I hear it every time there is another Islamic Terrorist killing people. “It is a fringe minority”. But is it really?
In America, murder is punishable by the death penalty. Not everyone in the USA agrees with the death penalty, but almost all of us agree that murder is bad. Pretty much, the only thing (other then murder) that can get you the death penalty in the USA is espionage, or treason. Some people are also against the death penalty for these acts, but most still agree that they are wrong.
I bring this up to demonstrate that it is fair to conclude that if a country, as a whole, has capital punishment (the death penalty) for a particular crime, then most people in that country likely believe that the offense is a crime.
Recently, a Muslim Scholar was recorded as saying that homosexuals need to die, and killing them is the compassionate thing to do. In a 2013 speech Sheikh Sekaleshfar said this regarding gays, “Death is the sentence. We know there’s nothing to be embarrassed about this, death is the sentence…We have to have that compassion for people, with homosexuals, it’s the same, out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.”
What is even more disturbing is that this man was in the Orlando area speaking at a local Mosque weeks before this despicable act of terrorism took place.
I am all for free speech. People should be able to say whatever they want, however, it is the duty of everyone who doesn’t agree with that speech to not give those people a venue to express their toxic views. This vile person should not have been allowed to speak, much less invited to speak, at a Mosque (or any other venue) in the USA. This man, as well as all the people that supported his visit to central Florida are complicit in the horrendous act of terror that has happened in Orlando.
Of course, all of Islam does not follow this tenant. The Hanafite school of Islam (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted for homosexuality. Gay Imam Ludovic Mohammed Zahed (from France) says “Allah does not speak out against homosexuality in the Quran”. So it is clear that not all Muslims share this hatred of homosexuality. However, it is far more then a “Fringe Minority”. I feel that it is the responsibility of the more sensible Muslim leaders to constantly denounce the hate that is being spewed by the Muslims that promote hatred. When they do not, they are
Some people may claim that Christianity holds the same animosity toward homosexuals. This is not true. No Christian nation holds homosexuality as a crime punishable by death. Although there are fringe groups (like Westboro Baptist Church) that claim that “God Hates Fags”, it is clear from scripture that God doesn’t hate anyone. People who hold these beliefs are not following the teachings of Christ who said in John 13:14 “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.”.
The Episcopal Church affirmed at the 1976 General Convention that homosexuals are “children of God” who deserve acceptance and pastoral care from the church and equal protection under the law.
The Catholic Church states in the Catechism of the Catholic Church “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible… They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”.
Anyone who makes the claim that their religious sect advocates violence against homosexuals is themselves an evil person who should be chastised and repudiated by the rest of the followers of their faith.And when entire nations promote such violence based off of religious ideologies, the should be expelled from the community of nations. There population should be denied the freedom to travel to other nations that do not share their views, and they should be denied aid by countries that do not share their views. (Of course, their should be exceptions for people who are fleeing the oppression of those regimes who denounce those beliefs).
To eliminate this behavior, it is necessary to isolate the people with these beliefs, and not let them co-mingle with humanity at large. And yes, that means we need to stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia. We need to stop vacationing to Dubai. We not to immediately stop giving hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Nigeria.
By continuously supporting countries that advocate the death of homosexuals, both financially, and socially, we are, in effect, supporting the murder of homosexuals. This needs to stop.
The 2016 election season has shown that the people are tired of the status quo. The nation has woken up to the fact that our political parties are corrupt, and our “choices’ are chosen for us. The GOP was to ignorant to see the threat that Donald Trump posed to their plans. They wrote him off as a joke, as another Ron Paul. The GOP leaders thought Trump was a side show. But Trump’s marketing savvy toppled the plans of the Republican overlords, and it now looks like he will be the nominee. (If he isn’t, the Republicans will likely face a populist backlash that may spell the end of the “Grand Old Party”.
