Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
Huckabee Defeats Romney!
This just in from CBS, Mitt Romney is ’suspending’ his campaign for the White house.
Romney had tried to portray the race for the Republican nomination as a two way race. He had attempted to sideline Mike Huckabee, and portray himself as the alternative to McCain. On Super Tuesday however, Huckabee had a very good showing and vowed to stay in the race until the end. This effectively ended Romney’s hope for beating McCain. He would have needed 3/4 of the delegates left and cannot afford to split them with Huckabee.
This now gives Huckabee a fighting chance to top McCain. Huckabee has polled very well in Texas, by far the biggest prize left. He is also in good position in Virginia and Mississippi.
MLK Controversy, Cast in Stone
Now is the time when people the world over reflect on the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King and a story on CNN caught my attention this morning. Plans are under way to construct a massive memorial to Dr. King in Washington D.C. The apex is to be a very large granit statue of MLK himself. A black sculpture who has done many statues of MLK, was contacted for the project but he only works in bronze and so the commitee decided against him. The commitee decided on a Chinese sculptor (who works in granite) for the project and this has caused quite a controversy. Many Americans and blacks especially, have been upset by this. This set me to thinking, are we judging men by the content of their character or by the color of their skin?
Mitt Romney and the Mormon Church
First I would like to say that Mormons deservedly have the reputation of being highly moral people. It is true that Mormonism shares a common ethic with Christianity. However that does not make them Christians and they are not. My goal in writing this is not to offend but rather to inform. I think it is important to understand what twelve million people believe. This is perhaps more true today than ever before, with a Mormon running for president. Please interpret what you read below as written with the humblest intentions in mind and check the facts for yourself.Mormonism or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) was founded by Joseph Smith. Mormons will claim that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ and merely restored by Smith. Smith claimed to be a prophet who received visions starting in 1820. In his first vision God and Jesus appeared to him and told him that all modern churches were an abomination. Subsequent visions were mostly from an angel named Moroni.Moroni directed Smith to a hill with “golden plates” buried in it. On these plates was inscribed an “account of the former inhabitants of this continent and containing “the fullness of the everlasting Gospel” as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants of this land.” The inscription was in a language known as “reformed Egyptian.” Buried with the plates were “seer stones” for aiding in the translation of the plates. Smith spent around three years translating the work. His primary method of translation was to place the stones in his hat and place the hat over his face. Upon doing this, the words would appear to him in the darkness. He would then dictate them to an aid. He did not need to look at the plates in order to translate them and often they were not even in his presence while he was translating. Smith’s translation of the plates became what is known today as “The Book of Mormon” and is considered divinely inspired scripture by the LDS church.
There are several problems here.
Smith’s highly unorthodox method of translating could be viewed as a problem. Why did he need the plates at all if he could translate them by looking at rocks in a hat?
The continent Smith is speaking about is North America. The former inhabitants were Hebrews who migrated to North America in 600 BC and lived there until 421 AD. They left no trace except the plates and other objects Smith found with them.
The Book of Mormon was supposed to have been written by the North American Hebrews who migrated 600 years before the birth of Christ yet it contains what appear to be direct quotes from the New Testament of Jesus. Not only that, but the quotes are from the King James version which was written in 1611 AD, 1811 years after the migration and 1190 years after the Hebrews were killed off.
Reformed Egyptian is not a language or writing system known to linguists. At one point Smith transcribed some of the “reformed Egyptian” and the transcription was taken to the linguist, Charles Anthon for examination. Anthon has been quoted as saying, ” the paper contained any thing else but ‘Egyptian Hieroglyphics.” It appears to contain characters from Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and a host of other writing systems, including Gregg Shorthand.
Later in life Smith bought four mummies and some papyrus scrolls from a traveling exhibit. He translated two of the scrolls and claimed that Abraham and Joseph (the son of Abraham) wrote them. They even had Abraham’s signature. The scrolls told stories about Abraham’s life including how he was nearly sacrificed to a pagan god and how he taught the Egyptians astronomy. These scrolls as translated by Smith became “The Book of Abraham” and are included in the “Pearl of Great Price.” The “Pearl of Great Price” is part of the cannon of scripture in the LDS church.
