A Secular Government?

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

Dictionary.com provides several definitions of secularism:


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

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

3. Religious skepticism or indifference.

4. A doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

Deism and the Founding Fathers

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

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

I define the Founders as those who:


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

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


Let's take the Declaration, first:


56 signers


26 Episcopalians/Anglicans
10 Congregationalists
11 Presbyterians
1 Catholic


Several who switched denominations or beliefs in later life:


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


The Articles of Confederation:


48 signers


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


Two who switched denominations or beliefs in later life:


1 Episcopalian/Deist
1 Quaker/Episcopalian


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


55 delegates/signers:


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


Several who switched denominations or beliefs in later life:


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


Summary


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


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

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

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

R.I.P. Tony Snow

I liked his commentary when he sat in for Rush Limbaugh, but I lost a lot of respect for him when he embarked upon his career as Bush II's propaganda minister. I think he genuinely believed in Bush, though from my perspective, he abandoned conservative principles in shilling for the administration. Still, I wish he could've lived a long life with his family. He came across as a good man, however misguided. I'm sorry he's gone.

Killing Is My Business, and Business Is Good!

An abortionist who claims to have destroyed more than 20,000 unborn children and who once was Hillary Clinton's OB-GYN says he is doing "God's work" when he terminates a pregnancy.

"Embryos and fetuses spontaneously aborted – most, but not all of those 'canceled' by 'God' – are ... luckless human souls," wrote William Harrison, referring to an ancient poem describing the plight of mankind. "But a few spontaneous abortions occur in desired pregnancies with no discernable abnormalities. For those girls and women and their families whose circumstances would make their babies 'luckless human souls,' I 'cancel' them before they become babies."


Kinda like stopping payment on a check, right? I bet his favored tool is a big rubber stamp.

Here we have a devil in jackass clothing. "Spontaneous abortions" are a product of living in a world in which biology labors under the curse brought about by fallen Man. They're natural events, as even nature groans and trevails in pain like that of a woman in childbirth. What relation does this have to the intentional, premeditated taking of innocent human life? I see no comparison.


"Life is being terminated when a male wears a condom, or has a wet dream or 'spills his seed of life on the ground' or in someone's mouth or anus. Or when he ejaculates into the vagina of a woman who isn't ovulating or is post menopausal. The sperm are alive until they die. And the egg is alive until it dies. Each is a unique human life, etc.


This is abject stupidity. Now he's equating "Life" with "Human Life," as if there's no discernible difference. A sperm is not a "unique human life." Neither is an egg. A human life does not exist, until an egg is fertilized by a sperm. On its own volition, will a sperm become a fully-developed human? How about an egg? You'd think that Dr. Demented would know a little more about human reproduction than the typical fembot who believes that the only good baby is one who's no longer kicking.


"Anyone who has delivered as many babies as I have, and has seen hundreds of living and dead embryos and fetuses being spontaneously aborted as have I, knows exactly what we are doing when we provide an elective abortion for our patient. We are ending the life of an embryo or a fetus. Not the life of a person, but certainly a creature that might have become a person under other circumstances.


Comparing abortions to miscarriages is like comparing blowing my neighbor's head off to death by natural causes. And what does this idiot mean by "a creature that might have become a person under other circumstances."? Pray tell, what else might it have become besides a human? Hm? When someone says, "It wasn't a human, but a potential human," I simply ask, "What other potential did it have, dummy?" I think we reasonably can conclude that it wouldn't have grown into a mature platypus. This is akin to declaring, "My child might've grown into an adult, had I not enacted my right of "cribside cancellation."

U.S. State Religion?

I found this website via a commenter at my blog. Having read through the material, I'm of the opinion that it's a carefully constructed argument based on a number of false assumptions. Such assumptions lead to faulty conclusions. I'll offer some quotes, followed by commentary:


The "...government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...", according to Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and passed by the United States Congress.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S.A. Constitution states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...".

With "religion" defined as "belief in God or gods" (first definition, 1977 World Book Dictionary), the existence of an official U.S.A. state religion is evident from the word "God" found

(1) in the U.S.A. Declaration of Independence,
(2) in the U.S.A. Pledge of Allegiance,
(3) on the U.S.A. coins,
(4) in the U.S.A. national motto,
(5) in the U.S.A. national anthem, and
(6) in the opening of each session of the U.S.A. Supreme Court.


First, let me point out that the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" was a diplomatic act; sometimes diplomacy leads to exaggerations or attempts at alleviating concerns of the opposing party. In other words, sometimes people present an inaccurate portrait of beliefs or values as a calming effect. I may not agree with such duplicity, but we all know it happens. ". . .not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion. . ."? Please. All one needs do is read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, to be disabused of that notion. Second, I believe the assurances in Article 11 were of the nature that the U.S.A. isn't a theocracy, like the Barbary States. This is true. Third, the possibility exists that the controversial portion of Article 11 is a mistranslation or a paraphrase. Fourth, Article 11 doesn't exist in the above form in the Arabic text of the Treaty. Fifth, an 1800 State Department review of the English translation described it as "extremely erroneous." Incidentally, the Pasha of Tripoli rendered the Treaty null and void, when he declared war on the United States in 1801. So right away we have a premise built on shifting sands.

Constitutionally speaking, if treaties become the "law of the land," they lose that position when later nullified.

As to the characterization of "religion," the word usually is more expansive in its definition than mere belief in deities. Furthermore, recognition of God's existence isn't the equivalent of a state religion.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, long after the nation's founding, and the words, "under God," came later, still, in 1954. "In God we trust" didn't appear on U.S. coinage until 1864, and became the national motto in 1956. Though "The Star-Spangled Banner" was written in 1814, it didn't become the national anthem until 1931.

To summarize the author's first two assertions: the U.S.A. isn't a Christian nation, but it does have a state religion.


The Declaration of Independence, which has not been rescinded by Congress and is still in effect today, endorses Thomas Jefferson’s god for entitlement of Congress to their rights. Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence.


This is like saying that Paul wrote the New Testament: it's simplistic, and only half-true. The Declaration was a statement of the Continental Congress. Each of its members played a role in what went into the document, and what was excised or excluded from it. Congress commissioned Jefferson as its author, due to his unique flair in turning a phrase. Congress had the final say on the document's completion. In fact, Jefferson objected when the other members took his wording and added conspicuous references to God, which he had neglected including. They noted his objection and overruled him, and so we have the Declaration with which we're so familiar. Jefferson deserves credit as its author, with the stipulation that he spoke for a whole group of people, not just himself.


Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence provides the following doctrine of the U.S.A. state religion:

(1) the Laws of "Nature’s God" entitled Congress to certain rights;
(2) all men are endowed by their "Creator" with certain unalienable rights;
(3) the Representatives of the U.S.A., in General Congress, Assembled, appealed to the "Supreme Judge of the world" for the rectitude of their intentions;
(4) the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged with a firm reliance on the protection of "divine Providence"; and,
(5) the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged to each other their "sacred Honor".


So recognition of God's existence, his creation of Man, and his endowment of Man with certain inherent rights is a religion? Really? Which religion?


The state religion of the United States of America is a religion with belief in Thomas Jefferson’s god. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. See The Deist Roots of the United States of America by Robert L. Johnson.


Here, we get into the nitty-gritty of the author's beliefs. His third assertion is that the U.S. is a deist country. But of course, this tortured conclusion rests on the presumption that Jefferson spoke for himself in the Declaration, rather than serving as mouthpiece for a committee. Was the average Continental Congressman a deist? No, most were devout, orthodox Christians.


Thomas Jefferson denied the divinity of Jesus Christ and the miracles that Jesus Christ performed as recorded in the King James Bible.


Sad but true.


Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter that the following are "artificial systems" "invented by ultra-Christian sects, unauthorized by a single word ever uttered by him" (Jesus of Nazareth): "The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy".


Here's where Jefferson fell into error. How can one be "ultra-Christian?" One is either Christian, or un-Christian. He's right about the immaculate conception, corporeal presence in the Eucharist, and Hierarchy (assuming he's addressing the Catholic concept), and wrong about everything else, as an honest reading of the New Testament attests. It's unfortunate that--were he alive, today--he'd make a fine candidate for the Jesus Seminar.


Thomas Jefferson’s definition of a "real Christian" is different than many other people’s definition of a "real Christian". Thomas Jefferson was a disciple of the doctrines of the Jesus of the Jefferson Bible but not a disciple of the doctrines of the Jesus of the King James Bible.


Notice how the author seems to be basing his understanding of America's religious character on the mistaken beliefs of one man: Thomas Jefferson. Why should I, as a Christian, care how a deist who rejected Christ's divinity defines a "real" Christian? Yes, he admired Jesus as a moral instructor. And yes, he denied Him as our Creator and Savior. Unless you believe that Jefferson was the Prime Mover of the Founders, or is representative of the typical Framer's religious views, I don't see how this is a compelling or even relevant point, though I agree that it's an accurate picture of his views.


The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...". The First Amendment, signed in 1789, in effect stated that the existing U.S.A. state religion could not be changed. In 1789 and after 1789, Congress could make no law respecting an establishment of a U.S.A. state religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of a U.S.A. state religion, according to the First Amendment. The U.S.A. state religion was already established as of July 4, 1776, when Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence.


That's a tortured explanation of the First Amendment. The Framers wanted a non-theocratic government, one in which no denomination of Christianity rose to prominence over others, with state approval. The author's claim is that the First Amendment enshrined the very eventuality that it prohibited.

I see the author's argument as a house of cards. One slight breeze, and the whole thing comes a-tumblin' down.

Becoming Illegal

I received this in an email. Supposedly, it's an actual letter from an Iowa resident to his senator:


The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC , 20510


Dear Senator Harkin,


As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you. My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car. If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.


Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington , IA

Independence Day

Happy July 4, everyone!

Canadian Billboards

PETA Monthly

Poor things. They're just hairy humans, only smarter.

And wardrobe challenged.

But then, so were Adam and Steve.

Imagine, Kong was going about his day, beating his chest, picking at the occasional irksome louse, and peeling bananas for the tribe. Once every couple of hours, he'd stop by the watercooler--I mean the river bank--for a refreshing drink. Mongo gave him some lip, so he broke his neck and thrashed his inert corpse until 3:00pm, at which point he attended a Powerpoint presentation in the tree canopy. Afterwards, everyone had some split treebark soup and played "toss the Howler monkey." This segued into hours of mundane data entry tasks and oral presentations of advertising ideas, which entailed much grunting and roaring. At sunset, Kong punched his timeclock and went home to the missus. Around 10:00 pm, two members of the jungle patrol arrived on a domestic abuse call. Turned out it was a hoax perpetrated by a disgruntled mountain lion who had a grudge against Kong for disturbing his sleep and vengefully hoped the authorities might whisk his little apelings away.

All this harmony exploded into cacophony, when the ugly, nigh-hairless two-legs burst into the village square with a strange, fire-spitting implement in his hand. Demonstrating the truth of devolution, he gleefully aimed the noisemaker at the villagers and belched death and destruction at them, until Kong and all the other creatures of Gaia's sacred womb lay twitching in crimson pools. Satisfied that his work was complete, he blew away the wafting smoke, surveyed his handiwork, and pried a yellow fruit from Kong's viselike grip. He took his time peeling the banana before popping it into his mouth and strolling into the trees. Nothing made him happier than a job well-done.

The Proper Care and Feeding of Aliens

I thought I’d respond to a blog entry by MikeT, but I figured the reply deserved a post of its own. I appreciate his thoughtful critique of my viewpoint dealing with the question, “How should we treat detained aliens accused of being enemy combatants?” I know it’s a contentious issue, with people adamant on both sides. If you missed my earlier posts on the matter, you can find them here and here and here.

As a beginning point on this issue, one first must ask himself : “To whom does the Constitution apply?” The Constitution’s Preamble answers this question:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So at the outset, we’re told that this is a document written by Americans, for Americans.

To quote Mike: That said, I think you will find nothing in the Bill of Rights that supports the notion that there are separate basic rights between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to being detained and brought before a court, civilian or military.

I disagree. Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 10 and 11 of the Constitution tell us that Congress has the power:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

It goes without saying that “Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas” include acts of aliens. Congress is empowered to define and punish these, as well as “offenses against the Law of Nations,” which references absolute moral law, or the laws that aid relations between nations, or as Founder James Wilson put it, “The law of nature.” If Congress can “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,” this necessarily includes rules regarding treatment of aliens. In exercising these mandates, Congress has created legislation designating power to the president and U.S. military to create military tribunals for the trying and sentencing of enemies of the United States.

Amendment Five recognizes the right to indictment by a grand jury, but abrogates that right in certain situations. What are the exceptions? . . .except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. . .

If our own military isn’t entitled to this constitutional protection in wartime or public danger, how much more so is this true for aliens?

Amendment Six: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law. . .

It’s an imaginative stretch suggesting an application of this Amendment to aliens who have never stepped foot on American soil.

As for aliens within U.S. borders, the Constitution doesn’t specifically address their treatment.

The answer to these problems lies outside the Constitution’s text, and is found in the historically enacted policies of the United States and the Founders’ intentions. So let’s look at those.

George Washington approved the military trials and executions of British spies and saboteurs during the Revolution. Hamilton served as Washington’s military secretary, and aided in bringing about these executions. So from the beginning, we see due process for foreign enemy combatants, but not in the same form as that received by Americans. I’m aware of no later repentance of these acts by either man—even after the Constitution’s ratification.

An 1806 congressional act signed into law by Thomas Jefferson imposed capital punishment on alien spies through courts martial. We have due process protected, yet a distinction between citizens and aliens.

FDR utilized a military tribunal against German spies captured in American territory, resulting in the execution of most of the captives. Again, a distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

In post-WWII Nuremberg, a war crimes tribunal tried and sentenced Nazis who had aided and abetted Hitler’s grotesque schemes. Americans played pivotal roles in these trials, and at no point were the criminals treated like U.S. citizens, or tried in a civil-court atmosphere.

The reality is that making distinctions between citizens and aliens in the enactment of due process has constitutional provision, historical precedent harkening back to the founding era, and past Supreme Court agreement. The current SCOTUS ruling on this issue breaks with all of the above. As I have said before, it is a recent innovation in American jurisprudence.

A slight digression: isn't it interesting how SCOTUS has zero qualms about breaking precedent, when leftist activism comprises the agenda? This is true even in cases like the one at hand, in which the Supreme Court has a consistent past record of supporting the policies in place.

I’d like to address this, as well: Part of this is because the very notion of an "American citizen" didn't even exist when the Bill of Rights was enacted.

I disagree. It was understood at the time that people were citizens of their respective states, and citizens of the larger entity, the united States of America. The states were sovereign, to a degree, but they also were subject to federal rules that superseded that sovereignty, for as long as they remained members of the union. Just as authority was divided, citizenship pertained to the member states, and to the confederation as a whole.

Is You Is, or Is You Ain't?

A Zebra dies and arrives at the Pearly Gates. As he enters, he asks St. Peter, "I have a question that's haunted me all of my days on earth. Am I white with black stripes, or am I black with white stripes?'

St. Peter said, "That's a question only God can answer."

So the zebra went off in search of God. When he found Him, the zebra asked, "God, please - I must know. Am I white with black stripes, or am I black with white stripes?"

God simply replied "You are what you are."

The zebra returned to see St. Peter once more, who asked him, "Well, did God straighten out your query for you?"

The zebra looked puzzled. "No sir, God simply said 'You are what you are.'''

St. Peter smiled and said to the zebra, "Well then, there you are. You are white with black stripes."

The zebra asked St. Peter, "How do you know that for certain?"

"Because," said St. Peter, "If you were black with white stripes God would have said, 'You is what you is.'"

Euro Invaders Need Not Apply

U.S. deporting Christian pastors:

Honesty could cost Christian pastor Keith Thomas his citizenship because he cooperated with immigration officials, disclosing two minor marijuana convictions he incurred when he was a young man in England 33 years ago.

Thomas, 53, is working without pay, fearing deportation from the U.S. and separation from his family. He was denied a green card based on convictions that were expunged in 1982. Thomas told WND he has documentation to prove his clean record since the 1975 conviction and that he has always been truthful with officials, but he doesn't understand why people who enter the country illegally are allowed to stay when he is facing the citizenship battle of his life.

Pastor Thomas, you need to get with the times, amigo. Just dye your skin brown, change your name to Paco Taco, and affect a crayzee lateeno accent, like joo hardlee speek Eeengleesh. Joo know wha-dye-meen, mayn? Better yet, just dispense with Eeengleesh all together and learn Spanish. It’ll come in handy when communicating with your next-door neighbors; just think: you’ll have thirty new friends living beside you. Bonus points if you begin worshipping Quetzalcoatl, and mucho additional points if you can spell your new god’s name correctly.

Isn’t this a nifty story? We have a white guy from America’s ancestral homeland, who came to the U.S.A. all legal and proper. He was frank about his not-so-checkered past and wants to be an American citizen. Naturally, the government wants no part of him. We’ll have no white guys spreading Christianity around here. No sir! Diversity dictates that we disallow further Eurotrash from blighting our shores—especially if they wrap their bones in blanco devil skin and bear a cross.

On the other hand, if you’re a troglodytic sub-literate with a rap-sheet longer than Pancho Villa’s mustache, no intention of assimilating, a middle-finger salute to American ideals and a chica carrying a baby about to drop anchor, why, you’re a shoo-in! Heck, el presidente will don his sombrero, take up his castanets, dance the cucaracha, and chug tequila with you till the vacas come home. You’ll become a regular member of his familia.

Only a perverse system with nefarious priorities would turn away a man like Pastor Thomas, while embracing common criminals as saints.

Obama's Ideal

I direct your attention to remarks made by Barelyblack Obama about a year ago, in which he discussed America’s religious status:

"Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama said during a June 2007 speech available on YouTube.

This is silly and misleading, because no one has ever argued that we are “just” a Christian nation. Historians recognize that Jews, atheists, and agnostics were present virtually from the beginning.

He’s also making light of the fact that Christianity played a greater role in this nation’s formation than any other philosophical or religious outlook.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us," he said.

More nonsense. Inherent within religious belief is its divisiveness. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Bushism all are forces that create enmity or schism. Go back as far as you can in recorded history; you’ll find people divided along religious lines—even falling into numerous sects within the same religion. The latter is called denominationalism. Religion can unite people—as exemplified in Christian brethren gathering together in pursuit of missions, witnessing, or other church-oriented goals--but it doesn’t necessarily bring peace and harmony to warring views. The implication, here, is that religion typically unites the divided, and current factionalism is an historical aberration. Notice also the connotation that the “Christian Right” is not just wrongheaded, but evil.

Asked last year to clarify his remarks, Obama repeated them to the Christian Broadcast Network:

"I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama wrote in an e-mail to CBN News senior national correspondent David Brody.

"We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community," wrote Obama.

I think he’s using “sectarianism” in its traditional definition: (noun) sectarian spirit or tendencies; excessive devotion to a particular sect, esp. in religion.

So is this a plea for universalism? Obama’s past remarks insinuate that the answer is yes; he’s on record suggesting that there are many pathways to Heaven.

This is more devaluing of Christianity’s influence on America’s founding. He approaches each religion as equivalent in prominence, import, and popular devotion. He ignores the reality that a Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu nation would not be the United States of America. Let me summarize in one word the effect this trio of religions had upon America’s construction:

NIL.

How do we “translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens,” when our multicultural populace holds values that conflict with and contradict each other? That’s quite an undertaking.

By the way, it’s worth noting that most of America’s religious dilution (or “diversity,” if you prefer) emanates from unrestricted immigration, with a heavy emphasis on migrants from the third world. Also related are the constant belittlement of Christianity, and the general downplaying of our American heritage. Forget history; we need “social studies.”

"My intention was to contrast the heated partisan rhetoric of a distinct minority of Christian leaders with the vast majority of Evangelical Christians – conservatives included – who believe that hate has no place in our politics.

So Christian Right=hate. Got it. I wonder why it is that partisan rhetoric is wrong only when it comes from Christians on the right side (pun intended) of the political spectrum?

"When you have pastors and television pundits who appear to explicitly coordinate with one political party; when you're implying that your fellow Americans are traitors, terrorist sympathizers or akin to the devil himself; then I think you're attempting to hijack the faith of those who follow you for your own personal or political ends," wrote Obama.

As if Obama’s remarks on religion don’t represent his “own personal or political ends.” Sure. And why is it wrong for a pastor to “coordinate with one political party?” Isn’t that what nearly all voters and politicians do? In point of fact, some Americans are “traitors, terrorist sympathizers, or kin to the devil” herself—Hillary Clinton. I suppose he believes that such people don’t exist—you know, much like U.S. history of the past 200-plus years.

The Alien American

I'd like to supplement my past comments about the treatment of detainees accused of being enemy combatants, and the recent SCOTUS decision regarding this issue. I think it's an important topic, deserving of further discussion.

After having read articles and blog posts on this subject, and participated in online conversations, I've reached the conclusion that most people adhere to one of two positions:

Position 1: These detainees act like animals, and therefore should be treated like animals. They have no intrinsic rights of any kind. Locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them rot into perpetuity fosters no moral qualms in our hearts. If you don't agree with our take on the treatment of these rabid dogs, you're unpatriotic.

Position 2: These detainees aren't just human beings with God-given rights; we're going further than that. These people deserve to be treated indistinguishably from American citizens. The U.S. Constitution applies to them as much as it applied to Teddy Roosevelt. They are entitled to American trials on American soil, in front of American judges, with American juries of their "peers" (as if American citizens are peers of non-resident aliens), with American representation (up to and including ACLU representation, if that illustrious organization is so inclined); this includes the nigh inexhaustible post-trial appeals process. If you don't agree with indulging the fantasy that these folks are Americans, you're an enemy of liberty.

Make no mistake: I see both of these positions as extreme and morally questionable.The first ignores the biblical description of human beings as creatures made in God's image; the second shows contempt for the concepts of nationhood and citizenship. I'm not advocating a centrist viewpoint; I'm interested in what is right. That may sound quaint to some, but it's the focus of my thoughts on this matter.

I take a Third Position, and I believe it is a minority stance: I think incarcerated aliens deserve recognition and protection of the inborn rights derived from their Creator, that one of these rights is an entitlement to a form of due process. Simultaneously, non-citizens have no justification for expecting treatment equal to that of citizens; they are not empowered to the same measures of privilege or forbearance as those of Americans.

I see this as the proper course, because it respects the importance and dignity of Man, while preserving the singular characteristics of American citizenship and nationhood.

Read the Instructions

Here are some good "Dos" and "Dont's" on the subject of child-rearing.

I found them very. . .ahem. . .illuminating.

Happy Father's Day!

Today and every day, I'm thankful for my earthly father, as well as my Father in Heaven.

Have a great day, everyone!

Americans in Turbans

I recently stated that all human beings have the right not to be locked away without due process; freedom from unjust imprisonment is a basic right of all men, in my opinion.

That said, the Supreme Court’s new ruling wasn’t what I had in mind.

I don’t believe that foreign terrorist suspects should be treated like American citizens. We live in a time when the concept of citizenship rests on shifting sands. If our Constitution applies in its entirety to foreigners, then what is the distinction between citizenship and non-citizenship? Put another way, if everyone is an American, then no one is an American; U.S. citizenship has no meaning.

There’s a difference between allowing a form of due process, and pretending that someone was born in the good old U.S. of A., with all the attendant rights of American citizenship extended to him.

These people were not born in the U.S.; they are not citizens of the U.S.; nor are they legal residents of the U.S. In point of fact, the guilty ones vehemently hate our country, and would love nothing more than the opportunity to kill as many Americans as possible.

When we conducted war crimes trials in post-WWII Europe, we recognized the right of even Nazis to due process. And we managed that task without indulging in the fantasy that they loved baseball and apple pie, pledged allegiance to the U.S. flag each morning before frying a few Jews, and softly sang “The Star-spangled Banner” every night before tucking their swastika-motif blankets under their chins and going beddy-bye.

Origin of Mankind

A little girl asked her father, "How did the human race come about?"

The father answered, "God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so all mankind was made."

Two days later she asks her mother the same question.

The mother answered, "Many years ago there were monkeys, and we developed from them."

The confused girl returns to her father and says: "Dad, how is it possible that you told me that the human race was created by God and Mom says we developed from monkeys?"

The Father answers, "That's simple, honey. I told you about the origin of my side of the family, and your mother told you about her side."

Diversidad Es Bueno

A double-double-plus-ten secret memo just turned up from the McAmnesty campaign records. Therein, Juan had laid out his list of names for future cabinet members and advisory staff. He also received a hearty stamp of approval from Presidente Jorge Bushandez.

When congressional officials got wind of his plans, they chastised him for his “lack of diversity.” He didn’t have enough women on the list. His choices follow below:


Antonio Garcia
Doroteo Salazar
Porfirio Ramirez
Miguel Jesus-Otilio Francisco
Guadalupe Hidalgo
Manuel Noriega
Juan Valdez
Ignacio Fernandez
AnaLucia Calderon
Placenta Tejada
Lucinda “Loco” Lopez
Luis Guzman
Yo Quiero Morales
Puto Pena
Agua Aguilar
Ojo Caliente
Madre Dee Dios
Vaya Con Dios
Hernando de Soto
Alejandro Cruz
Montezuma Vasquez
Atahualpa Muerto
Tenochtitlan Adios
Concepcion Infecundo
Extranjero Ilegal
Mojado Segundo
Hector Elizondo
Adama Olmos
Pendejo Patricio
Bobolito Vila
Julio Cesare Chavez

Shipped Out

An article about the U.S. operating prison ships has been on the waves for a couple of days, now.

Personally, I couldn’t care less if the government keeps prisoners in land-based prisons, barges on San Franfreako Bay, or domed cities on the Moon. It doesn’t concern me.

What does give me pause is the notion of imprisonment without trial, which is one of the claims being tossed about in the news. The accusation appears true.

I understand that many if not most of these people wore no uniform and represented no specific country, when captured. Still, all human beings—whether in military fatigues or civilian attire—have basic human rights; and I expect my government to respect those rights. One such right is extending some sort of due process to those accused of a crime.

What is the primary purpose of a trial? The obvious answer is to determine guilt or innocence. Trials are the principle mechanisms by which humans make such determinations. So if no trial takes place, how is guilt or innocence ascertained? No examination of evidence—impartial, or otherwise—has taken place. No one has spoken in his own defense. No one has even made an open case against the defendant.

Such scenarios foster corruption, injustice, and abuse. Where is mistreatment more likely—in a trial whose proceedings are known and open to the public, or in semi-secretive detention without trial or hearing of any kind?

Some might argue: “But, Wes, these people are terrorists who were caught red-handed committing atrocities against American troops. There is no doubt as to their guilt.”

I understand the argument, and I’ll respond in two ways:

First, I seriously question the assertion that every single one of these people, without exception, was nabbed with the smoking gun in hand, as it were.

Second, if the case against the accused is so damning, then there’s no reason not to conduct a military trial, properly convict and sentence the criminal, and be done with it. The verdict no doubt will be swift, and the justice found in due process and openness will be satisfied.

“Palestinian” Schoolyard Song

Allah loves his people—
Those who will submit—
The rest are worth far, far less
Than day-old camel spit.

Women, don your hijabs,
And your burkas, too;
If we catch you unchaperoned,
We’ll make mincemeat of you.

Son, grab your bombvest
Filled with nails and screws,
And kill the dirty kaffirs,
And their slinking pets, the Jews.

Give them short-cropped haircuts—
Use your scimitar—
Take a whole lot off the top.
Allahu akbar!

Arrivederci!

Guys, this is the first legitimate reason I’ve heard about for voting McAmnesty into office:

SUSAN SARANDON, who appeared in three films last year and won kudos for her TV movie "Bernard and Doris," is still not a contented soul. She says if John McCain gets elected, she will move to Italy or Canada. She adds, "It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people."

Promise, dear Susie? And will you take that big, dumb, gangly, scarecrow shack-up partner of yours along, as well? The one who’s large on acting talent and teeny tiny on intelligence quotient? Pretty please, with sugar on top? Heck, I’d consider voting for McAmnesty twice, if you’ll sail right off the edge of the world.

SNAFU in Kosovo

Our heritage must be stamped out—let no vestiges remain:

U.S. soldiers stationed at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo may be stunned to find three wooden crosses stripped from the exterior grounds of their chapel in coming weeks – and many never saw it coming.

Several high-ranking officers have met behind closed doors to discuss plans for the crosses. They have decided to remove, and perhaps destroy, the Christian symbols located outside Peacekeeper's Chapel in the name of free exercise of religion.

It takes a singularly warped mentality to believe that repressing the prevailing religion’s symbols is acting in the name of free religious exercise.

Lt. Col. William Jenkins, 35th Infantry Division's Kosovo Force 9 command chaplain, told WND, "The removal of the crosses … is bringing the chapel into line with long-standing regulations and policies that apply to every U.S. Army chapel around the world and that are supported by all faith groups in the U.S. Army."

Jenkins cited the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as validation for the cross removal, saying it guarantees every American the right to the free exercise of religion.

I understand. After all, if a cross looms over a doorway, it catches and dissipates all Islamic prayers to Allah, New Age pleas to the crystalloids of Alpha Centauri, and Buddhist conversations with vaunted ancestors. It’s amazing what a couple of wooden crossbars can do. I’d like to ask Lt. Col. William “Witless” Jenkins how one’s freedom of religion is nullified by an inanimate object standing in a chapel-yard. Our military’s in trouble, if this is the kind of idiot it’s entrenching in the position of Lt. Col. He’s a perfect example of how political correctness not only destroys liberty, but also the intellect.

One person stationed in Kosovo became concerned about freedom of religious expression in the military after WND reported the Army deliberately shut down a chaplain's Baptist service at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in Iraq. The soldier expressed agitation at a perceived double standard after an American sniper accused of shooting a Quran for target practice faced disciplinary action and removal from Iraq for desecrating the religious property.

"It is very discouraging as a Christian soldier to see our Army punish him for destroying a Quran, but then it pays a private company to destroy some crosses," the soldier said. "I feel it is a slap in the face to me, my Lord and my freedom."

Unfortunately, the new American model for religious freedom entails tolerating, appeasing, and debasing onself before every religious tradition, except the one upon which Western civilization was built.

We Ignored the Prophecy

I’m a sci-fi nut, so for my recent birthday, my wife bought me the original two “V” miniseries from the 1980s, as well as the follow-up TV show that lasted one season. (A slight digression: I’ve heard that a new miniseries event is in the works for 2009, which continues where the original left off).

Those of you who saw “V” may know where I’m going with this. I assume that those who have never heard of it live in mountain caves, venturing to town only to use the internet.

“V” is about aliens who superficially look like humans, but in fact are bipedal reptilian creatures wearing disguises. These beings invade in massive numbers, first claiming that they come in peace, but later dispensing with the charade and enslaving humanity. A resistance network hits back, and most of the series centers around its efforts at defeating the “Visitors.”

Imagine Nazis from space, and you have the gist of it.

It’s interesting that Vox dubs Hillaroid Clinton “The Lizard Queen,” because it parallels this series, whether intentionally or not. One of the extraterrestrial lizard-leaders goes by the name Diana. She’s portrayed as murderous, uber-ambitious, and completely ruthless. Rewatching the series after so many years, I turned to my wife and said with a laugh: “You know, she’s Hillaroid Clinton! Literally!”

So if you ever want to see how a power-mad reptile looks and acts, watch this prescient show. I assume Hillaroid uses it as a blueprint for world domination.

Which also explains her penchant for menu dainties like kiddie a la mode and rare rodent.

Operation: Sheer Stupidity

Remember when Rush Limbaugh exhorted his listeners to vote in Demonrat primaries for Hillaroid Clinton? He bragged about creating chaos in the party and drawing out the nomination process.

I think the idea presents ethical and practical problems that Rush can’t see, since his massive ego blots out the light of Reason.

Take the ethical issue: shouldn’t Demonrats choose their own candidate, rather than having one artificially shut out, and another empowered by people who have zero intention of voting Demonrat in the general election? Is that ethical? Is it honest? Furthermore, I wonder how Rush would take liberals pulling the same stunt in GOP primaries? Somehow, I don’t think he’d be grinning and shrugging it off, or crowing about the crafty nature of his ideological enemies’ tactics. In fact, I think he’d denounce it as another in an unending line of dirty, below-the-belt tricks in which the leftist party reliably indulges.

As for his plan’s practicality: assuming that a significant percentage of Rush’s listening audience follows his advice and votes for Hillaroid, the possibility arises of her winning the nomination—which in turn increases her chances of becoming president. After all, Rush’s dittoheads will have aided her in hurdling the Obama obstacle to her ambitions. If Rush gives himself credit for keeping her in the race and lengthening the Demonrat nomination process, then he also must accept blame if, Heaven forbid, Hillaroid ascends to the presidency. He can’t pat himself on the back for hurting the liberals, while giving himself a pass, if she wins.

I believe that his “Operation: Chaos” has a high probability of backfiring and becoming “Operation: Shoot Yourself in the Foot.” In fact, I find the idea so questionable and fraught with problems that I’ve asked myself if it’s a deliberate stealth attempt at electing Hillaroid. I’m not a grassy knoll type, but the wanton idiocy of Rush’s Master Plan makes me wonder.

Jews and the Crusades

I’m sure you’ve heard about the rampant persecutions of Jews during the Crusades, that these armed pilgrimages were anti-Semitic ventures, in practice, if not in proclamation. This is a common misconception; the truth is somewhat more complex than the current notion that Christian history is one long orgy of hate and violence.

When Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade, commoners and lords gathered into large bands and armies as they prepared for the long journey to the Holy Land. Some of these had ulterior motives for joining the grand spectacle, and one such desire was utilizing the Crusade as an excuse to attack Jews. However, it’s important to keep several pertinent facts in mind when assessing these events:

1. The primary purposes of the Crusade were the liberation of the Holy Land, aiding the Byzantines, and hopefully reuniting the Eastern and Western churches. Killing, robbing, or roughing up Jews never was part of the equation.

2. The bands that mistreated Jews were rogue elements within the Crusade movement, no more representative of the Crusade’s intentions than white supremacists are spokesmen for American domestic social policy (Robert Byrd being an exception who proves the rule, of course).

3. The Pope offered explicit and public condemnation of those who persecuted Jews. He even sent emissaries to the groups-in-question, in an attempt at dissuading them from their nefarious deeds. Furthermore, he excommunicated some of the ringleaders.

4. Many local bishops in areas under attack opened their homes and took the Jews in, protecting and hiding them. Sometimes this worked; just as often, their pursuers discovered their locations, raided the sanctuaries, and dragged them out into the streets, where they enacted the robberies and murders with which we’re so familiar.

Given the above information, the First Crusade (1095-1099) hardly sounds like a genocidal undertaking. No organized, widespread attempt at eradicating Jews on the part of Europeans ever occurred in the Crusades.

As for Jerusalem, many popular treatments of the subject inform us that the Crusaders came to the city and “liberated” it by slaughtering its citizenry, including innocent Jews. Two points bear mentioning, here:

First, imaginative authors have exaggerated the number killed in the slaughter, even going so far as stating that the streets ran with blood to the depths of horses’ bridles. This is patent nonsense; such “rivers of blood” would have required the deaths of everyone living in the entire region, much less the population of Jerusalem, itself. The slaughter happened, but not on the scale depicted by anti-Western, anti-Christian, or sensationalistic authors.

Second, viewing past events through a modern prism becomes problematic for someone interested in historical accuracy. In the Medieval world of warfare, besieged cities that surrendered early in the fighting, having inflicted light casualties, received merciful treatment once the gates opened. Conversely, cities that put up a stiff resistance and made the siege costly for the conquering army were considered fair game by the besiegers, once the walls were breached. The prevalent attitude was that everything in the city belonged to the victors—including the people, themselves. Our modern sensibilities cringe from such perceived barbarity, but our feelings hold little relevance when discussing the minds of people far removed from us in time. Whether or not you find the outlook morally virtuous or repugnant, it was an accepted convention of the time and place.

What does this have to do with the Jews? It’s simple really: the Crusaders saw them as combatants, since they aided in the city’s defense. To them, people who manned the walls and used anti-siege tactics against them, who took up arms and killed their soldiers, were far from innocent. What percentage of the Jews took part in the defense remains unknown to us, but historical sources suggest that a significant number participated. They received treatment equal to that of the city’s Muslim defenders. It’s also worth noting that some Jews escaped, or were ransomed; the slaughter was far from total.

None of the above should be taken as excusing or dismissing evil behavior. Rather, it is an explanation of what actually happened, with an emphasis on truth, not myth.

They Call Him Plankeye

I lifted this quote from Vox Day’s website. I attempted commenting on it at his place, but his nifty new commenting system dispelled my brilliance into the aether, so I thought I’d reiterate it, here, for everyone’s edification (WARNING! Foul Language Ensues):

Most of us know why theists cling so pathetically to their incorrect definition of the word "atheism". And the clinging truly is pathetic-- the atheists on this group state in plain English that they simply lack a belief in God like they lack a belief in other fictional characters. Theists know that when the burden of proof is shifted where it belongs--on them, for making the outrageous assertions in question--they are thoroughly fucked. Since they realize they cannot carry out a debate honestly--and let's be honest with ourselves, none of them can--they cling to this strawman like a beloved childhood toy they can't bear to part with.

If this particular atheist looked up “Projection” in the dictionary, he’d see a picture of his own goofy face as an accompanying illustration. Of course, that’s assuming he owns a dictionary and understands how to use it—a highly dubious proposition, given the mountainous evidence to the contrary. Apparently, accusing others of one’s personal faults relieves guilt. I’ve participated in countless discussions with atheists online, and, without exception, they distorted the definitions of words, twisting them right out of their conventional meanings. They made Bill Clinton resemble George Washington during the cherry tree incident. It’s as if dissemblance is an inherent trait in the atheist personality. Sure, one can be a liar without being an atheist, but it seems one can’t manage acceptance of atheism without a toxic dose of dishonesty. “Lying is OK, as long as I’m doing the lying,” is not a proven method for winning friends or building respect. Conversely, it guarantees that people despise you as a hypocrite. It’s just more of that typical hubris so prevalent amongst the godless.

As I’ve said before, and will no doubt say again, atheism goes beyond mere unbelief. It’s a positive assertion of a negative: There is no God. The reason why we have words like “atheist” and “agnostic” is not that we love linguistic variety; these words are not synonymous. Rather, we need different words describing distinct philosophical outlooks. An atheist is not the same animal as an agnostic, as a brief perusal of Webster’s will attest. If you use these words interchangeably, you demonstrate your own ignorance or willingness to move goalposts at the drop of a hat, in service to your agenda.

If atheists want to influence their surrounding society for the better, they first must stop griping about the motes in others’ eyes, while tripping over the planks jutting from theirs. It’s worth noting that following this advice means shedding that armor of prevarication, which puts one squarely on the road to recovery from atheism. So your choices seem clear: discard atheism, or continue in your role in most people’s minds as Rat Fink of the Century. You decide.

Obama's New Pastuh

I be takin’ Wright’s place,
In da war ‘ginst paleface.
Ahm fightin' da U.S.A. of K.K.K.
Diss mah repartee?
Ah’ll bussacap in yo A.

Kin I git a witness
To da fitness
Uv a yung blood frum da hood?
Ize throwin’ down like Earp
On da streets uv Deadwood.
My Ebonics Iz clear;
I won’t be misundazstood.
I’m aimin’ fo’ Wormwood
Like Robin uv Shuhwood.
I be leadin’ da priesthood,
So check yo’sef, peckerwood.

Ahm da hip-hop pastuh.
A white man’s disastuh.
I hate ya if yo skin iz alabastuh.
An’ my mind’s as lethal as a
Coked-up bushmastuh.

I’m Wright’s yung crony.
I luv macaroni,
Won’ tuch a calzone, or
Sum provolone.
But like mos’ mah homies,
I call “Phony baloney!”
On dat silly instatushun
Called matrimony.

I lissen ta Ice Cube,
Not da Byootiful Danube.
Fo’git about Bach.
Ah’ll settle fo Tupac.

Ahm Publik Enema Numbah Wun,
An’ ahm comin’ aftah Whitey wit’ a loded gun!

The Twisted Candidate

Brokeback Osama made this comment during a town hall meeting in Johnstown, PA on March 29, 2008. He was discussing the dangers of AIDS:

"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education – which should include abstinence education and teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.

“But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

That final line is one of the most vomitous statements I’ve heard gush from a politician’s mouth. It tells you everything you need to know about Osama’s moral center, which is a black hole (no pun intended).

The last I checked, be-bopping into the car’s backseat with your boyfriend so he can demonstrate the suspension’s springiness isn’t a “mistake.” “Hooking up” after the all-night kegger, while your parents think you’re sleeping over at Molly’s house isn’t an “oops” moment. The sexual act is just that—an act. And a conscious one, to boot. It requires forethought and effort. I’m so tired of the deconstruction of language. Deliberate acts are mistakes, and mistakes are intentional acts. Uh-huh. Babies don’t mysteriously fall out of the sky and land in teenage girls’ stomachs; there is no stork flapping overhead, waiting to bomb teen twits with screaming infants: I don’t care what mommy told you when you were five. Personal responsibility lies in the same grave as the T-rex and the dodo, it seems. A mistake is tripping over my own feet, as I make my way to the bathroom in the dark, in the middle of the night. Or mashing my thumb with a hammer as I drive a stake into Hillary’s cold, shriveled heart. Those are legitimate and unintentional errors. Getting it on after the prom because it’s the “in” thing to do extends somewhat beyond the category of “Yikes! Didn’t mean to do that!”

As for Osama’s perverse definition of punishment, babies are punishments in the same sense that strawberries are dire consequences for the vines from which they sprang. Is the logical outcome of your actions a punishment? Calling his statement asinine is unfair to asinine idiots everywhere. God isn’t sitting up in Heaven on a cloud, saying: “I smite thee, oh Betsy Jones, with a howling infant of your own.” That’s not how it works. Rather, God created a biological mechanism by which children are brought into this world. It’s called “procreation.” Look it up. I understand that the sex act isn’t just about producing children, but it’s inextricably intertwined with the pleasure aspects. If you don’t understand this simple, demonstrable fact, I have three words for you: keep it zipped. And pray that someday, someone will come along and help you with your rectal-cranium-insertion problem.

What Osama really means is this: “If my daughters reach puberty and do something stupid and irresponsible, I don’t think they should suffer the consequences of their actions—even if this means an innocent child loses his life. Instead, I think they should live in an artificial world that exists nowhere outside our house, where actions have no reactions, and causes have no effects.”

How’s that for family values?

The Grim Reaper Smiles

So, who croaked on the day of your birth?

According to the site, 134,698 people shuffled off this mortal coil on the day I was born.

At least it was an even number.

May the Farce Be with You

It seems the Sith didn't destroy all the young Jedi apprentices in episode three.

Some escaped, and made their way to Earth, disguising themselves as teenage punks with death-wishes.

Your Children Belong to Us

I thought I’d say a few words about the Mormon compound raided in Texas by Big Brother’s jack-booted thugs.

No one should have his (or her) children snatched from his (or her) custody on the basis of an unsubstantiated, anonymous phone call. I expect that brand of behavior from the defunct U.S.S.R., not the U.S.A. Such information may serve as a catalyst for an investigation, but it isn’t evidence, in and of itself. Anyone can call a tip line and say anything.

Constitutionally and legally speaking, Americans are innocent until proven guilty--in theory, at least.

If the government had indisputable evidence of abuse in this scenario, I believe we’d be aware of it, by now. That nothing more compelling than an anonymous tip has been offered as a rationale for this mockery of justice and spittle on the God-given rights of Americans indicates that no more damning evidence exists. The government isn’t in the habit of incriminating itself for wrongdoing, when it has the moral high ground, and can demonstrate the fact beyond doubt. That it has not done so tells me all I need to know about its moral authority, in this particular situation.

At Vox’s blog, I had an exchange with a commenter a few days ago who goes by the name “Former Children’s Social Worker”:


Wes: When the authorities received the initial phone call, how hard would it have been to trace the call & determine if it was, indeed, coming from the compound?

After the trace, how hard would it have been to match the name the caller gave them w/ the residence from which the call came?

If they determined that the name w/ whom the phone was registered didn't match the name given, & that it came from a location outside the compound, how did they have probable cause to raid the FLDS residence?

Why wasn't the caller visited & questioned by the police, prior to raiding & taking children?


Fmr. Children’s Social Worker: It's usually the responsibility of State and County Welfare Agencies to investigate child-abuse claims. While criminal charges can be filed, most child abuse and neglect is classified as a civil, Welfare & Dependency matter. It's assigned to social workers to investigate such claims.

Why don't social workers visit and question referring callers? Most jurisdictions are set up so that people can anonymously report abuse, under the assumption that, while such a system can itself be abused, if it finds real situations of abuse or neglect it was worth it.

Even if a person leaves their name and contact information, the law and the policy of most welfare agencies requires the workers to investigate most every claim they get.


Wes: I'm not so much concerned about which governmental bureaucracy does the investigating as I am that the investigation occurs prior to children being yanked from their parents' custody.

In this particular case, we're not even sure that the call came from inside the compound, from a member of the FLDS. In fact, the available evidence suggests otherwise. Nor are we sure that abuse actually happened.

Most jurisdictions are set up so that people can anonymously report abuse, under the assumption that, while such a system can itself be abused, if it finds real situations of abuse or neglect it was worth it.

Which is a recipe for present & future tyranny, since anyone can make a phone call and claim anything. This is akin to saying: "If the cop pulled you over w/out probable cause, & he roughed you up because you asked why you were stopped, & he searched your vehicle w/out a warrant or your permission--no harm, no foul, as long as he found a loaded firearm in the trunk."

Another example of this brand of mentality is the person who says: "Banning all guns is worth it, if it saves just one life."

Let's call it what it is: an Anti-freedom Initiative.

Even if a person leaves their name and contact information, the law and the policy of most welfare agencies requires the workers to investigate most every claim they get.

The police have methods of retrieving names & contact info, whether the person provides it, or not. I would think that questioning the accuser in person prior to a raid on the accused's residence would be minimal standard operating procedure. Or at least, it certainly should be.



*****


I’m not going to post his response, as it is long and entails more excuse-making on the government's behalf. However, if you’re interested in reading the rest, you can find it here.

Investigation of the tip-off carried out after the fact suggest the call upon which the government rests its case was a hoax.

Had the authorities conducted this investigation prior to raiding the Zion Ranch, as I said they should have done, justification for such an invasion would've evaporated.

It seems obvious to me that the government officials involved in this case never cared about their victims' rights--or the existence of evidence--in the first place. As to their unstated, genuine motives, they're open to speculation. One thing's for sure: now that these kids are in Big Brother's custody and out of the hands of those filthy separatists, we needn't be concerned about them having their heads filled with silly, outdated notions, like a healthy scepticism toward government, or the asinine fantasy that family is paramount.

Epiphany

I think I've figured out why George Bush has kept our troops in Iraq for so long, with no end in sight. I believe he read Luke 19:13, and the words therein jumped out at him. Being a good fundamentalist, he took them literally. Unfortunately for us, he also took them personally:

"Occupy till I come."

The place of occupation is Iraq, and the occupation's duration is until the final trump sounds.

Expect longer tours of duty in the near future.

Pope Benedict’s Prayer for “Immigrants”

Bless thy ninos and ninas as they swim the turbulent river separating them from jobs Americans just won’t do.

Bless them as they do the crawl-stroke, back-stroke, and, yea, even the doggy paddle.

Bless them in the rapids and the shallows, oh Lord of Fruit Pickers and Burger Flippers.

Bless them as they brave the desert sun, following “how-to” books and maps provided by their benevolent presidente.

Bless thy brown children as they gnaw the fleshy innards of cacti, for hydration’s sake.

Bless thy rattlesnakes who do not bite, and thy scorpions who withhold their stings. Bless the white man who treats them to his largesse, as they ransack his house while he’s at work.

Bless them as they creep and scuttle over mountain and sand dune, avoiding all the dreaded snares of the Border Patrol gringos. Hide them from the aerial drones’ sight, make virtual fences visible, and lead them through thy underground tunnels for righteousness’ sake, oh Lord of Unlawful Entry.

Bless them with forged birth certificates, fake social security numbers, and matricula consular cards found acceptable in thy sight, oh Lover of Truth.

Yea, though they walk through the Valley of Nativism, they shall fear no evil; for thou art with them. Thy anchor baby and expired visa comfort them.

Thou preparest a job for them in the presence of bigots. Thou anointest their heads with tequila. Their mamacitas' bank accounts in Mexico runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow them all the days of their lives, and they shall dwell in the occupied territories of Aztlan forever.

Amen.

Pucker Up

I was reading at World Net Daily about how Jimmy "Nuts" Carter met with and kissed a Hamas terrorist. Cute, huh?

The article tells us: Carter hugged Shaer and kissed him on each cheek. . .

Missing from the story, however, was the most relevant information of all: when he planted his smooch, was the man's naked backside exposed, or did he merely give some love to his fully-clothed keister?

This Land Ain't Your Land

I hope everyone paid those income taxes in a timely fashion. After all, we have muchos millions of illegal aliens to support.

Since they're just like us, we should be proud to foot the bill for them, in all things. Right, pendejos?

There's No Reason Like Unreason

Atheists portray themselves as paragons of logic, while theists—particularly Christians—are characterized as silly, superstitious dunderheads. This is nothing more than illogical sleight-of-hand; let me demonstrate why.

We have two basic options when it comes to explaining the origins of life and the universe: (1.) they are the work of a Supreme Being, or (2.) they came into existence on their own. Claims about aliens from Shazbot seeding the Earth don’t answer the question; they merely move it off-world. You still need an origin for the little green men.

The notion that “Once upon a time, nothing existed, and then ‘Poof!’ there it was” violates the laws of logic. Ever heard of the Law of Non-contradiction? It states that a thing and its contradiction cannot both be true at the same time, in the same relationship (A cannot be non-A at the same time, in the same relationship).We see evidence bearing this out on a daily basis. A man can be a father and a son, but not in the same relationship. If I say “The man is fat, but he is also skinny,” I’ve violated the Law of Non-contradiction, because the man may be fat or skinny, but he cannot be both at the same time, in the same relationship.

Materialistic evolutionists, believers in naturalism—whatever you want to call them, they share a common belief: that if you go back far enough in time, you will find that life arose from non-life, order coalesced out of chaos, information came from non-information, and something came from nothing. All of this happened without benefit of a Creator.

This is an obfuscatory way of saying that the universe and everything in it is, ultimately, self-created. But the very notion of self-creation violates the Law of Non-contradiction. For something to be self-created it must have existed before it existed. Reread the italicized part, again. How can something exist before it exists? To create itself, it had to be here already; to be created it couldn’t have existed at the time of its creation. So self-creation requires a thing’s existence and non-existence at the same time, in the same relationship. This is a nonsense statement accepted entirely on blind faith. It contradicts—there’s that pesky word, again—observable evidence and common sense. A belief in self-creation renders logic itself null and void. If logic is meaningless, how do we determine if something is factual, or not? How do we acquire knowledge? If you throw out the Law of Non-contradiction, you also toss Reason to the curb. If you eject Reason, you also expel the scientific method, for the latter relies upon and assumes the former.

So it’s amusing that the people who dismiss me and my fellow Christians as nutty, anti-scientific zealots have embraced an idea that takes a wrecking ball to the foundation of Science and Reason—the very bedrock upon which they claim to stand.

Can You Hear Me, Now? Good!

It’s funny—and scary—how technology changes society and personal behavior. One phenomenon I’ve noticed of late is that of full-grown men walking around in stores jabbering on cell phones. Business-related phone conversations I understand, but how about the chatty ones?

I was at Wetback-Mart the other day, buying a few groceries, when I saw two unrelated men—one of whom was of grandfatherly age—talking on cell phones. They wandered aimlessly down the aisles, with no buggy or visible merchandise, chatting. I especially enjoy when such folks block aisles and get in everyone’s way as they meander. Sorry, but when I’m in a hurry, and I’m weaving my shopping cart between Julio and Santa Anna as they stuff tv dinners down their pants and have their pregnant wives and twin broods of twelve children standing lookout, I’m not interested in hearing about how it made you feel when Bubba laughed at your favorite for a shoo-in at the local tractor pull. Or about that time on your annual hunting trip when a bear carved its initials in your backside because you forgot which end of the rifle goes “BANG!” Or your thoughts on re-mortgaging the house and selling the wife and kids to the Sudanese so you could buy that new-fangled “road hawg” for which you’ve been pining. See, I don’t give a Woodsy Owl hoot about your personal life, total stranger. However, I do care about the fact that I can’t get to the milk, as you lean on the cold case and sigh in reminiscence with Billy Bob about drinking everyone else under the table during Tuesday’s happy hour at Bazoonga’s Bar and Grill. Get a handle on reality, “guys.” You’re in a public place. The world is not a deserted stage for you and only you to play upon. This ain’t I Am Legend, and you ain’t Robert Neville.

Before the advent of cell phones, I never saw men standing around in public places—malls, grocery and department stores, and the like—involved in inane conversations on pay phones. Such luxuries were for calling someone for a ride, or other important purposes. Not getting the skinny on last night’s episode of American Idol-worshipper from Butch.

Now don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against cell phones; they’re useful tools. But remember the maxim everything to its season. There’s a time and place for it, fellers. How about sitting in your car in the parking lot, rather than shuffling along, head-down, in the middle of the walkway in a crowded store? There’s a revolutionary idea, dummy. It’s sad that you can’t run in Wetback-Mart and buy a six-pack and the new selection in Oprah’s Book Club (yecch!) without dialing Leroy’s house for some chitty –chat.

When I was a kid, we had a name for people who spent loads of time on the phone embroiled in ephemeral conversation, who seemed to have the receiver surgically attached to their ears.

“Girls”, we called them. I still do.

Now all you need is some bubblegum, Hank.

Creeping Death

Regarding Israel, why don't we forget all the talk of peace, the gatherings of witless politicians around tables, and the shuffling of important-looking but meaningless paperwork? Let's forget the Clintonian Legacies and the Piece In Our Time gibberish. Let's set aside the hanging on every word of Arab statesmen, even as we listen to the bombs ticking under their kaffiyehs. Why all the pussyfooting around? I have a simple solution to the trademarked Israel Problem: let's round up all the oppressive zionist entities--known as Jews in the vulgar--and confine them to a "ghetto," as it were, in Jerusalem. Heck, let's build it just beneath the Wailing Wall; how fitting is that? Call it a Final Solution.

Meanwhile, give back the land to the "Palestinians;" you know, the ones who peopled it in their countless millions, before the Zionist bacteria infected the "body terrorist," and relegated it to savagery. Remember what a paradise Israel--I mean, "Palestine"--was before the dreaded Jewish Blight? Remember the industry, the civilized refinery, the land flowing with milk and honey?

And the dirty Jews? Well, they're the reason Allah invented concentration camps, after all.

Charlton Heston, R.I.P.

I just learned that he passed away Saturday. He was one of the few remaining great actors. This is a sad occasion, and I'll miss him.

Charlton Heston, 1923-2008

God bless and keep him.

In Lighter Vein

Why does the Iraqi Navy have glass-bottom boats?


*****


So they can see their Air Force.

The Way of the Dodo

At Vox’s blog, a commenter said this in a discussion about secularism’s corrosive influence on society:



Mr. Day,

I recall a statement by you in support of the institution of Christianity. You summed it up with two words. "It works".

At the time I wondered how does he figure? In many western countries the marriage rate and birth rate among Christians has plummeted, and both the numbers of raghead immigrants, and the number of births to raghead immigrants, have skyrocketed.

By what perverse definition can you conclude that this works? It works to destroy Christian societies?

Humans evolved for several million years on this earth. As they spread around the globe, those societies either prospered or failed. Those that "worked" prospered, those that did not work, failed.

That was all before Christ's time. Christianity really doesn't work. It's just hasn't totally failed yet. It looks like another century or so should do the job though.

Eddie 03.27.08 - 11:06 am #



A strange observation; too bad it isn’t the least bit observant of reality. What does a profusion of ragheads have to do with whether or not Christianity “works?” Perhaps he should consider that importing Islamoids by the baker’s thousand is a relatively recent phenomenon—a product of political correctness and multiculturalism, which find their headwaters in secularism. Of course, that means gleaning information from deeper sources than tonight’s episode of Are You Dumber than a Pre-skeweler?

Christianity works because it’s true; it has a tempering effect on Man’s passions. The current portrait of Western Civilization is one of a world in flight from its roots, a society in which ideals once taken for granted as true now meet with sneers. The unquestionable is questioned; the sacred is profaned; moral virtue draws hisses, while lasciviousness becomes enthroned over all. When secularism usurps Christianity’s place in society, all that remains is “Do what thou wilt, with due consideration to the policeman around the corner.” This is synonymous to the biblical description of a land without God being one in which “every man did what was right in his own eyes.”

Why the surprise about marriage and birth rates plummeting, when denouncing motherhood as a form of enslavement, “no-fault” divorce, sexual promiscuity, and an insistence on a mythological right to abortion-on-demand have become commonplace? I contend that the expectation of stable marriage and birth rates in such a scenario is a position unacquainted with Reason.

It’s interesting how secularists conclude that problems stemming from a rejection of Christian values somehow indicate Christianity’s failure as a belief system. This is like Oprah blaming Jenny Craig for her weight gain, despite her regular, midnight chocolate rendezvous. It seems secularists are looking for a scapegoat for whatever problems assail us, and Christianity fits their bill.

Christian influence too pervasive? “Help! I’m being repressed! Now I can’t indulge in all my favorite sins and continue receiving pats on the head and 'Attaboy!'s from society.” Christian influence too sparse? Why, we’ll just chalk up all the attendant problems to Christianity’s ineffectual nature. Notice how Christianity takes it on the chin, whatever the outcome.

This is an intellectually dishonest stance having less to do with Christianity’s warts and inadequacies than with the secularist’s refusal to address the logical outcome of his beliefs put into practice: a civilization in decay.

It would be humorous, if it weren’t so sad and destructive: For upwards of fifty years, the Eddie’s of the world have dedicated their lives to eradicating or limiting Christian influence on western societies. They’ve captured public education, most institutions of higher learning, the news media, government, and virtually the entire entertainment industry. With the exception of the internet—and radio, to a lesser extent—they dominate the communication outlets of our countries. They’ve indoctrinated our children into the notion that truths and mores higher than Man’s desires are fairy tales. They insist that our “fearfully and wonderfully made” selves are products of mindless, undirected chemical processes and favorable mutations—despite convincing evidence to the contrary. And to top it all off, when the inevitable collapse precipitated by their outlook rears its ugly head, do they see this as cause for introspection, for a reevaluation of their worldview? Alas, no. Rather, they castigate the very people who built from the ground up and maintained our society, who created it from scratch, with God’s help, who stand as its sole guardians, albeit imperfect ones. Oh, the blind irony.

When a civilization expels Christianity as its foundation, another philosophical paradigm takes over. The products of secularism are apathy and nihilism, both of which strive with Christian values. The negative commentary on our society is not a representation of Christian influence, but of its attempted displacement.