The Constitution ends where the Wild Thing begins, or something.

Who knew the pill could cause such a ruckus?  I’d be a little shocked at where we are in this debate, if it weren’t so typical.  For those of you that have been living under a rock for the past several days, Barry has decided to pick a fight with the Catholic Church.  Specifically, he thinks compelling Catholic employers, such as Catholic hospitals, to pay for contraceptives for their employees is in keeping with his promise to be the awesomest president EVER.  This wouldn’t be a problem, other than for the fact that the Catholic Church considers the use of contraceptives a sin, and therefore, is disgruntled by the feds forcing Catholics to pay for such items.  Commence public outrage.

Disclaimer: I am not a Catholic.  I don’t have any problem with people using contraceptives, and I don’t think an abortion is the best way to make sure Debbie can fit into her prom dress (too far?).  But I did watch part of a documentary on PBS about the constitution once, and I’m pretty sure the government can’t force you to do something that violates your religion.  Well, that’s assuming your religion doesn’t consist of smoking pot in your mom’s basement, but I digress.  In fact, “freedom of religion” is right up front, in the first amendment.  It’s even more important than being able to use your gun against that neighbor who never cleans up after his dog (you know the guy).

So why is this even an issue?  Why are my Youtubes all clogged up with sob stories from some law school student about how embarrassing it was to get to the counter and find out she actually had to pay for those pills?  Oh, that’s right.  The issue consists of sex, free stuff, and “crazy religious folk (who must be white. and old. and men.).”  In other words, it’s right in a liberal’s sweet spot.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked Issa before walking out of the hearing after the first panel. ‘I look at this panel, and I don’t see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventative health care services, including family planning. Where are the women?’

This statement was made yesterday, after a congressional hearing on contraceptives (must have been a slow day in Congress).  Ms. Maloney’s statement is convenient because it highlights the spin that the left is offering to disguise the aforementioned tomfoolery.  “This isn’t about religious liberty, it’s about a woman’s right to keep her uterus as dusty as possible, for as long as possible.  And this can only happen with Catholic-provided contraceptives.”   FYI: That’s a quote I made up while driving in my automobile.  Thus, you can attribute its hilarity to me.

As you’ve figured out by now, this isn’t about contraception.  It isn’t about women’s rights.  It isn’t even about feminism, or sexism, or some other “ism.”  It’s about the federal government compelling a religion to do something that is against its religion.  And no, it doesn’t matter that 98% of female Catholics use contraceptives.  All that means is 98% of female Catholics feel like ignoring the teachings of their church.

Barry’s effort to force Catholic employers to provide birth control to their employees is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.  And it’s not even close.  I’ll be interested to see who folds on this.  Does the Catholic Church have the courage of its convictions?  Or will our president create another constitutional crisis?  In other words, pass the popcorn.

The Imam behind the mosque is the same as the dude burning Qurans.

I’ve written about the Ground Zero mosque before.  I’ve given my opinion on it before.  I see no need for it and I’ve heard no justification for it.  It’s not a constitutional issue…it’s a zoning issue.  It’s not about whether it can be built; but should it be built.  Well, the Imam behind the mosque  gave an interview to CNN yesterday, and provided some interesting insight into the building of the mosque (this from the live blog),

Rauf said that if he knew how controversial the project would be, he ‘never would have done this – not have done something that would create more divisiveness.’

The only way you wouldn’t have known this would stir controversy is if you were mentally ill; and maybe you are.  But now you know that your monument to tolerance will do nothing more than make a lot of people angry.  So, you’ll move it, right?

However, he said he is convinced he shouldn’t move the center now because ‘our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it and what we do.’

By that, he said, he means that if the controversy forces a move, ‘it means the radicals … will shape the discourse on both sides.’

Of course he won’t move it.  And the reason is national security?  National security because the radicals will get mad if it’s moved?  Newsflash: the radicals were mad on 9/11, when there was no mosque at Ground Zero, and there were lots of practicing muslims in New York.  Oh yeah, about that,

O’Brien asked about [the Imam's] interview with CBS’s ’60 Minutes,’ shortly after the 9/11 attacks, in which he said the United States’ policies ‘were an accessory to the crime.’

