed, just as Aesop may have existed. Neither of those possibilities is evidence that snakes (or frogs) ever spoke…

              • DCM7

                “Archaeologists two-thousand years from now will find Marvel comic books that mention New York city. That won’t be proof of Spiderman”
                I don’t have an official name for the kind of fallacy your overall arguments are starting to represent, but it makes me think of someone attempting to prove that a wall isn’t there by trying to make it appear as if a brick here or there is missing (which aren’t). It’s an approach I commonly see, where someone makes little piecemeal attacks on whatever isolated aspect of Christianity they can manage to raise questions about, while never seeing that the collective force of all the evidence (most of which they never consider, or even learn) adds up to something they could never counter.

                At the same time, such people rarely even attempt to answer the very basic foundational questions about their *own* beliefs — indeed, they seem to pretend the questions aren’t even there (even when they’re asked directly).

              • Stupid Atheist

                If you’d like to present a specific item of biblical historicity that is evidentiary of a god, I’ll be happy to discuss it…

              • DCM7

                “‘God was there’ is no argument for ‘there is God’.”
                That wasn’t so much an attempted argument as just trying to make a point that seemed to be missed: The reality of God, and the recognition thereof, doesn’t somehow depend on the failure of things that try to explain creation without God.

                “The failure of any science either IS or is NOT relevant to the existence of god[s].”
                The “science” that has failed exists for no other bottom-line reason than to try to explain creation without the Creator, so as to eliminate him. That’s how it’s relevant.

                Based on your implied assumptions, you seem to have been taught that there is something inherently irrational about accepting the Creator (and, perhaps, that the one real God is somehow proven false by man’s invention of innumerable fake ones).

                I don’t really know where you got the idea that God isn’t real, or what (if anything) would make you reconsider that idea. You’re clearly highly intelligent, and not nearly as obnoxious as many we hear from around here. But you do an awful lot of assuming and rationalizing — things I have not found to be conducive to understanding.

              • Stupid Atheist

                I’m trying to play along here.

                If you had a problem with Newtonian physics I’d be happy to “pretend” that gravitational theory was hokum just to move the discussion forward. But I wouldn’t say I believed that objects didn’t fall. I have too much respect for you (and sufficient character to not want to lie TO you) to be that patronizing.

                Your position (that I sincerely don’t want to misrepresent) seems to be:
                a) Evolution is crap;
                b) …?…
                c) Ergo God.

                I’m asking about “b”. How do we connect the dots?

                “…you seem to have been taught that there is something inherently irrational about accepting the Creator…”

                Not specifically. I’ve learned not to accept claims (especially those of the supernatural) without compelling evidence on par with the weight of the assertion.

                “I don’t really know where you got the idea that God isn’t real…”

                I didn’t say that. I said I’m unconvinced that any god[s] ARE real, much the same way you probably are unconvinced of Zeus, Thor, Neptune, et al.

                We agree on all but one of the vast array of proposed gods. I’m optimistic that we’re about 99.999% concordant with one another’s position on the matter of deities…

              • DCM7

                “If you had a problem with Newtonian physics”
                Lest I misinterpret you again: I hope you’re not pretending evolutionism is on a par with Newtonian physics.

                “Your position (that I sincerely don’t want to misrepresent) seems to be:”
                You do seem to misrepresent it, but I’m having a hard time putting it into terms you seem to be able to grasp. My position is more like:
                (1) God has revealed himself, and an honest inquirer can see science and history lining up with what he has said in his revelation. No such claim can even begin to be made regarding any other “god.”
                (2) A popular “science” has arisen for the purpose of attempting to explain creation without God, but it has irredeemably failed.
                Note that I’m not really trying to set up an “a then b” structure here.

                “I’ve learned not to accept claims (especially those of the supernatural) without compelling evidence on par with the weight of the assertion.”
                Yet, as far as I can follow you, you have indeed accepted claims without compelling evidence on par with the weight of the assertion — and it’s all the worse because the claims are not supernatural, but are supposed to be firmly proven by natural evidence. In short, you’re skeptical in an area where you feel comfortable being that way, but quite unskeptical in another area.

                “We agree on all but one of the vast array of proposed gods”
                As if a bunch of copycat “gods,” created by men in their own image, are in any way comparable to the Creator who revealed himself. Or as if, more to the point, the existence of innumerable fakes does anything to demonstrate the non-existence of the real thing. If someone tried to use that kind of logic on you, you’d tear it up.

              • Stupid Atheist

                “God has revealed himself…”

                Give me THE singularly most compelling piece of evidence for this, and I’ll be happy to discuss it.

                = = =

                “…you have indeed accepted claims without compelling evidence…”

                What specific claim have I accepted without compelling evidence?

                = = =

                “…a bunch of copycat ‘gods’,…”

                Sorry again, but the bulk of the gods you dismiss predate the claims of Yahweh. The forgeries can’t come before the original.

                The Sumerian religious inscriptions, as just one example, predate the Mosaic texts by nearly two millenia and, I think it’s safe to say, NEITHER of us believes in Anu…

              • DCM7

                “What specific claim have I accepted without compelling evidence?”
                Apparently, the claim that life as we know it (with ordered complexity far beyond the human capacity to invent) arose from purely natural causes with no intelligent designer.

                “the bulk of the gods you dismiss predate the claims of Yahweh…
                The Sumerian religious inscriptions, as just one example, predate the Mosaic texts by nearly two millennia”
                That only makes any kind of sense if you assume that God only came into being once Moses wrote about him. I’m not sure if that qualifies as a non sequitur or circular reasoning or what, but it’s nonsense.

              • Stupid Atheist

                I don’t see where I’ve made any allusion to abiogenesis. I’d respectfully ask that you withdraw that accusation.

                Are you saying Anu (ergo, all the gods) are the same deity, a.k.a. Yahweh…?