Jesus is God

It’s a common Muslim argument that Jesus is not God. It’s a fundamental tenet of their faith, because if Jesus was God, then everything Muhammad said was a lie, since Muhammad elevated himself to the status of a prophet above Jesus.

Jesus wasn't a prophet. In all of our accounts of prophets, even Islamic accounts of Muhammad, it’s clearly recorded that God spoke to the prophet in question. The prophet heard and responded to the voice of God, or in Muhammad’s case an angel that he identified as Gabriel (Note that Muhammad is the only case of a prophet being spoken to through an intermediary. All the Hebrew prophets heard God directly). There's no record in any of the Gospels that Jesus heard the voice of God or was instructed by God in what to do or how to act. There are references in the New Testament that may suggest he was a prophet, if taken out of context. These cases fall into two categories: either someone has identified him as a prophet (John 4:19, 6:14, 7:39, 9:17, Luke 7:16, Matt 21:10, 21:46), or Jesus has made an observation about prophets that are also applicable to him (John 4:44, Luke 4:24, Mark 6:4, Matt 13:56 ). Indeed, Jesus can not be a prophet, because “out of Galilee arises no prophet.” (John 7:52).

Four hundred years before Christ, Isaiah foretold the coming of God as Man: Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. “But,” Muslims cry out with glee, “His name was Jesus, not Immanuel!” Hold on just a second, Matthew teaches us non-speakers of Hebrew that, “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us." (Matt 1:23) It’s not a proper name, but a title. Matthew is very clear that Jesus represents “God with us.”

John is even more direct in the opening of his Gospel:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John1:14

I know that Muslims are kind of weak in drawing logical connections, so to spell it out: The “Word was God” is followed by "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us". Now if A=B and B=C, then A=C. The Word is God. The Word walked among us. God walked among us. It’s quite simple, really.

Now Muslims will trot out ad nauseam scriptural references that Jesus is the Christ (true), and that his followers referred to him by a variety of titles: Rabbi, Messiah, Christ, Lord. And they point out that he never says he is God. 

This is not true.  Jesus declared himself to be God, and did so in such a way as to scandalize the Jewish community to the point here they were prepared to stone him to death for blasphemy. 

The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he shall never taste of death.’ Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I shall be a liar like you, but I do know Him, and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” The Jews therefore said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” - John 8:52-58

To a Jew, this was a declaration of Godhood, for the name God gave to Moses when asked his name was, "I am that I am.  Tell them I AM has sent you." Exodus 3:14. Jesus also places himself out of space and time with this statement.

More than once he’s called God, and he doesn’t rebuke the speaker. You see, God is not like Allah, he doesn’t have this narcissistic need to blow his own horn. Allah insists that he is God over and over again, to the point that it becomes tiresome. As Joseph Goebbels said, if you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough, people will believe it. It serves God’s purposes better if people come to the correct conclusion on their own. The God of Abraham is a thinking man’s God. He’s not going to take you by the nose and lead you to every tiresome article of faith. He gives you the information you need and then lets you figure it out. The lesson is learned by the ones who understand much more effectively than by the ones who follow because they don’t know any better.

But the apostles who lived with Christ were too close to the event, entrenched in their own prejudices and beliefs, and couldn’t see the forest for the trees. Jesus got a little frustrated and gently chided them for not seeing what was in front of their faces:

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; otherwise believe on account of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:8-15)

Here, Jesus makes it very clear that he and the father are one. “Whatever you ask in my name, I shall do.” Who can answer prayers but God? Jesus equates himself with God.“…Keep My commandments.” Whose commandments? Only God gave commandments. Jesus again equates himself with God.

In a definitive scene after the resurrection, Jesus is identified by the scientist of the group, Thomas, who is reluctant to believe anything that he can’t feel, see, hear, touch and measure. Note that when Thomas identifies him, Jesus is not angry, does not rebuke or correct him, but indeed seems pleased, satisfied that the truth is sinking in.

Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.”

Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” (John 20:27-29)

Does Jesus rebuke Thomas? No, he instructs him, and acknowledges his belief.

Throughout Christian history, it's been acknowledged that Christ was God in the form of man. This is a fundamental article of faith stated in the Nicene creed: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him, all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” This belief is not disputed by any Christian community that maintains a tradition of apostolic succession from the original twelve disciples. This is what they believed, and this is what they taught. Throughout the letters they refer to Christ as "Lord" (in the Greek, "Kurios", Master, Authority -- a title also given frequently to God.).

John unabashedly states that Jesus is God. John was one of the twelve, often described as the “most beloved” apostle of Christ. Who would know better than John? An illiterate seventh century poet from a thousand miles away who converts from polytheistic paganism says Jesus could not be God. The man who was closest to him throughout his ministry, who took his mother as his own and cared for her for the rest of her life, says Jesus was God. This is not even a close call.

This is very difficult for Muslims to grasp, since from the cradle they are trained to think linearly and uncritically. They are immersed in a faith that is at time contradictory and makes little sense. This faith controls every aspect of their lives, right down to toilet habits. It does not allow for questions or independent thought, but blind, unthinking obedience. The penalty for not observing this obedience includes death. But Jesus was an intelligent man. He played word games to amuse himself, and spoke in riddles and metaphor to make his followers think. The Muslim response to a metaphor from Muhammad’s time is to take a sword and cleave it in two. Muhammad was too one-dimensional to think in symbolic terms, too controlling to let people figure the truth out for themselves, because it would be bad for him if the truth they found didn’t involve him as the center and spokesperson of God. Muslims today are faced with a dilemma of relating to a world where Western values dominate, and logic is required to function, yet they must maintain an intellectual blind spot with regard to faith, because one dare not peek behind the curtain. As a result, their arguments consist of ad hominem attacks, derision, often foul language and threats, and yet seem completely incapable of disassembling a logical argument. In the marketplace of ideas, they are bankrupt.

Intolerance of Islam

Why is it so impossible for Muslims to coexist peacefully with Christians?  Because Islam is threatened by Christianity.  Muslims know that the only reason Islam continues to exist is because it holds its slaves in fear, fear that to leave Islam is to invite the death penalty.  Islam keeps its slaves ignorant, feeding them from birth a diet of lies and twisted truths, teaching them to hate others- people who have little animosity towards Muslims.  Islam prevents its slaves from accessing the beliefs of Christianity, banning and disparaging the study of Bibles, for fear that the truth would expose the lie of Islam.  Islam hates non-Muslims and seeks to persecute them, to demonstrate to the Muslim masses that you cannot be a non-Muslim and be happy, lest the vast multitude of lip-service Muslims simply leave Islam.

If Islam adopted a more tolerant attitude, allowed people to worship their God as their conscience dictated without interference, promoted peace and recognized the brotherhood of man, acknowledged that a man's relationship with God is a personal matter between him and God alone, practiced that no person should be coerced to worship in a particular fashion. . . why inside of generation, Islam would virtually disappear from the face of the Earth!

Even with all of the totalitarian guards that Islam has erected to defend its ignorant theology, it is doomed, because you cannot keep the truth from so many people forever.  As more people see the truth and turn away from Islam, it will scream louder, become more strident, its lies will become more outrageous, and it will lash out in frustration at the enemy that seduces its faithful away with truth.  Instead of melting quietly away as it should, it will self-destruct in a paroxysm of violence, as Satan seeks to harvest his crop of souls before they return to the path of truth. We see that starting today.

How can the truth be defeated?  If the Muslim believes that Islam is the truth, they should put down their weapons and embrace the non-Muslim, the Jew.  Their truth will protect them and their beliefs.  They should be able to persuade the infidel to become a Muslim without fighting them or subduing them.  They should be able to prevent the apostate from leaving Islam by simply stating the truth to them.   Since Islam must constantly attack the infidel, since it must kill those who leave Islam, this demonstrates that their ideology is bankrupt, their truth is a sham, and that they must gain through violence and force what they cannot possibly do through reason.

The Death Penalty - a Proposed Alternative.

On Wednesday, March 9, 2011, at 1 p.m. Eastern Time, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed the Death Penalty Repeal bill into law, joining fifteen other states and the district of Columbia in not having the legal ability to execute heinous criminals.

This is one issue in which I have traditionally been squarely on the fence for most of my life, but I’m finally leaning towards abolishment.

The down side of the death penalty is the issue of innocence. Our criminal justice system is good, but not perfect. Not every defendant has the resources of OJ Simpson. Prosecutors have a political vested interest in securing convictions. A conviction means a case is closed, a crime is solved, the community is safer, justice is served, and most importantly the prosecutor is doing a good job and should be retained. This political environment has the potential to foster a climate where results count more than real justice, and an innocent man is sent to prison. Exoneration of convicts based on forensic DNA evidence demonstrates that this happens. That it happens even once is far too much. The cases in which a prisoner is released and cleared of charges get a lot of press. But you cannot release an innocent man who has been executed in accordance with the law!

Then there’s the issue of the cost. A death penalty conviction starts a process which is sufficiently drawn out that the convict stands a very good chance of dying of old age in prison before being executed. Appeals are expensive, time consuming and the justice system (i.e. John Q. Public) pays for the endless appeals and legal maneuverings of a convict who’s willing to grasp at every legal straw available to prolong his life.

On the flip side are the crimes in which the guilt of the accused is in no question, such as Jared Lee Loughner. There are crimes committed where the crime is so heinous, and the guilt of the accused is so well established, that one’s natural reaction is to kill the perp as quickly as possible. I don’t have a problem with this.

Many Christians base their objection on Biblical moral grounds, from the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus20:13, KJV). This is a misapprehension, based on a loose translation. The original Hebrew word used was רָצַח (ratsach), which more closely translates to “murder”. Indeed, the death penalty was a central tenet of ancient Hebrew justice. To say that the state cannot execute criminals based on biblical teachings is hypocrisy.

But from a purely philosophical standpoint, the idea that the State has the right -even the obligation -to execute its own citizens should disturb anyone, no matter what the crime of the citizen is.

Let’s think about the purpose of execution. From an emotional standpoint, execution is the ultimate revenge. You have harmed me beyond recompense and for that act you will pay with your life. Is it the role of the state to extract revenge? And what sort of revenge is it when it’s carried out sometimes decades after the crime, when the crime has become a distant memory and the general public doesn’t even remember the details of the crime? If it’s revenge we’re after, locking the condemned in a room with the victim’s family and a ready supply of baseball bats for 20 or 30 minutes seems more appropriate.

The death penalty isn’t an effective deterrent. People committing crimes do not consider the scope of punishments they may face for the crimes. The logical argument in favor of the death penalty is that the condemned is guilty of a crime so heinous that no punishment is adequate, that no rehabilitation is possible, and that the death penalty is an economic alternative to maintaining the condemned for life in prison. In effect, the condemned is too dangerous to release into society, and therefore it’s a preventive measure. The problem with this logic is that the cost to the state of executing a prisoner is often more than maintaining their life in prison.

But, states the death penalty advocate with a certain amount of justification, life in prison is an inadequate punishment for some egregious crimes, and represents leniency on the part of the state. Victims families will never reach closure knowing that the person who committed a heinous crime is drawing breath, warm and safe behind prison walls, getting three meals and a bed to sleep in every night, medical care, exercise, TV and access to prison occupation programs and “quality of life” perks. Can’t say I disagree. Some would argue that prison is a thoroughly unpleasant, stressful place, and that life in the joint is no bed of roses. I would contend that humans are sufficiently adaptable that they can adjust to almost anything, and a person facing life in prison can come to terms with it over time. Surviving the first few years will place the prisoner in a position in the social order of the prison that can be tolerated, at times even enjoyed.

I think there’s a middle road. Short of death, I propose there be a special classification of life imprisonment. Let’s call it “living death”. Upon conviction, you are condemned to die in prison. There is no possibility of parole. From the moment you begin serving your sentence, you will be considered dead for all intents and purposes. You will be declared legally dead for the purposes of settling your estate. You will have no contact with your family or loved ones. They might as well hold your funeral when you enter prison. Once the appeals process has run its course, you will have no further contact with legal representation. You will be allowed to access a minister of the religious denomination of your choice, but the minister will be chosen and trained by the department of corrections. Said ministers will not convey messages to and from outside your prison. You will have no access to any sort of media outside the prison, nor will you have any contact outside the prison. You will be housed alone in a 20x20 cell. Your meals will be provided to your cell with a 2000 calorie per day diet. You will keep your cell as clean and functional as you like – it’s your place to live for the rest of your life. If you destroy property, it will not be replaced. The “death row” block will be subject to periodic inspection to ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse beyond the scope of their incarceration. Prisoners will receive necessary medications and annual health checks, but no major medical intervention in the event of serious illness or conditions. The state has no interest in prolonging your life by artificial means. No one will be notified when you have lived out your natural life and died. You will be cremated on site.

This should satisfy the death penalty opponents who abhor the idea of killing a man, no matter the crime, and should satisfy the death penalty advocates by removing the criminal from society as effectively as execution and not providing him with a comfortable living or any sort of social support so desperately important for humans.

This is the harshest punishment I can imagine without becoming inhumane. The state has no interest in spending resources in making the life of the criminal miserable. Neither does the stat have an interest in making the life of the “death row” prisoner comfortable. The prisoner must be satisfied with the fact that the only reason we don’t kill him is he’s not worth the expense. And in the very unlikely event that it’s discovered that a prisoner was found to be wrongly convicted, we can always retrieve them from the abyss of the “death row” prison system and return him to freedom.

