iPandora

I was talking to someone over the weekend about Ephesians 5:25-31, Paul’s instructions to married men, and he commented that he finds sermons on the preceding verses, Paul’s exhortations to married women, very common. Common to the neglect of the exhorting of married men. I’ve heard sermons on each, myself, and cannot judge either way as to which I’ve heard more of. But regardless of the issue, real or perceived, married men seem to me to not be learning much of this vital information prior to tying the knot.

In the blogosphere I found an older article detailing a practical but brief perspective on the Ephesians verses for men. And an even more explicit and holistic view of the requirements of the husband in marriage (note, this article is graphic, not pictorial, but graphic) as spelled out throughout the Bible.

Marriage is a beautiful thing, so I’ve been told and have observed. My parents have been married 28/29 years, or thereabouts. I’ve observed them learn to deal with things together as they’ve raised my siblings and myself (we did not make it easy). But together they have joy and I think they can say, looking back, that the love they shared on their wedding day was the least love they’ve shared since. Marriage is a joining, a merging of two different people into a single living unit. The joining and merging brings a broadened perspective, an enhanced effectiveness. In business classes we learned that a well-balanced relationship allows for a result greater than the sum of the individual parts. This rings true for a strong marriage. Individually we may attempt and succeed at great things, but together, standing on each others shoulders, in each others care and support, and in Christs love, there is little indeed that cannot be accomplished. And children. Not only are the effect tangible in this life while the two live, but their heritage continues in their children, surpassing even the memory of their own specific achievements.

Marriage is also a difficult thing. In the “Great Unified Theory of Everything” (GUTE) marriage falls under the category Power Tools. A powerful tool can be easy and difficult at the same time, both using and mastering. A power tool can do great good and great evil, usually not at the same time. I have seen my parents argue, mostly when I was younger, and I recall the fear and insecurity those arguments gave me. But with time I can see how my mom and dad worked to deepen conversation and communication between each other, setting aside time each day to spend together. Usually right when dad got home from work, if something else wasn’t going on right then, he and mom would go into a room alone and talk. That took dedication, creating a habit in what could be a very hectic time of the day. As dad made more money he had the time and means to get involved in several hobbies, one of which is Civil War Reenacting. He’s always enjoyed camping, but my mom was never much for camping. In the past camping usually ended up being a “just us boys” time, which was good. But with reenacting there were enough amenities around that mom could go and enjoy herself too. But he also sets aside weekends several times each year that he and mom will leave for a quick weekend. Sometimes they go to the coast, sometimes they go to the mountains. Dad spends lots of time looking up Bed & Breakfasts that are well recommended and off the beaten path and he and mom will spend a weekend away, another honeymoon. Their love is palpable.  Marriage is hard work, especially when children and life seem to be trying their utmost to pull you apart individually and as a couple, and making habits of togetherness and making the special effort to get away and be just together is of supreme importance.

Marriage is a wonderful thing, so I’ve heard. Like all wonderful things it takes a lot of work, hard work. The more work that is put in, the greater the potential. Realizing the potential is up to each of us individually, but for the couple the rewards are greatest together.

The words of Jeremiah Wright, the wrong words he’s spoken and made a central part of his message for the 20 years Barak Hussein Obama has considered him a spiritual leader, to some, they are truth.

Mr. Wright, for I do not consider him to be worthy of reverence or title beyond that of a normal man, is not the only person to preach those words either.

They are a variant of the philosophy and world view known as Liberation Theology, specifically, Black Liberation Theology.

From GotQuestions.org:

Simply put, Liberation Theology is an attempt to interpret Scripture through the plight of the poor. It is largely a humanistic doctrine. It started in South America in the turbulent 1950′s when Marxism was making great gains among the poor because of its emphasis on the redistribution of wealth, allowing poor peasants to share in the wealth of the colonial elite and thus upgrade their economic status in life. As a theology, it has very strong Roman Catholic roots.

Liberation Theology was bolstered in 1968 at the Second Latin American Bishops Conference which met in Medellin, Colombia. The idea was to study the Bible and to fight for social justice in Christian (Catholic) communities. Since the only governmental model for the redistribution of the wealth in a South American country was a Marxist model (gained in the turbulent 1950′s), the redistribution of wealth to raise the economic standards of the poor in South America took on a definite Marxist flavor. Since those who had money were very reluctant to part with it in any wealth redistribution model, the use of a populist (read poor) revolt was encouraged by those who worked most closely with the poor. As a result, the Liberation Theology model was mired in Marxist dogma and revolutionary causes…

…Liberation Theology has moved from the poor peasants in South America to the poor blacks in America. We now have Black Liberation Theology being preached in the black community. It is the same Marxist, revolutionary, humanistic philosophy found in South American Liberation Theology and has no more claim for a scriptural basis than the South American model has.

The race problem in America is real, that is undeniably true. But I do not think it is true in the way many assume it to be.

First, slavery was an inexcusable evil and a dark time for America. Today, many of us can trace roots back to those who participated, freely or under coercion, in slavery in America.

But at the same time, many of us can’t. And a significant majority have ancestors from the both the ideological North and South in their blood, as well as those who had no part at all. There has been significant immigration by all races to America after the conclusion of the Civil War and the active work of slavery.

The continuing and very real race issue was summed up by a new friend of Ed Kaitz’s. Ed had been spending time with the Vietnamese immigrants who’d settled in the Bayous of Louisiana, and while flying home he met a an American Black who’d been studying psychology and working as a prison psychologist in Missouri.

Ed tells it like this:

His answer, only a few words, not only floored me but became sort of a razor that has allowed me ever since to slice through all of the rhetoric regarding race relations that Democrats shovel our way during election season:

“We’re owed and they aren’t.”

In short, he concluded, “they’re hungry and we think we’re owed.  It’s crushing us, and as long as we think we’re owed we’re going nowhere.”

“They” are the Vietnamese Ed had spent time with, “we” are the gentleman’s own race, his fellow American Blacks.

Ed concludes his commentary on Obama’s inability to recognize the powerful forces of good in his life and the state of racism in America with this call to recognize real sources of ability and equality, accomplishment and future:

We now know that Barack Obama really has no interest in the “audacity of hope.”  With his race speech, Obama became a peddler of angst, resentment and despair.  Too bad he doesn’t direct that angst at the liberal establishment that has sold black people a bill of goods since the 1960s.  What Obama seems angry about is America itself and what it stands for; the same America that has provided fabulous opportunities for what my black friend called “hungry” minorities.  Strong families, self-reliance, and a spirit of entrepreneurship should be held up as ideals for all races to emulate.

Read Obama’s Anger at American Thinker.

Doug Ross, at Opinion Journal, quotes Nicholas Stix in Mens News Daily regarding Barak Hussein Obama’s run against Alan Keyes. Regarding Barak’s religion Nicholas has this to say:

…Obama’s closest religious advisers — Fr. Pfleger, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, and Illinois State Sen. James Meeks, who moonlights as the pastor of Chicago’s Salem Baptist Church – may have quotes from Scripture always handy, but are theologically closer to Karl Marx and black nationalism, than to Christianity… The transcendent-non-transcendent motto the Rev. Wright has given Trinity is, “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian.”

Yes, we need a Marxist president. Exactly what the country needs.

More information on Black Liberation ideology.

LA Times speaks with moral relativism and class warfare.

Roger Simon writes, in homage to Andrew Goodman “Barak, I didn’t do it for this”

And what about the New Black Panthers?

Originally posted December 18th, 2006.

Pastor told a story of a Christmas play written and performed by K and 1st graders for a church. The play proceeded normally enough until Joseph and Mary arrived at the stable at which time there’s a knock at the “door” and Joseph welcomes a Doctor in a white coat and bearing a stethoscope. The doctor proceeds to Mary who is behind some hay bales and groaning and straining sounds occur normal to a birth scene. After the final cry and a baby wail the Doctor comes out to Joseph who has been pacing nervously across the stage during this time and says to him “Congratulations, it’s a God.”

What wonder must Joseph and Mary have felt in that time. They knew better than any other the amazing nature of the child Mary bore. Perhaps they didn’t grasp the all the implications pursuant to such an event, but the amazement factor itself must have been nearly overwhelming.

As good Jews they were well aware of the awesome nature of God and knew only a little of the Love He showed completely through His son. They knew Him as unapproachable and Holy. They couldn’t even say His name. And yet here He had given them a son, His Son, His ONLY Son. He’s entrusted them His heart. And in the same way He’s taken the ultimate risk with each of us, He’s given each of us His heart through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, whether we accept it or not. Think of the father, mother, lover, going out on a limb, as it were, setting themselves up for endless hurt and betrayal if their son, daughter, lover, ignores their love and spites them. God gave His life, laying it on the live for each one of us, individually. No greater love has no one than this, than that He lays down His life for another. Christmas is only the beginning, Easter is only the epic moment in time when timeless God Himself changed the course of His Story to our dim eyes. The end comes when each of us dies and is brought to reckoning. It won’t be a “were you good enough to shave off enough days of purgatory” as the Catholics believe. It won’t be a “am I in a good mood did you kill enough infidels or do other feats to further Islam” such as Muslims believe. It will be “did you accept my gift.”

When the good Doctor says “Congratulations, the baby is healthy, and it’s a God” He’s given to each of us a gift that we can accept or reject. All the rest are just bonus points, or filthy rags, as Paul calls them.

This is what’s happening in Iraq now:

Michael Yon has catalogued the truth of the war and the life and the rebuilding of Iraq. This picture and the accompanying article spoke volumes to me, as I hope it does to you. And yes, those are Muslims in the front row, showing their public support for their Christian friends and neighbors who fled persecution by radical Islamics. They want them to come home.

Halloween. Bugbear of knee-jerk non-involvists and new ‘favorite holiday of the religiously atheistic media and cultural leaders’. Where did it come from anyway? And can and should a Christian participate in it and to what extent?

I make no claims to historical accuracy in this article, merely stating what I’ve heard over the years and researched myself, all thrown into a big puddle and stirred until I get this… mess.

It is common to hear that Halloween is a night dedicated to the worship of Satan, the prince of evil and darkness. The favored decorations are dark on the nice side, and hideous on the bad side. Tales of ancestor worship and demon calling are frequent and true. Yes, it does happen.

The current version of Halloween borrows, as do most holidays we celebrate, from a plethora of traditions and belief systems. First we shall visit the Christian roots. The early Christians celebrated days when brave Christians laid down their lives as holidays. As persecution grew and the number of martyrs rose, it became impractical to even celebrate only your regional martyrs, and one day, the 1st of November, was dedicated to the celebration of the lives of those who gave their lives for Christ’s glory. Eventually, the rumor grew that on All Hallows Eve (Hallowe’en) God allowed the saints one day to walk the earth, visiting and comforting people and their loved ones and doing good deeds. This of course fueled the imaginations of people, feeding ghost stories and our natural fear of the unknown, the dark, and the dead.

The primary pagan roots of Halloween are Celtic. Druidism is an earth-worshiping, animistic, pan-theistic, evil religion which practiced, at various times, human sacrifice and erected marvelous structures facilitating it’s domination of the superstitious Celts. An brief but accurate description of the Druid’s hold on early Britain can be read in the early chapters of Charles Dickens’ A Child’s History of England (an excellent book for family and table reading). Around the time of Halloween has always been a time of harvest festivals, as the last of the summer and fall crops have been stored, the fields and woods were full of fat, lazy animals to hunt and kill. The storehouses of the industrious young civilizations were stuffed and the people were ready for one last wild fling before being confined to their hovels and huts by inclement weather. The Druids had convinced the populace that they were responsible for the success of each year, and that the god’s must be payed with ritualistic sacrifice in order to procure their blessing for the long winter and hope for the coming spring. The spiritism and human sacrifice and overall dark tone of the Druid religion permeated this time of the year for the pagan Celts. With the arrival of Saint Patrick in Ireland and other missionaries and conquering cultures such as the Romans, Druidism gave way to a hybrid Christianity, much as it did in South America, where a pagan reverence for the Dead mixed with a Christian knowledge of eternal life and an entirely human desire to see one’s loved ones again.

Halloween retains it’s Christian name: “All Hallows Eve”, and for most of us it retains a good theme, going into the neighborhood one last time to knock on all the doors and receive gifts and give greetings before the cold of winter chases us all indoors again. For a few it retains the pagan trappings of animal sacrifice, for others it involves getting drunk and/or high and naked, making pentagrams, lighting a fire, and chanting loudly at midnight and waking the neighbors.

For the vast majority it means walking your kids around the neighborhood worrying about razor blades in candy and never finding any (kids will digest ANYTHING) and waving hi to the neighbors who fuel your children’s sugar rush for the next 2 weeks.

For some Halloween is a time of remembering Luther’s 95 Theses, which he nailed to the door of the Wittenburg Cathedral on this day 490 years ago. His 95 arguments against the teachings of the Roman Catholic church set fire to the revivals of spirit and social and cultural upheaval and growth which started immediately thereafter and have continued to some extent even to this day.

Some even still remember the martyrs for the faith, whose numbers are growing at an ever greater rate as many nations seek to expunge the redemptive work of Christ from their borders.

But it is important to note that evil has not, cannot, and will not ever create anything new for itself. Evil is only capable of perverting things that are good, taking them out of balance and propriety, assigning more of less significance to them. That is all evil can and will ever be able to do.

God is capable of redeeming all things because He first created all things. Just as man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man, days and times and seasons have no inherent control over us, and can only affect us to the extent we allow ourselves to be controlled by them. The only thing we as Christians should allow to control us is Christ, and through His power we share in His overcoming the world. Greater is He that is in us, than he that is in the world. We are not given a spirit of fear, but of power, of strength, and of a sound mind. Our God has overcome the world, and nothing occurs without His knowing it and His plan and purpose directing it.

Halloween, for me, is a time to enjoy the change of season, to remember the faithful who have given their lives for Christ, to visit the neighbors while enjoying costumes and goodies. These are pics of my costumes for Halloween 2005 and 2006. I went to work in these. The English Lord included poofy pants and leggings and THE most uncomfortable shoes ever, and I went trick-or-treating with several of my friends that night. It was fun. The other one is, obviously, Mr. Clean, and yes, I shaved my head. It was the first time ever, and it felt weird.

The important thing to remember is that we are called to be light in a dark world. The culture’s current view of Halloween reinforces very strongly the fact that we are indeed in a very dark world that desperately needs light. We are also called to do whatever we do for Him and His glory. If that is not our goal, whether we participate or not, we’re doing it wrong.

EDIT: Scott over at Verum Serum has his own response to kids he teaches and knee-jerk non-involvists.

So as some of you may know I’m back to Jr. College to finish up some transfer classes required by the UC system and one of the classes happens to be English critical thinking. I already had a fairly good knowledge of what I was getting myself into but it’s still fun to actually experience ignorance. Let me get to the point which is the little story I have from yesterday.

Our instructor wants to focus on interpretative argumentation which in my opinion is fine because I didn’t want to argument about the existence of god, morality of abortion and whether or not gays have the right to marriage. Her first exercise for us was interpreting a piece of art that was published in “The New Yorker”. You can find it here . We were to determine as a class what the artist was conveying in the picture. We students immediately begin to describe the picture factually with three women, NY subway bench, Catholic, Muslim, Secular, etc. Then we began interpreting. I said, “On either side of the middle woman we have the extreme representation of the world religions and the woman in the middle is obviously someone who is suppose to stand out.” Students bounce that idea around in their own way. And then I pointed out, “She’s clearly meant to be out there because most women don’t wear a halter top and a short shirt.” Immediately a girl next to me says, “Well women do dress that way, so it not like its abnormal.” I took my leave for the moment, let the students continue analyzing and looked about the room to see NOT ONE girl dressed that way. Thankfully the African man came to my rescue. “These aren’t just women they are the extreme forums. This isn’t just a Catholic it is an extreme Catholic, this isn’t just a Muslim it is an extreme Muslim,” all the students paused in adoration of such foreign intelligence and he continued, “and so in the woman in the middle. I do not see one woman in here whose dress like the woman in the middle,” he finished in his thick African accent.

Students came up with other ideas like the three monkeys, “Speak no evil, See no evil and hear no evil.” But nothing really stuck like our first statements so we continued in that direction which led to good old’ feminism. The teacher brought up the idea of the current anti-feminism movement with such figure heads as Dr. Laura. Then an Indian man, though very American, spoke up in reference to feminism and commented that feminism was like when a teenager receives freedom, they don’t know exactly what to do with it. Knowing he was on the right path but would be lynched if it wasn’t finished I stated, “Well yeah, its like a pendulum which swings from abortions and pole dancing to all you’re (as a woman) good for is making babies.” And no sooner than I finished my sentence the later thirty something getting married to PhD in three months over weight woman pipes up and says, “What about a pole dancer mother?” Thankfully the teacher took it from there but I was just shocked at the stupidity of feminism.

Thank you for your patient reading but the point of this of post is how shocking to me hearing feminism spoken from women’s’ mouths. I expect it from the liberal media from the New Yorker, MSNBC, CNN, my local news paper etc, but to hear it for real just strikes me differently and is just shocking. Feminism began in the late 1800s and eventually succeeded in its objective to give women suffrage in early 1900s. This in great numbers was driven by Christian women. But in the wake of this came the second and third feminist movement which as we see today has taken women to the other extreme. I understand the reasons for feminism in regard to men objectifying, raping, disrespecting, insulting and in so many ways treating women like a second class human being. I often think of the “Leave It To Beaver” mother who takes care of everything in the home, the children, the husband and is more of a robot than a person. Often for these 50s women the husband thought little of her and would go out and arrogantly have an affair or two knowing the wife would do nothing. Women have indeed suffered so much under men through out all of history so in this regard I understand the reaction of feminism.
God created man and woman in the beginning and put them as equals to each other and to God. They were equally responsible to keep the covenant; they were partners. However, with the fall of mankind God placed specific curses on man and to the woman he stated:

3:16 “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

So from that point on women were on a hierarchal lower position than man in the world, which I believe has given the fact that “Its a man’s world.” Women do not have a lesser nature and have equal rights to God’s love, forgiveness and grace but as the Father has a position of authority of the rest of the Trinity the husband has the position of authority over women and they have suffered because of this curse. And as my wife points out, this is what happens when women chose another thing to be there God. When Eve chose to heed Satan she was placing herself under his rule and not God’s rule, therefore, God said, “Okay if what you want is to be under another’s headship and not mine then this is what you’ll have.” Since that time women have been under the rule of man. The world of Islam, for example, in Iran is a perfect example of how women are made to be less human than men. Women are stoned to death for dating a man the family doesn’t agree with, they must wear their dress even when swimming at the beach, and they are even segregated at the Mosques because it’s believed they distract the men from their prayers.

Getting back to the extreme which feminism in America has achieved its understandable why the anti-feminist movement has come to be. Feminism in its blind desire of “freedom” has received it but not known what it would do with it, at least nothing more than abortions, divorce, spousal abuse and pornography (visual in strip dancing or physical in prostitution). Yet all of these things are not forums of freedom but enslavement and self hatred. Freedom for the sake of freedom is dangerous. Often the argument for abortion is “choice”. Choice is placed over the sacredness of life! Insanity! Choice is placed over the sacredness of the woman’s body so you have women who see themselves merely as sex toys and honestly not people. Feminism is clearly not just about getting more legal rights and job opportunities which I believe are good, its been about the freedom to have choice for the sake of choice. The social aspect is a lie because choices have consequences and choice is not the ultimate achievement as I hope people will come to see.

In America the only reason why people such as Dr. Laura are so successful is because there’s a deep need for answers and guidance for women who need to know how to be a woman because what they’ve done in their past has not worked. This is why Dr. Laura is so strict. Women need to date for a certain period of time and need to become engaged and married before they “shack up” lest they become “humped and dumped”. If these feminists would take the time to listen to Dr. Laura they’d realize she isn’t as far off her rocker as they think. Feminism has produced the lie that women are just like men and the truth is we are not the same which is clearly displayed by the fact that we have different but complimenting bodies. Men and women were created for specific purposes and similar purposes. Men are physically stronger and built for hard work and war and do this in great numbers though some women can do this as well. Women are very good communicators and find it natural to give and help, though men can do this also. Specifically though men are designed for humble leadership in all regards of the word (its no coincidence that Jesus Christ was a man) and women are specifically designed for giving life. The fault is when we begin to place priority on certain things over another but the fact is we need both to be fulfilling their abilities and callings because they fit together like puzzle pieces to make life.

The inability of men to teach and disciple their sons and daughters with this wisdom is why feminism and chauvinism came to be. The problem with feminism fundamentally is that it is still placing women under the headship of something other than God. Christian women are not called to be mice who are stuck in a corner of our churches. Women are called to challenge the men in their lives, particularly husbands and their children to become better people. Not to say that one must become married to be fulfilled or feel whole but the fact is we were created to be complimented by the opposite sex in marriage. Therefore, a wise man chooses a woman who he can love and respect. A wise woman is patient and chooses a man whom she can respect and challenge and not a chump. All to often either sex selects another in the hope such things can come to be, but it never passes. I was once told the following which I find very true:

“A man marries the woman he has come to know and the woman marries the man whom she hopes he will become.”

It just illustrates how man and woman are different but how they also compliment one another.

I hope in my class that as we continue in our discussions this white, middle class, blue eyed, Christian male gets a little more credit. Nevertheless, I am thankful that we’re not going to be discussing such hot topics as abortion and homosexuality as they always opens up a can of worms with lots of vitriol.

Peace out.

First they went after the Communists, and I did not stand up, because I was not a Communist. Then they went after the homosexuals and infirm, and I did not stand up, because I was neither. Then they went after the Jews, and I did not stand up, because I was not a Jew. Then they went after the Catholics, and I did not stand up, because I was Protestant. Finally, they went after me, and there was no one left to stand up for me.

Funny thing about spam, some of it makes you think. This is the content of a splog (Spam Blog) spam comment Akismet caught for me this morning. It really is spam, unlike the comments by our friend Random who I initially labeled as spam due to their off-topic nature. The blog the links pointed to exists to make money, not to serve content. But the content of this comment is intriguing.

Many of you may find this quote vaguely familiar. It is, in fact, a misquoting of Pastor Martin Niemueller, a Lutheran Minister during the Nazi rule of Germany. Initially, observing the evil taking over his country, he kept his head down, protecting himself, but then he realized his responsibility before God and began speaking out. He was arrested and tried and sent to prison. His actual quote, while he was in prison, is a haunting reminder of out responsibility before God to stand up for the oppressed:

They came for the Jews and I said nothing, because I was not a Jew. They came for the Catholics and I said nothing, because I was not a catholic. When they came for the workers, I said nothing because I was not a worker. When they came for me there was no one left to stand up for me.

This contrasts sharply with the quote in the spam comment above. A person today with an education derived exclusively from today’s American culture would say that the two quotes are substantively the same: they all reference groups that have been or are currently abused at the hands of the culture in general. But there are significant differences between the two. Deeper than the obvious additions of Communists, Homosexuals, and the infirm, is the idea that all choices are equally valid and that there is no compelling moral argument against certain choices.

This argument, on it’s face, is false. It is simple a retelling of the common and equally false supposition: universal relativism:

“There is no objective truth!” the claim rings across the hills and valleys.

“Oh? Is that true?” the echo returns.

“Yes, it is!” is the reply, ignorant of it’s own disproving irony.

Communism is a demonstrable evil, those who say otherwise are willfully ignorant or evil themselves. There is no comparison between communism and the workers or a religious perspective as similarly misunderstood ideologies or lifestyles. This is not the place and there is not the time to get into a full discussion of the evils of communism.

Homosexuality is a different beast altogether, and there are very emotional arguments and very reasoned arguments on all sides of this beast, (read my previous thoughts on the matter). But at the root is the inherent destructiveness of the lifestyle defined by homosexuality. It is not a matter of two equally valid choices: hetero or homo. It is a choice between life and death.

The infirm are a group that must be stood up for, as the nature of their infirmity may make it difficult for them to protect themselves if not prevent it altogether. It is no surprise that as we devalue the human, turning ourselves into little more than ascended monkeys, capital to be used, abused, and neglected, that the silent members of our species, the unborn and the sick, are being discarded like so much baggage at the whim of our fancy.

The Terri Schiavo incident revealed the culture of death in our society, where people argued that it was in the best interest of humanity to take this humans’ life. With the wonders of modern medicine we see a number of cases where people in what is popularly called “Persistent Vegetative State” are actually quite lucid, and simply unable to respond. In as many as 43% of cases diagnosed as PVS, the patient later recovers and in some cases tells of being able to perceive everything that went on around them and that was done to them.

I rather like reading my comment spam now and again. It is mostly trash filled with links, but every once in a while, a gem comes along, such as this, and thoughts ensue.

If I assault you intentionally and maliciously, is that a crime? Yes. Should I be punished for such an action? Yes. Should it matter at all if you or I are or any particular group or category, chosen or not? No.

The whole concept of Hate Crimes is a lie based on a falsehood and the result is the devaluation of humanity in general. The concept of justice is based on the principle that all people are inherently equal. If it wasn’t than any arbiter of justice could decide arbitrarily to favor some and denigrate another, and that is obviously not justice. There should be no gradations in how justice is meted out besides those based on the type and severity of the crime and the intent of the guilty. The purpose of justice is to punish the criminal, not make the victim feel better. There are many institutions who work to help the victims, whose purpose it is to help the helpless, it is not the responsibility of justice. Justice is blind, and one must see to help.

The agenda behind the concept of Hate Crimes is to make some classes of people special in the administration of justice. Look north to Canada and see how it is now illegal to even speak anything which might be construed to be negative towards the homosexual lifestyle. Why is it not wrong to speak negatively of everybody? What you have now in Canada is injustice and inequality, in short you have a travesty. Even speaking established truth and fact plainly and without guile can get you jail time in Canada. Truth like the fact that AIDS is almost exclusively found in the homosexual/bisexual/pansexual/alternate-lifestyle community. The claims that everybody should fear AIDS because everybody gets it are lies. You contract AIDS primarily by engaging in promiscuous levels or and/or risky forms of sexual activity with members of the same gender or with people of the opposite gender who engaged in these behaviors. If I were a citizen of Canada, for those words above I would be violating federal Hate Crime law and would be subject to punishment, completely removed from the fact that the words I just wrote are confirmed, proven truth.

I am all for punishing criminals, but several points must be defined before I can call a person a criminal and deserving of or rightfully subject to punishment. Words are rarely crimes: unless accompanied by actions or following a life of suspect or criminal behavior in which the words are catalysts or statements of reasonably provable intent, or words whose specific intent is to incite wrongful violence. Facts and statements that are true and accurate do not incite violence within reasonable people. What happened to Matthew Shephard and the many other victims of violence against people who were homosexual was, is, and will always be wrong and criminal. Just as much as if the victims were any other person. Any variance in penalty assumes the superiority of certain people over others and is immoral and wrong.

Those who participated in those crimes have been punished. What more is needed?

Resources:

• Canada: Religious Freedom, Canadian Style
• Canada: Religious Freedom in Canada
• Canada: Religious Liberty Under Stress
• US: Hate Crime Bill Veto Is Vowed
• US: Hate Crimes Could Include Gays
• US: Hate Crime Bill Inspires Threat, Hate, And Celebration

Besides the wife of our own JPennStarr (though she is welcome to try and answer) does anybody read Latin any more?

Quick quiz: What does the new tag line (under the I, Pandora title) say? In English.

Rules: you cannot look online. You cannot type the phrase into Google. You CAN dredge through your minds depths and ancient lessons you thought you’d never use again.

I’ll take a few days and then post the answer.

I did take Latin years ago in school. From a few different teachers. Along with Koine (Common/Classical) Greek. These two languages have contributed to my love of words, perhaps more than any other single thing. Nobody speaks either of these languages any longer: modern Greek is nothing like Koine, and Latin died with the Romans except for in certain corners of Catholicism. But both languages have contributed to the modern languages to an incredible extent. Because of my studies I don’t necessarily have to have seen or heard or experienced a word before to know what it means. It’s usually based on some Latin or Greek root. When I was traveling in Italy over the winter, I found it relatively easy to read signs and understand the gist of what was being said (though I didn’t have anything to verify the accuracy of my guesses, at the least the tongue did not sound foreign) because of my knowledge of Latin.

And then I went to college, and found that Latin and Greek don’t count as foreign languages for credits towards my degree. I would need to take three semesters (they’ve since revised it to two semesters or 6 units) of another language. I though I’d declined enough nouns and conjugated enough verbs to drown a horse, even a linguists horse, and so I took American Sign Language. I don’t remember hardly any words from ASL even just a few years later, but I am comfortable conversing with deaf people; they can read lips really well, generally.

By the way: yes, the phrase is a bit ironic and humorous, in case you’ve figured it out already.

Following is an article by a Professor Stanislau Dundon, of California State University Sacramento. I took Business and Computer Ethics under him and found him to be thoughtful and thought-provoking. He held several principled and unpopular public opinions on campus and remained a respected and important member of that community of higher learning. I do not agree with everything he says or teaches, but his beliefs have merit if only to serve to cause us to look harder at our own beliefs. The article is long, beginning with a note specifically addressed to teachers using this article in their classrooms, and ending with quite an extensive list of endnotes and a bibliography. Professor Dundon, when I asked his permission in posting his article here, wished me to convey that he

“would be delighted to speak to any audience on why so many biologists think, without justification, that Darwin cancels God when all that evolution does is place incredible weight on the power of the non-living universe to form the background potential for biological evolution. Which is why so many prominent physicists, including Nobelists, are convinced theists.”

Read the article on the following pages. (more…)