This is a Performancing.com set up post.

<script id="stats_script" type="text/javascript" src="http://metrics.performancing.com/stats.js"></script>

Its amazing how behind the times the Avant Guarde has become. They're still trying to sell that "God is Dead" crap they were peddling in the 1960s.

There were two articles of note on atheism posted on Worldnetdaily this last weekend; the first was from the German magazine Der Spiegel, and the second in the Washington Post. The occasion warrenting the articles is the success of Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation, and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion; two books which are a hodge-podge of factual errors and misinformation, dubious Biblical exegesis, straw man arguements, Leftist politics and puffed up chests. (See Vox Day's take on Harris here; its a classic pimpslap of atheistic academic whoredom. And J.P. Holding will have something soon on Harris as well. When its ready I'll post a link.) 

A poll which appeared on Breitbart.com yesterday says that 42% of Americans are not absolutely sure in the existance of God. I suppose that to the Dawkins' and Harris' of the world this is an encouraging sign that their assault on religious faith is working. However, what I see when I view this poll, and the articles and books by atheist missionaries, is something far more ominous.  I've studied it before.

And Santayana warned us about it.

Let me take you back into history a bit.

Any detailed examination of Germany’s fall into National Socialism begins to take on a Dante-esque quality the closer one looks. The sociological “sins” of rabid Nationalism, belief in Social Darwinism, anti-Semitism, distrust in democracy, and desire for authoritarian control of government function like the concentric circles of Hell, spiraling ever downward toward the charismatic figure of Adolph Hitler.

 For historians, the consensus has been the Nazis attempted to control all facets of daily life by a combination of coercion and intimidation that served to mask their true intentions of creating an inseparable racial/political identity. To Germans burdened by reparations payments to the victors of World War I, threatened by hyperinflation, political chaos, and a possible Communist takeover, Hitler’s frenzied yet magnetic rhetoric offered emotionally satisfying solutions. And for those not taken in by Hitler’s speeches, there was the SA.

While there is no proverbial “smoking gun”, numerous factors did contribute to the Nazi takeover: the inability of the various groups to see the Nazis for what they really were, their inability to form meaningful coalition governments; fear of outside forces (in the form of communism), incompetent economic leadership, politicians willing to compromise in order to achieve their own goals, distrust of democratic institutions, and a lack of an effective counter propaganda campaign against Nazi claims.

While the Nazi takeover was popular with most Germans, other forms of opposition did exist. While the Gestapo (secret state police) and the Security Service (SD) suppressed open criticism of the regime, certain groups’ opposition to the Nazi regimentation of society and “coordination” of individuals and institutions with Nazi goals (Gleichschaltung) continued, albeit ineffectively in most cases. Leftist groups were crushed by the Security Police (Sipo), and Conservative elements found out too late that they had made a mistake in allying with Hitler, and many Conservatives were either murdered or capitulated to Nazi political goals. And then there were the Churches.

Two organizations that should have been at the forefront of any resistance to the Nazis were the Catholic and Protestant Churches; yet they too found resistance difficult. The reasons for this difficulty can be theorized: a desire to see a few, common goals come to fruition, a lack of commitment to Christian principles (or at least a willingness to compromise on them), a lack of recognition of Nazi ruthlessness, and moral cowardice in the face of mounting atrocities. Opposition to Nazism grew out of protests against specific actions, and only later became a generalized movement against Nazism as a whole.

Most scholars agree the Nazis thought both Protestants and Catholics as groups that needed to be controlled, and efforts to "coordinate" religious life also followed the Nazi rise to power. But earlier historical arguments focused on Church complicity with the Nazis and argued that anti-Semitism was the glue that held the two together. Von Oppen discusses how post-War German scholars’ opinions on Catholic and Protestant reaction to the slaughter of the Jews came to the same conclusion: collaboration with the Nazis due to anti-Semitism. If the Nazis sought to control the Churches, they reasoned, the Churches did not mind being controlled as long as their hatred of the Jews was satisfied.[1]

But this flies in the face of certain facts that later historians seem to have picked up on. Anti-Semitism seemed to be a localized affair prior to the First World War in Germany rather than part of the national identity.[2] Lutheran reforms resulted in sporadic anti-Semitic violence and pogroms against the Jews, usually accompanying Easter Passion Plays.[3] By the time of the First World War anti-Semitic beliefs were largely latent in society, although Volkisch groups would occasionally appeal to pseudoscientific racial stereotypes of Jews (as well as other ethnic groups). These were also used by the Nazis in their rise to power.[4]

Catholics had long been a part of the German political scene despite being weak within German society, having suffered at the hands of a hostile Protestant monarchy from the 18^th century until the First World War.[5] This tradition of participation all but ended when the Papal Concordat signed in July 1933 resulted in regulated relations between the Reich and the Catholic Church. Despite the agreement the Nazis went on to suppress Catholic groups and sought to defame the Church through a series of show trials. In 1937 the Vatican issued an Encyclical titled Mit Brennender Sorge, highly critical of the Nazi government.[6] While officially silent about the persecution of Jews, the Catholic Church played a role in the opposition to the euthanasiation of the mentally and physically handicapped, known as the Aktion T 4 program. Moreover, individual Priests sought to protect or help Jews, often resulting in their deaths in the Concentration Camps.

In the Protestant Church, which had a tradition of separation and non-involvement in politics, Nazism infiltrated the Protestant churches under the banner of the German Christian (Deutsche Christen) movement. The organization advocated the inclusion of an "Aryan Paragraph" in church synods that would prevent non-Aryans (Jewish converts) from participating, ministering or teaching within the churches.

Michelle Malkin notes the plight of a milblogger's family. You should too.

SPC Reid Stanley's wife Ellicia has been diagnosed with advanced stage cancer. SPC Stanley, who is stationed overseas, is being restationed to the States so that his wife can get support through Hospice. They have three small children and a lot of needs.

As the origin post on THIRDWAVEDAVE notes, the Stanleys are in need of financial support and there is a donation spot as well as an EBAY auction  to help raise money.
They will also need prayer

Give both generously. Please.

It was Hero Day at my kids' elementary school yesterday.

At least a hundred kids dressed up as their heroes; football players, business suits (obviously mimicing mommy), and at least one kid dressed as either Brittany Spears or the Material Girl herself, circa 1985. And we wonder why the pregnancy rates are so high.

My kids went dressed up as Marines.

My oldest daughter, Sierra, went into the Marine Corps last year, but injured her ankle in the last week of Combat school and was discharged. Sierra helped my youngest daughter Hannah and my son Travis to dress in proper Marine Corps fashion, complete with the donation of her service cami shirt and cover. I'm very proud of Sierra; she turned down a modeling contract offered to her her Senior year because she wanted to join the Corps. She wanted to do her duty. The injury prevented her from doing so, but I couldn't be any prouder of her.

When my wife came to the University of North Florida to pick me up after my last class was over with, I was hit with a wall of sound from Hannah and Travis as they were excitedly telling me about their day. "Nitza and Sarah liked my costume, Dad." "My teacher said I looked like a real Marine, Dad." Heaven on Earth is a barage of questions from excited children...

Hannah then asked me a question that made me stop all other thoughts.

"Daddy, who is your hero?"

The word hero is defined (by Google) as "a man distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength". I've personally known men and women who would qualify as heroes. But to a child, the word hero conjures images of a larger than life figure doing larger than life things; a Hercules or Superman-type.

I suppose I could have mentioned a figure from the Bible - Paul, Joshua or Elijah. Jesus wouldn't fit the description - He transcends it. I didn't use a Biblical figure because of how familiar they were to my kids.

This is what I told Hannah and Travis. True story:

"Well, Hannah, you know how the country is at war? And you've seen me yelling at the T.V. when certain people don't show support for the soldiers appear on T.V.? Well, certain people don't want to face up to things and people who are evil. Sometimes its because they're afraid and sometimes for other reasons, but the point is they don't stand up for what's right.

My hero did stand up for what was right. And he was murdered because of it. He knew that is what could happen to him, and yet he stood up anyways. He was a preacher like I'm studying to be. He came from a big family and even had a twin sister. When he was fourteen, his brothers made fun of him when he said he wanted to be a preacher.

He studied hard in school and succeeded in becoming a preacher. Then someone came to be leader of his country, Germany, that he saw as being a bad person who was going to do bad things. That leader was Adolf Hitler. You've heard about him, right? A really evil man who killed a lot of people.

Well, my hero actually ran away from Hitler at first. He believed that people shouldn't fight at anytime. Ever. But he finally came to realize confronting evil with action is what it means to be a Christian, and failing to act when evil shows its face is the same as doing evil ourselves.

He had to sneak around to preach, but he did. He preached about God and what it meant to be responsible and how it took courage to protest evil when everyone else was going along with it. He was a preacher, but he later became part of a plot to kill Hitler. It failed and he was arrested and later hung.

His name was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and he's my hero because he wasn't afraid to do the right thing even though it was going to cost him his life. What do you think of that, Hannah?"

Her answer floored me.

"It means you should stand up for what is right, even if you're standing alone. No matter what."

I have another hero. She's 11 years old.

It was like a breath of fresh air sunlight hitting a patch of mold:

            It was the day that a host of BBC executives 
            and star presenters admitted what critics have 
            been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated 
            by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased 
            against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

            A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called 
            by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead 
            to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on 
            key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the 
            war on terror.

            It reveals that executives would let the Bible be 
            thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but 
            not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an 
            interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. 
            Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', 
            wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed
             to wear veils when on air.

Finally a news organization admits to what we critics on the Right have been saying all along - they're biased. Well, just as sunlight kills mold by drying it up, this could be a good start. Not that it's going to be easy to change it:

            One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was 
            widespread acknowledgement that we may 
            have gone too far in the direction of political 
            correctness.

            'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded 
            in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to 
            change it.'

However, it could also be that the usual suspects may think their power is such that they no longer have to hide their real views any longer:

            Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not 
            impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban 
            organisation with an abnormally large number of 
            young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. 
            It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political 
            bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

I rather expect it to be the latter. It seems that their efforts to hide their bias have been so unsuccessful that they just give up on the effort:

            Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that 
            the BBC is so biased against America that deputy 
            director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed 
            to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added 
            that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision 
            and gave it 'no moral weight'.

            Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he 
            complained to a 'very senior news executive', about 
            the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the 
            reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it 
            believes in it and it promotes it.' 

            (Emphasis mine)

So what does this do for the alphabet soup news organizations ABCBSNBCNNMSNBCNBC? Do they "come out of the closet" now, so to speak?

Hardly. They will issue a few denials once concervative pundits like Cal Thomas or Mona Charon run the story up the flagpole. This has been the standard modus operandi for the MSM for decades; claim to take the charge seriously, then produce reports that show that in fact any bias is in favor of conservatives, because of their positions as part of a larger corporation. 

But as Star Parker points out here, corporations should be concidered Leftists:

            CRC researchers examined contributions made in 
            2004 by the foundations of the nation's top 100 
            corporations to nonprofit organizations. The result: 
            Corporate contributions to left-leaning groups totaled 
            $59 million and to right-leaning organizations $4 million.

            That's about 14.5 corporate dollars going to the left 
            for each dollar going to the right. 
 
            (Emphasis mine)

Corporations know to grease the wheel. Start a foundation which funnels some of the money which should rightfully go to the shareholder to some left-wing organization in order to keep them from protesting you. Make business concessions towards these leftist group's goals. Deny money or even discriminate against right-of-center organizations, especially religious ones - like Target did by denying the Salvation Army the right to post their kettles outside Target stores at Christmas - because right wingers don't boycott. (Until they did boycott, which forced Target not only allow the Salvation Army in front of their stores, but made Target re-start saying 'Merry Christmas' instead of the more PC 'Happy Holidays').

In the case of news organizations, they don't need foundations. They provide PR, free of charge.

So why aren't we boycotting them?

Rich Lowry writes an excellent column on fears of a Christian Theocracy.

As I point out in "An Open Letter to Neal Boortz", this fear of a Christian Theocracy is simply an excuse by Liberals to silence viewpoints in opposition to their own. Lowry makes a simular point.

And it isn't just politics where Liberals want to silence the Christian voice (and I would add the devout Jewish voice as well. As Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason Ministries points out here, there is a concerted effort to get Christianity to fade into the background, to become a matter of private concern. What is most interesting is why.Writing concerning a news story on a Promise Keepers event:

        I guess the general idea is that if you have religious 
        sentiments then somehow it's a violation of the First 
        Amendment to let those religious concerns inform your 
        decisions when you go to the polling booth. I don't 
        understand what the beef is about that. Are we to 
        suggest that one ought never make a decision based 
        on moral or ethical concerns that are somehow tied to 
        religious sentiment and to God? That is certainly not 
        what the amendment says. As a matter of fact, if you 
        observe closely, the amendment is not to restrict 
        individual liberties at all, but to insure such expression 
        by limiting the government's restriction of speech and 
        expression of religious issues. It doesn't say that 
        Christian individuals can't have their sentiments influence 
        their political concerns. It says that the government can't 
        stop them from doing that. Do you get it? That's what it's 
        all about.

        In any event, in the article where this concern is expressed 
        it reads, "Some observers, mindful of attempts by the 
        religious right to politicize the Gospel, wonder where it all 
        will lead." By the way, I don't see anything about the gospel 
        in here, anywhere. So, the assertion that one is politicizing 
        the gospel is specious. "Promise Keepers' religious tenets 
        could put it on a collision course with the women's movement, 
        gay rights advocates and those who are suspicious of hidden 
        political agendas." Then it talks about Promise Keepers as 
        "unapologetic about asserting man's role as head of the family, 
        though it denies that it has a political agenda." This is all here 
        in the same paragraph, as if "Ah ha! They are liars. They want 
        man as the head of the family. How dare they say that they 
        don't have a political agenda?" Now, there is something very 
        curious going on here. More is said here. Check the article 
        yourself.

        Notice here the emphasis on privatization of faith. There is a 
        suggestion here, a very strong one, of the patent illegitimacy 
        of having public "political" issues or stances informed by religious 
        beliefs and religious convictions.

        Now, what's curious here is what the political issues are that 
        they have cited that they are very concerned that Promise Keepers 
        might get their grubby little fingers into. Is it foreign relations? No. 
        Is it the structure of the national budget? No. Is it related to 
        business issues, the recession, and trade with other nations? 
        No. Well, these are political issues, aren't they? Yes, but it's 
        other political issues that they're interested in. What are those 
        political issues that they ought not tangle with? The three that 
        are mentioned are, in my own words, whether men ought to 
        exercise responsible authority over their families, or not. 
        Whether it's legitimate to make moral statements about sexual 
        behavior, in this case, homosexuals. And whether the lives of 
        tiny, defenseless human beings ought to be protected.

        Now, do you see what's happening? This article is expressing 
        the fear of critics that a group which is deeply committed to 
        values will somehow influence the political process. How so? 
        Well, Promise Keepers has opinions about abortion, about the 
        father being the head of the family. They have opinions about 
        homosexuality. Wait just a second here. Isn't it curious that 
        the moral and values concerns that used to be the legitimate 
        domain of religion -- sexual immorality, the relationship of a 
        man to his wife and his family and his responsibility over his 
        family, the defense of innocent human beings -- those things 
        that used to be the legitimate domain of religion have now 
        been co-opted by the government. Now these are considered 
        political issues, and as such they've been co-opted by the 
        government and redefined as political issues. These are issues 
        to which religious conscience ought not speak.  (Emphasis mine.)

Government wants to set morality! Specifically, the Liberal apparatchik that finds a home in both the Democratic Party AND the bureaucracy of government itself want to be the final arbetors of what is concidered morally acceptable behavior.  Control  the ability to say what is right and wrong and you can force the behavior you want out of just about anyone. (This might want to give historians a pause when they concider Church/State politics in Medieval Europe. Just who was controling whom?)

This explains the Liberal hostility towards Traditional Christianity and the more Orthodox Jewish Denominations. How can you manipulate someone who sees a higher authority than yourself in control? This is the Divine Command Theory of Morality in operation on a secular level.  According to Divine Command Theory, things are morally good or bad, or morally obligatory, permissible, or prohibited, solely because of God’s will or commands. If you obey God's commands you can receive rewards, but disobey God's command, you face unavoidable punishment. Only when a secular force becomes the final authority on moral issues can it force compliance. It must BE God in order to have control on society.

Just as a Christian takes God’s will to be the foundation of ethics, the Liberals take their own authority to be the foundation of ethics. Their solution to Euthyphro's Dilemma is to shoot Euthyphro, and declare it right and dare anyone to say they're wrong.

Brian at Hot Air gives more details about Madonna's adoption of an African boy.

It seems that the boy's father, a devout Christian, was lied to by the adoption officials overseeing the transaction. He was told that Madonna and her husband were Christians themselves.

Snort...

If it were not for the fact that a little boy is going to be taken away from his father, who only placed him in the orphanage because his wife died and he needed a safe place for the boy to live while he worked away from home, my response to Madonna being called a Christian would be full fledged guffaws, followed by rolling on the floor, the clutching of sides due to cramps, gasping for air, and tears covering my laughter-distorted face.

But it IS about a little boy being taken away from his father, a father who so loved his son he would give him away for a REAL chance to live a better life. No story I've seen on this says the father stands to get any money from the transaction. He simply wants his son to live a life better than his own.

However, the hospital where the boy lives got 3 million dollars, and the government of Malawi has been promised another million for a documentary film on the orphans of the country. No mention is made of how much in other bribes was paid to get Malawi to amend their laws against foreigners adopting their children.

But the deal is not without strings - you guessed it - Madonna had her celebrity "requirements" before she would agree to this gig. According to the Hot Air article, Madonna  "reportedly forced the school to start teaching kabbala, Madonna’s fashionable mystical hocus-pocus religion, for which she abandoned a very, very lapsed Catholic faith." (No word on whether the kids got Evian water in their hovels.)

Even the way she chose the boy reeks to high heaven. Madonna reportedly asked for e-mail pictures of a dozen kids and chose the boy because he was "beautiful". One has to wonder just what's going on EBAY these days...

You buy "Greatest Hits" albums this way; you buy Franklin Mint figurines this way; you buy cheese sandwiches with religious icons' faces on them this way - YOU DON'T BUY CHILDREN THIS WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm a father of three, so this hits me hard. I'm not a wealthy man by any stretch of the imagination. But I'm really tempted to offer to adopt the boy myself, just to keep him out of the hands of ... that woman.

Mary Katherine Ham is lamenting Georgia's loss to Vanderbilt:
 
http://rss.townhall.com/trackback/www/de72e9d0-d5e0-41c4-8490-fe6d6391f9d6/

(It takes a Southern Girl to understand just how important football is...)

But it reminds me of my favorite Lewis Grizzard joke (its kinda risque, but here it goes):

It was a beautiful fall day between the hedges at Sanford Stadium. Georgia was playing Auburn for the SEC title with 83,000 screaming fans cheering them on.

Georgia came running onto the field lead by their beautiful white English Bulldog mascot UGA. UGA came out to the 50 yard line of the stadium, and there in front of 83,000 people and a national television audience... he began to lick himself where dogs often lick themselves. I don't have to be any more graphic than that...

Two good ol' boys from South Georgia, Bubba and Earl, are sitting up in the stands, and they see UGA doing what comes naturally to dogs.

Bubba looks over at Earl and says "Would you looka that! Dadgumit, I wish I could do that."

Earl looks over at Bubba with a real puzzled look, and says "Bubba, that dawg'd bite you!"




I'm going to get banned. I know it...

Over on columnist Vox Day's blog, he continues with his "why its inevitable that the Axis-of-Evil will get the bomb" arguement with the blog post: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/10/mailvox-no-nukes-revisited.html

        Yes, because when faced with a choice between doing the 
        historically impossible - preventing foreign technological 
        advancement - and the historically difficult but doable - 
        protecting a national border - obviously it makes sense 
        to direct one's resources  towards performing the 
        impossible. ES' attempted criticism here merely highlights 
        the complete logical disconnect between the Bush 
        administration's rhetoric and its actions.

        Seriously, how can you possibly argue that the USA must 
        attack both North Korea and Iran in order to prevent them 
        from sneaking nuclear weapons across our unguarded 
        borders? And even if one was so gifted with the tongues 
        of men and angels that one could make that case 
        successfully, how could one possibly argue 
        for attacking Iran first?

To which Josh makes the reply: 

        Given the absurdly low yield of the North Korean nukes 
        (the test nuke was 5-15K), we would likely lose more 
        Americans in a conventional war with North Korea than 
        if they nuked us. Of course, I'm using rational thought 
        and logic, which are foreign to the neo-cons and their 
        religious right bent-over submissives.
        Josh | Homepage | 10.16.06 - 6:43 am | # 

Let this Religious Right non-bent-over, non-submissive try REAL rational thought and logic...

Why the small yield explosion? - Suitcase bomb.

Which as we all know can be easily shared with Muslim terrorists - who are already sneaking in over our borders.

We've already had Iranian President Ahmadinejad ask Bush to convert - per Muslim theological requirements before destroying an enemy.

And we've had two calls by different Muslim clerics that "the 'judgement' of Allah will come before Ramadan was finished, so Muslims had better leave the U.S. - NOW!"


Conclusion (by this evangelical Christian) - we will be attacked very soon (maybe in as little as a month) and it will be nuclear. North Korea's test was to re-assure the Iranians that the bombs would work.

Read my post "The Art of Wars and Rumors of Wars". This is not Pakistan or India, which has dyadic lower classes and a Western-oriented ruling class. North Korea and Iran are dyadic top to bottom. Dyadic social norms tell us they get the bomb, they use the bomb. 

As repugnant as this sounds, if we do not attack now, we lose.

This is a test post for technorati

<a href="http://www.technorati.com/claim/azmc7nn7t" rel="me">Technorati Profile</a>

Mad at Mel? Nawwww... There are other people to get mad at. 

After reading stories and transcripts of Mel Gibson's interview with Diane Sawyer, it is clear Mel Gibson was raised in an anti-Semitic household.

But its just as plainly clear that he realized after his religious awakening that his father was wrong. He did everything in his conscious power not to allow his father's influence to the surface once he realized his father's error. Gibson, the son of an anti-Semitic father, took the admonitions of Romans 7:15-8:17 to heart.

He ''crucified the flesh'' by inhibiting what would almost certainly be an unconscience reaction. This is evidenced by the fact that prior to filming The Passion of the Christ NO ONE thought of Mel Gibson as being anti-Semitic. In fact, prior to The Passion the thinking was how dissimular Gibson and his father's views were.

What happens when a person gets drunk? Particularly, what does a drunk lose first and foremost?

His inhibitions.

Inhibitions are those things that often keep us from engaging in harmful behavior inspite of our ''secret'' desires or curiosities. Remove those inhibitions and trouble ensues. This is the reason a girl who, while sober, would never dream of giving her phone number to a man she just met, might find herself the willing center of attention of a man or group of men up to no good when she gets drunk or stoned. Remove the inhibitions and she does something she knows she shouldn't do, and feels shame and remorse for doing it once its over.

Likewise for Mel Gibson; the careful and sober Mel knows when the bad influences of his father would become his own reaction, and is able to fight against it because he knows its wrong. Remove his inhibitions, and the influence of his father, which he fights so admirably otherwise, comes out in full force.

Gibson fell off the wagon straight to the ground. But instead of helping a man when he's down, the ADL kicks him, and urges others to kick him as well.

AFTER making The Passion secularist Jews were angry with Gibson. They reacted to this film based on historical precedent - after all, the Passion Plays of the Middle Ages did incite anti-Semitic violence. They believed that Gibson's film would incite violence against Jews. But when none of this violence materialized there was no apology to Gibson for being wrong.* If anything, their attitudes towards Gibson, Roman Catholicism and evangelical Christians got worse.

(*Unlike Gibson, whose apology didn't try to excuse his behavior, but said that being drunk was no excuse for saying something hurtful he didn't really believe.)

After Gibson issued one of the most sincere public apologies ever issued in Hollywood, the Anti-Defamation League, in a sterling imitation of a schoolyard bully who has stolen some kid's lunch money, not only made its victim grovel to get his dollar back, but after the grovelling was through said they were going to keep the money anyway. These self same people who give Oscars to each other for decrying the blacklisting of the 1950's, openly advocated the blacklisting of Gibson from studio projects. (But then, I've always felt the Left was so afraid of another Tailgunner Joe McCarthy coming to power they were willing to engage in McCarthyism to prevent it.)

The ADL isn't drunk. What's the excuse for their behavior?

I'll tell you; they do not share the values of their more religious brethren.

They are Jews by ethnicity only, trotting out their Jewishness only when they can use it for political purposes, and their true religion is Left wing politics. And if you think that this criticism makes me, a Gentile Christian, anti-Semitic, then remember that makes Dennis Prager an anti-Semite as well.

Dennis Prager, a Jewish columnist on WorldNetDaily.com, has written extensively on the subject of secularism and Left of center politics among Jews, and how it has produced the strange bedfellows of Jewish men and women working for social justice allied with followers of secularism - a belief system which is the antithesis of all that G_d, Torah, and Israel stand for.

And I need no more proof that Prager is right than the fact that the same day Gibson's drunken tirade occured a Muslim man walked into a Seattle, Washington Jewish Community Center and opened fire, killing one woman and injuring five more. Which event do you think has garnered more attention on the part of the Anti-Defamation League?

A woman DIED in Seattle, yet the ADL yelled louder over a drunken rant than over the loss of life at the hands of a REAL anti-Semite!

If there were no other news items of simular note that day, or even that week then the behavior of Foxman and the Secu-Jews could be ignored as just more foolishness and hypocracy in Hollyweird. But the fact that Abraham Foxman thinks Mel Gibson making a you know what out of himself is more of a threat to American Jews than a woman dying by the hands of a man who hated her for being one of the Chosen People that same day is beyond outrageous; its obsene!

My question for Jewish persons in the audience is, with the questionable judgement of Abe Foxman's administration of the Anti-Defamation League on public display, and his inablility to determine who the real threats to Jewish life, liberty and property are, why in the Sam Hill hasn't he been fired as head of the ADL?

Mel Gibson probably has not generated ''anti-Semitic'' resentment in others in his whole lifetime. On the other hand, Abe Foxman of the ADL creates anti-Semites every time people hear him on TV. He's the Jewish equivalent of Jim Bakker, with a healthy measure of Fred Phelps thrown into the mix.

And I'm not alone in my opinion that Foxman as well as the current makeup of the ADL are bigots: Rabbi Daniel Lapin, another columnist for WorldNetDaily and President of Toward Tradition said as much in his most recent article (although prompted by a different news item):

This is how the ADL blasted the documentary (reportedly, before seeing it): ''This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust.'' ADL National Director Abe Foxman warns, ''It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of Christian supremacists who seek to reclaim America for Christ and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law.''

Serious people are asking these three questions:

1. Why is a movie that shows how Darwinian thought helped shape Hitler's murderous mind dangerous to Jews?

2. Why is it necessary to insult so harshly one of America's most prominent Christian leaders? Or to put it more bluntly, how exactly does it help Jews when the ADL humiliates an evangelical leader whom as many as 40 million Americans revere? Especially since Christian conservatives are virtually alone in acting benevolently toward Jews and standing with Jews in support of Israel.

3. Finally, had some Protestant pastor said in 2000, ''Vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman is a leader among a distinct group of Jewish supremacists who seek to eradicate Christianity from America and turn the U.S. into a secular society based upon their strange notions of Jewish socialism,'' would Mr. Foxman not have decried it as anti-Semitic? Intellectual honesty, if not a sense of decency, surely compels us to acknowledge that if anti-Semitism is an evil, so is anti-Christianism – bigotry is, after all, bigotry.

I am neither a member of the ADL nor Jewish, so all I can do as an outside observer to both is offer my perspective. But if you DO AGREE with me that Foxman and the ADL has become more about advancing left wing politics than the protection of Jewish interests and social justice and has become counterproductive, don't just agree, DO SOMETHING!

<hr>

Read here for the ADL's reaction to Gibson's interview. Sickening in the way they want him to continue grovelling.

 MAKE YOUR PASTOR/PRIEST READ THIS! 

My friend J.P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics ministries writes a stinging indictment of the sorry state of discipleship in the Church today, which I think is spot on straight.

Far too many Believers are getting caught flatfooted these days by a concerted effort by our popular culture to eradicate Christianity. From Gnostic texts being trumpeted as ''Alternate Christianities'' to college campus hostility towards Christians, to the efforts of writer Marshall Brain to get Walmart to stop selling the Bible, the Church is falling down on the job of preparing Believers of all ages to defend what they believe, and secularism is rising in power as both a religious and political force as a result.

What Protestants and Catholics alike should do is give time to detailed study of why the Bible is a trustworthy text. We should not be afraid to tell the congregation about textual criticsm or ancient social mores and how they are relevant to understanding what the Bible is trying to tell us today.

But instead we get ''40 Days of Purpose'' in literally EVERY Church in the country.

Rick Warren's book is not without some merit - for baby Christians. Its an introductory, and for persons who are ready to graduate beyond milk to solid food have... almost nothing!

Like J.P., I suspect our clergy doesn't know this stuff themselves since most Pastoral training consists of learning financial stewardship, sermon writing and counciling - all worthwhile things to know, but where is the training to know what to say when your college age kid comes home on summer break with The Christ Conspiracy, The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read and The Gnostic Gospels on his school's required reading list?

Show J.P.'s article to your Pastor or Priest.

 Confronted with the choice, the American people would choose the policeman's truncheon over the anarchist's bomb.
--Spiro T. Agnew

Yesterday, I posted an open letter to radio talk show host Neal Boortz (based on an eariler article from my online column for the Florida Times-Union newspaper), taking him to task over his stance toward The DaVinci Code and Christians in politics. Since publication of the original article back in June, I've waged a one man war on Boortz over this issue. And I had exactly the response I expected - I've been completely ignored.

This is probably due to the fact that I'm too low on the punditry food chain to be taken seriously, although I like to think its because my points are irrefutable that he's avoiding me.

It certainly can't be because he's doesn't know I'm out there; I spent two solid weeks in late May emailing Boortz's show daily, posting to his Yahoo newsgroup, and trying to call in to the show - all I got was busy signals, almost as if he knew I was calling him...

Which sounds crazy. Boortz isn't part of some conspiracy to silence people. But often the truth gets hidden in conventional wisdom, especially when valid points relevant to the arguement are left unaired and unexamined. And the problem with conspiracies is that when you discover one and warn others about it, you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

This brings us to the questions I asked at the end of the first letter: Who was Antonio Gramsci? How was he influencial on the ''Frankfurt School''? And what has the ''Frankfurt School'' been doing to our kids for the last 50 years?

I am about to give a synopsis of the most dangerous threat the Western World has ever faced - worse than Osama bin Laden by a longshot. It's a conspiracy to change the hearts and minds of those living in freedom so that they will not just embrace slavery and bondage to the State, but they will riverdance joyfully right into the gulag. Europe has already succumbed to it.

Antonio Gramsci (pronounced ''GRAM-ski''), was one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party, and he died a prisoner of Mussolini's prison system on April 27, 1937. While imprisoned he kept a diary of his political musings and historical studies and insites. These Prison Diaries give a full picture of Gramsci's ideas on Marxism, which were quite different than those of the Soviets, who provided money and logistics to the Italian Party in its early years.

The Soviet model for the spread of Communism was the export of revolution. Soviet agencies would find and support communists in a country who engaged in protest at government policies and actions. Meanwhile Soviet spies worked at subverting the government's response to political and social need, as well as Party activities, both legitimate and illegitimate. The theory goes that the combination of fomenting popular dissent coupled with subverting the normal function of government would cause the populace to rise in revolt, and in the ensuing chaos the Communists would take power, ruthlessly sweep aside all competitors, and a new ''prolateriat of the people'' would be born.

Gramsci's insight, indeed his genius, came from comparing Italian history to Russian history. He determined that despite the efforts of the Czar to modernize Russia in the pre-revolutionary period, Russia was not a Western nation. Italy was, and Gramsci thought that Western traditions and values were simply too strongly engrained in the Italian people, and the people of other Western nations, to be overcome by armed revolution.

Gramsci advocated a long-term approach instead. He thought the only way to conquer the West was to destroy the West's political and religious values through moral subversion and reinterpret Western history in such a way that makes it look evil and corrupt. Gramsci knew this was a long term goal, since those people of his own generation were exposed to Western values and would be unwilling to give them up. Gramsci knew though that future generations could be influenced IF there was a way of exposing them to the proper propaganda. Gramsci, in a shrewd mix of Machiavelli, Marx and Proverbs 22:6, advocated attacking the children through the schools in order to - Pied Piper-like - lead them into communism.

Gramsci had many followers both in Italy and Germany, although he was generally derided in Soviet influenced circles. Among those followers were a group of German education theorists known as the ''Frankfurt School''.

Headed by Max Horkheimer, the group included Theodor Adorno, Alfred Schmidt, Jurgen Habermas, Erich Fromm, and Wilhelm Reich - all names that should be familiar to any Political Science, Education, Psychology or Philosophy majors and degree holders. The philosophic outlook of the School was Gramscian, although Max Weber, Sigmund Freud, Immanuel Kant, and Friedrich Hegel were also influential. The members of the Frankfurt School saw it as their duty to comment on social conditions which Marx may not have been aware of and attempt to influence public policy along Marxist lines to change those social conditions.

This was due to the belief that even the individual and the family unit were repressive structures imposed by capitalism and Christianity. By liberating the individual from social controling factors of their culture, people would be free to follow the logical and rational choice of communism. Universal values (like equality before the law), and even the concept of ''truth'' itself - which are central to Western civilization and are the contribution of Judaism and Christianity to Western political thought - were deemed to be simply a means of oppressing the individual from accepting communism.

In 1933, the members of the Frankfurt School fled Germany once Hitler took power. The majority of the members of the movement came to the United States where they were allowed to teach in American universities. They were very influential in Political Science and Education departments, where their social criticisms were deemed a new way of looking at social structure, called ''deconstructionism''.

Essentially, they began rewriting history in such a way that makes Western Culture look guilty of crimes against all other cultures it has come into contact with. The reason the West committed these crimes was due to trying to spread the poison of Christianity to other cultures so they could be subdued and exploited.

Christianity was guilty of crimes against humanity - it encouraged slavery, attempted to impose itself on Islam by force through the Crusades, murdered millions in the Spanish Inquisition, tried to silence Galileo from pushing forward the boundaries of rationalism and science, destroyed the cultures of North and Central America in a search for filthy lucre, attempted to do the same to the Far East and Africa through colonialization, and was responsible for the murder of 8 million Jews in the Holocaust. Christianity was genocidal, repressive of sexual expression, the justification for capitalistic exploitation, and placed restraints on the individual, the family and society in order to keep the oppresive class structure going.

Over the years they influenced generations of students, using tenure to launch attacks on both American and European Culture and those in academia who opposed their views. The 1960's counterculture and peace movements, long recognized by both political sides as being a leftist phenominon, was a direct result of this Gramsciist indoctrination - ''You can't trust the social institutions or the government because they are run by the Man and should be torn down.''

By starting in the Education, Poli Sci, and Philosophy departments, the Gramsciists gained control over the Teachers, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers (since according to the University of North Florida Philosophy Department's own brosure, Philosophy majors are the most successful majors in Law School, and do the best in courtroom settings according to statistics). The most important of these was the teachers.

Those of you who are old enough to have had your children in the 1960's probably remember the news stories about ''The New Math''. Certainly you remember the first efforts at Sex Education. Probably fewer of you remember the controversy over teaching phonics, or ''values education''. Only those ostriches with their heads in the sand can fail to notice the more modern educational talk about ''tolerance'', ''diversity'', ''multiculturalism'', ''critical thinking'' and ''political correctness''.

All of this - ALL of this - is part of the Gramsciist theory of taking over a culture. Stop teaching the rugrats the skills needed to function successfully in society, such as reading, writing and arithmatics, and start teaching them to not be judgemental and the proper way to put a condom on (since they are going to have sex anyway because they shouldn't follow mom and dad's judgemental attitude towards premarital sex among minors. ''How dare they impose their hypocritical, Christian, outdated morals on me! Oh, my aching self-esteem!'')

Why can't Johnny read? Because we stopped teaching him how to read and started teaching him to be critical of traditional values and uncritical of non-traditional values. But don't worry, some one who can read will read Heather Has Two Mommies to him. Right after the filmstrip of George W. Bush's war crimes. We already see the effect of Gramsciism all around us - the anti-War movement, the Gay marriage movement, the Environmental movement, the phenominon of The DaVinci Code. All began with a change in what was being taught in school.

By understanding Gramsciism's hold on modern society can we hope to understand why groups always on the fringe of society are able to gain consessions under the law. And with control of the schools, the mindset that allows this to happen is engrained at an early age. Train up a child in the way he should go...

This is a leaderless conspiracy. There is no smoke filled room running the ''great conspiracy'' because Gramsci knew all that was needed was a seed being planted. Gramsci spoke of cultural ''hegemony'', which simply means that those in power set the philosophy by which those not in power live by. All that was needed was to control one part of the culture - the one where the young learned how to function within the culture - by which they would be taught the ''truth'' about their culture and the ''common sense'' of Marxism. And when the children reached the age where they took control of society they would act in a way that moved society towards that ''common sense''. ''Thinking globally and acting locally.''

In this way, ''leaders'' and ''organizer'' would arise from within the ranks of bourgeois society; in short a ''new intellectual'' would arise who saw his purpose as organizing the people rather than the ruling class. As Gramsci himself stated, ''The mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist in eloquence, but in active participation in practical life, as constructor, organizer, 'permanent persuader' and not just a simple orator.''

And what is ''truth'', according to a Gramsciist?

Let's look at one example: the Spanish Inquisition.

Ask one hundred people what happened in the Spanish Inquisition and they will tell you millions of Jews and innocent peasants were tortured and murdered by the Catholic Church trying to convert them.

Nothing could be further from the ''truth''. First off, the total number of dead in the ENTIRE Inquisition was less than 2000 people, and the Inquisition lasted over 350 years. 85 percent of the people who died did so within the first 50 years. Although one death is one too many, it was hardly the bloodbath it is portrayed as.

Secondly, the Spanish Inquisition wasn't about religion, but secular authority. Ferdinand and Isabella had a revolution on their hands thanks to Muslim and Jewish malcontents who wanted the recently vanquished Moors back in charge of Andolusia (Spain). After the murder of a lower Spanish nobleman related to the King, the Inquisitors were brought in under the King's control, and they used conversion as the benchmark of loyalty to the King.

And lastly, the average punishment for those turned in for heresey was a few days in a special jail (which was MUCH better than the secular jails), a few ''Hail Marys'', and you were out (so you could retaliate and turn in the scumbag who accused you, as well as the bum who refused to loan you a mule so you could finish your plowing). Torture only occured to those who were either too honest or too stupid to cop a plea.

The way an event such as the Spanish Inquisition is presented in schools, as a bloodbath started by Christians, is now the way the culture at large sees it. Its this lying reinterpretation of the events that is passed off as the ''truth'' and ''common sense'' says you don't follow the religion that would do something like the Spanish Inquisition. And it isn't just Christianity under attack - remember that when you ask your boss if your business is closing for Columbus Day.

Consequently, its no wonder people mistrust the pillars of our civilization. And that is what Gramsci knew would happen, and what the Frankfurt School helped bring about. And those who see what's happening, either in whole or in part, are ''extremists'' wanting to ''force their morality on others.''

Either that, or they would be ignored as conspiracy theorists.

---

The following links and book titles are intended to provide a starting point for further investigation into the phenominon of Gramsciism. It is by no means comprehensive, and I encourage readers to go far beyond the resources listed below:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50013

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4c610569be.htm

http://www.victoryiscertain.com/gramsci/

http://www.policyreview.org/dec00/Fonte.html

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.593/review-1.593

http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/07-05-99/vo15no14_total.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36326

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_school

http://www.ldb.org/gramsci.htm

Here is a series of books by Dr. Rodney Stark, a sociologist at Baylor University who specializes in religion. His books counter the conventional wisdom on the ''History'' of Christianity in the Western World.

http://www.tektonics.org/books/starkrvw02.html

http://www.tektonics.org/books/starkriservw.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400062284/qid=1150308301/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-5302123-0635069?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813518385/qid=1150308379/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/103-5302123-0635069?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415915295/qid=1150308439/sr=1-30/ref=sr_1_30/103-5302123-0635069?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

This article from the Sydney Australia Morning Herald just can't go unnoticed:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/adult-world-must-let-girls-be-girls/2006/10/09/1160246068431.html

We live in a overly sexual world. It's hard to raise children who live in a virtuous, devoutly Christian (or Jewish, for that matter) way.

I have two daughters - age 19 and 11 -  and a son - age 8. Let me tell you the same thing I told Pablo over on Attitude Central (see my link section) about my oldest daughter Sierra's first date (you tell me if what I did didn't make my life easier, hmm...):


I'll let you in on how I handled it. True Story.

I told the boy who wanted to take her out for the first time that no one dated Sierra until I got a chance to meet them, so we arrainged for the boy to come to Church. The plan was for them to take in a movie afterwards.

After Church was over I took the boy off to the side in the parking lot for a talk. My Pastor heard every word.

"Son, I only have three rules for dating my daughter.

Rule one, you are the designated driver. She knows not to drink, but around her, you don't drink either.

Second rule is, you aren't Vin Diezel. You aren't Bruce Willis. You aren't Dale Earhardt. You don't put her into danger.

And the last rule is, I don't care if she's laying in front of you buck naked with a big neon sign saying 'Come and get it Big Boy'"

At this point I leaned forward just a bit.

"You don't."

Not only did it get all over Sierra's school that I was the scariest SOB around ( I'm just under 6 ft and weigh 280 lbs. I'm 30 lbs overweight but still make most NFL linebackers look small.), my Pastor read me the riot act for scaring the boy so bad.

 Dear Neal,

Normally on the days I don’t have classes I listen to your show at work. I enjoy the show, and I agree with much of what you say on politics and law.

Well, actually I agree with a LOT of what you say on politics and the law. And your take on taxes is spot on right.

However, when you talk about anything dealing with religion – whether it’s Intelligent Design or Christian involvement in politics – I generally switch you off. It's just too frustrating, Neal. This is because… Well, there is no nice way to say this, so I’ll just spill it… When it comes to religious issues, you are, well… clueless.

And I don’t mean clueless in the sense of being ignorant of the issues or coming up with an opinion at odds with the facts. I mean a “Whoops,-I-not-only-don't-have-both-oars-in-the-water,-I-don’t-have-the-boat!” kind of clueless.

Last week, I forgot what day it was, you started up again on "The DaVinci Code". You discussed a hodgepodge of different issues related to “The DaVinci Code” such as why Christians are up in arms about this work of fiction, and that the call to sue is symptomatic of the kind of thinking among those in the U.S. who want to set up a theocracy here.

Neal, Neal, Neal … Where to begin? I can start one place and when I finish with one example I can jump to a hundred others you’ve brought up and still miss details that show the flaws in your thinking, so I'm just going to pick a place and run with it.

Why is this an issue for Christians? Because of the splash page and a fact of human nature that you yourself already deal with on a daily basis. On the splash page of TDVC it says the following:

FACT:

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents,

and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

Dan Brown claims that his book is fiction rooted in facts. Now we could spend hours, literally, discussing the factual errors in TDVC, but that had already been done by scholars and apologists far more knowledgeable than I.

But how many people KNOW there are factual errors in TDVC? How many are going to check those “facts”? After all, Neal, you tell people not to believe anything you tell them unless it agrees with what they already know or they check the facts. Why do you do that, unless you know that most people take what they hear or read as authoritative without checking it out first?

You may be on the verge of affecting the way our government taxes its citizens for decades, as evidenced by the soon to be Fair Tax Rally (good luck with that, BTW.) You know, as a talk show host and author, the power to influence that you wield. And as was pointed out recently here, so did Harriet Beecher Stowe when she wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  That book lead this nation into a Civil War. Agendas can be forwarded by works of fiction as easily as works of fact, especially when emotional appeals are made forcefully.

Dan Brown knows that he has that same power.

But what agenda could Dan Brown have, other than making a nickel, right Neal? Well … On June 9, 2003, Brown appeared on the Today Show and agreed with Matt Lauer that his purpose in writing TDVC was to “challenge certain long-held beliefs or truths about religion.'' Dan Brown could not have possibly been ignorant of the credibility problems in his research sources. Brown had to know these “facts” weren’t facts, which makes him a liar. A liar with an agenda to push and a movement to start, and as David Klinghoffer at National Review Online points out, that makes The DaVinci Code nothing short of another “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.“

I know you’re a good libertarian, Neal, but I suspect even you might be tempted to sue, like that Nigerian Bishop asked everyone to do back in May, to stop that book from being used to recruit more terrorists in the Middle East.

Brown isn’t alone in this, Neal. As a previous column I wrote for Jacksonville.com illustrates, there is a concerted effort under way to undermine the historical support for the Christian faith as a means of removing it from society altogether. Brian Flemming’s DVD “The God Who Wasn’t There” is the latest attempt to push fraudulent data as fact in order to destroy the religious faith of millions of people and influence the cultural and political shape of the nation as a result.

For that matter, so is the incessant call by the mainstream media that Evangelicals represent a threat to freedom. I’ve quoted Christian philosopher/apologist Greg Koukl on this subject before, but, hey, I cannot improve onperfection:

''(T)he charge that Christians are trying to force their views on others is simply unfair. They're trying to make their case in the public square and then are willing to put it to a vote. No force, no imposition, just advocacy for a point of view and voting. Everybody has an equal shot. That's fair, that's reasonable. What isn't fair or reasonable is when any group has to fight just to be heard or are condemned or ridiculed not for their point of view but for giving their point of view, regardless of how unpopular it may be, or how stridently it may be argued. Christians just want to be players in the discussion. Why do others want to censor that contribution?

That's why I get frustrated when any candidate listens to the Christian segment who asks valid questions that relate to their point of view and their particular interests and then he starts screaming that they're an extremist group trying to impose its views.''

Granted there are the real nuts like Fred Phelps, but no Christian I know claims him to be part of the club. (I’m no saint; in fact, many people feel I have some… real issues, but God and I have a deal. Unless “Brother” Phelps repents for the hatred he spouts, just before I enter Heaven I get to put my foot upside his bohunkas for making my job harder.) Not that the media will tell you this. Easier to tar the entire Christian community I suppose by lumping Phelps with people who don’t claim him.

So I have to ask who are these people wanting to establish a theocracy? I don’t see them, Neal? Are they the Dover, PA school board, who ran on a clearly stated platform and announced their intentions before they ran for office? How in Heaven’s name is this establishing a theocracy? They told anyone who would listen who they were and what they thought was best for the district and said “If you like what we say, vote for us; if you don’t, vote for someone else. “

Guess what Neal - that’s what every other politician running for office does! So why is it that only religious people have to separate their self-identity when they enter the political world? Why aren’t you asking that gay politicians separate their homosexuality from their political beliefs? Not even Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum, a homosexual rights activist, thinks this is right, and she thinks that is EXACTLY what others in the gay rights movement are trying to force religious people to do :

''It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity, and indeed disrespect to tell someone it is okay to 'be' gay, but not necessarily okay to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means?'' she writes in her Becket paper. ''I have the same reaction to courts and legislatures that blithely assume a religious person can easily disengage her religious belief and self-identity from her religious practice and religious behavior. What do they think being religious means?''

This is not a “Church/State” issue, Neal, it’s an issue of marginalizing people of a given viewpoint. It’s an issue of silencing a political enemy by making their views illegitimate to hold. “If you have religious sentiments then it's a violation of the First Amendment to let those religious concerns inform your decisions when you go to the polling booth.” Funny, that is not what I get out of the First Amendment. The First Amendment insures all non-violent expression of thought by limiting the government's restriction of speech and expression of religious thinking and belief. It doesn't say that Christian individuals can't have their beliefs influence their politics. If anything, it says that the government can't stop them from doing that.

Quite frankly, Neal, this is one step from the gulag. “Everyone has the right to hold their own views, but since how you arrived at your views isn’t the approved method - as evidenced by the fact you don’t agree with us – it’s off to the mental ward for your lobotomy and medications.”

You and I both know that the mainstream media often distort what conservatives say, so if you are relying on them as an accurate picture of the political desires of Evangelical Christians, I have to ask… “Why?”

Let’s go back to Dover for a second. Was that an accurate picture of the Intelligent Design movement? Is it stealth “Creationism”? The media certainly portrayed it as such.

ID was the direction science was already headed in prior to the publication of “The Origin of Species”, and the current debate is nothing more than an 19th century academic political argument that never got played out in the 19th century as it should have. William Paley published several books on the subject of design in biological systems, and other scientists of that day advocated the idea as well.

Remember though that at this time scientists were not specialists in one given field as they are today. A ''gentleman'' of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries was expected to be knowledgeable in several different disciplines - Darwin was interested in Chemistry, Philosophy and Literature in addition to biology. Isaac Newton wrote more about Biblical hermeneutics than about physics. And do we have to go over Benjamin Franklin's resume?

This lead to the ''cross-pollenization'' of one discipline with ideas found in another discipline, and not just cross-pollenization with other scientific ideas, but political and social ideas as well. Does “Social Darwinism” ring a bell, Neal? This entire period was one in which every social organization was subject to scrutiny and skepticism, including religion (which wasn’t always a bad thing). The problem, then as is now, are those who have an agenda who were unscrupulous in promoting it. Ever hear of the Theosophist movement? – “The system of beliefs and teachings of the Theosophical Society, founded in New York City in 1875, incorporating aspects of Buddhism and Brahmanism, especially the belief in reincarnation and spiritual evolution.” ( Emphasis mine.)

This is the primary problem with current evolutionary theory - cross pollenization with dialectical materialism, which occurred in the late 18th century when some of Darwin's proponents fused his theory with prevalent political and metaphysical philosophies of the day. This fusion has resulted in the development of a philosophical/theological view on metaphysical matters called secular humanism (which has already been recognized as such by the Supreme Court of the United States), and it was been married to Darwinian theory since near the beginning. If secular humanism can be wrested from Darwinism, then neither secularism nor Creationism nor the philosophical portions of ID should be taught in the science classrooms (though all would be appropriate in a history or philosophy class). But if secularism isn't removed from Darwinian theory, since it is recognized legally as a worldview and touches on matters not immediately relevant to science except by inference, NOT teaching Creationism, ID, Hindu cosmology and the Muslim scientific philosophies of Averroes, Alfarabi, Algazali and Avicenna constitutes viewpoint discrimination and is a violation of civil rights.

Right now I can smell the smoke burning in your ears, my friend. “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN!!!”

Not exactly. MICROevolution has been proven; MACROevolution has not. Microevolution, an example of which would be a virus becoming resistant to antibiotics, has long been accepted. It’s a survival mechanism, but it doesn’t change the virus to a bacterium, nor change the virus into another species of virus.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, has no evidence supporting it whatsoever. And that’s not me saying that, but Richard Dawkins in the first chapter of his book “The Blind Watchmaker”. See Neal, to prove Macroevolution, Darwin knew that the fossil record would have to produce examples of transitional species, or “missing links”. The term “transitional species” is one of the least understood, and deliberately mischaracterized by scientists, concepts in all of science. Many people think animals like Archaeopteryx are transitional species, a bridge between dinosaurs and birds.

Sorry, but no dice. Archaeopteryx is a fully formed species of bird (scientists dropped the idea of Archaeopteryx being a missing link 20 years ago in peer reviewed literature, even though popular literature still calls it such). None of the species that are touted in the newspapers are transitional species, but are fully formed species. We know this because they don’t look like Thalidomide babies, which is what a transitional species would look like.

As the arm on a dinosaur like Compsognathus (the tiny dinosaur that ate the little girl in Jurassic Park 2 ) began to form into a wing it would have to pass through a stage where the arm would have been a hindrance to its survival, because it couldn’t be used to grab food or defend itself, but still wasn’t a wing – even a non functional one. It would be a walking birth defect, making it a chicken mcnugget for another dinosaur, and if Macroevolution were true there should be MILLIONS of these fossils.

There isn’t one anywhere on this planet. Dawkins admitted it, and so did Gould.

And this ISN’T open for debate, Neal.

Isn’t the least bit suspicious to you that those who suggest an alternative to Darwinist orthodoxy are tarred and feathered as dangerous religious kooks trying to set up a theocracy? Then Dan Brown and Brian Flemming comes along to say the religion the kooks follow is false and based on lies. And Howard Dean screeches about how the kooks are running the opposition political party and that they are bigoted and should be punished by law for uttering their “hatred”?

I could tie all of this together right now, but I’ll wait until the next column.  I want to detail how this all ties together, partly because I want to change your mind about the people you’re labeling as theocrats, and partly because to show you the error in your thinking (and not come off as merely a conspiracy theorist) I need to meticulously detail the argument so the evidence can be verified. But just to whet your appetite, I’m going to pull a page out of your book. Just as you have a daily reading assignment on your website, I’m giving you and your staff some homework.

Who is Antonio Gramsci, how was he influential on the Frankfort School, and what has the Frankfort School been doing to our kids every day for the last 50 years.

And here is a hint Neal: It all deals with your hatred of Government run schools.

Until then, I'll see you on the radio