Last week, some Norwegian dude bombed a government building in Oslo and shot 87 people to death at a youth camp. My interest in his story is only in part, as the reaction from the news articles regarding the motives for his actions comprise that added 'wow' (more like 'whoa') factor that only the mainstream media can dish out.
News media of all stripes, in their haste to publicize the fact that Anders Behring Breivik was not Muslim, crooned for two days about what the police described as Breivik's "right-wing Christian fundamentalism" with articles like
"Oslo Shooter Anti-Muslim Christian Fundamentalist" http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/oslo-shooter-anti-muslim-christian-extremist/ From the post: "Anders Behring Breivik, is a frequent poster of anti-Muslim screeds on Christian fundamentalist websites" which came from an article that said merely that Anders "posted on websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies. He did not describe the websites in any more details."
and
"Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalist Charged Following Norway Attack"
and
"Oslo Suspect Wrote of Fear of Islam and Plan for War"
In particular, this article which was written by Steven Erlander is a toned-down version of one he wrote a day earlier outright labeling Breivik as a "Christian extremist." This article, which no longer labels Breivik as a "Christian extremist" nevertheless quotes from Thomas Hegghammer who does remark that, “[Breivik's action] seems to be an attempt to mirror Al Qaeda, exactly in reverse.” Such a statement easily conveys the idea that Breivik's actions are somehow religiously motivated similarly to Al Qaeda.
and
"Norway Terror Update: Suspect Detained Identified As ‘Christian Fundamentalist’"
Of course, none of this news frenzy could go ignored by internet pop-skeptics. Such a salacious story about a Christian shooting up people easily calls out the hounds, which prize expletives like John Loftus seized on to again mime (meme?) his knife-twisting hatred of Christianity. And once the media let a domino fall, it predictably set off a chain reaction of anti-religious media personalities carving a collective "a ha!" gotcha notch on their digital bedposts. /CoughBill Mahercough!
And, the last shred of human decency left in this world disintegrated with the publishing of another little piece of refuse like this:
"Pamela Geller and Co. Connected to Norway Bomber Anders Behring Breivik?"
The Golden Ticket, however, again came from the New York Times. As I referenced above, in an article titled, “As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist – Manifesto Shows Plan of Attack, Fear of Islam," Steven Erlander supposedly gave stunning revelations from Brievik's online manifesto to the "fact" of Breivik's religiously-fueled terrorism. However, despite my earnest attempts to find an online link or archive, it has mysteriously disappeared from the NYT online. Think this was a small story? Newsbusters reports that the NYT's article was actually in print on the front page of the July 23rd edition.
But is any of this true? Nope. Anders Behring Breivik himself thankfully provides the answer in what I call his "Treatise on how Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment Can be Crimeless Yet Full of Punishment." In other words, how to rationalize killing the innocent in order to justify killing the perceived guilty. I think that was also the the basic plot of Star Trek VI. According to Brevik, his so-called Christian connection is no more substantive than that Norway is considered a "Christian"-dominant country having adopted Christianity as the state religion. Well if that were the real criteria for being a Christian, then Breivik is certainly a Christian just as anyone else in Norway is a Christian just for living there and not claiming to be anything else. Now, I think I know a little something about what being a Christian is, and I can safely say that your birthplace doesn't determine if you adopt a particular religion even if it is dominant. I think any atheist would agree with that.
Just recently, David Wood from Answering Muslims put out a video discussing Anders Behring Breivik. Wood specifically deals with the whole "Is Breivik a Christian?" question. Not to be missed, here it is:
For the sake of competent reporting, I sure hope that the MSM will wake up soon and realize that the fascists they've been looking for are maybe the ones staring at themselves in the mirror. The thinly veiled hatred the media has for Christianity isn't all that sensational anymore. Just sayin'.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Gay Activists Try to Defend Cisco
Normally I wouldn’t comment on a situation like this, (because it is far too easy for someone to come along and accuse me of homophobia, even though I love all people, and there is nothing about gay people that scares me in the least), but because it involves someone I know personally, I’m going to make a point on behalf of a friend. This post is my reaction and comments to the contents of Mike Adam's latest article in Townhall.com commenting on the Cisco firing of Frank Turek, titled "A Queer and Present Danger." It is in particular to the argument made by gay supporters that Cisco made no unconstitutional moves against Turek that I respond.
I happen to agree that First Amendment rights exist to protect American citizens from unjust treatment by the goverment. I also agree that a company has the prerogative to fire any employees or consultants for any reason, except for legal limitations. Those limitations exist to protect employees from superflous and ujnust firings and include reasons such as race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and yes, viewpoint discrimination. I agree that Cisco has the prerogative, but I do believe they flubbed it on the viewpoint discrimination.
As far as Cisco is concerned, nothing Frank Turek ever said or did for which he was fired was ever a part of his dealings with the company. Anything the culpable manager found disagreeable was entirely within the realm of Turek’s private life. And what do we know about what people do in their private lives? That it is viewpoint discrimination if a company takes action for something that does not concern it. Cisco fired Turek for something he did in his private life.
So, gay supporters have been especially shrill as a result in trying to expand an acceptable limit to the First Amendment to justify Turek’s firing, saying that a private citizen is not constitutionally protected from the consequences of having a politically incorrect point of view to the point of forced unemployment. But let’s turn the tables and see if this argument works the other way: would it only be “consequences” if a gay rights activist were fired from his job because the manager didn’t like his views, views that never intersected with his job? The use of the word “consequences” is rather backhanded, as getting fired on account of viewpoint discrimination is no more a "consequence" than it was for blacks to get lynched as a “consequence” of the passage of the 13th Amendment. The manager who sought Turek’s firing did nothing out of said “consequence.” If not he, then Cisco, should have the balls to admit that this was an act of aggression on an indivdual’s private life, not a consequence of anything Turek said or did on behalf of the company.
While we’re talking about consequences, let’s imagine what the consequences of Turek’s experience can bring to Cisco. This would be a great capitalistic opportunity for a competing company to clarify that any similar brouhaha would be stridently avoided and actively woo Cisco’s current clients over to them. Cisco’s clients could also take the time to reevaluate if Cisco’s heavy-handed and unfair firing practices are something they want to associate with. And finally, Cisco managers can all be publicly branded as the invasive, intolerant bigots they have been so far. If Cisco thinks I am being unfair and wants to redeem itself even a little, then the execs can display some public some good faith in showing the offending manager the same courtesy that he showed to Frank.
Read the background story of Frank Turek's firing from Cisco in Mike Adam's articles for Townhall.com:
The Cisco Kid (a reprint of Turek's letter to Cisco's CEO concerning his firing)
Cisco Sinks to a Dishonorable New Low
Holier than Mao
You can also listen to Frank himself talk about his experience on a radio broadcast with Crane Durham:
I happen to agree that First Amendment rights exist to protect American citizens from unjust treatment by the goverment. I also agree that a company has the prerogative to fire any employees or consultants for any reason, except for legal limitations. Those limitations exist to protect employees from superflous and ujnust firings and include reasons such as race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and yes, viewpoint discrimination. I agree that Cisco has the prerogative, but I do believe they flubbed it on the viewpoint discrimination.
As far as Cisco is concerned, nothing Frank Turek ever said or did for which he was fired was ever a part of his dealings with the company. Anything the culpable manager found disagreeable was entirely within the realm of Turek’s private life. And what do we know about what people do in their private lives? That it is viewpoint discrimination if a company takes action for something that does not concern it. Cisco fired Turek for something he did in his private life.
So, gay supporters have been especially shrill as a result in trying to expand an acceptable limit to the First Amendment to justify Turek’s firing, saying that a private citizen is not constitutionally protected from the consequences of having a politically incorrect point of view to the point of forced unemployment. But let’s turn the tables and see if this argument works the other way: would it only be “consequences” if a gay rights activist were fired from his job because the manager didn’t like his views, views that never intersected with his job? The use of the word “consequences” is rather backhanded, as getting fired on account of viewpoint discrimination is no more a "consequence" than it was for blacks to get lynched as a “consequence” of the passage of the 13th Amendment. The manager who sought Turek’s firing did nothing out of said “consequence.” If not he, then Cisco, should have the balls to admit that this was an act of aggression on an indivdual’s private life, not a consequence of anything Turek said or did on behalf of the company.
While we’re talking about consequences, let’s imagine what the consequences of Turek’s experience can bring to Cisco. This would be a great capitalistic opportunity for a competing company to clarify that any similar brouhaha would be stridently avoided and actively woo Cisco’s current clients over to them. Cisco’s clients could also take the time to reevaluate if Cisco’s heavy-handed and unfair firing practices are something they want to associate with. And finally, Cisco managers can all be publicly branded as the invasive, intolerant bigots they have been so far. If Cisco thinks I am being unfair and wants to redeem itself even a little, then the execs can display some public some good faith in showing the offending manager the same courtesy that he showed to Frank.
Read the background story of Frank Turek's firing from Cisco in Mike Adam's articles for Townhall.com:
The Cisco Kid (a reprint of Turek's letter to Cisco's CEO concerning his firing)
Cisco Sinks to a Dishonorable New Low
Holier than Mao
You can also listen to Frank himself talk about his experience on a radio broadcast with Crane Durham:
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Much Ado About Harold Camping Nothin'
With five days to go until Take Two of the Camping-senian apocalypse, I've clicked through a number of Harold Camping's YouTube videos logging his final radio shows. Many of his adherents have sold all their possessions and eliminated their savings in preparation for the end of the world, which he predicts will happen on May 21. These last days, his staff have been hyping up the advertisements for the end. In today's video, his webmaster speaks with an air of expectation, like a husband who's pregnant wife is at the 'any day now' phase.
Is May 21 going to be the end of the world? Oh, it's entirely possible..............just like it's possible that any other random day could be the end of the world. Other than the fact that Camping is just one end-times predictor just like all those who have gone before him (e.g. Joseph Smith Jr, the Jehovah's Witnesses), he's apparently marvelously captivating and believable. Otherwise, why would there be purportely so many families who have followed his directives to stop attending churches and crowd around the radio listening to him and him only? Hmmmmmmm.
As I see it, Camping is really no different than any other self-glory-seeking man (and we all have a little of that in us anyway). Perhaps the fact that he is now 90 years old and may actually see the Lord has prompted him to reclaim the fame that he had prior to his 1994 failed prediction of the end of the world. I don't know. What I do know is that the Bible specifically says that the exact day of the end is not known by anyone except God the Father alone.
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come." (Mark 13:32-33, NIV)
If you're like me and want to know the secret formula for predicting the end of the world, we can thank Camping for generously obliging us. Here it is: 2 (5 x 10 x 17) = Judgment Day. Ta da!
On a more compassionate note, if you know any Camping followers who have seriously ditched all in life to wait by their radios, I beg of you to please be kind and put together care packages for them and deliver them on May 22. Yeah, it's their fault they are deceived and unbiblical in their belief of Harold Camping, but this going to be a tragedy for many people. Some of them may even try to take their own lives in the days and weeks to come. I hope that conscientious believers everywhere would reach out and care for the children of Camping adherents and help these poor folks to get back on their feet. They will need food, jobs, and homes again. Most importantly, they will need you to be Jesus to them.
Is May 21 going to be the end of the world? Oh, it's entirely possible..............just like it's possible that any other random day could be the end of the world. Other than the fact that Camping is just one end-times predictor just like all those who have gone before him (e.g. Joseph Smith Jr, the Jehovah's Witnesses), he's apparently marvelously captivating and believable. Otherwise, why would there be purportely so many families who have followed his directives to stop attending churches and crowd around the radio listening to him and him only? Hmmmmmmm.
As I see it, Camping is really no different than any other self-glory-seeking man (and we all have a little of that in us anyway). Perhaps the fact that he is now 90 years old and may actually see the Lord has prompted him to reclaim the fame that he had prior to his 1994 failed prediction of the end of the world. I don't know. What I do know is that the Bible specifically says that the exact day of the end is not known by anyone except God the Father alone.
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come." (Mark 13:32-33, NIV)
If you're like me and want to know the secret formula for predicting the end of the world, we can thank Camping for generously obliging us. Here it is: 2 (5 x 10 x 17) = Judgment Day. Ta da!
On a more compassionate note, if you know any Camping followers who have seriously ditched all in life to wait by their radios, I beg of you to please be kind and put together care packages for them and deliver them on May 22. Yeah, it's their fault they are deceived and unbiblical in their belief of Harold Camping, but this going to be a tragedy for many people. Some of them may even try to take their own lives in the days and weeks to come. I hope that conscientious believers everywhere would reach out and care for the children of Camping adherents and help these poor folks to get back on their feet. They will need food, jobs, and homes again. Most importantly, they will need you to be Jesus to them.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Welcome, The Valley Girl Apologist
My friend and fellow apologist Sarah Ankenman has started her apologetics blog. Welcome to the blogosphere, Sarah!
Check it out:
The Valley Girl Apologist
Check it out:
The Valley Girl Apologist
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Man Pleads Guilty in Ohio Gunpoint Abortion Case
From AOL.com news:
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- An Ohio man has pleaded guilty to charges that he tried to force his pregnant girlfriend at gunpoint to get an abortion.
Dominic Holt-Reid entered his pleas in a Columbus courtroom Thursday to attempted murder, weapons and abduction charges.
He was charged under a 1996 fetal homicide law.
Police say Holt-Reid pulled a gun Oct. 6 on his girlfriend, Yolanda Burgess, who was three months pregnant, and forced her to drive to an abortion clinic.
Burgess did not go through with the procedure but slipped a note to a clinic employee, who called police.I can't wait to hear Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW say that the worst wrong and most dangerous thing this man did was have a gun. Legalized abortions with the kind of privacy demands that abortion supporters make end up tying them into ethical knots; the abortion clinic technically did not have to call the police or acknowledge the woman's note, and that is a problem. How many other incidents of coerced abortions take place, shielded from the authorities because someone didn't use a gun to force a woman to the abortionist? No one will ever know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
