The discrepancies about Bhutto's death are a real end-of-year eye-rolling moment: apparently, lead poisoning and self-inflicted cranial surgery played pivotal roles, but a festering ingrown toenail did for her. That's what they mean by martyrdom.
Have you listened to this Mark Belling guy who fills in for Rush, on occasion? I love that nasal midwestern twang. Imagine Freddy Kruger raking his hand up and down a chalkboard. His voice makes that sound like classical music.
Marvel Comics is teeming up with the U.N. in creating a new superhero. His name is Wild Oats, and he'll be sowing them in war-ravaged countries all over the globe. Forcibly. However, in keeping with U.N. adequacy, he'll fire blanks.
I hear that I Am Legend is being billed as I Iz Legend in certain ghettofied localities. The blurb: "Dass rite. He all dat an' a bag o' cawn chips!"
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
And a Spirit of Inclusivity Hovered Over Them
To all my Christian commenters and readers: Merry Christmas! Or alternately, Merry "Outrage toward Pagan Trappings" day! I hope you have a great time with family and friends.
To the Atheists: Merry "Of Myself I Sing!" day!
To the pagans: Merry Sol Invictus! Throw another sacrificial "kid" on the 'barby!
To the Jews: Happy Hanukkah!
To the black Marxists: Merry Kwanzaa!
To the hippies: Merry Bongwater Imbibing day!
To the green-blooded: Merry Douglas Fir Cultivation (and Worship) day!
To the shopaholics: Merry Bankruptcy day!
To the invaders incrementally changing the demography of our country: Feliz Navidad!
To the Atheists: Merry "Of Myself I Sing!" day!
To the pagans: Merry Sol Invictus! Throw another sacrificial "kid" on the 'barby!
To the Jews: Happy Hanukkah!
To the black Marxists: Merry Kwanzaa!
To the hippies: Merry Bongwater Imbibing day!
To the green-blooded: Merry Douglas Fir Cultivation (and Worship) day!
To the shopaholics: Merry Bankruptcy day!
To the invaders incrementally changing the demography of our country: Feliz Navidad!
A Politically Correct Christmas Story
"There's a problem with the angel," said a Pharisee who happened to be strolling by the stable. As he explained to Joseph, angels are widely regarded as religious symbols, and the stable was on public property where such symbols were not allowed to land or even hover.
"Besides," said a Sadducee who was with him, "there are no such things as angels, and telling a child that they're real will only hinder the child's emotional development."
"And I have to tell you," said the Pharisee, "this whole thing looks very much like a Nativity scene. That's a no-no, too."
Joseph had a bright idea. "What if I put a couple of reindeer over there near the ox and ass?" he said, eager to avoid sectarian strife.
"That would definitely help," said the Pharisee, who knew as well as anyone that whenever a savior appeared, judges usually liked to be on the safe side and surround it with deer or woodland creatures of some sort. "Just to clinch it, throw in a candy cane and a couple of elves and snowmen, too," he said. "No court can resist that."
Mary asked, "What does my son's birth have to do with snowmen?"
"Snowpersons," cried a young woman, changing the subject before it veered dangerously toward religion.
Off to the side of the crowd, a Philistine was painting the Nativity scene. Mary complained that she and Joseph looked too tattered and worn in the picture. "Artistic license," he said. "I've got to show the plight of the haggard homeless in a greedy, uncaring society in winter," he quipped.
"We're not haggard or homeless. The inn was just full," said Mary.
"Whatever," said the painter.
Two women began to argue fiercely. One said she objected to Jesus' birth "because it privileged motherhood." The other scoffed at virgin births, but said that if they encouraged more attention to diversity in family forms and the rights of single mothers, well, then, she was all for them.
"I'm not a single mother," Mary started to say, but she was cut off by a third woman who insisted that swaddling clothes are a form of child abuse, since they restrict the natural movement of babies.
With the arrival of ten child advocates, all trained to spot infant abuse and manger rash, Mary and Joseph were pushed to the edge of the crowd, where arguments were breaking out over how many reindeer (or what mix of reindeer and seasonal sprites) had to be installed to compensate for the infant's unfortunate religious character.
An older man bustled up, bowling over two merchants, who had been busy debating whether an elf is the same as a fairy and whether the elf/fairy should be shaking hands with Jesus in the crib or merely standing to the side, jumping around like a sports mascot.
