Intemperate Commentary

I was looking at the headlines on Drudge, and I realized, "You know, I don't want to blog any of these." So, it's time to rant.

They're still going on about the child of that Smith woman who died... how long ago was it now? Explain to me a world in which we have international conflict, large national issues at stake... heck, we even have baseball season now. Why in the world is the kid of someone who I couldn't even begin to guess why she was famous still news at this point?

Meanwhile, there's this whole controversy brewing over what some announcer named Imus said. All I could think upon opening up the story to read about it was, "People got upset over what some guy who looks like he's freshly dug up said? Really?" I mean, sure, I can see why people would be upset over what he said (link here, including the picture I'm talking about), but c'mon, the guy looks warmed over. I'm not sure I could take anything the man said seriously at this point, even if he were just reading out of the phone book. On the serious point for a moment, I think Mr. Boortz has it absolutely right when it comes to the people referring to Imus' statements as racist: "Racism is the belief in the inherent genetic superiority of one race over another. There was nothing racist -- not by definition -- in Imus' remarks."

On a completely different thread, I was reading up on House Resolution 73 earlier. Even though I'm sure it's just a small cross-section of the total number of such occurrences, I was about ready to spit nails upon reading the third point under Findings (section two), about people who were prosecuted for using firearms in self defense. Seriously, if we can't use guns for self defense, what's the point of having them? (Okay, hunting and such aside.) Thankfully, Representative Bartlett is a right-thinkin' kind of guy on this. We'll see what comes of it, though. Death in committee wouldn't particularly surprise me, after all.

Of Course It's Not Child-Friendly

So, I was going through my normal roundup of blogs today, and I happened across something interesting linked from Julie's Jihadophobic blogspot. Aside from an image including one of my favorite quotes ("Aside from ending slavery, fascism, naziism, and communism, war's never solved anything."), she had a link to another blogspot, where she'd found the image. Funny how that works out, isn't it?

Anyway, on that page, the writer had included a short rant on some busybodies who take issue with sex, violence, and foul language in television shows and movies, particularly taking exception to their inclusion of '24' on a list of bloody-violent shows. Since a link to the actual site in question, for the Parents Television Council, was included, I decided I'd go take a look. You know, since I'm still a child, and I watch such excessive amounts of television these days.

Now, I understand what these folks are purporting to be doing. They watch the shows so you don't have to, and all that. But let's be serious now. Should anyone be surprised if there's a bunch of sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll on prime time TV these days? Frankly, if a parent doesn't want their kid or kids exposed to such things, they're going to be much better off not having a television than trying to pick and choose which programs are least objectionable. After all, doesn't that make the issue even easier? No longer do you have to worry about whether or not a show might be something you don't want your children watching, since they can't access it anyway! Well, on top of that, you'll probably have to toss out the computer, or those sneaky young'uns could find most of the shows on Youtube, at least until the next round of copyright-related takedown notices.

Sure, I'm being facetious to make a point there. Still, if they could then find non-objectionable books, maybe it could be the beginning of solving the functional illiteracy problem? Hmm...

Meanwhile, I found that the only three shows that I'm even minimally willing to brave the 16-minute wall of commercials to view on television (instead of just waiting for the season on DVD like normal) are all red on the PTC stoplight rating system. They are, in case anyone was curious, '24', 'House', and 'Heroes'. I just have to wonder what they'd rate some of the anime that I watch... Maybe they'd have to grow new levels of the stoplight for some of it?

Thankfully, Someone Gets It

The obligatory link: Czech leader Klaus fights global warming 'religion'

It's always interesting when you have to go half a world away to see people talking sense. Case in point, Vaclav Klaus, Czech president. Here we have a man in a position of actual power, rather than in a position of influence such as, say, talk radio, who gets it, and who isn't afraid to speak out on the matter.

From the article: "This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world."

And also: "No government action can stop the world and nature from changing. Therefore, I disagree with plans such as the Kyoto Protocol or similar initiatives, which set arbitrary targets requiring enormous costs without realistic prospects for the success of these measures."

Unfortunately, the alarmists have such a head of steam already that it's going to take plenty of common-sense, level-headed talk like this, probably over the course of years, before we can consign the idea of global warming as man-made to the dustbin of history.

Franklin On Welfare

"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." - Benjamin Franklin

Isn't it interesting that we haven't really come anywhere since then, but the only time I can actually recall that the nation tried this 200-plus-year-old idea, it worked to a degree that surprised (dare I say, shocked?) people? Of course, the whole problem is that it just isn't nice... Well, I never claimed to be particularly nice, either, so I suppose it works out.

Upscale Pizza... Say What?

The obligatory link: Luxury Pie: NYC Restaurant Offers $1,000 Pizza

And here I was thinking that $15 a pie was bad... Seriously, I'm sure there's a market for things like this, but it still boggles the mind each and every time. My only real problem with the pizza isn't the price, though, but the fact that it doesn't sound particularly appetizing... though, it does look nice.

Making The Roads Less Safe, One Call At A Time

The obligatory link: Another Driving Distraction: Thank SameLane

I read the article about this new technology, the ability of people to call other people's cell phones on the highway by seeing and keying in their license plate, and I thought, "You know, this is just terrible enough an idea to catch on."

Think about it for a moment, and I'm sure you can come up with generally the same list of issues I did. It's an additional distraction for the driver, and then there are the real issues: Think about the possibilities of this for use in road rage or stalking. Do we really have to go borrowing trouble like this?

For extra credit, try to guess how long it will take for the government to step in on this. I'm guessing about a day after the first person gets run off the road by someone using this wonderful new technology. Feel free to offer up your guesses.

The Car Guy In Me Cries

The obligatory link: EU suggests speed limit for German autobahns

Quite possibly the best-known stretch of road in the world, and the weenies want to restrict it. No, not because of noise, or because of accidents... or even potential accidents. Sadly, the autobahn may be the next victim of the European Union's war against global warming.

Thankfully, as the article points out, the current minister of transport in Germany is standing up against the idea. We'll see how long that lasts, though.

What Searching Incoming Keywords Turns Up - Christian Mind Control

I'm something of a nut when it comes to checking into the hits I'm getting. Not that I particularly worry about who the people are, but the interest stems from where they happen to be coming from. The hits from China with no referrals are the interesting ones that I haven't really been able to pin down yet, and I keep hoping that one of the regular viewers from that country will leave a comment explaining at least their interest in the blog, to give me something of a handle on it.

Anyway, the keywords are all well and good, but the really interesting stuff are the incoming keywords on blog searches. Today, I had one come in under "First Amendment", so I ran the search myself, and came across an article with an interesting title: How Christian Mind Control Works. Needless to say, between the potential that the person might have some interesting insight into the workings of the religion I follow, and the potential for some serious conspiracy theory crackpottery, I had to click forth.

Here's the only "too long, didn't read" warning you're going to get. The original post was quite sizeable, and being a rebuttal in full to the concepts contained within the original, this post will quite likely be even longer.

I certainly didn't go into this with my eyes closed. Any post at a site entitled ExChristian.net was certainly going to have an obvious slant, but I really did want to give the writer a fair shake. After all, being a Christian, I still want people to give me the benefit of the doubt as an individual before they start in on their perception of the religion as a whole.

After a solid explanation of coercion, and how mental coercion is as or more effective than physical coercion, the writer gets into what he refers to as the "seven main tactic types found in various combinations in the Christian Coercive Persuasion program."

The first tactic mentioned is the attempt to increase a person's susceptibility to suggestion, particularly through use of "audio, visual, verbal, or tactile fixation drills (anything that is "moving" to the emotions as well as to the mind, i.e., worship music, dancing, embraces, stirring preaching or instructional teaching from a pulpit)". Now, I'm not going to try to say this isn't a common or effective tactic, but consider this: What really differentiates common scriptural reading, say, or a common public confession of sins from a group of people in a ballpark standing and singing "Take Me Out To The Ballgame"? I mean, really, consider that song for a minute... "I don't care if I never get back", "Root, root, root for the home team" (the Cardinals have gone so far as to just replace 'home team' with 'Cardinals', other teams may well have done the same). Sure, you can say a person would have to be nuts to call "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" a first step in the indoctrination of fans who attend the sport at stadiums, but taken in the context of looking into indoctrination, doesn't it fit pretty well? The same could be said for commercials, the tone of which, if not the actual words, boils down to "Life is better with this, you shouldn't be without it."

The second tactic is the carrot and the stick method, or rewards and punishments. "...efforts are made to establish considerable control over a person's social environment, time, and sources of social support. Social isolation is promoted ("You are not of the world", "Christ can to bring a sword"). Contact with family and friends is abridged, as is contact with persons who do not share church-approved attitudes. Psychological and emotional dependence on the group is fostered." I'm really not sure which churches the writer partook of, but over the years, I've been either a member or a consistent visitor of several different churches in a couple of different denominations, and I have never felt this trend to establish "considerable control" over my "social environment, time, and sources of social support". More to the point, I rarely (though not never) attend functions outside of normal Sunday services, and while the option is always open to go, the offers made to me are couched as "We've got (whatever) event coming up, it'd be great if you could join us." I don't know about you, but to me, that's a very soft-handed sell. Really, the hardest sell I've had in regards to church-related activities are the repeated requests that I rejoin the choir, since they are consistently short on male singers, and I have a loud voice and don't sing off key (too) often.

As to the concept of choices of social support, I've got my family first and foremost, followed by my friends. I do understand that many people do count the church as a first rung of support for issues in their lives, but consider as well that many people count any number of other organizations in that area as well. Support organizations come to mind as an obvious example.

The concept of social isolation seems to have been taken out of context, as far as I can tell. The term "in the world, but not of the world", as I'm given to understand it, refers not to the idea that Christians should withdraw themselves from non-Christian peoples or places, but that they should refrain from personally engaging in immoral or "unChristian" acts. Now, a fair argument could probably be made as to that being a source of indoctrination in and of itself (I'm commenting on this article as I go, so the concept may well come up later), but consider the kinds of things that the religion is attempting to keep its adherents from doing with the "in the world, but not of it" concept: Murder, theft, lying, adultery, and so forth. In other words, things that are against the law of the land, and that people in general, not just Christians, consider to be bad things. Certainly, if extraneous commands originating from the pastor or ruling body of the church in question, not based on actual command from scripture are added on top of these things, the idea can get out of hand in a hurry, but the actual intent of it is by no means isolationist.

The very first sentence of the third tactic is... interesting. And I don't particularly mean that in a good way. "Disconfirming information and nonsupporting opinions are prohibited in church communication." Again, the experience the writer has had in church (or churches) is wildly different from my own. If anything, the statement would read more truly when applied to something like global warming supporters, who go to great lengths to downplay or even discredit and destroy people who hold viewpoints antithetical to their own. Unfortunately, the writer does not go into any specific circumstances surrounding this statement, so it is difficult at best to comment upon such situations (having none in my own experience to draw on).

"Rules exist about permissible topics to discuss with outsiders." This seems pretty open-ended on the face of it, but aside from going back to the application of the "in the world, but not of it" premise, I can't think of a general set of rules for permissible topics of discussion. And even then, those same rules would apply to people within the church as well as those outside of it. If the statement is meant to refer to proselytization, it is, from my experience, patently false. The actual sharing of faith with an "outsider" consists both of the promises and the requirements of the religion. In other words, the general concepts of Christianity are all laid out up front.

"Communication is highly controlled, especially communication from God. God's communication is one-way, via the bible, and nothing is to contradict that communication." This sentence certainly follows certain concepts in Catholicism, but it is not true of protestant Christianity. The difference is the requirement of the intercession of priests in the Catholic faith, while protestants take the view that anyone at any time can avail themselves of prayer and thus communion with God.

As to the concept of an "in-group language", what group of people with similar interests does not develop such terminology. Certainly, I use a lot of specific terminology amongst my friends and fellow fans of Japanese animation and manga that would be incomprehensible to people without an understanding of at least Japanese, and often the actual subject matter at hand. For instance, to this "in-group", the word "Moe" is not always a man's name. (More likely, it never means a man's name, unless the Three Stooges are being mentioned, and is not pronounced like the name, but instead as the name, followed by the letter A.) Instead, it refers to a nebulous concept of a character's inherent cuteness and likability. Similarly, someone who is not an initiate of the baseball "in-group" would be stumped by such terminology as a "six-four-three double play", or a "ground-rule double". In any such case, people slowly learn such language upon their inclusion in the group in question.

Quoting the fourth tactic: "Frequent and intense attempts are made to cause a person to re-evaluate the most central aspects of his or her experience of self and prior conduct in negative ways. Efforts are designed to destabilize and undermine the subject's basic consciousness, reality awareness, world view, emotional control, and defense mechanisms as well as getting them to reinterpret their life's history, and adopt a new version of causality."

This isn't wrong, to begin with. Frequent and intense attempts are made to get people to re-evaluate their experiences and prior conduct. The concept of them being in a negative light flows from a realistic concept that people are not perfect. Who hasn't made mistakes? What is necessarily bad about reflecting on the past and looking for ways to improve, or desiring not to repeat bad behaviors? Again, the variation here comes from the behaviors that the scriptures themselves are actually attempting to proscribe versus what gets tacked on by overzealous people, or through misunderstandings or misinterpretation.

What can be called an effort "designed to destabilize and undermine the subject's basic consciousness", etc, can also be called efforts at realism. Consider, plenty of study has been done on human consciousness and memory, and the tendancy of people to modify their memories to put themselves in a better light. In general, people don't want to consider their mistakes, or to see that they have, in fact, acted poorly in the past. Actually taking an unvarnished look at one's past can fairly be said to be a reinterpretation of one's life history, but the fact that something is a reinterpretation does not necessarily end in the fact that such a reinterpretation is necessarily false.

Again, the fifth tactic includes "intense and requent attempts", this time, to "undermine a person's confidence in himself and his judgment, creating a sense of powerlessness. The only power that can help is God, or more precisely, the specific church's or Christian group's version of God. The eldership, church leaders, or "advanced" Christians are usually relied upon to understand the bible and for "encouragement" to "have the mind of Christ."".

Again, the writer has the gist of the thing, while missing the actual idea. While Christianity does instill a sense of needing the help of God, the concept is actually in reference to the necessity of being saved because no person is perfect on their own, and thus cannot stand up to the requirements of perfection in the law. Setting aside the law as stated in scripture, it is highly unlikely that an person has even perfectly kept all man-made laws, whether breaking them through willfulness or ignorance (consider various laws relating to driving, for starters). And while "the eldership, church leaders", etc, are relied upon for understanding the Bible, they are not, in the protestant traditions, put forth as infallible sources. Again, this differs from traditions such as Catholicism, with their belief in the essential infallibility of the pope.

On the matter of non-physical punishments, the writer has this to say in his sixth point: "Nonphysical punishments are used such as intense humiliation (private and public confession of sin), loss of privilege (suspension or excommunication from the church or Christian group), social isolation (from the world and the "unbelievers" as well as from erring or heretical Christians that doesn't agree with their church or group..."

While there can fairly be said to be an element of humiliation to confession of sins, the actual idea stems from the ability to be free of these worries after offering them up to God. Also, the point seems to go back to an aversion to admitting to mistakes.

Suspension (or excommunication) is an interesting topic, and, as part of the "in-group" language discussed above, is quite probably one of the more misunderstood concepts in Christianity. It is actually an extreme step taken to attempt to convince a person of their mistakes after other measures have been exhausted. The idea being that if all reasonable means of helping a person to see the error of their ways fail, that they should instead be allowed to continue those ways outside of the group until such time that they come to an understanding that what they are doing is wrong. Actually, this contrats sharply with general cult behavior, wherein such a person would generally be taken more sharply into the group and focused on more specifically for further indoctrination. While it can be said to be an extreme punishment, what differentiates a suspension is the lack of further attempts on the part of the church to deal with the individual's transgressions.

Social isolation is another mistaken representation of the ideals of a church. While Christians are called to be "separate", the concept is not of a physical separation, but rather of a separation where they attempt to live a life by the ideals set forth in scripture rather than those of the world at large. In fact, the idea of physical separation of believers from non-believers is antithetical to the mission and intentions of the church's mandate to propagate the spread of the faith. In other words, if Christians never had contact with non-Christians, this propagation would never take place.

The seventh and final tactic mentioned is again correct on its face, but incorrect in its application. "Certain psychological threats (force) are used or are present: That failure to adopt the approved attitude, belief, or consequent behavior will lead to severe punishment or dire consequence, (e.g. physical or mental illness given by God, the reappearance of a prior physical illness, worldliness, personal economic collapse, social failure, divorce, failure to find a mate, etc.)."

Certainly, there are implicit threats involved in Christianity. The simplest one is, "If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is your lord and savior, and that belief in Him is the sole manner of access for sinners to enter Heaven, you are going to Hell, a place of eternal damnation and torment." That's a pretty hefty threat, whether or not you believe it to be true. There are also matters of church discipline, relating to the activities of individuals. This latter category does actually involve punishments, the extreme of which, excommunication, is actually discussed above. On the other hand, I still haven't found the portion of scripture where people get the concept from that God is going to shower misfortune on them if they misbehave. Particularly, such examples as "the reappearance of a prior physical illness" or "failure to find a mate" fall into the realm of absurdity. This is not to say that God as believed in by Christians is incapable of such things, but rather, that He is not solely a God of fire, brimstone, and lightning bolts from the clear blue sky at the slightest offense. God is not, as my current pastor likes to say, "sitting in heaven with a lighning bolt in hand waiting for you to commit the tiniest sin, so he can say "Gotcha!""

From there, the writer goes on to quote another writer's eight points on Thought Reform and its relevance to cults. I'm particularly curious to see how this statement plays out: "If you are an exchristian or presently a Christian you will be able to see that every sentence of these following points are prevalent within Conservative, Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity."

Point one: ENVIRONMENT CONTROL. Limitation of many/all forms of communication with those outside the group. Worldly books, magazines, letters and fellowship with unbelieving friends and family are taboo. "Come out and be separate!"

This is essentially a reiteration of the second and third tactics listed in the writer's own list, as well as at various other points in the writing, and I'd like to think that I covered the inherent flaws in it fairly well in my discussion of those two points.

Point two: MYSTICAL MANIPULATION. The potential convert to the group becomes convinced of the higher purpose and special calling of the group through a profound encounter or experience, for example, through an alleged miracle or prophetic word or spiritual feeling while within the group.

Another statement that begins as "true, as far as it goes". (I'm getting really tired of saying that... It's almost enough to make a guy think that people are only looking at the parts of Christianity to fit their preconceptions of it, rather than the truth of it... But that would be judgmental, now wouldn't it? Heh...) Yes, there is a "higher purpose" or "special calling" involved in Christianity. However, that calling involves a great deal of work. Christianity is not a "get out of Hell free card", nor is it a "salvation and forget" kind of thing. The emphasis is often misplaced, however, when people start discussing Christian behavior in regards to salvation. Salvation is not a result of good behavior, of saying and doing the right things. Rather, these good behaviors, and sayings and doings come about because salvation happens first. Certainly, you can say, "That sounds mystical", but that's why we call it faith, not empyrical fact, after all.

Also, for every miraculous conversion story that you may hear, there are a great many people who never had any kind of inexplicable experience on their way to faith. This does not mean that their faith is any less, or any less valid. For instance, my conversion came about while I was talking to my cousin in bed one night when he was sleeping over... hardly equivalent to the original miraculous conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus.

Point three: DEMAND FOR PURITY. An explicit goal of the group is to bring about some kind of change, whether it be on a global, social, or personal level. "Perfection is possible if one stays with the group and is committed."

Didn't I just get done saying I was tired of these "starts out true, ends up false" statements? Well, this is another one. While Christianity's explicit goals are to bring about changes on all three levels mentioned, the concept that "Perfection is possible if..." is wildly inaccurate. Rather, Christianity explicitly says that human perfection is not possible in this world. Whether "one stays with the group and is committed" or not is essentially irrelevant. Now, if we're going to take the concept of the afterlife into account here, then perfection becomes possible, through the work of God, but again, this is not necessarily predicated upon remaining a member of any particular group or body of believers.

Point four: CULT OF CONFESSION. The unhealthy practice of self disclosure to members in the group. Often (but not always) in the context of a public gathering in the group, admitting past sins and imperfections, even doubts about the group and critical thoughts about the integrity of the leaders.

Who, exactly, is the authority that has decided that the practice of self-disclosure of one's own faults to other people is "unhealthy"? Without any real frame of reference for this, attempting to offer an argumet against the point is meaningless.

Point five: SACRED SCIENCE. The group's perspective is absolutely true and completely adequate to explain EVERYTHING (A knowledgeable Christian can rebut any critical question presented and Christianity is the Truth and is capable to explain everything about life and spirituality). The doctrine is not subject to amendments or question. ABSOLUTE conformity to the doctrine is required. "(Mat 7:28) And it happened, when Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were astonished at His doctrine." "(Mat 7:28) And it happened, when Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were astonished at His doctrine." "(1Ti 4:16) Give attention to yourself and to the doctrine; continue in them, for doing this, you will both deliver yourself and those hearing you."

The idea that "a knowledgeable Christian can rebut any critical question presented" strikes me as fallacious, though I can't put my finger on it at the moment. And the doctrines as used in the church certainly are open to amendment or question, provided that such amendment or question is valid. In fact, this entire concept is what lead to the protestant split from the Catholic church.

Absolute conformity to true doctrine is, in fact, required. However, a distinction needs to be made here. While such conformity is required, it is not expected. This itself could be said to be part of doctrine, that being that man is inherently fallen and incapable of perfection. Now, this does not mean that a person should not strive for perfection and conformity, or that anything goes. Rather, it is a realistic acknowledgement of the fact that people are not perfect. And while there is discipline involved in the matter, it is not, in its actual form, a kind of retribution, acted upon in viciousness, but rather done in a manner of kindness and a purpose of instruction... No different, really, from giving a kid detention in school rather than letting him go out to recess because he's been misbehaving in class. As with any such punishment, of course, it can be misused, but what we're attempting to discuss here is correct usage, not misapplication.

Point six: LOADED LANGUAGE. A new vocabulary emerges within the context of the group. Group members "think" within the very abstract and narrow parameters of the group's doctrine. The terminology sufficiently stops members from thinking critically by reinforcing a "black and white" mentality. Loaded terms and clich�s prejudice thinking.

Again, we're not given specific examples to deal with, so I'll have to work at this in a "very abstract" way. Loaded language, as explained here, is hardly the sole property of cults and religions. You can see the usage and effects of it every day if you read the morning paper, get your news from the internet, listen to a politican's speech at the stump, or tune in to sports-talk radio on the drive home.

Point seven: DOCTRINE OVER PERSON. Pre-group experience and group experience are narrowly and decisively interpreted through the absolute doctrine, even when experience contradicts the doctrine.

The writer being quoted here says this, but again does not give any real points of reference, instead assuming that the reader can supply his own. I see this as being open-ended enough that, if I were to try to address it in all the manners I can consider the writer attempting to apply it, I'd be here for the next several days. Again, I don't want to go stabbing around in the dark trying to come up with a reply to the author's actual intent.

Point eight: DISPENSING OF EXISTENCE. Salvation is possible only in the group (Christianity). Those who leave the group are doomed.

The concept of the group is being accentuated here, when it is not actually the point. The group is a set of people who already believe. In other words, salvation is a characteristic shared by all the people in the group, much as physical fitness is a characteristic shared by people in the group called "athletes". (As a quick aside, this is why it makes no sense to me to call people such a racecar drivers athletes. While it is a preferred characteristic, it is not a required one in the way it is for, say, long-distance runners.) Likewise, leaving the group is not the cause of damnation (or being doomed, as the point puts it).

The writer of "How Christian Mind Control Works" then goes on to say the following: "Any group that has most or all of these points is a destructive mind control cult." I'd like to think that I've shown that most, if not all of these points do not apply to Christianity as it actually exists, but only to the strawman version of Christianity that the writer has put forth for the purposes of his article.

"The Christian mind cannot see its own blind-spots. It sees no contradictions, no dangers, no imperfections, yet this is the Matrix that is the Christian Coercion Persuasion Program." Again, this is true of the strawman Christianity, but not necessarily so of the religion as properly practiced.

The remainder of the article goes on to build on the points that the writer has attempted to set forth. Obviously, without believing that Christianity is fulfilling the criteria given, attempting to critique the remainder of the article is difficult at best. The essential point is that Christianity, being functionally a cult, should be overseen, and its first amendment protections removed because it does not act in the interests of a free society. However, this point is predicated upon a proof that Christianity is indeed a cult which relied not on actual Christianity to make its points, but a propped-up, idealized version of the religion which suited the author's purposes.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for staying for the entirety of the four-hour-long lecture. Class is dismissed.

Samuel Adams On Vice And Liberty

"Since private and publick Vices, are in Reality, though not always apparently, so nearly connected, of how much Importance, how necessary is it, that the utmost Pains be taken by the Publick, to have the Principles of Virtue early inculcated on the Minds even of children, and the moral Sense kept alive, and that the wise institutions of our Ancestors for these great Purposes be encouraged by the Government. For no people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." - Samuel Adams

Ouch. That cuts right to the heart of the matter, doesn't it? Now, I'm not trying to sound too doom-and-gloom here, but upon looking around, it really does seem that he hit the nail on the head...

Madison On The First Amendment

"The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed. " - James Madison

The differences between this and the final version of the amendment are rather interesting.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Honestly, I have to say that Madison's version is at once clearer and more powerful, even though the two statements are covering essentially the same material. If only he could have managed to stick with the "nor shall any national religion be established" portion, it might have saved us a few headaches.

Well, at the least, it's an interesting window into what people are now calling original intent.

Another Encroachment Against Freedom

The obligatory link: France Bans Laypeople from Reporting Violence

Ouch. So, if you're not a journalist, you face jail time if you happen to catch real violence on film? Besides being ridiculous, it's a dangerous precedent to set.

"The law could lead to the imprisonment of eyewitnesses who film acts of police violence, or operators of Web sites publishing the images, one French civil liberties group warned on Tuesday."

Now, if you have a dark sense of humor, you may find the next bit here amusing. What date did the French Constitutional Council choose to unveil this law? None other than the 16th anniversary of the Rodney King beating (captured, of course, on film by an amateur with a video camera).

What are they actually trying to target with this law, though?

During parliamentary debate of the law, government representatives said the offense of filming or distributing films of acts of violence targets the practice of "happy slapping," in which a violent attack is filmed by an accomplice, typically with a camera phone, for the amusement of the attacker's friends.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call swatting a fly with a nuclear warhead.

Ban Legos For Great Justice!

Welcome, new readers from Adventure Rider's forums!

The obligatory link: L'Eggo My Lego

Honestly, I can't say that I'm surprised by this. Saddened, sure, but not surprised.

The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."

That's certainly the meat of it. Is anybody else downright sick of the constant stories of teachers at various levels of education heading for indoctrination long before they'll actually head for teaching? We're not talking about college students here, who should be capable of discernment on their own, or even high school students, who we would hope would be capable of the same. No, these teachers are busily trying to strike down the notion of private property in kids aged 5-9. (Scroll down to the section titled "The Investigation Begins" for that information.)

We haven't gotten to the really sickening part, though. After quite some time, the teachers did allow Legos back into the classroom. However, now the kids are talking about them in these glowingly communistic terms:

"A house is good because it is a community house."

"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."

"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."

Somebody pass the barf bag, please. I have a sudden desire to be exceptionally ill.

Anti-Americanism In Comics, Cap, And Escaping To Manga

As many people have already covered, including Brainster (and he's got links to several of the others), Marvel has finally gone and done it. They've killed off Captain America.

I'll admit from the start that I wasn't much of a comics junkie as a kid. Not from any dislike of the medium mind you. It was more of a matter of what was around to read, which was generally more along the lines of Tolkien and Lewis. Still, a friend of mine was, so I eventually got to go through significant portions of his collection.

It's a strange thing, to be at a point in your life where you're just forming your political opinions. It becomes exceptionally clear when people are disagreeing with those views, and what I was seeing in comics certainly counted. Now, it wasn't that I hadn't heard ideas like those voiced before, but I'd always considered fiction, with pictures or without, to be a realm unto itself, and the sanctity that I'd ascribed to it was being violated to an impressive degree.

Simply put, I don't get it. I'm not about to claim that America is perfect, but we've still got the best thing going in the world by such a long shot that it's not really arguable. I can put myself into a mindset where the problems that people like many comic writers exist, but I can't see how they get there from here. The view that this country is bad, evil, and the scum of the earth is so antithetical to reality that the disconnect can only be bridged by a suspension of disbelief more rigid than the one required for reading Crossroad.

Now, I haven't given up on comics wholly, but it's a near thing. Most of the particularly egregious examples that I can recall, and it's tough, since I have read much outside of 100 Bullets and Y: The Last Man in about three years now, are coming out of Marvel's comics lines.

Meanwhile, I've found my own alternative. While Brainster has mentioned that he's gone back to the golden and silver ages of comics (when heroes were heroes, villains were villains, and heroes thumped villains because it was the right thing to do, darn it), I've gone across the Pacific for my fix. Personally, I'm pleased with the results, though your mileage may vary. To me, it's going back to the day when a story was a story, rather than old favorite characters slapped on top of a political diatribe.

There may be something to be said here for the fact that characters in manga aren't forever, like they are in American comics. As I see it, there are only so many times the X-Men can fight off Magneto before a change of pace is needed. Rather than having a distinct starting point, a defined story, and a distinct end, the arcs simply blend and continue. And while there is something nice about having characters with a long history, having that long, involved history makes getting into some characters and stories more difficult. (Hence a lot of the re-launches of characters in the past few years.) So, instead of getting new characters, new villains, and new storylines, we get old characters, old villains, and old storylines, with a couple scoops of the political cause du jour on top to make it look different.

Well, if it sells, it sells, I suppose. Meanwhile, I'll just stick to stories for their own sake, and get my politics from the news sites.

P.S. - In the interest of fairness, there are questions about the presence of anti-Americanism in manga and anime. The best work I've read on the topic is here, at Hontou ni Sou Omou.

At Least Someone's Still Working For Us

The obligatory link: Bill would block credit cards for illegals

Three cheers for Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. It's nice to see at least one member of Congress standing up for what's right, even though it may cost them politically in the future. She's introduced a bill which, as the above link states, would prohibit Bank of America's asinine plan to offer credit cards to people without acceptable forms of identification.

For those who didn't catch the beginning of the story, click here for a refresher.

Hiss! Boo!

The obligatory link: Ban on booing at local high school games considered

This is just ridiculous on the face of it. While I'm not quite sure if it can be said that booing has been going on since time immemorial, Wiki thinks it may date as far back as ancient Greece. In any event, booing is certainly a time-honored tradition.

I don't think it's going too far to say that this is another of those attempts to wrangle good feelings out of legality. I mean, seriously, they use the term "crack down on negative conduct" in here. When I hear that, you know what comes to mind? Murder, rape, theft, physical assault... that kind of stuff. There's a level of difference here between, "Hey Ref, get some glasses!" and "Hey Ref, I'm'a kill you and eat your children!" Taking issue with the second, given the current state of our culture, is understandable. Taking issue with the first, meanwhile, is just another example of the expanding pusillanimity of Americans.

Another Body Blow For Personal Responsibility

The obligatory link: Poll: The Politics Of Health Care

You can click over and there's a PDF with the full results, but let me just hit the highlights so you can tear your hair out now...

Most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system. Two-thirds say the federal government should guarantee that all Americans have health insurance.

I don't even need to finish that series I've been doing on the constitution to know that this one is none of the federal government's business.

Eighty-four percent of Americans favor expanding government programs in order to give health insurance to all uninsured children.

Again, no real surprise. We could probably even get some of the regulations out of the way of nuclear power if we could convince enough people that it was "for the children".

Still, there is a minimal bright spot in all of this:

Less than one in three, however, say the government would do a better job than private insurance companies at actually providing medical coverage. Forty-four percent said the government would be worse as a health care provider than private companies.

Bring In The Stunt Double!

The obligatory link: Stand-in mistress sought to take wife's abuse

This is definitely one of those stories that sounds too odd to be true. Then again, I'm still sitting on another one about what is essentially rent-a-wife, so maybe this does fit right in. Essentially, a guy wants to hire a lady to take the fall as his mistress so that his wife won't find out about his real mistress. Not quite enough to set one's head to spinning, but it's certainly getting there.

Still, all things considered, as long as the guy can keep knives and heavy weaponry out of it, the equivalent of $2,400/hour isn't exactly a bad take...

Not As Bizarre As The Headline, But Quite Dangerous

The obligatory link: Anti-Jewish cartoon angers L.A. Koreans

I know, I know... It's not exactly the kind of headline you expect when anti-Semitism comes up in the media.

Reality is much simpler, thankfully, in this case. Apparently there's a publisher in South Korea that publishes the cartoon in question. While I can't say that I ever thought of the far East as being a hotbed of anti-Semitism, I have to say it's a good idea to catch it and stomp on it firmly now. Doubly so since, as is mentioned rather late in the article, the cartoon in question is part of a book aimed at "teaching children about other countries". Kind of makes one wonder what's written in the other books in that series...

Surprising That They'd Even Consider It

The obligatory link: Post Office may issue "forever" stamp

Even though the post office is provided for in the Constitution, I can't say that I really like the fact that it still exists as a government entity. After all, haven't plenty of private companies proven that they can do a better, faster job?

Anyway, on the table today is the post offices' attempt to raise stamps three cents (again). I understand they need to cover things like fuel costs, but the thing is, with the admission that usage of first-class mail is declining, it looks more like an attempt to pad their numbers.

As to the "forever" stamp, the concept is to print a stamp with no valuation on the face, so people could buy them at the current price when they were issued (figure the three cent increase goes in, so that'd be 42 cents), and they would remain valid even in the case of a future rate increase. There is certainly a chance to speculate on the price of stamps here, particularly for people who use a great deal of them. Of course, what happens if they later go off and "un-forever" the "forever" stamp? Sure, it sounds rather illegal, but a government entity could probably get away with it, if it tried hard enough.

Tricked By The Cover

The obligatory link: Dems urge GOP to halt immigrant prank

Wouldn't you think that the GOP was actually doing something? Well, aside from the fact that they can't be troubled to do much in the way of actual work on illegal immigration, anyway? No, unfortunately, all the ruckus is about the College Republicans "Catch an Illegal Immigrant" bit.

The sad part, though, is where the RNC actually reponds:

Tracy Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said "we find these activities both egregious and offensive and condemn them wholeheartedly." But she noted the College Republicans are independent of the RNC: "We do not control their activities."

Egregious... Merriam-Webster has it as "conspicuous", often as in "conspicuously bad". Of course, the only reason the whole thing is conspicuous at all is that people keep writing stories about it. Which leads us right into the next part. People are writing stories about the event, making it conspicuous, as it were, because they're "offended". (And yes, that belongs in scare quotes if anything does.) Frankly, I take issue with people who condemn as offensive folks who are essentially trying to get out a message of, "Hey, there're people over here breaking the law... Y'all wanna do anything about it?"

Well, file it under "there's no such thing as bad publicity", I suppose. Maybe if it stays in the public view long enough, people might actually get the idea. ... ... ... Then again, maybe not.