A Skeptic's Prayer

I was inspired to read the story of Rhonda Chervin by another story at National Review entitled When Women Pray. the book, When Women Pray is a compilation of many women's stories of the power of prayer in their lives. Rhonda Chervin's story is one of them, and she describes a stage along the journey to conversion where she prayed the skeptics prayer "God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul."  It is a surprisingly powerful prayer, for once someone can admit to the possibility that there might be a God, and that we as people might have souls, that is enough to set in motion the great healing power of God's saving Grace through Jesus Christ.

I have been a skeptic myself, having been indoctrinated in the sciences as part of my engineering training.  Of course, back then I was too busy learning this stuff to ask too many hard questions.  But, in the last 20 years or so, I have begun asking the really BIG questions.  Science can tell us how we came to be here, but not why.  Science can not tell us the meaning of life.  Mathematics tells us that the probability of life forming on any planet spontaneously is so astronomically small as to make it virtually impossible.  Like the infinite monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriter, the fact that they will eventually type the sonnets of Shakespeare does not mean that one should expect if within 5 billion years, or for that matter, within 15 billion.  Thus, belief in a Divine origin is not illogical.  Science can trace the beginning of our universe back to within nanoseconds of the big bang, but can not say what or who initiated the big bang, or why.

I came to the conclusion that there was indeed a God, that the Bible was not myth but in fact very real, and I began attending church in my childhood faith.  But, I didn't have faith.  What I had was belief built out of reasoned conclusions.  I didn't pray, because after all, even if there was a God, did he really listen to prayers?  My mother became a member of the St. Luke Society, and met weekly to pray for hundreds of people she didn't know.  I could not believe that these prayers did a thing for anyone except perhaps for the person doing the praying.

However, having come to the conclusion that there is indeed a God, the creator of all there is, and having come to believe the Bible, I could reason that things like abortion would be wrong in this God's eyes.  It would be murder, and murder most foul at that.  Indeed, reason took me far, but not far enough.  From whence had come the absolute faith that that led Saint Paul, for instance, to keep shouting to the world that fact of Jesus saving Grace, and accept execution with such equanimity.  This was true power, and I did not have it.

Without boring you, gentle reader, with my story, for mine is a boringly ubiquitous one, let me say that my alcoholism had become a matter of discussion in our household.  At my lowest point, and I could have gone lower, believe me, God reached out to me, brought me into Alcoholics Anonymous, and they in turn led me to a faith in God.  The journey of a foot, from the head to the heart, is the hardest and longest we make in life.

Along the way, I have learned that the only way I can do God's will is if I stay sober.  The only way I stay sober is if I maintain my spiritual condition.  The only way I maintain my spiritual condition is if I pray daily, seek out his will in all things.   The recovering alcoholic's life is, of necessity, a spiritual life.  Religions are ultimately the outer manifestation of our inner spiritual beings.  I have also learned that we are spiritual beings living in a physical world, not the other way around.

Go read Dr, Rhonda Chervin's story.  I am sure you will find it, as I did, inspiring. I hope if you are having difficulty with God, you sincerely get on your knees and pray the skeptics prayer.

The "Religion of Peace"

9/11/2001, the event that brought down the World Trade Center and killed 2,927 individuals, is now almost 16 years ago.  Ever since that seminal event, people have been characterizing Islam as the "Religion of Peace."  It started with President George W. Bush.  But I can't tell you how many times I hear or read such tripe.

I have tried to relay to people in my congregation that Islam is anything but a "Religion  of Peace."  There are explicit text in the Koran and in the Hadiths that instruct, in no uncertain terms, the faithful Muslim to kill Christians and Jews. The Bible, by contrast, has no such admonition that requires its adherents to kill anyone for all of time.  The New Testament, which is the culmination of God's saving grace for all mankind has not the least mention that Christians should kill anyone. But I am afraid many of them are caught up in the PC hysteria, and are afraid of being labeled as "Islamaphobic." But is it phobic when Islam really does want to kill you? I think not.

(Note to trolls:  Do not start with either the Crusades, which were a defensive war against Muslim aggression, or talk about how true Christians should be pacific.  The Bible requires you to defend yourself, and your family against aggression by another.  You are not required to be beaten to death  Nor are you required when you home is being invaded to "turn the other cheek."  There is a concept of Just War, and you should investigate that before you begin flaming me.)

In my eternal optimism that I may influence just one person, I will try to explain again with the help of an article at the American Thinker entitled The Rage of Islam by Tabitha Korol. Ms. Korol began her writing career after retirement writing letters to the editors of various publications. She has since blossomed into a writer in her own right and writes about Middle Eastern topics.

In today's piece, she explains how the culture surrounding Islam, and its twin Sharia law, keep young Muslim men enraged, and keep half the brain power of Islam enslaved.  Ms. Korol:

It begins in the home. Family life is a microcosm of the surrounding culture. Inside and outside the Islamic home, there is oppression, subordination, envy, animosity, shame, enslavement, and emotional and physical pain for any deviation. Muslim women are among the poorest, most oppressed, and least educated in the world, caged by their cumbrous shrouds in the insufferable desert heat, by their misogynist sharia laws, and by their chauvinist husbands. The 7th-century Bedouin woman’s attempt at privacy and protection has become a symbol of humiliation, servitude, and protection from men who are raised to lack restraint. Thus clad and maltreated, there is no natural interaction between the sexes, such as is found elsewhere. Not only are the women deprived of freedom and individuality, but they are also denied sunlight and Vitamin D, and more likely to develop osteoporosis, experience pelvic fracture during childbirth, and have babies who are disposed to seizures.

...snip...

While boys and girls in Western cultures learn to communicate and socialize with each other, pursue their choice of careers and mate for marriage, Muslim youths are kept apart. The sexual attraction found throughout the entire natural world is spurned by Islam as “shameful”; they attach an unhealthy negativity to all aspects of sexuality. Social segregation leads to discomfort, fear, and hostility. Arab men learn to hate women and indulge in homosexual behavior with boys or effeminate men (considered an acceptable substitute), thereby emasculating the victimized male. The result is sexual confusion. The intense sexual repression and misogyny emerge as the rage and rape seen in the youths who are sent to the lands of the infidel. The husbands remain unhappy, confused, and violent. Yet Israel is blamed for the degenerate behavior with which Islamic society is riddled.

In some Muslim societies, consanguineous marriages are encouraged, often producing sick, dysfunctional children -- suitable, perhaps, for jihad martyrdom. Polygamous marriages with as many as four wives are also acceptable but deprive all of the intimacy and security found in faithful monogamous marriages. The effects of polygamy are favoritism and divisiveness, neglect, deprivation, jealousy, and bitterness. The women are stuck in a loveless marriage, beaten into submission, and robbed of friendships. Further, the Koran and Hadith sanction beating wives, with encouragement and guidelines provided on television by the Mufti of Gaza.

Sharia is supposedly based in the Koran, and was supposedly given to man by God. But in reality is a collection of Bedouin tribal customs with sought to maintain the power of the head of the tribe, and consquuently, any head of household.  For it is by the various techniques of oppression, subjugation, shame and envy along with "honor" killings that the head of the household maintains his control over both is sons and daughters, and limits the input of mothers, who might otherwise round the sharp edges of Islam.  Notice too that Islam does not demand faithfulness, as our God does.  What is in your heart is of no matter.  Rather, Islam demands obedience.  And that obedience is carried down to the heads of households, to the so called Holy Men, and to the rulers.  There is nothing our God can not forgive, there is nothing their god will forgive.

I hope you will read the whole article.  Let me close with this:

It is obvious that the violence inherent within the Muslim male has its roots in the lurid instability of the home, the mosque, and their society in general. Tragically, instead of addressing the real source of the problem, Muslims are trained to blame anything but themselves. Islam has had many “whipping boys.” Blaming Israel’s retaliatory actions for Muslim violence, as proclaimed by Ms. Simonovic, is like accusing the victim of antagonizing his attacker by defending himself.

Disturbingly, Islam appears to have been masterfully crafted to be the antithesis of Judaism and Christianity that preceded it. The Bible celebrates life; the Koran sacrifices it. Wife-beating is merely one of innumerable components that form the atrocity of Islam and threaten the survival of humankind.

Ann Coulter was right when she said that We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

Make the Left Bleed

Two artcles at the American Thinker on tow separate days express what we, as conservatives, should be doing further our interests in seeing our agenda advanced and the agenda of the Left retreat.  The first, published today is The Vile, Crazy, Left by Trevor Thomas. He points out that:

I’m afraid much of what we read and hear from the President that is undesirable is the result of living most of his life under significant liberal influence. As even Rush Limbaugh himself pointed out less than two months prior to the election last year, Donald Trump is not a conservative -- at least not in the sense that most define real conservatism. But as Rush also pointed out, strong conservatism hasn’t been at the top of the GOP ticket since 1984. What Donald Trump is, and what he can continue to be, is a great ally in the battle against liberalism and the radical, perverse agenda of the modern left.

President Trump has proven this many times over since his inauguration on January 20. From (most of) his cabinet appointments, to his Supreme Court appointment, his lower court appointments, his executive orders, and so on, President Trump has gotten much done to aid the cause of conservatism and hinder the cause of liberalism. Of course, liberals are not blind to this, and thus the continuous “nasty” attacks from the left.

And nasty is as nasty does. The left simply can’t help itself, because, for the most part, it is simply who they are. In addition to their dishonest attempts to undermine President Trump and the GOP’s agenda, time and again, liberals have left nearly no insult unturned as they have sought to ridicule and insult President Trump and his family. Along with the countless vile attacks on the President, Ivanka (see here, here, and here), Melania, (see here, here, and here), and even 11 year-old Barron Trump (see here, here, and here) have suffered the evil ire of the modern left.

Even if I sometimes disagree with Trump on an issue, or find some of his tweets cringe worthy, the over the top, and horrible rhetoric of the Left makes me want to defend Trump. He is looking loke the underdog in a very one sided fight. In comparison to the vile and nasty statements by the Left, and the violence and destruction wrought by many on the Left, Trump appears to be fighting my the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Meanwhile:

Alas, whether elected officials, members of the press, entertainers, educators, and even those devoted to ministry, liberalism corrupts. And liberals still wonder how -- just how any self-respecting person could support Donald Trump. Maybe those devoted to killing children in the womb, killing the family, killing capitalism, redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity, redefining gender, redefining the Second Amendment, defending and promoting pornography (and virtually any other sexual perversion imaginable), defending and promoting socialism, defending and promoting the myth of global warming, and so on, should consider how vile and vulgar many Americans find the tenets of modern liberalism.

So, what should we do about it? What really can we, the unwashed masses (as the Left likes to call us) or more accurately, individuals with the ability to think for him or herself, do? Well, we can Make the Left Bleed. William L. Gensert explains that we do not want to make members of the Left bleed literally, but at the same time we need to get rid of the notion that we should be better than the Left. As Gensert points out:

What would have forced civility gotten Trump anyway? What did it get George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney? Nothing -- they were pilloried from pillar to post anyway, and their enemies were never afraid to attack and abuse them for even the slightest of slights and to be truthful, even in the absence of slights.

It’s telling that McCain was surprised when all the Democrat friends he thought he had in Congress, suddenly turned on him and treated him like a pariah because he dared to oppose Barack Obama.

Republicans have always played the game with civility or perhaps they tempered their reactions because of fear. Regardless, they played checkers while the left played three-dimensional chess and the Republicans were always the pawns. Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight -- who doesn’t love Sean Connery?

To not fight, to be gentlemen and to prosecute this battle with decorum and a sense of fairness to the Democrats is a surefire loss. They won’t play that game; they will go after friends and family and anyone ever known or loved simply to kill that person politically in an apoplectic frenzy, froth, and spittle dripping from their blood-soaked jaws as they stand above the prone carcass and explain how his death was his own fault (see the attempted assassination of Scalise).

So how can you make the Left bleed? Don't spend your money where the Left draws its funds from. Don't use products advertised on Facebook, for example. Don't buy anything from Target. Even if you don't particularly like Chick-fil-A, but buy their products anyway. You don't even have to be absolutely faithful to the project to make a difference. If you deny the Left your money, you will bleed them dry. But you have to get out there and do it. Make the Left Bleed.

Federal Judge Blocks California Law Banning So Called High Capacity Magazines

Matt Vespa at Townhall.com reports that Federal Judge Blocks California Law Banning High Capacity Magazines Apparently the judge had no problem with banning the so called high capacity magazines, but he did have a problem with what amounts to a taking of legally acquired property without due compensation. So it really isn't a particular victory for the Second Amendment, but it is a victory for the Constitution. I'll take it.

New to the Blog List is Liberty's Torch

I have added Liberty's Torch to the blog list.  I have long appreciated the ever erudite and insightful writing of Francis Porretto and have missed his thoughts around here.  Fran efforts now include others such as Col. Bunny who help to make this blog a must read.

I also want to welcome the readers of Liberty's Torch and welcome your comments on what you see around the PolyKahr estate.

Wade

Peruta Goes Down. Supreme Court Remains a Crap Shoot

In an article today at the American Thinker entitled Supreme Court Declines to Affirm Second Amendment Rights, Robert Arvay says:

The United States Supreme Court has declined to affirm the constitutional, Second Amendment rights which are guaranteed to citizens. They did so by rejecting an appeal from a lower court. That court had ruled that the state of California can impose severe restrictions on issuing permits to carry firearms. In refusing to hear the appeal, the lower court ruling remains in effect.

The case, to which Mr. Arvay refers is of course Peruta v. California. A Washington Examiner article goes into more detail. For the Examiner, Ryan Lovelace writes:

The question the Supreme Court refused to hear is whether the Second Amendment gives people the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

David Kopel explains in the Washington Post article entitled Peruta v. San Diego Analysed that:

The four Peruta dissenters did not disagree with the specific doctrinal point about concealed carry. Indeed, Judge Smith’s dissent pointed out that the majority’s compilation of precedents on concealed carry was unnecessary. “If the issue before us is truly whether California can, in isolation, prohibit concealed carry, a simple memorandum disposition citing to Heller would be sufficient. A formal opinion, much less the gathering of our en banc panel, would not be necessary to answer the issue framed by the majority.”

...snip...

According to the dissenters, the Second Amendment expressly guarantees the right to bear arms; legislatures may regulate but not prohibit the right. So in the 19th-century cases, the legislature could choose to ban concealed carry while not even requiring a permit for open carry. The dissenters wrote that today, legislatures ought to allowed to reverse that preference: to restrict open carry, while allowing concealed carry under a fair and reasonable licensing system. (Citing Eugene Volokh, “Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and A Research Agenda,” 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443 (2009).)

As Justice Thomas said, and I am paraphrasing, most people in government in high office are protected by police, who are armed. But for the average man on the street, having a team of armed guards at their disposal is clearly beyond their means. The Second Amendment means that government must allow the carrying of arms. But in the case of California, one can not carry openly, even unloaded, and one can not carry concealed if the Sheriff of your county refuses to give anyone a concealed carry permit. Effectively, you have been "legally" stymied from bearing arms, and the Second Amendment has been effectively rendered null.  Before the concealed carry revolution of the mid 1980s, the Second Amendment had been rendered null and void in most of the country.  In most cases, a concealed carry license was not granted, and while open carry was techically allowed, you could count on it that you would be arrested and charged with something if you did.  Here in North Carolina it was cited as Going Armed to the Terror of the People. While the statute had well defined elements, these would be discounted such that simply arming oneself would be enough for a conviction.

The refusal of ceritorari by the Supreme Court allows San Diego County to continue its practice of not issuing permits, even though California law allows permits, and even though many counties in California effectively are shall issue. As Mr. Arvay writes:

That said, it remains amazing that basic Constitutional rights could possibly be so easy to suppress. While some rights that are not even in the Constitution are enforced, there seems to be significant antipathy regarding the right to keep and bear arms -- a right that “shall not be infringed.”

I note again that everyone, with few exceptions, who is in power is loathe to advocate for the carrying of arms by the average guy. After all, who wants to be killed over doing what he percieves as his job. Besides, and this is the important point, while gun rights groups do get out a lot of votes, they don't contribute much to a candidates campaign finances. Indeed, here in North Carolina, almost everyone working for Grass Roots North Carolina is a volunteer. Unlike the Demanding Moms and Everytown efforts of Mr. Bloomberg, we have no paid lobbists working for GRNC. Because there are no big bucks coming from GRNC or from NRA, we constantly have to remind them that we are watching, and we will remember in November.

Meanwhile, as always, getting justice from the Supreme Court is always a crap shoot.  It often depends on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy awoke that day.  But in this case, the side of Justice had too few soldiers in the field.

Satanists need to donate tons of money to the Democrats to gain equal rights for Satanists

Todd Starnes tells us that SCOTUS To Decide if Gay Rights Trump Everyone Else's Rights. One always trembles whenever the Supremes (or for that matter the Grandees of Congress) take up an issue that should remain between individuals. The fact that the gay couple involved deliberately chose Mr. Phillips' cake shop and refused an offer of a free cake tells me this was a set up designed to punish Phillips for his religious views.

SCOTUSblog is particularly opaque on the issue of whether or not this has a chance of coming out in Mr. Phillips favor. saying only that Justice Kennedy has ruled both for and against religious freedom.  Why doesn't that make me feel better?  Once again an important topic is up for grabs based on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy woke up on that day.

I would note here that my stance against the gay lifestyle will get me called a "hater" by those who refuse to understand.  The Bible does not claim that being gay is the problem.  I don't really know if in fact anyone is "gay" by birth.  The problem is acting out this belief, in other words, the gay lifestyle.  I do not know, but I suspect it has to do with God's command to be fruitful and multiply.  People living a gay lifestyle can not multiply.  But in the end, I do not know why, and like everyone else will have to wait.  In the meantime, I stand on God's side in the matter.  He never stands with me, but it is always I with him.

So, do I hate gay people?  No.  I even have to admit that I don't really care if two men or two women want to pretend they are married.  I have enough worries of my own.  That by the way is tolerance. But what these people want is both acceptance and even celebration. "Look at me!  Isn't it wonderful that I want to marry this person of the same sex?"  Well, no, it is pathetic.  People have also wanted to marry their pets, and even buildings.  Yes these are (hopefully) one off crazy.  But is Mr. Phillips also required to bake a cake for the woman who wants to marry a building?  When is enough government intrusion into our lives enough?

The fact is that gay people have no more rights than any other.  I can not go into Mr. Phillips' shop and ask for a cake that celebrates, oh, I don't know, say a Satanic Mass.  Mr. Phillips would refuse based on his religious beliefs, and the State of Colorado would probably be fine with that.  But why are his religious beliefs in this case acceptable and in the case of same sex not so much?  What truly differentiates these to cases?  Well, for one, Satanists haven't donated tons of money to the Democrats and the gay lobby has.

Go read Starnes article.  I will watching with trepidation.