"I'd hold off on the reindeer," the man said, explaining that the use of asses and oxen as picturesque backdrops for Nativity scenes carries the subliminal message of human dominance. He passed out two leaflets, one denouncing manger births as invasions of animal space, the other arguing that stables are "penned environments" where animals are incarcerated against their will. He had no opinion about elves or candy canes.
Signs declaring "Free the Bethlehem 2" began to appear, referring to the obviously exploited ass and ox. Someone said the halo on Jesus' head was elitist.
Mary was exasperated. "And what about you, old mother?" she said sharply to an elderly woman. "Are you here to attack the shepherds as prison guards for excluded species, maybe to complain that singing in Latin identifies us with our Roman oppressors, or just to say that I should have skipped patriarchal religiosity and joined some dumb new-age goddess religion?"
"None of the above," said the woman, "I just wanted to tell you that the Magi are here." Sure enough, the three wise men rode up.
The crowd gasped, "They're all male!" And "Not very multicultural!"
"Balthasar here is black," said one of the Magi.
"Yes, but how many of you are gay or disabled?" someone shouted. A committee was quickly formed to find an impoverished lesbian wise-person among the halt and lame of Bethlehem.
A calm voice said, "Be of good cheer, Mary, you have done well and your son will change the world."
At last, a sane person, Mary thought. She turned to see a radiant and confident female face.
The woman spoke again: "There is one thing, though. Religious holidays are important, but can't we learn to celebrate them in ways that unite, not divide? For instance, instead of all this business about 'Gloria in excelsis Deo,' why not just 'Season's Greetings'?"
Mary said, "You mean my son has entered human history to deliver the message, 'Hello, it's winter'?"
"That's harsh, Mary," said the woman. "Remember, your son could make it big in midwinter festivals, if he doesn't push the religion thing too far. Centuries from now, in nations yet unborn, people will give each other pricey gifts and have big office parties on his birthday. That's not chopped liver."
"Let me get back to you," Mary said.
In the meantime the Magi had been asked by others how much their gifts had cost, and when told the price several protested and said the money could have been better spent on the poor and homeless. "Besides," said one, "what can a baby do with gold, frankincense, and myrrh?"
"You don't understand," said one of the Magi, "we brought these gifts to honor and worship this child who has been born King of the Jews."
Whereupon the child advocates protested that adults should not pre-determine a child's future. "It should be left up to the child to decide for himself what he wants to be."
One of the shepherds called out from the back of the crowd: "The prophet Micah wrote that out of Bethlehem would come a Ruler to shepherd God's people"
"That's just a myth," said the head of the Prophet's Seminar who had just arrived with his committee. "We scholars have determined that the prophet's actually said very little of what they are credited with saying, and everything they reportedly said about a Messiah was added years later by other writers."
"How did you determine that?" asked Joseph.
The most intelligent member of the Prophet's Seminar was chosen as spokesperson and replied, "We cast lots."
After much talking, the various advocates agreed to meet again at a later date in a place more suitable for them and continue their discussions about the child's welfare. Gradually they drifted out of the stable and left the shepherds and the Magi alone with Joseph and Mary and the child.
Mary took Joseph's hand and said, "Husband, tell me again what the angel Gabriel said to you about our son.
Squeezing her hand, Joseph answered, "He said that we should call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Mary looked down at her son and sighed deeply, and then said to no one in particular, "I wonder if they will let him?"
"Besides," said a Sadducee who was with him, "there are no such things as angels, and telling a child that they're real will only hinder the child's emotional development."
"And I have to tell you," said the Pharisee, "this whole thing looks very much like a Nativity scene. That's a no-no, too."
Joseph had a bright idea. "What if I put a couple of reindeer over there near the ox and ass?" he said, eager to avoid sectarian strife.
"That would definitely help," said the Pharisee, who knew as well as anyone that whenever a savior appeared, judges usually liked to be on the safe side and surround it with deer or woodland creatures of some sort. "Just to clinch it, throw in a candy cane and a couple of elves and snowmen, too," he said. "No court can resist that."
Mary asked, "What does my son's birth have to do with snowmen?"
"Snowpersons," cried a young woman, changing the subject before it veered dangerously toward religion.
Off to the side of the crowd, a Philistine was painting the Nativity scene. Mary complained that she and Joseph looked too tattered and worn in the picture. "Artistic license," he said. "I've got to show the plight of the haggard homeless in a greedy, uncaring society in winter," he quipped.
"We're not haggard or homeless. The inn was just full," said Mary.
"Whatever," said the painter.
Two women began to argue fiercely. One said she objected to Jesus' birth "because it privileged motherhood." The other scoffed at virgin births, but said that if they encouraged more attention to diversity in family forms and the rights of single mothers, well, then, she was all for them.
"I'm not a single mother," Mary started to say, but she was cut off by a third woman who insisted that swaddling clothes are a form of child abuse, since they restrict the natural movement of babies.
With the arrival of ten child advocates, all trained to spot infant abuse and manger rash, Mary and Joseph were pushed to the edge of the crowd, where arguments were breaking out over how many reindeer (or what mix of reindeer and seasonal sprites) had to be installed to compensate for the infant's unfortunate religious character.
An older man bustled up, bowling over two merchants, who had been busy debating whether an elf is the same as a fairy and whether the elf/fairy should be shaking hands with Jesus in the crib or merely standing to the side, jumping around like a sports mascot.
"I'd hold off on the reindeer," the man said, explaining that the use of asses and oxen as picturesque backdrops for Nativity scenes carries the subliminal message of human dominance. He passed out two leaflets, one denouncing manger births as invasions of animal space, the other arguing that stables are "penned environments" where animals are incarcerated against their will. He had no opinion about elves or candy canes.
Signs declaring "Free the Bethlehem 2" began to appear, referring to the obviously exploited ass and ox. Someone said the halo on Jesus' head was elitist.
Mary was exasperated. "And what about you, old mother?" she said sharply to an elderly woman. "Are you here to attack the shepherds as prison guards for excluded species, maybe to complain that singing in Latin identifies us with our Roman oppressors, or just to say that I should have skipped patriarchal religiosity and joined some dumb new-age goddess religion?"
"None of the above," said the woman, "I just wanted to tell you that the Magi are here." Sure enough, the three wise men rode up.
The crowd gasped, "They're all male!" And "Not very multicultural!"
"Balthasar here is black," said one of the Magi.
"Yes, but how many of you are gay or disabled?" someone shouted. A committee was quickly formed to find an impoverished lesbian wise-person among the halt and lame of Bethlehem.
A calm voice said, "Be of good cheer, Mary, you have done well and your son will change the world."
At last, a sane person, Mary thought. She turned to see a radiant and confident female face.
The woman spoke again: "There is one thing, though. Religious holidays are important, but can't we learn to celebrate them in ways that unite, not divide? For instance, instead of all this business about 'Gloria in excelsis Deo,' why not just 'Season's Greetings'?"
Mary said, "You mean my son has entered human history to deliver the message, 'Hello, it's winter'?"
"That's harsh, Mary," said the woman. "Remember, your son could make it big in midwinter festivals, if he doesn't push the religion thing too far. Centuries from now, in nations yet unborn, people will give each other pricey gifts and have big office parties on his birthday. That's not chopped liver."
"Let me get back to you," Mary said.
In the meantime the Magi had been asked by others how much their gifts had cost, and when told the price several protested and said the money could have been better spent on the poor and homeless. "Besides," said one, "what can a baby do with gold, frankincense, and myrrh?"
"You don't understand," said one of the Magi, "we brought these gifts to honor and worship this child who has been born King of the Jews."
Whereupon the child advocates protested that adults should not pre-determine a child's future. "It should be left up to the child to decide for himself what he wants to be."
One of the shepherds called out from the back of the crowd: "The prophet Micah wrote that out of Bethlehem would come a Ruler to shepherd God's people"
"That's just a myth," said the head of the Prophet's Seminar who had just arrived with his committee. "We scholars have determined that the prophet's actually said very little of what they are credited with saying, and everything they reportedly said about a Messiah was added years later by other writers."
"How did you determine that?" asked Joseph.
The most intelligent member of the Prophet's Seminar was chosen as spokesperson and replied, "We cast lots."
After much talking, the various advocates agreed to meet again at a later date in a place more suitable for them and continue their discussions about the child's welfare. Gradually they drifted out of the stable and left the shepherds and the Magi alone with Joseph and Mary and the child.
Mary took Joseph's hand and said, "Husband, tell me again what the angel Gabriel said to you about our son.
Squeezing her hand, Joseph answered, "He said that we should call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Mary looked down at her son and sighed deeply, and then said to no one in particular, "I wonder if they will let him?"
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Gesundheit
A new U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities.
Uh-oh. Malfunction! Malfunction! Does not fit the accepted paradigm! My logic circuits are withering like a peace lily under a belching smokestack.
Sorry, but these can't be real scientists, can they? I mean, after all, only believers in Mother Gaia's outrage against the human infestation are gen-yoo-ine scientists. I'm sure these other poseurs received their "credentials" from diploma mills in Deliverance, Tennessee. Yep, they're like those wedding "chapels" in Vegas, where you pull into the drive-through and order a Deluxe Marital Combo, with a side-order or eternal bliss. Hold the prenup. Ph.D's While-U-Wait. Something like that.
After all, the Most Holy Lama of the Natural New World Order, St. Albert Gore Sanctus assures us that the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to our Earth Mother in all of history. Apparently its emissions irritate her mucous membranes, and our much-deserved destruction will come soon--not by water or fire. . .
. . .but in a colossal sneeze.
Uh-oh. Malfunction! Malfunction! Does not fit the accepted paradigm! My logic circuits are withering like a peace lily under a belching smokestack.
Sorry, but these can't be real scientists, can they? I mean, after all, only believers in Mother Gaia's outrage against the human infestation are gen-yoo-ine scientists. I'm sure these other poseurs received their "credentials" from diploma mills in Deliverance, Tennessee. Yep, they're like those wedding "chapels" in Vegas, where you pull into the drive-through and order a Deluxe Marital Combo, with a side-order or eternal bliss. Hold the prenup. Ph.D's While-U-Wait. Something like that.
After all, the Most Holy Lama of the Natural New World Order, St. Albert Gore Sanctus assures us that the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to our Earth Mother in all of history. Apparently its emissions irritate her mucous membranes, and our much-deserved destruction will come soon--not by water or fire. . .
. . .but in a colossal sneeze.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Discrimination!
The word makes you cringe, doesn't it? That means the left-wing societal wrecking balls have done their work nicely. We've been led to accept that "discrimination" is just another word for "deviltry." It embodies evil, pigheadedness, and mindless bigotry, right?
Wrong. Discrimination is showing preference for one thing over another, making a distinction for or against something. Awful, isn't it? Even worse, a true synonym for discrimination is "discernment." The mere thought of such a sinister concept as discernment terrifies those who villify "discriminators" everywhere. After all, discernment requires wisdom and a wee bit more than superficial thought. Since these lead to rejection of everything self-proclaimed anti-discriminators hold dear, they have no tolerance for either one.
"Discrimination" has become like the word "prejudiced." As soon as someone utters it, a wicked connotation attaches itself like a leech. No doubt leftists believe demons cackle and rub their hands together with glee, when someone "discriminates"--or at least they would, if they believed in demons. The closest they come to crediting these supernatural entities' existence is Rush Limbaugh.
Discrimination isn't a dirty word, regardless what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, illegal alien advocates, or the streetcorner hippie in desperate need of a bath tell you. How about rethinking your discrimination toward soap, Moonflower? Everyone discriminates; it's unavoidable. If you prefer Golden Delicious apples to Red Delicious, that's discrimination. If you like the company of atheists more than that of Christians, you're discriminating. If you like leaving the toilet seat up rather than putting it down, welcome to the ranks of discriminators. I've saved you a seat. Just let me lower it, first.
The point is that 100% of humanity stands guilty of discrimination. No one is innocent. So when someone screeches "That's discrimination!" the correct response is a variation of "That's right; thanks for pointing out the obvious." It's akin to nudging your friend, pointing at a passing car, and saying: "Hey, that's a car." Not exactly a meaningful observation for anyone who's ever laid eyes on an automobile.
What those who yell discrimination really mean is: "How dare you choose a side on a particular issue that is in conflict with my own opinion on the matter! You brute!" The problem isn't that you're discriminating; it's that you've discriminated against their take on the issue. And if they had a shred of honesty about them, they'd state it in this fashion.
The link's location escapes me, but I read a story a couple of days ago, in which an American was labeled a bigot for refusing to employ people in his private business who don't speak English. Someone correct me if I have the details wrong. What struck me as absurd is the simple fact that we live in a nation of English-speaking people. This always has been true of the United States; the colonies' founders were English speakers. It remains true, today, though the percentage is lower now than at any previous time, thanks to unrestricted, rampant migration from third-world, non-English-speaking countries. Do you find a Saudi Arabian desiring his employees to be fluent in Arabic ridiculous? How about a Parisian employing French speakers? And perish the thought, what if a native of Mexico exhibited wanton hubris in suggesting that his drug cartel heavies be conversant in Spanish? Bizarre, isn't it? Yet these mundane functions of other societies around the globe offend the delicate, hair-thin sensibilities of certain individuals in the U.S.A. You mean you think your workers should be able to communicate with each other, with you, and with customers? Why, the nerve! I'm partial to the silly grin, blank stare, and uncomprehending nod when ordering at Taco Bell.
