Wednesday, April 15, 2009

MDOD Reader Warning

The Department of Homeland Security evidently has their sights set on our humble enterprise. Here's a juicy little bit from the report...

Rightwing extremism," the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to "those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely."

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.

We seem to have gone, in the space of four months, from being the 'loyal opposition' to 'part of the problem'. Readers beware. Didn't expect to be grouped with Timothy McVeigh by our new government but shit happens. Glad the left is so afraid of guns as it seems that should it come to blows that the following groups will be on my side....

1. Military Veterans
2. Most of the police force
3. Almost the entire military Officer class.
4. A large portion of the enlisted class.
5. A huge majority of Christians
6. Most motorcycle gangs
7. Texans

On the other side will be...

3. Various special interest groups
4. College professors
5. Aspiring 'artists'
6. Trustafarians
7. Those on government welfare or disability
8. Those educated beyond their intelligence

I like our odds.


  1. I can proudly say that I'm a possible terrorist risk(like almost every right winger), I own a gun. So I'm proud to be in the group which includes most of the military.

  2. Disgruntled Internist9:56 PM, April 15, 2009

    "Huge majority of Christians"??? I think NOT. If you actually look at surveys of religion in America (such as Pew) you'll see that Evangelicals comprise less than 30% of the religious landscape and that among those who go to mainline churches 45% are Democrats or lean Democrat, whereas 41% are Republicans or lean Republican.

    You'd be hard pressed to argue that the majority of Christians--much less a "huge" majority--favor the kind of politics you do.

  3. One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter...

  4. and, pray tell, dear 'disgruntled internist', what 'politics i favor'. really curious about this one... see, i favor the kind of politics espoused by our constitution and the declaration of independence, so up until now i thought i was kinda like a mainstream conservative veteran, but evidently i'm a threat for opposing the policies of our current president. used to be with this thing called the first ammendment and government by the people, of the people, and for the people that my kind of dissent was the essence of a functional representative republic. guess not.

    also, being a 'democrat' does not equate to being in favor of socialism and centralized, nanny state government, unless i'm mistaken.

  5. oh, and one more thing, i would like for you to point out to me dear friend, where, in the Bible, abortion is espoused as a 'choice' and not a crime, where it says that life begins at birth, where it says that the group is more important than the individual, and where Jesus espouses socialism. i mean, the way i read it Christ said both 'if a man does not work, neither shall he eat' and also pointed out that it is our duty as believers to give to the poor. just sayin', what kind of Christians are you talking about?

  6. Disgruntled Internists just pissed he picked the absolute worst specialty in all of Medicine...

  7. Disgruntled Internist7:31 AM, April 16, 2009

    You ask what kind of politics I think you favor. From what I can tell, you favor:

    1) Gun ownership, presumably for self-protection and hopefully not for violent revolution. Although Jesus knew nothing of guns, because they hadn't been invented yet, here's what he had to say about killing and "self-defense": "But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also" (Matt 5:39) and "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" (Matt 10:28) and "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill..." (Mark 10:19 and parallels). I think Jesus would be opposed to gun ownership, even in self-defense. Guns for self-defense are actually more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, by the way.

    2. Your posts suggest that you favor the acquisition of wealth, since you are always praising the "free market" and "capitalism" but bemoaning both poor reimbursement and "socialism." What did Jesus have to say about money? "Go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me" (Mark 10:21) and "How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" (Mark 10:23) and "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God" (ibid, v. 25) and "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." (Matt 6:24) and "Sell your possessions and give to charity" (Luke 12:33, in a different context from Mark 10:21).

    3. Your posts suggest you oppose Socialism and Communism. Yet, as the quotes above demonstrate, it's clear that Jesus advocated ridding oneself of all material wealth and sharing it with the poor. "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise" (Luke 12:33).

    It's also clear the early Christian church lived communally (yes, Communism): "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need" (Acts 2:44-45) and "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common" (Acts 4:32).

    By the way, the quote you have erroneously attributed to Jesus--the one about working in order to eat--was by Paul in 2 Thess 3:10, NOT JESUS. Many scholars, however, do not believe Paul to have been the actual author of this epistle. Jesus seems to have placed no such conditions on the recipients of charity at all.

    4. You are against abortion. Jesus had nothing to say about this but I have no doubt he would have been AGAINST it, seeing as how he was an advocate for infants and children and was against violence and killing. The word "abortion," interestingly, appears only once in the bible, the Greek word "ektroma" (Latin "abortivus"), and is used self-depricatingly by Paul in 1 Cor 15:8 as "one untimely born" but the actual word in Greek means "aborted fetus." So the one actual reference to abortion in the bible isn't in the context of prohibiting it. Personally, I think that abortion is immoral, as do you.

    5. In contrast to you, whose posts rail against socialized medicine and universal health care, Jesus healed everyone who came to him to be healed regardless of their ability to pay. He found it exhausting, too, and had to rest afterwards, just as we all do.

    6. I don't know your position on taxes, but if you're one of those TEA baggers who protested yesterday, it's good to know that Jesus favored paying taxes: "'Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?'...'Then give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's.'" (Luke 20:22-25). Furthermore, one of the criticisms leveled against Jesus by his enemies was that he was a friend of tax-collectors: "Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!" (Matt 11:19).

    I think if you'd read the Gospels, you'd see they paint a portrait of a Jesus who was far, far left in his politics, advocating the abolition of personal property, the unconditional delivery of social services to those in need and absolute non-violence. To those who say "America is a Christian nation," I say "Your own actions and beliefs are proof-positive it isn't so."

  8. Disgruntled Internist....

    God...what a judgmental ass you sound like. You are one of the reason I am a pagan.....think I would be forced to swallow my own vomit if I was forced to listen to your sanctimonious rantings every Sunday. And oh pagans have all that naked dancing around the bon fire......that is the other reason LOL

    So in your world Jesus was really nothing but the Great Enabler.....King of the Welfare State? And how dare you question anyone's goodness on here. LIke most conservatives...most of us I am sure, are pretty liberal in our personal lives. Numerous studies have shown that conservatives donate much more of their time and money to charitable causes....that is because we consider it OUR responsibility to help our fellow man NOT a faceless government agency or bureaucrat.

    And I also think the Bible looked down on slavery and stealing...whether by your neighbor or by your there really a difference?

  9. Whew, it seems pissed off authors haven't made the terrorist list. What a relief.

    2. Your posts suggest that you favor the acquisition of wealth, since you are always praising the "free market" and "capitalism" but bemoaning both poor reimbursement and "socialism." What did Jesus have to say about money? "Go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me"Your implication is that Heaven and Government are the same things. They ain't. Not by a long shot. Docs should scream about the crap reimbursements. Money is being taken out of their pockets and disbursed (or kept) by those who didn't earn it. You think that's fair? It's theft, dude, no matter what angle you look at it.

  10. big brother is looking through your windows9:19 AM, April 16, 2009

    Yeah. They're taking aim at you. Is that really what you got out of reading that story? Seriously? What exactly is your position? That war vets and gun owners cannot ever be considered as possible terrorist threats (ridiculous), or that nobody should ever say out loud that they might be suspected as such (ridiculous)?

    Threat assessment is about casting a wide net and appraising risk from all areas, even those that might be unpopular or unconventional. Give them a break, they're doing their job. Your incessant whining and childish reactionary attitude is starting to wear thin. I thought professionals of your level of education are supposed to be good critical thinkers?

  11. (Disc Jockey voice)...This one goes out to all you Prius drivin Etheridge lovin tree huggin baby brain suckin I am a citizen of the world and burn my own shit to power my house numbnuts out there.

    Imagine the outrage, if you will, if a DHS memo had come out, say, during the Bush administration warning about the potential violence from extreme left wing groups in favor of sucking the brains out of fetusus, placing their penises where another man evacuates his bowels, and advocating total state control over every aspect of their lives. Among these groups are Planned Parenthood, ACORN, La Raza and the state of Massapooshits.

  12. By the way, the founders themselves were VERY wary of turning over too much authority to a centralized Federal government, so much so that may delegates refused to attend the Cont. Congress until those fears were addressed and the powers of the PEOPLE on a state and local level were ensured. Look at the Constitution and see what the exact powers of the Fed. govt, (executive,legislative (Article 1 section 8 and 9 spells out exactly what congress can and can't do; I see no wording about the CEO of GM or nobility titles, Chairman Obama), and judicial branches) are and you will see they are very limited in scope and everything else is controlled at the state and local level.

  13. Disgruntled Internist10:39 AM, April 16, 2009

    Jennifer--Maybe I came across as sanctimonious to you, and I admit I was angry when I posted.

    But my post says nothing about my own religious beliefs. It was in reply to 911 Doc's request: "i would like for you to point out to me dear friend, where, in the Bible, abortion is espoused as a 'choice' and not a crime...and where Jesus espouses socialism."

    I had hoped to answer his/her inquiry. I stated my strong belief that Jesus would be against abortion, but acknowledged that the word "abortion" appears only once in the bible and in a completely off-the-wall context. But I agree with 911 Doc here.

    I also showed through many quotations attributed to Jesus himself and about his disciples that they were, in fact, proto-Socialists, if not outright communists.

    He wanted me to show him in the bible--I showed him in the bible.

    As for stealing, the bible is uniformly against it, though Jesus does state that if someone takes your coat, you are to give him your shirt also.

    As for slavery, I wish it were true that the bible opposed it. It didn't. The bible is full of commandments explaining how to treat one's slaves; furthermore, the biblical texts uniformly treat the institution of slavery as a given.

    As to "my world"...the only world I talked about was the world of 1st Century Palestine. I'm not advocating creating some Jesus-directed utopia. This is precisely why we must have separation of church and state. But it's LUDICROUS for the political right to imagine that Jesus would agree with them, particularly in matters of economic policy.

  14. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    I have looked many times to find the words separation, church, or state and they don't seem to be there.

  15. Shrodingers cat--

    Just so you'll know, this is how Thomas Jefferson interpreted the relevant clauses of the 1st amendment in his letter of January 1, 1802 to Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson of the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut:

    "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

    That's where the term "wall of separation between church and state" came from.

    Also interesting is Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by founding father, President John Adams, and approved unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 1797:

    "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (in modern spelling, Mohammedan, meaning Islamic) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

    From these documents I gather that it was never the intention of the founding fathers to base the government on Christianity.

    James Wilk, M.D.

  16. Don't people realize that WITHOUT the concept of God....our documents would be meaningless. What was so radical about our Founders is that they regarded freedom and liberty as being endowed upon us by a Creator...NOT derived from men and/or their institutions. Under God we are BORN free.....government;s ...and a VERY limited government's main function it to protect and preserve what has ALREADY been bestowed upon us.

    While the US was not founded on specific religious sect per was founded strongly on Judeo-Christian ethics.

  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

  18. Thanks to my Intimate Relations with the Allmighty I can assure Y'all he backs 9-11 on all Major Issues of the Day except 1....
    He's an Auburn fan

    Frank Drackman

  19. Dr. Wilk,

    Thanks for the history lesson but I am all to familiar with the documents to cited (as are most 10 graders from private schools where the nations founders are still taught and not condom on the cucumber 101). My only point was refute the knee jerk reaction from most libs who remove the baby Jesus from the town square citing "It's unconstitutional!". Well, it's not, unless there is a note on the baby Jesus citing H.R.8105 ( or whatever number is ascribed to the bill) citing Christianity as the nations religion.

  20. Well, I suppose it's low-hanging fruit (get it?), but at least some of us here have graduated from accredited universities and can manage basic math. Let's briefly address the Disgruntled's initial post:

    "you'll see that Evangelicals comprise less than 30% of the religious landscape and that among those who go to mainline churches 45% are Democrats or lean Democrat, whereas 41% are Republicans or lean Republican."

    I looked at the link and actually presume "entire religious landscape" was an exageration and "Christians" was intended. Avoid, for the moment, whether conservatives are Democrat or Republican. We're being simplistic, here. 30% plus 0.41 X 70% (28.7) = 58.7%.

    Based upon that math, we are informed it is difficult to claim a huge majority of Christians may be Republicans. Well that's a significant majority. Add in conservative Democrats and the proportion of conservatives becomes larger.

    More to the point, I will decide when I choose to give my labor and wealth to somebody. And, let he whom has ever gigglingly used the "TEA bagger" phrase to refer to me or anyone else that is against the expansion of government, first lift the scrotum blocking their view of their counting fingers.

  21. dear disgruntled internist,

    please, oh please, keep posting here. you see, there are some moderate and conservative democrats out there who, up until reading your rant, were of the opinion that hate and judgmentalism were the sole property of us nasty gun toting conservatives 'clinging to our guns and religion'.

    and do go on about Jesus being a proto-socialist or communist. that's certainly news to me and while you are correct that Jesus and his apostles lived in a communal fashion what he actually said about private property was that in order for one to reach the kingdom of God that one had to give away everything to the poor, leave their family, and follow him. this has commonly been understood as an admonition to put God ahead of wordly concerns but i think your idea of us all becoming nomadic communists might have some traction in most religion departments at most universities.

    most people who study the Bible appreciate that it is chock full of parables, songs, history, and these things called 'metaphors', and that 'hyperbole' and a lot of other tricky things involving reading are used and i do unerstand that this can be confusing for someone who simply did a google search and dropped some 'proof texts' as we say, but i really have never heard anyone call Christ a communist before.

    see, communist societies are set up so that the state is, essentially, God, and the Jesus i read about warns against idolatry while at the same time saying 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's etc..." in fact, the Bible, the New Testament in particular, is conspicuously silent on what forms of government are best and is much more concerned with how we, as individuals, behave and believe.

    this is why, dear friend, that whether it be tyranny of the communist variety or tyranny of the fascist state, both are embodiments of evil, the individual is powerless. this is why there are so many in this country, founded on the principle that individuals are born with inalienable rights, those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, who are marching in the streets at what is an overt attempt to put the group ahead of the individual and to change, from the top down, a capitalist country to a socialist one.

    and the 'tea bagging' joke. wow, i almost pissed my pants. the wit, the humor. wow. i really can't hang with that level of wit.

    and you are right about my belief about guns. i believe all law abiding citizens should have access to them.

    you are wrong however about money. my copious rants about physician reimbursement are always tied to the point that our reimbursement is so poor because medicine is no longer in any way based on market forces (the market being without question the most efficient way to distrubute valuables), for if it were, the catalog of ER and EMS abuse would not have 31 entries in four days. physicians like me would not be desperately searching for a way out because our PATIENTS would value our services instead of treating them like a right.

    the people most hurt by EMTALA and it's disastrous consequences are the very people it ostensibly tried to help. give away health care and what do you expect to happen? ambulance ride free? ER visit free? why not take all seven of your kids to 'make sure no one's about to get sick' and get a work note so you can go march in that union sponsored obama event.

    and you, disgruntled internist, perhaps you would be 'gruntled' if you didn't have to see 50 patients a day to break even. perhaps you would be extremely gruntled if you could conceive, for one moment, that with the notable exception of brain injured patients, down's syndrome patients, and MR patients, that just about every citizen and illegal in our great country manages to budget for cell phones, cars, televisions, and tickets to wrestlemania, but since the government passed EMTALA they don't have to budget for health care anymore.

    so doctors are quitting and you are following a big government socialist who came to power promising no tax increases on all but the wealthy, but he lied. he promised an end to the iraq war but he lied. he promised a new day and an instantaneous stop to hostilities but just had three somali teens sniped at long range and he continues the Bush policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. don't get me wrong, i'm glad for these things at least, but it's obama's war now and it's amazing how the msm coverage has changed!! no more babies dying!

    meanwhile north korea and iran are nuking up and even the europeans think obama's economic plans are a disaster waiting to happen. so there's another reason for Americans to be marching in the streets besides trying to keep what they have worked for and build a better life for themselves and their children without having to fund 8 other families who just haven't really tried or who are gaming the system.

    but if you really want to figure out where i stand politically, whip out a copy of the constitution and the declaration of independence and where you differ from me there that's where we disagree.

    glad you don't own a gun, you would be dangerous with one and it might just be annoyed enough with you to jump up out of the droor and shoot you through the temple. it would be a tragic loss for your family and the medical community but WOULD provide the only sensible argument to date for gun control.

  22. Disgruntled Internist,

    You really do have the screwed up weakling sunday school version of Jesus, don't you? Well, all you said is pretty much a corruption, I hate to say it. Further, if you applied your method of interpretation to most of the bible, you'd look silly.

    1. Luke 22:35-38 "And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

    Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

    And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."

    Now, if we applied your version of biblical interpretation, we all should go out and buy a sword(or at least most churches should have a few men that have swords). Now, that interpretation is silly on it's face, yet it is no different than what you did to many of the other quotes.

    How I'd interpret this, is that self defense and arms are perfectly okay(this is further backed up by the story of Jesus and the Centurion(Luke 7: 1-10)). However, it's also quite clear that you shouldn't use it to solve all your problems(Matthew 26:52).

    But I believe that pretty much destroyed point one.

    2. Ah, the story of the rich young man(you're Mark reference). See, if you look in a greater context, you see that the man's sin was never having alot of accumulated wealth, but the fact that he valued that wealth more so than his relationship with god. You're interpretation once again doesn't hold up when you look at the story of Jesus and the Centurion(who was quite wealthy). Jesus never rebuked him for his wealth. In fact, Jesus exclaimed that he had seen no greater faith than that of the wealthy Centurion.

    3. Jesus advocated charity, not socialism. Never once did he expect the state to redistribute the wealth. He expected his wealthy followers to be generous to the poor, such as the case was for the wealthy Centurion(who had built the local synagogue).

    In fact, Socialism would be a violation of the virtue of prudence laid out in the parable of the servants(Matthew 25:14-28) as by entrusting our money into a socialist government, we are not letting that money be put to better work, such as investing(thus employing people in meaningful work).

    4. You're trying to apply a modern meaning to an ancient text. However, you would be right because Jesus was a good Rabbi. In Exodus 21: 22-25, we see what the punishment for a "miscarriage" is. While it is not life for life. At a minimum, it's seen as a civil offense.

    5. Yes, but Jesus did demand a currency from people. That currency was faith. He only healed the repentant and those who his disciples had wronged.

    But I'm sure if 911 could judge if people where truly repentant and could lay on hands, he'd heal everyone he could too. Mainly because the donations would be rolling in for him.

    6. Ah. You are quite correct. Jesus didn't mind the idea of paying taxes to Rome. However, he never said that we had to beg the government FOR higher taxes.

    See, here in the United States, we the people are the sovereign here. Therefore, we can advocate our point of view on any issue as you know. Finally, to leave off a quote from one of my favorite Jurists, Learned Hand,

    "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1934).

    So tax avoidance is fine and dandy with Christianity. Tax evasion isn't. But the Tea Parties weren't about evasion but avoidance. There is nothing sinister about that.

  23. Oh dear doctor. I wouldn't exactly call your enterprise humble.

  24. dear Greta,
    you are too kind. but to date this blog has netted $273.52, so i think it might rightly be called humble.

  25. complete change of heart. my neighbor, a veteran of the iraq war with many deployments under his belt, looked at me funny when i was driving home yesterday. i think he may be a terrorist. and across the street from me is an air force officer who runs hospitals near the fronts... he recently bought a van and it's big enough to pack a bunch of explosives in... hmmm.... heads up!

  26. We should excercise a bit of discernment. I have seen and encountered some military personnel that I would allow nowhere near any son or daughter of mine. Some. Very few. Maybe a half-dozen, in a lifetime around military folks.

    This predates the recently released DHS summary report. An important quote to note is, "...The memos say the FBI's focus on veterans began as far back as December, during the final weeks of the Bush administration, when the bureau's domestic counterterrorism division formed a special joint working group with the Defense Department."

    Was the recent DHS summary poorly worded? Yep. Was it overly broad in the net it cast? Yep. However, there are some very specific examples of young, dumb, guys out there that I am convinced could use some extra attention.

    Just sayin'.

  27. dear cjrun,
    no doubt you are correct, but also correct about any group you could name. to throw it out as an announcement with our commander in chief's approval is a huge slap in the face and probably more sinister. the administrations stated intent is to transform to a socialist system. therefore, folks with a strong independent and patriotic streak are seen as threats. what's more, they have weapons training. as a part of military indoctrination they are well versed in such troublesome documents as the constitution and in such troublesome concepts as the separation of powers, so to Obama, our warriors are a threat. if he actully believes this, and if i am correct in what i hope is a way of the mark right-wing nightmare, then he is even more dangerous than i thought.

  28. If you want to know where this idiot America bashing, Chavez lovin, give Castro a reach around, talking head Obama gets his ideas just read "Rules for Radicals" by his Marxist mentor Saul Alinsky. I did, only to learn the lefts jack-booted tactics. He also was a "community organizer", whatever that is (bussin' the homeless to the polling booth for a pack of camels I guess, and then back to the ACORN(read nut)rally). It is frightening how much of this playbook he and his cronies are pulling out.

  29. I don't know 9-11 some of those Veterans are real Creeps..lets see, there's Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK, Jack Ruby, Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, Steve Mcqueen, Charles Whitman... I'll take a non serving guy like Charlie Manson or Joe Biden any day...

  30. I'm on your side. And I feel safe on this side.

  31. Did you hear about this? But he's a God-fearing person...........and I'm the queen of England.

  32. I love the religious debate comments.
    The best view is from the outside, counting the points.

  33. Disgruntled! Please, please come back. . .

  34. Sorry 9-11 but disgruntled is spot on here. When I read your reply to became very clear from your interpretations that you atually haven't READ much of the Bible have you? I don't blame you, it isn't exactly easy reading. But really, before making clearly uneducated comments, try reading the book.
    As an aside, do you want to know what is the oldest "communistic" system (in the true definition of the word not the bastardized Leninist/Stalinist definition you are refering to)?......The Roman Catholic Church.

  35. dear anonymous,

    as my 8th grade english teacher used to tell me, 'demonstrate, do not assert'. i've read the bible cover to cover about 6 times and am a baptist which might explain our differences right there as i believe Christ lives and is the only way to salvation.

    as to the oldest 'communist system' being the catholic church you are merely arguing semantics so go ahead, the majority of the readers here, i think, understand that when i say 'communist' i am referring to karl marx's philosophy and it's real-world application by such mass murderers as lenin, stalin, and mao.

    i will pray for you.

  36. Well 9-11 you would then be referring to "Marxism".
    I am surprised that someone who states he has "read the bible 6 times cover to cover" doesn't comprehend disgruntled statements with respect to Jesus' "communal" beliefs. But then again I am not surprised when that same someone states "as i believe Christ lives and is the only way to salvation" would be so ideologically rigid in a country that specifically guarantee's freedom of worship whether it be the Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or paganism.
    PS: I am also a vet. Army infantry not a REMF. Please don't place me in your self-anointed categories.

  37. I don't see any way you could call the Roman Catholic Church a "Communist" society either. It's not even true in a Monastery because of the existence of the Abbot/Prior, being the spiritual superior of the other Brothers.

    Let's not even start on the existence of Bishops, Cardinals, and the Pope. A regular Priest doesn't have the same standing as his Bishop.

    No, the Roman Catholic Church's structure is similar to a Monarchy. An elected Monarchy where the power lays in the nobles(Cardinals) when there isn't a Pope.

  38. dear anonymous,

    i'm writing this slowly because i know you can't read fast. again with the semantics? 'marxism', okay, 'marxism' it is. please tell our government to start referring to 'communist china' as 'marxist china'.

    and i never said that Jesus and his followers did not live in a 'communal' fashion, and in that sense that they were 'communists', merely that modern communism, or 'marxism' as you would call it, is the ideological opposite of Christianity for reasons i have explained ad nauseum earlier.

    also note, you dunderheaded hateful 'friend' of 'disgruntled' that while i believe in the Baptist version of Christianity that i don't give a rats ass if you worship a donkeys cock or the devil, as long as you allow me to freely practice my religion then we are 'kosher'.

    and thanks for your service, i'm sorry you are so bitter and hateful, but, as is pointed out here many times, liberals are the most hateful people on the planet, and resort to the ad hominem when challenged. thanks for continuing to prove this point.

  39. Anonymous,

    What you are referring to is called Utopian socialism(as opposed to "Scientific" Socialism). The communes typically devolve into cult-like behavior, have internal discord, or end up wasting their money(and end up in debt). The Icarians are a perfect example of what happens in Utopian Socialism. The Icarians only lasted about fifty years.

  40. Oh, if you didn't know..."Scientific Socialism" is just another name for Marxism and the ideologies that come out of it(such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism).

  41. 911,

    That was corny...even by my standards.

    Though, I've always wanted to explain my pseudonym's origin. It's taken from the Roman Myth of Romulus and Remus. Roman coming from Romulus's name(after all, Rome was named after him) and the fact that within the legend, he and his brother is raised by a wolf. Hence my pseudonym is a reference to that legend.

    But am I Catholic? No. I'm too much of a rogue to be able to really submit myself to any one church. Perhaps I'll mellow with age? Who knows.

  42. i figured on the romulus and remus reference but couldn't for the life of me remember their names. age, yes. age and a decision point that will come, though some manage to avoid the decision to the bitter end, or make the wrong one, rebels to the end.

  43. Anon:

    Yes, 911 is ideologically rigid. To not be would be lying to himself. That doesn't mean he would go around kicking the atheists, jews, muslims (except for the "radical" ones, which, by some poles is 50 percent if you count the ones who wish for sharia law in our fair land)out, it just means he believes what he believes. And he is a smart man. And yes, this country you can mix your Deepak Chopra, Oprah spiritualism humanist stuff, and we will continue to pray for you. The book Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias is a good starting point to see why I believe what I believe. The day someone resurects Carl Sagan and he shows me the God Particle, (you know, the explanation about how the laws of quantum physics and mechanics DON'T break down and time 0-0.000000000000 seconds) then I might change my mind. But as long as Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore and view as people to look up to , I know man is not the end all be all.

  44. I mean POLLS not poles, like Polish people went around talking about the muslims.

  45. But as long as Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore are viewed as people to look up to, I know man is not the end all be all. I am soo tired from working two jobs, I can't even type.

  46. i have stepped in it. anger took over and i stated that i don't care if anonymous worships a part of the donkey's anatomy or the devil. a Christian answer would be that i care immensely about a fellow soul/eternal being, and that since i believe what i have said, that i should do my best to convince readers of the Truth, but i fell for the slapstick putdown. my apologies, and when i said i would pray for you it was not tongue in cheek.

    and to bring it back to one of the original points, a Christian philosophy or Christian informed government (not a theocracy) values individuals as of supreme importance as they are of supreme importance to God and are eternal, the state being temporary. a marxist or communist government values what it perceives as best for the group as the group, or state is eternal and individuals merely cogs in a wheel (and it is exactly here that the Devil is in the details).

    as CS Lewis points out, how gloriously unique have been all the saints, how dastardly similar the tyrants. in fact, it is his view of hell that resonates with me as it is not a fiery pit, but an endless bureacracy bending all to its will.

  47. Matthew 6:24: 'No one can serve two masters, because either he will hate one and love the other, or be loyal to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and riches!'

  48. "A flute with no holes is not a flute and a donut with no holes, is a Danish... Nananananana..... Fafafafafafafa..."
    Tye Webb quoting the Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi

  49. Is this the part where smeagol chimes in to talk about his precious skin zauberflote?

  50. Disgruntled Internist11:16 PM, April 22, 2009

    Look, all I'm saying is that Jesus was a lefty. There is no way you could ever convince me that he'd participate in anything like this:

  51. And look, I'm saying you are wrong, but note what I am not saying... My rebuttal is that Jesus, if he returned today, and we were allowed to ask, Father, what is the best form of human government, that his answers would vindicate both of us a bit, and disappoint both of us a bit. Notice, I am perfectly willing to admit I am wrong when I am argued out of a position logically, and perhaps I have givenshort shrift to the importance of feelings, but feeling are a notoriously easy thing to manipulate these days and I do believe that there is A "right" and "wrong" and a "good" and "evil" though I make no claim to have exclusive knowledge of same, but at some point, even you, kind sir, must realize that if their is a God, and we are his creations, that His law is not "evolving" based on the whim of those it governs.

    As an example I'll throw out gay marriage... It is my believe that God does not sanction gay marriage or gay unions as the Bible speaks forcefully against it, especially in the OT but also in the NT, but I do not believe the sins of homosexuals are somehow worse than mine... We are all broken.

    Still, I do not go parading in the public square to legalize and sanction my mistakes.

    And don't forget, that the Jesus of the Bible did not come, as the Jews thought, to set up God's kingdom on earth, that will be next time, and the other cheek will not be turned, and the thought of Perfect judgement should scare us both silly.

  52. The Kellerman study that claims to "prove" that a firearm in the home is a hazard is unscientific and biased. There are myriad of other studies (from University based researchers and government agencies) that indicate that firearms are not-uncommonly used for self defense and that they are the most effective method of defense available.

    Don't try to use the "if he strikes your cheek, offer him the other" line to invalidate legitimate self defense. That's an exhortation to not posture or take offense to acts of "disrespect" (if this advice were followed, most acts of violence wouldn't occur.) It doesn't read "if anyone stabs you in the abdomen, offer him your chest as well", "if anyone kills your son, offer him your daughter as well", or "if anyone rapes your vagina, offer him your anus as well." There is no reason to think it exhorts complete pacifism in the face of violence.
    Remember, this is the same Jesus who commanded his disciples to acquire swords. When St. Peter lopped off the ear of the servant, Jesus didn't lecture him on the evils of sword possession, he told him to avoid being a hothead, or he'd eventually end up dead (good advice.)

  53. "Rightwing extremism," the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to "those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.""
    Oh, you mean that pesky 10th Amendment thing! Why, how dare we stand up for our Founding Document! It just SO handicaps our tyrannical ruling class, don't you know!