You say Potato and I say Happy-fruit

The debasement of language as a prerequisite to cultural and moral decline

It started in the Garden when the serpent told Eve that God didn’t really mean what he said about eating the forbidden fruit. It has continued throughout human history when sinful men desired to throw off the shackles of restraint and justify their conduct. In order for previously condemned conduct to become legitimate, the terminology must first be changed.

No despot in his right mind would describe his conduct in ordinary language. From Lenin to Mao, murder, theft and oppression have always been portrayed as being necessary for the greater good. So, conquest is redefined as “liberation;” unprovoked assault is justified as “pre-emptive” self-defense.

Advocates of cultural reconstruction also find it necessary to alter the common vocabulary in order to justify their plans. Thus, every kind of inappropriate behavior is defined as “disease,” or “addiction.” A married man who commits adultery at every opportunity is said to have a sexual addiction. Fornication is reduced to “pre-marital sex;” un-wed mothers (already a compromised term) are re-categorized as “single-parents,” an innocuous term that includes widows and unmarried adoptive parents.

A major victory for cultural and moral relativism occurred when advocates of homosexual behavior succeeded in re-branding their conduct; sodomites became “gays.” Such conduct was no longer viewed as an offense against nature and God, it was merely a lifestyle choice or, more significantly, a genetic predisposition. After all, who could object to a lifestyle described as “gay.”

The final assault in the homosexual offensive is the inclusion of sodomite and lesbian relationships under the umbrella of “marriage.” The key to their ultimate victory, as in the previous assault, rests in a redefinition of terms – a perversion of language.

To speak of “same-sex marriage” is to speak nonsense unless the plain, historic meaning of marriage is first destroyed. Aided by their willing accomplices in the main-stream media, homosexuals have been largely successful in this effort. When Rosie O'Donnell came to San Francisco to marry her "partner," she introduced her new spouse as her "wife" (Rosie and Keli have since divorced and Rosie has announced plans to move-in with a new "girl friend"). Does that mean that Rosie is the husband, or that a sodomite couple is composed of two "husbands?"

Various efforts to affirm the historic, linguistic and legal definition of marriage, such as California’s Proposition 8, are changed into “anti” same-sex marriage statutes and thus, inherently immoral. In the campaign for Proposition 8, opponents actually described the law as “wrong.” Advocates were just mean-spirited, selfish reactionaries who wanted to deny homosexuals the same "right" to marry that straights have.

Of course, it does not matter how much language is redefined, sodomites and lesbians cannot marry (except as Michael Medved points out, sodomites can marry lesbians). It will simply mean the further destruction of our culture where words can mean anything and, therefore, nothing.

Not my father's bible hero.

I don’t know what movie Drew Zahn (World Net Daily) saw, but it wasn’t the same one I saw last night. Eli is not a bible hero – he is a man on a mission which happens to involve delivering a book to an unknown destination. The story has more to do with Waterworld than a biblical epic.

I don’t recall the word “bible” being used at all – it was always “the book.” It could have been any book – this is confirmed at the end of the movie when “the book” is placed on a shelf with other “books” including the Koran.

There is no real scripture in this movie. There is no grace, no atonement, and salvation is the generic kind of doing more good than bad. It is humanism that is preached, not the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is prayer, but it is prayer to an unidentified deity, not offered in Jesus’ name. The book is never actually read, although Eli says he reads it and there are a couple of scenes where he has the book open. He quotes a couple of Old Testament verses, and paraphrases Jesus’ words in the Golden Rule.

The “faith” that is portrayed is faith for the sake of faith. When his young female companion asks him why he believes that he will succeed in his mission to deliver the book (after they have killed and mutilated a dozen or so bad guys), he says something like “sometimes you just have to believe.” This is the gospel of Quai Chang Cane, not the apostle Paul. Like all stories of this genre, the moralizing is tolerated for the moments when the hero kicks the snot out of the bad guys.

At the end of the movie, Eli’s chick disciple heads back home, armed with his shot-gun and killing knife, apparently to continue his "kill or convert" evangelism. It is unclear whether or not she has a bible – she certainly doesn’t have “the book.”

So, viewers will be disappointed if they’re expecting any serious bible theology, certainly no Christian theology. It is an interesting movie. The cinematography and special effects are noteworthy. The film is not black-and-white, but neither is it normal color. It is almost sepia, which adds to the bleak, barren environment.

The message of the movie is not, as Zahn proclaims, about the victory of the word of God, it is the victory of mankind to remake itself, even after a world changing calamity.

Wise as serpants, harmless as doves.

I do not like popular political labels; they are neither meaningful nor useful.

Most "conservatives" (even so-called 'Christian conservatives') are merely light liberals, i.e. they do not reject basic statist principles, just their application.

Liberals, on the other hand, are not really liberal at all, i.e. advocates of liberty. They are statists; they believe in advancing their vision of society by an ever increasing use of coercive government power.

