Paul Helmke, a contributing writer to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Blog, and officer of same, wrote a piece of propaganda that would even impress Joseph Goebbels. In fact, without even reading any of his other work I could probably say that as propaganda, they are all just as good. As an aside, I just noticed that Goebbels and Goering have only one word between them in my dictionary. If that has no significance for you read Inside the 3rd Reich.
Back to Paul Helmke. Paul's latest treatise seems to be about how well the Brady Instant Background Check system protects us by having denied 135,ooo dangerous people the ability to purchase a firearm in the last year and from one dangerous person in particular. You should go and read the entire article and then come back here.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/?p=684
Did you read it? Good. Now, I concede that in the one case of Mr. Drew Douglas Grant, whose real name is Andrew Golden, that everything worked like it was suppose to. I think you would agree as well. However, where Mr. Helmke wanders into the deep end of deceit and lies, which is where the entire venture called The Brady Campaign originates, is his insistence that all 135,000 persons denied to purchase a firearm are really the dangerous persons he thinks they are or, rather who he wants you to think they are.
You see, not all Brady Denials are because Joe Criminal, who just got released from Sing-Sing for murder, went into a gun store and tried to buy a gun from a federally licensed firearm dealer and got denied because his background check failed. In this context James Jay Baker, Wayne LaPierre and Richard Gardiner, all spokesmen for the NRA, are correct in the statements they made that Mr. Helmke seems to be calling them on simply because he now has proof that at least one convicted killer did in fact attempt to apply for a concealed carry permit and got caught. Not the same thing as getting denied a gun purchase at a gun store but the background check for a concealed carry permit is the same as that for a gun purchase. Plus the investigation for a concealed carry permit requires checking fingerprints against the FBI finger print database.
Did a light just turn on in your head?
Question 1. Did Mr. Grant already possess a firearm and was just seeking a permit to carry it on his person? If so, did Mr. Grant already "pass" an instant background check to purchase the gun? Or was the gun acquired by other means? In any event Mr. Grant's scheme ended in disaster not because of the Brady Instant Background Check but because of the fingerprint analysis portion of his concealed carry permit application.
Question 2. Does Mr. Helmke realize that it was not the Brady Instant Background Check that busted Mr. Grant? If so, why does he go on and on and on trying to convince you that the Brady Instant Background Checks are all that stand between you and certain death?
I cannot say I know the answers raised by Question 1. But, for Question 2 I can speculate that Mr. Helmke is purposely being deceitful in order to get you to believe things that are not completely true.
Even I, after first reading the article, thought that Mr. Grant's scheme ended with a negative result from a Brady Instant Background Check. I had to read it more than once to realize the trick Mr. Helmke played on me. If you look around the Brady Campaign web site take a few notes and try to substantiate some of the claims they make, especially their statistics. They seem to be a little vague in their sourcing so you may have a hard time of it. I know I did.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
After the Election
It's after the election, Obama got himself elected and now what? Probably nothing much since he is inheriting a complete cluster fuck but I guess he'll just love it since it was brought to us by the Democratic Party anyway. The Mother of All Bailouts has already been extended to the auto industry and since I haven't heard much more about any of it I guess the Bailouts worked. Or did they? I just don't know.
Israel is kicking butt in Gaza. I say more power to them. The last I heard anything they were considering a 48 hour recess. I say press on.
Anyway firearms sales in this country are up, way up. I got my Hi-Powered Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Rifle Gun That No One Needs Anyway, because I need it in case Obama gets elected and signs into law a ban on Hi-Powered Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Rifle Guns That No One Needs Anyway, back in October before the election on just a hunch Obama would get elected. Now everyone is out to get them a Hi-Powered Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Rifle Gun That No One Needs Anyway before the next ban on Hi-Powered Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Rifle Guns That No One Needs Anyway is made into law.
I know, you're thinking no one is going to take your guns away. But I know better and so should you. I know, you're thinking it's not that important. But I know better and so should you. Did you know that in the last 100 or so years, governments, not citizens, killed over 170,000,000 men, women and children through various means. This does not include soldiers killed in combat. It only includes civilians who were killed by a government entity. They were killed by such means as "being shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, worked to death, buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed from the sky or killed in any other myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens." Source: The Seven Myths of Gun Control by Richard Poe, paper back edition copyrighted 2001, Three Rivers Press, New York, page 21.
But first, they all had to be disarmed. So the next time you hear a politician pushing for a new law that has anything to do with restricting or registering firearms or firearms owners, ask yourself, why? And remember what you just read and gun control means controlling you, not guns.
Israel is kicking butt in Gaza. I say more power to them. The last I heard anything they were considering a 48 hour recess. I say press on.
