Atheist Objections Part III

Part I

Part II

3. "It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Hurrican Katrina struck shared your belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while Katrina laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the parayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned."

Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation"

Now obvious you can go the Douglas Wilson route and say atheists do not have a basis for objective morality. This is true, but the Christian does have objective morality and the Christian makes objective claims. Two of them being, God is all powerful and all loving. Given these two attributes why do we see so much senseless suffering? The atheist need not believe that evil exists in order to point out the unlikelyhood that there is not an all powerful and all loving God in the world we are living in. Isn't it hard to see a moral justification in permitting childhood cancer? Again, which worldview fits the best explanation of what we see around us?

Let's assume that he is correct: the majority of people stuck in New Orleans during Katrina believed in God. Furthermore, let's also agree that they accepted his omniscience, omnipresence, and compassion. What does this have to do with the price of apples in China, as the saying goes?

Matthew 5:45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Once again, the questioner glosses over the reality that we live in a fallen, cursed world; he ignores orthodox Christian acceptance of the concept. It's another in an endless list of examples of people questioning or criticizing Christianity, without making effort toward understanding what Christians believe, or why they believe as they do.

In addition, scripture indicates that God does not obligate Himself to answering the prayers of the wicked:

He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination. -- Proverbs 28:9

See Proverbs 15:29 and John 9:31 for supporting examples.

Please show me scriptural evidence that God promises us earth - bound lives of ease, devoid of peril -- whether we are His own, or inveterate sinners.

This may sound cruel, but the truth often hurts, and it bears repeating: Many of the people who died succumbed to the hurricane for no good reason. They chose to live in an area prone to hurricanes and flooding. They chose not to evacuate, when warned of the coming disaster ahead of time. They crawled into attics, which is like painting oneself into a corner. I'm interested in hearing why this person believes that God should be held responsible for saving people from their own stupidity and poor judgment.

And yes, God is all - powerful and loving, though I don't know where he gets the idea that God is "all - loving." God hates sin. But He also is a God of wrath and judgment, and justice, and holiness. And more. If you're going to analyze His actions, then look at all his attributes -- not just the ones that make you feel warm and cozy inside.

As for questioning "needless" suffering, I'll ask a counter - question: "Needless," according to whom? The person who doubts God's existence? And what does the sad reality of suffering -- needless, or otherwise -- have to do with God's existence or non - existence? They're two separate issues. It does not follow that just because you lack full understanding of something, then it therefore must not exist. Imagine if I said: "I don't understand how hydrogen bombs work; therefore, there are no hydrogen bombs." How is this substantially different from saying: "I don't understand how God works; therefore, there is no God." ? Both are variations on the same fallacious argumentation.

In grasping the Christian (biblical) worldview, comprehending that we live in a sin - marred creation is essential.

Atheist Objections Part II

Part I


2. "Over 99 percent of the species that ever walked, flew, or slithered upon this earth are now extinct....When we look at the natural world, we see extraordinary complexity, but we do not see optimal design....The truth is that, while there are now around three hundred and fifty thousand known species of beetles, God appears to have an even greater fondness for viruses. Biologists estimate that there are at least ten strains of viruses for every species of animal on earth." Sam Harris

Which viewpoint makes more sense in accounting for this: Unguided evolution or the God of Christianity?


The "99 percent" figure is interesting, because it indicates how proponents of evolutionary theory enjoy pulling figures out of their rumps, touting speculation as fact. Since we do not have complete access to the fossil record, and since we don't even know the number of extant species, the answer to the question, "Where did they come up with this number?" is simple: They made it up.

Regarding the "optimal design" argument: What are the criteria for optimal design? We don't know, because he does not share such information with us. Even if we accept his observation as reasonable, we must acknowledge that it ignores biblical teaching -- that God completed His creative work and saw that it was good; that Man rebelled and fell from grace; that God placed a subsequent curse upon the creation as a result of Man's sin. If you're going to challenge Christians with supposed "hard" questions, shouldn't you at least familiarize yourself with the basic content of Christian teaching, first? Otherwise, how do you know that these questions remain unaddressed and unrefuted?

As for beetles and viruses, so what? If we accept his numbers, saying that 350,000 beetle species exist -- as if this is an argument against God or creation -- proves nothing. The taxonomic term "species" is an artificial tool created by humans.

Many viruses are harmless to humans, even today. Before Adam and Eve's sin, they may have served a wholesome, useful purpose to humanity and the plant and animal kingdoms. After the Fall, loss of genetic information may have led to the development of degenerate, harmful strains. Yes, this is speculation, but so is the conclusion that the sheer number of existing viruses points to God's nonexistence, or evolutionary theory's truth. The point is that talk of beetle battalions and viral invasions evades clear scriptural teaching that we live in a world mired in sin, in which the whole creation suffers.

Since we have no experience with information arising from non - information, or life springing from non - life, l accept the God of Christianity over unguided evolution with zero difficulty.

Bible "Soliciting"

Bucknell University believes that handing out free Bibles on campus is "soliciting."

Dictionary.com provides four major definitions for the word "solicit:"


1. to seek for (something) by entreaty, earnest or respectful request, formal application, etc.: He solicited aid from the minister.

2. to entreat or petition (someone or some agency): to solicit the committee for funds.

3. to seek to influence or incite to action, esp. unlawful or wrong action.

4. to offer to have sex with in exchange for money.


Notice that 2. and 4. entail or allow for money changing hands. Neither applies to the linked story, because giving someone a gift is not the same as asking him for money. This would be like saying, "Sorry, no soliciting," when my wife hands me my birthday present.

Also keep in mind that two of the four definitions have negative connotations (sex for money, and inciting illegal behavior).

Typically, we see "No Soliciting" signs at restaurants or stores, or other businesses. In these contexts, the signs mean: "No expanding the customer base for your product on our property; that's our job."

That leaves us with number 1. "Respectfully requesting" that one read a copy of the Holy Bible -- and giving it to him free of charge -- requires an administration - issued permit? We don't even know if the student organization went that far. Perhaps its members simply placed Bibles in the hands of passersby, and said, "Go with Okenya."

I shudder to think what bureaucratic pitfalls lie in wait for those audacious enough to actually read that radical volume.

I contend that we'd know nothing of this story if the tome had been The Audacity of Hope, by Our Savior from the Serengeti.

Why?

Because there would be no story.

Is This Better, Arielle?

Obama Dubs June LGBT Pride Month

To my knowledge, this is the first time an "American" president has endorsed this particular brand of immoral behavior in so open a fashion.

First Celebrity Swine - Flu Casualty

And we all know the carrier's identity.

A Fair Mind Is a Twisted Mind

Obama's recent visit to Notre Dame University -- during which he gave a speech and received official honors from the school -- created a controversy that has not yet come to an end. And rightly so. After all, Christians of all stripes should be angered that a Catholic school heaped accolades on a man who defends a woman's nonexistent right to kill her unborn child with the singlemindedness of a true zealot. But it's not the controversy that interests me as much as these words spoken by Obama in his speech at Notre Dame:


As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That’s when we begin to say, "Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.


This is faux-empathetic, emotive gobbledegook. It's the precise brand of "I feel yore pain" nonsense liberally dished out by Bill Clinton during his two terms in office (no pun intended). It's feigning interest in opponents' views, while moving ahead with a decidedly unsympathetic, closed-minded agenda. It's an attempt at knocking one's ideological enemies off their game, nothing more. Suggesting that we all handle each other with care, while working with dilligence toward removing existing abortion restrictions, and blocking those in the congressional birth canal, is the height of audacity and dishonesty.

Don't take my word for it. His record in the Senate and the Oval Office speaks for itself:


1. 1997: In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation preventing partial birth abortion (infanticide).

2. 2000: In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation banning taxpayer funding of abortions.

3. 2001: He opposed legislation protecting survivors of botched abortion attempts. He was the sole Illinois Senator to do so.

4. 2008: He claimed indecision on whether or not life begins at conception -- a position properly reserved for ignoramuses, deceivers, or cowards.

5. He consistently earns 100% ratings from "pro-choice" groups. Example: NARAL gave him 100% ratings in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

6. He promotes and wishes to advance embryonic stem - cell research.

7. He believes the Constitution of the United States is a "living" document. -- The Audacity of Hope, pp. 89 - 92, Oct. 1, 2006

8. He has stated support for Roe v. Wade.

9. He voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortions (2008).

10. He voted NO on notifying parents of minors receiving out-of-state abortions (2006).

11. Rated 0% out of a possible 100% by the National Right to Life Committee (0 - 15% = "pro-choice;" 16 - 84% = mixed record; 85 - 100% = pro-life).

12. Since becoming president, Obama lifted a restriction put in place by George W. Bush that stopped taxpayer funding of abortions overseas. He enacted this measure three days after entering office.

The list goes on.


Short of seeking employment at an abortuary, how does one man's record illustrate a more extreme anti-child, anti-life stance? Setting aside his conciliatory rhetoric, do you see anything in this history fitting the descriptors "open - minded," or "fair - minded," or "open - hearted?"

I don't. What I do see is the record of a far left-wing ideologue -- one who doesn't give a hoot in Hell what anyone thinks of this issue, unless they are in agreement with him.

Mr. Obama can spout his pablum about "common ground" till the cows come home; it's unmitigated hogwash, and he knows it. He even admitted as much in the above discourse. There is no common ground between those who pursue the deaths of innocents, and those who fight for their preservation. Is there mutuality between good and evil? Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? -- 2 Corinthians 6: 14 - 15

Notice how Obama acknowledges that abortion is a "heart - wrenching" decision, with "moral and spiritual dimensions." Of course, he neglects describing why and how this is so. Transparently, he is not of the conviction that abortion is a moral wrong, or spiritually rotten fruit, so what is the message he's conveying, here? The bottom line is that his words do not fit his actions; they contradict them.

Furthermore, if abortion isn't morally wrong, why should we concern ourselves with ensuring its rarity? This is the $64,000 question pro - deathers avoid like the Wicked Witch of the West shuns water.

As an aside, if you're interested in "making adoption more available," you might consider ceasing the murder of unborn children. Just a thought.

I'd appreciate hearing Obama elaborate on what relation killing infants in utero has to "equality of women." The last time I checked, men don't get pregnant or give birth, so we can't compare female abortion possibilities to those of males. It's notable that politicians like Obama feel no obligation toward explaining themselves beyond the superficial platitudes they spout like Old Faithful.

As for "clear ethics and sound science," is he kidding? I hope so, because I'm laughing at this notion coming from someone who believes that killing unborn infants for any reason whatsoever should remain restriction - free. And if Obama's unsure when life begins, he has no business mentioning science in the same discussion as the abortion issue, as he has taken a position against science. The verdict is in; there is no wiggle room for honest (or dishonest) debate on the matter: life begins at conception. If the president doesn't know this scientific fact, given his position and access to knowledge, we can assume that he champions the adage: ignorance is bliss. Policy advocation based upon willful ignorance is a form of deception.

Finally, Obama's prevarication about his "fair - mindedness" adds insult to the pro-abortion injuries he has inflicted upon the American people. For his dissimulation is neither clever, nor subtle, given that his record on the issue stands available for all the world to see. One can conclude only that he views the citizenry as gullible sheep on the fold, manipulable and foolish as the wolf coaxes them into the heart of his lair.

Picking a Winner

I don't have much to say about Okenya's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for SCOTUS, except that I'm unsurprised. A president who has nothing but contempt for the U.S. Constitution has chosen a person who has nothing but contempt for the U.S. Constitution as a Supreme Court judge. Next news at 11:00.

And don't let anyone kid you: That she's female, Hispanic, and leans left are the sole reasons that you've ever heard of Sonia Sotomayor.


Update

It seems our beloved Ms. Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, according to the American Bar Association. This is like discovering that Clarence Thomas is a Black Panther, or that John Roberts is a Klansman.

It speaks volumes about Obama that he has nominated a woman who supports unfettered legal and illegal immigration, as well as the consumption of America's southwest into Mexico.

We're now quite literally tolerating traitors in our midst, in positions of high office.

A Recipe for Perpetual Failure

The conservative vs. moderate split threatening to rupture the Republican Party played out across the airwaves Sunday, with Colin Powell and Tom Ridge denouncing shrill and judgmental voices they say are steering the GOP too far right. Karl Rove challenged Powell lay out his vision and "back it up" by helping elect Republicans.

At stake is the GOP's status as a major party, Powell and Ridge suggested.


Yes, let's "stay the course" in the middle of the road, or perhaps swing left, because it has worked so well for the GOP. Here's what ignoring the party base (those dreaded right-wingers) did for the Republican Party:

1. Lost the 2008 presidential election.

2. Lost both houses of Congress in 2006 and 2008.

3. Created a trend of declining polling numbers for Bush before he left office.

4. Won two presidential elections by narrow margins, in which the Republican candidate faced weak opponents.

5. Ushered in some of the worst fiscal irresponsibility and creeping government power in U.S. history.

6. Ensured that our national borders remained insecure, and that criminal aliens went unpunished.

What a winning combination. By the way, a man who voted for Obama for no other discernible reason than his skin color is the last person to whom Republicans should be listening for advice on keeping the Party relevant. As for Ridge, the man's spineless; he's more concerned about not rocking the boat than anything else.


"If we don't reach out more, the party is going to be sitting on a very, very narrow base. You can only do two things with a base. You can sit on it and watch the world go by, or you can build on the base," Powell said.


Powell seems unaware that the people who outrage him so are the party base. This is not leadership. This is cluelessness. And as long as Republicans in high positions keep ignoring or belittling their base, they can expect to continue losing elections even as they slip further and further into insignificance.

Atheist Objections Part I

Preface:

Someone called "Travis" emailed Vox Day with five points made by atheists that he finds convincing enough to urge him on the dead man's walk toward agnosticism. Vox intends to respond to all his points; and I thought to myself: "Heck, why don't you give it a shot, as well?"

So here we are. Pull up a chair and sit a spell.

Let me begin by saying that hundreds if not thousands of Christians over a period of centuries have addressed and answered each of Travis' enumerated points -- satisfactorily, by my lights.
If you find yourself wondering why people still wake these assertions, despite copious writings putting them to rest, the answer is simple:

That is not dead which can eternal lie
Till aroused by he who spits in God's eye.

In other words, in a siege against the battlements of unbelief, the ballistae and mangonels and trebuchets of reason and elaboration may pockmark the very keep itself, but they cannot bring it to earth.

I question the good faith of these points -- for their old - hat aspect, as well as their evidence - free assertiveness. I don't find them trying of my faith in the least, and I suspect that only one unacquainted with -- or uninterested in -- the Christian body of apologetics could become distressed by this effort.

I'll quote the first proposition, followed by my comments:


1. Biblical Ethics are below par at best. The Christian must believe in objective morality, for God is the source of morality. If God is the source of objective morality why do we see ethical commands justifying rape and the harsh treatment of foreign slaves? If Biblical ethics is the objective standard than Wilberforce was a sinner for trying to eliminate slavery, for the Bible certainly does not decree the abolition of slavery? If we take a progressive approach to scripture we all could still certainly agree that the movement toward a better ethical system could have certainly moved faster.

Sam Harris brings this up in "Letter to a Christian Nation"


I agree with the notion of objective morality, with God as its source. However, the idea that biblical ethics are "below par" is a naked assertion, as it stands unsupported by the rest of his commentary. First, Travis assumes that an objective standard for judging biblical ethics exists, that he is conversant with this standard, and that the Holy Bible fails in living up to its lofty heights. Alas, he nowhere demonstrates this assumed truth in his discourse, nor does he reveal whence he derived The Ultimate Ethical Standard. The sole proper examination of biblical ethics entails comparison/contrast with the unbiblical societies surrounding the purveyors of God's Word at the time in which scriptural authorship occurred. Anything less is an unfair and incomplete assessment. So when we delve into that cultural mire, what do we find? Child sacrifice, chattel slavery, demon and idol worship, wanton violence, necromancy, witchcraft, astrology, and on and on in a veritable litany of horrors. Life came cheap and miserable.

Biblical ethics changed all that. They elevated the status and worth of women; put a higher value on human lives as personages created in God's image; and called the highest goods loving the one true God with all of one's being, and loving one's neighbor as oneself. From personal hygiene to sexual relationships, from the treatment of animals to stewardship of our planet, biblical ethics existed -- and exist -- on a higher plain, unreachable by the godless or devil - haunted ethics of contemporary pagan societies. So needless to say, I find the concept of kicking back in one's easy chair and expressing dissatisfaction with God's ethics an exercise in hubris, in a civilization whose comforts derived from the ethical foundation under attack.

Next, the issue of slavery. Bondservanthood under the Jews was unlike slavery experienced by blacks during the trans-Atlantic slave trade era. Think indentured servitude, rather than being worked to death in a cotton field under an overseer's whip. Regardless, the biblical ethic explicated better treatment of slaves or servants than in times before. In an age when slaves toiled until they dropped, with their corpses rolled unceremoniously into a ditch or shallow grave when they expired, the biblical ethic was a giant leap forward. As for the harsh treatment of foreign slaves, many got their just desserts; their bondage came as God's judgment of the sin of infanticide. One item that cannot be overstressed is this: biblical context is important. When you pay attention, you learn more than the what; you also uncover the why. If Travis believes that all forms of involuntary servitude are immoral, no matter the reason for that state, then it behooves him to explain his position, rather than accepting it as self-evident. If a man incurs catastrophic debt and refuses repayment, I see no evil in making him the servant of his creditors until he makes good the debt he owes. It's called justice. By the way, it does not follow that Wilberforce was a sinner for attempting the abolition of an institution that ignored biblical regulations against the mistreatment of slaves. I see no scriptural conflict with his admirable and righteous cause.

Regarding rape, I see no justification for it in the Bible. What I do see is condemnation and punishment for the act. See Deuteronomy 22. Would that Travis had proffered evidence of the sunny view scripture takes of ravishing the maidens fair.

When Travis talks about moving toward a better ethical system at a faster pace, I assume he means that God should've delivered the goods via bullet-train. This is another glimpse of his arbitrary ethical standard, rearing its cloistered head for but a moment, before he pummels it back behind its boudoir's secure doors. How much faster? What is the proper speed? Will 186,000 mps do the trick? He forgets that God passed his standards to certain segments of humanity, then charged them with the task of sharing his morals with the world - at - large. That's what the Bible is all about. Remember, it was humanity's rebellion against God in the beginning that required the tortuous process that Travis finds so unsatisfying and glacially slow.

The blame lies with fallen humanity, not God.

God has shown us His grace -- we who are unworthy of his loving kindness. Critically judging and rejecting his timing is not just biting the hand that feeds.

It's spurning the hand that saves.


MORE TO COME. . .

Funny Stuff

Bush Disaster

Help Me, Y'all

I'd like to get in touch with our friend Triton, from Triton Unleashed. If you have his email address, and if it's OK with him, let me know, so I can drop him a line.

Thanks in advance, guys.

All Is Vannity

I was listening to Sean Vannity's radio program a few days ago, just passing the time as I waited for my wife to do some shopping.

A man called in and mentioned Vannity's persistent attacks on Okenya for his multitudinous verbal gaffes. He asked Vannity where he was for the past eight years of Duhbya's misstatements, misunderestimations, and malapropisms.

I'm assuming the caller was a supporter of Our Savior from the Serengeti; regardless, his question was a legitimate one.

Here's where the situation became problematic. Rather than answering the question with an explanation of his seeming hypocrisy, Vannity instead launched into a paean of praise for Bush's leadership qualities, calling them "second to none." I suppose this meant that if Bush stood in comparison with someone with zero leadership skills, our illustrious former president would come in second place.

Anyhow, when Vannity had finished Vannitizing the caller, the inquiry remained unanswered.

Such evasions supply the reason why a growing number of conservatives and libertarians consider Vannity a partisan hack. When faced with his own double standard, he blows smoke and breaks out the mirrors; forget providing a specific refutation of a pointed charge.

This is inappropriate behavior for someone who portrays himself as a leader in the conservative vanguard. In fact, his actions paint him as a party animal, first and foremost.

Look at Vannity's recent record: First, let's start with Duhbya. He has a love-affair with Señor Bushandez, the man who dons a sombrero and clicks his castanets every time the immigration issue arises. His response to the American people's disapproval? Try something along the lines of "Olé!" He never met a spending bill he didn't want to take home to momma; he presided over enlarging the federal government's scope and power; and he thought the home mortgage and subsequent bailout scam was a delightful joke on the populace. None of this is conservative in nature, yet Vannity considers Bush's leadership "second to none."

Vannity also endorsed Tooty Frooty Giuliani for president -- you remember, the philandering, pump-wearing, queen-loving metrosexual from New Yuck.

Worse, he dismissed Ron Paul in a post-debate interview, treating him as an eccentric kook. This is a rather odd tack for a self-proclaimed conservative, since Paul comes closer to the conservative ideal than anyone else who ran on the GOP ticket.

All of the above indicates one who puts party loyalty above principled conservatism. It also implies that his oath of fealty primarily lies with the party's "neoconservative" elements; think less "conservative" and more "con."

Vannity's attitude of "party first -- everything else is just gravy" may sound great to some Republicans, but I don't see how it's a boon for the country, or a manifestation of true conservatism.

Exorcise the Demonrats-at-Heart

Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of a few remaining GOP moderates in the Senate, called Specter's decision another sign that the Republican Party needs to move toward the center."

Ultimately, we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history, the way events have been unfolding," she said. "If the Republican Party fully intends to become a majority party in the future, it must move from the far right back toward the middle."

Our Founders envisioned a Senate peopled by older men who already had made their fortunes in life and gained the wisdom that comes with age and experience. They hoped for an august body of those who surpassed the general populace in morality and discernment. Those with "horse-sense," if you will. But somehow we managed to rope ourselves a whole herd of foolish, braying jackasses -- people who have less circumspection or ethical insight than the average fast-food worker or housewife.

Case-in-point: the bubblehead above, Ms. Snowe. The party needs to move to the center, because a liberal fled its ranks? Can anyone follow her non sequitur logic? "Far-right?" Is she hanging out with Cheech and Chong? When in the past twenty years has the GOP done anything properly classifiable as "far-right?" Oh, she must mean the proper care and feeding of Big Brother: skyrocketing spending increases, massive federal intrusion into private life, porous borders, a "War for the Glorious Democracies of Shariastan," and socializing various industries, such as the home loan organizations. You know, typical "far-right" tactics. Not to mention the sparse ground gained in fighting homosexual redefinitions of marriage, and abortion. Ms. Snowe wouldn't know a representative of the "far-right," if he strolled up and crammed a Gadsden Flag down her throat.

Rather than "far-right," let's call it true: Democrat-lite.

I'm sure you're familiar with Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result, each time. Ms. Snowe's living out that little equation. After all, being the "big-tent" party has worked so well for the GOP thus far, we'd be crazy to forego expanding it into a full six-ring circus. Barnum and Bailey would be proud.

Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, head of the Democratic campaign committee, called the development "proof positive that the Republican Party is so out of touch with Americans that they're losing one of its most prominent leaders."

Another senatorial sage weighs in. I can think of no better way of replenishing the GOP than listening to opposition advice. He's right that the GOP is out of touch, but not for any reason he might imagine. Specter used the Republican Party platform as a diving board into the Demonrat pool. Gosh, I'm gonna miss him.

Specter's betrayal is the culmination of a career of knifing others in the back. The GOP is a better party for his absence. Now it's time to clean house: take out all the garbage. People like Snowe should be driven from the Party, if they won't leave on their own accord. I'm sure the Jackasses will make room for them in their big tent. They'll never turn away one of their own.

Just watch where you step.

Adding insult to injury, Specter grew animated as he blamed conservatives for helping deliver control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006, a result he said made it impossible to confirm numerous judicial appointees of Bush.

"They don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don't understand it, but that's what they said," he added.

Whew! Good thing they didn't make that mistake when they helped you win reelection.

"We'll Not Give Up the Ghost!"

Sometimes, it's fun to rub people's noses in a big, steaming pile of I Told You So.

Nearly five years ago, I said this about Bush endorsing and campaigning for Arlen Specter against his more conservative GOP opponent (Pat Toomey) in his Senate campaign:

For the staunch Republicans out there, here's a question to ponder: If Bush is a conservative, and if he has the nation's best interests at heart, why in the world would he vehemently fight against someone who is pro-life, while championing someone who diametrically is opposed to doing away with abortion?

In the comments section, I added this:

Perhaps Toomey would've made a much better showing, though, if Bush had publicly campaigned for him. My problem with this--& other situations like it--is that it seems the Republicans almost always put pragmatism (keeping the party in power) ahead of principle. This bothers me to no end.

Furthermore, why is keeping a Republican in power important, if he's the sort who will stonewall and be a burr under his own party's saddle?

I was told that backing Specter was needed for the simple reason that Toomey had no chance of winning, among other issues. Yet all was for naught, because Specter ghosted away to the Demonrat Party last Tuesday.

So I hope those who defended Bush, et. al.'s actions are proud of themselves. You went to bat for those who gave us not just a Demonrat in temperament, but a Demonrat in literal fact. It's a perfect example of pragmatism over principle backfiring and blowing up in your faces, and it comes as no surprise at all.

Go, team, go!

Twilight of Okenya

Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its controversial report warning against "right-wing extremists" in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups – animal rights activists, black separatists, tax protesters, even worshippers of the Norse god Odin – as potential "threats."


Fools! Dost thou stoke the flames of Odin's wrath? Woe unto thee, for he shall stalk from the halls of Valhalla and clamber o'er the walls of Asgard, descending with your dooms upon his smiling lips! Quail before his mighty hand! Thou hast reaped thine own personal Ragnarok from a field of folly!

And when he fells thee and spurns thy cloven carcasses, the Choosers of the Slain shall sweep in and spit into the vacant eyes and wipe their feet upon the useless clay, even as thy souls are cast gibbering into the bowels of Nifelhel -- there to stumble through the mists of thine own idiocy for an eternity of eternities!

Thus spake Snorri Snorersson, Harbinger of the Valkyries and Caretaker of Odin's Chamber-pot!

Spectral Morality

I'm sure you've heard that Arlen Specter has abandoned Sauron and dived into the willing embrace of Morgoth. (For those who snub Tolkien, It's like disassociating oneself from Stalin to spoon with Satan). In other words, he left the Repugnicruds and joined the Demonrats.

Philosophically speaking, this poses no long-term problem for the GOP, since Specter's loyalty to the party platform is as genuine as an abortion doctor's to the Hippocratic Oath. He's the quintessential RINO; it's logical that he's now coming out, as it were, and revealing his true self. Let's face it: losing a big-government liberal from one's ranks is never a bad thing.

But his Benedict Arnold approach to politics indicates a man of less-than-sterling character. How many people voted for him--at least in part--because he was a Republican? This brand of party loyalty sounds silly to those of us who believe principle trumps the letter after one's name, but we know that a significant percentage of voters cast their votes according to political affiliation, however misplaced such dedication seems.

Specter's "switch" is the political equivalent of giving those people the finger. His attitude may be summed up thusly: "I don't care if you idiots voted for me because I was a Republican. I don't care if you would have withheld your vote and given it to someone else, had you known that I would later turn to the Democrat side. I don't care if you would have shunned me, if I had been a Democrat in the beginning. I have your vote, and I've put it toward obtaining and retaining power. Thanks, suckers."

His decision leads us to this inevitable conclusion; such a dishonest tack is far removed from constitutional notions of representative government. Imagine Samuel Adams' disgust with this brand of turncoat politics.

Other possibilities for Specter existed--stepping down from his position, or waiting until the next election cycle to disengage from the GOP, becoming an Independent, etc. All would have stood as more honorable measures than abandonment of his consituents mid-term. But hoping for common decency and integrity from those devoted to power above all else is a pipe dream.

In further confirmation of his righteous Messiahship, Okenya said he was "thrilled" with Specter's decision to jump ship. "Thrilled?" Really? You're ecstatic that Specter betrayed the voters and created an unfair advantage for the Jackass Party by subverting the people's will?

Mr. President, when conservatives and libertarians classify you as evil and power-hungry, remember how this situation exemplifies and confirms their belief.

Ch-ch-changes

As you've probably noticed by now, I've made a few changes to the ol' blog. Okenya's positivity and reshaping of the American order was my inspiration.

I thought upgrading my template was a good idea, so imagine my surprise, when doing so stripped HaloScan and Sitemeter from the blog, and jumbled up my sidebar. Oh, well. You live, you learn, as that stringy-haired waif Alanis Morissette says.

Through a little trial and terror, I forced everything into working order, with one exception. When I reinstalled HaloScan, my blog title and new picture at the top vanished. I experimented by removing HaloScan, again, and both reappeared. Then I put the commenting system back on, and they're gone, again. Poof! I emailed HaloScan about this, Friday night; so far, I haven't heard from them. Maybe they're gone to an HTML convention.

Speaking of HTML, I know almost as little about its mysteries as Okenya kens about the economy, so bear with me through the tweakery.

Here's a place for you to bloviate on pretty much anything that's on your mind.

If Thy Freedom Offend Me, I'll Pluck It Out

The Alliance Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit on behalf of students and parents against the Wilson County School Board in Tennessee.

Lakeview Elementary School students wanted to display posters that referenced God and prayer, but school officials said they had to cover up those references before the posters could be displayed. The posters were hand-drawn by students and announced voluntary activities such as the "See You at the Pole" prayer event.

Kellum says the school is arguing that the posters cause an Establishment Clause problem, and that some students might be offended if these religious students were able to express their beliefs.


These are the same dishonest, constitutionally-illiterate excuses offered up by our godless public schools over the last twenty years.

On the one hand, we have elementary students attempting the exercise of their God-given, constitutionally-protected rights of free speech and religion. On the other, we have a school administration that believes this is identical to the Congress of the United States of America establishing a specific religion. This should serve as ample justification for an automatic dismissal from one's position as teacher, principal, or superintendant. It's patent idiocy, and the people shoveling this buzzing fly-heap know it. Either that, or they remain so clueless about American history that they'd give a North Korean labor-camp prisoner a run for his money in terms of pure ignorance of the outside world. Regardless, one could argue that they have little of value to impart to the rising generation.

I love the "Someone might be offended!" argument. It's as impervious to logic as a Sherman tank's armor under the barrage of a squirt gun. Remember when James Madison passionately championed your right to remain un-offended, until you crossed the bar?

Me neither.

There is no God-ordained right to remain unoffended. There is no constitutional protection of your delicate sensibilities. It's unenforceable, subjective nonsense. I suppose we should shoot Michael Moore, because his mere existence offends me.

And used within the context of restricting speech and religion on a school campus, it's also a lie. Otherwise, why no equal level of concern for the Christians and others who have their speech curtailed and their religious expression squelched? Somehow, that's not so important.

But that "Bugaboo to frighten ye" that they've created--well, he might take offense, and we can't have that.

Miracles Are Miraculous

"I don't believe in miracles, because they are unscientific."

How many times have you heard atheists / agnostics / evolutionists say this, or something along similar lines? I'm betting you're familiar with this "reasoning," if you've ever engaged a non-believer in a discussion of this topic.

My response is: "Yes. And?"

That miracles are unscientific is a flaccid observation, offering little insight into miracles, themselves. Of course they're unscientific. Miracles -- by definition -- are special acts of God. If mundane scientific explanations accounted for them, they wouldn't be miracles.

Let's reword the above statement for clarity's sake:

"I don't believe in miracles, because they are miraculous."

See how absurd and circular this reasoning appears?

The above reveals plenty about the mindset of those who utter it. They imply that God either does not exist, or is impotent in the performance of miracles. But these are two assumptions that stand unproven and unprovable. Non-believers take them on faith.

The assertion also suggests that scientific evidence either is the sole form of evidence available to us, or the one form of valid evidence. But both demonstrably are false. We know that other evidential types exist -- documentary, physical, testimonial, etc. Courts of law have accepted these as legitimate categories of evidence throughout the history of Western civilization.

The relevant question is not: "Are miracles scientific?" but: "Do miracles happen?"

Existing evidence offers us stronger reason for an answer in the affirmative than the negative.

The bottom line is that the secular dismissal of miracles is based upon faithful assumptions and / or faulty premises.