Friday, December 24, 2004


There seems to be a movement of people who wish to make God into whatever they want him (or her) to be. Some people want God to be just love. Others want a God that will never sit in judgement of them but accept whatever they want to do. The common thread of this movement, which can be quite varied, is that these people decide who God is and what morality God accepts.

In other words, the people who are designing God (usually in their own image) are also throwing off the accumulated wisdom and revelation of traditional religion and deciding for themselves what our moral structures should be and how religion should be practiced. In a very real sense, they are taking the place of God. They are the ones making the decisions, not God. Logic would also tell you that they then consider themselves God or at least they consider themselves with God-like powers such as the ability to discern true morality.

I have no objection to individuals rejecting deism or the existence of God. God gave us free will so that we could make that choice ourselves. What does not make any sense, however, is that individuals would replace God with their own image of what they think God should be, not what he is. Narcissism is defined as excessive self-admiration. One would have to be narcissitic to believe that they can replace God with their own wisdom. By deciding for God what God should believe is to replace God's thinking with their own. They are elevating themselves to the status of God - no - actually above God because their sense of morality is higher than that of traditional God-inspired or revealed morality. What kind of ego must a person have to do that?

No, God cannot be whatever we want God to be. As God says, "I am." He is what he is. You can reject God or accept him but you cannot design God into your own personal deity.

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Islamic Terrorism Defined

It is now official, the Mosul, Iraq attack against the US military base messhall where hundreds of American troops were gathered for a noon meal was caused by a suicide bomber. Over twenty people were killed and sixty-nine others wounded according to the most recent figures for casualties in this attack. Naturally, as a consequence, security will be tightened and people more thoroughly checked on US bases in Iraq with this gruesome reminder that Islamic terrorism is our true enemy.

Why does this all sound familiar? It's familiar because Israel has been going through this for years while the world has made excuses for the Palestinians/Arabs and attacked Israel for it's behavior in trying to stop suicide bombers. The Netanya suicide bombing by an Islamic terrorist killed twenty-nine people sitting down for a Passover meal in Israel in 2002. When I was in Israel in 2003, I visited a bar near the Tel Aviv beachfront called Mike's Place. A week after I left Israel a pair of suicide bombers attacked the same bar and killed several patrons while wounding many more. It was only through the heroic efforts of a security guard at the entrance that prevented many more innocent deaths.

The world thought that Israel alone was going to be target for Islamic terrorism and they could ignore it, or even worse, excuse it by blaming the Israeli government. The US had this same approach until 9-11. Some of the wiser pundits compared Israel to the proverbial canary in the mine shaft. Unfortunately, they were absolutely right. Our enemy is not Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, Palestinian radicals, Chechnyan rebels, Indonesian extremists, or any other name the media uses. Our enemy is Islamic terrorism which is not defined by one nation, one people or one race. It is defined by it's religion and it's political goal which is fascism.

Just as with other fascists, Islamic fascism must be defeated, not negotiated with. Islamic fascists do not want to negotiate with you but they will give you a choice - convert or die. We must defeat this fascism as we defeated the Nazis in WWII in order to bring true peace to the world. Those who support our troops in Iraq and their mission represent the honest "peace party" because they know this is the only way to achieve peace in the long run. The short run will be difficult and painful, just as it was in WWII, but the goal is an honorable and worthy one.

Hanukkah and Nativity Scenes

This is the time of year that political correctness goes bananas. People and organizations use the excuse "we don't want to offend anyone" to try to remove all Christian symbols from the public square. This is not about anyone feeling offended but more about secular power flexing it's muscles.

Let's look at that phrase "we don't want to offend anyone." You can use this excuse to ban almost anything. That is exactly the point. The people and organizations, like the ACLU, are using this broad language to push their own agendas, not because they are sincerely interested in protecting anyone's rights. We hear this phrase over and over again but it only applies to Christianity and Christian symbols, not Muslim, Jewish or anyone else. Why is that? Is anyone offended by a public menorah celebrating Hanukkah?

Here in the Northwest the city of Portland, Oregon has a tradition of putting a huge Christmas tree (soon to be Holiday Tree?) in the public square downtown and also allow the lighting of a large menorah for Hanukkah. No nativity scene is allowed because it is too religious. What about the menorah which is lighted each night by a rabbi? Is that not religious? What if a Christian was offended?

This exact same case was recently decided by a Florida court where a woman wanted to put a nativity scene along side an existing menorah display on city property and was denied by the city council. She went to court and the city tried to argue that a menorah is not a religious symbol. They lost. The nativity scene will now be added to the public square as it should. To most Jews, the idea that the menorah has no spiritual meaning to the Jewish people is ridiculous but it shows how far the secularists and anti-Christians will go to remove true Christian symbols from public buildings and squares.

Diversity should be the celebration of all faiths and ideologies, not the suppression of the majority religion and elevation of everything else. This is the view of the proud politically incorrect. And to be even more politically incorrect we want to wish everyone a very "Merry Christmas!"

Monday, December 20, 2004

The New/Old Target - Rumsfeld

It is typical for the mainstream media to have a political target that they choose and then gang up on. The current target is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (not a new one) and his supposed crime of being blunt with a soldier about armored Humvees. Rumsfeld was right that you cannot protect everyone simply by upgrading armor. We recently read of a young soldier from Oregon that was killed while in a M-1 tank. The M-1 is the most powerful tank in the world with the best in armor plating but was still damaged by a IED in Iraq which cost the life of this brave young man.

As usual, all the facts you can throw at the mainstream media will not deter their course. Once they had decided on a target, like junkyard dogs, they go after the throat. The only remedy is for the public to be educated by non-traditional media sources that do not have a political agenda or at least tell the other side of the story. Thank God for the internet and our ability to communicate with each other exclusive of the what the mainstream press desires to serve up for us.

Rumsfeld is also being criticized for not personally signing letters to the families of those military citizens who have been killed in Iraq. Although this seems to be a petty criticism and hardly worth mentioning among all the important duties of a Secretary of Defense during a period of war, if President Bush has the time to do so, then Rumsfeld should as well. It would be interesting to research if any other Secretary of Defense has machine-signed these letters during other conflicts such as Vietnam, Korea and WWII. Frankly, I think you would find that the SOD during those wars did not personally sign each letter so why does this criticism have so much coverage by the media? Could it be sharks circling in the water?