Richard Dawkins Torn Limb from Limb—By Atheists – Look! Human Skeptics are Humans! May contain 15-48% rationality, with the rest made up of emotions, hormones, and cultural conditioning! Throw in an Internet flame war, and, hey-presto!
Love, Hell, Consciousness, and the (Current) Impossibility of ‘Church Unity’ – Waving or Drowning? – ‘Just yesterday I had a spiritual conversation with an old friend, and I shared with him my growing discontent with the label ‘Christian’. So you’re a Christian. That really doesn’t tell me anything about your faith. Are you a “torture is OK against bad people” kind of Christian, or a “Jesus was a pacifist” kind? A “God hates homosexuals” kind, or a “God loves everyone” kind? And now we can add a believer in “eternal conscious torment” or in “Rob Bell’s idea of hell” to the list.’
Does Michelle Obama Know About This? – Ah, the old HOA/City Garden Code strikes again. We only want grass! And flowers! And we want you to bounce your ball STRICTLY IN TIME with all the other kids on the block here in Camazotz City!
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Five myths about NASA – The Washington Post – I’m sure all of those things could have been accomplished by simply offering huge government contracts to ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, or Blackwater. Who needs pointy-head NASA Star Trek stuff?
Groundbreaking Study Shows Benefit Of Medicaid – “People who receive Medicaid coverage report better overall health and less financial problems as a result of unpaid medical bills than individuals who don’t have insurance, a new bipartisan study has concluded.” But, of course, we can’t afford it because ExxonMobil executives need to be able to depreciate their corporate jets faster. Oh, well …
News of the World to close amid phone-hacking scandal – I’m sure Murdoch figures he’ll pick up most of the readership elsewhere, and if it gets he and his out of criminal investigations and further scandal, it’s a cheap dodge.
Bolling concedes, ‘We did go a bit too far’ – “I’m glad Bolling is ‘sorry.’ I’d be even more pleased if his ugly worldview didn’t lead him to say things like this in the first place.” Fox News is endlessly fascinating …
The most egregious of the bogus claims – “And so we’re left once again with the eternal question: whether Bachmann is deliberately trying to deceive the public or is strikingly ignorant. I can’t say with certainty which of these two options is the right explanation, but I also can’t think of any alternatives.”
Mamas Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Brain Surgeons – (Rolls eyes.) If my daughter said she wanted to be a brain surgeon, I’d support her whole-heartedly. I’d also have life-work balance conversations with her (before and after and probably naggingly). Ultimately, it’s her responsibility to handle (and to divide child-rearing duties and time allocations with her mate).
Badass Quote of the Day [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] – The War on Drugs (Marijuana Edition) is so clearly a failure and carries such terrible costs in lives and money, that clearly it’s still around for other reasons — budget/power protection, seizure laws, feel-good law-and-order posturing by pols, racism, classism, or just the general slide into a police state.
Fanny Pack-Wearing Terrorist Ignites Montana Shoot Out [Fugitives] – “Now, replace ‘David Burgert’ in any of the articles on the manhunt with, say, a non-white dude sounding name and… shazam! You’ve got an international terrorism media feeding frenzy.” Because, of course, we can’t refer to American white guys as “terrorists” because, well, OPPRESSION! OBAMA! GULAGS!
Too Big To Fail? Little Ol’ Me? – Too big to fail if there are bail-out dollars around … too small to matter if there are regulations afoot that might avoid future bail-outs. Got it.
Herman Cain Would Want A Loyalty Test From Muslims In His White House – Right. It’s not “discrimination” if you just ask people of a certain religion (or race, or …) to take a special loyalty oath. And, of course, no true terrorist who wanted to “kill all of us” would ever lie in taking such an oath … Dolt.
Google Chromebook – The First Reviews Are In! – I’m considering work I do that is non-browser-based. This wouldn’t work for me, as I currently work, as my only computer, but as a second system (assuming WiFi is available) it would serve as well as a netbook or tablet.
This is an occasional series of posts about the scripture read at our church and what it means to me. I attend an Episcopal service, and we are in Year A of the Revised Common Lectionary.
This week’s readings are particularly meaningful, as my parish church is named after the Good Shepherd, and it is readings about Jesus as the Good Shepherd that are the focus today.
This being the post-Easter period, the lectionary uses readings from the Acts of the Apostles rather than the Old Testament for the first reading. This one is popular among “liberal” congregations (emphasis mine):
Those who had been baptized devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.
Damned commie hippies!
I’ve long believed that the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was its adoption by Constantine as the state religion of the Empire. Once the religion became inextricably linked to the civil authorities and the power of the state, it could only become, itself, more temporal, more material, more officious and power-hungry. While I think separation of Church and State is good for the State, I also think it’s even better for the Church. Once God and Caesar are conjoined, it’s difficult to tell what to render to whom.
Anyway, it’s worth reading what those early Christians did, and how they lived. They were together, commune-like, and “had all things in common.” Those who had any wealth pooled it together, selling their possessions, and giving to those who were in need.
This, then, is a key message of Jesus, and one that those with a stake in material goods tend to quickly gloss over. Jesus was not about Religious Rules (indeed, he railed against the Law). He called for us to love God, and to love our neighbors. Loving God is relatively easy, in some ways — loving our neighbors as ourselves, to the point of giving up our worldly possessions for them as they are needed, and to even give up our lives as necessary, is quite a different thing, and much harder in many ways.
Indeed, I don’t claim any special virtue here. Yeah, I give to a number of charitable concerns, but I’m also about to take a very nice vacation to Italy, and not as some sort of pilgrimage. I’m bound up on the love of the world as much as anyone else — but I try to at least recognize the obligations Jesus places on me to care for my fellows.
After a reading of Psalm 23 (the quintessential Good Shepherd verse), we get into something that seems much darker and more stereotypically ashes-and-sackcloth — but which really follows the same thread as the reading from Acts.
It is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.
“He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”
When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
Martyrdom is not easy to talk about these days, but it’s simply the ultimate expression of that self-sacrificing spirit discussed in the previous reading, as exemplified by Jesus.
What’s remarkable is how, in juxtaposition to this, we have Christians today getting the self-righteous vapors because some people have the nerve to publicly disagree with them. Imagine!
Some Christian says, “Gays are sick, twisted, evil, perverted, sub-humans who ought to be locked up, deported, reprogrammed, or, even possibly, stoned to death.”
Someone else says, “I believe you are trying to impose your religious faith upon our legal system.
Said Christian replies, “I’M BEING OPPRESSED! SOON, EASTER AND CHRISTMAS WILL BE ILLEGAL! JUST SEND MONEY!”
Really?
“When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.” Granted, that’s easier said than done, but one would expect Christians to at least recognize the way they should be reacting to those who abuse them (even leaving aside that “disagreement” is not “abuse”).
I’m not going to quote this one at length because John is sometimes a bit zany. Basically, Jesus riffs on the faithful-as-sheep motif, with religious leaders as the folks trying to lead the sheep. But there are lots of illegitimate would-be shepherds who jump the fence into the sheepfold to steal the sheep that are there, even though they don’t recognize the false shepherd’s voices.
Jesus, though, proclaims himself “the gate,” through which all legit shepherds will pass into and out of the sheepfold:
Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
There’s an old set of jokes that notes that shepherds are just raising sheep to be “fleeced,” or slaughtered. But the folks of Judea would have recognized the metaphor — whatever the ultimate fate of the sheep, the immediate need and duty of the shepherd was for them to be fed and watered and protected from thieves and predators. That’s what the good shepherd does, even at sacrifice to himself. That’s the rule for looking for a good shepherd to follow — the extent to which he actually emulates the self-sacrificing and caring nature of Christ for the entire flock.
The false shepherds who seek to steal the sheep, to exploit them rather than keep them well, to prey upon them in fact, are to be rejected. The metaphorical resemblance to “just send money!” televangelists and similar Internet sharks is to me, far too obvious — especially when the message from those false shepherds is less about care of the flock (even its weakest and most vulnerable members), but about keeping the sheep afraid. Which any livestock specialist will tell you is a way to make the animals stressed and thus less healthy and robust and capable of facing the world and surviving on their own.
The Good Shepherd seeks sheep that “have life, and have it abundantly.” The false shepherds seek sheep that tremble and shy away from life. I know which I choose to follow.
(There is an understandable rejection of the idea of equating people to sheep — though usually more along the lines of individual rejection — “I am not a sheep” — than rejection of the idea of other people being sheep. I’m willing to include myself in the metaphor, if only because I know I resemble silly sheep as often as not, and am just as likely to go astray.)
A big shakeup in the DOMA defense – Law firms are certainly within their rights to decide whether or not to take certain cases, or even to change their minds after a time. This is not a “To Kill a Mockingbird” attempt to save an innocent whom everyone else has abandoned. This is defense of a political policy, which may appeal on principle — but, then, it’s not being done out of a noble sense of “defending an unpopular position,” either.
Even for Fox, a cheap attack – Stay classy (or at least truth-loving), Fox News! You really do justify that whole “Faux News” label sometimes.
Define ‘peacetime’ – I see Mitt is going to run on the “reality-challenged” ticket.
The best sci-fi film never made: Also-rans take a bow • The Register – This is the also-ran list, and there are some books here I’d dearly love to see turned into movies: “Agent to the Stars,” “Caves of Steel,” “Citizen of the Galaxy,” “Glory Road,” “Inferno,” “Mutineers’ Moon” … but I’d sacrifice them all to avoid having to deal with the prospect of a “Chronicles of Thomas Covenant” movie …
Top Republicans Embarrassed By Birthers; – This is one of those cases where, on the one hand, I’m gleeful that GOP tactics are biting them in the butt, but on the other hand those tactics have still had a toxic effect on the political and social system we all have to live in.
The Gospel according to Ayn Rand – On Faith – The Washington Post – I’m trying to figure out how Ryan can claim that Ayn Rand was the basis for him entering public service — since “public service” would seem to be, by definition, not part of Rand’s philosophy.
Obama’s signing statement is wrong – “There’s no denying that Obama has been inconsistent on signing statements. But conservatives who profess to want fewer Obama ‘czars’ might start by calling on Republicans to stop exploiting that dysfunction to grind the nominating process to a halt.”
Mike Warnke and Marriage Equality – “Warnke controlled most of the market selling scary stories about a conspiracy of satanists, but there’s a lot more competition in the marketplace among the fraudsters selling lies about the Big Gay Menace. The audience eagerly buying those lies, however, is much the same. And that audience is still seeking the same things — excitement, simplicity and pure, uncut indignation.”
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Obama Is Now and Will Be a Great President – There’s a lot here I do very much want to believe in — and, to be sure, there’s a lot that Obama has managed to accomplish (esp. of one contemplates, shudder, a McCain/Palin administratino). I still think there’s a lot (in health care and budget matters) that he’s negotiated very poorly on, and other areas (in homeland security / civil rights) where I don’t see much difference between him and Bush.
