Science, Superior to God?

In the course of written conversation with another local blogger regarding what seems to be a quest of his to belittle, and in fact demonize, all religion, I began to question why it is that some scientists seem obsessed with the idea of proving that God does not exist and that all people who believe in God, Gawd or little gods are superstitious fools. I mean, really, why is it so important to some scientists to look down their long, sneering noses and pronounce idiocy on others? If those of us who are religious are idiots and superstitious fools why would they bother with us at all? Why is it so important to them? Why don't they spend their time more profitably in the field of science finding cures for cancer, aids and the common cold? Anytime someone, anyone, announces that a certain sector of society are fools but then continues to spend an exorbitant amount of time on trying to disprove what those "fools" believe, then in actuality they are giving undue credence to the "fools," are they not?

I recently left an online political debate group, in part, because I realized that among those of opposing thought there were none who were really even interested in discussing and debating any issue or understanding an opposing viewpoint. My opponents constantly created straw-men arguments in order to avoid real issues. When I finally, fully understood that they were uninterested in discussion, arriving at consensus on any given topic or even offering a modicum of respect for a viewpoint which deviated from their own I wrote them off as a myopic waste of my time. It wasn't that I was unwilling to respect or consider their viewpoint, it was that they could hear or consider nothing which did not support their own and if they could not explain a position or answer a question honestly then the name calling commenced and the discussion, which was never a discussion in the first place...well, you get the drift. See, I left the group because I recognized it was a waste of time. I haven't spent a great deal of time looking back and trying to figure out why they are wrong and why I am right. Why, if religious fanatics are such superstitious fools, beneath respect and consideration, are scientists so obsessed with proving them wrong?

The best I can figure, one of the reasons scientists have given for wishing to abolish all religion is that religion is the cause of all war. I recently wrote a post in reply to the science blog Pharyngula (on) The unspeakable vileness of religious law, in which Professor P. Z. Myers stated:

"Religion is not a source of moral behavior. It's a source of tribalism and obedience to authority, which sometimes coincides with respectable morality, but isn't necessarily associated with it. We have to find our virtue in one true thing, our common humanity, and these ancient superstitions actually interfere with instruction in how to be good by encrusting it with nonsense."

I might agree with Professor Myers that religion isn't the only source of moral behavior or that all religions are not sources of moral behavior but for him to state, as though fact, an opinion so generically broad that "religion" period "is not A source of moral behavior," is not only blatantly false but as foolish as Professor Myers would like to convince us are those who believe in God.

But, let's go back to the argument that some make that wars are all started because of religiosity. Is there really a human being alive who believes that if we purged all religion from society, if all mankind became atheists, if no one believed in God, Gawd or little gods or either a heaven or a hell that there would no longer be any war!? Uh uh. Religion is not the basis for war, if men were not fighting over what they believed was God's edict and instruction they would be fighting over what some man claimed as edict and instruction for them. Human beings seek leaders among their world, among their nations, among their states, among their counties, among their cities, among their communities and even in their own households. Are we to believe that if we swept God out of the way that men would be open-minded, tolerant, totally agreeable, freedom loving, war-immune peaceniks?

John Lennon wrote in Imagine:

Imagine there's no Heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one...

...Yes, John, I say you are a dreamer. Do you suppose Lennon really thought if we could do away with the concepts of heaven and hell that everyone would live just for today? It's utterly ridiculous, people would still be thinking about whether they could earn enough money to survive retirement or go on vacation in two weeks. People would still wish they had the new car their neighbor had. Lennon might just as well have "imagined" there's no money, or sex, or new hair styles.

Do you suppose that if Lennon "imagined" hard enough that there were no countries and no religion that it would do away with the innate longing of human beings to have someone at the helm of their little life-ships? That people would no longer think anything was worth dying for? That everyone would live in peace? Lennon might just as well have "imagined" there's no world at all, there are no houses better than yours, no property with more fertile soil than your property, no new suit or formal dress hanging in the department store window that catches your eye.

The world will not be as one, not even if you "imagine" it without heaven, without hell, without war, without countries or without religion because man's *condition* is a selfish one. Man wants what man wants for himself.

This week another local blogger and myself have been having a written conversation and it was brought about by his posting of Professor P. Z. Myer's little exercise in stupidity. This morning he posted a little brag about the book, God: The Failed Hypothesis, written by Victor J. Stenger, he was very pleased because the author named him and he used one of his pretty little flower pictures to "demonstrate the fibonacci series."

This week The Discovery Channel will be airing "The Lost Tomb of Christ," which, according to (BP), experts say ignores biblical & scientific evidence and logic, why? Because for some reason scientists are very interested in disproving the existence of God, Gawd or little gods.

Why do they protest so much? Is it because even without religion the heart of man longs for something, something bigger than himself or herself?

Is it because of that empty space that men try to fill with a mate or a job or a hobby, with science or with GOD? I believe that is exactly what it is all about.

We are all searchers, we are all searching for answers.

Some men look to God for their answers and many of them find peace there, many of them may not understand all the details but they keep looking, they keep searching the scriptures, they keep trying to understand things which they cannot fathom, and those things which they cannot understand and which there seem to be no answers for, they entrust to God. They have faith that perhaps one day God will "clue them in" on the things they could not understand today.

Some men look to sex to fill an uneasiness they sense in their soul, some look to wealth, some to knowledge, some look, yes, to science as they seek and when they do they find answers to questions about all sorts of things, just as do those who look to God and God's Word---the Bible. Sometimes scientists can't find an answer but they have faith that they will one day, when they do enough experiments, when they ask the right question, just as those who believe in God have faith that they will one day understand things which they can't understand today.

Perhaps scientists think a faith in man or man's understanding of the world, of life, of the human condition, of his surroundings is superior to the faith that other men have in God. Perhaps by belittling religion they can make themselves believe that that uneasiness, that hole in their heart that only God is capable of filling can be filled by science if they are condescending enough, who knows? God? Science? Is there an end to the universe? Is there an end to God? Is the universe the never-ending mind of God? Can scientists prove that it isn't?

"If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make reality the basis of our philosophy? ...But we cannot distinguish what is real about the universe without a theory...it makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what reality is independent of a theory." - Stephen Hawking

A Win for the 10th Amendment

Okay, it's official---Wyoming Sheriffs ROCK!

This is mostly a cut and paste job, not much need for my comments.


County Sheriff Can Bust Big Bro

County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and
states rights....

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ......"If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody."The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association....

The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs.

The court confirms and asserts that "the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official...."

Sheriff Mattis said, "I am reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law...."

I did a little googling to see if I could find any other news reports on the subject and found that based on the U.S. District Court ruling on Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J there is now a Bill in Montana State Legislature to Keep Feds in Line:

"A new bill has been introduced in the Montanta State Legislature which require the County Sheriff be notified before any federal agents are allowed to enter the state with the intention of carrying out law enforcement actions. The bill provides not only for pre-notification, but the Sheriff must also give consent before federal agents may proceed."

If you click on the link you can find a link at the end of the article which provides the full text of the Montana bill.

LII: Constitution

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

To revisit the first link I posted related to this article (Keene Free Press - County Sheriff Can Bust Big Bro), they said it well:

This case is not just some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. This case is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States. It is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will be interpreted to mean that "political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to the States."

The Unspeakable Vileness of Professor Myers

I found this blog entry, Pharyngula: The unspeakable vileness of religious law, to be rather stupid, excuse my bluntness.

Following are the blogger's words and I have taken the liberty of omitting the quotes from the article he links, I trust my readers can follow the link for the background themselves:

"Am I supposed to believe religion is a force for morality, when I see so many examples of it more being a force for mindless obedience to arbitrary rules? This story out of Pakistan is disturbing in many ways.

Executed for not having a piece of cloth on top of her head; what god looks down on our world from his cosmic perspective and thinks that is an important concern for humanity? Allah, apparently; I can find commandments in the Bible that make similar demands.

I'm sure religion's defenders will shout long and loud that this guy Sarwar is simply an isolated lunatic, and that if he'd been an atheist he would still have been a monster. True enough; one asshole might be an exception, and godlessness is no guarantee of goodness, but a series of incidents is a pattern, and we have to look at who is inciting it.

Face it, everyone. Religion is not a source of moral behavior. It's a source of tribalism and obedience to authority, which sometimes coincides with respectable morality, but isn't necessarily associated with it. We have to find our virtue in one true thing, our common humanity, and these ancient superstitions actually interfere with instruction in how to be good by encrusting it with nonsense."

The first thing the Professor opines about is religion, as he views it, as more of "a force for mindless obedience to arbitrary rules" than "a force for morality." Well, religion, organized religion, is not "a force for mindless obedience to arbitrary rules," organized religions, all of them, have clear doctrine. Some religions' doctrines can become breeding grounds for arbitrary actions, however the majority of organized religions are not and leave no room for arbitrary action in the form it was taken by this Islamic extremist, and organized religion, in the case of Christianity, directs the individual toward acts of good, acts which benefit not only the believer and not only the believer's friends but also the believer's enemies. Luke 6:27-38 tells Christ's followers:

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. 37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." BibleGateway.com: Luke 6:27 - 38

If PZ Myers wants to compare apples to oranges then he has been successful but it would be no more ridiculous for me to write about biology as though I have a clue than it is for this Professor to write about religion, something which, as much as he would like to pretend to have some knowledge about, he simply does not. To state that all religions are "a force for mindless obedience to arbitrary rules" rather than forces "for morality," is simply ignorant.

Next, our Professor of biology tries to make a comparison between an Islamic extremist's isolated act of executing a woman for not covering her head by comparing it to scripture in the Bible, when he states:

"I can find commandments in the Bible that make similar demands."

Interestingly, the Professor does not clearly distinguish whether he is alluding to "commandments" about women's apparel or "commandments" which call for the execution of women who do not cover their heads. Certainly there is scripture which directs women as to what is appropriate attire and certainly many Christian women have changed their attire with the times. I have heard of no cases of Christian men executing women for not dressing according to the Bible and would challenge the Professor to note them if he is going to make such an extreme comparison. Apparently, Muslims are not the only ones who can be found to take extreme positions, tsk. It seems certain Professors of biology can get a wee bit extreme in their positions, as well.

Professor continues that "religion's defenders will shout long and loud that this guy Sarwar is simply an isolated lunatic." Duh, ya think? This was an isolated incident, but most incidents such as this isolated incident are found among the politicized religion of Islam and perpetrated by its followers. Not to simply defend Christians, though I am one, I would challenge the Professor to find the many isolated incidents he alludes to as being a "series of incidents (constituting) a pattern" among the Jewish population, among the Buddhist religious faithful or any other religion. Professor Myers attempts to condemn all religions as equal, as all lunacy, as all "a force for mindless obedience to arbitrary rules," based on a single incident in Pakistan and, frankly, he does a very poor and lazy job of backing up such a claim, utilizing one isolated incident perpetrated by an Islamic extremist. Geesh!

The last vestige of tolerance does not quite reach to be inclusive of religion or the many religious faithful across the globe. We find in the comments made to the Professor's entry, the intolerance of "the tolerant." You see, this is where their hypocrisy lies. I must speak from the viewpoint of a Christian in this case because I am a Christian.

People are given a choice to either believe in Christ or deny him. Christians offer to force their faith on no one. Christians even recognize that they, themselves, cannot draw one to an acceptance of Christ as Savior but that each individual who chooses to accept Christ will be drawn to Him, not by man but by God, Himself. Those who do not believe are tolerated by Christians, perhaps grieved over, but tolerated. We do not try to force our faith on others by the sword, that is simply not what our God calls on us to do. That is not true of some segments of the Islamic religion. They are as different from Christians as, to be trite, daylight and darkness.

Choose Christ or deny Christ, I'll respect your viewpoint. Call my religion "nonsense," I'll tolerant your right to think so and champion your freedom of speech to insult me, what I will not do is pull out a gun and shoot you in the face while your collegues are showering you with rose petals, and Professor, there can be no verses found in the Bible which can be interpreted as though telling a follower of Christ to do so.

"No sciences are better attested than the religion of the Bible" ~ Sir Isaac Newton

Stick to biology, Professor

Bigotophobia

Some readers of JackeHammer might have recognized that I am keenly interested in free speech issues. One threat to free speech that concerns me is the issue of political correctness, which has a way of chilling and squashing the openness of debate in our country and beyond.

A recent experience I had in the private debate group of which I was a member, more than focused my attention on the scourge of political correctness and the toll it is taking on our inherent right of free speech. I came across this entertainment news item when reading a story from a blog I frequent. To set up further comments, the reader will need to be aware of this so-called "racist" scandal. This is promising to be one of my meandering posts which hopefully will end in a conclusion that makes sense.

According to CBS News accounts:

"The British reality show "Big Brother" caused a huge uproar when one of the housemates was voted off the show after being accused of racism...."

CBS News reported that Jade Goody, one of a cast of celebrity participants of the show, was accused of issuing discriminatory language at another participant, Shilpa Shetty, of Indian origin in Celeb Apologizes For "Big Brother" Racism.

CBS News further reports:

"Even though Goody is contrite, many British celebrity watchers say Goody's celebrity is over."

What were the "racist" remarks which have allegedly maligned her career? According to most news reports, the worst of the rants directed at Shetty can be found at Guardian Unlimited, which quoted Jade Goody as saying:

"You need elocution lessons. You need a day in the slums. Go to those people who look up to you and be real. You f*ing fake."

What is starkly missing from this rant, or any other quote I have read from Goody, is any mention of Shetty's nationality, skin color, gender, etc. One must be very careful of whom one insults these days, not that insulting people is something to which any of us should aspire. If one issues a rude screed against another who happens to fall into a minority category, the main qualifyer of racism seems to be the color of your own skin, and has little to do with the actual insult, which oftentimes has nothing to do with race.

BBC on the Internet offers the Big Brother controversy in quotes and Smallscreen, on January 19, quotes Shilpa Shetty, the receiver of Goody's rant as stating:

"'I think it's a sequence of events that created that misunderstanding and made me believe for maybe a fraction of a second that I thought she was being racist but I don't think so today, in hindsight, that she was being racist' "

Even with Shetty making the confession that she was wrong to, "for maybe a fraction of a second," think the insult was racist, Wikipedia tells us here that:

"Goody has been living in fear following her comments on Celebrity Big Brother, and alleged that her Harlow home windows were smashed [56], but Essex police reported to the media that only one window was cracked[57]. Goody was dropped from Act Against Bullying (the anti-bullying charity which she supported). Goody and her mother have been contacted by police investigating their alleged racism during Celebrity Big Brother.[58]. On 30 January The Sun reported that Goody had collapsed at home on Sunday 28 January, and had entered The Priory clinic.[59]"

Okay, that brings me to why this is relevant to me, how it examples the stifling of free speech and expression and why I can relate it to personal experience. No, I didn't have my windows cracked, haven't lost my career (?!) and didn't collapse at home, nor have I been required to enter a clinic. ;)

My personal experience with the charge of racism and bigotry began with the report that at 7:00 pm a Teen gunman killed 5 in (a) Utah mall. According to The Seattle Times:

"A trench coat-clad teenager who opened fire on shoppers at a mall had one thing in mind: "to kill a large number of people...."

"...Burbank identified the gunman, who was shot to death by police, as Soloman Tolovich, 18, who lived in Salt Lake City with his mother...."

"...It appears to be very random," Burbank said. "There was no sense to why he was doing what he was doing...."

"...Had (an) off-duty Ogden police officer, who had a gun but no extra equipment or additional ammunition, not gone after the gunman, the teenager likely would have continued shooting people on his way through the mall, Burbank said...."

What was strangely omitted from The Seattle Times report was the fact that the young shooter was a Muslim (and in fairness, it may have been an unknown detail at the time). In fact, that fact was not mentioned by most of the initial coverage in the media, who seemed to focus more on the fact that it was a teen in a trench coat, inspiring immediate thoughts of a disgruntled young man, comparable to a Columbine-style school shooter. We later learned his name was Sulejmen Talovic and that he had immigrated here with his family from Bosnia. He had come to the Trolley Shopping Center armed with a .38 caliber pistol and a backpack full of ammunition which, at his age was unlawful for him to purchase. MSNBC.com also reported he had a shotgun, in their January 14 online article. While MSNBC.com reported him as a Bosnian immigrant they still did not report that he was a Muslim. CNN.com carried a Reuters story on the 14th in which a cousin of Talovic identified him as:

"...a survivor of the siege that ended in the Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Bosnia's 1992-95 war..."

The Reuter's story continued:

"...When the Bosnian Serbs overran the town in 1995, taking away and massacring some 8,000 Muslim men and boys, Talovic and his mother were evacuated by the United Nations and later reunited with his father, Redzo Talovic said.

"They were a good, quiet family, and I remember that he was a nice kid when he was 4 or 5, maybe a little bit playful," he said, standing in front of the burned-out shell of the Talovic family home in the village of Talovici, eastern Bosnia.

"No one could have supposed that he was going to do such a thing," Redzo Talovic said. "Who knows what made him do that?" He could not say what marks Talovic's childhood memories of wartime Bosnia had left on him...." (emphasis mine)

Who knows, indeed?

I had first heard the rumor that Sulejmen Talovic was a Muslim from Michael Savage, while listening to his radio show. This was eventually confirmed in the press but primarily among the more conservative or traditional leaning press and media, you know, the ones accused of being biased and ideologically driven because they choose to report from a different viewpoint and emphasize different aspects of a story than some of the mainstream media emphasize? But that's an issue for another day.

In light of the fact that the Utah shooter was a Muslim some of the members, including myself, of that private group I had been a member of for going on three years, questioned the young man's background. We wondered IF religious zeal or extremism could have possibly played a part in the murder of five and injury of four in that shopping mall in Salt Lake City. For an ensuing four days, those of us who merely considered his religious affiliation as an interesting and perhaps pertinent factual aspect of the debate were put under a microscope and studied like rat's in a laboratory by several of the more liberal members as they made every effort to label us as bigoted Islamophobes. The debate never was a debate from beginning to end and there was never any discussion, only accusation and charges of racism, bigotry and Islamophobia.

Here's one of my final exchanges in that group:

My friend:

"Had this kid not been a Muslim, there wouldn't be hundreds of emails about it, not because we are racists or bigots, but because MUSLIMS are the ones instructed to carry out jihad in the name of their religion. No other religion does this."

The chief interrogator's reply:

"Yet more proof of Islamophobia from someone who recently denied being an Islamophobe."

(Insert another liberal member's approval here)

My response:

"Okay, XXX AND XXX, tell us about the other religions which are instructed in their holy books to carry out jihad in the name of their God. You want to call (my friend) an Islamophobe because she points out what I believe to be a fact. Prove her wrong. Provide evidence of other religions who TODAY, in our MODERN times, are committing murder and promoting murder on a broad scale and claiming these murders as righteous acts based on their widely agreed upon interpretations of their holy books and religious training and instruction."

The chief interrogator's response:

"Okay, (Jacke) is FINALLY on public record as viewing Islam - and not just the more radical sects of Islam - as a bad religion which orders its followers to do bad things to people. It's about damn time you stepped up and admitted that."

And my reply:

"STILL NO ANSWER. Surprise, surprise."

I would also, due to the reader's ignorance of all remarks made leading up to this charge by the Chief Interrogator, point out that I and my friend had repeatedly stated that not all Muslims are terrorists, that not all Muslims are wishing to perpetrate "jihad" on people who do not adhere to their religious beliefs.

It never ceases to amaze me how the liberal mind works. It isn't about discussion with them. It isn't about reasoning, considering facts (all of them) and trying to arrive at conclusions, it is more about ignoring certain facts, refusing to reply to direct questions and painting one's ideological opponent as not worthy of attention due to __________ (fill in the blank). If a liberal can call one a name, label one in some derogatory fashion and belittle them then one doesn't HAVE to answer their infernal questions. Right? The conclusion I have been forced to arrive at after nearly three years of watching them slither away from questions and in accusatory fashion avoid real thoughtful debate, is that they are simply a waste of time. At least the group of them which I was involved with are and are unwilling to stand still for a moment, plant a foot and defend their own views.

All this brings us down this convoluted path to the blog I frequent titled Political Correctness Watch, it is written or compiled by a gentleman from the United Kingdom, John Ray. At his blog I found a link to this from sp!ked, now THIS is where I was leading you by filling in the background of the Celebrity Big Brother show in Britain. This is the reason I led you through my recent personal experience of being labeled a bigoted Islamophobe for daring to even consider or question if the Utah shooter's religious ideology or zeal played any part in the killing of 5, injuring of 4 in that Salt Lake City, Utah mall. From sp!ked, Are we all racists and victims now?:

"...The obsession with racialising everything today has nothing to do with promoting freedom and democracy. It is a desperate attempt to impose a phoney new national morality – one that is more likely to breed further divisions. It is about reducing us all to the status of victims and bullies in need of discipline and re-education. As such, it provides a fashionable justification for the authorities to police the behaviour of individuals, enforcing an ostensibly anti-racist etiquette at the expense of free speech and open debate...."

"...So why do we hear so much about racism today? Because the elite has sought to adopt the politics of anti-racism as a new moral code through which it can dominate society and show its superiority over the bigoted herd. The powerless, like Jade Goody, are blamed for racism, while the powerful like Phillips or the police or the media are cast in the role of saviours. In this sense, far from marking an advance towards liberation and equality, state anti-racism today seeks to play the same role as state racism did in the past...."

"...the new anti-racist etiquette can only breed further confusion about what we are allowed to say or think, and paralyse any attempt to have an honest debate about the true state of affairs.

Look one last time at Jade Goody telling heat magazine in tears that she doesn’t know what to say anymore, or even what food to eat, in case people ‘think it’s wrong’; or Jo O’Meara crying to the press that ‘none of it makes sense. I don’t know how this has all happened.’ They are strange little celebrity snapshots of what could happen to public debate about far more serious issues, from immigration to integration and terrorism, if the conformist thought police are allowed to use the all-purpose stick of anti-racism to beat everybody into line...."

Another item of interest in the Goody/Shetty episode. It wasn't Shetty, per se, who, in the end, realized that Goody's insult had nothing to do with racism or bigotry, which caused the biggest fallout to Goody. It was, as CBS reports:

"...Goody became embroiled in a fight with Indian actress Shilpa Shetty when she unleashed a diatribe on Shetty that many said had racist overtones. Goody was evicted by a massive audience vote. Newspapers vilified her and politicians were forced to renounce the show. But Goody expressed contrition and is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of the public...." (emphasis mine)

It was, as The Guardian Unlimited reported:

"Complaints over Channel 4 show hit record 22,000" (again, emphasis mine)

22,000 people agreed that a personal, non-racist insult was a racist one. At least 22,000 people have jumped on the bandwagon to "paralyse any attempt to have an honest debate about the true state of affairs," by falsely buying into the new moral code of anti-racism of which sp!ked has warned "could happen to public debate about far more serious issues, from immigration to integration and terrorism, if the conformist thought police are allowed to use the all-purpose stick of anti-racism to beat everybody into line...."

One could say that I allowed the Chief Interrogator of that private group "to use the all-purpose stick of anti-racism to beat (me) into line," because I, after four days of intense defense and every effort to point out that considering the facts, ALL of them, in the case of the Utah Mall Shooter was not racist but realistic and reality based, I gave up and left the group. It's coming true and there is evidence that it is coming true all around us, we are being beaten with the "all-purpose stick of anti-racism." If one has no occasion to confront others then one may not realize its existence. It exists. It is real. It is a threat to freedom of speech and expression, it is a threat to open debate about key, serious issues of our modern times, issues "from immigration to integration and terrorism." Who do we blame?

Who knows, indeed?

Regarding the Utah shooter? Scripps Howard News Service reported:

"...On Wednesday _ two days after Talovic shot and killed five people and injured four others at the Trolley Square mall _ there were no good answers as to why he would do it...."

"..."The shooting rampage came as a "very big surprise for me," Omerovic said. "It just happened. We're shocked." Also a mystery to Talovic's relatives is how he got a shotgun and handgun.

"Nobody knows," Omerovic said. "We don't know who (gave) him the guns.""

"...Sulejman Talovic's Muslim faith prompted questions about a possible political motivation for his killing spree, but the FBI in Salt Lake City said it has no evidence that politics played a role.

FBI spokesman Patrick Kiernan said the bureau is trying to help police determine why Sulejman Talovic killed five people, and agents have looked into whether religion or terrorism were factors.

"We're working closely with the Salt Lake P.D. and we're obviously aware that (terrorism) is a potential issue out there," Kiernan said. "We've not seen anything that this is terrorism or an act against the government...."" (emphasis mine)

Someone needs to warn FBI spokesman Patrick Kiernan that merely considering whether Talovic's Muslim faith played a role in the shooting is cause for charges of racism, bigotry and Islamophobia. He must not have gotten the memo.

Time to Move on After the Storm

I'll be taking Mother home today. It's sort of a sad thing. While I know we all need to do this, get things back to normal and follow a schedule again, not to mention her dreams of sleeping in her own bed, I'm conflicted by both the want of normalcy and the sadness that she won't be so easily accessible.

She has Doctor appointments coming up next week. She needs to be home. We rode out the storm together, the three of us. While it was trying and stressful I think we managed very well. Her electricity was restored later than ours and we still have a bit of work to do there but it is sufficient for her to return home. She's been working on gathering her things. :(

At any rate, this also means maybe I'll be ready to start posting more to the blog again. I just haven't been in the frame of mind to do it. Too many distractions, I suppose.

I've Got the Power!

Okay, so today I got the power. Maybe it wasn't as powerful a power as Jim Carrey received in Bruce Almighty but it was enough to give me a jump and shout. Not to mention the bit of a startle I received when the timer on the gas range we have been using for heat went off and one of the burner's electric igniters started its familiar click, click, click, click, click.

After 10 1/2 days of being far more blessed than many in my city and community, the utility company restored my power at about 2:45 pm. I say more blessed because we stayed warm enough with the gas range, were able to cook and because we have a gas hot water heater it wasn't as inconvenient as it is and was for many who have all electric appliances.

The worst night, almost unbearably frightening was Friday night. Because I had had a particularly busy week and company overnight on Thursday night I simply didn't take the threat of the ice storm seriously enough. I went to Mother's house shortly after my guests left Friday afternoon, took care of her needs and left just before dark to get home before the storm hit. It didn't really occur to me that it would become such a serious situation or I would have insisted she come home with me that night.

We lost power at about 8:30, Mother lost hers at about 10:30 and with the loss of her power we lost contact because she didn't have a land line. A tree fell across our street making it impassable and my husband simply refused to clear it and go after my Mom in the middle of the storm with trees branches breaking and falling all around us. All I could do was pray that Mother would know we'd be there the next morning. After retrieving her flashlights and some candles she stayed huddled under the covers, very frightened and trying to stay warm until we got there on Saturday morning.

Since then we fared just fine but we were all thankful for the diversions of television and internet service after so many days.

I managed to remain patient and optimistic throughout, trying to make the best of a trying situation but all of us got a little more edgy when the crew told us last night that they'd try to have the power on before they went off shift at 9:00. 9:00 came and went without power. This morning we woke to no signs of the crew.

The most beautiful thing I saw was the day the sun came out and the ice was melting. There was a low, brushy, bending canopy of icy branches in our next door neighbor's back yard, the top was lit by the sun, underneath bits of ice and water melted and fell like rain in the shadow of the canopy.

My hope and strength were kept alive listening to Vincent David Jericho's morning and night time shows. Giving us a window into the world of our community we felt so cut off from and letting us know about all the good samaritan's who were helping those in dire need.

After I got Mother home I didn't want to leave her alone in the house with no portable phone by her side, no stable heat source, etc. Tomorrow will be the first day I will be leaving the house since a week ago last Saturday morning. I plan to go replace a few staples we lost due to lack of refrigeration. I'm really looking forward to the outing. I know it would do her good too but the ice on the ground just isn't safe for her at the moment. Warmer days ahead! Soon she'll get to go out with me, if nothing but a car ride I know it will lift her spirits.

The count I heard tonight was 9,500 still without power in this city. I would have gladly sacrificed my own power for someone who has no heat source but it doesn't work that way. I pray that everyone will get their power restored soon. C.U. claims to have gone from 13,500 to 9,500 without power in the last 24 hours. If they get that many more connected tomorrow they'll nearly cut that 9,500 in half.

Back in the early 90's when I was living in Arkansas I went without power for two weeks. I was younger then, it seemed easier. Maybe I've just forgotten.

Iced Queen

For those of you who are regular readers, Jacke is currently in a Winter Wonderland from Hell. She and family are currently without power in the midst of a sea of ice, as well as a large swath of the Show Me State and surrounding states, from what I understand. She was able to phone me earlier to let me know that she was able to pick up her dear Mother this morning and bring her home with her. They're keeping warm and cooking with the aid of a gas stove. She says they're all fine but have no idea when power will be restored. It could take weeks.

Please keep them and all who are affected by this mammoth ice storm in your prayers. Thanks.

Gerald Ford: A Profile in Political Courage

Gerald Ford, upon receiving the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in 2001:

“. . . The ultimate test of leadership is not the polls you take, but the risks you take. In the short run, some risks prove overwhelming. Political courage can be self-defeating. But the greatest defeat of all would be to live without courage, for that would hardly be living at all.”

He was a special President and a special man.

Quote from: Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

Break Time???

It's been several days since I posted anything so I thought I'd pop in and just write about what's been going on in my world.

I've been doing some deep cleaning at Mother's, getting ready for guests we'll have Christmas Eve and Christmas day. Yes, dear sister-in-law, I washed and changed your sheets today. The refrigerator has been cleaned out and the turkey, pulled from the freezer on Monday, is in the refrigerator to thaw...and it's taking its sweet time about it too.

Tomorrow I'll be doing the shopping. Mother went over her list and checked it, not twice but more like six times and then called me after I got home to add to it. :)

I've been having an interesting discussion in the group to which I belong. Not a lot of exchanges but a heavy topic. Maybe I'll share what I've learned at some point.

I saw Galway Kinnell on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer the other night. He read his poem "Why Regret?" One of my regrets in life had been that when I won an award when I was in my Senior year of high school to go to a summer workshop where I would have gotten to work one-on-one with Galway Kinnell, I ended up not getting to go due to some ugly circumstances. A friend of mine got to go and brought back a signed copy of one of his books of poetry for me. It would have been nice to have gotten to go but, as Kinnell pointed out, "Why Regret?" Things happened in my life that would never have happened if I had gone to that workshop. I met people I'd have never met and enjoyed the great, good fortune of working at "Taco Hut," oh, joy! Seriously, there are too many wonderful little things that happen each and every day, even the not so wonderful things can be of value. I decided to let go of my regret over not getting to meet Galway Kinnell at that workshop. I think he'd like that.

I have an idea or two for future posts when I get the time but, what better time of year than this to take a little break? Busy, busy.

On Jeff Jacoby's "Atheists' bleak alternative"

Jeff Jacoby has written an excellent piece on the debated "war on Christmas," and it really isn't a war on Christmas as much as it is a war against Christians. Read it here:

Atheists' bleak alternative - The Boston Globe

...and yet, Christ Remains in CHRISTmas! Praise GOD!

My friend and co-contributor, PJ , has a new signature quotation on her email:

"And the Grinch, with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow, stood puzzling and puzzling, how could it be so? It came without ribbons. It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags. And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before. What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store. What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more." ~Dr. Seuss

It happens to be my favorite line from How the Grinch Stole Christmas but, as I was lying in bed suffering from insomnia last night, the song You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch, came to mind. There are a lot of Grinches in America today. It's as if some non-Christians want to completely remove the true meaning of Christmas and make it all about "com(ing) from a store."

I can't help but feel it's all sour grapes. Christmas is a holiday that is celebrated world wide, yet as long as it is associated with Christ, and it will always be associated with Christ, there will be people who, while professing Christians are sticking their noses into other people's business, would like to take Christmas away from Christians and turn it into an annual gift-giving extravaganza with no meaning.

Try as they might, they just can't make Christmas come from a store, and as I was thinking about that last night I realized something. I realized that for a Christian, no matter what anyone else chooses to call Christmas, it will always be Christmas and it will always truly live in the heart of a Christian as a celebration of Christ's birth, and more, the miracle of his birth and the miracle of God's plan to send his Son, as a baby, into this physical world to save mankind from his sin and offer us the gift of everlasting life. Non-Christians certainly don't have to celebrate God's gift of life, Christians can do nothing else in this season of joy. Take away every other "bell and whistle," and we'll still have that joy, that remembrance of what God has done for each of us. Christ, you see, lives in our hearts.

The politically correct crowd can take down Christmas trees, they can remove Nativity scenes, they can call Christians stupid, uneducated fools. They can beat us with rhetorical clubs, they can pretend to know what inspires us but, as "Grinch-like" as they are, they can never take away the hope in our hearts, the faith we hold so precious and which is so personal to us, the spirit of love that our annual celebration inspires.

Secularism has added some nice traditions to Christmas but try as it might, secular humanism will never provide that right relationship with God, will never change the heart of man, will never inspire love and forgiveness in a heart in any real and meaningful way. Only Christ can offer that, and for a Christian? We may open a few gifts, they signify a pale comparison to what God has done for us, and what he enables us to share out of that loving gift, so sacrificially given.

No, Mr. Grinch, "Christmas really doesn't come from a store."

I started this blog with the signature quotation being used by PJ in her email. I'll end it with the signature quotations I have been using in my own email:

"He was created of a mother whom he created. He was carried by hands that he formed. He cried in the manger in wordless infancy, he, the Word, without whom all human eloquence is mute." ~ Augustine of Hippo

"Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift." 2 Corinthians 9:15

Merry Christmas! :)

Dominionist Hype Revisited

According to Religioustolerance.org,, under their topic of: CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY AND THEONOMY, Dominion Theology derives its beginning from the beginning, Genesis 1:26 of the Hebrew Scriptures:

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (NIV)

ReligiousTolerance.org goes on to express that most Christians don't interpret the verse in the same way that dominionists do, Dominionists determine that Christian men are to have dominion over everything on earth, including non-Christian men. They state that most Christians interpret this verse as meaning God gave mankind dominion over the animal kingdom.

ReligiousTolerance.org claims that Dominionism was the only religious movement in North America which they "were" aware of that supports the idea of genocide against all people who do not follow their religious beliefs and agenda. They then mention a couple of Christian pastors from Texas who they claim support the killing of all Wiccans, but they do not give the names of these supposedly conservative Texas Pastors and list no reference to back up their claim. I spent a little time trying to find a story on this mysterious case in Texas and could find nothing, not even in a search of the claimants own site.

It continues to strike me as odd that if not for the hand wringing of liberals, Dominionism would get little notice, and in fact the whackos that are interested in subduing the world and all mankind under some theocratic system of government would likely receive little exposure and scant publicity.

Since most Christians do not adhere to Dominionistic belief why is the left treating it as though it is prevalent among conservative Christians, that it is a real threat?

ReligiousTolerance.org quotes:

"Ralph Reed, the executive director of the conservative public policy group the Christian Coalition (as having) criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society." ....

According to ReligiousTolerance.org, Dominionists believe that before Christ can come again in the second coming that most of the world will have to be converted to Christianity. While stating that most fundamentalists don't agree with that position and pointing out that most fundamentalists believe that much of the criteria to be met before Christ's return has been met and that the time of the second coming could occur at any time, they don't really give the clear opposing belief regarding the "Great Commission," which they do not mention at all but should be given consideration:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:19-20).

Most fundamentalists believe we are to deliver that message the world over but that just as God has given us all a choice to accept Christ or not, man cannot force other men to love God or to accept Christ and only the Holy Spirit can soften the heart of an unbeliever and cause him to want to give their all to Him.

In my humble opinion, ReligiousTolerance.org goes too far when they quote Gary North, a Dominionist, from a Public Eye Magazine article:

"Gary North claims that 'the ideas of the Reconstructionists have penetrated into Protestant circles that for the most part are unaware of the original source of the theological ideas that are beginning to transform them.' North describes the 'three major legs of the Reconstructionist movement [as] the Presbyterian oriented educators, the Baptist school headmasters and pastors, and the charismatic telecommunications system'." 8

The foonote above refers to an article from PublicEye.org - Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence - Part 3, and continues:

"What this means is that hundreds of thousands of Pentecostals and charismatic Christians, as well as many fundamentalist Baptists, have moved out of the apolitical camp. Many have thrown themselves into political work--not merely as voters, but as ideologically driven activists, bringing a reconstructed "Biblical world view" to bear on their area of activism.

This is probably the lasting contribution of Reconstructionism. Whether it is Operation Rescue activists called to anti-abortion work because of Francis Schaeffer's books, or Pentecostals who responded to the politicizing ministry and electoral ambitions of Pat Robertson during the 1970s and 1980s, the politicization of Pentecostalism is one of the major stories of modern American politics.

Indeed, Robertson has been pivotal in this process, mobilizing Pentecostals and charismatics into politics through his books, TV programs, Regent University, the 1988 presidential campaign, and his political organizations--first the Freedom Council in the 1980s and then the Christian Coalition...."

Yes, this is the same Christian Coalition headed, at the time of their writing by Ralph Reed, which ReligiousTolerance.org reports as having "criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society." ....

The problem I have with the quote of the PublicEye.org article is with the assumption on the part of North (as though his opinion is fact), and apparently PublicEye.org, that because Pentecostals, Charismatics and some fundamentalist Baptists have seen the urgency of letting their voices be heard in politics that it, of necessity, means that those who do so have bought into the theology of Dominionism and/or Reconstructionism, and this has been my complaint all along with the vast over exaggeration of some people, generally liberals, that Dominionism is becoming a real threat in America. In PublicEye.org's "About" section we find:

"While attacks on civil liberties can come from any direction, the political and Christian Right use skillful marketing that exploits the public’s desire for quick solutions and capitalizes on today’s hectic information flow. With clever slogans that oversimplify complex public policy issues, the Right routinely scapegoats others in pursuit of their agenda."

Clearly, they admit that they focus on the political and Christian Right, and clearly, they bring a bias with them. Though they claim:

"PRA responds with fair and accurate analysis, looking beneath the sound-bites and slogans of the Right, exposing the true goals and agendas of specific leaders, organizations and movements. We then present our analysis in ways that can help the media, advocates and educators understand and challenge the Right." (emphasis mine)

How can one consider them to offer "fair and accurate analysis" when their primary goal is to "challenge the Right?" But challenge the right when they need challenged, by all means. This is a necessary thing and an important thing, the challenge of ideas is good or at least it can be good, if it is not used as a tool to try to paint all of the Christian Right who choose to become politically active and have a voice in government as Dominionists and/or Reconstructionists, who would promote the genocide of all people, including Christians who do not agree with and support the Dominionist/Reconstructionist agenda.

I have ignored this issue for a long time. I have considered the source and found that source unworthy of serious attention but to my own detriment and to the detriment of the Body of Christ.

One of the reasons I have begun to see the importance of this issue and the importance of not allowing liberal Americans to continue to slander all conservative Christians with, at least, the suspicion that they follow a Dominionist/Reconstructionist agenda is the article I spotlighted here last: Panelists: Evangelicals can help with their portrayal in news - (BP).

Since when did Christians in America have to go on a Public Relations campaign to get fair treatment in the press!?

As Christians, Christians know that there will be persecution, and we hear of much worse persecution in foreign lands than we do in America. We have been historically blessed with freedom of religion here in this great Nation, not only Christians, but all faiths. We have appreciated it, enjoyed it and unfortunately, we have taken it for granted.

While we have not forced ourselves on anyone, we long enjoyed a majority, we long understood that as a whole our Nation understood Christianity because the majority of Americans were Christians. There was no need of public relations campaigns. Now, Christianity is being divided among itself and a house divided cannot stand.

I have been concerned for some time that progressive Christians and conservative Christians should not be opposing one another but working with one another. We harm the Body of Christ when we let politics divide us. But don't get me wrong, politically progressive Christians, as American citizens, have a right to speak out in the political arena and politically conservative Christians also have a right to speak out in the political arena. I have, in the past, extended an olive branch to progressive Christians, only to have the branch broken and thrown like a rhetorical gauntlet at my feet. This should not be so. We should be able to have respect for one another's opinions, we should be able to disagree politically but agree in spirit, in Christian love for one another.

Am I crying in the wilderness, here, when I see all around me progressive Christians and the secular world uniting against conservative Christians because they disagree politically with us?

Is it not an historic fact that Christians have ALWAYS had a voice in government and is it not a fact today that progressive Christians are trying to rally a consensus voice, a progressive Christian agenda, a consensus of thought in order to become a progressive Christian voting bloc? If you need proof of this fact simply click on this link: Christian Alliance for Progress.

Should I take on the same mean spirited, slanderous language that liberals and some progressive Christians have taken up against their own conservative brothers and sisters in Christ and start propagandizing about those evil progressive Christian Dominionists and Reconstructionists?

I will not, except to make the point that if it is acceptable for progressive Christians to form an alliance and not be considered progressive Christian Dominionists or progressive Christian Reconstructionists then why is it wrong when conservative Christians merely want to have a voice in our government as well? Where are the conservative Christians demonizing progressive Christians as "Dominionists or Reconstructionists simply because they exercise their rights as citizens to play a political role in government?"

If we do not put an end to this misnomer that any conservative or Right-wing Christian who becomes politically active is trying to set up a theocracy, we are headed for much more persecution in the future...and that persecution will not rest solely on the heads of politically conservative Christians. People will begin to be suspicious of ALL those who carry the title of Christian, whether they be politically conservative or politically progressive. Who will progressive Christians blame? Only God can know, but it raises a doubt in my mind when politics trumps all, even one's own brothers and sisters in Christ whom God has commanded you to love:

"And this is his commandment. That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." 1 John 3:23

At a time when our country is divided over so many things it is vitally important that Christians put God first and unite in the cause of Christ.

Panel Meets on Evangelicals' Portrayal in News

In Panelists: Evangelicals can help with their portrayal in news - (BP), in which it is reported Southern Baptists were represented by an ethics leader, a Christian radio talk show host was in attendance, along with an ABC News Producer and former religious writers for a couple of major news magazines, there was discussion about the representation of evangelical Christians by the media.

At one point:

"Jeanmarie Condon, a senior producer for ABC News said she believes the three-fold role of ABC and the rest of the news media is:

-- “To take seriously the fact that religion is a major mover and motivator for people all around the world and that it needs to be considered carefully in our coverage of almost any story.

-- “Not to treat it like an anthropological study, but to cover it from the inside, to look at what ideas people are debating, what causes conflict within various movements, what people agree on, what’s bothering them, what people are talking about around their Sunday dinner table.

-- “And the third thing is to provoke discussion.”"

Katherine Yurica: The Plain Ordinary Born Again Christian

When I wrote about Dominionism, Progressive Christian Dominionists, on December 4th, I raised the question of why, if the definition of Dominionism, according to Wikipedia is...:

"Dominionism...seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs.

It is most often used to describe POLITICALLY ACTIVE conservative Christians WITH A SPECIFIC AGENDA. The term is rarely used as a self-description; many feel it is a loaded or pejorative term, and USE OF THE TERM IS PRIMARILY LIMITED TO CRITICS OF THE Christian Right." (emphasis mine)

...then why the term dominionism isn't used to describe progressive Christians who seek "to establish specific political policies based on religious belief" and are "politically active with a specific agenda," as well. I concluded that...:

"If politically active Christians who are seeking a specific agenda are "Dominionists" there are plenty of progressive Christian "Dominionists," as well."

...and I was right to conclude that. "Period. Dot. Bingo." (I heard that on Laura Ingraham's show the other day and I liked it.)

In the comment section of that entry, I was referred to an article written by Katherine Yurica at her website the Yurica Report, Katherine describes herself this way in the About Us section at the site:

"If someone were to ask, could two women senior citizens change the course of the political atmosphere in America today? I would say, “Not a chance.” Yet after I built this web site—after I looked at the “images for a corrupt time,” I began to believe that with your help we can change the course of history.

I’m not saying that my mother and I are special. We’re not. We are a mother daughter team. I’m the daughter—Katherine Yurica—...I’m in my sixties....Now we're* driving a 1993 Subaru I bought in April. Everything works on it! And it's got all wheel drive! It's name is Beeep! She's adjusting to life with us and learning how to counsel me on all important decisions! She'll only use unleaded fuel, and she likes to have her face and windows washed once a day! She'd like you to know that we're just plain ordinary born again Christians!...

I was educated at East Los Angeles College where I was elected the first woman student body president and earned an A.A. degree in English. I received my B.A. in English literature at U.S.C. I also attended the USC School of Law, where I was elected the first woman class president in the U.S. In 1966, I began the study of art in Mexico. I was shaken as an artist as I saw what others did not see: America was in trouble. Specialization was creating an airless vacuum where responsibility could not grow. Viet Nam began with a lie and ended with young and beautiful soldiers coming home in body bags. We learned nothing as a people." (emphasis mine)

*she and her mother, Kelly Leosis

Here's what the "plain ordinary born again Christian" has to say about America:

"Today, there’s a foul wind in the air. America stinks of open hatred, arrogance, greed and a lust for power. There’s a smug complacency brought about, no doubt by a sense of personal comfort that deludes millions into thinking that because they belong to the “in” group—hellish results will be visited only upon another class of Americans. So they live without protest, watching the Republican party become the instrument of the religious right, letting freedoms be torn away from the cloth—the very fabric of our country, and they say nothing. They will endure any hardship so long as they do not have to take a stand against the violent and corrupt among us. Satisfied with the twists and turns this country has made in the last two years, the fiddlers fiddle, while America burns its resources, its dollars, its credibility, its young men and women, and the very heart of our Constitution.

With your help, we can and will change the winds blowing in this nation. Liberty and freedom belong to all Americans, not just to a selected elite. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have spread poison all over America. It’s a worse poison than anthrax or nerve gas. Those poisons will only kill our bodies, but the poison of the right wing talk show hosts and the religious right can and does enslave the souls of a free people and destroys all that is good and pure and noble in this land."

I'm not sure when Ms. Yurica wrote her "about me" section but apparently it was before the November 7, 2006 election because clearly Americans sent a message of "protest" to the "Republican party and the religious right," because the Republican party failed to hold a majority in either the House or the Senate. Obviously, Americans exercised their liberty and freedom and the "freedoms" Ms. Yurica claims have been "torn away from the cloth—the very fabric of our country," are still being enjoyed across the country and were exhibited by the fact that American voters voted a majority of Democrats into power in both the House and Senate.

I also must question her when she implies that someone, presumably Republicans and the religious right, believe that liberty and freedom no longer belong to all Americans, as though "Rush Limbaugh and his ilk" have somehow taken that liberty and freedom away from other Americans simply by the exercise of their own liberty and freedom of speech.

Apparently, according to Ms. Yurica, if these "right wing talk show hosts and the religious right" exercise their own liberty and freedom, which she states belongs to "all Americans," they are spreading "a poison worse than anthrax or nerve gas."

Isn't it interesting that other people who exercise their liberty and freedoms are welcome regardless of their agenda, and let's face it, we ALL have them, but if it happens to be a right wing talk show host or the religious right the very active utilization of that liberty and freedom threatens to "enslave the souls of a free people and destroys all that is good and pure and noble in this land." One must assume that since Ms. Yurica works under the erroneous assumption that only right wingers can be "dominionists," progressive Christians and the left wing radio talk show hosts on our airwaves are no threat, no threat at all...nah, no poison streams from the mouths of those innocent, "plain ordinary born again Christians" or left wing talk show hosts, they are simply righteously exercising the liberty and freedom with which all Americans are blessed. As, no doubt is Katherine Yurica.

