The Land of the Bloody

So these days in America you can be stopped at a roadblock and have a blood sample forcibly taken from you. The "Land of the Free" looks more and more like Nazi Germany... but hey, the major news being covered is Kanye West's antics at the MTV-awards. Not to mention that such bodily violation is against the Fourth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and who knows which other law is being broken.

Religulous

Okay, so I saw Religulous (2008). After hearing so much bad rap about it, I was surprised by finding myself actually liking it. However, I didn’t find it funny. The only partially funny part of the documentary are the posters. Wasn't this film supposed to be humorous? It is after all hosted by comedian Bill Maher. For some reason I thought that comedy was the intention; but truly, I didn’t laugh once. Then again, I didn’t laugh watching Borat either – thought it was the stupidest film I’ve ever wasted time and money on. Why do I mention Religulous and Borat in the same sentence? Simple, they were both directed by Larry Charles.

Back to Religulous. I liked it because it highlights some very pertinent questions that I also ask. For instance, why do Christians believe in things that are not in the Bible? An example would be the celebration of Jesus’ birth on December 25th. Or keeping Sunday holy. These observances are nowhere to be found in Scripture, but still it is practiced as Biblical truth by the majority of Christendom. And that’s, in part, why I liked Religulous. It asks some valid questions.

A theme from Religulous is how Christianity does not reflect Jesus. I think this is in part what I tried to address in a post earlier this month: Religion vs Real Christianity. Maher asks some religious figures about the example of Jesus, versus their own; comparing religious figures with rock stars, which is so contrary to Jesus. Again, good and very valid questions. Standing in front of the Vatican Maher asks: “Does that look anything, like anything Jesus Christ had in mind?” A valid question. While I don’t believe God has anything against being wealthy (there were many examples of godly and wealthy men in the Bible), it is true that many religious figures seem to be in it for the money – this is foiled sharply against the example of Jesus. If anything, the purpose of the Church is NOT to make money for itself. Instead, it ought to be a conduit of encouragement, love and grace. And money received is to be channeled into helping others, not itself.

After an interview with some Christian truckers, Maher finishes his conversation with: “Thank you for being Christ-like and not just Christian.” How sad that there should be such a clear difference between Christians and the Christ they follow; and that the real thing is the exception, rather than the norm. It is for this reason that I often do not want to call myself a Christian. I honestly find little in common with Christianity, and the vindicative hateful “God” they represent.

For instance, in Religulous, Christians are shown with posters saying “God hates fags!” One lady announced “I don’t hate them [homosexuals]; God hates them!” (So one is to believe that, a mere mortal is more loving that the God of love?!) What these depictions show me is that these Christians do not know what the Bible teaches when read cohesively. God does not hate sinners, God hates sin; and God doesn’t hate sin arbitrarily, but because of how it hurt us or those around us. Actually, the Bible teaches the opposite of what these posters say: God loves sinners (Romans 5:8)! And speaking of homosexuals, in the Bible homosexuals are listed among a group of other sinners, like drunkards and envious people (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10). Why don’t we see Christians with posters shouting God hates drunkards and God hates envious people? Probably because half of them like to take to the bottle or are jealous of their neighbors. These kinds of double standards by “Christians” is a terrible blight on the religion. Jesus clearly taught not to point the finger, and on many occasions proved by word and example that He is not judgmental. Now, if a perfect person like Jesus did not judge the “sinners” of his day, who are we – full of faults and sins – to judge anybody?

I also have to agree with an Amen, when Maher says: “Two things that are completely incompatible is Christianity, as Jesus taught it, and nationalism.” This is probably one of the main purposes of this blog – my protest against Church and State. The Kingdom of God is not of this World, let us never forget it; and not try to make it otherwise.

Maher interviewed a Catholic priest at the Vatican observatory discussing religion versus science. The priest remarked: “The Scriptures are not teaching science.” How true. And that is part of the problem – people do not know how to read the Bible. I’ve written about that before too: Who Wrote the Bible? While I agree that the Bible is not a science book, I disagree with the assumption that Science and Religion are on all things mutually exclusive. There definitely are areas of overlap. And his blanket questions, like “Do you believe in Evolution?” is very much naïve on the topic. Firstly, there are many types of evolution. For instance, cosmological evolution, macro biological evolution, micro biological evolution and here we find three further types: divergent, convergent and parallel evolution. I, for instance do not believe in macro evolution, but I do believe in micro evolution. On many occasions in the documentary Maher would ask such blanket questions, and did not allow his interviewees to explain their views in full.

He also makes big deals out of strange things. For instance, the fact that the virgin birth is not recorded in all four of the Gospels is of pivotal value to Maher. Or the fact that very little is known of Jesus' childhood is heavily troublesome for Maher. Why should this be the case? Jesus’ childhood is actually of very little consequence for the Gospels. That Jesus’ birth is covered is what ought to be surprising. The Gospels (first four books of the New Testament) are not biographies, as Maher believes. A biography covers the majority of a person life. This is not what the Gospels do or intends to do. They only substantially cover the three years of Jesus’ ministry and only touch on the highlights. His criticism of the Gospel in this regard is unfounded. It’s like criticising a news article for not reading like a good screenplay.

Further, Maher addresses the great old Question of Evil: “Why doesn’t He [God] just obliterate the Devil and therefore get rid of evil in the world?” This is an old theological / philosophical question and which I addressed on this blog before as well. It is a question that Maher, who is a champion of freedom (and freedom of speech in particular), ought to be able to figure out the answer of for himself. I’ve addressed this dilemma in parts in various posts here before, but let’s try to summarize it:

God is Love and the highest value for God is Love and God wants us all to share in that Love. A requirement for Love is the Freedom of Choice. Forced love is an
oxymoron. Bribed love is not love, it’s prostitution. Coerced love is not love, it’s harassment. Forced love is not love, it’s rape. We, therefore, have freedom of choice to love or not to love. Many people choose selfishness, i.e. not to love, and the result is pain and suffering to others and ourselves. If I rape you, I have used my freedom of choice not to love you. Shockingly, God cannot do anything about it, without taking away my freedom of choice. It is all good and well to ask God to take away all the suffering in the world, but at what cost? To do so, God has to take away our freedom of choice, in which case God would not be Love, but a Tyrant.

Religulous’ reference to Christianity being a copycat religion I well addressed in my post on the Zeitgeist film, and it would seem that Religulous did exactly the same type of ridiculously lame scholarship that Zeitgeist did. Then again, that’s what one would expect from Hollywood, isn’t it?
Religulous also addresses Faith and Maher describes it as follows: “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.” This is sadly, actually what most religions including the majority of Christianity does. This, of course, is not what Biblical faith involves as I explained in a recent post on "Faith". Maher praises doubt throughout the movie, saying: “Doubt is humble.” It is true in part. Admitting how little we know is humble. Not pretending to have all the answers is humble. But boasting doubt? It might be honest; I just don’t know whether it is humble.

I have a list of probably another ten points I can write about, but I think the above mentioned is enough.

To conclude, in general I liked Religulous for the simple reason that it asks some pertinent (and honest) questions. While there are some moments one could argue somewhat blasphemous, it was very clear to me that Maher actually have very high esteem for Jesus and much of his questions revolved around why Christianity are not like the "Christ" they profess. Much of the film, however, was based on the doubt of Maher (and assumingly also that of Larry Charles), and at times (deliberate?) misrepresentation of those involved. I cannot say that there was anything in this documentary that presented new questions, or facts to shake my trust in God. (It might shake one's faith in Religion, but that's nothing new -- my faith is not in Religion.)

In my opinion, a much better documentary on the topic of religious fundamentalism is CNN’s three part documentary God’s Warriors.

A Return to Slavery in the USA

Will America condone slavery once more? Although the very idea sounds rediculous, the pawns are already moving into place.

Recently Obama signed a bill [HR1444] that will, among other things, research: "Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."

Now, I have nothing against the Obama Administration's focus on volunteer work, but this is clearly not the ultimate aim. The ultimate aim is "mandatory service required for all". A government is probably allowed to draft people during times of war (although that is in itself questionable, since these wars are often caused by daft governments and ought not be supported). However, expecting involuntary servitude is reminiscent of Hitler Jugend, and many are finding it ironic that the first American president of colour should consider anything tainting of slavery.

Will mandatory service occur during Obama's presidency? Maybe not. But that is the issue. The issue is that laws will be instated which the next president could use to inaugarate the Facist state, which America is steadily moving towards.

Reasons for the Death of a President (JFK)

I think this is why JFK was assassinated, and yes, I believe it was an inside-job.

Speech to the American Newspaper Publishing Association. You can listen to it here.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Implanted with a chip from a distance

With this ID Sniper Rifle you can be implanted with a identity microchip from a distance and not even notice. It will feel like a mosquito-sting, and you will probably think that is all it was. Welcome to the brave new world of privacy infringement. Did I say privacy? What privacy?

Democrats and Free Speech

I’m really enjoying Adam’s education of me regarding the Democrats. In a reply to a previous post of mine, Adam pointed out how the Democrats are actually working against Freedom of Speech, by trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (sorry for linking to Wikipedia) policy. “Fairness is Censorship” is how the Washington Times describe the Fairness Doctrine and the Bussiness & Media Institute highlights how this policy could fetter Internet freedom and net neutrality. (Here is another interesting source about the problems with the Fairness Doctrine.)

I become more and more convinced that freedom in America is under serious assault, regardless of the political parties.

Thanks Adam.

Conservatives and Liberals

So Adam is slowly convincing me that I am not as liberal as I thought. Of course my blogging-friend is being selective of what he reveals about the general darftness of the Democrats, but that is okay. We are all selective about how we present information. Even supposed objective journalist do their profession from an inevitable paradigm. That is why it is so important to get as many different perspectives on important news as possible.

But back to American politics… Here’s my cop-out: I am not a U.S. citizen, so I don’t have to cast my vote to either the Conservatives or the Liberals. However, I believe I ought to have an opinion and although it will not make any difference to America, it will make a difference within me. Since I’m not American I’m allowing myself the courtesy to keep it general.

Conservatives:

Many of the conservative values I value. I believe in the sanctity of the family and similar sentiments. But I fear the Religious Right that is trying to use politics to enforce their religious agenda. This movement towards bridging the gap between State and Church is disturbing.

Christ showed a deliberate avoidance of political involvement. He shied away from attempts to get himself involved in any of the governmental politics of the day. He showed no interest in over throwing the Roman Empire. Even though a rebellion under His command would have been invincible, with him feeding them, healing them, raising them from the dead.

The serious privacy infringements under the Bush-administration are also a cause for solemn concern. It is my opinion that Americans have lost their freedom. Such atrocities as the “Spy Bill” of which I posted before, all under the cloak of anti-terrorism, are awful manipulations of the public’s fear, towards an Orwellian Big-Brother State.

Liberals:

What I like about the Liberals are their inclination away from Church and State and appreciation of freedom of speech.

Apart from the many inconsistencies Adam has made me aware of, I have another fear. In their offensiveness against the Religious Right, the Democrats are leaning themselves towards an equally fearsome extreme. A kind of Communist downplay (and sometimes even uprooting) of anything religious or traditionally sanctimonious. This has the potential to lead to a type of witch-hunt, or forced transformation of traditions and culture. My question is then, where does that leave those inalienable freedoms that made the United States the great nation it became? Such freedoms as the Freedom of Speech, Religion, Conscience. Freedoms that the Liberals are supposed to value.

Indeed, the religious right scares me, the liberal left frightens me. It is as one evangelist described: You have a choice between voting for the Devil in Pink or the Devil in Blue.

O, and by the way, the world is coming to an end!

Christ vs Church

"Christ does not drive but draws men unto Him. The only compulsion which He employs is the constraint of love. When the church begins to seek for the support of secular power, it is evident that she is devoid of the power of Christ--the constraint of divine love."

How fittingly the above quotation describes what's happening in Croatia and other parts of the world where the church "seek[s] for the support of secular power" in the form of national laws and so on.

Croatia forces Sunday observance

Croatia’s parliament passed a law that forces shops to close on Sunday, in a concession to the Roman Catholic Church (see here.) The law will be effective as of January 1st, 2009.

These are the beginnings of Church-State autocracy. Let’s say that I want to keep the Biblical Sabbath (which is Saturday and not Sunday); this law effectively forces me not to do business on Sunday (which to my faith would be a normal working day). This is reminiscent of end-time prophecies that warn us that a time is coming “…that not any might buy or sell except those having the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of its name” (Revelation 13:17).

Of course this is not the “Mark of the Beast” in full swing, but it is moving in that direction. Croatia is only one of many countries that aim to implement Sunday Laws (or “Blue Laws”), and in effect trying to force people into Sunday-observance. Such forced religion is not of God, but of the “beast”, described in Revelation.

Blue Laws have been in the decline over the past couple of years – especially in America, but it is again flaring up. This might have potentially serious consequences. And lead to the fettering of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience.

Although I completely agree with the importance of “Sabbath” observance for Christians, I seriously disagree with any government forcing such observance onto anyone, and forcing a specific sabbath day onto anyone.

A freewill dilemma

In response to my post on pantheism, fellow blogger, Mary-Jane IX, posted the following hypothetical question:

“If God gave us all the power of choice; what right does any of us have to deny someone their God-given right? If someone wants to rape a child, how can we deny that person the power of that choice?” (Read the full post here.)

This is an interesting dilemma.

I think the answer lies not in the fact that we have God-given freedom of choice, per se. Rather we should ask: Why did God give us freewill in the first place? The answer is: Love.

Love requires freewill. Love cannot be forced. It has to be a free choice. Forced love is not love – it is rape.

God gave everyone freedom of choice, including the rapist, as well as the raped child. The rapist uses his freedom of choice to violate the child’s choice not to have sex. The rapist takes away the child’s choice. By doing so the rapist is transgressing the very purpose freewill was given in the first place.

If he doesn’t allow the freewill of another, does he deserve his own freedom?

The Collapse of Sweden’s Freedom

What on earth happened to Sweden?! This is a Big Brother nightmare! And the worst thing about it is that it happened so silently that most of the international community is still oblivious to such dreadful violations on liberty.

A lawhas been passed that allows the tapping of all international communication (including email correspondences).

As one blogger lists, the Swedes can now look forward to the following intrusions:

• the FRA will NOT be required to obtain a court order to undertake surveillance of citizens’ communications.
• the FRA will be at liberty to snoop: read emails, eavesdrop on phone conversations, investigate what websites citizens are visiting, create sociograms to map out a citizen’s social network/linkages with friends
• the creation of a society in which innocent people will be fearful of what they can say and who might be listening in
• despite saying that only cross-border communications will be monitored, some internet servers are located abroad and the FRA one presumes would check all communications to establish whether they have “crossed the border”. Let’s be honest here: there are no clear borders when it comes to a global communications network. So if a Swedish citizen let’s say emails someone in Denmark, then the Danish citizen becomes trapped in the FRA dragnet surveillance. Sweden is a member of the EU and EU values (to some extent) privacy - will the EU be happy to be dragged into Sweden’s attack on privacy? Already questions are being asked. Benoît Hamon, a member of the European Parliament from France, has a whole list of questions the Swedes might wish to answer. Go here to the European Parliament site to access Hamon’s question on the remit of the FRA.
• all telephone and internet operators will be required to attach a cable to the FRA’s supercomputer so that there will be a record of ALL emails, conversations, sms, faxes, internet searches conducted by Swedes.
• EVERY Swedish citizen will be caught in this general snooping - not just suspected terrorists or criminals
• 20 hubs will apparently be installed across Sweden by the FRA to help collect communications data for this massive snooping and data-mining project. The FRA is saying it will only monitor international traffic against 250,000 criteria and that it will filter out domestic stuff - yeah, right.

The FRA, by the way, is a private organisation – which in itself is a scary thought.

Once while standing in a bookshop someone asked me out of the blue if I think George Orwell’s book “1984” is still relevant. My quick answer was, yes, look at the USA and North Korea.

And now, look at Sweden. . .

The Scary Right

I recently watched CNN’s third installment of their documentary series “God’s Warriors” [http://www.hvc-inc.com/clients/cnn/warriors/index.html]. The third installment, “God’s Christian Warriors” centered on the Religious Right in America.

My blood chilled.

Although many of these people are most sincere in their purpose and convictions, they are moving the country away from separation of Church and State. The strong emphasis on political rallying is scary, to say the least.

Has it been so long? Is it already forgotten that one of the great causes for the “New World” was the fleeing from religious persecution by government? Doesn’t the First Amendment stand as a grand testimony to the terrifying past that infringed religious freedom?

The only Christian on the “God’s Christian Warriors” installment that I could associate with was Greg Boyd, and a little bit with Richard Cizik. The latter is an environmental activist, saying that we are stewards of God’s creation and that this should get just as much attention as other worthy causes, like prayer in schools.

Greg Boyd is a controversial pastor that denounced the Religious Right’s political agenda. Although Boyd is conservative in his moral views (e.g. disagrees with abortion and Gay marriages), he is paradoxically critical of the Christian Right movement. Last year he authored the book The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church as a theological response to the Christian Right agenda.

Boyd is considered a heretic by some for adhering to the idea of “open theism”. I’m yet to read up enough on the topic, but as for Boyd’s focus on Jesus Christ as our model, and condemning the marriage of Church and State, I passionately agree.

Fearful will be the day when the United States of America becomes the Religious States of America. Persecution of those (including other Christian denominations) that do not believe exactly as the church-backed government dictates will follow closely behind. If ever there was a time to learn from history, now is such a time.

The problem is of course much more complex than the Christian Right wanting control of government. The reason for their power hunger is because they are experiencing an infringement on their constitutional rights themselves. In a secular society where Christian values and beliefs are frowned upon, and the slightest mention of one’s beliefs are considered hate-speech, it is no wonder that they feel the need to fight .

I sympathize. It is crucial for me to be allowed the freedom to worship freely, to live out my convictions proudly, to share my faith openly. Permit me also the choice to learn and appreciate various models of origin, not only one state approved hypothesis. These are all civil liberties we all should have access to.

However, if I want this freedom of choice for myself, I must also allow it for others. Not only now, but even in times to come. Throwing religion and politics into the same pot is sure to bring a gloomy future.

After all, did Jesus not say that His Kingdom is not of this world?!

The Scary Right and the Frightening Left

In the previous post I flayed the idea of Darwinian Evolution. That must make me a Religious Right fanatic, right? Nope, definitely not. There are few things in this universe that scares me as much as the Religious Right. If not one of the “Righteous Right” then I must be a Liberal Lefty, isn’t that so? Wrong again. The Liberal Left, although slightly less scary, is still a terrifying monster in my books.

So where does the Paranoid Prophet stand? Well, basically I’m torn into a terrible side split like Van Damme in Bloodsport (in picture), with my left foot dangling limb on one side and my right foot in a spasm on the other.

God’s government is based on Love. Love cannot exist without the freedom of choice. What I’m seeing in both the extreme Left and far Right, each of course with their own slant, is a peculiar movement towards taking away our freedom to choose.

The Religious Right is moving towards the integration of Church and State. This has proven to be disastrous in every historical case, leading to persecution of those that do not believe like the State Religion dictates. I vehemently disassociate myself with such a movement, which is, by the way, contrary to the First Amendment of the United State’s Bill of Rights. Also can I not, for the life of everything that enjoys Häagen-Dazs ice-cream, associate myself with those (rather big) fringe movements in the Religious Right that claims Global Warming is a farce invented by the socialists, or at least irrelevant because the End is nigh!

On the other hand, the Liberal’s attack on religion, Christianity in particular, frightens me too. The strong emphasis on down playing ones religion and claiming that witnessing is equal to proselytism (i.e. unethical means of religious persuasion) and akin to a Human Right violation is worrisome.

In the end, it doesn’t matter which side is ruling. With fanatical Republicans ruling religious freedom will have to be state approved. And with fanatical Democrats in government religion (especially denominational Christianity) will become ostracized as an enemy of Human Rights.

Either way, Freedom of Religion (as prescribed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Article 18) will become a relic of the New World, unwelcome within the New World Order.

Man, don’t listen to me. Prophet Kangnamgu is gifted with the spirit of paranoia, not the Spirit of Prophecy.