Skip to content

From the Pen of David Horowitz: October 18, 2009

October 18, 2009

david_p

Sarah explained her involvement in social causes this way: “When I was growing up my father was a devout Marxist. My mother volunteered in the schools and noticed that many of the children were coming to school hungry, so my father helped the Black Panther Party with its free school breakfast programs. Later, my father was embittered by the many murders justified by Marxist ideology. This left me with a two-fold legacy. I have always felt driven to pursue justice, but am wary of ideology and partisan politics.”

Sarah then described the spiritual dimension of her commitments to social causes: “While I became very good at arguing against the death penalty from a practical point of view, I realized that there was a deeper, spiritual foundation for my opposition. I realized that what I really wanted to say is that it’s bad for the soul of the nation. And there’s no real traditional political language for that — the collective soul. At some point, I read an amazing sermon by Martin Luther King, which he wrote right after the Montgomery bus boycott. Basically he said don’t get on the bus full of braggadocio, because you still have to live with these people. And I kind of realized that that was the sort of political action that I wanted to be a part of. I wanted to recognize the dignity of living. I started exploring synagogues, and then I was very lucky to connect with Rabbi Alan Lew who articulated a Jewish vision of social justice that resonated deeply with me.”

Sarah was aware of the problems inherent in attempts to apply religious ambitions to social changes, and was cautious about that too. “A lot of what is going on now in our country around combining religion and politics is actually very dangerous,” she wrote. “Religion is not about ‘God wants you to vote for the Green Party.’ In my mind, it’s more about the way in which you fight the battle.”

A Cracking of the Heart

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Gmail.com. Please include:

  1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
  2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
  3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
  4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)
Advertisements
32 Comments
  1. The Grubb permalink
    October 18, 2009 2:46 am

    QUOTE: “Religion is not about ‘God wants you to vote for the Green Party.’ In my mind, it’s more about the way in which you fight the battle.”

    I couldn’t agree more.

    Time and time again, I’ve seen people use religion as on excuse for their behavior. As a matter of fact, I have to testify in court on Monday against a man who used Jesus as an excuse to beat his wife.

    “I’m a good person!” he told me, “God knows my heart, he knows I’m a good person.”

    …Good people don’t beat their wives.

    People like this guy are the reason I turned my back on religion. However, I don’t think religion is a bad thing.

    Religion is a powerful idea. I’ve seen it drive people into impressive acts of kindness the likes of which I doubt I could even imitate, but I’ve also seen it drive people to commit atrocities that sicken me to the core.

    To be honest, even though I’ve found myself posting on his blog, I don’t know a whole lot about David Horowitz. I know that he and I disagree on some key issues, but if this truly is the kind of spirituality that guides him and not just a bunch of fluffy words, then journalism on all sides of the fence could use a lot more people like him; People who use faith as a guide, and not as an excuse.

    • October 18, 2009 4:10 am

      The Grubb: You are a mixed up kiddy, giving up religion [I suppose you mean religious practice or church attendance] whilst still admiring the effects that faith may have in the wicked world. I just hope you don’t get splinters sitting on the fence too long. And by the way, what is this battle you and Sarah refer to? And what social change to you want to see?

      • The Grubb permalink
        October 18, 2009 11:08 am

        I would disagree. I don’t think I’m mixed up just because I choose not to take sides when in comes to religion. My atheism comes from more than a simple disillusionment with the wicked I see steaming from religion. After all, I see plenty of good coming from it to, unlike a lot of my “fellow atheists.” I simply don’t believe in any “higher being” or anything supernatural, and I don’t believe that I need such a thing in my life to set my moral compass.

        As for social change, well, there are lots of things I’d like to see change. I suppose what was on my mind when I wrote that is how a lot of people use religion as a vehicle to spread ignorance and intolerance.

        The part where she writes, “Religion is not about ‘God wants you to vote for the Green Party.’ In my mind, it’s more about the way in which you fight the battle.” appeals to me, because I know people who have literally said “God wants you to vote for the Republican Party!” exactly like that. Which, to me, is a very ignorant and arrogant thing to say.

        Hearing someone from a conservative background say something like “Religion is not about ‘God wants you to vote for the Green Party.’” is VERY refreshing to me.

        I don’t assume to speak for Sarah, but “The Battle” that I think she’s talking about is the struggle for social change. I think that it’s very important to that have opposing views, I think that arguing and bickering about the right course of action is extremely important.

