Stepping Into The Void; Guy DeWhitney on Abortion

 Here we go again! This time it is Mississippi trying to pass a law making “personhood” begin at conception….

This is an update and expansion of a post on Heretics Crusade from March 2009.

Stepping into the void, Guy DeWhitney on Abortion, Abortion Rights and the Right to Life

ABORTION again? I am so tired of this idiocy!!! I just read another article about the abortion/pro-choice issue. Both sides in the debate defend the indefensible.

In this article it was the rabidly anti-abortion Texas GOP pushing, get this:

“…a bill that would require women to sit through an ultrasound before an abortion, described in detail by the doctor, and (wait for it) require they listen to the fetal heartbeat. Oh, and if that’s not enough, they must sit idly while a doctor lectures them with some good old-fashioned anti-abortion literature.

This idiocy is best summed up by the same article (interpolation added):

The legislators who crafted this bill have no knowledge of a woman’s mental or physical health when she walks into an abortion clinic. They have no idea whether she’s been raped, had a condom break, gotten pregnant the day before her husband took off. But they are cocksure that listening to the heartbeat is going to change her mind; [and is worthwhile if it does not], no matter the pain it inflicts.

Of course the pro-choice side stands on indefensible ground as well:

“Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one.”

The two sides just can’t seem to THINK for a moment lest they agree on ANYTHING that the other side believes. One might come to believe that both sides are idiots whose agendas obscure reason, compassion and religion!

On one side we have pro-lifers who have pulled a “humanity begins at fertilization” faith out of thin air. Nowhere in history will you find ANY group that believed such a thing! No one even knew of the existence of the egg until it was seen with a microscope!

If God feels we are fully human right at the moment of fertilization why has there been NO WAY TO TELL THIS EVENT until the last hundred years? Until the precursor to the “rabbit test” a woman knew she was “with child” when her waistband got tight enough or she missed a couple periods.

Did God intend all women of childbearing years to always conduct themselves as though there might be a little citizen hiding inside? That is a pretty hard ho’ to row wouldn’t you say?

Also, up to half of all fertilized eggs do not implant or miscarry before the woman even knows she is pregnant. Those two things together would seem to show that if God feels humanity starts at fertilization then He has no problem with aborting them randomly! At least not the early ones.

On the other side we have the pro-choicers. Amongst whom I nominally count myself. Starting from a time when abortion laws were Draconian to say the least, they have “Defended women” to the point that they have lost all sense.

They have managed to get themselves in a position of backing virtually all late-term abortions simply because they refuse to back off an inch on the idea of a woman having total control of her body. A position with which I must say I am in full agreement…but only to a sane limit. Say when it involves another thinking, feeling human being.

Why don’t both sides get a clue and solve the problem? More and more leaders on both sides are seeing a middle ground.

If we look back through history we find that the first trimester is the most common time for societies to decided that someone is “home” in a woman’s womb. This is when the fetus starts to look more like a potential person than a mutant frog with gland issues. They felt that a soul could not hook in until there was something there that at least looked Human. Surprise, that IS just about when the central nervous system is coming alive and the embryo starts to be more than a developing lump of tissue.

No society that I know of placed the moment earlier, due to the inability to determine pregnancy for certain before the end of the first three months. Some waited well into the 2nd trimester and some didn’t even acknowledge the baby’s humanity until it had survived a prescribed number of days and was named. Those were CHRISTIANS and JEWS as well as Pagans, OH MY! People of the same Book that these modern fools say tells them that the moment the sperm hits the egg it is a person with full rights.

For just a moment consider what enforcing a law like that means. ALL women who MIGHT be pregnant (and we can hardly take the woman’s word as to whether she has had sex recently when protecting children) must act in a manner to “protect the civil rights” of any fetus she might be carrying.

Everything she does, eats, drinks or smokes (or MEDICAL TREATMENTS she receives) would have to be safe to be shared with an infant. Unless a woman chooses in this Right Wing paradise to be sterilized, and have the state take note of the fact, she will be required to live a life that Elsie Dinsmore would have found boring, from menses to menopause.

To embrace this concept is to accept the enslavement of half the human race for a good portion of their lives. Under this law a woman who was two months pregnant would have to be charged with willful child endangerment if she jumped into a lake to save her 5 year old.

Take moment and let the ramifications resonate. The only way to embrace this concept would be for us to start treating women MORE like property than they are in the Middle East!

Then, we have the Left dominated so-called “liberal” position. Good at abstractions, the Leftist is ok with pretending the hidden baby is just a piece of tissue until it starts to breathe. The “morality” of standing between women and the very real oppression of them and their bodies that totalitarians seek blinds the Liberals to the reality they endorse at the behest of the Leftists.

Just as “Gay Rights” has been used by a few homosexuals as a cover to “mainstream” unquestionably unhealthful activity, “Pro-Choice” has been used to cover some people not very different from the Eugenics, and forced sterilization crowd and other proponents of soulless “solutions” to social ills.

Here is my proposal:

FIRST TRIMESTER: abortion is by demand. A woman does have a right to control her body and reproduction. The unstable nature of the first trimester and the lack of anything for any kind of personality to live in make this time a GOD MADE grey zone.

SECOND TRIMESTER: abortion may only occur with a doctors clear recommendation to avoid harm to the mothers health or mental well being. A court might well be needed to pass on this but the procedure would have to be FAST due to the moving target of viability.

THIRD TRIMESTER: Now this is the key, 8 and 7 and even 6 month preemies live and grow up and thrive. HOW can any thinking person deny that this is not a “piece of tissue” anymore? In the third trimester it should be LEGALLY a person.

A fetus that would be a viable baby if the mother tripped on the steps of the abortion clinic should not be a candidate for that abortion.

The mother should be viewed by the law as though she was holding a baby in her arms 24/7. After all, if early abortion is legal, and a woman keeps the child into the third trimester, can she really have any excuse to go all retroactive on a viable infant?

Using legal precedent long established, if there is a threat to the mother’s health or life during this time the doctors would use the same criteria they do when dealing with conjoined twins to decide who lives, and who dies when that choice MUST be made.

What is wrong with this? It satisfies everybody who admits to reason and compassion. The pro-lifers will not accept the idea that until the kid breathes it is just a piece of meat with no consequences. And neither can anyone of sense and humanity as far as I can see.

But, they need to get over their obsession with concepts that are neither Biblical, historical nor scientific. The pro-choicers will never accept a return to women being chattel, which is the only way to control what they do with their bodies to the extent the Radical Right need to enforce their view.

Theirs is also a position that most reasonable people, Conservative and Liberal, cannot accept without choking over Western Values and the Constitution. So why not use common sense, compassion and reality to settle things intelligently instead of women and babies being the rope in a tug of war by two sides that care little for either if you judge them by their fruit?

Total victory or nothing!!” both sides cry while women’s lives are ruined over zygotes and babies who should have rights die.

Guy DeWhitney: The Heretic Crusader

You Can Have “Faith” in Jesus or Mohammed: I Believe in Bugs Bunny!

bugslastsupper1

One thing seems to be consistent about religions all through human history; faith in the literal truth of the religion’s doctrines and dogmas is strongest in the least educated and least widely experienced, while the “elite” tend to range from religious beliefs with agnostic admissions to full-blown, cynical atheism.  This aspect of societal religion tends to favor the more partisan of each camp; the “masses” are peer-pressured to “show faith” and not think too much, while the “elite” are pressured in the same way to deny ALL aspects of deity and belief and God(s).  For those of us to whom seeking understanding of God in a REAL sense, as opposed to a political or emotional/security sense, this is a bit of a hindrance.

To try to avoid the almost inevitable miscommunication that occurs when attempting to discuss God let me define my own terms; belief is not the same as faith; faith is something that causes grief and only causes good by accident, belief is what built civilization as we know it.  Faith is defined in Western culture as belief in something unseen, unproven, un-EVIDENCED other than by certain scriptural testimonies; this is a fools game at best! 

This pseudo-religion has taken over much of the world’s “Faithful” by taking advantage of that tendency of the masses to desire a simple creed with authority to follow; just so they do not have to ponder things that they do not have the experience or education to ponder with any confidence.  It is not enough, their preachers say, to belief in the bridge over the canyon, you must have absolute faith that it IS there… sound of crunching bones at the bottom of the canyon.  And if the snake oil social system from perdition they are selling fails the test in the real world then it is the fault of the poor soul who failed to “show enough faith”!

As you can see Virginia, I have never completely gotten over my desire to seek God and lead others to know God better! mea culpa.  I still care,  I just recognized that all the “named religions” had been co-opted by pirates, parasites and otherwise religious reactionaries who become their own enemies fighting the first two. 

Belief on the other hand is based on facts and experience and yes, even intuition, if that intuition has a good track record; if every time you had something very bad happen in your life, and you had ignored a strong, distinct feeling to avoid the situation, eventually you would “believe” in it enough to listen; even though you have not had the “faith” for years to gamble on it not being coincidental indigestion!

I have beliefs, I have no faith; I like it that way.  Faith has to be blind, and the blind tend to step on things, including other people’s toes, property, pets and even bridges that are NOT over canyons.

This is not to say that I do not think that many of the things that can fall under either label are good, or useful; far from it!  In the documentary film about the life and death of comedian Andy Kaufman (Man on the Moon) there is a scene where he is waiting to undergo a faith healing in India in full belief, from things he has seen and read and experienced, that he would find healing; but he sees from where his stretcher is laid that the “healer” is faking the procedure, and his belief dies. 

Of course the proponents of “faith” will tell us that if he had continued to have FAITH, instead of merely believing, the placebo effect would still have worked and he might have found healing; I do not disagree, but I find that level of blind faith an evil, black magic; one that is less a slippery slope than an escalator to horrific abuses that we have seen over and over again in history when people forget the reality of their fellow man and treat them solely according to “faith.” Q.E.D. Virginia, Q.E.D.!

Bottom line? The true God lovers are recognized in spite of their religion, not because of it; every one mostly stays in the religion they were born in, in some religions it is almost impossible not to, yet there are good, godly people wherever you find human hearts and human tears.  Unless you want to have faith in the notion that God made you to be born in the faith you believe in just so YOU could be “saved”, while anyone not so favored was caused by the infinite power of Deity to be born in an unGodly cult; if you do, there is a quote from the Christian’s Bible that I believe is appropriate: “Jesus Wept”!

Guy DeWhitney on Partisanship, God and Such

Guy DeWhitneys Heretics Crusade

I have been asked a number of times about my religion/theology and my attachment or lack thereof to Christianity. Here are posts I have done that should answer all of those questions fully.

Enjoy.

http://hereticscrusade.com/2010/04/07/if-you-are-not-playing-fair-god-is-not-on-your-side-clergy-are-not-excused-from-honesty/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2010/03/24/tweaking-moral-noses-on-the-left-right-prison-reform/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2010/01/25/partisan-partisan-fly-away-home/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/04/why-do-i-call-myself-a-both-moderate-and-liberal/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/04/a-lesson-in-moderate-thought-also-known-as-critical-thinking-without-an-agenda/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/23/stepping-into-the-void-guy-dewhitney-on-abortion/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2010/05/26/limbamian-politics-101-2010-the-limbaugh-obama-mentality-takes-hold/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/12/29/why-are-conservatives-are-just-plain-boring/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/27/religious-organization-dedicated-to-subversion-invades-america/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/18/queering-our-schools-and-excercises-in-denouncing-gays-for-the-wrong-reasons/

 

 

If You are Not Playing Fair, God is Not on Your Side; Clergy are Not Excused from Honesty

hypocrite_fish

Today we have two examples, one from the Left and one from the Right, of people making blatantly self-serving attacks on their political opponents while attempting to cloak themselves in the sanctity of God.  This is partisanship at its most nauseating.

buddy_jesus

First let us examine the Leftist “religious” viewpoint:

Liberal Christians Give LESS to the Poor; Naturally We Must Expose The Conservative Reasons for Not Giving Enough! …HUNH?

I have often said that partisanship can make people believe anything about ANYTHING.  Here is a good example of someone so needy for rotten fruit to huck at his opponents that he “condemns” them for… what amounts to being BETTER at something than his own side!!!  To make matters worse he all but lies to do so, distorting basic facts and mixing and matching demographics at will to support his demonization of a group that has shown itself well able to expose its own demons; Conservative Christianity)  I just want to ask him one thing, who gored YOUR ox?

Richard T. Hughes

Why Conservative Christians So Often Fail the Common Good (Part 2)

In part 1 of this article, we posed this riddle: why do so many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians — people who clearly honor the Bible — so often disregard the two requirements that are central to the biblical vision of the kingdom of God, namely peacemaking and justice for the poor?”

From the start this piece is off track, as Jesus preached to individuals and taught PEOPLE how He wanted them to live. He did not preach to nations or governments, He never left precepts for RULING a society.  The author actually seems to have bought into the heresy of the far-Right, Christian Identity folks; “Godly” society must be established BEFORE Jesus can return.

“Why Focus on “Conservative Christians”?

Some readers quite correctly pointed out that conservatives tend to be more generous toward the poor than liberals, but to frame the issue like that only muddles it. The Bible never suggests that we adequately fulfill our responsibilities through “generosity” toward the poor. Rather, the Bible summons Christians to radical solidarity with the poor and radical opposition to those demonic, systemic structures — what the Bible calls “the principalities and powers — that sustain the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and the dispossessed.”

Really? In my reality Jesus called for individuals to turn away from political structures and just GET ON WITH IT and feed the poor and live THEIR lives as their conscience commanded.   In fact He had harsh words for those who felt they could legislate morality into their “flock”!  He further advised in no uncertain terms that civil rebellion was NOT his way.

I also love the way the author dismisses out of hand the notion that actual ACTION to help REAL poor people, as opposed to working to create a government to force everyone to care for them, is somehow a lesser expression of Christian charity and Love.  You just Gotta love group-think Virginia!

“…Further, to claim (GDeW: You said before that it was correct, but now you call it a claim?) that conservatives are more generous than liberals sidesteps the fact that neither group is all that generous toward the poor to begin with.”

Are you following this Virginia? Conservative Christian give more to the poor but since neither Leftist nor Conservative Christians do enough in the author’s eyes, it is the CONSERVATIVES that must be brought to task…umm, yes, it is a bit silly. Lets see if our dear Mr. Hughes can pull it out at the end.

“It also sidesteps the fact that neither conservative Christians nor liberal Christians are called to compare themselves with one another.”

I was unaware of the fact that it called for them to ignore their own faults and attack the other! You seem to be of a different opinion Mr. Hughes.

“Instead, if Christians are serious about following Jesus, the only meaningful comparison is with Jesus’ picture of the kingdom of God, and when measured by that standard, American Christians across the board — liberals and conservatives alike — fall woefully short.”

As a student of history I am well aware that pretty much all Christians of this day and age fall short of what the fist generation of “Chrestians” recognized as their own brethren.  That said, I do not know of any major branch, original or modern, that promotes the idea of Jesus’ preaching that you must work for a GOVERNMENT to be formed in the image of the Jewish vision of a Messiah Ruled Society before a person could be considered a follower of His.

“Why, then, would I write a two-part article that singles out conservative rather than liberal Christians for a comparison with that biblical vision.”

Given that your vision is one that you made up instead of finding it in the words of Jesus, I would say that it is just so you can use God as a weapon in your ongoing partisan attacks against your fellow Christians.

“First, conservative Christians are typically far more adamant than liberals in their claims that they are “Bible-believing Christians” who take the Bible seriously at every point.”

The passage above is a great example of a man so eager to demonize the opposition he does not even realize he is insulting his own side!  He is trying to hard not to “look mean” by calling Biblical Literalists byname that he implies that Liberal Christians do not believe the Bible seriously AT ALL.  Kinda makes you wonder why they would BE Christians if Hughes has them pegged rightly, doesn’t it?  Somehow I think that the average “Liberal” Christian deserves a bit more respect than that!

“ It is therefore fair to ask how successfully they live out a theme that stands at the center of the biblical text — the biblical vision of the kingdom.”

First off,it is a central Biblical theme that you do not stand hypocritically on the Temple steps and denounce the sins of others before you have examined your own!  And you certainly do not do it by putting words in the mouth of the central figure of your supposed religion that support your political goals!

“The second consideration is perhaps even more important. For almost forty years, the most visible representatives of the Christian religion in the United States have been conservatives, not liberals. I have in mind the electronic evangelists — those leaders of the Christian Right like Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, and a host of others — who have been extraordinarily vocal about their vision of the United States as a Christian nation. Not once have I heard any of those preachers define the Christian religion in terms of either (1) peacemaking or (2) justice for the oppressed, the poor, the marginalized, and those who suffer at the hands of the world’s elites — themes that are central to the biblical vision of the kingdom of God.”

One wonders why Hughes doesn’t just do a piece on how televangelism corrupts preachers, given that he only lists the most controversial if not heretical of a class that polls have revealed to have about the same level of trustworthiness in the public eye as lawyers!  And even with that vetting for nuttiness I would bet that if you actually read their sermons you would find examples of these things; if you ignore Mr. Hughes’ fantasy about Jesus requiring His followers to build Socialist government institutions.

“To the contrary, these preachers have often gone out of their way to support the principalities and powers that oppress marginalized people. Various televangelists at various times, for example, have told the American people that God has chosen the United States for a destiny of dominance in the world, that Jesus’ followers should prosper and never be poor, and that Christians should rally to support America’s wars against the enemies of God. In a word, most televangelists of the Christian Right have preached a gospel that is radically antithetical to the biblical text, and by proclaiming this pseudo-gospel, they have discredited the Christian religion almost beyond belief. It is surely time to measure their preaching by the biblical vision of the kingdom of God!”

Am I confused Virginia, or did we start off this piece talking about how Conservative Christians giving more to poor folks really meant Liberal Christian were the cool ones? How did we get onto Televangelists? Many Televangelists are bad preachers = All Conservative Christians are failing their duty to God? Somehow, I do not think Mr. Hughes passed Logic 101.

“The Kingdom of God and the Common Good

… The kingdom of God is universal and those who promote that kingdom care deeply for every human being in every corner of the globe, regardless of race or nationality. But earthly nations — even so-called “Christian” nations — embrace values that are inevitably nationalistic and tribal, caring especially for the welfare of those within their borders. And while the kingdom of God exalts the poor, the disenfranchised, and the dispossessed, earthly nations inevitably exalt the rich and powerful and hold them up as models to be emulated. In fact, in the context of earthly nations — even so-called “Christian” nations — the poor seldom count for much at all.”

Which is probably why Jesus preached to people and not governments!!!  So intent on his political goal is he that even while describing it, Hughes misses the point of Not Of This World!

“In light of that comparison, it must be obvious that when I speak of the common good, I don’t have in mind the American dream of a chicken in every pot or three cars in every garage or the American notion that freedom ultimately means freedom to shop. In fact, I don’t have in mind anything uniquely American at all. Instead, when I speak of the common good, I have in mind what the Bible envisions for all humankind — life and not death. But when the principalities and powers define the common good, they typically mean the good life for some, and the good life for some invariably means poverty, hunger, nakedness, and finally death for all the others.”

And this is probably why the Bible envisions this perfect society needing DIRECT INTERVENTION by God to come about AFTER we have messed it all up for the last time (not MY view, but the Bible’s), not Mr. Hughes and his buddies legislating their version of “morality” upon everyone.

“One final introductory comment: several who commented on the first article also questioned the accuracy of my claim that the biblical vision of the kingdom of God is really all that central to the biblical text or, for that matter, to what Christians call “the gospel.” But the Christian gospel always has two central components — the unmerited grace that God extends to us and, in response, the unmerited grace that we should extend to others. I John makes this point as well as any other biblical text: “Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.” (I Jn. 3:16) That is as clear a picture of the kingdom of God as one is likely to find.”

It is simply astonishing to see someone hold up a black book and declare it to obviously be white!  It is just sad when that person does it for personal glorification and to put down their opponents. It is simply disgusting when that person does it using God.

Where, Mr. Hughes, does the Bible tell us to legislate that grace so our neighbor is forced to dispense it in exactly the measure WE define as acceptable?  Pardon me while I go get reacquainted with my breakfast.  The fact that all that poison was just “introductory” to your “point” put my stomach over the top.

beat1 

Now let us move on to the Right-Wing side of the Pew and see how a “conservative Christian” shows his love by lying and distorting everything he can in order to “Save” his sheep:

Traditional Values Coalition Opinion Editorial For publication on or after Wednesday, October 31, 2001

New FBI Hate Crime Statistics Expose Homosexual Lies

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

… This legislation begins with this somber comment: “The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.”

This introduction to S. 625 is filled with lies and half-truths about the nature of hate crimes in America-yet this bill is being seriously debated-despite the facts. The recently released FBI hate crime statistics for 2000 shed new light on what Ted Kennedy alleges is a “serious national problem.””

And now Rev. Sheldon will put his own lies and half-truths on the table as a counter-balance!

“Most Americans are tolerant and compassionate individuals who do not wish anyone to be harmed. Unfortunately, homosexual activists have exploited this compassion in the promotion of the idea of “hate crime” legislation. A “hate crime” law typically includes enhanced penalties against an individual for his negative thoughts when he committed a crime against a person who is part of a protected class. For example, a common thug who mugs a lesbian for her purse will receive a higher penalty for his anti-homosexual thoughts or motivations than if he had mugged a woman simply for her money.”

I have my doubts about many, if not most, hate crime laws, however lying about them does not help! Claiming the label Reverend and then proceeding to lie is “just not done”!

A hate crime law does not criminalize the thoughts of the thug who HAPPENS to mug someone who is a lesbian, they only apply if the lesbian is attacked BECAUSE she is a lesbian. If a person mugs two women, one of whom is openly lesbian, and then verbally insults that woman for being gay and kicks her in the face, all the while not harming the “straight” lady, they HAVE committed a hate crime in addition to the “regular” crime.  I fail to see that the basic idea of making crimes that are committed ONLY because of prejudice a special class is wrong.

“Homosexuals have been successful in getting many states and communities to add “sexual orientation” as a protected category under hate crime laws. This creates what amounts to “thought crimes” and unequal justice under the law for those not given protected class status.”

I can’t see why, if you are gong to have a hate crime law, why ANY definable grouping should not be included.  The whole idea of “hate crime”is of a crime that WOULD NOT HAPPEN if the criminal did not see the victim as “acceptable to attack” because of their race,religion, politics, sexuality or WHATEVER. IF someone attacked and beat someone for being a street mime it should be classed a hate crime.  “Normal” crime is impersonal,it is about transferring money or property from one who has it to one who wants it but, hasn’t earned it.  Committing a crime not for financial gain, but solely to satisfy an inner need to dehumanize ANYONE, is what the hate crime ideology is all about at its core.

“The FBI’s newly released hate crime statistics should be welcomed news to homosexuals. The latest hate crime numbers have been posted on the FBI’s web site. …The FBI hate crime statistics show the following: In 2000, there were a total of 8,152 hate crimes reported involving a total of 9,524 distinct incidents. Out of a total of 8,144 single-bias incidents, for example, 5,206 were racially motivated and 1,568 were bias crimes against a person’s religion.

The FBI says the most common hate crime was that of “intimidation” with a total of 3,294 cases. A person who was “intimidated” was a victim of profanity, racial slurs, or verbal threats by another individual. In short, a third of these hate crimes were non-violent and amounted to name-calling.”

One wonders  if the good reverend has ever been seriously harassed or taunted or threatened in his life! He blithely dismisses as mere name calling things as serious as multiple, physically aggressive and verbally hateful people trailing someone down the street telling them in graphic terms just what they plan to do to that person, their family and anyone who is close to them…Remember, these statistics only refer to those verbal acts that were considered by the FBI to be CRIMES!

Virginia, what do you think of a reverend who thinks that a truck load of rednecks trailing a black schoolgirl and taunting her with rape and assault on her family is “name calling”? Good girl, I can’t fault your instincts. But, you should not use language like that in public. Ladies have better use of their vocabulary than that!  To be fair it should be noted that he also probably considers 15 Muslim youths chasing and screaming threats at a Jewish kid half their size to also be “name calling.” The Rev. only promotes Equal Opportunity Callousness I am sure!

“…Overall, there were only 1,517 hate crimes of bias committed because of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation in 2000. It is likely that at least a third of these were intimidation or name-calling. The FBI gathered these statistics from 11,691 law enforcement agencies encompassing a total of 237 million Americans-or 84.2% of the entire population.”

Here is a good example of how partisans use statistics dishonestly.  The number 1,517 is called “only’ and then several much larger,but irrelevant, numbers are listed to further diminish it in the reader’s mind. The good Rev obviously does not expect his audience to stop and THINK about the numbers he has revealed to be a veritable gospel for American homosexuals.

1,517 out of 8,144 means that more or less one out of every five incidents of ”single bias” against ANYONE was about that person’s sexual orientation!  Almost TWENTY PERCENT!  And this is measured against all the bias incidents against Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, women, men, old folks, young folks, Republicans, Democrats and whatever other groups you care to name!!!  TWENTY PERCENT of this type of crime is committed against gays?  And the Rev feels that gays should rejoice in this “Good News”?

“No compassionate American is in favor of someone being verbally or physically assaulted because of his sexual preferences, but neither should we be subjected to thought crime legislation that provides special legal protections to homosexuals not accorded other Americans. Criminalizing a person’s views on sexual behavior should not be a matter of federal law.”

I agree that EVERYONE should have protection against bias motivated crime. But, this does not give the morally-ambiguous Reverend the right to lie and say that criminalizing bias-based ACTIONS (that in themselves are criminal) is criminalizing a person’s VIEWS!!!

“Out of 11.6 million crimes committed against persons and property in 2000, only 1,517 were hate crimes directed at homosexuals-and a third of these were undoubtedly name-calling. This should be good news to homosexual activists, but it undercuts one of their primary objectives: The passage of federal hate crime legislation that will add homosexual behavior as a protected class status under federal civil rights laws.”

I guess that it is possible to admire the economy or language in the above passage, it is impossible to find morality in it. First the Rev pulls the TOTAL person and property crime number out (not the much smaller, but RELEVENT, single-bias number) and compares it to 1,517, next he applies his “name calling” dismissal to further reduce the importance of that number. Finally, he slaps homosexuals in the face by calling this number good news and uses the sum of his hypocrisy to “prove” that the numbers “undermine” the need for hate crime laws, ESPECIALLY regarding homosexuals!  Tums anyone?

“…The FBI’s recent statistics showing how few hate crimes were committed against homosexuals in 2000 are irritations that will undoubtedly be ignored by activists. The truth has undercut their claims of an epidemic of hate crimes against homosexuals, but that won’t stop them from attempting to gain special rights under federal law for their preferred sexual behavior.”

I guess the Rev follows the old “Big Lie” theory; tell it with a straight enough face and tell it often enough, and people will believe ANY nonsense!  Notice how he tosses in the gibe implying that gays CHOOSE to be as they are!

Left or Right, it does not really matter. Those who seek power for power’s sake will show themselves as morally empty,no matter what “God” they claim to follow.

 

Who is Guy DeWhitney? What is The Heretics Crusade?

It has been just over a year since I started this blog.  Despite numerous distractions and diversion it has been a good year for the blog, if not for our sadly Post-Enlightenment PC culture.  I take this opportunity to repost an updated version of my second post explaining why I had begun a project like Heretics Crusade.

cRUSADE

Why start this blog now? Aren’t there enough "they’re out to get us" blogs? Yes, there are too many RADICAL blogs on the Left AND Right. It is time to let the Moderate Majority have their say.

Despite what it might look like in these times, the focus of this blog is NOT Muslims. It is  focused on exposing and answering ALL serious efforts at instilling totalitarian controls onto free Western society.

In school Thomas Jefferson was my greatest American Hero. My opinion has not changed on that in over 30 years.  Beginning with the Phoenicians, then three waves of Greeks, The Etruscans, the Romans, the Celts, The Gauls, etc., etc., etc., migration after migration of peoples left the Far East.

They Left behind a land where the Whole is more important than the parts, to found nations where the individual and his or her contribution to society would matter. Greece, Rome, England, America a great rolling progression of Enlightenment values growing and evolving toward a bright future where every is able to have peace and safety and above all, a voice.

I sit here writing in Southern California, at the peak of the Western Wave. I feel the momentum and legacy of the millions behind me who sweated and bled and died to put me here. It is my responsibility to do all I can to see that their legacy does not fail. That the barbarians never again "sack Rome" allowing the advent of another dark age.

For long in the 80’s I found myself concerned with keeping an eye on, and talking about, radical Christian efforts in this country to edge our culture into a theocracy. While this movement seems to have peaked a year or so before the end of the reign of Bush II there are still folks dedicated to putting God in the classroom, creationism in our books and demonizing gays and abortion.

Currently the project near and dear to their hearts that concerns me the most is efforts by conservative Christian organizations to co opt the Air Force as a proselytizing force. Needless to say I do not view this objective lightly.

I also watched with some worry activities by the Soviet Union and China. Then, the Soviets collapsed, and it seemed that the only thing to seriously worry about besides our few fanatics was the possibility of China becoming aggressively expansionist (not a likely event).

Sept 11th 2001 changed that. Like just about everyone else I was somewhat aware that the "Muslim World" was something less than civilized to my jaded California standards but figured that as long as they didn’t poop in my backyard I had no reason to spy into theirs. Then the thousand Great Dane sized load of FU landed in New York, D.C. and Penn.  and I thought that maybe it was time to look into this Islam thing.

In exploring the information available it took a long time to vet the sources before I could trust them. A large obstacle to this was that fact that, like Soviet Communism, the people who first saw things as they were came from the far right of the political spectrum. Just as McCarthy was totally wrong in how he dealt with things, he was totally right about the extent of Soviet infiltration in the government, and Hollywood. We find today a number of unsavory voices shouting to the rooftops a message the basics of which everyone should hear does more to make people constructively deaf than convert them to reality. People look at who is talking, and ask why they should listen to such voices on THIS subject.

For the record, the pillars of civilization that I regard as inviolable are: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal treatment before the law of everyone; men and women, regardless of race, creed or sexuality. I support the right to bear arms, and have served with pride in the armed forces of my nation but, I oppose the very concept of a "draft". I feel that any nation that cannot fight it’s battles with a volunteer army has no right to fight them. And this includes wars of defense.

I support the right to abortion but, cannot support late term abortion in any but blatantly cut and dired cases, which I have yet to EVER hear of.

In general I regard myself as a leftish moderate who is not afraid of guns. Anyone who tries to peg me into a political category from one or two opinions is almost certain to be wrong. In fact I refuse to identify with any party since a party is nothing more than a slate of opinions pre-packaged to avoid a voter’s having to take on that horrible job: thought.

In the course of this blog I will be posting articles and videos of all sorts that highlight both the fight of totalitarians to blind and enslave us, as well as the efforts of those who will not be bound or controlled to keep the West free in mind and soul.

And yes Virginia, I EXPECT to get attacked from the partisans on BOTH sides.  All I have to say is; AVANT Crusader, AVANT!

Changing minds by not shutting doors to change

Reforming Moderate Islam Muslims

Let me give an example of how spin does not help our cause. The video Islam:what the West needs to know
This film has loads of wonderful information that is completely accurate. However it seeks to deny that there is an under current of moderates in the Islamic world. They confuse the voices of the leaders and terrorists and ignore the views of the masses of Muslims who go about their lives in peace.

Why have certain blogs almost ignored the story about the Changes the King of Saudi Arabia has introduced? Why won’t they give the moderates they yell at to stand up a chance to get to their feet without partisan criticism?

If you despair of real support for Western Civilization you only need peruse a few months of The Religious Policeman a blog written by an educated Arabian Muslim over a period of four years.

His voice and many others show a strong ferment of free thought and desire for reform in Islam.

How can the moderates stand up and begin reform if we, their supposed supporters, say that Islam is unreformable? Down this path lies total war between West and East. Black and White ideology is what we are fighting AGAINST isn’t it?

It is very important for a Westerner to understand Abrogation and Taqqyia but they also need to understand that morals and decency come from the human heart, not laws or books. People who are not strictly thought policed tend almost universally to react like PEOPLE not soulless robots.

Our goal should be toe remove the disproportionate voice of the Wahabi financed organs of Islam while holding out our hand to all who seek to grow beyond that way of life. The Bible and Torah DO contain horrific elements. It may be argued whether they are as “bad” as the Koran. But what is without doubt is that the chief difference is not in the inherent peacefulness of the oldest scriptures. The chief difference is that Judaism and Christianity have reformed!!!

In the days of the last Temple in Jerusalem the Jews tended to behave in ways that were very similar to Muslims today. But they changed.

In the Middle Ages in Europe you did not have the option most times of disagreeing with the clergy. IF you did you died. But they changed.

The early Protestants could be as nasty as just about any when it came to repression. But they changed.

Today the mainstreams of thought for all major religions but one hold that human brotherhood and connection trumps any verse that denies that concept.

As Hillel said; “Love God and Love your neighbor, all else is commentary”. Few Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Pagan clergy will care to have to refute that doctrine for to do so will render them seemingly callous and “unholy”.

It have been said that a holy man is known in spite of the name of his religion, not because of it. A previous post about Muslims who saved Jews during WWII is a great example of that.

If we are going to hold Islam’s feet to the fire about not accepting the idea of universal brotherhood then we need to stop denying that they are capable of realizing it.

Yes, we will get our hands bitten now and then. But is that reason to become hard of heart? But we need to keep the door open for those who seek to reform their religion.

The film linked above shows a number of Western leaders talking about how we are not at war with Islam and that Islam is a religion of peace. The way I see it that kind of language is not a bad thing if used properly. Turn the idea on it’s head. Over and over and over they are declaring that a Muslim who believes in violence in the name of God is NOT religious. Now I will be the first to oppose censorship regarding who is doing what and WHY they say they are doing it.

Bottom line time. If you can’t recognise ANY step by Muslims toward a better world then you ARE an Islamaphobe and should proudly wear the title. I am not afraid of Islam, I am not afraid of Judaism, I am not afraid of any religion. I am afraid of people who so literally interpret their scripture as to forget that we all are in it together.

So I will link to some things that I hope will serve the cause but I shudder when I think how many people will not be able to un spin the antagonism from the truth.