The answer is that the questioners are looking for “gotcha” moments, and our side better learn to avoid minefields and to turn the questions around on the reporters.
by Daniel Foster
Among the creation stories of the major world religions, the Hindu cosmology may be — and I have this from the highest Wikithorities — the one that tracks most closely with our present scientific understanding. It’s a cosmology and an eschatology both, actually, a beautiful story of eternal recurrence in which we occupy one of an infinitude of universes hatched from nothingness by a Creator called Brahma, destined to unfold into a state of maximal complexity before collapsing in on itself and being reborn anew.
Sure, the “runaway universe,” born of a singularity and accelerating toward its own demise, is familiar from the Big Bang Theory, and even the idea that this isn’t Mother Nature’s first rodeo, that not just beings but Being is reincarnated, can be made compatible, or not incompatible, with our best physics. But when you get into the details, the dates and times, things get a bit dicey. And here I quote, again, Wikipedia’s best comparative theologians:
[.........]
. . . and it goes on like that. To me, this tick-tock raises as many questions as it answers (if Brahma creates time and space, and does so an infinite number of times to boot, then how can he be said to have an age at all?). I’m sure practicing Hindus have views on this and other matters of their faith, and an enterprising reporter might have asked a prominent Hindu — say Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii), the first to be elected to Congress — about hers. But near as I can tell, nobody has. Sure, it was widely noted as a source of pluralist pride that Representative Gabbard would be sworn in on a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, and presumably Gabbard’s connection to that book is sufficient to ground its use in underwriting her sacred oath, but nobody thought to query her about how she understood and related to the truths contained in it.Not so for the good old King James Version, whose own creation story, the Genesis, was a subject that came up in a recent GQ interview with young Senator Rubio of Florida. The question was simple enough: “How old do you think the earth is?”
Here’s Rubio’s answer:
I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
There’s much that’s right with Rubio’s answer — first on the list is the indisputable assertion that the age of the universe is not straightforwardly correlated with the United States’ gross domestic product — and plenty I’d have put differently. Unlike Gabbard’s beliefs, Rubio’s Catholic faith doesn’t leave him an easy parry to GQ’s question (which Earth do you mean?), but certainly Rubio could have hedged his bets in a less scattershot way. My preference would have been for Rubio to say that the Earth is as old as the best science says it is (4.54 billion years, give or take) though the First Amendment leaves all Americans free not only to disagree, but to proselytize on that disagreement. And if his interlocutor had followed up by asking how Rubio squared that with his own religious beliefs, he might have shrugged and added that mystery is a central component of faith.
On the Right, there is at least as much discussion of the fact that Rubio was asked this elephant trap of a question at all as there is of the details of his answer. And that’s good. But a better question might be, why wasn’t Gabbard asked it? Or President Obama, or Senator Harry Reid or Representative Keith Ellison? After all, Gabbard’s espoused Hinduism, like Obama’s espoused Christianity or Ellison’s espoused Islam or Harry Reid’s espoused Mormonism, entails a range of commitments to claims that are, prima facie, at odds with the empirical record. But there isn’t a cottage industry in interrogating Democrats on their faith the way there is with religious conservatives.
One reason for this is that elected religious conservatives tend to be white, male Christians, and owing to those groups’ cultural and political position of power, we as a society are freer in challenging the pieties (in both the positive and negative senses of that word) of whites, males, and Christians. By contrast, liberals and conservatives alike tend to be queasier over the idea of hassling members of minority religions, or minority members of Christian confessions (both of which groups tend to lean Democratic), about the details of their faith. This explains why you’re not likely to see an interviewer ask Gabbard whether she thinks we really are in the 156 trillionth year since the last Brahma was born. Is there a familiar whiff of condescension in all this? Sure, but let’s suppose it’s innocent enough and leave it to one side.
Even so, as the number of nonbelievers in political life is vanishingly small, there are still plenty of white, male Democrats who espouse a Christian faith. Why aren’t they asked how old the universe is? (Or better yet, a more loaded version of that question that would be far more revealing: “Do you think God created the universe 4.54 billion years ago?”)
They aren’t asked such questions because the proximate purpose of asking such questions isn’t to start a conversation about metaphysics, it’s to get conservatives to say odd, politically damaging things. Asking Richard Mourdock about abortion in the case of rape wasn’t aimed at starting a theo-philosophical debate about whether the dignity of human life is contingent on the circumstances of its creation. It was about exploiting Todd Akin’s idiocy to generate politically advantageous sound bites. Likewise, asking Marco Rubio about the age of the universe was an invitation to out himself as an anti-scientific rube, not an invitation to reflect on the intersection of religious and scientific truths.
