Archive

Archive for the ‘religion’ Category

Too many left God at home yesterday.

November 7, 2012 1 comment

Half of Catholics voted for Obama last night.  Over half of Jewish folks.  I haven’t found a stat for Christians yet, but I do know that millions of evangelicals didn’t vote at all, after 30 million failed to do so four years ago.  They may as well have voted for Barry.

Everyone on the right is trying to find people to blame.  Many are blaming the stupid people that voted for Barry.  While the stupid people are always an easy target, I don’t fault them for voting for the guy they believe has their best interests in mind (even when he doesn’t).  There are plenty of freeloaders who are perfectly happy not working when they can.  There are plenty of women who believe Romney actually wanted to take away their womanly “rights,” whatever those may be.  There are plenty of union members who are unemployed because of the Obama economy.  But I’m not going to blame them.  Instead, I’m going to blame every single Christian, Catholic, and Jew who voted for Obama, when he and his party support positions that are immoral and contrary to the Bible.

While I’m going to play the social issues card today, I’m not going to tell you you’re going to hell for voting for Barry.  I don’t get to make that call.  What I am going to tell you is that abortion is murder.  I’m guessing I wouldn’t find many of you willing to vote for a guy hoping to institute a second holocaust.  But yet, millions of Judeo-Christian folks just voted for a guy who supported legislation in Illinois that allowed a doctor to throw a live baby in the trash if he/she survived an attempted abortion.  What’s your justification?  Women’s rights?  Public education?  Just wanted to be different?  You’ll have some explainin’ to do.

Gay marriage?  The Bible’s pretty clear on what constitutes marriage.  The Dems?  I think we all know where they stand on the subject.  Polygamy isn’t legal, why should gay marriage be?  What’s your justification for supporting it?  Fairness?  Rights?  At some point you have to decide what side of the line you’re on.

Oftentimes, we leave God when we walk out of church…myself included.  We all need to bring Him with us into every area of our lives, including our political lives.  John Adams once said that our Constitution was made only for a moral or religious people.  Without the independent code of ethics provided by religion, moral decay would destroy this country as a result of the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.  That is precisely what is taking place now, and many of the people who are obligated to fight against the decay are actually voting in favor of it.

“But Nash, aren’t you getting just a little bit drama-rama over this?”  No, my imaginary friend, I am not.  This stuff matters.  A lot.  I was ticked off last night.  And while I was ranting and raving, my wife wisely told me to focus on what mattered.  God has a plan, and that plan involves more President Barry.  My dad, who has the misfortune of today being his birthday, told me something similar.  We’re in the world, not of the world.  Four more years of Barry isn’t the worst disaster ever.  At the same time, however, we have the responsibility to vote the same way we are to live: as morally as possible.  Unfortunately, we all too often fail in doing what we ought.  There’s always next time though, God willing.

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

February 17, 2012 1 comment

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.

Why God Matters. To Parents Specifically.

August 25, 2011 5 comments

Because I couldn't find a picture of Ke$ha, riding a horse, on a highway.

Before I begin.  To all those drivers who made it take 45 minutes for me to travel five miles on the highway this morning, simply because there was a car stranded on the shoulder: you should all strongly consider sterilization.  However, I did get to hear two Ke$ha songs during that time.  So I have that going for me.

Obviously the title of this post is glaringly obvious.  God matters for lots of reasons, and we can all name them.  Well, maybe not all of us (I’m looking at you Stephen Hawking).  But the specific answer I’m looking for was inadvertently brought up yesterday by, yes you guessed it, liberal talk radio.  Specifically, the radio host asked “how do you raise a child to be moral in an immoral and unethical world?”  The question didn’t immediately resonate with me, because I know how I teach my kids about what’s right and wrong…I simply point to the Bible.  But then I started to listen to the teachings of the callers.  The first caller said he tells his 9 year old daughter to “follow her heart” because it is “intrinsically good.”  I immediately questioned the wisdom in the such an instruction, because it will inevitably result in his 14 daughter getting knocked up in the back seat of Johnny’s red Trans-Am because JOHNNY LOVES ME AND WE’RE GOING TO BE TOGETHER FOREVER AND THERE’S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!

The second caller said he just tells his kids to follow the golden rule.  When asked what he tells his kids when other people don’t follow the golden rule and seem to prosper by such tomfoolery, the caller said he deals with each situation on a case by case basis…which simply means his response largely depends on how his hemorrhoids are feeling that day.  It was at this point that I determined these two fathers were morons.  But then, after taking a break to sing along to “Save a horse, ride a cowboy,” I realized it wasn’t moronism, but a total lack of authority for any of The Man’s stupid rules.

While the question presented was “how do you raise a child in an immoral world,” the more precise question, I think, is “how do you teach a child to discern right from wrong when you can’t base your own values on anything solid?”  How does a non-believer justify his rules to his children?  Stealing is wrong.  Why?  Because it’s taking somebody else’s stuff without asking.  But the government does it…I kid, I kid.  Seriously though, how do you answer the question without grounding it in something immovable?  I don’t think you can.

There is no answer outside of God.  God made us.  Therefore he calls the shots.  Is this oversimplification?  Depends on whether you stayed awake in Theology class (which I did not).  Here’s the point though…I’m not sure it’s possible to teach a kid morals or ethics or how to simply not be a jerk without pointing to an ultimate authority.  Otherwise, you’re simply passing on your own moral relativism, which only works if you’re G.I Joe, or something (knowing is half the battle).

Oh, and to my wife: I wasn’t really singing along to “save a horse, ride a cowboy.”  I find such overt sexual references degrading to women.  Which is wrong.

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

September 9, 2010 1 comment

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.

Hawking worships man in attempt to prove God doesn’t exist

September 8, 2010 Leave a comment

I’ve read a lot lately about Stephen Hawking.  You know…the super genius who was on the Simpsons once?  Well, he apparently wrote a new book that, he believes, proves the universe began spontaneously, without the assistance of God.  I find scientists like Hawking somewhat fascinating because of how hard they try to prove God doesn’t exist, often to the point of becoming condescending and/or angry.

There’s a piece in today’s Wall Street Journal in which Hawking presumably gives us a taste of his new book, by seeking to prove that the universe was created by physics and not God.  It’s an interesting read because the first half of the article describes, in great scientific detail, just how astonishingly perfect the world is.  In fact, Hawking concludes that if the earth were different in even the smallest way, we wouldn’t be here.

The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.

Obviously, one argument for “why it is that way” is God.  You know, an intelligent Designer.  Now, I’m no physicist, but it’s difficult for me to believe anything as perfect as Hawking describes could spontaneously occur (Note: I’m biased).  Plus, there’s that problem of something coming from nothing.  Per his playbook, Hawking attempts to deal with the problem scientifically:

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

I find Hawking’s scientific explanation to fail; his “nothing” remains “something.”  Hawking argues that the laws of nature, i.e., gravity and quantum physics, got everything moving.  This begs the question though: where did the laws of nature come from?  Are they infinite?  Was gravity created or did it always exist?  Hawking doesn’t answer this question (maybe he does in his book).  I’m not sure the answer really matters to Hawking though, since the underlying purpose of his piece seems to be the  motive of most “science explains all” types: man.

Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.

“Lords of creation?”  Look, I’m not an anti-science guy.  In fact, I enjoy science.  But I will continue to believe that there is only one reason why science or math or color television make sense…and a lucky explosion isn’t the answer.

Categories: religion Tags: , ,

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

August 16, 2010 Leave a comment

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

August 3, 2010 1 comment

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.

Categories: religion Tags: , , ,
%d bloggers like this: