By now, I'm sure everyone has heard about Okenya's little speech to Congress, during which Representative Joe Wilson (R - SC) stated, "You lie!" when the subject of illegal alien health care coverage arose.
Leaping on the story faster than Kanye West on someone else's microphone, the Okenya Sycophancy Media (OSM, hereafter) denounced Wilson as boorish and reprehensible in his behavior; Maureen Dowd and others - including Jimmy Carter - have even gone so far as to suggest that racism was the motivating factor in Wilson's outburst. Of course, no evidence need apply. The mere fact that one disagrees with the Mulatto Messiah is proof of racism, in and of itself; this has been Rule Number One for Democrats and the OSM since the day Okenya strolled into office after selling the nation a bill of goods.
Inevitably, the matter of whether or not Wilson was correct in his accusation is of less importance to the OSM than the question of Ronald Reagan's favorite Bible verse.
So while the OSM is checking for racists in every wood pile, let's address and answer the question: Was Joe Wilson correct?
I'll let the following passages speak for themselves:
Barbara Simpson: I have the full copy of H.R. 3200 at home on my dining room table – all 1,017 pages of it. I've read it all. There's nothing in it that screens out non-residents, much less illegal aliens.
Indeed, two congressional committee attempts to pass legislation to specifically require proof of legality were twice voted down by Democrats.
Ann Coulter (responding to Rachel Maddow of MSNBC): In other words, illegal aliens are excluded from precisely one section of the thousand-page, goodie-laden health-care bill: Section 246, which distributes taxpayer-funded "affordability credits" to people who can't afford to pay for their own health care.
Even this minor restriction on taxpayer largesse to illegals will immediately be overturned by the courts. But the point is: Except for vouchers, the bill does not even pretend to exclude illegals from any part of national health care – including the taxpayer-funded health insurance plan.
Moreover, liberals won't have to wait for some court to find that the words "nothing in this subtitle shall allow" means "this bill allows," because the bill contains no mechanism to ensure that the health-care vouchers aren't going to illegal aliens. Nor does the bill prohibit the states from providing taxpayer-funded health care vouchers to illegals.
Democrats keep voting down Republican amendments that would insert these restrictions – just before dashing to a TV studio to denounce anyone who says the health-care bill covers illegal aliens.
Examiner.com: The Center for Immigration Studies reported that Obamacare could benefit 6.6 million illegal immigrants, costing taxpayers an estimated $31 billion. The Congressional Research Service stated that Obamacare "does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens – whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently – participating in the exchange." The CRS also noted that there is no requirement for people to present proof of citizenship for coverage. In July, Republican Representative Nathan Deal proposed an amendment that would require identity verification for coverage, but the amendment was defeated by the House. (emphasis mine)
Given that the health care deform bill is Okenya's pet project, belief in his ignorance about what it contains or omits simply isn't credible. That leaves us with duplicity.
Last time I checked, actions speak louder than words. So the OSM, Okenya, and his acolytes in the Democrat Party shouldn't expect our trust, when their actions don't match their words. Contrary to the zeitgeist, our president isn't a god; we're not obligated to accept on faith whatever steaming load he shovels at us -- despite all contrary evidence. Until Okenya and the Democrats explain why efforts at amending the bill by excluding illegal aliens were voted down, and when they provide rational answers as to why a one thousand - plus - page document includes no significant language banning border jumpers from blanket coverage, I'll continue in my agreement with Joe Wilson, and reiterate his words:
"You lie."
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Crusades of Greed?
In a recent discussion regarding atheism at Vox Popoli, a commenter made this statement:
It wasn't religion that was responsible for the crusades, 30 years war, or anything for that matter, it was peoples greed, need for revenge, pride, ego, etc etc. that did it and they just used religion as a JUSTIFICATION. So religion wasn't to blame, it was just a tool to justify peoples own selfish desires. -- Theological Discourse, 9/6/09, 5:23 PM
The above was an attempt at using atheists' logic against them. This comment followed:
At least in the case of the Crusades, greed (economic considerations) actually were the main reason. Religion was just a red herring. (Think of "Clue" the movie.) -- Duckman, 9/6/09, 5:26PM
The second utterance couldn't be further from the truth. It is debatable whether economic considerations were factors; what is not debatable is that they were not primary factors.
How does greed explain the rich nobles who sold off vast tracts of land or other significant portions of their estates -- or in some cases, virtually everything they owned -- that their followers should have food and clothing and weapons? Does this behavior stem from greed as a primary motivator?
How about the poor peasants who left home and hearth, their wives and children -- some with the anticipation that they would never look upon their loved ones again -- and set forth into a land unknown? Lust for monetary gain does not satisfy as an explanation.
Some relevant passages:
Some scholars used to make much of the idea that crusaders gained great wealth from the Crusades, and that most crusaders were motivated by greed and a hunger for power. The primary sources do not bear this out, as crusading seems to have been a hard, lonely, expensive, dangerous proposition. Few if any serious students of the Crusades accept this explanation today.
***
For medieval men and women, the crusade was an act of piety, charity, and love; but it was also a means of defending their world, their culture, and their way of life. It is not surprising, then, that the crusades lost their appeal when Christians no longer identified themselves first and foremost as members of one body of Christ. By the sixteenth century, Europe was dividing itself along political rather than religious lines. In that new world, the crusade had no place.
***
Historians used to believe that a rise in Europe's population led to a crisis of too many noble "second sons," those who were trained in chivalric warfare but who had no feudal lands to inherit. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending these belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else's expense.
Modern scholarship, assisted by the advent of computer databases, has exploded this myth. We now know that it was the "first sons" of Europe that answered the Pope's call in 1095, as well as in subsequent Crusades.
Crusading was an enormously expensive operation. Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds. Most were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.
After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home. Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories.
Booty was also scarce. In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses. But money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place. They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land.
They underwent such expense and hardship because they believed that by coming to the aid of their Christian brothers and sisters in the East they were storing up treasure where rust and moth cannot corrupt.
They were very mindful of Christ's exhortation that he who will not take up his cross is not worthy of Christ. They also remembered that "Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends."
Once can argue whether or not the Crusades demonstrated a good idea brought to fruition; one even can debate the moral necessity and ramifications of such pilgrimages. But the idea that the Crusades originated in base greed is a notion not borne out by the known historical facts. Speaking of "primary," this is one of the primary areas of historical study for attracting those who enjoy spouting off, safe from the bastions of ignorance. It's right up there with the history of modern science, and the "Civil" War.
It wasn't religion that was responsible for the crusades, 30 years war, or anything for that matter, it was peoples greed, need for revenge, pride, ego, etc etc. that did it and they just used religion as a JUSTIFICATION. So religion wasn't to blame, it was just a tool to justify peoples own selfish desires. -- Theological Discourse, 9/6/09, 5:23 PM
The above was an attempt at using atheists' logic against them. This comment followed:
At least in the case of the Crusades, greed (economic considerations) actually were the main reason. Religion was just a red herring. (Think of "Clue" the movie.) -- Duckman, 9/6/09, 5:26PM
The second utterance couldn't be further from the truth. It is debatable whether economic considerations were factors; what is not debatable is that they were not primary factors.
How does greed explain the rich nobles who sold off vast tracts of land or other significant portions of their estates -- or in some cases, virtually everything they owned -- that their followers should have food and clothing and weapons? Does this behavior stem from greed as a primary motivator?
How about the poor peasants who left home and hearth, their wives and children -- some with the anticipation that they would never look upon their loved ones again -- and set forth into a land unknown? Lust for monetary gain does not satisfy as an explanation.
Some relevant passages:
Some scholars used to make much of the idea that crusaders gained great wealth from the Crusades, and that most crusaders were motivated by greed and a hunger for power. The primary sources do not bear this out, as crusading seems to have been a hard, lonely, expensive, dangerous proposition. Few if any serious students of the Crusades accept this explanation today.
***
For medieval men and women, the crusade was an act of piety, charity, and love; but it was also a means of defending their world, their culture, and their way of life. It is not surprising, then, that the crusades lost their appeal when Christians no longer identified themselves first and foremost as members of one body of Christ. By the sixteenth century, Europe was dividing itself along political rather than religious lines. In that new world, the crusade had no place.
***
Historians used to believe that a rise in Europe's population led to a crisis of too many noble "second sons," those who were trained in chivalric warfare but who had no feudal lands to inherit. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending these belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else's expense.
Modern scholarship, assisted by the advent of computer databases, has exploded this myth. We now know that it was the "first sons" of Europe that answered the Pope's call in 1095, as well as in subsequent Crusades.
Crusading was an enormously expensive operation. Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds. Most were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.
After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home. Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories.
Booty was also scarce. In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses. But money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place. They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land.
They underwent such expense and hardship because they believed that by coming to the aid of their Christian brothers and sisters in the East they were storing up treasure where rust and moth cannot corrupt.
They were very mindful of Christ's exhortation that he who will not take up his cross is not worthy of Christ. They also remembered that "Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends."
Once can argue whether or not the Crusades demonstrated a good idea brought to fruition; one even can debate the moral necessity and ramifications of such pilgrimages. But the idea that the Crusades originated in base greed is a notion not borne out by the known historical facts. Speaking of "primary," this is one of the primary areas of historical study for attracting those who enjoy spouting off, safe from the bastions of ignorance. It's right up there with the history of modern science, and the "Civil" War.
Monday, September 7, 2009
"Progress" by the Sword
President Barack Obama on Tuesday praised American Muslims for enriching the nation's culture at a dinner to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
How many times has this guy done this, now? I've lost count. I suppose 9/11 qualifies as enrichment. It's the religion's most lavish effort toward that end, after all.
"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country," Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday's daily fast.
Oallah has contributed to the same steaming load as Duhbya, only far more often, and with heightened laudatory language. A product of the American public indoctrination centers knows more about U.S. history than this clown.
The president joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."
Man, this would be pure comedy gold, if it wasn't vomited forth by someone who should know better. I know that I define progress as physically attacking people who don't share my religion, destroying ancient civilizations, pillaging and raping, oppressing women, treating non - Muslims as tenth - class citizens, and bestowing the three illustrious gifts of slavery, death, or acceptance of Allah to those whom Muslims defeat. If you don't consider this progress, then you're just not forward enough in your thinking.
By the by, why would you celebrate a major holiday of a religion that isn't your own? I can't remember the last time I heard tell of a Muslim celebrating Easter.
How many times has this guy done this, now? I've lost count. I suppose 9/11 qualifies as enrichment. It's the religion's most lavish effort toward that end, after all.
"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country," Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday's daily fast.
Oallah has contributed to the same steaming load as Duhbya, only far more often, and with heightened laudatory language. A product of the American public indoctrination centers knows more about U.S. history than this clown.
The president joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."
Man, this would be pure comedy gold, if it wasn't vomited forth by someone who should know better. I know that I define progress as physically attacking people who don't share my religion, destroying ancient civilizations, pillaging and raping, oppressing women, treating non - Muslims as tenth - class citizens, and bestowing the three illustrious gifts of slavery, death, or acceptance of Allah to those whom Muslims defeat. If you don't consider this progress, then you're just not forward enough in your thinking.
By the by, why would you celebrate a major holiday of a religion that isn't your own? I can't remember the last time I heard tell of a Muslim celebrating Easter.
81 Years
What a great testimony to love and loyalty.
It's nice reading the occasional poignant story amidst all the depressing indications of cultural suicide that we're currently enduring.
I think this is far more in - line with what God wants for marriage than the no - fault, I'm - bored - let's - get - a - divorce garbage we see on display with such troubling frequency in modern times.
It's nice reading the occasional poignant story amidst all the depressing indications of cultural suicide that we're currently enduring.
I think this is far more in - line with what God wants for marriage than the no - fault, I'm - bored - let's - get - a - divorce garbage we see on display with such troubling frequency in modern times.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Ted the Red Is Dead
I don't know about my readers, but I'm sick of hearing accolades heaped upon the moldering, pickled carcass of Ted "Commie Red" Kennedy. Someone explain to me what is praiseworthy about a man who championed socialism for his entire political career?
While you're at it, walk me through the honor found in the Chappaquiddick incident, in which Kennedy "accidentally" drove off a bridge with a girl in his vehicle, escaped the wreck and left her to die, then reported the incident the following day, after authorities had located her body. Mary Jo Kopechne's death resulted from Kennedy's probable intoxication while operating a motor vehicle, and poor old Ted somehow soldiered through the harsh sentence of a two - month suspended jail term. What stoicism in the face of adversity. As sterling demonstrations of his statesmanship, Kennedy has been known to make jokes about Chappaquiddick, over the years.
Various organizations from across the political spectrum -- such as Americans for Democratic Action and the American Conservative Union, NARAL, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the NRA, the National Right to Life Committee, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence -- all find common ground in one area, at least: that Ted Kennedy was one of the most left - wing members of the Senate.
Good ol' Uncle Ted supported a woman's "right" to choose to kill her innocent, unborn child. He backed "gay" special rights. And he was one of the most shameless panderers to illegal aliens in U.S. politics.
I see nothing noble about a life lived in direct contravention of the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers, the Catholic Church with whom he claimed membership, and the moral laws of God. In all of his major political views, this man staked positions anathema to historical Americanism. For him, bipartisanship meant "convincing people that my way is better than the highway."
Ted Kennedy was part of the problem with our country. Other politicans of like mind still pose threats to our once - great nation. Every man is a mixed bag, but you cannot put on a straight face and argue that Ted Kennedy was a net good for America -- not if you have an inkling of an idea what the Founders intended. But let me tell you what is good for America: that Kennedy is no longer a craftsman of social policy or a standard - bearer for immorality. We now have one less enemy within our gates, hell - bent on this nation's dissolution.
While you're at it, walk me through the honor found in the Chappaquiddick incident, in which Kennedy "accidentally" drove off a bridge with a girl in his vehicle, escaped the wreck and left her to die, then reported the incident the following day, after authorities had located her body. Mary Jo Kopechne's death resulted from Kennedy's probable intoxication while operating a motor vehicle, and poor old Ted somehow soldiered through the harsh sentence of a two - month suspended jail term. What stoicism in the face of adversity. As sterling demonstrations of his statesmanship, Kennedy has been known to make jokes about Chappaquiddick, over the years.
Various organizations from across the political spectrum -- such as Americans for Democratic Action and the American Conservative Union, NARAL, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the NRA, the National Right to Life Committee, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence -- all find common ground in one area, at least: that Ted Kennedy was one of the most left - wing members of the Senate.
