ABC News says Michele won, and I can’t disagree, since she is my preferred candidate, by far. Go Michele!
Excerpt:
With her standing in the polls slipping, Michele Bachmann needed to find a way to capture the spotlight she held earlier this summer.
She just may have done that tonight at the Tea Party Express/CNN debate in Tampa, Florida.
Bachmann, the founder of the Tea Party Caucus in the House, knew her audience well and it showed.
Unlike former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Bachmann took a pass at criticizing front-runner Texas Gov. Perry on Social Security and she refused to weigh in on Perry’s comment last month that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke may be “treasonous.”
Instead she waited patiently to pounce on Perry when the debate turned to the issues she knew would connect with the audience in the hall.
She attacked Perry for his decision to require HPV vaccinations in Texas, calling it “a government injection through executive order” and a “violation of a liberty interest.”
She knows that while the Tea Party activists are not fans of the federal government, they don’t love big business either.
“We cannot forget that in the midst of this executive order,” said Bachmann, “there was a big drug company that made millions of dollars because of this mandate…The drug company gave thousands of dollars in political donations to the governor and this is just flat out wrong”
She also attacked Perry on illegal immigration – another issue that plays well in a GOP primary.
A longer review from the UK Telegraph emphasizes that Perry got beat up Monday night.
Philosopher Michael J. Murray wrote an interesting research paper that I think is relevant to the 10th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center by Islamic terrorists. The title of the paper is “Who’s Afraid of Religion?”, and he begins by discussing why it is that people are so hesitant to talk about religion.
He writes:
…we would be perfectly happy to have a discussion of claims like…”Mahayana Buddhism emerged in the first century BCE with the appearance of the Mahayana sutras.” … It is OK to speak of religion… as a historical phenomenon or a socio-cultural influence. It is something altogether different to discuss religious commitments that one owns. That is the sort of religion that troubles us.
And:
…think about the last time you heard a devoutly religious person argue, on explicitly religious grounds, that gay marriage should be banned, or that intelligent design should be taught in the public school biology curriculum, or that abortion is murder and thus should be outlawed.
Why are religious commitments difficult to discuss? Well, I think most people think that religious convictions, no matter what the religion, are not rooted in logic or evidence. That’s the perception of religion that many people have. Even religious people have this idea that religion, no matter which religion it is, is not really something that people have arrived at by a careful process of investigation and study. Many people believe that religions are just stories that religious people grow up with and they “believe” those stories in order to get along with the families or their cultures.
The problem is that people often act in public on the basis of these religious convictions. Sometimes, they just vote in laws and policies that we all have to live by. But other times, they take over airplanes loaded with innocent people and fly them into buildings. What are we supposed to do when people act on convictions that are not rooted in logic or evidence? How should we respond to that?
So what’s the answer?
In his paper, Murray argues that the evil actions of people acting on religion can be opposed by falsifying the underlying religion using reason and evidence. He points out that refuting of a religion is possible because religions all make testable claims. So, if we are afraid of the excesses of a dangerous religion, they we should argue that its testable claims are false.There is no reason to be afraid of expressions of religious belief when you are free to argue against the testable truth claims of that religion.
Here are just a couple different claims made by different religions that can be opposed using widely-accepted facts:
Hinduism is committed to an eternally oscillating model of the universe, but this model has been falsified by the measurements from 1998 that showed that the mass-density of the universe was not sufficient to halt the expansion of the universe. That means the universe will expand forever, and there are no cycles of creation and destruction, as required by Hinduism.
According to the Secular Humanist Manifesto, atheism is committed to an eternally existing universe, (See the first item: “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”). If something non-material brought all existing matter into being, that would be a supernatural cause, and atheists deny that anything supernatural exists. However, eternal models of the universe have been falsified by the Big Bang cosmology, which requires that all the matter in the universe come into being out of nothing. The Big Bang has been confirmed by experimental evidence such as redshift measurements, light element abundances and the cosmic microwave background radiation.
So it’s quite easy to argue against an entire world religions like Hinduism and Atheism simply by using universally accepted facts.
How is it relevant to the 9/11 tragedy?
On the anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, it might be a good idea for us to consider whether there is any similar evidence, accepted by virtually everyone, that falsifies Islam – the religion that motivated the 9/11 terrorists.
And it turns out that there is. The Islamic Scriptures contain the following verse that Muslims must accept in order to be Muslims.
And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
They think that Jesus didn’t actually die – that he was never crucified by the Romans.
Now the interesting thing about this is that there is no non-Muslim historian who believes that Surah 4:157 is true. The crucifixion of Jesus is a fact that is acknowledged by atheist historians, Jewish historians, Christian historians, Buddhist historians, Hindu historians, and every other non-Muslim historian who has ever existed. There is not one shred of evidence that the Quran’s view, which is recorded hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, should supercede the attestation of Jesus’ death found in earlier Christian and non-Christian sources.
Eminent secular scholar E.P. Sanders of Duke University lists the facts about Jesus that the broad consensus of historians consider to be almost indisputable.
In his book, “Jesus and Judaism” (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985)., he lists the following almost indisputable facts about Jesus on p. 11:
1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
2. Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed.
3. Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve.
4. Jesus confined his activity to Israel.
5. Jesus engaged in a controversy about the temple.
6. Jesus was crucified outside of Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.
7. After his death Jesus’ followers continued as an identifiable movement.
8. At least some Jews persecuted at least parts of the new movement . . . .
That book won the annual Grawemeyer Award in 1990 – a prize given to the best book in religion published that year.
The death of Jesus is corroborated in every source inside the Bible and outside the Bible, up until the Quran is written about 600 years after the death/non-death is supposed to have taken place.
Watch it disputed in debates
The best way to assess this testable claim made by Islam is by seeing how well Muslim scholars can defend this claim in formal, academic debates with non-Muslim scholars.
Here is a debate on the question “Was Jesus crucified?”:
And here’s a debate on the resurrection of Jesus featuring a Muslim scholar, which has a substantial discussion of the crucifixion:
So it turns out that there is a way for us to make sure that another terrorist attack like 9/11 never happens, quite apart from national security or foreign policy concerns. And the way that we do that is by arguing against religions and ideologies like Islam that can cause harm, using logic and evidence. There is no reason to treat religious ideologies- and non-religious ideologies – as being somehow above inquiry and investigation.
Mitt Romney and Rick Perry wasted little time in going straight at each other Wednesday night, sparring over whether the former’s business experience or the latter’s decade as governor of Texas is better training for boosting jobs.
“Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt,” Mr. Perry said, referring to the former liberal Democratic governor who lost the 1988 presidential election.
“George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, governor,” retorted Mr. Romney, a one-term Massachusetts governor who made his fortune leading a capital investment firm, as he pointed to the man whom Mr. Perry succeeded in 2000.
With the Republican presidential nomination on the line, the Republican field squared off at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in a nationally televised debate in which the candidates clawed slightly at each other, but aimed their chief darts at President Obama on issues such as the economy and his health care initiative.
“Obamacare took over one-sixth of the economy,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican. “This is the issue of 2012, together with jobs. This is our window of opportunity. If we fail to repeal Obamacare in 2012, it will be with us forever and it will be socialized medicine.”
But even that issue opened up Mr. Romney to more attacks, this time from the rest of the field, none of whom backed the individual mandate that requires everyone to purchase insurance and that lies at the heart of the health care bills that Mr. Romney signed in Massachusetts and the one Mr. Obama signed, a few years later, for the whole country.
Mr. Perry said Massachusetts’ experiment “was a great opportunity for us as a people to see what will not work, and that is an individual mandate in this country.”
For Mr. Perry, the debate was his first chance personally to mix things up with his fellow candidates, and to show Republican voters that he deserves the early adulation he’s received from many of them.
He seemed to stumble over a couple of answers when asked to square his past rhetoric with his stances as a presidential candidate, but had his strongest moments when he was defending his state’s specific record during his decade as governor.
He also didn’t back down on his criticism of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, and said that applied despite former Vice President Dick Cheney, who earlier Wednesday had suggested such language was over the top.
“If Vice President Cheney or anyone else says that the program that we have in place today, and young people who are paying into that expect that program to be sound and for them to receive benefits when they reach retirement age, that is just a lie,” Mr. Perry said.
John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) posted this summary:
Here’s my brief summation of tonight’s Republican presidential candidate at the Reagan Presidential Library.
Perry was the winner, mainly because he didn’t make any gaffes–no one did–and he answered some tough questions. He refused to back down from calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” However, if he wins the GOP nomination, he just wrote his own attack ad and supplied the video. Granny-scaring is what the Dems do best. The other top-tier candidate, Mitt Romney, was well-spoken and on top of the issues, as he always is.
Michele Bachmann: Held her own but didn’t gain ground. But she needed to move up tonight.
Rick Santorum: Inspired, articulate, and passionate. He won’t be going away.
Jon Huntsman: I like his jobs plan, but he muffed the global warming question.
Newt Gingrich: The best performance tonight. But I fear he has dug himself to big a hole for him to even contend for the nomination.
Ron Paul: I’m not a supporter, but he stood firm with his Libertarian beliefs.
Herman Cain: What happened? The biggest washout tonight. He came across unsure, and his 9-9-9 program sounds like he’s marketing toothpaste, but he’s selling it without confidence.
As for the questions from the moderators, NBC’s Brian Williams and Politico’s Jonathan Martin, I have this to say: Man, do I miss Tim Russert. And why do you think a question about evolution is relevant?
I was not impressed with Perry’s speaking ability, but he had command of the facts, which is good. Santorum also did well.
First, I don’t think Perry had as strong a performance tonight as he could have. He stumbled several times. Romney had a stronger performance. But then, Romney has been in this dog and pony show since 2007. Perry is just stepping up to this level. He made no major mistakes, but could have been stronger on the HPV issue and a few other issues.
Second, it is clear Perry is the front runner given the pile on from the other candidates. It was not just pushed by MBNBC and the Politico. The other candidates took willful potshots against Rick Perry. Perry, despite some stumbles and the pile on by the moderators and other participants, held his own and will only get stronger the more of these he does.
Third, Michele Bachmann’s star has faded. The recognition of this is the reporter focus on Perry v. Romney buttressed by Bachmann’s own outgoing campaign manager, Ed Rollins, that the race was a two man race between Perry and Romney.
Fourth, Newt Gingrich. What an intellect. What a mind. What a debater. What might have been.
[…]Finally, I think Mitt Romney’s “play it safe” strategy is about to come crashing down on his. In the exchange between Perry and Romney on social security and ponzi schemes, Perry gave a less than stellar answer. But Romney then tried to pile on by rejecting the idea that social security is a failure.Republicans should pay attention to this. Mitt Romney proclaimed making several generations of Americans dependent on the federal government for their retirement a success. That may play well to Washington, D.C. But it increasingly doesn’t even play well with senior citizens worried about their grandchildren’s futures.
I think Romney is just too liberal to win this primary.
WINTERY KNIGHT 