About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Location: Vancouver, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

HARD LESSONS FROM GAZA

 
 
   Britain, which occupied a portion of the area known as Palestine, invited displaced
 
Jews who had been confined in Europe's ghettoa, tortured in Hitler's death camps or
 
whose famlies had been devastated by the holocaust to return there to make their home.
 
In 1948, the League of Nations voted to partition Palestine between the Jewish and
 
Arab populations and the nation state of Israel was born. The day partition was voted,
 
the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem launched a new war of annhilation against the Jews,
 
causing the United States and other western countries that had voted for partition to
 
take Israel's side.
 
   Over time, borders stabilized and Israel proved both its ability to build a thriving
 
democracy in a part of the world where such a form of government was unheard
 
of, and to defend itself robustly against Arab attacks. In 1967 Egypt, Syria and
 
other Arab powers thought the balance of power was right to finally push the
 
Israelis out of Palestine. They badly miscalculated, and were handed their heads in
 
the short, costly war. Worse for them, Israel staked terrirotial gains in Gaza, the
 
West Bank and the Golan Heights which they refused to give back, citing the need
 
for a buffer zone of self-defense. Later, some of those areas were populated by Israeli
 
settlers.
 
   The biggest bone of contention was Jerusalem, a holy city for Judaism, Islam and
 
Christianity. In the war, the Jews asserted complete control over the city and, again,
 
refused to yield it. Many Palestinians were displaced to the Arab sectors in Gaza and
 
the West Bank, but still worked in Israel and thought of it as home. Hatred and
 
resentment simmered just below the surface in the Arab community, and "resistance"
 
organizations were  born. Yasser Arafat's Fatah party assumed leadership of the
 
resistance, openly encouraging armed attacks on Israel including suicide bombings and
 
kidnappings. Stung by the slaughter of its civilians, the toughened Israeli Defense
 
Force struck back hard, practicing "eye-fo-an-eye" tactics. Due to military inequality
 
far more Palestinians than Israelis died in these running battles. Other organizations
 
such as Islamic Jihad and the Black September movemmement arose, attacking Jews
 
not only in Israel but elsewhere, and culmiinating in the massacre of Israeli athletes at
 
the Munich olympic games. Israel's response was the covert "Sword of Gideon"
 
operation authorized by then Prime Minister Golda Meir, that resulted in the
 
assassination of a number of leading Arab terror figures.
 
   Another group, Hamas, came into being with a charter that overtly called for
 
the detsruction of Israel. Backed and armed by Israeli-hating Iran, and Syria
 
which, to this day, provides safe harbor and comfort to Hamas kingpin Khaled
 
Meshaal, the group began a reign of terror against Israel spraying a barrage of
 
the inaccurate Qassam rockets into Israel's south, and recruiting suicide bombers
 
and hit squads to mount attacks inside Israel's borders.
 
   Israel's main ally has been the United States of America, which has staunchly
 
supported its right to existence and self-defense, and provided state-of-the-art
 
armament and shared intelligence to the IDF and Mssad. The U.S. has also often
 
used its Security Council veto in the United nations to protect Israel from condemnation
 
for striking back hard against the terrorists.
 
   In 2007, Hamas overthrew the legitimate Palestinian government of Mahmoud Abbas
 
(Abu Mazen) and threw Fatah out of Gaza, setting itself up as the governing authority.
 
Already under periodic assault from Gaza, Israel responded by closing their border with
 
the territory and setting up a sea blockade to choke off supply lines to Hamas. Hamas
 
responded by digging a series of tunnels under the Egyptian border through which the
 
Iranian and Syrian arms, as well as other supplies could flow. The border closure and
 
blockade, regarded by Israel as neceassry for its own security, has caused untold
 
poverty and hardship among the Palestinian people which some foreign observers
 
have likened to South Africa's apartheid. In December 2008, Hamas arbitrarily
 
ended a prologed cease fire, and began raining rockets on southern Israel once
 
again. The IDF responded with a massive air bombardment followed by a ground
 
invasion that has sliced Gaza into three parcels, destroyed many of the supply
 
tunnels and laid siege to Gaza City itself. Due to the density of population, the
 
smallness of the area and the propensity of Hamas fighters to fire from civilian
 
locations such as hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes, civilian casualties
 
have mounted, causing many in the international community to condemn Israel's
 
tactics as "disproportionate" and "ruthless."
 
   War continues to rage in Gaza, with Hamas demanding a complete lifting of
 
the border closures and blockade and total withdrawal of Israeli troops, and Israel
 
demanding a permanent cessation of rocket fire into Israel and an international
 
force to assure that the tunnels are closed and that Hamas is not allowed to re-arm.
 
Both sides have thus far rejected international cease fire proposals.
 
   Where is this going, and what lessons can be lkearned from it? Is this the beginning
 
of the legendary world-ending battle of Armageddon? For more, read the next post
 
on this blog, and feel free to throw in your own comments.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA'S BIGGEST GAMBLE

 
 
   Faced with rumblings of rebellion from the left, President Elect Barack Obama has
 
opted for a political appointee, former Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta, as his
 
nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency. In choosing a politician over an
 
experienced intelligence professional, he has opted to gamble on not only the
 
safety of a nation, but his own legacy and prospect for a second term.
 
   The American left has complained that the harsh anti-terror methods of the Bush
 
administration have damaged our nation's image worldwide. They have crusaded
 
for an end to torture of terror suspects (which apparently includes anything beyond
 
harsh language), rendition (the practice of snatching suspects out of the couhtry in
 
which they were captured and holding them in clandestine captivity) and the electronic
 
surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act. Accordingly, under Panetta it is a reasonable
 
expectation that such practices will be discontinued. Unless Obama is sitting on some
 
kind of secret "mind weapon." such cessation guarantees that terror suspects will no
 
longer fear capture, knowing that they will be treated kindly and afforded all the rights
 
American citizens enjoy under due process, and that the endless possibility of
 
exoneration through technicality that plague the American justice system will now
 
likely work in their favor.
 
