Dear Jim, My name is John, and I'm here to help. First, let's get something straight. I don't hate you. I don't even harbor a strong dislike for you, and I certainly wouldn't want anyone to cause you physical harm. My personal feelings toward you might best be described as disdain or contempt, because I have absolutely no respect for the job you do, or for your employer. It's nothing personal. Recently I watched a video in which you stormed out of a press briefing in a temper tantrum. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders had just refused to declare the media is not the enemy of the American people--even though you and your colleagues have been doing a remarkable job of creating that impression for Trump voters. The problem is that President Trump didn't actually say what you accused him of saying--he didn't say the media was the enemy of the American people. He specifically referred to FAKE NEWS media. ABC News reported that on February 17, 2017, the president tweeted these exact words: "The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!" My only complaint was that President Trump neglected to mention MS-NBC and The Washington Post in the same tweet, because if the shoe fits... Horribly biased coverage by the mainstream media that favored the Democratic Party has been problematic for decades. For example, Bill Clinton inappropriately had adulterous sex in the Oval Office with a woman young enough to be his daughter. He sexually harassed several others, and … [Read more...]
Mob rule
Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Mob rule is "control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation." Basically, the most significant difference between those related forms of tyranny is whether the force applied to separate an individual citizen from the fruits of his or her labor is applied by government forces or private citizens. What then, is Democratic socialism? According to the Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives. In other words, Democratic socialists want to use the power of government to redistribute private wealth in order to buy votes, using the familiar and more palatable euphemisms such as "progressivism" and "the rich paying their fair share" to justify what is tantamount to legalized theft. Bernie Sanders might be the most famous American politician who describes himself as a Democratic socialist but runs as an Independent, while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a rising star in the Democratic Party and another … [Read more...]
An Atheist Defends Religion
Author Bruce Sheiman approaches the debate between theists and atheists about whether God exists from a unique point of view. He is a professed atheist who defends the right of religious people to have their faith. He touts the psychological and physical health benefit one may derive from placing hope and faith in their Creator. Sheiman coined a term to differentiate himself as an atheist (one who doesn’t believe in God personally) to Richard Dawkins and his fan club as antitheists, meaning people with a militant atheistic agenda. Antitheists not only reject God for themselves but actively campaign to eradicate faith in others. It’s very helpful to understand the difference. In a section of his book titled "Scientific Materialism and Relativism" Sheiman writes, In the traditional evolutionary view, there is no difference between humans and animals, since both are driven by the same survival and gene replication imperatives. On the plus side, this may lead many people to respect all living creatures. On the negative side and in the extreme, this can lead to species relativism: the idea that humans are not the pinnacles of creation; we are no different from other creatures. (p41) A little later Sheiman clarifies that point, adding, …[b]ut the second implication is very disturbing. If humans are animals and our lives are not divinely inspired, the edifice of Judeo-Christian morality about the sanctity of human life is discredited. God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to other animals. … [Read more...]
A blind rock maker?
In his 1802 book titled Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearance of Nature, Anglican Priest and philosopher William Paley made the classic teleological "argument from design" in his famous Watchmaker analogy, which says: In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and asked how that stone came to be there; I might possibly answer that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it has lain there forever. Nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I have found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer, which I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there.... The watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and that some place or other, and artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction and designed its use.... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. Granted, rebuttals have been attempted in response to Paley’s argument for Intelligent Design, but the question is: can these counterarguments actually challenge a modernized version of Paley's Watchmaker with any real success? It seems to me that all of these counterarguments … [Read more...]
What is a miracle?
In my previous article about the healing power of the mind, I confessed that I have been praying for my mother to be healed from an incurable disease that has dramatically affected her speech. In that article, I revealed that I had received a most unexpected (but welcome) email from spiritual healer Carol Everett, inspiring me to ask for her help. If you happened to read that article, you might be wondering how my mother is doing. Well, in my honest opinion, she's doing much better. In fact, I'd have to say that my mother's condition has improved significantly. However, if you asked me if my mother has been completely healed, I'd have to say no...at least, not yet. Helped, or improved, absolutely. But completely healed? No. Not yet. What does this mean? How should I interpret what I would describe as good, but not an instantaneous cure? Should I be discouraged? I don't think so. Was I asking too much of God, to heal an elderly woman? Absolutely not. The Creator of this universe from absolutely nothing, the Animator of lifeless matter into a living organism, can literally do anything He wants. This "naturally" includes healing the sick and even resurrecting the dead. However, the phrasing of that sentence was deliberate and crucial to get right...it's what God wants, not what I want, that matters. God is our Creator, not our personal valet. It would be arrogant and foolish to make demands of God. Admittedly, some atheists have created websites asking clever questions like "why won't God heal amputees?" to mock the idea that literally, there is nothing … [Read more...]
