Generation Of Christian Leaders Riding Into Sunset Spark Reevaluation
07.03.09 (7:27 am) [edit]
With the passing of Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy along with the dissolution of the Center for Reclaiming America and the Center for Christian Statesmanship, the issue has arisen once again as to whether or not conservative Evangelicals should participate in political activity. Since things have not gotten any better and if anything continued their downward spiral since the advent of the contemporary conservative Evangelical movement popularly referred to as the "Religious Right", it has been suggested by some that politically interested Christians should be herded back into their pews to once again await the Apocalypse.
Interestingly, one of the foremost voices now opposed to conservative Evangelical political involvement is none other than columnist Cal Thomas, who at one time served as a Falwell underling as vice president of Moral Majority and spoke at Dr. Kennedy's Reclaiming America for Christ conference. Thomas, in a column analyzing the passing of his former colleague titled "The Legacy of Jerry Falwell", concludes of the Religious Right, "The movement also had its downside, because it tended to detract from a Christian's primary responsibility of telling people the 'good news' that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ."
While there is a degree of truth to that as during the early to mid 90's at times it seemed Falwell's ministry did place too much emphasis hawking videotapes exposing the criminality of Bill Clinton and replaying week after week snippets of homosexual excesses to the point where one had to send children out of the room or have to explain why mommy and daddy's faces were turning red, some of this is more the fault of how the Evangelical subculture is structured sociologically than the result of Christian political participation per say.
All throughout Sunday school and the Christian day school environment, those spending most of their lives in this branch of the Christian faith are conditioned with the assumption that those holding professional ministry positions such as pastors and missionaries are some how a cut above the remainder of the congregation even though the traditional Protestant position held to the priesthood of all believers and that all moral work was as equally holy. As such, it is no wonder most believers are paralyzed unless there is a so-called "man of the cloth" there on the scene to direct their every movement. Thus, it was only natural that clergy such as Falwell and Kennedy would have to play prominent roles in these movements.
Ironically, at earlier stages in his career, Thomas was one of the most eloquent voices urging Christian youth to consider callings in fields other than professional ministry such as government, politics, and the media. He even one time quipped he did not recall any Christian being called to serve Christ part time.
However, now that he's had his career, Thomas concludes that "...a Christian's primary responsibility is telling people the 'good news' that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ." If that's the case, is Thomas going to repose himself from commenting on sociopolitical matters in favor of more monastic or missional undertakings or is it part of a more natural inclination of not wanting to share notoriety. For in another column Thomas lamented the rise of consumer choice as exemplified by the growth of talk radio and the blogosphere and instead enunciated a preference that the masses all sup of the same information from the swill placed before them by traditional journalists as the nation's media gatekeepers.
When Thomas chastises Christians for participating in politics and the media since this detracts from time that should be spent directly sharing the Gospel, is he also going to level this charge against Christian physicians if they take the time to perform surgery rather than only praying for the patient's recovery? Likewise, what about the farmer that toils away all day in their fields as this is also time that could be spent in more religious pursuits.
I Corinthians 12:28 says to some God gave to be preachers, some evangelists, others government. Not everyone is cut out for the same purpose in life. As such, their level of interest and the way they contribute to the advancement of the Kingdom of God will varying by kind and degree.
Thomas writes, "But Christians must first understand that the issues they most care about --- abortion, same-sex marriage, and cultural rot --- are not caused by bad politics, but are matters of the heart and soul." While Thomas is correct that these problems won't ultimately be solved until people have a total renewing of the mind found through Christ's shed blood, it does not follow nothing else should be done to ameliorate the social impacts of these manifestations of man’s sin nature.
All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. In certain communities across the United States, whether or not I steal your car at a stoplight, plug your head with a bullet, and rape your mother as you lay their bleeding to death there on the pavement are as debated as the propriety of abortion and sodomite nuptials are in others. Does that mean in such jurisdictions those of good conscience should not insist that laws against these infractions should not be enforced since, well, the unrepentant apparently have few qualms or taboos against such alternative lifestyle choices?
The tendency of the human species is to take things to extremes. Luther remarked that man is like a drunkard banging his head into one wall and then the next. Granted, many believers have come to expect too much from politics as David Frum has remarked that the debate is no longer about reducing the size of government but rather about divvying up the fiscal spoils.
Many Christians probably did become dupes of the Republican Party at one point. Frankly, though, where else were they going to go?
At least the GOP would consider individualism construed through the prism of a Christian worldview. The Democratic Party has pretty much given itself over to debauchery and collectivism. If one tries really really hard one can count the number of worthwhile Democrats such as Zel Miller on one hand.
Though some Christians are loathe to admit it as they have been conditioned by overly pacifistic interpretation of passages such as turn the other cheek, sometimes Christian involvement is not about bringing the reprobates to a saving knowledge of Christ as fundamental and essential as that mission is. Rather it is about keeping these ravenous jackals away from you and what is rightfully yours.
Some might respond “But didn’t Jesus say to give them your cloak?” My friends, these blatant communalists want more than the shirt off your back. For they will stop at nothing until they not only have the souls of you and your children, but also the very house that you live in and the automobile that you drive if we adhere to the recommendations of the radical pietists if we as believers refrain from political matters such as property rights and environmental policy.
And if some preacher gets up there and blabbers on about how these are just material things we should give up willy nilly, see if he ever forgets to pass the collection plate or how antsy he gets when the IRS considers tweeking something in its code not even remotely related to the survival of religious liberty in this country such as exemptions on pastoral housing allowances. If the rest of us get hosed by revenuers, why not the clergy as well? Maybe then they won’t be so quick to bend their knee before the state’s Baphomet.
While some such as Cal Thomas seem to counsel disinvolvement from sociopolitical activism out of a sincere desire to retain doctrinal purity and separation, others embodying what in Fundamentalist circles is known as Neo-Evangelicalism do so for other reasons. Seeking to get along with other theologies for the sake of getting along, this perspective is endeavoring to take hypertolerance and unity to a whole new level even if it means downplaying or overlooking some of Scripture's most obvious mandates.
Ironically, though the word “mandate” means something else, one of the issues the Christian in the pews is being urged to keep quiet about is none other than “man dates”. For in the March/April 2007 issue of The Plain Truth Magazine, in the article “I Kissed Religion Goodbye”, Greg Albrecht lists as one of his complaints is that many churches expect members to “Vote and politically agitate in absolute, lockstep with pro-life and anti-homosexual views exactly the way your church promotes and endorses them”.
Unlike the war against terror over which sincere Christians can have differing interpretations as to how to best approach the issue, there is not much wiggle room there as to abortion and homosexuality. There is not really anyway around “Thou shalt not murder” and injunctions against carnal relations with members of the same sex unless Albrecht wants to come out and say that the unborn really aren’t human beings and that God did not create marriage to be between a man and a woman.
To many, these issues probably do seem to attract an inordinate amount of attention from conservative Evangelicals. But whose fault is that?
Would most believers even give buggery all that much thought if the gay rights movement was simply about what one did in the privacy of one's home. Seems to me, activist gays are the ones trying to get up in everyone's business as they attempt to penetrate the media, education, and now even ecclesiastical institutions.
Though opposition to such perversities should not become the sole focus of any balanced ministry as Christ died for these individuals also and one wants to avoid becoming unhinged like the Fred Phelps cult, if the churches of America are not going to stand up for the traditional family and marriage as being between a man and woman as the only legitimate form of marriage out of fear of whom they might offend, then they might as well empty the baptismal font and close up shop. For if they do deny the true nature of these fundamental human relationships, it won't be long until the true nature of the God that instituted them will be denied as well.
In the opening of his article, Albrecht laments the "mudslinging and negative rhetoric that ridiculed 'Democrats' and lavished unadulterated praise on all things Republican." Of this, the discerning Christian must ask was this an outright political endorsement of a particular candidate or party (as today I have a hard time imaging there are that many pastors with that much of a spine left willing to jeopardize their tax exempt status as a friend relayed to me how he was pressured to drop the word "liberal" from an article written for the newsletter of what is suppose to be an Independent Baptist Church).
If believers and churches can no longer mention in a nonpartisan context where the Christian faith lines up with the conservative Republican agenda nor condemn those things traditionally thought of as being more liberal Democrat in nature, how much longer until we are counseled by those whose fortunes and notoriety are derived from holding lucrative positions of ecclesiastical leadership to downplay more fundamental aspects of the Christian faith. Already, operatives of Rev. Moon have convinced a number of churches to remove crosses. Those caving so easily will no doubt next downplay the need to be saved from our sins and eventually the need for Jesus as Lord and Savior all together.
However, don't think Albrecht is calling for the complete expunging of politics from the socio-ecclesiastical enterprise all together. For the influence he would see taken out of the hands of conservatives, he gladly places in the hands of more liberal causes.
In a bullet point list of what he perceives as the errors of more conservative or traditional congregations, Albrecht writes in a flippant attempt at humor, "Don't worry about the environment, the poor, or global warming --- those liberal, do-gooder churches have programs for those kinds of things."
What Albrecht is criticizing here are believers who do not necessarily think spending more money and who do not think more government intervention into our lives is going to solve certain problems, that things are as bad as elites would have us believe, or think that people do not necessarily bear some responsibility for their own problems.
As to the poor, it has been my experience that often the most conservative or Fundamentalist of churches of the "old school" variety probably spend larger percentages of their overall incomes on missions and outreach to the individual poor in their immediate vicinity than more leftist evangelical and mainline churches that probably spend a greater percentage on making sure everyone else sees what they are supposedly doing for the poor.
As to the environment and global warming, frankly the jury is still out on this issue as to the following reasons. (1) Does global warming actually exist? (2) If it does, what is its exact cause? So by edicts handed down from on high without these questions being answered, does this mean the average person should forfeit much of their physical mobility just because of some whim of someone further up the bureaucratic hierarchy?
Of course, such restrictions do not apply to the self-appointed such as Greg Albrecht since such figures are so much more important than the rest of us as we Neanderthals would be lost without such guidance.
As to both the environment and poverty, it is questionable that mass scale approaches are the best approach for solving these issues. Often the aide sent to Africans ends up hindering their plight.
Likewise, the best way to save the environment is not by necessarily cordoning it off necessarily into untouchable preserves and by regulating the life out of property to the point where one cannot do anything with it as most sane people tend to care for something best when they are the ones that own it and have the largest say in how it is used.
While no Christian in his right mind advocates dirty water, to a growing number of Evangelicals this concern for the environment goes beyond keeping trash off the shoulder of the highway. Though I cannot speak to Greg Albrecht's views on the afterlife, from one of the snippy remarks made in his sarcastic bullet points one could come away with the impression that he is trodding dangerously close to embracing some of the assumptions of the Emergent Church crowd that the Kingdom of God is not so much a promise of a new heaven and a new earth but the continuation of this one in its current state. Frankly, if this world is all we've got, Christianity is a big waste of time and those snookered into it deserve a refund.
The hyperpious might begin to hyperventilate at such a bold proclamation; however, it is essentially a Biblical sentiment. I Corinthians 15:19 says, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”
One can deduce that Albrecht and those of like mind in the Emergent, Purpose Driven, and Church Growth movements don't place all that much importance upon the afterlife. For while certain eras of Church History such as the Middle Ages often placed too much emphasis on what comes next, these contemporary theologies don't emphasise it nearly enough.
In his tongue-in-cheek bullet points, Albrecht writes, "You need to believe in the hottest hell with billions being tortured. And you need to believe in the Rapture, the time when members of your church (at least those who are in good standing) escape hell on earth. Some call this time 'The Tribulation' --- a time when so many who richly deserve it will 'get their's'."
Sincere souls can disagree about the sequence of some of these foretold events. However, what they cannot do is deny that one day there will be some kind of ultimate accounting.
Though it has changed considerably, as a leader in the Worldwide Church Of God, frankly, Albrecht ought to be the last one to criticize an interest in eschatology as his sect or denomination was at one time infamous for their obsession with the topic. But like a former glutton that has lost all kinds of weight now telling everyone else that they eat too much, Albrect condemns as a fanatic anyone daring to suggest that there is an eerily increasing similarity between certain portions of Scripture such as Daniel, Thessalonians, and Revelation and certain political and technological developments.
Often those that run in Emergent Church circles foment the assumption that the image of a God of justice and wrath is somehow at odds with the image of God as a God of love. It is because He is a God of love and mercy that He must also be a God of justice and wrath.
The prospect of no eternal punishment for those outside the parameters by which God allows men to be saved (namely believing that one's own good is insufficient to accomplish this and only belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is going to get one to the Pearly Gates) in fact actually tarnishes those gates and makes the streets of Heaven all the more dim. For if God ends up letting anyone in irrespective of whether or not they are sorry for what they did even though God was willing to go to the extent of sacrificing His only begotten Son in order to make a spot for them with Him in eternity, that would make for a very weak God.
Though we as human beings have an innate tendency to avoid pain at all costs even if it means denying its existence, that does not eliminate it if we are unwilling to take the necessary steps. For example, if someone diagnosed with a horrible disease simply decides to say the disease of an uneducated and overactive imagination, that is not going to prevent it from ravaging the patient's body.
Then why do Modernist, Postmodernist, and Emergent theologians waltzing along the ledges of apostasy keep thinking that wishing away Hell's flames is going to make them any cooler? It has been estimated that Jesus spoke more about Hell than He did heaven; therefore, if we are to say that on this matter He is just plain wrong, then why are we to turn around and assume He's anymore correct about Heaven, His coming kingdom, or even the forgiveness of sins?
As to whether or not some Christians are vindictive about Hell has no bearing as to its existence. To say that it does is akin to saying the police department should be abolished entirely and criminals allowed to pillage through the streets simply because a few officers have abused the powers that have been vested in them.
It is only because the most orthodox of Christians believe that Hell as an actual place of torment exists that it seems to play such a prominent role in conservative theologies of varying stripes. While as fallen human beings it is easy from time to time for our anger to get the best of us and to wish someone to that dreaded realm that has ticked us off, those on the right side of the theological continuum do not emphasize the reality of Hell out of some perverse desire to see the unrepentant tossed into the Abyss but rather so that the greatest number might be able to avoid this destination of unimaginable torment.
Thus in recap, among Evangelicals such as Albrecht wanting to look cool in the eyes of the world, Heaven is downplayed in favor of a utopian kingdom. Relatedly, Hell is downplayed for fear of casting bad PR on a loving God and because it makes the unbelieving uncomfortable. Kind of makes you wonder the point of giving one's life to Christ if some saintly grandmother that loved the Lord her entire life is going to endure the same fate as Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin since it is highly doubtful these genocidal reprobates pleaded for mercy on the Blood of Christ before leaving this world.
Over the past few decades, at times Evangelicals have taken political activism to extents that can understandably cause concern among the discerning. However, to disengage to the extent some now suggest would also prove equally disastrous.
By Frederick Meekins
Interestingly, one of the foremost voices now opposed to conservative Evangelical political involvement is none other than columnist Cal Thomas, who at one time served as a Falwell underling as vice president of Moral Majority and spoke at Dr. Kennedy's Reclaiming America for Christ conference. Thomas, in a column analyzing the passing of his former colleague titled "The Legacy of Jerry Falwell", concludes of the Religious Right, "The movement also had its downside, because it tended to detract from a Christian's primary responsibility of telling people the 'good news' that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ."
While there is a degree of truth to that as during the early to mid 90's at times it seemed Falwell's ministry did place too much emphasis hawking videotapes exposing the criminality of Bill Clinton and replaying week after week snippets of homosexual excesses to the point where one had to send children out of the room or have to explain why mommy and daddy's faces were turning red, some of this is more the fault of how the Evangelical subculture is structured sociologically than the result of Christian political participation per say.
All throughout Sunday school and the Christian day school environment, those spending most of their lives in this branch of the Christian faith are conditioned with the assumption that those holding professional ministry positions such as pastors and missionaries are some how a cut above the remainder of the congregation even though the traditional Protestant position held to the priesthood of all believers and that all moral work was as equally holy. As such, it is no wonder most believers are paralyzed unless there is a so-called "man of the cloth" there on the scene to direct their every movement. Thus, it was only natural that clergy such as Falwell and Kennedy would have to play prominent roles in these movements.
Ironically, at earlier stages in his career, Thomas was one of the most eloquent voices urging Christian youth to consider callings in fields other than professional ministry such as government, politics, and the media. He even one time quipped he did not recall any Christian being called to serve Christ part time.
However, now that he's had his career, Thomas concludes that "...a Christian's primary responsibility is telling people the 'good news' that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ." If that's the case, is Thomas going to repose himself from commenting on sociopolitical matters in favor of more monastic or missional undertakings or is it part of a more natural inclination of not wanting to share notoriety. For in another column Thomas lamented the rise of consumer choice as exemplified by the growth of talk radio and the blogosphere and instead enunciated a preference that the masses all sup of the same information from the swill placed before them by traditional journalists as the nation's media gatekeepers.
When Thomas chastises Christians for participating in politics and the media since this detracts from time that should be spent directly sharing the Gospel, is he also going to level this charge against Christian physicians if they take the time to perform surgery rather than only praying for the patient's recovery? Likewise, what about the farmer that toils away all day in their fields as this is also time that could be spent in more religious pursuits.
I Corinthians 12:28 says to some God gave to be preachers, some evangelists, others government. Not everyone is cut out for the same purpose in life. As such, their level of interest and the way they contribute to the advancement of the Kingdom of God will varying by kind and degree.
Thomas writes, "But Christians must first understand that the issues they most care about --- abortion, same-sex marriage, and cultural rot --- are not caused by bad politics, but are matters of the heart and soul." While Thomas is correct that these problems won't ultimately be solved until people have a total renewing of the mind found through Christ's shed blood, it does not follow nothing else should be done to ameliorate the social impacts of these manifestations of man’s sin nature.
All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. In certain communities across the United States, whether or not I steal your car at a stoplight, plug your head with a bullet, and rape your mother as you lay their bleeding to death there on the pavement are as debated as the propriety of abortion and sodomite nuptials are in others. Does that mean in such jurisdictions those of good conscience should not insist that laws against these infractions should not be enforced since, well, the unrepentant apparently have few qualms or taboos against such alternative lifestyle choices?
The tendency of the human species is to take things to extremes. Luther remarked that man is like a drunkard banging his head into one wall and then the next. Granted, many believers have come to expect too much from politics as David Frum has remarked that the debate is no longer about reducing the size of government but rather about divvying up the fiscal spoils.
Many Christians probably did become dupes of the Republican Party at one point. Frankly, though, where else were they going to go?
At least the GOP would consider individualism construed through the prism of a Christian worldview. The Democratic Party has pretty much given itself over to debauchery and collectivism. If one tries really really hard one can count the number of worthwhile Democrats such as Zel Miller on one hand.
Though some Christians are loathe to admit it as they have been conditioned by overly pacifistic interpretation of passages such as turn the other cheek, sometimes Christian involvement is not about bringing the reprobates to a saving knowledge of Christ as fundamental and essential as that mission is. Rather it is about keeping these ravenous jackals away from you and what is rightfully yours.
Some might respond “But didn’t Jesus say to give them your cloak?” My friends, these blatant communalists want more than the shirt off your back. For they will stop at nothing until they not only have the souls of you and your children, but also the very house that you live in and the automobile that you drive if we adhere to the recommendations of the radical pietists if we as believers refrain from political matters such as property rights and environmental policy.
And if some preacher gets up there and blabbers on about how these are just material things we should give up willy nilly, see if he ever forgets to pass the collection plate or how antsy he gets when the IRS considers tweeking something in its code not even remotely related to the survival of religious liberty in this country such as exemptions on pastoral housing allowances. If the rest of us get hosed by revenuers, why not the clergy as well? Maybe then they won’t be so quick to bend their knee before the state’s Baphomet.
While some such as Cal Thomas seem to counsel disinvolvement from sociopolitical activism out of a sincere desire to retain doctrinal purity and separation, others embodying what in Fundamentalist circles is known as Neo-Evangelicalism do so for other reasons. Seeking to get along with other theologies for the sake of getting along, this perspective is endeavoring to take hypertolerance and unity to a whole new level even if it means downplaying or overlooking some of Scripture's most obvious mandates.
Ironically, though the word “mandate” means something else, one of the issues the Christian in the pews is being urged to keep quiet about is none other than “man dates”. For in the March/April 2007 issue of The Plain Truth Magazine, in the article “I Kissed Religion Goodbye”, Greg Albrecht lists as one of his complaints is that many churches expect members to “Vote and politically agitate in absolute, lockstep with pro-life and anti-homosexual views exactly the way your church promotes and endorses them”.
Unlike the war against terror over which sincere Christians can have differing interpretations as to how to best approach the issue, there is not much wiggle room there as to abortion and homosexuality. There is not really anyway around “Thou shalt not murder” and injunctions against carnal relations with members of the same sex unless Albrecht wants to come out and say that the unborn really aren’t human beings and that God did not create marriage to be between a man and a woman.
To many, these issues probably do seem to attract an inordinate amount of attention from conservative Evangelicals. But whose fault is that?
Would most believers even give buggery all that much thought if the gay rights movement was simply about what one did in the privacy of one's home. Seems to me, activist gays are the ones trying to get up in everyone's business as they attempt to penetrate the media, education, and now even ecclesiastical institutions.
Though opposition to such perversities should not become the sole focus of any balanced ministry as Christ died for these individuals also and one wants to avoid becoming unhinged like the Fred Phelps cult, if the churches of America are not going to stand up for the traditional family and marriage as being between a man and woman as the only legitimate form of marriage out of fear of whom they might offend, then they might as well empty the baptismal font and close up shop. For if they do deny the true nature of these fundamental human relationships, it won't be long until the true nature of the God that instituted them will be denied as well.
In the opening of his article, Albrecht laments the "mudslinging and negative rhetoric that ridiculed 'Democrats' and lavished unadulterated praise on all things Republican." Of this, the discerning Christian must ask was this an outright political endorsement of a particular candidate or party (as today I have a hard time imaging there are that many pastors with that much of a spine left willing to jeopardize their tax exempt status as a friend relayed to me how he was pressured to drop the word "liberal" from an article written for the newsletter of what is suppose to be an Independent Baptist Church).
If believers and churches can no longer mention in a nonpartisan context where the Christian faith lines up with the conservative Republican agenda nor condemn those things traditionally thought of as being more liberal Democrat in nature, how much longer until we are counseled by those whose fortunes and notoriety are derived from holding lucrative positions of ecclesiastical leadership to downplay more fundamental aspects of the Christian faith. Already, operatives of Rev. Moon have convinced a number of churches to remove crosses. Those caving so easily will no doubt next downplay the need to be saved from our sins and eventually the need for Jesus as Lord and Savior all together.
However, don't think Albrecht is calling for the complete expunging of politics from the socio-ecclesiastical enterprise all together. For the influence he would see taken out of the hands of conservatives, he gladly places in the hands of more liberal causes.
In a bullet point list of what he perceives as the errors of more conservative or traditional congregations, Albrecht writes in a flippant attempt at humor, "Don't worry about the environment, the poor, or global warming --- those liberal, do-gooder churches have programs for those kinds of things."
What Albrecht is criticizing here are believers who do not necessarily think spending more money and who do not think more government intervention into our lives is going to solve certain problems, that things are as bad as elites would have us believe, or think that people do not necessarily bear some responsibility for their own problems.
As to the poor, it has been my experience that often the most conservative or Fundamentalist of churches of the "old school" variety probably spend larger percentages of their overall incomes on missions and outreach to the individual poor in their immediate vicinity than more leftist evangelical and mainline churches that probably spend a greater percentage on making sure everyone else sees what they are supposedly doing for the poor.
As to the environment and global warming, frankly the jury is still out on this issue as to the following reasons. (1) Does global warming actually exist? (2) If it does, what is its exact cause? So by edicts handed down from on high without these questions being answered, does this mean the average person should forfeit much of their physical mobility just because of some whim of someone further up the bureaucratic hierarchy?
Of course, such restrictions do not apply to the self-appointed such as Greg Albrecht since such figures are so much more important than the rest of us as we Neanderthals would be lost without such guidance.
As to both the environment and poverty, it is questionable that mass scale approaches are the best approach for solving these issues. Often the aide sent to Africans ends up hindering their plight.
Likewise, the best way to save the environment is not by necessarily cordoning it off necessarily into untouchable preserves and by regulating the life out of property to the point where one cannot do anything with it as most sane people tend to care for something best when they are the ones that own it and have the largest say in how it is used.
While no Christian in his right mind advocates dirty water, to a growing number of Evangelicals this concern for the environment goes beyond keeping trash off the shoulder of the highway. Though I cannot speak to Greg Albrecht's views on the afterlife, from one of the snippy remarks made in his sarcastic bullet points one could come away with the impression that he is trodding dangerously close to embracing some of the assumptions of the Emergent Church crowd that the Kingdom of God is not so much a promise of a new heaven and a new earth but the continuation of this one in its current state. Frankly, if this world is all we've got, Christianity is a big waste of time and those snookered into it deserve a refund.
The hyperpious might begin to hyperventilate at such a bold proclamation; however, it is essentially a Biblical sentiment. I Corinthians 15:19 says, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”
One can deduce that Albrecht and those of like mind in the Emergent, Purpose Driven, and Church Growth movements don't place all that much importance upon the afterlife. For while certain eras of Church History such as the Middle Ages often placed too much emphasis on what comes next, these contemporary theologies don't emphasise it nearly enough.
In his tongue-in-cheek bullet points, Albrecht writes, "You need to believe in the hottest hell with billions being tortured. And you need to believe in the Rapture, the time when members of your church (at least those who are in good standing) escape hell on earth. Some call this time 'The Tribulation' --- a time when so many who richly deserve it will 'get their's'."
Sincere souls can disagree about the sequence of some of these foretold events. However, what they cannot do is deny that one day there will be some kind of ultimate accounting.
Though it has changed considerably, as a leader in the Worldwide Church Of God, frankly, Albrecht ought to be the last one to criticize an interest in eschatology as his sect or denomination was at one time infamous for their obsession with the topic. But like a former glutton that has lost all kinds of weight now telling everyone else that they eat too much, Albrect condemns as a fanatic anyone daring to suggest that there is an eerily increasing similarity between certain portions of Scripture such as Daniel, Thessalonians, and Revelation and certain political and technological developments.
Often those that run in Emergent Church circles foment the assumption that the image of a God of justice and wrath is somehow at odds with the image of God as a God of love. It is because He is a God of love and mercy that He must also be a God of justice and wrath.
