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!
Sunday, December 9, 2007
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.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Hola?
I'm sure this is the gist of most U.S. automated phone conversations, these days:
"Hello, you have reached the English Department of Mierda University. We appreciate your call.
"For Spanish, press 1.
"For Arabic, press 2.
"For Italian, press 3.
"For French, press 4.
"For Swedish, press 5.
"For Russian, press 6.
"For Cantonese, press 7.
"For Japanese, press 8.
"For Portuguese, press 9.
"For Esperanto, press 10.
"For Afrikaans, press 11.
"For Tagalog, press 12.
"For Egyptian, press 13.
"For Hindi, press 14.
"For Mohawk, press 15.
"For Pidgin, press 16.
"For Gaelic, press 17.
"For Hittite, press 18.
"For Quechua, press 19.
"For Klingon, press 20.
"For Yiddish, press 21.
"For Sanskrit, press 22.
"For Nahuatl, press 23.
"For Rapa Nui, press 24.
"For Sumerian, press 25.
"For Carib, press 26.
"For Rasta, press 27, mon.
"For Maori, press 28.
"For Zulu, press 29.
"For Etruscan, press 30.
"For Vulcan, press 31.
"For Quenya, press 32.
"For Cthulhuian, press 33.
"For Ebonics, slam tirty-fo, nigga.
"For English, press *666, and we'll transfer."
"Hello, you have reached the English Department of Mierda University. We appreciate your call.
"For Spanish, press 1.
"For Arabic, press 2.
"For Italian, press 3.
"For French, press 4.
"For Swedish, press 5.
"For Russian, press 6.
"For Cantonese, press 7.
"For Japanese, press 8.
"For Portuguese, press 9.
"For Esperanto, press 10.
"For Afrikaans, press 11.
"For Tagalog, press 12.
"For Egyptian, press 13.
"For Hindi, press 14.
"For Mohawk, press 15.
"For Pidgin, press 16.
"For Gaelic, press 17.
"For Hittite, press 18.
"For Quechua, press 19.
"For Klingon, press 20.
"For Yiddish, press 21.
"For Sanskrit, press 22.
"For Nahuatl, press 23.
"For Rapa Nui, press 24.
"For Sumerian, press 25.
"For Carib, press 26.
"For Rasta, press 27, mon.
"For Maori, press 28.
"For Zulu, press 29.
"For Etruscan, press 30.
"For Vulcan, press 31.
"For Quenya, press 32.
"For Cthulhuian, press 33.
"For Ebonics, slam tirty-fo, nigga.
"For English, press *666, and we'll transfer."
Stupid or Sellouts?
I was just reading a report that I received from the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. According to this update, eight states currently are working toward driver's licenses for illegal aliens. These include:
· Hawaii
· Washington
· Oregon
· Utah
· New Mexico
· Michigan
· Maine
· Maryland
You know, this is somewhat like passing laws to make sure that muggers are properly trained in the use of the firearms they point at their victims. Or maybe seeing to it that the burglar utilizes proper glass-cutting technique, during breaking and entering. Asinine doesn't even begin to cover it. Licenses are gateways to legitimacy, in the U.S. Why in the world would illegal migrants stop their efforts to break into this country, when we not only forego punishment, but reward them for their behavior? This is common sense 101. That many seemingly don't get it means one of two things: either they have a black hole between their ears, or they laugh to scorn the rule of law, national security, or the preservation of our heritage. There's nothing complicated about it.
· Hawaii
· Washington
· Oregon
· Utah
· New Mexico
· Michigan
· Maine
· Maryland
You know, this is somewhat like passing laws to make sure that muggers are properly trained in the use of the firearms they point at their victims. Or maybe seeing to it that the burglar utilizes proper glass-cutting technique, during breaking and entering. Asinine doesn't even begin to cover it. Licenses are gateways to legitimacy, in the U.S. Why in the world would illegal migrants stop their efforts to break into this country, when we not only forego punishment, but reward them for their behavior? This is common sense 101. That many seemingly don't get it means one of two things: either they have a black hole between their ears, or they laugh to scorn the rule of law, national security, or the preservation of our heritage. There's nothing complicated about it.
Monday, November 19, 2007
God Values Us
A recent discussion at Vox's involved scripture's stance on slavery. I'm not terribly interested in getting into this subject; rather, I want to address a couple of Vox's remarks in the "Comments" section:
In elaborating upon his opinion on this topic to a reader, he said:
My essential point is that I don't believe God cares about humanity in the same way that you do.
Man is not His fellow, and He has very clearly expressed His total disregard for human judgment of His actions.
Obviously we are interesting to Him. But is it doubtful that we are important to Him.
I readily agree with his second statement, but find the first and third strange or incomplete. The notion that God doesn't care about humans in the same way that humans care about others is true--but that's not the end of the story. He cares about us more than anyone else--other human beings included. How else do we explain His vast, overwhelming qualities such as compassion, love, patience, and mercy illustrated throughout the entire Bible? Qualities that go far beyond what humans are able or willing to give? Qualities that are expressed without blemish of sin?
As for the third statement, scripture again suggests that God finds us important. Matthew 10:29-31 tells us: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. Luke 12:6-8 essentially repeats this declaration.
John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could read the Gospels or New Testament and reach the conclusion that we are unimportant or of little importance to God. Scripture implies the exact opposite, in the strongest possible terms. That the Bible even exists refutes this position. That God reveals Himself to us in any capacity indicates otherwise. That Jesus came and suffered and bled and died in perhaps the most horrifying method of execution imaginable so that we may enter into Heaven and be with Him makes the claim dubious.
I'm flabbergasted that God loves us or finds us important in the least, but all of scripture, from beginning to end, makes it crystal clear that He does.
In elaborating upon his opinion on this topic to a reader, he said:
My essential point is that I don't believe God cares about humanity in the same way that you do.
Man is not His fellow, and He has very clearly expressed His total disregard for human judgment of His actions.
Obviously we are interesting to Him. But is it doubtful that we are important to Him.
I readily agree with his second statement, but find the first and third strange or incomplete. The notion that God doesn't care about humans in the same way that humans care about others is true--but that's not the end of the story. He cares about us more than anyone else--other human beings included. How else do we explain His vast, overwhelming qualities such as compassion, love, patience, and mercy illustrated throughout the entire Bible? Qualities that go far beyond what humans are able or willing to give? Qualities that are expressed without blemish of sin?
As for the third statement, scripture again suggests that God finds us important. Matthew 10:29-31 tells us: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. Luke 12:6-8 essentially repeats this declaration.
John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could read the Gospels or New Testament and reach the conclusion that we are unimportant or of little importance to God. Scripture implies the exact opposite, in the strongest possible terms. That the Bible even exists refutes this position. That God reveals Himself to us in any capacity indicates otherwise. That Jesus came and suffered and bled and died in perhaps the most horrifying method of execution imaginable so that we may enter into Heaven and be with Him makes the claim dubious.
I'm flabbergasted that God loves us or finds us important in the least, but all of scripture, from beginning to end, makes it crystal clear that He does.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
. . .And the Truth Shall Make You Free
This one's for Merkur and B and others who lean toward atheism/agnosticism.
I've had doubts, myself, at one time or another. I'm not a mindless God-bot or wild-eyed, frothing zealot. But those doubts have proven fleeting. When I look at the creation around me, and I read the Bible, I can come to no other conclusion save that God is real, and that He reveals Himself through His Word.
I've evaluated other religions. I've studied Islam's teachings and history extensively, and have given lesser degrees of time to studying other belief systems. I blindly accept nothing. From my efforts, I've determined that Christianity makes more sense, is more logical, and corresponds to observable reality better than any other religion. It is a reasonable faith. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith thusly: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Biblical faith is not an appeal to gullibility.
I humbly ask that each of you maintain or cultivate an open spirit of inquiry. Be a seeker and a lover of truth. This is not a throwaway issue; it's an important topic, regardless your stance on whether or not God exists. If God is real and has expectations for us, we should expect that He would communicate this information. The Holy Bible purports itself to be just such a news bulletin to the world. If He sent His Son Jesus as a willing sacrifice for the sins of men--again, as scripture and history proclaims--His is an offering we cannot ignore. This is the most earth-shattering declaration and revelation in all of history. Nothing trumps the urgency of our decision for or against Him. In Matthew 12:30, Jesus said: He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. So there is no middle ground for us to dabble in, no neutral position. As the old Rush song, "Free Will" says: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." That's the way salvation works; non-acceptance is rejection, by definition. John 3:16-18 tells us: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now, on the possibility that the above information is accurate, no one can afford procrastination or the luxury of remaining dubious. We scoff at our own peril. I'm not scare-mongering, here; I'm attempting to impress upon you the significance and gravity of the situation.
Please don't take my word for it. Look into the matter for yourselves. Study the Bible. Examine Christian history and the effects of God's Word on human behavior. I recommend beginning with The Gospel of John. This book was written specifically for unbelievers; you'll see what I mean when you read the first few verses. It's the most powerful description of humanity's flawed relationship with its Creator that I've ever read. And of His grace and love.
The whole Bible is a how-to book on living for God, leading others to Him, and getting into Heaven. It's a simplistic description, I know, but distilled into its essence.
Beyond the Bible, many books make a solid case for God's existence, and Christianity's truth. Examples include: Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis; The Case for Christ, The Case for a Creator, and The Case for Faith, all by Lee Strobel. Other great books include: What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, and What If the Bible Had Never Been Written?, by D. James Kennedy. These offer popular, easy-to-understand treatments of the subject matter, and make a good starting point. I'm sure my readers easily can add to this list.
I want you to understand that I'm not pontificating or talking down to any of you. Once I was lost, and it was only by God's mercy that I was found. He has made this unearned gift available to everyone, if he or she just comes to Him and accepts it. Don't be one of those who misses out on the very purpose for which he was created: fellowship with God.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.--2 Peter 3:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.--Luke 11:9-10
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.--John 8:31-32
I've had doubts, myself, at one time or another. I'm not a mindless God-bot or wild-eyed, frothing zealot. But those doubts have proven fleeting. When I look at the creation around me, and I read the Bible, I can come to no other conclusion save that God is real, and that He reveals Himself through His Word.
I've evaluated other religions. I've studied Islam's teachings and history extensively, and have given lesser degrees of time to studying other belief systems. I blindly accept nothing. From my efforts, I've determined that Christianity makes more sense, is more logical, and corresponds to observable reality better than any other religion. It is a reasonable faith. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith thusly: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Biblical faith is not an appeal to gullibility.
I humbly ask that each of you maintain or cultivate an open spirit of inquiry. Be a seeker and a lover of truth. This is not a throwaway issue; it's an important topic, regardless your stance on whether or not God exists. If God is real and has expectations for us, we should expect that He would communicate this information. The Holy Bible purports itself to be just such a news bulletin to the world. If He sent His Son Jesus as a willing sacrifice for the sins of men--again, as scripture and history proclaims--His is an offering we cannot ignore. This is the most earth-shattering declaration and revelation in all of history. Nothing trumps the urgency of our decision for or against Him. In Matthew 12:30, Jesus said: He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. So there is no middle ground for us to dabble in, no neutral position. As the old Rush song, "Free Will" says: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." That's the way salvation works; non-acceptance is rejection, by definition. John 3:16-18 tells us: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now, on the possibility that the above information is accurate, no one can afford procrastination or the luxury of remaining dubious. We scoff at our own peril. I'm not scare-mongering, here; I'm attempting to impress upon you the significance and gravity of the situation.
Please don't take my word for it. Look into the matter for yourselves. Study the Bible. Examine Christian history and the effects of God's Word on human behavior. I recommend beginning with The Gospel of John. This book was written specifically for unbelievers; you'll see what I mean when you read the first few verses. It's the most powerful description of humanity's flawed relationship with its Creator that I've ever read. And of His grace and love.
The whole Bible is a how-to book on living for God, leading others to Him, and getting into Heaven. It's a simplistic description, I know, but distilled into its essence.
Beyond the Bible, many books make a solid case for God's existence, and Christianity's truth. Examples include: Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis; The Case for Christ, The Case for a Creator, and The Case for Faith, all by Lee Strobel. Other great books include: What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, and What If the Bible Had Never Been Written?, by D. James Kennedy. These offer popular, easy-to-understand treatments of the subject matter, and make a good starting point. I'm sure my readers easily can add to this list.
I want you to understand that I'm not pontificating or talking down to any of you. Once I was lost, and it was only by God's mercy that I was found. He has made this unearned gift available to everyone, if he or she just comes to Him and accepts it. Don't be one of those who misses out on the very purpose for which he was created: fellowship with God.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.--2 Peter 3:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.--Luke 11:9-10
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.--John 8:31-32
Monday, November 12, 2007
Miraculous Intervention?
I often hear sceptics say that miracles never happen. Even Christians sometimes wonder why they aren't more prevalent. And then I read stories like this:
Dolphins save surfer from becoming shark’s bait --
Surfer Todd Endris needed a miracle. The shark — a monster great white that came out of nowhere — had hit him three times, peeling the skin off his back and mauling his right leg to the bone.
That’s when a pod of bottlenose dolphins intervened, forming a protective ring around Endris, allowing him to get to shore, where quick first aid provided by a friend saved his life.
I'm not convinced that this constitutes a miracle, but I'm open to the possibility. It's not the first story I've read about dolphins or other animals jeopardizing themselves for a human's safety. Is it an instinctive act, or something more? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that miracles happen. I think the so-called dearth of miracles indicates that people don't look in the right places, or don't recognize them when they see them.
Dolphins save surfer from becoming shark’s bait --
Surfer Todd Endris needed a miracle. The shark — a monster great white that came out of nowhere — had hit him three times, peeling the skin off his back and mauling his right leg to the bone.
That’s when a pod of bottlenose dolphins intervened, forming a protective ring around Endris, allowing him to get to shore, where quick first aid provided by a friend saved his life.
I'm not convinced that this constitutes a miracle, but I'm open to the possibility. It's not the first story I've read about dolphins or other animals jeopardizing themselves for a human's safety. Is it an instinctive act, or something more? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that miracles happen. I think the so-called dearth of miracles indicates that people don't look in the right places, or don't recognize them when they see them.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Unfortunate News
It seems that a fellow blogger has decided to give up blogging, due to personal problems.