How the Pacific Northwest Should Prepare for the Cascadia Tsunami

In the wake of last months Tsunami disaster in Japan, people in the Pacific Northwest have a renewed interest in the possibility of a similar disaster happening here.  I mis-speak.  It is not a possibility of happening in the Northwest, it’s a certainty.  The only question is, when?

Sitting 90 miles of the coast of Oregon and Washington is the Cascadia subduction zone, where the Juan de Fuca plate dives under the North American plate.  This fault has a geologic history of producing megathrust earthquakes like clockwork, every 300-600 years.  The last such earthquake took place on January 26, 1700.  We have just entered the window of danger.

When Cascadia cuts loose again, residents and visitors along the coast will have at most 15 minutes to seek high ground before the first tsunami waves arrive.

Unlike Japan, there are no major metropolitan centers located on the coast of Washington and Oregon.  In most places the coastal range plunges steeply into the sea, limiting the amount of damage that a tsunami can do.  But there are low lying sea side communities.  The one that gets the most attention is usually the community of Seaside, on Cannon Beach.  This popular weekend destination for Portland inhabitants is fully aware that it’s in the crosshairs of Cascadia, and tsunami evacuation routes are very plainly marked.  Fortunately, most of Cannon beach is within a mile of high ground, and any healthy person should be able to make it to safety on foot.

Unfortunately, there are other, more vulnerable communities than Seaside.  In Washington, Long Beach, Westport and Ocean Shores are three communities which will be erased from the map by a tsunami.  These communities have no high ground in easy walking distance, and very limited routes of access and evacuation.  The loss of life in these communities could easily be as high as 90%. 

Studies are underway to engineer vertical evacuation routes.  The idea is to literally build emergency buildings high enough and robust enough to withstand a tsunami.  This idea is a fallacy and would be a stupendous waste of money and resources for very little benefit.  For one thing, there is no way to know if such a structure could actually stand up to a tsunami after having weathered a severe earthquake.  There is only so much that modeling can do to predict how a building will behave in such an event.  The other problem with this plan is one of sheer logistics.  How can you get everyone to reach said building, and inside to a safe level, in the limited amount of time available? 

Let’s look at facts:  When this happens, people are going to do stupid things.  Many people are going to try to evacuate by car.  This will cause tremendous traffic jams, and traffic will not move.  Many people will not know what to do.  There will be injured people unable to move, buried in collapsed houses.  Streets will be filled with refugees heading for high ground, but there will always be some idiot who lost a family member going the wrong way.

If you have a vertical evacuation facility, how many people know where it’s at?  It’s easy to get to high ground when hills are available – you just pick a direction and go as fast as you can.  But with everyone attempting to converge on a single building, there will be mobs as people fight to get in first.  The entrances will be jammed.  People are going to be trampled, and many will die waiting to get in when the first wave comes.

Without such a facility, people in communities with no high ground handy should grab hold of a loved one and make their peace with God, because they’re going to die.  With such a facility, there’s still a high probability they won’t be able to reach it, or having reached it, they won’t be able to get in because of the crowd.

There is a better solution.  Tsunami pods.

I envision a tsunami pod as similar to the lifeboat on an oil rig.  These lifeboats are self-contained.  You get in them; you strap in and release them.  They ride down rails and literally plunge into the sea, submerging completely.  They’re shaped so that the plunge will carry them underwater quite a distance before they pop back to the surface.

Now we don’t need anything that fancy for a tsunami pod.  What we need is something that will float, stay more or less upright, is watertight, submersible, and built strongly enough that it can withstand crush pressures caused when it’s swept up in a debris flow and pushed and battered along the path of the Tsunami.  It could be as small as a single person, or maybe even as large as a rail car – in fact, rail tanker cars may make a good hull for such a pod.  There should be restraints for occupants, because it’s going to be a rough ride. 

Working on a basic, simple design, these tsunami pods could be mass produced and distributed throughout population centers and at-risk tourist areas.  In the event of a major earthquake – and when Cascadia cuts loose, people on the coast will have no doubt in their mind – you make your way to the nearest tsunami pod and get in.  Everyone gets in and straps themselves in, and the last guy closes the hatch either when the pod is full or when the water starts to rise.

Notices in the pods will clearly instruct occupants to stay in the pod for at least 6 hours.  There will be multiple waves, and the first one may not be the biggest.  After 6 hours, all pods will activate an emergency homing beacon, so that search and rescue teams can find them.  Some pods will be buried in debris.  Others will be washed out to sea and be floating off the coast.  But the beauty of this system is that most people in these pods will be bruised, battered, but alive!  You could build a huge number of these pods for the price of a single vertical evacuation facility. 

In terms of investment for life saved, this is a far better way to prepare for the coming tsunami.

The next Mega Earthquake

Living in the Pacific Northwest, it’s impossible for me not to witness the destruction wrought by the Indian Ocean Earthquake and the more recent Japanese Earthquake and not think about the monster lurking just off my own coast. 

Subduction zone earthquakes represent a tremendous threat.  They tend to be very powerful, and since all subduction zones are undersea, they almost invariably spawn tremendous tsunamis.  Most of the subduction zones are around the Pacific ring of fire, as the continental plates slowly press the Pacific Ocean into a smaller and smaller area. 

One of the geologically most violent subduction zone faults is the Cascadia fault, where the diminutive Juan de Fuca plate dives under the North American plate 90 miles off the shore of Oregon and Washington.  The geologic record of this fault shows that it ruptures every 300 to 600 years.  We know that the last time this fault ruptured was January 26, 1700.  East coast Japanese cities record a tsunami on that date, which was not accompanied by an earthquake.  Analysis of trees killed by coastal subsidence confirms that the last growing season they had was 1699.

Inhabitants of the Northwest are blithely complacent of this threat for the most part, because the earliest settlements by Europeans was a scant two hundred years ago, when Jacob Astor founded Astoria in 1811.

In the years since the Indian Ocean Mega thrust quake, the Discovery channel has generated some significant ratings by inflating the threat that such a quake poses to the Pacific Northwest.  The premise is that the Cascadia fault will generate a 9.0 quake and that the fault will rupture all along its thousand mile length.  They then extrapolate what a 9.0 Earthquake would do to the local cities in the Northwest, along what we locals recognize as the I-5 corridor.  The video footage was shocking, buildings flattened, people running for their lives, infrastructure destroyed.

Consequently, a lot of angst has built up as residents of Portland and the Seattle metro area all the way to Vancouver BC contemplate their beautiful cities ruined by a 9.0 earthquake. Sadly, none of it has anything to do with reality.

This always seemed to ring kind of hollow to me.  I was in the big Philippine earthquake in 1990, when an 7.8 near Cabanatuan cut loose and nearly destroyed Baguio City.  I was less than 100 miles from the epicenter, and what we experienced was about a 4.5 to a 5.0 – strong, but no real damage.  I’ve said for a long time that the 9.0 off the coast of Oregon would not trash Portland, and I’ve received a lot of derision for my position.  I guess people enjoy being scared.  So I did some research, and the numbers are on my side.

The formula that relates Earthquake magnitude to ground motion is a =1300*(e^0.67*M)*(D+25)^-1.6 where a is acceleration in cm/sec², M is the earthquake magnitude and D is the distance in kilometers.  For those of you wanting to follow along with your own spreadsheets, in excel this is:

=1300*(EXP(0.67*B2))*((C2+25)^-1.6)  

Where B2 is the cell with Magnitude and C2 is the cell with distance.

We can then convert this acceleration to g units, so we can relate it to the Mercalli earthquake scale.  We do this by dividing the acceleration by 980.

Now, if we plot this in magnitude vs distance we get a graph that looks like this:

Note that the Y axis is plotted logarithmically.  This makes sense, because the intensity falls off exponentially as a function of distance.  I imposed the Mercalli definition points over this.  By the Mercalli scale, you don’t start seeing substantial damage until it reaches VII or VIII.  If we examine the 9.0 curve, we see that the maximum distance for any sort of substantial damage is about 120 km, which would be well short of the I-5 corridor.  At this distance, the effect would be the same as standing at the epicenter of a 5.0 scale earthquake.  Note, however, that this chart doesn’t take into consideration geologic conductivity or soil composition.  Liquefaction of loose soils may extend the radius of destruction beyond what is described here.

We’re so used to news stories that deal with the damage that can be done by a 6.0 Earthquake.  It is kind of scary, but we have to remember that in the news industry, bad news is good news.  A 6.0 earthquake plays well when you can get footage of houses collapsed and thrown off their foundations, bridges destroyed, etc.  What the news doesn’t show you is that 5 miles away, they put everything back on the shelves of the stores and life continued more or less as usual.

Standing in downtown Portland when the Cascadia fault ruptures will be about like being 10 miles away from the epicenter of a 5.0 Earthquake.  It will wake you up, but you won’t have to dodge falling buildings.

The real threat of Cascadia is the tsunami it will generate.  That will devastate the Coast, but fortunately there are no metropolitan centers in the extreme danger zone for such an event.  There are ways to prepare for disaster on the coast to save lives.

Why I Follow the Bible

In a recent conversation, a Muslim asked me why I follow the Bible, a collection of "historical books written by human beings." You see, since the Bible directly contradicts much of what the Quran says, the Muslim party line is that the Bible is corrupt, and the Quran is the only valid word of God ( I have addressed this elsewhere). I amply demonstrated that every criticism she made of the Bible was true tenfold for the Quran. I felt that her question was simply an attempt to draw attention away from the embarrassment that the Quran is to Islam, but she returned with, "Forget that I am Muslim. and give me your answer?"

 Ah, heck, might as well go on record. . . .so this was my answer to her.  Part of the reason I acquiesced and did this is that most Muslims are dismally ignorant of the Bible and what it contains.  They relate it to their Quran, which lacks a narrative or a cohesive theme.  The Quran is just a mishmash of disconnected stories, anecdotes, directives and sayings, and the Muslims are under the false assumption that the Bible is similar in format and content.  It is not.

The Bible is the historical account of the development of the relationship between man and God. It was written by eyewitnesses, prophets, Kings and scholars. It begins with the lessons of Genesis (God Created the universe and Man. Man sinned and through sin, separated himself from God), to the contract established with Abraham ( My covenant is with you, And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations). It tells of the tribes of Israel enslaved in Egypt, and God leading them out of enslavement to establish them in the promised land. It tells of how the descendants of Abraham lacked faith and turned to false idols, and so God kept them in the desert until all the adults who had fled Egypt were dead except the two whose faith never wavered. It tells of the conquest of the promised land, driving out those who worshiped false gods, and the establishment of a new Nation of Israel, with no government but faith in their God. It tells of the laws that God gave to that nation to prevent their faith in God from becoming contaminated by false beliefs. It tells of the people declaring that they want a king like other nations, and God warning them of the dangers that would entail, and then giving them their king, who went on to establish a great Israelite empire. It tells of the generations that followed, who prospered when they followed the ways of the Lord, and did poorly when they forgot the Lord and turned to false gods. It tells of a nation chastised by it's hubris and lack of faith, ten of the twelve tribes removed from history, and the remaining two led into bondage in a foreign land. It tells of their triumphant return and the rebuilding of the temple when they returned to God.

This and more is all contained in the books of the Old Testament. It's a history, and a repository of literary masterpieces of Jewish culture - songs and poetry and philosophy, all of which derives from God and faith in God. It's a recipe for success, and a cautionary tale told by those who failed to learn their lessons and suffered the consequences. It's also the reference book that establishes the context of the law, the faith, the culture and the beliefs of the people among whom Jesus walked.

When the time was ripe, God chose to demonstrate that his commitment to the contract with Abraham was as strong as was Abraham's. Abraham proved willing in act to sacrifice his only legitimate son - the heir he wanted all his life - to show that nothing was more important than God. How could God do less?

The New Testament is the accounts of eyewitnesses who walked with Jesus, ate with him, listened to him. They relate what they felt was important for posterity. Like Islam, their traditions were oral, until the second temple was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans, and they realized that they needed a permanent way to record their experiences so they could tell other generations what happened even from the grave. So they wrote what they remembered, told the stories of their experiences with Jesus, and as much of his actual words as they could remember. They included a detailed account of what they did after Jesus ascended to heaven, how they spread their "Good News" (Gospel, in Greek. Injeel in Arabic), beyond Jerusalem to communities throughout the known world. They included letters written to the various communities that address questions of faith that those communities had.

But the Bible is not the sole, unsupported point of reference to the Christian faithful. For John said "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written." (John 21:25) So we not only look to the Book, we look to the traditions, how the earliest followers of Jesus practiced their faith, handed down through generations by those that they taught and who emulated them. We have copious written records of these traditions which are not part of the Bible, but are part of the history of the Christian church, because the Early Christians were a chatty bunch, and prone to write frequently and exchange and compare notes. Indeed, they enjoyed quoting the Bible in their correspondence, and if we were to assemble fragments of scripture from all the letters written in the first two or three centuries, we would be able to paste together the complete New Testament except for about 11 verses.

Moreover we know how these people lived and acted, and frequently died. They converted whole nations without lifting a single sword. They frequently died for their faith, and did so without fighting back, for Jesus said "Love your neighbor," and "Those that live by the sword shall die by the sword."

