Is belief in a literal six day Creationism irrational?

Over at VFR another good discussion on Darwinianism has ensued. These discussions are generally very interesting and informative, not to mention enjoyable to read. However, it never seems to fail that those who argue from a Darwinian perspective, and even those who argue from an "Intelligent Design" perspective, eventually speak of "Creationists" as irrational deniers of empirical scientific fact, not necessarily in those exact terms. I don't think this kind of rhetoric is useful in such a discussion unless it can be shown that in fact belief in creationism is indeed irrational.

Here's my question: As I understand it, God's nature (granting at very least that God may exist) is such that he can do anything which is possible to do, whereas he cannot do anything which is demonstrably impossible to do. Therefore, if it is possible that the creation event occured in six literal days, and science has not demonstrated the impossibility of such a miraculous event, then what is irrational about believing the biblical account of creation in Genesis taken literally? I'm not saying that it's necessarily probable that God created the physical universe in six literal 24 hr. days, I'm simply saying that if there's any evidence out there which demonstrates the impossibility of this, I know nothing of it. Which doesn't prove anything either, except perhaps that I'm ignorant of existing scientific evidence which proves the impossibility of six day creationism.

I'm very interested in any evidence you have to offer.

Read More

Update to Lawrence Auster on Islam

A new VFR article, Ron Paul's Blindness, is to be added to this page. Specifically, it will be added under the heading "Non-Islam theories of Islamic Extremism." The background for this addition is summed up in my only comment to the article where I state the following in response to something LA wrote early on in the discussion:

You wrote:

"Paul is an ideologue. His ideology is libertarianism. Libertarians see the state as the source of all evil, in the same way that Communists see private property as the source of all evil, and Nazis see the Jews as the source of all evil. Everywhere a libertarian looks, he finds confirmation of his ideology."

Good point. I'm reminded of your "Non-Islam theories of Islamic Extremism," where you speak of the Western-centric conceptual box Westerners keep putting Islam into in order to make it more familiar and assimilable and its problems more solvable. Paul's own non-Islam theory of Islamic extremism states that American big government is the source of Islamic extremism.

As with the other articles under this heading, this one also requires a bracketed explanation since the title of the article is not instructive in this regard. I've asked Mr. Auster to provide this for us and he has done so. And my first thought being to share it with you here, I've decided now to withhold it from you until I have a chance later this evening to post the article on the page. I'll add an update to the entry when this is done.

Read More

Miss Becca practicing her bar routine

We didn't get any good pictures of Miss Becca's performances at the recent meet in Fayetteville due to a camera (or user--which would be my wife) malfunction. But we have some good pics of Becca practicing her various routines, of which this is one.

Daddy's little girl; ol' cucumber head, as in "cool as a cucumber." ;-)

Read More

Miss Becca places well at "Santa Invitational"

The USAG event was held at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.

Miss Becca's placements in the various events are as follows:

Floor Exercise: 1st place

Bars: 1st place

Beam: 1st place

Vault: 4th place

All Around: 1st place

Congratulations Miss Becca! Well done.

Read More

Why Social Conservatives got behind Rudy initially;

And why they're dropping him now

Here's a hint: It's not because social conservatives are either unprincipled or willing to suspend their principles for the "greater good." This is not the way social conservatives think. It's not the way they've ever thought, and it's not the way they'll ever think. Quite the contrary.

Social conservatives got behind Rudy initially because they were mislead into believing he was a good moral person. They're dropping him now because they're learning that he's not.

In other words social conservatives have consistently judged Rudy according to their number one standard--moral character--throughout this whole campaign. Many of them got it wrong at first, which is understandable. But that doesn't negate the fact that moral character has always been priority number one with social conservatives. You economic conservatives let this be a good lesson learned.

Read More

Question answered on my hesitation about Romney

First of all, it ain't just his Mormonism that concerns me, though that is part and parcel of my cautious approach to the man. M. Mason continues to articulate a position very close to my own over at VFR. The main difference between us being that Mr. Mason has already written Romney off; I haven't.

In an email to Auster, I replied to Mr. Mason's latest thus:

Mr. Mason writes:

"Unless the ideological dynamics of the race shifts in a significant way, I'll most likely have to settle for a write-in vote next November for Tancredo."

While I'm not absolutely convinced of Romney's unqualified status as yet, increasingly I find myself contemplating this exact situation for me (and my wife ;-)) next November. Mr. Mason and I are very close in our assessments of Mitt Romney. However, to my mind Romney's governorship of the state of Massachusetts comes mighty close to a disqualifier in and of itself.

LA replies to me:

Tell us what about his governship disqualifies him in your view.

First, let me clarify something. I didn't say that his governorship or any of the particularities of it "disqualifies" him from being president. To be honest I've not investigated the matter in its particulars yet. What I said was that his governorship of the state of Massachusetts, in and of itself, comes mighty close to a disqualifier in my view. The explanation is this: I view the state of Massachusetts as the epitome of modern American liberalism and how it corrupts people. Any electorate that effectively appoints a Ted Kennedy or a John Kerry et al, to a life tenure in the U.S. Senate, is an utterly liberal and corrupt electorate; totally self-absorbed. The same electorate appointed Mitt Romney as its governor. Since I'm one of these people who firmly believes that our leaders more or less reflect ourselves, this fact about Romney--his governorship of the state of Massachusetts--has me deeply concerned.

Now, I'm not saying that all people from Massachusetts are corrupt leftists, just most of 'em. As I recall (someone from Massachusetts correct me) Kennedy enjoys about a 70% approval among the voting citizens of his state. In my state someone as obviously and thoroughly corrupt as Ted Kennedy would most likely be in jail right now. He most certainly would not be serving as our representative in the United States Senate, nor Kerry.

If you think my cautious approach to Romney on that basis is unfair or irrational or whatever, I have one thing to say to you: whoopti-do.

Update: Mr. Auster says that my argument amounts to pure prejudice. Okay, so I'm prejudiced toward the political judgment of the people of Massachusetts. I'm prejudiced toward them in the same way that I'm prejudiced toward the people of the State of Arkansas; the same electorate that gave us Bill Clinton and Mike "open borders for Christ" Huckabee. Call me crazy (or prejudiced or whatever) but I think this is relevant; that I must consider these facts until I learn more about Governor Romney.

Read More

Why bag toting liberals flee the intolerable world they helped to create

Over at Wise Man's Heart, Hermes has a good post up concerning a Philadelphia business owner's request that his customers place their orders in English, since this is America, an English speaking nation. Apparently the liberal do-gooders in Philly think this is just going too far.

Hermes quotes from the AP story:

In February, the commission found probable cause against Geno's Steaks for discrimination, alleging that the policy at the shop discourages customers of certain backgrounds from eating there.

So discrimination, to liberal do-gooder northeasterners, is defined, in part, as discouraging customers of certain backgrounds from patronizing their business, and this, the city of Philadelphia has determined, shall not be tolerated. If you're a business owner in Philadelphia you will serve anyone and everyone that enters your establishment irregardless of what language they speak. Nay! Not only will you serve them, you will do all in your power to encourage them to continue speaking their native tongue in America, and to accomodate them. You will not even so much as request that your customers order in English. Thus sayeth the almighty city of Philadelphia. Liberals really like to push it!

I've said before that I generally do not favor migration from one section of this country to another, i.e., from your section to mine. And this is a prime example why. As has been said countless times here and elsewhere, liberals create for themselves a world that, by degrees, becomes increasingly oppressive and intolerable to themselves. Depending on the individual and his tolerance threshhold (the level of liberalism he can personally withstand), when that threshhold is finally reached, then he wants to flee the world he helped to create and set up shop elsewhere. The problem with this is that he generally carries a lot of liberal baggage along with him, he, being himself a liberal, not realizing that he and his baggage contributed in no small way to the degradation of his native state to the point of intolerability to himself. All he can see is that his native state just finally went too far for his liking; that he could no longer abide the world he'd helped to create. Otherwise, he's in an absolute state of denial as to his contribution to that degradation. Generally this is all he can see; this is all he wants to see. I know, I've discussed it with a bunch of migrants to my state. Well, I don't let 'em get away with that anymore.

Read More

HB 1804

I took a stroll through the local Wal-mart this evening and didn't see or run into a single Mexican immigrant.

My counter (in the left sidebar) is at 43 days, 22 hours (give or take) at the time of this writing, and still, not a peep from the, ahem, federal authority. Hmmm.

Read More

Test your knowledge on Roe

Our friends at CitizenLink would like to know what you know about Roe.


Devon Williams writes:

At what stage of pregnancy can a woman have an abortion under Roe v. Wade? Does Roe allow late-term abortions? What percentage of abortions are performed because of rape or incest?

Jan. 22 marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton — the two U.S. Supreme Court rulings that legalized abortion. But how much do Americans really know about the landmark rulings that have been responsible for the deaths of more than 45 million preborn babies?

There is a link provided in the CitizenLink article where you may test your knowledge of Roe.

Read More

Romney Roundup

A lot of good discussion has taken place at VFR over the Romney faith speech so I thought a roundup of all the recent VFR entries containing these discussions should be put together, which I've done below.

The discussion began with VFR reader RWM's negative reaction to Romney's speech. Mr. Auster then gave his assessment of the Romney speech after he saw the speech. Here LA responds to criticisms of Romney which are too Mormon-centric. And here LA names the winner of the most tortured argument of the week award. The discussion really takes off here where Steven Warshawsky articulates a position on Mormonism very close to my own. And here VFR reader, M. Mason, lays down Mormonism's unorthodox cultic and downright weird theological underpinnings which Mitt Romney embraces. Here the discussion culminates (for the time being) in two separate criteria, Richard W.'s and M. Mason's, for determining what is a cult and what is not a full blown cult, and the implications of both views.

