Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.
June 27, 2009
US Politics: The Albany-Trenton-Sacramento Disease
President Obama has bet the economy on his program to grow the government and finance it with a more progressive tax system. It's hard to miss the irony that he's pitching this change in Washington even as the same governance model is imploding in three of the largest American states where it has been dominant for years -- California, New Jersey and New York.
A decade ago all three states were among America's most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due.
These states have been models of "progressive" policies that are supposed to create wealth: high tax rates on the rich, lots of government "investments," heavy unionization and a large government role in health care.
Here's a rundown on the results:
Government spending as economic stimulus. State-local spending per capita is $12,505 in New York (second highest after Alaska), $10,136 per person in California (fourth) and $9,574 in New Jersey (seventh).
Has all this public sector "investment" translated into jobs? Not quite. California had the nation's third highest jobless rate in May (11.5%). New Jersey and New York had below average unemployment rates in May compared to the national average of 9.4%, but one reason is that so many discouraged workers have left those states. From 1998-2007, which included two booms on Wall Street, New York and New Jersey ranked 36th and 31st in job creation. From 2000 to 2007, the New Jersey Business & Industry Association calculates that nine out of 10 new Garden State jobs were in the government.
Soak the rich. Mr. Obama plans to pay for his government investments through higher tax rates on the top 1% and 2% of taxpayers. Our troika of liberal states are champions at soaking the rich. The state-local income tax burden, according to the Tax Foundation, is the highest in the nation in New York, second highest in California and sixth in New Jersey. New York City boasts the highest business tax rate, 17.6%, according to a study by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Seven of the 10 highest property tax counties in America are located in New Jersey.
Instead of balanced budgets, these high taxes have produced record red ink. California's deficit for 2010 is projected at $33.9 billion, New Jersey's $7 billion and New York's $17.9 billion, despite multiple tax increases this decade. The Manhattan Institute finds that three-quarters of the loss in revenues this year in Albany is a result of reduced income tax payments by rich people even though the state keeps raising taxes on high earners.
California's debt burden has multiplied so fast that it now has the worst bond rating of any state, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators are pleading with Washington to command the other 49 states to pay off its IOUs. The interest rates on Golden State bonds have nearly tripled in the last two years.
Powerful unions. Mr. Obama believes union power is a ticket to the middle class. The middle class is getting creamed in all three of these "progressive" states, where organized labor is king. The unionized share of the workforce is 20% in California, 19% in New Jersey and 27% in New York compared to 13% across the country. All three are non-right-to-work states, have super-minimum wage requirements and provide among the nation's most generous public-employee pensions.
Workers in these paradises are indeed uniting -- by leaving. New York ranks first, California second and New Jersey third in moving vans leaving the state. A study by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research found that over the past decade these and other high-union states (mostly in the Northeast) had one-third the job growth of states with low union penetration.
Government health care. New York, New Jersey and California are among the leading states in government spending on and intervention into the medical market. A 2008 study by the Pacific Research Institute ranked the states on the basis of government regulation of health care and found that New York is most regulated, while New Jersey ranks sixth and California seventh. "New York," the report declares, "suffers from government health programs that are out of control, a grossly overregulated private insurance market and almost completely uncompetitive provider markets."
Have government controls and Medicaid expansions ("the public option") lowered costs? Here is what the American Health Insurance Plans found. For family coverage annual premiums in 2006-07, the national median cost was roughly $5,300; in California it was $5,884, in New Jersey $10,398, and in New York $12,254. New York's coverage mandates cause families to pay more than twice what they do in other states for insurance.
As a result, California and New York have more than one-third of their residents uninsured or in Medicaid -- much higher than the national average of 25%. More government involvement in health care in California, New Jersey and New York has raised costs and often reduced private coverage. That's hardly a model for the nation.
* * *
So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures. At least Americans have the ability to flee these ill-governed states for places that still welcome wealth creators. The debate in Washington now is whether to spread this antigrowth model across the entire country.
A decade ago all three states were among America's most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due.
These states have been models of "progressive" policies that are supposed to create wealth: high tax rates on the rich, lots of government "investments," heavy unionization and a large government role in health care.
Here's a rundown on the results:
Government spending as economic stimulus. State-local spending per capita is $12,505 in New York (second highest after Alaska), $10,136 per person in California (fourth) and $9,574 in New Jersey (seventh).