But what about the Democrats? Bernie Sanders was the Donald Trump of the Democratic ticket. He was supposed to be the fringe candidate. The campaigner who’s ideas were so far left, that he made the regular candidates look moderate. He wasn’t supposed to be a threat.
After all, everyone knows Socialism is bad. By it’s very definition, Socialism is the enemy of freedom. Socialism is the denial of the rights of the individual in favor of the betterment of society as a whole. Socialism is about submitting to the demands of the government.
How could groups like “Black Lives Matter” be pro Socialism? Socialism demands strict obedience to the law and the police that enforce it. How can the artists support Socialism? Socialism demands the giving up of free speech, and free expression in exchange for the social peace. Speaking out against corruption is not tolerated in Socialism. Deciding how you want to live is not tolerated in Socialism. Having your own thoughts is not tolerated in Socialism.
So how can the left support Socialism?
But this isn’t the 1900’s. The industrial revolution is over. The “worker” has no place left in society. Robots and AI are taking manufacturing jobs, domestic service jobs, and hospitality jobs. The working class sees a bleak future. Socialism gives them hope. People are willing to give up their freedom for a roof over their heads, for food, for security.
So Bernie Sanders support grew. The Democrats saw that the Republicans were to ignorant to stop the surge of populist revolt. The Democrats didn’t want to go down that road. So they devised a plan to steal the nomination.
The elitist who control both the Republican and Democrat parties have made a decision. “Let the populists have Trump as the GOP nominee, and we will elect Hillary Clinton”. In June of 2015, I predicted we would have another “Clinton vs Bush” election. It wouldn’t really matter who won, because Hillary and Jeb both took orders from the same people. But that all changed. Trump took the Republican nomination, so now the elites that run the country have only one option left, Hillary Clinton. They aren’t about to let Bernie Sanders ruin that.
So now the mainstream media is claiming Hillary is the “presumptive nominee”. Many people disagree because Hillary only has the required votes if you count super delegates (who don’t vote until the national convention). How did Hillary get these votes? There have been reports of rampant election fraud at many primaries including New York, Iowa, Puerto Rico, California, Kentucky, Nevada, and others.
And then there is the question of super delegates. Our system of representative democracy is based on the idea that we vote for someone to represent us in the actual voting. There are 4,051 of those “pledged” delegates. These are people who are supposed to vote in the manner laid out by their state convention (for example, South Dakota has 20 delegates, both Clinton and Sanders will get votes from 10 of them). Then there are 715 “super delegates”. These people vote for whomever they want to, not who the population wants. So who are these people?
According to Wikipedia, they are:
438 elected members (with 434 votes) from the Democratic National Committee (including the chairs and vice-chairs of each state’s Democratic Party)
20 distinguished party leaders (DPL), consisting of current and former presidents, current and former vice-presidents, former congressional leaders, and former DNC chairs
193 Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives (including non-voting delegates from DC and territories)
47 Democratic members of the United States Senate (including Washington, DC shadow senators)
21 Democratic governors (including territorial governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia).
You can also see a full list of who these “super delegates” are, and who they have pledged to vote for by checking here.
Granted, people could sway the votes of the super delegates by writing their elected official and letting them know that they will note be re-elected to their post if they go against the popular vote… but we all know politics today, people vote on the party line no matter who the candidate is, or what they have done.
So Hillary stole the nomination, and she is now the candidate for the elite. She will steal the general election as well if she needs to, but realistically, all the Bernie supporters will now go into the Hillary camp even though Donald Trump is far more like Bernie Sanders then Hillary Clinton ever was. But Hillary has learned her lesson. Don’t be surprised if her new arsenal of lies includes Bernie’s talking points. She now knows what you want to hear. And above all else, Hillary Clinton is a politician. A corrupt, elitist, crony capitalist politician, but a politician none the less.
King Tutankhamun (more commonly known as King Tut) was an Egyptian Pharaoh that ruled Egypt from 1332 BC until 1323 BC. As Jon Manchip White writes, in his foreword to the 1977 edition of Carter’s The Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamun, “The pharaoh who in life was one of the least esteemed of Egypt’s Pharaohs has become in death the most renowned.” King Tut is best know from his tomb which was discovered mostly intact, and un looted, in 1923. Buried with him (and placed on his thigh) was an iron dagger with a golden handle and sheath and a crystal knob on the hilt that scientists are now claiming is extraterrestrial in origin.
King Tut was the son of famed Pharaoh Akhenaten (who some claim was an alien hybrid). Akhenaten was known as the Pharaoh that created monotheism when he changed the religion of Egypt from the worship of Amen (and numerous other gods) to the worship of Aten (the sun god). Akhenaten died in 1335 BC and was succeeded by his wife Nefertiti. Nefertiti was succeeded by Tutankhamun.
Tutankhamun was born Tutankhaten but changed his name to Tutankhamun after he reverted the theology of Egypt back to the worship of Amun (and his pantheon of gods), and forsaken the god of his father Akhenaten. Many believe that the young Pharaoh made the change under direction from his advisors, possibly under duress.
The dagger found with Tutankhamun was found, using non-invasive, portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, to contain a high percentages of nickel. This is consistent with meteoric iron. “The nickel and cobalt ratio in the dagger blade is consistent with that of iron meteorites that have preserved the primitive chondritic ratio during planetary differentiation in the early solar system,” researchers said.
There is something here that is bothering me. King Tut was died in 1323 BC. Modern archaeological evidence identifies the start of the iron age to be around 1200 BC, marking the end of the Bronze Age. Between 1200 BC and 1000 BC.
So King Tut had an expertly made iron dagger buried with him 132 years before the start of the Iron Age? Could it be that this dagger was made on another planet, and brought here by Tutankhamun’s alien grandparents? That the dagger was handed down to Akhenaten, and in turn handed down to Tutankhamun? That when Tut died, as the end of the Thutmosid royal line, the dagger was buried with him?
Maybe this dagger was a lesson from the aliens on how to smelt iron. A lesson, that over the next 132 year, would bring humans into the Iron Age.
Maybe I don’t know what I am talking about, but it seems strange that nobody thought to bring up the simple fact that a iron dagger was around 132 years before the dawn of the Iron Age. There are so many artifacts and inscriptions in Egyptology that are either ignored, or “altered” because they don’t fit the accepted timeline. Maybe it is time we rethink the timeline.
It is no secret the higher education in America is a joke. Our children today put themselves in insane amounts of debt for degree’s that are, in large part, useless. I received my degree in 1995, and quickly realized that all it was good for was entry level jobs that I could have obtained with nothing more then a high school education.
Now sure, things would have been different if I would have gotten a degree in something good like engineering, but I was young, and dumb and thought a degree (in anything) equaled a good job in the field the degree was for.
The truth is, you only really need a good degree for certain fields, and the rest of the degree’s offered by colleges and universities are not their to help you get a job, but instead are only their to help the university raise profits, and help you be more knowledgeable. This might be good if universities were affordable, but they are not.
Most people want a degree so they can get a good job that pays well enough for them to afford a home, and a decent lifestyle. For most of us, however, it cost more to go to college then it would to buy a home, and we spend so long trying to pay off those student loans that we can’t afford the house that we went to college to be able to afford.
So why does college cost so much? In 2016, tuition for one year at Yale costs $47,600.00 . When did the cost of an education get so high? In November of 1965, Yale raised it’s tuition to $1,950 per year. This made Yale the most expensive college in the US (tied with Princeton who raised their tuition to the same amount at the same time.) This was about a 10% increase for Yale. By 1970, the cost had ballooned another 25% to $2,550. By 1980, the cost had more then doubled to $6,210.
What caused these drastic increases in tuition? On November 8th 1965 (just 10 days before Yale raised it’s rates by 10%), President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Higher Education Act of 1965 as part of his “Great Society” domestic agenda. This act guaranteed low cost, government subsidized loans for students, and created a cash windfall for universities.
No longer did universities have to charge affordable rates for tuition in order to keep the halls of academia filled. Thank to government interference, these greedy universities could charge whatever they wanted to, and the government would unquestioningly hand out low cost loans to the young, impressionable students who wanted nothing more then a good education. Once again, we saw the ignorance of a well-intentioned liberal agenda corrupted by greed. We saw a law that was supposed to help educate the country be used to indebt the populace.
It truly is this very naïve idealism that looks to me to be the downfall of our society. People often want to pass laws that on the surface seem like a good idea. However, no one takes the time to see how these laws will really play out in practice.
We have seen this time and time again. When President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Federal Revenue act in 1913, he created an income tax that was only supposed to tax the top 1% of earners in the US. (even in 1913 laws were passed to help the 99% and tax the 1%). The Revenue Act of 1913 stipulated that only people making over $20,000 per year (2010 equivalent of $374,000 per year) would pay tax, and even then it would only be at a rate of 1%.
In 1913, the American public was sold on the idea that the top 1% needed to pay their share. We passed an income tax that was supposed to only affect them, and indeed in 1913 less then 1% of the population had to pay the income tax. 100 years later, 85% of the population is paying a far higher income tax, and we are once again being told that the top 1% need to pay more… We’ve seen this game before.
But back to the original subject. A friend of mine recently tried to put forth the opinion that government cuts were the cause of the decline in the quality of higher education in America. He mentioned UC as a prime example of “death by a million cuts” (I am pretty sure this was supposed to be a reference to Lingchi the infamous Chinese execution method of death by 1,000 cuts.) A quick search into the UC financial reports (easily available online) show The UC system(as a non profit public school) made a net income of almost a million dollars last year. That is after paying over 6 million in salaries, giving out over 4 million in research grants, and donating over half a million to public service projects not to mention the 8 million it put into it’s medical centers. That doesn’t seem like “death by a million cuts” to me. But I get it… Imagine how much more they could do if we were to just give them more of our money…
I get it. Back when I was in high school and college (20 years ago), I was an anarchist. We had the cool music. The British had the Sex Pistols song “Anarchy in the UK” In America, we had the Megadeth cover of it, and the women had the Motley Crue version. Anarchy was cool.
We were rebelling against an oppressive government trying to force laws and rules on us that we thought were unnecessary, or just plain wrong. We didn’t need a bunch of old dude telling us what to do. We didn’t need to be governed. We could have a society that worked well without all the laws because we knew how to be decent human beings.
Eventually, I grew to realize that eliminating the government was not going to happen, so I became a Libertarian. If we couldn’t get rid of the government, at least we could make it as small as possible. Get it out of our lives.
Anarchists today have everything backward. They say we don’t need laws, and then they march, protest and riot proving exactly why we do need laws. They say the system is corrupt and oppressive, and then support making that system bigger, and more oppressive as a way to solve it being to big and oppressive. They say they don’t need to be told what to do, and that advocate socialism.
I think the problem is that they don’t understand what socialism is. When you ask an anarchist, a protestor, a Bernie Sanders support what socialism is, they usually have some answer like “It is when the government helps people”. This is wrong. Socialism is when the needs of society overrule the needs of the individual. So, yes, you get free college. You wanted a liberal arts degree? To bad, society needs more accountants. You want to live in California? To bad, we need those accountants in Nebraska. Socialism is giving up your rights as an individual to do what the government decides is best for society as a whole. You want to start a business in New York? To bad, the government things you need to pick cotton in South Carolina.
Socialism is every person is equally a slave to the government.
You can not be an anarchist and a socialist. Anyone who says they are simply does not understand the meaning of those terms.
Socialism thrives for equality by equally oppressing everyone. The proponents of todays socialism like to point to Denmark as a model socialist country. They will tell you how everything is free in Denmark, but they won’t tell you that the income tax rate in Denmark is 55.8%. Added to that is another 8% social security tax. This means that the average person in Denmark pays 63.8% of their income in taxes each week. On top of that, Denmark has a 25% federal sales tax. In America, we don’t have a federal sales tax (many states have sales tax, and it varies from state to state).
Of course, anyone with any knowledge of history can tell you that socialism fails. Look at England after WW2 (when it was illegal to quit your job. it was decreed by the Control of Engagement Order that “no man between the ages of 18 and 50, or woman between the ages of 18 and 40, can change occupations at will. The Minister of Labor has the power to direct such workers to the employment he considers best for the national interest.”). Look at NAZI (National Socialism) Germany, or Mussolini’s socialist Italy. Look at the USSR, Cuba or North Korea. Look what socialism has done to Venezuela today.
Anarchy is the ultimate freedom. It is rejecting government, and relying upon yourself. Socialism is slavery. It is submitting to government and expecting government to take care of you. Socialism is a pipe dream sold to ignorant, lazy people.
Merriam Webster dictionary defines hypocrisy as “behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel”.
These days we see that hypocrisy everywhere. If you are a Christian baker, you are forced by the courts to bake a cake for homosexual weddings, even if it goes against your religious beliefs. If you are a Muslim cab driver, freedom of religion allows you to refuse to drive cabs with ads for a gay event.
We all know the story of Kim Davis who was arrested for refusing to give marriage licenses to gay couples, yet how many know about Charee Stanley the Muslim flight attendant that refused to serve alcoholic beverages?
“What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it’s incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely,” said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Progressives continue to applaud people like Bruce Springsteen for refusing to perform in North Carolina over opposition to religious laws in the state while attacking people like the Christian Florist for refusing to do floral arrangements for a gay wedding.
Religious Freedom that only applies to one religion is not Religious Freedom. The right to refuse service is invalid if only some people have that right.
Of course this go far beyond religious discrimination. Progressives claim Donald Trump is inciting violence, yet the only violence at Donald Trump rallies is from the progressives protesting him.
To talk about the hypocrisy of the leading progressive candidates deserves an article all it’s own, so here is one from the Washington Post, and another from the Huffington post about Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy. Here is one from the National Review, and another from Western Journalism showing Bernie Sanders hypocrisy.
We are seeing the blatant hypocrisy of the progressives in cinema as well. We all know that Hollywood is a bastion for liberal ideologies, yet even they can’t escape the scorn of the social justice warrior.
Paramount pictures has come under fire for casting Scarlett Johansson in the live action American version of the Japanese anime Ghost in the Shell (even though the character she plays was obviously meant to be a representation of a Caucasian in the 1995 anime that was made in Japan… remember the blue eyes??? That is anime speak for “white person”)
Similarly, folks are starting to get upset that a Tibetan male character from the “Doctor Strange” comic books is being portrayed by Tilda Swinton (a British female) in the live action adaptation of Doctor Strange.
Yet, no one is upset that Akira Kurosawa’s landmark film Seven Samurai is being remade as an American western staring Denzel Washington. So I guess it is okay to “whitewash” a foreign film if you are using a minority cast. I mean, it was okay to change the race of the main characters in The Karate Kid, and Annie because you were replacing white people with black people. It is okay to change the genders of the characters in Ghostbuster because you are replacing men with women. It just isn’t okay to change gender or race if you are changing them into white people.
The blame for this progressive hypocrisy really comes from our nations universities. And who could expect anything less then hypocrisy to come from university students? UCLA recently reported that the average college freshman comes from a family with a median income 60% higher then the national average. Yes, you read that right. The average social justice warrior complaining about the rich people wrecking this country are coming from rich families. That seems like these social justice warriors are nothing more then sniveling little children rebelling against their parents success. Protesting the rich, while being the rich sounds a lot like “behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel”.
We have all heard the talking points. “men make 20% more then women”. This seems plausible. American business was male dominated until the Women’s Lib movement in the 1960’s. Women entering the workforce at the time had a great many obstacles to overcome, and it seems logical that they still face some obstacles 50 years later. But do they? Let’s take a look at why there is a gender wage gap.
The “wage gap” that we all hear about is based on flawed data. The 20% number is arrived at by calculating end of year tax returns of “full time” employees. It does not take into effect variables such as hours worked, seniority, or career choices.
Full time is defined as over 30 hours per week. If you look at only people who work 40 hours a week, men only make 13% more then women. Conversely, if you look at just people who work between 30 and 34 hours per week, women make 9% more then men.
In many ways, most men build their identity around their jobs. They identify as their job title. They socialize at work. They build their self worth around their career. Many women, on the other hand, tend to separate their lives from their work. Their self worth isn’t dependent on their jobs, and their social circles exist outside their work life.
I don’t think one way is necessarily better then the other, but I do think the difference in the ways of thinking affects wages.
The next problem with the “wage gap” myth is that it lumps all workers together, regardless of vocation. It says “that male engineer makes more then that female social worker, and that isn’t fair”.
The top 10 paying jobs for masters degrees according to Monster.com are:
Physician Assistant Studies
The 5 worst paying Master’s Degree’s according to the same article are:
Library and Information Science
Does anyone else see the correlation here? 8 of the top 10 Master’s Degree programs chosen by women fall into the bottom 5 paying jobs you can get with a Master’s Degree. Meanwhile, 8 of the top Master’s Degree’s that men study for fall in the top 10 paying master’s degree’s.
Saying that the wage gap is unfair, and women deserve to be paid the same as men, is the same as saying a social worker (average pay $56,900 per year) deserves to paid the same as a mechanical engineer (average pay $105,000 per year).
These statistics alone make up for the 30% “gender wage gap” everyone keeps talking about, but there are still more things that contribute. 43% of women leave their jobs to spend time raising their children, and then come back into the workforce at a later date. This disrupts seniority. It is very simple. If a person works at a job for 10 years, then quits for 5 years to raise a child from birth until they enter school, then returns to the workforce, they are starting with 15 years less seniority then someone who stayed at the same job. That is 15 years worth of raises that they did not get. Why would someone think that an accountant should be making the same as a different accountant with 15 years seniority over them?
So why is their a Gender Wage Gap?
The reality of why there is a gender wage gap is women choose to pursue less lucrative careers, they choose to work less hours, and they choose to prioritize things other then their careers. Women are not being discriminated against. There is no misogynistic conspiracy to keep women down. Women just have different priorities, different interests, and different loyalties then men. Neither is right or wrong, it is just what makes us unique.
Many of us have seen the headlines about the absurd PC culture that is going on at universities today. Children are having nervous breakdowns when the see political slogans written in chalk, or are panicking when they mistake a Catholic Friar for a KKK member. Some students say they can’t be in the same classes as people with differing opinions, and they need safe spaces to protect them from free speech.
Many correspondents have blamed this on rampant left wing ideologies, but I disagree. College has always been a place for idealism and liberal thought. It is okay to have big dreams of making a utopian society when you are young and stupid, but college should be a place where you learn to accept reality. The reality is: one person’s utopia, is another persons prison. As a representative republic, our government is set up to protect the rights of the people who would be entrapped by your “socialist utopia”.
In the 1940’s, England tried to create a “Democratic Socialist” utopia. In it, you could go to jail if you quit the job the government picked for you. They repealed most of their socialist policies in 1950, but the remaining ones still left such a huge tax burden on their citizens that those that could afford it (like John Lennon) fled to America. Imagine that.
The real problem at the universities of America is a complete failure of the said universities to do their job. You see, universities are supposed to be preparing our children for the real world. The real world is full of people with ideologies that differ from one another. If college is failing at the simple task of teaching children to be tolerant of someone else’s ideas, then they are creating a generation of children that will not be useful in society. They will not be able to hold a job, and they will probably never make it out of their parents basement.
You see, in the real world, no one will agree with you all the time. Your landlord may have different social beliefs, your boss may have different political ideologies (I guarantee you most business owners and entrepreneurs are capitalists), that store clerk may have a different religious belief then you. Wherever you go during the day, you will run into people who don’t believe the same things you do.
I used to work on a national daytime talk show that was run by one of the most liberal women in Hollywood. On her show, nepotism ran wild. The office staff was brutally mean to the working staff, we were constantly being forced to see and hear offensive things… It happens everywhere you go. College shouldn’t protect you from things that are offensive, it should teach you how to deal with them in an adult manner. If the universities of this country are failing at that, then they are failing at one of the basic principles of life. You simply cannot survive in society if you are not tolerant of viewpoints that are different then yours, or offend your fragile sensibilities.
When I was a child, we had a saying: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me”. Someone forgot to explain that to children of today. You would think that they would have learned it by the college level, but apparently the college professors can’t do their job.
I used to be an atheist. Like many other atheist’s, I believed in science like it was religion. Science was fact, after all, and religion was mythology. What I didn’t realize is that this is an extremely ignorant position to hold.
Science is not fact. Science is the best guess considering the provable evidence. That is far from being fact. Scientific “facts” are prone to change when new evidence comes to light. (kind of like Pluto being the ninth planet was a scientific “fact” up until just recently).
Another example that comes to mind is the excavation of the archeological site at Gobekli Tepe. The temple complex at Gobekli Tepe is about 11,000 years old. This temple predates the previously earliest know permanent structures by about 3,000 years. (that is almost 50% longer then the time between now and when Jesus was supposed to have lived).
What is more interesting to science is the fact that Gobekli Tepe appears to be a temple. There is no sign of permanent habitation. This disrupts the previous view of early civilization which stated that our ancestors first settled into farming communities, and created civilization, and then developed religion. A temple predating those first civilizations by 3,000 years seems to suggest that we developed religion, and then developed agriculture and settled into communities forming civilization. Time to rewrite those science books again.
As is clearly evident, science is much closer to an “intelligent guess” then it is to “fact”. In reality, the whole basis of science seems to be based on the idea that the universe is somehow put together in an intelligible way. For that to happen, the only logical conclusion (or best guess) would be that the universe was put together intelligibly because it was put together by an intelligence. This seems to support religion, or at least what some people call “intelligent design”.
The great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas was a supporter of what is known as the “efficient cause” theory. Efficient Cause simply states that:
There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).
This theory was put forth in the mid 1200’s. Long before the theory of evolution, long before the big bang theory, yet none of these theory lesson the efficient cause theory. After all, what was the efficient cause of the big bang? We may find out some day and it may seem like simple physics, but what then will have been the efficient cause of it?
Why Science led me down the Road to Faith
As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, I used to be an atheist. But several scientific studies opened my eyes to the scientific plausibility of a superior intelligence.
The first study that cast doubt on my doubt was a study that showed in quantum physics, a particle (the basic building block of matter) can be in more then one place at the same time. What forces these particles to be in one specific place is the effect of being observed. This seems to say to me that matter would simply fall apart if it were not being observed. And since we cannot see the furthest reaches of the universe, something must be observing it for it to exist. This “something” would be God.
The next study that peaked my interest in a superior intelligence was one in which a randomly generated influencer determined the state of a particle, before the influencer was randomly generated. to quote the gizmag article about this experiment:
the arbitrary number generated to determine if the grating was added or not was only generated after the atom had passed through the crossroads. But, when the atom was measured at the end of its path – before the random number was generated – it already displayed the wave or particle characteristics applied by the grating after it had completed its journey… this means… that a future measurement is affecting the atom’s past.
Predestination is not a theory commonly associated with science, but more closely associated with religion. Yet here it is being shown in a scientific experiment.
Simulation theory is the third scientific theory that made me accept the possibility of a superior intelligence. Simulation theory states that it is statistically more likely that we are in a computer simulation, then that we are real.
If that is the case, then “God” could simply be the programmer of the simulation, or just another part of the program itself.
It is difficult to hold on to the atheist “religion” of science when you understand that science does not prohibit the existence of God, and in many cases actually supports it. It is also very difficult to accept science as an absolute “truth” when by it’s very nature, science is nothing more then a guess.
When one truly understands science, one has to come to the conclusion that there most likely is a God.
Religion is not blind faith in that God, it is a way to understand the God that science suggests exists.
The election 2016 cycle for the US Presidency started off about the same as any other presidential election cycle. Each side had their establishment candidate, and each side had it’s “outsiders”.
The Democrats only put forth 2 real candidates in Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It was clear that Hillary was the “chosen one” and Bernie was there to make it look like Democrats had a choice. Bernie would play the “bat shit crazy leftist” that no one in their right mind would support, and he would, by default, make Hillary look like a moderate that everyone could get behind.
Why the Democrats had such few choices is something that has perplexed me. Was it because they didn’t expect to win the white house, so why bother spending the money? Historically, a party does not get three terms unless the 2 term president is very popular, and then his vice president may get a third term in hopes that he will continue the progress of his predecessor. (Examples: George HW Bush following Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson following John Kennedy, Harry Truman following Franklin Roosevelt). But vice president Joe Biden didn’t run, and Obama has never had a great approval rating, it is possible the Democrat party officials just figured this election was a lost cause.
The Republicans had an assortment of candidates to give us the illusion of choice. There was the minority candidates like Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio that were all supposed to fade away, and all but Marco Rubio have). You had your different factions of “extreme” right (the republican versions of Bernie Sanders) with Huckabee representing the religious right, and Paul representing the Libertarians, and Trump representing business. And you had the establishments “chosen ones” who were expected to be where the nominee would be chosen from: Cruz, Bush, and Perry.
But something went terribly wrong for the establishment. The outsiders started gaining momentum. Sanders and Trump became the talk of the country. It was clear that the American people knew the establishment had rigged the game, and they wanted nothing to do with the “chosen ones”.
The Democrats didn’t care what the people wanted and simply stole the nomination from Sanders. Between coin flips, super delegates, and mainstream media propaganda, Bernie didn’t stand a chance. In fact, the only way Bernie will end up as the nominee for the Democrat party is if Hillary gets indicted (which she may), and even then the Democrat establishment will likely find someone else.
On the Republican side we quickly saw most of the “undesirable” candidates get swept under the rug. Ben Carson was a threat to the establishment so the press quickly convinced the world he was an idiot even though he has 38 doctorate degrees, and is the first person to ever successfully separate twins conjoined at the head.
In my opinion, Ben Carson was the best choice of anyone running in either party. However, he wasn’t the establishment choice, and he didn’t have the money or the marketing savy to fight back.
Donald Trump, however, did have the money and the marketing savy. Even though the republican establishment wants nothing to do with Trump, they are having a much more difficult time making him go away. They have used the media to try to portray him as a fool, and as a bigot (It is ironic that the media would claim that Trumps comments about illegal immigrants referred to all immigrants, that statement shows that the media is racist for claiming that all immigrants are illegal. We know that is not the case.) They have miss-quoted him, and even miss-quoted the Pope to make it seem like the Pope was attacking him (they said the Pope said Trump wasn’t a Christian, when the Pope actually said “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian.”… The Vatican itself has walls around it, but it builds bridges. To claim that Trump wouldn’t do the same is just ignorant).
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are the Same
The truth is, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are one in the same. They are both a revolution from different sides of the aisle. They are both clear signs that the American People are sick of the Establishment, and are no longer willing to accept the Establishments choices. They both show that we will no longer be satisfied with voting for the same candidate with a different face and name. We don’t want another Clinton, or another Bush.
The only clear choices to vote for in the election 2016 are either Trump or Sanders. If one doesn’t get the nomination, vote for the other. Otherwise you are just voting for the same establishment crap we have gotten for the past few decades.