Thursday, August 29, 2013

The Nullification Principle: Nonbelievers Declare War

In arithmetic if you multiply anything by zero, the result is zero. Apparently certain atheist groups believe a similar principle should apply in public life.  If anyone, they argue, who believes in something "religious", crosses paths with someone who believes in nothing, then nothing in the way of belief may be expressed lest he who believes in nothing be offended. Recent lawsuits seem to indicate that offended nonbelievers trump offended believers in the new social order being promoted here.

Actually the Apostle Paul does counsel us to do our best not to offend our "weaker" brethren by the exercise of our beliefs so far as possible. I believe Paul may have anticipated a time when the very sight of the faithful or any symbol of faith would offend those who have no faith, but he writes about it elsewhere. Jesus warned us that if they did it to Him, we should expect that they will do it to us. By they, He referred to any militant religious force with a hunger for power.  From the Sanhedrin, to the god-emperors of Rome to the virulent anti-religion forces in this country, each has declared war on the Christian faith (and all other faiths for that matter at one time or another). They call, not for freedom of religion, but for freedom from religion or at least universal adherence to their brand of religiosity. As in the days of the Roman, German, Chinese, Russian, Cambodian, Rwandan, Sudanese and Serbian genocides, they are in deadly earnest about removing all trace of it from human cultures.

They aren't talking genocide yet, but wait for it.

Religion in militant atheist circles draws the blame for everything bad that has ever happened in the history of the world.  Religion is blamed for wars, for famines, for plagues pestilence and genocide. It matters not that each of these atrocities have been perpetrated almost entirely by governments -- frequently masquerading as acting on religious principles, yes -- but governments nonetheless. Let us remember the 21st century death toll credited to governments who formally proclaimed their atheism.  Between China and the USSR alone, some 200 to 300 million died to feed the paranoia of governments without a God.

Given the vehemence with which they go after even innocuous symbols of faith, one wonders what would happen if we gave them more power
- oh, say a formally atheist socialist government.  Socialism/communism does seem to be the government of choice for the majority of the world's atheists these days.



© 2013 by Tom King

Monday, August 26, 2013

How DC Comics Should do the "Justice League" Movie





You know I really think DC Comics ought to go all out with a "Justice League" movie like Marvel did with the Avengers. Of course, you couldn't call it "Justice League of America". That would be too Americanish.


I know, We could call it the "Obama Justice League" after all the greatest president ever has been looking to start up a domestic security force with teeth to it. That would just about do it. They could be the president's own super-hero task force.

Casting is really important too.  They already have Ben Affleck as Batman (after all, he did such a good job of killing the Tom Clancy/Jack Ryan movie franchise, why not let him have a go at the millionaire weapons manufacturer/do-gooder Bruce Wayne).  They change out Superman for every film now, so isn't it about time to put George Clooney in the blue suit and cape or at least the latest version of it.


Jane Fonda simply must be Wonder Woman.  Okay, I admit she's a bit long in the tooth, but she still has all those workout videos, so she should be able to get back in shape if anyone can and you can bet she'd bring some feminist political sensitivity to the role.

The Flash should be Jim Carrey.  His recent anti-gun rant puts him in the perfect position to show us, as The Flash, that we don't really need guns. We just need to be faster than bullets.

Finally, though I liked Ryan Reynolds as the Green Lantern, he was just a bit too butch for the role, since it's now been revealed that the Green Lantern is, in fact, gay.  I say we slide Neil Patrick Harris into the role.  He's thin enough for the tights.

The rest of the League, we can fill out with Glee cast members.

That ought to just about kill any residual support in the comic fan community for the DC franchise, which is what the company seems to be working diligently toward. The one I really feel sorry for in all of this is Superman. He must be confused now that his raison d'etre is "Relative Truth, Selective Justice and the Progressive Socialist Way".

Hope this helps you guys over at DC!  Hmm. I just noticed that.  DC?  Same as the city. That could explain some things.......

© 2013 by Tom King

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Telling the Truth While Lying - The Case Against Texas' Voter ID Law

Sherilynn Ifill
Well, the feds are suing the state of Texas for writing a law that says you have to show that you are who you say you are when voting.  The case, if you're a liberal, is compelling. Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund throws out a familiar liberal talking point on the subject.  "A Texas voter," she says, "Is more likely to be struck by lightning than to see someone attempt to vote fraudulently at the polls."

This argument is true in the strictest sense. It is also a lie in Truth's clothing. The key phrase here is "see someone attempt to vote fraudulently"

  1. First, you can't see dead people vote.
  2. She never said you couldn't see someone "successfully" vote fraudulently.  If you did you would never know it was happening.  
So the chance that you would know someone voted fraudulently are slim unless someone caught them in the act doing it right in front of you.  The lightning stat is probably close to true. You are more likely to get hit by lightning than to actually see someone caught in the act of voting illegally. 

Which is sort of the point of the Texas Voter ID law. With the ID requirement, it will be rather easier to actually catch someone voting fraudulently.

Democrats - Protecting the voting rights of dead people since the 19th Century.

© 2013 by Tom King