A vehicle for venting on philosophy, religion, and the general state of things. Proprietor: C. W. Powell

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Even as U.S. Invaded, Hussein Saw Iraqi Unrest as Top Threat - New York Times: "The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense. "

Can you imagine that diabolical George Bush? He even had Saddam's top military leaders convinced that Saddam had WMD. Isn't that something?

Thursday, March 09, 2006

More Cherry Picking

Pick wisely? Posted by Picasa

We all know, I guess, that Hitler was a bad guy in a Germany where everyone was taught to obey the authorities and not question the goodness of the state goals. We also know, I suppose, that anarchy is bad. You know, where everyone makes up his own rules and lives for himself and defies all authority. But in the long continuum between total anarchy and total submission where does freedom become lawlessness or submissiion become aiding and abetting tyranny?

It is easy to throw the labels around, but at what point does the truth appear? Is it tyranny for a husband to decide which friends his wife should have, choose her wardrobe, insist she stay home with the kids, refuse to allow her to go to college, and refuse to allow her a driver's license? Is it lawlessness for him to tolerate everything, including sexual affairs, bank robbery, and lesbianism? Not easy questiions.

But how do we answer them? Of course, we go cherry picking. Most of the cherries are anecdotal in cases like this: stories about Bill and Mary, Jerry and Bobbi, etc. Mary thinks Bill is a Hitler because he is concerned about an affair she is having with his best friend. Jerry thinks Bobbi is lawless because she thinks she should be able to vote in church.

But what is the truth? Are there no limits on human freedom except which I impose on myself, or are there no limits on the level of control that another person or institution can impose one? Where are those limits, and who is to decide?

It will not do for each one to decide for himself, for that is to answer the question on the side of anarchy; but neither will it do for one person or group to decide for everybody for that is to come down on the side of tyranny and we are back at square one.

In the long, long continuum between anarchy and tyranny where is truth to be found? Choose your cherries very carefully.

Monday, March 06, 2006

BREITBART.COM - Cindy Sheehan Arrested After U.N. March: "Cindy Sheehan, who drew international attention when she camped outside President Bush's ranch to protest the Iraq war, was arrested Monday along with three other women during a demonstration demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. " --Paul Berkhardt, AP Writer


No, Mr. Berkhardt, if you would get out of your office and off the internet and find out what America is thinking, you would realize an important truth that might change your life.

Cindy Sheehan DID NOT draw "international attention." Most people could care less about Cindy Sheehan. What she drew was liberal media reporters like flies to a cow pie. These flies had an agenda: to destroy Bush and to bring down the "arrogance" of America so that the world could be homogenized into a faceless, religionless, drab bunch of robots to be milked by the elite. America must be defeated so that there are no super-powers, and certainly not one that speaks of God and such stuff. But think: do you think that you and your crowd will escape the whirlpool of destruction that would take place if this ship goes down? Hmmmmm??

Here is another truth: You and your bunch will not be able to predestine the future, no matter how Hardt you try. Only God can do that, and He has already done it. Your cosmic dream will not happen and cannot happen.
RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Free Speech on the Run in the West by John Leo: "In Canada, a teacher drew a suspension for a letter to a newspaper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation, but a condition that can be treated. He was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper. Another Canadian newspaper was fined 4,500 Canadian dollars for printing an ad giving the citations -- but not the text -- of four biblical quotations against homosexuality. As David Bernstein writes in his book 'You Can't Say That!': 'It has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex.'"

The ultimate target of all politically correct movement, multiculturalism if you will, is the Bible. The reason: the Bible carries its own internal proof of authority and its very own authentication as the Word of God. Multiculturalism denies that there is such a thing as self-evident truth, or truth that evidences itself. The very idea of self-evident truth is a biblical, Christian idea that is based upon the fact that the world is God's creation and carries its own imprimatur of authenticity. If there are many gods [the basic premise of multiculturalsim] then truth resides only in the eye of the beholder--worshippers of this god see truth this way; worshippers of that god see truth that way.

This is the reason why modern liberal "Christians" have no defense against the growing threat of radical Islam. They have nothing in their spiritual or intellectual arsenal to draw on. But how do you accept someone's religious view if at the foundation of that religious view is that you must be killed? As an uncle of mine used to say, "I wouldn't trust that guy, even if he was on my side."


Blog Archive