2009.10.30
Esau: Don't lay all the evil in the world on religion
Religion has accomplished much good
Daniel Esau
Esau, of Roanoke, is a retired postal inspector.
I always read with interest the opinions and comments contributed by my friend Jerry Schleifer. His latest ("America needs to get real," Oct. 20 commentary) demands some comment. He is right that many things done in the name of religion have done great harm to the world. However, he again paints with far too broad a brush, inferring that much, if not all, evil done in the world can be laid on the doorstep of religion.
Read more.
RSS feed 
Thanks you, Mr. Esau, for clearing up what is and isn't a REAL religion, although I'm sure more than 1 billion Muslims would disagree with you. Now what about Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on? We await your almighty verdict.
Comment by gdad — October 30, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
Excellent article, Mr. Esau. Atheists would have to believe the inverted logic that says Christianity isn't a positive force while atheism is. That just hasn't been true.
As Mr. Esau points out, most state violence was done by atheist regimes; Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Castro. In addition we've seen studies that show atheists do not give of their resources to help the poor near the degree Christians do.
It's not a coincidence that socialism and atheism heavily overlap. Both are rooted in self-absorption and personal gain, while neither practices altruism. If I could sum up both in three words, they woud be "me, me, me".
Comment by Suzie — October 30, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Suzie, you do realize that the vast majority of atheists are quiet, law-abiding people who harm no one, don't you? What Hitler, Stalin and Mao actually had in common is not that they were atheists or socialists or any other kind of "ist" -- it's that they were just plain crazy.
"Both are rooted in self-absorption and personal gain, while neither practices altruism."
Paint with a broad brush much?
Comment by gdad — October 30, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
#3 I was thinking the same thing. I do not know why some folks just put it all together like that. Down in New Orleans it did not matter what you were. The rainbow people did a great job as well as many small churches.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 30, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Gdad #3
Just going with the evidence. I would love to see some evidence that atheists/liberals as a rule really care about their fellow man, such that they would part with their own time and money on their behalf. Despite all their preaching, I haven't seen it yet.
Comment by Suzie — October 30, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
#5 You should go to the Gulf Coast and see with your own eyes and maybe get out a little. But to put atheists with liberals is just not true. Dorothy Day for one who did lot of good work and was liberal and was Catholic.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 30, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
would love to see some evidence that atheists/liberals as a rule really care about their fellow man, such that they would part with their own time and money on their behalf. Despite all their preaching, I haven't seen it yet.
I would love to see some evidence, other than your baseless assertions, that they don't.
Comment by Art Hill — October 30, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Art #7
I've linked Arthur Brooks' study numerous times. Feel free to google it.
Comment by Suzie — October 30, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
@8
Do you mean Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, the Neocon think-tank and home of Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol and Bob Kagen? Now THERE'S an objective source if I ever saw one. Maybe I can find a study on charitable giving done by Michael Moore.
Comment by Art Hill — October 30, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
@5...Suzie....
I provided you a list of organizations that are liberal in orientation that contribute thousands upon thousands of dollars not to mention hours upon hours of time taking care of their fellow man.
The only reason you can't see it is because you choose to ignore it's existence.
Comment by Will — October 30, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
The American Enterprise Institute is a well respected institution which employs scholars with a wide range of viewpoints. It is rather objective, and certainly its factual studies are just that.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 30, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
Art Hill #9
That's exactly what you liberals do. You scream for sourcing, then you bash the source.
OK. Now the onus is on you. It is up to you to provide sourcing to back up your claim that my information is baseless. Let's see if you can put up.
Will #10
What list?
Comment by Suzie — October 30, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
#11 I would not go that far as to say The American Enterprise Institute is rather objective. With people likes the extreme views of John Bolton and any others. Wide viewpoints I do not think so.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 30, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
#12 Just to let yo know we are not screaming a bit,but here are a few:
Do a search for the following
New Orleans Voice for Peace- Gordon Soderberg has put vets to work. Do another search for vets for green jobs.
Common Ground- Building back up the lives of many that was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina with hard work and sweat.
The Rainbow People and the love cafe- They feed 1,500 people a day all for free. They were also asked to be in Burus,La. and lived under very primitive conditions. I know because we lived with them for a week. (cold and wet)
United Peace Relief- A rapid response team that engages in coordination of the medical team, distribution of supplies and working with the non-profit organization. I saw a nurse that came from Calf. and with a laptop and a phone did great work in bad areas.
I could go on but the point is yes we too get our hands dirty too and at the end of the day we do not ask if someone is left or right but do they need help.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 30, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
@12
Exactly what you conservatives do, make wild claims then try to make others refute them. Brooks is partisan, anything he says is suspect.
GFK, depends on who you ask. George H.W. Bush called them "the nuts in the basement."
Comment by Art Hill — October 30, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
Suzie...
You and I have had this ongoing debate about conservative vs liberal charity for months. I provided you a list of the various liberal organizations that give not only money but time and work for charity.
Not only do you choose not to see, now you're choosing not to remember. How niiiiiice.
Comment by Will — October 30, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
Art #13
So we can assume you can't back up your claim?
Comment by Suzie — October 30, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
Bill #14,
These are all atheist groups you listed?
Comment by Suzie — October 30, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
Bill Hudson:
So John Bolton is "extreme"? Why? Because he believes in defending this country and its interests? You do realize that that is the primary and overriding function of the federal government?
Is the LEFT so weak and does it desire "peace" so much that they would surrender on bended knee? Do you think that our enemies share our values? Do you not realize that under the governments of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Russia and Venezuela, this blog would not exist? ARE YOU BLIND TO THE REALITIES OF THE WORLD?
We need more Churchills, and fewer Chamberlains, Code Pinks and obamas.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 10:23 am
You know, this article and some of the comments deserve a lengthy and well reasoned response. Unfortunately, I don't have the time.
Comment by Scott M. — October 31, 2009 @ 10:41 am
#19 Yes, John Bolton is still extreme. This guy was pushing the WMD, remember and sold it to the public. Are you so blind on the right that you don't see the noise on your face.According to former coworkers, Bolton withheld information that ran counter to his goals from Collin Powell. He went on to House of Representatives International Relations subcommittee that Syria's development of biological, chemical and nuclear. CIA and other intelligence agencies said that assessment was exaggerated. And the list goes on.
By the way those who want peace are not weak unless you want to call Jesus,Gandhi, Dr. King and many others who have fought for peace.
But I hear your war rant but we have moved on and the day of the neo-right wing is over, they have had their day in the sun and its over.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 31, 2009 @ 11:30 am
GFK
The Mustache and his ilk are only interested in "The New American Century," the cornerstone of which exerts America's military might throughout the world. That's offense, not defense, you know, "endless war." Their plan might have worked if it hadn't been for Rumsfeld's total incompetence. Remember that famous picture of the 2000 Florida recount where a supposedly-neutral poll worker is holding a hanging chad ballot up to the light? Look again, it's your old friend Bolton.
Comment by Art Hill — October 31, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Syria had nuclear weaponry facilities. Then the Israelis blew it up! Woo hoo!
Saddam Hussein also had WMD. He supported worldwide terrorism. The world is safer with him dead.
Iran is another sponsor of worldwide terrorism. Iran is building nuclear weapons. And there is every reason to believe that Iran will use those nuclear weapons against the United States and its interests.
North Korea has nuclear weapons and exports its capabilities to third parties. We remain at war with North Korea.
Venezuela is seeking nuclear weapons, and is a sworn enemy of the United States.
Russia is seeking to reconstitute its empire, and its interests run contrary to our own.
Those who ignore real threats and cry peace will only reap slavery and chains. The Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded to the United States military, which has been the greatest proponent of world peace in history.
And Bill, do you know what a neo-conservative is? Because if you do, then you would know that neither I, nor Ambassador Bolton are neo-conservatives. Neither are we extreme. Rather, we are REAL AMERICANS!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
#5 You should go to the Gulf Coast and see with your own eyes and maybe get out a little. But to put atheists with liberals is just not true. Dorothy Day for one who did lot of good work and was liberal and was Catholic.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 30, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Wow Bill. We kinda agree on this one. I am very conservative but beleive all religion, all of it, is man-made bunk.
Comment by Jim W. — October 31, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
#23 According to the government records they did not find WMD. You might just want to look.
And yes I do know what a neo-conservative looks like and sounds like. (They read the same playbook) but their world is over and done.
And no ,you are not the "real Americans", thank Buddha.To say so is plain wrong and very un-American.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 31, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
Art Hill:
John Bolton is extreme because he helped prevent the Democrat Party from subverting the Florida election and stealing the Presidency for that blowhard, Al Gore?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
#24 Well I would have to agree with you there but speaking as an X monk (OFM CAPS) there was some good we did. It's funny but most of my teachers at that time were WW2 vets who saw a lot of combat and you could never pull any bull with them, not that we did not try.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 31, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
@25--According to the government records, they did too find WMD. You should read more.
If you know what a neo-conservative is, why do you call folks like Rumsfeld and Bolton [and me] neo-conservatives, since we are so clearly not? Bush is not a neo-conservative. Can you name one neo-conservative?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
GFK
Al Gore won the popular vote. James Baker submitted the case to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Bushies. O'Conner, et al overstepped Constitutional bounds and awarded Cheney the presidency. Who subverted whom? Back-door-ambassador Mustache is a chickenhawk buffoon.
Comment by Art Hill — October 31, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
#28 As a matter of fact Bush and his bunch were just that. Read the papers of that time, it's all there to anyone who wants to read it.I would say they were very proud of it. Just read Bush's State of the Union speech in January 2002,David Frum wrote it.
"When I was running the ISG – the Iraq Survey Group – we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction."-Charles Duelfer
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 31, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Art Hill:
You are wrong on so many points, where to begin?
First, Al Gore did not win the Florida popular vote. Even the NY Times concedes that fact.
Second, James Baker did not submit any case to the Supreme Court. Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher was the attorney who represented Governor Bush at the Supreme Court.
Third, it was not the United States Supreme Court which overstepped anything. Rather, it was the Florida Supreme Court which played politics with the law.
Fourth, in support of Third, the vote on just how bad the Florida Supreme Court had violated the Constitution was 7-2. That means that some very liberal, leftist Justices agreed that the Florida Supreme Court was wrong.
Fifth, the Supreme Court did not award anyone the presidency.
Sixth, the 43rd President of the United States was George W. Bush. There has never been a president named Cheney.
Seventh John Bolton is probably the preeminent expert today on U.S. foreign policy. That you would refer to him as a "chickenhawk buffoon" betrays a lack of substantive opposition, and understanding of his knowledge, experience and accomplishments.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Boy this thread has really, really digressed from the original opinion piece.
Comment by Scott M. — October 31, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
@30--As a matter of fact, George W. Bush was not a "neo-conservative", nor were his advisers. Indeed, George W. Bush was not a conservative.
If you are going to assign labels to someone, you should at least educate yourself on the meaning of those labels. I ask you if you can name one--just one--actual "neo-conservative"?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
#34 No use to say the shy is blue when you think it is not.
It is not a label but they (Bush and his bunch)had their base was, i.e. folks that think like you do.
But that world is way so over
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 31, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
GFK, I believe it was Checey, Wolfowitz, and Bolton that were indeed three of the authors proclaiming neoconservativism. Rice sertainly became part of it. This group were also the "Administration" that set the goals for GW. Cheney is also the one who proclaimed "deficits do not matter" while arguing for the massive Iraq war spending. For you and others to disavow your eight year heroes now seems awkward.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
I find it extremely odd that Suzie proclaims atheists and liberals as non-givers as compared to Conservatives. All I have heard for eight years was to proclaim the "do good liberals" that have give away after give away. It is the Conservatives that insist on this site that if only the poor would work, there would be no need for give away programs of any kind. Yet, if you heed the Christian Mantra, charity by the Church is for Christians, you should not be helping those that are non-believers. Nor should you associate with them except to try to convert.
Yet there are some very charitable Christians, but not all by any means. Some of the most selfish people I have ever come in contact with are the leaders and deacons of their respective Churches. Or ask a Pastor about the amount of tax they pay, even with all of the special tax benefits they have, and you will find little concern for the remaining taxpayers. At the same time, there are some very charitable atheists and non-Christian charities in the world and some that are not so.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
GFK
Nice spin.
Bush v Gore was a 5-4 decision with O'Conner the swing. Funny how tenthers don't mind federal interference when it furthers their cause.
Gore lost Florida by 500 votes due to the underhanded tactics of clowns like backdoor-Bolton and the astroturfed outrage in Palm Beach County. The Neocons grasp of foreign policy at the point of a gun led to the most disastrous presidency in modern times. Real Americans will make sure it never happens again.
Comment by Art Hill — October 31, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
#37 - Art, don't you find is fishy that withing an hour or so of the polls opening in Florida, a law firm in Texas was complaining about the ballot? The same ballot that the Democrats approved for use in the election?
I sure do...regardless of who the winner was.
And I wonder...had the votes been going for Gore, would that same law firm have complained? We'll never know.
Comment by Patrick — October 31, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
As I remember, the vote was going for Gore to begin with.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
@ 38
There's a lot I find fishy about that election but one thing's for certain, America lost.
Comment by Art Hill — October 31, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
#40 - I don't know about America losing, Art, but I do know I lost my faith in an honest election ever being run here. Voter fraud has become an art form.
And to think, we send people to other countries to monitor their elections...
Comment by Patrick — October 31, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
Richard:
Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bolton never made any "neo-conservative" proclamation. Ever.
And, having the government tax folks, to give to others, is not charity. Charity is a voluntary, and [gasp] PRIVATE act, in which government is never, and by definition cannot be, involved.
The selfish are those who take from others for their own benefit. In other words, 47 percent of the population. Also known as liberals, progressives, democrats and socialists.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
Art Hill:
You are just wrong. On the issue of the Florida Supreme Court's handling of the recount--the Constitutional question--the vote was 7-2.
And please understand, REAL AMERICANS defend this country; they don't go abroad and apologize, or dither over military decisions, or decry the unfairness of it all. REAL AMERICANS do not violate the Constitution in a fascistic fashion.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
@42,43
Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bolton never made any "neo-conservative" proclamation. Ever.
GFK, you will forgive us if we do not buy into your alternative reality.
Good evening to you, sir, I have a deadline to meet.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PNAC
Comment by Art Hill — October 31, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
GFK, you are indeed wrong again. They most definitely wrote a book on the new neoconservatism and then tried to follow it to a tee.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
GFK you worry so much about taxes and who might receive a benefit thereof. Once again, had your good Christians followed their ruled of taking care of Widows and orphans there would have been little need for the Gov't to strp in. But the selfish have never lived up to their Christian values. They enslaved a race to build their wealth, beat Chinese to build their railroads, took land from the Native Americans, brought soldiers to fire on workers. yet when the gov't steps in to limit their greed, they squeal socialism, socialism. The tax laws were made totally infair during the Bush administration and were used to shift income to the wealthy and take it from the middle class. That was indeed welfare for the wealthy. Now if you want to argue the constitionality of the income tax, I will take you on.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
Richard:
The income tax is constitutional. But it is UCONSTITUTIONAL for the federal governemtn to spend money on transfers; that is, to take from the wealthy and give to the non-wealthy. The federal government's purpose is not to undertake charitable work, make things fair, provide food stamps, health care, housing or any thing of the like. It doesn't matter if the wealthy are charitable or miserly, the federal government maintains no such power. Read the Constitution.
And tax cuts do not take from one class and give to another; rather, tax cuts allow one to keep his own money. MONEY BELONGS TO THE INDIVIDUAL, NOT THE GOVERNMENT!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
GFK, our income tax system has always been progressive. It is for equitible to be so in that the federal gov't controls the monsy supply through rights granted with the develpment of the National Bank and again when the Fderal Reserve was formed. As such, progressive taxation and control of the supply and the interest rate allows the gov't to stabilize our economy. The progressive rates are a means of moving money to where it needs to be to keep our Country healthy. This is not new, it has been supported by the Supreme Court.
The second reason it is progressive is that the wealthy have much more need of the gov't services and use more of the gov't assets. They should pay more for the military protection as it is their assets and businesses that the advisaries want to take away and control. They use more of the natuaral resources, they control more of the economy, he have the greatest access to the power of the gov't. Why should the poor and middle class pay for their benefits any mmore than they pay for the poor.
And of course, the wealthy have to keep the poor reasonably happy to keep them complacent. Without the complacency, the wealthy would disappear quickly.
So it is not a matter of making things fair or undertaking charitable work. I do not believe either of those things exist, it is a matter of good economic sense to keep the poor from starving, to educate them, to try to keep them employed. That is the federal governments job specifically because it controls the money supply and the economy. The States have their part to do as well, but they have chosen in most instances to give the work to the federal government.
Money, by the way, belongs to the federal government, not the individual. You have only the rights to use it as granted by the federal government. Reread the Constitution.
And, tax cuts most assuradly shift income. The federal government and state governments control the economic benefits to all. If they want to encourage industry, hire military, buy airplanes or weeapons, set rules or zoning they do so. This makes some wealthy and some not so. Taxing does the same thing. It is part of the monetary supply process that keeps a stable economy. When an eight year President screws it up, we have a major recession. Poor ,poor economics.
Comment by Richard — November 1, 2009 @ 8:50 am
Richard:
The federal income tax does not need to be progressive, nor is it supposed to move the money where it should be. This is the United States of America, not the Soviet Union. Class warfare and Marxist policies are un-American, and have no place in this country.
And the folks who benefit most from government spending are twofold--the government and the poor. The wealthy benefit the least. And it is folly and false to argue that the wealthy benefit more from the military because they own more; a nuclear bomb blast in Roanoke will not differentiate between a rich and a poor soul, as both will be equally dead.
And the monies do not belong the federal government. The federal government has the authority to coin money, but private property--be it money, chattel, real estate or securities--belongs to the individual. You reread the Constitution; start with the Fifth Amendment.
It is not the government's role to manage or interfere with the economy. The role of the government is restricted to the protections of private property rights, the protection of the dollar, and the judicial enforcement of the rule of law, so as to encourage private actions without fear of arbitrary action in deprivation of property rights. Today, the government is failing on all its limited responsibilities, because it is too busy acting unconstitutionally by interfering in the economy.
It matters not whether an industry is acting responsibly or irresponsibly, or if the people need a product, or whether the CEO of a company makes 100x his lowest employee's salary--NONE of this is the government's concern. So if the health insurance industry does not meet a consumer's needs, another industry will rise to meet those needs. That is, it will happen unless the government abrogates its Constitutional restrictions and interferes in the market, as our current rogue government does incessantly.
A free man does not need Washington to provide for him. Only a serf lives that way. I am a free man.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 10:27 am
"the protection of the dollar,so as to encourage private actions without fear of arbitrary action in deprivation of property" is exactly what I said. Thank you for supporting my position. The US Gov't under Obama is doing the very thing the COnstitution and his Oath of Office requires. Unfortunately you are too bia see see or to be free.
Comment by Richard — November 1, 2009 @ 11:23 am
No, Richard he is not. The United States has pursued a "weak" dollar under both George W. Bush and barack hussein obama. President obama is not doing what the Constitution permits and requires him to do.
And you did not talk about the protection of the dollar; rather, you claimed 1) that the federal government owned all dollars, and that citizens could only use dollars at its sufferance and subject to its regulation; and, 2)that the federal government is to control the economy. Both claims are absolutely false, and without any basis in the Constitution.
I do not support your position. The Constitution does not support your position. And the concepts of freedom and liberty do not support your position.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Laws of the last 100 years support my position, the Supreme Court supports my position, the World Economists support my position. The majority of the Republican Party support my position. Only the 23% ultra right that are lost in dogma and religion fail to support my position.
Comment by Richard — November 1, 2009 @ 11:46 am
The Constitution does not support your position. Neither do the founding fathers, their papers, and our country's history. I'll take these authorities over the one's cited by you any day.
The fact is that right and wrong are not subject to a majority vote; they just are [right and wrong].
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
GFK sounds ACLU-like
Comment by catspaw — November 1, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
The problem I find with the anti-secularists is that you expect free-thinkers to mindlessly embrace any philosophy that is anti-religious. Also you seem to think lack of religion implies lack of morality. Yet time after time statistics have found an overwhelming population of your human prisons to be full of the religious.
I enjoy and praise religious charity - my life would have been a very frightening thing were it not for it. Yet I can only offer my gratitude and respect for your beliefs. I do not expect to be loved because I find those beliefs incredible, yet I do not enjoy being crowded in with criminal murderers who attached some genocidal dogma to the idea that scientific logic is superior to religious credence.
Comment by Jackrabbit1969 — November 10, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
#55 I hear what you are saying and speaking as a X-monk (OFM CAPS) I can see what you are saying. On the other hand it is not mindless to be a free thinker and being so might not be anti-religious.
From the sounds of it, it looks like it is working for you and that is very good. But what works for one person might not be the same for the other. That does not make it higher or lower or right or wrong.
I like what Tom Paine said:
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 10, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
There is no freedom like that felt when you throw off the yoke of heaven and hell
Comment by Richard — November 10, 2009 @ 4:20 pm