First it was the Tea Party. Now it's the Occupy Whatever-neck-of-the-woods-you-happen-to-be-living-in Movement.
I'm going to say this to both parties. You have much more in common than you realize, but you're both going about it the wrong way. You clowns over in the Tea Party can peruse my blog to find out exactly what I think of you. But you goons over in the Occupy Movement, what do you really think will happen by taking a nice, steaming dump on some sidewalk in a public park? Or destroying public and private property (that would be property that does not belong to you)? Or murdering somebody? Or running around naked?
I'm all for free speech, the freedom of assembly, sticking up for the little guy and giving the finger to multi-national corporations like Monsanto, but what you're doing is wrong. There's nothing even remotely patriotic or American about stopping a local business from functioning, interrupting the free flow of goods to people, violence, and now, murder. What was once a movement that many Americans could identify with has become yet another social and civil rights embarrassment for the country, and it's only going to get worse.
And will you please stop referring to yourselves as the "99"? You're nowhere near that. You might be somewhere around 8% if you're lucky. Also, you would be wise to take a lesson from history; occupations always fail.
And you rightwingers thought I only spoke out about rightwing violence. Shame on you!
Just when I try again to find a place in my life where I can co-exist with the faithful, I am given a not-so-subtle reminder that there are some people in this world that all of us need to stand up against and fight.
This message is for Fred Phelps and members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
It is not enough for any of you to go far out of your way to protest the funerals of fallen service members and further destroy the hearts of the broken-hearted in mourning.
It is not enough for any of you to enjoy your constitutional rights, then kick those who provide that right to you in the face and insult them as they die.
It is not enough for any of you to brainwash those around you, including your children, to think exactly the way you do.
It is not enough for any of you to inflict injury to those who have a different perspective or sexual orientation, while falling just short of murdering them yourselves.
It is not enough for any of you to abuse your First Amendment rights at the emotional detriment of others.
It is not enough for any of you to distort the Bible in order to justify your own stupidity and evil.
No, none of these acts are despicable and hateful enough for any of you, so you have to take your dog and pony from Topeka to Tuscon in order to display to the world just how deep the roots of your hatred grow. Now that the intoxicating effects of wishing death upon homosexuals, and adding insult to injury to others is are wearing off, you turn your sites to the family of a little girl who has fallen in a nightmare of brutality -- a little girl who never did a damned thing to any of you.
And the only reason any of you showed up to protest her funeral at all is because she was raised Catholic, and didn't believe exactly as you do.
So you offer to refrain from protesting her funeral in exchange for air time in which you can spew more of your hate. How is this a fair exchange? A little girl loses her life, you decide to picket her funeral, while celebrating a mass murderer and wishing he could have killed more. Young or old, black or white, Jew or Muslim, atheist or Christian, it doesn't matter to you because they don't believe exactly as you do.
There's a part of me that even wonders why I'm writing this in the first place because it's a waste of energy. You know no conscience, remorse, pity, sorrow, or even the slightest hint of humanity. There's no hope that it will pique the better of your emotions and cause you to consider the harm you've done, and will do to others. You couldn't care less about your victims as long as you get to score what you perceive as brownie points with God. That part of me also knows that all of the combined skills, intellects, and talents that you have amount to little more than a pimple on the ass of society. It also knows that you deserve nothing more than to be laughed at, scorned and ridiculed.
At the same time, there's a part of me that realizes that all of you have been lied to at the hands of a megalomaniacal sociopath, and there's still hope for you, especially your children.
Perhaps one of the most maddening aspects of your rhetoric is that you love the violence that is visited upon those who disagree, but the moment someone smashes your windshields with a brick you're utterly shocked by it.
What possible good could any of you hope to achieve by even contemplating this? How you can sleep soundly at night, wake in the morning and look your hideous reflection in the mirror and not be horrified is a mystery that no person of sound mind and reason will ever comprehend.
What must it be like to live in a world where all you see is absolute evil? When was the last time you appreciated a soft spring rain? When was the last time you smiled at the first snow fall of winter? When was the last time you truly smiled at the beauty of a child's smile and laughter? When was the last time you absolutely marveled at the site of a hawk in flight, or found even a brief moment of happiness and laughter as two squirrels bicker and chase each other through a forest? When was the last time you smiled an honest, pure smile without even the slightest hint of maniacalinsanity?
When I think of you, I think of a group of vampires that drink the blood of the innocent and broken-hearted in order to sustain their own miserable existence, because they have no life of their own. When I think of you, there is no word in any language in the known Universe to accurately describe how evil, putrid and despicable all of you are.
If I ever encounter you, I will stand against you, shoulder to shoulder, arm in arm with Christians, agnostics, atheists and send you back to that toilet of a third-world hell hole you call a church. Long after you're gone, you and your followers will be relegated to the ash heap of history, and your name will only incite righteous anger and contempt.
In May 2009, I told you about Kara Neumann, a Wisconsin girl who died from diabetes at the age of 11 because her parents failed to take her to a doctor, rather insisting that Jesus would heal daughter. Even after she collapsed and drawing her last breath, her parents called friends and family asking them to pray for Kara instead of calling 911.
The next month, a 9-year old boy, Aaron Gregory Grady, died as a result of complications from diabetes, much like Kara Neumann. The boy's mother falsely believed that God would save her son, so she resisted taking him to a doctor. On Friday, December 28th, 2010, she finally turned herself in to authorities and was subsequently jailed. Very convenient for her, however, that she was able to post $10,000 bond.
Jesus said "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible for you." It is impossible, however, to have sufficient faith to save a child from diabetes. Which begs the question, if these people had enough faith that God would save their children, and God failed, how much faith is enough?
If there really is a hell, it just dropped about ten full degrees.
You may recall in March 2009 when John Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI, made the ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim that the use of condoms would only serve as a catalyst for the increased spread of AIDS throughout Africa. He even followed up said jackassery in September by urging Africans to pray for AIDS patients and forgo condoms to prevent the spread of the disease, as opposed to embracing education like the rest of the civilized world has.
Fast forward to today, as John has done a complete 120°. I can only assume that John has given in to the public outrage over the stupidity of the aforementioned use of condoms in Africa. But don't give him full credit for his sudden turn around. He says that condoms should not be used to prevent conception, but for preventing the spread of AIDS amongst male prostitutes.
Male prostitutes? Please. One would hope that he gives all sexually active Africans the green light on condoms in order to stem the spread of AIDS.
Ask any Christian if the Bible is an accurate description of God's character, more than likely they will answer yes. If you ask them if genocide, slavery, rape, abortion and theft are morally reprehensible, they'll also likely answer yes. But when you offer them evidence that not only are these acts are approved by Yahweh but commanded, they'll do one of several things -- deny the evidence, give God carte blanche (he's God and he can do what he wants, might makes right, i.e.), respond "But that's the Old Testament. Jesus changed things," or if they're truly honest, begin questioning the veracity of the Bible.
Like many religions that were developed throughout Mesopotamia, Judeo-Christianity and Judaism embrace the concept of human and animal sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. One would think that there is a better way for God to forgive sin than to spill innocent blood since he's omniscient. In reality, early Christians likely lifted the concept of blood sacrifice from Mithraism, which is said to have been born from Zoroastrianism. As astronomer E.C. Krupp states in his book, Beyond the Blue Horizon: Myths and Legends of the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets:
"We don't know at what point in the year Mithras slaughtered the bull, and we don't know when this mythical act was reenacted in the Mithraic grottoes to baptize initiates in the blood of the bull. But the depictions of sacrifice displayed in the chapels are entirely consistent with the astronomical circumstances of a specific night, just after sunset, in spring."
Krupp confirms that Mithraic rituals of blood sacrifice and baptism were alive and well before the advent of Christianity. He also confirms another very subtle but strong relation between Christianity and worship of celestial bodies. It is interesting to note that Mithras' birthday was celebrated on December 25th as, by default, he was one of the embodiments of Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun. It is also interesting to note that a key tenet of Mithraic tradition was ritual meals, not unlike that of Christian communion.
While human/animal sacrifice is nothing new, there are two prime examples that can be found in the Old Testament -- the stories of Abraham and Jephthah. Of these two, the story of Abraham's desire to slay his own son as an act of obedience to Jehovah, is the most prominent. But the story of Jephthah is not so well-known. Not surprisingly, many Christians have never heard of Jephthah.
Jephthah, as the Book of Judges illustrates, was a warrior that served as a judge in Israel for six years. Jephthah led the Israelites in a battle against the Ammonites. But before the battle began, Jephthah prayed to Jehovah, asking for an assured victory in exchange for the first thing that walked out of his house to greet him after the battle. Jephthah's only daughter was the first to exit his house upon his return, exuberant and dancing with tambourines. Horrified, Jephthah told her that he had made an oath to God that couldn't be broken, and that she needed to be sacrificed.
She asked for two months of isolation with her friends because had never known marriage. At the end of those two months, Jephthah slew his only daughter, a virgin, of course.
At the opposite end of the sacrificial spectrum stands Abraham and his then only son, Isaac. The story takes places in Genesis 22:1-19 when Jehovah calls out to Abraham and instructs him to take Isaac to a mountain where he will be sacrificed. Abraham immediately obeys and sets out for the wilderness along with his son. At no point does the text say anything about Abraham questioning Jehovah's request, which I find rather interesting. Even the New Testament tells us that Jesus begged God to reconsider letting his blood spill. But no request can be found from Abraham.
After walking through the wilderness for three days, they finally arrive at the place where Isaac is to be slain. Isaac begins inquiring where the sacrificial lamb is, but Abraham insists that God will provide a lamb very soon. Finally, Abraham binds Isaac and lays him onto a makeshift alter.
Try to imagine binding your only son as he struggles, clawing, fighting and screaming, wondering why you're trying to plunge a knife into his neck. I can't help but wonder at what point a man would tell Jehovah that he's not worthy of worship, that he is an utterly horrible deity, and that the only way he could have his son is by going through himself first.
Just as Abraham raises his knife above Isaac's body, the angel the lord suddenly prevents Abraham from following through. Genesis 22:12 states "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
Many, if not most, evangelicals believe that this particular angel is Jesus himself. The inevitable question then should leap out to the astute reader, isn't God omniscient? If so, then he should know that Abraham truly fears him. As a matter of fact, he should have known that Abraham feared him millions of years before he was born. Why then does this particular angel say, "Now I know that you fear God"?
Many Christians will say that their god would never accept any human sacrifice, particularly virgin sacrifice, other than that of Jesus, which when you think about it, really wasn't a sacrifice at all. As Matt Dillahunty once said, "At least when Elvis died for my sins he stayed dead." But as we read the text in Judges, we do know that Yahweh is willing to accept human sacrifice.
So there are two great contradictions here that few Christians will ever accept. The first of these is that they will say their god is omniscient, but the text in Genesis 22 proves otherwise. The second contradiction is that, assuming Yahweh really is omniscient, he could see millions of years in advance before Abraham ever raised a knife above his son's body, he would send his angel to stop it. If this is true, then he certainly had the ability to stop Jephthah from slaying his only daughter. He had three days to stop Abraham and prevented him from going through with Isaac's sacrifice, but had two months to stop Jephthah from sacrificing his daughter, yet chose not to.
Most Christians, no doubt, will either ignore this or rationalize in some way that Jephthah's daughter really wasn't sacrificed at all. Or, if they do accept the evidence at face value, will claim that there is a greater plan in God's vision than we can see. Yet, for all the biblical doctrine they know (which is actually very little), they will never state what that reason is. They would rather proclaim that it's a mystery to us and only God knows why, adding yet one more piece of evidence why their god is immoral.
One further addition to this problem for Yahweh is that not only does he condone lying, he actually rewards it. Starting in Genesis 22:7-8 we read:
Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together."
The only reason these two journeyed into the mountains is so that Abraham could sacrifice Isaac. At no point did he expect God to intervene, nor did he expect a lamb as a substitute for Isaac. The reward for Abraham, as Genesis states, was that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars, which we know is false.
Last week I left this post about 33 miners in Chile and the widely held belief that each person rescued was a miracle, which has thoroughly been trashed. But let's suppose for a moment that a miracle did happen in Chile last week.
Today, Chinese rescuers recovered the final 5 of 37 bodies that were trapped inside a mine near Yuzhou. It should be noted that China has a pretty bad track record for safety when it comes to mining. Now back to that miracle in Chile.
Why didn't a miracle happen in China today? Why didn't Jesus reach into the ground and save these 37 people as he did the 33 in Chile? No doubt, many if not most Christians will claim that China is an atheist country, and that these 37 men either had it coming or because they didn't accept Jesus before the explosion, God didn't hear their prayers. Such a God who choses not to answer the desperate prayer of a dying man is not worthy of admiration. If this is the god you serve, you can keep him.
As Ebert so rightly states, "there is a common compulsion to describe unlikely outcomes as miraculous -- if they are happy, of course. If sad, they are simply reported on, or among the believing described as 'the will of God.'"
The truth is that mine explosions have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. My great grandfather was killed in a mine explosion when my grandfather was only 10. Where was the miracle to save his life? Oh wait! It was God's will that my great grandfather died.
There was no miracle in Chile this week. What happened is that tens of thousands of hours of education, engineering and training were used to save lives. Bad things happen and good things happen. This was one of the days where good things happened.
Just when I think Glenn Beck couldn't sink any lower depth of depravity and inhumanity, he proves me wrong. Again.
On September 29th, firefighters in South Fulton, TN refused to respond to a call to put out a fire that burned Gene Cranick's house to the ground. The local fire chief, David Wilds, stated that the reason no firefighters were dispatched is that he refused to pay an annual $75.00 fee for fire services. Cranick stated that he forgot to pay the fee. In reality, it doesn't matter whether he Cranick forgot to pay the fee or not. Also, the town's mayor, David Crocker (Republican, of course), is reported to have said "You're out of luck" to Cranick. Later that day, Cranick's son sustained an injury to his hand after knocking the living daylights out of Wilds.
Wilds' response to the whole situation? It was a "stressful" and "emotional" day. Cry for me. At least you and Crocker still have a house to live in.
Enter Glenn, who, along with trusty sidekick Pat Gray, mocked Cranick.
I seem to remember Beck talking about the finer points of "faith, hope and charity, the essential teachings of Christ." Where is your heart for charity now, Glenn? More importantly, where are the hearts of firefighters who took an oath to protect life and property, only to watch a fire burn down with three dogs and one cat inside? I can understand a filthy-rich, right-wing coward like Beck having no heart, but to be a firefighter and watch a house burn down?
I took the liberty to browse the Obion County website for directives of this stupid, inhuman policy that county executives have implemented. I came across this pdf and read this:
"The only rural property owners guaranteed to receive fire protection services are those who choose to pay for it. It they choose not to purchase an annual subscription and require fire protection services, they fall on the mercy of a municipal department who provide services on an as needed basis. When such occurs, the responding fire department normally provides those services without compensation."
In other words, David Wilds is a cold-hearted prick who simply chose not to do the right thing. Case closed. Also, although I can't find a reliable source, apparently Obion County firefighters must respond to calls, regardless of whether the $75.00 fee was paid or not. This story should never have made local news, other than firefighters were dispatched to put out a fire at the Cranick residence.
Anyway, I'm proud to live in a country where citizens in financially distressed areas are forced to pay a subscription fee in order to enjoy safety and security when it should be assumed as a common service to all, regardless of income.
For once, no politics, beating down the doors of religion, or the incessant barking of a lunatic in some town, smack dab in the middle of Pennsylvania. No swearing or long-winded diatribes. Nothing more than something for you to consider.
In light of the current travails and struggle of the Iranian people to secure democracy and basic human rights for all of its citizens, who would have thought that it was Persia, now Iran, that created the first human rights charter? Furthermore, who would ever have thought that it was the Persians, namely Cyrus the Great, who ever brought about religious freedom, not only for themselves, but for the Jews as well?
One of the most brilliant performances by any actor of our time was by Peter Finch in his portrayal of TV anchor Howard Beale in the movie Network. I hate to use the word "prophetic", but these clips from the movie are just that - prophetic. This movie applies more to our time than any other throughout history.
Just a little reminder in this age of Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga clones - you are more powerful and infinitely smarter than anything Fox News, CNN, or any advertising agency can throw at you. Stop believing everything they tell you and be true to yourself, and no one else but your family.
A youtuber that goes by the handle, Desertphile, has posted a video that displays the inverse relationship between religion and the health of any given society. Desertphile does great work, but has little time for bullshit.
Back in January, I told you about the inverse relationship between the most and least religious states in the country - Mississippi and Vermont, respectively. In almost every facet of life, people in Mississippi fall far behind the people in Vermont with respect to quality of life. Crime is higher, the quality of education is lower, IQ is lower, and health is consistently ranked as the worst in the country. The same traits can be said of the Southeast versus the Northeast.
Nazi. The word is thrown around at anyone and everyone who has a different point of view than anyone and everyone else. I really hate to get ugly, I really do, but it's about time someone stood up and said something about the usage of this word.
I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. Nor am I a Republican or a Democrat. I don't hate races, but I despise certain ideologies. When I was a Republican, it made me furious when I would see a picture of President Bush with a Hitler mustache. And even though that I'm not a Republican anymore, it still makes me angry.
Now we have a black man as president. He has a much different point of view than Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Billy Cunningham, or any other right-winger on the radio or tube today. He might not be perfect, but at least we have a president that finally believes in science than dogma. Regardless of what he has so far done, the right-wing lunatic fringe attacks President Obama and his administration as Nazis, just for the sake of the health of unfortunate Americans who can't afford health care. And I'm sick of it.
I'm sick of Democrats calling Republicans Nazis, and I'm sick of Republicans calling Democrats Nazis. Whether you're a Republican, Democrat, progressive, capitalist, marxist, communist, conservative, or liberal, I urge you to take a look at the following images, then think about your fellow American. Let them sink in, then ask yourself if it's appropriate to call someone a Nazi just because they disagree with you.
Warning: these are graphic.
So, the next time you see Obama, Pelosi, or Bush on TV, think of these images, then remind yourself that no American has ever sent 6 million Jews to their deaths.
Paul Wolfowitz recently wrote an article for the Salt Lake Tribune on June 19th simply titled, "Obama needs to change stance on Iran". The basic premise of the article is the same rhetoric that's been coming from the neo-con lunatic fringe like Lindsey Graham and Mike Pence - that the president is weak, passive, timid, etc.
The United States has a history of intervening in the politics and affairs of other nations. Each time it was because of national interest and preservation. It also has a history of non-intervention as well. Founders such as Thomas Paine, George Washington, John Adams, James Monroe, and Thomas Jefferson had strong warnings against meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. But it wasn't until the 20th century during the Teddy Roosevelt administration that American intervention became prominent. His administration prided itself in the fact that they didn't drag the country into World War I. In fact, the administration's slogan eventually became, "He kept us out of war." But it wasn't before long that the United States did become involved in WWI.
After the entrance of the United States into World War II, intervention became one of the crown jewels in American foreign policy. Every administration since Harry Truman has at least one account of intervention. Perhaps the most famous and alluded to account of American intervention took place during the Reagan administration when he called Mikhail Gorbachev onto the carpet and demanded, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" So-called "conservatives" love bringing up the specter of Ronald Reagan, even though he left the country $2 trillion in debt when his presidency ran its course.
But we're talking about Iran, not the Eastern Bloc. Much different scenario.
American intervention in Iranian politics began with Operation Ajax, which was the blueprint for the overthrow of Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. The British government accused Mosaddeq with violating rights to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which made Britain increasingly wealthy. Britain subsequently approached the Truman administration with a plan to dethrone Mosaddeq, but Truman washed his hands clean of the plan. However, the plan resurfaced during the Eisenhower administration who accepted it with open arms. Eisenhower allowed the CIA to engage in its first covert operation, and Mosaddeq was ousted from power in 1953. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was placed in power. Pahlavi himself was overthrown in 1979 by the Islamic Revolution, and a brutal theocracy was born.
Less than 1 year later, conflict erupted between Iran and Iraq over border disputes and fear of Shi'a insurgency. The conflict claimed the lives of over 188,000 Iranians, over 100,000 of which were killed by chemical weapons and nerve gas. The sad reality is through American intervention these weapons were sold by the United States to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Hussein would later use these weapons against Kurds in the northern region of his country. Even after it was learned that Hussein was using nerve gas on his own people, the Reagan administration continued to sell weapons of mass destruction to his administration. To date, Iranians are still angry over the fact that the United States gave its weapons and resources to Iraq. It should be of little surprise that the phrase, "Death to America!" practically cakes the ceilings of the mosques in Tehran.
It was later learned that the Carter administration supported Iraq's invasion of Iran because he felt it would hasten the release of US political prisoners being held in Tehran, in spite of the fact that Iraq was placed on a terrorist state watch list on December 29, 1979.
Ten years after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the United States entered Kuwait to evict the Iraqis who had invaded the country. After ongoing talks with US ambassador April Glaspie, who informed Hussein that "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Apparently, this meant a green light for Saddam to invade Kuwait, who began amassing troops along the Iraq-Kuwait border in July 1990. In January 1991, bombs started to fall in Baghdad, and less than 10 hours later all communications and power were lost in the city. Immediately after the aerial assault the ground war began, and 100 hours later President George H. W. Bush declared victory.
The irony of the Gulf War is that in 1994, then Defense Secretary Cheney stated that if troops "finished the job" in Baghdad and took out Saddam it would have been a quagmire. But lo' and behold, 19 years later, Bush 43 decided to invade Iraq after scaring the bejeezus out of the American public with reports of WMDs. $900 billion, 100,000 dead Iraqis, and 4,315 dead American troops later, Cheney admitted what the rest of us knew all along - that Gulf War II was a war of choice. No WMDs were ever found in Iraq, not to mention no proof of Iraq's involvement in 9/11.
I think the video below pretty much sums up American foreign policy in Iraq. Yep, that's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with a dictator in 1983.
Funny how neocons like Sean Hannity love to slam President Obama for saying that he would be willing to meet with Ahmadinejad, but give Rumsfeld a pass for shaking hands with a known murderer.
So, if this is Mr. Wolfowitz's idea of President Obama being tougher with Iranian dictators, I want no part of it. Ahmadinejad has already stated that the blood of Iranian civilians is on the hands of Western countries, primarily the UK and the US. If that's the case, how much more blood are you willing to be spilled, Paul?
In case you've been living under a rock for the past week, there's been a presidential election there. The incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared victory, while the challenger Mir Hussein Mousavi and his followers cry fowl. As a result, Tehran has been in turmoil as tens of thousands loyal to Mousavi have taken to the streets in protest. Personally, I'm in lockstep with the protesters.
But what really puzzles me is why the United States House of Representatives felt it was absolutely essential to vote on resolution to show moral support for dissenters in Tehran. House Resolution 506, introduced by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) states the following:
RESOLUTION
Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives— (1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law; (2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and (3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.
I think it's safe to say that most of the civilized world is on the the side of those who seek freedom in Iran. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Pence said "I appreciate the fact that the president said the protesters have a right to be heard and represented, and I appreciate the fact that he said he is troubled. But I respectfully disagree with the administration's decision to essentially draw the line at not meddling and not interfering."
The overall tone from the Republicans has been just shy of sabre-rattling while accusing the president of being soft and timid toward Iranian hardliners. Some have even evoked the name of Ronald Reagan and his famous "Tear down this wall" speech to Mikhail Gorbachev, in an attempt to draw correlations between Obama's "softness" and the situation in Iran.
I can hear it now - "Mr. Khamenei, give the presidency to Mousavi! We demand it!"
Please.
Senator John McCain has back-pedaled from his previous statements in which he was also said Obama was timid. John McCain is the last person that should be offering the president any foreign policy advice toward Iran. Jokes about bombing Iran is not foreign policy, Senator.
So what do Congressman Pence and his like-minded peers hope to achieve with their little resolution? Is it really necessary to waste the time and effort to draft a resolution like this? What do they think will happen - that Iranians will just stop what they're doing and kiss their feet?
Let's say that the president does come out with a stronger approach toward Ahmedinejad and Khamenei while Mousavi and his supporters embrace President Obama with open arms. What would likely happen is the current leadership would label Mousavi as friendly toward the "Great Satan", and the blood that is already spilling in the streets of Tehran would only increase. What would be your intervention approach then, Congressman Pence - a fleet of aircraft carriers and tanks?
While Republicans have been calling the president timid toward Iranian foreign policy, even Henry Kissinger said "the president has handled the situation well," during a recent interview on Fox News. He went on to say, "Anything that the United States says that puts us totally behind one of the contenders, behind Mousavi, would be a handicap for that person. And I think it’s the proper position to take that the people of Iran have to make that decision...and I think it was the right thing to do because the public support for the opposition would only be used by the - by Ahmadinehad...against Mousavi." Ironically, John McCain has recently said in his Facebook page that Kissinger is the "smartest man in the world!"
So here's a friendly foreign policy reminder for Mike Pence and those Republicans who call themselves "conservative":
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796
By the way, the resolution passed overwhelmingly 405 to 1. Anyone want to guess who voted "No"?
The text declares Job as a righteous man and that he has nothing to do with evil. He is wise, kind, and generous to those around him. He prayed constantly for his sons and daughters for the sins they may have unwittingly committed, and gave burnt offerings on their behalf. Even though he was blameless, everything he owned, and the sons and daughters he loved, were ripped away from him. His wife in essence blames Job for their loss, and even though his friends come to comfort him, they also blame Job. But even in the worst of his pain, he worshiped God and praised him.
However, Job eventually realizes what is happening to him. Even though the Bible declares Job is blameless, Job makes the correct assumption that, "though I am blameless, God will declare me guilty." In other words, Job realizes that he is powerless against God, who decides that he should be guilty of something.
When God finally reveals himself to Job, he addresses none of the concerns or questions that Job has. He doesn't ask Job if he's alright. He doesn't give comfort to Job. He doesn't heal Job's boils. He doesn't provide water to drink. He offers nothing. Instead, God proceeds to give Job a guilt trip. God goes on self-absorbed ego trip, drunk with power, and begins to assault Job with questions and demands for Job to display the awesome power that God can. Of course, God knows that Job can't possibly answer or perform the miracles he asks for, but he demands these things anyway.
The amazing aspect of this display of God's power, is that God seems to enjoy beating Job down and humiliating him. Even after Job offers to repent in ashes for questioning God's presence, God continues to pummel Job, demanding that he rival God's power. But the irony of this tirade against Job is that Job never once questioned God's power, only where God was during his suffering. Furthermore, the only one to defend God throughout Job's suffering was Job, himself. Yet God sees fit to take Job to the woodshed, anyway.
Job knew that he hadn't sinned against God and dared to ask, "I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself? And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away my iniquity? for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be." In other words, "Have I sinned against you, God? Why do you hate me to the point so that you make me my own worst enemy? I'm begging you to forgive me; but you refuse to. Why?"
We ultimately realize that Job was caught in the middle of a cosmic game of cat and mouse between God and Satan. As chapter 2, verse 3 tells us, "...thou [Satan] movedst me [God] against him [Job], to destroy him without cause." God had been tempted by Satan to move against Job to "destroy him without cause"? I thought the Bible clearly teaches that God cannot be tempted? In short, God gives in to Satan's wiles to destroy a just man without any reason.
In the final chapter, verse 11, we learn that God restores Job's wealth even more than it was before his troubles began. We also learn that God gives Job 7 new sons and 3 new daughters, as if this would somehow wipe Job's memory of the first smile of his firstborn child. Job's friends, brothers, sisters, and even mere acquaintances go to Job's house to eat and drink with him, and to comfort him from the "evil that the Lord had brought upon him." Evil that was visited upon a blameless man from a "just" and "holy" god.
In closing, I have a question for Christians who believe that the Book of Job is a beautiful passage of God's divine love and providence to his faithful:
If this is the god you serve - a god who can be swayed by evil to allow a righteous and just man to be destroyed - how then can you be assured of Heaven?
One day as God was doing the things that only one of unlimited capacity can do, Satan arrived among an escort of angels. Upon arrival, God asked Satan, "From whence comest thou?" to which Satan replied, "from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."
The conversation between God and Satan was very similar to the first conversation mentioned in chapter 1. But this time God informs Satan that he may do whatever he wants to Job. The only condition that applied is that Satan spares Job his life. Satan departed from God, and attacked Job from head to toe with boils. The only comfort that Job can find is through the shard of a clay pot as he tried to scrape the boils from his body.
You would figure that the one person in Job's life who would offer him comfort was his wife, but she simply told him to curse God and die. Job rebuked his wife and sinned against God not once throughout the whole ordeal. Three of Job's friends come to his aid to try to bring him some level of comfort. They could see that Job was in terrible pain, and they stayed with him for 7 days and 7 nights, comforting him.
After losing his wealth and family, and trying to suffer through the boils that had afflicted him, Job finally breaks down and reveals his humanity by cursing the day of his birth. For the next 36 chapters, Job pleads for God's presence. Job implores of God in 7:20-21, "I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself? And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away my iniquity? for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be." He begs God to forgive him for any sin he might have committed for the calamity that has come upon Job, but God remains silent.
The chapters between 2 and 38 reveal Job and his friends struggling in vain to determine the cause of Job's misery. They spend days and nights pondering on the ways of God, but Job's friends ultimately decide that the cause of his suffering is some forgotten sin. As one of Job's friends indicates, "those who plow iniquity and those who sow trouble harvest it." In spite of the interrogation from his friends, Job maintains his innocence, which forces him to realize, "Though I am righteous, my mouth will condemn me; Though I am guiltless, He will declare me guilty."
Finally, after days and nights of silence, God reveals himself to Job in a whirlwind. But instead of bringing solace and love to Job, God is furious with his servant. God sidesteps the questions that Job had justly asked regarding the whereabouts of God, and begins to brutally interrogate Job.
The interrogation begins in chapter 38, verse 1, when God demands "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" For 4 chapters God hammers away at Job with questions and demands that he knows Job can't answer nor perform. Every question relates to God's great power, but not one addresses the health and safety of Job.
Job, realizing he's in the middle of a losing battle, offers up a white flag by confessing, "Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further." But even after Job had surrendered, God's onslaught continued. "Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?"
After Job had received the mother of all verbal beat downs, God finally relents, but not before turning his wrath from Job to his friends. Even though they were the only ones who brought any comfort to Job, God tells Eliphaz, "My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath." God then commands Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar to give him a burnt offering so their sins may be forgiven, in spite of the fact that they were the ones who defended God during Job's suffering.
God had gotten got the best of Job, who admits that he is nothing. Job even goes so far to say that he abhors himself for questioning God in the first place, and repents.
Job's story ends with him acquiring twice the riches he had before his troubles began. He was also given 7 more sons and 3 more daughters, whose beauty was unmatched in all of Uz. Job lived for 140 more years, and died "being old and full of days."
When I considered myself a faithful Christian, my favorite book in the Bible was the Book of Job. I liked the story of Job because it appealed to the spiritual part of me, but mostly because it appealed to the scientific part of me. I've always been curious about the world around us, particularly the night sky. It is in Job 38:31-33 that God reveals Job's ignorance to him when God asked Job:
"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth"
When I read these words, I used to get choked up. It was in these verses, that God revealed my ignorance to me. Truly, I had taken my first steps in understanding God's dominion over the sky that I adored so much.
Or had I?
The Book of Job begins by giving a succinct description of Job as an upright man and had wanted to have nothing to with evil. He had a large family of 7 sons and 3 daughters, and God had blessed him with great wealth because of Job's loyalty and obedience. Job enjoyed the best life in the land of Uz, but horror, bloodshed, and agony was about to visit Job and turn his world inside out as the Bible says, "without any reason or cause."
One day as God was doing the things that only one of unlimited capacity can do, Satan arrived among an escort of angels. Upon arrival, God asked Satan, "Where have you come from?" to which Satan replied, "Coming from to and fro on the earth, walking up and down on it." God then asks Satan, "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" to which Satan replied, "Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? Thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."
God then informed Satan that he could do whatever he wanted to Job, but he couldn't lay a hand on him.
Satan departed from God's presence and struck everything that Job owned. One after another, servants of Job rush to him, citing the terrible events that had unfolded. First, his cattle were stolen and his servants were killed by a group of Sabeans, save the one who lived to tell Job. While the servant was still speaking, a shepherd of Job's rushed to him, informing him that the fire of God fell from the sky, consuming all of his sheep and the remaining shepherds.
Yet, while the shepherd was still speaking, another servant came to Job, and told him that 3 groups of Chaldeans stole his camels and killed his servants, save the one who lived to tell the tale. No sooner had he finished telling his story, did another servant come to Job and told him that his sons had been killed while they were enjoying dinner and wine with their sisters.
Place yourself in Job's shoes for a moment, and try to imagine what he must have been feeling. Everything he had ever worked for is gone. His sons are dead, his cattle, sheep, and camels were stolen. Any normal human being would have found the nearest blade to fall on it. But Job fell to his knees, worshipped God, and blessed him.
And through it all, Job sinned not once against God nor blamed God.
Less than one week after the trial of Leilani Neumann began, a jury found her guilty of second degree homicide in the death of her 11-year old daughter, Kara. You may recall that Kara died last March after her mother denied her medical treatment for diabetes. Rather than take her daughter to a doctor, Leilani believed that her faith would be enough to save her daughter. Leilani could serve 25 years in jail due to her negligence.
Leilani's husband, Dale, will have a separate trial on June 23rd.
In related news, the parents of Daniel Hauser have agreed to a court order to let their son receive chemotherapy.
