Thursday, October 29, 2009
The early 21st century stands as a period of profound moral confusion. On the one hand, mothers and doctors are permitted to crack upon the skulls and suck out the brains of nearly-born babies with government sanction under the banner of partial birth abortion. Should these very same people hike into the woods and crack open a bald eagle egg, they could face serious prison time.
It would therefore seem that contemporary society is marked by two seemingly contradictory extremes --- that of extreme license and that of excessive control. However, upon closer inspection it could be concluded that these conditions are not as contradictory as the situation might originally appear. Rather, it would seem each is the result of the systematic removal of the ethical balance provided within the Judeo-Christian tradition with its emphasis upon transcendent standards provided by an infinitely just and loving God.
With the increasing complexity of knowledge and technology, those trained in the acquisition and use of this complex body of thought (those broadly referred to as “intellectuals”) have taken on increased levels of influence and responsibility throughout society. No longer does agriculture or manufacturing dominate society to the degree it once did.
Futurists from Alvin Toffler to Newt Gingrich have characterized the current sociological epoch as information-based, with those manipulating this information from government bureaucrats to Hollywood producers exercising unfathomable power over the composition of the contemporary mind. Therefore, it must be remembered, as Lord Acton is believed to have said, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Through a historical process too complicated to detail to a significant degree in this brief analysis, the prevailing secular elite came to see the world around them and their own assorted intellectual systems as satisfactory explanations in and of themselves for the reality in which these thinkers found themselves. According to Phillip Johnson in “Reason In The Balance”, this way of viewing the world prevalent among the most influential intellectuals is naturalism. Naturalism is the idea that the material reality constitutes the totality of existence and the idea of God is merely a mental construct promulgated in an attempt to cope with the stark realities of the universe in which man finds himself (7).
The average person might naturally conclude that naturalism by its nature would confine itself to the issues of blunt observable scientific fact. However, naturalism has left the tedium of the laboratory and now seeks to influence fields as divergent from science as education, ethics, and government. It is through this set of paradigms embracing the present material reality as the highest criteria of judgment that the twin siblings of chaos and tyranny have become so prevalent throughout world society.
No matter what the secular elites call their particular systems or what concerns these systems emphasize, it is the goal of the secular elite to remake man in the image of the prevailing secular elite. According to Alister McGrath in “Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths”, prominent ideologies competing for the minds of men include Enlightenment rationalism, Marxism, and scientific materialism (160).
Despite the shades of difference between each of these systems, at their core each shares the assumption that man is bound by no eternal standard beyond this reality and can be remade into whatever the powers that be see fit. It is from this effort to remake the fundamental nature of man that the sorrow of anarchy and tyranny flow.
Bound by certain God-ordained limits regarding behavioral standards and human relationships, man can expect nothing but heartache should he decide to ignore these warnings. However, those seeking to craft a cultural ethos standing apart from the moral will of God regularly ignore these moral stoplights like newly-licensed teenagers barreling down the Las Vegas strip.
Proponents of modernism originally hypothesized that man could retain a high degree of morality without reference to all that theological superstition. Yet without a clear theological reference by which to measure, the actions of man degenerate into the depths of unfathomable evil.
According to Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Philosophy: A Christian Perspective”, when man looks to himself as the source of right and wrong, the result is existential subjectivism and relativism where each person becomes a law unto themselves (404).
And while modernism attempted to maintain the illusion of objective standards apart from the revelation of God, the logical conclusion of such atheistic thinking --- postmodernism --- holds to no such delusions. In fact, political radical and literary critic Michel Foulcalt has stated there are no facts (though this assertion is itself stated as a fact) and his fellow travelers down the deconstructionist superhighway literally fancy themselves as “assassins of objectivity” according to Lynne Cheney in “Telling The Truth: Why Our Culture & Country Have Stopped Making Sense & What We Can Do About It” (91).
Such sentiments possess ramifications beyond settling the issue of whether or not hemlines will be low or high for the coming year. Such ideas determine the very shape and composition of human society and relationships.
This is particularly evident on college campuses where these kinds of ideas enjoy free reign having the status of orthodoxy and where no one bats an eye with anarchy and tyranny walking together hand in hand. For example, Dinesh D’Souza points out in “Illiberal Education : The Politics Of Race & Sex On Campus” that many college campuses distribute condoms and support the vilest profanity as art yet advocate a radical form of feminism just about branding traditional forms of sex as rape and enforce speech codes so broad as to punish “misdirected laughter” and “exclusion from conversation” (238).