        Often, I see people, especially on the right, who try to “win” the battle by saying “God is on our side!” Which in my opinion is very ignorant, because who the hell are these people (on both sides of the fence) to claim they know what God wants? Sadly, there are people who will come to any cause that a person claims to be “God’s Cause,” and they’ll do so without thinking rationally about it first.

        My most profound experience with this comes from a church I started going to over a decade ago, before I considered myself an Atheist. The people at this church where some of the kindest and most caring people I’ve ever met, and I highly respected the pastors.

        Then, to make a long story short, September 11th happened. And suddenly, this church that used to be full of warm, respectable people, became full of ignorant, hateful people. The same people I used to respect for their actions in the community suddenly became extremely anti-Muslim.

        I recall listening to the head pastor, the man there I respected the most, give a speech about how “Muslims are evil because they worship cows and bathe in cow urine!” and literally said; “It’s our job as true Christians to stop these “Sand Ni–ers” by any means necessary.” It was the most hateful and ignorant thing I’ve ever heard. He obviously didn’t know even know the difference between Muslim and Hindu beliefs. And seriously, he said “Sand Ni–ers” which to this day is probably the single most hateful term I’ve ever heard.

        The scariest part about all this is that almost everybody in this church agreed with him! These otherwise kind and friendly folk. People I once considered among humanities’ finest, had become nothing more than ignorant hate-mongers, all because somebody told them “God wants you to hate Muslims.”

        Again, I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong with religion. It’s clear to me that religion and spiritual beliefs help a lot of people focus and find direction in their lives. I think that people who use their beliefs as an excuse to do good in their communities should be congratulated and rewarded. At the same time, blind and irrational faith in a supreme being is a dangerous thing, because it becomes far to easy to manipulate people by simply telling them that “God wants you to do this!” That is the kind of thinking I want to see changed.

        “Companions the Creator seeks, not corpses, not herds of believers.
        Fellow Creators the Creator seeks, those who write new values on new tablets.
        Companions the Creator seeks, and harvesters! For everything about him is ripe for the harvest.” -Thus Spoke Zarathustra

        • betty boop permalink
          October 18, 2009 7:01 pm

          First, I’m not an atheist, as The Grubb claims to be. I’ve been fortunate enough to have had some enormous miracles in my life that have led me to be at least an enthusiastic agnostic. But I’m entirely with the Grubb in that my long and varied life has taken me away from any organized church, although I’ve found practitioners in various faiths who’ve inspired me greatly.

          My Methodist pastor drove from that congregation in 1994 when he was shocked to find that my two children came from a loving home with two parents and the SAME FATHER (Wow!!). I took them to his church every Sunday while my husband took his two older kids to the Catholic church… every Sunday. Apparently my two Irish twin girls had caused a scandal! When I returned after the transfer of that gossipy biddy, the next guy in line wore bows of every color on his lapels each Sunday to harangue a mostly retired congregation for not contributing enough to his favorite liberal causes. I haven’t been to another Methodist Church, and won’t, although I’ll listen to a nice well written sermon in other churches.

          Since I, like David Horowitz, came from lefty origins (a family of teachers), I started out with leftist and feminist leanings. I saw early on that the Pro-Life Movement was being run by the Lesbian fringe. The Gay rights Movement (at least back then) was run by angry promiscuous men with no values whatsoever… (at least that group seems to have found it’s bearings), the Women’s Rights Movement was run by angry middle aged (and older) strident monsters. It seemed then, and now that all radical groups, in the end, are taken over by… who else? the most radical! Sarah must have had wisdom beyond her years, and I look forward to reading more about her.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 18, 2009 5:29 am

      The Grubb
      You said it yourself he used religion as an excuse not what it is really intended for if it is real. He is also using it to try and make himself feel better and mitigate his actions. Every man that I have ever seen that beat women are cowards.

      • David Thomson permalink
        October 18, 2009 5:37 am

        “Every man that I have ever seen that beat women are cowards.”

        I agree with everything you say—but are you aware that perhaps even more men are beaten by women? The irony is that our politically correct culture virtually ignores this problem.

        • The Grubb permalink
          October 18, 2009 11:18 am

          Really?