There you have the roundup of the current (main) VFR entries on Romney's faith speech. In the culminating entry, The reasonableness of Romney opponents, M. Mason continues to articulate a perspective very close to my own.

Mr. Mason writes:

My concern isn't so much that Romney as President will personally act to advance Mormonism per se. It is rather that, as Mr. Morris states, electing a Mormon as President of the United States will immediately and effectively begin to normalize other strange religions like this in the national political arena as well (which up to this point still remain confined mostly to the margins). I'm also thinking about something else, too. A while back I referred to the issue of President Bush's aberrant Methodist theology/worldview and the devastating political consequences of those beliefs. This did not become obvious to many until those beliefs of his played out once he arrived on the world stage. Bush at least initially appeared to us as a man who was well within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, and yet his fatal errors were just another variety of brain-dead liberalism compared to the implications of Romney's fantastic theology. Admittedly, one cannot know for certain how or even to what extent this could become a terrible problem in the future should he occupy the Oval Office. But ask yourself this: do you actually want to turn over the Presidency to a man who sincerely and firmly believes in Mormonism with every fiber of his being and thus beliefs that he's a potential deity-in-training? God help us. Frankly, I don't even want to think about the possible consequences of a Mormon President's bizarre religious beliefs on U.S domestic and foreign policy. (emphasis mine)

On Mr. Mason's point about legitimizing abberant religious doctrines which have more or less heretofore been confined to the far corners, I would say first that this is indeed one of my concerns with electing a Mormon President. With every election of every Mormon to high political office, we continue to normalize and legitimize Mormonism as a faith consistent with American religious and political orthodoxy. I would also add that I think it reasonable to assume that it is precisely because Americans have historically relegated Mormonism to its place among the strange religious cults that Mormonism has adjusted itself to be more (or to appear more) American-like in its religious and political manifestations. As with liberalism, once you legitimize and normalize it, I predict that Mormons will become more emboldened by their newfound legitimacy among American religious and political philosophies of God, Man, and government, and will begin to assert themeselves accordingly.

As with Mason's assessment of President Bush and his religiosity, I concur as well. All the more reason for me to be very cautious about the way I approach the candidate Romney, his faith and the faith of his fathers. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on ME.

Read More

Why liberals favor gun control laws

Some leftist by the name of Dave Johnson, who is uniquely capable of discerning the forest for all the trees, by the way, ran across one of VA's recent posts which so disturbed him that he had to write about it at his blog ... uh, Seeing the Forest.

Apparently, according to Mr. Johnson, liberal Seer extraordinaire, anyone who writes negative reviews of the recent Hispandering of Republican Presidential candidates is a "KKK-style racist," and a hater t'boot. Oh, and they're also Republican without question, for as Mr. Johnson concludes in his deeply moving well thought out stylishly written self-evident this-is-a-load-off-my-mind rejection of VA's post, "This is what the Republican Party has become." Wow! That's deep. Don't believe me? Here's the full text of Johnson's tripe:

I came across this hate-piece yesterday, and it is still bothering me, so I am bringing it up here. It's a right-wing anti-immigrant piece, going after the Republican candidates who participated in the Spanish-language debate. It becomes clear early on that it is direct hatred toward Hispanics in general - but then starts going after all non-whites, complaining about "politically correct" pandering to get votes from people who are not "us.".

This stuff is just pure KKK-style racial hatred. This is what the Republican Party has become.

Well I sure hope Mr. Johnson is feeling better now that he let out all that pent up anxiety he developed over the 24 hours he was forced to contemplate the implications of VA's hate-piece. That is all-important after all. And shame be on VA's head for saying things that she knows are going to assault the sensibilities of leftists. Doesn't VA realize that leftists are particularly sensitive people whom we must protect from their own tendencies to self-destructiveness -- self-destructive debasing ideologies appeal to self-destructive debased individuals. Doesn't she know that they're teetering perpetually on the edge and that it's our job, therefore, to avoid, at all costs, offending their sensibilities to the point that they might take that fatal final step?

Thanks be to God that Mr. Johnson has himself a blog. For in the absence of such an outlet, having been forced to read VA's deeply troubling hate-piece, I fear our friend, Mr. Johnson, most assuredly would not be with us any longer.

No wonder liberals favor gun control laws. They're afraid of what they might do to themselves if they're allowed to own one.

Read More

The Kingdom of the Cults

Many years ago I read a book about the Mormon faith, the title of which I cannot recall at this very moment. Nor can I recall the name of the author. I have long since forgotten much of what I read back then, but thanks to VFR reader, M. Mason, some of what I read in the book way back when is now coming back to me.

Much more recently (two or three years ago at most) I read a book, Christianity in Crisis, by Mr. Hank Hannegraaff, aka, The Bible Answer Man. On reading Mr. Mason's brief accounting of the Mormon faith, Hank's book was brought to mind.

In the opening section of the book, Turning the Truth into Mythology, Mr. Hannegraaff writes:

ONCE UPON A TIME, long long ago, on a faraway planet, there lived a good God. This God was very much like you and me--a Being who stands about 6'2" to 6'3", weighs a couple of hundred pounds, and has a handspan of about 9 inches.