[......]
Though if I were Rubio, I might have been tempted to mess with GQ, to one-up Young Eartherism and tell them that I held with Bertrand Russell’s radically skeptical lark that the universe was created five minutes ago — fully stocked with fossils and tree rings and ruins, and baiting GQ interviewers.
Read the rest – Old time, religion
Tags: Daniel Foster
Because libs think the Bible is stupid and anyone that lives a moral life is an idiot.
One answer to the age of the universe question is:
“How old are you?”
Reporter states his/her age
“Well if we can learn from history back 4 times that long that communism and socialism are failures, we can build a better future”
No more Akins or Mourdocks!
We need to make it clear: the Democrats are the anti-Christian party. Not anti-Religion, per se, because they are very comfortable with Islamofascism, but they are very anti-Christian.
Okay, the Bertrand Russell answer would have been a good one… He could have led them around like a small dog on a leash with that one.
@ Storagemanager:
An Israeli submarine should simply sink that boat. There i sno reason to permit it to continue on its mission. This is, in fact, an act of war by Iran. Treat it as such.
@ Mike C.:
I think sometimes when the interview is going on, most of us would give a similar answer as Rubio’s and then later, after some thought, we would have come up with a better answer. I do that all the time.
By the way, you still interested in the .44 mag ammo? Never heard from you.
@ MikeA:
They gotta start thinking before they go out in front of the mics
CIA dumps it’s climate change office … … but keeps its funding for it?
Fundamental problem with our government in a nutshell
Another tax hike I could get behind:
Why limit it to $20 billion, though? These foundations turn into lifetime sinecures for the scions of wealthy families. They should be taxed just like the Family Farm would be.
Why are Republicans constantly being asked questions about religion?
Because they don’t know how to answer and give Democrats fodder. The irony is its not the Left that is bugged out over Rubio’s answer. It’s Republicans. The next thread will be about that.
@ Rodan:
They just never learn do they?
@ Storagemanager:
Not much of a secret huh?
Shocked…I say…shocked
@ Speranza:
A member from a certain family you and I despise attacked Rubio. I am working on that thread.
Iron Fist wrote:
Wait a minute that is a report coming from DEBKA File which does not have much credibility. DEBKA is a sensationalist website that more often then not is wrong.
@ Rodan:
I think Rubio’s answer was just fine. It is the so-called secularists that are dogmatic against heresy. Whether it is the age of the universe or Gorebull Warming, their answer to anyone that doesn’t toe the line is “Stone the heretic!”
Rodan wrote:
I hate the Bush family and I am proud to announce that every day here. The Bushies can kiss my butt.
Feinstein under the bus..5..4..3..2..1.
MikeA wrote:
None of us have script writers in real life, unfortunately. No background music, either.
Remind me again about the .44 magnum deal -- I sorta remember it, but I’m a CRS (Can’t Remember Shit) sufferer. I remember you had some factory load .44 magnum that I was willing to buy off you, but I don’t remember the brand(s), specs, quantity or agreed price. None of that means we can’t crank it up again, though. Did the admins trade our e-mail addys? No need to disturb thread flows unless it’s necessary.
Don’t hold your breath.
@ Iron Fist:
There was nothing wrong with Rubio’s answer. Who cares how old the Earth is. It’s not the Left that is attacking him on this. It’s the GOP.
@ Speranza:
utt.
You heretic, how dare you insult that holy family! You will burn at the stake now!
////
@ Mike C.:
You canget my email from Rodan. Just ping him for it and he’ll pass it along. We can then talk off-line.
@ MikeA:
I will do that tonight!
@ Mike C.:
I really need to devote some range time to pumping some .44 through the Marlin. I’ve neglected to do that of late. Bad Mike, bad.
@ Rodan:
The only people I’ve seen bitch about it were from the Left, but even Slate kind of took them to task for that. Rubio’s answer was a typical political answer to a touchy question. It isn’t much different than an answer Barack Obaam might have given to the same question if anyone had the temerity to ask him such a question.
Storagemanager wrote:
not difficult at all really. since Hamas isn’t a signatory to the treaties that would protect them, blast ‘em straight to hell. you fire a rocket from a neighborhood, the neighborhood is flattened within minutes. the people would insist that they stop and change the “government” OR they’d continue to support Hamas in which case you continue to literally destroy any location from which a rocket is fired. why is this difficult? especially for Israelis? it should be especially easy for the descendants of a People who have been the scapegoat of the world for centuries. Israel should unleash itself.
Rodan wrote:
Give MikeA mine as well, if you would. Thanks.
@ Rodan:
Thank you sir!
@ Mike C.:
Been a bit busy with helping my parents with stuff but need to get to the range also and put some 7.62 X 51 through the FAL. Feel the need.
Iron Fist wrote:
He answered it how would have. Actually I would have said, I don’t care how old the Earth is and how is it relevant. Actually there are some Republicans attacking him. Hot Air has attacked Rubio and in my next thread, others have as well.
I love how Slate pointed out Obama gave the same answer.
I think Rubio should have said, “No idea. Next question.” and moved on to the next reporter.
Mike C. wrote:
Did you buy that Model 29? Check this out. If you buy 300 shares of Sturm-Ruger now, the special dividend of $4.50 per share that pays out on December 21 will buy you a shiny new Dirty Harry. In other words, Ruger will buy you a Smith & Wesson.
@ Mike C.:
Absolutely, I will do it this evening.
Rodan wrote:
It was surprisingly even-handed of them. Slate makes no pretense about their Leftward tilt. The only way to as=nswer these questions is to refuse to play along with their game.
@ Iron Fist:
Republicans should not even bother
askinganswering those questions.@ huckfunn:
I want a special Talo model of 629. It has a three-inch barrel and a rounded butt. Nice. They go for around $800 on Gun Broker. I’ll get one eventually, but not this year.
Iron Fist wrote:
That is nice. For whatever (Dirty Harry?)reason I prefer the 6″ which I have in a Model 28. Really a sweet piece. My hand is actually a bit too large for it and my middle and ring fingers take quite a beating.
What Republicans must understand is that the Democrats don’t simply want to defeat us, they want to kill and bury us as a party, then salt the Earth where we once thrived…and they won’t rest until that has been accomplished. They will lie, cheat, steal and have no qualms against permanently slandering a good man’s reputation, as we saw in this cycle, to get what they want. We’ve had nasty politics in this country since our founding, but instantaneous modern communication, the inherent vulnerability of electronic voting systems and “data mining”, which the Obama campaign almost pioneered, and definitely perfected (to the delight of Democrats, everywhere), “nasty” has been raised to a level heretofore unknown.
This isn’t about simple mudslinging, it’s about permanent scarlet letters tattooed upon the foreheads of anyone who dares to oppose them. There are those who advocate our descent into the muck and matching them handful for handful, but I’m not convinced that’d work, even if I could convince myself to support a candidate who could excel at such woeful behavior. The Obama campaign ran one of the most vile, negative campaigns in memory, then had the temerity to tag Romney’s campaign as negative….and it stuck!
We can talk all we want about the “messiah” schtick, and it’s absolutely pivotal, but we must talk about how he was able to sell that schtick in the first place as well as the gullibility and low self-esteem of the majority of voters that bought it two years cycles in a row.
This isn’t a problem so much with Republicans as it is with the American electorate. Yeah, we’ve had some real duds, but the Democrats haven’t exactly been producing stellar examples of statesmanship either (Elizabeth Warren? Really?). Hell, Obama himself is an urban myth (and yes, I meant that just the way it sounds), wrapped around a set of grievances and sold as a savior -- and people not only bought it, they practical pee on themselves in his presence!
We’re definitely in “Brave New World” territory here -- with the country in shambles, demonstrably worse than when he took over, no president should have been reelected. Again, ascribing this phenomenon to the messiah schtick is only half of the problem, even “messiahs” need loyal followers and in this case, they’re the real issue.
@ Rodan:
THanks.
@ MikeA:
Last range trip it was just the 9s and the Mini-14. No revolvers, no Marlin. And I ain’t likely to get to the range on this short trip home -- too much crap to do (my turkey is in the oven right now.) Sigh…
@ huckfunn:
No, no Model 29 here. Just a fantasy/wish of mine, not something that’s likely to happen any time soon.
The Unions intend to break America over the Fiscal Cliff:
They want America broken, so that the Old America can be swept aside. They are evil, and should be fought to the hilt.
ok, I think one can delete Rubio from the 2016 list
XDDDDDDDDDD
@ MacDuff:
This could have been a post by itself!
MacDuff wrote:
We should feel the same way about the Democrats. They are a dishonorable Party, anti-American, and pro-Jihad. We have to wake up, and take the gloves off. politics is War, not some Marquis of Queensbury rules boxing match. This game is for keeps. The Democrats are intent on destroying this country, and, indeed, with the re-election of Barack Obama have probably succeeded at that, but we have to go down fighting.
Rodan wrote:
Please feel free to use it as such. Here’s the link to my site where it resides under the title “Republicans Aren’t the Problem, Your Neighbors Are”.
@ Iron Fist:
Actually somebody did ask Obama that answer. He gave the answer that he didn’t know how long God’s days were.
@ AZfederalist:
This article in Slate discusses that. The question Obama was asked was less of a “gotcha” question, though. Still, Obama’s answer was similar to Rubio’s. Why is Rubio therefore being vilified? Simple, he is a Republican.
Kirly wrote:
Then he’s “ignorant,” a chute which leads right back to the “Republicans are anti-science” meme.
Never mind that the Left believes—religiously, if I may say so—in the following anti-scientific articles of faith:
1) “global warming,” for which there is not only no scientific evidence, but actual scientific evidence proving the contrary;
2) “green energy,” which at this point is basically a quest for a perpetual motion machine;
3) “recycling,” which, though possible, is often economically unfeasible—yet is pursued as a matter of “scientific” necessity;
4) “transgenderism,” which is the political advocacy, by the most bogus wings of the mental-health “soft science” establisment, of the validity of a mental delusion which contravenes scientific fact;
5) “homosexuality.” Sexual attraction is a widely variant phenomenon; most people are attracted to the opposite sex, but within that broad umbrella there are people whose preference is for blondes, or brunettes, or people of a different race, or for achieving gratification with props like shoes, or rubber, or leather, or whips and chains. There are people who are primarily attracted to children—sometimes their own. And there are people who are also attracted, to a greater or lesser extent, to their own sex—sometimes exclusively so, sometimes for the thrill of variation, sometimes for want of anything better, sometimes for financial reasons or for a sense of power.
These are all matters of behavior. But about 130 years or so ago, a pseudoscientific classification called “homosexuality” was invented and applied to that small subsection of sexual behavior which comprised same-sex attraction. The late 19th century was the heyday of pseudoscience; eugenics, phrenology, psychoanalysis, the invention of “antisemitism” as a “scientific” term for Jew-hate—all of these and more flourished then. “Homosexuality” does not exist; homosexual attraction exists, to a greater or lesser extent, and homosexual behavior exists, in response to that attraction—but there is absolutely no scientific basis for the classification of “homosexuality.” It is a political construct and a political identity, pure and simple.
Why spend this much effort in pointing out the pseudoscientific foundation of “homosexuality?” Because it is the political promotion of homosexual behavior, and the political promotion of the minority-group victim status of those who engage in it, that is at the bottom of the Left’s derision towards religious belief, and its styling of non-Leftists as being “anti-science.”
ferb123 wrote:
How so?
@ Iron Fist:
The sad part is that the GOP has a Pro-Islamic wing of the Party. That’s why it would be difficult to pull it off.
Rhetorical traps for Republicans are standard operations by
the Media toward Republicans.
Case in point, Stephanopolis asked Romney about states &
contraception during a debate. The question came out of
the blue & sounded absurd.
But it helped the Dems launch the phony charge of “War on
Women.”
I say to proggies, “What about Grand in ‘Grand Canyon’ don’t you understand?”
@ buzzsawmonkey:
In my next thread I point out that its not really the Left that has gone after Rubio.
@ RIX:
Santorum at that up with his attacks on contraceptives. i am convinced he’s a false flag operative.
@ Rodan:
He’s not. Just grew up differently then you
koranimals
Tel Aviv bus hit by bomb; Hamas celebrates
Rodan wrote:
I’m sure there are squish-Republicans who have. That, however, is not my point; what I am talking about is how deeply in bed with pseudoscience the self-styled “party of science” is.
Furthermore, I believe it is important for as many people as possible to understand that one particular piece of pseudoscience—the invention of “homosexuality” and the passing off of this bogus pseudoscientific classification as “scientific”—undergirds a great deal of the Left’s opposition to traditional religion and morality, and is the wellspring from which the “gotcha” questions, which are intended to prove the Right is “anti-science,” originate.
@ Rodan:
Ferb doesn’t seem to be aware that 73% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, and to the vast majority of these people there is nothing objectionable about Rubio’s answer.
@ waldensianspirit:
He’s a Socialist and wants to take money and spend it on “the family.” I have no use for him.
citizen_q wrote:
The Palestinians are animals. Slaughter them, scrape Gaza off into the Med, and rebuild something that isn’t a terrorists’ paradise.
@ Iron Fist:
I really don’t get what the big deal is about Rubio’s answer. Even slate magazine is saying this is much ado about nothing. What has surprise me are the Republicans attacking Rubio over this. My next thread exposes who is behind these attacks on Rubio on the Republican side.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Progressives are all about pseudo science. It was the Democrats who gutted the space program.
@ Rodan:
Which Republicans are attacking him? All I’ve seen are attacks from the Left.
@ Iron Fist:
The paleosimians make much about the most restrained response to their unceasing terror war, projecting claims of genocide.
I think it is long past due they receive an object lesson in it.
Rodan wrote:
He didn’t help.
Iron Fist wrote:
I’m absolutely with you in spirit but, as I said above, it’s rather doubtful it would work. Romney ran a remarkably positive campaign yet, as soon something that could remotely construed as “negative”, Romney was tagged as running a negative campaign -- and it stuck. I saw many “man on the street” interviews with people saying they wouldn’t vote for Romney because “he’s running a negative campaign”. They just mimic what they hear on TV.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand that negative campaigns work, and Obama’s proof of that. It’s no longer about positive or negative however, it’s about marketing -- knowing your audience, speaking to them and relating to them. Apple creates it’s own market by selling products that you didn’t know you needed and charges more than their competitors -- they don’t cater to the lowest common denominator, so why should we?
Democrats aren’t particularly stylish or hip, they’re “The People of WalMart” being led around by “beautiful people” mush heads they see on the cover of People Magazine in the check-out lane, union thugs and punk ass dime-store Socialists.
Geez, a couple of decades ago they put rocks in cardboard boxes and sold them as “Pet Rocks” -- they were a sensation! We have a good message, we just need to market it.
MacDuff wrote:
Maybe I should revive that, and market poems written on stones as “Pet Rock-ian sonnets.”
Obama was asked a similar question as Rubio in 2008
at Messiah College (He must have thought that it was named
after him.)
He defended the Creation narrative, saying that as a Christian
“I believe it”
He just fudged if 6 days means 6 days as we understand it.
Imagine if a Republican answered that way.
Iron Fist wrote:
Hot Air has gone after him. It’s the blog of the GOP establishment. John Nolte from Breitbart. Forbes magazine which is GOP Establishment has gone after him.
Plus in my next thread, I expose who in the GOP is going after Rubio now.
RIX wrote:
The ratchet mindset that enables proggies to disbelieve whatever a non-Leftist says also permits them to ignore/disbelieve anything a “progressive” candidate says that does not square with their worldview. For instance, when Obama claimed to be against same-sex marriage, up until Biden outed him, the Left did not believe him (nor, of course, did the Right); it was assumed that “he said what he had to say” but that he would promote the Leftist agenda regardless of what he actually said.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
That part is actually true, and it is even more true now that he doesn’t have to worry about re-election.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Indeed. We’re in the “Age Of Teh Stupid”, a real life Idiocracy. By all means, profit from it.
@ MacDuff:
You post is scheduled for 5:00 PM EST.
@ MacDuff:
It’s not Romney’s fault he lost. He would have been a great President, but the American people have other priorities.
Rodan wrote:
“Have a nice day.”
“No, thank you—I have other plans.”
@ buzzsawmonkey:
.
That’s right. The same secular leftist that would smear Rubio
for his answer will gush at how deft Obama was with his
answeer.
Rodan wrote:
Thanks, Rodan! I’ll make it a point to be around.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
These people are going to expect the government to bail them out when they lose their jobs or have their hours drastically cut because of ObamaCare. That’ll be coming down the pike in about 18 months, I expect.
Rodan wrote:
like ferb…ask him how much debt is too much, or how to finance their dependence on govt and he looks at you, slack jawed and drooling….it will probably take some personal catastrophe to get them to blink…their sheer bulk in numbers will doom us all…I’m very pessimistic
Iron Fist wrote:
The EBT Party v. the Tea Party…
@ buzzsawmonkey:
You got it!
@ heysoos:
He doesn’t care.
New Thread.
Kirly wrote:
Another good answer: “Why do you ask?”
Or: “Have you ever asked Obama that question?”
If no, then “Why have you asked me that question, but not Obama?”
If yes, then “Would you please repeat the answer that Obama gave you?”
@ 1389AD:
even better…. “it’s irrelevant to my job. next.”