Although lengthy it explains very well and simply with a good summation with out going over the top
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/principle-of-abrogation-in-quran.html#more
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Principle of Abrogation in the Quran
Michael Mannheimer returns with another guest-essay. The original German version was published on March 23, 2010 at Politically Incorrect.
Translation: Anders Denken and Tim Biagiotti
The trick behind the apparent inconsistency of the Quran and why the radical Muslims are always correct
Like no other holy book among the world religions, the Quran contains an abundance of contradictory expressions. What is forbidden in one place is expressly demanded in another, and vice versa. However, the contradictory quality of the Quran is only an apparent one. It falls apart abruptly when one recognizes the very carefully protected secret hidden within the architecture of the Quran. For the Quranic Suras (chapters) are not arranged chronologically, but rather according to their length — and the newer Suras (from Muhammad’s violent later phase when he was in Medina) override the older ones from his era in Mecca that were comparatively more peaceful. However, this secret is guarded by Islamic scholars very closely as if it were a holy grail — and is aired only on particular occasions.
Contents
Part 1: Introductory Thoughts
Part 2: Notes Regarding the Inconsistencies of the Quran
Part 3: The Solution to the Quran’s Inconsistencies
Part 4: Summation
1. Introductory Thoughts
The plainly crucial question: Is Islam peaceful or dangerous?
In spite of the fact that almost all international terror acts of the last decade have been carried out by Muslims, Islamic scholars insist that Islam is a “religion of peace.” As the underpinning for their thesis, they cite Quran verses such as like Sura 5 verse 32, according to which the one who “kills a person,” shall be “like one who has murdered the whole of mankind.”1
Critics of Islam confront Muslims about this with Suras that demand the opposite: namely the murder of infidels. Thus in Sura 47 verse 4, it says: “And if you meet the infidels, then off with their head until you have spread a massacre among them.”
Almost every media report about Islam and nearly all talk shows with and about Muslims and their faith revolve around the central question of whether Islam is a religion of peace or of terror. And most of the reports and talk shows consistently finish the same way: the mostly uninformed viewer is exactly as knowledgeable as before. For the defenders of Islam cite ostensibly peaceful Quran verses while their critics point to the countless terrorist acts of violence that are carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam. Like with communism once upon a time, nowadays the Muslim advocates also answer with the remark that those violent acts have nothing to do with Islam. And like the communists back then, most Muslims today also regularly suppress the reports of the thousands of atrocities and human rights offenses — committed in the countries of Islam and the countries of “infidels” — in their debates and in contrast point to the alleged guilt of the West, to its colonization and capitalism as the real cause for that terror. As communists did in their time, Muslims and their Western apologists assert today that the worldwide terror acts result from the “understandable” and desperate condition of the poorest in the face of the dominance and humiliation from the West, and in reality have nothing to do with Islam.
However, the facts speak a totally different language. In the Index of Christian Persecution by Open Doors that lists the 50 worst countries for persecution of Christians, 40 places are occupied by Islamic states — in the highest position. And in the Anticorruption Index of the UN, Islamic states consistently show as the most corrupt power structures on our planet. And the majority of applicants for asylum in Western lands originate from Islamic countries in which almost all human rights are systematically denied (in Holland for example, some nine out of ten applicants are from Islamic countries).
Since the first days of their religion, Muslims have shown themselves incapable of searching out possible causes for their disaster. Islam’s complete incapability of exercising self-criticism and self-examination on one side, and the pathological, all-encompassing self-loathing of the West on the other, form fruitful ideological humus, and on this fertile ground Islam is currently spreading with a historically unmatched speed in the countries of the West, and has additionally become greatest danger in history to the cultural and ideological survival of Western culture.
Islam is neither anticapitalist nor anticolonialist, nor does it aim for the equality of all people.
For Islam deals neither with the abolition of capitalism nor with the abolition of colonialism, and especially does not concern itself with the abolition of human and individual equality. Islam is, and has always been, capitalistically structured: from the very beginning it has supported itself less by production and more by trade. With its international trade practices, Muslim marketers have acquired much influence and affluence by the most inexpensive purchase possible of undesired products and then the subsequent sale of those products in other places for maximum profit. According to Marxist terminology, such trade, which appropriates the surplus value of the poor but value-determining proletariat (for the earlier era of Islam, they were day-workers and poor plantation workers) without letting them participate in the profit, is termed “capitalism” as defined by Marx and Lenin.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Modern Leftism and Magical Thinking
The Tyranny of Emotional Infantilism Imperils America
Modern Leftism and Magical Thinking
By Kelly O'Connell Sunday, May 2, 2010
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22701
In midst of one of the most amazing displays of irrationality in modern Western history, Americans are left to ponder: What the devil has happened to the USA? Arguably, roots of America’s current confusion are traceable to an infection of leftist Magical Thinking.
This is essentially the thought pattern of how children perceive the world, a mindset based upon substituting wishful thinking for reality. One of the chief characteristics of Magical Thinking is a denial of the principles of science. It is a dangerous belief system because it causes folks to assume that as long as their motives are right, all their plans and undertakings will work out.
The unrealistic thought pattern of Magical Thinking now informs American public policy and statecraft at every level—on economics, foreign relations, rule of law, environmentalism, etc. It is a world-view based upon the notion the “right” people will provide successful leadership for America, simply because they are “good,” and not the old “bad” leaders. Most intriguingly, this outlook is characteristic of not just children, but also sufferers of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which Dr. Ali Sinan believe is a diagnosis fitting Barack Obama.1
I What Is Magical Thinking?
Magical Thinking deludes folks into believing the world is exactly as they hope it to be. Dictionary.com defines magical thinking as…“a conviction that thinking is equivalent to doing, occurring in dreams, the thought patterns of children, and some types of mental disorders, esp. obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Leonard Zusne and Warren H. Jones, authors of “Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking” write Magical Thinking is “a fundamental dimension of a child’s thinking.”2
Perception of linear time is avoided while cause and affect and natural laws are dismissed. In this mental disorder, focus is placed upon how things “should” be, while all personal responsibility is cast aside. The self and one’s comrades are identified as above criticism. Opponents are made devils, their ideas treated as laughable, and are personally attacked as idiotic, mentally unwell people beneath contempt, simply for disagreeing with magical thinkers.
Modern Leftism and Magical Thinking
By Kelly O'Connell Sunday, May 2, 2010
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22701
In midst of one of the most amazing displays of irrationality in modern Western history, Americans are left to ponder: What the devil has happened to the USA? Arguably, roots of America’s current confusion are traceable to an infection of leftist Magical Thinking.
This is essentially the thought pattern of how children perceive the world, a mindset based upon substituting wishful thinking for reality. One of the chief characteristics of Magical Thinking is a denial of the principles of science. It is a dangerous belief system because it causes folks to assume that as long as their motives are right, all their plans and undertakings will work out.
The unrealistic thought pattern of Magical Thinking now informs American public policy and statecraft at every level—on economics, foreign relations, rule of law, environmentalism, etc. It is a world-view based upon the notion the “right” people will provide successful leadership for America, simply because they are “good,” and not the old “bad” leaders. Most intriguingly, this outlook is characteristic of not just children, but also sufferers of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which Dr. Ali Sinan believe is a diagnosis fitting Barack Obama.1
I What Is Magical Thinking?
Magical Thinking deludes folks into believing the world is exactly as they hope it to be. Dictionary.com defines magical thinking as…“a conviction that thinking is equivalent to doing, occurring in dreams, the thought patterns of children, and some types of mental disorders, esp. obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Leonard Zusne and Warren H. Jones, authors of “Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking” write Magical Thinking is “a fundamental dimension of a child’s thinking.”2
Perception of linear time is avoided while cause and affect and natural laws are dismissed. In this mental disorder, focus is placed upon how things “should” be, while all personal responsibility is cast aside. The self and one’s comrades are identified as above criticism. Opponents are made devils, their ideas treated as laughable, and are personally attacked as idiotic, mentally unwell people beneath contempt, simply for disagreeing with magical thinkers.
"Murder is an extroverted suicide"
From comments in "Gates of Vienna" and some expressions and thinking I found interesting.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/making-rule-of-law-inoperative.html
sulber nick said... 2 Efforts to nullify the rule of law go hand in hand with the assault on freedom of speech. Both are consequences of the European liberal/left establishment way of thinking and way of doing things. The article 'Making the rule of law inoperative' deals with Austria in particular but the same pattern of behaviour is repeating itself throughout the 'White world'.
The question is why is it happening? Why is the liberal/left establishment abandoning what it still insists are its dearest principles – the rule of law and freedom of speech are fundamental to its beloved equality, aren’t they?
Some argue that the liberal/left is motivated by a deep seated hatred of Western culture and that its every action is designed to bring about the demise of that culture. I'm not so sure. No doubt a minority is so motivated, but I suspect that for the majority self interest is the primary motivating factor.
The equality idea was merely a technique that the liberal/left employed in its quest for power. It’s the power that’s important, not the equality. And the protective attitude that the establishment adopts in relation to Islam and Muslims is less about protecting Muslims than it is about protecting the system that the establishment inhabits. The liberal/left is terrified of the train of thought that leads from the impact of Islam on our living space to the logic of mass immigration and the multicultural/multiracial society.
Thus criticism of Islam and Muslim behaviour is made illegal in order to head off criticism of multiculturalism.
Thank goodness for Muslims! Their behaviour makes so much noise it’s impossible not to notice – even if it’s illegal to notice it.
11/25/2010 4:55 AM
EscapeVelocity said... 3 Bingo! Sulber Nick!
You said...
"The equality idea was merely a technique that the liberal/left employed in its quest for power. It’s the power that’s important, not the equality. And the protective attitude that the establishment adopts in relation to Islam and Muslims is less about protecting Muslims than it is about protecting the system that the establishment inhabits. The liberal/left is terrified of the train of thought that leads from the impact of Islam on our living space to the logic of mass immigration and the multicultural/multiracial society.
Thus criticism of Islam and Muslim behaviour is made illegal in order to head off criticism of multiculturalism."
They have no choice but to defend Islam and Muslims...the alternative is their entire house of PC, Multicultural, Diversity, Moral and Cultural Relativism, cards collapsing...which underpins the Leftist zeitgeist and political power structure.
11/25/2010 11:05 AM
Juniper in the Desert said... 4 Excellent post!Well said Sulber Nick!These lefty useful idiots are not too good on history though: their ilk were totally crushed after they helped Ayatollah Khomeini gain control of Iran! Heh!
11/25/2010 11:27 AM
goethechosemercy said... 5 Quote:
They have no choice but to defend Islam and Muslims...the alternative is their entire house of PC, Multicultural, Diversity, Moral and Cultural Relativism, cards collapsing...which underpins the Leftist zeitgeist and political power structure.
end quote.
