Archive for February, 2008

Denying God in your heart is, ultimately, the only sin that really matters.  The things you do as a result of this turning away are like dust on your feet, easily brushed away.  They are the symptoms, not the disease. 

The sin you fight is not the actions your mind or body takes, but rather, the condition of your heart that makes them possible.

If you’re fighting against sin, which direction are you facing?  Where is your attention focused?  You should be fighting towards God, and the sin will naturally begin to fall behind.  Sin cannot abide the presence of God.

God is a quantum God.  As far as you feel like you’ve walked away from Him, He is always only one step away, no matter where you are. 

Intelligent design costs prof his job
Regents reject tenure request without evidence, testimony

The Discovery Institute said it also had reviewed the e-mail record regarding Gonzalez’ teaching, and found “an orchestrated campaign conducted against Dr. Gonzalez by his colleagues, with the intent to deny him tenure because of views he holds on the intelligent design of the universe.”

As WND reported earlier, Gonzales was one of three members of the ISU faculty denied promotion or tenure of the 66 considered at the time.

The rejection followed earlier opposition to his work because of his acknowledgment of intelligent design. In 2005, three ISU faculty members drafted a statement and petition against intelligent design in the science curriculum that collected 120 signatures.

“We … urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of ‘science and technology,’ convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray intelligent design as science (my emphasis),” the statement said.

Soooo…get into an discussion with an evolutionist about ID, and they will invariably trot out the, “SHOW ME THE PROOF!  GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE!”  And yet, time and again Universities engage in this kind of intellectual gatekeeping , effectively ensuring that you CAN’T build a case for ID, because the powers that be have made an arbitrary decision that it’s “not science.”

So, they require evidence, while preventing professors from presenting any.  They want scientific evidence, but won’t examine any evidence from an ID guy because it’s not science.  I believe that’s called a “catch-22.”

If you haven’t heard of it, which you just might not have, since when I “Googled” it I didn’t get a single hit from a major media outlet, SB 777 is an amendment to the State of California’s Education Code which, among other things, removes the following definition in the original:

“Sex” means the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being,” 

and replaces it with:

“Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.

Now this has got the Religious Right all in a tizzy about what it will mean for our school children, to be exposed to all those icky, gender-confused GLBT types who can’t seem to figure out which symbol on the bathroom door applies to them, yada yada yada.  As usual, they are fighting the wrong fight.
The essence of this amendment, which was passed and signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger on Oct 12th of 2007, is to expand the definitions of the types of minority and special interest groups to be protected under the “hate crime” umbrella (committing a “hate crime” is a felony in California).  More than that, it moves beyond the quantifiable aspects into the realms of perception and feelings.  It includes people who might be “perceived” as being a member of a certain type of group, or even one who “associates” with a certain demographic.  In other words, it’s not even so much about what you actually did or said, but rather it’s about how your actions or words were perceived by the other person.  
While the implications of the removal of the distinctions between the sexes, and the permitting of individuals to “self-identify” their sexuality or gender regardless of physiology are troubling, they are far and away minor and tertirary issues when compared to the real core of what is contained in this legislation.
The Bottom Line Up Front is this:  This amendment codifies into law the increasingly widespread practice of denying access to public facilities to groups which hold “discriminatory” views.  The Boy Scouts, for example, have been under fire the past few years for their policy of not allowing avowed homosexuals to be Scout masters.  This stance has resulted in the loss of access to facilities to which the Boy Scouts have historically had longstanding relationships.
SB 777 mandates that public/government funds cannot be given to or used for any group or organization which does not hold to the tenets of Sec. 200 of the Education Code, which states:

“It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state.”

This becomes important farther down in the bill where it states:  ”

51500. No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.” 

72014. No funds under the control of a community college district shall ever be used for membership or for any participation involving a financial payment or contribution, on behalf of the district or any individual employed by or associated therewith, in any private organization whose membership practices are discriminatory on the basis of the characteristics listed in Section 66270.

This is significant in that providing discounted access to facilities to groups such as the Boy Scouts can be and is interpreted to equate to financial benefit or largesse.   Thus, under the terms of this statute, since the Boy Scouts portray homosexuality in a “negative” light (by failing to promote or encourage it), they are now BY LAW prohibited from receiving any financial assistance or benefit from State educational institutions.

The rub will come when the kind of great legal minds that found Roe V. Wade in the Fourth Amendment determine that providing “free” access to conference rooms or classrooms to groups who don’t toe the correct ideological line, is in effect helping these groups avoid paying rent anywhere else, and so are providing an indirect financial benefit, which, of course, will be determined to be in violation of this statute.  Don’t think so?  Google “9th Circuit Court of Appeals” and get back to me.

Inevitably, it will be taken one step further.  Student organizations on a college campus which receive any money in the form of operating expenses, a budge for office supplies, or again, free access to university facilities, will now have to “qualify” for these benefits by signing some form, as a part of their charter, that states that they are in compliance with section 72014 of the California Education Code.

