web analytics

Mar 08

Guards at the Tomb: Evidence of Jewish Guards at Jesus Tomb

howmanyguardsEbook(this is the continuation and the conclusion of a series of essays discussing the number and make-up of the guards at Jesus’ tomb.  It can be purchased as an ebook, cover to the right.  Main essay | Previous section: Pilate Puts Jesus on Trial, the Jews put Pilate on Trial)

The Presence of Jewish Guards at the Tomb

It has been maintained that both Jewish and Roman guards were present at the tomb.  It was shown at length that Roman guards were present, and some evidence presented that describes how Romans went about such work.  In my opinion, the arguments already presented encompassed sufficient reasons for believing that men under the service of the elders and chief priests were at the tomb.

To reprise:

1. The Gospel of Peter (70-160 AD) has both Roman soldiers and representatives of the elders and scribes at the tomb throughout the entire event–see verses 9.4 and 10.1.  The passage continues to place the Jewish leaders at the scene, having them actually with the centurion, and they themselves personally going to Pilate to ‘smooth things over.’

2. The so-called “Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius” explicitly puts both parties together:  “…and they crucified him, and when he was buried they set guards upon him.  But while my soldiers watched him he rose again on the third day.”

3.    The Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate (c. 200-350 AD) says, “And while they were still sitting in the synagogue, and wondering about Joseph, there come some of the guard whom the Jews had begged of Pilate to guard the tomb of Jesus, that His disciples might not come and steal Him” and later in the same, “And [the Jews] crucified him, and set guards over him when buried. And he rose again on the third day, while my soldiers were keeping guard.”

All three of these documents explicitly put both Roman and Jewish guards at the scene, and implicitly have them all involved in the affair throughout.  I have already argued in the main article that this is implicit in the Gospels, too.

However, it might be said after all this that the Jews did not actually have their own armed men.  This can be refuted pretty easily as a general contention, but to keep it in the context of the event under discussion, we will point out that while it may be true they didn’t have their own soldiers, the elders did have their own armed officers, and they did make appearances in Jesus ‘final days.’

When Judas moved to betray Jesus, he led a cohort (‘speira’, so possibly a band of Roman soldiers) and “officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees”, equipped with lanterns, torches and weapons (John 18:3).

The word for ‘officers’ is ‘huparetas’, which according to Thayer’s lexicon, means:

servant an underrower, subordinate rower any one who serves with hands: a servant in the NT of the officers and attendants of magistrates as — of the officer who executes penalties of the attendants of a king, servants, retinue, the soldiers of a king, of the attendant of a synagogue of any one ministering or rendering service any one who aids another in any work an assistant of the preacher of the gospel

Jesus confronts the chief priests and officers, plainly putting weapons in their hands, in Luke 22:52:  “Then Jesus said to the priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against him, ‘Have you come out with swords and clubs as you would against a robber?”  See also John 7:32-45 and 18:22

These officers are even present before Pilate, and seem to be among those calling for Jesus’ crucifixion:  “So when the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out saying, ‘Crucify him!  Crucify him!'”

So we see that there is a ready pool of armed men from which the chief priests could draw from right up to the very hours before Jesus’ burial.  For reasons already explained, and upon evidence already presented, it is very safe to believe that both Jewish and Roman guards were present at the tomb.  This being the case, when Jesus’ body goes missing, despite all these people watching it, one can understand why the argument that the disciples stole the body was seen immediately as ridiculous on its face, and why, when added to everything else, the other view was immediately accepted:  Jesus had truly risen from the dead.


Mar 04

A Tale of Two Old People Who No Longer Contribute to Society

With ‘Quality Adjusted Life Years’ and other such criteria for determining when to spend money on old people right around the corner (if not already here… *ahem* IPAB *ahem*), I found it ironic to see these two news items running at the same time today:

When the 87-year-old resident of Glenwood Gardens collapsed at the facility around 11 a.m. Tuesday, a staff member called 911 but refused to give the woman CPR, Bakersfield television station ABC23 reported Friday. … In refusing the 911 dispatcher’s insistence that she perform CPR, the nurse can be heard telling the dispatcher that it was against the retirement facility’s policy to perform CPR. … An ambulance arrived several minutes after the call and took the woman to a hospital, where she was later pronounced dead.  [source]

Compared to:

The Queen is in hospital as a precaution, while she is assessed for symptoms of gastroenteritis, Buckingham Palace says. The 86-year-old monarch has been taken to King Edward VII’s Hospital in London, a palace spokesman said. She was driven to hospital in a private car on Sunday afternoon. The palace said she was “in good spirits”. … Prime Minister David Cameron sent his “best wishes” to the Queen, adding in a tweet: “I hope she makes a speedy recovery.”  A spokesman for the Queen said she was in “good health”,  … He said: “This is a precautionary measure.  [source]

I suppose someone will say that the Queen still serves a purpose, being Queen and all.  Anyway, I thought the whole underlying ‘mood’ of each story was quite fascinating.  In one case, the woman has to wait for an ambulance in an institution that apparently has a policy specifically preventing CPR.  In the other case, action was taken before there was a serious problem, as a ‘precautionary measure.’

I see in this a cautionary tale:  universal health care is supposed to help the poor, but in this we greatly deceive ourselves.  In truth, the more likely scenario is that people of less means than that vastly rich will be given the royal treatment:  their eating habits closely scrutinized, with shaming techniques employed if they are too fat, their soft drink portions carefully monitored, their exercise amounts diligently charted, their drinking habits dutifully studied by–completely well meaning–public health officials doing everything in their power to compassionately allocate scarce medical resources.   Oh yes, the poor people will get the very best of care.

In the meantime, the rich will be the only ones able to get the actual care that they need, and treated with the dignity that all people deserve (ie, not assuming they ought to kick off for the common good).

Instead of ensuring that medical care is affordable to everyone, some folks insist on implementing and fueling a bloated beast of a system that kills and eats the weak and makes medical care extremely unaffordable for all but a few.  Ironically, it is a deep hatred and contempt for ‘evil rich people’ that drives much of the support for such initiatives, but in the end, they are producing a system where only the ‘evil rich people’ will have access to the care, compassion, and respect that all are entitled to.  At any rate, it will be the poor that are micro-managed practically to death, and the poor who will have to stand in line… or wait for the ‘bus.’

Cuz pretty soon, it won’t just be private institutions that have policies specifically preventing CPR and any number of treatments we don’t want to waste on those who have already lived their lives.

Way to go, dupes.


Mar 03

This one goes out to Stathei

Solidarity, brother, solidarity.



Mar 03

New Apologetics App from Athanatos Ministries/Sntjohnny

ACM-APP-512x512Athanatos Christian Ministries is the formal name of the ministry behind Sntjohnny.com.  We’ve got a big announcement.  With the help of the app innovators at Page Foundry, you can now get apologetics related content delivered to your Droid device, all in one place.

Get real time updates from apologetics blogs, twitter feeds, and Facebook pages from apologists such as Brian Auten at Apologetics315, Greg West at The Poached Egg, Roger and MaryJo Sharp of Confident Christianity, Ravi Zacharias, the folks at Stand to Reason, the Discovery Institute, the Christian Apologetics Alliance, and of course Athanatos Ministries.

For those who love ebooks, not only can you find Athanatos Ministry’s available Ebook catalog, but the catalogs of every major publisher of Christian apologetics works, as well.

There is no cost.  The app is free.   Just browse your way to Google Play, searching for the term ‘Athanatos‘ or clicking here.

Learn more, here:  The Christian Apologetics App.


Feb 19

Progressives Will be the Death of the Republic, Democracy, and Freedom

I really believe that Progressives will be the death of the United States, the Republic, the democratic process, and freedom itself.  I also doubt very much that the Progressives intend this, know that their positions will result in this, or, when tyranny is upon us, have any notion whatsoever their their beliefs, behaviors, attitude, and conduct, had anything to do with it.

This latter contention is borne out from actual history:  the Nazis merely acted on all of the things that the Progressives in America and England had been saying, and trying to act on, for decades;  afterwards, they were shocked–genuinely shocked–at the outcome, but, like a dog that returns to its vomit, once the Holocaust Hang-over was forgotten, they quickly returned to the same thinking, strategies, and behaviors.   They are quite sure that this time the results will be much different.

I realize that this is quite a damning thing to say, and ought to be defended.  I have been doing just that for many years on this blog, though, and this particular post is not the place for that.  However, if you would like it in a single document, you could look at my ‘Roots and Fruits‘ publication, lately released.  I led off this way in order to set up a couple of recent news items.

First, let’s take this news story detailing a piece of legislation that would have made owners of ‘assault weapons’ submit to searches of their homes on an annual basis to verify they are complying with the law.  A couple of quotes from the article:

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

Palmer continues,

In other words, [Police can come] into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

 Interesting.  You can’t fully blame the NRA and those ‘fleeing into their arms.’  The NRA is needlessly paranoid… except they aren’t, really.  But I would call your attention to the shock of the article’s author, and that of Lance Palmer, ‘self-described liberal’, that something like this could be really proposed by people of their mindset.  I believe the word you’re looking for here is, “Duh.”   The culprit responsible for inserting this phrase into the legislation is an unnamed staffer, but it doesn’t really matter who it is.  Since liberalism is essentially a movement of good intentioned emotions rather than reality-bound principles, as we see in this case, you can find one particular liberal that finds an idea shocking and borderline tyrannical but another liberal perfectly prepared to propose that very thing.

So, one particular liberal assures me that “he’s not coming for my guns” and I’m supposed to be comforted–as if he’s the only liberal in power, or the only one who will ever be in power, or that ‘unnamed staffers’ don’t have ways to push their various agendas.  One liberal snorts that gun confiscation will never happen, another actively pushes it.  Then liberals have the audacity to accuse the other side of being paranoid, and is shocked when their fellow liberals cross the line.  Shocked.  Just shocked.

In another news item, we find out that some Obama voters voted more than once in one particular jurisdiction.  Now, I think many conservatives these days find such stories to be par for the course.  Personally, I suspect that quite a few elections have been stolen by Democrats just within the time period I’ve been paying attention, and I think the 2012 presidential election could very well have been one of them.  It is not so difficult to suspect, given the mindset of those who tend to support Obama.  You see, one of the essential characteristics of a person of a Progressive mindset is the view that the ends really do justify the means.  This was was one of Saul Alinsky’s main points in his ‘Rules for Radicals’, and of course Obama totally subscribes to Alinksy’s views, along with a lot of liberals in leadership today.

To put it plainly, if you know that having Obama as president absolutely must happen, then breaking the law to make this happen is not really a bad thing.  It is “no big deal.”  What is the ‘law’?  Just words on a page:  “This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want.”

So, from the article:

“Yes, I voted twice,” Richardson told WCPO-TV. “I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls.”

Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.

“I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States,” Richardson vowed when asked about the voter fraud investigation that is now under way.


“There was absolutely no intent on my part to commit any voter fraud,” she insisted.

Well, of course.  It isn’t voter fraud if it is for a good cause.  This is our country.  We live in it.  We have a right to the kind of country we want.  We should not allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.

Voter fraud, said Husted, “undermines public confidence in democracy, and that’s why we need, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, to root out all cases of voter fraud.”

But democracy is actually the problem.  That’s what many Democrats actually think.  You can’t let democracy and the democratic process stand in the way of the “nation’s health.”

Why is anyone surprised when people with this mindset bend or break the rules?  What are rules and laws anyway?  They have nothing to do with real life.

Waitasec.  Back the truck up.  One vote per person is ‘outdated’?  Well, that was the idea of the founders, was it not?  You happen to like that particular idea?  But for a good cause, wouldn’t you jettison it?  Melowese Richardson had no problem doing so, and since she had good intentions, it was not ‘voter fraud.’   No one is advocating that we get rid of one vote-one person as a vestige of our ‘ancient and outdated’ Constitution, right?

No one thinks like that, right?  Wrong.  It might not be the ‘one vote-one person’ principle considered expendable, but the general principle is widespread among liberals.  And not just low level folks like Richardson, either.  I actually quoted a law professor, without the “”, to sum up the perspective.  Let’s get him out for our consideration:

I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what? Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that’s not everyone’s view, and I’m eager to talk with people who disagree.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago. Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one’s commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.

Don’t like some parts of the Constitution?  Just jettison those parts, then.  “Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.”  Talking about gun control in terms of the Constitution “needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion.”  Why should we be shackled by the views of those who died over two centuries ago?  Interpreted:  let’s just pretend the second amendment doesn’t exist, and those who find that idea outrageous should lighten up.

One particular liberal’s part of the Constitution he doesn’t like is the second amendment.  Richardson’s part she doesn’t like is the idea of ‘one person-one voter.’  She’s just engaging in ‘Constitutional disobedience.’  Besides, the idea of ‘one person-one vote’ is probably much older than the Constitution.  If the Constitution is so old it can be simply tossed, surely this provision, which predates it, can be tossed.

