I finished my undergraduate studies this past Saturday, December 11. Now that I have room to breathe, I'm reading a number of good books, including Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas. A close friend gave me the book as a Christmas present, and it has been amazing--(an adjective which applies to my friend, as well). Reading about Bonhoeffer's life is an inspiration and encouragement to me, even if I do find his intellect intimidating. At any rate, if you're looking for a book to read over Christmas break, this one would be a good choice.
I'm hoping to get myself back on a less sporadic blogging schedule soon.
Thursday 16 December 2010
Tuesday 30 November 2010
Undergrad? Done.
Dear friends,
I ought to explain why I suddenly dropped off the blogosphere radar after my last post. My excuse is a single word: college. I am happy, however, to share that it is also my last undergraduate semester and ends in a mere 11 days. If idleness is the devil's workshop, let me assure you that this semester has been a veritable factory of righteousness. I limited myself to 16 credit hours this semester because I wanted to enjoy a bit of free time; I was tired of working so hard. Well, those 16 hours have turned out to be a very large 16 hours, and left me with no free time at all. At any rate, I'll be back very soon.
I ought to explain why I suddenly dropped off the blogosphere radar after my last post. My excuse is a single word: college. I am happy, however, to share that it is also my last undergraduate semester and ends in a mere 11 days. If idleness is the devil's workshop, let me assure you that this semester has been a veritable factory of righteousness. I limited myself to 16 credit hours this semester because I wanted to enjoy a bit of free time; I was tired of working so hard. Well, those 16 hours have turned out to be a very large 16 hours, and left me with no free time at all. At any rate, I'll be back very soon.
Friday 17 September 2010
Power-Grabbing, Are We?
As we know, whoever controls the definitions controls the debate. For instance, all that is necessary to institutionalize perfectly sane persons is to redefine madness. A government unhappy with dissent need only redefine madness in terms of political disapproval, and--abracadabra--half of society is mad. Thus, any time a government introduces new definitions or euphemisms, we ought to be wary.
It turns out the White House wants you to start calling it "global climate disruption" rather than "global warming." Why? Because "global climate disruption" is vaguer, and because it is vaguer, it means that laws giving the government the ability to shove 'greenness' down your throat will suddenly be able to apply more broadly.
Having bonfires in your backyard leads to global warming. No more s'mores, kids. But what about cutting down that tree that leans precariously over your child's bedroom? Sorry, climate disruption. It'll have to stay. Move your kid. Thinking about buying a dog? Sorry, climate disruption. Your backyard will never be the same. Want to fertilize your asthmatic lawn? Isn't that climate disruption, too?
My point is this. Your environment is whatever surrounds you. Environmentalism might as well be called 'Everythingism.' And the moment our surroundings become more important than the persons who inhabit them, we haven't become 'environmentally conscious;' we've become anti-human. Even most murderers aren't anti-human. They just hold a grudge against a single person, or a single group of a people. But to be anti-human is a much bigger thing. Any racist is more humane than a person who despises the existence of more than six billion humans.
And don't give me the "Environmentalism means to save the planet to save humanity--you have it backwards" line. If it was about humanity, the emphasis would be on greater production and freedom, not limiting production and limiting freedom. The question ought to be "how can we meet the needs of the peoples of the world?" rather than "how can we keep folks from killing the planet?" If you meet the world's needs, the planet will take care of itself*. If you try to save the planet, you'll destroy humanity.
*(Do you think the folks cutting down rain forests do it because its fun? Or because they need money? Notice that only wealthy countries can afford to preserve their land. And my pet peeve: as long as the UN keeps cheap power out of Africa, nobody in Africa will care about anything but their immediate needs. Environmental policies that prevent development kill poor people.)
Rant over. Peace.
It turns out the White House wants you to start calling it "global climate disruption" rather than "global warming." Why? Because "global climate disruption" is vaguer, and because it is vaguer, it means that laws giving the government the ability to shove 'greenness' down your throat will suddenly be able to apply more broadly.
Having bonfires in your backyard leads to global warming. No more s'mores, kids. But what about cutting down that tree that leans precariously over your child's bedroom? Sorry, climate disruption. It'll have to stay. Move your kid. Thinking about buying a dog? Sorry, climate disruption. Your backyard will never be the same. Want to fertilize your asthmatic lawn? Isn't that climate disruption, too?
My point is this. Your environment is whatever surrounds you. Environmentalism might as well be called 'Everythingism.' And the moment our surroundings become more important than the persons who inhabit them, we haven't become 'environmentally conscious;' we've become anti-human. Even most murderers aren't anti-human. They just hold a grudge against a single person, or a single group of a people. But to be anti-human is a much bigger thing. Any racist is more humane than a person who despises the existence of more than six billion humans.
And don't give me the "Environmentalism means to save the planet to save humanity--you have it backwards" line. If it was about humanity, the emphasis would be on greater production and freedom, not limiting production and limiting freedom. The question ought to be "how can we meet the needs of the peoples of the world?" rather than "how can we keep folks from killing the planet?" If you meet the world's needs, the planet will take care of itself*. If you try to save the planet, you'll destroy humanity.
*(Do you think the folks cutting down rain forests do it because its fun? Or because they need money? Notice that only wealthy countries can afford to preserve their land. And my pet peeve: as long as the UN keeps cheap power out of Africa, nobody in Africa will care about anything but their immediate needs. Environmental policies that prevent development kill poor people.)
Rant over. Peace.
Monday 6 September 2010
Saturday 4 September 2010
Tuesday 31 August 2010
Sloganized Christianity: Part 3 - A Relationship, Not a Religion
Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship. This is, perhaps, the most common naïve Christian slogan. I consider it naïve for two reasons. First, because it is not true, and second, because while it is used to counter one valid problem, it implies a view of the Church which is just as large of a problem.
When Christians claim that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion, they intend to distance it from cold ritualism. I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. Performing a service for the mere sake of performing a service, or saying a prayer merely for sake of saying a prayer are both wrong and ought to be avoided. Worse yet is for a man to perform a service or say prayer for the sake of convincing himself that he is not a bad man, or for assuming that these acts prove his goodness and allow him to stand before God. The purpose of our services and our prayers is to both worship God and be edified in our pursuit of Him; our righteousness before God is Christ alone, not anything of ourselves.
The trouble, then, is not the sentiment of the statement. The trouble is the statement. My copy of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines religion in the following words.
Religion: 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural; 2) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Clearly, the dictionary entry contained more than those first two definitions, but none of the other definitions could be construed in any way that would disqualify Christianity as a religion. Christianity is and always will be a religion. Why am I making such a big deal out of definitions? As somebody wise once said, “When words lose their meanings, people lose their lives.” In this case, no one is dying, but a proper understanding of the Christian life is at stake; spiritual lives are at stake.
When we say that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion, we implicitly reject both the communal aspects of religion as well as its formal aspects. Christianity becomes entirely personalized, and the Church as an institution diminishes in importance, or disappears altogether. But the visible Church exists both for God’s glory and our benefit.
Here are three ways we benefit.
1) A healthy church keeps us from great hypocrisies by exercising church discipline. As my pastor often says, “Don’t join a church that won’t kick you out.” Excommunication is more like chemotherapy than an execution. Church discipline is reserved for members who refuse to repent of their sins. And the point is not to abandon them out of spite, but rather to withhold certain blessings that they might realize the severity of their sins and repent and return. It is also an excellent deterrent; I have no wish to be confronted by the elders of my church.
The cruelest thing that a church can do is ignore great sins in its members; to ignore a sick soul is not love – it is apathy. And not to point out the obvious, but the refusal of churches to exercise church discipline is the reason that churches are allegedly filled with hypocrites. Turning a blind eye to sin is turning blind to sin.
2) Regularly attending church keeps us from spiritual lethargy by virtue of being regular, by providing us with Christian fellowship, and by administering the means of Grace (the Lord’s Supper, the preaching of the Word, baptism, etc.). At least, that is how it ought to be.
But why not have ‘church’ at home? Why can I not be a congregation of one? The church was always meant to be a community of believers. If we read our Bibles at all, we recognize that we are God’s people, and not just God’s person. Also, I suspect that Christians who reject ‘organized religion’ for ‘personal religion’ have far less personal religion than those Christians in established churches. With no accountability and no schedule, it is far too easy not to pray, not to read one’s bible, not to sing praises to God, and not to maintain a daily attitude of worship.
3) Attending church also keeps us from pride by reminding us that we are dependent on Christ and dependent on each other. We are neither the masters of our fate, nor are we spiritual giants ready to battle demons in the desert (like vain medieval hermits).
Christianity is both a religion and a relationship; the two are not mutually exclusive—they are mutually dependent. The church is the bride of Christ. If I reject the bride, how can I expect a good relationship with the groom? The application is this: attend a church that preaches the gospel. We are the bride. Let us not forget our Groom.
Read Part 1: Doctrine Divides
Read Part 2: Don't Judge!
When Christians claim that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion, they intend to distance it from cold ritualism. I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. Performing a service for the mere sake of performing a service, or saying a prayer merely for sake of saying a prayer are both wrong and ought to be avoided. Worse yet is for a man to perform a service or say prayer for the sake of convincing himself that he is not a bad man, or for assuming that these acts prove his goodness and allow him to stand before God. The purpose of our services and our prayers is to both worship God and be edified in our pursuit of Him; our righteousness before God is Christ alone, not anything of ourselves.
The trouble, then, is not the sentiment of the statement. The trouble is the statement. My copy of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines religion in the following words.
Religion: 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural; 2) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Clearly, the dictionary entry contained more than those first two definitions, but none of the other definitions could be construed in any way that would disqualify Christianity as a religion. Christianity is and always will be a religion. Why am I making such a big deal out of definitions? As somebody wise once said, “When words lose their meanings, people lose their lives.” In this case, no one is dying, but a proper understanding of the Christian life is at stake; spiritual lives are at stake.
When we say that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion, we implicitly reject both the communal aspects of religion as well as its formal aspects. Christianity becomes entirely personalized, and the Church as an institution diminishes in importance, or disappears altogether. But the visible Church exists both for God’s glory and our benefit.
Here are three ways we benefit.
1) A healthy church keeps us from great hypocrisies by exercising church discipline. As my pastor often says, “Don’t join a church that won’t kick you out.” Excommunication is more like chemotherapy than an execution. Church discipline is reserved for members who refuse to repent of their sins. And the point is not to abandon them out of spite, but rather to withhold certain blessings that they might realize the severity of their sins and repent and return. It is also an excellent deterrent; I have no wish to be confronted by the elders of my church.
The cruelest thing that a church can do is ignore great sins in its members; to ignore a sick soul is not love – it is apathy. And not to point out the obvious, but the refusal of churches to exercise church discipline is the reason that churches are allegedly filled with hypocrites. Turning a blind eye to sin is turning blind to sin.
2) Regularly attending church keeps us from spiritual lethargy by virtue of being regular, by providing us with Christian fellowship, and by administering the means of Grace (the Lord’s Supper, the preaching of the Word, baptism, etc.). At least, that is how it ought to be.
But why not have ‘church’ at home? Why can I not be a congregation of one? The church was always meant to be a community of believers. If we read our Bibles at all, we recognize that we are God’s people, and not just God’s person. Also, I suspect that Christians who reject ‘organized religion’ for ‘personal religion’ have far less personal religion than those Christians in established churches. With no accountability and no schedule, it is far too easy not to pray, not to read one’s bible, not to sing praises to God, and not to maintain a daily attitude of worship.
3) Attending church also keeps us from pride by reminding us that we are dependent on Christ and dependent on each other. We are neither the masters of our fate, nor are we spiritual giants ready to battle demons in the desert (like vain medieval hermits).
Christianity is both a religion and a relationship; the two are not mutually exclusive—they are mutually dependent. The church is the bride of Christ. If I reject the bride, how can I expect a good relationship with the groom? The application is this: attend a church that preaches the gospel. We are the bride. Let us not forget our Groom.
Read Part 1: Doctrine Divides
Read Part 2: Don't Judge!
Saturday 28 August 2010
Sloganized Christianity: Part 2 - Don't Judge!
Don’t judge or you’ll be judged! This phrase appears as a naïve Christian slogan when its scriptural meaning and context is ignored. In my experience, “Don’t judge!” is tossed into discussions like a smoke bomb to prevent persons from making moral evaluations. It usually means this: Hey, you can’t pass any judgments because it’s not your place to judge; it’s God’s. So leave me alone, jerk.
As we know, “don’t judge” is in reference to Matthew 7:1-2, which says “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (NIV).
At first glance, the common use of the phrase might seem justified. But let us examine the verse that follow. Verses 3 through 5 continue the theme. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye” etc. It’s obvious from these verses that it is not judgment which is being condemned, but hypocrisy. This passage is saying that if you are going to pass a judgment, make sure you are not engaged in the same sin that you are condemning. That is, hold yourself to the same standards you hold others.
And look at what happens in verse 6. “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.” Wait, how do we know who the dogs and pigs are? Gasp! Is Jesus asking us to use our judgment to differentiate between mocker ‘pigs’ and honest truth-seekers? (also see Proverbs 9:7-9) Yes, yes he is.
But what about Luke 6:37? “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Well, the log-in-the-eye metaphor appears a few verses over (vs. 41-42). And on top of that, there are verses 43-45. “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit.” Etc. Here also are moral judgments not only implied, but necessary.
Therefore, to read “do not judge” as a prohibition on judging is misguided. Perhaps a better reading would be “do not judge censoriously” or “do not judge hypocritically” (see John 7:24 and previous verses).
It is impossible to be a Christian and not judge between right and wrong. We’re even commanded in Galatians 6:1-5 to practice the following: 1) to recognize sin in each other, 2) to gently correct each other, 3) and to judge our own actions accurately.
If it sounds like I am beating a dead horse, I am sorry. It is important, however, that as Christians, we not abandon the tools God has given us, especially in our misguided attempts at harmony. If we refuse to judge each other in light of Scripture, calling each other back to truth and repentance, God will judge me for sinning, and then judge you for your heartless silence.
Read Part 1: Doctrine Divides
Read Part 3: A Relationship, Not a Religion
As we know, “don’t judge” is in reference to Matthew 7:1-2, which says “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (NIV).
At first glance, the common use of the phrase might seem justified. But let us examine the verse that follow. Verses 3 through 5 continue the theme. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye” etc. It’s obvious from these verses that it is not judgment which is being condemned, but hypocrisy. This passage is saying that if you are going to pass a judgment, make sure you are not engaged in the same sin that you are condemning. That is, hold yourself to the same standards you hold others.
And look at what happens in verse 6. “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.” Wait, how do we know who the dogs and pigs are? Gasp! Is Jesus asking us to use our judgment to differentiate between mocker ‘pigs’ and honest truth-seekers? (also see Proverbs 9:7-9) Yes, yes he is.
But what about Luke 6:37? “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Well, the log-in-the-eye metaphor appears a few verses over (vs. 41-42). And on top of that, there are verses 43-45. “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit.” Etc. Here also are moral judgments not only implied, but necessary.
Therefore, to read “do not judge” as a prohibition on judging is misguided. Perhaps a better reading would be “do not judge censoriously” or “do not judge hypocritically” (see John 7:24 and previous verses).
It is impossible to be a Christian and not judge between right and wrong. We’re even commanded in Galatians 6:1-5 to practice the following: 1) to recognize sin in each other, 2) to gently correct each other, 3) and to judge our own actions accurately.
If it sounds like I am beating a dead horse, I am sorry. It is important, however, that as Christians, we not abandon the tools God has given us, especially in our misguided attempts at harmony. If we refuse to judge each other in light of Scripture, calling each other back to truth and repentance, God will judge me for sinning, and then judge you for your heartless silence.
Read Part 1: Doctrine Divides
Read Part 3: A Relationship, Not a Religion
Friday 27 August 2010
Sloganized Christianity: Part 1 - Doctrine Divides
There are a great many naïve Christian slogans floating in the air, and I’m quite certain it is a solely western phenomenon. I doubt the underground church in China uses slogans like the ones we have got. They do not have the luxury of being naïve; they have too much at stake. I mean popular phrases like, “Love unites; doctrine divides”, “Don’t judge, lest you be judged!”, and “Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship.” All of these phrases emerge out of some valid concern; they’re all used by well-meaning persons. The trouble is that, like most reactions, they go too far.
Of the three phrases I have listed, the first is downright dangerous, the second is merely an honest mistake, and the third phrase makes us look ignorant and is potentially misleading in several ways.
Love unites; doctrine divides! That sounds awfully nice, but is rather silly. If you were paying attention, you noticed that “love unites; doctrine divides” is itself a doctrine. To put it another way, this slogan is saying “Love unites, but rules about what to believe are divisive.” But this is absurd; this slogan is also giving you a rule about what to believe: that love unites and that doctrine divides.
What persons usually mean (I hope) when they say that “love unites, but doctrine divides,” is that there are some doctrines which are not salvific ones, but which are often enough to divide Christians. I mean doctrines like those of baptism—do we immerse or pour? Or questions of the gifts of the spirit—are cessationists right, or is it the continuationists who are right? To be wrong on questions like these is not to be a mortal heretic.
The trouble is that when we say that doctrine divides, it implies that doctrine is either bad or unimportant. But every theological question is important, because every question is a question about God, and God is infinitely important.
How is every theological question a question about God? All theological questions can be classed as questions about God’s nature, God’s wishes, and God’s acts. But God acts and wishes only according to His nature. So even questions like “What is man?” can be understood in terms of God’s nature. (God created man in His own image and created man good, according to His nature. Man did not obey the wishes of God, and found himself at enmity with God, etc.)
Doctrines ultimately unite. We may disagree over doctrines, and that is magnificent, because it means we must respect each other enough to disagree. G. K. Chesterton writes that “creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each others’ way.”* Our disagreements force us to become better listeners, to practice love, to always be reexamining our convictions. If we ignore our disagreements, we do so by ceasing to listen, by loving only those who refuse to anger us, and by hiding our convictions under a smug blanket of cold tolerance.
Yes, love also unites; it is like string, or bandages. But doctrine is cement. Doctrine is the reason the universal Church exists as a universal Church. It is because we share the fundamental doctrines of Christianity that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. It is because of the doctrines of love that we understand our need to love.
*What's Wrong with the World, I.3 -- G.K. Chesterton.
Read Part 2: Don't Judge!
Read Part 3: A Relationship, Not a Religion
Of the three phrases I have listed, the first is downright dangerous, the second is merely an honest mistake, and the third phrase makes us look ignorant and is potentially misleading in several ways.
Love unites; doctrine divides! That sounds awfully nice, but is rather silly. If you were paying attention, you noticed that “love unites; doctrine divides” is itself a doctrine. To put it another way, this slogan is saying “Love unites, but rules about what to believe are divisive.” But this is absurd; this slogan is also giving you a rule about what to believe: that love unites and that doctrine divides.
What persons usually mean (I hope) when they say that “love unites, but doctrine divides,” is that there are some doctrines which are not salvific ones, but which are often enough to divide Christians. I mean doctrines like those of baptism—do we immerse or pour? Or questions of the gifts of the spirit—are cessationists right, or is it the continuationists who are right? To be wrong on questions like these is not to be a mortal heretic.
The trouble is that when we say that doctrine divides, it implies that doctrine is either bad or unimportant. But every theological question is important, because every question is a question about God, and God is infinitely important.
How is every theological question a question about God? All theological questions can be classed as questions about God’s nature, God’s wishes, and God’s acts. But God acts and wishes only according to His nature. So even questions like “What is man?” can be understood in terms of God’s nature. (God created man in His own image and created man good, according to His nature. Man did not obey the wishes of God, and found himself at enmity with God, etc.)
Doctrines ultimately unite. We may disagree over doctrines, and that is magnificent, because it means we must respect each other enough to disagree. G. K. Chesterton writes that “creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each others’ way.”* Our disagreements force us to become better listeners, to practice love, to always be reexamining our convictions. If we ignore our disagreements, we do so by ceasing to listen, by loving only those who refuse to anger us, and by hiding our convictions under a smug blanket of cold tolerance.
Yes, love also unites; it is like string, or bandages. But doctrine is cement. Doctrine is the reason the universal Church exists as a universal Church. It is because we share the fundamental doctrines of Christianity that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. It is because of the doctrines of love that we understand our need to love.
*What's Wrong with the World, I.3 -- G.K. Chesterton.
Read Part 2: Don't Judge!
Read Part 3: A Relationship, Not a Religion
Thursday 26 August 2010
New Club of Good Cents Posts
The Club of Good Cents (where I am a contributor) has two new blog posts.1) Slave to Sin or Righteousness?
2) The Great Weaknesses of Atheism: Part 2 - Irrationality
You can read part 1 HERE.
Friday 20 August 2010
"Runaway Slave"
I'm buying this when it comes out in 2011. You should, too.
I heard about it on this follow-worthy blog.
Peace.
I heard about it on this follow-worthy blog.
Peace.
Sunday 15 August 2010
Agenda: Grinding America Down (a documentary)
I just finished watching this documentary. I was blown away. Everyone must see it. I have no further words. It speaks for itself. Watch the trailer below. Then buy it. The information it contains is worth far more than $18.
AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Trailer) from Copybook Heading Productions LLC on Vimeo.
Here's a link to the Agenda Website.
A friend (who is awesome) let me borrow this film, so I don't actually own it. But after watching it, I'm ordering at least one copy.
Thursday 5 August 2010
Books: America Alone and The Spirit of Churchill
| I finished America Alone yesterday, and today I started The Spirit of Churchill by Debbie Brezina. America Alone was about the moral cowardice of the West, and The Spirit of Churchill is about an era when the West was still brave. Brezina's book makes an excellent prequel to Steyn's. There wasn't much that was new to me in America Alone. Steyn discusses the dangers of the increasing Islamization of the West. I was familiar with most of his points-- the problems with global demographics (and how it relates to the spread of Islam), the moral poverty of the West and the moral strength of Islam, the incompatibility of Islam and Western freedom, Islam's inherent violent bent, etc. So over all, America Alone was depressing. After all, critics of the book called it 'alarmist propaganda' or something. Which would be a bad thing, except for the fact that Steyn is right. Whether a book is alarmist or not has nothing to do with whether or not it makes valid points. And not only are his points valid, they're also pointy and uncomfortable, like swords: the Sword of Islam. It's worth a read. The Spirit of Churchill, on the other hand, is nothing short of inspiring. It's amazing how easily I'd forgotten how incredible Hitler's rise and defeat actually was. The West needs another Churchill; we need another Charles Martel. We've got far too many Chamberlains in politics these days. I've been reminded how rare true courage is. Perhaps it's because courage is a Christian virtue; only the weak can be brave. It is the lamb and not the lion which can cultivate courage. Courage is the lamb becoming the lion, despite the knowledge that he is still a lamb. At any rate, I highly recommend The Spirit of Churchill to your reading lists. Cheers, |
Tuesday 3 August 2010
A mosque on ground zero? Sure! Why not? It's not like the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims or anything.
Granted, the mosque won't be on the ruins of the two towers; it'll be an a nearby building that was struck by airplane debris. I don't know that the Islamic center can be legally opposed without violating the first amendment, but it ought to be recognized for what it is. A slap in the face of the American people.
The mosque is supposed to be, as the linked article states, "part of an Islamic community center to be operated by a group called the Cordoba Initiative, which says the center will be a space for moderate Muslim voices." The trouble with this, of course, is the notion of 'moderate Muslims.'
What is a 'moderate Muslim?' The term is so vague as to be completely meaningless. It's often used vis a vis 'radical Muslim,' which implies that a 'moderate Muslim' is simply a Muslim who isn't trying to blow persons up. Well, that definition works just fine. The trouble is that that isn't what is meant by 'moderate Muslim.'
What is usually meant by 'moderate Muslim' is a Muslim who keeps his faith at home and in the mosque. In other words, a 'moderate Muslim' would be nearly indistinguishable from your typical American self-proclaimed 'Christian.' But this is ridiculous. Islam requires the practice of Sharia law. Sharia law does appear in four distinct schools, but all four agree that anyone who wishes to leave Islam ought to be given three days to return to Islam. If after three days he refuses, he must be killed. I won't even talk about other human rights violations in Sharia law, that one example ought to suffice.
Myth: Islam means peace. No, Islam means submission, and there are no Qur'anic verses which command peace with non-Muslims. I dare you to prove me wrong.
Thus, moderate Muslims are really Muslims who are against Islamism--almost like Christians who oppose the organized Church. They aren't being consistent.
Don't get me wrong, I wish all Muslims were truly moderate Muslims. (I wish even more that they were all Christians. Jesus said, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." Try find that one in the Qur'an.) I simply think that we've been greatly mislead in believing that most Muslims are as moderate and modern as we've made them out to be.
One would think that this slap to the face that this new mosque represents would wake us up, but nah, we're too drunk on our own smug delusions--like the one that murderers only kill persons because society has failed them. Don't worry, Mr. Terrorist! We know that you're really a nice person. You're just upset because we've been so bigoted as to think bad thoughts about Islam, like the idea that it might be wrong.
Okay, so I'm upset. But shouldn't you be upset, too? I should probably temper my language; it's not going to win over any Muslims who read this. But I'm not writing to them. I'm writing to post-Christian Americans who ought to know better. Don't be a frog in a pot. Pay attention to that water. It's been heating up for several hundred years.
Peace,
Granted, the mosque won't be on the ruins of the two towers; it'll be an a nearby building that was struck by airplane debris. I don't know that the Islamic center can be legally opposed without violating the first amendment, but it ought to be recognized for what it is. A slap in the face of the American people.
The mosque is supposed to be, as the linked article states, "part of an Islamic community center to be operated by a group called the Cordoba Initiative, which says the center will be a space for moderate Muslim voices." The trouble with this, of course, is the notion of 'moderate Muslims.'
What is a 'moderate Muslim?' The term is so vague as to be completely meaningless. It's often used vis a vis 'radical Muslim,' which implies that a 'moderate Muslim' is simply a Muslim who isn't trying to blow persons up. Well, that definition works just fine. The trouble is that that isn't what is meant by 'moderate Muslim.'
What is usually meant by 'moderate Muslim' is a Muslim who keeps his faith at home and in the mosque. In other words, a 'moderate Muslim' would be nearly indistinguishable from your typical American self-proclaimed 'Christian.' But this is ridiculous. Islam requires the practice of Sharia law. Sharia law does appear in four distinct schools, but all four agree that anyone who wishes to leave Islam ought to be given three days to return to Islam. If after three days he refuses, he must be killed. I won't even talk about other human rights violations in Sharia law, that one example ought to suffice.
Myth: Islam means peace. No, Islam means submission, and there are no Qur'anic verses which command peace with non-Muslims. I dare you to prove me wrong.
Thus, moderate Muslims are really Muslims who are against Islamism--almost like Christians who oppose the organized Church. They aren't being consistent.
Don't get me wrong, I wish all Muslims were truly moderate Muslims. (I wish even more that they were all Christians. Jesus said, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." Try find that one in the Qur'an.) I simply think that we've been greatly mislead in believing that most Muslims are as moderate and modern as we've made them out to be.
One would think that this slap to the face that this new mosque represents would wake us up, but nah, we're too drunk on our own smug delusions--like the one that murderers only kill persons because society has failed them. Don't worry, Mr. Terrorist! We know that you're really a nice person. You're just upset because we've been so bigoted as to think bad thoughts about Islam, like the idea that it might be wrong.
Okay, so I'm upset. But shouldn't you be upset, too? I should probably temper my language; it's not going to win over any Muslims who read this. But I'm not writing to them. I'm writing to post-Christian Americans who ought to know better. Don't be a frog in a pot. Pay attention to that water. It's been heating up for several hundred years.
Peace,
Friday 23 July 2010
In a Chapter on America Was Written...
"It may be said with rough accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people. First, it is a small power, and fights small powers. Then it is a great power, and fights great powers. Then it is a great power, and fights small powers, but pretends that they are great powers, in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity. After that, the next step is to become a small power itself."
-G. K. Chesterton, Heretics
-G. K. Chesterton, Heretics
Wednesday 21 July 2010
An Object in Motion Will Stay in Motion -- A Short Story
-->
An Object in Motion Will Stay in Motion
By D. Araujo
I’m always so close, yet he always eludes me; he vanishes into the heat-blurred Arizona horizon like a lightning ghost. I’ve hunted him my whole life, just as my father did before me and his father before him. My superior intellect—IQ, two hundred and seven: super genius—has allowed me to transcend the worn-out methods of my ancestors. That was the age of tooth and claw. This is the age of mail-order catalogues.
Today I got closer than usual. I spent the morning with my usual traps. I painted a strip on the road with instant glue and hid behind a cactus with a giant wooden mallet. In the past, I tried the glue and the mallet individually to no effect. My prey zipped across the glue like it was cast-iron skillet. And I always time my mallet swings wrong; I usually end up hitting myself. But I see no reason why they shouldn’t work in combination. Even if the glue slows him only a few milliseconds, that should be enough time for me to strike. At any rate, I routinely try a new twist on an old trap before breakfast.
Seconds after I hid, a cone of dust approached like a spear up the road. I stifled a laugh at the thought of my nemesis glued and smashed. I counted down and leapt, wielding my mallet. My timing was impeccable. After the dust settled, I saw that he stood beside me; he had stopped before the glued strip. I also found myself standing in the instant glue and my mallet glued to the road after my great swing. The fiend stuck his tongue out at me and dashed away. Then I got hit by a mover’s truck.
After scraping myself off the pavement and breakfasting on large insects, I worked on my mid-morning attack. I had drawn plans for a trap which called for TNT. I strung a trip wire across the road and packed the steep hill by the road with explosives. The plan, of course, was that he would collide with the trip wire and throw an avalanche of rocks upon himself. Engrossed in my task, I failed to notice the familiar cone of dust rocketing along on the road: the soon-to-be avalanchee at its point. When I heard his cries, I jumped and turned in horror to see him dashing toward the wire. Rocks exploded around me; I was weightless, I was deaf, I was blind. I was also on fire.
After the defeats of the morning, I welcomed the arrival of a new apparatus in the mail, namely, a molecular projector. This machine has two settings: it either copies an object or dissolves it, projecting the object’s molecules and reassembling it at a distance. It closely resembles a teleportation device, except that this apparatus can cast objects high in the air. I’m sure you are asking yourself why I would want to cast myself in the air—have I got a pair of wings, perhaps? No, of course not! But uncommon innovation separates us super geniuses from the ranks of common folk. No, I shall not cast myself, but anvils. It will rain anvils, I told myself.
I dragged the machine to a hill overlooking the road. I set the dial to “duplication”—I have only one anvil—and practiced dropping anvils out of the clouds. Soon, I could hit any cactus I wanted with as many anvils as I pleased. Or I could spray anvils over a region. Then, with the sun sinking toward the horizon, I readied myself for the last attack of the day. I put a large bowl of birdseed in the road. I even stuck a sign in it: FREE BIRDSEED. Then I returned to my spot on the hill behind the machine and waited.
I waited for an hour. The sun was as red as the cliffs and the air still and silent. I could almost hear the ground cooling under my feet. Suddenly, a trail of dust appeared in the distance. He was coming.
My timing was perfect. Just as I expected, he halted at the birdseed. A great cloud of anvils crashed on the road. When the dust blew away, there was no trace of him. I hurried down to where the anvils lay like a black blanket over the road. It was all anvil black and dust red, till at length I spied a spot of color, a blue splotch against the red earth—a wing. At last! I had captured him. I had crushed him. I chuckled with glee. After years of pain (road rash, dramatic falls, third degree burns) and hundreds of traps, tons of explosives, rocket skates and even earthquake pills, I had won. Now I could taste this mythic delicacy.
The wing twitched; I stopped laughing. What was I without him? The pursuit was over. What had I left to pursue? Without him, I had no epic struggle, and nothing stretched before me but the petty trials of mere survival. If I destroyed him, I destroyed myself.
I tipped the anvil up. Flat as a pancake, he looked at me cross-eyed and dazed. Then, waddling away, he stuck his tongue out. I stared back at him and smiled. WHAM—something hit me in the head and drove me into the ground. I guess that earlier an anvil had gotten stuck in the sky. I heard him waddle closer and put his head by my flattened body.
BEEP! BEEP!
And he was gone.
Thursday 15 July 2010
The Club of Good Cents
EDIT 21/07/2010: My post is now up.
A small intellectual club, of which I am a part, has just begun a blog. Check it out here. We will be posting weekly. I'm a little bit behind on my contribution (the first installment of a series on the great weaknesses of atheism), but it'll be up by the end of next week.
Check us out! Go read the current article on religious freedom and persecution.
Peace,
A small intellectual club, of which I am a part, has just begun a blog. Check it out here. We will be posting weekly. I'm a little bit behind on my contribution (the first installment of a series on the great weaknesses of atheism), but it'll be up by the end of next week.
Check us out! Go read the current article on religious freedom and persecution.
Peace,
Sunday 11 July 2010
To Be--That is the Answer
Text for an art song I wrote this spring. I was writing my senior thesis (on madness in Chesterton's fiction) during the same period, so this lyric was heavily influenced by my good friend G.K. At any rate, I thought I'd share it because I've wanted to post for a while, but I have absolutely nothing to say. Ah well, cheers.
To Be--That is the Answer
To Be--That is the Answer
The million windows of the midnight air
Shut in the world's lunacies and sins,
But light drips down to catch our tired eyes
And shed the warmth of heaven's feasting fires.
On winter nights spent staring into fires,
I'm madly pricked to joy in both my eyes
And curse with love the sickness of my sins--
That I forgot to praise my God for air.
Thursday 10 June 2010
Warning: the Constitution Might Offend Your Socialist Sensabilities
This made me sick. Way to start the morning.
The country that our Founding Fathers knew has already been completely destroyed, but some folks seem intent on destroying every last trace of what we were. I'd call it treason if treason was still a crime.
The country that our Founding Fathers knew has already been completely destroyed, but some folks seem intent on destroying every last trace of what we were. I'd call it treason if treason was still a crime.
Wednesday 7 April 2010
On the Nonexistence of Shoes
On the Nonexistence of Shoes (Or, Harry the Ashoeist)
by D. Araujo
Harry loved his purple shoe
And hated things that fly
So when his shoe grew wings and flew
He made a purple sky.
His other shoe was blue and true
But soon began to cry;
It missed its match: the purple shoe
Up in the purple sky.
“By Hermes feet!” Harry cursed
While painting earth with blues.
“I never thought I’d be the first
To prove there are no shoes.”
by D. Araujo
Harry loved his purple shoe
And hated things that fly
So when his shoe grew wings and flew
He made a purple sky.
His other shoe was blue and true
But soon began to cry;
It missed its match: the purple shoe
Up in the purple sky.
“By Hermes feet!” Harry cursed
While painting earth with blues.
“I never thought I’d be the first
To prove there are no shoes.”
Thursday 18 March 2010
Christopher Hitchens' Christian Brother
Again, super busy. But here's a post anyway.
Two worthy articles to check out from the Peter Hitchens Blog:
"How I found God and peace with my atheist brother"
"More sex education means more teenage pregnancies. . . always"
Cheers,
Two worthy articles to check out from the Peter Hitchens Blog:
"How I found God and peace with my atheist brother"
"More sex education means more teenage pregnancies. . . always"
Cheers,
Sunday 7 March 2010
SCURVY-CURING BACHELOR SALSA
Haven't been around, sorry. Life is crazy. In other news, I think I've finally perfected the art of homemade salsa. My super exact original recipe is as follows:
SCURVY-CURING BACHELOR SALSA
1 large can of petite diced tomatoes
3 ripe tomatoes
1 yellow bell pepper
1 red (or orange) bell pepper
2 small onions (red or white)
3 (at least) jalapenos
lots of cilantro
garlic powder (or you can use fresh garlic, but I'm lazy)
onion powder
salt
3 limes
Step 1: Dice your 3 tomatoes, bell peppers, onions, jalapenos, and cilantro.
Step 2: Drain most of the liquid in your out of your can of tomatoes.
Step 3: Throw it all into a large mixing bowl
Step 4: Squeeze your three limes into the salsa.
Step 5: sprinkle with garlic powder, onion powder, and salt (more salt than garlic or onion powder).
Step 6: Mix, cover, and refrigerate over-night.
Makes approximately several pounds of salsa. Serves approximately a few salsa-loving people.
Eat with everything.
(Salsa-making wouldn't be an art if I was exact. It's what separates the great salsa-artists from the mediocre salsa-artists. You just know, you know? When my Mexican genes speak, I listen. Que bueno que hablo espanol, no?)
If you try this recipe, leave me a comment and let me know what you think.
P.S. This salsa also cures Atheism.
Monday 15 February 2010
Thursday 11 February 2010
News to Know: Education crime, global bank taxes, and trashy teachers
Here are some news stories you should know about:
Political asylum granted to a German family fleeing persecution for their education choices.
A few days ago, somebody told me that if a world state appears, it'll be run by and preceded by an international bank. As everyone knows, for politicians, money is only ever a means to an end: power.
Teacher's unions are good, right? Yes! They allow teachers who impregnate their 16 year old students to continue collecting their salaries, even though they're banned from teaching. What a deal!--sleep with a 16 year old student and retire on your untouchable salary! With benefits like that, I'm surprised there aren't more teachers...
Political asylum granted to a German family fleeing persecution for their education choices.
A few days ago, somebody told me that if a world state appears, it'll be run by and preceded by an international bank. As everyone knows, for politicians, money is only ever a means to an end: power.
Teacher's unions are good, right? Yes! They allow teachers who impregnate their 16 year old students to continue collecting their salaries, even though they're banned from teaching. What a deal!--sleep with a 16 year old student and retire on your untouchable salary! With benefits like that, I'm surprised there aren't more teachers...
Wednesday 3 February 2010
Political Agenda in the Classroom? POW! Shot down.
The fact that folks were outraged over THIS proves there's some hope left. Unsurprisingly, Perry High School is a public school, although this wasn't stated in the article.
-Peace
EDIT: Did I say something about hope? I take that back. Kids need to learn more history, not less. And not just American history but Western history. Make those kids read Livy for Pete's sake. What's wrong with the world? Our education.
Ain't no education like a classical education, foo'.
-Peace
EDIT: Did I say something about hope? I take that back. Kids need to learn more history, not less. And not just American history but Western history. Make those kids read Livy for Pete's sake. What's wrong with the world? Our education.
Ain't no education like a classical education, foo'.
Thursday 28 January 2010
Tuesday 26 January 2010
Islam, the Religion of Peace and Tolerance
Christians in Egypt are threatened with death. "Muslims try to kill us, and will kill us if they find us."
I predict that the biggest problems the world is going to face in the 21st Century are going to be the direct result of the spread of Islam and the globally declining birthrate.
I predict that the biggest problems the world is going to face in the 21st Century are going to be the direct result of the spread of Islam and the globally declining birthrate.
Saturday 23 January 2010
University of Myspace, Facebook State, Xanga College...
I have a post in limbo, but I've been sick most of the week and haven't really gotten around to editing it. The more posts I write, the pickier I become about what I say and how I say it. I suppose that's a good thing, but it slows me down and makes me want to delete everything I've ever written. At any rate, today I give you
Things I Have Learned from Networking Websites.
1. Most persons are invisible to themselves. What I mean is that persons rarely (if ever) see themselves accurately. Outside of the odd and horrific moment of clarity, we only ever see of ourselves that which we want to see. I discovered this years ago from browsing myspace and xanga profiles; I noticed that everyone thought themselves unique. Instead, I was surprised to discover how much the same everyone is. The more unique someone thinks they are, the less likely it is that they are.
The trouble is that they are wrong because they are right. Or more precisely, they are wrong because of where they are right. For instance, today I read this in somebody's profile: "I am one of the strangest people you'll ever meet because of my likes and dislikes." A person is right that he is unique in so far as there is not another person that is he, but everyone is wrong when they think that their uniqueness is anything but superficial. My tastes differentiate me from others the same way different outfits make identical mannequins different. It creates a false sense of diversity. Beliefs create substantial differences: nothing else does. The Flat Earth Society is full of people who truly are unique. Our schools and universities are full of clones.
The problem isn't that we haven't got enough mirrors, it's that we have far too many.
2. The search for significance appears as a transmission of the trivial (how's that for alliteration, eh?). What I mean is that much of the noise that is generated on social networking sites is the result of everyone's attempt to be heard. I wish I had a dollar for every Myspace bulletin I've ever opened which said "new profile!! go comment!!" or "new pix from da show lst weekend!! leve me commentz! xoxo." These desperate pleas for attention are pretty obvious, but the same force is at work on Twitter and Facebook, I believe. (I need someone to pick on. Let's create someone named Billy.) Thanks to Twitter, I don't care that Billy just got a paper cut. I don't care that Billy is now watching American Idol. Nobody but Billy cares that it's time to vacuum. Persons that do care about these sorts of things are called stalkers. Or gossips. But Billy obviously wants us to care about all these things, otherwise he wouldn't tell us about them. If the trivial things in Billy's life can be significant to somebody else, then the whole of Billy's life becomes significant.
At this point I hear someone protesting that not all transmission of triviality is a search for significance. This is true. Much of it is a search for amusement, and sharing what we find amusing often increases our pleasure. But my argument is strictly within the arena of internet community. It is one thing to share a joke someone else has made because you enjoyed it; it is a very different thing to invent a pointless joke in order to leave a comment (I'm guilty of this. One of my great vices is that I use humor, not to make other persons feel good, but rather to make myself feel significant). When I receive comments about things I have done or said, it gives me the illusion of significance. When I leave trivial comments on things other persons have done or said, I often find that I'm only trying to assert my own importance (talking to hear myself talk).
All this is based on less than a decade's weight of observation and introspection and many gallons of theory. So I propose an experiment. As you float around the internet's social networks, pay attention to how people react to each other, pay attention to yourself, and notice triviality as triviality. Then let me know whether or not you agree with me, and on what points you agree or disagree. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
Things I Have Learned from Networking Websites.
1. Most persons are invisible to themselves. What I mean is that persons rarely (if ever) see themselves accurately. Outside of the odd and horrific moment of clarity, we only ever see of ourselves that which we want to see. I discovered this years ago from browsing myspace and xanga profiles; I noticed that everyone thought themselves unique. Instead, I was surprised to discover how much the same everyone is. The more unique someone thinks they are, the less likely it is that they are.
The trouble is that they are wrong because they are right. Or more precisely, they are wrong because of where they are right. For instance, today I read this in somebody's profile: "I am one of the strangest people you'll ever meet because of my likes and dislikes." A person is right that he is unique in so far as there is not another person that is he, but everyone is wrong when they think that their uniqueness is anything but superficial. My tastes differentiate me from others the same way different outfits make identical mannequins different. It creates a false sense of diversity. Beliefs create substantial differences: nothing else does. The Flat Earth Society is full of people who truly are unique. Our schools and universities are full of clones.
The problem isn't that we haven't got enough mirrors, it's that we have far too many.
2. The search for significance appears as a transmission of the trivial (how's that for alliteration, eh?). What I mean is that much of the noise that is generated on social networking sites is the result of everyone's attempt to be heard. I wish I had a dollar for every Myspace bulletin I've ever opened which said "new profile!! go comment!!" or "new pix from da show lst weekend!! leve me commentz! xoxo." These desperate pleas for attention are pretty obvious, but the same force is at work on Twitter and Facebook, I believe. (I need someone to pick on. Let's create someone named Billy.) Thanks to Twitter, I don't care that Billy just got a paper cut. I don't care that Billy is now watching American Idol. Nobody but Billy cares that it's time to vacuum. Persons that do care about these sorts of things are called stalkers. Or gossips. But Billy obviously wants us to care about all these things, otherwise he wouldn't tell us about them. If the trivial things in Billy's life can be significant to somebody else, then the whole of Billy's life becomes significant.
At this point I hear someone protesting that not all transmission of triviality is a search for significance. This is true. Much of it is a search for amusement, and sharing what we find amusing often increases our pleasure. But my argument is strictly within the arena of internet community. It is one thing to share a joke someone else has made because you enjoyed it; it is a very different thing to invent a pointless joke in order to leave a comment (I'm guilty of this. One of my great vices is that I use humor, not to make other persons feel good, but rather to make myself feel significant). When I receive comments about things I have done or said, it gives me the illusion of significance. When I leave trivial comments on things other persons have done or said, I often find that I'm only trying to assert my own importance (talking to hear myself talk).
All this is based on less than a decade's weight of observation and introspection and many gallons of theory. So I propose an experiment. As you float around the internet's social networks, pay attention to how people react to each other, pay attention to yourself, and notice triviality as triviality. Then let me know whether or not you agree with me, and on what points you agree or disagree. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
Friday 22 January 2010
Nefarious Trailer from Exodus Cry
This looks like an incredibly important film, albeit one that won't be very easy to watch.
Nefarious Trailer from Exodus Cry on Vimeo.
Thursday 14 January 2010
Verseday Thursday: Edgar Allen Poe
This used to be one of my favorites by Poe. It's not his best poem, but I've always liked the way it rolls off my tongue, starting slowly and gathering momentum.
From Childhood's Hour - Edgar Allen Poe
From childhood's hour I have not been
As others were; I have not seen
As others saw; I could not bring
My passion from a common spring.
From he same source I have not taken
My sorrow; I could not awaken
My heart to joy at the same tone;
And all I loved, I loved alone.
Then--in my childhood, in the dawn
Of a most stormy life--was drawn
From every depth of good and ill
The mystery which binds me still:
From the torrent or the fountain,
From the red cliff of the mountain,
From the sun that round me rolled
In its autumn tint of gold,
From the lightning in the sky
As it passed my flying by,
From the thunder and the storm,
And the cloud that took the form
(When the rest of Heaven was blue)
Of a demon in my view.
From Childhood's Hour - Edgar Allen Poe
From childhood's hour I have not been
As others were; I have not seen
As others saw; I could not bring
My passion from a common spring.
From he same source I have not taken
My sorrow; I could not awaken
My heart to joy at the same tone;
And all I loved, I loved alone.
Then--in my childhood, in the dawn
Of a most stormy life--was drawn
From every depth of good and ill
The mystery which binds me still:
From the torrent or the fountain,
From the red cliff of the mountain,
From the sun that round me rolled
In its autumn tint of gold,
From the lightning in the sky
As it passed my flying by,
From the thunder and the storm,
And the cloud that took the form
(When the rest of Heaven was blue)
Of a demon in my view.
Saturday 9 January 2010
Your Fear Asplode
If you let your enemy define your terms of victory, you'll never win. Duh.
This article is worth reading.
Peace,
This article is worth reading.
Peace,
Friday 8 January 2010
Verseday Thursday: Walt Whitman
(I know, I know...I keep forgetting to notice Thursdays. Maybe I should call it Verseday--Day After--Thursday...*sigh*)
I have to confess that I still haven't decided whether or not I respect Whitman as a poet. I don't really like his poetry, but not liking him doesn't make him a bad poet. By the same token, just because he's anthologized doesn't mean that he's necessarily a good poet either; it just means that he was influential. At any rate, this is my favorite Whitman poem, but not because I think it's a good poem (I still haven't made up my mind whether it is or not), but rather because I think it contains a valuable insight.
TO THE STATES - Walt Whitman
To the States or any one of them, or any city of the States,
Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city of this earth,
ever afterward resumes its liberty.
I have to confess that I still haven't decided whether or not I respect Whitman as a poet. I don't really like his poetry, but not liking him doesn't make him a bad poet. By the same token, just because he's anthologized doesn't mean that he's necessarily a good poet either; it just means that he was influential. At any rate, this is my favorite Whitman poem, but not because I think it's a good poem (I still haven't made up my mind whether it is or not), but rather because I think it contains a valuable insight.
TO THE STATES - Walt Whitman
To the States or any one of them, or any city of the States,
Resist much, obey little,
Once unquestioning obedience, once fully enslaved,Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city of this earth,
ever afterward resumes its liberty.
Wednesday 6 January 2010
Monday 4 January 2010
Don't Steal, the Government Hates Competition
Theft is theft, regardless of who you steal from. Raising taxes on the rich and middle classes is like stealing the seeds a farmer has saved for next year's planting and using them to make cakes for everyone in the village. They might be great cakes, but next year's harvest won't even be enough to make each person a flour tortilla.
The wealthy and small business owners provide jobs for the rest of the world. When you strangle them, it's economic equivalent of tying a tourniquet around your neck to stop the bleeding in your foot. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
And then when the economy keeps plummeting, guess what! More bailouts! Bigger government!
Dear Mr. Obama, Cronies (Advisors), and Congress,
You're not Robin Hood. Stop trying to be. That was feudalism. This is a democratic republic. Not sure if you noticed, but they are different.
EDIT: While you're fuming with me about taxes, here's one to make you glad you don't live in New York City.
The wealthy and small business owners provide jobs for the rest of the world. When you strangle them, it's economic equivalent of tying a tourniquet around your neck to stop the bleeding in your foot. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
And then when the economy keeps plummeting, guess what! More bailouts! Bigger government!
Dear Mr. Obama, Cronies (Advisors), and Congress,
You're not Robin Hood. Stop trying to be. That was feudalism. This is a democratic republic. Not sure if you noticed, but they are different.
EDIT: While you're fuming with me about taxes, here's one to make you glad you don't live in New York City.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)