Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for the ‘religion’ Category


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 10, 2010

The threat is nonexistent. It is inconceivable that a band of disgruntled sword-swinging Jesus-loving zealots would exact their revenge against those who would portray Christ in a less-than-godly light. The possibility of retribution is so infinitesimal – if that – that there is not a scintilla of worry, fear, apprehension or trepidation among those who would create entertainment that depicts Jesus Christ in a non-flattering, or decidedly insulting, manner.

Why would there be?

Christians do not threaten violence at offensive and insolent characterizations of Jesus, nor do they demand that others adhere to their beliefs and practices. Those who convince themselves that the cutting edge of comedy is at its sharpest and most relevant when Christianity is the target will not have to look over their shoulders for cross-bearing throat-cutters or under their cars for explosive devices.

It is the reality.

And so it is that one of the latest projects in the works at the ever-courageous Comedy Central Network is a cartoon about a “regular guy” who moves to New York to get out from under his father’s “enormous shadow.”

It’s called “JC.”

The “regular guy” in question is Jesus Christ, and his dad is God.

I’m laughing already.

Where do these provocateurs come up with their ground-breaking ideas?

This is the same network that decided against airing a scene from the program “South Park” depicting Muhammed in a bear costume for fear of being targeted by Islamist terrorists … although that wasn’t the official explanation.

Something about not wanting to offend people, blah, blah, blah …

Yet, the new Jesus project is said to be in development.

David Bauder of the Associated Press writes:

(JC’s) father is presented as an apathetic man who would rather play video games than listen to his son talk about his new life, according to Comedy Central’s thumbnail sketch of the idea. Reveille, the production company behind “The Office,” “Ugly Betty” and “The Biggest Loser,” is making “JC.”

It wouldn’t be the first time Jesus Christ has been on a Comedy Central cartoon; he’s a recurring character on the long-running “South Park.”

Whenever “South Park” features Muhammad in an episode, Comedy Central obscures the character with a black box; Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous. Following the Internet threat, Comedy Central angered “South Park” producers by editing out a character’s speech about intimidation in a subsequent episode.

“It’s not certain what is more despicable: the nonstop Christian bashing featured on the network, or Comedy Central’s decision to censor all depictions of Muhammad,” said William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, on Thursday.

Comedy Central wouldn’t comment on Donohue’s statement, said network spokesman Tony Fox, who declined to give further details about “JC.”

From a personal perspective, what is most frustrating of all is the fact that all of the ideas I have submitted to Comedy Central for an exciting new cartoon series will never be considered.

One idea I had was a cartoon called “Dr. Jihad and Mr. Hyde.” It was the story of a young man torn between his love for the environment and his desire to blow up American school children. While his inclination is to pursue a life of environmental activism, each morning the hilarity ensues as Muhammed appears in his bathroom on a bar of Irish Spring soap, commanding him to slit the throats of local second graders.

It’s nonstop madcap hijynx.

Another idea I had was a series called “All In The Fatwah” – the story of the generation gap between Muhammed and one of his child brides, set in the early 7th century in a suburb of Mecca. The premise is that while Muhammed is out trying to bring the world to Allah, he still has to come home every night and contend with a wife who is barely old enough to dress herself.

It’s comedy gold.

Meanwhile, Muhammed’s daughter (from another wife) moves in with her Christian husband, much to the chagrin of Muhammed. Muhammed refers to him as “Falafel-Head.”

The possibilities are endless.

Yet another idea I had was insprired by Elton John’s recent assertion that Jesus Christ was gay. It was a story of conflicting value systems set in an artsy section of Medina, called “Muhammed’s Rainbow.”

There were a few others, but I haven’t really developed them yet.


Maybe HBO will give some of my ideas a shot.

Oh wait, they have Bill Maher.

wordpress statistics


Posted in Islam, religion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 30, 2010

Downtown Davenport, Iowa

The feel-good story of tolerance …

Last week in Davenport, Iowa, the City Administrator decided the time was ripe to be less offensive. Because the words “Good Friday” were deemed by him to be divisive and (presumably) hateful, he had the words “Good Friday” removed from the municipal calendar and replaced with the doltish and achingly liberal contrivance: “Spring Holiday.”

It didn’t matter that it actually was “Good Friday,” the name had to changed so that it was less blatantly about all of that God stuff and more of an open tent celebration.

(If the “Separation of Church and State” bell just went off in your head, your moonbat monitor is perfectly calibrated).

Safe to say, the change did not sit well with too many.

That the majority of the population there – Christians – might be offended by the attempt to change the name of “Good Friday” was apparently irrelevant to Davenport ass-clown who initiated the change, Craig Malin.

To him, as long as those who do not celebrate Good Friday are coddled and protected from the pain of exclusion, then the leftist objective of equality at all costs is that much closer to being met … and then all of the fuzzy bunnies of the world can prance in harmony in fields of sunshine-soaked swaying daisies.

Besides, offending Christians is perfectly permissible – perhaps, a badge of honor. What better time to kick Christians than during Holy Week?

After all, this extrication of the social epithet “Good Friday” was done with only the most honorable of intentions – namely, the never-ending pursuit by the Equality-Is-The-Most-Important-Value crowd of separating church from state.

Russell Goldman at ABC News writes:

One week before the most solemn day in the Christian year, the city of Davenport, Iowa removed Good Friday from its municipal calendar, setting off a storm of complaints from Christians and union members whose contracts give them that day off.

Taking a recommendation by the Davenport Civil Rights Commission to change the holiday’s name to something more ecumenical, City Administrator Craig Malin sent a memo to municipal employees announcing Good Friday would officially be known as “Spring Holiday.”

“My phone has been ringing off the hook since Saturday,” said city council alderman Bill Edmond. “People are genuinely upset because this is nothing but political correctness run amok.”

Edmond said the city administrator made the change unilaterally and did not bring it to the council for a vote, a requirement for a change in policy.

“The city council didn’t know anything about the change. We were blind sided and now we’ve got to clean this mess up. How do you tell people the city renamed a 2,000 year old holiday?” said Edmond.

Does anyone want to take a guess which political party Mr. Malin is a member of?

The irony is that the Framers of the Constitution intended for government to stay out of the citizenry’s right to freely exercise their faith, not for the banishment of all references to God in the public arena. This is precisely what Thomas Jefferson was talking about in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 where the phrase “wall of separation” famously comes from – that the separating church and state refers to keeping government out of the sphere of religion, not the other way around.

City Council member Tim Hart brilliantly commented, “Our Constitution calls for the separation and church and state.”

Really? Where, exactly? Which article?


Fortunately, the “Spring Holiday” initiative was overruled yesterday by the Davenport City Council.

Good for them.

“Good Friday” breathes again.

Rumors that Easter will be renamed “Bunny and Egg Fest,” or that the Jewish holiday of “Passover” will be renamed “Big Matzoh-Time,” cannot be confirmed.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Church and State, religion, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , , | 7 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 19, 2010

Biblical scholars and religious academics come and go, but very few have the insight of Great Britain’s Sir Elton John. Captain Fantastic not only knows how to caress the keys and make them sing, but his biblical prowess is unparalleled in the world of pampered musicians, whiny divas and historically illiterate celebrities.

How does he do it?

Two millennia of humanity were not able to discover it. Holy men, teachers, philosophers, students, archeologists and historians for the better part of twenty centuries could not unearth it. Never has there been serious consideration of such a thing … that is, until now.

Thank you, Sir Elton, for letting the world know that Jesus Christ was a homosexual.

Pete Samson from The Sun writes:

JESUS was GAY – according to the gospel of SIR ELTON JOHN. The singer makes his controversial claim about the Lord in a new US interview that will enrage America’s bible belt.

Elton, 62, declares as he pours out his heart to a magazine: “I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems.”

He adds: “Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don’t know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East – you’re as good as dead.”

Presumably, these revelations came to him through the Gospels of Doug and Bruce.

I find it interesting that Sir E neglected to specify “Islam” when pointing out that being a gay woman in “the middle east” makes one as good as dead.  The all-encompassing “middle east” designation only showcases Mr. John’s extraordinary understanding of that part of the world.

After all, think of all those lesbian executions that take place in Israel.

One other question, Tiny Dancer: Would Jesus have been just as compassionate – or super-intelligent – if he were heterosexual?

Just asking.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Entertainment, Music, Pop Culture, religion | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 1, 2009

Atheism is for sale again this year, not unlike lasik eye surgery or appetite suppressant pills … and the American Humanist Association (AHA) is buying.

God bless capitalism, so to speak.

If you live or work in Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or San Francisco keep your eyes open, because godlessness is coming to a transit system near you.

Last year, you may recall, the AHA became what the Associated Press accurately called the “latest combatant in the Christmas wars” launching their anti-God campaign in  one city – Washington, D.C. – plastering signs that read, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake” on city buses.

Apparently it was a wonderfully successful endeavor, because this year, they’re going national.

The 2009 signs will read: “No God? No problem! Be good for Goodness’ Sake.”

From the AHA press release:

This year’s holiday campaign aims to promote the idea of being good without God. For example, on D.C. ads that appear on the interior of Metro cars and buses the slogan is accompanied by the explanation, “Be Good for Goodness’ Sake. Humanism is the idea that you can be good without a belief in God.”

“Humanists have always understood that striving to make the world a better place is one of humanity’s most important responsibilities,” said [Roy] Speckhardt, [executive director of the American Humanist Association]. “Religion does not have a monopoly on morality–millions of people are good without believing in God.”

Speckhardt pointed to the false assumption held by many that not believing in God indicates a lack of morality as the reason for needing such advertising campaigns. “We want to change the way people think and talk about non-theists, and to pave the way for acceptance of humanism as a valid and positive philosophy of life.”

I giggle here (with no disrespect intended, I assure you) because I marvel at how those from the secular side of the room, often deemed to be the deepest, most reasoned and rational thinkers among us – those who dismiss the impracticality of faith in an unseen God – always wind up sounding the most childlike, the most naïve, and just as reliant on the “irrational” as everyone else (Global Warming comes to mind).

Last year, Fred Edwords, spokesman for the AHA, said that while the group wasn’t trying to argue against God’s existence they were “trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people’s minds.” Humanism, as they define it, is “a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity.”

God bless them. (No offense intended).

While I try to avoid arguing tenets of faith, (e.g., “If you don’t do so and so you’re not going to heaven, etc.,”) arguing for the existence of God (rather than proving Him to exist which is empirically undoable) is a different story altogether – and far more appealing. I have faith because God’s existence is, to me, most plausible. Indeed, I struggle with God – as the word “Israel” implies – but I am humble. I do question God, but do not deny Him. I sometimes question the Bible – far more than atheists question their own assertions – but believe that wisdom is born through the fear of God. The level of certitude that exists among many self-described atheists in God’s nonexistence is, ironically, often higher than those who believe.

For instance, I might ask a friend with an atheistic perspective – let’s call him Mr. Corn Flake – if he could admit that his certainty in this planet’s purely accidental existence is as equally reliant on faith as mine is in a Creator. In other words, speaking to him directly, “Can you, Mr. Corn Flake, acknowledge that your belief in an Earth of coincidence – and the life that exists on it – is just as irrational as me believing in a God making it all?”

If he says, “yes” then he is being intellectually honest.

If he says “no,” then he takes out ads on city buses asking Christmastime commuters why they believe in an invisible man who lives in the sky.

I would then ask to be shown the empirical data on the existence of hope and love.

To “not see” does not mean to “not be.”

Think of those global-warming enthusiasts who, despite a lack of corroborating data, are absolutely certain that the science is “settled.” These enviro-fascists are emotionally invested in getting the results they desire, as the recent leaked e-mails from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit suggest, because they believe they are right. They have faith.

But science is not meant to be religion.

Science is amoral.

True science is emotion-neutral and goes where the data leads, not the heart.

(I digress)

More revealing to me, however, is the level at which atheists (and even agnostics) are convinced that a belief in God is somehow antithetical to being able to get pleasure from life. Last year, for instance, the British Humanist Association, launched their own “atheist bus campaign” in London with signs that read, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

(At least they said, “probably.”)

Despite a multitude of surveys that say people of faith are happier and more fulfilled than secularists (along with being more charitable), the very notion that having God in one’s life is an inhibitor to happiness is astounding – and utter nonsense.

For a moment ponder the outcry if New York City buses had signs on them that read, “There’s probably no Global Warming. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Katy, bar the door.

Last year, I was involved in a very spirited and interesting e-mail “conversation” with a blogger – a fellow conservative, as it were – who frequents the Free Republic site.

In one particularly poignant e-mail, he wrote:

Fortunately, (or unfortunately, depending on how you view it), God gave us freedom of choice… a “free will”.

If we were dealing with pygmies in New Gineau who had never been exposed to civilization and knew nothing about religion, there might be some assumed obligation to intervene. But these Americans we’re dealing with could not have made it to adulthood without being exposed to Religion in one form or another.

Having said that, if these people want to choose atheism, it’s their free will…let them have at it.

Every year about this time on Free Republic we start hearing about the stores that won’t say “Merry Christmas”…like they are single-handedly canceling Christmas or something. I say simply “don’t shop there” if that bugs you.

But the anti-Christmas attitude won’t keep me and my family from celebrating it, even reveling in it.

The Children of Liberalism do all this just to get publicity, and to try and “rub the adults” wrong. Let them play. Our job is to make sure we pass our beliefs on to our children…make THEM bullet-proof to all of the atheist car-cards riding around out there.

My response to him:

Indeed, when writing this, I did so with the foregone conclusion that people conduct their lives with the freedom of choice granted by God – free will. People can obviously live their lives as atheists if they choose.

What I will say is this … In the America I grew up in, the very idea that city buses would have advertising that promulgates such an anti-God point of view is indicative of the changing value system of the nation I love, as is the very idea that a department store would even consider eliminating “Merry Christmas” signs for fear of offending patrons.

I find this gradual – but very real – shift to a secular value set (and thus, one subject to the wills and whims of those in power) frightening.

The worry of offending people has become obsessive in so many areas of the American society.

I’m not saying the buses – taxpayer funded buses, by the way – shouldn’t be allowed to accept whatever advertising they want. That isn’t my point at all. I only lament what I perceive as deteriorating traditional values.

That’s all.

A million thanks to the great Weasel Zippers blog for bringing this story to my attention.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Athiesm, christmas, religion, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 24, 2009

Nidal Malik Hasan, terrorist

In all of their self-serving delusional grandeur, the mainstream media remains dogmatically determined to cite reasons other than Nidal Malik Hasan’s religion for the November 5th terrorist attack that killed thirteen at Fort Hood.

Believe it or not, they may have actually hit upon one, thanks to New York Times columnist Robert Wright .

It’s American conservatism.

In a piece published on Saturday, Wright blamed Hasan’s shooting spree on being “pushed over the edge by his perception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.” (both of which were initiated by a Republican president).

And while Wright cedes that Hasan also “drew inspiration” from radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, now in Yemen, the Fort Hood shooting was, according to him, “an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism — or, actually, by two wars on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan.” 

He went on to say that “Fort Hood is the biggest data point we have — the most lethal Islamist terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. It’s only one piece of evidence, but it’s a salient piece, and it supports the liberal, not the conservative, war-on-terrorism paradigm.” (Not that thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the world over the course of many years are especially salient in understanding Hasan’s motivations, mind you).

In fact, Wright believes that Hasan’s actions are mostly the  result of a noxious combination of conservative war-mongering and bats flapping around in his belfry:

It’s true that Major Hasan was unbalanced and alienated — and, by my lights, crazy. But what kind of people did conservatives think were susceptible to the terrorism meme?

These may be the two most asinine lines I’ve yet come across on the Hasan matter.

What is he talking about?

Hasan was isolated because he chose to be. Strange as it may seem to Wright, Hasan’s radical Islamic yammerings probably didn’t appeal to too many of his fellow soldiers. Talking jihad is not a great little ice-breaker.

Note how Wright initially classifies Hasan as “unbalanced and alienated.” By Wright’s reckoning, Hasan is crazy. Yet, in the next sentence, he appears to explain away the bulk of, if not all, Islamic terrorists, by suggesting that anyone “susceptible” to jihad must be, by default, “unbalanced and alienated.” In other words, terrorists, while bad, are prone to be frail mental flowers teetering on the edge of self-control, driven over the cliff by outside forces – in this case, two Muslim-erradicating wars waged by George W. Bush.


Seriously, this is how liberals think.

America – or rather, conservative America, with its propensity toward hawkish, unnuanced solutions to the most complex problems of the human condition – is to blame (at least in part) for driving Hasan to kill. Safe to say, if the United States were not involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, people like Hasan, while still unbalanced, would probably have never been pushed to blow away innocents.

If not for America, so the thinking goes, recruiting numbers at suicide-bombing re-up centers would plummet. (It’s one of the reasons President Obama gave for closing Guantanamo Bay, you’ll recall – because of its function as an Al-Qaeda recruiting tool). By such logic, America shouldn’t bother fighting against terrorists at all, thus ensuring zero recruitment among the murdering class. Only the unhinged and easily-provoked are “susceptible to the terrorism meme.”

How would such an approach work in the civilian world, I wonder, in dealing with criminals such as serial rapists? Or child molesters? Or murderers? Would societal conditions improve or deteriorate if law enforcement officials decided to stop being so “aggressive” in pursuing evil-doers? Does it make sense for law enforcement to back off for fear of creating more rapists? Or bank robbers?

Or are common criminals not as “crazy” or as easily provoked as jihadists?

Wright continues:

Central to the debate over Afghanistan is the question of whether terrorists need a “safe haven” from which to threaten America. If so, it is said, then we must work to keep every acre of Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc.) out of the hands of groups like the Taliban. If not — if terrorists can orchestrate a 9/11 about as easily from apartments in Germany as from camps in Afghanistan — then maybe never-ending war isn’t essential.

However you come out on that argument, the case of Nidal Hasan shows one thing for sure: Homegrown American terrorists don’t need a safe haven. All they need is a place to buy a gun.

Liberals are funny when they try to think things through.

Take a moment to ask yourself this …

How many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the years?

Perhaps a better question is … how many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the course of time that did not involve a United States Army Officer (who most likely would not have had not too many problems acquiring a firearm anyway)?

It is precisely because America is not a safe haven that so many terrorist attacks have been thwarted over the years.

And why is it not a safe haven?

Because of the presence (both overtly and covertly) of those men and women charged with the task of defending the United States against all foes, foreign and domestic.

In short, it’s just not very feasible for terrorists to train and prepare for 9/11 style attacks in the United States (or in most free nations, for that matter) the same way they would be able to do in nations sympathetic to their cause. Obviously, preparations can be undertaken to varying degrees in almost any location, as evidenced by the number of stateside plots that have been squashed in recent years;  but the notion that one can hatch, and train for, terrorist attacks with the same ease  – and with the same scope – from “apartments in Germany” as they can from Taliban-protected camps in Afghanistan is ridiculous.

Just because one believes that terrorism can potentially spring from almost everywhere does not mean nothing should be done anywhere.

This is about values, not the ability to acquire a gun.

This is about having the courage to label evil, not the willingness to protect diversity at the expense of innocent lives.

Presumably, in Wright’s world, if those external forces that so played havoc with Hasan would just back off and stop doing whatever they’re doing to provoke the susceptibly unhinged who have yet to snap, terrorism would drop like President Obama’s approval numbers.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Evil, Foreign Policy, religion, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 19, 2009

Inside the First Cathedral of Bloomfield

When the American Civil Liberties Union issues a warning, you can be sure of two things: one, that liberty itself is about to come under assault in some context, and two, that a whole lot of powerful, highly-paid, hot-shot attorneys looking for a slot on Rachel Maddow’s show are going to disfigure the Constitution in the name of whatever their latest crusade is.

Like starving buzzards – or Al Sharpton – they sit coiled and ready, just out of eye sight, waiting for a one tasty morsel of what they perceive as incivility to hit the floor before swooping in.

When they do, it is a spectacular sight to behold.

The ferocity with which they infiltrate and operate is unmatched. Liberty-loving people scatter like field mice while a few bitter bellyachers do whatever is necessary to make sure everyone is allotted their fair share of misery in the name of equality. These jack-booted deliverers of lawsuits and Godlessness come in the name of justice to level playing fields and protect people from civil rights violations.

They’re amazing – like microwave ovens, or the Wonder Twins.

And so it is that the ACLU – which is neither civil nor interested in protecting liberties – has warned the Enfield, Connecticut school board that it had better rethink its decision to hold graduation ceremonies in a church … or else.


The ACLU of Connecticut is warning the Enfield school board to stop holding graduation ceremonies at a Bloomfield megachurch, claiming the graduates and their families are unconstitutionally being subjected to religious messages.

The ACLU, the national ACLU’s Freedom of Religion and Belief Project, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, sent a letter Wednesday to the attorney for the Enfield Public Schools. They’re threatening to sue if the district doesn’t change the graduation location.
A message left seeking with the Enfield superintendent of schools was not immediately returned.

David McGuire, an ACLU attorney, says ceremonies for both Enfield High School and Ernico Fermi High School have been held for several years at The First Cathedral in Bloomfield.

My first instinct, of course, was to comment on the ridiculously paranoid contention by the ever-acrimonious “Separation of Church and State” set that visitors who have come to attend graduation ceremonies will be subjected to anything other than tedious speeches from wordy over-achievers simply by entering a building where religious services take place. How exactly? What “constitutional” protections are being violated? What “civil rights” are being infringed upon? These are not religious ceremonies. No one is being made to convert.

Indeed, I was well prepared to unleash my reasoned arguments on what sounded like a typical, liberty-squashing, secularism-über-alles ACLU power play.

However, the story is apparently missing some key elements that I am happy to convey here for the first time.

In the past, all graduating students and their guests, upon entry into the megachurch, were handed crucifixes and told to press them tight against their chests with their right hands. (Each crucifix was treated with a powerful psychtropic solution that was released into the body upon contact). Every patron was promptly handed a card that read “We are all Christians now” while an usher discretely administered small doses of electric current to each visitor’s left temple. At the same time as this, a sound recording with a menacing voice repeating the phrase, “Jesus is your master” filled the beautifully decorated lobby while gift baskets stuffed with Paul of Tarsus raspberry-filled chocolate figurines were handed out. After the strip searches and inoculations were completed, all were re-clothed appropriately and led into the sanctuary where “Obey Jesus” buttons were affixed to each shroud. Patrons were then seated as they were made to repeat the phrase, “Church and State, Forever Great!” two-hundred times.

Diplomas were eventually handed out to the children, but not before electronic “baptism” chips were implanted into the necks of all attendees and “Loyalty to Jesus” oaths were signed by everyone.

That changes everything.

What would we do without the ACLU?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Constitution, Education, religion, Secularism, Values | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 16, 2009

Christmas intolerance in the name of tolerance is alive and well in one Massachusetts town.

In a nation where the mainstream media shivers at the prospect of attributing the actions of an “Allahu Akbar” shouting mass murderer to his religion; where liberals remind the rest of us that fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Jews pose as much a threat to the safety of Americans as fundamentalist Islamists; where “offensive” religious symbols are removed from city seals and emblems because of some phantom violation of rights; where fallacious “church and state” arguments help fuel a small minority to squash the rights of a faith-based majority, the plague of moral equivalency not only thrives, it has joined forces with the anti-religion/secularism-at-all-costs movement.

At Byam Elementary school in Chelmsford, Massachusetts, Christmas-related items have been banned from being sold in the store’s annual holiday gift shop. Items that depict Christmas in any way – Santa Claus, reindeer, wooden soldiers, mistletoe, angels, even red and green tissue paper – are off-limits at a school store that specifically stays open through the holidays to make money. Yet, nothing related to Christmas, or any other religious holiday, can be sold there during the holiday season. So while non-holiday-looking holiday gifts are allowed to be bought and sold in the school’s holiday store, the holiday itself is not allowed to be represented there.

Make sense?

If this doesn’t epitomize liberalism today, nothing does.

Rita Savard at the Lowell Sun writes:

After meeting with members of the Byam Elementary School PTO, two mothers asking to put the holidays back into the school’s annual holiday gift shop say Byam isn’t budging. Kathryn McMillan and Kathleen Cullen, who both have children at Byam, asked school officials to allow all holiday items at the gift shop following a ban on Santa, candy canes, stockings, and all Christmas, Hanukkah and other “religious items.”

But a meeting with some PTO parents on Thursday night grew heated as emotions got in the way.

McMillan went on to say that during the meeting, one parent – obviously university educated – got up and exclaimed, “If we allow Santa, what do we say if a child brings in a swastika? Do we allow that too?”

The brilliance and clarity of the secular left never ceases to amaze me.

“If we allow Santa, what do we say if a child brings in a swastika?”

This, of course, as we all know, is an alarming trend pervasive in many public schools across America today, and has been for decades – namely, kids carrying their Yuletide swastikas into schools that sell Santa mugs. It’s known as the dreaded Santa-Hitler Effect. As a result, school stores from coast to coast are now selling such Noel-inspired goodies as Adolf Eichmann holiday candles, Heinrich Himmler orange preserves and Josef Mengele peanut brittle.

Only university-numbed, rabid church-and-state knee-jerks can find a correlation between the symbol of an oppressive totalitarian regime responsible for the murder of millions – including six-million Jews – and the selling of a toy featuring the likeness of jolly old St. Nick.

(Is this like comparing Global Warming denial to Holocaust denial?)

Superintendent Donald Yeoman said, “It’s operated under those same rules for a number of years with success and without complaint.”

I can’t help but wonder how many “Santa” complaints or “Little Drummer Boy” grievances were received during the previous one hundred years when Christmas wasn’t banished from public view.

Superintendent Donald Yeoman told The Sun on Tuesday that the rules for the gift shop are under the authority of Byam Principal Jane Gilmore. Ultimately, said Yeoman, the policy for the gift shop was set so no child would feel left out.

And so, Mr. Yeoman, I must ask … exactly what lesson does all of this instill in our children? How do we teach our kids to tolerate differences when the symbols of those differences are banned by the very people who claim that embracing those differeences is so critical?

It’s the pathetic reality of today’s five-hundred pound gorilla in the American public school classroom.

One on hand, schools are obsessed with multiculturalism – elevating every conceivable culture and civilization to an equal plane (except the American culture, of course) in the name of deifying diversity. On the other, the Judeo-Christian value system – the ethical and moral foundation of this nation – is treated as an offensive anti-Constitutional tool of exclusion. Thus, at Christmas time, the majority belief is swept aside, removed from view and suppressed for fear of “leaving others out.” Mind you, no one is forced to buy anything at the holiday store. No one is made to believe in Christmas, or become a Christian.

Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?

Wasn’t there something about the “free exercise thereof” somewhere in there?

This isn’t a matter of “endorsing” a religion, or “establishing” a state faith of some kind – which is what every fraidy-cat, leftist with a “church-and-state” complex fearful of a theocratic regime shudders at the thought of. This isn’t about anything other than recognizing the cold-hard fact that Christmas a real holiday – a federal holiday – that is celebrated by the vast majority of Americans. The fact that there are some who don’t – like me, being a Jew – means absolutely nothing.

Sadly, if it turned out that every student in that school openly and eagerly celebrated Christmas, there would still be some politically correct, leftist boob somewhere frantically waving his pocket edition of the Constitution – or some bitter atheist trying to avenge a lifetime of feeling “left out” – hell bent on taking away everyone else’s joy in the name of preserving the “separation between church and state,” blah, blah, blah.

Personally, I never once felt left out of anything. Indeed, most of the Jews I know never felt threatened, excluded, shunned or outcast at Christmas time.

It takes nothing away from me – or anyone – to have Christmas or Hanukah trinkets sold at a school store at Christmas time. It isn’t a method of indoctrination. It isn’t an imposition of faith. It isn’t cultivation. It’s not propaganda. It isn’t the duplicitous and subversive establishment of a theocracy. And as long as I am not told I have to practice a specific religion by the state – which is precisely what the First Amendment protects me from – there is nothing to bust a blood vessel about.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Education, religion, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 12, 2009


Nicholas Sarkozy

I’ve got a whole lot of “hip hip hoorays” stashed away in a special place, most of which have remained unused since November 4th of last year. They’re easily replenished when the need arises, but it really hasn’t been necessary for a year or so.

Admittedly, there have been a few oases in an otherwise barren landscape of leftist flapdoodle. On occassion, over the course of ten months, I have been able to let out a few fist-pumps here and there – such as when House Republicans unanimously voted against the Obama stimulus package, or when tea party attendees vigorously voiced their opposition to runaway government spending, or when town-hall meetings gave anti-ObamaCare protestors a place to have their concerns heard, or when Republicans won the governorships of two states (including New Jersey) on Election Day.

For the most part, however, my fist-pumping inventory remains in tact, itching to be summoned.

Indeed, for lovers of liberty, it is a backwards time. Not only is the President hell-bent on making sure government will grow as large as conceivably possible in the shortest amount of time, but he just can’t seem to find a kind word to say about his own country – other than it somehow found a way to negotiate through two centuries of injustice and elect a black man to the top spot.

But what makes this time in history all the more remarkable is the fact that people like me (haters, dividers, self-absorbed kitten-kickers) are finding that when we do pull out a “hip hip hooray” it is more often than not being directed at the President of France than the President of the United States – and that just downright defies the laws of existence.

President Nicolas Sarkozy, you’ll recall, sent the panties of the left into an atomic twist with his pro-America chatter after his election in 2007. It was he who said he wanted to “reconquer the heart of America.” It is he who said he loved America and her values. It is he who said, referencing the Americans who fought in World War II, “The children of my generation understood that these young Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the sacrifice of your children.”

And now, Mr. Sarkozy, well prepared for the slings and arrows that will inevitably come his way, says that burqas have no place in French society.

Talk about “wow.”

From the Associated Press, via Fox News:

Sarkozy says all beliefs will be respected in France but says “becoming French means adhering to a form of civilization, to values, to morals.”

Sarkozy said Thursday during a speech on national identity that “France is a country where there is no place for the burqa.” France has a large Muslim community but only a small minority of French Muslim women wear burqas, common in Afghanistan, or other face-covering veils.

Sarkozy said in June that burqas would not be welcome in France. Since then a parliamentary panel has been looking into the possibility of banning them in public.

Sarkozy is talking assimilation, and I like it. Sarkozy is talking values, and I applaud him. He’s talking about preserving the dignity of women, and nothing is more relevant.

He deserves a huge “hip hip hooray.”

That every feminist group in all of God’s creation is not erecting statues to Mr. Sarkozy – or President Bush, for that matter – or organizing rallies in his honor, or having coffee mugs made with his likeness, is almost a travesty. Sarkozy has the courage to say what needs to be said. What could be more pro-woman that to speak out against such an oppressive symbol?

But is a national restriction on wearing burqas in public the right thing to do?

Can it be justified?

I am certainly no expert on French culture, but isn’t an outright ban a bit too much?

Isn’t that a line better left uncrossed?

burqasOn one hand, it cannot be disputed by reasonable minds that to cover one’s face is to conceal one’s humanity. To do so is a representation of subservience with no other purpose than to eradicate a woman’s identity. It is designedly alienating and subjugating. It’s objective is to strip away dignity. It is demeaning.

In short, the burqa is not a benign religious symbol. Rather, it is a prison.

In fact, let me further my position by saying that women who wear burqas in this country should be made to remove them when required by law, like, for instance, being photographed for a driver’s license. The human face is, after all, the best and most efficient way to be identified.

On the other hand, I have a difficult time justifying the governmentally-imposed injunction of a piece of clothing simply because I (and others) find the practice utterly contemptible. While I personally view the wearing of burqas as not only a slap in the face to the women hidden by them, but a kick in the groin to the society providing the freedom to do so, is that enough to condone a governmental prohibiton?

Where, then, does it end?

Of course, I pose this question as an American, using this nation’s promise of liberty and religious freedom as my catalyst. It means nothing in the context of what should or should not happen in France – a nation that has long ago gone the way of Europe as a whole, all but abandoning its religious past. Conditions are obviously different in that nation than they are here. The assimilation of foreigners takes on a much different dynamic in France than it does in the United States.

America remains the most accommodating nation on Earth – including her acceptance of Muslims.

Still, I applaud Nicholas Sarkozy. His mission is to protect his country from her enemies, including those radical Muslims elements that mean to inflict it irreparable harm. That mission also includes preserving the French system of values and morality. That he has the courage to denounce the dehumanizing aspects of a foreign value set is more than worthy of a “hip hip hooray.”

Good for him.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Ethics, Islam, Moral Clarity, religion, Values | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 11, 2009

islam will dominateThe destructive, lethal idiocy that has deluged this country in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Fort Hood last week is beyond repugnant. For almost a week now, from every corner of the fainthearted, bend-over-and-take-it mass media complex there has come an astonishingly embarrassing exhibition of weak-minded, namby-pamby, Lucy Van Pelt pop-psychology rationalizations as to why Nidal Malik Hasan might have opened fire on innocents, murdering thirteen.

It is confounding.

Hasan could have had a neon sign plastered to his forehead that read, “This is a terrorist attack!” and the mainstream media would have a panel of analysts discussing what Hasan meant by the word “is.”

If ever there has been such a ubiquitously loathsome display of weakness from Americans in recent times, I am not aware of it.

Courage – and dare I say, truth – clearly has no place in the mainstream media.

With an ever-growing profusion of evidence making it abundantly clear that the murderous rampage undertaken by Hasan was a genuine act of Islamic jihad, the ever-tender, overly-feminized, feelings-obsessed American media chooses to travel the road of the least offensive. In the name of objectivity, they continues to explore a host of alternate possibilities that might have led Hasan to kill.

It’s that “let’s keep an open mind” approach to reporting the news that will, presumably, keep angry Muslims from coming after journalists.

The “religion” angle is just too easy – merely a construct of Jesus-loving, xenophobic, gun-obsessed anti-Muslim types.

killer Hasan

the terrorist, Hasan

Despite the fact that every arrow, every indicator, every investigation, every report, every stitch of evidence, everything that has been uncovered relating to the killer Hasan suggests – nay, dictates – that terrorism is the correct way to describe the Fort Hood attack, the alphabet and cable channels, along with the liberal print media, continue to maintain their fairness (i.e., gutlessness).

This fatalistic need to obscure the realities of the world in order to safeguard the feelings of others – all in the name of political correctness – will, undoubetdly, be the undoing of this country. The enemy will come from within. Expect many more than the thirteen who were murdered at Fort Hood to die as our most important and sacred institutions (e.g., the military, the free press) are crippled by those who do all they can, at the expense of what is right and just, to ensure Muslims are not offended.

Personally, I don’t give a damn how many Muslims get offended.

I don’t.

In matters of national security, I don’t give rat’s nipple who gets insulted. I’m only interested in making sure this nation is secure from her enemies, foreign or domestic.


If, as leftists and other children want us to believe, Muslims are so incapable of understanding that no one on my side of the aisle thinks that all practitioners of Islam are terrorists, then that’s just too bad. If, in the view of the Left and other terrified puppies, Muslims are ill-equipped to comprehend that those of us willing to speak the truth do not – and never have – lumped all Muslims together, then there’s nothing more that can be said or done to change it. Time and time again, to the point of utter frustration and intellectual exhaustion, conservatives have bent over backward to explain to the world that we are not anti-Muslim. We have done back flips to prove that no one on the right believes the entirety of Islam supports terrorism.

We are anti-evil, no matter where it comes from.

But it’s not been good enough.

The fact is, the greatest threat to freedom in the world today is radical Islam – and all indications are that Hasan was a radical islamist. 

There simply is no movement of radical Baptists commiting thousands upon thousands of acts of terrorism across the globe in the name of Jesus Christ. Or Methodists. Or Catholics.

That the incredibly obvious is now being expelled and disregarded so that the feelings of a few may be potentially spared – at the expense of human lives – is deplorable and unforgivable.

jihad-is-our-wayI, for one, am not willing to see the security of this nation compromised, or the safety and well-being of those who defend her imperiled, for the sake of not affronting a group of people.

I am sick to death of hearing from the Left how intolerant Americans are. I am fed up with having to read and hear from ungracious, spineless pensmiths and pundits how much they fear reprisals and retribution from angry Americans (i.e., the right wing).

It is all complete, unsubstantiated nonsense.

Where was the anti-Islam uprising after September 11, 2001? Where were the anti-Muslim reprisals after the London attacks? Or the Madrid bombing? How many acts of revenge against mosques took place in America after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993? How many bodies littered the streets in retaliation to any number of jihadist terrorist plots uncovered here in the United States?

Do leftists ever think beyond the initial “feel good” fix that defines their approach to the world? Is there solace among leftists in knowing that even though thirteen were murdered at Fort Hood, they can at least rest well knowing that they’ve not offended a single Muslim?


wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Evil, Islam, Liberalism, Media Bias, Moral Clarity, national security, religion, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 9, 2009

FBI Arrests

Daniel Patrick Boyd

Remember Daniel Patrick Boyd? You may recall he was the North Carolina contractor who, along with a group of others (including two sons), was planning a “violent jihad,” which included an attack on the Quantico Marine Base. He was a Muslim convert who was also involved in planning a series of terror attacks internationally.

If his name doesn’t ring a bell, don’t feel too bad. He wasn’t an angry Christian targeting an abortion clinic, so the story had a shelf life of maybe eighteen seconds.

How about the name Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad? If not (which is quite likely), perhaps you will recall the incident associated with him. In June of this year he shot up a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting office, killing an American soldier. Afterwards, he claimed he was justified because of what Americans were doing to Muslims in the Middle East.

Since he wasn’t an angry American white man setting off a bomb somewhere, the chances that this story would snag more than a day’s worth of coverage was slim-to-none.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

Remember the story of the Bronx, New York terror plot – the one where four home grown Muslim terrorists planned on shooting down military planes and were arrested as they planted what they thought were bombs at two synagogues? How long did that story stick around with the mainstream media?

Since there was no way to cloak the role of Islam in that particular terrorist scheme, it isn’t surprising that after a day or two, it became a page twenty-five afterthought, lest the Muslim community be insulted or provoked.

Certainly many will recollect the Fort Dix terror plot. That should have been, by anyone’s measure, a huge story – particularly when three Muslim immigrant brothers, Dritan, Shain and Eljvir Duka, were convicted of planning an al-Qaida-inspired attack meant to kill hundreds of American soldiers on the New Jersey military installation.

It wasn’t.

It went away in short order as newspapers filled with stories of how screwed up Afghanistan was thanks to George W. Bush.

Ask anyone with even an elementary knowledge of current events to recall any of these domestic terror plots and, more likely than not, you won’t elicit many responses.

Sadly, they’re buried way below the fold of America’s collective consciousness.

But now, with thirteen people dead and twenty-nine injured at Fort Hood, Texas – and every indication in the world that the murderer, Nidal Malik Hasan, acted as a radical Islamic terrorist – the morally weak, fainthearted American media (in conjunction with the American Leftocracy) cannot sweep the details of this horrific incident away under the rug as they would like. Thus, as long as the news cycle demands that this story be covered, they will continue to avoid the obvious as long as humanly possible – that radical Islam almost certainly played the defining role in the Fort Hood mass murder.

Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera, for example, went as far as saying that, for all we know, it could have been a bad headache that made the terrorist, Hassan, kill.

Yes, he really said that.

And no, he doesn’t believe that for a second.

However, Rivera is one the overwhelming majority of journalists who live in a world where clarity is routinely sacrificed for being inoffensive.

(I wonder how many throbbing-headed individuals in human history have actually resorted to mass murder. I’ve found that, generally speaking, bad headaches are debilitating).

On his radio program today, Dennis Prager played a clip from MSNBC’s show Hardball that aired Friday, where host Chris Matthews introduced a segment with Nihad Awad from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) this way:

Welcome back to Hardball. The investigation into that massacre at Fort Hood yesterday is still ongoing and it’s unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting.

What motivated this killing yesterday? And we may not know that ever.


So, in light of every stitch of evidence available to him, in light of every report pointing in that direction, Mr. Matthews believes we may never ever know what motivated these murders?

I guess this Hasan is a real puzzle.

If everything that is known right now about Hasan – including the fact that, for years, he has been making anti-American comments in public; that he has openly professed to being pro-terrorist; that he has posted commentary online in support of suicide bombings; that he has incontestable ties to radical Islam; that he has likely had contact with terrorists; that he has been heard to say on numerous occasions that he is a Muslim first and an American second; that he was heard to shout “Allahu Akbar!” (God Is Great) before slaughtering innocents – is not enough to suggest that religion might have been some sort of factor in what happened at Fort Hood, what exactly would be?

What other “clues” would need to be in place for the murderer, Hasan, to be seen by the gutless American media as an Islamic terrorist?

A t-shirt?

Even Anwar Aulaqi – the radical imam, now in Yemen, who preached at the Virginia mosque where Hasan was known to have attended – posted the following at his website:

Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.

Obviously, Aulaqi believes that Hasan’s shooting spree had something to do with religion. Why else would he praise Hasan if this was not a terrorist attack in the name of Islam? When, pray tell, will Chris Matthews criticize Aulaqi for jumping to conclusions?

Somehow, in the flummoxed brains of the American leftist, to accept the reality that there are radical Muslims who commit atrocities such as the Fort Hood massacre – and do so in the name of Islam – is to say that all Muslims are terrorists. It’s how they think. It’s a charge the Left makes against conservatives regularly – that we on the right believe all Muslims are terrorists. But no one on my side of the aisle has ever said it, nor do we believe it. It isn’t an issue. Rather it is they on the Left who avoid the topic all together in fear of offending Muslims, even when the Qur’an is slapping them repeatedly across the chops.

Of course, lefties often go on and on about white racism in America – especially where the opposition of Barack Obama’s policies are concerned – but never once have any fear of offending all whites, or lumping all Caucasians together.

Funny how that works.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Evil, Islam, Liberalism, Media, military, Political Correctness, religion, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 28, 2009

In the name of equality – which is a value unparalleled to a liberal (as opposed to, say, liberty) – I trust that trailblazing writer/comedian Larry David will beckon the courage to be true to his edgy, ground-breaking self and figure out some way to step out beyond the hackneyed, trite world of Christian-bashing and take a walk on the real wild side.

If anyone can break free from the constraints of conventionality, it is Larry David.

If anyone can show the world that, in the name of artistry, the Qur’an and human urine actually do mix, it is he.

From Fox News:

Larry DavidComedian Larry David is under attack from critics who say he pushed the mocking of religion and Christian belief in miracles over the edge in the latest episode of his HBO series “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” which the cable network defended as “playful.”

On the show’s most recent installment, which aired Sunday, David urinates on a painting of Jesus Christ, causing a woman to believe the painting depicts Jesus crying.

In a statement to, HBO downplayed the controversy.

“Anyone who follows Curb Your Enthusiasm knows that the show is full of parody and satire,” the statement read. “Larry David makes fun of everyone, most especially himself. The humor is always playful and certainly never malicious.”

Indeed, nothing tickles the ribs more than peeing on a religious Christian painting.

Cutting edge.

Incidentally, I missed the episode where playful Larry David accidentally sneezes on a depiction of Muhammad while strolling past a mosque. Talk about madcap hyjinx.

And I hear the show where the Qur’an is accidentally defaced by vomit and fecal metter is one of the great all-time knee-slappers.

The irony is, Larry David – a secular leftist with obvious contempt for all religion – is inadvertently demonstrating why, in the real world, creating moral equivalencies between different religions and value sets is untenable.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Entertainment, religion, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 26, 2009

chris matthewsI haven’t cracked open a thesaurus in a mighty long time, but in the coming weeks and months, I may have to. Using the word “desperate” over and over to describe liberals and their recurrently pathetic tactics will almost certainly wear thin – not unlike President Obama’s first nine months in office.

Still, it is unavoidable to give credit where credit is due. After all, if not for the American Left, where then would desperation nest?

No, it isn’t enough to have the Speaker of the House accuse fellow Americans of being swastika bearers at Townhall meetings. It isn’t enough to have the Senate Majority leader call those opposed to ObamaCare “hate mongers.” It isn’t enough to have the White House assail private citizens (Rush Limbaugh) and privately owned companies (Fox News) because they have the chutzpah not to bend over for President Liberty-Kill and his big government Obamacrats. It isn’t enough to have a mainstream media so in the tank for the administration that almost no coverage is afforded Anita Dunn and Alan Grayson while names like Joe Wilson become more familiar than Abraham Lincoln.

It just isn’t enough.

Thank goodness for MSNBC’s Chris Matthews – the lacerated septum of broadcast journalism.

Late last week, on MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews was having a “discussion” with Frank Gaffney and Ron Reagan Jr. about Afghanistan.

As the segment came to an end, the exchange went this way:

Gaffney: (speaking to Reagan) Your father would be ashamed of you.

Reagan: Oh, Frank, you better watch your mouth about that, Frank.

Matthews: That’s not fair. The group in this country that most resembles the Taliban, ironically, is the religious right.

To begin with, Gaffney, who is President of The Center for Security Policy, made himself look a bit silly by having to resort to pulling out the “Ronald Reagan” card while debating Reagan, Jr., who is an unabashed, unapologetic, liberal. Whatever the elder Reagan would have thought of his son’s views on Afghanistan was irrelevant to the discussion. Unquestionably, Gaffney had more than enough substantive ammunition to combat Reagan. He knew better.

However, it was the always ignoble and detestable Matthews (let me count the ways), in true “drive-by” media style, who actually compared the American “religious right” to the barbarous terrorists – the Taliban  – before escaping into the security of the ensuing commercial break.

(Of course, if Congressman Alan Grayson could somehow correlate the state of America’s health care delivery system to the Holocaust, then equating American conservatives of faith to the murderous Taliban wouldn’t seem particularly preposterous).

First of all, Mr. Matthews ought to take a moment and brush up on his ideologies. By definition, conservatives want less government involvement in our lives.

By definition.

religious rightIf for no other reason than that, the American “religious right” simply does not resemble the Taliban, who exist to impose theocratic influence on every aspect of life through totalitarian rule. Simply having a strong faith in God, which presumably is what Matthews is attempting to use to tie the two together, is an embarrassingly weak premise to build such a ridiculously naive – and easily refuted – argument.

If faith alone, in Matthews’ simplistic, one-dimensional, bumper-sticker world, were the main criterion for drawing parallels between the American “religious right” and the Taliban, then leftists, who worship with equal zeal at the alter of unproven global warming, would, by definition, more resemble the Taliban because of their propensity to expand the power of government.

Naturally, neither the American Left or the American Right really resemble the Taliban in any way whatsoever, but playing along with Mr. Matthews brings certain relaities to light. Leftists are just as religious when it comes to global warming as conservatives are about traditional religion. However, it is the global warming movement, in their ever-growing fanaticism, that demands governments intrusion on the industrialized free market by inflicting crippling emissions standards – guidelines that would literally bring down the American economy.

By contrast, no one on the “religious right”  – no one – wants that level of government involvement in American lives. And no one on the religious right advocates, supports, suggests or even hints at imposing a theocracy of any kind in the United States.

If presented in those terms, which side more “resembles” the Taliban, Mr. Matthews?

It isn’t difficult to understand.

Besides, if Mr. Matthews can point me in the direction of those “religious right” organizations that strap bombs to the chests of their young for the purpose of blowing up as many innocents as possible, I’m willing to listen. If there are videos out there of hooded members of the “religious right” slicing the heads off of non-believers, I missed it. If the “religious right” advocate the beating of women for walking by themselves or driving motor vehicles, I’d love to see the literature. Perhaps Mr. Mathews can play on his television program the audio of members of the “religious right” calling for a Holy War against non-Christian nations.

He certainly has the forum to defend his assertions.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, religion, terrorism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 8, 2009

Hannity speaking with Moore

Hannity speaking with Moore

If the world were void of clichés, empty bromides and feckless platitudes, how exactly would a leftist fill the time while being interviewed? If they could not rely on silly slogans and bumper sticker smugness, what else would they have to offer that could be passed off as substantive?

At the great Ace of Spades blog, Ace posted a portion of an exchange between fuzzy-bunny film maker Michael Moore and conservative commentator Sean Hannity. It was one of those back-and-forth television time-killers that changes no one’s mind, rarely goes beyond the time-constrained familiar superficiality of left versus right, and draws high-fives from supporters who believe their guy was head and shoulders better than the other.

(Of course, I love that kind of television).

Without actually posting the video here, I’d like focus on one small portion of the exchange between the two.

The segment in question involved Moore – thinker, philosopher, scholar – asking Hannity if he loved Al Qaeda because of Jesus’ commandment to “love your enemies.”

Hannity responded, “I love them in the sense I want to destroy them.”

Indeed, as Ace points out, it was a funny line – although I am skeptical that Hannity actually meant it that way. I am more inclined to believe that his response was the first thing off the top of his head as he tried to keep pace with the portly movie maker. (I certainly could be wrong).

Either way, it was a good line.

Ace then posts the following:

Incidentally… Hannity’s line is funny, but glibly dodges the question through humor. I’m curious how religious folks resolve this question in their minds.

As I’m not religious, I just flat-out hate Al Qaeda and feel no need to even attempt to “love” them, except in a Hannity sense of love. (Which, given that love is a battlefield, actually does make some sense, but I digress.)

The left loves trotting this chestnut out (and here Michael Moore trots out nothing but cliches, cant, and chestnuts, making Sean Hannity look positively contemplative), but I am curious as to the response to this.

He loves America, except for everything about it

He loves America, except for everything about it

There is a trap that most anti-religious types, like Moore, seem to stumble into that predicates the type of hostility they are prone to exude when confronting people of faith. Often they forget that Christians (or any religious people, for that matter) are as human as atheists and agnostics. Religious people do not claim to be less imperfect than anyone else. Indeed, they are subject to the same fallibilities and frailties as those who reject God. Yet, somehow, folks like Moore – who make a living at scoffing at the traditions and institutions of America, and routinely pull out words like “hypocrite” when describing a person of faith who stumbles – believe they are exposing the fraud of religion when those who try to live more righteous lives fall short.

Leftists use the human condition as a “gotcha” tool.

Another trap that angry anti-God types fall into is the one that suggests that loving others somehow precludes justice. The fact is, punishing those who commit crimes is neither related to nor dependant on love. One can love another, or pray for another, or wish for their genuine repentance, but still understand that crimes committed by that person must be punished.

What does one have to do with the other?

I can love my daughter or spouse, but if they are guilty of a crime, they must be punished appropriately.

Indeed, both Jews and Christians are commanded to love each other as individuals, but not necessarily to love groups, associations, or nations that perpetrate evil.

But even if one believes we are, so what? Who says that one cannot love someone and still fight them? (Think of Jesus and the money changers in the Temple).

The bottom line is … when an individual is engaged in an evil action, it is incumbent of us – indeed, God commands us – to stop that individual from harming the innocent. Even if violence is required, there is no inherent contradiction in stopping the evil-doer and loving that individual.

There is such a thing a moral violence.

Loving someone in not synonymous with letting someone “off the hook.”

Think of the famous verse from the Book of Matthew:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Mat. 5:38-39)

Does anyone truly believe that “turning the other cheek” really means one is to permit evil to run rampant? As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “In the context of World War II, do you think ‘turn the other cheek’ means that the United States should have rolled over and offered the West Coast of California to the Imperial Japanese after they bombed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii?”

Pastor Pastor Bob Enyart, in his commentary “God and The Death Penalty” writes:

peacePacifists have an unworkable interpretation of this passage. Imagine applying the pacifist view to a woman being raped? Does a father tell his daughter to not resist the rapist? Pacifist father to daughter being raped: “Don’t resist the evil man, honey. Remember, Jesus said, ‘Love your enemy.’ If he wants you for one hour, stay with him two.”

Rather, this teaching is similar to Paul’s teaching, “Do not avenge yourselves,” knowing that the government is to bring wrath and vengeance against the perpetrator. The command to not avail oneself of “an-eye-for-an-eye” is not a strictly New Testament concept. Many falsely presume that this is a New Testament teaching which opposes Old Testament teachings. However, the command to avoid personal vengeance was just as applicable to Old Testament believers as to us. “Do not say, ‘I will do to him just as he has done to me; I will render to the man according to his work” (Prov. 24:29). Graciousness from the believer in his personal life is an enduring virtue and not a new concept.

Enyart goes on to explain that there is a distinction between individuals and governments, and that Jesus said so in the Sermon on the Mount:

“Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.” (Mat. 5:25-26)

Jesus did not tell the judge or the officer to turn the other cheek or to void the law. God wants the governing authorities to uphold the law without mercy. (Heb. 10:28; Rom. 13:3-4)

In the Torah – the first five books of the Bible – there is only one law that appears in each of those books. It is the commandment to kill those who have murdered the innocent. Genesis 9:6, for example, reads, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

For me, as a Jew, this commandment is central to understanding how precious human life truly is. A murderer has no right to his own life if he has stolen the life of an innocent.

God requires us to fight evil.

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, in his book The Book of Jewish Values, writes:

Regarding those who set out to murder others, the Book of Exodus teaches that if a thief tunnels into a house at night and is discovered, the householder has the right to kill him. At first reading, this ruling seems surprising, since Jewish law forbids killing someone who is committing a property offense. However, the Torah assumes that a thief breaking into a person’s house at night, aware that it is probably occupied, is prepared to kill the householder; therefore, if the householder preemptively kills the thief, “there is no bloodguilt” (Exodus 22:1).

The sole exception is when the householder has reason to be certain that the thief has no intention of killing him or her (see Exodus 22:2).

In the Talmud’s language, “If someone wishes to kill you, get up and kill him first.”

The logic informing this Talmudic teaching applies to national as well as individual threats.

Think the War on Terror.

God commands us, “Do not stand by while your neighbor’s blood is shed.” (Leviticus 19:16).

If there is a better, more appropriate way to “love thy neighbor” than defending him against evil, I don’t know of one.

wordpress statistics

Posted in religion, Secularism, Values | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »