12 posts tagged “religion”
I was perusing my latest Faith Freedom International (FFI) e-newsletter showing recent posts to that website. I noticed a link that honored Dr. Wafa Sultan who is an ex-Muslim gal from Syria who has done what many anti-Islam males fear to tread. Sultan has gone into the heart of the devil’s media lair such as Al-Jazeera and verbally slapped Islamic clerics into fits of anger. Evidently when confronted with the truth of Islam the measured response of a typical Muslim cleric is not to provide a reasoned response. Rather the cleric goes into fits castigating Sultan’s integrity and eventually issuing a fatwa that threatens Sultan’s life.
This makes Sultan special!
Anyway the FFI post honoring Dr. Wafa Sultan is entitled, “Honoring Wafa Sultan (Video).” There are a huge amount of Dr. Sultan videos explaining the evils of Islam/Mohammedanism. I encourage everyone to go there to receive mini-lessons on the reality of the Theo-Political ideology known as Islam which I prefer to call after its founder Mohammedanism.
To comprehend how brave Dr. Sultan actually is, here is a post from the American Congress for Truth pertaining to her sheer courage:
JRH 4/25/09
The post posits removing Islam as a recognized religion in America due to the ideology being just as much political as it is religious; indeed I sense that Ben’s post even wishes to eliminate the perception that Islam/Mohammedanism is a religion at all.
This post is a classic example as to why I am on the fence concerning Mohammedanism and the American Way. There are many Muslims who only practice the peaceful portions of Islam (even though those portions are abrogated by later Quranic suras). These Muslims are either reformed minded or deluded about their own theology. Actually radical Islam is practicing the letter of the Quran and Islamic traditions (which are regarded as only a little less authoritative than the Quran).
Personally I cannot see a Mainstream Media propagation tool and the current stronghold of being politically correct ever successfully removing Islam as a religion, yet it is awesome to provide the evidence as to the "why" Islam should be downgraded from a religion to a Theo-political ideological cult.
JRH 4/20/09
I just read an awesome essay by a fellah that calls himself Martel Sobieskey. The name must be a pseudonym or his parents had a good understanding of Muslim aggression against Christianity.
The Frankish leader Charles Martel decisively defeated Abd-ur-Rahman (aka Abdur Rahman, Abdur-Rahman and other variations) the Muslim (Mohammedan or Saracen) leader in a place in present day France between Tours and Poitiers on October 10, 732 AD.
Charles Martel’s victory abruptly stopped Islamic ravaging of Christian lands from the Middle East through North Africa up to present day Spain.
The “Sobieskey” part of Martel Sobieskey’s name no doubt is from the hero Jan (John) III Sobieski. In late 1683 Sobieski’s smaller force won the day against the brutal Muslim Ottoman Turks who had been ravaging Christian Eastern Europe. Sobieski was not only hailed as the hero of defending Vienna but as a savior of Christendom in all of Europe from Islamic invasions and raiding parties.
Understanding the historical significance of Martel Sobieskey’s enables one to comprehend his theme in the essay “Demoting Islam’s Religion Status.”
The theme is Islam is NOT a religion in the Western sense of religion. At any rate Islam is NOT a religion of peace, rather Muslim writings obviously convey the image of a religion of war. The mindset of Islam is to transform the globe to Islamic The-political ideology by force or by stealth from within.
Martel Sobieskey expounds a recurring thought by anti-jihadis; i.e. that Moderate Islam is a myth. The reasoning behind calling Moderate Islam a myth is the Muslim writings beginning with the Quran. The Quran is considered infallible by Muslims of strict adherence, moderate adherence and even secular minded Muslims. Thus a true Muslim follows the words of Allah delivered by its prophet Mohammed and the observations of Mohammed’s life by his companions. Whether it is Allah or Mo’s buddies, the picture is that of violence to anyone perceived insulting Islam, its prophet or it Allah. This is not a pretty picture.
I personally lean toward a mixture of disbelief of a Moderate Islam and a reformed Islam. I believe Islam can discover a miracle and join the beliefs of modern global religions, which is a better afterlife through faith or the discovery of Nirvana or Moksha or whatever individual religious experience that releases a person from world thinking which is suffering.