Good ol' Uncle Ted supported a woman's "right" to choose to kill her innocent, unborn child. He backed "gay" special rights. And he was one of the most shameless panderers to illegal aliens in U.S. politics.
I see nothing noble about a life lived in direct contravention of the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers, the Catholic Church with whom he claimed membership, and the moral laws of God. In all of his major political views, this man staked positions anathema to historical Americanism. For him, bipartisanship meant "convincing people that my way is better than the highway."
Ted Kennedy was part of the problem with our country. Other politicans of like mind still pose threats to our once - great nation. Every man is a mixed bag, but you cannot put on a straight face and argue that Ted Kennedy was a net good for America -- not if you have an inkling of an idea what the Founders intended. But let me tell you what is good for America: that Kennedy is no longer a craftsman of social policy or a standard - bearer for immorality. We now have one less enemy within our gates, hell - bent on this nation's dissolution.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Atheist Objections Part VII
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
#7 (Non-reductive physicalism) There is no empirical evidence and/or reason to accept the concept of a non-material soul. Christopher Hitchens brought this up in a recent debate with a Jewish Rabbi at New York City. Non-reductive physicalism makes the most sense when analyzing human behavior. Why do we see our grandparents lose all sense of awareness? Or a particular disease makes someone change their entire demeanor. What about Phineas Gage? It appears to be obvious that all our behavior stems from physical components and that there is nothing outside of the material world in creating cognitive thoughts as well as our temperament.
He assumes that the sole legitimate form of evidence is empirical evidence. This contention aside, what is "empirical evidence?" The Oxford English Dictionary (online) says: adjective -- based on observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
OK, having observed and experienced myself for my entire life, I can say that I am more than just a collection of atoms on a one - way trip to oblivion's boneyard. As sure as anyone knows anything, I know that I am a soul. I'm aware that this fails as conclusive proof, but it passes the test as observational and experiential, if for me alone. If you want scientific evidence of an external, demonstrable quality, look elsewhere. I have the internal evidence of myself, but I cannot lay it on a slide under a microscope for you.
That said, embracing Hitchens' reasoning, I can say with confidence that no empirical evidence exists that he loves his mother; therefore, he does not love his mother. See the endless possibilities for this brand of "logic?"
Speaking of logic, it cannot abide the nonexistence of souls. Logic is reason or sound judgment. If we are happy accidents -- mere bundles of mobile matter -- and not spiritual beings encased in physical bodies, then we have no reason to insist on the concept of rationality, as our thoughts have purely material origins, and may or may not be reliable. If we cannot know if our thoughts are reliable, logic loses its usefulness to us, because logic assumes A.) its own existence, and B.) that it is comprehensible to humanity. By the way, science as we understand it accepts the existence and general reliability of logic as an axiom. Without reason, our whole basis for morality and government and justice flies right out the window.
If we have no souls, then free will is a pipe dream. We are slaves to the materials that make up our bodies. Our thoughts and actions are predetermined. Here I must add that I've never known another human being who lived his life as if he assumed that others had no control over their actions, being products of unguided materialism.
The logical end of materialism is nihilism; if we are biological automatons, then the murderer or rapist or robber is as much a victim of physics as the murdered, the raped, or the robbed. The idea that non - reductive physicalism makes the most sense of human behavior is a naked assertion; that's an interesting argumentative tack for someone demanding empirical evidence for the soul.
I have read that every seven to nine years, or thereabouts, the matter of our bodies is replaced, including that in our brains. So the physical components that constituted the superficial me no longer exist as parts of my body; yet I remain myself. I have memories of events that occured before the materials of my physical makeup became parts of the greater whole that is the material me. If this doesn't impress you as strong evidence that humans are more than matter conglomerations, I dare say that nothing else would, either.
We also have the Holy Bible as evidence that humans have souls, offering a plethora of verses on the subject. We are told about life after death (Revelation 6:9), obtaining salvation for one's soul (John 3:16), and even finding rest for our souls (Matthew 11:29), among numerous other references.
On the subject of grandparents "losing all sense of awareness," I don't know what this means; he should have elaborated further. My maternal great - grandmother suffered from an advanced state of Alzheimer's Disease at the time of her passing. She also had pneumonia. My paternal grandfather succumbed to a rare form of bone cancer. At no point did either of my loved ones "lose all sense of awareness."
As for injuries / diseases that change a person's demeanor, I can see how one might argue for an irrevocable link between the physical and spiritual in our lives on Earth, but I don't see how this supports the nonexistence of souls. It also fits the biblical view that we live in a fallen world. If you've read most or all of these posts addressing atheist objections, you've probably noticed the trend of atheists and agnostics ignoring this central Christian tenet in their questioning of Christians, as I have pointed it out more than once.
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
#7 (Non-reductive physicalism) There is no empirical evidence and/or reason to accept the concept of a non-material soul. Christopher Hitchens brought this up in a recent debate with a Jewish Rabbi at New York City. Non-reductive physicalism makes the most sense when analyzing human behavior. Why do we see our grandparents lose all sense of awareness? Or a particular disease makes someone change their entire demeanor. What about Phineas Gage? It appears to be obvious that all our behavior stems from physical components and that there is nothing outside of the material world in creating cognitive thoughts as well as our temperament.
He assumes that the sole legitimate form of evidence is empirical evidence. This contention aside, what is "empirical evidence?" The Oxford English Dictionary (online) says: adjective -- based on observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
OK, having observed and experienced myself for my entire life, I can say that I am more than just a collection of atoms on a one - way trip to oblivion's boneyard. As sure as anyone knows anything, I know that I am a soul. I'm aware that this fails as conclusive proof, but it passes the test as observational and experiential, if for me alone. If you want scientific evidence of an external, demonstrable quality, look elsewhere. I have the internal evidence of myself, but I cannot lay it on a slide under a microscope for you.
That said, embracing Hitchens' reasoning, I can say with confidence that no empirical evidence exists that he loves his mother; therefore, he does not love his mother. See the endless possibilities for this brand of "logic?"
Speaking of logic, it cannot abide the nonexistence of souls. Logic is reason or sound judgment. If we are happy accidents -- mere bundles of mobile matter -- and not spiritual beings encased in physical bodies, then we have no reason to insist on the concept of rationality, as our thoughts have purely material origins, and may or may not be reliable. If we cannot know if our thoughts are reliable, logic loses its usefulness to us, because logic assumes A.) its own existence, and B.) that it is comprehensible to humanity. By the way, science as we understand it accepts the existence and general reliability of logic as an axiom. Without reason, our whole basis for morality and government and justice flies right out the window.
If we have no souls, then free will is a pipe dream. We are slaves to the materials that make up our bodies. Our thoughts and actions are predetermined. Here I must add that I've never known another human being who lived his life as if he assumed that others had no control over their actions, being products of unguided materialism.
The logical end of materialism is nihilism; if we are biological automatons, then the murderer or rapist or robber is as much a victim of physics as the murdered, the raped, or the robbed. The idea that non - reductive physicalism makes the most sense of human behavior is a naked assertion; that's an interesting argumentative tack for someone demanding empirical evidence for the soul.
I have read that every seven to nine years, or thereabouts, the matter of our bodies is replaced, including that in our brains. So the physical components that constituted the superficial me no longer exist as parts of my body; yet I remain myself. I have memories of events that occured before the materials of my physical makeup became parts of the greater whole that is the material me. If this doesn't impress you as strong evidence that humans are more than matter conglomerations, I dare say that nothing else would, either.
We also have the Holy Bible as evidence that humans have souls, offering a plethora of verses on the subject. We are told about life after death (Revelation 6:9), obtaining salvation for one's soul (John 3:16), and even finding rest for our souls (Matthew 11:29), among numerous other references.
On the subject of grandparents "losing all sense of awareness," I don't know what this means; he should have elaborated further. My maternal great - grandmother suffered from an advanced state of Alzheimer's Disease at the time of her passing. She also had pneumonia. My paternal grandfather succumbed to a rare form of bone cancer. At no point did either of my loved ones "lose all sense of awareness."
As for injuries / diseases that change a person's demeanor, I can see how one might argue for an irrevocable link between the physical and spiritual in our lives on Earth, but I don't see how this supports the nonexistence of souls. It also fits the biblical view that we live in a fallen world. If you've read most or all of these posts addressing atheist objections, you've probably noticed the trend of atheists and agnostics ignoring this central Christian tenet in their questioning of Christians, as I have pointed it out more than once.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Atheist Objections Part VI
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
#6 (Occam’s Razor) Sam Harris says, "Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists. Scientists, of course, readily admit their ignorance on this point. There is, in fact, no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer."
While I think this can be turned on the atheist it certainly cannot be turned on the agnostic. Being a Christian means one has to pretend to know things that he/she does not know. Shouldn't one accept the least amount of beliefs that cannot be provided with sufficient evidence? Holding to unneeded presuppositions leads to bad conclusions to the things we do know or should know.
The first paragraph engages in question - begging; Harris assumes that the Holy Bible is not God's Word; a logical extension of this supposition is that no one knows why the universe exists. So Harris' view requires the presumption that his worldview is correct, which remains undemonstrated.
As to why humanity exists, God created us for His pleasure. Colossians 1:16: "All things were created by him and for him." His creative act brings Him pleasure and satisfaction, just as our own creative outlets bring us satisfaction, albeit on a lesser, sin - obscured level.
The universe exists for His pleasure, as well -- and for ours. Psalm 19:1: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." The universe is a constant, viewable evidence of His presence and glory.
I'm not sure why humans and animals, stars and planets bring Him pleasure, but they do; this was especially true before the Fall of Man. God has not explained Himself in full, but He also informed us that we should not find this surprising. Isaiah 55: 8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." 1 Corinthians 13:12: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." Acceptance of scripture means having faith that God has answers for us in the next life, even if we retain a degree of ignorance in this one.
The Christian does know why the universe exists. He does know why humanity exists. Some -- including Christians -- find the answers incomplete or unsatisfactory, and I sympathize with that. But agnosticism offers indecision and confusion, and atheism offers nothing. To sum up:
Christianity = a real but inexhaustive explanation.
Agnosticism = a refusal to offer an explanation.
Atheism = an inability to offer an explanation.
I know that the atheist or agnostic might observe that Christians also question - beg, in that they assume the truth of scripture in reaching certain conclusions. True, but the difference is that Christians admit the need for faith in their beliefs; atheists typically don't; and agnostics remain indecisive on the issue.
The position that we don't know why the universe exists is no less taking a stand on the issue than the notion that we do know.
I'd like to see Harris or his acolytes elaborate on how atheism better adheres to Ockham's Razor than Christianity. William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar and theologian. He saw no contradiction of his maxim in Christianity. His rule of thumb, stated simply, suggests that when two or more theories fit the facts, we should embrace the one requiring fewer assumptions. So atheists must explain how a belief that something originated from nothing stands superior to the belief that something came from something greater. Agnostics posit that God's existence is unknowable, but is this true? I can't prove beyond doubt that God exists, but the alternative is belief in materialistic spontaneous generation, or the assumption that life arose from inanimate matter, which was disproven by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century. And before anyone mentions abiogenesis, understand that it's just an updating and expansion of the same tired theory, dressed in modernized garb. So whereas I can't demonstrate God's indisputable existence, I can offer the same options from above: something from nothing, or something from something greater. You can't outrun the question by remaining an agnostic.
Regarding the idea that Christians profess knowledge they don't possess: We've already covered the faith aspect, earlier. That aside, we have the assumption, yet again, that scripture isn't God's Word to Man. So accusing Christians of "pretending" doesn't hold much water, since this remains unproven. The question of whether or not scripture is a fanciful compendium of fairy tales, or the Word of God, needs addressing before one can assert with integrity that Christians indulge in "make - believe." History, prophetic fulfillment, and ethical considerations indicate that the Holy Bible is far more than a book of fiction.
And I reiterate: the Christian worldview is more coherent and logical than one steeped in atheism or agnosticism.
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
#6 (Occam’s Razor) Sam Harris says, "Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists. Scientists, of course, readily admit their ignorance on this point. There is, in fact, no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer."
While I think this can be turned on the atheist it certainly cannot be turned on the agnostic. Being a Christian means one has to pretend to know things that he/she does not know. Shouldn't one accept the least amount of beliefs that cannot be provided with sufficient evidence? Holding to unneeded presuppositions leads to bad conclusions to the things we do know or should know.
The first paragraph engages in question - begging; Harris assumes that the Holy Bible is not God's Word; a logical extension of this supposition is that no one knows why the universe exists. So Harris' view requires the presumption that his worldview is correct, which remains undemonstrated.
As to why humanity exists, God created us for His pleasure. Colossians 1:16: "All things were created by him and for him." His creative act brings Him pleasure and satisfaction, just as our own creative outlets bring us satisfaction, albeit on a lesser, sin - obscured level.
The universe exists for His pleasure, as well -- and for ours. Psalm 19:1: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." The universe is a constant, viewable evidence of His presence and glory.
I'm not sure why humans and animals, stars and planets bring Him pleasure, but they do; this was especially true before the Fall of Man. God has not explained Himself in full, but He also informed us that we should not find this surprising. Isaiah 55: 8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." 1 Corinthians 13:12: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." Acceptance of scripture means having faith that God has answers for us in the next life, even if we retain a degree of ignorance in this one.
The Christian does know why the universe exists. He does know why humanity exists. Some -- including Christians -- find the answers incomplete or unsatisfactory, and I sympathize with that. But agnosticism offers indecision and confusion, and atheism offers nothing. To sum up:
Christianity = a real but inexhaustive explanation.
Agnosticism = a refusal to offer an explanation.
Atheism = an inability to offer an explanation.
I know that the atheist or agnostic might observe that Christians also question - beg, in that they assume the truth of scripture in reaching certain conclusions. True, but the difference is that Christians admit the need for faith in their beliefs; atheists typically don't; and agnostics remain indecisive on the issue.
The position that we don't know why the universe exists is no less taking a stand on the issue than the notion that we do know.
