Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Propagandists Attempt To Imbue Immigrants With Messianic Perfection

A book published by Orbis Books is titled “Jesus Was An Immigrant”.

What about it?

A blurb for the book reads, “A Biblically grounded presentation of the value migrants, immigrants, and refugees bring to all of us.”

Does the text also emphasize the Scripture that also urges rendering to Caesar what is Caesars and to obey those earthly laws that do not violate those of God?

As such, the author shouldn't have a problem with a legitimately constituted government determining by a set of standards agreed upon by the CITIZENS of the particular country in question whom might be granted entrance into that particular country and what reasonable documents authenticate membership in that particular nation-state.

If immigrants are to glom themselves onto the Christian narrative, it should be pointed out that Mary and Joseph went dutifully to pay their taxes.

The couple did not rampage through the streets of Nazareth demanding they be granted a hardship exemption.

By insisting that “Jesus was a migrant”, the attempt is made to imbue this sociological and legal category with the sinlessness and perfection of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

However, as much as I have heard these people carouse and booze late into the night, I assure you they most definitely have not yet reached such a state of flawless sanctification.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Atheist Lobby Prefers Debauchery Among Athletes

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is outraged that the coach of Clemson University's football team is promoting an atmosphere on his team that is “too religious”.

What college sports really needs instead are more sex and drug scandals.

As evidence of its claim, the atheist front group is citing the inordinate number of players on the team attending VOLUNTARY Bible studies.

Perhaps even worse, the coach subjects those under his leadership to non-sectarian Scriptural admonitions such as a paraphrase of I Corinthians 9:24-25 reading “Run your race to win, don't just run the race.”

Perhaps, in these times of hypertolerance and multiculturalism, a more Hindu or Buddhist perspective is preferred with athletes adopting an attitude that the race does not matter or doesn't exist anywhere but in the minds of the participants.

Perhaps these subversives would also like to expunge the remainder of the Judeo-Christian patrimony from the remainder of the curriculum.

That is the ultimate goal of these agitators, after all, as epitomized by the infamous slogan “Hey Hey, Hey Ho, Western Civ Has Got To Go.”

If nothing else, at least then we'd no longer be subject to the throwaway snide remark about being one's brother's keeper being elevated to the level of justification for income confiscation and redistribution.

Since the Freedom From Religion Foundation gets such a rush from being all bent of shape, when do they intend to get around to taxpayer funds going to provide prayer rooms and footwashing facilities set aside exclusively adherents of that form of sectarian totalitarianism?

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, April 18, 2014

Parents Can't Win In The Eyes Of Liberal Elites

The cover of the April 2014 Atlantic Magazine is titled “The Over-Protected Kid: New Research Shows He'll Grow Up More Fearful And Less Creative”.

Provided he is not on welfare, is that really anyone's business?

The parents are pretty much screwed over any way they turn.

Let your kid run wild, and you'll get slapped with abuse allegations.

Not yet your kid play with matches and stick utensils in electric sockets?

You will liable get slapped with a stiffer penalty for stifling exploration and expression.

Let your child, especially the male ones, roughhouse as they please and verbalize whatever comes to mind, and they will be branded as “predators” and “harassers”, ending up on offender registries forcing them to live in tent cities deep in the woods.

Given that numerous parents have no doubt lost their health insurance as a result of Obamacare or have to pay deductibles through the roof so Sandra Fluke can live on her back with her thighs flayed open are those advocating childhoods of feral adventure going to pick up the emergency room tab?

Or are we suppose to gaze upon these injuries simply as a way of thinning the herd?

by Frederick Meekins

Monday, April 14, 2014

Robertson Hurls Monkeyshine At Evolution Debate

In early February 2014, the sports world completed what could be considered the highlight of its year with the playing of the Super Bowl.

Those of a more bookish or scholarly inclination got to enjoy a similar kind of excitement just a few days later when they could pick sides as evangelist Ken Ham faced off against Bill Nye the Science Guy.

The issue at hand was whether evolution is sufficient to account for the existence of life.

Ken Ham, on the one hand, believes that, without appealing to a literal understanding of the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis, all of the foundations upon which intellectual comprehension and a just social order rest begin to break down.

As an avowed Humanist (having been recognized as the 2010 Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association), Bill Nye believes that the processes of the material universe are comprehensive enough in themselves to account for the complexity of the reality in which we find ourselves.

Granted, there are a number of assorted positions between these two poles. Salvation is not determined by disbelief in Charles Darwin's theories but rather in one's belief in the finished work of Christ upon the cross of Calvary. After all, it can be argued that God has a special place in His heart for the dimwitted.

Interestingly, some of the most scathing criticisms directed towards Ken Ham did not necessarily come from the raving village atheists but more from those that would consider themselves Ham's fellow believers. Foremost among them was none other than Pat Robertson.

Instead of commending Ham for the courage to take a principled Christian stand on one of the foremost issues facing the faith in the contemporary era, Robertson counseled, “Let's not make a joke of ourselves.” Apparently he comes down on the side of the debate holding to some kind of theistic evolution or progressive creationism.

It would not be gentlemanly to deny the validity of the faith in Christ of those holding to such a position. However, the perspective holds that God is not powerful enough or is too stupid to create the world in seven literal standard “Earth days” as detailed in the Book of Genesis.

Put that aside for now. But “Let's not make a joke out of ourselves” is a ship that sailed from Robertson's Virginia Beach compound years and even decades ago. But then again, maybe it flew off in a jet taking off from Robertson's private airplane runway or road off on one of this thoroughbred horses all the while Robertson insists global warming is the result of we mere common folks having too much such as automobiles powered by internal combustion engines.

One would think that Pat Robertson might show a little more compassion or understanding to those that say controversial things but which contain considerable truth after they have been reflected upon. After all, was not Robertson the one that pointed out that the true danger of leftwing feminism was that it would encourage woman to kill their babies, take up witchcraft, and become lesbians?

Robertson's whacked out remarks go beyond any of Ham's claims no matter how ludicrous the assertions of the Australian evangelist sound to those building their epistemological house foremostly upon man's reason.

For example, Robertson claims that, if it weren't for the prayers offered by his ministry, the Tidewater area of Virginia would have already been destroyed as a result of an oncoming hurricane. And this was one of Robertson's less shocking flubs, with others going so far beyond Scriptural propriety to actually violate divine mandates.

For example, Robertson suggested that a spouse ought to go ahead and divorce a partner suffering from Alzheimer's. The suggestion was made not as some strategy to secure additional insurance or social welfare in a broken system that penalizes loving couples trying to live properly. Rather, Robertson made the comment so that the healthy spouse could dump the ailing partner in order to find someone else to frolic in the boudoir with.

The Bible establishes that marriage is intended to be a life long arrangement to dissolve upon the death of one of the involved parties. That is why in the marriage vows that the promises are for better or for worse, and in sickness and in health until death do they part.

Who wouldn't rather spend one's declining years (often euphemistically referred to as “golden”) puttering around a Florida retirement community in a golf cart. However, shouldn't one strive to stand by the promise made years ago? It's not like the mate with dementia set out intentionally to lose a lifetime of memories and to complete life as a proverbial vegetable.

Yet these claims made by Robertson on different occasions regarding difficult questions over which sincere believers trying to decipher God's will can disagree are not necessarily the worst of Robertson's shenanigans.

On many Christian television programs, prayer is a regular featured element. In most Christian traditions, prayer occurs when the believer directs communication --- either spontaneous or fabricated --- directly to the triune Godhead.

If most Christian leaders are sincere, they will admit that this communication usually flows in one direction in the audible sense. If some want to insist that the communication or communion can be felt by the parties at either end of this direct line into the noumenal, those that should be spared additional psychological evaluation will admit that what they experience is more akin to a sense of peace and well being that may come over them as they reflect upon the grandeur and power of the Heavenly Father in comparison to what ever burden they are bringing to Him to lay at the foot of the Cross.

If some public religious figure tells you that God TOLD this leader to pursue a particular course of action, the best thing to do is to RUN away as soon as possible. For eventually, the thing that such figures usually insist the Almighty is telling them to do is either sleep with YOUR spouse or to force you to drink the funny-smelling Kool Aid.

Robertson takes his own version of the divine dialog over the boundaries of acceptability in its own particular fashion. The televangelist insists he receives direct replies back from God.

Referring to this beatific telepathy as a “word of faith”, Robertson insists that the Holy Spirit is conveying back to him and a few select minions what amount to press releases regarding these movings in mysterious ways. Usually these are healings that are supposedly taking place at the time the ritual is conducted.

The thing of it is is that these revelations seldom ever happen to be very specific in terms of names and locations. Robertson and his minions insist they see somewhere out in the viewing audience someone being healed of a non-descriptive back pain or stomach ailment.

One would think that if the Holy Spirit deemed it important enough to inform Robertson of these miraculous interventions, the third person of the Trinity would also provide the address of the person being healed. After all, if this was all on the up and up, you think that might be good in terms of professions of faith, ratings, and (of course) the bottom line.

Such a scatterbrained approach no doubt helps Robertson cover his backside. By keeping these claims of precognition or telepathy intentionally vague, the likelihood is increased that at least occasionally some individual will step forward claiming that they were the one that Robertson was talking about.

Ken Ham, on the other hand, is more on the up and up. Even if one does not agree with his conclusions, at least the claims of creationist theory are made on the basis of a logical or evidential methodology that the skeptical can attempt to disprove or refute.

About all we have from Robertson is the claim that God blows in his ear. That isn't really all that much different than what Jim Jones and David Koresh use to say.

Scripture declares that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But in comparing their overall ministries, the antics of Pat Robertson have brought far greater embarrassment to the cause of Christ than the labors of Ken Ham ever have or likely ever will.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Why Can't There Be A Horse In Heaven?

A preacher proclaimed from behind the pulpit that Revelation 19:11 depicting Christ on a white horse is most likely merely symbolic and not to be taken literally.

The evidence provided was that this particular expositor did not believe that there are horses in Heaven.

Unless the speaker can provide irrefutable proof that they have been to Heaven, on what grounds do they have to make such an absolute categorical statement?

Granted, the horse is not likely one that has already trod this Earth before such as Trigger, Mr. Ed, or Flicka.

However, it could be a horse that hails entirely from the celestial realm.

If horses existing in Heaven are beyond credibility, why should we believe other passages regarding what is suppose to be the ultimate home of the Christian?

Perhaps the Pearly Gates aren’t so pearly since a pearl is essentially ossified oyster spit.

If it is beyond the realm of possibility for a non-human or non-angelic life form to exist in the beatific realm, why should we believe that there is a tree there that bears seven kinds of fruit for the healing of the nations?

The point is made that often the Bible employs metaphorical language to convey concepts that the human mind would not otherwise be able to grasp.

However, if the Savior riding into history on a white steed is not to be taken all that seriously, why should we accept promises of His return at all or claims that He entered into the world the first time through the womb of a holy virgin, or that He rose from the dead so that those that believe in Him might have eternal life?

by Frederick Meekins

Monday, March 31, 2014

Balancing Parental Authority & Childhood Well Being

Traditionally, there are few things American cherish more than the freedom of religion as embodied by the First Amendment and their families. Normally, these ideals do not conflict all that much since these work together to allow the greatest good for the greatest number. However, as aberrant theologies gain in prominence, these social pillars have the potential of increasingly coming into conflict.

As a religious sect adhering to a legalistic view of salvation, the Jehovah Witnesses believe that it is a matter of eternal importance to avoid blood transfusions at all costs, even at the price of health and life itself. It is generally accepted that parents have the right to raise their children in compliance with the beliefs of the respective family’s faith. To adherents of the Watchtower Society, this means they ought to be able to refuse medical treatment for their children requiring blood transfusions. However, as the institution charged with overseeing the physical well being of those residing within its boundaries (especially for those unable to do so for themselves), the state might have other priorities as to whether or not an ailing child receives a blood transfusion.

What makes such an example so compelling is the variety of ethical issues of the most visceral variety involved. Foremost among these is the freedom of religion.

Here in the United States, citizens are allowed to believe what they want and pretty much permitted to live according to these principles so long as they do not infringe upon the well being and liberties of others from an activist standpoint. Relatedly, it is believed parents have the right to raise their children in accord with these principles and overall children are better off under the care of parents that genuinely love them than under detached bureaucracies. That said, the state has the obligation to protect the physical well-being of those that cannot do so for themselves. Unfortunately, this may often include small children unable to defend themselves against parents that do not have their priorities in order.

Fundamental to the American conception of human rights is the phrase contained in the Declaration of Independence of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Without life, the other two are essentially meaningless.

As such, in most instances life must take precedence, especially in cases where the individual for whom the decision is being made is unable to make an informed one on their own. If the Jehovah Witness child was a teenager or an intelligent adolescent that refused medical treatment with the consent of the parents, the state should mind its own business and refrain from interference. It is generally considered improper to force treatment upon someone that does not want it since is their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that is at stake. However, two year olds are unable to make such decisions on their own and it would not be right for parents on their own to deny liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a child whose life is in need of direct emergency medical intervention.

While the state has the imperative and obligation to protect the lives of its most innocent members, that does not mean its agents should eagerly rush in to break up families as is the mindset of many in so-called “child protective services” in a manner akin to Janet Reno bursting in with guns blazing into the Branch Davidian compound. Rather, the notion that one may lure more flies with sugar than vinegar may be a more appropriate strategy.

First, hospital officials should assure the parents that everything is being done to treat the child initially with procedures that do not necessarily involve a blood transfusion. Secondly, in discussions of this kind of case, Roe notes that in certain circumstances an appeal to Watchtower officials might be able to persuade them to permit the transfusion even though it is not in compliance with the sect’s normal policy (120).

Such an instance might also be better handled by the hospital chaplain or Christian acquaintances since it might make the parents even more defensive if confronted by hospital personnel or child protection bureaucrats that hand down edicts with all the compassion of the IRS or DMV. As fellow theists though of a considerably different persuasion, the chaplain or Christian friend could discuss the passages from which the prohibitions against blood transfusions are drawn and explain in a kind and understanding manner how they do not necessarily apply and how God forgives those that ask and that no deed other than the failure to believe in the death and resurrection of Christ for our sins is beyond redemption by His blood.

The bond between parent and child is strong. Under normal circumstances, a loving parent is not going to allow harm to come to that child without taking action.

However, in rare instances where the child is in danger of imminent loss of life and is not competent as to consent to their own medical treatment and parents forbid intervention on the part of physicians, authorities from the various spheres overseeing medical services may be required to use their assorted forms of influence to persuade the parents that it is in the best interests of the child to allow treatment. At first, this should be done in a friendly and conversational manner. However, if they do not relent, higher authorities such as the courts and social services may need to be consulted in a judicious manner that preserves the physical well being of the child as well as inflict minimal damage to the integrity of the parent/child relationship.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, March 10, 2014

Gun PICTURES Don't Kill People, People Kill People

Facebook plans to enact a policy that will block minors from seeing posts for gun sales.

If children are that young and impressionable to the point of being so easily traumatized, what are they doing on Facebook in the first place?

In a USA Today article covering the announcement, the chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns said, “On the same site that people are sharing birthday parties and family reunions, there are photos of AK-47's.”

So what?

There are probably just as many photographs of teens getting drunk if one digs deep enough and accounts are notorious of errant spouses utilizing this revolutionary communications technology to abet adultery.

There are valid arguments made from both positions as to the propriety of gun sales facilitated over social networks.

But what is the big fuss over a gun picture?

Online, those guns are probably about as real as the bosoms of the scantily clad models attempting to entice you to click on links for a wide variety of products and services.

Perhaps the most appropriate advice is adapted from the moral libertines any time a parent or even a concerned citizen raises a reservation about the amount of exposed flesh or non-marital boudoir frolicking depicted in the contemporary media.

If you don't like to look at pictures of guns, don't look at them.

By Frederick Meekins

Thoughts Regarding Updated Robocop

The updated Robocop film does a superb job bringing attention to the ethical implications of robot and drone warfare.

If one was required to show one's hands to the robots in order to be categorized as non-threatening, since the movie was already saltier than it needed to be in terms of profanity, someone should have given the droids the finger.

Samuel Jackson is amusing in his spoof of Bill O'Reilly.

The scene where the senator was kicked off the "Novak Element" was quite reminiscent of the Fox News pundit interrupting guests he doesn't agree with.

Despite the relevancy of the underlying ethical conflict, the film wasn't necessarily an improvement over the 1980's version in all respects.

The more mechanized voice of the title character in the original and Murphy having done to him whatever his corporate masters wanted without any notion of consent on the part of his family since he was "dead" in eyes of the law and thus without any rights was a more dramatic portrayal of the threats posed to fundamental assumptions of humanity by radical cybernetic life extension technologies allowed to get out of control.

by Frederick Meekins

Friday, February 21, 2014

Absentminded Professor Spreads Falsehoods Regarding Science & Religion

Throughout much of the modern era, one of the main slugfests with the draw of a Hulk Hogan and Rowdy Roddy Piper cage match of the 1980's has been the ongoing dispute between so-called science and religion Proponents of each side of the debate contend that their own viewpoint is the foundation upon which ultimate knowledge rests.

The science side of the controversy contends that religion isn't merely an alternative way of looking at the universe but rather instead a harmful mindset that must by stamped out by science's proclivity to rely upon experimentation and evidence rather than an unquestioning reliance upon faith and authority as is endemic to its epistemological adversary. However, Jerry Coyne in the 10/1/10 USA Today essay titled “Science And Religion Aren't Friends” relies on more untested assumptions than can be found in the average Sunday morning sermon.

It is only natural that Jerry Coyne would have the tendency to end up relying on those things he has bluntly labeled as threats to mankind to make his argument. He is, after all, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago.

Both of these disciplines practiced by Professor Coyne these days are as much about philosophy and politics more so than the collection of objective facts through observation and experimentation. The University of Chicago is to at least be commended for exercising a modicum of caution in quarantining those on the faculty payroll oriented towards imposing opinion rather than simply elaborating actual details of natural phenomena as would a true biologist worthy of recognition as such.

Early in the essay, Professor Coyne asserts, “Evolution took a huge bite a while back [he means out of religion], and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality distinct from the lumps of jelly in our head.” From such an contention, he concludes, “We now know that the universe did not require a creator.”

That's quite a rambunctious leap on the part of the eager professor. It use to be thought that nothing existed below the level of the atom. However, eventually researchers discovered an entirely new kind of universe (if you will) existing in terms of even smaller particles and energy clouds at the subatomic level.

Why can't a similar position be held regarding the mind, soul, and spirit? Though it cannot be denied that these are somehow linked to the material brain, that does not mean these ephemeral building blocks of individuality and personality do not exist because those in lab coats haven't quite pinned them down and sliced them in half with a scalpel.

After all, it is doubtful scientists can conclusively tell us why a certain assemblage of chemicals has the spark of life coarsing through them and others do not. Since a number of their brethren have denied the existence of the Creator, perhaps a number of scientists will endeavor to convince that the phenomena that we call life does not exist either.

Coyne says of science, “Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is praised. No finding is deemed 'true' unless it is repeated and verified by others.” And of religion, he writes, “...rather than relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation, dogma, and authority.”

That is, of course, until someone challenges those sacred cows that often eat at the troughs of big government, industry, and academia. For example, in “Reason In The Balance”, critic of evolution Phillip Johnson chronicled the plight of one professor that dared to buck the herd mentality by simply suggesting that the complexity of organisms MIGHT point to a creator.

At no time did this particular academic fill in to any great degree the detail of this nebulously defined ultimate power or coerce students into swearing allegiance to it. This professor's pedagogical approach was considerably more broadminded than the professor that essentially required students to declare an oath of fealty to the Darwinist position if they wanted the professor to provide the student with a reference for medical school. It would seem though that an aspiring physician believing in a Creator or Intelligent Designer might make a better doctor since such a student would see the patient as made in the image of God rather than as a worthless lump of tissue not all that different from what the orderlies dumped from the bedpans or the tumors zapped with radiation down in the oncology department.

Furthermore, evolutionists make a public display as to how much they eschew dogma and authority. However, can you honestly tell me that each and everyone of them has built from scratch through their own experimental observations the entire tree of knowledge? Is the lowliest among their number going to thumb their noses at names such as Goldschmidt, Gould, and Hawking. The very fact that they rally behind the image of Darwin is testament to how they are prone to bend knee to their alleged betters like many of the religious individuals they heap so much scorn upon.

Among the nondogmatic dogmas of those professing this mindset is that one of the few remaining sins that cannot be countenanced is for the individual to speak out or act in an field where one has not been certified or credentialed by the elites empowered to bring down ruination or at least the edge of destitution upon those failing to curry the favor of these authorities. In academia, reprisals just short of lynching take place if those not bestowed the equivalent of a knighthood in the natural sciences (an advanced graduate degree) dares to speak out regarding evolution and how it applies to the origin of life. However, very little criticism or reprisals in terms of occupational status is inflicted upon the members of this scholastic caste when they venture beyond the confines of their respective narrowly defined fields when making sweeping pronouncements as to how things are to be in religion's sandbox.

Those holding to scientism, the idea that science itself is an ultimate authority rather than a method or a tool, claim that the notion of religion is itself refuted because of the countless unreasonable propositions and doctrines advocated by those for whom an avowed faith is the primary framework through which they construe existence and the universe. As proof, Professor Coyne posits the person of Jesus and how Christians view Him as the Messiah, how Muslims do not, and how those of these respective faiths will incur divine retribution in the eyes of the opposing belief system for their misconstrued perspective regarding this one key figure. The fact that such attention is focused on an individual nothing more than an obscure carpenter and itinerant rabbi residing in a Roman occupied backwater is itself reason to stop and consider that there might be something more to this otherwise first rate failure by the world's standards.

Coyne adds, “I've never met a Chrisitan ..who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. I would have thought the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.”

G.K Chesterton remarked, in regards to those horrors that cause even the most devout to question whether or not God actually plays an active part in the world, that these outrages and tragedies were manifestations of the one Christian doctrine that could be verified by a cursory perusal of the daily headlines. That is none other than the reality and pervasiveness of sin.

It is because of the existence of a God and absolute values based on His unchanging character that we are able to say something like the Holocaust is even wrong. For without the principles embodied in holy documents such as the Ten Commandments, who is to say?

Is the barometer of acceptability and propriety to be found in that amorphous moral sense referred to as “world opinion”? If so, that means the Holocaust is only wrong because it was an affront to a majority of the nations of the earth.

In that instance, even if too late to prevent an incomprehensible atrocity and as much in response to other geopolitical factors, world powers came to the rescue of the Jewish people. In an attempt to correct the situation and to prevent something similar from happening again, the nation of Israel was established.

But what of a time foretold in the Book of Revelation when hostility towards both Christian and Jew will be stirred to such a fanatic level by a future world leader known in prophecy as the Beast who, it is believed, will convince the nations of the world to join first in a campaign to wipe out Jerusalem and then attempt an assault on the very Gates of Heaven itself? Are we to believe in one instance the proper thing to do is assist the plight of the Jews or lament the failure to do so and then at some as of yet undetermined point down the time stream attempt to wipe them and allied theists from the face of the earth all because the prevailing consensus demands it?

Coyne assures, “Science is even studying the origin of morality.” The professor assures that atheists embrace the same moral truths as the religious but without something existing above so-called “science”. But where ought we to find these principles?

At the Patuxent Wildlife Visitor's Center, there is a display of a kaleidescopic video montage titled “The Wisdom of Wildness”. The footage suggests that the course we stupid humans ought to pursue is to be found among the less deliberately rational creatures on the rung of what philosophers and theologians have titled the Great Chain Of Being.

If so, who is to say in a naturalistic ethos just what animals we are suppose to emulate? Some animals such as elephants take considerable care of their young and even seem to mourn their dead. It is often claimed that the Canadian geese mate for life and will leave the migration gaggle should the partner be unable to travel onward for whatever reason.

Other animals emulate behaviors that do not comply with what most societies that have been influenced by the light of Judo-Christian Scripture and moral reflection would find acceptable. For example, occasionally female cats will abandon a kitten if she is unable to care for more than one and male cats will sometimes kill kittens that are not their own in order to encourage female cats to mate with them. In order for the couple to copulate, the female praying mantis must rip the head off of its mate and the nature of the female black widow spider towards its mate has become synonymous with a woman that murders her husband.

Before feminists do a victory dance as to these alleged examples of girl power found throughout the animal world, perhaps they ought to tell us why if there is no God establishing the morality by which higher order minds reflect upon the Creator's own rationality and character in order to formulate ethics and values, why these examples ought to prevail over the ones more male-dominated as to how we interpret them?

Male lions pretty much loaf around and look fierce while the females do, shall we say, the lion's share of the hunting and the raising of the cubs. And male sea lions and fur seals are pretty much indistinguishable from breakaway Fundamentalist Mormons such as Warren Jeffes in that they accumulate as many females to themselves as possible while banishing young unestablished males to the periphery of the colony (or out onto the streets in human terms).

Coyne writes, “In contrast, scientists don't kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science --- just science, a multicultural search for truth.”

In regards to the first claim of that particular paragraph, scientists haven't really proven themselves that far removed and above the stains of the, shall we say, sin nature plaguing the remainder of humanity. The death counts under traditional religion run amok are nothing to be proud of and rightly give the sensitive seeker grounds for pause. However, one could properly make a case that these tallies pale in comparison to the 20th century totalitarian regimes that first and foremost dedicated themselves to Darwinian ideals in whose names were often justified the most appalling of atrocities such as the racialism of the Nazi regime attempting to purge the human gene pool of what that vile ideology considered contaminating elements or Marxism's attempt to manipulate social conditions such as education in order to bring about that system's new man devoid of individualism gladly embracing a place as a disposable cog in the technocratic collective.

The second claim in that paragraph insists that there is no particular variety of science but rather a multicultural search for truth. On the surface, that sounds correct as certain facts exist such as the distance between the earth and the moon irrespective of the religious outlook of the researcher ascertaining such an assessment. However, that is only part of the picture.

Like it or not, science arose to prominence as a method for obtaining knowledge about the world in which we live in a time when the Christian perspective was predominant even if not every last practitioner of this epistemological pursuit was an orthodox born again believer. As is attributed to Issac Newton, one of the initial motivations of what would be recognized as science was to think God's thoughts after Him.

It could be argued that the Judeo-Christian mindset as found in the pages of the Bible is the font from which the assorted impulses and brands of modernism (for good or ill) were bequeathed with their concern for the world as it actually exists and how we might improve upon its conditions for the greatest number possible. A consistent multiculturalist cannot view such a mindset superior to one that does not.

Not everyone believes that progress (especially if it is of the technological or economic variety) is necessarily a good thing. There are those that believe such innovations should be opposed at all costs including those tactics lesser bourgeois minds would categorize as violence.

For example, among the Postmodernists that spout this kind of drivel about multiculturalist science are those that do not see the likes of the Unabomber as a homicidal terrorist but rather as some kind of visionary whose artistic masterpieces did not consist of paint and canvas but rather in exploding shrapnel, lacerated sinew, and severed limbs. And unfortunately, this threat once isolated among a few lunatics, has infested the ranks of the Occupy Movement that would have no problem with dragging society back to preindustrial standards of living even though they themselves would be the least likely to survive in a milieu where a lack of self-reliance would spell certain death. But then again, a preference for individual life is one of those pesky values that balanced Christians or even generalized theists drawing ethical inspiration from the Bible can't seem to disimbue themselves of.

It must also be admitted that science came into its own as a research methodology in those settings where God was viewed as distinct from His creation with the natural world under the watchful eye of a single God with the universe operating in accordance with the physical laws He sustains by His own will. Though a number of exceptional minds were able to rise above the blinders of polytheism, there is something about the object you are about to study either being your god, containing the spirits of the entities that you worship, or the distinctions between you and the object ultimately being illusory that will discourage you from learning as much as possible about the given subject at hand.

Granted. Students from cultural backgrounds where Hinduism and Buddhism predominate are noted for their mathematical and scientific excellence. However, such aptitude came more into prominence when these societies came to adopt aspects of a more Western orientation.

Towards the conclusion, Professor Coyne writes, “Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid way of finding truth...not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good.” But it is only through acknowledging that truth originates in a personal fixed source (commonly referred to as God), it is possible for truth to even exist or to be something that is worthy of individuals and societies even pursuing in the first place.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, February 17, 2014

The Olympic Charter A Crock

The Olympic charter says, “The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity, and fair play.”

What a crock.

Fine and dandy if this is the goal that the Olympics aspires to.

But if this principle is to be elevated to the status of a human right extended beyond this borderline criminal racket, its implications could be downright frightening.

For example, the opening statement postulates that every individual must have the possibility of participating in sport.

What if an individual's parents refuse to grant permission?

Should the child be snatched from the home on the grounds of child abuse?

And conversely, if the International Olympic Committee is so eager to hand down grandiose moral pronouncements, will this august body uphold the principle that it is the human right of every individual NOT to participate in sports, free of coercion?

For example, what about the case of Red China where child athletes are snatched from their families to be mercilessly trained in what are little better than glorified slave labor camps? And to bring the issue back a little closer to home, what of the child whose classmates refuse to let him participate in a playground pick up game?

Granted, such bullying and exclusion is quite saddening.

However, it hardly rises to the level of an atrocity worthy of a UN human rights tribunal. Most of all, it must be asked isn't the International Olympic Committee violating the very spirit of the principles the organization's charter claims to embody.

For example, the charter insists that EVERY individual must have the possibility of practicing sport WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND.

So does that mean a 300 pound geriatric alcoholic with equilibrium issues should be allowed to ascend the balance beam during the prime time broadcast?

If not, isn't that a form of discrimination and exclusion?

Fascinating, isn't it that these internationalist organizations renowned for advocating the fundamentals of socialism for everyone else the world over insist that the activities undertaken under their own auspices publicly be characterized by the utmost meritocracy.

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

If There Is Nothing Wrong With Pot, Why Can't It Be Consumed Openly?

With the legalization of medicinal cannabis in the nation's capital, the DC city council is now debating whether or not to legalize public consumption of this disputed substance.

But if there is nothing inherently questionable about this pharmacological compound and its preferred form of combustible vaporized conveyance, why shouldn't one be able to use it out in the open?

Should a diabetic be fined if they need to use an insulin pen on a public street?

Should an asthmatic be detained by police if they need a puff from their inhaler while walking down the sidewalk?

WMAL morning host Brian Wilson astutely remarked that this issue focuses around what kind of image Washington, DC wants to project to the world.

But if marijuana is to be considered as no different than anything else an individual wants to take into their body, what is to prevent legislation from being enacted forbidding the consumption of junk food in a public picnic area or even in front of children as part of a campaign to encourage healthy eating and nutrition?

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Preach Even if They Won't Let You

A sermon titled “Ministry Expectations: Christ's Calling & Sending” posted at SermonAudon.com attempts to elaborate upon the conditions under which one may publicly serve Christ. Right off the bat, the Presbyterian pastor delivering the message concluded from Matthew 10:1-16 that one should not attempt to do so unless called to do so by Christ. That is all well and good because nothing without Jesus at the center will endure.

The thing of it is is that Jesus is not exactly here right now in the physical, objective sense to tap the individual on the shoulder to convey these intentions.

This pastor warned that the believer must not pronounce religious or doctrinal exhortation without permission granted by established ecclesiastical authorities.

But what if one lives in an era or milieu where one is not likely to be extended such a blessing by nearly any organized authority? Does that mean we are to remain silent?

If we are to dig around in the New Testament for examples upon which to model our actions, it seems to me many of the founding Evangelists continued to speak out despite the overwhelming opposition of religious elites.

When commanded to stop the proclamation of the Gospel, Peter and the other Apostles responded in Acts 5:29, “We are to obey God rather than man.”

You might not be welcomed in a church building, but these days the electronic pulpit is nearly everywhere and available to anyone willing to step forward.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Crossfire Targeted For Sparking Interest In Civic Affairs

Since it was first broadcast, CNN's Crossfire was the place to go for verbal pugilism in the days before the ascendancy of Fox News and the pervasiveness of talk radio. With its return to the airwaves after an absence of eight years, the program's latest incarnation elicited visceral reactions before it was even broadcast.

In the August 28, 2013 edition of USA Today, Rem Rieder doesn't hold back in his disappointment at the news of this classic program's return and his overall contempt for the argumentative debate format.

Rieder laments, “Crossfire, which features a conservative and a liberal predictably and tiresomely bickering with each other, mirrors perfectly what is so wrong with today's hopelessly polarized and paralyzed politics.”

Rieder goes on to conclude that these days that there is no real attempt to solve problems or get outside of the Beltway.

Reider attempts to cast himself in the role of the kind of dispassionate analyst he claims that he longs to see heading into public affairs programing. However, his words betray blatantly leftist sympathies.
For example, in listing the identities of Crossfire's new hosts, Newt Gingrich is the only one held up for ridicule. Van Jones confessing to be a self-avowed Communist is glossed over as if such an admission is something normal and healthy.

Gingrich might daydream about space colonies. But in the ideal world of Van Jones where he identifies so enthusiastically with that particular form of tyranny, authorities would seize nearly everything you have worked for (with the exception of Van Jones' lavish CNN salary) and violently eliminate those that continue to speak out against a dictatorial regime despite extensive efforts at reeducation and social manipulation.

One might respond that an observation pointing out a failure to expose Van Jones as a leftwing subversive is reading too much into it. After all, with Kardashian bastards and Miley Cyrus stage humping, the average American no doubt finds it difficult to retain this constant barrage of information at the forefront of their cognitive awareness.

Rem Rieder, however, drops another comment that reveals that there is more to his agenda than a dispassionate pursuit of just the facts.

Apart from the incident where Robert Novak (likely suffering from the early stages of a brain tumor) stormed off the set no longer capable of handling James Carville's banshee-like shrieking, one of most recalled moments of the original Crossfire occurred with the visit of Comedy Central's John Stewart of the Daily Show. During the interview, Stewart lamented how the debate program and especially Tucker Carlson was hurting the country.

The thing of it is, the likes of John Stewart has done more to hurt this country than the number of interchangeable hosts and even greater number of guests exchanging wonky barbs at one another ever could.

Personally, I can probably count on both hands the number of times I have seen the Daily Show. The only segment that sticks out in my mind was of some bozo walking around in a giant penis costume promoting safe sex or some similar propaganda.

If that represents the kind of public affairs programming Rem Rieder thinks is needed to either elevate or save the Republic, we are worse off than most of us realize. It is likely not John Stewart's wisdom as a statesman that Reider is praising but something else entirely.

In the waning days of the Roman Empire, lavish entertainment spectacles were put on for the purposes of distracting the population from the public scandals and disasters that confronted the world superpower of that day.

Granted, in much the same way that politics is said to be a form of show business for the unattractive, programs such as Crossfire, Hannity, and The O'Reilly Factor tend to be a form of pugilism or professional wrestling for the physically puny but verbally inclined. But despite any shortcomings that these programs might posses, it cannot be denied that they at least get across the point that there is something rotten in Denmark (or more accurately, the United States of America in this instance).
That's why the likes of Rem Rieder are more enthused about a perambulating giant penis costume. And the reason behind that might not be quite so obvious as one might assume by that shocking verbal formulation.

Elites talk up the delights and wonders of deliberative democracy. But the last thing they really want are those in the servile classes to passionately hold to any fixed standard or belief that would impede this human capital from being reshaped, deployed, and even eliminated in accordance with the most convenient timetable possible.

This is the sentiment spoken of euphemistically when talking heads, academics, bureaucrats, and elected officials express a nostalgia for a bygone era when legislators would get together at the end of the day to hash out compromises over cocktails or, in the case of Ted Kennedy, cocaine and lapdances. That approach might have been OK when the kinds of things discussed were the equivalent of whether a tax rate would be 9% or 10%.

But these kinds of backroom compromises have gone on for so long and the line of acceptability moved back so far that, for the go-along to get-along to continue, those of good conscience are being pressured into betraying the fundamental values and morals without which a ordered yet free society will surely collapse.

For example, if one the ethical building blocks upon which a just and free society rests is the assumption thou shalt not murder, meaning that it is beyond the limits of acceptability to deliberately take the life of an individual that has committed no crime, where is the moral wiggle room for an abortion of convenience or preference? On what grounds do you kill a life form, that will be no more genetically complete than it would be at the time of birth, without the consent of that individual for the purposes of harvesting that individual's stem cells or other biomolecular components?

Most believe that marriage is a sacred covenant instituted by God Himself predating the codification of organized religion in a time when man's relationship with our Creator did not require the medium of the written word. So on what grounds can that definition be changed on the whims of a jurist or plebiscite and on what basis do those making such a claim complain when these fickle procedures decide to change the arrangement back?

Just where does one compromise on these kinds of issues? For if one does, isn't doing so the equivalent of saying it is allowable to slap your spouse one time across the face but twice is going too far?

As these kinds of social developments continue to unfold, it is becoming more apparent that recognition of gay marriage is not so much about these individuals confessing unending love for one another which they are pretty much able to do so already in parts of the country where most mind their own business and where laws prohibiting illegitimate carnal knowledge haven't been enforced for years. Rather, it is about bringing the destructive power of the state crushing down upon those that do not stand around applauding the new world we are being thrust into.

Don't believe me? Perhaps you ought to ask the bakers and wedding photographers whose businesses have been ruined for failing to embrace diversity to this radical extent. What about their ability to express their preferences without fear of retaliation?

Only time will tell whether or not there is a place for a revived Crossfire in a media landscape where the clash of opinions is more the norm than an entertaining novelty, However, even if this particular program falls by the wayside as a result of attention being grabbed by flashier versions of this classic debate format, Crossfire deserves a place at least in the pages of journalistic and mass communications history for admitting that legitimate opinion worthy of national consideration exists beyond the narrowly defined parameters of the mainstream establishment.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Protecting Clones

Though it was not the only reason, the American Civil War was fought in part because a significant percentage of the population came to be seen as less than completely human. It is said if we don’t learn from the past we are doomed to repeat it and the only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn anything from history. As such, if society as a whole does not stop to consider certain bio-technical developments now being considered, the world could be in for a nightmare that could make the bloodshed, death, and heartache of the Civil War pale in comparison.

In popular culture and elite scientific circles alike, cloning is being heralded as a process through which humanity will be ushered onto the cusp of a golden age in terms of advances in the areas of agriculture and medicine. As with most advances, those with an entrepreneurial inclination are already positioning themselves to take advantage economically of the opportunities looming on the horizon.

For example, on April 3, 2001, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued Patent US 6,211,429 for a process for animal cloning. One must keep in mind that, apart from agricultural applications, such research is initially tried on animals with the hopes of eventually perfecting the techniques for human usage.

One scholar concerned about the application of this utilitarian mindset to human beings where people could end up being used as something not all that different than barnyard livestock is Paige Cunningham of the Center For Bioethics and Human Dignity. In response, he has formulated a set of principles that could very well stop this tragedy before things get too far out of hand.

The first principle has been stated as the following: “Every human being, however conceived or created, is unique and deserving of protection. From a religious perspective, humans are different than animals and above all animals because humans alone are created in the image of God.” This principle is Biblical as it respects the individuality of the human being as a unique creation no matter how he might have been brought into the world. Even though we might find it unsettling that an individual might be grown in a laboratory and not as the result of a loving (or at least pleasurable) coupling of his parents, that is no reason why, as Cunningham’s declaration argues, such a person should not be granted the same privileges and protections enjoyed by the remainder of our species.

Part of the justification for the first principle, while theologically sound from a religious perspective, that human beings are different than animals because humans alone are created in the image of God, unfortunately may be tougher to sell in a culture contaminated by Darwinian materialism. It is not only from a religious perspective that human beings are different from the remainder of the animal kingdom but in the manner of our fundamental ontology as well. When was the last time someone saw chimpanzees constructing medical facilities or dolphins cogitating on declarations to protect themselves from doing harm to one another? Someone might think they are an animal when it comes to themselves but seldom do they want to be treated like one.

Cunningham’s second principle has been stated thusly: “Every human being has the right to individual autonomy; i.e. that his or her bodily integrity must not be invaded or compromised by others.” The first principle was forceful in its conviction to the point of almost being too explicitly religious in that it overlooked the biological uniqueness of man in favor of the theological,. The second, though well intended, rings with a bit of the vagueness this declaration was promulgated to protect against.

While the Christian can agree with the principle that in most instances that the bodily integrity of the individual must not be invaded or compromised by others, the proposition is not always absolute. Unless enunciated in a strong pro-life context as intended, platitudes about not compromising the bodily integrity of the individual were the very kind of statements that got the ball rolling down the hill of human devaluation in the first place all in the name of “choice” and banshees wailing in the street slogans such as “keep your laws off my body”. One must be clear that the unborn child (either growing in the womb or in the laboratory) possesses the same protections against bodily harm as those enjoyed by the parents.

The third principle, that no person has the right to enslave, own, or control any human being regardless of their stage of biological development is a sound reminder of the basic principles this nation was founded upon, went through numerous struggles to extend to all those living here, and continues to expand into the twenty-first century. This principle does a superb job of upholding the innate dignity of the individual as created in the image of God and the equality of all men before Him irrespective of their power or status.

The fourth principle contends that any organism that is genetically human is a human being. While this statement is necessary in this Postmodern age that loves nothing better than to play word games in an attempt to justify all kinds of moral outrages, in academic circles and the popular press where secular philosophy and the Christian worldview clash almost constantly the position may already be in need of modification.

Though it may sound like science fiction, there is a growing movement called “Transhumanism” that seeks to expand the abilities of mankind beyond the limitations imposed by the biology of the species through genetic or technological enhancements. Some propose to accomplish this by combining human and animal DNA.

Therefore, at some point ethicists, theologians, and concerned scientists are going to have to sit down and hash out what is the bare minimum of human DNA a person can have and still be considered a human being. For example, is an organism with only 90% human DNA worthy of protection as a human being? Such statements may cause one to chuckle, but the matter is so serious, according to Tom Horn of RaidersNewsUpdate.com, that neuroscientists experimenting on mice by injecting human brain cells into the skulls of these rodents are under orders to destroy these vermin if they start to exhibit signs of intelligence.

The fifth principle holds that “A cloned embryo is distinct and separate from the person donating the genetic material, and therefore is a unique being protected in law.” This is a principle that Christians need to be at the forefront of championing.

Often the cloning discussion is framed in terms of setting aside a genetic savings account for a rainy day. For example, if someone needed a spare kidney or liver, one could simply thaw out a non-sentient replicant kept in suspended animation for just such an emergency. However, what really happens when a cloning takes place is more akin to forming a twin of oneself or, if one is unsettled by such age differences between siblings, parenting a child in a non-traditional format. As close as these human relationships are, at no time may we use our family members as spare parts without their consent.

The last principle holds that, “No person or institution has the right to control or profit from any process designed to clone a human being.” While it is a good idea to take the profitability and power out of the cloning process as such an action would cut down on firms entering into this undertaking (including government), if we wait to the point where we attempt to regulate the procedure where it is legislated that the technique must benefit all mankind, things may have already reached the point of no return. Such a response would imply that cloning had already become widespread. Rather, Christians in positions of influence should instead get busy cultivating, as Pope John Paul II use to call it, an ethic of life where blatant disregard for other human beings is such an anathema that no self-respecting scientist would consider participating in such research.

Overall, the policy declaration suggested by Paige Cunningham is to be commended as a good starting point for those within the church to start thinking about these kinds of issues that they may have not taken the time to consider previously but that are about to role over our country and change it in fundamental ways that we do not like unless we rise up now to set things on a better moral path.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, December 30, 2013

Newscast Overlooks Charity Recipient's Backstory

In Charles County, Maryland public educators and safety personnel went out of their way to provide an enhanced Christmas for a single mother holding two jobs living out of a motel room.

Interestingly, the WRC 4 coverage of the outreach deliberately avoided detailing the background of this recipient of eleemosynary.

For example, the most obvious question coming into the mind of the average viewer not having been conditioned by bureaucratic reeducators is where is the father in the midst of this hardship?

Relatedly, in the age of Maury Povich, since this woman has multiple children, are there multiple fathers?

Maybe if she had taken two jobs prior to procreating, this woman wouldn't have had the time nor the energy necessary to spawn in the first place.

Perhaps this woman should have had a better taste in men instead of now expecting the men that actually have jobs and work for a living to pick up the slack left dangling by the deadbeats.

This woman was no doubt informed of the pending of this Christmas charity over her latest iteration of the Iphone.

Most will no doubt be peeved about the discerning raising these kinds of issues.

No doubt Biblical admonitions about doing unto the least of these and such will be readily raised.

Interestingly, seldom is the one mentioned that points out that those unwilling to provide for their own children are worse than an infidel.

By Frederick Meekins

Using Abram & Hagar To Understand Reproductive Technology

Scripture reminds us there is nothing new under the sun. And even though the way certain things are accomplished and the settings might change to some degree, most human dramas have not changed all that much since the earliest days of recorded history.

One such desire that has been a constant throughout the passing millennia has been the longing to have children. Both classic literature and front page headlines attest to the length some will go to to satisfy the parental impulse.

Here in our enlightened and progressive era are those wearing their sophistication on their sleeves for all to see who would say that there is no reason medically or morally why the desire for children cannot be fulfilled for those seeking to have the role of primary adult caretaker in the life of a specific young person.

One venue through which couples unable to have children of their own have turned to is surrogate motherhood. In this arrangement, the genetic material of the husband is implanted for the purposes of impregnation in a fecund woman who agrees to turn over custody of the child (often for a hefty sum of money) to the biological father and his wife.

To those seeing marriage as little more than a contract instituted by human beings with little purpose beyond establishing a stable social order, its slight alteration among consenting adults is of little consequence. However, from an examination of Genesis 16, we see that utilizing a woman other than the wife one is married to in the eyes of God is fraught with consequences that cannot initially be predicted.

From the text, the reader gathers the following facts.

Though God had promised an heir to Abram and Sarai, it seemed to them that they would remain barren since they were getting along in years.

So Sarai suggested that Abram go to her servant Hagar and father a child through her. Being a typical man, Abram readily agreed and took Hagar as a second wife.

After Hagar conceived, like a typical woman Sarai chewed out Abram when doing exactly as he was told by his wife did not turn out exactly as she expected. This happened in part when Hagar copped an attitude that she was more of a woman than Sarai since Hagar conceived, no doubt rubbing it in her employer’s face.

Caught in the middle, Abram let the catfight continue and told Sarai to do as she pleased with Hagar. So since she was mistreated by Sarai, Hagar ran away.

However, Hagar eventually returned to Abram to have Ishmael after being told by the Lord to do so and after being promised that she would be the mother of a great nation in her own right as well.

This text is fraught with a number of ethical issues.

For starters, there is the near universal desire to have a family, which, often a central motivating impulse in normal circumstances, must have been an overwhelming desire when it was prophesied that one’s offspring would come to influence all the world.

Second, there is the issue of the sanctity of marriage. From Scripture, it is taught that the standard is matrimony between one man and one woman as it says two shall become one flesh, not three.

As such, wherever there are two ladies competing to be queen of the castle there will inevitably be conflict.

There is also the issue of Abram stepping up to the plate and taking care of Ishmael and Hagar even if it would be more convenient to get them out of the way.

Some might question what bearing the Abram-Sarai-Hagar triangle has to do with the modern practices of surrogacy.

For today the process is much more clinical. The surrogate is not brought into the family as a concubine or second wife (except in parts of Utah perhaps) and the man does not get to lay back and enjoy the delights of his harem.

However, there is still the possibility of what was undertaken as an effort to acquire some of the most profound joy human beings can experience (namely having a family) spiraling out of control in terms of heartache and jealousy. For example, in the case of Elizabeth Whitehead who was contracted to be a surrogate, wads of cash were not enough to extinguish maternal feelings and a nasty custody fight ensued.

Frankly, a woman would have to be a borderline sociopath to be able to sever the bond with the child that grew within her for nine months.

Secondly, since the child becomes the child of the wife merely as the result of legal maneuvering, one must wonder just how attached she will be to the child as there is likely to be buried deep some kind of resentment that the husband had to turn to another woman (even if no “recreation satisfaction” was involved) to acquire a child. Even though Sarai instigated this ordeal in part to claim the child as her own, she certainly had few qualms about tossing Hagar out on her ear when things got tense.

This brings us to the only ethically viable alternatives for the Christian couple that want to both honor God and enjoy family life beyond the marital relationship.

If the wife is consistent and sincere that it does not matter if the child she is to raise is biologically hers or not, the couple should be informed that adoption is a way of fulfilling this desire that still honors the two-as-one ideal of marriage while assisting a child that would otherwise face this cruel world unloved.

If the couple is insistent that the child must be of their biological lineage, the Christian couple wanting to please God by keeping His commandments must pray for patience to wait upon the will of the Lord if they are to become parents and have fun while trying to find out.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Secularist Educators On The March Against Traditional Holidays

Sometimes, the best way to gain insight into a thing, person, or an issue is to consider it through the lens of its seemingly opposite.

For example, in terms of celebrations on the calendar, on their surface few would be more opposite than Halloween and Christmas.

Halloween, on the one hand, is a reflection that all things in this life come to an end in death and that death is the result of evil having come into the world and how all mortals have at least a passing degree of interest in that particular existential state.

Christmas, on the other hand, is a celebration of the birth of the One who came into the world so that we might have life and life more abundantly held at the time of the year in the Northern Hemisphere when nature begins to remind that the preponderance of darkness is itself a temporary thing.

By examining how each of these are viewed and approached in the mind of the secular statist, one gains more of a comprehensive understanding of the irrationality of many of the critics of these otherwise beloved occasions.

A number of these lame excuses were examined in a Desert News article titled “For Religious Reasons Christmas/Halloween Take A Hit In Schools.”

For example, at Inglewood Elementary in the suburbs of Philadelphia, party poopers there canceled the school's student Halloween parade on the grounds that the activity was religious in nature.

Reflection upon both Halloween and Christmas parties reveals that neither celebration will likely manipulate those attending these functions to abandon their mostly deeply cherished beliefs in favor of a whole new set of spiritual paradigms.

For example, the most professedly spiritual aspect of Christmas is the commemoration of the birth of the Christ Child destined to be slain from the foundation of the world in payment for the sins of every person to have walked the face of the earth willing to accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

However, at most Christmas parties, seldom does this truth upon which all of cosmic history orbits get all that much in the way of good eats and the gift giving frenzy.

But if Christmas has to be abolished because its true meaning might unsettle those that practice other creeds or who claim to practice no creed at all not so much out of a profound conviction that outright nihilism profess is really the correct way to ultimate truth but more out of a deep-seated hatred of Jesus, then Halloween should be banished from the halls of polite academia as well. But with violence and sexuality rampant throughout many of the nation's schools, can they really be considered all that polite anymore?

Halloween traces its origin back primarily to traditions surrounding the Celtic new year known as Samhain that were introduced to America by Irish immigrants. In pagan times, it was believed that during that particular time of year that the boundaries between the realms of the spirit and corporeal flesh were at their thinnest with beings able to cross over.

As a result, assorted customs developed where the living thought the agitated spirits could be mollified with treats. Eventually, the enterprising realized that they too could get a piece of the pie and whatever other goodies were being passed out that night if they decided to disguise themselves in costumes.

Over time, Samhain evolved into the festival that we have today. To kill a number of birds with one stone, the Roman Catholic Church adopted the days around the first of November as All Saints and All Souls Day since the minds of the natives were already focused upon the departed that time of the year. And a festival similar to the one already in place provided the reluctant with one less excuse as to why they did not want to convert to Christianity.

In its assorted prohibitions and condemnations, Scripture is quite explicit about the believer not having much to do with witchcraft, necromancy, and related things that go bump in the night. Coupled with a suspicion of Catholicism and the rise of alternative spiritualities such as the New Age movement in general or Wicca in particular, a perspective rose to prominence within the more conservative wings of Evangelicalism that the true Christian did not participate in this celebrations that look to as mascots the darkest archetypes such as witches, vampires, and the disembodied spirits of the departed that continue to walk the earth.

However, as Lutheran apologist Gretchen Passintino has amusingly summarized, participating in traditions such as Trick-Or-Treat no more makes you a pagan than opening a Christmas present makes you a Christian.

Probably nearly 99% of children participating in the traditions of Halloween such as parades are not doing so with the expressed purposes of rendering glory and homage unto Satan. Most are merely excited to be prancing about as their favorite imaginary character or as something they would like to be when they grow up and at the prospect of sugary or salty snacks once they have completed their celebratory perambulation.

Your child will be more likely to veer off into the Devil's clutches if they are denied things such as Halloween parades if for no other reason than to slap such ultracontrolling parents across the face. It is often the human tendency to conclude that if something is to be banned to the extent with nothing to replace it other than to sit around and mope (and that includes Bible study when everyone else is running the street gathering candy) it must be better than one can possibly imagine.

Concocting the excuse that both Halloween and Christmas must be banned since these celebrations might ignite the religious curiosities and inclinations of impressionable urchins apparently wasn't enough. The bureaucrats controlling the public school system had to reveal additional cards as to just how incompetent and devoid of common sense they really are.

Dr. Fredrick Withum released the following statement to the press as to why assorted holiday activities had to be canceled in the Cumberland Valley District where he is superintendent. He said, “Twenty years ago, nobody would have ever thought that a principal would have to consider, as a part of their training, what they would do in the event of a shooting in their building or in the midst of an aggravated custody issue within their building in which a national amber alert is issued The best way to make schools safer is to continue to help them be joyful places, but we are going to have to find new ways and new procedures to ensure this is the case."

The first part of this statement is invoked in order to paint those that disagree with what is to follow look like like such critics agree with mass murderers, kidnappers, and all around child predators. The opening statement has very little to do with why Halloween or Christmas festivities need to be canceled.

If students are passing through metal detectors and wanded before entering the building, shouldn't that level of vigilance be able to ferret out any potential ne'erdowell attempting to sneak in an actual weapon as part a Halloween costume?

It is not that students are in any increased danger as a result of Christmas or Halloween parades.

The thing is, like many of the parents that seemingly don't have any energy to take care of their offspring but are seemingly energetic enough to engage in the procreative calisthenics necessary to conceive another or to go on the hunt for another mate, most of the teachers backing this shift in policy are most likely just plain lazy and dislike children to such an extent that they simply don't want to be bothered with supervising physically assertive activities such as traditional holiday parties.

Aside from serving as entertaining highlights of a given year, Christmas and Halloween parties also acculturate the youth with the narratives and traditions of the broader society across the span of time.

Thus, another prime motivator is not only bringing an end to Christmas and Halloween but also Western civilization in which these celebrations are practiced and expressed.

This is highlighted in Dr. Withum's statement when he says, “The best way to make schools safer is to continue to help them be joyful places, but we are going to have to find new ways and new procedures to ensure this is the case.”

Throughout his campaigns and early days of his presidency, Barack Obama talked repeatedly about the need to fundamentally transform America.

There is only so much that the federal executive branch can do at that level. And even if sweeping changed are implemented from above they are often characterized as opposed rather than being transformative in nature.

In order to be the most successful, revolutionary transformation must be inflicted upon those possessing the least experience with things being a way any other than the alterations being proposed. Their acceptance is often the result of being exposed to them over the course of an extended amount of time as resistance is eventually worn down.

It is during the earliest years of education that this sweeping social manipulation is most likely to be the most effective. Hence the emphasis upon finding new ways of having joy.

As one concerned grandmother whose grandchildren attend school in the impacted district pointed out, in many instances that the observance of these holidays in the public school setting are being abolished with the excuse that these celebrations take away from instructional time. Of this, she astutely observed, “That's a bunch of baloney. You're going to tell me that 20 minutes out of the whole school year will do that...?”

She is absolutely correct. It is doubtful that these students are being constantly drilled in the sciences and technologies that will be need to take on and defeat the Red Chinese in the looming Lunar War.

But then again, there might not be enough time left over in the school day for Christmas, Halloween, or even Valentines Day. After all, the students of tomorrow are busy learning why they need to submit to Islamic peculiarities such as Ramadan while being led in classroom chants how there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet while they select their Muslim names or how to put a condom on a cucumber while being told that Heather has two mommies.

In their war to take over America, no front is too trivial to the proponents of totalitarianism. Many have come to realize this in the struggle to redesign the nation's health care system.

However, seizing this essential aspect of our lives and sizable percentage of the U.S. Economy will not satisfy for very long. For even now those having embraced this despotic mindset conspire to proscribe for the citizen which rituals and commemorations bringing to mind ultimate concerns may be expressed in those venues now administered in the name of the state.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Post Office Downplays Christmas In Favor Of Ethnosupremacist Celebrations

On a United States Postal Service brochure reminding customers to purchase holiday postage stamps there is a Hanukkah stamp with a menorah, a Kwanzaa stamp with its assorted candles, and what passes as a Christmas stamp with a gingerbread house.

An online photo of the advertisement was captioned that one of these things is not like the other.

The unsuspecting might at first be puzzled.

After all, each of these celebrations seems to have one of its symbols philatelically represented.

Hanukkah and Kwanzaa each are depicted with decorations conveying their spiritual message and meaning.

Christmas, on the other hand, is not extended the same degree of respect.

The menorah and the candles represent the miracle of the oil lasting for eight days rather than one.

The candles surrounding a Black person on the Kwanzaa stamp represent the radical communalism propagated during that particular festival.

And while one cannot help but feel a sense of joy at seeing a decoration like a gingerbread house and that pastry's festive cuteness, the desert does not convey the true meaning of the holiday in the same sense as the other two stamps.

This gingerbread house would be more akin to using a car bomb as a depiction for Ramadan.

To be consistent with the essence of the holidays conveyed on the other two stamps, a rendition of the so-called Christmas star should be depicted in keeping with the theme of light.

Interestingly, should the curious proceed onward to the website where the stamps can be purchased, one does find just such a stamp of the Magi following the yonder Star.

So if one with such a scene is available, why is it not good enough for the mailing?

Multiculturalists and pluralists will contend that any artistic renderings of Jesus as the Son of God are inherently exclusivistic.

But of the three holidays, Christmas is technically the only inclusive one of the entire bunch.

For example, Hanukkah celebrates the triumph of the Jewish people admittedly with the assistance of God over Antiochous Epiphanies with the Greeks representing the primary Gentile power of that day.

Hence, even if not expanionistically hostile, an underlying principle of Hanukkah is that Jews must defend their interests against the outside world.

And as an ethnographic religion for the most part, these walls must always remain up to an extent in suspicion of those from outside the group. Kwanzaa is even more ethnocentrically focused than Kwanzaa.

For whereas Hanukkah is a celebration of what God is believed to have done on behalf those who were of His covenant people at that particular point in world history, Kwanzaa deliberately downplays both reliance upon God and the worth of the individual in the favor of a COMMUNITY based on racial superiority through emphasis upon values such as unity, collective work, and cooperative economics.

Interestingly, the day of faith commemorated by Kwanzaa is not so much faith in a divine power that exists transcendent to man and society but rather in the people as embodied by their mere human leaders.

Ultimately, all that Kwanzaa cares about is Blackness for the sake of Blackness.

With these observations in mind, if there were certain elements within society that flew into vehement outrage at the sight of the paraphernalia of these particular celebrations to such an extent that they demanded that these decorations be kept out of site behind a metaphysical locked counter or in a brown paper bag, does that mean that the government or Congressionally authorized semi-public corporations should comply with such demands?

Galatians 5:15 does indeed teach that the cross is an offense to those preferring to stay mired under the muck of their own sin.

However, in proclaiming the birth of Christ, the angel proclaimed, “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.”

That free gift of salvation is available to any irrespective of background, ethnicity, or status willing to call upon the name of the Lord and be saved.

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Issue Of Personhood Foundational In Bioethical Debates

In numerous bioethical debates approached from a secular perspective, many seemingly noble principles such as autonomy, individual choice, dignity, the common good, and the preservation of limited resources are invoked to justify various positions. However, when these complex issues are approached from a Judeo-Christian perspective, many times the implications and morality of these decisions are altered profoundly.

Perhaps the most fundamental concern raised by a standpoint informed by the principles of the Bible is none other than personhood. Though something we each possess, its value varies drastically depending on the worldview each of us brings to the concept.

For example, to the person living out a consistently evolutionary or materialistic perspective, the idea of personhood is not that important since it is merely an arbitrarily contrived social and intellectual construct with no inherent worth other than what we decide to give it. Thus, it is no major concern if the concept is altered to exclude those at the extreme ends of life’s continuum unable to sustain themselves apart from intensive medical intervention.

However, if one approaches the matter from the Judeo-Christian perspective, the concept of personhood impacts dramatically the techniques and procedures one finds morally justifiable. Since man is made in the image of God, the life and spirit of man (his personhood if you will) is unique in all of creation. As such, it is due a respect placing it just below the reverence due God Himself.

Since the human being holds a special place in the heart of God, it is God Himself that establishes the guidelines regarding how we are permitted to relate to and treat other human beings. In Genesis 9:6, where God establishes His covenant with Noah it says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man”. Later in the Ten Commandments this decree is reiterated in the command “Thou shalt not commit murder”.

From this, it is established that it is morally incorrect to take an innocent human life not having itself taken another human life. Therefore, it is improper to deliberately take a human life that does not threaten yours or has not violated the law.

Since the minds of men dwell continually on evil, a number of wily thinkers attempt to skirt around the issue by redefining personhood to make it distinct from the humanity of these individuals facing the prospects of having these procedures inflicted upon them. However, even these attempts prove inadequate as they endeavor to describe things how some would like them to be rather than how God created them.

For humanity/personhood is something one possesses inherently rather than bestowed upon you as a result of having reached some developmental milestone. The individual remains a distinct biological entity throughout the continuum of existence.

If anything, by limiting personhood to those having reached some arbitrary standard such as viability, quickening, or sentience speaks more to the limitations of medical science than an actual state of ontology. And with advances, these frontiers are being pushed back further all the time.

Things are now to the point where doctors are able to do surgery inside the mother’s womb. A photo of one such procedure where a tiny hand reached out of the mother’s abdomen got Matt Drudge fired from the Fox News Network. It was feared such an image might unsettle or disturb the consciences of viewers regarding the issue of abortion.

Scott Rae in “Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics” concludes his examination of the abortion issue with the following argument advocating for personhood of the unborn: “(1) An adult human being is the end result of the continuous growth of the organism from conception... (2) From conception to adulthood this development has no break that is relevant to the essential nature of the fetus... (3) Therefore, one is a human person from the point of conception onward (142).”

by Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

WMAL Morning Host Losing Touch With Moral Conservatism

WMAL is a station in the Washington Metropolitan Area where listeners can turn for solid conservative opinion throughout the broadcast day.

However, regarding Mornings On The Mall co-host Larry O'Connor, one might be advised to turn a skeptical ear.

On the 11/4/23 edition, he intoned that the only law he believed in in regards to the immigration debate was that of supply and demand.

So does that mean that if there was a market for outright slavery that that particular form of peonage would be acceptable?

O'Connor's response regarding news of the alleged harassment by Miami Dolphin's Ritchie Incognito of teammate Jonathan Martin involving death threats and the expression of a desire to defecate in his victim's mouth was little better in terms of the moral position enunciated.

According to O'Connor, instead of filing a complaint about the matter, a 300 pounder should have settled the issue like a man.

That is, of course, being euphemism to take the matter outside.

As we learned from Kenny Rogers' “Coward Of The County”, sometimes you have to fight when you're a man.

However, Martin's girth is of no relevance, especially when he'd be confronting others of similar size possibly given to homoerotic violence.

Why shouldn't Martin avail himself of the procedures intended for the purposes of preventing the situation from escalating to a point of no return where the individual defending himself might end up facing a litany of legal or criminal charges?

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Schumer and the Hillary Gang

by David Lawrence

Schumer's endorsement of Hlllary is just another excuse for Chuck to push his jowls into the doggie bowl of the limelight.  He actually means--"Vote for Hillary but take a picture of me." If only he were a woman and good looking I’m sure he’d be lining up to compete as a bathing suit model for Sport’s Illustrated.
 
He is as false and egotistical as good-times-are-coming failed Obama. It is a joke that he says, ""Hillary's experience is unrivaled and her vision is unparalleled." 
 
Most of Hillary’s experience was as an Alinksyite, a radical, universal health care enthusiast and a wife who refused to admit that Bill was cheating because it might endanger their political careers.
 
Recently, she played a significant role in the Benghazi screw up. Her comment, “What difference, does it make?” rivals Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake” for callous indifference. 
 
Hillary’s only real credentials are having been married to Bill who ended up a sexual degenerate who failed to accept bin Laden’s transfer as a prisoner from the Sudan and backed Obama’s presidency twice when he was far too intelligent to believe that Obama had the experience or open-mindedness for the job. 
 
Schumer is just a reflection walking into a mirror and patting himself on the back. He applauds himself because—well, who else would?
 
Hillary is Bill dressed in a skirt, an attempted continuation of a liberal dynasty that has already failed and refuses to respect American traditions. She is popular.  That’s usually a symbol of inadequacy where the voting public is ignorant and self-interested.  
 
Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”  Obama said, “I’ll get you food stamps.”  Hillary implies, “I’m my husband.”  And Schumer asks,
“Where are the photographers?”
 
Vote gatherers accuse the Republicans of failing. But it is the Democrats who are ruining the economy, the military, our ethics, our traditions and our Emersonian self-reliance. The Democrat voters have failed us, not the Republicans. 
 
How?  They have failed us by voting for short term pleasure and hand-outs rather than long term governance.
 
I am writing this in New York City, the land of the liberal la-la’s. A few days ago I enjoyed the fruitless exercise of voting for Joe Lhotta.  Of course De Blassio won.  He is the wrong man for the wrong job, a liberal’s antagonistic delight.   
 
When I was flying to Paris in the eighties De Blassio was visiting Moscow.  He honeymooned in Cuba and visited Nicaragua.  He loves fascistic liberalism, a communist government that is strewn with corpses from China to Cambodia.
 
And Hillary?  A not so bright woman who loves power.  And Bill?  A bright man who loves women. 
 
-------------
 

David Lawrence has a Ph.D. in literature.  He has published over 200 blogs, 600 poems, a memoir “The King of White-Collar Boxing,” several books of poems, including “Lane Changes.” Both can be purchased on Amazon.com.  He was a professional boxer and a CEO.  Last year he was listed in New York Magazine as the 41st reason to love New York.

Friday, November 8, 2013

Hillary Advocates Bull In A China Shop Police State While In Buffalo

In a speech in Buffalo, New York, Hillary Clinton let slip a startling degree of insight into her political ideology and philosophy of government.

Responding to a heckler carted off by security, the former Senator and Secretary of State admonished that citizenship does not involve yelling but rather coming together to sit down and talk about the kind of future that we want as a nation.

Hecklers should be removed from such settings and not allowed to disrupt the message those gathered have assembled to hear.

However, the incident raises a number of questions.

Does this prohibition against raucous and uncontrolled vocalization of a disturbing volume also apply to those the former First Lady and presidential-aspirant would consider her allies or simply her opponents?

Back during the Bush Presidency in her role as Senator during debate surrounding the Patriot Act, Hillary Clinton reminded (in a rather loud voice it should be pointed out) reminded dissent was itself the highest form of patriotism.

Even more disturbing was how Hillary categorized the heckler.

Instead of simply calling for the removal of this disruptive nuisance refusing to exercise the First Amendment in an orderly manner, Hillary suggested that this individual typified any that would dare challenge or disagree with her publicly.

Thus, in a Hillary regime, would those in Congress refusing to go along with her and more importantly the citizens daring to speak out against her be similarly manhandled by the federal security establishment?

We do indeed need to talk about the kind of future we want for America.

However, the kind of future advocated by Hillary will simply bring additional ruination upon this once great country.

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Obama’s Deeds are Dust in the Wind

by David Lawrence

Obama was hired to improve job opportunities and the economy.  It is sadly-funny that he would have been elected over Romney who was a financial whiz when Obama was merely a community organizer and an adjunct, untenured professor. Electing Obama is equivalent to choosing a lawyer from ACORN instead of Warren Buffett to head up Berkshire Hathaway. He didn’t have the experience then; he doesn’t have the flexibility of compromise now. 
Just look at the Government shut down.  Democrats want to blame it on Republican Bureaucrats and The Tea Party.  That would be like blaming Russia’s previous poverty and the Cold War on clerks in Siberia rather than Stalin.
Since Obama’s being elected twice, our financial institutions have been downgraded, real unemployment is peaking  and his latest job demoralizer—ObamaCare—is causing the loss of full-time jobs and healthcare at places like UVA, Walgreens, Trader Joe’s, Wegmans, UPS etc.
The thing that amazes me is how anybody with a conscience could defend Obamacare’s administration which has raised the debt from ten trillion dollars to seventeen trillion dollars. Obamacare is about to throw us into another couple of trillion dollars in debt.  If Obama were the CEO of a company he would have been fired a long time ago.  If he made speeches defending his business performance, the Board of Directors would have thrown up in paper cups.
Obama once called Bush immoral for increasing the debt from five trillion to ten trillion dollars. Yet he has done worse yet still considers himself the great hope of the middle class. The middle class is earning less during his administration and he is choking them.  His own race, African-Americans, are doing the worst of all.  Yet he flatters his victims and pretends that he is a savior rather than a deterrent.
Are people so race conscious that Obama gets a pass from all his financial devastation just because he is black?  The whites have found a subterranean racist way to undercut Martin Luther King, Jr. who wanted his children not to be “judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Instead liberals elect a person because of the color of his skin. Reverse prejudice is prejudice nevertheless.
I am sickened when talking heads like Bob Beckel and Krirsten Powers go on the O’Reilly Show and defend Obama’s fiscal malfeasance.  It is unconscionable and immoral. O’Reilly should know better than to argue with ridiculous, slanted positions.  It’s a waste of time. Having these Democrat ideologues on his show does not create a fair dialogue but makes the show into a joke. A masochistic joke.  Not so funny.  Ridiculous. 
Obama will never admit that he is wrong and correct his mistakes.  Our children will be paying for Obama’s giant ego for years. Liberals and Democrats have themselves to blame. They wave flags of empathy like they care about everybody yet they inadvertently prepare the way for the sad failure of their children. They are haters masked as charitable, loving people. Their leader, Obama, is a good speaker when aided by a teleprompter.  His deeds are dust in the wind. Unfortunately, the dust makes us blink.
 

David Lawrence has a Ph.D. in literature.  He has published over 200 blogs, 600 poems, a memoir “The King of White-Collar Boxing,” several books of poems, including “Lane Changes.” Both can be purchased on Amazon.com.  He was a professional boxer and a CEO.  Last year he was listed in New York Magazine as the 41st reason to love New York.