Decisions Decisions

Well, the decision is 99.9995% made to home school. Madame Blueberry was putting up some resistance. She's worried about missing school friends. To soften the separation, we're having her pals over for her birthday and some new home schooled pals she met at dance class, too.

My son is over the moon. Now, it's on to curriculum and setting up the school room. We have work to do and this summer is flying past--even though it's been raining every day for a month. Oy!

Here are the topics for the kids: Bible, Grammar, Literature, Creative Writing, Penmanship, Latin, Math, History, Science, and maybe some Spanish. Art and music will be incorporated--piano lessons, music theory, art and art history, music history, etc. Basically, a classical education.

Physical education will come as sports and ballet and other forms of dance. And they'll have drama. I'll try to take them to the library once a week. And when they get a bit older, they can start working at the office for a few hours. Boy and Girl Scouts for civics. And, of course, I always take them with me when I vote.

What I'm most excited about is giving them some true historical perspective. So far, they've learned victim history. Now, for some broader views.

Republicans Abandon Bush To Their Peril

My brother brought up a good point on the Republicans abandoning Bush. He feels that Bush, like Clinton before him, may have low approval ratings, but that the base's attachment to him is strong.

Al Gore distanced himself from Clinton. Would he have been president had he embraced him? I don't know, but distancing himself from policies he supported made him look disloyal. That too, will happen with the Republicans up for reelection who try to pull a Hillary Clinton and disavow their own decisions.

Republicans wanting a quick and dirty way to distance themselves from President Bush may think that abandoning the troops in Iraq is the solution. That will be a mistake.

I have an idea: How about putting forth legislation that secures the border? That would actually help the country, it's what America wants and it would help restore confidence in a ruling class that seems intent on protecting themselves.

Great (Lakes) Mess

As most of you know, I grew up in Michigan. A couple girlfriends who lived in Algonac, Michigan and grew up on the water coming off of Lake Huron ended up having children with holes in their hearts that doctors say were a direct result of the poisonous waters they swam in as kids. As it turns out, Canada isn't doing as much as the United States to clean up the sludge-filled lakes.

It's a crying shame the lakes are such a mess. There is no better swimming than in Lake Michigan in the summer. Imagine the ocean, now imagine it without the salty stickiness. That's the joy of the Great Lakes.

That joy will evaporate as the polluted waters make it impossible to swim or fish there. It all needs to be cleaned up.

Doctors As Evil Psychopaths--UPDATED, UPDATED AGAIN

Not a stretch, says Dr. Pat Santy and I agree. Here's what she says:

But have you ever considered the reality that in order to do good; or to help people in physical pain, that you must sometimes (actually often) cause them even greater pain for a time? That, if you are a surgeon, you must find some enjoyment (or at least be able not to get sick) slicig people open or debriding wounds and mucking around in them? Even those of us who are psychiatrists must often lead the unsuspecting patient to experience (and hopefully to resolve) all the unbearable psychological pain that his psychological defenses have been mobilized to ward off.

My husband disagrees with Dr. Santy about this, and he has a good point: When people fear causing someone else pain, don't like to cut, or are otherwise freaked out about doctorly tasks, that person is thinking of his own comfort not the ultimate well-being of a person in need. It could be argued then, that narcissistic tendencies and transference account for the majority of people in the world who avoid pain-causing, but healing, professions.

Conversely, loving, caring people seek the healing professions. And I believe that is true, in part. But some other traits contribute to the personality make-up of a good doctor:

1. Intelligence--A doctor must be at least slightly above average intellectually. If he has pushy parents, like a friend of mine did, who were going to get their doctor no matter what the cost, he is told he his smart, smarter than everyone else, from the time he was a wee lad.
2. Empathy--A doctor usually has an ability to feel someone else's pain.
3. Independence--A doctor has the ability to make unpopular decisions and endure all sorts of protest.
4. Authority--A doctor doesn't mind being in charge. He likes it.
5. Patience--A doctor must endure years of training and often, but not always, years of humiliation while making it up the ranks.

Many doctors go into the profession not just to help a person but because of the prestige and inherent respect. This phenomenon is revealed by the shock and horror people express at the notion a doctor, doctors!, conspired to kill via terrorism. A rogue cop isn't so unthinkable--a rogue doctor is terrifying.

But is it so strange? I've wondered about the unconscious drives that might lead an obstetrician to routinely give episiotomies with no thought to the woman's future sex life. Or the surgeon who specializes in orchiectomies even when it's a needed procedure. One doctor acquaintance, an orthapedic surgeon, compared notes with us. Our hours were better, quality of life issues were in no doubt. Chiropractors aren't on call, they manage their schedules, etc. The orthopedic's response? "Yeah, but I get to cut." I get to cut. Not, "I get the pleasure of extending the quality of life for my elderly patients."

Being a doctor is powerful, but it can also be psychologically difficult. For self-protection, doctors often distance themselves to treat patients. I've found myself unsympathetic to a patient's minor complaints because other people are suffering far worse fates. The patient's pain is his only concern, however. So doctors can be calloused when they might have started tender-hearted.

Perhaps the trait most ripe for morphing into something evil: idealism. Doctors tend to be idealistic folks. They have a world they're trying to make better, to perfect in some way. Doctors Without Borders, mission trips for church, and nearly every hospital in America was started by idealistic doctors who are often infused with religious beliefs giving their work even more meaning.

Idealism coupled with perfectionism are the traits that can create a Joseph Mengele--no doubt, he just wanted to make the world into a better place--a place of his creation, or at least his manipulation. Many people would love to make the world into their own version of perfection, but don't have the means. Doctors have the means.

This whole episode could have been far scarier. And if the doctors weren't so stupid, far more effective. Odyessus at Red State imagines more dire possibilities:

Men with the knowledge of the causes of diseases and illnesses, and access to the means to treat as well as cause them. Could you imagine an innoculation program with tainted vaccine that could have infected hundreds or thousand of people or an AIDS epidemic linked to one set of syringes, used over and over with no suspicion until it was far too late? Any blood borne disease could be spread with impunity by similar means. Think malaria, yellow fever, even bubonic plague.

Doctors work to keep perspective. The best humbly acknowledge their limitations. The very best I know, realize they're not God and serve God and humanity well. It would be naive, though, to believe that doctors don't fight their weaknesses, too. And when doctors go bad, they go really bad because their profession puts life and death within their power.

UPDATE: More on one of the doctors here.

Gina Cobb has an excellent wrap-up. She also talks about Nigeria where a three year old girl has been kidnapped by Islamofascists. What base and loathsome creatures. This is VERY important and is a must read!

UPDATE II: Please note that I said that most doctors are "at least slightly above average". I didn't say they were geniuses. That would be a ridiculous assertion. Out of my class at school, I'd say that I would safely trust about 25%, probably less, of them. Same goes for doctor friends. A dentist friend was probably solidly average, maybe a bit less-so intellectually, but a fantastic technician. Many medical jobs are "blue collar jobs in a white collar". They are essentially doing the same mechanical procedure over and over. And it doesn't take the knowledge of a rocket scientist to prescribe antibiotics over and over and over. All that said, some of the smartest people I know are doctors. Some are so gifted, it provokes tremendous gratitude to know they're in the healing business.

While the auto-mechanic analogy might be apt, two things differ: the doctor has more on the line if there's a mistake and the parts are rarely in the exact same place in every body. An auto mechanic knows, with certainty, where parts will be.

All this preamble to this:

That's how I've always viewed doctors--as mechanics, except for the human body, rather than inanimate objects.

Not saying, of course, that there aren't smart doctors, or doctors capable of rigging and detonating explosives via cell phone (but as I've noted in the past, fortunately, people competent at doing such things are generally less likely to want to). But there's certainly no reason to automatically infer high intelligence, or even competence, just because someone is a doctor. Or a lawyer, for that matter.

Later:

We continue to deny moral agency to Muslims, and act as though we really are responsible for all bad things in the world, and they have no responsibility for their own behavior. If we don't understand what we are at war with, and chase after solutions to problems that don't really exist, and continue to foolishly ask questions like "why do they hate us?", we can never win

Muslims, especially those born and raised in the Western world, are quite aware of the concept of the value of life. Osama bin Laden knows the value--he has yet to commit suicide himself. Clearly, he values his own life.

The problem, of course, is the dehumanization inherent in Islam. There is a name for non-believers--Kafir. Kafir are second class citizens who should defer and pay tribute to true believers. Loving their neighbor isn't part of the equation. Loving their enemies or praying for those who spitefully use them isn't part of the picture, either.

To most of the Muslim world, it is very desirable to live under Muslim law, lead by Muslims. In theory, anyway, that's what even American Muslims desire, too. With a significant minority actually supportive of al Qaeda, even here in the U.S., it's ridiculous to keep pretending that the religion itself is benign. Islam has never been a benign world influence. Its primary tenet is forcing submission and until the world submits, Islam will continue its march.

Updates

Hi everyone! Just wanted to draw your attention to my Blog Roll. I'm picky about who ends up there. I read them every day or at least weekly. They are interesting and informative. I've also added a couple categories--one for home schooling and one for Conservative gateways--sources of lots of information.

If you have any blog recommendations for me, please share them in the comments section. I'm always interested in the new and useful.

Customer Service Solution

I've been complaining recently about bad customer service experiences, most recently AT&T. Which, I must say, got resolved adequately, ultimately, for the moment. The tech guy who came over was great and I asked for his personal phone number. He declined to give it to me. I don't think I was the first person to ask.

Anyway, a friend sent me a link to Get Human which has the way to actually talk to a person when calling customer service. Hope this helps.

For your amusement, a short video: Mom My Ride

Happy July 4th II--UPDATED

Isn't it weird when July 4th is on Wednesday? It's like a weekend in the middle of the week but shorter and you have to go to work on Thursday taking the fun out of any potential hangover. We went to the Fireworks. Kids sat on the top of our SUV, one of the hundreds here carrying energy company employees and their families at the Texas festivities, which, my husband pointed out, would probably be illegal in New York. Another reason we love Texas, ya'll.

As I listened to the incomparable Whitney Houston belt out God Bless America, I thought about how very blessed we are to be in the beautiful evening breeze watching fire works popping across the sky in peace all because a bunch of privileged guys risked everything for one thing: Freedom.

UPDATED: I'm not the only one who noticed the phenomenon of mid-week holidays:

Nothing like a mid-week holiday to demolish your enthusiasm for Thursday, eh? Yesterday felt like some strange out-of-place Sunday that got lost and showed up looking for directions; now we’re back to normal, but it feels like a pretend weekday. Friday will feel unearned, somehow. It’s all out of whack. But no one’s complaining.

Happy July 4th!

Celebrate like it's 1776!

Happy Every Country Is Just As Good As America Day!

Who are you to say that America is best? On that sarcastic note, you need to read James Lileks to celebrate the 4th just in case you think you're losing your mind when you watch the news and read the newspaper. Here's a few pithy quotes:

No, nothing happens. Here. It happens elsewhere, but it can always be explained away, run through that perversely creative Justify-O-Matic that blames radical murderous doctors on the overthrow of Saddam – as if a terror campaign waged by Iran would make doctors at the Mayo Clinic lay down their scalpels and set off nailbombs in an Iranian community in LA.

********

Mr. Zinn would rather we pledge allegiance to the human race, rather than the petty temporary arrangements we call nations.

********

I’ve gotten to the point where I imagine, almost simultaneous with the event, what the reaction will be among those who find evidence of terrorism both maddeningly inconvenient and perversely heartening – they must downplay the event lest the dark gang of warmongers use the crime to terrify the bedwetters – you know, all those people who believe in the bogeyman of global jihad - but at the same time, the attacks prove that we’ve not only failed to stop “terrorism,” we have made it worse by, well, trying to stop terrorism. Oh, it can be stopped, if the proper postures are assumed, but on we go with our chests out and our manhood in our hand, looking for fights. As Hitchens put it in this recent piece, there are many who can’t quite get on board with the whole anti-caliphate gig, since the people running the show are probably motivated by racism. Even if it’s true, it’s like saying the people who wanted to fight Hitler did so because they couldn’t stand German opera.

Oh yeah, he's on a roll. Have a spectacular 4th of July!

MSM Ignores al Qaeda's Massacre--UPDATE

I wrote about the massacre when Michael Yon wrote about it and I'm writing about it again. This time, it's to express outrage that the media and the reporters right in Baquba refuse to report on this.

The media continues to remove all doubt about whose side they fight for. They've stopped being a passive ally for some time. An Army colonel calls it Emotional Terrorism. Exactly.

Glenn Reynolds has more.

UPDATE: Ace says this is the reason it doesn't get reported:

Part of it is just more basic: simple vanity. Journalists' status comes from their presumption that they, and only they, have the skills necessary to report big stories.

They have an emotional investment in this ego-serving proposition.

If a non-accredited gate-crasher like Michael Yon breaks a story, it must therefore have not been a big story in the first place, otherwise, of course, they would have covered it first, right?

And something a little more than that: It embarrasses them they they seem to rely on emails from shady police operatives for their "scoops" -- without even bothering to visit the alleged site of massacres -- while Michael Yon is actually out in the field, slogging through the sand, digging -- quite literally -- for the stories they're supposed to be oh-so-expert at reporting on.

Ego. Laziness.

How much you want to bet that doofus who owns the body armor vest thing called NBC to tip them off that the U.S. uses sub-par armor? Lisa Meyer's assistant sets up the testing, gets the bogus results, gives them to Lisa who importantly "reports" it. Puhleeze. Lazy.

With the news cycle turning over so quickly, most reporters don't have the time, money, or inclination to actually investigate anything. They act on tips and that's "investigating". That makes the press easy marks.

Lazy and easy. Not an impressive combo.

Sun, Fat, Cat, Food & Wine

I haven't hit upon health issues lately, but interesting research is surfacing:

• Stress makes you fat. I know, shocking. But mow, researchers know why and might be able to prevent the phenomena in the future.
• Sunscreen problems and advice on good ones.
• Food allergy molecule discovered.
• Cats are bad for everyone--not just the allergic. Cats really belong outdoors. Ewww.....
• Wine is good for you and your sore throat. Really!
  
• And, I've got bad news for Oprah: all diets are the same and all of them fizzle over time.
  

Hippa Works....Too Well

In the category Stupid American Legislation, Hippa has to be one of the worst laws ever. As with all paths to hell, it started with good intentions:

1. People should have access to their records
2. People should not fear being discriminated against when changing employers
3. People should expect that their records are private

This legislation achieved these goals and much, much more. Doctors, terrified of liability and running afoul of the Feds, restrict information gathering of governmental agencies, families and other doctors causing mounds of frustration.

Imagine: A law intended to make information private actually makes it private.

The New York Times reports that doctors haven't fully educated themselves about Hippa. Really? Every doctor I know was completely freaked out by the legislation. Doctors read up on and informed themselves to the best of their ability, but as the Time's writers report, even experts disagree about the rules. Stupid rules like literally locking patient files away rather than having them in open shelving in a locked office were recommendations at seminars and articles.

New reams of patient disclosures are a must. The fist full of legalese from within the Texas Children's system is laughable. Even the college-educated can't be expected to understand the rules when signing them. It's ridiculous.

Now, the same moob who wrote the legislation wants to fix its problems, by (you guessed it) a new group of bureaucrats:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, a sponsor of the original insurance portability law, was dismayed by the “bizarre hodgepodge” of regulations layered onto it, several staff members said, and by the department’s failure to provide “adequate guidance on what is and is not barred by the law.” To that end, Mr. Kennedy, along with Senator Patrick M. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, plans to introduce legislation creating an office within the Department of Health and Human Services dedicated to interpreting and enforcing medical privacy.

“In this electronic era it is essential to safeguard the privacy of medical records while insuring our privacy laws do not stifle the flow of information fundamental to effective health care,” Mr. Kennedy said.

This spring, the department revised its Web site, www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa, in the interest of clarity. But Hipaa continues to baffle even the experts.

That'll do the trick. More dim-witted middle men to muddy the waters. As if doctors and patients don't have enough grief dealing with the uneducated plebes working in insurance companies deciding patient care. What this new agency will do is find ways to persecute doctors they feel are in non-compliance with some arcane detail.

No bureaucracy in history ever was created to send awards out to those who are doing their best to comply.

And don't forget who is really suffering: the patients. Family are denied access to information. Patients are denied advocacy.

This law needs to be scrapped, but it won't be. Parents, don't let your children grow up to be doctors.

iPhone Or Terrorism: What's More Important?

After reading scores of stories about the iPhone and only a few about the British terrorism plots, I decided to Google both. I searched the terrorism stories a couple different ways, trying to get more hits to no avail.

The iPhone wins by a 5:1 margin. This about sums up how serious the media takes terrorism, but does it represent the average American, too?

Christians: Too Soft For War?

My last post was rather mysterious what with casting love in doubt. A commenter suggested that I define love and that will most definitely happen.

I couldn't sleep last night and while I lay there thinking about the state of this sad, fallen world, my mind went to how intellectually and spiritually soft Christendom had become. Non-Christians dismiss the Bible's truths and so-called Christians cherry pick their beliefs or are just plain ignorant about God and His teachings. So I meditated on the Christians and love and war and the division within our country, and really, all of the West, between would-be pacifists and the sword-bearers. What will become of us, if we can't agree on the fundamental issue of self-preservation...really of what the self is at all?

****

Carl Jung named the notion of shared thought the collective unconscious. It seems that no sooner have I thunk a thought than someone smarter and more interesting has written about it. This time, over at Brussels Journal. Seems a debate brews about whether Christianity itself interferes with fighting the war on terror. Baron Bodissey started the conversation at Gates of Vienna with the aptly titled piece "On the Impact of Christianity." Truly, these two posts are absolutely required reading.

It occurred to me, upon reading both that this is a conversation that is not happening in the academy--that perhaps the only place where free thought is free these days is on the internet. Intellectual dogma has constricted to the point that accepted truth is axiomatic and not worthy of debate. Any debates are just decisions on the details.

Why is this philosophical jibber jabber even important? The tip of the sword, the soldier, is but an instrument in the service of an idea. If the idea is wrong, the soldier is doomed to fail (in the long run). If the idea is right, but no one believes or cares enough, the soldier is again doomed. The rightness of the idea and the will to defend it is the strength of the sword. The West has an army of supreme soldiers, but they fight in vain if they fight bereft of righteous purpose. Those who send the sword will lose courage or interest and the sword won't matter.

Back to Christian warriors. Machiavelli's argument, that Christianity has no place in an empire, is a recurring theme. The belief--that a loving, God-fearing Christian wouldn't take the steps necessary to conquer or defend--is held by many, even Christians, even now. Consider how modern athletes have endured questions as to their ability to win. David Robinson, Andy Pettitte, and John Smoltz, dedicated Christians, and in Smoltz's case Catholic and Christian, are asked about the killer instinct. Can Christian professional athletes be winners?

Their [Ohio State's] stunning win brought national attention to the fact that the Buckeyes’ coach, Jim Tressel, and several of his players are professing Christians. For anyone who has ever surveyed the competitive landscape, wondered if faith makes you “soft” and asked, “Can Christians really be winners?” the Buckeyes’ success answers a resounding “yes.” It seems to imply that living by Christian principles isn’t a handicap and may even give the winning edge.

Even if Christians can be winners, there are those who believe God should be kept out of the ball stadium, anyway.

So it goes in Western politics and the battlefield.. Christian thought and belief are incongruous with the survival instinct, some believe, or in any case have no place in the stadium of modern ideas and certainly not war, where science and rational secular thought rule.

Tortured Christian theology has taken people down the pacifism path. Though pacifism hasn't ever completely taken hold--we're not speaking Arabic yet and that possibility existed as far back as Constantine--it has always been a strain within Christianity and it certainly forms a significant part of the foundation of multicultural secularism which, as Bodissey notes, has it's roots in Christianity. This path is destructive, ignorant and relies on those "Christian bromides" I talked about yesterday.

There are a few tenets in the New Testament that are used, out of context, to form the socialist and pacifist rational. More on those in a minute. The context that is missing for proof-texters comes from the Old Testament, the "Jewish" books, the law. When Constantine unified the empire (AD 321) by becoming Christian, he melded Passover observance with pagan holy day observances and Easter and Sunday worship (as opposed to Sabbath worship) resulted. The scriptures that supported many of the "old" observances fell into disuse. This was further cemented at the Council of Laodicea in 364AD. Christians were eager to distance themselves from Jews due to persecution by Jews, and by Romans toward Jews. Sunday worship increased the distance.

The desire to leave behind Jewish ways lead to leaving behind the evidence of thousands of years of Gods direct interaction with a people. He created laws for a just society. Israel was a nation at one time, and rules associated with governance pervade the Old Testament. Christians, and those who would use Christian dogma, often misstep because they dismiss the law as irrelevant. They are "under grace", which is true. This problem became solidified by Martin Luther at the reformation who wanted to abolish the Book of James for being too "works" based. In addition, when Jews rebuffed his attempts to convert them, Luther's antipathy toward them grew. He then attempted to expel all Jews from German public life.

By emphasizing the New Testament to the exclusion of the Old, and by minimizing the actions a Christian should take in deference to grace above all, a softer, gentler, squishy version of God took center stage. Revelation, James, and any scripture implying righteous action or punishment for sin was dismissed as legalism. In one sermon I heard not too long ago, a pastor said from the pulpit, "Under Christ, there is no sin. It is now impossible for me to sin." I bet his wife would differ on that assertion. This pastor tills fertile ground for all sorts of behavior to be excused. And this misrepresentation of Christ's mission is not new. Paul admonished the church at Corinth because of their excusing sin in their midst.

In addition to the trend of divorcing the Old Testament to prove being under the New Covenant, specific scriptures are misapplied to support pacifism, socialism and multiculturalism:

• Turn the other cheek
• Live by the sword, die by the sword
• Give up worldly goods
• Judge not, lest ye be judged
• God is love
  

Almost every cult in Christian history has seized upon one piece of truth and distorted it beyond recognition. Note, that I say truth. Not one of the above paraphrases is untrue, but amplified and distorted does not convey Jesus' whole message. In isolation, many Christian principles can lead people seriously away from a true understanding of God.

Finally, Christianity, just like the West, isn't a borg-like collective. There are gradations along the spectrum. At one end, the infiltration of self-help language into Christian thought has blurred the lines between pop-psychology and salvation. Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church, the mega ministry his father founded, said this on Larry King Live:

KING: What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?

OSTEEN: You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know ...

KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong, aren't they?

OSTEEN: Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here's what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God will judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don't know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.

He goes on in the same interview to say that he doesn't like using the word sin. My point isn't to bash Osteen's ministry. I'm sure he's reached many people and helped them. But it is telling that one of the major voices in the Christian world won't use the word sin, that is, he's selective in how he approaches the gospel. It's a softer sell. It's an easier approach. And it only touches on one aspect of God.

The soft-headedness leads to wobbly places. Recently, the Unite Church of Christ synod changed it's discriminatory stance against Israel. Like many other church groups, they have been hard on Israel for protecting herself in the Palestinian conflict. The moral equivalence between the actions of these two groups displays a gross misjudgment. The post-Christian British (but they are not alone) secular zealotry in academia have gone the other direction by boycotting Israeli academic institutions.

With the Iraq war, here is a common modern Christian leadership elitist view from Jim Wallis:

The tradition of Christian non-violence and pacifism, of course, rules out all war as a way to resolve conflicts. Most remarkable, however, in this instance, is that the majority of American church leaders who have spoken against prospective military action are not pacifists. They are opposing war because they believe it does not meet the standards of a ''just war.''

Church leaders have used the traditional just war criteria dating back to St. Augustine in the 4th century. These criteria start with a presumption against war, then apply a series of judgments to determine whether that presumption can be overridden. And most church leaders have concluded that in the current circumstances, it cannot - a war against Iraq would not be just.

They have asked whether there is a just cause, and concluded that a doctrine of preemptive war to change a regime, however evil or threatening that regime may be, is not acceptable.

Given this criteria, no war would be found acceptable. Wallis' magazine Sojourners is replete with articles about environmentalism, racial justice, global warming, "greening our churches", poorness in the burbs, etc.

This transition from Old Testament to New Covenant to secularism is described thusly by Fjordman at Brussel's Journal:

Some observers are aware of the fact that notions such as human rights are ultimately based in Christianity. I don’t always agree with the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who does have some quirky ideas, but he is right when he says that “Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.”

If we assume that Christian anti-Semitism is partly a reflection of a Christian Oedipus complex vis-à-vis its parent religion, Judaism, which is a plausible hypothesis, this opens up new perspectives on the hatred directed against Christianity by Multicultural, post-Christian Westerners. Since their creeds are secularized versions of Christian ideas, Christianity without Christ, some of them hate their parent religion, this outmoded and abrogated creed that still dares to exist.

According to Vanishing American, “Truly, liberalism in general, even the extreme secular brand of liberalism, is a sort of counterfeit Christianity. This has been pointed out many times. Karl Marx, the son of a Christian convert, was a nonbeliever, but whether consciously or not, the system he fathered was a parody of Christianity. Instead of looking to a kingdom not of this world, Marxism and its offshoots proposed to create a heaven on earth.”

With the way Christian leaders have watered Christ's message down, Christianity is becoming a parody of Christianity. If a Christian pastor can't mention sin and salvation in a message, how different is Christianity from a Tony Robbin's seminar? If the focus is on temporal material success, how can one muster the will to fight for tomorrow? Why bother?

Mark Steyn shows the practical consequences of the "why bother?" attitude. Birth rates are down in large part because people pursue perpetual adolescence. They live for today. How do they manage to justify such selfishness? They will stress the environment less, less diapers, less fuel, smaller cars, the list of reasons childlessness is morally superior is endless. It is also, ultimately, slow suicide.

Love, as defined by this lazy thinking, means more than tolerance, it means endorsing everything and everyone. No one can feel bad. No one is bad. Evil doesn't exist so much as people with difficult life experiences need to be rehabilitated.

The healing part of Christianity--the forgiveness of sins and change that comes from the transformative power of the Holy Spirit--is never touched upon. When Jesus freed the adultress, who, under the law could be stoned, many conveniently forget his admonition to "go and sin no more."

Transformation in Christ means stopping self-destructive behaviors. Social institutions like marriage promote health and longevity. A Christian perspective values liberty free of sin and life that comes from it.

Not all Christians adhere to the soft form of feel-goodism. They see the state as a necessary part of having dual citizenship and that the laws promote justice and ultimately peace. It isn't peace and pseudo-love first. In addition, many Christians view it as evil to sit by and do nothing in the face of injustice, murder and mayhem. It is not Christian to walk away from a friend or enemy in need. Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan shows that.

The difference between the ends of Christianity is truly the difference in defining love. Loving one's neighbor as one loves self means protecting our neighbor. It also means laying down one's life and having faith in eternal life. This is not the belief of a softy. This is the belief of someone willing to do the hard work for the future.

Ultimately, love does conquer all, but not the soft love many Christians and almost all secularists so revere.

Al Qaeda: There Is Evil In The World

Can we stop the soft-focused fade aways of al Qaeda?

Al Qaeda severs the heads of children in front of their parents. Al Qaeda severs the heads of parents in front of children. These are people, rabid animals, driven by religious ideology coupled with criminally evil, morally empty expedient hunger for domination. These people love to kill and use their religion as a cover for their rage. It is sickening.

You need to see why the sophomoric, misapplied Christian bromides to win by "love" is so pernicious. I'll write in detail about all that later, but for now, it's important to see what happens when evil goes unchecked. Michael Yon writes from Baquba and there are graphic pictures. You need to see them.