Global Warming part 2: Man's Contribution

This graphic is from the Skeptical Science site
I hope they don't mind.

Friday is usually a light day on this blog. Just a quick note to fill in a gap from the previous piece.

Many conservatives admit we are expericing warming of the planet but claim it's a natural cycle or that we can't know if our contribution to green house gases is really enough to be the culprit. I think we just think rationally about we would see it must be. There's a good site called Skeptical Science, that deals with this issue. Warning, it says it's "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism."

Climate Myth...

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

this bit goes with the graphic above:

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

 So the balance remained for remained in balance, even there were times when climate changed naturally. In time of the Dinasours the earth was warmer than now. In the time of ice age it was much colder than it is now. It seems the Tipping point is that we began interjecting sources that did not balance. Natural source give and take corban dioxide, such as trees.

there's much more on that site so please look at that page

Anti-Global Warming Position of Religious Right Fails stewardship of Gospel

The Union Tribune San Diego published an article by distinguished professor of Marine Chemistry, Jeffery L. Bada in which he descriges the letters he got in response to his statements about Gobal warming:

One challenged me to a debate about whether global warming and rising carbon dioxide was real science, or a hoax, and stated that I was “woefully ignorant of climate science and even the basics of how science works.” In response, I suggested we arrange a debate through an organization such as the National Academy of Sciences. The response: the academy could not “be relied upon to provide a neutral setting or neutral format,” and I was asked, “Has science now evolved into the telling of ‘tall tales,’ where logic and evidence are no longer required?” A follow-up email stated, “The climate cult does not want to get it right. Climate science is solo corrupt.”[1]

Apparently he received 170 such letters. The right wing has been hyperactive about vilifying global warming. What does the science really say about it? Mark Hertsgaard points to the fact that it's too late to stop the warming, it has already warmed. "At the core of the global warming dilemma is a fact neither side of the debate likes to talk about: it is already too late to prevent global warming and the climate change it triggers." [2] Hertsgaard points to scientific findings of the UNEP
associated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, comprised of 2000 scientific experts from all over the world. Fundamentalism wants us to think that this is false science but it is actually "the most extensive peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history." [3]

The IPCC scientists predict that because of global warming the future will bring more and deadlier extreme weather of all kinds – more hurricanes, tornadoes, downpours, heat waves, droughts and blizzards – and all that comes in their wake: more flooding, landslides, power outages, crop failures, property damage, disease, hunger, poverty and loss of life.
In California, torrential rains induced a mudslide on Jan. 11 that killed ten people, buried children alive and crushed dozens of houses. In 2003, a record summer heat wave left 35,000 – mainly elderly people – dead across Western Europe.[4]

That was back in 2005, if we follow the reports through the years we see those predictions coming true. In 2009, David Biello told us, in Scientific American, the risk was getting worse. A study new at that time, also by the UNIPCC showed that threats "ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods—are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures."[5]

Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heat wave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000, [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and there's a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern," says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. "Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with [climate change] theory unfortunately.[6]

Climate chnage is already here and it's proved according to Biello temp has risen 1.1degree (fr) further warming of 0.7 is certain. Several studies including MIT shows GW is already worse than predicted. (2000 scientists in IPCCreffered to by Hertsgaard.

 What is this organization the IPCC that these sources are talking about?

 from their website (IPCC):

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.[7]

Conservative estimates demonstarte that warming trend can be tied to 150,000 deaths. This is only a conservative estimate. It was made in 2005 and has born out over time.

Earth's warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year, according to the World Health Organization, a toll that could double by 2030.
The data, being published today in the journal Nature, indicate that climate change is driving up rates of malaria, malnutrition and diarrhea throughout the world.
Health and climate scientists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who conducted one of the most comprehensive efforts yet to measure the impact of global warming on health, said the WHO data also show that rising temperatures disproportionately affect poor countries that have done little to create the problem. They reached their conclusions after entering data on climate-sensitive diseases into mapping software.[8]

The world Health Organization has this year published a set of "key facts" about global warming that show many of these predictions coming true:

---

Key facts

• Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
• Global warming that has occurred since the 1970s caused over 140 000 excess deaths annually by the year 2004.
• The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.
• Many of the major killers such as diarrhoeal diseases, malnutrition, malaria and dengue are highly climate-sensitive and are expected to worsen as the climate changes.
• Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.
• Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health.

Also on their page:

 Extreme high air temperatures contribute directly to deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, particularly among elderly people. In the heat wave of summer 2003 in Europe for example, more than 70 000 excess deaths were recorded².
 Robine JM et al. Death toll exceeded 70 000 in Europe during the summer of 2003. Les Comptes Rendus/Série Biologies, 2008, 331:171–78.[9]

There are more extreme predictions made just that following year in 2006. We wont know if they are going to bare out until much latter in the century, if they do it will be a major catastrophe and threatens the survival of all humanity. Some predict 10 billion could die by end of the century. James Lovejoy is highly respected environmental scientist who proposed the Gaia theory, that the Earth is a self sustaining organism."Lovelock warns that the world has already passed the point of no return with global warming, and that climate change will kill billions of people in this century as the Earth reaches a “coma'' state from which it may not recover for 100,000 years."[10] Before we dismiss these projections we need to remember that the temperature of the earth has risen 1% and we have seen drastic effects including the virtual elimination of the polar ice caps. The temp is projected to rise much higher, we are just getting started. Even the conservative estimates are dire and too tragic to allow. It's all because it would be a threat to our greed to change our way of life.

Climate change has been adopted into the culture wars. It's now a sign of "obama support" to accept it and of "standing tall against Obama" to deny it. Rania Khalek demonstrates the extent to which right-wing politics has tried to sabotage the public's understanding of the science involved.

 It’s been widely proven that fossil fuel interests, most notably ExxonMobil, used the tobacco industry’s playbook and an extensive arsenal of lobbyists and “experts” to manufacture disinformation designed to confuse the public and stifle action to address climate change.  As documented by Greenpeace, in recent years this corporate PR campaign has gone viral, spawning a denial movement that is largely immune to reasoned response.  While the more powerful climate change deniers have manipulative objectives, such as preserving their vested interests in fossil fuels or political posturing with their constituencies, many on the right actually believe climate change is a hoax.  This PR campaign has contributed immensely to denial, but there is still more to the story.[11]

She also argues that cognitive dissonance lurks behind the conservative's ultimate reaosn for denying the such well documented problems. Climate change threatens a whole range of things precious to right wing: individual freedom, property rights, small government, free markets, "unfettered industrial capitalism"[12] (aka the every popular making of money). The thing about the theory of cognitive dissonance is that it explains why certain groups (aka hte 1950s flying saucer cult that Leon Festinger and his students infiltrated) grew more committed to their causes even when they were disproved. For example the group kept putting out dates for the end of the world, the UFOs were supposed to come
and save them right before the end, neither thing ever happened of cousre. The dates came and went with no UFO and no end of the world and yet the members grew more dedicated. As Khalek puts it:

It is far more simple to deny science, than to accept that one's worldview is wrong. Unfortunately, environmental organizations are in a kind of denial as well.  Climate change is about an economic model that demands infinite growth on a finite planet. However, environmental groups are reluctant to relate climate change to economics and politics, probably because conservatives would see it as confirmation of the right-wing myth that global warming is a socialist plot to redistribute the world's wealth.[13]

She doesn't actually explain the rationale behind cognitive dissonance. I've written about cognitive dissonance before. The committment made to a cause is so great that one can't accept it being disproved. So one re-doubles the effort in an attempt to rationalize the failure. It's really akin to the attempt to save the paradigm in Kuhn's theory.[14] Part of that rationalization is the attempt to link Global warming, via liberal propaganda, to anti-Christian causes such as liberals are known to take up. Thus the illusion is caste, and many intelligent Christians believe it, that Global warming is an atheist plot. In fact the rationalization that global warming is not man induces is a sin. We are failing our duty to the Lord to be good Stewards of the earth.

In Genesis 1:26 God gave man dominion over the earth, what does that mean? Traditionally it's translated as "subdue" or "rule over." One read into that aspect a hint of responsible Stewardship. Adam was set in the Garden to "tend it" The term used there implies protect not just cultivate. Gensis 2:15 "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it." God did not give man the right to destroy the earth, the term "tend" in Heberw is 'abad meaning
  "'to work or serve,' and thus referring to the ground or a garden, it can be defined as "to till or cultivate." It possesses the nuance seen in the KJV's choice in its translation: "dress," implying adornment, embellishment, and improvement."[15]

From a Catholic perspective, Philip C.L. Gray defines Stewardship as "Christian stewardship is a way of living in which we recognize that everything belongs to God. All resources must be used for His glory and the common good. Solidarity is the fruit of stewardship."[16] He elaborates examples of Stewardship in scripture:

 In Sacred Scripture we find many examples of stewards being placed over the affairs of their masters. Abram had a steward. He was Eliezer of Damascus, a slave born in the house of Abram. Were Abram not to have offspring, Eliezer would receive his freedom and inherit all Abram's possessions (cf. Gen. 15:2-3). In Genesis 41, we find the story of Joseph and how Pharaoh made him steward over the land of Egypt. Joseph was not part of the royal family, and he would not inherit the throne. Yet, because of Joseph's wisdom and discretion given by God, Pharaoh entrusted the entire kingdom to his care. "[Y]ou shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you" (Gen. 41:40).[17]

He points to Gensis 1:26-28 as the inauguration of human stewardship over the earth. He makes the argument that there's more being said in this passage than just "tend the garden" the whole passes indicates the stewardship expected of Adam and Eve.[18] Modern theologians have developed concepts of Ecological stewardship and Christians from all walks of faith support the notion. "Many moderate and progressive Catholics, Protestants and evangelicals see environmentalism as a consequence of stewardship. In Jewish and Christian traditions stewardship also refers to the way time, talents, material possessions, or wealth are used or given for the service of God."[19]

What we see is that when humanity was in right relatinoship with God (symbolized by the pre fall life in the Garden) we take care of the earth adn protect it. When that relationship is broken and we are separated from God (symbolized by the fall) we must struggle to wrest food from the earth amid thorns and weeds.




Sources

all online sources accessed 2/11/14

[1] Jeffrey L. Bada, "Global Warming Deniers Guilty of Attack on Science," Union Tribune San Diego, On line source, "UT-San Diego." Nov 23 (2013) http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Nov/28/global-warming-deniers-guilty-of-attack-on-science/
Jeffrey L. Bada is professor of Marine Chemistry and former Director of the NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training (NSCORT) in Exobiology in the Geologic Research Division at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego.
He obtained his PhD in Chemistry from UCSD under the direction of Stanley Miller in 1968.  Prof. Bada’s research deals with the geochemistry of amino acids, organic cosmogeochemistry, the sources and stability of organic compounds on the primitive Earth and other solar system bodies, the origin of homochirality on Earth and the detection of possible remnants of life on solar system bodies both by in situ analyses and from the study of meteorites.


