San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, February 20, 2015

What Are Society's Needs?

Last week I posted an article to this blog about the Colorado Legislature attempting to grant a "Parental Bill of Rights" to the people who live in Colorado and happen to be parents.  I took strong exception to that bill primarily because it presupposed that rights are something government has in stock and can dole out at will.  I was not the only person who took exception to the parent's bill.  Daniel Brickley, of Littleton, wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post today in which he expresses his outrage at the "Republican-pushed bill for  Parent's Bill of Rights."  Unlike my opposition to the bill however, Daniel believes that the bill is wrong primarily because it emphasizes individual rights over societal needs.  We need to consider that topic today.
Daniel writes that, "the American tradition has been a balance between individual freedom and society's needs.  But Republicans, abandoning that arrangement, have for years said individual freedoms always trump society's's your money government takes, your child a public school corrupts, your arsenal government covets, your right to buy GMO, your right to protection from the poor, the immigrants, and the homosexuals.  Republicans also promote the notion that society has no standing, no significance.  You and yours come first..."  Do you see the hidden presupposition in Daniels' rant?  Read the quote again if you need to.  Notice what he does.  Daniel creates an imaginary dispute that is allegedly taking place between me, as an individual, and something else he calls "society."  Furthermore, as an individual I apparently have freedom but no needs whereas society, whatever it may be, has no freedom but plenty of needs.  The contrast he creates is between two personal entities with entirely different natures.  It is a small wonder indeed that Daniel finds these two "people" at each other's throats.
Merriam-Webster defines 'society' as, "people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values or the people of a particular country, area, time, etc., thought of especially as an organized community."  I think that is a good definition.  I looked up the term in several other online dictionaries and they all pretty much said the same thing.  I believe it is fair to assert that the definition given for 'society' above is an accurate representation of the way the word is used in today's society.  Notice that in the two definitions for the term given above the word 'people' is used both times.  'People,' as all people acknowledge, is a plural form of person.  People are then, by definition, some amalgam or collection of individual persons.  However, unlike the term 'individual person', to which we can attribute specific personality traits, the term 'society' can only be attributed with a trait insofar as it is shared by all members of that group.
For example, I, being Welsh, have red hair.  Or I used to have red hair before it all either turned grey or fell out.  Having red hair is a personality trait of mine.  I also belong to the Society of Red-headed Welshmen.  All members of my society share the characteristic of having red hair.  Beyond the red hair and our shared Welsh DNA, we often have very little in common.  When I think about me as an individual it is very easy to conceive of what I am.  When I think about the Society of Red-headed Welshmen it is very easy to conceive of what it is. But what am I to make of the concept of society in general?  How am I to determine the characteristics of a group when that group is left undefined and simply referred to as "society?"  How can I ever determine any defining characteristics of a group when that group includes almost everyone?
Daniel tells me that I am selfish and immoral because I believe that my individual freedoms always trump society's needs.  I know what my individual freedoms are.  I have the right to my life, my freedom and my property.  Those rights have been given to me by God and any government or institution which seeks to take them away from me will answer to God for that crime.  But when it comes to "society's needs" I have no clue what Daniel is talking about.  I do not know who or what his society is and I most certainly do not know what that amorphous lump called society needs.  In fact, I do not believe it is possible to describe what society's needs are simply because society consists of too many disparate individuals.
If we are careful to limit a society to a small group of individuals such as the Society of Heterophobic Transvestite Teenagers With Drug Addictions and Porsche's in Their Parent's Garages it is possible to describe the needs for that group.  The SHTTWDAPTPG, as they like to be called, need to be homosexuals.   They also need to have access to their drug of choice.  They also need to be children of parents who buy them Porsches and who own garages.  But what am I to make of Daniel's generic use of the term 'society?'  And most importantly, how am I to determine what the needs of that group are when I have no idea who constitutes the group?