          I’ve never met a man who was nearly pummeled to death by his wife. I’m sure it happens, but I think it’s apparent that it’s a lot more common for the husband to beat his wife. Also, in my personal belief structure, the idea of wife beating is particularly heinous. Not that I think anyone should be beaten and abused, but wife beating lays completely anathema to everything I believe about love.

        • October 18, 2009 12:13 pm

          Dave, do you collect a paycheck for being the poster child for Conservative Values Gone Bad?

          While it is not unknown for a woman to beat a weak or smaller husband in the way that a man beats his wife it is so rare that it hardly deserves to be spoken of in the same breath as domestic violence towards women.

          Are you so addicted to the concept of zero-sum that you HAVE to “win” on any point no matter how trivial?

          Instead of trying to play like men are a “victim” in need of rescuing why not just observe that ANYONE who beats a person who is smaller or under their control is a coward and leave it at that? Why the need to divert the topic to a “Men’s Right’s” whine?

          • theblanque permalink
            October 18, 2009 1:40 pm

            While it is not unknown for a woman to beat a weak or smaller husband in the way that a man beats his wife it is so rare that it hardly deserves to be spoken of in the same breath as domestic violence towards women.

            You are wrong, and Dave is right: women are the aggressors in cases of domestic violence at roughly equal parity to men.

            REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:
            AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

    • October 18, 2009 6:09 am

      The spirituality is not David Horowitz’s but his late daughter Sarah’s. (However he’s certainly been influenced by her spirituality.)

  2. Jack Hampton permalink
    October 18, 2009 5:31 am

    I support the death penalty when it is with out doubt in regard to the guilt of a killer. It is also easier now to determine guilt with DNA and to exonnerate as well.

  3. October 18, 2009 6:08 am

    The poor will always be among us, whether it be financial, spiritual.
    Looking towards God is not political, although man is extremely guilty of
    making it “look” so. We are corrupt, and a few fight this carnal corruption
    while many walk the wide path of good intentions.
    Man is like water, always taking the path of least resistance.
    So there you have it, a shiny bauble many chase after.

  4. jjay permalink
    October 18, 2009 7:12 am

    “Man is like water, always taking the path of least resistance.” is way too easy a metaphor.

    If one thinks in this ‘either / or’ style, then history is of little help for learning. People like Martin Luther King, Jr did not take “the path of least resistance” and there of course are too many others to mention who are models for all of us in reaching for a better life for all.

    “the battle” as Mikidiki refers to it is I believe, that gray area where supposed ‘religious’ individuals claim they are acting for their god or “God” by murdering someone like an abortion doctor or using their faith, religion or moral imperative to justify outrageous acts of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians (as in Iraq) to depose an obvious dictator whom we supplied with WMDs to use against other human beings we did not like at the time.

    It’s difficult to argue against this sort of inhumanity or a death penalty unless one believes that all life is sacred and that we as humans should be the first to recognize this. That would indicate that we do all we can to preserve life since we who recognize that there is a Higher Power, know this life originates through or from that Power, “God” or whatever our culture has named it.

    We also have no way of knowing from who or where the next inspiration may come, except that it comes from something or someone who has life. So, it is not ours to destroy, even if that life has chosen incorrectly to destroy another. We may restrain it ( prison ) or attempt to reform it, but taking it away is not ours to decide. That would be the domain of the One who gives it in the first place. Otherwise, we set ourselves on the same level as the one(s) who took a life or lives in the first place.

    • LucyQ permalink
      October 18, 2009 9:54 am

      Where do you stand on self-defense?

    • Cas Balicki permalink
      October 18, 2009 10:04 am

      What a confused farrago of an argument; jjay you move from abortion doctors to Iraq without stopping to consider the other side of the issue you pretend to understand. According to you, the good guys, that would be the U.S. Military, are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths for no other reason than they are blood thirsty automatons looking for the next kill. Let me remind you that Iraq was no paradise under Saddam Hussein. During his reign around one million Iraqis were killed by this beast. Had you argued that the Iraqis killed by Saddam did not justify American intervention you would have been more credible. As it is you present as a confused lefty arguing the sanctity of some life but not all life while claiming the sanctity of all life as your mantle.

      Let me make myself perfectly clear, Christianity allows for two responses to great evil or injustice and only one of them is to turn the other cheek. So don’t you dare imply that God expects only a pacifist response. What really bothers me about the pacifist views you espouse, jjay, is that they are formed in a protected environment whose protections you do not acknowledge even in passing. The first line of protection in this environment is the military, the second is police power, and the third is the law, which would have no effect if not for the first and second lines of protection. You and I live in an armed society, jjay, and without the armies of non-pacifists that protect us we would not be able to live peacefully.

      When I read pacifists arguments they always run along lines of personal peace. The assumption being that if everyone were at peace there would be no need for drastic measures. Do you not see the solipsist nature of this argument? Do you not see that your personal peace is only an excuse for inaction? With the possible exception of lighting up your bong, what have you done to make peace more universal? My guess is not much. Yet you have the temerity to cast aspersions against an organization that has freed more people worldwide, the U.S. Military, because they broke some heads doing what needed to be done.

      • jjay permalink
        October 18, 2009 8:16 pm

        Thanks Cas for taking the time to ‘review’ my thoughts. As you obviously already know, “stopping to consider the other side of the issue you pretend to understand” is something you do quite well. Should we say perfectly?

        When I wrote of individuals taking responsibility for their own actions, it seemed pretty clear to me that I was referring to those who use God as their excuse for individually taking another life or for using the power over others ( be it military, a church, or whatever ) to order others to take lives away from others. From this statement, “According to you, the good guys, that would be the U.S. Military, are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths for no other reason than they are blood thirsty automatons looking for the next kill.” you obviously feel all military are “the good guys”. If we want “a confused farrago of an argument”, we need look no further.

        There is no way you will convince any rational being that all persons in the military or in any group are all “the good guys”. THAT is the kind of illogical generality that loses your audience immediately. To state that I was making that kind of jump in logic shows some very shallow reading and less than genuine motives on your part.

        I doubt too that you would have to “remind” any student of history, politics or the last fifty years of U.S. international relations that Saddam was a dictator and did some horrendous things to many – with the support of our government – Republican and Democrat. But since you seem to be in a dictatorial ‘teacher’ mode – meaning, whatever you say is right and “So don’t you dare” contradict me. THAT’S REALLY looking a both sides of an issue – as if there were only two sides to ANY issue !

        My apologies for appearing to be “a confused lefty” or not being clear enough, but I was not “arguing the sanctity of some life but not all life “. I was saying if one believes in the sanctity of all life, then one cannot use God as an excuse to eliminate one life or thousands on any basis.

        Someone raised the question of defense, which is a good one. We typically are taught the “eye for an eye” ( O.T. ) scriptural response in this case which is often interpreted to mean ‘use any force necessary’. This is the ‘Wild West’ response that always ends with the ‘good guy’ winning promising us that the most force is the best choice.

        There are other cultures that teach different ways of defense that protect by deflecting aggression as in Akido for physical action. These can be very effective at disarming and discouraging further invasion when learned well, which means good teachers, study and practice. Obviously, this is not a priority for most in our culture. Winning means not just defeat of the other, but destruction of the other for many in our culture.

        I would like you to make yourself perfectly clear and describe the second response to “great evil or injustice”. As you say, “Christianity allows for two responses … and only one of them is to turn the other cheek.” Christianity is one thing. However, the teachings of Christ are quite another. I assume you know the history of ‘the church’ on that score. I do not recall in my four years of theological study a teaching of his that allowed for taking another life as one’s choice to make.

        “What really bothers me about the pacifist views you espouse, jjay, is that they are formed in a protected environment whose protections you do not acknowledge even in passing.” This is bothersome to me as well, because you have made an assumption you have no right to make. You have no concept of how my “pacifist views” were formed, in what environment, and that I also have some obligation to “acknowledge” them “even in passing” to you.

        I have to disagree with you also on “The first line of protection in this environment”. Our first line of protection in this society is the individual. Most of us can and do live together peacefully. We work out disagreements. “the military” does not need to be called in to keep the peace. Neither does your “the second … police power”. They all certainly do an enormous job which most of us do not and will not take on. That is a huge statement of how valuable their pledge to our safety is or should be to those who do not recognize their sacrifice. I would say that your “third … the law” is actually the second line of protection, for without the law, the police cannot do their job, because they would not know what they could or could not do. We disagree on this and I do not expect to convince you, but that’s okay. It’s semantics for the most part.

        I agree, “You and I live in an armed society,” but it is not the weapons and military that makes the peace. They can only create chaos in order to get the people out of the streets and into hiding. That is not peace. That is acquiescence. It is the willingness of you and I to live together with our differences that creates peace.

        One thing you can perhaps explain is how you can generalize so innocently by stating “When I read pacifists arguments they always run along lines of personal peace. The assumption being that if everyone were at peace there would be no need for drastic measures.” How you can make this an introduction to solipsism is a leap perhaps only you know, but I’d like to hear more on that one. No, really, I would. I plead ignorance.

        The other conspicuous generality you slip in with all too much ease and comfort of self assurance is “Do you not see that your personal peace is only an excuse for inaction? With the possible exception of lighting up your bong, what have you done to make peace more universal? My guess is not much.”

        YOU ARE RIGHT about at least one thing. You ARE guessing and that’s the nail in the coffin of your ‘argument’, if one can even call it that. You have slipped into the ease of condemning one with whom you disagree on the basis of guesses, generalities based on who knows what and bias instead of a genuine interest in dialogue.

        You would know nothing of my “temerity” and I would challenge you to check out the numbers the U.S. government has killed, poisoned, maimed, displaced, or imprisoned and convinced that we are their enemies because we have done one of those things to one or more of their family members, their neighbors, their friends or their patriots. We have done this through not only our young and able military, but through our corporations, banks and policies that put only the U.S. first regardless of the damage done to others, simply because they are in our way of “progress” and what we want. Measure that against those you say we have “freed” and you will begin to see that we have much to learn about what it means to “win” in this world. That there are many other choices before those mentioned above that we have just begun to explore and accept that they do work more often than not. They do take time, but in the long run, make less enemies and create less conflict.

        I know and you hopefully know there will always be some who cannot be pleased by the actions of the majority. There will be terrorists. They have to be dealt with in a much different way than attacking and destroying a whole culture or system of governing, simply because we do not like a short term leader. We have much to do to get to that understanding and way of dealing with each other.

        Thanks again and I hope you find your peace.

        • LucyQ permalink
          October 18, 2009 9:08 pm

          Sorry for my obvious ignorance and short attention span but where are you on the issue of self-defense? I agree with you that it’s a good question.

          • jjay permalink
            October 19, 2009 12:56 pm

            Thanks for asking again Lucy. This is the answer I gave above:

            Someone raised the question of defense, which is a good one. We typically are taught the “eye for an eye” ( O.T. ) scriptural response in this case which is often interpreted to mean ‘use any force necessary’. This is the ‘Wild West’ response that always ends with the ‘good guy’ winning promising us that the most force is the best choice.

            There are other cultures that teach different ways of defense that protect by deflecting aggression as in Akido for physical action. These can be very effective at disarming and discouraging further invasion when learned well, which means good teachers, study and practice. Obviously, this is not a priority for most in our culture. Winning means not just defeat of the other, but destruction of the other for many in our culture.

            Even Gandhi believed one should be willing to defend him or herself. How one does it is the key. Using the “eye for an eye” or deciding on one’s own that killing the attacker is the only possible answer is primitive and decidedly one sided. There’s the story of a husband whose wife became mentally unstable and he had to learn to deal with that if she got off her medicine for one reason or another. She was not a bad person, but she did become difficult to control or direct when off her meds. At one point the husband found her with a kitchen knife going for one of the children’s bedrooms while they slept. He knew her and the situation so he carefully and cautiously restrained her until he could get help. Had someone who did not know her been attacked by her with that knife, they might have had a very different reaction than her husband and hurt or even killed her.

            We do not know the stories of all ‘criminals’ or those who break the law and norms, so it is important for us to tread cautiously with our reactions. Not to say we don’t defend ourselves, but to do so in ways that minimize danger to any or all involved. We are not taught these methods and techniques as a part of growing up. Rather we are taught to fight back, meaning hurt the other kid worse than s/he hurt you.

            There are self defense methods like Akido that are taught in cultures we do not fully recognize as equal to ours. They in fact, are miles ahead of us in some survival techniques. It is up to us to become more fluent in these methods in order to make them accessible to our children as they grown and learn to live successfully. That is, without taking advantage of others in order to gain more for one’s self.

            Thanks again. I would like to hear your thoughts.

            • LucyQ permalink
              October 19, 2009 9:10 pm

              JJ, I know that’s the answer you gave above but I’m not asking you about what our culture does about self-defense or someone’s sick spouse or Ghandi. I’m asking you specifically where you stand on self-defense. I don’t think it’s a tough question by any stretch of the imagination.

              I’m asking you this specific question because in your post, you seem to think or assume that all humans are equally gifted or equally not gifted….that is what I get from reading your post, perhaps wrongly, maybe not.

    • Kenneth Hall permalink
      October 20, 2009 12:15 am

      You Equate Killing in a war such as in Iraq, with the killing done by Saddam Husain before we got in Iraq? The killing of Convicted Murderers, Rapist, Serial Killers, Terrorists or enemies in war as equally unjust? Or the instance of the killing of the Abortion Doctor (a Mass murderer Who stuck scissors in the back or Babies Skulls as they where Being born and sucked their brains out with a vacuum tube), as being the same level of injustice as the Doctors killing of 1,000 of babies?

      You are a large part of the reason people like the man who killed the Abortion doctor do it! If you ever wondered how the Germans stood by and let 6,000,000 Jews be murdered by Hitler you are the answer!

      OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND! Simple minded people who don’t think things through! What would happen to anyone who did that to Dogs, Cats, Seals, Polar Bears? Be honest with yourself if you can!
      They’d be in prison wouldn’t they? No B.S. it’s not a person yet because because it’s not aware of what is happening, or it doesn’t have a concept of Tomorrow! Does A Dog, Cat, Seal? Has it told you so?
      HYPOCRISY ISN’T LIMITED TO CHURCH GOERS IS IT?

      The man who killed the Abortion doctor did so to stop the murder of innocent babies and most likely did save a few for a while! Should we all go kill an abortion doctor? It’s not or responsibility as an individual it’s our responsibility as a society! Are both of these men equal in their corruption injustice? Get real!
      One killed babies for money, one killed another man to stop the madness because He lost faith in society and couldn’t stand by and do nothing any longer!
      So don’t gripe when you see people stand by and do nothing when people are being robbed, killed, raped or beaten in the street! (UNLESS IT’S A WOMEN OF COURSE THEN SOMEBODIES GOT TO DO SOMETHING)
      Is He a monster, or foolish? He sacrificed his freedom for what? Who will learn anything from His actions? Shallow people will only see the fact that both men killed! I can’t judge Him I will leave it to God to do so!
      IT IS THE GOVERNMENT WHOM GOD HAS ORDAINED TO EXECUTE HIS JUSTICE! We are the government but we elect others to enforce the laws we establish! We as a people are and will be held accountable for our Injustice! To kill one doctor will not solve the problem because we are the problem! We have become a fast food culture in every way demanding immediate gratification at any cost!
      How are we different than those who threw their first born into the fire to Moloch to show their devotion so life would be good for the rest of them?
      We sacrifice our children at the alter of freedom to party, or convenience, or what ever we want more don’t we?
      We who are so enlightened who forgot our social security system was designed for an ever expanding population to spread the cost of the retired over an expanding work force!
      The 60,000,000 babies we’ve aborted and their kids (tax payers) would be handy about now wouldn’t it?

      We are to self centered and short sighted to foresee the end result of our selfishness and sin!
      Maybe that’s why the the bible says the fear (respect) for God is the beginning of wisdom! Because He presses us to look at everything from an ETERNAL perspective IF WE WILL LISTEN TO HIM!

      SO should I stand their and watch someone murder and rape my daughter and wife and tell them how much I love them but I don’t want to be like the perpetrator and kill Him? Then I would be as bad as Him right?
      I’m sure they would be so proud that their father didn’t stoop to His level right?

      Only silly imbalanced people equate all killing as murder or equal!
      The secret to truth is balance or as Meogyson says the secret to life is balance!

      Just as the bible says
      Ecclesiastes 3
      1. To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
      2. A time to be born , and a time to die ; a time to plant , and a time to pluck up that which is planted ;
      3. A time to kill , and a time to heal ; a time to break down , and a time to build up ;
      4. A time to weep , and a time to laugh ; a time to mourn , and a time to dance ;
      5. A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together ; a time to embrace , and a time to refrain from embracing ;
      6. A time to get , and a time to lose ; a time to keep , and a time to cast away ;
      7. A time to rend , and a time to sew ; a time to keep silence , and a time to speak ;
      8. A time to love , and a time to hate ; a time of war, and a time of peace.

      Those who Love will be forced to hate when everything they love is threatened by evil!
      Those who are peaceful by nature will be forced to fight when evil men are determined to destroy the peace of the meek!
      Those who value life will be forced to kill when evil men are determined to destroy the lives of everyone else or take away their ability to follow their conscience in obeying God!

      Or do you Believe our founding fathers were nothing more than murders?

  5. losing my liberal vibe permalink
    October 18, 2009 8:58 am

    This is an absolutely beautiful explanation by the late Sarah.It touched something in me this morning. How rational & how clear.

    • October 18, 2009 9:00 am

      If you liked this quote you’ll love the book it’s from. The entire book is like this:
      http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Heart-David-Horowitz/dp/1596981032/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255821890&sr=8-1

      • betty boop permalink
        October 19, 2009 3:44 am

        David, the book sounds wonderful and I intend to look it up. I’m very glad you are helping to publicize it.

        Sadly, your blog seems to attract all sorts of religious fanatics looking to beat their drums louder than the last. (Or perhaps they all do… re: my previous remarks). How can you stand it?

        • October 19, 2009 6:28 am

          “How can you stand it?”

          I used to be a religious fanatic myself and know that it’s possible to transcend it. Such religious fervor is a necessary step on the road to the kind of mystical faith that Sarah had and that I advocate.

          • betty boop permalink
            October 19, 2009 6:50 am

            Good for you. Obviously, this is your blog, and you certainly have proven your intellectual chops, and I have the utmost respect for your opinions. I’ll try not to let another radical fringe drive me from yet another cause.

            • October 19, 2009 6:55 am

              Thank you Betty. That means a lot to me.

              There will always be a radical fringe to every cause. The trick is learning how to deal with it.

  6. October 18, 2009 9:55 am

    Religion is ALL about religion. We, in our feebleness to pull God down to our humanistic level, try to wrap Him up in tradition and ritual, philosophy and ideology. God in His infinite wisdom, mercy and grace simply wants us to see our sin, our weakness and need and our separation from Him. God isn’t in the religions we so easily erect as compensation for the spiritual void in our lives. He is in His son Jesus who died upon a cross as a sacrifice for our sin. If we chose to accept Christ’s payment then Christ’s spirit, the Holy Spirit, dwells in us and only then can we apply God’s principles to our social needs. Just like our founding fathers did.

    It isn’t about “the problems inherent in attempts to apply religious ambitions to social changes” it IS about the problems inherent in attempting to separate God’s will, God’s truth and God’s principle from our attempts to change society.

  7. Ken Kelley permalink
    October 18, 2009 11:38 am

    Discord is a prelude to sedition. That is to manipulate others in order to get your way. It leads to hard feelings, creates distance, breaks down communication and results in estrangement. Galations 5:16-20 “Watch and Pray.” The Bible says to keep from falling into temptation guard yourself, your family and your church from falling into temptation of sedition by recognizing and standing against it, before it ignites a bonfire of hatred.

    St. Paul indicated of all the evil works: Idolatry, hatred (sedition,) adultery, fornication, murder, and envy; sedition was most destructive. This is true to families, teams, churches and businesses: Undermining of constituted authority with the attempt to overthrow it. In America, sedition is treason. It is punishable by death. A traitor is someone engaged in sedition.

    Today the radical left is taken with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, that points to Lucifer. The Bible relates that there were three Arch Angels in Heaven: Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer. Lucifer was lifted up with pride and wanted to take the place of God, and he became seditious. God threw him out of Heaven with the Angels that followed him.

    If Satan, as a response, could destroy God’s word and remove it from the lives of Adam and Eve, he could destroy their relationship with God. God’s Word gives us authority to be God’s People. If Satan could be able to undermine authority of God in the lives of Adam and Eve, the authority of God’s Leadership can be overthrown. Sedition is, therefore, basic to human nature. To do Lucifer’s bidding, he promises to please and serve but only desires to enslave and dominate. He uses personality and pleasantness as his standard operating procedure. He comes to us as an angel of light and presents evil temptations as opportunities of good. Sedition is evil, carnal, and diabolical. Watch and pray to keep from falling into the temptation of sedition by recognizing it and standing against it, before it becomes a bonfire of hatred.

    I believe that I have a relationship with Jesus Christ and am not religious.

    • October 18, 2009 12:19 pm

      Ken writes:
      Paul indicated of all the evil works: Idolatry, hatred (sedition,) adultery, fornication, murder, and envy; sedition was most destructive. This is true to families, teams, churches and businesses: Undermining of constituted authority with the attempt to overthrow it. In America, sedition is treason. It is punishable by death. A traitor is someone engaged in sedition.

      I guess that makes the American Revolution more sinful than murder. Sad to see another “Christian” seduced by Paul’s political church away from the actual teachings of Jesus.

      I am sure Paul was more interested in sedition directed at him than at Rome. In fact his own tales prove him to have been just that.

  8. Ken Kelley permalink
    October 18, 2009 12:57 pm

    There is a price to pay for the freedoms we seek from tyranny.

    America was formed during the turbulent era of two centuries, ago, when revolution, renaissance, enlightenment and science was given a privileged position. The field of art history was established during the turbulent era, also. It was given a charter to enable some causes and a charter for disabling others, also. They could anoint, ignore or render unworthy. This helped to turn things on its head: God living up to our standards.

    In David McCullough’s book, John Adams, Adams saw the Constitution as the best means possible “to cement all America in affection and interest as a nation.” He felt that our constitution is perfect. Cicero had declared that a three part system worked best with checks & balances that provides justice, liberty, truth and all that is good & honorable.

    Adams immediately found that the newspapers sided with the President or viciously against him. Lying and deceit were used to destroy all the good. This behavior began with Washington and really went into overdrive with Adams. Jefferson claimed to be “innocent;” however, he often stirred the pot and couldn’t be trusted. He wanted no Navy and cut backs in the Army, as we were now at peace (no protection – sound familiar?) Adams felt that we were, now, one nation. Immediately, the Republic politics had different viewpoints: how can we use and deceive the new republic and how to control the power and make it serve the few while allowing the public little. There was a sense of superiority, supposedly – an elite. Whereas, Washington and Adams were for turning the Americans loose in all their individual creativity excellence without a limits, however, in a responsible way, and let freedom ring!

    Adams believed “Mankind will in time discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots.”

    Washington said that party rancor and a severely partisan press had taken to calling him the American Caesar. Jefferson had a hand in the attacks on the President and the administration. Jefferson worked closely with the editor of the National Gazette newspaper. Jefferson’s fingerprints were there, also.

    Nevertheless, Abigail Adams wrote to her son John Quincy Adams. “The habits of a vigorous mind are formed in contending with difficulties. Great necessities call out great virtues.”

    “The expansion of the field of art history was brought about by the larger leftist politicization of U.S. academia, connected to the civil rights movement, feminism, and other attempts to combine teaching with social justice. The history of the visual studies as a university subject can be linked to the “culture wars” of the 1980s, when there was a great deal being published on the question of the relationship between art and the humanities and mainstream American culture. The profound transformation that has occurred in the culture of the student population over the last twenty years has created favorable conditions for the introduction of a new subject into the curriculum.” (Margaret Dikovitskaya, “Visual Culture, The Study of Visual After The Cultural Turn, Chapter 2, p. 85”)

    With all of the entrenched elements of the left in the media, education and the courts, the new field of Visual Studies is an opportunity to establish a new shift away from the larger leftist politicization. Visual Studies and Visual Culture are similar in that they aim to provide an interdisciplinary platform for students whether they are interested in becoming scientists, anthropologists, sociologists or whatever, because visual observation is crucial to knowledge in science, artistic expression and almost any other field. They are not, now, encumbered with a desire or need for indoctrinations, intimidation and warfare. They arrive at the universities with a technical capacity in imaging and are able to produce and view enormous quantities of images because of the predominance of the electronic media and steady growth, transparent methods, ease of the use of technologies and visual literacy that has produced a sophistication that is unprecedented in any of the years of art history with all its disciplines and trappings that dominate it’s staid field. A lively new dawn has broken the day with visual culture.

  9. Colette permalink
    October 19, 2009 4:43 am

    I am looking forward to reading “A Cracking Of A Heart, written by David in honor of his daughter.
    Sarah’s statement is telling us that she believed religion is not about ‘God wanting you to vote for the Green Party, but more about the way in which you fight the battle…” This shows me that Sarah had a personal relationship with God…..

    Romans 11:33 says this about God’s marvelous, wonderful judgments:

    “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways.”

    He will judge your heart, and your heart will determine the way in which you fight your battle, and who you choose to fight it for.

Comments are closed.