Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

An unlikely 'Avatar' of spirituality

It's the title of today's outstanding article from author and columnist, Jonah Goldberg. If you plan to see the movie in the near future and would like to enter the theater with "eyes wide shut" and completely unaware of any of the storylines, then avert your eyes as some of them will be mentioned. Me personally? I was highly suspect after viewing the trailer for the first time. I immediately got the impression that the movie would be, HUMANS=Bad, Cat People=Good, Humans are out to destroy everything and anything in the name of the almighty dollar, yadda, yadda, yadda. Some of the more interesting excerpts from Goldberg are as follows.....

"The film has been subjected to an assault from the right, notably by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, as an "apologia for pantheism." His criticisms hit the mark, but the most relevant point was raised in The Weekly Standard by John Podhoretz. Cameron wrote "Avatar," says Podhoretz, "not to be controversial, but quite the opposite: He was making something he thought would be most pleasing to the greatest number of people." What would have been controversial is if -- somehow -- Cameron had made a movie in which the good guys accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts.

Of course, that sounds outlandish and absurd, but that's the point, isn't it? We live in an age in which it's the norm to speak glowingly of spirituality but derisively of traditional religion. If the Na'Vi were Roman Catholics, there would be boycotts and protests. Make the oversized Smurfs Rousseauian noble savages and everyone nods along, save for a few cranky right-wingers.

But what I find interesting about the film is how what is "pleasing to the most people" is so unapologetically religious.

Nicholas Wade's new book, "The Faith Instinct," lucidly compiles the scientific evidence that humans are hard-wired to believe in the transcendent. That transcendence can be divine or simply Kantian, a notion of something unknowable from mere experience. Either way, in the words of philosopher Will Herberg, "Man is homo religiosus, by 'nature' religious: as much as he needs food to eat or air to breathe, he needs a faith for living."

Goldberg again hits one out of the park (as he usually does) with his well-written, timely and precise article. I would recommend anyone reading this to click on the above link and read the article in it's entirety. Once doing so, please feel free to use the comments section on this thread to discuss the topics raised in the above cited article.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

When was Jesus Born?

I heard this on the radio the other day and just found a link to a site that has the info re: how the birth of Jesus was determined.....

"In the 6th Century, the Roman monk-mathematician-astronomer named Dionysis Exeguus (Dionysis the Little) reformed the calendar to pivot around the birth of Christ. He dated the Nativity 753 years from the founding of Rome, calculated to the date King Herod died. But Dionysis miscalculated, because Herod died only 749 years after the founding of Rome, thus 4BC.

Herod, who ordered all the babies in Bethlehem younger than 2 years killed, was, of course, alive when the Magi visited the baby Jesus. So we know that Jesus was born in or before 4BC, as astronomers point out when referring to the Star of Bethlehem.
The reference to the birth of Jesus "two thousand years ago" is wrong in two ways: a. there was no year 0, thus we have had only 1998 years since Dionysis (incorrectly) calculated the year of the Nativity. b. Dionysis's calculation was off by at least 5 years, as mentioned above.

In the year 274AD, solstice fell on 25th December, and Roman Emperor Aurelian proclaimed the date as "Natalis Solis Invicti," the festival of the birth of the invincible sun. In 320 AD, Pope Julius I specified the 25th of December as the official date of the birth of Jesus Christ. In 325AD, Constantine the Great, the first Christian Roman emperor, introduced Christmas as an immovable feast on 25 December. In 354AD, Bishop Liberius of Rome officially ordered his members to celebrate the birth of Jesus on 25 December.

In some parts of the Roman Empire (mostly the Eastern parts), solstice was celebrated on 6 January, the last festival day for those who started solstice on 25 December. (Saturnalia was held over 12 days.) The Orthodox Churches of Eastern Europe celebrate Christmas on 6 January. The most likely year that Jesus was born, is 6BC, probably in the month of March. There was no year 0 (zero) recorded, so the 2nd millennium celebration of the birth of Jesus should have been held in March 1995. But considering that Nativity was not celebrated at all for the first 300-or-so years, and that Christmas became widely popular only in the 19th Century, it remains remarkable that the birthday of Jesus Christ today is one of the biggest industries in the world. A rather apt acknowledgement."
Hope you found it interesting. Count your blessings and have a very Merry Christmas!

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

I Can Hear the Screaming Now

This oughta make 'em scream. It's today's article by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer entitled Climategate Recalls Attack on Darwin Doubters. It seems that Rick Santorum (see below) is not the only one drawing parallels between the currently popular fairy-tale for adults, AKA Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change and Neo Darwinism....

"There have been parallels cases where e-mail traffic was released showing Darwinian scientists displaying the same contempt for fair play and academic openness as we see now in the climate emails. One instance involved a distinguished astrophysicist at Iowa State University, Guillermo Gonzalez, who broke ranks with colleagues in his department over the issue of intelligent design in cosmology. Released under the Iowa Open Records Act, e-mails from his fellow scientists at ISU showed how his department conspired against him, denying Dr. Gonzales tenure as retribution for his views. To me, the most poignant correspondence emerging from CRU e-mails involves discussion about punishing a particular editor at a peer-reviewed journal who was defying the orthodox establishment by publishing skeptical research. In 2004, a peer-reviewed biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published a technical essay of mine presenting a case for intelligent design. Colleagues of the journal’s editor, an evolutionary biologist, responded by taking away his office, his keys and his access to specimens, placing him under a hostile supervisor and spreading disinformation about him. Ultimately, he was demoted, prompting an investigation of the Smithsonian by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel."

Isnt it wonderful that scientists can be held up and placed on a moral pedestal above mere mortals due to their overwhelming belief and unparalleled worship in the god of Methodological Naturalism Only? For an encore, dare we hope that they break out their pitchforks, torches and shovels to recreate their favorite scene from Frankenstein and run all of the design theorists away in the name of consensus rather than arguing each case on it's own merits?

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Chavez Begins to Abandon the Pretense

The competition for Who Will Become The Next Hitler Watch took an interesting turn yesterday with the following press release, dateline Caracas, in which Hugo Chavez announced the formation of his own version of Brownshirts...

"President Hugo Chavez launched a federal police force on Sunday that he hopes will change the overwhelmingly negative image most Venezuelans have of their public security forces while reducing crime in one of Latin America's most violent countries. "We are going to defeat crime," Chavez told uniformed cadets belonging to the newly formed National Bolivarian Police Force during his weekly television and radio show....Justice Minister Tareck El Aissami said the nascent police force would seek to reduce crime through preventative rather than repressive measures and embrace the socialist ideals of Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution," a political movement named after 19th-century independence hero Simon Bolivar...."The National Police will impose a culture of peace in the barrios to eliminate the violence of the capitalist, bourgeois model that we've inherited," El Aissami said."

As someone who has traveled to Venezuela seven times over the course of the last few years, I think I have more insight concerning the actual situation on the ground there than your average internet blowhard. The majority of people who are A. sufficiently educated to the level of a Bachelors Degree or higher, or B. are entrepenuers and have an inkling as to how a small business works are against Chavez. Great numbers of the poorly educated and/or poorer classes think the guy is great or kid themselves that he is because they see no other political figure on the horizon to replace him, former Chacao Mayor Leopoldo Lopez included if for no other reason than a street smart sense of pragmatism that Chavez's goons would never permit it.

El Assami is an *ahem* interesting character. Given his alleged ties to such freedom loving organizations as Hamas and Hezbollah, continued vigilance of his activities is a little more than just prudent. This of course, is coupled with the fact that for the last several years, there have been weekly flights between Tehran and Caracas with a stop in Damascus and let's just say that I'm less than enthusiastic that the Chavez government would be vigilant in keeping out suspected bad guys.

My sources inside of Venezuela have mentioned that Chavez has the appearance of being "Chinese-eyed" in his weekly television screed broadcast in which they speculate about the possibility of recreational drug on the part of el presidente. This of course puts speculation as to why members of the elite, Hollywood left would want to "hang out" with the guy in a somewhat different light.

One other point raised in the above article that some on the left buy into is the description of Chavez's power grab reforms as "Bolivarian". Given that Simon Bolivar had a thorough command of the Spanish language, was a military man who actually experinced battle and was labeled a conservative, any description of his so called "revolution" as "Boliverian" only gives credence to the old Hitler/Goebbels saw about repeating the Big Lie often enough, then the people will actually believe it.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Where is "Americans United for Seperation of Church and State" when you need them?

Back in my high school/college days, I went to church several times with close friends that were members of the United Methodist Church. It was "OK" insofar as religious experiences go. Kinda like having a hunger for the 7 ounce strip steak all week and then getting Salisbury Steak in the end. John Wesley must be positively spinning in his grave, if he wasnt already, concerning how far, the flock he help found, has strayed.....

"The United Methodist Church has never made a secret of its support for abortion as it regularly participates in a radical national pro-abortion religious group. With one of its members, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, holding up the health care bill over abortion funding, the church is on the attack. Rev. Cynthia Abrams has written an email for the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, that made the rounds Friday. The sharply-worded email, sent to its Nebraska members, urged them to lobby Nelson to support the government-run health care bill even though it includes massive abortion funding. "The U.S. health-care system is broken. It needs to be repaired. Your U.S. senator, Ben Nelson, is the last holdout blocking an important step forward in the reform," it says. The email calls on Nelson to "set aside his personal agenda" against taxpayer funding of abortions "and think about the common good."
The email even cites Jesus Christ as a reason to back the pro-abortion health care bill, saying, "Frankly, I believe Jesus set the bar high in reaching out to the disenfranchised among us. I disagree that some ought to be able to have better health care than others -- and so does The United Methodist Church!"

With all due respect, just where does this 2nd Rate Yenta in Liturgical Garb get off saying that Jesus Christ, in any way, shape or form, would support abortion? Didnt Jesus say? "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."? As I stated earlier people, with friends like these....

The Elephant in the Room: Challenging science dogma

It's the title of yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer article by former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). It's timely on a couple of different fronts. A short excerpt reads...
" In 2001, I offered a legislative amendment about teaching the subject of evolution. I caught more flak for this simple amendment than for almost anything else I championed in the Senate. What heresy did I propose? Here is the full text:

"Good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."

It was so radical a concept that, less than an hour after it's unveiling, liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy signed on to it. He said during the debate that my amendment's language was "completely consistent with what represents the central values of this body. We want children to be able to speak and examine various scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is available to them." My amendment passed 91-8. The next day, the High Priests of Darwinism went berserk. How dare the Senate suggest there is any controversy surrounding evolution? The amendment, they argued, was an attempt to bring God into the classroom.

Kennedy quickly recanted and vowed to have the amendment stricken from the reported language of the final bill. It wasn't."

I find it interesting to say the least that Kennedy changed his position so quickly. It was probably something like "Sorry Ted, no free thought here. Please criticize the amendment by Santorum and submit to our perverted brand of Groupthink" or similar. The article concludes on another relevant note....

"Well, maybe because Americans don't like being told what to believe. Maybe because we have learned to be skeptical of "scientific" claims, particularly those at war with our common sense - like the Darwinists' telling us for decades that we are just a slightly higher form of life than a bacterium that is here purely by chance, or the Environmental Protection Agency's informing us last week that man-made carbon dioxide - a gas that humans exhale and plants need to live, a gas that represents less than 0.1 percent of the atmosphere - is a dangerous pollutant threatening to overheat the world.

In some respects, the case for evolution is improving: We may indeed have evolved to the point where we can detect hot air of a different kind."

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Those Nasty CHICKENS...Are Coming HOME..To ROOST!

Let me start off by stating that I don't actually hate Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL). Intense dislike would more accurately convey my opinion of the guy. Imagine my suprise when I came across this article on the net.....

"Governor Charlie Crist and former state House Speaker Marco Rubio (pictured above) are now tied in the 2010 race for the Republican Senate nomination in Florida. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP Primary voters finds Crist and Rubio each with 43% of the vote. Five percent (5%) prefer another candidate, and nine percent (9%) are undecided.......Crist, well known throughout the state, has seen his ratings go in the opposite direction. Just 19% now have a Very Favorable opinion of him, a figure that represents a double digit decline since August.
Crist angered many conservatives in the state when he embraced President Obama’s $787-billion economic stimulus plan. While the Republican establishment has endorsed Crist, many prominent GOP conservatives including Mike Huckabee, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint and former Bush adviser Karl Rove are backing Rubio."

It wasnt just his embrace of the Mau Mau Messiah that I didnt care for in reference to Charlie Crist. It goes back to his 11th hour endorsement of John McCain in the Florida primary. Also, his refusal to investigate ACORN didnt bolster my opinion of him either. I have to be honest and state that I really don't know enough about Marco Rubio to actually endorse him, but rest assured, I will be giving him a closer look in weeks to come. Should anyone be interested, his website is http://www.marcorubio.com/

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

This explains much...

I was previously aware of a Baylor University study (in conjunction with Gallup) concerning atheism and the increased belief in such things as the ability of dreams to predict the future, the existance of Atlantis, haunted houses, the ability to communicate with the dead, and the existance of such creatures as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. A new study from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life indicates that Democrats have similar beliefs as atheists.

"The results show that Democrats are far more likely to believe in supernatural phenomena than Republicans.....Conservatives and Republicans report fewer experiences than liberals or Democrats communicating with the dead, seeing ghosts and consulting fortune-tellers or psychics," Pew reported...31 percent of Democrats say they believe in astrology, compared with 14 percent of Republicans.."

Isnt it interesting to note that those who lack God belief and those on the liberal end of the political spectrum share such common beliefs? As someone once said, 'If you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything'. I think that applies in this case.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Copenhagen's political science

It's the article in yesterday's Washington Post by the favorite whipping-boy (or girl) of the left, Fmr. Governor Sarah Palin. You Go Girl! Me personally? I don't really have a dog in this fight when it comes to the defense of Palin as the badge to the link on the upper left corner of this page would indicate. Here are some excerpts from the article on the adult fairy-tale for adults known as Anthropogenic Global Warming. gate
""Climategate" as the emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle--the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economies for the worst...... "
Now who could ague with that?

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

I Knew This was Coming

I havent seen much of this yet in the MSM but alas, there it is...

"The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to table -- and thereby kill -- an amendment that would have barred federal funds in health-care reform from paying for abortions.The 54-45 vote to table the amendment turned back an effort by Sens. Ben Nelson, D.-Neb., and Orrin Hatch, R.-Utah, to revise the Senate health-care bill to prohibit federal funding for abortions in a government-managed program and federal subsidies for private insurance plans that cover abortions.With the tabling of the Nelson-Hatch Amendment, the bill sponsored by Majority Leader Harry Reid -- the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act -- moves forward without the restrictions on federal funding of abortion that were placed in the measure by the House of Representatives. The pro-life restrictions in the House bill were promoted by Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.).Two Republicans -- Susan Collins and Olympic Snowe, each of Maine -- joined 52 Democrats in supporting the table resolution. Opposing the table resolution were 38 Republicans and seven Democrats: Evan Bayh (Ind.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Ted Kaufman (Del.), Nelson and Mark Pryor (Ark.)."

Link to the cited article. I never thought I would see it in my lifetime but yes folks, we here in the US are on the very cusp of having federally funded, abortion on demand. Any thoughts on the subject? Personally, I don't want the government paying for such procedures. I only wonder if this latest installment on the road towrd global governance comes as a suprise to those who supported and voted for Obama because after all, he was "for hope and change and stuff".

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

With Friends Like These,,,,,,

While surfing the net yeterday, I came across this article which gave me pause. Read this excerpt for yourself...

"While evangelical and Catholic leaders have been working tirelessly in recent weeks to make sure any health care bill does not include federal funding of abortions, leaders of the nation's mainline denominations have been doing just the opposite, even going so far as calling abortion a "God-given right."The Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church's General Board of Church and Society all are members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a pro-abortion rights organization that took part in a Dec. 2 "Stop Stupak" rally in Washington D.C., urging the Senate not to include the pro-life Stupak amendment in its version of the health care bill.The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society -- the denomination's lobbying arm -- even sent out an alert after the health care bill passed the House, calling the bill itself a "major milestone" but lamenting passage of the Stupak amendment, which it saw as "a tremendous setback for access to comprehensive reproduction health coverage." The amendment passed the House 240-194 and prevents the government-run public option from covering elective abortion and also prohibits federal subsidies from being used to purchase private insurance plans that cover abortions.The four previously mentioned denominations all have pro-choice positions of varying degrees, but their leaders' stances on abortion in the health care bill have surprised even some seasoned observers.

And here I am, all this time wondering about opposition to the pro-life position from secular and irreligious people. how can an organization that even vaguely identifies itself as "Christian" even bother to condone such a practice, never mind aggresively lobby in favor of it? No wonder they are losing numbers in droves as this study out yesterday makes achingly clear.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Huckabee's Willie Horton?

Apparently Maurice Clemmons (above), charged with recently murdering four police officers as they sat sipping coffee in Lakewood, Washington, was one of those granted clemency by then Governor Mike Huckabee (R) while he was governor of Arkansas. Already the blogosphere is calling this the end of Huckabee's presidential aspirations. I would have to agree. I don't see how one can spin this to anything other than what it is, a disaster for the public in general and those officers in particular. Huckabee seems like a rather nice man if you ever met him in person, but many of us realize (pragmatically) that there are truly bad people in this world that are better off incarerated from the general populace than given a 2nd chance before demonstrating that they have earned one. Also, certain crimes SHOULD have a mandatory-minimum sentencing guideline.

"On Monday, Huckabee again laid the blame on others. He talked about the case on his own radio show, and on Fox News radio. "If I could have known nine years ago, looked into the future, would I have acted favorably upon the parole board's recommendation? Of course not. One of the things that is horrible and just, again, one of the realities you have to confront is the criminal justice system is far from perfect, and in this case it failed miserably on all sides."

Here's the link to the cited article. It sounds too much like Huck is attempting to shift blame here. Any registered voters out there might keep in mind that Mitt Romney (R-MA) never pardoned a criminal during the time he was governor.

UPDATE: For those outside the US who are unfamiliar with who "Willie Horton" was, you can click here.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

A Glorious Spanking

"It was all shaping up to be a serious heavyweight bout. And then Meyer and Sternberg simply KO'd the competition in the opening round. If I were being generous I might say that Prothero tripped over his own arrogance and impaled himself on his condescension, but let's be honest; he was completely knocked out by Sternberg. I think Sternberg earned a third degree tonight, one in evolutionary bulldozing..... To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate "creationists" — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river. "

Link to the full article. Is it any wonder, given the performance of these 2 clowns, that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate Meyer? If it is so "settled" then why the massacre? Anybody?

Friday, November 27, 2009

The Rapture of the Atheists

It's the title of a recent article by Bruce Chapman. He addresses some of the typically incorrect claims of atheists such as the following regarding an ad campaign on buses.

"We also are to be treated to bus messages from Thomas Jefferson that "Religions are all alike--founded on fables and mythologies." And from Benjamin Franklin: "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."...As for Jefferson and Franklin, the bus card quotations are out of context and give the false impression that the two men in question--ranking near the top of the pantheon of American founders--were atheists. They weren't. They were not conventional Christians, but they were Diests who believed in God. At the Constitutional Convention it was Franklin who proposed "a three-day adjournment to cool tempers," supplemented by the hiring of a chaplain, who would "introduce the business of each day by an address to the Creator of the universe, and the Governor of all nations, beseeching Him to preside in our council, enlighten our minds with a portion of heavenly wisdom, influence our hearts with a love of truth and justice, and crown our labors with complete and abundant success!’' And it was Franklin who stated, “'If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?'” Then there is Thomas Jefferson. In his first inaugural address he said that Americans were "(E)nlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?” Also, this: '''And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity." Some atheist."

And the sad part is that's he's absolutely right. I encounter atheists on almost a regular basis that hold up the above (first mentioned) statements from these two men as some sort of half-assed "evidence" that they were atheists, conveniently leaving out the latter quotations.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

One from William Dembski

I came across a wonderful article written by Intelligent Design theorist William Dembski entitled Getting over our love for Darwin. A short excerpt tells us the following....

"Intelligent Design supporters like me view Darwin's theory as untrue and even as laughable: The theory purports to give a materialistic account of life's development once life is already here, but it has a gaping hole at the start since matter gives no evidence of being able to organize itself from non-life into life. The fossil record, especially the sudden emergence of most animal body plans in the Cambrian explosion, sharply violates Darwinian expectations about the historical pattern of evolutionary change. The nano-engineering found in the DNA, RNA, and proteins of the cell far exceeds human engineering and remains completely unexplained in Darwinian terms."

Dembski goes on to mention that some Christians are in fact Darwinists, however he mentions this in his closing paragraph....

"Little did I realize how infatuated many Christians are with Darwin. Having convinced themselves that design is an outdated religious dogma, they embraced Darwinism as a form of enlightenment. And having accommodated their faith to Darwin, they became loathe to reexamine whether Darwinism is true at all."

Above is the link to the entire article. I think he raises a valid point re: intellectual laziness on the part of Christians who have already accepted a position and are comfortable with their currently held viewpoints. I do not think that such reluctance to consider new evidences is limited to Christians though.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

More evidence of the decline of America

If the following report is true, then a world akin to George Orwell's 1984 is much closer than we think.

"In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U's College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of "the American Dream" in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace -- and be prepared to teach our state's kids -- the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.
The task group is part of the Teacher Education Redesign Initiative, a multiyear project to change the way future teachers are trained at the U's flagship campus....The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the "overarching framework" for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.....Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China's Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi. The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an "autoethnography" report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their "cultural" motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a "cultural intelligence" assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other "isms." They "earn points" for "demonstrating the ability to be self-critical." The task group opens its report with a model for officially approved confessional statements: "As an Anglo teacher, I struggle to quiet voices from my own farm family, echoing as always from some unstated standard. ... How can we untangle our own deeply entrenched assumptions?""

This article sends a chill down my spine. This is just one example of one university that will be turning out our future teachers. Where do I go to get my country back?

Friday, November 20, 2009

What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?

Any Christians reading this may wish to bookmark this entry.

A world apart By Julia Duin (2001)


What if Jesus had never been born? Western culture would not exist in its current form, scholars say, were it not for that event that demarcated world history two millennia ago.

"Christianity has gotten a bad rap from people who have not done their homework," says retired Illinois College sociology professor Alvin J. Schmidt, author of the recent book "Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization." "In what countries have women lacked freedom?" he says. "Where Christianity is not present, especially in the Middle East. Were it not for Christianity, Gloria Steinem would still be walking about in a veil." Presbyterian authors the Rev. D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe say in their book "What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?" that had the event never happened, the "gaping hole" in civilization "would be a canyon about the size of a continent." Christianity's immediate effects were to bring an end to infant exposure (where unwanted children were left out in the elements to freeze or die of thirst), gladiator contests, cannibalism and abortion, they write. Mr. Kennedy's Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Coral Ridge Ministries has produced a TV special, "Scrooge & Marley," on the question. Appearing on "The Coral Ridge Hour," a weekend syndicated show airing locally on Trinity Broadcasting Network, the special stars Dean Jones as Ebenezer Scrooge. Scrooge is reincarnated as a 21st-century New England personal-injury lawyer who is president of Atheists R Us. After he decides to sue a Connecticut town for displaying a Nativity scene in front of its town hall, he raises a toast to "a world where Jesus had never been born." Then his long-dead law partner, Jacob Marley, portrayed by Reg Grant, appears in a dream to lecture Scrooge on the transformational effect of Christ's birth. Scrooge eventually repents. "We live in a culture that is so often denigrating Christianity and Christian morals," Mr. Newcombe says. "Many people in our culture would eschew bigotry of any kind, but at the same time they are anti-Christian. You see a lot of Christian-bashing in movies, TV and court rulings. "The goal of our book was to say Christianity gave the world a lot more than the Inquisition and the Crusades." For instance, the International Red Cross was founded in the 19th century by a Swiss evangelical Christian for "the love of Jesus Christ," he says. "Mother Teresa would not have been who she was without Jesus Christ." Had Christianity never happened, the world might look like pre-20th-century China, he said. Because Christianity is based on individual choice, political systems with Christian underpinnings tend to be democratic, he says. But China has no history of democracy in its 5,000 years. "Democracy allows people to govern themselves," he says. "The congregational form of church government was extremely important in the Massachusetts Bay colony. So was the presbyterian form of government, where elders govern. Some have said the U.S. government is patterned much like the Presbyterian Church." Donald Schanzenbach, director of the Mission to Restore America in Mound, Minn., argues that Christ is the central figure of world history in his book "Advancing the Culture." Pre-Christian tribes, especially those in the Western Hemisphere, were known for brutal forms of slavery, human sacrifice and cannibalism, he says. One overlooked change brought about by Christianity is emphasis on kindness toward enemies and avoidance of torture. "Non-Christian societies throughout history have been universally despotic and always ruthless toward enemies," he says. "The non-Christian world never had any compunction about compelling the accused to testify against themselves until the Christians came along and taught them otherwise." Not everyone is enamored of the Christian event, including Friedrich Nietzsche, who likens Christianity to "a poison that has infected the whole world." The editorial writers at the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer appeared to agree in a Nov. 20 essay criticizing the Rev. Franklin Graham, the eldest son of evangelist the Rev. Billy Graham, for calling Islam "wicked." The younger Mr. Graham represents a religion, the newspaper said, "whose sacred book taught that everyone who didn't profess that faith would fry for eternity in a fiery pit, a religion whose teachings were cited as the justification for burning unbelievers at the stake, keeping blacks in slavery, restricting women's freedom, banning books and executing scientists whose findings contradicted the religion's tenets. "Hardly a religion based in love and tolerance, you might say. That religion would be Christianity." Such logic causes Mr. Schmidt to see red. "Have these people ever read the Koran?" he asks. "I have read it with a fine-toothed comb more than once. Islam was founded by the sword. Muhammad took part in 66 battles and sold women and children into slavery. All this is documented. "To present Islam as a peaceful religion is to have your head in the sand. Jihad is right out of the Koran. The Christians who took part in the Crusades never cited any verse out of the New Testament backing what they did. But the Muslims who practice violence do cite the Koran." Christianity was considered radically pro-woman at the time of its founding, he says. "Christ was never quoted as saying anything demeaning or derogatory to women. Women in Greek days could hardly leave their homes. When her husband had guests over, she was not even allowed to sit in the same room. Their status was extremely low among the Romans, where the father of the family had the power of life and death, even over his wife. "In [the Gospel of] John, Chapter Four, Jesus was asked what he was doing talking to a woman in public, as you only talked with prostitutes in public. When he taught Mary and Martha in Luke 10, that was a behavior you did not do with women. "Christianity also nullified polygamy, as Jesus made it clear a man has one wife. If a Greek man was walking about outside with a woman, that was his mistress, not his wife. Christianity also made it clear widows were to be taken care of." Other benefits of a Christian civilization included hospitals, which Christians introduced in the 4th century. Before that, there were private physicians, potions and shrines, but no such thing as people being nursed or cared for in a given facility, he said. The one exception would be hospitals the Romans may have had for their military. "The Romans, Greeks and other ancients usually did not take care of their loved ones in times of plague," he says. "Christians did - and often died themselves as a result. Even Plato said you shouldn't give medicine to those who would die anyhow."


Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The acceptability of Communism over Nazism. Walter E. Williams offers an explanation

Apparently, columnist and economist Walter E. Williams was an MC at a recent dinner for economists. The keynote speaker was University of Pennsylvania history professor, Alan Kors. Some points brought up by Kors are as follows......

"What he revealed about the dereliction and character weakness of academics, intellectuals, media elites and politicians is by no means complimentary, but worse than that, dangerous. Professor Kors said that over the years, he has frequently asked students how many deaths were caused by Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong and their successors. Routinely, they gave numbers in the thousands. Kors says that's equivalent to saying the Nazis are responsible for the deaths of just a few hundred Jews. But here's the record: Nazis were responsible for the deaths of 20 million of their own people and those in nations they conquered. Between 1917 and 1983, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Zedong and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. Professor Kors asks, why are the horrors of Nazism so well-known and widely condemned, but not those of socialism and communism? For decades after World War II, people have hunted down and sought punishment for Nazi murderers. How much hunting down and seeking punishment for Stalinist and Maoist murderers has there been? In Europe, especially Germany, hoisting the swastika-emblazoned Nazi flag is a crime. It's acceptable to hoist and march under a flag emblazoned with the former USSR's hammer and sickle. Even in the U.S., it's acceptable to praise mass murderers, as Anita Dunn, President Obama's communications director, did in a commencement address for St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral where she said Mao was one of her heroes. Whether it's the academic community, the media elite or politicians, there is a great tolerance for the ideas of socialism – a system that has caused more deaths and human misery than all other systems combined."

The acceptability of such a train (wreck :-P) of thought within the liberal community is something that I have observed over the years. I sort of knew why but I could never articulate the reason anywhere near as well as Williams, which may explain why they made him the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University. Williams went on to offer his explanation as to why such thinking is acceptable to many of those on the left.

"the reason why the world's leftists give the world's most horrible murderers a pass is because they sympathize with their socioeconomic goals, which include government ownership and/or control over the means of production. In the U.S., the call is for government control, through regulations, as opposed to ownership. Unfortunately, it matters little whether there is a Democrat- or Republican-controlled Congress and White House; the march toward greater government control continues. It just happens at a quicker pace with Democrats in charge."

I strongly concur. I have noted in several different forums my opinion that if McCain had somehow won the last election, we would still be on the road toward socialism and global governance but at a slower more measured pace.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

We cannot see the burkas for the trees

Wow! Typically, I scan the news wires each morning and if I'm lucky, one good article stands out from the rest (IMHO) and I'll post it to see if there is discussion on it. Today there are several but I've narrowed it down to two that have similar implications. First, the article who's title appears up above by Mychal Massie contains the following.....

""Political correctness," I once wrote, "obscures clear thinking and does damage to the very people and causes that it claims to benefit. … [B]esides being pretentious and dishonest, PCers give no thought to the collateral damage they cause, because the only agenda is theirs" ("Politically correct may not be correct"; The Reporter; Jan. 3, 2002). In October 2002, I wrote: "One of the things we should have learned from the Feb. 26, 1993, bombing of New York's World Trade Center is that there are people in the world who hate our collective guts – sex, color, creed notwithstanding. [And] one of the things we should have learned from Timothy McVeigh is that there are Americans, born here and living here, who are as passionate in their hatred of America as those living continents away" ("Terror at home grows among us"; The Reporter; Oct. 31, 2002). Nidal Malik Hasan proves that America continues to be a nation under attack, as she has been since 1993. But those responsible for our national security cannot see the burkas for the trees because of political correctness.... It's not the Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics or congregants of other denominations committing these acts of terror – it is Muslims. And until we have leaders who are willing to do the unpopular, Fort Hood, Jose Padilla, the Portland Six and Najibullah Zazi are just the tip of the iceberg."

While Massie will never be described as one who pulls punches, I concur. PC madness is running amok in this country and never more so when liberals are in charge. The worst example of this was when Chicago mayor Richard Daley blamed the slaughter at Ft Hood on America's love for guns. This while attending an event announcing the city's expansion of it's Arabic language services.
All of this segues neatly into today's article by Thomas Sowell entitled Bowing to "World Opinion", in which we find......

"In the string of amazing decisions made during the first year of the Obama administration, nothing seems more like sheer insanity than the decision to try foreign terrorists, who have committed acts of war against the United States, in federal court, as if they were American citizens accused of crimes. Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Convention, nor are they among those covered by it. But over and above the utter inconsistency of what is being done is the utter recklessness it represents. The last time an attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a matter of domestic criminal justice was after a bomb was exploded there in 1993. Under the rules of American criminal law, the prosecution had to turn over all sorts of information to the defense-- information that told the Al Qaeda international terrorist network what we knew about them and how we knew it. This was nothing more and nothing less than giving away military secrets to an enemy in wartime-- something for which people have been executed, as they should have been."

This is just one guy's humble opinion, however it strains credulity to think that all of this is somehow mere stupidity and lack of knowledge rather than a part of a greater, overall plan who's implications are devastating.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Bam's Muslim-world muddle

Ralph Peters again hit the nail on the hed, describing in excruciating detail the failures of this adiministration and detailing it's shortcomings on the internaional stage.
  • Iran: No nukes? Strategic cooperation? Rule-of-law democracy? Greater freedom for the Iranian people? Naw. President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's regime plays Obama like a card sharp working a hick who just showed up with his life savings in his pocket.
  • Iraq: Al Qaeda suffered a catastrophic defeat and nearly disappeared from the Iraqi landscape. Now it's resurgent -- encouraged by Obama's determination to look away. Terror bombings are up. But US troop levels are going down. That's all that matters to the blinkered White House.
  • Afghanistan: Encouraged by Obama's evident weakness, the Taliban redoubled its efforts against the hated government of President Hamid Karzai. Obama dithers, Afghan leaders steal, our troops die protecting the thieves -- and the Taliban advances with fresh recruits.
  • Pakistan: For all the fuss about how well-received Obama's Cairo confession was among Muslims, anti-Americanism has increased in this conflict-torn state of 180 million. We pour in billions of dollars. The Pakistani government, media and citizenry pour out anti-American rhetoric -- even blaming us for Taliban terror bombings. And Obama's a deer in the headlights of history again.
  • Turkey: Advertised as a marvelous Muslim democracy and NATO member, Turkey has taken another lurch toward Islamic fundamentalism, embracing radical Arab states while slashing cooperation with Israel. Big win there, Mr. President.
  • Yemen: The Great Muslim Civil War between Sunni and Shia has a new theater, with Saudi Arabia and Iran fighting a proxy campaign in the poorer-than-dirt-poor Yemeni backcountry. A Shia tribal struggle for basic rights found a cynical backer in Tehran; the Sunni-hardline Yemeni government unleashed fundamentalist jihadis -- terror, butchery and rape -- against its Shia minority. Nervous about its own oppressed Shia population, Saudi Arabia attacked Yemeni territory (with US-made weapons) to support its fellow Sunni fundamentalists. The impoverished Shia suffer grimly as pawns between greater powers. But a US president who bowed to a Saudi king won't ask the Saudis to show restraint.
  • IsPal: By betraying Israel and glorifying the Palestinian cause in Cairo, Obama encouraged unrealistic expectations among Palestinians and empowered Arab hardliners -- always willing to fight to the last Palestinian. Obama's naive demand for a total freeze on Israeli settlements created a flashpoint while undercutting Palestinian and Israeli moderates. The situation's far more explosive than it was when Obama took office.

That's enough. Click on the above link to read the entire article for yourself. All of this paints a picture of a sad situation that we are becoming all too familiar with a recurring theme. That this guy has NO resume to speak of whatsoever and that he is in WAY over his head when it comes to governing this country.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Patrick Kennedy clashes with outspoken RI bishop

Roman Catholic bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence Rhode Island (pictured above) apparently takes the church's pro-life stance much more seriously than one of the congregants of his diocese, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI). Link

"Their feud over a proposal expanding the nation's health insurance system has escalated to the point where Tobin has publicly questioned Kennedy's faith and membership in the church and said he should not receive communion, the central sacrament in Catholic worship. It's an uncomfortable tangle of faith and politics for a congressman whose uncle John F. Kennedy was elected the first Roman Catholic president in 1960 after declaring to wary Protestants that he did not speak for his church on public matters, and that the church did not speak for him.
"I don't think there's any winner here," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a church observer and senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. "I think this is the kind of thing that would be better discussed between a member of Congress and his bishop behind closed doors."

Kudos to Bishop Tobin for standing up for principles. Too many other bishops are far more concerned with their public image or what people will think about them than advocating an aggressive defense of life that is both innocent and completely defenseless. Let me try to head off a potential church vs. state criticism. If Bishop Tobin were to inject himself into a street paving matter or a bond issue, then I'm certain that his opinionswould not be very welcome. Given that the church has always spoken out on the moral issues of the day, then he is completely within his rights as an American to speak out against the shedding of innocent blood.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The Growing Christian Church

This entry is for LX who I told I would post certain entries form the 1st chapter of Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity?. In reference to the growing influence we find the following. First, the highlights of a Europe that is becoming increasingly "post-Christian".
  • 90 percent of Greeks acknowledge the existance of God, and only 5 percent of Greeks are atheists.
  • Ireland still has church attendence figures of around 45 percent, twice as high as the Continent as a whole.
  • Along with Ireland, Poland and Slovakia are two of the most religious countries in Europe.
  • Some commentators have noted that even Europeans who are not religious continue to describe themselves as "spiritual". These analysts argue that Europe has not abandoned religion in general but only "organized" religion.

Now for analysis of the US where, to the casual observer, it would appear that Christianity is on the decline. The statistics paint a different picture however.

  • Liberal churches are losing members in droves. Once these churches welcomed one in six Americans; now they see one in thirty. In 1960 the Presbyterian church had 4.2 million members; now it has 2.4 million. The Episcopal church had 3.4 million ; now it has 2.3 million. The United Church of Christ had 2.2 million; now it has 1.3 million. Traditional Christians who remain within liberal churches become increasingly alienated. Some have become so disgusted that they have put themselves under the authority of more traditional clerics in countries like Nigeria, Ghana and the Ivory Coast.
  • The traditional churches, not the liberal churches, are growing in America. In 1960, for example, the churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention had 8.7 million members. Now they have 16.4 million.

Now for some interesting tidbits of information that D'Souza researched regarding the world as a whole.

  • We often read that Islam is the fastest-growing religion. Nottrue. Christianity is the fastest-growing religion in the world today. Islam is second. While Islam grows mainly through reproduction-which is to say by Muslims having large families-Christianity spreads through rapid conversionas well as natural increase.
  • ...Islam is regional, with little or no sway in the United States, Canada, Central and South America or Australia. Christianity is a force on every continent and in every region of the world, with the sole exception of the heartland of Islam, the Middle East.
  • Europe today has 560 million Christians and America has 260 million, yet many of these Christians are in name only. In comparison, there are 480 million Christians in South America, 313 million in Asia and 360 million in Africa. The vast majority of these are practicing Christians. There are more church-going Presbyterians in Ghana than Scotland.
  • A century ago, less than 10 percent of Africa was Christian. Today, it's nearly 50 percent. That's an increase from 10 million in 1900 to more than 350 million today. Uganda alone has has nearly 20 million Christians and is projected to have 50 million by the middle of the century. Some African congregations have grown so big that their churches are running out of space. While Western preachers routinely implore people to come every Sunday to fill the pews, some African preachers ask their members to limit their attendence to every second or third Sunday to give others a chance to hear the message.
  • Central and South America are witnessing the explosive growth of Pentecostalism.....In Brazil for example, there are now 50 million evangelical Protestants whereas only a few decades ago there werent enough to count. The movement of Catholics into Protestant Evangelicalism should not be considered purely lateral, however, as the conversion of lackadaisical nominal Catholics to an active energized evangelicalism can perhaps be considered a net gain for Christianity...... And the Catholic numbers reamin huge: Brazil had 50 million Catholics in 1950 but now it has 120 million.
  • Despite the limitations imposed by the Chinese government, it is estimated that there are now 100 million Christians in China who worship in underground evangelical and Catholic churches.
  • In Korea, where Christians already outnumber Buddhists, there are numerous mega-churches with more than 10,000 members each. The YoidoFul Gospel Church reports 750,000 members.
  • The Catholic Church in the Philippines reports 60 million members and is projected to have 120 million by mid-century.
  • ...Third World Christianity is coming our way. South Korea has become the world's second largest source of Christian missionarieswith 12,000 preaching the faith abroad. Only the United States sends more more missionaries to other countries.

"We may be seeing the beginning of a startling reversal. At one time Christina missionaries went to the far continents of Africa and Asia, where white priests in robes proclaimed the Bible to wide-eyed and uncomprehending brown and black people. In the future, we may well we may well see black and brown missionaries proclaim the Bible to wide-eyed and uncomprehending white people in the West."

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Random Thoughts

Yet again, the ever-popular and highly intelligent Thomas Sowell enlightens us in today's article with his patented wisdom and short bytes for intellectual consumption....

  • It was fascinating to see Barack Obama warning us not to leap to conclusions about the killings at Fort Hood, Texas-- after the way he leaped to conclusions over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, when he knew less about the facts than we already know about the massacre at Fort Hood.
  • An e-mail from a reader says that liberals like to take the moral high ground, even though their own moral relativism means that there is no moral high ground.
  • There is no point dwelling on all the foolish mistakes we have made in our lives. For one thing, it can be very time-consuming.
  • If politicians stopped meddling with things they don't understand, there would be a more drastic reduction in the size of government than anyone in either party advocates.

If you like the above then the artticle contains many more sayings from Sowell. I especially liked the Ft Hood-Obama reference. It would appear that Obama is selective in the things he doesnt wish to rush to judgement.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Fort Hood, 2 more columnists weigh in today.

One item that I meant to "update" on my earlier entry below entitled "Massacred by Multiculturalism" was the apparent cavalier attitude by which Obama addressed the horrific slaughter in his press conference that day. David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen put it thusly...

"President Barack Obama's display on Thursday made my point more clearly than it usually can be made, for he turned on a dime. He assumed the "presidential grieving tone" over the Fort Hood massacre, the moment after he'd just done an equally scripted segment of light joking banter for the benefit of the Tribal Nations Conference he was addressing. Millions in the television audience must have watched this incredibly cynical "quick flip." I wonder how many noticed it?.....What happened at Fort Hood was no kind of "tragedy." It was a criminal act, of the terrorist sort, performed by a man acting upon known Islamist motives. To present the perpetrator himself as a kind of "victim" -- a man emotionally distressed by his impending assignment to Afghanistan or Iraq -- is to misrepresent the reality......Getting at Islamist cells, to say nothing of lone, self-appointed jihadis within our society, means getting over the false sentimentality that turns a terrorist incident into an "incomprehensible tragedy" when it is not incomprehensible, and not a theatrical event. It also means ripping through the politically-correct drivel that is put in the way of investigators. They should surely be allowed to assume that every loyal Muslim will be eager to give information to help them identify any potential killers in their midst. We'd be better off confronting that Islamist enemy, than spraying perfume after each fatal strike."

Indeed, there seems to be a rush to judgement in accepting that this was a "lone-wolf gunman" type attack than a terrorist attack. I would like to wait until all of the evidence is in. Meanwhile Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) assures us that she is "on the Hasan case". One other columnist before I go. Vox Day has weighed in with his opinion concerning the slaughter at Fort Hood....

"The great problem facing the U.S. in the future, of which the Fort Hood shootings would appear to be an early harbinger, is that the undermining of America's dominant European Christian culture has laid the foundation for what promises to be a long and bitter struggle for cultural supremacy. These struggles usually end one of three ways: division, expulsion or submission to a superior authority. Of the three, the latter would appear to be the most likely given the broad spectrum of global governance programs, but history seldom plays out according to the obvious scenario. Furthermore, economic downturns tend to play havoc with empires. The true tragedy of Fort Hood is that it could have been so easily avoided by rejecting the false promises of multiculturalism and mass immigration 44 years ago."

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Evangelicals a growing population in highly secular France.

If atheism is the answer, then why, in Europe's most atheistic country, are evangelical churches flourishing?

"On paper, France would seem one of the least likely places for this branch of Christianity to gain a foothold. For centuries, Protestantism was the embattled minority in a country Catholics liked to call the ''eldest daughter of the church'' because of its strong ties to Rome. That minority still makes up just 3 per cent of the population.....From a postwar population of about 50,000, French evangelicals are now estimated to number 450,000 to 500,000. According to the Evangelical Federation of France, the number of churches has risen from 800 in 1970 to more than 2200 today."

Here's the link to the cited article. If religion was so backward and an impediment for people, you would think that it would be dying out rather than greatly expanding in such an atheistic environment. Atheism is devoid of answers whereas Christianity provides hope and comfort for individuals.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

'Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?'

I came across this article while surfing the net last night. It was quite interesting......

"Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?" was the theme of a conference sponsored by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and hosted by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.Michael Keas and William Dembski of Southwestern Seminary and Stephen C. Meyer, John West and Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute were among the featured speakers at the Oct. 23-24 conference. In another session of the conference, Jay Richards, a senior fellow with the Center for Science and Culture and coauthor of "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery," corrected opponents of the Intelligent Design movement who claim that it is merely religion disguised as science.

  • Much of the erroneous ID critique is based on inaccurate definitions, Richards said, setting forth two basic assertions that ID proponents make. First, "the activities of intelligent agency are sometimes detectable." Commonly accepted fields of science are based on the assumption that scientists can observe the effects that intelligent beings have upon nature. Archaeologists, for example, put this into practice when they examine artifacts they believe to be manmade, and forensic scientists apply this principle when they attempt to trace the proof for intelligent causes in homicide cases.
  • Second, Richards said, ID proponents suggest that "nature exhibits the evidence of intelligent agency," something he said is "theologically minimal." Although ID proponents may observe signs of intelligent activity in nature, they cannot prove scientifically that the intelligent designer is the god of a certain religion, or that the designer is even supernatural, Richards said. Describing the nature of the designer belongs in the realm of philosophical and theological discussion.
  • "So notice how lightly it travels," Richards said. "Notice, there is not a doctrine of creation here. There is not a doctrine of God here. There is not a developed theology. There is not even really a developed philosophy at this point. There is just basically these two claims. "Think of Intelligent Design generally as a research program that seeks to ask questions like this, 'Does nature display objective evidence of design or purpose?' It uses publicly available evidence from the natural world. It also includes, usually, some type of theory of design detection so that we can determine whether something is designed or not."

Darwinists are just wrong when they state that ID is Creationism. By definition, it is not. They are merely dismissive of the topic rather than debating it with knowledgable people.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Massacred by Multiculturalism

I came across this over at A View from the Right....

"Hasan repeatedly called for violence against the United States
Posted at Jihad Watch is a longish television interview with retired Col. Terry Lee who worked with Hasan. Lee says that many times he heard Hasan make statements to the effect that Muslims needed to rise up against the aggressor, meaning the United States. Lee said he thought Hasan was just blowing off steam and didn’t his statements seriously.
A Muslim in the U.S. Army was calling for violence against the U.S., and Col. Lee didn’t think anything of it? Echoes of Columbine. Echoes of every mass murder you can think of. What a idiot. Also at Jihad Watch: an AP story reporting that federal investigators six months ago were concerned about Hasan because he apparently posted this internet comment about a terrorist:
To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. The authorities say they are not positive that Hasan was the author, though they think he was. The AP story does not say what happened to the investigation.
Finally, a Muslim internet group is thanking their god for the massacre"

Thank you multi-culti, liberal idiots. Let's not close down Mosques that preach hatred and violence against others. Let's issue even more visas to people from questionable countries and bring them all over here to kill us quickly instead of the slow sort of suicide that we as a country are presently committing. The last thing I would like to see is interment camps. The first thing I would want right now is alot more wiretaps and qualified people to run them.

Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

From Rep. John Boehner's blog.....

"Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.
Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that. On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions. What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.
Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month."

So there you are people, Civics 101. When Obama promised taxpayer funded abortion on demand while on the campaign trail, did you think he was kidding? I for one, am appalled. If that means that certain members of society must no longer exercise sloppy habits while playing around with reproductive matters and then expect the government to bail them out, then so be it.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

I wanted the Trifecta

But two out of three aint bad.

"The Republican candidates killed among independents. In both New Jersey and Virginia, they won by two to one. Independent voters make up their largest share of the electorate since pollsters have been counting them. In 2006 and 2008, these voters backed Congressional Democrats, and in the 2008 presidential race, they went for Obama 51 percent to 47 percent over John McCain. They've been souring on his presidency, though, and now more disapprove of his performance than approve. In Virginia, Obama won 48 percent of independents. The Republican Bob McDonnell won 68 percent of those voters this time around. In New Jersey, Christie carried independents 58 percent to 31 percent, which helped him overcome the fact that there are 700,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in that state."

This is probably THE story of the night from last night's results. If only the voters of NY's 23rd Congressional District had the cahones to vote for Conservative Party candidate Douglas Hoffman, then it would have been a clean sweep, but still, 46% for Hoffman in a three-way race isnt bad. Shame on those 6% RINO's that voted for a social liberal like Dede Scozzafava. That could have made the difference right there. Newt Gingrich did almost irreparable harm to the party by endorsing someone so opposed to the core values of so many party members. Thanks Newt.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Man fired after saying homosexuality wrong

It happened at the Brookstone store in the international airport (Logan) in Boston.

  • "Peter Vadala was fired and the company says he violated a tolerance policy. But Vadala reports his dismissal came because he expressed his Christian view of homosexuality after a female manager made repeated references as she approached him four times during work hours to her plans to marry her lesbian partner.
  • At the start of the day, she told me she was getting married. I told her 'Congratulations,' and asked, 'Where's he taking you on your honeymoon?'" Vadala said.

  • "She replied that her partner was a 'she,'" he continued, "So I immediately tried to change the subject.
  • "I think she knew I was uncomfortable talking about it," he continued. "But, she brought it up to me three more times during the day.
  • After the fourth time she told me about her plan to marry her partner, I told her, 'I think homosexuality is bad stuff,'" Vadala said." "That's what I said. I wasn't rude about it and I didn't act disrespectfully to her," he said. "All the woman said to me as she left the store was, 'Human Resources buddy. You keep your opinions to yourself!'"

    Here's the link to the entire article. I couldnt care less what goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults. It's really none of my business. If Vadala's account is accurate, then this manager seems to have had a chip on her shoulder. If she had kept her private life to herself than I doubt that any of this would have happened. I'm sure this will all come out in court and that Mr Vadala has retained the services of an attorney. I'll keep you posted if any other developments come about.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Column: Science and faith used to be allies

In today's article by Mark Pinsky, he concludes by saying....

""The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome," (National Institutes of Health, Francis) Collins said. "God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship."

Could you imagine the harmony between the two if many scientists approached their studies in a state of reverence for what they are examining? I don't see at all why the two have to be at odds at all. As VD once stated. If religion didnt exist then science would have to invent religion in order to ensure it's ethical uses and applications.

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Dismantling America: Part II

No, I didnt print excerpts from Part I from Thomas Sowell. Part II looks to be the best out there today as I scan the newswires. He brings up the following points among others.

  • Almost never do these reactions include factual or logical arguments against the (Obama)administration's critics. Instead, there is indignation, accusations of bad faith and even charges of racism.
  • When a President of the United States has begun the process of dismantling America from within, and exposing us to dangerous enemies outside, the time is long past for being concerned about his public image. He has his own press agents for that.
  • Internationally, Barack Obama has made every mistake that was made by the Western democracies in the 1930s, mistakes that put Hitler in a position to start World War II-- and come dangerously close to winning it.
  • At the heart of those mistakes was trying to mollify your enemies by throwing your friends to the wolves. The Obama administration has already done that by reneging on this country's commitment to put a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe and by its lackadaisical foot-dragging on doing anything serious to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That means, for all practical purposes, throwing Israel to the wolves as well.

Sowell once again hits the nail on the head, repeatedly. Obama is WAY out of his league and with each passing day looks increasingly more clueless and inept. May God help us all.

Friday, October 30, 2009

The Ever Changing Obama Nativity Story

From today's article by Joseph Farah..

"In case you missed it, Michelle Obama stated at a public event last year during the campaign that Barack Obama's mother was unmarried when she gave birth. Now, I don't really care, except for the fact that Barack Obama has told a different story – in his autobiography and elsewhere. Yes, I am nearly alone among the press in demanding that Barack Obama actually produce some evidence that he is eligible to serve as president. I also insist on seeing documentation of other claims he has made about his life – school records, travel records, health records, selective service registration records and so on. Why?
This may be a shocker for my colleagues in the media, but politicians sometimes don't tell the truth. Not only are the news media doggedly non-curious about establishing the facts, they seem manifestly hell-bent on extinguishing any curiosity among others."

Me personally? I couldnt care less about the marital status of his parents. Why doesnt he just release the document that would settle the matter once and for all? Because, I think, people might begin to examine his past a little closer and THAT'S what he doesnt want. And the plot thickens....

Thursday, October 29, 2009

How hate-crime law works

An article today by Jack Cashill makes some damning accusations regarding the so-called "Hate Crimes Bill" that was passed into law....

"Consider the case of the bill's namesake, Matthew Shepard. As the media told and retold the story, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, two "homophobic" desperados, killed the helpless gay Wyoming University student in a fit of "gay panic." Although Hollywood would turn out at least three TV movies about the "crucifixion" of Shepard, two of which premiered in the week before Easter 2002, the homophobic story line did not match the Wyoming reality. Best evidence now suggests that McKinney, the actual killer, had previously expressed no homophobic sentiments. One good reason why is that he was an active bisexual himself. Apparently, he and Shepard, who had a known drug problem, had done meth together a number of times. On the night in question, McKinney went on a meth-fueled rampage. He pistol-whipped the vulnerable Shepard for drug money, drove into town to rob Shepard's apartment and then pistol whipped a stranger who got in his way, fracturing his skull in the process. Matthew Shepard died just four weeks before the 1998 mid-term elections. For the next four weeks, much to their own surprise, the killers were presented to America as poster children for the religious right and one more reason not to vote Republican.
Of course, McKinney and Henderson were not products of Christian culture, but of its antithesis: a crude, soulless, fatherless, sexually libertine, drug-addled, pop culture."

Gasp! I don't remember hearing that on CNN! How convenient that these facts never came up for public discussion. As Cashill so succinctly put it "As such laws work, if your group lacks political and media influence, you can expect to be convicted of crimes you did not commit and receive longer sentences for those you did." I guess it's becoming reality after all. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Sarko Steps Into the Leadership Void

When Americans went to the polls last November and pulled the level for Obama, did they really think that they were getting anything close to someone who actually has backbone and would stand up to the thugs and dictators that do not have the best interests of the US or the world for that matter, in mind? From today's article in the NY Post.....

"FRENCH President Nicolas Sarkozy smells a leader ship gap.... Sarkozy's "active temperament" is the reason he is getting more deeply involved now in world affairs...what seems to motivate the French president is slightly more than mere desire to add another instrument to a beautiful musical sextet. More than a few recent reports say he's increasingly discouraged about the direction the Obama administration is leaning toward on world affairs...The best clue to what's on Sarkozy's mind can be found in a tough speech he gave at the United Nations Security Council during a September session Obama organized on nuclear disarmament. "President Obama dreams of a world without weapons," Sarkozy said, "but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite. Iran since 2005 has flouted five Security Council resolutions" and "North Korea has been defying Council resolutions since 1993." So, "what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?" Sarkozy asked. "More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map."

Kudos to Sarko for telling it like it is. It's almost humiliating to see the leader of France has more cahones than the usurper US president. I thought I could never be more disillusioned by a leader of a Western democracy than the Chirac regime. That was until Obama came along and now people look backward, almost longing for the comparative good old days of the Carter administration.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Penn State T-shirt too religious?

I came across this article today while surfing the net. It never ceases to amaze me how people don't have enough to do, worry about, etc. and have to make mountains out of molehills in order to find some sort of fulfillment in their lives.

"The shirts-intended to foster school spirit-sport a verticle blue line down the center with the words "Penn State White Out" emblazoned across the chest, forming a design that some say resembles a cross....Penn State says it has received six complaints about the shirt....The shirt's single blue stripe resembles the stripe on the team's football helmet..."

This is what passes for contraversy these days? A much more interesting topic would have been Penn State's lack of blocking skills earlier this year against the Iowa Hawkeyes. I admit that it vaguely resembled a cross upon first glance, but when the stripe on the football helmet reference was made then it all made sense, to me anyway. Even if it does resemble a cross, is that such a terrible thing? As one person who was quoted in the article has asked, "Are we going to ban lowercase t's in the alphabet? Where do we draw the line?"

Monday, October 26, 2009

'3 in 10 Americans believe Obama foreigner'

"Three in 10 people in the United States believe President Barack Obama is a foreigner, according to a new poll from an international leader in market research who asked residents about their beliefs regarding the president's birth place. The survey was done by Angus Reid Global Monitor, a division of Vision Critical Group, which leverages "the world's most advanced online research technology for interactive surveys, custom panels, private communities and virtual retail environments." The results of the survey, released today, said 70 percent of the respondents believe Obama was born in the U.S., "while 30 percent do not."
"While only 13 percent of Democratic Party supporters believe Obama was not born in the U.S., the proportion rises to 25 percent among Independents and 51 percent among Republican Party backers," the report said......Pollster Fritz Wenzel said at the time, "Our polling shows that the questions surrounding Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president clearly strike a nerve across America, probably because it is a problem that everybody understands.
"Every American citizen has a birth certificate, and once in a while we all have to produce them to get a drivers license or gain entrance to school. Everyone understands the simple rules – if you don't produce it, you don't get in. And while Obama did get in to the White House, nearly half the country's adults – 49 percent – are troubled by this issue and still want him to produce his official long-form birth certificate," he said. The earlier survey found that when asked what their view of the question was, 41.5 percent of respondents answered that Obama should release all relevant documents, including the long-form birth certificate. Another 7.8 percent said they were "troubled" by the question. "

Here's the link to the full article. It would be laughable if it wasnt so serious. Instead of diffusing an entirely avoidable contraversy by the release of one document, Obama insists on avoiding to do so. Were I the C in C in question, the relavent document would have been released at the first whiff of a question concerning my place of birth. I would do it, if for no other reason, than a big "so there!" to my detractors and probably sneer at them on top of it all. This guy seems to just love the contraversy. Why else would he avoid releasing it?