About Me

Name: Jason Drexler
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Dear Matt Damon ... Sincerely, Jason Drexler

Dear Matt Damon,
 
In a recent interview, you opined about the supposed ridiculousness, and your great fear, of a Sarah Palin presidency, or even of a Palin vice presidency. Most of us have heard its infamous lines, I'm sure, in particular the one about a Palin presidency being like a "bad Disney movie."
 
(Here please insert your subpar rendition of "Ooh, I'm the Hockey Mom, facing down Vladimir Putin!")
 
The Liberal arrogance, and the sheer disdain you have for Palin and rural people, that came through in this interview were monumental and infuriating. At one point you mocked Palin by saying that she would handle crises with what you scathingly termed "folksy" wisdom; well, as someone who comes from a rural area (Maine) and would still prefer to live in a rural area (I'm now in "hip" Southern Cal, you see), and who learned many truths about life while growing up in the country, I find your "folksy" comment insulting.
 
I also find it illuminating, because it reveals just what the typical Hollywood celebrity thinks -- about the average American, and about conservatives. For all the Liberal ballyhoo about finally putting a woman in the White House, the nomination of Palin to the McCain ticket has made one thing clear: The only women whom Liberals want to see in positions of authority are Liberal women. In other words, for all the feminist blathering of Liberals such as yourself, what you guys really want is not an equal shake for the fairer sex, but simply more Liberals in power. Period. I guess this shouldn't be surprising -- judging by other Liberal notions ("feminism" means scantily clad women everywhere; 14-year-old girls should be able to have sex, and abortions), it was already clear that Liberals have quite a low opinion of women. (As a side note: It seems, then, that all the drivel coming out of Hollywood about "equal rights" -- for homosexuals, transgenders, women, Hispanics, radical college professors and every other "disadvantaged" group -- is nothing but a ploy to get homosexuals, transgenders, women, Hispanics, radical college professors and members of every other "disadvantaged" group who are Liberal into positions of authority, where they can wreak havoc with regular, conservative people such as myself.)
 
Another of your "criticisms" of Palin was that she believes that Earth is only a few thousand years old. And that has what to do with managing a country?
 
Listen, Mr. Damon, I, like you, believe that Earth is really old. This conflicts in no way, however, with my Christian faith, including my belief that God created everything. Your insinuation that a "young Earth" worldview in particular, or a Christian worldview in general, is a sign of limited intelligence makes me question your own capacity for rational thought. Science is a great thing, and I happen to believe that it's basically right in its guess as to Earth's age, but it's a fact that science is sometimes wrong -- as seems to be the case when it claims that global warming is entirely man-made, a claim that conveniently forgets the fact that Earth has gone through many natural warming and cooling cycles during its long history. No doubt we've contributed to the problem, and no doubt recycling and conservation are good ideas, but let's not make them holy relics, okay?
 
One other thing: No, I don't want an "elite" running the nation. I want someone who's intelligent, yes, someone earnest and understanding and wise and respectful, but these things are different than "elite" -- as far as the current political usage of the word, at least, which suggests someone who has a superiority complex and thinks they're smarter, cooler and just generally better than everyone else. That is, someone like you.
 
Thanks for your time. In the future, though, please remember to at least act as though you like us common folk, and feel free to circulate this letter among your high-falutin' socialist comrades.
 
Sincerely,
 
Jason Drexler
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Supremely Foolish: Cal. High Court Refuses to Grant Delay

So the California Supreme Court has refused to grant a delay in their ruling allowing same-sex marriages. Well, I hope its justices have fun in the fall, after Californians have added a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages that will throw all this summer's planned nuptials into legal limbo. And to all those judges in California's other courts who will have to deal with the fallout of such a legal mess: do feel free to send thank-you cards to your friends on the high court.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary and Barack: The Gutless Wonders

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have once again showed their spinelessness, and that their desire for worldly success is greater than their desire to do what's right.
 
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently declared his belief that homosexuality is immoral. I commend Gen. Pace not only for sticking to his guns, but also for having a clear head on this issue in the first place. Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, receive only my disappointment and criticism. Both refused to comment initially on what Pace said, and finally on Thursday they each issued a statement ... declaring homosexuality moral ... after a homosexual advocacy group criticized them for their silence.
 