I tire of the professionally offended, the wilting flowers who cannot make it through a single day without hunting down outrage like a pig roots for truffles. I'd like to plant my size-13 foot right where the good Lord split ya; problem is, I don't want to get dirty removing your head, first.
Wrong. Discrimination is showing preference for one thing over another, making a distinction for or against something. Awful, isn't it? Even worse, a true synonym for discrimination is "discernment." The mere thought of such a sinister concept as discernment terrifies those who villify "discriminators" everywhere. After all, discernment requires wisdom and a wee bit more than superficial thought. Since these lead to rejection of everything self-proclaimed anti-discriminators hold dear, they have no tolerance for either one.
"Discrimination" has become like the word "prejudiced." As soon as someone utters it, a wicked connotation attaches itself like a leech. No doubt leftists believe demons cackle and rub their hands together with glee, when someone "discriminates"--or at least they would, if they believed in demons. The closest they come to crediting these supernatural entities' existence is Rush Limbaugh.
Discrimination isn't a dirty word, regardless what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, illegal alien advocates, or the streetcorner hippie in desperate need of a bath tell you. How about rethinking your discrimination toward soap, Moonflower? Everyone discriminates; it's unavoidable. If you prefer Golden Delicious apples to Red Delicious, that's discrimination. If you like the company of atheists more than that of Christians, you're discriminating. If you like leaving the toilet seat up rather than putting it down, welcome to the ranks of discriminators. I've saved you a seat. Just let me lower it, first.
The point is that 100% of humanity stands guilty of discrimination. No one is innocent. So when someone screeches "That's discrimination!" the correct response is a variation of "That's right; thanks for pointing out the obvious." It's akin to nudging your friend, pointing at a passing car, and saying: "Hey, that's a car." Not exactly a meaningful observation for anyone who's ever laid eyes on an automobile.
What those who yell discrimination really mean is: "How dare you choose a side on a particular issue that is in conflict with my own opinion on the matter! You brute!" The problem isn't that you're discriminating; it's that you've discriminated against their take on the issue. And if they had a shred of honesty about them, they'd state it in this fashion.
The link's location escapes me, but I read a story a couple of days ago, in which an American was labeled a bigot for refusing to employ people in his private business who don't speak English. Someone correct me if I have the details wrong. What struck me as absurd is the simple fact that we live in a nation of English-speaking people. This always has been true of the United States; the colonies' founders were English speakers. It remains true, today, though the percentage is lower now than at any previous time, thanks to unrestricted, rampant migration from third-world, non-English-speaking countries. Do you find a Saudi Arabian desiring his employees to be fluent in Arabic ridiculous? How about a Parisian employing French speakers? And perish the thought, what if a native of Mexico exhibited wanton hubris in suggesting that his drug cartel heavies be conversant in Spanish? Bizarre, isn't it? Yet these mundane functions of other societies around the globe offend the delicate, hair-thin sensibilities of certain individuals in the U.S.A. You mean you think your workers should be able to communicate with each other, with you, and with customers? Why, the nerve! I'm partial to the silly grin, blank stare, and uncomprehending nod when ordering at Taco Bell.
I tire of the professionally offended, the wilting flowers who cannot make it through a single day without hunting down outrage like a pig roots for truffles. I'd like to plant my size-13 foot right where the good Lord split ya; problem is, I don't want to get dirty removing your head, first.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Hitman for Jesus
On the shootings in Colorado at the two Christian institutions:
Some atheist commenters at Vox's--who jump with glee at every conceivable chance to smear Christians--are blaming the shooter's Christian uprbringing for his decidedly anti-Christian behavior. Let's try a little exercise in logic, shall we?
Imagine a boy raised in an atheist household.
Imagine his renunciation of atheism as an adult.
Imagine his subsequent conversion to Islam.
Imagine his writing a long diatribe about hating atheists, including his desire to murder these infidels in Allah's name.
Imagine his later approaching two separate atheist institutions or meeting places and shooting and killing or wounding several people.
According to the idiots gibbering at Vox's place, we should blame atheism for his behavior, not the influence of Islam. Just exchange atheism for Christianity, and Islam for atheistic nihilism; that's exactly what they're doing. I wonder if they also accept the "logic" of the analogy I've offered, here?
Somehow I doubt it.
What someone believed in the past is interesting, from a historical standpoint. But when someone commits an atrocity, what he believes at the time of its commission is far more relevant to understanding his actions, to shedding illumination upon a dark and forbidding place.
It's funny how people indict Christianity by utilizing examples of behavior at complete odds with its most basic teachings.
Some atheist commenters at Vox's--who jump with glee at every conceivable chance to smear Christians--are blaming the shooter's Christian uprbringing for his decidedly anti-Christian behavior. Let's try a little exercise in logic, shall we?
Imagine a boy raised in an atheist household.
Imagine his renunciation of atheism as an adult.
Imagine his subsequent conversion to Islam.
Imagine his writing a long diatribe about hating atheists, including his desire to murder these infidels in Allah's name.
Imagine his later approaching two separate atheist institutions or meeting places and shooting and killing or wounding several people.
According to the idiots gibbering at Vox's place, we should blame atheism for his behavior, not the influence of Islam. Just exchange atheism for Christianity, and Islam for atheistic nihilism; that's exactly what they're doing. I wonder if they also accept the "logic" of the analogy I've offered, here?
Somehow I doubt it.
What someone believed in the past is interesting, from a historical standpoint. But when someone commits an atrocity, what he believes at the time of its commission is far more relevant to understanding his actions, to shedding illumination upon a dark and forbidding place.
It's funny how people indict Christianity by utilizing examples of behavior at complete odds with its most basic teachings.
Se Habla?
My local newspaper ran an article recently about the public skewels' English language program, and the rising costs associated with it. According to the piece, the number of students requiring English-as-second-language instruction jumped from 80 to 112 since last year. The current budget is $116,000, but the educational committee is pushing for an increase to the upper $200,000s.
During this process, the Commissioner asked, "Is there any way to see if the children are legal?"
"I don't think you can ask that," the Director of the county skewels said.
He then went on to say that federal law requires supplementary instruction for students who are not proficient in English.
Now, that may be true; but surely the law makes an exception for illegal aliens. We're not even supposed to ask? Are we to believe that federal law dubs illegal entry into our country a misdemeanor crime, first offense, and a felony for subsequent offenses, but demands that the citizenry fork out money to pay for the education of these same people who shouldn't be on American soil, and are in violation of the above law in their mere presence? Either that is the policy--in all its insanity and incoherence--or it is not the law, and the Director of skewels simply doesn't give two chilli beans about anything more than his own warm feelings toward criminals.
During this process, the Commissioner asked, "Is there any way to see if the children are legal?"
"I don't think you can ask that," the Director of the county skewels said.
He then went on to say that federal law requires supplementary instruction for students who are not proficient in English.
Now, that may be true; but surely the law makes an exception for illegal aliens. We're not even supposed to ask? Are we to believe that federal law dubs illegal entry into our country a misdemeanor crime, first offense, and a felony for subsequent offenses, but demands that the citizenry fork out money to pay for the education of these same people who shouldn't be on American soil, and are in violation of the above law in their mere presence? Either that is the policy--in all its insanity and incoherence--or it is not the law, and the Director of skewels simply doesn't give two chilli beans about anything more than his own warm feelings toward criminals.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
It's Beginnin' ta Look A Lot Like Kwanzaa
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Everwhur yew go.
Jus' look in da skewel halls
Where dey gettin' into brawls
An' trowin' mangers out in da snow.
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Bongs in evry hand.
An' da coolest cat ya see--
Karenga Bwana, VIP--
Is dancin' like dey do in Zululand.
He's speakin' Swahili an' havin' sex freely
Jus' like dey do on da veldts.
He's dissin' poor whitey an' cussin' so mighty,
Ya know he hates Anglos an' Celts.
An' he hopes snow turns black 'fore it melts.
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Everwhur yew go.
We're praisin' Engels an' Marx
In da churches an' da parks,
An' we're votin' fer Hill cuz we know she likes da bros.
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
So yew bettah rep-uh-zent:
Git yore tamborines and drums;
Make dose ritzy streets yore slums,
Like dey do in da Dark Continent!
Everwhur yew go.
Jus' look in da skewel halls
Where dey gettin' into brawls
An' trowin' mangers out in da snow.
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Bongs in evry hand.
An' da coolest cat ya see--
Karenga Bwana, VIP--
Is dancin' like dey do in Zululand.
He's speakin' Swahili an' havin' sex freely
Jus' like dey do on da veldts.
He's dissin' poor whitey an' cussin' so mighty,
Ya know he hates Anglos an' Celts.
An' he hopes snow turns black 'fore it melts.
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Everwhur yew go.
