Difficult Decisions

P-Momma recently had some drama on her blog. A man by the name of Tom started a blog called "No Possum Zone", which is now defunct. Well, as you may be able to tell by the name, the blog was created for the soul purpose of criticizing P-Momma's actions and her family. In a comment, Nancy said:

...It is God who told us in prayer to pick her when we searched for an atheist woman to discuss for parenting Bible studies.

Considering the thought process of most fundagelicals, I figured that meant they had stumbled across the blog and decided to show the love. Their version of it, anyway.

Well, that turned out not to be the case. It turns out that someone P-Momma had online contact with a few years ago had kept track of her, and apparently given information to Tom and Nancy. When they copy/pasted some text from a post that she'd done back in 2001 she figured out who it was. Only about a dozen people knew how to access the website, and it had been so long ago that P-Momma had forgotten about it.

Well, apparently "God" is slang for a relative with an agenda, because it was Tom's sister-in-law who was feeding them the information and who lead them to P-Momma's blog in the first place. Things started to click into place, and there was an email exchange between P-Momma and Tom. P-Momma was understandably upset that Tom would copy what she'd wrote for her children to read and put it on his blog. Not because it was evidence of Tom's assertion (that P-Momma slept with her ex-husband to keep him with her), but because it was intensely personal and he had no business doing so. Well, he agreed, but there could have been a reason behind it.

There are some parallels between Tom and P-Momma's ex-husband. Tom and Nancy had sex before they were married, and Tom is an abusive husband. How do I know this? If you went to the link, you'll find that P-Momma did a post on that information, because at the end of the email exchange Tom said:

"I got forgiving blessing from God about those things. Share them and you'll have egg on your face cause I am about truth."

Well, it didn't appear that Tom was "about truth" with his next blog post.

Possummomma is a liar. She lies. She barganed that when I took down the entry of her letter to the possum kids she would take down the past about us. She lied and made a entry on blog about us after I did what she wanted. If she ever wanted to find out how we found her blog she could ask us about it, we would tell her Shannon led us to her atheist rant you call a blog so what. So what where we saw it? Me and Nancy courted for two years until we got married so we were ready to marry when we had sexual relationships. Our child was not born three months after we had a wedding he was born four months after and was a month early. We are sinners who arnt the best perfect people that God knows our sins that we can repent for our soul. I did not lie at my wedding to say that I would love my wife for ever to "save face" when possum mom did.

Several people pointed out the incongruity of his actions (not to mention that we'd repeatedly pointed out his hypocrisy), but then in the comments he wrote something that really got our attention.

I disciplin my wife and children if it when it needs doing like our Bible says. Beating from domestic violence is not the same because I know how to use it right some poeple dont use it right. My daddy did it to my mom my sons will do it in their houses but it means wives or girls can say that it was to rough and a husband living in God will stop before carring it to far. Dont talk about it like you know how we use it.

You can imagine the buzz that caused. Especially since he said "wife and children". If he'd only said children, it would have been more vague, but including Nancy in his comment raised some flags.

I saw it, but couldn't believe it. Tom had given enough evidence to have him investigated. I spent the weekend thinking it over, and even gave the link to my wife so she could see his comment and I could get her reaction. She agreed with me, and I sent an email to P-Momma.

I've been thinking over the weekend, and approached the subject with my wife. Unless Nancy wants to press charges, there's nothing the authorities can do about Tom's assaults. However, if he's beating his children (which the comment on his blog insinuates) then they can be protected. Perhaps doing so will wake Nancy up, but even if not it will protect their kids.

She agreed, and got enough information to contact the authorities. What I didn't know about were the emails that she'd exchanged with Tom and Nancy that no one else saw.

Apparently, Tom and Nancy not only did physical punishment with their children, but also used fasting as a punishment. For the spankings, "little crimes get the hand" and "bigger problems get a spoon or belt." The real ignorance though is the fasting. "It's good for the body...we never do it unless a child is over three years." What the hell did they read to come up with "four and above" as a good age to start using fasting as a punishment? A quick search of their favorite book didn't show that.

P-Momma ended up making the difficult decision, and got in touch with NCCPS. Well, Nancy was none to happy with that.

Possummomma is a liar. She twists the way we disciplining are children to sick levels enough to call children and family services to have us be questioned. I am a God Fearing Christian so I have names for you that I cant use ever. So you know they left with no actions to Thomas so you lose. When they do the next check-up they still don't find any abuses just following Bible based parenting so you lose. We delete our posts now leave us alone with no lies by your serpents tongue. I am pregnat Your cause of my stress is appawling.
[Emphasis mine]

Notice what I emphasized? CPS didn't find anything, but they're coming back. If they didn't find anything, why would they come back?

Anyway, if you look through Tom and Nancy's comments, they keep bringing up the "she's pregnant" card everytime they were loosing an argument, which was everytime they sat down at the keyboard. Of course, considering lupus lasts a helluva lot longer than 9 months, and they weren't giving P-Momma any slack because of it, I didn't really give a damn that Nancy has a bun in the oven... for the seventh time.

In that comment to Tom, I gave a brief explanation of unintended consequences. He started a blog specifically to harass someone, and now his household is under investigation by CPS. I'm sure he and Nancy didn't see that coming (perhaps they should have prayed harder?), but I don't feel especially proud of what was done.

I sincerely hope there is nothing wrong, and Tom and Nancy were just blowing off steam to us "godless". Otherwise, their children may be taken away from them. On the one hand, it could save their children from an uneducated, indoctrinated, and ignorant upbringing. On the other hand, those children would be torn from a mother and father they've known all their lives. I'm not proud of being one of the people who indirectly brought this about, but I am proud of P-Momma for doing the right thing.

There was one commenter who said we should have minded our own business. However, that commenter apparently didn't read the other comments from people who actually experienced what Tom and Nancy's children may be going through. Jabba may be a proponent of apathy, but I consider him a supporter of cowardice.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

Ben Stein email hoax

Yet again, I get another piece of glurge. However, also it's from a friend wanting my actual views on it. So, away we go.

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

Well, part of it was, anyway.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.

Actually, the worship of evergreens during winter solstice predates Christianity. Christmas trees didn't become a tradition until the sixteenth century.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a cr?che, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I agree. I wish "peace on Earth and good will toward (wo)men" was practiced all year around. However, it isn't. Even during the holidays, if you want to see something counter to what it's supposed to represent watch parents trying to get the last of that years Christmas toy craze.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Now this is a load of crap. No, we aren't an "atheist country". The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution established the US of A as a secular nation. What people do on their own time is their business, but the government is not supposed to support any religion over any other.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

I have done quite a bit of thinking. For one, no one understands their deity of choice. At best, their "understanding" is rationalizing actions they want to take by proclaiming their deity of choice says it's okay. To top it all off, all of their beliefs assume the existance of the unprovable.

Oh, and I don't worship celebrities. They are human, just like everyone else, including the authorities in government, the church, and even the ones who supposedly wrote the Bible, Torah, or whatever other religious text a person follows.

Note: The following is not attributed to Mr. Stein. It was added on later.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

Backed out? Isn't this the same God who destroyed Sodom and Gamora? What about the ten plagues that all of Egypt had to suffer because the Pharoah didn't want the Jews to leave?

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Actually, the man who killed O'Hare and her two children, David Roland Waters, confessed to the crime and led the police to the body.

Well, there are many other religions that teach the same thing. Christianity or the Bible doesn't have a lock on ethics. Actually, you also need to include the number of instances that same book says "put to death" to give a fair review. Here's a few instances:

Exo 21:15"And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

Exo 21:17"And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

Exo 31:14'Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.

Exo 31:15'For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

I'll stop there but you get the idea. Look at some of the rest of them, and then tell me that the Bible is a good source of morality or ethics.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Actually, Mr. Spocks son is still alive. However, his grandson did commit suicide. Regardless, that has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Spanking and violence is something people use when they're unable to support their position by other more peaceful means. In some cases, violence and spanking may be necessary. However, your also teaching your children that being bigger, stronger, and violent makes you right.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Every generation has had psychopaths. The difference is that we now have the information age to go with it. Sorry, but with the 86 instances I found of "put to death" in the Bible, I don't think that book would teach them any better values (if they actually read it).

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Okay, so the religious right had the major political power for several years, the current president claimed that God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and the country is made up of about 75% Christians, but it's still having problems? The second closest is nonreligious/secular at only 14%, and you're trying to blame the problems on not enough people supporting your deity of choice? Give me a break.

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

I wish I did receive more humorous emails. As far as thinking twice, that doesn't seem to be an issue.

Are you laughing yet?

Nope. I never laugh at ignorance, I shake my head in sorrow.

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on
your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they
will think of you for sending it.

I won't be forwarding it to anyone, because of all the things wrong with it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Well, duh. I actually know and talk to the other people. They aren't just voices in my head.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

Why do all of these emails end with a guilt trip? I don't discard any thought process. I just examined this one and found it severely lacking.

I'm not passing it on. I'm doing what I do to all emails I get. I go over them carefully, checking to make sure their true, and then sending back what I've found. Or, in this case and a few others, doing a blog entry so others can save themselves some time.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

I do respect the first part, about respecting others. I even believe that it's honest, to Mr. Stein, Anne Graham Lotz (referred to as "Billy Graham's daughter" in the email), and the numerous people who've perpetuated this lie.

I respect other people, but I do not have to respect their beliefs unless they provide a valid reason to do so. I also don't want the government showing favoritism for one religion, or non-religion, over another. Regardless of what most, especially those who have a stake (financial, influential, or otherwise) in their religion being true, want you to believe. I believe little Sally or Johnny should be able to pray before the math test they didn't study for. What I don't want is a teacher or other authority figure telling them they have to, or they will be going to hell because they don't believe the same as the teacher. Perhaps I can put this in perspective. What if the teacher was a Wiccan or Pagan? Would Christians want that teacher to lead their child prayer?

If you want to believe in your religion, fine. Practice it in your church and/or in your home. However, don't expect others to do so, or to let you by with claims about your religion that have proof to be false. If you want to send out feel-good emails to everyone on your list, go for it. But don't be upset when someone hits "reply all" and explains why what you said was wrong.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

China 2008: The IOC Mistake

I already did a post on the Chinese Milli Vanilli scandal. However, I just went to Google News and did a quick look at the Olympics section. It was disheartening when I looked at the three stories featured on Google News' front page.

The first article talks about how the veneer of glamour is too obvious. Perhaps, as the article states, the IOC hoped that bringing the Olympic games to China would open them up to the way their citizens should be treated. However, it seems that bringing Beijing onto the public stage has only heightened the governments need to sweep all the bad things under the rug.

The second article gives a chilling retelling of human rights violations of a whistle blower and his family. If it's true, then the IOC overlooking such things is appalling, and needs to be remedied.

The third article is actually very interesting. In the first article, they talk about "protest parks". My understanding is China has set up these parks for people to protest in a controlled and non-disruptive manner. However, those who want to protest at these parks have to apply for permits. The reporter, Bill Marcus of Fox Radio News, had started to read off a list of five cases of arrests and harassment associated with applying for a permit. He was cut off by the by the moderator, Sun Weide. Weide told Marcus to keep it brief and asked if he had a question. Now, I have to give Marcus some props on this one.

Marcus said that he did. China had said it wanted to emulate the human rights record of other countries. In light of these stories, he wanted to know, “Which countries did China have in mind?”

Of course, in typical fashion the Spokesperson for the Beijing organizing committee, Wang Wei (so many jokes, so little time), didn't actually give an answer. Instead, he replied in the way of anyone involved in a government who doesn't allow questioning of its methods.

“You are supposed to be in China covering the Games,'’ replied Wang Wei, executive vice president, secretary general and spokesperson for Bocog, the Beijing organizing committee. He then told Marcus that Bocog was responsible for running the Games and he should take his questions to the public security authorities.

Ironically, the Chinese official comes off as naive to me. Having a press that is not allowed to ask tough questions could possibly do that, though. Unfortunately, not directly answering a question, and trying to redirect it, gives a subtle signal that something isn't right. Reporters, especially veteran international reporters, will pounce on this quickly.

The microphone passed to Alex Thompson of Channel 4 News in Britain. "My question will be short," he promised sweetly. It was. "The Chinese government lied through its teeth about human rights," he said. "Aren’t the I.O.C. ashamed?"

Giselle Davies, the I.O.C. spokeswoman, thanked him for his question and continued, "We are proud of the fact that these Games are progressing with spectacular sport in spectacular venues," adding that they were also running smoothly.

Thomson, a veteran of 15 wars according to the Channel 4 Web site, was not deterred.
"Aren’t the I.O.C. ashamed?" he asked again.

He asked the question twice more as Davies answered repeatedly with variations on the theme that the I.O.C. were happy that these were an "operationally sound Games."
When Thomson told her that nobody in the room thought she had answered the question, she replied that the Olympics were "an event first and foremost for the athletes."

China and the IOC are making a huge mistake by repeatedly dodging the questions. This event is being viewed by millions, or maybe billions, of people across the world. If you refuse to address the issues behind the scenes, people are going to take notice.

Records are being broken at a staggering pace, but many question the eligibility of the members of the Women's Chinese Gymnastics team. Failing to address the problems and questions is taking away from the accomplishments and performances of those who the event really celebrates.

Olympic athletes are the best of the best. Competitions are held in many countries to select those few who can compete on the world stage. Those who make it have the chance to achieve a dream that few will ever have the chance to fulfill. In some cases, they have spent nearly their entire lives training just to go to such an event. Now, the Chinese government and its representatives are taking much of that away from them.

If both the Chinese government and IOC are dodging the questions, it doesn't say much for the IOC either. I realize that the IOC is only about the competition, but the allegations against China reflect on the events. Whether the Olympic commitees like it or not, the host of the Olympics reflects on the entire franchise.

If the IOC is so willing to overlook the government that is hosting the event, what right do they have to test the athletes for drugs and other methods of cheating?

Want to read more?

Summary only...

China Pulls a Milli Vanilli!!

Back in the early '90s, a pop group called Milli Vanilli had their Grammy award revoked after it was revealed that the two "faces" of the group weren't the actual voices. Needless to say, there was a substantial backlash when this was discovered.

Now, Lip synching is not unusual in the world of music. There have been some fiascos from it. Such as a certain celebrity's appearance on Saturday Night Live. However, there has been lip synching done at the Olympic ceremonies before, by none other than Luciano Pavarroti. However, in those cases the artist was lip synching their own voice, because of health of environment issues.

Now, enter Lin Miaoke and Yang Peiyi. Lin Miaoke is the one who stood in front of the cameras, giving the impression that China wanted the rest of the world to see. However, the voice coming over the loudspeakers was of Yang Peiyi.

“The reason was for the national interest,” explained Chen Qigang, general music designer of the opening ceremonies, who revealed the deception during a Sunday radio interview. “The child on camera should be flawless in image, internal feeling and expression.”

Then, there's the fireworks sequence, at least for those viewing at home. The filmmaker, Zhang Yimou, is apparently a fan of George Lucas.

...to achieve the spectacular, Mr. Zhang faked not only the song; organizers also have admitted that one early sequence of the stunning fireworks shown to television viewers was actually created using digitally enhanced computer graphics for “theatrical effect.”

It seems that the Chinese government has always wanted to give the impression of China being perfect to the outside world. However, now it's coming out what lengths they'll go to do so. Of course, if they'll have the head of their FDA put to death, then it doesn't surprise me that those in charge of providing that image will go to great lengths to do so. However, they don't seem to realize the unintended consequences of their actions.

Now, I'm questioning how good the Chinese olympians really are. Is it the athletes performing, stand-ins, or CGI?

Want to read more?

Summary only...

Email: It's a tool for Tools also

A friend/coworker knows about my non-belief, and we've had some interesting discussions. Well, today she sent me an email title "Prayer". Her message was:

Not sure if any of it is true or not (and at this point I am not too worried about it) but I thought you might be able to find something worth blogging about in there.

Well, between the title and her remarks I thought it might be interesting, but I had no idea. Some may know of my thoughts on forwarding emails, and I've covered emails before. Fortunately, this one wasn't sent with the intent to be dismissive of my views. Instead, it was just to make me aware. Now, on to the fractal wrongness. [Note: Spelling and grammar intact from original email]

Subject: Fw: Pray for our country, the Nov 2008 election

A must read for those who believe.

Is this insinuating that non-believers shouldn't read it. Considering how many parts of it can easily be debunked, I wouldn't be surprised.

May the Lord speak to you as you read.
Christians Unite and Pray

Ah, yes. Prayer, doing something by doing nothing for (some think) about 1.4 million years.

I was very dismayed when, recently, a family member of mine said to me with great resignation that Obama will take the presidency. These words came from someone who in the past has been a great prayer warrior.

Prayer warrior? How can someone be a warrior when they are asking someone else to do their fighting for them?

As far as Obama, the jury is still out with me on that one. Judging by what I've seen so far, he's the best choice. Unfortunately, when it comes to the presidency, two choices are pretty much all you've got. Perhaps that will change in the near future, but someone who publicly agreed with my thoughts would most likely never make it into office. So, I just vote for the one I most agree with, and who stands a chance of winning.

What is happening was my question??? Why are we Christians settling and not issuing a battle cry and falling to our knees and taking our country back?

Wait a minute? Call a battle cry and then give a sign of surrender? No wonder you're loosing the country. Well, I don't think you had it to begin with, but that's an entirely separate issue.

We allow ourselves to be stripped of the right to pray at school functions and in school, we have the 10 commandments removed from government places and are told we cannot pray in school, all the while providing public prayer places for Muslims.

WTF? No one has been stripped of the right to pray. Johnny or Sarah can pray to YHWH/Jehovah/Allah/Zeus/Poseidon/Odin/Loki/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Invisble Pink Unicorn/Russel's Teapot before the math test they didn't study for. However, they can't disrupt the rest of the class in doing so, and a teacher or other authority figure can't lead the class in prayer. What if the teacher were *gasp* Muslim? Could you expect him/her to lead the class in a Christian prayer? I'm willing to bet the parents who take this email as the truth would go batshit crazy if a teacher led the class in a Muslim prayer.

The same thing applies to anything about the government. It's not about preventing Christianity from coming into schools, it's about fairness. If Xian prayer is allowed, then the prayers of all the students different belief systems would have to be allowed also. That also goes for symboligy, like the Ten Commandments.

Regarding the Muslim prayer places, I'd like to see exactly what this is referring to. Especially since Xians have the same thing. It's called a church, which you apparently spend too much time in.

What in the world is going on and why are we being apathetic? Why aren't we praying?

One more time. Praying is being apathetic... or to me, pathetic.

Our God is a mighty God who is waiting patiently for us to raise our voices to heaven to stop the tide of the anti-Christ actions in our world today.

Some mighty deity you have there. He needs the request of the Xian populace of a nation in order to do something about that Xian populace's perceived persecution.

Oh, and insinuating Obama is the "anti-Christ" is a nice touch. Although, I've read the Left Behind series, and Obama is no Nicolae Carpathia.

Now we find we have a charismatic candidate for president who does not respect our flag and refuses to wear one on his lapel except when it becomes politically expedient and whose own wife and pastor that he loves profess to have strong anti-white feelings, and we sit back and say 'it is a given, we can do nothing.'

I'm sick of the flag pin shit. If wearing a pin means your patriotic, does that mean the vast majority of politicians (let alone the citizens) were unpatriotic before it became in vogue? Why do you think the politicians started wearing them on Sept. 12, 2001? Everyone else was doing it, and everyone thought wearing a piece of metal with a plastic red, white, and blue coating meant you're patriotic. Wearing or not wearing a pin does not make someone patriotic. Caring about the country and wanting to make it a better place makes them patriotic.

There has never been a time in 2000 years that we can do nothing, never a time that we must sit back and allow the evil in men's and women's hearts to take over our world. We should be very afraid because our apathy is leading us to perdition.

Then, why don't you go ahead and pray for that to change.

It is time for all Christian Americans to raise the battle cry and take our nation back.

Take your nation back? For nearly eight years we've had a president who started Faith Based Initiatives (which Obama wants to expand, btw), and who says God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. For crying out loud, it doesn't get much more Xian than that, and you're still complaining.

Maybe McCain on his own cannot defeat Obama, but our God can and He will if we take to our knees in prayer and raise a mighty cry to the heavens to 'Save us O Lord.'

Again, refer to my thoughts on prayer above. However, I would also ask how many people have to pray, request, and/or give him permission before he'll respond? Does it require a majority "vote", just a majority "vote" of Xians, or just one or two people on their knees. I've never been clear on this one.

We have the power to change the course of this election and to keep a man as suspect as Barak Obama from leading our country to who knows where with his message of 'change' - a change which I fear will be away from our Christian ideals and away from Christ and further away from one nation under God to one nation under Allah.

So, in a sentence above, you criticize Sen. Obama's pastor, but now you say he shows preference to Muslims? I don't think Obama is the one with suspect motives, here.

We are great at passing stories and pictures around the internet, but where are our prayers and prayer warriors praying to stop this tide of Barak Obama?

And, as I've pointed out before, the internet is really good for passing around lies. There isn't a thing that has been mentioned in this email, so far, that couldn't have been debunked with Google and about 15 seconds of time.

God parted the red sea, Jesus raised himself from the dead, and we can bring our country back to its Christian roots and stop the move to the rise of Muslims in our country.

Everything about this sentence is wrong. For the first two, show me some proof that it happened, and that proof cannot be the Bible.

As for the "Christian roots", that's debatable. Considering the government putting in the "separation of church and state" clause, in the First Amendment, it seems more like our country was founded as a secular nation. You know, the part that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

And please explain what is meant by "rise of Muslims". I thought Mexicans were the conservatives greatest concern.

We can stop our country from being 'under Allah,' but we must begin to pray, to pray as if our country and our lives depended on it, because they do.

So, your country and life depend on you doing nothing? Interesting way to handle adversity.

We can stop all these atrocities against God's commands that have taken root in our country through something as simple as sincere prayer, a call to God to deliver us, to forgive us our sins of apathy and to protect us from the evil that is upon us.

Again with the prayer thing. I'm not going there anymore.

Okay prayer warriors, here is your challenge, start those prayer chains.

Prayer chains? You wouldn't happen to be in Opus Dei would you?

Get the spiritual power working on our behalf and stop Barak Obama the proper way, by calling on our God to save us from the deception that charismatic preaching is using to lead us on the wrong path.

So if Obama doesn't win, will you admit that he's the one your deity chose to be president, or are you going to complain that not enough people prayed? See my above question about how many need to pray.

Stop those who would take God out of our country and our government.

*Sigh* This is getting really old. The only places I want to take your, or any, deity out of is my life. What I and others want to do with our lives doesn't hurt you in any way whatsoever. You can still go to church, and live by the dogma of your religion. However, when you try to make others live by the same rules, that's when you're crossing the line.

Oh, and I covered the First Amendment, above.

Raise up good men to lead us and protect us.

Wait. Only the men? So, I guess it doesn't take a majority after all, if you're discounting females. Does that mean it has to be a majority of men, men praying, or just a few men for your deity to intervene in the election?

George Bush is being buffeted because he has fought a holy war against the evils that attack us and we should not be surprised because a prophet is not honored in his own country.

Oh goody, something I can sink my teeth into, now. Let's look at this carefully.

As I pointed out above, Bush says God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Doing so has not only put his popularity at an all time low, but it may also have taken away any chance of a conservative (also known as a Republican) from taking a seat in the Oval Office for the next term. Since God supposedly told him to take those actions, and is omniscient so he knows the future, does that mean God is actually Allah (by your reasoning, not mine)?

As for fighting the "evils that attack us", at best Afghanistan can be justified in that regard. However, there has been no evidence that Al Quada was supported by Iraq at the time we invaded. Unfortunately, the chaos we've caused has given them the chance to create a stronger presence there. Oh, and why hasn't Bin Laden been caught yet. I seem to remember Bush saying something along the lines of "Wanted, Dead or Alive".

But we should not rest on our laurels and allow ourselves to be taken further off the path of Christianity and to have God removed from our presence in our schools, courts, government and businesses.

Wait a minute? I thought your invisible friend was supposed to be everywhere. That was the guilt trip I always heard growing up. Did all those Xian adults lie to me?

Invite God into the fray.

Yes, please do. I have some questions to ask him if he were to show up.

Ask that His power rest upon us and give us the victory.

I'd just be happy to ask him which deity he is, if any we know. Myself, I'm thinking Loki is having a laugh at Zeus's expense. "See old man. They'll worship something I made up. You're nothin' special."

Ask him to raise up a might army to defend us and to protect our country as he did in days of old.

Ummm... When exactly are the "days of old"? I don't consider 232 years to be the "days of old".

Let us be victorious beginning NOW.

If the only method you have for victory is prayer, for some reason I'm not that concerned.

The battle is His but we must call on Him without ceasing and unite our voices and hearts in prayer and fasting.

Again... "So much for all powerful...", "Majority...?", "Prayer is pointless..."

Although, now you've got me wondering how not eating is supposed to help. Are you all on Weight Watchers, or just anorexic?

Please pass this around to all people of prayer that you know and maybe, just maybe a more eloquent person of prayer will write something better and more inspiring and even the rocks will shout that Jesus is Lord and our Mighty God is with us, bringing the victory for us and ultimately for Him.

Oops... A heathen somehow got it. Does that render it all null and void, or can I see if your deity will give you some intelligence?

Oh, and if me and a few witnesses actually hear some rocks shouting, and we all agree that they say the same thing, then I might consider that proof of a deity's existance, unless trickery were involved.

'Be joyful always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.'
I Thes 5:16-18

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Carl Sagan

See, I can do that two, but with two major differences. My quote is under 2,000 years old, and I can provied evidence that Carl Sagan existed.

Oh, and if McCain appeals to you, that's definitely a strike against him when I go to vote.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

The Weak Link

On our co-blog and IRL, Princess and I have been discussing some things. You can head over there to find out the online part, but it's the offline part (and an email exchange) that has gotten me to finally get off my butt and post this.

Before and during my path to deconversion I questioned myself about quite a few things. One of those things was government. I found the kneejerk reaction to communism silly. When a former coworker insinuated that Global Warming was a communist plot, I think he felt insulted when I started laughing. Granted, communism has its weak points, but even our system of government, a constitutional republic, has its flaws. The USSR got some bad press, but look at our current administration and we're not having a stellar performance either.

The point I'm getting at is the weak point in all governments is people. In every single form that I looked into the weak link was people. Everyone is so self-involved in being right that they want the government to conform to their beliefs.

Communism could work, in theory, if people weren't fallible. The idea of a government where everyone was equal (yes, this is oversimplified, but bear with me) could work very well, but then you put greed, thirst for power, an inability to admit they're wrong, and a whole horde of other human failings into the mix and it falls apart. Not to mention that it instists on people giving up their individuality for the sake of "The State".

In a theocracy, the weakness is still in people. They base their laws on their religion, regardless of whether those laws benefit mankind or not. Between the Teddy Bear fiasco and looking at the inhumane treatment of people in the Middle East (among other theocracies), the laws do nothing to further humanity. Not to mention their bias toward a certain viewpoint that has nothing to do with reality or kindness.

In a democracy, all you get is majority (mob) rule. Considering that no two people can agree on everything, eventually a democracy will fall into chaos. Everyone will be at each others throats because each will feel that their way is best.

Now, for a constitutional republic. The theory behind it, that a document will outline the rights of the government and the rights of the individuals, sounds pretty good. However, when those who authored the document are no longer around to explain what each part meant, those who are elected to interpret the document have a tendency to show a personal bias. Look at some present day examples. Does "freedom of religion" include "freedom from religion"? What about whether the right "to keep and bear arms" is a state or individual right? Like I said, even the one that seems the most promising has flaws over time.

Then, you have anarchy, which is a democracy without voting. Where the majority would rule with a democracy, the strongest and most capable would be the rulers in an anarchist (non)government. More than likely, you would end up with little pockets, or cliques, of people who agreed with each other. Some would leave everyone else to do their own thing, and others would insist that everyone follow their rules, most likely through force.

So, no matter what form of government you have, it doesn't work when you put people into the equation. I guess you could call my views "semi-anarchist" when it comes to government. The government should provide safety and care to its citizens, but leave them to themselves if they aren't intruding on others' lives. On paper, that's what the Constitution and Bill of Rights are supposed to do. In practice, all it does is make some people want to change it to fit their views.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

I've Got a Flashlight and I'm Not Afraid to Use It!

The problem is getting others to get over their fear of turning on the flashlight.

Want to read more?

Summary only...