Sunday, January 20, 2008

Book Review of The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day

Sometime in the fall of 2003 I came across the opinion column written by Vox Day on World Net Daily. The article, which sticks in my memory, was about a personal friend. This friend was an artist, a real free spirit and also a self-professed atheist. For what ever reason this young lady came to a point where she chose to carry the atheistic worldview to it's ultimate conclusion, to control even life itself, by ending her own life.
This nihilistic, Godless, self-aggrandizing worldview, this rejection of a world with rules, standards and consequences to the same, is currently being championed by a group of authors Vox has dubbed the Unholy Trinity. The Irrational Atheist is a full frontal assault on Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, schills for the ungod.
I have a friend who works in the CBM gas fields of NE Wyoming. On occasion he encounters rattlesnakes. Now he doesn't hate snakes, he believes in live and let live. But, when a deadly poisonous snake sticks up its diamond shaped head, rattles it tail and threatens to strike, ignoring the danger has deadly results. My friend has a solution to the problem. He takes a trusty shovel and proceeds to make the situation less threating for himself, very deadly for the snake.
The Irrational Atheist is killing snakes with a shovel. The UnHoly Trinity stick their heads up, rattle their tail, and flick their bifurcated tongues, and Vox Day takes a shovel to them. This book is a beat down of ideologies, theories and rationalities which hold dangerous consequences to mankind. Vox shows in various ways that the attempt to take away religious belief, a faith in a divine being, leads to totalitarian slaughter in an attempt to enforce a Godless culture. Whether it's the current regime in N. Korea, the bloody hands of Mao-Tse-Tung, or the mass killing by the nation celebrating The Union of the Militant Godless, mankind is in danger when its people believe that “there is no God to whom he must ultimately answer for his deeds”.
I have read several works of Christian apologetics, The Case for Christ by Lee Stobel, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Gisler, Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, and others. This book is nothing like those. This book is an attack on atheism/Godlessness using reason, logic and facts, the very things that the UnHoly Trinity claim to love. The results are not pretty. Harris in particular, but all three are made to appear as ignorant fools. This should be no surprise to the Believer, since we already know that, ”the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
I've heard Christian friends and leaders say that it's not possible to use reason, logic and facts to show the existence of God. While this may be true, Vox does an absolute masterful job of using those three things to eviscerate the arguments of D,H and H. Yes, its true that as believers we need to share the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ with those who hold an atheistic worldview, but some of them, may need to have their faith system destroyed first. The Irrational Atheist is an intellectual challenge to the commonly used arguments by many atheists. Rather than appeal to the atheist using the Book they consider to be fairy tales, Vox resorts to bearding the lions in their own den, using their own arguments.
Who should read this book? Atheists who are willing to consider that fact that many of their arguments and the champions of those arguments are fatally flawed. Atheists who are convinced that they are the font of all knowledge and truth, you'll find the answer is, not so much. Any student, high school or college who is currently studying worldviews, belief systems and/or theology. Christians who desire a useful tool for understanding and confronting the atheistic worldview. And Christians who are dealing with militant atheists using D,H and H as sources of information in their attacks on Christianity.
A few disclaimers. Vox writes with a slash and burn style. A take no prisoners, blow them up and leave a smoking hole mentality. Some in the Christian community are going to be offended by this approach. I would remind them that our Lord had some rather harsh things to say to some of His critics. You don't call someone a “generation of vipers”, “whited sepulchres”, and “fools” without having your targets tend to react unfavorably to these terms. Vox does not treat D,H and H with kid gloves. It's an in your face, put up or shut up, throw down.
Some in the Christian community will dislike Vox's theology. Fine, you need to read the book for all of the information given related to atheistic thoughts and ideas, so that you may better understand how to defend your own beliefs and worldview. If you find his notions of AI and free will to be different than your own, you will have still benefited from reading the book.
One other thing. Sometimes Vox uses descriptions which are, well, crude. While they illustrate the point he is trying to make, they can be more than a little over the edge. You've been warned.
The Irrational Atheist is a great read. It challenges the proponents of atheism on their philosophies, and in the end, leaves them looking defenseless and hollow. I believe that Vox has a personal dislike for those spreading the lies of Godless atheism because he has seen the results of their ideas in the lives of those around him, including his friend in that column years ago. So in this book he makes his attempt to show the folly of their belief system. If they are messed up a little in the process, what are they going to do, appeal to a higher authority for vengeance?

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Is Mike Huckabee a Liberal?


Joe Carter

Am I wrong about Mike Huckabee?

For the past few months I've been arguing that Governor Huckabee is a solid and consistent conservative. I even went to work for his campaign in a role that gave me a clear and detailed view of both his record and his policy positions.

Yet many conservatives that I respect believe that I am wrong. In the last debate Sen. Thompson even said Huckabee would "bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies." Are they seeing something that I am not?

My answer,
First a story. Then an explanation.

In 2000 Jorge the Younger Shrub was campaigning for President here in Iowa. And the most powerful radio station in Iowa is WHO radio. They are very conservative in philosophy, the hosts are conservative and if your going to reach a conservative audience you have to go there and make an appearance.

Now Jorge made his appearance, and as the Mickelson show progressed Jorge made his claim of being a "compassionate conservative". Asked to explain, he talked about a smarter, less intrusive government, a government that would not tell people what to do, it would respond to their needs. A government that would follow the Constitution.

Now up to this point I was convinced. That sounded really good. That sounds like the opposite of Bill and Hillary care, cradle to grave nannyism. I was ready to buy Jorge the Younger, he was the man.

That all changed in the next sentence. Jorge said, I want to be the education president. Mickelson, said, Please explain. I want to make our education system better, I want our students to learn faster and help those who are falling through the cracks.

And there is the nut of the problem. One sentence, a government that follows the Constitution. The next he wants to be the education president, government giving us a bigger better education system.

Nowhere in the Constitution is education mentioned. Let me repeat that. NOWHERE

Jorge the Younger and now Mike Huckabee have accepted the liberal position that since some other fool violated the Constitution and entangled the Federal Government in the education system, therefore it's his job to make the education system bigger and better.

A conservative/Constitutionalist would close the Department of Education.

Since governor Huckabee has proposed fixing the education system, he clearly does not understand the role of the federal government. Therefore one can only conclude that he is a liberal.

Maybe you doubt my characterizations of Huckabee's ideas.

In an article/chart in the Des Moines Sunday Register Sunday July 29, Mike gave the following answers.

Question, What would you do to ensure U.S fourth graders are competitive in academic achievement with there international peers in math, science, and reading?

Huckabee said he would create preschool programs and implement a program similar to Arkansas' Smart Start, which targets children in kindergarten through fourth grade with increased standards and accountability measures.

Question, What, if anything, would you do to change the No Child Left Behind legislation, and how much, if any, federal money needs to be added to the program?

My comment, this legislation was written by Ted Kennedy.

Huckabee said the legislation should be tweaked to create a level playing field for schools with disproportionately large numbers of children who can't speak English, who live in poverty or who have other disadvantages. He doesn't support increasing federal money for the program because such money often comes with stipulations that don't allow states to make localized decisions about education.

Are you concerned about the amount of college debt young people have? If so, what should the federal government do to help solve this problem?

Huckabee said he would allocate money to federally funded, state-administered scholarships for college graduates who who are willing to go into national service outside of the military, such as teaching in impoverished areas of the country. He also supports similar merit-based scholarships for college students who come from low socio-economic backgrounds.

Want to see how a conservative/constitutionalist answers the same questions?

----- said he would get the federal government out of the classroom and allow states, local officials and parents to make the decisions that are best for their individual situations.

---- said that No Child Left Behind is uncontitutional legislation that usurped state and local authority over education. He said he would seek to repeal the law and give the money being spent on No Child Left Behind back to America's parents so they could once again be in charge of their children's educations.

---- said he is concerned about college debt, and the best way to combat it is to lower the tax burden on the American family so a person can have more resources to devote to education.

I rest my case. Mike Huckabee is a classic big government liberal, because he has accepted the principle that government can do a better job of managing education or (fill in the blank) than individuals can.

On the other hand the conservative/constitutionalist is more concerned with the individual, with protecting and empowering the parent/family than expanding or (tweaking) the existing system.

Isn't this cool?

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh


I laughed out loud at you on Monday's show. It seems that you are having a dust up with your listener's over Mike the Huckster. I laughed because the problems you're having explaining why Mike isn't a conservative are problems of your own creation. You sold out to the establishment a long time ago and the results are just now starting to be visible to you.
Before I go on, a little background. I started listening to you in 1988 when you were doing just two hours on WHO radio 1040 in Des Moines Iowa. I remember Mick from the high mountains. I was there for the first gulf war. I first went to Stroud's in KC after hearing you talk about it on your show. I remember the bake sale, your endorsement of Bill Clinton,(I was not fooled) I also remember when you endorsed Pat Buchanan. I listened for a long time.

You have for a long time claimed or at least intimated that you are the conservative leader in the country today. Yet you had a caller Monday suggest that you need to explain just what a conservative is, now that's funny. I think you've failed Rush and you failed because you sold your soul to the establishment. Now I can hear your bluster already. I'm an outsider, I'm not the establishment, I have no ties to the establishment. But history says you are reading your own propaganda, while ignoring the reality of what you have become.

I quit calling myself a Rush fan, in fact I later abandoned the term conservative, because of what you became on the show the day after February 16, 2000. That's the day you sold out. That's the day you abandoned conservatism in favor of pragmatic Republicanism. From that day on you have become nothing more than a Republican shill. Your listener's don't know what a conservative is because I'm convinced that you have so bought the neo-con republican line that you don't either.

I on the other hand have rejected conservatism in favor of Constitutionalism. I am a Constitutionalist, I no longer identify myself as a conservative. I have voted for the candidate from the Constitution party in the last 3 elections. The Republican party has abandoned the Constitution in particular and conservatism in general. I can no longer identify myself with the Lee Atwater, big tent, compassionate conservatism of the Republican party.

You on February 16, 2000 rejected conservatism to shill for the man you admitted at the time was not the most conservative man there. Go back watch the video. Rush, there was one conservative at the encounter, one, and you backed the faux conservative, the compassionate conservative, Jorge the Younger Shrub. And to this day, well at least until Monday, you have confused yourself and your listener's with attempts to make a man who's campaign motto should have been, “Read my lips, I'm a conservative!” appear to be conservative.
Now along comes a man claiming to be a better, "more compassionate conservative", a Jesus loving, born again populist conservative, and you are having regrets? second thoughts? guilt pangs? an attack of conscience? What is it? On what basis is the Huckster less conservative than Jorge the Younger Shrub?
The Huckster claims that campaign finance is unconstitutional, the Shrub signed that. The Huckster says that Faith-based initiatives are unconstitutional, the Shrub proposed them. The Huckster wants a bigger better military, the Shrub failed to grow the military, even contemplated shutting some more military bases. The Huckster claims he will close the border, the Shrub would open it up for unfetter access to any and all immigrant workers. So now the question is, how is the Huckster less conservative than the Shrub? Could it be that when you sold your soul for the establishment candidate, the “compassionate conservative”, that you forgot what real conservatism is? Maybe your listener's don't know what a conservative is, because they have been told since February 16, 2000 that Jorge the Younger Shrub is conservative, when in reality he was and is a moderate middle of the road establishment politician. A country club republican who labeled himself “compassionate conservative” and you backed his play.

What is a conservative Rush? Is it someone who's hero is Fredrick Hayek ? When's the last time you talked about him? Is it someone who believes in limited government like Reagan did? Is the Shrub a limited government type of guy? Remember the Shrub is your man, you've been shilling for him the last 6 years. Does a conservative believe that McCain/Feingold was an abomination, a blatant violation of the First Amendment? Did you call for the Shrub's impeachment for signing that travesty?? More worried about protecting the Shrub's ass, than defending the Constitution weren't ya Rushy. Does a conservative shill for Arlen Sphincter over Pat Toomey? Does a conservative protect a president that stabs conservatives like Pat Toomey in the back, helping instead to ensure a pro baby-killing big government RINO like Sphincter remain in office. It seems to me that your attempts to protect the Shrub led to confusion over what a conservative is. You've been riding the “compassionate conservative” fence so long that you're getting sore. Your listener's can't tell if you're a “compassionate conservative” or a establishment Republican, either way they no longer know what a conservative is, and it's your fault.

Rush, there is a Constitutionalist in the race, a classic conservative, a Reagan conservative and you have so swallowed the party line, the neo-con position, the ”compassionate conservative” position, that you no longer recognize a conservative when you see one?

Now I know you like the front runners, the party hacks, the establishment Republican candidate (see Bob Dole) does this mean that you will endorse some loser like John McCain or Fred Thompson or a “more compassionate conservative” like the Huckster when there is a real Constitutionalist conservative in the race? Why don't you go back to the old conservatism, the limited government, freedom loving, friend of liberty that is running for president on the Republican ticket.

So what's it going to be Rush, another faux conservative, a violator of the First Amendment, a hater of the Second Amendment, a “more compassionate conservative” or a Constitutionalist?

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Thoughts on the Iowa Caucus

I was disappointed in my fellow Iowans. They talk a good game. They claim to believe in the Constitution, yet they vote for people like John McCain and Fred Thompson who spit on the Constitution when they voted for McCain/Feingold. They claim to believe that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental principle upon which our nation was built, yet they voted for McCain and Thompson, the former with an appalling and the later with a wishy washy record on this issue.

At my local caucus after the vote had taken place, I talked to men who did not know either of those mens record on the issues I mentioned. Many of those I talked to voted for Fred (he got 19 votes) because they disliked the Huck and distrusted John and Mitt. Out of 57 votes cast at my precinct Mitt got 1 vote.

Some of my good friends voted for Mike because "He loves Jesus". Mike got 21 votes and clearly it was a vote based on his "Christianity" over anything else. What they fail to realize is that he will be marginalized just as Pat Robertson was, just as Gary Bauer was, trying to choose a secular governmental leader solely on his religion will always fail because the office of the President is not the national preacher. I agree with Mike on most issues related to Christianity, but that does not qualify him to be President of the United States.

Ron Paul got 7 votes, and several of the people I spoke to told me they would have voted for him but they don't like his position on the war on terror. Many of the same people are unhappy with what is happening in the "war on terror" but claim that Ron Paul is too isolationist. So they voted for guys that are going to maintain the status quo, explain that in logical terms.

The Ghoul and John Insane got 4 and 3 votes respectively.

I could go on but what's the use? The people of Iowa failed. They did the same old thing, just like they did in 1988. A religious figure leaves the state the leader, and will be out of everything in 2 months. The tide will eventually sweep into place making Fred or John the next Republican nominee, a Bob Dull redo. So much for a change, look for 4 years of Demoncrat rule.