And that idea bout Obama not being a natural-born citizen?  Who cares.  It’s just the law.  (Note to Progressives:  I would not suggest admitting that Obama is not a natural-born citizen until after all the guns are confiscated.)

People with views like this are in power throughout the land and they are put there by folks like Richardson and others willing to sacrifice the rule of law in the name of progress.

What could possibly go wrong?

What is there to be paranoid about?

What do you have to fear about giving up your guns?  People are civilized today:  with Progressives in charge, we’ll all be nice and safe.  They’ll be able to act quickly when the next ‘good cause’ emerges, because they are not beholden to the law, even if they do write it.

This can’t end well.  And when it does end in tyranny–and I’m pretty sure it will, although I don’t know when exactly–it will be because of dolts like those I just featured in this blog post who created the conditions and actually carried out the acts that facilitated it.  And when it happens, they’ll look around, surprised, “How did this happen?  This isn’t what I had in mind!  I had good intentions!  This foul result has nothing to do with anything that I did… put me in power again and I’ll do it right this time…”

Dear God, I hope for our sake that this time the American public will do no such thing.


Jan 30

The Conquest of America by the Culture of Death and My Efforts to Fight Back

About a year ago, I was sitting across from a fellow who was asking me about my life with my daughter, diagnosed with spina bifida, and our decision not to abort her.  He respected our ‘choice’, although did express concern about her impending ‘life of suffering.’  We talked about that for a bit, as I sensed that his initial statements in support of being ‘pro-choice’ were incomplete.  “Should people be compelled to abort disabled children?” I asked.  Of course not, he said.  We talked more, and the next thing I know he is saying that we need abortion and birth control because otherwise there will be to many people on the planet.

I begin with this anecdote because it is this sort of slippery reasoning that has made me deeply concerned about the direction America is going.  In one breath, abortion on demand is promoted as a women’s rights issue, and being against it constitutes a ‘war on women.’  In the next breath, people who who were just advocating for a woman’s ‘choice’ argue that in some cases, women should be compelled to get abortions. Huh?

The truth is that this gentleman was sincere and earnest, even if he was muddle-minded.  It was my determination that policy makers and legislators and organizations such as Planned Parenthood are lying about their real arguments and motives that drove me to launch a new initiative:  the Policy Intersections Research Center.

Bottom line:  money drives the culture of death.  True–and yet there are philosophical and ideological reasons for why this is the case.  Sometimes this is recognized, sometimes it isn’t.   One of the purposes of PIRC is to bring the ‘roots’ of these issues to the surface, because, like a weed, unless the whole thing is pulled out, little is ultimately gained.  I have been working on raising public awareness but also have connected with legislators and their staffers to urge them to see beyond the policy to the philosophy that drives it.  Last week I was in Washington DC, and one of the things I did was connect with pro-life organizations and advocacy groups in an attempt to make the same point.

To this end, I have written a book–more like a magazine, really–called “Roots and Fruits:  The Conquest of America by the Culture of Death.”  It is a survey and introduction to these issues, and I think people will be startled to hear, in their own words, what people have said in the past–and what they are saying today, even at the highest levels of the Obama administration.

As implied, I would submit that the culture of death is already well entrenched in America (and elsewhere, of course).  In order to reverse course, we must look beyond particular issues, even important and significant ones, like abortion on demand, to the common principles that drive them all.  Ultimately, these principles must be repudiated for anything to really change.  To put it another way:  I doubt very much we will be able to end abortion on demand if we leave intact the principles and philosophies that brought it in the first place.  And these principles are present in other places:  euthanasia, health care, bioethics, and population control.

abortion and apologeticsIn my reflections on my trip to DC I noted the pro-choice, pro-abortion woman who justified her position in part based on the fact that there was no God.  I thought it was interesting, because people don’t usually admit that.  It confirms one of my own observations:  what one believes about God will have direct bearing on what one believes about Man.

To help make this point, ACM’s fourth annual online apologetics conference is going to focus this year on the connection between one’s Christian faith (or lack thereof) and their view on life issues.  Apologetics is usually framed as a defense of the Christian faith, but this conference will extend it further, arguing that a defense of the faith is also a defense of life:  Man is not disposable tissue generated and discarded by mindless, evolutionary processes.  Mankind is made in the image of God, and every man, woman, and child, is precious in his sight.  PIRC is a sponsor of this conference.  I hope to ‘see’ you there.

life unworthy of lifeThe ‘Roots and Fruits’ book begins about 200 years ago, but another PIRC project is more recent, and remains disturbingly relevant.  PIRC commissioned a new translation of “Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life.”  This book was written by a German lawyer and a German doctor in 1920, and argued that there were some lives that we were permitted to kill–indeed, obligated to kill.  Anyone knowledgeable in contemporary conversations in bioethics and healthcare will recognize their arguments, because the same arguments are being made today.  The doctors of the Third Reich utilized Binding and Hoche’s principles to launch the Holocaust, with the T4 Project as their stepping stone.   Does that trouble anyone today?  Are we different, because we have good intentions?  Does it matter that they had good intentions, too?

Next week, through ACM’s online academy of apologetics, I will be teaching a course called “Worldview Wars:  Why We Abort the Disabled.”  We start with that question and then slowly unravel the fact that the answer to that question answers others, such as why we ration healthcare and hear arguments for population control.  The course is online and fairly thorough.  I would encourage anyone looking to understand the history of the culture of death to take this course.  Only by understanding the ‘roots’ of these issues, can we identify the ‘fruits,’ and act accordingly.

I am available to speak and lecture on these issues.  Contact me at director@policyintersections.org



Jan 28

Women in Combat, Men in Society

In the movie “I, Robot”, there is a scene in which Will Smith’s character is explaining what his beef is with robots.  Apparently, he was in a car accident that sent him and another vehicle, this one containing an eleven year old girl, careening into deep water.  A robot comes to their rescue;  seeing that it can’t save both, it makes a calculation about the relative value/worth/rescuability etc of the two individuals, and chooses to save the Will Smith character, who says, with bitterness, something to the effect, “It was the wrong choice.  A human would have known that.”  (If anyone can find a clip of this online, I’ll post it).

I was thinking of this scene when I heard that the Obama administration was going to allow women in combat.

Now, I suppose that there are many women who think that this is a fine thing.  A real advance for their gender, and so on and so forth.  I haven’t checked the blogosphere, but I don’t doubt it.  I think there are some who think its great but will choose not to avail themselves of the ‘opportunity.’  I think there are some women who think it is a bad idea, for reasons similar to the ones I’m about to mention.

You know, on the one hand, I kind of like the idea of having American women in the military and being allowed access to the full spectrum of military activities.  I think of the Amazon warriors, and I think to myself that it just makes sense that American women should be kick-ass.  In fact, many of the women in my Birth Pangs series are kick-ass.  (This is not gratuitous language;  this is probably the most accurate description of them.)  It is not so much what this decision says about women that has me thinking but what it says about men, and what their orientation towards women will be from it.

I was in Washington DC for the pro-life March and ran my concerns by a Marine I was visiting with.  I put before him this scenario:

Let’s say that a particular skirmish required sending soldiers into grave danger.  This seems to be a likely kind of thing to happen on a regular basis.  Would it matter, I wondered, to the officers, if the soldiers being sent possibly to their deaths were women, rather than men?

The Marine thought for a moment, and thought that probably the officer could overcome the (natural?) inclination to not want to send women to their likely death.

I think he is probably right, but I find that to be more unsettling than comforting.


Or consider another scenario:  Let’s say that by some stroke of misfortune there were two groups of soldiers suddenly thrust into deadly peril.  One group was composed of male soldiers and the other composed of female soldiers.  In the judgment of the soldiers coming to their rescue, only one group could be saved.    On the egalitarian basis that is driving this issue, I suppose that there would be no way to choose between the two groups.  My feeling is that if the male soldiers were saved, though, they would feel as the Will Smith character did, “It was the wrong choice.  A human would have known that.”

Ironically, this move which ostensibly elevates the status of women seems to me to potentially diminish the humanity of men and women alike.

The scenario I just described made me think of the Titanic, and the traditional virtue of “women and children first.”  On the modern, egalitarian basis, what grounds could there be for such a virtue?   Why should the life of a woman be considered of more value than a man’s?  And why choose the child over the adult?  Society has invested far more in the adult and would lose that investment it the adult died.  On the view that men and women are essentially interchangeable, surely whether or not we save one and not the other must be decided on other grounds, such as (and here I only produce examples proffered by people such as Ezekiel Emanuel and Cass Sunstein) their continued utility for society, how much society has invested in them to that point, how many quality adjusted life years they have left, and perhaps if their burden on society outweighs their productivity.  I’m just spit-balling here.  I’m sure that the real experts on measuring the relative worth of individual humans will be able to come up with some more refined policies.

And yet, I have the feeling that no matter how rationally such policies are applied, it will leave both men and women grappling with a hard to define, but definitely real, emptiness.  It will gnaw at their souls and breed discontent.   It is not that the woman’s life is of a higher value than the man’s, and that’s not what the man is thinking when he chooses to remain aboard the sinking ship so that the ‘women and children’ can go to safety.   It is in his nature to wish that if death comes upon him–as it inevitably will–at least it will be in the cause of saving some other person.  It may very well be that he might be able to blot out from his consideration the gender of the person he wishes to save, or die trying to save, but I strongly suspect that if he chooses the man, and not the woman, he will not be happy with himself.  And I think most men, if they are the one saved, while a woman or child was allowed to die, would be pissed.  Again, I’m not being gratuitous.  I think this accurately conveys how most men would feel.

I don’t think that the women being saved, while men die instead, feel that their lives are of a higher value, either.  It is evidently a distinct part of a woman’s human nature to resonate with being treated with dignity and respect–that is, like a lady.  If someone dies for them, it affirms that they are indeed precious, more precious than the most costly jewel.  I think I’ve only run across one or two that objected to me holding the door open for them.  I suspect that they might be able to rationally process the fact that their lives were of the same kind of value as a man’s, and so, when that man’s life was saved, and theirs forfeited, it made perfect, logical sense.  But I think they, too, would feel that in actuality, some kind of affront to reality as it really is, had been accosted.  And I doubt very much that if they chose a man or another woman to live, and allowed a child to die to save that man or woman, they would sleep very well at night.

Allowing women in combat seems to me like it could be a pyrrhic victory.  In seeking to elevate women to the status of men, it threatens to deprive both men and women of unique aspects of their humanity.   In seeking to elevate women, in this case I have the strong suspicion it will actually lower them, and with them, men.  It seems to me more of a victory for the bean counters, who would just love to pretend that men, women, and children, old and young, healthy and disabled, can be reduced to non-human factors such as their future utility and overall burden on society.

And that does not seem to me to be any kind of victory at all.   There is such a thing as getting exactly what you ask for, and not liking it very much once you have it.



Jan 28

Reflections on the March for Life 2013

Actually, I’m not sure I have much time to share my multitude of reflections.  Instead, I shall show some pics and videos.

There were a LOT of people.  I wanted to catch the beginning of the march and had trouble finding it.  Interestingly, it almost felt like the march started on its own.  People were still speaking on the stage but I was so cold I felt I just had to MOVE or my feet would fall off.  Then I noticed that lots of others were doing the same.  I assume they were given the go ahead, but all I saw was a march spontaneously begin.

It was hard to get a spot where I could take a picture that would convey the sheer number of people who were there.  I found a bit of high ground. There were people as far as the eye could see in each direction, but bushes and shrubs and buildings concealed it.  Anyway, here was one attempt.

One of my favorite moments was when I stumbled across a small, lonely band of pro-abortionists courageously trying to make their point heard.  One presumes that the low turn out does not suggest waning support for their position.  Anyway, I had the sense that they had been trying to drown out the speakers (women who had abortions and now regretted it) because suddenly the pro-life multitudes around them would suddenly start yelling, drowning out the pro-abortionists.  It seems to me that this nonetheless had the effect of drowning out the speakers, but was still a morale booster to witness.  Here’s a bit of video of that:

  Some pics:

more-people-than-you-can-shake-a-stick-at lots-of-pro-life-protestors

I thought this picture was appropriate.  As every phrase in the first amendment is dismantled–as is presently underway–I expect that this will remain visible in an attempt to convince people that we still have these rights, even though we don’t.  Anyway, today at least we marched.


I think there is some truth to this.get-serious more-people-than-you-can-shake-a-stick-at-2

Fortunately or unfortunately, while there may be symbolism in this, it doesn’t represent anything that is really the case.christian-flag-washington-DConly-the-appearance-of-justice

I looked very hard to find any counter-protestors.  Finally, at the end, I found some.  I thought about engaging them, but they were already trying to argue with a hundred people or so, each, so decided that they were well in hand.half-million-pro-lifers-meet-20-pro-abortionists

This is a brave, pro-choice lady.  Some guy came over and complimented her on her ‘pair of kahonas.’ Either she did not like that, or did not understand the compliment, or thought that this was one area where ‘equality’ wasn’t desirable, because all she did was frown slightly.  I never did discover the media outfit interviewing her.  I wanted to find out if they gave ‘equal time’ to both issues, which I thought in this case would be inappropriate.  They should get a proportional amount of attention, so about 20/500,000.  Perhaps 1 second of airtime?  Anyway, without knowing the outlet, I have no idea how they handled the coverage.

This lady was brave, but her arguments were incoherent.  Of particular note was her statement that her pro-choice perspective came from the fact that she didn’t believe in God, and that our pro-life perspective came from our belief in God;  naturally, that disqualifies us from having a public opinion.  She can say and do whatever she wants.  We should shut up and stay home:  ‘if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one’ kind of an attitude.  I thought the fact that she drew such a tight connection between her atheism and her pro-abortion views was interesting, since so many Christian pro-choicers insist that there is no connection.  Who to believe, who to believe?  But see the last picture below…


So I guess it isn’t entirely a religious perspective… just that it is only permitted in the public sphere if it isn’t religious.  So, if the March for Life had been put on by secularists, I guess when the marchers met the pro-choice group, it would have been 20 pro-choicers merging and mingling with the 5 atheist pro-lifers.  I think I would have liked to see these tiny groups meet.


I’ll be addressing some of these issues at the 2013 online apologetics conference.


Jan 16

23 Sure Fire Ways to End Gun Violence in America

I have come out several times on this blog on the issue of guns that has made some people believe that I have no solutions to offer.  To show that I am a reasonable fellow, and in honor of Obama’s recent list of ‘orders’ that are aimed towards curbing gun violence, I would like to suggest my own ideas.  Some of them actually are on his list, so that proves I’m willing to consider all sides of this issue.

  1. Have doctors ask patients if they own guns.
  2. Have health providers report threats of violence.
  3. Require patients to disclose to health providers that they wish to kill loads of people.
  4. Make it illegal to wantonly massacre people.
  5. Make it illegal to have magazines with more than 7 bullets in it.
  6. Require criminals to report gun sales transactions.
  7. Post ‘No guns allowed’ signs outside all places where 20 or more people congregate.
  8. Require everyone to request a permit entitling them to slaughtering dozens of people;  have severe penalties for those who kill people without first getting the proper permit.
  9. Have the fees for the permit (see #8) cost more in proportion to how many people they want to kill.  The cost of the permit should be high enough to deter people, but in fairness, a waiver program for those who are economically deprived should be established.  A cap–say, $20,000 for the right to kill 10 people–should be sufficient to stop all killing, cold.
  10. Require mass murderers to use revolvers when carrying out their dastardly deeds.
  11. Require ‘assault weapons’ to be painted pink, to make them less deadly.
  12. Require all guns to be painted pink;  first of all, how embarrassing is it to kill someone with a pink gun?  second of all, pink guns are less scary looking.  It’s a win-win.
  13. Revise the law so that references to the right to ‘bear arms’ are changed to the right to ‘bare arms.’  Then simply confiscate all guns.  There is precedent for this kind of sleight of hand.  See the government’s insistence that the Individual Mandate is not a tax, but a penalty, when selling it, and then their insistence that it was a tax, before the Supreme Court.   What do you care?  It would save ‘a single human life,’ and that is all that matters.
  14. Since it is well known that mass murderers love media attention (the Virginia Tech dude even sent out a media kit before his shootings.  Did you know that?), forbid the media from reporting mass murders.  Does this seem to infringe on the first amendment?  What?  You’d rather have 11,000 die each year to gun violence just so that you can have free speech?  “Anything that would save a single human life is worth doing.”
  15. Since it is well known that most gun violence is carried out by gang members, and gang members are often the casualties, make it illegal to be in a gang.
  16. Since most gun violence is carried out by black people on other black people, make it illegal for black people to own guns;  better yet, make it illegal to be black.
  17. #16 may be too politically incorrect, so instead of focusing on the race, focus on the gender.  Since most gun violence is perpetrated by men on men, make it illegal for men to own guns;  better yet, make it illegal to be a man.
  18. Make it required to store all guns at the local police department.  Require a deposit before they can be loaned back to their owners who are participating in their yearly ‘constitutional right to hunt.’
  19. Require that stolen guns be reported within 24 hours.
  20. Make it illegal to shoot responders.
  21. Make it illegal to shoot children.
  22. Make it illegal to buy ammunition.
  23. Eliminate every gun that has ever existed and forbid the entire world from manufacturing more.  Practically speaking, it may be easier to do this after all the nuclear weapons are removed from the world.  However, I think you will all agree, that if there are no guns, there obviously cannot be gun violence.  And if there is no more gun violence, there will be no more death.

If we find that after implementing these ideas, people are still being murdered by the bushel, perhaps because for some strange reason that defies the imagination someone refused to turn over their gun, or perhaps because they switch to knives, automobiles, or hammers, simply re-write the above.

But in honor of the principle that anything is worth doing if it saves a single life, let me propose two options that will address that with finality:

1., compel everyone to live inside padded, sanitized rooms, or

2.  Just kill everyone, since everyone now alive is going to die anyway, and by preventing all the living ones from having more children, this will spare those future children from future suffering, and death.  Don’t laugh.  It’s an idea worth considering.


Jan 16

Today’s Gun Control Story: Law Abiding Citizen

Some folks wonder what keeps me so busy… here’s one thing.  I’m part of a community of authors producing short stories on a regular basis.  These stories are often inspired by things I’ve been thinking about.

Today, completely coincidentally–honest!–I have released a short story called Law Abiding Citizen that ties in a bit with Obama’s gun control activities and more directly, the media’s treatment of such issues.  And liberal hypocrisy in general, maybe.  🙂

You have to be a member to read it (or buy it from Kindle or Smashwords once it becomes available there) but free membership is available, although you must access it within 30 days of release to get it for free.  Here is what you need:


Law Abiding Citizen by Anthony HorvathLAW ABIDING CITIZEN

by Anthony Horvath

What happens to a town when a man with a gun refuses to stop another man with a gun from killing people, just because it was against the law to bring the gun on school property?

Sheldon Knapp was caught in a photograph calling 9-11 with a gun in his hand, while a vicious gunman enters the school behind him. Initially regarded as a hero, the accolades turn into contempt, as people begin saying that he could have, and should have, done more.

Sheldon Knapp’s defense: He is a law abiding citizen.


Jan 10

Pravda has a point: culture considerations in the gun control debate

The stalwart propaganda rag for Russia, Pravda, has published an article on gun control that makes a good point:

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

I made a similar point in a blog entry a week or so ago titled “Somewhere somebody with a gun is protecting you.”  Gun control advocates make an argument that implicitly requires us to believe one of two things, and perhaps both:  1., that the people who protect us at our borders and in our communities–with guns–are knuckle-dragging loose cannons, just by virtue of the fact that a gun has fallen into their hands.  (Guns have mystical powers to gun control advocates… in the presence of one, people apparently must fight the sudden urge to kill everyone in their sight.)  2., that the people in our communities, from whom the people who protect us are drawn, are knuckle-dragging loose cannons.

In other words, the premise of gun control is an insult to every other human on the planet, including the one making the argument.

Clearly, there are people that we don’t want to have a gun… or a knife, or a hammer, or even a car.   Let me re-state that so that the pattern becomes more clear and the point more plain:

  • There are people we don’t want to have a gun
  • There are people we don’t want to have a hammer
  • There are people we don’t want to have a car
  • There are people we don’t want to have a rope
  • There are people we don’t want with access to poisons
  • There are people we don’t want with nuclear weapons
  • There are people we don’t want….

What do these have in common?  PEOPLE.  The people who tend to push for gun control, liberals and progressives, have this tendency in all of their activism:  they focus on objects and circumstances rather than people.

So a gun becomes a magic rock that turns otherwise normal people into psychotic killers.  People cannot possibly control their private parts, so we have to give them condoms and free birth control, and of course pay for their abortions.  People will just eat and drink whatever is in front of them, so we’ve got to ban certain items and make large sized drinks illegal.  It’s always the object’s fault.  The idea of personal responsibility is foreign to this mindset, because on their worldview, we are all really just conditioned like Pavlov’s dog.  If the dog bites someone, you don’t blame the dog, you blame the conditioning.  Guess what!  Your local, state, and Federal liberal stands ready to take over your Conditioning!

How nice of them.  You should just let them;  after all, they are nicer and smarter than you.  Their intentions?  Pure as the wind-driven snow.

So if we aren’t going to put our attention on objects as the solution of all problems, what are we going to do?

Clearly, there are individuals who are off their rockers.  Personally, I believe certain philosophies are fueling that madness, but in the grand scheme of things, as tragic as Sandy Hook was, it is nothing compared to what happens in certain American cities every year.  Chicago, for example, saw more than 500 gun homicides this last year, despite having some of the most stringent anti-gun laws in the nation;  indeed, they’ve gone overboard into illegality, which a Federal court is remedying in part by ordering Illinois to give up their ban on concealed weapons, which is, obviously, contrary to the law of the land as embodied in the Constitution.

What about the claim that the guns are still to blame for the bloodshed in these major American cities with tough (and illegal) laws against guns?  Isn’t this proof that gun laws don’t work?  It is then argued that, well, of course guns can be brought in from elsewhere;  the implication being that a world wide ban of guns (at least in private hands) is necessary.  But this argument is an example of intellectual contortion that would make an acrobat jealous.  It must contort into strange shapes, because it is trying to ignore the obvious:  while guns might still find their way into a city like Chicago where they are used to murder hundreds of people, they come from other places and regions where hundreds of people are not being murdered.

Or, to put it another directly, Chicago’s problem is its culture.  What is ‘culture’ but the patterns and trends that manifest when individuals are taken together for consideration?  Chicago has a people problem, not a gun problem.   Nearby Rockford, Illinois’s second largest city, is vulnerable to weapons coming into it just like Chicago but it doesn’t have the level of gun violence, even proportionally, that Chicago does.  (Trust me, I’m not saying that Rockford is perfect by any means).   Nearby Wisconsin has 2-3 times more citizens than Chicago, but its homicide/gun violence stats are a small fraction of what Chicago accomplishes alone, and that’s including Milwaukee, which has a significant gang problem.

The problem is not the things, its the culture.

Liberals are not above tampering with the culture.  They love doing that!  They feel obligated to do so, in fact, because they are good people (better and more compassionate than you, at least.)  However, because they do not know what a person really is, and insist on seeing people as products of a system–a social machine, if you will–that are helpless cogs that merely do what society has produced, their efforts in dealing with the cultural problem is bound to fail… if results matter.  Oh, they’ll change the culture alright.  But in the unlikely chance that they actually diminish the problem they targeted, they will create new problems.  Note:  they don’t mind this, either.  They love to solve new problems that emerge when trying to fix old problems!

But there is another approach.

One can view people as something other than animals merely acting on instincts and conditioning.  One can hold them personally accountable for their actions.  One can instill in them virtuous philosophies that raise them up, rather than philosophies that demean them and their fellow man.   This solution creates a ‘new problem.’  You cannot hold someone accountable for their actions unless you have a clear notion about what is right or wrong and have done your part to ensure that person is operating on the same moral principles.  But the idea that there is an objective morality is just the sort of thing that our liberal progressives find repulsive;  confronting the fact that certain societal problems illustrate the existence of such a morality is probably the only ‘new problem’ they don’t want to address.

This solution creates another ‘new problem.’  Our children are not just learning demeaning and destructive philosophies from their music and movies.  They are learning them in the very schools that we are presently concerned about.

So yea, I can understand why certain people would prefer to focus on objects and more laws.  To focus on the real problems would entail a radical overhaul and repudiation of one’s worldview.  This is never a very pleasant operation;  admitting that you are wrong rarely is.



Jan 06

500 Christians Burned – FAKE IMAGE or STORY or BOTH

Yesterday I posted a story that came to me through a reliable source and my post included this caveat:

Caveat:  one theoretical benefit of having the mass media cover something is that they can validate and document particular claims and such.  Precisely because this incident hasn’t aroused the interest of anyone, it is difficult for me to be absolutely certain of the details.  I trust  my source, and include his comments below, and the link to a site in another language that seems to be talking about it.  God willing, more information will come to light on it.  If clarifications become necessary, I will make them.

Since then, the original source and I have done some more research and it seems highly unlikely that this picture is of a recent church burning.  Allegedly, the image is of people burned in a gas explosion.  I found this page that linked to this page;  you will observe that the latter page no longer works.   I am sure some more sleuthing would allow me to get that missing information, but the fact that the former page is from a full year before the report I posted, and has the same image, strongly suggests that the two do not go together.

Was there a church burned down with 500 people in it recently?  I am willing to say probably not, but I can’t be sure.  Christians have been burned alive in Nigeria and elsewhere and it hasn’t made much of a ripple.  (Example)

Since the blogosphere does not have the resources of paid, professional journalists, things like this will happen.  Checks/balances/corrections take time to work out.   I am only glad that I am able to report it as soon afterwards and only regret that some who heard it through me might not get the update.

Perhaps more updates to come, but I am done researching this myself, unless and until someone provides further corroboration of the event.


Jan 05

On the usefulness of Rocks

In another post, a friend felt that I had spoiled a perfectly good reporting of an atrocity by noting that the people murdered were Christians and speculating on reasons why the media–I must here specify the American media, because otherwise it could be construed to include all media everywhere, and I obviously don’t include in that analysis (for example) a college newspaper in Japan–did not cover the event.  (As you can see, I have been sufficiently chastened from using rhetorical flourishes such as the ‘world.’)  My friend protests the fact that I would take an interest in matters specifically relating to Christians and go further and compare the event against American coverage, implying, it seems to me, that in order to be spared the charge of bias in favor of my own ‘tribe,’ that in order to be taken seriously I must strip all such loyalties aside and post blog entries only on matters that bore me and and posted with no hint of bias of any kind.

This post is a stab at such an entry, however, I must apologize in advance, because I am acutely aware of the fact that to escape charges of publication bias or purposely excluding other related issues, this post would have to be, literally, infinitely long.  However, I have decided that since I cannot, literally, compose a post that is infinitely long, that I have to draw a line somewhere on just how in depth I am going to go.  The post will therefore be about a thousand words long.  I know that means the post will be of little consequence unless I did treat every aspect of the issue, but this really just has to be the way it is.

The topic I have chosen is rocks and their utility.

What is a rock?

Rocks come in various sizes and shapes.  We give them different names based on those and other factors, such as their considerations.  They are made up of minerals (depending on the rock… some things we call rocks, like coal, aren’t really rocks).

Rocks have many uses.  Smaller rocks can be used for landscaping.   Somewhat bigger ones can be used as paper weights.  The biggest rock that can fit in your hand can likely be used to bash a foe’s head in.  Bigger rocks can be used for that purpose, too, but you will have to find ways to propel or drop them on them.  Very big rocks are fun to climb and some have even been known to become tourist attractions.

One kind of rock is called ‘hard rock.’  There used to be a time when it was believed these rocks were from the devil.  No one thinks that any more.  Even so, hard rocks can still be used for harm.  Incarcerated people suspected of ill intent have been tortured by having to listen to hard rock at loud volumes.  Ironically, some people do this voluntarily, and claim to enjoy it.

The opposite of hard rock is soft rock.  Sandstone is very soft rock.  So is Billy Joel.  I once discovered that listening to Billy Joel for some has the effect of hard rock listened by hard rock at loud volumes.  I did not share this perspective, which is why I played it, proving once again, that even with soft rock, some people listen to it voluntarily, and claim to enjoy it.

Without rocks, our lives would not be the same.  In fact, we would not exist, because without rocks, we would be sucked into the earth’s liquid hot core.  But then, we could not be sucked into the earth’s liquid hot core if we did not exist, which we couldn’t do if there were not rocks, so I suppose this goes without saying.  However, since some people believe that the earth’s liquid hot core is actually liquid rock, then I also cannot say that in this scenario rocks do not exist.  So I guess I can say that without rocks, we would not have a place to stand.  More importantly, without rocks, there would not have been a surface for life to ferment on, which is something that some people consider is plausible.

The best part of rocks is the fact that it rhymes with socks.  I say that because as a child I read a book that had a fox with a problem with rocks in his socks, and it was a favorite story of mine, and the story would have been impossible if rocks sounded like something else, like petra.  At any rate, this proves that rocks can also be useful in literature–and satire.

I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention the rocks on mars.  That is the way some humans are (religionists, usually.  Enlightened humanists don’t do this).  We are very parochial, focusing only on things that pertain to our own tribe.  When we don’t mention things outside of our tribe’s perspective, it means we don’t know about them and don’t care about them.  That is why we need to go out of our ways to talk about rocks outside of earth.  Besides, my comments on the earth’s rocks cannot be taken seriously, since of course I am biased in favor of earth’s rocks.  Instead I will talk about the rocks on mars, because I know less about them.

I know that rocks on Mars are red.

That is all I know about the rocks on Mars.  However, I suspect that they could also be used for landscaping, as a paperweight, or as a head-bashing tool.   We might discover that hard martian rock might also be useful for torturing people of suspected ill intent.  Time will tell.

Now for rocks on Venus.

I know less about rocks on Venus, but I don’t want to be parochial and miss anything.

So let me also mention that rocks from 3 billion light years have this redeeming virtue:  they still rhyme with socks.

I was tempted to touch on the rocks 2.99999 light years away until I realized I would then also have to touch on the rocks 2.999998 light years away.  At this time I’m going to give up trying to talk about every rock out there, because of the aforementioned infinity problem.

Writing this post has been as difficult as I expected it to be.  Rocks are not the sort of thing that interests me, unless we are talking about sedimentary rock (that is, rock formed by water action) thousands of feet thick, appearing even at the earth’s highest points, containing fossils.  However, it is precisely because that interests me that I shouldn’t talk about it.  Whatever I said about that couldn’t be believed anyway, since I believe it, and that means it isn’t true.

For my next post, I shall talk about twigs.

Unless I decide to bash my head against a rock, which this post is on the verge of driving me to.

Which goes to show you that rocks really do have lots of uses, just as I said.


In honor of my friend, and with all good humor.


Jan 05

25 killed in Sandy Hook, the world mourns. 500 Christians burned alive in a Nigerian Church, *yawn*

UPDATE: I have determined that this image DOES NOT go with this event, so I think it unlikely that the event itself did not happen. I await further clarifications. In the meantime, the post remains the same as it was for posterity’s sake.  Details.


What happened in Sandy Hook was a horror upon horror, but there are many horrors in the world–so many that there is no way we can keep track of all of them.  So many that if we knew even a handful more than we know already, we would be overwhelmed.  But how is it that we know of the ones we do know about?  I think this question is important.

Some horrors are better made for television broadcast.  Some horrors fit prevailing narratives better than others.  Some horrors feed into private agendas better than other.  To what degree this might be the case in any particular choice by the media to highlight something will be forever cloaked to the majority of us.  Probably only 1 person out of 10,000 knows by name 5 TV or radio producers or story editors.

Of course, while these people are thinking about what motivates them (personal agendas and financial reward being high on the list, of course) they are also thinking about what motivates us.  They know that we prefer the clean, tidy narrative with a clear enemy that is safe to to target.  The NRA is safe to target.  Peaceful, law-abiding gun owners are safe to target (eg and eg).  White male Christians are safe to target, because despite what everyone says or implies, deep down they know that they are least likely to retaliate.

The intrinsic problem with this arrangement is that it is entirely possible that we will remain ignorant of real threats in our communities and in the world.   There are atrocities that don’t fit the narrative or are not easily televised that may be committed by people who will retaliate that do not surface for our attention.  Thank God for the Internet… but then, that takes a little effort, while getting spoon fed from the media is, well, getting spoon fed.

So below I give you an atrocity that I was just made aware of through one of sources of information.  500 Christians (because as it turns out, Christians of all makes and models are safe to target, not just the white male ones) were burned alive by Muslims in a church in Nigeria.  Here is a pic to feast your eyes on:


Note, my understanding is that Facebook has banned this from its site, so be careful in posting it. Please let me know if you post it and how it fares.

I believe we might be able to find 20 children in there, somewhere.

Nothing about this story fits into the formulas that would put it into the major media news cycles and of course this kind of picture would be printed or displayed.

In my estimation, there is also the problem of the culprits:  they were Muslims.  And if you call attention to the violent nature of Islam, or speak negatively about it at all, really, it is well known that you risk being stabbed on the street, beheaded, or otherwise targeted for destruction.  So, this is a story that one will likely want to avoid… a bit like how the tragedy unfolding in Egypt has largely been forgotten by the media, now that Egypt’s dictator has been toppled and replaced by Islamic militants.

Also of note, these people were all burned alive– not gunned down by a white male psychopath.  It would be most difficult to outlaw or regulate fire, and an outright ban is out of the question, so there isn’t even much hope that such a story would resonate with the personal agendas of any or our media elites.  So, if not for the blogosphere, you would not know about this, or many, many other horrors, perpetuated in many cases by people who represent real threats.

Caveat:  one theoretical benefit of having the mass media cover something is that they can validate and document particular claims and such.  Precisely because this incident hasn’t aroused the interest of anyone, it is difficult for me to be absolutely certain of the details.  I trust  my source, and include his comments below, and the link to a site in another language that seems to be talking about it.  God willing, more information will come to light on it.  If clarifications become necessary, I will make them.

I hope this post might help fuel a new narrative that aims to protect the people who are really vulnerable to attack from the people who are actually most likely to carry them out. At the very least, I would hope that it would serve as a warning to us not to be played for dupes, drinking up the talking points of whatever our mass media chooses to distribute today.


Note from my source:

How can America lift her head with pride knowing that our tax money and our military are supporting the ideology that burned the Christians whose charred remains are shown below?
The nation that wept over the horrors of Hitler’s gas chambers is turning a blind eye to the savage murders of people who truly share our values and our faith.

BTW, I was able to verify this story by going to the Spanish language site where the original text appears (see below this commentary). Nigerian Christians have had their churches burned by the local Muslims for many years so this is nothing new. It just happens to be perhaps the first time a photo of the charred remains has been sent to the public.

Here is the link he provides:  http://www.religionenlibertad.com/articulo.asp?idarticulo=25283


This appears to be a translation of that page:

    Statement by Father Juan Carlos Martos

This is a brutal example of how far the struggle between Muslims and Catholics in Nigeria has reached.
Muslims are determined to impose their ‘religion’ all over Africa as well as in other continents and countries
of the world. Islam has but one goal: to rule the world at any cost!

And where are the International Human Rights’ Organizations?

Christians are burnt alive in Nigeria: a horrific Holocaust right in front of International indifference! as denounced by Father Juan Carlos Martos, on behalf of the Missionari Clarettiani, via del Sacro Cuore di Maria, Rome, Italy.By publishing this graphic document on Facebook, I have intended to make the world aware of certain terrible events totally ignored or minimized by the mainstream media; an authentic genocide so cruel and inhuman only comparable with the most hateful and vile acts in the Nazi extermination camps.

To my great surprise, Facebook has criticized me for the publication of this graphic document as a proof of the Holocaust that Christians have been suffering in Nigeria in the last ten years. According to Facebook’s
Security policy of the ‘social’ Network, this photo has been classified as ‘pornographic’, ‘violent’ or ‘inappropriate’ and hence I was disallowed to publish any picture for a week. And I was threatened drastic measures if I insist publishing any document that prove the terrible violations of Human Rights in Nigeria.

This attitude by the (Spanish) Facebook Management is an attack to the freedom of expression as much as a shameful insult to the 500 victims (only in this horrible episode) slaughtered by Islamic terror only for being Christian.
I thought that this social network, originated in the United States, would not bend its knees in front of terror. Especially, when still healing their wounds suffered in the gruesome 9/11 attack, just as our own 3/11 at Madrid railway station, all innocent victims of the wild fury and insanity of Islamic terror.This seems even more unacceptable in Spain, a Democratic state, where the rights of opinion, expression and religion are guaranteed by the Constitution (Art. 16 and 20), if there is an attempt to limit such rights, let alone through threats and coercion thus weakening their freedom of expression by condemning as “inappropriate” a graphic document
(not a photomontage) which reflects a brutal reality in all its crudeness.Contrarily, the Administrators of Facebook Spain should welcome this public protest advocating that such a barbarian act will never be replicated and that its perpetrators will be brought to justice. This is a right and duty of every citizen: a service to society, ultimate goal, I feel, of any network that defines itself as ‘social’. 

Regrettably, if the murders continue, this is greatly because truth is always hidden to the sovereign people, so that they may not be aware and ‘disdained’ by it: complicit silence by the mainstream media leads to the indifference of the
international political community facing this unspeakable Holocaust! Let alone the cowardice already rooted in the western world facing the Islamic terror. A consequence of the stupid “Alliance of civilizations”: another regrettable incident of our former Prime Minister Rodriguez Zapatero. 

Can you imagine the reaction of the Islamic terrorist organization in the (impossible) case of a massacre of Muslims in a mosque, by the hands of Christian terrorists? And how widely would our media cover and condemn the crime and the criminals??

Therefore, from this modest blog, I ask a favor from all people who are reading me: please distribute this photo and its comments using all the media you have. If only for commemorating these martyrs since, unfortunately, Facebook seems to be on the side of the executioners by preventing the publication of such tragic events.

FROM: Juan Carlos Martos cmf Segretariato di PVMissionari ClarettianiVia Sacro Cuore à Maria-500197-Rome