Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Normally, liberals and other assorted leftists love to make a display about how much they care for the indigent; however, it seems now in France such gestures of goodwill are only acceptable if the meals appeal to the dietary peculiarities of every immigrant falling off the boat.
Groups linked to the "extreme right" in France are offering pork soup to their countrymen needing a helping hand. Since certain religious groups don't consume pig products --- particularly Muslims --- the eleemosynary is being denounced as "racist".
However, the charities point out the soup is being offered to anyone that wants it. If Muslims decide to decline the offer, that is their choice.
It is bad enough that governments of the West are allowing their borders to be overrun by alien cultures and belief systems. Now we are being told what kind of charity we are to extend to those we might decide to take pity on.
Where will this all end? Will we be forced to give booze to a panhandling drunk on the street corner who refuses a cup of coffee?
It is nearly unprecedented in the annals of history for the people of a nation to be compelled to finance its own takeover and ultimate demise. According to the account, police surrounded these volunteers and confiscated their pottage. Ashame law enforcement is not as vigilant about interdict the immigrants before the border is breached.
If this rabble can't eat pork for fear of disobeying God but has no problem rioting, rampaging and murdering, perhaps the only charity they deserve is none whatsoever. They can either eat what the good people of France are willing to feed them or they can starve if they are unwilling to provide for themselves.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Funny how all those eager to beat their chests as to how free of prejudice they are condemned me for daring to criticize the remake of the "Honeymooners" with a Black cast that was apparently so bad it barely made it into theaters. Obviously more Americans agreed with me than they are willing to admit.
Yet this very same mindset favoring mandatory hyperintegration doesn't seem to mind taking a note as to what the ethnic background of those in the TV industry happen to be.
If Blacks make up 10% or thereabouts of the population does that mean they should only land 10% of TV roles or are advocates of racial agitation going to demand more than what would be reasonable based on their numbers? Likewise, if those of Asian background make up only 1% of the population, doesn't that mean they should make up only 1% of TV characters.
And what about the Spanish networks such as Telemundo, are they going to be criticized for not featuring more English speaking actors?
And is anyone going to muster the courage to point out the over-representation of Jews in the media or do we only do that when the observation happens to apply to average run-of-the-mill Caucasians?
Seems we have seen this bad rerun before: when making a big deal of color benefits minorities you had better praise it from the rooftops but when doing so benefits common White folks, you had better keep your mouth shut if you don't want to face the ideological firing squads of political correctness.
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Seems even this venerable organization has fallen to the spirit of the age.
Though the article is not on-line, the author was interviewed by Todd Wilken of Issues Etc..
As usual, the author was spouting how the true Christian does not judge by appearance since God looks on the heart. But doesn't the true Christian realize the outside is a reflection of what's on the inside?
Actually, if these people weren’t so wrapped up in appearances, why are they in such a rush to look like every other slob on the streets today? Even those that got them in the military know doubt did so as a result of peer pressure and often regret having done so later in life often after coming to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But unlike previous generations or those with some class about them who later felt a godly sense of shame and exhibited repentance over what they had done, those getting them nowadays in light of our theraputic Winfreyite culture have to tell everyone about and expect all those hearing about it to offer up a hearty round of applause or be prepared to face the ubiquitious charges of prejudice and closemindedness (they'd probably even work in allegations of racism and homophobia if they could).
If the church does not get a hold of this nonsense, eventually you won't be able to join a church unless you are willing to get a tattoo since you won't be deemed devoted enough to the whims of the group just as many Purpose Driven Churches toss the old folks to the curb who don't go along with the heathen jungle music known as "contemporary worship choruses".
Already the rhythms of the savage permeate our sanctuaries. How much longer until some pastor ascends the lectern (note I did not say "pulpit" as many churches have already removed these in these postmodern times) dressed only in a loincloth or with a bamboo stick pierced through their privates and a disk extending their bottom lips, claiming they are dressed this way in solidarity with the unreached people groups and that those pastors adorned in more traditional forms of clerical raiment obviously don’t care so much about the poor.
Christians enamored with such vandalism against the body will dismiss the entire matter as an issue of culture. Then if that's the case, why do the rest of us have to change to suit these grubby libertines?
Copyright 2006 by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Thursday, January 12, 2006
As usually, the mantra of tyranny in this instance is "sustainability" and "isolation".
As I figured, the poor souls that have lost everything in the Katrina tragedy will now have what little remains taken away for the sake of the elites.
There are plans to finagle away property at only 60% of its actual value, but even if 100 times the market value was offered, that is not the point.
If one really wants to lay the foundation of a new New Orleans, why not raize Bourbon Street notorious for its debauchery and devil worship.
So what if those that want to move back are isolated? It is their property.
One person to be commended shouted out at a hearing, "I'm ready to rebuild, and I'm not letting you take mine. I'm going to fight, whatever it takes, to rebuild my property. It's going to be baby Iraq for Joe Canizaro."
Seems this next battle of New Orleans could be the shot heard round the world in the ongoing war for the property rights of all Americans.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Since the 1920’s or thereabouts, secularists have invoked the imagery of the Scopes Monkey Trial as evidence that conservative Evangelicals are bent on suppressing knowledge in the realms of science and literature.
Most following the news are no doubt aware of the ongoing angst on the part of unbelievers and Modernists regarding the propriety of introducing Intelligent Design into the Biology classroom since in their eyes suggesting anything but the materialist hypothesis (itself a faith-based assumption) diminishes the rigor of so-called scientific education. Instead, they suggest such ideas should be considered as part of the Social Studies or Humanities curriculum.
Yet such gestures of enlightened magnanimous compromise are little more than a canard. For when it becomes time to examine the metaphysical issues within what liberals previously promoted as the appropriate venue for such a discussion, they then cry Separation of Church and State. Thus, what they really want is a monopoly on the perspective taught across all of public education.
As could be expected, Americans United For The Separation Of Church And State has demanded that the State of Florida alter an essay contest that encourages students to submit their reaction to The Lion, The Witch, & The Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis. The Humanist front group contends some students might be offended by a work that has often been interpreted as a Christian allegory. The agitators suggest alternative titles should be made available for students to select from.
One wonders if the Lynnites would be as prompt about coming to the defense of students that did not want to read Harry Potter or other works of literature even more salacious in their content. Interesting when it comes to the boy wizard the important thing is that Miss Rowling gets the kids to read; shouldn’t this be the same attitude towards Professor Lewis among those that insist we have nothing to fear from books?
No doubt had the White Witch been the hero of the story rather than the villain, those sympathetic to Wicca and the Dark Arts would have no problem with the novel. The thing about contemporary liberals is not so much that they oppose spirituality in the classroom but rather merely traditional forms of it.
Neither do these liberals support the principles of individual mental autonomy to the extent that they claim. Where were they when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals essentially ruled parents have no constitutional right to protect their elementary-age children from perverts masquerading as educators asking these little ones all kinds of questions even an adult would be embarrassed to answer and to which no agent of the government has a right to know their answers.
These sensitive liberals whine students not wanting to read the book do not have an alternative to choose from if they still want to participate in the contest. Any other time these advocates of radical tolerance and inclusion insist that in a pluralistic society the upstanding member of the community has an obligation to subject oneself to ideas one might otherwise find objectionable.
So if students have to be subjected to putting condoms on cucumbers for their own good, then how are they going to be harmed by a novel about a talking lion? Makes you wonder what they are so afraid of.
All the fuss causes the critically minded to speculate if it’s for the sake of the children or rather about something else the hypertolerant malcontents themselves do not want to confront. A child not belonging to the Christian faith is not going to necessarily pick up on any Christian motifs Lewis might have incorporated into the text.
To pick up on any parallels, one would already have to be familiar with Christian doctrine. Thus to be offended by Aslan as a perceived Christ-figure is to have a problem with an intellect more formidable than even that of C.S. Lewis, namely God Himself.
Adherents of absolutist relativism will contend it is not the place of educators to convert students to any particular set of religious ideas. Funny, public educators don’t mind using the persuasive powers of the classroom as to influence the choices pupils make regarding viewpoints on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and the origins of the universe. If no set of ideas is better than any other and parents are usually seen as being too stupid to decide what is in the best interests of their children, what’s the big deal if a child switches to Christianity if all paths to God or whatever else you happen to see as the supreme universal truth or lack there of really are equal?
In Lewis’ novel, it is revealed that the White Witch has placed a curse on the Land Of Narnia so it is always winter but never Christmas. With the lust of liberals to remove all vestiges of Christianity from Western culture, my guess is that they hate this book because Lewis just hit too close to home.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Kind of makes you wonder what's the point of getting married be if everything is to be kept at the "just friends" level especially if there aren't going to be any accompanying injunctions condemning nagging as well.
While I tend to be a bit of a stick in the mud, these people must have some of the most joyless lives on the face of the earth as those sympathetic to this religious outlook will even kill songbirds should the pleasant tweets of these tiny creatures defile their fanatical ears.
Guess they don't mind couples making more recruits for future jihads; they just don't want anymore enjoying themselves while doing so.