Rod Dreher, The Benedict Option

At Amazon, Rod Dreher, The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation.

Exterminate God?

That seems to be the objective.

See, at Pajamas, "New York Times Takes a Swing at God, Misses Wildly.

The essay of ire is, Shalom Auslander, at the New York Times' opinion pages, "In This Time of War, I Propose We Give Up God."

America is Still Standing (VIDEO)

An awesome video, featuring Kelly Shackleford, for Prager University:

Outrageous! Federal Judge Rules That Christian Cross Has No Place on Los Angeles County Seal

This is ridiculous, a total outrage.

Frankly, the teeny-tiny crosses are almost unnoticeable at the original county seal.

Leftists are once again working to drive even the slightest mention of our religious history from public recognition, and the public memory.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Christian cross has no place on L.A. County seal, judge rules":

In a long-awaited ruling, a federal judge has sided with plaintiffs who argued it was unconstitutional for Los Angeles County supervisors to place a Christian cross on the county seal.

A divided Board of Supervisors voted in 2014 to reinstate the cross on top of a depiction of the San Gabriel Mission, which appears on the seal among other symbols of county history. They were sued by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and a group of religious leaders and scholars, who said placement of the cross on the seal unconstitutionally favored Christianity over other religions.

A decade earlier, the county had removed a cross from the seal — this one shown floating above the Hollywood Bowl — after being threatened with a similar lawsuit. The proponents of reinstating the cross on the seal argued it was needed to make the image of the mission historically and architecturally accurate. When the seal was redesigned in 2004, there was no cross on top of the mission, as it had gone missing during earthquake retrofitting. The cross was later restored atop the building...

Keep reading.

Unhinged, Anti-American Salon: 'The Pledge of Allegiance Must Go...'

Not linking to the Salon piece, although you can click through at Memeorandum, "The pledge of allegiance must go: A daily loyalty oath has become a toxic, nationalistic ritual."

You can also read excerpts at Truth Revolt, "Salon: 'Toxic, Nationalistic' Pledge of Allegiance 'Must Go'."

It's a classic anti-American screed from the godless, anti-American left.

No one thinks America's perfect, but if you refuse to pledge allegiance to your own country, then you're not really an American. Your loyalties lie elsewhere, with the global movement to destroy the American project, with the left, with international communism, and with global jihad.

It's pretty straight up.

More at Memeorandum.

And on Twitter:

I'm "dangerously close to radical" for arguing US kids be treated like kids in other democracies, not indoctrinated. https://t.co/ONJ8KcoOKt

— David Niose (@ahadave) February 17, 2016

"Communists are always deliberate liars, who believe that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' justifies any deception necessary to advance their cause, and Communists kill without remorse, unrestrained by conscience..."

Heh, here's Robert Stacy McCain going off on an epic rant against the collectivist left.

See, "Godless Commies: The Critical Theory Cult and The Devil’s Pleasure Palace."

He reviews Michael Walsh's new book, The Devil's Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West.

Triple Slaying Arouses Fear of Far-Left Hate Crimes Against Muslims

Fear of murderous far-left anti-Muslim rampages after an atheist progressive murdered three Muslims in North Carlolina.

At the Los Angeles Times, "North Carolina triple slaying arouses fear of hate crimes against Muslims."

Well, according to the Times, it was all about not enough parking spots, or something.

But see Patrick Poole, at Pajamas, "Killer of 3 NC Muslim Students Was Hardcore Anti-Religion Atheist Progressive."

And on Twitter:

The Chapel Hill murderer was an atheist. People are DESPERATE to blame his atheism. But the police now say his motive was parking dispute.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 11, 2015

People are going to see what they want to see. It's never about religion or ideology unless the perp is a conservative. You never hear the end of it in that case.

Brook Wilensky-Lanford Has No Clue of the Religious Basis of America's Founding

I just saw this piece, at the New Republic, at Memeorandum, "The Dangerous Lies We Tell About America's Founding" (and here). The author is Brook Wilensky-Lanford, who is the editor of a religious-hate magazine, Killing the Buddha.

She's young, as you can see at her Twitter feed.

Her New Republic piece deserves a thorough fisking, one that deploys authoritative academic texts especially, although I've fleshed out a preliminary rebuttal in a series of tweets. This woman is someone who's latched onto some fringe theories to bolster some pretty out-there claims about the nation's founders and the sacred ideals that gird America's democratic order:

.@modmyth You're not right about the founders and deism. It's certainly not fundamentally atheism, as much as you like it to be.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) July 5, 2014

.@modmyth And you cite exactly 3 of the founders as "deists." But we had 13 original colonies, many of which were Protestant or Catholic.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) July 5, 2014

.@modmyth Can you please reconile those real "facts" w/ the so-called "myths" upon which your entire screed is based: http://t.co/pZyhGlen1r

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) July 5, 2014

.@modmyth And your rote review of the books cited leaves enormous lacunae casting aspersions upon your knowledge of the texts.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) July 5, 2014

.@modmyth Simply, you have an agenda, you cherry picked some hip books to bolster your hatred, and generalized way beyond what's supported.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) July 5, 2014

.@modmyth In other words, you're a hack, a hippie anti-intellectual who's got no clue of the religious basis of America's founding.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) July 5, 2014

Hobby Lobby Critics Demonize Belief

From Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary:

The legal and political world is awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case with bated breath. The court’s ruling will determine whether the Obama administration’s efforts to restrict religious freedom or the plaintiffs’ belief that faith may be practiced in the public square will prevail. The arguments over the merits of the case in which the government’s attempt to impose a contraception and abortion drug mandate on private businesses as well as religious institutions have been endlessly rehearsed as a sidebar to the general debate about ObamaCare. But, as I noted earlier this year, rather than confining the debate to the question of constitutional rights, critics of the plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius have done their best to portray the business owners who seek to strike down the government mandate as not merely wrong but a threat to liberty.

In order to do this, the administration and its cheering section in the mainstream media have sought to transform the debate from one that centers on government using its power to force people of faith to choose between their religion and their business to the dubious notion that dissenters from the mandate wish to impose their beliefs on others. This is a false premise since even if the owners of Hobby Lobby win, its employees won’t be prevented from obtaining birth control or abortion-inducing drugs. The only thing that will change is whether their Christian employers will be forced to pay for them.

But efforts to demonize Hobby Lobby are not confined to these specious arguments. As today’s feature in Politico on the Green family shows, the goal of the liberal critics of Hobby Lobby isn’t so much to draw the line on religious freedom as it is to depict their foes as crazy religious extremists who want to transform America into a “Christian nation.” That this is an unfair distortion of their intent as well as the point of the court case goes without saying. But the fact that mainstream publications feel free to mock the Greens in this manner tells us exactly why the plaintiffs’ fears about restrictions on religious freedom may be justified.

In Politico’s telling, the Greens are religious fanatics who not only are willing to conduct their businesses along religious lines, including closing their chain of hobby stores on Sunday, but also want to promote their beliefs to others. The Greens may wind up investing hundreds of millions of their vast fortune to the building of a Bible museum in Washington D.C. The also want to promote Bible study and ... funding a textbook and curriculum about religious studies they’d like to see be adopted by school systems. According to Politico, these efforts are stirring concern in the ranks of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and other liberal organs....

The attacks on the Greens illustrate the intolerance of openly expressed faith that is at the core of the mandate the administration is seeking to enforce. The Greens are no threat to the liberty of non-believers who need not visit their bible museum nor read the religious materials they publish.

Keep reading.

Harvard's Black Mass Cancelled

I called this evil over the weekend.

And Harvard must have agreed.

At the Boston Globe, "Harvard Black Mass, First Moved, Then Cancelled, May Have Happened in Chinese Restaurant."

And at Twitchy, "Satanic mass at Harvard canceled; Catholic event standing room only [pic]."

Black mass is canceled at Harvard but Catholic event is standing room only. See photo http://t.co/AhmgJgRvij pic.twitter.com/UZcMs7ylkT

— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) May 13, 2014

Harvard's Black Mass

Just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean you should. And from what I'm reading, the purpose of this Black Mass is to perpetuate evil.

Here's the background at the Boston Globe, "Archdiocese assails plans for black mass by Harvard group."

And from Lisa Graas, "Satanic Temple conducting black mass at Harvard is actually atheist."

Satan! Fighting for your freedom to do evil since the Garden of Eden. Meet Satan, guest of atheists, @Harvard or not. pic.twitter.com/18h3ZUOE9q
— Lisa Graas (@CatholicLisa) May 9, 2014

Leave it to the atheists to pretend to be Satanists and claim that Catholics objecting to the mockery of Catholicism are "intolerant."
— Lisa Graas (@CatholicLisa) May 9, 2014

It takes a special kind of insanity to claim that Catholics who object to the mocking of Catholicism are "intolerant."
— Lisa Graas (@CatholicLisa) May 9, 2014

I'm intolerant of many things. Satan is definitely at the top of the list.
— Lisa Graas (@CatholicLisa) May 9, 2014

The Cross the Left Can’t Bear

At Michelle Malkin's, "Cruciphobia at Mt. Soledad":

Consider this: Taylor Swift wasn’t even born yet when the fight over the Mount Soledad cross began. How much longer will it drag on? Disgruntled atheists first filed suit over the memorial at a veterans park in San Diego in the summer of 1989. The fringe grievance-mongers have clung bitterly to their litigious activities for nearly a quarter-century. It’s time to let go and bring peace to the city.

The historic 43-foot cross (29 feet tall on a 14-foot base) has stood atop Mount Soledad on public land since 1954. The Mount Soledad Memorial Association erected the monument to commemorate the sacrifice of American soldiers who died in the Korean War, World War I and World War II. The cross has long carried meaning for the city’s residents far beyond religious symbolism. “It’s a symbol of coming of age and of remembrance,” Pastor Mark Slomka of the Mount Soledad Presbyterian Church said years ago when the case erupted. The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board explained that the cross is “much like the Mission San Diego de Alcala and the cross at Presidio Park, both of which also are rooted in Christianity but have come to signify the birth of San Diego.” I first started covering the case as an editorial writer at the Los Angeles Daily News in the early 1990s. A federal judge initially ruled that the landmark cross’s presence violated the California constitution’s church-state separation principles. The city of San Diego put the issue before voters, who overwhelmingly approved a practical solution in 2005: Sell the cross and the park to the veterans group for use in a national war memorial.

A pragmatic, tolerant resolution with 76 percent of voters’ support? Heavens, no! The extreme secularists couldn’t have that. They sued and sued and sued and sued. By 2007, the state Supreme Court — affirmed by a state appellate court — had rejected the atheists’ campaign. The courts affirmed the constitutionality of the San Diego referendum (Proposition A) and the sale of the cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. The American Civil Liberties Union intervened to suppress and “de-publish” the ruling as a way to prevent its use in future litigation. They lost.

Lawyers for the Thomas More Law Center, which represented filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the memorial association, were relieved: “This decision protects the will of the people and their desire to preserve a historical veterans memorial for future generations.” They’ve fought hard to remind America that the Founding Fathers fought for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. [Correction: The memorial association is represented by the Liberty Institute. More info here.]

But still the cross-hunters press on. Fast-forward to Christmas week 2013. U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns, who earlier had ruled in support of the cross, was forced to rule that it must come down in 90 days in the wake of a liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision overturning his prior decision. In anticipation of new appeals, Burns stayed the order. All eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case last summer...

Continue reading.

And at the San Diego Union Tribune, "Soledad cross backers appeal."

I never cease to be astounded by the everlasting hatred of the secular left.

Nobody Should Fear a Merry Christmas

From Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary:

The notion of a liberal war on Christmas has become something of a seasonal evergreen discussion topic for pundits. As such, at this point at times it’s not clear whether conservatives like Fox’s Bill O’Reilly talk about it more than politically correct secularists wage it. In this overwhelmingly Christian country, there is little doubt that Christmas is a national holiday and is often practiced in such a manner as to make it more of a secular celebration of consumerism than a Christian religious observance.

Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the holiday plays a not unimportant role in the ongoing battle over the height of the so-called wall of separation between church and state. The fight about whether crèches, the lyrics in carols, or Christmas trees constitute an unconstitutional establishment of Christianity has done little to undermine the hold of the holiday or to make religious minorities more comfortable in America. To the contrary, such disputes do much to undermine good community relations between members of different faiths. Dennis Prager is correct when he writes today that those who claim to be “emotionally troubled” by the sight of a Christmas display on public property are indeed emotionally troubled...

Continue reading.

'If Charles Dickens were writing A Christmas Carol today, surely he would have replaced Ebenezer Scrooge with the figure of the joyless, rage-fuelled Dawkins spitting out ‘Bah, humbug!’ at families sitting down to the Christmas turkey...'

I wish I'd posted this on Christmas Eve, but definitely better late than never.

From Melanie Phillips, "Raising a child as Christian worse than sex abuse? Oh, do put a sock in it, you atheist Scrooge":

It is not just [Richard] Dawkins and his followers, however, who are dancing prematurely on Christianity’s grave.

In the eyes of just about the entire governing class, cultural milieu and intelligentsia, belief in Christianity is viewed at best as an embarrassment, and at worst as proof positive of imbecility.

Indeed, Christianity has long been the target of sneering comedians, blasphemous artists and the entire human rights industry — all determined to turn it into a despised activity to be pursued only by consenting adults in private.

As it happens, I myself am not a Christian; I am a Jew. And Jews have suffered terribly under Christianity in the past.

Yet I passionately believe that if Britain and the West are to continue to be civilised places, it is imperative that the decline in Christianity be reversed.

For it is the Judeo-Christian ethic which gave us belief in the innate equality of all human beings, the need to put others’ welfare before your own and the understanding of absolute truth. Without this particular religious underpinning, our society will lose the moral bonds that instil respect and care for other human beings. Without a belief in absolute truth, it will succumb to the dominance of lies.

Melanie Phillips is freakin' awesome.

Angry Atheism Drove Nativity Scenes From Santa Monica

An awesome commentary, from Rabbi Michael Gotlieb, at the Los Angeles Times, "Santa Monica Ban on Religious Displays Leaves Us All Poorer":

Today's atheism is different from the atheism of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Nietzsche, Russell and Voltaire did not gloat over the presumed death or nonexistence of God. There was no triumphalism in their assertions. While not enamored of organized religion, they did not view it as a singular force for evil.

Things have changed. Outspoken, angry 21st century atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens have sought to eradicate God and organized religion from the planet; faith-based religion in any form is unacceptable to them. When studying these modern-day thinkers, the late Herbert Marcuse's lament proves fitting and prescient: "We, no matter the side, become fanatical in our own anti-fanaticism."

Today's atheists hold that religion educates children and adults to hate in the name of their pious doctrines. Religion, they tell us, encourages followers to engage in God-directed slaughter and conquest of innocents. Its mission is to convert skeptics — or worse, subdue nonbelievers — until the whole world buckles.

The truth is, they're partly right. There have always been people who commit evil in the name of God and religion. They do indeed give religion and God a horrible name. Such behavior is perverse, inexcusable and, of course, sinful.

But today's atheists are as extreme in their convictions as the fire-and-brimstone believer. The resolute follower knows beyond any doubt that God exists, whereas the atheist knows beyond any doubt that God is a figment of the imagination. I'm reminded of the aphorism: To the believer there are no questions; to the atheist, there are no answers.

As a Jew and a rabbi, my speaking out in support of Christians who wish to display a Nativity scene on public land can potentially carry more weight than a priest or minister speaking out. The reason is simple: It's not my religious narrative. More important, faithful Christians do not threaten me. If anything, I'm inspired by them. By definition, different people from different faiths view God and religion differently.

In the meantime, Santa Monica, where I live and serve a congregation, is less festive, bright and accepting this Christmas season. And given my city's current municipal policy — one that forbids the use of public.

So true. One more example of progressives making everybody less well off.

But read the whole thing.

Secular Ideologies and the New Intolerance

A phenomenal essay, from Melanie Phillips, at Standpoint, "The New Intolerance."

Atheists Rally at the National Mall in Washington D.C.

At Washington Post, "Atheists rally on National Mall in show of political force."

And Reason Magazine declaims any organizational affiliations:

Reason.tv headed down to the National Mall for the Reason Rally (no affiliation!) in Washington, DC. The March 24 event was billed as the "largest gathering of the secular movement in world history" and drew a several thousand-strong crowd of damp, enthusiastic unbelievers (and a few protesting believers) to the National Mall.

The War on Christmas

From Blazing Cat Fur:

Plus, at Telegraph UK, "The War on Christmas is real, and the atheist barbarians are winning it."

BONUS: At Lonely Conservative, "Random Ramblings – Christmas Edition."

The Arrogance of the Atheists

From S.E. Cupp, at NY Daily News, "They Batter Believers in Religion With Smug Certainty":

The militant atheist wants nothing more than to spoil the believer's spiritual journey. That's both meanspirited and radically unenlightened.

RTWT.

RELATED: "The Secular Religion of Radical Progressivism."

Richard Dawkins Slams Pope, Christianity on Christmas Eve

At least The Guardian titled the essay for what it is, "A Shameful Thought for the Day." Dawkins slams the Vatican's "obscene indulgences" and then goes after original sin, a foundation of Christian faith:

We've already had what little apology we are going to get (none in most cases) for the raped children, the Aids-sufferers in Africa, the centuries spent attacking Jews, science, women and "heretics", the indulgences and more modern (and tax-deductible) methods of fleecing the gullible to build the Vatican's vast fortune. So, no surprise that these weren't mentioned. But there's something else for which the pope should go to confession, and it's arguably the nastiest of all. I refer to the main doctrine of Christian theology itself, which was the centrepiece of what Ratzinger actually did say in his Thought for the Day.

"Christ destroyed death forever and restored life by means of his shameful death on the Cross."

More shameful than the death itself is the Christian theory that it was necessary. It was necessary because all humans are born in sin. Every tiny baby, too young to have a deed or a thought, is riddled with sin: original sin. Here's Thomas Aquinas:

". . . the original sin of all men was in Adam indeed, as in its principal cause, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 5:12): "In whom all have sinned": whereas it is in the bodily semen, as in its instrumental cause, since it is by the active power of the semen that original sin together with human nature is transmitted to the child."

Adam (who never existed) bequeathed his "sin" in his bodily semen (charming notion) to all of humanity. That sin, with which every newborn baby is hideously stained (another charming notion), was so terrible that it could be forgiven only through the blood sacrifice of a scapegoat. But no ordinary scapegoat would do. The sin of humanity was so great that the only adequate sacrificial victim was God himself.

That's right. The creator of the universe, sublime inventor of mathematics, of relativistic space-time, of quarks and quanta, of life itself, Almighty God, who reads our every thought and hears our every prayer, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God couldn't think of a better way to forgive us than to have himself tortured and executed. For heaven's sake, if he wanted to forgive us, why didn't he just forgive us? Who, after all, needed to be impressed by the blood and the agony? Nobody but himself.

The Pope's Christmas message is here, and at The Telegraph, "Pope Benedict XVI delivers BBC's Thought for the Day." Plus, from a commenter at The Guardian:

What Dawkins says about the abuses committed by the catholic church is true enough, but reading him one cannot help getting the impression that, given access to the levers of political power, and given the right sort of regime or the right sort of period (eg Russia in the 1930s) , he would happily turn churches into warehouses and put priests in labour camps. Just an impression though. I may be wrong...

No, sir, I don't think you're wrong.

RELATED: How atheists celebrate Christmas.