FYI

I enjoy receiving emails with subject titles like:

"Lose Up to Fifty Pounds with Pomegranate Cleanse"

These idiot spambots have no idea that my strawberry kiwi mango flush works just fine, thankyouverymuch.

I think they should try selling Firehose Colonics in Washington, D.C., though. I can think of nothing more fitting. Or necessary.

Bipartisanship

How many times have you seen this ugly word rear its head?

"Let's set aside partisan politics and come together in the unity of bipartisanship. . ."

"In a bipartisan move, today. . ."

Blah blah blah.

This is just another word for unity or oneness. The implied assumption in such statements is that coming together is a good thing. Without exception or condition.

Is unity a good, in and of itself? Or is the worth of oneness determined by the moral virtue or constitutional adherence of the principle upon which we find ourselves unified? I contend the latter's truth.

For example, let’s suppose that we pick up tomorrow’s newspaper. On the front page, we read the day’s leading story:

"In a stunning bipartisan initiative yesterday, both houses of Congress passed legislation bestowing blanket amnesty and citizenship on every illegal alien in the country. Building upon the edifice of bipartisanship erected by the House and Senate, the Grand Enchilada, himself--President Jorge W. Bushandez--signed the new legislation into law. Afterwards, President Bushandez was seen at a pinata party, throwing back shots of tequila and striking a papier-mache George Washington effigy with a broomstick. Hillary Clinton also made a brief appearance before procuring the broomstick and flying home for the evening. . ."

Here we have universal bipartisanship and treason, in unison.

"Bipartisanship" is political jargon designed toward one end: to make you stop thinking, and start emoting. "Oh, well, they came together, after all. It's the sole relevant factor in judging that steepened confiscatory tax rate."

If a Crip and a Blood join forces in robbing you blind, should your focus lie on their making nice, or should it zero in on the fact that they just carted your big-screen tv out the front door?

Sick and Twisted

A website sponsored by Planned Parenthood, the biggest player in America's billion dollar abortion industry, is promoting oral sex and casual encounters in the name of encouraging the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, critics say.


This is like telling the morbidly obese that a great weight-loss success method entails devouring a dozen donuts daily.


The organization specifically cited a video that appears to have a black youth performing oral sex on a white youth, under the supervision of a white guidance counselor.

A review of the promotional videos created by Planned Parenthood show the following scenarios:


--A girl who appears only from the waist up appears to drop her slacks to the floor, then asks a second girl, a third girl, and a boy, "Do you see anything down there?" The counselor advises her to get a test for STDs.

--Two girls, a guy and the counselor talk about what HPV means. The teens' guess is a reference to a sex organ.

--A white youth appears only from the waist up, then a black youth suddenly stands up in front of him, and the white youth says, "I didn't spew."

--A girl says, "I like me. I like spending time with me. It's not like I can get me pregnant or give me diseases."

--The theme song gives the message, "Whatever you call it, you've got to know how to take care of it."


The Texas-based pro-life group Life Dynamics previously conducted an extensive undercover project in which an adult volunteer posing as a 13-year-old called every Planned Parenthood clinic in the U.S., saying she was pregnant by a 22-year-old boyfriend. Almost without exception, the clinics advised her to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge and told her how to protect her boyfriend, who would be guilty in any state of statutory rape.


This isn't being "pro-choice," which theoretically is a disinterested position, as long as the mother/killer has control over when or if her baby's life is snuffed out. This is active promotion of abortion and the undermining of parents, as well as criminal cover-ups, in some instances. Premeditated non-Parenthood is a pro-death organization; we should characterize it as nothing less.

Love, Adam and Steve

Most states don't recognize gay marriage -- but now Hallmark does.

The nation's largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards -- featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. "Two hearts. One promise," one says.

Awwww, isn't that precious?

"It's our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can," Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said.

I'll bet this made NAMBLA's day.

Not to mention that of Habib and his pet goat.

Building a Reputation

Today's story makes the second time in less than a month that Knoxville has made national headlines regarding violent crimes.

First was the Unitarian church shooting, and now this.

The Karate Kitty

Never underestimate the power of the Furce.

One Ring to Rule Them All

This explains a lot.

Religious Fundamentalism

Chris Hedges has written a new book titled I Don't Believe in Atheists, in which he criticizes the New Atheists for their agenda. I agree with his criticism, as it is well-earned, but I've noticed some problems with Hedges' ideas, in an extensive interview with him conducted by John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute. In the interview--which serves more as an opportunity for Hedges to sound-off than anything else--Hedges takes the monolithic view of religious fundamentalism. This is an issue that crops up in Dinesh D'Souza's book, What's So great About Christianity?, as well.

It seems that both men, and most politicians and members of the media, see religious fundamentalism as one big zealous family unit, working hard in the good fight against human progress in all its guises. This opinion holds true most visibly in the sciences. My concern with this approach is its basis in either willful ignorance, or conscious deceit. Ignored is the simple truth that "religious fundamentalists" often hail from drastically different walks of life, and vary greatly in worldviews, values, and behaviors.

When one begins a study of comparative religion, one finds little in common between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, with the exception that both embrace religion on serious terms.

The Christian fundamentalist believes in scriptural authority and inerrancy, taking each book of the Bible at face-value. He believes in sharing the Good News and helping his fellow man, in Christ. He thinks our society should be tailored after Christian principles, since those selfsame principles brought Western civilization to heights undreamed by the rest of the planet.

The Islamic fundamentalist, on the other hand, holds a tribalistic view of the world around him. He engages in--or offers moral or material support of--jihad against the infidel. His reality lies broken in two halves: the House of Islam, and the House of War. Enlarging the House of Islam until it incorporates the House of War into its dominion is his goal. Killing in the name of his god is not only defensible, but commendable. It is an expression of his love for Allah, and falls well within the dictates of his god's will.

One who lumps all religious fundamentalists into a single category exhibits intellectual laziness and an incuriosity about the chasmic distinctions between religions and cultures. He shuns history and clutches at a contemporary fad.

One of the reasons why I believe in the correctness of a fundamental approach to Christianity is the irrational, dishonest, and nigh-universal revilement it receives outside fundamentalist circles--in the realm of politics, from the sundry media, the scientific establishment, secular institutions and figures, and even from other self-professing Christians.

A Blank Check for AIDS

I receive a monthly newsletter from U.S. Senator Bob Corker, who represents my state in Washington, D.C. In the August 2008 edition, this jumped out at me:

Combating HIV/AIDS is one of the most critical long-term health and national security issues facing the developing world, which is why I recently supported legislation to reauthorize funding for U.S. global HIV/AIDS programs. During trips to Haiti and South Africa over the past year, I’ve had the privilege of talking with individuals that, because of the generosity of the American people, are accessing prevention programs, receiving anti-retroviral medications, and learning skills to improve their quality of life with AIDS. I also met with individuals that have not been so lucky and recognize that more can and should be done to reach these people in need. I was disappointed that the Senate did not pass a couple of amendments that would have further increased accountability so that in the future we can better ensure U.S. programs and contributions are going to fight this disease in the most effective way. Overall, I am pleased to have had a role in shaping the bill, and I hope it brings us closer to meeting the needs of HIV/AIDS patients globally.

First, I'd like Mr. Corker to explain to the good people of Tennessee why dealing with AIDS in Haiti and South Africa is their responsibility. I'd also enjoy watching him shred the Constitution as he searches in vain for that clause giving him authority to fight diseases in Can'tKeepItZipped-world countries. I won't hold my breath waiting for his explanation. He's far too busy emoting for such inanities.

because of the generosity of the American people. . .

This is politician-speak for "that good ol' boy didn't run me down and bash my head in, when I mugged him. Whatta guy!" I think the American people's record on giving selflessly dwarfs that of all other countries, but I see a difference between charity--which is voluntary, by definition--and having my money confiscated without my input.

Suppose I'm walking down the street with you, when I see a drunken bum lying on the sidewalk. I turn and remove your wallet from your pants pocket, peel out a five-dollar-bill, and proffer it to Ned the Wino. Then I look at you, smile, and say: "Thanks for your generosity to the less fortunate; you're a real inspiration, bub."

That about sums up Mr. Corker's attitude, whether he realizes it or not.

As for utopian tripe like "meeting the needs of HIV/AIDS patients globally," I have a little idea of my own that I'd like Mr. Corker to remember:

As you open your heart, keep your hand out of my wallet. Nobility on someone else's dime is nothing more than robbery committed in knight's garb.

"We Don' Need No Steenkeeng Border!"

Mexican soldiers have made yet another incursion into U.S. territory:

TUCSON, Ariz. — Four Mexican soldiers crossed into Arizona and held a U.S. Border Patrol agent at gunpoint before realizing where they were and returning to Mexico, federal authorities said Wednesday.

The confrontation occurred early Sunday on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation, about 85 miles southwest of Tucson, in an area fenced only with barbed wire, said Dove Crawford, a spokeswoman for the Border Patrol.

The soldiers, outfitted in desert camouflage, pointed their rifles at the agent and shouted at him not to move, Crawford said. They lowered their weapons after about four minutes when the agent convinced them of who he was and where they were, she said. The soldiers then retreated into Mexico.

And now for the U.S. government's reaction:

State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos in Washington said the encounter "stemmed from a momentary misunderstanding as to the exact location of the U.S.-Mexican border."

What interests me is two aspects of stories like this: first, the frequency with which these supposed goofs occur; and second, the automatic, identical response from the Bush Administration in each instance. It seems that the federal government's standard policy entails downplaying these "accidents" and playing defense for the Mexican nationals who ended up on American turf with guns drawn. In at least one case, Mexican weaponry included a jeep-mounted .50-caliber machine gun.

How many of these violations must we endure, before the feds come to the understanding that so-called mistakes of this nature actually are messages to the effect that "you can stick your border where the sun don't shine, gringo."?

The Ol' Gray Mare Aint What She Used to Be

It's the question every presidential candidate must be prepared to answer, but when it was posed to Barack Obama by a 7-year-old yesterday, the Democratic senator seemed at a loss for words.

Appearing before a packed high school gym in Elkhart, Ind., the young girl asked Obama why he is running for the White House.

"America is, is no longer, uh, what it could be, what it, it once was," Obama said haltingly. "And I say to myself, I don't want that future for my children."


It's more of that evil future that Odumma doesn't want for his children: you know, like the ugly side effect of sex that some folks euphemistically call "pregnancy." Remember that one? Odumma didn't want his honeychile burdened with a baby, if she had the misfortune of getting knocked up in her boyfriend's backseat. He's added to his list of dystopian future goblins lurking around the corner; this time, it's the terror of America not living up to what she used to be.

It's amusing, but Odumma often is right in what he says, but for all the wrong reasons. It's true that America is not what it could be, or what it was at one time. And we have people like Odumma to thank for that. The America of old was a devoutly religious country, where our liberties were cherished as gifts from God, not to be abused or taken lightly; where government intrusion into private life occured at a much lower level than that of the present; and the burden of taxation paled in comparison to that of today.

This is the America that Odumma hates and actively wages war against in his support of big government and left-wing ideals. Given that we were more religious, more free, and more independent, I wonder which aspect of past America appeals to him over our pseudo-religious, less free, and more dependent current state?

Olympic Nonsense

I admit I've never been a big follower of the Olympics; yet the current activities in China give me no reason to change my mind on the issue.

As you read these words, the Chinese government is murdering Christians, or imprisoning them without trial. The Uyghur ethnic minority--made up primarily of Muslims, with a few Christians--is enduring a systematic campaign of persecution at the government's hands.

People are sitting in re-education camps for the crime of starting "cults." The government considers Christian churches or Bible-study groups "cults," unless they have prior official approval for their meetings.

Perhaps even more egregious, the Chinese are in the process of destroying Tibetan culture. In the midst of this nation's rape, we're seeing commercials on tv about the proud Olympic tradition.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have zero interest in a tradition that won't recognize or condemn open evil. I harbor no enthusiasm for a games commission that refuses even the symbolic rejection of China's behavior, by turning down this massive labor camp as host for the Olympics. Here was an opportunity to send a strong message to the world: we will not offer respect and distinction to a regime that abuses its citizens as a matter of entrenched policy. It's an opportunity not just lost, but thrown away. Besides the requisite moral relativism that saturates everything, these days, I have no doubt that money is a factor in this decision, as well.

China is a place where rights to freedom of religion, petition, press, assembly, and speech receive no recognition. Practical reality indicates they don't exist.

I see little difference between holding the Olympic games in Beijing, this year, and locating them in Berlin, circa 1936. It disgusts me.

Sheer Genius

Barelyblack Odumma has a brilliant new energy policy. Here it is, short and sweet, the product of a true wunderkind:

"There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy," Obama said. "Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much!"

Now, if I wanted advice about making my car run more efficiently, this would be just fine. And talk about your temporary solutions. "I won't support drilling for more oil that we know exists, and is there for the taking, but I will support short-term measures that help us make each drop of what little oil we have go as far as possible--until we run out, of course. Remember The Road Warrior? That's what we have to look forward to. Ka-chunk Ka-chunk Ka-chunk!"

Golly, I'm ready to go out and vote for the guy, right now! Can't we have erection day a little early, this year?

Barelyblack isn't addressing the problem. The issue is the outrageous gas prices at the pump. The issue is keeping our known oil supply off limits through force of law, which artificially ensures that gas remains high-priced, and climbs higher still. There's nothing organic about the gas prices in this country. The law of supply and demand works, but what happens when the available supply dwindles, as a direct result of government interference?

Rather than discussions of tire inflation at proper 44 psi capacity (or whatever), new spark plugs, and vehicles that run on hippie flatulence fumes, a better solution is for the government to get its meddling, unconstitutional, stupid, dependency-oriented carcass out of the way. How about that? Let's build refineries, explore for oil off our coasts, in the heartland, and in the Gulf of Mexico, and tap the extant resources we have in ANWR.

Odumma should get on-board this project. As Bruce Willis said, "Stop being part of the problem, and start being part of the solution," minus about twenty expletives.

Imagine a poster for his campaign: trees and mountains stretching into Heaven in the background; a glistening black pipeline gushing oil down to the lower fifty; beside the pipeline stands a tall, graceful caribou; perched atop its majestic back is our next president, Barelyblack Odumma, staring off into the future of HopeChange with a speckled owl blinking from his shoulder.

Nightmare on a Bus

This is one of the more inexplicable news stories I've ever seen reported. Our local newspaper had a story on it, and Foxy News mentioned it, as well. I've also read online articles dealing with this atrocity. But I've seen no attention paid to a key element of this case in these reports.

The killer spoke with a thick Chinese accent, which means he's not a native Canadian. I know nothing of his legal status, as the media has studiously avoided discussing the matter. However, I note the seeming correlation between this vile crime committed by a non-native and the locality being a nation with perhaps the most open immigration policy in the world. I have serious doubts that this is mere coincidence.

What I'm getting at is this: when your attitude about immigration finds its roots in utopian ideals--as opposed to observational realities in this harsh, fallen world--you should expect not just the commission of such crimes, but an eventual increase in their frequency, in which they "progress" from the exceptional to the commonplace.

What the Moon Brings

At a local Chinese restaurant, today, my wife opened her fortune cookie and read the slip inside:

"The next full moon brings an enchanting evening."

I told her: "Honey, I hope you don't become a werewolf; but if you do, please remember that I'm your husband, and don't eat me."

We'll see what happens. Wish me luck.

One Nation Under God

Did you know that each individual state constitution acknowledges God as our Sovereign? And I mean without exception. In light of the Declaration of Independence, this belies the idea of intended secular government--on both a federal and state level. Here's a list of the states, followed by the location of relevant passages in these documents:


Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution. . .

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land. . .

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. . .

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government. . .

California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe.

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy. . .

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences .

Florida 1845, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty. . .establish this Constitution. . .

Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution. . .

Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance. . . establish this Constitution. . .

Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful toAlmighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings . . .

Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government. . .

Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings. . . establish this Constitution. . .

Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges. . . establish this Constitution. . .

Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties. . .

Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy. . .

Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity. . . and imploring His aid and direction. . .

Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty. . .

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We. . .the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of theUniverse. . .in the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring Hisdirection. . .

Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom. . . establish this Constitution. . .

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings. . .

Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work. . .

Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness. . .establish this Constitution. . .

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution. . .

Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom. . .establish this Constitution. . .

Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom. . .establish this Constitution. . .

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. . .

New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors. . .

New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty. . .

New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings. . .

North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those. . .

North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain. . .

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common. . .

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty. . .establish this. . .

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences. . .

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance. . .

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island. . .grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing. . .

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution. . .

South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties. . . establish this. . .

Tennessee 1796, Art. I, Section III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience. . .

Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God. . .

Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution. . .

Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man. . .

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator. . .can be directed only by Reason. . . and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other. . .

Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. . .

West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of WestVirginia. . .reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God. . .

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility. . .

Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties. . . establish this Constitution. . .

Deadly Diversity

1 in 3 Muslim students in the U.K. support killing in Islam's name:

The report of this finding, based on a poll of 600 Muslim and 800 non-Muslim students at 12 universities in the UK, and conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Center for Social Cohesion, will be released tomorrow as "Islam on Campus."

Among its findings of Muslim beliefs:


1.) 40 per cent support introduction of sharia into British law for Muslims

2.) One-third back the idea of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia law

3.) 40 per believe it is unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely

4.) 24 per cent do not think men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah

5.) 25 percent have little or no respect for homosexuals.

6.) 53 per cent believe killing in the name of religion is never justified (compared with 94 per cent of non-Muslims), while 32 per cent say it is

7.) 57 percent believe Muslim soldiers serving in the UK military should be able to refuse duty in Muslim countries

8.) More than half favor an Islamic political party to support their views in parliament

9.) One-third don't think or don't know if Islam is compatible with Western views of democracy


The report echoes one released last year by the Policy Exchange which found 37% of all Muslims aged 16-24 would prefer to live under a sharia system.

In addition to polling of 1,400 students, the researchers visited more than 20 universities to interview students and listen to guest speakers brought on campus. The report notes radical Islamic preachers regularly deliver inflammatory speeches that target homosexuals and border on anti-Semitism.

The authors of the report note that campus Islamic societies have, in the past, been where some UK terrorists became radicalized. They cite Kafeel Ahmed, who drove a jeep engulfed in flames into a building at the Glasgow airport last year and died of his burns. Investigators believe he adopted jihadist beliefs while studying at Anglia Ruskin university, Cambridge.

This is an inevitable result of multiculturalism, "diversity," and pluralism, and should surprise no one. When you open wide the floodgates and allow into your borders those who do not share your paradigm, your language, culture, or values, a great expectation of societal cohesion and harmony becomes as realistic as a John Lennon song composed after he hit the hash pipe.

When a country embraces "The Other" in massive numbers it gives up its identity and becomes a new and altogether different entity. After all, why would "The Other" merge itself with you, when you're prefectly willing to let it devour you, instead.

Kumusta!

I was checking my Sitemeter statistics, and I discovered that I've had recent visits to my blog from Seoul, the Philippines, and even Kenya (!).

As they say in Nepal, "Howdy, y'all!"

A Secular Government?

We live in a time in which American history has become a casualty of secular influence. Our school textbooks tell us that, though Americans are a religious people, their government is secular. That may stand true as a present reality, but it only highlights how far the republic has fallen from its original heights. As I have elaborated elsewhere, our Founding Fathers were neither secular men, nor were they champions of godless government. Understand that secularism isn't a neutral position; it entails taking a specific side as much as Christianity does.

Dictionary.com provides several definitions of secularism:


1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.

2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

3. Religious skepticism or indifference.

4. A doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations.


So many of us spent our formative years having the notion drilled into our heads that American government is a product of the Enlightenment, of Deism, of sceptical thinkers who saw the evils of religion, and fled its dire influence. This is a modern myth with no historical substance. It allows the spirit of the French Revolution employment as a stand-in for the American Revolution--when in actuality, the former was the true secular movement, while the latter was a religious one.

People tend toward viewing historical facts through narrow, extreme lenses. They see the polar opposites--secularism on one end of the spectrum, and religiosity on the other--and dwell on these to such an extent that they forget the vast middle ground of viewpoints that lies between the two. The Founders eschewed theocracy, so the sole logical conclusion left to us is that they wanted secular government. Right?

Quite the contrary. They wanted non-denominational government, because they realized that the most important property a man or woman owns is his or her freedom of conscience. Denominational compliance through force of law destroys that freedom. They also looked to the sad model of their ancestors' trials and tribulations under the Church of England, in which people received jail sentences for reading the Bible and discussing it with friends in their own homes; in which Christians who deviated from Church norms earned the label of heretic, lost their lands and possessions, suffered banishment, and on rare occasions, became martyrs for their beliefs. They saw loosely bridled political power as a corruptor of religion, and they had ample reason for holding this view. A rejection of theocracy or enforced denominationalism is a far cry from irreligiosity.

Our system of government finds its expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. The Ten Commandments revealed God's general expectations for the Jews, while Levitical law specified the Decalogue for daily living. Our founding documents work in similar fashion. The Declaration is a sweeping statement of principles, while the Constitution takes those principles, accepts them as true, and codifies them in a binding legal code and framework for governance. I make this point for a simple reason: the claim to secular government must find its roots in these two documents. In other words, if our government is meant as a secular institution, then our founding documents necessarily must be secular, as well.

However, when we read the Declaration, we run up against a wall at the very beginning; for here we find acknowledgment of God in the first two paragraphs, and in the closing two paragraphs. How do we reconcile this with the notion of secular documents leading to secular government?

We cannot. This leaves us two options: rejecting the idea of secularism as our Founders' intention, or redefining "secular" as "that which embraces the existence, divine power, and will of God." The first is our one viable option, as the second is nonsensical and reminiscent of the atheist's redefinition of key words, such as "atheism," whenever the spirit of nihilism moves him.

I leave you with a handful of thoughts from John Adams, one of the principal Founders. They nicely illustrate his delusional character, if, indeed, we are beneficiaries of secular government:


"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God." --June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson


"We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!"--April 18, 1775, uttered when he and others were ordered by a British major to disperse in "the name of George the Sovereign King of England."


"[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty."--in a letter to his wife on the day of Congressional approval of the Declaration


"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--October 11, 1798

Deism and the Founding Fathers

How many times have you heard that the Founders were Deists? Personally, I lost count long ago. I read it in books; I hear it on TV; I see the assertion on blogs.

It's everywhere, and it's complete hogwash.

I define the Founders as those who:


--signed the Declaration of Independence
--signed the Articles of Confederation
--attended the 1787 Constitutional Convention
--signed the Constitution of the U.S.A.
--served as Senators or Representatives in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)

(* Including the members of the pre-Declaration Continental Congresses also is perfectly legitimate, though I don't have specific statistics on those individuals. These and the rest include some overlap.*)


Let's take the Declaration, first:


56 signers


26 Episcopalians/Anglicans
10 Congregationalists
11 Presbyterians
1 Catholic


Several who switched denominations or beliefs in later life:


2 Congregationalists/Unitarians
2 Quakers/Episcopalians
2 Episcopalians/Deists
1 Episcopalian/Congregationalist
1 Episcopalian/Presbyterian


The Articles of Confederation:


48 signers


18 Protestant, denomination unknown
12 Episcopalians
9 Congregationalists
4 Presbyterians
1 Catholic
1 Huguenot
1 Lutheran


Two who switched denominations or beliefs in later life:


1 Episcopalian/Deist
1 Quaker/Episcopalian


Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and signers of the Constitution:


55 delegates/signers:


20 Episcopalians/Anglicans
10 Presbyterians
6 Congregationalists
2 Catholics
2 Methodists
2 Dutch Reformed
1 Lutheran


Several who switched denominations or beliefs in later life:


3 Episcopalians/Presbyterians
2 Presbyterians/Episcopalians
2 Quakers/Episcopalians
1 Congregationalist/Episcopalian
1 Episcopalian/Deist
1 Episcopalian/Congregationalist
1 Huguenot/Presbyterian/Episcopalian
1 Quaker/Lutheran


Summary


The Declaration of Independence: 56 signers; 2 Deists.
The Articles of Confederation: 48 signers; 1 Deist.
Constitutional Convention delegates/signers of the U.S. Constitution: 55 people; 1 Deist.


Even if we include Unitarians in the Deist category, this gives us 4 of 56 men who signed the Declaration and were Deists, which is Deism at its highest representative numbers. Furthermore, though 18th Century American Unitarianism denied Trinitarianism--specifically the divinity of Jesus Christ--it adhered to Christianity in all other regards, such as ethics, behavior, and culture. By today's standards, I think classifying Unitarians with the Watchtower Society and Mormonism is more accurate than placing them under the rubric of Deism, but I suppose the point is arguable.

So it's quite clear that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were members of orthodox Christian denominations, not Deists. The numbers are neither debatable on this particular issue, nor even close.

Thus, the pertinent question arises: whence the origin of the idea that the Framers principally were Deists? I think the question has two answers. First, some people are liars; their goal is the belittlement of Christianity, in general, and the obscuration of Christian influence on the formation of the United States of America, in particular. Second--and more prevalent--is the reality that we have fumbled and dropped much of our history in a well of ignorance. Knowledge once accepted as true now has become controversial--not because we know more than in days of old, but because we know less.