So, conservatives (at least the social brand) oppose the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, not because it was a usurpation of power by the federal court, but because of the nature of the decision, i.e. abortion is a right. They work for and hope for a reversal of the decision, but do not fundamentally object to the mechanism by which the decision was made.

In fact, Catholic pro-lifers must acknowledge that their church's official political views are decidedly statist, e.g. endorses redistribution of wealth by government coercion.

Conservatives, those who understand that liberty is indivisible, must acknowledge that a reversal of Roe v. Wade which does not repudiate the jurisprudential activism under which the decision was made will be just as illegitimate as the original ruling.

Our First Post-modern President, or Why Obama Can't Lie.

Because Christians and Christian institutions, both ecclesiastical and academic, largely abandoned intellect for emotion in the 20th century, and embraced a social/political view of salvation, Christians in the 21st century are unprepared to understand and articulate a meaningful response to the world-view which dominates post-modern culture and politics.

Christians cannot engage in meaningful dialog with or provide a distinctly biblical counterpoint to the standards upon which modern society is founded and by which it operates. Lacking an understanding of the inherent and inescapable antithesis that exists between biblical truth and all other systems, Christians seek common ground with unbelievers upon which all may operate.

Because this is a cultural and not just a personal condition, Christian political action based on "reclaiming the culture" by placing the right people in key positions of power and influence is pointless and bound to fail, especially and specifically when "the right" people are viewed as those who hold specific views on hot political issues, e.g. abortion, while denying a comprehensive, integrated Christian worldview that applies biblical law to all issues. So, the right person can oppose abortion while supporting economic justice/theft through oppressive taxation. The right person can support political intrigue because he opposes euthanasia. So, Christian leaders refrain from speaking against an unjust war because their president supports Israel.

This post-modern dilemma is, perhaps, nowhere more clearly drawn than in matters of political speech and nowhere more clearly illustrated than in our current president.

If Bill and Hillary Clinton were the embodiment of the radical socialist ideas of the sixties, where lying was justified in order to advance social/political/economic justice, Barack Hussein Obama is the incarnation of the post-modern idea that truth statements, as matters of fact are meaningless.

When the post-modern man makes statements that are in direct opposition to a state of affairs, he is not lying; he is speaking the truth. Truth is not measured by reference to some external standard, but is defined by whatever the speaker means at that moment - the truth does not correspond to a fact or set of facts; it is an existential experience. To argue for “original intent” or “limited government” is pointless when such terms, do not and cannot have specific content in a post-modern world.


So, when he says that he did not hear the incendiary, racists remarks made by his pastor during the 20 years he attended the church, he is not lying (or obfuscating) because his statement does not point to any situation that existed in the past, but to the truth that he is creating now by his act of speaking. When engaging in actions that are manifestly contrary to his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution," he is not thereby violating his oath - his oath is validated by the truth that his words create.

For Obama, as for all post-modern men (read all unregenerate), there can be no lying because there is no objective reference point for truth. Lying implies intent to deceive by deviating from what is known to be true. Where truth is not known (cannot be known) there can be no intent and, therefore, no lying.

Christians do not understand this because they do not believe that the bible, God's revealed word, is the only source of truth. They believe that truth can be abstracted from experience; that someone can know and speak the truth in certain areas while denying the One who claimed to be truth.

Obama, for all his public professions, is not a Christian. Not because he does not oppose abortion, but because he, like all infidels since Eve, believes that he, not Christ, is "the way, the truth and the life." Obama, like all unbelievers affirms that he, not Christ, is the Messiah. In that he, like all unbelievers, is the anti-Christ.

Obama does not believe in racial justice; he does not believe in helping the poor; he does not believe in universal healthcare. Obama, like all post-modern man believes only in one thing - himself. When he speaks, he speaks the truth because he speaks of himself.

Until and unless Christians understand this reality and adjust their thoughts, words and actions to it, they will continue to be ineffectual and unfaithful witnesses to their Lord and, therefore, fail to change their culture.

Bush makes pledge to "the people of Mexico."

The following is a portion of President Bush's comments during the welcoming ceremony upon his arrival in Mexico. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070313-1.html

"The United States respects rule of law. But in the debate on migration, I remind my fellow citizens that family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River, that there are decent, hardworking honorable citizens of Mexico who want to make a living for their families. And so, Mr. President, my pledge to you and your government -- but, more importantly, the people of Mexico -- is I will work as hard as I possibly can to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

There are several points that require comment (as far as I know there has been no response by Conservatives):

1. "The United States respects the rule of law. But ..." Apparently, the rule of law is okay so long as it doesn't get in the way of doing something illegal, e.g. entering the United States illegally, or failing to enforce existing immigration "laws." Why does the president even mention "the rule of law" unless he is acknowledging that US Immigration laws are being violated by people from Mexico.

2. "in the debate on migration..." There is no "debate on migration," there is only failure by the "people" of Mexico to respect the sovreign borders of its neighbor and the unwillingness of the government of the United States to protect and defend its borders against illegal crossing and to deal with those who cross illegally.

3. "I remind my fellow citizens..." This is both irrelevant and insulting. The president is in a foreign country lecturing us on the virtues of people who violate our laws by illegally crossing our borders. I'm sure that pedophiles have many endearing qualities. THAT'S NOT THE POINT, Mr. President.

4. "my pledge to ... the people of Mexico." The President of The United States is not responsible for or to the people of Mexico. He is not responsible for their welfare, their prosperity, or enabling them to fulfill their dreams of living in the United States. He is responsible to his oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," this means enforcing its laws.

There are no ifs, ands or "buts" about it, Mr. President.

On State Interference

(This is the final paragraph from an essay by William G. Sumner (I have divided it for easier reading).

"I therefore maintain that it is at the present time a matter of patriotism and civic duty to resist the extension of State interference. It is one of the proudest results of political growth that we have reached the point where individualism is possible.

Nothing could better show the merit and value of the institutions which we have inherited than the fact that we can afford to play with all these socialistic and semi-socialistic absurdities. They have no great importance until the question arises: Will a generation which can be led away into this sort of frivolity be able to transmit intact institutions which were made only by men of sterling thought and power, and which can be maintained only by men of the same type?

I am familiar with the irritation and impatience with which remonstrances on this matter are received. Those who know just how the world ought to be reconstructed are, of course, angry when they are pushed aside as busybodies. A group of people who assail the legislature with a plan for regulating their neighbor's mode of living are enraged at the "dogma" of non-interference.

The publicist who has been struck by some of the superficial roughnesses in the collision of interests which must occur in any time of great industrial activity, and who has therefore determined to waive the objections to State interference, if he can see it brought to bear on his pet reform, will object to absolute principles.

For my part, I have never seen that public or private principles were good for anything except when there seemed to be a motive for breaking them. Anyone who has studied a question as to which the solution is yet wanting may despair of the power of free contract to solve it.

I have examined a great many cases of proposed interference with free contract, and the only alternative to free contract which I can find is "heads I win, tails you lose" in favor of one party or the other. I am familiar with the criticisms which some writers claim to make upon individualism, but the worst individualism I can find in history is that of the Jacobins, and I believe that it is logically sound that the anti-social vices should be most developed whenever the attempt is made to put socialistic theories in practice.

The only question at this point is: Which may we better trust, the play of free social forces or legislative and administrative interfer­ence? This question is as pertinent for those who expect to win by interference as for others, for when­ever we try to get paternalized we only succeed in getting policed."

State Interference, William Graham Sumner, "The Wisdom of Conservatism," pp 1596-1603, Institute for Western Values, 1971.

Yes, Virginia, someone DID oppose the war ON Iraq

In researching who else might have opposed the war on Iraq, I was surprised to see that Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia made the following prescient observations in his speech opposing the Senate's Use of Force Resolution.

Nor do I think that the Iraqi people would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event of a U.S. invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security forces.

There has been no positive showing, in the form of riots or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular sentiment in Iraq supports a governmental overthrow or the installation of a democratic or republican form of government.

There is no tradition of democracy in Iraq's long history. There is, however, a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in this instance, the U.S. is the unknown factor.

The President and his cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively short duration. If that is true, which I doubt, but if it were, why would the Iraqi populace rush out to welcome the U.S. forces.

In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces. A prudent Iraqi would just put his or her head under the bedcovers and not come out until the future became clear.

A U.S. invasion of Iraq that proved successful and which resulted in the overthrow of the government would not be a simple effort. The aftermath of that effort would require a long term occupation.

The President has said that he would overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a new government that would recognize all interest groups in Iraq. This would presumably include the Kurds to the north and the Shiite Muslims to the south.

Because the entire military and security apparatus of Iraq would have to be replaced, the U.S. would have to provide interim security throughout the countryside.

This kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world's last remaining superpower behind her.

To follow through on the proposal outlined by the President would require the commitment of a large number of U.S. forces - forces that cannot be used for other missions, such as homeland defense - for an extended period of time. It will take time to confirm that Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction are well and truly destroyed. It will take time to root out all elements of Saddam Hussein's government, military, and security forces and to build new government and security elements. It will take time to establish a new and legitimate government and to conduct free and fair elections. It will cost billions of dollars to do this as well. And the forces to carry out this mission and to pay for this mission will come from the United States. There can be little question of that. If the rest of the world doesn't want to come with us at the outset, it seems highly unlikely that they would line up for the follow through, even though their own security might be improved by the elimination of a rogue nation's weapons of mass destruction.

So, if the Congress authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will follow.