Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Though they profess to stand for the U.S. Constitution, Christian Reconstructionists could actually undermine the United States if not watched with discernment. For if they ever ascended to power, they would likely undermine the basic liberties of those not agreeing with their particular brand of Calvinism.
If they ever ascended to power, wonder how long until the Christian Reconstructionists implemented their dictatorship and began their persecution of those of us they’d classify as “Arminian devils”. As postmillenialists, most Reconstructionists believe that the Church (not Christ) will implement the Millennial Kingdom. Any human movement promising to establish Heaven on Earth or a near perfect society always ends inflicting mass bloodshed.
If it is wrong to “twist Jesus into a middle class image” according to David Platt on the 6/10/10 Boundless podcast, wouldn’t it be just as wrong to warp the Messiah into a “proletarian social justice Jesus” as well? Dr. Dobson needs to get a grip on the young Emergent Church Marxist-types infiltrating Focus On The Family.
For attempting to sell a pair of leather electrical gloves, an associate was mocked and berated as a carnivore for his robust physique by a Hindu. I notice this filthy heathen migrated to the land of carnivores rather than remain in his enlightened hell-hole of a country.
John Boehner wants Social Security age raised & means tested. If we regular Americans are to have our retirements snatched from us, lets abolish benefits for elected leaders at the same time. It is argued that most Americans are working longer anyway; however, unlike most of us, these Congressmen aren't stuck in positions that drain the life out of them & make them feel like Alzheimers is setting in prematurely.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Tips For Times Of Upheaval: if while in your car you find your self beset by a homicidal mob such as the world trade protesters, floor the accelerator. While you will likely die, at least you will have taken out a few of those intending to kill you and destroy your property anyway.
If Bin Ladin really wants to toss a wrench into things, the moment he gets caught, he ought to shout into the news camera there to record his surrender that he's accepted Jesus. Then wouldn't the all sins are equal crowd among Christians have to argue that he be pardoned and how it is an act of self-righteousness to insist that he pay for his crimes?
Interesting how the hosts enunciated a double standard that it's OK for young women to remain at home but not acceptable for young men.
Any woman that holds to such a position is basically a gold-digger.
These standards were justified as holdovers of Jewish culture.
However, unless I'm allowed to carry an Uzi down the street, our society is not a Jewish culture to that extent.
What about Isaac remaining at home until his 40's or do we only invoke those aspects of the Old Testament that fit the preconceived notions the psychologist paying the weekly check?
By Frederick Meekins
If all sins are supposedly equal with none worse than any other, don't turn around and heep additional accolades and attention on those that have committed the "biggies" in the past. Force them to remain nothing more than pewsitting collection plate fillers like everyone else that didn't necessarily lead the lives of carnal debauchery that most of the extended testimonies seem to be filled with.
Interesting how Focus On The Family minions are silent about Bristol Palin milking notoriety as an unwed parent. Where is Dobson operative J. Budziszewski with whom I clashed years back over his appalling insistence that mothers not wedding the sirers of their illegitimate offspring be compelled to put their children up for adoption?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Saw an academic journal with the words "Black Heritage" printed on it. Since the "B" was capitalized, are the tolerancemongers on the social bookmarking sites going to ask if there is a racial chip on the shoulder of whoever wrote that, call into question the quality of the person's scholastic credentials, and insinuate that the author's First Amendment rights should be revoked?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Contrary to Bannon Howse of Worldview Weekend, though one may question Alex Jones appearance on Russian television, there is nothing in Scripture bringing the sincereity of one's Christian faith in question if one aggrees with a number of positions advocated by Alex Jones.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Contrary to what Albert Mohler insinuates, why is it the fault of men these days that uppity women are so materialistic that they won't marry someone that they look down their noses at along the occupational hierarchy? Interesting he never has any guilt to load upon women thinking they are too good to work within the home.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
These anal retentive Internet commenters that find it logical to invalidate an essay based on a handful of spelling errors overlooked by a chronically tired eye are the same ones that celebrate the mush-mouthed grunts of Black ghetto youth as a beautiful dialect or insist that Hispanic illegals be allowed to fill out welfare applications in their native Spanish.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Maybe what I write is riddled with typographic errors. Maybe if these grammar fetishists had only a single, partially functioning eye strained by the end of the day, perhaps their own columns wouldn't be quite so pristine. O, wait, they don't write any. They only nitpick the technicalities of others.
I guess for not enthusiastically embracing polytheism, I have been accused of talking like a toaster. I suppose that was a Battlestar Galactica reference since toaster was slang for a Cylon. For the record, I think I am more a Gauis Baltar. He said, "Just because I might be crazy doesn't mean I'm not right."
I might be the “stupidest asshole” out there, but given what has been let into the White House this past election, I don’t see how my lack of intelligence disqualifies me from posting whatever I please on line. I might as well be the best “stupidest asshole” I can be.
Interesting how Blacks and Hispanics can capitalize the first letter of their respective racial designation but I have been labelled as “a stupid racist asshole” for extending the same respect towards the word “White”. Don’t like my use of a mild profanity? I am just letting you know the disdain out there for WHITE Americans.
Monday, June 21, 2010
For anyone pursuing a degree in Apologetics that was given a dollar for every time they were asked "What is that, learning how to say you are sorry" upon answering the question of what it is that they study so many times, many would have financed a considerable portion of their academic pursuits. Unfortunately, such ignorance as to what exactly this theological discipline entails symbolizes the neglect the defense of the faith has fallen into in the contemporary church and is one of the reasons that everywhere the believer and student of religion turns today they find Christianity losing considerable ground both within and without its boundaries to a wide variety of opponents and adversaries. To the serious student of this field of study, one of the best tools around which to build a fundamental understanding of the discipline's ins and outs is "Christian Apologetics" by Norman Geisler, one of the field's foremost living practitioners.
Basic to any academic discipline is the approach or methodology which scholars and researchers apply to the subject matter. The field of Apologetics is no different. Geisler lists the methodologies to knowledge in general and about God in particular as agnosticism, rationalism, fideism, experientialism, evidentialism, pragmatism, and combinationalism. In the course of his analysis, Geisler evaluates each in terms of their epistemology regarding religious matters and how these approaches stack up under the weight of being scrutinized by their own criteria.
The first approach to knowledge of God is agnosticism. Coined by T.H. Huxley, the term agnosticism means "no knowledge" and thus contends one is unable to know anything about God (13).
Agnosticism is itself divided into two branches. The one holds that not yet enough conclusive evidence pointing in one direction or the other regarding the existence of God has been gathered. The other holds that God is not knowable.
Of the agnostics that claim God is not knowable, this claim is based upon their understanding of the nature of knowledge. Drawing upon David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and A.J. Ayers' Language, Truth, & Logic, these agnostics have divided the tree of actual knowledge into two branches.
The first variety of valid statements are analytic statements meaning they are valid by the terms of their definitions. For example, all bachelors are unmarried. The second type of valid statements are known as synthetic and are what we would refer to as matters of fact as they are about empirically gathered data (17).
Geisler writes of the agnostic views regarding talk about God, "For the term 'God' is neither analytic nor synthetic; that is, it is neither offered by the theist as an empty contentless definition corresponding to nothing in reality nor is it filled with empirical content since 'God' is allegedly a supraempirical being. Hence, it is literally nonsense to talk about God (18)."
To the aspiring apologist hoping to present an objective case for the Christian faith beyond how warm and fuzzy Jesus makes their innards, it may seem that the agnostic methodology has struck an early and potentially crippling blow to this noble effort. However, a bit of careful reflection may even the scales once more between the agnostic and the Christian.
The lofty sounding name given to this epistemology of language is the Verification Principle. If the Christian turns the Verification Principle back on itself, one sees it is self-referentially incoherent as the concept cannot live up to its own criteria as the Verification Principle is neither purely definitional or merely a statement of fact.
Thus to remain consistent, the agnostic must admit that, since our knowledge of the empirical and metaphysical realms is limited, by definition of man's own finitude, this understanding cannot be totally comprehensive. Of those unwilling to admit God may exist in those reaches man cannot fully fathom, Geisler writes, "And there is simply no way short of omniscience that one can make such sweeping and categorical statements about reality...Hence total agnosticism is only self-defeating. Only an omniscient mind could be totally agnostic and finite men do not possess omniscience (27)."
By Frederick Meekins
Geisler, Norman. "Christian Apologetics". Baker Academic, 1988.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Though the armed forces need to be respected for the role they play in defending the people of the United States, that does not mean that individual members of those respective services exist in a metaphysical realm beyond the propriety of civilian analysis and criticism especially in regards to matters not directly related to the military.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Wonder if she mentions in her $10,000 speeches on abstinence how they are shacking up some nights now.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
For example, in an audio commentary I noted the blatant paganism at the 2006 games in Greece where the ancient gods were not so much depicted as curiosities of mankind’s religious history with the possibility of a few moral axioms derivable occasionally from these myths when approached as literature. Rather, adoration of these entities was approached as a viable system of belief around which humanity could draw ongoing sustain inspiration moving the world towards cultural unification.
For the most part, such ideological manipulation was aimed largely at a generalized audience irrespective of age. Now it seems Olympic organizers may have more carefully targeted their indoctrination efforts towards children.
During each Olympiad, mascots are created as appealing embodiments of each unique set of games. For example, the 1984 Olympics held in Los Angeles were represented by Sam the Olympian, a bald eagle clad in red, white, and blue which alluded to Uncle Same and the highest ideals of the American people.
It has been a quarter of a century since then and the practice continues. It is doubtful, though, parents with a lick of sense about them will be as enthusiastic about what is being pushed now as adorable imaginative companions.
The first outrage is really more economic than anything else. Though cluttered over with all the nauseating sentiments about international cooperation and competition being the focal point of the games, ultimately under the banner of these spectacles, significant amounts of money changes hands.
No doubt, nice checks went to the firms and/or artists creating the mascots of the Vancouver games. What the artists this time deserve are gold metals for the least amount work possible going into the artistic rendering of an Olympiad’s mascots.
For example, Sam the Olympian was rendered with the skill, precision, and appeal for which 20th century Disney characters were noted and adored for by the public. One does not need to go into a lengthy backstory to figure out what Sam the Eagle is and what he stands for.
This is not the case of the mascots of the Vancouver winter Olympics. In fact, the firm that designed the characters should have been paid no more for these rendering than one would a doodler in a high school art class. In the high school art class I was enrolled in, one would have received a grade not much above passing had one handed in something looking as ridiculous and simplistic.
What becomes really questionable, however, is in regards to what the mascots represent. The following comes not from conservative or even Christian fundamentalist conspiracy theorists, but rather from the Wikipedia entry for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paraolympic Games mascots.
Of the trio, the most realistic is a Sasquatch named “Quatchi”. That isn’t too bad as for decades as the Sasquatch or Bigfoot has been a cryptozoological celebrity of the Pacific Northwest.
However, it today’s world, it’s never enough to let characters be huggable and adorable in and of themselves. Why waste an opportunity to manipulate young minds away from the values decent parents are trying to inoculate into their children?
Those that look closer at Quatchi will notice that there is a tattoo on his bicep. With over a third of the population mutilated and defaced in this fashion, do children of the world really need additional peer pressure as to this questionable form of bodily ornamentation?
The free spirit who are of a live-and-let-live mindset regarding every questionable practice with the exception of questioning the live-and-let-live mindset will respond, "Why are you fuddiduddies making such a production out of a simple tattoo that no one is going to notice?"
Oh really? If the bio-graffiti was not going to be noticed by spectators, the why did the artist take the time to add this particular design element? It takes so long to produce a finished artistic work that has to go through multiple editorial reviews that it is doubtful that any detail would be overlooked. And if the marking is not there for any particular reason, then why does it need to be there at all?
However, a tattoo strategically placed upon a mascot is not the only aspect about these characters designed to subconsciously lead Western children away from the values of their forefathers. For even though the games are presented as belonging to the world, only Westerners of a multiculturalist inclination would be deluded into thinking that Westerners wouldn’t be the only ones with enough leisure time to soak up the ambiance of the games as well as enough disposable income for all of the assorted trinkets pushed at spectators. After all, though they might excel at warm weather sports such as running, sub-Saharan Africans aren't exactly renowned for their alacrity to ice and snow.
The other mascot of the Olympics Proper is Miga, a mystical sea bear that is part orca and part kermode bear. In other words, unless the poor creature is languishing in a laboratory somewhere, which one shouldn't put past some deranged geneticist just for the Sheol of it these days, it doesn't exist.
Perhaps the most questionable mascot is Sumi. According to Wikipedia, Sumi is "an animal guardian spirit with the wins of a Thunderbird and the legs of a black bear who wears the hat of an orca whale." In other words, it is a mishmashed critter that likes to cross dress.
Though there are numerous jokes that could be made about these two, the important issue is the role guardian spirits and orcas that transform into white bears play in American Indian mythology and belief systems. From as much hoopla that is being made about so-called "native populations" of the Pacific Northwest, one would assume that not Whites lived there or at least ones that did not go around with their shoulders slouched and their heads hunched for simply being White. Since Whites pay taxes too and are less likely to be on the public dole, shouldn't they get some kind of honorable mention for contributing to the culture or at least the economy of the area?
Olympic organizers are no doubt playing up the animistic belief of the area's history for the very same reason that the Athens Olympiad played up that culture's pagan past. For the thing with the amorphous religiosity of the New Age movement under which both Greco-Roman paganism and American Indian shamanism both find acceptance is the idea that the realm of the spirit is coterminous with the physical world. As such, in this system, there can be no authority higher than the earthly institutions that embrace such a mindset.
As an antithetical perspective, monotheism cannot be countenanced since its God exists transcendent to the socio-physical order. God decrees what is and is not right and good. He does not take the findings of committees into consideration and as such the authority of any committee is circumscribed by Him.
This column should not be construed as a blanket condemnation of the imagination. For as a fan of speculative fiction myself, I don’t even hop on the anti-Harry Potter bandwagon with the unreserved enthusiasm demanded by many rigorous theologians and Bible scholars.
Rather, what is being called for here is a notion of epistemological equality. It is quite obvious that a mascot with a Christian or even Hebraic background or origins would not be put up with.
At the Copenhagen Global Warming Summitt, though the God of the Bible had the last laugh as He socked the proceedings with a blizzard, theophobes complained about evergreens planted in front of the conference center because some kook might misconstrue them as Christmas trees. The trees had to be removed in order to prevent any appearance of an endorsement of any particular religion at a UN function. Yet these very same environmental bureaucrats would support multiple layers of laws and regulations ranging all the way from international treaties down to the minutest municipal statutes that would prevent you from removing trees from your very own property.
Proponents of the Olympic games might claim the festival is all about friendly competition and the pursuit of athletic excellence. Realists will point out that it has just as much or even more to do with money and power.
At the global level, the boundaries between government and big business grow increasingly blurred. Thus, at some point in terms of either direct sponsorship or roundabout subsidies, taxpayers around the world are at some level financing the Olympic games out of their own pockets.
Often, even if there is minimal public money flowing into a government agency or even a private organization, these administrative entities must go out of their way to guarantee that they in no way exhibit any kind of preference for one religious system or spiritual belief over another. This standard is especially applied to Christianity.
Though initially founded as a celebration in adoration of heathen idols, theoretically the contemporary Olympic games could be held strictly as a secular competition in terms of philosophical neutrality if its administrators distanced the celebration from its questionable past and stuck to officiating races. Whatever path is decided upon, it will be a deliberate choice.
If those trusted with overseeing this event insist upon pursuing a manipulative mysticism, those redeemed by the one true God should first and foremost boldly warn what is rally going on beneath all the pageantry and excitement. Only then is the individual able to make a truly informed decision in keeping with their conscience.
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, June 14, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
The Washington Post is dismissing South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley as a "small time agitator". How is that position markedly different than "community organizer"? By definition, she's not only qualified to be governor but also president if Il Duce is to serve as the inspiration for all Americans.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Leftist public service announcement remarks how the pills to keep Africans with AIDS alive cost 40 cents per day. Shouldn't Americans with all kinds of diseases and not just those acquired often through morally questionable pursuits get our medications for a similar price or are we not adorably exotic enough?
Friday, June 11, 2010
It's doubtful those languishing in Veterans' Homes get to enjoy these luxuries. With accommodations like these, aliens will flock here just for the free vacation.
How come it is inappropriate to ascertain the immigration status of a detained criminal alien but appropriate to get all tied up in legal knots as to the identity of a foreign ship wanting to assist in the oil spill clean up? Perhaps Obama wants the environment destroyed so America as a whole will be compelled to bend a a knee before his image.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
General Paul Vallely, through his front group StandUpAmericaus.com, is calling for Barack Obama to step down from the Presidency over allegations of deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty, and for violating the oath of office and the U.S. Constitution.
But while all of these are valid charges, the solution presented indicates that the retired general may himself be an aspiring despot waiting in the wings.
For instead of allowing the constitutional procedures established by the Founding Fathers to guide the nation through turbulent periods in its history, Vallely is insisting that new elections must be held this very instant that are to be authorized as a result of citizen petition.
The General claims “We can wait no longer for a traditional transfer of power and a new government.”
Such a proposal causes the discerning to wonder what other provisions of the Constitution he would like to hack to pieces with a bayonet. Because unless the nation goes through an amendment process, there are no legal provisions there for the kind of procedure he is calling for.
In the Book of Revelation, chapter 6, the text describes those who are popularly referred to as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
In this passage, the student of Scripture is shown a rider on a White Horse who is believed to conquer peacefully through guile rather than bloodshed; he is then followed by a Red Horse who brings war.
Though we are not yet in that period of history where the events foretold in the pages of prophecy are being ultimately fulfilled, with the ascension of Barack Obama, I will continue to insist that what we are likely seeing is some kind of dress rehearsal with stand-ins as Satan strategizes and postures as to how he would like to see the narrative unfold.
If at this time Barack Obama is a placeholder for the one that conquers through rhetoric and charisma, General Vallely could very well be at this phase of the game one that rallies to his cause the disaffected preferring deeds to words, resulting in an outcome that is no more desirable that the liberty eroding socialism of the Obama regime.
As a West Point graduate and career officer in the U.S. military, General Vallely can be respected for his contributions to the defense of this nation. However, history gives good reason as to why ultimate control of the military must rest in civilian hands, and no matter how noble their service and their advice considered as a result, veterans should have no more ultimate say than any other citizen that claims to love America.
by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Thing is here, so many fall for the notion these days that one is obligated to reveal everything to everybody simply because one is asked.
Given how close she had fallen into sin to her scheduled kickoff date, she should have insisted that the party began as originally scheduled.
Also have to ask if the school is internested primarily in morals or trying to find a way to weasel out of paying benefits.
What's next; will teachers that wed be required to publically display a bloody honeymoon sheet as is the practice in some backwards cultures for the pastor or principal to inspect?
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
This honor was extended, for the most part, because of the class patting itself on the back for its lack of racial and ethnic discord, which in today's scholastic environment translates largely into the White students taking with a smile plastered across their faces denouncement for and the accepting of blame for the lion's share of the world's problems as elaborated by leftist textbooks, multiculturalist educators, and the discontented minorities that get worked up into a froth as a result of such indoctrination.
Though a scathing column could be written on that in and of itself, that isn't even the most glaring hypocrisy surrounding this event.
As part of the security procedures surrounding the President's visit, each of the seniors to be personally greeted by the President had to submit to a Secret Service background check.
What's wrong with that those conditioned to submissively accept what they are told to do without a second thought will reply. Nothing whatsoever, as in this day of rampant violence, numerous precautions must be taken to protect the life of the President.
It is just a shame that the President doesn't think that your life is as valuable as his.
The first part of any background check consists of verifying that the person is whom they claim to be by examining their official documentation. Yet President Obama and his law lad Eric Holder are among the foremost critics of the state of Arizona for taking this most basic of steps to protect its citizens and the residents legitimately having the right to reside there from those that do not.
The Constitution expressly forbids in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 the granting of titles that would establish the creation of a nobility setting one class of citizen above another as a matter of statutory formality. This means that, as a matter of legal ontology, all Americans are equal at the core of their being.
The President of the United States has every reasonable expectation that those intending him harm will be kept away from himself and his family. Is there any reason as to why every other American should expect anything less from our government for ourselves as well?
by Frederick Meekins
On D-Day (which Obama did not commemorate) at a ceremony attended by the President, Anglican apostate Desmond Tutu insisted security is not obtained through the barrel of a gun. Some of his closest South African allies such as the Mandelas would, through their actions, assume it comes through sticking a tire around the neck of your political opponents, filling it with gasoline, and setting the tire on fire.
Monday, June 07, 2010
On a humorous note, the headline on most websites reads, "Rush Limbaugh Weds, Elton John Sings".
The proofreaders certainly earned their keep with that carefully placed comma.
If Rush can afford $1 million for the frivolty of Elton John singing at the ceremony, there is no way Limbaugh can comprehend the struggles we mere peons go through as he almost acts like the oil slick is a laughing matter.
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Despite now having likely murdered two women, even more will now throw themselves at him now that he's in prison. At this point, anyone else that would befall such a horrible fate at his hands get what they deserve since it is now beyond doubt to the world what that scumbag is.
The boundary between entertainment and reality is growing more clouded every day. Because of their respective expertise with complex aquatic equipment, James Cameron and Kevin Costner have stepped forward as potential heroes to resolve the BP oil spill disaster. I guess most have forgotten what a flop "Waterworld" was at the box office.
However since the films for which these celebrities are best known, "Avatar" and "Dances With Wolves", are quite distinct in regards to the worldviews through which they hope to persuade audiences, can these personalities be trusted to assist in the preservation of our technologically dependent civilization or will they manipulate the crisis to impose cultural primitivism upon broad swaths of humanity?
Running around half-naked riding psychedelically-colored dinosaurs might look fun during an innovative three hour fantasy. But if it was real, after awhile one would realize that it’s not as glamorous as it looks up on the big screen with no Preparation H in sight for the relief of the chaffed hemorrhoidal tissues that would no doubt result.
by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, June 05, 2010
The Los Angeles school system plans to teach students that the Arizona immigration law is "un-American". But since communalist liberals despise the United States, if this is the rhetoric they intend to use to describe the legislation, aren't they logically forced to admit that the statute is a good thing? Are students also to be taught the comprehensive legal codes of all the other states as well?
Friday, June 04, 2010
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Grandy on WMAL talks in British accent to lampoon BP head wishing he could go back to his life following the oil rig disaster. Will be the first to admit that a feigned accent can be humorous, but will Mexican, Chinese, or a ghetto resident on welfare with 15 children telling everyone what a strong, proud Black woman she is also be attempted on the morning airwaves?
There is more to radical brands of environmental ethics --- also know as "Deep Ecology" --- than the perennial dilemma between paper or plastic. To a number of the movement's followers, such rigorous devotion to nature serves the function of a comprehensive worldview. This perspective molds understandings of theology, anthropology, and forms of cultural engagement.
Fundamental, therefore, becomes this outlook's interpretation of ultimate reality. In one sense, Deep Ecology can be seen as an eclectic philosophical movement finding its well of inspiration from the confluence of several streams of thought.
Sociology Professor Bill Devall, who helped coin the movement's name, is quoted in "Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism & The Unmaking Of Civilization" by Christopher Manes as saying, "We are arguing that you can start from Buddhism, you can start from Darwinism, you can work your way from Native American tradition and work your way to a Deep Ecology position....(140)." What draws these disparate starting points together is the common assumption of interconnectedness where all components of the environment are dependent upon one another and comprise a totality greater than themselves known as the ecosphere.
The systemic interconnectedness promoted by Deep Ecology exhibits considerable similarity to the religious concept of pantheism, the idea that the sum of the universe constitutes God itself. This no doubt accounts for the considerable crossover between the ranks of the New Age and radical environmentalist movements.
Deep Ecology's affinity towards pantheistic spirituality bears much of the responsibility for the hostility that has developed between orthodox Christian belief and the more exacting brands of environmentalist thought. Though adherents are somewhat mistaken as to the philosophical justification for the ecological degradation found in the world, dedicated environmentalists are astute in recognizing the divergences between these competing conceptions of morality.
On the one hand, Deep Ecology perceives the world and its contents as a singular undifferentiated reality. Christianity, on the other hand, acknowledges the shared attributes of the created order while recognizing separate points and shades of ontological valuation along the continuum of being. In the essay "The Historical Roots Of Our Ecological Crisis", Lynn White, Jr. argues that Christianity's distinction between man and nature serves as the root excuse justifying the despoilment of the planet's ecology. While White's hypothesis may be a bit fanciful in its interpretation, his contention does highlight the stark contrast in the epistemological frameworks presented by each of these systems.
Deep Ecology descends from its pinnacle of philosophical monism to address the matters of existence in the world through the vehicle of ecocentrism, the ethical position that everything in nature possesses the same degree of intrinsic worth. Rik Scarce writes in Eco-Warriors: Understanding The Radical Environmental Movement, "Deep Ecologists argue that human-centered , or 'anthropocentric' worldviews grant people a privileged status... Ecology teaches that no individual or species warrants such a special status. For ethical purposes ecocentrism places humans on par with trees, blades of grass, mountain lions, and roaches (36)."
Such thinking ought to send chills down the spines of rational people everywhere. It also no doubt explains the reluctance of local governments to spray for burgeoning mosquito populations despite the increasing threat posed by the potentially deadly West Nile virus. We certainly wouldn't want to harm those darling mosquitoes.
It is through ecocentrism that the abstractions of environmental philosophy begin to take concrete shape in the form of policies and political positions. Deep Ecology's social outlook is centered around bioregionalism, a form of socio-political organization whereby boundaries of a territory are delineated according to an area's ecological characteristics (Scare, 38). This is done in the hopes of bringing about the advent of a new revolutionary society.
The purpose of bioregionalism is to establish sustainable communities integrated wholly into the ecosystem in an attempt to halt the expanse of industrial society. Christopher Manes points out in Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism & The Unmaking Of Civilization that thinkers such as Heidegger and Marcuse claim that attempts by technology to totalize all aspects of existence ultimately cut the individual off from the fabric of the universe (226).
While such rhetoric may make one want to belt out Coca-Cola jingles atop a lush mountain, these words mean much more than planting a garden or ordering cloths from the L.L. Bean catalogue. And even though there are slightly different paths to the same goal, all of them seek to drastically alter the cultural foundations upon which Western civilization rests.
The first trail to ecotopia winds its way through the dark grove of anarchism. A number of Deep Ecologists think of the ideal form of political organization in terms of Ghandi's adage that "The ideally nonviolent state will be ordered anarchy (Scarce, 38)." Movement leader Dave Foreman endeavors to downplay anarchism's shady connotations by clarifying, "I consider myself a tribalist, not an anarchist (Scare, 38)."
Foreman claims that such social arrangements provide considerable individual freedom within the context of an ethical and cultural framework. But as we shall see, neither Foreman nor those following in his path have done much to dispell the perception of anarchy as a justification for violence or done much to promote traditional conceptions of freedom.
The archetype upon which most subsequent activism has been modeled is no doubt Earth First!. Earth First! was established by a group of environmentally conscientious acquaintances led by Dave Foreman, a former staff member of the Washington, DC office of the Wilderness Society who grew disenchanted with the increasingly establishmentarian postures of the more prominent environmental groups. For whereas organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society were marked by their efforts to work within the American political system to achieve some degree of environmental compromise, organizations and activists following in the Earth First! mold would be characterized by a more confrontational and direct course of action.
The tactics pursued by groups such as Earth First! are known as environmental terrorism or ecotage. These acts are also referred to as "monkey wrenching" in honor of the inspiration for them drawn from the novel "The Monkey Wrench Gang" by Edward Abbey published in 1975.
In the novel, the protagonists set out to save the environment from developers by engaging in acts of vandalism against the implements of ecological degradation. The characters accomplish their mission by burning billboards, driving bulldozers over cliffs, blowing up railroad tracks, and by pulling up survey stakes (Scarce, 240).
Such fiction would inspire more practical treatments of the subject that would translate these ideas from the realm of literature to the world of action. Foremost among such treatises ranks “Ecodefense: A Handbook On The Militant Defense Of The Earth” by none other than Earth First!’s own Dave Foreman.
Modeled after but perhaps a bit more subdued than the infamous terrorism manual “The Anarchist’s Cookbook“, “Ecodefense” provides the aspiring eco-saboteur with helpful hints on how to destroy construction equipment, how to pull up power and seismographic lines, how to make smoke bombs, and how to elude detection by authorities (Manes, 82). This manifesto would inspire numerous acts of defiance, the best known form being tree spiking which consisted of driving large nails into trees in the hopes of destroying any saw bent on defacing the woody masterpieces of the forest.
Earth First! was most active during the mid 1980's. Dave Foreman has since moved back to "mainstream" environmental activities as he now campaigns to reintroduce wolves into the wilds of the eastern United States. Apart from the serious danger of saw blades ricocheting off an implanted spike, most of the antics perpetrated by these groups promoting an anti-civilization/back to nature mentality at that time were more examples of silliness than actual security risks.
For instance, in December 1989 a faction of Earth First! calling itself the "Gross Action Group" staged a "puke-in" at a Seattle shopping mall in the hopes that self-induced acts of regurgitation would persuade Christmas shoppers as to the putrid nature of their consumerist ways (Scarce, 89). Despite the seeming silliness, the Heritage Foundation in its 1990 report "Eco-Terrorism: The Dangerous Fringe Of The Environmental Movement" warned, "...radical environmentalists' extremist philosophy is leading to a guerilla movement that is destroying property...and one day will kill innocent workers or park employees (Scarce, 265)."
In a sense, Earth First! was undone by its own success in promoting its rigorous environmental crusade as its own brand of radical activism would become overshadowed by an even more intensive form of interventionism. Capitalizing upon innovations in communications technology such as the Internet, Mother Nature's avant-garde enjoys a degree of technological sophistication and aptitude for mobilization that early Earth First! could have never hoped to possess. These advantages make such a network of like-minded fanatics an even greater threat to both the public's safety as well as the nation's way of life.
Walter Laqueur writes in The Age Of Terrorism, "If terrorism is propaganda by deed, the success of a terrorist campaign depends decisively on the amount of publicity it receives (121)." It is precisely this opportunity for increased visibility that has spurred radical environmentalism onwards to greater and greater levels of destructive mayhem.
One such group making the most of increasing levels of technological sophistication is the Earth Liberation Front. With the proliferation of the Internet, such groups have become increasingly difficult to track.
The Special Agent In Charge of the FBI's Seattle Field Office told that city's Post Intelligencer in an article titled "Elusive Radicals Escalate Attacks In Nature's Name" published 6/18/2001, "We don't have an organizational structure to attack --- no finances, no membership lists, no meetings." In other words, the leaders of these cells enjoy the anonymity provided by cyberspace while issuing directives and encouragement via webpages to decentralized vigilantes acting alone of their own accord as they carry out such deeds.
Such mischief has included the smashing of sports utility vehicles, the torching of houses under construction, and the theft of laboratory animals. Others preferring street theater to guerilla raids use the same technologies to disseminate their ideas via email, message boards, and webzines summoning unscrubbed revelers to mass demonstrations where the zealous besiege and destroy any symbol of global consumer culture befalling their path as evidenced at noted rallies in Seattle, Quebec, and Genoa.
Having abandoned a Biblical understanding as to the nature of the universe and man's relation to it in favor of a more pantheistic model, radical environmentalist policies are fraught with a number of inconsistencies harboring serious social implications. The first glaring hypocrisy that no doubt leaps out at even the most casual observer of current events is how a movement claiming to be dedicated to the integrity of all forms of life and the principles of nonviolence and so willfully engage in such blatant acts of sabotage.
Unencumbered by Biblical injunctions upholding the propriety of the individualized ownership of resources, covert ecoteurs and raucous protestors alike do not view their acts of mischief as violence but rather as minor acts of vandalism. This is because such deeds are directed at inanimate technological objects or structures of economic development rather than at manifestations of the natural world such as life forms and landscapes.
Yet that does not mean residents of the industrialized world can breathe a sigh of relief that these campaigns have reached the pinnacle of their destructive onslaught. One of the movement's operatives subdued by authorities warnedin the Seattle Post Intelligencer warned that, if the federal government were ever to carry through on plans to increase the role of nuclear power in America's energy policy, the stakes would be so high that it would not be out of the question for activists to target the homes of nuclear executives or even the executives themselves. The American people, however, should not think of themselves or their possessions as beyond the scope of this disruptive brand of political participation.
Many of the most radical environmentalists, and thus the most likely to act, long for a day when society will no longer be dependent upon modern technology. Such a goal seems at present unattainable as gadgets, gears, and gizmos seem to proliferate at every turn.
But according to the September 2001 issue of Popular Mechanics, there is a new device on the horizon called an “e-bomb” that could make these utopian aspirations a reality. The e-bomb would emit an electromagnetic pulse with the potential to destroy nearly every computer, electrical appliance, and motor in the civilized world without technically taking a single life in the attack itself. Casualties would no doubt mount afterwards, but environmental terrorists would dance around this by pinning that blame on the victims themselves for losing touch with the land and growing too dependent on mechanical conveniences.
Such a scenario is no doubt already being mulled over in the minds of those who craft the popular imagination. This very development served as part of the back story for the sci-fi drama “Dark Angel” set amidst an America struggling to rebuild after just such an ambush by ardent technophobes.
Chaos and mayhem are not the only dangers posed by those caught in Deep Ecology’s web. Despite the movement’s tendency’s seemingly towards anarchy, it also displays a frightening streak towards authoritarian elitism.
For example, while often claiming to represent the interests of the so-called “indigenous peoples” of the world, these activists would think nothing of preempting the rights of self-determination these natives should enjoy as human beings. Science correspondent Ronald Bailey points out in the July 2001 issue of Reason Magazine in the article “Rage Against The Machines: Witnessing The Birth Of The Neo-Luddite Movement” that certain green intellectuals propose that traditional tribal cultures be prevented from acquiring the technologies that would disrupt their established ways of life.
Often this complaint has little to do with the well-being of the rainforest; one author thought it was just terrible that one ethnic group in India no longer sat around the campfire singing songs but now instead listens to the radio. Bailey points out that one particular article on the website Primitivism.com questioned whether or not mass ownership of computers should even be permitted, the use of such devices no doubt restricted to those agreeing with the editorial slant of that particular website.
A number of Deep Ecologists --- despite all of their hemming and hawing against the inequities perpetrated by globalist institutuons --- do not themselves believe in inalienable rights or some form of constitutional representative democracy as given absolutes. Kirkpatrick Sale writes in Mother Of All, “Bioregional diversity....does not mean every region...will build upon the values of democracy, equality, liberty, freedom, justice or other suchlike desiderata.” Such a statement leaves the room for numerous human rights abuses perpetrated by a cadre of Platonic philosopher-kings operating on behalf of the environment.
Those taking solace in the fact that the rulers of such an ecotopia will suffer along with us in this Spartan existence devoid of automobiles, air conditioning, and microwave ovens are in for a rude awakening. For the leaders of such a regime will likely continue to enjoy a reasonably luxurious existence. Responding to comments made by Barbara Streisand on her webpage that Californians ought to turn off their lights and hang their laundry on a clothesline to conserve energy, columnist Dave Berry in a July 8, 2001 Miami Herald column titled "California Should Conserve On Car Chases" remarked how uplifting it is to be lectured to by someone whose residence consumes more electricity than many Third World countries and questioned if Streisand even did her own laundry.
These hypocritical conservation tips are not the only example of environmentalism run amok that the rich and famous would impose upon the remainder of society in earth's holy name. This threat is epitomized by a trend referred to as the "slow food movement".
The slow food movement seeks to replace agriculturally intensive but economic foods with higher-quality, less-efficient traditional varieties utilizing organic methods. While the elite should be free to procure whatever delicacy titillates their palates or assuages their consciences, what are the rest of us going to eat when decreased food supplies and more labor-intensive production techniques result in astronomical prices?
Addressing the reluctance of Christians to tackle this delicate area of scientific and social inquiry, in Moral Dilemmas: Biblical Perspectives On Contemporary Ethical Issues, Kerby Anderson writes, “Christians fear the prevailing pantheistic influence on the environmental movement. But New Age influence ... may be due to the...withdrawal of Christians from this arena. When Christianity did not fill this void, pantheism and other wordlviews filled it instead (195).” The result has been absolute ethical confusion and the inversion of the moral pyramid.
Peter Huber notes in "Hard Green: Saving The Environment From The Environmentalists” that certain environmentalists consider Unabomber Ted Kacyznski a more pristine example of the moral ideal they are crusading for than even environmental theoretician Al Gore since, unlike the former Vice President, this homicidal hermit lived in a rundown shack and fathered no children. Never mind the fact that Kacyznski maimed and killed fellow human beings with makeshift pyrotechnics.
It would seem these warped sensibilities are gaining a more widespread acceptance throughout Western culture. Kacyznski's own rambling tractate, published by the Washington Post and New York Times under duress of further bombings, is now assigned at Harvard not as part of a course on criminal psychology or the ideological motivations behind acts of terrorism but as part of a literature course exploring more accomplished intellects. Amidst such bewilderment, Christians must step forward to provide a degree of balance acknowledging the need to preserve God's handiwork as well as our right to enjoy it now not as slaves but rather as its free stewards.
by Frederick Meekins