   Common sense suggests that information extraction will be minimal, that such
 
information as there is will be slow in coming and that this exponentially increases
 
the liklihood of a successful attack on the American homeland or any kind of early
 
warning regarding attacks on American troops in the field, embassies and other
 
national interests abroad.. By choosing to politicize the CIA, Obama and the
 
Democrats invite a repeat of the 9/11 disaster or worse. But they won't have to
 
worry about anyone listening in on phone calls to their mistresses.
 
   Counter terror experts think it likely that terrorists will attack the U.S. with
 
biological or nuclear agents that can render devastation and death far more
 
widespread than the murderous kamikaze style 9/11 sorties. So measures making
 
the country more vulnerable to attack are actually enhanced risk gambles with
 
American lives. I know that I consider what the French think of us worth such
 
a gamble, and I'm sure that you do too.
 
   But Obama seems oblivious to the fact that he is doing more than gambling with
 
a few hundred thousand American lives. He is betting the future of his presidency
 
on the lunacy of the left. Love him or hate him, George W. Bush prevented a
 
follow-on to 9/11 for the last seven year -- French opinions be damned. If Obama,
 
and the CIA under Panetta, lapse into insipid mediocrity that is overshadowed by
 
the Justice Department and allow a major attack to occur, causing extensive death 

and property damage, the Republican elephant will be able to send him packing
 
in the next presidential election, along with his Democratic cronies.
 
   Obama wouldn't be the first ideologue to be proven a fool when his assumption
 
that he and his friends were right and everyone else is wrong. Unfortunately, innocent
 
Americans are likely to suffer because politics was allowed to prevail over pragmatism --
 
AGAIN.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA IN PRE-INAUGURAL SURRENDER

 
 
   More than two weeks before his inauguration, President Elect Barack Obama has
 
meekly surrendered to the left wing of the Democratic party, and apparebtly to
 
terrorism as well. His nomination of former Clinton White House Chief of Staff
 
Leon Panetta as new head pf the CIA makes it official.
 
   Panetta is a career political bureaucrat with zero prior experience in the intelligence
 
community. Furthermore, he comes out of a disastrous administration that dismantled
 
American intelligence capacities to the extent that the 9/11 attackers had little fear of
 
being prematurely discovered. One could have hoped that Obama's amateurism would
 
have taken longer to surface, and would have presented in a less dangerous form.
 
   The left wing Democrats relentlessly assailed the pending nomination of William
 
Brennan because of his "ties to torture" and the Bush war on terror. Panetta, the
 
news organizations are already speculating, will eschew the use of "hard assets" for
 
intelligence gathering, in favor of "soft assets" -- exactly what Bill Clinton did when
 
he raped the CIA. Should Panetta be confirmed, the left wing blog and al-Qaeda should
 
join forces for a celebrative kegger. And by the way, expect another MAJOR attack on
 
the U.S. homeland in less than a year!
 
   This is a perfect example of why liberal Democrats are unfit to run the country. While
 
they're busy fiddling with tax policy and ramping up social programs, terrorists and
 
enemies of this country get busy ramping up some things of their own. Carter and
 
Clinton gutted the military, and modern Democratic leaders have consistently voted
 
against military and intelligence appropriations. They don't get it, so the American
 
people line up for another 9/11.
 
   Democrats decry the Patriot Act, rant against torture and rendition, while claiming
 
they can make America safe without those tools. But have you ever noticed that they
 
never say just HOW they are going to do that? Pressed on the talk shows, all they
 
have to offer is "diplomacy." Maybe if we talk nicely to Ahmadinejad he won't
 
build nukes, or perhaps we can reason with Ayman Alzawahiri, Hamas, Hezbollah,
 
Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and company. Right!
 
   Panetta guarantees that America will walk softly. But those who walk softly
 
WITHOUT the big stick get only one thing: their butt kicked. If the Democrats want
 
to bend over, fine. Unfortunately, they're making the rest of us bend over too. Thanks
 
a lot, Barack!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MILITARY LEERY OF OBAMA

 
 
   A recent poll of the military showed that six in ten Americans in uniform are
 
skeptical about presdident elect Barack Obama's qualifications to serve as commeander-
 
in-chief, and concerned about his stated plans for the military and national defense.
 
Since Obama has never served in uniform, our personnel under arms worry that he
 
lacks the perspective necessary to maintain a strong, well-equipped armed force.
 
   This isn't so much a knock on the new prez himself, as it is on the political party
 
and point of view he represents, and the pathetic records of the last two Democratic
 
presidents and current Democratic congressional leaders. They have but to look back
 
at Jimmy Carter, America's worst excuse for a president ever, who slashed nearly a
 
thousand bodies from our intelligence community and gutted the military budget
 
like a fish, while giving away nearly everyting to Communist aggressors in Russia,
 
China, Cuba, praising a Romanian dictator who was later killed by his
 
own people, signing off on the shady election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela,
 
praising Castro's Cuba, sitting powerless while the Ayatollah Knomeini, whom
 
Carter helped put in power, held and mistreated American hostages, made his
 
first official act as president withdrawing American missiles, etc., etc. The list
 
is long and ignominious, but you probably get the picture. Our men and women
 
in uniform certainly did.
 
   Then there's Bill Clinton. He cut the federal payroll by 305,000 jobs. More than
 
286,000 of those were in the military and intelligence services. He slashed the Army
 
from 18 divisions to 12, the Navy from 546 ships to 380, the number of USAF
 
squadrons from 76 to 50. By the time he was finished, the moron had slashed the
 
services by 35%, and nine months later the 9/11 attacks occurred. Q.E.D.
 
   But look at present Democratic leadership -- notably at John Kerry (D-Mass.)
 
who will be the new chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who was
 
his party's standard bearer in the 2004 presidential election and who was the first
 
major Democrat to tout Obama's candidacy. Disregarding, for the moment, the
 
Senator's exploitive attitude toward the military following his own dubious service,
 
and his broken promise to release his military records, consider his voting record.
 
He has voted against every military equipment development and deployment bill
 
since 1988. He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Abrams M-1 tank,
 
every proposed aircraft carrier during that period, the Aegis anti-aicraft system,
 
the F-15 Strike Eagle, the Block 60 F-16, the P-3 Orion upgrade, the B-1 and
 
B-2 bombers, the Patriot anti-missile system, the FA-18 Hornet, the F-117 and
 
body and vehicle armor for troops in the field. He voted to cut the FBI's budget
 
by 60%, the CIA's budget by 80% and the NSA's budget by 80%. These are
 
matters of public record and can be easily checked out if you doubt them. This
 
is the man the Democrats would have made president in 2004, and a principal
 
and vocal supporter of the current president elect. Is it any wonder that the troops
 
are edgy?
 
   The upshot of all this is that our military is highly dubious about the concept
 
of honor held by our politicians and by Democrats in particular. The code of
 
leaving no one on the field, sacrificing for brothers and sisters in harm's way
 
and following through on promises, regardless of the cost, seem simply lost
 
on the Democrats. That's why left-wing blogger Chris Bowers was dead right
 
when lamenting about Obama's choice of Gates to continue as Defense Secretary
 
that "even Democrats don't think Democrats can run the military." He's right
 
because that takes more than a sharp pencil. It takes a strong sense of honor, and
 
that's something today's left knows absolutely nothing about.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

2009 HEADLINES -- PREVIEW

 
 
   A New Year is upon us, and the media are already scrounging for the headlines that
 
will drive their sales. Since the rest of us don't take the media nearly as seriously as
 
they take themselves, here's a little fun-poking preview of what they'll likely be
 
featuring in 2009.
 
   1. "Iran rejects Obama offer of food, technical assistance, security guarantees and
 
free beer and pretzels; presses forward with nuclear research." (Talking to the criminally
 
delusional rarely works, but it was worth a try).
 
   2. "Senate seats Al Franken after multiple lawsuits challenging his bogus election."
 
(Franken becomes first lawmaker with actual prior professional experience as a
 
bumbling clown).
 
   3. "Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich makes alternative senate pick." (Former
 
Illinois Governor George Ryan to be pardoned and head to Washington upon his
 
release from prison. This is just in case anyone bothers to read the Constitution
 
and tell idiot congressman Bobby Rush that race is NOT a qualification for
 
senator. And, it gives seantors a choice between a black who was nominated by
 
a crook and a white Republican who IS one).
 
   4. "Obama breaks promises, raises all taxes, reduces gieaways." (Oh well, you
 
didn't REALLY believe pigs could fly, did you)?
 
   5. "Waterboarding replaced by Kool-Aid slurping." In an attempt to attain torture-
 
free information from captured terrorists, new CIA Director Tim Robbins approves
 
plying captives with sugary drink until they vomit. (Meanwhile Al Qaeda plans for
 
destruction of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago move forward).
 
   6. "Government backed clinics offer abortion curb service." You don't even have
 
to leave the comfort of your auto to alleviate the unwanted consequences of your
 
sexual irresponsibility.
 
   7. "New Supreme Court ponders replacing motto on coins with 'In Gay We Trust.'"
 
With the Dems in power and Obama's new liberal jurists riding high, it seems that
 
God is out and gay is in."
 
   8. "Obama develops taste for Cuban cigars, drops embargo." Prez kicks nasty
 
cig habit in favor of Commie stogies.
 
   9. "Barney Frank proposes using bail-out funds to build memorial to gay activist
 
Harvey Milk in San Francisco." Makes as much sense as the rest of what he's proposed.
 
   10. "Nancy Pelosi rumored to be 'involved' with UAW's Ron Gettelfinger." It was
 
the only way she could get further into bed with the unions.
 
   11. "George Soros indicted for election rigging -- flees the country." Anyone who
 
can buy an election (e.g., Minnesota) can probably afford a small non-extradition
 
country.
 
   12. "ACORN sets new registration mark." Organization registers 2,000,000, only
 
1,989,000 of whom are dead or fictitious. Pundit panel proposes changing the
 
group's acronym to CHEAT.
 
   13. "Democrats pass immigration reform." Amnesty for all, open borders, come 
 
one, come all, and be sure to bring your pets. America is rich, unemployment low
 
and unearned benefits generous. Bring us your tired, your wretched . . . etc.
 
   14. "Obama taps Bernie Madoff for press secretary." He needed another
 
guy who really could fool all of the people all of the time. And what's one more
 
crook in government?
 
   15. "Cannabis farmers in line for multi-billion dollar bailout." Ganja boondoggle
 
looms as Dem congress moves to legalize marijuana.
 
   Laugh a little, But don't be too surprised if some of these actually happen.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

TIME FOR FORM RETORT?

 
   No, I didn't get snockered on New Year's eve. After all that's been said (and
 
precious little done) about tort reform, I decided to start 2009  by reframing
 
the troublesome subject. It fits, after all. "Form" is a word that describes the
 
shape things are in, and "retort" means to shout back. When it comes to the
 
woeful state of litigation in the U.S. somebody NEEDS to shout about the
 
shape things are in.
 
   Judgeships sit unfilled while politicians angle for leverage to either force or
 
thwart their confirmations. Court dockets are inundated with backlogs of unheard
 
cases, and clogged with preposterous lawsuits like that of the idiot in New York
 
who wanted millions for a lost pair of pants, or the atheist donkey Michael Newdow
 
who wishes to deny the president-elect to be sworn in on Lincoln's Bible, or to say
 
"so help me God." The lunatics are sure running the asylum, and a plethora of greedy
 
lawyers are helping them do it. Is it any wonder that the rest of the civilized world
 
is taking us less seriously these days?
 
   Think how much time, money and grief could be saved if judicial appointments
 
became strictly about the law, and not about politics. Or if judges worked strictly
 
on enforcing the constitution instead of trying to re-write it. Or if the millions of
 
nuisance suits were thrown out before they ever made it onto a docket.
 
   In this country where anyone can sue anyone else at the drop of a hat, some
 
adult needs to step in and end the madness. I mean, common sense ought to tell
 
us that there isn't a pair of pants ever made worth $57M, shouldn't it?
 
   What is needed is a triage system that screens out such moronic claims before
 
they are ever considered by a judge, let alone a jury. In a criminal proceeding
 
the law enforcement and prosecutorial system have to show probable cause that
 
a crime has been committed and that the defendant may have committed it. What
 
if that held true in civil courts as well? What if a triage team was charged with
 
determining whether a reasonable probability that injury or material affront in
 
fact existed, and whether there was sufficient probable cause to believe that a
 
defendant, through act(s) of omission or commission was the proximate cause?
 
