You have heard people on KTLK saying that they were in the process of rewriting all the history books our children read deleting everything that smacks of a liberal cause be it sufferegettes, or else labor unions or other struggles for social equality. Perhaps you also know that most of the nation's history books come from Texas. It's a case of "as Texas goes, so goes the nation". And so yesterday it was announced that the lone old koot who makes policy for Texas social studies book writers has issued his own "Papal Bull" as you might say. The newest books our children will be reading will feature pro slavery remarks from Jefferson Davis with equal prominence of any quote from Abraham Lincoln. It will cast doubt on liberal causes but rewrite the coverage of such people as Senator Joe Mc Carthy and put them in a favorible light, and also include favorible references to the "Moral Majority" movement. Clearly the republican right has been acting as if they still ran this country even though they've been completely out of power for over a year. And you know that he who controls the youth of America controls what the next generation will be believing. Now you have Glen Beck telling his followers to leave their Christian churches if they have any reference in their church literature to phrases such as "Social Justice" or "economic justice". There is an old saying among the poorer nations, "If a churchman gives money to the poor they call you a Saint. If they ask you why you are poor, they call you a communist". Whoever came up with that line it's worthy of Dylan. Clearly the Christian movement has been running on years and years of sheer momentum. It's not even necessary for people to actually ask just why it is that they believe the things they do. When you get more of the young people asking Why they believe what they believe, you'll see a turn-around.
Last week Joe Byden was fawning all over Israel at a Tel Aviv university. I guess I have to ask the question as to just why it is that anybody who speaks in Israel finds it necessary to go through the whole Jewish existance of the Nazi Holocaust and Israel's fight for liberty, and so forth. Haven't we about beaten that topic to death in sixty-odd years? Of course Israel is in the unfortunate position of having the United States as their only ally in the world, and I admit this is a constraining position to be in. Even so, it was within hours that the Israel government announced that they would be constructing 1,600 more settlements on the West Bank. Joe Byden then turned around and criticized the government he has just praised saying that constructing these settlements is a barrier to peace. People on the Mc Laughlin report said that obviously Israel doesn't fear Iran all that much because if they did they would be seeking US help in coordenating some plan to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. But Israel feels confident enough that they can "go it alone" and the United States and the peace progress with the Palistinians be damned. It's their choice. But back in 1973 during the Yom Kippur war, Golda Meir came to Nixon and asked for the latest fighter jets to defend her nation from attack, and Nixon agreed to give her what she asked for. I'm wondering whether that could happen today. People say that people in the Mideast "like the United States" - - but they don't FEAR us. I don't think the United States has instilled enough respect by either Arab or Israeli. I agree with the right that the foreign arena is the wrong place for President Obama to talk about America's faults as a people. No President wants to think of his administration as "someone whom you might as well just ignore". I hope Obama salvages the situation, but right now I don't see how.
Then we have Justice John Roberts' remarks of last week, which by all measure, were just out of place. Justice Roberts and people like Pat Buchannon likened the State of the Union address of last February to a pre game Pep Rally, as though the Republicans never had spirited State of the Union speech gatherings. Some have said that Justice Roberts shouldn't just have to sit there and "take it" while being criticized. I disagree. The President and 80% of all Americans found the decision on Corporate campaign donations as an affront to sensable people everywhere. It's the President's job to take moral stances on issues when the situation warrents. This Supreme Court decision is about as bad as it gets wiping out a hundred years of settled law. In point of fact 95% judges are absolute monarchs in their court rooms. They order a person to shut up and listen to a person's lies from the stand, regardless of how morally upsetting it may be. It's called "Judicial temperment". Pat Buchannon doesn't think the ultimate in court justices should ever show any traits such as restraint or self control. The idea of the nine justices boycotting what is a long tradition, of the State of the Union message, strikes me as nothing less than childish. Or to mix a metaphore, "If you can't stand the heat, then stop setting the damn kitchen on fire!" One can only pray for the time when Robert's buddies on the right fall away from the roster, one by one and in the end he'll be left alone to spew his far right views.
Today they were talking on the Beatles station how when the Beatles got their MBE awards, or "Member of the British Empire" that others in protest gave them back, for instance, heroes of World War II who didn't want their deeds equated with the Beatles. Later in in late 1969 things came full circle when John Lennon gave back his own M B E award in protest. John says he didn't like the British stance fighting on the wrong side of the Biafra war, or that England had supported America in Viet Nam. In 1970 James Dobson wrote his first book he called "Dare to Discipline". The pendulum had swung so far to the left it was time to introduce balance. Now when it comes to Protests for a righteous cause, the pendulum has swung so far to the right that Protests of the left are almost unheard of. The media spotlight seems to be dominated by the Tea Party crowd. How interesting it is that nobody wants to portray "The troops" as anything but the nost noble of Saints. When what you have are volenteers, not draftees, and they were probably egged on by videos that portrayed mass, indiscriminate killing. To call these people "victims" is not to tell the whole story. Though the kill ratios now are twenty to one, and perhaps much higher- despite the "shooting fish in a barrel" nature of their service, still the other side shoots back occasionally. I think it was Rush Limbaugh who said that if the wild animals we hunted for sport had guns and were shooting back, that nature lovers would no longer regard them as so noble. The material in this paragraph may be the most important I've written and that you have read. Let's take it all back to a look at God himself and the cardinal premise that Christianity is built upon. The most Basic axiom in Christianity is that blood sacrifice of an innocent life for the benefit of another less worthy. If you can't accept this premise, then you need investigate no further. Of all the degrees of murder their are, certainly the taking of a wholly innocent life for the sole purpose of covering up another crime has to rate right down on the bottom of the ladder of degrees. Theological apologists state the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement, which means basically that you swap identifies with the donor. That is God assumes your virtues, and you assume God's nature, which includes a willingness to sacrifice a wholly innocent life for the benefit of another less worthy. Personally, I'd rather pass up that deal.
Let's now go back to my statement a month or so again where I said I was half way tempted to convert to Islam because Islam denied this doctrine of blood atonement. They do not believe in the "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ on the cross and don't believe Jesus was thus crucified. I said I found such a religious view more appealing. And unlike Jack Bower, I'm not bluffing when I say this. As I have said before the whole "forgiveness" thing is a real racket. Just as in Comunist China they have laws against virtually everything such that any Chinese citizen is subject to arrest at whim at any time by the government, so then is the Christian subject to the whims of his pastor in "what is going to continually be held over his head". Christian doctrine makes no distinction between lustful thoughts about the female next to you in the church pew, and pre meditated cold blooded murder. Personally I don't like my religion so morally color blind. How funny it is that for all the talk on forgiveness that Jesus engaged in, I nowhere in scripture ever see Jesus forgiving or offering absolution to a murderer. Neither do I ever hear Jesus enforse the principle of priestly animal sacrifice. And one more thing Jesus never mentions is the sacrifice of Isac by his father Abraham. Certainly when the people asked for a sign Jesus would have responded "I give you no sign but the sign of Isac". But Jesus never talked about Isac. Some would say "Well- - God wasn't really intending for Abraham to go through with it". I say, "Fine". You mean God just wanted to find out whether Abraham would shed innocent blood because he was ordered to? Don't they do similar "tests" of you when you join the Mafia. They want to see if you're willing to kill for them. Some would say "Well this was a different dispensation and there were no laws against shedding blood". Wrong again. In Genesis 9:6 it says "If anyone sheds man's blood, then by man will his blood be shed". But what I didn't say before is that some Islamic people believe that Judas was the one crucified on the cross and Jesus went free and fled to Egypt. How would this work and is there any indication of this in scripture? The biggest hint comes in the way the crowd turned against Jesus on Good Friday. Does anyone wonder why that happened? Scripture never explains such a quick 180 in opinion. Picture this: Jesus was in the garden praying for deliverance. He said "Lord, let this cup pass from me nevertheless not my will but thine be done". People interperet this as God's denial but it needn't be that. Suppose that Jesus, like his desciples, fell asleep. And suppose he woke and he was leading a Roman "cohort", which is a massive number of armed troops, out to arrest Jesus and his desciples and prepared for resistance. Meanwhile Judas awoke in Jesus' body and was bewildered to say the least. Now when Judas came, he had Jesus' face and Jesus had assumed Judas' face, so that people who knew them would be confused. But we don't know if the troops knew Jesus on sight. Maybe they wern't even sure whom they were after to arrest at this point. Thus you have Jesus walking up to Judas and kissing him and saying "Master" in bitter sarcasum. And they were told "The one I kiss is the one you want". This is just a thought. There were quite a few "hits" on this topic of Judas and Jesus swapping identities. It would be a rather interesting if ironic twist in divine justice. (Selah)
No comments:
Post a Comment