The good news is that they're defending a wall of sand with water.
All of these things have no authority any more. They ring completely hollow in light of the truth-- that cultures are diverse, and that they can be in conflict.
These conflicts have profound political, legal and social ramifications.
It is the conflicts that must be confronted, defined and dealt with such that Western Civilization may survive.
11/25/2010 1:01 PM
Zenster said... 6 sulber nick: Thus criticism of Islam and Muslim behaviour is made illegal in order to head off criticism of multiculturalism.
A febrile attempt to preserve ideological capital cannot fully explain Liberalism's depravity. Liberals continue clinging to their sinking Multiculturalist ship despite the fact that it will suck them down like a pony keg at a frat house party.
Considering the relatively high education level that many of these "progressive" types have, their glaring inability to appreciate history becomes rather striking. The "do you want fries with that" syndrome of Liberal Arts degrees probably plays some part in the persistent allergy to logic exhibited by those on the Left.
Unsullied by the ravages of rationality, there emerges a concomitant self-declared immunity to the Law of Unintended Consequences™. Of course, no such thing exists and Liberals are hoist by their own petard with such dazzling repetition that precision chronometers can be set by this now predictable cycle.
This immunity to consequences can only be explained by one thing; Magical Thinking.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22701
Anyone who has not yet read the linked article is urged to do so as it explains much of the foregoing lunacy.
Here is a ten point bullet list of Modern Leftism's key neuroses: (from the article)
1.Childish;
2.Wishfully-thinking;
3.Anti-scientific;
4.Sentimental;
5.Neo-Pagan;
6.Narcissistic;
7.Anti-Christian & uses karmic ethics;
8.Antinomian (lawless);
9.Emotivist (feeling oriented);
10.Nihilistic (extreme doubt of a rational world).
Folded into the foregoing laundry list of modern psychological afflictions is the self-loathing of KGB inculcated Cultural Marxism. While analyzing the homicidal rampages of Aurther Dinsdale, a criminologist (played by Monty Python's Graham Chapman) notes how; "a murderer is only an extroverted suicide".
Modern Liberals have similarly extroverted their self-loathing and decided that what's best for the entire Western Judeo-Christian civilized world is to expunge itself in an orgy of apologetic demographic suicide-by-Islam.
Rest assured that these selfsame Liberal wankers, brimful with delusions of bigoted adequacy, see themselve as poised in the wings and − with The System™ about to be well and truly crashed − merely waiting their cue to rush onstage and seize the reins of power from their grateful but hopelessly disorganized Muslim cohort.
That Islam has an entirely different and rather violent end in mind for these supremely useful idiots has never for a moment disturbed their dystopian reverie.
Again, anxious conservation of Liberalism's Multicultural capital cannot explain in full the magnitude of this ongoing treachery. It's a damn good start but there are less obvious subtexts − as submerged as any iceberg − that drive this insanity with an intertia that is proving exceptionally difficult to overcome.
11/25/2010 2:38 PM
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/making-rule-of-law-inoperative.html
sulber nick said... 2 Efforts to nullify the rule of law go hand in hand with the assault on freedom of speech. Both are consequences of the European liberal/left establishment way of thinking and way of doing things. The article 'Making the rule of law inoperative' deals with Austria in particular but the same pattern of behaviour is repeating itself throughout the 'White world'.
The question is why is it happening? Why is the liberal/left establishment abandoning what it still insists are its dearest principles – the rule of law and freedom of speech are fundamental to its beloved equality, aren’t they?
Some argue that the liberal/left is motivated by a deep seated hatred of Western culture and that its every action is designed to bring about the demise of that culture. I'm not so sure. No doubt a minority is so motivated, but I suspect that for the majority self interest is the primary motivating factor.
The equality idea was merely a technique that the liberal/left employed in its quest for power. It’s the power that’s important, not the equality. And the protective attitude that the establishment adopts in relation to Islam and Muslims is less about protecting Muslims than it is about protecting the system that the establishment inhabits. The liberal/left is terrified of the train of thought that leads from the impact of Islam on our living space to the logic of mass immigration and the multicultural/multiracial society.
Thus criticism of Islam and Muslim behaviour is made illegal in order to head off criticism of multiculturalism.
Thank goodness for Muslims! Their behaviour makes so much noise it’s impossible not to notice – even if it’s illegal to notice it.
11/25/2010 4:55 AM
EscapeVelocity said... 3 Bingo! Sulber Nick!
You said...
"The equality idea was merely a technique that the liberal/left employed in its quest for power. It’s the power that’s important, not the equality. And the protective attitude that the establishment adopts in relation to Islam and Muslims is less about protecting Muslims than it is about protecting the system that the establishment inhabits. The liberal/left is terrified of the train of thought that leads from the impact of Islam on our living space to the logic of mass immigration and the multicultural/multiracial society.
Thus criticism of Islam and Muslim behaviour is made illegal in order to head off criticism of multiculturalism."
They have no choice but to defend Islam and Muslims...the alternative is their entire house of PC, Multicultural, Diversity, Moral and Cultural Relativism, cards collapsing...which underpins the Leftist zeitgeist and political power structure.
11/25/2010 11:05 AM
Juniper in the Desert said... 4 Excellent post!Well said Sulber Nick!These lefty useful idiots are not too good on history though: their ilk were totally crushed after they helped Ayatollah Khomeini gain control of Iran! Heh!
11/25/2010 11:27 AM
goethechosemercy said... 5 Quote:
They have no choice but to defend Islam and Muslims...the alternative is their entire house of PC, Multicultural, Diversity, Moral and Cultural Relativism, cards collapsing...which underpins the Leftist zeitgeist and political power structure.
end quote.
The good news is that they're defending a wall of sand with water.
All of these things have no authority any more. They ring completely hollow in light of the truth-- that cultures are diverse, and that they can be in conflict.
These conflicts have profound political, legal and social ramifications.
It is the conflicts that must be confronted, defined and dealt with such that Western Civilization may survive.
11/25/2010 1:01 PM
Zenster said... 6 sulber nick: Thus criticism of Islam and Muslim behaviour is made illegal in order to head off criticism of multiculturalism.
A febrile attempt to preserve ideological capital cannot fully explain Liberalism's depravity. Liberals continue clinging to their sinking Multiculturalist ship despite the fact that it will suck them down like a pony keg at a frat house party.
Considering the relatively high education level that many of these "progressive" types have, their glaring inability to appreciate history becomes rather striking. The "do you want fries with that" syndrome of Liberal Arts degrees probably plays some part in the persistent allergy to logic exhibited by those on the Left.
Unsullied by the ravages of rationality, there emerges a concomitant self-declared immunity to the Law of Unintended Consequences™. Of course, no such thing exists and Liberals are hoist by their own petard with such dazzling repetition that precision chronometers can be set by this now predictable cycle.
This immunity to consequences can only be explained by one thing; Magical Thinking.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22701
Anyone who has not yet read the linked article is urged to do so as it explains much of the foregoing lunacy.
Here is a ten point bullet list of Modern Leftism's key neuroses: (from the article)
1.Childish;
2.Wishfully-thinking;
3.Anti-scientific;
4.Sentimental;
5.Neo-Pagan;
6.Narcissistic;
7.Anti-Christian & uses karmic ethics;
8.Antinomian (lawless);
9.Emotivist (feeling oriented);
10.Nihilistic (extreme doubt of a rational world).
Folded into the foregoing laundry list of modern psychological afflictions is the self-loathing of KGB inculcated Cultural Marxism. While analyzing the homicidal rampages of Aurther Dinsdale, a criminologist (played by Monty Python's Graham Chapman) notes how; "a murderer is only an extroverted suicide".
Modern Liberals have similarly extroverted their self-loathing and decided that what's best for the entire Western Judeo-Christian civilized world is to expunge itself in an orgy of apologetic demographic suicide-by-Islam.
Rest assured that these selfsame Liberal wankers, brimful with delusions of bigoted adequacy, see themselve as poised in the wings and − with The System™ about to be well and truly crashed − merely waiting their cue to rush onstage and seize the reins of power from their grateful but hopelessly disorganized Muslim cohort.
That Islam has an entirely different and rather violent end in mind for these supremely useful idiots has never for a moment disturbed their dystopian reverie.
Again, anxious conservation of Liberalism's Multicultural capital cannot explain in full the magnitude of this ongoing treachery. It's a damn good start but there are less obvious subtexts − as submerged as any iceberg − that drive this insanity with an intertia that is proving exceptionally difficult to overcome.
11/25/2010 2:38 PM
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Your work and money for the community
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/11/the_lefts_view_of_earning.html#comments
The left’s view of earning A commenter on Red Alert on Monday commented:
Colonial Viper responded:
I hope that is clear to everyone. Your money, is not your money. You don’t work 40+ hours a week in a job to earn money for yourself and your family – you do it for your country.
James (1,068) Says:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Well why do you put yourself amongst that group if you have a problem with it?
Your logic is flawless.
Danyl….for awhile now its been obvious that you are an appeaser of what is objectively evil and destructive.You are akin to a priest of the Catholic church who doesn’t molest kids himself but stands a little way away with pursed lips saying nothing when others do it.Shame on you….
Colonial Viper’s post is dripping with the poison of altruism…the anti human, collectivist dogma of self sacifice and slavery….and the rest of us are moral licensed to avoid, and if nessessary destroy such a person if they act against us….our rights to life and liberty and just our basic humanity allows us no other choice if we are to live and prosper as human beings in the fullest sense.
bhudson (737) Says:
And that points to the nub of it really. Viper, and like minded, don’t actually preach that the fruits of labour belong to all. They preach that the fruits of the labour of the designated poor, belong to each of those poor, but that the fruits of the labour of those who are not designated as poor belong to society to distribute to the poor. By any objective definition, that is hypocrisy.
The left’s view of earning A commenter on Red Alert on Monday commented:
As for John Key in the state house; no, his getting out doesn’t prove that everyone can do it. It does prove that it’s possible, not impossible as socialists argue, to do it without the government giving you a hand out. No, not everyone can do it, some people are stupid, uneducated and lazy, and (again) that’s life. Why should I give my hard earned money to those people? They don’t deserve it, they didn’t earn it. Left wingers are very generous with other people’s money, and if statistics on who donates the most to charity, lefties or righties, are anything to go by…not very generous with their own.
Colonial Viper responded:
Its not your money. When you go to work and earn an income don’t make the mistake of thinking that you are doing that for yourself either, you are doing it on behalf of your communities and your country.
I hope that is clear to everyone. Your money, is not your money. You don’t work 40+ hours a week in a job to earn money for yourself and your family – you do it for your country.
James (1,068) Says:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Well why do you put yourself amongst that group if you have a problem with it?
Your logic is flawless.
Danyl….for awhile now its been obvious that you are an appeaser of what is objectively evil and destructive.You are akin to a priest of the Catholic church who doesn’t molest kids himself but stands a little way away with pursed lips saying nothing when others do it.Shame on you….
Colonial Viper’s post is dripping with the poison of altruism…the anti human, collectivist dogma of self sacifice and slavery….and the rest of us are moral licensed to avoid, and if nessessary destroy such a person if they act against us….our rights to life and liberty and just our basic humanity allows us no other choice if we are to live and prosper as human beings in the fullest sense.
bhudson (737) Says:
November 24th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
but denying people have a claim on the fruits of their particular labour and exploitation of opportunity is as sane as believing a dog can be a Vegan and is as stupid for much the same reason people hold such foolish ideas.
And that points to the nub of it really. Viper, and like minded, don’t actually preach that the fruits of labour belong to all. They preach that the fruits of the labour of the designated poor, belong to each of those poor, but that the fruits of the labour of those who are not designated as poor belong to society to distribute to the poor. By any objective definition, that is hypocrisy.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
New ways and thought to Protest
Blog Stop Shouting
A good long read and also with comments.
http://stopshouting.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-rebuttal-to-progressive-who.html
Saturday, November 20, 2010
My Rebuttal to a Progressive who Admonished Me to Play Nice ....
The following rebuttal is mine alone. I do not speak for my husband, for my friends, for my children, but solely for myself.
I am tired of being told to sit down and shut up.
I am tired of being told what I can and can not say.
What is “acceptable”, while my ideas and values are mocked and trampled.
Enough. I have had enough.
I remained stoic when your acolytes spit on my car and called my husband a “baby killer” when I crossed through your phalanx at Walter Reed to take my children for medical care. I refused to respond as you smashed your fists into the hood of my car, destroyed my mirrors with bottles and keyed my doors in California, my children mute and terrified as you screamed your hate and bile.
I remained calm the day after 9/11 when the progressives in my office, in typical overwrought hyperbole of your side, were shrieking about “TANKS IN THE STREETS”, when in fact it was nothing more than two National Guardsman, fresh-face boys of about 19, stationed at an intersection, armed with whistles and a Humvee, deployed as extra eyes and ears two blocks from the White House.
A good long read and also with comments.
http://stopshouting.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-rebuttal-to-progressive-who.html
Saturday, November 20, 2010
My Rebuttal to a Progressive who Admonished Me to Play Nice ....
The following rebuttal is mine alone. I do not speak for my husband, for my friends, for my children, but solely for myself.
I am tired of being told to sit down and shut up.
I am tired of being told what I can and can not say.
What is “acceptable”, while my ideas and values are mocked and trampled.
Enough. I have had enough.
I remained stoic when your acolytes spit on my car and called my husband a “baby killer” when I crossed through your phalanx at Walter Reed to take my children for medical care. I refused to respond as you smashed your fists into the hood of my car, destroyed my mirrors with bottles and keyed my doors in California, my children mute and terrified as you screamed your hate and bile.
I remained calm the day after 9/11 when the progressives in my office, in typical overwrought hyperbole of your side, were shrieking about “TANKS IN THE STREETS”, when in fact it was nothing more than two National Guardsman, fresh-face boys of about 19, stationed at an intersection, armed with whistles and a Humvee, deployed as extra eyes and ears two blocks from the White House.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Hundreds of Years of Worthy Knowledge and Warnings
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/green-danger.html#more
The Green Danger
Martin Bosma is a Dutch member of parliament for the PVV (Party for Freedom), and a close associate of Geert Wilders. Back in September, immediately prior to the start of Mr. Wilders’ trial, we reported that Mr. Bosma had just released a new book about Islam and the Left.
Below is an excerpt from De schijn-élite van de valse munters (“The Pseudo-Elite of the Counterfeiters”, Amsterdam, Bert Bakker 2010), taken from chapter 12, pp. 178-181. Many thanks to our Flemish correspondent VH for sending this translation:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the elite, Islam is a religion, and therefore we must have respect for it. All excesses are whitewashed by referring to religions that also had their little problems. But religion is at best a small part of the ideology. Islam aims primarily at worldly goals, such as the introduction of Sharia law and world domination through perpetual war. According the southern-Dutch [Flemish] Islam expert Dr. Urbain Vermeulen, Islam is only ten percent a religion. “The problem lies with the remaining 90 percent, Islamic law. As the proportion of Muslims in the population increases, they will increasingly seek to build their own legislation in addition to our own laws.” He finds himself pessimistic about the willingness of Muslims to adapt to European societies.[30]
Then, what is Islam? When I studied in Paris, I found a book (notably in the library of the ‘Institute du Monde Arabe’) by Islamologist G.H. Bousquet. He describes Islam in “Le droit Musulman” as a dual totalitarian system, which not only strives for world domination, but also to control the lives of its followers down to the smallest detail.[31]
Our own Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, the first Dutch expert on Islam and a professor at Leiden, came to the conclusion one hundred years ago that Islam has very far-reaching, essentially political, ambitions. “The control of the religious, social and political life of man in all aspects, the life of its followers without reservation and controlling the lives of ‘tolerated religions’ so that they will not form a threat to Islam.”[32]
Is criticism of Islam based on new insights that recently have come to us? Are they the chimaera’s of populists looking for volatile electoral begat? Not quite. Hugo de Groot [Hugo Grotius], Dutch most renowned jurist, forerunner of the Enlightenment, founder of international human law and fighter against the intolerant state-religion, already knew it in 1622, one year after his famous escape in a bookcase. He then writes the poem “The refutation of the Mohammedist” containing the lines:
Church reformer Martin Luther said “Islam causes chaos in three areas of life: religion, political life and that of marriage and family.”[34] Erasmus appointed an entire book on Islam: ‘The war of Turks’. He says: “It is one ongoing story of wealth acquired by cruelty, increased by robbery. Of pernicious marriage issues, wicked fratricide, deposition of fathers and sons: of flagrant disloyalty and inhuman cruelty. Not to mention their morals and beliefs.”[35] The philosopher Baruch Spinoza said: “I would not believe there is even one church more suited for cheating the people and controlling the minds of people, except the Mohammedan church, which exceeds this.”[36]
Voltaire wrote the play ‘Le Fanaticism ou Mahomet le Prophete’ [Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet], as he himself says, ‘written to oppose the founder of a false and barbarous sect.”[37] Montesquieu wrote in his famous ‘Esprit des Lois’ [The spirit of the Laws]: “It is highly unhappy for human beings when the faith is imposed by a conqueror. Islam, which talks of nothing else but the sword, still enforces upon people the same destructive spirit in which it was founded.”[38]
The philosopher Hegel compares the terror after the French Revolution, with the fanaticism and the bloody rise of Islam: “ ‘Religion and terror’ was the principle here as with Robespierre it was ‘Freedom and terror’”[39]. Alexis de Tocqueville, author of ‘Democracy in America’, wrote in 1843 in a letter to his friend Gobineau: “I have carefully studied the Koran. I ended the study with the conviction that there are few religions in the world as deadly as that of Muhammad.”[40] Arthur Schopenhauer calls Islam “the worst of all religions”.[41] Gustave Flaubert wrote: “The arrogance of defending Islam (while Islam itself is something monstrous) makes me outraged. I demand on behalf of humanity that the Black Stone be shattered, the debris scattered in the wind, that Mecca be destroyed and the tomb of Mohammed be ravished. That is the way to discourage fanaticism.”[42]
Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and the author of the Declaration of Independence, understands why American ships were repeatedly being attacked by Muslim pirates, namely because of the belief in the law of the prophet, as embodied in the Koran, and the obligation arising from this, namely “that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”[43]
Many see the similarities between Islam and other totalitarian ideologies, For instance Bertrand Russell, the English philosopher. He says, “Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world. Their founders would not have resisted the third of the temptations in the wilderness. What Mohammedanism did for the Arabs, Bolshevism may do for the Russians”. [44]
Nobel laureate Elias Canetti devoted to “People and Power” a chapter on “Islam as a religion of war.” “The religious war is a sacred duty. […]” Mohammed, “says one of the best scholars of Islam, the prophet of the battle and the war. What he initially did in his Arab environment that shows he is a testament to the future of his congregation: fighting infidels, rather than expansion of the faith, of his power as sphere, that of Allah.”[45]
Winston Churchill called Mein Kampf, “the new Koran full of faith and war.”[46] In “The River War”, he pulls no punches:
continued with comments after notes
The Green Danger
Martin Bosma is a Dutch member of parliament for the PVV (Party for Freedom), and a close associate of Geert Wilders. Back in September, immediately prior to the start of Mr. Wilders’ trial, we reported that Mr. Bosma had just released a new book about Islam and the Left.
Below is an excerpt from De schijn-élite van de valse munters (“The Pseudo-Elite of the Counterfeiters”, Amsterdam, Bert Bakker 2010), taken from chapter 12, pp. 178-181. Many thanks to our Flemish correspondent VH for sending this translation:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the elite, Islam is a religion, and therefore we must have respect for it. All excesses are whitewashed by referring to religions that also had their little problems. But religion is at best a small part of the ideology. Islam aims primarily at worldly goals, such as the introduction of Sharia law and world domination through perpetual war. According the southern-Dutch [Flemish] Islam expert Dr. Urbain Vermeulen, Islam is only ten percent a religion. “The problem lies with the remaining 90 percent, Islamic law. As the proportion of Muslims in the population increases, they will increasingly seek to build their own legislation in addition to our own laws.” He finds himself pessimistic about the willingness of Muslims to adapt to European societies.[30]
Then, what is Islam? When I studied in Paris, I found a book (notably in the library of the ‘Institute du Monde Arabe’) by Islamologist G.H. Bousquet. He describes Islam in “Le droit Musulman” as a dual totalitarian system, which not only strives for world domination, but also to control the lives of its followers down to the smallest detail.[31]
Our own Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, the first Dutch expert on Islam and a professor at Leiden, came to the conclusion one hundred years ago that Islam has very far-reaching, essentially political, ambitions. “The control of the religious, social and political life of man in all aspects, the life of its followers without reservation and controlling the lives of ‘tolerated religions’ so that they will not form a threat to Islam.”[32]
Is criticism of Islam based on new insights that recently have come to us? Are they the chimaera’s of populists looking for volatile electoral begat? Not quite. Hugo de Groot [Hugo Grotius], Dutch most renowned jurist, forerunner of the Enlightenment, founder of international human law and fighter against the intolerant state-religion, already knew it in 1622, one year after his famous escape in a bookcase. He then writes the poem “The refutation of the Mohammedist” containing the lines:
The Quranic law, not in the least humble, nor long suffering, but inclined to vengeance and bloodthirstiness, renders the work of her outer appearance weird, as it was constituted for the petrifaction of the state, and takes the books out of the average man’s hand, yes, forbids him with corporal punishment to examine those.[33]
Church reformer Martin Luther said “Islam causes chaos in three areas of life: religion, political life and that of marriage and family.”[34] Erasmus appointed an entire book on Islam: ‘The war of Turks’. He says: “It is one ongoing story of wealth acquired by cruelty, increased by robbery. Of pernicious marriage issues, wicked fratricide, deposition of fathers and sons: of flagrant disloyalty and inhuman cruelty. Not to mention their morals and beliefs.”[35] The philosopher Baruch Spinoza said: “I would not believe there is even one church more suited for cheating the people and controlling the minds of people, except the Mohammedan church, which exceeds this.”[36]
Voltaire wrote the play ‘Le Fanaticism ou Mahomet le Prophete’ [Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet], as he himself says, ‘written to oppose the founder of a false and barbarous sect.”[37] Montesquieu wrote in his famous ‘Esprit des Lois’ [The spirit of the Laws]: “It is highly unhappy for human beings when the faith is imposed by a conqueror. Islam, which talks of nothing else but the sword, still enforces upon people the same destructive spirit in which it was founded.”[38]
The philosopher Hegel compares the terror after the French Revolution, with the fanaticism and the bloody rise of Islam: “ ‘Religion and terror’ was the principle here as with Robespierre it was ‘Freedom and terror’”[39]. Alexis de Tocqueville, author of ‘Democracy in America’, wrote in 1843 in a letter to his friend Gobineau: “I have carefully studied the Koran. I ended the study with the conviction that there are few religions in the world as deadly as that of Muhammad.”[40] Arthur Schopenhauer calls Islam “the worst of all religions”.[41] Gustave Flaubert wrote: “The arrogance of defending Islam (while Islam itself is something monstrous) makes me outraged. I demand on behalf of humanity that the Black Stone be shattered, the debris scattered in the wind, that Mecca be destroyed and the tomb of Mohammed be ravished. That is the way to discourage fanaticism.”[42]
Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and the author of the Declaration of Independence, understands why American ships were repeatedly being attacked by Muslim pirates, namely because of the belief in the law of the prophet, as embodied in the Koran, and the obligation arising from this, namely “that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”[43]
Many see the similarities between Islam and other totalitarian ideologies, For instance Bertrand Russell, the English philosopher. He says, “Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world. Their founders would not have resisted the third of the temptations in the wilderness. What Mohammedanism did for the Arabs, Bolshevism may do for the Russians”. [44]
Nobel laureate Elias Canetti devoted to “People and Power” a chapter on “Islam as a religion of war.” “The religious war is a sacred duty. […]” Mohammed, “says one of the best scholars of Islam, the prophet of the battle and the war. What he initially did in his Arab environment that shows he is a testament to the future of his congregation: fighting infidels, rather than expansion of the faith, of his power as sphere, that of Allah.”[45]
Winston Churchill called Mein Kampf, “the new Koran full of faith and war.”[46] In “The River War”, he pulls no punches:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. … Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of thAll these people saw what in the West only a few people want to see: Islam is the green danger.
ose who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”[46]
continued with comments after notes
Relativsm
Warnng a very long post but thought provoking post
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/islam-as-victor-of-western-value.html#more
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Islam as the Victor of Western Value-Relativism
As reported here a couple of weeks ago, the German author and journalist Michael Mannheimer gave a speech about the history of Islam on October 30 at the Amsterdam free speech rally. Mr. Mannheimer has kindly sent us an English translation by Maria Sander of one of his articles, which originally appeared at Politically Incorrect.
Islam as the Victor of Western Value-RelativismBy Michael Mannheimer
A Critical Discourse on Pure Tolerance
The clash of civilizations, the collision between cultures, forecast by Samuel P. Huntington, has long since become an obvious fact in modern-day Europe, finding its clearest expression in the confrontation of Islam with the remnants of European Christianity. This collision not only is echoed in the form of terrorist attacks but also as a bitter battle of ideals between two systems of values that could hardly be more opposed to each other, namely the archaic totalitarian value system of Islam and the one represented by post modern European Enlightenment.
In the wake of this quarrel, the world of Islam has already achieved considerable partial success, thanks to something we might call “value indifference coupled with blind tolerance” exhibited by European political elites, which has already lead to a process of disintegration of both Europe’s ethic-religious foundations and its sphere of rights. In the end Islam may well emerge as victorious should Europe fail to rethink its occidental Christian roots.
Value Universalism of Human Rights
For a long time it seemed that in the world at large questions and discussions concerning guidelines as to right and wrong conduct had principally been answered and thus concluded. Beginning with the Magna Carta, established in 1215, followed by the Bill of Rights in 1689 and later by the American and French Constitutions in 1788 and 1791, respectively, the codifying of modern concepts of values regarding right and wrong finally lead to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the United Nations as well as by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe Final Act. The concepts of values expressed in those above-mentioned codes were considered universal and of unlimited validity for every human being, regardless of time, location and culture.
The equality of all people before the law, regardless of faith, ethnic origin, age, colour or gender, the freedom of assembly, thought and speech as well as the inviolable dignity of the individual guaranteed by constitutional law were the cornerstones of a universal and indivisible system of values agreed to as part of the United Nations’ Charter on 26 June 1945 with a voting result of 48-0, however, eight nations abstained at the time: the Eastern Bloc, the USSR, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. I shall elaborate on this at a later stage.
The most important intellectual basis for these universal standards of human rights is derived from the contemplations of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant concerning the question of whether an ethical foundation valid for all human beings and for all times exists, and if so, how must it be formulated? Kant’s famous formulation, known as the “Categorical Imperative”, finally made its way into man’s history of legal and ethical understanding. In principle and until this day, Kant’s ethical formula shapes the UN’s foundation of a legal standard for conduct:
Basically, Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a linguistic elaboration of the proverb ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ’
Hence, neither would a thief agree to theft becoming universal right, nor would a murderer suggest that murder become legally accepted, since the murderer would not want himself to be killed and the thief could not possibly want to be a victim of theft.
Critics of the Declaration of Human Rights argue that it would not altogether differ from the concepts put forward by totalitarianisms — both governmental as well as religious — and would, therefore, be nothing more but a relative or arbitrarily defined system of values as far as its universal demand is concerned. However, these critics ignore a small detail which distinguishes the Universal Declaration fundamentally from those brought forth by totalitarian systems of values. It is the principle of reciprocity as part of Kant’s Categorical Imperative which necessitates a comparison in the sense of compatibility of a specific standard of conduct with all those affected by it. Thus, this principle helps prevent standards of conduct proposed by single individuals or by a radical minority from becoming the foundation for legislation if they are not simultaneously accepted or wanted by the general public. In contrast to totalitarian systems’ demand that each person “think and act as I want or else you are enemy”, the categorical imperative asks: “How can you and I find a common ground for our thoughts and conduct without harming ourselves and each other on basis which is wanted by both of us?”
Totalitarian systems force people to accept their system of values regardless of whether they agree with them or not. In contrast, in search for a definition of right and wrong conduct, value systems based on the categorical imperative confront each individual with the question as to how he or she wants to be treated (principle of reciprocity) before a standard of conduct becomes a universal principle of rights (legislation). The implication here is of a two-fold nature: to act towards any other person in such a manner that the other is not harmed [as a result of this action], and on the other hand to act in a manner that reflects the way in which oneself wishes to be treated. According to this formula, someone who is determined to force one’s own dogma upon another must automatically raise the question of whether it would be desirable if the situation were reversed. On the basis of reason, this can only be answered with ‘no’. At the same time it highlights the fact that any dogma or ideology ordering its members to force the system of values in question upon others is — viewed in the light of Kant — in the wrong.
The plausibility of the categorical imperative — both logical and in terms of content — was accepted by a majority of the then-global community in the middle of the 20th century as basis for universal and indivisible ethics.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/islam-as-victor-of-western-value.html#more
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Islam as the Victor of Western Value-Relativism
As reported here a couple of weeks ago, the German author and journalist Michael Mannheimer gave a speech about the history of Islam on October 30 at the Amsterdam free speech rally. Mr. Mannheimer has kindly sent us an English translation by Maria Sander of one of his articles, which originally appeared at Politically Incorrect.
Islam as the Victor of Western Value-RelativismBy Michael Mannheimer
A Critical Discourse on Pure Tolerance
The clash of civilizations, the collision between cultures, forecast by Samuel P. Huntington, has long since become an obvious fact in modern-day Europe, finding its clearest expression in the confrontation of Islam with the remnants of European Christianity. This collision not only is echoed in the form of terrorist attacks but also as a bitter battle of ideals between two systems of values that could hardly be more opposed to each other, namely the archaic totalitarian value system of Islam and the one represented by post modern European Enlightenment.
In the wake of this quarrel, the world of Islam has already achieved considerable partial success, thanks to something we might call “value indifference coupled with blind tolerance” exhibited by European political elites, which has already lead to a process of disintegration of both Europe’s ethic-religious foundations and its sphere of rights. In the end Islam may well emerge as victorious should Europe fail to rethink its occidental Christian roots.
Value Universalism of Human Rights
For a long time it seemed that in the world at large questions and discussions concerning guidelines as to right and wrong conduct had principally been answered and thus concluded. Beginning with the Magna Carta, established in 1215, followed by the Bill of Rights in 1689 and later by the American and French Constitutions in 1788 and 1791, respectively, the codifying of modern concepts of values regarding right and wrong finally lead to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the United Nations as well as by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe Final Act. The concepts of values expressed in those above-mentioned codes were considered universal and of unlimited validity for every human being, regardless of time, location and culture.
The equality of all people before the law, regardless of faith, ethnic origin, age, colour or gender, the freedom of assembly, thought and speech as well as the inviolable dignity of the individual guaranteed by constitutional law were the cornerstones of a universal and indivisible system of values agreed to as part of the United Nations’ Charter on 26 June 1945 with a voting result of 48-0, however, eight nations abstained at the time: the Eastern Bloc, the USSR, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. I shall elaborate on this at a later stage.
The most important intellectual basis for these universal standards of human rights is derived from the contemplations of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant concerning the question of whether an ethical foundation valid for all human beings and for all times exists, and if so, how must it be formulated? Kant’s famous formulation, known as the “Categorical Imperative”, finally made its way into man’s history of legal and ethical understanding. In principle and until this day, Kant’s ethical formula shapes the UN’s foundation of a legal standard for conduct:
‘Act only in such a manner so that the maxim of your will could at the same time serve as a principle for universal legislation.’
Basically, Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a linguistic elaboration of the proverb ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ’
Hence, neither would a thief agree to theft becoming universal right, nor would a murderer suggest that murder become legally accepted, since the murderer would not want himself to be killed and the thief could not possibly want to be a victim of theft.
Critics of the Declaration of Human Rights argue that it would not altogether differ from the concepts put forward by totalitarianisms — both governmental as well as religious — and would, therefore, be nothing more but a relative or arbitrarily defined system of values as far as its universal demand is concerned. However, these critics ignore a small detail which distinguishes the Universal Declaration fundamentally from those brought forth by totalitarian systems of values. It is the principle of reciprocity as part of Kant’s Categorical Imperative which necessitates a comparison in the sense of compatibility of a specific standard of conduct with all those affected by it. Thus, this principle helps prevent standards of conduct proposed by single individuals or by a radical minority from becoming the foundation for legislation if they are not simultaneously accepted or wanted by the general public. In contrast to totalitarian systems’ demand that each person “think and act as I want or else you are enemy”, the categorical imperative asks: “How can you and I find a common ground for our thoughts and conduct without harming ourselves and each other on basis which is wanted by both of us?”
Totalitarian systems force people to accept their system of values regardless of whether they agree with them or not. In contrast, in search for a definition of right and wrong conduct, value systems based on the categorical imperative confront each individual with the question as to how he or she wants to be treated (principle of reciprocity) before a standard of conduct becomes a universal principle of rights (legislation). The implication here is of a two-fold nature: to act towards any other person in such a manner that the other is not harmed [as a result of this action], and on the other hand to act in a manner that reflects the way in which oneself wishes to be treated. According to this formula, someone who is determined to force one’s own dogma upon another must automatically raise the question of whether it would be desirable if the situation were reversed. On the basis of reason, this can only be answered with ‘no’. At the same time it highlights the fact that any dogma or ideology ordering its members to force the system of values in question upon others is — viewed in the light of Kant — in the wrong.
The plausibility of the categorical imperative — both logical and in terms of content — was accepted by a majority of the then-global community in the middle of the 20th century as basis for universal and indivisible ethics.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Ozone ??
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/king.htm
The Nonsense That is Ozone-Depletion
by Ken Ring (I so wonder at his credibility, and will keep this for future reference and thinking)
"Cancer threat as deadly UV rays build up" reported the New Zealand Herald on September 10th 2006 . Referring to a "disturbing new study" the writer reported a finding that "increases in UV radiation over summer have occurred because of ozone depletion caused by pollution". The article contained three assumptions:
1. UV (Ultraviolet light) has increased long term,
2. Ozone protects us from UV (and less now means less protection),
3. That ozone depletion is caused by humans polluting our natural environment.
Unfortunately, these claims are false on all counts. In order to simply understand the relationship between UV (sunshine), ozone and oxygen (air), think about what you see when you go to the beach. The order of things is:
Water — Surf — Beach
The boundary where the water hits the beach is called surf, and in the upper atmosphere, the boundary where the sunlight hits the air is termed the ozone layer, because in that region ozone is produced as a result of the UV acting on the oxygen, in other words where the sunlight hits the air.
Sunlight — Ozone — Air
Just as the surf cannot in any way protect the land from the sea, ozone cannot 'protect' the air and our environment that is below it from UV. A result cannot be defined as a protector. To lament that ozone depletion is taking away "our protection" is the same as crying that surfers are wearing down the surf, and as the surf is all there is holding back the ocean, when the surf goes (due to human behavior) the water will flood over the land and destroy mankind.
As with so many theories, threads are tied together to build a case. The case is then launched to the media to attract attention. The attention is then added to by 'further findings', 'disturbing new studies' and 'concerns' The end result is the willing granting of research funds to research "the problem". If the Cancer word can be attached, so much the better for the case. The public will donate any amount of money for cancer research. It only wants to see the case for it spelled out in a conclusive-sounding way.
The Case
We do know that ozone exists. We know that there are two ozone depletion zones: over each of the Earth's poles. We know the depletion zone over Antarctic is bigger than that over the Arctic. We have found that CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) which are man-made substances commonly used in refrigeration and aerosol cans, contain chlorine. And we know that chlorine can destroy ozone.
At this point let's revisit school science. We breathe in oxygen and expell it as carbon dioxide. 02 is two oxygen atoms stuck together. Given sufficient energy applied, now and then three oxygen atoms will stick together, making an 03 molecule, which is called ozone. The energy required for this can come from electrical discharge through the air, such as lightning, or from the sun in the form of UV sunlight. You can smell ozone if you sniff around an electric motor that has arcing around the brushes — the pungent smell is the 03.
When in space the Sun's energy races down here to meet Earth's rising air, a certain amount of 03 is produced. But like the surf, it is merely the result of the photo-chemical process between oxygen and UV light. But it is the photo-chemical process itself which protects us; the ozone is a mere by-product. The air itself absorbs most of the UV radiation and disperses it. As the air contains ozone, so the ozone also combines with the UV. In the same way, if you dropped a cup of ink into the sea it would spread out and disperse. And if either the air or sunlight pack up, we will have long since suffocated or frozen to death before we start developing cancer.
The Nonsense That is Ozone-Depletion
by Ken Ring (I so wonder at his credibility, and will keep this for future reference and thinking)
"Cancer threat as deadly UV rays build up" reported the New Zealand Herald on September 10th 2006 . Referring to a "disturbing new study" the writer reported a finding that "increases in UV radiation over summer have occurred because of ozone depletion caused by pollution". The article contained three assumptions:
1. UV (Ultraviolet light) has increased long term,
2. Ozone protects us from UV (and less now means less protection),
3. That ozone depletion is caused by humans polluting our natural environment.
Unfortunately, these claims are false on all counts. In order to simply understand the relationship between UV (sunshine), ozone and oxygen (air), think about what you see when you go to the beach. The order of things is:
Water — Surf — Beach
The boundary where the water hits the beach is called surf, and in the upper atmosphere, the boundary where the sunlight hits the air is termed the ozone layer, because in that region ozone is produced as a result of the UV acting on the oxygen, in other words where the sunlight hits the air.
Sunlight — Ozone — Air
Just as the surf cannot in any way protect the land from the sea, ozone cannot 'protect' the air and our environment that is below it from UV. A result cannot be defined as a protector. To lament that ozone depletion is taking away "our protection" is the same as crying that surfers are wearing down the surf, and as the surf is all there is holding back the ocean, when the surf goes (due to human behavior) the water will flood over the land and destroy mankind.
As with so many theories, threads are tied together to build a case. The case is then launched to the media to attract attention. The attention is then added to by 'further findings', 'disturbing new studies' and 'concerns' The end result is the willing granting of research funds to research "the problem". If the Cancer word can be attached, so much the better for the case. The public will donate any amount of money for cancer research. It only wants to see the case for it spelled out in a conclusive-sounding way.
The Case
We do know that ozone exists. We know that there are two ozone depletion zones: over each of the Earth's poles. We know the depletion zone over Antarctic is bigger than that over the Arctic. We have found that CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) which are man-made substances commonly used in refrigeration and aerosol cans, contain chlorine. And we know that chlorine can destroy ozone.
At this point let's revisit school science. We breathe in oxygen and expell it as carbon dioxide. 02 is two oxygen atoms stuck together. Given sufficient energy applied, now and then three oxygen atoms will stick together, making an 03 molecule, which is called ozone. The energy required for this can come from electrical discharge through the air, such as lightning, or from the sun in the form of UV sunlight. You can smell ozone if you sniff around an electric motor that has arcing around the brushes — the pungent smell is the 03.
When in space the Sun's energy races down here to meet Earth's rising air, a certain amount of 03 is produced. But like the surf, it is merely the result of the photo-chemical process between oxygen and UV light. But it is the photo-chemical process itself which protects us; the ozone is a mere by-product. The air itself absorbs most of the UV radiation and disperses it. As the air contains ozone, so the ozone also combines with the UV. In the same way, if you dropped a cup of ink into the sea it would spread out and disperse. And if either the air or sunlight pack up, we will have long since suffocated or frozen to death before we start developing cancer.
The Sin of Racism
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/sin-of-racism.html
Monday,
November 15, 2010
The Sin of Racism
The photo at right serves as a Rorschach blot for postmodern race-consciousness.
The majority of white Americans who see it will react with a sense of distaste and unease — and maybe even guilt, if their politics lean towards the Progressive.
Some of our regular readers will be concerned that I may harm this blog’s “reputation” by posting such inflammatory images.
Strangers who happen upon this post will probably say to themselves, “Aha! Here’s another racist hate site! I knew it!”
And conservatives of a certain stripe will think I’m a limp-wristed candy-ass coward for failing to follow through completely and embrace whatever racial ideology they subscribe to.
No matter what, it’s impossible to look at the image and see it for what it is.
A package of Rastus Cigars.
A cultural artifact from the early 20th century.
An hommage to a well-known Vaudeville tap-dancer.
A product designed to appeal to the tastes and predilections of a particular time and place.
At the time the package was printed and sold, the design was not particularly remarkable. Fans of Rastus would have appreciated seeing his picture. Most white people probably found it vaguely amusing, in a low-class way. Some must have been disgusted at its vulgarity. A certain proportion were undoubtedly repelled by an insulting caricature of a Negro.
But, all in all, it wasn’t that big a deal. It was just another product on the market.
How times have changed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) is very concerned about racism.
Back in the 1990s, when I was active in our diocese, the head office in Norfolk would periodically organize workshops to combat the “Sin of Racism”. They insisted that each parish host a traveling Episcopalian dog-and-pony show on the topic, a workshop designed to bring racial awareness to local churches and help them own up to the sin of racism, of which each and every parishioner was guilty.
Monday,
November 15, 2010
The Sin of Racism
The photo at right serves as a Rorschach blot for postmodern race-consciousness.
The majority of white Americans who see it will react with a sense of distaste and unease — and maybe even guilt, if their politics lean towards the Progressive.
Some of our regular readers will be concerned that I may harm this blog’s “reputation” by posting such inflammatory images.
Strangers who happen upon this post will probably say to themselves, “Aha! Here’s another racist hate site! I knew it!”
And conservatives of a certain stripe will think I’m a limp-wristed candy-ass coward for failing to follow through completely and embrace whatever racial ideology they subscribe to.
No matter what, it’s impossible to look at the image and see it for what it is.
A package of Rastus Cigars.
A cultural artifact from the early 20th century.
An hommage to a well-known Vaudeville tap-dancer.
A product designed to appeal to the tastes and predilections of a particular time and place.
At the time the package was printed and sold, the design was not particularly remarkable. Fans of Rastus would have appreciated seeing his picture. Most white people probably found it vaguely amusing, in a low-class way. Some must have been disgusted at its vulgarity. A certain proportion were undoubtedly repelled by an insulting caricature of a Negro.
But, all in all, it wasn’t that big a deal. It was just another product on the market.
How times have changed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) is very concerned about racism.
Back in the 1990s, when I was active in our diocese, the head office in Norfolk would periodically organize workshops to combat the “Sin of Racism”. They insisted that each parish host a traveling Episcopalian dog-and-pony show on the topic, a workshop designed to bring racial awareness to local churches and help them own up to the sin of racism, of which each and every parishioner was guilty.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Humanities to -- ??????
http://mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/11/defend_the_humanitiesa_slogan.html
OUR ESSAYS
« Kaplan University and the Short-Changing of Minority Women | Main | The Douglas Debate--No Lincoln This Time »
November 15, 2010
'Defend the Humanities'--A Dishonest Slogan
By John M. Ellis
College foreign language and literature programs have been in decline for some time, first shrinking, then being consolidated with other departments, and now in a growing number of cases actually closed down. But the recent decision to eliminate French, Italian, Russian and Classics at SUNY Albany appears to have struck a nerve, and caused an outcry: "Defend the Humanities!"
It's a cry that has been heard many times in the past. As the segment of the university that has no direct link to a career-providing profession, the humanities have regularly been called upon to justify their usefulness, but the justification is easy to make, and it is an honorable one that instantly commands respect.
The case generally goes like this: exposure to the best of our civilization's achievements and thought gives us the trained minds of broadly educated people. We learn about ourselves by studying our history, and understanding how it has shaped us and the institutions we live by. As European civilization developed it produced a range of extraordinary thinkers who grappled memorably with questions that will always be with us, leaving a rich and varied legacy of outstanding thought on philosophical, ethical, religious, social and political matters. Its creative writers left a record of inspired reflection on human life and its challenges. Studying the humanities make us better prepared for civic life and for living itself, and better citizens.
And so "Defend the Humanities" is a most attractive flag to sail under. The trouble is that for those who are now using it, it is a flag of convenience only, and a deeply dishonest one. For the conception of the humanities set out above is despised by those who now ask for our help in saving the departments they run. Long ago, they took aim at it, defeated it and abolished it, and that is precisely the source of their present troubles. The story of how they did it and why is well-known. A virulent strain of Marxist radicalism took refuge in college humanities programs just as it was being abandoned in the real world because of catastrophic results world-wide. This created a mismatch of temperaments: humanistic scholars are naturally animated by a profound respect for the legacy of our past, but all the instincts of political radicals go in the opposite direction. Their natural instinct is to denigrate the past in order to make the case for the sweeping social change that they want. That's why they don't look at the past and see
accumulated knowledge and wisdom, but instead only a story of bigotry, inequality and racial and sexual prejudice that needs to be swept aside.
OUR ESSAYS
« Kaplan University and the Short-Changing of Minority Women | Main | The Douglas Debate--No Lincoln This Time »
November 15, 2010
'Defend the Humanities'--A Dishonest Slogan
By John M. Ellis
College foreign language and literature programs have been in decline for some time, first shrinking, then being consolidated with other departments, and now in a growing number of cases actually closed down. But the recent decision to eliminate French, Italian, Russian and Classics at SUNY Albany appears to have struck a nerve, and caused an outcry: "Defend the Humanities!"
It's a cry that has been heard many times in the past. As the segment of the university that has no direct link to a career-providing profession, the humanities have regularly been called upon to justify their usefulness, but the justification is easy to make, and it is an honorable one that instantly commands respect.
The case generally goes like this: exposure to the best of our civilization's achievements and thought gives us the trained minds of broadly educated people. We learn about ourselves by studying our history, and understanding how it has shaped us and the institutions we live by. As European civilization developed it produced a range of extraordinary thinkers who grappled memorably with questions that will always be with us, leaving a rich and varied legacy of outstanding thought on philosophical, ethical, religious, social and political matters. Its creative writers left a record of inspired reflection on human life and its challenges. Studying the humanities make us better prepared for civic life and for living itself, and better citizens.
And so "Defend the Humanities" is a most attractive flag to sail under. The trouble is that for those who are now using it, it is a flag of convenience only, and a deeply dishonest one. For the conception of the humanities set out above is despised by those who now ask for our help in saving the departments they run. Long ago, they took aim at it, defeated it and abolished it, and that is precisely the source of their present troubles. The story of how they did it and why is well-known. A virulent strain of Marxist radicalism took refuge in college humanities programs just as it was being abandoned in the real world because of catastrophic results world-wide. This created a mismatch of temperaments: humanistic scholars are naturally animated by a profound respect for the legacy of our past, but all the instincts of political radicals go in the opposite direction. Their natural instinct is to denigrate the past in order to make the case for the sweeping social change that they want. That's why they don't look at the past and see
accumulated knowledge and wisdom, but instead only a story of bigotry, inequality and racial and sexual prejudice that needs to be swept aside.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Where do you take the temperature
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29808
Interface, Climate Change IPCC's political conclusions
Official Climate Science Ignores Essential and Critical Details Right At The Surface
By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, November 11, 2010 Few people know that skin is an organ; even fewer know it’s the largest organ of the body. It is the contact, called an interface, between two completely different environments; the body and the world. It controls movement of gases, liquids and solids in both directions all the time. The surface of the Earth is similar as the interface between the atmosphere and the underlying surfaces. Accurate measurement and understanding of processes are critical to what is happening in the atmosphere, under ground and in the oceans. Unless we understand the dynamics across the interface we will not know what is going on above and below the surface.
Science divides the world and its atmosphere into layers depending on what they are studying. For example, geophysicists start in the centre of the Earth with the Solid Inner Core extending through the Liquid Outer Core, the Mantle and the crust. Climate science identifies layers (Figure 1) but even at this point we begin seeing the limitations. The layers are based on energy from the Sun. They ignore volumes of geothermal energy that move through the crust, especially under the oceans where the crust is thinner and more perforated.
Simple, but major, differences between land and water illustrate the problems.
Interface, Climate Change IPCC's political conclusions
Official Climate Science Ignores Essential and Critical Details Right At The Surface
By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, November 11, 2010 Few people know that skin is an organ; even fewer know it’s the largest organ of the body. It is the contact, called an interface, between two completely different environments; the body and the world. It controls movement of gases, liquids and solids in both directions all the time. The surface of the Earth is similar as the interface between the atmosphere and the underlying surfaces. Accurate measurement and understanding of processes are critical to what is happening in the atmosphere, under ground and in the oceans. Unless we understand the dynamics across the interface we will not know what is going on above and below the surface.
Science divides the world and its atmosphere into layers depending on what they are studying. For example, geophysicists start in the centre of the Earth with the Solid Inner Core extending through the Liquid Outer Core, the Mantle and the crust. Climate science identifies layers (Figure 1) but even at this point we begin seeing the limitations. The layers are based on energy from the Sun. They ignore volumes of geothermal energy that move through the crust, especially under the oceans where the crust is thinner and more perforated.
Simple, but major, differences between land and water illustrate the problems.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
conservative to social democracy
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=215813
Henry Lamb is the author of "The Rise of Global Governance," chairman of Sovereignty International and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21 Inc.
The philosophical foundation of a republic includes the idea that people are sovereign and that the government people create derives its power from the consent of the governed. A social democracy thrives on the idea that the government is sovereign and may grant or deny freedom to the people as it may please government.
In a republic, the primary function of government is to protect the rights endowed to people by their Creator and to defend the people from all enemies, foreign and domestic. In a social democracy, the function of government is to manage the people's behavior and activities to achieve whatever goals the government defines.
A republic recognizes that the less involvement government can have in the marketplace, the more prosperous that marketplace will be. In a social democracy, government manages the marketplace to achieve social objectives rather than prosperity.
Henry Lamb is the author of "The Rise of Global Governance," chairman of Sovereignty International and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21 Inc.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
What can journalists discuss?
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/anatomy-of-discussion-with-leftist.html#more
The Post has a background then a series of letters and replies about Ms. Wolf, then comment from....
http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radical-Conservatives-Beating-America/dp/0345521862
Rules For Radical Conservative
11/06/2010 10:39 PM
The Post has a background then a series of letters and replies about Ms. Wolf, then comment from....
Michael Servetus said...
1 Wait , you can't call someone hateful but you can call someone Austrian hateful. So Ms. Wolf is being accused of being hateful for accusing someone else of being hateful. But doesn't the left say the same exact thing about the right that they say we can't say about Islam.
You can't label or denigrate a religion but you can label and denigrate a political movement and belief of other people . We need to learn to complain better and change our mindset which is too accustomed to accepting leftists being the ones complaining and dragging people before courts and Muslims have learned from them.
It is time for Conservatives to make these thngs more of an issue by bringing lawsuits, bringing charges, I never hear of it.I mean not in the usual conservative polite way but by becoming nuisances. It seems that is the only thing that works. The wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the most oil and Muslims and leftists get all the oil. That wasn't always the case, obviously and so that should give us hope, why? because if the leftists believed in what they believed in long and hard enough to overcome opposition and adversity, to the point of becoming the estabishement, that means the course is totally reversible and it all boils down to will and sacrfice. As I have said before, our side needs more troublemakers, more nuisances, more stubborn people, more closed mindedness, more brute passion, it is the only language of power among savages and that is what we are dealing with.
Why shouldn't it be. We should be bringing these journalists up on hate charges for hating, libelling and conspiring against citizens, for being discriminatory in a unjust way.
http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radical-Conservatives-Beating-America/dp/0345521862
Rules For Radical Conservative
11/06/2010 10:39 PM
Friday, November 5, 2010
COEXIST
http://www.enochmagazine.com/articles/general/the-coexist-bumper-sticker#comment-8116
Just a variety of interesting comments, not only from Christian perspectives. Just before the comments I have added this image 6th October 2012.
added another pic 2015 May 29th.
did the yazidi kurd copt christian co exist or just dhimmis until a suitable time?
47.Elise on January 6th, 2010 at 6:30 pm:
As Christians, we were created for God’s glory and to love Him; and it’s our job as christians to go forth with the great commission and love others; with that I agree. Love is of God. You cannot know true love unless you know the ONE AND ONLY GOD: Jesus Christ/ the God of the Bible. So how can we say we love others as Christians when we have the antidote for life and for death and are willing to sit back and do nothing about it? How can we say we respect and love others while we sit back and watch people condemn themselves to hell because of their own doing and not try to warn them?
An athiest himself put it this way:
“If you believe one bit that thousands every day were falling into an eternal and unreacheable fate, you should be running the streets mad with rage at their blindness. That’s equivalent to standing on a street corner and watching every person that passes you walk blindly directly into the path of a bus and die, yet you stand idly by and do nothing. You’re just twiddling your thumbs, happy in the knowledge that one day that ‘walk’ signal will shine your way across the road. You’re just going to allow that to happen and not care about saving anyone but yourself? If you’re right then you’re uncaring, unemotional and purely selfish (expletive) that has no right to talk about subjects such as ‘love and caring.’”
Couldn’t have put it better myself….
Also, if there was more than one way to heaven then why on earth would Jesus (God Himself) have died on that cross for us?! Christianity is the only faith that asks you to give up SELF! Jesus asks us to take up our cross and follow Him daily! That means NOT living a selfish life: crazy concept! Christianity is NOT a religion (look up the definition of christianity and religion and find out for yourself). In religion it’s about how YOU can do it yourself and how YOU can reach heaven. Every other “religious belief” calls for you to have to work in order to obtain eternal salvation; Christianity asks for NOTHING but trust in Jesus. Religion is man trying to get to God or achieve “godhood,” Christianity is God coming down to man! Last time I checked no other “religious leader” did that for the people. Muhammad died, Buddha died, Jesus died, but only Jesus came back to life! The beauty of free will is that with this knowledge one still has the right to choose for himself. That’s just how much Jesus loved you, even though He knew people would deny Him (possibly you) He died anyway. I don’t think I could sacrifice my life for someone who hates me. Not to mention the Bible has NEVER been proven wrong! Thousands of thousands of people have tried; each one of them has failed miserably. Jesus DIED so that EVERYONE can go to be with Him for eternity. It’s not that hard of a concept people. You don’t have to do ANYTHING but believe, repent, and trust in Jesus! No strings attached that don’t benefit you; you have nothing to lose but everything to gain! Will life be perfect? Of course not! In fact it’ll be harder but you have an eternity of perfection to look forward to! “Jesus doesn’t get us around our troubles; He gets us through them.”
You cannot tell me you sincerely believe that you’re going to get to heaven and tell the Creator of the universe, the Alpha and Omega, God, that “hey, you tried your hardest!” You can NEVER obey every single command; it’s impossible. You sin without even realizing it; just read Benjamin Franklin’s account on attempting that. How sad that some people believe they can actually do it themselves. Please attempt to be perfect; let me know how that one goes….
48.Elise on January 6th, 2010 at 6:41 pm:
p.s. I think it’s ironic how everyone who is not a christian is so quick to say that “christians are close-minded and judgemental” when in reality it is the non-christians who are being close minded and judgemental. To some extent I do agree that Christianity in this age has unfortunately been watered down by lukewarms and mixed worldviews of this age, but in that same breath we are called to be hard headed but open minded. Meaning, be willing to listen to others beliefs in a respectful way but be hard headed in that you in fact do know ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Try to share that with others. People who aren’t christians aren’t going to read the Bible, they’re going to read you.
-------------------------------------------------------
50.Derek Elkins on January 16th, 2010 at 9:09 pm:
I believe we need to clearify terms when one claims that peace is the only way to God. What do you mean by peace? Christians believe in having peace with God, themselves, and others and a peace from god that passing all understanding. How would you define God? Though many religions have similarities, they have more differences. So not every one that says God, means the same thing. Also, how do you know God spoke to you?
The Bible teaches that people came to God through faith before Christ, which is the same way they are able to come to him today. See Hebrews chapter 11. Remember that before Jesus, the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, people brought a lamb that was a firgure that represented Jesus. Abel brought a lamb for himself. The families of Israel brought a lamb for their family (Exodus 12), and later they brought a lamb for the entire nation known as the day of Atonement. So the progression was from an individual, to the family, to the nation, and to the entire world. This is all done to forgive our sins so we can return to God and re-establish a broken relationship with Him.
True Christianity is a person; Jesus, and not a religion. It is basically having a personal relationship with Jesus. American does not equal Christian:)
I have friends from other religions, but i do not call them hypocrites. One can find hypocrites anywhere; work, school, politicians, and yes religious people.
I personally do not preach Christianity, but rather I preach Christ who loves us, forgives us, and save us. for example, see the bumper sticker “Not perfect, just forgiven”. And yes i do believe that followers of Jesus should practice what they preach.
I like the bumper sticker. I will be using it during a lesson on world views and religions in an up coming college and career class I lead. I believe we can coexist. We are taught to love one another and our enemies (a revolutionary teaching). The truth is that the whole world was once enemies with God, but he became human and coexisted and died for those of the world.
Awesome topic!
Derek
-------------------------------------------------
51.Bill on January 22nd, 2010 at 10:54 am:
Wonderful discussion! Yes, this bumpersticker has come to simply irritate me, but my take on it is completely different from what I’ve read. First, it’s nothing more than pure capitalism by its retailer Peacemonger (which I applaud loudly) so I don’t overread any great meaning into it. Just like Michael Moore
Just a variety of interesting comments, not only from Christian perspectives. Just before the comments I have added this image 6th October 2012.
added another pic 2015 May 29th.
did the yazidi kurd copt christian co exist or just dhimmis until a suitable time?
47.Elise on January 6th, 2010 at 6:30 pm:
As Christians, we were created for God’s glory and to love Him; and it’s our job as christians to go forth with the great commission and love others; with that I agree. Love is of God. You cannot know true love unless you know the ONE AND ONLY GOD: Jesus Christ/ the God of the Bible. So how can we say we love others as Christians when we have the antidote for life and for death and are willing to sit back and do nothing about it? How can we say we respect and love others while we sit back and watch people condemn themselves to hell because of their own doing and not try to warn them?
An athiest himself put it this way:
“If you believe one bit that thousands every day were falling into an eternal and unreacheable fate, you should be running the streets mad with rage at their blindness. That’s equivalent to standing on a street corner and watching every person that passes you walk blindly directly into the path of a bus and die, yet you stand idly by and do nothing. You’re just twiddling your thumbs, happy in the knowledge that one day that ‘walk’ signal will shine your way across the road. You’re just going to allow that to happen and not care about saving anyone but yourself? If you’re right then you’re uncaring, unemotional and purely selfish (expletive) that has no right to talk about subjects such as ‘love and caring.’”
Couldn’t have put it better myself….
Also, if there was more than one way to heaven then why on earth would Jesus (God Himself) have died on that cross for us?! Christianity is the only faith that asks you to give up SELF! Jesus asks us to take up our cross and follow Him daily! That means NOT living a selfish life: crazy concept! Christianity is NOT a religion (look up the definition of christianity and religion and find out for yourself). In religion it’s about how YOU can do it yourself and how YOU can reach heaven. Every other “religious belief” calls for you to have to work in order to obtain eternal salvation; Christianity asks for NOTHING but trust in Jesus. Religion is man trying to get to God or achieve “godhood,” Christianity is God coming down to man! Last time I checked no other “religious leader” did that for the people. Muhammad died, Buddha died, Jesus died, but only Jesus came back to life! The beauty of free will is that with this knowledge one still has the right to choose for himself. That’s just how much Jesus loved you, even though He knew people would deny Him (possibly you) He died anyway. I don’t think I could sacrifice my life for someone who hates me. Not to mention the Bible has NEVER been proven wrong! Thousands of thousands of people have tried; each one of them has failed miserably. Jesus DIED so that EVERYONE can go to be with Him for eternity. It’s not that hard of a concept people. You don’t have to do ANYTHING but believe, repent, and trust in Jesus! No strings attached that don’t benefit you; you have nothing to lose but everything to gain! Will life be perfect? Of course not! In fact it’ll be harder but you have an eternity of perfection to look forward to! “Jesus doesn’t get us around our troubles; He gets us through them.”
You cannot tell me you sincerely believe that you’re going to get to heaven and tell the Creator of the universe, the Alpha and Omega, God, that “hey, you tried your hardest!” You can NEVER obey every single command; it’s impossible. You sin without even realizing it; just read Benjamin Franklin’s account on attempting that. How sad that some people believe they can actually do it themselves. Please attempt to be perfect; let me know how that one goes….
48.Elise on January 6th, 2010 at 6:41 pm:
p.s. I think it’s ironic how everyone who is not a christian is so quick to say that “christians are close-minded and judgemental” when in reality it is the non-christians who are being close minded and judgemental. To some extent I do agree that Christianity in this age has unfortunately been watered down by lukewarms and mixed worldviews of this age, but in that same breath we are called to be hard headed but open minded. Meaning, be willing to listen to others beliefs in a respectful way but be hard headed in that you in fact do know ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Try to share that with others. People who aren’t christians aren’t going to read the Bible, they’re going to read you.
-------------------------------------------------------
50.Derek Elkins on January 16th, 2010 at 9:09 pm:
I believe we need to clearify terms when one claims that peace is the only way to God. What do you mean by peace? Christians believe in having peace with God, themselves, and others and a peace from god that passing all understanding. How would you define God? Though many religions have similarities, they have more differences. So not every one that says God, means the same thing. Also, how do you know God spoke to you?
The Bible teaches that people came to God through faith before Christ, which is the same way they are able to come to him today. See Hebrews chapter 11. Remember that before Jesus, the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, people brought a lamb that was a firgure that represented Jesus. Abel brought a lamb for himself. The families of Israel brought a lamb for their family (Exodus 12), and later they brought a lamb for the entire nation known as the day of Atonement. So the progression was from an individual, to the family, to the nation, and to the entire world. This is all done to forgive our sins so we can return to God and re-establish a broken relationship with Him.
True Christianity is a person; Jesus, and not a religion. It is basically having a personal relationship with Jesus. American does not equal Christian:)
I have friends from other religions, but i do not call them hypocrites. One can find hypocrites anywhere; work, school, politicians, and yes religious people.
I personally do not preach Christianity, but rather I preach Christ who loves us, forgives us, and save us. for example, see the bumper sticker “Not perfect, just forgiven”. And yes i do believe that followers of Jesus should practice what they preach.
I like the bumper sticker. I will be using it during a lesson on world views and religions in an up coming college and career class I lead. I believe we can coexist. We are taught to love one another and our enemies (a revolutionary teaching). The truth is that the whole world was once enemies with God, but he became human and coexisted and died for those of the world.
Awesome topic!
Derek
-------------------------------------------------
51.Bill on January 22nd, 2010 at 10:54 am:
Wonderful discussion! Yes, this bumpersticker has come to simply irritate me, but my take on it is completely different from what I’ve read. First, it’s nothing more than pure capitalism by its retailer Peacemonger (which I applaud loudly) so I don’t overread any great meaning into it. Just like Michael Moore
Offensive Jihad
http://www.meforum.org/2767/offensive-jihad
Offensive Jihad
The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam
by Raymond Ibrahim
A recent MEMRI report titled "Arab Columnists: Stop Talking About Offensive Jihad," alludes to the ultimate problem between Islam and the non-Muslim world: offensive jihad, or jihad al-talab — the Islamic imperative to subjugate the world. The report opens by saying "One dominant theme during Ramadan in the Arab world is the discussion, in the media and in religious circles, of the commandment of jihad and the obligation therein to wage war against the infidels." It then focuses on two recent op-eds, written by Arab-Muslims, that discuss the need to suppress Muslim talk of offensive jihad.
One writer, Khaled Al-Ghanami, states that the "wiser" supporters of offensive jihad believe that Muslims "must sit and wait until the era of our strength returns." In the meantime, according to these Muslims, "there is nothing shameful about taqiyya [deception] until the time is ripe." Al-Ghanami bemoans the fact that such Muslims operate naively "on the assumption that the world doesn't read, doesn't monitor… and is not paying attention to the calls for killing, tyranny, and aggression that we are spreading."
Similarly, Abdallah Al-Naggar writes: "Today, the Muslims' circumstances are different [i.e., they are weak], and talk of this aspect [of jihad] requires a smart approach, one that stresses the aspect of self defense, instead of aggression and onslaught," since discussing offensive jihad "arouses the enmity of people"; thus, "there is a need for wisdom [i.e., kitman] in our impassioned discussions of war and battles."
These writers are insightful enough to understand that Islam's imperative for Muslims to wage offensive jihad is the one insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Best not to keep reminding the infidel world, then.
Consider: most of the things Islam gets criticized for — lack of democracy, male-female relations, draconian punishments, etc. —are intra-civilizational to Islam; that is, they affect Muslims alone. As such, it is for Muslims to decide on their utility; for it is the responsibility of every civilization to reform itself from the inside, not through outside "help" or coercion, the former mistrusted, the latter resented. Modern democracy in the West developed only after the people of the West wanted it bad enough to fight for it themselves, and only after centuries of bloody — but internal — conflicts. Feminism was not forcefully imported from some alien civilization but homegrown in the West. Pragmatically speaking, then, so long as sharia's mandates affect Muslims alone, non-Muslims have no legitimate grievances.
And this is the dividing line: what one civilization maintains as "right" and "normal" for itself is acceptable. However, when one civilization tries to apply, through force, those same principles onto other civilizations — whether the West trying to import liberalism to Islam, or Islam trying to spread sharia-style fascism to the West — that is objectively wrong.
Offensive Jihad
The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam
by Raymond Ibrahim
A recent MEMRI report titled "Arab Columnists: Stop Talking About Offensive Jihad," alludes to the ultimate problem between Islam and the non-Muslim world: offensive jihad, or jihad al-talab — the Islamic imperative to subjugate the world. The report opens by saying "One dominant theme during Ramadan in the Arab world is the discussion, in the media and in religious circles, of the commandment of jihad and the obligation therein to wage war against the infidels." It then focuses on two recent op-eds, written by Arab-Muslims, that discuss the need to suppress Muslim talk of offensive jihad.
One writer, Khaled Al-Ghanami, states that the "wiser" supporters of offensive jihad believe that Muslims "must sit and wait until the era of our strength returns." In the meantime, according to these Muslims, "there is nothing shameful about taqiyya [deception] until the time is ripe." Al-Ghanami bemoans the fact that such Muslims operate naively "on the assumption that the world doesn't read, doesn't monitor… and is not paying attention to the calls for killing, tyranny, and aggression that we are spreading."
Similarly, Abdallah Al-Naggar writes: "Today, the Muslims' circumstances are different [i.e., they are weak], and talk of this aspect [of jihad] requires a smart approach, one that stresses the aspect of self defense, instead of aggression and onslaught," since discussing offensive jihad "arouses the enmity of people"; thus, "there is a need for wisdom [i.e., kitman] in our impassioned discussions of war and battles."
These writers are insightful enough to understand that Islam's imperative for Muslims to wage offensive jihad is the one insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Best not to keep reminding the infidel world, then.
Consider: most of the things Islam gets criticized for — lack of democracy, male-female relations, draconian punishments, etc. —are intra-civilizational to Islam; that is, they affect Muslims alone. As such, it is for Muslims to decide on their utility; for it is the responsibility of every civilization to reform itself from the inside, not through outside "help" or coercion, the former mistrusted, the latter resented. Modern democracy in the West developed only after the people of the West wanted it bad enough to fight for it themselves, and only after centuries of bloody — but internal — conflicts. Feminism was not forcefully imported from some alien civilization but homegrown in the West. Pragmatically speaking, then, so long as sharia's mandates affect Muslims alone, non-Muslims have no legitimate grievances.
And this is the dividing line: what one civilization maintains as "right" and "normal" for itself is acceptable. However, when one civilization tries to apply, through force, those same principles onto other civilizations — whether the West trying to import liberalism to Islam, or Islam trying to spread sharia-style fascism to the West — that is objectively wrong.
Global Warming War and Another Legal Defeat in NZ
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29389
Government Abandons Pretense of a Global Warming Record, UK Politicians See End for Doomsaying Warmists
Final Phase of Global Warming War and Another Legal Defeat for Doomsayers
By John O'Sullivan Sunday, October 31, 2010
Climate science is complex and to many people hard to fathom, but you don’t need to be a scientist to sense fraud when key global temperature data is destroyed or withheld from public examination.
Forceful speeches dismantling the falsities of global warming junk science were delivered within the mother of all parliaments at a spectacularly successful 2010 Climate Fools Day Event in London (October 27). In the fore was the world’s leading long-range weather forecaster, Piers Corbyn, who was presented with a new science award and cash prize of $10,000. Corbyn had predicted the Moscow heat wave and Pakistan floods weeks in advance and he says human emissions of greenhouse gases play no part whatsoever in controlling weather or climate.
First Government Abandons Pretense of a Global Warming Record
But it wasn’t Corbyn’s outstanding science that won the day but rather a story of how astute application of the law had dealt Antipodean warmists a fatal blow. I recounted to an amazed audience how climate realists in New Zealand had hauled their errant government to court where the burden of proof is of the demanding legal standard. Therein a pro-green New Zealand Government had been humiliated into abandoning all pretenses to possessing a bona fide official climate record in the scandal now referred to as ‘Kiwigate.’
Government Abandons Pretense of a Global Warming Record, UK Politicians See End for Doomsaying Warmists
Final Phase of Global Warming War and Another Legal Defeat for Doomsayers
By John O'Sullivan Sunday, October 31, 2010
Climate science is complex and to many people hard to fathom, but you don’t need to be a scientist to sense fraud when key global temperature data is destroyed or withheld from public examination.
Forceful speeches dismantling the falsities of global warming junk science were delivered within the mother of all parliaments at a spectacularly successful 2010 Climate Fools Day Event in London (October 27). In the fore was the world’s leading long-range weather forecaster, Piers Corbyn, who was presented with a new science award and cash prize of $10,000. Corbyn had predicted the Moscow heat wave and Pakistan floods weeks in advance and he says human emissions of greenhouse gases play no part whatsoever in controlling weather or climate.
First Government Abandons Pretense of a Global Warming Record
But it wasn’t Corbyn’s outstanding science that won the day but rather a story of how astute application of the law had dealt Antipodean warmists a fatal blow. I recounted to an amazed audience how climate realists in New Zealand had hauled their errant government to court where the burden of proof is of the demanding legal standard. Therein a pro-green New Zealand Government had been humiliated into abandoning all pretenses to possessing a bona fide official climate record in the scandal now referred to as ‘Kiwigate.’
When Bias Has Its Own Media
That is just like in my country for the previous government for 9 years and probably more, and dang it still continues
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29413
guilty of journalistic malpractice
When Bias Has Its Own Media
By Daniel Greenfield Monday, November 1, 2010
Bias is a normal part of human thought. It is not a good thing, but it exists because we are only human. Our viewpoints influence how we see things. And that in turn influences how we describe them. But just because bias is normal, does not mean that it is acceptable.
A doctor may like one patient better than another. That does not mean that he has the right to provide an inferior level of medical care to one patient. He may not be able to help being nicer to one patient than the other, but he may not actively mistreat a less favored patient. That is medical malpractice. Similarly a reporter who does not simply favor liberal politicians, but actively biases stories against their opponents is guilty of journalistic malpractice. He can no longer claim to be providing a public service, only serving as the mouthpiece for his ideology of choice.
Bias always exists, but journalistic bias has a tipping point at which instead of a free press, we have a propaganda press. When does that tipping point occur? Henry David Thoreau wrote that there is a certain amount of injustice in government, just as there is a certain amount of friction in operating a machine. But when “friction has its own machine”, then the injustice is no longer an unfortunate byproduct, it is now the purpose of the machine. That is the case with tyrannical regimes who exist to oppress people, rather than the oppression being an unfortunate by product of the exercise of authority, as was formerly the case in the United States.
When it comes to the media, there is also a point at which “friction has its own machine”. That happens when bias is no longer just injected into the reporting of a story, but when bias is the reason for the existence of a story.
It’s easy to spot the difference between the two.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29413
guilty of journalistic malpractice
When Bias Has Its Own Media
By Daniel Greenfield Monday, November 1, 2010
Bias is a normal part of human thought. It is not a good thing, but it exists because we are only human. Our viewpoints influence how we see things. And that in turn influences how we describe them. But just because bias is normal, does not mean that it is acceptable.
A doctor may like one patient better than another. That does not mean that he has the right to provide an inferior level of medical care to one patient. He may not be able to help being nicer to one patient than the other, but he may not actively mistreat a less favored patient. That is medical malpractice. Similarly a reporter who does not simply favor liberal politicians, but actively biases stories against their opponents is guilty of journalistic malpractice. He can no longer claim to be providing a public service, only serving as the mouthpiece for his ideology of choice.
Bias always exists, but journalistic bias has a tipping point at which instead of a free press, we have a propaganda press. When does that tipping point occur? Henry David Thoreau wrote that there is a certain amount of injustice in government, just as there is a certain amount of friction in operating a machine. But when “friction has its own machine”, then the injustice is no longer an unfortunate byproduct, it is now the purpose of the machine. That is the case with tyrannical regimes who exist to oppress people, rather than the oppression being an unfortunate by product of the exercise of authority, as was formerly the case in the United States.
When it comes to the media, there is also a point at which “friction has its own machine”. That happens when bias is no longer just injected into the reporting of a story, but when bias is the reason for the existence of a story.
It’s easy to spot the difference between the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