What if, further, such a team determined, in advance, the limits of liability and
 
the standard of proof that had to be met? I guarantee you that a large percentage
 
of these nuisance suits would never get into court to clog our legal system.
 
   Unfortunately, it will never happen. Congress is made up of ambulance chasers
 
who have to do something for a living after they lose an election (unless, like
 
Stevens, Jefferson, Rangel, etc., they've feathered their nest sufficiently to
 
retire to their island paradise). And the American Bar Association's lobby will
 
fight meaningful tort reform to their last breath, which can't some soon enough for 
 
most of us.
 
   So, after all the hand-wringing about tort reform, the rest of us will still be
 
left with only form retort, and the ultimate riddle. How many weasels does it
 
take to make up a United States Congress? Happy New Year!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

U.S. TO FALL IN 2010 - PART II

 
 
   Russian academic Igor Panarin, citing uncontrolled immigration, economic collapse
 
and moral degradation as proximate causes, suggests that the USA will collapse in the
 
year 2010. The economic siege has been laid, and the unwillingness of those in power
 
to close the borders suggests that the flow of illegal immigrants from the south will
 
continue unabated. Much has been written about both demons, including posts on
 
this blog.
 
   But who would ever have thought the day would come when people of other
 
nations could, with a straight face, accuse the USA of becoming steeped in moral
 
degradation? A closer look suggests that they may be right. The nation has largely
 
abandoned constructive dialogue about "right" and "wrong," preferring instead
 
to stand on "legal" and "illegal." Is there really a difference? You bet there is!
 
   In today's USA, a man can engage in an extra-marital affair, impregnate his
 
paramour, take her to have an abortion and lie about the whole thing to his wife.
 
So you have adultery, dishonesty, cover-up and, according to some, murder, and
 
every bit of it is perfectly legal in most states. Does that make it right? Well, if
 
you  think so, your moral compass is so screwed up that you need not waste the
 
time to read further.
 
   A constant liberalization (and erosion) of law at the hands of judicial activists
 
and the American Civil Liberties Union threatens to erase the moral basis for ALL
 
law. The Constitution and the plethora of laws that have flowed from it are based
 
squarely on Judaeo-Christian morality, even though revisionist legal historians
 
lampoon the notion. The reason the ACLU so badly wants to deny this is that
 
causes they like to champion, e.g., gay rights, run squarely counter to the moral
 
convictions not only of Judaism and Christianity, but also of Islam and all of
 
the other major religions of the world. A nation in which infanticide, gay marriage,
 
public sexual displays, the expulsion of God and all things religious from public
 
view and discourse, serial adultery are not only legal but become the subjects of
 
art and feature motion pictures should not be surprised to be seen as morally
 
bankrupt -- even if it IS all nice and legal.
 
   But most of it used to be illegal. What happened? The pervasive influence of
 
liberalism has preached and cajoled that people should be able to do pretty much
 
whatever they want to do and that the laws should be constantly modified to be
 
as permissive as possible. Some elected officials are now pushing for the legalization
 
of controlled substances, euthanization of the elderly. What's next? No-fault RAPE?
 
   The point is that what we have here is a brewing perfect storm. An overcrowding
 
of the country with illegal immigrants, the declining availability of jobs and the
 
value of the dollar, the pending unaddressed insolvency of Medicaid, Social
 
Security and Medicare and the ever growing gulf between what's legal and what's
 
right is VERY likely, at some point, to throw the United States of America into
 
cataclysmic turmoil. Remember, America was born in revolution. It may have
 
to be re-born the same way. And it shouldn't take a KGB analyst to figure that
 
out. Our leaders need to stop flailing to prop up the system and acknowledge that
 
the system is broken -- REALLY broken. But don't bet on it happening soon.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

U.S. TO FALL IN 2010

 
 
   On December 29, the Wall Street Journal carried an article explaining the views of
 
noted Russian academic Igor Panarin. Among those views is one the professor has held
 
for at least a decade: that the USA will collapse in 2010. Ridiculous? On the surface yes,
 
but what lies beneath is more than a little unnerving.
 
   Panarin is no crackpot. He is the dean of the Russian academy of foreign service, an
 
organization that trains future Russian diplomats, a former senior KGB analyst and a
 
current advisor to the Kremlin on Russian-U.S. relations. He is a keen student of
 
history, and without a doubt he believes in what he is saying.
 
   The professor predicts that civil war will break out due to massive, uncontrolled
 
immigration, economic collapse and moral degradation, and that as the dollar collapses 
 
the country will eventually split into six different nation states with Alaska reverting
 
to Russian control. As one looks at the great empire/state dynasties of history, it
 
would be a tough point to make that these factors did not contribute to their demise.
 
   Massive, uncontrolled immigration already exists, and the new president's commitment
 
to amnesty and open borders only guarantees that it will build to critical mass. It would
 
also seem that an economic crater of some proportion is now underway. Just how big it
 
will get is, at present, unknown.
 
   The moral degradation issue is a touchier one, but it has to be discussed. Thanks in
 
part to the American Civil Liberties Union, the far left of the Democratic party, humanist
 
and atheist societies, the dialogue about morals has sifted almost entirely away from
 
what is moral to what is legal. This has been done in order to advance gay rights, get
 
God and prayer completely out of government and the schools and cleanse as many
 
written works as possible of any reference to morality, right and wrong.
 
   So what does the world see when they look at the United States of America? They
 
see Hollywood's tasteless and tawdry public portrayal of sexuality, flourishing
 
internet porn sites, gays demanding full rights to marry, parading in the street
 
and destroying property when their wishes are not granted, intense legal and political
 
pressue on the Boy Scounts of America to admit gay scoutmasters, the inclusion of
 
gay material in school textbooks, rampant political corruption with the virtual
 
auction of a senate seat, governors indicted for corruption, the head of the tax
 
writing body in the House of Representatives himself accused of being a tax cheat,
 
another openly gay representative thwarting strict controls on Fannie Mae while
 
having a gay affair with one of the officers who was spending the organization over
 
the brink, a senator convicted o bribery and corruption -- the list goes on, and on, and
 
on.
 
   If the politically correct U.S. public wants to pull an Alfred E. Newman (who, me?),
 
then so be it. Nero is said to have fiddled whil Rome burned. The issue we tiptoe around
 
is whether there is a "right" or a "wrong" apart from what is legal or not. Even the most
 
intellectually disingenuous of us knows the answer to the dilemma in his/her heart, even
 
when pretense to the contrary persists. We also know that a great deal of what the ACLU
 
badgers some court into declaring legal is not right.
 
   Will the U.S. collapse under the weight of its own foolishness and dishonor in 2010?
 
Maybe we need to stop rght now, step back and take a long look at where our society
 
is headed.
 
            See the follow-up to this post to come soon.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE COWARDICE OF MODERN ATHEISM

 
 
   During the current Christmas season the Freedom From Religion Foundation brazenly
 
posted a profane sign ridiculing the Christian religion beside a manger scene in
 
Olympia, the capitol city of Washington state. Pretty ballsy, eh? Not so! Not so by a
 
long shot.
 
   FRFF published an article on their website decrying "Christian Crybabies" when
 
many oersons of faith reacted negatively to their planned desecration. But the naked
 
fact is that these charlatans are not brave at all. On the contrary, they are craven
 
cowards hiding behind their trite signs, defamatory web articles and spiteful
 
rhetoric, while employing legal bullying tactics to try to exterminate every remnant
 
of the faith that built the United States of America and upon which its legal system
 
is incontestably based.
 
   Here's why they're cowards. While they claim antipathy toward all religion, you
 
won't see them protesting Islamic calls to prayer during Ramdan, Muslim prayer
 
rooms in public airports, a Muslim public school in New York or attempts by
 
the banking industry to cater to Sharia law? They only pick on Christians, who
 
won't issue fatwahs ordering their deaths, slit their throats in a holy jihad or
 
behead them simply because they are militant unbelievers. They don't mind
 
persecuting Christians who may complain, but will basically turn the other
 
cheek, knowing that Christianity and its millions of followers will be around
 
long after these loudmouthed bigots are dead and gone. If they weren't so yellow-
 
bellied they'd go after the Muslims too, along with every Menorah displayed
 
during Hanukkah.
 
   They're also cowards because of their intellectual dishonesty. Pointing to the
 
winter solstice as the true winter holy day and mocking Christmas, they
 
represent the pagan celebration as a focus of natural irreligion, extolling the
 
musty old Druid sorcerers who touted it as the truly enlightened. These are the
 
folks who celebrate whatever it is they celebrate by drumming and dancing around
 
the fire -- sans the seasonal roasting chestnuts. If the mere thought of that makes you
 
want to rip down your Christmas decorations, return your gifts and put your mantel
 
manger scene out on e-bay, maybe you should check what you're smoking too. Their
 
exaltation of the solstice is the rankest kind of revisionist history. If you don't
 
believe it check out the number of pilgrims lined up to make a Christmas
 
pilgrimage to Stonehenge, then compare that coven of three or four with the
 
thousands who flock to Bethlehem at this season each year. The atheists don't
 
like it, but even they're not dumb enough to deny that it's true.
 
   Finally, atheists are the epitome of spiritual cowardice. Faith entails a risk,
 
and they're simply not willing to venture into terrirory that does not immediately
 
commend itself to their very limited reason. Their sign says that religion is
 
"myth and superstition, so just be good for goodness sake." Aside from their
 
lame plagiarism of the line from "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town," where do
 
they think the standard of goodness originates? Who decides what's good, them?
 
If so, God help us all (no pun intended). They won't believe in anything science
 
can't prove, and they're jealous of and angry about those of us who are proud
 
that we have a faith.
 
   The sign they posted in Olympia mysteriously disappeared, only to be found days
 
later in Seattle. It's a kind of quaint parody on the future of their hateful movement.
 
When people are still flocking to Bethlehem, either physically or in spirit, when the
 
Chrismas homefires are still burning, the brightly lit trees and manger scenes announcing
 
the season of Christianity's holiest season, like their stupid sign they'll mysteriously
 
disappear. Oh, they might pop up somewhere else periodically -- knuckleheads are
 
always with us. But they're doomed to ALWAYS be a minority. And one day they'll
 
find out how very, very wrong they were!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LEFTIES LEARNING TO LIVE WITH DISAPPOINTMENT

 
 
   The wimpy whining and flatulant bleating from the far left has been almost incessant
 
since the president-elect began assembling his cabinet. Lefty blogger Chris Bowers
 
pouts that Obama's retention of Republican Gates as Defense Secretary shows that
 
"even Democrats don't think Democrats can run the military." (DUH!) The wailing
 
chorus swelled as Obama tabbed anti-gay marriage evangelical pastor Rick Warren
 
for the inaugural invocation and another Republican, Representative LaHood for
 
Secretary of Transportation.
 
   Such a baleful cacophany reveals a number of personality disorders within the
 
far left of the Democratic party. First, they are obviously hearing challenged. Obama
 
said with some regularity that if elected he planned to "govern from the center." His
 
chief of staff designate, Represntative Rahm Emanuel reiterated as much during the
 
intial phase of cabinet selection. Did the lefties think Obama was lying, or that once
 
in power he would revert to his true liberal inclinations?
 
   Second, they seemed to believe the fantasy that in a Democracy the winners really
 
do get to take all -- that with Obama elected the liberals can enact their full agenda
 
immediately and without obstruction. They are celebrating for themselves the very
 
same trait they most hated in the Bush administration. It seems that Barack Obama
 
is smarter than his party. He also knows he has to run again in four years. So the
 
bald-faced socialists, gay activists, labor unions, etc. may NOT get everything they
 
hoped for -- at least not anytime soon. And if Obama's sage centrism isn't enough,
 
Democrats failed to achieve their coveted supermajority in the Senate when Saxby
 
Chambliss thrashed Jim Martin in the Georgia runoff. Too bad, how sad. I find
 
myself getting all choked up for them.
 
   Finally, and most revealing of all, the left betrays its disdain for democracy and
 
bares its raw lust for the power of an oligarcy. In addition to being repulsive, such
 
an attitude is both naive and stupid. In the last analysis, Americans are their own
 
leaders. They have temporarily bestowed the mantle of their trust on Barack Obama,
 
and so far he looks as though he is respecting that trust. But no one voted for the
 
left wing blog, the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post or Moveon.org, and the quickest
 
way for Barack Obama to squander that trust is to cater exclusively to those left-
 
wing nut cases. His early actions, though sorely disappointing to them, shows good
 
faith with the entire electorate and the promise of a temperate, balanced administration.
 
I wonder what the country would be like today if George W. Bush had taken that

approach?
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

GAY RAGE: THE NEW FASCISM

 
 
   "No justice, no peace" -- that's the slogan of militants everywhere these days. It is in
 
reality a lame excuse for the thuggish behavior of a group of neo-fascists looking for
 
an escuse to vandalize, assault, maim and slander.
 
   Take for example the roaming mobs of gays wandering the streets of California cities,
 
vandalizing churches and attacking blacks after the black and Christian communities
 
voted overwhelmingly for California's Proposition Eight banning gay marriage. Add
 
this week's horrendous verbal attack on the president-elect for having the temerity to
 
invite Rick Warren, anti-gay marriage pastor, to give the invocation at his upcoming
 
inauguration, and you have perfect examples of what happens in America when
 
wild-eyed radicals don't get their way.
 
   Legally, they haven't a leg to stand on. The tactic they count on is assuming the
 
right to re-define justice as whatever they want. But justice is formally what is
 
required by the law, and just now the law in California requires that marriage be
 
heterosexual only. But that's not what the gays want, so it is de facto unjust, and,
 
according to them, gives them the right to conduct violent rampages aginst those
 
who disagree with them. By that same logic, if the vote on Proposition Eight had
 
gone the other way, those who considered gay marriage a miscarriage of justice
 
would have been justified in attacking gays and vandalizing their gathering places.
 
But it doesn't work that way. Duly elected legislative bodies and ultimately, the
 
electorate decide the law -- what is just. "No justice, no peace" is nothing but a
 
declaration of war on democracy.
 
   A second and even more effective tactic is ascribing to those with contrarian
 
points of view hatred, bigotry, racism or homophobia. The group known as La
 
Raza has used the tactic mercilessly to brand those who oppose illegal immigration
 
as anti-Hispanic racists and hatemongers. Once again, this is a willful perversion of
 
truth to serve a one-sided cause. Just because I believe that persons should not be
 
allowed to cross our borders, falsify documents and live in this country illegally,
 
and that they should be forthwith departed, doesn't mean I hate anybody. What it
 
does mean is that I believe this is a nation of laws and I don't think you have the
 
right to break them willy-nilly just because you want to. And that applies no
 
matter what your race or ethnicity. Gays argue that those who voted for Proposition
 
Eight, including Pastor Rick Warren, the Mormons and most of the black community
 
hate gays. Sensible people should not sit still for such slander. Just because I disagree
 
with you doesn't imply that I hate you -- just that I disagree with you. If my child wants
 
the keys to the family car and I don't think he's ready, does that mean I hate him? Of
 
course not. Yet the tactic persists. "Give me what I want or you hate me and others
 
like me." It's hogwash and drivel.
 
   Homophobia is the favorite word of gay activists as applied to those who oppose
 
the gay lifestyle and gay marriage. It's really a curious word, and generally a complete
 
misnomer. Literally, it describe one who fears homosexuals or homosexuality. Why,
 
if you disagree with a lifestyle and reject a lifestyle must you be "afraid" of it? I
 
know a number of gay people -- some of them very pleasant an unassuming -- but
 
there is not a single one of them I fear in any way. What I do fear is a tolerance of
 
those who re-write justice after their own whims and claim license to ignore laws
 
that burden them.
 
   Obama has made some very shrewd political choices in picking his cabinet and
 
yes, in asking Rick Warren to participate in the inauguration. If the gay activists
 
think that under his administration they can have whatever they want, they need
 
to go home and sober up. He will only be the president. He doesn't get to make
 
laws and in four years he has to stand for re-election. Whether the gays like it or
 
not, a solid majority in this country still beieve that the only legitimate definition
 
of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. In a democracy, the
 
majority rules. And if, in the name of their unholy cause, gays should commit
 
criminal acts, they should ho straight to jail. That's what would happen to the rest
 
of us if we behaved as they are behaving now. Justice isn't whatever I want. It's

a conseunsus codified in law. Change that, and you had might as well burn the

Constitution. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DETROIT BAILOUT: THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE

 
 
 Much was made over the appropriation of millions for Alaska's now infamous "bridge
 
to nowhere." What every taxpayer should know is that even that futile effort pales by
 
comparison with the bailout being discussed for troubled American automakers. It's
 
not just about the money. It's about what, exactly, the money will buy.
 
   The so-called "loan" now under consideration by the Bush White House is, in fact,
 
an extremely high-risk investment. If that were not true, Detroit's Big Three would
 
simply get their "bridge loan" from banks. But no banker is dumb enough to give
 
a large sum of money to those who have already frittered away so much and have no
 
concrete plan for re-organization. Bush's promises notwithstanding, it is a good bet
 
that the auto giants will end up in bankruptcy in any case, and that American taxpayers
 
will never see a dime of the proposed bailout money repaid. Bankers know this, and
 
Bush probably does too.
 
   And what will such a bailout actually buy? The amount being discussed is considerably
 
less than the industry says it needs. The United Auto Workers union has promised no
 
concessions until 2011 (maybe) and so how can the Big Three meaningfully restructure
 
their costs when burdened by exhorbitant union contracts? What evidence is there that
 
Detroit can make better cars at competitive prices? And how could anyone possibly be
 
expected to believe that the current catastophic situation that's taken decades to
 
develop can be remedied in three months?
 
   The bailout is a bridge to nowhere. But not in the mind of union leader Ron Gettelfinger.
 
To him, the bailout is a bridge to a Democratically controlled White House and congress
 
bought and paid for by union money who will then be expected to deliver the goods
 
by giving the industry everything it wants WITOUT concessions by the union. He could
 
be right, but at some point even the Democrats will figure out that the country is
 
running out of money and the notion of bailing out the unions while Medicare and
 
Social Security continue the slippery slide toward insolvency will get them unelected.
 
   So just what would it take to justify this proposed boondoggle? First, it will take
 
severe financial restructuring, including the re-opening of the union contract. Apart
 
from that the whole exercise is a waste of time. It won't matter how good the cars
 
Detroit builds are if they can't build them to be competitively priced. No matter how
 
much they streamline operations, that goal is unattainble when union benefits stand
 
at 150% of salaries. No immediate concessions from the union, no bailout!
 
   Second, the Big Three have to quit hyping the J.D. Power studies that reflect
 
only INITIAL quality and figure out how to build cars that are fuel efficient, durable,
 
reliable and thus hold their re-sale value. Absent that, a bailout is like keeping a
 
brain dead patient on life support. Why do it?
 
   Third, bankruptcy is the vehicle that will best buy the industry time to see if they
 
can re-tool for success. The doomsday scenario that all three will close down idling
 
millions of workers is a fearmonger's fairy tale. There are going to be significant
 
layoffs during re-structuring whether the firms take Chapter 11 or not. That's a
 
given. But big companies in bankruptcy don't just close their doors and fire everyone.
 
They continue to operate at a manageable level until they can build back to profitability.
 
The union -- the principal opposer of the bankruptcy option -- isn't afraid for one
 
moment that every autoworker will be furloughed. What they fear is the legal right
 
bankruptcy would give the automakers to break the union contract. A structured,
 
federally supervised bankruptcy might even include some government subsidy and
 
could create the latitude necessary for the industry to re-invent itself.
 
   The national deficit is now approaching one trillion dollars. The interest on that
 
money is $51M for every hour of every day. That deficit poses a far more serious
 
threat to America than an auto industry whose stubborn shortsightedness and
 
foolish acquiescence to union greed has rendered it but a hollow creator of
 
metal dinosaurs. If you want my support, President Bush, and President-Elect
 
Obama, then please show me a bridge that leads to somewhere. And don't expect
 
me, my children and grandchildren to keep paying for the failures, stupidity and
 
greed of others. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

TAXPAYERS GET "THE FINGER"

 
 
   When a deal between the Big Three automakers and congress was oh, so close, the
 
American taxpayers got the finger instead -- Ron Gettelfinger, that is. He's head of the

powerful
UAW. A few senators wanted some immediate concessions from all parties to

help solve an immediate problem. Gettelfinger's response? No problem,
but not until 2011.
 
   The disingenuous Mr. Gettelfinger was betting everything on the come -- figuring that
 
by 2011 the feds would have had to pony up, and the crisis would be over. Thus, no
 
union concessions would be necessary. Breakdown in the talks occurred when he refused
 
outright to give a date by which the union would become competetive in salaries and
 
benefits with workers in the non-union shops of foreign automakers who are turning
 
out cars that, by a staggering margin, Americans prefer to drive.
 
   Cap that with a pompous next-day news conference in which he spewed accusatory
 
bile at the Republican party and at a few southern senators in particular who, he
 
claimed were trying to break the union and further feather the nests of BMW, Honda
 
and Nissan who are manufacturing in their non-union states. Such attacks render the
 
detestable Mr. Gettelfinger the veritable prince of prevarication, rivaled only by
 
disgraced Democratic Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
 
   Many reputable analysts believe that the staggering financial weight of  union "legacy

costs" is the backbreaker that make near-term profitability
for the Big Three unlikely.

The average union worker makes about $30 an hour, but
his benefit package equals nearly

150% of that, running the total cost to the
company to $74 hourly. Gettelfinger whines that

attempts to carve into that place
Detroit's problems squarely "on the backs of the workers."

He has no compunctions,
however, about placing them on the backs of taxpayers, while his

idled employees sit
around a social club playing videogames while maintaining salaries and

exhorbitant
benefits.
 
   Gettelfinger further argues that the testy senators know full well that bankruptcy is
 
"not an option." His stated reason for this claim -- that Americans won't buy from
 
a company in bankruptcy -- is, again, not his real reason. What scares him most is
 
that by taking bankruptcy, the Big Three can then legally break the union contracts
 
that are the anchors dragging them down. Nice try though, Ron.
 
   Let's be honest. Bankruptcy by GM. Ford and Chrysler will put a whole lot of
 
people in a bind and may indeed include some decline in the already flagging sales
 
of the Big Three. But irresponsibility and greed have their price, and the sheer size
 
of these companies must not exempt them from the penalty for theirs. The folly
 
of the Big Three was caving to the union demands based upon inaccurate and
 
shortsighted dreams of future profitability. See it as a business model of the old
 
Ponzi scheme. Truth is that the automakers couldn't afford what the union demanded
 
then, and they sure as the devil can't afford it now. There was a time when the
 
unions stood against exploitive employers as a "band of brothers." Today's UAW
 
resembles, instead, a flock of vultures.
 
   Bankruptcy doesn't equal death. It entails pain and rebuilding -- sometimes from
 
the ground up. The airlines have successfully come through it, and so can the auto
 
industry. But if they can't build fuel efficient cars with long-term quality (meaning
 
they're not broken down junkers with no re-sale value in five years), and do it at
 
a price comparable to the foreign competitors manufacturing here, then whether
 
they go out of business now or do it after they've blown through another round
 
of bail-out money only matters to the taxpayers who are about to get fleeced for
 
it. And if you don't think that's a possibility, why do you think they don't go to a
 
bank for their "bridge loan?" It's because banks make loans based on risk estimates
 
and no banker is stupid enough to bet on Detroit's turkeys now. Only the government
 
seems dumb enough to do that. This is a "loan" that will never be repaid!
 
   And so, Mr. Gettelfinger, on behalf of the American taxpayer I want to give you
 
something. I'm sure you can guess what it is. But it doesn't have any "gettel" in front
 
of it!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CHRISTMAS CARD TO AN ATHEIST -- FINAL

 
 
   Any faith, whether theistic or atheistic, must justify itself on the basis of evidence. But
 
there is another and infinitely more practical criterion for evaluating belief systems. What
 
is the morality to which they give rise, and is that behavior consistent with the principles
 
of their faith?
 
   Adducing examples of good and bad behavior by the religious and the non-religious
 
is a dead end that proves little. Human inconsistency plagues us all. But 18th century
 
German philosopher Immanuel Kant got it right when he suggested that people ought
 
always to so act that the maxim of their action -- the principle upon which their choice
 
was made -- could become universal. If that sounds like a convoluted way of saying
 
"do to others as you would that they should do to you," that's probably not a coincidence.
 
So what we need to be asking is what is the basis of morality for theism and atheism?
 
   Once I spoke with a professed atheist, and asked him, "if there is no God, then why
 
do you abstain from killing, stealing and the like?" He suggested that he didn't want to
 
be imprisoned, but I pressed right through his evasion. Are you saying, I asked, that
 
laws against murder and thievery are bad? Of course he replied in the negative. Where,
 
I badgered, do you think laws prohibiting those actions came from? Now I knew that
 
the fellow wasn't stupid and could quickly see where this was going. Modern American
 
law is based on and derived from the Judaeo-Christian religion and moral consensus,
 
and he knew it.
 
  " Laws like that are based on human decency, the human consensus," he dodged. I
 
asked him which decent human consensus that would be. Would it be the consensus
 
of Attila and his Huns? Or perhaps Hitler and his Nazis? Maybe al-Qaeda or the
 
Taliban? He frowned -- understanably. "Your argument seems to be," I said, "that
 
the basis of morality comes only from within man himself, so at the end of the day the
 
only authority you can point to to justify your behavior IS yourself. Yet we all
 
know full well what anarchy results when every man does only what is right in his
 
own eyes."
 
   The point is simple. The justification for theistic morality isn't religious people,
 
many of whose behaviors are flawed and inconsistent. But for Christians, the bar
 
is set high. If they don't reach it, at least they have something to shoot for. The only
 
bar the atheist has is the one he sets for himself. Sounds like Richard Nixon who
 
thundered, when challenged by Brit David Frost about his illegal actions, "if the
 
president does it, it's not illegal." No authority above himself.
 
   Atheism presents only negative evidence and self-justification to the world, while
 
Christianity offers a mound of historical evidence, millions of devout believers and
 
a moral code sourced beyond this temporal world which, although not always lived up
 
to, at least points a better way.
 
   French philosopher Blaise Pascal devised a proposition famously known as
 
"Pascal's Wager." In the absence of certainty, he argued, one must wager either that
 
there is a God, or that there is not. If I choose to believe, what have I lost but the
 
license to a profligate and self-serving existence that will be of little ultimate
 
benefit to myself or others? But if I choose NOT to believe, and I am wrong, then
 
in due time I have lost everything. Therefore, the wise man will choose faith. The
 
most well-known atheist philosopher of this century, Antony Flew, recently saw
 
through the fog of unbelief, and in 2007, at the age of 81, penned a book entitled
 
"There Is A God: How A Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind." You see, it's not too
 
late.
 
   It's Christmas time. The snowflakes are falling, our homes and trees are brightly
 
lit, the beautifully wrapped gifts that express our caring are rapidly accumulating
 
under the Christmas tree. If you are unmoved by the story of the manger, untouched
 
by the love of  others, unhappy for us poor fools who DO believe, please ar least
 
pause a moment to reflect on Pascal's Wager. And maybe -- just maybe -- somewhere
 
amidst your musings, you'll find that faith trumps anti-faith every time. And have a
 
merry Christmas.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CHRISTMAS CARD TO AN ATHEIST - PART II

 
 
   When confronting conflicting propositions, reasonable people usually rely on the
 
available evidence before making up their minds. The first test of a belief, or a faith,
 
is what evidence supports it? Faith is not a blind leap into a contentless void. It is a
 
choice of the mind and spirit compelled by what IS known.
 
   Christianity, like most religions is based in history. While there have been differing
 
interpretations of the historical circumstances that spawned the faith, there is little
 
doubt that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, that his birth was celebrated at the time by
 
persons both lofty and lowly as a watershed event, and that as a teacher from Nazareth
 
hundreds flocked to hear his words. It is incontestable that thousands, hundreds of
 
thousands and ultmately millions of souls proclaimed Him as Saviour and embraced
 
the techings of the church based on the gospel -- the good news that through their
 
faith people could find redemption from their sins. Much of the historical data has
 
been confirmed by eyewitnesses -- some of whom were not believers -- and none of it
 
has been substantially refuted by those who were contemporaneous with it. Whether
 
your interpretation of the Bible is literal or figurative, and whether, in the last analysis,
 
you are a believer or not, a reasonable person cannot simply dismiss all of the historical
 
testimony as superstitious gibberish. This is what is meant by the fact that Christianity
 
is an historical faith. Like it or not, it is grounded in things that actually happened.
 
   Having established that atheism is also a "faith," an honest appraisal dictates that we
 
consider the evidence that supports it. However, in the case of atheism what we are
 
asked to consider is non-evidence. There is no God because we can't see Him or prove
 
that He exists scientifically, they say. And a wise, all-powerful and benevolent deity
 
could never allow the world's evils. So, since these evils incontrovertibly exist, God
 
must not. And look at all the horrible things that have been done in the name of
 
religion, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
 
   This is the age-old argument from silence, and the time-tested maxim of the discipline
 
of logic teaches that nothing can be proved by nothing. If nothing we can't see is worth
 
believing, the earth would still be presumed flat. The fact that a conviction does not pass
 
a narrow set of arbitrary criteria does not render it untrue -- not even in science. It simply
 
leaves us short of absolute certainty, a requirement for faith.
 
   And the argument from evil only holds if one discounts the central teaching of Christian
 
faith, i.e., that God sent His Son into the world to teach people a better way to live and
 
how to achieve spiritual reconciliation with their Maker. Thinking back on Wisdom's
 
parable of the garden (see yesterday's post), how might the decision of those living
 
there been influenced had the gardener sent his son to teach them how better to enjoy
 
their world? That evil exists is not the last word. Christian faith provides a remedy
 
for personal evil (sin) and that remedy is forgiveness. And it provides support,
 
assurance and hope in the face of natural disasters that befall us. What does
 
atheism offer on either count? Nothing!
 
   The enduring message of Christmas is that once, in a land far away, the Gardener
 
did send His Son. And that solitary birth changed the course of civilization. Can
 
atheism claim the same kind of impact? Hardly! But there is one crucial remaining
 
test of faith. That will be the focus of discussion in the third and final part of this
 
post tomorrow.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive