You can't understand modern media's strange biases until you understand this - Part 1

OK.

This may sound strange to you, as we are inculcated nowadays with the necessity of having no moral problem with media, and viewing it as amoral, or morally neutral.

But bear with me.

In my humble opinion, all major modern media outlets today, in every arena you can think of, print, internet, radio, TV - are geared toward propogandising against and undermining, both overtly and covertly, whether in your face or subliminally, every Christian moral ethic. And I can prove it.

Here is just one example.

We are all unused to viewing anything through a Christian filter. True, non?

We are not encouraged to use our brains to dissect and analyse critically, what is disseminated through the media. Including, especially, popular music.

Hence, in church even my pastor has spoken on the pulpit, of the song "Hallelujah" by Leonard Cohen, with approval. Because of course he thinks, because it contains the word "Hallelujah" which means Praise the Lord in Hebrew, it must be a good song.

I'm afraid I do not have a very intelligent pastor. Sad, but true.

However, as he is thoroughly ecumenical and views Catholicism as Christian, what else can one expect?

If he had actually bothered to listen at all to the rest of the lyrics, which frankly if he was at all responsible he should have done before going on to praise them to his flock, he would hear that this is actually an extremely occult and dangerous song which extols placing human sexuality in the place of the Holy Spirit.

Leonard Cohen is in fact a highly anti-Christian artist. He has rejected Christianity himself and has devoted himself to deviating as many as possible from it.

http://www.continualreformation.org/Concerning%20Isaac.htm

The song Hallelujah which is currently riding high in the charts, is a calculated attempted smack in the face to God and features deceptive, blasphemous retelling of biblical fact.

Do you realise, as an aside, that all music comes from, and should be dedicated to, the Lord?

As unpleasant as most of the sordid, immoral, worldly "dance" music that dominates the charts now is, at least it tends to refrain from openly mocking God.

But the song "Hallelujah" is, as a (secular) reviewer in the Irish Sunday Tribune wrote, like a contemporary religious hymn (he also commented that Cohen's writings are becoming more religious and hymnlike as he grows older). This tells us one thing - that Cohen is now mainlining demonic influences through "his" writing, as his demonically inspired "hymnlike" songs now mock God to quite a disgusting and unprecedented extent.

It doesn't surprise me that at least one of the coverers of this poisonous occultic trash song "Hallelujah", Jeff Buckley, killed himself. He probably did not consciously realise the true meaning of the musical spiritual contamination he was spreading. But you cannot touch pitch without being defiled.

The current singer of it, Alexandra Burke, had at first instinctively disliked it on hearing it. She has probably been saved from its more damaging effects as she has an incorrect grasp of what it is all about, and innocently believes it is about a girl loving a boy.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/celebs-on-sunday/2008/12/20/alexandra-burke-i-hated-hallelujah-when-i-first-heard-it-115875-20985238/

This thoroughly evil song has been disseminated through as many media outlets as possible, even being put on the Shrek soundtrack! So even children cannot escape it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/hallelujah--a-song-with-a-life-of-its-own-1052178.html

I would strongly recommend you pray to the Holy Father in Jesus' name to protect you, before reading the following lyrics:


LEONARD COHEN LYRICS
"Hallelujah"

Now I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing
HallelujahHallelujahHallelujahHallelujahHallelujah
Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you
To a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah
Baby I have been here before
I know this room,
I've walked this floor
I used to live alone before I knew you.
I've seen your flag on the marble arch
Love is not a victory march
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah
Hallelujah, HallelujahHallelujah, Hallelujah
There was a time you let me know
What's real and going on below
But now you never show it to me, do you?
And remember when I moved in you
The holy dove was moving too
And every breath we drew was Hallelujah
Hallelujah, HallelujahHallelujah, Hallelujah
You say I took the name in vain
I don't even know the name
But if I did, well really, what's it to you?
There's a blaze of light
In every word
It doesn't matter which you heard
The holy or the broken Hallelujah
Hallelujah, HallelujahHallelujah, Hallelujah
I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth,
I didn't come to fool you
And even though
It all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah

'Nuff said. Imagine all the atheistic young people singing along to this. It's an obviously
evil and anti-Christian polemic, which includes in its lyrics, praise for blasphemy and mockery of the Holy Spirit.

The last lines especially are quite obviously mocking - the singer lies that he didn't come to fool us, that's us the idiot listeners, despite having deliberately misrepresented King David, God and the Holy Spirit to us in the previous verses.

The portrayal of the Holy Spirit (referred to as the holy dove) as a sexual urge is unprecedented even in popular modern musical lyrics.

Even once-banned songs like "Relax" and "Love to love you baby" were more or less straightforwardly lustful, and not blasphemous. They are frankly innocuous, at least when compared with this spiritually wicked song anyway.

So. Who exactly is Leonard Cohen?

If you read his biography on Wikipedia, he had in his own words, a strange, "messianic" childhood. His mother was Jewish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cohen

His personal life has been unmitigatedly selfish, he has had two children and lived with various women without marrying them.

The next paragraph will probably sound out of leftfield. However ..

in my opinion, he has been spiritually targeted by Satan specifically, as I think he was meant to be one of the 144,000 Messianic Jewish believers who should be leading people to Christ in these last days. Unfortunately Satan seems to have won this particular battle for a man's soul.

You can't understand Leonard Cohen's strange life, and stranger music, until you understand that the covert spiritual aim of his life and music is the destruction of Christianity.

http://www.continualreformation.org/Concerning%20Isaac.htm

BTW, don't you think its odd that someone who has claimed to be so depressed, and writes about suicide so much, is so very full of himself?

Yep, Mr Cohen himself is, frankly, full of beans, hale and hearty, and as productive as ever. He has reached a good age, unlike many of his unfortunate un-biblically-discerning fans.

http://www.leonardcohencroatia.com/bookoflonging/press6.htm

Frankly, how anyone could choose of their own free will to listen to Mr Cohen's miserable, moany voice and lyrics and look at his ugly, droopy face without being somehow forced to do so, is beyond me. However, each to their own.

But perhaps Mr Cohen's music really should come with a some kind of warning tag?

Oh - it's been the subject of a "hilarious" internet spoof already.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i38549&rating=4

What a laugh, eh?

But it seems to be that quite a few of the people who admire him, who actually listen to his demonically chanelled music, actually do go on to commit suicide. Quelle surprise!

http://johnmacpher.blog.co.uk/2008/10/09/leonard-cohen-music-to-commit-suicide-by-4846210

Obviously Satan has plenty more work for Mr Cohen's hands to do. He hasn't outlived his usefulness to his master yet.

Many secular web reviewers have commented that his music has a "spirit that has never left them".

http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/paulmonk.html

That fact alone should alert wary Christians straightaway.

It doesn't take much intelligence to figure out what kind of spirit musically pushes suicide, does it?

Let me rephrase that. It SHOULDN'T take much intelligence.

But quite a few of our pastors, regardless of their intellectual achievement, seem to be as lacking in biblical discernment in musical issues as they are in every other issue.


Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:"1 Peter 5:8, KJV

We are most amused TV "comedy" - oh no we're not! - amused by the undeniably over-hyped Atkinson.

If you missed Mr Rowan Atkinson's "star turn" at Prince Charles' 60th birthday TV "comedy" show, here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTzXJMU1sLc&feature=related

There was ONE joke in the whole 4 minute sketch, ie Jesus is compared to a magician. Ha ha funnnnny. This pathetic, solitary joke was then stretched out to a point beyond ridicule.

Mr Atkinson is an actor, not a comedian, so what was he doing on the show anyway?

Here he shows once again that, without a relatively decent comic script written by someone else, he cannot be funny.

Anyway, the whole sketch was reminiscent of primary school level mockery.

Anyone non-retarded would have got the point within 10 seconds. It got real tiresome after that - which is probably why dubbed canned laughter had to be plastered all over the soundtrack.

Hilarious, non?

Is Mr Atkinson getting Alzheimers, or what?

All the other comedians went to the trouble of varying their act a bit. And all had more than just one joke.

But Mr Atkinson obviously thinks he can get away with any old repetitive rubbish, as long as he puts on clerical garb.

Then again, he himself says the only time he was ever funny was as the priest in Four Weddings and a Funeral (although, personally, I don't think he ever was funny or could cut it as a comedian ... he can act a funny character, but that's about it). So he is obviously desperate to regain attention with what he regards as his strongest comedic suit.

All he has done is show how completely unable he is to cut it as a comedian, with his own material.

I hate to complain about the religious content of the sketch, as cause for complaint and distress to Christians was obviously the result which was intended, and longed for.

Then again, as Mr Atkinson so clearly longs to be the darling of the anti-Christian chattering classes, it would be a shame to deny his wishes. Wouldn't it?

So here goes. All the secular humanists would be up in arms if this sketch was of a Hindu priest, a Buddhist monk, a witch doctor, a voodoo practitioner, or anything else. If it made fun of any religion other than Christianity, or any religious figure other than Jesus, in other words.

Mr Atkinson would have been up in front of a hate crimes tribunal if he had dared to do so, faster than he can don a cassock and blatantly, predictably and despicably, crawl to pander to our ruling, supposedly-secular-but-actually-hating-of-any-Judaeo-Christian-value-or-ethic, elite.

He would have been pilloried and hung, drawn and quartered, Mary Harney-after-Gardasil-withdrawal style, in all media quarters.

(As though he would dare, or wish to perform any such iconoclastic act as poke fun at any other religion! Ridiculous thought of the week!)

Is there any comedian out there going to mock Buddha's sitting under a tree for years (and probably getting support pressure sores for so doing?) How about his deserting his wife and infant to go off and meditate on the meaning of life? Surely there is plenty of topical comic material there ... about how modern day Buddhas would go to sit in the pub instead, or surf the net, plenty stuff about absent fathers .. how about a joke about Buddha's wife telling his son "all your father's good for is sitting on his arse" being true?

Anyone going to make fun of "Lord" Krishna's wars with demons, antics with lovers etc? Isn't there plenty of comic scope there, talking about how the one country in the world (India) that worships a goddess of prosperity, and has the most supposedly "enlightened" exercise of yoga, and thousands of "transcendental meditation" practitioners, in it for centuries, all "imaging" peace, health and wealth, actually is the most smelly, dirty, miserable, horrible country that contains the most gut-wrenchingly poor, downtrodden, mistreated millions and the most uncaring, rolling in it elite?

The practice of false religions has resulted in a palpable sense of darkness and evil when travelling in the countries where they have prevailed. Even secular, atheistic people have remarked on the horrible feeling of oppression that descends on them when in such areas of the world.

So why does no comedian ever remark on that?

After all, comedians like to regard themselves as humorous commentators on the world. And no area is off-limits for their comedic commentary. This is what we are supposed to believe, anyway.

Certainly, sex isn't taboo in the slightest any more - incest and paedophilia are now regularly called upon in most comedians' routines, as good for a laugh.

But religious systems such as evolution, secular humanism, the New Age, and every other false religion, and their obvious and horrid results, are today's sacred cows.

Why does no comedian make fun of the obvious backwardness and anti-intellectualism of Buddhism, Hinduism etc? Of the bribery, corruption and hideous human rights abuses in said countries? Where might is right, and money can buy anything, is a fact of life?

Fact is, the vast majority of people in Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim countries would think they had died and gone to heaven if they were able to move to the West, which still has enough hungover vestiges of Christianity, (such as a fair judicial system, right to education for all, and a struggling but still operational welfare system, which was created by Christians with a belief in charity and in an individual's inbuilt rights and dignities as a being created in the image of God) to enable people to live in a decent manner.

Anyone going to make fun of new age beliefs like reincarnation, crystals, reiki, etc?

Let's face it, these beliefs are so stupid that they practically ridicule themselves. It's too easy. But that's not the reason modern-day comedians aren't taking them on.

Yeah, goes the drugged secular humanist mob's reactionary, programmed-for-them media-operated "reasoning", belief in reincarnation may have resulted in a caste system in which cruelty and unfairness is still the order of the day, and using crystals for meditation and reiki healing may be unproductive at best, resulting in deaths from ignoring conventional medicine, and even demonic possession in many cases (think I'm exaggerating? read The Light that was Dark).

And every religion apart from Christianity (leaving out Catholicism, that cleverly Satanic, subtle substitute) has made an absolute, obvious haymes of every country they have dominated.

But so what?

It's not ok to make fun of it, 'cos ..................... it might be offensive.

Let's insult Christianity instead.

Always good for a safe laugh, right?

Hey dude, where's my commandment? Catholicism is Christian? Come on!

Yup. Catholicism sure isn't Christian.

And I should know.

Having had to put up with its indoctrination for the first two decades of my life. Which set me up for the next fifteen years of rejecting Christianity wholesale.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholicism_christian_or_pagan.htm

http://hissheep.org/catholic/index.html

These sites are fine ... but, because these sites were not written by ex-Catholics, they miss something very important out.

It amazes me that, for instance, no one apart from ex-Catholics who become Christian, knows that Catholics have 9 commandments instead of 10.

Yep. The REAL 2nd commandment, Thou shalt not make or worship idols, is removed from the Catholic list of commandments. To make up for its absence, the 10th commandment, Thou shalt not covet, is divided into two parts, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.

If you read the Bible the Catholic 9th and 10th commandment is clearly meant to be just one commandment, Thou shalt not covet. There is no reason to divide it.

If you read the Bible you can see that the (missing) 2nd commandment is VERY important to God.

Catholic theologians gloss over this when it is pointed out, by saying the second commandment of not worshipping or making idols, is incorporated into the first commandment's small print.

But of course, nobody reads the small print at the bottom of the first commandment in the Catholic Church, much less pays it a blind bit of heed. In fact Catholics are encouraged to transgress it and break it as much as possible.

So. For any Catholic reading this. There was a film out a few years ago, a (crap) comedy entitled "Hey dude, where's my car?" How can you answer the question "Hey dude, where's my commandment?"

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1005/1005_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0007/0007_01.asp

See the tracts above? I am jolly well going to order these tracts, and hand them out to the next person at my supposedly "Christian" church who tells me they are Catholic. I don't care how unpopular it makes me. Why is nobody telling them they are not saved?

I know, from being at the funerals of family members, including my father and my aunt, who passed away, that they were not saved. That their religion failed them in death, as it did in life. They had no conviction of the truth of their religion here anyway. But they blindly followed it nevertheless. Nobody ever pointed out to them that it was not true Christianity, but a clever fake.

Would they have listened? Maybe, maybe not. My point is, they never got the chance. Because their lovely Protestant neighbours, afraid of giving "offence", never witnessed to them.

Only one time did anyone say anything, years ago, this was when a Church of Ireland friend of mine was visiting with her mum and they remarked on my mother's statues and said about not worshipping idols, my mother of course used the get-out clause of "we're not worshipping them, they just remind us to pray", (stock reply which Catholics are advised to use when challenged on this issue) which she believes in herself, unfortunately.

Why did they not point out that we are not supposed to MAKE any idols, either?

Because of fear of giving offence, I suppose.

So now my father is facing eternity goodness knows where, partly because of their gutlessness.

I am also getting sick of how ecumenicism is creeping into every single Protestant church.

Not to mention "contemplative prayer" which is really Hindu meditation, deceitfully repackaged.
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/

What about the falsehood of "Christian psychology"?

http://www.scionofzion.com/satanism.htm

There is absolutely nothing Christian about psychotherapy. Nor about psychology's leading figures such as Jung, Freud and Skinner. All were deeply involved in the occult.

http://www3.telus.net/st_simons/arm03.htm

Mary Harney gets something right - actually two things - Gardasil and making Galway a centre of excellence for cancer treatment

Has anyone been following the Gardasil scandal?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x42488

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32380

Not too often I visit Democratic Underground or David Icke type sites! Or agree with their views on anything!

But at least they've got the right idea on this issue.

Here's a scientific article on it all:

http://fairlyobscure.livejournal.com/19118.html

Ms Harney has finally put her foot down re Merck's plans to vaccinate every schoolgirl with this vaccine. Not because she has gotten enlightened regarding vaccines, but because of cost.

http://europeanlifenetwork.blogspot.com/2008/08/open-letter-to-minister-harney.html


Despite all this information on how dangerous and totally unnecessary a vaccine, Gardasil is, the Irish media has been unequivocally hostile to Ms Harney's decision not to fund further vaccination.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1105/1225523373370.html

Yep, even the good old Irish Times would like us all sterilised, pardon me, vaccinated. It's for our own good, naturellement.

To read the other editorials, from the Irish Daily Mail to the Daily Star, the readers are left in no doubt that Mary Harney should be viewed as villain no. 1 for withdrawing funding for this wonderful vaccine.

How ironic that Ms Harney should have done so many wrong things in her ministerial role, yet for the one right thing she does, she is castigated beyond belief.

Another thing Ms Harney got right, was the establishment of centres of excellence for treating cancer patients. For those who don't know, Galway Hospital is the treatment centre for West of Ireland cancer patients. These patients have complained non-stop about having to travel to and from Galway, as in some cases they have to travel quite a distance. What somebody should tell these patients is, they are in the best place for their treatment. They should concern themselves with their best chances of survival.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ff-health-minister-breaks-ranks-to-join-thousands-at-hospital-protest-1226482.html

I am not going to comment on Sligo Hospital as for all I know, that may be a decent hospital.

But this is not what a lot of protestors have in mind.

Where do they want to go to, Castlebar Hospital?

According to Theresa Bourke, chairperson of the campaign to get cancer treatments in other regional hospitals, yes.

http://www.westernpeople.ie/news/story/?trs=eycwauqlkf

Oh yeah. Castlebar, which lost my sisters' mammogram records. Wonderful Castlebar Hospital!

BTW, Castlebar's chief consultant obstetrician Dr Muhammed is currently on trial for having not monitored a lady giving birth there, leading to her dying of haemorrhage.

http://www.independent.ie/health/latest-news/mother-did-not-bleed-to-death-after-giving-birth-1481032.html

When I heard of this, I did think there but for the grace of God go I.

I lost a lot of blood in Castlebar when having my daughter. That's probably why I have pernicious anaemia now, as I wasn't given any blood transfusion despite blood count going under 7 - my sister's went down to 9 and she was given 2 transfusions!

Anyway, the case re negligence leading to this poor lady's death has been halted for the evidence of an independent expert to be produced.

I think its quite clear, from reading about this case, the poor woman was left dripping blood until she died, from post partum haemorrhage, which can be surgically halted if discovered in time.

As Dr Muhammad is a thoroughly nasty person who doesn't speak to his patients, just glances at them as though they are dirt, then when he does treat them, is very rough and off-hand, and speaks to the nurses as though they are stupid, I am really hoping this court investigation results in him being dismissed at the very least.



Here's some more information on vaccines in general, before I forget:

http://www.juntosociety.com/guest/sperlazzo/bs_abiw112902.html

http://www.thinktwice.com/secret.htm

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/crusade.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80240

http://www.cpforlife.org/id191.htm

If you are going to get a vaccine, you need to at least be sure it is a single bottled one, it seems all others are full of mercury:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread309687/pg1

To my Catholic friends

There's actually a book with the title, To my Catholic Friends. (It's a good witnessing book.)

I've nicked it for this post's title.

I would love to know what a Catholic makes of this story, in the Irish Mail on Sunday a while back.

As you can see further down in my blog, I'm trying to do something about my daughter's history textbook and its perverted Christmas story.

But haven't heard anything back yet. Hmph.

After reading this, it looks like nothing much can be done about perverted textbooks, even if you're Catholic, you've got 3,000 petitions, and Maynooth clerics on board to mouth your complaint.

Home schooling's starting to look like a realistic option.

Looks like Fony Sony and their ad dept pay tribute to their master

Yuk.

Nice to see Sony "keeping its hand in" with its trendy party to release game software.

I guess its patrons and customers must be very proud.

One good thing about these antics. They reveal the gaming industry's true nature.

Ex-Satanist Bill Schnoebelen's testimony on how, as a practising Satanist wizard, the programmers and designers of Dungeons and Dragons came to him for ideas, should be enough warning for anyone.

http://www.chick.com/articles/frpg.asp

Nobody can now seriously argue that these games don't contain a great deal of occult and satanic imagery, on purpose.

Raw goat intestine, anyone?

I think I'll pass.

Yet we are all supposed to celebrate the creation of 400 jobs in the gaming industry, in Ireland.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/11657/business/i-warhammer-i-video-games-firm-to-create-over-400-jobs-in-dublin

We are all supposed to be gung-ho over this horrid game, I guess.

As per usual, woe betide anyone displaying any type of moral misgiving about this kind of "industry" and the effect it has on its consumers, or to put it more sincerely, the people it consumes.

Looks like the Elders of the Protocols of Zion have achieved their aim - playing games has indeed become the new religion of the goyim.

http://waaagh.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/thats-me-in-the-spotlight-losing-my-religion/

BTW, the Protocols of Zion was actually a forgery, written by a Jesuit, aiming to besmear and destroy the Jewish people. Its protocols are actually the JESUIT Society protocols. Check it out.

http://www.moresureword.com/Protocol.htm

ITV gets in on sick ads - this one's for a TV series

Take a look at this.

Charming, n'est ce pas?

This can only be classified as ITV's attempt to show C4 that THEY are the crassest and nastiest when it comes to ads.

This came from a magazine, where anyone including children could view it.

So far as I know, nobody has complained about it.

If people don't find this offensive, then I guess the campaign for the dehumanization of the foetus is pretty much completely successful in our culture now.

Microsoft Xbox 360's TV ads - promoting WHAT exactly?

Yep.

It was only a matter of time until I got round to complaining about Microsoft.

EVERY geek gets to do this at least once a week. But the complaints tend to centre round its mediocre products. Not about the ads for same.

Has anyone seen the recent TV ads for the new Microsoft Xbox?

It goes roughly thus ... a person is sitting at a dinner table and acting normally, then their eyes glaze over and a peculiarly ecstatic, drugged look comes over their face, the camera spins around and we see, inside their head, which bloodlessly but gruesomely has had a spherical quarter cut out, they are playing the Xbox.

Maybe that sounds quite innocuous.

Am I the only person who finds it sinister that in this ad, instead of normal personal interaction at the dinner table, people should opt instead to daydream about fake interactions with a computer game, and this is made seem a perfectly normal and desirable option?

Even Walter Mitty's daydreams were, at least, creative and constructed by himself. Not constructed for him by a corporate entity.

Message of ad: why bother developing your own imagination, or even, wonder of wonders, achieving real-life connection with companions, when Microsoft's fake world is so superior, you long to get lost in it (even when your real life surroundings are actually quite pleasant and enjoyable)?

And this is not the only unpleasant ad Microsoft funds. Quite a few others for the Xbox were banned in the past - remember the dying baby ad from a couple years ago that got banned?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtbf7u6RX0Q

Background - three years ago, the above Xbox advert was banned from British TV. The Independent Television Commission, which has the power to ban ads deemed unsuitable, reported receiving over 100 complaints about the commercial. The ad portrays a baby being born before fast-forwarding through adult life and slamming into the grave. In their ruling, the ITC said, "The man's screams throughout his life's journey suggested a traumatic experience, which, together with the remind that life is short, made the final scene more shocking."

Msoft pulled the ad in Britain, but continued to play it in the country's cinemas. "The ad was supposed to symbolize that life is short and life is precious," replied a Microserf.

Frankly, in that short a life, shouldn't pray more be made the epithet, instead of play more? I guess only if you believe there is an afterlife. Of course, that's not an option provided for. (Unless you are referring to playing the GAME Afterlife - which is the usual ghoulish, nasty affair gamers suck up now.)

Btw, try to watch this next ad first with the sound off, then with the sound. Quite a different experience each time. Without the sound, its quite clearly a well shot, terrifyingly realistic shootout. But the second time around, we are all in let on the "joke" as the "amusing" soundtrack gives the emotional resonance for the ad. Clearly Microsoft thinks a pretend shootout would be just hilarious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNuRQmvykwk

This ad was banned in Canada, about a month after coming out.

I was going to do a post about all this before ... but ...

I delayed ... mainly becoz its all been said before.

Anyway. Just wanted to get that off my chest.

What about Obama, then?

All together, children:

http://blip.tv/file/1309087

Pretty horrifying. You didn't know they were getting the kids singing his praises already, did you?

But Obama isn't the Antichrist, no. Although some writers may justifiably think so:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/081103a.html


Obama cannot be the Antichrist (look at http://www.cuttingedge.org for reasons). But he is a nasty enough type of same.

FOURTH PART: the really strange letter I got from an evolutionist who wasn't even brave enough to give his name! and my reply

Then I got one odd reply, from Mr Charles O Dubhghaill I believe, although the person's name on the email was Carolus Astarion.

I emailed him back but never got another email.

Why he could not be honest about who he was?

Anyway, here is his strange email, which was bizarrely titled F.U.Q.U.:

From Carolus Astarion:

Though I go against my better instincts in dignifying your deluded nonsense with a response, I will not waste my time attempting to change your mind. That is not my place, one should not force one's beliefs on another.I consider myself tolerant of all people's,nations, and creeds. However lies, illogic, and unreason, are things which I do not tolerate or suffer gladly.

In response to your attempts to "debunk" the various proofs of evolution I am going to tell give you a brief summery of the evolution of christianity.

Christianity evolved out of Judaism, based upon the teachings of one Yeashua Bar Yoseph of Nazareth. Judaism, itself evolved out of Zoroastrianism, a persian religion:It's central beliefs are as follows.

* There is one universal and transcendental God, Ahura Mazda, the one Uncreated Creator to whom all worship is ultimately directed.* Ahura Mazda's creation — evident as asha, truth and order — is the antithesis of chaos, evident as druj, falsehood and disorder. The resulting conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity, which has an active role to play in the conflict.*

Active participation in life through good thoughts, good words and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep the chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will, and Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism.*

Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end (cf: Zoroastrian eschatology). In the final renovation, all of creation — even the souls of the dead that were initially banished to "darkness" — will be reunited in Ahura Mazda.*

In Zoroastrian tradition the malevolent is represented by Angra Mainyu, the "Destructive Principle", while the benevolent is represented through Ahura Mazda's Spenta Mainyu, the instrument or "Bounteous Principle" of the act of creation. It is through Spenta Mainyu that Ahura Mazda is immanent in humankind, and through which the Creator interacts with the world. According to Zoroastrian cosmology, in articulating the Ahuna Vairya formula Ahura Mazda made His ultimate triumph evident to Angra Mainyu.*

As expressions and aspects of Creation, Ahura Mazda emanated seven "sparks", the Amesha Spentas ("Bounteous Immortals"), that are each the hypostasis and representative of one aspect of that Creation. These Amesha Spenta are in turn assisted by a league of lesser principles, the Yazatas, each "Worthy of Worship" and each again a hypostasis of a moral or physical aspect of creation.They also await a messiah, hope this is all sounding familiar.Anyway Zoroastrianism evolved from earlier Indo-European religion, of which all have many things in common.

If these religions are studied in detail one will notice the transition in the eastern ones from polytheism to monotheism.I chose Zoroastrianism as an example as it is one of the first recognizable monotheistic religions, and a common ancestor of the three Abrahamic religions.
In this sense all native European, Middle eastern, and some Eastern faiths, and deities,Yaweh,Jupiter,Thor, and Hera, are related.

My point is this, by your logic, that we should teach the creation myths of other cultures, and manipulate , falsify, and ignore various scientific facts to back them up.

So you can believe whatever helps you sleep at night, but it wont make the UNDENIABLE FACTS of Evolution go away.

Vi Veri Veniversvm Vivvs Vici.-C.Ó.D


What a strangely confused individual C.O.D. is!

Here's my reply:

Dear "Carolus Astarion", (what a pretty name! shame it's not real)

I'm not sure what F.U.Q.U. means, and you don't bother to explain it in the body of your email. Let us presume it means Frequently Using Quotes Unreliably, (which is quite an accurate description of you, isnt it) instead of being an anacronym of some kind of cheap, teenage swearing nastiness, which I am sure you are far too pleasant, intelligent and witty to resort to.

Well, thanks for your letter. It may have gone against your better instincts to write it, but it certainly gave me a good laugh.

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici? (See, I read your whole email first before replying, something you might try sometime). You were watching V for Vendetta recently, weren't you. Sorry to disappoint you dear, but you haven't conquered the world, you haven't even conquered one highly amused creationist!

If you do some research on Alan Moore, who wrote the graphic book, you would uncover some very interesting information. He is a possessed Satanist, and an extremely evil man.

Why don't you do some research on the UNDENIABLE FACT of a link between Satan and the THEORY of evolution? He is truly the father of all lies.

Zoroastrianism is distinctly UNRELATED to Judaism and Christianity.

Christianity holds that ALL was created good by God in the BEGINNING, even Satan was created as good, but later became evil.Therefore evil and good are not EQUAL warring forces in the universe, as Zoroastrian holds.

The world is at war, but NOT because of a battle between two equal forces of creation and chaos.This is a fundamental difference.

Another fundamental difference is that Zoroastrians believe man was created to evolve into God-like creatures.

This is the original lie of Satan, who I am sure you are aware said to Eve that if she disobeyed God, she and Adam would become as Gods.

You have not studied this in detail at all before writing to me, have you?

For your information, NEVER ONCE did I say that Christianity, or any religion for that matter, should be taught in schools, ANYWHERE in ANY email. So your point "by your own logic" is quite deluded, isn't it?

You are very difficult to correspond with, as you persist in misquoting me. I hope these are your illogical mistakes, and not your deliberate lies. There's not a lot of "power of truth" evident in your communication, is there? (Perhaps that's why you haven't conquered the world yet?)

I made a case for ALL the scientific information to be made available, and for freedom of debate. As you are well aware if you read some of the links in my email, there is plenty of scientific evidence which points toward the biblical account of creation, as being true.

Are you honest enough to admit even this?

You are still pro-censorship of scientific information, in fact.And pro-stifling of any debate. Like the vast majority of evolutionary pushers. I've got bad news for you though.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/dardoc1.htm

The only truth about evolution is micro-evolution, ie natural selection WITHIN a species. We creationists, as I said already, have no problem with such a God-given mechanism, for allowing species to adapt to their environment.

How Darwin went from observing changes in finches' beaks, to a totally untenable, manufactured theory of evolution, is in fact a very interesting, and tragic, history.

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/

No wonder you feel protective of him, he was such a liar! You have a lot in common, don't you?

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/histry2b.html

He didn't even manage to get the finches beak changes right, and stole his natural selection within species facts straight from poor Edward Blyth.

http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar7.html

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/53/65

Everything about evolution, apart from natural selection within species, is unprovable. Have you got any "evidence" of a transitional link for me? Didn't think so.

As I thought you might, instead of being able to attack the scientific information I presented, you went for what you hoped would be the easy option of attacking religion.

Sorry dear, Zoroastrianism as Christianity's ancestor ain't gonna fly. Not for one minute.

To conclude, please give me just ONE "UNDENIABLE FACT" of evolution which is NOT an example of natural selection within a species. Heck, give me all the "undeniable facts of evolution" you like. (That is an accurate quote from your email, by the way. You may not know what an accurate quote is, so there you go.)

You can't give me a single one, can you?

Your friend (yes really!),

Mairead

PS I will pray for you to be able to investigate this without bias, and for whatever is stopping you from doing so, to be restrained from you long enough for you to make a decision of your own free will. I know you will hate me for saying so, but your immortal soul is actually at stake here.

PPS I have a very interesting DVD about the directing of V for Vendetta and other Hollywood films, and their gnostic agenda, which I would be happy to copy and send to you. You can give me a box number to send it to if you like.

SECOND PART The nasty evolutionists letters published in Sunday Times, and my reply

Above are the nasty letters posted in the next week's Times.

I then received 3 replies, all predictably enough defamatory, in the next week's Sunday Times.

I am posting my reply to these letters, which was unsurprisingly not published, in the next post in this series.

I also asked the editor of the Times letters column to forward the reply to the email accounts of the letter writers, which he said he would.

Here is my reply:

Please could you consider publishing this, my reply to the letters published in last week's letters column, which were given the headline, Creationism does not pass the classroom test.

As even the slightest mention of creationism is not allowed in classrooms to be discussed in the first place, let alone tested, this was not exactly an accurate headline was it?

However, I am glad that some people wrote in reply to my letter, and I am happy to answer all their queries, and refute all their erroneous statements.

The first letter-writer, Mr Farrell, asks what evidence do creationists have. This is indeed a reasonable question. The answer is, we have the same evidence evolutionists have. The difference between us is, how we interpret that evidence.

I suppose what is important to state at the outset of this debate, is that science cannot prove that we came about by creation. However, neither can science prove that we came about by chance or evolutionary processes. Therefore, surely educators and students should be free to investigate and make up their own minds as to which position the scientific evidence best supports. Yet not a single letter writer last week supported that option. Yet again, it is made clear that critical thinking in the classroom is not seen as something to be encouraged by anyone - apart from a few much-derided creationists, or intelligent design proponents.

OK, let's examine each letter in detail. Mr Farrell says that 3 things back up the theory of natural selection - carbon dating, fossil records, and experimental evidence. I would like to deal with each of these items.

First of all, carbon dating. Mr Farrell says in his letter, "if the instruments available to astronomers and geologists have been giving faulty readings this past century, and the earth is not in fact several billion years old, we can cast just about the whole of modern science into the bin with Darwin".

For Mr Farrell's information, there is huge debate for and against all dating methods. The only conclusion an unbiased person can come to, after reviewing the evidence, is that there is NO infallible, trustworthy dating method. Therefore, the age of the earth is very much open to conjecture.

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842

The much-vaunted method of carbon dating, mentioned by name by Mr Farrell, is in particular very much a 'busted flush', even for evolutionists. I could give literally thousands of links about it, here is just a few:

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/470

http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences25.html

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=6

Re radiometric dating methods, I thought Mr Farrell might like to see Dr Parker's testimony. What does Mr Farrell have to say about his teacher telling him to 'keep the faith' about radiometric dating methods?

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony5.php

It is certainly interesting that Mr Farrell equates faulty dating methods with the entirety of modern science. For Mr Farrell's information, thankfully the whole of modern science does not rely on Darwin's erroneous theory. In fact modern science, in particular the proven science of thermodynamics, COMPLETELY REFUTES evolutionary theory. I am happy to say that there is nothing unscientific about creationism, in fact, to the contrary.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i8f.htm

Real science, and real scentists, tend towards Christian creationism. Why? Because it's the ONLY true story of our origin.

http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm

I would also be interested to know how Mr Farrell manages to equate belief in the provable scientific truth of the scientific law of entropy, with belief in evolution. As I am sure Mr Farrell is aware, the mighty law of entropy in science simply teaches that the net direction of the universe is always downward towards greater and greater disorder and chaos -- not towards greater and greater order and complexity.

Regarding Mr Farrell stating that fossil records back up the theory of natural selection, exactly which fossil records does he mean? If he is referring to natural selection within a species, for Mr Farrell's information, creationists have NO PROBLEM with natural selection within species. However, Evolutionists LOVE to confuse micro-evolution, which is natural selection within a species, with which creationists have NO PROBLEM, with macro-evolution.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/transition.shtml

http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0737_Macro_vs._Micro_Evol.html

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

There remains no evidence of macro-evolution, which is transition from one species to another, anywhere in the fossil record. Here are a few links about how there are NO REAL transitional fossils and NO EVIDENCE of macro-evolution ever taking place!

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm

http://creationwiki.org/Transitional_Vertebrate_Fossils_FAQ

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/macro.html

Regarding "experimental evidence", Mr Farrell gives as a frankly pathetic example, those much put-upon peppered moths again, which in any case are an example of natural selection WITHIN A SPECIES, and were long ago thoroughly debunked as a doctored experiment.

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/moth.htm

http://www.verticalthought.org/issues/vt14/moths.htm

How hilarious that Mr Farrell should rest his case for evolution, on a doctored example of natural selection within a species! Unsurprising however, because as we all know, it is par for the course for devout evolutionists to manufacture "evidence" to support their dodgy religious theory.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/evolution-and-the-fossil-record.htm

He may as well include the Piltdown Man in his argument, as it has about the same level of credibility. Same goes for Neanderthal man, Lucy, Nebraska Man, Java Man, and so on ad nauseum.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/13anc08.htm

http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

Mr Farrell then incorrectly states "even in America .... attempts to introduce "intelligent design" into schools have been legally challenged by parents and fallen flat".

For Mr Farrell's information, some individual states, for example Florida, are now allowing debate on creation beside evolution, in classrooms. I wonder what this comment is supposed to prove anyway, apart from the fact that America is deeply divided on the subject of creation versus evolution (but is a vast improvement on the situation here, as America, at least in some places, allows the debate, and the creationists are not derided out of hand)?

Mr Farrell is welcome to debate evolution versus creation with me, as he states he would "welcome the debate" (but not debate in classrooms, obviously ... as in Mr Farrell's opinion, students are far too stupid / easily influenced / gullible to be allowed access to any creationist materials).

For students to discuss creation and evolution as though they were both theories worthy of examination and criticism, would just be too, too dangerous for their developing brains, wouldn't it Mr Farrell? You never know, they might explode from the pressure of being treated as thinking, logical, rational beings.

It is revealing however that Mr Farrell should state that he wishes to "pulverise" the opposition in a debate, isn't it? Not a gentlemanly admission, is it.

Just how interested in a fair debate, in which everyone's voice is heard, is Mr Farrell, or for that matter, Ms McCurtin or Mr O Dubhghaill, I wonder? It certainly is fair to say, based on their evidence of their own letters, that it is really censorship of information, and stifling of any fair debate, that they are actually after.

Mr Farrell states in parting, "disagreements between two scientists don't cause schisms: they lead to one being proven right and the other being proven wrong". This is a correct statement to make regarding empirical, PROVABLE science. However, evolution is not an empirical proven science, it is an UNPROVEN and UNPROVABLE, age-old, religious THEORY.

http://www.rae.org/issues.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

http://www.trueorigin.org/

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

Ms McCurtin states that evolution is "supported by scientific evidence". (No it is not. The "scientific evidence" given for evolution is not scientific, cannot be proven, and is greatly flawed in any case.) She then says that creationist theory has "nothing to do with facts, and is supported by religious individuals".

For Ms McCurtin's information, creationists have THE SAME facts that evolutionists have. It is our INTERPRETATION of those facts, that differentiates us.

Regarding Ms McCurtin's relegation of support for creation to "religious individuals", how does Ms McCurtin account for all the individuals who are not religious but still have come to the conclusion that evolutionary theory cannot be trusted? What has she to say regarding scientists who have come to belief in creation, through studying evolution for many years and discovering the manifold and varied flaws in this theory?

Of course, it is commonly claimed that the major reason why most people reject Darwinism and accept creationism is due to religious motivations. Although this is often true, in a large number of cases, an understanding of the scientific evidence was the major factor that convinced many to reject evolutionism. Some of these persons who rejected Darwinism then, realizing that Darwinism does not explain the origin of life, become creationists. (But by no means all.)

Creationists realize that only two possibilities exist: either intelligence or blind natural forces were ultimately responsible for the creation of the world around us. Every adult accepts the reality of a creation and acknowledges that the creation had some sort of cause or creator. For this reason, everyone is a creationist to some extent, and the only difference is one’s conclusion about who or what was responsible for the cause of the creation.

The creation view concludes that intelligence is responsible for life; the other view, evolution, concludes that DNA copying mistakes called mutations create genetic variety that is “selected” by natural selection—Darwin’s famous survival of the fittest theory. In other words, Darwinism teaches that genetic mistakes, mostly a result of the accumulation of copying errors that occur when DNA replicates, is our creator.

Creationists realize that evolution, defined as progression from molecules to humans by way of animals (from the “goo to you by way of the zoo” theory), is a failed theory. It has failed because it has been shown by scientific investigation to be not just unverified, but scientifically false. Evolution did not occur, and could not have occurred, and this conclusion is BASED ON SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS, NOT RELIGION.

Creationists realize that Darwin’s theory explains the survival of the fittest, but does not explain the arrival of the fittest. They further realize that, after a century and a half of effort and spending billions of dollars to prove their theory, evolutionists are farther away from explaining scientifically the origin of life than ever before in history. Darwin had no idea of the enormous specified complexity of the cell, by far the most well-designed complex machine in the universe.

I anticipated I would get replies that would exhibit that well-worn and frankly abhorrent method, used frequently by evolutionists, of denigrating the intelligence and/or education of one's debating opponent. Ms McCurtin, clearly feeling a little miffed at being unfortunately prematurely deprived of the latter weapon, predictably enough tried to wield the former ("Burke's claim that her first-class degree is important clearly demonstrates that classroom intelligence does not necessarily correlate with critical thinking"). A rather strange comment, as I never claimed my degree was important.

For Ms McCurtin's information, the only reason I mentioned my education in my first letter was that I am used to receiving criticism from evolutionists along the lines of, you must be uneducated, ignorant, or stupid, to believe in creation, and therefore wished to pre-empt it.

It's come as ever such a surprise to us all that she lied though, because untruth is the very last thing we expect of evolutionists, isn't it.However, she correctly pointed out that it should not matter what education you have received.

I totally accept her point that education should not matter, (and wonder why she then tries to use my education against me, if she really thinks nobody's education should be used against one in any reasonable debate), and she is correct also in stating that classroom intelligence does not correlate with critical thinking.

On this point, I would like to ask Ms McCurtin, just who is not interested in supporting critical thinking? Is it the people who would like to have creation discussed alongside evolution in the classroom? Or could it possibly be the evolutionary theory supporters who wish to stifle the debate altogether?

I would like to ask Ms McCurtin why, if critical thinking is more important than classroom intelligence, she does not support a debate in classrooms on evolution versus creation? Would not such a debate at least help develop students' critical thinking abilities? Ms McCurtin's letter in fact again illustrates what a deep distrust evolutionists have, of students' ability to independently reason.

Regarding Mr O Dubhghaill's letter, he equates creationist theory with misinformation. This is his erroneous view, and I would be happy to debate with him, whether it is evolutionary theory which is IN FACT a noxious, soul-destroying, poisonous fallacy, and misinformation, in any classroom near him.

Mr O Dubhghaill goes on to state that "fiction should be left in the library .. fact and fact alone should be taught in the classroom". All I can say to this is, goodness me, what a charming modern-day evolutionary Mr Gradgrind we seem to have uncovered here. Is it possible to ask the secular evolutionists, to make sure to include a similar, no matter if albeit unintentional, sense of humour somewhere in their next flood of otherwise monotone, humorless, intelligence insulting, kneejerk diatribes?

"Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!" (excerpt from Hard Times)

I am making an unfair comparison to Mr Gradgrind here however, as he really was teaching his students facts, unlike Mr O Dubhghaill, who wants to force on them acceptance Darwin's ridiculous, risible theory as fact.

On a sadder note, evolutionists do indeed do everything they can to reduce the God-given, inquiring and impressionable minds of our children, to the level of "reasoning animals".

I would like to look forward, not to being pulverised, or pulverising, anyone who does not agree with me, but to the possibility of free discussion and debate for everyone on this issue, not merely students. How depressing, and ultimately revealing, that nobody on the opposing side, is able to agree, even to that extent.

In conclusion, children get to know, when they hear the words "Once upon a time..." that they are going to hear a lovely fairytale for them to enjoy. When a little older, they, and we, may enjoy hearing the words "a billion, or millions of years ago ...." as we know we are going to hear a lovely fairytale after them as well.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/

I would like to finish with a charming fairytale excerpt, which I dare say all evolutionists would like us to read, in order to illustrate suitable moral instruction on behaviour, for creationists, and the rest of us who have difficulty accepting the carefully constructed, all-pervasive falsehood of evolutionary theory and its delightfully, prettily manufactured "evidences" and "proofs".

The good old minister went into the room where the swindlers sat before the empty looms. ‘Heaven preserve us!’ he thought, and opened his eyes wide, 'I cannot see anything at all,' but he did not say so. Both swindlers requested him to come near, and asked him if he did not admire the exquisite pattern and the beautiful colours, pointing to the empty looms. The poor old minister tried his very best, but he could see nothing, for there was nothing to be seen. ‘Oh dear,’ he thought, ‘can I be so stupid? I should never have thought so, and nobody must know it! Is it possible that I am not fit for my office? No, no, I cannot say that I was unable to see the cloth.'" – Hans Christian AndersenThe Emperor’s New Suit

Yes that is rather whimsical, isn't it. Well, I may as well indulge myself, as I won't get any type of humour from my communicants, will I. Oh dear! I can't help rather wishing it were possible for my opponents to show even the slightest hint of intentional wit or warmth in their communications. Instead I suppose I shall have to resign myself to viewing further evolutionary bile from the ungentlemanly (Mr Farrell), mendacious (Ms McCurtin) and vulgar (Mr O Dubhghaill).

It is not so much their misled blindness on such a stupid theory that I object to, (and I know many otherwise intelligent individuals who have made the same mistake, so I know where they are coming from), its so very much more the objectionable manner in which they choose to put their case.

I very much look forward to my learned opponents' next highly intelligent missives.

Yours sincerely,

Regards,

Mairead Burke

PS Please could you forward this email and my email address to the people who wrote letters about creationism last week, thanks.

I thought that was the end of that. But I did get one very strange reply! See next post in this series:

THIRD PART: Sarah Carey's email, and my reply

Ms Carey was kind enough to reply to my letter as follows:

Dear Mairead

Thanks for your letter. Evolution is empirically verifiable due to fossils and carbon dating.

While there is evidence of a flood (and every society including Aboriginals has a flood story), there is no evidence of an Ark or that the people of Noah's time lived for over 800 years (which they would have had to have done in order for the generations listed in Genesis to make up the 6000 years creationists believe the earth has existed for).

So evolution is provable, while 800 year old Ark-building figures are not only provable but unlikely.

Jesus was a historical figure who said many sensible things, and I have no quibble with either his existence or anything he said (Love thy neighbour etc).

The thing is, the story of evolution is so astonishing that many scientists still believe in God, and they thing that evolution is a sort of miracle. So faith and science do not have to be in conflict, but science and creationism - the twain shall never meet.

And yes, if a woman who believes that which is clearly not true gets to have a nuclear bomb in her hand, I think that's pretty dangerous.
All the best

Sarah

I sent her a reply directly to her email a/c as follows:

Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for replying. I hope you don't mind if I try to reply to the points in your email.

I thought it was interesting that you should put forward carbon dating and fossils as 'proof' of evolution. Neither are empirically verifiable, in fact both are extremely controversial to put it mildly. Carbon dating is very much a 'busted flush', I'm afraid.

I could give literally thousands of links about it, here is just a few:

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/470

http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences25.html

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=6

Re radiometric dating methods, I thought you might like to see Dr Parker's testimony. What do you think about his teacher telling him to 'keep the faith' about radiometric dating methods?

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony5.php

The thing is, evolution is really a religion, and is the most intolerant religion of all. Its proponents

portray themselves as uber-scientific, fairminded and rational, when in fact they are anything but. Their relentless stifling of any intelligent, balanced debate on creation, surely proves it.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=27

Regarding fossils, again there are thousands of links about how there are NO REAL transitional fossils!

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm

http://creationwiki.org/Transitional_Vertebrate_Fossils_FAQ

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/macro.html

Evolutionists LOVE to confuse micro-evolution, which is natural selection within a species, with which creationists have NO PROBLEM, with macro-evolution.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/transition.shtml

http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0737_Macro_vs._Micro_Evol.html

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

When you say, faith and science can meet, I think you must be referring to theistic evolution and science. Theistic evolution, as the belief in a mixture of God creating the world, together with billions of years of evolution, certainly is the viewpoint that is very much being pressed on all of us to accept.

http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

Believe me, I know where you are coming from. In this 'tolerant' society, the only intolerable viewpoint now, is to believe in the book of Genesis account of creation. It simply will not be accepted, not even as a possibility to be discussed before dismissal. To state one's belief in a literal Genesis invites harsh ridicule, even from good friends. You will not be allowed to even get as far as mentioning the scientific and rational reasons to believe in a literal Genesis, before being shouted down.

Even in 'Christian' circles, the rule now is: we must all compromise the Word of God and mix it with fallible man's ideas, or else face ostracism. Belief in creation is seen as 'divisive'. Theistic evolution has taken over in almost all education and media sources, and induction in its belief starts early. My daughter is 6 years old and last year, her teacher authoratively told her class that God did create the world, but it took millions and millions of years.

When young people are exposed to more and more of evolutionary brainwashing, however, the contradictions in theistic evolution become clear and they lose all their faith. I already know many people this has happened to. They then turn atheist, or take up new age practices such as channelling 'angels' etc, which are literally 'doctrines of demons'. (GK Chesterton's old adage of, when a man does not believe in God, he believes in anything, comes to mind.)

This is the point which Church of England leading figures in the last century grasped. They realised that Darwinian theory, when taught in schools, would result in atheism, or worse. This is the logical result of evolutionary theory being taught as fact. Sadly, even the Church of England has now turned its back on the truth, and on the previous century's few courageous theologians who faced opposition by Darwin's notorious 'attack dog' Huxley, and has issued an unwarranted and unjustifiable apology to Darwin.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=28

http://www.churchsociety.org/publications/leaflets/Leaf_Andrews_Teaching.pdf

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/09/church-of-england-apologises-to-charles.html

I completely agree with Professor Dawkins when he says that belief in evolution and belief in God, are mutually exclusive. He is absolutely correct on this. I don't know if you saw Professor Dawkins' recent 3 part documentary on Charles Darwin, on Channel 4 (I am attaching a review I did on the first program in the series).

In the last program, he talked to the Archbishop of Canterbury on this very topic. The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke to Professor Dawkins without even trying to defend the Genesis version of 6 days of creation, and instead attempted to reconcile evolution with belief in God. I found myself respecting Professor Dawkins' reasonable refusal to accept a watered down version of evolution ordered by God.

Professor Dawkins does have it right on one thing - belief in evolution IS incompatible with belief in God. For his brave refusal to compromise on this key issue, when doing so would have eliminated almost all his semi-religious critics, I salute him.

Yes. Belief in evolutionary theory is indeed totally incompatible with belief in God.

If a person denies the 6 day Biblical version of creation, as detailed in Genesis, or explains it away as allegorical, then all the Bible can be likewise denied or explained away as allegorical. In which case, it all becomes totally senseless.Without an original Adam and Eve who sinned, what was the point of Jesus coming to die for the sins of the world?

The common sense evolutionary answer is, there was no point.Common sense evolutionary reasoning goes, if death existed before Adam and Eve, and there was pain and suffering for millions of years, then if God exists, he must be a very cruel God indeed to purposely make innocent animals and humans go through suffering and death in order to exist.Who would wish to worship such a God? is the atheist's cry.

Thus the fact of God's love for all creation and especially mankind, his original, immortal, happy design for us, the plan for salvation from our fallen mortal state, and Jesus' eternal sacrifice for us, is mocked.It is only when people have access to creationist christian scientist theory, and come to realise that whatever 'evidence' there is for evolution, can be fully interpreted by other explanations than the ever-changing and irrational ones that evolutionary theory offers, it is only then that the present unquestioning homage paid to evolutionary theory, by almost all members of society, can be seen as the bizarre religious observance that it is.

I would recommend it, by the way. Why not try it?Believe me, standing apart from, and up to, the rabid pro-evolutionary theory, atheistic pushers and their lazy-minded, amoral mob followers, who have no idea of the spiritual damage their materialistic theory has done and is doing, especially to young people being thoroughly indoctrinated in evolutionary theory at school and through the media, gives one a distinct sense of counter-cultural satisfaction.

Not to mention a real sense of backing an underdog. Of being a voice in the wilderness. Of standing up for truth and fair play.Because the reality is, there isn't a level playing field is there?

Any chance of a creationist scientist getting 3 hours of prime time from C4 to proselytize the far more intellectually vibrant and scientifically viable, not to mention morally supportive, creationist theory?

Or even of a creationist scientist being given equal debating time with Professor Dawkins?

The fact is that the intellectually weak, moral anathema of evolutionary theory has now been pushed as fact to such a degree by the media and almost all educational facilities, that it is completely impossible for anyone, even those who think they are impartial observers, not to look down on creationists as being blinkered by their stupid God-regarding beliefs.

Society has been so conditioned to unthinkingly accept evolution, and sneer at theistic creation, that it's hard to see how a fair discussion is even possible in the current intellectual climate.

When you say science and creationism cannot meet, I disagree completely. I have found there is no contradiction between creationism, and real science. Evolution is NOT scientific, and never will be. It allies itself with REAL science, as much as it can. (If you saw Horizon on BBC2 last night, why was Professor Dawkins included amongst the reputable real scientists who contributed? Yet again evolution is equated by the media, with real science.)

However it is a totally flawed, unproved and unprovable, THEORY that will result in the moral degradation and destruction of all who believe in it.

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [Romans 1:25]

(Ever been in a natural history museum? What do you think of the hushed, reverential regard paid to the lovingly-restored bones of dinosaurs and other long-dead creatures? Surely these creatures' skeletons are receiving some form of worship?)

Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. [2 Thessalonians 4:7]

Re Noah's Ark, a reputable Christian archeologist now believes it is on a mountain in Saudi Arabia:

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/mount-sinai-02.htm

We know it was quite well designed anyway and capable of withstanding the flood:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/index.htm

Regarding people living for 800 years, I believe this was quite possible in the past:

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=45

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/years.asp

http://www.biblrytr.com/noah.htm

A few more links you might find interesting:

http://www.rae.org/essay_subject.html

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200604.htm#fossil207

In conclusion, I would agree with you that the story of evolution certainly is astonishing. Even more astonishing is how it has been swallowed without question, and defended, by otherwise intelligent people.

I hope you come to realise that at least, creationists are not unscientific or irrational. Nor are we dangerous.

Just a few questions before I go. I have to come to the most objectionable, in my view, comment in your email. You say in your email that if a woman believing something that is clearly not true, gets access to nuclear weapons, then that is dangerous. Dangerous, because she believes in a religion that in your opinion is not true.

Does that mean you think that female Hindus, Muslims and all other females who do not parrot secular beliefs, are also unsuited to high office? After all, their religions are also untrue according to secular humanist reasoning.

I am not Catholic, should I object to all Catholics holding any kind of high office also? They have many irrational beliefs, such as the assumption of Mary into heaven, which don't even have the backing of that pecular Bible book.

Or perhaps it is just bible-believing Christians who people should object to holding any kind of position of power. People can believe in the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, Darwin's laughable theory, or anything else, but when it comes to believing the Bible, that's just not ok.

Alright I guess that is way past enough. Maybe it's just as well you believe what you do. I daresay if you started writing in your column in support of creationism, your position as columnist would rapidly become untenable.

I would really like for you to come to a full knowledge of the truth of the King James Bible, and to know that Jesus Christ is God, but for that, only the Holy Spirit can change a person's heart.

I would like to include some relevant links here but I realise they would be off-topic. If you are interested (if you get this far!), I have lots of resources such as links, books, DVDs etc, I would happily send to you.

I will pray for you, yours sincerely, Mairead

FIRST PART long post, interest to anyone who reads the Irish Sunday Times / has interest in creation / evolution debate. It is divided into 4 parts

Here is the first Sunday Times letters column, it contains my letter regarding creationism, which I wrote in reply to Ms Carey's evolution-pushing column of the previous week:

And here's the background to that letter.

On Sunday 14th September 2008, Sarah Carey, a columnist with the Irish Sunday Times, published the following column:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4749401.ece

(In case this link goes offline, the text is reproduced below):

Sarah Carey: Indulge potty protesters and you end up with Sarah Palin

We should be braver about confronting extreme religious views such as those of the US vice-

presidential candidate


This might seem insensitive of me to say so, but the Maura Harrington business is plain ridiculous and RTE’s Morning Ireland programme isn’t helping. It’s the must-listen-to radio show of the day, but sometimes the presenters’ contrived humour and sincerity grates on my early-morning nerves.

Aine Lawlor put on that deeply sympathetic tone of hers when she interviewed Harrington last Wednesday morning. The Mayo woman had just declared that she was going on hunger strike until Shell’s pipe-laying ship, Solitaire, abandoned its task. Harrington professed herself ready to die for her beliefs and excitedly informed us that at 6st 9lb, that could be sooner rather than later.

Given that Harrington had started her strike the previous night, all she had done was skip breakfast. That didn’t stop Lawlor asking how she was feeling.

I hovered between bewilderment and irritation that an obviously irrational woman was being taken seriously by the most important news programme in the country. I’m no psychiatrist, but Harrington strikes me as potty — and yet was being gently indulged without the slightest challenge by one of our leading radio journalists. Lawlor might have asked where is the sense in objecting to a pipeline on the grounds that it might injure people’s health by endangering one’s own. Because surely the biggest threat to Harrington’s physical wellbeing is Maura Harrington.

I’ve often passed hunger strikers outside Leinster House protesting about some grievance or other. They are ignored by both the public and RTE and nobody ever seems to die. At some stage, I suppose around day three, common sense presumably kicks in and they head for the chipper. In Harrington’s case, I’m quite sure a psychiatrist would conclude that all the media attention is only encouraging her in her self-harming behaviour.

Despite the fact that I clearly know better, curiosity won the day and I rang her on Thursday to see how she was getting on. Since the Solitaire was unexpectedly tucked safely out of harm’s way in Killybegs, would she consider abandoning the strike? As my four-year-old says when asked to co-operate with some simple domestic task: “No way. Not ever.” Not until the ship has left our territorial waters, Harrington replied. Since even Shell doesn’t know how long the Solitaire will be stuck in Killybegs, Harrington’s claim will be truly tested.

She did confess that, contrary to her claims on Morning Ireland, she was taking water. She thanked me for asking and her gratitude invoked a twinge of guilt. Oh dear. This woman needs help, not a queue of rubbernecking journalists.

We shouldn’t occupy ourselves too much with the whys or wheretofores of Shell’s pipeline project. At this stage one is required to believe that the pipeline is either quite safe or the product of a mass conspiracy by every authority in the country. I’ll go with the former because believing the latter simply isn’t rational. What should concern us is that people who lack the power to rationalise are indulged so easily.

I call them the “I Just Feel Brigade”. They honestly believe that since “they just feel” that a pipeline is dangerous, despite all evidence to the contrary, the project should be abandoned. Since “they just feel” this very strongly, the rest of us are supposed to respect these feelings and stop whatever it is we are doing that’s upsetting them.

They adopt the language of victimhood and oppression, and weasel their way out of all sensible conversation, whether on a picket line or at a dinner party. Any fact, regardless of how well-proven, is swiped away with a wide-eyed, morally superior, emotional “I just feel”.

Unfortunately, it’s not the done thing to reply: “But if you believe that you must be stupid.” Instead, all opinions must be held to be equally valid, regardless of how ludicrous they may be. That would merely be irritating were it not for the fact that “I just feel” often evolves into firmly believing utter claptrap about the world around us.

In today’s Ireland, despite our religious history and fondness for fairy tales, irrationality is generally confined to protesters or “cures”. I could list more silly notions, but I’d offend too many friends and I’m generally content to leave people alone. There is rarely anything to be gained in challenging apparently benign but sincerely held beliefs. Each to their own, and all that.
I’m starting to wonder if this is wise. The reason I’m wondering is because of the possibility that Sarah Palin could end up as president of America. Sean Moncrieff put it best on his fabulous afternoon show on Newstalk last week, when he said that she was nominated to appeal to the ignorant. One minute you’re shrugging off the crazies, and next thing they have a superpower in the palm of their hands.

I’m not going to have a go at harmless God-fearing citizens, but America’s evangelicals are distant cousins of the Irish Christian. I think it’s fair to say most Irish people accept that many Bible stories are mythology. Palin, who could well be a 72-year-old’s unhealthy heartbeat away from the Oval Office, is the ideal nominee for nutters who think that the world was created in six days, 6,000 years ago, when people lived for 800 years and Noah built an ark to save the animals from the flood. She represents people who think that creationism is literally true and that evolution is a fantasy and a conspiracy.

Palin thinks it’s fine to teach evolution in school, once it’s alongside creationism and they are presented as equally valid theories. So you see? It starts out as not being rude to someone in social chat or indulging them on national radio. You validate fiction out of sheer politeness, but actually they have succeeded in framing science and empirically verifiable fact as just another theory. You thought you were patronising them. But in America at least, they’ve got the upper hand.

Holding back from challenging apparently decent people on their crazy ideas is nice but foolish. We need to be braver about calling a spade a spade and a fantasist a fantasist. We shouldn’t provide the hysterical with a platform in an effort to respect alternative opinion. I’m as sympathetic as Lawlor towards Harrington’s feelings. But she needs to be quietly talked down, not talked up on the airwaves.

sarah.carey@sunday-times.ie

I felt I had to respond to this column.

Here is my full written response, which was as you can see, edited quite a bit by the letters editor for publication:

Hello Ms Carey, I hope you do not mind my emailing you but I felt I had to write concerning your piece on Sarah Palin in last week's Sunday Times. I have never emailed you before, you are a complete stranger to me, sorry if this is intrusive but I felt I had to communicate this.

I have read your previous columns, and you came across as a very nice, sensible, grounded type of person. It's because I thought you might give me a fair hearing, that I am contacting you.

OK, about your article.

Ms Carey, your piece in the Irish Sunday Times (14th Sept 2008) showed an unwarranted and complete contempt for creationist theory.

Here is a sample of your hateful, completely biased rant (no other word suitable for it):

"Sean Moncrieff put it best on his fabulous afternoon show on Newstalk last week, when he said that she was nominated to appeal to the ignorant. One minute you're shrugging off the crazies, and next thing they have a superpower in the palm of their hands. I'm not going to have a go at harmless God-fearing citizens, but America's evangelicals are distant cousins of the Irish Christian. I think it's fair to say most Irish people accept that many Bible stories are mythology. Palin, who could well be a 72 year old's unhealthy heartbeat away from the Oval Office, is the ideal nominee for nutters who think that the world was created in six days, 6,000 years ago, when people lived for 800 years and Noah built an ark to save the aimals from the flood. She represents people who think that creationism is literally true and that evolution is a fantasy and a conspiracy. Palin thinks it's fine to teach evolution in school, once it's alongside creationism and they are presented as equally valid theories. "

Ok. So, according to you, people who believe in biblical creation are ignorant, dangerous nutters.

Crazies is, I believe, your kind word for us.

Ms Carey, you are in the enviable position of having your column read by thousands of people every week. Have you ever investigated creationist theory to any extent? Have you any indepth knowledge of evolutionary theory vs creationist theory? Because the fact is, they are both just THEORIES, both are UNPROVABLE BELIEFS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

Evolutionists are as religious in their beliefs, as creationists are ... and in fact evolutionary theory requires a great deal more blind faith than creationist theory does.

I am a believer in biblical creation, not because the Bible says so, but because the evidence points that way.

Am I ignorant? I have a first class honours degree in computer science, so I can't be totally thick.

Am I dangerous? Not unless you are a bar of chocolate.

Am I a nutter or crazy? In fact until recently I believed in evolution whole heartedly, not even realising there was any viable alternative. It was only while surfing the web on downtime that I came across some quite interesting sites, such as http://www.answersingenesis.org/, http://www.creationworldview.org/, and http://creationministries.org/, to name a few.

I read quite a lot, and gradually as I learned more I realised that evolution is a religion, and is not based on scientific fact. I have also read many pro-evolution websites and books, Richard Dawkins' especially. Sophist is the only word I can apply to many of evolution's proponents.

They are more interested in destroying belief in God, than in real scientific truth. In fact in many instances they are quite happy to forge "evidence" to back up their dodgy theory. Ever heard of the Piltdown Man?

Could I recomend some books to you without putting your back up against me completely? I would be willing to send them to you, for free, if I just thought you could give them some unbiased consideration. They include "The Long War against God" by Henry Morris, "The Six Days of Genesis" by Paul Taylor, and "The Lie: Evolution" and "Why won't they listen", by Ken Ham.

There are so many other resources I would recommend to you regarding learning some more about creationist theory. None of them relies on blind faith in the Bible, but on scientific fact and reasoning. They are written, not by ignorant crazies or nutters, but by scientists who themselves were evolutionists, teaching evolution, for many years until their quest for scentific truth, led them to see the flaws in evolutionary theory.

Can I also ask if you have seen the recent film "Expelled: no intelligence allowed", about how anyone daring to question evolution in the scentific community, faces dismissal and ridicule? Is this done in the spirit of unbiased scientific debate, or not?

In fact, truly, evolutionary theory is the modern-day emperor without any clothes. It is pushed at us, AS FACT, non-stop, from every media and education outlet, until our brains are so pummelled we can't see past it. I would also like to know what would be the harm in discussing creationist theory alongside evolutionary theory in classrooms.

Are young people so incapable of intelligent debate and so easily led astray, that the least mention of creationist theory might turn them into raving fundamentalists?

Thank you for reading this,

regards,

Mairead Burke

This letter was edited for publication by the Irish Sunday Times letters editor, John Burns.

You can read it, as published, on top of this blog entry.

I then received 3 replies, all predictably enough defamatory, in the next week's Sunday Times.

I also received an email from Sarey Carey, which I replied to. I am putting the email and the reply to it, in the third series of this long blog post.

I am posting these letters, and my reply, which was unsurprisingly not published, in the second post in this series. I also asked the editor of the Times letters column to forward the reply to the email accounts of the letter writers, which he said he would.

T P O'Mahony goes WAY too far

Am I the only person who finds TP O'Mahony's column dreary and badly-written at the best of times?





Today I felt I had to write to make a complaint about what he published this week, to the Press Ombudsman. Here is what I wrote:





Mr T. P. O'Mahony is a journalist who has a weekly column in the Western People (weekly Mayo newspaper).



This week he devoted his entire page to defamation of Ms Sarah Palin, the American Republican vice-presidential nominee.

First of all, he published internet fake pictures of her, one of them in a bikini with a gun and another posing in a very seductive outfit. He didn't say that these were fakes, but that they "may" be fakes. He also published real bona fide press release pictures of her campaign, intermingled with the fake pictures. The readers were left wondering what was fake and what was real.

He then claimed that Ms Palin wants creationism exclusively to be taught in schools, instead of evolution. This is untrue and a patently false claim.

http://newstaging.spectator.widearea.co.uk/melaniephillips/2092616/the-creation-of-hysteria.thtml


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html


He also claimed that she “glorifies war”. He gave no supporting evidence for this strange slur.

It looks like Mr O Mahony is a Democrat supporter, but he should not be allowed to print falsehoods or fake pictures of people, regardless of how he feels of their politics.

I don’t like to complain but this is such a clear example of deliberate untruth and a columnist abusing their position that I felt I had to in this case.

I can't send you a link as T P O'Mahony's page at the Western's website hasn't been updated since 2007.

http://www.westernpeople.com/news/tp.asp

Western People local paper has a distinctly Pro-EU NWO agenda

A little local media criticism.

Reading my local newspaper, the Western People, yesterday, gave me pause for thought.

Who actually owns this paper and employs the columnists that write for it?

A little research revealed this:

TCM (http://tcm.ie) control BreakingNews.ie, the Irish Examiner, the Sunday Bus. Post, the Evening Echo, the Kingdom, the Sligo Weekender, the Waterford News, the Western People, the Carlow Nationalist, the Kildare Nationalist, the Laois Nationalist, the Newry Democrat, and the Down Democrat.

(Thomas Crosbie Holdings, TCH (at www.tch.ie) is the owner of those titles. TCM is its new media division. It also owns part of Red FM, NWR and MWR, as radio interests, and new media interests include RecruitIreland.com and Motornet.ie: it recently also purchased the Roscommon Herald, and owns the Irish Post in the UK.)

So. TCM/TCH actually owns Mid West Radio and North West Radio, which are the two local radio stations, as well as the main local paper. This is an overseas conglomerate, with varied media interests.

A few questions.

Why has it been allowed to almost completely monopolise almost all local media news sources in this West of Ireland area?

Could it be because the highest vote for the rejection of the EU constitutional change, occurred here?

Have West of Ireland people been fingered, as needing "help" to "understand" such difficult issues as acceptance of the EU, unbridled immigration, abortion and other sensitive issues beloved by liberals, but anathema to this community? In other words have we been singled out for an intensive media mind reset change?

Let's look at the evidence for such "wild" allegations, shall we?

Let us proceed.

Our local paper, the Western People, colloquially referred to as "the Western", has quite definitely revealed an agenda slant in its news reporting, in recent weeks.

Take yesterday, for example.

This week's issue (23rd September 2008) front page news included an item on 80 Congolese asylum seekers going to be being settled in Ballyhaunis, which is a fairly small town in Co. Mayo which has seen its fair share of immigrants over the last few years. This is the first anyone has heard of this proposal, so it is breaking news. Strangely the news item reveals further down, that the government announced it last week. Odd that it has received no publicity whatsoever.

The way this news was broken in the newspaper is interesting to say the least, however.

"Racist remarks on Mayo-related forum" screamed the front page headline. Scanning down the news item, revealed that some people, posing as natives of Mayo, on a racist website called Stormfront (who on earth in Mayo has ever heard of this website?) had made racist comments on learning that 80 Congolese would be settled in Ballyhaunis. The comments were reprinted in the newspaper, and were certainly disgraceful.

This news item is probably of interest to the fair burghers of Ballyhaunis, who may be somewhat alarmed to hear that yet again they are being used to house more asylum seekers, who on this occasion are not from a similar background as previous applicants. (Mostly Muslim Iran / Iraq / Pakistani immigrants there at the moment.)

However. Now we have to ask ourselves a million-dollar question.

That question is, how did these anonymous racist posters KNOW ABOUT the asylum proposal, in advance, in order to discuss it, in the first place? The government only announced the placement, earlier this week. This is the first time anybody in Mayo knows about this proposed placement! So WHO placed those nasty remarks on that nasty website?

Could it be possibly the wish of these anonymous supposed racists, to muddy the waters in advance, so as to smear anyone expressing reservations about yet more immigrants being placed in such a small town, with a racist brush?

They have got in there first, certainly, by pretending to be racist and putting horrid remarks up on a nasty site, so the debate on the wisdom of further immigration can hardly be mentioned without these remarks being repeated and being brought up to "shame", and tar with the same racist brush, all legitimate criticism.

There seems to be a distinct agenda afoot, to treat Ballyhaunis as a kind of test-tube multi-cultural melting pot.

Would it not be more sensible to fully assimilate the immigrants already present, before placing yet more into the same small town?

Just for the record, I've got no problem with the Congolese asylum seekers. The poor things probably do need a decent place to live. I do query, why Ballyhaunis? Why not a larger town where the immigrants would not be so isolated, or a similar town where there are not so many Asian immigrants? And why were these racist comments, supposedly made by local people living in Mayo, on a racist website, receiving front page publicity?

Clearly these comments were meant to disgust all decent Mayo people, who certainly do not subscribe to such horrible anti-black views. But to portray these views as typical of everyone who does not go along with unbridled immigration, is a terrible falsehood.

I hate to disappoint those who visualise Ballyhaunis a happy multicultural melting pot in a few years time. But this melting pot attempt is bound to end in disaster, and ghettoisation for the unhappy Congolese is already looming round the corner.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Another strange thing about this paper is its choice of columnists. One, TP O'Mahony, has never written anything of remotest interest to the area or its inhabitants, preferring to dwell on his salacious thoughts of various female beauties. OK, maybe slightly of interest to other sad, dirty old men, but hardly worthy of notice by the bulk of Western readers, I would have thought.

Another columnist, Ruth Feeley, who has recently joined the Western, and has a column entitled "Twentysomething", seems to have a determined liberal social agenda. Not exactly in step with the bulk of the readers views, but each to their own, I suppose. However she has gone way too far on a number of occasions, and the couple of latest has made even lazy old me sit up and take notice.

Take last week, for example. She blatantly smeared Sarah Palin by repeating in her column as fact, the horrific, disgusting left-wing smear that Ms Palin's daughter was the mother of her Downs Syndrome baby.

This same female columnist, lo and behold, this week, said she had just been on a visit to the EU. She then waxed lyrical on what a wonderful institution the EU is, how much it has helped Ireland and how ungrateful and ignorant those people are, who voted against the recent proposed pro-EU constitutional change. She also, unbelievably, claimed to be far more patriotic than these supposedly anti-EU, misguided people.

I wonder who paid for this EU junket, excuse me, trip, for this nasty columnist? We already know she is happy to to repeat horrid, inexcusable lies about an American vice-presidential candidate.

Now she is happily parroting pro-EU propoganda. Yet again the intelligent and reasonable objections patriotic Irish people made to the proposed constitutional change, were ignored and their objections dismissed as ignorant.

There does not seem to be much, this columnist would not stoop to.

I look forward to seeing what disinformation she propogates, in her next columns.

Why do certain newspaper columnists hate Sarah Palin so much already?

Ok.

Sarah Palin's media reception over here has been absolutely awful.

She is still just a nominee for vice-pres. No guarantee she will go any further.

She is certainly bringing out the hateful side of many writers in the media over here.

Sarah Carey in the Irish Sunday Times (14th Sept 2008) has come out as an absolutely dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist, who has complete contempt for creationist theory.

Here is a sample of her hateful, completely biased rant (no other word suitable for it):

"Sean Moncrieff put it best on his fabulous afternoon show on Newstalk last week, when he said that she was nominated to appeal to the ignorant. One minute you're shrugging off the crazies, and next thing they have a superpower in the palm of their hands. I'm not going to have a go at harmless God-fearing citizens, but America's evangelicals are distant cousins of the Irish Christian. I think it's fair to say most Irish people accept that many Bible stories are mythology. Palin, who could well be a 72 year old's unhealthy heartbeat away from the Oval Office, is the ideal nominee for nutters who think that the world was created in six days, 6,000 years ago, when people lived for 800 years and Noah built an ark to save the aimals from the flood. She represents people who think that creationism is literally true and that evolution is a fantasy and a conspiracy. Palin thinks it's fine to teach evolution in school, once it's alongside creationism and they are presented as equally valid theories. "

Ok. So, according to Ms Carey, people who believe in biblical creation are ignorant, dangerous nutters.

Has Ms Carey ever investigated creationist theory to any extent? Has she any indepth knowledge of evolutionary theory vs creationist theory?

Because the fact is, they are both just theories, both unprovable. Evolutionists are as religious in their beliefs, as creationists are ... in fact evolutionary theory requires a great deal more blind faith than creationist theory does.

I felt sorry for Ms Carey for quite a while, after reading in a previous column of hers, mentioned completely without self-pity or question on her part, that her husband and his friends, refer to her, and their own wives, as "laying hens" because they work and earn money as well as manage the home. Her husband sounded so mercenary and cold. Frankly I reckon if she lost her wellpaid columnist job she would have to wave bye-bye to hubby as well.

I don't feel sorry for her any more though, especially not if she is going to use her column to air her own quite ignorant prejudices regardless of the damage they cause.

Another disappointment was Anne Gildea in the Irish Mail on Sunday. Another pro-abortionist was revealed, as Anne made fun of women who hunt animals, and ardently defended women who kill their own children.

The Irish Sunday Times obviously thinks it's quite clever by letting no less than Camille Paglia defend Ms Palin. Ms Paglia, who recently said she knows abortion is murder but she will defend the right of women to have abortions, to the hilt anyway, as she believes in situational ethics, and not absolute truth - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091204.html - does a really neat job in pretending to defend Palin, although she does quantify her support in her last paragraph : "What of Palin's pro-life stand? Creationism taught in schools? The Iraq war as God's plan?" (This is btw Ms Paglia's clumsy attempt to link unjustifiable war in Iraq with being pro-life - and by the way creationism is not proposed to be taught as fact in schools - it is proposed to be discussed ALONGSIDE the teaching of evolution, as another THEORY to explain how we got here).

Ms Paglia then very sophistically, especially considering her own rabid pro-abortion stance, goes on to comment (re Palin) "If she tries to intrude her conservative Christian values into secular government, then she must be opposed and stopped. But she has every right to express her views and to argue for society's acceptance of the high principle of the sanctity of human life."!!!!

!!!! again!

Read the previous link to Ms Paglia's real views, to realise why!

The Church of England (Anglican) church completely ceases to be a Christian church - apology to Charles Darwin shows how much they have rejected truth

Given that Dr Rowan Williams, an avowed druid and witch, is the current Archbishop of Canterbury, nothing should surprise me.

But the apology from the Church of England to Charles Darwin, for rejecting his theory 200 years ago, http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/09/church-of-england-apologises-to-charles.html, shows how far this "church" has gone down the road of apostasy.

Truly, they can no longer look down on the Catholic Church as apostate.

Amazing!

I just feel sorry for the poor C of E / C of I people who keep attending this church hoping things will get better - they will obviously just get worse.

Of course, this is part of a larger push to isolate Christian creationists from the "mainstream" of apostate "Christianity".

Hey - valueless? immoral? who cares, as long as you are "amusing" and have a "story"

Hmmm.

George Lucas has stated recently that all film makers are teachers. And that every film contains a message. Perhaps those are statements worth bearing in mind while reading this.

Yesterday evening I went to a scriptwriting class at a local library. It was given by a man named Pat Larkin. He is a scriptwriter who has written for RTE and submitted many film scripts and film shorts to various film making entitles such as filmbase, the Arts Council, etc.

He was therefore highly qualified to give the class. He did his best regarding telling the class how to get their films made if they couldn't get funding, where to look for funding, and how to enter scriptwriting competitions etc.

However the evening left me feeling quite shocked at how lacking in any kind of morality, and in denial of the knowledge that they are engaged in very nasty immoral indoctrination, film makers and writers in general are.

Mr Larkin showed us a script he recently had made into a 20 minute film, entitled "The Coalboat Kids", which was obviously a sentimental labour of love for him as it portrayed a part of 60s Dublin he had grown up in, and was presented as a typical story of a group of working class kids living there. It was lovingly shot, in sepia tones, and Mr Larkin waxed lyrical telling us all the trouble he had getting clothing and housing suitable for the period, as well as organising the shooting, actors etc. He even took the script to Hollywood and wrote a piece about trying to get it filmed, for the Irish Times.

The fact that the story of the film was basically about the children finding a tramp and stoning him until they thought he was dead, then running away, and never facing any consequences for their actions, with only one child feeling slightly bad about what happened, didn't seem to concern anyone in the slightest.

After the film, everyone said how lovely it looked, how good it was etc.

Knowing I was on my own, I raised my hand and tried to say in as nice a way as possible, that I thought the film was rather nihilistic and was about children stoning a tramp. I got evil eyes from the rest of the class, and Mr Larkin said something about "everyone has got to be able to look down on someone else in society and for those children, it was the tramp", as though that justified it. When I thought about this later, I realised that this he was using Darwinian logic to justify it - the survival of the fittest, etc. Then he said, "if that happened today, the children would be put away" in a condemning tone, as if to say that any attempt to tell the children they had done wrong, was an over-reaction.

Worst of all for me was when he said, the film was now being shown in schools to show what life was like in the 60s. I just hope its never shown in my daughter's school, I know she would find it frightening and horrid, just as I did. Not to mention that its underlying moral message of how its ok and funny to bully anyone that's old and shabby, and that they will probably bounce back afterwards anyway, with or without the children trying to make amends, is hardly one suitable for children to be exposed to, let alone anyone else.

Hey, why not just let the kids watch "A Clockwork Orange?"

I wonder is Mr Larkin acquainted with the recent events in England, of a gang of teenagers setting London tramps in parks, on fire, for fun, and filming it on their mobile phones. (Only a couple of them received sentences for their heinous acts.) I daresay it probably wouldn't make much difference even if he did. Hey, the kids gotta enjoy themselves somehow when they're young, yeah?

The next film we got to watch, was a 10 minute short called Jellybaby, it had won an Arts Council award and was made for RTE. It told the story of a man who was looking after a baby who cried. One day he sat beside another man with a quiet, but otherwise similar baby in a similar pram and while the other man was distracted, he swopped the prams and ran off with the other baby. Later on he found the baby had different coloured hair, and (after "hilariously" dropping the baby on the floor with surprise) dyed it so the mother wouldn't notice it wasn't the same baby. The film ended showing the mothers of the two babies not realising they had been swopped.

This was presented as a comedy, by the way, and from the little laughs and giggles coming from the rest of the class it seemed to succeed. Someone even said how believable it was. Believable is the one thing it absolutely was not. The babies were both portrayed as mindless blobs who had no personality, the crying one was portrayed in a positively malicious way as constantly crying and throwing things. Also, nobody mentioned how unlikely it was that the mothers could be so easily fooled. All audience sympathy was supposed to be with the man who was bothered by the crying infant, despite his selfish, conscienceless, psychotic behaviour.

Both films had the common moral thread of, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law ... as long as you are sure you will not be found out, you are home and dry.

For the rest of the class I got the distinct feeling that, because I had raised that one objection, I was persona non grata. Afterwards, as soon as the class finished, I left. Nobody wanted to speak to me and I felt completely alienated from them and from the "artistic" current day ethos which says that as long as production values, acting, etc are fine, who cares what underlying morality is being communicated to the audience.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, is the Satanic ethos by the way, as formulated by Aleister Crowley approximately 100 years ago.

Jesus said that people would be either for him or against him. There is no in-between. When people are of their father the devil, his works they will do.

I guess last evening made that really, really clear for me.

(George Lucas isn't a Christian by the way, he was raised a Methodist but now describes himself as Zen Buddhist. Just thought I would throw that in, in case someone wants to describe this as a fundamentalist Christian rant.)

Of course, these people responsible for foisting the new dont-care morality on society, will never take any responsibility because they will hide behind the falsehood that everyone watching has a strong sense of intellectual irony and would not take it seriously.

Perhaps they might like to explain that in more detail, to the parents of the person who was BEHEADED for NO REASON when simply sitting on a bus, just a few days after the new Batman film was released. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081408.html

(Btw, the Sunday Times published an interview with the director of Batman a couple weeks ago, and he came across as a very disturbed, and disturbing, individual, indeed. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article4524352.ece)

Or they might like to speak to the publishers of Loaded, a UK "men's magazine" which took the "ironic" route at first when publishing their porn, and used to write "amusing" sidelines to their pictures about how their models were asking for it, etc. They stopped short when they started getting positive feedback from readers who not only happily took what they said at face value, but added on to it. Having come to realise that there are a substantial amount of people lacking in ironic sensibility out there, and more seriously that they were putting their models in physical danger, they, thankfully, promptly ceased their amusingly ironical slant on porn, and now Loaded is presentationally similar to every other lad's mag.

Why did the director of A Clockwork Orange pull his film from video release? Copycat torturings.

Why was there such a controversy over Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers? Copycat killings.

But it looks like many writers, filmmakers etc will continue to deny that their artistic output has any power to sway their audience's morality and subsequent behaviour, until doomsday.

History Quest 1, CJ Fallon First Class history book with extremely odd stories

OK, I know this is kindof off-topic, but.

Please read this with as sceptical a mind as possible. I would really appreciate to find out whether anyone else can see what I am seeing in my daughter's school workbook.

I would really love to hear from anyone who can explain this away as "coincidence", or as my sister said, "stupid people who don't know what they are doing".


My daughter is 6 years old. She is in first class. This year she got a history book called History Quest 1, as requested by her school.

I was glancing through it when I noticed something very strange.

The stories in this book are not at all historical, apart from the last one. There are in total, 5 stories.

The first one is entitled "The Wicked Fairy of Tara", and is a Hallow'een story. It is completely a fable, and tells a silly story about the Fianna, Fionn and a wicked fairy who burns down castles at Hallow'een.

True or false questions are then asked after each story. I don't have any particular problem with this particular story being included but I would have to ask why such an obviously mythical story is included in a child's history book.

The second story is the one I really find offensive, however. It is entitled "Merry Christmas", and is about two children playing in their back garden when a spaceship lands and an alien gets out. They tell him about Christmas and about Jesus. The alien has never heard about Jesus before. The children then tell the alien about Santa Claus. The alien has never heard of him before either. The stories of both Jesus and Santa Claus are told to the alien. Both stories are told as if equally factual. The story ends with the children waking up in bed and wondering if they had been dreaming.

True and false questions are asked after the story, including:

Jesus was born over 2000 years ago - true or false,

Santa lives at the South Pole - true or false



The next activity for the children, is asking questions of Who am I? Examples given are:


I am the son of God. I was born in a stable. Who am I?

I live at the north pole. I have reindeer that fly. Who am I?

I have a major problem with this strange story and the questions afterwards. At my daughter's age, most children believe in Santa. This story, and its questions, are deliberately slanted in my opinion, so that when children find out there is no Santa, and they have been lied to, the obvious implication is that Jesus is a fairy tale as well.

I don't think there is any other conclusion that can be drawn.

I found this story and the questions asked after it, not at all historically based, and aimed at confusing the minds of the children reading it.

In fact, all the stories in the "history" book are rather strange. Next comes a story of Saint

Brigid, then of King Labhra who grew donkey's ears, then of St Brendan who landed on the back of a whale. All these stories seem to have been chosen for their fantastical and mythical elements.

The last story is a reasonably factual account of nurse Mary Seacole. This is the only entirely true story in the book.

But how will children realise this is a totally true story when all the others are either entirely or partially mythical? Surely they will be inclined to think it is mostly made up, as well.

Interspersed with these oddly written stories are quite normal history sections which one would expect to find in a history book, which I do not have any problem with.

However, I don't think any Christian, who wishes their child to view Christianity as real, as truth, or who wishes their child to learn real history, could possibly be happy with this "history" workbook.

Another Big Brother moaning post, this time about its sinister intro graphics

I guess some people would call it paranoia, but I think I'm on to something.

If you've got Sky+ or a good dvd/video recorder you should be able to watch the intro to Big Brother frame by frame.

It's an interesting mix of blood red and black colours at first, with random sharp, jagged pieces of glass-like silver flying through it. What's really interesting though, and what you won't pick up if you don't have the ability to freeze frame by frame, is the subliminal clips shown in between.

The first is a black and white face, eyes wide in horror. Difficult to see if it's male or female. This appears for one frame, then segues into white masks travelling across the screen. What looks like a foetal ultrasound is shown squirming, then broken up, as if attacked by broken travelling glass pieces.

A smiling upside down female-looking mouth is then shown, followed by more masks. Then a face which is definitely a child is shown distorted, then more glass, blood red and black ultrasound, then jagged pieces invading it. Then the white masks again, one of which is definitely female and frightened looking. Then an eye which is unnaturally round and distorted is shown, before an eye shaped hole is shown, which is then broken up by glass-like segments.

Then a white mask of a child's face is shown. The white child mask is the only white mask to be "attacked" by the pieces of broken glass.

The really alarming pictures appear for just one frame, making it impossible to glimpse them with the naked eye without slowing down the transmission substantially. This makes them subliminally intended and impossible for the conscious mind to interpret. They are intended to go straight into the subconscious.

I wonder what the intention could be of making people see what can only be described as foetal tissue ultrasound, pulsating and alive, appearing to be attacked by broken glass, interspersed by frightened child face, cold and impersonal adult white masks with empty eye sockets, and scarlet and black jagged shapes?

The only way I could think of describing this very odd "art work" is as a type of allegory of abortion. We see the impersonal doctor and nursing staff in the masks, the mother in the distorted eye and frightened mask, and of course the child's body in the pulsating red body tissue, black and white moving ultrasound and oddly stretched child's face. Not to mention the white child's mask being broken by slivers of glass, the only white mask to do so.

If introduced at some kind of art festival as a "pictorial allegory" with all the frames displayed side by side, and no other information given, nobody would have any doubt that this is some kind of story being told about abortion.

The most disturbing image for me was, after the red tissue was seared by broken flying glass, the definite short subliminal framed image, in the bottom left corner, of a woman's upside down smile in black and white.

There seems to be a kind of hideous glee behind the images of the invasion of the red tissue with glass, the cold faces watching omnipotently and the frightened childish faces which pass quickly out of sight.

Actually, I don't know why anyone should feel this is an over the top description of this horrid intro. I would not put anything past C4 or Endemol, the makers of Big Brother. Endemol is an extremely odd company, to put it mildly. It is an independent TV company, partly owned by Goldman Sachs and the Spanish telecommunications company Telefonica.

http://www.mediawatchuk.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366&Itemid=92


We already know how pro-death, excuse me, pro-choice C4 is, from its constant pushing of abortion and homosexuality as lifestyle choices on many of its documentaries and drama series.

Subliminal promotion of abortion is a step too far though, surely.

Is there no law against subliminal images shown on TV in the UK? Where is the legal protection for unwary viewers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6427951.stm

There is a law against subliminal ADVERTISING on TV, but no law against subliminal images included in programs, in the UK.

And it looks like it's very difficult to detect them in order to regulate them in the first place, even in ads:

http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/7/420.html?1130309509

We viewers had better beware. Our TVs may well be selling us a whole lot more than we realise.

http://www.rense.com/general29/sdeew.htm

Psalm 101:3

King James BibleI will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.

"Make me a Christian", Channel 4's sly offering to allay Christian criticism, definitely slanted enough so it wouldn't make anyone a Christian

Make me a Christian was a provocatively named, extremely strange, 3 hour series, shown recently on C4 on Sundays at 7pm, over 3 weeks.

The program's title implied that people can be "made" to become Christians. The truth is that, although forced conversion to religion certainly can happen in all religions, only the Holy Spirit can convict people's spirits to become true Christians. No mention of this fact was ever made. The mentor named George in fact went so far as to say that he knew that people would be changed by their experiences, for the better. I don't know how he could say that as he must know that if the Holy Spirit did not move in their lives, they might actually be changed not at all, or even changed for the worse. He made a very arrogant assumption that through the efforts of man, people will change for the better, which is not true.

Anyway, the program featured four mentors - one a female Church of England vicar named Joanna, the other 3 were males, one was Pentecostal I think, a black guy, one was a white Catholic priest, and one was Asian, named George, I believe an Evangelical. I had a lot of problems with the attitude of the one named George, of which more later.

Anyway. Basically, these 4 mentors had the job of teaching a diverse group of people in Leeds about Christianity. One was a likely lad who liked to go out on the town boozing and womanizing, one was a lady Wicca practitioner, there was also a fairly normal family of mum, dad and 3 kids, and the parents wanted their children to learn more about Christianity, one was an avowed atheist and tattooed biker named Martin, and one was a lesbian. There was another boy as well, who just wanted to learn more about Christianity, his mother was a pub landlady who had little time for religion, and we watched her attitude change as she was sadly diagnosed with possible cancer.

We watched the progress of the group over a period of 3 months, I think it was.

They had group bible study as well as individual mentoring. They were set a few tasks such as renovating a church, having a barbecue with their neighbours, volunteering with the Salvation Army etc. They were given advice on their particular areas of struggle, eg the clubber was told not to look at women with lust when he went out.

They were also shown a film about abortion, and even the woman who was quite pro-choice was shaken by it and said although she still supported abortion under certain circumstances it had made her think. The rest were horrified.

The final show had a Christian service at the renovated church, at which the participants talked about their experience. They were all positive about it. Even Martin the atheist said that although he had not converted to Christianity he could see a lot of positives about it, especially regarding how Christians tend to care and go out in the community helping people. He admitted that bikers could be very judgmental about Christians.

Despite the seemingly positive outcome, I have so many reservations about this programme that I don't know where to start.

First of all, the religion of Christianity was made seem very amorphous, and as though there were no major differences between the different branches, and thus no difference between the various mentors. The Catholic priest was thus assigned the Wiccan lady and the sick pub landlady to mentor, the pentecostal guy seemed to be assigned to the clubber, and George was assigned to Martin the atheist.

The priest did a good job with the Wiccan lady I thought, he did point out that she was dabbling in dark forces which could be very harmful. However he then went and gave her a blessing without telling her that biblically this is a very dangerous practice as well. You should never let people put their hands on your head to bless you without your informed consent and knowledge of what it is they are blessing you with (see 1 Timothy). Ex-Satanists have spoken out about this practice and said that this is how demonic forces can be transferred from one person to another.

He also gave the pub landlady a similar blessing, which she was very grateful for, but without explaining its true significance.

There was no critical discussion about this by the other mentors. The Catholic religion was once again treated like a sacred cow, despite the fact that many of its practices and creeds (repetitive prayers similar to mantras, using prayer beads similar to Hindu prayer beads, the use of idols, Marian worship and prayer to saints etc) are more Babylonian than Christian.

(I was glad to see that the Wiccan went to a Pentecostal service later on and enjoyed it, which IMHO would have done her a lot more good than the blessing.)

I am not saying the priest was not caring, but he was "misleading and being misled".

I felt sorriest for Martin the atheist. During one group Bible study he raised the question with George of whether he (George) could prove to him that the Bible was true. George told Martin to be quiet, whereupon Martin stormed out. I don't blame Martin in the slightest for being upset, as he had asked a reasonable question and was wrongly rebuked for it.

And here we come to the crux of the matter.

No intellectual justification for Christianity was offered at all. When Martin asked George the question about the Bible being true, George could have told him of the many prophetic statements in the Old Testament coming true, of the prophecies of Jesus being fulfilled, of the many proofs of Jesus's death and resurrection, of the many times that the Bible has been ridiculed by historians and scientists who then themselves have been proved wrong, whereas the Bible's version of history and science has always been vindicated by research. Not to mention all the Answers in Genesis ministry's resources about how creationist theory has far more going for it than evolutionary theory, and how revered dating methods are in fact so erroneous as to be almost worthless. No defence of the book of Genesis was made, despite the fact that this was a perfect opportunity to do so. No mention of the Piltdown man fake, the Lucy fake, nor of the many fraudulent attempts by evolutionists to create their desperately missing "link", was made.

There are so many books about this area of Christianity, written by former atheists who through studying the Bible as well as the facts, came to the realisation that the Bible is indeed Truth. Why did George not recommend some to Martin? I am not saying George did not care about Martin as he helped him go to the dentist, and Martin later on enjoyed his experience of volunteering with the Salvation Army. But George didn't seem to make any effort to appeal to Martin's intellect and I think this is the main reason Martin didn't become Christian in the end. He really needed to see the intellectual and rational justification for the Christian faith. This is where I believe most people falter in their faith, and later give up.

I believe the program put the appeal for Christianity as being on the basis of appealing to people's feelings, like allaying their worries about death and illness, giving people meaning in their lives, the good they do in the community etc, and the fact that they are generally nice people. But anyone watching this series would definitely have come away with the feeling that Christianity is for people who feel, and don't reason, weak-minded people in other words.

The difference between Christianity and other faiths was not made clear either. Christianity was just presented in a feel-good manner, made similar to a good lifestyle choice such as eating healthily. One was left with the erroneous impression that other religions could also be just as "good".

Its so sad, as this was such a good opportunity to let the rational basis and unique promise of Christianity be explained, and surely this should have been done first of all, before any tasks or talks by the individual mentors took place. Instead it simply did not occur at all.

I also have a problem with the abortion film being shown to the participants, and not the general TV viewing audience as well. We were shown the participants' strong reaction to the film. Why were we not shown even a little clip of what they were reacting to so strongly?

Was it because C4 avoids anything which might cause the viewers to question their generally pro-choice stance, like the plague? After all this is the channel which recently showed an unrepentant lady planning to have an abortion, and made it out to be nothing more than a lifestyle choice, not the deliberate murder of a helpless human being which it is.

Maybe I am just paranoid, or maybe Channel 4 is indeed pretending to give Christianity a fair hearing, while really nobbling it by making it look like something for sad, sick, thick, weak people.

I can't see anyone searching for the truth, watching that series and being converted to Christianity, in fact I think they would find it a stumbling block in their search for the truth. They definitely wouldn't feel their interest piqued by anything talked about, there were no surprises anywhere. And like I said there was no discussion of the rational basis for Christianity, and everybody's need for absolute truth, as opposed to relative truth.

Relative truth once again came out on top. As it always does in these sorts of programs.

Bride and Prejudice kickstarted by blaspheming the precious name of Jesus

The critically acclaimed Bollywood film Bride and Prejudice, was shown on C4 last week.

