My local newspaper ran an article recently about the public skewels' English language program, and the rising costs associated with it. According to the piece, the number of students requiring English-as-second-language instruction jumped from 80 to 112 since last year. The current budget is $116,000, but the educational committee is pushing for an increase to the upper $200,000s.
During this process, the Commissioner asked, "Is there any way to see if the children are legal?"
"I don't think you can ask that," the Director of the county skewels said.
He then went on to say that federal law requires supplementary instruction for students who are not proficient in English.
Now, that may be true; but surely the law makes an exception for illegal aliens. We're not even supposed to ask? Are we to believe that federal law dubs illegal entry into our country a misdemeanor crime, first offense, and a felony for subsequent offenses, but demands that the citizenry fork out money to pay for the education of these same people who shouldn't be on American soil, and are in violation of the above law in their mere presence? Either that is the policy--in all its insanity and incoherence--or it is not the law, and the Director of skewels simply doesn't give two chilli beans about anything more than his own warm feelings toward criminals.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
It's Beginnin' ta Look A Lot Like Kwanzaa
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Everwhur yew go.
Jus' look in da skewel halls
Where dey gettin' into brawls
An' trowin' mangers out in da snow.
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Bongs in evry hand.
An' da coolest cat ya see--
Karenga Bwana, VIP--
Is dancin' like dey do in Zululand.
He's speakin' Swahili an' havin' sex freely
Jus' like dey do on da veldts.
He's dissin' poor whitey an' cussin' so mighty,
Ya know he hates Anglos an' Celts.
An' he hopes snow turns black 'fore it melts.
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Everwhur yew go.
We're praisin' Engels an' Marx
In da churches an' da parks,
An' we're votin' fer Hill cuz we know she likes da bros.
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
So yew bettah rep-uh-zent:
Git yore tamborines and drums;
Make dose ritzy streets yore slums,
Like dey do in da Dark Continent!
Everwhur yew go.
Jus' look in da skewel halls
Where dey gettin' into brawls
An' trowin' mangers out in da snow.
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Bongs in evry hand.
An' da coolest cat ya see--
Karenga Bwana, VIP--
Is dancin' like dey do in Zululand.
He's speakin' Swahili an' havin' sex freely
Jus' like dey do on da veldts.
He's dissin' poor whitey an' cussin' so mighty,
Ya know he hates Anglos an' Celts.
An' he hopes snow turns black 'fore it melts.
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
Everwhur yew go.
We're praisin' Engels an' Marx
In da churches an' da parks,
An' we're votin' fer Hill cuz we know she likes da bros.
It's beginnin' ta look a lot like Kwanzaa
So yew bettah rep-uh-zent:
Git yore tamborines and drums;
Make dose ritzy streets yore slums,
Like dey do in da Dark Continent!
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Epicurean Logic
Vox discussed the Epicurus quotation below, at his blog, yesterday. He lifted it from Pharyngula's website:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Here's a variation that I found on the web:
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is in the world?
Some atheists apparently believe this is a profound commentary on the absurdity of God's existence. I find it incomplete and riddled with holes to the point of meaninglessness. It is not a coherent case against God. It also doesn't address reams of Christian answers to these questions--nor can it, since Epicurus died in 270 B.C. This is an attempt on my part at providing a response to this philosophical "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
The second statement follows the first, but only if the first is true. So does God want to prevent evil, but can't? I'm unaware of a biblical or logical case for this assertion. Genesis 18:14: Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son. Matthew 19:26: Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Scripture indicates that nothing is beyond God.
2. Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
This is a non sequitur. That He is able but unwilling doesn't necessarily presume malevolence. Perhaps non-prevention of evil is a requisite of human free will. As long as the choice for or against God exists, some will decide against Him. If there is no option to reject Him, then free will is nothing more than an illusion, and we are nothing more than advanced marionettes bobbing on ethereal strings. So this statement says more about Epicurus' ignorance of God than it does about God's nature.
3. Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Again, the second assertion is legitimate, as long as the first is accurate. See the above explanation for why this first question is a mischaracterization. As for evil's origin, let's look at scripture. Genesis 1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
If everything was "very good," then it wasn't simultaneously evil. So how did evil enter the equation? Through rebellion in the form of sin, carried out by representatives of the Creation: by the angels who fell from grace, led by Satan, and by the humans who disobeyed God in choosing to fall prey to Satan's wiles. In both cases, a conscious choice was made, freely, to wallow in unrighteousness.
Romans 5:12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
So evil came into the world and became a reality through the works of fallen angels and men. God had nothing to do with it. He offered the choice: to sin, or not to sin; to embrace Him, or push Him away. Men and angels took it from there and did the rest. The burden of sin and its consequences falls squarely on our heads.
4. Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
More presumption about knowing the mind of God. We've already established that the first sentence is inaccurate, so the second doesn't follow.
Atheists and others may find this question-and-answer session illuminating or compelling. I think I've demonstrated that it's inadequate and filled with assumptions and ignorance about God. I don't say this with animosity. But everyone needs to understand that these questions were answered by far more intelligent and erudite people than myself, hundreds of years ago. And even without Christian apologetics or commentary, the Bible in and of itself meets and overcomes each of these challenges, for those who will pick it up and read it.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Here's a variation that I found on the web:
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is in the world?
Some atheists apparently believe this is a profound commentary on the absurdity of God's existence. I find it incomplete and riddled with holes to the point of meaninglessness. It is not a coherent case against God. It also doesn't address reams of Christian answers to these questions--nor can it, since Epicurus died in 270 B.C. This is an attempt on my part at providing a response to this philosophical "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
The second statement follows the first, but only if the first is true. So does God want to prevent evil, but can't? I'm unaware of a biblical or logical case for this assertion. Genesis 18:14: Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son. Matthew 19:26: Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Scripture indicates that nothing is beyond God.
2. Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
This is a non sequitur. That He is able but unwilling doesn't necessarily presume malevolence. Perhaps non-prevention of evil is a requisite of human free will. As long as the choice for or against God exists, some will decide against Him. If there is no option to reject Him, then free will is nothing more than an illusion, and we are nothing more than advanced marionettes bobbing on ethereal strings. So this statement says more about Epicurus' ignorance of God than it does about God's nature.
3. Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Again, the second assertion is legitimate, as long as the first is accurate. See the above explanation for why this first question is a mischaracterization. As for evil's origin, let's look at scripture. Genesis 1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
If everything was "very good," then it wasn't simultaneously evil. So how did evil enter the equation? Through rebellion in the form of sin, carried out by representatives of the Creation: by the angels who fell from grace, led by Satan, and by the humans who disobeyed God in choosing to fall prey to Satan's wiles. In both cases, a conscious choice was made, freely, to wallow in unrighteousness.
Romans 5:12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
So evil came into the world and became a reality through the works of fallen angels and men. God had nothing to do with it. He offered the choice: to sin, or not to sin; to embrace Him, or push Him away. Men and angels took it from there and did the rest. The burden of sin and its consequences falls squarely on our heads.
4. Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
More presumption about knowing the mind of God. We've already established that the first sentence is inaccurate, so the second doesn't follow.
Atheists and others may find this question-and-answer session illuminating or compelling. I think I've demonstrated that it's inadequate and filled with assumptions and ignorance about God. I don't say this with animosity. But everyone needs to understand that these questions were answered by far more intelligent and erudite people than myself, hundreds of years ago. And even without Christian apologetics or commentary, the Bible in and of itself meets and overcomes each of these challenges, for those who will pick it up and read it.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
More Non-Discrimination
From The Rutherford Institute:
. . .while school officials at an elementary school in Washington, D.C., were more than willing to host a Ramadan table so that students could learn more about the Muslim religious holiday, they balked when a Christian parent asked that they host a Christmas table.
Just last year, I was contacted by a parent whose children attend an elementary school in Connecticut. This mother was beside herself after the new school principal ordered all Christmas decorations taken down and insisted that the wording of "Twas the Night Before Christmas" be changed to "Twas the Night Before a Holiday."
Thankfully, enough parents voiced their opposition that the principal was forced to see reason. Similarly, a Chicago school district recently reversed its decision to do away with all holiday celebrations, including Christmas, after parents mobilized and voiced their concerns.
More examples of that will-o'-the-wisp--you know, the nonexistent discrimination against Christians. If this doesn't exemplify attempts to cut Christ out of the Christmas season, or constrain mentions of Christianity, then what is it? It's funny, because the very people who shrug off such things and laugh at Christian "paranoia" are the first to screech about discrimination, when a Wiccan can't dance naked 'round the maypole in the skewel yard. Yes, let's have an in-depth study about Ramadan, which has nigh zero application to American life, but let's not dare subject the students to their own nightmarish heritage, and all its attendant genocidal impulses. And really, "'Twas the Night Before a Holiday"? How compelling. What holiday? Kwanzaa? Arbor Day? Cinco de Mayo? Lenin's birthday? The anniversary of Pamela Anderson's breast implant removal? This is not an effort toward "inclusiveness"; it's about rendering a Christian holiday meaningless. It's about the celebration of vapidity.
This country has a Christian heritage. And to the extent of religion's effects on its people at present--either by mere association, or in true thought and deed--it still is Christian. Our Christian past is incontrovertible, even if the country's population converts to atheism en masse, tomorrow. The lying revisionists and assailants of reality need to get over it. I'd like to note, though, that they would've felt right at home in the Soviet Union, where the truth was whatever the party elite gave their stamp of approval on a given day.
. . .while school officials at an elementary school in Washington, D.C., were more than willing to host a Ramadan table so that students could learn more about the Muslim religious holiday, they balked when a Christian parent asked that they host a Christmas table.
Just last year, I was contacted by a parent whose children attend an elementary school in Connecticut. This mother was beside herself after the new school principal ordered all Christmas decorations taken down and insisted that the wording of "Twas the Night Before Christmas" be changed to "Twas the Night Before a Holiday."
Thankfully, enough parents voiced their opposition that the principal was forced to see reason. Similarly, a Chicago school district recently reversed its decision to do away with all holiday celebrations, including Christmas, after parents mobilized and voiced their concerns.
More examples of that will-o'-the-wisp--you know, the nonexistent discrimination against Christians. If this doesn't exemplify attempts to cut Christ out of the Christmas season, or constrain mentions of Christianity, then what is it? It's funny, because the very people who shrug off such things and laugh at Christian "paranoia" are the first to screech about discrimination, when a Wiccan can't dance naked 'round the maypole in the skewel yard. Yes, let's have an in-depth study about Ramadan, which has nigh zero application to American life, but let's not dare subject the students to their own nightmarish heritage, and all its attendant genocidal impulses. And really, "'Twas the Night Before a Holiday"? How compelling. What holiday? Kwanzaa? Arbor Day? Cinco de Mayo? Lenin's birthday? The anniversary of Pamela Anderson's breast implant removal? This is not an effort toward "inclusiveness"; it's about rendering a Christian holiday meaningless. It's about the celebration of vapidity.
This country has a Christian heritage. And to the extent of religion's effects on its people at present--either by mere association, or in true thought and deed--it still is Christian. Our Christian past is incontrovertible, even if the country's population converts to atheism en masse, tomorrow. The lying revisionists and assailants of reality need to get over it. I'd like to note, though, that they would've felt right at home in the Soviet Union, where the truth was whatever the party elite gave their stamp of approval on a given day.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Hola?
I'm sure this is the gist of most U.S. automated phone conversations, these days:
"Hello, you have reached the English Department of Mierda University. We appreciate your call.
"For Spanish, press 1.
"For Arabic, press 2.
"For Italian, press 3.
"For French, press 4.
"For Swedish, press 5.
"For Russian, press 6.
"For Cantonese, press 7.
"For Japanese, press 8.
"For Portuguese, press 9.
"For Esperanto, press 10.
"For Afrikaans, press 11.
"For Tagalog, press 12.
"For Egyptian, press 13.
"For Hindi, press 14.
"For Mohawk, press 15.
"For Pidgin, press 16.
"For Gaelic, press 17.
"For Hittite, press 18.
"For Quechua, press 19.
"For Klingon, press 20.
"For Yiddish, press 21.
"For Sanskrit, press 22.
"For Nahuatl, press 23.
"For Rapa Nui, press 24.
"For Sumerian, press 25.
"For Carib, press 26.
"For Rasta, press 27, mon.
"For Maori, press 28.
"For Zulu, press 29.
"For Etruscan, press 30.
"For Vulcan, press 31.
"For Quenya, press 32.
"For Cthulhuian, press 33.
"For Ebonics, slam tirty-fo, nigga.
"For English, press *666, and we'll transfer."
"Hello, you have reached the English Department of Mierda University. We appreciate your call.
"For Spanish, press 1.
"For Arabic, press 2.
"For Italian, press 3.
"For French, press 4.
"For Swedish, press 5.
"For Russian, press 6.
"For Cantonese, press 7.
"For Japanese, press 8.
"For Portuguese, press 9.
"For Esperanto, press 10.
"For Afrikaans, press 11.
"For Tagalog, press 12.
"For Egyptian, press 13.
"For Hindi, press 14.
"For Mohawk, press 15.
"For Pidgin, press 16.
"For Gaelic, press 17.
"For Hittite, press 18.
"For Quechua, press 19.
"For Klingon, press 20.
"For Yiddish, press 21.
"For Sanskrit, press 22.
"For Nahuatl, press 23.
"For Rapa Nui, press 24.
"For Sumerian, press 25.
"For Carib, press 26.
"For Rasta, press 27, mon.
"For Maori, press 28.
"For Zulu, press 29.
"For Etruscan, press 30.
"For Vulcan, press 31.
"For Quenya, press 32.
"For Cthulhuian, press 33.
"For Ebonics, slam tirty-fo, nigga.
"For English, press *666, and we'll transfer."
Stupid or Sellouts?
I was just reading a report that I received from the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. According to this update, eight states currently are working toward driver's licenses for illegal aliens. These include:
· Hawaii
· Washington
· Oregon
· Utah
· New Mexico
· Michigan
· Maine
· Maryland
You know, this is somewhat like passing laws to make sure that muggers are properly trained in the use of the firearms they point at their victims. Or maybe seeing to it that the burglar utilizes proper glass-cutting technique, during breaking and entering. Asinine doesn't even begin to cover it. Licenses are gateways to legitimacy, in the U.S. Why in the world would illegal migrants stop their efforts to break into this country, when we not only forego punishment, but reward them for their behavior? This is common sense 101. That many seemingly don't get it means one of two things: either they have a black hole between their ears, or they laugh to scorn the rule of law, national security, or the preservation of our heritage. There's nothing complicated about it.
· Hawaii
· Washington
· Oregon
· Utah
· New Mexico
· Michigan
· Maine
· Maryland
You know, this is somewhat like passing laws to make sure that muggers are properly trained in the use of the firearms they point at their victims. Or maybe seeing to it that the burglar utilizes proper glass-cutting technique, during breaking and entering. Asinine doesn't even begin to cover it. Licenses are gateways to legitimacy, in the U.S. Why in the world would illegal migrants stop their efforts to break into this country, when we not only forego punishment, but reward them for their behavior? This is common sense 101. That many seemingly don't get it means one of two things: either they have a black hole between their ears, or they laugh to scorn the rule of law, national security, or the preservation of our heritage. There's nothing complicated about it.
Monday, November 19, 2007
God Values Us
A recent discussion at Vox's involved scripture's stance on slavery. I'm not terribly interested in getting into this subject; rather, I want to address a couple of Vox's remarks in the "Comments" section:
In elaborating upon his opinion on this topic to a reader, he said:
My essential point is that I don't believe God cares about humanity in the same way that you do.
Man is not His fellow, and He has very clearly expressed His total disregard for human judgment of His actions.
Obviously we are interesting to Him. But is it doubtful that we are important to Him.
I readily agree with his second statement, but find the first and third strange or incomplete. The notion that God doesn't care about humans in the same way that humans care about others is true--but that's not the end of the story. He cares about us more than anyone else--other human beings included. How else do we explain His vast, overwhelming qualities such as compassion, love, patience, and mercy illustrated throughout the entire Bible? Qualities that go far beyond what humans are able or willing to give? Qualities that are expressed without blemish of sin?
As for the third statement, scripture again suggests that God finds us important. Matthew 10:29-31 tells us: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. Luke 12:6-8 essentially repeats this declaration.
John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could read the Gospels or New Testament and reach the conclusion that we are unimportant or of little importance to God. Scripture implies the exact opposite, in the strongest possible terms. That the Bible even exists refutes this position. That God reveals Himself to us in any capacity indicates otherwise. That Jesus came and suffered and bled and died in perhaps the most horrifying method of execution imaginable so that we may enter into Heaven and be with Him makes the claim dubious.
I'm flabbergasted that God loves us or finds us important in the least, but all of scripture, from beginning to end, makes it crystal clear that He does.
In elaborating upon his opinion on this topic to a reader, he said:
My essential point is that I don't believe God cares about humanity in the same way that you do.
Man is not His fellow, and He has very clearly expressed His total disregard for human judgment of His actions.
Obviously we are interesting to Him. But is it doubtful that we are important to Him.
I readily agree with his second statement, but find the first and third strange or incomplete. The notion that God doesn't care about humans in the same way that humans care about others is true--but that's not the end of the story. He cares about us more than anyone else--other human beings included. How else do we explain His vast, overwhelming qualities such as compassion, love, patience, and mercy illustrated throughout the entire Bible? Qualities that go far beyond what humans are able or willing to give? Qualities that are expressed without blemish of sin?
As for the third statement, scripture again suggests that God finds us important. Matthew 10:29-31 tells us: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. Luke 12:6-8 essentially repeats this declaration.
John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could read the Gospels or New Testament and reach the conclusion that we are unimportant or of little importance to God. Scripture implies the exact opposite, in the strongest possible terms. That the Bible even exists refutes this position. That God reveals Himself to us in any capacity indicates otherwise. That Jesus came and suffered and bled and died in perhaps the most horrifying method of execution imaginable so that we may enter into Heaven and be with Him makes the claim dubious.
I'm flabbergasted that God loves us or finds us important in the least, but all of scripture, from beginning to end, makes it crystal clear that He does.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
. . .And the Truth Shall Make You Free
This one's for Merkur and B and others who lean toward atheism/agnosticism.
I've had doubts, myself, at one time or another. I'm not a mindless God-bot or wild-eyed, frothing zealot. But those doubts have proven fleeting. When I look at the creation around me, and I read the Bible, I can come to no other conclusion save that God is real, and that He reveals Himself through His Word.
I've evaluated other religions. I've studied Islam's teachings and history extensively, and have given lesser degrees of time to studying other belief systems. I blindly accept nothing. From my efforts, I've determined that Christianity makes more sense, is more logical, and corresponds to observable reality better than any other religion. It is a reasonable faith. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith thusly: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Biblical faith is not an appeal to gullibility.
I humbly ask that each of you maintain or cultivate an open spirit of inquiry. Be a seeker and a lover of truth. This is not a throwaway issue; it's an important topic, regardless your stance on whether or not God exists. If God is real and has expectations for us, we should expect that He would communicate this information. The Holy Bible purports itself to be just such a news bulletin to the world. If He sent His Son Jesus as a willing sacrifice for the sins of men--again, as scripture and history proclaims--His is an offering we cannot ignore. This is the most earth-shattering declaration and revelation in all of history. Nothing trumps the urgency of our decision for or against Him. In Matthew 12:30, Jesus said: He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. So there is no middle ground for us to dabble in, no neutral position. As the old Rush song, "Free Will" says: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." That's the way salvation works; non-acceptance is rejection, by definition. John 3:16-18 tells us: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now, on the possibility that the above information is accurate, no one can afford procrastination or the luxury of remaining dubious. We scoff at our own peril. I'm not scare-mongering, here; I'm attempting to impress upon you the significance and gravity of the situation.
Please don't take my word for it. Look into the matter for yourselves. Study the Bible. Examine Christian history and the effects of God's Word on human behavior. I recommend beginning with The Gospel of John. This book was written specifically for unbelievers; you'll see what I mean when you read the first few verses. It's the most powerful description of humanity's flawed relationship with its Creator that I've ever read. And of His grace and love.
The whole Bible is a how-to book on living for God, leading others to Him, and getting into Heaven. It's a simplistic description, I know, but distilled into its essence.
Beyond the Bible, many books make a solid case for God's existence, and Christianity's truth. Examples include: Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis; The Case for Christ, The Case for a Creator, and The Case for Faith, all by Lee Strobel. Other great books include: What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, and What If the Bible Had Never Been Written?, by D. James Kennedy. These offer popular, easy-to-understand treatments of the subject matter, and make a good starting point. I'm sure my readers easily can add to this list.
I want you to understand that I'm not pontificating or talking down to any of you. Once I was lost, and it was only by God's mercy that I was found. He has made this unearned gift available to everyone, if he or she just comes to Him and accepts it. Don't be one of those who misses out on the very purpose for which he was created: fellowship with God.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.--2 Peter 3:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.--Luke 11:9-10
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.--John 8:31-32
I've had doubts, myself, at one time or another. I'm not a mindless God-bot or wild-eyed, frothing zealot. But those doubts have proven fleeting. When I look at the creation around me, and I read the Bible, I can come to no other conclusion save that God is real, and that He reveals Himself through His Word.
I've evaluated other religions. I've studied Islam's teachings and history extensively, and have given lesser degrees of time to studying other belief systems. I blindly accept nothing. From my efforts, I've determined that Christianity makes more sense, is more logical, and corresponds to observable reality better than any other religion. It is a reasonable faith. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith thusly: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Biblical faith is not an appeal to gullibility.
I humbly ask that each of you maintain or cultivate an open spirit of inquiry. Be a seeker and a lover of truth. This is not a throwaway issue; it's an important topic, regardless your stance on whether or not God exists. If God is real and has expectations for us, we should expect that He would communicate this information. The Holy Bible purports itself to be just such a news bulletin to the world. If He sent His Son Jesus as a willing sacrifice for the sins of men--again, as scripture and history proclaims--His is an offering we cannot ignore. This is the most earth-shattering declaration and revelation in all of history. Nothing trumps the urgency of our decision for or against Him. In Matthew 12:30, Jesus said: He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. So there is no middle ground for us to dabble in, no neutral position. As the old Rush song, "Free Will" says: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." That's the way salvation works; non-acceptance is rejection, by definition. John 3:16-18 tells us: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now, on the possibility that the above information is accurate, no one can afford procrastination or the luxury of remaining dubious. We scoff at our own peril. I'm not scare-mongering, here; I'm attempting to impress upon you the significance and gravity of the situation.
Please don't take my word for it. Look into the matter for yourselves. Study the Bible. Examine Christian history and the effects of God's Word on human behavior. I recommend beginning with The Gospel of John. This book was written specifically for unbelievers; you'll see what I mean when you read the first few verses. It's the most powerful description of humanity's flawed relationship with its Creator that I've ever read. And of His grace and love.
The whole Bible is a how-to book on living for God, leading others to Him, and getting into Heaven. It's a simplistic description, I know, but distilled into its essence.
Beyond the Bible, many books make a solid case for God's existence, and Christianity's truth. Examples include: Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis; The Case for Christ, The Case for a Creator, and The Case for Faith, all by Lee Strobel. Other great books include: What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, and What If the Bible Had Never Been Written?, by D. James Kennedy. These offer popular, easy-to-understand treatments of the subject matter, and make a good starting point. I'm sure my readers easily can add to this list.
I want you to understand that I'm not pontificating or talking down to any of you. Once I was lost, and it was only by God's mercy that I was found. He has made this unearned gift available to everyone, if he or she just comes to Him and accepts it. Don't be one of those who misses out on the very purpose for which he was created: fellowship with God.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.--2 Peter 3:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.--Luke 11:9-10
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.--John 8:31-32
Monday, November 12, 2007
Miraculous Intervention?
I often hear sceptics say that miracles never happen. Even Christians sometimes wonder why they aren't more prevalent. And then I read stories like this:
Dolphins save surfer from becoming shark’s bait --
Surfer Todd Endris needed a miracle. The shark — a monster great white that came out of nowhere — had hit him three times, peeling the skin off his back and mauling his right leg to the bone.
That’s when a pod of bottlenose dolphins intervened, forming a protective ring around Endris, allowing him to get to shore, where quick first aid provided by a friend saved his life.