In 1968 three Egyptologist made separate but consistent interpretations of some of the scrolls after they were rediscovered. They found that the scrolls were funerary documents. They included such things as instruction on how to wrap a mummy properly. They were also 1500 years too young for Abraham to have written his signature on them.
All in all the Mormons hold four books to be scriptural including the King James Version of the Bible “as rightly translated“, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Because the Bible is said to have been mistranslated and abridged, it is the least authoritative of the four books. The Living Prophet is the Head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and he is considered another source of doctrine.
Mitt Romney has said that the leaders of the LDS church would not inform his presidency, and I am tempted to believe him. However it seems that for him to not listen to the Living Prophet would be to go against the very doctrines which he holds so dear.
According to the official magazine of the Mormon Church until 1970, Improvement Era,
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan-it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy.”
Also note that, according to Ezra Taft Benson (former Living Prophet) the Living Prophet is “more vital to us than the Standard Works.”
There is one Mormon doctrine which I would like to touch on before closing out this post, that of God.
26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.
30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?
31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.
-Book of Mormon, Alma, chapter 11:26-31So clearly for all their faults Mormons believe in one god, they are monotheists. Here are the words of Living Prophet, Joseph Smith, more vital than the Standard Works. “I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.”
– From Joseph Smith’s “Plurality of Gods Sermon” 1844So they believe in three gods, the three people of the trinity. This is heresy to Catholics and Protestants alike but at least they are not polytheists in the traditional sense. Here is Smith, the Living Prophet again.“and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you“
-From Joseph Smith’s “King Follet Sermon” 1844
Do we as Americans really want a president who either does not know how many gods he believes in or believes in a contradiction? Do we want a president who believes that a man in the 19th century translated a sacred book given to him by an angel in a form of writing that does not exist? Do we want a president who believes that a race of ancient Hebrews lived in North America for over a 1,000 years and left no trace? I certainly hope not.
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8 ESV, bolding mine.
“But though we, or an Angel from heauen, preach any other Gospel vnto you, then that which wee haue preached vnto you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8 King James Version 1611, bolding mine.
Honesty is the Key
I have placed links to an online Bible, Qur’an, and the Standard Works of Mormonism on my sidebar. I’m sure some of you are a bit surprised. Why would a Christian want to place links to these non-Christian scriptures on his blog? Honesty is why. It keeps me honest and it demonstrates that I am being honest. In the future when I quote from whatever scripture and you think I am taking it out of context, misinterpreting it, or making it up completely then, just click on the link and read it for your self.
Furthermore, I am confident that if everyone studied all the various religions honestly then, we would have more people coming to faith in Jesus. I encourage everyone to read the Bible, read the Book of Mormon, read the Qur’an and the Hadith (if you can get through it, it is loooong). They cannot all be true and the truth cannot be stamped out.
A proper post is coming soon and it will be on Mit Romney and Mormonism, so hold on to your hat. For now I have to get some Christmas shopping done. Merry Christmas, y’all.
The Barnyard Dialogues: Part I, Two Chickens Take on the Problem of Evil
The scene: Two chickens (hens) in a barnyard, early one morning, happily pecking away at grain and grasshoppers.
Clare: (pausing from pecking) Marsha,?
Marsha: -Peck, peck- Yes, Clare? What is it?
Clare: I’ve been doing some figuring, and…
Marsha: (Interrupting) Do you count with you back toes too?
Clare: What?
Marsha: When doin your figures…do you count on your back toes or just the front three?
Clare: No. No. Not that kind of figuring. I mean, I’ve been thinking about something.
Marsha: Well -Peck- do you? Use your back toe, I mean.
Clare: Well…I, only when the numbers are greater than six. But that’s not what I was talking about. I was thinking about our eggs.
Marsha: What about them?
