Friday, March 23, 2012

Kirk Cameron is sort of a dumbass

Kirk Cameron appeared with Wallbuilders' pretend historian David Barton and uttered the following unsurprising tripe:

You know what's interesting is that faith is always involved in politics, it's just not always a Christian faith. If you think about it, even those who are secular humanists, they are importing their secular humanist faith and religion and morality and imposing it on everybody else through the laws that they make. So the idea of faith in government is inescapable; it's always going to be somebody's faith, even if it's faith in atheism.
Even the most ardent atheist has faith that there is no God - and that's a blind faith; you have to ignore all of the evidence - but he nevertheless holds his position by faith and that faith informs his decisions. So don't let anyone ever tell you that faith doesn't belong in politics because you can't get away from it even if your faith is atheism.
It's just a question of which is the best faith to have. Do you put your faith in the idea that we all evolved from slime? Or do you put your faith in the revelation that we were created by God in his image and he loves us and has given us a life manual called the Bible?
Kirk, I don't consider myself an Atheist, but the collective group is not as monolithic as Christianists like to portray them. All Atheists  do not 'have faith' that there is no God, nor do they all deny the existence. Many Atheists simply acknowledge that they don't believe in a God because the overwhelming lack of evidence [in their eyes at least] to confirm the existence of some higher power.

Many sacred books have been penned about many deities, but somehow merely longevity and popularity have reduced the playing field a select few competing candidates, not unlike the current campaign season.....except in this case, the election never takes place.

Kirk's diatribe speaks to the definitions of Positive and Natural laws. His vision of America, where we all abide by his [and others] interpretations of an unprovable deity, is an example of positive laws. He would restrict the actions of American citizens based upon interpretations [there's that word again] of a 2000 year old-ish tome. He is merely one of many who have the unfortunate habit of not only believing that this nation was founded on that tenets of that book, but actively interpose the concepts of liberty and freedom with religious values, irrespective of the belief systems of all Americans. Never mind the fact that two people of the same gender committing their love and loves to each other does not impact another's commitment to an opposite gender partner, Cameron, Barton and their ilk would deny the very privilege bestowed upon other Americans merely because a cherry picked excerpt from Leviticus says so.

Kirk may want to come to terms with not advocating for all portions of God's "Life Manual" to be adhered to by this allegedly Christian nation.


  1. Is he actually calling for laws to be changed?

    He's a Christian speaking his mind in the public square, as is his right.

    All kinds of people say all kinds of things that others think is stupid. Why call out the Christian?

    (other than the fact that it's your blog and you can call out whoever you want... ;)

  2. Kirk is advocating for prohibiting equal privileges for all Americans, based on religious values, no matter the faith of the citizens in question.

    I don't dispute his right to say anything he wants, just as I have the same. A key difference between us is that I am not advocating a legislative restriction on my fellow citizen.

    And you are correct, neither Kirk nor Christians have the market cornered on imbecilic comments. I should be more even handed in my blogging, because I have no animus towards Christianity [though I do seem to never have time to blog as much as I'd like].....when it's a personal relationship between man and his professed creator, or when the faithful don't seek to legislate religious tenets where there is no secular value. I fully support the modern concepts of religious freedom, though I think a rational debate can be had that addresses where the line exists between that freedom and abiding by the laws of a nation.

    For the record, my family attends a Catholic church and my daughters go to a private Christian school. I just seemingly have a fetish for individual liberty.

  3. I should be more even handed in my blogging

    Nah, you should never apologize for what you do here. It's a good blog. I wish more people shared your "fetish for individual liberty."

  4. Thank you,

    I have been accused of being a liberal based on my rantings, but I think it's because I get more upset at the shenanigans of the party that I 'could' vote for.

    I almost take for granted that Democrats are the embodiment of welfare and entitlement....and sadly it doesn't get my blood boiling as much as the Republicans who should know better.

  5. I hear ya. I've lost conservatives at my blog because I don't shut down the liberals and delete their posts...


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.