 [2] Mark Hertsgaard, "Kyoto Can't Save us."February 14, (2005) alertnet

http://www.alternet.org/story/21261/kyoto_can%27t_save_us

Mark Hertsgaard, the environment correspondent for The Nation, is the author of six books, including "Earth Odyssey: Around the World In Search of Our Environmental Future" and, most recently, "HOT: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth."

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5]  David Biello "Risks of Global Warming Rising, Is It too Late to Reverse Course?"Scientific American, Feb 27, (2009) |http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/risks-of-global-warming-rising/

[6] Ibid.

[7] UNIPCC Website http://www.ipcc.ch/

Their statement about who they are.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.Uvjo5fsvxsE

[8] Juliet Eilperin, "Climate Shift Tied To 150,000 Fatalities," Washington Post,Thursday, November 17, (2005). online, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602197.html

Juliet Eilperin is staff writer for Washington Post

[9] World Health Organization, "Climate change and health Fact sheet N°266," Reviewed November 2013
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

[10] Larry West, "Global Warming May Kill Billions this Century," About.com environmental issues

January 16, (2006) on line
http://environment.about.com/b/2006/01/16/global-warming-may-kill-billions-this-century.htm
Larry West is a professional writer and editor who has written many articles about environmental issues for leading newspapers, magazines and online publications. He has been a guide at About.com since 2004.

[11] Renia Khalek, "Is Cognitive Dissonance Fueling Conservative Denial of Climate Change?" Common Dreams. Tuesday, February 11, (2014) online https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/15-3
 Rania Khalek is an independent journalist reporting on the underclass and marginalized. Her work has appeared at Common Dreams, Salon, The Nation, In These Times, Citizen Radio and more. To see more of Rania’s work visit her blog Dispatches from the Underclass and follow her on twitter @RaniaKhalek.

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid.

[14] Cognitive Dissonance, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[15] Richard T. Ritenbaugh, from "the Bible and the Environment" on "Genesis 2:15, commentaries, forunner commentaries" Bible Tools.org
on line  http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/46/eVerseID/46

[16] Philip C.L. Gray, "Christian Stewardship, What God Expects from us." CERC home, published by Catholilc Educational Resource Center, on line resource http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/environment/en0007.html Original publication, Philip C.L. Gray. "Christian Stewardship: What God Expects from Us." Lay Witness (September 2001).
Philip C.L. Gray is Vice President of Catholics United for the Faith. He is a lay speaker.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] "Stweardship Theology" Wikipedia Nov 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewardship_%28theology%29
last modified 15 November 2013

 

 Elaine Howard Ecklund, a Rice University assistant professor of sociology, polled 1,700 university scientists and found that almost half considered themselves religious—but they don't want to talk about it openly.




This is buy Decypher on CARM, but it's quoting from an article on NPR. Not that I see myself as conservative or even intelligent design. But I'm also not in favor of Orwellian nightmares.

Christian Academics Cite Hostility On Campus

Christian Academics Cite Hostility On Campus

August 03, 2010

On NPR

 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128959747

One of the hot debates in academia is now reaching the courts. The question: Do universities discriminate against religious conservatives? Some professors and students say they do, but it's not an easy charge to pin down.

When Elaine Howard Ecklund began asking top scientists whether they believe in God, she got a surprise. Ecklund, an assistant professor at Rice University and author of the book Science Vs. Religion, polled 1,700 scientists at elite universities. Contrary to the stereotype that most scientists are atheists, she says, nearly half of them say they are religious. But when she did follow up interviews, she found they practice a "closeted faith."

"They just do not want to bring up that they are religious in an academic discussion. There's somewhat of almost a culture of suppression surrounding discussions of religion at these kinds of academic institutions," Ecklund says.

She says the scientists worried that their colleagues would believe they were politically conservative — or worse, subscribed to the theory of intelligent design. Ecklund says they all insisted on anonymity.

And it appears that climate may extend beyond science departments. A poll of 1,200 academics by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research found that more than half said they have unfavorable feelings toward evangelical Christians.

Aryeh Weinberg, who co-authored the study, says one reason for this is that there are relatively few evangelicals in academia.

"The question is, why? Do they self-select out, and if they do, why are they self-selecting out? Are they actually not hired? Are they trying to get hired but not getting hired? Are they getting hired then being forced out, not getting tenure?" Weinberg asks.

Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history at Columbia University and an Episcopal priest, disagrees.

"I haven't encountered that hostility at all," Balmer says. "I've been a visiting professor at places like Emory and Northwestern and Yale and Princeton and other places. And I simply have not encountered that sort of hostility to my claims of faith or my professions of faith."

Mike Adams begs to differ. Adams teaches criminology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. A few years ago, he began writing strongly worded op-ed pieces expressing conservative views on religious and political issues. When he applied for promotion to full professor, his colleagues voted him down. Adams sued. He claimed, among other things, that he was rejected because of his religious speech.

"I think that the evidence in my case very strongly suggests that I was being held to a higher standard and there was retaliation for expression of my First Amendment rights," Adams says.

The university declined to comment, but in its brief it argued that Adams' teaching record "did not satisfy the standard of distinguished accomplishment." In March, a federal judge sided with the university. Adams is appealing.

