A Wisconsin pastor has been charged with felony physical abuse of a child after he spanked his 12-year-old son for lying and a teacher notified social services.
Barry W. Barnett Jr., 43, of Poynette, Wis., is free on a $10,000 bond, but he could face up to three years in prison and fines for disciplining his son, the local Portage Daily Register reported.
Golly, judging by this case, my parents were child abusers a thousand times over—as were my grandparents. Come to mention it, so were most humans prior to the Age of Asininity. How did we survive so long as a race without Big Sissy’s loving care?
At the pastor's hearing, Barnett's son said his father was right to spank him .
"He gave me a chance to tell him the truth, and I just kept lying to him," the boy said.
The boy said his father gave him two "swats" that "hurt a little" on his rear end in June. He told authorities both he and his dad cried while he was disciplined.
The 12-year-old said he was warned he might receive a spanking if he continued to act up and that he understands what he did was wrong.
I can’t decide which is worse: the bruised feelings, or the sore buttocks. I’m sure that a weepy leftist would find the former outweighing the latter. While I’m ruminating over this philosophical quandary, here’s a hint of what scripture says about corporal punishment:
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes—Proverbs 13:24.
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.—Proverbs 22:15
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.--Proverbs 23:13-14
A June 7 report from the Divine Savior Healthcare emergency department indicated that the boy had slight bruising on his buttocks, but it said there was no swelling and he was not experiencing pain. The medical paperwork said the boy told physicians he didn't think he was abused and he loves his father.
The documents show the boy's doctor does not believe he was abused, and he called the event a "social services fiasco."
Alas, if these people only understood that our benevolent government knows best. You poor, silly children. Big Nanny is there to make sure that you save money for retirement, and spend it on the appropriate items. She guides you through life by seeing to it that you never die in a car accident, since she’ll ticket you for neglecting to buckle up. And if you ride off a cliff blindfolded on your quad runner, she’ll cradle your skull in that mandatory helmet. You’ll be thanking her for guarding you from your own stupidity, when you land on your wittle head. She’ll even ignore your desires expressed in referenda, if they exceed what’s good for you. She moderates the number of liquid ounces in your toilet tank, lest you take the notion to drown yourself over that dreadful whipping. Pretty soon, she’ll begin wiping your butt for you (though never spanking it).
District Attorney Jane Kohlwey told the Portage Daily Register the spanking was not reasonable, because it left bruising, though Barnett's attorney claims photographs only reveal red marks.
Even if we assume the bruises were there, that’s information gathered after the fact. It’s not as if the teacher had evidence of such when he/she/it turned the pastor in for his heinous crime. As for the teacher, I believe the correct response is to hang him/her/it spread-eagle by the finger- and toenails on the school grounds, naked, and apply the cat-‘o-nine-tails to its brazen buttocks—for the sake of diversity and anatomical knowledge, if not justice.
"We feel that he went beyond reasonable discipline and that it's a pattern," Kohlwey said.
Yes; and therein lies the problem, Ms. Emo. Your position is based on how you feel. Not on logic. Nor facts. Nor the long history of successful behavior modification techniques. Nor—Marx preserve us—outmoded religious texts.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A Stolen Life
Once upon a time, a young woman of twenty-one years named Jennifer left her home in Alabama and went to Knoxville, Tennessee on a business trip. There, the former homecoming queen planned to help open a branch of Mama Blue's Buffet Restaurant, which also was her place of employment back home.
She checked into a Day's Inn motel, and promptly disappeared about a day later. Family and coworkers became concerned, and within twenty-four hours, her dead body was found floating in Melton Hill Lake, nearby.
Police checked Jennifer's motel room and discovered her personal belongings. There were no signs of forced entry.
The Medical Examiner's report determined that the young woman was beaten, sodomized, and strangled to death.
A woman who worked at the motel went to the police and gave them some bloody clothes that her husband--who also found employment at the motel--was wearing on the day of the victim's disappearance. The blood matched the young lady's blood. Police later learned that this human filth used the motel's master key to enter Jennifer's room.
Police discovered that the perpetrator already was in their custody, due to having been arrested the same day that Jennifer's body was found dumped in the lake. His arrest came as a result of the police charging him with forgery, when they found a fake Social Security card in his possession.
You see, nineteen-year-old Valentino Vasquez Miranda was an alien thug with no legal right to be in the United States.
This is a true story. It happened in the last days of September, 2008.
Besides the atrocity enacted upon Jennifer, and the subsequent suffering endured by her family, the pivotal element, here, is that a woman is dead because our government is indifferent to the mass migration problem pervading our country. In addition, we have a corporation that put the allmighty dollar ahead of its guests' security.
Until our government begins giving a tinker's damn about rapacious murderers running loose in our streets who have invaded from without, and until our home-grown businesses become more interested in patriotism than pinching that last, precious penny, we can and should expect many, many more cases just like this one. We will see more and more of our daughters and wives and sisters and neices floating facedown in lakes, or tossed in gutters like yesterday's trash.
