Obama at Notre Dame

Well, the religious Right wing-nuts are at it again. They're all up in arms about Obama potentially speaking at Notre Dame. And, as usual, their reasons are just as hypocritical as ever. They claim Obama shouldn't speak there because he's pro-choice.

And no, you idiots, not "pro-abortion". For the last f&*#ing time, NO ONE IS PRO-ABORTION! No one WANTS to see unborn babies killed. But the educated people of the world know that simply outlawing it doesn't reduce the number of abortions. There are better ways.

But, that's another topic for another post.

Back to the Notre Dame issue. As you probably know, Notre Dame is Catholic, and Catholics are generally avid pro-lifer conservatives. On the surface it makes sense they'd object to a pro-choice speaker. But their problem is their definition of pro-life is so narrow they don't even make sense. Apparently the only life they are "pro" about is the life that has not been born yet. They don't give a rat's ass about the life already here. They'll protest Obama but they had no trouble with Bush speaking there even though Bush has been responsible for the loss of thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By the way, pro-choice does not mean Obama is directly responsible for a single embryo death. He does not order anyone to have an abortion. He does not perform any abortions. He does not even advocate abortions. He just thinks it's not the government's place to get involved in a woman's personal life and thinks advocating prevention is the better course to take.

I thought you conservatives were all about less government in our lives, anyway. Oh, wait. That would make too much sense for you. Never mind.

So, the "pro-lifers" protest Obama, who is not directly responsible for any embryo deaths, but they have no problem with Bush who was directly responsible for thousands of deaths. Bush ordered the bombing of towns in which innocent children died sleeping in their beds. Why do these people not see that as a more heinous crime than simply allowing a woman the right to choose? To most intelligent thinkers, directly causing the death or maiming of innocent already-living children is far more heinous a crime than the loss of an embryo. Yet Bush, who committed these very anti-life crimes, is perfectly welcome at Notre Dame.

Everyone knows the conservatives are hypocrites so it's not all that surprising. (Well, everyone except the conservatives themselves. They seem to be completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy.) But the degree of hypocrisy with these right-wingers is just absolutely mind-boggling.

I can only guess these people just do not think. Period. They just parrot what they hear from crazies like Limbaugh and the words go straight from their ears to their mouths without ever passing through their brains for processing. There's just no other explanation.

Religious Conservative Hypocrites

Newt Gingrich: "Obama administration 'anti religious"

(Read article: CNN Political Ticker )

Uh, no, you idiot. He's not anti-religion. He's just against a Church-State government. Remember that thing we all cherish, The Constitution? Yeah, the one that says there should be separation of church and state? If you conservatives are really so protective of the Constitution like you say you are then you should be glad he wants to keep the government secular.
Hypocrites.

The Bible is NOT Factual Proof!

Why don't theists get this?
Supposed "proof" of Jesus' resurrection:

"Jesus' followers took up the pen and wrote about his life, works, death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. In these documents, we find the most positive words written about Jesus' resurrection..."
(http://www.harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/er.htm)

I swear I cannot figure out why believers continue to think that just because something is written in the Bible it is going to convince an atheist that it's a true and factual event. They just can't seem to grasp the idea that to an atheist the Bible is just a book, written by people, just like any other book in existence. It's worse, in fact, than many other books in its credibility. Most books are either written as fiction and admit it, or are written as factual and are verifiable. For example, I might come across a non-fiction book on the formation of snowflakes and I might be skeptical that nature could form such perfect and beautiful patterns on such a tiny scale. But I could, if I wanted to, go out and get myself a microscope and grab some snowflakes and verify for myself that it is indeed true.

Yes, I realize that not all claims are so easy to verify but it still could be done in most cases if you wanted to make the effort. There is the claim, for example, that there is a little black frog that lives only on the top of Roraima, Venezuela, and crawls rather than hops like most frogs do. Although that would be much more difficult to verify I could, if I really wanted to, go to Roraima and verify the frog's existence for myself and, in fact, that is exactly what some people have done since the frog was first discovered.

So a book on snowflake patterns, or a claim about Roraima frogs, can be verified by sources outside themselves. The bible has no such verifiability. They "proof" theists keep offering is the Bible's own claims. That is no more "proof" than a person on the street claiming to be the king of England and offering a letter he wrote stating that he is king as "proof". Sorry, but proof of a claim is not proof of what is being claimed. When are you theists going to get that?

So just give up the idea that, by showing an atheist where in the Bible an event is written about, you are going to convince an atheist that it is proof that the event actually occurred. A passage in the Bible is not proof of a factual event to atheists and never will be no matter how many times you quote it. They only thing you are proving by quoting the Bible is that it was written by people who were racist, sexist, violent, scientifically ignorant, superstitious, and had some very strange ideas about the world in which they lived at the time. But what's the point of proving that to atheists when they already agree with you there?