O’Brien asked twice, but Rauf deflected the question.

‘The work we have to do now is not about pointing fingers,’ he said, as part of his response.

Apparently he still thinks we were at fault for 9/11.  So there’s that.

My issue with the mosque has always been a very practical one: why build it there?  The Imam was actually asked that question during his interview:

Asked why he wanted to build the center on the planned spot, Rauf noted he’s already run a mosque about 10 blocks from ground zero for many years.

When asked about the feelings of families of 9/11 victims – such as those who might claim that their relative’s remains have yet to be found at the site, Rauf said: ‘This is not that spot. This is not ground zero proper. No one’s body is in that location.’

‘I’m very sensitive to those feelings,’ he said. ’As an imam – as any religious person does – we have to minister to the pain and hurt … in our communities. This is part of our intention.’

He said he intends to put a 9/11 memorial in the center.

“No one’s body is in that location” and “I’m very sensitive to those feelings.”  About as sensitive as a kick to the groin…of a man.  The Imam’s answer says two things.  First, it doesn’t actually answer the question, other than to vaguely reference serving the community (that doesn’t want it).  The second thing the answer says: screw you and your feelings America. 

The fact is, the reason for building the mosque in its current location is becoming increasingly clear; and increasingly dark.  If I’m wrong about his motives, then why does the Imam continue to either provide non-answers or simply lie about what the mosque is and why it’s being built in that specific location? 

He concludes the interview by calling the Cordoba House a “multifaith center.”  Sweet!  Does that mean, in addition to a mosque, there will also be a Christian Church and a Jewish Temple available for use by the community?  I’m not holding my breath.

And of course, while all of this is going on, we have the pastor in Florida who wants to burn some Qurans.  Everyone is up in arms about it.  Why?  Doesn’t he have a constitutional right to do it?  Isn’t that all that matters?  The liberal left says “but it’s not about whether he can do it, but whether he should he do it.”  O.k, but shouldn’t we be attempting to understand why the pastor wants to burn Qurans and try to help him, instead of simply attacking him? The left says no; he’s only doing it to be devisive.  In a surprising turn of events, the left is right.  It isn’t about whether the church can do it, but should it?  The obvious answer is no.  We already  know that the only conceivable reason why the pastor would want to burn Qurans is to be divisive. 

See, if anyone viewed both of the aforementioned events honestly, they would realize that both are identical.  In both cases, we have people using religion to do nothing more than stick their finger in America’s collective eye.  The only reason for either the mosque being built at Ground Zero or the church burning Qurans is divisiveness.  Of course, while everyone finds the Quran burning to be assinine, the liberal left actually finds the mosque building to be a great thing; a monument to tolerance.  Don’t worry though…the contradiction will be lost on them.

That sucking sound you hear is coming from Nancy Pelosi’s head.

Remember this come November: A vote for any democrat running for a seat in the House of Representatives is a vote for Nancy Pelosi to remain speaker of the house. Why is that a problem?  Example:

‘There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,’ she said. ‘How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.’

Looking into who’s making this a political issue?  How could this not be a political issue?  You have a group of muslims trying to build a mosque down the street from Ground Zero, when the majority of New Yorkers, and Americans, don’t want it.  Hey Nancy, instead of calling for an investigation into how the opposition is being funded, why don’t you try calling for an investigation into the group that is funding the building of a 13 story ”community center” on one of the most expensive pieces of real estate in the world.

I’m sorry, but the mosque isn’t about religious freedom or consitutional rights; it’s about common sense.  And yes, I know that the left in this country lacks common sense, which is why they think the building of a mosque near Ground Zero should be celebrated, but investigating those that oppose it?  Well I oppose it, so you can feel free to investigate me.  I’m not being funded by anyone, but I’m more than happy to give five dollars to someone else to oppose it.  Idiot.

Bigger picture:  The Speaker of the House is calling for an investigation by the government into American citizens who oppose the building of a mosque.  This should frighten you even more than the fact that she is second in line for the presidency.

