Monday, August 29, 2011

Johnny Spaghetti Stain

by Tom Wise

"Why is it that Johnny Spaghetti Stain in **** Georgia can knock a woman up, legally be married to her, and then beat the **** out of her, but these two intelligent, sophisticated writers who have been together for 20 years can't get married?" - Seth McFarlane, Family Guy creator

This quote is already a couple of years old but it may be among the most dishonest statements I've ever read, for the following reasons:

(1) Married heterosexuals:

- live in Georgia

- are or have been promiscuous

- are abusive

- eat pasta without a bib

With that image in mind, we are supposed to be outraged. Why? Is it that Mr. Stain lives in a southern state? Is it that he has had sexual relations? Is it that he has taken the pregnant future Mrs. Stain to the altar? Is it that he is messy? Is it that he is abusive? Aha! Without the abuse, Stain is just a young kid with his brains in his pants. So, it is the sneaky insertion of a battered Mrs. Stain (let’s call her Ellen) which is meant to evoke sympathy. Does this mean abusive men do not exist? Of course not. However, McFarlane stilts his language in hopes that the mind will accept heterosexuality as the more abusive realm. Statistically, he may be correct, given that heterosexuals far outnumber homosexuals. But is this per capita? I’m sure McFarlane has these statistics at his fingertips. If he does, why? Is it his intention to bludgeon us with numbers in order to make his imaginary cartoonish beast more real? If, however, he does not have those numbers, I resent his uninformed bluster. But returning to McFarlane’s tale of woe, the chicanery is ongoing, for Stain does not begin the beatings until after marriage. Apparently, something about Ellen has caused Johnny to go off his nut. This is a relational issue, not a heterosexual issue.

McFarlane is, in his own way, a prude by disapproving of Ellen’s promiscuity (at least with Johnny Rotten!). At the same time, he is a hypocrite, championing a class of people whose sole claim to its status is sexuality.

McFarlane is also mean-spirited, giving Ellen no credit for desiring to raise her child in a two-parent household. One might say that McFarlane has only contempt for marriage, this opinion supported by his factual lifelong bachelorhood. But while he without experience clucks over the traditional man-woman family, the not-gay McFarlane promotes himself as an expert in homosexual intertwining.

This, of course, is a ruse. McFarlane could care less about Johnny and Ellen, or for that matter his gay friends. His beef is with the society that permits one such couple to be married but another to be forbidden from marriage. McFarlane has attempted to make society responsible for Ellen’s situation, but also for separating a fine gay couple. It is one and the same for McFarlane, Ellen’s black eye and the rough treatment of the homosexual duo. If only “society” would get itself together.

The Stains are a tool for McFarlane. If Johnny had been a real person, not a McFarlane canvas, he would possess the free will to move out of Georgia, wait until marriage to have sex, use birth control, or have a steak once in a while. McFarlane doesn’t give him this latitude of thought. Johnny is a puppet, scripted to incriminate damnable civilization. In a way, McFarlane plays God by placing them in that predicament. But if he can write it bad, why can’t he write it good?

Underlying all this is a conspiratorial tone, that freedom isn’t for everyone. According to McFarlane, it shouldn’t apply to that dirtbag Johnny, or to that slut Ellen, and not to the legislators who still permit such trash from tying the knot. I suppose in a perfect world McFarlane would have them removed from the city limits, to some “farm” (gulag). I’m not saying that every living person is a bastion of liberty (looks at McFarlane), but what’s the “solution”? Should we decide who gets to procreate? I guarantee you that would bring a resounding “Yea!” from McFarlane, not to mention the Hollywood/New York elite crowd. McFarlane doesn’t like the status quo establishment but he’s not against founding a new power structure to force his own views, however nasty. Is there a man in Georgia right now who fits the description of Stain? Of course. But it neglects the tens of millions upstanding, even-tempered, kind, classy, laundered married couples that live in Georgia and elsewhere. And that seems too much for McFarlane to defend.

(2) Gay people:

- are intelligent

- are sophisticated

- are monogamous

- are loyal

- are professional

McFarlane’s strategy is neat and concise. Having delivered the requisite heterosexual product through small-town crazies Johnny and Ellen, it’s time to play up the big-city gay couple who happen to be power players. There’s no contest, of course (any rational being must prefer you-know-who). Again, this is sneaky. It gives us false choices and makes moral demands. “Will it be stupid or smart? Low hairline or digital dexterity?” It advertises gays as more evolved while thrusting heterosexuals to the service entrance.

Are no gays unintelligent? Are none low-rent, disagreeable, multi-partnered? Do they not curse, get into drunken car wrecks, steal and murder? There’s nothing special about gays, whether it concerns success or virtue. McFarlane apparently feels differently. He is the guardian of their galaxy. He must swoop down like Tarzan to rescue them from trampling trailer trash. If you disagree, you are not worthy to join him for cocktails – uh.... – for drinks. Even if you’re neutral, you must be racist (if gay is genetic).

A hard thing for McFarlane to grasp (um...) is that gays are human, not above the fray. The law of nature and the laws of God apply to gays also. This naturally links us back to the Stain family, who in their misery reach for the Scriptures so that Johnny can claim he has the right to make his wife “submit.” This is meant to not disparage Johnny-boy as much as the Bible. Which makes sense, since “thou shalt not lie with another man as you would a woman” is right there in black and white. It’s not only imperative for McFarlane to denounce such “fictional literature” but also to link it with sub-humans. Thus, we are strewn further from reality by the ravings of a self-confessed atheist (McFarlane). Having lost the moral argument from the standpoint of what people actually believe rather than that which atheists claim is “real,” McFarlane is cornered. The only remaining strategy is to attack: “Anybody who thinks the Bible is real is stupid! And probably beats his wife!”

This is the sum of equality for which McFarlane pines: he gets to insult you, and you get to laugh at his cartoons. Meanwhile, hand over your right to free speech because you’re too stupid to use it. And he should know.

(3) McFarlane wants us to treat gays equally but he has created a scenario where gays are superior. And yes, by siding with the gay couple, those upstanding citizens, McFarlane is superior also. The message is: join us or be inferior. Thus, equality is true only when we agree with our adversary. Well, to be fair, shouldn’t gays agree with heterosexuals? No? I didn’t think so. What? You say gays have put up with straights for too long already? What does “put up with” mean? And what is the alternative? Forcing your views down everyone’s throats – uh...

By juxtaposing the gay Cleavers with Mr. Stain, we are indoctrinated. McFarlane uses that pig, Stain, to leverage for Ward and Ward special dispensation for that which society-at-large rejects. McFarlane is playing the victim card for his pals: “Look! These fine folks don’t even have the same rights as that crumb in Georgia!” OK. We will treat your gay friends the same way we would treat Stain – with contempt. I'll tell you what: I'll deny Johnny Spaghetti his marriage (not that it will last) if you will limit your request to the two caballeros. Naturally, what I have just said is inflammatory. This is the danger when analyzing such dishonesty: you find yourself surrounded by land mines placed well in advance. Of course McFarlane knows he’s laid this trap. He’s a scriptwriter!

Note, however, that even calling the union of two men a union of two men is met with a charge of hate speech. There is no equality when dealing with someone who is continually living the victim mentality. McFarlane does a great job positioning the pawns. However, all it takes to defeat him at this game is to call it for what it is – a lie. It’s not chess, it’s three-card Monte. This is not a debate, it’s a scene from Kafka’s Trial. By such maneuvers, whoever rejects McFarlane’s concepts is not just a boob, but a dangerous dissident!

(4) McFarlane’s demand that homosexuals be allowed to marry just like Mr. Stain is actually a compliment. By his proposal, heterosexual marriage is the highest form of relationship. If it is not, why does the very superior gay want a piece of the action? If they’re so smart, why can’t they think of a more clever arrangement than that found in Genesis?

Reference this with Brown vs. Board of Education. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that black people can’t learn unless they’re surrounded by white people. McFarlane’s claim is that gays can’t function in heterosexual society unless they are integrated with straights. But the reverse was never true. The Supreme Court did not assert that whites were disenfranchised by segregation, and McFarlane is not claiming that Johnny Spaghetti beats his wife because of his alienation from homosexuals. In fact, one should think the opposite: that by commingling with whites blacks would become more bigoted, and that by taking on the trappings of heterosexual marriage gays would become more violent and messier.

But the gay marriage “movement” is not a matter of equality, just a weapon with which to criticize heterosexual supremacy. The point is exactly to neuter heterosexuality hegemony. In the same manner, one might say that Brown vs. Board could never elevate blacks but only disempower whites. Have blacks benefited from integration? This is difficult to say since many blacks think not. Will gays gain from marriage rights? Perhaps monetarily, but perhaps not socially except that heterosexual marriage may take a knock. Again, hard to predict.

McFarlane’s statement does not reflect equality. By denigrating Johnny and Ellen, he diminishes heterosexual marriage to the point that no gay should ever desire marriage at all. The Stains are (by McFarlane’s gambit, not in reality) the worst of heterosexuality. By extension, only the most horrid elements of gaydom (don’t ask!) are justified. You can’t claim something is good (gay marriage) by placing it side-by-side with terrible elements (Stain) from the other side of the coin (heterosexual marriage). The coin is corrupted to the point where one must ask, “Why do you want to be on the coin?” A bridge falling down is not confirmation that we need more types of bridges! If heterosexual marriage is so bad, homosexuals should be running for the hills.

(5) Stain’s marriage is by society condoned as marriage because it’s heterosexual. Mr. Stain himself is not admired, and Mrs. Stain is pitied. By the same token, gay marriage is not accepted precisely because it is gay. Gays disallowed from marriage could be the nicest people in the world (nicer than Johnny and Ellen!) but just because they make better neighbors doesn’t mean they are eligible for something heterosexual. This is a simple case of community preference.

Marriage is also religious. Since the majority of communities are Judeo-Christian, it is anti-community to disavow the religious preferences of the majority for the feelings of a few. Churches cannot and should not be pressed to accept gay marriage or gay members. The opposite position (McFarlane’s) is that the majority can go suck an egg because they are bigoted. This does not help the case and loses the argument.

Marriage is also financial. Whether or not we like it, taxes are real. Services derive from taxes. Since the majority of communities are Christian, governmental services should not be appropriated to pay for things which the prevailing religious bloc rejects (homosexuality, abortion, etc). In reality, community taxes are distributed by agenda. It would therefore behoove the gay community to seek office. However, if they are rejected by their openness, whether sexuality or agenda, this is what democracy looks like. Equal opportunity does not ensure outcome.

But if you say, “The government shouldn’t get involved in sexuality and marriage,” I agree! So let’s stop bringing these cases to the Supreme Court! Naturally, I know that this is not the meaning of the plea, which is why “discrimination” is invoked. Philosophically, discrimination is a non-issue. Liberty means the right to deny a person charity. The only other option is coercive charity, which means redistribution of wealth and forced society. Since we all desire freedom, it is not incorrect that a store owner can deny service to a black man. However, the government cannot officially condone that by legislation. On the other hand, the measure to bring National Guard to Alabama to force black-white school integration was correct. Education is not to be denied. The same applies to police protection and street sweeping. Equal treatment by government employees is to be the law. But equal treatment from churches, shopkeepers, and the like is not to be enforced through government means.

Isn’t the marriage bureau a government agency? Yes. Isn’t the tax collector a government agency? Yes. Isn’t the distribution of collected taxes accomplished through government agency? Yes. Then why isn’t gay marriage legal? Because it interferes with freedom of religion. The same logic should say that guns may be regulated through governmental agency even if it interferes with the Second Amendment. Whether you are for or against guns, you must agree both in theory and practice that the inability to defend oneself by the same means as government may oppress (guns) is morally wrong and unconstitutional. Gun regulations are not Constitutionally correct, only legislated. The same is correlated to marriage: if enough regulations are enacted, the Constitutional liberty of individuals to live as they in the majority desire (short of infringing on actual rights, as construed through the Bill of Rights) and to restrain against intrusive government may be circumvented to benefit a minority. In other words, the only way gay marriage will be strictly observed is if government forces it on society.

(6) Another farce is equating homosexual “rights” with black civil rights. A black man is a black man wherever he goes. The bias is ready as soon as he is visible. A gay does not have any proof of gayness except a confession or, more convincingly, a photo. What sort of ID tag is that? Furthermore, the slavery of gays is not well-known. Please enlighten me. Blacks everywhere should be insulted that the rejection of gay marriage is upheld as an example of civil rights violation.

Then, there is the twofold “genetically gay” ploy. First, this is used to prevent anyone from saying that gays can be turned. The fact that gays turn straight every day doesn’t seem to make a ding in the “intelligent” minds of gay defenders. “Turned” gays are not only ammunition against “scientific theory” but also unhooks the moral argument. If gays can change, it is behavioral, which in large part supports the Biblical commandments against that behavior. Second, genetics is employed to equate homosexuality with skin color, that is, a black/gay connection for the sake of getting sympathy. One may as well say, “We all bleed red.” A chipmunk bleeds red, so the link is not made. Chipmunk rights don’t move me.

In any case, the idea of “DNA gayness” works in the opposite direction. If gays are genetically different from heterosexuals, there is no reason to assume that gays need, or even desire, anything heterosexual. Yet, many do. True, some gays don’t care or find such a thing demeaning, and still others would like straight society to be more “queer,” but I think a majority want social acceptability without hostility from either side. This yearning puzzles me.

Why do gays really want marriage rights? The best guess is that the monetary benefits are so attractive. Since we know this to actually be the main bullet point in any impartial list of gay marriage objectives, it boils down to extraction of funds by means of verbal coercion (whether pleading or shouting), dishonest moral imperatives (whether in the name of fairness or by insulting religion), and legal bullying. In short, it is nothing more than a shakedown. Their best deal is that straight society bestows equal treatment and gays remain aloof. Their worst offer is full-blown violent revolution. Google it.

One might think this parallels the black experience, but only in the most superficial manner. Blacks can’t hide their blackness. Gays, whether they like to hear it or not, have the ability (even if not willingness) to blend into straight society without recognition. No, I don’t fault the openly gay man for being beaten. All violent criminals need to be locked up. However, would you wear a yarmulke in an Arab slum without expecting some trouble? Would you as a white man walk through East LA on a dark night? We all have the right to expect protection but not when we ignore peril.

The expectation of morality, on the other hand, is a different story. Where is this morality? What is its makeup? What is its source? Can you dilute it by your personal preferences? And so on.

(6) McFarlane is a typical progressive. Find a victim. Make yourself a martyr for that cause. Cite a personal example to give yourself credibility. Make a louder noise than the actual offended party. Heap guilt upon the supposed oppressor. Claim to be a victim yourself when your position is challenged. Attend parties where like-minded progressive cry about their burdens, in the same way old people sit on the porch comparing aches (at least old people have aches). Use the money you accrued from entertaining the same people you propose to despise in order to foist a new paradigm on your bread-and-butter. Cry more when you fail. Propose some radical form of protest to announce loudly how well you’re failing. Trumpet every judicial win that had no consensus of the population. Drop your equality stance as you realize that you have cheated your way to some legal foothold. Cry when the conservative backlash eventually comes.

Write that, Stewie!

Green Space Aliens to Destroy Man to Save Earth

by Tom Wise

Need I elaborate? OK, I'll take the bait.

There are space aliens. There are green environmental space aliens. These aliens are appalled by our "global warming problem." They are angry or worried, and are ready/willing/able to exterminate mankind to ensure the Earth's security.

Logic 1: If these aliens are green, why are they willing to commit genocide? Sounds like these aliens are more like "red" Communists (shades of "Invaders From Mars"!). Isn't it more logical that these aliens will destroy humanity in order to conquer the Earth, and are only using "global warming" as the moral justification?*

Logic 2: How will cleansing mankind from the Earth make the planet any less distressed? Wouldn't it be wiser and nobler for these aliens, endowed with superior technology and obviously brilliant perception, to equip mankind with better energy sources and pollution mitigation? They come such a long distance with weaponry but no ideas?*

Logic 3: How does "global warming" affect beings on other planets? Is there "universal warming"? They're so compassionate just to come to our rescue! But hey! Stop pointing that gun at me!*

*Oh, wait, that applies to progressives also!

Which are the peaceful Muslims and which are the violent Muslims?

by Tom Wise

Why did those Muslims1 go on a rampage after the Pope said that Islam included, from the start, evil and inhuman things?

Why did those Muslims shoot at and firebomb many places, especially churches?

Why is this pattern repeated every time someone criticizes Islam?

Doesn't that prove the point?

Isn't it supreme irony that those Muslims PROVE the very thing which they protest?

Isn’t it strange that a violent protest follows a charge of violence?

The Pope did not “spread hate.”

The Pope did not lie, he told the truth.

Those Muslims “protested” the truth.

It IS truth because those Muslims prove it by their actions, not because the Pope said it.

No one forced those Muslims to become violent.

Should we expect Christians to start witch hunts when the history of witch hunts is mentioned?

Should we expect Christians to become barbaric when some say they are or were?

No, because we know Christianity has become mostly CIVILIZED.

That Islam1 is NOT civilized.

Not in its speech.

Not in its actions.

Not even in its supposed religious principles.

Or the way it treats women.

Or children.

Or even other Muslims.

Those Muslims are NOT civilized.

Nor do we EXPECT them to be.

We are not surprised by their reactions.

We're USED to their actions.

We KNOW they are not civilized.

We KNOW they are barbaric.

That's why the media painted the Pope as wrong.

That's why people say, “Why do you have to upset them?”

Because civilized Christianity should “know better” than to antagonize those Muslims.

If this were a domestic situation, husband and wife, who would tolerate this?

“Oh, my husband gets mad when I say this or that.”

“You better not say it then, or else he will be justified in his attacks on you, no matter how savage.”

The victim is the true perpetrator?

The friend of the wife-beater is the voice of reason?

No, it is abuse.

It is a toxic relationship.

Isn’t it illegal?




And abusers cannot be changed by niceness.

Or acquiescence.

Or tough talk.

Or even fighting back.

No, the abuser won't change.

The abuser wants power.

Power over YOU.

To rule YOU.

To control YOU.

Imagine, Western Civilization, that you are married to that Islam.

Those Muslims are your husband.

Sometimes, there is peace but it is uneasy.

One wrong move, one word out of place, and BANG!




Would you stick around?

Would you blame yourself?

Wouldn’t your decisions be considered unhealthy?

Isn’t this relationship unstable?

Wouldn’t you want someone on your side?

Why then would you blame the Pope for being on your side?

“Oh, but the Pope INSTIGATED my husband.”

No, those Muslims were PREDISPOSED to be this way.

READY to be this way.

Even WANT to be this way.

They don't WANT to change.

They don't WANT to be nice.

They LIKE it this way.

If this was your husband, I hope you would say he is psychotic.



You cannot civilize him.

Know this, as a battered wife knows it.

It's just going to go on and on.

The media should say, “Those Muslims are a violent lot.”

Does the media think that by being silent, those Muslims will smile?

That by changing a few words those Muslims will be placated?



This treatment won’t change them.

They don't WANT to change.

You can't ignore them either.

They WANT to take over your life.

They STALK you.

They will KILL you.

They said so!

They keep saying so.

Why does the media keep defending them?

Why was the Pope “wrong”?

Why were the Danish cartoonists “wrong”?

Answer: they were not wrong.

Why is the media defending those Muslims?

Answer: the media is afraid.

The media and others think they can “make friends” with the those Muslims.

And those Muslims smile and call them “friend.”

Watch your back, media, because those Muslims are not right in the head.

You’re NEXT.

In pity, the media says, “What about Christian terrorists?”

Assuming you have some equivalency case, are you admitting Muslim violence?

If you are bringing into the mix Christian terrorists (who?), you are.

You are saying that both are bad.

Aren’t you?

Are you saying Christian terrorists are bad but Muslim terrorists are good?


That they don’t exist?

It’s good to hold the Christian to a high standard.

Why not do the same for Islam?

Because you have a double standard.

Because you fear those Muslims but not those Christians.

By your actions, you ADMIT it.

You actually AGREE with the Pope.

Your fear is the proof.

You DO believe those Muslims are uncivilized.

You are “prejudiced.”
But don't worry, because your prejudice is just good instinct.

You're RIGHT!

Don’t change your fear to guilt.

You have nothing about which to feel guilty.

You didn’t make those Muslims savage.

They declared their war.

And it is a war.

And it is part of their religion.

What part of “holy war” don't you understand?

They have already stated their intent to rule the world.

Including YOUR world.

Without free speech.

Without freedom of the press.

Without homosexuals.

Without feminists.

This is NOT a Christian utopia but a Muslim MANIFESTO.

Will you JOIN them?

Aren't you Jewish?

Or Christian?

Or atheist?

None of your beliefs will be permitted under that Islam.

Aren't you freedom-loving?


Peaceful and non-violent?

None of this will be permitted under that Islam.

Will you join them?

Guess what?

They probably don’t want you.

They probably will still kill you.

You probably will have to kill those Muslims.

This is not savage.

This is survival.

This is not an offensive strategy.

This is not hate.

This is defensive.

I reject that Islam.

I also reject atheism when it is militant or communist.

I also reject fake Christianity when it is anti-Semitic.

Do you think I am exaggerating the situation?



Read documented accounts from around the world.

See what those Muslims do to their victims.

See the torture.

See the killing.

See the slavery.

It is not far from Nazism,

or Genghis Khan,

or Attila the Hun.

Read UN reports, if you don't trust American sources.

Read European newspapers.

Read about Pakistan.








See the terrorism.

Who are the terrorists mainly?

Those Muslims.

Is this your brave new world?

It is not romantic.

It is not brave, or new.

It is a cowardly, barbaric, OLD world.

Those Muslims will not emotionally or intellectually or spiritually advance.

You can't change them.

They won’t change.

You know it.

You show it by your fear of them.

You can't stop them.

You know it.

You show it by your kowtowing.

You can't join them.

You know it.

Why stand by?

Stand up!

Fight back!

Soon will be violence of this type throughout the West.

The militia will become very important again.

Militia as in the Constitution of the United States.

Every able-bodied man.

Even the rednecks.

Will you say that defenders of your rights are wrong?

Will you say that the Western way of life has inflamed those Muslims?

If you say the West is at fault, I brand you communist.

Beware, people, the fusion of those Muslims and communism.

The coddling of the terrorist (and the communist) must end today.

No more silence.

No more soft wording.

No more equivocation or moral relativity.

We should not appease abusive husbands.

We should not appease tyrants.

History shows it never works.

Experience shows it never works.

Do not appease.

Speak up!

1 When I say “those Muslims” and “that Islam” I mean the 10% of Muslims who believe in world domination through cleansing of the infidel and destruction of Western Civilization. Since there are 1.5 billion Muslims, this equals 150 million “master racists.” This explanation is not an apology. If 90% of Muslims are peaceful, they will not become savage by my words. If any do turn violent, it only proves the percentage of peaceful Muslims to be less than I think. Instead, I am issuing a warning. 100 million savage Muslims is a huge number. Not 100 million “disappointed Christians” who protest abortion, but 100 million violent, terrorist, bloody Muslims who will kill you without blinking. This includes not just terrorist organizations but sympathizers and those ready to join jihad once enough ground has been won by the “pioneers” in that “holy war.” But let’s not forget Sharia Law. It’s interesting that defenders of the barbaric Sharia Law cite the Bible as proof that they’re not doing anything strange. In fact, this idea of a “cleansed society” is often used to tout Sharia Law. However, there is a long entanglement to that argument, ending with the necessity to say, “Who made you boss?” Only the point of the sword, of course. Christianity is no longer a violent evangelizer, and Judaism has for millennia been peaceful. This means Sharia Law is, at best, behind the times. Since a large percentage of Muslims are in favor of Sharia Law, “those Muslims” and “that Islam” goes up proportionately, even if these same people have no interest in international terrorism.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Stop sinning!

by Tom Wise

How about a short and simple religious essay?

John the Baptist said, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2).

Jesus said, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 4:17).

Coincidentally, Jesus happened to be Jewish. I know this because he was circumcised (Luke 2:21). If Jesus didn't want to be Jewish, he should have made that known right away. Thankfully, no anti-Semite was he! Too bad the same can't be said for Marx and Freud.

It's important to know that he was Jewish because Jesus wasn't saying anything new. Repentance is a Jewish idea and Jesus was repeating the essence of obedience, which is repentance. You can't be saved without it. You can't be purified without it. It's an ongoing process. Let's face it, you just can't stop sinning now, can you?!

Probably the most controversial of Jesus' sayings is "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28). It's interesting that this is not repeated by Christ in any other gospel, and the offshoots of it don't have the same power. But what does it mean? Your friendly preacher will tell you that if you accept the blood of Jesus your sins are paid. Oh? "Remission" to me is "going away" not "paid off." Like cancer in remission, sin in remission is a healing, not a satisfied invoice.

Jesus said that his blood was shed so that many would stop sinning. Stop sinning! Get it? “I’m giving my blood so you will STOP SINNING!” Or, did he mean, “I’ll just go and die now, and you can just call on me whenever you feel like it. Then, I’ll swoop down and remove all the penalties of sin from you. Just like that, no obligation, nothing more to buy.” Well, that doctrine is not true either. In actuality, even to receive this “free gift” you have to give up your sinful ways. You have to learn Torah to even know what a sin is. You basically must start thinking Judaic. Did that just turn you off? I guess you don’t really want that Jewish Savior touching you then, do you?

You: The Law is dead.

Me: No, it’s not.

You: Yes, it is.

Me: No, it’s not. Without Law, you cannot break the Law.

You: But the Law died when I received Jesus.

Me: Did it? What rules were you thinking of following, o non-sinful one?

You: The Law of Love.

Me: What is that Law?

You: Love your neighbor as yourself.

Me: Where is that Law?

You: In the Bible!

Me: Where in the Bible?

You: (long pause) Jesus said it!

Me: Did he make it up?

You: No, it came from God.

Me: It’s in Torah.

You: Toe-what?

Me: Leviticus 19:17-18. Jesus didn’t think the Law was dead.

You: That’s the moral law! The cultist law is dead.

Me: Is it? Why do you take communion? Why do you have a cross?

You: You’re a Jew, aren’t you?

Me: (running)

Interestingly (puff, puff. pant), this is an actual conversation I have at least twice a year (minus the running). Christians seem to have some aversion to Law, like an allergy:

Christian: Oysters?

Me: I can’t eat shellfish because it’s against God’s Law.

Christian: Ah-choo! (or did she just yell “A Jew!”?).

The way I see it, the conversion to Christ is the actualization of the prophecies from Isaiah and Ezekiel. That is, Gentiles will beg the Jews to be a part of God’s people. Maybe that’s the way it started, but it quickly became, “What makes you so great, just because you invented monotheism?” and then, “Get ‘im!”

My understanding is not so odd. The Egyptians gave the Hebrews everything, including gold and clothing (not shoddy merchandise either!), just to get rid of them after the tenth plague. Some even decided to come along for the ride into the wilderness. Of course, when every other weekend is boils or hail, the choice becomes a bit clearer.

But I think the practicality of the matter is a better illustration. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, so long regarded as the pests they truly are, would be a much different experience if they understood “remission” correctly:

JH: (knocks on door)

You: (opening door) Can I help you?

JH: Stop sinning.

You: What?

JH: Stop sinning!!

You: Aren’t you a Jehovah’s Witness?

JH: That’s right.

You: Don’t you want to give me some literature?

JH: No, I want you to stop sinning. Good day.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I think that would make a greater impression on you than the latest Watchtower extolling the virtues of empowering single mothers for the cause of conversion. When it’s about “remittance” (free money), many are lined up. When it comes to “remission” (changing your life), the wait time is greatly diminished. It seems to me that the doctrine of salvation, as currently evangelized, sacrifices quality for quantity. More souls, not more great souls. I don’t want to be cynical, but it appears to be only to fill the pews and the coffers. Almost like Amway. Almost.

Look, nothing against having more people on board the monotheistic train, but what good is it to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob if you can’t even believe in His commandments? It’s not like wicked Christians are any better than wicked anyone else. If you don’t believe me, believe Christ. When asked, Jesus said that the way to eternal life was to keep the commandments (Matt. 19:17-19). I think he should know.

Establishment Clause

by Tom Wise

Well, another day, another chance to hear a progressive liberal scream obscenities.

First Amendment: Right to Freedom of Religion. What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't you get? You can't petition the House or Senate to legislate for or against religion. What part of "against" don't you get? What part of "get" don't you get?

"Respecting an establishment." You know, when I wuz a kid, I used to love going down to Malin's Dime Store and look around. Just poking through the wooden trays (can't you smell 'em?). They had great items at lovely prices. We'd make a special trip sometimes. A favorite of ours, you might say. Yep, I really respected that establishment. But if I had run for and become mayor of that fair town, I would not have made or requested any ordinance respecting that establishment. I would have given them a waiver from such things. In respect to what I've just said, I think it makes sense. "Make no law respecting (in respect to) an establishment (a founded body) of religion." Basically, lay off!

But perhaps I'm being too hasty. What is the rest of the clause? "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” You know what’s interesting? That this doesn’t in the least conflict with the first part. “Congress shall make no law respecting (in respect to) an establishment of religion (a place of worship, a type of religion) or the free exercise thereof.” That is, after you lay off, lay off some more! The feds can’t fence in any religion, or limit how big or popular that religion becomes (David Koresh notwithstanding). The only exception would be if a religion breaks other laws. For instance, ordering infidels to convert at the point of a sword.

OK, time for the progressive end-around. Hut, hut! “Let’s take this to the Supreme Court!” (Great, I’ll meet you there. I’ll be the one with the cudgel). The Supreme Court can do nothing. It is a body that rules on valid constitutional laws. It can’t just legislate from the bench.... crap!

Now you know why it’s called a “right”... it’s the opposite of “left.”

The oddest part of all this is that atheists should have any rights under the clause. If Congress shall make no law respecting religion, in the way that Leftists mean it (that is, religion was invented so atheists could spit upon it), why should Congress make a law disrespecting religion?

For that matter, why should any federal judge ever hear a case involving religion? Answer: it shouldn’t. It’s supposed to be up to the states. If Alabama wants the state religion to be Baptist, or if California wants the state religion to be worshiping Ashton Kutcher, so what? Move! That’s why it’s called the United States. But if the law of the land is anti-religious or hostile to religion, where can you go? Back to good old England? Up yours!

An atheist in the Supreme Court is actually the biggest middle finger that can be flipped. First, the Bible is removed. Second, the atheist makes a big “free speech” (oh, not that old chestnut!) stink about the Ten Commandments and Moses being in plain sight. After those are covered for his virginity’s sake, the atheist is expected to “tell the truth.” But “what is morality anyway?”

Supreme Court Justice: “So, Mr. Free-to-be-a-Prick, what is it about such-and-such religious article that infringes on your God-given rights?”

Atheist: “I’m going to sue you for saying God.”

How carefree! How gay!

Supreme Court Justice: “By my imperial order, I decree that so-and-so school district cannot endorse prayer/ creationism/ religious expression (except Muslim)/ crossing fingers.”

So-and-So School District Rep: (with great audacity of hope) “You have no such authority!”

Supreme Court Justice: “Off with your head!”

Atheist: “Hee-hee-hee.”

And so, we come to the end of another storybook. The heroic atheist triumphs and returns to his village, where he will plant groovy herbs and watch with paranoid alertness the movement of all citizens (except those there illegally). The big bad religionist is forced to acknowledge his error and he vows (not to God, of course) to be more tolerant and to apologize more often... Good night.

A Grass-Roots Candidate

by Tom Wise

Recently, I had the “pleasure” of addressing a fellow who was desirous to become President of the United States for the express purpose of changing the Constitution, the world, the way people think, and apparently also his income. This set me to thinking (Actually, that isn’t hard to do. If you throw me a tennis ball, I’ll make a philosophy out of it), What if the Constitution were shaped in his particular manner?

First of all, he would outlaw guns. I’m not sure how he would do this except by prying them from cold dead hands, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt instead of the butt of a rifle (just for now). According to President Fellow, citizens would be safer. At least from each other. At least that’s the plan. But when all the guns have been melted down for hookah pipes, what happens when the next president (dictator) gets elected (overthrows the sitting dictator)? Well.... sorry, I guess. “Didn’t think that far ahead. Was countin’ on evolution to enlighten everyone. Woops. My bad.”

Second, he would pass an equal rights amendment. This is very important because apparently some people don’t have rights, specifically (and I quote) “immigrants... labor unions... sexual orientations... Native Americans... and humans.” I suppose it doesn’t matter that every person over the age of 18 who is a citizen and not a felon gets to vote, which is the single greatest right the government can honor (other than the right to free stuff, of course). Nor is it pertinent that the 14th Amendment and the “good and plenty” clause is already (mis)used for every group that isn’t too lazy to protest (note to self: organize lazy people). The result? Clogged courts, more victim mentality, and a lot of soiled underwear.

Third, he would love (in a sexual way) to dismantle the defense of the nation by eliminating (and I quote) “weapons of mass destruction (i.e., necessary deterrents)... war on terrorists... weapons in space (cool toys)... the Defense Department.” Now, in the interest of fairness (uh oh), I will say that some of his other recommendations are valid, but that’s like saying we can nibble around the bad parts of a blue roast beef sandwich. Let’s face it, I’m talking about a peacenik, and you don’t get “nik” at the end of your nick unless you’ve earned it. The outcome here is not too bad: anarchy, ultimatums, and destruction (called it “planned infrastructure rebuilding”).

Fourth, he would make Washington DC a state. (Speechless)

I forgot to mention that this chap has been arrested “more than 50 times” and has spent “four months in federal prison” for “peace protests.”

Never mind.