The situation should be obvious to anyone: they failed to initially respond because they feared alienating one side or the other, and when it came right down to it, they caved to the pressure of the advocates of immorality. Their initial inaction and their ultimate wrong action demonstrate several things:
 
1.) They don't have the courage it takes to stand up for what's right;
 
2.) They're more interested in grabbing power (the presidency) than in doing what's right;
 
3.) They're no longer qualified (if they ever were in the first place) to be the leader of our nation.
 
Anyone who continues to support either of them will only contribute to the further decay of our country's moral fiber. Besides that, why would any homosexual advocates support either of them now? If Hillary or Obama truly felt that homosexuality is moral and worthy of support, why didn't they say so right away? Likewise, even if either had ultimately agreed with Gen. Pace, I wouldn't trust their expressed "agreement." In either situation, they made a calculated move based on getting votes instead of doing the right thing. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Preston's 'Blasphemy' Aptly Named

I recently read Douglas Preston's latest novel, Blasphemy. The title -- plus the fact that I've read Preston's work before and enjoyed it -- was enough to get me to pick it up and take a gander at the back-cover blurb.
 
The last couple years have seen an abundance of mainstream novels with the "here's the real story about Jesus" theme. You know, that he was married, fathered children, imparted secret wisdom to Judas Iscariot, yada yada yada. That kinda bunk. I'd read my fair share and was tired of it. But Blasphemy promised something different: the story of a secret scientific project that would recreate the moment of creation (the Big Bang, as science types call it). I was intrigued, wanting to know how Preston saw the implications of such a project, and what his general views on God are.
 
As with so many novels, the run-up was good but the ending was lacking -- in this case, spiritually as well as in literary terms. (If you want to avoid spoilers, don't read any further).
 
Turns out the project (called Isabella) was functional and had real scientific merit, but was ultimately part of an elaborate hoax by the project's director -- a hoax meant to convince his fellow scientists that they had communicated with God (not the God of the Bible, by the way) so that he (the director) would have "disciples" to spread the message of a new religion he was creating -- a religion meant to undercut all other religions in general, but Christianity in particular.
 
And the real kicker? The director's inspiration for his scheme is none other than L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the spaced-out, Hollywood-hip Scientology cult.
 
Preston's book does nothing (in my view) to pose a serious challenge to Christianity, but he certainly does a decent job of making Christians and other God-believers/religionists look like a bunch of whackos. The book's two "Christian" characters, Pastor Russ Eddy and the Rev. Don T. Spates, are, respectively, a nutty zealot and a televangelist huckster (gee, haven't seen those characters before). During the course of the book, Eddy goes from quietly respectable country preacher to the leader of a bloodthirsty mob, and Preston shows that the only thing Spates loves as much as money is looking good. On top of all this, the director's scheme "proves" that the Christian God is worthy only of the scrap heap.
 
The story's protagonist, an ex-CIA-agent-turned-Catholic-monk-turned-Isabella-chaperone named Wyman Ford, starts off promising enough. He's a real human being grappling with real faith struggles who truly seems to want to do what's right, whatever the cost. At one point towards the end of the book, he even defines the line between legitimate faith and religious violence, choosing the former. But at the very end -- after the director reveals the hoax to him -- Ford makes only a half-hearted attempt to convince his ex-girlfriend and "new religion disciple" Kate of its fraudulence. No, make that quarter-hearted ... at best. And so the new religion is allowed to take off, and so it does -- it spreads like wildfire across the country. And why? Basically, because Wyman sees that Kate is "so happy" now, and why spoil it?
 
In sum, Blasphemy is built on a healthy amount of intrigue but falls short, both spiritually (the start of another false religion) and in literary quality (the whole thing is a hoax that never gets into the much-hoped-for scientific inquiry of God). There were several sections in which the characters were supposedly communicating with God through Isabella's supercomputer, but these became less interesting as it became apparent that "God" was more Eastern mystic than Biblical. Then they ceased being interesting when they were revealed to be nothing more than a man-made charade. For some reason (perhaps because Preston really wants people to give up the God of the Bible?) Preston includes the book's entire "convo with God" -- uninterrupted -- at the back of the book. Riveting stuff (not really).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Norming

In a recent editorial, the San Jose Mercury News opined that the Bush administration's listing of the polar bear as an endangered species was not only "merely symbolic," but that "it's the first time a species has been protected under the Endangered Species Act due to man-made global warming." And this wasn't long after Al Gore blamed the cyclone in Myanmar on global warming.
 
This has all gone too far. Yes, man-made industrialization has caused, and continues to cause, pollution that harms the environment, but is it as bad as Gore, the SJMN, et al. make it out to be? In my opinion, no, and scientific research has so far produced no conclusive evidence that the climate changes we're witnessing are anything other than the normal shifts that occur on Earth over time.
 
That's right, folks. Global Norming. We know that our planet has experienced its cold spells (such as the various Ice Ages) and its hot spells in time past. I'm not sure why this is, but I know that it happens. The cycles are long, to be sure -- most humans never have lived or ever will live during those times when the climatic changes become noticeable -- but we know that they happen. What we don't know is the exact impact of man-made pollutants on the planet's climate.
 
Yes, we need to change some of our habits. We need to conserve as much energy as is practically possible. We need to continue exploring alternative fuel sources. We need to stop topping off our landfills with plastic that won't disintegrate for a gazillion years. But Al Gore doesn't know that the Myanmar cyclone was spawned (primarily or even partially) by global warming. And nobody knows that the melting of Arctic ice is caused (primarily or even partially) by global warming. I think that man-made pollution could be affecting our environment ... but it might not be. And even if it is, its impact could be negligible. The moral of the story is, we just don't know much about the story. Humans could certainly be more energy efficient, but that's really all we know at this point; everything else is speculation.
 
This sounds an awful lot like evolution: few facts, lots of unsupported hypothesizing, drawing hasty conclusions while ostracizing those who disagree with the party line. Whatever happened to science getting its ducks in a row before firing off its conclusions? If high-scale, man-initiated global warming (or species-to-species evolution, for that matter) is ever definitively proven, I'll believe it; the truth must be believed, and besides that, neither scenario would conflict with what the Bible teaches and, therefore, with what I as a Christian believe. But we can't go spouting off (thank you, Sound-Bite Age) before we know what's going on.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

David Cooks

I know that millions of teeny-bopper girls across America are disappointed, but the right David won this season's American Idol competition ... and you should be glad that Archuleta got within even 12 million votes of Cook.
 
Archuleta is a nice kid -- polite, humble, kind, sensitive. Musically, though, he's a one-trick pony: slow, sappy songs are all he does. If my memory serves me right, he sang only one song -- since the competition was narrowed to 12 -- that wasn't slow. And it wasn't even an above-average performance, Boo.
 
Cook, on the other hand, is, at this point, a musical dynamo: He hit every speed at one point or another (many of his songs included multiple speeds), and he hit them all well; he wrote new arrangements for several songs (including his killer "Billie Jean" rendition); he played an instrument (guitar) often and well; and he has a performer's persona (not to mention the look). Cook was, hands down, the show's best and most exciting performer this season (there weren't many great ones this season), and thus the most likely to sell a lot of records.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Get Expelled: Evolutionary Thinking, Part II

   The primary point of Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" is highly valid, and appropo to my last post: The science establishment shouldn't be dogmatically loyal to anything other than what verifiable empirical evidence shows to be indisputable ... and evolution hardly fits that bill.
 
Let me again be clear: I'm not opposed to the possibility that species-to-species evolution is real. I'm also unconvinced that God's act of creation was a literal 6-day process that occurred no more than 12,000 years ago. I'm a Christian who believes that God is responsible for the creation of everything that does exist, ever has existed or ever will exist in the universe, including the universe itself, and that He could have employed (or could still be employing) species-to-species evolution as one of His creative methods.
 
All of that said, I also believe that evolution (at least, as we understand it) could not account for the origin of life (because something cannot evolve from nothing), and that today's science establishment is woefully closed off to the idea of "following wherever the evidence leads." I understand that God cannot be empirically "proved" (physically weighed, measured, etc.), but it's absolutely absurd that Big Science refuses to even entertain the possibility that there's a design in nature and, therefore, that there may be an intelligence behind it all. Nor should the textbooks or other science literature of public (taxpayer-funded) educational institutions be telling that students that evolution equals atheism, or that atheism is essential to a proper approach to science, or that the pursuit of science inevitably leads to atheism.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Evolutionary Thinking

I'm still trying to sort out my thinking on evolution. As a Christian, I firmly believe that God created everything -- and that He could have created via any means: sudden creation, gradual evolution over time, you name it (of course, it could be both: ardent Darwinists have no idea how life originated -- a separate matter from how existing life evolves -- so perhaps God created many original species and then evolution took place from there).
 
At any rate, Stephen Jay Gould, a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist, states that evolution is a fact of nature, as well established as the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Though I give some credit to Gould for being more gentle than many of his colleagues towards religion, his aforementioned statement is absurd: we can physically observe, in real time, the Earth revolving around the Sun; no one has ever seen an amoeba turn into a fish, or a marmoset morph into a gorilla.
 
That said, paleontologist Colin Patterson believes that both creationism and evolution are scientifically vacuous concepts held primarily on the basis of faith. I'm quite willing to admit that God cannot be empirically "proved," in the strict sense of the word ... but most Darwinists won't admit the same thing about evolution -- not publicly, at least. Yet Patterson showed that there has been much doubt on the matter in the scientific establishment. He posed a question that he'd asked other scientists -- "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing ... that is true?" -- and this is his account of the responses he got: "I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school.' "
 
Patterson suggests, according to author and legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson, that "both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not. One point of comparison was particularly striking. A common objection to creationism in pre-Darwinian times (and, Jason Drexler adds, even now) was that no one could say anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed to the 'fact' of creation and conceded ignorance of the means. But now, according to Patterson, Darwin's theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity. Evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means."
 
Patterson came under heavy fire for this, but his point is well-taken by yours truly: one-species-to-another evolution is labeled and talked about as "fact," yet not only has no human ever witnessed such an event, but no one I've ever come across has been able to explain all the "whys" and "hows" involved -- why would a cell mutate in the first place? and how would any cell/organism know what to evolve into, or that it even needed to evolve?  For example, it's said that eyes developed when light-sensitive cells evolved into the magnificent sight-capturing organs we now possess. But why would these cells even initiate such a transformation? How would it initiate it? How could cells that were merely "light-sensitive" transform into a fully functioning eye? As novelist James Rollins postulates in "Black Order," it's as though evolution, if it exists, is itself an intelligence, or at least guided by an intelligence -- a theory that lends much more credibility to creationism than to purely naturalistic Darwinian evolution/natural selection. All this isn't to mention the fact -- the very real and true fact -- that most mutations are negative, and that even if Darwinism were completely true, it still fails to account for how life came to be in the first place. (And no, the explanation by one Darwinist in Ben Stein's "Expelled" that life began when "germs piggy-backed on proteins" (my paraphrase) doesn't hold up: Germs are life, so how did they come into existence?)
 
I realize that this post has come across as less favorable to evolution, but that's where I am at the moment. Evolution within species is, in my opinion, indisputable. But evolution as the driving force in the natural world, transforming one species into another, moving life from simple to complex, is a theory that leaves a lot to be desired at this point in history. And it certainly fails as the catalyst for life -- how can something evolve from nothing? And genetic and physiological similarities do nothing to empirically prove evolution -- as my pastor said just today, if one God created everything, and created it all to live on the same planet in the same basic type of ecosystem, wouldn't you expect to see a lot of similarities between species?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Reaction to RFK Remark Overblown

I'm not a Hillary Clinton fan -- in the least -- but the reaction to her remark about Robert Kennedy was blown way out of proportion. Upon review, it seems to me that she was simply making the point that there is still a slim ray of hope for her, and that there have been similar situations in past presidential primary races -- including the one during which RFK was assassinated. Whether you agree with her belief that she still has a chance is a different matter, but as far as the Kennedy comment, she wasn't trying to make political capital out of it; she was merely citing an historical precedent.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's Good for the Gays is Good for the ________

According to logic, the California Supreme Court's recent ruling in favor of same-sex marriage means that the following groups should also be allowed to "right" to "marriage": bisexuals (e.g., a woman "marrying" a man and another woman), polygamists, polyandrists (a woman with multiple husbands), bestialists (a human "marrying" one or more animals), incestuous couples, pansexuals, and adult-child couples. In other words, any type of romantic/sexual relationship should now be given full creedence and protection under the law.
 