I was referred to this article written by Ms. Yurica, The Despoiling Of America, and which was noted at Wikipedia:

"Political groups and individuals that worry about how, and to what extent, dominionism influences the Christian Right include People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Interfaith Alliance, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Joan Bokaer[2] and KATHERINE YURICA[3]" (emphasis mine)

It is found directly above Sara Diamond's warning in the same Wikipedia entry:

"Sara Diamond warns, however, that while dominionism has influenced the Christian Right, liberals too often use hyperbolic language to describe the activities and goals of the Christian Right.[4]

The term "Dominionism" - with its close affiliation with notions of theocracy - can be used pejoratively to inaccurately describes the philosophical underpinnings of some individuals who identify themselves with the Christian Right. Very few of these see the Christian Right as an eschatological political movement designed to usher in the Kingdom of God; for them, the Christian Right articulates the traditional cultural critiques of paleoconservatives in the context of a worldview informed by orthodox Christian teaching.[citation needed] Moreover, many policies endorsed by the Christian Right contradict Dominionist notions. For example, the avid support of school vouchers by the Christian Right could lead to greater plurality in educational institutions, rather than a monolithic education system shaped by Dominionist ideas.[citation needed]"

Sara Diamond, also studies the agenda and methods of the "right wing" in American politics. She has written four books: Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right, Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States, Facing the Wrath: Confronting the Right in Dangerous Times and Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right. The fact that she moderates her language as cited in the Wikipedia piece, alone, gives me the impression that she, at least, considers what the Christian Right tells her rather than discounting and making blanket statements without consideration of individual conservative Christians she has interviewed. Apparently, this is not so with Katherine Yurica, who, in her paper, The Despoiling Of America, has this to say about how "Dominionism" began and who perpetrated it in America:

"Within a period of twenty to thirty years beginning in the 1970’s, Dominionism spread like wild fire throughout the evangelical, Pentecostal and fundamentalist religious communities in America. It was aided and abetted by television and radio evangelists. More than any other man, Pat Robertson mobilized the millions of politically indifferent and socially despised Pentecostals and fundamentalists in America and turned them into an angry potent army of political conquerors.[46]

But it would be a mistake to limit Dominionism to the Pentecostals and fundamentalists alone: conservative Roman Catholics and Episcopalians have joined and enlarged the swelling numbers.[47] Robertson, like other media preachers, used every form of communication: television, radio, books and audio tapes ...

However, it was the Pentecostals and fundamentalists who made up the core of Robertson’s audience. To a people who were largely uneducated and who often remained ignorant even if they went through college because of their fear of becoming tainted by the “world and worldliness,” Dominionism came as a brilliant light that assuaged their deep sense of inferiority. Pentecostals in particular could take comfort from the notion that no longer would the world think of them as “Holy Rollers” who danced in the “Spirit” and practiced glossolalia. This time, they would be on top—they would be the head and not the tail—and the so-called elite, the educated of the world, would be on the bottom." (emphasis mine)

I found it quite telling that Ms. Yurica describes Pentacostals and fundamentalists as "largely uneducated and who often remained ignorant even if they went to college" for whatever reason, though her chosen reason for totally dismissing educated Pentacostals and fundamentalists is that their Christianity, rather than being a guide in their lives, keeps them ignorant even if they receive higher education. Remember these so called uneducated, ignorant, fearful Christians cannot be educated due to their Christianity, while Ms. Yurika, self described as just a "plain ordinary born again Christian" CAN be a Christian and be educated too! And I'll bet she can even chew gum at the same time! Yeee Haaaw!

The problem with Ms. Yurica is that in her own zeal to promote her own political agenda and her own ideology is endeavoring to do the very thing which she accuses "Dominionists" of doing. She is an alarmist, seeing Dominionists around every corner, suspecting that every Christian who looks in the mirror sees the face of a Dominionist peering back at himself or herself. Except none of this applies to Ms. Yurica, herself, she has miraculously managed to be an educated Christian while other Christians remain ignorant, uneducated citizens "even if they went to college."

But she said a mouthful, I'll give her that, when she said:

"If someone were to ask, could two women senior citizens change the course of the political atmosphere in America today? I would say, “Not a chance.” Yet after I built this web site—after I looked at the “images for a corrupt time,” I began to believe that with your help we can change the course of history."

Bigotry takes all forms, people. Remember that. In the case of Katherine Yurica the many things she fears from the Christian Right she is guilty of perpetrating in her own liberally elite circles. Is she "changing the political atmosphere in America today?" Well, let's see...she's certainly being treated as a brilliant scholar among all the left wing web sites on the internet. She recently spoke at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles on the topic of Religion and Politics regarding the "role of faith and secular humanism" in U.S. politics and on December 4 she spoke at UCLA's Center for Social Theory and Comparative History on "Political Religion and Religious Politics."

I once asked the Curbstone Critic in a Comment:

"It appears you are trying to redefine "Dominionism" as anyone who "will hang with Bush no matter what," and that's all speculative, as well. How do we know whether any person (or these you identify as 25%) would hang with Bush "no matter what" unless he does "no matter what?" What is "no matter what?"

At any rate, I asked you a question and though perhaps I could have phrased it better, like, say, "What is your opinion of what constitutes a "Dominionist?" You have given me an answer. I wonder if you are engaging in a kind of reverse (?)McCarthyism?... Wherein any Christian who has a traditionalistic world view is suspected of "Dominionism?"

Wikipedia on McCarthyism:

"Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated."

John Stone can cry foul, but I think I'm onto something.

Let's revisit The Despoiling Of America for a moment:

"Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they continue to operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously disguised under false labels that confuse voters....

It is estimated that thirty-five million Americans who call themselves Christian, adhere to Dominionism in the United States, but most of these people appear to be ignorant of the heretical nature of their beliefs and the seditious nature of their political goals. So successfully have the televangelists and churches inculcated the idea of the existence of an outside “enemy,” which is attacking Christianity, that millions of people have perceived themselves rightfully overthrowing an imaginary evil anti-Christian conspiratorial secular society."

Yurica tells us that "Domininionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they continue to operate secretly."

Yurica seeks to prove her suspicions by giving "credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence," and I believe that she "greatly exaggerates" the "level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed (Dominionist) associations or beliefs." It is the very essence of McCarthyism, substitute the word leftist with dominionist as I have done above and there you have it.

Moreover, she accuses televangelists of "successfully...inculcat(ing) the idea of the existence of an outside "enemy," which is attacking Christianity, that millions of people have perceived themselves rightfully overthrowing an imaginary evil anti-Christian conspiratorial secular society," in the process giving credence to the charge by actually becoming that anti-Christian conspiractorial voice set on labeling all conservative Christians with the loaded, pejorative, hyperbolic moniker of "Dominionist." Further, she offers no reference for her estimation of 35 million Christians who are supposedly adhering to Dominionism. I suppose we are simply to take her word for that estimation?

She is a projectionist of the highest order. Projecting widespread "Dominionist" conspiracies on a majority of "plain ordinary born again Christians" while pretending she is the innocent and immune Jesus follower herself, well-educated and savvy. How very elite.

Michael Moore Admits he Lost his Mind

Michael Moore is unhappy and is making some demands of the Democrats. Namely, he wants the troops out of Iraq and he wants them out now but that's not what what I found interesting.

In his piece found here, Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do, he writes:

"In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn't think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history." (emphasis mine)

I have long suspected that some of our nation's fringy left wing conspiracy theorists were ignorant of history, incapable of thinking straight, stupid and had lost their minds on and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks but didn't want to mention it unless I had some indication of its truth. Moore seems to be confirming that for me.

Thanks, Michael!

Progressive Christian Dominionists

On September 12, Rosie O'Donnell made a statement on ABC's The View that had many Christians in an uproar:

"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state."

At the time O'Donnell made this statement I, personally didn't really care. I mean, it was Rosie O'Donnell, who really cares what she thinks about Christians?

Rosie O'Donnell is known for her leftist views, no big surprise there and what with O'Donnell being a lesbian, many gay Americans are spiteful of Christians, so is Rosie O'Donnell. After all, many Christians challenge the practice of homosexuality as sinful, abnormal behavior. This fact doesn't sit well with a large portion of the gay population in America. No one likes to be told that what they do is wrong, especially when it is something they have no intention of giving up and are in the business of promoting as just another normal, healthy alternative lifestyle. People simply like to be approved and have their actions approved by other people. Even anarchists are anarchists for effect, they simply seek approval from other anarchists.

If Rosie O'Donnell lived in vacuum, I wouldn't really care what she says but the fact is she shares this view of Christians with other people and other people are thinking the things to which she gives voice.

For instance, recently on Curbstone Critic, John Stone had this to say:

"There is really not much difference between the Muslims that want to convert all of us by the sword, and the crazy Xtian Dominionist Americans who want to convert everyone by the sword."

Later, when I asked Stone:

"Is there a large percentage of the Christian population who you would consider to be "dominionists?""

and:

"What do you consider to be indicative of "Dominionism?" Clearly not all Christians are "Dominionists," so which Christians are? "

He replied...:

"Last I heard the crazies were about 25 % of America."

and referred me to this Wikipedia article on Dominionism. To quote it:

"The dominionist interpretation sees adherents as heeding a command from God to all humankind to subject the world to the rule of the Word of God. The terminology of dominionism, and the broad concept of the trend described by critics, has been taken from the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Christians typically interpret this verse as meaning that God gave humankind responsibility over the Earth, but anti-Dominionist critics commonly point to this passage as a paradigm that influences Christian attitudes of Western domination over the Earth and everything in it."

Wikipedia is correct in stating that "Christians typically interpret this verse as meaning that God gave humankind responsibility over the Earth," but the anti-Dominionist critics don't allow that fact to deter them in their slander of Christians.

It is clear from the Wikipedia article that those who are fear mongering about Christians wanting to set up a theocracy and force the entire world to believe in the Bible by the sword believe that Christians who voted for George W. Bush are of necessity "Dominionists," whether they realize it or not. I think it is a safe bet to assume that most people would identify Christians who voted for Bush as the "Christian Right" or "conservative Christians":

"Dominionism...seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs.

It is most often used to describe politically active conservative Christians with a specific agenda. The term is rarely used as a self-description; many feel it is a loaded or pejorative term, and use of the term is primarily limited to critics of the Christian Right.

The term emerged in relation to the Christian Right in the mid-1990s, but became more widely known due in large part to the U.S. presidential election, 2004 where the media attributed Republican wins to Evangelical voters in Red states who voted for "moral values".[1] "

I find it interesting that the term is "most often used to describe politically active conservative Christians with a specific agenda." It is not used to describe politically active progressive Christians with a specific agenda. What would be the difference? If politically active Christians who are seeking a specific agenda are "Dominionists" there are plenty of progressive Christian "Dominionists," as well.

I do appreciate the link provided, a close reading garners this:

"Sara Diamond warns, however, that while dominionism has influenced the Christian Right, liberals too often use hyperbolic language to describe the activities and goals of the Christian Right.[4]

The term "Dominionism" - with its close affiliation with notions of theocracy - can be used pejoratively to inaccurately describes the philosophical underpinnings of some individuals who identify themselves with the Christian Right. Very few of these see the Christian Right as an eschatological political movement designed to usher in the Kingdom of God; for them, the Christian Right articulates the traditional cultural critiques of paleoconservatives in the context of a worldview informed by orthodox Christian teaching.[citation needed] Moreover, many policies endorsed by the Christian Right contradict Dominionist notions. For example, the avid support of school vouchers by the Christian Right could lead to greater plurality in educational institutions, rather than a monolithic education system shaped by Dominionist ideas"

Using the term "radical Christianity" and comparing it to "radical Islam," as in the case of Rosie O'Donnell and claiming that "There is really not much difference between the Muslims that want to convert all of us by the sword, and the crazy Xtian Dominionist Americans who want to convert everyone by the sword," as in the case of Stone is used far too often to describe the "Christian Right."

When I asked Stone:

"Do you include the growing population of Progressive Christians among those Dominionists since they are actively trying to link Progressive politics with Christian values?"

He replied:

"The Progressives in the Church are less well known, I link Mainstream Baptist in the sidebar. I just heard of a minister of a megachurch who lost his congregation because he was interested in things like poverty and peace, rather than abortion and gays."

He dodged answering the question, as is a particularly prevalent liberal reaction when they are queried in depth about their beliefs and don't wish to face their own hypocrisy. But please, if the criteria for being a "Dominionist" is a politically active Christian with a specific agenda, then progressive Christians would qualify as "Dominionists" as well, right?

On Dec. 2, The Progressive Daily Beacon Opinion Piece, written by A. Alexander, "They are the Christian Taliban - The Christiban", Alexander writes:

"Still not convinced that today's Republican "Christians" are in the same league as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan? In a moment you will be able to decide for yourself whether or not James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon, Jerry Falwell, and other so-called Christian leaders are any less dangerous than the Imams and Ayatollahs preaching and practicing radical versions of Islam."

The author, A. Alexander, suggests because some Christian leaders wish to deny Keith Ellison's request that he hold the Quran when he is sworn into office in January rather than the Bible that they are seeking to go against this James Madison precident:

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" - Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731"

I don't know that I mind Ellison using the Quran when he's sworn in but if he doesn't, if he's required to place his hand on the Bible like everyone else does how the heck does that "establish a religion," "enforce the legal observation of it by law," or compel anyone to worship God in any manner?" Further, the whole premise that somehow this translates into ANY Christian becoming more of a threat to America than Islamo-fascists who want to enforce Sharia law across the entire world is just the most ridiculous premise I've heard recently. It certainly IS a "fear" tactic and an attack on a religion which, has shown no tangible indication of forcing itself on anyone by the sword. Why, they haven't even crossed Madison's lines as the author tried to suggest.

I would have to say that I believe a denial of Ellison being allowed to hold a Quran rather than a Bible goes against the spirit of historic freedom of religion in America but it is arguable that by wishing to hold him to being sworn in with his hand on the Bible, as has historically been done, somehow compels Ellison to worship a Christian God or establishes a religion to which Ellison must conform and, it is certainly arguable and quite ridiculous that it makes Christians comparable to the Taliban or equally as threatening to American life and liberty as is Islamo-fascism.

As far as I know, Rosie O'Donnell, John Stone or A. Alexander are not progressive Christians but it is and always has been interesting to me that some of the most vocal of critics of conservative Christianity have been progressive Christians.

There are progressive Christian blogs which I used to frequent and still occasionally visit in which the writers do little other than demonize and belittle conservative Christians for the very actions which they are currently promoting among their own flock. I have no problem with progressive Christians being politically active, as a matter of fact I believe that God admonishes the Christian, in his Word, to take an active role in government and politics. For that reason I would actually encourage progressive Christians to be outspoken in policy matters to bring them more in line with what they feel God would approve. Where I have a problem is them demonizing, belittling and libelously misrepresenting the majority of conservative Christians, their own brothers and sisters in Christ for doing what they, themselves, are doing. This is a sad situation for spiritual reasons.

In regards to others who use this moniker to bash conservative Christians, they too show their hypocrisy in that their complaints are exclusively leveled at conservative Christians, I suspect because they disagree politically with the actions of conservative Christians. They have nothing but accolades for progressive or emergent Christians, I suspect because they agree politically with the actions of progressive Christians.

Bottom line, this "Dominionism" talk is mostly a bunch of hogwash and those engaging in it are hypocritical at best and just outright ridiculous in their claims that Christians are threatening theocracy and are forcing their religion on anyone "by the sword."

By the way, I just named the post "Progressive Christian Dominionists" to show progressive Christians how it feels to be labeled as such. :)