Daniel hates Republicans but Republicans are a society group with needs.  In fact they are a very large society group with very particular needs.  They are also a well known society group since Daniel himself is able to describe many of the characteristics of the group.  He declares that the members of the group known as Republicans are angry when government taxes them and uses that money to buy votes from Democratic voters.  They are also angry when government seeks to take away their weapons or seeks to prevent them from buying and selling amoral products on the open market.  I am not sure about Daniel's next claim but he also believes that the social group known as Republicans clamors for the government to enact laws to "protect" them from poor people and homosexuals.  He does not give any examples of those actual or proposed laws and I certainly can't think of any examples so I think Daniel is stretching the truth a bit here.  I can't think of the last time I heard a member of society ask for the government to make a law forbidding a homosexual from standing within fifty feet of me.  On the other hand I can think of many laws the government has enacted in recent months that prevent the Hitler-like people who smoke from standing within 100 feet of everyone else in the universe.  I conclude from this observation and a rational application of the Daniel principle that smokers are not members of society.   I also conclude that there is therefore no need for more tobacco products in our society.
Beyond my conclusion about the sub-human group of people (who do not constitute a society) known as smokers I don't think it is possible to list the needs of society.  In fact, society, as Daniel uses the term, does not exist.  The society that Daniel describes consists of people who are Democrats, who want the government to tax their neighbors and give the proceeds to them, who want the government to make laws that forbid people from exchanging amoral goods and services and who wants the government to take away the weapons of its citizens.  In addition Daniel's society would make rules giving homosexuals special government privileges while taking away the right of free speech from Christians.  As I consider the nature of Daniel's society one thing becomes very clear.  His society really has only one need.  His society needs to leave the rest of us alone.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Bill O'Reilly Calls For A Crusade Against Islam

Bill O'Reilly, the arrogant and pompous host of "America's highest rated cable news show," has dedicated his nightly program this week to the cause of a new religious crusade against the Muslim hoards in the Middle East.  You read that right.   Bill wants the military forces of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika to declare war upon what he calls the Muslim jihad.  Based upon other comments he has made I think the Muslim jihad would most probably consist of members of Al-Qaeda and ISIS found within Syria, Iraq and Iran.  Bill is mad and he is not going to take it any more.  He wants a modern crusade, complete with SDA bombers, tanks and troops at the front leading the charge and dedicated Chaplains at the rear praying that God would protect "our boys", to go into the Middle East and annihilate the infidel Muslims, wherever they might be found.  Remember the Crusades of the Middle Ages?  Bill wants to return to that era, with a vengeance. 
Despite the fact that he is interviewing "men of faith" and "clergy" and asking them to dedicate this Sunday's services to stumping for the new holy war against infidel Muslims, Bill is really all about politics and the Republican party.   Republicans are the guardians of Amerikan Exceptionalism and nothing they do is ever wrong.  Everyone else is a blithering idiot.  Democrats are idiots.  Libertarians are idiots.  The politically inactive are idiots.  Anyone that does not agree with Bill is clearly an idiot.  As a committed warfare statist Bill is extremely upset that the SDA military is not striking fear into the hearts of peoples around the world.  He has frequently complained that under the reign of King Obama the citizens of the world "no longer fear" the SDA.  He never explains why it is a good or desirable thing for the citizens of the rest of the world to fear the SDA.  I suspect that is because he is a committed imperialist who believes that everything the SDA does in regards to foreign policy is always, by definition, good for the hapless country that is being tyrannized, oppressed or bombed into oblivion by SDA forces.  Bill is frustrated that there has not been a good war in recent years.  You know the kind of war I am writing about.  It is the kind of war where a nightly body count clearly indicates that the enemy is dying in droves.  Video images portray entire cities in flames.  SDA soldiers are seen partying over the corpses of the enemy.   It is not like the kind of wars we have today where nationalist guerrillas pick off SDA soldiers one at a time like sitting ducks.  Bill wants a big war with big casualties so he can claim a big success for the big, bad SDA. 
Bill also loves to criticize King Obama.  No matter what the king does it is always wrong.  Bill believes that King Obama is not being aggressive enough in his foreign policy and he is dramatically illustrating that point by continually replaying the videos of the execution of Christians at the hands of Muslim jihadists.  I suspect the jihadists appreciate the publicity very much.  Bill is acting as if the recent work of the radical Muslims in the Middle East is something new.  Bill seems to believe that up until now it was pretty easy to be a Christian in the Middle East.  In fact, Bill seems to believe that Christians have only recently fallen into persecution and that that persecution only takes place in Middle Eastern countries.  Bill is very wrong, as usual.
In a Wikipedia article on the persecution of Christians around the world, under the section heading "Current situation - 1989 to present," the following assertions are made:  "According to Pope Benedict XVI,  Christians are the most persecuted group in the contemporary world. The Holy See has reported that over 100,000 Christians are violently killed annually because of some relation to their faith. According to the World Evangelical Alliance, over 200 million Christians are denied fundamental human rights solely because of their faith.  Of the 100-200 million Christians under assault, the majority are persecuted in Muslim-dominated nations.  Christians suffer numerically more than any other faith groups or groups without faith in the world. Of the world's three largest religions Christians are the most proportionally persecuted with 80% of all acts of religious discrimination being directed at Christians who only make up 33% of the world's population."  The currently ranked top three countries for the persecution of Christians are North Korea, Somalia and Syria.  Only one of those three is connected to Bill's Muslim jihad.  Christians are also currently being killed by Hindus in India, Communists in China, Muslims in Sudan, Buddhists in Bhutan, Hindus and Buddhists in Sri Lanka, and various nationalist and religious groups in Vietnam, Laos and Thailand.  Christians are also being killed by Communists in Venezuela and FARC in Colombia.  I could go on and on but I will stop with that short list of places where Christians have been getting themselves martyred for decades. 
I have a couple of questions for Bill that I would like for him to answer.  He won't, of course.  Bill does not answer questions.  He asks them and then, before the person being interviewed can respond, answers them himself.  Funny how Bill's positions on everything end up never being challenged.  Bill, you are a little late to the party, why is that?  Where were you over the past thirty years as Christians have been killed by the thousands in North Korea?  Where was your call for a holy war against the persecutors of the Hmong in Vietnam after the Communists took over and we turned tail and ran?  Where was your call for holy war against the Communist rulers in China who have engaged in wholesale executions and imprisonments of the evangelical Christians who have descended from early missionaries who lived there prior to the Red Revolution?  Where was your call for war as the Sudanese Muslims wiped out entire villages of Sudanese Christians over recent years?  Pardon me Bill but I have a hard time believing you are sincere.  I have a hard time believing that you care about the lives of Christians around the world.  I find it much easier to believe that you just want to use foolish Evangelicals in the SDA to promote your cause.  Your holy war is not holy.  Your call for a crusade is nothing more than the conscious less demand of a warmongering man to incite the masses to kill some stinkin foreigners so you can feel better about yourself.
Shame on you Bill.  Shame on you for enlisting the services of Evangelical pastors in this country in the cause of your immoral war.  You need to learn the Christian doctrine of the just war and you need to apply that knowledge to your immoral rants.  The Muslim jihadists, despite your utterly ridiculous protestations to the contrary, pose no threat to the security of the SDA at all.  They are not coming here to get us.  If we departed from their homelands they would soon settle into a state of permanent war with each other, as each warring Muslim faction sought to dominate the other.  Don't try to brainwash us into the belief that we are actually threatened by Muslim jihadists in this land.  We are not and you know it.  Sadly, you have found plenty of Evangelicals who agree with you.  They too believe in the importance of being in a permanent state of war.  They too believe that imperialist expansion is the revealed will of God for our country.  I have a suggestion for you Bill.  If you want a crusade, organize it yourself.  Pay for it yourself.  Lead it yourself.  Keep me and my family out of it.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Serve Or Be Served, The Choice Is Yours

I was driving down to road heading to Dunkin Donuts and bopping to the latest Katy Perry song on my radio yesterday when it hit me.  It was actually a song by Tracey Chapman, which preceded the song by the illustrious Ms. Perry, that got me to thinking about the concept of service.  She was singing a tale of how she wanted to get a good job working in a convenience store in order to be able to help pay the bills of her father and husband/live in boyfriend.  As I considered the lyrics I was thinking that it was mighty noble of her to work so hard to pay the bills of others.  It also occurred to me that the job she wanted was a service job as well.  So as I was standing in line at Dunkin Donuts, salivating at the idea of the upcoming vanilla creme, it occurred to me that service is an idea that needs to be explored in a bit more detail.
Every morning when you get up you have a decision to make.  Are you going to serve others or be served by others today?  The decision that you make in regards to that question will determine the entire pattern of that day's behavior for you.  The decision that you make does not have to be universal in scope.  That is, you can serve others for part of the day and be served by others for another part of the day.  In the Socialist Democracy of Amerika the majority of people make the decision to serve others at least five days a week.  Those are the people who make the rational decision to go to work and serve others via their employment.  Not all people who make the rational decision to go to work actually serve others.  Around 18% of those who make the decision to go to work five days a week are not actually serving anyone.  Those are the people who are employed by the various branches of government.  Of course not everyone goes to work.  Forty percent of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika do not work at all.  Of the sixty percent who do work, eighteen percent of those work in government jobs which serve career politicians exclusively. So if we break down the numbers it looks like this:  50% of SDA citizens work in the private sector for profit seeking companies, thus serving others, 40% of SDA citizens do not work at all and 10% of SDA citizens work for the government, thus serving themselves and career politicians.
You probably take exception to my observation that government employees do not serve anyone but career politicians.  You can think of all sorts of government jobs that serve the public.  The clerk at the local Division of Motor Vehicles office might come to mind.  Or maybe you are thinking about the local building inspector.  Perhaps the agent from OSHA that visited your workplace last week has popped into your mind.  How about the agent from any of the hundreds of governmental regulatory agencies in this over-regulated land?  What about the lady from Homeland Security who harassed you the last time you went to the airport?  How about the cop who pulled you over for doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone?  The simple fact of the matter is that if we actually consider what is done by those who occupy government jobs we realize that the work that they do is in support of the government, not the public.  Everything that takes place in a government job is an outgrowth of some prior law created by a body of career politicians.  Those career politicians make a new law and pass it on to a bevy of bureaucrats to administer.  Everything those bureaucrats do in their jobs is done in service to the new law and the career politicians who created it.  The public, as if this observation has to be made, is not a part of the equation.  Think about this truth the next time you are waiting in line at the DMV.  I think you will see that I am right.
The half of us who go to work and serve others in profit seeking businesses are the ones who support the entire country.  The taxes that are paid by the top fifty percent of the earners from this group of workers fund almost the entire federal budget.  If I do a little math here we can see that 25% of the citizens of the SDA are supporting the entire governmental structure of this socialistic country.  Indeed, that 25% of the citizenry is also paying the entire salary burden of the 10% who work for the government.  I happen to be one of the 25% who make the decision to serve others most days and it irks me no end that my efforts are channeled off to support deadbeats and the government employees who encourage them. 
It used to be the case that kids, as they grew up, realized that they would have to go out and serve others if they did not want to become a "burden upon society," as we used to call it.  Everyone who was of sound mind and body realized that the day would come when he would have to get a job or start a business in service to others.  There was a real excitement involved in going out in the real world and producing things that others would pay for.  There was a real sense of shame associated with anyone who made the decision to freeload off the efforts of others.  Those people were called lazy and exhorted to get off their bums and find some way to serve the other members of society. We all realized that serving others was the means by which we would obtain income and be self sufficient and productive members of society.  Alas, those days are no more.
Today it is considered socially beneficial to be a person who is served by others.  Government exists to make that possible for millions of SDA citizens.  Career politicians rejoice as they create more laws that create more bureaucratic rules that, in turn, create more government dependent citizens.  People who are served by others are told by government representatives that they deserve to be taken care of by others because they are (pick one) discriminated against, handicapped, afflicted with a mental illness, single mothers, illegitimate children, objects of racism, objects of sexism or just not Welsh.  There is no stigma attached to being served by others for your entire life.  Generation after generation in some families have been successful at never doing anything to support themselves, living perpetually on the government dole. 
I long for the good old days when most people saw value in work and service to others.  I rejoice when I see a young man taking initiative in his own life and launching out to find a niche from which he can serve others and derive income to support himself.  I don't rejoice much these days.  I see lots of young men who believe the world owes them a living.  I see lots of people who believe they have been victimized by everyone, including their grandmothers.  I see lots of people who look to government for their sustenance, not realizing that they are the real victims of those government wealth transfer programs. 