Clare: They were gone again last night, when we went back into the barn.
Marsha: Well, so -peck, peck- what? They’re gone every night.
Clare: Yes, that’s just it. We spend all night laying eggs and sitting on them and the next night they are gone again!
Marsha: Clare Honey, you have a brain smaller than a shelled pecan. Leave the thinking to the goats, and use your back toes when doin your figures.
Clare: No. Don’t you see what I’m getting at?
Marsha: I see what you’re not getting at. Grasshoppers, that’s what.
Clare: The farmer. I’m getting at the farmer!
Marsha: Where is the farmer any way? -peck-
Clare: Oh, I think he’s in the barn, cleaning out our nesting boxes. But, what I was saying was… The farmer is good right?
Marsha: There’s one!
Clare: (turning quickly) -Peck- mmmm… thanks, Marsha. -Gulp-… So the farmer is good, right? I mean he gives us cracked corn, he cleans out our nesting boxes, he keeps the fox away…
Marsha: Yeah?
Clare: And, he is powerful. No one else can drive the tractor, or get cracked corn.
Marsha: -Peck- Or -peck- kill snakes.
Clare: The dog killed a snake, last April.
Marsha: That’s true.
Clare: But, the dog works for the farmer, so that still counts.
Marsha: Good, I thought so.
Clare: So the farmer is good and he can do all these things. Why doesn’t he save our eggs!
Marsha: What!?
Clare: He is good, so he wants to save our eggs.
Marsha: Well, yeah.
Clare: And, he should be able to. After all, if he can drive a tractor and kill snakes then surely he can save our eggs!
Marsha: So what exactly are you getting at?
Clare: Well what I was thinkin was that maybe, the farmer doesn’t exist at all.
Marsha: Oh, Clare! shhh. Sit down. You are giving me the heebie-jeebies! Of course the farmer exists, he is in the barn right now! I told you to leave the thinking to the goats.
Clare: Maybe we just think he exists. Maybe our primitive ancestors made up the farmer to explain where the cracked corn comes from. All this time we have been deceiving ourselves into thinking we see the farmer when in reality he does not exist at all!
Marsha: Oh, oh, I just don’t know what to think of all this! You’ve made me goose-pimply all over and made my feathers stand on end!
Clare: You said it yourself, we have brains the size of a shelled pecan. We have been deceived all this time!
Marsha: I said you had a brain smaller than a shelled pecan, and I’m sure of it now!
Clare: (gazing up) I feel as if I have broken through a glass ceiling and a new age has begun! -peck-
Intelligent Design’s War on Science Resolved, Sort of
Intelligent Design and its proponents have been accused of making a war on science. However, most of the leading figures in the I.D. movement are themselves scientists. It is not a matter of method; the methods of I.D. scientists are scientific. They are more or less identical to those used in archeology and forensics. The reason I.D. is denounced by the scientific community is the conclusion drawn. According to Dr. William Dembski, I.D. is, “the study of patterns in nature that are best described as signs of intelligence.” It is these signs of intelligence that have the conventional scientific community up in arms. They take offence not because the conclusions are not logical and not because the methods are not scientific* but rather because, the materialist ideology that pervades in the scientific community does not allow for the possibility of intelligence. Some scientists are willing to entertain the idea of a designing intelligence but not scientifically. That kind of thing is in their view, for the church to deal with and not the scientific community. These scientist believe that science is the study of what is natural and thus anything invoking the supernatural is by definition not science. The I.D. scientists are fighting for a broader definition of science, one that would allow for the possibility of the supernatural when that is the most logical conclusion. Thus, they are not fighting against science but rather to reform it. Just as protestants did not fight against the church but to reform it and that era is now know as the Protestant Reformation. What is being attempted by the I.D. proponents is a scientific reformation not a war on science.
So this all comes down to who’s definition of what is scientific you accept. Those who hold to the narrower view of science do not say that the I.D. researchers do not have a rightto do their research but that it is not scientific. So if everyone is willing to live and let live, what is the big deal? Why get hung up on who is scientific and who is not? The answer is two fold, schooling and money. If the broader definition of science is accepted then the I.D. proponents would be officially doing “science” and could apply for and get government grants. These grants would then not go to the scientists who are today fighting for the narrower definition.
If I.D. is accepted as science it would also be taught in the science class along side with and as a competing theory to evolution. Evolution is the sacred cow of materialist ideology. Richard Dawkins said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” For the materialists, teaching anything that competes with evolution in a science class is like teaching the Quran in Sunday school. It simply cannot be done.
While I haven’t thought of a way to solve the first dilemma accept for the government to stop giving out research grants altogether (and stop taxing us for them!). I believe I can solve the problem of the competing theories in the classroom and it seems only logical. Aristotle.
That’s it. Aristotle solved this problem way way back when. You see today what is known as the theory of evolution is said (by mainstream scientists) to be a scientific fact. Michael Ruse famously said, “Evolution is fact, Fact, FACT!” I suspect that some I.D. proponents would say (though they are not as loud) that intelligent design theory is a scientific fact. Both of these “scientific facts” are called theories, even by their supporters. This is because no one alive today witnessed the dawn of the universe (or of life), no one wrote down what happened (religious texts aside), and no photographs of the event survive. So no matter the volume of evidence that is collected to support any particular theory, it will all be circumstantial and thus subject to interpretation and not of sufficient quality to be proof beyond any doubt.
So what does Aristotle have to do with all of this? Aristotle distinguished between general knowledge and scientific knowledge. The scientists who hold to the narrower view of science and still believe in the supernatural are making a distinction between kinds of knowledge as well. Another example of this distinction is demonstrated by the difference in the phrases, “beyond reasonable doubt” and “beyond the shadow of a doubt.” Aristotle said that for any knowledge to qualify as scientific knowledge required demonstration. What is meant by demonstration, is that not only do we know something, but we know that it must necessarily be, and cannot not be. This is the criteria that I propose we use in determining what is a scientific fact. The very fact that there is debate about I.D. and evolution excludes both of them. So neither need be or should be in a science class.
*I am obviously not saying that mainline scientists accept the claims of I.D. They do however give de facto recognition to both the logic and the methods through their acceptance of archeology, forensics, and the like as legitimate scientific fields of study.
The Compass and the Cross
The movie dreaded by all good gentiles, “The Golden Compass” is set to come out on December 7th. It has caused a lot of commotion, especially in Christian circles. The controversy has centered around the story being inherently anti-Christian. The author, Philip Pullman has been called the anti-C.S. Lewis and his fantasy trilogy, ”His Dark Materials” the anti-Chronicles of Narnia.” “The Golden Compass” is the first book in the series and has just been made into a full length film, complete with big name stars and a 150-million dollar budget.
So what is the big deal? To start with, Philip Pullman is an outspoken atheist and has called the “Chronicles of Narnia” “religious propaganda.” In “His Dark Materials” the “Church” is an evil entity bent on controlling everything and “Christianity” is also spoken of as an evil. (I should note at this point that I have neither seen the movie nor read the books, so I have no first-hand knowledge of it. I know, I know, I was as surprised as you are that the author of “UnderAgeThinker” was not invited to any special screening but I wasn’t and there is nothing that I can do about it. I’m not going to beg.) So with the church and Christianity as the bad guys it was obviously not written to be pro-Christian and I think it is safe to say, was meant to be anti-Christian. I can’t wait to see it. I am a Christian, by the way.
Why, you ask, would I want do watch such a thing? Because I have a sneaking suspicion that even a leader of the atheist community will not be able to write a good epic story with out paralleling the epic of the Bible (plus the trailer looks great.) Every great epic that I know of has done so. They wouldn’t be great stories otherwise. They speak to us because they are what we long for. The late Dr. Joseph Campbell articulated this point in his book “The Hero with a Thousand Faces.” Every great epic, from the “Iliad” to “Star Wars” has carried with it Christian undertones because it is these very undertones that make a story great.
My prediction is that this atheist Chronicles of Narnia will have one or more Christ figures who will be called to action on behalf of the good or just. They will face off against one or more Satan figures (though they may be called the Church or Christianity). The Christ figures will have the guidance of some mentor along the way, but at some point they must stop relying on the mentor. They will be tempted away from their calling. They will be dealt some defeats. They will resolve to do right whatever to cost. Evil will seek to dominate through oppression, it will seek to take from others. Good, the Christ figures, will triumph over evil by making a great, noble, and voluntary sacrifice for others, that is they will triumph by giving of themselves for others. In short, I expect it to be a perfect allegory for Christianity.
Now all that said, I still do believe it could be a dangerous movie and have detrimental as well as good effects. This is because the church is the bad guy and will surely be portrayed in a negative light and one that is not representative of what the body of Christ is or should be. Many people who know no better could be swayed into believing that the church is malicious. So I would advise caution towards this movie especially when children are concerned, but I do not think there should be anything like a mass boycott or protests, these things only feed the stereotype of Christians that this movie is sure to promote. Instead point out the parallels between the Christ figure and the figure of Christ.
Be sure to check out my latter article on The Golden Compass, The Golden Compass by, C.S. Lewis.
Ron Paul Shoots Himself in the Foot and His Campaign in the Head
I am not a Ron Paul hater. I am pretty close to him on some issues. He speaks his mind and knows what he believes. That is more than I can say for most politicians and I respect him for that. Yesterday however, during the YouTube/CNN dabate he sealed his fate. When asked about his plan for Iraq, Ron Paul’s answer not only sounded anti-military and anti-American but showed that he doesn’t understand the enemy we face in this war on Islamic terror.
He said that we should pull our troops out of Iraq. This alone is not surprising, but then he said that one of the primary reasons for the attacks of September 11th was the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and that we should pull out of there as well. This is where he displayed his ignorance.
The Islamofascists are waging a holy war. Ron Paul doesn’t seem to get this. They truly have faith that what they are doing is the will of Allah and is therefore not only justified but obligatory. When they say that they are waging jihad it is not just rhetoric, they mean it. It is not difficult to see why they are fighting, it is not because we have a base in Saudi Arabia, it is because their religion tells them to.
“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.” Surrah (Quran) 8:39 Pickthall*
It is not hard to find, the Quran is in public domain! If Ron Paul doesn’t understand that they attacked us because we are infidels then he would endanger the nation and the world as president. I withdraw my support for his candidacy.
*Note: I changed the translation of Quran quotation due to complaints about the accuracy of the previous translation. Pickthall is the most respected English translation of the Quran to my knowledge.
OPIC, Organization of Petroleum Importing Countries
This is an issue I’ve put quite a bit of thought into and the more I think about it, the more I think it is a good idea. Oil exporting countries have formed a cartel that can set the price of oil with essentially no opposition, it only makes sense to form a cartel of oil importing countries that would be powerful enough to negotiate with OPEC and lower the price of oil. It seems like a no-brainer. There is so much to this that I should be writing a book instead of a blog post but this will have to do for now.
If the major oil importers bound themselves together and were willing the bare the initial and inevitable embargo from OPEC, the rewards that they would reap would be enormous. Today oil is at nearly $100 a barrel, in 1999 it was around $10 a barrel. Don’t believe me? Just imagine what it would do for our economy if oil suddenly dropped to, say $20 a barrel. That is not an unreasonable figure provided someone like OPIC was negotiating the price for us.
Here is one example of how something like OPIC could work. Representatives from the U.S., China, Canada, the E.U., Japan, Australia, and other Oil importing countries meet in Geneva and decide that they will pay $40 a barrel for oil. The various countries refuse to buy any oil for any more than that. At this point OPEC is almost certain to react by refusing to sell any oil at all. Then the game of chicken begins. It would all depend on who blinks first. If OPIC could stomach gasoline rations and high prices long enough then OPEC would give in. If OPEC would not agree to OPIC’s price then at least they might open up to negotiations on the price. Another possibility is that the OPEC cartel would break. Saudi Arabia, replete with cash, might be willing to hold out longer than some of the other OPEC members but, as soon as one OPEC country broke and started to sell two things would happen, the price of oil would start to drop thereby giving relief to the OPIC countries and the other OPEC members would begin to follow suit. The former OPEC countries would have to compete to sell oil on the open market. OPIC might even be able to shutter the windows. One thing that makes me think a strategy like this could work is that OPEC does not control all the world’s oil. This means that during the stand off the OPIC nations would not run completely out of oil.
One objection that might arise to the idea of OPIC is that it isn’t very capitalistic. This however, is not the case. What is more capitalistic than leveraging all the power you have to negotiate a better price for a product? OPIC would be a great expression of capitalism. Labor unions and monopolies are both capitalistic in the same way. The problem with them both is that they could potentially hurt the economy as a whole. However OPIC would be working to help the economy.
It is at least food for thought. We can’t go on like this, especially with so much of the Islamic terrorism being funded by petro-dollars. If the price of oil does in the next 9 years what it did in the previous 9 years then in 2017 we will be paying close to $1,000 a barrel. That would be $30 or $40 a gallon at the pump! Organisation of Petroleum Importing Countries, it has a nice ring to it doesn’t it?
Pakistan, Bush, Musharraf, and the Bomb
Pakistan’s President, Pervez Musharraf has in recent weeks started to look more and more like a dictator. He postponed elections (he wasn’t elected to start with), sacked the Supreme Court and padded it with supporters, placed former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto under house arrest, and rounded up hundreds of political opponents. He is also a close ally of the United States and the Bush administration. In 2005 Pakistan was given a three-billion dollar arms deal. That’s a three-billion dollar gift, not exchange. Pakistan could not afford to spend three-billion on anything. I do not know the total amount in military aid the United States has given to Pakistan and Musharraf since September 11th but it is surely a staggering number. So the solution seems clear in light of Musharraf’s recent shenanigans, turn off the money pipeline. Without U.S. support Musharraf’s government will fold, or at very least the U.S. will have sent a strong signal and he just might shape up. There are just two problems with this.
First and most obvious is the reason Pakistan has been getting the money in the first place, September 11th. Before 9/11 the U.S. would not sell arms to Pakistan or India because of their nuclear saber rattling. After September 11th we needed Pakistan’s help in routing out the Taliban on the border with Afghanistan and Musharraf was happy to oblige. It is worth noting that India has since started to receive U.S. arms as well, in an effort to maintain the balance of power in south Asia. The Taliban has regrouped since their initial butt-whooping in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. They are gaining ground in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistani troops with U.S. dollars are the only thing keeping them from taking over Pakistan or at least a major section of it. This would give them a base of operations to launch attacks into Afghanistan on U.S. and NATO troops. It would also give a safe haven to Islamic terrorist with broader goals in mind.
The second and perhaps even more important issue is the bomb. Pakistan is a nuclear power. Pakistan has nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles. This is not like North Korea, who detonated (or rather, fizzled) a nuclear fire cracker and now claims to be a nuclear power. Pakistan is armed to the nuclear teeth. The U.S. (and the rest of the sane world) would much rather have Musharraf, with all his faults in control of those nukes than the Taliban or total anarchy.
If the Taliban got its hands on those nukes they would almost certainly pass a few off to their Al Qaeda allies. Another possibility is that they would use them against Pakistan’s mortal enemy and fellow nuclear club member, India. This presumably would provoke India to respond in kind and the Earth would have her first nuclear war.
The U.S can not afford not to continue to prop up Musharraf and unfortunately, he knows it. This is one of the stickiest diplomatic situations since the end of the cold war. I imagine the diplomatic back channels are replete with offers for Musharraf to retire to mansions in Miami in exchange for some how securing the nukes and handing power to an elected president. It should be interesting.