God's wisdom and power were so great that he could visualize beautiful images and then turn the images into reality by utilizing a special power called the force of faith.

One day this God had a cosmic brainstorm. He decided to use the force of His faith to create something superb and special. He decided to bring a whole new world into existence. This was not going to be just any old world; it was going to be the most fantastic world imaginable. In fact, this world would become so wonderful that it would feature an exact duplicate of the Mother Planet where God lived.

[...]

Yet there was much more to come, for after five days of vivid visualizations, God's mind moved into yet another dimension. On day six, in His mind's eye, God saw the crowning jewel of his creation. As the details coalesced in His mind, God suddenly found himself focused on an exact duplicate of Himself.

I'll add more to this later, but you're catching the drift I'm sure. I should note that Mr. Hannegraaff is not describing in this fairy tale rendition what Mormons believe. No; he's describing what leaders and teachers within mainstream Christianity in America believe and teach to their congregations.

Hannegraaff writes:

Well, there you have it--the skin of the truth stuffed with a monstrous lie! What you have just read is a composite of the writings and ramblings of some of the most powerful teachers operating within the Christian church today--people who have systematically turned God's truth into mythology.

What you will discover as you read on is so horrifying that your natural inclination may be disbelief or even denial. But I assure you that what I am communicating is not based on hype or sensationalism. Rather, it is painstakingly accurate and thoroughly documented.

Read More

An amendment proposal to root out the cancerous forgetfulness of the American People

In a comment to a thread at VA's, Chasing the elusive 'Hispanic vote', commenter Matt declares that we need a constitutional amendment establishing English as the official language of the United States.

I can understand why some would think such an amendment a good idea, and I'm not arguing against having an English language amendment attached to the U.S. Constitution, at least not in the abstract. But Matt does not stop there.

Matt Writes:

We seriously need, for starters (since none of these candidates are serious about deporting the illegals), a Consitutional ammendment that says English is the official language of the United States (not a law, since it could be easily repealed). We further need to make it clear in said ammendment that state's laws regarding langauge are null and void (since some people have forgotten state law is trumped by federal law). (emphasis mine)

Matt's concluding sentence reads fine (it's a debatable point which I disagree with, but it reads ok) until we get to his gawd-awful parenthetical reasoning behind his assertion. We need to make it abundantly clear, in proposing and ratifying the English language amendment, says Matt, that any and all State language laws are declared null and void. Why? Because some people have forgotten that state law is trumped by federal law. You're gettin' this, right? If there's a federal law in force, state law dealing with the same issue is automatically trumped by the federal statute, which some people have forgotten, therefore we need to make this fundamental constitutional principle crystal clear to all. And the only way to make it crystal clear is to state it explicitly in the language of the amendment, leaving absolutely no discretion to the states on the issue. Presumably Matt would only have us stating this with regard to this particular amendment until we got to the next amendment Matt thinks necessary to be added to the constitution, then, here again, we'd have to make it explicit (since some have forgotten this) that federal law trumps state law. I think I may have a better alternative; a perpetual reminder to the American People (particularly the forgetful among us) that power and authority emanate from the federal head:

Perhaps the thing to do is to write an amendment up that deals specifically with the issue of federal law trumping state law, since, once again, some people seem to have forgotten this fundamental principle of American Constitutional government? The underlying issue, or, the root cause of the problem, according to Matt, is that some people (presumably a majority of Americans) have forgotten this constitutional principle that federal law trumps state law, correct? If that's the case, I might ask Matt, then why go through the motions of applying a bandaid to the wound. It's not going to heal. It's just going to fester and get worse. The better approach, then, would be to cut out the cancer at its roots, would it not? If so, I submit to Matt that the way to handle this unacceptable forgetfulness Americans display concerning the all-powerful federal government is to state explicitly in the federal constitution that federal law trumps state law unless and until the federal authority, by its good graces, decides that the states are trustworthy enough to make their own laws concerning language or whatever. And of course the fed would have to take into consideration whether or not the states and the people were mindful enough of the absolute authority in all matters, local or otherwise, of the almighty federal government before allowing us to create any laws for ourselves, necessary as they may be. Hence the need for a perpetual reminder, which by all rights should head the Constitution. In other words strike out the old tattered obsolete preamble and insert the new.

In truth I see no problem with this. The ninth and tenth amendments, the principle of federalism and of constitutional government have already effectively been overthrown anyhow, why not make it official?

Read More

Another teaser, just in case you need one (not saying you do) :-)

I mentioned in the prior post the excellent VFR entry, The Transparent Intellectual Fraud that is Darwinism. By the way, I don't think I could have titled the entry any better myself. The title certainly represents my view, simplistic as it may be, of Darwinian Evolutionary religiosity. Also, note that the better VFR posts and discussions, I have no involvement in. Ever noticed that? I wonder why that is? ;-)

Nonetheless, let me tease you with an excerpt from this outstanding VFR post:

Auster writes:

"Pick up almost any Darwinian writing and you will see the same thing over and over. Nicholas Wade in his very worthwhile book Before the Dawn engages in this trope constantly (and, I believe, in complete unconsciousness that he is doing so), using language that attributes intelligence and purpose to the process of biological evolution which according to Darwinism is devoid of intelligence and purpose.