The prospect of no eternal punishment for those outside the parameters by which God allows men to be saved (namely believing that one's own good is insufficient to accomplish this and only belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is going to get one to the Pearly Gates) in fact actually tarnishes those gates and makes the streets of Heaven all the more dim. For if God ends up letting anyone in irrespective of whether or not they are sorry for what they did even though God was willing to go to the extent of sacrificing His only begotten Son in order to make a spot for them with Him in eternity, that would make for a very weak God.
Though we as human beings have an innate tendency to avoid pain at all costs even if it means denying its existence, that does not eliminate it if we are unwilling to take the necessary steps. For example, if someone diagnosed with a horrible disease simply decides to say the disease of an uneducated and overactive imagination, that is not going to prevent it from ravaging the patient's body.
Then why do Modernist, Postmodernist, and Emergent theologians waltzing along the ledges of apostasy keep thinking that wishing away Hell's flames is going to make them any cooler? It has been estimated that Jesus spoke more about Hell than He did heaven; therefore, if we are to say that on this matter He is just plain wrong, then why are we to turn around and assume He's anymore correct about Heaven, His coming kingdom, or even the forgiveness of sins?
As to whether or not some Christians are vindictive about Hell has no bearing as to its existence. To say that it does is akin to saying the police department should be abolished entirely and criminals allowed to pillage through the streets simply because a few officers have abused the powers that have been vested in them.
It is only because the most orthodox of Christians believe that Hell as an actual place of torment exists that it seems to play such a prominent role in conservative theologies of varying stripes. While as fallen human beings it is easy from time to time for our anger to get the best of us and to wish someone to that dreaded realm that has ticked us off, those on the right side of the theological continuum do not emphasize the reality of Hell out of some perverse desire to see the unrepentant tossed into the Abyss but rather so that the greatest number might be able to avoid this destination of unimaginable torment.
Thus in recap, among Evangelicals such as Albrecht wanting to look cool in the eyes of the world, Heaven is downplayed in favor of a utopian kingdom. Relatedly, Hell is downplayed for fear of casting bad PR on a loving God and because it makes the unbelieving uncomfortable. Kind of makes you wonder the point of giving one's life to Christ if some saintly grandmother that loved the Lord her entire life is going to endure the same fate as Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin since it is highly doubtful these genocidal reprobates pleaded for mercy on the Blood of Christ before leaving this world.
Over the past few decades, at times Evangelicals have taken political activism to extents that can understandably cause concern among the discerning. However, to disengage to the extent some now suggest would also prove equally disastrous.
By Frederick Meekins
Should The Government Pay Students Not To Fornicate?
06.24.09 (4:26 pm) [edit]
A state-sponsored pregnancy prevention program at the University of North Carolina is paying girls $1.00 a day not to get pregnant.
Since it takes two to make a baby, shouldn't young men be getting this WELFARE also?
If it was reversed, wouldn't NOW nags be crying discrimination?
Some will argue there really isn't anyway to prove boys are complying with the program.
But the same is true with girls up until the time they either have the baby or one notices the bulge in the belly.
So, when this happens, will program administrators subtract back to around the time when the contract was broken and demand any compensation from that point forward be returned to the program's coffers?
How about, instead of handing out money, scaring both boys and girls into keeping their pants on and legs together by emphasizing what will happen to them should they catch an incurable disease or the hardship that will result from having a baby before they get married?
Contrary to the headshrinkers, fear can be a good motivator.
by Frederick Meekins
Since it takes two to make a baby, shouldn't young men be getting this WELFARE also?
If it was reversed, wouldn't NOW nags be crying discrimination?
Some will argue there really isn't anyway to prove boys are complying with the program.
But the same is true with girls up until the time they either have the baby or one notices the bulge in the belly.
So, when this happens, will program administrators subtract back to around the time when the contract was broken and demand any compensation from that point forward be returned to the program's coffers?
How about, instead of handing out money, scaring both boys and girls into keeping their pants on and legs together by emphasizing what will happen to them should they catch an incurable disease or the hardship that will result from having a baby before they get married?
Contrary to the headshrinkers, fear can be a good motivator.
by Frederick Meekins
Rotten Egg Presidency Co-opts Easter Celebration
05.07.09 (4:11 pm) [edit]
Some traditions should be so hallowed that they should not be sullied by political controversies or used as a vehicle to manipulate the participants into embracing perspectives and policies they might not otherwise be exposed to or willing to accept. As a celebration of profound cultural significance at one of America's most solemn and historic venues, the annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House ought to be just such an occasion.
Unfortunately, not even this event gets to remain one where kids and families can have a day of fun without being bombarded by a litany of questionable values. Ironically, the ones that ought to be the most vigilant about protecting the event's integrity are among those most eager to see it bastardized.
To the average American mired in outdated notions such as individuality and privacy, one would think tickets to this event would go to the first to apply for them irrespective of attributes such as race, creed, or sexual preference. However, to the Obama administration, who you like to roll around in the bedroom with should be one of the factors considered to determine whether or not your child is worthy of rolling eggs on the White House lawn.
According to an Associated Press story posted at Boston.com titled "White House Invites Gay Families To Easter Event", the Obama Administration set aside and funneled a percentage of the tickets to Sodomite front groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. The executive director of the Family Equality Counsel said in the article, "The Obama administration actually reached out to us as an organization and said we want gay families there, and they are an important part of the American family fabric."
It is not so much that gay people want to attend the Egg Roll and have been barred in the past as gays have participated in years past. Rather, it is now they not only want to tell everybody about it but also for authorities to fawn all over them.
Are those mired in this brand of sin so guilt-ridden that they cannot simply attend this event quietly in support of the children without having to blab about their personal kinks? If a family of polygamist breakaway Mormons showed up at the Egg Roll, should White House staff ooh and ahh over them as "an important part of the American family fabric" as not all participating in this deviancy are child molesters like in the Warren Jeffs cult.
Though the attention of those interested in these kinds of cultural battles will be focused primarily on this skirmish as to what constitutes a family, this was not the only ideological struggle taking place at the White House Egg Roll. Though less likely to garnish headlines, the information families were exposed to at the event no doubt nudged many in the direction of increasing how much government control and influence they would allow over their lives.
The theme of the 2009 Egg Roll was "Let's go play". In pursuit of this policy, children were encouraged to live healthy and active lifestyles complete with cooking demonstrations (I wonder if any of the St. Louis pizza chefs flown into the White House to appease our New Lord were on hand). No doubt, much of these efforts are to get the youth fit for Fuehrer Obama's proposed mandatory service programs and work camps.
At least in regards to homosexuals infiltrating the White House Egg Roll, the Associated Press Article observed, "Some conservatives accused gays and lesbians of trying to crash the event and turn it into a forum for ideological politiciking."
Some might conclude unseemly forms of propaganda were not allowed to sully the innocence of the Egg Roll before the reign of Barack The First was unleashed upon the American taxpayer. Frankly, I heard about it last year as well under the regime of George W. Bush but didn't get around to writing about it in a timely manner as (at least until Obama pulls the plug on the Internet which is being considered in a variety of ways in the name of special emergency executive orders, the fairness doctrine, and now even online civility) a blogger's work is never done.
The theme of the 2008 Egg Roll was ocean conservation. Frankly, other than an hard boiled egg tasting good with a pinch of salt sprinkled on it, what does the ocean have to do with an Egg Roll?
This propaganda went beyond having a nifty touchtank on hand with a horseshoe crab crawling around inside. The White House declared, "Through education and volunteerism, all families can make a difference in keeping our oceans clean."
Seems, when being brainwashed, it's not simply enough to dutifully assimilate the material our keepers expect us to. We must also pledge ourselves to manually labor without remuneration.
More importantly, we are also reminded by this story that the manipulation of the American people into indentured servitude was not something sprung upon us totally with the election of Barack Obama. Rather the erosion of liberty has been slowly put into place over a succession of presidential administrations and getting to the point where many no longer notice the noose tightening around our necks or actually have grown to accept it as a comforting embrace.
There is no reason whatsoever why an egg roll must have a theme other than being an egg roll. If the American people allow the state to draw the focus away from the higher truths these celebrations were established to commemorate in favor of extraneous policies and propaganda, eventually the state will take the place of the One such festivities were originally intended to honor.
By Frederick Meekins
Unfortunately, not even this event gets to remain one where kids and families can have a day of fun without being bombarded by a litany of questionable values. Ironically, the ones that ought to be the most vigilant about protecting the event's integrity are among those most eager to see it bastardized.
To the average American mired in outdated notions such as individuality and privacy, one would think tickets to this event would go to the first to apply for them irrespective of attributes such as race, creed, or sexual preference. However, to the Obama administration, who you like to roll around in the bedroom with should be one of the factors considered to determine whether or not your child is worthy of rolling eggs on the White House lawn.
According to an Associated Press story posted at Boston.com titled "White House Invites Gay Families To Easter Event", the Obama Administration set aside and funneled a percentage of the tickets to Sodomite front groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. The executive director of the Family Equality Counsel said in the article, "The Obama administration actually reached out to us as an organization and said we want gay families there, and they are an important part of the American family fabric."
It is not so much that gay people want to attend the Egg Roll and have been barred in the past as gays have participated in years past. Rather, it is now they not only want to tell everybody about it but also for authorities to fawn all over them.
Are those mired in this brand of sin so guilt-ridden that they cannot simply attend this event quietly in support of the children without having to blab about their personal kinks? If a family of polygamist breakaway Mormons showed up at the Egg Roll, should White House staff ooh and ahh over them as "an important part of the American family fabric" as not all participating in this deviancy are child molesters like in the Warren Jeffs cult.
Though the attention of those interested in these kinds of cultural battles will be focused primarily on this skirmish as to what constitutes a family, this was not the only ideological struggle taking place at the White House Egg Roll. Though less likely to garnish headlines, the information families were exposed to at the event no doubt nudged many in the direction of increasing how much government control and influence they would allow over their lives.
The theme of the 2009 Egg Roll was "Let's go play". In pursuit of this policy, children were encouraged to live healthy and active lifestyles complete with cooking demonstrations (I wonder if any of the St. Louis pizza chefs flown into the White House to appease our New Lord were on hand). No doubt, much of these efforts are to get the youth fit for Fuehrer Obama's proposed mandatory service programs and work camps.
At least in regards to homosexuals infiltrating the White House Egg Roll, the Associated Press Article observed, "Some conservatives accused gays and lesbians of trying to crash the event and turn it into a forum for ideological politiciking."
Some might conclude unseemly forms of propaganda were not allowed to sully the innocence of the Egg Roll before the reign of Barack The First was unleashed upon the American taxpayer. Frankly, I heard about it last year as well under the regime of George W. Bush but didn't get around to writing about it in a timely manner as (at least until Obama pulls the plug on the Internet which is being considered in a variety of ways in the name of special emergency executive orders, the fairness doctrine, and now even online civility) a blogger's work is never done.
The theme of the 2008 Egg Roll was ocean conservation. Frankly, other than an hard boiled egg tasting good with a pinch of salt sprinkled on it, what does the ocean have to do with an Egg Roll?
This propaganda went beyond having a nifty touchtank on hand with a horseshoe crab crawling around inside. The White House declared, "Through education and volunteerism, all families can make a difference in keeping our oceans clean."
Seems, when being brainwashed, it's not simply enough to dutifully assimilate the material our keepers expect us to. We must also pledge ourselves to manually labor without remuneration.
More importantly, we are also reminded by this story that the manipulation of the American people into indentured servitude was not something sprung upon us totally with the election of Barack Obama. Rather the erosion of liberty has been slowly put into place over a succession of presidential administrations and getting to the point where many no longer notice the noose tightening around our necks or actually have grown to accept it as a comforting embrace.
There is no reason whatsoever why an egg roll must have a theme other than being an egg roll. If the American people allow the state to draw the focus away from the higher truths these celebrations were established to commemorate in favor of extraneous policies and propaganda, eventually the state will take the place of the One such festivities were originally intended to honor.
By Frederick Meekins
Obamaphiles Enjoy That Which They Would Deny You
04.25.09 (6:37 am) [edit]
The Obama progeny are well into their studies at Sidwell Friends School. As their parents, Barack and Michelle have every right to enroll their daughters in the school they think best for their children. Ironically, this is one of the many prerogatives the President’s most enthusiastic supporters would frown upon should you, the average American, decide to exercise them.
For decades now, liberals and secularists have argued that those pursuing nonpublic education for their children ought to be held in suspicion for exhibiting insufficient devotion to the COMMUNITY. Some might try to obfuscate the matter by claiming that that they do not oppose private education as much as they support the public alternatives.
This might be the line propagated for mass consumption, but the leftist opposition to private education (at least when it comes to your children) goes much deeper. For among the elites that think it is their place to mold what those below them believe and even how we live our lives, education is not so much about the accumulation of a particular body of knowledge or set of skills enabling the individual to make a way for themselves and their families in the world.
Rather, among this class education is seen about conditioning the vast majority into accepting the place predetermined for them and in such a way that they will not be able to advance beyond that. That is of course if human ambition is not engineered out of the individual human psyche all together through a combination of compulsory pharmaceuticals and a form of behavioral reinforcement popularly referred to as brainwashing.
Others will respond that, as the children of the President, these youngsters need to be protected from the assorted dangers that could befall them in a public school where access is gained more quickly than in a more disciplined private one. Such an assessment is absolutely correct.
However, the question to ask here happens to be are not your children as precious to you as the President’s are to him and are your children not entitled to the best kind of protection that you are capable of providing for them? Yet many of the very same elites applauding the Obamas’ decision to educate their children in a private school are among the very same voices insisting you are under some kind of obligation to the COMMUNITY to expose your offspring to an array of moral deviances and outright criminals.
As central as the issue of education is as the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next, it is not the only matter the concerned citizen needs to be worried about in the dawning "progressivist" era. These social engineers hope to impose upon you a lifestyle below which you have grown accustomed and are perfectly capable of providing for yourself. Once again, this point is proven by comparing what Barack Obama has said to what he has actually done.
In a statement lamenting the environmental attitudes of the average American, Barack Obama has decreed that the world is nearing a time when we can no longer eat what we want, drive around in our SUV's, and keep our homes at 70 degrees. Of course, such hand-wringing and soul-searching agony is exhibited over how you, average American, live your life and has nothing whatsoever to do with this figure heralded as transformational lives his life. After all, as Hegel hypothesized, such figures are beyond the rules imposed upon the rest of us.
In the eyes of his Barackness, you probably eat too much and at a level higher than your social class ought to be permitted. However, our liege should be permitted to stuff his face as he sees fit. For while you are to subsist on berries and twigs not much more advanced than our gatherer ancestors of pre-agricultural times, at his inaugural lunch, Obama feasted upon seafood stew with lobster, duck, pheasant, molasses-whipped sweet potatoes, and apple sponge cake. There were also three wines to choose from (no wonder an old drunk like Ted Kennedy went into convulsions and had to be carted out in an ambulance).
Those inclined to give their new lord the benefit of the doubt will reply, “Well, why shouldn’t he have a special treat on his special day?” And who can argue with that as most (at least until Mayor Bloomberg has his way) get graduation and wedding cakes.
However, does someone that complains you are eating something other than sawdust and dirt have the right to turn around and eat like a king day in and day out?
Most Americans either prepare their own sustenance or are blessed to have someone in their family do this for them. Yet despite admonishing the rest of us repeatedly on the need for sacrifice, Barack is not going to settle for having someone in his family prepare his meals for him even though neither Michelle nor his mother-in-law living with the family at the White House have any other obligations to fulfill other than those of wife and grandmother.
Instead, the White House has at its disposal a first rate kitchen. Some may argue that such is necessary for assorted state dinners and diplomatic receptions as the facility can serve 140 guests.
However, according to a 1/28/09 Yahoo News story titled “Hail To The Chefs”, the one chef already employed by the White House is not enough. The Obama’s are bringing from Chicago their private chef (in other words, they have been of the mind for quite awhile now that they are too good to cook for themselves). And like his massa, the Obama chef thinks the average American suffers from “overabundance&rdqu o; and that those in the culinary professions “should take leadership in tackling public health issues”. As what, the beat cops of the food police?
Obama’s detached elitism goes beyond enjoying a level of snobbish luxury he would wish to keep from you to that of actually endangering lives and public safety. This was especially evident during the winter months when citizens could see first hand the implications of his flippant policy announcements. It is in this analysis that we see first hand that Obama does not really think or care all that much about regular Americans.
In his campaign oration, Obama lamented about Americans keeping their homes heated at around 70 degrees. The President is as much a hypocrite on this point as he is about shaming you on the matter of food while he stuffs his face with delicacies the rest of us can barely pronounce and even less likely ever taste.
For while you are suppose to sit around your home shivering all in the name of the environment and over what the ghetto nations of the earth think of the United States of America, Obama might be sweating, but its not over what he thinks the thermostat should be set to but because of what he has set the thermostat to. From photographs taken during Obama’s first full day in office, some where shocked when the President was caught without a suit coat on in the Oval Office.
Though this fell far short of the shock value of what Bill Clinton removed while within the confines of these particular walls, once again as a historical figure of Hegelian proportions, Obama is not bound by the strictures of the epoch he is leading us out of. According to his staff, Obama likes the thermostat set at 80 degrees since he is use to the warm weather of his native Hawaii.
Well whoopteedoo!!! If his majesty likes Hawaii so much, perhaps he should have run for governor of that state in order to run it into the ground rather than for the presidency of the United States.
However, while Obama basks in the sauna, you are suppose to suck it up and head out into the freezing cold. His highness insinuated as such when he enunciated his displeasure that his daughters’ school had cancelled classes after a spate of wintery precipitation.
Of this disruption to the scholastic calendar Obama ruminated, “My children’s school was cancelled today. Because of what? Some ice?...As my children pointed out, in Chicago, school is never cancelled...I’m saying, when it comes to weather, folks in Washington don’t seem to be able to handle things.”
Well, hurray for Chicago. If he likes the way things are done there, perhaps he should have stayed there with his crooked gangland associates.
Though the Obamas’ reputations as parents seem to be impeccable and loving, one must seriously question how often Barack has actually personally himself driven his daughters to school these past few years. After all, from the looks of it, daddy was either on the road campaigning or in Washington (at least that is where he should have been instead of out campaigning) as a member of the Senate.
And now with their father as President, it is doubtful that the Obama daughters will be subjected to the dangers of Washington area traffic. In all likelihood, each school day the New Lord's progeny will be motorcaded to their destination with all other vehicles required to get out of the way as they pass by.
Your children, one can conclude from the President's own words, aren't worthy of being escorted to school in a similar degree of safety. For if Americans are to give up their SUV's as admonished by the President, how are they suppose to get to school in one of those effeminate, limp-wristed hybrids?
No wonder the Obama whelps want to go to school in the slop. They don't have to worry about slipping on the ice.
One of the marks of a great leader is the willingness to abide by the same expectations they extol upon others. Despite all the hype about Obama being such a great leader that will turn back the rising seas and all that malarkey, it seems he can’t even rise to the level of the simplest expectation.
by Frederick Meekins
For decades now, liberals and secularists have argued that those pursuing nonpublic education for their children ought to be held in suspicion for exhibiting insufficient devotion to the COMMUNITY. Some might try to obfuscate the matter by claiming that that they do not oppose private education as much as they support the public alternatives.
This might be the line propagated for mass consumption, but the leftist opposition to private education (at least when it comes to your children) goes much deeper. For among the elites that think it is their place to mold what those below them believe and even how we live our lives, education is not so much about the accumulation of a particular body of knowledge or set of skills enabling the individual to make a way for themselves and their families in the world.
Rather, among this class education is seen about conditioning the vast majority into accepting the place predetermined for them and in such a way that they will not be able to advance beyond that. That is of course if human ambition is not engineered out of the individual human psyche all together through a combination of compulsory pharmaceuticals and a form of behavioral reinforcement popularly referred to as brainwashing.
Others will respond that, as the children of the President, these youngsters need to be protected from the assorted dangers that could befall them in a public school where access is gained more quickly than in a more disciplined private one. Such an assessment is absolutely correct.
However, the question to ask here happens to be are not your children as precious to you as the President’s are to him and are your children not entitled to the best kind of protection that you are capable of providing for them? Yet many of the very same elites applauding the Obamas’ decision to educate their children in a private school are among the very same voices insisting you are under some kind of obligation to the COMMUNITY to expose your offspring to an array of moral deviances and outright criminals.
As central as the issue of education is as the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next, it is not the only matter the concerned citizen needs to be worried about in the dawning "progressivist" era. These social engineers hope to impose upon you a lifestyle below which you have grown accustomed and are perfectly capable of providing for yourself. Once again, this point is proven by comparing what Barack Obama has said to what he has actually done.
In a statement lamenting the environmental attitudes of the average American, Barack Obama has decreed that the world is nearing a time when we can no longer eat what we want, drive around in our SUV's, and keep our homes at 70 degrees. Of course, such hand-wringing and soul-searching agony is exhibited over how you, average American, live your life and has nothing whatsoever to do with this figure heralded as transformational lives his life. After all, as Hegel hypothesized, such figures are beyond the rules imposed upon the rest of us.
In the eyes of his Barackness, you probably eat too much and at a level higher than your social class ought to be permitted. However, our liege should be permitted to stuff his face as he sees fit. For while you are to subsist on berries and twigs not much more advanced than our gatherer ancestors of pre-agricultural times, at his inaugural lunch, Obama feasted upon seafood stew with lobster, duck, pheasant, molasses-whipped sweet potatoes, and apple sponge cake. There were also three wines to choose from (no wonder an old drunk like Ted Kennedy went into convulsions and had to be carted out in an ambulance).
Those inclined to give their new lord the benefit of the doubt will reply, “Well, why shouldn’t he have a special treat on his special day?” And who can argue with that as most (at least until Mayor Bloomberg has his way) get graduation and wedding cakes.
However, does someone that complains you are eating something other than sawdust and dirt have the right to turn around and eat like a king day in and day out?
Most Americans either prepare their own sustenance or are blessed to have someone in their family do this for them. Yet despite admonishing the rest of us repeatedly on the need for sacrifice, Barack is not going to settle for having someone in his family prepare his meals for him even though neither Michelle nor his mother-in-law living with the family at the White House have any other obligations to fulfill other than those of wife and grandmother.
Instead, the White House has at its disposal a first rate kitchen. Some may argue that such is necessary for assorted state dinners and diplomatic receptions as the facility can serve 140 guests.
However, according to a 1/28/09 Yahoo News story titled “Hail To The Chefs”, the one chef already employed by the White House is not enough. The Obama’s are bringing from Chicago their private chef (in other words, they have been of the mind for quite awhile now that they are too good to cook for themselves). And like his massa, the Obama chef thinks the average American suffers from “overabundance&rdqu o; and that those in the culinary professions “should take leadership in tackling public health issues”. As what, the beat cops of the food police?
Obama’s detached elitism goes beyond enjoying a level of snobbish luxury he would wish to keep from you to that of actually endangering lives and public safety. This was especially evident during the winter months when citizens could see first hand the implications of his flippant policy announcements. It is in this analysis that we see first hand that Obama does not really think or care all that much about regular Americans.
In his campaign oration, Obama lamented about Americans keeping their homes heated at around 70 degrees. The President is as much a hypocrite on this point as he is about shaming you on the matter of food while he stuffs his face with delicacies the rest of us can barely pronounce and even less likely ever taste.
For while you are suppose to sit around your home shivering all in the name of the environment and over what the ghetto nations of the earth think of the United States of America, Obama might be sweating, but its not over what he thinks the thermostat should be set to but because of what he has set the thermostat to. From photographs taken during Obama’s first full day in office, some where shocked when the President was caught without a suit coat on in the Oval Office.
Though this fell far short of the shock value of what Bill Clinton removed while within the confines of these particular walls, once again as a historical figure of Hegelian proportions, Obama is not bound by the strictures of the epoch he is leading us out of. According to his staff, Obama likes the thermostat set at 80 degrees since he is use to the warm weather of his native Hawaii.
Well whoopteedoo!!! If his majesty likes Hawaii so much, perhaps he should have run for governor of that state in order to run it into the ground rather than for the presidency of the United States.
However, while Obama basks in the sauna, you are suppose to suck it up and head out into the freezing cold. His highness insinuated as such when he enunciated his displeasure that his daughters’ school had cancelled classes after a spate of wintery precipitation.
Of this disruption to the scholastic calendar Obama ruminated, “My children’s school was cancelled today. Because of what? Some ice?...As my children pointed out, in Chicago, school is never cancelled...I’m saying, when it comes to weather, folks in Washington don’t seem to be able to handle things.”
Well, hurray for Chicago. If he likes the way things are done there, perhaps he should have stayed there with his crooked gangland associates.
Though the Obamas’ reputations as parents seem to be impeccable and loving, one must seriously question how often Barack has actually personally himself driven his daughters to school these past few years. After all, from the looks of it, daddy was either on the road campaigning or in Washington (at least that is where he should have been instead of out campaigning) as a member of the Senate.
And now with their father as President, it is doubtful that the Obama daughters will be subjected to the dangers of Washington area traffic. In all likelihood, each school day the New Lord's progeny will be motorcaded to their destination with all other vehicles required to get out of the way as they pass by.
Your children, one can conclude from the President's own words, aren't worthy of being escorted to school in a similar degree of safety. For if Americans are to give up their SUV's as admonished by the President, how are they suppose to get to school in one of those effeminate, limp-wristed hybrids?
No wonder the Obama whelps want to go to school in the slop. They don't have to worry about slipping on the ice.
One of the marks of a great leader is the willingness to abide by the same expectations they extol upon others. Despite all the hype about Obama being such a great leader that will turn back the rising seas and all that malarkey, it seems he can’t even rise to the level of the simplest expectation.
by Frederick Meekins
Obama Is Not America's Hope
03.01.09 (5:54 am) [edit]
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
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
Microdictatorships Line The Road To The Future
02.20.09 (3:15 pm) [edit]
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
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
Obama Nothing But A Poser
02.07.09 (7:55 pm) [edit]
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
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
Nation Tottering Close To Political Idolatry
01.20.09 (3:07 pm) [edit]
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
Have Yourself A Theistic (Not Atheistic) Little Christmas
12.23.08 (2:26 pm) [edit]
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
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
Thanksgiving Turkeys Not The Only Ones In America
12.07.08 (6:28 pm) [edit]
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
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
Nation's Capital Implements Measures Violating Rights & Property
11.19.08 (2:59 pm) [edit]
As the nation's capital, Washington DC is often looked to for various approaches on how to handle a number of growing issues around the country. Usually government eggheads like to formulate their grandiose schemes from their comfortable halls of power and impose them upon areas of the heartland so far from scrutinizing eyes that very few end up seeing what is actually going on. However, there are now a number of policies being implemented within the city that will soon be at the forefront of efforts to undermine life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In the episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" titled "Past Tense", areas called Sanctuary Districts were established in mid-21st century America as places in major cities in which to corral the economically challenged irrespective of their criminal status. Though initially established in the name of the well being of those assigned to reside there, according to the entry at Star Trek Wiki Memory Alpha, "This internment, in fact, amounted to nothing less than imprisonment."