David French, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, says there's an upsurge of these cases.

"The secular public schools are almost becoming, for lack of a better term, quasi-religious in their outlook and devotion to one particular worldview and excluding all those who disagree," French says.

French cites the case of an adjunct professor in California who was dismissed for suggesting that homosexuality might be a choice. A graduate student was thrown out of a counseling program after she declined to conduct relationship therapy for gay couples. And recently the University of Illinois dismissed an adjunct professor for offending students when discussing the Catholic church's view of homosexuality. After an outcry, the university reinstated him last week.

'Focused On the Written Record'

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors (A.A.U.P.), agrees that there may be a culture clash at universities. But he doesn't believe this translates into systematic discrimination against religious academics.

"I think most tenure decisions at responsible and respectable institutions are focused on the written record," Nelson says.

That record includes: the number of peer-reviewed articles someone has published, teacher evaluations, and whether someone has worked on committees. Nelson doesn't believe people are penalized for their religious views.

"That it happens in some places, I'm sure. It has not been coming to the A.A.U.P. in the form of cases and complaints," Nelson says..

And because a university doesn't have to give a reason for rejecting a candidate, it's difficult to tell why, precisely, a scholar considered unfit for academia.

Greatness has Left the Planet (and my life), My Brother Dies

I will not be blogging for time now, here is why:


Ray Hinman (June 20, 1956-Jan 24, 2014) He was 57 years old. As he himself once wrote of his own birth, "when I was born there were two of me." I was the other one. He was my twin brother. He died of pneumonia probably form flu. He died in our home. Ray was a remarkable guy: he was a poet and he great literary talent. He tried real hard bot make but never did. He was published here and there, had one book of his poetry. He wrote a fine novel, or rather wrote a large portion of one. Never finished it. This was not due to laziness he sent things to publishers constantly. He spend years and years shuffling papers and getting rejection slips. That's an old familiar story. He really did have talent and his poetry is great. Great poetry doesn't sell. Most publishers dont' want to publish it even if it's top quality. He could not write commercialism crap or do other things. He was one of those people who its easy to look at and say "he just gave up" or "he was lazy" or whatever, but the truth of it is he was just too sensitive to do anything but the one thing he had the real talent for, that one thing doesn't pay bills.

I read one of his poems in a poetry call at UTD. This was graduate class taught by two top literary professors. One of them was Fred Turner the son of famous anthropologist Victory Turner, who is himself a renown poet. He said "I love his poetry" referring to Ray's poetry. The other professor was a woman from Hungary, Zsuzsanna Ozsvath.She was crying and saying "eet ees so be=U-teeful. both of them though Ray's poetry was great.





This is the bio I put on his poetry website.

Born: Dallas, Texas, 1956, with his twin brother Joe.

Education: University of Texas At Arlington, University of North Texas (Denton)

Occupations: Market Researcher; Paid campaign worker; poetry editor (Academic Journal Negations) and fellow of Negations Institute.

Life Experience: Mr. Hinman has lived in Dallas, Arlington, and Austin Texas. He's traveled extensively around North America, Mexico, and Central America.

1970's In the early 70's, as a highschool sophemore Mr. Hinman worked as a volunteer in for the McGovern Campaign in the senator's 1972 Presidential bid. As a young man he hitchhiked from Dallas to Colorado. In a Second trip, up the West Coast to Van Couver. In a Third trip, hitchhiked up the East coast to Montreal. [That hitching odyssey was a major even in his life. He met Joan Baez on the west coast trip. He had many great stories of adventure from those trips.] He also Attended University of Texas at Arlington.

1980's lived in Dallas and Austin. In this decade he travailed in Mexico. It was in this decade that he had his career as a Market Researcher in Dallas,Paid campaign worker in Austin, and attended University of North Texas in Denton. From about 86 to 90 a major portion of his life was occupied with volunteer political organizing over the issue of Central America. Mr. Hinman worked with the infamous CISPES group (Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) of Dallas which is known to have been spied upon by an FBI informant, and Mr. Hinman may have been target of surveillance.

1990's: Mr. Hinman worked in the anti-Gulf War coalition in the early 90's. He settled in Dallas and began to work for the Negation Institute, first as the contributing Poetry editor for their journal Negations, then as researcher. In the late 90's he spent several years providing full time care for his parents until their deaths.In the 90's that he wrote some of his best work.


After the death of his parents, Mr. Hinman withdrew from society and lives a hermit like existence devoted to study. These are the venues in which he was published. some of them multiple poems were published.

Interstate
The Amoeba
Well Spring
Balcones Review
Negations: an Inter disciplinary Journal of social Criticism
A Rule of Three(chapbook).
Our Cities Vanish (book)

To read samples of his poetry see the blogger site I made for him: Our Cities Vanish.

Ray Loved the Byrds, this was one of his favorite songs by the Byrds:
I am a pilgrim


Buy a copy of his book Our Cities Vanish  on Amazon

or click on the mimage in the right side bar at bottom.

Answering comment on God and non Christian Prayer

 


We have a comment from a friend, an atheist (former Christian--I keep telling him he still is one)
Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

People that argue that God doesn't hear the honest and honorable prayers of unbelievers, remind me of the folks who think Jesus was actually named Jesus, and that he spoke in King James English.

I recall the part in Lewis' Narnia Chronicles, in The Last Battle, mentioned here in this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tash_(Narnia)

"Emeth, who expects Tash to smite unbelievers with heavenly fire, goes searching for Tash in Aslan's Country, but instead meets Aslan. It is revealed that Aslan and Tash are opposites, with each existing as the antithesis to the other. Aslan tells Emeth that 'all the service thou hast done to Tash, I accept as service done to me' and further explains that 'no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him'. He explains that Emeth's pious devotion, because it was rooted in a love of justice and truth, was really to Aslan rather than to Tash, although Emeth had not been aware of this; Emeth finds great happiness in this revelation."

6:58 AM

 I like that passage. That's pretty much what I'm saying on the thing about Acts 17. In connection with that I will continue the discussion on Monday by taking up the question "then what good does it do to be a Christian?"

One thing I like the most about this passage is that it identifies God with ideals like truth and justice. To me I identify God with Love. I know the passage in 1 John "God is love" is a metaphorical statement but metaphors have their reality. The reality is that God is the source of love. If we understand and appreciate fully that love is more than just an emotional feeling, but embrace it as a philosophy then we see that understanding is derived from a basic description of God's character. God's character is love and that is the true and original source of love. Thus in that sense God is love.

God is truth in the same way. Truth is what is, God is the basis of all that is. This is a way of thinking that is less and less understanding in the postmodern world.I  laugh as the CARM atheists just boggle their minds trying to ridicule such ideas and saying things like "how could God be truth, it's truth that i have do nut on my desk, is God the fact that I have a  donut?" That's what comes of literalistic thinking.

I think Paul was saying that those who seek the truth source of goodness are following Jesus defacto even if they don't know it's Jesus. That does not mean all non Christians are automatically saved, any more than it means that all people who sit in churches on Sunday morning are saved. Being in a chruch doesn't make you saved any more than sleeping in a garage makes you a car. So I distinguish between being in the Christian social club and acutely "knowing Jesus." It is possible to do one without the other, but salvation is not automatically guaranteed for the chruch goer, and non salvation is not automatically befallen upon the "non Christian" adherent. But salvation is promised by God for all those who seek him and who gives their lives to Christ. Giving your life Christ makes you born again and that is salvation. I'll discuss this more on Monday.

Does God Hear the Prayers of Non Christians?

 

  The Guy recalls the famous prayer fuss in 1980 when Oklahoma pastor Bailey Smith, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, made this off-the-cuff comment: “It’s interesting to me at great political battles how you have a Protestant to pray and a Catholic to pray and then you have a Jew to pray. With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew. For how in the world can God hear the prayer of a man who says that Jesus Christ is not the true Messiah? It is blasphemy.”[1]

 This issue has arisen on a message board with atheists asserting that God wont hear the prayers of sinners (oddly enough, since he doesn't exist--one would think an non existent God hears no prayers).

God clearly hears everything in the sense of knowing about it. By "hear" is meant a special relationship. If God never heard the prayers of a sinner how could sinners ever repent? So the real question is "how does God regard the prayers of non Christians? Or, how does he regard the prayers of other faiths? There are Christians who assert bold faced "God doesn't prayers of non Christians." It's tragic but amusing what they have to do to scripture to justify saying this. Let's look at a "typical" example by someone I would call a "fundamentalist": main verse John 9:31. This is so ironic because it's actually saying the opposite.

Jack Wellman

 The Bible clearly says that God will not answer prayer requests of those who are not saved nor will He even listen to their prayers (John 9:31).  Believers have had their sins forgiven but those who are not Christian are separated from God by their sin (Isaiah 59:2).  I Peter 3:12 plainly says that God will hear a believer’s prayer but not those of the unsaved: “For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”[2]

Read more: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/does-god-answer-the-prayers-of-the-unsaved-or-unbelievers/#ixzz2r2al6icA

 Let's take a quick look at that passage in John (9:31). First of all who is speaking? Did Jesus say  this? No, first the guys who are marveling that the man born blind has been healed! These are the guys who are saying this. Then the pharisees confront the man healed and actually tell him he has not been healed. The spiritual giants show us their Biblical acumen by telling the guy who has been healed that he's not healed. This is pure irony, yes it is intentional. They are so blind themselves, they are telling the guy who got healed that he's not healed! They refuse to believe that Jesus is anybody. These guys are in the same theological camp (pharisees) as those who blasphemed the Holy Spirit. How much more Biblically ignorant we get? Could we find a more ignorant and narrow minded segment?

The passage begins with the Apostles ignorantly asserting that the man was born blind either because he sinned or his parents sinned. How the guy could be born with sin I don't know. Some might think this is a proof of reincarnation in the Bible, I'll leave that for another time. Of cousre Jesus says neither one, he was born this way "so the works of God might be displayed in him." To me that does not mean God creates people to have bad things happen to them just so he can make examples of them and heal them. Literally that is the logical inference, and I can't prove the didn't mean that, but I just think this is just a euphemistic way of saying "it just happened." Everything is an opportunity for god to manifest his glory. He doesn't need to create people born with infirmity to do that. It's a poetic way of saying "'stuff' happens." I just offer as evidence that statement in Matthew 5:45: "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." He brings good to both. 

One caveat before continuing. The healed man also echos the notion that God doesn't listen to unsaved people. He's arguing with the pharisees and his argument is, if Jesus was a sinner, as they had asserted, then he couldn't have healed me. He says:

³⁰ The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. ³¹ We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. ³² Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. ³³ If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

Of cousre this doesn't convince them they assert that the healed man can't tell the truth or know what's what.³⁴ "To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out." So that ends the interview with the narrow minded crowd refusing to even examine the evidence. That seems familiar. What about the healed man echoing this idea? "Se know that God Does not listen to sinners." Obviously it must mean he doesn't listen to sinners (which is everyone--all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God--) except and unless they are sincerely seeking forgiveness. The man born blind, the healed me, he was not a sinner. Jesus says he wasn't a sinner. Since we are all sinner we can assume this means he wasn't living in sin. He was seeking to do right even though like all of us he screwed up from time to time he was not living in a manner that took the concept of sin lightly. That he healed man believed what he said about God not hearing the prayers of sinner, he was arguing for Jesus not being a sinner. He was no Bible scholar either.I will argue and prove that God listens to "sinners," not in a manner that ignores their sin, but when they are seeking truth, forgiveness, are just desperately turning to God for help. He did me. That's the first bit of evidence i present. If God did not hear sinners at such a time I would never have been saved.

The back up reference Wellman offers: 1 Peter 3:12 

For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
    and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil

Of course this passage doesn't really say what he wants it to. It doesn't say God doesn't  hear sinners, it says he searches for the righteous and his face is against those who do evil. It doesn't say that he doesn't hear the prayers of sinners his face is against those who do evil. So that would mean those who live in a manner that sloughs off sin and takes lightly the idea of pleasing God. That would be those not calling out to God in desperation or seeking truth or seeking to repent. So we can assume that when the Bible asserts that God doesn't hear the prayers of sinners it means those who actively peruse sin not just anyone who has sinned. We can see this in the cross references. These cross references I found on Bible Hub when I looked up John 9:31.

One example is the house of Cornelius in Acts 9:11. He was praying to God and he was not a Jew, or a Christian. He was a Roman solider. God sent Peter to him to preach the gospel. Obviously then God does hear the prayers of non Chrsitians who are seeking God.[3]

Cross References

Deuteronomy 1:45
You came back and wept before the LORD, but he paid no attention to your weeping and turned a deaf ear to you.

In this one he was not taling to unbelievers, he wasn't talking to people of other faiths who worshiped other God's but the Children of Israel who followed Moses in the wilderness. So they were the believers. Here he's not listening to the prayers of believers. They had not been faithful and  not been faithful. This verse can't be used to say that God doesn't listen to the prayers of non Christians. From a Christian standpoint the Children of Israel were the Christians of heir day so to speak, we Christians are spiritually part of Israel according to Paul.

Job 27:8
For what hope have the godless when they are cut off, when God takes away their life?

That does not say that he doesn't hear their prayers. It's speaking of after they die. So if you die in teh condition of enmity with God and you have repented then you are cut off from God. It's too late to pray anyway.

Job 35:13
Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.

First of all, he might not listen becuase it's empty. Meaning, they are sincere. They didn't quote the full passage:

12He does not answer when people cry out
    because of the arrogance of the wicked.
¹³ Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea;

The plea is empty becuase they are prideful and arrogant and they don't seek truth or to seek to change.

Psalm 34:15
The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous, and his ears are attentive to their cry;

That's casting an inference but it's really argument from consequent. We are supposed to think well if God is listening to the righteous then he must not listen to the unrighteous. Not logically proven. It's an informal fallacy. This comes under the heading of my first comment that "hearing" refers to a special relationship. The eyes watching the good that is also a special relationship.It does not mean that God is no attentive to people seeking help or who want truth and want to do what's right, or want to change who realize they are separated from God and repent. The view Bible Hub takes in using this to back the idea that God doesn't' hear sinners is in contradiction to the guy in Job Elihu who is not rebuked, the only non rebuked friend and he is not rebuked specially becuase he says God  punishment on both, good and evil, for different reasons. [4] 

Psalm 66:18
If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened;

By now it should be obvious how to answer this one; it doesn't pertain to all non Christians, all sinners, but to those who cherish evil, not seeking to change, don't seek the good.

Psalm 145:19
He fulfills the desires of those who fear him; he hears their cry and saves them.

Again, just becuase it says he hears one group doesnt' mean he never heards another group.

Proverbs 15:29
The LORD is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous.

 He doesn't have this special relationship with those who seek evil and who do not seek truth and don't care about the good, or about God. In addition to this we are told he does listen to those who seek good, that doesn't' say "to Christians only."

 Grace to You does a good job of explaining, on their page "Does God answer the Prayers of unbelievers?[5]

 http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA160

 Acts 10:2 House of Cornelius. Donald P Ames Truth Magazine good article arguing that God does hear all prayers. We can also look at Paul's message to the Greeks on Mars hill. He didn't tell them "you old Homsexualite Greeks are just a bunch hell bound pagans!" What did he say?

 Acts 17:

²² Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. ²³ For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.
²⁴ “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. ²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ²⁸ ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’^[a] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’^[b]
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.

He made us to inhabit the earth that we might find him. He quotes Greek poets saying he is not far from us. In saying they are ignorant of what they worship he's saying they know God, they just don't understand the set up. Why didn't he tell them God doesn't hear their prayers? In Romans he says:

Romans 2:

⁶ God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”^{[a] 7} To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. ⁸ But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. ⁹ There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; ¹⁰ but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. ¹¹ For God does not show favoritism.
¹² All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. ¹³ For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. ¹⁴ (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.¹⁵ They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

If you are following the moral law upon he heart you are following Jesus even though you may not understand that. To that extent the heart  may excuse them or defend them. they may be justified because they are living up to the light that they have. I'll explore this theme more compeltey in reference to the Church next time.

SOURCES

[1] Richard Ostling, "Does God Hear Prayers from Just Anyone," Get Religion, December 2, (2013)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/12/does-god-hear-prayers-from-just-anyone/

accessed 1/21/14

[2] Jack Wellman, "Does God Answer the Prayers of The Unsaved or Unbelievers?" What Christians want to Know. May 21, 2011. Blog: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/does-god-answer-the-prayers-of-the-unsaved-or-unbelievers/

accessed 1/21/14

[3] Donald P. Ames, "Will God Hear the Prayer of  a Non Christian?" Truth Magazine.
http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume32/GOT032285.html

accessed 1/21/14

[4] "Interpretations of Elihu in Job," Stack Exchange biblical Hermeneutics,
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/164/interpretations-of-elihu-in-job

accessed 1/21/14

[5] No author given,   "Does God answer the Prayers of unbelievers?" Grace to You, Blog

 http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA160

accessed 1/21/14

In Honor of MLK Day: Does Voting Belong to Cesar?

 

I am Reprizing a blog piece I especially like (if I do say so myself) in honor of Martin Luther King on King day. I am not sure if I mention him in this but surely it's obviously pertaining to what he was about and so I present it in his honor. (originally published June 26, this year in repsonse to supreme court decision on voting rights act).

New York Times, 
 6/25/2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.

The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.

“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation. 

 So the question is, is this just more political hot air, or is this a time to take a stand? To answer that question I ask "what is the relationship between this questoin and the Gospel?" Is doing away with the voting rights act a matter of not living up to the truth of the Gospel? What Jesus say about politics? His statement "render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and unto God that which is God's" (Mark 12:17, Mat 22:15-22) should be a clue. Funny thing about that, he didn't seem to be ready to start a tax revolt. He seemed to think they the Romans do some stuff for us, (ever see the Life of Brion?) so springing for some Taxes to pay for it shouldn't be that big a deal. Yet, what belongs to God? Human life belongs to God, so things that destroy life, or that make it impossible to preach the Gospel or keep it from being heard, one would think do not belong to Cesar. But surely the voting rights act has nothing to do with that stuff, it's just a little voting. We might think voting belongs to Caesar because it's politics, and Cesar is king of politics, politics is of the world. Is that the answer right wing fundamentalists use when they field armies for the Republicans? Caesar is not a democratic figure. He's a symbol of power, becuase the real Cesar was a dictator. Cesar is a symbol of the power elite, the temporal realm. We have to decide weather or not democracy is more than just a silly little game of politically minded pundits, or is it a sacred right and duty to allow people the dignity that goes with being made in God's image?

Paul tells us there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28). We might infer from this that class divisions and race divisions are wrong. Discrimination is wrong. We might infer that "love your neighbor as yourself" means don't take away her civil rights? We have forgotten the horrible price that was paid, the struggle, how long it took, it bitter and divisive it was for whites who watched it on tv, and for blacks and the few whites who dared who lived it and died for it in real life. The dogs the fire hoses all things of the past no one thinks about that the young of tv of today never new. I actually watched live as cops in Alabama sicked dogs on defenseless women and sprayed them with fire hoses to keep them from sharing the same rights that white men enjoy.

Of course the court denies that we will have to do this again. The court's logic is based upon a sham argument about how we have changed:

 “Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”(see NYT Link above)

 The redistricting plan that Texas is putting into effect means that the Replicans will never be out of office in Texas. It will change the balance of power in congress. Texas is notorious for Gerrymandering (we call it "Perrymandering."--that's really how Rick Perry got in office). They re-draw the distinctions every time the Democrats do better in an election.

As for the argument that the country has changed, I have a black friend who was denied a hair cut in barbershop in Farmer's Branch Texas in 1992. That is the same community that tried to start it's own immigration service to kick out Spanish speakers and tried to make English the official language. How long before decisions regarding those things get reversed? This is a right wing coup d'etat. The same kind of mentality I talked about before, perhaps a bit more rational. But the same refusal to admit the people want the other guys. We don't care what the people, we are the country not the people. We the rulers, the elite, "the good Chrsitains," the right wing, we are the real people, the poor don't count.

It's going to take a long time to build up to the point where we can have another civil rights movement. We had a election stolen from us in 2000. They did everything they could to stop blacks form voting in Floria so they could steal the election and put Bush in. 

Independent investigations in that state revealed serious irregularities directed mostly against ethnic minorities and low-income residents who usually voted heavily Democratic. Some 36,000 newly registered voters were turned away because their names had never been added to the voter rolls by Florida’s secretary of state Kathleen Harris. By virtue of the office she held, Harris presided over the state’s election process while herself being an active member of the Bush Jr. state-wide campaign committee. Other voters were turned away because they were declared--almost always incorrectly--“convicted felons.” In several Democratic precincts, state officials closed the polls early, leaving lines of would-be voters stranded.

Under orders from Governor Jeb Bush (Bush Jr.’s brother), state troopers near polling sites delayed people for hours while searching their cars. Some precincts required two photo IDs which many citizens do not have. The requirement under Florida law was only one photo ID. Passed just before the election, this law itself posed a special difficulty for low-income or elderly voters who did not have drivers licenses or other photo IDs. Uncounted ballot boxes went missing or were found in unexplained places or were never collected from certain African-American precincts. During the recount, GOP agitators shipped in from Washington D.C. by the Republican national leadership stormed the Dale County Canvassing Board, punched and kicked one of the officials, shouted and banged on their office doors, and generally created a climate of intimidation that caused the board to abandon its recount and accept the dubious pro-Bush tally.[1]

In the next election, 2004, there were irregularities that help up blacks form voting in states like Ohio and  Missouri. But as injustice mounts it will take time to prove it, time to prove the extent of it, time for the next court to conclude "ma bye things aren't that different after all." In the mean time a lot of "eschatology" is going hit the fan.

As Phil Ochs said "let it never be again." Now it will be.

 [1] For these various irregularities, see New York Times, 30 November 2000 and 15 July 2001; Boston Globe, 30 November 2000 and 10 March 2001. A relevant documentary is Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election, L.A. Independent Media Center Film, 2004. (the author's fn form his site).


I fee I should include the comments made back in June when this first appeared:

8 comments:

Kristen said...

As Christians we have a dual citizenship - in the Kingdom of God and in our own particular countries. We are not meant to withdraw from our earthly citizenship, but to work to see justice done there. I'm sure you agree-- as did MLK, Jr., who died a martyr for justice on earth. But he did it for the sake of the kingdom of God as well-- because part of being in the kingdom of God means doing whatever is in our power for "least of these."

1:47 PM

Metacrock said...

Well said Kristen.

4:23 AM

David Brainerd said...

If there is going to be something like the Voting Rights Act it should apply equally to ALL states. Nitpicking certain states is unconstitutional.

And you should be required to show a photo id to vote. Nobody is so poor they can't get one. After all, you need one when you go to the welfare office. Do you think the social security administration doesn't ask for a photo id? Then all the welfare brats have them already, so why the fuss? Oh, because illegal aliens can't get them? Well, actually, they seems to all have driver's licenses!!!! A photo id will not stop anyone from voting once, but it will stop people from voting TWICE or THREE times in the same election. And there's the rub. Democrat homosexual abortionist scumwad atheist animals can't win without voting multiple times, as they say "early and often." Their motto for voting is the same as their motto for sexual depravity. And anyone who says anything against what I just wrote, damn them to hell. Amen.

10:15 PM

Metacrock said...

MB: "If there is going to be something like the Voting Rights Act it should apply equally to ALL states. Nitpicking certain states is unconstitutional."

Voting rights act does apply to all states. The focus is on states where we know there are problems and vote has been restricted.


your thing about photo ides. how deeply you hate the children of poor hu? Poor need to be killed hu? their children are vermin that need to die hu?

Photo id is thin end of wedge. btw I doubt that you know all the practices of every stat vis vi getting welfare.

those evil poor people if it wasn't for them you would be a billion air right? they take billions of Dollars right out of your pocket.

6:09 AM

Metacrock said...

"Democrat homosexual abortionist scumwad atheist animals can't win without voting multiple times, as they say "early and often." Their motto for voting is the same as their motto for sexual depravity. And anyone who says anything against what I just wrote, damn them to hell. Amen. on Does Voting Belon"


He who loves knows God, for God is love. 1 John. you only care about the bible verses help you hu?

6:12 AM

David Brainerd said...

1. Anyone who thinks that the voting right act applies equally to all states is completely brain-dead. It simply says that the Federal Government gets veto power over any voting laws passed by certain states. Ergo, New York can pass any voting laws they want without interference from the Feds. No equal.

2. Children of the poor? Since when are children allowed to vote? Rich or poor, you have to be 18 to vote, which is another good reason for having voter id laws!!!!!

3:35 PM

Metacrock said...

Voting rights act applies to all states: section five is specially designed for southern states that were discriminating heavily at the time (1965) but the provisions of the full act are for all states. The section five provides for judicial review so they could employ those in any state.

here

"The Voting Rights Act of 1965 protects every American against racial discrimination in voting. This law also protects the voting rights of many people who have limited English skills. It stands for the principle that everyone's vote is equal, and that neither race nor language should shut any of us out of the political process. You can find the Voting Rights Act in the United States Code at 42 U.S.C. 1973 to 1973aa-6. "

"No. The Voting Rights Act is a permanent federal law. Moreover, the equal right to vote regardless of race or color is protected by the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has been part of our law since the end of the Civil War. And in case after case, our courts have held that the right to vote is fundamental. Voting rights will not expire.

However, some sections of the Voting Rights Act needed to be renewed to remain in effect. When Congress amended and strengthened the Voting Rights Act in 1982, it extended the preclearance requirement of Section 5, the authority to use federal observers, and some of the statute's language minority requirements. In 2006, Congress passed the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights and Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 which renews nearly all of the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The rest of the Voting Rights Act also will continue to prohibit discrimination in voting. "


"What is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?

Section 5 is a special provision of the statute (42 U.S.C. 1973c) that requires state and local governments in certain parts of the country to get federal approval (known as"preclearance") before implementing any changes they want to make in their voting procedures: anything from moving a polling place to changing district lines in the county.

Under Section 5, a covered state, county or local government entity must demonstrate to federal authorities that the voting change in question (1) does not have a racially discriminatory purpose; and (2) will not make minority voters worse off than they were prior to the change (i.e. the change will not be "retrogressive").

Section 5 applies to all or parts of the following states:

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi"


you got your sheet out of moth balls didn't you?

8:49 AM

Metacrock said...

what's Michigan doing there? that's not in the south. they can't persecute yankees too can they?

8:50 AM