Deep appreciation

So Obama goes to Turkey to politically pander to Muslims. I bet he thinks this will get us a gooder (yea, I know it's not a word but I like it) name among the “fringe” Islamic terrorists. Maybe they won't bomb the White House now since he lives in it. Robert Spencer wrote a poignant article about one specific statement the President made to the Turkish Parliament.

“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world, including in my own country.”

Say what? And what exactly has Islamic faith contributed to the world, to America in particular? So the President is either mentally imbalanced (crazy as hell), intentionally manipulative (playing politics/sucking up – have you seen the picture of him “bowing” to the Saudi King )genuinely ignorant (duh), or speaking in code (I wish). Seriously, what has Islam contributed to America? Can you think of one thing? Just one? Ok, besides terror. Besides 911. Isn't it frightening that our new President is making these kind of ridiculous statements officially on behalf of the the American people? What IS he talking about? Just exactly what is he referring too? And just exactly how does the President intend for us to “convey our deep appreciation”? Is this for real? Deep appreciation? Over 3000 6 foot deep graves? Deeply frightened? Does anyone remember any deep apologies. I remember celebrations in the Islamic world because of 911.

Pretty much everything Americans know about Islam today we learned because of terrorism. When I was a kid no one even mentioned Islam. You never saw or heard about anything Muslim or Islamic. You just didn't, no one cared. There was nothing to talk about. Then we began to hear little by little about this or that lunatic radical Islam leader or group and what terrible act had been committed or inflammatory statements made, while the talking heads tried to figure out how much of a real threat this Islam was. Ok, they have camels and stones we have tanks, should we take this serious? But of course they were serious and maybe we weren't. One problem we still have today is that we think the Eastern half of the world thinks like the Western half. We think we're playing by the same rules. We think they think like us. They don't. Islam is not just a religion it's a way of life (there's a bumper sticker for ya). Since 911 the entire nation has been under the sway of 'help me understand Islam'. So because Islamists, in the name of Islam attacked us, murdering many thousands of our civilian population without cause, created millions (or is it billions?) in property damage we are now becoming familiar with all things Muslim. The funny part is if some Islamic American (and that would be the order of loyalty) wanted to participate in our government no one would question his or her faith and how much of a role that would play in decision making like they do with professing practicing Christians. That would be called discrimination. We Americans think the old adage “flattery will get you anywhere” applies to the Middle East. Obviously we still have a lot to learn.

Ok well back to President Obama's outrageous statement in Turkey. Now I'm not saying that the country of Turkey hasn't been an ally of the States for many years and that we haven't benefited somewhat from a relationship with them but that's not the same as saying that Islam has made contributions to America. In fact although Turkey is nearly 100% Muslim they boast about their secularism (charade). So in all honesty the only thing Islam has contributed to the United States is terror.

I think the best part of being a liberal is that you don't have to justify anything you say. You don't have to substantiate anything with facts or evidence. You can say whatever you want with impunity. Usually because what you say sounds either elitist - can't touch this - or just plain friendly. You will do what we say because we are smarter than you (used only among our own people) or we like you so much and we really want to be friends and can I try on a hijab and could you show me how to use that Kassam rocket launcher? So unless, Obama was sending a clandestine code to the Islamic world (now that would have been fun!) I'll be curious to see how our government intends on conveying it's deepest appreciation for the shaping of the New York City skyline.

Who is like the LORD?

“Who else among the gods is like you, O LORD? Who is glorious in holiness like you – so awesome in splendor, performing such wonders?” Song of Moses, Exodus 15:11

“For who in all the heaven can compare with the LORD? What mightiest angel is anything like the LORD? The highest angelic powers stand in awe of God. He is far more awesome than those who surround his throne. O LORD God Almighty! Where is there anyone as mighty as you, LORD? Faithfulness is your very character.” Ethan the Ezrahite Psalm 89:6-8

“Who is like me?” God, Isaiah 44:7

“To whom will you compare me? Who is equal?” God, Isaiah 46:5

“Who is like God” is a different question than what skeptics ask today, which is “Who is God like?” The first question sees His wonder and is amazed. Who could possible compare to this God?! He is just so incredible. Wow. The second question tries to define his character. Is he like Santa, or the Grinch? Is prayer to him like hitting the lottery or making a wish? Is he like George Bailey or Mr. Potter? Jekyll or Hyde? The first question is asked numerous times in the bible. The Psalmists and the Prophets ask “Who is like the Lord?” God himself asks this question. Who is like me? Line me up with all the other gods of the world and compare us. Who is like me? It's a lovely question usually asked in the context of the wonders God has wrought. His amazing creation. His powerful redemption. His miraculous deeds. God is not afraid to stand up to other gods. He knows he wins this contest hands down. He's not being arrogant he just knows he's the only real contender here. There is one God and it's him. So we put him up against the god of humanism, man, and compare. And when we're done laughing we see that, yeah, he pretty much wins. Put him up against all the Hindu gods, the Muslim God, the spirits of Animism, any idol man can construct and He wins. But that question is no longer the one being asked. The new question is “Who is God like?” And the answers don't matter because the question says it all. We are looking to redefine who God is. Where not happy with what he's really like, so subtly, ever so subtly we rephrase the question until we can answer it in any number of wild and creative ways that diminish who he is in our eyes. The answers have really always amounted to the same shallow, why isn't God nicer idea but since they are reworded and sound new a few times each generation we think a new enlightened question has been asked. God's image has ranged from dowdy old Santa type man to angry venomous cruel old man. He could be like a wish giver, a lucky charm, a faithful pet, or a powerless out of touch grandfather. When we ask Who is God like instead of Who is like him we are judging his character. Why would he do this or that? Why would he let this or that happen? If there is a God then why, why why? So, we are questioning what he says about himself, forgetting the ancient truths passed down and exalting our knowledge above His. In essence we are saying that we have more mercy that the creator of mercy, that we know more than the creator of knowledge and that we would do a better job at being god than God. There will never be an end to the arrogance of man against God. Mankind will always be trying to diminish Him. Yet there are a few who can say with David,

“Many, O Lord my God, are the wonderful works which You have done, and Your thoughts toward us; no one can compare with You! If I should declare and speak of them, they are too many to be numbered.” Psalm 40:5

Ode to a hero

Back in February the Smithsonian magazine ran a cover story on Darwin and Lincoln, “Their Genius, Their Legacies, Their Humanity”. The article on Darwin couldn't be more typical in it's purpose. Fool the common man once again, make your followers feel good that they believe, speak the party line, avoid real truth. Beginning with the title, What Darwin Didn't Know, you get this sense of fair play and open mindedness. See these scientists are questioning Darwin, they are in fact, revealing flaws and in the pursuit of truth they are making themselves vulnerable. How noble. And yet no such thing happens in this article. The title is in fact a hurrah for how amazing Darwin's ideas were with so little data. The entire piece is a praise for the man's impeccable character, his tireless scientific inquiry and the blinding brilliance of his evolutionary theories. Yet the claims Charles Darwin himself made in terms of macro-evolution (stay tuned for clarity on that) were not scientifically provable when he made them nor are they now. The author states with amazement that Darwin spent 20 years amassing his data, whereas I find it even more incredible that the ideas continue to be defended and propagated for even longer. Something like holding to the faulty teachings of Greek physician Galen for 1500 years. Which, as an aside, actually gives me hope for mankind today; we eventually got it right.

More than 7 pages are dedicated to extolling Darwin as the greatest man who ever lived. His new and revolutionary ideas astonishing, his book On the Origin of the Species, “majestic” and an “engaging work of literature” (I'm not making this up). Immediately we are swept up in the arms of confident propaganda, “...even the most unanticipated discoveries in the life sciences have supported or extended Darwin's central ideas – all life is related, species change over time in response to natural selection, and new forms replace those that came before.” Quoting pioneering geneticist Thoedosius Dobzhandsky, “ Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in Light of Evolution”, the article continues, “He could not have been more right – evolution is quite simply the way biology works, the central organizing principle of life on earth” No bias there! Just pure science! This paragraph alone utilizes a few brilliant avenues of propaganda (roads well traveled by proponents of naturalism), first blending something true with something false, mixing facts with assumptions and then completely ignoring valid contradictory arguments. These techniques are so commonly used in publications today we forget how effective they are. This article typically blends microevolution with macroevolution, assuming the reader will not detect the staggering difference. These two concepts are constantly, intentionally confused and interchanged by naturalists. Microevolution is introduced first, stated as observable changes within a species, the ability for living things to adapt to their environment, and variety within a species, what the bible clearly calls “kinds”, the famous finch beaks. No one argues with this. But then there is the brilliant blending in of macroevolution, the non-observable, non-reproducible idea that one species can change into another. It's very subtle and very effective. You're led to believe that they are one in the same. Couple that with absolutely no contradictory scientific voices and the public is properly intimidated. The fact that reputable scientist's in a variety of fields have and do question the validity of macroevolution and other ideas in Neo-Darwinism is completely ignored. And having no dissenting voice gives the author free reign to make all the typical statements about fossils and dating and such and such discoveries that have “proven” Darwin right.

The article gives a famous quote of Darwin's from The Origin of the Species, “I look with confidence to the future,to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.” Expect they don't. The “both sides” Darwin spoke of have all but vanished. Neo-Darwin thinking is singularly taught in every government school in the United States. No one is allowed to question the theory unless they are willing to cower under ridicule and taunting or face million dollar law suits and career black listings. Ah for Darwin's dream of impartiality.

Along with no opposing view points the article uses the common technique of quoting from it's scientific proponents who emphatically state Darwin's theories as fact. Nothing new here. This is the way propaganda works. Tell the people what you want them to believe over and over again. Reduce the opposition by whatever means necessary, ignore it, mock it, outshout it. Limit it's voice. There is nothing but praise for Darwin and his ideas in this article. It's as though the messiah has been found.

The most frightening thing about this and other articles with the same agenda is the blatant lies. The outrageous claim that “the term 'missing link' has for the most part become as outdated as the idea of special creation for each species.” Hate to break the news but nothing of the sort has occurred except in the minds of these evolutionary proponent who outright ignore opposing views. Discoveries interpreted from a non creationist world view must fit the evolutionary mold, there is no alternative but a Creator, and so like the ugly step sisters, they force the shoe to fit. The article ends with a lovely amen to the genius of how astonishingly accurate Darwin was (according to their bias) with what little he knew. No worries or cares, all is right with the world. Since there is no God we can take down our crosses and hang our Darwin fish instead. And we'll not need our silly, outdated bibles any more with our creative “scientific” world forever evolving it's own stories of how the world began. There's only one thing the article forgot that Darwin didn't know - his Creator.