Those thinking their feet are more firmly planted on the ground and heads out of the clouds will no doubt respond that all that is just a story that could never become reality. Think again.
In order to curb the crime in the Trinidad neighborhood of Northeast, Washington, DC, police established "Neighborhood Safety Zones" where checkpoints were set up blocking access. It's bad enough if law enforcement just about literally points a gun at the head of everyone coming into the neighborhood compelling motorists to permit officers to ransack through vehicles regardless of whether or not anything suspicious is going on.
However, things have gone beyond the limits of conscience when American citizens that have neither been convicted nor accused of a crime are then forbidden from proceeding down a free public street. Supporters of these police state tactics will counter that those entering the neighborhood with a “legitimate purpose” such as “going to a doctor, to church, or visiting a relative” could be granted access.
For starters, who are police to determine if an activity that does not violate pre-established law is of a legitimate purpose or not? Secondly, people that must divulge their law abiding activities to law enforcement who then pass judgment as to whether or not such innocent undertakings are appropriate are dangerously close to losing one of the most basic of fundamental liberties that at one time set this country apart from the lesser nations of the earth. Do we really want to further condition the American people into embracing their status as docile little Pavlovians who eagerly wag their tails every time the government blows its whistle and demands that we reveal additional information about ourselves?
Though it was claimed motorists would be granted access if they had legitimate reasons to enter the neighborhood, individuals with valid reasons in fact claim they were turned away. What part of public in "public street" don't these Keystone Cops not understand?
For now, these blockades are often temporary. What is to prevent them from being made permanent and expanded in the future?
What is to stop authorities from turning the entire federal city into a Neighborhood Safety Zone with anyone barred entry that cannot prove either residency or occupational status in the district? Already in the name of preventing terrorism, Americans are denied access to structures we are repeatedly told through propaganda belong to all of us such as the Capitol building in Washington, DC and the Statue of Liberty in New York City.
If there is power now to tell us whether or not we are to be granted access to structures belonging to "the people" and once deemed public, makes you wonder if there might come a day that they might tell you what otherwise lawful discretionary activity you can and cannot enjoy in your own home. Wait, they are already trying to do that now.
If these checkpoints are constitutional, what is to stop them from being implemented across the United States either independently by various municipalities or through the promulgation of a presidential executive order such as those already quietly drafted basically saying the government can essentially take from you anything it wants and do to you anything it wants including compulsory civilian involuntary servitude during a time of so-called "national emergency". Through implementing nationwide "safety zones", only those granted police or bureaucratic approval would be permitted to move within or without specified jurisdictions. There are likely those such as Al Gore and even Barack Obama (who chastised Americans for eating too much and driving SUV's even though he has been seen locomoting in this particular kind of vehicular conveyance on numerous occasions who would probably have no qualms about implementing such measures in the name of the environment.
The way in which the Nazi and Soviet regimes were implemented would not be successful here in the United States. Those seeking to control every last aspect of people's lives have noticed that at least here in America they must quietly implement their policies step by step so that Americans are stealthfully goaded into eventually embracing the future being planned for them by the elites of the New Order.
According to social planning, the new urbanism, sustainable development, or whatever other flurdelore you want to dress it up with, it is no longer satisfactory to allow concentrated areas of population to develop, expand, or contract in compliance with forces attributed to Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Rather, these areas are to be remodeled into the image seen fit by heavy-handed public-private partnerships even if it means ruining the lives of upstanding citizens in the process so long as it gives corporate tycoons what they want and makes politicians intoxicated on the narcotic of media attention look good in the press.
Social welfare programs instituted by government are often justified on the grounds of improving the lives of those experiencing hardship. However, often such assistance has very little to do with getting the unfortunate back on their feet but rather about fostering a state of dependence that will keep the tentacles of the government expanding often at the price of the individual's well-being, especially if the individual could actually get their life back together though private charity rather than public means.
In the District of Columbia where the city government is dominated by Democrats and the like who claim government's most important function is safeguarding the economically disadvantaged, it seems playgrounds for the hyperrich (commonly referred to as ball stadiums) are a greater priority than those struggling to make it on their own. According to a March 26, 2008 Washington Post article titled "Straining In The Stadium's Shadow", a number of those providing charitable and business services in the vicinity of the Nationals' stadium where in fact forced out using a variety of strategies.
One of the hardest hit is the group known as Positive Nature, which counsels troubled youth. In the course of about two years, taxes on the organization's property went from $9000 to $83,000. As a result, Positive Nature may have to close up shop, possibly causing those getting assistance from the organization to be taken away from their parents and placed in a variety of state run institutions such as psychiatric hospitals and possibly even in prison.
Maybe that is exactly what those thinking government is the only solution for what's plaguing the human condition want. Instead of providing for oneself or seeking assistance from other private sources, the individual is to seek purpose and solutions to life's problems from the state.
Others already capable of sustaining themselves through the efforts of their own toil might no longer be able to do so. Those trained to salivate on cue for their government handout might snap businesses ought to be soaked to provide for the havenots.
Oh really? Does this include small businesses and sole proprietorships with tax bills that went from $600 to $16,000 and from $1500 to $22000. If that is the bribe one must pay to the state, why not just throw in the towel and become a welfare leech and suckle off the system as well?
According to the Washington Post story, the stadium was marketed to citizens forced to pick up the tab for this playground for millionaires as a way to raise revenue for schools, roads, and subsidized housing. But as with all the other grandiose promises made by tax boosters throughout history, downplayed is how these assessments are also enacted as a means of social and economic engineering with any money raised a secondary matter compared to the implementation of a far more comprehensive agenda.
Considerable grassroots backlash has arisen against the Kelo decision in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of forcing owners to sell property to developers in the name of economic improvement. But now, instead of drawing out this process as reluctant owners might put up a fight in an attempt to retain homes and businesses, all governments have to do to get people out is to raise taxes to either force owners to sell or (even better in the eyes of bureaucrats) get the owner to fall behind in their taxes so revenuers can move in to seize the property without having to pay a dime in order to acquire it.
Furthermore, by tinkering with tax rates and the like, governments, developers, and other organizational monstrosities such as public-private partnerships can economically corral undesirable populations into parts of town deemed appropriate for those not deemed worthy of living amongst the elite even if those no longer deemed worthy of an area have lived their for decades. Ultimately, such populations can be forced into low-cost housing where the movements of such individuals can be more effectively monitored, controlled, and even curtailed. Thus establishing, in essence, “sanctuary districts” quite similar to those described earlier in this essay in a manner less shocking than they may have sounded initially.
The concepts of private property and freedom of movement as we once knew them are endangered species going out of existence. In their place will arise a new system where those once knowing liberty will be manipulated into clamoring for more and more control all for the rotting pottage of prosperity and security.
By Frederick Meekins
In the episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" titled "Past Tense", areas called Sanctuary Districts were established in mid-21st century America as places in major cities in which to corral the economically challenged irrespective of their criminal status. Though initially established in the name of the well being of those assigned to reside there, according to the entry at Star Trek Wiki Memory Alpha, "This internment, in fact, amounted to nothing less than imprisonment."
Those thinking their feet are more firmly planted on the ground and heads out of the clouds will no doubt respond that all that is just a story that could never become reality. Think again.
In order to curb the crime in the Trinidad neighborhood of Northeast, Washington, DC, police established "Neighborhood Safety Zones" where checkpoints were set up blocking access. It's bad enough if law enforcement just about literally points a gun at the head of everyone coming into the neighborhood compelling motorists to permit officers to ransack through vehicles regardless of whether or not anything suspicious is going on.
However, things have gone beyond the limits of conscience when American citizens that have neither been convicted nor accused of a crime are then forbidden from proceeding down a free public street. Supporters of these police state tactics will counter that those entering the neighborhood with a “legitimate purpose” such as “going to a doctor, to church, or visiting a relative” could be granted access.
For starters, who are police to determine if an activity that does not violate pre-established law is of a legitimate purpose or not? Secondly, people that must divulge their law abiding activities to law enforcement who then pass judgment as to whether or not such innocent undertakings are appropriate are dangerously close to losing one of the most basic of fundamental liberties that at one time set this country apart from the lesser nations of the earth. Do we really want to further condition the American people into embracing their status as docile little Pavlovians who eagerly wag their tails every time the government blows its whistle and demands that we reveal additional information about ourselves?
Though it was claimed motorists would be granted access if they had legitimate reasons to enter the neighborhood, individuals with valid reasons in fact claim they were turned away. What part of public in "public street" don't these Keystone Cops not understand?
For now, these blockades are often temporary. What is to prevent them from being made permanent and expanded in the future?
What is to stop authorities from turning the entire federal city into a Neighborhood Safety Zone with anyone barred entry that cannot prove either residency or occupational status in the district? Already in the name of preventing terrorism, Americans are denied access to structures we are repeatedly told through propaganda belong to all of us such as the Capitol building in Washington, DC and the Statue of Liberty in New York City.
If there is power now to tell us whether or not we are to be granted access to structures belonging to "the people" and once deemed public, makes you wonder if there might come a day that they might tell you what otherwise lawful discretionary activity you can and cannot enjoy in your own home. Wait, they are already trying to do that now.
If these checkpoints are constitutional, what is to stop them from being implemented across the United States either independently by various municipalities or through the promulgation of a presidential executive order such as those already quietly drafted basically saying the government can essentially take from you anything it wants and do to you anything it wants including compulsory civilian involuntary servitude during a time of so-called "national emergency". Through implementing nationwide "safety zones", only those granted police or bureaucratic approval would be permitted to move within or without specified jurisdictions. There are likely those such as Al Gore and even Barack Obama (who chastised Americans for eating too much and driving SUV's even though he has been seen locomoting in this particular kind of vehicular conveyance on numerous occasions who would probably have no qualms about implementing such measures in the name of the environment.
The way in which the Nazi and Soviet regimes were implemented would not be successful here in the United States. Those seeking to control every last aspect of people's lives have noticed that at least here in America they must quietly implement their policies step by step so that Americans are stealthfully goaded into eventually embracing the future being planned for them by the elites of the New Order.
According to social planning, the new urbanism, sustainable development, or whatever other flurdelore you want to dress it up with, it is no longer satisfactory to allow concentrated areas of population to develop, expand, or contract in compliance with forces attributed to Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Rather, these areas are to be remodeled into the image seen fit by heavy-handed public-private partnerships even if it means ruining the lives of upstanding citizens in the process so long as it gives corporate tycoons what they want and makes politicians intoxicated on the narcotic of media attention look good in the press.
Social welfare programs instituted by government are often justified on the grounds of improving the lives of those experiencing hardship. However, often such assistance has very little to do with getting the unfortunate back on their feet but rather about fostering a state of dependence that will keep the tentacles of the government expanding often at the price of the individual's well-being, especially if the individual could actually get their life back together though private charity rather than public means.
In the District of Columbia where the city government is dominated by Democrats and the like who claim government's most important function is safeguarding the economically disadvantaged, it seems playgrounds for the hyperrich (commonly referred to as ball stadiums) are a greater priority than those struggling to make it on their own. According to a March 26, 2008 Washington Post article titled "Straining In The Stadium's Shadow", a number of those providing charitable and business services in the vicinity of the Nationals' stadium where in fact forced out using a variety of strategies.
One of the hardest hit is the group known as Positive Nature, which counsels troubled youth. In the course of about two years, taxes on the organization's property went from $9000 to $83,000. As a result, Positive Nature may have to close up shop, possibly causing those getting assistance from the organization to be taken away from their parents and placed in a variety of state run institutions such as psychiatric hospitals and possibly even in prison.
Maybe that is exactly what those thinking government is the only solution for what's plaguing the human condition want. Instead of providing for oneself or seeking assistance from other private sources, the individual is to seek purpose and solutions to life's problems from the state.
Others already capable of sustaining themselves through the efforts of their own toil might no longer be able to do so. Those trained to salivate on cue for their government handout might snap businesses ought to be soaked to provide for the havenots.
Oh really? Does this include small businesses and sole proprietorships with tax bills that went from $600 to $16,000 and from $1500 to $22000. If that is the bribe one must pay to the state, why not just throw in the towel and become a welfare leech and suckle off the system as well?
According to the Washington Post story, the stadium was marketed to citizens forced to pick up the tab for this playground for millionaires as a way to raise revenue for schools, roads, and subsidized housing. But as with all the other grandiose promises made by tax boosters throughout history, downplayed is how these assessments are also enacted as a means of social and economic engineering with any money raised a secondary matter compared to the implementation of a far more comprehensive agenda.
Considerable grassroots backlash has arisen against the Kelo decision in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of forcing owners to sell property to developers in the name of economic improvement. But now, instead of drawing out this process as reluctant owners might put up a fight in an attempt to retain homes and businesses, all governments have to do to get people out is to raise taxes to either force owners to sell or (even better in the eyes of bureaucrats) get the owner to fall behind in their taxes so revenuers can move in to seize the property without having to pay a dime in order to acquire it.
Furthermore, by tinkering with tax rates and the like, governments, developers, and other organizational monstrosities such as public-private partnerships can economically corral undesirable populations into parts of town deemed appropriate for those not deemed worthy of living amongst the elite even if those no longer deemed worthy of an area have lived their for decades. Ultimately, such populations can be forced into low-cost housing where the movements of such individuals can be more effectively monitored, controlled, and even curtailed. Thus establishing, in essence, “sanctuary districts” quite similar to those described earlier in this essay in a manner less shocking than they may have sounded initially.
The concepts of private property and freedom of movement as we once knew them are endangered species going out of existence. In their place will arise a new system where those once knowing liberty will be manipulated into clamoring for more and more control all for the rotting pottage of prosperity and security.
By Frederick Meekins
Character, Knowledge & Independent Thought Denounced As Bourgeoisie
11.05.08 (3:49 pm) [edit]
Abraham Lincoln is credited with saying that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. If the proposals of one pedagogical theorist are implemented, students will in all likelihood never know anything about the figure believed to have uttered such an astute observation.
According to a Daily Mail story titled “Drop middle class subjects says school adviser”, in the United Kingdom, education officials are considering a proposal that would eliminate traditional academic subjects such as English, History, Science, and Geography because these disciplines are “middle class”. In the place of the old curriculum, schools will emphasize a series of “personal aims” such as energy conservation, sustainable development, and personal relationships.
Such change must be made because these “middle class values” are a holdover from the 19th century as “mere stepping stones to wealth” and “alienated many youngsters...from disadvantaged backgrounds.” These comments exhibit a desire to tear down and reconstitute more than the public education system but rather the entire society.
For example, first and foremost the remarks are a rallying cry against Western civilization’s Judeo-Christian foundations. Across Europe, the spineless and effeminate are afraid to raise their voices against Islamic encroachment for fear of radicalized adherents of this particular faith flying into homicidal hissy fits. By undermining the legitimacy of the values upon which society (and thus the educational system as part of society) rests, revolutionists hope to rebuild what they tear down in their own image.
In the Judeo-Christian worldview, the individual is imbued with considerable moral value for having been made in the image of God. However, in secular theory of education, since God is taken out of the picture, the individual loses much of his distinctive worth and becomes little more than an extension or cog of the group from which values and worth are alternatively derived.
The ultimate threat to such intentional collectivism is the ability to think and provide for oneself. In fact, part of the criticism of the traditional academic subjects is that they are "mere stepping stones to wealth."
State forbid (can't say heaven anymore since that is likely to offend some philosophical deviant), the individual (yet another ontological concept out of fashion in the New Order) that the individual should provide for himself. Rather one is to be taught reliance and dependence on the group and to aspire no higher than the station predetermined for them by committee.
In pursuit of this goal, students are instead to be taught a series of themes and personal aims such as civic responsibility, commitment to sustainable development and valuing personal relationships. Thus, students are not to be instructed in how to evaluate claims and policies made in regards to these matters but rather what to think about them.
Under the old regimen of traditional subjects, students assimilated and synthesized facts which they then utilized to weigh the different sides of an argument and then adopted the position they felt was closest to the truth. Under the new way of doing things, students are being told ahead of time what (to use a word popularized in the 1990's when this kind of nonsense percolate to the surface of mainstream pedagogical theory) "outcomes" they are to embrace.
For example, students not taught geography or science don't really know if they are being told the true state of the environment or being sold a total crock about sustainable development. Likewise, if students are not being taught the lessons of history and literature, how are they to know whether or not what they are being told presents a balanced perspective, what constitutes good citizenship, or that they are merely being brainwashed into sacrificing everything they have on the altar of the Fatherland (or rather the "Homeland" as it is becoming known as today).
Relatedly and more importantly, what if by some slim chance a student managed to transcend the intellectual shackles placed around their mind and did not embrace the presented outcomes? Will it be annotated in the student's file as has been suggested by the proponents of Outcome Based Education in this country with one's station in life no longer determined by one's talents but rather if one has embraced the values and outlooks one has been told to by elites.
Furthermore, while the educational system ought to teach students basic values such as treating others with a basic level of respect regarding person and property (what use to be called the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments before we were told to be all jittery about mentioning God and the Bible), do we really want bureaucrats assessing whether or not our children "value personal relationships"? ; These days this is probably psychobabble for applauding homosexuality, shacking up outside of marriage without guilt, and additional welfare handouts for each additional mouth brought into the world as the result of such unions, thus making what usually gets tossed into the face of the disapproving as a private matter into a very public one.
Though improvement could be made in informing students as to how these subjects are applied to life beyond the classroom, the liberal arts have earned their name as those bodies of knowledge worthy of a free man. Any reform that does more than tinker around with the edges of the system that has for the most part proven itself for centuries is not about improving the life of the individual but rather about devising more efficient ways to enslave it.
by Frederick Meekins
According to a Daily Mail story titled “Drop middle class subjects says school adviser”, in the United Kingdom, education officials are considering a proposal that would eliminate traditional academic subjects such as English, History, Science, and Geography because these disciplines are “middle class”. In the place of the old curriculum, schools will emphasize a series of “personal aims” such as energy conservation, sustainable development, and personal relationships.
Such change must be made because these “middle class values” are a holdover from the 19th century as “mere stepping stones to wealth” and “alienated many youngsters...from disadvantaged backgrounds.” These comments exhibit a desire to tear down and reconstitute more than the public education system but rather the entire society.
For example, first and foremost the remarks are a rallying cry against Western civilization’s Judeo-Christian foundations. Across Europe, the spineless and effeminate are afraid to raise their voices against Islamic encroachment for fear of radicalized adherents of this particular faith flying into homicidal hissy fits. By undermining the legitimacy of the values upon which society (and thus the educational system as part of society) rests, revolutionists hope to rebuild what they tear down in their own image.
In the Judeo-Christian worldview, the individual is imbued with considerable moral value for having been made in the image of God. However, in secular theory of education, since God is taken out of the picture, the individual loses much of his distinctive worth and becomes little more than an extension or cog of the group from which values and worth are alternatively derived.
The ultimate threat to such intentional collectivism is the ability to think and provide for oneself. In fact, part of the criticism of the traditional academic subjects is that they are "mere stepping stones to wealth."
State forbid (can't say heaven anymore since that is likely to offend some philosophical deviant), the individual (yet another ontological concept out of fashion in the New Order) that the individual should provide for himself. Rather one is to be taught reliance and dependence on the group and to aspire no higher than the station predetermined for them by committee.
In pursuit of this goal, students are instead to be taught a series of themes and personal aims such as civic responsibility, commitment to sustainable development and valuing personal relationships. Thus, students are not to be instructed in how to evaluate claims and policies made in regards to these matters but rather what to think about them.
Under the old regimen of traditional subjects, students assimilated and synthesized facts which they then utilized to weigh the different sides of an argument and then adopted the position they felt was closest to the truth. Under the new way of doing things, students are being told ahead of time what (to use a word popularized in the 1990's when this kind of nonsense percolate to the surface of mainstream pedagogical theory) "outcomes" they are to embrace.
For example, students not taught geography or science don't really know if they are being told the true state of the environment or being sold a total crock about sustainable development. Likewise, if students are not being taught the lessons of history and literature, how are they to know whether or not what they are being told presents a balanced perspective, what constitutes good citizenship, or that they are merely being brainwashed into sacrificing everything they have on the altar of the Fatherland (or rather the "Homeland" as it is becoming known as today).
Relatedly and more importantly, what if by some slim chance a student managed to transcend the intellectual shackles placed around their mind and did not embrace the presented outcomes? Will it be annotated in the student's file as has been suggested by the proponents of Outcome Based Education in this country with one's station in life no longer determined by one's talents but rather if one has embraced the values and outlooks one has been told to by elites.
Furthermore, while the educational system ought to teach students basic values such as treating others with a basic level of respect regarding person and property (what use to be called the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments before we were told to be all jittery about mentioning God and the Bible), do we really want bureaucrats assessing whether or not our children "value personal relationships"? ; These days this is probably psychobabble for applauding homosexuality, shacking up outside of marriage without guilt, and additional welfare handouts for each additional mouth brought into the world as the result of such unions, thus making what usually gets tossed into the face of the disapproving as a private matter into a very public one.
Though improvement could be made in informing students as to how these subjects are applied to life beyond the classroom, the liberal arts have earned their name as those bodies of knowledge worthy of a free man. Any reform that does more than tinker around with the edges of the system that has for the most part proven itself for centuries is not about improving the life of the individual but rather about devising more efficient ways to enslave it.
by Frederick Meekins
Price Of Olympic Gold Growing Too High
10.19.08 (6:16 am) [edit]
With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the alleged demise of Communism, it was assumed that the Olympic games would no longer be as much of an arena for showcasing the competing ideologies of individual liberty and nearly total social control. And even though East German woman with mustaches no longer quite raise eyebrows and hushed chuckles the way they once did, the Olympics are as much a battle for the minds of men as they have always been.
On the surface, it would be easy to conclude that the success of a country's Olympic efforts would be determined by its medal count, particularly gold. If that is the case, the world is once again presented with contrasting examples provided by the United States and Red China.
On the one hand, China won the most gold but the United States won the most medals overall if silver and bronze are also factored into the tabulation. To some athletic diehards, though, it is only the gold that counts.
A story titled "U.S. Will Be Rocked By China's Heavy Medals" by Yahoo Sports posted 8/22/08 analyzes the situation as follows: "The difficult thing for the Americans to stomach is this is unlikely to change in future games. This isn't a one-time surge by a host nation...Whether the U.S. holds on this time or not, eventually China's system, coupled with it 1.3 billion people, should be unstoppable."
Of this development, Peter Uberroth of the United States Olympic Committee said in the story, "It's going to be difficult (to dislodge China). The resources that they put toward their Olympic team and the population base and the dedication is fantastic."
Even though it is inspirational when Americans take the gold in these events and our flag and national anthem are lifted above all others for the world to see and hear, this country needs to stop and think for a moment if emulating the Chinese approach to obtain gold is really worth it. For if we do, we will have turned our backs on the values that made America --- not China --- the beacon of hope to the world.
In the United States, individuals pursue athletic glory because that is that they want to do with their lives free of state coercion. In China, there is no such choice.
In “U.S. will be rocked by China’s heavy medals”, Dan Wetzel writes, “In China, they wouldn’t have had a choice. A sports star, like the property a house is built on, is owned by the government...China selects athletes at young ages and pushed them into sports in which their expected body types might thrive. In the U.S., an athlete is allowed to follow his own path to success and failure.”
Those having embraced the communitarian outlook growing in popularity in this country that conditions us more and more into accepting the arbitrary whims of the group as superior to the prerogatives of the individual might not be able to fully grasp what this means really without explanation.
Though even in America those aspiring to athletic greatness must dedicate a seemingly inordinate amount of time to perfect their skills, often family especially in the form of parents are there in the background providing the kind of emotional and logistical support necessary to obtain this goal. However, things are quite different in China.
One report that aired on the NBC Nightly News during the course of the Olympic games showed a training facility where children no more than six or seven years old were warehoused around the clock like livestock as they were drilled in gymnastics by their Communist taskmasters. These children detained at the training camp were permitted to see their families only a couple of times per year.
Some made uncomfortable by such living arrangements that defy God’s intentions for the family of parents being the primary caretakers and source of guidance in a child’s life will try to console their consciences by positing that, even if we don’t like it, it might be the only path to a better life for these children. Even through this grueling toil, there is little chance of that.
In the United States, since the interests of the individual also carry weight and just not those of the larger group, there is emphasis (even if there are instances where the results have fallen short of this goal) of cultivating athletes capable of providing for and looking after themselves once their time in the limelight has transpired even if the life the athlete ends up with is less than the one dreamed of. However, in China where the individual is viewed primarily as a cell within the broader social organism, this aptitude is honed at the expense of other skills since under Communism the person's worth is derived from what they can contribute to the overall group or nation.
Some will argue that this is all merely the rantings of an individualistic borderline-libertarian conservative who doesn't like Communism very much reading back into all of this. However, a quote from a 5/6/07 Los Angeles Times store titled "Athletes Are Run Into The Ground In China" proves that my assessment is not all that far off the mark: "The athlete's entire training is financed by the state, and successful athletes...are considered government properties who must do as their leaders say. Their job is about gaining glory for the country, not pursuing personal interests."
Some today who have an admittedly milder and diluted philosophy similar this pounded into their heads by government, academia, and increasingly even by the nation's churches might initially respond, "What's so wrong with that" as they proceed to spout rhetoric about the wonders of community and the evils of self interest. However, in a land of over one billion people where the government owns you, once you break or are outdated by the newer model rolling off the assembly line, there is nothing to protect you from being tossed aside like yesterday's garbage.
For example, marathon runner Guo Ping thought that, once her days as an athlete were over, the government would reward her with a position as a police officer as her coach (who also beat those training under him with a whip or knocked them to the ground with the bumper of his car) promised. The coach's defense in court was that the beatings "weren't severe".
Unfortunately, such a case is not so much a rarity as it is the norm. According to a similar article titled "China's Disposable Athletes" published in the 7/17/07 issue of Time Magazine, nearly 3000 athletes retiring each year in China end up unemployed with educations barely beyond the primary level. One distraught female Chinese athlete lamented, "I gave my youth to sport, but in return, I was thrown out like garbage with no knowledge, no skill, and a barren womb."
However, the liberal media is only willing to take its critique of world socialism so far. It has been jokingly said that the few remaining Communists in the world can be found on American college campuses; however these subversives and their fellow travelers can still be found in many more places, especially among the ranks of prestigious journalists
For instead of blaming these outrages on the systematic dehumanization inherent to all forms of collectivism, the Times article says, "The root of Zou's troubles, like so many things in China today, can be traced back to the country's wholesale adoption of capitalism."
