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.

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.

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?

What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?

Any Christians reading this may wish to bookmark this entry.

A world apart By Julia Duin (2001)

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

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."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/culture/20011226-11632871.htm

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.
  

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.