Anyway firearms sales in this country are up, way up. I got my Hi-Powered Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Rifle Gun That No One Needs Anyway, because I need it in case Obama gets elected and signs into law a ban on Hi-Powered Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Rifle Guns That No One Needs Anyway, back in October before the election on just a hunch Obama would get elected. Now everyone is out to get them a Hi-Powered Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Rifle Gun That No One Needs Anyway before the next ban on Hi-Powered Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Rifle Guns That No One Needs Anyway is made into law.
I know, you're thinking no one is going to take your guns away. But I know better and so should you. I know, you're thinking it's not that important. But I know better and so should you. Did you know that in the last 100 or so years, governments, not citizens, killed over 170,000,000 men, women and children through various means. This does not include soldiers killed in combat. It only includes civilians who were killed by a government entity. They were killed by such means as "being shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, worked to death, buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed from the sky or killed in any other myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens." Source: The Seven Myths of Gun Control by Richard Poe, paper back edition copyrighted 2001, Three Rivers Press, New York, page 21.
But first, they all had to be disarmed. So the next time you hear a politician pushing for a new law that has anything to do with restricting or registering firearms or firearms owners, ask yourself, why? And remember what you just read and gun control means controlling you, not guns.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
What if Obama wins the election?
Instead of an Atheist Thought of the Week, and since this is my blog, I would like to ask a question. I have read an article or two on the consequences of Obama losing the election, with a hint there may be some rioting in some or all of the major US cities. That would certainly be a less than a favorable outcome under this premise. In one article it was put as perhaps being like the rioting after Rodney King was beaten by police. But what if he won? And then some ignorant, deep south, raving racist lunatic from perhaps Mississippi or Louisiana, though not limited to just those two states, managed to kill him. What kind of rioting would come of that? One can only hope it won't come to that. But I fear, though we as a nation have made great strides in learning to live together as civilised peoples, it has not been so long as to be certain there is not one or more determined racist that will not brook a black man as President.
The premise just outlined to you is not original with me. A friend who has more time to think of such things as I do put this in my head. It is something to wonder about and prepare for if only somewhat minimally however you may think you should where you live. Where I live I doubt anything will happen as I live in a very rural area of Middle Georgia, but the Cities of Macon and Atlanta a little north and just a bit farther north of me respectfully could see some outcries of injustice. And let's not discount the power and ability of Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan to exacerbate any situation to deadly proportions.
As it gets closer to November we should all think about this and prepare accordingly. Hopefully the election will go smoothly and the loser will be graceful and nothing else will come about as a result either way. But chance favors the prepared mind and perhaps that is all I am really saying here.
Good night, Gracie!
The premise just outlined to you is not original with me. A friend who has more time to think of such things as I do put this in my head. It is something to wonder about and prepare for if only somewhat minimally however you may think you should where you live. Where I live I doubt anything will happen as I live in a very rural area of Middle Georgia, but the Cities of Macon and Atlanta a little north and just a bit farther north of me respectfully could see some outcries of injustice. And let's not discount the power and ability of Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan to exacerbate any situation to deadly proportions.
As it gets closer to November we should all think about this and prepare accordingly. Hopefully the election will go smoothly and the loser will be graceful and nothing else will come about as a result either way. But chance favors the prepared mind and perhaps that is all I am really saying here.
Good night, Gracie!
Friday, September 05, 2008
Atheist Thought of the Week
I've been thinking about Atheist Quote of the Week and have decided to change it to Atheist Thought of the Week. I've done this to emphasize that I'm not merely trying to present a quote by an atheist writer or thinker, which is what I am doing precisely but, I do this more for the hope anyone reading the offer would also think about what is being said.
This week's offer comes from Sam Harris. It is from his book "The End of Faith." Amazon.com Choosing something by Harris was difficult. He has many interesting thoughts and insights throughout his book but I am forced to parse and paraphrase somewhat in order to get the idea across here but in fewer words than Sam used in his book. It is not to say that he is long winded but rather that the kernel of the thought I wish to get across here doesn't need the entire 300 words of the paragraph he used, hence the late posting here, usually on a Thursday has taken me into Friday this week. So without further ado, here's Sam with an interesting thought about religion and how, and why, it affects us all.
"Our situation is this: most of the people in this world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book. We have the misfortune of having many such books on hand making an exclusive claim as to its infallibility....All are in perverse agreement on one point of fundamental importance, however: "respect" for other faiths, or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses....Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed....Certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one." Page 13, Paperback Edition, Copyright 2004
The ellipses indicate I have skipped an entire intervening sentence to get on to the more supportive statements made. It is worth your while to acquire the book and read the whole of it, the book that is, and not just the paragraph.