Are you going to tell me things were hunky-doory under Communism when millions were starving to death and the hungry resorted to cannibalism? Are you going to tell me it's Capitalism's fault today that house church pastors rot in prison?
What links each and everyone of these is a fundamental devaluation of the individual. Frankly, if that is what it takes to excel in the Olympic games of the 21st century, perhaps the United States should be proud of its diminished Olympic prospects.
Dan Wetzel writes, "In the U.S., the athlete's goal is most often himself," and in appraising the decision of an athlete that pursues opportunities other than the Olympics, "No one in their right mind in the States would expect him to do anything else." Who needs a gold-plated trinket when you can buy the real thing?
by Frederick Meekins
On the surface, it would be easy to conclude that the success of a country's Olympic efforts would be determined by its medal count, particularly gold. If that is the case, the world is once again presented with contrasting examples provided by the United States and Red China.
On the one hand, China won the most gold but the United States won the most medals overall if silver and bronze are also factored into the tabulation. To some athletic diehards, though, it is only the gold that counts.
A story titled "U.S. Will Be Rocked By China's Heavy Medals" by Yahoo Sports posted 8/22/08 analyzes the situation as follows: "The difficult thing for the Americans to stomach is this is unlikely to change in future games. This isn't a one-time surge by a host nation...Whether the U.S. holds on this time or not, eventually China's system, coupled with it 1.3 billion people, should be unstoppable."
Of this development, Peter Uberroth of the United States Olympic Committee said in the story, "It's going to be difficult (to dislodge China). The resources that they put toward their Olympic team and the population base and the dedication is fantastic."
Even though it is inspirational when Americans take the gold in these events and our flag and national anthem are lifted above all others for the world to see and hear, this country needs to stop and think for a moment if emulating the Chinese approach to obtain gold is really worth it. For if we do, we will have turned our backs on the values that made America --- not China --- the beacon of hope to the world.
In the United States, individuals pursue athletic glory because that is that they want to do with their lives free of state coercion. In China, there is no such choice.
In “U.S. will be rocked by China’s heavy medals”, Dan Wetzel writes, “In China, they wouldn’t have had a choice. A sports star, like the property a house is built on, is owned by the government...China selects athletes at young ages and pushed them into sports in which their expected body types might thrive. In the U.S., an athlete is allowed to follow his own path to success and failure.”
Those having embraced the communitarian outlook growing in popularity in this country that conditions us more and more into accepting the arbitrary whims of the group as superior to the prerogatives of the individual might not be able to fully grasp what this means really without explanation.
Though even in America those aspiring to athletic greatness must dedicate a seemingly inordinate amount of time to perfect their skills, often family especially in the form of parents are there in the background providing the kind of emotional and logistical support necessary to obtain this goal. However, things are quite different in China.
One report that aired on the NBC Nightly News during the course of the Olympic games showed a training facility where children no more than six or seven years old were warehoused around the clock like livestock as they were drilled in gymnastics by their Communist taskmasters. These children detained at the training camp were permitted to see their families only a couple of times per year.
Some made uncomfortable by such living arrangements that defy God’s intentions for the family of parents being the primary caretakers and source of guidance in a child’s life will try to console their consciences by positing that, even if we don’t like it, it might be the only path to a better life for these children. Even through this grueling toil, there is little chance of that.
In the United States, since the interests of the individual also carry weight and just not those of the larger group, there is emphasis (even if there are instances where the results have fallen short of this goal) of cultivating athletes capable of providing for and looking after themselves once their time in the limelight has transpired even if the life the athlete ends up with is less than the one dreamed of. However, in China where the individual is viewed primarily as a cell within the broader social organism, this aptitude is honed at the expense of other skills since under Communism the person's worth is derived from what they can contribute to the overall group or nation.
Some will argue that this is all merely the rantings of an individualistic borderline-libertarian conservative who doesn't like Communism very much reading back into all of this. However, a quote from a 5/6/07 Los Angeles Times store titled "Athletes Are Run Into The Ground In China" proves that my assessment is not all that far off the mark: "The athlete's entire training is financed by the state, and successful athletes...are considered government properties who must do as their leaders say. Their job is about gaining glory for the country, not pursuing personal interests."
Some today who have an admittedly milder and diluted philosophy similar this pounded into their heads by government, academia, and increasingly even by the nation's churches might initially respond, "What's so wrong with that" as they proceed to spout rhetoric about the wonders of community and the evils of self interest. However, in a land of over one billion people where the government owns you, once you break or are outdated by the newer model rolling off the assembly line, there is nothing to protect you from being tossed aside like yesterday's garbage.
For example, marathon runner Guo Ping thought that, once her days as an athlete were over, the government would reward her with a position as a police officer as her coach (who also beat those training under him with a whip or knocked them to the ground with the bumper of his car) promised. The coach's defense in court was that the beatings "weren't severe".
Unfortunately, such a case is not so much a rarity as it is the norm. According to a similar article titled "China's Disposable Athletes" published in the 7/17/07 issue of Time Magazine, nearly 3000 athletes retiring each year in China end up unemployed with educations barely beyond the primary level. One distraught female Chinese athlete lamented, "I gave my youth to sport, but in return, I was thrown out like garbage with no knowledge, no skill, and a barren womb."
However, the liberal media is only willing to take its critique of world socialism so far. It has been jokingly said that the few remaining Communists in the world can be found on American college campuses; however these subversives and their fellow travelers can still be found in many more places, especially among the ranks of prestigious journalists
For instead of blaming these outrages on the systematic dehumanization inherent to all forms of collectivism, the Times article says, "The root of Zou's troubles, like so many things in China today, can be traced back to the country's wholesale adoption of capitalism."
Are you going to tell me things were hunky-doory under Communism when millions were starving to death and the hungry resorted to cannibalism? Are you going to tell me it's Capitalism's fault today that house church pastors rot in prison?
What links each and everyone of these is a fundamental devaluation of the individual. Frankly, if that is what it takes to excel in the Olympic games of the 21st century, perhaps the United States should be proud of its diminished Olympic prospects.
Dan Wetzel writes, "In the U.S., the athlete's goal is most often himself," and in appraising the decision of an athlete that pursues opportunities other than the Olympics, "No one in their right mind in the States would expect him to do anything else." Who needs a gold-plated trinket when you can buy the real thing?
by Frederick Meekins
What Part Of "Shall Not Be Infringed" Don't You Understand, Senator?
10.05.08 (5:05 am) [edit]
In her brief time in the national spotlight, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, if nothing else, has rejuvenated the debate in this country regarding certain fundamental values. Interestingly, not all of this stems directly from the candidate's spoken statements but rather from a number of comments made about her by her Democratic counterpart Senator Joseph Biden.
From comments made on Fox and Friends mentioned in an Associated Press article titled “Biden says Palin family is off limits to critics”, voters learn that, to the Delaware Senator, government and politics are the ultimate and perhaps only source of values, truth, and hope.
In analyzing Palin’s acceptance speech, Biden remarked, “I didn’t hear the phrase ‘middle class’ mentioned. I didn’t hear a word about healthcare. I didn’t hear a word about what we’re going to do about the housing crisis, college education, and all the things that the middle class is being burdened by now.”
Maybe these things were not mentioned because for the most part they are not much of the government’s business. If anything, government involvement for the most part tends to exacerbate the problems in these perplexing areas.
For example, why is it the government’s responsibility (and thus ultimately the taxpayer’s) to bail you out of bad real estate investments? By subsidizing education to such an extent where it is available to just about everyone whether they really want it or not, its value has been undermined to the point where a bachelor’s degree may actually signify less actual learning than a high school diploma from previous generations.
Traditionally each social sphere oversaw the affairs in its own domain and exercised caution when venturing into the waters overseen by the neighboring spheres (especially if the one doing the intruding was the government). However, to liberals such as Biden, now as the government reaches into additional corners of our lives in the name of supposedly making our lives better, ultimately government and politics will be the only sphere that remains or be the sphere that ends up controlling all the others even it terms of the attitudes that these institutions will be permitted to express.
If the Obama campaign wants to refrain from commenting on the propriety of the daughter of a Vice Presidential candidate being expectant with child outside the bounds of marriage, that is the prerogative of the Obama campaign. After all, there are platoons of the far more deviant in the Democratic Party such as Chelsea Clinton who has been shacked up for years living in what used to be called “sin”.
However, though Obama might think he hands down stone tablets from on high with Biden taking them to the people as some kind of 21st century Moses, to say what the press and the people can and cannot discuss hints at a theoretical usurpation of the First Amendment even more offensive than an out of wedlock pregnancy or a recalcitrant segment of the public that does not sweep under the rug the moral values they have been taught simply because they have become an inconvenience to the elites that have set themselves up on a level above the rest of us.
The American people, through opinion-forming institutions such as the media, churches and now the blogosphere, must be the ones to decide for themselves this weighty ethical concern. For while the only right decision is to keep the baby, there are some so progressive in their outlook that they would ship to a Khmer Rouge-style reeducation camp anyone that does not reflexively embrace these new reproductive fads where the baby shower. To some of us, to takes a while to debate the consequences for any potential parental shortcomings when minors become parents before they properly ought.
There is indeed forgiveness and restoration in Christ. However, most of the time those stepping into these challenges are not up for consideration for one of the nation’s most solemn offices.
by Frederick Meekins
From comments made on Fox and Friends mentioned in an Associated Press article titled “Biden says Palin family is off limits to critics”, voters learn that, to the Delaware Senator, government and politics are the ultimate and perhaps only source of values, truth, and hope.
In analyzing Palin’s acceptance speech, Biden remarked, “I didn’t hear the phrase ‘middle class’ mentioned. I didn’t hear a word about healthcare. I didn’t hear a word about what we’re going to do about the housing crisis, college education, and all the things that the middle class is being burdened by now.”
Maybe these things were not mentioned because for the most part they are not much of the government’s business. If anything, government involvement for the most part tends to exacerbate the problems in these perplexing areas.
For example, why is it the government’s responsibility (and thus ultimately the taxpayer’s) to bail you out of bad real estate investments? By subsidizing education to such an extent where it is available to just about everyone whether they really want it or not, its value has been undermined to the point where a bachelor’s degree may actually signify less actual learning than a high school diploma from previous generations.
Traditionally each social sphere oversaw the affairs in its own domain and exercised caution when venturing into the waters overseen by the neighboring spheres (especially if the one doing the intruding was the government). However, to liberals such as Biden, now as the government reaches into additional corners of our lives in the name of supposedly making our lives better, ultimately government and politics will be the only sphere that remains or be the sphere that ends up controlling all the others even it terms of the attitudes that these institutions will be permitted to express.
If the Obama campaign wants to refrain from commenting on the propriety of the daughter of a Vice Presidential candidate being expectant with child outside the bounds of marriage, that is the prerogative of the Obama campaign. After all, there are platoons of the far more deviant in the Democratic Party such as Chelsea Clinton who has been shacked up for years living in what used to be called “sin”.
However, though Obama might think he hands down stone tablets from on high with Biden taking them to the people as some kind of 21st century Moses, to say what the press and the people can and cannot discuss hints at a theoretical usurpation of the First Amendment even more offensive than an out of wedlock pregnancy or a recalcitrant segment of the public that does not sweep under the rug the moral values they have been taught simply because they have become an inconvenience to the elites that have set themselves up on a level above the rest of us.
The American people, through opinion-forming institutions such as the media, churches and now the blogosphere, must be the ones to decide for themselves this weighty ethical concern. For while the only right decision is to keep the baby, there are some so progressive in their outlook that they would ship to a Khmer Rouge-style reeducation camp anyone that does not reflexively embrace these new reproductive fads where the baby shower. To some of us, to takes a while to debate the consequences for any potential parental shortcomings when minors become parents before they properly ought.
There is indeed forgiveness and restoration in Christ. However, most of the time those stepping into these challenges are not up for consideration for one of the nation’s most solemn offices.
by Frederick Meekins
Into The Heart Of Darkness, Part 1
09.24.08 (2:16 pm) [edit]
Senator Barack Obama has captured the world's attention unlike almost any other political figure of the era in which we live. However, despite all the theatrics surrounding the candidate and the almost messianic adoration displayed on the part of his followers, very few can possibly tell you what he actually believes other than in "change", which, though sounding like everything you ever dreamed of, can actually consist of the stuff of nightmares.
Discerning Americans caught an early glimpse of what was beneath the facade of intoxicating rhetoric when it became more widely disseminated what Obama's spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright actually believed and what Obama had to have soaked up philosophically during the formative years of his early adulthood. Devoted acolytes will respond that his holiness has distanced himself from such racialism.
David Duke made similar claims during the early to mid 90's until falling back into similar patterns of extremist thought. So if few believed Duke back then, why should we extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama now since a leopard seldom changes its spots?
Before the Jeremiah Wright incident, many White Christians felt considerable guilt over the constant harangue invoked by the more liberal among the clergy about 11 o'clock Sunday morning being the most segregated hour of the week. However, with the exposure of the disease of Black liberation theology eating away at the heart of many Black churches, it has turned out that any sincere Christian irrespective of their ethnic background ought to be cautious about entering these "synagogues of Satan" as Scripture itself calls such hovels of doctrinal compromise.
By more closely examining what liberation theologians actually expound and what is mediated to the broader public by politicians such as Barack Obama, one realizes that the threat posed by this pseudo-messiah and false prophet goes much deeper than the lamentable historical animosities between the races. And even though this animosity against what this great country was built upon goes much deeper than race and ethnicity, it is the jumping off point into the radical circles in which Obama is being heralded as an almost messianic figure.
Many Americans of goodwill no doubt think Jeremiah Wright and his warped theology are a rare aberration on the American religious radar screen. His kind of outlook is actually more widespread than one might actually think.
To many of the influential in Black ecclesiastical circles, the problem was not so much with what Jeremiah Wright said but rather that Whitey found out a bit about what was being planned for him among those whose ultimate loyalty is not to the God of the universe and His revealed word but instead to race as a manifestation of the COMMUNITY. Most American Christians steeped in commonsense and the truths of the Bible would consider the things espoused by Jeremiah Wright beyond the bounds of propriety; however, the assessment of liberals is considerably different.
According to an article in the 5/5/08 edition of The Nation titled "The Liberation Of Reverend Wright" by Eudora Smith, Wright's elocutionary peeks such as "God damn America" represent the "rhetorical traditions [that] meld biblical allegory with contemporary political concerns and whose sanctuaries provide a rare space where a collective black racial consciousness can be expressed uncensored by others." I don't remember Italians being referred to as long-nosed garlic eaters as part of the Biblical literary heritage. Eudora Smith continues, "It may surprise many in white America...that there are a lot of Jeremiah Wrights out there..."
Perhaps even more frightening than that there is a kook like Jeremiah Wright espousing the kinds of things that he does is that there are so many that believe as he does or look to him as an honorable man of God. Many simply excuse Wrights preaching, according to an MSNBC.com article titled "NYT: Black Churches In NC Torn Over Wright" as "a prophetic style that combines spiritual guidance with often harsh social criticism that has its roots in Old Testament prophets."
The reflections of a number of Wright's supporters are documented in a 5/11/08 Baltimore Sun article titled "Black Preachers Agree To Disagree." However, from the article, the disagreement is not so much with Wright's message but that the world found out about it before their pony Obama won the horse race and it would have been to late for America to do anything about it until the next election.
Rev. Johnny Golden of New Unity Ministries told the Baltimore Sun, "We see a lot of what he is saying and we understand it, but his comments have wounded the opportunity of Mr. Obama to make gains and opportunity for America to embrace his ideals."
Rev. Marshall Prentice of Zion Baptist Church went even further in his support for Wright when he told the Baltimore Sun, "To attack any pastor for what he says from the pulpit is an attack on all pastors. Whatever we say on a given Sunday, we truly believe is given to us by inspiration of God."
Oh really? There is a cultic movement known as Christian Identity that is essentially a religious form of Nazism; if someone claims to be a pastor within that pernicious sect and disseminates their poison from behind a pulpit, by the standard advocated in the previous quote, are we as mere laymen permitted to speak out against such error?
Protestantism broke with Roman Catholicism largely in part over the realization that clergy are not infallible and that there must be an objective standard that exists above the mere opinions of man even if we as finite individuals do not yet understand the entirety of the divine plumline. However, leftist denominations such as the United Church of Christ of which Wright is a part hold that Scripture is no more a definitive rule of faith and practice than any other piece of religious literature. So when clergy speak to matters beyond and that even blatantly contradict revelation’s scope, why should the Christian in the pew have to defer to someone just because they wear a clerical collar?
Such nonsense may be rife within denominations dominated by African American religionists. Yet as a group largely Protestant in orientation, one ought to expect rigorous pastors and theologians to protect Evangelicalism against such doctrinal toxins as expounded by the likes of Jeremiah Wright. However, the same spirit of relativism and timidity infecting the rest of our culture now paralyzes some of Evangelicalism’s foremost institutions simply because the heretic making the claims happens to be an ethnic minority.
Christianity Today was initially founded as a conservative alternative to more liberal religious periodicals such as Christian Century and Sojourners. If that is the case, its founder Carl Henry must be rolling over in his grave.
Eager to achieve the appellation of “relevant” as did the Social Gospel and Death of God movements from previous generations, insecure Evangelicals are quick to latch onto any intellectual fad that comes along (especially if it happens to be anti-American as of late). And since all things Obama are all the rage, the editors of Christianity Today can’t help but get on the bandwagon by posting sympathetic viewpoints.
According to the article titled “Jeremiah Wright, Evangelicals’ Brother In Christ”, the disputed pastor is no worse than John Hagee and ought to be accepted as one of our own. But what exactly does Jeremiah Wright believe? Shouldn’t we examine this before we extend him unreservedly the hand of fellowship?
The theology espoused by Jeremiah Wright is known as “Black liberation theology”. However, there is more to this than Black people wanting to go to church predominately with other Black people. Even those who painstakingly go out of their way to avoid making distinctions between right and wrong are forced to admit there was something profoundly incorrect going on at Wright’s church.
According to the 5/12/08 edition of Newsweek, Oprah Winfrey use to be a member of Wright’s church not so much out of theological conviction but rather because she simply wanted to go to a Black church. Before we return to the primary thrust of this analysis, that admission is of such significance that it needs to be examined a bit further as it expresses a mindset relevant to this essay.
If a Black person wants to make being around other Black people their highest priority even above fidelity to God Himself, liberals and multiculturalists don’t have a problem with it. However, if White folks are reluctant to go back to Black churches not so much because of anything against Black people per say but because what rational White person is going to want to sit week after week hearing sermons that do not exposit the Word of God for our daily lives but rather how wretched White people. And furthermore quite frankly, in many Black churches, the congregation can’t simply sing in the pews but must also jump over them and roll around in the aisles.
For refusing to patronize such ecclesiastical confusion, we get lengthy lectures how we are all one big human family. But even in families, don’t siblings enjoy different ways of relating to their father? One might enjoy going with him to the duck pond while the other prefers taking him to car shows; does there really need to be all that much hand-ringing about these things being enjoyed separately?
Since Oprah Winfrey ultimately worships Oprah Winfrey (a claim backed by her embrace of Eckart Tolle), Oprah realized her own deification among the masses of ignorant feminists with too much money would be at stake if she bent her knee to a false god other than herself. So she parted.
There is more to Black liberation theology than looking to Christ to free individuals from their sins. In fact, a traditional Jesus plays a very small role in this worldview and the individual is valued even less as one is only important as part of the larger group or COMMUNITY.
John 3:16 tells us, “For God so loved the world, that He gave us His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” However, to Black liberationists, this most fundamental of Gospel Scriptures contains nothing but error.
According to a WorldNetDaily.com story titled "Christians Copy Christ Killers Says Obama's Pastor's Magazine", Jesus doesn't really love the little children, not the Red, nor the Yellow, and the White ones especially aren't really so precious in His site after all. According to theologians subscribing to this school of thought such as Jeremiah Wright and James Cone, Jesus came only for Black people.
Cone is quoted as saying in the WorldNetDaily article, "The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self determination by picturing God as the God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism."
Thus, one is a racist if one DOES NOT show preferential treatment towards Black people. It must be noted that this is not the only kind of double standard advocated by those in Jeremiah Wright's circles.
In orthodox Christian theology, since all races and ethnic groups are equal ontologically or biologically even if the ways certain cultures manifest themselves are better than others, particular standards and expectations can be applied to individuals irrespective of their background. However, if one follows the thought of Jeremiah Wright to its logical conclusion, then Black folks should not have to adhere to so-called "White man's law".
In his remarks before a 2008 NAACP anniversary dinner, Jeremiah Wright contended that European-American children are "left-brained" in that they are logical and analytical whereas African-American children are "right-brained" making them creative and intuitive. On the surface, such theorizing does not really sound like all that big of a deal as often different ethnic groups tend to excel at specific things. But one must ask the question what will this alleged bit of scholarship be invoked to justify in terms of public policy.
Wright quips in his NAACP remarks, "When they [public schools] were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them."
In other words, since their brains process information differently, it is unacceptable to expect Black people to abide by the same set of expectations White folks are expected to adhere to. Why, how dare you expect order in the hallways of America's inner city public schools!!! You're a racist if you expect Black children to sit there and conduct themselves in a disciplined and studious manner.
Think I am exaggerating? Both the American Enterprise and Washington Post Magazines have run stories in the past where White teachers were categorized as racist for not having a big smile plastered across their faces about minority children labeled as learning disabled rampaging as they wished in the classrooms of these respective teachers.
Where does this line of reasoning end? If it is discovered that Blacks have a more difficult time curtailing the compulsions driving one towards reproduction, does that mean we are just suppose to keep handing out the welfare checks and Food Stamps without nary a word of rebuke about the moral decay gripping our nation where the unmarried don’t simply have one child outside of marriage and learn from their mistake but irresponsibly continue having one child after the other without a trip to the altar?
If it is proved that the “Black brain” has a greater propensity towards violence, does that mean we may not condemn the warlike conditions plaguing our city streets? If one takes Black liberation theology to its logical conclusion, even if Jeremiah Wright won’t admit to it publicly, according to this warped worldview it might not even be wrong to put a bullet in Whitey’s head and take his property; some might even call it an act of love or (as Jeremiah Wright said in his NAACP remarks) “just different”.
In the history of Communism, Marx is remembered as the thinker providing much of that philosophy’s theoretical basis whereas Lenin was the politician who implemented these doctrines into an actual political situation with slight adaptations. Likewise, Jeremiah Wright contributes significantly to the ideological foundation that Barack Obama would build upon whether the candidate is willing to admit to it or not.
by Frederick Meekins
Discerning Americans caught an early glimpse of what was beneath the facade of intoxicating rhetoric when it became more widely disseminated what Obama's spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright actually believed and what Obama had to have soaked up philosophically during the formative years of his early adulthood. Devoted acolytes will respond that his holiness has distanced himself from such racialism.
David Duke made similar claims during the early to mid 90's until falling back into similar patterns of extremist thought. So if few believed Duke back then, why should we extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama now since a leopard seldom changes its spots?
Before the Jeremiah Wright incident, many White Christians felt considerable guilt over the constant harangue invoked by the more liberal among the clergy about 11 o'clock Sunday morning being the most segregated hour of the week. However, with the exposure of the disease of Black liberation theology eating away at the heart of many Black churches, it has turned out that any sincere Christian irrespective of their ethnic background ought to be cautious about entering these "synagogues of Satan" as Scripture itself calls such hovels of doctrinal compromise.
By more closely examining what liberation theologians actually expound and what is mediated to the broader public by politicians such as Barack Obama, one realizes that the threat posed by this pseudo-messiah and false prophet goes much deeper than the lamentable historical animosities between the races. And even though this animosity against what this great country was built upon goes much deeper than race and ethnicity, it is the jumping off point into the radical circles in which Obama is being heralded as an almost messianic figure.
Many Americans of goodwill no doubt think Jeremiah Wright and his warped theology are a rare aberration on the American religious radar screen. His kind of outlook is actually more widespread than one might actually think.
To many of the influential in Black ecclesiastical circles, the problem was not so much with what Jeremiah Wright said but rather that Whitey found out a bit about what was being planned for him among those whose ultimate loyalty is not to the God of the universe and His revealed word but instead to race as a manifestation of the COMMUNITY. Most American Christians steeped in commonsense and the truths of the Bible would consider the things espoused by Jeremiah Wright beyond the bounds of propriety; however, the assessment of liberals is considerably different.
According to an article in the 5/5/08 edition of The Nation titled "The Liberation Of Reverend Wright" by Eudora Smith, Wright's elocutionary peeks such as "God damn America" represent the "rhetorical traditions [that] meld biblical allegory with contemporary political concerns and whose sanctuaries provide a rare space where a collective black racial consciousness can be expressed uncensored by others." I don't remember Italians being referred to as long-nosed garlic eaters as part of the Biblical literary heritage. Eudora Smith continues, "It may surprise many in white America...that there are a lot of Jeremiah Wrights out there..."
Perhaps even more frightening than that there is a kook like Jeremiah Wright espousing the kinds of things that he does is that there are so many that believe as he does or look to him as an honorable man of God. Many simply excuse Wrights preaching, according to an MSNBC.com article titled "NYT: Black Churches In NC Torn Over Wright" as "a prophetic style that combines spiritual guidance with often harsh social criticism that has its roots in Old Testament prophets."
The reflections of a number of Wright's supporters are documented in a 5/11/08 Baltimore Sun article titled "Black Preachers Agree To Disagree." However, from the article, the disagreement is not so much with Wright's message but that the world found out about it before their pony Obama won the horse race and it would have been to late for America to do anything about it until the next election.
Rev. Johnny Golden of New Unity Ministries told the Baltimore Sun, "We see a lot of what he is saying and we understand it, but his comments have wounded the opportunity of Mr. Obama to make gains and opportunity for America to embrace his ideals."
Rev. Marshall Prentice of Zion Baptist Church went even further in his support for Wright when he told the Baltimore Sun, "To attack any pastor for what he says from the pulpit is an attack on all pastors. Whatever we say on a given Sunday, we truly believe is given to us by inspiration of God."
Oh really? There is a cultic movement known as Christian Identity that is essentially a religious form of Nazism; if someone claims to be a pastor within that pernicious sect and disseminates their poison from behind a pulpit, by the standard advocated in the previous quote, are we as mere laymen permitted to speak out against such error?
