Sound the alarms! They Have Islamist Fanatics, We Have Secularist Fanatics. That's the warning we get from Dennis Prager today.
It's an old story. A school prayer banner was found hanging on the auditorium wall of Cranston High School West. It had been there since 1963. The date is significant. Recall that the Supreme Court decided Engel v. Vitale in 1962. After that, school prayer should have stopped. But no doesn't mean no to some people. They look for loopholes. So instead of forcing students to recite a live prayer every morning, one was frozen in time. A seventh grader just happened to have a prayer in his pocket. It was put on an eight-foot banner and hung where all could witness that this little Christian school district was not going to let the Supreme Court push it around. Prayer would be a permanent fixture -- a trophy to deception, a thumbing of the nose to the rule of law.
Forty-seven years passed before someone complained. An ACLU lawsuit was filed on behalf of student Jessica Ahlquist.The outcome should have been obvious, even trivial these days, but Prager finds a catastrophe. Secular "fanatics" ruined another school prayer. In the court's eyes, though, "No amount of debate can make the School Prayer anything other than a prayer, and a Christian one at that."
Prager cannot grasp a simple American truth. The state must remain neutral in matters of religion. It cannot sponsor school prayer. But Prager likes Orwellian language. With no hint of irony he claims secularists want to "dominate society and to use state power to do so." Why does he fail to mention the Christians who send out missionaries, erect monuments to their faith, and try to pass laws to enforce it? It was state power that kept that banner hanging there since 1962. Truth is, Prager has plenty of love for state power as long as state power enforces his agenda.
In 2006 Prager was equally outraged that Keith Ellison was going to take his oath of office on the Koran, not the Bible. Such an act would do "more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11." He boldly asserted, "America is interested in only one book, the Bible." So Ellison "should not be allowed" to swear on the Koran -- "not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization." What power did Prager suppose was going to prevent this act? State power, of course.
As if Prager's fear wasn't bizarre enough, he glorified conformity: "When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization." Do we need a religious text for that? Has Prager not heard of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers? Does he know basic civics? He should know that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That's what America decided in 1789. What America is Prager referring to?
If Prager truly believes the Bible underlies America's "unifying value system" then he is either ignorant or a slick political operative bent on destroying the American values expressed in our founding documents.
I don't think he's ignorant.
And I don't think he's interested in unity, liberty, or morality. These are some of the threats 16-year-old Jessica Ahlquist received for removing the school's prayer:
“I want to punch the girl in the face...”
“Fuck Jessica alquist I’ll drop anchor on her face”
“go drown that atheist in holy water”
“”But for real somebody should jump this girl” lmao let’s do it!”
“shes not human shes garbage”
“wen the atheist dies, they believe they will become a tree, so we shld chop her down, turn her into paper then PRINT THE BIBLE ON HER.”
“May that little, evil athiest teenage girl and that judge BURN IN HELL!”
“yeah, well i want the immediate removal of all atheists from the school, how about that?”
“If this banner comes down, hell i hope the school burns down with it!”
“U little brainless idiot, hope u will be punished, you have not win sh..t! Stupid little brainless skunk!”
“How does it feel to be the most hated person in RI right now? Your a puke and a disgrace to the human race.”
“Hmm jess is in my bio class, she’s gonna get some shit thrown at her”
“gods going to fuck your ass with that banner you scumbag”
“I found it, what a little bitch lol I wanna snuff her”
“if I wasn’t 18 and wouldn’t go to jail I’d beat the shit out of her idk how she got away with not getting beat up yet”
“nail her to a cross”
“When I take over the world I’m going to do a holocaust to all the atheists”
Prager fed red meat to his barbarians today. He'll probably sleep well tonight knowing how much better he and his mob can make the world.
-- Don Jindra
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The Bulldog Wimps-out
Doug Giles is sure he knows why Texas resident Aziz Yazdanpanah dressed up as Santa Claus and proceeded to murder six family members as they opened gifts on Christmas morning, 2011. Forget the Christian setting. Yazdanpanah must have been some sort of fanatical Muslim. How else could this be explained? So in Giles mind it necessarily follows the deed was an "honor killing." Neither the press nor the police reported it that way but that just proves they're poodles. That's right, poodles. God speaks truths to bulldogs not poodles. And why not? -- since it's "pit bulls who smash demonic strongholds, stand for truth and bring life, light and healing to this great planet." [1]
What kind of truth does Giles stand for these days?
Let's start with what we know. Yazdanpanah killed his estranged wife, their 19-year-old daughter, their 15-year-old son, his sister-in-law, her husband, and their 22-year-old daughter. Then he killed himself but not before trying to pin the crimes on the brother-in-law he had just murdered. We know Yazdanpanah was chronically unemployed. He was losing his house. He was bankrupt. His children lived with his wife. There were rumors he disapproved of who his daughter was dating.
Oh, yeah, he was originally from Iran.
Does this scream "honor killing?" This is Giles definition: "An honor killing is a murder wherein a man from the Creed of Calm can give his wife and/or daughter(s) the axe if he deems that they have embarrassed him or their peaceful community." [2] Therefore we should assume an "honor killing" of the daughter would stop at the daughter. An "honor killing" of the wife would end with the wife. Even using Giles' definition there's no "honorable" reason to kill the whole family including the son and brother-in-law.
Nevertheless some "conservative" blogs invented the story because "conservatives" don't care about truth. Clashpoint: Truth is for poodles. Comrades need to be fired up! Any issue that can be culturally exploited will be swung like a pick-axe.
But isn't Giles a bulldog? He wrote a whole book about it. Why would a bulldog get so upset over a private family affair particularly when honor was at stake? Bulldogs are mean and tough. Why is he sounding like a poodle Christian who gets bent out of shape over trifles? "We believe God created men to be men without apology." That's part of his Clash Church description. What's more manly than defending your honor? Doesn't he still "avoid the feminization of men and the spiritual emasculation of God’s rowdy warriors?" [3] "We've still "got to draw the knuckle draggers back to church," don't we? [4]
Consider the lesson of that first wild man, Adam. He "refused to rule righteously and conquer the serpent." That "reticence to be the wild man" cost him paradise. [5]
And the kids these days! Andrea Yates knew the score. "My children were not righteous. I let them stumble. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell." So she drowned her five kids in the bathtub to nip the problem in the bud.
Dena Schlosser hacked the arms off her 11 month old child. It was done tastefully to background music: the Christian gospel song, "He Touched Me." She was still singing hymns when the police arrived. The state psychiatrist later testified, "She felt she was basically commanded, in essence, to cut Maggie's arms off and her own arms off, and her legs and her head, and in some way to give them to God."
Elizabeth Schatz and her husband took turns beating their seven year old daughter to death. The rebellious child had mispronounced a word. It was not part of the Schatz's Christian home-school practice that words should be treated so recklessly, not nearly as recklessly as a child's body. Not to worry, though. This beating had a biblical foundation.
And there is Deanna Laney. She knew she had to “step out in faith” and trust God. So she stoned two of her children to death. There was no choice in the matter. The "signs" were so strong. An expert witness testified, "She struggled over whether to obey God or to selfishly keep her children.” Let's be honest. How can a god-fearing Christian choose selfishness? Laney was certain she had put her sons in a safe place -- the safest place: “I feel like He will reveal his power and they will be raised up. They will become alive again.”
These were pit bull women listening to the voice of God. Yet not a peep from Giles about these fine Christian parents.
Giles prays to a Jesus who not only sanctions torture, but relishes the opportunity. Yet one Muslim family is sacrificed to the gods of moral purity and he goes soft? Why now?
Has Giles forgotten it's okay to stone unruly children? He needs to bury his nose in a bible and get his head straight. "How about looking at scripture through the eyes of the Pit Bull?" That's his own advice. He should take it. There are pit bulls and there are Pit Bulls. What's the difference? Pit Bulls don't waiver. Pit Bulls embrace their barbaric side. Yes, Pit Bulls will eat their young. Then they lick their balls. Clash with that.
-- Don Jindra.
Notes:
[1] Do You Have a Pit Bull Attitude? by Doug Giles
[2] The Santa Killer Was a Religion of Peacer by Doug Giles
[3] Giles' Clash Church profession of faith
[1] If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going by Doug Giles, p51
[5] "The Wild Man" by Doug Giles
What kind of truth does Giles stand for these days?
Let's start with what we know. Yazdanpanah killed his estranged wife, their 19-year-old daughter, their 15-year-old son, his sister-in-law, her husband, and their 22-year-old daughter. Then he killed himself but not before trying to pin the crimes on the brother-in-law he had just murdered. We know Yazdanpanah was chronically unemployed. He was losing his house. He was bankrupt. His children lived with his wife. There were rumors he disapproved of who his daughter was dating.
Oh, yeah, he was originally from Iran.
Does this scream "honor killing?" This is Giles definition: "An honor killing is a murder wherein a man from the Creed of Calm can give his wife and/or daughter(s) the axe if he deems that they have embarrassed him or their peaceful community." [2] Therefore we should assume an "honor killing" of the daughter would stop at the daughter. An "honor killing" of the wife would end with the wife. Even using Giles' definition there's no "honorable" reason to kill the whole family including the son and brother-in-law.
Nevertheless some "conservative" blogs invented the story because "conservatives" don't care about truth. Clashpoint: Truth is for poodles. Comrades need to be fired up! Any issue that can be culturally exploited will be swung like a pick-axe.
But isn't Giles a bulldog? He wrote a whole book about it. Why would a bulldog get so upset over a private family affair particularly when honor was at stake? Bulldogs are mean and tough. Why is he sounding like a poodle Christian who gets bent out of shape over trifles? "We believe God created men to be men without apology." That's part of his Clash Church description. What's more manly than defending your honor? Doesn't he still "avoid the feminization of men and the spiritual emasculation of God’s rowdy warriors?" [3] "We've still "got to draw the knuckle draggers back to church," don't we? [4]
Consider the lesson of that first wild man, Adam. He "refused to rule righteously and conquer the serpent." That "reticence to be the wild man" cost him paradise. [5]
And the kids these days! Andrea Yates knew the score. "My children were not righteous. I let them stumble. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell." So she drowned her five kids in the bathtub to nip the problem in the bud.
Dena Schlosser hacked the arms off her 11 month old child. It was done tastefully to background music: the Christian gospel song, "He Touched Me." She was still singing hymns when the police arrived. The state psychiatrist later testified, "She felt she was basically commanded, in essence, to cut Maggie's arms off and her own arms off, and her legs and her head, and in some way to give them to God."
Elizabeth Schatz and her husband took turns beating their seven year old daughter to death. The rebellious child had mispronounced a word. It was not part of the Schatz's Christian home-school practice that words should be treated so recklessly, not nearly as recklessly as a child's body. Not to worry, though. This beating had a biblical foundation.
And there is Deanna Laney. She knew she had to “step out in faith” and trust God. So she stoned two of her children to death. There was no choice in the matter. The "signs" were so strong. An expert witness testified, "She struggled over whether to obey God or to selfishly keep her children.” Let's be honest. How can a god-fearing Christian choose selfishness? Laney was certain she had put her sons in a safe place -- the safest place: “I feel like He will reveal his power and they will be raised up. They will become alive again.”
These were pit bull women listening to the voice of God. Yet not a peep from Giles about these fine Christian parents.
Giles prays to a Jesus who not only sanctions torture, but relishes the opportunity. Yet one Muslim family is sacrificed to the gods of moral purity and he goes soft? Why now?
Has Giles forgotten it's okay to stone unruly children? He needs to bury his nose in a bible and get his head straight. "How about looking at scripture through the eyes of the Pit Bull?" That's his own advice. He should take it. There are pit bulls and there are Pit Bulls. What's the difference? Pit Bulls don't waiver. Pit Bulls embrace their barbaric side. Yes, Pit Bulls will eat their young. Then they lick their balls. Clash with that.
-- Don Jindra.
Notes:
[1] Do You Have a Pit Bull Attitude? by Doug Giles
[2] The Santa Killer Was a Religion of Peacer by Doug Giles
[3] Giles' Clash Church profession of faith
[1] If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going by Doug Giles, p51
[5] "The Wild Man" by Doug Giles
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)