Obama, Cain, and Jesus: A parable of confused morals.

I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar, so I rarely delve into any type of religious topic. If you had read my previous article about the attacks on Christianity, you might have come to the conclusion that I’m religious. I’m not.

As an agnostic, I’m really not even a person who calls himself a Christian—although I was raised by a Christian mother—nor a “person of faith”—a failing my wife often criticizes and suggests that I work on getting a little more faith.

But I don’t disrespect anyone for their religious beliefs. As an agnostic, who can’t lean on a “faith” to get me through troubling times, I rather envy anyone with faith. And, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”

Which brings me back to Obama. Yes, you knew I’d get there eventually, right?

While I agree with Jefferson’s statement that “{Religion is} a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle”, I can’t help but contemplate our current president’s odd expressions of “faith”. I rather preferred Obama’s previous lack of religious expression to his recent proclamation of faith in Christianity.

Apparently responding to polls suggesting that over 20% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim pretending to be a Christian, Obama publicly stated that he “came to Christianity as an adult”, and was attracted to certain aspects of the religion, although admittedly not all. Now, myself being an agnostic who can’t blindly believe that Jesus was “the Son of God”, I understand his sentiment; I nevertheless don’t judge Obama for not being able to believe the Christian dogma part and parcel. But unlike Obama, I won’t call myself a Christian just because I like “certain parts” of the religion. There is at least one core part of the religion you have to believe or you simply are not Christian: that Jesus was God on earth and he died for our sins to give us eternal life. It’s great if you agree that we should love our neighbor, but if you don’t believe that Jesus is God, you really have no business claiming to be “a Christian”…especially if you only do it in election years!

Many conservatives have already spoken or written at length about that topic, so I won’t delve into it deeply. But there was a statement Obama made that really caught my attention. Remember when he said that he liked that part in Christianity about “being your brother’s keeper”? That was a statement he quoted often during the healthcare debate. When asked about his Christian faith, Obama told the LA Times:

“The precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead – being my brother's and sister's keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”

I haven’t read the Bible lately, but of course all those years of having my mother drag me to church had some benefit, because I realized that the quote Obama spewed out wasn’t a quote from Jesus…it was actually Cain who said it after he’d murdered his brother. Genesis 4:9.

Cain and Abel, sons of the original Adam, were promised to marry twin sisters. Abel was to wed the more attractive of the two, and Cain was envious. He argued with his father and brother and in order to settle the quarrel, Adam arranged for Cain to make a sacrifice to God, to see what God’s response was. God rejected the sacrifice, which was an indication that he disagreed with Cain’s argument. So angered by these events, Cain murdered his brother. In some versions, he did it with the jawbone of an ass. (Is it wrong to note that the ass is the emblem of Obama’s Democrat party?)

Returning to Obama’s statement, the last part of it does, in fact, sound like something Jesus is quoted as saying. “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Matthew 5:43. But even then, Jesus was repeating a quotation of the Hebrew Torah, from Leviticus.

Still, there something profoundly ironic about Obama misquoting Cain’s smart-Alec response to God’s query “Where is your brother Abel?” to which Cain responds: “I don’t know, am I my brother’s keeper?”. A holistic examination of Obama’s statement of faith reveals that he has conflated Cain’s disrespectful response to God with the advice given by Jesus! He has somehow joined the concept of “treating others as you would have them treat you”, and the story about the first fratricide in recorded history, and concluded that they contain the same moral.

What does that say about his adherence to Christianity? Did he learn this from Reverend Wright?

A short period after Obama misquoted the Bible, he stood before an audience, attempting to persuade voters in the upcoming November elections to support his party, when his Presidential Seal fell off the podium.

If I were superstitious (I’m not, but it’s amusing to think about this from the perspective of how the ancients might have read the signs), I might consider that an ill omen portending tragedy for Obama…the equivalent of God rejecting Cain’s sacrifice, as it were.

Think of it this way: Cain slew Abel out of envy. God did not consent to grant Cain’s greedy demand to be given the more attractive wife, so Cain murdered his brother in a jealous rage.

What’s ironic is that Obama, with his class warfare rhetoric, sows the seeds of envy among millions every time he promotes his notion of social justice and redistributive policies, and then ends up trying to prove his adherence to Christianity, but in so doing, quotes Cain instead of Jesus. It’s bizarre but fitting.

So do I think that, when the Presidential Seal fell from the Podium, it was God's way of telling us that He had rejected Obama’s Presidency?

I guess I’ll have to consider that as a “matter of faith.”

Corpus Cristi versus Ticked Off Trannies

There is gay outrage this week because of the proposed screening of “Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives”, a film by Israel Luna is promoted as a “campy homage to the exploitation films” in which “a group of transgender women are violently beaten and left for dead,” but then “the violated vixens turn deadly divas.”

Apparently the idea of transgender women being attacked "for being who they are". The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has demanded that the film be removed from the Tribeca lineup.

"GLAAD has since seen the film in its entirety and can report that the title is far from the only problem with this film. The film, its title and its marketing misrepresent the lives of transgender women and use grotesque, exploitative depictions of violence against transgender women in ways that make light of the horrific brutality they all too often face."

GLADD continues its criticism:
"By marketing Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives as a "transploitation" film, by using the word "trannies" (a pejorative term for transgender people) in the title of the film, by casting transgender women in some roles, and by citing the murders of Angie Zapata and Jorge Mercado in the trailer, Israel Luna has attempted to place his film squarely within a transgender narrative.
However, while some of the actors in the film identify as transgender, the characters are written as drag queens, “performing” femininity in a way that is completely artificial. "

{Note: yeah, that makes perfect sense, because whenever I find out that someone born male who has their tallywacker removed and a vagina created, it would never occur to me to think that they are 'performing femininity in a way that is completely artificial'. There's nothing more natural than a male willfully having his genitalia removed so he could become a female.}

"Transgender people are a marginalized and vulnerable minority in our culture, subjected to horrific hate crimes and pervasive discrimination. Relatively few media images of transgender people exist, so every media image becomes essential in educating audiences about transgender lives and working to eliminate the discrimination and violence they face.

In this context, it is irresponsible and insulting to make a film that serves up graphic anti-transgender violence as a "hook" for an homage to B-movies of the 1970s. "

Yeah, I can see why they are upset. Seriously. Here you have a group that is misunderstood, misrepresented, and often finds itself the target of bigoted attacks. It does seem very inconsiderate to write such a film, and gosh darn it, I wish this kind of thing would stop.

Now that that's settled... I would like to sing the praises of a wonderful play, "Corpus Christi", being promoted in Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Texas.

This play sounds so sweet and could not possibly offend anyone. You see, it explores the life and times of Jesus Christ, except that it is in a modernized form, in which the "thinly veiled Jesus figure" is a boy named Joshua.

Oh, and he struggles "to confront a hostile environment"--just like Jesus did--except that the hostility Joshua suffers is because he just happens to be a homosexual.

Yes, that's right. It's a play about Jesus as a homosexual. And his best buddies, the good old apostles--you guessed it--they're all gay too! Will there be locker room fun? You'll have to attend to find out!

Director John Otte chose "Corpus Christi" as the final project for his advanced directing class. "I chose this play to direct and produce because I am a Christian," who, may I add, also just happens to be gay.

"It is being said often that this play is a direct attack on Christians -- their faith and their deity," Otte said. "It simply is not true. He is my savior as well, and I was raised in an extremely faithful and religious home."

That's nice, Mr. Otte, because no one in their right mind would be offended by the portrayal of their Messiah as a homosexual high school student! Pshaw!

And YET, not everyone is thrilled! The pastor of the local Hillcrest Church of Christ, David Harris, says: "It infuriates me that somebody would be given a platform to be able to demean and degrade the son of God...I'm angry about it, and every Christian should be."

Now, all sarcasm aside, is this not a wonderful situation?

On the one hand, you have a film maker who decided to recreate the campy slasher movies of the '70s but include a bunch of "trannies" as the victims-turned-heroes, and his stereotypical portrayal of transgendered women just doesn't ring true, and to these gays it seems "exploitative" to portray them being victimized.

And yet, on the other hand, you have homosexuals who are perverting the image of Jesus Christ and the apostles, making them gay--which is considered sinful by Christians--and this we are to accept as "art" with nary a whimper.

To be fair, "Corpus Cristi" is intended to be a heartwarming play to "bring people together". And why shouldn't it, when Jesus is portrayed as--get ready--"The King of Queers"?

Why would that upset Christians?

Shouldn't gays see the offense they are perpetrating on one of the world's great religions? Is this not yet another example of the kind of constant abuse that is heaped upon Christians by liberals, atheists, and now homosexuals? How many "Piss-Christ" type of blasphemies do Christians have to endure before this ends?

I ask you: when do you expect to see a play based upon "Gay Muhammad"? What do you think would happen?

To conclude, there's not much to say, except "you can dish it out, but you sorry bunch of over-sensitive pansies can't take it."

In defense of the majority

Happy New year.

On January, 20 2009, Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn into office as President of the United States of America. While this will be a cause for great celebration among certain sectors of the American populace, one tiny group has chosen to protest. But it’s not conservatives, as one would expect. No, it’s Atheists.

Because Obama, who has repeatedly countered rumors that he is ultra-liberal and possibly a closet Muslim, has emphasized that he is a Christian and will take his oath using President Lincoln’s Bible. The inclusion of the Bible, and the oath taken to uphold the constitution “so help me God”, is apparently offensive to Atheists. These, in turn, have filed suit—that’s right, they are seeking legal recourse to block President-Elect Obama’s right to express his determination to uphold the constitution by invoking the symbol of his religious faith in order to affirm his sincerity. Why?

The atheists assert that "there can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists." They add that any reference to God violates the Constitution’s ban on the governmental establishment of religion. Tragically, they feel that “having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.” They “are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration, or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny.”

At this juncture, it would be helpful to get some facts about atheists in America. A quick search brought me to an atheism blog that provided some basic information. In one article, they discuss their own prevalence within our society and give this interesting poll result:

85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002)
7% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2004)
38% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2004)
37% are self-described Christians but are neither evangelical nor born again
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)
11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)

Did you notice the odd result there? Focus only on these three numbers:
85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002)
11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)

These results seem nonsensical to me. If 85% of Americans are Christian, then only 15% remains for anything else. 11% of that remaining 15% clearly state that they “identify with a faith other than Christianity”. That must mean that they are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. 15% minus 11% leaves only 4%, not 12%. Since you cannot be both Atheist and Christian, Muslim , Hindu, etc. one can only come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the polls. But at any rate, it is safe to say that the number of atheists in America is certainly less than 12%, and probably around 4%.

This is only important in so much as it puts into perspective the current situation. A tiny minority (less than 12% of the population) of Americans who profess to be absolutely sure that there is no God are demanding that all public expressions be devoid of religious content, because they feel “excluded” and “stigmatized”. Apparently realizing the hubris in such a demand, they fall back upon the famous “establishment” clause of the constitution, as an attempt to lend credibility to their argument. But once again, we must clarify that the intent of the religion clauses of the constitution was not to eliminate religious expression from the state, but simply to prevent the government from establishing a state-sanctioned faith and imposing that upon the rest of the society and compelling others to believe. The spirit of the amendment was born of historical concerns, as the framers had been direct witnesses to the religious conflicts between the official religions of certain governments, resulting in wars between Catholics and Protestants. But it was never their intent to sanitize government and society of all references to God. Quite the opposite is true. The inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and formalized in the Bill of Rights for the benefit of men “are endowed by their creator”. They are not granted by the government—if they were, they could be denied by the same government at any time. No, they are endowed by God and the Laws of Nature and are therefore inalienable.

It is therefore absurd for a tiny minority of the society to decide that their particular view—that God does not exist—must therefore limit the expression of faith of the rest of the society. Worse, this actually would represent a horrific blow to democracy. After all, the whole basis of a democracy is that the opinions of the majority decide the course taken by the society. Certain provisions in the constitution prevent the majority from violating the rights of the minority, but in no way was it the intent of the framers to allow a tiny minority to impose their views upon the majority.

The desire of the atheists to silence religious expression is just another expression of our cultural decadence, leading to widespread narcissism, and ending in ideological fascism.
I sometimes envision our society as a tiny dory, tossed around by the prevalent forces of culture. The current sometimes draws society to the right—as it did during the Prohibition days—and sometimes toward the left—as it currently appears to be doing. The sudden, often chaotic lurching direction of our culture can appear to be horrifying at times, but the common sense of the citizens has, for over two hundred years, allowed us to stay upright and keep off the rocks.

But be warned: our ability to navigate through the vagaries of cultural whim will be disastrously hindered if the current tendencies of political intolerance prevail. And, to the surprise of the many, the current threat comes not from religious conservatives on the right, but from “liberal” militants on the left. For while it has been a widely accepted notion that the forces of intolerance that have led to totalitarian or fascist policies usually come from the far right, a fair analysis of our society demonstrates that it is now organized and militant minorities on the left that believe they have the imperative to impose themselves upon the majority.

The tendency is showing up in a number of manifestations: The imposition of the “gay agenda” upon society and accusation of being “homo-phobic” against anyone who disagrees with the policies; the attempt to replace Christian expressions of faith from Christmas with “acceptable” secular expressions; the attempt to limit speech and prohibit the use of “ethnically offensive” terms such as “Islamic extremist” or “Islamist Terrorists”; the use of race-baiting to silence opposition to politicians by labeling any questioning of their policies or qualifications as “racist”; the silencing of scientists and academics who disagree with the “Global Warming” craze.

The commonality between all of these “currents” is that every one of them is promoted by a small minority of the society, which in turn is unwavering and uncompromising in their radical dedication to their agenda, and the proponents of each movement have resorted to distorting Human and Civil Rights advances in order to make itself “morally undeniable”, thus automatically tainting any opposition to it as a violation of human rights and human dignity. The scientist who questions the data behind Global Warming is suddenly a “flat earth” radical, the moral equivalent of the religious fanatics who punished Galileo and Copernicus. The pundit who demands to know more about Obama’s connections to extremist groups or convicted felons is “racist” for doubting his purity. And most absurd of all, Christians are told that it is “offensive” for them to say “Merry Christmas” during the Christmas Holiday, because that could be offensive to any non-Christian who hears it.

A democracy simply cannot survive if discussion is forcibly suppressed. When intolerance becomes fashionable and results in the wholesale elimination of open discussion and passionate argument, then the beliefs of a small group may be converted into oppressive policies whose “righteousness” becomes literally indisputable—not because they are right, but because disputation is made impermissible.

This is the precipitous slide toward totalitarianism that allows Nazis to slaughter Jews, Islamists to slaughter infidels, communists to slaughter intellectuals—on and on. The only solution is for the society to recognize that there is wisdom within the ranks of the majority, and to promote and defend the beliefs of the majority.