I'm not convinced that this constitutes a miracle, but I'm open to the possibility. It's not the first story I've read about dolphins or other animals jeopardizing themselves for a human's safety. Is it an instinctive act, or something more? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that miracles happen. I think the so-called dearth of miracles indicates that people don't look in the right places, or don't recognize them when they see them.
Dolphins save surfer from becoming shark’s bait --
Surfer Todd Endris needed a miracle. The shark — a monster great white that came out of nowhere — had hit him three times, peeling the skin off his back and mauling his right leg to the bone.
That’s when a pod of bottlenose dolphins intervened, forming a protective ring around Endris, allowing him to get to shore, where quick first aid provided by a friend saved his life.
I'm not convinced that this constitutes a miracle, but I'm open to the possibility. It's not the first story I've read about dolphins or other animals jeopardizing themselves for a human's safety. Is it an instinctive act, or something more? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that miracles happen. I think the so-called dearth of miracles indicates that people don't look in the right places, or don't recognize them when they see them.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Unfortunate News
It seems that a fellow blogger has decided to give up blogging, due to personal problems.
Roci, if you're reading this, I enjoyed your blog and your comments, here. I hope you're able to overcome this rough road set before you, and see a reconciliation in the near future.
May God bless and take care of you and your family.
Roci, if you're reading this, I enjoyed your blog and your comments, here. I hope you're able to overcome this rough road set before you, and see a reconciliation in the near future.
May God bless and take care of you and your family.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The Proof Is in the Pudding
In the last post's comment thread, a commenter named B said:
The athiest's argument is actually "There is no god because it has not been proven."
First, I think one's reasoning for declaring God nonexistent is not germane to my point. The unfortunate reality is that atheists lay claim to knowledge that they do not--and cannot--possess. The reasons behind this belief are extraneous to whether or not this is an act of extreme hubris.
I'd also like to point out that B reinforces my earlier contention, in suggesting that he knows why atheists insist that God is imaginary. Individuals express different reasons for reaching the same conclusions. B may have his reason for disbelief, and the atheist professor at the local community college may hold yet another rationale. Aldous Huxley, a proponent of Evolution and grandson of "Darwin's Bulldog," Thomas Huxley, provided this insight into his own beliefs:
‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’--taken from Ends and Means
So here we have an atheist stating that his unbelief is a product of a desire for unrestricted personal behavior, not "because God has not been proven."
Stating that there is no God, because His existence remains unproven, is like suggesting that Attila the Hun never lived, since you find the evidence of his life inconclusive. It's a non sequitur. Proclaiming something untrue due to incomplete evidence is a statement of faith, not science or reason. If I say "I don't know," or "I'm not sure," these are honest admissions. "God isn't real," however, reveals an inherent assumption that one has all the facts at his disposal, when the evidence unambiguously suggests otherwise.
The distinction between atheism and theism isn't faith; both require it. The difference is that, while theists place their faith in God, atheists put their faith in themselves.
It's also worth noting that literally billions of people have weighed the evidence for God in the balance, and have reached the conclusion that He is a fundamental part of reality. So the atheist's assertion that "There is no God, because it has not been proven," is a statement of opinion.
B continues: The only people claiming omnipotent knowledge are actually religious people; does knowing the truth make them God?
This is inaccurate, I'm afraid. Proposing that God exists is not the same sort of claim as insisting that He's fictional. One merely requires evidence; the other has a prerequisite of omniscience. Hundreds of books have been written making the case for God. A few brief examples: every effect has a cause; in human experience, life only springs from life, never from inanimate matter; living organisms show evidence of design, in structures that have irreducible complexity; that forces of chance could produce repeated beneficial mutation-- which in turn produces higher life forms--is statistically impossible; that the existence of reason, itself, presupposes logical, non-contradictory laws. How did blind chance produce workable logic?
One could provide numerous other examples. The point is that the case for God can be and has been made, and in a very convincing manner. True, the proof is not 100% air-tight, but it does exist in copious quantities, for those interested in examining it with an open mind. Atheism, on the other hand, must somehow prove a negative--that God does not exist. This necessitates universal knowledge, which is unavailable to humans. Nor is the limited available evidence sympathetic to a belief in God's fairy-tale quality.
Following the accessible evidence to a reasonable conclusion does not require a claim of omniscience; atheism's accuracy, by definition, cannot be known without it.
The athiest's argument is actually "There is no god because it has not been proven."
First, I think one's reasoning for declaring God nonexistent is not germane to my point. The unfortunate reality is that atheists lay claim to knowledge that they do not--and cannot--possess. The reasons behind this belief are extraneous to whether or not this is an act of extreme hubris.
I'd also like to point out that B reinforces my earlier contention, in suggesting that he knows why atheists insist that God is imaginary. Individuals express different reasons for reaching the same conclusions. B may have his reason for disbelief, and the atheist professor at the local community college may hold yet another rationale. Aldous Huxley, a proponent of Evolution and grandson of "Darwin's Bulldog," Thomas Huxley, provided this insight into his own beliefs:
‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’--taken from Ends and Means
So here we have an atheist stating that his unbelief is a product of a desire for unrestricted personal behavior, not "because God has not been proven."
Stating that there is no God, because His existence remains unproven, is like suggesting that Attila the Hun never lived, since you find the evidence of his life inconclusive. It's a non sequitur. Proclaiming something untrue due to incomplete evidence is a statement of faith, not science or reason. If I say "I don't know," or "I'm not sure," these are honest admissions. "God isn't real," however, reveals an inherent assumption that one has all the facts at his disposal, when the evidence unambiguously suggests otherwise.
The distinction between atheism and theism isn't faith; both require it. The difference is that, while theists place their faith in God, atheists put their faith in themselves.
It's also worth noting that literally billions of people have weighed the evidence for God in the balance, and have reached the conclusion that He is a fundamental part of reality. So the atheist's assertion that "There is no God, because it has not been proven," is a statement of opinion.
B continues: The only people claiming omnipotent knowledge are actually religious people; does knowing the truth make them God?
This is inaccurate, I'm afraid. Proposing that God exists is not the same sort of claim as insisting that He's fictional. One merely requires evidence; the other has a prerequisite of omniscience. Hundreds of books have been written making the case for God. A few brief examples: every effect has a cause; in human experience, life only springs from life, never from inanimate matter; living organisms show evidence of design, in structures that have irreducible complexity; that forces of chance could produce repeated beneficial mutation-- which in turn produces higher life forms--is statistically impossible; that the existence of reason, itself, presupposes logical, non-contradictory laws. How did blind chance produce workable logic?
One could provide numerous other examples. The point is that the case for God can be and has been made, and in a very convincing manner. True, the proof is not 100% air-tight, but it does exist in copious quantities, for those interested in examining it with an open mind. Atheism, on the other hand, must somehow prove a negative--that God does not exist. This necessitates universal knowledge, which is unavailable to humans. Nor is the limited available evidence sympathetic to a belief in God's fairy-tale quality.
Following the accessible evidence to a reasonable conclusion does not require a claim of omniscience; atheism's accuracy, by definition, cannot be known without it.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Fool Hath Said. . .
I think it's interesting how atheists fall back on the cushion of science in defending their evolutionist beliefs and portraying themselves as eminently rational beings immune to that worst of all human traits: bias. No, atheists exemplify objectivity, as is apparent when they crow "There is no God!" without a shred of evidence backing this naked, flabby assertion.
I think it should be stated often--in blunt, clear terms--that atheism is the diametric opposite of a rational belief. I can think of no more egregious example of irrationality than presupposing the harboring of knowledge unobtainable by humans. How does one even begin proving God's nonexistence?
In some aspects, it seems a form of gnosticism, an embracing of "hidden" or "special" knowledge to which the average simian descendant isn't privy. Knowing with certainty that God doesn't exist requires universal knowledge; universal knowledge is omniscience; omniscience is a commonly understood attribute of God, never one of humans.
So the atheist's argument in a nutshell is: "There is no God. I know, because I am God!" This is paradoxical. It is irrational. And it is an uber-obnoxious form of hubris.
The longer I ponder the subject, the more convinced I become that atheism and arrogance go hand-in-hand. The two are inseparably locked together, like a croc and its wildebeest snack, the federal government and your bank account, or Hillary Clinton and a child's pulsating jugular. Indeed, atheism is an actual expression of arrogance, in and of itself. I have never come across an exception to this rule. Not once.
Returning to science for a moment, I find it ironic that atheists and agnostics use it as a tool for belittling Christians. For it was Christians who largely established and fleshed out the institution of science as we understand it, today. It was those poor, froth-mouthed religious zealots who forged the implement that atheists cherish above all things.
It's like someone contracting Frankenstein's monster for a hit on the good Doctor, himself.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Idiocy Enrhymed
An atheist couldn't subsist
When he made the Grim Reaper's checklist.
He went straight below,
But he suffered no woe,
For he knew that Hell cannot exist.
***
The atheist went straight to Hell
Without fond "Adieu!" or "Farewell!"
He said: "This is wrong;
I just don't belong.
I'm not part of myth's clientele."
When he made the Grim Reaper's checklist.
He went straight below,
But he suffered no woe,
For he knew that Hell cannot exist.
***
The atheist went straight to Hell
Without fond "Adieu!" or "Farewell!"
He said: "This is wrong;
I just don't belong.
I'm not part of myth's clientele."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Rodentius Trojanus
Ellen "The Rat" Ratner hands out some typically sage advice on "public health":
Yesterday on "Fox and Friends," Jim Pinkerton and I debated a Fox news poll concerning children and the availability of contraception. Fifty-seven percent said giving contraceptives to children as young as 11 years old "was a nutty idea"; 26 percent said it was a brilliant idea. The most interesting poll result, however, was that a full 83 percent of those polled said that 11-year-olds were having sex.
Hm, I wonder if those folks thought the idea was cuckoo because they don't believe that a response tantamount to endorsement is an intelligent method of solving a problem? Nah, that makes too much sense. By the way, if you believe that giving 11-year-olds contraception is a brilliant idea, chances are you're one of the people they need protection from. Notice that Her Rattiness assumes that children have no self-control, and doesn't even consider self-discipline or moral guidance as a proper course of action. Nope, little boys are walking erections, and little girls are like banks greedily waiting for a deposit. Both are mindless sexual automotons. Heck, why not start handing out condoms in Kindergarten? "Here ya go, Johnny. You and Suzie have safe sex behind the jungle gym; but first, finish coloring your picture of Heather's two mommies."
The Rodent continues in the same insipid vein: Parents who abuse their children, (or parents who do nothing when their children are abused by others – family members, boyfriends etc.), cannot provide quality sex education to their children. These parents should not even be allowed to sign on the dotted line to allow their children to receive health services through the school clinic system, as many of these parents have secrets to hide from the authorities.
As far as I'm concerned, if you abuse your children, or through inaction and disinterest allow the abuse of your children, you forfeit any and all rights to them. It's that simple. Again, she offers no proposal of moral tutelage or zipper control. Just give the little rabbit a rubber.
Many of the people opposed to giving sexually active children contraception though the school system also believe that we should not have needle exchange for those who are addicted to drugs. The argument is the same; if we don't treat it then somehow it won't be as big a problem.
Actually, this isn't the argument at all; it's a deliberate distortion of what opponents say. I've never heard anyone who decried sex education for children dismiss it on an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" basis. They offer counter-solutions, such as abstinence teaching. We just can't have that, though, because abstinence has religious connotations, which are anathema to training up good little lusty drones.
The only overlap The Rat wants with religion is the missionary position.
Yesterday on "Fox and Friends," Jim Pinkerton and I debated a Fox news poll concerning children and the availability of contraception. Fifty-seven percent said giving contraceptives to children as young as 11 years old "was a nutty idea"; 26 percent said it was a brilliant idea. The most interesting poll result, however, was that a full 83 percent of those polled said that 11-year-olds were having sex.
Hm, I wonder if those folks thought the idea was cuckoo because they don't believe that a response tantamount to endorsement is an intelligent method of solving a problem? Nah, that makes too much sense. By the way, if you believe that giving 11-year-olds contraception is a brilliant idea, chances are you're one of the people they need protection from. Notice that Her Rattiness assumes that children have no self-control, and doesn't even consider self-discipline or moral guidance as a proper course of action. Nope, little boys are walking erections, and little girls are like banks greedily waiting for a deposit. Both are mindless sexual automotons. Heck, why not start handing out condoms in Kindergarten? "Here ya go, Johnny. You and Suzie have safe sex behind the jungle gym; but first, finish coloring your picture of Heather's two mommies."
The Rodent continues in the same insipid vein: Parents who abuse their children, (or parents who do nothing when their children are abused by others – family members, boyfriends etc.), cannot provide quality sex education to their children. These parents should not even be allowed to sign on the dotted line to allow their children to receive health services through the school clinic system, as many of these parents have secrets to hide from the authorities.
As far as I'm concerned, if you abuse your children, or through inaction and disinterest allow the abuse of your children, you forfeit any and all rights to them. It's that simple. Again, she offers no proposal of moral tutelage or zipper control. Just give the little rabbit a rubber.
Many of the people opposed to giving sexually active children contraception though the school system also believe that we should not have needle exchange for those who are addicted to drugs. The argument is the same; if we don't treat it then somehow it won't be as big a problem.
Actually, this isn't the argument at all; it's a deliberate distortion of what opponents say. I've never heard anyone who decried sex education for children dismiss it on an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" basis. They offer counter-solutions, such as abstinence teaching. We just can't have that, though, because abstinence has religious connotations, which are anathema to training up good little lusty drones.
The only overlap The Rat wants with religion is the missionary position.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Ya Don't Say
I noticed this headline on World Net Daily:
Pastor hospitalized after attack by police
The incident occured in China.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but one is given the impression that this somehow is a novel event. Christians are suffering persecution from an atheistic, Communist regime? Say it ain't so, Chairman Mao! It's like the six-o'clock news talking head intoning breathlessly: "This just in; rice is a staple food of the Philippines."
This story is noteworthy only in informing Americans of what really goes on in China, our velly velly most bestest flend and favoled tlading paltnel. Otherwise, it's business as usual. So yes, it's informative. But it probably should be filed under the "No Kidding" heading.
Pastor hospitalized after attack by police
The incident occured in China.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but one is given the impression that this somehow is a novel event. Christians are suffering persecution from an atheistic, Communist regime? Say it ain't so, Chairman Mao! It's like the six-o'clock news talking head intoning breathlessly: "This just in; rice is a staple food of the Philippines."
This story is noteworthy only in informing Americans of what really goes on in China, our velly velly most bestest flend and favoled tlading paltnel. Otherwise, it's business as usual. So yes, it's informative. But it probably should be filed under the "No Kidding" heading.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Mental Effluvia
After watching McDonald's commercials over some months, I've concluded that roughly 80 to 90% of the U.S. population is black.
Speaking of TV, Law and Order is nothing but one-sided left-wing propaganda presented as unbiased fact. On this show--and most programs, for that matter--Christians are portrayed as stupid and easily manipulated, evil, insane, or a combination of all three. So if you like your political correctness heavy-handed, I urge you to run out and buy the whole series on DVD, ASAP.
I'm sure that calling a fat Muslim a "porker" is a fatal offense, just like everything else in the Islamic world.
If we ever discover extraterrestrials on American soil, I wonder how long we'll have to wait before Bush proposes giving them "legal" status?
I'm sure it won't be long before J.K. Rowling announces that Voldemort's actions were all expressions of his mindless, religion-driven hatred of homosexuals, perhaps even evidence of his own latent homosexual proclivities.
Why are children of the "Baby-Boom" generation known as "Generation X?" Is it because the powers that be instinctively understand that the world--or the U.S., at least--has little time left, before it's ushered off-stage? Are Y and Z all that's left?
Speaking of TV, Law and Order is nothing but one-sided left-wing propaganda presented as unbiased fact. On this show--and most programs, for that matter--Christians are portrayed as stupid and easily manipulated, evil, insane, or a combination of all three. So if you like your political correctness heavy-handed, I urge you to run out and buy the whole series on DVD, ASAP.
I'm sure that calling a fat Muslim a "porker" is a fatal offense, just like everything else in the Islamic world.
If we ever discover extraterrestrials on American soil, I wonder how long we'll have to wait before Bush proposes giving them "legal" status?
I'm sure it won't be long before J.K. Rowling announces that Voldemort's actions were all expressions of his mindless, religion-driven hatred of homosexuals, perhaps even evidence of his own latent homosexual proclivities.
Why are children of the "Baby-Boom" generation known as "Generation X?" Is it because the powers that be instinctively understand that the world--or the U.S., at least--has little time left, before it's ushered off-stage? Are Y and Z all that's left?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Newsy Nonsense
Hillary says she'd give up some powers, if corona--um, I mean elected. She says she'd limit her use of the IRS as a hit squad to just her most visible political enemies, create a "five-year plan" for the dissolution of the proletariat and conversion of our form of government from republican to Communist, restrict assassinations of former cronies to two per annum, commit rare High Crimes and Misdemeanors, allow only illegal aliens universal health care, confine her "pro-choice" support to partial-birth abortions, and give each ten-year-old a fighting chance before chasing him down, cracking his bones, and slurping the delectable marrow from within. I feel much better, now.
In a stroke of pure brilliance, Bush gave $500 million to Mexico--one of the most corrupt countries on Earth--to fight a drug war. What's next, handing out crisp $100 bills ta gang-bangin' homies in da hood, so dey can buy "growshrees" fo dey chillun?
In a stroke of pure brilliance, Bush gave $500 million to Mexico--one of the most corrupt countries on Earth--to fight a drug war. What's next, handing out crisp $100 bills ta gang-bangin' homies in da hood, so dey can buy "growshrees" fo dey chillun?
Congressional Omniscience
Global warming at least partly responsible for wildfires.
You heard it right here from Harry Reid, expert climatologist.
No doubt he believes Rush Limbaugh causes global warming.
You heard it right here from Harry Reid, expert climatologist.
No doubt he believes Rush Limbaugh causes global warming.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The War on Christianity
In a recent conversation in blogtopia, a commenter assured me that there's no such thing as a war on Christianity in the U.S., and that such claims are nothing more than media-driven hysteria. Of course, how one uses the word "war" determines whether or not he's correct. If you mean American equivalents of Bergen-Belsen or Auschwitz popping up all over like sinister mushrooms, where Christians are fed feet-first into ovens, or lined up all in a pretty row by government agents and given a taste of the firing squad; or harsh prison sentences for heading underground churches; or serving as human torches for the president's amusement; or wrestling lions for popular entertainment, then he's right: there's no war on Christianity in the U.S.
Yet.
But if we're speaking symbolically, in terms of an ideological conflict, there most certainly is a war on the Christian way of life. Acknowledging this is minimal observancy of reality; denial is nothing but ignorance or dishonesty.
We're given the impression that secularism is the neutral position, that the onus of explaining why Christianity should be allowed in the public square falls on the Christian's shoulders. Separation of church and state is treated as a sacrosanct ideal. We're told that prayer in schools and other silly religious (i.e., Christian) notions are prohibited by the Constitution. All of these are lies. There is no such thing as ideological neutrality; godlessness is as much a worldview as religiosity. Christian thought and deed is an American historical norm. Separation of church and state is endorsed nowhere in our founding documents, and even where it is found--such as in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists--its meaning is intentionally distorted. The Constitution specifically protects freedom of religion, rather than undermining it.
For those who doubt the existence of an ideological war on Christianity, ask yourself a few questions, and see if you can formulate a coherent answer: when students are told that they cannot bring Bibles to school, or read them during their free time after class, what does this represent? When the Boy Scouts cannot meet after school on campus (while other clubs and organizations suffer no such restriction), due to discrimination against homosexuals for religious reasons, what conclusion should we draw? When valedictorians are censored in their graduation speeches, or punished when they mention Jesus, does this exemplify freedom of religion, or freedom from religion? When school children cannot sing Silent Night--or are ordered to alter the lyrics before singing it--is this more of the phantom war on Christianity? When Nativity scenes are banned from public property, is this a coincidence, or just "following the law?" When displays of the Decalogue are removed from courthouses--some of which have stood in positions of honor in these buildings for decades--is this more delusion on the part of those who see a creeping death to religious freedom in this country? When crosses are torn off war memorials, or excised from roadsides in hopes of not blighting the landscape or offending the sensibilities of atheist motorists, is this an example of the tolerance of which we often hear?
These events are happening, and with greater frequency all the time. They aren't sensationalistic or false claims. They represent legitimate news stories that I've read--numerous times, in some cases. We're not talking "media-driven hysteria." Forty years ago, such stories never made it to the nightly news or the daily papers. Do you know why? Because they didn't exist, or were aberrations. If there is no ideological striving, no conflicting worldviews, why were these situations unheard of ten, twenty, thirty, and forty years ago? Why is it that a country founded primarily by and peopled with Christians is becoming increasingly hostile to open expressions of Christianity?
Remember that persecutions more often than not begin small and increase in severity over time. The Nazis didn't initiate their plans for Jews, Christians, and other undesirables with murder. They demonized beliefs, restricted their expression, and stifled their influence. The death camps and elaborate tortures came later.
I'm not scaremongering, here; I'm not suggesting that such horrors await Americans, in the near future. But the idea that we're not experiencing persecution unless we endure the same plight as Christians under Nero doesn't mean that our constitutionally-enshrined and God-given rights aren't under attack. That's an intellectually vacant position. It's akin to denying one's own reflection in a mirror, or like the child who believes the monster under his bed won't notice him, if he'll just keep the covers over his head.
Yet.
But if we're speaking symbolically, in terms of an ideological conflict, there most certainly is a war on the Christian way of life. Acknowledging this is minimal observancy of reality; denial is nothing but ignorance or dishonesty.
We're given the impression that secularism is the neutral position, that the onus of explaining why Christianity should be allowed in the public square falls on the Christian's shoulders. Separation of church and state is treated as a sacrosanct ideal. We're told that prayer in schools and other silly religious (i.e., Christian) notions are prohibited by the Constitution. All of these are lies. There is no such thing as ideological neutrality; godlessness is as much a worldview as religiosity. Christian thought and deed is an American historical norm. Separation of church and state is endorsed nowhere in our founding documents, and even where it is found--such as in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists--its meaning is intentionally distorted. The Constitution specifically protects freedom of religion, rather than undermining it.
For those who doubt the existence of an ideological war on Christianity, ask yourself a few questions, and see if you can formulate a coherent answer: when students are told that they cannot bring Bibles to school, or read them during their free time after class, what does this represent? When the Boy Scouts cannot meet after school on campus (while other clubs and organizations suffer no such restriction), due to discrimination against homosexuals for religious reasons, what conclusion should we draw? When valedictorians are censored in their graduation speeches, or punished when they mention Jesus, does this exemplify freedom of religion, or freedom from religion? When school children cannot sing Silent Night--or are ordered to alter the lyrics before singing it--is this more of the phantom war on Christianity? When Nativity scenes are banned from public property, is this a coincidence, or just "following the law?" When displays of the Decalogue are removed from courthouses--some of which have stood in positions of honor in these buildings for decades--is this more delusion on the part of those who see a creeping death to religious freedom in this country? When crosses are torn off war memorials, or excised from roadsides in hopes of not blighting the landscape or offending the sensibilities of atheist motorists, is this an example of the tolerance of which we often hear?
These events are happening, and with greater frequency all the time. They aren't sensationalistic or false claims. They represent legitimate news stories that I've read--numerous times, in some cases. We're not talking "media-driven hysteria." Forty years ago, such stories never made it to the nightly news or the daily papers. Do you know why? Because they didn't exist, or were aberrations. If there is no ideological striving, no conflicting worldviews, why were these situations unheard of ten, twenty, thirty, and forty years ago? Why is it that a country founded primarily by and peopled with Christians is becoming increasingly hostile to open expressions of Christianity?
Remember that persecutions more often than not begin small and increase in severity over time. The Nazis didn't initiate their plans for Jews, Christians, and other undesirables with murder. They demonized beliefs, restricted their expression, and stifled their influence. The death camps and elaborate tortures came later.
I'm not scaremongering, here; I'm not suggesting that such horrors await Americans, in the near future. But the idea that we're not experiencing persecution unless we endure the same plight as Christians under Nero doesn't mean that our constitutionally-enshrined and God-given rights aren't under attack. That's an intellectually vacant position. It's akin to denying one's own reflection in a mirror, or like the child who believes the monster under his bed won't notice him, if he'll just keep the covers over his head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)