29. July 2010 by admin.

It’s not uncommon to see a patriot mistreated over the issue of immigration, usually by people who consider themselves part of the human rights/anti-racism movement. But while “global human rights” sound a little bit larger and more glamorous a struggle than “American rights,” both the glamor and resulting anger toward patriots ensue from a major misunderstanding of the importance of citizenship. 

In a proper republic, citizenship extends rights to those who are legally obligated to make sacrifices. We all get the chance to vote, and usually to receive some sort of economic safety net, and be protected by the police and firefighters, and benefit from the infrastructure created through taxation. We have the right to a trial by jury, the right to keep and use weaponry, the right to pursue a job, and the right to reside within our limited territory. But these rights are only inherited by our citizenry because they were paid for with the blood, sweat, and tears of both our ancestors and us.  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics, cultural/racial | Print | No Comments »

25. July 2010 by admin.

There are many ways Christians know Jesus is God, but few more powerful than the testimony of His character.

For instance, as human beings we’re more than aware of our dependence upon other things, most notably through consumption. The human machine was built as a dependent object, something not only needing basic necessities such as food, air, and water, but also personal necessities such as the need to be loved and adored, the need to feel safe, and the desire to accumulate resources for survival.  At the base of our chemical, social, and spiritual existence, we’re really just needy beings, and at the very base of our need lies a personal connection: the need to experience our Creator, to know His presence, to have His guidance.

The average person–maybe even every person–can’t really give every second of the day to someone else without taking something, whether it be time, resources, or appreciation, so when we see people who impoverish themselves in order to give, many people are struck with a sense of admiration; as though, despite what we may all wish about humanity, perhaps charitable behaviors in the extreme were unnatural.  Or to put it another way, we all understand there’s no such thing as true human altruism.  And to a degree, we’re right. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology | Print | No Comments »

24. July 2010 by admin.

It’s an understatement to say that I’ve undergone some major changes over the past few years.  In 2001, I had just gone from being a fat and nerdy Christian homeschooler to being a drug-addled ultra-liberal party-boy, shedding my video games for the pursuit of women and a reckless lifestyle.  But not long after that, after college, after all the glamor of hedonism began to wear off and I began to feel deep hangover within my soul, I began to slowly drift back into conservatism.  And after that, Christianity.  And boy, did I ever swing back hard.

I swung so far to the right, actually, that my college “friends” we pretty worried.  After the overwhelming majority of them left me, I was stuck with my new self, a radically different person, since the one who’d lived a short while ago was for the most part dead.  But nowadays, even after explaining who I was to many mainstream Christian conservatives who know me (and the Leftists who seem to think that as a straight-laced conservative, I have no clue about Noam Chomsky, or drugs, or homosexuals), I seem to get a uniform explanation about why I swung into radical, unapologetic Christian conservatism.  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy | Print | No Comments »

18. July 2010 by admin.

One of the most important necessities of true justice is that we apply it equally.  But while most on planet earth would readily agree that granting two people different verdicts for the same crime would be corruption, trends in the United States show us that our society is moving away from an equality-based law-system to one which considers the status of people instead of their actions.

As examples, a couple of major stories have caught the eye of Leftist “human rights” organizations lately. The first one, involving a police officer and two jaywalkers, resulted in an unruly pedestrian attacking the officer, which resulted in the assailant being punched in the face. The second story involved a Mexican smuggler being shot after he and his friends were throwing rocks at our border patrol agents. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, cultural/racial | Print | No Comments »

10. July 2010 by admin.

Editor’s note: this article first appeared on American Thinker, and can be found here

I can still remember, sometime back in my hipster days a couple of years ago, near the dawn of my own conservatism, entering a bar which used to be my favorite and having something tweak my brain in the strangest way.  There I was, with my long hair, a beard, pants tighter than my own girlfriend’s, and a bright blue members only jacket, entering the well-known hipster bar (at the time, anyway) known as The Cha-Cha Lounge and seeing a sign which read something along the lines of “We will not allow any racism, sexism, or bigotry, so stay out if you like these.”  Like I said, not an exact quote, but the sign had been there for years, and it’s probably still there.

The thing that struck me so powerfully about the sign wasn’t that they were specifically prohibiting certain kinds of offensive judgments, however, but the fact that this bar–this bastion of sleazy, Leftist, Seattle hipsterism–was prohibiting racial and cultural judgment, even though it was widely known to house some of the most judgmental Seattleites the city could afford.  I’d find out just how judgmental they were when I returned after getting a cheap “civilian” haircut and some mainstream American Eagle jeans, and suddenly I could hear people whom I didn’t know telling others, right in front of me, how they’d just been to some terrible “bro” bar filled with guys like me.  So thanks for fighting racism, guys.  I’m totally drenched in love. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | No Comments »

15. June 2010 by admin.

Earlier this week, I was surprised to discover that the Mormon church was using its money to buy a billion dollar mall in Salt Lake City.  Shockingly, the New York Times reports “When completed in 2012, it will encompass 900,000 square feet of retailing, including an outdoor pedestrian shopping mall capped by 115 apartments; 1.6 million square feet of office space in eight buildings; a grocery store; and five residential towers with about 600 condominiums.”  Yee-ikes.

My first reaction was one of outrage, my belief being that this project utilizes funds from its parishioners, who should be guaranteed proper stewardship of church property (while Deseret News reports that the funds came from Property Reserve Inc, the church’s real estate arm).  After all, when you pay 10% of your wages for the purpose of helping your particular ministry, you want it to fund something… holy.   But this is beside the point, since I’m not even a Mormon, which means I can’t hold them to Christian administrative standards, although those standards will be questioned later.  While there are certainly moral issues involved here, this massive expenditure raises serious questions about the separation of church, business, and state, the practical nature of philanthropy, and the nature of conservative values. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology, politics | Print | No Comments »

13. June 2010 by admin.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, many people say that drug abuse is a medical problem, which leads them to oppose the criminalization of drug use.  Their stances against criminalization can vary anywhere from fining people for possession (”high” standards), to providing users with needles and giving the addicts places to inject themselves (really really low standards).  Either way, their argument is the same: they say the physical act of taking drugs doesn’t directly harm another person, and drug addicts have a medical problem relating to urges.

To be fair, those supporting de-criminalization are correct: when a person has an overwhelming urge to take a substance, they’re dealing with a set of chemical circumstances and urges that the general public doesn’t, and those urges are caused by the use of drugs. But legalizers forget a few very important things about drug addiction; most notably that once a substance is consumed, the substance alters the user’s set of urges to something very different than what they had before, while at the same time lessening inhibitions. This should lead us to wonder: do we have to excuse those urges, too?  After all, if the urge to take a drug is only a medical problem, then the urges following drug abuse must also be medical, since the only difference between a sober person and a deranged addict is the chemical imbalance resulting from drug use. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | No Comments »

30. May 2010 by admin.

“The LORD abhors dishonest scales,
but accurate weights are his delight.” -Proverbs 11:1

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” -Leviticus 19:15

Americans tend to take a pretty strong stance against cruel and unusual punishment, having been a colony governed by barbaric England.   But it’s interesting to note that while our system of justice prohibits reckless physical revenge, those suffering at the hands of greedy lawyers can be subject to whatever economic penalty an empathetic judge or jury desires.

For instance, a woman filed a discrimination lawsuit against NASCAR, worth $225 million, and she got her money.  Lawyers can also prowl nursing homes looking for clients with vague stories about “abuse.”  Allbusiness.com reports that lawyers in Florida were able to find clients in nursing homes after an active search, and took home half of their clients’ individual $750,000 payouts.  A young woman’s family once sued Honda for $65 million after she drank herself into a stupor, backed her car into a lake, and drowned because she couldn’t unbuckle her seatbelt.  The jury awarded the money, although an appeals court (luckily) threw the case out later. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 1 Comment »

14. May 2010 by admin.

Recently,  Nancy “Bibles” Pelosi told the Catholic clergy that amnesty legislation is “a manifestation of our living the Gospels.”   Now, to be fair, Nancy isn’t alone: many Christians today pursue a type of social justice that can result if someone takes Christ’s words out of context, and due to either laziness or outright disregard refuses to look at the big picture.  So what does the Bible actually say about immigration?

As Christians, all must admit that Pelosi is right about a couple of things.  First off, Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, and that means treating them with generosity.  But while Jesus absolutely commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and spoke positively about individuals belonging to unpopular minority groups to show that His teachings apply to everyone, Pelosi and liberal Christians forget that the Gospels aren’t Christ’s first message, and that Christ had already made specific statements about how to engage in government.  After all, His own personal style of government was given through Moses in the Old Testament. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, cultural/racial | Print | 1 Comment »

24. April 2010 by admin.

Editor’s note: Although I wrote this article, it borrows so heavily from the work of others that I can’t claim credit for it.  For a list of resources, videos, and organizations responsible for this and similar work, please see the end of the article. Thanks!

Almost every American today is aware that biological beings are constructed and maintained by using the language of DNA.  But how on earth did DNA come to exist in the first place? 

Let us consider for a moment that the theory of human evolution is true, and that–for some unknown reason–lightning hit a pool of primordial goo billions of years ago, leading some small portion of protein-saturated matter into surviving life.  In order for us to exist today, that living organism must have reproduced.  And if it needed to reproduce, it had to have some form of DNA/RNA.  Without DNA/RNA, the life form would be completely incapable of replication.

Now, what exactly are DNA and RNA? They are one-dimensional programming codes for three-dimensional beings.  By translating these one-dimensional codes, a living being is able to build–piece by piece, in sequential order–another living, functional organism.  And as one might imagine, without the ability to process DNA properly by copying it and reading it properly (a very complex process done by a series of complex machines), the next organism which it would have reproduced could not have been built. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology | Print | No Comments »

18. April 2010 by admin.

Editor’s note: when reading this article, rest assured that I am not pointing my finger at my readers while sitting on my high horse.  I specifically fail at more than a few of these “loser” categories (particularly in playing video games [although not in any extreme way], not keeping my mind pure, not working enough, cursing, and at one point in my life engaging in embarrassing metrosexuality).  If you read this article and think that you escaped judgment on everything mentioned below, you’re lying to yourself.  Every single man needs work, and this outlines the archetype for a good man.  Thanks for reading!

Where have all the real men gone?

For the past 50 years or so, real manhood has been disappearing, and the effects couldn’t be more clear: men are dropping out of school, leaving their families behind, and generally turning into the abominable video-game playing man-child.  The last twenty years have seen the metrosexual community gain a foothold in American society, the overtly-feminine readers of Men’s Health magazine focusing their lives not on inner strength, but on gaining abs or worse–shaving their chests more neatly.  And as the homosexual advocacy movement seeks to erase any and all boundaries for proper gender norms, turning what could have been Joe Dimaggios and John Waynes into Regis Philbins and Perez Hiltons, we have to wonder: can we please go back to having real men again? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, cultural/racial | Print | 2 Comments »

1. April 2010 by admin.

Seems strange to say, but the truth is that America could use a little more discrimination and failure.  

Now, before getting too far along, I should clarify something: by “discrimination” I do not mean racial prejudice, but rather the idea that the people of the United States must prefer some moral codes and behavioral trends over others. 

You see, the genius of America is that instead of having a short-sighted and often distanced leadership engaging in an oftentimes untrustworthy and corrupt discrimination, the economy, the neighborhood, and the government are intended to function with a kind of democratic discrimination.  This is something which an increasingly larger population of Americans seems to disagree about, but despite what some may say, the very value of discrimination is based upon three things which almost every sensible person agrees about: different societies with different worldviews will produce different behavioral results, the results will not be equally preferable, and people must necessarily be allowed to have preferences on those behavioral results.  It is completely impossible for a free country–or any country–to exist without these principles. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy | Print | 1 Comment »

28. March 2010 by admin.

Editor’s note: this Facebook discussion with a very intelligent evolutionist resulted after I created my sarcastic Facebook group (”Evolution affects my worldview on everything except racism and human rights”).  I felt that the conversation was too important to disregard, especially since it highlights critical arguments and topics regarding both evolution, intelligent design, and how racism is impacted by either philosophy.  I hope you enjoy this, and if  you decide to be persuaded by my side of the argument, feel free to join my group :)

Me: Just started my new group: “Evolution affects my worldview on everything except racism and human rights.”  Obviously I’m a Jesus guy, so don’t take this page seriously. Join it if you realize that evolution and human rights/racial equality are completely incompatible, and you’d like to make fun.  [Quote from group] “We also do not believe in social Darwinism, because every evolved monkey deserves a chance to feel good about themselves and have an education before they die a meaningless death on a rock which is flying in outer space. As such, we enjoy demonizing the rich for not sharing the wealth they accrued through superior adaption.”

Brad:  I guess for an evangelical Christian such as yourself, it would make a lot of sense to derive your worldview from your understanding of nature. Now, I’m not saying this approach is wrong, but without a good epistemic reason for doing so, it is not necessary. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology | Print | 1 Comment »

21. March 2010 by admin.

One of the Seattle’s silly quirks is that if you’re a conservative, people will often think you’re a libertarian, and libertarians oftentimes consider themselves to be conservatives.  From what I can tell, this confusion comes from Seattle’s (and the Left’s) strong record of vicious fighting against social conservatism, which makes conservatives terrified about taking social stances in public, which leads to something similar to libertarianism (as libertarianism is a combination between liberalism’s severely limited control upon sexual/substance morality and conservatism’s supposedly lax business standards).  But even beside differences in social liberalism, it’s easy to see that libertarianism and conservatism are irreconcilably different in too many ways to even consider them similar. 

Because of these differences and the fact that libertarianism seems to be gaining serious ground in the Republican party, our knowledge about the two governmental philosophies is absolutely essential: we must be clear about what we want, and what we mean when we use words like “conservative.”  So for my many wonderful libertarian friends who think they’re conservative, and my other friends who think I’m a libertarian, here is a quick primer on the philosophical differences between the two. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 2 Comments »

6. January 2010 by admin.

In modern society, one claim to progress is the alleged triumph of reason in many realms of daily living.  But the truth is that while reason allows humans to behave sensibly according to the world they are presented with, it completely loses function and ironically presents itself as a regressive danger in one of two areas: when it is used to explain the origins of the universe, and when it is considered supreme in the dictation of morality.  This essay will focus on the latter problem.

When the “rational” person considers reason to be the foundation of morality, what they find is known as the Heinz Dilemma.  In this dilemma, a man has a wife who gets cancer, and he has the option of either stealing from a selfish person to pay for her surgery, or letting her die while not stealing from someone else.  According to the rational person, Heinz has six moral directions to compare (thanks to Wikipedia): Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology | Print | 1 Comment »

4. January 2010 by admin.

When people want to get something important done in a democratic republic, chances are they’re going to have to find others who feel strongly about the same issue(s) and organize, which empowers them to live freely, happily, and effectively.  An active and moral citizenry is, after all, crucial to the survival of a free state.  But after looking at Western history over the past 50 years, we find that a dangerous trend has been adopted toward the regulation of groups: the civil liberties of the individual, which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, become severely restricted as soon as those individuals join hands with others to accomplish goals according to their consciences.

For instance, the first amendment–which protects freedom of speech–is strangely absent when people organize in political action committees.  As an individual, you are entitled (for the most part) to speak your mind according to your conscience, but when people who believe in something want to make a political difference in their world, rules suddenly appear for what can be said, when they can say it, and who they can accept money from.   To our government, freedom of speech and the liberty to raise capital matter, but only when you’re alone and don’t want to affect your country. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 1 Comment »

21. December 2009 by admin.

Allow me to begin with a simple declaration: science cannot disprove the existence of God, and any attempts to do so are greatly overstepping the boundaries of science’s authority.

You see, even if we did evolve from protozoa and then mastered the sciences, modern atheists would still be using science as an authority in regard to questions that science cannot ever answer, which is ironically a very large evolutionary step backward for the human race.  It is a step backward because science only tells us “how;” it does not explain “why,” “what,” or “who.”    Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy | Print | 3 Comments »

8. December 2009 by admin.

One of the most difficult passages of the New Testament deals with divorce and the proper application of a marriage relationship.  When Jesus was asked by Pharisees whether a man is allowed to divorce his wife, He had a seemingly cryptic answer for them: divorce is wrong all the time, and the Creator did not intend for a man and a wife to separate unless the woman was found to have some sort of “sexual impurity,” but Moses allowed the Israelites to engage in divorce.  But since Jesus also stated that the Law and the Prophets were divinely revealed by Yahweh, and Moses allowed divorce, how can we tell which parts of the Old Testament are from God and which parts are from Moses?  Without the understanding that the entire Old Testament is from God, we cannot derive moral stances on many issues or be sure about the application of the Bible to modern living. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology | Print | 1 Comment »

1. December 2009 by admin.

When the electoral season comes around, conservatives can always count on being called “fearful,” and being told that they employ fear tactics to win their arguments.  This is half true, and half ridiculous.

But to understand the absurdity of their statement, we must have a proper perspective on our country.  Liberals are postmodern big-government globalists who want to restructure the family, increase the oversight of government, make the United States of America subject to international forces we don’t really control, and get rid of all religion in the state (except for only when Jesus said to feed the poor and not judge, the only parts of the Bible they enjoy quoting).  As such, legislation they propose tends to threaten to upset our daily way of living, since the United States–up until these last forty years–has been almost unrivaled in its conservatism on the world scene. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 2 Comments »

15. October 2009 by admin.

As a youngster, I was once convinced that imagining God’s existence as an explanation for the universe was silly, as it made the already unexplainable phenomenon of existence even more complex.  But in retrospect, I had already made one assumption that flowed concurrently with proper theology: that there must be an existence beyond time and space itself.

For instance, no reasonable person has ever read anything about physics and time and determined that the flow of time isn’t malleable, or that it has always existed. Einstein’s theory of relativity showed us that time could be slowed, and good old-fashioned logic showed us that the flow of linear time necessitates a beginning, or we could not have arrived at the present point.  Those ideas being clear, we must all be in agreement that if these statements about time and space are true, then something must exist beyond time and space, mostly because matter and space don’t create themselves, they don’t come from nothing, they aren’t universally constant, and time cannot exist without space.  These are logical conclusions of our existence, and the basis for any reasonable hypothesizing about reality. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology | Print | 1 Comment »

11. October 2009 by admin.

A lot of talk has been given in the last century about non-violence, the Left being particularly enamored with the concept of a peaceful and gentle existence in which violence is far removed from everyday life.  But one thing the Left forgets is that violence and government are intrinsically intertwined.  As the state and its institutions are the Left’s primary tools for social change, it becomes very important for thinkers to question the pacifistic nature of policies that solely rely on the state for their enactment.

It is not difficult to understand that violence (or the threat thereof) is the tool the state uses to achieve all its goals.  For instance, if a person breaks any law, that person is subjected to fines or jail time.  But what if the person refuses?  Since the government cannot enforce such a policy when a person refuses to comply, their only option is to use violent force to subdue those in rebellion.  And this displays a fundamental point: there simply is no such thing as a non-violent government policy.  If you refuse to pay taxes, the government will come for you with force.  If they weren’t able to forcefully subdue you, our government wouldn’t be able to do anything. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | No Comments »

8. October 2009 by admin.

“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” -Matthew 18:5-6

It would be safe to say that since the Human Rights Campaign is one of the largest and best-funded homosexual lobby groups in the US, that they would have the resources to comprise the best case for “Biblical” homosexual advocacy.  As such, we can assume that this training course for their Biblical homosexuality seminar “For the Bible Tells Me So” is the best that their community has to offer. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology | Print | 1 Comment »

3. October 2009 by admin.

The funny thing about national unity is that both sides of the political spectrum implicitly agree on one thing: that keeping society unified is a good idea, and that the dissolution of political powers is a painful, cumbersome, and oftentimes violent process that’s worth avoiding (this is unless, of course, that radical is an anarchist or a separatist, but both of these groups are minorities of minorities).  The disagreement between Left and Right on social cohesion occurs because, just as with pleasure and peace and wealth, how you pursue unity defines whether or not you reside in the camp of good or evil.  But despite the fact that both sides have completely different approaches to unity, both sides claim the other violates civil liberties in the pursuit thereof, and reality will always attest that no two political stances offend liberty with perfect equality. As such, it is our duty to determine which pathway is more destructive to the cause of freedom.

While true liberalism demands that political unity must be attained through institutionally-based equality, those on the Right maintain that unity under a government should be pursued by a people with sense of cultural and theological belonging.  It is this, conservatives argue, which grants legitimacy to the democratic republic, with the people deciding who they are and why they belong together.  Anything else would be contrary to the very idea of liberty itself: just ask someone from a Soviet satellite republic. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 1 Comment »

24. September 2009 by admin.

Editor’s note: before reading this article, it must be made clear this this writer does not believe that the human race arrived at its present state through the process of evolution.  He firmly believes that Yahweh has created the human race, given the law through His prophets, and that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.  As such, caring for those in need is important, and he regards all humans as his equals.  It must also be mentioned that by “Darwinism” and “Evolution,” he is not speaking about natural selection and adaption, which all people agree about, but rather the changing of species and the idea that the human race evolved from goo.

Supposing one were to abandon God altogether, deciding that He had no impact upon the universe and that the human race arrived at our present point through naturalistic, evolutionary, and directionless processes, that person could get a pretty firm idea about the universe.  For instance:

1) There is one goal for all organisms, and it is to survive

2) All organisms must die at some point

3) Evolution is the sole universal morality, and that which provides us with success/environmental domination, and even emotions

4) Any other morality exists because humans exist, and are thus abstract inventions which we accept or deny at whim depending on how we feel Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 1 Comment »

16. September 2009 by admin.

John Stuart Mill, in his famous book On Liberty, laid the foundation for Western libertarian law when he introduced his harm principle.  In short, he believed that the state should only be able to restrict someone’s liberties when that person is harming someone else, and that paternalistic legislation for the perceived good of that person (based upon another’s moral stances) should be prohibited at all costs in order to defend individual liberty.  According to Mill and modern libertarians, the state should let others alone when dealing with seatbelts or usury or drug usage or consensual sex.  Liberals agree that the last three of these should be allowed under the same reasoning.

Because of this, as far as “modern” ethical allowances go, the individual can observe an interesting pattern in respect to practices forbidden by law.  In short, behaviors that directly and negatively impact an involved person 100% of the time are outlawed. In cases like these, the inflicted harm is commonly and unanimously understood to exist, and also cannot exist independently of the behavior that caused it. As such, rape, theft, murder, fraud, and assault are the types of behaviors that few people argue about legalizing, strictly because a case cannot be made for a lack of harm.  Someone directly suffers every time one of these acts is committed. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy | Print | 1 Comment »

11. September 2009 by admin.

Earlier this week, Obama addressed the nation’s children as they headed off to school.  While many parents were happy to see the president personally address their children from the television, others refused to allow their children participate in school events where the president was to be broadcasted.

The latter group was portrayed as being insanely protective, almost terrified that “Barama” would get into their youths’ minds and turn them into Godless commies.  But after analyzing Obama’s speech, what we find are not only a series of confusing contradictory statements, but also those supporting an incredibly liberal agenda.  After reading the speech, it is my conclusion that any parent interested in raising their child properly would at least take the time to explain why Barack Obama was flat wrong on several issues.

But first, we must begin by saying that statements aren’t really islands to themselves.  They almost always come in groups, with some statements being necessarily implied by other statements. If a persons says that someone is “good,” they are admitting to a moral standard in which both the speaker and the listener are assumed to believe.  If you say that all men are created equal, you must necessarily be implying that evolution is not the process by which we arrived at our present state, since evolution demands that some portions of the population are always biologically superior and better adapted than the other populations, and that only this evolutionary process would separate us from the animals.  In a logical world, this is the consistent way most statements work.  Acknowledging the truth of a statement thus silently acknowledges other supporting statements as true.

So let us look at several statements made by our President in his speech. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | No Comments »

5. September 2009 by admin.

I’ve heard many times that drugs ought to legalized.  Never more frequently (and loudly, might I add) than from Ron Paul’s libertarian camp, generally because they believe that the pursuit of happiness is a legitimate right, and doing drugs doesn’t really hurt anyone. 

But this sort of hobgob is from people who understand neither happiness nor the pursuit thereof, and it should be a philosophy reserved for teenagers.  After all, if we can honestly determine that evil is never pursued without some sort of happiness in mind, then not all forms of pursuit are legitimate.  Any law is a testament to that.  And if we can determine that your inner state greatly influences your interactions with others (as behavior comes from nowhere else other than within you), then legalizing more forms of personal pollution would only seek to negatively impact social harmony.  The notion that drugs have any positive qualities was tossed aside only ten years after the drug experimentation of the 60’s, following the explosion of crime and illegitimate childbirth fueled by the excess consumption and rapid moral deterioration.

Nevertheless, since many are inclined to ignore visible consequences of drug abuse, a philosophical case against drug use–and even casual drinking–must be made.  As an ex drug-addict and a current drinker of alcohol, I feel there is no one better to make the case against drugs and alcohol than myself, though I make myself to be a fool for drinking.  So let us begin with some obvious statements. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology | Print | 1 Comment »

1. September 2009 by admin.

If a man sings a song to your little girl about having sex, what would you do?

If a man tells your little boy that it’s cool to shoot up and dress like a woman, what would tell that man?

If a man swears in your mother’s face, would you tolerate him?

If a man says your God is a fraud, and that His laws are worthless, would you give him your money?

There was a time when Americans would have been up in arms over these kinds of things, especially when these statements were produced in a mass-media form for youngsters.  Looking back 50 years ago, that seems almost fantastical: something from an alternate dimension in which people actually cared about statements, in which people actually believed that the person you were would determine what kinds of behaviors you exerted, and that inundating the mind with ideas would have some sort of effect upon the receiver.  Poppycock, we say today.  There is no Devil’s Music. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology | Print | No Comments »

29. July 2009 by admin.

Although abortion is a hot-button topic due to the debate over whether a human death is involved or not, the ramifications of abortion or the right-to-life are far more reaching than ever discussed in the mainstream media.  As such, this article is not about why abortion is wrong.  If the reader is interested in a concise and easy read about the moral bankruptcy of child-murder, they can read an article I wrote on the subject a short while back. Rather, this article is about the more dangerous consequences of solely granting the right-to-life.

Of course, when approaching the topic of abortion, the intelligent and learned Left is generally (yet unmentionably) aware of one major problem: that repealing the ability of a woman to kill her children would have the effect of nearly exponentially increasing the number of Black–and mostly illegitimate– children in the West, the fear of which prompted the creation of abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood (who specifically targeted Black communities with access to “choice”).  Even popular liberal books such as Freakonomics have unabashedly stated that the decline in violence levels in the US were predominantly due to the abortions of the 1970’s and 1980’s, but didn’t care to mention that an overwhelming number of abortions involved Black children.  Actually, the Black abortion rate is ridiculously higher than the White abortion rate, and has always been.  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics, cultural/racial | Print | No Comments »

23. July 2009 by admin.

Conservatives have been taking a lot of flack over the past few decades for an “intolerant” stance on sexuality–including both homosexuality and promiscuous heterosexuality–and to be quite honest they’re losing the battle.  In this writer’s opinion, they’re losing for more than one reason, but particularly due to one: that they’re incapable of explaining the concept of evil to reasonable people.  As such, this writer has undertaken the task of presenting the concept of evil as it relates to sexual perversions, borrowing heavily from C.S. Lewis’s modern ethical masterpiece “Mere Christianity.”

So what is evil?  Well, without even determining exactly what moral codes are, we can understand that good exists independently of evil, but that evil’s existence is completely dependent upon good.  For instance, no person–regardless of how many times they’ve watched The Fifth Element–could possibly believe that an act of evil is committed purely for evil’s sake.  The pursuit of sexual satisfaction, financial stability, and peace are all good things, but if they’re pursued through rape, cheating, or killing all your political rivals, then the pursuit of those good things becomes evil.  Simply put, evil can only exist if good things are pursued the wrong way.  Even acts of cruelty are committed by people seeking some sort of tangibly good–yet wrongly pursued–effect, be it sexual satisfaction or a feeling of “justice.” Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy | Print | 2 Comments »