Let Reason Prevail: A Request of Atheists

     I read a recent News article entitled "Atheists seek OK for banner at Christmas display."  It appears that a national atheist foundation sought to display its own banner among the other holiday displays on the courthouse grounds.  There seem to have been some objection to what seem to them only representation by those the Christian faith.  The county judge said that the grounds were open to anyone who wanted to add  religious symbols of their faiths to the holiday display.  The atheists seemed concerned that displays were permitted to represent any religious faith and were countering with a demand for the right to display their own.

     Any display of religious symbols are public  expressions of the faith of those erecting the displays. But these symbols should not be interpreted as saying anything about faiths--or lack of faith--of people not represented by those symbols.  

But the atheist, not only say that they believe in the "natural world"; they want to trash those who have religious beliefs.  That's not what people who display religious symbols are doing, at least, I hope it's not.

     These atheists want permission to display a banner which says:  "All this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL.  There are no gods, no devils,  no angels, no heaven or hell.  There is only our natural world.  Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enclaves minds."   But aren't atheists often guilty of the same things?  

     Religion no doubt has been used by certain people at various times in history to enslave the minds and hearten the hearts of the faithful, often against their neighbors.  But those were not among the basic teachings of major religions nor of their founders.  It might have been sufficient for the banner to simply said: "All this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL."  Or simply say: "Atheists wish everyone HAPPY HOLIDAYS."  There is nothing wrong with atheists or people of faith wishing happiness for others regardless of their religious faith or lack of faith.  It's evidence of not being closed-minded and "hard hearted."

     But atheists call for "REASON" to prevail seems quite appropriate.  So let's try it.  They believe only in "our natural world" as if anybody, including them, knows exactly what that is.  They believe that within a relatively few millions years (say a billion years) "our natural  world" produced some forms of living single-celled organisms from non-living matter.  But how did that primordial life came into being? Nevertheless, those one-celled organism went on to produce mankind, who is constantly discovering new aspects of our natural world, inventing new mathematics to describe it, and using that knowledge to invent smart telephones and technology unimaginable even by the creators of Dick Tracy.   

     Since we have no idea about the limits of "our natural world,"could it not be reasonable that during an eternity it could produce a supreme being that is infinitely more creative than human beings, and who could set into motion those aspects of reality with which we are familiar and others with which we are capable of becoming acquainted?  And any natural world that can create superior intelligence must be enabled by someone or something possessing something that is superior to intelligence.  (I'm just reasoning.) 

     But with everything about "our natural world" that we observe and infer but don't understand and that we don't even know about (visit "Fabric of the Cosmos" on pbs) atheists are willing to conclude that for reasons that defy reason, that God cannot not exist there.

     There appear to be only two choices:  Either "our natural world" with perhaps an infinite IQ  always existed or a supreme being (God) with an equal or perhaps superior attribute.  Both are incomprehensible.   The question about who made either one is legitimate.  I'd rather rather believe there be a supreme, rational being determining what our natural world will be rather or how it will behave than a randomly acting natural world whose only creative tool in trial and error, and that allows anything to happen and makes anybody and anything possible.  However, I Two options are all that I can see.   

     So when atheists ask us to reason, just based on what we know about ourselves and what scientists are learning everyday about ourselves and "our natural world," reason leads us to conclude that we live or exist in a reality of infinite possibilities but not infinite disorderliness.  As long as "our natural world has existed no one has ever found an intelligent telephone, a telescope or any such contraption that nature world built.  Mankind with intelligence had to build them.  

      Yet, the disbelief of atheists is understandable.  That any being could be so awesomely powerful and so incomprehensibly intelligent is unimaginable.  But that's why God is referred to The Supreme Being; He has attributes that aren't in any dictionary.

     So much for the reasoning, though, the inevitability of God hadn't worked for Christopher Hitchens, renown and thoughtful atheist whose interviews many enjoyed.  At least it hadn't at the time of a interview of him after he became ill.  He assured CNN's Anderson Cooper that if anybody heard that he finally found God on his death bed, not to believe it. It will have happened without his permission, to paraphrase. Another renowned atheists, however, admitted considering the possibility that, after death, he might end up somewhere he didn't expect to be.  

     Hitchens and William F. Buckley, Jr. were people with whom I often disagreed, but who compelled me to see the other sides of issues and look for any merits that might exist in opposing opinions.

      Most atheists (in contrast to those who just choose to ignore God) are good, honest, fair-minded people who, like the Biblical Cornelius and his family, know what is right--and do it--without any apparent religious influence.  Jesus has said that no man comes to the Father except by Him.  I believe He will give such people permission to pass on by.

    

President Obama: A Toothless Tiger

December 14, 2011

To:  The Editor                                        

     The President of the United States has been rendered a toothless tiger.  He can roar and growl during his political speeches about the economy and the needs to create jobs, but the fact remains that fellow Democrats defanged the President--and Democrats in Congress--when they did not get out the vote during the 2010 congressional elections.  

     Democrats, including the President, apparently did not recognize the threat that Republican successes posed to the Democrats' agenda.  Even as polls were saying that there would be Republican gains sufficient to take control of the House, Democrats were not telling voters why such a transfer of power would be a disaster for the middle class.  They took the polls as evidence of a movement that they could do nothing about.  Mitch McConnell had already stated the Republican goal was making President Obama a one-term president.  Yet the President did not recognize or anticipate the threat that a Republican-controlled House and the lack of a veto-proof Senate would provide to his presidency.  

     Democrats seemed to have taken for granted that the voter turnout  will always vote less during the mid-term elections regardless of what they did.  To the contrary that should have motivate Democrats to be even more politically active, and make sure that this election was one of the exceptions. 

     I rode around town on election day, seeing if I could find neighborhood signs encouraging voters to vote, and to vote for Democrats.  I did not find any.  Maybe Republican supporters pulled up the signs, but I didn't hear of any such complaints from Democrats.

     Democrats need the votes of the poor and minorities to win.  But increasingly, the poor and minorities are becoming disenchanted because their conditions don't change regardless of who is president or who controls Congress.  Democrats don't even promise to do anything for them anymore.  Their votes, historically, have helped to significantly improved the economic status of members of the middle class and the working poor.  But when middle class members have made it, they have not always used their good fortune to give the less fortunate comrades a helping hand.

     Members of the working poor and non-working poor are not by nature significantly less intelligent than are those in higher income brackets.  This is especially true of members of many black American communities.  What there are less of, though, are environments that encourage, inspire and provide the role models of success and possibilities both within their families and within their communities.  These conditions can be overcome, but usually not without the help of people who know how to make a difference and care enough to try.       

     Consequently, even though many Americans believe there are good reasons to vote for Democrats next November, the wide range of incomes among middle-class families make common ground among them meaningless in terms of the amenities that are possible both within and among the various income levels.

     Who is the middle class, anyway?  Do middle-class families earn yearly, $40-250 thousand a year?  What does a family which earns $40 thousand a year have in common with one which earns $250 thousand per year?  Do families with yearly earnings of $250 thousand have more in common with those with yearly earning of $50 thousand or those with yearly earnings of $500 thousand?.

     Within each wealth class there are people who are seeking to move up within that level or to more to another level of wealth.  Those who are in positions either by educational preparation, intelligence, access to people with influence or other qualities which enable some people to move up the economic ladder faster and further than others don't have a common vision with others about what is best for their situations and expectations.

      Many Americans who are in the upper middle class are satisfied with conditions as they are.  Most of them are living within their means--not trying to live like they are millionaires.  But many of those in the lower middle-class and working poor don't read or listen to political news often enough or with sufficient attention to issues to recognize them, care about them, or take positions about them.  And, unfortunately, they did not hear much advice and encouragement from trusted--often elected--Democratic leaders that might have gotten them out to the polls.

     President Obama had a chance to extend the middle-class tax cuts and unemployment benefits until January 1, 2012, as was agreed to for the Bush tax cuts,.  Allowing them to terminate on December 31, 2011 made no sense, unless the Bush tax cuts also stopped.  

     Future tax cuts should cease for the wealthy on January 1, 2012, as scheduled,  but tax cuts for the middle class should be phased out over ten years.  Members of the middle class are more likely to be severely impacted by any sharp and immediate increases in taxation.

     President Obama's most pressing problems, however, are (1) that there may too many voters who have lost hope that their conditions will change regardless of who is president, and (2) that there is another group within the middle class which may be satisfied with any person as president who appears to assure that their financial conditions either improves or do not change.  

     Democrats get another chance--maybe their last one--to make a compelling case why both groups should vote, and why they should vote for them.