Right now Islam only has a peaceful release for devout Muslims and Jihadist Martyrs of whom many look forward toward carnal pleasures disdained by most religions.
The website Muslims Against Shariah (Their Blog) proclaims itself to be a reform movement. This obviously an extreme minority of Muslims who may be put to death as Apostates if they lived in Muslim dominated societies.
JRH 3/24/09
Here is piece of Chain Email that my lovely daughter sent to me. I usually detest Chain Email because the facts often get obscure along the chain, the chain is an outright hoax or you have to send it to X amount friends to prove something or you might be cursed.
That is all hogwash!
This Chain Email on the other hand is a brilliant dialogue between an atheistic Professor and a couple of Christian students in his class. Plato would be proud.
JRH 1/7/09
*****************************
God vs. Evil
'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist
professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his
new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely.’
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a
moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here
and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.
Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't,
does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he
prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you
answer that one?'
The student remains silent.
'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water
from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er..yes,' the student says.
"is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in
this world?'
'Yes, sir.'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything correct??
'Yes'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created
everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to
the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred?
Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.
'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer
breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.
'Tell me,' he continues onto another student.
'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to
identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not.'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that
matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science
has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His
own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'
'Yes.'
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.
The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.
'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,
unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have
anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is
no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing
as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458
degrees.'
'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits
energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or tran smit energy.
Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold
is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure
cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold
is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding
like a hammer.
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it
isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing
light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's
called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'
'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make
darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will
be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to
start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you
explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You
argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad
God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we
can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'
'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully
understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be
ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it. 'Now tell me,
professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,
yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes
where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not
teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion
has subsided.
'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let
me give you an example of what I mean.'
The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has
ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.
'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the
professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain? No one
appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no
brain, with all due respect, sir.'
'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures,
sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his
face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess
you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with
life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'
Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it
everyday It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in
the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just
like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the
absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what
happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like
the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when
there is no light.'
The professor sat down.
The student was Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein did write a book
titled God vs. Science in 1921...
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' 2 Corinthians 5:7
************************************
I have read this on the Internet before and it is awesome. Since it is a chain email I am certain the young student was not Albert Einstein but rather a clever writer utilizing Einstein's name. This is a fantastic introduction of how philosophy uses logic to try to defame Faith. The student's come back was brilliant, don't you think?
According to Snopes.com this is an urban legend concerning Albert Einstein’s involvement as a student; nonetheless as Snopes.com points out this has been a philosophical conundrum for quite some time.
Frankly a simple Google search of a book entitled, “God vs. Science” attributed to Albert Einstein doesn’t exist either. The only websites that claimed such a book exists were using this Chain Email as a reference.
Einstein did write a paper entitled, “Science and Religion.” Here Albert Einstein is critical of organized religion believing theology holds back the advancement of humanity via science. On the other hand Einstein does not deny the existence of a supernatural force or the moral foundations of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The last two paragraphs of the “Science and Religion” have Einstein saying this:
“This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.”
More Einstein on Religion:
When asked by an astounded atheist, if he were in fact deeply religious, Einstein replied:
Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.
H. G. Kessler, The Diary of a Cosmopolitan, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), p.157; quoted in Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer (Princeton University Press, 1999) pp. 39-40.
First Line of “Einstein’s Faith”:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
I utilize these quotes from Albert Einstein to signify that he indeed was a religious person; however it is very doubtful he engaged in such a philosophical dialogue with a Professor. The dialogue is brilliant though, is it not?
Here is piece of Chain Email that my lovely daughter sent to me. I usually detest Chain Email because the facts often get obscure along the chain, the chain is an outright hoax or you have to send it to X amount friends to prove something or you might be cursed.
That is all hogwash!
This Chain Email on the other hand is a brilliant dialogue between an atheistic Professor and a couple of Christian students in his class. Plato would be proud.
JRH 1/7/09
*****************************
God vs. Evil
'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist
professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his
new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely.’
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a
moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here
and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.
Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't,
does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he
prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you
answer that one?'
The student remains silent.
'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water
from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er..yes,' the student says.
"is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in
this world?'
'Yes, sir.'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything correct??
'Yes'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created
everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to
the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred?
Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.
'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer
breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.
'Tell me,' he continues onto another student.
'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to
identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not.'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that
matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science
has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His
own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'
'Yes.'
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.
The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.
'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,
unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have
anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is
no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing
as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458
degrees.'
'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits
energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or tran smit energy.
Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold
is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure
cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold
is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding
like a hammer.
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it
isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing
light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's
called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'
'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make
darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will
be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to
start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you
explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You
argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad
God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we
can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'
'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully
understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be
ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it. 'Now tell me,
professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,
yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes
where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not
teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion
has subsided.
'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let
me give you an example of what I mean.'
The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has
ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.
'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the
professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain? No one
appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no
brain, with all due respect, sir.'
'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures,
sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his
face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess
you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with
life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'
Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it
everyday It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in
the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just
like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the
absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what
happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like
the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when
there is no light.'
The professor sat down.
The student was Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein did write a book
titled God vs. Science in 1921...
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' 2 Corinthians 5:7
************************************
I have read this on the Internet before and it is awesome. Since it is a chain email I am certain the young student was not Albert Einstein but rather a clever writer utilizing Einstein's name. This is a fantastic introduction of how philosophy uses logic to try to defame Faith. The student's come back was brilliant, don't you think?
According to Snopes.com this is an urban legend concerning Albert Einstein’s involvement as a student; nonetheless as Snopes.com points out this has been a philosophical conundrum for quite some time.
Frankly a simple Google search of a book entitled, “God vs. Science” attributed to Albert Einstein doesn’t exist either. The only websites that claimed such a book exists were using this Chain Email as a reference.
Einstein did write a paper entitled, “Science and Religion.” Here Albert Einstein is critical of organized religion believing theology holds back the advancement of humanity via science. On the other hand Einstein does not deny the existence of a supernatural force or the moral foundations of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The last two paragraphs of the “Science and Religion” have Einstein saying this:
“This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.”
More Einstein on Religion:
When asked by an astounded atheist, if he were in fact deeply religious, Einstein replied:
Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.
H. G. Kessler, The Diary of a Cosmopolitan, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), p.157; quoted in Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer (Princeton University Press, 1999) pp. 39-40.
First Line of “Einstein’s Faith”:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
I utilize these quotes from Albert Einstein to signify that he indeed was a religious person; however it is very doubtful he engaged in such a philosophical dialogue with a Professor. The dialogue is brilliant though, is it not?
I just finished reading a day old email with a Frontpagemag.com letterhead by David Horowitz. The subject on the email: “A Message to Disgruntled Conservatives: Get Over It!” Horowitz’s blog has a different title yet apparently the same content: Birth certificate, Hussein name, Hillary garbage.
Horowitz actually writes a very supportive article for Barack Hussein Obama. Horowitz basically writes the Conservatives that are going after the Birth Certificate issue of BHO’s citizenship (Some are calling Obamagate) is “right-wing trash talk.”
Now check this out: David Horowitz is one of the true heroes working to educate Americans about the nature of Islam/Mohammedanism. This makes Horowitz a hero in my book; however this article is laced with self-righteous anger.
Horowitz claims the significant of amount voters that elected Obama renders irrelevant the veracity or the lack of veracity of Obama’s citizenship. Horowitz even goes so far as to NOT bring up the U.S. Constitution because the will of the voters overrides the letter of law in the Constitution.
Horowitz goes on to rail Conservatives about the attitude given toward Hillary as Secretary of State and the accusation that BHO is a closet Islamist Muslim. I have to say on the last two points I am in complete agreement with Horowitz.
Although Hillary is a domestic societal change Leftist, her record in the Senate has demonstrated a good grasp of foreign policy and the need to fight the Islamic terrorists. This is in contradistinction from BHO’s thoughts of not setting any pre-conditions for negotiations with America’s enemies.
