THE PALEOCRAT BLOG

Farewells Aren't Always Goodbyes

2010-08-22T00:25:00.001-04:00

I've never been good at saying farewell; so I'm learning how to wave. It seems so much easier that way, having nothing to say. It wasn't always like this, but I can't remember it being any different. So far as recollection permits, goodbyes have always been troublesome for me. There has always been a kind of fear that what I see I'll never see again. Whether it's true in the moment or even in fact is of little consolation, for I've been there all too many times.

Hate it though I may, farewells happen, and they aren't always goodbyes. We know as much to be true, and we've known it from the beginning. Can we not remember what it felt like when our parent's fought, exchanging words rather than kisses? Did you ever watch from the window as a parent drove away, the only thing rivaling the rain being tears streaming down your face? Do you remember hearing news that the friend who spent the night will be moving in the morning? Have you ever bid safe travel to one who you'd never see the same, being changed accidentally in the blink of an eye, with a single wrong turn? Were you ever in love, giving your all and more, only to feel betrayed and abandoned by the one who vowed life and limb to cherish and remain? So many faceless pictures, nameless notes, and careless caresses! So many goodbyes; so few of them fair or well.

But people aren't angels or demons; they're something much better and much worse; they're human. If only we did more than know as much. But time affords no easy-out, no retraction or redo. Life demands we face the music that we made, be it good or bad. It may be heaven, it may be hell, but it's much more. It's where you say hello and goodbye.

I'm not sure whether I'll ever get over this fear. I'm no longer sure I'll ever wish to. For whatever may be the cost of pain, I'll always treasure the tears and the rain. And while words may just be words, a goodbye is an action. It is true that actions may often hurt, and they often do; but they assure us that we're alive and that we've lived. We may be scarred, but at least we did battle; we may have lost, but at least we loved. And so long as there are people and places there will be backs and faces, all saying hello and goodbye, be it with words or a wave.

Follow me on Facebook!

Kissing Distant Memories

2010-08-22T00:17:00.002-04:00

I may have lost a friend, but not the memories. Seeing you from afar rekindles the faintest of affections. Whether the days were filled with romp or rancor, they were worth living… or so I think.

Time may divide, but not those things outside its grasp. What lies beneath the soul’s surface is there to stay, for the better or for the worse… too often the latter.

Return to those forgotten paths, pleasant phantom. Brush aside the overgrowth concealing the footprints of those dreadfully absent sojourners whose greatest joy was to wander aimlessly through the shadows of all things sensual and divine. Such was life for those truly living… of so I am told.

Love-stricken stargazers may be few and far between, but they’re not alone. Too often they simply fade into the sunrise. Unable to balance upon the razor’s edge of the golden mean between hedonism and tradition, they fall victim to their own lack of common sense and self-control… too often the latter.

I have lost so many memories, but not all of my friends. To see ourselves for what we are, all too human and growing old. Have we become what we want or what we hate? I’ve become what I am, and we’ve become what we are… or so I think.

Follow me on Facebook.

She Called This Home

2010-08-22T00:08:00.001-04:00

There is no hiding in an open field, and it was in an open field she chose to make her home. A glass house, fit for one and fit for all. There was no shifting of shadows there, no darkness to conceal. Everything was for all to see, and she wouldn't have had it any other way. It was open, and it was home.

People would sometimes stare. Others would often scoff. The elements were always a force to be reckoned with, especially for her having nowhere to hide. When the sun beat down, it burned. When the rain poured down, it soaked. Reading at night was a tedious task, with no more light than the heavens had to offer. But none of this seemed to bother her. She was fond of it all, believing it better to endure reality than to be sheltered from it. This was true no matter what the real decided to bring. It was life to her. It may have been the only life she knew, but it was the only life she thought worth living.

Days turned into months and months turned into years. She was growing old, and she knew as much. But she wasn't the only thing to change. The entire outside world seemed so different, so novel and curious. People were laughing, lovers were loving, and people went to and fro. There was beauty, there was art and architecture, there was music and merriment. It seemed so very real, so alive and good, and it was all around her. Everything was young and new, everything except for her and her home.

She'd seen such change many times before, but now with different eyes. Nights were rough in the open field, and the days were long and hard. Her home had lost its luster, and so had she. Tip-toeing the line between home and away was difficult, a dreadful thing even to entertain. But her heart was carried away by a peculiar series of miserable ruminations. Home may have been home, but it didn't feel like home anymore. It was all so predictable, so casual and commonplace. The routine was liturgical, rarely skipping a beat. She was so different now, and she was tired of all the same.

The day she crossed over was historic, experiencing one "first" after another . Her first breath. Her first step on the paved road. Her first night of bed-rest in a home. Everything was so new, including her. So off she went, one step leading to another until she was but a speck in the otherwise blurry distance.

Years have passed since that day. Seasons have come and seasons have gone. The sun, the moon, the stars, all in their cycle, all in their time. But the open field was now without a soul. People passed by, and some even remembered the time when a young girl called it her home. "What a silly girl," they'd say, "I wonder what ever happened to her." The stranger in their midst has truly become a stranger in their midst.

I'm not sure what ever happened to my friend. The last time I saw her was the day she turned her back. But to this moment I can't help but wondering why she decided as she did. She had the world, or at least a life worth living. She was something, and she was somewhere. More than that, she knew who and where she was. It may have seemed monotonous, but thank God for the predictability of the morning sun! Better to be grateful for the foreseeable than to bite the hand the feeds us. Such may be true, and it most certainly is, but sense and sensibility were long gone, as so was she.

I guess it would be foolish to deny that the grass is often greener on the other side. But it would be equally foolish to deny that even the greenest grass will one day whither and fade. Satisfaction may not be a guarantee, but if you've found it, keep it. Providence is providence, a gamble is a gamble, and we're often better playing the hand we've been dealt. It may not be ideal, but it is what it is, and it may be the only winning hand you'll ever get.

Currently, the land is now up for sale. It marks the loss of a home that one ceased to call her own, leaving little more than fleeting memories of wonder years built on courage of conviction. Snapshots remain, but only as figments of imaginations belonging to those who ever watched but never really understood. It may be seen as many things, and many things it has been, but this young sojourner will always remember it as the place where love was made and life was lived, both for the better and for the worse. It will always be, at least for me, a place a friend once called home.

Follow me on Facebook!

The Spectacular Unfortunate

2010-08-22T00:04:00.001-04:00

My eyes have seen the damndest things. I've seen hurt and I've seen pain. Those things from a distance hit so close to home, but home seems so far away. At least such is the view from the station where love and life parted ways.

What a dreadful litany of tragedy and despair we've written for ourselves. Chronicled are things better left alone, things better left unsaid. We mumble this mantra with reckless resolve, growing colder with each and every scale. God may harden whom he hardens, but this just wasn't sad enough! So we decided it best to make up for the rest.

Such an unfortunate spectacle! Clenched fists raised high to the heavens, howling at what we ought to have kissed. We've turned our backs on those people and places, those thoughts and faces that were worthy of life and limb! They were here when we were there, and we're all the better for it! They met us as we were, they made us what we are! If they're the plague, then what the hell are we? A passing glance, a fading chance, and nothing in between.

Maiming our memories has become virtuous, being sought after with devilish zeal. The sacred is profane, the profane is relative, and relatives are few and far between. Those who hate their next of kin despise the ties that bind, seeing in them little more than the fading remains of better days. The raging waves are tough enough, but now they'll face them alone! But at least their standing tall, courageously facing their fate as one remembering those things best forgotten in an effort to forget those things best remembered. What a sorrowful lot they are, despising reflection and remembrance, and doing so all alone!

My eyes have seen the damndest things! But what is one to do? Time may go on, but we'll one day die, and caskets don't bury themselves. We've seen what we've seen, but I'm sure we don't have to be what we've become. And while it may be true that we are in the balance, it's all well and good for the tightrope walker unafraid of the fall. Such is true of them, and such is true of me, regardless of what I may have seen.

Follow me on Facebook!

The media is biased... and so are you.

2010-05-28T15:57:00.003-04:00

Neutrality is obsolete... if it ever truly existed. Journalistic neutrality is a tough sell, really. It always has been. But this shouldn't be at all surprising. Neutrality is difficult to understand, if for no other reason than the fact that neutrality is so foreign, being little more than an abstraction for well-wishers and daydream believers.

Truth be told, bias happens to be one of those unavoidable realities very few journalists and readers are willing to admit, either to or of themselves. Journalists convince themselves that they are just looking at the facts, reporting things as they are. They are just "telling the story." So long as the story remains unread, separated from the context of a biased reader, neutrality is fair game as a fair claim. But the rubber hits the road with the reader. The moment a story is read by those unable to divorce themselves from themselves, neutrality is suspect. Stories made of facts and opinions are suddenly subject to a complex grid of presuppositions and convictions, all relative to the reader. Bias, in the end, turns out being as much perceived as a reality, unwanted but unavoidable.

It always struck me as odd that journalists would be surprised by this. For example, Justin Hinkley of the Battle Creek Enquirer recently wrote a blog on this very issue. "I and several of my colleagues have had a number of conversations about what might have caused this distrust, this anger and perceived bias," he admits, "We haven’t been able to lay a finger on it." Really? Here is a guy neck deep in the biz at a total loss as to why readers have a general distrust of news reporting, perceiving bias in the pages of the paper. Is he unaware of the fact that storytelling requires writers to pick and choose? Are his colleagues oblivious to the harsh reality of emphasis and tone? Has the entire gatekeeper concept alluded them? If so, we have a lot more to worry about than "perceived bias."

Consider for a moment the gatekeeper. Any given paper could report on a great number of things, all from a great variety of angles. Choosing which stories to cover, and deciding from which angles to cover them, is difficult, but it must be done. Hence, the gatekeepers. Some stories are given prominence, others are excluded altogether. Writers choose which facts to reference, which statistics to emphasize, and which people to quote. Such are the tough calls made by the gatekeepers, both big and small.

While doing as much is necessary for the journalist, each and every one of these decisions lend credibility to complaints of bias. Writers know as much. For this reason, journalists have their own checks and balances. One such mechanism is the effort to "report both sides of the story." But is this satisfactory? Of course not. Doing as much forces journalists to portray most differences as neatly divided along oversimplified lines. The truth of the matter, and most matters for that matter, is much more complex because people and issues are much more complex. Dualism may "keep it simple, stupid," but disagreements are rarely simple and those involved are hardly stupid.

It would be horribly unfair to hurl all the blame on an admittedly biased paper and its staff. Believe it or not, readers and journalists have plenty in common, particularly when it comes to bias. Complaints about the bias in others typically flow from the same font: personal bias. Journalists are railed against for limiting space to certain perspectives, covering one story rather than another, omitting some details in exchange for others, or even for the placement of quotes and statistics within the story. It's a lose-lose situation, really. More than that, its unrealistic... and horribly biased.

There we have it, the crux of the matter. Demands or even expectations of neutrality, in its most idealized sense, are horribly unrealistic. The issue, then, ought not be one of neutrality, but fairness. Tell the story. Read the story. Do your best to inform. Do your best to be informed. But accept from the get-go that bias is an unavoidable reality, and that while admitting as much won't assure perfection, it will allow us to reasonably enjoy an imperfect daily for 50 cents.

Economics for the Average and Ugly

2010-05-14T17:14:00.003-04:00

Reporting from the front lines of everywhere puts me in tough spots on a regular basis, but this particular story made me very uneasy. Some huckle-chuck at Paleo Headquarters thought it would be funny to send me off to some fictitious high-brow convention of good-looking tall people scheduled to discuss newly discovered reasons for their political, economic, and cultural dominance. Were I to have realized this before getting on the train, I would have rejected this imaginary mission outright. But here I am, choking to death on Clive Christian No. 1 in the midst of the Vicodin nation's Anglo-American wonderkids swapping stories about squash, sex and stocks.

The next six hours of my so-called life were particularly cumbersome. Gregory N. Price, an economist at Morehouse College, spoke of how many economists and politicians have begun to see a correlation between anatomy and financial success. Price had been involved with a study that found that every additional inch an individual may have over his or her associates may very well result in a two percent increase in personal earnings.

This segment was followed up by a strategy session for stallions wishing to further monopolize the market. "Recruiting Ugly People" was of particular interest to those in attendance. The data seemed to indicate that those beat senseless with the Ugly Stick made nine percent less, on average, than average people, and nearly 14 percent less than long-legged lounge cougars. This was succeeded by straight-talk about the benefits of teenage bulimia, with charts slapped together by Erdal Tekin, an economist at Georgia State University. Tekin pointed out that a national survey of 15,000 high school students spanning from 1994 to 2002 found that "ugly kids" embodied sure recipes for social disaster, being far more likely to be average in every way. The fallback here was a poll that seemed to indicate that the vertically and gravitationally challenged children were more likely to commit crimes, or to at least to get caught in the act. Try though they may, and they most certainly do try, the overly unfortunate common man will have to make do with promises from those both naturally and socially determined for success insisting that all it takes for the average soul to succeed is time, effort and a little magic... or a nonexistent reset button for their all-too-average existence.

Everything concluded as fast as it began, with the attendees racing to the door as they would were someone to yell "fat girl" in the country club bathhouse. There I stood, alone. As I picked up a balloon with the words of New York Time's cultural reporter Patricia "This isn't really 10th century social Darwinism" Cohen written on it, I couldn't help but to wonder how I fit in to this picture? Short, fat, and average looking at best. Were the statisticians and economists present at the convention correct, then I was destined for a life of moderately blissful mediocrity.

Then, like lightning out of clear skies, it hit me! I'm normal. This was neither a bust nor a boon, it just was.

The more I began considering the rubber-hitting-the-road application of all I'd heard at the convention, the more apparent it became that those in attendance were (and continue to be) bona fide weirdos, all birthright members of some cockamamie class cult! I mean, think about it. Should we freak out over the fact that the "better looking" make, on average, two percent more than the majority of people? Would I, as a parent of four, tell my sons or my daughters that their academic struggles may be on account of their looking "average" or their being the fruit of a mother and father with a median height of 5 foot 5 inches? And what if my children should ever find themselves in trouble, heaven forbid? Should I blast into them for their being all-too-plain and not-so-tall? Seriously, these people must have been high out of their minds, drunk with self-aggrandizement, or both!

In the end, while life may not be perfect for the marginalized majority, it sure as hell beats being a card-carrying member of the Cool Kids Club... whatever that is.

Oh Yes, Economic Insanity! That'll Do!

2010-05-07T13:50:00.004-04:00

It was the mystical dogma of Bentham and Adam Smith and the rest, that some of the worst of human passions would turn out to be all for the best. It was the mysterious doctrine that selfishness would do the work of unselfishness.”
GK Chesterton

The day and age of prudence and sanity is long gone, if in fact it ever did exist. We live in a time where money gurus babble on about how the most radical deregulation will mysteriously perform the functions of regulation, how an absolutely unfettered economy will bring about order, and how “the virtue of selfishness” (as Madame Rand was fond of calling it) would result in nothing short of the economic Utopia finding its home in the wildest fantasies of men like Mises and Bastiat. To be quite frank, the entire ordeal is a tad bit overwhelming for those who, like me, have a sensitive gag reflex.

I wish these were the musings of a madman who hasn’t the slightest clue of things as they really are, the ravings of things far-fetched. Unfortunately, one has only to fetch the remote. Market mystics are commonplace, and like a bad case of herpes they show up in predictable places at just the worst times. Hucksters in tight suits and cheap cologne spouting off what Betty Crocker would consider a sure recipe for economic disaster.

The problem isn’t so much their being large in number as it is their being professional ear-ticklers! They know the game, and they play it like champs. The masses are assured that if they just allow their cookies to crumble, then even bigger, better tasting cookie will appear from the heaped remains they let tumble to the floor.

It all sounds so simple! It sounds almost too good to be true. Like a good, old fashion pyramid scheme or bottle of snake oil. If only this bit of irony was any bit ironic.

What a pity to realize that we haven’t overcome our susceptibility to the charlatans of old. We should know better by now. Then again, there must be a reason why the adage “we rarely, if ever, learn from history” has stood the test of time. If only there were a generation that had the kind of moral resolve and intellectual fortitude to put that precedent out of commission. If only…

This was originally posted on Jan. 4, 2009.

American Life at 173 mph

2010-05-06T15:42:00.009-04:00

What I wouldn’t give for a typewriter. A real nice vintage one. The kind you would see on Citizen Kane or in an old picture of Hunter S. Thompson. If my memory serves me well, and it rarely does, there used to be one tucked away in my best friend’s attic. Not at all sure what happened with it, but I wouldn’t put it past the poor saps to have slapped a $1 tag on it in their annual Spring garage sale. Unfortunate, to say the least.

My fascination with typewriters may be chalked up with a simple love for all things old. Cars, quills, clothing styles, black and white photographs, music, you name it. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that they require a relatively decent amount of finger coordination. Mistakes aren’t easily glossed over. Errors are obvious, smudged over with White Out. Were I to be tapping away on one of these typewriters at this very moment, this entry would be as mark-free as Henry Earl's wrap sheet.

But this post isn’t really about typewriters. At least not directly. Instead, as with most other things, it correlates to my obsession with all things socio-political.

Americans live life fast and furious, tapping away at their keys without but a care in the world. The delete key, unlike the White Out of old, provides the luxury of fumbling around without having to pay much mind to errors. A simple backspace and all is well. Most forget just how many times, and exactly on what words, they utilize this feature. This allows them to fumble through life while minimizing the number of visible cover-ups by which to recall their errors. Pounding out words and actions as if they bear no consequence. Easily out of sight, easily out of mind. This is the American way.

Life may be dandy when all is easily forgotten, but it's those very errors, as well as the reflections thereupon, that make us all the better. We see common mistakes, we notice redundancies, and we get a better grasp on where fine-tuning is in demand. It is here that we begin to more accurately realize our need for betterment, and where exactly these things are to be found. This is not so when all is blotted out with broad strokes and no visible remains.

While I may have a personal passion for the nostalgic, I am by no means encouraging all to return to the yesteryear of typewriters and quills. But maybe it would do us well to be more cautious, more calculated, and more willing to reflect long and hard on those areas in life where haste took precedence over prudence.

No Peace in the Pantheon

2010-05-03T15:08:00.009-04:00

The sign reads "Beware of Religious Fundamentalists." I first saw this warning sign on my walk from there to nowhere a few years back. It seemed then that most people fearing the fundamentalists were pot-smoking libertarians living in the free-trade district; that once-prestigious part of downtown that gave way to the sprawling fever once Americans exchanged their nationalist coffee for a free trade brew. But now these front door warning labels have become quite the trend. Books, billboards, and bumper stickers! I think I even saw a young lady with something like "Fundamentalists are Fascists" tattooed on her ankle... or was it her big toe? I am not sure anymore. What I am sure of, though, is that this new "peace in the pantheon" craze has spread like pinkeye in a culture hell-bent on giving everyone eye-to-eye butterfly kisses.

I needed to get to the bottom of this. Truth be told, I was freaking out! Most everyone in town knew I worked with Local 10:34, a Roman Catholic union named after the now-famous sword-text in St. Matthew's gospel. If fundamentalists were scary, then we were every child's nightmare!

We said some pretty crazy stuff, I guess. We were pretty bold, saying things like "outside the Church there is no salvation" and that the modern ecumenical movement is tantamount to institutionalized religious whoredom. Many fundies had backpedaled over the years, but not us. Benedict XVI apologized to his "Muslim brothers and sisters" after quoting Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos during his now-famous Regensburg lecture. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell both apologized for connecting the obvious dots between national immorality and national disaster. Billy Graham and Mel Gibson wept before the bright lights after being busted bad-mouthing Jewry and its Lobby. These fellas were diminished to bootlicker status. We weren't like them. We said what we meant, sure. But we went further and meant what we said. The audacity of conviction!

But yesterday's boon is today's bust, or so it appears. And if Dr. "Scary" Gary North was in hot water, then members of Local 10:34 were in hellfire!

A few days later I found myself talking to someone who appeared to be part of the opposition. I don't recall what it was that gave her away. Was it the fact that she had "COEXIST" detailed across the hood of her car? Maybe it was her "I Luv thePrayer Summit of Assisi" T-shirt. No, it was probably the "Got Questions? Ask me!" button. I guess it really doesn't matter. What did matter was that I spoke to someone in "the know" about this.

"These fascists are so intolerant," she said. "They are so full of hatred."
"Who are they?" I asked.

"Them!" she shouted. "All the fundamentalists. Not just Muslims."

Not just the Muslims? What??? This terrifying group of foaming-at-the-mouth "Islamofascists" who tear their beards out every time someone mentioned voting machines in their presence?

The entire conversation was quite confusing. It all appeared to be so hypocritical. We needed to hate hatred. We had to be intolerant of all intolerance. Freedom of religion for everyone but not for everyone. Freedom of speech protects blasphemy and porn, but "fundie talk" must be forbidden. Confusing to say the least.

But the Tolerance Tyrants are a pretty complex herd.

The more radical libertines advocated playing arm-chair eisegesis, finding in every religion and sacred text some super-secret hidden proof of hyper-inclusivism. Reading between the lines would result in discrediting the plain-as-day exegesis of yesteryear. These folks have mastered the arts of reading between the lines and the invisible writing on walls.

The "Agree with us or die" handbook from the First Church of Americanism is quite helpful for those exclusivists trying to understand the ecclesiastical structure for this unpleasant tribe of New Worlders. A woman at the gas station up the road from my home gave it to me along with a pack of American Gold cigarettes and handful of peanut gallery cashews. It appears that America's founding fathers are high priests who had magical insight into the way things ought to be. Thomas Jefferson, who penned "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," a gospel gutted of supernaturalism, is the chief guru. Jefferson is accompanied by George Washington, the Grand Master of the Freemason's Alexandria Lodge 22, whose own pastor at Christ's Church questioned the legitimacy of his confession after years of Washington's refusal to take part in communion services. The works of Mr. "The bloody Christian faith" Thomas Paine are prominent, with Common Sense and Rights of Man being treated like Chick tracts. Apologists for this "second Israel" see in the Bill of Rights what Paul VI saw in the United Nations: the last hope for mankind and for world peace. It's even ready-made with its own Magisterium, the Supreme Court of the United States. The devil couldn't have penned a better catechism!

A few hours ago, right before penning this, I noticed a number of city folk parking in front of the house. I wasn't exactly sure what it was all about, so I went to the door. Bad idea! Turns out that one of their more vocal apologists, a certain Jay Batman, wrote a piece entitled "The Problem of Violent Fundamentalism: Religious Freedom and Responsibilities Thereof." A harmless little blog, really... or at least it was until it got into the hands of radical inclusivists. Now they are chanting outside my home! Some even have signs reading, "Peer pressure him into submission!" They went so far as to hire a negotiator. "Mr. Bannister," he said, "fundamentalists can't hug their children with nuclear arms." I tried convincing him that I wasn't down with nukes and that I'm not a fan of the war hawks, but there was no convincing him. Mass hysteria set in strong, and it couldn't even wait until I was done with my evening walk.

I'm not sure how all of this will turn out. There is no saying, really. We are dealing with a strange breed; the type of person that will demand you hug your neighbor while aiming a gun at your head. There seems to be no exits, so I'm stuck having to fight my way out of this nonsense. I'll leave you, then, with my favorite line from my favorite propaganda film, Flight 93: "Let's roll..."

What an amazing coincidence!

2010-05-01T23:02:00.008-04:00

Averting America's Perfect Storm

2010-04-29T16:32:00.004-04:00

Written by Jeremiah Bannister
April 29, 2010
Originally on Paleocrat_etc

A recent Pew Research Center study entitled "Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor" detailed a serious mistrust amongst the people of the United States toward their government. "By almost every conceivable measure Americans are less positive and more critical of the government these days," the report said. The survey found what they believe to be "a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government." According to the survey, this results from "a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials."

While much may be said about each and every one of these, we will here limit ourselves to the economy.

Official unemployment rates provided by the Labor Department hover around 10 percent. Real unemployment rates come closer to 17 percent. Job creation is found primarily in temporary services, health care, and government. Among the sectors most hurt are information and finance. A Federal Reserve study went so far as to insist that 79 percent of jobs lost are in industries where jobs have been lost forever. This is being chalked up as resulting from "structural change." Forester Research has projected that 3.3 million service-sector jobs will be outsourced or offshored by 2015, with analyst John McCarthy predicting that jobs most at risk are those requiring fewer skills, are automated, or are highly portable.

The employment situation has further resulted in a an unprecedented concentration of wealth and resources. A study coming from the University of California-Berkeley concluded that nearly 50 percent of the national wealth is tied up by the country's wealthiest 10 percent. For many this is a very conservative number. The New York Times has gone further by concluding that the top 0.01 percent of earners in this country take home nearly six percent of all the nation's wealth. This in contrast to their taking only five percent during the 1920s and one percent of the wealth during the early 1980s. In the end, conservative estimates indicate that the top 300,000 Americans collectively earn and own almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. And the NYT reported, "Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."

Add to these tragic conditions the specters of declining real wages, the ever-diminishing strength of the dollar, and a terrifying level of personal and national debt and you really do have a perfect storm, not only in the making but at the ready.

None of this has gone unnoticed by economists and politicians. Every day the public is bombarded with "new and improved" answers that turn out being little more than the same-old same-old, merely reworded and repackaged for consumerist consumption. Capitalists clamor for more deregulation. Socialists cry out for more government intervention. But both are the flip-side of the same coin, really. The answer is always found in Mammon and his priesthood of money-masters.

What has begun to arise is a general mistrust of the status quo. Citizens are generally skeptical of those with unprecedented wealth and power, and they are quickly coming to recognize the fact that an unfortunate majority of economists, politicians and pundits are little more than apologists for the very schools of thought that got America into this mess. Rugged individualism and statist collectivism just don't cut it like they used to. More than that, people are starting to realize that these two schools of thought may have never worked at all.

America is enduring difficult times. Such is an understatement. But extraordinary times require ordinary people considering ordinary things in an extraordinary way. For this reason, it would do people well to reconsider, or possibly consider for the first time, things deemed otherwise basic to human existence. The nation, the political economy, statesmen, citizenship, and culture are of great significance here. As elementary as much of this may sound, many, if not most, have failed to give these matters any serious degree of attention and consideration.

It should here be of consolation that such thoughts and actions are in fact not new to humans or history. One must remember that it was not long ago that the American experiment began. History is packed with times where people were left at the crossroads, being forced to reconsider who they were, where they were going, and how they planned to get there. Such has been done many times, and such should be done again within the here and now. For if the Pew study is correct, and it appears that it is, then it is the American system and the American people that are at stake. As such, dedicating time and effort to all things otherwise elementary may prove to be well worth it. Then again, America may not be able to afford not to.

National Review Crackpot Calls Kettle Black

2010-04-28T14:15:00.006-04:00

National Review is always good for a laugh, maybe even two. A highly overrated flagship for neocon whack-jobs bent on world domination. It has served as an editorial wonderland of nightmares fraught with Jews and Anglo-American imperialists who see a bed of roses in every battlefield and an old word order desperately crying out for their not-so-altruistic domination and direction. Were Betty Crocker looking for a recipe in kookery and crockery, she'd need look no further than the pages of their rag publication. Were she lazy, or merely wishing to save a few bucks better spent on oceanfront property in Wyoming, their Web site would suffice.

For those of us getting sick kicks out of lunacy wrapped in patriotic language and religious imagery, National Review ranks right up there with Trinity Broadcast Network, Sojourner Magazine, and the hardly Catholic weekly America. As with their Hard Left flip-side, National Review's journalistic blather is only rivaled by their contributors political blunders, which is saying quite a bit! An almost never-ending stream of nonsense fueled by partisan tomfoolery cloaked in objectivity. "Just the facts, ma'am. Unless we don't like them."

Jonah Goldberg's recent tirade is an excellent case-in-point. A highly-decorated Gooney Toon of the neocon cabal, known for, amongst other things, his pot-calling-the-kettle-black book Liberal Fascism and his constant assurances that what looks, sounds, and feels like New World Order Caesarism is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the culmination of all things good and godly. And let us not forget Goldberg's wild-eyed endorsement of the "Ledeen Doctrine." How did it go? Ah, yeah! "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."

Not to be outdone by his past, Goldberg attempted again to marginalize sanity. On Monday, April 26, 2010, Goldberg posted a little ditty on his Corner blog at National Review Online. Entitled "Here Come the Conspiracy Theories," this unfortunate musing aims at discrediting most any so-called "conspiracy theory," lumping into one miserable cesspool the likes of Elvis Presley, UFOs, the Loch Ness monster with Zionists, Freemasons, and Osama bin Laden. Marginalization by association. As cute as it is classic.

Lest anyone take him serious, remember who you are dealing with. How would marginalization by association work were it to be turned towards him? Should anyone with half-a-head on their shoulders buy this banter?

Honesty is a pretty decent policy, or so most people with a conscience would have you believe. Demoniacs may disagree, but such ought to be expected. Sadly, the same may be said of the neoconservative Vulcans, that mish-mash of politicos, wonks, and foaming-at-the-mouth fearmongers ravaging the American soul with tales of ready-made enemies. The trouble with ready-made enemies, though, is their being made for the ready, with the fear factories failing (or refusing) to factor in already-present dangers posed by very real entities from within and without. Monsters creating monsters with monstrous capabilities, all the while encouraging and enabling the real monsters to commits monstrous monstrosities. Nothing like a good dose of ready-made false flaggism.

Remember not long ago the conspiracies peddled by the propagandists? Remember not long ago the conspiracies defended by the very same? Have memories of Waco and Ruby Ridge really faded into the oblivion of the oblivious? Are fair-minded people supposed to easily forget (or suppress) the ugly truth about Jekyll Island and the creation of the dreaded Fed? Must we purge from our memories the eerie words of President Eisenhower on his way out the door, warning of something called the Military-Industrial Complex? Should Americans check their brains out at the door when seeing frightening similarities between the Phoenix Program and the Department of Homeland Security? Is it wise to toss Posse Comitatus to the wind, trusting despots that America has evolved well beyond the need for such archaic concepts and legal restraints? And let's not forget the awfully peculiar fact that Washington runs like an old-boys club made up of insiders from the Council on Foreign Reflations, Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group! Fall in line, check your soul at the door, and don't worry about forgetting your ticket with the partisan gatekeeper at the entryway of the political machine.

As with most anything else, economic henchmen and political thugs prefer darkness. Goldberg isn't an exception. This phony is in neck-deep! One would be hard-pressed to find a portion of Hell he wouldn't consider Heaven. But "truth and justice" isn't his brew of choice. Not even a sip here and there. To do as much would require he stop guzzling the partisan Kool Aid. The poor guy has grown obese from gorging himself on establishment politics and conventional "magic bullet" history.

Truth is a tough sell. It boxes the ears. Peddlers like Goldberg prefer to tickle them. While I would give an arm and a leg to see the day and age where folks like Goldberg are marginalized, I'd hate to see them fall into the category of Loch Ness or Elvis. I mean, heck, Loch Ness didn't do anything wrong! And doing as much would deprive the world of what it truly needs: a good reminder of where we ought to leave off, and where we ought never wish to return.

Conspiracy Theorists Right to be Paranoid

2010-04-17T15:49:00.006-04:00

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean "they" aren't after you. This is especially true of conspiracy theorists living through the reign of President Barack Hussein Obama. For it was he who appointed Cass Sunstein as head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Sunstein, possibly more than any other establishment henchman before him, has his eyes set on the eradication of conspiracy theorists and their disease of distrust for the New World Order. His agenda was set out in a 2008 article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures."

It is his contention that those who advocate a cause-and-effect philosophy of history embrace a "crippled epistemology." While admitting that these theories"stem not from irrationality or mental illness," he argues that they are quite dangerous and result from "a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources."

Efforts to overcome this obstacle include but are not limited to undermining the so-called sources of disinformation through tactics of infiltration. These operatives will seek to infiltrate "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real space groups." The goal is "to undermine" the influence of various fountainheads within what is popularly referred to as the alternative media.

The Sunstein strategy also calls for the government to "enlist nongovermental officials in the effort to rebut the [conspiracy] theories." He admits that this will be problematic in so far as it grants a degree of autonomy to those contracted by the government. While these infiltrators will work alongside government agents in its effort to discredit those who provide alternative theories of historical events, credibility must be maintained by creating the impression of independence. To quote Sunstein, "The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts."

Government agents and their allies are called on to enter various venues, most of which are on the Internet, all in an effort to "undermine percolating conspiracy theories." This will be accomplished "by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action." Such is the way of the termite.

Many Americans may still wish to marginalize conspiracy theorists as some fringe group "over there." But Sunstein definitely doesn't! Quite the contrary. He admits that they are "here" and a force to be reckoned with. Reasons for this vary, but his central concern is the 9/11 Truth movement. If current events are any indicator, the Tea Party demonstrations would also rank high on his list. A few other matters of interest may include the H1N1 vaccine, the Bilderberg Group, the North American Union, the Federal Reserve, and what has been popularly referred to as "the military-industrial complex." While these are only a few of the issues regularly discussed by conspiracy theorists, they appear to many, particularly within the establishment, as terribly problematic to a political elite preferring the buffer of secrecy and general ignorance.

Current events have fueled a kind of populism that has resulted in a sharper divide between the collective "us" and "them" of society. Even those not preferring to identify themselves as conspiracy theorists have found themselves on the fringe, railing against Wall Street, multinational banks and corporations, government bailouts, lobbyists and the special interests they represent, partisan propaganda, never-ending military interventionism, and most anything that begins with the word "Big." What makes this all the more interesting to social theorists is that it spans across both sides of the political aisle, with neither major political party having a monopoly on disgust and disdain. As one writer recently noted, that which was once fringe has now gone mainstream, and both sides are pouring in.

Sunstein is a crusader, no doubt. It ought to be assumed that he knows full-well what he is getting himself into. The difficulty, then, is not so much convincing "us" to love what is right and fair. Rather, it is convincing "them" to stop hating truth and justice. Unless or until this takes place, their bust will continue to be our boon.

Angels Weep When Rome Winks

2010-04-17T15:40:00.005-04:00

Laurence,

I have been wholly disheartened by the lack of attention being given to the sedevacantists. Church history is full of instances where people, both of good and bad will, distanced themselves from the visible and institutional hierarchy. Catholics were devastated over such separations. Priests, bishops, and popes worked hard to resolve these matters. They went to great lengths in hope of resolving the difficulties. Settling disputes, especially ones rooted in genuine concern, was of grave importance, for what was on the line was nothing short of orthodoxy and of salvation.

Consider what is at stake here. Recall the contentions. We are considering questions surrounding what is admittedly the most radical and dramatic change in Catholic worship in the entirety of her history. Of great concern is the fact that priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations have been dramatically altered. Many are scandalized over ecumenism, seeing a terrifying similarity between that which was condemned by the Church and that which is being done by modern popes, and this before a watching world! The world has witnessed a decline in vocations. The number of priests has become horrifyingly low, and monks, nuns, and hermits seem to be little more than images in books dealing with the lives of the saints. The children of the faithful have been ravaged not only by divorce, but by a Church that grants annulments with the greatest of ease. So many of the faithful have witnessed a decline and defection of the faith that can be described as nothing less than a great apostasy. How many parents have genuine concerns regarding what their children are being taught? This is true both in parochial schools and parish churches! And what of the embarrassment of many who have spent a great portion of their life defending a hierarchy who has hid the truth about perversion from the faithful, putting the little ones at risk without a word! Must we go on, Laurence?... See More

Add to this the fact that many of those concerned are those Rome recognizes to be validly ordained and consecrated priests and bishops! Were this to be a movement fueled only by laity, it would still warrant a great deal of attention. But for Rome to virtually ignore priests and bishops is beyond offensive!

Does any of this warrant attention? Are we so outrageous to presume that these concerns are unfounded? Are these not serious matters and considerations? Is it just or fair to marginalize these people? How many of them were faithful in their parishes? How many taught children? How many of them were part of the Knights of Columbus? How many were actively working within the diocese? How many defended the Church with insight and passion? How many want to be nothing more than Roman Catholics, believing as their forefathers did? I fear that angels weep where Rome winks!

Yes, this debate (between William Albrecht and Ken Bird over the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass) must take place. More debates must take place! The silence is deafening, and I argue that such silence is offensive to the heart and soul of a Church claiming to be Christ's hands and feet in a world so desperately in need of salvation. What is at stake should not, it cannot, be minimized! Heaven forbids it!

Schismatic SSPX

2010-04-01T00:00:00.004-04:00

Inside Most Holy Rosary Chapel

2010-03-28T23:09:00.005-04:00

The altar at the front of Most Holy Rosary Chapel, Middleville, Michigan. Below the tabernacle is a very beautiful depiction of the Last Supper. It is covered for this particular part of Lent. The mural behind the altar was painted by a member of the CMRI from Texas.

In view here is the front half of the church. The priest gives his homily from the lectern on the left side of the picture. Once again, the images are covered for this portion of the Lent.

This photo allows people to see the altar rail where Roman Catholics kneel to receive the Eucharist. The side of the altar rail where the altar resides is called the sanctuary. It is reserved for the priest and altar boys. Traditional Roman Catholics do not have Eucharistic ministers or altar girls.

Here you see the other half of the church. Along the walls are various stations of the cross, stained glass windows, and images of saints and angels covered for Lent.

Here is the back of the chapel. Behind the double-doors is a cry room for very young children. Most all children sit with their families during Mass. You will also see more stained glass windows and stations of the cross. The entryway to the chapel is the door on the far left of this picture.

Traditional Rite of Baptism

2010-03-28T22:38:00.005-04:00

My daughter Teresa Avila Lucille being held by her godparents Kevin and Tiffany Webster. Father Gerard McKee, CMRI, administered the traditional Roman Catholic rite of Baptism on March 27, 2010, at Most Holy Rosary Chapel in Middleville, Michigan.

My Daughter's Baptism

2010-03-28T22:23:00.006-04:00

SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
Teresa Avila Lucille Bannister
GODPARENTS
Kevin and Tiffany Webster
PRIEST
Fr. Gerard McKee (CMRI)
LOCATION
Most Holy Rosary Chapel
Middleville, Michigan
DATE
March 27, 2010

SSPX and Communion with Rome

2010-03-26T04:37:00.002-04:00

This is meant only as a reminder to my friends in the Novus Ordo (and I include the SSPX here) who commonly insist that one must be in "full communion" with the Vatican II claimants, but who also insist that "full communion" doesn't require full agreement with them in regards to faith, liturgy, or even discipline. The below quotes are meant only to demonstrate just how novel such a position is in light of what the Church has said regarding "communion of faith" and "communion of government."

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus, 10: "And what is this unity unless one person is placed in charge of the whole Church who protects it and joins all its members in the one profession of faith…"

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 10: “For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino (by divine law).”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 15: “When the divine founder decreed that the Church should be one in faith, in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors as the principle and center, as it were, of this unity.”

Pope Pius X: Editae Saepe,8: “... the Church remains immutable and constant, ‘as the pillar and foundation of truth,’ in professing one identical doctrine…”

Pope Pius XI: Mortalium Animos, 9: “… unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians.”

If the Vatican II claimants are valid popes, then what should we make of the claims made by the SSPX and many of the "Traditionalist" Novus Ordo Catholics who use their line of reasoning to play pick-and-choose with Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, post-conciliar encyclicals, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, post-conciliar canonizations, and other related matters? Put plainly: may one profess to be in full communion with Rome while maintaining the position of or similar to the SSPX and other "Traditionalist" Novus Ordo Catholics? Pure and simple... No!

Paul VI vs. SSPX

2010-03-26T03:55:00.006-04:00

Concerning those who wish to take the SSPX position regarding Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and the post-conciliar Magisterium. the SSPX and many others take a position that I find to be horribly inconsistent. On the one hand, they oppose Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and the post-conciliar Magisterium, including but not limited to encyclicals, reforms, and even the canonization of saints. They do this while insisting that such a position is permitted by the Vatican II sect and does not result in their being schismatic.

But what did Paul VI say of their positions on these and related matters?

Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976:

“And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is lead by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.

“ It is so painful to take note of this: But how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing themselves outside of obedience and communion with the successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, Such an attitude itself sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the Faith, and to feel the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith...

“The adoption of the New Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo [without people]. The New Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the missal reform under his authority, following the Council of Trent…

“We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he based this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.

This is taken from L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976.

The SSPX and those who agree with their positions concerning these matters would like to have it both ways... but they cannot. So any time you hear anyone use the SSPX line of reasoning, remind them of the fact that no matter how much they may insist to the contrary, such reasoning places them "outside of obedience and communion with the successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church." That is, of course, if you profess to believe that Paul VI and the other Vatican II claimants are actually successors of Peter and that the Vatican II sect is the Roman Catholic Church. Consistency is the clincher... or killer.

Will the Real Subsdiarity Please Stand Up?

2009-09-05T04:59:00.003-04:00

*italics are mine and only used for emphasis*

One difficulty facing those who take a borderline libertarian view of subsidiarity is that doing so fails to take into into account what encyclicals have said concerning the state, its proper role and functions, and particularly its rightful involvement in the market. This, as I have contended elsewhere, results in allowing the distributist tail to wag the CST dog.

It is my hope, then, to herein demonstrate what I believe to be a more accurate understanding of subsidiarity and how it should function alongside the powers and responsibilities belonging to various spheres of authority within the political economy, be it the individual, the family, the workforce, the church, or even local, regional, state, national, or international civil authorities.

Let me demonstrate what I mean.

We would do well to first consider the role of what the Magisterium has said concerning the State. For sake of time and space, as well as the fact that this particular encyclical is an excellent source for material pertaining to this matter, I will focus most all of my attention on the papal letter Mater et Magistra. I will also add a few tid-bits from the CCC and its Compendium, both of which substantiate and further clarify those issues dealt with by the popes in their universal letters.

Pope John XXIII was no foe of the state. As with Pope Leo XIII and all those pontiffs before and after him, he saw the state as being a authority deriving its power from God. He believed its existence to be most natural in the order of men. And as we will see, he believed the role and function of the state to be much more broad than many of the libertarian-leaning distributists.

Read Mater et Magistra, and search out those portions I will reference here. See what the pontiff says of the State. Consider whether or not this view of the state is in harmony with the position advocated by those whose definition of subsidiarity would make the State an almost non-existent entity.

Take for example #20-21. Here we are told that the State “whole raison d’etre” is the realization of the common good in the temporal order. Echoing the Leonine theme of the Church’s insistance that the State take special, and even preferential treatment of the poor and working class, he praises “labor laws” regarding environmental conditions of laborers, child labor laws, and anything harmful to their material and spiritual interests.

Number 44 requires the state to intervene on occasions where individuals cannot work out matters concerning the division and distribution of work.

Number 60 makes explicit the responsibility of the civil government in areas of healthcare, education, career opportunities, and even the rehabilitation of those who are physically and mentally handicapped.

We find in 74 the civil authorities responsibility to “secure without interruption” the material conditions in which the citizens of the nation may fully develop. Number 79 goes further, indicating that the state is to be vigilant over and within the economy, assuring that work will be maximized amongst the citizenry, that privileged classes would not be permitted to rise up, that there would be an equilibrium amongst wages and the price of goods, that both goods and services would be accessible to the greatest number, and that the three branches of the economy (i.e. agriculture, industry, and service) would be regulated in such a manner as to ensure that they will grow together rather than for any of them to be absorbed with the dominance of any other. To top it off, the civil government was to have the authority necessary to direct the current contract system that divides capitalists from wage-earners to one resembling a partnership.

We could also deal with #s 104 (regulating Big Business so as to operate in a manner promoting the common good over against special interests), 115 (putting in place an economic system wherein the distribution of wealth, land, houses, tools and equipment used by various industries, and shares in medium and large business concerns would all be maximized), 116 (granting to the state various activities that “carry with them power too great” to be left to lower orders), 88 and 127 (dealing with state involvement in ventures such as roads, transportation, communication, drinking water, housing, healthcare and service providers, technical and professional education, religious and recreational facilities, and subsidies for family farms), 150-151 (demanding vigilant care as to the further elimination of economic and social inequalities and imbalances, the supply of labor, drif of population, wages, taxes, credit, investment, and the promotion of useful employment, enterprising initiative, and hte exploitation of local resources), and 168 (the redistribution of riches amongst all within the community and working towards ensuring that agriculture, service, and industry progress evenly and simultaneously). The list goes on an on.

For anyone to walk away from even this one encyclical with the idea that it proposes the kind of “lowest rung possible” subsidiarity regarding virtually every economic activity under the sun would be a sure indicator that they either didn’t really read the encyclical or they have a terrible case of selective memory.

But what of those places that deal with subsidiarity? We have discussed at some length the role and proper functions of the state, but what then are we to make of this principle of subsidiarity? Well, let’s go back to Mater et Magistra for a moment.

Number 53 within Mater et Magistra sounds much like the version of subsidiarity commonly promoted by those harboring a general distrust (or disdain) for civil government. But it would be injurious to tear it from its surrounding context. For number 53 is surrounded by affirmations that make absurd the notion that the pope(s) have promoted this “lowest rung possible in any and all situations” subsidiarity. Looking at #52, we see Pope John XXIII explicitly stating that “the civil power must also have a hand in the economy.” And this intervention is not merely an afterthought, or functioning as a clean-up watchman waiting for an otherwise private market to make a mistake. No, it is to “promote production” in a way that is “calculated” and has as its aim “social progress and the well-being of all citizens.” Remember, this is what immediately precedes the popes take on subsidiarity.

Following #53 we see the pope go right back into promoting state intervention and direction of the economy. In #54 he affirms the state’s obligation to minimize imbalances amongst various sectors within the economy, to implement policies that do not pit one people, region, or nation against another, and to erect safeguards against mass unemployment and fluctuations within the economy. Again, this follows on the heels of the section dealing with subsidiarity.

The pope further deals with subsidiarity in #117, but he presupposes what had already been established by other popes regarding the various spheres of authority within the political economy as well as the rights and responsibilities belonging to each. The civil government (as with the individual, family, the marketplace, and the church) had been assigned various functions. These were always to be kept in view when talking of subsidiarity, as it would be just as wrong for a lower sphere to take upon itself what rightfully belongs to a higher sphere as it would for the higher sphere to deprive or absorb those responsibilities properly acknowledged as belonging to a lower sphere. While libertarians may tend to see only a higher sphere absorbing a lower sphere as a form of aggression, the traditionalist and encyclical enthusiast would do well to see it as a two-way street.

While one could possibly construct a way that a specific function assigned to a particular sphere may be done by another sphere, be it replacing the function of the individual or family with the state or vice versa, this would not constitute subsidiarity. Rather, it would be for one sphere to break ranks, absorbing what does not belong to it. In short, even subsidiarity works in a manner that accepts the rightful authority and functions of other spheres within the political economy, be they higher or lower, belonging to the state or the individual.

Let us just for a moment take a peak at the encyclical known as Quadragesimo Anno. It is here where we find the birthplace of subsidiarity in Catholic Social Teaching. Yet even here we see civil and church authorities granting special care for the poor and weak in society (#25), the praise of labor laws (#28), the redistribution of wealth for the common good (#57), requiring the state to work towards establishing an “ownership society” (#82-83), the condemnation of laissez faire (#88 and #109), and even demanding that the state take hold of the reigns of the “free market” in order to direct it towards the common good (#110).

None of this sounds unfamiliar to those holding a position concerning subsidiarity and the state detailed ever so consistently in the papal letters. But it would sound awfully strange to those granting to subsidiarity a function and reach it was never meant to have, nor ever recognized by our most highly esteemed Roman Pontiffs as ever having in the first place.

Before bringing this entry to an end, I believe it would do us well to look at what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and Compendium have to say regarding the definition of subsidiarity. I believe that these two sources, and the definition they provide the Catholic, vindicate the premise of this entry, as well as the arguments used to substantiate it.

CCC 1883: Subsidiarity: according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view of a the common good.”

Compendium: 403: Subsidiarity: “The principle of subsidiarity states that a community of higher order should not assume the task belonging to a community of a lower order and deprive it of its authority. It should rather support it in case of need.”

Notice that both the CCC and Compendium make it very clear that subsidiarity does not mean that if one were to concoct a means by which a lower order could perform a task as good (or even better) than the order to which the function belongs, then it should absorb that function. Not at all!

In conclusion, each order, each sphere within society, is given various tasks it must or ought to perform. Sometimes these are clear-cut. Sometimes they overlap. Sometimes we are left with a great deal of gray. But subsidiarity must not be understood as some libertarian wishbone. Instead, it is restricted to the overlapping areas and those gray regions. Unfortunately for the libertarian-leaning distributist, this turns out being more of a bust than a boom, as so many of their policy proposals stand or fall on an accurate understaning of subsidiarity.

WHy I Am Not Eastern Orthodox

2009-07-17T21:12:00.001-04:00

Those who are familiar with my journey to the Church remember my having first having been interested in Eastern Orthodoxy. I attended Vespers and Sacred Liturgy at an Eastern Orthodox church in Lansing. My wife and I stayed with the priest and his wife for the days spent at St. James. We talked for many hours about Orthodox theology, history, and liturgy. I read books by Alexander Schmemann, Kallistos Ware, and even St. John of Damascus. I recited my morning, evening, and meal prayers from a prayer book an Eastern Orthodox friend gave me. I even made sure to attend the Triumph of Orthodoxy ceremony at a local Russian Orthodox church. In short, my pre-Catholic days appeared to point east.

So why didn't I convert to Catholicism? Well, part of it had to do with my being Western minded. This posed a great deal of difficulty when approaching the East's apophatic theology. As far as I was concerned, too much of their theology sounded like a Christianized version of "one hand clapping."

But that wasn't the only reason I chose to join the Church rather than Eastern Orthodoxy. In fact, my inability to understand a theology that sounds like Buddhist koans was a rather insignificant part of the decision. My reasons had as much to do with positive things I saw in Catholicism as it did the negative things I saw in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Here is a short list, one which many of my Orthodox and Catholic friends are familiar with:

1. I saw within Eastern Orthodoxy a lack of unity, or oneness. They were divided primarily along ethnic lines, something I saw to be rather bizarre. On the other hand, Catholicism was far more culturally inclusive, far more catholic in the most robust meaning of the word.

2. There was also a lack of unity in so far as their sects were concerned. While one church may be in communion with one sect, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is in communion with another sect. These relatively autonomous ethnic sects were... well... too autonomous and disjointed to be considered catholic.

3. The admission of the Orthodox that the Bishop of Rome holds some degree of primacy ("first amongst equals") gave reason for pause. First among equals? How they maintain this without granting the Catholic position concerning the jurisdiction of the papacy is well beyond me.

4. The Orthodox hold a position on divorce that seems horribly contrary to both Scripture and Tradition.Their acceptance, albeit reluctant, of second or even third marriages (all the result of divorce) is, in my estimation, in no way compatible with Scripture of Sacred Tradition. This isn't to say that they don't have their advocates. The problem, though, is that their ability to point to advocates without having the formal means by which to settle the argument points to an internal flaw in their ecclesiology.

5. While many of the more conservative and traditional sects oppose the use of contraception, this is by no means across the board. Unfortunately, most all contraceptives are abortifacient in nature. Studies have indicated that there is anywhere from 8-13 million aborted children annually due to the use of contraception. The are "unknown" abortions in that they take place without really knowing whether or not contraception ever took place.

6. Most importantly, I thought it was very strange that the need for ecumenical councils suddenly fell out off the face of the planet at the exact same time as the schism took place. Prior to the schism the Church came together in order to confront heresy and to more clearly define the dogmas needing clarification and defense. I find it more than coincidental that the need for such councils suddenly came to a screeching halt at the exact moment the schism took place. It isn't as if heresy came to an end or that doctrine no longer needed clarification. Not at all! We can safely assume that this is the reason why Catholics continued having ecumenical councils, 21 to date.

I have already written much more than I anticipated. While there is more I could go into, I believe that these provide people with a better idea as to why I chose to join the Church rather than Eastern Orthodoxy.

NOTE: I do ask those more familiarized with Orthodoxy to forgive me for any misinformation I may have provided. Please feel free to inform me of my errors in the comment section. Thanks.

Bailout Nation (Part II)

2008-10-14T17:18:00.005-04:00

This is the second segment of my "Bailout Nation" interview with The Distributist Review's John Medaille. The first can be seen HERE.

WHY CALVINIST CONVERT TO CATHOLICISM

2007-07-10T19:23:00.000-04:00

I was recently asked what I believe to be the primary reasons for Calvinists converting to Catholicism. Now, I could have done a traditional written post, but I figured it would be entertaining to actually put it on video.

Let me make very clear that I do not believe that these three reasons (interpretive authority, ecclesiastical authority, and 2,000 year heritage) are the only reasons why a Calvinist would convert to Catholicism, but they certainly appear to be prevalent among the reasons given by Calvinists upon conversion.

BASS-ACKWARDS SPIRITUALITY

2007-06-18T18:36:00.001-04:00

It is amazing to see how often we have things bass-ackwards. Take this as an example:

The Book of Proverbs I.vii

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

It would be foolish for me to recount all the people -myself being among the most guilty- who treat wisdom as something that preceeds fear and trembling. Personally, I often find myself treating the scholar, the theologian, and the apologist as if they have a greater fear of the Lord than the average layperson. This may be true in some cases, but my reasoning is faulty. One's knowledge and understanding does not necessarily indicate one's fear of the Lord any more than one's level of knowledge necessarily indicates their being wise.

This is not meant to minimize our need to receive God's revelation or to pursue wisdom more than money (II.iv); rather, it is an attempt to put things in their God-given order.

1. The fear of the Lord results in a renewed mind.

2. A renewed mind receives understanding, wisdom, and knowledge

3. What is received results in a greater understanding of the fear of the Lord.

4. A greater understanding of the fear of the Lord places us back at #1.

On and on this precious cycle goes.

Yes, God wants us to pursue wisdom. Yes, God desires that we seek understanding. Yes, God wishes for us to attain knowledge. But more than anything else, He yearns for us to stand before Him with fear and trembling.

ON LUTHER & PROTESTANT POPERY

2007-06-17T00:35:00.000-04:00

Once again, back to Luther’s infamous words at Worms:

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."

As it was pointed out in my previous post, Luther began to see the ecclesiological and hermeneutical anarchy his revolt had created. He saw each man as having become his own prophet, his own rabbi, his own pope, his own church. He saw that people were living as they so desired, often times using personal interpretation and conscience as their defense. In short, he saw the writing on the wall and recognized the penmanship to be his own.

So how did Luther plan to deal with this? Denying others the right that he has assumed for himself at Worms. How else? When speaking about the rampant discord among protestant sects, he said:

“I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, not even the angels. Anyone who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.”

There goes Worms down the toilet! Sure, he assumed the right to defy authorities on matter of personal interpretation and conscience, but heaven forbid that his followers could invoke the same right!

His protégé Philip Melancthon took it to a whole new level. Melancthon suppressed the Anabaptists in Germany with imprisonment and death. He recommended that rejection of infant baptism, original sin, or of the Lutheran concept of the presence in the Eucharist should be punished as capital crimes. He insisted on the death penalty for sectarians that believed that heathens might be saved or for another who doubted that belief in Jesus could change a sinful man in to a righteous man. Furthermore, he demanded suppression of all books that opposed or hindered Luther’s teaching. These and many other things were proposed by the very same people who at one time took great pride in their belief that private interpretation and conscience had primacy over Church authorities.

Don’t think, though, that this is something unique to that time in history. The very same thing happens today. Protestants will use the same rationale Luther did at Worms to justify the myriad of novel doctrines that they espouse. Every moment of every day there is someone somewhere using Luther’s reasoning to justify the grossest of heresy.

So what do Protestants do? Something awfully Popish! They put together statements of faith and require that all in communion with them submit to the same set of dogmas. When anyone disagrees with the private interpretation of those in leadership, they are put on “trial” or politely asked to leave. Why? Because their personal interpretation of Scripture may be at odds with someone else’s private interpretation of Scripture? Because their conscience will not allow them to do or believe otherwise, regardless of what some “authority” says? Where is Worms in all of this? Buried in 500 years of protestant popery.

When all was said and done, when Luther had taken his stand, neither he nor those who followed after him could maintain the standard he set at Worms. As Gary North has said many times over, “It is never a matter of authority or no authority; it is always a matter of which authority.” Yes, North, I agree. And to this Luther would sadly admit that protestants have become each their authority, each their own rabbi, each their own pope.

Read comments concerning this post on Xanga HERE

On Luther & Unfortunate Consequences

2007-06-15T22:54:00.000-04:00

I remember how I felt the first time I read the words of Luther at the Council of Worms. It made me proud, invigorated, inspired. It made me proud to be a Protestant! I imagined this pious, innocent, brilliant, and well intending monk standing before a large crord of wicked, monstrous, Bible-hating Catholics. I would almost tear up when thinking of those now infamous words:

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."

Well, things have changed quite a bit since then. I have forced myself to look at the entire Protestant event and ask a number of difficult questions. I was forced to begin taking into consideration the ramifications of Luther's statement. What implications would (or did) this have on ecclesiology? Could people promoting the grossest of heresies use this very statement in their defense? Have they? And on what ground, then, could a consistent Protestant refuse the heretic the right that Luther invoked? These questions and others have since taken up large amounts of my time in consideration.

Interstingly enough, Martin Luther himself had considered the effect his stand and statement had caused. I recently stumbled upon a few quotes taken from the great “reformer” pertaining to what he believed to be the unfortunate and unintended consequences of the defense he made at Worms. I was pleasantly surprised by his admissions.

“In matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and Church.”

“There will be the greatest confusion. Nobody will allow himself to be led by another man’s doctrine or authority. Everyone will be his own rabbi; Hence, the greatest scandal.”

“There are as many sects now and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow has nothing to do with baptism. Another one denies the sacraments. A third believes there is another world between this one and the last day. Some teach that Christ is not God. Some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude that if he dreams or fancies anything believes it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and that he himself must be a prophet.”

“Since the downfall of Popery, and the cessation of excommunication and spiritual penalties, the people have learned to despise the word of God. They no longer care for churches, they have ceased to fear and honor God. After throwing out the yoke of the Pope, everyone wishes to live as he pleases.”

In the end, his stand and statement resulted (inevitably) in ecclesiological relativism. If there was ever a recipe for ecclesiological anarchy, Luther found it at Worms. Did Luther intend this? Not sure. Was he proud of it? Doesn't sound like it. Did he recant? Unfortunately, the concensus is that he didn't. It is my hope and prayer, though, that my Protestant friends would not only recognize the problem (as Luther did), but resolve in their hearts to do what Luther was too arrogant or ashamed to do: Return to the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Lord have mercy...

PS- I found it interesting that Luther readily acknowledged that with the downfall of “Popery” came the “cessation of excommunication.” This is a claim I have many times over on this site and elsewhere, albeit to the outrage of my Protestant counterparts. It appears that Luther had a better grasp on the unfortunate consequences of his actions than many who claim to revere him.

Read Xanga comments regarding this post HERE.

THE ART OF CONVICTION

2007-05-21T22:16:00.000-04:00

...for stubborn mules like me.

About three weeks back I got in to an argument with my father. As if arguing with your father is not bad enough, it was over an issue that was rather insignificant and not any of my business. Still, as if it couldn’t get any worse, the argument was in public and in front of other family members. Nothing like heaping evil upon evil.

Well, my father and I had not talked since that incident. This was strange because we usually talk on a regularly, even daily, basis. Almost every day I could count on a call from my dad. If he did not call me, I’d call him. So these past three weeks were rather difficult. But in my stubbornness I resolved to "allow" him to make the first move towards reconciliation.

In comes Jesus…

I have attended Mass every day this week. These past few days I couldn’t stop thinking about my father. More problematic for my self-righteousness was the fact that I couldn’t get certain verses out of my head! These verses would come creeping in to my conscience just around the time of consecration. What verses were they? Ah, just ones that happen to make stiff-necked impenitents feel like garbage.

St. Matthew 5:9- “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.”

St. Matthew 5:22-24- “But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee; leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother; and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift.”

But it gets worse for me. See, in my home we have dedicated ourselves to pray the Rosary every night as a family. Every night we would pray the Rosary, and every night I would feel worse and worse about my strained relationship with my dad. Why? Well, tucked in the Rosary are a solid 6 Our Father's! And in each Our Father is a cluster of words that caused me quite a bit of stress:

St. Matthew 6:12- And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.

So tonight, after evening Rosary, and those dreaded 6 Our Father's, I decided that enough was enough. I was tired of kicking against the goads… so I called my father.

Oh, the wonders of that beautiful spiritual pain caused by godly sorrow.

JOYFULLY EMBRACING INADEQUACY

2007-04-19T10:08:00.000-04:00

A young lady recently came to me in quite a bind. She decided that she wanted to join the Church but was not sure how to go about certain things. She wanted to know what she was supposed to do about the fact that her husband is furious about her decision and was refusing to allow her to attend Catholic services. She also wanted to know if she was permitted to attend Sunday service at the Protestant ecclesial assembly they had recently joined. If so, was she permitted to be actively involved in worship? To top it off, how was she supposed to deal with the fact that her husband was not at all interested in seeing their 6-week-old son baptized? These questions and many others were at the center of the discussion.

Instead of giving her my half-cocked answers to these questions, I did something I have rarely ever done. Were I to be honest, I would have to admit that I cannot recount a single occasion where I had actually done anything like this. What did I do? I admitted my lack of knowledge and authority in regards to matters such as these. I also informed her that while I was more than desiring to give her my personal opinion in regards to these questions, I felt that it would be dangerous for me to do so. To paraphrase, I said,

“I fear that I would place you in potential danger were I to act like I have sufficient knowledge or authority to speak on matters such as this. While my intentions may be in the right place, I fear that I may tell you to do something that you should refrain from doing or to refrain from something that you ought to do. This being said, as much as I would love to help, I have to admit my weakness. I will do my best, though, to help find someone who would be able to give you advice worthy of full acceptance.”

While this young lady may not have understood the significance of my answer, I sure did.

Preach the Gospel at All Times

2007-04-17T12:27:00.001-04:00

Use words only when necessary...

I have spent most of my life speaking as one with authority. I wanted people to ask my opinion, seek my consultation, and listen to my commentary as if it was verbum Dei. It made me feel good to give advice, even in those situations where I really had little to no actual knowledge. "Fake it till you make it" was the status quo.

Granted, I could say (with some assurance) that I know a lot about a little and a little about a lot; but this is a far cry from making me an authority on most any given matter. All this really boils down to is that I was ignorant on a lot, not so ignorant on some, and almost always arrogant in assuming that those small areas of knowledge I did have made me a reliable authority on virtually anything.

A few months back, I made a conscious decision to change. First of all, I accepted the fact that I am not a professional theologian. All indicators are pointing towards the idea that I will never aspire to the profession of theologian. The same can be said of being an apologist, or a counselor, or a priest (all Catholics thank God!). In the end, my lot in life is that of husband, a father, a son, a brother, a friend, a student, an employee and a Christian. Sure, there may be other hats that I will fill, but these are my primary lots in life.

So what am I to do? Bible-thump the daylights out of people? Shove pictures of Mary and saints in their face? Hardly. Rather, it would entail me loving my wife with all my heart, leading family devotions on a daily basis, honoring my father and mother regardless of our religious differences, spending valuable time with those who are most meaningful to me, and working diligently in any area of life that God has chosen to place me. In so far as I continue in doing these things (as well as others), I am fulfilling my Christian duty to love God and my neighbor.

What a relief! I don’t have to be something I am not. I am not required to be anyone other than who God wants me to be. I have not been given certain gifts and talents, and that is ok with me. To top it all off, with the assistance of God's graces (sought through prayer) I am able to fulfill all that God has required of me. He never requires what he refuses us to perform what he is unwilling to help us accomplish and he never places us in situations that are beyond our ability to bear. If that is not worth a "selah" then I am not sure what does

Does this mean I won’t read theology, philosophy or apologetics? Certainly not! It simply means that I accept the fact my giving advice on theology may, at times and in certain circumstances, be as dangerous as assuming that I would be a competent consultant on atomic physics due to the fact that I know a handful of basic scientific facts. While this doesn’t mean I am not allowed to give my personal opinion on various matters, it does put in my role as a religious consultant in perspective.

At the end of the day, it is my prayer that while I may have said very little, I have never ceased to preach the gospel.

PS- I have been reciting THIS prayer on a daily basis. I cannot even begin to tell you how much this prayer has impacted my life.

PREPARATION FOR DEATH

2007-03-20T10:21:00.000-04:00

I have been reading Preparation for Death by Saint Alphonsus de Liguori. The book is one of a handful that were sent to me from the beloved CatholicCrusader twins who are attending Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Nevada. The book is one of those rare jewels that make you feel wholly unworthy to refer to yourself as a Christian. Seriously, you walk away from every page feeling like the Holy Spirit hit you over the head with a sledgehammer! Problem is, regardless of how much it hurts to read the book, I cannot put it down.

The emphasis thus far is how we ought to always see our temporal life in view of its end. He insists that we ought to model Christ, who never lost sight of the cup that he was to drink, not even for a moment. The Saint also spends a great amount of space talking about how our finitude (the entire concept of time, really) should impact our daily lives, the spiritual as well as the secular.

The book has given me so much food for thought. More importantly, it has caused me to seek changes in my life. It has helped me recapture a truth that I used to understand very well: Christianity is not merely a mental exercise. As necessary as it is that we gain knowledge (something he believes to be one of the primary goals of the Catholic Christian), our intention ought to be a full abandonment before God that results in contrition and holy living.

The book has also given me a better perspective on making the best use of time. The Saint writes, “Oh time despised during life! You will be ardently desires by worldlings at the hour of death. They will then wish for another year, another month, another day; but they will not obtain it… how much would they then pay for another week, or another day, to settle the accounts of their conscience?... But this hour shall not be given.”

Many people, especially gadflies such as me, find themselves getting involved in activities and discussions that are of little value. I cannot recount how many days of my life have been wasted on vanity! I cannot tell you how many activities I have allowed myself to be consumed with throughout my life. So many that turned out to be more harm than good. So many that turned out being nothing but a waste of time, time I am running out of as every second passes! God help me….

Affections and Prayer of St. Alphonsus-

“Oh my sweet Savior, would that I had died a thousand times before I sinned against Thee! I tremble lest I should hereafter offend Thee again. Ah! Make me die most painful of all deaths, rather than permit me evermore to lose Thy grace… I may lose Thee at some future time; but the grace which I ask of Thee is, to take me out of life rather than suffer me ever to lose Thee again.”

Attending Midnight Mass @ St. Philip

2006-12-25T23:23:00.000-05:00

I went to St. Philip (pictured above) last evening for midnight Mass. I have many friends who have attended the service and I figured it would be a nice experience during this otherwise not-so-festive Christmas holiday.The Mass far exceeded my expectations.

I was intrigued by the liturgy, inspired by the music, and impressed with the general feeling of love and devotion. I strongly encourage any and all residents of Battle Creek to attend a Christmas eve midnight Mass at St. Philip. Trust me, you won't regret it.

PS- If anyone wants to get me a belated Christmas present, a Douay-Rheims version of the Bible would hit the spot! It should be genuine leather, of course, but hardcover would do just fine. haha

IRAQ: A LEFT - RIGHT DEBATE?

2006-07-15T23:44:00.000-04:00

Many of us have found ourselves, as with other matters, on both sides of the Iraq war debate. There was a time when I was just as staunch in my defense of the Iraq war as I am now in questioning it. While I identify with conservatives I do not believe that this forces me into the position of supporting the Iraq war (or any matter) without questions, concerns, or reservations.

There are many good conservatives, libertarians, Christian Reconstructionists, and Republicans who have difficulties with the current war in Iraq. In fact, if polls are any indication, I would dare say that there are many good Americans who have difficulties with the Iraq war! An entire book was dedicated to the debate and a conservative magazine was created primarily for providing a conservative voice of dissent over the Iraq war. Conservative and libertarian writers such as Gary North, Pat Buchanan, Thomas Flemming, Leon Hadar, Samuel Fancis, Lew Rockwell, Rep. Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts, James Bovard, Fred Reed, Doug Bandow, Srdja Trifkovic, Chilton Williamson Jr., Taki Theodoracopulos, and many others have dedicated much time and effort to writing against the Iraq War. It would be a gross mischaracterization of the debate to insist that support of the war is strictly a "left-right" debate.

Unfortunately the debate often becomes one of downright hatred for the opposing school of thought. This goes both ways. In my estimation, Paul Craig Roberts has gone from a reasonable dissenter to a rabid journalist. I have followed his articles for some time and have seen him go from sensible to downright furious. Yet, at least in my experience, this kind of treatment is far more common when coming from those who agree with the current war than it does from those conservatives who oppose it. I have witnessed pro-war conservatives derail anti-war conservatives as radical pacifists, isolationists, and accusing them of hating our country or "blaming America first." Worse yet is when they are called leftists, commies, terrorist sympathizers, and traitors. I have heard of (and have dealt with) people who have gone so far as to call anti-war conservatives traitors and tell them that they should move to Europe or Canada because of their dissent!

I felt that I should post this entry in hope of expressing my concerns, frustrations, and experiences with fellow conservatives who would use my last post as a justification to question my patriotism and my conservative convictions. It is my hope that everyone will begin taking a hard look at their stance on war (when, how, why, and towards what end war should be fought) and the role of the US in international affairs (interventionism) in order to arrive at a more reasonable position. My hope is that we will do it sooner rather than later; my fear is that we will ignore it for now and face it only when it is too late.

Write Paleocrat: Paleocrat@aol.com

GOLF & CHRISTIAN MEDIOCRITY

2006-07-05T19:12:00.000-04:00

Back in high school I was the MVP of the golf team for 3 years. During that time I would golf regularly. Actually, I would hit about 500 balls on the range and play close to 18 5 days a week. I was 3 strokes off of the "full-ride" scholarship cut in the city tournament. The top-10 are given a full-ride to the State Universities. While I was ranked 6th in the city (3 of the top 5 golfers in the state were from my hometown that year) I shot 7 over on the last 3 holes to take 13th out of close to 100 players. After the first double-bogie I thought I was out of the running and just gave up hope. Turns out, I could have bogied the next two holes and still made the "full-ride" cut. If I would have pulled myself together and played "poor" golf (for me) I could have attended the University of Michigan or Michigan State and played on their golf team. History played out differently.

Since then golf has been more of a burden than a pleasure. Maybe this is not all that odd? For a few years after high school I golfed just over "scratch" but those days have been long gone. Now I am lucky to get away with a low 40's (3 or 4 over par on 9 holes). With every passing year I get to play less and less and my scores keep getting higher and higher.

While I was playing today I began to think about Christian mediocrity. For some time I have been frustrated with the low level of expectation that Christians have. From Church unity to politics, from business to art it seems that Christians are satisfied with mediocrity. At times it seems that we are not only satisfied with it but go so far as to praise it as if it were in fact excellent! We insist on secular politicians who give lip-service to hot-button conservative issues, put up with denominationalism run amok, and think highly of movies like Left Behind and Bells of Innocence (I am left wondering what else Church Norris had in mind when he chose to act in this movie other than to make it very clear to the world that his film career had come crashing to a pathetic end). Why we jumped off the excellence band-wagon is beyond me but there is no doubt that Christendom has been B-rated for some time.

When I double-bogied on that one hole I allowed that to determine the excellence of my next performance. When you think that there is no hope you have little initiative to do better than you did prior to the double-bogie. The old maxim of "why shine brass on a sinking ship" is all too relevant here. Worldviews matter. Eschatology matters! If we could see the forest for the trees and realize that our mediocrity and apathy is the cause of the ship sinking we may just have what it takes to lift out heads high and fight hard for the full-ride.

PLUNDERING OUR CHILDRENS INHERITANCE

2006-06-11T21:45:00.000-04:00

*Reply to BCOnline concerning the estate-tax*
C'mon BC. This is nothing less than the politics of envy and guilt manipulation. Should you get a peice of the rich's pie? Should I? Says who? Bottom line, it is pure envy. Worse yet is that the envious guilt manipulators hire the Robin Hood of the State to plunder the wealthy and spread the loot. I believe that this is theft, an abuse of State power, and driven by the sin of envy.

So what that Paris does not hang her head low? The State is not the instrument to teach her some "humility." Is arrogance a crime that must involve the State? I say that your envy is as despicable as their arrogance yet I would never desire to see the State step in to "teach you a lesson" on contentment. You actually want the State to do things to the rich (take away money) to "fix" internal dispositions that you do not like in them. So now the State is in the business of fixing dispositions and not just restraining evil or ensuring liberty? The State is far more than the nanny or big brother for the left these days... it is now the messiah.

America is not about leading a life you did not work for? Who made this one up? You? When did this happen? Why do you make this an either-or rather than a both-and? We have been, from the beginning, a nation made up BOTH of those who were born into wealth AND those who worked from the bottom up to get where they are. Many of those who worked to become prosperous are the very people you are now coming against! Why must we all start at point A? Who said that it is immoral for some who started at point A to allow their children to start at point B? Who made this rule and who gave the State the right to enforce it?

Envy and guilt manipulation: The politics of plunder. I pray that my daughter will reap the benifits of my hard labor. And maybe by that time the state will get their envious paws off of what does not belong to them....

Words, Meanings, And The Cultures That Change Them

2005-06-03T13:20:00.000-04:00

The evolution of words and their meanings are innevitable. This is all the more true in a world of sin and relativism. Yet a definition to any given word is far more conservative than it is creative. Definitions have also been far more reactive than determinative. Although changing a definition may alter the way one (or many) uses, applies, and is impacted by any given word this is not the common path that words in history have influenced social, moral, or cultural changes.

One may consider words such as gay, fag (a bundle of twigs or in some cases a cigarette), dude (a city-slicker), and niggardly (to be miserly, extremely stingy with money) to have a basic idea as to how definitions have been tranformed through time and cultural change . It was not that the definition was altered by a handful of elites and then forced upon a culture unwilling to interpret or use it in that way (although the Southern Reconstruction and modern Campus speech codes are awefully close). It was that through time and cultural change these words began to grandually lose their meaning. Their traditional (and accurate) definitions were being altered gradually, through social-cultural changes, national minorities, spiritual decline, and academic sloth.

All that to say this: If our families, our Churches, and consequently our marriages, were in good shape there would be no debate (at least not public and of this significance and magnitude) over its definition. As written above, definitions change only when the reality that it is to reflect and signify that word has gradually changed in society. To keep the definition of a word regardless of its reflective quality (how it relates to reality) is foolishness and, as shown by the history of language evolution, improbable. So for us to save a definition would do little to no good in saving, or even preserving, the reality of what it is to signify.

My advice? Save marriage, the definition will follow.

*I argue that this gradual, bottom-up, change of language in history is part of God's "common grace" keeping a check on sins radical, tyrannical, and revolutionary nature in human society. It is interesting that God's system of language evolution is indicative of any cultures spiritual condition. It is also of interest that Satan has chosen a top-down method of language evolution. Top-down social change is almost always tyrannical in nature. See Gary North, Moses & Pharaoh, Dominion Religion vs. Power Religion*

American Conservatism: A Beautiful Failure

2005-04-25T18:49:00.000-04:00

Check out other great DEmotivational Pictures at www.despair.com

THIS POST IS BEING RE-POSTED FROM OUR ARCHIVE. IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BY THE PALEOCRAT FOR THE CHRONICLES MAGAZINE BLOG: CULTURAL REVOLUTIONS. ENJOY!

"The Double-Edged Sword Of Party Politics" by, Jeremiah Bannister

All of the comments here are fair. Sure, Buchannan understands the "game" of politics better than many of us who spew our thoughts on blogs. Has he lost credibility? You bet he has! With the establishment? You bet! Would it be politically wise or prudent for him to full out endorse, or run for that matter, on a third party platform? (Must we be reminded that Howard Phillips founded the Constitution Party in part for Mr. Buchannan to run with?) That would be a nail in his coffin. In a coffin it is still better to speak from above ground than 6-feet-deep.

The crux of the matter here that would be worthy of further consideration is that of Conservatives relationship to any political party. In my estimation it is a two edged sword. If you stand outside off of the dance floor you may not be asked to dance. Yet if you go and dance alone (or act as if you are dancing with another) you may look like the village idiot. When an ideology (and one as difficult to define as it is to unite) lays to rest in a Party that is not defined by its ideas, values, or existence then what seems to be the case (as far as history may reveal) is that the ideology and its constituency become tools of the organization or party. The black democrats and Christian right republicans are classic examples of such constituencies. The conservative movement seems to also have fallen victim to this tendency.

Another case in point, as ironic as it is appropriate, is Pat Buchannan. He has been ignored, smothered, ridiculed, mocked, and left out to dry by the Republican Party. The same of course could be said about his policies! Yet he returns to the hand that beats him! Listening to him and others that speak so publicly about their hatred for the administration and what they are doing to America reminds me of women with “battered wife syndrome.” These women call 911 begging the police to save them from their husbands and when the authorities arrive they start assaulting them insisting, “That is my husband; get your hands off of him! I love my husband, he really didn’t mean it. He can change.” This sort of reaction is as predictable as it is sad. The same can be said of Conservatives and Party politics.

So whether we stay or go both have their sting. The answer may best be found by reviewing the progress (whether in policy or restraint on radical leftist policies) since our formal founding. Those who have stayed are ignored. Those who leave are marginalized (at least those who run to third parties). Either way we have been ignored for a long, long time. Maybe we ought to take a cue from the Neoconservatives who abandoned their party and soon afterward found prominence in Administrations? Maybe a case should be made for abstention? Any way we go, maybe those in Cardinal College can assist us in finding a conclusion.

Sebastion Smith: Village Idiot of Marshall

2005-04-14T21:37:00.000-04:00

A Real Tough One For Sebastian Smith

This is a story I wanted to write about a week and a half ago but I forgot. I forgot all about it until I saw the newspaper lying on the recycling heap.

On April 5, 2005 there was a piece in "The Locker" (Battle Creek Enquirer, Neighbors, Questions & Answers, C1) concerning the matter of Terri Schiavo. This section is dedicated to asking teens from local public schools questions of significant local, state, or national importance. This weeks question was:

In light of the Terri Schiavo case, do you think Congress is going too far with your rights as a citizen?

The answers given by these students ranged from pro and con, as would be expected, but one specific brainiac by the name of Sebastian Smith replied by saying,

"I don't think that they should kill Terri Schiavo because we don't know if being in a coma isn't really the best experience in the world."

I am serious. This guy actually said that! I couldn't believe that someone would say that, or more amazing is that the paper printed it! I wish I could have retrieved the picture of him from the Enquirer archive, it is worth a million words.

If he is any indication as to the quality of the public school system then we have a lot to fear! Yet this idiot has a bright future ahead experiencing the "American Dream." At least if the American Dream is a life full of drugs, drugs, and more drugs. Maybe he will get one of those much deserved "grants" to some University where he can learn all about transcendental meditation, faggot rights, and how Karl Marx is better read while wasted on beer and weed.

It would be interesting to know the reaction of the parents. They must have read that and been so proud of their darling child. Uncle Sam has taught their baby well. The old song "save the children" means a lot more to me now...

Christian America: Red vs. Blue?

2005-04-14T19:46:00.000-04:00

The Myth Of Christian America

In a recent article by Vice President of Government and Public Policy for Focus on the Family Tom Minnery gives a very misleading idea as to the present condition of our nation. In Our Befuddling Nation (Final Word, Citizen Magazine, May 2005) he writes concerning both Alex de Tocqueville's 1835 verdict (Democracy in America) on the reasons for American "Exceptionalism" and a present day book attempting to figure out the same thing. The book under review is "The Right Nation" written by British authors John Mickelthwait and Adrian Wooldridge, both of them journalists for the The Economist magazine. Their conclusion resembled that of de Tocqueville: America's Christian religious influence is its primary reason for being "exceptional."

The problem arises when Tom Minnery, and the authors for that matter, deduces the issue to red vs. blue politics. My beef here is not with the British secularists (although I do disagree with their assessment of both the health of American Christianity and its influence on Public Policy) but with Tom Minnery. Rather than admitting the pathetic (apathetic) condition of American Christianity and its lack of any significant political advancements he goes into applause and ends his piece saying that their conclusions are, "a source of encouragement."

So where does he get his source of encouragement? Is it the condition of our Church? Highly doubt it. We have homosexual marriage on the rise, pedophile priests being punished with a "transfer," PC seeker-sensitivity preaching, segregated Churches, rampant denominationalism, theological ignorance, seminary liberalism, and a divorce rate higher than the outside world! Are these the marks of a Christian nation? This is not the Christianity of de Tocqueville’s 1830's. This is nothing more than secularism wrapped in the swaddling clothes of Christian ritual and symbolism.

Is his reason for encouragement the political influence of the Church? Probably not. Unless you are in agreement with Mr. Minnery that the Christian/non-Christian politic is as clean cut as red and blue. I myself am not a subscriber to that notion. I do not believe that Christianity is, or should be, as simple as red vs. blue. Yet to these men, Mr. Minnery included, this die-hard alliance to party politics is a quality worthy of exceptionalism. If Christians getting nominal Christians and secular "moderates" into office year in and year out, all the while losing both in policy formulation and law, is an "encouragement" then I would hate to know what would be the cause of discouragement!

Does Mr. Minnery believe that it is our influence over public policy? Let us do a quick review. Prayer is out. Evolution is in. Federal spending is at an all time high. Federal debt is beyond comprehension! Abortion is still over 4,000 daily. Euthanasia is making strides against some so-called "culture of life." Federally funded embryonic stem cell research is supported overwhelmingly by many of those we have put into office. We have a tyrannical level of taxation. Just War theory has been replaced by pre-emptive violence in pursuit of some global democratic revolution. We have no fixed standard for our currency. Every day we are being subjected to the rulings of unknown bureaucrats in the UN, WTO, World Banks, and others. There is no longer any fixed standard of law and justice due to the fact that precedent rules the day and setting precedent is the trend. The list could go on and on and on.

The sad fact is that Minnery knows all of this! But instead of dealing with the fact that what goes for Christian political theory is little more than the secular, conventional wisdom of the Republican Party he chooses to applaud this assessment as some kind of personal confirmation. This comes as no surprise to me or anyone else who has not yet become drunk off of the Partisan wine. Maybe one day our espoused Christian leaders will stop patting themselves on the back for "accomplishments" and begin the ever so needed reconstruction of the Church and its influence over public policy with a distinctively Christian social theory.

The Madness Of Our Times

2005-04-11T19:55:00.000-04:00

Marching To The Rythm Of The New World Order

Statism reveals a lot about a society that claims to desire "freedom."

War reveals a lot about a Religion which claims to spread peace and freedom through the gospel.

Advocating Secular Democracy (or Democracy alone for that matter!) reveals a lot about those who claim to believe in Original Sin.

Religious zeal for Secular Imperialism reveals a lot about a faith that claims to fear a New World Order.

It also reveals the lack of conviction we seem to have concerning Christ's Biblical Theocratic Kingdom being only political system that will bring world freedom, prosperity, order and justice.

All in all it would seem that current realities reveal a lot about our faith and Nation's internal schizophrenia. What a strange and peculiar people we are indeed.

Jeremiah

Clarifying My Comments

2005-04-05T00:13:00.000-04:00

Samantha Supported 100% Pro-Life Peroutka

After having written my last post I felt the need to clarify a few of my thoughts before people were up in arms. First of all, although I am an opponent of the party system this does not mean that I discourage people from supporting local, state, and national candidates that are members of political parties. I myself was a delegate at the Constitution Party this past election year. I chose to refrain from support of the President on moral grounds. It was a matter of conscience for me and I do not regret my actions. Mr. Peroutka is a wonderful man and the vast majority of CP members are God fearing constitutionalists.

This having been said, I would have voted for him if he was running as a Republican. It was not a matter of party (at least not entirely), rather, it was a matter of the man I felt best fit the need of America. Had he run as a Democrat I would still have voted for him (as I voted for a Democrat on the local level). Once again, it was not strictly a matter of party affiliation. It was a matter of conscience and my conviction that he was the best man fit for the job regardless of the odds of his victory.

Do I believe that it is wrong to be a member of the GOP or the CP? No. Rather, I am not sure, in historical hindsight, that it has been advantageous to the Christian cause of Reconstructive social change to be a member of a political party.

If you are a Republican you may have the odds in your favor for electoral victory but the odds of any real Christian change happening through that party are slim. Ask yourself how many times we have heard Republicans give the same old promises over and over and never follow through. Worse would be the fact that the Christian constituency is the primary reason for Republican dominance and yet they have become like the blacks of the Democrat party; a default constituency. This being said, the 3rd party advocate must admit that the odds of social change are greater from within the Republican party than it is outside the party due to the fact that they at least have a shooting chance of getting into office.

If you are a CP member you may have a great platform but the odds of you having any real impact on national politics (the local odds are much greater obviously) in a two-party environment is about as probable as finding aliens on Plato enjoying a round of Five-Card-Draw. There is also the fact that in the present system you would be seen as a fringe group only to be discarded. This has happened to many a great mind in this party. Only if you were to persuade the people of America that the two-party system (or the party system as a whole for that matter) is dangerous for the Republic and the end of truly representative government will you see any significant change. We could debate the validity of this claim for some time but history is my vindicator.

So I conclude that, at present, party politics may have to be a reality we must deal with. Questions immediately arising are whether one should rely on integrity or pragmatism in deciding which party to work within and to what degree one should commit oneself to that party. These are all questions to be dealt with in future posts but I felt that it was necessary for me to at least clarify my statement(s).

Party Politics and the Christian Ghetto

2005-04-04T19:48:00.000-04:00

Some Call Them Heroes

I read Angela Wittman’s piece today entitled, “Why I am a Christian Independent” and came away from it so encouraged. I would advise everyone to check out her website and read what she had to say.

For myself, I proudly bear the same title. I have for quite some time advocated what I call (although I presume that there have been others who have advocated such a system although I have not read any of their material nor do I believe any to be of any real significance) an “Open Party System.” In upcoming days I will post some of the articles and letters that I had written during this past Presidential Election campaign regarding this system.

Although I am strongly opposed to political sects in general I assume that, at least for now, they are an evil to be dealt with. It is my conviction that Christians ought to keep themselves from any permanent (including the GOP and the Constitution Party) political party affiliation and membership. I believe for many reasons that such action by the Christian Electorate within a Party System has resulted in a Christian special interest ghetto. It is my belief that if Christians would like to regain some form of political relevance and be seen as more than a special interest group to be coddled with religious rhetoric every election year then we may want to reconsider our position on the issue of Party Politics and its affect on Christian social change.

Although I accept the Party System as a reality to be dealt with I do not concede that it is a system that must be embraced with blind commitment and partisan zeal. While I see some (and I admit this with much regret) advantages to such a system I do not believe it to be in the best interest for true “representative government” or the “free marketplace of ideas.” I mention the latter because it is here and here alone, outside of a violent revolution, that we will see any advancement of Christian Reconstruction.

Personally, I believe that one may participate in party politics (for to not do so would cause one to become socially irrelevant) without being chained down by partisanship or groupthink. This “use” of the Party system would deny the Sect the power of ownership and obligation all the while giving the electorate the political “weight” by which to hold individual politicians accountable for their actions regardless of their political affiliation. Only once we understand this will we regain the power of political influence...

Much more will be written on the issues of the “Party Politics and the Psychology of the Electorate,” “Party Politics influence on Christian Social Theory,” and “Party Politics and Political Irrelevancy” in the upcoming days…

America The Exceptional

2005-03-29T15:05:00.000-05:00

America upon Reflection

“Really now, in the last 40 years, whose standards have changed more-those of the Church or those of society? Who is looking like whom? … We have not changed the world, the world has changed us.”

Michael Brown- Revolution: Call to Holy War

I want everyone to step back for a moment, away from all of the partisan banter, and reflect on the actual condition (morally, spiritually, economically, politically, etc.) of our nation. Those on the Right believe that liberals are a bunch of "hate America firsters" while those on the Left believe that conservatives are a bunch of “hear no evil, see no evil” puppets of the State. It is as easy as it is unfortunate to figure what a persons assessment of our Union might be based solely upon party affiliation and who happens to be in power at the time of the asking. See, in one regard they are both right, and yet in another they are both wrong.

Both the Right and the Left despise America (at least the State and its policies) when the other is in power just as much as they love America (with a blindness only a mother could understand) when the others are out of it. When the State was controlled by Democrats all the lefties were in rejoicing. The Right during that time thought that it was the worst condition our State had been through in American history! Then Bush entered into office and the Right was ecstatic. Since he has been in office the conservative base has been all but worshipping the RNC. It would seem that nothing Mr. Bush does is wrong to them. All the while the Democrats are bemoaning every single thing that Bush has ever done.

So it would seem that both the Left and the Right are “hate America firsters” depending on which party is wielding power (most specifically, which is a true sign or symptom of Imperial Statism, the Executive Office). In the same measure, both the Left and the Right are shouting “America the Exceptional” when their Party is in office. This is partisan politics and merely a play at psychological self-deception when excluding oneself (at least the vast majority on both sides of the isle) from such a judgment.

So let us, as Bible believing Paleocrats, look at the state of our Union. Let us take a peek into the ills that we are riddled with. Let us look at the plank in our eye so that we can more accurately understand what we have to work on in pursuit of self-betterment. Once we realize the condition we are in the sooner we may be able to remedy the problem.

Here are some statistics that will help us make a sound judgment regarding our present condition. Some of the facts and numbers are hard to handle. (Trust me, I have preached on them to kids in youth group.)

Since 1960 the….

1. Divorce Rate has Doubled

2. Suicide Rate has Tripled

3. Reported Violent Crimes have quadrupled

4. Prison Population has quadrupled

5. Percent of babies born to unmarried parents has sextupled

6. Cohabitation (or live-ins) has increased sevenfold

Rates and Percentages, many in relation to the entire industrialized world

1. America has the highest percentage of single-parent families in the industrialized world

2. The highest abortion rate in the industrialized world

3. The highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the industrialized world.

4. The highest teenage birthrate in the entire industrialized world.

5. The highest rate of teenage drug use in the industrialized world.

6. 21% of American 9 year olds watch five hours or more of television daily. This is the highest in the industrialized world.

7. At present, the out-of-wedlock birthrate amongst Blacks is near 68%. They also have the second highest rate of HIV/AIDS right behind homosexuals.

8. Across American racial divides the out-of-wedlock birthrate is 1 out of 3.

9. Within the last few years out of the approximately 65,000,000 kids age 17 and younger, almost 28,000,000 (43%) spent time in a single-parent family. About 8.25 million were born out of wedlock, about 16,700,000 experienced the divorce of their parents, and additional 3,000,000 or so children were born out of wedlock AND experienced a divorce of their parents.

10. Among women born between 1971 and 1975, 2% were married to their partner at the time of their first sexual intercourse. That is one out of every 50 girls that make it abstinent until marriage.

11. In 1997 (not that long ago), roughly 3,000,000 teenagers, about one in four who are sexually active, acquired a sexually transmitted disease. Recent studies show that this number has increased.

12. 76% of all births to teenagers occur outside of marriage.

13. In 15 of our nation’s largest cities in 1995, the teen out of wedlock birth ratio was a huge 90%! In Pittsburgh and Baltimore it was 96.5%!

14. 4,000 babies are reported as being aborted every 24 hours.

15. 1,500,000 to 1,800,000 babies are reported to have been murdered by abortion procedures annually in our nation.

16. A 1997 survey conducted by George Barna used 152 different items to compare the Church and the world. He found virtually no difference between the two!

I am choosing to stop the list here although I could talk about the lives taken around the world through interventionism, the immorality of taxation (unbiblical taxation), Darwinist propaganda in public schools, the sex (pervert) education in public schools, public school education in general (in math achievement American public school students ranked 19th out of 21 nations), cases such as Terri Schiavo and the Philadelphia protesters (arrested and facing many years in prison for bringing the gospel to the streets of Philadelphia during a gay pride festival), as well as the gay revolution and the AIDS curse. The list could go on and on!

As I stated before, there is no question that America has done and continues to do good at home and abroad. But we must remember that the good we have done does not permit us to turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to the atrocities committed by America at home and abroad. We, especially as Christians, must begin to take America by the horns and demand change. It is our responsibility as God’s reforming agent to confront the world and declare Christ as King, requiring that every area of life submit to his Lordship. For he alone can perform the surgery America so desperately needs in order to truly become “America the Exceptional.”

*You can access many of these figures in Michael Brown’s book entitled, “Revolution: The Call to Holy War.” You can also check out “Faith Commitment” by Barna Research Online at www.barna.org. *

WARNING: Slippery on "Quality of Life" Street

2005-03-22T17:02:00.000-05:00

Dred Scott

Mrs. Renee Poole came out in the Battle Creek Expirer today saying, "I think if there is not quality of life, then I do not believe in prolonging the life." This woman is black and looks old enough to remember at least the final days of institutional racial segregation. She ought to also know the reasoning behind the madness of racial segregation. It all comes back at its core to one group of people believing that another group of people are lower life forms, having a lower quality of life. This group also deems itself to have the authority to determine the worth and quality of the lives of other people and consequently who lives, who dies, and under which conditions for either. This is the reasoning lurking behind racism, abortion, genocide, and euthanasia. All at their very core are the same.

It is shocking that a black woman, possibly a descendant of a slave and most certainly a descendant of one or more who endured institutional segregation, would use the very same argument that others used to segregate, enslave, and kill her own family. It goes to show that often times the very things that we abhor for destroying our lives are the very same things that we often do or use. Like sin and its destroying effect; although we hate it for how it kills us we will often (even after knowing better) resort to it. Hatred, lying, and gossip are great examples.

The Nazi's believed in the evolutionary system of racial superiority (and yes, Darwinism has racism in its veins) and used this in their genocide. The Aryans were supreme to all others. Jews and blacks were at bottom. Their inherent "value" or "quality of life" was not equal to the Aryans. Of course, the Aryans were the ones who assumed the right to make such a claim concerning others.

Baby-Murder advocates use the same reasoning. The "fetus" (aka human life) has a "lower" quality of life than those outside of the womb. Not to mention that the mothers quality of life being damaged by an "unwanted fetus" (aka not anticipated human life). This requires for the baby-murderer that the lower/less quality (baby) must be sacrificed (murdered by abortion) in order to preserve the mothers higher/greater quality (being without child).

Euthanasia rests upon this assumption as well. Terri Schiavo has a lower/less quality of life than we do, therefore, we (the higher/greater quality) have the right to determine that she has no right to life. We have taken upon ourselves as the greater quality to determine who shall live and who shall die. This makes our nation and those in power look more and more like the evil monsters of our past.

Well, let Renee Poole think that she is outside such judgment. Let her sleep at night knowing that, for now, she is outside the box of the damned. But pray she look in the mirror and see again the color of her skin, the gray in her hair, and the weight around her waist to suddenly realize that the verdict she gave has been used against people like her all throughout history. For some day there may come again a group of wicked men that see her as not meeting their standard for quality of life. That because she and those like her do not meet their standards they should all be starved to death (or any torturous method for that matter).

We have already taken the first step by allowing the debate to occur. We have taken the second step by allowing our rulers to set precedent in the FL court verdict. The third step will be much worse than those before it. For all the patting of our own backs we have learned very little from the atrocities in history. We refuse to see how similar we are to those who committed them. Like the Jewish man who had to verify a Nazi officer by going through a line-up. After he had seen the man he ran out of room sobbing. When asked what memories rekindled the emotion he said, "It was not any memory. It was that when I looked the man in the eyes I realized that as much as I thought I was different than him, we were truly so much alike." Human, oh so human.

If only we would learn from God; the One who made us in his image, his creation bearing a God-given quality of life, knowing that he, and he alone, determines who and under what conditions any may live and any may die. Until that day... God save us!

Learn the Paleocrat, Love the Paleocrat, LIVE the Paleocrat!

Marriage is More Than a Definition

2005-03-18T11:40:00.000-05:00

My Wife and Child

A thought today it may be good to step away from critical analysis and deal with an issue that is really personal to me. Family, more specifically, marriage. I have been married for over 2 years now and since our having "tied the knot" and during this time our nation has had to face some serious matters. Most relevant to this piece would be the debate over the meaning and definition of marriage. We were married around the time of the Lawrence v. Texas ruling and the subsequent events.

On the right you have those who cry for retaining the present definition of marriage. On the left you have them saying that the definition is as outdated as a stay at home mother or home schooling. Those in the center (like our beloved President) say that they want marriage to remain as it is but they would be o.k. with domestic partnerships and civil unions. It would seem as if the most prominent voices in society are all over the map on the matter. Save of course the voice of the people where majority after majority chose to amend State Constitutions to protect themselves from the onslaught of fags in veils and lesbians with mullets as “best men.” (Sorry Heather for the jab at your soon-to-be brother-in-law’s best “man”) The people’s voice is loud and clear on the issue.

Since my being involved in political discussion I have been asked on numerous occasions what my take on the issue is and what I think should, or could, be done. Anyone having even a modicum of insight into my religious and political persuasion ought to have an easy time figuring out which side of the isle I would find myself. I am a Christian Reconstructionist, a Paleoconservative, and a strong advocate for a homosexual death penalty. But here I want to attempt to put forth not only what “should” be done but also what, at present, is more “probable” to be done.

What should be done is to reinstate a homosexual death penalty. Truth be told, if we were to obey God’s Law concerning the sanctions against homosexuality we would have no “crisis.” The debate would be gone. At least from the homosexuals themselves. Their defenders could debate over whether or not to put them to death but not over whether or not we should alter God’s sacred definition and structure of marriage.

Another “should be done” would include the Church and the State to reconsider no-fault-divorce laws. These laws have done so much to strip marriage of its sanctity (and to say that marriage has any sanctity left amongst the tidal wave of reality TV show marriages, Las Vegas weddings, Jerry Springer weddings, and non-virgins wearing white wedding gowns proudly, is nostalgia at best and naivety at worst)

The Church also must reconsider its position concerning excommunication of members living adulterous lives due to their being divorced on non-Biblical grounds and then getting re-married on non-Biblical grounds. The Church must again take a hard stance on this issue as the primary defender and example of marriage in the world.

IT ought to be no surprise to us that the definition of marriage is under fire. Why wouldn’t it be? We, the Church, have not set before the world a good example of marriage, divorce, and restitution. We have also given them the impression that no-fault divorce is an acceptable, though unfortunate, event. This is a lie of catastrophic proportions! The Church has a divorce rate that is staggering! With the statistics available it would seem that the Church has a higher divorce rate than non-believers. And non-believers have a divorce rate of around 50%! Is it any wonder then that the world would be floundering in this sea of relativism and for-the-moment pleasure seeking? Doesn’t even the Word say that if the believer barely be saved what then of the world? By the looks of it we are being saved “as if through fire” leaving little or no room above the flames for the non-believer.

Concerning what “could” be done (as if what “should” be done “cannot” be done) on a Church and State level there are only a few alternatives. Some insist on a federal amendment to the Constitution. I am not a supporter of this measure. For starters, Republicans will never see it get out of committee or pass in the Senate. The House would be all for it but not the Senate. Another reason is because it is more of a political tool than a real concern for the vast majority of Republicans. Most of them have no problem with civil unions or domestic partnerships as long as they can salvage a “definition.”

Another problem with this solution is that it gets the civil government in an area where it does not belong. The Federal government has no Constitutional right to determine the definition of marriage. They are given specific right as explained in Article 1 Section 8. Granted they do not obey these guidelines this does not give us a permit then to separate from principle and law. It is kind of like saying that you will go 10 MPH over the speed limit because you know that there is a cop or a judge who does it. Point is, it is the law, and we are to uphold the law.

Constitutionally there are a few legitimate options but two are most probable. First, we could amend the “Full Faith and Credit” Clause to be more specific regarding what is eligible and ineligible to receive full faith and credit. We could also amend it in such a way as to allow states discretion as to what will receive full faith and credit. This is already done in part when dealing with “concealed-carry gun permits.” Another constitutional option would be to make a law needing only a basic majority (rather than the supermajority needed for Constitutional Amendments) establishing DOMA. Lastly, they could limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as well as lower federal courts. They even have the right to abolish any federal court outside of the Supreme Court. It may be wise to start with the 9th District. Court of Appeals if you ask me.
In conclusion, there is much that should have been done, even more that must now be done, and not a how lot that can be done. This is a strange time we live in. The Church must rise to the occasion and reclaim the right of “standard bearer.” Christians must come against the tidal wave of divorce and infidelity. It must reestablish the high standards that marriage once required. The Church would also do well to reconsider issues such as bride price, arranged marriage, and the effect that dating has had on marriage in America. And the government must do what it can within the boundaries that for better or worse it has imposed upon itself. This may not solve the problem but it will certainly get us thinking about how we can most effectively deal with it.

P.S.
A definition is as reactive as it is creative and conservative. If marriage was in good shape there would be no debate. Definitions change only when the reality that it is to reflect and signify has changed. So for us to save a definition would do little to no good in saving, or even preserving, the reality of what it is to signify. Save marriage, the definition will follow.

Hating Our Policies, Not Our "Freedom"

2005-03-14T17:07:00.000-05:00

World Hatred Is Tool For Terrorism

I am not of the persuasion that the terrorists (or the world for that matter) hate us because of our "freedom." This line is as dangerous as it is wrong. These folks hate us due to many reasons but chief among them are our no-questions asked relationship with Sharon and Israel. Another reason is that they see us as aggressive towards their culture (always mocking it), their politics (which for better or worse is theirs none the less), and their religion. They see America today as the Rome of years past and for good reason. Charles Krauthammer (a neoconservative and a Jew, neither of which go over very well with the Arabs) has declared that America has "global dominion" and our having "acquired the largest seeming empire in the history of the world." He goes as far as to say that we are history's "designated custodians of the international system." This sort of rhetoric certainly does not fly over well with Arabs or most other nations of the world respectively.

Here I will give you some statistics and end with three simple questions that are well worth (and far over due) pondering.

Statistics concerning Arab Countries:
A poll conducted by University of Maryland asked respondents in five arab states- Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon- to identify their "single most important issue," including domestic issues. Some of the results...
1. Egypt- 79% Palestinian-Israeli conflict
2. Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, and Lebanon- 60% Palestinian-Israeli conflict
*20 percent of the last 4 countries mentioned had it in their top 3 issues*

Zogby survey found little support for U.S. policy toward Palestinians.
1. 2%-6% of those in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Lebanon
2. 10% in UAE
3. 89%-94% in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Lebanon dissaproved of US mideast policy
4. 10% of Pakistan approved of US policy (79% dissaproved)
5. 5% of Indonesia (75% dissaproved)
6. 3% in Iran (95% dissaproved)

US approval and dissaproval rate in four Muslim countries:
1. 61% of Pakistan dissaproves of USA with only 21% approval
2. 63% dissaproval by Turkey to 30% approval
3. 88% dissaproval by Morocco to 11% approval
4. 93% dissaproval by Jordan to 5% approval
5. 69% dissaproval by Lebanon to 20% approval
6. 73% dissaproval by UAE to 14% approval
7. 94% dissaproval by Saudi Arabia (note where hijackers came from) to 4%
8. 98% dissaproval by Egypt to 2% approval

Asked whether they hate our freedoms or policies:
1. 76% in Jordan said policies
2. 78% in UAE said policies
3. 79% of Lebanon said policies
4. 81% in Saudi Arabia said policies
5. 84% of Morocco said policies
6. 95% in Egypt said policies

Asked if what America does is more important than who she is?:
1. Jordan- 76-16 say "yes"
2. Egypt- 90-1 say "yes"

How about our European Allies?
1. 60% if British despise American foreign policy
2. 70% in Germany, France, and Spain also despise our foreign policy

These numbers ought to be startling. It is safe to say that never before in the history of our nation have we been so despised the world over. Even in those countries where we hold a positive margin it is slim. So the questions that must be asked:

1. With the hatred that the world over, "hostile" and "non-hostile" states (with these statistics it would seem that this distinction is a fluke) alike, has for the USA, do you believe that we are more or less safe than before 9-11 or the capture of Saddam?

2. Do you believe that our war in Iraq has feuled resentment and is being used as a tool for terrorists?

3. Does the world hate us for our "freedom" or because of what we "do" (policies) in regards to foreign policy?

Either way we answer these three questions it cannot be debated that, at least in the present, the USA is not seen to be Reagan's "city on a hill."

Marxism and the City of Man

2005-03-13T15:17:00.000-05:00

A Politic Without A God

I thought that many of you would enjoy reading the Marxist “Rules of Revolution.” This was written by Karl Marx as means by which to eradicate the world not only of capitalism but of God in culture and politics. It should be noted that this was written over 100 years ago. Some could call him ahead of his time; I call him a satanic prophet.

Although I would consider him a seer I do not believe that it took any form of possession to obtain this foresight. These “Rules of Revolution” could, and have been, considered and formulated throughout the ages. One would only have to look at major pillars of a Biblical society (of which most ages, including our founding era, vaguely reflect) and find their antithesis. To find their opposite and subsequently formulate means by which to attain it would not be a difficult task.

The Bible speaks loud and clear concerning a Biblical society. You don’t have to search through the natural law of Christ Jakeway and Co. to figure out what God’s position would be on religion, education, private property, decentralization, banking, and trade. One must simply go to the Word. His family history would show that he in fact had a substantial knowledge of the Old Testament and its social and economic laws. He had only to set up its antithesis, which he did in his evolutionary dialectic-materialism (Marxism).

Here are his “means” to use in pursuit of accomplishing his “end.” One must not read too deep into these rules to see their striking resemblance to our present day and age.

1. Corrupt the Young; Get Them Away From Religion
2. Break Down the Old Moral Virtues
3. Encourage Civil Disorders… and a Soft Government Attitude Towards Crime
4. Divide the People in to Hostile Groups (Race, Religion, etc.)
5. Get the People’s Minds Off of the Government by Focusing Their Attention on Athletics & sex
6. Get Control of All Media
7. Destroy People’s Faith in Their Leaders
8. Cause the Registration of All Firearms… Eventually to Confiscate

What we as Christians and as Paleocrats must begin to do is to re-establish the anti-thesis, formulate our “means,” and begin the reformation. The difference being that in our case there will be no allowance for a synthesis; A hybrid of sorts. It is a take-all-lose-all war. Marx understood that the war between the City of Man and the Kingdom of God is not one of compromise. One of the two must have global and total domination. The other must be eradicated. I say that we must stop believing that the halfway-house of a secular “democracy” will shield us from the onslaught of the enemy or that anything short of a Theonomic Christian Nation will suffice.

Have We Signed Away The World?

2005-03-11T10:56:00.000-05:00

No Such Thing As A Spiritual Cease-Fire

"Political pluralism is a myth, the official philosophy of a perpetual cease fire... it is... a gigantic public relations ploy of an implacable enemy, who uses a time of peace to consolidate his position for the next assault. Christians are naive. They believe that they should always think the best of people, giving their covenant-breaking opponents the benifit of the doubt. They should be ready rather to doubt the benifits."

Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deuteronomy 4:5-8

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgements, even as Yahweh my God commanded me, that you should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh to them, as Yahweh our God is in all things that we call upon Him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgements so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

Christians for the last 200 years have been on the political run. There was a time in our history that the Church understood the mandate of Christ to go to the "nations" in order to make "disciples." Mind you that he did not just specify "individuals" or "converts." He was crystal clear in the scope and meaning of this gospel and its consequent effects on society and culture. The Catholic Church for all of its faults understood the notion of dominion. Were there abuses? Certainly. Mankind is bound even in regenerate status to make fatal errors. Yet there was the idea that culture and politics were religious in nature, not secular. This concept is one that we have little recognition of in 21st century USA.

Other societies throughout history have grasped this concept and attempted to build upon it but very few had any significant success. Until of course the Puritans. The Puritans attempted to use the Law of God, most specifically Exodus 21-23 case laws, in formulating local ordinances. From Sabbath laws, to blasphemy laws, to witch-hunts (which in themselves are Biblical), to laws concerning fields and their un-harvested parts for the poor, and even adultery laws. Now did they ever over-do anything. Yes. Were they or their system perfect? No. But they were on the right track.

For me to use the Puritans as a positive example of Christian Reconstruction in Political-Law Theory may be a surprise to some. Most Christians at present see the Puritans more as an eye sore than a model to follow. Say may see them as evil-white-heterosexual-religious-bigots that burned people because they didn't like them. This is unfortunate to say the least. No group since the people of Israel have tried to reflect the Law of God in such a way as to glorify Him by reflecting His righteousness in society. Their worst fault may be that they were "over-zealous" for implementing God's Law-Word. But is that even a fault to be ashamed of?

For all of their faults they did not have fags wearing wedding gowns getting married by a professional music personality impersonator. They did not have Witches and Warlocks being publicly portrayed as heroes like Harry Potter. They would have cringed at the blasphemous ordination of homosexual priests. Neither would they have turned a blind eye to the rape of young children by perverted priests! It would be a cold day in hell before they would see women dying on a battlefield. The men who have robbed us blind through taxes and broken a trust (Social Security) would be prosecuted as the criminals that they are. And most certainly they would have been unable to sleep knowing that 4,000 innocent babies a day are being killed in abortuaries! They would have waged war on a nation that funded these child-murder centers responsible for 1,400,000 (legal and reported) deaths a year. Day care centers and their Public School counterpart would be history. Darwinism and Sex (mis)education would be banned. The Ten Commandments would be in every courthouse reminding the justices that they are not the Lawmakers. And no-fault divorce would be once again non-existent. Oh what a horrible world that would be!

Yet many will continue to chime, “Theocracy bad, democracy good.” The fact that people fear and despise the word Theocracy shows how deep the depravity of man is even within the hearts of the born-again. God Rule? Heaven forbid! Using the Bible as the standard of Law? Let it not be so! We want to go back to Egypt. Give us Egypt and all of their gods. We desire political pluralism. That seems much more wise, kind, and just than the OT Law of God. His law is so mean and inhumane. He would insist that we violate “natural right” of “innocent” people. Certainly the God I serve would not have that.” This is as sad as it is common.

So for now we will continue as we always have, believing in our hearts that the City of Man has swore to a cease-fire. We will live our lives complaining how bad things are wishing they were better but refusing to see (and even despising) the greatest (and only) alternative the to Man’s Secular City. We will call ourselves Conservative, trying our hardest to restrain the momentum of the wicked while retaining any speck of good that we can grasp a hold of. Moreover, Christians will continue to live an intellectually schizophrenic life of on one hand saying the world is destined for the antichrist while simultaneously doing things such as voting Republican in hope that it will not. What a strange world we live in. What a peculiar people we are. God have mercy.

Taking God To The Beats!

2005-03-08T21:30:00.000-05:00

A Man On Fire!

If one were to venture up to the top of the Y Center into the often forgotten "Y in the Sky" you would hear a sweet, sweet sound reverberating through the halls. Just what is that sound? It is the sound of Jerry Rezloff and his band of kids (as well as his son Jeremy) learning to sing and play instruments. But these kids are not just learning how to play the drums and guitar by any ordinary means. They are doing it by learning to play praise and worship music. They practice to the very same songs that we sing during our Church services!

Now I have to admit that when it comes to this program, and the director himself for that matter, I am certainly biased. For starters I happen to know him. I lift weights daily at the Y Center and one day while walking towards the entrance I couldn’t help but to notice bright lights flashing through one of the front windows facing the parking lot. I entered the room where I saw a man playing a praise tune on his guitar alongside his son beating away (and he is fantastic) on the drums. The room was plastered with pictures taken from the film "The Passion of Christ" and was lined wall to wall with all sorts of instruments. This guy had a great set-up and on top of it all was playing music that was glorifying the Lord!

We began talking and instantly hit it off. He is a pastor of a small Methodist church (He is a self-described stick in the mud within that denomination due to his Biblical stance on the issue of homosexuality) and an active member of the Salvation Army. He said that he has a real heart for the poor and for the children. He began talking to me about what he is doing for social change and his talking almost immediately set my heart aflame with joy! (Believe it or not I am a strong advocate for social change *smile*) From that point onward we have remained in communication and I would consider him a friend.

What made me feel like I ought to write about him and his "School on the Rock" was not as much how great the program is, or how I consider him a friend, rather, it is that men like him are so few and far between that to pass him by but with just a nod and a glance would be unfortunate. There are so few men that take the step beyond belief into the sacred realm of action. There are even less that do so from a perspective so Theo-centric. It would be an understatement to say that Gerry has Christ as the center of his life and his ministry. The spirit radiating off of this man is one of passion, diligence, commitment, and hope. He believes in his heart of hearts that God's way is the best way and the closer we align ourselves with His plan or design the better we and our pursuits (or gifts and talents) will be.

For thos like myself frustrated by Church apathy pertaining to social matters Gerry is a breath of fresh air. As for the men and women who desire to see God put back into every area of life (including the realm of music which Christendom championed for hundreds of years!) we have been given a living epistle by which to mimic. His name is Gerry Rezloff. My advice to you would be not only to do as he says, but also as he does.

The New World Order And The Kingdom Of Man

2005-03-07T20:03:00.000-05:00

City of God, City of Man

The New World Order is taboo in political circles unless you are a certified member of the Global Elite that hang out at such hot spots as Bohemian Grove or a diligent reader of Commentary Magazine. But fact is that the concept of a "New World Order" has been around for quite some time. In fact, the phrase itself may reflect the ambitions of the first sin and the original sin (distinguished as they should be).

The NWO is nothing more than the "city of man" that has strived to rival the Kingdom of God from the foundation of the world. Eve was not satisfied with the "Order" that the Lord had placed upon Creation. She, in her sin, chose herself as sovereign and her view of "the way things ought to be" (sorry there Rush) as the ultimate goal. Her ambitions were that of a new world order where mankind would reign like the Yahweh, "knowing good and evil." Of course we know looking hindsight that man (or woman for that matter) cannot alter the "Order" of the world.

The Tower of Babel is the most obvious case of men conspiring together socially to attain god-like status. For those of us raised in the Church we all know how that story ended, hence, I am writing in a language that many in the world cannot read. God confounded the ambitions of mankind. But although this may be seen as the first recorded effort of a secular culture or society attempting to attain deity through centralized power it was certainly not the last. The spirit of Babel has "set a fire in the minds of men" for centuries and even millennia!

Trying my hardest to refrain from conspiratorialist tendencies or a fire and brimstone expose' on Revelation I must say that today’s builders of Babel are the Global Elite striving for a centralized, worldwide empire. Do not think for a moment that your favorite leaders are not also part of this unholy coup d'etat or that "democracy" cannot be the political structure of choice (it cannot be a coincidence that the primary spokesmen for the NWO are from "liberal democracies"). The Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, UN, Council on Foreign Relations, and a number of other alphabet soup organizations are hell-bent on world domination. The inevitability of that assertion is as astonishing as its repercussions!

As I said earlier, this drive within the hearts of evil men is nothing new. In fact, it is the natural drive of ungodly men in a social environment (this of course being unavoidable). It is the inevitable rival of the Kingdom of God on Earth! These men, having not God or His Word and its political ramifications, will attempt within their darkened understanding to set up a Kingdom of its own.

If one were to simply consider the natural drive of the reprobate as it pertains to political, cultural, and social ambitions, these trends towards centralization, expansion of power, the welfare-warfare state, and intrusion upon other spheres of government (private property, childrearing, etc.) should not sound at all alarming. It is as predictable as the rising sun! This ought to be to our advantage that the moves (at least the principles underlying those moves) they make are so predicable. Unfortunately, this is not to be the case.

Why are we not making more headway against the NWO? In my opinion it is in large part due to a pessimistic view of the End. Since around 1820-1830 we have seen a serious decline in Christianity's efficacy in challenging this unrighteous Kingdom of Man. Christendom has taken hold of a philosophy of the End (eschatology) that is beyond pessimistic... it is downright defeatist! It claims that the Kingdom of Man will swallow whole the Earth and that the Kingdom of Christ will be a catastrophic failure insofar as it will have to be secretly "saved" (snatched out) from the Earth. The inevitable question would be: Why should I attempt to construct a Biblical political-law theory or actively get involved in cultural change when all of my blood, sweat, and tears will be in vain. All of our work would be destroyed! Why do anything? This is, whether consciously or subconsciously, why Christians have subscribed to "conservatism" rather than some triumphant (not in the liberal sense) political theory. They merely try to hold on to what they have until they loose it all.

My hope and prayer is that the Christian community will begin to see the harm that they have done not only towards generations of people but also to entire nations and cultures by subscribing to a defeatist view of their mission. May God show us what should have been done, what time and ground we have lost, and the means by which to take it back.

LEARN THE PALEOCRAT, LOVE THE PALEOCRAT, LIVE THE PALEOCRAT!

Stop Flying Them Upside Down!

2005-03-06T16:32:00.000-05:00

Placement of Flag Shows Supremacy...

Have you ever seen this before? Driving down the road past a church and you see that they are flying the Federal Flag and the Christian Flag? I have seen this sort of image all of my life and I never understood what it meant. I do now! And I call on all Christians to do 1 of 2 things:

1) Fly the Christian Flag over the Federal Flag (which is against the Law)
2) Until they change the law refuse to fly the Federal Flag.

See, it is real simple, the Federal Flag (by Law) has to be flown above any other flag that is being flown with it. Why you may ask? Supremacy or Sovereignty. The idea is that if it were not for the entity of the USA (symbolized in the Federal Flag) you would not have the freedom to fly the Christian flag (any flag for that matter) or to express the religion that the flag is to symbolize. The lawmakers believe that you have THEM and the STATEto thank for your freedoms. As if our freedom of religion is contingent upon the State! (If I remember right, a free state is only possible with the Christian religion. And what about that whole "inalienable rights" thing? Doesn't that mean that the State is not the giver nor guarentor of those rights? Of course this throws a wrench into their argument against such a display)

The Flag issue ought to be seen for what it is: A principle issue debate. It is all a matter of principle. A flag is nothing except for the principle that it displays. People have fought and died for it. They have sacrificed life, limb, honor, and fortune. For a piece of cloth? No. Rather, for the principle (or entity and its principle) that the Flag represents. So when we are dealing with the Flag issue at hand we must first realize that the entire debate is one concerning principles.

Another key factor that must be understood is that of Sovereignty. I used to believe in the "sovereign" state, the "sovereign" nation, and the "sovereign" people. I no longer endorse such an anti-Christian theory of government. There is only ONE Sovereign. God alone is sovereign. The State does not like to accept such a theory (at least in practice), rather, they insist that they alone are Sovereign and deserve the ceremony (principle) in allegiance and servitude. This is the reason for the higher position on a flag pole.

A lot of people may think that I am making a big stink over nothing. I must ask them what they say concerning the State's position? Is the State making too big of an issue over the matter? Try it sometime. Fly a Christian Flag above the Federal Flag. It may not happen immediately but you will certainly receive a phone call or visitation from your local zoning commissioner, policeman, or Property Manager. Call your local Trustee, Representative, or Senator. Find out for yourself. Ask if there is a FINE for flying the Christian flag over the Federal flag? They will actually force you to stop flying it like that or punish you by forcement to pay the State money! Now who is making a big deal over it?

The State understands what the issue (principle) is all about. Why don't we? They take it serious enough to make a home visit to perpetrators, put the law on the books, and enforce it with a fine! Do we not understand what we are doing? Will we take it serious too?

The principle of the issue is whether God or Man (the State) rule as Sovereign? If our "rights," "freedoms," and "priviledges" come from God or from the State? It would be an understatement to say that the issue is about who or what controls mankind! God or Man?

This really hit home today as I left my Church and saw that the Christian Flag and the State of Michigan Flag were both placed about one foot from the top of the mast while the US Federal Flag was flown full mast. It was a sad sight, but symptomatic of the underlying issue facing the Church at large: Whether or not we will bow down to the demand of the State that it and it alone is Sovereign.

My answer? Fly the Christian Flag as Sovereign... loud and proud!

Learn the Paleocrat! Love the Paleocrat! LIVE the Paleocrat!

Sex Ed: Leave Morals To Kids??

2005-03-03T13:18:00.000-05:00

The Era of Moral Relativism

I read this piece in the "Locker" (Tuesday, January 18, 2005) section of the Battle Creek "Expirer" and feel that it is important that I discuss the content of the article in perspective. The piece in this weekly column ("in my opinion," 1C) was entitled, "Sex ed: Leave the morals to us." This was written by a young lad named Kurt Juday who attends Marshall High School. The name of the opinion in and of itself ought to give any person pause and this may be in fact the reason that the Expirer placed it on the front page of the C Section. And although I abhor the vast majority of his arguments (and conclusions for that matter) there are benefits of hearing this issue from a student in Public School.

This kid was more than likely raised and reared not by parents or even a responsible Church but by the Public School system and the worldview that it has to offer. With this in mind it is not at all surprising that he would say, "I think that sex ed in the schools is the best bet to keeping kids informed about life-altering choices that they will need to make in the future." Imagine for a moment being his parents reading this! The school, not them, is the best bet to teach him concerning one (many!) of life's most important issues! How devastating!

Yet there is some truth to this. Parents have refused to face up to their responsibilities (evident from the masses of kids huddled into public school classrooms daily). Parents barely talk to their children more or less instruct them in anything. Sit em' in front of the TV or computer and let the electronic baby sitters care for them.

The Church by and large is very little help either seeing that the most influence that they have over these children is for all of 2 hours a week (if they have a faithful attender). And the sex issue is more of a cliche' than anything in church circles. Sex, drugs, peer pressure, and secular music. Those are all cliche'. Not that they should be but that is what they have become. So to these day-care-babies-reached-school-house-robots it would seem that the parents and pastors are the LAST people that you would go to.

Kurt then gives us even more insight into the crisis when he states what he believes should be done. He opines, "Although it should be mandatory, (parents, it doesn't help anybody to excuse your child from sex ed) I must admit that the curriculums are hardly entertaining. Many more students would be willing to listen if the information was jazzed up and made less uncomfortable for some... But the atmosphere can get quite dull, you know." WOW! Sex ed mandatory? What are you going to do, force the parents into letting THEIR children to be taught a sensitive subject that THEY feel is best dealt with by or through other means?

Curriculum hardly entertaining? Should we put some pictures in the material to spice (no pun intended regarding the porno "Spice" network) it up? Should we do a little "hands on?" Do you want to study "sex music 101" (Wait until you get to U of M, I think they have a course along those lines)? The atmosphere can get a little dull? How about videos or sound effects? Uncomfortable? Imagine that! Being taught one of life's most sensitive and personal matters by someone that should not be teaching it to you. What a strange reaction!

As a parent I must ask Kurt some questions here: If I do not allow just anyone to hold my child or to watch my child, why would I let just anyone teach my child about an issue that is more than scientific or medical but also religious? Why would I allow a teacher (whose moral values or persuasion I do not know) to tell my children what sex is, how it is done, and the exceptions (which is indicated by the "abstinence BUT if not...") of sexual behavior? Why should I as the parent of the home (and educator of my home Kurt) have to MANDATORILY send my kid to be taught conflicting values with those that he or she would learn at home? You are not a parent and it is here that this fact is most obvious.

According to him, this conclusion of mandatory sex education training is premised on many factors:

1. Parents do not teach it to their children
2. Teachers are "trained" and therefore better equipped than parents to teach this issue
3. Sex is an important issue that must be taught starting at a very young age

It naturally flows from these notions that mandatory public school sex education is the answer. In this regard he is at least consistent with himself. In the world of these children factory mills this would be the only sensible answer.

So what is his overall conclusion? It is two-fold: First of all a question and second a request. He asks, "If parents won't educate, who will?" He then requests, "tell us what we need to know, and leave the morals to us." Does it still surprise us that these two comments would flow from one another. If only we as parents, and churches, would begin to realize the dangerous connection between his question and his request. Until the masses have this epiphany we may be soon to see the mandatory sex education that Kurt is so longing for.

"I'll Gladly Pay You Someday For the Programs Of Today

2005-02-26T21:12:00.000-05:00

In Debt Up To Our Ears!

Everyone knows how serious debt is. I mean, I am in debt and I feel the pressure every time I try to apply for any given store credit card. I realize that if I do not watch myself and my debts I may one day have an unfriendly voyeur (repo-man) come and take away my assets! Seriously, who in the world thinks that debt is meaningless? As startling as this may sound, more people than you may believe!

If anyone has listened to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrahm, and Michael Medved this past week you would almost want to celebrate news regarding our accumulated 7 Trillion dollar debt. To these talking heads the national debt debate is foolish and we should not be worried at all. In their words it is "manageable because of our robust economy" and "nothing compared to other debts carried during times of war." The first assurance sounds sweet while the latter sounds reassuring but there are sad (and even frightening) facts not being enclosed here.

Let us take “manageable.” This phrase coming from once heroic and ferocious Conservatives ought to throw up major warning signs! Aren’t these also the very same people that decried the deficit during the Clinton era and gave us a sweeping “Contract with America” vowing to eliminate the national debt? We ought to also realize that we have a serious problem when we have anti-Statist conservatives saying that the feds can “manage” anything properly. Feds? Manage? Properly? Can anyone spell “Oxymoron?” In fact, it sounds… well… liberal! So right from the get-go we ought to know that we have a problem here.

Although I will not go into great detail here it must be noticed that they talked of the growing economy as part of their resolution for the national debt. What that translates into is simple: The bigger the businesses, the more people are working, and the more they are earning, the easier it is for the State to accumulate more money. The bigger the “tax base” the bigger the tax intake. This is reasoning right out the liberal handbook and should never be used by Conservatives! It is founded upon the belief that as long as we have a vibrant economy we can increase spending. The fact that Conservative apologists have resorted to this kind of Clintonian reasoning is horrifying to say the least.

Another problem arises when you ask just “how” this debt is manageable? We all know how regular folks in the real world manage debt. First we make money, and then we spend it, if we go outside of our means we must go to a lender, once we go to a lender we now are in debt. Easy enough. Now once we are in debt there are only certain ways to eliminate it. You must either make payments (which come from your personal income), seek another loan to pay of your first loan and/or budget yourself with strict spending restrictions (I can speak of this matter with a modicum of understanding). Any way that you go about it you must “Pay the Piper” sometime and it is only you who foots the bill. Moreover, if you do not pay the lender (who in biblical terms you are a “slave” to) he may come and deprive you of your belongings. This is how it works for us in the real world. This is not how those on Capital Hill think that it must work for them. So if this crisis is to be manageable then it must mean that in the long run the “managers” will require more “income” to pay off their “obligations” to their “lenders.”

One dramatic difference between us and the State is that the State begins with no income. In and of itself it has no true income. The State does not “make” money in the proper sense of the term. The only money that they “make” is money that you “give” to them. This money being “given” to them is your tax money. It is this money and this money alone that the government has for its use. So they spend your money as they deem fit on “programs” (social engineering) and “initiatives” (such as war). If they go over their spending limit (which is habitual of the elite) they go into debt. This debt is an I.O.U. They now “owe” that money.

So who do they “owe” the money to and how exactly do they plan to pay it? This is an interesting question and one that no politician can answer with a straight face. They “owe” the banks, nations, or peoples that take their I.O.U’s. These people, places, and organizations are now the Piper who will need to be paid. So how do they plan on paying them back? They do not “earn” income! They must get (take) further funds from somewhere (the taxpayer) for fulfilling their obligations (debt) to their lenders (banks and nations). So the taxpayer will not only pay for the programs and initiatives but will also pay again for the dollars in debt that these spend-a-holics have gotten us into. This sounds as much cynical as it does cyclical.

So in the end here is how it plays out:
1.Government takes your money (by force).
2.They choose to spend the borrowed income as they see best (elitist and socialist).
3.They choose to spend above and beyond their income knowing that they will have to go to an unelected and unaccountable lender. (World Bank, IMF, Federal Reserve, etc.)
4.They do this all the while knowing that they themselves do not have the income necessary to pay back the lender especially when considering the interest rates being given by the lenders.
5.They then come back to the original taxpayer to require (demand) that he coughs up additional money for the debt that the State premeditated and accumulated through reckless spending.

(This does not even put into play the fact that the payment of this debt will be felt by and large by our children and their children. It is "spend today pay tomorrow" politics. I call this the "Wimpy" syndrome *I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today*)

As sick as this may sound, this is how the game is played. Don’t you wish that the government as well as the talking heads (our Conservative heroes specifically) would begin to call it what it is: Slavery and Theft. So when someone says the debt is no big deal just tell them, "it is for those of us left to pay the Piper!"

To Pledge or Not to Pledge?

2005-02-21T17:18:00.000-05:00

Reviving the Christian Debate

The entire flag controversy is not one that will gain me any brownie points. That is why I have chosen (for the time being) not to express my personal views on the matter. Rather, what I have chosen to present is a little history regarding the flag, the pledge, the legislative battles, etc. hoping to invigorate you to comment regarding your position on the issue. Either way, for or against, we need to renew our knowledge of why we are reciting, or not reciting, the pledge of allegaince.

Where did it come from?
Written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian minister who was also an avowed socialist, at the turn of the last century, the pledge was intended by its creator to bring about the sort of civic mind-set that would lead to a classless utopian society. Bellamy's egalitarian political ideas eventually got him tossed from his pulpit, but when the National Education Association stepped up to support and promote the pledge in 1892, it caught on as a means of inculcating patriotism in schoolchildren.

How was it originally written?
From the beginning, it seemed that everyone wanted a hand in editing Bellamy's work. The original pledge, which was published in The Youth's Companion, a popular magazine of the day, read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In the 1920s, the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) lobbied to change the words "my Flag" to "the Flag of the United States of America," apparently to avoid the possibility that schoolchildren might mistakenly pledge their allegiance to any old flag that came along. Then in 1954, the words "under God" were added by Congress, at the behest of the Knights of Columbus.

When did it become mandatory for public school children?
Saluting the flag became a compulsory exercise in school districts across the country during the period leading up to the United States entry into World War II.

Why all the fuss?
When school boards began insisting that all children salute the flag, the practice became a problem for Jehovah's Witnesses, who steadfastly have refused to pledge their allegiance to anything other than their God. Two Witness kids were expelled from school for refusing to participate in the exercise, and their parents sued the school district, claiming that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance was a violation of their religious beliefs.

What was the verdict?
In 1940, the first of the Supreme Court decisions, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, went against the Witnesses, when the court found that the government had a compelling interest in forcing children to display their patriotism daily. Many Jehovah's Witnesses removed their children from public schools rather than allow them to be expelled.

The matter returned to the high court in 1943, when the decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette reversed Minersville. Justice Robert Jackson wrote the majority opinion in that case, a precedent that still stands and is the reason that all public schools that require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance allow students to be excused from participating on the basis of conscience.

Where are we now?
Well, it is hard to say. The Supreme Court has sidelined the issue (which I felt that it would) and barred Mr. Newdow from any more appearances on the matter before them. This in and of itself does absolutely nothing in helping Christians determine whether or not the Pledge ought to be recited by them or their children. I hope that we can begin looking at the Scripture and what it has to say about oaths, covenants, States, allegiance, and patriotism in order to come to any given conclusion. It is my hope that this will help to spur on a long lost, and much needed, debate.

The Skeleton In Sex Ed's Closet

2005-02-21T13:08:00.000-05:00

Picture of Baby Murdered By Abortion Procedure Called "Saline Injection"

*Disclaimer- Mrs. Ann Marso was not talked to prior to the posting of this article and should not be thought of as a die hard activist for abortion.*

There was a letter to the editor that was written on February 19th to the Battle Creek "Expirer" by an Ann Marso concerning her personal discontent with President Bush's budget proposal. This would seem fair except for the fact that her problem was concerning the issue of federal sex education funding! Let us ignore for a moment the foolishness of money being taken from us via the IRS to be funneled back to us to teach our kids about sex. Let us also not pay any mind to the fact that such use of money is nowhere found in the US Constitution under Article 1 Section 8. For the sake of this piece let us simply take her arguments one at a time and show her and those like her how foolish these arguments really are. Let us also give her the sex education she is asking for (though once this is done she will deny that this is what she intended).

It should also be noted that although the Bush "plan" may seek to instruct children "only" towards abstinence this is not the message that is actually being taught in the vast majority of public school classrooms. Last on the list of matters that will not be extensively discussed here is Mr. Bush's hypocrisy on the Life issue due to his extraordinary funding of pro-abortion agencies through Title 10 and Title 19. (In fact, it far surpasses what pro-abort President Clinton gave during his Presidency! Bush has given to these Titles money to the tune of around $286,000,000!)

She stated, "A report released late last year by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California., on federally funded abstinence-only sex education found many instances of blatantly false information being taught, including telling teens that HIV can be spread by sweat or tears and that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide." Well, I will admit that this "sweat and tears" claim is beyond crazy but I would be willing to bet that Mr. Waxman (an impartial analyst as any good Californian Democrat might be) had to search far and wide to find one kook that would teach such garbage. Name anyone that you know personally, more or less a teacher for Pete's sake, that believes such foolishness! It would be interesting to find out where he got this information and if it was in any handbook that was being used or if, as I suspect, it is built more on hearsay than factual evidence.

Now it must be made clear that it is in fact proof positive that abortions can, and do in many cases, lead to sterility and suicide. The fact that this woman would deny such claims reveals more about her personal persuasion than anything else. Must we remind her that this is a medical procedure and as with any medical procedure it can create complications? Is it also not obvious that such a procedure (and I hate calling it that) could cause adverse psychological effects on a teenager? Take a teenage girl, throw in puberty, a boyfriend, sexual experience, fear of hurting or losing family, friends, beau, church, future, etc. and then throw into the mix the old murder on the conscience factor (teenage girls no better than any that a baby is a baby no matter what you call it). What do you get? A sure recipe for one messed up little girl! To make matters worse she must, in most cases, hide what she has done! The fact that Ms. Marso would deny the psychological and physical trauma of this operation is a tad horrifying.

Moreover, she writes, "More recently, an ongoing study funded by the Texas Department of Health concluded that abstinence-only sex education has had very little impact on teens' sexual behavior. It did not produce the intended results." Imagine that! Ever heard of conflicting messages ma'am? They go to school where they can hold hands, make out in hallways, have sex in bathrooms, play games like "hooking up", perform oral sex while on the schoolbus, and you are surprised that a one week program that talks one to two hours per day on sexual abstinence did not produce the results you were seeking? Wow!

And what about the fact that kids on average spend at least 5 hours per day in front of a television that is pumping out constant sexual images? That surely does not help. On top of that we have children drowning in a sea of moral relativism where whatever you choose is the right thing to do. The deck is rigged ma'am, and it is not in the favor of abstinence.

It does not make the matter any better that the parents are hardly in the home. From a young age many of these children have been dropped off in the nanny care system (day care) and then when they got older they were transferred to another child care system called the public school. It is by these psuedo moms and dads that these children learn their values! And what kind of morality is being taught to these youngsters? Moral relativism! Welcome to free love in classroom.

It is here that she almost begins to come around. Unfortunately she only goes one step forward and two steps back. She writes, "Without question abstinence should be an emphasis of any responsible sex education program, but it is irresponsible - and life threatening - to omit medically accurate information about prevention techniques that teens want and need." Medically accurate information? Prevention techniques? Want and Need???

It is my presumption that when she is speaking of prevention that she is speaking of condoms, contraceptives, and abortion. Let us begin with a 1987 World Congress of Sexologists. Theresa Crenshaw, a professional sexoligist, asked the audience , "If you had the available partner of your dreams and knew that person carried HIV, how many of you would have sex, depending on a condom for your protection?" None of the 800 experts raised their hands. Also in a 1993 issue of Social Science Medicine there was an evaluation of condom efficiency that found that condoms had an 87% effective rate in preventing pregnancy and a 69% chance of reducing the risk of HIV infection. Furthermore, the American Journal of Public Health stated that in a year long effort at condom education in San Francisco schools the result was that only 8% of the boys and 2% of the girls used condoms every time that they had sex.The Medical Institute for Sexual Health has also made clear that in regards to chlamydia and human papillomavirus condoms has little to no effect on their transmission.

The facts could go on and on but I think that the point has been made clear: Condoms do not bring the supposed "results" that Ann is looking for.

Abortion as a preventative measure? What does it prevent? Not pregnancy. You are murdering the child that has deemed you pregnant. You are preventing responsibility. You are preventing social judgment for private choices. Here it would almost seem that sex, due to its consequence of pregnancy resulting in public awareness, has social ramifications! Sure this smacks in face of the politically correct jargon pertaining to "privacy" but we are just passive witnesses of natures design. You must intervene in order to prevent the inevitable. And people of your persuasion argue on the basis of "natural law?"

She mentioned that results were greatly lacking from abstinence only education. Well, what is the track record for comprehensive sex education? A Louis Harris poll conducted for Planned Parenthood found that the highest rates of teen sexual activity were among those who had comprehensive sex education, not less! In the 1980's a congressional study was done that found that a decade and a half of comprehensive sex education resulted in a doubling in the number of sexually active women. Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives found that, "prior contraceptive education increases the odds of starting [at the age of 14] by 1.5%." Although this does not sound like a lot it is actually a 50% hike! Since 1970 the federal government has given over 3 Billion dollars to Title X sex education programs. During that period of time nonmarital teen births have increased by almost 63% and nonmarital pregnancy rate of fifteen-to-nineteen-year-old girls has increased 87%! These facts should be staggering to Ms. Marso!

Of course we could go into the sick details of such murder "procedures" as Dilation and Curettage (D&C), Suction Aspiration, Saline Injection, Prostaglandin, Dilation and Evacuation (D&E), Hysterotomy, and the most revolting Dilation and Extraction (D&X), more commonly known as "partial birth abortion" but this would take up an unnecessary amount of time and I believe it ought to be left for a piece that is dedicated exclusively to the matter of abortion (which I will post shortly).

For the sake of this article let me say that I believe that if you are going to teach sex education then you ought to show them videos of abortion and pictures of dead children (what they like to call fetuses). The students will see what they already know in their conscience to be true: these are human lives that we are killing. So please ma'am, be fair, be exhaustive, be comprehensive in your education proposal. Do not show smiley face contraceptives, bubble gum flavor condoms, and an all too happy hospital staff without being honest as to the facts. Show the young pregnant girls, the STD's and what it can do, show HIV patients, people dying of syphilis, and aborted babies. This is only fair education.

So it would seem that Ann Marso is either ignorant, misled, genuinely misinformed, or downright deceptive. The one thing that we can rest assured that she is not... Right.

Christianity Without a Secular Mouthpiece

2005-02-19T18:38:00.000-05:00

Historic Picture of a Battle Creek Radio Tower

Why is it that Christians have sold their birthright for a bowl of porage when it comes to politics? I mean, although they are entertaining and genuine, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are not Orthodox Christians. They do not use the Bible as their primary source of political or social theory. Rather, they turn to Commentary, Weekly Standard, and Irving Kristol's bookshelf. And to make matters worse we all buy into it!

Does the Bible itself not talk about social issues? Immigration, trade, warfare, currency, schooling, taxation, and the like are all talked about in the scripture. Instead they (and ourselves for the most part) turn to natural law (to Mr. Jakeway's applause) all the while ignoring the fountainhead of truth given in the Word. If King David was proud to resort to the Law before foreign leaders then why are we so hesitant to use it in formulating local and State politics? Ask yourself honestly whether the majority of your beliefs come from conservative pundits or the Word of God? And if you say that it came from the word of God can you point our where in the Bible you formulate your belief? Trust me, I have done this (and continue to all the time) and it is embarrassing!

We need a local political commentator that will talk about all of the local, state, regional, national, and world issues (in that order preferably) from a distinctly Biblical worldview. We need a man that can talk about water-lines, sewage systems, and zoning laws from a Biblical Law-Word perspective. We need a man that can talk about eminent domain, private property, gun rights, and pollution from a God's eye view. In fact, we need one who will talk about EVERY issue from a purely Biblical perspective. No more of this utilitarianism. No more of this pragmatism (though she is America's darling). No more secular mouthpieces. We need a real voice for the Religious Right of Battle Creek.

Furthermore, we need to learn how to formulate Biblical policies on our own! To learn how to use the Bible to put together a comprehensive world and life view. This would not only inform but also instruct. It would give people not only the know-how but the courage to become active in helping to resolve local matters in the best, most Biblically constructive fashion.

My question is: Why don't we have this already? Where is the outcry? Where are the people pushing their pastors, their schools, their teachers, friends, families, and local radio stations? In a free market such as the one that we have in the U.S. an idea only comes to fruition if there is enough want... The question then for us is how bad do we want it?

Putting a Face of "Freedoms" War

2005-02-19T15:02:00.000-05:00

The Face of War

War, Just War. What an unnecessary picture! Right? I do not believe so. We in America have truly lost our moral gag reflex and this is evidence. Or maybe we haven't. Maybe we just refuse to face up to the atrocities happening in our name? Maybe we have learned to treat war like we do abortion? It is one thing to have abortions performed in enclosed rooms by "professional" killers outside of the public view, it is a whole different thing to have it happen in our dining rooms during dinner time! In the same fashion we send off our professional killers into foreign lands and soothe ourselves by wrapping it in patriotic, righteous, even heavenly language. In technical terms it is called "cognitive dissonance" but I will prefer to call it by its more common usage of self-deceit.

It is time that we, especially Orthodox Christians, begin to seriously re-think our position on War. I have so many questions for the supporters of this war (which I was at one time and even enlisted in the NAVY after 9-11 to prove it). Here are a handful of the questions that I have had to deal with in my spiritual walk and I figured it would be good to throw a handful of them out for others consideration.

I wonder if the supporters this war have ever seen a picture of the death fields there? The guy in the picture is a real person, flesh and blood, emotions, spirit, and family. What do we say of such instances? Are they collateral damage? Is it for the "greater good" in the pursuit of a "free" secular democracy? Do we see that man and marginalize him by calling him derogatory names or presuming that he is a terrorist? Do we tell ourselves that he is probably one of the bad guys (forgetting that there are hundreds of thousands of Arab Christians and this man may be one) and therefore we should feel no pain in his tragedy? How do we respond to a picture such as this? Do we feel pray for him? Do we cry for him and all others that have endured war caused tragedies? More important than "how do we feel" is the "how should we feel?"

Shouldn't we as believers desire to spread freedom not by the sword but by the word? Does democracy bring true freedom? Doesn't the Word say that Christ alone can set us free? That unless Christ sets us free that we remain under the bondage of the prince of the powers of the air? Should Christians endorse the use of military force to spread SECULAR values across the globe? Are Christians to support the UN by insisting that the US be its military branch to enforce its resolutions? Does anyone find it strange that those who are so adamantly opposed to Biblical Theocracy (not Islamic Ecclesiocracy) are so fierce in their support for a secular theocracy (that is the end result in the global scope of Secular Democratic Pluralism)? Shouldn't we pray for our enemies as often and as vigilant as we do our allies? Should we not pray for this dying man and his family?

So many questions and so little conversation. Why can't we face our choices? Maybe for the same reason that we cannot face ourselves? Maybe for the same reason that we cannot look at the picture of the dying man? In the end it may be because we do not know ourselves. It may be because we do not know or really believe in our Bible. Or it may even be that although we say that the Bible speaks about every area of life we genuinely have no idea what it says concerning war, its proper conduct, and its proper end. Any way we go about it there are a lot of questions that need answered and until we are able to face the dying man I do not see it happening any time soon.

King of Fools: Is Faith a Mental Disorder?

2005-02-18T00:48:00.000-05:00

King of Fools: Is Faith a Mental Disorder?

*It is interesting to note that the Paleocrat covered this story before the American Family Association. It is only noteworthy because the AFA is by far one of the most accurate, timely, and reliable Christian news sources available on the web. The Paleocrat also encourages everyone to visit AFA.net for further news and information about breaking stories and important events.*

Bill Maher, the TV host of the former talk program entitled "Politically Incorrect" and present hack on HBO's "Real Time," stated that he believes that "faith is a neurological disorder." He went on further saying, " "We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion…I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think that flying planes in a building was a faith-based initiative... If you look at it logically, it's something that was drilled into your head when you were a small child. When you look at belief in such things--as do you go to heaven, is there a devil--we have more in common with [Muslin countries] Turkey and Iran and Syria than we do with European nations and Canada and nations that, yes, I would consider more enlightened that us."

He continued by saying that due to this crazy disorder that people of faith have they "do not believe in science or rationality." He even admitted to having the same form of belief that Jesse Ventura spewed out during his being Governor of Minnesota when he said that "faith is for the weak minded who need strength in numbers." All of this dialogue took place on the MSNBC nightly news program, Scarborough Country. Interestingly enough, Joe Scarborough (an ex congressman himself) is a Christian.

When I first heard this I was really offended but upon further reflection I realized that his remarks are in perfect theological harmony when considered from the worldview of the unregenerate reprobate. This may sound strange but let me explain. The Bible talks of two minds: The mind of Christ and the Mind of Flesh, also known as the reprobate mind. These two mindsets and views of life start from two different places. One begins with the fear of Yahweh as the beginning of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding while the other begins with man and the created universe without any fear of God consequently leading to darkness, no understanding, foolishness, and total depravity. We see the world through different spectacles if you will. We look at life through faith filled glass while they look at life through the eyes of the flesh.

Think about what this means for a second. If you believed that there is nothing beyond yourself and that all you have to live for is what you see, touch, and experience what would you think of someone that says that there is an invisible being who is you Father, who has never been born and will never die, who can hear and see everyone at the same time, and that is controlling things as they happen? You would think they are absolutely crazy! You would think that they have a mental disorder! I mean, you claim to hear his spirit, see his glory, have visions, speak in other angelic tongues, etc. To the unbeliever this has to be really messed up!

Well, be of good cheer because you are not crazy. In fact you are the most sane of all people!Paul went through the same kind of thing with people in his day and there is a lot to take from what he had to say about this strange confrontation of worldviews. Consider what Paul says in Romans chapter 1 verses 28 through 32:

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they knew God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." (ESV)

Furthermore, the scripture says of unbelievers that they "do not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14 emphasis mine) He makes clear over and over again that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing" (1Corinthians 1:18), that "they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart" (Ephesians 4:18), and that the consequence of this is that they are "storing up wrath" for themselves reserved for the day that "God's righteous judgment will be revealed." (Romans 2:5)

All of this being said I must find satisfaction rather than frustration in Mr. Maher's analysis of the redeemed mind. I must see it as wholly consistent with the Word! We ought to respond to any who would mimic Maher's foolery that just as David could not make his bed in Sheol without Yahweh being there so they also cannot bury their minds into the coals of hell without giving believers more satisfaction that our faith is not only justified but proven to be the only sane way to see the world.

To Our Children's Children

2005-02-16T13:43:00.000-05:00

For Our Children's Children

Deuteronomy 6:6-9

"And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

Acts 2:38-39

"And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far of, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself."

The Older I get the more I realize how short life is. Time goes by so fast. Many see this as a cliche' but to me it is a horrifying existential crisis. It feels like not long ago that I was in high school but in reality enough time has passed since my graduation that I could have gone from 9th-12th grade 2 times over and be almost done with my freshman year yet again! Oh what is man that God would think of him?

God has used this crisis to deal with me concerning two truths: resurrection and tradition. Maybe tradition is not a good word for it? Tradition would definitely be a portion or aspect of it but that word does not satisfy what I am trying to get at. A better word would be posterity. For those who carry on our traditions, our values, our life's work, and our name.

He has dealt with me concerning Resurrection because in this we have hope that these fleeting days aren't for naught. That the things we do in this life truly do have eternal consequences. A fear that I have had to face is that of dying. I have always had a great fear of death even when I was a kid. But I am beginning to find solace in the declaration, "O death, where is your sting?" It is not really that I will cease to breath but rather that I will begin to breathe the first real breath of my life. I will stop inhaling the air that this fallen world has to offer but I will begin to inhale deeply from the true fountain from which ours is but a shadow.

As for posterity there is so much to say and yet so little time. It is a concept that very few of us probably really consider in this humanistic, existential, pragmatic, and ever so wicked age. It is a world outside of our own. It is a life that is made up of a sequence of lives and events. You can best see our lack of insight on this matter when it comes to our attitude towards traditions, ritual, inheritance, creeds, covenants, constitutions, marriage, labor, and childbearing.

We have such a distaste for traditions. What we do not realize is that the traditions that have been delivered unto us have been passed down for generations. These people that held rituals so dear were not much different than ourselves. They had difficulties, trials, triumphs, fears, faith, and love. These traditions and values were meaningful to them not only because it helped them to get through the times but also because it came from there forefathers. Why do we take for evil what generations of our forefathers took as blessed?

Creeds have become almost obsolete as we are ever more inebriated with the concept of "the new." We make a mockery of tradition and ritual even within the church. It is a wonder that the church has made it at all through the last century!

Marriage and childbearing used to be of utmost importance because it was through these more than any other that memories, values, and namesake were passed down from generation to generation. It is here that we begin to see the rationale and value of arranged marriages.

Ones pride used to be found in his work. The father would teach the younger his trade who in turn would teach their children the same trade. This put not only a sense of place in ones work but also a sense of quality and pride. Now we can only see some semblance of this in history books concerning the aristocracy or on the unread pages of the Scripture.

Certainly we do not live in that age nor possibly would we want to but there is no question that we must figure out a means by which to transport some of these values in to our "brave new world." And to do so I believe that we must first come to the sad and yet glorious truths that we will one day die and that it is primarily through our families that our values, hopes, dreams, and work will live on.