Hard Questions with Easy Answers

N.B. This is not intended to in any way be some sort of an exhaustive and definitive disquisition on the subject dealt with below. Think of it more as a sort of outline and indicator of where and how to direct your own homework, if you want to do any and find my comments useful.


Often, especially when moral equivalency arguments are regurgitated1 in response to truthful statements about the facts of Islamic dogma, questions are posed about “genocide” in the Old Testament. These questions are, of course, intended to indicate that the scriptures that inform and direct the lives of devout Jews and Christians are morally equivalent to those that direct the lives of devout Muslims. Is this true? No.

First, as to mass violence against others either directly attributed to God or as individuals or groups were commanded by God to commit mass violence, examples of both exist. The first includes the Flood account, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction of Ninevah and the annihilation of Pharaoh’s army by drowning in the Red (?) Sea.  The latter is pretty much limited to the waging of herem against the Canaanites. It is this that is almost always referred to by the arguers of “moral equivalence” as evidence that the God of the OT commanded genocide and so Jewish and Christian scripture is thus on the same moral plane as foundational Islamic texts.

I’m not going to press theological arguments, because those making the “moral equivalence” argument have proven in my experience to either have no grasp of such things or to simply sneer at the information. Fine. My first objection, then, is that the on-again/off-again obedience by the Israelites to the command to engage in herem was never genocidal, that those who make such an argument are using “genocide” as a facile slur, fully aware that such an accusation is both false and tendentious. The plain text of the OT, not often actually quoted by such persons (often, I have found, because they simply have never actually read the texts but are merely parroting the slur), disproves the “genocide” accusation.

Yes, herem did mean mass slaughter of those indicated in the command, including those we think of as innocents (particularly, children).  Genocide or even the less inclusive “ethnic cleansing”? The texts do not support such an accusation. (Should I cite the relevant texts? Nope. Since the accusers almost never do, I’ll go ahead and leave that as a very easy exercise for any interested parties. Easy-peasy.) Next objection: this kind of mass slaughter was limited in scope by both time and place. It was not commanded to be unending, forever. Today, the genetic inheritors of Canaanite blood (genetic progeny exist because, urm, no genocide, *duh*) are actually welcome in Israel and by the Christian community at large, as long as they do not engage in unlawful conduct harmful to others, in other words, as long as they meet the same minimal standards of civilized behavior demanded by such societies of all participants.

While these avenues allow a great deal of scope for further examination of the false accusation of “genocide” as normative for Jews and Christians, we can go to extrabiblical examples often cited by those who argue “moral equivalence” as a slur. How about the Crusades, hmm? Fine, let’s go there. While political leaders (both church and civil political leaders) made appeals for the Crusades based on tainted theological arguments (some, “just war” arguments and some even more silly ones), all such arguments fail the central test: “Why do you call me ‘lord, lord’ and do not the things I tell you to do?” [Luke 6:46]

Hello! “Christian” means “like Christ” and so those who have committed acts of mass murder, rape, torture, etc., claiming to do so in the name of the founder of Christianity are simply liars, because their actions contradict the words and deeds of the one they claim to follow. That includes such things as found in the Crusades, the Inquisition(s) and more, even up to contemporary times. Jim Jones, Fred Phelps and legions of “celebrity” faux-christian leaders are all excellent examples of people falsely claiming to be disciples of a religious leader while acting in direct contradiction of that leader’s life and work. “Why do you call me ‘lord, lord’ and do not the things I tell you to do?”

Now a question of my own. How is that contradiction of the life and work of Christ the equivalent of some who faithfully emulate the life and commandments of one who was a mass murderer, rapist, thief, slaver, and torturer, and who commanded his followers to continue to commit mass murder, rape, theft, slavery and torture on those who would not accept his teachings? On the one hand, those who claim to be Christian who say they commit their mass murder, rape, theft, slavery and torture in the name of Christ are clearly, plainly liars. On the other hand, those who say they commit their mass murder, rape, theft, slavery and torture in the name of Mohamed and his god are clearly, plainly, honestly, faithfully following the teachings of Mohamed. How do these two classes indicate that Christianity and Islam are morally equivalent? Hmm?

Those who fail to follow Christ but instead contradict him by word and deed are considered by those who make the moral equivalence argument to be “like Christ”? Yes. Those who faithfully and accurately follow Mohamed’s example and commandments are, on the other hand, usually presented by such persons as atypical of Islam. How can such persons live with their fundamentally dishonest argument? *shrugs* Oh, it’s probably easy, since they apparently simply have no interest in truth anyway.

[N.B. Minor edits for sentence clarity and to reintroduce paragraph breaks that disappeared from the draft version of this post upon publication. *shrugs* Need dreadlock wig and chicken bone rattle, I suppose. . . ]

Continue reading “Hard Questions with Easy Answers”

Come On, Folks, Show a Little Respect!

I was lurking a discussion about some of the recent shenanigans of congresscritters and other hellspawn-in-training when one of the participants typed, “F*** ’em with a rusty pipe!”

Now, that’s just wrong folks. Show a little respect. “F*** ’em with a rusty hammer” scans so much better. Show some respect for the English language, mmmK?

There are some differences. . .

. . .between someone like Michaelangelo painting a masterwork like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and someone like Obama accomplishing only destruction and chaos.

Michaelangelo was a creative genius who had developed several areas of mastery.

He spent four long years creating an enduring work of genius.

King Putz the Petulant, Occupier in Chief of the Spite House, is a “feckin’ eedjit” whose only areas of competence are lying, blowing smoke up the skirts of masochistic Repugnican’ts (Who simply bend over for him and pitifully plead, “Please, may I have another?”) and accepting obeisance from his worshipers in the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind and the Useful Idiots they pump their toxic Koolaid into.

He has spent five long, painful years tearing down an once durable work of genius constructed by the Founders and paid for by the blood and toil and sweat and tears of generations of citizens.

Wherein I Offer Aid to Those Confused by Obamacare

“Obamacare Exchange” Translation?

“You are hereby required to exchange health care coverage you were once satisfied with for more expensive coverage offering fewer benefits and more restrictions. Unless you are one of my cronies or a member of the political/bureaucrappic nobility. Now, kiss my [asterisk].”–King Putz the Petulant

There. All clear, now?

How to Waste Your Time

A fact based, reasoned argument presented to a contemporary faux liberal (progressive, leftist, etc.) is like attempting to teach a pig to sing. All it does is waste your time and annoy the pig.

Ditto with the porker.

“Compromise” *gag-spew*

Borrowing (OK, stealing) from Sluggy Freelance to translate King Putz the Petulant’s stance on compromise with any view not his own,

“Look, [if] you beat me fair and square, I’ll totally give you bragging rights. Now, just jump on my sword and see things from my perspective. It’s called ‘compromise’.”

Of course, the typical Repugnican’t manner of compromise with Dhimmicraps is to bend over and pitifully plead, “Please, may I have another?”

“Rubber Bumper” Society Encourages Stupidity

The way so many people have been reared in virtual bubbles in the last few decades has led to all too many people wandering through life apparently feeling invincible.

Not so with me. I was a slow learner, but I have–slowly–learned both prudence (well, in matters of physical safety) and gained confidence in my genuine abilities through a process of exploration of things that weren’t always. . . safe.

No room here to detail all my childhood adventures and play, but they were more risky than most kids seem to experience nowadays (No, I’ll not explain the rules of Dodge-Rock. I’ll just say that we didn’t have nice soft balls to play with and leave it at that. . . :-)) By the time I reached junior high, I had had a major gash in my left foot dealt with by stitches, a bigger HOLE in my left hand, suffered unconsciousness from a fall (only about 20′ but not bad for a seven-year-old kid), broken arm (left again. . . Hmm. . . I see a pattern), broken leg (AGAIN, left, but other assorted head and limb injuries slightly disguised the trend :-)) and had twice been hit by cars while (properly!) riding my bicycle (the worst injuries came when the driver had to actually LEAVE THE ROADWAY to bash me off a shoulder *heh*). Later, in college, as a more wary bike rider, I was still struck twice by daydreaming drivers, although I saw them coming and was almost able to avoid them, resulting in only minor injuries–bruising and whatnot.

That I am not comfortable with heights probably helped me I avoid falls while free climbing during my college years. BY “free climbing” here, I mean I was wearing street clothes every time. Sneakers, jeans, etc. No falls, because b y that time I had learned some of my limits and when to push them, and practiced what safety measures I could.

Now, what did I see today that spurred these thoughts? A father pushing a tandem stroller (with the expected two kids) down a narrow street, moving WITH the traffic. I see this a lot around here, though. Folks walking–and often pushing strollers–down a highway that goes through town, a highway that is as narrow as legally allowed and is traveled by a great deal of 18-wheeler (and other) traffic. . . and, from my limited observations (I can’t set up an observation post and man it 24×7), most of the 18-wheel traffic speeds through town and much of it minds the lanes about as carefully as Bill Clinton observed proper behavior in the White House. Just sayin’. It has NO shoulder and NO sidewalk. And yet people walk down the highway assuming they are immune to stupid drivers approaching them from the rear.

The second “street rule” I learned as a kid (the first was the Stop, Look BOTH WAYS, and Listen before crossing ANY street) was “Whenever there is no sidewalk, walk AGAINST traffic”–so you can see what’s coming. It’s common sense that is very, very UNcommon nowadays, from what I see. Nope. Apparently, people just assume they are invincible and DO NOT THINK. (They don’t have to. After all, it’s everyone ELSE’s responsibility to look after THEIR welfare, isn’t it?)

Of course, timidity is another stupid problem fostered by a “rubber bumper” society, but detailing even one example of that would make a too long post even “too longer”. *heh* Just take it as given that I could list many, many other behaviors I witness daily indicating that folks are either too stupid to use ordinary,common sense safety measures or too stupid to take action when nothing dangerous threatens (Common around here: “COME ON! IT SHOULDN’T TAKE 5 MINUTES TO MAKE A SIMPLE RIGHT HAND TURN! Sure, there’s a bar ditch on the right and ya should avoid “ditching” your car, but COME ON! MAKE THE FRIGGIN’ TURN ALREADY!” *heh*).

Scairdy Cats and The Invincibles (Legends in Their Own Minds)–sometimes even in the same persons! It’s enough to drive one to despair. How can our society survive these weenies?

It’s for the children. . .

The Puppy Blender observes,

“Old argument for college: Go to college so you don’t have to be a waitress! New argument for college: Go to college so you have a shot at that waitressing job!”

Yeh, but even with a college degree giving a shot at low-wage service jobs, that just means longer to pay back the exorbitant costs associated with that (almost worthless?) degree. . .

Ah, but go hire another few hundred administrators for whatever level of education. It’s for the children, right?

About Those Rounded Corners, Rubber Bumpers, Bubble Habitats and All That Jazz

In the attempt to create a society where every idiot–natural born but especially self-made–can not only survive but thrive (for values of “thrive” that include whatever low level of mental activities such folks may attain), I fear “progressives” have worked to create the ultimate regressive society, reversing evolution to create a society where the lowest common denominator, the least fit to survive is the new norm.

Evidence? I give you one example: Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro. The guy’s obviously bright enough to be able to tie his own shoelaces without adult supervision, but, being the self-made idiot that he is, doesn’t act like it. He’s crafty enough to be able to effect his “change for America” (subversion of everything the Organic Law of the US embodies to serve a commie end), but because he was raised in a cocoon that he’s never ventured outside of, he’s too stupid to even be able to know what he’s really doing.

Morally corrupt, from beginning to end; mentally deficient, no matter how crafty some of his actions appear (especially when aided by his cocooning elements, primarily the Hivemind1 he serves and which serves him in return); stumbling about the world stage when reality kicks his ass: these are all the actions of a self-made enstupiate who has been sheltered from the consequences of his auto-enstupiation from birth.

This madness must stop. Reality demands consequences, and shielding self-made idiots from the consequences of their behavior is resulting in the destruction of our society. . . and with an overwhelming number of self-made enstupiates who would be able to rebuild on its ashes?


1I use “Hivemind” here as shorthand for that Conspiracy of Dunces comprised of folks who all echo the same lying memes and talking points–often word for word–in pursuit of identical goals within the so-called “progressive-liberal” world of “reality-based fantasies”: The Mass Media Podpeople Hivemind, Academia Nut Fruitcake Bakeries, and all the NGOs and even looser affiliations of fellow travelers, cronies, co-conspirators and other evil-doers who spout Hivemind lies.