Protestantism broke with Roman Catholicism largely in part over the realization that clergy are not infallible and that there must be an objective standard that exists above the mere opinions of man even if we as finite individuals do not yet understand the entirety of the divine plumline. However, leftist denominations such as the United Church of Christ of which Wright is a part hold that Scripture is no more a definitive rule of faith and practice than any other piece of religious literature. So when clergy speak to matters beyond and that even blatantly contradict revelation’s scope, why should the Christian in the pew have to defer to someone just because they wear a clerical collar?
Such nonsense may be rife within denominations dominated by African American religionists. Yet as a group largely Protestant in orientation, one ought to expect rigorous pastors and theologians to protect Evangelicalism against such doctrinal toxins as expounded by the likes of Jeremiah Wright. However, the same spirit of relativism and timidity infecting the rest of our culture now paralyzes some of Evangelicalism’s foremost institutions simply because the heretic making the claims happens to be an ethnic minority.
Christianity Today was initially founded as a conservative alternative to more liberal religious periodicals such as Christian Century and Sojourners. If that is the case, its founder Carl Henry must be rolling over in his grave.
Eager to achieve the appellation of “relevant” as did the Social Gospel and Death of God movements from previous generations, insecure Evangelicals are quick to latch onto any intellectual fad that comes along (especially if it happens to be anti-American as of late). And since all things Obama are all the rage, the editors of Christianity Today can’t help but get on the bandwagon by posting sympathetic viewpoints.
According to the article titled “Jeremiah Wright, Evangelicals’ Brother In Christ”, the disputed pastor is no worse than John Hagee and ought to be accepted as one of our own. But what exactly does Jeremiah Wright believe? Shouldn’t we examine this before we extend him unreservedly the hand of fellowship?
The theology espoused by Jeremiah Wright is known as “Black liberation theology”. However, there is more to this than Black people wanting to go to church predominately with other Black people. Even those who painstakingly go out of their way to avoid making distinctions between right and wrong are forced to admit there was something profoundly incorrect going on at Wright’s church.
According to the 5/12/08 edition of Newsweek, Oprah Winfrey use to be a member of Wright’s church not so much out of theological conviction but rather because she simply wanted to go to a Black church. Before we return to the primary thrust of this analysis, that admission is of such significance that it needs to be examined a bit further as it expresses a mindset relevant to this essay.
If a Black person wants to make being around other Black people their highest priority even above fidelity to God Himself, liberals and multiculturalists don’t have a problem with it. However, if White folks are reluctant to go back to Black churches not so much because of anything against Black people per say but because what rational White person is going to want to sit week after week hearing sermons that do not exposit the Word of God for our daily lives but rather how wretched White people. And furthermore quite frankly, in many Black churches, the congregation can’t simply sing in the pews but must also jump over them and roll around in the aisles.
For refusing to patronize such ecclesiastical confusion, we get lengthy lectures how we are all one big human family. But even in families, don’t siblings enjoy different ways of relating to their father? One might enjoy going with him to the duck pond while the other prefers taking him to car shows; does there really need to be all that much hand-ringing about these things being enjoyed separately?
Since Oprah Winfrey ultimately worships Oprah Winfrey (a claim backed by her embrace of Eckart Tolle), Oprah realized her own deification among the masses of ignorant feminists with too much money would be at stake if she bent her knee to a false god other than herself. So she parted.
There is more to Black liberation theology than looking to Christ to free individuals from their sins. In fact, a traditional Jesus plays a very small role in this worldview and the individual is valued even less as one is only important as part of the larger group or COMMUNITY.
John 3:16 tells us, “For God so loved the world, that He gave us His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” However, to Black liberationists, this most fundamental of Gospel Scriptures contains nothing but error.
According to a WorldNetDaily.com story titled "Christians Copy Christ Killers Says Obama's Pastor's Magazine", Jesus doesn't really love the little children, not the Red, nor the Yellow, and the White ones especially aren't really so precious in His site after all. According to theologians subscribing to this school of thought such as Jeremiah Wright and James Cone, Jesus came only for Black people.
Cone is quoted as saying in the WorldNetDaily article, "The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self determination by picturing God as the God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism."
Thus, one is a racist if one DOES NOT show preferential treatment towards Black people. It must be noted that this is not the only kind of double standard advocated by those in Jeremiah Wright's circles.
In orthodox Christian theology, since all races and ethnic groups are equal ontologically or biologically even if the ways certain cultures manifest themselves are better than others, particular standards and expectations can be applied to individuals irrespective of their background. However, if one follows the thought of Jeremiah Wright to its logical conclusion, then Black folks should not have to adhere to so-called "White man's law".
In his remarks before a 2008 NAACP anniversary dinner, Jeremiah Wright contended that European-American children are "left-brained" in that they are logical and analytical whereas African-American children are "right-brained" making them creative and intuitive. On the surface, such theorizing does not really sound like all that big of a deal as often different ethnic groups tend to excel at specific things. But one must ask the question what will this alleged bit of scholarship be invoked to justify in terms of public policy.
Wright quips in his NAACP remarks, "When they [public schools] were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them."
In other words, since their brains process information differently, it is unacceptable to expect Black people to abide by the same set of expectations White folks are expected to adhere to. Why, how dare you expect order in the hallways of America's inner city public schools!!! You're a racist if you expect Black children to sit there and conduct themselves in a disciplined and studious manner.
Think I am exaggerating? Both the American Enterprise and Washington Post Magazines have run stories in the past where White teachers were categorized as racist for not having a big smile plastered across their faces about minority children labeled as learning disabled rampaging as they wished in the classrooms of these respective teachers.
Where does this line of reasoning end? If it is discovered that Blacks have a more difficult time curtailing the compulsions driving one towards reproduction, does that mean we are just suppose to keep handing out the welfare checks and Food Stamps without nary a word of rebuke about the moral decay gripping our nation where the unmarried don’t simply have one child outside of marriage and learn from their mistake but irresponsibly continue having one child after the other without a trip to the altar?
If it is proved that the “Black brain” has a greater propensity towards violence, does that mean we may not condemn the warlike conditions plaguing our city streets? If one takes Black liberation theology to its logical conclusion, even if Jeremiah Wright won’t admit to it publicly, according to this warped worldview it might not even be wrong to put a bullet in Whitey’s head and take his property; some might even call it an act of love or (as Jeremiah Wright said in his NAACP remarks) “just different”.
In the history of Communism, Marx is remembered as the thinker providing much of that philosophy’s theoretical basis whereas Lenin was the politician who implemented these doctrines into an actual political situation with slight adaptations. Likewise, Jeremiah Wright contributes significantly to the ideological foundation that Barack Obama would build upon whether the candidate is willing to admit to it or not.
by Frederick Meekins
World's Gutter Governments To Sit In Judgment Over U.S. Human Rights Record
09.05.08 (3:06 pm) [edit]
No one is perfect. As such, at times correction and admonition may need to be promulgated to set the ethically concerned back on the right path.
When issued by those adhering to the high standards to which they profess, such criticism can be looked upon as a helpful corrective to assist equals in living up to their potential. However, when such accusations are leveled or sustained by those with no intentions of living up to the standard themselves, the maligned should turn the tables against such dubious defamers and expose just who it is that undermines dignity, order, and liberty.
According to a May 20, 2008 Washington Times article titled "U.N. Puts Its Scope On U.S. Racism", this world body has sent an envoy to the United States to gather information regarding racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and "related intolerance". According to others in the human rights industry, such as Freedom House, this category of protections does not limit itself to narrowly defined matters such as abridgements of free speech or mass killings and seizures of property but also includes healthcare, education, and equal justice for immigrants and minorities.
For starters, before we start badmouthing what is available in this great land for these particular classes of people (especially immigrants), perhaps we should take a look at the places from which the new arrivals came. For a toilet bowl might be a dramatic improvement if you just crawled up from the sewer. If they have it so poor here, why did they come here in the first place, and if it is not to their liking here, they are always free to go back.
But even of greater concern than the quality of quantifiable conditions ought to be how much of what the U.N. is investigating is more attitudinal in nature. While no one that loves justice and views each individual as a unique creature made in the image of God wants to see the rights of others infringed upon in terms of the individual being secure in the livelihood and possessions they are able to acquire for themselves, neither is it really the place of government or international institutions to infringe upon the ability of other individuals to think and express themselves in a free and minimally orderly manner. Civil society may be able to condemn certain beliefs from a moral standpoint, but it is not really the place of government to keep you from being as much of an ass as you want to be provided you keep your hands off the nose and the stuff of the guy next to you.
For example, the state has an interest in preventing instances of racial discrimination where an objective public accommodation has been denied. However, “xenophobia and related intolerance” are much more nebulous in nature and something much more in the eye of the beholder. To the average American with a background capable of balancing the need for free expression while maintaining a minimal level of politeness, when they hear the words “xenophobia and related intolerance” images come to mind of some uncouth lout yelling out “Stupid [insert racial slur of choice]” while hurling rotten tomatoes at his neighbor undeserving of such treatment.
However, even in other highly advanced English speaking nations such as Australia and Canada, these offences can be defined in such a way as "disparaging" a religion. This can consist of claiming that the doctrines of your faith are superior to that of another sect under consideration such as in the case of a Canadian ministry that pointed out the shortcomings of the Watchtower Society and in the case of McClean's Magazine where those pointing out the intentions of radical Islamists have been sued for racial defamation but no action has been taken against the aspiring Jihadists wanting to kill people.
However, it is likely not the traditional adversaries of freedom and liberty that those feigning an institutionalized concern for human rights may be out to squelch. For example, the grand inquisitor being sent to infiltrate the United States, Doudou Diene of Senegal, according to the Washington Times "has written extensively about Islamophobia in the 6 1/2 years since the World Trade Center Attack."
While it is not right to infringe upon the rights of those not responsible for the 9/11 Attack, a phobia does not by default constitute an abridgement of anyone's rights, and according to such a broad definition, and any women that has seen the Sally Field picture "Not Without My Daughter" and had second thoughts about being romanced by a Middle Easterner could possibly be prosecuted for a hate crime. If one wanted to make a career of ridding the world of oppression and atrocities, one could find more fertile causes than nitpicking the shortcomings of the United States if one felt called to an international focus.
Frankly, one could spend several lifetimes rifling through the human rights records of many of the nations on the U.N. Humans Rights Council and still not have the time to air America's dirty laundry which is nothing more than a single used piece of toilet paper when compared to these cesspool countries.
For example, if you think prisoners on death row have it bad here, in Red China those executed (often for offences far less than the heinous deeds it is reserved for in the USA) are often shot in the back of the head so that their organs can be harvested. But I guess since this is done by Chinese to other Chinese, it doesn't really matter as the colorblind who claim we are all equal only get jacked out of shape when one color does it to another, proving they are not as colorblind as they bellicosely claim.
One of the reasons promulgated for this grand inquisitor of the United Nations to come poking around in the business of the United States is to sniff out any potential undercurrent of Islamophobia. Perhaps the council should be more concerned about the festering stench of Christophobia emanating from a number of the member nations sitting on its board.
For example, according to a story published at WorthyNews.com titled "Egypt: Security Police Torture Christian Convert Woman", for converting from Islam to Christianity one man's wife was beaten, raped twice, and electric shocks applied to her private parts. In Saudi Arabia, residents were deported for holding private Bible Studies in their homes.
Surely as much as Mexico trumpets for the rights for the free movement of people from one nation to another that that country must take a principled stand for immigrants to move and prosper elsewhere. Such a sentiment only applies to Mexicans going elsewhere and they don't even have to be doing it properly.
If the United States implemented Mexico's stand on immigration, we'd never hear the end of it from the leftwing rabble. Mexicans citizens born in Mexico can't even aspire to higher political office unless their parents are natural born citizens. And while Americans are to lavish all kinds of welfare handouts on illegals for violating our borders and expected to applaud the nobility of those violating these most basic of laws, Mexican police and military officials regularly rape and murder residents of other Latin American countries only doing what Mexican officials claim their own surplus populations have an inalienable right to do to the United States.
As sociopolitical entities comprised of fallen human beings, every nation has its flaws. However, the resources of the United Nations would be better utilized going after mass killers and the like than whether or not someone is getting their knickers in a knot over a wary glanced tossed in their direction as they walk down the street.
by Frederick Meekins
When issued by those adhering to the high standards to which they profess, such criticism can be looked upon as a helpful corrective to assist equals in living up to their potential. However, when such accusations are leveled or sustained by those with no intentions of living up to the standard themselves, the maligned should turn the tables against such dubious defamers and expose just who it is that undermines dignity, order, and liberty.
According to a May 20, 2008 Washington Times article titled "U.N. Puts Its Scope On U.S. Racism", this world body has sent an envoy to the United States to gather information regarding racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and "related intolerance". According to others in the human rights industry, such as Freedom House, this category of protections does not limit itself to narrowly defined matters such as abridgements of free speech or mass killings and seizures of property but also includes healthcare, education, and equal justice for immigrants and minorities.
For starters, before we start badmouthing what is available in this great land for these particular classes of people (especially immigrants), perhaps we should take a look at the places from which the new arrivals came. For a toilet bowl might be a dramatic improvement if you just crawled up from the sewer. If they have it so poor here, why did they come here in the first place, and if it is not to their liking here, they are always free to go back.
But even of greater concern than the quality of quantifiable conditions ought to be how much of what the U.N. is investigating is more attitudinal in nature. While no one that loves justice and views each individual as a unique creature made in the image of God wants to see the rights of others infringed upon in terms of the individual being secure in the livelihood and possessions they are able to acquire for themselves, neither is it really the place of government or international institutions to infringe upon the ability of other individuals to think and express themselves in a free and minimally orderly manner. Civil society may be able to condemn certain beliefs from a moral standpoint, but it is not really the place of government to keep you from being as much of an ass as you want to be provided you keep your hands off the nose and the stuff of the guy next to you.
For example, the state has an interest in preventing instances of racial discrimination where an objective public accommodation has been denied. However, “xenophobia and related intolerance” are much more nebulous in nature and something much more in the eye of the beholder. To the average American with a background capable of balancing the need for free expression while maintaining a minimal level of politeness, when they hear the words “xenophobia and related intolerance” images come to mind of some uncouth lout yelling out “Stupid [insert racial slur of choice]” while hurling rotten tomatoes at his neighbor undeserving of such treatment.
However, even in other highly advanced English speaking nations such as Australia and Canada, these offences can be defined in such a way as "disparaging" a religion. This can consist of claiming that the doctrines of your faith are superior to that of another sect under consideration such as in the case of a Canadian ministry that pointed out the shortcomings of the Watchtower Society and in the case of McClean's Magazine where those pointing out the intentions of radical Islamists have been sued for racial defamation but no action has been taken against the aspiring Jihadists wanting to kill people.
However, it is likely not the traditional adversaries of freedom and liberty that those feigning an institutionalized concern for human rights may be out to squelch. For example, the grand inquisitor being sent to infiltrate the United States, Doudou Diene of Senegal, according to the Washington Times "has written extensively about Islamophobia in the 6 1/2 years since the World Trade Center Attack."
While it is not right to infringe upon the rights of those not responsible for the 9/11 Attack, a phobia does not by default constitute an abridgement of anyone's rights, and according to such a broad definition, and any women that has seen the Sally Field picture "Not Without My Daughter" and had second thoughts about being romanced by a Middle Easterner could possibly be prosecuted for a hate crime. If one wanted to make a career of ridding the world of oppression and atrocities, one could find more fertile causes than nitpicking the shortcomings of the United States if one felt called to an international focus.
Frankly, one could spend several lifetimes rifling through the human rights records of many of the nations on the U.N. Humans Rights Council and still not have the time to air America's dirty laundry which is nothing more than a single used piece of toilet paper when compared to these cesspool countries.
For example, if you think prisoners on death row have it bad here, in Red China those executed (often for offences far less than the heinous deeds it is reserved for in the USA) are often shot in the back of the head so that their organs can be harvested. But I guess since this is done by Chinese to other Chinese, it doesn't really matter as the colorblind who claim we are all equal only get jacked out of shape when one color does it to another, proving they are not as colorblind as they bellicosely claim.
One of the reasons promulgated for this grand inquisitor of the United Nations to come poking around in the business of the United States is to sniff out any potential undercurrent of Islamophobia. Perhaps the council should be more concerned about the festering stench of Christophobia emanating from a number of the member nations sitting on its board.
For example, according to a story published at WorthyNews.com titled "Egypt: Security Police Torture Christian Convert Woman", for converting from Islam to Christianity one man's wife was beaten, raped twice, and electric shocks applied to her private parts. In Saudi Arabia, residents were deported for holding private Bible Studies in their homes.
Surely as much as Mexico trumpets for the rights for the free movement of people from one nation to another that that country must take a principled stand for immigrants to move and prosper elsewhere. Such a sentiment only applies to Mexicans going elsewhere and they don't even have to be doing it properly.
If the United States implemented Mexico's stand on immigration, we'd never hear the end of it from the leftwing rabble. Mexicans citizens born in Mexico can't even aspire to higher political office unless their parents are natural born citizens. And while Americans are to lavish all kinds of welfare handouts on illegals for violating our borders and expected to applaud the nobility of those violating these most basic of laws, Mexican police and military officials regularly rape and murder residents of other Latin American countries only doing what Mexican officials claim their own surplus populations have an inalienable right to do to the United States.
As sociopolitical entities comprised of fallen human beings, every nation has its flaws. However, the resources of the United Nations would be better utilized going after mass killers and the like than whether or not someone is getting their knickers in a knot over a wary glanced tossed in their direction as they walk down the street.
by Frederick Meekins
Phelps' Cult Veers Into Further Irrationality
08.24.08 (5:25 am) [edit]
To those of us whose vocations consist largely of commenting on the momentous trends and events going on all around us, it can be easy to fall for the delusion that ultimately the world itself orbits those of us observing it.
Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church has gained for himself and his congregation a degree of notoriety for his insistence that "God Hates Fags".
One can at least argue with this proposition as either incorrect or for at least failing to remember the distinction of God hating the sin but loving the sinner. However, it is from this oratorical peak that Phelps descends into rhetorical irrationality.
Phelps skyrocketed to national infamy when he started showing up at funerals of U.S. military personnel having given their lives for their country in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead of respecting this sacrifice irrespective of whether or not one agrees with an interventionist approach to the war on terror, the Phelpsians show up at what should be the most solemn of moments and basically rub it in the noses of grieving families that their fallen loved ones got what they deserved for serving in the government of a nation under the judgment of God for applauding outright immorality.
The outrage does not stop there. Though mocking the honored dead in this fashion grates upon the patriotic sensibilities of all good Americans, military families are for the most part an admirably stoic lot and able to take the ingratitude of certain elements in stride.
However, even this level of disgust is not low or self-absorbed enough for the Phelpsians.
On April 5, 2008, two teens were killed in a car accident late at night in Finksburg, Maryland. Most upon hearing a tragedy such as this would attribute the occurrence to some kind of driver error, vehicular malfunction, roadway mishap, or environmental conditions. However, to the members of the Phelps cult, the lives of these young people were cut short because of God's judgment against the State of Maryland for defying the will of Westboro Baptist Church.
For you see, a jury in the state awarded a $5 million judgment to the father of a soldier whose funeral the Phelpsians had protested. According to a press account mentioned in a 4/8/08 Carroll County Times story titled "Church Plans Teen Funeral Protests", the sect believes God now hates Maryland and all tragedies befalling residents of the state can be traced back to this particular ruling.
Doesn't such a claim border on idolatry for at least two reasons?
Firstly, doesn't only God know why He allows certain tragedies such as teens having their lives cut short before they have really begun to live them?
Secondly, isn't it the epitome of arrogance to think you are so important that God is going to smite an entire state just because its judiciary ticked you off?
The congregation of Westboro might claim to be Baptist, but my friends, any Fundamentalist worthy of the name cannot speak to the specificity of God's will to that degree as the good Fundamentalist sticks to those things revealed in His word or deducible from it and hesitant to act on those things they think God is whispering in the ear that cannot be backed up.
Thirdly, one of the saddest facts of living in a fallen world is that, sooner or later, suffering and death will touch every single one of us. One doesn't have to be Robert Schuller to appreciate the adage that those living in glass houses shouldn't hurl stones.
Thus the Phelpsians should think long and hard before one of life's inevitable tragedies comes knocking at their door, and someone will rub the noses of this sect in the misfortune happening to fall upon them.
by Frederick Meekins
Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church has gained for himself and his congregation a degree of notoriety for his insistence that "God Hates Fags".
One can at least argue with this proposition as either incorrect or for at least failing to remember the distinction of God hating the sin but loving the sinner. However, it is from this oratorical peak that Phelps descends into rhetorical irrationality.
Phelps skyrocketed to national infamy when he started showing up at funerals of U.S. military personnel having given their lives for their country in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead of respecting this sacrifice irrespective of whether or not one agrees with an interventionist approach to the war on terror, the Phelpsians show up at what should be the most solemn of moments and basically rub it in the noses of grieving families that their fallen loved ones got what they deserved for serving in the government of a nation under the judgment of God for applauding outright immorality.
The outrage does not stop there. Though mocking the honored dead in this fashion grates upon the patriotic sensibilities of all good Americans, military families are for the most part an admirably stoic lot and able to take the ingratitude of certain elements in stride.
However, even this level of disgust is not low or self-absorbed enough for the Phelpsians.
On April 5, 2008, two teens were killed in a car accident late at night in Finksburg, Maryland. Most upon hearing a tragedy such as this would attribute the occurrence to some kind of driver error, vehicular malfunction, roadway mishap, or environmental conditions. However, to the members of the Phelps cult, the lives of these young people were cut short because of God's judgment against the State of Maryland for defying the will of Westboro Baptist Church.
For you see, a jury in the state awarded a $5 million judgment to the father of a soldier whose funeral the Phelpsians had protested. According to a press account mentioned in a 4/8/08 Carroll County Times story titled "Church Plans Teen Funeral Protests", the sect believes God now hates Maryland and all tragedies befalling residents of the state can be traced back to this particular ruling.
Doesn't such a claim border on idolatry for at least two reasons?
Firstly, doesn't only God know why He allows certain tragedies such as teens having their lives cut short before they have really begun to live them?
Secondly, isn't it the epitome of arrogance to think you are so important that God is going to smite an entire state just because its judiciary ticked you off?
The congregation of Westboro might claim to be Baptist, but my friends, any Fundamentalist worthy of the name cannot speak to the specificity of God's will to that degree as the good Fundamentalist sticks to those things revealed in His word or deducible from it and hesitant to act on those things they think God is whispering in the ear that cannot be backed up.
Thirdly, one of the saddest facts of living in a fallen world is that, sooner or later, suffering and death will touch every single one of us. One doesn't have to be Robert Schuller to appreciate the adage that those living in glass houses shouldn't hurl stones.
Thus the Phelpsians should think long and hard before one of life's inevitable tragedies comes knocking at their door, and someone will rub the noses of this sect in the misfortune happening to fall upon them.
by Frederick Meekins
China Agitates To Undermine American Liberties
08.17.08 (5:11 am) [edit]
It's bad enough that those living under the heal of tyranny have their God-given rights suppressed, but one expects to hear of this transpiring in less-developed countries that have never really known freedom to begin with. However, things have really gotten out of hand when those living in the United States have to fear for their livelihoods for speaking out against abridgements of liberty occurring overseas.
According to an Associated Press story titled, "Protestors Take CNN To Task Over Commentator's China Remarks", Jack Cafferty observed, "We continue to import their junk with lead paint...and poisoned pet food and export, you know, jobs to places where you can pay workers a dollar a month to turn out stuff we’re buying from Wal-Mart. I think they’re [the Chinese government] the same bunch of goons and thugs they’ve been for the last 50 years.”
So instead of addressing the factuality of the allegations, a group of Chinese Americans took to the streets outside of CNN’s Hollywood office and called for the firing of Jack Cafferty. Of the group, one must question whether its loyalties were to be found with Red China or the United States.
One of the ringleaders is quoted as saying, “We understand free speech.” No, apparently they don’t as Cafferty stated a perfectly legitimate opinion in a non-obscene manner.
In such a situation, one ought to fight back against a claim one does not like by leveling a counterargument against it. However, in this case, the statement cannot be refuted so the only recourse is to appeal to the strong-arm tactics more like those used in Communist countries than those that ought to be considered in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The Chinese leaders are in Cafferty’s words, “basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they’ve been for the last 50 years."
Are not the leaders of the People’s Republic of China still Communist? Do they still not engage in the same kinds of human rights violations inherent to that sociopolitical philosophy no matter how much they claim to liberalize the economy?
How else other than as goonish or thuggish does one describe a government that blocks its citizens from accessing the Internet unfettered, forbids its citizens the right to affiliate religiously with whomever they please without fear of reprisals, and interferes with the number of children couples are permitted to have?
Distracted by weightier matters such as Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, many Americans have problems relating to issues and events beyond those directly brought to their attention on the nightly news. Even if that is the case, they still don’t have to stretch their diminished attention spans too greatly to become familiar with the goonishness and thuggery of the Red Chinese.
For as the Olympic torch made its way through Western lands, citizens of the Free World were granted the privilege of experiencing first hand on a small scale the kinds tactics employed by these Eastern despots. Chinese paramilitary units “protecting” the torch laid hands on American and European protestors demonstrating against this regime’s civil rights abuses and even threatened those carrying this global symbol not exactly in a manner how its Marxist caretakers thought it ought to be. I ask you, do these operatives have the right or authority to lay a finger on a single person outside their nation's territorial jurisdiction?
Here we are being told to shut our own mouths out of respect for a foreign society while representatives of this very same society have no intentions of honoring our tradition of dignity and restraint while on our own soil. And don't think this will all blow over with Westerners, particularly Americans, going back to enjoying our God-given right to say what we want about whomever we want.
According to a Reuters story dated 4/28/08 titled "CNN Now Sued For $1.3 Billion --- $1 For Every Person In China", the global network has been slapped with a lawsuit in a New York court by a beautician and elementary school teacher (both of Chinese origins) on the grounds that Cafferty's remarks "insulted all Chinese people and intentionally caused mental harm". One wonders if those shot in the skull by Red Chinese organ harvesters will be allowed to seek recompense for the "mental harm" inflicted upon them by the government there.
Such legal action could result in silencing criticism of Red China not only in areas controlled by these diabolical Communists but even in nations where freedom of speech is suppose to prevail. CNN might be able to stand up to such judicial challenges, but what about the average citizen journalist or blogger?
Yet despite droning on and on about how glorious their homeland happens to be and how we as Westerners are not to pass judgment against the regime ruling over this particular nation and its territory, there is one glaring hypocrisy that has to be pointed out. And here it is: if China is such a swell place that isn't ruled by a bunch of goons and thugs, why are those so eager to rush to its defense living over here rather than contentedly over there?