I follow the Bible because that's the surviving account handed down for two thousand years by those who witnessed it of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross. Muslims deny this. That sacrifice was a symbolic sin offering, which you would understand if you read the Old Testament and understood Jewish culture. It was a closing of the circle of the covenant with Abraham, demonstrating that God would actually sacrifice his son to show that nothing - no sin - is greater than his love for us. And it was an incontrovertible, public display of power, because it opened the door for Jesus to demonstrate that he had the power over even his own death: "“For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” John 10:17-18. His resurrection is the greatest of all miracles. Everyone saw him die a public and humiliating death, so there was no question of what had happened when multitudes saw him and heard him teach later.

I follow the Bible, because it's truth spoken by honest men. They wrote what they saw, even when they didn't understand it. These men were terrified, beaten down, their faith shaken after the crucifixion. By any measure the Jesus cult should have died a quiet death after he was gone, as his followers were pushed to the fringe and the new generation scoffed at them for their ridiculous claims. What was it that put steel into them, convinced them so thoroughly that they cheerfully and frequently accepted death in Jesus' name? Something momentous convinced them of who Jesus was so effectively that they could no more deny it than they could stop breathing. The only thing that could have done this was encountering a man you incontrovertibly saw die - a man you buried - talk to you, walk with you, eat with you.

The Bible is a consistent story. It's an epic plot that spanned thousands of years. It's not a random collection of pithy sayings and self-serving anecdotes. It's living history, told by the people who were there.

Christians and the Old Testament Law

When discussing religion with a Muslim, one of the common tactics you will encounter is the Red Herring fallacy, wherein a Muslim will attack the Christian’s beliefs in order to demonstrate the validity of Islam.  What a Christian believes, or how he practices that belief is irrelevant to the question of whether Islam is the inspired word of God or the insane mumblings of a paranoid schizophrenic with a god complex.  Nevertheless, when debating a Muslim, you will be charged to defend your own beliefs and practices.  This does two things for the Muslim – It places you on the defensive, thus removing the requirement for them to not answer uncomfortable questions about Islam which they’re not prepared to answer, and it attempts to cast doubt upon your moral authority to cast judgment on Islam. 

The moral authority is a logical fallacy – any Muslim should be proud to use such a discussion as an opportunity to instruct the infidel in the ways of Islam and demonstrate why the infidel’s logic is in error.  But they do not do this, they shy away from such opportunities the way roaches run from the light.  This implies that they are afraid of what the harsh light of reason will do to their cult beliefs. 

As far as being on the defensive, no Christian should be afraid of this, and should be well-armed to easily defend the Christian faith and turn to use it to demonstrate the fallacies of Islam.  The advantage the Christian has here is that most Muslims have not read the Bible, and anything they know about the Bible is normally from Islamic apologetic websites, taken out of context and presented with editorializations that twist the meaning of the simple truth.  Twisting the truth to be something other than what it is, this is Satan’s strength.  Witnessing the truth in context is normally all that’s required to reveal such lies.

In a recent debate with a Muslim, A Muslim attempted to turn the discussion away from uncomfortable questions I was asking about Islam with the irrelevant question, “So who gave you right that don`t [sic] follow Old Testament??”  The following is my answer.

Christ is the embodiment of the law.  The Old Testament Law was written for the nation of Israel to follow in the way of the Lord.  It was also very very difficult to keep to that law, which demonstrated the need for Salvation through Christ.  In Paul's letter to the Galatians we see (Gal 3:23-29):

Now before faith came we were held in custody under the law, being kept as prisoners until the coming faith would be revealed. Thus the law had become our guardian until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise.

Christ's law is simple.  The Law given unto Moses was very detailed, given as if to a small child of what one can do and what one cannot do.  Christ's law was a law for the thinking man, a law that discards the zero tolerance of the Old Testament and allows men to understand the concept behind the law, so they can apply it without having to know the specifics.  (Matthew 22:36-40):

“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” Jesus said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

Indeed, on more than one occasion, Jesus reminded us that the law is an ass, that the law was made for man, not man for the law (Mark 2:23-28):

 Jesus was going through the grain fields on a Sabbath, and his disciples began to pick some heads of wheat as they made their way. So the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is against the law on the Sabbath?” He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry – how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the sacred bread, which is against the law for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to his companions?” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath. For this reason the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

And Mark 7:14-15 (This chapter has a very lengthy condemnation of people who live by the letter of the law and do not observe the spirit of the law, which I won't repeat here because of space.  I strongly encourage you to read it for yourself):

Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand. There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles him.”

In the early church there was a serious question of whether Gentiles needed to become circumsized to become a Christian.  This was answered by the closest followers who knew Christ the best, and showed that the Law of the Old Testament had some common sense injected into it by Christ.  There are several examples of this to the Romans, Corinthians,  Galatians & Colossians.  I quote here from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, 7:18-19:

Was anyone called after he had been circumcised? He should not try to undo his circumcision. Was anyone called who is uncircumcised? He should not get circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Instead, keeping God’s commandments is what counts.

In Paul's letter to the Romans is a repeat of the answer to this question (Romans 10:4-9):

For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes.  For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the law: “The one who does these things will live by them.”  But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down)  or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).  But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach),  because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Finally, in Ephesians, we see that the law of commandments in decrees was nullified by Christ's sacrifice on the cross: Ephesians 2:13-16.

But now in Christ Jesus you who used to be far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace, and to reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by which the hostility has been killed.

Christians are under the spirit of the Old Testament Law in principle, but have been given the grace through the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross to apply that law humanely, with common sense, in recognition that the law serves Man, not Man the law.

Birthright Citizenship (A.K.A. Anchor Babies)

In a recent CNN editorial, representative Mike Honda made the case for birthright citizenship, i.e. he supported the premise that simply by virtue of being born in America, a child is automatically considered an American citizen.

The very title of this article is typical of the tactics of the left.  Not enough to state the premise that Babies born in the U.S. are Citizens – a premise that was very weakly supported by the article itself – no, the title has to preface itself with “Constitution 101.”  As if to imply that if you don’t accept this premise, then your knowledge of the constitution is obviously sub-par.  This sort of debate tactic detracts from the dialog by being dismissive of the point of view of anyone who has the audacity to disagree with the left.  In such a climate, no meaningful dialog can take place.

The opening statement asserts that this issue clouds the debate.  No, congressman, it does not cloud the debate, it’s one of the central issues to be debated. 

At the risk of being redundant, the text of the 14^th amendment states, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

The congressman then accuses the Republicans of redefining the clause, and assembles a nice straw man argument about what the Republicans propose.  The rest of the editorial is devoted to demolishing this straw man, and is therefore mostly irrelevant, except for one statement that bears discussion: “Any deportation plan of America's undocumented immigrants would cost our country's gross domestic product $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years. . .  if we embrace comprehensive immigration reform, we add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product over the next 10 years.”