Also of note, teachers cannot present any curriculim which portrays any of the groups mentioned in a negative light.  By reading the tone and phrasing of this amendment, portaying a group negatively equates to failing to portray them positively.  Nor can teachers include in their syllabus any materials which might promote one lifestyle over another, as this “portrays negatively” competing views.  Homosexual couples must be placed on an equal footing with hetrosexual couples, and will undoubtedly be required to receive equal amounts of exposure.  Read 72014 again.  “…any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias.”  Not just “discriminates against,” but “promotes a bias.”  In other words, ANYTHING which might ultimately lead to a certain group or culture being viewed in a negative light by someone cannot be presented in a classroom, in an assembly, or by a guest speaker.

Ultimately, at the quantum level, what this means is that you cannot prohibit or condemn anything.  All viewpoints are equal, there is no right or wrong, there is only how I chose to be perceived, and that has to be okay, no matter what.  By trying to prevent someone from “expressing their sexuality” or ” expressing their cultural identity” or “exploring their unique gender identity” you would be expressing a negative stereotype.

On the plus side, under section 212.3:

” ‘Religion’ includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.” 

So, for all the the rabid atheists out there who are tempted to refer to “those religious people” in a negative light, Atheism and agnosticism are ALSO defined as religious views.  On the down side, read that again verrry carefully.  “ALL ASPECTS of religious belief, observance and practice.”  You cannot, by law, discriminate against a person because of any religious belief, which, like their sexuality, can be totally self-defined.  Thus, anything goes.  “It’s part of my religion” can readily becomes a justification for all manner of behaviors.  “It’s part of my sexuality,” immediately limits what actions can be taken by a school administrator for any manner of activities.  And of course, the always popular, “It’s just part of my cultcha.”

This law or amendment removes almost every traditional boundary, limit or restriction on personal behavior in our schools.  As the list of the protected classes grows, the resources that you have left to maintain discipline and order in your schools declines exponentially.  However, the true significance of this is not that boys might get to use the girls’ bathroom, but that it ties the concepts of “thought crimes” and “hate speech” more strongly than ever before into the State’s felony “hate crimes” statutes.

This is a dead win for the “moral relativity” crowd.  All views are equal, there is no truth but what I decide it to be, and you have to respect MY definition or be branded a bigot and a hater.  And now, more than ever before, you can lose your job and/or go to jail if you don’t. 

While on the surface it may sound great — “Hey, what’s the big deal, this means nobody get’s discriminated against!”  — the primary groups which traditionally have sought to espouse moral restraint or the drawing of clear behavioral limits and boundaries are the conservative religious ones.  Thus, the groups most likely to run afoul of this revised code are those who hold “traditional” values and are reluctant to permit or encourage behaviors contrary to their faith and bylaws.  So while at first glance you might think, “Great!  This means liberal teachers can’t bad-mouth Christians or conservative groups anymore!” historical precedent suggests that this isn’t how the statute is likely to be enforced at all.

In other words, it’s not that no one gets discriminated against…just those who won’t get on board with a moral or spiritual free for all.  And by law –in California at least — this type of discrimination is now not only permitted but required.

I think that: 

  • Enforcing immigration laws isn’t racist.
  • Abortion does not “liberate” women.
  • If you want to be treated equally, don’t claim special privilege because you’re a minority.
  • I’d be interested to see what percentage of gun-related crimes are committed with a legally-purchased gun, by the owner of said gun?  I’m sure it’s out there somewhere.
  • On average, Christians treat women better than feminists do.
  • Of all the Blogs I read, if I had to list my top-10 favorites, I’d put myself about 6th.
  • The government shouldn’t be able to force me to buy Health Insurance.
  • The country has far more to fear from radical atheists than radical Christians.
  • Conservatives love their women because they are strong and independent.  Progressives love their women if they are obedient and conformist.
  • Children are a precious inheritance, not to be lightly squandered.
  • If you want to change the Constitution, amend it.  Don’t “reinterpret” it.
  • If I had a report about a possible terrorist attack in San Francisco, I’d be hard pressed to want to do anything about it.
  • I personally don’t feel the need to put a hyphen in front of my “American.”  Just being an American is enough for me.

Women Voters

Posted: February 5, 2008 in Celebrating Diversity, Politics, Rants, Women

Honestly, help me out here.  What with all the babble going on betwixt and between the media circles and Dem talking heads about the “womens’ vote,” I have to ask:  If you’re a woman, is HILLARY FREAKIN’ CLINTON really who you want speaking for you?! 

Here’s a thought:  Don’t vote for someone because she is a woman.  It’s the same as voting for someone because he isn’t.  It’s sexist.

Don’t vote for someone because they are black.  It’s the same as voting for someone just because he’s white.  It’s racist.

Why not try voting for the most qualified candidate to lead the country, regardless of race or gender?  Isn’t that what they call equality?  How are we supposed to be “color blind” if every time you turn around someone is talking about the black candidate or the black vote or who can best appeal to black America?  Black America?  I forget, is that the North, or the South, suh?  I thought that war was over!

Maybe, just maybe, what’s the best for the Country as a whole, ends up being pretty darn good for Women, and Blacks, and Jews, and Asians and any other manner of hyphenated special interest groups, right?  If you vote for the best “womens” candidate, or the best “black” candidate, what about the rest of the country?  Maybe the woman or the black candidate really IS the best choice, but make that determination based on WHO they are and WHAT they’ve done, not the color of their skin or the how many of which chromosomes they’ve got.

Damn, you’d think stuff like this would be self-evident.

Wow.  Great minds think alike.  I should really just delete this post because Jim Byrd over at “A Skewed View” says is so much more betterer. (And welcome to the blogroll, btw).

I must admit to sharing what seems to be a fairly sweeping sense of dismay amongst the political traditionalists after Fred Thompson pulled the plug on his campaign.  He seemed to be the only candidate who held actual traditional, constitutionalist views about government.  With him gone, we seemed to be faced with various flavors of socialism, and a few borderline conservatives who lack the credibility and gravitas many were looking for in Fred T.

So, where does that leave the traditionalist, the constitutional literalist, the classic liberal vs. the “progressivist?”  Yet again, instead of a candidate that we can get excited about, we are having to chose what seems to be the least worst option.

Like “Two Dogs“, I am not one of those who advocates speaking through our silence, or sending a “message” by boycotting election day.  The only message that sends is, “Here you go Democratic Socialist Party, knock yourselves out.”

Because make no mistake, that’s the struggle we face.  Through an ever-increasing sense of personal entitlement, through an ever-decreasing sense of personal responsibility or moral accountability, our country is on a path towards the very kind of socialist domination and subjugation foretold in books like “1984.”  The kind of world lived out in Hilter’s socialist/fascist Germany.  Because “we” as a nation of voting citizens demand that the government to do more and more for us, we are increasingly likely to get just exactly what we asked for; and this always comes at a price.  In order to do more FOR us, they must of necessity take more FROM us!  In order to be coddled, we must first be herded and corralled, so that we are more easily managed.

You can see this shift towards socialism in our government schools, with “cooperative learning” and “outcomes-based education,” where excellence is discounted in favor of conformity and ensuring everyone achieves to the same level…regardless of how low that level may ultimately be.  It’s called the “lowest common denominator.”

In case you missed it, January 22nd was the anniversary of the day when five judicial vigilantes somehow managed to find a justification for preventing individual states from banning abortion in the phrase:

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.

Go on.  Take your time. Look for it.  I’ll wait.  Trust me, men much smarter than me clearly found it in there, so, it must be, right?

Look at the track record of the 9th Cirlce of Hell Circuit Court of Appeals.  Look at what’s going on in San Fransisco and other parts of the People’s Republic of California (otherwise known as the PRC).  This is the progressive utopian vision that the likes of Shrillary and Obama want for this country.  And if you think McCain is much different, you haven’t read his bio or looked at his voting record in Congress.

Lest there be any doubt, there is an ideological conflict going on in this country.  The lines are becoming clearer and clearer between the two camps, and the divide wider and wider.   And it’s starting to look more and more like the traditionalists are on the ropes.  I think part of the problem is that we, as the traditionalists and Classical Liberals, attempt to rely heavily on cognition and rationality and an appeal to truth and facts, whereas the Progressives are wielding a much more effective bludgeon in the form of appeals to emotion, and “It’s for the ChildrenTM“, and “But What About The Environment (BWATE)?”, and the ephemeral right of a woman to choose death for her unborn child.  They’ve got a better spin machine.  They can kick out the kind of the emotion-stirring propoganda that would make Kim Jong il proud as punch.

Whereas we cannot afford to let ourselves sink to that level, we cannot abandon Truth for a catchy jingle or a teary-eyed drama-queen approach; we’ve got to do better, we’ve got to BE better than that. 

The Progs have spun themselves into a bit of a corner, though.  Their election rhetoric has devolved into, “Do I elect a black man or a woman?”  To which minority group do I lend my emotional support?  Which one do I feel less guilty about?  Never mind which candidate is more qualified.  It goes back to who gets the props, who is the most successful to an emotional appeal based on a sense of entitlement and an overwheening emphasis on “equality at all costs.”

Maybe that’s the place to start.  Hold their hypocrisy up to the light.  By making race the issue, they’ve become racists.  By making gender the issue, they’ve become sexist.  They promise free health-care for 10 million children, but provide no insight into from where the money for that will come.  They decry tax cuts for the rich and big business, despite the fact that these are the very people paying the wages of the middle and low-income wage earner!  If you make the rich poorer, you make the poor poorer.  But that doesn’t play as well when appealing to emotion, does it?

You would think you could look at the history of the socialist ethic, its overly-centralized governments, the nationalization of business, the over-regulation of personal liberties, and see the flaws.  You’d think that you could in turn hold these failures up against the amazing successes of a representative republic running on free-market capitalism…and that would be that.  But sadly, no.

Emotionalism rules the day, and righteous indignation trumps thoughtful debate at every turn.  It’s disheartening at times, but we can’t give up.  This country was founded on a set of principles totally unique in history, a paradigm once branded “The Great Experiment.”  The traditionalist says that the experiment was a rousing success; the progressive says that it should never have been attempted, or at best was deeply flawed and needs to be “corrected.”

Which one are you?