Vilsack could be decent

Forbes is reporting that Vilsack is going to run for president in 2008. After reading the initial rundown of Vilsack's views, I have to say that I like his strengths. In a time where our oil dependence is causing problems on a global scale, I'd argue that a desire to invest in alternative fuels might be one of the most important qualities in our next president. I hope to read more about Vilsack's views on some controversial topics like stem-cells and gay marriage. I would love to see a Democrat run for office that I could stand behind.

Hanson points out our problem

The media seems saturated with news of how Islamic extremists are killing people and polarizing people along religious beliefs, but rarely do I see a well thought out story about the long term consequences of our actions.

The OpinionJournal's article by Victor Hanson is a well written look into how the extremists are causing us to lose sight of our core beliefs. His points about how we have stopped supporting people who push the edge of free speech opened my eyes to the importance of accepting, and defending, the most radical views among us.

Hanson touches on the societal class issue that has been discussed recently and points out the irony in our contempt for people below us in society.

We especially ignore among us those who work each day to keep nature and the darker angels of our own nature at bay. This new obtuseness revolves around a certain mocking by elites of why we have what we have. Instead of appreciating that millions get up at 5 a.m., work at rote jobs, and live proverbial lives of quiet desperation, we tend to laugh at the schlock of Wal-Mart, not admire its amazing ability to bring the veneer of real material prosperity to the poor.

We can praise the architect for our necessary bridge, but demonize the franchise that sold fast and safe food to the harried workers who built it. We hear about a necessary hearing aid, but despise the art of the glossy advertisement that gives the information to purchase it. And we think the soldier funny in his desert camouflage and Kevlar, a loser who drew poorly in the American lottery and so ended up in Iraq--our most privileged never acknowledging that such men with guns are the only bulwark between us and the present day forces of the Dark Ages with their Kalashnikovs and suicide belts.

Though Hanson doesn't spell it out, he is suggesting that the best way to preserve our way of life is for the most fortunate among us to fight for the freedoms of the whole country. Physical fighting isn't necessary when what needs to be defended is our right to say and think what we want. It is possible for everybody to see the difference between good and evil and to support the good while naming and not accepting the evil.

Pragner motivated me

As mentioned in my first post, I gained the motivation to start a blog during my recent vacation but I didn't follow through till I was motivated by Dennis Pragner's recent article. His post is a great example of how people's judgments can be biased by their religious beliefs. Here's my issues with his post.

He should not be allowed to [take his oath of office on the Koran] -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Is he serious? Do we really want a country based on religious freedom to be based on religious biases? I'm confused. Maybe he'll explain in the rest.

... all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

There, he figured it out. Wait. I took that quote out of context? He means that each individual should share a common holy book? That doesn't sound like religious freedom to me.

America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress

I think that he meant "I'm interested in only one book", because he isn't in the position to speak for Americans and I wish he would avoid it. He has one question that is pretty easy to answer.

Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath?

If people elected somebody to office that would prefer to swear on Hilter's book, then I'm also sure that they wouldn't mind him using it as a testament to his being the best senator he can be. Hopefully, our country won't come to that.

Pragner talks about how countless Jews have taken their oaths on the bible while not believing in it as the holy book. For a long time people believed that the earth was flat but when a person stood up and said "it's round" it wouldn't make sense to argue "but other people think it's flat". Showing that people have made a mistake (or approved of an error) before does not mean it should continue, or the person who points it out should be chastised.

He also does a good job of adding in some scare tactics at the end of his writing. I'm not sure how he knows that using the Koran will likely "embolden Islamic extremists" but it sure sounds scary. The decision should be made based on the reasons behind the request, not anything else.

I love that Ellison was elected. Having a country of religious freedom ruled by a single religion seemed a bit odd to me. If Ellison wants to show his dedication to his new job by swearing in on the most important book in his life then I'd rather him do that then swear in on a book that means little to him.

Welcome

I've started this blog with the hope that people will start thinking logically and critically about their world views.

Over this Thanksgiving weekend I read an article in Wired about prominent atheists calling for people to leave their gods behind and embrace science as the future. There has been a rise in similar stories recently; all of them about scientists frustrated with the influence of religion in schools and politics. I share their frustration and am just as sad/angry when I see some of the antiquated Christian views influencing our countries policies.

I don't share their belief that the only way to fix the problem is for everybody to leave religion completely behind. People will not leave leave their faith behind, but people of faith are not incapable of making good decisions. Religious people can remember that our country was founded on freedom. Religious people can remember that our country was not founded to be a theocracy. Religious people can remember those things and act appropriately.

Hopefully my posts will help spread my belief that we need to become a country known for rational thought, and not for religious biases.