Notwithstanding that the esteemed congressman is pretty much pulling fuzzy numbers out of thin air with the support of a single academic, he makes an assumption that is often central to the left’s position regarding immigration reform:  How on earth will we deport these people?  How will we do it humanely?  And how would we pay for such an operation that would eclipse the Nazi deportation of Jews from German occupied Europe?  (nice imagery, suggesting that deporting illegals from the US is akin to sending them to concentration camps, gas chambers and ovens.  How inhumane!).

This is a non-issue.  People come to this country illegally for a reason.  Remove those reasons, and you don’t have to round them up and deport them.  They will self-deport, at no cost to the US taxpayer.  Make it illegal to provide public services to illegal aliens – this includes welfare, food stamps, child care services, education, free medical services, driver’s licenses.  Attempts to procure these services should result in a phone call to the INS.  Emergency medical care should be provided, but if the patient cannot prove their immigration status upon request, the INS should be notified.  Employers need to be held accountable for ensuring they do not hire undocumented workers, and fined a minimum of $100,000 per worker per year if they are caught employing illegal aliens.  This will remove the financial incentive to exploit a pool of cheap labor.  Landlords should be similarly fined for providing housing to illegals.

With no place to live, no work, and no freebies, the desire to be in America will disappear, and the advantages of working within the legal immigration system will become attractive. 

The left will argue that it’s an unnecessary burden to require people to carry proof of citizenship at all times.  This is hogwash.  I am the child of an immigrant, and I know for a fact that persons visiting this country are required by law to carry proof of their immigration status with them at all times.  My mother was never far from her green card.  Neither was my wife before she became a citizen.  No one, except possibly our esteemed Commander-in-Chief, should have a problem acquiring a copy of their birth certificate.  This is required to obtain a passport, or to enlist in the US military.  This argument also assumes that people in a position to question a person’s immigration status are complete morons and can’t tell when someone’s accent, dress or customs scream “foreigner!”

I would also like to point out that one of the conditions for obtaining a visa to this country is that the petitioner have a sponsor who is obligated to support and provide for the visa holder if necessary so that they do not become a burden on society during their stay here.

Congressman Honda correctly states that the 14th Amendment was part of a set that ended slavery, guaranteed equal protection, and provided all Americans with the right to vote.  Therein we need to examine original intent and understand what the words say.  The intent of this clause was to codify the citizenship status of freed black slaves in the USA.  Born here, but not recognized as American citizens, they obviously knew no other country, and owed no allegiance to any other flag.  This amendment quite properly defined them as citizens by virtue of their birth.  But the key phrase is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

How is one subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when they have sneaked into the country in violation of that country’s laws, and are living “off the grid?”  Their actions themselves show an express desire to avoid the jurisdiction of the United States.  Further, as citizens of another country, they have at their avail the consular services of their mother country, and certain limited diplomatic protections afforded to visitors to this country.  This implies that they’re subject to the jurisdiction of their mother country, as well as the laws of the country they happen to be in at the moment.  These are not stateless persons who require constitutional protection to guarantee their citizenship.  They are expressly citizens of their home countries, and therefore fall outside of the intended category of stateless persons that the 14^th amendment addressed.  For this reason, the whole idea of American Citizens being born to non-citizens who have flaunted the immigration laws of the U.S. should be a null issue.

Of course, the Democratic party champions the rights of illegal immigrants.  Illegal immigrants typically come from the lowest income levels of society, in their home country and here in the U.S.  They are the ones most likely to avail themselves of public assistance, and do not have a moral or ethical reservation about feeding from the public trough, as more conservative citizens do.  By virtue of their nebulous immigration status, they harbor no aspirations to succeed in business and realize the American dream of self-sufficiency and independence.  Their motivation seems to be to get as much as they can while the getting is good, and send as much as possible to help support their families in their mother country.  In this regard, they are the penultimate liberal democrat voting demographic.  Indeed, one could say that illegal aliens are undocumented Democrats.  Of course Congressman Honda is going to be an advocate for them.  They’re his base.

But they’re not Americans.

Respected Journal Publishes ESP results

Daryl J. Bem, an emeritus professor at Cornell, has published a paper on ESP in the The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that’s causing a lot of controversy.  See the NY Times article.

Now, from the article alone, I can’t conclusively identify possible sources of error in his experiments, but I do have questions about the results.  The human mind is a strange thing, and operates on patterns that might lead one to think that something extraordinary its going on.

Before I get into my own experience, I want to discuss how patterns of thought manifest themselves in human endeavor.  I'm sure we've all sat in those interminable literature classes, and listened to the teacher wax philosophical about the hidden meanings and allegories  inside the stories we've been forced to read, how the author strove to insert symbolism and metaphor into the story elements that lent themselves to microcosms of the greater story.

As an aspiring author myself, I'm here to tell you it's all a load of crap.  The author likely never gave these things a single thought, and most certainly would be surprised to hear how the teacher carries on about the hidden meanings and symbology.  He or she was just trying to spin a good yarn.  The fact that all of these metaphors crept into the storyline just illustrates how the human mind works and thinks in patterns. In one of my stories that's being developed I have a perfectly innocent object that's manipulated by a couple of the main characters, and a reader saw it as a metaphor for how the one character is manipulating the very soul of the other.  Well, shucks, I sure never meant that, but by golly you're right!  Cool!

My point is that you have to discount seeming coincidences when patterns of thought are at play if you're trying to analyze results of human behavior.  Back to my ESP story:

I once did an experiment in ESP that convinced me that there was something to it.  I’m not submitting it for peer review, because there was no objective oversight, and too many ways that a critic could say that the results were compromised, and I have no objective evidence to refute such criticism.  All I can say is that the test was designed to be double-blind, we did our best to make it a clean test, and any source of contamination of the results was thrown out.  In fact, in one run of the test, the result was compromised, and I discarded that data as useless.  But we did have one good run that made me a believer that there was something to this.

This was in the mid to late seventies.  I had a clock radio, which I typically left on at night, playing very softly, almost inaudibly, on the local pop station.  Our experiment was designed like this:

On a set night, I would go to bed a little early, and try to be asleep by a set time.  Sometime after that time, my friend, some miles away, would concentrate on trying to contact me telepathically, and insert a telepathic suggestion that I would come awake when I heard a particular song on the radio.  The actual song was not agreed upon in advance, I would have no idea what it would be, except that it would be one that was currently popular, so as to be sure that it would be played sometime in the night.  If I awakened in the night, I would write down the name of whatever song was playing at the time, and present that to my partner, who would also have written down the song he selected.

We only did three or four runs of the trial.  One time the result was contaminated because my partner didn’t understand the protocol and told me what song he would use.  The other times, there were issues of when the receiving subject actually went to bed, etc that made the results garbage.  Other subjects weren’t comfortable with sleeping with music playing in the room, as I was.  What made me a believer was the experience I had on the one successful run we had of this trial.  I was the receiving subject and was in bed and asleep at the appointed time.  The radio was playing softly across the room, almost inaudible to me.  I had no idea what song was to be my “trigger”.

At about 3:20 am, I was dreaming, when suddenly the opening fanfare of the theme from Star Wars crashed through my dream like a mac truck.  It sounded loud, like it was being played at full volume, and it cut through my sleep and jerked me instantly awake, fully and alertly awake, not a groggy, fuzzy awake.  I was a fan of Star Wars, even owned the album so it wasn’t unpleasant.  I sat up in bed and looked at the clock, noting the time, and realized that I could barely hear the music, it was nowhere as loud as in my dream, certainly not loud enough to wake me the way it had.  And I had come instantly awake from the very first note, from what had felt like a deep, dream-filled sleep. By all rights, there was no reason I shouldn’t have just slept through it.

The next day we exchanged double-blind notes of what song had been selected, and they matched up.  He had sent me a message to wake when I heard the Star Wars theme.  Could I have simply wakened because I heard a song I liked?  Possibly, but unlikely.  Remember, I habitually slept with the radio on, and the Star Wars theme was quite popular, yet it had never wakened me before or since (I no longer have this habit, of course).  It was the clarity of the event, the sharp transition - almost urgency - from sleep to wakefulness that impressed me.

Recently I read a philosophical postulate that suggested that reality is a hologram that’s formed by the collective consciousness of everyone, and that time is just a point of observation within that hologram that keeps shifting.  If you accept this model, then the hologram exists in all temporal states simultaneously, and is in fact dependent on the data of other states to inform the given state you have to be observing at the moment.  This model suggests that precognition, ESP, etc is just learning to game the hologram and either be aware of other vantage points in the matrix, or actually alter the data that makes up the hologram.  But that’s a subject for another discussion.

Now, take the blue pill and return to your regularly scheduled hallucination.

Just say NO to the TSA!

New Transportation Safety Agency rules require all passengers to be scanned with the full body scanner (known by the operators as the “dick-measuring device”) prior to boarding a commercial airplane.  The alternative to doing so is an intrusive manual pat-down which will not exempt your private parts. 

This violation of your personal privacy is a direct assault on the Fourth Amendment, which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Let’s review that. . . “The right of the people to be secure in their persons. . .  against unreasonable searches. . .  shall not be violated.

This is an unreasonable search.  This intrusion of privacy would result in criminal charges if any citizen engaged in such behavior.  The government has no special exemption with regards to civil or criminal behavior.  In performing this search, the government does not have probable cause – boarding a commercial aircraft does not constitute probable cause.  TSA does not have a blanket search warrant to engage in such searches – such a warrant would be unconstitutional because of a lack of specificity.

The only reason the TSA gets away with this is because people let them.  The next time you book a flight, tell your boss that you may not make the flight if TSA interferes.  Stand up for your rights, and deny the TSA their unconstitutional search.  Demand that the airline reimburse you if you miss your flight.  Do your best to cost the airline as much money as possible over this.  Tell your friends to do the same.  Go through your TEA party connections if you have them and tell all freedom loving Americans that we’ve had enough!  I would feel much safer on an airplane if they issued every able-bodied male a snub nose .38 with a load of rubber bullets and dispensed with all this useless hand-waving over screening passengers. 

If even 50% of people flatly refused to submit to such a search and stood their ground against government bullies, this nonsense would stop in a New York Minute.

I will be traveling on business in late January.  Are there any lawyers that want to represent me when I collide with the TSA, assuming they’re still pulling this BS?

Response from the TEA Party - We've Been Angry for Awhile.

There's a piece of liberal dreck making the rounds in the leftist blogs called Message to the TEA Party, what took you so long to get Mad? Maybe it's my penchant for tilting at windmills, but I can't let this pass silently.  Below, I respond point by point to this nonsense.

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.  
No, I didn't, because I recognized that we couldn't keep counting votes for four years or until the Democrat won.  The fact is that NO recount ever showed a win for Gore.  The Supreme Court merely stepped in and acted a s a responsible adult.  The outcome wouldn't have changed, so what's your point?  I did get mad when Military absentee ballots weren't counted and polling places were closed early in the Republican panhandle area. 

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate Energy policy and push us to invade Iraq .
As I recall, the resolution to invade Iraq was a Bipartisan vote.  Even John Kerry voted for it.  Go figure.  I wasn't sure that it was a great idea at the time.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
Valerie Plame was not an active operative, and "outing" her had a net result of zero.  This whole thing was much ado about nothing - this coming from a group of people who see nothing wrong with the actions of Daniel Ellsberg, which amounted to high treason, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.  People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
No, I got disgusted.  Still am.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.   You didn't get mad when we spent over 800 billion (and counting) on said illegal war. 
There was nothing illegal about it, it was authorized by the United States congress in a bipartisan vote.  The Saddam Hussein regime was a well known supporter of international terrorism, and posed a clear and present danger to the international community in general, and to his on citizens in particular.  Those are the facts, and all the revisionist history you heap on it doesn't change a thing.

You didn't get mad when Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined.
Yes, I did, and I got furious when Barack Obama borrowed more money than the previous 43 presidents combined!

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars in cash just disappeared in Iraq.  
Yes, I did, and I got furious when 750 billion dollars just disappeared in the good old US of A in the name of hope and change.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.   
No, I didn't, not in the least, because I don't equate pranks that amount to a college hazing and making some barbarian think he might drown as equal to maiming people, pulling out teeth and fingernails, amputation of digits, and beheading - all of which are practiced by our enemy.  Aggressive interrogation does not equal torture, you idiot.

You didn't get mad when Bush embraced trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country.
That's a pretty general statement.  Which policies, specifically?  Would that be the policies that support the labor unions which ensure that the American worker cannot compete on the basis of cost?  The punitive corporate tax laws that make the USA one of the most expensive countries in the world to manufacture in? Or the protectionist policies that ultimately limit our ability to export?  Get real, companies are going to go where it's economical to manufacture.  Soon enough investment will raise the standard of living in these other countries, and the jobs will return here, because it will make no sense to build there.  In the meantime, we're building a bigger customer base.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.   
I wasn't wiretapped.  Were you?  Wiretaps were placed on calls which were going outside the country - generally to locations know to be rife with our enemies.  This is called gathering intelligence.  The average American was not being tapped on calls that originated and terminated in the US.  Get over it, whiner.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
Yes, I did and I still am.  Didn't your messiah promise to make this a priority?

You didn't get mad when Bush rang up 10 trillion dollars in combined budget and current account deficits.  
That's a made up number and we both know it.  Obama makes Bush look like a model of fiscal responsibility.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed. 
Yeah, I did.  Has Obama fixed that?  I hadn't noticed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans drown. 
The president could do nothing until the Democratic governor of Louisiana asked for federal Assistance - which he did not do until way too late.  Like you could have stopped Katrina and prevented the flooding anyway. 

You didn't get mad when we gave people who had more money than they could spend, the filthy rich, over a trillion dollars in taxbreaks. You didn't get mad with the worst 8 years of job creations in several decades. 
As I recall, everyone got a tax break.  What is to you if a rich person gets a break?  It's not your money, and you don't have to make up the deficit.  You don't get poorer because that person is rich.  And you don't employ anyone.  The rich person does.  A "rich" person probably employs you.  And the rich bear the brunt of the tax burden in this country anyway.  So, no, I didn't get mad.

You didn't get mad when over 200,000 US Citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance. 
No, they lost their lives because they were sick. Our hospitals are clogged with illegal aliens receiving health care and not paying for it.  As long as illegals can get health care for free, your boo-hooing about people lacking health insurance doesn't impress me.

You didn't get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused US Citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement, and home values.   
The Bush administration and Senator John McCain both warned of the dangers of the housing bubble and runaway credit extensions that were unsupported by any real wealth, and they were shouted down in the democrat controlled congress.  The banking fiasco originated in a Democrat community reinvestment act, and was overseen by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.  Top campaign contributions from Fanny Mae went to Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama. See my earlier discussion of this mess.

No.....You finally got mad

When a black man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.
No, I got mad when a bearded, self-professed socialist who flatly stated that he wants to take my wealth and "spread it around" was elected to the highest seat in the nation.  I got mad that when this man was asked to present his bonafides for eligibility, he not only refused to do so, but spent millions of dollars to block any attempt to independently verify same.  I got mad when the uneducated plebes of this nation discovered that they could vote themselves health care from the public treasury, and did so without regard to the sustainability or wisdom of doing so, in spite of more than two centuries of evidence that the government is incapable of doing anything within budget.

Anonymous author, the TEA Party members have been angry for awhile - we've watched ove rthe last eighty years as the constitution was relegated to irrelevancy bit by bit.  But unlike your lefty colleagues, the TEA party is mostly working class stiffs who don't have the luxury of ditching class to demonstrate against a perceived injustice.  We're the folks who make America work, who are usually too tired at the end of the day to even turn on the TV.  We don't do telethons, we just give quietly at church every Sunday.  We're typically not loudmouths or rabble-rousers, and don't subscribe to whatever "cause" is chic at the moment.  We've been uneasy for years over what you have been doing to the foundation of this country, but we've had faith that the country could take it, as long as you at least paid lip service to the constitution.  But this latest power grab over a huge part of the US economy, potentially interfering with one of the best medical industries in the world, with congress "deeming" that a bill has passed without even bringing it to a floor vote, is not the sort of thing we're ready to sit still for.  The government is out of control, printing and spending money that it doesn't have, indebting our grandchildren with a ruinous debt, and devaluing the dollar to the point that even the Chinese are thinking twice about buying more of our debt.  This is more a democrat problem than a republican one, but both parties are complicit, and it's time for the government to recognize that THE GOVERNMENT WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE.


We'll do it at the ballot box, hopefully.  If that doesn't work, keep making us mad, we'll do it with guns eventually.

Open letter to the Christian contemplating converting to Islam

It appears to me that you were not taught about your Christian faith very well, and that you have not examined Islam very thoroughly.  Islam denies the death of Christ on the cross and his resurrection (Quran 4:157).  Without the crucifixion and resurrection, then Jesus becomes nothing more than one of many itinerant preachers claiming to be the messiah.

The key to breaking Satan's power in the world is through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Satan's only hope of recovery is to deny and to  convince people that the crucifixion never happened.

Islam will tell you that the Christian view of God is weak because he allowed his son to die an ignominious death.  This is because Islam is a religion that deals only with immediate outward appearances, and has no depth.  The student of Jewish religious history would recognize the symbolism of Jesus’ death.  The Jewish people of that time offered blood sacrifices as sin offerings.  The animals were selected and ritually slaughtered to expiate the sins of the believers.  This traces back to Abrahamic times when livestock was the source and measure of wealth, and a sacrifice was a penance offering to atone for sin against God.  Much of the original significance had been lost, and the sacrificial lamb had been understood to accept the sins of the believer and provide atonement.  Jesus was proclaimed to be the Lamb of God, and his sacrificial death atoned for the sins of the whole human race; past, extant, and future.

The death and resurrection also indicate the closing of the circle on the Abrahamic covenant.  God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which he was willing to do.  God stayed his hand and proclaimed his covenant.  A covenant is a contract, and a contract is meaningless if one side has no recourse against the other for failure to perform.  How can man have recourse against God if God does not fulfill the covenant?  God’s demonstration was to show that God is as fully committed to the covenant as Abraham was:  He HAD to sacrifice his son.  It would have been meaningless to have stayed his hand at the last second as he allowed Abraham to do, for it would have looked like an empty gesture. 

Islam is blind to the symbolism and deep meanings of the death and resurrection of Christ.  Allah is not a personal deity, he is remote, distant, and seems to have no sympathy for mankind, unless mankind bows down to him and acts like slaves to him.  The God of Abraham has demonstrated time and again that he does not want slaves, he wants free men who are willing and capable of thinking and acting on their own.  To follow God freely is the ultimate goal.  If such is the case, then why does Islam place a death sentence for apostasy?

If you read the quran and hadith objectively, you can easily recognize all the trappings of a cult. Islam is by, for and about Muhammad.  Anything else Islam has to offer takes second place to the benefit of Muhammad.

There seem to be many attractive things about Islam, but there is also much that is evil.  Muslims revere Muhammad, but Muhammad routinely had his critics assassinated, practiced and advocated rape and called it marriage, presided over the cold blooded massacre of hundreds of Jews, advocated polytheism when it seemed advantageous to him, financed his entire existence through banditry and looting, ordered followers to divorce their wives so he could marry them, and invented capricious legal precedent to suit his whims.  He elevated himself to be second only to Allah, who could only be accessed through Muhammad.  Since the Quran is supposed to be the literal word of Allah, straight from Allah lips, there can be no misunderstandings or refutation of validity. 

If I bake you a cake, and told you it was mostly good and wholesome, that I only used a tablespoon of dog feces in it, would you eat it?

You should study Islam very hard, and also study Christianity, and make a clear, objective decision as to whether you have really chosen the true path, or whether you have accepted a lie.