As for being a Muslim, I don’t believe it one bit. I do believe BHO has been ensconced in Islamic culture and the typical pro-Arab and anti-Israel Leftist stand pertaining to how things should work out politically in the Middle East.
I am still convinced BHO is a closet Marxist because of past associations with avowed Marxists that have influenced everything to an entrance into Harvard to working on Slanted Left community solutions with an unrepentant oxymoron anti-war yet violent American terrorist who sought the destruction of the American government to establish a Marxist utopia. (Ayers claimed he did not kill anyone in his bombing days however booklets and eyewitness infiltrators demonstrate a willingness to kill Americans who did not conform to the envisioned Marxist utopia.)
Whether or not the BHO’s birth certificate of original birth exists or demonstrates a birth in Hawaii or Kenya is important because the cloud of darkness illustrates a propensity to lie.
The influence of Black Liberation Theology (BLT) Marxist Jeremiah Wright (ergo racist) is downplayed by BHO. Only a gullible sucker could believe that – it’s a BHO lie. This BLT influence extends to Wrights good Chicago community buddy Black Muslim racist Louis Farrakhan no matter the verbal BHO denials.
I do have to admit though that BHO’s Cabinet choices are way more centrist than the obvious ideology that BHO gravitates toward. Maybe BHO is an American first and a Leftist Marxist second. Time will tell with that.
The thing I disagree with Horowitz the most is his concept that votes override the U.S. Constitution. This very same attitude is how a Slanted Left judiciary in America has disdained Constitutional interpretation for Constitutional transforming to fit the Bench’s view of how a Constitution should evolve without the involvement of people and Congress.
Personally I would be flabbergasted if SCOTUS even looks at the BHO’s birth certificate issue on the merit that the Governor of Hawaii (a Democrat) has certified BHO was born in Hawaii. Once a SCOTUS decides to not even look at the various civil suits concerning place of birth and citizenship, the issue will become moot and something to be scrutinized by curious historians in the future.
So far I have come across only one avowed Conservative (via the old GOOGLE) who believes David Horowitz has shown his true colors. Patrick Krey posting on the blog Political Class Dismissed takes the paleocon opportunity to call David Horowitz a neocon ergo a closet Leftist.
Now it is true those that are pegged as neocons (which is a group of people that hardly have monolithic agreement) have Leftist and even Marxist roots. Paleocons miss the fact these multifaceted EX-Leftists are “EX.” An epiphany occurred that Leftist/Marxist ideology is a failed pattern to govern for the greater good. Hence the ex-Leftist and/or ex-Marxist became Conservatives yet with a different twist: the promotion of global Democracy as a means toward peace rather than conquest and forced re-education camps or executions. Basically the loose difference between Paleocons and Neocons is the former emphasizes less government involvement with individuals and a domestic non-international perspective while the later emphasizes the use of military strength to rid the world of despots and terrorists strengthening global interdependence via democratic institutions.
This is what makes Neocons great educators on the nature of Islam trying to overcome the Politically Correct subculture which both the Left and many on the Right bow toward.
PC culture is like a domestic family in a row boat. The leader tells the family not to rock the boat so that no one gets hurt. All the while hooligans are hiding around the bend to do more than rock the family leader’s boat, they plan to capsize it and take their possessions. Kill the males and abuse the females.
Maybe the leader sees the trouble coming around the bend. The leader still tells the family not to rock the boat. The leader will speak with the hooligans and surely have the moral imperative to not hurt humans for the purpose of self-aggrandizement.
The hooligan leader says sure, turning to smile at his fellow hooligans. Hooligan leader says, “Come to shore and we will respect your humanity as the hooligans in the background sharpen their knives in preparation for the acquisition of easy booty.
So I have to say I do not agree with Horowitz concerning constitutional issues yet he still is a hero for being one of many educating America and the West that there are Islamic hooligans that cannot be trusted.
JRH 12-2-08
Are you aware that some moron allowed the First Amendment rights of organized Churches and evangelical ministries to be gagged? The First Amendment is still available to organized Churches and Ministries; however to exercise their First Amendment rights the IRS has been given the legal power to revoke Churches and Ministries 501(c)3 non-profit tax deductable status.
