About Me

Name: Sam Allen
Email: littlemas2@hotmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

Can Islam produce freedom?

Posted by Sam Allen on Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:16:10 PM
What does it take to have a free society?  This is a post in response to Thomas Sowell's column about freedom in the Middle East.

The only way for free and democratic society to continue to exist is if the people are responsible enough to handle their rights.  The founders of the USA knew this, and we should understand it too.  People are only going to be personally responsible for themselves and for others if they have an internal reason to be.

In America, the internal reason to be good has come from Protestant Christianity.  In the past in America, whether or not you were a strict Christian, you at least understood the value of the Christian moral system, and you affirmed in your own life and expected others to live up to it.  

When the system did not look after people's rights in situations like slavery, women's suffrage, or Jim Crow laws, to what did the reformers appeal?  They appealed to this same common moral understanding and pointed out how the country or its policies were not conforming to the common moral code.

Whether or not you believe that Christianity is true, its moral code has worked well to help bring freedom to more and more people.  Unfortunately, we are now glibly chucking out this moral code, but not replacing it with anything.  What we have now is a situation like in the book of Judges where every man does what is right in his own eyes, and that will lead to chaos, which eventually leads to tyranny because most people prefer tyranny to anarchy.

Islam does have a moral code as well, but that code has not been proven to bring out freedom for the masses.  This is because it does not place value on all humans as the doctrine of the image of God does, along with the doctrine of mercy and grace given by Jesus at the cross.  Islam has not proven that's its moral code can produce a free society, and I am afraid that the more we push freedom in their culture the more we will see it fail.  

If we desire to see true freedom in the Middle East, we need to recommit to our own moral code, and then not be ashamed of promoting it.  I am not talking here about state sponsored religion, but certainly we should have a state sponsored primary culture.  We need to agree upon a workable moral code, and then if it has brought success and freedom, we should not be ashamed of promoting in our foreign policy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Human Tragedy or Really Bad Ideas

Posted by Sam Allen on Sunday, November 28, 2010 9:43:45 AM
I was looking for some pictures of poor people the other day and I came upon this website showing pictures of the horrible results of some conflict in Kenya.

http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2008/02/09/out-of-africa/?pending=1#comment-346275

Here is a comment that the photographer made about the scenes, and some of my reflections on it.

"People, dirt poor inflicting unimaginable cruelty and suffering on other equally poor people, the motivation for it really doesn’t matter, it is an appalling human tragedy."

I understand the sentiment behind this statement.  It is good to recognize tragedy and not to gloss over it for the sake scoring some political or religious point.

On the other hand, it is this type of thinking that fails to recognize and challenge really bad ideas that keeps these tragedies continuing.  All cultures and ideas are not equally valid.

Some ideas are wrong and lead people to think that it is okay to inflict massive suffering on others as long it helps your group or gets revenge for some other wrong suffered.  

To combat bad ideas that lead to bad actions, you need to first know your own ideas.  Second, challenge your own ideas to see if they work in the real world and are really good.  Third, be willing to actively promote your ideas in a good way for the sake of helping people trapped in the suffering caused by bad ideas.  

In the West, I think we have fallen down on all three points recently.  We don't know (or even have) a unified set of beliefs that help us define right and wrong since we kicked Christianity out of public life.  Therefore we don't challenge our own ideas.  Even the assumed set of humanistic principles that many people hold unconsciously are not allowed to be challenged to see if they stand up to real life scrutiny.  Third, because of the post-modern emphasis on defining our own meaning and not trusting any bigger narratives, we fail to challenge obviously horrendous cultures that are complete mess, because we do not want to appear judgmental.  

Well guess what?  The culture that produced the produced the tragedies seen here sucks.  The ideas of tribalism and animism lead to suffering.  They should be rejected.  Judeo-Christian morals basically work to create stable more just societies.  We need to promote good ideas otherwise we are simply yelling into the wind.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Facts can cloud the truth about homosexuality.

Posted by Sam Allen on Sunday, August 01, 2010 12:00:00 AM
This post is a response the a post by Jeffery, who was commenting on this Doug Giles column.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2010/08/01/mama_grizzlies_obama_wants_more_time_with_your_cubs/page/full

Jeffery said to someone who was talking about the dangers of homosexuality:

"Sorry, you're too late. All reputable medical organizations, as well as the US Supreme Court, have determined that homosexuality is normal. I guess the experts have outgunned you on this one!

Pedophilia is mostly a heterosexual phenomenon: adult men prey on minor aged females far more often than on minor age males. Just so you have the facts."

Jeffery, you have given us 2 examples of how someone can use facts that are true to cloud the truth of an issue.

Yes many groups have declared homosexuality normal. Of course if you look at why those decision were made what you discover is that they were primarily political decisions not due to any new information. A fact you neglected to mention is that homosexuals still have significantly shorter life spans, because on average they engage in much riskier behavior than the general population. Another fact you neglect to mention is that homosexuals still have the same amount of emotional and psychological turmoil as before these decisions, which was the primary reason that the experts had declared the behavior abnormal. You also fail to mention that studies done even by homosexuals themselves make it clear that long term relationships are much less likely, and that sexually faithful relationships are almost unheard of in the gay community. Finally you fail to mention that study after study has proven that kids raised in traditional marriages with a mother and father do much better than those kids raised in other circumstances, including homosexual relationship, (which almost by definition are not going to be long term). The truth about the unhealthy nature of homosexual behavior for the individual and their family remains even though society in general now approves of the behavior, and the per capita income of homosexual is higher than the rest of the population.

Your second statement then uses the true fact that when looking at the total number of pedophilia offenses, the majority are not homosexual in nature, to obscure the truth that homosexuals have a much higher tendency to commit pedophilia offenses than heterosexuals. This is proven by the fact that about 30 % of all pedophilia cases are homosexual in nature which is much higher than the percentage of homosexuals in the total population. This proves that those with a same sex attraction are much more likely to also be attracted to younger people and then to act upon those longings. It does not prove that all homosexuals are pedophiles, but it does prove the tendency is higher among homosexuals.

Finally, I wanted to comment on your interesting way of determining morality. Apparently, you believe that a majority decision makes something right. Or is it just the majority of experts? Or is it just the majority of experts that you like? I suspect that you would disagree with a majority of experts from any society that would say homosexuality is abnormal. If I am right, upon what basis would you then make the determination? Your own opinion or what?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Questions for Global Warming Alarmist

Posted by Sam Allen on Saturday, July 24, 2010 12:00:00 AM
This post is in response to a global warming proponent called inthemajority as he responded to a Paul Driessen article about Dr. Mann being exonerated by Penn State.  Inthemajority obviously believes in the dangers of global warming and advocates for policies based on such a belief.  Here are some questions that I believe global warming proponents need to answer before they should advocate for any specific policy based on the dangers of global warming.

At least these four questions need to be answered before we should take any particular drastic action concerning the environment.

1. Is the earth really warming significantly and/or unnaturally? You (inthemajority) obviously think it is, but many people are not sure that we have anywhere near enough data to suggest any long-term trend or anything unnatural.

2. Even if we were to grant that the earth is warming significantly, what is causing the warming? Please don't respond with the canard that the greenhouse affect has been well known since the early 20th century. The truth is that the greenhouse affect has not been proven on a global level as the early 20th century ideas suggested and which have been repeated ad nauseum by other ideologues. What things affect the global climate and how they affect it are still not at all clear. We may have some general ideas, but not even the computer models that predict dangerous global warming can actually accurately reproduce the real climate changes over the past 50 years, so why should I trust them going forward? Even if the greenhouse affect is real, CO2 is a very insignificant greenhouse gas, and the model which suggest huge problems with warming in the future all assume positive feedback from other factors which is completely unproven. Why shouldn't we assume that as in many other natural realms that the feedbacks will be negative, which would actually lessen any affects of unnatural warming.

3. Even given 1 and 2, the next question is what is the right climate temperature? Perhaps warming will be good for the globe. You are suggesting that 2010 may be the warmest on record, well it has been a nice year here in Minnesota. What if the globe does warm up? Some of the largest land masses are in the cold climates of Canada, Greenland, and Russia. Might not more usable land open up in response to warmer climate making life better for man and nature? Many people who predict disaster from warming have no proof that such would be the case. Historically, times of warmth on the globe have been times of social expansion and creation of wealth.

4. Even granting 1,2, and 3 (assuming warming is bad), the next question is what social policies and ideas would actually lead to real results in lessening CO2 output and therefore warming? Will imposed top down state solutions actually work to reduce global emissions? Not if they hamper creation of wealth, because it is only the wealthy who have the freedom to be concerned about what happens 20 years from now. Why is it harder to get China, India, Brazil, and other developing nations on board with environmental policies?  They Policies that help the earth but hurt people will not be adopted across the board, and therefore would not be affected anyway to accomplish your goals. Instead of bashing businesses, you would be more effective in your goal by encouraging wealth creation in the developing world so that people could more quickly get to the point where they wanted to be more environmentally conscious.

Do my questions sound like they come from the lunatic fringe or are they reasonable questions?  Can you say you really know the answer for them?  If so, I would be curious where the real research is that proves your points.  Can you prove AGW to even a reasonable degree?  How sure are you that the policies you advocate would actually help and not hurt? 

By the way, I ride my bike 9 out of 12 months a year as my main mode of transportation in Minnesota, and I have been recycling since before there was a recycling program.  Furthermore, my family raises a large garden and cans and freezes our own locally grown vegetables.  I love the outdoors, and I love parks.  My family camps and vacations in national parks all the time.  I would love to do a carbon footprint comparison with most environmentalists, because I bet I would win!  Even my 5 kids and wife primarily use the bikes during the summer months to go to activities and the store.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Secular Left Uses Religion

Posted by Sam Allen on Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:42:02 PM
This is a blog in response to a left leaning poster who claimed that people on the right (such as Marvin Olasky in his article about Jim Wallis) should not argue that the left both uses religion and also is primarily a secular or atheist movement.

Why can't it be both ways? If the primary leadership on the left has rejected organized religion (which they have), then they can define morality as they see fit (which they do). The only thing that really matters then is power. Therefore, using organized religion for your own purposes makes perfect sense if that is how they can accomplish what they want. Jim Wallis' liberal evangelicalism (the whole emergent church), black churches, liberal Catholicism, liberal mainline churches, and liberation theologian of all stripes can be and have been put to good use by the very irreligious leadership on the left. The primary religion of the left is scientism/humanism or I am smarter than you ism, so if leftist Christianity or new age religion or any other religion can further their goals, then why not go for it. Now mind you, I am fairly convinced that the Rockefeller Republicans have the same religion as the top leadership on the left, namely, more power for me ism. When conservative Christians allow themselves to be used by a social leftist in the GOP, we (conservative Christians) are also simply being used by irreligious people too, so it can happen both ways. The only real difference that I see is that the conservative Christians are a larger part of the right, so we still have a little more influence on the GOP and conservative politics in general (life, religious freedom, and family issues are still on the table). Liberitarians, patriotic hawks, and economics conservatives do not set the complete agenda on the right. Social conservatives also have a voice.

The left leaning Christians don't seem to have make any practical difference in the party platform of the Dems or any group. On what issue would the left be different if Jim Wallis and the leftist evangelicals were not involved? None that I can see. I would be curious to know on what issues Jim Wallis even disagrees with the irreligious left?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who is right?

Posted by Sam Allen on Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:58:24 AM
This blog is a comment on Brit Hume's offer to Tiger Woods to try out Christianity because it offers forgiveness.  Here is a link to Hume's discussion of it with O'Reilly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzQGpd74L3s&feature=player_embedded

I also comment on a discussion of Hume's comment by Joe Scarbough and co-host.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNmqdgT220E&feature=player_embedded

Yes, Hume did state that Christianity offers something Buddhism does not, namely forgiveness.  Anyone who claims to be a Christian and does not recognize that its message is different and unique and even better is probably not a Christian.

Religions are different, and most people believe theirs is better than the others.  As a Christian I believe as Hume does that Jesus offers something that no other historical or religious figure offers, namely complete forgiveness and acceptance, not based upon what we have done, but simply by accepting what he has done. 

I believe I am right, and that having a relationship with Jesus on his terms is the best possible life for everyone.  I also believe that that Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, secular humanists, and modern materialist, relativist Americans are wrong.  If you disagree with me, I might try to convince you otherwise, but I am not going to try to coerce you into my beliefs, but I am also not going to capitulate and stop telling people about the good new of Jesus simply because someone else does not like it.

Finally, if you don't believe there are real differences between religions, and that they are all basically the same and therefore we should not try to promote one over the other, then you have a different belief system than me.  You think I am wrong, and I think you are wrong.  If you want religious people to keep their views to themselves, you are essentially trying saying that only your perspective about the world is right and that you don't want to hear different.

If you want to convince me that I am wrong, go to my blog and comment on this piece. (I will post it there as well.) What you should not do is simply assume that your viewpoint is right simply because everyone else around you seems to agree with you, which by the way is what Scarbough's cohost seems to do in the second video here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The War will come to us.

Posted by Sam Allen on Saturday, October 03, 2009 12:00:00 AM
Pat Buchanan in his column today about the wars in the Middle East closed with this statement.

"The killers of 9-11 were over here because we were over there. How has being over there benefited us, to compensate for the cost?"

That is simply Baloney!!  His isolationism is demonstrably false. The killers of 9-11 were over here because they saw their efforts as part of a larger effort to make the whole world submit in one form or another to Allah. They were primarily belief driven not revenge driven.

The terrorist attacks that still happen in Europe, which in general has acquiesced to Muslim culture shows that radical Islamist will attack based upon their beliefs not our actions. Whatever other excuses they used to justify their actions are simply that, excuses.

Now whether we should continue to prosecute wars in the Middle East is debatable, because it may in fact not be effective in changing their culture. Unless you combat the real enemy, which is Islam itself then you will not change their culture.

On the other hand, as with communism, the Korean and Vietnam Wars may not have been totally effective on those terms, but it did keep the communists busy somewhere other than America. I know the cost of continuing to prosecute the war is high, and it may never result in a long term change in those areas, but it may still be the safest place to have a war.

Don't fool yourselves, Islam is at war with the west, and we will either be fighting them somewhere or we will be submitting to them here.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hollow victories

Posted by Sam Allen on Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:39:55 AM
I wrote this response to Will, a homosexual man who regularly posts responses to Mike Adams columns.  In this response, he was gloating about the fact that Maine has become the 5th state to affirm homosexual marriage (in spite of the fact the the column was not about homosexuality in any way, but was rather about Statist.)

You are constantly bringing up gay rights, and you may in fact be right that gay activists are "winning" politically.  Sadly though, just like the Statist of this article, when you win, everyone loses.  People often do choose to indulge their own immediate sexual desires verses engaging in the harder work of forming real families and real marriages. 

People in this country for years have denigrated marriage to follow their own lusts which makes it natural to completely destroy the meaning of the institution completely, but is this a good thing.  No, of course not, you can no more change the fact that stable families with a dad and a mom are the best environment to raise happy healthy kids then you can change the law of gravity.  Our problem these days is that so many people are already a screwed up, so they cannot see how bad the destruction of marriage is.

By the way, the same self-indulgent culture also leads us to give our right away along with our responsibilities.  To many Esaus who are willing to sell their birthrights for a bit of government soup.

So go ahead, celebrate your victory, but remember if you do "win" it will be a very hollow victory that leads to more misery for everyone.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's your fault!!

Posted by Sam Allen on Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:47:50 PM
I am a little tired of hearing both sides blame each other for the mess, and hearing "average" Americans blame everyone but themselves.

The truth is that we live in a materialistic "get it now" culture that affects/infects both Washington, Wall Street, and main street. The Dems pandered to the underclass to have the government push bad loans for people who could not afford them, so those people would continue to vote for them. The Republicans pander to the business community (who can do no wrong apparently) who like idiots give loans to people who cannot afford them, because for awhile we can make big money.  A great number of average citizens refuse to take responsibility for their own choices in buying homes they could not afford, because my banker said I could afford it (not just sub-prime buyers either).  As long as the bubble kept growing everyone was happy, but now that it has burst, everyone blames everyone but themselves.

The solution is not more or better government regulation or less government regulation, but it does include more regulation -- namely, self-regulation by everyone.  At all levels of society we have people who refuse to regulate their own behavior. I think capitalism, democracy, and freedom in general are obviously the best systems, but they only work if the people in them can regulate themselves!

The problem with a bail-out is that it is simply putting off the day when we as a society feel the full effects of our bad behavior. Like a co-dependent spouse cleaning up after an alcoholic, this action may mean that we don't get the wake up call soon enough to change our society.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »