This comment was made around the 33 minute mark.
Everything you own might belong ultimately to God, but it does not belong to the church, many of which these days exhibit a greed that surpasses anything manifested in the heart of the average American.
Sounds like the return of the "Death of God" theology from the 1960's.
Guess environmental solidarity is not something to be imposed upon the Hegelian overclass.
Well, more that he is opposed to retirement. Is all well and good if you have a job you enjoy, but frankly, what about those of us who despise our day jobs and the fact that like it or not, eyesight fades and backs break? Not everyone gets to sit around in an air conditioned radio studio like he does.
A real comfort to those on the verge of homelessness, starvation, and increased tax bills in troubled times.
Wonder if they are as quick to condemn the shortcomings of Shaka Zulu, Winnie Mandela, and Che.
Why is it that the suburban Whites always have to apologize for who we are?
A word of gratitude to Tom Horn at RaidersNewsNetwork for posting my column on Transhumanism.
To let you know how up on things the staff at RaidersNews is, I sent them an email this morning about the commentary only to find further down in my email inboxes that they had already posted it before I had even sent them word.
From 8:30 to 9:30 the night of 3/28/09, environmental dupes around the world plan to douse exterior ligthing as a show of solidarity agaisnt global climate change.
As a luminous thumbed nose poking upward into the night opposing this stupidity, patriots everywhere should turn on as many lights as possible in a display of freedom against the New World Order.
One should also ask how many lights will be on in the White House and Al Gore's numerous residences during the appointed hour, but I guess since those two are so much more important than the rest of us, they should by definition ought to be exempt.
by Frederick Meekins
In a press conference, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Congresswoman Banrey Frank. Shouldn't there be as much outrage regarding this slip of the tongue as the time Dick Armey accidentally called the Mass. representative Barney Fag?
Urban school children are being forced to toil in the White House garden. Well, things are not quite that bad, but can you imagine the feigned Sharptonian outrage that world erupt had Laura Bush rather than Michelle Obama instigated the project? The purpose of the garden is to provide vegetables for the White House kitchen to in part browbeat the American people into consuming only locally grown produce. No word as to whether or not crop yields will be sufficient to supply the lavish Wednesday parties the Obamas are becoming noted for.
A group of environmental researchers were trapped by a blizzard while on an expedition to the artic to study global warming.
President Obama belittled the disabled during his appearance on Jay Leno. While the comment was not that offensive as Obama said his bowling score in the 120's was like something out of the Special Olympics, had Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter said it, they world be deemed hatemongers no longer worthy of employment. Therefore, shouldn't the messiah of the radically tolerant be held to the same standard? And more importantly, in light of healthcare proposals on the part of Obama allies such as Tom Daschle that the elderly should just learn to live with their deteriorating conditions, one has to wonder what plans are being made for those of less than ideal health and vitality. Given Obama’s giggle fits regarding the deteriorating economy during his "60 Minutes" interview where reporter Steve Kroft asked the President if he was punch drunk, one could justifiably deduce he holds the remainder of us in the same degree of contempt as he does the mentally challenged.
Representative Nancy Pelosi before an audience gathered in a church heralded America's Hispanosupremacist conquerors as patriots and the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws as un-American. However, should these new arrivals become Branch Davidians or picket outside of abortion clinics, I am sure the Speaker of the House will change her mind.
Florida horse owners are living in a state of fear. Poachers are stealing the beloved steeds and butchering them for the black market as the meat is a delicacy among growing immigrant populations.
Obama's brownshirts may come to profoundly influence the 2010 Census. ACORN, the leftist community organizers with a history of voter fraud, hopes to assist in recruiting the 1.4 million temporary workers that harass people door to door asking the most private of questions such as how many bathrooms are in your house and how many miles you drive to work each day. The Obama administration has tried to politicize the constitutionally mandated tabulation by moving oversight of it from the Department of Commerce directly into the White House.
The Federal Reserve has just performed one of the greatest magic tricks in all of history. It has pulled one trillion dollars out of the rear-ends of the American people for the purposes of stimulating the U.S. economy. Students of history will recall that similar shenanigans in Germany led to the fall of the Wiemar Republic. This time around it seems those pulling the strings from behind the scenes want their figure head in office before the collapse, perhaps making things easier to control on their part.
Bastards are proliferating. 40% of children today are born to unwed parents. Ironically, though I use the word in its technical sense, there will be more condemnation of me using it than of those procreating outside the bonds of matrimony even through the word is used in the Bible, the real ones anyway and not necessarily those newfangled feel good versions.
The United States is facing a number of violent threats such as Islamic terrorists and Latin American drug gangs, but they are not of much concern to Missouri law enforcement. A report titled “The Modern Militia Movement” urges police there to instead focus on those displaying the American flag and Ron Paul bumper stickers.
The Sith apprentice seeking forgiveness kneels before his master. Barack Obama met with Mikhail Gorbachev in the hopes of buttering up to the Russians in a new spirit of appeasement.
A pack of Kangaroos is on the loose in France. The marsupials were set loose from an Australia-themed park by property destroying Vandals.
by Frederick Meekins
This time around Albert Mohler links the delay of marriage with a lack of church attendance.
Frankly, what single is going to want to attend a church where this matter not mentioned is constantly harped upon?
I also find it interesting how Mohler is not man enough to always bash lazy young men but never utters a word about sleazy young women.
Well, maybe it is not as bad as the headlne makes it out to be, but can you imagine the outrage if Laura Bush had little Black school children grow vegetables for her?
While the comment was not that offensive, had Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter said it the politically correct would deem them hatemongers no longer worthy of employment. Thus, shouldn't the messiah of the radically tolerant be held to the same standard?
click on the following link:
mms://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net/radioliberty/030609b.mp3
No wonder Oscar is forced to live in a trashcan. Must have fallen behind on his mortgage. Bet he wants a bailout.
Often the classics rank among the best. Even though time passes and intellectual fashions change, certain insights and perspectives address something so profound they forever earn a place as a steadfast pillar among sifting seas of opinion. Much of what comes after such a point simply serves as either confirmation, renunciation, clarification, or criticism. Though he lived and labored during the Middle Ages in the 1200‘s, the cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas has withstood the test of time as one of those stalwart pillars of the mind pointing to a rational basis for belief in God.
Though the term “cosmological argument” sounds intimidating and the concept it strives to convey seems profound, this series of propositions endeavors to express a most elementary idea in a highly rational form. The thrust of the cosmological argument seeks to prove that the universe must have a cause and that only God can serve as an adequate explanation for the existence of the universe. Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Christian Philosophy” states the basic argument in the following manner: “(1) Finite changing things exist. (2) Every finite, changing thing must be caused by another. (3) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. (4) Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite changing thing that exists (page 267).” From here, Aquinas proceeds to argue that only God is powerful enough to serve as an explanation behind this uncaused cause.
This assertion is buttressed by Aquinas’ notion of contingency and the need for a necessary being. A contingent being, according to Ronald Nash in “Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith“, is one whose existence depends upon another and whose nonexistence is possible; likewise, a necessary being is one that must exist, does not depend on another being for its existence, and whose nonexistence is an impossibility (128). The necessary being ultimately serves as the sufficient reason for all contingent beings.
Despite the power of the cosmological argument, it has not escaped its share of scrutiny throughout the course of its distinguished existence. For while the conclusions of the cosmological argument seem to flow naturally within the framework of traditional Judeo-Christian theism, they are not quite as obvious to adherents of other philosophies and systems of thought or to those seeking to undermine them through a process of intense rationalistic analysis. Skeptics and opponents of the Judeo-Christian assumptions that the cosmological argument seeks to prove can call upon a number of criticisms and counterclaims in support of their contrarian position.
The first brand of criticism stems from those advocating worldviews hostile to Christian presuppositions that possess a considerable stake in finding an explanation for the origins of the universe through causes other than an instant of divine creation. Foremost among the systems opposing the premises of the cosmological argument stand the various strands of naturalism.
According to James Sire in “The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog“, the naturalist says matter is all there is and God does not exist (54). Or as Carl Sagan use to say, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Corliss Lamont, the 1977 Humanist of the Year, writes, “Humanism...believes in a naturalistic cosmology...that rules out all forms of the supernatural ... that regards nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of events existing independently of any mind or consciousness (Understanding The Times, 117).”
Thus, as David Noeble of Summit Ministries responds in “Understanding The Times“, “For the Humanist, no personal First Cause exists; only the cosmos... There was no beginning and there can be no end. Of course, there is no need for a God to explain a beginning that did not happen (120).” Naturalists, therefore, find their explanation for the universe elsewhere Whereas theists such as Thomas Aquinas posit the answer to this important question with God, naturalists find it in a complex interaction of matter, physical laws, and a healthy sprinkling of chance.
David Nobel writes of the naturalist perspective, “Nature...cannot create but she can eternally transform (120). “ Naturalists attempt to abolish the so-called Thomist arguments for a creator denying the very concept of creation itself.
While it is not too difficult to confront the opponents of theism over those points where such glaring differences exist, the criticism couched in the careful formulations of sophisticated philosophical analysis can be somewhat more difficult to counter. For example, John Gerstner writes in “Reasons For Faith” that objections could be raised that the cosmological argument hinges upon the conclusion drawn from our own observation that all things have a cause (53).
The thrust of the cosmological argument hinges upon the conclusion drawn from our observations that all things have a cause. This proposition is put forward to prove the need for a so-called first “uncaused cause”. As the nitpicky skeptic might point out, if it is deduced through observation that all things have causes, is it not unreasonable to call upon an uncaused first cause? After all, would not something have to have caused it also. Such a deadlock leads to one of Kant’s antimonies of reason where debaters of equal rationality come to two semmingly reasonable conclusions: namely either the need of an uncaused first cause or the validity of an infinitely regressing eternal series of causes and effects.
Despite this apparent loggerheads between proponents and detractors of the cosmological proof, additional lines of argumentation and evidence exist tipping the scales in favor of justifiable theism. From the time of the Enlightenment onward, practitioners of what Francis Schaeffer referred to as “modern modern science" have endeavored to establish a conceptual framework for explaining the operations of the universe capable of standing without the need for an appeal to divine support. When asked by Napoleon where God fit into his system of celestial mechanics, Laplace is said to have responded, “I have no need for that hypothesis (Barbour, 42).” But ironically, the very system of airtight physical laws many scientists approach with an almost religious devotion ultimately point to and must at least be jumpstarted if not actively maintained by the very Creator these lab-coated agnostics are scurrying to get away from.
Despite possible variations in their extraneous details, there are only a limited number of cosmologies accounting for the existence of the universe, each with its own advantages and shortcomings depending upon where one lines up in the debate regarding this theistic argument. Astrophysicist and Professor of New Testament Robert Newman describes each of these possibilities in the article “The Evidence Of Cosmology” appearing in the anthology “Evidence For Faith” these systems are the Steady-State Universe, the Oscillating Cosmology, and the so-called “Big Bang” (Newman, 83-85).
The Steady-State model added a scientific veneer to the philosophical assumptions of naturalism by hypothesizing a universe eternally existing in a dynamic state of equilibrium whereby the density and energy levels of the cosmos remain constant as new matter is added as the boundaries of the system expand. Oscillating Cosmology pictures an ongoing cycle of universal birth, death, and rebirth as the universe continually expands outward in a burst of energy only to contract under the forces of its own gravity only to explode outward once again in an unending repetitive cosmic rhythm. The so-called “Big Bang”, at its most basic, postulates a singular specific moment when the universe expanded outward from a particular point at a definite moment in time.
These theories may all be well and good in terms of allowing the curious to speculate until their heart’s content. Yet ultimately they must correspond to actual reality if they are to be of any value beyond mere academic amusement.
It is against the cold hard wall of truth that these systems are forced to measure up against. These unavoidable truths eliminate the faulty explanations for the origins of the universe and point us back to the conclusions of the cosmological argument.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the sum total of matter and energy in the universe can neither be created nor destroyed; it remains constant. This is appended by the Second Law of Thermodynamics stating that the amount of energy available for useful work constantly decreases and the amount of entropy or disorder increases.
Any theory of origins seeking to undermine the need for a Creator by positing an everlasting cosmos is by definition scientifically impossible as one deduces from these physical laws. For every system that possesses a finite amount of useful energy must have a definite startup point.
If the universe is infinitely old as speculated by steady-state cosmologists, the universe would have wound down already. As D. James Kennedy notes in “How I Know There Is A God“, “...everything is running down; ... everything is wearing out; everything is growing old. So if the universe were eternal, it would have already wound down (6).”
Like it or not, the mechanics of the universe, as they exist as unvarnished facts, point to a theoretically specifiable beginning and cannot be compelled to testify against their designer. Dr. Kennedy further notes, “There was a time when there were men who believed that it [the universe] was [eternal] but with modern scientific discoveries it is no longer possible to believe that... For the last 150 years, scientists have been scurrying around trying to avoid the implications of the laws they have discovered (5).”
Despite harkening unto the exhortations of science when it is believed this manner of inquiry might prove a valuable ally in the ongoing struggle to dethrone the God of all space and time, this epistemological method is conveniently overlooked when it points in the direction of conclusions standing in opposition to cherished preconceived assumptions. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, a developer of the Steady -State Model, himself admitted that his affinity for this particular system was not so much born out of pure science but rather because this particular variety of cosmology was more philosophically satisfying than those characterized with a beginning (Newman, 83). Thus, the unvarnished facts may have little initial impact upon those holding such a viewpoint who feel seemingly remote matters such as the origins of the universe have little bearing upon their average workaday lives.
The Christian thinker must proceed by showing how one’s position regarding the data pointing to the divine origins of the universe impacts one’s relation to the remaining branches of knowledge and how one cannot ignore the issue without felling the entire noetic tree. The laws of objective physical science clearly teach that the universe came into existence at a particular point in time.
This leaves the cogitator with two possible explanations: either the universe came into existence of its own accord or was brought into existence by some entity greater and more complete in and of itself. Diehard agnostics will continue to insist upon the alternative excluding the influence of deity, which means they would select the alternative suggesting the universe came into existence on its own. Yet reason dictates that only nothing can come from nothing.
As an experiment, take a first-full of nothing and plant it in a flowerpot and see how long it takes to grow a plant from it. Now how much longer will it take for an entire developed universe with complex organisms and sophisticated civilizations to sprout from it? John Frame in Apologetics "To The Glory Of God: An Introduction", argues that those refusing to assent to the theistic conclusions in light of such compelling logic and evidence must concede to the madness of irrationalism since it flies in the face of common sense to hold that everything in the physical universe requires a cause but the finite contingent universe itself (111).
While advocates of the cosmological argument will spend much of their time trying to convince their nontheistic counterparts as to its validity, they might be surprised to learn significant suspicion of it lurks within certain corners of the Christian camp. Ronald Nash examines a number of these Christian criticisms and concerns in his analysis of the cosmological argument as detailed in "Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith".
Foremost among the cautions raised by Christians skeptical as to the value of the cosmological argument ranks the realization that the God attested to by this renowned theistic proof could very well fall short of the Lord boldly proclaimed in the pages of the Bible and could very easily resemble something more akin to deism (Nash, 122-124). For example, the purpose of the cosmological argument is to postulate a God that gets the proverbial ball rolling. However, on its own it does not initially provide enough argumentative steam to establish argumentively a God who actively sustains the universe, to say nothing of one that loves and cares for that part of the creation molded in his own image.
Furthermore, since the world and the universe are a composite of a number of complex interactive systems, one could argue that each was set in motion by its own unique first cause. According to Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Philosophjy: A Christian Perspective“, Aristotle himself believed in between forty-seven and fifty-five of these entities, each responsible for a particular sphere of the heavens (172). At best, such an arrangement would give one a situation something akin to polytheism where one god ruled the sky and another the sea. And in bringing the Greek and other ancient pantheons into the mix, Ronald Nash points out that the cosmological argument fails to address the moral and redemptive natures of God so central to the message of Scripture that sets the Christian message apart from other world religions. One could very well maneuver the most vile reprobates into acknowledging the existence of such a God without having it make the slightest impact on such a libertine lifestyle.
Of the cosmological argument, Ronald Nash writes, “...if we reject special revelation and attempt to reason our way from what we know about the world to the existence of a supposed First Cause, the most we can establish still leaves us a long way from...(the) God of the Bible (124).” Thus the Christian following in the footsteps of Aquinas comes to a very important fork in the road. On the one hand, the intellectually engaged believer finds that the given of the universe needing a creator is not quite universally assumed as they originally thought it to be; on the other, there are those within the Christian’s own camp who insightfully warn as to the potential dangers and shortcomings of this hallowed argument. What is the Christian to do?
The good news is that the cosmological argument does not need to be tossed aside with the rest of the philosophical rubbish. Just as an army cannot rely on any one weapon system if it hopes to carry out a successful military campaign, if they are going to utilize the cosmological argument as part of their apologetic arsenal, they must incorporate it into the framework of a comprehensive strategy of evangelization. It might be best to look at the cosmological argument not so much as some epiphanial revelation silencing all opposition from then on out but rather as a tool to extract knowledge already buried in the deep recesses of the soul.
Romans 2:14-15 reads, “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law...since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them (NIV).” Likewise, Psalms 14:1 reads, “The fool says in his hear, ‘There is no God.’.” Thus, whether they choose to admit it or not, a primordial knowledge of God exists somewhere within the human soul. The trick is getting the individual to assent to this as they are being guided down along the path to belief in Christ. The problem is that man has gone out of his way in the attempt to shake free from the truth of God’s existence that weighs down the sin-laden conscience.
Romans 1:20-21 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities...have been clearly seen, being understood for what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (NIV).” The task of the Christian becomes to show the unbeliever how it is untenable to live in a theistic Christian world with non-Christian, atheistic assumptions.
In Van Tillian terminology, this is the point of contact (Frame, 82-83). The cosmological argument is best used as one of these conversation starters rather than as the be-all and end-all of the discussion. In essence, the cosmological argument is more a defense of already held belief rather than a foundation upon which belief in the true God is built upon.
Ronald Nash writes, “Suppose...that we regard it [natural theology] as an inquiry into whether the Christian world-view fits what we know about the outer and inner worlds (Nash, 96).” Nash continues, “...instead of seeking coercive proofs for conclusions that all right-minded and open-minded persons would accept, we view our task as the more modest one of seeing if the Christian worldview does what we expect any worldview to do (97).”
The cosmological argument has enjoyed a robust history throughout the course of Western intellectual and ecclesiastical history. It has sparked considerable discussion and debate as its advocates herald it as a tool through which to apprehend a slice of the infinite while its detractors dismiss it as the leftover mental baggage of a less rational era. But regardless of where one lines up along this ongoing debate, one cannot help but admit that the discussion will continue until the Lord Himself decides to intervene and settle the issue on His own once and for all before then.
by Frederick Meekins
Now that it has been announced that Bristol Palin will not wed the father of her baby, I wonder if Dobsonians and Mohlerites such as J. Budziszewski will argue that the baby must be put up for adoption.
Before you start sending me hate mail as to what an intolerant bigot I am for questioning this, the reader should be told that he and I clashed a few years back where I criticized him over his insistence that those having children outside of marriage that don't get married are under the obligation to put their progeny up for adoption.
I argued that a child would be better off with a mother that learned from her mistake and remained unmarried then to marry a total slacker and heel of a man.
My position remains consistent. It is those that change their standard when their favored celebrities are involved that are the hyprocrits.
Liberals and related anti-Americanists thinking the incident where two shoes were hurled at President Bush was humorous might think three years for the perpatrator is a bit harsh, but I ask you how well would this malcontent faired if he had tossed the footwear in question at Saddam Hussein?
Those endorsing the practice are likely the exact same ones that went into hissies about Promise Keepers at its peek.
And frankly, any mother that would take such as a condition of shelter is hardly worthy of the respect that comes with the maternal title.
Furthermore, this policy is nothing but anti-male prejudice bent on breaking up the family.
For unless the woman in question has small children, wouldn't the more objectively humanitarian thing to do be to provide shelter to someone under the age of majority irrespective of their gender?
During a recent trip to a local Wal-Mart, I saw something quite disturbing as I stood in the checkout line. In the magazine wrack was a commemorative edition of some publication with a portrait of Barack Obama on the cover.
That was not the disturbing part even to someone that did not vote for him. Behind him on the cover was a glow making him look angelic or even messianic in appearance. Above the image, the words read "Barack Obama: The Hope Of America".
As the new President, even Americans that did not vote for him hope that Obama does well within a specified context in regards to those duties delineated within the confines of the Constitution if for no other reason than that he is the head of state of the country in which we live. However, he is not America's hope.
Firstly, America's hope is in God in general and in the person of His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ in specific. It says in Colossians 1:17 that by Him (not Barack Obama) all things consist.
It is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that will forgive you of your sins.
It is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that has the whole world in His hands.
Despite the call for a new domestic intelligence and security force with a budget projected to surpass that of the entire U.S. military, it is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that hears you crying on those nights when you feel that your world has been shattered and you don't know what can be done to make things right.
Even for those uncomfortable about making public acknowledgement of personal and national dependence upon deity there are earthly sources of hope that the American people ought to look to before Barack Obama.
For example, Americans ought to look to the U.S. Constitution for guidance and inspiration before they look to Barack Obama. In the United States, an oath of loyalty is taken not to a man but to defend the document by those in government all the way from the President down to the youngest private in the U.S. army.
It is the U.S. Constitution, not Barack Obama, that keeps power from being unduly concentrated in the hands of a few through a system of checks and balances and separation of powers.
It is the U.S. Constitution that RECOGNIZES in law (note does not grant) a number of rights the individual possesses as an individual created in the image of God. Barack Obama cannot do this.
Secondly, the American should look to himself for hope and not Barack Obama. If you are an upright citizen, you are the one through the grace of God that gets up and goes to work everyday whether you like your job or not to provide for you and your family, not Barack Obama's beguiling handouts he promised in order to dupe the masses.
Those holding office can indeed bring hardship and earthly ruination into the lives of those residing in the jurisdictions over which such officials exercise authority. Most often this comes about when elected officials intervene in those areas of life where the physically able ought to provide for themselves.
by Frederick Meekins
Eggheads once again finally realizing what the "dumbest" among us knew for years prior.
Seems the chimp may represent free thought and expression instead.
There is no pleasing some theologians.
While Albert Mohler is correct to point out the flippant manner in which the Palin lass glosses over her adloscent spawning, some of Mohler's criticisms need to be examined.
On the one hand, Mohler regularly rides his pet horse deriding those putting off marriage and not marrying young as if you are the deviant if you are not married by the age of 23.
Now he is condemning, though correct about the matter, early dating.
Dr. Mohler, just come out and say that what you believe in is prearrganged marriage if you wish to hold to both these positions that, whether you like it or not, are essentially contradictory in this time in which we live.
If Dr. Mohler wants all these early marriages, who does he suggest picks up the tab?
Should we homely singles that don't have the prospects of a worthwhile husband or a wife have to pick up the bill as punishment for "being outside of God's will" or are we going the Obama route where those on the government insurance roles defined as "underprivileged children" are nearly 30 years old and whose parents make nearly $80,000?
Maybe if Dr. Mohler just stuck to the Bible's message of opposing sex outside of marriage and left the age issue alone as the Bible sets down no command as to what age someone should marry, there would be fewer Bristol Pailn's inside Evangelical circles as it's not those getting married later necessarily bringing all of these illegitimate children (often through multiple repeat pregnancies when the first time around should have taught the lesson) into the world.
by Frederick Meekins
>In my column "Capital Implements Measures Violating Rights & Property", I warned that a number of steps taken in the name of curtailing crime in a particular Washington, DC neighborhood forbidding entrance to anyone but those whose business and reasons for being there were deemed legitimate by law enforcement were to be baby steps in laying the foundation of a plan that would ultimately turn many of America's cities into micropolice states by cordoning off selected segments of concentrated areas of population. Some snickered at my idea as I in part drew inspiration for my projections from an episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" where the downtrodden were corralled into sanctuary districts and they also chided me for failing to comprehend the complexities of the lawless situation supposedly requiring a response characterized by considerable sternness.
In all honesty, as an analyst basing many of my conjectures upon extrapolations where I see various trends headed, there are times when I wonder if perhaps I have overreacted to certain things I have stumbled across in the news. However, in light of a number of additional press accounts, any doubts I may have had about America’s municipalities eventually going into a state of lockdown with few chances of them reopening have been laid to rest as things continue along to such a lamentable destination
According to an Associated Press story posted 1/8/09 at Star-Telegram.com titled “Bridges, streets being close for inauguration”, all bridges crossing the Potomac River and a “huge chunk of downtown” will be closed a goodly portion of the week Barack Obama is scheduled to assume control of the federal government. Only official and authorized vehicles will be granted access over these routes headed into the nation’s capital.
Those accustomed to doing as they are told might respond, “What’s the big deal? This is only for an historic one time event that will be over with in a few days?”
Maybe so. But chain smokers and chronic boozers weren’t born into the addictions that plague them daily either.
Since that is the case, once both authorities and commuters have acclimated to the first time something like this is done in the nation’s capital to this extent, it will be all the easier the next time and then it will be done so frequently that it will no longer make headlines. Eventually, very few will give a second thought to the death of yet another liberty whose surrender has very little to do about saving actual American lives but rather about unduly controlling them.
One can make a case about shutting down access to much of Washington, DC for the protection of the President during the inauguration and the hundreds of thousands of duped brainwashed sheeple coming to gawk worshipfully upon their psuedomessiah. However, what is to prevent the city from being closed for less auspicious purposes?
For example, few will dispute that traffic throughout the Washington Metropolitan Area can be a nightmare. Where you will find differences of opinion is in what to do about it.
It does not take a creative genius on the level of Tom Clancy to speculate that one day progressivist social planners running everything could decree that, in the name of aestheticism, urban planning, sustainable development or whatever other rhetorical garbage they might be spewing at some future date, only a certain number of cars will be granted entry permits to come into the city (most of them going of course to these elites who always insist upon the need for sacrifice but always on your part and never of themselves.
Workers and others lower down the occupational ladder would either have to congregate at pickup points outside the city where they would be duly scrutinized to determine whether or not their reason is meritoriously sufficient to be granted entrance to the city or --- as in the case of some in the lower class needed to serve their betters during inaugural festivities --- workers could be warehoused in barracks at their respective jobsites.
This idea of shutting down U.S. municipalities wholesale is so anathema to the American way of life that very few have intellect expansive enough to wrap their minds around it at this time and dismiss this conjecture as alarmism. Perhaps if they stop and consider what went on in the summer of 2008 in the Arkansas town of Helena-West Helena, they will see that this warning is not one of hysteria but rather a probable future for this once free land if the American people continue to uncritically swallow everything they are told about the steps supposedly necessary to curb violence, crime, and terrorism.
In August 2008 in that town in response to a crime wave, police were not directed to go after those known to be breaking any laws but rather to enforce an around the clock curfew where residents were forbidden to be outside of their homes. Violators were subject to further scrutiny by law enforcement and forced back into their domiciles if the reason coerced from them did not pass the rigors of further investigation.
Docile minions of the New World Order claim that it will only be those acting nervously or suspiciously that will be accosted. But frankly, who wouldn't act nervously or suspiciously under the constant threat of at any second of police cursing at you at the top of their lungs, getting a shot of mace in the face, or getting a gun pointed at your head with you the one having to justify why you have wandered out of the house and not the police for beating you like a rented mule.
In a story titled "Go Home Or Go To Jail!: Helena-West Helena Implements Curfew For All Ages," a resident told a reporter with MyEyeWitnessNews.com, "..you can't go to the store without being harassed by police."
That scenario brings us to yet another conjecture as to where these policies might be headed in the future if Americans refuse to wake up. What is to prevent the police from determining whether or not your trip to the store and what you plan to purchase there is or is not legitimate? After all, the all-wise Obama prophesied that there is coming a time when Americans will no longer be able to eat what they want.
Since America is edging ever-closer to the point where, in the name of public health and national security, the state must make for the individual the most detailed of personal decisions, why not kill two birds with one stone? One could easily combat both the crime spree and obesity epidemic by not only putting the innocent under house arrest but by also only allowing them to eat the provisions brought to their doors during the periods of protracted curfew and quarantine.
Preposterous, you say. Americans will never put up with living in such a manner. Well, up until recently, would they have put up with a 24 hour curfew?
Throughout the Western world, freedom as we once knew it is pretty much on its last leg. Things we once took for granted such as driving over a public bridge or even enjoying our own yards will become a thing of the past unless we vocalize our dissent. And with the attitude Obama has exhibited towards the press here in the opening days of his presidency, even the ability to do that may be endangered if the American people fail to exercise eternal vigilance.
by Frederick Meekins
This decision is downright bizare.
The jury found that an Arizona rancher did not violate the civil rights of illegals tresspassing across his property but nevertheless awarded the illegal aliens (a number of convicted drug pushers among their number I might add) damages for "emotional distress". In other words, the property owner hurt their feelings.
If anything, the rancher should be heralded as a national hero.
See if you don't get a gun pulled on you if you cross the White House lawn and one time as I rode past the U.S. Capitol, saw machine guns pulled on a school bus.
If our leaders are no more important than we are as we are told in high school civics propaganda, why aren't property owners allowed the same high-caliber protection?
by Frederick Meekins
From his 2/16/09 broadcast, Rush Limbaugh is considering a giant TV costing $180,000.
Will the arrogance of the rich ever cease?
One can buy whatever they want if they have the money, but with the world falling apart and decscending unto Hades in a handbasket, one would think a broadcaster would have no time to mention their luxuries.
Wonder of Liftime network will produce movies on this topic or even then it will be from the "men are always wrong" perspective.
Perhaps the rest of us shouldn't pay our bills either since obviously defaulting on one obligations results in little penalty now.
The threats issued against her are inexcusable.
However, the American people have had enough of putting money into the outstretched hand of ever failure unwilling to provide for themselves.
Has anyone asked why she was "homeless"?
More importantly, I wonder how long until the place given to her ends up looking like a rundown shack.
Maybe the media should go over her with a fine-tooth comb the way they did Joe the Plumber.
And will our glorious overlord issue a proclaimation ordering us to observe White Hisotry Month as well?
According to Mohler, if someone leaves the ministry, it likely means they never had a calling to it to begin with.
This is more a medieval Catholic viewpoint seeing those in ministry somehow superior to the average Christian.
According to Protestantism, if all work is equally called by God whether it is secular or ecclesiastical and if people change jobs all the time, why can't someone be called into professional ministry for a portion of their lives and then be called elsewhere like any other occupation.
Or if Mohler is pressed further on this issue, will he also say that --- like marriage and church memebership in the eyes of the crowd Mohler often aligns himself with --- once someone has decided on a job, they are stuck with it for life.
by Frederick Meekins
But so long as they are not White males, Robert Reich should be happy.
Of course daddy is nothing but a sperm donor when you can suckle off the welfare teet.
According to a Washington Times story titled "Obama Now In Combat Mode", the President is headed to a posh Williamsburg resort where he and the politburo will wallow in luxury ringing their hands about the deteriorating economy.
It is estimated that the trip will cost at least $80,000 with this tabulation arrived at by factoring in the $70,000 it will cost Democratic leaders to charter an Amtrak train to the event and the $11,000 for food and the $7,000 spent on entertainment at this leftist orgy back in 2003.
If these frauds were really interested in addressing the nation's problems, they'd drive there themselves, pack their own snacks, and go outlet shopping on their own dime like the rest of us when on break.
Better yet, they don't need to go there at all because what are they going to do over the course of a single weekend that they don't get done the rest of the week while they are in Washington?
Readers need to be reminded that the President going to this event was the candidate who at one time lamented about the American people eating what we wanted, driving SUV's, and keeping our homes at 72 degrees.
Real leadership consists of not placing a set of expectations upon those following you that you yourself are not willing to abide by.
If President Obama was anything more than a poser, he would refuse to participate in this ostentatious consumption at taxpayer expense.
by Frederick Meekins
Guess he'll be this rounds token queer.
When I heard during the NCIS marathon on USA Network during one of those "Characters Welcome" segements that the individual coloring that creepy Communist-looking Obama "Hope" poster was a "street artist", I figured that was just an euphemism for graffitti vandal.
It has now been reported that the artist has been arrested on charges likely related to that particular form of urban mischief.
Ironically, some praising this hoodlum would applaud him as more of an artist than Norman Rockwell or Thomas Kincaid who actually drew and painted things that actually looked like things rather than toss a dab of color on something and claim it was theirs.
Rather fitting the artist heralded as embodying the spirit and values of the Obama administration would be someone with almost no respect for private property whatsoever.
Wonder if his opulent benefactors would be as enthusiastic if it was their property being spray painted?
by Frederick Meekins
Yet he places on the public take "children" that are 30 years-old and parents making nearly $80,000.
Sounds like she may have been sampling the employer's accounts.
Since she is not married and no father in sight, she should not get a single public penny.
At one point in its history, one could argue that the West was too sure of itself as the foremost of civilizations. However, such is no longer the case today.
In theory, pluralists and multiculturalists contend that no way of life or culture is better than any other. Thus, one would think that Western and American perspectives and traditions would be welcomed into this expanded showcase of human achievement.
Yet unless one wants to bash the West for its past short comings, they had better think again. If anything, one is expected to feel the same kind of shame in regards to the most innocuous of traditions that was once reserved for more carnal subjects during exceedingly Victorian times.
As an endearing symbol of all that is good and beautiful in the world, one would think there would be no reason whatsoever to get all flustered over a Christmas tree. However, liberals in media and education who any other time believe next to nothing should be hidden even for the sake of propriety and decorum can't even seem interestingly to speak this festive decoration's name nor even that of the celebration in which this symbol has come to play an integral part.
Plastered across the front page of the Gazette papers of the Washington, DC Metropolitan for the week of 12/25/08 in bold oversized typeface was an otherwise bland "Happy Holidays".
Above that and below a photo of an illuminated Christmas evergreen was a caption reading, "Crowds gather around the 60-foot tree for the lighting ceremony and fireworks show to kick off the holiday season on Nov. 28 at National Harbor." What holiday is this editor referring to --- Arbor Day?
Martin Luther King Day and Black History Month are just around the corner. Will this same paper tiptoe around these celebrations as well?
If not, why not? Christmas is probably celebrated by nearly 90% of the American population so we are basically forced to go out of our way to avoid stepping on the toes of a very miniscule demographic.
By default, there is probably a higher percentage than that among the White community who have thought to themselves (even if they lacked the backbone to vocalize their ruminations for fear of repercussions at the hand of the fanatically tolerant) that Black History Month is inherently racist since there is no officially designated counterpart for White folks to be applauded for simply being White folks. But then again, since those raising such concerns are usually conservative, their sensibilities will not be addressed.
Martin Luther is believed to have said that man is like a drunk reeling his head from one wall to the next. This can be interpreted as an analogy of how society careens back and forth between deleterious extremes.
In response to the efforts to expunge Christmas from American culture, some have not simply responded by declaring more than "Merry Christmas" irrespective of the consequences but rather by wearing to work what ostensively amounts to a Jesus costume consisting of a robe and a replica of a crown of thorns. Of this, I am reminded of a quote from King of the Hill where the titular character responds to a longhaired, tattooed preacher, “I’m sure Jesus is plenty of places he doesn’t want to be.”
While nothing should be done to employees that exercise their right of conscience by saying “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays”, supervisors should not put up with subordinates showing up to work like this especially if the position deals with the public. It is, after all, the workplace under consideration and not a costume party.
Chesterton said, "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense." From how many respond to Christmas in either censoring it entirely or becoming so consumed by it they end up looking like fools, it seems America may be tottering along the abyss of total lunacy.
by Frederick Meekins
See what happens to you if you don't pay the state what you owe it.
Shouldn't something similar happen to the state that does the same to you?
Regarding the condemnation of being concerned about the financial aspect of having children, perhaps parents ought to skimp on what goes into the offering plate when times are tight since the children ought to be your priority of ministry to begin with.
Frankly, so long as one is not fornicating or abusing one's spouse, somethings are just not the church's business.
The drunk that use to live next to my parents thought a light in the backyard was the devil.
It might be cut from the stimulus package, but don't expect this to go away as it is part of the socialistic mindset now running the government.
If you can't afford to pay, don't play.
If what you do in the bedroom is no one else's businesses, don't expect anyone else to provide for these recreations and luxuries.
While one's heart goes out to these adorable birds, it will be you, average American and not the likes of Gore and Obama, that will be called upon to alter your standard of living on the behalf of these birds.
Is because of attitudes like this that America's economy is on the brink of collapse and we no longer win our wars.
At least is good to see this mindset extends to athletics now and not just academics where I use to be told in class to put my hand down for knowing more answers than most and that "we already know what you are going to say".
Those extracting this fine are those our New Lord thinks no longer belong on the Axis of Evil and worthy of sitting down in a negotiations between civilzed nations.
Thought such tragedies did not transpire in utopian social democracies.
Portents of the Obama administration's opinion of the average American?
Yet another chance for liberals to tell you how wonderful they are and superior to we working slobs.
Wonder if they would have done the same to the ensigns defiled by the image of their false god?
About left the Mall the way most of their neighborhoods look.
Guess His Highness would admonish how individual litter bugs shouldn't be held responsible and how it is the obligation of those of us already employed nine to five to go out and pick up after the slobs.
Need to remember that during the campagin, Obama lamented about Americans having too much freedom to eat what we want.
So much for the White separatists we've been hearing on and on about for days now.
MySpace Celebrity and Katalyst present The Presidential Pledge
These dupes can do as they please, however, the real question is what will they do to you when you do not take a loyalty oath to the New Lord?
It is understandable that most would take an interest in the peaceful transitions of power that take place in the United States between one administration to the next as it is a skill less civilized countries have failed to master; however, what is taking place right now in relation to Barack Obama is downright frightening and almost idolatrous in its implications
About the most disgraceful piece of commemorative inaugural memorabilia I've seen is a flag with Obama's visage emblazoned across it.
The flag is a symbol of the United States that ought to remain above the holders of the office sworn to protect it.
To defile it in this manner is an act as almost disgusting as burning it.
It has been my contention that if Obama is not the Anti-Christ, he is certainly a stand in for the dress rehearsal as Satan works out the kinks.
A plot element central to the narrative of the Book of Revelation is something known as the "Mark of the Beast" that all dwelling upon the earth must receive as a sign of loyalty to this tyrannical regime.
Interestingly, Obama worshipers are not without their own version as a story on Fox and Friends on 1/18/09 chronicled someone disfiguring their body with an Obama tattoo.
One might respond that Obama cannot be held responsible for the devotion of his followers and should not be perceived as an aspiring dictator because of it.
Frankly though, he has done next to nothing to discourage it and in fact seems to be encouraging these ostentatious trappings of power.
For example, if Obama is the epochal figure of Hegelian proportions he is made out to be, shouldn't he be putting a stop to all these worshipful inaugural ceremonies, especially in light of the financial crisis the country faces?
So I guess when he says we will all be called upon to sacrifice, that does not include the accolades he will have heaped upon himself.
More concrete proposals being considered just about come straight from Hitler's playbook.
For starters, there is the Obama tribute film reminiscent of Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph Of The Will."
Ironically, this cinematic glorification of the Fuehrer is actually less audacious in its titling than the one about the new President called "Believe" as if he is somehow deserving of our prayerful adoration.
Even more frightening are a couple of administrative initiatives being bandied about by Obama's supporters.
One hopes to turn his vast army of volunteers and online minions into a "service" organization existing apart from the government (can anyone say SA or SS).
Another seeks to establish a position within the White House that would basically amount to a secretary of art and culture that would establish an "artists corps" at the beck and control of the government, no doubt to paint massive portraits of Obama himself on the sides of public buildings before it's all over with.
So in these hard economic times where we are told how it is imperative that we all cut back with Obama at one time lamenting how Americans should not be able to eat what we want, drive SUV's, or keep our homes at a constant 70 degrees, we are to be financing new financial outlays in support of what amounts to unnecessary aesthetic debaucheries.
Truthful historians of the 80's and 90's will recall that government funded art was usually a euphemism for crosses submerged in urine, dung smeared portraits of the Virgin Mary, and floors painted to look like the America flag so you could not get through a room without having to trample across Old Glory.
With all the fanatical behavior being exhibited, one must stop to ask would this devotion reach such a fever pitch if Obama was White or, even more importantly, conservative?
Makes you wonder if they are wrapped up in the man or the undeserved handouts he plans to give them.
by Frederick Meekins
While on the surface it sounds like a good idea to go after the assets of violent gang leaders, one has to ask will these actions confine themselves to actual street gangs?
For example, in the late 80's or early 90's, the RICO Act, a piece of legislation designed to attack the mafia was invoked against pro-life organizations.
Likewise, will gangs come to be defined as any organization at odds with prevailing government policy.
Furthermore, what is to stop the government from declaring that a particular area is so infected by pervasive gang activity that it can just move in and seize every single property or to manufacture false charges against the owner of a particular envied holding?
by Frederick Meekins
mms://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net/radioliberty/101708a.mp3
mms://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net/radioliberty/102308c.mp3
Interesting examinations of how certain religious thinkers believe this technology can be applied to eliminate the physical effects of original sin.
With as much animus as they already have against them, fanatics in the homeschool movement really ought to be cautious about alienating conservatives who would otherwise side with them.
If homeschoolers are going to chant the mantra of the state minding its own business over matters none of its concern, shouldn't the same apply to the church as well?
Didn't the supporters of the New Lord attempt to discredit Joe the Plumber, who merely asked a question and did not aspire to higher office, over a smaller tax bill?
click on the above link.
Ironically, these same malcontents would probably have no problem with gays and supporters of the Palestinian Intafada marching down the parade route. Once again, it is proven that white folks have little place in tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism.
According to this repropbate minister, it is important for sexual minorities to see themselves at this event.
So does this include polygamists as well if it is practiced among consenting adults?
I wonder if he is all atwitter about his inagural gown?
For some reason, am reminded of the old adage if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound.
While Mohlerians and Swansonites probably have little problem with this policy since they think you are a deviant if not married by the age of 23, what is to stop this policy from being expanded?
Defenders of it calling in to the Andy and Grandy Morning show on WMAL kept invoking the constiutional protections of free association; but what if someone did not want to live around Black folks or Mexicans?
Though one cannot endorse this woman's decision to live as a shacked up concubine, so long as she has the money to pay the rent and stays to herself, do we really want governing bodies of either a governmental or private variety policing our lives to such an extent?
Furthermore, if someone becomes widowed or is deserted by their spouse, does this mean they ought to lose their home as well?
by Frederick Meekins
In the 6/25/07 edition of U.S. News & World Report, New Age luminary Deepak Chopra was interviewed about his novel about Buddha interestingly titled "Buddha". Though many will no doubt fawn all over this narrative in search of some new spiritual insight or revelation in much the same way as they did with "The Da Vinci Code" these past few years, however, it seems some of the answers provided by this guru renowned by millions had as much thought put to them as the titling of this novel.
When asked what he thought the meaning of enlightenment was, Chopra responded, "The meaning here is that your real self is not a person, that there is no such thing as a separate self, that a person doesn't really exist...So enlightenment here means transcendence to that level of existence where the personal self becomes the universal self.”
If the separate self and the person does not exist, I wonder what Dr. Chopra would think if some tragedy befell his friends or family members? Is he simply going to brush it off by saying they did not exist anyway? If that is the case, I bet Mrs. Chopra and the children feel loved knowing that, in the eyes of dear old dad, out of sight will be out of mind.
With Christianity on the other hand, while the believer is admonished by I Thessalonians 4:13 not to mourn as the heathen as if there was no hope, the Christian legitimately pines for the departed loved one as one would for any friend or family member that has moved far away that you know you are probably not going to see for quite awhile but whom has nevertheless retained the same degree of distinct individuality as the day you met them.
Though Chopra has manipulated his followers into accepting his teachings and in the process made himself a very wealthy man (so much for desire causing suffering as basic Buddhism postulates), one can't help notice that Chopra doesn't exactly comport himself by the Eastern dictum that the self does not exist. For if the self does not exist, why has Chopra placed his name on the novel? And his photograph in the U.S. News & World Report profile is not of some disheveled lunatic consistently living out the implications of his worldview that appearance is just an allusion but rather of one who poses deliberately with his arm over his knee and his head cocked just so in a statement to the world that he is just a bit better than you.
More importantly, if a person doesn’t really exist since the individual is merely a “transient behavior of the total universe”, is Chopra going to forego the proceeds of what will probably be a bestseller and instead distribute the revenues to every person on the planet equally if “the universal self” and we are all the same person anyway? If Deepak Chopra doesn’t really exist, then why is the name slapped across his Center For Wellness?
But then again, such common sense and logic aren’t an integral part of Chopra’s worldview. When asked in the U.S. News & World Report interview if there is a fundamental tension between spirituality and religion, Chopra responded, “It [spirituality] has very little to do with religious dogma, ideology, or even self-righteous morality.”
Isn’t that itself a dogma? Are those that do not share in such metaphysical open-mindedness in the wrong? Doesn’t saying so imply a morality?
If ultimately morality does not really exist, on what grounds does Chopra have to complain should his publisher abscond with the proceeds of his novel? More importantly, if some horrible crime befell Mrs. Chopra and the kids, would such be wrong beyond the breaking of society’s arbitrarily derived laws?
That must really make his family feel special. Some might point out I already made that point. However, if you have no problems with the Eastern worldview espoused by this cultic guru, repetition and second go-arounds float your boat anyway.
by Frederick Meekins
One of the simple delights in the age of vehicular travel is coming across an empty parking space that still has time on the meter. Since the beast --- namely the municipalities obtaining revenue from the meter --- is still getting the amount of money it is due whether the spot is occupied by one or two cars in the purchased amount of time, one would think the taxmasters wouldn't care and simply let the lucky motorist enjoy one of the few pleasures remaining in our increasingly bleak and overcontrolled world.
However, it seems that technology is being used once more to tighten the noose of government around the neck of the law abiding citizen.
According to a Washington Post story titled “Meters Deny Parking Handouts“, a number of companies are developing devices sensitive enough to reset themselves once they detect that the space is no longer occupied. Instead of harassing motorists, perhaps these tech-heads should turn their sophisticated detection sensors towards securing America's border.
Especially revealing is the statist mentality of those supporting these Cylon parking meters (it's a wonder they don't have that little red light pulsating back and forth). The chief executive of IntelliPark (one of these companies out to get rich dreaming up new ways to further curtail human liberty) told the Washington Post, "You take away that free lunch, but on the other hand that's tax revenue."
If the primary concern here is that no one should get a "free lunch", wouldn't research efforts be better directed towards not developing a meter that resets itself as soon as a vehicle pulls away but rather makes change from the unused time?
"Why you skin-flint Conservative or tight-fisted Libertarian, how miserly of you to want back a few messily cents.” If we are to happily relinquish what is rightfully ours simply because it is just a few mere cents, just see what happens should you skimp on your IRS tax bill by the same amount.
If we are to view the motorist sneaking onto a spot where the meter has not yet run out of time as taking something out of the coffers of the state, why shouldn’t we cast the same glare of disapproval upon the state for pocketing a profit from time in which it’s space is not leased?
After all, to whom does the coinage for the unused time ultimately belong? For does it not actually belong to the original motorist that has since driven off?
Thus, it is the state (not the driver “sneaking” into the space) that is actually the small scale thief. Shouldn’t technology allow the original motorist to decide who gets to keep the change?
by Frederick Meekins
As I remeber John Warwick Montgomery remarking of Episcopal priests swallowing gold fish and parachuting off skyscrapers in the attempt to make the church relevant to the young: "If God's not dead, maybe He wishes he were."
Companies with dress codes should not permit this no matter how much it is justified in the name of religious freedom.
In response to the anti-Christmas crowd, it seems things may be veering too much in the opposite direction as well.
The only way this is proper is if there were ones for George W. Bush as well. Anything else is nothing less than idolatry.
From at least 1994 when I remember writing my first column on the subject, despisers of the Almighty and liberals of the most spineless of stripes have conspired to undermine Christmas as a national celebration in the attempt to downplay and ultimately eliminate public recognition of God in general and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ in specific. These efforts have been so widespread that I was able to compile columns written about them over the years into a book titled "Yuletide Terror & Other Holiday Horrors".
Though the American people have been manipulated and their resistance worn down on a number of fronts to the point that they now let slide any number of outrages that would have caused considerable uproar in the past, for the most part citizens have been quite vocal about attempts by secular leftists to ban acknowledgement of the Christmas season. However, now that traditionalists have asserted the right to publicly affirm their god-given heritage, secularists are responding with alternative displays of their own promoting their own particular worldview.
Foremost among these is an ad campaign targeted at Washington, DC’s public transportation system. The posters sponsored by the American Humanist Association read, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake..” This simple question and accompanying reply are in need of a complex response.
For starters, whether we like it or not, if an atheist front group wants to pony up the cash, they have the same right to buy public advertising space like any other organization with too much money on its hands. Responses such as the one presented in a 11/17/08 USA Today article titled “Atheism: A Positive Pillar” where an Illinois state legislator told an atheist activist, “It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!...You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying.”
Such an attitude may itself be of a greater danger than the outright atheism. For it is wrong on a number of philosophical and apologetic grounds.
For starters, it is not really all that dangerous for children to know atheism exists. Granted, one might not want to, as in the example used by D. James Kennedy in a classic sermon, hand one’s child over to a thoroughgoing secularist who on the first day of kindergarten proceeds to indoctrinate the hapless pupil as to the alleged reasons why God does not exist and why Jesus Christ is not His Son.
However, part of protecting children is to warn them of the dangers out there bent on destroying them in body and soul. Thus, just as parents eventually one day have to have that discussion with their young ones about the existence of pedophiles and where to aim the kick should some sicko every try to rob the young ones of their innocence, parents also have the obligation to warn to warn that there are those out there that hate God so much that they’d like nothing more than to persuade you to give up your belief in Him as well.
The cause of Christ is not served by hiding these things from young minds and then finally exposing them to such apostasies upon adulthood. It’s challenging enough when you are taught about these things and then find your self surrounded by the products of an education system advocating such a viewpoint reeking of what you always heard pot smelled like and another hooligan wearing a t-shirt with decals of copulating skeletons as I remember the first day of college.
Secondly, lack of a belief in something is a belief about it. For too long, Christians and allied theists have played into the hands of atheists and agnostics by going along with the notion that those professing unbelief are objective and unfettered by preconceived epistemological commitments and that the believers are the ones holding onto bedrock dogmatic foundations. Many atheists are just as rabid in their assumptions as the most zealous of pulpit-pounding evangelists.
The anti-God Christmas placards intone the reader to "Just be good for goodness sake." But without God, can good truly exist? For if He does not, mankind is left with the alternatives of either nihilistic anarchy or regimented totalitarianism.
For example, if God does not exist, who is to say whatever the individual thinks or does is right or wrong? As has been said, in some cultures they are suppose to love their neighbors and in others they eat them. To the cannibal the adage is not so much finger licking good but rather good to lick fingers.
Furthermore, if God does not exist, on what grounds do the institutions of society such as the government have the right to tell you to do anything whatsoever? Without God and His revelation, the "IS" automatically becomes the "OUGHT" with rules and laws merely being those promulgations which keep the strongest in power.
But what about the individual, the timid may ask unsettled by the door that has been opened but too prideful to grasp Christ's outstretched hand. What about the individual?
If the individual is no better than all the other animals who are themselves just products of random chance, his welfare means nothing in comparison to the welfare and even the convenience of the larger group. Though it is a somewhat different philosophy, according to a Caryl Matrisciana column titled “An Enlightened Race?” New Agers who believe similarly to atheists that there are no absolutes rooted in the character of an eternal personal God don’t even want to say Hitler did anything wrong but rather merely things that were misguided at worst.
The New Atheists claim that the suspicions their worldview elicits are unfounded because as humanists they only have the betterment of the species in mind and that traditional religions are the ones responsible for the atrocities of history.
Margaret Downey of the Atheist Alliance International is quoted in the USA Today article as saying, "We atheists simply add an 'o' to our belief system --- we believe in good." However, that is in spite of rather than because of their unbelief.
If anything, what atheists exhibit when they manifest goodness is remaining Judeo-Christian moral capital. These individuals professing godlessness remain largely good because they have been acculturated in a milieu largely Biblical in its underlying ethical orientation.
However, as time marches on and these foundations are eroded as succeeding generations will become less familiar with this heritage. Future atheists will not be as eager to embrace the balanced approach to life we in the West have come to categorize as good.
Incidents where traditional forms of religion have been invoked to justify abridgements of individual liberty are horrifically tragic but because they betray the values espoused by the founders of these systems of belief. However, by default, that does not make those claiming to lack a religious faith are not necessarily more laid back in their approach to life and less prone to violence.
If anything, lack of divine restraints seems to send man's compulsion to prey (not pray) upon his fellow man into overdrive. One only need to look at the histories of regimes with an explicit antipathy towards the God of the Bible such as Soviet Russia, Red China, and Nazi Germany. And even in the United States where human dignity is for the most parts respected, numbers are appallingly high in terms of the millions slaughtered in the names of abortion and so-called “reproductive rights”, a charge led primarily by the godless along with the wishy-washy easily whipped up into a frenzied enthusiasm over the joys of baby-killing.
As commuters putter about this Christmas season and viewers watch the battle of the broadsides, there is more at stake than an esoteric debate as to the nature and origins of goodness. Both our very lives and our eternal destines could very well be on the line.
by Frederick Meekins
Halfwits thinking this incident was all fun and games should realize it was just not Bush that the shoe was hurled at but rather the entire United States.
Heathens around the world should be thankful that America is as restrained as it is and should ponder how a less-mercificul world power might have responded to this insult.
Bet if a minority was denied a special privielge, they'd go on the warpath.
So since Albert Mohler only has two children, should his position as a seminary president be surrendered to someone with more children since by the argument presented in this column that individual has a greater or more sincere faith.
Or as usual, is this just a standard that gets imposed upon the believer in the pew and not the professional religionist?
By the end of the broadcast version of this commentary, Mohler lets it slip that missionary types are not to be held to this standard and that those with children understand God better.
mms://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net/radioliberty/120908b.mp3
Dr. Stan is to be commended of warning about this heresy and the dangers it poses to legitiamte Constitutionalism.
mms://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net/radioliberty/120908b.mp3
Dr. Stan is to be commended of warning about this heresy and the dangers it poses to legitiamte Constitutionalism.
Is not something like "for all debts public and private" stamped across U.S. moneyt?
Thus, any government agency should be compelled to accept payment in whatever form of legal tender the compliant citizen chooses to pay the penalty leveled against them with.
"I interogate you. You interogate me. We're a Gitmo family...."
mms://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net/radioliberty/111908a.mp3
Listeners may need to copy and post this link themselves into their web browser.
Each Thanksgiving, the President pardons a turkey --- an actual barnyard fowl and not a member of Congress. For the most part, the custom is itself harmless and mildly cute; however, should taxpaying citizens learn what is done with the turkey, they will likely end up with a case of indigestion.
According to a Fox News account, after the White House ceremony the turkey was to be flown first class to Disneyland in California. There the gobbling celebrity was to serve as the grand marshal of the park's Thanksgiving parade.
Many would dismiss this story as something not to get worked up over. Yet in this dawning era where we are constantly reminded how our very way of life must change or face collapse along various fronts, escorting a turkey to Disneyland in stratospheric luxury raises a number of questions.
First, is the turkey being sent there at taxpayer expense? If Disney wants the bird, that corporation is the party that should pick up the airfare.
Relatedly and even more importantly, shouldn't those that have set themselves up as our betters and the ones out to impose the new paradigms upon the rest of us have to live by their own standards?
For example, a letter to the editor published in the Prince George's Sentinel attempts to guilt-trip the reader into foregoing the turkey dinner by insinuating that this traditional culinary centerpiece is somehow bad for the environment. But what about the resources expended to get the turkey from Washington to California, and, even more importantly, what about the "carbon footprint" (the term used by beatniks of expanding girth like Al Gore to make themselves feel better about their own ostentatious consumption) left behind each year by the Disney corporation.
I for one have no problem with amusement parks and similar resorts. However, I am not the one haranguing the average American, who can hardly afford luxury vacations these days, into giving up one of the few remaining pleasures available, namely a reasonably priced turkey dinner.
Often, America’s Puritan and Separatist founders are depicted as absolutely joyless and not having much fun in their lives. And maybe so by out standards. However, these solemn patriarchs are party animals in comparison to the glum-faced busybodies out to control in the name of the environment all aspects of the food you consume from what can go into your mouth and, increasingly as in regards to proclamations regarding no flush toilets, what is to be done with it once it comes out.
by Frederick Meekins