That means tax payers who give generously to a Church or Ministry would not receive the USA stamp of approval to use a donation as a tax deduction.
Honestly many Americans brainwashed into the non-existent Constitutional doctrine of Separation of Church and State (also First Amendment) believes religion should not mix with politics. That concept is only valid from the State side of the Constitutional equation. The First Amendment as it relates to religion ONLY forbids the STATE from meddling in religion and NOT religion from meddling in the State.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The highlighted parts are done by me to make my point. Congress (i.e. the Government) cannot establish a State religion. Neither can the Government prohibit the free exercise of religion. Now tell me, where does it say religion must remain separate from the Government? IT DOES NOT! The First Amendment says the Government must remain separate from religion.
In the 1960’s an activist Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) began judicial stamping legislation prohibiting religion to be active in anything to do with government. This began when prayer was taken out of the school system and been chipped away judicially little by little ever since.
Let’s see the ninth State to approve the Constitution and therefore ratifying was New Hampshire on June 21, 1788. In 1986 the IRS tax code designated charitable organizations (aimed at Christian Churches and Ministries) cannot be involved in influencing legislation or candidate elections. Well actually charitable organizations can do so BUT the IRS will cut off the tax exempt status if the charitable organization participates actively in the voting process.
This is the back door gag order on First Amendment rights of Free Speech. Of Left Wing Courts support this Constitutional delusion by citing the mythical Separation of Church and State.
Now the big fear is this. Conservative Christians have become very organized and it is a Leftist way to slow down Christian Conservatives from supporting candidates and legislation that runs counter to secular humanist agenda that has ripped the fabric of Christian Morality from America’s foundations. Sure it applies to so-called Progressive Leftist Churches too; however if you notice in the media it is the Progressive Churches trying to alert the IRS about the Biblically Moral Churches about slipping to politics more that the Leftists like it. And of course secular Leftist or secular amoral organizations utilize there clout to shut Conservative Christian Political activity. Whereas the Secular Humanists (including the homosexual activists) are highly involved politically having nearly no IRS harassment because Secular Humanism is not classified as a religion.
Now that I written my thoughts on anti-Christian free speech, here is something I find totally amazing.
There are several Mohammedan organizations that promote political agendas both on a legislative and candidate scale and are also 501(c)3 non-profit organizations. Although I personally believe that Islam/Mohammedanism is just as much political ideology as religious theology, the point is Mohammedanism is considered one of the largest religions in the world.
And yet the IRS does nothing to a religious organization like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) promoting a legislative agenda as well as candidates ranging from the only Mohammedan Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama.
Now keep in mind that ISNA is not only a religious organization doing what Christians are forbidden to do politically, but ISNA has one of its founders as Palestinian Islamic Jihadist Sami al-Arian who has been convicted for being involved with funding PIJ. ISNA denounces that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 and has been named along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations as an indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation hung jury trial.
So someone tell me how the IRS allows a terrorist supporting religious organization like ISNA maintain its 501(c)3 designation while Christian Ministries are either threatened or have their same non-profit designation revoked for being involved with politics?
JRH 9/7/08
Here is an example of Leftist Judges establishing Secular Humanism as a religion in America. A father in Massachusetts in 2005 was upset that the Public School sent home reading material for his son promoting the acceptance of homosexual behavior.
The Father file a civil suit against the Public school which was dismissed in Federal Court and in the Appellate Court ruled that teaching homosexuality did not violate parental rights. Now the Father is taking his cause to the Supreme Court.
Another family became upset with a Public School in 2006 because it sent home reading material for their second grader about two homosexual Kings that were lovers. This family joined the Father of the five year old in the Law Suit which is on its way to the Supreme Court.
On paper this Law Suit is about Parental Rights VS what the Government can instruct children in Public School.
The reality is different. It is about establishing the value and moral system of Secular Humanism in America. That makes a system that calls itself “secular” a religious system.