Why do Darwinists keep indulging in this gross contradiction? Because, as human beings, they not only cannot live in a world without meaning and purpose, they cannot even articulate a world without meaning and purpose, they cannot make such a world intelligible to themselves. So they keep appealing to teleology, even in the act of promoting a theory that radically denies all teleology. They are intellectual parasites who would strip all meaning from the universe, while continuing to preserve for themselves the comforts and pleasures of meaning.

The game is up. Henceforth we shall tell the Darwinists that they have no right to eat their meaning and have it. What can they say in reply? That a process utterly lacking in purpose has produced beings, such as themselves, who require a belief in purpose? Their position is as absurd as that of the postmodernists, who declare that there is no such thing as truth in the sense of words that correspond with reality, even as they expect us to agree with their theories! But how can we agree with any theory, if there can be no true correspondence between words and reality?

No matter how the Darwinists, liberals, and postmodernists twist it, they have no right to indulge in such nonsense. We must require of them that they be intellectually consistent and accept the nihilistic void produced by their own belief systems. Then we will see how long those belief systems last."

Allow me to say that I think it quite literally impossible for a meaningful purposeful human being, including Darwinists, to explain the existence of the rational meaningful purposeful universe in non-meaningful non-purposeful terms. It's kinda like trying to escape the use of logic in a rational universe. It can't be done without using it, so finely woven into the fabric of the rational universe is logic. And of course, when one engages in using logic to deny logic, then the argument is self-contradictory and self-defeating. So too might it be said, I think, that so finely woven into the meaningful purposeful universe is meaning and purpose that it's simply impossible to explain its existence in terms consistent with Darwinian meaningless purposelessness.

Read More

Updated Webster's

Just a quick note to inform you of a few items added at Webster's the last few days.

First, I've added a few articles to Webster's Recommended Blog Posts, to include Mike's AFB interview with Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Herme's latest at Wise Man's Heart -- Another reason women should not be in the military, The People United over at VA's, and Why I support Fred Thompson from the Maritime Sentry. Be sure to check those out.

Also, I've added yet another article to Select VFR Articles in the left sidebar, The transparent intellectual fraud that is Darwinism. Another great article (and discussion) that we've all come to expect over at VFR.

Read More

Warshawsky on Romney

Over at VFR Steven Warshawsky articulates almost my precise reaction to Romney's much anticipated faith speech upon reading it. I won't post the entirety of Mr. Warshawsky's thoughts here, but I will tease you with an excerpt:

Mr. Warshawsky writes:

But Romney's liberal multiculturalism went much farther than simply trumpeting the nation's religious diversity. In his speech, Romney took the next step and proclaimed the essential oneness of all religions. Thus, according to Romney, Americans of all denominations, regardless of theological differences, share "a common creed of moral convictions." Romney even claimed that these disparate religious traditions inspire him on a personal level. As Romney wrote, in what for me was the most ridiculous passage in the speech (emphasis mine; me too btw):

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages [apparently Romney hasn't attended any services in Reform synagogues!], and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims."

Only a few years ago, conservatives were ridiculing Al Gore for his use of the term "faith tradition." How is what Romney said in his speech any different? This passage, in my opinion, was disingenuous to its core--and reveals that Romney was much more concerned about pandering for votes than offering a serious public statement about religion in America.

Do read the entirety of Mr. Warshawsky's argument. It is very well thought out and reasonably articulated. It probably goes without saying, even on reading no more than the passage I've excerpted here, but it is much better done than anything I've put together as yet. And there's a lot more to it.

Read More

A Good Discussion

Over at VA's a discussion on the ethics of using lethal force to protect property got underway yesterday. It's a pretty good discussion which I recommend as long as you can tolerate the holier-than-thou, I know all the undisclosed facts of the case, judge jury and executioner attitude displayed by one of the commenters.

The post itself is really not about the ethics of what Mr. Horn did, as VA points out. But that's the direction the discussion went, as is the case many times. I still think the discussion is a good one in which some good points are made on both sides of the argument.

Would I use lethal force to protect my property if I thought it necessary under a given scenario? Let's put it this way, I wouldn't recommend coming on my property with the intent to steal my property and letting me catch you in the act. I most certainly would confront you, weapon in hand. And if I determine that you're threatening the lives of my family or myself (the defender of my family), then you're liable to wake up dead. At the very minimum you're going to wake up in the hospital with severe injuries sustained. That I can assure you, and with supreme confidence. Does that make me a bad person? According to some, I think it does.

Read More

Deja vu?

See my comments to Auter's entry, Rudy ducks questions on Judi's car use, or, my preferred title: "America's Mayoral Mistress gets taxpayer funded limousine rides" with the subtitle: "Even Mayors of big cities have private lives ... which they conduct on and in and with public property."

Can there be any question about Rudy's exemplary qualifications to serve in the White House?

Read More

Standout negative reaction to Romney's faith speech

Over at VFR Auster declares Lee Harris the winner of The Most Tortured Argument of the Week Award for his non-persuasive argument in favor of the view that Romney's speech missed the mark.

I agree that Mr. Harris should be the hands-down winner of this prestigious award given that part of his case involves his declaring that he "doesn't have a problem with Satan worshippers in America, he just isn't inclined to vote for one." What!?

I can say that I don't have a problem with the followers of modern Mormonism in this country (and I enjoy the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's patriotic music very much!), I'm just not inclined to vote for one, and this would be consistent with my view and I think a reasonable position to take. On the other hand, I can't say that I don't have a problem with Satan worshippers. And I damn sure can't say that I'm merely disinclined to vote for one. I can say that I would never vote for a known Satan worshipper irregardless of his superior qualifications otherwise. I can say that I have a serious problem with Satan worshippers in this country without reservation.

So, what's with the goofy analogy offered by Mr. Harris here? He's disinclined to vote for a Satan worshipper in the same way that I'm disinclined to vote for a Mormon? How am I supposed to identify with a nonsensical statement like that which in no way is representative of my view towards Mormons?

I'm not inclined to vote for a Mormon as I've already said, but that doesn't mean I'd never vote for one as with Satan worshippers ... or Muslims.

Read More

Romney Faith Speech cont.

Under the original entry, Is there a difference between watching and reading?, VA posts the following comments:

Gentlemen - I've been at a loss as to why so many conservatives have been writing glowing praise for Romney's speech when they didn't express such admiration previously.

However I read the speech rather than watching it, so maybe Romney's charm eluded me. When I have watched him during the debates, however, he strikes me as artificial.
It is probably true that Americans at least in our day are more concerned with a candidate's image and less with substance and character. If leaders had been judged by those standards back in the days of the Founding Fathers, I suspect Jefferson would have been found wanting, since he was said to be a weak public speaker and extremely retiring.

Too much emphasis is placed on glibness, surface charm, and good looks.
If Romney was likening the intolerance shown by Christians to the early Mormons to the persecution of Puritans and other dissenters in England, it's not a very good analogy. The early followers of Joseph Smith were not always peaceable and their beliefs were a clear deviation from Christianity, which our forefathers were not able to accept as merely another Christian sect.

VA and I are very much in agreement regarding Romney. She notes that Romney strikes her as being artificial when she watches him speak. I too have always been impressed by Romney's "artificiality." Perhaps it's just a quirk that both VA and I possess which has us seeing his "sincerity" as being artificial and manufactured, but I think I can safely speak in VA's behalf, since she and I share the same impression of him, when I say that this impression we get of Romney is nonetheless real to us. So in essence Romney's sincerity comes across as insincerity to me, and I imagine to VA as well.

Regarding my own impression of the man, and only my impression of the man, I will say as well that beyond seeming insincere, Romney also gives off an holier-than-thou aura. I've noticed this about him on several occasions including the clips I saw of his speech the other day. In other words, I doubt that Romney's charm eludes VA anymore than it eludes me. I would say to the contrary that his charm is not very appealing to people like myself and VA, while apparently it is to others.

There's an old adage Dad taught me way back that goes something like this: "you can't fool a fooler." I suppose it could be said as well that "you can't charm a charmer." ;)

To attempt an answer as to VA's query concerning why conservatives heap praise on the man when they never had before, I would venture a guess that there are a couple of dynamics at work here. First, I think Romney is seen by conservatives as the closest thing to a truly conservative viable and electable candidate that the GOP (the party that conservatives, including myself, still identify most with) has to offer. His shortcomings, then, are sort of swept under the rug for the higher goal of defeating the dhimmicrat demagogue nominee, whomever that turns out to be -- Hillary. Second, I think Romney was relatively unknown to conservatives (and liberals) until fairly recently. Now that his name and his political affiliations are becoming household words, it stands to reason that he'd catch the eye of many conservatives and right leaners where he'd eluded them before. I don't really have a good explanation for why a paleo like Buchanan, or a traditionalist like Auster, or evangelical leaders like Dr. Dobson write glowing reviews of the man and his speech, except to say that I think in every case these individuals are applying rule number one above. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. I'm simply calling it as I happen to see it. In the end, when it's all said and done, I may reluctantly climb on the Romney bandwagon as well. But seeing as how it is a rather high step for me at this very moment, I may require a little help getting onboard.