The FIRST LINE SPOKEN in the film is spoken by the hero in conversation with his friend, and is intended to convey his mild discontent with his surroundings. This is the line chosen as suitable by the writer and accepted as such by the director, cast etc: "Jesus, Jalil, why did you bring me here?"

Therefore the FIRST WORD spoken in the entire film, blasphemes our precious Saviour. It is not a mere unpleasant swear word. It was deliberately chosen to offend Christians, not to mention to break the Third Commandment and offend God.

As the hero is merely looking at a pleasant country scene at the time and has no reason to swear whatsoever, this makes the blasphemous introduction even more unpleasant and incongruous.
I would like to know why the script writer, producers, director, cast etc thought this was an acceptable way to start their "light comedy" film.

It's ironic given that the film starts off in Hindu-ridden India, (the filthiest and most poverty-stricken "free" country ever, despite the fact that the richest Indians are richer than Midas, in fact 4 of the top 10 richest people in the world right now, are Indians), that the hero should swear by the name of Jesus anyway.

What about using the names of Krishna, Lakshmi etc, as curse words to kickstart the film? Would that not be more appropriate?

After all, it was not Jesus, nor His followers, that have brought India to the smelly horrid desperate state its in.

Even the worst, most violent, smutty films Hollywood is churning out these days, manage to hold off blaspheming Jesus - at least until the film is well underway.

But I suppose I should say, well done Bollywood for showing your true nastiness and underlying anti-Christian prejudice, straight away. At least someone watching your crap film is shown what to expect from the start.

As a footnote, I have often noticed that non-Christians swear using Jesus's precious name, and not the name of their own crap false gods. As the Bible truly states, God has placed his law in our hearts. Therefore non-Christians are quite well aware in their hearts that there is NO POWER in their stupid little gods and no point in swearing by their idiotic names. No brownie points to be gained from their father the devil in swearing by Mohammed, etc. No, only blaspheming Jesus's name is going to gain their demonic parent's approval.

Mr Atheism Richard Dawkins on C4 - reflection

Strange.

After having seen the entire C4 3 part series on evolution, presented by my bete noire Professor Dawkins, my main feeling is sadness. For Mr Dawkins and all the people he has misled.

I didn't think I would ever feel anything other than dislike for this, frankly, nasty little man, with his almost permanently sulky expression due to downturned mouth corners, and sophistic and cleverly edited arguments (see the job he did on the representative of Concerned Women for America? she wasn't allowed to speak hardly at all - I was given the distinct impression she was there to be intellectually mocked at - and lets not mention the short shrift given to creation scientist John Mackay).

When did I start to feel sorry? I think it was when Professor Dawkins talked about how his father had inculcated in him, when he was young, a belief in evolution. We are all particularly susceptible to falling into our parents' faults, and when young must accept their beliefs, not knowing any better, and naturally loving the person teaching us. And as the Bible states, it is our fathers' particular job to teach morality to their children - NOT their mothers'. Therefore I think Professor Dawkins' father has a lot to answer for.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke to Professor Dawkins without even trying to defend the Genesis version of 6 days of creation, and instead attempted to reconcile evolution with belief in God, I found myself respecting Professor Dawkins' refusal to accept a watered down version of evolution ordered by God. Professor Dawkins does have it right on one thing - belief in evolution IS incompatible with belief in God. For his brave refusal to compromise on this key issue, when doing so would have eliminated almost all his semi-religious critics, I salute him.

Yes. Belief in evolutionary theory is indeed totally incompatible with belief in God.

If a person denies the 6 day Biblical version of creation, as detailed in Genesis, or explains it away as allegorical, then all the Bible can be likewise denied or explained away as allegorical. In which case, it all becomes totally senseless.

Without an original Adam and Eve who sinned, what was the point of Jesus coming to die for the sins of the world? The common sense evolutionary answer is, there was no point.

Common sense evolutionary reasoning goes, if death existed before Adam and Eve, and there was pain and suffering for millions of years, then if God exists, he must be a very cruel God indeed to purposely make innocent animals and humans go through suffering and death in order to exist.

Who would wish to worship such a God? is the atheist's cry. Thus the fact of God's love for all creation and especially mankind, his original, immortal, happy design for us, the plan for salvation from our fallen mortal state, and Jesus' eternal sacrifice for us, is mocked.

It is only when people have access to creationist christian scientist theory, and come to realise that whatever "evidence" there is for evolution, can be fully interpreted by other explanations than the ever-changing and irrational ones that evolutionary theory offers, it is only then that the present unquestioning homage paid to evolutionary theory, by almost all members of society, can be seen as the bizarre religious observance that it is.

I would recommend it, by the way. Try it.

Believe me, standing apart from the rabid pro-evolutionary theory, atheistic pushers and their lazy-minded, amoral mob followers, who have no idea of the spiritual damage their materialistic theory (which btw has been marketed as FACT without the slightest shred of evidence - yes I do mean that) has done and is doing, especially to young people being thoroughly indoctrinated in evolutionary theory at school and through the media, gives one a distinct sense of counter-cultural satisfaction.

Not to mention a real sense of backing a dark horse. Of being a voice in the wilderness. Of standing up for truth and fair play.

Because the reality is, there isn't a level playing field is there?

Any chance of a creationist scientist getting 3 hours of prime time from C4 to proselytize the far more intellectually vibrant and scientifically viable, not to mention morally supportive, creationist theory?

Or even of a creationist scientist being given equal debating time with Professor Dawkins?

The fact is that the intellectually weak, moral anathema of evolutionary theory has now been pushed as fact to such a degree by the media and almost all educational facilities, that it is completely impossible for anyone, even those who think they are impartial observers, not to look down on creationists as being blinkered by their stupid God-regarding beliefs.

Society has been so conditioned to unthinkingly accept evolution, and sneer at theistic creation, that it's hard to see how a fair discussion is even possible in the current intellectual climate.

I know that all things are possible with God.

Prayer can change situations, for sure.

It's still a sad situation, though.

Hobe Sound Choir from Florida didn't hit a high note for me

OK another moaning post.

Not specifically media, admittedly. So maybe should not be here. But anyway ...

On Wednesday evening, 12 August, went to see a choir singing in Castlebar church. I did think I would never go to another Assemblies of God church again (after, a few weeks ago, having asked AOG Dublin head about Todd Bentley and being told we shouldn't judge!). But I thought a choir would be fairly innocuous.

Wrongggg........... ding dong!!!

The choir was basically ok ... for the first two songs. Then a weak voiced man came out and sang a hymn that sounded like a song Britney Spears would sing to her boyfriend ... I only caught the words "if you're not in it I don't want it", I am paraphrasing but it sounded like a soft pop song from girlfriend to boyfriend, instead of a hymn to God.

Then the same guy took out a ventriloquist's doll and started talking with it! There were a few children there (very few to be honest) but as the vast majority of attendants were ADULTS I couldn't help wondering why so much time was spent in "entertaining" kids. Are children not deemed capable of sitting quietly and enjoying a choir as well? They had been doing so up to that point.

The dummy twirled its head and eyes and sang a hymn, rather mockingly. Everyone laughed at the end ... not a response to a hymn I have ever heard in a church before. Nor is it a response to a hymn in church which I ever wish to hear again.

The doll made yet another outing later on, to be honest I think even the kids got quite sick of it.

I hate to come across like I think every church should become more of an Answers in Genesis teaching clone or a repentance preaching outlet. But I feel I have to speak out.

This is ridiculous. THIS IS RIDICULOUS!

I can now, thanks to this outing, totally see what Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis means, when he talks about how we Christians are entertaining ourselves to death, and also failing to impact the culture around us.

The church held maybe 100 people, max. And although people mildly enjoyed the evening it made no longterm impact whatsoever on them. There was nothing but pleasant singing and a little teaching of the gospel message. No mention of personal sin or repentance whatsoever was made. The gospel message actually ended up coming across as similar to a fairy story, or Father Christmas. Something for a dummy to make fun of, in other words. No awe or reverence for God whatsoever. No seriousness.

Pause. You still with me?

Just down the road from this church is the Traveller's Friend venue at which popular comedian Tommy Tiernan appears fairly regularly. People will pay up to 70 euros to see him, and he packs out every venue he appears in. For those who haven't heard of him, a few samples of his work were shown recently on Irish TV on series entitled "Boom Boom: the explosion in Irish comedy", discussing how Irish comedians have developed over the years. Almost one whole program was devoted to Tommy Tiernan and his popularity. He has a rambling style of talking about everything.

One sample showed Mr Tiernan commenting "I know there was no such person as Jesus. God is a myth had to be invented for us to make sense out of the mystery that is life". He wasn't joking. His show is extremely irreverent about everything, but Mr Tiernan makes some serious points about religion and how intellectually unjustifiable and silly he believes it is.

His impact on the culture is tremendous. He is probably the most popular and famous comedian Ireland has ever produced. And he is just one person.

People we are in a war. We are in a spiritual war!

I don't know of anyone who goes to church to be mildly entertained by frankly mediocre singing, or see ventriloquist's dummies make funny jokes from the altar, and mockingly "sing" hymns, or hear pleasant pop songs which are supposedly hymns to God but actually could be sung to anyone or anything.

Where is the seriousness, the reverence and awe for being in a place of worship, the emphasis placed on repentance? Where is the intelligent presentation of Christianity as fully justifiable and defendable intellectual and realistic truth? As important and serious enough to impact our eternal destiny?

I am SO glad my daughter is in London and didn't come to the see the zoo, sorry choir showing off, ahem, I mean performing.

I feel sorry saying all this, because the choir people were nice and did their best. I don't want to hurt their feelings. But truth needs to be told.

This choir has travelled, I am sure at considerable expense, all the way from America to come and perform in churches.

Well, I suppose it is possible that some unsaved person might stumble across the church where they are singing and wander in for a listen, hear the gospel message and get saved.

But I think it is frankly extremely unlikely they would take any of it at all seriously, especially after seeing a ventriloquist's dummy making jokes, singing hymns etc. It would all be taken as entertainment and might even become a stumbling block to taking the Gospel seriously in the future.

It is very nice to have people visit church from other countries. However, if you are going to set a failed ventriloquist and some slightly above average singers in an entertainment war against the likes of Tommy Tiernan, you are going to FAIL. And take your extremely watered down version of Christianity down with you while you are at it.

I can honestly say I sat in that church on Wednesday evening feeling like "I have given up the Catholic church. For THIS? Maybe I should reconsider. At least in the Catholic church God, or what is believed to be God, is shown respect and reverence. Everyone is expected to sing along with the choir, which is tucked away upstairs unseen. Song sheets are on the pews for a singing aid. People bow their heads kneeling when the eucharist is shown, believing it to be Christ! And a dummy on the altar would be run right out of church."

Is it too much to ask to get back to the old-style preaching of the gospel, the importance of creation as written in the Bible being literal truth, and the need for repentance and being saved?

Also, please let's return to respect and awe for God. We really don't need singers or entertainment leaders, except maybe in Sunday School, and I would actually argue against entertainment even there.

I have nothing against choirs per se, except that I do feel they tend to discourage the congregation from singing themselves. God asks his people to sing as a form of worship many times in the Bible. We should all be singing, not just the people with good voices.

We can't compete with the secular world in entertainment, and we shouldn't be trying to.

"Nine Angels" good morning chain email - extremely spiritually dangerous

Ok this is not strictly speaking media.

However, I did receive the following email from a friend, it is a chain email which you are supposed to pass on to 9 other people:
"
Good morning! We can pretend we are sharing a good cup of coffee (or tea, or Diet Coke or Dr Pepper while enjoying.... Good Morning Blessings If it stops with you, then the blessing will disappear. The blessing will only keep working if it is continuously passed around. If you are a recipient of a blessing, keep the blessing working by being the source of blessing to other people. Good Morning!!!! This morning when I wakened And saw the sun above,I softly said, ' Good morning , Lord , Bless everyone I love' Right away I thought of you And said a loving prayer ,That He would bless you specially , And keep you free from care.I though t of all the happiness A day could hold in store,I wished it all for you.

No one deserves it more .I felt so warm and good inside, My heart was all aglow .I know God heard my prayers for you ,He hears them all, you know. You have two choices... smile and close this p ageOr pass this along to someone else to spread the good feelings.

I know what I did!!
^j^ ^j^ ^j^ ^j^ ^j^ ^j^ ^j^ ^j^ ^j^
Nine angels are sent to you. You must send them to nine people including me. In nine minutes you will receive something you have long awaited. Have Faith!
"

I replied to this email in the following manner:

This is in reply to the "nine angels" email.

For the information of everyone who received this, as well as the person who sent it originally:

Angels are not under any compulsion to do anything for us. Angels only obey God.

If you disagree with this, please show me ONE example in the Bible of an angel taking orders from a human being.

Therefore the idea you can get God's angels, whatever their number, to do something for you by sending an email, or doing anything else to manipulate them, is unbiblical to say the least.

There are however angels who are quite interested in deceiving people. These are under the control of the "god of this world", who is the god it appears the extremely odd preceding prayer was really addressed to.

These are called "fallen" angels, ie devils.

(Question: how is it possible for the originator of this email to pray for the unknown recipients of a chain letter as though she is acquainted with them all?)

Quite frankly if you are another unfortunate recipient of this email, the only thing you can do is pray in the name of Jesus to bind whatever entities may be attached to it, and send this email in reply back to whoever sent it to you.

This typical of the age unbiblical attention paid to false angels is part of the biblically prophecied worldwide apostasy and lack of biblical knowledge of the end of the age.


My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel. Is it said that they appear to be Christ's ministers?

For Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Even Satan can take the shape of an angel of light. He always seeks to destroy by coming in a false guise.

Wesley's Notes

Ephesians 2:2 You followed the ways of this present world and its spiritual ruler. This ruler continues to work in people who refuse to obey God.

Revelation 16:14For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

John 16:11because I go away to my Father, and ye behold me no longer; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. American King James Version