Roci, if you're reading this, I enjoyed your blog and your comments, here. I hope you're able to overcome this rough road set before you, and see a reconciliation in the near future.
May God bless and take care of you and your family.
Roci, if you're reading this, I enjoyed your blog and your comments, here. I hope you're able to overcome this rough road set before you, and see a reconciliation in the near future.
May God bless and take care of you and your family.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The Proof Is in the Pudding
In the last post's comment thread, a commenter named B said:
The athiest's argument is actually "There is no god because it has not been proven."
First, I think one's reasoning for declaring God nonexistent is not germane to my point. The unfortunate reality is that atheists lay claim to knowledge that they do not--and cannot--possess. The reasons behind this belief are extraneous to whether or not this is an act of extreme hubris.
I'd also like to point out that B reinforces my earlier contention, in suggesting that he knows why atheists insist that God is imaginary. Individuals express different reasons for reaching the same conclusions. B may have his reason for disbelief, and the atheist professor at the local community college may hold yet another rationale. Aldous Huxley, a proponent of Evolution and grandson of "Darwin's Bulldog," Thomas Huxley, provided this insight into his own beliefs:
‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’--taken from Ends and Means
So here we have an atheist stating that his unbelief is a product of a desire for unrestricted personal behavior, not "because God has not been proven."
Stating that there is no God, because His existence remains unproven, is like suggesting that Attila the Hun never lived, since you find the evidence of his life inconclusive. It's a non sequitur. Proclaiming something untrue due to incomplete evidence is a statement of faith, not science or reason. If I say "I don't know," or "I'm not sure," these are honest admissions. "God isn't real," however, reveals an inherent assumption that one has all the facts at his disposal, when the evidence unambiguously suggests otherwise.
The distinction between atheism and theism isn't faith; both require it. The difference is that, while theists place their faith in God, atheists put their faith in themselves.
It's also worth noting that literally billions of people have weighed the evidence for God in the balance, and have reached the conclusion that He is a fundamental part of reality. So the atheist's assertion that "There is no God, because it has not been proven," is a statement of opinion.
B continues: The only people claiming omnipotent knowledge are actually religious people; does knowing the truth make them God?
This is inaccurate, I'm afraid. Proposing that God exists is not the same sort of claim as insisting that He's fictional. One merely requires evidence; the other has a prerequisite of omniscience. Hundreds of books have been written making the case for God. A few brief examples: every effect has a cause; in human experience, life only springs from life, never from inanimate matter; living organisms show evidence of design, in structures that have irreducible complexity; that forces of chance could produce repeated beneficial mutation-- which in turn produces higher life forms--is statistically impossible; that the existence of reason, itself, presupposes logical, non-contradictory laws. How did blind chance produce workable logic?
One could provide numerous other examples. The point is that the case for God can be and has been made, and in a very convincing manner. True, the proof is not 100% air-tight, but it does exist in copious quantities, for those interested in examining it with an open mind. Atheism, on the other hand, must somehow prove a negative--that God does not exist. This necessitates universal knowledge, which is unavailable to humans. Nor is the limited available evidence sympathetic to a belief in God's fairy-tale quality.
Following the accessible evidence to a reasonable conclusion does not require a claim of omniscience; atheism's accuracy, by definition, cannot be known without it.
The athiest's argument is actually "There is no god because it has not been proven."
First, I think one's reasoning for declaring God nonexistent is not germane to my point. The unfortunate reality is that atheists lay claim to knowledge that they do not--and cannot--possess. The reasons behind this belief are extraneous to whether or not this is an act of extreme hubris.
I'd also like to point out that B reinforces my earlier contention, in suggesting that he knows why atheists insist that God is imaginary. Individuals express different reasons for reaching the same conclusions. B may have his reason for disbelief, and the atheist professor at the local community college may hold yet another rationale. Aldous Huxley, a proponent of Evolution and grandson of "Darwin's Bulldog," Thomas Huxley, provided this insight into his own beliefs:
‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’--taken from Ends and Means
So here we have an atheist stating that his unbelief is a product of a desire for unrestricted personal behavior, not "because God has not been proven."
Stating that there is no God, because His existence remains unproven, is like suggesting that Attila the Hun never lived, since you find the evidence of his life inconclusive. It's a non sequitur. Proclaiming something untrue due to incomplete evidence is a statement of faith, not science or reason. If I say "I don't know," or "I'm not sure," these are honest admissions. "God isn't real," however, reveals an inherent assumption that one has all the facts at his disposal, when the evidence unambiguously suggests otherwise.
The distinction between atheism and theism isn't faith; both require it. The difference is that, while theists place their faith in God, atheists put their faith in themselves.
It's also worth noting that literally billions of people have weighed the evidence for God in the balance, and have reached the conclusion that He is a fundamental part of reality. So the atheist's assertion that "There is no God, because it has not been proven," is a statement of opinion.
B continues: The only people claiming omnipotent knowledge are actually religious people; does knowing the truth make them God?
This is inaccurate, I'm afraid. Proposing that God exists is not the same sort of claim as insisting that He's fictional. One merely requires evidence; the other has a prerequisite of omniscience. Hundreds of books have been written making the case for God. A few brief examples: every effect has a cause; in human experience, life only springs from life, never from inanimate matter; living organisms show evidence of design, in structures that have irreducible complexity; that forces of chance could produce repeated beneficial mutation-- which in turn produces higher life forms--is statistically impossible; that the existence of reason, itself, presupposes logical, non-contradictory laws. How did blind chance produce workable logic?
One could provide numerous other examples. The point is that the case for God can be and has been made, and in a very convincing manner. True, the proof is not 100% air-tight, but it does exist in copious quantities, for those interested in examining it with an open mind. Atheism, on the other hand, must somehow prove a negative--that God does not exist. This necessitates universal knowledge, which is unavailable to humans. Nor is the limited available evidence sympathetic to a belief in God's fairy-tale quality.
Following the accessible evidence to a reasonable conclusion does not require a claim of omniscience; atheism's accuracy, by definition, cannot be known without it.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Fool Hath Said. . .
I think it's interesting how atheists fall back on the cushion of science in defending their evolutionist beliefs and portraying themselves as eminently rational beings immune to that worst of all human traits: bias. No, atheists exemplify objectivity, as is apparent when they crow "There is no God!" without a shred of evidence backing this naked, flabby assertion.
I think it should be stated often--in blunt, clear terms--that atheism is the diametric opposite of a rational belief. I can think of no more egregious example of irrationality than presupposing the harboring of knowledge unobtainable by humans. How does one even begin proving God's nonexistence?
In some aspects, it seems a form of gnosticism, an embracing of "hidden" or "special" knowledge to which the average simian descendant isn't privy. Knowing with certainty that God doesn't exist requires universal knowledge; universal knowledge is omniscience; omniscience is a commonly understood attribute of God, never one of humans.
So the atheist's argument in a nutshell is: "There is no God. I know, because I am God!" This is paradoxical. It is irrational. And it is an uber-obnoxious form of hubris.
The longer I ponder the subject, the more convinced I become that atheism and arrogance go hand-in-hand. The two are inseparably locked together, like a croc and its wildebeest snack, the federal government and your bank account, or Hillary Clinton and a child's pulsating jugular. Indeed, atheism is an actual expression of arrogance, in and of itself. I have never come across an exception to this rule. Not once.
Returning to science for a moment, I find it ironic that atheists and agnostics use it as a tool for belittling Christians. For it was Christians who largely established and fleshed out the institution of science as we understand it, today. It was those poor, froth-mouthed religious zealots who forged the implement that atheists cherish above all things.
It's like someone contracting Frankenstein's monster for a hit on the good Doctor, himself.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Idiocy Enrhymed
An atheist couldn't subsist
When he made the Grim Reaper's checklist.
He went straight below,
But he suffered no woe,
For he knew that Hell cannot exist.
***
The atheist went straight to Hell
Without fond "Adieu!" or "Farewell!"
He said: "This is wrong;
I just don't belong.
I'm not part of myth's clientele."
When he made the Grim Reaper's checklist.
He went straight below,
But he suffered no woe,
For he knew that Hell cannot exist.
***
The atheist went straight to Hell
Without fond "Adieu!" or "Farewell!"
He said: "This is wrong;
I just don't belong.
I'm not part of myth's clientele."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Rodentius Trojanus
Ellen "The Rat" Ratner hands out some typically sage advice on "public health":
Yesterday on "Fox and Friends," Jim Pinkerton and I debated a Fox news poll concerning children and the availability of contraception. Fifty-seven percent said giving contraceptives to children as young as 11 years old "was a nutty idea"; 26 percent said it was a brilliant idea. The most interesting poll result, however, was that a full 83 percent of those polled said that 11-year-olds were having sex.
Hm, I wonder if those folks thought the idea was cuckoo because they don't believe that a response tantamount to endorsement is an intelligent method of solving a problem? Nah, that makes too much sense. By the way, if you believe that giving 11-year-olds contraception is a brilliant idea, chances are you're one of the people they need protection from. Notice that Her Rattiness assumes that children have no self-control, and doesn't even consider self-discipline or moral guidance as a proper course of action. Nope, little boys are walking erections, and little girls are like banks greedily waiting for a deposit. Both are mindless sexual automotons. Heck, why not start handing out condoms in Kindergarten? "Here ya go, Johnny. You and Suzie have safe sex behind the jungle gym; but first, finish coloring your picture of Heather's two mommies."
The Rodent continues in the same insipid vein: Parents who abuse their children, (or parents who do nothing when their children are abused by others – family members, boyfriends etc.), cannot provide quality sex education to their children. These parents should not even be allowed to sign on the dotted line to allow their children to receive health services through the school clinic system, as many of these parents have secrets to hide from the authorities.
As far as I'm concerned, if you abuse your children, or through inaction and disinterest allow the abuse of your children, you forfeit any and all rights to them. It's that simple. Again, she offers no proposal of moral tutelage or zipper control. Just give the little rabbit a rubber.
Many of the people opposed to giving sexually active children contraception though the school system also believe that we should not have needle exchange for those who are addicted to drugs. The argument is the same; if we don't treat it then somehow it won't be as big a problem.
Actually, this isn't the argument at all; it's a deliberate distortion of what opponents say. I've never heard anyone who decried sex education for children dismiss it on an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" basis. They offer counter-solutions, such as abstinence teaching. We just can't have that, though, because abstinence has religious connotations, which are anathema to training up good little lusty drones.
The only overlap The Rat wants with religion is the missionary position.
Yesterday on "Fox and Friends," Jim Pinkerton and I debated a Fox news poll concerning children and the availability of contraception. Fifty-seven percent said giving contraceptives to children as young as 11 years old "was a nutty idea"; 26 percent said it was a brilliant idea. The most interesting poll result, however, was that a full 83 percent of those polled said that 11-year-olds were having sex.
Hm, I wonder if those folks thought the idea was cuckoo because they don't believe that a response tantamount to endorsement is an intelligent method of solving a problem? Nah, that makes too much sense. By the way, if you believe that giving 11-year-olds contraception is a brilliant idea, chances are you're one of the people they need protection from. Notice that Her Rattiness assumes that children have no self-control, and doesn't even consider self-discipline or moral guidance as a proper course of action. Nope, little boys are walking erections, and little girls are like banks greedily waiting for a deposit. Both are mindless sexual automotons. Heck, why not start handing out condoms in Kindergarten? "Here ya go, Johnny. You and Suzie have safe sex behind the jungle gym; but first, finish coloring your picture of Heather's two mommies."
The Rodent continues in the same insipid vein: Parents who abuse their children, (or parents who do nothing when their children are abused by others – family members, boyfriends etc.), cannot provide quality sex education to their children. These parents should not even be allowed to sign on the dotted line to allow their children to receive health services through the school clinic system, as many of these parents have secrets to hide from the authorities.
As far as I'm concerned, if you abuse your children, or through inaction and disinterest allow the abuse of your children, you forfeit any and all rights to them. It's that simple. Again, she offers no proposal of moral tutelage or zipper control. Just give the little rabbit a rubber.
Many of the people opposed to giving sexually active children contraception though the school system also believe that we should not have needle exchange for those who are addicted to drugs. The argument is the same; if we don't treat it then somehow it won't be as big a problem.
Actually, this isn't the argument at all; it's a deliberate distortion of what opponents say. I've never heard anyone who decried sex education for children dismiss it on an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" basis. They offer counter-solutions, such as abstinence teaching. We just can't have that, though, because abstinence has religious connotations, which are anathema to training up good little lusty drones.
The only overlap The Rat wants with religion is the missionary position.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Ya Don't Say
I noticed this headline on World Net Daily:
Pastor hospitalized after attack by police
The incident occured in China.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but one is given the impression that this somehow is a novel event. Christians are suffering persecution from an atheistic, Communist regime? Say it ain't so, Chairman Mao! It's like the six-o'clock news talking head intoning breathlessly: "This just in; rice is a staple food of the Philippines."
This story is noteworthy only in informing Americans of what really goes on in China, our velly velly most bestest flend and favoled tlading paltnel. Otherwise, it's business as usual. So yes, it's informative. But it probably should be filed under the "No Kidding" heading.
Pastor hospitalized after attack by police
The incident occured in China.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but one is given the impression that this somehow is a novel event. Christians are suffering persecution from an atheistic, Communist regime? Say it ain't so, Chairman Mao! It's like the six-o'clock news talking head intoning breathlessly: "This just in; rice is a staple food of the Philippines."
This story is noteworthy only in informing Americans of what really goes on in China, our velly velly most bestest flend and favoled tlading paltnel. Otherwise, it's business as usual. So yes, it's informative. But it probably should be filed under the "No Kidding" heading.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Mental Effluvia
After watching McDonald's commercials over some months, I've concluded that roughly 80 to 90% of the U.S. population is black.
Speaking of TV, Law and Order is nothing but one-sided left-wing propaganda presented as unbiased fact. On this show--and most programs, for that matter--Christians are portrayed as stupid and easily manipulated, evil, insane, or a combination of all three. So if you like your political correctness heavy-handed, I urge you to run out and buy the whole series on DVD, ASAP.
I'm sure that calling a fat Muslim a "porker" is a fatal offense, just like everything else in the Islamic world.
If we ever discover extraterrestrials on American soil, I wonder how long we'll have to wait before Bush proposes giving them "legal" status?
I'm sure it won't be long before J.K. Rowling announces that Voldemort's actions were all expressions of his mindless, religion-driven hatred of homosexuals, perhaps even evidence of his own latent homosexual proclivities.
Why are children of the "Baby-Boom" generation known as "Generation X?" Is it because the powers that be instinctively understand that the world--or the U.S., at least--has little time left, before it's ushered off-stage? Are Y and Z all that's left?
Speaking of TV, Law and Order is nothing but one-sided left-wing propaganda presented as unbiased fact. On this show--and most programs, for that matter--Christians are portrayed as stupid and easily manipulated, evil, insane, or a combination of all three. So if you like your political correctness heavy-handed, I urge you to run out and buy the whole series on DVD, ASAP.
I'm sure that calling a fat Muslim a "porker" is a fatal offense, just like everything else in the Islamic world.
If we ever discover extraterrestrials on American soil, I wonder how long we'll have to wait before Bush proposes giving them "legal" status?
I'm sure it won't be long before J.K. Rowling announces that Voldemort's actions were all expressions of his mindless, religion-driven hatred of homosexuals, perhaps even evidence of his own latent homosexual proclivities.
Why are children of the "Baby-Boom" generation known as "Generation X?" Is it because the powers that be instinctively understand that the world--or the U.S., at least--has little time left, before it's ushered off-stage? Are Y and Z all that's left?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Newsy Nonsense
Hillary says she'd give up some powers, if corona--um, I mean elected. She says she'd limit her use of the IRS as a hit squad to just her most visible political enemies, create a "five-year plan" for the dissolution of the proletariat and conversion of our form of government from republican to Communist, restrict assassinations of former cronies to two per annum, commit rare High Crimes and Misdemeanors, allow only illegal aliens universal health care, confine her "pro-choice" support to partial-birth abortions, and give each ten-year-old a fighting chance before chasing him down, cracking his bones, and slurping the delectable marrow from within. I feel much better, now.
In a stroke of pure brilliance, Bush gave $500 million to Mexico--one of the most corrupt countries on Earth--to fight a drug war. What's next, handing out crisp $100 bills ta gang-bangin' homies in da hood, so dey can buy "growshrees" fo dey chillun?
In a stroke of pure brilliance, Bush gave $500 million to Mexico--one of the most corrupt countries on Earth--to fight a drug war. What's next, handing out crisp $100 bills ta gang-bangin' homies in da hood, so dey can buy "growshrees" fo dey chillun?
Congressional Omniscience
Global warming at least partly responsible for wildfires.
You heard it right here from Harry Reid, expert climatologist.
No doubt he believes Rush Limbaugh causes global warming.
You heard it right here from Harry Reid, expert climatologist.
No doubt he believes Rush Limbaugh causes global warming.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The War on Christianity
In a recent conversation in blogtopia, a commenter assured me that there's no such thing as a war on Christianity in the U.S., and that such claims are nothing more than media-driven hysteria. Of course, how one uses the word "war" determines whether or not he's correct. If you mean American equivalents of Bergen-Belsen or Auschwitz popping up all over like sinister mushrooms, where Christians are fed feet-first into ovens, or lined up all in a pretty row by government agents and given a taste of the firing squad; or harsh prison sentences for heading underground churches; or serving as human torches for the president's amusement; or wrestling lions for popular entertainment, then he's right: there's no war on Christianity in the U.S.
Yet.
But if we're speaking symbolically, in terms of an ideological conflict, there most certainly is a war on the Christian way of life. Acknowledging this is minimal observancy of reality; denial is nothing but ignorance or dishonesty.
We're given the impression that secularism is the neutral position, that the onus of explaining why Christianity should be allowed in the public square falls on the Christian's shoulders. Separation of church and state is treated as a sacrosanct ideal. We're told that prayer in schools and other silly religious (i.e., Christian) notions are prohibited by the Constitution. All of these are lies. There is no such thing as ideological neutrality; godlessness is as much a worldview as religiosity. Christian thought and deed is an American historical norm. Separation of church and state is endorsed nowhere in our founding documents, and even where it is found--such as in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists--its meaning is intentionally distorted. The Constitution specifically protects freedom of religion, rather than undermining it.
For those who doubt the existence of an ideological war on Christianity, ask yourself a few questions, and see if you can formulate a coherent answer: when students are told that they cannot bring Bibles to school, or read them during their free time after class, what does this represent? When the Boy Scouts cannot meet after school on campus (while other clubs and organizations suffer no such restriction), due to discrimination against homosexuals for religious reasons, what conclusion should we draw? When valedictorians are censored in their graduation speeches, or punished when they mention Jesus, does this exemplify freedom of religion, or freedom from religion? When school children cannot sing Silent Night--or are ordered to alter the lyrics before singing it--is this more of the phantom war on Christianity? When Nativity scenes are banned from public property, is this a coincidence, or just "following the law?" When displays of the Decalogue are removed from courthouses--some of which have stood in positions of honor in these buildings for decades--is this more delusion on the part of those who see a creeping death to religious freedom in this country? When crosses are torn off war memorials, or excised from roadsides in hopes of not blighting the landscape or offending the sensibilities of atheist motorists, is this an example of the tolerance of which we often hear?
These events are happening, and with greater frequency all the time. They aren't sensationalistic or false claims. They represent legitimate news stories that I've read--numerous times, in some cases. We're not talking "media-driven hysteria." Forty years ago, such stories never made it to the nightly news or the daily papers. Do you know why? Because they didn't exist, or were aberrations. If there is no ideological striving, no conflicting worldviews, why were these situations unheard of ten, twenty, thirty, and forty years ago? Why is it that a country founded primarily by and peopled with Christians is becoming increasingly hostile to open expressions of Christianity?
Remember that persecutions more often than not begin small and increase in severity over time. The Nazis didn't initiate their plans for Jews, Christians, and other undesirables with murder. They demonized beliefs, restricted their expression, and stifled their influence. The death camps and elaborate tortures came later.
I'm not scaremongering, here; I'm not suggesting that such horrors await Americans, in the near future. But the idea that we're not experiencing persecution unless we endure the same plight as Christians under Nero doesn't mean that our constitutionally-enshrined and God-given rights aren't under attack. That's an intellectually vacant position. It's akin to denying one's own reflection in a mirror, or like the child who believes the monster under his bed won't notice him, if he'll just keep the covers over his head.
Yet.
But if we're speaking symbolically, in terms of an ideological conflict, there most certainly is a war on the Christian way of life. Acknowledging this is minimal observancy of reality; denial is nothing but ignorance or dishonesty.
We're given the impression that secularism is the neutral position, that the onus of explaining why Christianity should be allowed in the public square falls on the Christian's shoulders. Separation of church and state is treated as a sacrosanct ideal. We're told that prayer in schools and other silly religious (i.e., Christian) notions are prohibited by the Constitution. All of these are lies. There is no such thing as ideological neutrality; godlessness is as much a worldview as religiosity. Christian thought and deed is an American historical norm. Separation of church and state is endorsed nowhere in our founding documents, and even where it is found--such as in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists--its meaning is intentionally distorted. The Constitution specifically protects freedom of religion, rather than undermining it.
For those who doubt the existence of an ideological war on Christianity, ask yourself a few questions, and see if you can formulate a coherent answer: when students are told that they cannot bring Bibles to school, or read them during their free time after class, what does this represent? When the Boy Scouts cannot meet after school on campus (while other clubs and organizations suffer no such restriction), due to discrimination against homosexuals for religious reasons, what conclusion should we draw? When valedictorians are censored in their graduation speeches, or punished when they mention Jesus, does this exemplify freedom of religion, or freedom from religion? When school children cannot sing Silent Night--or are ordered to alter the lyrics before singing it--is this more of the phantom war on Christianity? When Nativity scenes are banned from public property, is this a coincidence, or just "following the law?" When displays of the Decalogue are removed from courthouses--some of which have stood in positions of honor in these buildings for decades--is this more delusion on the part of those who see a creeping death to religious freedom in this country? When crosses are torn off war memorials, or excised from roadsides in hopes of not blighting the landscape or offending the sensibilities of atheist motorists, is this an example of the tolerance of which we often hear?
These events are happening, and with greater frequency all the time. They aren't sensationalistic or false claims. They represent legitimate news stories that I've read--numerous times, in some cases. We're not talking "media-driven hysteria." Forty years ago, such stories never made it to the nightly news or the daily papers. Do you know why? Because they didn't exist, or were aberrations. If there is no ideological striving, no conflicting worldviews, why were these situations unheard of ten, twenty, thirty, and forty years ago? Why is it that a country founded primarily by and peopled with Christians is becoming increasingly hostile to open expressions of Christianity?
Remember that persecutions more often than not begin small and increase in severity over time. The Nazis didn't initiate their plans for Jews, Christians, and other undesirables with murder. They demonized beliefs, restricted their expression, and stifled their influence. The death camps and elaborate tortures came later.
I'm not scaremongering, here; I'm not suggesting that such horrors await Americans, in the near future. But the idea that we're not experiencing persecution unless we endure the same plight as Christians under Nero doesn't mean that our constitutionally-enshrined and God-given rights aren't under attack. That's an intellectually vacant position. It's akin to denying one's own reflection in a mirror, or like the child who believes the monster under his bed won't notice him, if he'll just keep the covers over his head.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Harry Potter and the Wizened Fruit
It seems Dumbledore was a bit light in the slippers.
Maybe this is a publicity stunt; maybe it's a revelation of the author's intention from the get-go. Either way, it's pretty sick stuff. In the remaining two movies, I hope he keeps his magic wand to himself.
Maybe this is a publicity stunt; maybe it's a revelation of the author's intention from the get-go. Either way, it's pretty sick stuff. In the remaining two movies, I hope he keeps his magic wand to himself.
Monday, October 15, 2007
A No-Brainer
I was listening to the radio, this morning, and I heard a news story in which a sixty-eight-year old grandmother had come up with the idea of a bulletproof backpack for school kids. She said that the growing problem of shootings on school grounds prompted this invention.
When I heard this report, the first idea that popped into my mind was not "What a great idea!" Rather, my initial reaction was:
Why in the world would you send your child to a place where such a device is needed?
If you believe your elementary or high school child faces a serious threat of being gunned down in the hallways of his school, isn't bustling him off to such a "proving" ground an act of neglect on your part? Would you drop your kid off in a high-crime neighborhood, dressed in Kevlar body armor, and wish him a good day?
Sure, the possibility exists that someone might shoot me standing in line at Wal-Mart, while gobbling a Massive Coronary Combo under the Golden Arches, or while reading Bill Clinton's new memoir, Getting it On, at the local library. Total safety is an illusion; I understand that. But I live in a medium-sized, unremarkable community, and every school in the district of which I'm aware has armed guards on campus, and metal detectors. I don't recall passing through metal detectors and seeing armed guards at local department stores and restaurants. This implies a greater security risk at schools than in these other places.
If you're worried about your child getting blown out of his Osh Koshes in the lunchline, there's a very simple and obvious solution:
Pull him out of the war zone.
For most people, home schooling isn't about ability; it's about willpower and desire. So for those wringing their hands, waiting for the next killing spree, ask yourselves a question: What's more important--your convenience and comfort, or your son or daughter's life?
When I heard this report, the first idea that popped into my mind was not "What a great idea!" Rather, my initial reaction was:
Why in the world would you send your child to a place where such a device is needed?
If you believe your elementary or high school child faces a serious threat of being gunned down in the hallways of his school, isn't bustling him off to such a "proving" ground an act of neglect on your part? Would you drop your kid off in a high-crime neighborhood, dressed in Kevlar body armor, and wish him a good day?
Sure, the possibility exists that someone might shoot me standing in line at Wal-Mart, while gobbling a Massive Coronary Combo under the Golden Arches, or while reading Bill Clinton's new memoir, Getting it On, at the local library. Total safety is an illusion; I understand that. But I live in a medium-sized, unremarkable community, and every school in the district of which I'm aware has armed guards on campus, and metal detectors. I don't recall passing through metal detectors and seeing armed guards at local department stores and restaurants. This implies a greater security risk at schools than in these other places.
If you're worried about your child getting blown out of his Osh Koshes in the lunchline, there's a very simple and obvious solution:
Pull him out of the war zone.
For most people, home schooling isn't about ability; it's about willpower and desire. So for those wringing their hands, waiting for the next killing spree, ask yourselves a question: What's more important--your convenience and comfort, or your son or daughter's life?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Heap Big Bias
In an exchange at Vox's blog, the subject of American Indians arose, followed by some very one-sided commentary. This from a poster named Deganawidah:
Slavery, land grabs, starvation, disease, outright slaughter, villages and towns burned to the ground. Whole entire populations of civilizations wiped out.
All for the good ( greed ) of Western Europeans.
The only reason the Indians are still around is due to the need for slaves, the resilience of those who managed to escape, evade and survive, those who where helped by Europeans who understood the atrocities being committed (Roger Williams, Helen Hunt Jackson, John Marshall.. to name but a few.) those who rose up where wiped out.
When there where not enough Indian slaves to fill the European/ American quotas, they where replaced with African and Haitian.
Calling this simplistic and unbalanced doesn't even begin to cover it. First, his initial paragraph mostly applies to the "noble" savages, as well, regarding their treatment of whites. They enslaved, stole land, violated treaties, raped, slaughtered with impunity, and wiped out--or attempted to destroy--entire settlements. Interesting that we hear nary a peep about this uncomfortable fact. Some Indians also practiced ritualistic cannibalism. I remember one lurid story I found in a book about the early colonization of America, in which two missionaries to the Indians (Iroquois) were rewarded for their efforts by being cooked in a giant kettle and eaten. I sure hope they used tenderizer.
As for the greed aspects of the White Devil's behavior, how would you react if someone murdered your wife and children, mutilated their bodies, burned your house to the ground, and stole your livestock? I dare say you wouldn't scamper to sign up for the "Hug an Injun" brigade. The point is that, all too often, greed played zero part in the equation. Sometimes it was simple survival, or revenge, to which all humans have the potential to succumb. Blanket condemnations of whites as greedy is as much a smear as denouncing all Indians as murdering subhumans.
The majority of Indians never lived under conditions of enslavement. I have no idea where the hogwash came from about replacing Indians with Africans when the Indian quotas weren't filled. Africans always served as the principle slaves in this country, having come here with their white masters in the very beginning of the continent's colonization.
This isn't a defense of white-perpetrated atrocities; it's an attempt at balancing the equation with facts. Neither side behaved like Mother Theresa. Both revealed goodness and villainy. Both alternated in comporting themselves with honor and underhanded wretchedness. The truth is nowhere near as stark and simple as some would have you believe.
Deganawidah continued:
This was not a couple of decades and a 90 percent disease wipe out, it was four hundred years of pillaging, raping, war, enslaving and Genocide by Europeans.
I think he's confused about the meaning of "genocide." Here's a definition from Dictionary.com:
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
I'm not aware of any widespread examples of this amongst Indians and whites in the U.S. There is nothing comparable to the Holocaust in American Indian-White Devil relations. Isolated events in which vile individuals introduced disease-ridden blankets into Indian populations were a sad fact; but that's a far cry from meeting the rigid definition above. The white settlers vastly outnumbered the Indian tribes after a certain point in American history. They also harbored much greater technology and a superior culture. Had complete eradication of the Indians been a real goal, vigorously pursued, the pioneers and American military would have accomplished it. Giving people large tracts of land (reservations), upon which they draft their own laws and elect their own rulers, is not an act of the genocidal.
I loathe political correctness and have no interest in denouncing whitey as the Great Satan of human history. I'm sick of it. It's neither true nor fair. I'll take the ugly, discombobulating truth over sugar-coated twaddle any day of the week.
Championing someone because he is an underdog is as morally myopic as "might-makes-right" arguments. Underdog status doesn't automatically confer moral superiority on an individual or group. It's an attitude from which we should distance ourselves. Extended to world politics, it partly explains why the shortsighted laud evil, death-loving cultures like that of the "Palestinians," while villifying much more humane entities--such as the state of Israel--in the loudest and harshest terms possible.
Slavery, land grabs, starvation, disease, outright slaughter, villages and towns burned to the ground. Whole entire populations of civilizations wiped out.
All for the good ( greed ) of Western Europeans.
The only reason the Indians are still around is due to the need for slaves, the resilience of those who managed to escape, evade and survive, those who where helped by Europeans who understood the atrocities being committed (Roger Williams, Helen Hunt Jackson, John Marshall.. to name but a few.) those who rose up where wiped out.
When there where not enough Indian slaves to fill the European/ American quotas, they where replaced with African and Haitian.
Calling this simplistic and unbalanced doesn't even begin to cover it. First, his initial paragraph mostly applies to the "noble" savages, as well, regarding their treatment of whites. They enslaved, stole land, violated treaties, raped, slaughtered with impunity, and wiped out--or attempted to destroy--entire settlements. Interesting that we hear nary a peep about this uncomfortable fact. Some Indians also practiced ritualistic cannibalism. I remember one lurid story I found in a book about the early colonization of America, in which two missionaries to the Indians (Iroquois) were rewarded for their efforts by being cooked in a giant kettle and eaten. I sure hope they used tenderizer.
As for the greed aspects of the White Devil's behavior, how would you react if someone murdered your wife and children, mutilated their bodies, burned your house to the ground, and stole your livestock? I dare say you wouldn't scamper to sign up for the "Hug an Injun" brigade. The point is that, all too often, greed played zero part in the equation. Sometimes it was simple survival, or revenge, to which all humans have the potential to succumb. Blanket condemnations of whites as greedy is as much a smear as denouncing all Indians as murdering subhumans.
The majority of Indians never lived under conditions of enslavement. I have no idea where the hogwash came from about replacing Indians with Africans when the Indian quotas weren't filled. Africans always served as the principle slaves in this country, having come here with their white masters in the very beginning of the continent's colonization.
This isn't a defense of white-perpetrated atrocities; it's an attempt at balancing the equation with facts. Neither side behaved like Mother Theresa. Both revealed goodness and villainy. Both alternated in comporting themselves with honor and underhanded wretchedness. The truth is nowhere near as stark and simple as some would have you believe.
Deganawidah continued:
This was not a couple of decades and a 90 percent disease wipe out, it was four hundred years of pillaging, raping, war, enslaving and Genocide by Europeans.
I think he's confused about the meaning of "genocide." Here's a definition from Dictionary.com:
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
I'm not aware of any widespread examples of this amongst Indians and whites in the U.S. There is nothing comparable to the Holocaust in American Indian-White Devil relations. Isolated events in which vile individuals introduced disease-ridden blankets into Indian populations were a sad fact; but that's a far cry from meeting the rigid definition above. The white settlers vastly outnumbered the Indian tribes after a certain point in American history. They also harbored much greater technology and a superior culture. Had complete eradication of the Indians been a real goal, vigorously pursued, the pioneers and American military would have accomplished it. Giving people large tracts of land (reservations), upon which they draft their own laws and elect their own rulers, is not an act of the genocidal.
I loathe political correctness and have no interest in denouncing whitey as the Great Satan of human history. I'm sick of it. It's neither true nor fair. I'll take the ugly, discombobulating truth over sugar-coated twaddle any day of the week.
Championing someone because he is an underdog is as morally myopic as "might-makes-right" arguments. Underdog status doesn't automatically confer moral superiority on an individual or group. It's an attitude from which we should distance ourselves. Extended to world politics, it partly explains why the shortsighted laud evil, death-loving cultures like that of the "Palestinians," while villifying much more humane entities--such as the state of Israel--in the loudest and harshest terms possible.
"Bright" as Midnight
Here's a good explanation of how atheists exhibit irrationality and inconsistency in their worldviews. It makes a compelling case in simple language.
It's like not believing in the ocean in which you're drowning.
It's like not believing in the ocean in which you're drowning.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Religion Is Peace
It seems that Bush knows less about history and comparative religious study than Madonna does Mennonite butter-churning techniques. How surprising.
Speaking with a reporter for Al Arabiyah on Friday, Bush said: "Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that – we had a person blow up our – blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.
"And I just simply don't subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women and children – particularly Muslim men, women and children in the Middle East – is an act of somebody who is a religious person."
Translation: Call me a liar, call me edumacationally constipated, but never let it be said that I'm not a shameless panderer.
It's difficult responding to comments that exhibit such willful stupidity. If he's correct, we can all rest easy in the knowledge that those who worship Astarte, Baal, Moloch, Satan, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Jehovah, their next-door neighbor's trophy wife, or their brand-spankin' new Mercedes Benz all are worshiping the same god. Whew! I'm glad he cleared that up for us. Never mind the complete contradictions in worship practices, expectations, teachings, or values amongst various religions.
As for Islam, it is not now--nor has it ever been--a peaceful religion. Only someone who lacks even rudimentary, childlike knowledge of its history would draw such an absurd conclusion.Yep, when the Koran tells its readers to kill non-Muslims and apostates, and the Hadith demands that Jews be terminated, we realize this is an expression of unvarnished pacifism.
Notice, too, the implied criticism of Christianity, in mentioning McVeigh. It's all part of creedal egalitarianism, baby. That McVeigh acted in total opposition of Christian ethics, that Muhammed's "peaceniks" who kill infidels in Allah's name act in harmony with Islam's teachings and traditions, escapes him with all the ease of a deep thought eluding Paris Hilton's rattly little brain.
I also enjoy his redefinition of the word "religious," making it mean whatever he deems right and proper at a given moment. Reminds me of his pretzelizing of the word "amnesty." "I don't support amnesty for illegals--I just endorse giving them a slap on the wrist (or no punishment at all), providing them with legal status, and ignoring laws on the books addressing their presence in our country. But under no circumstances do I advocate amnesty for undocumented citizens!" Sure, and I have some nice ocean-front property on Mars I'll sell you for red-dirt cheap.
Now "religious" means: worshipers of the One God who practice their beliefs in a peaceful manner. So if you bow to a bloodthirsty deity whom you believe demands the lives of others, sorry, but you don't qualify as a religious person. Even if you believe that your god told you to kill in his name, you still don't qualify. Move along, here's a daffodil, kumbaya to you, brother!
I wonder how Osama bin Laden would respond to the notion that he's not religious? How about the Aztecs?
I hope Bush is keeping track of all his word-reinventions. His first book upon leaving office should be The World According to Dubya. No doubt it'll give Webster's Dictionary a run for its money.
Bush continued: "We are having an Iftaar dinner tonight – I say, 'we' – it's my wife and I," Bush told Nakouzi. "This is the seventh one in the seven years I've been the president. It gives me a chance to say 'Ramadan Mubarak.' The reason I do this is I want people to understand about my country. In other words, I hope this message gets out of America. I want people to understand that one of the great freedoms in America is the right for people to worship any way they see fit. If you're a Muslim, an agnostic, a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, you're equally American."
After which he unrolled his rug, prayed toward Mecca, then beheaded Abe Foxman with one deft flick of his scimitar. When asked for a reaction afterwards, Sean Hannity said: "There is no God but Bush, and Hannity is his Prophet!"
Speaking with a reporter for Al Arabiyah on Friday, Bush said: "Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that – we had a person blow up our – blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.
"And I just simply don't subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women and children – particularly Muslim men, women and children in the Middle East – is an act of somebody who is a religious person."
Translation: Call me a liar, call me edumacationally constipated, but never let it be said that I'm not a shameless panderer.
It's difficult responding to comments that exhibit such willful stupidity. If he's correct, we can all rest easy in the knowledge that those who worship Astarte, Baal, Moloch, Satan, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Jehovah, their next-door neighbor's trophy wife, or their brand-spankin' new Mercedes Benz all are worshiping the same god. Whew! I'm glad he cleared that up for us. Never mind the complete contradictions in worship practices, expectations, teachings, or values amongst various religions.
As for Islam, it is not now--nor has it ever been--a peaceful religion. Only someone who lacks even rudimentary, childlike knowledge of its history would draw such an absurd conclusion.Yep, when the Koran tells its readers to kill non-Muslims and apostates, and the Hadith demands that Jews be terminated, we realize this is an expression of unvarnished pacifism.
Notice, too, the implied criticism of Christianity, in mentioning McVeigh. It's all part of creedal egalitarianism, baby. That McVeigh acted in total opposition of Christian ethics, that Muhammed's "peaceniks" who kill infidels in Allah's name act in harmony with Islam's teachings and traditions, escapes him with all the ease of a deep thought eluding Paris Hilton's rattly little brain.
I also enjoy his redefinition of the word "religious," making it mean whatever he deems right and proper at a given moment. Reminds me of his pretzelizing of the word "amnesty." "I don't support amnesty for illegals--I just endorse giving them a slap on the wrist (or no punishment at all), providing them with legal status, and ignoring laws on the books addressing their presence in our country. But under no circumstances do I advocate amnesty for undocumented citizens!" Sure, and I have some nice ocean-front property on Mars I'll sell you for red-dirt cheap.
Now "religious" means: worshipers of the One God who practice their beliefs in a peaceful manner. So if you bow to a bloodthirsty deity whom you believe demands the lives of others, sorry, but you don't qualify as a religious person. Even if you believe that your god told you to kill in his name, you still don't qualify. Move along, here's a daffodil, kumbaya to you, brother!
I wonder how Osama bin Laden would respond to the notion that he's not religious? How about the Aztecs?
I hope Bush is keeping track of all his word-reinventions. His first book upon leaving office should be The World According to Dubya. No doubt it'll give Webster's Dictionary a run for its money.
Bush continued: "We are having an Iftaar dinner tonight – I say, 'we' – it's my wife and I," Bush told Nakouzi. "This is the seventh one in the seven years I've been the president. It gives me a chance to say 'Ramadan Mubarak.' The reason I do this is I want people to understand about my country. In other words, I hope this message gets out of America. I want people to understand that one of the great freedoms in America is the right for people to worship any way they see fit. If you're a Muslim, an agnostic, a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, you're equally American."
After which he unrolled his rug, prayed toward Mecca, then beheaded Abe Foxman with one deft flick of his scimitar. When asked for a reaction afterwards, Sean Hannity said: "There is no God but Bush, and Hannity is his Prophet!"
Friday, October 5, 2007
Lying for a Living
I've had half an ear on the dust-up involving Rush Limbaugh, of late. He inadvertantly found himself in the spotlight by talking about "phony soldiers" on his show. The Left, being paragons of virtue and truthfulness, took the story and ran with it, accusing him of characterizing all soldiers critical of the Iraq war as phonies. The one irksome factoid in the situation was that he did no such thing. His mention of phony soldiers involved a man who claimed that the U.S. military committed atrocities in Iraq, and that he was a first-hand witness to these events. Digging a little deeper, it turned out that he never set foot in Iraq, having washed out of basic training. Today, Limbaugh mentioned another Leftist mouthpiece who described himself as a Navy SEAL and a veteran of Iraq combat. Research determined that he was neither. My understanding was that he served one year in the Navy, in a noncombatant role.
Besides the obvious lengths and depths the Left will go to in 1.) trashing Limbaugh, and 2.) smearing our military, I've noticed another seemingly obvious truth that people just gloss over in discussing this subject: if atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers are ubiquitous in Iraq, why can't the Left provide legitimate examples, as opposed to pure fiction? We're all familiar with the Left's absolute contempt for George Bush, the military, and all things perceived as patriotic. So why the desperate lies? Why the deliberate distortions of others' positions and actions?
The conclusion I've drawn is that American atrocities in Iraq are either extremely rare or nonexistent. I think it's a logical belief, given the Left's pathetic and detestable behavior and lack of evidence.
Besides the obvious lengths and depths the Left will go to in 1.) trashing Limbaugh, and 2.) smearing our military, I've noticed another seemingly obvious truth that people just gloss over in discussing this subject: if atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers are ubiquitous in Iraq, why can't the Left provide legitimate examples, as opposed to pure fiction? We're all familiar with the Left's absolute contempt for George Bush, the military, and all things perceived as patriotic. So why the desperate lies? Why the deliberate distortions of others' positions and actions?
The conclusion I've drawn is that American atrocities in Iraq are either extremely rare or nonexistent. I think it's a logical belief, given the Left's pathetic and detestable behavior and lack of evidence.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Benefits of "Immigration"
From Michelle Malkin's book, Invasion:
Illegal aliens "have grown so accustomed to our high tolerance for illegal immigration that some are actually suing the United States for not providing water stations on their illegal journeys into our country."
In asylum claims, "a GAO report noted that in early 2002, that investigators found a 90 percent rate of fraud in a preliminary review of five thousand petitions for asylum. A more detailed follow-up review of 1,500 of those petitions could locate only one that was bona fide."
". . .illegal alien day laborers hanging out in front of convenience stores and government offices helped at least seven of the [9/11] hijackers. . .obtain fraudulent state photo identification in Virginia."
After Tennessee legislators facilitated illegal aliens' efforts at acquiring driver's licenses, "tens of thousands of out-of-state illegal immigrants swamped the state's motor vehicle agencies. 'There were waits of five and six hours,' said Dana Keeton, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Department of Safety. The National Guard was even called in to control unruly crowds. Alarmed legislators rushed to amend the law. But the changes, adding a few easily navigated hurdles to establish residency, were nominal. And the illegals kept swarming in from all over the country. After obtaining Tennessee driver's licenses, many easily obtained driver's licenses from other states."
(All emphases mine)
Illegal aliens "have grown so accustomed to our high tolerance for illegal immigration that some are actually suing the United States for not providing water stations on their illegal journeys into our country."
In asylum claims, "a GAO report noted that in early 2002, that investigators found a 90 percent rate of fraud in a preliminary review of five thousand petitions for asylum. A more detailed follow-up review of 1,500 of those petitions could locate only one that was bona fide."
". . .illegal alien day laborers hanging out in front of convenience stores and government offices helped at least seven of the [9/11] hijackers. . .obtain fraudulent state photo identification in Virginia."
After Tennessee legislators facilitated illegal aliens' efforts at acquiring driver's licenses, "tens of thousands of out-of-state illegal immigrants swamped the state's motor vehicle agencies. 'There were waits of five and six hours,' said Dana Keeton, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Department of Safety. The National Guard was even called in to control unruly crowds. Alarmed legislators rushed to amend the law. But the changes, adding a few easily navigated hurdles to establish residency, were nominal. And the illegals kept swarming in from all over the country. After obtaining Tennessee driver's licenses, many easily obtained driver's licenses from other states."
(All emphases mine)
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Free Propaganda
I thought I'd add my half-cent's-worth on Columbia University's invitation of Mudmood Ahmuddungjihad to a speaking engagement on campus. I keep hearing talk of free speech. I think I'll engage in a little free speech, myself, in labeling this cop-out as a steaming pile of horse hockey. Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with it; moral relativism, on the other hand, is an integral facet of the decision. Foreign despots have no right whatsoever to speak at a podium on an American university campus. Having free speech means having the right to speak unimpeded, not having the forum of your choice provided on a silver platter. Not even American citizens have this right. Heck, even illegal aliens don't retain this privilege; and we all know that they are a special class of faultless individuals superior to the common citizenry. Just ask el segundo Bush. The issue of free speech is hilarious for another reason, as well: the speaker's religious beliefs demand the squelching of free speech at every conceivable opportunity, and the government of his home country practices this as an art form. I wonder if Columbia U.'s administrators would be screeching about unhampered expression if the guest speaker were Ann Coulter, or the dean of Bob Jones University?
Other than a trumpet for propagandizing the world on Iran's behalf, what possible value could be derived from a speech by Ahmuddungjihad? He hates Israel, hates America, and denies the Holocaust ever took place. What a peach he is. As I suggested over at Vox's, that someone would actually invite this swine to appear says far more about the moral perversity of the school's administrators than anything else. Would they request that Uncle Joe Stalin take a few moments out of his busy schedule of purging imaginary enemies and bleeding the proletariat and spare them a word or two, were he still kicking around, today? I'm sure they'd bask in his lecturing tone about the excesses of capitalism, and the philosophical purity of communism.
Arguments of freedom of association hold no water with me on this particular matter. We're talking about a self-described enemy of the United States. If that's not a disqualifying factor, I don't know what is.
Other than a trumpet for propagandizing the world on Iran's behalf, what possible value could be derived from a speech by Ahmuddungjihad? He hates Israel, hates America, and denies the Holocaust ever took place. What a peach he is. As I suggested over at Vox's, that someone would actually invite this swine to appear says far more about the moral perversity of the school's administrators than anything else. Would they request that Uncle Joe Stalin take a few moments out of his busy schedule of purging imaginary enemies and bleeding the proletariat and spare them a word or two, were he still kicking around, today? I'm sure they'd bask in his lecturing tone about the excesses of capitalism, and the philosophical purity of communism.
Arguments of freedom of association hold no water with me on this particular matter. We're talking about a self-described enemy of the United States. If that's not a disqualifying factor, I don't know what is.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Championing the Wrong Cause
Scott Hatfield writes on his blog:
Consider the following claim: "Genesis is a literal account of how the world was created by a supernatural being, Yahweh." This turns out to be really difficult for science to directly investigate. The clause ‘supernatural being’ is, in essence, a conceptual ‘poison pill’ for the scientist who defines the natural world as the subject of scientific investigation. No matter what evidence the scientist adduces that contradicts the first part of the claim (‘Genesis is a literal account of how the world was created’), the believer has an ‘out’: Yahweh’s supernatural, and so Yahweh’s actions don’t have to follow natural law, and so evidence from the natural world can’t be used to ‘disprove’ either Yahweh’s existence or action. The claim has the curious property of being immune to disproof based on any evidence a scientist could present!
I think this is a strange characterization. The concept of a supernatural being shouldn't pose a problem for scientists; the notion offered no dilemma for Isaac Newton or a veritable host of other past scientists. Interesting that it stirs up so much concern, these days. Where current scientists see an obstacle to be overcome, others not bogged down in a secular or evolutionary mindset find a doorway that leads them into inquiries about the creation.
As for the natural world being the subject of scientific investigation, well, no kidding. Science is unequipped for the investigation of anything else. Science deals in observation, experimentation, and drawing conclusions from the former. Since the supernatural cannot be observed in a test tube or on a slide under a microscope, since it's not subject to repetition, it falls outside science's purview.
I would love seeing the supposed cornucopia of evidence against a literal six-day creation emptied of its contents, so that we might sift through these proofs and gain understanding. Instead, I see castles of speculation erected upon mounds of presumption, and opinion paraded about as a seige tower of impregnable facts. I don't suggest that I have all knowledge at my disposal, but what I have seen repeatedly are statements of fact that, when delved into with a fine-toothed comb, turn out to be something other than facts, or even convincing fiction. Of course, this doesn't deter "scientists" from demanding that we, the poor benighted masses, accept their judgment as final; those who demur are fools or flat-earthers. Alas, if we'd only attend university for eight or ten years of natural humanistic indoctrination, why, then we'd come into the light.
Why is it that scientists go out of their way in excavating unbridgeable gulfs between religion and science, while demanding that religion be held to scientific standards? As we have been assured so many times from on high by the brights of our age, religion is not science. If we accept this, then why subject religion to scientific criteria? Atheists and those who embrace Man's explanations of reality as loftier than God's can't have their cake and eat it, too. If religion isn't science, then the devout have no obligation to provide falsifiable theories in a neat little gift-wrapped package.
Speaking of falsifiability, we're tsk-tsked that religion presents a non-falsifiable face to the world. But a thought always pops into my mind, when I hear this talking point regurgitated by contemporary illuminists: perhaps a belief in God is non-falsifiable because it is not false. We may not have the power or knowledge to demonstrate God's existence beyond doubt; but disproving Him is impossible, if He empirically exists.
But what about the alleged consequences of that claim? If the Genesis account is held to be literally true, then a host of consequences should follow, consequences in the natural world that are subject to scientific inquiry. And the fact is, a host of alleged consequences of this particular claim have been falsified.
Given that scripture speaks of the pre-Flood world's annihilation and obscuration, the completeness of our evidentiary puzzle is debatable. That said, we have evidence--admittedly inconclusive--of a young Earth. Observed rapid fossilization, a fossil record that speaks of catastrophe befitting the biblical Deluge, not accumulation over eons, etc.; plus scriptural evidences, such as meticulous geneologies and Jesus' interpretation of Genesis as describing literal events. This subject requires a whole series of posts, to do it justice, so I'll not go further.
Plants didn’t appear on the third day, and then the stars on the fourth day.
See, Mr. Hatfield was present, at the time, so his word is law. I hope he'll allow me a pleasure jaunt in his time machine.
Seriously, this is a specious argument, if, indeed, it can be called an argument. Mr. Hatfield dubs himself a Christian. Apparently, he takes no issue with God creating the heavens and Earth. However, temporary preservation of plants without the sun's presence was beyond His creative powers. How else can we characterize this, except as forcing scripture into harmony with a particular worldview?
Most importantly, overwhelming evidence contradicts the claim of a 6-day creation.
Evidence which remains unprovided in the post. Why is it that six-day creationists must provide footnoted documentation of every aspect of their beliefs, while evolutionists give themselves a pass on meeting the same criterion?
Now, does this demonstrate that there is no supernatural being, Yahweh? Not at all, but it does demonstrate that the world revealed by scientific investigation is not consistent with the consequences of the claim of Genesis being ‘a literal account of how the world was created.’ Given sufficient evidence contra the consequences, an intelligent person is free to reject the claim on the absence of any positive evidence in behalf of the claim.
This is falsehood. Ignored evidence is not the same as nonexistent evidence. Again, we have demands for Genesis 1 to meet scientific rules; ignored is the inconvenient fact that those selfsame rules have inherent biases and foundational assumptions.
Besides, science can verify that the realm in which it operates actually exists: religion can hardly do the same.
What a bizarre claim from a believer. It's accurate, so long as religion is judged within scientific parameters. Utilizing its own metric, religion most certainly can demonstrate that the supernatural exists. As a professing Christian who presumably experienced a salvational transformation at some point in his life, Mr. Hatfield should know this well.
Update
Just to clarify, if you reject a literal six-day creation event for reasons of non-falsifiability, you also should disclaim religion itself, for the same reason. God's existence isn't subject to falsifiability any more than a face-value reading of Genesis 1, assuming that you hold a similar view as that of Mr. Hatfield.
Consider the following claim: "Genesis is a literal account of how the world was created by a supernatural being, Yahweh." This turns out to be really difficult for science to directly investigate. The clause ‘supernatural being’ is, in essence, a conceptual ‘poison pill’ for the scientist who defines the natural world as the subject of scientific investigation. No matter what evidence the scientist adduces that contradicts the first part of the claim (‘Genesis is a literal account of how the world was created’), the believer has an ‘out’: Yahweh’s supernatural, and so Yahweh’s actions don’t have to follow natural law, and so evidence from the natural world can’t be used to ‘disprove’ either Yahweh’s existence or action. The claim has the curious property of being immune to disproof based on any evidence a scientist could present!
I think this is a strange characterization. The concept of a supernatural being shouldn't pose a problem for scientists; the notion offered no dilemma for Isaac Newton or a veritable host of other past scientists. Interesting that it stirs up so much concern, these days. Where current scientists see an obstacle to be overcome, others not bogged down in a secular or evolutionary mindset find a doorway that leads them into inquiries about the creation.
As for the natural world being the subject of scientific investigation, well, no kidding. Science is unequipped for the investigation of anything else. Science deals in observation, experimentation, and drawing conclusions from the former. Since the supernatural cannot be observed in a test tube or on a slide under a microscope, since it's not subject to repetition, it falls outside science's purview.
I would love seeing the supposed cornucopia of evidence against a literal six-day creation emptied of its contents, so that we might sift through these proofs and gain understanding. Instead, I see castles of speculation erected upon mounds of presumption, and opinion paraded about as a seige tower of impregnable facts. I don't suggest that I have all knowledge at my disposal, but what I have seen repeatedly are statements of fact that, when delved into with a fine-toothed comb, turn out to be something other than facts, or even convincing fiction. Of course, this doesn't deter "scientists" from demanding that we, the poor benighted masses, accept their judgment as final; those who demur are fools or flat-earthers. Alas, if we'd only attend university for eight or ten years of natural humanistic indoctrination, why, then we'd come into the light.
Why is it that scientists go out of their way in excavating unbridgeable gulfs between religion and science, while demanding that religion be held to scientific standards? As we have been assured so many times from on high by the brights of our age, religion is not science. If we accept this, then why subject religion to scientific criteria? Atheists and those who embrace Man's explanations of reality as loftier than God's can't have their cake and eat it, too. If religion isn't science, then the devout have no obligation to provide falsifiable theories in a neat little gift-wrapped package.
Speaking of falsifiability, we're tsk-tsked that religion presents a non-falsifiable face to the world. But a thought always pops into my mind, when I hear this talking point regurgitated by contemporary illuminists: perhaps a belief in God is non-falsifiable because it is not false. We may not have the power or knowledge to demonstrate God's existence beyond doubt; but disproving Him is impossible, if He empirically exists.
But what about the alleged consequences of that claim? If the Genesis account is held to be literally true, then a host of consequences should follow, consequences in the natural world that are subject to scientific inquiry. And the fact is, a host of alleged consequences of this particular claim have been falsified.
Given that scripture speaks of the pre-Flood world's annihilation and obscuration, the completeness of our evidentiary puzzle is debatable. That said, we have evidence--admittedly inconclusive--of a young Earth. Observed rapid fossilization, a fossil record that speaks of catastrophe befitting the biblical Deluge, not accumulation over eons, etc.; plus scriptural evidences, such as meticulous geneologies and Jesus' interpretation of Genesis as describing literal events. This subject requires a whole series of posts, to do it justice, so I'll not go further.
Plants didn’t appear on the third day, and then the stars on the fourth day.
See, Mr. Hatfield was present, at the time, so his word is law. I hope he'll allow me a pleasure jaunt in his time machine.
Seriously, this is a specious argument, if, indeed, it can be called an argument. Mr. Hatfield dubs himself a Christian. Apparently, he takes no issue with God creating the heavens and Earth. However, temporary preservation of plants without the sun's presence was beyond His creative powers. How else can we characterize this, except as forcing scripture into harmony with a particular worldview?
Most importantly, overwhelming evidence contradicts the claim of a 6-day creation.
Evidence which remains unprovided in the post. Why is it that six-day creationists must provide footnoted documentation of every aspect of their beliefs, while evolutionists give themselves a pass on meeting the same criterion?
Now, does this demonstrate that there is no supernatural being, Yahweh? Not at all, but it does demonstrate that the world revealed by scientific investigation is not consistent with the consequences of the claim of Genesis being ‘a literal account of how the world was created.’ Given sufficient evidence contra the consequences, an intelligent person is free to reject the claim on the absence of any positive evidence in behalf of the claim.
This is falsehood. Ignored evidence is not the same as nonexistent evidence. Again, we have demands for Genesis 1 to meet scientific rules; ignored is the inconvenient fact that those selfsame rules have inherent biases and foundational assumptions.
Besides, science can verify that the realm in which it operates actually exists: religion can hardly do the same.
What a bizarre claim from a believer. It's accurate, so long as religion is judged within scientific parameters. Utilizing its own metric, religion most certainly can demonstrate that the supernatural exists. As a professing Christian who presumably experienced a salvational transformation at some point in his life, Mr. Hatfield should know this well.
Update
Just to clarify, if you reject a literal six-day creation event for reasons of non-falsifiability, you also should disclaim religion itself, for the same reason. God's existence isn't subject to falsifiability any more than a face-value reading of Genesis 1, assuming that you hold a similar view as that of Mr. Hatfield.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Temporary Separation
Much scripture offers comfort in times of suffering or sadness, but some of my favorite verses are found in I Thessalonians 4. Verses 13 through 18 say:
But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
This is an important passage because it reminds us that our loved ones who passed away in Christ haven't ceased to exist, or winked out like candles and faded into oblivion. They are with the Lord, all suffering removed, and they will see resurrection and restoration, some day, as will all who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. I have many loved ones who have gone on to be with the Lord, so I need this reminder, now and again. It makes me feel much better knowing that our separation is a temporary one.
But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
This is an important passage because it reminds us that our loved ones who passed away in Christ haven't ceased to exist, or winked out like candles and faded into oblivion. They are with the Lord, all suffering removed, and they will see resurrection and restoration, some day, as will all who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. I have many loved ones who have gone on to be with the Lord, so I need this reminder, now and again. It makes me feel much better knowing that our separation is a temporary one.
Expectations
Because of a shortage of maids, the minister's wife advertised for a manservant. The next morning a nicely dressed young man came to the front door. "Can you start the breakfast by seven o'clock?" asked the minister.
"I guess so," answered the man.
"Can you polish all the silver, wash all the dishes, do the laundry, take care of the lawn, wash windows, iron clothes and keep the house neat and tidy?"
"Say, preacher," said the young fellow rather meekly, "I came here to see about getting married but if it's going to be as much work as all that, you can count me out right now."
"I guess so," answered the man.
"Can you polish all the silver, wash all the dishes, do the laundry, take care of the lawn, wash windows, iron clothes and keep the house neat and tidy?"
"Say, preacher," said the young fellow rather meekly, "I came here to see about getting married but if it's going to be as much work as all that, you can count me out right now."
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Dire Straits
"They come here to work."
How many times have you heard someone say this, in defense of illegal aliens sneaking into our country? I don't use the word "defense" lightly, but I see no better way to characterize the observation. It's a bizarre notion that we should allow an invasion's continuance because the invaders want a job.
If someone breaks into your house, helps himself to the contents of your fridge, your children's piggy-bank, and your wallet, then beds down in the living room and demands that you make him part of the family, determining his reasons for doing so won't appear high on your priority list. When he insists on free medical care and education, your response most likely will be: "Just a sec, while I get my gun."
Interesting how people ignore problems on a national level that they'd find intolerable on an individual scale. The man who shrugs and laughs at illegal aliens running amok about the countryside would bodily remove a home invader--piece by piece, if necessary. The person who says, "They just want a job," is like the man who sees the intruder in his home and tells himself, "He just wants a snack." It's a stupid comment that reveals more about the person uttering it than the actual dilemma at hand.
When I hear, "They just want to find work," my initial response is: "So what? How is this relevant?"
The reasons for their presence interest me far less than the time and method of their speedy departure. If a stranger enters your house uninvited, which is uppermost in your mind: the "why?" of his "visit," or his prompt and efficient removal?
I dispute the assertion that they all come here seeking work. It's a simpleminded half-truth. But even if one concedes this dubious claim, the point has less value than chopsticks in a soup-kettle. These people are criminals. They respect neither U.S. sovereignty, nor U.S. law. Good impressions aren't formed in violating the law of the land as one's first act upon entering a country's borders.
Worse, the problem isn't a handful of people. It's double-digit millions. The U.S. government estimates that over a million illegal aliens enter our country annually. So we're not fumbling around a static or sporadic issue, but an ongoing and growing one.
We've entered dire straits as a nation. We're facing a problem more massive than at any other time in our history. It looms over the silly sideshow in Iraq, or the antics of al-Killya and other Islamic murder, inc. groups. We're facing a choice: the preservation of America and our way of life, or the transformation of this great country into something far different--and far inferior--to what we've retained in the past and present. With a rejection of Christianity and government's ever-reaching grasp, it rounds out the top three American issues of our time.
How many times have you heard someone say this, in defense of illegal aliens sneaking into our country? I don't use the word "defense" lightly, but I see no better way to characterize the observation. It's a bizarre notion that we should allow an invasion's continuance because the invaders want a job.
If someone breaks into your house, helps himself to the contents of your fridge, your children's piggy-bank, and your wallet, then beds down in the living room and demands that you make him part of the family, determining his reasons for doing so won't appear high on your priority list. When he insists on free medical care and education, your response most likely will be: "Just a sec, while I get my gun."
Interesting how people ignore problems on a national level that they'd find intolerable on an individual scale. The man who shrugs and laughs at illegal aliens running amok about the countryside would bodily remove a home invader--piece by piece, if necessary. The person who says, "They just want a job," is like the man who sees the intruder in his home and tells himself, "He just wants a snack." It's a stupid comment that reveals more about the person uttering it than the actual dilemma at hand.
When I hear, "They just want to find work," my initial response is: "So what? How is this relevant?"
The reasons for their presence interest me far less than the time and method of their speedy departure. If a stranger enters your house uninvited, which is uppermost in your mind: the "why?" of his "visit," or his prompt and efficient removal?
I dispute the assertion that they all come here seeking work. It's a simpleminded half-truth. But even if one concedes this dubious claim, the point has less value than chopsticks in a soup-kettle. These people are criminals. They respect neither U.S. sovereignty, nor U.S. law. Good impressions aren't formed in violating the law of the land as one's first act upon entering a country's borders.
Worse, the problem isn't a handful of people. It's double-digit millions. The U.S. government estimates that over a million illegal aliens enter our country annually. So we're not fumbling around a static or sporadic issue, but an ongoing and growing one.
We've entered dire straits as a nation. We're facing a problem more massive than at any other time in our history. It looms over the silly sideshow in Iraq, or the antics of al-Killya and other Islamic murder, inc. groups. We're facing a choice: the preservation of America and our way of life, or the transformation of this great country into something far different--and far inferior--to what we've retained in the past and present. With a rejection of Christianity and government's ever-reaching grasp, it rounds out the top three American issues of our time.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Making Mistakes
My wife sent me this in an email:
A minister and lawyer were chatting at a party.
"What do you do if you make a mistake on a case?" the minister asked.
"Try to fix it if it's big; ignore it if it's insignificant," replied the lawyer. "What do you do?"
The minister replied "Oh, more or less the same. Let me give you an example. The other day I meant to say 'the devil is the father of liars,' but instead I said 'the devil is the father of lawyers,' so I let it go."
A minister and lawyer were chatting at a party.
"What do you do if you make a mistake on a case?" the minister asked.
"Try to fix it if it's big; ignore it if it's insignificant," replied the lawyer. "What do you do?"
The minister replied "Oh, more or less the same. Let me give you an example. The other day I meant to say 'the devil is the father of liars,' but instead I said 'the devil is the father of lawyers,' so I let it go."
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Not exactly PC
While publicizing the 1974 film, Deathwish, Charles Bronson was questioned by Johnny Carson on how a magazine could quote him saying he would commit murder to avenge his family.
Bronson looked at him and said: "Because the quote is accurate. I really could, and would."
Now I remember why I liked him so much.
Bronson looked at him and said: "Because the quote is accurate. I really could, and would."
Now I remember why I liked him so much.
Monday, September 3, 2007
The Value of Reading
Having blogged about the large number of people who read little or not at all, I thought I'd elaborate on the importance of reading.
Reading fires one's imagination; it expands and strengthens a person's vocabulary; it opens the mind to possibilities, and facilitates an educational process. It's one of our primary ways of obtaining knowledge. Illiterates still have the guiding hand of experience, yes, and the efforts of others to help them along. But a person who reads has a much higher potential for the acquisition of knowledge than someone who doesn't. It's that simple. Scrutinize your stored knowledge. How much of it came from reading on your own? I'm betting a significant portion.
As for the value of nonfiction versus fiction, I'm of the opinion that nonfiction is more important. But that's not to suggest that fiction is unimportant--especially if one sticks to serious literature, like the classics. Fiction opens a window into cultures and times and places, creating an added dimension that goes hand-in-hand with nonfiction. For example, suppose you read Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, or Xenophon's Anabasis. OK. Now suppose you read Ben-Hur and The Illiad, or some other novel about the ancient Greeks. If these latter works pay careful attention to historical detail, you not only can learn from them, but you can look through a window into these worlds, as it were. I see nonfiction as essential, with fiction playing an important supplementary role.
As worthwhile fiction, I'm not including the filth that often passes for literature in today's market. "Her heaving bosoms split the seams of her brassiere as his swollen member bored into her with all the force of a jackhammer" might make for interesting reading, given the proper mood and combination of drugs, but it's not lasting literature, nor will it elevate your mind above gutter-level. I also include material that subverts traditional values or denies God with the rest of the trash. With these few exceptions, I think reading has far more of benefit than detriment about it.
I don't think it's coincidental that the most learned people I've ever known were also voracious readers.
Reading fires one's imagination; it expands and strengthens a person's vocabulary; it opens the mind to possibilities, and facilitates an educational process. It's one of our primary ways of obtaining knowledge. Illiterates still have the guiding hand of experience, yes, and the efforts of others to help them along. But a person who reads has a much higher potential for the acquisition of knowledge than someone who doesn't. It's that simple. Scrutinize your stored knowledge. How much of it came from reading on your own? I'm betting a significant portion.
As for the value of nonfiction versus fiction, I'm of the opinion that nonfiction is more important. But that's not to suggest that fiction is unimportant--especially if one sticks to serious literature, like the classics. Fiction opens a window into cultures and times and places, creating an added dimension that goes hand-in-hand with nonfiction. For example, suppose you read Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, or Xenophon's Anabasis. OK. Now suppose you read Ben-Hur and The Illiad, or some other novel about the ancient Greeks. If these latter works pay careful attention to historical detail, you not only can learn from them, but you can look through a window into these worlds, as it were. I see nonfiction as essential, with fiction playing an important supplementary role.
As worthwhile fiction, I'm not including the filth that often passes for literature in today's market. "Her heaving bosoms split the seams of her brassiere as his swollen member bored into her with all the force of a jackhammer" might make for interesting reading, given the proper mood and combination of drugs, but it's not lasting literature, nor will it elevate your mind above gutter-level. I also include material that subverts traditional values or denies God with the rest of the trash. With these few exceptions, I think reading has far more of benefit than detriment about it.
I don't think it's coincidental that the most learned people I've ever known were also voracious readers.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
"Do Unto Others. . ."
I've been watching the lying and distortions of viewpoints that goes on over at Vox's on a regular basis. Someone will sniff the air for signs of an opportunity to attack Vox, then go straight for the jugular. Invariably, these people fail, and end up looking like idiots, as a special bonus. With few exceptions, the "brights" who engage in this sort of debating tactic are secular-minded individuals. In my admittedly limited experience, the more secular someone is, the less problematic he finds outright dishonesty. I've dealt with it first-hand in the blogosphere, and I've witnessed others enduring the same nonsense.
My blogging philosophy is pretty simple: allow people freedom to express their views, even if they diverge widely from my own. I don't ban people or censor their ideas for the atrocity of disagreeing with me.
If you come here and behave in a respectful manner, and at least make an attempt at understanding what I'm saying, we'll have no trouble getting along. On the other hand, my pet peeve is when someone lies or deliberately misrepresents my viewpoint. I've been cursed at, lied to, called names, had my views twisted beyond recognition, and mocked; somehow, I've yet to banish anyone. However, I also don't treat people who sink this low with kid gloves.
In the end, it's all about common courtesy. How you treat people in the "real" world is how you should behave online. Those words typed in little comment boxes that pop up on your screen came from flesh-and-blood people, not ghosts in the machine.
My belief is that those who carry the biggest chip on their shoulders online are the most docile creatures in person. Either that, or they're the ones who sport the most scars.
My blogging philosophy is pretty simple: allow people freedom to express their views, even if they diverge widely from my own. I don't ban people or censor their ideas for the atrocity of disagreeing with me.
If you come here and behave in a respectful manner, and at least make an attempt at understanding what I'm saying, we'll have no trouble getting along. On the other hand, my pet peeve is when someone lies or deliberately misrepresents my viewpoint. I've been cursed at, lied to, called names, had my views twisted beyond recognition, and mocked; somehow, I've yet to banish anyone. However, I also don't treat people who sink this low with kid gloves.
In the end, it's all about common courtesy. How you treat people in the "real" world is how you should behave online. Those words typed in little comment boxes that pop up on your screen came from flesh-and-blood people, not ghosts in the machine.
My belief is that those who carry the biggest chip on their shoulders online are the most docile creatures in person. Either that, or they're the ones who sport the most scars.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Idiocy Enshrined
This is what happens when inmates run the asylum: MESA, Arizona — Officials at an Arizona school suspended a 13-year-old boy for sketching what looked like a gun, saying the action posed a threat to his classmates.
Administrators of Payne Junior High in nearby Chandler suspended the boy on Monday for five days but later reduced it to three days.
Chandler district spokesman Terry Locke said the crude sketch was "absolutely considered a threat," and that threatening words or pictures are punishable.
Isn't it dumbfounding? If the above picture is offensive, then I submit that watching Bugs Bunny is the equivalent of viewing a snuff film.
In a morally confused society, wanton evil is explained away and tolerated, while benign actions are condemned like witches in seventeenth century Salem. This also reveals how foolish, ethically infantile people like this Terry Locke character become school district spokesmen.
I see this as a sign of the feminist agenda's nihilistic touch. The child received punishment not for committing an egregious act, but for being a normal teenage boy. What young male has not drawn pictures of guns, or played cowboys and Indians? Heaven forfend that he owns a gun and fires it on occasion. This is the same mindset that transforms little boys into drooling dullards (courtesy of Ritalin) for daring to fidget in their seats after hours of sitting in a classroom, listening to a "teacher" drone on and on about global warming's destruction of the speckled howler monkey's untainted ecosystem.
When I was thirteen, my parents bought me a single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. Though it vexed me so, I somehow made it to adulthood without killing anyone, or even maiming them just a little bit.
Functionally Illiterate
What a sad and pathetic commentary of the state of our country:
One in four adults say they read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday. Of those who did read, women and seniors were most avid, and religious works and popular fiction were the top choices.
"I just get sleepy when I read," said Richard Bustos of Dallas, a habit with which millions of Americans can doubtless identify. Bustos, a 34-year-old project manager for a telecommunications company, said he had not read any books in the last year and would rather spend time in his backyard pool.
Wow, that's deep. Pun intended.
The Bible and religious works were read by two-thirds in the survey, more than all other categories.
At least this is a good sign that many have their priorities straight, when it comes to reading material.
One in four adults say they read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday. Of those who did read, women and seniors were most avid, and religious works and popular fiction were the top choices.
"I just get sleepy when I read," said Richard Bustos of Dallas, a habit with which millions of Americans can doubtless identify. Bustos, a 34-year-old project manager for a telecommunications company, said he had not read any books in the last year and would rather spend time in his backyard pool.
Wow, that's deep. Pun intended.
The Bible and religious works were read by two-thirds in the survey, more than all other categories.
At least this is a good sign that many have their priorities straight, when it comes to reading material.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
A Master of Vo-cab-lee-ary
A few days ago, Vox posted about Houghton Mifflin's "100 words every collectivist drone should know," or some such thing. I thought I'd take a crack at defining a few:
bowdlerize: crushing w/ a very large rock.
ziggurat: a rodent that runs in zigzagging patterns.
chicanery: another term for the feminist movement.
enfranchise: opening a McDonald's restaurant.
equinox: when everyone has a hard-knock life.
evanescent: when you smell just like Evan.
fatuous: obese.
hegemony: a garden kingdom.
homogeneous: an exceptionally intelligent "gay" person.
hypotenuse: an uneducated guess.
impeach: the act of peppering someone with fruit.
incontrovertible: a non-ragtop automobile.
irony: metallic taste.
jejune: month that comes after memay.
kowtow: ancient bovine martial art.
paradigm: twenty cents.
photosynthesis: feng shui hanging of framed photographs.
supercilious: when Superman has a bout of the giggles.
taxonomy: what the government would like to pass more legislation favoring.
vacuous: the newest Dirt Devil model.
winnow: a minnow whose husband died.
See, publik skewel learnt me gud!
bowdlerize: crushing w/ a very large rock.
ziggurat: a rodent that runs in zigzagging patterns.
chicanery: another term for the feminist movement.
enfranchise: opening a McDonald's restaurant.
equinox: when everyone has a hard-knock life.
evanescent: when you smell just like Evan.
fatuous: obese.
hegemony: a garden kingdom.
homogeneous: an exceptionally intelligent "gay" person.
hypotenuse: an uneducated guess.
impeach: the act of peppering someone with fruit.
incontrovertible: a non-ragtop automobile.
irony: metallic taste.
jejune: month that comes after memay.
kowtow: ancient bovine martial art.
paradigm: twenty cents.
photosynthesis: feng shui hanging of framed photographs.
supercilious: when Superman has a bout of the giggles.
taxonomy: what the government would like to pass more legislation favoring.
vacuous: the newest Dirt Devil model.
winnow: a minnow whose husband died.
See, publik skewel learnt me gud!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Something Like an Admission
Yesterday, Bush met with Larry and Curly of Canada and Mexico in Quebec on the matter of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which some believe is a precursor to a North American Union. Notice how the government invents happy names for questionable policies. Congress could pass a law tomorrow, demanding that all Christians be rounded up and put into concentration camps; no doubt it would be dubbed the "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" Act.
At a news conference after the meeting, a Fox News reporter asked them some direct questions:
"As you three leaders meet here, there are a growing number of people in each of your countries who have expressed concern about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This is addressed to all three of you. Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union? Are there plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all three countries? And do you believe all of these theories about a possible erosion of national identity stem from a lack of transparency from this partnership?"
Bush offered a three-paragraph response without answering the questions put to him:
"We represent three great nations. We each respect each other's sovereignty. You know, there are some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples. I just believe they're wrong. I believe it's in our interest to trade; I believe it's in our interest to dialogue; I believe it's in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people.
"And I'm amused by some of the speculation, some of the old – you can call them political scare tactics. If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate. I'm here representing my nation. I feel strongly that the United States is a force for good, and I feel strongly that by working with our neighbors we can (sic) a stronger force for good.
"So I appreciate that question. I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place. It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about."
There's nothing of substance in his entire retort. We have dripping arrogance, yes; we have ridicule; we have a misrepresentation of the reporter's questions; we have false accusations. What we do not have is a straightforward answer. Mr. Bush, no one said relations are harmful. No one said they were against trade. No one laid out a conspiracy. No one asked you to "prove" anything. You had a chance to nip uncertainties in the bud, if this amalgamation isn't moving forward; instead, you opted for BS artistry. Imagine my surprise.
When you're asked a question--a question voicing concerns with facts backing them--you have an obligation to answer it for the sake of those who put you in office--those you supposedly represent. If we wanted a haughty, elitist snot in the White House, we'd've written Hillary's name on the ballot long ago.
At a news conference after the meeting, a Fox News reporter asked them some direct questions:
"As you three leaders meet here, there are a growing number of people in each of your countries who have expressed concern about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This is addressed to all three of you. Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union? Are there plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all three countries? And do you believe all of these theories about a possible erosion of national identity stem from a lack of transparency from this partnership?"
Bush offered a three-paragraph response without answering the questions put to him:
"We represent three great nations. We each respect each other's sovereignty. You know, there are some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples. I just believe they're wrong. I believe it's in our interest to trade; I believe it's in our interest to dialogue; I believe it's in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people.
"And I'm amused by some of the speculation, some of the old – you can call them political scare tactics. If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate. I'm here representing my nation. I feel strongly that the United States is a force for good, and I feel strongly that by working with our neighbors we can (sic) a stronger force for good.
"So I appreciate that question. I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place. It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about."
There's nothing of substance in his entire retort. We have dripping arrogance, yes; we have ridicule; we have a misrepresentation of the reporter's questions; we have false accusations. What we do not have is a straightforward answer. Mr. Bush, no one said relations are harmful. No one said they were against trade. No one laid out a conspiracy. No one asked you to "prove" anything. You had a chance to nip uncertainties in the bud, if this amalgamation isn't moving forward; instead, you opted for BS artistry. Imagine my surprise.
When you're asked a question--a question voicing concerns with facts backing them--you have an obligation to answer it for the sake of those who put you in office--those you supposedly represent. If we wanted a haughty, elitist snot in the White House, we'd've written Hillary's name on the ballot long ago.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Putting Drunken Sailors to Shame
Here're a few examples of events that have transpired in Iraq, courtesy of U.S. government efficiency:
DynCorp was paid $43.8 million for building and storing a residential camp that was never used, including $4.2 million on VIP trailers and an Olympic-sized swimming pool that were not authorized.
Parsons Global received a contract in 2004 to construct 150 primary health care centers at a cost of $243 million. After $186 million had been spent, only six centers were complete. The contract was terminated, with the contractor required to complete only 14 more.
Bechtel lost its contract for the Basrah Children's Hospital when a $50 million project had reached a cost of $98 million and was about a year behind schedule.
I'm sure one could write a whole book listing nothing but stories like these. The silver lining is that all this blown money came straight out of the taxpayers' pockets. Isn't it comforting that Uncle Scam is putting our funds toward nonsense like this, when it would serve us better as kindling at the hearth? The people involved in such colossal waste should hang their heads in shame. It's criminal, and it's the kind of behavior that would land each of us in jail, if we put it into practice. Of course, when you have a limitless monetary supply, there's no such thing as living beyond your means.
(references taken from John Duncan's Washington Report)
DynCorp was paid $43.8 million for building and storing a residential camp that was never used, including $4.2 million on VIP trailers and an Olympic-sized swimming pool that were not authorized.
Parsons Global received a contract in 2004 to construct 150 primary health care centers at a cost of $243 million. After $186 million had been spent, only six centers were complete. The contract was terminated, with the contractor required to complete only 14 more.
Bechtel lost its contract for the Basrah Children's Hospital when a $50 million project had reached a cost of $98 million and was about a year behind schedule.
I'm sure one could write a whole book listing nothing but stories like these. The silver lining is that all this blown money came straight out of the taxpayers' pockets. Isn't it comforting that Uncle Scam is putting our funds toward nonsense like this, when it would serve us better as kindling at the hearth? The people involved in such colossal waste should hang their heads in shame. It's criminal, and it's the kind of behavior that would land each of us in jail, if we put it into practice. Of course, when you have a limitless monetary supply, there's no such thing as living beyond your means.
(references taken from John Duncan's Washington Report)
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Lopsided
A quarterly newsletter I receive from my district (east TN) congressman, John J. Duncan, Jr., makes some interesting (and unsurprising) revelations about the defeated amnesty legislation:
In a typical week, we receive between a thousand and two thousand letters, emails, or postcards and roughly the same number of phone calls in our four offices put together. Roughly half will be about the bills or legislation, and about half will be from constituents who need some type of help or information. In all my years in Congress, I have never even come close to receiving as large or lopsided a volume as I have on immigration. In addition to all those who have called or written our offices, many, many others have expressed their opinions to me at meetings and events of all types throughout the District. The calls, letters, and comments from our constituents ran more than 50 to 1 against the bill in the Senate or any effort toward more liberal immigration. (emphases mine)
In a typical week, we receive between a thousand and two thousand letters, emails, or postcards and roughly the same number of phone calls in our four offices put together. Roughly half will be about the bills or legislation, and about half will be from constituents who need some type of help or information. In all my years in Congress, I have never even come close to receiving as large or lopsided a volume as I have on immigration. In addition to all those who have called or written our offices, many, many others have expressed their opinions to me at meetings and events of all types throughout the District. The calls, letters, and comments from our constituents ran more than 50 to 1 against the bill in the Senate or any effort toward more liberal immigration. (emphases mine)
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Holy Spirit
One area in which some Christians tangle is the doctrine of the trinity. Particularly as to the nature of the Holy Spirit. I've never understood this conflict, as scripture is crystal-clear on the subject. In essence, it's a matter of whether or not you've read and believe the Bible.
The Holy Spirit is referenced in scripture in ways that make no sense, unless he is an individual personage. For example:
--Isaiah 63:10 talks about the Holy Spirit being "vexed."
--1 Corinthians 2:13 characterizes the Spirit as a "teacher."
--Ephesians 4:30 admonishes us not to "grieve" the Spirit.
--John 14:16 and John 14:26 both refer to the Holy Spirit as a "Comforter." In 14:26, Jesus uses the pronoun "he" in describing the Spirit.
--John 15:26 differentiates between all persons of the Trinity, and shows Jesus using the term "whom" in speaking of the Spirit.
--John 16:7 again describes the Spirit as a "Comforter," and with the pronoun "him" from Jesus' own lips.
--Matthew 28:19 again treats Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate persons.
--Mark 13:11 talks about the Spirit "speaking."
--Luke 2:26 tells us the Holy Ghost can "reveal."
--Luke 3:22 informs us that the Spirit descended in the bodily form of a dove to Jesus. Yet again, scripture distinguishes here between the Trinity's members.
--In Luke 4:1, the Spirit "leads" Jesus.
--Acts 5:3 reveals Peter criticizing Ananias for lying to the Spirit.
--Acts 5:32 calls the Holy Ghost a "witness."
--Acts 13:2 characterizes the Spirit as "speaking" to Paul and Barnabas.
***
I can go on, but I think the point stands on the above verses' merits. I believe Christians who question the Holy Spirit's personhood should reexamine scripture for themselves and discover that the Bible is not vague or unsatisfying in its elucidation of this matter. If the Spirit merely is the power of God, how can we vex or grieve an inanimate force? How can it teach and comfort us? How can it speak or reveal truths to us? How can it appear in physical form? How can it lead, and how can we lie to it? How can it be a witness? Why does scripture include the Spirit with Jesus and the Father, as a unique individual? And most important of all, why did Jesus Himself use terms in describing the Holy Spirit that we utilize solely in referring to people?
This is a controversy without legitimate dispute. I know we live in a time when dogmatism is the gravest perceived sin of religious people; yet sometimes people are dogmatic because the answer is obvious. The situation is as simple as: have you read the relevant scripture for yourself, and do you believe what it says? If you do so with prayer and meditation, you'll reach the only reasonable conclusion scripture allows.
The Holy Spirit is referenced in scripture in ways that make no sense, unless he is an individual personage. For example:
--Isaiah 63:10 talks about the Holy Spirit being "vexed."
--1 Corinthians 2:13 characterizes the Spirit as a "teacher."
--Ephesians 4:30 admonishes us not to "grieve" the Spirit.
--John 14:16 and John 14:26 both refer to the Holy Spirit as a "Comforter." In 14:26, Jesus uses the pronoun "he" in describing the Spirit.
--John 15:26 differentiates between all persons of the Trinity, and shows Jesus using the term "whom" in speaking of the Spirit.
--John 16:7 again describes the Spirit as a "Comforter," and with the pronoun "him" from Jesus' own lips.
--Matthew 28:19 again treats Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate persons.
--Mark 13:11 talks about the Spirit "speaking."
--Luke 2:26 tells us the Holy Ghost can "reveal."
--Luke 3:22 informs us that the Spirit descended in the bodily form of a dove to Jesus. Yet again, scripture distinguishes here between the Trinity's members.
--In Luke 4:1, the Spirit "leads" Jesus.
--Acts 5:3 reveals Peter criticizing Ananias for lying to the Spirit.
--Acts 5:32 calls the Holy Ghost a "witness."
--Acts 13:2 characterizes the Spirit as "speaking" to Paul and Barnabas.
***
I can go on, but I think the point stands on the above verses' merits. I believe Christians who question the Holy Spirit's personhood should reexamine scripture for themselves and discover that the Bible is not vague or unsatisfying in its elucidation of this matter. If the Spirit merely is the power of God, how can we vex or grieve an inanimate force? How can it teach and comfort us? How can it speak or reveal truths to us? How can it appear in physical form? How can it lead, and how can we lie to it? How can it be a witness? Why does scripture include the Spirit with Jesus and the Father, as a unique individual? And most important of all, why did Jesus Himself use terms in describing the Holy Spirit that we utilize solely in referring to people?
This is a controversy without legitimate dispute. I know we live in a time when dogmatism is the gravest perceived sin of religious people; yet sometimes people are dogmatic because the answer is obvious. The situation is as simple as: have you read the relevant scripture for yourself, and do you believe what it says? If you do so with prayer and meditation, you'll reach the only reasonable conclusion scripture allows.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Constructionism
I want to expand upon a point I made in the comments section recently, because it's one far too many people fail in grasping. When interpreting the U.S. Constitution, we cannot limit ourselves to the text alone; we must take into consideration the intent behind the words: what was the goal or end the authors were trying to meet? If we neglect this obligation, we create a comfortable zone for misinterpretation.
For example, let's take the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The local militia was a volunteer organization, peopled by free individuals who owned guns. They formed this body for the protection of their homes and families against Indians, road agents, etc. The militia was not an arm of the government. Rather, it was a communal effort. We know this by examining history. Militias as understood by the Founders don't exist at present in most states. Ignorant people who know little about the Constitution and even less about the time in which it was drafted claim that the National Guard is the current equivalent. Wrong. National Guardsmen are government employees, beholden to bureaucratic whims. They usually serve their respective states; but in some cases--the current Iraq fiasco being one--the federal government takes hold of their reins. The neighborhood watch movement bears closer resemblance to militias than the National Guard.
All of this leads me to my point: if militias don't exist, now, and we cannot contextually examine anything outside the Amendment's textual confines, we soon draw (or become susceptible to) the conclusion that the right to bear arms is defunct, obsolete. However, if we study history and the writings and speeches of the men who cobbled the Constitution together, we realize that they understood the Amendment as covering individual rights, for purposes of self-defense and taking action or making a stand against a corrupt, overreaching government. But this reality doesn't dawn upon us by reading the Amendment; it becomes apparent by knowing our history and the intentions behind the words.
Constitutional constructionism doesn't mean enslaving oneself to the phrases of the document; it means reading the words and abiding by the original intent behind them.
For example, let's take the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The local militia was a volunteer organization, peopled by free individuals who owned guns. They formed this body for the protection of their homes and families against Indians, road agents, etc. The militia was not an arm of the government. Rather, it was a communal effort. We know this by examining history. Militias as understood by the Founders don't exist at present in most states. Ignorant people who know little about the Constitution and even less about the time in which it was drafted claim that the National Guard is the current equivalent. Wrong. National Guardsmen are government employees, beholden to bureaucratic whims. They usually serve their respective states; but in some cases--the current Iraq fiasco being one--the federal government takes hold of their reins. The neighborhood watch movement bears closer resemblance to militias than the National Guard.
All of this leads me to my point: if militias don't exist, now, and we cannot contextually examine anything outside the Amendment's textual confines, we soon draw (or become susceptible to) the conclusion that the right to bear arms is defunct, obsolete. However, if we study history and the writings and speeches of the men who cobbled the Constitution together, we realize that they understood the Amendment as covering individual rights, for purposes of self-defense and taking action or making a stand against a corrupt, overreaching government. But this reality doesn't dawn upon us by reading the Amendment; it becomes apparent by knowing our history and the intentions behind the words.
Constitutional constructionism doesn't mean enslaving oneself to the phrases of the document; it means reading the words and abiding by the original intent behind them.
Don't Hate Me Because I'm Beautiful
After a nice dinner of dog chow mein at my favorite local Chinese restaurant, I cracked my fortune cookie and read these words:
"Rarely do great beauty and virtue dwell together as they do in you."
My wife rolled her eyes, but she knows deep down that truer words were never spoken.
(Speaking of virtue, Chinese cuisine probably is the one redemptive quality of that ideological cesspool).
"Rarely do great beauty and virtue dwell together as they do in you."
My wife rolled her eyes, but she knows deep down that truer words were never spoken.
(Speaking of virtue, Chinese cuisine probably is the one redemptive quality of that ideological cesspool).
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Citizens and Aliens II
I thought I'd continue the last post by appending relevant quotes on immigration from the Founding Fathers:
John Adams: (Referring to public office applicants) "Among the number of applications..., cannot we find an American capable and worthy of the trust? ...Why should we take the bread out of the mouths of our own children and give it to strangers?" (Letter to Sec. State John Marshall, Aug. 14, 1800)
***
Benjamin Franklin: "The importation of foreigners into a country that has as many inhabitants as the present employments and provisions for subsistence will bear, will be in the end no increase of people, unless the new comers have more industry and frugality than the natives, and then they will provide more subsistence, and increase in the country; but they will gradually eat the natives out. Nor is it necessary to bring in foreigners to fill up any occasional vacancy in a country for such vacancy will soon be filled by natural generation." ("Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind and the Peopling of Countries," 1751)
***
Thomas Jefferson: "Yet from such [absolute monarchies], we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. Their principles with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us in the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." ("Notes on Virginia," 1782)
***
Alexander Hamilton: "The opinion advanced [by Jefferson] is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, [italics in original] so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency." ("Examinations of Jefferson's Message to Congress of December 7th, 1801," Jan. 12, 1802)
***
James Madison: "Our kind reception of emigrants is very proper, but it is dictated more by benevolent than by interested consideration, tho some of them seem to be very far from regarding the obligations as lying on their side." (Letter to Richard Peters, Feb. 22, 1819)
***
George Washington: "My opinion, with respect to emigration, is that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement, while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body...may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them." (Letter to John Adams, Nov. 15, 1794)
John Adams: (Referring to public office applicants) "Among the number of applications..., cannot we find an American capable and worthy of the trust? ...Why should we take the bread out of the mouths of our own children and give it to strangers?" (Letter to Sec. State John Marshall, Aug. 14, 1800)
***
Benjamin Franklin: "The importation of foreigners into a country that has as many inhabitants as the present employments and provisions for subsistence will bear, will be in the end no increase of people, unless the new comers have more industry and frugality than the natives, and then they will provide more subsistence, and increase in the country; but they will gradually eat the natives out. Nor is it necessary to bring in foreigners to fill up any occasional vacancy in a country for such vacancy will soon be filled by natural generation." ("Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind and the Peopling of Countries," 1751)
***
Thomas Jefferson: "Yet from such [absolute monarchies], we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. Their principles with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us in the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." ("Notes on Virginia," 1782)
***
Alexander Hamilton: "The opinion advanced [by Jefferson] is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, [italics in original] so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency." ("Examinations of Jefferson's Message to Congress of December 7th, 1801," Jan. 12, 1802)
***
James Madison: "Our kind reception of emigrants is very proper, but it is dictated more by benevolent than by interested consideration, tho some of them seem to be very far from regarding the obligations as lying on their side." (Letter to Richard Peters, Feb. 22, 1819)
***
George Washington: "My opinion, with respect to emigration, is that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement, while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body...may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them." (Letter to John Adams, Nov. 15, 1794)
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Citizens and Aliens
In recent comments, Erik and GlennT made observations that have led me to the writing of this post. The question on the table is: does the U.S. Constitution apply to legal and illegal aliens? Having studied the issue, my answer is yes and no.
It's clear to me that Mr. Madison and the numerous Founders who lent their input to the Constitution's formation were drafting a document for U.S. citizens, not those of Mexico, China, England, Russia, or France. This is self-evident, for in the Preamble itself we are informed that:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The document differentiates between citizens and non-citizens. For example, aliens cannot hold the offices of U.S. Representative or Senator. Article I Section 8 bestows Congress with the power to create uniform Rules of Naturalization. Section 9 reveals that Congress may not hinder individual states in allowing the migration or importation of people who meet the states' approval. We're also told that Habeus Corpus may not be suspended, with the exceptions of invasion or rebellion. Question: If 1.1 million illegal aliens entering our borders annually doesn't constitute an invasion, pray tell, what would?
Article II Section 1 informs us that non-citizens may not hold the office of the President. By extension, the Vice President also must meet citizenship requirements, since the possibility exists of his becoming Chief Executive in a time of crisis. Electors must be residents of the states they represent, disqualifying illegal aliens.
The point of the above is to illustrate that the Constitution--and those who molded it--made distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. Non-citizens did not hold the same rights and privileges as citizens.
Let's take a look at the Bill of Rights and its application to aliens. Amendment 1 provides freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petitioning the government. It only applies in part. It's absurd on its face that aliens should have the latitude to become members of our press, initiate assemblies, or petition the government. I have no gripe with extending freedom of religion or speech to aliens.
The Second Amendment deals with gun ownership. The idea that aliens have a right to bear arms within our borders is asinine and conducive to chaos.
Amendment 3 is not applicable to this conversation. Amendment 4 entails search and seizure rights. I believe this applies to aliens, because private property is just that, regardless one's position on a map, and should be held inviolate.
Amendment 5 details due process and just compensation. This extends to aliens, because it harkens back to the natural rights of all men: life, liberty and property, except where due process has run its course.
Amendments 6 (speedy trial, confronting witnesses), 7 (trial by jury in civil cases), and 8 (no cruel or unusual punishment) are relatives of Amendment 5, so they apply to aliens. Amendments 9 and 10 are general statements about the Constitution's nature, and the powers of the states and their citizens.
For length purposes, I'll not deconstruct the other Amendments. We have a mixed bag. When we speak of life, liberty, property and due process, the Constitution sides with everyone in our territories, not just citizens. This harmonizes with a key principle fleshed out in our earlier Declaration of Independence, which states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Fitting aspects of our Constitution apply to all people within our borders, whether citizen or alien. Outside these parameters, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that other elements in the Constitution should be construed to elevate aliens to the level of citizens. After all, if aliens share all the same rights and privileges as citizens, then there is no such thing as citizenship. This idea is diametrically opposed to everything our Founders held dear.
It's clear to me that Mr. Madison and the numerous Founders who lent their input to the Constitution's formation were drafting a document for U.S. citizens, not those of Mexico, China, England, Russia, or France. This is self-evident, for in the Preamble itself we are informed that:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The document differentiates between citizens and non-citizens. For example, aliens cannot hold the offices of U.S. Representative or Senator. Article I Section 8 bestows Congress with the power to create uniform Rules of Naturalization. Section 9 reveals that Congress may not hinder individual states in allowing the migration or importation of people who meet the states' approval. We're also told that Habeus Corpus may not be suspended, with the exceptions of invasion or rebellion. Question: If 1.1 million illegal aliens entering our borders annually doesn't constitute an invasion, pray tell, what would?
Article II Section 1 informs us that non-citizens may not hold the office of the President. By extension, the Vice President also must meet citizenship requirements, since the possibility exists of his becoming Chief Executive in a time of crisis. Electors must be residents of the states they represent, disqualifying illegal aliens.
The point of the above is to illustrate that the Constitution--and those who molded it--made distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. Non-citizens did not hold the same rights and privileges as citizens.
Let's take a look at the Bill of Rights and its application to aliens. Amendment 1 provides freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petitioning the government. It only applies in part. It's absurd on its face that aliens should have the latitude to become members of our press, initiate assemblies, or petition the government. I have no gripe with extending freedom of religion or speech to aliens.
The Second Amendment deals with gun ownership. The idea that aliens have a right to bear arms within our borders is asinine and conducive to chaos.
Amendment 3 is not applicable to this conversation. Amendment 4 entails search and seizure rights. I believe this applies to aliens, because private property is just that, regardless one's position on a map, and should be held inviolate.
Amendment 5 details due process and just compensation. This extends to aliens, because it harkens back to the natural rights of all men: life, liberty and property, except where due process has run its course.
Amendments 6 (speedy trial, confronting witnesses), 7 (trial by jury in civil cases), and 8 (no cruel or unusual punishment) are relatives of Amendment 5, so they apply to aliens. Amendments 9 and 10 are general statements about the Constitution's nature, and the powers of the states and their citizens.
For length purposes, I'll not deconstruct the other Amendments. We have a mixed bag. When we speak of life, liberty, property and due process, the Constitution sides with everyone in our territories, not just citizens. This harmonizes with a key principle fleshed out in our earlier Declaration of Independence, which states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Fitting aspects of our Constitution apply to all people within our borders, whether citizen or alien. Outside these parameters, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that other elements in the Constitution should be construed to elevate aliens to the level of citizens. After all, if aliens share all the same rights and privileges as citizens, then there is no such thing as citizenship. This idea is diametrically opposed to everything our Founders held dear.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Ouch
Florida now probing Ann Coulter for fraud
I read this headline at World Net Daily, and my first reaction was:
"That must hurt. Just be thankful it's Florida, and not Alaska."
Yes, I have a somewhat tarnished mind.
I read this headline at World Net Daily, and my first reaction was:
"That must hurt. Just be thankful it's Florida, and not Alaska."
Yes, I have a somewhat tarnished mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)