Furthermore, much of twentieth and twenty-first history has been a running commentary on the chaos and tyranny that result from attempting to undermine the insoluble union between morality and divinity. The former Soviet Union perhaps stands as the primary example of this kind of experiment where in an attempt to better himself man turns his back on God and reaps the consequences in abundance. That particular society experienced bloodshed and misery rarely repeated in human history except perhaps in its sister dictatorships of Nazi Germany and Maoist China.
Without an objective standard as provided by the moral revelation of God, the state as embodied by the Communist Party was free to do as it pleased such as changing the law at the drop of a hat and then violate the law when it suited without any degree of institutional recourse available to the Soviet people. In his monumental Understanding The Times, David Noebel quotes a Communist functionary who said, "There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do as we wish. I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all of this evil in my heart (104). Few Evangelical thinkers have been able to express the moral dangers of atheism in a more succinct manner.
Standing in marked opposition to atheism and its law of the jungle and inherent antinomianism is belief in God and the corollaries of morality flowing from God's existence. From the heartaches and confusion mentioned previously in this exposition, it is evident that mankind is incapable of establishing a satisfactory moral system of his own accord.
Instead, man must be provided one by an objective outside source yet one familiar with the conditions under which man is capable of thriving. Furthermore, it is only through God as revealed in Scripture that one is even justified in speaking of morality in the first place.
Try as he might, C.S. Lewis points out in "Mere Christianity", man cannot escape the encompassing embrace or rebuke of morality. For even in the attempt to flee from its more traditional formulations, one must invoke the structure of its dialogue in order to appeal to a competing set of standards (3).
For example, D. James Kennedy points out in "Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul" that tolerance is the last virtue of an immoral society since this moral principle in invoked to cover over a plethora of popular abominations ranging from pornography to abortion to sodomy (78). The issue is not so much that man will live without some degree of morality, but rather by whose standards will man live and the consequences resulting from such decisions.
Westminster Seminary Professor John Frame elaborates in "Apologetics To The Glory Of God" that, in order to exist as objective standards beyond the level of subjective sentiments, morals must stem from an absolute source; and since these principles govern personable entities, they must exude from an absolute ultimate personality (100). If morality exists in a transcendent source apart from man in God, morality is granted a degree of liberation from the murky fog of subjectivism yet is accessible to man and can be said to exist in all situations even if finite man refused to disentangle himself from the passion of the moment to view these conundrums from the crisp peaks of objective detachment.
Since these divinely legislated standards stem from God, they exist as part of the underlying fabric of the universe. Try as he might, man cannot escape the lure of morality, such a situation further attesting to the power of the God standing behind these principles. Romans 2:14-15 says, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts...(NIV)."
Even those who actively choose to suppress and undermine this universal order appeal to it when it suits their interests. C.S. Lewis writes in "Mere Christianity", "Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining before he can say Jack Robinson (5)." Norman Geisler illustrates this point in "Christian Ethics" in the story of a student professing antinomianism who appealed to objective standards upon receiving a failing grade from this ethics instructor regarding a trivial matter (384).
At this point, readers not normally enchanted by the banter of academic dialogue may concede that morality does indeed flow from God but may wonder what practical impact such a truth may have in everyday existence. Actually, quite a bit.
Since God is both the legislator of traditional morality and the loving creator of man, it follows that the traditional moral system established by God and set forth in the revelation of the Holy Bible is the system of morality best suited to the nature of humanity, both protecting him to the greatest possible degree from the rampant evil plaguing a fallen world and allowing him to enjoy whatever goodness that remains in it through the grace of God.
For example, God did not establish the rules surrounding marriage in order to toss a wet blanket over the fornication follies. Rather, confining the act of human intimacy within the context of marriage balances both the desire for physical pleasure and the need for lasting love, to say nothing of protecting the individual against the proto-apocalyptic pestilences now ravaging millions. Instead of withering away like a forgotten memory as predicted by some, Tim LaHaye hypothesizes in "The Battle For The Family" that the family will in reality provide a foundation of stability in times of unprecedented social turmoil (237).
The moral argument for God is far more than a dry academic proof found in seminary textbooks. Its reality is being made more concrete each day throughout the culture as the nation continues to drift away from its Judeo-Christian foundations.
In "Turning The Tide: The Fall Of Liberalism & The Rise Of Common Sense", Pat Robertson describes the two possible futures that await the United States (293-296). Americans can either repent of their wickedness and return to God and His standards, experiencing national renewal, individual well-being, and eternal salvation in the process. Or, the American people can continue in their sin and deny God's very existence, risking national decline, personal suffering, and eternal damnation as a result. The choice is up to you, with your eternal destiny and the welfare of your family hanging in the balance.
by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Yet another aspect of Il Duce that makes him more like the Anti-Christ.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Do these people ever work?
Yet you aren't suppose to eat what you want, drive SUV's, or heat your house to 70degrees.
One will note the following sentence: "Served up on the lawn was popcorn made with peanuts and parmesan cheese and zucchini quesadillas that the First Lady declared tasted like pizza."
So just because she says it, does that make it so.
Will kids saying otherwise be punished or dismissed for disagreeing with Frau Obama.
For if this swill tastes like pizza, why not just go ahead and serve pizza?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
This might get me branded as a flaming liberal by some, but unless a publication contains blatant smut, there is no excuse to burn books.
Even if translations such as the NIV or New Living Translations are deficient, that is still no excuse to burn them as many of these still possess the power of God unto salvation.
And even if Billy Graham and Rick Warren are deficient theologically, shouldn't we study their works to learn for ourselves where these thinks have gone astray rather than blindly accept the word of someone that destroys the evidence before we have the chance to judge for ourselves?
Unless one's faith is anchored in the Savior rather than the church, this outrage is almost enough to make one to want to leave Christianity.
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
From the article, one gets the impression that technically, the local government had no jurisdiction to shut this private celebration down.
Some might be in a huff from a philsophical or religious opposition to Halloween, however, the issue goes much deeper.
For if authorities can shut down a Halloween celebration on private propety, what is to prevent them from shutting down things such as birthday parties and Christmas dinners?
Monday, October 19, 2009
A number of Hispanosupremacit activists contend this costume will hurt their friends that are illegals.
Would they prefer the costume consist of a sombrero, a beer bottle, and a book of Foodstamps?
Frankly, since illegals don't belong here, rather than worry how this costume hurts illegals, maybe we should worry how illegals are hurting the United States.
I remember one time it being said "undocumenteds" should not be refered to as "aliens" because these human migrants are from the planet earth and should not be referred to "illegal" either because "no human being is illegal".
Yet I bet all this posturing never stopped them from calling the White folks naive enough to fall for all this nonsense as stupid gringos.
Now it seems we can't even refer to aliens as aliens.
Mark my words eventually you won't even be able to refer to "extraterrestrials" as "extraterrestrials" since that will be a "thought crime against galactic unity".
If retailers such as Target cave to this pressure and remove the costume from sale, conservatives of all stripes and hues should rally to have Kwanza items banned as well.
That might be the celebration of an ethnic group not even a party to this dispute, but those participating in that celebration are part of the same mindset out to destroy America.
by Frederick Meekins
Could someone reflect in an admiring manner upon something witty Hitler said and not expect their to be fallout over it?
Trent Lott's Senate career was ruined for admiring Strom Thurmond at Strom Thurmond's own birthday party and, unlike Mao, Strom Thurmond never killed a single soul.
From how the media is painting the story, one would assume that Balloon Boy's father Richard Heene's MySpace page was rife with references to extraterrestrials.
From what I've been able to deduce, there is only a single reference to life from outerspace in the "Who He'd Like To Meet Section". But then again, I guess any answer other than Obama these days is incorrect.
Authorities need to keep their charges related to the hoax pulled off and not centered around what Heene believes.
For does not our own government spend millions of dollars searching for extraterrestrial life and, even more shockingly, how to manipulate the people of America and the world into embracing it should such entities ever be discovered?
When the power of the state is used to investigate the unorthrodox beliefs of those committing questionable actions, it is about to take the plunge off of a very steep cliff very few are prepared to deal with.
For in the final analysis, one could make the case that Christian parents dragging their children off to some Third World mission field are a greater danger to the physical well-being of their offspring than someone that thinks that there maybe life beyond the earth.
There are some inner parts of the soul that no one wants the state looking at.
by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
According to a number of ministers such as the one speaking above, Christians should not participate in Trick-Or-Treat since to do so would be to engage in witchcraft.
If one wants to take things to that degree, then are we to take it to the next logical conclusion and say that anyone participating in these festivities should receive capital punishment since that is the Scriptural end of those found guilty of such abominable allegations?
As apologist Gretchen Passantino has quipped, trick-or-treating no more makes you a witch or a Satanist than accepting a Christian present makes you a Christian.
For opposing Rush Limbaugh's attempts to purchase the Rams, one might be inclined to call such voices pansies or dandilions, but that would be an insult to flowers everywhere.
For pansies are hearty on their own amidst freezing winter temperatures and dandilions stand tall and firm no matter how much they are despised.
No wonder Pat Tillman resigned from the NFL in favor of the US military. The cowardice is appalling.
Interesting, isn't it, how an entire nation is suppose to cave to the demands of a few disgruntled Blacks.
In a society where no viewpoint or culture is to be heralded as better than or superior to any other, why are a few Blacks automatically considered to be more right than any White.
The contemporary Caucasian has got to be the most spineless and gullible variety of human being to ever walk this planet.
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Frankly, if you can't afford to pay for your pet, you have no business owning a pet.
Why should the rest of us have to pick up the tab for this and unlike children, other than deliberately not running over it, I have no grand moral obligation to your pets.
This is going to end up causing crazy cat people who hardly pay any taxes anyway because of their near unemployability to end up not paying any taxes at all.
Shouldn't it be pointed out that Letterman is hitched?
We are certainly so much better off since obliterating Christian standards of morality.
Sodomites rampage in the street to demand we recognize their perversions and we hardly bat an eye.
A single man takes a single woman out on a date and it is just about considered headline scandal.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Travelers often grumble about security measures at airports requiring them to remove belts and shoes as precautions to detect explosives. Such inconveniences may seem like something from the quaint past in light of a new strategy developed by Al Qaeda. An attack was carried out against the Saudi head of counterterrorism operations by concealing nearly a pound of explosives inside a bomber's rectum. The device was detonated by cell phone. It is believed instructions on how to carry out such an attack will soon be posted online.
Representative Joe Wilson was right after all. Obama is a liar. The healthcare legislation being considered in Congress will not require immigrants to produce legitimate photo identification to qualify for benefits. But I bet you, American citizens will have to lay bare all their documents (including birth certificates like those Il Duce refuses to show anyone) to qualify for even the most basic of medical care.
The stage at U2’s Washington concert cost nearly $40 million. By what right has Bono then to lecture the rest of us about poverty and Westerners having too much? During the concert, the Irish crooner declared that his quartet had transcended band status and are more akin to a global force like a nation states. Apparently he’s every bit the arrogant piece of human dreck South Park made him out to be.
Hollywood and secular elites around the world have endorsed child molestation. The likes of Whoopi Goldberg, Woody Allen, and the French government have gone on the record that Roman Polanski should be set free since his drugging of a thirteen year old girl and the carnal knowledge he gained of her while in such a state was so long ago and really wasn’t rape anyway. One wonders if they’ll go as easy on Catholic priests accused of such things often on the grounds of nothing more than the word of the alleged victim.
Don’t expect children to be better protected under the Obama Administration. The Presidents special advisor on school safety is alleged to have done nothing other than advise the youngster to use a condemn when a fifteen confided in the then-teacher that he was having an affair with an older man.
Scripture informs the reader that in God’s eyes there is neither Greek nor Jew. Apparently those at Oxon Hill Baptist Church failed to heed this passage. According to the October 2009 edition of the Maryland Baptist Convention's Baptist Life newsletter, a Filipino open house was held for new Prince George’s county teachers of that particular extraction where they were provided with warm clothing, linens, and kitchen items. Perhaps members of less-than favored ethnicities should consider withholding their tithes until all educators are appreciated for their minds rather than their skin colors.
Gingrich now shills for Hispanosupremacits through TheAmericano.com. Would so-called "conservatives" put up with a website extolling how much "Germanic Heritage" has contributed to the United States? Another article titled “Language Is Not A Family Value” on the site downplayed English as an indispensable component of the American identity.
President Obama is threatening to lengthen the school day and year. Maybe if time wasn't wasted on propaganda orations and singing hymns to Il Duce's august name, teachers would have sufficient time to teach actual subjects. This plan to extend both the school year and day is no doubt to pay back one of Obama's core constituencies that can't get enough of the motions necessary to have a child but don't want any of the responsibilities that follow afterwards.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Wonder how many of them are keeping cable TV and Internet access.
First learned of this through Derek Gilbert's PID Radio interview of Doctor Future.
Van Jones is a fellow at the Institute for Noetic Sciences, a prominent New Age think tank.
Kudos to these broadcasters for bringing to light this revelation that even Glenn Beck hasn't touched.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Monday, October 05, 2009
Those who have bent their knee in homage to our nation's magnanimous liege will no doubt one day denounce me in a People’s Court (not the TV show but rather a Soviet-style show trial) for daring to nitpick the Chosen One to this extent. However, it is their beloved leader, ladies and gentleman, that insists that the COMMUNITY play a prominent role in your every life decision.
In a campaign speech, Barack Obama lamented that, during the Dark Ages before his ascent to the throne, Americans were able to drive around in SUV’s, eat what they wanted, and kept their homes climate controlled at 70 degrees. Liberals, Communitarians, and other related socialist types who think that only those agreeing with them should be permitted to open our mouths will shriek, “You’ve already made this point in previous commentaries.” And I am going to keep making it whenever Comrade Obama violates these key tenets of leftwing dietary policy.
On 5/6/09, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden motorcaded to an eatery in Northern Virginia where our wondrous benefactor and one of his foremost disciples supped upon the finest of ground bullock for their midday meal. When average Americans engage in these kinds of activities, few give it second thought and pretty much the same response would be elicited if other occupants of the Oval Office such as Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush engaged in this gastronomic act. However, seldom did these Chief Executives blatantly declare their enmity to the minutest details of the American way of life and vowed to remake the nation along new lines.
For starters, while you are suppose to sit glum-faced and ashamed that Americans enjoy a standard of living above that of a Third World slum, Obama can fire up the limo, which with its protective reinforced armor no doubt makes it as much of a gas guzzler as and SUV, as well as the Secret Service vehicles that need to accompany the President. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper to send someone to get the burgers?
Better yet, doesn’t the White House have its own gourmet kitchen capable of feeding nearly 150 people? Catered now to by two chefs, his Highness is of such sophisticated tastes that he had to bring his own personal chef with him from Chicago (which also raises the question that, if Michelle is not the one preparing the family meals, is she really the ideal wife and mother propagandists have made her out to be).
If these chefs are supposed to be able to prepare the most succulent of culinary delights, shouldn’t they be able to replicate any rotgut swill the President might develop a hankering for? Which brings up another glaring hypocrisy.
Obama’s kitchen scullion was not granted his commission because of his acumen around a saucepan. Rather, he also spouts the Communitarian line that the individual is not bright enough to figure out on their own the “socially responsible” thing to eat.
Thus, to Obama, eating is not a personal activity. Instead, it is one where the COMMUNITY ought to have considerable say in determining what you get to ingest.
But perhaps just as disturbing and even more dangerous than a President thinking he is exempt from the expectations he mandates for the remainder of us is the response the brainwashed dupes express in regards to this man. Some happening to be in the eatery observed that Obama stood in line just like everybody else.
Being impressed by this reveals the extent to which America has declined. For in a democratic republic, where no one is suppose to be perceived as better than anyone else in terms of ontology, a President waiting in line should raise no more eyebrows and be lavished with no more accolades than the butcher, the baker, or the candlestick maker required to wait their turn in line like any other person.
In itself, there is nothing wrong with enjoying a hamburger. However, if the one enjoying the hamburger is the very same person intending to use his very considerable influence to prevent you from enjoying the same simple pleasure, the act of mastication goes from being one of little consequence to one of considerable public importance.
by Frederick Meekins
To what extent does a school's authority extend beyond the school yard?
A Saratoga Springs, NY seventh grader may help formalize these boundaries.
According to TimesUnion.com, a state trooper interdicted the lad at Maple Avenue Middle school, informing that biking and even walking to school were against the rules.
A school might discourage biking to school by refusing to provide accommodations such as storage facilities and might even prevent pupils from perambulating away from the premises in the evening unaccompanied by an adult.
But on what legal ground can they decree by which mode of locomotion students arrive for instruction unless there is a formalized legislative statute banning those of a certain age from utilizing public sidewalks irrespective of destination?
Perhaps the greatest issue of concern here is law enforcement being summoned to enforce the policy whim of bureaucrats in jurisdictions beyond their stipulated purview.
For if this is not stopped now, what is to prevent educators by threatening through the barrel of the gun upon which police decisions ultimately rely from deciding what else goes on while your children are in your own care such as what they eat, what they watch on TV, and even what you as a parent are permitted to believe in terms of politics and religion?
By Frederick Meekins