Leftists have interpreted the First Amendment’s intent of NOT establishing a State religion as Separation of Church and State. The phrase “Separation of Church and State” is found no where within the United States Constitution in the original document or the first 10 Amendments that has come to be known as the Bill of Rights.
Leftist Courts have used the illusion of Separation of Church and State to slowly erode Christianity from any connection in government on the local, State and Federal level. These Leftist Christophobes have changed Community Nativity Scenes that have been found on public grounds because it violates the Separation of Church and State myth. Leftist Courts have begun telling the Government to remove references to Judeo/Christianity from public buildings because it violates the Leftist interpretation of the First Amendment. The primary public property removals usually relate to the Ten Commandments or Crosses at Public Memorials. These representations of Christianity are symbols of values and morality; thus Leftist Courts are refuting Christian values and Christian morality in the name of the delusion of the Separation of Church and State.
Secular Humanism has emerged as a religion that places faith in the objective evidence of human discovery (facts derived by the validation of Science). Secular Humanism glorifies humanity as self-existent rather than created by God. In other words values and morals are relative to what feels good for humanity in the sense realm. Thus what is normal like a male and female is the foundation to producing progeny. The progeny learning their roles in life from the examples set by male and female parents.
Since it feels good to a group of humanity to have same gender sex, Secular Humanist morals and values would dictate that children acquired (obviously not produced from the same gender) can learn what is normal from same sex cohabitation.
In Secular Humanism, values and morality are measured on a sliding scale rather than a paradigm that fixes normality, values and morals.
Faith in Secular Humanism has probably led to the greatest degeneration of Western Society. Violence, promiscuity (homosexuals and heterosexuals), community trust, the disintegration of the cohesion of the family which leads to mutual disrespect between human individuals and on and on.
In essence Secular Humanism is a religion.
The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Judicial Branch of Government has basically ESTABLISHED Secular Humanism as the Religion of the Land. The Judicial Branch’s extra-Constitutional legislation has overstepped it’s purpose. The Congress is the Legislative Branch which exists to create law and the parameters of a fiscal budget within the confines of the Constitution. The Presidential Administration is the Executive Branch which exists to manage the Government and enforce the Laws enacted by the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch exists to adjudicate civil and government law. The Judicial Branch interprets law and provides clarity to gray areas of law.
Legislation is not the Judicial Branch’s jurisdiction; yet that is exactly what Leftists in the Judiciary have done by ESTABLISHING Secular Humanism as the religion of the Land. Thus forcing the traditional religion of the Land too often being in contradiction of the unconstitutional Established State religion of Secular Humanism.
______________________
Moral Relativity in America
John R. Houk
© February 26, 2008
Hat tip to Jim Phelan.
Proud Infidel (Formerly Twana’s Blog) has found a monograph about America’s activist Judiciary and the intended historical role the Founding Fathers conceived of the Judicial Branch.
It is written by David Barton, a Christian Right Historian who is awesome in refuting Slanted Left historical revisionism in American History.
It is a MUST READ.
It is doing interviews on anti-American Mohammedan media and saying things like “whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God” that makes old GW an enigma to people who dearly wish to support him and validates the views of his enemies.
I myself wish to believe GW is a man of faith, but ultimately the above statement proves he is an American politician. GW has accomplished and acted on things that I believe another leader such as Gore or Kerry would not have had the cajones to put into action; however it has become apparent the motive was viable but the execution was a debacle.
As a politician his public erudition will be skewed to gain the approval the audience which is listening to him. Does GW truly believe that ALL religions pray to the same God? Due to being a politician he may never find out until history can scrap together the snippets of private conversations, private correspondences and actual witnesses to the practice of his personal faith.
I pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that Judeo/Christianity represents that it is the GW-politician making those deluded statements and not the actual personal faith of GW in Jesus’ Name (and here is a point of belief separation Judaism and Christianity – Name of Jesus).
The politician GW is screwing some things up (my perspective) and fixing others. It is all about the politician’s maxim to formulate a political agenda and attempt to accomplish it by building a political power base and compromise (give and take) with the political enemy.
GW’s current problem current problem is alienating his political base and negotiating with an intransient enemy that senses it has the current political upper hand.
