Lying for the Masses' Sake

George W. Bush defines himself as a "compassionate conservative;" he ran as such in 2000, making the description his campaign's centerpiece. Some deluded folks still characterize him in this fashion, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

I contend that Bush is neither compassionate, nor conservative. Believing his self-description requires a twisting of these words' definitions, to such a degree that a more accurate elaboration of "compassionate conservatism" is "a term encompassing any- and everything that I (Bush) deem appropriate." It's Orwellian balderdash.

Take his so-called compassion. Where's his empathy for Americans displaced from certain occupations by illegal aliens? Where's the compassion for citizens working for depressed wages, again, due to illegal aliens flooding the labor market? When will his sympathy rear its head for victims of criminal aliens--the murdered, the raped, the robbed? What about their families, who must somehow pick up the pieces of their shattered lives and carry on? And what of private property violations at or near the borders? When will his heart break for those who cannot obtain prompt or adequate medical care, because ubiquitous illegal aliens have swamped local emergency rooms or forced the bankruptcy and subsequent closing of area hospitals? (I use the immigration issue in making my point because it clearly illustrates his indifference and contempt for the American people--particularly those in the middle or lower classes). If Mr. Bush retains any compassion in his soul, it is selectively applied to criminal foreign nationals, not his fellow citizens to whom he has sworn an oath.

As for the other component of his facade, conservatism is--by definition--inclusive of a desire to preserve or conserve a society. It is the maintenance of tradition. Can we call a man a "preserver" who happily abets the invasion of his country by criminals, terrorists, and others who neither share our language and culture, nor our values and love of this land, its people, or heritage? Conservatism promotes decentralized government and decreased government spending of taxpayer monies; Bush stands for neither of these basic tenets of conservative philosophy. True conservatives do not seek to undermine the rule of law or the Constitution of the United States--in non-enforcement of immigration policies and support for a regional government or North American "union." To the extent that conservatism has an objectively identifiable meaning, Bush neither understands nor adheres to it, unless one counts paying it lip service.

So why does Bush present himself as a conservative, when he clearly has no familiarity with the concept, in practice? The answer is that the powers-that-be understand the American people's right-of-center outlook. We're talking about a con job: two duelling parties, both of whom love and worship socialism. But what to do, when the American people aren't "ready" for full-blown, in-your-face socialism or Communism? Why, by playing the shell game. Present one candidate as a leftist ideologue, and the other as a strict conservative. The citizenry automatically (and predictably) gravitates toward the "conservative" contender, never realizing that he is a socialist in disguise. This sleight-of-hand works beautifully, because no matter which party wins the contest, socialism survives the day and becomes instituted.

America is not completely in the toilet, yet, though she dances on the rim. That these rival factions still feel the need to play the game and obfuscate is proof of this, in my opinion. If Americans embraced socialism to the same degree as the Republican and Democrat parties, there would be no need to hide Oz behind a curtain of color and thunder and lightning.

Praise the Lawd, the Sky Is Falling!

A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution.

Insert Chicken Little hysteria here.

"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

The problem with your "logic" is that it would turn a contortionist into a pretzel. Complete with Sesame seeds. It's amusing how "academics" promote atheist/agnostic or Leftist dogmas as fact, and anyone who presents the slightest scepticism about their gospel must be so rude of intellect that he makes australopithecus look sophisticated.

"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."

Translation: "I'm terrified that someone who embraces scripture at face-value or rejects left-wing principles might become president."

A poll conducted last year showed that two-thirds of Americans believe in creationism, or the theory that God created humans at a single point in time, while 53 percent believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life -- the theory of evolution.

So if two-thirds of Americans believe in creationism, what possibly could be more ridiculous than electing a leader who shares their belief? That whole "representative" aspect of our political system has your stomach in knots, doesn't it, Herr Omenn?

By the way, notice this "objective news reporting" from the linked article:

The evolution versus creationism debate has crept into school classrooms and politics, where it is mainly conservative Republicans who espouse the non-scientific belief.

Yep. No bias there. The implication is that evolution is scientific, while creationism isn't. The reality is that neither are scientific, in the sense that they are subject to testing or observation.

"We're Fine Where We Are, Thanks."

From WorldNetDaily:

If given the option of living in a future Palestinian state, most Israeli Arabs would prefer to remain citizens of Israel, according to a new survey released this week.

You mean they actually prefer Jewish rule to that of Islamic overlords? How could that be? I was under the impression that Jews use Arab blood in their matzos, disembowel puppies for fun, and are in the planning stages of a secret project to knock Earth out of its orbit and send it spinning into the sun.

"The future Palestinian state would serve as a national solution for the Palestinians of the West Bank, those living in the refugee camps and those who are citizens with equal rights in the Jewish state," stated (Israeli Foreign Minister) Livni at a November press conference with France's foreign minister.

Talking about your pies in the sky. There is no "national solution" to the "Palestinian" problem; not when these people are engaged in a final "Final Solution," if you get my drift. A "Palestinian" state will serve as a staging ground for attacks on Israel, only from the back door, rather than across the street.

But a new poll conducted by Keevoon, an Israeli research and strategic communications company, found the majority of Israeli Arabs – 62 percent – don't want to live under Palestinian rule.

Only 14 percent of respondents said they would prefer to live in a Palestinian state and not Israel if given the choice, while 24 percent did not express an opinion or refused to answer.

Notice that this isn't a poll of Arab Christians, but of Arabs in general--be they Christian or Muslim. I wonder how many of the 24% non-respondents were worried about being "Islamocized" in a back alley, somewhere, no doubt accounting for their reticence.

Mitchell Barak, managing director of Keevoon, told WND, "The survey challenges the widely held claim that Israeli Arabs have national aspirations for statehood. Most expressed a desire to remain Israeli when given a choice."

I Am Legend

Richard Matheson's book of the same title was published in 1954. Ten years later, the first cinematic version hit the screens--a low-budget film called The Last Man on Earth, starring Vincent Price. In 1971 came Charlton Heston's movie, The Omega Man, the second adaptation of Matheson's book. The third is Will Smith's new film, the only one sharing the novel's original title.

None of these attempts follow the book in every detail, but the closest match is the first entry, if memory serves (I read the book about fifteen years ago). The Omega Man is a better movie, technically speaking, but diverges from the novel even further. Smith's film departs as much or more, and this is the main problem with it.

I've never understood the attitude behind tinkering with good storylines. It's as if screenwriters/producers/directors have an innate need to mold something into their own creation, even if the outcome is foreign or even anathema to the source material. With rare exceptions, stories are not improved when this mindset prevails. It's bizarre that filmmakers believe that certain novels and shorter works need screen treatments, but do not deserve to make the transition intact. With I Am Legend, whole segments of the story--particularly the ending--veer away from Matheson's novel, with no legitimate reason for doing so. Nor am I talking about condensing for screen-time considerations, but alteration of the plot itself. I believe I would have enjoyed the movie far more, had I not read the novel, first.

Unjustified nonadherence to the book aside, this film has a lot to offer. Will Smith carries the movie singlehandedly; his acting is right on the button. I think he demonstrates with each film project his considerable acting skill, and justly deserved fame. Another high point is the visual effects, especially the set pieces and atmosphere. I was amazed at how the filmmakers made a large city look deserted, with nature reclaiming a once-thriving metropolis. Little details throughout lent hints of realism to an otherwise fantastic subject matter, as well. I also enjoyed the intense feelings of dread and suspense elicited in some scenes.

If you're looking for a faithful rendition of the novel to the big screen, don't bother with this one. It takes one too many liberties with the original story. On the other hand, if you're on the lookout for a good science fiction/horror movie that rises above the typical dreck found in your local theater (think Saw LX, or whatever), I recommend I Am Legend.

Happy New Year!

I haven't made any new year's resolutions, as I just don't have enough resolve. Oh, well. I'll just resolve to do better next year.

Silly Snippets

The discrepancies about Bhutto's death are a real end-of-year eye-rolling moment: apparently, lead poisoning and self-inflicted cranial surgery played pivotal roles, but a festering ingrown toenail did for her. That's what they mean by martyrdom.

Have you listened to this Mark Belling guy who fills in for Rush, on occasion? I love that nasal midwestern twang. Imagine Freddy Kruger raking his hand up and down a chalkboard. His voice makes that sound like classical music.

Marvel Comics is teeming up with the U.N. in creating a new superhero. His name is Wild Oats, and he'll be sowing them in war-ravaged countries all over the globe. Forcibly. However, in keeping with U.N. adequacy, he'll fire blanks.

I hear that I Am Legend is being billed as I Iz Legend in certain ghettofied localities. The blurb: "Dass rite. He all dat an' a bag o' cawn chips!"

And a Spirit of Inclusivity Hovered Over Them

To all my Christian commenters and readers: Merry Christmas! Or alternately, Merry "Outrage toward Pagan Trappings" day! I hope you have a great time with family and friends.

To the Atheists: Merry "Of Myself I Sing!" day!

To the pagans: Merry Sol Invictus! Throw another sacrificial "kid" on the 'barby!

To the Jews: Happy Hanukkah!

To the black Marxists: Merry Kwanzaa!

To the hippies: Merry Bongwater Imbibing day!

To the green-blooded: Merry Douglas Fir Cultivation (and Worship) day!

To the shopaholics: Merry Bankruptcy day!

To the invaders incrementally changing the demography of our country: Feliz Navidad!

A Politically Correct Christmas Story

"There's a problem with the angel," said a Pharisee who happened to be strolling by the stable. As he explained to Joseph, angels are widely regarded as religious symbols, and the stable was on public property where such symbols were not allowed to land or even hover.

"Besides," said a Sadducee who was with him, "there are no such things as angels, and telling a child that they're real will only hinder the child's emotional development."

"And I have to tell you," said the Pharisee, "this whole thing looks very much like a Nativity scene. That's a no-no, too."

Joseph had a bright idea. "What if I put a couple of reindeer over there near the ox and ass?" he said, eager to avoid sectarian strife.

"That would definitely help," said the Pharisee, who knew as well as anyone that whenever a savior appeared, judges usually liked to be on the safe side and surround it with deer or woodland creatures of some sort. "Just to clinch it, throw in a candy cane and a couple of elves and snowmen, too," he said. "No court can resist that."

Mary asked, "What does my son's birth have to do with snowmen?"

"Snowpersons," cried a young woman, changing the subject before it veered dangerously toward religion.

Off to the side of the crowd, a Philistine was painting the Nativity scene. Mary complained that she and Joseph looked too tattered and worn in the picture. "Artistic license," he said. "I've got to show the plight of the haggard homeless in a greedy, uncaring society in winter," he quipped.

"We're not haggard or homeless. The inn was just full," said Mary.

"Whatever," said the painter.

Two women began to argue fiercely. One said she objected to Jesus' birth "because it privileged motherhood." The other scoffed at virgin births, but said that if they encouraged more attention to diversity in family forms and the rights of single mothers, well, then, she was all for them.

"I'm not a single mother," Mary started to say, but she was cut off by a third woman who insisted that swaddling clothes are a form of child abuse, since they restrict the natural movement of babies.

With the arrival of ten child advocates, all trained to spot infant abuse and manger rash, Mary and Joseph were pushed to the edge of the crowd, where arguments were breaking out over how many reindeer (or what mix of reindeer and seasonal sprites) had to be installed to compensate for the infant's unfortunate religious character.

An older man bustled up, bowling over two merchants, who had been busy debating whether an elf is the same as a fairy and whether the elf/fairy should be shaking hands with Jesus in the crib or merely standing to the side, jumping around like a sports mascot.

"I'd hold off on the reindeer," the man said, explaining that the use of asses and oxen as picturesque backdrops for Nativity scenes carries the subliminal message of human dominance. He passed out two leaflets, one denouncing manger births as invasions of animal space, the other arguing that stables are "penned environments" where animals are incarcerated against their will. He had no opinion about elves or candy canes.

Signs declaring "Free the Bethlehem 2" began to appear, referring to the obviously exploited ass and ox. Someone said the halo on Jesus' head was elitist.

Mary was exasperated. "And what about you, old mother?" she said sharply to an elderly woman. "Are you here to attack the shepherds as prison guards for excluded species, maybe to complain that singing in Latin identifies us with our Roman oppressors, or just to say that I should have skipped patriarchal religiosity and joined some dumb new-age goddess religion?"

"None of the above," said the woman, "I just wanted to tell you that the Magi are here." Sure enough, the three wise men rode up.

The crowd gasped, "They're all male!" And "Not very multicultural!"

"Balthasar here is black," said one of the Magi.

"Yes, but how many of you are gay or disabled?" someone shouted. A committee was quickly formed to find an impoverished lesbian wise-person among the halt and lame of Bethlehem.

A calm voice said, "Be of good cheer, Mary, you have done well and your son will change the world."

At last, a sane person, Mary thought. She turned to see a radiant and confident female face.

The woman spoke again: "There is one thing, though. Religious holidays are important, but can't we learn to celebrate them in ways that unite, not divide? For instance, instead of all this business about 'Gloria in excelsis Deo,' why not just 'Season's Greetings'?"

Mary said, "You mean my son has entered human history to deliver the message, 'Hello, it's winter'?"

"That's harsh, Mary," said the woman. "Remember, your son could make it big in midwinter festivals, if he doesn't push the religion thing too far. Centuries from now, in nations yet unborn, people will give each other pricey gifts and have big office parties on his birthday. That's not chopped liver."

"Let me get back to you," Mary said.

In the meantime the Magi had been asked by others how much their gifts had cost, and when told the price several protested and said the money could have been better spent on the poor and homeless. "Besides," said one, "what can a baby do with gold, frankincense, and myrrh?"

"You don't understand," said one of the Magi, "we brought these gifts to honor and worship this child who has been born King of the Jews."

Whereupon the child advocates protested that adults should not pre-determine a child's future. "It should be left up to the child to decide for himself what he wants to be."

One of the shepherds called out from the back of the crowd: "The prophet Micah wrote that out of Bethlehem would come a Ruler to shepherd God's people"

"That's just a myth," said the head of the Prophet's Seminar who had just arrived with his committee. "We scholars have determined that the prophet's actually said very little of what they are credited with saying, and everything they reportedly said about a Messiah was added years later by other writers."

"How did you determine that?" asked Joseph.

The most intelligent member of the Prophet's Seminar was chosen as spokesperson and replied, "We cast lots."

After much talking, the various advocates agreed to meet again at a later date in a place more suitable for them and continue their discussions about the child's welfare. Gradually they drifted out of the stable and left the shepherds and the Magi alone with Joseph and Mary and the child.

Mary took Joseph's hand and said, "Husband, tell me again what the angel Gabriel said to you about our son.

Squeezing her hand, Joseph answered, "He said that we should call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

Mary looked down at her son and sighed deeply, and then said to no one in particular, "I wonder if they will let him?"

Gesundheit

A new U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities.

Uh-oh. Malfunction! Malfunction! Does not fit the accepted paradigm! My logic circuits are withering like a peace lily under a belching smokestack.

Sorry, but these can't be real scientists, can they? I mean, after all, only believers in Mother Gaia's outrage against the human infestation are gen-yoo-ine scientists. I'm sure these other poseurs received their "credentials" from diploma mills in Deliverance, Tennessee. Yep, they're like those wedding "chapels" in Vegas, where you pull into the drive-through and order a Deluxe Marital Combo, with a side-order or eternal bliss. Hold the prenup. Ph.D's While-U-Wait. Something like that.

After all, the Most Holy Lama of the Natural New World Order, St. Albert Gore Sanctus assures us that the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to our Earth Mother in all of history. Apparently its emissions irritate her mucous membranes, and our much-deserved destruction will come soon--not by water or fire. . .

. . .but in a colossal sneeze.

Discrimination!

The word makes you cringe, doesn't it? That means the left-wing societal wrecking balls have done their work nicely. We've been led to accept that "discrimination" is just another word for "deviltry." It embodies evil, pigheadedness, and mindless bigotry, right?

Wrong. Discrimination is showing preference for one thing over another, making a distinction for or against something. Awful, isn't it? Even worse, a true synonym for discrimination is "discernment." The mere thought of such a sinister concept as discernment terrifies those who villify "discriminators" everywhere. After all, discernment requires wisdom and a wee bit more than superficial thought. Since these lead to rejection of everything self-proclaimed anti-discriminators hold dear, they have no tolerance for either one.

"Discrimination" has become like the word "prejudiced." As soon as someone utters it, a wicked connotation attaches itself like a leech. No doubt leftists believe demons cackle and rub their hands together with glee, when someone "discriminates"--or at least they would, if they believed in demons. The closest they come to crediting these supernatural entities' existence is Rush Limbaugh.

Discrimination isn't a dirty word, regardless what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, illegal alien advocates, or the streetcorner hippie in desperate need of a bath tell you. How about rethinking your discrimination toward soap, Moonflower? Everyone discriminates; it's unavoidable. If you prefer Golden Delicious apples to Red Delicious, that's discrimination. If you like the company of atheists more than that of Christians, you're discriminating. If you like leaving the toilet seat up rather than putting it down, welcome to the ranks of discriminators. I've saved you a seat. Just let me lower it, first.

The point is that 100% of humanity stands guilty of discrimination. No one is innocent. So when someone screeches "That's discrimination!" the correct response is a variation of "That's right; thanks for pointing out the obvious." It's akin to nudging your friend, pointing at a passing car, and saying: "Hey, that's a car." Not exactly a meaningful observation for anyone who's ever laid eyes on an automobile.

What those who yell discrimination really mean is: "How dare you choose a side on a particular issue that is in conflict with my own opinion on the matter! You brute!" The problem isn't that you're discriminating; it's that you've discriminated against their take on the issue. And if they had a shred of honesty about them, they'd state it in this fashion.

The link's location escapes me, but I read a story a couple of days ago, in which an American was labeled a bigot for refusing to employ people in his private business who don't speak English. Someone correct me if I have the details wrong. What struck me as absurd is the simple fact that we live in a nation of English-speaking people. This always has been true of the United States; the colonies' founders were English speakers. It remains true, today, though the percentage is lower now than at any previous time, thanks to unrestricted, rampant migration from third-world, non-English-speaking countries. Do you find a Saudi Arabian desiring his employees to be fluent in Arabic ridiculous? How about a Parisian employing French speakers? And perish the thought, what if a native of Mexico exhibited wanton hubris in suggesting that his drug cartel heavies be conversant in Spanish? Bizarre, isn't it? Yet these mundane functions of other societies around the globe offend the delicate, hair-thin sensibilities of certain individuals in the U.S.A. You mean you think your workers should be able to communicate with each other, with you, and with customers? Why, the nerve! I'm partial to the silly grin, blank stare, and uncomprehending nod when ordering at Taco Bell.

I tire of the professionally offended, the wilting flowers who cannot make it through a single day without hunting down outrage like a pig roots for truffles. I'd like to plant my size-13 foot right where the good Lord split ya; problem is, I don't want to get dirty removing your head, first.

Hitman for Jesus

On the shootings in Colorado at the two Christian institutions:

Some atheist commenters at Vox's--who jump with glee at every conceivable chance to smear Christians--are blaming the shooter's Christian uprbringing for his decidedly anti-Christian behavior. Let's try a little exercise in logic, shall we?

Imagine a boy raised in an atheist household.

Imagine his renunciation of atheism as an adult.

Imagine his subsequent conversion to Islam.

Imagine his writing a long diatribe about hating atheists, including his desire to murder these infidels in Allah's name.

Imagine his later approaching two separate atheist institutions or meeting places and shooting and killing or wounding several people.

According to the idiots gibbering at Vox's place, we should blame atheism for his behavior, not the influence of Islam. Just exchange atheism for Christianity, and Islam for atheistic nihilism; that's exactly what they're doing. I wonder if they also accept the "logic" of the analogy I've offered, here?

Somehow I doubt it.

What someone believed in the past is interesting, from a historical standpoint. But when someone commits an atrocity, what he believes at the time of its commission is far more relevant to understanding his actions, to shedding illumination upon a dark and forbidding place.

It's funny how people indict Christianity by utilizing examples of behavior at complete odds with its most basic teachings.

Se Habla?

My local newspaper ran an article recently about the public skewels' English language program, and the rising costs associated with it. According to the piece, the number of students requiring English-as-second-language instruction jumped from 80 to 112 since last year. The current budget is $116,000, but the educational committee is pushing for an increase to the upper $200,000s.

During this process, the Commissioner asked, "Is there any way to see if the children are legal?"

"I don't think you can ask that," the Director of the county skewels said.

He then went on to say that federal law requires supplementary instruction for students who are not proficient in English.

Now, that may be true; but surely the law makes an exception for illegal aliens. We're not even supposed to ask? Are we to believe that federal law dubs illegal entry into our country a misdemeanor crime, first offense, and a felony for subsequent offenses, but demands that the citizenry fork out money to pay for the education of these same people who shouldn't be on American soil, and are in violation of the above law in their mere presence? Either that is the policy--in all its insanity and incoherence--or it is not the law, and the Director of skewels simply doesn't give two chilli beans about anything more than his own warm feelings toward criminals.

It's Beginnin' ta Look A Lot Like Kwanzaa

It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Everwhur yew go.
Jus' look in da skewel halls
Where dey gettin' into brawls
An' trowin' mangers out in da snow.

It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Bongs in evry hand.
An' da coolest cat ya see--
Karenga Bwana, VIP--
Is dancin' like dey do in Zululand.

He's speakin' Swahili an' havin' sex freely
Jus' like dey do on da veldts.
He's dissin' poor whitey an' cussin' so mighty,
Ya know he hates Anglos an' Celts.
An' he hopes snow turns black 'fore it melts.

It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Everwhur yew go.
We're praisin' Engels an' Marx
In da churches an' da parks,
An' we're votin' fer Hill cuz we know she likes da bros.

It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
So yew bettah rep-uh-zent:
Git yore tamborines and drums;
Make dose ritzy streets yore slums,
Like dey do in da Dark Continent!

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.

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.

Tryptophan Overdose

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! Count your many blessings.

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."

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.

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.

. . .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

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.

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.

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 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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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!"

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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.

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.

"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.