Christians who don't take Genesis literally

[mitchellmckain]

Well I wouldn't be content with just accepting something because It makes me feel like its right. I would have to demonstrate that it is more than likely the case. Evidence is of the utmost importance when dealing with these issues for me. I know its not for you, and I don't know of a way to continue on talking about it if we keep the same line of thinking.

I am not asking you to be content with anything. You make your choices and I make mine. But I will observe that life is not a purely objective enterprise where what you want to be the case is irrelevant as it is in the case of scientific inquiry. However much objective observation may be a useful tool, life requires subjective participation. You can of course play the objective observer in whatever you wish, but I find that role best suited to scientific inquiry and that religion is about a very different aspect of life.

Can you test either of your hypothesis about God?

I reject the idea that God could ever be a valid scientific hypothesis of any kind.

Why do you reject that Idea? prehaps we just have not found a way to do so.. Someone could have easily rejected the fact that we could ever see microscopic organism.

...because I do not believe in a physical god. All that such a methodology could discover or examine would at most be an alien life form. My belief in God and in a spiritual aspect to existence is a belief in an irreducibly subjective aspect of reality.

We do punish our children fro seeking to be like us when it is not safe for them to do so.

We don't punish them for seeking to be like us, We punish them for actions they take that can cause direct harm to themselves or others.

We do not punish them for the desire to be like us and neither do I believe in a God that punishes us for the desire to be like Him. But people are always seeking superficial things, like wanting the fame and adulation of some famous person without doing all hard work that this person did to become what he is. Likewise it is when people seek to be like God in such superficial ways, seeking power without responsibility, that we, like the two year old trying to drive a car, are doing something that can only lead to disaster.

God Forbids having other Gods before him and punishes you for it. As a parent you don't punish your child for admiring someone else.....

God punishes us for having other gods? Really?!? I don't think so. I think He simply warns us that some things have undesirable consequences. Likewise as parents we do indeed warn our children about the dangers of not only admiring but even talking to the wrong people (does "don't talk to strangers" sound familiar?).

I don't know if I have already, but I suggest you look at the comment section of my blog, where you will see explained a number of so called "chrisitan" ideas of God that I do not believe in.

It is no secret. All one does is read the Bible in context. Not only each part in context of the whole but the whole Bible in the context of the world and all the information available in it.

And doing so is the quickest way to de-convert from Christianity.

Incorrect, that may indeed have been the result of your application of this methodology but you are wrong to presume that this method can only have one result. It has led me precisely in the opposite direction to find value in Christianity in spite of all the absurdities I was raised to see in it.

I didn't say it was the only way you would come out of it. But I don't know a faster way of deconverting from Christianity than by reading its holy book. Some may get deeper into their Religion, I know that.

Yet I unreservedly reccommend this regardless. For some people de-conversion from the "christianity" they believe in SHOULD be the result.

So again How do you Know this is what happened with Adam and Eve? or How do you know anything about Adam and Eve?

Huh? There is a story about them in first chapter of the Bible. Just because you insist on reading and accepting this story literally or not at all does not mean that I have to. I told you I read the Bible in context and ask myself what it means. What you have done is a little different -- taking the meaning that was already given you and simply determining whether you should believe it. I already knew that I wouldn't believe THAT!

Yes and I explained that from the beginning. I explained that our humanity has to do with the inheritance of ideas or "memes" via human communication rather than biology or "genes".

Well then the word you should use is culture. for the sake of clarity.

No culture is a word for something different. Like the difference in hair and skin color in the different "races" of our species, culture includes a lot of arbitrary variations of mere convention, but humanity is understood to refer to us all and something a bit more essential, but I suppose you could say it is a common denominator of culture and I would even say that in many ways it is our first relgion (of humanity not the species) -- a religion of personhood and other abstracts like goodness, honor, and love -- the religion or way of thinking that made us human.

[mitchellmckain]

Yes there is a parallel. Unlike KTR I don't accuse Perry of arrogance because I understand the scope of understanding and context in which he speaks

Though in all of this I was completely unaware that either of you were talking about a politician.

Do you mean Ignorance? Because I will agree that Rick Perry is more than likely ignorant of the facts, to accept creationism over evolution.

I meant arrogance because that is what KTR accused Perry of. But as for ignorance...

He's a governor of Texas and running for president. Do either of you think he's actually ignorant of the facts of evolution vs creationism in this unbelievably religious country what with his advisers and involvement in schools and the high profile of cases like Dover vs Kitzmiller in Pennsylvania?

LOL

If "governor of Texas" did convince me that ignorant might be a good descriptor, then the fact that he is following in the footsteps of George W Bush would suggest it to me. Hey we elected one of these morons to the presidency, so maybe we will do it again. Unfortunately a display of intellegence and discernment like we see in Obama and Gore is not the only criterion which American voters use to decide their president.

It may indeed be a shrewd political move but not one that requires a great feat intellegence.

"Ignorance" does have more than one meaning. There is not only the innocent ignorance of the uninformed but also the willful ignorance of those who simply don't care.

[mikedsjr]

Yeah I agree with you that based on scripture Gen should be taken literal or else things fall apart. If you think its a fable, then by what method are you distinguising from fable to historical accounts? I think in order to be christian it makes more sense to interpret Gen as literal. So apparently you do.

Correct.

Inevitably you knew i would ask this question, How then do you reconcile that belief in the face of one of the strongest, if not the strongest Scientific theories (as in supported by more disciplines of science than any other theory), that is the Theory of Evolution?

The only issue here is that Christians have let the sciences that cover this area go to the atheists. From my understanding from Old Earth Creationists who are striving to create a scientific model based on scripture, the fields involving evolution are largely atheistic and there are christians who don't want to lose their job who keep silent on their creationist views. I'm not a scientist, so I let the people, like at Reasons.org, demonstrate a biblical view a science.

I'm not against the science that has been learned. There are 3 types of creationists. One that believes the earth is 6-10k years old (YECs). Another that believes in a scientific understanding of the age of earth and support scripture as all true (OEC). And another which doesn't pick a side or cares which way it is.

[Dr Mundo]

The only issue here is that Christians have let the sciences that cover this area go to the atheists. From my understanding from Old Earth Creationists who are striving to create a scientific model based on scripture, the fields involving evolution are largely atheistic and there are christians who don't want to lose their job who keep silent on their creationist views. I'm not a scientist, so I let the people, like at Reasons.org, demonstrate a biblical view a science.

I'm not against the science that has been learned. There are 3 types of creationists. One that believes the earth is 6-10k years old (YECs). Another that believes in a scientific understanding of the age of earth and support scripture as all true (OEC). And another which doesn't pick a side or cares which way it is.

My question was, How can you hold a literal interpretation of Gen, in the face of overwhelming evidence that Evolution has more explanatory power, and demonstrably tested predictions than Spontaneous Creation?

[Keep The Reason]

Though in all of this I was completely unaware that either of you were talking about a politician.

What? If you don't know whom we are talking about, then why are you bloviating on whether or not he's arrogant or otherwise?

I meant arrogance because that is what KTR accused Perry of. But as for ignorance...

Let me give you an example of arrogance we see right here, one born of ignorance.

1. Mitch admits he doesn't know this person we're talking about is a politician (Hence-- Mitch is ignorant of this person)
2. Mitch makes confident comments about this person who he doesn't know is a politician (Bloviating)
3. Mitch is arrogant in that he makes statements about things he is ignorant of.

Questions?

LOL

If "governor of Texas" did convince me that ignorant might be a good descriptor, then the fact that he is following in the footsteps of George W Bush would suggest it to me. Hey we elected one of these morons to the presidency, so maybe we will do it again. Unfortunately a display of intellegence and discernment like we see in Obama and Gore is not the only criterion which American voters use to decide their president.

It may indeed be a shrewd political move but not one that requires a great feat intellegence.

There were many things Bush is stupid about, but political intrigue isn't one of them. And we elected him not only once, but twice -- and who were Bush's greatest supporters? Christians. Perry knows this. The math is very simple here.

[Keep The Reason]

The only issue here is that Christians have let the sciences that cover this area go to the atheists.

Can anyone of reason imagine what would happen if Christians got hold of science like they have in the past? There are some lines to be drawn in the sand. Science in the hands of the "defenders of faith" would not get it so without a battle from me.

From my understanding from Old Earth Creationists who are striving to create a scientific model based on scripture, the fields involving evolution are largely atheistic and there are christians who don't want to lose their job who keep silent on their creationist views.

Lies. Stop watching Ben Stein. No one loses their jobs over creationism. If creationism is supportable, do the science, and demonstrate it, and let it be peer reviewed. The fact is this clash is usually at the school level and is based on political maneuvering and emotionalism from theists who don't like that science goes against them in all its evidence and proof -- demonstrably so. So they try to change things at a local level, rather than get off their asses and do the work to prove their case.

Leave science alone. You can live in whatever fairy-tale land you want, but you will not teach my children mythology as science. You shouldn't even care one way or the other if you were an honest believer. An honest believer would simply let god deal with it when we're all dead. For the here and now, keep your hands off science.

I'm not a scientist, so I let the people, like at Reasons.org, demonstrate a biblical view a science.

You sure aren't a scientist. "Reasons.org" isn't "the people". It is some people, and it's people who are demonstrably wrong about science. LEt's look at the Core Beliefs of Reasons.org:

Our Beliefs
Scripture

We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses.

Creation

We believe that the physical universe, the realm of nature, is the visible creation of God. It declares God's existence and gives a trustworthy revelation of God's character and purpose. In Scripture, God declares that through His creation all humanity recognizes His existence, power, glory, and wisdom. An honest study of nature -- its physical, biological, and social aspects -- can prove useful in a person's search for truth. Properly understood, God's Word (Scripture) and God's world (nature), as two revelations (one verbal, one physical) from the same God, will never contradict each other.

Our Mission

RTB exists to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature. We specifically engage influencers, educators, pastors, and other leaders with our integrative creation model, while we encourage and equip fellow believers to participate with us in our mission.

Can anyone imagine what science would really be if these folks were to be the authority?

SHUDDER!

[mikedsjr]

The only issue here is that Christians have let the sciences that cover this area go to the atheists. From my understanding from Old Earth Creationists who are striving to create a scientific model based on scripture, the fields involving evolution are largely atheistic and there are christians who don't want to lose their job who keep silent on their creationist views. I'm not a scientist, so I let the people, like at Reasons.org, demonstrate a biblical view a science.

I'm not against the science that has been learned. There are 3 types of creationists. One that believes the earth is 6-10k years old (YECs). Another that believes in a scientific understanding of the age of earth and support scripture as all true (OEC). And another which doesn't pick a side or cares which way it is.

My question was, How can you hold a literal interpretation of Gen, in the face of overwhelming evidence that Evolution has more explanatory power, and demonstrably tested predictions than Spontaneous Creation?

And my answer is that its an atheistic explanation to the data and not the only answer to the data. Reasons.org does weekly podcasts where they explain the findings that have come in and how it fits in an OEC viewpoint, and evolutionary viewpoint and a YEC viewpoint. I'm not a scientist to speak on the science of it. I've learned enough to see that Science has proved Eve and Adam.

[mikedsjr]

KTR...Sorry. I have no clue what Ben Stein believes. I don't read him. I don't care whether you take my comments as hearsay or not. You are inclined to your position and I to mine. I gave my answer to a question. That's it. If you want to ask me for my opinion, then expect an answer that's my opinion. I don't know enough of the data to discuss. I've read one book regarding science and Adam and Eve and I'm amazed at how what we can demonstrate through science that proves their existence. The most amazing was the y-chromosome adam and mitochondrial eve. Its not the adam and eve names that show the amazingness to me. It is what the genetic links represent. The reality is scientist will not admit what it means. Why? Because it proves the real Adam and Eve. However, I do know the chromosome adam is a more recent ancestor. And Scripture demonstrates this too: Noah. I love how it works. Yet, you won't deal with the science of this. You won't concede, "Yes, in a scientific sense it does fit scripture". No you refuse to do it. Refuse.

[Keep The Reason]

KTR...Sorry. I have no clue what Ben Stein believes. I don't read him. I don't care whether you take my comments as hearsay or not. You are inclined to your position and I to mine. I gave my answer to a question. That's it. If you want to ask me for my opinion, then expect an answer that's my opinion. I don't know enough of the data to discuss. I've read one book regarding science and Adam and Eve and I'm amazed at how what we can demonstrate through science that proves their existence. The most amazing was the y-chromosome adam and mitochondrial eve. Its not the adam and eve names that show the amazingness to me. It is what the genetic links represent. The reality is scientist will not admit what it means. Why? Because it proves the real Adam and Eve. However, I do know the chromosome adam is a more recent ancestor. And Scripture demonstrates this too: Noah. I love how it works. Yet, you won't deal with the science of this. You won't concede, "Yes, in a scientific sense it does fit scripture". No you refuse to do it. Refuse.

I'm not asking you for your opinion, I'm commenting on your statements, just like you're commenting on mine.

And noting your paranoia about "scientists refusing to see the truth".

[mitchellmckain]

Though in all of this I was completely unaware that either of you were talking about a politician.

What? If you don't know whom we are talking about, then why are you bloviating on whether or not he's arrogant or otherwise?

I meant arrogance because that is what KTR accused Perry of. But as for ignorance...

Let me give you an example of arrogance we see right here, one born of ignorance.

1. Mitch admits he doesn't know this person we're talking about is a politician (Hence-- Mitch is ignorant of this person)
2. Mitch makes confident comments about this person who he doesn't know is a politician (Bloviating)
3. Mitch is arrogant in that he makes statements about things he is ignorant of.

Questions?

Yes my question are these:
Does rationality consist of writing ones idiotic claims and prejudices in the most superficial appearance of logic?
Where is the evidence of number 2? Where do I in fact make any comments whatsoever about this Perry?
In your own personal dictionary does arrogant mean anything other than daring to believe something different than you?


Let's examine what actually did happen:
1. In a thread started by KTR, he made the claim that Perry's statements of knowledge were evidence not only of his arrogance but the arrogance of anyone with a relgious belief for daring to assert with certainty things which KTR doesn't believe is true.
2. I pointed our the rather absurd hypocrisy of asserting that Perry's claim of knowledge constituted arrogance when it was completely founded upon KTR's own assertion of knowledge concerning things which he had no objective evidence himself. Since who Perry was and what he did for a living had no relevance in the matter, I took no note of it.
3. In another thread I observed that Dr Mundo's assertion of knowledge has a similary to that of Perry's, making reference to KTR's absurd claim that this is evidence of arrogance.
4. Dr. Mundo asks whether I meant ignorance rather than arrogance.
5. KTR makes the preposterous claim that a governor of Texas cannot be called ignorant.
6. I make the observation that I did not even know that we were taking about a governor of Texas.
7. KTR in his consistent pattern of one irrationality after another makes the preposterous claim that I am arrogant because I have been talking about someone when I do not know what that person does for living.

By KTR's own incredibly silly logic he himself is arrogant for making claims about me when he does not know what I do for a living. The facts speak for themselves to show that I was never talking about Perry but only challenging KTR's logic, but rather typical of KTR's ad-hominem thinking, he is incapable of distinguishing his judgements of a person's character from the rationality of what a person says. In all this we can only wonder if this constant stream of irrationality will ever end. I suppose we can excercise faith in the capacity of human beings to learn and hope that KTR does eventually learn how to make some use of logic eventually.




Let us observe whether KTR's response to this fits the pattern I have observed so far which is to conclude that I am scum because I dare to criticize him and then like a troll go to all the other threads in which I have made posts recently and respond to what I say with ad-hominem arguments that what I say must be disregarded because he thinks that I am scum.

[Keep The Reason]

Yes my question are these:
Does rationality consist of the writing ones idiotic claims and prejudices in the most superficial appearance of logic?
Where is the evidence of number 2? Where do I in fact make any comments whatsoever about this Perry?
In your own personal dictionary does arrogant mean anything other than daring to believe something different than you?

No. So, why is it a method you pursue?

Evidence for #2 is here when you said to Dr. Mundo:

Dr Mundo wrote:That is what I know.

MM: LOL sounds a bit like Rick Perry there LOL

You also continued to make statements about Perry:

MM: Yes there is a parallel. Unlike KTR I don't accuse Perry of arrogance because I understand the scope of understanding and context in which he speaks, just as I have shown that I do understand the context in which you speak. Now if Perry had gone beyond that context to denounce the knowledge and understanding of others in the same way that KTR did then I would have denounced him as I have denounced other Christians here in this forum who say such things.

So you have demonstrably made statements about Perry indicating you knew his level of statements made (i.e., that he "didn't denounce Evolution").

Now we've proven you've made comments "whatsoever" about Perry.

Let's re-examine Perry's own words:

Rick Perry continued to voice skepticism about evolution during a campaign stop in South Carolina Friday, telling a supporter "God is how we got here."

On Thursday, in New Hampshire, Perry told a woman and her son that he regarded evolution as "a theory that's out there" and one that's "got some gaps in it.”

When a woman in South Carolina congratulated him for his remarks Friday, Perry replied “Well, God is how we got here. God may have done it in the blink of the eye or he may have done it over this long period of time, I don't know. But I know how it got started."

In statements 1 and 3, Perry is clearly indicating knowledge of "how it got started". He's not saying, "Well god may be the way we got here" he's saying "god is the way we got here." Where I come from, and where most people come from, definitive statements like this are meant as knowledge claims, not vague rhetoric.

In statement 2, he's denigrating evolution by the context of it "only being a theory", which creationists Christians like Perry has admitted being do when they try to purposely mislead what "Theory" means in scientific language.

Perry no more knows "how it got started" then you know the color of my hair. So he is speaking in ignorance, authoritatively, as if it's a foregone conclusion that god started it. Hence, he is arrogant.

But you know all this, so now we move to your personal motives as to why you pursue these misrepresentations of my positions. I say you do this because you lack integrity and are purposely dishonest. You project an amazing amount of bias and bigotry and rather than deal with your baggage you project it outwards to people who will stand up to you endless whiny bullying tactics and tell you to shove your tactics where they belong. You are a lightweight without an argument, and easily seen through for your tactics. And man, you do not like it.

Ah well, too bad.

And by the way, this is not merely my singular opinion of you. Many people have said this in other ways but they seem to want to give you a pass because you do offer an intelligent insight or two. Personally, I don't consider your insights worthwhile. You strike me as being the type of individual who has just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Like you bloviated about Perry and then came back saying you didn't know he was a politician. One who was in the mainstream media a lot and who is running for POTUS.

5. KTR makes the preposterous claim that a governor of Texas cannot be called ignorant.

Another misrepresentation. I pointed out that if someone was going to be a politician running for POTUS and who was a Texas governor and who could even make the comments he did about evolution, he must be aware of it enough! I pointed out that his handlers would certianly know, and if you're right-- and he actually is ignorant of this incredibly important scientific foundation-- then he shouldn't be a viable candidate for president! It means we'd have a president whose view of scientific progress stopped 150+ years ago.

6. I make the observation that I did not even know that we were taking about a governor of Texas.

When I don't know what I'm talking about -- I instantly stop bloviating. When you don't know what you're talking about, you ramp up the opining.

7. KTR in his consistent pattern of one irrationality after another makes the preposterous claim that I am arrogant because I have been talking about someone when I do not know what that person does for living.

No, I made the claim you are arrogant and biased and bigoted because your knee jerk reaction to criticism against a fellow Christian is to attack the person criticizing them, and defend the Christian-- even when you admit you don't have a clue as to whom you are defending!. And this isn't someone whose "job" you don't know-- this is a guy running for PRESIDENT of the USA.

By KTR's own incredibly silly logic he himself is arrogant for making claims about me when he does not know what I do for a living. The facts speak for themselves to show that I was never talking about Perry but only challenging KTR's logic, but rather typical of KTR's ad-hominem thinking, he is incapable of distinguishing his judgements of a person's character from the rationality of what a person says. In all this we can only wonder if this constant stream of irrationality will ever end. I suppose we can excercise faith in the capacity of human beings to learn and hope that KTR does eventually learn how to make some use of logic eventually.

Suck it up. You effed up. You got on your high apologia horse and defended a nincompoop who's view of science ended before the Titanic sank, and now you look like a grade A imbecile for defending him.

Ah, well. Too bad.

Let us observe whether KTR's response to this fits the pattern I have observed so far which is to conclude that I am scum because I dare to criticize him and then like a troll go to all the other threads in which I have made posts recently and respond to what I say with ad-hominem arguments that what I say must be disregarded because he thinks that I am scum.

I never said you were scum. I said you were rude, arrogant, bigoted and bullying. All of these are very peculiarly human. I just happen to see through you. And you sure don't like it.

Ah, well. Too bad.

[mitchellmckain]

hope that KTR does eventually learn how to make some use of logic eventually.

Well... I think we can say that KTR has managed to do so. This is certainly a better class of response than I have seen yet.

Evidence for #2 is here when you said to Dr. Mundo:

Dr Mundo wrote:That is what I know.

MM: LOL sounds a bit like Rick Perry there LOL

You also continued to make statements about Perry:

MM: Yes there is a parallel. Unlike KTR I don't accuse Perry of arrogance because I understand the scope of understanding and context in which he speaks, just as I have shown that I do understand the context in which you speak. Now if Perry had gone beyond that context to denounce the knowledge and understanding of others in the same way that KTR did then I would have denounced him as I have denounced other Christians here in this forum who say such things.

So you have demonstrably made statements about Perry indicating you knew his level of statements made (i.e., that he "didn't denounce Evolution").

Now we've proven you've made comments "whatsoever" about Perry.

Incorrect. Implications that you decide to draw from what I say do not constitue any such evidence.

Now if Perry had gone beyond that context to denounce the knowledge and understanding of others in the same way that KTR did then I would have denounced him as I have denounced other Christians here in this forum who say such things.

Let's re-examine Perry's own words:

Rick Perry continued to voice skepticism about evolution during a campaign stop in South Carolina Friday, telling a supporter "God is how we got here."

On Thursday, in New Hampshire, Perry told a woman and her son that he regarded evolution as "a theory that's out there" and one that's "got some gaps in it.”

When a woman in South Carolina congratulated him for his remarks Friday, Perry replied “Well, God is how we got here. God may have done it in the blink of the eye or he may have done it over this long period of time, I don't know. But I know how it got started."

In statements 1 and 3, Perry is clearly indicating knowledge of "how it got started". He's not saying, "Well god may be the way we got here" he's saying "god is the way we got here." Where I come from, and where most people come from, definitive statements like this are meant as knowledge claims, not vague rhetoric.

In statement 2, he's denigrating evolution by the context of it "only being a theory", which creationists Christians like Perry has admitted being do when they try to purposely mislead what "Theory" means in scientific language.

Incorrect again. Dismissing something that he does not agree with does not constitute a condemnation of those who have a different opinion. Again you fail to demonstrate any arrogance approaching your own. Where is Perry calling scientists "arrogant" and "nincompoops" as KTR calls Perry?

Perry no more knows "how it got started" then you know the color of my hair. So he is speaking in ignorance, authoritatively, as if it's a foregone conclusion that god started it. Hence, he is arrogant.

And thus the hypocrisy which I pointed out at the beginning. Your knowledge claims here are no less absurd than Perry's.

That I do not agree with Perry's opinions any more than you do is irrelevant. I do not declare that people are arrogant because their opinions disagree with my own.

No, I made the claim you are arrogant and biased and bigoted because your knee jerk reaction to criticism against a fellow Christian is to attack the person criticizing them, and defend the Christian-- even when you admit you don't have a clue as to whom you are defending!. And this isn't someone whose "job" you don't know-- this is a guy running for PRESIDENT of the USA.

Incorrect. Who and what Perry is, was irrelevant. He could have been atheist and you Christian and I would have responded in exactly the same way. The point is that your means of identifying people as arrogant is preposterous.

Suck it up. You effed up. You got on your high apologia horse and defended a nincompoop who's view of science ended before the Titanic sank, and now you look like a grade A imbecile for defending him.

I was not defending him. I was pointing our the irrationality of your response to him.


Perhaps part of the problem here is your assumption of a context that did in fact go over my head since I did not realize that this was the governor of Texas intending to run for president. It is true that if you made that context clear from the beginning then I might have simply responded a little differently in a manner more similar to Dr. Mundo saying that was more a matter of excessive ignorance in a candidate for US president than one of arrogance.

On the other hand, I suppose that you can posit this as an interesting question of sorts. If a politican ignores or dismisses the opinions of a large portion of his potential constituents, what shall we say of him? Is arrogance the right word for this failure to waffle in the face of such a diversity of opinion on the subject. It seems that politicians employ both of these approaches, either to attempt to satisfy everyone or to cater to only one group and ignore the rest. I have to admit that I don't like the latter approach and think that our leadership should be looking for compromises rather than helping one group force its will on everyone else.

[Keep The Reason]

And thus the hypocrisy which I pointed out at the beginning. Your knowledge claims here are no less absurd than Perry's.

Which knowledge claims are those?