The President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya the day after the attack

Rose Garden

10:43 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. 

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you.  May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

END
10:48 A.M. EDT

 

On CNN's "State of the Union" on September 30, Candy Crowley asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) why he thought it took the administration 17 days after the Benghazi attacks to give a "sort of definitive statement" that terrorists orchestrated the attacks.

While moderating Tuesday's debate, Crowley forgot the timeline and facts she commanded two weeks earlier, and she inexplicably took President Obama's side when Obama and Romney were arguing about whether Obama referred to the Libya attacks as acts of terror on the day after.
Romney correctly said Obama did not refer to the Benghazi attacks as acts of terror the day after. When Obama boldly lied and claimed that he had done so, Romney looked startled. Then, Crowley jumped in and said Obama had indeed said the day after the Benghazi attacks that those acts were acts of terror.
Obama did say "acts of terror" on September 12, but he was not referring to the terrorists attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, which the Obama administration tried to claim was the result of spontaneous protests in response to an obscure anti-Muhammad Internet film.
Hours later on Tuesday evening,  Crowley went on CNN and said Romney "was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word," but the damage was long done by then.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/17/Flashback-Crowley-Said-Obama-Took-17-Days-To-Claim-Benghazi-Attacks-Were-Acts-Of-Terror

Are the Ten Commandments the basis for the first Ten Amendments to the US Constitution?

I hear this comment often, “The Ten Commandments are the structure of our Bill of Rights."

Is that right? Lets take a look at the first Ten Amendments.

I. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition – Freedom of Religion is actually the opposite of what the Ten Commandments requires. The other aspects of the First Amendment have nothing to do with the Commandments.
2. Right to keep and bear arms – Has nothing to do with the Commandments
3. Conditions for quarters of soldiers – Nothing to do with the Commandments
4. Right of search and seizure regulated – Nothing to do with the Commandments
5. Provisions concerning prosecution – Nothing to do with the Commandments
6. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc. – A slight connection with bearing false witness, otherwide, nothing to do with the Commandments.
7. Right to a trial by jury – Nothing to do with the Commandments
8. Excessive bail, cruel punishment – Nothing to do with the Commandments
9. Rule of construction of Constitution – Absolutely nothing to do with the Commandments
10. Rights of the States under Constitution – Nothing to do with the Commandments.

Other than the coincidence that there were initially Ten Amendments and there are Ten Commandments, there is only one slight resemblance between the two documents, which has to do with bearing false witness. The Freedom of Religion is actually the exact opposite of what the Commandments require. Are the Ten Commandments’ the structure of our Constitution? Complete nonsense.

Change and evolution

One component of evolution that gets glossed over by creationists is the reality that the animals that exist today did not exist in the past. When you start going back over the history of animals, you see an interesting pattern. There is a groupings of animals based on geological timeframes. There are no rabbits or tigers (as well as thousands of other animals that exist today) in the Paleozoic area. So, either god is doing multiple creations, (which contradicts the bible) or there was some mechanism that brought rabbits and tigers into the picture when they were not there originally.

If the concept that change cannot turn one species into another species is accurate, then the dilemma of how these new animals came into the picture still remains. Animals that did not exist 300 million years ago exist today. Trying to get around the timeframes by claiming that the world is less than 10,000 years old, falls apart by other sciences, such as astronomy or geology. The cat kind had to exist in the first place in order for a tiger to have changed from it. And the fact is a cat kind was not around at one point. So, something else allowed tigers and all the other cat kinds to exist today when then they did not exist in the past. 

Looking at the evolution of motorized vehicles is a good example. Starting with a simple Model T car, you see that basic design expanded into motorcycles, trains, airplanes and rocket ships. Now there is obviously a different component here. Mechanical vehicles cannot reproduce themselves. Animals can. And when you look at animals, you see the same basic design that has expanded into different sizes shapes and abilities. 

Are there issues with the theory? There are aspects of evolution that are not full understood yet, no one has ever argued that it is fully understood. However, every year, the information continues to build and develop a better way of understanding the process. As with many scientific  ideas, the people who argue against evolution refuse to acknowledge that science is an ever growing body of information. They want to claim that if it cannot be explained today, then it will never be explained. ID relies on a double-standard. While Evolution scientists are expected to explain and predict everything, ID is points out issues and then triumphantly declares that evolution is wrong. When mistakes in ID are pointed out, the proponents of ID simply move to a new area of attack. When Darwin proposed his theory 150 years ago,  Darwin didn't know, for example, about the details of DNA. Just as discoveries in physics have made tremendous progress since Newton, biological evolution has come a long way in the past 150 years.  But evidence keeps confirming the general model that Darwin proposed (common ancestry, natural selection, etc.)

What people who protest against evolution fail or refuse to grasp, is that it explains the diversity we see today. No other theory can accurately make that claim. And when they say that change occurs, but there is a limit, they need to explain exactly how that limit occurs, which they never do.

Have you ever wonder why creationists sell their theories to the general public rather than trying to get them published in scientific journals? They know that they have zero scientific validity, and any real scientist would see that. "Creation Theory" has no mechanism, therefore it is not a scientific theory. It isn't a question of whether it's a good theory or a bad one. It isn't a question of whether it's better than evolution theory or worse. It's the simple fact that Creation Theory doesnot fit the requirements of a scientific theory at all. From a scientific standpoint, there is no such thing as Creation Theory; the term is simply a misnomer that people have applied to an irrational religious belief.

One of the great strengths of evolution is that many different lines of evidence each point to evolution.Amazingly, the more that scientists study these lines of evidence, the more and more the lines agree on life's exact evolutionary history. Within the accuracy available to us, we get the same history of life over and over. Have a look at the multiple lines of evidence and how they each independently suggest evolution.

Paleontology shows us that organisms have changed gradually over time, as reflected in the fossil record.

Biogeography shows us how new species only arise near very similiar species. Similar species share a common time and place.

Developmental biology shows us that an organism builds on ancestral features as it develops from a single cell.

Morphology shows us how organisms adapt ancestral features to new uses, even when there are more efficient solutions elsewhere in nature.

Genetics shows us that we can group species by similarity of genes. These groups even share unused DNA.

All these lines of evidence not only suggest that evolution happened, they also agree on the course of its history.

Pascal's Wager

Whenever I debate with Christians, there comes a point when they will say something to the effect of, "If you are right, then at least I led a good life, however if I am right, then you will end up in Hell." This is, of course, Pascal's Wager. It also begs the question of whether or not they actually led a "good" life. I have known many Christians who cheated, lied, fornicated and stole, among other "sins". Whether their lives were any more moral or better than others is highly debatable. In addition, it assumes that the atheist did not live a good life, which is very insulting.  If you are not familiar with the idea of Pascal's Wager, let me provide some background information. 

Pascal’s Wager is the idea that regardless of whether the existence of God can be proven through rational means, one should live their life as though God does exist, because living your life that way means you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. It was proposed by a French philosopher, mathematician and physicist named Blaise Pascal.

However, there are several problems with this idea. 


First, it assumes that there are only two alternatives to choose from; belief and disbelief in the biblical god. However, that is not accurate. There are thousands of different gods that mankind has dreamed up over the centuries. Therefore, he must also choose the correct deity to believe in. If the Romans, Hindus, Aztecs, Muslims, early Greeks or any of the thousands of other gods were correct, then the Christian is in as big of a problem as the atheist. Now, I am sure the Christian is not worried about whether the Greek or Aztec gods of old are the correct deity. Yet, why not? Millions of people have believed in these gods, with the same devote fervour as current day Christians. It could also be possible that the true god has not yet been revealed. It has been said many times, that there is little difference between a theist and an atheist. A theist does not believe in all of the thousands of other gods that mankind has thought up over the centuries, they just believe in the one they think is correct. An atheist agrees that all the other gods are myths and fables, we just add one more to the list; the one the theist believes in. 



Second,  even if the Christian God is the correct deity, there is still a problem of deciding which of the 30,000 Christian sects worships him the correct way. If the Catholics are right, then the Protestants have a problem, and of course, the reverse is true for the Catholic. If the Mormons are right, then most of the two billions Christians in the world have a huge problem.
Keep in mind that Pascal was a Catholic, and he was advocating for the Catholic version of Christianity. This always make it even more ironic when Protestants invoke his arguments. 
Third, if you only say you believe in order to hedge your bet for getting into heaven, it is doubtful that an all knowing god would let you in anyway, since you really did not believe. You simply went through the motions. 


Fourth, it assumes that God would only reward a believer no matter what other circumstances exist. It is certainly possible that God would reward rational and researched reasoning and punish blind or feigned faith.

Consider this argument given by Thomas Jefferson: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."


Richard Carrier adds to this idea with this statement: "Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless God wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy."


Fifth, it makes the assumption that a person can make themselves believe. This is, of course, nonsense. A person either actually believes something or they do not. You cannot force yourself to believe something. If someone was standing over you with a gun and said you either believe that green Martians are ruling the planet or I will kill you. You might tell them you believe. You might profess it wholeheartedly. You might sign a declaration to this statement. But you would not believe it. 


So, does Pascal's Wager hold up to scrutiny? I wouldn't bet on it.

The new pope is cheap.

Pope Francis, who is known to be frugal, has decided that Vatican employees won't be getting the new pope bonus that traditionally comes with the election of a new pope.

In the past, the Vatican's 4,500-plus workers — both religious and lay — would receive an extra little something upon the death of one pope and another upon the election of his successor: In 2005, the total reportedly came to 1,500 euros (nearly $2,000) apiece.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said that given tough economic times — the Vatican posted a 15 million-euro deficit in 2011 — "it didn't seem possible or appropriate to burden the Vatican's budget with a considerable, unforeseen extra expense."

However, given that  bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion, it seems rather silly for the Vatican to stop providing this bonus. Afterall, it is hardly a common expense. New popes hardly are an annual event. 

Are there atheist churches?

That there are atheist churches and by default, that atheism is a religion is a strange argument for a religious person to make on the face of it. Is it supposed to strengthen the atheist’s position or weaken the theist’s one? In reality it’s a sign they have run out of arguments.

Still, this argument is widely made, and so it needs to be addressed. Atheism is simply a disbelief in god(s). As someone once said, if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. And not playing golf is a sport.

That really ought to end the discussion right there. Clearly, a mere lack of belief in something cannot be a religion. In addition, since atheism has no sacred texts, no tenets, no ceremonies, what exactly is the religious aspect of atheism?  Even theists that are making this argument already know all that.

But yet, they keep making the claim. I don’t know what they mean – I don’t read minds. So, they must be referring to certain activities of atheists – writing books and blogs, financing bus ads, joining atheist groups, etc. They think atheists are “religious in their atheism” – the word “religious” being used here colloquially to mean something felt very strongly, or followed enthusiastically. But this definition of religion is so broad that virtually anything people enjoy doing very much, or follow strongly or obsessively, is a religion. It’s a definition of religion that is so broad that it’s meaningless. In reality, most of the things that people follow enthusiastically, are just hobbies. And ironically, although not collecting stamps is not a hobby, getting involved in atheist activities (writing books and blogs, attending atheist meetings) might well be a hobby for some people. But a hobby is not a religion.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/06/atheism-is-not-a-religion.html

Tracie Harris' "Who would die for a lie"

A four part video that discusses why people do that very thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHEiBvB-Xu0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmK_UmQDfFI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6MhK7A345k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1av4DR39Kg