In supporting mosque near Ground Zero, Barry proves (again) that he’s tone deaf

A picture of tolerance

Yes, I know there haven’t been many posts lately.  I’ve been busy.  And until someone wants to pay me for this blog, then my job security will need to be priority number 1.  No mom, no one has complained.

With all of that being said, can anyone explain to me why we need a mosque near Ground Zero?  I know I’ve asked before, but with the recent acceleration of the issue, I’m asking again.  And no, I’m not questioning whether one can be built there, obviously it can be.  But why should it be built there?  What’s the point?  Is this really the best place to prove that we, as Americans, are tolerant of everyone? 

 And what are the motives of the muslims building the mosque?  Peace and understanding?  B.S.  You could have the same peace and understanding if you built it somewhere else.  And no, your right to practice your religion is not being inhibited in any way by making you build the mosque elsewhere.  Moreover, if your real motivation was truly a thing of butterflies and kittens and pretty rainbows and dew-drops, why give it a name that basically means muslim conquest?  I’m not sure that forcing a mosque down the throat of a majority of New Yorkers, and Americans, that don’t want it speaks of tolerance.

And what does this have to do with our esteemed president, you ask?  Well, on Friday, he said this:

In his speech on Friday, Mr Obama said: ‘Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country.

‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’

As one could expect, that went over like a ton of bricks.  If the Republicans win back the House (and possibly Senate) this fall, a thank-you letter should be sent to the president.

House minority leader John Boehner’s response,

‘The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding….’

Say what you want about Boehner (I tend to like him), but he’s absolutely right (except that I don’t think they have the “right” to do it).  If the muslims attempting to get this thing built want to show how much they love everybody, then they should share their love elsewhere.  The people don’t want it, period; and with good reason.  Lest we forget that it was muslims who brought the twin-towers down, in the name of their religion.  I don’t care if they were “radicalized.”  They weren’t Christians, or Catholics, or Quakers.

Simply put, there’s no justifiable reason for the mosque to go there.  In fact, the mere fact that the builders want to put it there reveals their own insensitivity.  Of course, I’m not dumb enough to think those building the mosque are doing so with good intentions. 

Question: what would happen if, after a small group of Christian Americans set off a bomb in the middle of Mecca because they wanted to start another Crusade, another group of moderate Christians wanted to build a church near the site of the bombing to send a message of peace and love?  Well, it’s actually a trick question because non-muslims aren’t allowed in Mecca.  That fact notwithstanding, even if the moderate Christians were granted the opportunity to build the church, I would give it about a week before some “radicalized” muslims bombed it into oblivion.  And how would the American left respond?  Likely how many responded to 9/11: it’s our fault and we should work to understand their grievances.  We’re destroying ourselves, and our esteemed president is leading the way. 

Anne Rice To Leave Christianity Because It Cramps Her Style

Please note: if you are easily offended by discussions about right and wrong and religion and the like, then don’t read this.  I’m not attempting to offend with this post, but I’m also not looking to not offend.   With that being said, on with the  show.

To begin, Anne Rice has announced she’s “quitting” Christianity.  While she calls it “Christianity,” she’s actually quitting Catholicism (the two share one important thing in common and some slightly less important differences).  Her failure to know the difference isn’t the reason for this post though (although it is somewhat enlightening).  It’s because Rice is full of it, and she attempts to blame conservative Christians for her bloated feeling.

Let’s get one thing straight: Anne Rice left Christianity because Christianity doesn’t agree with her social perspectives.   See, unlike myself (who was a Christian before I was a political conservative), Rice was a liberal before becoming a “Christian.”  This has caused her to go through some inner turmoil, and her politics apparently won.  She still “loves God,” but only when doing so doesn’t offend her idea of “right.”

What’s unfortunate about the article is that it attempts to give credence to not only Rice’s personal issues, but also the so-called “disillusionment” allegedly felt by so many Christians.  I, in fact, hear some derivation of the following almost every day:  “Christians are so cold” or “so insensitive” or “so holier than thou” or “so judgmental.”  I don’t actually mind being called insensitive because I’m probably not listening to you anyway.  But these allegations being thrown at Christians generally are maddening because they have no basis in fact.

