Sunday, November 02, 2014
Less Than 15% Want U.S. Gun Laws To Be Less Strict
The charts above were made from a recent Gallup Poll, done between October 12th and 15th of a random national sample of 1,017 adults (with a 4 point margin of error). The title Gallup gave their poll release was "Less Than Half Of Americans Support Stricter Gun Laws", making it sound like Americans agree with the NRA -- and even oppose closing the loopholes in the background check law. And that is just not true.
I got a different idea from the information they released -- that about half of all Americans want stricter gun laws, while only a tiny percentage (less than 15%) think the NRA is right and gun laws should be less strict in this country. Although red-state Republicans are loosening gun laws and restrictions, they are pandering to a tiny portion of the population -- and most Americans (86%) disagree with that.
I think it should be pointed out that this poll did not specifically ask the respondents if they supported closing the loopholes in the background check law. They asked a much more general question -- Should the laws on the sale of guns be stricter. That question could include many other things (like registration of guns, restriction of the kind of guns that could be sold, restriction of the number of guns that could be bought, restriction on the amount of ammo a clip can hold when buying a gun, etc.) -- and still nearly half of the public agreed the laws should be stricter.
If they had asked just about the closing of the loopholes in the background check law, the percentages in favor would have been much higher (probably over 3 out of every 4 people, as numerous polls have shown).
The Polytheistic Roots Of Judaism And Christianity
Ask any of the adherents of the Abrahamic religions, judaism and christianity (and islam), and they will quickly tell you that there is only one god. But they contain many god-like beings such as the devil, angels, demons, and for christians, the holy ghost and son of god (parts of a trinity of gods). It shouldn't surprise us though that they are able to claim only one god while actually believing in many god-like creatures, because those religions actually sprang from a polytheistic tradition -- a fact that is verified in the old testament itself.
One of the best articles about this comes from Carolyn Hyppolite at Debunking Christianity -- And Then Some. Here is what she has to say about that polytheistic tradition:
For the better part of a decade, I began most mornings with a recitation of the psalms. In fact, I began my morning as Catholic monastics do with a recitation of the 95th psalm. Every day, I chanted these words, “For the Lord is a great God, and a great king above all gods” (Psalm 95:3) without noticing that this statement stood in conflict with my monotheistic vision.
The Psalm is saying the LORD—this is actually YHWH, the divine name—is a great el (Ancient Canaanite (Ugaritic) word for god). He is not only great but he is king above all elohim (gods). Why not YHWH is great? This is certainly what one might expect if there is only one god (el) in the universe? How could one be kings of gods (elohim) if there is just god?
Like all good Christians, I read the litany of Old Testament passages condemning of worship of false idols as just that. God does not want his children doing something as foolish as worshipping wood and metal carvings. He wants them to worship the true God. However, a closer reading of the Hebrew Bible indicates that this is not at all the case.
The majority of the Old Testament is macho posturing. It is about one deity striving to demonstrate that he is greater than the other gods by bringing about the military defeat of the worshippers of other deities. It is a usurpation of the role of chief god among the pantheon of gods.
Of course, Israelite religion eventually moves from our god is greater than all gods (Exodus 18:11) to “they were no gods, but the work of human hands” (Isaiah 37:19).
But as Biblical scholars all know and as your pastor probably also knows, but won’t tell you, this was later development and that much of the Old Testament indicates throughout her history, Israel thought that the other gods were very real, and YHWH is jealous of them, like a husband is jealous of a very real other man.
Throughout the Biblical text YHWH seeks to demonstrate his superiority of the gods of the nation. YHWH sends plagues to Egypt because “on all of the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments” (Exodus 12:12). One does not judge things that don’t exist.
The Scripture writer than adds “I am the Lord” (12:12). This is not I am in charge—although that is the implication—but I am YHWH. I am YHWH is repeated over 150 times in the Old Testament as a way of boosting the particular deity who has triumphed.
However, the best piece of evidence of Israel polytheistic roots is probably found in Deuteronomy 32:
When the Most High apportioned the nations,
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the gods;
the Lord’s (YHWH) own portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted share (Deut. 32:8-9). (NRSV)
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the gods;
the Lord’s (YHWH) own portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted share (Deut. 32:8-9). (NRSV)
Deuteronomy 32 is Moses’s Farewell Song to Israel before his passing (of course, it was written many centuries after the exodus for which there is not much evidence).
The word Most High here is not just another word for God, but El Elyon, the name of the chief God in Ugaritic pantheon. According to Canaanite mythology, he has supposedly fathered 70 sons.[1] This is historical background of this passage.
The Most High (El Elyon) is dividing up the peoples of the world among his sons and setting boundaries for each god. YHWH is one of the gods and Israel is his portion.
This text is such a blow to the Bible’s monotheistic pretensions that most Bible translations cover it up with a more palatable translation. The NIV and NASB translates elohim not as it should “gods” but as “sons of Israel.” The NKJV opts for the gender sensitive but still inaccurate “children of Israel.”
This might make theological sense but it does not make syntactic sense. Why would God set boundaries for other peoples according to the number of sons of Israel? This would also implies that there are only twelve nations.
Over time, Israel decides that it is not enough for YHWH to have Jacob as his portion. The other gods are ineffective and they have to go.
Thus, God calls a divine council:
God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked?
Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked?
Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
I say, “You are gods,
children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince” (Psalm 82:1-4, 6-7). (NRSV)
children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince” (Psalm 82:1-4, 6-7). (NRSV)
Again, English translators of the Bible seek to cover the pagan origin of the psalm. It is well-known among Biblical scholars that the divine council is a Canaanite setting in which El reigns over the other gods. Thus, the NASB opts for “his own congregation.” The NKJV says, “the congregation of the mighty.” The NIV says “the great assembly.”
In addition, that there are gods in this assembly is also covered up by the NASB, which translates elohim as “rulers.”
Again, this only makes theological sense. If there is not a god addressing other divine beings, then the punishment does not make sense. The psalmist says:
I say, “You are gods,
children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince.”
children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince.”
It does not make sense to condemn a human being to die like a mortal or just a regular, old prince. The human being was already going to die like a mortal.
By the first century, Judaism was a solidly monotheistic religion, thus in the Gospel of John, we find Jesus interpreting the “You” are human beings.
The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled—can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:33-36).
And that is the story of how God, who was many, became one, and then became three.
Saturday, November 01, 2014
Republicans Still Like Romney - But The Public Doesn't
Recently, there has been a fair amount of talk about the possibility of Mitt Romney running for president again on the Republican ticket. This is probably because of the failure of any of the other candidates to separate themselves from the rather large pack of possible candidates (or show they would stand a chance of competing with Hillary Clinton if nominated). I have already posted about one poll which showed that right now Romney would have a small lead among all the candidate (but even though he had a lead, he only got about 21% support).
Now there is a new poll showing Romney still has support among the Republican base. It is the YouGov Poll, taken between October 18th and 20th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults with a margin of error of about 4 points. They didn't ask who the base Republican voters would vote for, but instead asked them their opinion of Romney (and the other leading candidates). It turns out that Romney has a significantly higher favorable rating among Republicans than any of the other candidates do (an 8-9 point margin, slightly exceeding the survey's margin of error).
This would seem to say a Romney candidacy is a possibility. But should the Republicans nominate him again? The answer is probably NO. While Romney is viewed very favorably by Republicans, that does not extend to the general public. Look at the charts below, and you will see that Romney has an upside-down rating among the general public (36% favorable and 47% unfavorable). And almost every demographic group has that unfavorable opinion of Romney. Only one group (those 65 & older) give him a significant favorable rating. Two other groups, whites and rich people, are split in their opinion of him (with the difference being within the survey's margin of error).
The news for Romney goes downhill from there. Every single demographic group (even the elderly, the whites, and the rich) say they do NOT want Romney to run for president again. And by large margins, every single demographic group, by large margins, thinks Hillary Clinton would easily beat Romney if he was the Republican candidate.
I personally don't think Romney will run, and after the 2012 fiasco, I seriously doubt the teabaggers (who control the GOP) will let him get the nomination again. Even though no clear favorite has emerged yet, I just don't think a Romney candidacy is viable (at least not in 2016).
Losing The War On Terror
We have been waging the "war on terror" for more than 13 years now. At least, that's what we have been told by our government. But the truth is that we haven't been fighting terrorists at all. We have been fighting insurgents in Afghanistan (and now in Syria and again in Iraq) who want to establish a muslim theocracy in those countries and we haven't done a very good job of that.
We haven't won any of those conflicts because the residents of those countries, and the entire muslim world, don't see this as fighting terrorists. They view it as another christian crusade waged against muslims -- and because of that, we are creating a lot more enemies than we are killing or capturing.
We are fighting countries, but the truth is that terrorists don't have a country. They slip in and out of countries and survive nicely because we can't possibly fight every country they go in and out of. We have the best-trained and best-equipped military in the world -- and no one is better at fighting a conventional war.
But the terrorists won't fight a conventional war, and our military is not the way to fight them. Diplomacy, intelligence, and law enforcement are the only effective tools against terrorists. And it would also help to understand that not all terrorists are muslim (remember Oklahoma City, bombed by christian terrorists?).
The chart above was made from information in a series of Rasmussen Polls (the most recent being done on October 28th and 29th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points). It shows that while the public was fooled into thinking we were winning the "war on terror" for quite a while, now a plurality understand we are actually losing that "war". I hope it's because they are finally starting to realize we are waging that war the wrong way, and with the wrong tools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)