She checked into a Day's Inn motel, and promptly disappeared about a day later. Family and coworkers became concerned, and within twenty-four hours, her dead body was found floating in Melton Hill Lake, nearby.
Police checked Jennifer's motel room and discovered her personal belongings. There were no signs of forced entry.
The Medical Examiner's report determined that the young woman was beaten, sodomized, and strangled to death.
A woman who worked at the motel went to the police and gave them some bloody clothes that her husband--who also found employment at the motel--was wearing on the day of the victim's disappearance. The blood matched the young lady's blood. Police later learned that this human filth used the motel's master key to enter Jennifer's room.
Police discovered that the perpetrator already was in their custody, due to having been arrested the same day that Jennifer's body was found dumped in the lake. His arrest came as a result of the police charging him with forgery, when they found a fake Social Security card in his possession.
You see, nineteen-year-old Valentino Vasquez Miranda was an alien thug with no legal right to be in the United States.
This is a true story. It happened in the last days of September, 2008.
Besides the atrocity enacted upon Jennifer, and the subsequent suffering endured by her family, the pivotal element, here, is that a woman is dead because our government is indifferent to the mass migration problem pervading our country. In addition, we have a corporation that put the allmighty dollar ahead of its guests' security.
Until our government begins giving a tinker's damn about rapacious murderers running loose in our streets who have invaded from without, and until our home-grown businesses become more interested in patriotism than pinching that last, precious penny, we can and should expect many, many more cases just like this one. We will see more and more of our daughters and wives and sisters and neices floating facedown in lakes, or tossed in gutters like yesterday's trash.
Welfare Poem
I received this is an email and thought it was kinda funny:
I cross ocean,
Poor and broke,
Take bus,
See employment folk.
Nice man treat me
Good in there,
Say I need
To see welfare.
Welfare say,
'You come no more,
We send cash
Right to your door.
Welfare checks,
They make you wealthy,
Medicaid
It keep you healthy!'
By and by,
I get plenty money,
Thanks to you,
American dummy.
Write to friends
In motherland,
Tell them 'Come
Fast as you can.'
They come in turbans
And Ford trucks,
I buy big house
With welfare bucks.
They come here,
We live together,
More welfare checks,
It gets better!
Fourteen families,
They moving in,
But neighbor's patience
Wearing thin.
Finally, white guy
Moves away,
Now I buy his house,
And then I say,
'Find more aliens
For house to rent.
And in the yard
I put a tent.
Send for family
They just trash,
But they, too, draw
The welfare cash!'
Everything
Is very good,
And soon we own
The neighborhood.
We have hobby
It's called breeding,
Welfare pay
For baby feeding.
Kids need dentist?
Wives need pills?
We get free!
We got no bills!
American's crazy!
He pay all year,
To keep welfare
Running here.
We think America
Darn good place!
Too darn good
For the white man race.
If they no like us,
They can scram,
Got lots of room
In Pakistan.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Derbyshire’s Dismissal Part III
See the first and second parts.
Derbyshire wrote a long, rambling diatribe at “The Corner.” Can you tell?:
It's no crime to change your mind, and a believer might of course doubt his belief. There's a lot to be said, though, for just getting on with life, and in particular for resolving your doubts. Having come to doubt you're on the right path, weigh the evidence as best you can. Then either stay on the path or (as in my case) get off it onto some other. What seems unconvincing to me is the claims by some believers to have wrestled with doubt for years or decades. To people making those claims, the only thing I can think of to say is: "Isn't it time you, like, made up your cotton-pickin' mind?"
What does he mean by “unconvincing?” Does he believe these people are lying? If so, why not just say that, straight out? Why beat around the bush? And offer a possible motivation for their doing so, while you’re at it.
Wrestling with doubt is a common human problem--even for lengthy periods of time. Derbyshire acknowledges this, to his credit. Obviously, one should make up his mind; otherwise, death will decide for him. But the question is: Why does he care, one way or the other? If I struggle over the question of God’s existence, or my own salvation, or whether or not a miniature troll lives under my footbridge, what is that to him? As an atheist, why does he give a hillbilly hee-haw?
Faith of the Founders. There are different opinions about this too, and I am not competent to judge which of them is correct.
You know what they say about opinions. People differ on this issue because they know little about the Founders. Someone who actually looks into their lives and personal beliefs will find that the vast majority were devout Christians. The reason why this is a contentious issue is because some folks wouldn’t know the truth if it walked up and swatted them in the face with a Bible, while others actively work toward obscuring it.
I note that the Founders all believed in the Four Humors theory of human metabolism — a belief that led, in at least one case, to untimely death from excessive chirurgical bleeding. Fortunately they did not put that theory into their Constitution, so we are not bound by it. They did not put their religious beliefs in, either; so we are not bound by those, either, whatever they were.
So, you have no idea what their religious beliefs were, but you can state in confidence that those beliefs appear nowhere in the Constitution? This is like stating that atheism appears nowhere in the various Humanist Manifestos. Its role may not appear as an overt declaration, but it exists in the spirit and ideals espoused in the documents. And so with the Constitution and Christianity. John Adams—one of the primary Founders--said: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--October 11, 1798. This means people like you, Mr. Derbyshire. The very concept of freedom as fleshed out in the document originated in Western Civilization’s Christian traditions. Saying that those beliefs appear nowhere therein indicates more than mere unfamiliarity with America’s social contract; it reveals ignorance of Christianity’s influence on the development of freedom as we in the west understand it.
To the claim that without Christianity there would have been no U.S.A. (or Western Civ, or science, or orchestral music, or Froot Loops breakfast cereal — the claims here seem to be innumerable) I'll give the answer Macaulay gave two hundred years ago: Even if I allow the claim, it is just as true that you need a midwife to bring a child into the world. Once the delivery is accomplished, however, the midwife is no longer required. That Christianity was necessary in order for X to come about, even if true — and the arguments here strike me as feeble, but let's allow them — does not prove (nor, of course, disprove) that Christianity is necessary for the continued existence and health of X. That has to be proved (or disproved) independently.
This is downright incoherent. With Christianity playing midwife, and the U.S.A. as newborn child, he concludes that Christianity is obsolete and irrelevant to the U.S.A.’s continuance. In the next breath, he speaks of proving or disproving its necessity independently, but makes no efforts toward that end. So what is the point of this paragraph? Regardless, his comparison remains inapt. When a midwife aids in birthing a baby, her continued presence becomes unnecessary after a successful delivery. Her hovering has no bearing on the babe’s life course, from that moment forward. With Christianity, we’re discussing a philosophical outlook, a particular moral world view, informing the existence of our nation; whereas the midwife had no part in the baby’s being, just in its delivery. It would have existed—and probably fumbled its way into the world—even if she weren’t available as an usher from birth canal to waking reality. It’s as if Derbyshire’s intimating that ideas have no consequences, that they don’t shape or change the course of history. This stands as both counterintuitive and demonstrably inaccurate, from a historical perspective.
Suppose an atheist forms a club for atheists. Suppose the organization’s ideals are rooted in atheism. Later, the group’s founder rejects atheism. With this startling metamorphosis, what happens to the club? The answer is simple: It either ceases its existence, or transforms into an entity that bears no resemblance to its former self.
Now suppose Christians build a nation. Suppose their social contract is rooted in Christianity. Later, the populace discards Christianity. What happens to the nation? Again, the answer is simple: It either ceases its existence, or transforms into an entity that bears no resemblance to its former self. This latter transformation is in the works in the U.S. and Europe, as I type these words.
Derbyshire wrote a long, rambling diatribe at “The Corner.” Can you tell?:
It's no crime to change your mind, and a believer might of course doubt his belief. There's a lot to be said, though, for just getting on with life, and in particular for resolving your doubts. Having come to doubt you're on the right path, weigh the evidence as best you can. Then either stay on the path or (as in my case) get off it onto some other. What seems unconvincing to me is the claims by some believers to have wrestled with doubt for years or decades. To people making those claims, the only thing I can think of to say is: "Isn't it time you, like, made up your cotton-pickin' mind?"
What does he mean by “unconvincing?” Does he believe these people are lying? If so, why not just say that, straight out? Why beat around the bush? And offer a possible motivation for their doing so, while you’re at it.
Wrestling with doubt is a common human problem--even for lengthy periods of time. Derbyshire acknowledges this, to his credit. Obviously, one should make up his mind; otherwise, death will decide for him. But the question is: Why does he care, one way or the other? If I struggle over the question of God’s existence, or my own salvation, or whether or not a miniature troll lives under my footbridge, what is that to him? As an atheist, why does he give a hillbilly hee-haw?
Faith of the Founders. There are different opinions about this too, and I am not competent to judge which of them is correct.
You know what they say about opinions. People differ on this issue because they know little about the Founders. Someone who actually looks into their lives and personal beliefs will find that the vast majority were devout Christians. The reason why this is a contentious issue is because some folks wouldn’t know the truth if it walked up and swatted them in the face with a Bible, while others actively work toward obscuring it.
I note that the Founders all believed in the Four Humors theory of human metabolism — a belief that led, in at least one case, to untimely death from excessive chirurgical bleeding. Fortunately they did not put that theory into their Constitution, so we are not bound by it. They did not put their religious beliefs in, either; so we are not bound by those, either, whatever they were.
So, you have no idea what their religious beliefs were, but you can state in confidence that those beliefs appear nowhere in the Constitution? This is like stating that atheism appears nowhere in the various Humanist Manifestos. Its role may not appear as an overt declaration, but it exists in the spirit and ideals espoused in the documents. And so with the Constitution and Christianity. John Adams—one of the primary Founders--said: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--October 11, 1798. This means people like you, Mr. Derbyshire. The very concept of freedom as fleshed out in the document originated in Western Civilization’s Christian traditions. Saying that those beliefs appear nowhere therein indicates more than mere unfamiliarity with America’s social contract; it reveals ignorance of Christianity’s influence on the development of freedom as we in the west understand it.
To the claim that without Christianity there would have been no U.S.A. (or Western Civ, or science, or orchestral music, or Froot Loops breakfast cereal — the claims here seem to be innumerable) I'll give the answer Macaulay gave two hundred years ago: Even if I allow the claim, it is just as true that you need a midwife to bring a child into the world. Once the delivery is accomplished, however, the midwife is no longer required. That Christianity was necessary in order for X to come about, even if true — and the arguments here strike me as feeble, but let's allow them — does not prove (nor, of course, disprove) that Christianity is necessary for the continued existence and health of X. That has to be proved (or disproved) independently.
This is downright incoherent. With Christianity playing midwife, and the U.S.A. as newborn child, he concludes that Christianity is obsolete and irrelevant to the U.S.A.’s continuance. In the next breath, he speaks of proving or disproving its necessity independently, but makes no efforts toward that end. So what is the point of this paragraph? Regardless, his comparison remains inapt. When a midwife aids in birthing a baby, her continued presence becomes unnecessary after a successful delivery. Her hovering has no bearing on the babe’s life course, from that moment forward. With Christianity, we’re discussing a philosophical outlook, a particular moral world view, informing the existence of our nation; whereas the midwife had no part in the baby’s being, just in its delivery. It would have existed—and probably fumbled its way into the world—even if she weren’t available as an usher from birth canal to waking reality. It’s as if Derbyshire’s intimating that ideas have no consequences, that they don’t shape or change the course of history. This stands as both counterintuitive and demonstrably inaccurate, from a historical perspective.
Suppose an atheist forms a club for atheists. Suppose the organization’s ideals are rooted in atheism. Later, the group’s founder rejects atheism. With this startling metamorphosis, what happens to the club? The answer is simple: It either ceases its existence, or transforms into an entity that bears no resemblance to its former self.
Now suppose Christians build a nation. Suppose their social contract is rooted in Christianity. Later, the populace discards Christianity. What happens to the nation? Again, the answer is simple: It either ceases its existence, or transforms into an entity that bears no resemblance to its former self. This latter transformation is in the works in the U.S. and Europe, as I type these words.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Derbyshire's Dismissal Part II
See Part I.
John Derbyshire continues in the same vein:
He quotes a priest, who said: "The most monstrous evils of human history were the totalitarian wars and genocides of the twentieth century, most of which were perpetrated by unbelievers, yet fellow unbelievers express neither acknowledgment nor remorse."
As far as body count goes, he's correct. It's also true that most of these atrocities were committed by unbelievers. Going for the trifecta, he's right, yet again, that atheists generally don't acknowledge the connection between these crimes and atheism.
Derbyshire's response to the priest:
So because I decline to believe in some of the same things that Lenin declined to believe in (heliolatry, the Divine Compassion of Avalokitesvara, Hollow Earth Theory, the Easter Bunny, Christianity, witchcraft, Unkulunkulu, homeopathy, the Great Manitou, … there must be quite a lot …), then there is a presumed "fellowship" between me and Lenin? I'd be offended by this if it weren't so toe-curlingly silly. How about noticing that Lenin & Co. did the beastly things they did because they believed certain particular things, and then applying guilt-by-association only to people who believe the same things?
Why not toss in Leprechauns, Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, and Quetzalcoatl, while you're doing a Google search for cutesy things to say? This is what I meant in the earlier post: Derbyshire isn't interested in a serious, accurate, honest appraisal; he's far more drawn to idiocy. The above paragraph offers us two implications: 1.) All beliefs that I, John Derbyshire, reject are equally ridiculous. There's not a whit of difference between two thousand years of Christian teaching and influence, and Peter Cottontail, hoppin' down the bunny trail. 2.) Atheism had no relation to the beliefs and actions of Lenin, or any of the sundry other 20th century mass murderers.
The first implication is infantile and deceptive, so I see no reason to address it further.
The second demonstrates willful ignorance of history--a pigheaded refusal to look at the facts. Lenin hated religion. He didn't merely find it silly. He loathed it with a virulence so great, one wonders if he actually believed in God, but held a grudge against his creator. Furthermore, he was a huge proponent of atheist propaganda. He believed that the people should be saturated with it, until they ate, slept, and breathed atheism. Suggesting that atheism had little or nothing to do with Lenin's actions indicates one's dearth of knowledge about the man, nothing more. The other tyrants we know and love--Stalin, Mao--also despised religion and championed atheism. Hitler was more pagan than atheist, but he saw Christianity and typical religion in general as the enemy. He worshipped an Aryan god created in the image he formulated.
All of these men clung to Darwinian evolution--the belief that humans progressed upward from primitive, animalian forebears. They rejected the notion that "God created the heavens and the earth."
If God doesn't exist--or is irrelevant to life on Earth--then human beings have no risk of facing accountability in an afterlife or even temporal reprimand from a heavenly father.
Worse, the only rules are those that one man--or a group of men--can impose upon others. The atheist can wax sophistically about his feelings or societal consensus, but that's all bunk, and he knows it, if he has a mote's-worth of integrity in his heart.
So if the atheist is correct in his philosophical outlook, we live in a world with no God, no accountability after death, possibly even oblivion after we die. We have no rules save those that we concoct for convenience's sake. Our feelings determine right and wrong, and those change on a whim. Humans are nothing more than animals who have learned to rule the food chain. There is no external order, no Dickensian "great expectations" from above. Short of his fear of other humans punishing him and causing him personal pain and discomfort, the atheist has no good reason not to thumb his nose at existence, itself, and do as he pleases, for better or worse. This is nihilism, of which atheism is a logical facet.
Now what if the above individual finds himself with virtually unlimited power? What if he has positioned himself in such a way that he can use the state as a tool for the implementation of any agenda his heart desires?
If humans are animals, and the only rules are those hammered out by other two-legged animals, everything is fair game. Every barrier that might hinder you from unleashing devastation upon other hapless humans is an artificial construct. There is no universal truth. Life doesn't really matter, in the lesser scheme of things. Neither does death. In fact, nothing matters, except what the atheist deems important. Is indulging in mass murder such a stretch for someone who envisions such a world?
The 20th century killing sprees are reasonable outcomes of atheism unleashed and helming the state.
As for Derbyshire, he would have you believe that non-accountability from on high, coupled with the belief that humans are just advanced animals on the evolutionary scale, plays zero role in how one treats one's fellow beings. The next time he's rounding up the names of obscure Zoroastrian demons, perhaps he should find an online dictionary and look up the word "context."
John Derbyshire continues in the same vein:
He quotes a priest, who said: "The most monstrous evils of human history were the totalitarian wars and genocides of the twentieth century, most of which were perpetrated by unbelievers, yet fellow unbelievers express neither acknowledgment nor remorse."
As far as body count goes, he's correct. It's also true that most of these atrocities were committed by unbelievers. Going for the trifecta, he's right, yet again, that atheists generally don't acknowledge the connection between these crimes and atheism.
Derbyshire's response to the priest:
So because I decline to believe in some of the same things that Lenin declined to believe in (heliolatry, the Divine Compassion of Avalokitesvara, Hollow Earth Theory, the Easter Bunny, Christianity, witchcraft, Unkulunkulu, homeopathy, the Great Manitou, … there must be quite a lot …), then there is a presumed "fellowship" between me and Lenin? I'd be offended by this if it weren't so toe-curlingly silly. How about noticing that Lenin & Co. did the beastly things they did because they believed certain particular things, and then applying guilt-by-association only to people who believe the same things?
Why not toss in Leprechauns, Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, and Quetzalcoatl, while you're doing a Google search for cutesy things to say? This is what I meant in the earlier post: Derbyshire isn't interested in a serious, accurate, honest appraisal; he's far more drawn to idiocy. The above paragraph offers us two implications: 1.) All beliefs that I, John Derbyshire, reject are equally ridiculous. There's not a whit of difference between two thousand years of Christian teaching and influence, and Peter Cottontail, hoppin' down the bunny trail. 2.) Atheism had no relation to the beliefs and actions of Lenin, or any of the sundry other 20th century mass murderers.
The first implication is infantile and deceptive, so I see no reason to address it further.
The second demonstrates willful ignorance of history--a pigheaded refusal to look at the facts. Lenin hated religion. He didn't merely find it silly. He loathed it with a virulence so great, one wonders if he actually believed in God, but held a grudge against his creator. Furthermore, he was a huge proponent of atheist propaganda. He believed that the people should be saturated with it, until they ate, slept, and breathed atheism. Suggesting that atheism had little or nothing to do with Lenin's actions indicates one's dearth of knowledge about the man, nothing more. The other tyrants we know and love--Stalin, Mao--also despised religion and championed atheism. Hitler was more pagan than atheist, but he saw Christianity and typical religion in general as the enemy. He worshipped an Aryan god created in the image he formulated.
All of these men clung to Darwinian evolution--the belief that humans progressed upward from primitive, animalian forebears. They rejected the notion that "God created the heavens and the earth."
If God doesn't exist--or is irrelevant to life on Earth--then human beings have no risk of facing accountability in an afterlife or even temporal reprimand from a heavenly father.
Worse, the only rules are those that one man--or a group of men--can impose upon others. The atheist can wax sophistically about his feelings or societal consensus, but that's all bunk, and he knows it, if he has a mote's-worth of integrity in his heart.
So if the atheist is correct in his philosophical outlook, we live in a world with no God, no accountability after death, possibly even oblivion after we die. We have no rules save those that we concoct for convenience's sake. Our feelings determine right and wrong, and those change on a whim. Humans are nothing more than animals who have learned to rule the food chain. There is no external order, no Dickensian "great expectations" from above. Short of his fear of other humans punishing him and causing him personal pain and discomfort, the atheist has no good reason not to thumb his nose at existence, itself, and do as he pleases, for better or worse. This is nihilism, of which atheism is a logical facet.
Now what if the above individual finds himself with virtually unlimited power? What if he has positioned himself in such a way that he can use the state as a tool for the implementation of any agenda his heart desires?
If humans are animals, and the only rules are those hammered out by other two-legged animals, everything is fair game. Every barrier that might hinder you from unleashing devastation upon other hapless humans is an artificial construct. There is no universal truth. Life doesn't really matter, in the lesser scheme of things. Neither does death. In fact, nothing matters, except what the atheist deems important. Is indulging in mass murder such a stretch for someone who envisions such a world?
The 20th century killing sprees are reasonable outcomes of atheism unleashed and helming the state.
As for Derbyshire, he would have you believe that non-accountability from on high, coupled with the belief that humans are just advanced animals on the evolutionary scale, plays zero role in how one treats one's fellow beings. The next time he's rounding up the names of obscure Zoroastrian demons, perhaps he should find an online dictionary and look up the word "context."
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Derbyshire's Dismissal Part I
John Derbyshire apparently thinks he has made compelling arguments against Christianity and religion in general. Surprise, he hasn’t. I now understand why I never became a regular reader.
In a post on “The Corner” at National Review Online, he first quotes Michael Novak: "It is not credible for atheists to say believers don’t care about evidence."
He then responds: Yes it is, Michael. The Christian religion is founded on the belief that an invisible spirit impregnated a human woman. Not only is there no evidence for that, it is hard to see how there could be any! If I tackle a believer on this point, he invariably says: "You just gotta believe" — i.e. not care about the absence of evidence, or the absence of even the possibility of evidence. QED. Of course, if Michael has a different answer, I'd be glad to hear it.
First, this is a strawman argument; Derbyshire characterizes Christianity in a fashion that sounds asinine, then charges in for an attack on that wobbling dummy. This is an illegitimate form of argumentation, because it can be utilized in making everything known to Man seem absurd. Just once, I’d enjoy seeing an atheist pit his dogmatic disbelief against a strong Christian apologetic, rather than a moronic caricature. And if wishes were horses. . .
Derbyshire also reveals that he’s the type of atheist who believes in one brand of evidence: the scientific variety. All other forms need not apply; not only are they not convincing—they aren’t evidence at all. Documentary evidence? Pshaw. Personal testimony? Flush. It’s funny that atheists cling to “scientific” evidence, anyway, since such evidence no more supports their position than that of Christians.
And what in the world is wrong with having faith? Every human being on planet Earth—and even the handful who reside offworld—exercises faith in his acceptance of certain aspects of reality. Furthermore, if you’re an evolutionist, you’re faith’s bosom buddy. This is the unspoken demand that atheists make when mocking our faith: “You mustn’t have faith in God; everything else is fair game.” If you have faith that mommy loves you, that’s OK. If you have faith that Attila the Hun isn’t the figment of an ancient troubadour’s imagination, that’s acceptable, too. If you have faith that we’re more than just animated pixels in a cosmic video game, that’s just peachy. And if you have faith that you evolved from an apelike ancestor, that life arose from inanimate matter, you’re a well-adjusted, sensible individual.
However, the man who exercises faith in God is a delusional, easily-manipulated idiot.
The humorous part is that many atheists think this is an intellectually consistent, reasonable outlook.
Christianity encompasses far more than "an invisible spirit impregnated a human woman," and Derbyshire know this, if he's ever taken the time to evaluate what Christians believe.
In a post on “The Corner” at National Review Online, he first quotes Michael Novak: "It is not credible for atheists to say believers don’t care about evidence."
He then responds: Yes it is, Michael. The Christian religion is founded on the belief that an invisible spirit impregnated a human woman. Not only is there no evidence for that, it is hard to see how there could be any! If I tackle a believer on this point, he invariably says: "You just gotta believe" — i.e. not care about the absence of evidence, or the absence of even the possibility of evidence. QED. Of course, if Michael has a different answer, I'd be glad to hear it.
First, this is a strawman argument; Derbyshire characterizes Christianity in a fashion that sounds asinine, then charges in for an attack on that wobbling dummy. This is an illegitimate form of argumentation, because it can be utilized in making everything known to Man seem absurd. Just once, I’d enjoy seeing an atheist pit his dogmatic disbelief against a strong Christian apologetic, rather than a moronic caricature. And if wishes were horses. . .
Derbyshire also reveals that he’s the type of atheist who believes in one brand of evidence: the scientific variety. All other forms need not apply; not only are they not convincing—they aren’t evidence at all. Documentary evidence? Pshaw. Personal testimony? Flush. It’s funny that atheists cling to “scientific” evidence, anyway, since such evidence no more supports their position than that of Christians.
And what in the world is wrong with having faith? Every human being on planet Earth—and even the handful who reside offworld—exercises faith in his acceptance of certain aspects of reality. Furthermore, if you’re an evolutionist, you’re faith’s bosom buddy. This is the unspoken demand that atheists make when mocking our faith: “You mustn’t have faith in God; everything else is fair game.” If you have faith that mommy loves you, that’s OK. If you have faith that Attila the Hun isn’t the figment of an ancient troubadour’s imagination, that’s acceptable, too. If you have faith that we’re more than just animated pixels in a cosmic video game, that’s just peachy. And if you have faith that you evolved from an apelike ancestor, that life arose from inanimate matter, you’re a well-adjusted, sensible individual.
However, the man who exercises faith in God is a delusional, easily-manipulated idiot.
The humorous part is that many atheists think this is an intellectually consistent, reasonable outlook.
Christianity encompasses far more than "an invisible spirit impregnated a human woman," and Derbyshire know this, if he's ever taken the time to evaluate what Christians believe.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Reasons to Vote for Barelyblack Odumma
1. He’s black. Except he isn’t; he’s half-black. Hence: “Barelyblack.” Oh, well, he’s black enough for you, and that’s what matters most, yes? I mean, having the first “black” person in the Oval Office is far more important than silly questions of character, oath-keeping, or support for policies that don’t do violence to liberty. This is an historic occasion. Sheesh, homies, let’s have a little perspective.
2. You’re a leftist. Karl Marx had it right. Red Uncle Joe was slandered and vilified. Communism worked just fine on paper—improper implementation marred its success in practice; and as our teachers told us, “practice makes perfect.” Big Brother does it better. Yes, you have the T-shirt. The only good fetus is one that has ceased its irksome kicking. The State knows best how to spend your money, and will take it at gunpoint and demonstrate its charitable demeanor. Each night, you whisper a prayer to Saint Hillary. “All power to the worker Soviet!”
3. You’re a knee-jerk Demonrat. Your great-granddaddy voted Demonrat. Your granddaddy voted Demonrat. Your daddy voted Demonrat. You survived the abortion, so now that you’re all grown up, there’s nothing left for you to do but vote Demonrat. It’s a family tradition, and you’ll do your darnedest to carry the torch to the next generation--if it survives long enough to procure a voter registration card.
4. You’re ignorant. You don’t know the difference between the Constitution and constipation. You think that exercising your right to bear arms means wearing a tank-top. The Declaration of Independence was the day you stood up from the dinner table and told your momma that you weren’t about to eat those Brussels sprouts. What you don’t know spans the breadth and depth of eternity, but you see no reason why this should serve as an obstacle to your voting. After all, pulling that lever is the culmination of a popularity contest, and Barelyblack talked a better game. At least, that’s what Oprah told you.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Truth
I saw a bumper-sticker, today, that said:
"If Hillary Clinton is the answer, then it must have been a stupid question."
"If Hillary Clinton is the answer, then it must have been a stupid question."
Where's My Shovel?
Why should Democrats be buried 100 feet down?
****
Because deep down, they really are good people.
****
Because deep down, they really are good people.
Friday, September 12, 2008
@#$!%^&**^$@!#%&
Recently, I was at a local fast food restaurant getting a quick bite to eat with my wife, when we witnessed a strange event.
A woman came in and ordered a cup of coffee. She waited at the counter, and when the employee gave her the cup, she paid and turned to leave. As she walked toward the door, she spilled some of the coffee. At this point, she sat the cup down on a nearby table and said:
"G-- - da---- son of a b----!"
She said this in an angry tone loud enough for everyone in the place to catch. Luckily, only one other customer was present, besides my wife and myself.
When the woman finished cleaning up the mess, she stalked over to the counter and spat:
"The next time you fix my coffee like that, you'll die!"
I don't know if the young man behind the counter heard her, but she left immediately after making her little threat.
Maybe the woman was mentally ill. I recognize that ever-increasing possibility, these days. But the more likely scenario was that she was just revealing her Class Z Jackass status with her little temper-tantrum.
I suppose the bigger picture is that I believe public decorum has gone straight down the tubes, flushed faster than a crackhouse toilet during a police raid. I hear open cursing in public often, these days. Such occurences were rare, when I was growing up--not unheard of, but not common, either. Now I hear people shamelessly spewing profanity and other filth in public, unconcerned about a little child or a gentle church lady overhearing their unpleasantness. They don't seem to care that most people view their behavior as cretinous and low-bred.
I don't see the transition from Southern hospitality to Southern vulgarity as a positive change in my neck of the woods.
A woman came in and ordered a cup of coffee. She waited at the counter, and when the employee gave her the cup, she paid and turned to leave. As she walked toward the door, she spilled some of the coffee. At this point, she sat the cup down on a nearby table and said:
"G-- - da---- son of a b----!"
She said this in an angry tone loud enough for everyone in the place to catch. Luckily, only one other customer was present, besides my wife and myself.
When the woman finished cleaning up the mess, she stalked over to the counter and spat:
"The next time you fix my coffee like that, you'll die!"
I don't know if the young man behind the counter heard her, but she left immediately after making her little threat.
Maybe the woman was mentally ill. I recognize that ever-increasing possibility, these days. But the more likely scenario was that she was just revealing her Class Z Jackass status with her little temper-tantrum.
I suppose the bigger picture is that I believe public decorum has gone straight down the tubes, flushed faster than a crackhouse toilet during a police raid. I hear open cursing in public often, these days. Such occurences were rare, when I was growing up--not unheard of, but not common, either. Now I hear people shamelessly spewing profanity and other filth in public, unconcerned about a little child or a gentle church lady overhearing their unpleasantness. They don't seem to care that most people view their behavior as cretinous and low-bred.
I don't see the transition from Southern hospitality to Southern vulgarity as a positive change in my neck of the woods.
Uh-Huh
This is one reason why I don't take the "War on Terror" seriously:
The U.S. is planning to issue a letter guaranteeing the country will back agreements reached during current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at creating a Palestinian state before President Bush leaves office in January, WND has learned.
So, we're in a global war against terrorists (culture, ideology, and religion withheld to protect the guilty, as per the PC Code of Ethics), and as a demonstration of our resolve, our government wholeheartedly supports the formation of a terrorist state on Israeli soil, headed by the Palestinian Authority, which is nothing more than a gang of terrorist thugs masquerading as statesmen.
The "Palestinians" are individuals who are enamored with destruction and chaos. They are not a distinct people, but a death cult. They raise their children from toddlerhood instilled with a visceral hatred of Jews. The deliberate targeting of innocent civilians for murder is their standard operating procedure. They are Janus-faced in their approach to propaganda, telling the western media one story, and the Arab media an altogether different one. They have no honor, and not a whit of decency or compassion. They deserve nothing but contempt. They've earned the kind of terrible justice that would send most men quailing in fear.
Regardless your view of the modern nation of Israel--secular Middle Eastern state, or "the Promised Land to the Jews"--you should shun the championing of people who wallow in moral debasement.
The "Palestinians" offer nothing to this world but lies and murder, served up under the guise of righteous indignation. I shake my head in shame that my government finds their "cause" worthy of support. This offers a great deal of insight into the trustworthiness of those at the reins of power in the U.S.A.
The U.S. is planning to issue a letter guaranteeing the country will back agreements reached during current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at creating a Palestinian state before President Bush leaves office in January, WND has learned.
So, we're in a global war against terrorists (culture, ideology, and religion withheld to protect the guilty, as per the PC Code of Ethics), and as a demonstration of our resolve, our government wholeheartedly supports the formation of a terrorist state on Israeli soil, headed by the Palestinian Authority, which is nothing more than a gang of terrorist thugs masquerading as statesmen.
The "Palestinians" are individuals who are enamored with destruction and chaos. They are not a distinct people, but a death cult. They raise their children from toddlerhood instilled with a visceral hatred of Jews. The deliberate targeting of innocent civilians for murder is their standard operating procedure. They are Janus-faced in their approach to propaganda, telling the western media one story, and the Arab media an altogether different one. They have no honor, and not a whit of decency or compassion. They deserve nothing but contempt. They've earned the kind of terrible justice that would send most men quailing in fear.
Regardless your view of the modern nation of Israel--secular Middle Eastern state, or "the Promised Land to the Jews"--you should shun the championing of people who wallow in moral debasement.
The "Palestinians" offer nothing to this world but lies and murder, served up under the guise of righteous indignation. I shake my head in shame that my government finds their "cause" worthy of support. This offers a great deal of insight into the trustworthiness of those at the reins of power in the U.S.A.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Get Your Hands Off My Buns!
The profits from families who buy Happy Meals for their children have been used to pay for 56 McDonald's staff members to meet in San Diego to strategize about promoting homosexuality within the company, according to the organizer of a boycott of the fast-food chain.
Ronald is a gay old clown;
A gay old clown is he.
He dons a wig
Dances a jig.
Wears his shoes a little big.
I've heard he's quite the devotee
Of unrestricted sodomy.
Under the golden arches,
With Grimace in cahoots,
He'll make you squeal;
Two-for-one deal.
The new prize in your Happy Meal
Is a big side-order of fruits.
Ronald is a gay old clown;
A gay old clown is he.
He dons a wig
Dances a jig.
Wears his shoes a little big.
I've heard he's quite the devotee
Of unrestricted sodomy.
Under the golden arches,
With Grimace in cahoots,
He'll make you squeal;
Two-for-one deal.
The new prize in your Happy Meal
Is a big side-order of fruits.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Give 'Em a Hand!
The largest single-workplace immigration raid in U.S. history has caused panic among Hispanic families in this Mississippi town, where federal agents rounded up nearly 600 plant workers suspected of being in the country illegally.
I know this story happened several days ago, but I think it deserves special mention. Here's some food for thought: If immigration authorities managed a haul of 600 illegal aliens working at one plant in a small Mississippi town, what does this tell us about the sheer number of these people sneaking into our country?
Here's the best part of the story:
One worker caught in Monday's sweep at the Howard Industries transformer plant said fellow workers applauded as immigrants were taken into custody.
Heck, they should've had a hoedown, afterwards.
I know this story happened several days ago, but I think it deserves special mention. Here's some food for thought: If immigration authorities managed a haul of 600 illegal aliens working at one plant in a small Mississippi town, what does this tell us about the sheer number of these people sneaking into our country?
Here's the best part of the story:
One worker caught in Monday's sweep at the Howard Industries transformer plant said fellow workers applauded as immigrants were taken into custody.
Heck, they should've had a hoedown, afterwards.
Friday, August 29, 2008
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.
"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.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
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?
"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?
Friday, August 22, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)