This week's offer comes from Sam Harris. It is from his book "The End of Faith." Amazon.com Choosing something by Harris was difficult. He has many interesting thoughts and insights throughout his book but I am forced to parse and paraphrase somewhat in order to get the idea across here but in fewer words than Sam used in his book. It is not to say that he is long winded but rather that the kernel of the thought I wish to get across here doesn't need the entire 300 words of the paragraph he used, hence the late posting here, usually on a Thursday has taken me into Friday this week. So without further ado, here's Sam with an interesting thought about religion and how, and why, it affects us all.
"Our situation is this: most of the people in this world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book. We have the misfortune of having many such books on hand making an exclusive claim as to its infallibility....All are in perverse agreement on one point of fundamental importance, however: "respect" for other faiths, or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses....Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed....Certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one." Page 13, Paperback Edition, Copyright 2004
The ellipses indicate I have skipped an entire intervening sentence to get on to the more supportive statements made. It is worth your while to acquire the book and read the whole of it, the book that is, and not just the paragraph.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The Epitome of Stupidity
Wow, I mean, wait a minute. Let me catch my breath. Folks, I just learned something that may shock you. Yes, when I first learned of it I could not breath for a full 12 seconds.
I just learned that atheism is the epitome of stupidity and, from no less a scholar than Ray Comfort at that. It seems that when Ray witnesses to atheists it is demeaning to him to have to do it since he has to resort to such a low intellectual level in order to reason with the twits. This is just earth shattering news. I only hope I don't misspell any words in reporting this to you, my dear readership. For the whole nine yards you may read the entire intellectually demeaning article on Ray Comfort's blog here.
I just learned that atheism is the epitome of stupidity and, from no less a scholar than Ray Comfort at that. It seems that when Ray witnesses to atheists it is demeaning to him to have to do it since he has to resort to such a low intellectual level in order to reason with the twits. This is just earth shattering news. I only hope I don't misspell any words in reporting this to you, my dear readership. For the whole nine yards you may read the entire intellectually demeaning article on Ray Comfort's blog here.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Atheist Quote of the Week
In a post at Pharyngula, titled 'Matthew Cobb and Jerry Coyne write a letter,' a letter written to Nature magazine is sported with a link to the article. The last sentence of the letter is this weeks quote and is highlighted by Mr. PZ Myers himself as a distinguished sentiment and I concur.
And here she is:
"In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism."
So much for reconciling science with religion.
And here she is:
"In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism."
So much for reconciling science with religion.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
A Little Short Story
I sat down at a table in the back of the bar. The waitress, a curvy young girl and dressed seductively, came up to the table and stopped so that I when I turned my head to speak to her I looked right into her cleavage. I really liked what she had and she knew it, too. When I finally looked up to her face she was already smiling at my look of disbelief.
"What'll you have, Honey?"
"I'd like a Sam Adams lager unless you haven't any or may recommend something."
"A Sam Adams lager it is."
She smartly turned around and I was hopelessly lost in lust as she walked away toward the bar, her ass and my eyes bouncing the whole way until she disappeared in shadow. I could still make out her white short shorts but only vaguely. After a few minutes she returned with my beer. I paid with a ten and she gave me five back after I told her to keep the change.
"I haven't seen you in here before. Is this your first time here?"
"Yeah, I usually just stay home and read or surf the Internet or whatever. I live across the street at the Marlborough Apartments. I was bored a little and thought maybe I should stop in for a while."
"I live at the Marlborough, too. Apartment 235.
"Apartment 204. I've lived there for over a year. How about you?"
"Just a couple of months. Say, I've got to get busy or Mike will have a cow. Maybe you could stay a while. Only two hours till closing. We should get together after."
Maybe you'd like something to eat. There's a Waffle House just a block away."
"I'd like that. I haven't eaten out in a long time."
I sat there for two hours. I only had one more beer, slowly sipping them. I almost couldn't finish the second one it was so warm. I didn't want to get drunk. I've never liked being drunk and tonight was my first alcohol in several months. I'm not against drinking alcohol, just being drunk. Since I was in a bar and I do enjoy a beer, I drank a couple. Slowly though. I didn't want to become drunk for two reasons. One, I hate being drunk and two I figured...I suddenly realised I don't know her name yet, and she doesn't know mine. Oh well, after she is off work we'll get to the introductions. Oh, and two, I thought maybe she had seen her fair share of drunks.
Occasionally over the two hours she would stop by for a second and wink at me or ask if I needed anything. I just shook my head no and she would whisk on by. I thought to myself maybe she doesn't drink on duty as a lot of bar waitresses learn to do, especially strip bars. This bar wasn't a strip bar but it sure had a lot of very good looking, young and seductively dressed young ladies as waitresses. I saw a few of them drink from a glass from behind the bar, but I never saw her doing it. Besides, when we did get to the Waffle House, a first date sort of, I didn't want her to be turned off by me being drunk. If she was a little tipsy it wouldn't mean so much to me as I thought me being drunk might mean to her.
I had to wait outside for the bar to close. It was a fair part of town. I wasn't afraid of being mugged so much as being arrested by the cops for hanging outside a closed bar for whatever reason they might imagine. Anyway, I wasn't arrested and she came out with the rest of the crowd of employees after just ten minutes.
I recognised her only by her figure. She had changed clothes, as did everyone before coming outside, but I could tell it was her even in the jeans and light black jacket she had over her tanktop. I offered her my arm and she took it pulling my arm close to her tightly. I could feel her shivering. And I could feel the warmth of her breast on my arm. It was a bit cold for an August morning in Atlanta, but I began to feel a rush of warmth come up my chest into my face. I wondered where the night may go, and if she would be a part of it with me unto morning.
"What'll you have, Honey?"
"I'd like a Sam Adams lager unless you haven't any or may recommend something."
"A Sam Adams lager it is."
She smartly turned around and I was hopelessly lost in lust as she walked away toward the bar, her ass and my eyes bouncing the whole way until she disappeared in shadow. I could still make out her white short shorts but only vaguely. After a few minutes she returned with my beer. I paid with a ten and she gave me five back after I told her to keep the change.
"I haven't seen you in here before. Is this your first time here?"
"Yeah, I usually just stay home and read or surf the Internet or whatever. I live across the street at the Marlborough Apartments. I was bored a little and thought maybe I should stop in for a while."
"I live at the Marlborough, too. Apartment 235.
"Apartment 204. I've lived there for over a year. How about you?"
"Just a couple of months. Say, I've got to get busy or Mike will have a cow. Maybe you could stay a while. Only two hours till closing. We should get together after."
Maybe you'd like something to eat. There's a Waffle House just a block away."
"I'd like that. I haven't eaten out in a long time."
I sat there for two hours. I only had one more beer, slowly sipping them. I almost couldn't finish the second one it was so warm. I didn't want to get drunk. I've never liked being drunk and tonight was my first alcohol in several months. I'm not against drinking alcohol, just being drunk. Since I was in a bar and I do enjoy a beer, I drank a couple. Slowly though. I didn't want to become drunk for two reasons. One, I hate being drunk and two I figured...I suddenly realised I don't know her name yet, and she doesn't know mine. Oh well, after she is off work we'll get to the introductions. Oh, and two, I thought maybe she had seen her fair share of drunks.
Occasionally over the two hours she would stop by for a second and wink at me or ask if I needed anything. I just shook my head no and she would whisk on by. I thought to myself maybe she doesn't drink on duty as a lot of bar waitresses learn to do, especially strip bars. This bar wasn't a strip bar but it sure had a lot of very good looking, young and seductively dressed young ladies as waitresses. I saw a few of them drink from a glass from behind the bar, but I never saw her doing it. Besides, when we did get to the Waffle House, a first date sort of, I didn't want her to be turned off by me being drunk. If she was a little tipsy it wouldn't mean so much to me as I thought me being drunk might mean to her.
I had to wait outside for the bar to close. It was a fair part of town. I wasn't afraid of being mugged so much as being arrested by the cops for hanging outside a closed bar for whatever reason they might imagine. Anyway, I wasn't arrested and she came out with the rest of the crowd of employees after just ten minutes.
I recognised her only by her figure. She had changed clothes, as did everyone before coming outside, but I could tell it was her even in the jeans and light black jacket she had over her tanktop. I offered her my arm and she took it pulling my arm close to her tightly. I could feel her shivering. And I could feel the warmth of her breast on my arm. It was a bit cold for an August morning in Atlanta, but I began to feel a rush of warmth come up my chest into my face. I wondered where the night may go, and if she would be a part of it with me unto morning.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Hindu by the Grace of Vishnu
I was at Walmart the other day and saw an otherwise intelligent human wearing a T that said, "Country by choice...Christian by the grace of God." I immediately thought how narrow the thinking of the witticism on her T-shirt really is. Anyone not a Christian is just fucked, huh? Or, by the same grace of the same God, merely screwed but then, just a little. Maybe?
I'm sure somewhere in the world there is another otherwise intelligent human who may be wearing a similar T declaiming, "Slum Lord in Overcrowded City by choice...Hindu by the Grace of Vishnu." Only Thor knows, or Jupiter, or maybe Wotan, just to name a few.
I'm sure somewhere in the world there is another otherwise intelligent human who may be wearing a similar T declaiming, "Slum Lord in Overcrowded City by choice...Hindu by the Grace of Vishnu." Only Thor knows, or Jupiter, or maybe Wotan, just to name a few.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Atheist Quote of the Week
This week's quote will be short and sweet. It comes from the book "Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam" by Michel Onfray. I loaned my copy to a friend so I can't tell you what page it is on but it is in there, somewhere. Amazon.com
And without further delay, here it is:
"The last god will expire with the last man."
I believe this one sentence of just nine words sums up rather concisely the entire argument for an atheistic view of the world. It gives so easily to me, with a little thought, the very foundation of religion and the very foundation of irreligion. It seems to speak of two concepts at the same time without mentioning either one directly and exposes so elegantly the true relationship of man with his gods.
And without further delay, here it is:
"The last god will expire with the last man."
I believe this one sentence of just nine words sums up rather concisely the entire argument for an atheistic view of the world. It gives so easily to me, with a little thought, the very foundation of religion and the very foundation of irreligion. It seems to speak of two concepts at the same time without mentioning either one directly and exposes so elegantly the true relationship of man with his gods.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Atheist Quote of the Week
A new feature at My Life as I Saw It will be an atheist quote gleaned from some of the books and web pages I read. Please note, due to the busy nature of my life, a week may be skipped and maybe two or more quotes will be posted in less than a weeks time.
Just one quote from among the countless available, posted here this week for your amusement, is by Victor J. Stenger and is right out of his book "GOD The Failed Hypothesis... How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist," pages 188-189. Amazon.com
"The Bible reads as an assembly of myths fashioned by ancient authors who had no concept of historical accuracy. Its description of the world reflects the scientific and historical knowledge of the age in which the manuscripts were composed. The information and insights contained in scriptures and other revelations look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God who revealed truths to humanity that were recorded in sacred texts."
I would have to agree.
Just one quote from among the countless available, posted here this week for your amusement, is by Victor J. Stenger and is right out of his book "GOD The Failed Hypothesis... How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist," pages 188-189. Amazon.com
"The Bible reads as an assembly of myths fashioned by ancient authors who had no concept of historical accuracy. Its description of the world reflects the scientific and historical knowledge of the age in which the manuscripts were composed. The information and insights contained in scriptures and other revelations look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God who revealed truths to humanity that were recorded in sacred texts."
I would have to agree.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Fisherman? Or Fish?
As some recent posts may indicate to those of you who read this blog, if there be few who do at all, I have taken up the cause of a world without religion and have declared myself to be atheist. Over the course of the last few months some thoughts about religion occur to me from time to time and today I will share one with you.
In at least one of the gospels Jesus calls out some disciples declaring to them he will make them "fishers of men." I think we all can remember that without specifying book, chapter, verse. What struck me with some irony is that indeed the apostles were fishers of men just like Jesus promised, for they, according to the what is written in the New Testament, caught lots of fishes. Peter caught 3000 in just one day, I think, and Paul caught a bunch more all over the Middle East throughout his career. And since then billions of fishes have been caught. And, like fish, they were devoured and the bones thrown out. Think of the Dark Ages, the inquisition, the crusades, the witch hunts and any bit of church history the Pope, as well as your pastor, would surely love for you to forget.
There are some truly great and successful fishermen in the world today. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts just to name a few from of old. They are, or were, truly good fishers of men. They had them coming in the front door of unsubstantiated religious belief by the thousands every week, and accepted, without shame, all the wealth the new fish bestowed upon them.
Today we have a new bunch of fishermen, some you may have heard of some you may haven't. Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Benny Hinn and John Hagee. All chief fishermen of enormous fisheries from which untold wealth and health is reaped for the fishermen and his family. But being a fisher of men is not limited to just men. There are many women, Joyce Meyers is just one, getting in on the action. Just surf through the few church channels available on cable or Directv to see a few. I caution you that you may view some bizarre fishing techniques but, as many of them are so ridiculous as to be scandalous, you may get a laugh or two.
On a smaller scale there are many new fisheries being created right before your very eyes. Just in my small area of the world I've noticed many humble beginnings in rented buildings that may have at one time been an auto parts store or the remains of a small fishery building the previous tenants left for larger headquarters, a sign of the truly good fisherman in our midst.
In many of these fisheries resides the "want to be" fisher of men in all of us. You've seen at least one example of what I mean some time in your life. That guy at the Waffle House with the "Got Jesus?" T-shirt talking mainly to the waitresses, a captive audience if there ever was one, about the need they have for Jesus in their lives. I know a guy like that and it is he who is the inspiration for this post. So, I simply ask without malice, is he a "fisher of men" or, is he just a little fish in someone else's really big net? You already know what I think.
In at least one of the gospels Jesus calls out some disciples declaring to them he will make them "fishers of men." I think we all can remember that without specifying book, chapter, verse. What struck me with some irony is that indeed the apostles were fishers of men just like Jesus promised, for they, according to the what is written in the New Testament, caught lots of fishes. Peter caught 3000 in just one day, I think, and Paul caught a bunch more all over the Middle East throughout his career. And since then billions of fishes have been caught. And, like fish, they were devoured and the bones thrown out. Think of the Dark Ages, the inquisition, the crusades, the witch hunts and any bit of church history the Pope, as well as your pastor, would surely love for you to forget.
There are some truly great and successful fishermen in the world today. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts just to name a few from of old. They are, or were, truly good fishers of men. They had them coming in the front door of unsubstantiated religious belief by the thousands every week, and accepted, without shame, all the wealth the new fish bestowed upon them.
Today we have a new bunch of fishermen, some you may have heard of some you may haven't. Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Benny Hinn and John Hagee. All chief fishermen of enormous fisheries from which untold wealth and health is reaped for the fishermen and his family. But being a fisher of men is not limited to just men. There are many women, Joyce Meyers is just one, getting in on the action. Just surf through the few church channels available on cable or Directv to see a few. I caution you that you may view some bizarre fishing techniques but, as many of them are so ridiculous as to be scandalous, you may get a laugh or two.
On a smaller scale there are many new fisheries being created right before your very eyes. Just in my small area of the world I've noticed many humble beginnings in rented buildings that may have at one time been an auto parts store or the remains of a small fishery building the previous tenants left for larger headquarters, a sign of the truly good fisherman in our midst.
In many of these fisheries resides the "want to be" fisher of men in all of us. You've seen at least one example of what I mean some time in your life. That guy at the Waffle House with the "Got Jesus?" T-shirt talking mainly to the waitresses, a captive audience if there ever was one, about the need they have for Jesus in their lives. I know a guy like that and it is he who is the inspiration for this post. So, I simply ask without malice, is he a "fisher of men" or, is he just a little fish in someone else's really big net? You already know what I think.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
The Pope in the Land Downunder
The Pope, that icon of infallibility, loaded up the popemobile and went down under. Austrailia, that is. White beaches, blues seas. Sound familiar?
While there he said many interesting things including an apology for the sexual abuse committed by his clergy. I would hate to have to do that everywhere I go but, there you have it. According to the news reports I received the apology was not necessarily the first thing he did which I think should ought to have been. Should ought to have been? That may not be correct grammar but I'm writing this, not you.
It seems his main message was for all religions to "unite against those who use faith to divide communities" and according to AP writer Victor L. Simpson, the paraphrase in quotations above was an apparent reference to terrorism in the name of religion.
Again, AP writer Simpson quotes the Pope saying that creating harmony between religion and public life was "all the more important at a time when some people have come to consider religion as a cause of division rather than a force for unity."
Well, no shit! Religion has always been a divisive force among communities of peoples for all the time it has existed in all its forms since the dawn of its creation. The defining doctrines of Islam are at odds with the defining doctrines of Judaism which are at odds with the defining doctrines of Christianity which are at odds with the defining doctrines of Islam and so on. And within Christianity itself, as well as Islam and Judaism, there are divisions within each at odds with all the other divisions. Those most familiar with Christianity can list a few major divisions right off the top of their heads, and a short list would include Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons and Seventh Dayers. The list could go on and on since I am aware of many divisions just among Baptists and Pentecostals and at least two divisions among the Mormons. Of Islam you have the Sunnis and the Shiites and there may be more for all I know. In short, what the Pope has requested is impossible since the sub communities within each major community can't even get there shit together.
A long time ago, in a galaxy not far away, Christianity picked up the sword and in the name of the God they worshipped, killed thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions. If you don't believe this do a little research on the history of the Catholic Church and some of its children since the reformation. Luther, by the way, harboured an anti-semitism you would not believe if you hold him up as a great example of what a Christian should be.
There are Christians now in America working to make this nation a theocracy where the state executes homosexuals. What else they have planned for the rest of us unsuspecting atheists and unchurched souls I know not. If you think I'm joking just Google 'dominion theology' or, just click the Wikipedia link here. And if you are against Sharia Law, which this is, just from the Holy Bible and not the Koran, and from Christians, not fanatical Islamic suicide bombers and Imams, then be aware of what the churches around you are doing and saying.
Is the Pope concerned about harmony among the religions for nothing? No. He sees the end of all faith as more and more people begin to see all religions as dangerous to their health. His words are a call to repentance for the survival of all faith itself. As I would like to remind any reader, it was not just the fanaticism of the suicide pilots of 9-11, it was the basis, that is the religion, for that fanaticism that gave us that particular tragedy. Fanaticism knows no bounds and is contained not in just one place. It can come from anywhere and from any religious belief.
I'll leave you with one universal truth, true as anything I've ever heard. The words came from the mouth of fallen former President John F. Kennedy and are as follows, "For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."
While there he said many interesting things including an apology for the sexual abuse committed by his clergy. I would hate to have to do that everywhere I go but, there you have it. According to the news reports I received the apology was not necessarily the first thing he did which I think should ought to have been. Should ought to have been? That may not be correct grammar but I'm writing this, not you.
It seems his main message was for all religions to "unite against those who use faith to divide communities" and according to AP writer Victor L. Simpson, the paraphrase in quotations above was an apparent reference to terrorism in the name of religion.
Again, AP writer Simpson quotes the Pope saying that creating harmony between religion and public life was "all the more important at a time when some people have come to consider religion as a cause of division rather than a force for unity."
Well, no shit! Religion has always been a divisive force among communities of peoples for all the time it has existed in all its forms since the dawn of its creation. The defining doctrines of Islam are at odds with the defining doctrines of Judaism which are at odds with the defining doctrines of Christianity which are at odds with the defining doctrines of Islam and so on. And within Christianity itself, as well as Islam and Judaism, there are divisions within each at odds with all the other divisions. Those most familiar with Christianity can list a few major divisions right off the top of their heads, and a short list would include Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons and Seventh Dayers. The list could go on and on since I am aware of many divisions just among Baptists and Pentecostals and at least two divisions among the Mormons. Of Islam you have the Sunnis and the Shiites and there may be more for all I know. In short, what the Pope has requested is impossible since the sub communities within each major community can't even get there shit together.
A long time ago, in a galaxy not far away, Christianity picked up the sword and in the name of the God they worshipped, killed thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions. If you don't believe this do a little research on the history of the Catholic Church and some of its children since the reformation. Luther, by the way, harboured an anti-semitism you would not believe if you hold him up as a great example of what a Christian should be.
There are Christians now in America working to make this nation a theocracy where the state executes homosexuals. What else they have planned for the rest of us unsuspecting atheists and unchurched souls I know not. If you think I'm joking just Google 'dominion theology' or, just click the Wikipedia link here. And if you are against Sharia Law, which this is, just from the Holy Bible and not the Koran, and from Christians, not fanatical Islamic suicide bombers and Imams, then be aware of what the churches around you are doing and saying.
Is the Pope concerned about harmony among the religions for nothing? No. He sees the end of all faith as more and more people begin to see all religions as dangerous to their health. His words are a call to repentance for the survival of all faith itself. As I would like to remind any reader, it was not just the fanaticism of the suicide pilots of 9-11, it was the basis, that is the religion, for that fanaticism that gave us that particular tragedy. Fanaticism knows no bounds and is contained not in just one place. It can come from anywhere and from any religious belief.
I'll leave you with one universal truth, true as anything I've ever heard. The words came from the mouth of fallen former President John F. Kennedy and are as follows, "For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."
Sunday, July 13, 2008
A Most Liberating Experience
In solemn reflection I would have to say that I have, for the most part, lived my life as if there were no god. Sure, if anyone asked I would claim a belief in a god and tell you I was of the Christian persuasion. I even attended a Pentecostal Church as recent as two years ago, preceded by a brief attendance at a Baptist Church, but have not been back for about a year, give or take. It just wasn't my idea of something I needed to do and for the most part the services were, more often than not, mere fundraising events as evidenced to me by the repetitious mention of tithing as a Christian duty in nearly every sermon regardless of context. I will admit though they put on a good show and that is all it became to me, a show. In fact, they got to where they put on two shows every Sunday due to the increase in attendance.
Couple that with my long lived opinion of most, if not all, televangelists and you can see how it came to pass that I rejected religion altogether. I was attending religious services that soon became to me indistinguishable from what anyone can find on the Church Channel. The nail in the coffin, so to speak, came when I read "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens quickly followed by "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It all suddenly made sense to me.
I have lived most of my life as if there is no god simply because that is what all men, and women too, would do if left uninfluenced by parents or guardians to take up a religion. My only flirtations with religion were as the result of the urging of a coworker or friend to turn from my backsliding ways. Of course I would oblige, at least for a little while, then I would make my escape back to where I felt most comfortable.
I have finally made the needed adjustment in my life to remain in an "escaped" environment for the remainder of my tenure here on this Blue Planet. When invited or encouraged to attend Church with a friend or coworker, I can now proudly say that since I am an atheist it would be illogical for me to attend any church service. This is most liberating indeed.
Couple that with my long lived opinion of most, if not all, televangelists and you can see how it came to pass that I rejected religion altogether. I was attending religious services that soon became to me indistinguishable from what anyone can find on the Church Channel. The nail in the coffin, so to speak, came when I read "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens quickly followed by "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It all suddenly made sense to me.
I have lived most of my life as if there is no god simply because that is what all men, and women too, would do if left uninfluenced by parents or guardians to take up a religion. My only flirtations with religion were as the result of the urging of a coworker or friend to turn from my backsliding ways. Of course I would oblige, at least for a little while, then I would make my escape back to where I felt most comfortable.
I have finally made the needed adjustment in my life to remain in an "escaped" environment for the remainder of my tenure here on this Blue Planet. When invited or encouraged to attend Church with a friend or coworker, I can now proudly say that since I am an atheist it would be illogical for me to attend any church service. This is most liberating indeed.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
How to logically assess this
Of late I have been considering the merits of an atheistic outlook toward life and living. I have read Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" twice and a couple of other books on the subject including Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great." Also, I have spent several hours at a time on more than one evening exploring the Web on this subject and have noticed, also more than once, inferences to the rights of homosexuals as a concern or part of the atheist platform as represented on the several atheist websites I visited. Since I failed to annotate those Websites I feel terrible since without some great luck and good fortune a reader may never see what I am speaking of. I will concede here that it may have been 2 or 3 websites which contained text expressing support for the homosexual life as part of their overall atheist strategy. I'll not fault them for that.
Having said all that first it seems to me that from one viewpoint it looks like atheism may be being used as a front to defend and promote the homosexual lifestyle. I really hated to use the word lifestyle just then but I could not think of another way to say what I mean. Check out any atheist web page and you may see links to pages that will offer reasons for the nonexistence of a God or any gods and somewhere you will eventually see something that involves homosexuality as it relates to the issue of atheism. Usually the text describes support for the homosexual lifestyle.
Is homosexuality the single most identifiable issue in the debate? Granted, evangelicals seem to target homosexuals more any other class of godless behaviour. But when you think about it most of the molesting of children by the clergy is of the "man on boy" type. Another useless yet interesting correlation?
I work with a man whose adopted son is gay and we shall call him Wayne to protect his identity. Wayne told his father once, "Daddy, no one would choose to be homosexual." Well would they? Many of the religious mindset in concrete would say that it is a choice. I say it must be genetic because in my life I was never confronted with a dilemma of having to choose with which gender of my playmates I most desired to have intimate relations. I always chose the females and never once entertained thoughts of the choice being male. For me, it was just something inside me telling me to go for the girls!
I imagine the experience is something along those lines for those in the world who hear "go for the guys!" If homosexual behaviour is genetic then we have a long way to go before we actually reach a level of sophistication that can be called civilised. We still live in a world where gay men and women are killed because of this variation among the modern homo sapiens that now inhabit the planet. Convincing some of those inhabitants that Albert is gay because of genetics may be impossible to do in the prevailing environment of ignorance we find ourselves shaking our heads at.
You may live in a nice place and work in an even nicer place and you may very rarely see an ignorant homo sapien but from where I live and work I rarely see an intelligent homo sapien. Having all that behind me I am reminded of the ditty that goes something like this; "When they were after the Homosexuals I said nothing because I was not a Homosexual...." Eventually they will come after you.
Having said all that first it seems to me that from one viewpoint it looks like atheism may be being used as a front to defend and promote the homosexual lifestyle. I really hated to use the word lifestyle just then but I could not think of another way to say what I mean. Check out any atheist web page and you may see links to pages that will offer reasons for the nonexistence of a God or any gods and somewhere you will eventually see something that involves homosexuality as it relates to the issue of atheism. Usually the text describes support for the homosexual lifestyle.
Is homosexuality the single most identifiable issue in the debate? Granted, evangelicals seem to target homosexuals more any other class of godless behaviour. But when you think about it most of the molesting of children by the clergy is of the "man on boy" type. Another useless yet interesting correlation?
I work with a man whose adopted son is gay and we shall call him Wayne to protect his identity. Wayne told his father once, "Daddy, no one would choose to be homosexual." Well would they? Many of the religious mindset in concrete would say that it is a choice. I say it must be genetic because in my life I was never confronted with a dilemma of having to choose with which gender of my playmates I most desired to have intimate relations. I always chose the females and never once entertained thoughts of the choice being male. For me, it was just something inside me telling me to go for the girls!
I imagine the experience is something along those lines for those in the world who hear "go for the guys!" If homosexual behaviour is genetic then we have a long way to go before we actually reach a level of sophistication that can be called civilised. We still live in a world where gay men and women are killed because of this variation among the modern homo sapiens that now inhabit the planet. Convincing some of those inhabitants that Albert is gay because of genetics may be impossible to do in the prevailing environment of ignorance we find ourselves shaking our heads at.
You may live in a nice place and work in an even nicer place and you may very rarely see an ignorant homo sapien but from where I live and work I rarely see an intelligent homo sapien. Having all that behind me I am reminded of the ditty that goes something like this; "When they were after the Homosexuals I said nothing because I was not a Homosexual...." Eventually they will come after you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)