Round two…I heard by from Rhonda’s friend, “Betty” regarding my response to her sister’s email. I included the initial correspondence in an earlier post:
http://realityliberationfront.com/modules/wordpress/?p=228
In her response to me (through Rhonda as proxy) Betty wrote:
LOL! How hilarious that Todd would call [my sister's] inclusions of actual quotes from Obama’s speaches as “unresearched” and comment about her “thinly veiled bias” but then would attempt to back up his own points with references to the liberal sponsored websites of www.truthout.org and www.factcheck.org. I suppose it would have helped if you/he had known that the original email was written by [my sister] to a group of Christian Homeschoolers, so of course it was written from a Christian perspective to a Christian audience. Articles written by a 2nd or 3rd person do not hold near the weight as Obama’s quotes, speeches, or books written by himself. I don’t give those websites anymore credit than I would an article in the Tennessean or a McCain commercial. They are all biased, plain and simple. [My sister] worked very hard to find quotes from the man himself rather than take someone elses word or spin. You asked me not to listen to the media, so I’m listening to the man himself.
As far as Obama and abortion, this heading is a bit erroneous since the issue is not so much about abortions and more about a failed abortion where the baby is born alive, so please take heart that this is NOT about Roe v. Wade or a woman’s choice. There is nothing on factcheck.org that will erase Obama’s actual voice and actual words on the subject. Politicians often vote against an otherwise unobjectionable bill because something was “slipped into it” that they are opposed to, and therefore vote against it. Factcheck.org merely talks about the legislation, the MP3 clip is Obama’s personal statement on the matter. Roe v. Wade is a matter of a womans power over her own body, to chose to carry or abort a baby and nothing more. I personally don’t see a difference in an infant born live being put in the next room to die compared to a mother abandoning her infant to die in an alley or garbage can. I fail to see how one is legal and one is murder. Once the child is born alive (either due to childbirth or failed abortion) it is no longer a decision about her body so I feel (again, my opinion) that Obama’s response that “He felt it would put undue pressure on the original decision of the mother” is justifying the murder of that live-born baby. Again, it is his actual words I’m hearing, not some article about what someone thinks he meant. The Factcheck.org link does mention that It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.” So in this instance, it is more a matter of the words from his mouth (which I presume are what he actually believes) that speak volumes more than how he voted on the bill.
Regarding your friend’s quote on Obama and the economy, he is quite right that we have become a more socialist economy. That doesn’t mean it is a good thing or that it is right. Famous quote by Obama to “Joe the Plumber” when confronted on his tax plan, we need to “Spread the wealth around”. Here is a quote from the website of the treasure department, http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
Though social policies sometimes governed the course of tax policy even in the early days of the Republic, the nature of these policies did not extend either to the collection of taxes so as to equalize incomes and wealth, or for the purpose of redistributing income or wealth. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the “general Welfare” clause:
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
Having police, fire, and roads is not quite as socialist of a thing (yes, I do believe that there are degrees of socialism) because those tax dollars go to things that are for the entire public. That is not the same as taking tax money from one person and giving it to another for the recipients sole benefit, as is the case with welfare and Obama’s comment to the plumber. (by the way, I thought plumbers made decent money?) I am disgusted with both Obama and McCain as well as the majority of the House and Senate for taking the money of all working Americans in order to bail out banks and Wallstreet. Yes, I have a 403B here at [work] and yes, I’ve lost money on it. However, the amount that I lost is far less that I’m going to end up paying for this bail out and I don’t believe that those people who don’t have money invested should have to pay for my loss. I do believe that we are guided by Biblical principals to care for the poor and less fortunate, but nowhere in the Bible is it even alluded to that the care should be mandated by force of law but rather out of the desire of each individuals heart.
As far as [my sister's] section on Obama and worldviews, I think she prefaced it w/ the “If you are a Christian” phrase because if you are NOT a Christian you probably don’t care about his worldview and could skip that part. I personally found the Saddleback Interviews to be the most interesting in that BOTH candidates were asked identical questions and BOTH had to give answers without the benefit of knowing how their opponent was responding. I LOVED that it removed the typical interrupting and bickering back and forth and there was no one candidate getting in the final jab at the other. It is probably the most civil thing I’ve seen in an election campaign in a long time and was the first time I felt I could tell who both candidates were as real people, not just politicians.
As far as Obama on foreign policy, that is a matter of opinion regarding how much of a threat anyone feels that Iran, Venezuela, or Cuba pose. All three have or are close to having nuclear capability and all three are recently receiving a good deal of support from Russia (whom your friend seemed to agree used to be a threat in the past). Fact: Russia has been supplying nuclear materials and weapons to Iran, has formed an agreement with Hugo Chavez to make Venezuela a nuclear country, and has vowed to reassert their presence in Cuba. So in my opinion, all three of those countries having nuclear power does make them a serious threat, plus I see Russia as an increasing threat. If nuclear power in the hands of foreign dictators doesn’t make you nervous, then you would tend to agree w/ Obama that they are not a threat. Just a matter of opinion.
And for Obama on theology, I don’t think it is a stretch to think that Obama sat in Wright’s church pews for years and years (20 years according to snopes.com) unless he believed the teaching of that pastor whom he claimed was his mentor. So no, I don’t think it is a leap to connect Obama with Black Liberation Ideology. If he didn’t agree w/ Wright’s teachings he would have left the church. Obama’s church for 20 years had their website updated earlier this year (wonder why?), before that, Cone’s book was also singled out as required reading for Trinity parishioners who wished to more thoroughly understand the church’s theology and mission. I don’t think that [my sister] is the one with the religious or racial bigotry, in this instance that goes to Obama. The only comfort that I take is that in his speech “Call to Renewal” he says that he won’t impose his religious views on others. Have you seen the church’s website? Here is the link to the part about the Black Value System. http://www.trinitychicago.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=114 I encourage you to read it, and everywhere you see the word “black” insert the word “white”. It comes down to something like a reverse KKK if you will. This is the theology that he studies, embraced, and absorbed for 20 years and if that isn’t bigotry and racism, then I don’t know what is.
I started to answer each of Betty’s points, and then realized that the problem was, in fact, much deeper…and until resolved, facts would do little to persuade her:
I was all set to address each point Betty made…when I realized that there is a much bigger problem here. You know that I started the Reality Liberation Front based on a single principle: to start the process of separating facts from opinions. I have often said that in our country, something has gone awry…people have enjoyed the Freedom of Speech for so long that they have actually come to think that their own opinions (and the opinions of people they agree with) count as “facts.”
Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.
Some examples from Betty’s email:
-She called it “hilarious” that I would refer to the “inclusions of actual quotes from Obama’s speeches as ‘unresearched.’” No. The speeches are research. The actual words Obama said…that he said those words is a FACT. However, her sister’s interpretation of what he said…that’s OPINION. For example, it is a fact that Obama (in his Call For Renewal speech) said :”we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” That’s a FACT. Now, the inference that this is somehow “un-Christian” or “un-American”…that is OPINION. I hear nothing of the sort. I am a Christian and took no offense, my OPINION was that it was a speech about tolerance and diversity. I did not mention this in my first email because I thought we were talking about FACTS and RESEARCH, not OPINION.
A few more quick examples:
-Betty takes the commonly used “out” when she proclaims that Truthout and Factcheck are “liberal.” I notice she doesn’t dispute any of the FACTS they print. If FOX News were to run a story that was factually correct, I would not dispute it because it came from a source that was “conservative.” I included those references because of the facts they contained…not because of their source.
-Regarding abortion, I thought we were talking about Obama voting against the Born Alive bill (which is a FACT) not Betty and her sister’s feelings about what Obama said on the subject of abortion (OPINION). On a related note, Obama supported George Bush’s federal version of the Born Alive bill, because it included protections for Roe v. Wade. That is a FACT. And for clarity’s sake, “I personally don’t see a difference in an infant born live being put in the next room to die compared to a mother abandoning her infant to die in an alley or garbage can.” That is an OPINION.
-Regarding the economy, she says “he is quite right that we have become a more socialist economy. That doesn’t mean it is a good thing or that it is right.” Whether or not it is “good” or “right”…that’s an OPINION. We have been on a progressive tax system for nearly a decade. FACT. John McCain has supported a progressive tax structure, going as far as to say “we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more.” It is a FACT that in 2000 when asked about why the rich are taxed more, that was his response. When Obama is quoted as saying we need to “spread the wealth around,” Betty seems to hear “we are going to give everybody the same.” Or maybe, “we’re going to take money out of your pocket and put it in the pocket of a crackhead.” These would be examples of OPINIONS. What I hear (my opinion) is that he meant that there needs to be a level playing field so each has a shot at the American Dream. But see, what I hear is not important…it is just my opinion, and I only provide to show how opinions regarding facts may differ.
-Regarding the Saddleback forum…I don’t see any facts here at all. Just impressions about the forums and how “genuine” the discussion was. Those are OPINIONS.
-On Foreign Policy, during the Cold War, Russia had enough nuclear weapons to destroy most of our major cities. They had bombers and submarines patrolling the periphery of our country on high readiness…and we did the same. Their premier threatened to “rain bombs down” upon us. Many held the OPINION that the slightest international incident would cause full scale nuclear war. These are FACTS. It is also FACT that the same conditions do not exist with Russia, Iran, Cuba, or Venezuela today. Betty states: “Fact: Russia has been supplying nuclear materials and weapons to Iran, has formed an agreement with Hugo Chavez to make Venezuela a nuclear country, and has vowed to reassert their presence in Cuba.” Are these facts? I have seen no supporting EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE is how we establish that things are FACTS. I can find no proof that Russia sold any nuclear weapons to Iran, Putin has “discussed” aiding Venezuela with developing nuclear resources (but indicates it is towards energy, not weapons), and “vowed to reassert their presence in Cuba”…that’s merely a vague commitment, not necessarily an established threat. However, if you believe that these things will happen and pose a threat…that would be an OPINION.
-On theology, Betty quotes third parties (curiously after stating that all that matters is what the actual person said) on their ideologies. It is a fact that the quoted individuals said/wrote what is indicated. It is her OPINION that Obama believes these things. It is a FACT that he has said that he does not subscribe to these tenets…and I’m guessing that it is her OPINION that he is lying. Again, and example to refute the logic used: I am a Catholic and have gone to mass for many years. I am good friends with the priest and consider him a “spiritual advisor.” This priest, while I have sat there, has often given homilies containing anti-birth control ideologies. Following Betty’s reasoning, I must agree with that ideology because I sat there for so many years and respect the priest. She would be incorrect.
I do not object to Betty, or anyone else expressing their opinions. Quite the contrary, it is part of the essential freedoms of our nation. However, I do object the use of opinions as facts…especially when one is claiming to be engaged in a “factual discussion.” While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions, if he or she is unable to back them up with facts, then these opinions have little value to anyone but the person who has them.
I am interested in what was said…not what someone “heard.” I’m interested in evidence regarding past and present events…not what someone “believes is going to happen.” I am interested in logical reasoning…not a series of unrelated items strung together by loose association or suspicion.
Having an opinion…even one that is shared by many others, does not constitute reality. At one point most people thought that blacks were biologically, mentally, and spiritually inferior to whites. They claimed to have facts…but obviously they did not. Women were said to be mentally fragile and incapable of owning property, voting, or earning money. The people who said this presented “facts”…but all it was, was a bunch of opinions tied together with self-serving logic. Prior to WWII, many thought Hitler was right about the Jews…they later thought that putting Japanese Americans in camps was a good idea…and their descendents now claim that gay marriage will cause the “destruction of all marriage and morality in the United States.” This is what happens when people’s opinions, based on little more than prejudice and logical fallacies, parade as facts.
I think it is time for her to step back. The philosopher Descartes advocated throwing out all that one believes and reexamining it all again, piece by piece. When he did this, he threw out everything his parents told him, his church taught him, even what he learned in school…he said he would only accept those things which he could prove through logic…starting with his own existence: “I think, therefore, I am.” It’s a good exercise and I think in this day and age, a lot of Americans would benefit from it.
Well…I will be interested to see if I receive another response…keep you posted.