Finally I agree with VA as well that Romney makes an inappropriate comparison between the persecution suffered by Pilgrim and Puritan dissenters in England, and the "persecution" suffered by the early Mormons at the hands of orthodox American Christians. I wrote that it chaps my hide that Romney made such a comparison, marking both groups as committing essentially the same sin of intolerance precisely because the comparison has no historical basis in fact. He's just saying things that he knows appeals to modern conservatives because they're generally not that knowledgable about the two historical events, nor are they very knowledgable about their own faith and its essential aspects, nor are they that "conservative" in truth. As has been said before, we can argue over the non-essentials, but the essentials must remain intact. If it's considered as persecution to deny a group of so-called "Christians" the right to have numerous wives and concubines, then count me firmly among the persecutors. If that's not incompatible with historic Americanism and a biblical-Christian worldview, I don't know what is. I'm no expert on Mormonism, but I do realize that to be a true and consistent Mormon, much like Islam, one must accept that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God. This is simply not possible with orthodox Christians, and I personally make no apology for it. And seeing as how our forbears were much more biblically and historically astute and orthodox than we are, it makes no sense to me to compare them to the persecutors doing the dirty work of the church of England two centuries before Joseph Smith ever came along.

Read More

Is there a difference between watching and reading?

(Update: Two of my favorite conservative thinkers, Mike Tams and Lawrence Auster, have reacted positively to Romney's speech. This gives me some pause as to my initial thoughts.)

Much has been written about Romney's faith speech across the blogosphere. Dr. Dobson of CitizenLink commends Romney for speaking so highly of the role of religion in our society. I hear that Pat Buchanan has some kind things to say about the speech as well, though I've not read Buchanan's take as yet.

I don't have time to go into all the details of where Romney and I part ways on religion in America, but I will excerpt one passage from his speech here:

Romney said:

Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

Now, that just really chaps my hide! If he hadn't already lost me with his admiration for Islam, this statement would have sealed the deal with me. I imagine that Romney thinks the same thing (it seems to be the implication here) about people like me who are "unable to accomodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths," namely Muslims.

As I wrote to Auster, it's one thing to say you admire Muslims' commitment to frequent prayer. It's something altogether different to preface it with the statement Romney chose. If you don't know how he prefaced the above statement, then go read the transcript of his speech.

Which brings me to the point of the post:

Are we sometimes enamored by a candidate's presence, his personality, his ability to communicate effectively, his clean appearance and so forth, to the point that we're not hearing the implications of his words? I didn't have a chance to watch Romney's speech except for short clips after I'd read the speech and had found it wanting in several respects. But I thought it was an interesting question--seeing vs. reading--and I'd be interested in your take.

Read More

Warning: Politically Incorrect language used in this post

If you have a problem with it, give me your mailing address and I'll send you a dime which you can put a quarter with and call someone who cares.

VA has a good post up this morning where she cites an article written by one Mr. Max Boot, senior hombre' at the Council on Foreign Invasion, and a contributing idiot to, well, here's Maxy-baby's credentials, for what they're worth:

Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a contributing editor to Opinion and the author of "War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern World.

Whoa! I'm awed ... by Max's utter lack of any credentials which qualify him to speak to the topic of immigration from other than an unAmerican perspective. That's right, I said it, Max's tone is unAmerican, which is to say not-American. So Max is unAmerican and an idiot t'boot, which his article makes perfectly clear. A resident citizen idiot armed with a vote and a pen and an axe to grind against the xenophiles and islamophobes, and etc. Seems like we have a lot of those running around this country these days. I wonder how they got here?

Go read VA's post where she deals with the likes of Maxy-baby pretty effectively. The only thing she leaves out is saying explicitly that Max and his ilk are unAmerican, which is why I said it here. We can be nice and call him a neocon, or a right-liberal, or whatever (how about neo-American?), but the bottom line is that Max advocates the destruction of America via mass immigration and amnesty for illegals with no baggage check, political or otherwise. And that, my friends, is by definition "unAmerican." Look it up.

Read More

CAIR's Mission: Empowered Muslims; Empowered Islam

Posted beneath an article urging "people of conscience" to attend the Washington D.C. premiere of the documentary "USA vs. Al-Arian," is CAIR's stated mission:

CAIR, America's largest Muslim civil liberties group, has 33 offices, chapters and affiliates nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding. (emphasis mine)

Ok, without getting into what all these terms (justice, civil liberties, build coalitions, mutual understanding) mean to a Muslim, let's just break down CAIR's mission to its essentials. CAIR's mission above all is to enhance understanding of Islam, meaning promote the incompatible religion of Islam as compatible with the West and America, which means CAIR must engage in and carry on a perpetual campaign of deception about Islam and its prophet until such time as Islam gains sufficient strength in America to dhimmify America. Additionally CAIR's mission involves "empowering American Muslims." Ask yourself this question: Why would CAIR's mission involve empowering American Muslims? Take your time.

Webster's urges people of conscience to learn more about the incompatibility of Islam with Western and American culture and values so that we will be collectively equipped to deal appropriately with the proposition of an "empowered Islam" in America decisively in the near future. Our very survival is at stake here. And Islam cannot empower itself in America. The success of CAIR's mission all depends on Americans.