What Rice (and many liberal Christians) ultimately realized is that Christianity/Catholicism isn’t compatible with the   “socially acceptable” stuff like abortion, homosexuality, or adultery.  Why?  Because all three pretty clearly fall into the “sins” category in the Bible.  Important caveat though (which so many, like Rice, don’t seem to get to because they’re so busy screaming about judging and not being accepting and stuff): identifying these three things (and others) as “sins” doesn’t automatically “damn” anyone to hell.  Why?  Because we’re all sinners, and only God knows where we’re going.  That being said, Christianity is  not about simply accepting people’s diverse life styles, and that, no doubt, is what gave Rice heart burn.

All That Was Needed Was The Collection Plate

A School Prays for Help

Let’s see…no prayer in school, no moment of silence in school, no recognition that Christmas and Easter are Christian holidays celebrating the birth and resurrection of Christ, respectively, no Ten Commandments, etc.  Apparently the Supreme Court concocted “separation between church and state” is impenetrable to all things except one: money.  The holy rollers and their Jesus lovin’ ways are A-o.k. when they bring the collection plate.  Hypocrisy much?

LAKELAND, Fla.—When his budget for pencils, paper, and other essential supplies was cut by a third this school year, the principal of Combee Elementary School worried children would suffer.

Then, a local church stepped in and “adopted” the school. The First Baptist Church at the Mall stocked a resource room with $5,000 worth of supplies. It now caters spaghetti dinners at evening school events, buys sneakers for poor students, and sends in math and English tutors.

Churches hosting spaghetti dinners at school events?  Religious sneakers for poor students?  What if those tricky church people sneak a page into the math book that reads, “Math: it only makes sense because I created it.  Signed, God.”?  Who’s going to protect the innocent children from God then?  More importantly, where are all the libs crying about the church potentially ruining their future voting base?  Oh, there they are.

In Florida, meanwhile, alliances between churches and schools are igniting debate about church-state boundaries. ”I have great concerns about churches who see public schools as, well, what shall I say, church membership,” says Harry Parrott, a retired Baptist minister who runs a local chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Wait a minute, you’re a Christian?  You’re not one of those crazy liberals, are you?  You’re just a retired pastor who thinks he’s a Constitutional Law expert.  Don’t you know that the Constitution doesn’t actually mention the alleged Separation?  Apparently your run of the mill libs don’t have a problem with Christian money in the public schools…just retired pastors.  Wonders never cease.

All kidding aside, I think this is a good idea.  Moreover, it appears that private funding of public schools is just getting started.

Public schools are making some of the boldest moves. Traditionally, private donations—including foundation grants and money raised at bake sales—have amounted to just 1% of K-12 funding nationally, according to the Education Commission of the States, a nonprofit think tank. The money generally has been spent on extras like new computers or playground upgrades.

Now, it’s for essentials. “They’re asking for simple things: books for the classroom, art supplies, paper,” says Sean McGraw, executive director of a nonprofit foundation that supports public schools in wealthy Douglas County, Colo.

Why is this a good idea?  It (hopefully) starts the ball of common sense rolling.  Simply put, the government shouldn’t be educating our children.  They’re doing a crappy job, and our schools have become slaves to liberal philosophy and teachers’ unions.  Also, I’d like my astronomically high property taxes back please.  I’m hopeful that private funding of public schools continues, and eventually, cuts out public funding all together.  Let’s face it: All the government knows how to do is abort children; it knows nothing about raising or educating them.

Many seem confused about the Evangelicals being pro-amnesty

Religious conservatives want immigration reform

Apparently a group of evangelical leaders are in Washington D.C. meeting with Nancy Pelosi to discuss a position they share: amnesty for illegals.  Some are confused about the pro-amnesty position of so-called “conservative” evangelicals, including one of my favorite bloggers Allahpundit at Hot Air. He states,

I’m fascinated by the prospect of this blowing up into a running doctrinal debate among prominent Christian conservatives, with border enforcers on one side and holier-than-thou amnesty shills on the other trying to the answer the WWJD question.

Except … are there any prominent Christian conservative pols who oppose a “path to citizenship”?

Well A.P., while I may not be prominent (yet), I am a Christian conservative who is against amnesty.  There is some confusion out there about why Evangelicals would be pro-amnesty.  I have two potential answers.  First, the confusion can be found in the over-use of the term “Evangelical.”  It has come to describe far too many Christian denominations.  Second (and this answer/opinion will likely offend some) modern evangelicals are more interested in getting butts in the pews then they are delivering actual doctrine (that may offend someone).  It’s no coincidence that the mega-church movement has largely marched in lock-step with the rise of modern evangelicals.  Also, while evangelicals may be conservative politically, they are not necessarily conservative doctrinally.

Simply put, the Bible teaches us to follow the law of the person whom God has placed in a position of authority (with some obvious exceptions).  While I really don’t like playing the “W.W.J.D.” game, I’m willing to bet a nickel on non-citizens obeying the law and having to stand in line.  In any event, at the end of the day, Leith Anderson, president of the National Evangelical Association, has the same interest in the illegals that the politicians do: they constitute numbers.

Wallis asks “W.W.J.D.?” about Libertarianism.

How Christian Is Tea Party Libertarianism?

Before we begin what is always a contentious issue (combining both religion and politics), let’s get a few things out of the way.  Yes, I do read the Huffington Post, sometimes.  Yes, I am a Christian.  Yes, I do believe every Christian should bring their Christianity into every segment of their life.  No, I don’t know who Jim Wallis is.  Yes, I think Mr. Wallis is doing a disservice to Christianity with his article.

With all of that being said, let’s get started.

Mr. Wallis posted an opinion piece on the Huffington Post website a few days ago.  The topic was whether libertarianism is consistent with Christianity.  When I first examined the piece, I said to myself, “self, libertarianism is obviously not consistent with Christianity.  But then again, neither are any of the other political philosophies.”  At this point, I wasn’t going to write this post, but then I realized that Mr. Wallis wasn’t just arguing against libertarianism being considered “Christian,” but was advocating that liberalism was a decidedly more Christian perspective.  When I read something this stupid, I feel compelled to respond.

Mr. Wallis examines five “points” of libertarian thought, and tries to analyze them in a sort of “What Would Jesus Do?” fashion.  Two thoughts immediately came to mind. First, I haven’t heard anybody actually advocate that libertarianism was consistent with Christianity, so what’s the point of his post?  Second, I have never been a fan of the W.W.J.D. fad, because I consider it to be unnecessarily manufactured religion.  Also, since we are all imperfect beings, no one can actually answer the question with any amount of certainty.

I’m not going to examine Mr. Wallis’ five points in the manner that he presents them, i.e. is libertarianism consistent with Christianity.  Instead, I’m going to address a liberal assertion he makes in each of his points, and compare it to Christian principles.

1.  Loving your neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to leave you alone. Both compassion and social justice are fundamental Christian commitments, and while the Christian community is responsible for living out both, government is also held accountable to the requirements of justice and mercy.

An important point to be made about government: it is not, and I would argue cannot, be “Christian.”  Why?  First of all, the United States government is secular.  Second, it is a man-made construct whose goal is to keep people from stepping on each other; not dispense “social justice,” whatever that liberal phrase means.

Now, Wallis’ point about loving one’s neighbor being “better” than telling one’s neighbor to leave them alone may be a more Christian position.  It’s true that, as Christians, we are called to “love our neighbor as ourselves.”  We are not called, however, to “love our neighbor” at gun point.  Government cannot compel me to love my neighbor.  Instead, government simply keeps me from killing my neighbor, or vice versa.  One should certainly not be filing their taxes with the warm and fuzzy feeling that they “helped their neighbor (although Joe Biden might).”

2.  In Romans 13, the apostle Paul (not the Kentucky Senate candidate) describes the role and vocation of government; in addition to the church, government also plays a role in God’s plan and purposes. Preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good are all prescribed; we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes!

Wallis is correct when he says God commands Christians to respect the authority of political leaders because their authority was given them by God.  Wallis’ assertion that we pay taxes to protect the common good, however, is a fiction, at least as set forth in Romans 13.  Paul did state, at Romans 13:6, that we are to pay taxes to the governing authority.  However, the only purpose taxes serve, at least as set forth in Romans 13, is to pay politician salaries, as they “give their full time to governing.” There is no mention of public welfare.  Also, the article he links to doesn’t even mention the Bible.

As an aside, Wallis uses this opportunity to incorrectly associate libertarians with a belief they don’t actually hold.  It’s the same belief I hear associated with conservatives in general, from time to time.

To disparage government per se — to see government as the central problem in society — is simply not a biblical position.

When did small government advocates suddenly become anarchists?  Neither libertarians, nor those slightly less conservative, “disparage government per se.”  Instead, they/we disparage an unnecessarily large and intrusive government, which consists not of leaders whose interests are the people, but of leaders whose only interests are establishing and maintaining their power over the people.

3.  Libertarians seem to believe in the myth of the sinless market and that the self-interest of business owners or corporations will serve the interests of society; and if they don’t, it’s not government’s role to correct it.

This is an example of why I don’t like “W.W.J.D.?”  I have no idea what Jesus would think about the free market.  I’m guessing he wouldn’t like it, since its motivating factor is greed, but what do I know?  Sensing the same difficulty, Wallis quickly dumps the religious analysis, and moves on to analyze the free market vs. “practical issues that the public sector has to solve.”  As a practical issue, there is no question the free market is a significant improvement over a more socialized economy.  One need only look at history to figure that out.  Some government regulation is obviously necessary, but how much?  Obviously a balance must be struck, but I fail to see a “this much regulation is more biblically-based than that much” answer.

4.  “Leave me alone to make my own choices and spend my own money” is a political philosophy that puts those who need help at a real disadvantage. And those who need help are central to any Christian evaluation of political philosophy.

This is my most-despised liberal argument made to Christians because it seeks to take advantage of our beliefs.  The “aren’t you called to help the poor” nonsense.  This line of reasoning actually works on a lot of Christians, and the “social justice” argument has caught hold in some denominations.  The argument is incorrect though, because it misses a huge point. Christians are called to help the poor, or those in need generally, freely.  In other words, we do it voluntarily, for the express purpose of helping someone.  I said this earlier, but it bears repeating.  Paying  your taxes does not constitute charitable giving.  Why?  Because it’s forced.  I’ve always found it ironic to hear liberals, or Europeans, criticize this country for its lack of compassion, when this country is the most charitable nation in the world.

It is incorrect to argue that “those who need help are central to any Christian evaluation of political philosophy.”  As indicated earlier, the central issue to a “Christian evaluation of political philosophy” is whether the leaders are acting with justice and mercy; not whether the elderly receive medicare.

5. Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white.’

In my humble opinion, Wallis ruins any sort of credibility that he may have had prior to this point.  It’s the liberal meme of “the Tea Partiers hate Obama because he’s black, and so they’re all racists, and they marry their cousins, etc.”  Wallis takes it a step further though, by arguing that, because they’re all racists, their political positions must be non-biblical.  There are so many half-assed assumptions and simple untruths in this point that it’s difficult to even focus a response.  I guess I’ll leave it simply at this: racism is non-biblical, and not all of the Tea Partiers, or libertarians, or conservatives, are racist.  Plus, “racism” isn’t a political party or ideology, so I’m not sure why it reared its ugly head here.

Conclusion: None of the political parties are biblically based.  They are, instead, human constructs formed for the practical purpose of running a government.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I would caution Wallis on one thing, however.  The minute you start throwing stones about biblically based political ideologies, be prepared to absorb them yourself.  Life starting at any time other than the moment of conception is not biblically based.  A woman’s right to choose an abortion is not biblically based.  The right to cheat on your spouse is not biblically based.  Finally, the right to gay marriage is not bibically based.  Therefore, if our government is biblically based, all of the foregoing should be made illegal.  I won’t hold my breath.