By Frederick Meekins
According to an Associated Press story titled, "Protestors Take CNN To Task Over Commentator's China Remarks", Jack Cafferty observed, "We continue to import their junk with lead paint...and poisoned pet food and export, you know, jobs to places where you can pay workers a dollar a month to turn out stuff we’re buying from Wal-Mart. I think they’re [the Chinese government] the same bunch of goons and thugs they’ve been for the last 50 years.”
So instead of addressing the factuality of the allegations, a group of Chinese Americans took to the streets outside of CNN’s Hollywood office and called for the firing of Jack Cafferty. Of the group, one must question whether its loyalties were to be found with Red China or the United States.
One of the ringleaders is quoted as saying, “We understand free speech.” No, apparently they don’t as Cafferty stated a perfectly legitimate opinion in a non-obscene manner.
In such a situation, one ought to fight back against a claim one does not like by leveling a counterargument against it. However, in this case, the statement cannot be refuted so the only recourse is to appeal to the strong-arm tactics more like those used in Communist countries than those that ought to be considered in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The Chinese leaders are in Cafferty’s words, “basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they’ve been for the last 50 years."
Are not the leaders of the People’s Republic of China still Communist? Do they still not engage in the same kinds of human rights violations inherent to that sociopolitical philosophy no matter how much they claim to liberalize the economy?
How else other than as goonish or thuggish does one describe a government that blocks its citizens from accessing the Internet unfettered, forbids its citizens the right to affiliate religiously with whomever they please without fear of reprisals, and interferes with the number of children couples are permitted to have?
Distracted by weightier matters such as Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, many Americans have problems relating to issues and events beyond those directly brought to their attention on the nightly news. Even if that is the case, they still don’t have to stretch their diminished attention spans too greatly to become familiar with the goonishness and thuggery of the Red Chinese.
For as the Olympic torch made its way through Western lands, citizens of the Free World were granted the privilege of experiencing first hand on a small scale the kinds tactics employed by these Eastern despots. Chinese paramilitary units “protecting” the torch laid hands on American and European protestors demonstrating against this regime’s civil rights abuses and even threatened those carrying this global symbol not exactly in a manner how its Marxist caretakers thought it ought to be. I ask you, do these operatives have the right or authority to lay a finger on a single person outside their nation's territorial jurisdiction?
Here we are being told to shut our own mouths out of respect for a foreign society while representatives of this very same society have no intentions of honoring our tradition of dignity and restraint while on our own soil. And don't think this will all blow over with Westerners, particularly Americans, going back to enjoying our God-given right to say what we want about whomever we want.
According to a Reuters story dated 4/28/08 titled "CNN Now Sued For $1.3 Billion --- $1 For Every Person In China", the global network has been slapped with a lawsuit in a New York court by a beautician and elementary school teacher (both of Chinese origins) on the grounds that Cafferty's remarks "insulted all Chinese people and intentionally caused mental harm". One wonders if those shot in the skull by Red Chinese organ harvesters will be allowed to seek recompense for the "mental harm" inflicted upon them by the government there.
Such legal action could result in silencing criticism of Red China not only in areas controlled by these diabolical Communists but even in nations where freedom of speech is suppose to prevail. CNN might be able to stand up to such judicial challenges, but what about the average citizen journalist or blogger?
Yet despite droning on and on about how glorious their homeland happens to be and how we as Westerners are not to pass judgment against the regime ruling over this particular nation and its territory, there is one glaring hypocrisy that has to be pointed out. And here it is: if China is such a swell place that isn't ruled by a bunch of goons and thugs, why are those so eager to rush to its defense living over here rather than contentedly over there?
By Frederick Meekins
Doctor Who Tackles Transgenic Menace
08.09.08 (7:31 pm) [edit]
As culture passes through various stages of technological development, the science fiction of a particular point in history often reflects the concerns regarding the horrors discerning intellects at the time feared could possibly be inflicted upon the earth should what is then considered new knowledge get out of hand. For example, throughout the 50's and 60's, speculative literature often focused on the impact of radiation as embodied by the origins of Spider-Man, the Incredible Hulk, and the Fantastic Four.
Though these characters still remain at the forefront of popular culture, in some instances their origins have been slightly reinterpreted to reflect the concerns of the new generation of authors putting their own creative spins on them and to capture the imaginations of a contemporary fan base. For example, in the Spider-Man films, the arachnid conveying its abilities to an unsuspecting Peter Parker is no longer just an average one accidentally bombarded with radiation but rather one deliberately tinkered with at the genetic level that somehow escapes lab captivity.
Though tastes in entertainment may differ on both sides of the Atlantic, it is pretty safe to say that Doctor Who is a venerable sci-fi icon among fans irrespective of their country of origin. Even though I myself am a relatively new fan as classic episodes use to air well past midnight on the local PBS affiliate when I was a youth, much of the appeal of the crumble-coated space-fairing time traveler has been because of the unique manner in which the show's creators project ethical concerns against unique cosmic backdrops and circumstances.
For example, one episode of season three of the revived series dealt with the frustration those of us dwelling in urban areas have to contend with in the form of what seems to be unending traffic congestion. In this story, commuters on what was a second earth set millennia in the future literally spent much of their lives in contraptions that looked like a cross between a flying minivan and a cramped apartment where it could literally take years to travel just a few miles.
Tucked away between that amusing tidbit and a complete singing of "The Old Rugged Cross" that was rendered with such seriousness that one could see tears in the eyes of the characters was another narrative detail that just jumped out at the viewer in tune with where science and philosophy might be headed if concerned people of common sense don't soon put a stop to it. Though the geriatric lesbian couple was shocking enough, their risqué union seemed outdated and quaint in comparison to that between two of the other commuters the Doctor came across.
For in one of the vehicles was a regular looking human woman who was married to an individual half human and half feline in his physiology. As unsettling as that was, viewers were in for an even bigger surprise when the husband beams with pride to the wife and asks her to let the Doctor see the babies. The doting mother returns with kittens that sound like they are meowing “momma”.
The scene alone served as a startling warning of the future we might have to confront if a growing number in the Transhumanist movement have their way. For those whose news diet consists primarily of what gutter Lindsay Lohan puked in the night before, Transhumanism is the movement hypothesizing that human beings must move beyond the limitations inherent to our physiology if we are to proceed to the next stage in our development as a species. Transgenics would be a subset of this movement believing this goal is best accomplished by incorporating characteristics of other organisms into the human genome by essentially engineering an amalgamation on the molecular level of two distinct species.
Proponents of this ontological melding will respond that the family in this episode of Doctor Who was depicted in such a positive light that Transhumanism could easily be seen as a benefit or as at least ethically neutral. However, despite dancing gingerly around the topic in one episode, producers were more blatant in their concerns in the next.
In the episode "Daleks In Manhattan", the Doctor and rebound companion Martha Jones travel back to the Big Apple of the Depression Era. Here they encounter a bit of a mystery intertwining missing transients from a Central Park Hooverville and the construction of the Empire State building. From that point forward, the story begins to parallel events and developments here in our own time more than most of us would be willing to admit.
The Cult of Skaro (think the Dalek version of the Free Masons or Illuminati in that it has been alluded to that this group exists above and beyond the normal authorities of this species in order to facilitate long term reflection regarding galactic domination) co-opts the construction of the Empire State building to use as a genetics research facility. As part of their experiments, the Daleks kidnap the nearby homeless and meld the dimwitted among the captives with porcine DNA to create a hybrid slave race similar in appearance to Jabba the Hutt’s Gomorrean guards in “Return Of The Jedi” or the things that ran Bespin’s carbonite freezing chamber in “The Empire Strikes Back.”
Eventually, the Doctor stumbles upon these pigmen. Interestingly, the pigmen are told by their Dalek overseers to take the Doctor and the captives of higher intelligence to the TRANSGENIC laboratory.
While one may come across science fiction stories where some lunatic tries to create some kind of abomination by fusing together disparate species, seldom has one heard the word “transgentic” bantered about that freely. Viewers then learn that the pigmen are not an end in themselves but rather tests to work the kinks out so that the Daleks might merge with human victims since it has been concluded that such a step is necessary to bring about the next stage in Dalek evolution. From the process emerges a cycloptic monstrosity that even the other Daleks turn against as the result was anathema even anathema to their worldview of destruction and conquest summarized by their Naziesque catchphrase of “EXTERMINATE. EXTERMINATE.”
All well and good for a Friday night's entertainment, but what does this have to do with real life, the unsuspecting might ask. Quite a bit, actually.
For starters, along the fringes, one hears accounts of individuals abducted by nonhuman entities (the origins of which is not relevant to this line of argumentation as one band of researchers sympathetic to this reality claims such beings are biological hailing from elsewhere in the universe while another claims these beings are actually non-corporeal or the offspring of the biological and non-corporeal) for the purposes of amalgamating distinct orders of life.
And even if one does not buy into speculation regarding intelligent life beyond our own, one has to bury one's head deep in the sand to avoid talk these days about proposals to join man and animal on a genetic level. Not long ago, one could easily dismiss such conjecturing as the hyperactive imagination of those who have spent too many hours watching the Sci-Fi Channel. Now though, one sees an increasing number of credentialed scientists with the financial backing of industry, academia, and government that can actually ruin innocent human lives openly discussing these kinds of experiments that will potentially result in hybrid entities such as mice with physiologically human brains and human beings with the wings of birds.
Use to be one would imagine the likes of Dr. Frankenstein prowling around in some dank laboratory or at some ultrasecret government facility. However, now such advocates of deliberate biological deviancy proudly herald their position and hold conferences at prestigious universities where they act like you are the sicko if you don't have a smile plastered across your face about the plans for a generation of intentionally disfigured children.
Now one doesn't even have to turn to obtuse scientific journals printed in exceedingly miniscule typeface read only by a handful of eggheads that have not seen a hairbrush in years. One only needs access to a mainstream newspaper.
According to the Washington Post in a June 24, 2007 piece titled "Making Manimals" by Slate.com correspondent William Saletan, at the moment most efforts at joining human and animal DNA are reasonably modest such as transplanting baboon hearts and pig valves into human subjects in order to keep them alive. However, it would not take too much effort beyond what is possible now to dramatically expand the scope of these endeavors.
Saletan writes, "To make humanized animals really creepy, you'd have to do several things. You increase the ratio of human to animal DNA. You'd transplant human cells that spread throughout the body. You'd do it early in embryonic development so the human cells would shape the animals architecture, not just blend in. You'd grow the embryo to maturity. And you'd start messing with the brain. We're doing all of these things."
Though the author will admit to the general public what is going on, instead of condemning the things such practices might lead to, he turns around and condemns those condemning this technology by casting suspicions on them as those Evangelicals the Washington Post likes to categorize as "poor, uneducated, and easy to command."
Saletan concludes his remarks by saying, "If you want permanent restrictions, your best bet is the senator who tried to impose them two years ago. He's the same presidential candidate now leading the charge against evolution; Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican. He thinks we're separate from other animals, 'unique in the created order'. Too bad this wasn't true in the past --- and it won't be true in the future."
If that is how the elites of the scientific establishment are coming to feel, that should give all of us hayseeds that happen to think there is something special about the human race cause for concern. For although Saletan and others like him try to make a laughing stock of those opposed to the hobo stew of species amalgamation by insinuating that, as with evolution, only buffoons oppose the process, they are approaching a truth that defenders of this technology may not want to touch. That truth is of course being that without evolution as an operational paradigm (as it is not an established fact at the macro level) transgencis would not be morally permissible.
For if human beings are not "unique in the created order" as the transgenic evolutionists who now hold sway in the halls of corporate, academic and government research now argue, then why should human beings be granted any special rights at all? And in some circles, we probably have even fewer rights as some of the shrill harpies in the animal rights movement who go into apoplexy over a smashed eagle’s egg are often the loudest banshees for the right to hack human babies to pieces.
Initially, these technologies and procedures will be marketed under the banner of medical progress and those opposed will be castigated for their lack of sympathy for the suffering just as those opposed to embryonic stem cell research were cast as being opposed to Superman ever walking again as in the case of Christopher Reeve. Saletan writes, "We're not doing these things because they are creepy. We're doing them because they are logical. The more you humanize animals, the better they serve their purposes as lab models of humanity. That's what's scary about species mixing. It's not some crazy Frankenstein project. It's the future of medicine."
However, it is not like this is where researchers will stop their work out of some reverence for the well being of human beings made in the image of God as this ideal has already been held up for condemnation and ridicule. As even someone as sympathetic to this research as Saletan writes, "When Stanford first head of the proposal for humanized mice brains, they were grossed out. But after thinking it over, they tentatively endorsed the idea and decided that it may not be had to endow mice with some aspects of human consciousness or some human cognitive abilities.” The British Academy and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences have likewise refused to permanently restrict the humanization of animals.
Thus, once the urge to use this technology for legitimate medical applications has reached its limit, there will be little there to prevent its use just a little more and then just a little more. After it is used to bring a handicapped or diseased person back to normal, what is to prevent it from being used to make a perfectly healthy person better beyond what a rational person steeped in Judeo-Christian morality would conclude were God’s initial intentions and specifications?
For example, successfully transferred neurons from an animal to help the paralyzed? All well and good, but if someone does not put a foot down somewhere, what is to prevent the Pentagon from calling up soldiers given the charge of an electric eel?
Ghouls in lab coats want to create such creatures no doubt so the can carry out Dr. Mengle-like experiments. Saletan writes, “Imagine that: a hominid brain network you can treat like a lab animal because it is a lab animal.” The same thing use to no doubt be said about Jews and Black folks in decades past with atrocious consequences.
It is claimed in a New York Times article by Nicholas Wade titled “Chimeras On The Horizon” that, given the 20-day gestation period of a mouse compared to the nearly nine months a human being is baking in the oven, it is doubtful human cognitive abilities would have time to develop. But how can anyone be absolutely certain? To this day, despite the number of books on the subject containing five inch words no average person could possibly pronounce, scientists and philosophers are still not sure of the exact link between the brain and mind, this conundrum so perplexing that it is called the mind/body problem.
In the Wade article, Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops provides probably the soundest advice: “If something were half human and half animal, what would our moral responsibilities be? It might be immoral to kill such a creature. It’s wrong to create creatures whose moral stature we are perplexed about.”
Many times, the unaware viewer sits back and thinks many of the things seen in science fiction could never become a reality. However, if things continue on their current pace, it won’t be long until such tales join the historical chronicle of what has already transpired rather than as a depiction of where things might be headed.
by Frederick Meekins
Though these characters still remain at the forefront of popular culture, in some instances their origins have been slightly reinterpreted to reflect the concerns of the new generation of authors putting their own creative spins on them and to capture the imaginations of a contemporary fan base. For example, in the Spider-Man films, the arachnid conveying its abilities to an unsuspecting Peter Parker is no longer just an average one accidentally bombarded with radiation but rather one deliberately tinkered with at the genetic level that somehow escapes lab captivity.
Though tastes in entertainment may differ on both sides of the Atlantic, it is pretty safe to say that Doctor Who is a venerable sci-fi icon among fans irrespective of their country of origin. Even though I myself am a relatively new fan as classic episodes use to air well past midnight on the local PBS affiliate when I was a youth, much of the appeal of the crumble-coated space-fairing time traveler has been because of the unique manner in which the show's creators project ethical concerns against unique cosmic backdrops and circumstances.
For example, one episode of season three of the revived series dealt with the frustration those of us dwelling in urban areas have to contend with in the form of what seems to be unending traffic congestion. In this story, commuters on what was a second earth set millennia in the future literally spent much of their lives in contraptions that looked like a cross between a flying minivan and a cramped apartment where it could literally take years to travel just a few miles.
Tucked away between that amusing tidbit and a complete singing of "The Old Rugged Cross" that was rendered with such seriousness that one could see tears in the eyes of the characters was another narrative detail that just jumped out at the viewer in tune with where science and philosophy might be headed if concerned people of common sense don't soon put a stop to it. Though the geriatric lesbian couple was shocking enough, their risqué union seemed outdated and quaint in comparison to that between two of the other commuters the Doctor came across.
For in one of the vehicles was a regular looking human woman who was married to an individual half human and half feline in his physiology. As unsettling as that was, viewers were in for an even bigger surprise when the husband beams with pride to the wife and asks her to let the Doctor see the babies. The doting mother returns with kittens that sound like they are meowing “momma”.
The scene alone served as a startling warning of the future we might have to confront if a growing number in the Transhumanist movement have their way. For those whose news diet consists primarily of what gutter Lindsay Lohan puked in the night before, Transhumanism is the movement hypothesizing that human beings must move beyond the limitations inherent to our physiology if we are to proceed to the next stage in our development as a species. Transgenics would be a subset of this movement believing this goal is best accomplished by incorporating characteristics of other organisms into the human genome by essentially engineering an amalgamation on the molecular level of two distinct species.
Proponents of this ontological melding will respond that the family in this episode of Doctor Who was depicted in such a positive light that Transhumanism could easily be seen as a benefit or as at least ethically neutral. However, despite dancing gingerly around the topic in one episode, producers were more blatant in their concerns in the next.
In the episode "Daleks In Manhattan", the Doctor and rebound companion Martha Jones travel back to the Big Apple of the Depression Era. Here they encounter a bit of a mystery intertwining missing transients from a Central Park Hooverville and the construction of the Empire State building. From that point forward, the story begins to parallel events and developments here in our own time more than most of us would be willing to admit.
The Cult of Skaro (think the Dalek version of the Free Masons or Illuminati in that it has been alluded to that this group exists above and beyond the normal authorities of this species in order to facilitate long term reflection regarding galactic domination) co-opts the construction of the Empire State building to use as a genetics research facility. As part of their experiments, the Daleks kidnap the nearby homeless and meld the dimwitted among the captives with porcine DNA to create a hybrid slave race similar in appearance to Jabba the Hutt’s Gomorrean guards in “Return Of The Jedi” or the things that ran Bespin’s carbonite freezing chamber in “The Empire Strikes Back.”
Eventually, the Doctor stumbles upon these pigmen. Interestingly, the pigmen are told by their Dalek overseers to take the Doctor and the captives of higher intelligence to the TRANSGENIC laboratory.
While one may come across science fiction stories where some lunatic tries to create some kind of abomination by fusing together disparate species, seldom has one heard the word “transgentic” bantered about that freely. Viewers then learn that the pigmen are not an end in themselves but rather tests to work the kinks out so that the Daleks might merge with human victims since it has been concluded that such a step is necessary to bring about the next stage in Dalek evolution. From the process emerges a cycloptic monstrosity that even the other Daleks turn against as the result was anathema even anathema to their worldview of destruction and conquest summarized by their Naziesque catchphrase of “EXTERMINATE. EXTERMINATE.”
All well and good for a Friday night's entertainment, but what does this have to do with real life, the unsuspecting might ask. Quite a bit, actually.
For starters, along the fringes, one hears accounts of individuals abducted by nonhuman entities (the origins of which is not relevant to this line of argumentation as one band of researchers sympathetic to this reality claims such beings are biological hailing from elsewhere in the universe while another claims these beings are actually non-corporeal or the offspring of the biological and non-corporeal) for the purposes of amalgamating distinct orders of life.
And even if one does not buy into speculation regarding intelligent life beyond our own, one has to bury one's head deep in the sand to avoid talk these days about proposals to join man and animal on a genetic level. Not long ago, one could easily dismiss such conjecturing as the hyperactive imagination of those who have spent too many hours watching the Sci-Fi Channel. Now though, one sees an increasing number of credentialed scientists with the financial backing of industry, academia, and government that can actually ruin innocent human lives openly discussing these kinds of experiments that will potentially result in hybrid entities such as mice with physiologically human brains and human beings with the wings of birds.
Use to be one would imagine the likes of Dr. Frankenstein prowling around in some dank laboratory or at some ultrasecret government facility. However, now such advocates of deliberate biological deviancy proudly herald their position and hold conferences at prestigious universities where they act like you are the sicko if you don't have a smile plastered across your face about the plans for a generation of intentionally disfigured children.
Now one doesn't even have to turn to obtuse scientific journals printed in exceedingly miniscule typeface read only by a handful of eggheads that have not seen a hairbrush in years. One only needs access to a mainstream newspaper.
According to the Washington Post in a June 24, 2007 piece titled "Making Manimals" by Slate.com correspondent William Saletan, at the moment most efforts at joining human and animal DNA are reasonably modest such as transplanting baboon hearts and pig valves into human subjects in order to keep them alive. However, it would not take too much effort beyond what is possible now to dramatically expand the scope of these endeavors.
Saletan writes, "To make humanized animals really creepy, you'd have to do several things. You increase the ratio of human to animal DNA. You'd transplant human cells that spread throughout the body. You'd do it early in embryonic development so the human cells would shape the animals architecture, not just blend in. You'd grow the embryo to maturity. And you'd start messing with the brain. We're doing all of these things."
Though the author will admit to the general public what is going on, instead of condemning the things such practices might lead to, he turns around and condemns those condemning this technology by casting suspicions on them as those Evangelicals the Washington Post likes to categorize as "poor, uneducated, and easy to command."
Saletan concludes his remarks by saying, "If you want permanent restrictions, your best bet is the senator who tried to impose them two years ago. He's the same presidential candidate now leading the charge against evolution; Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican. He thinks we're separate from other animals, 'unique in the created order'. Too bad this wasn't true in the past --- and it won't be true in the future."
If that is how the elites of the scientific establishment are coming to feel, that should give all of us hayseeds that happen to think there is something special about the human race cause for concern. For although Saletan and others like him try to make a laughing stock of those opposed to the hobo stew of species amalgamation by insinuating that, as with evolution, only buffoons oppose the process, they are approaching a truth that defenders of this technology may not want to touch. That truth is of course being that without evolution as an operational paradigm (as it is not an established fact at the macro level) transgencis would not be morally permissible.
For if human beings are not "unique in the created order" as the transgenic evolutionists who now hold sway in the halls of corporate, academic and government research now argue, then why should human beings be granted any special rights at all? And in some circles, we probably have even fewer rights as some of the shrill harpies in the animal rights movement who go into apoplexy over a smashed eagle’s egg are often the loudest banshees for the right to hack human babies to pieces.
Initially, these technologies and procedures will be marketed under the banner of medical progress and those opposed will be castigated for their lack of sympathy for the suffering just as those opposed to embryonic stem cell research were cast as being opposed to Superman ever walking again as in the case of Christopher Reeve. Saletan writes, "We're not doing these things because they are creepy. We're doing them because they are logical. The more you humanize animals, the better they serve their purposes as lab models of humanity. That's what's scary about species mixing. It's not some crazy Frankenstein project. It's the future of medicine."
However, it is not like this is where researchers will stop their work out of some reverence for the well being of human beings made in the image of God as this ideal has already been held up for condemnation and ridicule. As even someone as sympathetic to this research as Saletan writes, "When Stanford first head of the proposal for humanized mice brains, they were grossed out. But after thinking it over, they tentatively endorsed the idea and decided that it may not be had to endow mice with some aspects of human consciousness or some human cognitive abilities.” The British Academy and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences have likewise refused to permanently restrict the humanization of animals.
Thus, once the urge to use this technology for legitimate medical applications has reached its limit, there will be little there to prevent its use just a little more and then just a little more. After it is used to bring a handicapped or diseased person back to normal, what is to prevent it from being used to make a perfectly healthy person better beyond what a rational person steeped in Judeo-Christian morality would conclude were God’s initial intentions and specifications?
For example, successfully transferred neurons from an animal to help the paralyzed? All well and good, but if someone does not put a foot down somewhere, what is to prevent the Pentagon from calling up soldiers given the charge of an electric eel?
Ghouls in lab coats want to create such creatures no doubt so the can carry out Dr. Mengle-like experiments. Saletan writes, “Imagine that: a hominid brain network you can treat like a lab animal because it is a lab animal.” The same thing use to no doubt be said about Jews and Black folks in decades past with atrocious consequences.
It is claimed in a New York Times article by Nicholas Wade titled “Chimeras On The Horizon” that, given the 20-day gestation period of a mouse compared to the nearly nine months a human being is baking in the oven, it is doubtful human cognitive abilities would have time to develop. But how can anyone be absolutely certain? To this day, despite the number of books on the subject containing five inch words no average person could possibly pronounce, scientists and philosophers are still not sure of the exact link between the brain and mind, this conundrum so perplexing that it is called the mind/body problem.
In the Wade article, Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops provides probably the soundest advice: “If something were half human and half animal, what would our moral responsibilities be? It might be immoral to kill such a creature. It’s wrong to create creatures whose moral stature we are perplexed about.”
Many times, the unaware viewer sits back and thinks many of the things seen in science fiction could never become a reality. However, if things continue on their current pace, it won’t be long until such tales join the historical chronicle of what has already transpired rather than as a depiction of where things might be headed.
by Frederick Meekins
Intellectually Excavating Indiana Jones Unearths Epistemological Artifacts
07.29.08 (8:01 pm) [edit]
As a discipline, archaeology examines the artistic and technological remains of various cultures in the attempt to learn more about them. Often from these objects, students learn about more than the subject's material nature but also insight into the beliefs and paradigms important to the human species at a particular time.
Probably the most prominent representative of the discipline in public culture is none other than Indiana Jones, with Stargate's Dr. Daniel Jackson coming in at second. As a narrative itself created at a particular point in time, the Indiana Jones movies themselves can be placed under investigation to unearth what our own culture has believed at various points in recent history as well as the ideas shaping those having such influence over our own society.
Through comparing "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and the other films of the Indiana Jones saga, especially with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade", one can detect the shifts taking place all around us as to what the broader and popular culture perceives as foundational truth. For example, though the films should not be seen as a systematic theology upon which to base one's faith, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Last Crusade" had at their base Judeo-Christian assumption in that artifacts connected with this tradition, namely the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail (the cup used by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper) were actual historic objects and, since these objects in legend exude a power that cannot be explained by conventional science, one assumes they are connected to the divine.
In the latest film of the series, "Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull", ultimate wisdom and power is not seen as originating in a traditional conception of God as in "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" or "Last Crusade" or even in spirits as in "Indiana Jones & The Temple Of Doom". Rather in the latest installment, the source of enlightenment happens to be those entities with the bulbous heads and lanky limbs we have come to know as extraterrestrials whose crystalline skulls in this story can serve as powerful tools through which to augur the future, communicate with these beings, and to gain control of the world. Though an entertaining story, it may have considerable basis in reality --- or at least in the worldviews of its high level producers.
For example, the opening scene with Indy trouncing through the military hanger is set in none other than Area 51 and the top secret project he alludes to working on 10 years prior to the events of the story is none other than the Roswell crash. Some might flippantly dismiss these as urban legends that have taken on lives of their own beyond the significance of any incidents that may have occurred in these locations that now fire the imagination. However, it is pretty hard to ignore the Nazca lines which were not discovered by modern man until the discovery of flight and the existence of a tribe of Indians that mutilated the shape of their skulls to make themselves appear as if they were from beyond this earth.
Even these can be dismissed as historical or anthropological curiosities as human beings have believed or done some rather bizarre things since nearly the dawn of time. The thing is that there are those among the influential who would imbue intelligences from beyond this earth with a metaphysical prominence above that which you would bestow upon someone from another country as being different from but frankly no better ontologically than you ultimately.
While a highly creative individual, to Steven Spielberg, these creatures are much more than imaginative characters or plot elements. Rather, the acclaimed director has had an interest and belief in the paranormal throughout much of his life beyond that of a mere narrative device and he has been reported to have had a number of encounters with the unexplained.
In the movie, the quest was not so much to verify whether or not transterrestrial life simply existed as a biological fact but rather that enlightenment was somehow obtained from these beings and as such they were worthy of the adoration and devotion once reserved for God Himself. As the public comes to embrace this worldview more and more, we are beginning to see a shift from viewing beings like this in a solely naturalistic context of beings from another planet not all that unlike our own to, as in the case of “The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull” as coming from a realm transcendent to our own from what could be referred to as another dimension.
Thus, in essence, in terms of our paradigms, the Western mind has come full circle to an extent but on a less sure footing than when it set out on the quest to comprehend the cosmos in which we find ourselves. It use to be believed that nonhuman intelligences originated from another realm (initially Heaven but tossed out when they followed Lucifer/Satan into rebellion). Then as the West increasingly fell under the spell of what Francis Schaeffer termed “modern modern science” (meaning science opposed to the existence of the spiritual realm) such entities were believed to come from other planets.
However, as the New Age movement has become so entrenched that it is no longer new anymore and prefers even fancier titles such as "cosmic spirituality", now it seems our alleged betters along the path of evolutionary consciousness take on the best and worse depending upon one’s perspective. For example, in the latest Indiana Jones adventure, no longer are the gods of the dawning order disembodied spirits we cannot see but rather posses physical form we can relate to even if it differs vastly from our own. And yet even though they are like us, the also come from a place apart from and above our own so as to avoid banality by providing us with the hope of somewhere possessing a transcendence we can still aspire to.
Those watching “Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull” can feel free to do so with a clear conscience as it is primarily an entertaining adventure story. However, as with the protagonist of this series, viewers should take with them the assorted equipment necessary to avoid the pitfalls and traps they are likely to encounter as they undertake an expedition into this realm where imagination intersects belief.
by Frederick Meekins
Probably the most prominent representative of the discipline in public culture is none other than Indiana Jones, with Stargate's Dr. Daniel Jackson coming in at second. As a narrative itself created at a particular point in time, the Indiana Jones movies themselves can be placed under investigation to unearth what our own culture has believed at various points in recent history as well as the ideas shaping those having such influence over our own society.
Through comparing "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and the other films of the Indiana Jones saga, especially with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade", one can detect the shifts taking place all around us as to what the broader and popular culture perceives as foundational truth. For example, though the films should not be seen as a systematic theology upon which to base one's faith, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Last Crusade" had at their base Judeo-Christian assumption in that artifacts connected with this tradition, namely the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail (the cup used by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper) were actual historic objects and, since these objects in legend exude a power that cannot be explained by conventional science, one assumes they are connected to the divine.
In the latest film of the series, "Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull", ultimate wisdom and power is not seen as originating in a traditional conception of God as in "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" or "Last Crusade" or even in spirits as in "Indiana Jones & The Temple Of Doom". Rather in the latest installment, the source of enlightenment happens to be those entities with the bulbous heads and lanky limbs we have come to know as extraterrestrials whose crystalline skulls in this story can serve as powerful tools through which to augur the future, communicate with these beings, and to gain control of the world. Though an entertaining story, it may have considerable basis in reality --- or at least in the worldviews of its high level producers.
For example, the opening scene with Indy trouncing through the military hanger is set in none other than Area 51 and the top secret project he alludes to working on 10 years prior to the events of the story is none other than the Roswell crash. Some might flippantly dismiss these as urban legends that have taken on lives of their own beyond the significance of any incidents that may have occurred in these locations that now fire the imagination. However, it is pretty hard to ignore the Nazca lines which were not discovered by modern man until the discovery of flight and the existence of a tribe of Indians that mutilated the shape of their skulls to make themselves appear as if they were from beyond this earth.
Even these can be dismissed as historical or anthropological curiosities as human beings have believed or done some rather bizarre things since nearly the dawn of time. The thing is that there are those among the influential who would imbue intelligences from beyond this earth with a metaphysical prominence above that which you would bestow upon someone from another country as being different from but frankly no better ontologically than you ultimately.
While a highly creative individual, to Steven Spielberg, these creatures are much more than imaginative characters or plot elements. Rather, the acclaimed director has had an interest and belief in the paranormal throughout much of his life beyond that of a mere narrative device and he has been reported to have had a number of encounters with the unexplained.
In the movie, the quest was not so much to verify whether or not transterrestrial life simply existed as a biological fact but rather that enlightenment was somehow obtained from these beings and as such they were worthy of the adoration and devotion once reserved for God Himself. As the public comes to embrace this worldview more and more, we are beginning to see a shift from viewing beings like this in a solely naturalistic context of beings from another planet not all that unlike our own to, as in the case of “The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull” as coming from a realm transcendent to our own from what could be referred to as another dimension.
Thus, in essence, in terms of our paradigms, the Western mind has come full circle to an extent but on a less sure footing than when it set out on the quest to comprehend the cosmos in which we find ourselves. It use to be believed that nonhuman intelligences originated from another realm (initially Heaven but tossed out when they followed Lucifer/Satan into rebellion). Then as the West increasingly fell under the spell of what Francis Schaeffer termed “modern modern science” (meaning science opposed to the existence of the spiritual realm) such entities were believed to come from other planets.
However, as the New Age movement has become so entrenched that it is no longer new anymore and prefers even fancier titles such as "cosmic spirituality", now it seems our alleged betters along the path of evolutionary consciousness take on the best and worse depending upon one’s perspective. For example, in the latest Indiana Jones adventure, no longer are the gods of the dawning order disembodied spirits we cannot see but rather posses physical form we can relate to even if it differs vastly from our own. And yet even though they are like us, the also come from a place apart from and above our own so as to avoid banality by providing us with the hope of somewhere possessing a transcendence we can still aspire to.
Those watching “Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull” can feel free to do so with a clear conscience as it is primarily an entertaining adventure story. However, as with the protagonist of this series, viewers should take with them the assorted equipment necessary to avoid the pitfalls and traps they are likely to encounter as they undertake an expedition into this realm where imagination intersects belief.
by Frederick Meekins
Pastor Sentenced To Chinese Labor Camp
07.23.08 (3:07 pm) [edit]
According to the China Aid Association, Pastor Zhang Zhongxin has been sentenced to two years in a Chinese labor camp by Shandong Province authorities for participation in cultic activities. To American ears, such allegations bring to mind images of passing around poisoned Kool-Aid or of adolescent brides forced to wed lecherous old men; however, in this case this pastor engaged in religious exercises most of us take for granted as harmless as organizing a Sunday school.
Since freedom of religion is listed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is a duty of the United States to stand for this liberty in any way proper or possible around the world.
Radical multiculturalists will respond that it is not the place of the United States to be spreading American notions around the world as this could be construed as imposing Western values on other societies. However, another axiom of the economic age in which we live posits that the customer is always right.
If the government of the People’s Republic of China wishes to continue to benefit from the financial patronage and cooperation of the United States, it is only reasonable for authorities over there to respect certain inalienable rights held by all individuals irrespective of what regime they happen to live under.
After all, firms here seeking to do business with the government in terms of being granted contracts are expected to honor any number of obligations that go beyond basic human rights such as minority quotas and prevailing union wages.
It is the prayer and hope of believers in Christ around the world that Pastor Zhongxin’s sentence would be commuted or suspended because in the contemporary world citizens embracing Christianity bring stability to a nation rather than disruption. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ assists both individuals and communities in balancing the seemingly conflicting tendencies towards order and liberty, and in so doing actually makes a nation stronger.
In the Western press, considerable debate has taken place as to the prudence of allowing China to host the 2008 Olympic games. With the eyes of the world turning to that particular nation at this time, there would be no better gesture that China could make to prove it takes its responsibility as a leading power of the 21st century seriously than by guaranteeing that citizens within that country’s borders are free to practice their religion without fear of incarceration or reprisals
by Frederick Meekins
Since freedom of religion is listed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is a duty of the United States to stand for this liberty in any way proper or possible around the world.
Radical multiculturalists will respond that it is not the place of the United States to be spreading American notions around the world as this could be construed as imposing Western values on other societies. However, another axiom of the economic age in which we live posits that the customer is always right.
If the government of the People’s Republic of China wishes to continue to benefit from the financial patronage and cooperation of the United States, it is only reasonable for authorities over there to respect certain inalienable rights held by all individuals irrespective of what regime they happen to live under.
After all, firms here seeking to do business with the government in terms of being granted contracts are expected to honor any number of obligations that go beyond basic human rights such as minority quotas and prevailing union wages.
It is the prayer and hope of believers in Christ around the world that Pastor Zhongxin’s sentence would be commuted or suspended because in the contemporary world citizens embracing Christianity bring stability to a nation rather than disruption. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ assists both individuals and communities in balancing the seemingly conflicting tendencies towards order and liberty, and in so doing actually makes a nation stronger.
In the Western press, considerable debate has taken place as to the prudence of allowing China to host the 2008 Olympic games. With the eyes of the world turning to that particular nation at this time, there would be no better gesture that China could make to prove it takes its responsibility as a leading power of the 21st century seriously than by guaranteeing that citizens within that country’s borders are free to practice their religion without fear of incarceration or reprisals
by Frederick Meekins
Hispanosupremacists Infiltrate Evangelical Movement
07.09.08 (2:36 pm) [edit]
Minority activists and other guiltmongers often whine that 11 am Sunday morning is often the most segregated hour of the week. I wonder what the we-are-all-one-big family agitators have to say about the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, which bills itself as the National Hispanic Association of Evangelicals.
While prominent Christian leaders are correct that all of mankind descends from one set of parents, interesting, isn’t it, how these speakers only expect Whites of a more Northern European extraction to abide by such radical color-blindness. For if a group of Caucasians a little to wrapped up in their pigmentation ratios established the Nordic Christian Association, it would not be tolerated in contemporary Evangelical circles, and rightfully so.
Yet, in browsing the NHCLC’s website, one finds alliances and linkages with a virtual who’s who of American religion today. On their main page at one time or another have been inks to prominent ministries such as Promise Keepers, Christianity Today, Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse, and Rod Parsely’s Center for Moral Clarity. Unless otherwise stated, usually such prominent banner placements denote a high degree of fellowship between the partners.
As one probes deeper into the site, one discovers this outfit has conducted theological dialogue with arch apostates such as T.D. Jakes (denier of the Trinity) and Benny Hinn, known for endorsing epilepsy-esque convulsions in the name of the Holy Spirit. Ted Haggard, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals caught in a scandal involving a gay male prostitute dealing drugs, at one time also came bowing and scrapping before the group in an effort to curry its favor.
But before most weak-willed pew fillers simply shrug their shoulders and flippantly remark, “Well it’s simply God’s will we don’t look at color” perhaps they should be told that it’s doubtful the concerns of the NHCLC are as broadminded and universal in nature as they seem to be giving their socioecclesiastical imprimatur to the Hispanic conquest of the United States.
For in a letter addressed to the President and Congress and in a “Statement of on Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, the NHCLC calls for aliens already living here to be granted permanent legal status, an increase in the numbers of visas granted, and a “viable guest worker program that will strengthen the economic vitality of both employer and employee”. So basically, to use Biblical vernacular, to Sheol with the American people so long as the elites and their new indentured servants are pleased. All you are to any of these people, both in the government and in the clerical class is either someone that pays taxes or tithes.
In their statement, the NHCLC calls for end to all illegal immigration. For those unable to decipher socialistic doublespeak, what this group is calling for is really not all that different than what Communist front groups such as La Raza has called for or the Tri-Lateralists at the highest levels of the State Department.where no one will be illegal anymore when the United States, Mexico, and Canada are merged into a broader hemispheric union where Mexican corruption will pervade, Canadian anti-hate speech tribunals will reign supreme, and America’s constitutional liberties will have been flushed down the sewer pipe like last nights half-digested refried beans.
One of the verses tolerancemongers love to rip out of its original context and toss around the most is “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” If one’s highest loyalty in this life is to be found with one’s tribe above all else as these ethnocentric ministries seem to insinuate, Hispanics have a lot of cleaning of their own house to do before they go about pointing out the faults of broader America.
Since the NHCLC has now set its sites on condemning the shortcomings of the broader American society, I guess they have finished evangelizing their own community and brought just about all of them to Christ. I guess they have convinced their kinsmen to forsake their carousing ways characterized by public boozing and raucous music and persuaded them to pick up after themselves and not to let their liter lie where it falls. However, from the appearance of many of our suburban neighborhoods, such is clearly not the case.
Another Biblical injunction the Hispanophiles love to invoke is “Oppress not the stranger”. But in comparison how Mexico treats immigrants to that nation, Americans pretty much treats those wantonly violating our borders like virtual kings.
In an April 4, 2006 piece appearing in the Washington Times, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy exposes the rank hypocrisy of highlighting America’s alleged “mistreatment&rdquo ; of those who don’t even have the right to be here in comparison to how poorly Mexico even treats immigrants there playing by the rules.
For example, according to Gaffney, the Mexican constitution forbids foreigners from expression political opinions on domestic affairs in public (no mass demonstrations as the human debris is allowed to wallow in here in America) and non-native born Mexicans can’t even become lawmakers or cabinet officers (thus no Henry Kissinger or Madeleine Albright). And though we are to fundamentally alter our Constitution in order to stroke Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ego so he can become President, a natural born Mexican citizen cannot become president unless his parents are also natural born Mexican citizens.
Yet in the spirit of multiculturalism and inclusion, we should not be so quick to dismiss all Mexican ways and in a spirit of international brotherhood, perhaps we should adopt some of the policies implemented by the Mexican government. According to Gaffney, Article 11 of the Mexican constitution guarantees protection against undesirable alien residents and Article 16 grants permission for citizens to detain illegals and hand them over to police who in turn authorized to expel them from the country without additional legal action.
And if the NHCLC feels it must speak out against the abuse of the innocent, perhaps they should address the civil rights violations that go in the organization‘s beloved cultural homeand. According to Larry Elder, Black Mexicans (Afro-Mexicans?) can be stopped by police and forced to sing the Mexican national anthem as a test of citizenship. But since they are not part of the “la raza” translated as “THE RACE“, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference probably doesn’t really care.
And those simply made to sing the Mexican Anthem are the lucky ones. Though Hispanics of the world claim to be unified against the United States, they hate one another almost as much as they hate the Yankee. For while the United States is expected to allow anyone in that pops through the door, Mexican officials regularly shoot, abuse, and sexual molest other Latin Americans coming into their nation for the purposes of, to borrow a phrase, “do jobs Mexicans themselves won’t do”.
This animosity among ethnic kinsman raises another interesting point. It is known that eventually most revolutions consume their own. Elitists in radical Hispanic organizations such as in the National Hispanic Leadership Conference, who could be accepted as Caucasians as many are as light complected as Italians or any other kind of White person with a suntan but just can’t pass up those affirmative action and racial preference spoils, should stop and wonder who the swarthier masses are going to turn against when the dreaded gringos no have finally been eliminated and no longer roam the earth?
American Christians concerned about their own futures since we will have to look after ourselves (since obviously no one else, not even our own church leaders intend to anymore) as well as the well being of their own children should think long and hard about who their religious dollars are going to support and under whose teaching they are going to sit. For the motto of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference is “Empowering the Hispanic Church, Engaging the Hispanic Vision and Enriching the Hispanic Dream.”
Where in that is any room for a common American dream, not to mention anyone that is not Hispanic? And if there isn’t, why should the average White Christian, heralded as the bane of earth by every malcontent from Guadalahara, to Los Angles, to Bejing to Baghdad participate in his own demise by either financing it through the collection plate or have to sit there every Sunday morning and be forced to smile about it?
by Frederick Meekins
While prominent Christian leaders are correct that all of mankind descends from one set of parents, interesting, isn’t it, how these speakers only expect Whites of a more Northern European extraction to abide by such radical color-blindness. For if a group of Caucasians a little to wrapped up in their pigmentation ratios established the Nordic Christian Association, it would not be tolerated in contemporary Evangelical circles, and rightfully so.
Yet, in browsing the NHCLC’s website, one finds alliances and linkages with a virtual who’s who of American religion today. On their main page at one time or another have been inks to prominent ministries such as Promise Keepers, Christianity Today, Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse, and Rod Parsely’s Center for Moral Clarity. Unless otherwise stated, usually such prominent banner placements denote a high degree of fellowship between the partners.
As one probes deeper into the site, one discovers this outfit has conducted theological dialogue with arch apostates such as T.D. Jakes (denier of the Trinity) and Benny Hinn, known for endorsing epilepsy-esque convulsions in the name of the Holy Spirit. Ted Haggard, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals caught in a scandal involving a gay male prostitute dealing drugs, at one time also came bowing and scrapping before the group in an effort to curry its favor.
But before most weak-willed pew fillers simply shrug their shoulders and flippantly remark, “Well it’s simply God’s will we don’t look at color” perhaps they should be told that it’s doubtful the concerns of the NHCLC are as broadminded and universal in nature as they seem to be giving their socioecclesiastical imprimatur to the Hispanic conquest of the United States.
For in a letter addressed to the President and Congress and in a “Statement of on Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, the NHCLC calls for aliens already living here to be granted permanent legal status, an increase in the numbers of visas granted, and a “viable guest worker program that will strengthen the economic vitality of both employer and employee”. So basically, to use Biblical vernacular, to Sheol with the American people so long as the elites and their new indentured servants are pleased. All you are to any of these people, both in the government and in the clerical class is either someone that pays taxes or tithes.
In their statement, the NHCLC calls for end to all illegal immigration. For those unable to decipher socialistic doublespeak, what this group is calling for is really not all that different than what Communist front groups such as La Raza has called for or the Tri-Lateralists at the highest levels of the State Department.where no one will be illegal anymore when the United States, Mexico, and Canada are merged into a broader hemispheric union where Mexican corruption will pervade, Canadian anti-hate speech tribunals will reign supreme, and America’s constitutional liberties will have been flushed down the sewer pipe like last nights half-digested refried beans.
One of the verses tolerancemongers love to rip out of its original context and toss around the most is “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” If one’s highest loyalty in this life is to be found with one’s tribe above all else as these ethnocentric ministries seem to insinuate, Hispanics have a lot of cleaning of their own house to do before they go about pointing out the faults of broader America.
Since the NHCLC has now set its sites on condemning the shortcomings of the broader American society, I guess they have finished evangelizing their own community and brought just about all of them to Christ. I guess they have convinced their kinsmen to forsake their carousing ways characterized by public boozing and raucous music and persuaded them to pick up after themselves and not to let their liter lie where it falls. However, from the appearance of many of our suburban neighborhoods, such is clearly not the case.
Another Biblical injunction the Hispanophiles love to invoke is “Oppress not the stranger”. But in comparison how Mexico treats immigrants to that nation, Americans pretty much treats those wantonly violating our borders like virtual kings.
In an April 4, 2006 piece appearing in the Washington Times, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy exposes the rank hypocrisy of highlighting America’s alleged “mistreatment&rdquo ; of those who don’t even have the right to be here in comparison to how poorly Mexico even treats immigrants there playing by the rules.
For example, according to Gaffney, the Mexican constitution forbids foreigners from expression political opinions on domestic affairs in public (no mass demonstrations as the human debris is allowed to wallow in here in America) and non-native born Mexicans can’t even become lawmakers or cabinet officers (thus no Henry Kissinger or Madeleine Albright). And though we are to fundamentally alter our Constitution in order to stroke Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ego so he can become President, a natural born Mexican citizen cannot become president unless his parents are also natural born Mexican citizens.
Yet in the spirit of multiculturalism and inclusion, we should not be so quick to dismiss all Mexican ways and in a spirit of international brotherhood, perhaps we should adopt some of the policies implemented by the Mexican government. According to Gaffney, Article 11 of the Mexican constitution guarantees protection against undesirable alien residents and Article 16 grants permission for citizens to detain illegals and hand them over to police who in turn authorized to expel them from the country without additional legal action.
And if the NHCLC feels it must speak out against the abuse of the innocent, perhaps they should address the civil rights violations that go in the organization‘s beloved cultural homeand. According to Larry Elder, Black Mexicans (Afro-Mexicans?) can be stopped by police and forced to sing the Mexican national anthem as a test of citizenship. But since they are not part of the “la raza” translated as “THE RACE“, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference probably doesn’t really care.
And those simply made to sing the Mexican Anthem are the lucky ones. Though Hispanics of the world claim to be unified against the United States, they hate one another almost as much as they hate the Yankee. For while the United States is expected to allow anyone in that pops through the door, Mexican officials regularly shoot, abuse, and sexual molest other Latin Americans coming into their nation for the purposes of, to borrow a phrase, “do jobs Mexicans themselves won’t do”.
This animosity among ethnic kinsman raises another interesting point. It is known that eventually most revolutions consume their own. Elitists in radical Hispanic organizations such as in the National Hispanic Leadership Conference, who could be accepted as Caucasians as many are as light complected as Italians or any other kind of White person with a suntan but just can’t pass up those affirmative action and racial preference spoils, should stop and wonder who the swarthier masses are going to turn against when the dreaded gringos no have finally been eliminated and no longer roam the earth?
American Christians concerned about their own futures since we will have to look after ourselves (since obviously no one else, not even our own church leaders intend to anymore) as well as the well being of their own children should think long and hard about who their religious dollars are going to support and under whose teaching they are going to sit. For the motto of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference is “Empowering the Hispanic Church, Engaging the Hispanic Vision and Enriching the Hispanic Dream.”
Where in that is any room for a common American dream, not to mention anyone that is not Hispanic? And if there isn’t, why should the average White Christian, heralded as the bane of earth by every malcontent from Guadalahara, to Los Angles, to Bejing to Baghdad participate in his own demise by either financing it through the collection plate or have to sit there every Sunday morning and be forced to smile about it?
by Frederick Meekins
And Will Obama Save Us From Our Sins?: Adoration Of Candidate Borders On The Fanatically Frightening
06.12.08 (3:22 pm) [edit]
As the United States edges ever closer to tyranny with freedom dieing a little more each year with the passage of new laws, the handing down of judicial rulings, and the promulgation of executive orders, it is assumed by increasing numbers that it is the role of government to provide for all of our needs and to save us from our own worst tendencies irrespective of whether or not these are matters we want massive bureaucracies poking into our private lives about. As bad as such intrusions are, the fear such a scenario provokes pales in comparison to the almost messianic mantel being bestowed upon Barack Obama, qualified (we are told) to hold the highest elected government office in the land for no other reason than that he happens to be Barack Obama.
When Americans went into the voting booth, it use to be expected they would cast their franchise for the individual most capable of administering the reigns of the executive branch. Never was the individual to be chosen meant to give the teeming masses their purpose for existence. However, with the rise of Barack Obama as he seeks to win the 2008 Democratic nomination for the presidency, his campaign has taken on increasingly utopian tones.
For example, posted on the April 1, 2008 Guardian is a column titled “Obama Is The Change That America Has Tried To Hide”, arguing that only one candidate offers the radical departure from the normal that the 21st century US needs for its own sake as well as the rest of the world. In the piece, the reader finds accolades and platitudes as revolutionarily disturbing as anything from the time of the Bolshevik uprising and the Red Menace in terms of the new order this man’s disciples hope to impose upon society.
For example, the piece speaks of “a new country existing alongside the old”. Few commentators will possess the fortitude to translate this phrase honestly, but what that means is essentially that the holy Barack should have the presidency bestowed upon him for no other reason than that he happens to be half Black. The sentiment also implies that those daring to vote against him had better watch out when the riots start either after his victory or defeat.
Those thinking I am reading too much into this need only continue on in the Guardian column as the anti-White animus becomes even more apparent. This subversive writes, “I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking to any leader...in the world with no baggage of past servitude or race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same scenario with Clinton, who would drag into the 21st century US leadership the same image of white privilege and distance from others’ lives that has so marred the country’s contacts with the rest of the world.”
In other words, “No Whites Need Apply” when it comes to elected office. Fair enough; maybe we can kick back now and someone can pay for our Foodstamps and welfare for a while and get an entire month dedicated to us where we are applauded for a change for no other reason than that we happen to be White.
Whites having grown docile in light of pandering to agitating minorities out of a fear of being classified as “racist” or whatever other labels are invoked these days to keep the handouts flowing will no doubt exhibit the hesitancy to stand up for themselves that has come to categorize most of this ethnic extraction for the last 25 years or so. Let’s hope this character flaw corrects itself before the followers of Obama set out to impose their socialist utopia where they plan to take what you, ladies and gentlemen, have worked for and distribute it to deadbeats of all colors that haven’t lifted a finger.
Think I am overexaggerating? One only need to continue analyzing this Guardian piece in question to see just how anti-American the Obamaites really are. Alice Walker writes, “I want a grown-up attitude towards Cuba, for instance, a country and people I love. I want an end to the war immediately, and I want the soldiers to be encouraged to destroy their weapons and drive themselves out of Iraq.”
Edmund Burke is credited with saying that, in order to love my country, my country must be lovely. One might be able to love the broad masses of the Cuban people as victims of Castro’s regime but to say that one loves Cuba as it is currently constituted means first and foremost that one is a Communist at heart.
Secondly, it is one thing to believe that prolonged involvement in Iraq may not be in the best strategic interests of the United States. However, one is advocating something far more subversive entirely when one calls for the abolition of the armed forces all together.
It may not just be the military the devotees of the sacred Barack might be out to abolish. Walker writes, “Even if Obama becomes president, our country is in such ruin it may be beyond his power to lead us into rehabilitation.” Such a sentiment is basically calling for the abolition of our constitutional system of government and its replacement with something more socialistic or Communistic in nature administered in the case by the Obama.
Pesky things like free speech and the right to worship as you see fit (especially if you do so in a traditional manner where you look to God as the source of your rights rather than the government) causing toomuch divisiveness? Why not just abolish them with an executive order as even supposedly solid conservative Republicans such as Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush showed us there is really no reason why we should bother with the hassle of the lawmaking process when implementing measures no American in their right mind would back.
And you as an American had better not have any expectations of fighting back. The Second Amendment will have been done away with long before that with government stormtroopers sent house to house to confiscate firearms as transpired in Louisiana following Katrina to citizens that had committed no crimes.
Walker continues on in an even more frightening tone, “If he is elected, however, we must as citizens of the planet insist on helping him do the best job that can be done; more, we must insist that he demand this of us.”
For starters, the phrase “citizens of the planet” should tip the astute reader off right there that Barack’s followers are a bunch of borderline Communists. Such a phrase is an indication that the loyalty the person is invoking is not to the United States of America or even the God of the Bible but rather to the enemies of human liberty as those rallying under the banner of “the Planet” are not going to distinguish themselves from the Red Chinese, Russian Neo-Soviets, or radical Islamists.
Secondly, I don’t care who the President is, I don’t want him making any kinds of “demands” of me. Just how far will this “compulsory national service” extend? The Founding Fathers did not set up a system where the national government was to have extensive interference in the life of the average citizen.
These kinds of attitudes might be easy to dismiss if merely the ramblings of some fruitcake author having stumbled beyond the boundaries of their particular area of expertise. However, they are increasingly being echoed by more political insiders and even the candidate himself.
Pundit Chris Matthews has implied that anyone not voting for Barack Obama is no better than Archie Bunker. Former governor of Virginia Douglas Wilder has insinuated that if Obama is not the nominee that there may be riots in the streets.
In some of his comments, the Obama has attempted to convince the masses that he has distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright with whom he has had considerable admiration for for over twenty years. However, other oracles uttered by the chosen one reveal that his outlook may not differ all that appreciably from his spiritual mentor.
In comments regarding small town America (meaning largely rural White people), Obama has said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone for 25 years now and nothing has replaced them... And its not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
For starters, what’s so wrong with clinging to “guns” or “religion”?&n bsp; By holding onto these metaphysical foundations, one is of the mindset that one is primarily responsible for one’s own self and one’s own family (as symbolized by the protection afforded by the gun) and of those things one is unable to provide for one’s self one looks to God for (as symbolized by “religion”).
If anything, Obama’s urban supporters, not those living in America’s rural and small town heartland, are frankly the ones that have proven themselves unable of handling the responsibility of firearms ownership. Thus, it is reliance on God rather than firearms that the Barack might have the problem with.
For unlike the pious, self-reliant yeoman of the American countryside, many urban ghetto dwellers of otherwise sound body do not want to make the way of their own families in the world as enabled by God but rather approach with an outstretched hand in a less than grateful manner demanding that the taxpayers fill it. Seeking to bolster his image as some kind of secular messiah with God as some kind of grandfatherly figure in the background that simply nods but otherwise keeps His mouth shut for fear of being sent to a nursing home, this is the kind of dependency the Obama has a vested interest in fostering.
In Obama’s tirade is a clause that residents of small town Pennsylvania also cling to “...antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment...as a way to explain their frustrations.” Notice at no time does his holiness refute whether or not immigrants --- or at least the waves upon waves being allowed to wash over the fruited plain --- are changing what it means to be an American as many of them have no legal grounds to be here in the first place and they certainly aren’t of America’s predominant ethnic background (a characteristic somehow immoral to consider except when advocating why Obama is the candidate most qualified to be President), and that these new comers are being coddled by those in the egghead professions in the new refusal to become Americans in their identity. I suppose it is easier to preach tolerance and acceptance when, as in the case of Obama’s spiritual mentor and adviser Jeremiah Wright, when you are protected from it by living behind a gated wall surrounded by upper crust White people.
Frankly, Obama should be the last to complain about anyone being bitter as that has pretty much been the fuel propelling his campaign. His spiritual mentor who drives around in luxury cars and who is having a mansion built for himself in a posh White neighborhood talks as is he was the one dragged here in chains.
Those seeking to defend their lord’s infallibility will now point out how their master has since distanced himself from his pastor. That said though, does Barack have the manhood to put his wife in her place as well? As mouthy as she is, I somehow doubt that.
Obama’s wife Michelle has remarked along the campaign trail that this is the first time in her life that she can remember being proud to be an American. Need I remind you that this lady is no mere scrubwoman or housemaid and she has enjoyed the rather comfortable existence of an Ivy League education.
Granted, things throughout American history were not perfect, but doesn’t the fact that we Americans complain so much over the less than perfect serve as testament to just how good we have it and the freedom to gripe until our hearts are content show just how proud of things we really ought to be? Would be interesting to see how Mrs. Obama would fair with that attitude of hers living under a Third World regime.
In a prayer poking fun at the hypocritical nature of many Christians, the following petition is made: “Lord, protect me from Your followers.” Those who love this country might utter a similar invocation of “Lord, protect us from Obama and his followers “ as the movement that has popped up around this mere mortal seeks to imbue both him and the office he hopes to acquire with power over our lives no human institution was meant to hold.
by Frederick Meekins
When Americans went into the voting booth, it use to be expected they would cast their franchise for the individual most capable of administering the reigns of the executive branch. Never was the individual to be chosen meant to give the teeming masses their purpose for existence. However, with the rise of Barack Obama as he seeks to win the 2008 Democratic nomination for the presidency, his campaign has taken on increasingly utopian tones.
For example, posted on the April 1, 2008 Guardian is a column titled “Obama Is The Change That America Has Tried To Hide”, arguing that only one candidate offers the radical departure from the normal that the 21st century US needs for its own sake as well as the rest of the world. In the piece, the reader finds accolades and platitudes as revolutionarily disturbing as anything from the time of the Bolshevik uprising and the Red Menace in terms of the new order this man’s disciples hope to impose upon society.
For example, the piece speaks of “a new country existing alongside the old”. Few commentators will possess the fortitude to translate this phrase honestly, but what that means is essentially that the holy Barack should have the presidency bestowed upon him for no other reason than that he happens to be half Black. The sentiment also implies that those daring to vote against him had better watch out when the riots start either after his victory or defeat.
Those thinking I am reading too much into this need only continue on in the Guardian column as the anti-White animus becomes even more apparent. This subversive writes, “I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking to any leader...in the world with no baggage of past servitude or race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same scenario with Clinton, who would drag into the 21st century US leadership the same image of white privilege and distance from others’ lives that has so marred the country’s contacts with the rest of the world.”
In other words, “No Whites Need Apply” when it comes to elected office. Fair enough; maybe we can kick back now and someone can pay for our Foodstamps and welfare for a while and get an entire month dedicated to us where we are applauded for a change for no other reason than that we happen to be White.
Whites having grown docile in light of pandering to agitating minorities out of a fear of being classified as “racist” or whatever other labels are invoked these days to keep the handouts flowing will no doubt exhibit the hesitancy to stand up for themselves that has come to categorize most of this ethnic extraction for the last 25 years or so. Let’s hope this character flaw corrects itself before the followers of Obama set out to impose their socialist utopia where they plan to take what you, ladies and gentlemen, have worked for and distribute it to deadbeats of all colors that haven’t lifted a finger.
Think I am overexaggerating? One only need to continue analyzing this Guardian piece in question to see just how anti-American the Obamaites really are. Alice Walker writes, “I want a grown-up attitude towards Cuba, for instance, a country and people I love. I want an end to the war immediately, and I want the soldiers to be encouraged to destroy their weapons and drive themselves out of Iraq.”
Edmund Burke is credited with saying that, in order to love my country, my country must be lovely. One might be able to love the broad masses of the Cuban people as victims of Castro’s regime but to say that one loves Cuba as it is currently constituted means first and foremost that one is a Communist at heart.
Secondly, it is one thing to believe that prolonged involvement in Iraq may not be in the best strategic interests of the United States. However, one is advocating something far more subversive entirely when one calls for the abolition of the armed forces all together.
It may not just be the military the devotees of the sacred Barack might be out to abolish. Walker writes, “Even if Obama becomes president, our country is in such ruin it may be beyond his power to lead us into rehabilitation.” Such a sentiment is basically calling for the abolition of our constitutional system of government and its replacement with something more socialistic or Communistic in nature administered in the case by the Obama.
Pesky things like free speech and the right to worship as you see fit (especially if you do so in a traditional manner where you look to God as the source of your rights rather than the government) causing toomuch divisiveness? Why not just abolish them with an executive order as even supposedly solid conservative Republicans such as Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush showed us there is really no reason why we should bother with the hassle of the lawmaking process when implementing measures no American in their right mind would back.
And you as an American had better not have any expectations of fighting back. The Second Amendment will have been done away with long before that with government stormtroopers sent house to house to confiscate firearms as transpired in Louisiana following Katrina to citizens that had committed no crimes.
Walker continues on in an even more frightening tone, “If he is elected, however, we must as citizens of the planet insist on helping him do the best job that can be done; more, we must insist that he demand this of us.”
For starters, the phrase “citizens of the planet” should tip the astute reader off right there that Barack’s followers are a bunch of borderline Communists. Such a phrase is an indication that the loyalty the person is invoking is not to the United States of America or even the God of the Bible but rather to the enemies of human liberty as those rallying under the banner of “the Planet” are not going to distinguish themselves from the Red Chinese, Russian Neo-Soviets, or radical Islamists.
Secondly, I don’t care who the President is, I don’t want him making any kinds of “demands” of me. Just how far will this “compulsory national service” extend? The Founding Fathers did not set up a system where the national government was to have extensive interference in the life of the average citizen.
These kinds of attitudes might be easy to dismiss if merely the ramblings of some fruitcake author having stumbled beyond the boundaries of their particular area of expertise. However, they are increasingly being echoed by more political insiders and even the candidate himself.
Pundit Chris Matthews has implied that anyone not voting for Barack Obama is no better than Archie Bunker. Former governor of Virginia Douglas Wilder has insinuated that if Obama is not the nominee that there may be riots in the streets.
In some of his comments, the Obama has attempted to convince the masses that he has distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright with whom he has had considerable admiration for for over twenty years. However, other oracles uttered by the chosen one reveal that his outlook may not differ all that appreciably from his spiritual mentor.
In comments regarding small town America (meaning largely rural White people), Obama has said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone for 25 years now and nothing has replaced them... And its not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
For starters, what’s so wrong with clinging to “guns” or “religion”?&n bsp; By holding onto these metaphysical foundations, one is of the mindset that one is primarily responsible for one’s own self and one’s own family (as symbolized by the protection afforded by the gun) and of those things one is unable to provide for one’s self one looks to God for (as symbolized by “religion”).
If anything, Obama’s urban supporters, not those living in America’s rural and small town heartland, are frankly the ones that have proven themselves unable of handling the responsibility of firearms ownership. Thus, it is reliance on God rather than firearms that the Barack might have the problem with.
For unlike the pious, self-reliant yeoman of the American countryside, many urban ghetto dwellers of otherwise sound body do not want to make the way of their own families in the world as enabled by God but rather approach with an outstretched hand in a less than grateful manner demanding that the taxpayers fill it. Seeking to bolster his image as some kind of secular messiah with God as some kind of grandfatherly figure in the background that simply nods but otherwise keeps His mouth shut for fear of being sent to a nursing home, this is the kind of dependency the Obama has a vested interest in fostering.
In Obama’s tirade is a clause that residents of small town Pennsylvania also cling to “...antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment...as a way to explain their frustrations.” Notice at no time does his holiness refute whether or not immigrants --- or at least the waves upon waves being allowed to wash over the fruited plain --- are changing what it means to be an American as many of them have no legal grounds to be here in the first place and they certainly aren’t of America’s predominant ethnic background (a characteristic somehow immoral to consider except when advocating why Obama is the candidate most qualified to be President), and that these new comers are being coddled by those in the egghead professions in the new refusal to become Americans in their identity. I suppose it is easier to preach tolerance and acceptance when, as in the case of Obama’s spiritual mentor and adviser Jeremiah Wright, when you are protected from it by living behind a gated wall surrounded by upper crust White people.
Frankly, Obama should be the last to complain about anyone being bitter as that has pretty much been the fuel propelling his campaign. His spiritual mentor who drives around in luxury cars and who is having a mansion built for himself in a posh White neighborhood talks as is he was the one dragged here in chains.
Those seeking to defend their lord’s infallibility will now point out how their master has since distanced himself from his pastor. That said though, does Barack have the manhood to put his wife in her place as well? As mouthy as she is, I somehow doubt that.
Obama’s wife Michelle has remarked along the campaign trail that this is the first time in her life that she can remember being proud to be an American. Need I remind you that this lady is no mere scrubwoman or housemaid and she has enjoyed the rather comfortable existence of an Ivy League education.
Granted, things throughout American history were not perfect, but doesn’t the fact that we Americans complain so much over the less than perfect serve as testament to just how good we have it and the freedom to gripe until our hearts are content show just how proud of things we really ought to be? Would be interesting to see how Mrs. Obama would fair with that attitude of hers living under a Third World regime.
In a prayer poking fun at the hypocritical nature of many Christians, the following petition is made: “Lord, protect me from Your followers.” Those who love this country might utter a similar invocation of “Lord, protect us from Obama and his followers “ as the movement that has popped up around this mere mortal seeks to imbue both him and the office he hopes to acquire with power over our lives no human institution was meant to hold.
by Frederick Meekins
Schaeffer Progeny Kneels At The Feet Of Afrosupremacist Pastor
05.21.08 (3:09 pm) [edit]
Charged with relaying the truth of God as revealed through Holy Scripture and rationally applied to more contemporary specific situations through theology, ministers face the unique challenge of uplifting those aspects of culture and society that are in accord with what the Lord intended for mankind while admonishing or criticizing those aspects of human institutions and individual behavior that fall short. As fallen beings themselves stained by the same sin nature plaguing each and every one of us, it can be easy for those aspiring for recognition as mouthpieces of the divine to substitute their own agendas and predilections as God’s own clearly defined will. That is why it is imperative for believers making up these respective congregations --- whether they be sitting in a traditional pew, listening over the airwaves, or even reading a book --- to do their duty not only as Bereans but also as the sons of Issachar by examining the ideas espoused, the implications of these ideas upon the future, and the underlying worldview of the individual expositing them.
Sometimes, our closeness to an individual prevents us from seeing an individual as they truly are. Usually, this causes us to gloss over the faults of our loved ones to remember them in a light probably a bit better than they really were as love covers over a multitude of sins.
However, the very opposite can also take place if something causes a relationship to become strained and if we are not careful the minor faults we all struggle with can cause us to look back upon those we were once fond of in an almost criminal light. This may be the perceptual trap Frank Schaeffer, son of the late apologist Francis Schaeffer, has fallen into when he claims his own father was worse than Barack Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright according to a March 21, 2008 WorldNetDaily.com article titled “Francis Schaeffer’s Son: ‘Dad worse than Obama’s pastor’.”
When such a claim is made, those valuing discernment must examine the statements made by the disputed clergy in question and dig deeper into the underlying worldview of each. It is only by doing so that the concerned Christian can determine whether or not the rhetoric under examination falls outside the pale of acceptable orthodoxy.
Most of the Schaeffer lad’s allegations center around the charge that his father was at least as anti-American as Jeremiah Wright and that conservative Christians should be criticized for condemning one of these thinkers while embracing the other largely as one of the primary philosophical supports for the cultural engagement of the Evangelical Right. Central to this debate is what each of these theologians believed would bring the judgment of God upon the United States and why such retribution had been brought.
According to Schaeffer the Younger, inexcusable comments made by his father include the following: condemning abortion, reserving the right of the people to one day revolt as a last resort against a tyrannical government that abridges God-given rights that would otherwise allow the politically active to work for change within the system and that the right to bear arms as expressed by the Second Amendment serves as a mechanism whereby those in government ought to be made to think twice about infringing upon the rights of the people. The Schaeffer offspring also thinks it is unconscionable that his father dared to point out that philosophically very little separated the America secularist system of public education and the Soviet model.
Apparently in the eyes of Frank Schaeffer, the truth is not much of a defense. His problem may not so much be with his father as with the Founding Fathers as the elder Schaeffer was merely echoing in “A Christian Manifesto” many of the ideas forming the foundation of this great republic.
If it is wrong to view the Second Amendment as an “insurance policy” against unlawful intrusions of government power, does that mean that the younger Schaeffer would stand around with a smile on his face while operatives from the government take his property and rape his wife? It was this kind of unbiblical perversion of government that Franky Schaeffer’s father spent the last years of his life warning against.
O such horrible things --- the right to worship God freely, the right to be secure in one’s own person and property, and keeping the government within clearly specified boundaries so that it is strong enough to protect us from those that would do us harm while not making it so strong that it becomes a harmful parasite sucking our God given liberties away from us. Now let’s examine the kind of things believed by Franky Schaeffer’s new best friend Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
For starters, Wright holds to the theory that the United States developed the AIDS virus to maintain dominance over the Third World. Scientists and theoreticians could probably debate as to the origins of the pestilence, but doesn’t saying it was targeted at a specific set of foreign countries undermine the deaths of the many Americans the disease has claimed? Furthermore, isn’t AIDS a rather inefficient means of genocide since to avoid getting it all one has to do for the most part is to keep one’s pants on?
Most brainwashed today by government officials and leftwing propagandists into believing that firearms are evil by default rather than a neutral tool taking on the motives and characteristics of the individuals wielding them will have trouble swallowing the distinction between Schaeffer’s defense of the use of force over any that might be advocated by the likes of Jeremiah Wright. However, there is a world of difference when it comes down to just whom these two would be aiming at and why.
In his condemnation of certain aspects of government and society, Francis Schaeffer was calling upon a defense of the individual created in the image of God possessing rights no institution or other individual has the right to infringe upon. As such, under “Schafferianism” it does not matter what color you are.
The ideology espoused by Jeremiah Wright is much different. In his thinking and those like him, one’s value is not determined as a distinct individual made in the image of God but rather as part of a larger group or COMMUNITY. One can see this in his hostility towards America in general and Whites in particular largely through the company he has often kept.
If you examine Wright’s associations carefully, one sees he does not oppose violence per say but apparently only when it is America or Western powers that have resorted to force in pursuit of policy objectives as Wright certainly has no qualms about those advocating and using violence against Americans and our national interest. For example, it has been documented that Wright thinks highly of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
What is it exactly that Farrakhan and his sect believe? Quite a bit more than selling pecan pies and newspapers on metropolitan street corners.
For starters, Nation of Islam doctrine postulates that White people are an inferior race genetically engineered by an ancient mad scientist. The Nation of Islam also contends that a UFO-like vehicle is circling the earth to whisk away Black folks and to rain down nuclear annihilation on the White ones left behind for no other reason than that they happen to be White.
So why is it, ladies and gentleman, that liberal malcontents of various stripes will stand around and applaud this kind of foolishness when it is directed against Whites yet condemn it with such vehemence when such blather flows from the lips of the Ku Klux Klan to the point that it is those professing tolerance and understanding that actually perpetrate these days the acts of mayhem and destruction at Klan rallies rather than the Klan nitwits.
Wright’s association with Farrakhan does not stop at the level of a friendly “what’s up” as they pass each other on the Chicago streets. Wright actually accompanied Farrakhan to visit Muammar Qaddafi. For Americans that have forgotten since the Libyan leader has buried himself in the sand for awhile hoping most won’t notice him, before the advent of Al Qadea and Osama Bin Laden, Qaddafi spent many years atop terrorism’s superstar list.
This is not Wright’s only endorsement of Western civilization’s Islamist enemies. In his church bulletin, Wright ran an op-ed written by a high-level Hamas functionary.
Ladies and gentleman, what kind of pastor worthy of respect as such is going to hang out with and lend credence to the ideas of such human debris? Some modernist and postmodernists will whine, “Well, Jesus went to the publicans and sinners.”
That is correct. However, Wright was not ministering to those in the Arab street whom most leftists believe we are to pander these days in terms of our foreign policy. Rather, Wright is expressing a sympathy for those whose ultimate goal is nothing less short of the destruction of human liberty and freedom as understood in a traditional context.
Wright is able to get up there and condemn the use of force on the part of the U.S. government through its armed forces while lavishing accolades upon scumbag tyrants and terrorists because Wright is a proponent of liberation theology. Essentially what that is is revolutionary socialism or Communism dressed up in a religious garb.
According to Marxist doctrine, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the use of force if it is used to appropriate property from those deemed unworthy of utilizing it according to the vanguard of the proletariat who whoever else occupies that distinction these days such as radicalized minorities, environmentalists, or home owner associations. In fact to some revolutionaries these days, such acts are not even categorized as acts of violence as evidenced by World Bank protestor-types who insist they are nonviolent despite the looting, vandalism, and destruction of property for which those in this movement have become synonymous.
Liberals, especially White ones, have flocked to the Obama banner in part to pat themselves on the back just to show how progressive they are by backing a Black candidate and in so doing they freely embrace all of the anti-American baggage that make up the foundation of Barack Obama’s worldview. When either marauding mobs or minions of the state come to take what’s Whitey’s in the years and decades to come, it will be interesting to see if the younger Schaeffer comes back around to his father’s way of thinking or if he has grown so accustomed to his role that cannot be described as anything other than a useful idiot.
by Frederick Meekins
Does Winfrey Ride The Beast?
04.24.08 (2:43 pm) [edit]
At one point in her career, Oprah Winfrey was pretty much seen as a harmless crank as to the casual viewer catching the show in passing assumed that the program dealt primarily with her seesawiing weight and whether or not her shackup might secretly prefer to be paid in three dollar bills. However, as she has amassed considerable power and influence during her 20 plus years in the public limelight, this broadcaster is no longer an innocent afternoon distraction filling the time between when one arrives home from work and when dinner is set on the table but rather has intentionally set out to subvert American culture and the spiritual well being of the nation.
Not content with the worlds of television, publishing and politics now that she has taken an interest in Barack Obama only because he happens to be Black, Winfrey has now set out to establish her web presence as well. According to the March 3, 2008 edition of USA Today in an article titled “World Is Oprah’s Classroom”, Winfrey plans to lead an online interactive book discussion.
However, there is more to the book being studied than the typical feminist drivel one would expect women of the upper income bracket to be sitting around and reading. The title of the book alone is enough to send a chill down the spine.
The book is titled “A New Earth: Awakening To Your Life’s Purpose” by Eckhart Tolle. It is through this text that Winfrey hopes to be the False Prophet to Obama’s Pseudo-Messiah.
According to USA Today, “Winfrey calls the book ‘a wake up call for the entire planet...It helps distance ourselves from our egos, which of course, we all have, and to open ourselves to a higher self, which he [the book’s author] calls consciousness’.” As with most New Age bunk, it all basically boils down to socialism, no doubt wreaking of the smell of dope and unwashed hippies.
For when the likes of Winfrey and her literary vassal Eckhart Tolle criticize ego, they are not really talking about curbing their own arrogance or astonishing appetites. Because if they really did want to downplay notoriety of the self, why did the author even put his name on the book and accept the proceeds from the royalties?
Though it is doubtful that Obama and Winfrey are the Psuedo-Messiah and False Prophet, from the philosophy promoted in her webcasts, one could very well make the argument that the Old Deluder and his minions pulling the world strings behind the scenes are no doubt using the duo as a test run for the future global delusion.
According to the USA Today article, Tolle’s philosophy includes “Buddhist, Christian, and Islamic influences’” yet he is not “offering a religion or set of beliefs, but appeals to peoples of different faiths or no faith at all.” However, Tolle (as well as Winfrey for that matter) fancies himself as a “spiritual teacher”.
If anyone falls for this, that what Eckhart and Winfrey are offering up is not inherently religious, I have a bridge to sell them or a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. By claiming to be dogma free (itself a dogma), what Tolle hopes to accomplish is to unify as many as possible under a single banner of the flavor of the moment --- be that Obama and Winfrey for the time being or a duo far more ominous once the powers that be are through with them.
From this, one is very much reminded of the Great Harlot mentioned in the Book of Revelation that conditions the world into embracing the Devil’s chosen one but who is herself betrayed by the Beast once he solidifies his power.
Those interested by what Winfrey and Tolle have to offer can get a more in depth introduction through an exert of the text posted in the lifestyle section of MSN.com. The following analysis is from a portion titled “A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle (Part 1).”
The gist of the text is the wonder that will come about once more and more of us reach the threshold of enlightenment, defined by Tolle as “...a leap to an entirely different level of Being and, most importantly, a lessening of materiality.” Akin to punctuated equilibrium or the hopeful monster theory in biology where the evolutionists hope to cover their tails (both prehensile and otherwise) by claiming such advancements just occur spontaneously without leaving any proof behind, Tolle claims this state can come about as a result of ”discontinuity in its development”(thus only available initially to a select elite). In the plant world, this is a likened to the first flower.
However, in humanity the process is more existentially profound and contemplative as enlightenment occurs when one becomes aware of “...the underlying one Life, one Consciousness”. When enough people realize this, a “...profound shift in the planetary consciousness that is destined to take place in the human species” will occur.
It is through this monistic pantheism that New Agers or expanding perception types will be able to justify the deprivations they plan to inflict upon the remainder of humanity while continuing to enjoy their standard of living. Since Oprah is “every woman” as her theme song arrogantly intoned one season, she feels well within the bounds of propriety to tell the average person subsisting on ramen noodles several nights a week that their lifestyle is “too materialistic” whereas she vacations on David Copperfield’s private island resort for $24,000 per night.
Since Oprah is our avatar and embodiment of the collective consciousness, it is actually her metaphysical obligation to wallow in such luxury and up to us to provide a similar standard of recreation for her minions in government such as Senator Obama.
More importantly, by undermining individuality as in the case of Hinduistic New Age spirituality (atman is brahman) by claming that we are just a temporary cellular manifestation of the One Consciousness, when the time comes those accustomed to this mindset won’t have all that much of a problem with mass roundups and ultimately executions of those doing nothing more that questioning the worldview of those holding power. After all, one does not lament the removal of an infected hangnail or the cutting of hair since such an act benefits the overall body --- or as in the case of the global community --- the One Consciousness as Tolle calls it.
Such wayward intellects, according to Tolle, have failed to evolve to the point of enlightenment and “identify only with their own physical and psychological form”. Thus, for the sake of the COMMUNITY, it is imperative that such impediments be removed. Besides, doing such really wouldn’t be wrong (a concept itself outdated and bigoted since transcendent absolute standards don’t exist anyway) since distinct individuals don’t really exist and by hastening their return to the universal consciousness one may in fact be doing them a favor by expediting them onwards towards their next incarnation.
Progressives will no doubt ridicule conservatives speculating how close Obama, Winfrey, and their crowd might be to the revelation of the psuedo-messiah foretold in the pages of Scripture. However, it probably wasn’t a conservative artist that painted for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine a portrait of the Senator with the kind of reverence categorizing portraits of Christ nor was it a conservative that appointed Oprah as the herald of the so-called “new spirituality”.
by Frederick Meekins
