Archive for the ‘Cultural Issues’ Category
by Robert E. Meyer
It is quite possible that atheists as a group are more intelligent than the community of theists at large. I don't have statistical evidence to support this claim, but anecdotally, I can believe that it is quite likely. Many, who become atheists, probably arrive at a crisis, where there are points of tension in reconciling Christianity with their own constructs of logic and reason. The atheist may say that this migration occurs because intelligent people gravitate toward a worldview distilled from logic and reason, as opposed to one conjured from superstition and unquestioning acceptance. That seems a bit self-serving and laced with hubris, though. Based on my observations, both groups are intellectually stratified—ignorant theists, astute atheists, and vice-versa. You realize that apologists for theism are themselves intellectual giants, when the best are pitted in debate against their atheist counterparts.
The positive argument about intelligent people is easily reversed. I could conclude that greater levels of intelligence present a pitfall of conceit that the atheist steps into. High levels of intelligence can cause a belief of invulnerability and hubris–that humanity will solve all problems and eventually gain a comprehensive knowledge of the universe–thus God is, or will become, unneeded and unwanted. This is the faith (though they might call their faith claims "confidence based on experience," if that is a distinction with a difference) of naturalism. That "faith" is justified according to its devotees, in that once upon a time, empirical knowledge existed as a small corpus of information, yet today it has snowballed into a juggernaut. While is it true that empirical knowledge has grown exponentially, few are sagaciously differentiating between that which is presently unknown and that which is by definition unknowable (as theists might say, hidden in the mind of God).
by Robert E. Meyer
As a Christian believer, I am quite content to let the atheist believe what he or she wants. My rationale for this and other pieces on the subject of atheism is a response to the often hostile and aggressive charges made against Christianity as a system of thought.
Some time ago, I was contacted by the proprietor of some irreverently named atheist website. Apparently he took issue with a certain piece I had written months earlier regarding my conclusions about a biblical passage from Matthew chapter 6 (one can only wonder why an atheist would want to dispute about biblical exegesis). I responded to his inquiry thinking that was the end of the discussion. The next day, I got a wave of E-mails making rather disparaging remarks, which had little to do with the topic in question. Based on what I could glean from the responses, their apparent Modus Operandi , was to roast a selected individual in an attempt to solicit an angry visceral response. If that didn't work, they would bring in their "cleaner" to finish the job, as I discovered yet the following morning. Here was his "love letter."
"As an unrepentant blasphemer, you see me and those like me as damned. Good for you! Enjoy it, Bob. But what you need to know is that all atheists see you as a delusional, intellectually inferior, weak-willed, gullible sucker who's incapable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality, and we laugh at you because of it. I would never hire an evangelical Christian. They believe in nonsense and as such can't be trusted with things of importance. If I were a customer prospect, I'd never buy a thing from you. (I wouldn't trust your ability to support your customers in an effective and intelligent manner.) If I were a loan officer, I'd never put a dime in your hand. (I wouldn't trust your ability to manage your finances or maintain a job through which you could repay me.) If you were a daycare owner, I'd never leave my child with you. (If I couldn't trust you with money, how could I possibly trust you with my child?) In fact, I wouldn't even trust you for the time of day if I had to catch a plane. Your intellect, and that of people like you, is sorely compromised, and I'd never allow your kind to affect me personally in any way shape or form. If the rest of the "god-believing" world wants to trust your intellect, then good for you. You shall have their trust, their employ, their business, their money, and their respect. Kudos!
Enjoy your delusion."
by Thomas E. Brewton
Old Testament tribulations of Judah and Israel, the 19th century events that set the stage for British decline as a world power, and the current state of affairs in the United States have worrisome similarities. All three peoples turned away from God and vaunted their own intellectual powers.
In the Old Testament books of Judges and 1st and 2nd Kings, as well as the numerous books of the prophets, the repeated message to rulers and to the people is that turning away from God to worship idols, whether of man-made gods or of wealth and power, always led to disaster at the hands of foreign aggressors.
A society in which individuals and rulers failed to deal justly with the poor, the widows, and the orphans, a society in which the rulers failed to pray to God for guidance, was a society that disintegrated from internal rot.
England, while it was a united Christian nation, became the greatest commercial power on earth and the nation with the greatest degree of individual political liberty. That began to fall apart by the middle of the 19th century, when the materialistic doctrines of atheism and agnosticism began their rise to dominance in intellectual and political life.
by Carey Roberts
It was one of those claims that only a feminist could dream up: "A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70% of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape." Despite the lack of credibility of anything that comes from the United Nations, this straight-faced claim actually made its way into a front-page article last week in the Washington Times.
That, despite the fact that the research shows Indian women are the gender more likely to abuse. Plus, no one could track down the UN report that supposedly made the claim. [www.mediaradar.org/alert20061113.php]
The Washington Times is certainly no feminist rag. So what’s going on here?
In the wake of the November 7 electoral debacle, conservatives are doing a lot of soul-searching. Maybe it’s time to assess whether the feminist ideology has been allowed to invidiously dilute the conservative message.
There was a time, of course, when the women’s movement held the moral high ground. Susan B. Anthony not only championed women’s right to vote, but also took a principled stand against abortion.
by Robert E. Meyer
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…" We are familiar with this phrase from our Declaration of Independence, but have we considered its logical implications and outworking? Probably not very much at all.
Atheists and Humanists are among the most vocal proponents of a society with an obsession to assert their collective "rights." But since these secular "religions" are practically branches of the philosophy of naturalism, where everything that exists is a product of matter in motion, we might legitimately ask "from whence do these rights cometh?" If humanity evolved from the slime of a prehistoric pond, it seems silly to even anoint our race with so lofty an attribute as "human dignity." If what the infidel says about the origin of man is true, then any rights he claims are as illusionary as the disappearing animals in a Las Vegas magic show.
By Thomas E. Brewton
Words remain the same, but lose their meaning when twisted to fit ideological aims. One such word is equality.
A New York Times editorial dated October 26, 2006, proclaims, "The New Jersey Supreme Court brought the United States a little closer to the ideal of equality yesterday when it ruled that the state's Constitution requires that committed same-sex couples be accorded the same rights as married heterosexual couples."
The Times editorial implicitly presumes that the "ideal of equality" means entitlement to actual equality in all respects. Same-sex marriage is just the latest in a long list of socialist intellectuals' demands that judicial pronouncement, if not statute law, mandate equality of condition, rather than equality of opportunity.
Of course, even for the Times, equality has limits. There is no thought to equal protection of an infant's right to life, when weighed against the "right" to sexual promiscuity implicit in the pro-choice advocacy of abortion.
Our nation was founded on a completely different understanding of equality. Not until President Lyndon Johnson's full-bore-socialist Great Society did the politicians adopt the New York Times's definition of equality as entitlement, rather than opportunity.
English political traditions brought to North America in the early 17th century remained the founding traditions of the United States in the 18th century, when the Constitution was written. In that framework, equality meant only that everyone was entitled to equal treatment under the law, that the ruler, as well as the ruled, was subject to a higher law of God-given morality.
The Bill of Rights was intended, not to legislate equality, but to safeguard individuals' natural-law political liberties from arbitrary government power. One inescapable consequence of the individuality protected by the Bill of Rights is the absolute impossibility of uniform equality in social station, distinction, and income.
by Erik Rush
It's amazing what one can learn about politics – and people – from a ten year-old…
My son (the ten year-old) saw the horrible condition of the starving people in Darfur (the Sudanese region in which human rights-related atrocities and ethnic cleansing have been going on since 2003) on a television news report. Every now and then, he will view people in similar condition in other war-torn nations, or ones in which there is political inequity (to put it politely). Obviously, the images of starving children are particularly disturbing to him.
"Why don't we send them food?" he asks.
"Well, we do," I tell him. "America sends billions of dollars in financial and food aid to countries like those every year."
"Billions?!?"
"That's right."
"Then why are they still starving?"
"Good question," say I. "Because the fat, aboriginal scum who run those countries generally steal most of the money and food and share it with the army in order to keep themselves in power."
"What's 'aboriginal' mean?"
"Never mind."
Miyamoto Musashi, the 16th-century samurai and great military figure in Japanese history, wrote about a concept he called "immature strategy" in his book Go Rin No Sho (A Book of five Rings). The basis of this was that one could not be an effective swordsman, military leader – or anything else, for that matter – utilizing underdeveloped, half-baked ideas or techniques.
Hence my son's initial response: Having been raised in a culture in which people ostensibly care about others, he reasoned that throwing a mess of resources at the problem would readily fix it. Then there's the fact that kids of that age still think everything ought to be the way they think it ought to be – just because.
Immature strategy; my ten year-old isn't aware of the political nuances involved, the corruption, greed and lack of concern for life that is business as usual in many cultures, but is anathema to the Judeo-Christian ethic to which he has been exposed. So his solutions are on a par with his maturity as well as his frame of reference.
by Sharon Hughes
First we've watched Iran's President Ahmadinejad display his anti-Semitic colors in all their glory, and for all the world to see. Then Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's Red was never as bold as it was when he called the President of the United States 'the Devil' at the UN, before the cameras of the world. And who hasn't heard about Rosie O'Donnell's true colors flying high when she compared 'radical Christians' to terrorists? Of course, it doesn't stop there.
David Horowitz's FrontPageMagazine has been reporting for years about the increase of anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-American activities, and bigotry by professors, in America's colleges and universities.
As well, WorldNetDaily has covered examples of the same kind of bigotry happening daily across America. One of the latest examples was pointed out by Joseph Farah, founder of WND last week about Pennsylvania State University Professor Mel Seesholtz's comments in the Online Journal in regards to the 'Christian Right's' opposition to three homosexual indoctrination bills which California Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed…
"A very wise woman recently asked me, 'Who will rid us of the evil lunatics?'"
"We will. We must. Public education and a civil civilized society depend upon it."
Farah writes, In fact, he compares our collective form of "perverted Christianity" to a 63-year-old self-proclaimed prophet from Texas who reportedly raped a 22-year-old woman because she was possessed of a sex spirit and a lesbian demon. Seesholtz sees no difference between opposition to California legislation that would indoctrinate all schoolchildren – from kindergarten up – in the merits of homosexuality, transsexuality and bisexuality without their parents' permission and the use of religion to justify rape. You talk about "perversion," this is it."
I don't know which bothers me more. Such comments by leftist professors and communist, Islamo-fascist dictators, or that some Americans are cheering them on!
The population isn't exploding, it's imploding. In fact, there is a catastrophic population shrinkage. In many parts of the world, there aren't nearly enough babies, says Joel Garreau in the October issue of Smithsonian.
Population shrinkage is happening in Europe, Russia, Japan, Canada, much of East Asia, even China. It has potentially dire consequences for anyone wishing to retire and live off the goods and services of the younger generation.
According to Garreau:
- Sometime in October, the United States population will reach 300 million — most of that growth comes from immigration.
- For a population to replace itself, every couple has to produce about 2.1 children, but the United States falls just short of that.
- Italy and Spain are at 1.3 percent, and Hong Kong and Macau are 0.96 and 0.84.
- Russia has both a baby shortage and a strangely sick population.
- China's draconian methods of population control have created a situation in which it will soon have a disproportionate number of older citizens; many won't have a child to take care of them, and they'll have to work in the fields to the end of their days.
Few demographers ever dreamed that in the absence of war, famine and pestilence — in fact, as a result of urbanization, development and education — birthrates would drop so dramatically. No one knows where the bottom is. Keep this up, and eventually your civilization will disappear, says Garreau.
Source: Joel Achenbach, "The Population Implosion," Washington Post, September 27, 2006.
For text (subscription required):
For more on International Issues:
Last winter in France, the Muslim youth erupted in riots that lasted over 2 weeks before control was reestablished. Nathan Muller is co-founder of For the Cause, believes that similar riots could happen here in the U.S. I concur 100%, it is only a matter of time.
After two weeks of rioting throughout France among that nation's immigrant population, Americans are asking, "Could it happen here?"
American's are right to ask the question because the circumstances in the two countries are strikingly similar…
- Both countries have allowed immigration policies to deteriorate to the point that virtually anyone who wants to enter can do so with little difficulty.
- Both countries have large immigrant populations that will not assimilate into the host culture or accept its values.
- Most of the immigrants pouring into both countries cannot find jobs, which means they sap social welfare benefits beyond sustainable levels.
Politicians' favorite ploy
What the governments of France and the U.S. need to understand is that uncontrolled immigration naturally produces social inequalities that are difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. These social inequalities are not the result of the prejudices or fears of citizens, but of the misguided policies of government. Attributing social inequalities to "prejudice" or "fear" is a disingenuous ploy politicians use to mask their own policy failures.
With violence waning, President Jacques Chirac has called on France to confront the social inequalities and prejudices that fueled the violence. This is doomed to failure because it is based on a false premise. It's not the French people who are the problem, it's the French government.
The cause of the unrest in France is due mainly to the high rate of unemployment among a vast and growing immigrant population, which hovers around 40%. With an overall unemployment rate of 11%, it will be difficult for France to open the doors to employment, especially with all the bureaucracy and costs associated with job creation. Here the French government is clearly at fault.