STOP!!! or SLOW DOWN!!!?

It's a good rule of thumb, I think anyway, when everything you are doing only makes the situation worse... just STOP! This coming Tuesday America will, Lord willing, be doing just that. Still, we can only hope that our message will not bear itself out in the final analysis to only being "SLOW DOWN!!!". My hope is that it will be the first installment of "TURN AROUND!!!". If it is to be the latter of the two, then decades of persistent fervor like we've seen this election will have to be the mainstay. The luxury of living our lives paying scant attention to scheming socialists posing as America loving politicians has gone the way of a robust economy, hope, and decency. Does America have the stomach for it? Do those who breath today's air have the will to protect from the ravages of their demands for security those whom have yet to take a breath? The answer to that question will not be decided Tuesday, or in 2012 for that matter. It will be ongoing in answer as it has been. Man has always possessed the desire that others do his will, and liberty. The coming decade will perhaps give way to more insight into which of these two desires is the stronger, but if history has anything to say about it, even recent history, my pessimistic guess is that the message of this election will ultimately be "slow down, you move to fast". Time will tell.

Is Man Basically Good?

Is man basically good? If he were then:

1. Gun control laws would work, but would be unnecessary.


2. Welfare would work, but would be unnecessary.


3. Socialism would be the norm, and it would work.


4. Separated governmental powers would be pointless.


5. The military would be unnecessary.


6. The IRS would be unnecessary.


7. Deficits would be nonexistent.


8. Unions would be unnecessary and nonexistent.


9. A large police force would be unnecessary.


10. The religion of Environmentalism would be unnecessary.


11. Criminal rehabilitation would be unnecessary, but if it were necessary, it would work.


12. Government would only consume a pittance of man's productivity, for it would be cheap; perhaps as cheap as the price of a benevolent dictator and his staff who would earn no more than their fellow man.


13. Genocide, mass murder, the holocausts, and terrorism would be meaningless words.


14. Democrat party policies would, for the most part, be good policies.


15. He would be living in Utopia.

In fact, if man were basically good, he could not be deceived into believing that his current existence, complete with crime, scandal, oppression, deceit, prisons and big government to control his fellow human beings, is the result of the cumulative results of billions of other beings who are basically good.

Juan Williams

Here is a Victor Davis Hanson article that I think does a wonderful job of laying out the blatant hypocrisy in the firing of Juan Williams. Here are its points:

1. for NPR to prove that it is even-handed in censuring controversial speech it would long ago have had to fire reporter Nina Totenberg for a long history of venomous partisan slurs (e.g., hoping Sen. Jesse Helms and his grandkids might contract AIDS).
2. NPR CEO Vivian Schiller herself slanders Williams by suggesting that he talk with “his psychiatrist”—
3. intolerant hard-driving Fox News has no problem with liberal Williams working for NPR; Fox knows its viewers don’t care whether liberal Williams works at a liberal network; NPR fears mightily that its intolerant audience can’t stand anyone who is associated with Fox?
4. CAIR, the Islamic advocacy group, pressures NPR on Williams’s remarks, but gives a lifetime career achievement award to the anti-Semite Helen Thomas, who calls for the destruction of Israel by having the Jews “get the hell out of Palestine”
5. Note the silence of the NAACP, which is usually the first to speak out when some African-Americans are deemed railroaded. By its present vote here, the organization simply gives a green light to go after African-Americans tagged not entirely liberal
6. They apparently believe that society is inherently reactionary (family, church, community, government, etc.) and so they are not biased by openly advocating liberal positions as “balance.”

Hat Tip Geeeeez

Epithets Galore

The proverbial cow being birthed in the halls of academia and the media elite over the German Chancellor's words "multiculturalism has failed, has utterly failed" will undoubtedly unleash an increased spewing of epithets. Not the epithets that we are use to seeing swished away by the tail of the mama cow of political correctness mind you. No, I'm talking about the epithets that are as necessary to the survival of this cow as the hate that courses her udders is to the intelligentsia and their clone wannabes that suck there. These epithets are aimed at mostly middle-class conservatives, the most popular of which is either "bigot"--a favorite-- or some other word with the suffix "phobe" attached.

The sad thing about this however is that the PC crowd was at one time correct in their disdain for epithets. This correctness was once drawn from plain old civility, respect, and the deference to human dignity. I guess there is a price to pay for relegating all of humanity to the meaninglessness of pond scum, even if the ones relegating refuse to see themselves, and their corralled ideas, in that light.

Soldiers develop inhuman names for their enemies so that it is easier to kill them. Similarly, the epithets being hurled from on high today make it easier to ignore dissent. These epithets keep opposing ideas and those who hold them pigeonholed as immoral; the ever changing morality of which is drawn from some vacuum somewhere that evidently only the "intelligent" can tap. Better to pigeonhole, I guess, than to defend your argument, or to condescend to the light of critique and reason, or worse yet, to humbly consider the possibility of being wrong.

Things never change, it seems, no matter how smart we are or how much we think we know. Man is ever repeating his errors and proving the wickedness of his heart. What an amazing sight here though: to watch the closed minded who claim to be the most open minded among the peoples; the self-righteous loathers of the self-righteous; the ideologue detesting doctrinaires, glaringly morph into the very thing they so hate.

The Porn Nation

Northfield Publishing, Chicag0 IL, 2008


America is no longer a nation within which pornography is a seedy industry relegated to the back streets of her cities. It is not even a nation within which pornography is a peripheral kind of entertainment, available for those who want to occasionally stop and take a peek. No, in the words of Michael Leahy (lay- hee), America, is a Porn Nation.

This book is a quick read and well worth a few hours of investment, especially for parents and pastors. It is divided into three parts.

Part-One is basically a brief auto-biography of Leahy's life. He sets the stage in early childhood and then discusses his fist exposure to porn as he was shown a topless woman on the back of a playing card by some peers in his Christian school. He continues his story as it relates to pornography and his increasingly promiscuous lifestyle as he descends, and then spirals out of control. This part of the book reads like a gripping novel that ends in sorrow as Leahy finally looses his family. But it really doesn't end there. Part one sets the table for part two and three before he completes his story at the end.

Part-Two proves to be the meat of the book. Leahy begins this part with a chapter entitled "The Perfect Storm". Here Leahy describes three societal storm fronts of pornographic deprivation now converging on America. They are: The Hypersexual Media, Enabling Technologies, and Sociosexual Pathologies. Leahy looks at the convergence of these three fronts as the desensitizing effects of pornography take an increasing toll on the hearts and minds of society.

To understand Leahy's forecasts, it helps to understand his definition of pornography which is anything that is intended to arouse. Although Leahy's threshold for pornographic is different than current cultural standards, Leahy makes the case that this difference is not based on an objective line, but rather is evidence of a culture's deteriorating standards. This is most evident in TV programing designed to sell advertising, and in advertising itself. The result is an increasingly sexualized society which paves the way for another more insidious threat that has crept in.

To be sure, while the old-line pornography industry, with its seedy venues and residual stigmas, does still exist. This older image of the industry also aids the new industry by creating in the minds of most the illusion that it remains a "dirty old man" kind of business located down town. Yet, the new and real marketplace for the this thriving trade has become the home. It is in this marketplace that Leahy's three "A's" of affordability, availability, and anonymity are made available via the Internet and open the door wide for millions who would have otherwise not entered this world. Gone are the once stifling barriers that kept pornography on the back streets of its cities and out of the lives of families. Here, under the surface and neatly out of sight is a literal flood that has bypassed old barriers and washed away established concepts of decency. This kind of radical change necessarily promises multiplied future ramifications as a sex soaked society, increasingly pathological in its ideas of normal sexual behavior, brings up its next generation. While, to Leahy's credit, he attempts to not be the "alarmist", he does wonder what such consequences of our current path will ultimately be.

Leahy considers himself an icon for sexual addictions who speaks on college campuses across America giving talks as well as participating in formal debates with Ron Jeramey, a porn star. This interaction gives him insight into the sexual attitudes of that next generation, a generation he calls "generation sex". It is in this lot that he is exposed to the cutting edge of new ideas about sex, and where he finds what he calls the "New Pornographers". These new pornographers are young people, even minors, who understand all to well how to use the new and inexpensive technologies and networking readily available to them for the production, consumption and distribution of their own pornography for their own use. Tyler Clementi is a recent example of these new technologies. Clementi earned national attention recently when he jumped off the George Washington Bridge after a film of him having sex in his dorm room was posted to Facebook. Interestingly, unlike the old pornographers who produced their smut for profit, these new pornographers are motivated by other reasons such as celebrity status in their peer groups, or just getting noticed. With the old barriers of modesty, cultural mores, and inhibitions destroyed, the clouds seem to be gathering.

Leahy interweaves statistics into this part to demonstrate the seemingly exponential changing of trends in our attitudes toward sexuality so far. There are adequate references for anyone interested in further research.

The first half of Part-Three is dedicated to those who are themselves addicted to pornography. Working from the credibility he has gained by his own recovery path, he offers a strategy to others. He starts by pointing out the necessity, first and foremost, of being honest with self and admonishes the addict to not straddle fences. It is better, he says, to do nothing rather than to attempt to live the lie that is preventing wellness. For Leahy, he fought desperately to have his addiction and his family too, but it was ultimately the loosing of his family, and his serious contemplations of suicide that followed that finally caused him to "choose life" and to, in his words, "get well". It was in his attempts to write a suicide note to his two boys that Leahy made this choice. Leahy points out also that in the recovery process, accountability within a twelve-step program are of prime importance. He analyzes several twelve-step approaches and makes some recommendations.

The last half of this part, is however dedicated to pointing out a life available beyond "the program". As with all such addiction programs, he admits that the program itself can simply take the place of the addiction. He points the reader ultimately to Jesus Christ for a life that extends beyond "recovery" and to abundance. The book concludes with the completion of his biography and his ultimate reconciliation with those he hurt.

My Thoughts

When I purchased this book I was expecting an analysis of America's porn problem. While part two does focus on this, I ultimately got way more than I bargained for. Leahy's story is compelling as he quickly draws you into his own world of sexual addition. I found myself on the verge of tears a couple of times as his story meandered through the book. Unlike most non-fiction books, this style added an element of entertainment (for lack of a better word) that makes it a page turner. It is able to hold the attention of those not normally drawn to non-fiction, as the reader joins Leahy in his journey to redemption and reconciliation. This book, I feel, will give readers insight into the new world being inherited by their children as well as into the temptations and trials that plague most people to some degree living in a sensual society. For a hosts of reasons such as denial, desensitization, naivete, repulsion, embarrassment or shame--to name a few--the right people don't seem to be talking much about this new and intrinsic detrimental element that is upon us in our new nation; our porn nation.

Teach Your Children Well

I was speaking with a youth pastor recently who lamented to me that even the children of church members in his group were woefully Biblically illiterate. Having taught fifth and sixth graders for a couple years myself, I knew his pain. This brought to mind a question. Who IS responsible for training our children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord? I would contend that it is most definitely not the Church for two reasons.

First, given the fact that most parents are not Biblically training their children, most of the time spent in Sunday School is geared toward gaining and keeping control of the classroom. There is precious little time left to teach the Bible.

Secondly, one hour a week is simply not enough to counter the constant anti-Christ drone of the secular society in which we live.  These messages comes in many forms and fashions, some detectable, some well hidden.  It simply doesn't seem to me to be very realistic to think that children are going to be equipped to answer and navigate these messages on a diet of an hour or so of church a week.



What To Do? Five Suggestions:

1. Never forget that the stakes are exceedingly high.

2. The stakes are exceedingly high and are in fact eternal. If we say we believe the Bible to be the very Words of God but are not living them out under grace before them , we shrink Him, His honor, His glory, and in fact eternity itself. When they don’t see us loving his Word, we teach them that loving his Word is not important. When they don’t see us pray, we teach them that praying is not important. When we are not being sanctified, we teach them that sanctification is no big deal. In the end, what they learn from us is that, really, God is no big deal. It should be no wonder then that the vast majority of children raised in the church walk away from it when they are older, never to return.

3. The stakes are exceedingly high. Parents who out-source the education of their children must realize these stakes regardless of who they out-source it to; whether it be a “Christian” institution or the government. With this in mind we shouldn’t wait for our children to be taught anti-Christ teaching before we attempt to un-teach it. Be the first to teach your children what the lies of the enemy will look like and be, then be the first to counter them. Learn what those lies will be. Be tenaciously on guard for new angles and attempts to subvert and supplant your teaching. Learn learn learn, then teach and live as if your children’s eternal destiny depends on it.  (more on this here)

4. The stakes are exceedingly high and your Church should function as if the stakes are high. Remember that you are a living part of the Church. (1) Put away the notion that there is the Church over there, and then there is you over here who attends as a consumer. Prayerfully and carefully choose your Church so that you will fit. Be vigilant against false teaching because you are a living member of that body and in as much are infected by it as well as responsible for its health. In the teaching of your children remember that the Church’s responsibility is to affirm what you teach and not the other way around.

5. The bottom line is that the stakes are high. It is the Western way to work hard and then coast. This is not the Biblical way. Your children are worth fighting for, and that fight begins with fighting for your own devotion. Just as with Paul who at the end of his life proclaimed to his spiritual son, “I have fought the good fight”, (2) so it must be with us also as an example to our children. To this end, the 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards as a young man wrote seventy resolutions for his life. Number 22 says: “Resolved, To endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness, in the other world, as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.” (3) In the same way, it is not because we succeed in hiding from our children our failings and thus present to them a life that appears in our own minds to be exemplary, as if we had at some point arrived at our Christian-ness and that they should endeavor to do the same, but rather that we should live a life that endeavors to honor, glorify and exalt God; all the while knowing, as did Paul, that we will never attain it in this life. (4) In so doing we teach them from a young age that our walk with our Savior is a journey, that we are at times victorious in grace and at others defeated in grace, but still, though we have fallen, we are not cast down, for the Lord upholds us with His hand. (5)



Note 1:
Eph 2:19-22
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
NIV

Note 2:
2 Tim 4:6-8
6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day-and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
NIV

Note 3:
The Words Of Jonathan Edwards vol. 16

Note 4:
Phil 3:12-14
12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
NIV

Note 5:
Ps 37:23-24
23 If the LORD delights in a man's way,
he makes his steps firm;
24 though he stumble, he will not fall,
for the LORD upholds him with his hand.
NIV

Twisting In The Wind

I am nothing short of awe stuck at the world-wide crisis that has ensued after a previously obscure pastor of a church of but 50 congregants in a small Florida town threatened to burn a Quran. I have heard him castigated, called names, belittled, and lambasted over his threats, and that has been from the more conservative of outlets. So, what does this all mean? Six thoughts:

First, the seemingly constant profaning of Christianity not withstanding, people in their hearts I think expect more from the pastor of the little church down the street. After all, they many times call him to speak over their dead relatives he has never known or seen as they stop yucking it up long enough to look their own immortality in the face. Many still go to him to marry their children, or these days their parents, or to perform some sort of meaningless ritual over their newborn children in hopes that the preacher has some sort of special powers to get their offspring safely into the everafter. That only one Quran burning has been mentioned, to a degree I think, is encouraging, all things considered. Think about it, given the multitude of churches in this country, the protracted engagement with Islamic fanatics we are experiencing, the ineptness (don't make them mad) and absurdity (blind and dangerous political correctness)upon which our defense against them is being based, and the rarity, or perhaps more aptly, the absence of such actions as this pastor's speaks highly of the American Church and its standing in the hearts and minds of the citizenry. Ultimately, I think people want to know that the little church on the hill still has the answers to the deep questions of life should they ever feel the need to ask them, and burning another religion's holy book may be quashing that a bit.

Second, and discouraging as can be, is the fact that that same obscure pastor evidently holds the power of life and death, peace and tranquility, and quite possibly world peace itself within the grasp of two match clutching fingers. Aaaahhh am I missing something here? Consider this laundry list:

1. the Twin Towers bombing
2. the Millennium Bomber
3. the 9/11 attacks
4. the Bali Bombing
5. the London subway bombing
6. the Madrid train bombing
7. the Ft. Hood shooter
8. the foiled shoe bomber
9. the foiled underwear bomber
10. the foiled Fort Dix attack
11. the oft shouted refrain "death to America"the Pan Am bombing
12. Egyptian Air 990 tragedy
13. And many many more

Now what do these all have in common besides the fact that they are massacres or attempted massacres and were carried out in the name of Islam? That's right, they all took place before the Reverend Jones made his threats. What? Are they going to kill people if he does this? How will we know when they start? Now while I don't agree with the pastor and know that he can't back up his actions with scripture, since when does having a boneheaded idea qualified you for such wrath from everyone from the president of the United States to every morning drive time DJ in America? This poor fellow might have just unwittingly set himself up as the administrations George Bush of terror attacks for the foreseeable future. I can hear our president now: "Let me be clear. If Reverend Jones had not threatened to burn that Quarn... why those terrorists would have been home tucking their children into bed instead of slipping through Secretary Nepalitano's elaborate web and blowing people up."

Third, and even more discouraging yet, is America's collective panicked reaction to this man. It does not bode well for us or show insight and leadership that this nation, its president, its news media, and its commanding officer is willing to give away such power to any old hair-brained pastor with ten bucks, ten followers, a match and a penchant for notoriety. Fear appears to be the order of the day with reporters waiting breathlessly, fingers crossed for the good of the world, hoping against hope that this lone Gainsville resident won't exercise his constitutional right and cast us all into mayhem.

Let me proclaim that this is not America! This nation would be doing a great service to itself if it would fear that fear more than it feared threats from wild eyed religious murderers and thugs who are going to carry out thier threats regardless.

Forth, is the misguided contempt born out of fear for anyone who dares oppose anything Islamic. Need we be reminded that this pastor is not going to kill anyone at all? Those who oppose the Mosque do so peacefully. All who resist are accused of being complicit of coarse. But at what point this side of converting does one take a stand? For the fearful, my guess is nowhere.

Such accusations of complicity are nothing new. President Lincoln, told a story in reference to the struggle in which he was engaged of a highway man robbing a traveler. The highwayman warned the traveler that if he did not comply with his demands that the traveler would be complicit in making him a murderer in addition to a thief. This pastor will likewise be accused out of fear as well as those who oppose the Mosque.

Fifth, we are lost. I touched on this in "Religions Rule", but this is another case of a shell culture; one that has no defining element other than its claim to have no defining element; a culture fat on the luxuries of prosperity, drunk on a government playing sugar-daddy god; and a culture that thinks its liberty comes with the air it breathes. It is no match for the struggle that is upon it, and this hyperventilating over the frustrated actions of a previously--and soon to be again--obscure pastor of a small church gives credence to such charges. America needs to be shaken and given a slap across its collective face if it is to rise up and meet the challenges that are before it.

Sixth and last. The afore named Cordoba Center about which this all begun is being billed as an attempt for Muslims and Americans to sit around and sing Cumbaya. It has failed at this, but it has been successful at achieving the opposite as demonstrated by threats of burning Qurans. As far as those who are in favor of it are concerned, no change. They were in favor of appeasing Islamic radicals before, they are now, and they will be after it is built. As for those it was supposedly attempting to reach, they are insulted, impugned, and further alienated and provoked.

So what are we to gather from this besides the conclusion that violence garners the coward's respect? Are the architects of this Center so completely socially inept that they truly thought that this was a good idea, or was it never intended to do any good but is rather achieving its goal of being a victory Mosque by stirring up trouble so the ones stirred up can be blamed? I honestly don't know, but given its proponent's willingness to abandon their purported aspirations of reconciliation in favor of stridently installing it over the protests of decenters does make me wonder if it ever had any other purpose.

(great Christian explanation here from a favorite author of mine on burning the Quran)

That's Not Fair!

From early in our childhood we seem to be innately incensed when our ideas of what is fair are violated. "He got four cookies and I only got one. That's not fair"! "Hey! He broke in line. That's not fair"! Interestingly, as I have aged I have become aware that the child that was me who yelled those very sorts of protests hasn't really changed that much; only his perspective.

The changed perspective grew out of the grappling with the root of the protest and its implications. Such a root necessarily involves a reference point and an ought. The reference point is normally always self while the ought is an appeal to objective truth in the pursuit of justice. The perceived unfairness of someone else getting more cookies is not what is being challenged. It is the unfairness of someone getting four cookies in reference to the fact that I only got one. Such an injustice ought not be. While, generally speaking, accrued years does not remedy this problem for us, especially as it pertains to our base emotions, they should at least cause us to gain a little perspective. The extent to which this happens would seem to depend on one's worldview. This truth can be demonstrated by the basis upon which one attempts to answer questions like these:

• Can a person at once proclaim that there is no objective truth and a thing isn't fair?
• What is the base [nominal?] amount of cookies a child receives that qualifies as universally "fair"? Should they both get four cookies? or one? Perhaps, after justly dividing their cookies evenly, they proceed to enjoy them while blissfully ignorant of the great injustice they are incurring because someone somewhere is eating a whole bag.
• What about the child to whom a bowl of flour and oil would bring tears of joy. Should he instead feel cheated?
• Ought not it also be an ought, in light of an appeal to objective truth in the name of fairness, that the child suffering the social injustice take his appeals for justice to the next level and refuse to enjoy his cookies until everyone has partaken in the just amount of cookies?
• What will any of it matter five generations hence or when the sun burns out?

The secular humanist worldview, which is the predominate Western worldview of Christian and non Christian alike, when it makes appeals for justice--and it most definitely does--necessarily must root itself in cognitive dissonance to address these questions. He must, on the one hand, claim that there is no such thing as objective truth; that right and wrong are mere social constructs; that the concept of sin is an artifact of the past; that our very existence is the result of spontaneous and random events, while on the other hand assert that we ought to help the poor; that stealing is not always right; that killing is never right (if the person is born); that we oughtn't lie; that we oughtn't pollute the planet; that we oughtn't torture animals; and so on.

The Christian worldview, on the other hand, can answer these questions without contradictions. It proclaims that, not only is the world not fair, but that there is nothing that man can ever do to change that fact due to his condition brought about by an innate denial of a universal reference point. It also proclaims that, not only is there a source of objective truth that sovereignly decrees and judges what is fair and what is not, the greatest injustice happened when man was redeemed from his injustices. This truth thereby precludes man from making the charge of unfairness based on man's point of reference. It is not obvious in this current age, but there was a time in Western culture that these truths were somewhat universally understood and accepted. They were articulated with words like providence, lot, contentment, and His will; and in a negative sense, covetousness.

It is not my intended point here that the necessity for a logical and consistent worldview proves the existence of God, but rather that the claims for the nonexistence of God renders any cries for fairness and justice as ex nihilo and absurd. It IS my point however that the answer to protests of unfairness, such as those lodged by the current "social justice" horde, is the same as the one I give my seven year old. "You're right... It isn't.... be glad."

On Generalizaitions

"Those dirty rotten conservatives are always generalizing!"

I am always amazed when I am accused of generalizing; Oh..., not that the accusations are not warranted, for they surely are, but rather that anyone has such a high opinion of me that they think that I can avoid it. In defense against such accusations, and for easy cut and paste purposes, I am posting below another man's analysis on the matter.

The following quote is found in the classic Democracy In America written by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville and published in the 1830's as a contemporary expose of a young United States.

"God is able to see the differences between all individuals so it follows therefore that God has no need of general ideas, that is to say, He never feels the necessity of giving the same label to a considerable number of analogous objects in order to think about them more conveniently. Not so with man who in our impressive limitations need all the help we can get from such general ideas lest we get lost in the dazzling plethora of details that passes in a hazy hurry before us all. General ideas have excellent quality, that they permit human minds to pass judgment quickly on a great number of things, but the conceptions they convey are always incomplete, and what is gained in extent is always lost in exactitude."

Religions Rule

How can it be that so many who are ardent enemies of religion are now siding with those who want to build a Mosque near Ground Zero? Considering also that those who are the most outspoken defenders of this Mosque are also ardent defenders of abortion and homosexuality. And also considering that the religion of the future inhabitants of this Mosque would call for the stoning of homosexuals; and whose anti-choice stance for women go well beyond the womb, makes it all the more strange. Further, why would Muslims, who look forward to the implementation of Sharia Law, a law that reduces women to chattel, kills homosexuals, and outlaws abortion, ever find itself so allied, both concerning this Mosque and elsewhere, with a political party built upon these three pillows? And in reverse, why would that same political party ally itself conversely?

Most conservatives can kind of see that serious Muslims want to implement Sharia law world wide and that liberals provide quite a useful idiot toward such an end. That part is not confusing. Most everyone also knows that American Christendom is now irrelevant. One only need look at the institutionalized decadence and debauchery to get that. But why the liberal ideologue, riding on the crest of his half-century wave of triumph would side with a culture with which it is so vehemently opposed in every way may present more of a challenge to ones understanding.

With a little thought however, the liberal is not really all that difficult to grasp. Understanding his motives is just a matter of understanding his worldview. In his world one religion is just as good or bad as another and ultimately should be subjected to the liberal's idea of what a religion should be and do. Imagine a flow chart of sorts with one large box on top with lines drawn vertically to a row of smaller boxes underneath. The liberal sees himself in that top box with the lower boxes populated with what ever religion the "bitter clinger" (1) decides to believe in order to better deal with his miserable reality, or in his attempts to achieve some sort of inner peace. Also, with this in mind there should be no wonder why so many "Christians" can sit in churches and listen to a preacher say over and over there is only one way to heaven and not be offended, even though he"knows" it isn't true. That is exactly what he expects to hear from the preacher who holds to that particular truth. The "Christian" simply sees his religion as subject to the liberal's higher interpretation from the upper box. Incidentally, missing from that flow chart is a box for God. This is because there is no difference in the liberal's mind between God and Government when they are in control.

As the American Church, having been co-opted by this kind of thinking in the upper levels of its denominations and seminaries, has increasingly submitted itself to the upper box, there resulted a Christian retreat of sorts in the public square. Liberals soon found themselves, first in control of educating the children of an unsuspecting Church, then in control of executive offices, both private and public as those children matured. But they are still hindered by Christians. And many Christians and non-Christians alike, still see America as a Christian nation. This will not do; enter Muslims. By helping Islam better establish itself in America liberalism hopes to achieve two goals. One, it hopes to show Islam it means it no harm, that it hates Christianity just as much as they do thereby earning Islam's alliance and favor. Two, place Islam in a lower box next to the other religions and subject it to the rich liberal elite and in so doing further marginalize Christianity as just one of many religions. The New York city Mosque is but one high profile example of many that shows this to be true.

It is my take that civilizations have to ultimately be ruled first in the hearts of its populations by a religion. It is in man's DNA to be so ruled. But the liberal cannot fathom this. Having ridden into power basically unopposed with visions of a Utopian materialistically equal society-except for themselves of coarse-propelled by free hand outs that are bankrupting their Utopia before it even comes close to relegating God to subject, they are completely incapable of grasping the Islamic mind. Instead they project their own ideas of material injustice onto what they see as a people oppressed by their enemy, Christianity. They are completely unable to see themselves as a temporary fill in a vacuum created by the collapse of Christianity as the viable coalescing force required for the existence of a nation. Liberalism itself offers no coalescing values for a nation of people, only for itself in the hearts of the rich, atheistic and self proclaimed intellectuals in the pursuit of their green-hilled Utopia. As cultures go, liberals are no match for a culture glommed onto a violent religion whose adherents are born and bread into a hatred for them so deep that not even the liberal can plumb it. And they will not subject that hatred to a meaningless-floating-in-the-cosmos-I'm-OK-you're-OK worldview. If you do not convert, you are most definitely not OK, and they are most definitely OK with that position, political correctness be damned.

With this understanding of liberalism's worldview, along with the evaporation of any national vision beyond that of a post-nation-and-boundaryless -warless world populated by various belief systems subjected to the Utopian visionaries, every current event from free-for-all immigration to the defense of a murderous and threatening religion, makes perfect sense. But a nation cannot survive off a vision of its own annihilation with hopes that others will follow for altruistic reasons; especially when the very ones calling for it deny altruism's existence. And it is for this reason that the next half century, if it takes that long, will be a war of religions in the hearts and minds of the West. Will it turn again to the gentle religion that it now so hates, or will it be ruled by a murderous and totalitarian religion that will return the meaning of tolerance from its current morphed definition of total acceptance back to its original meaning as those who invited a religion in under the false notion that they would rule over it find out that they instead are being ruled by it? In the end one thing is certain, religion will rule.

(1)President Obama revealed his view of serious religious adherents by using these words to describe them in a speech to like minded rich San Francisco political donors.