Bacon & Beer

"It's all about the bacon." Jesus Christ, Lamb, The Gospel According to Biff. "THEY'RE ON OUR RIGHT, THEY'RE ON OUR LEFT, THEY'RE IN FRONT OF US, THEY'RE BEHIND US: THEY CAN'T GET AWAY FROM US THIS TIME." "Chesty" Puller at the Chosin Reservoir. “Come on you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?!” Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly at the WWI battle of Belleau Wood.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Spong-John No-Pants

John Spong is a former Episcopalian bishop who writes about everything he thinks is wrong with Christianity. He has a new book out called “The Sins of Scripture.” I’m not going to read it, but I’ve read the blurbs and so here’s my review, because I know Spong well enough through other writings to know what this book says.

I read one of his earlier books, but I don’t recall the title. I do recall that the entire first chapter consisted of Spong, sounding very modern, “liberal” [in the modern sense of the term], and politically correct, denying the truth of every single tenet of the Christian Creed. I think the title of the book was something a like “Why Christianity Must Change or Die” or the like. Anyway, my reaction to it was simple: Christianity doesn’t need to change; Spong needs to find a new faith.

It’s not that I have anything against Spong. A lot of people think my response is somehow “bigoted” or “anti-intellectual” or shows that I hate Spong. Not so. He can have any faith he wants and I promise not to bother him about it. He’s also a smart guy, and that’s great, too. But Christianity without its Creed is not Christianity anymore. Taking the historical Creeds out of Christianity doesn’t “change” Christianity; it completely erases it.

Okay, so after the first chapter Spong then says we all need to be nice and work for justice. Great. Something ground-shakingly new. Oh yeah, and the Church apparently doesn’t do that. [Spong could not have been a history major, but who is?]

The new book? the full title is The Sins of Scripture : Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love. Spong is never really happy unless he’s “exposing” things.

Here’s what one of the blurbs says:

Spong (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism), a retired Episcopal bishop and prominent spokesperson for liberal Christianity, focuses this book on "terrible texts" which have been used to justify such "sins" as overbreeding, degradation of the environment, sexism, child abuse and anti-Semitism. These biblical texts, according to Spong, are not the incontrovertible Word of God, but flawed human responses to perceived threats. An incendiary example of this is Spong's assertion that Paul was a closeted gay man whose anti-gay statements were motivated by little more than his own self-loathing. Spong does not stop there; in the course of the book he suggests that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married; that none of the supernatural events described in the Bible took place (including the resurrection); and that theism itself is a misunderstanding of God. Interestingly, readers who do not endorse Spong's radical reinterpretation of Christianity will still find much in this book they can affirm. His explanation of the roots of Christian anti-Semitism is fascinating and much less challenging to orthodoxy than many of his other claims. Unfortunately, Spong leads with his weakest section, which features a variety of poorly constructed arguments claiming, but giving inadequate evidence for, a strong causal relationship between biblical injunctions and both overpopulation and environmental problems. Nonetheless, this absorbing book has much to offer readers of all persuasions.”

Okay, this is easy.

In his new book Spong “boldly” says that everything in the Bible he doesn’t agree with is in there by mistake because of flawed human responses to God’s message. I happen to agree with him that the Bible contains errors due to human error in understanding the revelation of God, but I don’t pretend to know what they all are. Spong, of course, does. And so much so that he is actually able to psychoanalyze the Apostle Paul almost 2,000 years after the man’s death. Spong’s genius is undeniable, I’m sure he believes. Anyway, there is nothing “bold” about attacking Christianity these days. It’s actually quite fashionable. Oh, and there's nothing astounding about saying Jesus married Mary Magdalene. See The Da Vinci Code. Maybe Spong was hoping to ride that tidal wave.

So, in the end, you have historical Creedal Christianity on one side, and on the other side some sort of amorphous “Wasn’tjesusniceianity” with no Creed, no supernatural events, and no Scripture except those parts of the Christian Bible that Spong approves of.

I’ll stick with the prior, thanks.

Below is a recent photo of Rev. No-Pants

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

"We're on the verge of WW III"

On the verge? I thought we were pretty much already there.

Mossad officer says West and Islam are on the verge of World War III

Monday, March 27, 2006

City Council of El Wadi Al Quds bans Easter Bunny

The former City of St. Paul, now El Wadi Al Quds, Minnesota, yesterday banned the public display of the Easter Bunny in state operated buildings so as "not to give offense to 'non-Christians,'" officials explained, making little quote marks in the air with their fingers and winking rapidly.

"Not that we have any particular 'non-Christians' in mind of course. I mean, the thought of bunny stuffing blown into smithereens by a, um, 'non-Christian' suicide bomber, that could happen with someone from any non-Christian religion," Mayor Johnson-Habibi said.

"Wait! I mean, it could be a Christian, too, I didn't mean that, it's just, you know, Christians are less likely to suicide bomb there own religious symbols."

Reached for comment, the bishop of St. Paul, I mean, El Wadi Al Quds, said "They think the Easter Bunny is a Christian symbol? Wow, maybe we've already lost this war. Plus, he can't even spell 'their.'"

In other action taken to avoid offending "non-Christians," the City formerly named for the apostle likely the most important in the foundation of the Christian Church renamed itself El Wadi Al Quds. As far as any city officials know, the city's new name means "The Wadi of the Quds."

El Wadi Al Quds bans Easter Bunny

Here is a recent photo of Mayor Johnson-Habibi

Interesting news -- Abdul Rahman's refusal to back down may be sowing seeds in Afghanistan

Interest in Xianity growing in Afghanistan

Kudos to ABC News for this coverage of Christianity in Afghanistan

The Secret World of Afghan Christians

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Good News! (So far)

The Afghan court that was holding Abdul Rahman, the Christian convert facing execution for leaving Islam, has dismissed the case.
Christian to be released without trial

Now, all he has to do is get out of the country alive.

Perhaps I was wrong in my judgment about where this Islam v. Christianity thing is headed. I sure hope so. But let's wait to see what finally happens to this guy.

Here is a recent photo of me wondering about that.

Saturday, March 25, 2006

More Christian Infidels Arrested in Afghanistan

The "cancer" of Christianity in Afghanistan appears to be spreading, leading to more arrests and one man hospitalized there.

The Cancer of Christianity

Can you imagine the outcry of "racism" [sic], "hate-speech" and the like if a spokesman for a Christian denomination called Islam a "cancer?" Which it is, but I'm not a spokesman for a Christian denomination, nor do I hold myself out as some sort of religious expert.

I think these cases in Afghanistan will determine, no, that's not right. Will indicate the future direction of the possible relationships between the Islamic world and the Christian. And, of course, since I believe that the most likely outcome is all out war, unfortunately I think these men will be executed. And I don't expect anyone from Hollywood to ever mention it.

Here is a recent photo of someone from Hollywood not mentioning it.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Regardless your position, this ain't a bad thing

The link above will direct you to a Powerline article about a letter from a mayor in Iraq who has some pretty good things to say about our troops.

So, Nyaa. :-D

A coupla quickies

Here's a link to someone who calls herself "the only sane Arab in the world." Haven't read much of her stuff but looks pretty good so far. Would that there were more.


The Sane Arab
Here is a recent photo of her

Monday, March 20, 2006

More

The prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, has said that he would drop charges if Mr Rahman converted back to Islam, but he has so far refused to do so.

“He would be forgiven if he changed back, but he said he was a Christian and would always remain one . . . We are Muslims and becoming a Christian is against our laws. He must get the death penalty.” In the first hearing of Mr Rahman’s case, Judge Zada, the head of the Primary Court, said that a verdict would be reached within two months.

Nice religion. It would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous.

Convert from Islam Could get death sentence in Afghanistan

Do you hear the outrage from the Moderate Muslim Community? Yeah, neither do I. How about from the Presbyterian Church! Surely they're outraged. Oh no, wait, they're too busy meeting with Hamas. Why doesn't the US government say anything about this kind of thing, or at least offer the guy asylum?

Here is a recent photograph of the unfortunate man:












In other news, the Vatican, taking a procedural cue from the Mormons, revises its verdict on the Crusades back to "like 'em."

Vatican likes the Crusades again

Here is a recent photo of a Mormon:

Saturday, March 18, 2006

The Force of Reason: A Review

I just finished Oriana Fallaci’s powerful book, “The Force of Reason.”  I will, in honor of her style, keep my review succinct.  

First, this book contains a sufficient amount of history about the Islamic religion in such a few number of pages that the laziest of persons should be required to read it.  You want more?  Take a class.  You want the truth fast and quick?  Read this book (link below).  

Second, it is with some despair that I say if your thesis is correct, if the “triple alliance” of the political parties and the Roman Catholic (not “Catholic” as you say) Church, plus the media are all kowtowing toward this Islamic religion, then who is it you are trying to save?  In despair I ask, don’t these people deserve their Muslim rulers?  (I do not call the Roman Catholic Church “the Catholic Church,” as you do, because “catholic” means universal.  The Roman Catholic Church is a localized church.  The Catholic Church is the body of all believers in Jesus Christ.)

Third, and related to what I just said, is my plea to you, Oriana Fallaci, to abandon your atheism and recognize Jesus Christ.  You write in glowing fashion about His effect on human culture.  You write in glowing fashion about His revolutionary ideas (which, really, just concretized ideas already floating around in Jewish culture (which shouldn’t be a surprise – if Jesus is God, would He say something different?  :-D)).  So why do you think Jesus is the central figure in human history?  Why do you think the words of a first century back-water carpenter affect the thinking of American Presidents?  Why do you think it is that this unwashed carpenter from Podunk, Israel is the most quoted, most revered figure in human history?  Why would that be?

Reason with me, Ms. Fallaci.  As you say, “Listen to me, I beg you.  Listen to me because, as I’ve said many times, I do not write for fun or for money.  I write out of duty.”  Reason with me.  Who is it that could wreak such unconquerable havoc in the human story that freed slaves, gave women equality, forswore violence, preached love and promised eternal salvation.  Who could that possibly be?

Friday, March 17, 2006

Compare and contrast

The Crusades met the criteria for a just war.  Below is an excerpt from Oriana Fallaci’s “The Force of Reason,” a book which I highly recommend, and a link to it at Amazon is provided below as well.  Fallaci’s historical knowledge is vast, but the conciseness of her story-telling makes this excerpt especially valuable.  I only quote from her history of Islamic expansion up to the time of the Crusades.  There’s more, but you’ll have to read the book.

     But before we get to that I want to talk a little about the expansion of Christianity.  See, after Jesus was crucified, the disciples and a few stragglers attacked the town of Cana, in Galilee, and executed anyone who refused to believe in Jesus.  Later, they realized it made much more economic sense to tax the non-believers, so they did that instead of executing all of them.  They executed some, of course, for the terror-factor, but most they left alone and just took their money.  So as the religion slowly ….  Oh.  Wait.  None of that is true.  

     In fact, the Christian religion forswore violence of any kind.  Love of neighbor and fellow congregant was the rule.  The Christian religion spread by word of mouth, and by example.  As those who witnessed what the Christians were doing for each other, for the sick and poor, became enamored of this New Way, and became Christians themselves out of free choice.  It wasn’t until the conversion of Roman Emperor Constantine on October 28, 312, as the result of an omen before his victory in the Battle of Milvian Bridge, that Christianity acquired military arms.  This is what he saw:






And in retrospect, thank God Christianity acquired military power when it did.  Apparently, God knew exactly what new religion was coming down the pike.  Suffice to say, of course, after acquiring secular power and military strength, the Church immediately began to do the kinds of things all humans do with them, much to our chagrin perhaps – but we Christians looking back might want to be careful about condemning our forefathers in the faith.  But anyway there you go.  The expansion of early Christianity.  Here, is Oriana Fallaci to compare the expansion of Islam up to the time of the Crusades:

“It was in 635 AD, that is three years after Mohammed’s death, that the armies of the Crescent Moon invaded Christian Syria and Christian Palestine.  [Emphasis added; Tee hee. An unfortunate historical fact.  Ed.]  It was in 638 that they took Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre.  It was in 640 that after conquering Persia and Armenia and Mesopotamia, present-day Iraq, they invaded Christian Egypt and overran Christian Maghreb.  That is, the present Tunisia and Algeria and Morocco.  It was in 668 that for the first time they attacked Constantinople and laid a siege that would last five years.  It was in 711 that after crossing the Strait of Gibraltar they landed in the most Catholic Iberian Peninsula, took possession of Portugal and Spain where despite the Pelayos and the Cid Campeadors and the other warriors engaged in the Reconquest they remained for no less than eight centuries.   And whoever believes in the myth of the “peaceful co-existence that marked the relationships between the conquered and the conquerors” should reread the stories of the burned convents and monasteries, of the profaned churches, of the raped nuns, of the Christian and Jewish women abducted to be locked away in their harems.  He should ponder on the crucifixions of Cordoba, the hangings of Granada, the beheadings of Toledo and Barcelona, of Seville and Zamora.  (The beheadings of Seville ordered by Mutamid: the king who used those severed heads, heads of Jews and Christians, to adorn his palace.  The beheadings of Zamora, ordered by Almanzor: the vizier who was called the-patron-of-the-philosophers, the greatest leader Islamic Spain ever produced!).  Christ!  Invoking the name of Jesus meant instant execution.  Crucifixion, of course, or decapitation or hanging or impalement.  Ringing a bell, the same.  Wearing green, the colour exclusive to Islam, also.  And when a Muslim passed by, every Jew and Christian was obliged to step aside.  To bow.  And mind to the Jew or the Christian who dared react to the insults of a Muslim.  As for the much-flaunted detail that the infidel-dogs were not obliged to convert to Islam, not even encouraged to do so [emphasis added], do you know why they were not?  Because those who converted to Islam did not pay taxes.  Those who refused, on the contrary, did.
“From Spain, in 721 AD, they passed into the no less Catholic France.  Led by Abd al-Rahman, the Governor of Andalusia, they crossed the Pyrenees and took Narbonne.  There they massacred the entire male population, enslaved all the women and children, then proceeded towards Carcassonne.  From Carcossonne they went to Nimes where they slaughtered nuns and friars. From Nimes they went to Lyons and Dijon where they pillaged every single church… And do you know how long their advance in France lasted?  Eleven years.  In waves. In 731 a wave of three hundred and eighty thousand infantry and sixteen thousand cavalry reached Bordeaux which surrendered at once.  Then from Bordeaux it moved to Poitiers, from Poiters it moved to Tours and, if in 732 Charles Martel had not won the battle of Poitiers-Tours, today the French too would dance the flamenco.  In 827 they landed in Sicily, another target of their voraciousness. Massacring, beheading, impaling, crucifying as usual, they conquered Syracuse and Taormina then Messina and Palermo, and in three-quarters of a century (which was what it took to break the proud resistance of the Sicilians) they Islamized the island.  They stayed for over two centuries, in Sicily:  until they were cleared out by the Normans.  But in 836 they landed at Brindisi.  In 840, at Bari.  And they Islamized Puglia too.  In 841 they landed at Ancona.  Then from the Adriatic they moved back to the Tyrrhenian Sea and in the summer of 846 landed at Ostia.  They sacked it, they burned it, and moving upriver from the mouth of the Tiber they reached Rome.  They laid siege to it and one night they burst in.  They plundered the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, sacked both, and to get rid of them Pope Sergius II had to stipulate an annual tribute of twenty-five thousand pieces of silver.  To prevent further attacks, his successor Leo IV had to erect the Leonine Walls.
“Having left Rome, though, they descended on Campania.  They stayed there for seventy years destroying Montecassino and tormenting Salerno.  A city where, at one time, they amused themselves by sacrificing a nun’s virginity every night.  Do you know where?  On the cathedral’s altar.  In 898 they landed in Provence.  To be precise, in present-day Saint-Tropez.  They settled there, and in 911 crossed the Alps to enter Piedmont. They occupied Turin and Casale, set fire to all the churches and libraries, killed thousands of Christians, then went to Switzerland.  Here they reached the Graubunden valley and the lake of Geneva.  Then, put off by the snow, did an about-turn and returned to the warm climate of Provence.  In 940 they occupied Toulon where they settled and…  Today its fashionable to beat our breast over the crusades.  To blame the West for the Crusades.  To see the Crusades as an injustice committed to the detriment of the poor-innocent-Muslims.  But before being a series of expeditions to regain possession of the Holy Sepulchre that is of Jerusalem, (which had been taken by the Muslims, remember, not by my aunt), the Crusades were the response to four centuries of invasions and occupations.  They were a counter-offensive to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.  To deflect it, mors tua vita mea, towards the Orient (meaning India and Indonesia and China) then towards the whole African continent and towards Russia and Siberia where the tartars converted to Islam were already crushing the followers of Christ.  At the conclusion of the Crusades, in fact, the sons of Allah resumed their persecutions as before and more than before.
“By the hand of the Turks, this time.  The Turks who were about to prepare the firth to the Ottoman Empire.  An empire that until 1700 would concentrate on the West all of its greed:  turn Europe into its favourite battlefield. Interpreters and bearers of that greed, the famous Janissaries who still today enrich our language with the synonym of killer fanatic assassin.  And do you know who the Janissaries actually were?  The chosen troops of the empire, the super-soldiers as capable of self-immolation as of fighting and massacring and sacking.  Do you know where they were recruited or rather pressed into service?  In the countries subjugated by the Empire.  In Greece, for example, or in Bulgaria ,in Romania, in Hungary, in Albania, in Serbia.  Often in Italy too, along the coasts plied by their pirates.  Those coasts where still today you can see the remains of the watchtowers used for spotting their arrival and warning the towns and villages.  And where still resounds the echo of the scream which today is used as a mockery but at that time was a cry of terror and despair:  Mamma, li turchi!  Mother, the Turks!  They abducted those killers to be at the age of eleven or twelve, together with even younger children to put in the seraglios of the sultans and viziers given to paedophilia, and they chose them from the best-looking and strongest of the important families’ firstborns.  After the conversion they shut them in the military barracks and here, forbidding them to have any kind of amorous or affectionate relations, marriage included, they indoctrinated them as not even Hitler would indoctrinate his Waffen SS.  They turned them into the most formidable fighting machine the world had been since the Roman times.”

Oh, and here is a recent photograph of Ms. Fallaci:       

Thursday, March 16, 2006

I don't think they mean it like "Painting the Town Red," Somehow

Apparently the top Iranian cleric, Ayatollah Sump'm ali Sump'm told the former president of Spain in 2001 that Iran's goal is to "set Israel alight." Read for yourself:

Iran wants to set Israel alight

Oh, and another thing. Whenever I hear a Muslim (Muh zlim) tell me that the Koran (Ka ran) is pronounced "Kiu rahn" or Islam (Iz lam) is pronounced "Ee slahm" and Muslim "Moo slem", I want to ask, "in what language?" Because I speak English, and in my language it's Muh-zlim, Ka-ran, and Iz-lam.

Here is a recent photo of the Ayatollah

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

I read the news today, oh boy

So, I read today that the top Iranian cleric Ayatollah Sump’m al sump’m said, and I paraphrase, “The Iranian nuclear program is going forward no matter what.  Now we can do something about Israel.”

Then I read that Hamas, which is now “governing” the Palestinians, pledged that they will never recognize Israel “until all Palestinian rights are restored.”  Which means, of course, the disappearance of Israel because it is an “illegal occupation.”

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=79211&d=15&m=3&y=2006

What nincompoop thinks we’re not at war with the Muslim world?

Ecclesiastes speaks to this, I think:

 1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
 2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
 3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
 4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
 5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
 6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
 7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
 8 a time to love, and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.


Saturday, March 11, 2006

Quick, throw a burkha over it! (More proof that Allah is nuts)


Ayyan Hirsi Ali, again

Separated at birth?


John Stroger



Jabba the Hutt

Friday, March 10, 2006

Is Barack Obama a Muslim Apostate? Strange News Item

If this is false, Obama needs to put the kybash on this fast. If it's true, he's got some 'splainin' to do.

Is Obama an Apostate Muslim?

The author of this article seems to be a hyperventilating a little prematurely, but it would be nice to know the answers to some of the questions posed.

Saturday, March 04, 2006

A Muslim Lawyer's View on the Cartoons of a Medieval Tribal Warlord

A very interesting read where a Muslim lawyer defending the Illini editor who published the Mohammed cartoons (KABOOOM!) explains how he has apparently put the First Amendment above Sharia law. I don't know how that can be consistent if you believe that Sharia comes directly from God, or Allah or whatever, but it's nice to see him doing it.

Friday, March 03, 2006

Another fatwa. Enjoy!

"Picture frames and photographs of animate objects are not permissible to
display. Frames having pictures of inanimate objects e.g. trees, mountains,
etc. are permissible.
- Hadhrat Abu Talha (Radhiyallaahu Ánhu) narrates that Nabi (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam) said, 'Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog
or picture.' (Mishkãt vol. 2 p. 385)
? Ábdullah ibn Masóod (Radhiyallaahu Ánhu) narrates that Rasulullah
(Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said, 'The people with the most severe
punishment by Allah will be the picture makers.' (Ibid).
? Hadhrat Ibn Abbas (RA) narrates, 'I heard the messenger of Allah saying,
"Every picture-maker will be in the fire. A life will be created for every
picture the picture-maker made, and he will be tortured in Hell."
If you have to make pictures (says Ibn Abbaas) then make a picture of a tree
or such things which are inanimate.' (Bukhari and Muslim)

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai"

Ask the Imam

These people are, pardon the expression, and, of course, using my freedom of speech responsibly and, so, intending no gratuitous outrage or offense, because, of course, freedom of speech is all about not offending anyone, fucki*g nuts.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

More new Jokes!

Okay, so a rabbi, a priest and a musl..KABOOOM!

Okay, so a muKABOOM!!