The Bible May Be Older Than Originally Thought

An ancient tablet that has been discovered is dated around the 10th century, B.C. and is written in Hebrew. This is during King David's reign. It has been thought that the earliest forms of the Bible were written in an ancient form of Hebrew, and that Hebrew as we know it did not originate until the 6th century, B.C. (or 400 years later).

The text on the tablet also bears some resemblance to Biblical passages, but does not copy any one particular passage.

Interesting stuff.

Byrne Gets Burned

Apparently, you cannot say the following sentence in Alabama...

"I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not."

...because Byrne had to hold a press conference in front of a Piggly Wiggly to recant this statement (which is one that I happen to agree with).

Think about this image...Gubernatorial candidate...press conference...Piggly Wiggly. Yes, we MUST be in Alabama. Hehe, sorry, I do love the state of Alabama, but this whole incident feeds into a LOT of stereotypes.

You know, had he NOT recanted that statement, I would've probably been more inclined to endorse him. However, being that he was rushed to recant for fear of losing support from religious conservatives does not show me much in the way of backbone.

However, given that one of his opponents believes that all faiths except Islam should have monuments erected for them on public property, Byrne still looks to be stable.

Whoa, Google Bomb Madness!

I love browsing through Google's "Hot Trends" to see what exactly people are searching for. Check this out...

#12 - "christianity is bullsh*t" (editing mine)
#18 - "islam will dominate the world"

Somebody is hard at work promoting one religion over another.

The Latest Sign That Tim Tebow is Insanely Popular

The top two items in Google Hot Trends are "Tebow Cam" followed by the passage from Ephesians that Tebow had on his eye-black tonight (for those of you who don't know, Tebow is a DEVOUT Christian and has a different bible passage printed on his eye-black for each game).

Tebow ended his college career as a winner, as Florida surprisingly stomped Cincinatti 51-24 tonight in the Sugar Bowl.

By the way, so you don't have to look up the passage, Ephesians 2:8-10 is as follows...

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselfs; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

Given that this was Tebow's swan song as a college player, I'd say that was a pretty fitting passage that wraps up his career at the University of Florida. I wish Tim the best in whatever he chooses to do, whether it be in pro football (which he should get a good chance, IMO), or in other ventures.

Gay Marriage Passes in D.C.

This is all good and fine as far as I'm concerned, except for one thing.

Apparently, the Catholic Church is being forced by this law to extend it's adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples. If this is true, I cannot agree with this, because I do not think that a religious organization should not be subject to regulations that direct violate that church's doctrine. It's a violation of the separation of church and state, IMO, and if it is part of this legislation...I would be interested to see if it would actually hold up in the Supreme Court.

Other than that, I've got no problems with this legislation. The SoCons will be up in arms about this, but given that D.C. is a very liberal city, this wasn't exactly an unexpected outcome.

(h/t Anti-BVBL)

Podium Positions: Social Issues

My position on "social" issues.

Abortion
Two things need to happen. One...overturn Roe v. Wade, so we can go forward with the next step. That is step number two...place the legislative responsibility of this issue back in the hands of the states.

What this allows for is better representation of the people on such a bitterly divisive issue. For instance, a state like Massachusetts may allow abortion and provide funding for it and will have the support of the majority of the population. However, a state like Utah has a majority of anti-abortionists, so the will of the people in that state would be different and would probably lead to no practice of abortion within that state's borders. However, I would also not be opposed to allowing people to travel from a non-abortion state to a pro-abortion state to get an abortion if they so desire.

While I'm personally opposed to abortion, the only real federal actions I would approve of in this situation would be upholding the ban on partial-birth abortions, as that is infanticide, in my opinion.

Gay Marriage
Again, this is a state-to-state issue. What may play in socially liberal states will not play in socially conservative states. Represent the population, but as with the abortion laws, state governments must also pay attention to opinion changes and demographic shifts to keep laws up-to-date with the mood of the populous.

Socially moderate/conservative states may want to at least allow civil unions with marriage-style rights. Let the actual term "marriage" be determined by the churches, not the state.

I personally do not oppose gay marriage or civil unions, and I think that some relaxation and/or compromise in this area would be good for Republicans, who probably don't realize how much of the vote they are losing in this demographic due to their current positions, anyway. However, given the anti-homosexual opinions of many social conservatives within the party, I don't know if that will happen anytime soon.

I also believe that we have not come to a scientific consensus on whether or not homosexuality is a result of "nature" or "nurture" (I believe that both of those are roots of homosexuality, as I've seen scientific research that supports both theories), but either way we should not discriminate based on this. I don't believe it to be very Christian to do so, to be honest.

Civil Rights/Discrimination
Basically, we need to move towards putting everyone on an equal plane of treatment. It should not matter whether you are White ,Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, African, Male, Female, Transgendered, Straight, Gay, or Bisexual. "Hate Crimes" should cover crimes against any race/gender/orientation, with no extra or special punishment for crimes against certain groups.

In the workplace, we need to get to the point of hiring the best people for the job. We are in the 21st century, we do not need to place quotas based on race, gender, or orientation (though, I don't know of any place that says "you must hire X number of gays", but you get my point).

Understandably, this is not a goal that can be achieved overnight, but society needs to start moving in that direction, as it is not fair for someone to get special (or detrimental) treatment because of their race, gender, or orientation.

Overview
On a federal level, most of the social issues need to be deferred back to the states. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage, due to their controversial and divisive manner, should have their legality and funding determined by the states. States whose populous support these issues can deem it legal in their state, and states whose populous do not support these issues do not have to make it legal.

We should also move anti-discrimination legislation to treat all people equally.

Handing social issues back to the states is a healthy, federalist approach to these issues that tend to be create bitterness and tension between people of different ideological standpoints. Also, it allows for smaller-scale experimentation with various types of legislation, which is a way for people to find out if certain legislative actions are feasible and functional before it gets introduced on a national level.

Watch Ron Paul Lose Any Hope of Winning the GOP Nomination

In 3...2...1...

"When facism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross..."

First of all, how many Democrats have said this? And secondly, while Ron Paul is entitled to his opinion and I'm fine with the fact that he doesn't want to pander to the evangelical vote...that's still a very stupid statement to make when you're running for the Republican Party nomination.

I'm convinced that he's pretty much giving up on a GOP nomination and looking at a Libertarian Party bid.

Faith and the GOP

I read this earlier, and I saw Sic Semper Tyrannis had posted part of it, but it bears repeating.

In a column today, Peggy Noonan talks about how a candidate's faith has risen to such levels of importance to some voters.

Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary.

But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far.

She also asks the question of if Reagan would survive in today's GOP climate...

I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I'm just not sure he'd be pure enough to make it in this party. I'm not sure he'd be considered good enough.

You know, this actually hits at the heart of what I've been saying for a long time. It's always a good thing when someone has strong morals and has their own religious beliefs, and it's even better when they're generally accepting of others beliefs or non-beliefs, as Reagan was. The belief that someone has to reach a certain level of Christian purity to be President is a bit much, in my honest opinion.

There are much more important things going on in this nation that require more than just a particular religious faith that falls within a narrow definition for a specific bloc of voters.

Excerpts from Romney's Speech Today and Thoughts

Read all the excerpts made available to the public here. Here's a few quotes from Romney's speech and my thoughts on them.

"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

This is the money quote of the whole speech, in my opinion, and the one that is most often quoted on the morning shows I listened to while making a drive from Strasburg to Woodstock to Winchester (don't ask, I do this once a week). He's telling the us all that as President, he would be beholden to the people of the United States, and not any one religion, including his own.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

Yes sir...this is correct. Romney is right on with his statement here.

"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter — on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people."

I've been preaching this for years, that despite our differences in religion, religious beliefs, place of religion in society...the vast majority of Americans share a common base of morality and moral beliefs. Romney is right in stating that our nation should focus on abiding by the common moral principles we share as Americans...not necessarily by religious principles. However, religious people share those moral principles with most non-religious people.

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

Again...another money quote. While we separate church and state, this nation was founded by people seeking religious freedom, and with deep religious conviction. To remove God from recognition by society would be to go against the beliefs of the founding fathers of our nation.

"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements."

Again, we should focus on our shared morals as Americans, not our religious agreements and disagreements. We, as Americans, are not perfect...but we're generally good people.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."

There you have it. Romney's separation of church and state. No questions about it.

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed."

Freedom of religion, and our ability to speak about our different beliefs in public without fear of imprisonment or punishment, is part of what makes this nation so great.

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

Embrace religous diversity and common morality. This is what Romney intends to do.

I think that, from these quotes and others, Romney really makes a positive leap forward. He acknowledges both the deep religious conviction that many have, and the near-universal sense of common morality amongst Americans. In fact, Romney also makes a leap forward in my own opinion of him. He's stating his beliefs, and he does it without making a plea to social and religious conservatives. In fact, he's making more of a case as to why religion is a base of his decision making, and not the sole source.

I can really respect that.

I Hope This Is a Joke

I received a forwarded e-mail asking people not to accept this coin as legal tender.

If you can't tell, the motto "In God We Trust" is not on this coin.

Now, whether this is some kind of collectors coin, fake coin, or something else, I don't know...but I do not believe that the phrase should be taken off the coin. Should this be true (and I hope it isn't), I encourage people not to accept it as legal tender to force it out of circulation.

The Abstinence Uproar

(cross-posted at Daily Whackjob)

Governor Tim Kaine cut federal funding that was provided to schools that promoted abstinence-only sexual education. Conservatives (of the social variety) have been spewing various amounts of outrage. Many state this is promoting immoral behavior, encouraging promiscuity, and so forth.

However, let's be realistic here. Teenagers have been trying to find ways and reasons to have sex since the beginning of recorded history.

Should we have sex-ed programs that stress and promote abstinence? Of course! Anyone who says "we should encourage teens to have sex as early and as often as possible" would be nuts! That's something that the vast majority of us would agree with. However, we have to be smart about this and realize that abstinence-only hasn't exactly proven to be a big hit or a successful deterrent to teens doing...well, "it".

Parents should have the ability to opt their children out of sex-ed classes, and most people also agree with that.

I also believe we teach sex-ed at too young of an age. I remember being in the 3rd grade, all of 9 years old, doing diagrams of the different parts of a penis and a vagina. Even though I do believe that kids these days "grow up faster" and learn more at an earlier age than previous generations...there is no need to augment the rapid decrease in time that a child has to simply be a child. I'd say that 5th grade (normally 10-11 years old) is a good time to start with sex-ed, but go with the basics (anatomical differences, etc...)

Anything earlier than that is the responsibility of the parents to decide if their kids are mature enough to handle the subject matter at hand.

Let's be fair about this, as well...promote abstinence from the start. However, starting in late middle-school and high school, lay it out there that if you choose not to abstain from pre-marital sex, one should use protection. Teach the mechanics, talk about the risks of unsafe sex, especially with multiple partners. Talk about STD's, et cetera...pretty much common-sense stuff.

On the issue of homosexuality, I believe that children should be taught what it is and that it exists...but no moral "Yes, it's OK" or "No, it's wrong" stamp should be placed on it. There's too much gray area in terms of how people feel about homosexual relationships that to have the public schools approve or disapprove of it, that would be wrong and exclusive.

The point of my idea is that you wait until the kids are mature enough to handle the subject matter before the schools get involved. Also, I believe that this idea of mine allows for a fairly universal form of objective morality (promote abstinence or at least "waiting" until you're older, teaching safe sex habits...the things we all generally agree on). At the same time, it reduces the effect the curriculum has on the more subjective aspects of people's morals. (whether or not being gay/lesbian is OK, whether or not abstinence is the only way, etc...)

Obviously, I'm not an expert on this subject. I'm just simply attempting to apply common sense to an issue that people take so many different sides on.

Thoughts?

Trying to do the Right Thing

When it comes to the Middle East in general, America has done a lot to attempt to bring order and some amount of social freedom not granted to the people by the governments of that region. True, we always had our interests in mind to varying extents, but I believe that our attempts to simply democratize the region for the sake of providing freedom to those who never had it before have been genuine to at least some degree.


I've come to believe that true stability may never be reached in the Middle East...but you can't fault the U.S. for at least trying. The problem is, you have the roots of almost half of the world's religious beliefs set in this general region. You also have some of the most extreme tribalistic societies in this region. Combine that with a willingness to die for your beliefs because the man next to you does not believe what you believe...and by killing them and yourself, you get 72 virgins and an eternity in paradise...well, I guess personal freedom and democracy now can't compare with those kinds of promises that can be achieved by simply killing "infidels" in the name of Allah.

The worst part of it all is that most Muslims do not believe in these acts. However, their religion has been so hijacked by these extremists that they feel powerless to stop them. The other roadblock is the different sects of Islam refuse to coexist, much like the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, even though they read from the same book of beliefs.

However, I've read a few reports that state that Al Qaeda has lost a lot of influence in Iraq in recent months. Most of this loss of influence is due to these non-extremist Muslims standing up and refusing to give shelter to Al Qaeda terrorists, and not just U.S. military force alone.

Maybe we can end this occupation on a positive note, after all.

A Must Read

Johnny Camacho interviews Shirley Phelps-Roper of the Westboro Baptist Church.

It's people like the Phelps clan that are attempting to hijack Christianity, and provide fodder for secular pundits to call Christians "bible-thumping, extremist, right-wing wingnuts". These WBCers are not just abhorred by secular citizens, but by Christians as well. I hope everyone realizes this.

Kudos to Camacho for really taking it to these WBCers. They make me ill.

Pump Your Brakes, Waldo...

According to Waldo Jaquith, 24% of Americans "don't know their ass from their elbow."

Why? Well, it's because 24% of Americans in a recent gallup poll believe in both creationism and evolution. Now, to Waldo, this apparently makes no sense.

To me, it does...because I'm a part of that 24%.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and force my religious beliefs upon you. However, I do believe that God created the universe. I also believe that The Bible is not interpreted in the proper context. I believe that some things are to be taken as "the word", while others should be interpreted as a lesson, or a guideline. Did God create the universe in 6 days? Well, maybe he did. Or maybe he didn't. That would explain the aging of the planet, dinosaurs, and other scientific findings.

Also, isn't it taught that, to God, a million years is but a second to him? Given that logic, how many years are in 6 of God's days?

Think about it...using that math alone, that means that God created the universe in 518,400,000,000 Earth years, then rested for 86,400,000,000 years.

Now, I'm not saying that this is true and that's how things are. You are open to your own interpretation of how the universe was created. However, I think it is entirely plausible that God could have very well created the universe, and allowed for evolution.

God knew that when he created human beings, they would be very curious in nature. So it makes sense that he would give us something to be curious about (dinosaurs, fossils, etc...)

I have other beliefs on this, as well. However, I'm just espousing my counterpoint to Waldo, who believes that I, and many other Americans, simply don't know our asses from our elbows.

I simply think that those who make such comments have closed minds to other theories or might be uncomfortable and lack confidence in their own beliefs. Then again, maybe they don't want to believe anything else. I guess they are entitled to that, too.

Mitt Romney and the Bigoted Clinton Supporter

You may have seen this already, but if you haven't, here it is courtesy of The News Buckit.

To sum it up, a Hillary Clinton supporter (who later stated he was "a liberal") was approached by GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney in a restaurant, who respectfully asks "How are you doing, sir?"

The guy says "I'm one person who will never vote for a Mormon!" That's all, just simply shouted it right at Romney.

Romney replied "Is that so?" The guy affirmed this, and Romney asked "Can I shake your hand, anyway?"

The guy shouted "NO!" Romney said "Ok", and brushed it off with a smile.

Mitt Romney showed some top-notch class and deft ability to handle an awkward situation Hats off to him for handling it for with a smile, still showing the bigoted gentleman respect, and remaining calm. The Clinton campaign immediately disavowed the comment, stating that they "strongly disagree" with the man's comments.

However, I love this quote from Romney spokesman Kevin Madden: "I thought liberals were supposed to be the protectors of tolerance as a virtue."

I don't know, but I know that's what they tell you they are...

Muslims Making Demands at GMU

I read this story first at Little Green Footballs.

Apparently, the Muslim Student Association at George Mason University demand certain accomodations. They caused a near-riot during a speech by John Lewis, and now they're demanding that the school create an an individual prayer room on campus for Muslims to pray. Basically, they want place for religious purposes on the campus of a public university, at the cost of taxpayer dollars.

They're already using the school's "Quiet Meditation Room", and have taken to kicking out non-Muslims who wish to use the room with their shoes on, and they separate males and females, even if they are non-Muslims.

Where are the left's cries for separation of church and state on this issue? Why do Muslim students believe their needs trump those of the rest of the university? I would think that the university would immediately state that they can't honor these demands due to the fact that if they accomodate one religion, they would have to provide similar accomodations to all religions...something I know the school, the alumni, and the taxpayers are not going to be willing to do.

There are many mosques in Northern Virginia, it's not like they don't have places off-campus to worship. If the problem is a lack of places to worship, why not go to one of their local mosques? That's what many Christian and Jewish students do.

Hopefully, the school will do the fair thing...and tell them that it is not the school's place to provide accomodations of this nature for religious reasons.

Anger Replacing my Sadness

Those who know me know that I'm a fairly open-minded person. I may not agree with you, but I tend to believe that people have a right to their opinion, and have probably come to their conclusions due to some form of personal research or life experience.

However, as much as I try to be open-minded and even-keeled about how I view the world, and how I view other people's opinions, sometimes I completely fail to see the logic, sense, or in this case sanity, of certain people and what they represent.

I hate this man.

This man represents a lot of what's wrong in the world today. This man wants to make you believe that you're going to die for being human. And now, this man is going to be coming to Virginia.

This man is Fred Phelps, leader of the Westboro Baptist Church (aka "The WBC). The single biggest promoter of hate, homophobia, and anti-Americanism there is. This man, and his followers, are famous for doing things that make any average person sick to their stomach.

This is the group that constantly pickets and protests outside of the funerals of fallen soldiers, holding up signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", "Thank God for 9-11", and "God Hates Fags".

They rail against Catholicism, Islam, America, Homosexuals, Jews...pretty much everyone outside of their church. In fact, since members of this "church" (I use the term loosely) cannot marry outside of the church, 80% of the members are related to each other. It's a community of hate and ignorance.

I apologize for the language in that last sign quote, but those are the words of that man and his followers. It's a word he seems to have quite an affinity for. He states that American soliders dying in Iraq is a good thing because America "loves fags" and that this is "God's will". They protested and picketed at the site of the Sago Mine Disaster last year, holding up signs that said "Thank God for Dead Miners".

Even Jerry Falwell has referred to Phelps as a "first-class nut". When Jerry Falwell considers you too extreme of a Christian organization, you know you're seriously screwed in your interpretation of Christian teachings. The KKK even thinks these WBC wackos are too extreme, and have launched propaganda campaigns against the WBC in Virginia...and this was back in December of 2006.

Now, the WBC plans to protest at the funerals of all those slain at the Virginia Tech Massacre. Many people have suggested that larger Christian churches should appear at these funerals. To counter the hate and vile spewed forth by the WBC with peace, prayer, and hymns. Others are calling on the "motorcycle blockades" that have been employed at funerals and other gatherings that have drawn the ire of the WBC.

The actions and viewpoints. taken by these people is sick, disgusting, and revolting on any and all levels of life. They may have the right to these opinions due to the 1st Amendment, but I will never agree, condone, or even vaguely understand their virulent disapproval of anything they don't declare to be "right".

To those who go out to confront these harbingers of hate, I commend you for your efforts. You're helping make this world a better, more peaceful place.

I don't care if you're a liberal, conservative, statist, libertarian, anarchist, communist, facist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, man, woman, straight, gay, transgendered, Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Native-American, Arabic, multi-racial, or anything else I may have forgotten to mention. If you have the ability for rational thought, and have any compassion for human beings, there is simply no way anyone can stomach the insanity that flows forth from the pulpit of Fred Phelps.

I think that's something that almost all of us can agree on.