We're praisin' Engels an' Marx
In da churches an' da parks,
An' we're votin' fer Hill cuz we know she likes da bros.
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
So yew bettah rep-uh-zent:
Git yore tamborines and drums;
Make dose ritzy streets yore slums,
Like dey do in da Dark Continent!
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Epicurean Logic
Vox discussed the Epicurus quotation below, at his blog, yesterday. He lifted it from Pharyngula's website:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Here's a variation that I found on the web:
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is in the world?
Some atheists apparently believe this is a profound commentary on the absurdity of God's existence. I find it incomplete and riddled with holes to the point of meaninglessness. It is not a coherent case against God. It also doesn't address reams of Christian answers to these questions--nor can it, since Epicurus died in 270 B.C. This is an attempt on my part at providing a response to this philosophical "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
The second statement follows the first, but only if the first is true. So does God want to prevent evil, but can't? I'm unaware of a biblical or logical case for this assertion. Genesis 18:14: Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son. Matthew 19:26: Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Scripture indicates that nothing is beyond God.
2. Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
This is a non sequitur. That He is able but unwilling doesn't necessarily presume malevolence. Perhaps non-prevention of evil is a requisite of human free will. As long as the choice for or against God exists, some will decide against Him. If there is no option to reject Him, then free will is nothing more than an illusion, and we are nothing more than advanced marionettes bobbing on ethereal strings. So this statement says more about Epicurus' ignorance of God than it does about God's nature.
3. Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Again, the second assertion is legitimate, as long as the first is accurate. See the above explanation for why this first question is a mischaracterization. As for evil's origin, let's look at scripture. Genesis 1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
If everything was "very good," then it wasn't simultaneously evil. So how did evil enter the equation? Through rebellion in the form of sin, carried out by representatives of the Creation: by the angels who fell from grace, led by Satan, and by the humans who disobeyed God in choosing to fall prey to Satan's wiles. In both cases, a conscious choice was made, freely, to wallow in unrighteousness.
Romans 5:12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
So evil came into the world and became a reality through the works of fallen angels and men. God had nothing to do with it. He offered the choice: to sin, or not to sin; to embrace Him, or push Him away. Men and angels took it from there and did the rest. The burden of sin and its consequences falls squarely on our heads.
4. Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
More presumption about knowing the mind of God. We've already established that the first sentence is inaccurate, so the second doesn't follow.
Atheists and others may find this question-and-answer session illuminating or compelling. I think I've demonstrated that it's inadequate and filled with assumptions and ignorance about God. I don't say this with animosity. But everyone needs to understand that these questions were answered by far more intelligent and erudite people than myself, hundreds of years ago. And even without Christian apologetics or commentary, the Bible in and of itself meets and overcomes each of these challenges, for those who will pick it up and read it.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Here's a variation that I found on the web:
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is in the world?
Some atheists apparently believe this is a profound commentary on the absurdity of God's existence. I find it incomplete and riddled with holes to the point of meaninglessness. It is not a coherent case against God. It also doesn't address reams of Christian answers to these questions--nor can it, since Epicurus died in 270 B.C. This is an attempt on my part at providing a response to this philosophical "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
The second statement follows the first, but only if the first is true. So does God want to prevent evil, but can't? I'm unaware of a biblical or logical case for this assertion. Genesis 18:14: Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son. Matthew 19:26: Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Scripture indicates that nothing is beyond God.
2. Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
This is a non sequitur. That He is able but unwilling doesn't necessarily presume malevolence. Perhaps non-prevention of evil is a requisite of human free will. As long as the choice for or against God exists, some will decide against Him. If there is no option to reject Him, then free will is nothing more than an illusion, and we are nothing more than advanced marionettes bobbing on ethereal strings. So this statement says more about Epicurus' ignorance of God than it does about God's nature.
3. Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Again, the second assertion is legitimate, as long as the first is accurate. See the above explanation for why this first question is a mischaracterization. As for evil's origin, let's look at scripture. Genesis 1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
If everything was "very good," then it wasn't simultaneously evil. So how did evil enter the equation? Through rebellion in the form of sin, carried out by representatives of the Creation: by the angels who fell from grace, led by Satan, and by the humans who disobeyed God in choosing to fall prey to Satan's wiles. In both cases, a conscious choice was made, freely, to wallow in unrighteousness.
Romans 5:12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
So evil came into the world and became a reality through the works of fallen angels and men. God had nothing to do with it. He offered the choice: to sin, or not to sin; to embrace Him, or push Him away. Men and angels took it from there and did the rest. The burden of sin and its consequences falls squarely on our heads.
4. Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
More presumption about knowing the mind of God. We've already established that the first sentence is inaccurate, so the second doesn't follow.
Atheists and others may find this question-and-answer session illuminating or compelling. I think I've demonstrated that it's inadequate and filled with assumptions and ignorance about God. I don't say this with animosity. But everyone needs to understand that these questions were answered by far more intelligent and erudite people than myself, hundreds of years ago. And even without Christian apologetics or commentary, the Bible in and of itself meets and overcomes each of these challenges, for those who will pick it up and read it.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
More Non-Discrimination
From The Rutherford Institute:
. . .while school officials at an elementary school in Washington, D.C., were more than willing to host a Ramadan table so that students could learn more about the Muslim religious holiday, they balked when a Christian parent asked that they host a Christmas table.
Just last year, I was contacted by a parent whose children attend an elementary school in Connecticut. This mother was beside herself after the new school principal ordered all Christmas decorations taken down and insisted that the wording of "Twas the Night Before Christmas" be changed to "Twas the Night Before a Holiday."
Thankfully, enough parents voiced their opposition that the principal was forced to see reason. Similarly, a Chicago school district recently reversed its decision to do away with all holiday celebrations, including Christmas, after parents mobilized and voiced their concerns.
More examples of that will-o'-the-wisp--you know, the nonexistent discrimination against Christians. If this doesn't exemplify attempts to cut Christ out of the Christmas season, or constrain mentions of Christianity, then what is it? It's funny, because the very people who shrug off such things and laugh at Christian "paranoia" are the first to screech about discrimination, when a Wiccan can't dance naked 'round the maypole in the skewel yard. Yes, let's have an in-depth study about Ramadan, which has nigh zero application to American life, but let's not dare subject the students to their own nightmarish heritage, and all its attendant genocidal impulses. And really, "'Twas the Night Before a Holiday"? How compelling. What holiday? Kwanzaa? Arbor Day? Cinco de Mayo? Lenin's birthday? The anniversary of Pamela Anderson's breast implant removal? This is not an effort toward "inclusiveness"; it's about rendering a Christian holiday meaningless. It's about the celebration of vapidity.
This country has a Christian heritage. And to the extent of religion's effects on its people at present--either by mere association, or in true thought and deed--it still is Christian. Our Christian past is incontrovertible, even if the country's population converts to atheism en masse, tomorrow. The lying revisionists and assailants of reality need to get over it. I'd like to note, though, that they would've felt right at home in the Soviet Union, where the truth was whatever the party elite gave their stamp of approval on a given day.
. . .while school officials at an elementary school in Washington, D.C., were more than willing to host a Ramadan table so that students could learn more about the Muslim religious holiday, they balked when a Christian parent asked that they host a Christmas table.
Just last year, I was contacted by a parent whose children attend an elementary school in Connecticut. This mother was beside herself after the new school principal ordered all Christmas decorations taken down and insisted that the wording of "Twas the Night Before Christmas" be changed to "Twas the Night Before a Holiday."
Thankfully, enough parents voiced their opposition that the principal was forced to see reason. Similarly, a Chicago school district recently reversed its decision to do away with all holiday celebrations, including Christmas, after parents mobilized and voiced their concerns.
More examples of that will-o'-the-wisp--you know, the nonexistent discrimination against Christians. If this doesn't exemplify attempts to cut Christ out of the Christmas season, or constrain mentions of Christianity, then what is it? It's funny, because the very people who shrug off such things and laugh at Christian "paranoia" are the first to screech about discrimination, when a Wiccan can't dance naked 'round the maypole in the skewel yard. Yes, let's have an in-depth study about Ramadan, which has nigh zero application to American life, but let's not dare subject the students to their own nightmarish heritage, and all its attendant genocidal impulses. And really, "'Twas the Night Before a Holiday"? How compelling. What holiday? Kwanzaa? Arbor Day? Cinco de Mayo? Lenin's birthday? The anniversary of Pamela Anderson's breast implant removal? This is not an effort toward "inclusiveness"; it's about rendering a Christian holiday meaningless. It's about the celebration of vapidity.
This country has a Christian heritage. And to the extent of religion's effects on its people at present--either by mere association, or in true thought and deed--it still is Christian. Our Christian past is incontrovertible, even if the country's population converts to atheism en masse, tomorrow. The lying revisionists and assailants of reality need to get over it. I'd like to note, though, that they would've felt right at home in the Soviet Union, where the truth was whatever the party elite gave their stamp of approval on a given day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)