I had another depressing thought about the nature of service.  Service is a good thing and everyone should arise each day planning to serve others in some way.  But government will allow no competition.  Government wants to control every aspect of life in the SDA.  So what does government do to those who are most productive at serving others?  The progressive income tax is imposed upon them.  Those who actually do serve others the most have the most of their income taken away from them and given to the government, which then uses that money to compete against them to serve the citizenry.  The more they make the more they empower the government to fight against them.  How depressing it all is.  It is enough to make me want to stop serving and go on the government dole. Meanwhile, I think I will have a doughnut. 

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Fifty Shades Of Grey Garbage

According to Wikipedia, "Fifty Shades of Grey is a 2011 erotic romance novel by British author E.L. James.  It is the first installment in the Fifty Shades trilogy that traces the deepening relationship between a college graduate, Anastasia Steele, and a young business magnate, Christian Grey. It is notable for its explicitly erotic scenes featuring elements of sexual practices involving bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism."  Lovely.
According to the Associated Press, "Audiences were more than curious to check out the big-screen adaptation of the racy phenomenon 'Fifty Shades of Grey' this weekend.  The erotic R-rated drama earned an estimated $81.7 million from 3,646 theaters in its first three days, distributor Universal Pictures said on Sunday." Wonderful.
I have not read any of the books in the Fifty Shades trilogy, nor do I have any intention of doing so.  I don't read garbage.  That means that writing this post is a violation of my principle to never comment about something I have not personally read.  I know that long rants about things blog authors know nothing about is an internet tradition but I try to keep my blog on the intellectual high ground and only write about things I have actually experienced.  Today I break with my own principle, call me a hypocrite if you wish, in order to comment on a cultural phenomenon that simply amazes me.  What is it about the Fifty Shades book/movie that is so fascinating to so many people?
Sadomasochism is defined as "a psychosexual disorder in which sexual gratification is obtained by engaging in sadistic and masochistic interactions."  In addition, "According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (known as the DSM) fourth edition text revised (DSM-IV-TR), the manual used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental disorders, it is not uncommon for an individual to have more than one paraphilia. The DSM-IV-TR lists the following paraphilias:...sexual masochism..."  In other words, the therapeutic state in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika considers sadomasochism to be a mental illness.  It therefore logically follows that the Fifty Shades media cornucopia is nothing more than the glorification of a mental illness that is purposefully exploiting the mentally ill who suffer from that illness for the profit of a few morally reprehensible individuals and media companies that don't give a hoot about the mental welfare of the citizens of this land. 
Imagine for a moment, if you can, a trilogy of books and the follow-up trilogy of movies detailing the life of a severely mentally retarded midget.  How do you think that would be received?  Why just the use of the word 'retarded' already has many people foaming at the mouth angry with me.   Or imagine, if you can, another double-trilogy about an agorophobic pedophile who lures young boys into his apartment for immoral purposes.  Do you think that would set opening day sales records?  Are you having trouble conjuring up salacious images of those situations that would appeal the masses and make you rich beyond your wildest dreams?  How about an acrophobic stutterer who is forced to jump off the high board at the swimming pool by a demented swim coach who has a penchant for wearing black-face?  Can you imagine any of those scenarios playing out without a firestorm of protest from the mental health lobby and every other politically correct lobby group in the land?  That being the case, where is the moral outrage from those defenders of the mentally ill while sadomasochists are being exploited by Hollywood for ill-gotten financial gains?  Where is the moral outrage from feminist groups bent upon stamping out all vestiges of male domineering of women?  If seems as if the proponents of sadomasochism have been given  a free pass.  I wonder why?
The answer, I believe, goes to the question of the nature of man.  Men who are not Reformed Christians are by nature totally depraved.  Only a handful of us who are Reformed continue to believe this ancient  Christian doctrine today.  All evangelical Christians, who are Arminian in their beliefs, reject the doctrine.  All people who hate Christianity, which is everyone else in the world, also hate the doctrine of the total depravity of man.  Reformed Christians do not believe that they managed to escape the reality of total depravity.  They just believe that the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, what most people call being "born again", removes their totally depraved nature.  All of this is simply to say that almost all people alive in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are, by nature, enslaved to sin.  They are incapable of doing anything that is morally good.  This goes a long way towards explaining why a series of books and movies glorifying sadomasochism would be so popular.
God-hating sinners love to glory in their sinfulness.  They love to take that which is good and pervert it.  They love to take that which is perverted and glorify it.  This truth has been evident in human behavior since the very beginning of the world.  Sexual perversions in particular are almost always seen by totally depraved human beings as a sign of intellectual and cultural sophistication.  Sadism's namesake, the Marquis de Sade, was a French aristocrat and well known philosopher.  The ancient Romans were famous for the elevation of sexual perversions to a cultural art form.  The rise and spread of Christianity changed the attitudes of many social groups and resulted in the widespread abolition of perverse sexual behaviors for many generations. Today however, in the post-Christian society in which we live, sexual perversity has come back with a vengeance.
I have argued continually in this blog that the militant homosexual lobby is fundamentally changing the moral nature of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  With the cultural rejection of Christianity there is nothing left to fight off the immoral advances of sexual immorality.   The first wave of this advance has been to normalize homosexual behavior.  That battle has, for all intents and purposes, been won.  The only group which consistently opposes the homosexual agenda is the Christian church and it has been nominalized for years now.   Soon the Supreme Court of the SDA will enshrine homosexual behavior as a government protected, endorsed and advocated behavior.  Soon Christian opposition to homosexuality will be criminalized as hate speech and Christian ministers will be imprisoned for preaching the Bible to their congregations.
The acceptance and normalization of sadomasochism is a fine second wave of attack against biblical law.  It is almost certain to succeed.  Glamorous portrayals of sadomasochism such as those seen in the Fifty Shades productions are sure to convince many that sadomasochism is simply another way consenting adults can express their love for one another.  Shocking to me is the fact that 62% of those who attended the opening weekend showing of the movie were women.  I would think that women would most oppose what is portrayed in the movie but that is not the case.  Sinful, God-hating women believe in an absurd doctrine they call "empowerment."  For them empowerment is the equivalent of exploitation.  They claim they are empowered when they dance naked in front of men.  They claim they are empowered when they posed half-naked in Sports Illustrated.  And they claim they are empowered when they are beaten and sexually abused in sadomasochistic rituals.  I don't get it but then again I am not a sinful, God-hating woman.   Welcome to the new morality.  Isn't it grand?

Monday, February 16, 2015

Evangelical Christians Worship The Cops

Evangelical Christians are being taught by their pastors to worship the police forces that routinely harass, abuse and spy upon the lawful activities of the citizens of this tyrannical land.  Under the guise of submission to the lawful authority, Evangelicals are being required to engage in acts of idolatrous worship of the armed thugs who enforce the immoral laws of this sad land upon them.  I came across a story on a website last week that told me of a pastor of a church in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika that conducted a ceremony of police worship during the regular worship service of the church.  The pastor's name is Kellogg and here is a brief summary of what happened:
"During a recent Sunday service described by a congregant as a ceremony of 'police worship,' Kellogg led the congregation in a ritual during which each of them raised his hand and recited the following oath:
I pledge to do my best to follow the law.
I pledge to thank a police officer for their [sic] service.
I pledge to call 911 if I see someone suspicious in my neighborhood.
I pledge to watch the back of our officers as they fulfill their duties.
I pledge to pray for the safety of all members of law enforcement."
For the full story about the church that preaches worship of the police, go here.
If you are like most Evangelicals, or most of the sheeple who populate this land, you have no idea how bad things have become.  Your natural desire to respect authority and support those who rule over you causes you to cast a jaundiced eye upon anyone or anything that would criticize their behavior.  It is time to wake up. This is not a story about racism, as so many would have you believe.  The cops tyrannize all races, without discrimination.  This is a story about the inevitable abuse of power that occurs every time a group of people are granted authority over another group of people.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The police forces in this country are corrupt to the core. 
Don't believe me?  For examples of police abuse of power go here, here, here, here and here.  Still don't believe me?  For an excellent book, written by John Whitehead and entitled "A Government of Wolves", go here. I challenge you to examine the cases of police brutality that routinely occur in this land and come to the conclusion that we should be worshiping cops.  I challenge you to read Whitehead's book and come away with the conclusion that the cops are basically good men who only rarely step over the line of behavioral propriety. 
Today I want to consider the four oaths that were sworn by the government worshiping members of the False Prophet found in the church service described above.  The False Prophet, for those of you who are not eschatologically inclined, is the religious body that exists in the end times that encourages the members of the visible religious institution of those times to engage in worship of the Beast.  The Beast was, is and always will be civil government.  In our land today the Beast is seen primarily in the Amerikan Empire and the False Prophet is the evangelical Christianity which encourages the worship of the Beast.  The idolatrous service of worship of government employees that took place in the church above is a prime example of the work of the False Prophet.
The idolaters in the evangelical Church above first worshiped the Beast by promising to "follow the law."  The law of the land declares that abortion is legal, that homosexual unions are God-honoring, that wars of imperial expansion are morally necessary, that you have the right to force your neighbor to pay for your children's government school education, that jack-booted thugs have the right to stop you and search you without a warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that those same jack-booted thugs can break down your front door, toss a flash-bang bomb into your living room, kill your dog and arrest you for a drug law violation all on the basis of your angry neighbor's anonymous tip.  The foolish and ignorant Evangelicals who repeated that pledge took an oath in the presence of God that bound them to disobey the law of God in order to obey the law of the land.  There is always a sure-fire way to determine who the god is in any particular land.  Just follow the law.  When the immoral laws of men are enshrined as the law of the land the worship of those who create and enforce those laws is never far behind.
Police officers do not serve and protect.  Nevertheless, the second oath bound the Evangelical who recited it to "thank a police officer for his service."  Why would you ever want to thank a man for enforcing an immoral law upon the land in which you live?  The cops exist to enforce the law and the law is immoral.  It therefore necessarily follows that the activities of the cops are immoral.  And now the poor souls in that church who swore that oath have bound themselves in a promise to thank government employed thugs for enforcing immoral laws upon them.  Can you think of anything more bizarre for an Evangelical to do?  The cops do not serve the communities in which they work.  On the contrary, the communities in which they work serve the cops.  Cops are paid by the taxpayers in their districts.  Cops inflate their budgets by means of the revenue they collect from the members of their districts as they fine them for myriad infractions of immoral or amoral laws.   Cops are given preferred parking spaces.  Cops are given discounts on meals.  Cops are idolized and worshiped and, in return, they tyrannize us by their behavior.  I don't see why we should thank them for that.
I love the third oath.  "I pledge to call 911 if I see someone suspicious in my neighborhood."  By swearing that oath every Evangelical who took it promised to become a spy in service to the all-knowing government.  In essence each citizen has been turned into an agent of the government with one job to perform....spy on his neighbor and report his neighbor to the government when he does something he doesn't like.  Can you imagine a system more rife for abuse than that?  Rather than swearing an oath to act as an agent of the government and spy upon his neighbor, the Evangelical in the church above should have promised to leave his neighbor alone and mind his own business.  That would be the biblical thing to do.
The last oath misrepresents the nature of police work.  The Evangelicals who swore to the fourth oath did so because they believed that police work is inherently more dangerous than other careers in this country.  That presupposition is grossly in error.  Go to this article for the truth about the relative degree of danger associated with police work.  If Evangelicals really want to pray for those in dangerous occupations they should pray for commercial fishermen, lumberjacks, trash collectors, roofers, structural iron workers and truck drivers.  All of those occupations are far more dangerous than being a cop.  All of those occupations are also not related to the government so they are certain to be ignored.  Only when a person dies in service to the government does his death matter. Those who die in the private sector, or even worse those who die while seeking a profit, are irrelevant people who do not matter in this disgusting country.  When only the lives of government employees matter we can be sure we are living in a time of Beast worship.  When churches encourage the worship of dead government employees the circle is complete and the end is near.  When the church comes to exist for the purpose of encouraging the worship of the government you can be sure that the church is now operating as the False Prophet.  We do not have to look far today to see that we are living in those times.  Churches everywhere adore and venerate the civil government and all of its tyrannical and imperial activities.  Woe upon us.