OF COURSE AMERICA WAS NEVER A CHRISTIAN NATION

humor.pngOf course America was never a Christian nation.  Here is the real story.

😉

America owes its prosperity and plenty to all the diverse atheistic cultural groups that came together as a providential example of human reasoning and skill. These atheistic collectives combined to produce our uniquely secular Constitution and governing institutions.

Consider where it all began. The first arrivals crossed the Bering Strait, then a cold, dry land bridge because of the Ice Age.  They brought with them their belief in the Great Spirit of Logic which they celebrated at their campfires by devising efficient ways to hunt and farm.  Thus, these Indians became the first environmentalists. To protect the environment, they consciously chose to remain in the Stone Age for thousands of years, forgoing the use of electricity, plastics, and labor saving machines to protect their beautiful land and wildlife.

When barbaric Vikings from Northern Europe arrived in America, the Indians met them and showed them their ways.  Some of the amazed Vikings stayed and joined the Indians. Others returned to Europe and introduced their Scandinavian brothers and sisters to the Great Spirit of Logic. Hence, early in its history Scandinavian became renowned for its peaceful ways and near absence of warriors.

Now we go to the Middle East. Here, a thousand years earlier, long before Lief Erickson trod the shores of North America, a great philosopher named Jesus began popularizing the works of little known Jewish philosophers. These philosophers had done ground breaking work on the rules for rational human behavior, but few knew of or understood their great accomplishments. Unfortunately, generations of ignorant Jewish scribes had obscured their insights with strange notions about an angry God and multitudes of needless rules and laws.  Fortunately, a gentile named Jesus, a star student educated by the best Greek and Roman teachers, discovered well preserved copies of the works of those little known Jewish philosophers. Curious, he delved into them and was amazed by what he had found.  Subsequently, he assembled a team of fellow philosophers, and he taught them what he had learned.

Jesus died shortly thereafter, but the work he had started continued. His disciples taught others and made disciples of those they taught.  Thus, through his first disciples Jesus slowly became famous for teaching what ancient Indians had learned long ago on the other side of the word.  Humans can solve any problem by reasoning together and working together. In time, man can make his collective will the supreme force in the universe. In time, man can be his own god.

Seeing that Jesus had discovered a path for the works of man to make salvation possible, his disciples soon began to call him the Christ (meaning the savior) and themselves Christians. Therefore, Jesus ironically attained to the status of deity from his more gullible disciples.

Fortunately, Jesus’ first disciples preserved his teachings in their class notes, but most of the world was illiterate.  So Christianity spread slowly, and its adherents mixed up Jesus’ teachings with strange beliefs. Then in 15th century, someone invented the printing press.  So most of the educated people of Europe were able to read both the works of the those little known Jewish philosophers and the class notes of Jesus’ disciples.

Unfortunately, the arrival of the printing press resulted in competing interpretations of Christianity and chaos. As various groups strove to practice their own versions of rational and well-reasoned living, the old pagan institutions strained and finally began to slowly crumble. Still, many Christians sought escape from their persecutors in the New World.  Here are some of the better known groups.

  • Disciples of the Church of England, devoted to prosperous living, sought escape in Virginia.
  • Pilgrims for Stoicism and later the Followers of Puritanical Reason settled in New England.
  • The Rational Friends settled in Pennsylvania.
  • The Proponents of the Catholic Mind settled in Maryland.

The Atlantic Ocean was not wide enough.  The adherents to the old pagan gods were still strong enough in England to torment the Christians in the New World.  So the thirteen colonies, all practicing various versions Jesus’ teachings (now intermixed and strengthen by the Indian’s belief in the Great Spirit of Logic) decided to declare their independence. So they wrote up a declaration. They declared that the rights of men depend upon the rational collective will of mankind, not the rantings of those who believe in nonexistent gods.  Then, they listed their grievances and crudely told King George III where to stick it.

The rest is history.

LADIES, WHY ISN’T THIS GROWING OLD?

Clinton testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on October 22, 2015 (from here)
Clinton testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on October 22, 2015 (from here)

The picture above is that of a “nasty woman”. The female of our species may be smaller, but few men go through life without ever beating a hasty retreat from an angry woman. In fact, Proverbs records such a retreat as an act of wisdom.

Proverbs 21:9 New King James Version (NKJV)

Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop,
Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

Imagine Donald Trump’s anguish.  For three 90 minutes sessions he had to put up with a tongue lashing from Hillary Clinton. If he were married to her, he could have escaped to a luxurious rooftop at one of his mansions. Instead, he was trapped in close proximity with a nasty, cold blooded woman determine to verbally eviscerate him. It goes against every instinct and social convention for a man to take such abuse without heading for rooftops.

So how did the news media report the matter? Well, Trump slipped up. He stated the obvious and shared his misery: “Such a nasty woman”.

Well, Hillary Clinton is a woman. She certainly has made every effort to make sure we know it. And as Donald Trump observed, she debates like a “nasty woman”.

What can we do about it? Well, we might want to think long and hard about who is most responsible for making this presidential campaign something so unsuited for children to watch. Meanwhile, let’s all pity and pray for poor Bill Clinton. May he always be able to find a quiet rooftop.

HOW TO USE THE WORD

Hillary Clinton's new home? (from here)
Hillary Clinton’s new home? (from here)

In A WORD TO REPLACE “POLITICALLY CORRECT”?, I suggested that we replace the phrase “politically correct” with “obsequious”. Here I will show how we might want to use the word “obsequious”.

At this post, WHY IS VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON MADNESS?, I got a comment from an unhappy Hillary Clinton supporter. Here it is.

Tony

When you get a second, poke your head up and outside of your dark little maze of echo chambers here Tom and into the light of the real world.

The Republican Party is in a full scale implosion. Instead of seeking unity, Trump and his rabidly outraged supporters are engaging in a circular firing squad with the establishment of their own party. The math has become almost inexorably on course to make this an Electoral College landslide for Clinton, and the popular vote does not look much better. Trump has no ground game. Republican chances of retaining their Senate majority and strong House majority are being dragged down along with the national tickets.

To move undecideds, Independents, and moderates from both political parties, and to even have a chance to win at this late date, Trump and Trump supporters would need to pivot away from talking about sex and sexism, a topic that has proved absolutely damning for Trump with decent people of any political persuasion, and yet all he and you want to do is talk about sex, sex, sex.

Please keep up the good work Tom. ☺️ (from here)

What follows is my response. Keep in mind that wherever you see some form the word “obsequious” I could just as easily have used some form of the phrase “politically correct”.

Tom’s Response

Well, I suppose I could just obsequiously defer to the infinite wisdom of the news media and give up. After all, news media has rigged the election — I mean “called” the election — so there is no possible way anyone but the most intelligent woman, the most experienced woman, the finest female foreign policy expert of the age can win.

Yeah, this is the year of the woman. There is nothing sexist about Hillary’s campaign. She has never pointed to her genitals and asked women to vote for her just because she is a woman. No, nothing so undignified. Such hypocrisy has nothing to do with Hillary’s campaign. So I suppose I should be politely obsequious and just submit to the pressure of news media tirades.

Still, I have a problem. When Democrats are so absurdly obsessed with the subjects (Here is a local example on the gender neutral bathroom issue => THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT),  I cannot figure out why Democrats keep insisting that Conservatives must obsequiously shut up. Conservatives have to stop talking about sex and sexism so Democrats can do all the talking?

Are Conservatives trying to alter the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions using the courts? No, but Democrats are, and what Democrats doing is voting for people who have no problem breaking their oaths of office.

Our officials are supposed to support and defend both the U.S Constitutions and their state constitutions, not amend them. Therefore, to obsequiously defer to Democrat demands for “sexual equality” (really just sexual fantasies), Conservatives have to go along with oath-breaking. I don’t think my conscience will support that, thank God.

Moreover, Democrats make this same demand for obsequious submission with respect every “social” issue. It is absurd. Isn’t everything Democrats want to spend gobs of money on a social program? Don’t Democrats break both Federal and state government budgets on health, education, and welfare programs, that is, social programs? Nevertheless, Democrats castigate Social Conservatives and laud Fiscal Conservatives, as if there was any such thing as someone who can be fiscally conservative without certain moral standards.

So no, I am not going to obsequiously give up. I will do my part to support Donald Trump and put Hillary in prison instead of  the White House.

PS – I already know Trump is not Conservative, but he is also not Hillary.

A WORD TO REPLACE “POLITICALLY CORRECT”?

humor.pngWhat is the problem with “politically correct”? Well, that phrase is useful, but the meaning of that phrase has been somewhat distorted, and the origin of the phrase is not especially clear.  Consider the following and see for yourself.

So how is the term used today? The Wikipedia article goes into a large number of examples, include some from other nations. For the sake of brevity, here are a couple examples from the Reason article.

For some on the right, “P.C.” began to be a vague way to refer to anything left of center. “Un-P.C.,” meanwhile, became a phrase people used to pat themselves on the back, not just on the right but in the culture at large. By proclaiming yourself politically incorrect, you were announcing that you were a brave opponent of stultifying orthodoxies, even if your actual opinions were as vanilla as the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival.

On the left, some people embraced the term defensively (at Michigan, several student groups opened the 1991-92 school year by adopting the slogan “PC and Proud”), while others foreshadowed Taub by declaring political correctness a myth. More recently, it’s become common to claim that what conservatives call political correctness is really “just politeness.” (And indeed, if someone uneducated in the jargon of the week unwittingly uses the wrong language, he may receive the same reaction he’d get at a society dinner for using the wrong fork. But I don’t think that’s what they mean.) (from here)

So what word should we use instead? How about “obsequious”? Here is the etymology.

obsequious (adj.)
late 15c., “prompt to serve,” from Middle French obséquieux (15c.), from Latin obsequiosus “compliant, obedient,” from obsequium “compliance, dutiful service,” from obsequi “to accommodate oneself to the will of another,” from ob “after” (see ob-) + sequi “to follow” (see sequel). Pejorative sense of “fawning, sycophantic” had emerged by 1590s. Related: Obsequiously; obsequiousness (mid-15c.).
Consider that pejorative sense. Isn’t that the real problem that Conservatives have with political correctness? Don’t Liberal Democrats fawn over the government and our leaders?

Consider the dictionary.com definition.

obsequious [uh b-see-kwee-uh s] adjective

  1. characterized by or showing servile complaisance or deference; fawning:

    an obsequious bow.

  2. servilely compliant or deferential:

    obsequious servants.

  3. obedient; dutiful.

The first and second definitions are the relevant ones. That last one goes back to the word’s older definition. Like “politically correct”, the word’s meaning has flip-flopped; it has just taken longer. Funny how words do that, but it probably has to do with our pride and our hypocrisy. We don’t usually live up to the labels we apply to ourselvess.

Anyway, calling someone obsequious has two fringe benefits.

  • Most people don’t know what the word means.
  • It sounds even more awful than it is.

So please make certain that if you call someone obsequious you are not immediately within reach. Better yet, may I suggest that you label behavior and not people.