Another Long Work Day.

Today will be another long work day, so I'll let someone else do my talking for me.

Thanks to an article by Mark Steyn, I've learned that On the Advice of the FBI, Cartoonist Molly Norris (who came up with "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"), Goes Into Hiding.

According to the linked to article above,
"...on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, 'going ghost': moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity."

Ah....the Religion of Peace.

New Video From the Religion of Peace.

Thanks to Gloria TV via newsrealblog via Creative Minority Report we have this video of members of the Religion of Peace demonstrating against Pope Benedict during his recent trip to the UK.

Ennui.

I'm sitting in the computer room, surfing the Internet for something to write about. Most of the news isn't worth giving much consideration; I have nothing to say about Christine O'Donnell, or Obama's attending church or anything found on Drudge.

So, I opened Pandora and created a new "station" of acoustic music. Most of the music being played in this "station" appeals to me....except Pandora kept wanting to play Neil Young or Crosby, Stills and Nash - all of these received a thumbs down.

Nick Drake appeared and received a thumbs up, but what should follow but a REALLY crappy acoustic piece of drivel by John Lennon. By the time he came up, I had already used up my allotment of "thumbs down" and couldn't reject Lennon. To add insult to injury, Pandora decided to play Lennon singing "Imagine" immediately after. Funny, Pandora goes from playing music by someone who was under-rated (ignored, actually) in his time to the most over-rated songwriter in the history of music.

It's nearly noon at the music will be turned off in favor of El Rushbo. Maybe there'll be a better post tomorrow.

Geniocracy.

While reading the Raëlian manifesto,"Geniocracy: Government of the people, for the people, by the Geniuses," I thought it a bit odd that there was no mention, within the book's 148 pages, of Raëlian cosmology or their belief as to how man came to be created. It is not until reading the back cover do we read anything pertaining to the extraterrestrial creatures called the Elohim . It is only then that we learn that Geniocracy is the form of government practiced on the home planet of these advanced creatures.

No, while reading the book, seeing no mention of the Elohim , one might well suppose that you were reading the Democrat Party's political platform statement. Originally published in 1977, it is amazing to see how many of the ideas expressed in the book are perfectly in tune with the philosophy of so many Democrats today.

From the beginning, the book criticizes democracy, as practiced in our time - referring to the system as, rather, a Mediocracy where the votes of the intelligent are canceled out by the votes of the idiots. Of course, democracy does have its flaws (as even Raël's polar opposite, Michael Voris points out.) but I seriously doubt that his proposal that we be governed by "geniuses" is a viable solution.

Of course, in Raël's view, in order for this form of government to succeed, it must be a world government. We must have a "world language" in order to establish a true union of all the people of this planet (He points out that this would not be a Universal language, because the World is not the Universe).

After the geniuses take control, we will no longer need to work, nor will there be any need what so ever for money. All work will be done by machines, operated by robots and computers, created by these self same geniuses. The right to work will be replaced by the right to fulfillment. "Everyone has the right to receive everything necessary to live comfortably from birth to death, without preconditions ". With everything provided for us through the largesse of the geniuses governing the planet, we will be free to do whatever we wish to do in order to find personal fulfillment.

There will be no military. There will be no religious schools.

"Tolerance" will be the keyword.

Children as young as 14 will be encouraged to engage in sexual activity ....... a so-called freedom gained by contraceptives .... and laws prohibiting sex between those over 18 with those under 18 should be, in Raël's view, abolished.

In the book, Raël points out that many may consider his point of view Utopian. He says, however, that it is only considered Utopian by those of us who aren't intelligent enough to understand that this is obtainable.

The book ends with a list of Short-term, Mid-term and Long-term goals; none of which have been obtained by the Raëlian's in the thirty three years since the publication of the book. Obviously, Raël isn't a genius or we'd be there by now. He hasn't reached his goal, but at least, the Democrat Party in the United States has done it's best to implement his ideas.

Today's Assignment.

After reading today's actsoftheapostasy post -Keeping it Rael- I decided that my assignment (to myself) for today would be to download and read the Raelian manifesto, Geniocracy: Government of the people, for the people, by the Geniuses.

I had to register on the site in order to download the ebook (on pdf) but, it's easy enough with a seldom used yahoo email address.

So far, I've read 94 of it's 148 pages. I'll be going to work soon, so the rest will have to wait.
I'll write more on this in a day or two, but I have to say right now, that these folks are even further out there than I could have imagined.

From an Email.

A friend sent an email to me containing a scanned image of an obituary from the local paper. Neither of us knew the deceased....the reason for sending it is because of one particular sentence in the obit;

"The family respectfully asked in lieu of flowers that memorial contributions be made to the American Cancer Society or to the campaign of whoever is running against President Barack Obama in 2012."

I did a Google search and found the original obituary online and determined that it's true. (Unsworth Obit)

I was reluctant at first to blog this, but since the family published this in the newspaper -and online to boot- I decided to put it up.

Qur'an Burning Video.

The video is just over seven minutes long.......most of that time spent watching this guy walk down the street, followed by a group of "reporters" shouting questions. Last time I checked, no one knows the identity of the Qur'an burning guy.
This video says more about the media in this country than it does about the -so called- news event.

September 11

Obama Prevents World War.

With our differences in opinion, it's not often that I compliment President Obama.
OK, well, I guess I've never given him a compliment, but, you know, I believe in giving the Devil his due, so to speak and when Obama does something right, then, by gosh, I need to point it out.

It was from this very important news story that I learned of the President's solving the world crisis brought about by Pastor Terry Jones' plan to burn the Qur'an on September 11th.

I am urging everyone to follow the link to the story on I.N.N.. Maybe this will earn Obama a second Noble Peace Prize.

More Thoughts on Burning the Qur'an.

Prior to writing yesterday's post ,I went to the website for Terry Jones' Dove World Outreach Center to get his take on burning the Qur'an. I had read innumerable articles voicing criticism of Dr. Jones and I wanted to get his side of the story.

While visiting the website, I sent an email to Jones - pointing out something which he may not have been aware of. As I told him, translated versions of the Qur'an (or Koran, as he puts it) are not considered to be the Qur'an by devote Muslims. An English translation, for example, is not the Qur'an ..... that book would be referred to as "the meaning of the Qur'an". For it to be considered authentic, the book must be written in Arabic. I explained to Dr. Jones, that should he wish to actually burn a Qur'an, he must use a copy written in Arabic.

I have no idea what, if any, reaction Jones had to this tidbit.

I went back to the Dove World Outreach Center website this morning only to find that the website is down.




Did it crash? Was it hacked or did Jones and his group take the site down intentionally? I doubt if Jones had anything to do with the removal of his website. He obviously likes the attention he's getting.

President Obama - who is not a Muslim, by the way - has now come out against the planned burning.


In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Mr Obama called Jones' "stunt" a "recruitment bonanza" for al-Qaeda. Obama went on the say that, should Jones carry out his threat, it would endanger American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as innocent individuals in Pakistan. Obama worries that this could increase the recruitment of individuals who are willing to blow themselves up in American or European cities. The President said that Jones is engaging in a destructive act.

How can this be? We all know that Islam is a Religion of Peace. Is the President suggesting that Muslims would kill innocent people because of the actions of another individual? I do not recall Obama, or Hillary Clinton or Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair speaking out so forcefully when P.Z.Myers (a professor at the University of Minnesota Morris) pledged to desecrate the Eucharist. Are they telling us that Muslims would react more violently than Catholics would under these circumstances?

Tell me it ain't so.

On Burning The Qur'an.

It was a few weeks back that I first learned from an article in the National Catholic Register of Dr. Terry Jones and his Dove World Outreach Center and their plan to burn a copy of the Qur'an this upcoming September 11th. Since reading this article, I have been of two minds as to what the proper response should be.

From news reports, it appears that Dr. Jones is not a popular man. His Qur'an burning day is being criticized by not just thousands of Muslims in Indonesia but seemingly everyone else from the Vatican to, so-called, "prominent Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders in the U.S." to Attorny General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Even Angelina Jolie is upset over the "Koran-Burning Plan".

Dr.Jones is, however, determined to go ahead as scheduled even in the face of fierce condemnation. On his website, Jones gives 15 reasons why the book should be burned (10 plus 5). To my mind, two of his more convincing arguments are that the truth about the nature of Islam needs to be exposed and the world must be forced into action.

The two main arguments against the burning are along the lines of Clinton's argument that burning the Qur'an is a "disrespectful, disgraceful act" and General David Petraeus' belief that the book burning will endanger U.S. troops in Muslim countries.

Naturally, one cannot help but compare this with the uproar over the proposed building of the Mosque near Ground Zero. Those calling for Muslims to be sensitive towards the feelings of those who had family die in the September 11th terrorist attack and those who are calling for Christians to be sensitive toward Muslims and the Qur'an don't appear to be the same group of people. Those who are advocating for the Muslims' Constitutional Right to put up a place of worship where ever they want are not advocating for Dr. Jones Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech.

Years ago, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) gave away copies of the Qur'an in an attempt to improve Islam's image in America. I requested a copy and did my best to plow through the rather dull and monotonous work. In the end, I decided that I did not want a copy of the book in my house. Falling prey to "political correctness", I was, for a time, unsure of what I should do with my copy. Would simply tossing the book in the trash be disrespectful and disgraceful? One particularly hard core Protestant I know suggested that I burn the book and put a video of the burning on my blog. I finally decided that unceremoniously throwing the book into the dumpster was the proper method of disposing of it. The book is not worthy of my respect (notice, I do not refer to it as the Holy Qur'an), but discretion being the better part of valor, I did not wish to call down Jihadists upon my head.

Another Christine Judd Supporter Gets It Wrong.

One has to wonder how someone who possesses, what he himself describes as, a "religiously undereducated mind" could possibly write an article entitled "How the Springfield Diocese could have held to its principles and retained Athletic Director Christine Judd" and seriously expect the article to be anything other than religiously undereducated drivel. Oddly, that's the case with sports writer Scott Coen in his recent opinion piece on masslive.com.

Anyone unfamiliar with the story of Christine Judd, who was fired from her job as the athletic director at Cathedral High School after it came to the attention of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts that Ms. Judd had "married" her female partner in August, can get up to speed by reading my post from Sunday.

In Coen's article, he relates how he believes the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts could have avoided what he sees as a poor PR maneuver. Coen maintains that the Diocese could have continued to employ Ms Judd, in spite of her having, in the words of the diocese code of conduct from its employee handbook, by public example, engaged in conduct, which contravenes the doctrine and teaching of the Church. In other words, Coen believes the Diocese could have simply ignored the whole thing.

To illustrate his point, Coen tells a story of how he and his wife had asked Bishop Joseph Maguire to offer a prayer at their renewal of vows ceremony at the Dr.Suess Memorial. Bishop Maguire, according to Coen's story, explained that he could not do that because Coen's marriage was not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. Coen, a baptized Catholic, had married a non-Catholic, "on the cliffs beside a lighthouse in Maine" by a Justice of the Peace and not by a priest in accordance with canon law. Coen claims that, prior to his conversation with Bishop Maguire, he had no clue that his marriage was invalid in the eyes of the Church. The Bishop did, however, drop by the reception to say hello.

I've read over Coen's article several times and for the life of me, I can't fathom why he believes the story of his encounter with the Bishop illustrates how the Diocese could have followed Catholic teaching and have allowed Judd to remain at Cathedral High School. Coen's solution seems to be the same as nearly every other supporter of Judd in this case; the Church should ignore her own teaching and simply look the other way. As I wrote Sunday, to folks like Coen, codes of conduct and religious teachings mean absolutely nothing.

Coen was right about one thing; he does have a "religiously undereducated mind". It is for that reason, Coen should avoid giving his opinion on religious matters. As a fan of Dr.Suess, perhaps Coen should stick to writing fantasy.

Athletic Director Fired after Same-sex "Marriage".

Google the name Christine Judd and you'll come across a never ending number of stories dealing with Ms. Judd being fired from her job as the athletic director at Cathedral High School after it came to the attention of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts that Ms. Judd had "married" her female partner in August. You'll be hard pressed to find any articles, however, that support the decision of the Diocese. Most will, like this piece from masslive.com and this update on that story, do their best to slam the Diocese and put the teachings of the Church in a bad light.

Many of the stories will include a portion of the diocese code of conduct from its employee handbook that states, in part:

“Whenever, by public example, an employee engages in or espouses conduct, which contravenes the doctrine and teaching of the Church, such employee may, at the sole discretion of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.”

Many of these writers expect the Diocese to overlook its code of conduct and allow Ms. Judd to continue working at Cathedral High School. Codes of conduct and religious teachings mean absolutely nothing to these folks.

In one particular article, Judd was quoted as saying, “I married my partner this summer. I was hoping that my loyalty, my professionalism the last 12 years would supersede the current hypocrisy that has already been shown with the Diocese of Springfield.”

What is that "current hypocrisy" of which Judd spoke?

"Asked to elaborate on her claim of hypocrisy, Judd said she questions if there are lay persons who work for the Catholic diocese who divorce and remarry without an annulment, or employees who use birth control, or men who have had vasectomies, or individuals who are pro-choice on abortion."

Does Judd have a point?

Judd had been working for the school for 12 years. I cannot speculate on whether it was known during those 12 years that she was a lesbian. Being a homosexual is not considered a sin by the Church....it is the homosexual act that is considered a sin. If, in those 12 years, it had been known that Judd was lesbian, this could be overlooked if there was no indication that she was not celibate. An unmarried, heterosexual woman would have been expected to be celibate as well. Judd was not fired for being homosexual, but was fired for "marrying" her lesbian partner thereby making public her non-celibate, homosexual lifestyle.

Would the Diocese fire male teachers who have had vasectomies? Generally speaking, the Diocese would be unaware of which male school employees have had vasectomies; there wouldn't be any sort of witch hunt for these men. However, I'm sure that if a male teacher who had had a vasectomy, had made it a point to "go public" in some way then the Diocese would have fired him as well. Writing an article in a newspaper or blog, announcing that he had a vasectomy and that he believed the Church's teaching on vasectomies is in error, would probably cause a male employee to get fired too.

The same would apply for employees who use birth control or individuals who are pro-choice on abortion. If the Diocese was unaware, then there is little that could or would be done. Publicly advocating birth control or abortion would be a different matter.

Those accusing the Church of hypocrisy are overlooking a key phrase: "by public example".
It's perfectly feasible that more than one employee is engaging in behavior which "contravenes the doctrine and teaching of the Church", but if the Church and/or the students of the school are not aware of said conduct then, of course, there is little danger of that employee losing his or her job.

An article on the WWLP website, states that "Dozens of students and friends of Christine Judd came out to St. Michael's Cathedral to protest her resignation." This should give pause to parents who believe a Catholic education necessarily turns out Catholics who understand and follow Church teachings.

Like Judd, one senior at the school, who supports her, mentioned people working for the school who are divorced. Being divorced isn't against Church policy.......the Church understands that divorce is sometimes necessary. What is not allowed is remarriage in the Church after a civil divorce. Is the divorced teacher remarried? That would contravene the doctrine and teaching of the Church, but simply being divorced would not.

Another Leftist Slams Beck.

By her own admission, Lynn Voedisch is hardly a "poster child for religious piety", even going so far as to refer to herself as a "Renegade Christian". Not being certain just what Voedisch might mean by that reference, I searched the Internet for a working definition and found these two articles - here and here. While the writers of those article might disagree on whether being a Renegade Christian is a good thing or not, I was able to piece together what I believe Ms. Voedisch might mean by her use of the term.

As defined by the second article, a Renegade Christian believes that he or she can do his or her own thing without being associated or affiliated with any particular church. Ms. Voedisch claims to love Jesus' message, but not the "rigmarole and the fairy tales the church force-feeds so many people". I've always found that argument a bit odd ...... we only know of Christ's message because of the Church.

It's Ms.Voedisch self described, less than stellar following of Christian teachings that makes me wonder why she choose to write an article on what she calls Glenn Beck's Faith Fest and how Beck's followers are not following Christ's Word. Voedisch mentions the Sermon on the Mount, but it isn't clear to me that she has the slightest idea what Christ meant. As one person commenting on Voedisch's article pointed out, Christ never suggested that "Caesar" (read Federal Govt.) should take care of everyone from cradle to grave. Christians voluntarily helping the poor is very different than the Feds confiscating your wealth and doing with it as they please.

Ms.Voedisch ends her article with this gem;

"Consider this: 'See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.'
We are beautiful as we are, ratty jeans and all. Jesus wasn't even into designer clothing."

She misses the point. As a matter of fact, her use of this statement actually contradicts everything she tried to convey in her piece. The lesson from that quote is not "We are beautiful as we are, ratty jeans and all" but that we should look to God alone; He will provide for us.

There's no mention of Uncle Sam.

America's Newest Citizen.

Cathy's appointment with USCIS for her interview for citizenship was yesterday at 7:15.......AM....other side of Atlanta.....an hour and a half away. In order to be certain we could make it there on time - if traffic turned out to be heavier than expected - we left home at 5 o'clock.

It was too early to drop JP off at school, so he went with us. We arrived at 6:30, as planned, with enough time to get a bite to eat before going inside. There's not too many people at USCIS at 7 in the morning. There wasn't a huge line trying to get inside. We took off our shoes, sent our belongings through the x-ray and we walked through the metal detector and on up to the 2nd floor.

Surprisingly, we didn't have to wait long before someone came for Cathy. JP and I had to stay behind in the waiting area while Cathy was being interviewed; the agent did, however, request to see my driver's license.

The actual interview didn't take long either; maybe about 45 minutes. Cathy passed all the tests on U.S. history and civics as well as the rather simple English test (read this sentence for me......write this sentence).

We had been instructed to bring all sorts of documentation - originals and copies. Birth certificates for me and JP, marriage certificate for me and Cathy. Passports, divorce papers. The only copies that she had to give were the tax returns for three years and a copy to the deed to our house.......proof that we are actually living as husband and wife.

We could have been gone shortly after 8, but for the swearing in ceremony scheduled for 2 o'clock that afternoon. We found ourselves with nearly six hours to kill. It was off to the Buford Hwy farmers market to pick up some things not available in our home town. Did a lot of window shopping near the USCIS building until noon, when we had lunch.

At one o'clock, we went back inside and through security again.

Back on the 2nd floor, it turns out that there where 160 people getting sworn in that afternoon. All the friends and family accompanying the new citizens had to separate ourselves until all those being sworn in were seated inside the ceremony room; we were allowed in to sit in the back just before the ceremony began.

It had been a long day for JP and he went to sleep while we were waiting. I had to carry him inside and hold him on my lap while Cathy and the group were being sworn in. He woke up just before the ceremony ended.

Again, the family and friends had to go out first when the ceremony was over; it was easier for the new citizens to pick up their certificates on the way out. We were allowed to go back inside and take pictures......a few people posed in front of the U.S. flag, though Cathy and another lady choose to pose in front of the Dept. of Homeland Security flag instead.

We finally arrived home at 5 PM....twelve hours after we left that morning. It was a long day, but it was worth it. No more immigration....no more biometrics....no more fees. That is, until Cathy applies for Mama and Papa to immigrate.