And if one or more of these groups aren't allowed to engage in "marriage," then neither should homosexuals be allowed to.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Texas Court Gets It Right

A Texas appeals court ruled Thursday that the state had no right to seize children from the polygamist sect at the Yearning For Zion Ranch. It ruled correctly.
 
The primary point in this case is not whether anyone agrees with the sect's beliefs -- I certainly disagree with the group on many points -- but whether the state had a right to intervene as it did. The answer is 'no'; this episode started with a phone call for help from a girl whom authorities haven't been able to track down, leading many to believe that the S.O.S. was an H.O.A.X. Essentially, therefore, the state considered the accusation from one unidentified person as enough evidence that something fishy was going on at the ranch and that an invasion of it was warranted. This is not intervention; this is interference.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Caspian indeed a Prince, not a King

Prince Caspian, the second book C.S. Lewis wrote in his Narnia series, isn't quite as compelling as The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe -- for Christians such as myself, it's hard to beat the blatant redemption message of and Aslan's obvious Christ-likeness in LWW.
 
It's the same regarding the two movies. The plot of Caspian is solid -- but nowhere near as compelling as someone dying for mankind. And though all the main characters are back -- and performing just as well as before -- Caspian's title character is less intriguing than I'd like him to be. And on the lighter side, though Caspian involves a lot of funny lines, it seems that the movie's producers may have tried a bit too hard in a couple places, not to mention that LWW outdoes Caspian by one in the "cute and funny show-stealing character" category: LWW's Mr. Tumnus and Mr. Beaver versus Caspian's Trumpkin.
 
On the whole, Caspian is a good movie -- wholesome, family friendly, engaging, action-packed adventure free of sex and bad language. It may a bit too violent for some youngsters, and purists will probably dislike the creative liberties taken with it (particularly the "storm the castle" battle sequence towards the end), but it's certainly a good piece of entertainment.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Addendum to 'Judicial Math'

I forgot to mention the most fundamental aspect of the entire same-sex marriage issue: Homosexual acts are wrong. Period. It's contrary to nature and nature's God. It's one thing for people to say they approve of homosexuality -- they do have the right to their opinion -- but it's a travesty when they try to rationalize it using Scripture. The Bible is crystal clear on this: Engaging in homosexual acts is sinful. I know that it's a personal issue that hits home with a lot of people (including myself), but my criticisms are not intended as personal attacks. It's simply a case of right vs. wrong, and the homosexual lifestyle is wrong.
 
Of course, this issue, including the current happenings in California, highlight the double-standard our society is practicing: Homosexuality is okay but polygamy is wrong. How can that be? If one "alternate definition" of marriage is acceptable, why not all others? Conversely, if one "alternate definition" of marriage is unacceptable, why not all others? People who support same-sex marriage have absolutely no call condemning polygamy. If people disagree with the underage-marriage aspect of polygamy, I understand that -- but even then society is being somewhat hypocritical, because with one side of its mouth it's protesting underage marriage, while out of the other side of its mouth it's granting approval to underage abortions (without even so much as parental consent, in some cases). This isn't to mention the fact that these polygamist sects are living in the 1800s -- when it was common for young girls to be married. But do we consider those marriages of olden days "rape"? I'm not saying that rape never occurs in these cults; it may, and if so, it's wrong. But for a society that is so much about being "progressive" and sexually permissive and letting everyone do their own thing without interference, it amazes me, angers me, that so many people are wanting to interfere with polygamist groups -- while not even batting a lash at the legalization of "gay" marriage and the usurpation of the people's will. Complete inconsistency. Complete hypocrisy.
 
I know, I know. It's about "the children." Give me a break. If our society truly cared about children to the degree it should, our culture wouldn't be encouraging sexual promiscuity. But we have individuals and groups in this country -- plenty of them, particularly Planned Parenthood -- who find it perfectly acceptable for 12-year-old girls to have "consensual" sex (like that's really possible) and abortions. Who think schools are supposed to be birth-control dispensaries instead of educational institutions. Who think kids actually have "rights" over their parents.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Judicial Math: 57 > 61

Perhaps America's law schools should start requiring the nation's future jurists to pass remedial math before foisting them onto the rest of us.
 
By a 4-3 vote, the California Supreme Court overturned a state ban on gay marriage. 4-3. That's a margin of 57 percent. In 2000, Californians voted -- by a margin of 61 percent -- to ban same-sex marriage. So now the mathematics world has been turned on its head. Number crunchers everywhere are scrambling, desperate for an answer: How can this be? How can 57 be greater than 61?
 
Indeed. How can it? Sarcastic arithmetic aside, what we have just witnessed here in California is a textbook example of judicial activism at its worst. First, four bleeding hearts overruled the clear will of thousands upon thousands of Californians, who voted in the context of that wonderful thing (I'm being serious now) we call democracy. Second, as far as I'm aware, there's nothing in California's constitution related to marriage, or to human sexuality. Not even our national Constitution says anything about marriage being one of our "inalienable rights" (Uh-oh -- I'm having flashbacks about that other not-in-the-Constitution constitutional "right," abortion).
 
As with having a driver's license, marriage is a privilege, not a right. Furthermore, it seems clear to me that the four judges' decision was based not on the law but on their personal feelings about love. Look, Fantabulous Four, you're not marriage counselors, and you're not psychologists. You're jurists -- at least, that's what the "University of the Internet" certificates on your wall claim. But listen to this drivel spewed by Chief Justice Ronald George: "In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
 
So the dishonorable Justice George apparently thinks he's Dr. Drew. And on top of that, he's basing his decision on shifty social mores instead of on the clear letter of the law and the explicit will of the people. And how can he claim what he claims about "our state," when "our state" -- the sensible majority of Californians -- made it clear that they don't recognize same-sex marriage? This was a purely ideological, personal-agenda-driven decision.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Atheists Gone Wild

As much as the "new atheists" rub me the wrong way, I'm glad that they're shooting themselves in their feet with publicly advertised ridiculousness.
 
Take, for example, the verbally rabid Richard Dawkins -- really, please: take him away, white-coated men. This man who supposedly prides himself on rigorous scientific research is so scared of the possibility of God that he confesses -- when pressed by Ben Stein in "Expelled" -- his belief that the seeding of life on Earth by aliens is more likely than the existence of God. This from a man who thinks Christians are living in a fantasy world.
 
Then there's Peter "Der Feuhrer" Stringer, an atheist so radical that he has no qualms suggesting that parents ought to be able to kill their babies as late as 28 days after birth. Yes, it's crazy. He's crazy. Maybe not in the clinical sense, but in the sense of what can (and does) happen when people eliminate God from every facet of their lives. Such drastic action creates a slippery slope that knows no bounds -- no, Mr. Hitchens, et al., your "evolution-based" morality has no constraints, because it does not exist. This is why/how society is able to devolve from one that abhors abortion to one that calls an unborn baby a mere lump of flesh -- and, now, to one (in some circles, at least) that considers babies 28 days old or younger expendable.
 
What many people don't realize is that people are sheep, and as such will -- must -- follow someone or something. In the absence of God, there are many things they might follow: lust, power, greed ... in other words, their own selfish tastes and desires, which vary from person to person, thus disproving the notion of a well-defined "universal evolution-based morality" and preventing a societal moral consensus other than "anything goes."
 
As glad as I am that many of the "new atheists" are showing off their foolishness, I hope even more that society in general realizes what's going on and being said. Otherwise, none of us save the select powerful few will have any control over our lives. Already, we have atheists such as Hitchens calling it child abuse for parents to teach religion to their children, and saying that the government ought to be able to step in and take over in such situations. Do you want that? Today's liberals chasten the Bush administration for alleged civil-rights abuses, but nothing the Bush administration has done can hold a candle to what atheists desire for you and I. And their method of operation is the double-standard typical of those who desire power at all costs: they rail against the teaching of religion in public schools (even in religion and philosophy classes) yet work hard to make sure that an atheistic form of evolution is taught in classrooms, as opposed to simply presenting the scientific facts and letting students draw their own conclusions about the universe.
 
*** Everybody: Go see Ben Stein's "Expelled" ***
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »