Sunday, March 27, 2011

Dudley’s Dud (of a book)

Have you seen this new theology book yet? Talk about being the exact opposite of what a theology book should be . . . . just read this excerpt from the Amazon product description of Jonathan Dudley’s new theology book: Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics,

“Arguing against absolutism on abortion and opposition to embryonic stem cell research, Dudley shows that most Christian theologians throughout history, including Augustine, Aquinas, and even American evangelicals up until the 1980s, have believed that life does not begin at conception. He argues that evangelical opposition to gay marriage has more to do with allegiance to socially conservative cultural values than allegiance to the Bible. He demonstrates that traditional Christian valuations of science, as well as scientific evidence itself, should lead evangelicals to accept evolution and reject both creationism and intelligent design. And he surveys how evangelicals are changing their minds about environmentalism, and how this development supports a new way of thinking about the Bible.”

Contrast that description with the Amazon product description of my theology book: The World Perceived: A Theological and Phenomenological Approach to Thinking, Perceiving, and Living In-The-World,

“By exploring the epistemological bases of both science and theology as forms of knowledge along with the assumptions implicit within both worldviews, The World Perceived invites the reader upon an intellectual journey into the world of phenomenal reality. The author makes a strong case for the validity of the biblical description of the world and reality by demonstrating how the modern scientific description of the world and reality are in no way superior to the biblical description.”

I haven’t yet read Mr. Dudley’s book, and I doubt that I will, but I wouldn’t mind debating these issues with him on campus sometime (in fact, I would love that), but I imagine that HE is the one who is misusing (“breaking”) words. There are certain things one expects from ALL books of theology, including Mr. Dudley’s and my own. Things like remaining faithful to the ancient teachings of the Church by making them relevant to our lives today. The goal of the theologian is to provide the community of faith--the people of God--with the scriptural teachings that are necessary for them to be able to live their lives in ways that would be pleasing to God.

I don’t believe God is pleased with abortion, which is the intentional destruction of a healthy, living, growing human being, so I can’t imagine how Mr. Dudley’s book is of any good to anyone. He’s actually about as off-track as a theologian can get (Go Yale!). As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Dudley’s new book is a dud.


Here’s the links to the various free ebook editions of my books, which are on Scribd:

Wake up from your nightmare . . . and other sociopolitical essays (2011 - US Politics/Social Issues)

Broken Government: A Call to Action and Other Essays (2010 - US Politics/Social Issues)

The World Perceived: A Theological and Phenomenological Approach to Thinking, Perceiving, and Living In-The-World (2009 – Philosophy/Theology)

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Life, Society, Law, and Language

We (people) tend to be very pragmatic when it comes to law in our societies. We tend toward an overwhelming majority of the group being in complete agreement on many, if not most, basic points of law. Sort of a “lowest common denominator” approach to legal and social theory.

Regarding life issues, I am consistently prolife, because I believe that a more just society would outlaw: capital punishment, abortion, war, and euthanasia.

I was involved in a discussion, not long ago, during which I found myself having to define the most basic of words to the person with whom I was having this discussion; words such as: life, death, law, justice, etc. The discussion involved abortion on demand, which means abortion for any reason whatsoever. I was unsure, at first, whether I should be taking this person seriously, because the definitions of such basic words are, well, pretty basic. But, apparently, when it comes to the issue of abortion, even the simplest words are distorted to represent and symbolize something that they were never intended to represent or symbolize, and that’s a real problem, because societies depend upon language to write their laws and language is simply a system of signs or symbols.

I’ve written a very simple law, which should be easy enough for anyone to understand, designed to protect all human beings within our society from being killed, intentionally and unjustly, by other human beings within our society (with the sole exception being made for self-defense and the defense of innocents). And because people do like to quibble about the meanings of words, especially when it comes to abortion, I’ve also included the proper definition of each word I’ve used, as well as the word’s part of speech.

If, after reading this law, you still doesn’t understand what I’m saying, or if you don’t agree with what I’m advocating, or if it happens to be your desire that abortion on demand would continue to be legal throughout the US for the foreseeable future, then please write me and explain to me why you believe this and tell me what sorts of arguments you are using to defend your prochoice position, because I’ve yet to hear a sound argument that proves why abortion is NOT a moral evil and I doubt that you or anyone can make such an argument.


“The intentional, violent destruction of a human being of any age is not permitted by law. Deadly force is permitted only when exercised directly in defense of innocent human life.”

This law is as simple as I could possibly write it. As I see it, the law would prohibit the following: murder, all forms of homicide or manslaughter committed with malicious intent, capital punishment, abortion, war, and euthanasia (when the natural, biological death process has yet to begin).

The law would permit: deadly force when used in self-defense, defense of others (i.e., innocents), war (in defense of direct attack) and the prescription of pain relief medications (as the individual, family, and physician sees fit) to dying people once the (natural, biological) death process has begun.

Words used: 25 (distinctly different) words used; 29 total words (3 words are used twice: “human”, “is”, “permitted”; and one word is used 3 times: “of”).

the”: definite article; used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect; used to refer to specific or particular nouns.

intentional”: adjective; done with intent or on purpose;; modifies nouns (modify meaning “to change in some way”).

violent”: adjective; acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force.

destruction”: noun; the act of destroying or state of being destroyed.

of”(3x): preposition; used to indicate distance or direction from, etc.

a”: indefinite article; any; a single.

human”: noun; being human, a member of the human family; consisting of members of the family Hominidae.

being”: noun; existing; a particular, existing member of the human family.

of”(3x): preposition; used to indicate distance or direction from, etc.

any”: adjective; one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification.

age”: noun; length of time during which a thing (e.g., human being) has existed.

is”(2x): verb; to exist, happen, occur; 3rd person singular present indicative of be.

not”: adverb; negation, denial, refusal.

permitted”(2x): verb; to allow to do something.

by”: preposition; through the agency or authority of.

"law" : noun; principle and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in their form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

"deadly": adjective; causing or tending to cause death; fatal; lethal; aiming to kill or destroy.

force”: noun; power to influence, affect, or control (e.g., the force of law).

is”(2x): verb; to exist, happen, occur; 3rd person singular present indicative of be.

permitted”(2x): verb; to allow to do something.

only”: adverb; alone, solely.

when”: adverb; at what time, under what circumstances.

exercised”: noun; a putting into use, action, or effect.

"directly": adverb; at once; without delay; immediately.

in”: preposition; used to indicate limitation or qualification, as of a situation, relation, manner, action, etc.

defense”: noun; resistance against attack; protection.

of”(3x): preposition; used to indicate distance or direction from, etc.

innocent”: adjective; free of moral wrong.

human”(2x): noun; being human, a member of the human family; consisting of members of the family Hominidae.

life”: noun; the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual or individuals (= lives).

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

The End of the Nation-State?

Although you hardly ever hear anyone talk about it, the most promising hope for our political future, as human beings living on planet earth (an oasis of life in the middle of lots and lots (and lots more lots) of space), is the coming demise of the (already out-dated) concept of the nation-state.

This may sound drastic, or unbelievable, because we are so accustomed to the concept of the nation-state, but the nation-state is, historically speaking, a rather recent political phenomenon. And time is telling as to whether or not this particular concept is progressive (as opposed to regressive) or even practical. So far, I think, the verdict is that the nation-state is the bloodiest concept yet devised by the mind of man, which doesn’t bode well for its future, as a concept. The nation-state is like tribal warfare but on a much grander scale. Not very progressive, but frighteningly more efficient, especially at propagandizing and killing (even genocide).