Read More

Dhimmicrat answers tough questions from CAIR Representative

At the Heartland Presidential Forum in Des Moines, John Edwards, Dhimmicrat Presidential contender answered the question of Ahmed Rehab in the following manner, as reported by CAIR:

John Edwards:

… we've got to stop this racial profiling that's going on in the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

And we've got to change the entire atmosphere. Here's what I'll do as president: I will close Guantanamo, which I think is a national embarrassment.

(APPLAUSE)

We will have no more secret prisons, no more rendition, no more -- and I use this word intentional -- no more illegal spying on the American people by the president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

And then, finally, finally, it is so heartbreaking that we have a debate in America about what kind of torture is permissible. I have an answer to that: No torture is permissible in the United States of
America. And those are all things that I would do as president.

I like Edwards's answer to the torture question, though I don't think Rehab mentioned torture, Edwards just took it on himself to address it, it being so heartbreaking and whatnot that we even talk about torture in this country.

If I were on Edwards's Presidential Campaign team I would recommend that he denounce the use of torture in stronger terms. For instance I would advise that he say something to the effect of "under no circumstances whatsoever is torture ever permissible in the United States! If life or death information cannot be extracted from a militant Islamist short of the use of means, the mere thought of which makes feminine America cringe, then I choose death and destruction to America, and I call on all Americans to choose death and destruction to America ... for the children; it's all about the children!

(APPLAUSE)

Read More

Do right liberals believe we can ever have too many immigrants?

Over at VA's Vince P. argues that the problem in America is not that we have too many immigrants, but that we don't project Americanism as the "primary" identity.

Below is my response to Vince's assertions posted over at VA's blog:

Vince P. wrote:

So what has led to conditions in America today? Is it because there's too many immigrants?

I don't think so.

It's because we as a nation we have decided that there is no reason to identify with being an American. Our schools are pumping out peopel who think America is the cause of the worls problems..

When the primary identity is no longer attractive, then by neccessity people have to fall back to another identity and that would be their ethnic or "old country" identity.

My reply to Vince:

"Vince, you're arguing for restrictions on immigration whether you realize it or not. Which is to say that you're arguing that we have too many immigrants in this country while denying that we have too many immigrants in this country. That's illogical.

If immigrants retain their cultural and ethnic identity to the extent that it is the "fallback" identity, and America's educational institutions fail to transmit to American youth the superiority of American culture and values and so on, as they're doing now, then the logical answer to this dilemma, as per your prescription, is to halt all immigration to this country so that the fallback identity does not become more proportionally unAmerican while we try to sort this deal out; if the fallback identity is not American identity under our current conditions, then these immigrants are by definition incompatible with America. All they can do or accomplish is to further the agenda of the left unless and until historic Americanism becomes the primary identity being projected and taught. This, Vince, would require the expulsion of huge numbers of first and second generation immigrants to this country."

I could say a whole lot more on this. But the main point is this, you can try to separate the numbers of immigrants in this country from the degradation of historic Americanism as we witness it now, but it is all a vain exercise. We've had liberal multicultist do-gooders in this country all along, even from its inception, and they've always worked to wriggle their way into government and to push their points. As Noah Webster noted way back when, "one of their main articles is to attach foreigners to their principles upon their landing here." Why would their modus operandi be then and now to attach foreigners, as opposed to natives, to their liberal principles? Is it not because foreigners (immigrants) are more disposed to be accepting of these ideas than natives are? Of course this is the case. We would do well to heed the advice and the reticence of founding fathers such as Webster who also said:

I consider it a matter of infinite consequence, the cautious admission of foreigners to the rights of citizenship. ... Many of them come here with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government founded on free elections.

Why is this, does Vince P. suppose? Why is it that foreigners--immigrants from Webster's day; immigrants who were mainly European and therefore much more likely to be assimilable than today's immigrants to this country--would so readily and willingly attach themselves to liberal ideas upon landing here? Why is it that in Webster's time, when Americanism and American superiority was being taught to our youth as the "primary" identity, Webster still observed this trend of unAmerican ideas and identity taking precedence over the then existing "primary" identity, which he also observed would spell doom for our Constitution if ever it became commonplace in America?

Hopefully we can discuss it later. Gotta go.

Read More

Which is more important?

Over at the AFB Mike discusses the importance of virtue in a free society. Mike and I have discussed this topic many times privately. And of course he knows that I agree with the contents of his post. Mike concludes the entry with these thoughts:

Virtue is indeed indispensable for healthy families and a free Republic. But don't count on your children hearing that from anybody other than you, their parent (or Aunt, Uncle, or other relative). It's incumbent upon us to ensure that our children have a moral, as well as an intellectual foundation before they go out into the world. I would submit that a child with no moral foundation is at a greater risk than a child who cannot read, yet you'll never see a "program" designed to correct the former deficiency. (emphasis mine)

Indeed. Reading is important, but religion is indispensable, as Noah Webster said:

EDUCA'TION, n. [L. educatio.] The bringing up, as of a child, instruction; formation of manners. Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations. To give children a good education in manners, arts and science, is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties.

Read More