Speechless On The House Floor | MoveOn.Org – There are election priorities, and then there are governing priorities. Sometimes they differ because folks have a different perspective once in office. Sometimes they differ because the election priorities were lies.
DIA, developers want more stations on RTD east rail line – The Denver Post – I’m sure they do — but nobody wants to pay for it. Honestly, I think this is a case where it’s more important to get the line built, then get added stations and tracks lain. (I’m obliged to note my employer is involved in this project.)
“Hello Megan” drives him crazy, too – Actually, I don’t mind the “Hello, Megan!” bit, but this was still funny. In that “Hitler movie re-subtitled” way.
ThinkProgress » Boehner Hires $5 Million Lawyer To Defend Unconstitutional Law – “Of course, it wasn’t so long ago that Boehner brought the nation within inches of a government shutdown because of his alleged fears that the United States is spending too much money. Apparently, Boehner’s commitment to fiscal responsibility isn’t nearly as strong as his need to ensure that no gay American receives their constitutional right to ‘equal protection of the laws.'”
The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science | Mother Jones – On the surface, this indictment of human reason is pretty depressing. But what it really means is that humans integrate facts with feelings, and that we need to engage where people are coming from emotionally and “values”-wise in order to get them to listen to what the facts are. Which, really, isn’t that unusual a piece of advice when communicating to (and trying to persuade) an audience.
Senator To Propose New Internet Sales Tax – Certainly people (cough) are more likely in many circumstances to purchase something tax-free through Amazon than taxed from their local bricks-and-mortar store (unless they want it in their hands RIGHT NOW). On the other hand, the taxpayer “impact” of Amazon, vs. Best Buy, is much lower. So the only issue is the “fairness” of states getting or not getting money for what I buy. Let’s not make it any more noble than that.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand: A Love Affair Against the Common Good – One would think the conflict between Rand and Christianity would get as much play on the Right as the love affair between Rand and unfettered Capitalism. It’s telling which aspect of Rand makes the GOP go ga-ga.
Robert Reich (Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich) – “If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits” But … but … that would make them fractionally less rich!
Norton Disables Itself After One Year – Wow! If it’s a way to automatically get rid of Symantec software without reformatting your machine, it might even be worth it. (Side note: Way to go, Symantec, in driving still more people to Microsoft’s free AV solution.)
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Quote of the Day – I would ask why anyone still cares about anything McCain says, except that he remains a regular on political talk shows and the press.
BBC News – Academics to ’embrace Wikipedia’ – There’s nothing particularly wrong with Wikipedia that awareness of its weaknesses and strengths can’t deal with. It’s a fabulously useful source of information — so long as you drill down appropriately into the source data.
Yglesias » Arab Autocrats Think Fighting Gaddafi Will Help Them Maintain Power – “There’s an obvious question as to what, in reality, American policy in the Arab world is. Is this part of a policy of boosting democratic change in the region, or is it part of a policy of bolstering the position of the Persian Gulf dictators who are important clients of American arms manufacturers?”
David Barton’s Anti-Islam Expert Is Disgraced Former FBI Agent – “Apparently, the Muslim Brotherhood is so powerful that it managed to get Guandolo to sleep with the key government witness he was supposed to be protecting in order to discredit him and stop him from exposing their plot to take over the United States.”
It’s been far too long since I did an overly-long post elucidating how you are a dolt. Not that you haven’t done doltish things in the interim, but mostly they’ve been that dull, boring “Oh, the Gays are Anti-Christian Faggots” and “Oh, the Muslims are Anti-Christian Terrorists” varieties, and after a while mocking that doltiness does, in fact, get old.
(By the way, Bryan, what’s with that “Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio” disclaimer at the end of all your articls? Has the AFA ever kept you from posting your doltishness on their website, or broadcasting your doltitude on their radio show, or listing you as their Number One Blogger, or identifying you as Director of Issue Analysis? Come on, AFA, man up!)
In all the discussions about the European settlement of the New World, one feature has been conspicuously absent: the role that the superstition, savagery and sexual immorality of native Americans played in making them morally disqualified from sovereign control of American soil.
Maybe that’s been absent from the discussion (since the actual conquest of the New World by European immigrants and their descendants, at which time it was bandied about as a convenient excuse) largely because it’s nonsensical, racist, and goofy.
There is no such thing as “moral disqualification” (or qualification) for sovereignty. You even mention a different set of qualifications for sovereignty in your next paragraph, Bryan, and morality has nothing to do with any of them.
International legal scholars have always recognized that sovereign control of land is legitimately transferred in at least three ways: settlement, purchase, and conquest.
Hmmm … does that mean the huge number of undocumented workers in this country have a claim to sovereignty over it? I suspect you’d disagree.
The Siege of Vienna was just the Ottoman Turks trying to establish their legitimate sovereignty, right, Bryan?
Does that mean that foreign investors (Chinese, Saudis, whomever) in debt or property have a legitimate claim to “sovereignty” over the US?
Is conquest a “legitimate transfer” of sovereignty? Effective transfer, sure, but generally considered unlawful. Or did the Ottomans advancing into Central Europe have a legitimate sovereignty over the lands they conquered? (I suspect you’d disagree, since they were Muslims = Anti-Christian Terrorists.) If we invaded, say, England and, at gunpoint, took over Cornwall and populated it with Americans, would we have legitimate sovereignty through conquest and settlement?
Europeans have to this day a legitimate claim on American soil for all three of those reasons.
Geez, Bryan … racist much?
Because, you know, we’re not Europeans (often used as perjoritive term by the Right when it deals with “socialism” and the like, but still proudly hailed by the Right as a synonym for, y’know, “Whites” … especially when it’s Northern Europeans being referenced — Slavs and Latins need not apply).
They established permanent settlements on the land, moving gradually from east to west, while Indian tribes remained relentlessly nomadic.
No permanent settlements to be seen here! Move along!
Silliness. Many American Indians (I’ll go ahead and use that term rather than constantly correct you with “Native American” or “First People” or the like) had permanent settlements. This was more true, in the 16th Century, in Central and South America, but even in North America there were permanent settlements, as well as what were considered tribal lands.
Yes, there were nomadic tribes as well, esp. in North America. The population there was, technologically, some thousands of years behind Europe, meaning hunting-gathering and nomadic lifestyles. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t exercise “sovereignty” — just that it was militarily easier for the “conquest” method of the Europeans and Americans to succeed.
Does Might Make Right, Bryan?
Ah, but to jump to the end, that’s the point. You think it does, because cultural and “sovereignty” success is, to your mind, a matter of God’s blessing. God blesses a country, thus it succeeds. Indeed, even if it succeeds by conquest and an endless array of broken treaties and death, that’s okay, because its success demonstrates God’s blessing. Right Makes Might. Might Demonstrates Right.
So Israel is justified in its conquest of Canaan because God said it was the thing to do, and they succeeded, so they were Right. Killling and enslaving is all made Right because God gave His blessing, you would argue. Similarly, the Exceptional Nation known as the United States must, because it has God’s blessing, succeed, justifying anything done against the American Indians (search for moral justification here), and we know this because success can only come with God’s blessing.
Which makes it odd, Bryan, that you worry about the Islamic conquest of the United States. After all, if they succeed, then it’s God’s … er, Allah’s will, right?
Much of the early territory in North American that came into possession of the Europeans came into their possession when the land was purchased from local tribes, Peter Minuit’s purchase of Manhattan being merely the first.
Yes, sometimes European settlers purchased territory. If they’d done that with all their territory, then we’d today consider it fair, and just. Mutual decision-making, negotiating, treating one another fairly.
And the Europeans proved superior in battle, taking possession of contested lands through right of conquest. So in all respects, Europeans gained rightful and legal sovereign control of American soil.
Sure the Romans sacked Jerusalem in AD 70 ... but that was just reestablishing their rightful and legal sovereign control, right, Bryan?
Again with the Might Makes Right. The Mongols “rightful and legal sovereign control” of most of Asia. Germany’s quest for Lebensraum gave it “rightful and legal sovereign control” of Central Europe. The Aztec hegemony over Meso-America gave it “rightful and legal sovereign control” over the tribes it conquered. The Roman had “rightful and legal sovereign control” over Palestine. Yay!
But another factor has rarely been discussed, and that is the moral factor.
Like the “moral factor” of the Mongol, German, Aztec, and Roman conquests.
In the ancient tradition of the Hebrews, God made it clear to Abraham that the land of Canaan was promised to his descendants. But he told Abraham the transfer of land to his heirs could not happen for 400 years, for one simple reason: “[T]he iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen. 15:16).
The Amorites, or Canaanite peoples, practiced one moral abomination after another, whether it was incest, adultery, sexual immorality, homosexuality, bestiality or child sacrifice, and God finally said “Enough!”
We know this, because the people who conquered them (the Israelites) said so. Whatever a conquering people say about the people the conquer must be true, because conquerers have “rightful and legal sovereign control” of the conquered territory and, obviously, have God’s blessing. QED.
By the time he brought the nascent nation of Israel to the borders of the land flowing with milk and honey, he had already been patient with the native tribes for 400 years, waiting for them to come to the place of repentance for their socially and spiritually degrading practices.
Isn’t God omniscient? Why would God be “patient … for 400 years”? Didn’t He already know the outcome?
His patience was not rewarded, and finally the day came when the sin had reached its full measure. The slop bucket was full, and it was time to empty it out. Israel under Joshua was God’s custodian to empty the bucket and start over.
Yes, the Canaanites were slop buckets. Classy!
(Waiting for Bryan to draw a connection between slop buckett Canaanites and Muslim Palestinians. Maybe later.)
The native American tribes at the time of the European settlement and founding of the United States were, virtually without exception, steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality.
Hmmm.
“Basest forms of superstition” means, I assume, they weren’t Christian.
“Guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years” surely stands on contrast to the Europeans who were … guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years (but with gunpowder!).
“Practiced the most debase forms of sexuality.” Um … I’m sure Bryan will tell us all about it later.
One of the complaints listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was that King George “has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
No European religious-based "savagery" or "constatt warfare" to see here ... move along ...
Unlike the Israelites who slew (according to the Old Testament) “all ages, sexes and conditions.”
The Lewis and Clark journals record the constant warfare between the nomadic Indian tribes on the frontier, and the implacable hostility of the Sioux Indians in particular.
As opposed to the Germans and the French, or the French and the English, or the Catholics and the Protestants, or …
The journals record the morally abhorrent practice of many native American chiefs, who offered their own wives to the Corps of Discovery for their twisted sexual pleasure. (Regrettably, many members of the Corps, Lewis and Clark excepted, took advantage of these offers and contracted numerous and debilitating sexually transmitted diseases as a result.)
Ah. Hospitality. Sort of like Lot offering up his daughters to the men of Sodom, rather than violating hospitality he had promised to the visiting angels. How morally abhorrent!
The native American tribes ultimately resisted the appeal of Christian Europeans to leave behind their superstition and occult practices for the light of Christianity and civilization.
“Hi. We’re here to take your land. And we’re violating all the treaties we sign with you. Hey, want to change your religion to ours? Really, He’s a cool, kind, beneficent deity whose teachings we adhere to vigilantly.”
Manifest Destiny ... hey, that kinda looks pagan, don't you think?
Yeah, that’d go over well.
They in the end resisted every attempt to “Christianize the Savages of the Wilderness,” to use George Washington’s phrase.
They rejected Washington’s direct counsel to the Delaware chiefs in 1779, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.”
Thomas Jefferson three times signed legislation appropriating federal tax dollars for the evangelizing of the Native American tribes. It all came to nought, as one tribe after another rejected the offer of spiritual light and advanced civilization.
Jefferson (any opinions about his editing of the Bible, Bryan) and Washington (any opinions about his rather distant, non-participating church attendance, Bryan) were leading nations whose expansion depended upon assimilation or removal of the Indian population. You don’t think, Bryan, they might not be the most unbiased judges of the matter, do you?
Missionaries were murdered in cold blood, including Marcus Whitman, who was tomahawked to death in his own house in 1848 by the Cayuse and Umatilla Indians in what became the Oregon Territory.
I’ll be the first one to note that the idea of the Indians as Pocahontas-like peaceful nature-dwellers is silly. The American Indian tribes were as prone to warfare and violence as any other group of humans.
The Inquisition hunts down Cathars. Thank goodness Indian savages weren't involved!
Of course, the treatment of heretics and folks of “different” religions within, oh, say, Europe is pretty exciting and violent, too. Whether it’s the slaughter of heretical groups like the Cathars or the Waldensians, or the warfare between Catholics and Protestants (consider the civil wars and near-pogroms of opposing faiths in England itself).
Were the American Indians any more violent and savage and cold-blooded than the anti-Protestant crusades of “Bloody Mary”? Or the persecutions of the Huguenots?
God explained to the nation of Israel that because of the “abomination(s)” of the indigenous Canaanite tribes, the land had become unclean and “vomited out its inhabitants (Lev. 18:25).”
Yes, the Israelites certainly wrote that God said that to the Israelites.
Is this to say the same holds true for native American tribes today? In many respects, the answer is of course no. But in some senses, the answer is yes. Many of the tribal reservations today remain mired in poverty and alcoholism because many native Americans continue to cling to the darkness of indigenous superstition instead of coming into the light of Christianity and assimilating into Christian culture.
We all know Real Christian Americans aren't poor.
If only they were good European Christians, the wouldn’t have to suffer the poverty and alcoholism of the Rez. Because the only problem facing them is that they are not Christians. Because, of course, poverty and alcoholism are unknown among Christians.
Oh, wait, Good Christians aren’t poor. Or alcoholic. Because Good Christians are blessed, so anyone who is poor or alcoholic must not be a Good Christian. QED.
(And, of course, American Indians who are actually Christian are rewarded with a total lack of alcoholism or poverty, right, Bryan?)
The continued presence of native American superstition was on full display at the memorial service for the victims of the Tucson shooter, when the “invocation” (such as it was) was offered by a native American who sought inspiration from the “Seven Directions,” including “Father Sky” and “Mother Earth,” rather than the God of the Bible.
Yes, people who aren’t Christian insist on not invoking the Christian deity. The nerve of them!
Sadly, this column will likely generate a firestorm of nuclear proportions among wingers on the left rather than the thoughtful reflection the thesis deserves.
No, Bryan, I think I’ve given it all the reflection it deserves.
Your “thesis” is that “Christianity is the One True Religion. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that is Cursed at best, Evil at worst. We know this because the Christian Bible says so, and Christianity says the Christian Bible is real, so it must be true.”
Even worse, the reaction will likely obscure the sobering lesson for today. America in 2011 is as guilty of “abominations” as the native American tribes we replaced. We have the blood of 53 million babies on our hands through abortion. We have normalized sexual immorality, adultery, and homosexuality, all horrors in the eyes of God, and are witnessing a surge in incest, pedophilia and even bestiality in our midst.
God warned the ancient nation of Israel not to lapse into the abominable practices of the native peoples “lest the land vomit you out…as it vomited out the nation that was before you” (Lev. 18:28).
Time eventually ran out for the Canaanites, because they filled up the full measure of their iniquity. Time ran out for the native American tribes for the same reason.
The only question that matters today is this one: how much time does America have left to repent of its superstition, its savagery and its sexual immorality before it is too late, before we will have filled up our own slop bucket and will have morally disqualified ourselves from sovereign control of our own land?
Based on our indebtedness to the Chinese, not long. After all, “purchase” is a legitimate basis for “sovereignty,” right?
But what’s your point, Bryan? If America is evil, it should be destroyed, and certainly cannot be blessed by God. So whoever takes advantage of our “moral disqualification” will surely be God’s chosen nation / race / corporation. You should rejoice in that, Bryan! That’s their foretold destiny!
Because you know it's for their own good!
Thomas Jefferson wrote at the time of the Founding, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” It is long past time for us once again to tremble for our country.
Jefferson, of course, was speaking of slavery, a practice condoned for the Israelites against the “vomitous” Canaanites. He wasn’t speaking of the immorality, sexual license, etc. of the American people, except in that particular sinful act … except, of course, it couldn’t be sinful for the Israelites because, after all, they were ordered by God to take slaves from the people the conquered (except when they were ordered by God to kill them instead).
But that does raise an interesting question, Bryan: now that you’ve condemned the American Indians to poverty and alcoholism for their wickedness, sexual immorality, and lack of Christianity … who are you picking on next? If you ask me, I’d suggest you claim that African-Americans deserved to be slaves in America because they, y’know, wandering around topless, just like in National Geographics, and they believed in superstition, and it was the White (Christian) Man’s (Profitable) Burden to free them from their sin by shipping them to this country for some good, honest labor and baptizing. Just like the Israelites treated the Canaanites, right, Bryan? Except with more cotton picking.
The original Battlestar Galactica series bible is Ron Moore’s rebuke to Star Trek – Avoiding “the usual stories about parallel universes, time-travel, mind-control, evil twins, God-like powers and all the other cliches.” But we will have prophecies and flashbacks and future histories, humans who turn out to be programmed robots compelled to do things, multiple versions of the same people with different personalities, and some divine spirit who’s pulling the strings of destiny somewhere. I’m not quite sure where the vision here went off the rails. (I speak half in jest — BSG did some remarkable and stunning things, esp. toward the beginning of the series — but half in truth.)
House GOP wants to monitor what you are doing online – Not that the Dems have been all that impressive with privacy issues, but the GOP’s willingness to go all Big Brother Police State with information gathering on the off chance that it will protect Law & Order is a lovely juxtaposition to the quasi-libertarianism of the Tea Parties that brought them to power.
Voyager and the Will to Explore – “Long-term projects are guided by the decisions and the will of those who conceive and nurture them. The question now is whether we have the will to keep pushing, Voyager style, into the dark.”
Congress.org – News : More troops lost to suicide – “The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions.” — Robert Wilson Lynd
It’s been a while since I pointed out how Bryan Fischer is a dolt. I think I need to correct that.
(Fischer is Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association, host of the talk radio program Focal Point on American Family Radio, and posting on the AFA-run blog Rightly Concerned — but the AFA for some reason has a disclaimer at the bottom of all his posts that he doesn’t really speak for them.)
The American judicial system is something of an anomaly for many on the Right. On the one hand, you have The Horrible Example of Liberal Judges Passing Their Own Laws and Letting Evil People Go. On the other hand, It’s Part of the American Government and What Makes Us Exceptional (Except When the Liberals Get Involved) So Yay Team!
Federal officials are planning to move the murder trial of Jared Loughner from Tucson to California. This is a terrible, terrible idea, and contrary to biblical concepts of justice.
Innocent blood was shed in Tucson, and the public servants of Tucson should be entrusted with the responsibility and authority to execute justice on behalf of the victims and their families.
With an emphasis on “execute.”
The point of change of venue is that it’s difficult for people in a given community to render a fair and impartial judgment of the evidence presented at trial when all they’ve read in the papers and heard on the TV and perhaps even had friends or acquaintances tell them is “THAT GUY THEY ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF A HORRIBLE CRIME! HE DID IT! CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!”
It is a perversion of justice to deprive this community of the ability to deal with the monstrous act of evil.
Remarkably enough, the justice system is not meant primarily to give a community a sense of closure and satisfaction that The Bad Guy Got His in the End.
In fact, it is designed to try to establish facts, and render judgment based on same, in order to (a) punish the guilty and (b) protect the community from further harm. Pursuing vengeance is not on the docket (and it’s amusing that the Right so often ignores that desire while criticizing the Left for pursuing “Feel Good” philosophies).
The murders of six innocent people by the Marxist-loving, Hitler-loving, Bible-hating, atheistic pothead radical leftwinger Loughner …
Okay, we’ll assume Bryan, you mean “Marx-loving.”
The whole “who Loughner ‘loved’ as an author” meme was based on, of all things, the dude’s Facebook page. The problem is, citing Marx and Hitler tells only part of the story. Loughner’s full reading list included not just Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, but …
Animal Farm
Brave New World
The Wizard Of OZ
Aesop Fables
The Odyssey
Alice Adventures Into Wonderland
Fahrenheit 451
Peter Pan
To Kill A Mockingbird
We The Living (by Ayn Rand)
The Phantom Toll Booth
One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest
Pulp
Through The Looking Glass
Siddhartha
The Old Man And The Sea
Gulliver’s Travels
The Republic
Meno
If there’s a coherent literary or philosophical theory there, to label him right-wing or left-wing, I’d love to hear it. (And that assumes that he was actually being honest in his FB profile.)
That Loughner was an intermittent pot-head seems established. Declaring a pattern to his beliefs from his reading list implies a more coherent pattern of psyche than he seemed to possess.
… is traumatic enough on a city. Now to be deprived of the authority to see for themselves that justice is done is a second injustice.
This is, of course, silly. This particular case is for the federal crimes committed, in terms of the attack on a US Congressman, her aide, and US Federal Judge. The state of Arizona and the city of Tucson are free to pursue their own criminal charges.
In the ancient civil code of Israel, the community in which the murder had been committed had the responsibility to carry out justice.
That was generally true of most Iron Age civilizations, Bryan. They didn’t have TV and airplanes and cars and federal laws and Constitutions to make changes of venue both practical and procedurally possible.
The standards of evidence were very high – no one could be sentenced to death without the testimony of two or three eyewitnesses – but when the standard had been met, execution followed.
It’s worth nothing, by the way, that if biblical standards of evidence were still followed in America’s judicial system, as they once were, you would have only an infinitesimal chance of sending an innocent man to death row. Too many are sentenced to die or to long prison terms today based on the testimony of a single witness. That’s exactly how you get innocent people sent away for life. Once again, the Bible is the solution, not the problem.
The whole 2-3 people prove a case thing in the Bible is open to some interpretation, and arguably just means that two or three people were necessary to even bring a case. And, of course, that excludes the whole concept of forensic evidence as to crimes.
I actually agree, Bryan, that a single witness is too often the lynchpin for a major conviction. That said, I’m sure, Bryan, you’re aware that two witnesses were what allowed the Sanhedrin to convict Jesus of blasphemy.
The only exception was that when a man killed another man unintentionally – the death was accidental – he could flee for safety to a city of refuge until his trial was held. (It’s worthy of note that there was no system of incarceration in ancient Israel. A crime against property was taken care of through restitution plus a substantial penalty. A crime against life was taken care of through execution. Think of the money we could save if we returned to something approximating this simple but elegant system of justice.)
Yes, of course. And if the person couldn’t pay the fines, well, slavery was an adequate proxy. And if we executed everyone who killed, quickly, without appeals or a chance to argue that the justice system had been in some way flawed, we’d sure save a lot of money. Just what Jesus would do!
But if the “congregation” (read “jury of his peers”) found him guilty, then the “elders of his city shall send and take him from there (the city of refuge) and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die (Deuteronomy 19:12).”
Actually, that passage doesn’t argue any sort of jury or jurisprudence. “But if out of hate someone lies in wait, assaults and kills a neighbor, and then flees to one of these cities, the killer shall be sent for by the town elders, be brought back from the city, and be handed over to the avenger of blood to die.”
Supporters of changing venue argue that pretrial publicity may make an impartial jury impossible. This is ridiculous, and an insult to ordinary Americans, who take their solemn oath to base their verdict exclusively on evidence presented in court with extreme seriousness. The people of Tucson are capable of following the evidence wherever it leads and rendering a just verdict, and it’s an affront to them to think otherwise.
Oh, puhlease.
I consider myself a fairly moral and rational (and even Christian) person. If someone was accused of killing my wife, and the papers had been trumpeting that it was so (and, of course, if the papers, or the Internet, says it’s so, it must be true), I would recuse myself for fear that my emotions and desire for vengeance would have me leaping at the opportunity to have someone who “everyone knows” is guilty pay bloodily for their crime.
When a local jury in a local court renders a just verdict, …
When, or if?
… the community has the opportunity of experiencing the satisfaction of knowing that the community itself, which has the most intense level of motivation to see that justice is done, has dealt with a terrible crime committed in its midst.
Actually, the community itself has the most intense level of wanting to see someone punished, and is too often more than happy to go with whomever is pointed at first.
Tucson now will be robbed of that opportunity, …
Unless they file city charges against Loughner, which they can do.
… and a verdict will be handed down in another state by people who do not have the same intense desire this community has to see that the innocent blood of their loved ones, friends, and family members is avenged.
Wow, Bryan — you’re quick to point out the affront to the fair people of Tucson that they might not render a fair verdict, but somehow don’t see the insult to the fair people of San Diego that they would not have an intense desire to see justice done.
Oh, but wait — what’s important here is “the intense desire to see that the innocent blood is avenged.” Which vengeance may not have anything to do with justice or truth.
(“Vengeance,” by the way, is just a synonym for justice. You could look it up. See the dictionary: “vengeance: punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong.”)
Bryan, that you see vengeance and retribution as synonyms for justice speaks volumes.
Federal officials are prosecuting only the murders of Rep. Giffords’ congressional aide and the murder of Judge John Roll. This means no formal charges have yet been filed in the deaths of the four “civilians” (as the Associated Press inartfully put it) whose lives were also tragically taken.
Which is not the fault of the federal prosecutors (who don’t have a legal federal crime to prosecute for the other), nor does it have anything to do with the change of venue for their charges. The state and city certainly can file whatever charges they choose.
(I do agree, by the way, that it seems odd in such cases to base murder charges on some deaths and not on others. The argument would be, though, that a murderous attack on a government official is not so much different because one human life is more important than another, but because it represents an attack on society and democracy, in the person of its government. It’s certainly something that’s worth some discussion.)
Let’s hope the trials for these murders takes place in Tucson, that the perpetrator is swiftly sentenced to death, …
That the right perpetrator is determined, and that the judgment is both just and merciful.
… and that the sentence is carried out without delay.
Which supposes that the somehow flawed American justice system that would commit such an injustice as changing venue to San Diego is otherwise beyond reproach and perfect and incapable of procedural error or prosecutorial misconduct, such that an innocent person (or a person responsible for their actions) is not judged unjustly.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. would say, borrowing the words of the ancient prophet Amos, “Let justice roll down (in Tucson) like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).
With all due respect to Dr King and the prophet Amos, I suspect that Jesus Himself would have something to say about mercy, about care for prisoners, and about what happens when popular opinion takes the place of impartial justice.
Human vengeance is not, in fact, justice. Allowing the passions of the crowd to influence judgment of truth (especially when death is on the line) is not justice. That’s not something that supports the American Family. And Bryan Fischer is a dolt for arguing that.
U.S. income distribution (2010 edition) – “Most people imagine that the rich are in heaven, but, as a rule, it is only a gilded hell. There is not a man in the city of New York with genius enough, with brains enough, to own five millions of dollars. Why? The money will own him. He becomes the key to a safe. That money will get him up at daylight; that money will separate him from his friends; that money will fill his heart with fear; that money will rob his days of sunshine and his nights of pleasant dreams. He cannot own it. He becomes the property of that money. And he goes right on making more. What for? He does not know. It becomes a kind of insanity. No one is happier in a palace than in a cabin.” — Robert Green Ingersoll
Individual Responsibility And Sarah Palin – Does Ms Palin speak at public and private events and on TV shows and in her never-ending chain of books because she thinks her words have no influence? That they might not change, or guide, or have an effect on the minds of her listeners? Of course not. Does she take credit when her vocal support of a candidate assists in their victory? Of course she does. There is, of course, a difference between who actually pulled the trigger and who offered up suggestions and targets and stoking up as to which direction the gun should be pointed. But that doesn’t mean the latter is absolved of any responsibility, moral if not legal. Ms Palin’s refusal to accept that is yet another indication of why she should never be elected to public office again.
1023 2011 – Homeopathy is one of those quack sciences I’ve never understood otherwise intelligent people being devotees of. Craziness.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Al Qaeda threat involving hotels buffets ‘credible,’ report says – USATODAY.com – See, there’s an effective idea. There’s lots of nefarious things that could be done in this way, restricting services, eroding public trust … and, even better, even if nothing is actually done, it just ramps up the fear, esp. if a real food poisoning outbreak occurs. That’s why it’s called terrorism.
Ignorance comes with consequences – And those are the people most loudly proclaiming American divine exceptionalism, because they’re too tied to their comforting ignorance to actually make this country exceptional.
The Pros and Cons of Pirates of the Caribbean 4, as Evidenced by the Trailer – Here’s the problem (as I see it): what made PotC 1 so good was that it was not about Cap’n Jack Sparrow. It was about Will and Elizabeth. As the series progressed, it became less about them and more about Cap’n Jack hijinx. Now that it’s just about Cap’n Jack … meh.
When will English come to a full stop? | Books | The Observer – I don’t see any reason why English shouldn’t continue on as an (already-established) lingua franca for centuries, if not longer — but I strongly suspect America’s dominance over it will wane, just as England’s did before it.
The culture of conspiracy, the conspiracy of culture – Quoting Teresa Nielsen Hayden on WikiLeaks: “Two or three million people had unchecked access to this material, but my government is outraged that I can read it? What am I now, a peasant?”
React Like It’s 1805 – ” People who claim to be “originalists” without expressing concern about the effect of a standing army on democracy are either disingenuous or uninformed, or both.” Having a large standing army (and, arguably, some need for same) is not only not in keeping with what the Founders (in general) wanted, but has had a significant distortion on our government and taxation from what those Founders — or their succeeding generations — intended. But I don’t think you’re going to hear Scalia or Thomas (let alone McConnell or Gingrich or Hannity) going on about that.
The Reign of Witches Has Not Passed – “The treatment of Bradley Manning is microcosmic of a broader trend that does not speak well for the degree of civilization in our society. And yet we continue to lecture the world as if we were somehow exceptional.”
Gohmert: Without DADT, Military Stands to Lose Thousands and US Will Reach the “End of its Existence as a Great Nation” – So, according to Rep Gohmert (R-TX, natch) we can’t let gays openly serve in the military because the military is already restricted in its freedom, so we can’t give any freedom to the gays there. Um … right. Bottom line, Rep. Gohmert demeans the patriotism and professionalism of our soldiers by suggesting that they’ll run, screaming to the hills, if it turns out that the guy the next foxhole over is (eek!) gay.
Religious Right Keeps Fighting Losing Battle Against DADT – Quoth Liberty Counsel: “I am incensed that these lame duck demagogues refuse to accept the fact that Americans do not want open homosexuality in our armed forces!” Quoth I, I am incensed that these totally lame demagogues refuse to accept the fact that Americans DO want open homosexuality in our armed forces. Or, at least, they don’t think it’s right to kick open homosexuals out.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Sally Ann bans Harry Potter and Twilight toys | Canada | News | Toronto Sun – So it’s okay to give them toy guns, but not toy wizards. Well, that makes a load of sense. Not. (Also, note various inconsistencies as to whether the Evil Toys are passed onto other charities, or simply thrown away.) Now, that’s certainly the SA’s right to do — but it would be nice (and honest) if they were up front about it, so that people don’t waste their donations.
Silencing Wikileaks is silencing the press – “Just as past court struggles for the legal protection of free speech in America have sometimes involved characters or groups one might find flawed at best, and abhorrent at worst, so too is this an imperfect entity deserving of the full protection of law and due process. Wikileaks may be flawed. But Americans cannot allow the US to criminalize Wikileaks. If we do, the rights of all citizens are jeopardized.”
So WikiLeaks Is Evil For Releasing Documents… But DynCorp Gets A Pass For Pimping Young Boys To Afghan Cops? – The Powers that Be have done an effective job of turning public attention away from the revelations of the leaked documents, and onto (a) the Horrors of the Leaks! and (b) what a depraved pervert the guy who runs WikiLeaks is. Now, both of those may be true, but that doesn’t take away from what we’re learning is going on behind the curtain.