If you are interested in why I am thinking along these lines, or wonder whatever gave me the idea that nations, as we know them, now, could, someday, soon, exist no more, simply read, study, and contemplate (as I have) the (over 2,000 year) history of political theory, which can be found in George H. Sabine’s (nearly 1,000 page):

A History of Political Theory

As far as what’s next, politically speaking, who knows. The continuation of the nation-state, for the foreseeable future? Balkanization? Global government? Hemispherical Unions? I tend toward favoring localized government, which is similar to balkanization—but with cooperation rather than hostility—existing between people-groups. For the Americas, I actually prefer a hemispherical (North, South, Central American) union, on some level, so long as localized governments throughout the Americas are re-empowered to a much greater extent too. State governments throughout the Americas should have much more power and there should be much less federal power throughout the Americas. Federal power should always be kept to a minimum, focusing mainly upon international, I mean, cross-cultural exchange (i.e., trade, or commerce). The Americas could be much more efficient (as well as self-sufficient), economically, as well as being more locally controlled when it comes to just about everything other than cross-border commerce. (This same economic factor: cross-border commerce, was the driving force behind the adoption of the US Constitution over the states’ old Articles of Confederation.)

No more standing armies either, or international, overseas, conflicts (wars). The US DOD could stand (close) down. And we could use their (our tax) money for housing, health care, and education. Right?

Something else to consider too: redrawing the state lines on a map of the US. Drastic, but necessary, eventually, I think. Funny how most people think we can’t do things like that, but people can do such things; in time. The US is still very young, as a nation-state, and time will tell what becomes of it, and what it is to become. Imagine the possibilities.

Monday, March 7, 2011

The Day I was DONE with Israel and the US Government – 3/30/2002

I was DONE with Israel on March 30, 2002, which was Holy Saturday that year, when the Israeli military (IDF) was shooting Palestinian fighters who had taken refuge in the Church of the Nativity. On March 29, 2002, which was Good Friday that year, the IDF began Operation “Defensive Wall” (or Defensive Shield) in the West Bank by arresting Palestinian leaders, imprisoning PNA Chairman Yassar Arafat in the "Mukata" compound in Ramallah, and besieging militants in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

The photograph I chose for this article is not random. In fact, it holds much meaning for me. The photo was taken March 29, 2002 in Palestine, just outside Yassar Arafat’s compound in Ramallah. The men in the photo are two of Arafat’s security guards, one of whom has just been mortally wounded by an IDF sniper. The photo appeared in the newspaper (where I lived) the following day, March 30, 2002, and it was obvious to me that the man in the photo had been mortally wounded at the instant the photo was taken, because I could see that he had let go of his rifle, which he would never have done unless he were already dead. When I looked at that photo that morning; and I saw that Palestinian fighter, who was not a young man; I put myself in his place, fighting many years for the freedom of my homeland; freedom from the invaders and the oppressors: Israel.

Along with the photo came the story, of how the IDF were besieging Palestinian fighters in the Church of the Nativity, in Bethlehem, and were doing their best to kill Arafat in his compound, in Ramallah. As this occurred not long after 9/11, war-fever was in the air. The US had invaded Afghanistan in order to go after al Qaeda (Operation “ENDURING FREEDOM”), and Israel was using the toxic atmosphere to go after their enemies: Arafat and the Palestinians.

Killing people who were fighting for their freedom, holed up in the Church of the Nativity, on Holy Saturday? I was DONE with Israel.

I had been very suspicious about who was behind the events of 9/11 since the day they occurred, because I had seen no evidence that what the US government said concerning American Airlines flight 77 having crashed into the Pentagon was true. I had seen no evidence that a large jet aircraft had hit the Pentagon, and I still haven’t seen any evidence of such to this day.

For me, the notion that rogue elements of the US government might, in fact, be responsible for the terror attacks of 9/11 was not off-the-wall, nor was it off-the-table as a possible, even probable, explanation for who was actually responsible for the murder of over 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. The Oklahoma City bombing had occurred April 19, 1995, almost seven years prior to March 30, 2002, and I was well aware of the fact that the ATF had had advance knowledge of the bombing, which was to occur that day, and had allowed it to go forward (killing 168 people, including 19 children, and injuring 680). I was also aware of the fact that the 1993 plot to bomb the World Trade Center in New York City had been monitored by the FBI and allowed to go forward as well (killing six people and injuring thousands more).

DONE with the US government? I was DONE!

And that was many years ago. How DONE do you think I am NOW?

9/11 is, in fact, a thirty-year conspiracy, which was carried out by rogue elements of our own government (with the assistance of rogue elements within the government of their ally: Israel). Do you doubt this? Former Senator Bob Kerrey, who was also a member of the 9/11 Commission, has said, on video, that 9/11 was a thirty-year conspiracy (watch video here). Excuse me? The conspiracy to commit the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 goes back thirty years? I want Kerrey subpoenaed. I want to know what he knows. I will gladly grant him immunity if his testimony will put Rumsfeld and Cheney, who I suspect to be the guilty masterminds of the terrorist operation, in the dock. Peter Lance, an investigative journalist, has documented the thirty-year timeline of events that surround the terror attacks of 9/11. What happened thirty years ago that could lend credibility to claims of a there having been a thirty-year conspiracy behind 9/11? Hmm . . . let me think . . . oh, I know: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney came into power with the Regan Administration! Iran-Contra, continuity of government, al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, the Mujahideen, CIA cocaine smuggling, Governor Clinton, Mena, Arkansas? Sure, I remember all of that.

Did I say was DONE with the US government?! I am SO DONE!

When we march against the wars on March 19, 2011, you can be sure that I am protesting a lot more than the wars . . . I am protesting my corrupt and murderous government, which has no legitimacy whatsoever, with the hope that one day Americans will wake up, get motivated, and take this country back from these criminals for the People.

Photo credit: © 2002 AP/Nasser Nasser “A Palestinian gunman [above] lets go of his rifle the moment he is fatally shot by an Israeli sniper during fighting in the West Bank city of Ramallah Friday, March 29, 2002. Sporadic gunfire and tank shell fire was heard as Israeli forces entered Ramallah Friday. Israeli forces surrounded Yasser Arafat's compound and occupied some buildings within” [source: link]


For those of you who are Christians, as I am, I have some very important questions for you:

1) Have you ever read the Bible?

2) Do you understand what your reading?

3) Do you understand that, according to Jesus himself, God rejected Israel over 2,000 years ago, because Israel, as a nation, rejected God’s only begotten Son, Jesus?

4) Do you know where, in the Bible, this rejection of Israel by Christ (and God, the Father) can be found?

5) Do you believe in (and act upon) what Jesus said (and did)?

*** ANSWERS ***

Christ proclaimed Israel’s rejection by God for Israel’s rejection of himself as God’s Messiah in the Gospel of St. Matthew, see: MT 23:38.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” Matthew 23: 37-39 (ESV)

Jesus—and God, his Father—was DONE with Israel – more than 2,000 years ago, according to Jesus and the Bible, so when will YOU decide to start believing in (and acting upon) what JESUS said, and STOP SUPPORTING ISRAEL?

Jesus on Israel – Bible Study: Matthew 23:38

The context for Matthew 23:37-39 – Matthew Chapter 23: Christ’s “Seven Woes” to the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees:

English text of Matthew 23:38

Original Greek text of Matthew 23:38

Greek-English Interlinear text of Matthew 23:38

The Greek word: "aphiƩmi", "desolate" or "abandoned", found in original Greek text of Matthew 23:38

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Why I am SO DONE with Alex Jones - Egypt, Libya, Israel, and Charlie Sheen (an open letter to Mr. Jones)

More so than anyone else, Alex Jones appears to be seeking the truth behind government cover-ups, especially 9/11, which is very appealing to those of us who believe that the current and corrupt regime that has reigned in Washington for over thirty-years (Democrat and Republican) needs to go. And I’m not talking about throwing the bums out in the next election, I’m talking about the American people marching on Washington in order to run those murderous, lying, thieving, criminal, snakes out of their House and Senate office buildings in Washington, D. C. (non-violently, of course), just like the people are trying to do in Egypt and Libya to those who have ruled over them so poorly for the past thirty-to-forty years.

I think we all know that if the American people were ever to get serious about this, and actually do it, our “leaders” in Washington would gun us down too. You know they would, just as the corrupt regimes in Egypt and Libya and Bahrain have done. And if that were to happen, all bets would be off as far as non-violence goes. I would be doing my best to rally the 30,000,000 good-ole boys who live throughout rural America (with their pick-ups and their rifles) to head to D. C. for the fight. I would also expect the police and the military to switch sides in order to defend the American people against our corrupt thirty-year old regime, just as they have in Libya. If that were ever to happen, I can assure you that Alex Jones would be in his studio in Austin, Texas, at his microphone, calling us all dupes of the New World Order . . . blah, blah, blah . . . .

Do you realize why Obama and Clinton were so hesitant to back the people of Egypt when the Egyptian people had had enough of Mubarak’s corruption and murderous ways? Because they knew the same exact thing could happen here, which is very unsettling to those in power. Like Obama and Clinton, Alex Jones, rather backing the Egyptian people right away, as I did, chose to label the Egyptian people’s revolution a New World Order (NWO) conspiracy, and he basically considers the Egyptian and Libyan peoples to be dupes of the NWO. Excuse me Mr. Jones? People in Egypt and Libya are willingly risking their lives and losing their lives striving to be free of the tyranny that oppresses them; everything you say you support.

What a hypocrite. Alex Jones is great until things get serious, then he wants to take you off on a rabbit trail that leads to nowhere and will accomplish nothing. The supposed New World Order is far too nebulous a “thing” for the People to fight, it’s more like boxing the air than it is throwing out the current regime, literally. What is Alex Jones’ plan for the future? What will he do to help free us from tyranny? Call for a march on Washington to run those crooks out of town? NO. His plan, I suppose, is to bullhorn the Bilderburg Group for the next thirty years. What a waste of energy. The people who listen to Jones everyday would gladly march on Washington if he would call for it, but he never will. NEVER. What a lying hypocrite Mr. Jones is.

Think about this, if YOU had the opportunity Mr. Jones does to be on-air with such a large audience, would you not be broadcasting live from in front of the White House calling for non-violent regime change? Or would you be 1,500 miles away ensconced in your studio, which you're enlarging, talking about the NWO ad nauseam?

I am so DONE with Alex Jones . . . he didn't support the people of Egypt, he will not support the people of Libya, he supports the Zionist "two-state" solution, and he USED Charlie Sheen and his current manic state to further his own pathetic career. What a hypocrite. (Him and his "V" campaign . . . people are flashing the "V" sign ALL OVER Egypt and Libya and do you think he shows ONE video of it? No.)

Now is the time to strike, while the iron is hot. Now is the time to push, push, and keep on pushing. Anyone who has thought about this, and is sincerely seeking the truth, freedom, and justice, knows this and would be pushing too. But not Alex Jones . . . he will only push so far, and no farther. The biggest political problem we have in America is that Israel owns our Washington politicians lock, stock and barrel, and our politicians are using us and our children to fight Israel’s battles for them. Yet Alex Jones SUPPORTS Israel and the Zionist two-state solution (?!). I wonder what Alex would do if the Mexicans took over a large area of south Texas by force? Call for a two-state solution?

And Alex Jones is supposedly going somewhere is his quest to uncover government corruption and cover-ups? Right.

The first time I learned about the Rockefellers, the Rothchilds, the Bilderburg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc . . . was, oh, let me think . . . THIRTY YEARS AGO!!

Is there some truth to all of that NWO conspiracy stuff? Of course there is, and I’m glad that Alex Jones is waking people up to what’s really going on, because (Lord knows) the American people need to wake-the-hell-up. Alex Jones himself says that his calling is to wake people up. In other words, he is not the one who will lead people to act. All of which is fine, yet, on the other hand, Mr. Jones is undermining those of of us whose calling IS to act and who ARE acting (i.e., the Egyptian and Libyan peoples, at the present time). And we (they) don’t need that. If you’re not going to help Alex, then at least shut up and stop saying the Egyptian and Libyan peoples who are fighting for liberty and freedom are dupes of the NWO. You and your tired, going nowhere, NWO rabbit-trail, which does nothing but dissipate Patriot energies . . . are you just screwed up? Or are you doing this intentionally? Why not start backing the People instead of the corrupt, murderous, established orders Mr. Jones? Do you have a problem with that? You say you believe in liberty and freedom, but you sure as hell don’t act like it.

As for the Charlie Sheen fiasco, Mr. Jones, who says he’s Charlie’s friend, allowed Mr. Sheen to destroy his career live on the Alex Jones Show; much to Jones’ delight. Charlie’s friend? Are you kidding me? I was listening to Alex’s broadcast that day, and I knew five minutes into the show that Mr. Sheen did NOT belong on air. Had Alex truly been Charlie’s friend, he would have known, immediately, as I did, that Charlie was in no mental condition to be talking on air, and he would have ended the interview at that point:

“Ok everyone, we’re going to a break now . . . stay tuned . . . “ [off air] “Charlie, you’re out there man. . . you can’t go on air and talk like that . . . I know, I’m manic-depressive too, I’ve been there, you’re flying! [laughing] . . . we’ll do this in a few months when you come down dude, and please don’t go on any more radio shows, okay? Go to the beach, for a month or two . . . just chill and take a break man, you’ll love it, forget all about this crap for a while, life is too short . . . if I let you keep talking on air like you are you’ll ruin ruin yourself, you’ll never work in Hollywood again man, you don’t want that, or need that . . . and your sure as hell not going to ruin your career on my show buddy! [laughing] I love you too much! hey, tell me what island you decide to visit and I will TOTALLY be there to visit for a week or so. I need to forget about my own crap and chill for a while!” [on air] “We’ve lost Charlie’s connection, and can’t seem to get it back . . . so, I’m thinking we’ll make todays broadcast like an open-line Friday and take listeners calls for the rest of the show. Last we spoke, Charlie’s headed for some well deserved rest and relaxation somewhere in the Caribbean and we wish him well . . . Okay, Robert from Oklahoma, what’s on your mind today?”

But did Alex say this to Charlie? Or something like this? No. What he said and did was just the opposite. Charlie’s friend? Bullshit. More like he knowingly took advantage of Charlie’s current manic state in order to further his own career. I wish I lived in Austin, or had the money to fly to Austin, I’d punch Alex Jones right in the mouth for what he did to Charlie. DONE with Alex Jones?! I was DONE when he didn’t back the Egyptian people. Taking advantage of and USING Charlie Sheen and his current mental state in order to further his own pathetic career? A fist in his big f-ing mouth is what Alex Jones needs. Big blowhard. And if Charlie’s still alive (and doesn’t kill himself) six months from now and doesn’t punch him in the mouth himself, I will gladly do it for him.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Re: Nine Dead Boys in Afghanistan - 3/3/2011

Re: Nine dead boys in Afghanistan - 3/3/2011

I think this is more OUR fault than the soldiers . . . we, the People, have done our service men and women a great disservice by allowing them to be used for evil purposes . . . many of them have had their hearts broken, and many of them have had their hearts and conscience become calloused to the killing of innocent peoples . . . some soldiers have even been arrested for killing innocent people for sport . . . and the blood is on our hands, because our "leaders" are using them to kill in our name. If the American people still want revenge for 9/11, they should start by putting Cheney and Rumsfeld on trial for the murder of over 3,000 people on 9/11, because it is they who are the guilty parties.

See video