I'd like to see Harris or his acolytes elaborate on how atheism better adheres to Ockham's Razor than Christianity. William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar and theologian. He saw no contradiction of his maxim in Christianity. His rule of thumb, stated simply, suggests that when two or more theories fit the facts, we should embrace the one requiring fewer assumptions. So atheists must explain how a belief that something originated from nothing stands superior to the belief that something came from something greater. Agnostics posit that God's existence is unknowable, but is this true? I can't prove beyond doubt that God exists, but the alternative is belief in materialistic spontaneous generation, or the assumption that life arose from inanimate matter, which was disproven by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century. And before anyone mentions abiogenesis, understand that it's just an updating and expansion of the same tired theory, dressed in modernized garb. So whereas I can't demonstrate God's indisputable existence, I can offer the same options from above: something from nothing, or something from something greater. You can't outrun the question by remaining an agnostic.
Regarding the idea that Christians profess knowledge they don't possess: We've already covered the faith aspect, earlier. That aside, we have the assumption, yet again, that scripture isn't God's Word to Man. So accusing Christians of "pretending" doesn't hold much water, since this remains unproven. The question of whether or not scripture is a fanciful compendium of fairy tales, or the Word of God, needs addressing before one can assert with integrity that Christians indulge in "make - believe." History, prophetic fulfillment, and ethical considerations indicate that the Holy Bible is far more than a book of fiction.
And I reiterate: the Christian worldview is more coherent and logical than one steeped in atheism or agnosticism.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Man of Two Births
First we were told that the document provided online by Okenya was his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) from Hawaii. If you look at the document for yourself, you'll notice that it lists his birthdate as August 4, 1961.
Now Okenya's official MySpace page says that he's 52, not 48. If this is true, he was first swaddled in a red diaper in 1957, not 1961.
Both of these possible ages were provided by Okenya, himself.
To his defenders: Perhaps you can explain to all us silly conspiracy theorists how a man can be born in 1957 and 1961.
After reading this, if you don't believe Okenya is lying about his birth, I hope you're getting plenty of Miracle - Gro and water, each day, because you're dumb even by the standards of foliage.
Now Okenya's official MySpace page says that he's 52, not 48. If this is true, he was first swaddled in a red diaper in 1957, not 1961.
Both of these possible ages were provided by Okenya, himself.
To his defenders: Perhaps you can explain to all us silly conspiracy theorists how a man can be born in 1957 and 1961.
After reading this, if you don't believe Okenya is lying about his birth, I hope you're getting plenty of Miracle - Gro and water, each day, because you're dumb even by the standards of foliage.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
A Nativity Mystery
He has no documents extant,
No records of His life.
No paper trail will find him out.
He's uncut by that knife.
He's American as baseball
And homemade apple pie;
But if you press his place of birth,
He'll spit right in your eye.
Don't seek his advent doctor's name.
A COLB is all you'll get.
Don't ask where his first squalls took place.
Just kiss his coronet.
He'll smile his Serengeti smile
And snare you with his spell;
But ere you learn where he was spawned,
You'll ice - skate, first, in Hell.
No records of His life.
No paper trail will find him out.
He's uncut by that knife.
He's American as baseball
And homemade apple pie;
But if you press his place of birth,
He'll spit right in your eye.
Don't seek his advent doctor's name.
A COLB is all you'll get.
Don't ask where his first squalls took place.
Just kiss his coronet.
He'll smile his Serengeti smile
And snare you with his spell;
But ere you learn where he was spawned,
You'll ice - skate, first, in Hell.
"Marriage Ain't Easy. . . but I Sure Am"
I came across this "Dear Abby" letter from a couple of weeks back and thought I'd share its sterling advice with all of you:
DEAR ABBY: I have been married for four weeks. Two weeks after my wedding I met a man who excites me and makes my heart race. My husband, "Mitch," and I dated for eight years prior to getting married. We're both 25.
I have only slept with one other man than Mitch in my entire life -- someone I cheated on him with for a couple of weeks. Mitch and I had dated for two years at that point, and I was only 19. Mitch never found out.
I have spent two nights with this new man. I think about him constantly -- at work and at night when Mitch is asleep. I can't get him off my mind, and he feels the same about me. But he tells me that he feels guilty, that what we're doing is wrong and I should forget about him.
My relationship with Mitch is boring. We spend a lot of time at home and don't go out much. Mitch goes to bed early, and I'm tempted to leave and go see this other man. What do I do?
-- MARRIED, BUT ...
DEAR MARRIED, BUT ...: I suspect you already know what you need to do. First, level with your husband. Then see if you can have the marriage annulled because, although it has lasted only a month, it is already over.
And that's all, folks; that's the brilliance that earned her a daily newspaper column for decades. That's the wisdom and common sense that scythes right through to the heart of the matter. Can you imagine that she would've been so flippant about the intentional destruction of this marriage if a man had served as instigator? Where's her criticism of this extraordinarily selfish woman? These people married after an eight year "courtship," then the "wife" began cheating on her husband two weeks into their month - long marriage. What words adequately convey the depth of this sleazy treachery? And what is the likelihood that she remained faithful to him during the previous eight years, outside the one incident she mentions?
Notice how her partner in adultery seems more guilty in his feelings than she does. Her relationship is boring because hubby goes to bed early, and they don't go out much. Golly, I can't think of a better reason to stab him in the back and break the knife off at the hilt, can you? Forget sharing your concerns with him, girlie. Forget working out your problems -- none of which sound unsolvable. Making a mockery of your vows and relationship seems so much easier.
"Abby" obviously isn't a Christian, though her curt and nonjudgmental garbage is what I would expect from a feminist along the lines of "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." No condemnation of the uber - narcissism on display. No lecture about honesty and fidelity. No call for repentance. Just tell him the truth as you're walking out the door en route to your next tryst. That's impressive.
This brand of "advice" is part of the problem with America, today. And it's as useless as throwing an anvil to a drowning man.
Unless your goal is sending him to Davy Jones' Locker, of course.
DEAR ABBY: I have been married for four weeks. Two weeks after my wedding I met a man who excites me and makes my heart race. My husband, "Mitch," and I dated for eight years prior to getting married. We're both 25.
I have only slept with one other man than Mitch in my entire life -- someone I cheated on him with for a couple of weeks. Mitch and I had dated for two years at that point, and I was only 19. Mitch never found out.
I have spent two nights with this new man. I think about him constantly -- at work and at night when Mitch is asleep. I can't get him off my mind, and he feels the same about me. But he tells me that he feels guilty, that what we're doing is wrong and I should forget about him.
My relationship with Mitch is boring. We spend a lot of time at home and don't go out much. Mitch goes to bed early, and I'm tempted to leave and go see this other man. What do I do?
-- MARRIED, BUT ...
DEAR MARRIED, BUT ...: I suspect you already know what you need to do. First, level with your husband. Then see if you can have the marriage annulled because, although it has lasted only a month, it is already over.
And that's all, folks; that's the brilliance that earned her a daily newspaper column for decades. That's the wisdom and common sense that scythes right through to the heart of the matter. Can you imagine that she would've been so flippant about the intentional destruction of this marriage if a man had served as instigator? Where's her criticism of this extraordinarily selfish woman? These people married after an eight year "courtship," then the "wife" began cheating on her husband two weeks into their month - long marriage. What words adequately convey the depth of this sleazy treachery? And what is the likelihood that she remained faithful to him during the previous eight years, outside the one incident she mentions?
Notice how her partner in adultery seems more guilty in his feelings than she does. Her relationship is boring because hubby goes to bed early, and they don't go out much. Golly, I can't think of a better reason to stab him in the back and break the knife off at the hilt, can you? Forget sharing your concerns with him, girlie. Forget working out your problems -- none of which sound unsolvable. Making a mockery of your vows and relationship seems so much easier.
"Abby" obviously isn't a Christian, though her curt and nonjudgmental garbage is what I would expect from a feminist along the lines of "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." No condemnation of the uber - narcissism on display. No lecture about honesty and fidelity. No call for repentance. Just tell him the truth as you're walking out the door en route to your next tryst. That's impressive.
This brand of "advice" is part of the problem with America, today. And it's as useless as throwing an anvil to a drowning man.
Unless your goal is sending him to Davy Jones' Locker, of course.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Atheist Objections Part V
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
5. If abortion is wrong why is God the #1 abortion doctor? Sam Harris brings this up and Douglas Wilson's response is basically "God gives and takes away." It is what the Bible says but which worldview makes the most sense given the large number of miscarriages?
I find treating these questions with respect difficult, since most have implied assumptions built into them -- assumptions that atheist inquirers don't acknowledge. For example, in the above question he proffers the assumption that God participates with due dilligence in every infant miscarriage. It's self - evident that this is what he means; otherwise, why dub God "the #1 abortion doctor?" Abortion doctors (an oxymoronic association, if I've ever heard one) kill people with intent; it's the bulk of their job description. However, this is nothing but a joker in a house of cards. Why should we accept that God terminates children in the womb? Does He sit up on a cloud, and say: "Nah, I don't like little Billy - to - be, though I just created his soul a month ago." ZAP! Where's the evidence for this? Since our dear atheist sympathizer has provided none whatsoever, Christians have no obligation to answer in greater detail than I've offered, here, or even entertain this tripe as a serious attempt at understanding. This seems more like an effort at playing "Stump the Dummy."
As usual, the questioner ignores basic Christian teaching about a fallen world laboring under God's curse, which came as a result of sin.
He demonstrates confusion between action and inaction, as well. If I see two men in a fistfight, and I do nothing to stop it, is that the same as wading in and punching both in the face? Better yet, if I don't stop baby - killing at the local abortuary by going Rambo on the Hippocratic Hypocrites within, is that synonymous to performing abortions?
As a brief digression, I followed Douglas Wilson's debate with Christopher Hitchens at Christianity Today in its entirety. I've also perused his blog a time or two. I doubt that he'd offer something so facile as "God gives and takes away" as an answer to labeling God an abortionist. Rather, I think he'd skewer the atheist for his disingenuousness in asking a loaded question.
Part II
Part III
Part IV
5. If abortion is wrong why is God the #1 abortion doctor? Sam Harris brings this up and Douglas Wilson's response is basically "God gives and takes away." It is what the Bible says but which worldview makes the most sense given the large number of miscarriages?
I find treating these questions with respect difficult, since most have implied assumptions built into them -- assumptions that atheist inquirers don't acknowledge. For example, in the above question he proffers the assumption that God participates with due dilligence in every infant miscarriage. It's self - evident that this is what he means; otherwise, why dub God "the #1 abortion doctor?" Abortion doctors (an oxymoronic association, if I've ever heard one) kill people with intent; it's the bulk of their job description. However, this is nothing but a joker in a house of cards. Why should we accept that God terminates children in the womb? Does He sit up on a cloud, and say: "Nah, I don't like little Billy - to - be, though I just created his soul a month ago." ZAP! Where's the evidence for this? Since our dear atheist sympathizer has provided none whatsoever, Christians have no obligation to answer in greater detail than I've offered, here, or even entertain this tripe as a serious attempt at understanding. This seems more like an effort at playing "Stump the Dummy."
As usual, the questioner ignores basic Christian teaching about a fallen world laboring under God's curse, which came as a result of sin.
He demonstrates confusion between action and inaction, as well. If I see two men in a fistfight, and I do nothing to stop it, is that the same as wading in and punching both in the face? Better yet, if I don't stop baby - killing at the local abortuary by going Rambo on the Hippocratic Hypocrites within, is that synonymous to performing abortions?
As a brief digression, I followed Douglas Wilson's debate with Christopher Hitchens at Christianity Today in its entirety. I've also perused his blog a time or two. I doubt that he'd offer something so facile as "God gives and takes away" as an answer to labeling God an abortionist. Rather, I think he'd skewer the atheist for his disingenuousness in asking a loaded question.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Intelligent Design and Creationism
I keep seeing "brights" comment in the blogosphere that Intelligent Design is just another word for Creationism. After people explain the differences between the two and point them to web - links explicating the distinctions, they continue equating them -- as if no clarification were ever offered -- and even accuse ID'ers and Creationists of lying.
It seems that being an intellectual luminary these days means confusion over simple word definitions and an inability to conduct superficial research about the beliefs of those with whom one disagrees, with intellectual dishonesty thrown in for spice. Impressive.
Given the efforts made toward disabusing them of their false notions, we can't even give them the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance. The problem is either stupidity or conscious deceit.
Saying that Intelligent Design is the same as Creationism is like saying that being religious is the same as being a Muslim. And it's just as untrue.
Can a person be Muslim without being religious? No, because a Muslim is, by definition, one who follows the religion of Islam. But can a person be religious without being Muslim? Of course, because we know that a plethora of other religions exist -- such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Obamism, etc.
Can a person be a Creationist without being a believer in Intelligent Design? No, because Creationism assumes an intelligent designer as its starting point. But can a person advocate Intelligent Design without being a Creationist? Yes, because acceptance of a designer says nothing about the nature of that designer. Perhaps aliens seeded Earth (panspermia). Creationism, on the other hand, conforms to the Christian worldview. Further, it assumes a literal or face - value view of scripture -- regarding Genesis in particular.
If being religious is the set, then Islam is the subset. If ID is the set, then Creationism is the subset. There's nothing complicated about it.
Those who won't acknowledge these simple differences are corrupters of the English language, and enemies of truth.
It seems that being an intellectual luminary these days means confusion over simple word definitions and an inability to conduct superficial research about the beliefs of those with whom one disagrees, with intellectual dishonesty thrown in for spice. Impressive.
Given the efforts made toward disabusing them of their false notions, we can't even give them the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance. The problem is either stupidity or conscious deceit.
Saying that Intelligent Design is the same as Creationism is like saying that being religious is the same as being a Muslim. And it's just as untrue.
Can a person be Muslim without being religious? No, because a Muslim is, by definition, one who follows the religion of Islam. But can a person be religious without being Muslim? Of course, because we know that a plethora of other religions exist -- such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Obamism, etc.
Can a person be a Creationist without being a believer in Intelligent Design? No, because Creationism assumes an intelligent designer as its starting point. But can a person advocate Intelligent Design without being a Creationist? Yes, because acceptance of a designer says nothing about the nature of that designer. Perhaps aliens seeded Earth (panspermia). Creationism, on the other hand, conforms to the Christian worldview. Further, it assumes a literal or face - value view of scripture -- regarding Genesis in particular.
If being religious is the set, then Islam is the subset. If ID is the set, then Creationism is the subset. There's nothing complicated about it.
Those who won't acknowledge these simple differences are corrupters of the English language, and enemies of truth.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Jew - hatred, Circa WWII
That in Germany it was the Jew who became the enemy until his place was taken by the "plutocracies" was no less result of the anticapitalist resentment on which the whole movement was based than the selection of the kulak in Russia. In Germany and Austria the Jew had come to be regarded as the representative of capitalism because a traditional dislike of large classes of the population for commercial pursuits had left these more readily accessible to a group that was practically excluded from the more highly esteemed occupations. It is the old story of the alien race's being admitted only to the less respected trades and then being hated still more for practicing them. The fact that German anti - semitism and anti - capitalism spring from the same root is of great importance for the understanding of what has happened there, but this is rarely grasped by foreign observers.
--The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek, pp. 153 - 154.
--The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek, pp. 153 - 154.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Prescience
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. -- Adam Smith
Sound like anyone we know?
Sound like anyone we know?
Friday, July 10, 2009
Atheist Objections Part IV
Part I
Part II
Part III
4. "If God answers prayers why wouldn't He occasionally heal a deserving amputee? And why wouldn't people of faith expect prayer to work in such cases?"
Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation".
This guy must worship Harris, given the frequency with which he quotes him. He's not leaning toward atheism so much as Harrisism. Call it a cult of personality.
The two - part question above is silly beyond belief. What it boils down to is the notion that God doesn't exist, unless He behaves in the fashion I deem suitable. You'd be hard - pressed producing a better example of hubris. How does the doubter above know that God has not healed amputees? Has he embarked upon an exhaustive study of every documented case of amputation and its epilogue in recorded history? Such an undertaking makes compiling the Encyclopedia Britannica look like an afternoon's work. Furthermore, how does this question pertain to God's existence or non - existence?
I find it interesting that those who lean toward agnosticism / atheism express a willingness to entertain the idea that God exists, with the caveat that the hypothetical be aimed at discrediting Him.
Notice how the questioner exempts himself from providing evidence of his assertion, while requesting evidence from others. The problem with this audacious approach is that his question remains a non - starter, unless and until he demonstrates that God neglects healing amputees.
I have a question for Mr. Harris and the person whom I quoted parrotting his inquiry: If I provide evidence that God healed an amputee, will you abandon atheism and embrace belief? If your answer is "No," then I see no reason why I should consider your question as anything more than a rhetorical snare, with no real desire for the truth involved. In other words, you don't deserve an answer, because the question was never offered in good faith. If "Yes," that's a step in the right direction. My follow - up is: Why did you believe when given evidence of healed amputations, but rejected all other evidence prior to that point? Why did you ignore biblical, personal, historical, and logical testimonies that thoroughly bested your attacks and criticisms?
Scripture provides at least one specific example of Jesus healing an amputated body part. In the Garden of Gethsemane, when the temple guards came for Jesus, Peter attacked a servant of the high priest with his sword and cut off his ear. Jesus healed the man at once, making him whole. This occurs in Luke 22: 50-51.
Other potential examples include Jesus' healing of lepers in Mark 1: 40-42 and Luke 17: 12-14. Luke 7: 22 and other verses mention Jesus healing the lame, without detailing the nature of their handicaps. Some may have had limbs missing.
So you now have evidence that Jesus (God) heals amputees. I know the atheist will laugh this off, saying: "Well, I don't believe the Bible." That's fine, but scripture is a form of documentary evidence. If you reject it, that's your business, but it's dishonest to claim that it fails as evidence. The next logical question would be: "How do you define convincing evidence?" Some think scripture is sufficient. Others remain unconvinced, no matter how much evidence is presented. Some unbelievers have admitted that, if faced with the miraculous, they'd doubt their own senses rather than embrace the supernatural. An example along similar lines is that of the Pharisees, who witnessed Jesus' miracles, and accused him of allying Himself with Satan (Matthew 12: 24).
In one of Jesus' parables (Luke 16: 19-31), a rich man finds himself in the place of torment, and cries out to Abraham for him to send word of God's truth to his brothers. Abraham tells him that they have Moses and the prophets -- meaning scripture. The rich man says that if he'd send a poor beggar he'd known in life, they'd listen to someone returned from the dead. Abraham then informs him that if they'd ignore Moses and the prophets, they also would reject the testimony of one returned from death.
I think one point of this passage is that no amount of evidence is enough for those who don't want to believe.
Even in biblical times, miracles weren't common events; they happened in clusters: at the time of the Flood, Babel, the Exodus, during the period of the Judges, during Jesus' life, in the Disciples' ministry, etc. Perhaps we live in an era in which widespread, in - your - face miracles have simmered into the occasional miraculous event. Perhaps certain types of miracles happen with less frequency than at the time of Christ and the early Church.
Scripture makes clear that God's view of physical suffering is not the same as ours:
Romans 8: 18: For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Matthew 18: 8: Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Sometimes people suffer as a means of bringing glory to God, and drawing others to Him.
John 9: 1-3: And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
I want to close by saying that the inquiry about amputees is a subset of the question: "Why does God allow human suffering?" And it has the same answer: We live in a fallen world marred by sin -- sin that human beings ushered into this world -- sin that brought a curse upon humanity for willful disobedience.
Why focus on amputees? Why not ask about stillborn children, or blindness, or terrible diseases? Each is as pertinent as losing a limb. What about death itself? Why doesn't God allow us eternal physical existence in a state of sin?
Where in scripture does God promise earthly healing of amputees? If He does not promise immunity from death or suffering, why would we assume that He will heal amputees?
A final morsel of food for thought: How is agnosticism or atheism a better alternative to a belief in God, on this issue? What does each offer as promises or comforts? John 3: 16 states: 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.
That's an infinitely better promise and comfort than atheists offer, which is nothing.
Part II
Part III
4. "If God answers prayers why wouldn't He occasionally heal a deserving amputee? And why wouldn't people of faith expect prayer to work in such cases?"
Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation".
This guy must worship Harris, given the frequency with which he quotes him. He's not leaning toward atheism so much as Harrisism. Call it a cult of personality.
The two - part question above is silly beyond belief. What it boils down to is the notion that God doesn't exist, unless He behaves in the fashion I deem suitable. You'd be hard - pressed producing a better example of hubris. How does the doubter above know that God has not healed amputees? Has he embarked upon an exhaustive study of every documented case of amputation and its epilogue in recorded history? Such an undertaking makes compiling the Encyclopedia Britannica look like an afternoon's work. Furthermore, how does this question pertain to God's existence or non - existence?
I find it interesting that those who lean toward agnosticism / atheism express a willingness to entertain the idea that God exists, with the caveat that the hypothetical be aimed at discrediting Him.
Notice how the questioner exempts himself from providing evidence of his assertion, while requesting evidence from others. The problem with this audacious approach is that his question remains a non - starter, unless and until he demonstrates that God neglects healing amputees.
I have a question for Mr. Harris and the person whom I quoted parrotting his inquiry: If I provide evidence that God healed an amputee, will you abandon atheism and embrace belief? If your answer is "No," then I see no reason why I should consider your question as anything more than a rhetorical snare, with no real desire for the truth involved. In other words, you don't deserve an answer, because the question was never offered in good faith. If "Yes," that's a step in the right direction. My follow - up is: Why did you believe when given evidence of healed amputations, but rejected all other evidence prior to that point? Why did you ignore biblical, personal, historical, and logical testimonies that thoroughly bested your attacks and criticisms?
Scripture provides at least one specific example of Jesus healing an amputated body part. In the Garden of Gethsemane, when the temple guards came for Jesus, Peter attacked a servant of the high priest with his sword and cut off his ear. Jesus healed the man at once, making him whole. This occurs in Luke 22: 50-51.
Other potential examples include Jesus' healing of lepers in Mark 1: 40-42 and Luke 17: 12-14. Luke 7: 22 and other verses mention Jesus healing the lame, without detailing the nature of their handicaps. Some may have had limbs missing.
So you now have evidence that Jesus (God) heals amputees. I know the atheist will laugh this off, saying: "Well, I don't believe the Bible." That's fine, but scripture is a form of documentary evidence. If you reject it, that's your business, but it's dishonest to claim that it fails as evidence. The next logical question would be: "How do you define convincing evidence?" Some think scripture is sufficient. Others remain unconvinced, no matter how much evidence is presented. Some unbelievers have admitted that, if faced with the miraculous, they'd doubt their own senses rather than embrace the supernatural. An example along similar lines is that of the Pharisees, who witnessed Jesus' miracles, and accused him of allying Himself with Satan (Matthew 12: 24).
In one of Jesus' parables (Luke 16: 19-31), a rich man finds himself in the place of torment, and cries out to Abraham for him to send word of God's truth to his brothers. Abraham tells him that they have Moses and the prophets -- meaning scripture. The rich man says that if he'd send a poor beggar he'd known in life, they'd listen to someone returned from the dead. Abraham then informs him that if they'd ignore Moses and the prophets, they also would reject the testimony of one returned from death.
I think one point of this passage is that no amount of evidence is enough for those who don't want to believe.
Even in biblical times, miracles weren't common events; they happened in clusters: at the time of the Flood, Babel, the Exodus, during the period of the Judges, during Jesus' life, in the Disciples' ministry, etc. Perhaps we live in an era in which widespread, in - your - face miracles have simmered into the occasional miraculous event. Perhaps certain types of miracles happen with less frequency than at the time of Christ and the early Church.
Scripture makes clear that God's view of physical suffering is not the same as ours:
Romans 8: 18: For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Matthew 18: 8: Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Sometimes people suffer as a means of bringing glory to God, and drawing others to Him.
John 9: 1-3: And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
I want to close by saying that the inquiry about amputees is a subset of the question: "Why does God allow human suffering?" And it has the same answer: We live in a fallen world marred by sin -- sin that human beings ushered into this world -- sin that brought a curse upon humanity for willful disobedience.
Why focus on amputees? Why not ask about stillborn children, or blindness, or terrible diseases? Each is as pertinent as losing a limb. What about death itself? Why doesn't God allow us eternal physical existence in a state of sin?
Where in scripture does God promise earthly healing of amputees? If He does not promise immunity from death or suffering, why would we assume that He will heal amputees?
A final morsel of food for thought: How is agnosticism or atheism a better alternative to a belief in God, on this issue? What does each offer as promises or comforts? John 3: 16 states: 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.
That's an infinitely better promise and comfort than atheists offer, which is nothing.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Atheist Objections Part III
3. "It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Hurrican Katrina struck shared your belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while Katrina laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the parayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned."
Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation"
Now obvious you can go the Douglas Wilson route and say atheists do not have a basis for objective morality. This is true, but the Christian does have objective morality and the Christian makes objective claims. Two of them being, God is all powerful and all loving. Given these two attributes why do we see so much senseless suffering? The atheist need not believe that evil exists in order to point out the unlikelyhood that there is not an all powerful and all loving God in the world we are living in. Isn't it hard to see a moral justification in permitting childhood cancer? Again, which worldview fits the best explanation of what we see around us?
Let's assume that he is correct: the majority of people stuck in New Orleans during Katrina believed in God. Furthermore, let's also agree that they accepted his omniscience, omnipresence, and compassion. What does this have to do with the price of apples in China, as the saying goes?
Matthew 5:45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Once again, the questioner glosses over the reality that we live in a fallen, cursed world; he ignores orthodox Christian acceptance of the concept. It's another in an endless list of examples of people questioning or criticizing Christianity, without making effort toward understanding what Christians believe, or why they believe as they do.
In addition, scripture indicates that God does not obligate Himself to answering the prayers of the wicked:
He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination. -- Proverbs 28:9
See Proverbs 15:29 and John 9:31 for supporting examples.
Please show me scriptural evidence that God promises us earth - bound lives of ease, devoid of peril -- whether we are His own, or inveterate sinners.
This may sound cruel, but the truth often hurts, and it bears repeating: Many of the people who died succumbed to the hurricane for no good reason. They chose to live in an area prone to hurricanes and flooding. They chose not to evacuate, when warned of the coming disaster ahead of time. They crawled into attics, which is like painting oneself into a corner. I'm interested in hearing why this person believes that God should be held responsible for saving people from their own stupidity and poor judgment.
And yes, God is all - powerful and loving, though I don't know where he gets the idea that God is "all - loving." God hates sin. But He also is a God of wrath and judgment, and justice, and holiness. And more. If you're going to analyze His actions, then look at all his attributes -- not just the ones that make you feel warm and cozy inside.
As for questioning "needless" suffering, I'll ask a counter - question: "Needless," according to whom? The person who doubts God's existence? And what does the sad reality of suffering -- needless, or otherwise -- have to do with God's existence or non - existence? They're two separate issues. It does not follow that just because you lack full understanding of something, then it therefore must not exist. Imagine if I said: "I don't understand how hydrogen bombs work; therefore, there are no hydrogen bombs." How is this substantially different from saying: "I don't understand how God works; therefore, there is no God." ? Both are variations on the same fallacious argumentation.
In grasping the Christian (biblical) worldview, comprehending that we live in a sin - marred creation is essential.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Atheist Objections Part II
Part I
2. "Over 99 percent of the species that ever walked, flew, or slithered upon this earth are now extinct....When we look at the natural world, we see extraordinary complexity, but we do not see optimal design....The truth is that, while there are now around three hundred and fifty thousand known species of beetles, God appears to have an even greater fondness for viruses. Biologists estimate that there are at least ten strains of viruses for every species of animal on earth." Sam Harris
Which viewpoint makes more sense in accounting for this: Unguided evolution or the God of Christianity?
The "99 percent" figure is interesting, because it indicates how proponents of evolutionary theory enjoy pulling figures out of their rumps, touting speculation as fact. Since we do not have complete access to the fossil record, and since we don't even know the number of extant species, the answer to the question, "Where did they come up with this number?" is simple: They made it up.
Regarding the "optimal design" argument: What are the criteria for optimal design? We don't know, because he does not share such information with us. Even if we accept his observation as reasonable, we must acknowledge that it ignores biblical teaching -- that God completed His creative work and saw that it was good; that Man rebelled and fell from grace; that God placed a subsequent curse upon the creation as a result of Man's sin. If you're going to challenge Christians with supposed "hard" questions, shouldn't you at least familiarize yourself with the basic content of Christian teaching, first? Otherwise, how do you know that these questions remain unaddressed and unrefuted?
As for beetles and viruses, so what? If we accept his numbers, saying that 350,000 beetle species exist -- as if this is an argument against God or creation -- proves nothing. The taxonomic term "species" is an artificial tool created by humans.
Many viruses are harmless to humans, even today. Before Adam and Eve's sin, they may have served a wholesome, useful purpose to humanity and the plant and animal kingdoms. After the Fall, loss of genetic information may have led to the development of degenerate, harmful strains. Yes, this is speculation, but so is the conclusion that the sheer number of existing viruses points to God's nonexistence, or evolutionary theory's truth. The point is that talk of beetle battalions and viral invasions evades clear scriptural teaching that we live in a world mired in sin, in which the whole creation suffers.
Since we have no experience with information arising from non - information, or life springing from non - life, l accept the God of Christianity over unguided evolution with zero difficulty.
2. "Over 99 percent of the species that ever walked, flew, or slithered upon this earth are now extinct....When we look at the natural world, we see extraordinary complexity, but we do not see optimal design....The truth is that, while there are now around three hundred and fifty thousand known species of beetles, God appears to have an even greater fondness for viruses. Biologists estimate that there are at least ten strains of viruses for every species of animal on earth." Sam Harris
Which viewpoint makes more sense in accounting for this: Unguided evolution or the God of Christianity?
The "99 percent" figure is interesting, because it indicates how proponents of evolutionary theory enjoy pulling figures out of their rumps, touting speculation as fact. Since we do not have complete access to the fossil record, and since we don't even know the number of extant species, the answer to the question, "Where did they come up with this number?" is simple: They made it up.
Regarding the "optimal design" argument: What are the criteria for optimal design? We don't know, because he does not share such information with us. Even if we accept his observation as reasonable, we must acknowledge that it ignores biblical teaching -- that God completed His creative work and saw that it was good; that Man rebelled and fell from grace; that God placed a subsequent curse upon the creation as a result of Man's sin. If you're going to challenge Christians with supposed "hard" questions, shouldn't you at least familiarize yourself with the basic content of Christian teaching, first? Otherwise, how do you know that these questions remain unaddressed and unrefuted?
As for beetles and viruses, so what? If we accept his numbers, saying that 350,000 beetle species exist -- as if this is an argument against God or creation -- proves nothing. The taxonomic term "species" is an artificial tool created by humans.
Many viruses are harmless to humans, even today. Before Adam and Eve's sin, they may have served a wholesome, useful purpose to humanity and the plant and animal kingdoms. After the Fall, loss of genetic information may have led to the development of degenerate, harmful strains. Yes, this is speculation, but so is the conclusion that the sheer number of existing viruses points to God's nonexistence, or evolutionary theory's truth. The point is that talk of beetle battalions and viral invasions evades clear scriptural teaching that we live in a world mired in sin, in which the whole creation suffers.
Since we have no experience with information arising from non - information, or life springing from non - life, l accept the God of Christianity over unguided evolution with zero difficulty.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Bible "Soliciting"
Bucknell University believes that handing out free Bibles on campus is "soliciting."
Dictionary.com provides four major definitions for the word "solicit:"
1. to seek for (something) by entreaty, earnest or respectful request, formal application, etc.: He solicited aid from the minister.
2. to entreat or petition (someone or some agency): to solicit the committee for funds.
3. to seek to influence or incite to action, esp. unlawful or wrong action.
4. to offer to have sex with in exchange for money.
Notice that 2. and 4. entail or allow for money changing hands. Neither applies to the linked story, because giving someone a gift is not the same as asking him for money. This would be like saying, "Sorry, no soliciting," when my wife hands me my birthday present.
Also keep in mind that two of the four definitions have negative connotations (sex for money, and inciting illegal behavior).
Typically, we see "No Soliciting" signs at restaurants or stores, or other businesses. In these contexts, the signs mean: "No expanding the customer base for your product on our property; that's our job."
That leaves us with number 1. "Respectfully requesting" that one read a copy of the Holy Bible -- and giving it to him free of charge -- requires an administration - issued permit? We don't even know if the student organization went that far. Perhaps its members simply placed Bibles in the hands of passersby, and said, "Go with Okenya."
I shudder to think what bureaucratic pitfalls lie in wait for those audacious enough to actually read that radical volume.
I contend that we'd know nothing of this story if the tome had been The Audacity of Hope, by Our Savior from the Serengeti.
Why?
Because there would be no story.
Dictionary.com provides four major definitions for the word "solicit:"
1. to seek for (something) by entreaty, earnest or respectful request, formal application, etc.: He solicited aid from the minister.
2. to entreat or petition (someone or some agency): to solicit the committee for funds.
3. to seek to influence or incite to action, esp. unlawful or wrong action.
4. to offer to have sex with in exchange for money.
Notice that 2. and 4. entail or allow for money changing hands. Neither applies to the linked story, because giving someone a gift is not the same as asking him for money. This would be like saying, "Sorry, no soliciting," when my wife hands me my birthday present.
Also keep in mind that two of the four definitions have negative connotations (sex for money, and inciting illegal behavior).
Typically, we see "No Soliciting" signs at restaurants or stores, or other businesses. In these contexts, the signs mean: "No expanding the customer base for your product on our property; that's our job."
That leaves us with number 1. "Respectfully requesting" that one read a copy of the Holy Bible -- and giving it to him free of charge -- requires an administration - issued permit? We don't even know if the student organization went that far. Perhaps its members simply placed Bibles in the hands of passersby, and said, "Go with Okenya."
I shudder to think what bureaucratic pitfalls lie in wait for those audacious enough to actually read that radical volume.
I contend that we'd know nothing of this story if the tome had been The Audacity of Hope, by Our Savior from the Serengeti.
Why?
Because there would be no story.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
A Fair Mind Is a Twisted Mind
Obama's recent visit to Notre Dame University -- during which he gave a speech and received official honors from the school -- created a controversy that has not yet come to an end. And rightly so. After all, Christians of all stripes should be angered that a Catholic school heaped accolades on a man who defends a woman's nonexistent right to kill her unborn child with the singlemindedness of a true zealot. But it's not the controversy that interests me as much as these words spoken by Obama in his speech at Notre Dame:
As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."
Fair-minded words.
After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That’s when we begin to say, "Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.
This is faux-empathetic, emotive gobbledegook. It's the precise brand of "I feel yore pain" nonsense liberally dished out by Bill Clinton during his two terms in office (no pun intended). It's feigning interest in opponents' views, while moving ahead with a decidedly unsympathetic, closed-minded agenda. It's an attempt at knocking one's ideological enemies off their game, nothing more. Suggesting that we all handle each other with care, while working with dilligence toward removing existing abortion restrictions, and blocking those in the congressional birth canal, is the height of audacity and dishonesty.
Don't take my word for it. His record in the Senate and the Oval Office speaks for itself:
1. 1997: In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation preventing partial birth abortion (infanticide).
2. 2000: In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation banning taxpayer funding of abortions.
3. 2001: He opposed legislation protecting survivors of botched abortion attempts. He was the sole Illinois Senator to do so.
4. 2008: He claimed indecision on whether or not life begins at conception -- a position properly reserved for ignoramuses, deceivers, or cowards.
5. He consistently earns 100% ratings from "pro-choice" groups. Example: NARAL gave him 100% ratings in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
6. He promotes and wishes to advance embryonic stem - cell research.
7. He believes the Constitution of the United States is a "living" document. -- The Audacity of Hope, pp. 89 - 92, Oct. 1, 2006
8. He has stated support for Roe v. Wade.
9. He voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortions (2008).
10. He voted NO on notifying parents of minors receiving out-of-state abortions (2006).
11. Rated 0% out of a possible 100% by the National Right to Life Committee (0 - 15% = "pro-choice;" 16 - 84% = mixed record; 85 - 100% = pro-life).
12. Since becoming president, Obama lifted a restriction put in place by George W. Bush that stopped taxpayer funding of abortions overseas. He enacted this measure three days after entering office.
The list goes on.
Short of seeking employment at an abortuary, how does one man's record illustrate a more extreme anti-child, anti-life stance? Setting aside his conciliatory rhetoric, do you see anything in this history fitting the descriptors "open - minded," or "fair - minded," or "open - hearted?"
I don't. What I do see is the record of a far left-wing ideologue -- one who doesn't give a hoot in Hell what anyone thinks of this issue, unless they are in agreement with him.
Mr. Obama can spout his pablum about "common ground" till the cows come home; it's unmitigated hogwash, and he knows it. He even admitted as much in the above discourse. There is no common ground between those who pursue the deaths of innocents, and those who fight for their preservation. Is there mutuality between good and evil? Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? -- 2 Corinthians 6: 14 - 15
Notice how Obama acknowledges that abortion is a "heart - wrenching" decision, with "moral and spiritual dimensions." Of course, he neglects describing why and how this is so. Transparently, he is not of the conviction that abortion is a moral wrong, or spiritually rotten fruit, so what is the message he's conveying, here? The bottom line is that his words do not fit his actions; they contradict them.
Furthermore, if abortion isn't morally wrong, why should we concern ourselves with ensuring its rarity? This is the $64,000 question pro - deathers avoid like the Wicked Witch of the West shuns water.
As an aside, if you're interested in "making adoption more available," you might consider ceasing the murder of unborn children. Just a thought.
I'd appreciate hearing Obama elaborate on what relation killing infants in utero has to "equality of women." The last time I checked, men don't get pregnant or give birth, so we can't compare female abortion possibilities to those of males. It's notable that politicians like Obama feel no obligation toward explaining themselves beyond the superficial platitudes they spout like Old Faithful.
As for "clear ethics and sound science," is he kidding? I hope so, because I'm laughing at this notion coming from someone who believes that killing unborn infants for any reason whatsoever should remain restriction - free. And if Obama's unsure when life begins, he has no business mentioning science in the same discussion as the abortion issue, as he has taken a position against science. The verdict is in; there is no wiggle room for honest (or dishonest) debate on the matter: life begins at conception. If the president doesn't know this scientific fact, given his position and access to knowledge, we can assume that he champions the adage: ignorance is bliss. Policy advocation based upon willful ignorance is a form of deception.
Finally, Obama's prevarication about his "fair - mindedness" adds insult to the pro-abortion injuries he has inflicted upon the American people. For his dissimulation is neither clever, nor subtle, given that his record on the issue stands available for all the world to see. One can conclude only that he views the citizenry as gullible sheep on the fold, manipulable and foolish as the wolf coaxes them into the heart of his lair.
As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."
Fair-minded words.
After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That’s when we begin to say, "Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.
This is faux-empathetic, emotive gobbledegook. It's the precise brand of "I feel yore pain" nonsense liberally dished out by Bill Clinton during his two terms in office (no pun intended). It's feigning interest in opponents' views, while moving ahead with a decidedly unsympathetic, closed-minded agenda. It's an attempt at knocking one's ideological enemies off their game, nothing more. Suggesting that we all handle each other with care, while working with dilligence toward removing existing abortion restrictions, and blocking those in the congressional birth canal, is the height of audacity and dishonesty.
Don't take my word for it. His record in the Senate and the Oval Office speaks for itself:
1. 1997: In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation preventing partial birth abortion (infanticide).
2. 2000: In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation banning taxpayer funding of abortions.
3. 2001: He opposed legislation protecting survivors of botched abortion attempts. He was the sole Illinois Senator to do so.
4. 2008: He claimed indecision on whether or not life begins at conception -- a position properly reserved for ignoramuses, deceivers, or cowards.
5. He consistently earns 100% ratings from "pro-choice" groups. Example: NARAL gave him 100% ratings in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
6. He promotes and wishes to advance embryonic stem - cell research.
7. He believes the Constitution of the United States is a "living" document. -- The Audacity of Hope, pp. 89 - 92, Oct. 1, 2006
8. He has stated support for Roe v. Wade.
9. He voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortions (2008).
10. He voted NO on notifying parents of minors receiving out-of-state abortions (2006).
11. Rated 0% out of a possible 100% by the National Right to Life Committee (0 - 15% = "pro-choice;" 16 - 84% = mixed record; 85 - 100% = pro-life).
12. Since becoming president, Obama lifted a restriction put in place by George W. Bush that stopped taxpayer funding of abortions overseas. He enacted this measure three days after entering office.
The list goes on.
Short of seeking employment at an abortuary, how does one man's record illustrate a more extreme anti-child, anti-life stance? Setting aside his conciliatory rhetoric, do you see anything in this history fitting the descriptors "open - minded," or "fair - minded," or "open - hearted?"
I don't. What I do see is the record of a far left-wing ideologue -- one who doesn't give a hoot in Hell what anyone thinks of this issue, unless they are in agreement with him.
Mr. Obama can spout his pablum about "common ground" till the cows come home; it's unmitigated hogwash, and he knows it. He even admitted as much in the above discourse. There is no common ground between those who pursue the deaths of innocents, and those who fight for their preservation. Is there mutuality between good and evil? Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? -- 2 Corinthians 6: 14 - 15
Notice how Obama acknowledges that abortion is a "heart - wrenching" decision, with "moral and spiritual dimensions." Of course, he neglects describing why and how this is so. Transparently, he is not of the conviction that abortion is a moral wrong, or spiritually rotten fruit, so what is the message he's conveying, here? The bottom line is that his words do not fit his actions; they contradict them.
Furthermore, if abortion isn't morally wrong, why should we concern ourselves with ensuring its rarity? This is the $64,000 question pro - deathers avoid like the Wicked Witch of the West shuns water.
As an aside, if you're interested in "making adoption more available," you might consider ceasing the murder of unborn children. Just a thought.
I'd appreciate hearing Obama elaborate on what relation killing infants in utero has to "equality of women." The last time I checked, men don't get pregnant or give birth, so we can't compare female abortion possibilities to those of males. It's notable that politicians like Obama feel no obligation toward explaining themselves beyond the superficial platitudes they spout like Old Faithful.
As for "clear ethics and sound science," is he kidding? I hope so, because I'm laughing at this notion coming from someone who believes that killing unborn infants for any reason whatsoever should remain restriction - free. And if Obama's unsure when life begins, he has no business mentioning science in the same discussion as the abortion issue, as he has taken a position against science. The verdict is in; there is no wiggle room for honest (or dishonest) debate on the matter: life begins at conception. If the president doesn't know this scientific fact, given his position and access to knowledge, we can assume that he champions the adage: ignorance is bliss. Policy advocation based upon willful ignorance is a form of deception.
Finally, Obama's prevarication about his "fair - mindedness" adds insult to the pro-abortion injuries he has inflicted upon the American people. For his dissimulation is neither clever, nor subtle, given that his record on the issue stands available for all the world to see. One can conclude only that he views the citizenry as gullible sheep on the fold, manipulable and foolish as the wolf coaxes them into the heart of his lair.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Picking a Winner
I don't have much to say about Okenya's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for SCOTUS, except that I'm unsurprised. A president who has nothing but contempt for the U.S. Constitution has chosen a person who has nothing but contempt for the U.S. Constitution as a Supreme Court judge. Next news at 11:00.
And don't let anyone kid you: That she's female, Hispanic, and leans left are the sole reasons that you've ever heard of Sonia Sotomayor.
Update
It seems our beloved Ms. Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, according to the American Bar Association. This is like discovering that Clarence Thomas is a Black Panther, or that John Roberts is a Klansman.
It speaks volumes about Obama that he has nominated a woman who supports unfettered legal and illegal immigration, as well as the consumption of America's southwest into Mexico.
We're now quite literally tolerating traitors in our midst, in positions of high office.
And don't let anyone kid you: That she's female, Hispanic, and leans left are the sole reasons that you've ever heard of Sonia Sotomayor.
Update
It seems our beloved Ms. Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, according to the American Bar Association. This is like discovering that Clarence Thomas is a Black Panther, or that John Roberts is a Klansman.
It speaks volumes about Obama that he has nominated a woman who supports unfettered legal and illegal immigration, as well as the consumption of America's southwest into Mexico.
We're now quite literally tolerating traitors in our midst, in positions of high office.
A Recipe for Perpetual Failure
The conservative vs. moderate split threatening to rupture the Republican Party played out across the airwaves Sunday, with Colin Powell and Tom Ridge denouncing shrill and judgmental voices they say are steering the GOP too far right. Karl Rove challenged Powell lay out his vision and "back it up" by helping elect Republicans.
At stake is the GOP's status as a major party, Powell and Ridge suggested.
Yes, let's "stay the course" in the middle of the road, or perhaps swing left, because it has worked so well for the GOP. Here's what ignoring the party base (those dreaded right-wingers) did for the Republican Party:
1. Lost the 2008 presidential election.
2. Lost both houses of Congress in 2006 and 2008.
3. Created a trend of declining polling numbers for Bush before he left office.
4. Won two presidential elections by narrow margins, in which the Republican candidate faced weak opponents.
5. Ushered in some of the worst fiscal irresponsibility and creeping government power in U.S. history.
6. Ensured that our national borders remained insecure, and that criminal aliens went unpunished.
What a winning combination. By the way, a man who voted for Obama for no other discernible reason than his skin color is the last person to whom Republicans should be listening for advice on keeping the Party relevant. As for Ridge, the man's spineless; he's more concerned about not rocking the boat than anything else.
"If we don't reach out more, the party is going to be sitting on a very, very narrow base. You can only do two things with a base. You can sit on it and watch the world go by, or you can build on the base," Powell said.
Powell seems unaware that the people who outrage him so are the party base. This is not leadership. This is cluelessness. And as long as Republicans in high positions keep ignoring or belittling their base, they can expect to continue losing elections even as they slip further and further into insignificance.
At stake is the GOP's status as a major party, Powell and Ridge suggested.
Yes, let's "stay the course" in the middle of the road, or perhaps swing left, because it has worked so well for the GOP. Here's what ignoring the party base (those dreaded right-wingers) did for the Republican Party:
1. Lost the 2008 presidential election.
2. Lost both houses of Congress in 2006 and 2008.
3. Created a trend of declining polling numbers for Bush before he left office.
4. Won two presidential elections by narrow margins, in which the Republican candidate faced weak opponents.
5. Ushered in some of the worst fiscal irresponsibility and creeping government power in U.S. history.
6. Ensured that our national borders remained insecure, and that criminal aliens went unpunished.
What a winning combination. By the way, a man who voted for Obama for no other discernible reason than his skin color is the last person to whom Republicans should be listening for advice on keeping the Party relevant. As for Ridge, the man's spineless; he's more concerned about not rocking the boat than anything else.
"If we don't reach out more, the party is going to be sitting on a very, very narrow base. You can only do two things with a base. You can sit on it and watch the world go by, or you can build on the base," Powell said.
Powell seems unaware that the people who outrage him so are the party base. This is not leadership. This is cluelessness. And as long as Republicans in high positions keep ignoring or belittling their base, they can expect to continue losing elections even as they slip further and further into insignificance.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Atheist Objections Part I
Preface:
Someone called "Travis" emailed Vox Day with five points made by atheists that he finds convincing enough to urge him on the dead man's walk toward agnosticism. Vox intends to respond to all his points; and I thought to myself: "Heck, why don't you give it a shot, as well?"
So here we are. Pull up a chair and sit a spell.
Let me begin by saying that hundreds if not thousands of Christians over a period of centuries have addressed and answered each of Travis' enumerated points -- satisfactorily, by my lights.
If you find yourself wondering why people still wake these assertions, despite copious writings putting them to rest, the answer is simple:
That is not dead which can eternal lie
Till aroused by he who spits in God's eye.
In other words, in a siege against the battlements of unbelief, the ballistae and mangonels and trebuchets of reason and elaboration may pockmark the very keep itself, but they cannot bring it to earth.
I question the good faith of these points -- for their old - hat aspect, as well as their evidence - free assertiveness. I don't find them trying of my faith in the least, and I suspect that only one unacquainted with -- or uninterested in -- the Christian body of apologetics could become distressed by this effort.
I'll quote the first proposition, followed by my comments:
1. Biblical Ethics are below par at best. The Christian must believe in objective morality, for God is the source of morality. If God is the source of objective morality why do we see ethical commands justifying rape and the harsh treatment of foreign slaves? If Biblical ethics is the objective standard than Wilberforce was a sinner for trying to eliminate slavery, for the Bible certainly does not decree the abolition of slavery? If we take a progressive approach to scripture we all could still certainly agree that the movement toward a better ethical system could have certainly moved faster.
Sam Harris brings this up in "Letter to a Christian Nation"
I agree with the notion of objective morality, with God as its source. However, the idea that biblical ethics are "below par" is a naked assertion, as it stands unsupported by the rest of his commentary. First, Travis assumes that an objective standard for judging biblical ethics exists, that he is conversant with this standard, and that the Holy Bible fails in living up to its lofty heights. Alas, he nowhere demonstrates this assumed truth in his discourse, nor does he reveal whence he derived The Ultimate Ethical Standard. The sole proper examination of biblical ethics entails comparison/contrast with the unbiblical societies surrounding the purveyors of God's Word at the time in which scriptural authorship occurred. Anything less is an unfair and incomplete assessment. So when we delve into that cultural mire, what do we find? Child sacrifice, chattel slavery, demon and idol worship, wanton violence, necromancy, witchcraft, astrology, and on and on in a veritable litany of horrors. Life came cheap and miserable.
Biblical ethics changed all that. They elevated the status and worth of women; put a higher value on human lives as personages created in God's image; and called the highest goods loving the one true God with all of one's being, and loving one's neighbor as oneself. From personal hygiene to sexual relationships, from the treatment of animals to stewardship of our planet, biblical ethics existed -- and exist -- on a higher plain, unreachable by the godless or devil - haunted ethics of contemporary pagan societies. So needless to say, I find the concept of kicking back in one's easy chair and expressing dissatisfaction with God's ethics an exercise in hubris, in a civilization whose comforts derived from the ethical foundation under attack.
Next, the issue of slavery. Bondservanthood under the Jews was unlike slavery experienced by blacks during the trans-Atlantic slave trade era. Think indentured servitude, rather than being worked to death in a cotton field under an overseer's whip. Regardless, the biblical ethic explicated better treatment of slaves or servants than in times before. In an age when slaves toiled until they dropped, with their corpses rolled unceremoniously into a ditch or shallow grave when they expired, the biblical ethic was a giant leap forward. As for the harsh treatment of foreign slaves, many got their just desserts; their bondage came as God's judgment of the sin of infanticide. One item that cannot be overstressed is this: biblical context is important. When you pay attention, you learn more than the what; you also uncover the why. If Travis believes that all forms of involuntary servitude are immoral, no matter the reason for that state, then it behooves him to explain his position, rather than accepting it as self-evident. If a man incurs catastrophic debt and refuses repayment, I see no evil in making him the servant of his creditors until he makes good the debt he owes. It's called justice. By the way, it does not follow that Wilberforce was a sinner for attempting the abolition of an institution that ignored biblical regulations against the mistreatment of slaves. I see no scriptural conflict with his admirable and righteous cause.
Regarding rape, I see no justification for it in the Bible. What I do see is condemnation and punishment for the act. See Deuteronomy 22. Would that Travis had proffered evidence of the sunny view scripture takes of ravishing the maidens fair.
When Travis talks about moving toward a better ethical system at a faster pace, I assume he means that God should've delivered the goods via bullet-train. This is another glimpse of his arbitrary ethical standard, rearing its cloistered head for but a moment, before he pummels it back behind its boudoir's secure doors. How much faster? What is the proper speed? Will 186,000 mps do the trick? He forgets that God passed his standards to certain segments of humanity, then charged them with the task of sharing his morals with the world - at - large. That's what the Bible is all about. Remember, it was humanity's rebellion against God in the beginning that required the tortuous process that Travis finds so unsatisfying and glacially slow.
The blame lies with fallen humanity, not God.
God has shown us His grace -- we who are unworthy of his loving kindness. Critically judging and rejecting his timing is not just biting the hand that feeds.
It's spurning the hand that saves.
MORE TO COME. . .
Someone called "Travis" emailed Vox Day with five points made by atheists that he finds convincing enough to urge him on the dead man's walk toward agnosticism. Vox intends to respond to all his points; and I thought to myself: "Heck, why don't you give it a shot, as well?"
So here we are. Pull up a chair and sit a spell.
Let me begin by saying that hundreds if not thousands of Christians over a period of centuries have addressed and answered each of Travis' enumerated points -- satisfactorily, by my lights.
If you find yourself wondering why people still wake these assertions, despite copious writings putting them to rest, the answer is simple:
That is not dead which can eternal lie
Till aroused by he who spits in God's eye.
In other words, in a siege against the battlements of unbelief, the ballistae and mangonels and trebuchets of reason and elaboration may pockmark the very keep itself, but they cannot bring it to earth.
I question the good faith of these points -- for their old - hat aspect, as well as their evidence - free assertiveness. I don't find them trying of my faith in the least, and I suspect that only one unacquainted with -- or uninterested in -- the Christian body of apologetics could become distressed by this effort.
I'll quote the first proposition, followed by my comments:
1. Biblical Ethics are below par at best. The Christian must believe in objective morality, for God is the source of morality. If God is the source of objective morality why do we see ethical commands justifying rape and the harsh treatment of foreign slaves? If Biblical ethics is the objective standard than Wilberforce was a sinner for trying to eliminate slavery, for the Bible certainly does not decree the abolition of slavery? If we take a progressive approach to scripture we all could still certainly agree that the movement toward a better ethical system could have certainly moved faster.
Sam Harris brings this up in "Letter to a Christian Nation"
I agree with the notion of objective morality, with God as its source. However, the idea that biblical ethics are "below par" is a naked assertion, as it stands unsupported by the rest of his commentary. First, Travis assumes that an objective standard for judging biblical ethics exists, that he is conversant with this standard, and that the Holy Bible fails in living up to its lofty heights. Alas, he nowhere demonstrates this assumed truth in his discourse, nor does he reveal whence he derived The Ultimate Ethical Standard. The sole proper examination of biblical ethics entails comparison/contrast with the unbiblical societies surrounding the purveyors of God's Word at the time in which scriptural authorship occurred. Anything less is an unfair and incomplete assessment. So when we delve into that cultural mire, what do we find? Child sacrifice, chattel slavery, demon and idol worship, wanton violence, necromancy, witchcraft, astrology, and on and on in a veritable litany of horrors. Life came cheap and miserable.
Biblical ethics changed all that. They elevated the status and worth of women; put a higher value on human lives as personages created in God's image; and called the highest goods loving the one true God with all of one's being, and loving one's neighbor as oneself. From personal hygiene to sexual relationships, from the treatment of animals to stewardship of our planet, biblical ethics existed -- and exist -- on a higher plain, unreachable by the godless or devil - haunted ethics of contemporary pagan societies. So needless to say, I find the concept of kicking back in one's easy chair and expressing dissatisfaction with God's ethics an exercise in hubris, in a civilization whose comforts derived from the ethical foundation under attack.
Next, the issue of slavery. Bondservanthood under the Jews was unlike slavery experienced by blacks during the trans-Atlantic slave trade era. Think indentured servitude, rather than being worked to death in a cotton field under an overseer's whip. Regardless, the biblical ethic explicated better treatment of slaves or servants than in times before. In an age when slaves toiled until they dropped, with their corpses rolled unceremoniously into a ditch or shallow grave when they expired, the biblical ethic was a giant leap forward. As for the harsh treatment of foreign slaves, many got their just desserts; their bondage came as God's judgment of the sin of infanticide. One item that cannot be overstressed is this: biblical context is important. When you pay attention, you learn more than the what; you also uncover the why. If Travis believes that all forms of involuntary servitude are immoral, no matter the reason for that state, then it behooves him to explain his position, rather than accepting it as self-evident. If a man incurs catastrophic debt and refuses repayment, I see no evil in making him the servant of his creditors until he makes good the debt he owes. It's called justice. By the way, it does not follow that Wilberforce was a sinner for attempting the abolition of an institution that ignored biblical regulations against the mistreatment of slaves. I see no scriptural conflict with his admirable and righteous cause.
Regarding rape, I see no justification for it in the Bible. What I do see is condemnation and punishment for the act. See Deuteronomy 22. Would that Travis had proffered evidence of the sunny view scripture takes of ravishing the maidens fair.
When Travis talks about moving toward a better ethical system at a faster pace, I assume he means that God should've delivered the goods via bullet-train. This is another glimpse of his arbitrary ethical standard, rearing its cloistered head for but a moment, before he pummels it back behind its boudoir's secure doors. How much faster? What is the proper speed? Will 186,000 mps do the trick? He forgets that God passed his standards to certain segments of humanity, then charged them with the task of sharing his morals with the world - at - large. That's what the Bible is all about. Remember, it was humanity's rebellion against God in the beginning that required the tortuous process that Travis finds so unsatisfying and glacially slow.
The blame lies with fallen humanity, not God.
God has shown us His grace -- we who are unworthy of his loving kindness. Critically judging and rejecting his timing is not just biting the hand that feeds.
It's spurning the hand that saves.
MORE TO COME. . .
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Help Me, Y'all
I'd like to get in touch with our friend Triton, from Triton Unleashed. If you have his email address, and if it's OK with him, let me know, so I can drop him a line.
Thanks in advance, guys.
Thanks in advance, guys.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
All Is Vannity
I was listening to Sean Vannity's radio program a few days ago, just passing the time as I waited for my wife to do some shopping.
A man called in and mentioned Vannity's persistent attacks on Okenya for his multitudinous verbal gaffes. He asked Vannity where he was for the past eight years of Duhbya's misstatements, misunderestimations, and malapropisms.
I'm assuming the caller was a supporter of Our Savior from the Serengeti; regardless, his question was a legitimate one.
Here's where the situation became problematic. Rather than answering the question with an explanation of his seeming hypocrisy, Vannity instead launched into a paean of praise for Bush's leadership qualities, calling them "second to none." I suppose this meant that if Bush stood in comparison with someone with zero leadership skills, our illustrious former president would come in second place.
Anyhow, when Vannity had finished Vannitizing the caller, the inquiry remained unanswered.
Such evasions supply the reason why a growing number of conservatives and libertarians consider Vannity a partisan hack. When faced with his own double standard, he blows smoke and breaks out the mirrors; forget providing a specific refutation of a pointed charge.
This is inappropriate behavior for someone who portrays himself as a leader in the conservative vanguard. In fact, his actions paint him as a party animal, first and foremost.
Look at Vannity's recent record: First, let's start with Duhbya. He has a love-affair with Señor Bushandez, the man who dons a sombrero and clicks his castanets every time the immigration issue arises. His response to the American people's disapproval? Try something along the lines of "Olé!" He never met a spending bill he didn't want to take home to momma; he presided over enlarging the federal government's scope and power; and he thought the home mortgage and subsequent bailout scam was a delightful joke on the populace. None of this is conservative in nature, yet Vannity considers Bush's leadership "second to none."
Vannity also endorsed Tooty Frooty Giuliani for president -- you remember, the philandering, pump-wearing, queen-loving metrosexual from New Yuck.
Worse, he dismissed Ron Paul in a post-debate interview, treating him as an eccentric kook. This is a rather odd tack for a self-proclaimed conservative, since Paul comes closer to the conservative ideal than anyone else who ran on the GOP ticket.
All of the above indicates one who puts party loyalty above principled conservatism. It also implies that his oath of fealty primarily lies with the party's "neoconservative" elements; think less "conservative" and more "con."
Vannity's attitude of "party first -- everything else is just gravy" may sound great to some Republicans, but I don't see how it's a boon for the country, or a manifestation of true conservatism.
A man called in and mentioned Vannity's persistent attacks on Okenya for his multitudinous verbal gaffes. He asked Vannity where he was for the past eight years of Duhbya's misstatements, misunderestimations, and malapropisms.
I'm assuming the caller was a supporter of Our Savior from the Serengeti; regardless, his question was a legitimate one.
Here's where the situation became problematic. Rather than answering the question with an explanation of his seeming hypocrisy, Vannity instead launched into a paean of praise for Bush's leadership qualities, calling them "second to none." I suppose this meant that if Bush stood in comparison with someone with zero leadership skills, our illustrious former president would come in second place.
Anyhow, when Vannity had finished Vannitizing the caller, the inquiry remained unanswered.
Such evasions supply the reason why a growing number of conservatives and libertarians consider Vannity a partisan hack. When faced with his own double standard, he blows smoke and breaks out the mirrors; forget providing a specific refutation of a pointed charge.
This is inappropriate behavior for someone who portrays himself as a leader in the conservative vanguard. In fact, his actions paint him as a party animal, first and foremost.
Look at Vannity's recent record: First, let's start with Duhbya. He has a love-affair with Señor Bushandez, the man who dons a sombrero and clicks his castanets every time the immigration issue arises. His response to the American people's disapproval? Try something along the lines of "Olé!" He never met a spending bill he didn't want to take home to momma; he presided over enlarging the federal government's scope and power; and he thought the home mortgage and subsequent bailout scam was a delightful joke on the populace. None of this is conservative in nature, yet Vannity considers Bush's leadership "second to none."
Vannity also endorsed Tooty Frooty Giuliani for president -- you remember, the philandering, pump-wearing, queen-loving metrosexual from New Yuck.
Worse, he dismissed Ron Paul in a post-debate interview, treating him as an eccentric kook. This is a rather odd tack for a self-proclaimed conservative, since Paul comes closer to the conservative ideal than anyone else who ran on the GOP ticket.
All of the above indicates one who puts party loyalty above principled conservatism. It also implies that his oath of fealty primarily lies with the party's "neoconservative" elements; think less "conservative" and more "con."
Vannity's attitude of "party first -- everything else is just gravy" may sound great to some Republicans, but I don't see how it's a boon for the country, or a manifestation of true conservatism.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Exorcise the Demonrats-at-Heart
Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of a few remaining GOP moderates in the Senate, called Specter's decision another sign that the Republican Party needs to move toward the center."
Ultimately, we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history, the way events have been unfolding," she said. "If the Republican Party fully intends to become a majority party in the future, it must move from the far right back toward the middle."
Our Founders envisioned a Senate peopled by older men who already had made their fortunes in life and gained the wisdom that comes with age and experience. They hoped for an august body of those who surpassed the general populace in morality and discernment. Those with "horse-sense," if you will. But somehow we managed to rope ourselves a whole herd of foolish, braying jackasses -- people who have less circumspection or ethical insight than the average fast-food worker or housewife.
Case-in-point: the bubblehead above, Ms. Snowe. The party needs to move to the center, because a liberal fled its ranks? Can anyone follow her non sequitur logic? "Far-right?" Is she hanging out with Cheech and Chong? When in the past twenty years has the GOP done anything properly classifiable as "far-right?" Oh, she must mean the proper care and feeding of Big Brother: skyrocketing spending increases, massive federal intrusion into private life, porous borders, a "War for the Glorious Democracies of Shariastan," and socializing various industries, such as the home loan organizations. You know, typical "far-right" tactics. Not to mention the sparse ground gained in fighting homosexual redefinitions of marriage, and abortion. Ms. Snowe wouldn't know a representative of the "far-right," if he strolled up and crammed a Gadsden Flag down her throat.
Rather than "far-right," let's call it true: Democrat-lite.
I'm sure you're familiar with Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result, each time. Ms. Snowe's living out that little equation. After all, being the "big-tent" party has worked so well for the GOP thus far, we'd be crazy to forego expanding it into a full six-ring circus. Barnum and Bailey would be proud.
Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, head of the Democratic campaign committee, called the development "proof positive that the Republican Party is so out of touch with Americans that they're losing one of its most prominent leaders."
Another senatorial sage weighs in. I can think of no better way of replenishing the GOP than listening to opposition advice. He's right that the GOP is out of touch, but not for any reason he might imagine. Specter used the Republican Party platform as a diving board into the Demonrat pool. Gosh, I'm gonna miss him.
Specter's betrayal is the culmination of a career of knifing others in the back. The GOP is a better party for his absence. Now it's time to clean house: take out all the garbage. People like Snowe should be driven from the Party, if they won't leave on their own accord. I'm sure the Jackasses will make room for them in their big tent. They'll never turn away one of their own.
Just watch where you step.
Adding insult to injury, Specter grew animated as he blamed conservatives for helping deliver control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006, a result he said made it impossible to confirm numerous judicial appointees of Bush.
"They don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don't understand it, but that's what they said," he added.
Whew! Good thing they didn't make that mistake when they helped you win reelection.
Ultimately, we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history, the way events have been unfolding," she said. "If the Republican Party fully intends to become a majority party in the future, it must move from the far right back toward the middle."
Our Founders envisioned a Senate peopled by older men who already had made their fortunes in life and gained the wisdom that comes with age and experience. They hoped for an august body of those who surpassed the general populace in morality and discernment. Those with "horse-sense," if you will. But somehow we managed to rope ourselves a whole herd of foolish, braying jackasses -- people who have less circumspection or ethical insight than the average fast-food worker or housewife.
Case-in-point: the bubblehead above, Ms. Snowe. The party needs to move to the center, because a liberal fled its ranks? Can anyone follow her non sequitur logic? "Far-right?" Is she hanging out with Cheech and Chong? When in the past twenty years has the GOP done anything properly classifiable as "far-right?" Oh, she must mean the proper care and feeding of Big Brother: skyrocketing spending increases, massive federal intrusion into private life, porous borders, a "War for the Glorious Democracies of Shariastan," and socializing various industries, such as the home loan organizations. You know, typical "far-right" tactics. Not to mention the sparse ground gained in fighting homosexual redefinitions of marriage, and abortion. Ms. Snowe wouldn't know a representative of the "far-right," if he strolled up and crammed a Gadsden Flag down her throat.
Rather than "far-right," let's call it true: Democrat-lite.
I'm sure you're familiar with Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result, each time. Ms. Snowe's living out that little equation. After all, being the "big-tent" party has worked so well for the GOP thus far, we'd be crazy to forego expanding it into a full six-ring circus. Barnum and Bailey would be proud.
Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, head of the Democratic campaign committee, called the development "proof positive that the Republican Party is so out of touch with Americans that they're losing one of its most prominent leaders."
Another senatorial sage weighs in. I can think of no better way of replenishing the GOP than listening to opposition advice. He's right that the GOP is out of touch, but not for any reason he might imagine. Specter used the Republican Party platform as a diving board into the Demonrat pool. Gosh, I'm gonna miss him.
Specter's betrayal is the culmination of a career of knifing others in the back. The GOP is a better party for his absence. Now it's time to clean house: take out all the garbage. People like Snowe should be driven from the Party, if they won't leave on their own accord. I'm sure the Jackasses will make room for them in their big tent. They'll never turn away one of their own.
Just watch where you step.
Adding insult to injury, Specter grew animated as he blamed conservatives for helping deliver control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006, a result he said made it impossible to confirm numerous judicial appointees of Bush.
"They don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don't understand it, but that's what they said," he added.
Whew! Good thing they didn't make that mistake when they helped you win reelection.
Monday, May 4, 2009
"We'll Not Give Up the Ghost!"
Sometimes, it's fun to rub people's noses in a big, steaming pile of I Told You So.
Nearly five years ago, I said this about Bush endorsing and campaigning for Arlen Specter against his more conservative GOP opponent (Pat Toomey) in his Senate campaign:
For the staunch Republicans out there, here's a question to ponder: If Bush is a conservative, and if he has the nation's best interests at heart, why in the world would he vehemently fight against someone who is pro-life, while championing someone who diametrically is opposed to doing away with abortion?
In the comments section, I added this:
Perhaps Toomey would've made a much better showing, though, if Bush had publicly campaigned for him. My problem with this--& other situations like it--is that it seems the Republicans almost always put pragmatism (keeping the party in power) ahead of principle. This bothers me to no end.
Furthermore, why is keeping a Republican in power important, if he's the sort who will stonewall and be a burr under his own party's saddle?
I was told that backing Specter was needed for the simple reason that Toomey had no chance of winning, among other issues. Yet all was for naught, because Specter ghosted away to the Demonrat Party last Tuesday.
So I hope those who defended Bush, et. al.'s actions are proud of themselves. You went to bat for those who gave us not just a Demonrat in temperament, but a Demonrat in literal fact. It's a perfect example of pragmatism over principle backfiring and blowing up in your faces, and it comes as no surprise at all.
Go, team, go!
Nearly five years ago, I said this about Bush endorsing and campaigning for Arlen Specter against his more conservative GOP opponent (Pat Toomey) in his Senate campaign:
For the staunch Republicans out there, here's a question to ponder: If Bush is a conservative, and if he has the nation's best interests at heart, why in the world would he vehemently fight against someone who is pro-life, while championing someone who diametrically is opposed to doing away with abortion?
In the comments section, I added this:
Perhaps Toomey would've made a much better showing, though, if Bush had publicly campaigned for him. My problem with this--& other situations like it--is that it seems the Republicans almost always put pragmatism (keeping the party in power) ahead of principle. This bothers me to no end.
Furthermore, why is keeping a Republican in power important, if he's the sort who will stonewall and be a burr under his own party's saddle?
I was told that backing Specter was needed for the simple reason that Toomey had no chance of winning, among other issues. Yet all was for naught, because Specter ghosted away to the Demonrat Party last Tuesday.
So I hope those who defended Bush, et. al.'s actions are proud of themselves. You went to bat for those who gave us not just a Demonrat in temperament, but a Demonrat in literal fact. It's a perfect example of pragmatism over principle backfiring and blowing up in your faces, and it comes as no surprise at all.
Go, team, go!
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Twilight of Okenya
Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its controversial report warning against "right-wing extremists" in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups – animal rights activists, black separatists, tax protesters, even worshippers of the Norse god Odin – as potential "threats."
Fools! Dost thou stoke the flames of Odin's wrath? Woe unto thee, for he shall stalk from the halls of Valhalla and clamber o'er the walls of Asgard, descending with your dooms upon his smiling lips! Quail before his mighty hand! Thou hast reaped thine own personal Ragnarok from a field of folly!
And when he fells thee and spurns thy cloven carcasses, the Choosers of the Slain shall sweep in and spit into the vacant eyes and wipe their feet upon the useless clay, even as thy souls are cast gibbering into the bowels of Nifelhel -- there to stumble through the mists of thine own idiocy for an eternity of eternities!
Thus spake Snorri Snorersson, Harbinger of the Valkyries and Caretaker of Odin's Chamber-pot!
Fools! Dost thou stoke the flames of Odin's wrath? Woe unto thee, for he shall stalk from the halls of Valhalla and clamber o'er the walls of Asgard, descending with your dooms upon his smiling lips! Quail before his mighty hand! Thou hast reaped thine own personal Ragnarok from a field of folly!
And when he fells thee and spurns thy cloven carcasses, the Choosers of the Slain shall sweep in and spit into the vacant eyes and wipe their feet upon the useless clay, even as thy souls are cast gibbering into the bowels of Nifelhel -- there to stumble through the mists of thine own idiocy for an eternity of eternities!
Thus spake Snorri Snorersson, Harbinger of the Valkyries and Caretaker of Odin's Chamber-pot!
Friday, May 1, 2009
Spectral Morality
I'm sure you've heard that Arlen Specter has abandoned Sauron and dived into the willing embrace of Morgoth. (For those who snub Tolkien, It's like disassociating oneself from Stalin to spoon with Satan). In other words, he left the Repugnicruds and joined the Demonrats.
Philosophically speaking, this poses no long-term problem for the GOP, since Specter's loyalty to the party platform is as genuine as an abortion doctor's to the Hippocratic Oath. He's the quintessential RINO; it's logical that he's now coming out, as it were, and revealing his true self. Let's face it: losing a big-government liberal from one's ranks is never a bad thing.
But his Benedict Arnold approach to politics indicates a man of less-than-sterling character. How many people voted for him--at least in part--because he was a Republican? This brand of party loyalty sounds silly to those of us who believe principle trumps the letter after one's name, but we know that a significant percentage of voters cast their votes according to political affiliation, however misplaced such dedication seems.
Specter's "switch" is the political equivalent of giving those people the finger. His attitude may be summed up thusly: "I don't care if you idiots voted for me because I was a Republican. I don't care if you would have withheld your vote and given it to someone else, had you known that I would later turn to the Democrat side. I don't care if you would have shunned me, if I had been a Democrat in the beginning. I have your vote, and I've put it toward obtaining and retaining power. Thanks, suckers."
His decision leads us to this inevitable conclusion; such a dishonest tack is far removed from constitutional notions of representative government. Imagine Samuel Adams' disgust with this brand of turncoat politics.
Other possibilities for Specter existed--stepping down from his position, or waiting until the next election cycle to disengage from the GOP, becoming an Independent, etc. All would have stood as more honorable measures than abandonment of his consituents mid-term. But hoping for common decency and integrity from those devoted to power above all else is a pipe dream.
In further confirmation of his righteous Messiahship, Okenya said he was "thrilled" with Specter's decision to jump ship. "Thrilled?" Really? You're ecstatic that Specter betrayed the voters and created an unfair advantage for the Jackass Party by subverting the people's will?
Mr. President, when conservatives and libertarians classify you as evil and power-hungry, remember how this situation exemplifies and confirms their belief.
Philosophically speaking, this poses no long-term problem for the GOP, since Specter's loyalty to the party platform is as genuine as an abortion doctor's to the Hippocratic Oath. He's the quintessential RINO; it's logical that he's now coming out, as it were, and revealing his true self. Let's face it: losing a big-government liberal from one's ranks is never a bad thing.
But his Benedict Arnold approach to politics indicates a man of less-than-sterling character. How many people voted for him--at least in part--because he was a Republican? This brand of party loyalty sounds silly to those of us who believe principle trumps the letter after one's name, but we know that a significant percentage of voters cast their votes according to political affiliation, however misplaced such dedication seems.
Specter's "switch" is the political equivalent of giving those people the finger. His attitude may be summed up thusly: "I don't care if you idiots voted for me because I was a Republican. I don't care if you would have withheld your vote and given it to someone else, had you known that I would later turn to the Democrat side. I don't care if you would have shunned me, if I had been a Democrat in the beginning. I have your vote, and I've put it toward obtaining and retaining power. Thanks, suckers."
His decision leads us to this inevitable conclusion; such a dishonest tack is far removed from constitutional notions of representative government. Imagine Samuel Adams' disgust with this brand of turncoat politics.
Other possibilities for Specter existed--stepping down from his position, or waiting until the next election cycle to disengage from the GOP, becoming an Independent, etc. All would have stood as more honorable measures than abandonment of his consituents mid-term. But hoping for common decency and integrity from those devoted to power above all else is a pipe dream.
In further confirmation of his righteous Messiahship, Okenya said he was "thrilled" with Specter's decision to jump ship. "Thrilled?" Really? You're ecstatic that Specter betrayed the voters and created an unfair advantage for the Jackass Party by subverting the people's will?
Mr. President, when conservatives and libertarians classify you as evil and power-hungry, remember how this situation exemplifies and confirms their belief.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Ch-ch-changes
As you've probably noticed by now, I've made a few changes to the ol' blog. Okenya's positivity and reshaping of the American order was my inspiration.
I thought upgrading my template was a good idea, so imagine my surprise, when doing so stripped HaloScan and Sitemeter from the blog, and jumbled up my sidebar. Oh, well. You live, you learn, as that stringy-haired waif Alanis Morissette says.
Through a little trial and terror, I forced everything into working order, with one exception. When I reinstalled HaloScan, my blog title and new picture at the top vanished. I experimented by removing HaloScan, again, and both reappeared. Then I put the commenting system back on, and they're gone, again. Poof! I emailed HaloScan about this, Friday night; so far, I haven't heard from them. Maybe they're gone to an HTML convention.
Speaking of HTML, I know almost as little about its mysteries as Okenya kens about the economy, so bear with me through the tweakery.
Here's a place for you to bloviate on pretty much anything that's on your mind.
I thought upgrading my template was a good idea, so imagine my surprise, when doing so stripped HaloScan and Sitemeter from the blog, and jumbled up my sidebar. Oh, well. You live, you learn, as that stringy-haired waif Alanis Morissette says.
Through a little trial and terror, I forced everything into working order, with one exception. When I reinstalled HaloScan, my blog title and new picture at the top vanished. I experimented by removing HaloScan, again, and both reappeared. Then I put the commenting system back on, and they're gone, again. Poof! I emailed HaloScan about this, Friday night; so far, I haven't heard from them. Maybe they're gone to an HTML convention.
Speaking of HTML, I know almost as little about its mysteries as Okenya kens about the economy, so bear with me through the tweakery.
Here's a place for you to bloviate on pretty much anything that's on your mind.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
If Thy Freedom Offend Me, I'll Pluck It Out
The Alliance Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit on behalf of students and parents against the Wilson County School Board in Tennessee.
Lakeview Elementary School students wanted to display posters that referenced God and prayer, but school officials said they had to cover up those references before the posters could be displayed. The posters were hand-drawn by students and announced voluntary activities such as the "See You at the Pole" prayer event.
Kellum says the school is arguing that the posters cause an Establishment Clause problem, and that some students might be offended if these religious students were able to express their beliefs.
These are the same dishonest, constitutionally-illiterate excuses offered up by our godless public schools over the last twenty years.
On the one hand, we have elementary students attempting the exercise of their God-given, constitutionally-protected rights of free speech and religion. On the other, we have a school administration that believes this is identical to the Congress of the United States of America establishing a specific religion. This should serve as ample justification for an automatic dismissal from one's position as teacher, principal, or superintendant. It's patent idiocy, and the people shoveling this buzzing fly-heap know it. Either that, or they remain so clueless about American history that they'd give a North Korean labor-camp prisoner a run for his money in terms of pure ignorance of the outside world. Regardless, one could argue that they have little of value to impart to the rising generation.
I love the "Someone might be offended!" argument. It's as impervious to logic as a Sherman tank's armor under the barrage of a squirt gun. Remember when James Madison passionately championed your right to remain un-offended, until you crossed the bar?
Me neither.
There is no God-ordained right to remain unoffended. There is no constitutional protection of your delicate sensibilities. It's unenforceable, subjective nonsense. I suppose we should shoot Michael Moore, because his mere existence offends me.
And used within the context of restricting speech and religion on a school campus, it's also a lie. Otherwise, why no equal level of concern for the Christians and others who have their speech curtailed and their religious expression squelched? Somehow, that's not so important.
But that "Bugaboo to frighten ye" that they've created--well, he might take offense, and we can't have that.
Lakeview Elementary School students wanted to display posters that referenced God and prayer, but school officials said they had to cover up those references before the posters could be displayed. The posters were hand-drawn by students and announced voluntary activities such as the "See You at the Pole" prayer event.
Kellum says the school is arguing that the posters cause an Establishment Clause problem, and that some students might be offended if these religious students were able to express their beliefs.
These are the same dishonest, constitutionally-illiterate excuses offered up by our godless public schools over the last twenty years.
On the one hand, we have elementary students attempting the exercise of their God-given, constitutionally-protected rights of free speech and religion. On the other, we have a school administration that believes this is identical to the Congress of the United States of America establishing a specific religion. This should serve as ample justification for an automatic dismissal from one's position as teacher, principal, or superintendant. It's patent idiocy, and the people shoveling this buzzing fly-heap know it. Either that, or they remain so clueless about American history that they'd give a North Korean labor-camp prisoner a run for his money in terms of pure ignorance of the outside world. Regardless, one could argue that they have little of value to impart to the rising generation.
I love the "Someone might be offended!" argument. It's as impervious to logic as a Sherman tank's armor under the barrage of a squirt gun. Remember when James Madison passionately championed your right to remain un-offended, until you crossed the bar?
Me neither.
There is no God-ordained right to remain unoffended. There is no constitutional protection of your delicate sensibilities. It's unenforceable, subjective nonsense. I suppose we should shoot Michael Moore, because his mere existence offends me.
And used within the context of restricting speech and religion on a school campus, it's also a lie. Otherwise, why no equal level of concern for the Christians and others who have their speech curtailed and their religious expression squelched? Somehow, that's not so important.
But that "Bugaboo to frighten ye" that they've created--well, he might take offense, and we can't have that.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Miracles Are Miraculous
"I don't believe in miracles, because they are unscientific."
How many times have you heard atheists / agnostics / evolutionists say this, or something along similar lines? I'm betting you're familiar with this "reasoning," if you've ever engaged a non-believer in a discussion of this topic.
My response is: "Yes. And?"
That miracles are unscientific is a flaccid observation, offering little insight into miracles, themselves. Of course they're unscientific. Miracles -- by definition -- are special acts of God. If mundane scientific explanations accounted for them, they wouldn't be miracles.
Let's reword the above statement for clarity's sake:
"I don't believe in miracles, because they are miraculous."
See how absurd and circular this reasoning appears?
The above reveals plenty about the mindset of those who utter it. They imply that God either does not exist, or is impotent in the performance of miracles. But these are two assumptions that stand unproven and unprovable. Non-believers take them on faith.
The assertion also suggests that scientific evidence either is the sole form of evidence available to us, or the one form of valid evidence. But both demonstrably are false. We know that other evidential types exist -- documentary, physical, testimonial, etc. Courts of law have accepted these as legitimate categories of evidence throughout the history of Western civilization.
The relevant question is not: "Are miracles scientific?" but: "Do miracles happen?"
Existing evidence offers us stronger reason for an answer in the affirmative than the negative.
The bottom line is that the secular dismissal of miracles is based upon faithful assumptions and / or faulty premises.
How many times have you heard atheists / agnostics / evolutionists say this, or something along similar lines? I'm betting you're familiar with this "reasoning," if you've ever engaged a non-believer in a discussion of this topic.
My response is: "Yes. And?"
That miracles are unscientific is a flaccid observation, offering little insight into miracles, themselves. Of course they're unscientific. Miracles -- by definition -- are special acts of God. If mundane scientific explanations accounted for them, they wouldn't be miracles.
Let's reword the above statement for clarity's sake:
"I don't believe in miracles, because they are miraculous."
See how absurd and circular this reasoning appears?
The above reveals plenty about the mindset of those who utter it. They imply that God either does not exist, or is impotent in the performance of miracles. But these are two assumptions that stand unproven and unprovable. Non-believers take them on faith.
The assertion also suggests that scientific evidence either is the sole form of evidence available to us, or the one form of valid evidence. But both demonstrably are false. We know that other evidential types exist -- documentary, physical, testimonial, etc. Courts of law have accepted these as legitimate categories of evidence throughout the history of Western civilization.
The relevant question is not: "Are miracles scientific?" but: "Do miracles happen?"
Existing evidence offers us stronger reason for an answer in the affirmative than the negative.
The bottom line is that the secular dismissal of miracles is based upon faithful assumptions and / or faulty premises.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Happy Easter
May the Lord bless and keep you all on this day, and in days to come. I thank Him for His act of sacrifice, so that we may spend eternity in His presence. I'm unworthy of His love, but I'm overjoyed that He has chosen to share it with me.
He'll share it with you, as well, if you'll just ask Him to reveal Himself to you, and come into your heart.
No decision is more important, or more worthwhile.
He'll share it with you, as well, if you'll just ask Him to reveal Himself to you, and come into your heart.
No decision is more important, or more worthwhile.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Islam Is the Enemy
In a major speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara Monday, Obama declared that the United States "is not and never will be at war with Islam" and called Turkey a "critical ally," earning himself much praise in a country where his predecessor left the US image in tatters.
This is why the "War on Terror" is a farce, and would end as a failure even it it was a sincere effort. Obama is continuing the same PC, history-whitewashing tone initiated by George W. Bush.
We are at war with Islam, whether we acknowledge this truth, or not. Osama bin Laden and his ilk are not radical, cultish offshoots and lunatics. They represent standard Islam--historically and philosophically. The proof of this lies in the acceptance and approval of their tactics and agenda the world over, by millions of "mainstream" Muslims.
Muslims have inundated Europe and become a powerful political force in what was once the realm of Richard the Lionheart, Charles Martel, and Janos Hunyadi. They are remaking Christendom in their own image--and this time not by conquest, but through cultural saturation. They are making similar efforts in the U.S.A., to a lesser degree. Complicit in this travesty are the elite heirs of Western civilization--people who have willingly diseased their own minds with the degenerative effects of political correctness.
Just as Obama dabbles in prophecy in assuring Turkey that we "never will be at war with Islam"--as if someone so unwise has a clue as to what the future holds--I am reminded of T.S. Eliot's far more pertinent words playing out in the West as I type this post:
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
--"The Hollow Men" (1925)
This is why the "War on Terror" is a farce, and would end as a failure even it it was a sincere effort. Obama is continuing the same PC, history-whitewashing tone initiated by George W. Bush.
We are at war with Islam, whether we acknowledge this truth, or not. Osama bin Laden and his ilk are not radical, cultish offshoots and lunatics. They represent standard Islam--historically and philosophically. The proof of this lies in the acceptance and approval of their tactics and agenda the world over, by millions of "mainstream" Muslims.
Muslims have inundated Europe and become a powerful political force in what was once the realm of Richard the Lionheart, Charles Martel, and Janos Hunyadi. They are remaking Christendom in their own image--and this time not by conquest, but through cultural saturation. They are making similar efforts in the U.S.A., to a lesser degree. Complicit in this travesty are the elite heirs of Western civilization--people who have willingly diseased their own minds with the degenerative effects of political correctness.
Just as Obama dabbles in prophecy in assuring Turkey that we "never will be at war with Islam"--as if someone so unwise has a clue as to what the future holds--I am reminded of T.S. Eliot's far more pertinent words playing out in the West as I type this post:
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
--"The Hollow Men" (1925)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)