Has all this public sector "investment" translated into jobs? Not quite. California had the nation's third highest jobless rate in May (11.5%). New Jersey and New York had below average unemployment rates in May compared to the national average of 9.4%, but one reason is that so many discouraged workers have left those states. From 1998-2007, which included two booms on Wall Street, New York and New Jersey ranked 36th and 31st in job creation. From 2000 to 2007, the New Jersey Business & Industry Association calculates that nine out of 10 new Garden State jobs were in the government.
Soak the rich. Mr. Obama plans to pay for his government investments through higher tax rates on the top 1% and 2% of taxpayers. Our troika of liberal states are champions at soaking the rich. The state-local income tax burden, according to the Tax Foundation, is the highest in the nation in New York, second highest in California and sixth in New Jersey. New York City boasts the highest business tax rate, 17.6%, according to a study by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Seven of the 10 highest property tax counties in America are located in New Jersey.
Instead of balanced budgets, these high taxes have produced record red ink. California's deficit for 2010 is projected at $33.9 billion, New Jersey's $7 billion and New York's $17.9 billion, despite multiple tax increases this decade. The Manhattan Institute finds that three-quarters of the loss in revenues this year in Albany is a result of reduced income tax payments by rich people even though the state keeps raising taxes on high earners.
California's debt burden has multiplied so fast that it now has the worst bond rating of any state, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators are pleading with Washington to command the other 49 states to pay off its IOUs. The interest rates on Golden State bonds have nearly tripled in the last two years.
Powerful unions. Mr. Obama believes union power is a ticket to the middle class. The middle class is getting creamed in all three of these "progressive" states, where organized labor is king. The unionized share of the workforce is 20% in California, 19% in New Jersey and 27% in New York compared to 13% across the country. All three are non-right-to-work states, have super-minimum wage requirements and provide among the nation's most generous public-employee pensions.
Workers in these paradises are indeed uniting -- by leaving. New York ranks first, California second and New Jersey third in moving vans leaving the state. A study by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research found that over the past decade these and other high-union states (mostly in the Northeast) had one-third the job growth of states with low union penetration.
Government health care. New York, New Jersey and California are among the leading states in government spending on and intervention into the medical market. A 2008 study by the Pacific Research Institute ranked the states on the basis of government regulation of health care and found that New York is most regulated, while New Jersey ranks sixth and California seventh. "New York," the report declares, "suffers from government health programs that are out of control, a grossly overregulated private insurance market and almost completely uncompetitive provider markets."
Have government controls and Medicaid expansions ("the public option") lowered costs? Here is what the American Health Insurance Plans found. For family coverage annual premiums in 2006-07, the national median cost was roughly $5,300; in California it was $5,884, in New Jersey $10,398, and in New York $12,254. New York's coverage mandates cause families to pay more than twice what they do in other states for insurance.
As a result, California and New York have more than one-third of their residents uninsured or in Medicaid -- much higher than the national average of 25%. More government involvement in health care in California, New Jersey and New York has raised costs and often reduced private coverage. That's hardly a model for the nation.
* * *
So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures. At least Americans have the ability to flee these ill-governed states for places that still welcome wealth creators. The debate in Washington now is whether to spread this antigrowth model across the entire country.
June 04, 2009
Catholicism: The Self
Cogito Ergo Sum: “I think, therefore I am.”
Today I aim to discuss the topic of self. The self has many views stemming from various parties. I will not delve into each individual one, but would rather summarize them. Some view the self as inherently selfish; still others say that we are inherently good; some would say that the self is a false notion and that we really don’t have a self; and then there are those who waste their time trying to find a Middle Way in all this mess.
The self, or rather my self, cannot be anything other than selfish. For to touch the concept of “I, Me, Mine” is to address me as myself. In other words, I am my self, and my self is me. This selfish concept of self has to exist because the existence of me depends on my very selfishness.
It is partially true to say that we are inherently good: For when we are selfish, we also cannot avoid doing good works. An act done in my selfish interest may have unintended pleasant consequences on a bystander. For example, in the selfish act of paying someone to wash my car, I also give the person a job.
So now we come to the part of not having a real self. This claim comes from the Buddhist school of thought, as well as the philosopher David Hume. In essence, they are saying that the concept of a self, or as some put it – a mind, is a fallacy. The core Buddhist teaching is that we are but elements cobbled together into human beings, and that we construct an ego, or a self, in the attempt to gain immortality.
At last, we arrive at the center of it all: the self & immortality (or the afterlife).
Any man who thinks he has a self will do everything to protect and enhance his self. It is all in his selfish interest. Some people may say that there are people who do good works, and think nothing of themselves. This is a contradiction in its own right.
A man who does good works is doing so for either one of 2 reasons: That he is trying to please God; or that he gains a good feeling from doing good works. Both are selfish interests. Both are perfectly reasonable and human. Pleasing God automatically acknowledges the concept of immortality (or the afterlife), while gaining the good feeling shows how man is inherently selfish.
On the other hand, consider the man who views that there is no self. In his case, we have no ego, no enduring being, no afterlife, and no concept of immortality. If you had such a view, would you not despair?
To look at your self, the most precious part of your being, as nothing more than random elements cobbled together, is akin to denying your existence.
Cogito Ergo Sum. I think therefore I am.
If there is no part of your self that endures forever, if you are nothing more than a random combination of nature, and if you cannot conceive that you are immortal: you cease to exist.
A man in this scenario would then have no appreciation for his self. He would have no concern for his own well-being, both physically and mentally. Why bother to get educated, raise a family, and take care of your body, if at the end of your life, you cease to exist?
Because you want to get ahead. Because you care about your body, your mind, and your family. Because deep inside of you, you acknowledge that there is a real self.
And such selfishness is the ultimate testament of a self.
I am selfish, therefore I exist.
Moving on from Descartes early theory of thinking and existing, I intend to present my theory built on that. It is not just the concept of being able to think, reason, and contemplate reality, that proves we have a real self. It is also the fact that we think selfishly, reason selfishly, and contemplate in our own best interests, that we can know that we have a real self.
To give a real-world example:
I am selfish of my future: Therefore I study.
I am selfish of my family: Therefore I have a 12-gauge shotgun.
I am selfish of my people: Therefore I have relationships.
If I were anything but selfish of the aspects of my life that I care about, then how can I say that I care about them? Being selfish is hardly a fallacy of human nature, rather it is an integral and vital part of our existence, which guarantees our self.
Yes, I am giving Descartes one up: I am selfish, therefore I exist.
Today I aim to discuss the topic of self. The self has many views stemming from various parties. I will not delve into each individual one, but would rather summarize them. Some view the self as inherently selfish; still others say that we are inherently good; some would say that the self is a false notion and that we really don’t have a self; and then there are those who waste their time trying to find a Middle Way in all this mess.
The self, or rather my self, cannot be anything other than selfish. For to touch the concept of “I, Me, Mine” is to address me as myself. In other words, I am my self, and my self is me. This selfish concept of self has to exist because the existence of me depends on my very selfishness.
It is partially true to say that we are inherently good: For when we are selfish, we also cannot avoid doing good works. An act done in my selfish interest may have unintended pleasant consequences on a bystander. For example, in the selfish act of paying someone to wash my car, I also give the person a job.
So now we come to the part of not having a real self. This claim comes from the Buddhist school of thought, as well as the philosopher David Hume. In essence, they are saying that the concept of a self, or as some put it – a mind, is a fallacy. The core Buddhist teaching is that we are but elements cobbled together into human beings, and that we construct an ego, or a self, in the attempt to gain immortality.
At last, we arrive at the center of it all: the self & immortality (or the afterlife).
Any man who thinks he has a self will do everything to protect and enhance his self. It is all in his selfish interest. Some people may say that there are people who do good works, and think nothing of themselves. This is a contradiction in its own right.
A man who does good works is doing so for either one of 2 reasons: That he is trying to please God; or that he gains a good feeling from doing good works. Both are selfish interests. Both are perfectly reasonable and human. Pleasing God automatically acknowledges the concept of immortality (or the afterlife), while gaining the good feeling shows how man is inherently selfish.
On the other hand, consider the man who views that there is no self. In his case, we have no ego, no enduring being, no afterlife, and no concept of immortality. If you had such a view, would you not despair?
To look at your self, the most precious part of your being, as nothing more than random elements cobbled together, is akin to denying your existence.
Cogito Ergo Sum. I think therefore I am.
If there is no part of your self that endures forever, if you are nothing more than a random combination of nature, and if you cannot conceive that you are immortal: you cease to exist.
A man in this scenario would then have no appreciation for his self. He would have no concern for his own well-being, both physically and mentally. Why bother to get educated, raise a family, and take care of your body, if at the end of your life, you cease to exist?
Because you want to get ahead. Because you care about your body, your mind, and your family. Because deep inside of you, you acknowledge that there is a real self.
And such selfishness is the ultimate testament of a self.
I am selfish, therefore I exist.
Moving on from Descartes early theory of thinking and existing, I intend to present my theory built on that. It is not just the concept of being able to think, reason, and contemplate reality, that proves we have a real self. It is also the fact that we think selfishly, reason selfishly, and contemplate in our own best interests, that we can know that we have a real self.
To give a real-world example:
I am selfish of my future: Therefore I study.
I am selfish of my family: Therefore I have a 12-gauge shotgun.
I am selfish of my people: Therefore I have relationships.
If I were anything but selfish of the aspects of my life that I care about, then how can I say that I care about them? Being selfish is hardly a fallacy of human nature, rather it is an integral and vital part of our existence, which guarantees our self.
Yes, I am giving Descartes one up: I am selfish, therefore I exist.
May 24, 2009
Local Politics: Rusdi Mustapha
RPK published the following article on May 24th. It is a sort of rebuttal against Rusdi's claims against RPK. Read through the following, and watch for my thoughts at the end.
RPK is now a fugitive and, thus far, still a liar!
This has to be said!
I for once (it should be ‘I for one’, not ‘I for once’) do not believe Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) ran away, rather than face the court, because he is afraid his Royal family will punish him for being a treacherous to his royal brethren! I for once (same here) do not believe he skips his court hearings because he is afraid, as he puts it, the police will arrest him and throw him in the dungeon.
He took off because he is in a fix for he cannot come out with any shred of evidence on any of his serious allegation he made against Prime Minister Najib Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor!
However, I would also like to believe this man RPK could be suffering from a psychiatric disorder called "Munchausen Syndrome", a malady which is named after a 16th century German Baron Karl Friedrich von Münchausen. According to a definition, Münchausen Syndrome "is a psychiatric disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma in order to draw attention or sympathy to themselves. It is in a class of disorders known as factitious disorders which involve "illnesses" whose symptoms are either self-induced or falsified by the patient. It is also sometimes known as hospital addiction syndrome or hospital hopper syndrome."
For the record, RPK has hurled a lot of serious unfounded accusations against the Prime Minister and his wife for being involved in a death, mind you in a death, of a foreign national. That, to me is a very serious accusation. Thus far he has accused the PM of being involved, and the PM's wife had supervised in the killing of a foreign national.
RPK also said he has a witness, a Lieutenant Colonel in the military intelligence, who said this witness saw the whole thing, which led him to write a piece in his website accusing the PM's wife supervise the killing. Serious stuff!
Well so far this has happened! This Lt Col has since said it was a total hogwash and a fabrication on the assertion on RPK's part that he saw the whole thing where a foreign national was blown up and the wife of the PM was there, and he told RPK! We, Malaysians, were led to believe RPK has a concrete proof to the fact! Well, instead of showing the proof so that the PM and his wife can be charged then if found guilty to be hanged or jailed for being involved in a murder, RPK scoot off and ran away!
Then he has the audacity to tell the whole world, in his website Malaysia Today, that he could not attend his court hearings where he has to answer to some very serious accusation he made to the Prime Minister of this country and his wife, because the police will arrest him and hos (I think he meant ‘his’) Royal brethren will kidnapped (bad grammar) and tortured (also bad grammar) him if he were to appear in court at PJ which is in the state of Selangor?! What an insult to our intelligence eh!
The sad part is what he wrote for his reason why he ran away to be a fugitive instead of facing the music is that many people still believe in his lies!
Well, I do not how it works but if he is in London, England, I am sure he can be extradited, and if he is in Segambut hiding at YB BABI's house I am sure he has to come out sooner or later.
When that happens I think the Malaysian government will be firmed (bad grammar again) enough to take stern action and do the necessary in finding him guilty of lying and then booked him with the maximum years allowed by the law for his crime against the natural order of logic! This man RPK, he is one totally illogical sad dude I have ever come across!
Enough already!
RPK counters these accusations by restating these points:
i) RPK will be detained without trial.
ii) Superintendent Gan will not come up with the necessary evidence to incriminate Najib.
iii) He has more hidden evidence, and publishes the SMS logs between Najib & Shafee Abdullah.
Before I proceed, allow me to make clear that I support neither party in this. I think Rusdi Mustapha is the sort of filth that is the result of 3 years in law school and 3 hours in law ethics. And I think RPK is a cowardly wuss of a drama-queen who is starting to miss the spotlight.
Having said that, I am more inclined to believe that RPK does have something explosive on Najib. However, until and unless RPK can (or has the will to) bring such evidence to light, he's nothing but a hot air balloon.
If you're going to counter me with all the SMS logs, police reports, etc that RPK has posted on his blog, then I challenge you to verify all such evidence for yourself.
Put simply: You cannot. There is no way to gain the SMS logs between 2 private mobile numbers without involving the service provider, or the mobile device directly. How exactly did RPK get the SMS logs between Shafee & Najib anyway? Did anyone actually bother to look it up? Assuming the logs are real, RPK had to do some level of espionage to get these logs. That makes all 3 of them who should be thrown behind bars.
The months and years have gone by, but RPK is ever the same. He fancies himself as some model citizen cum whistle-blower. Do yourself a favor:
Ignore RPK until he comes up with something concrete.
RPK is now a fugitive and, thus far, still a liar!
This has to be said!
I for once (it should be ‘I for one’, not ‘I for once’) do not believe Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) ran away, rather than face the court, because he is afraid his Royal family will punish him for being a treacherous to his royal brethren! I for once (same here) do not believe he skips his court hearings because he is afraid, as he puts it, the police will arrest him and throw him in the dungeon.
He took off because he is in a fix for he cannot come out with any shred of evidence on any of his serious allegation he made against Prime Minister Najib Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor!
However, I would also like to believe this man RPK could be suffering from a psychiatric disorder called "Munchausen Syndrome", a malady which is named after a 16th century German Baron Karl Friedrich von Münchausen. According to a definition, Münchausen Syndrome "is a psychiatric disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma in order to draw attention or sympathy to themselves. It is in a class of disorders known as factitious disorders which involve "illnesses" whose symptoms are either self-induced or falsified by the patient. It is also sometimes known as hospital addiction syndrome or hospital hopper syndrome."
For the record, RPK has hurled a lot of serious unfounded accusations against the Prime Minister and his wife for being involved in a death, mind you in a death, of a foreign national. That, to me is a very serious accusation. Thus far he has accused the PM of being involved, and the PM's wife had supervised in the killing of a foreign national.
RPK also said he has a witness, a Lieutenant Colonel in the military intelligence, who said this witness saw the whole thing, which led him to write a piece in his website accusing the PM's wife supervise the killing. Serious stuff!
Well so far this has happened! This Lt Col has since said it was a total hogwash and a fabrication on the assertion on RPK's part that he saw the whole thing where a foreign national was blown up and the wife of the PM was there, and he told RPK! We, Malaysians, were led to believe RPK has a concrete proof to the fact! Well, instead of showing the proof so that the PM and his wife can be charged then if found guilty to be hanged or jailed for being involved in a murder, RPK scoot off and ran away!
Then he has the audacity to tell the whole world, in his website Malaysia Today, that he could not attend his court hearings where he has to answer to some very serious accusation he made to the Prime Minister of this country and his wife, because the police will arrest him and hos (I think he meant ‘his’) Royal brethren will kidnapped (bad grammar) and tortured (also bad grammar) him if he were to appear in court at PJ which is in the state of Selangor?! What an insult to our intelligence eh!
The sad part is what he wrote for his reason why he ran away to be a fugitive instead of facing the music is that many people still believe in his lies!
Well, I do not how it works but if he is in London, England, I am sure he can be extradited, and if he is in Segambut hiding at YB BABI's house I am sure he has to come out sooner or later.
When that happens I think the Malaysian government will be firmed (bad grammar again) enough to take stern action and do the necessary in finding him guilty of lying and then booked him with the maximum years allowed by the law for his crime against the natural order of logic! This man RPK, he is one totally illogical sad dude I have ever come across!
Enough already!
RPK counters these accusations by restating these points:
i) RPK will be detained without trial.
ii) Superintendent Gan will not come up with the necessary evidence to incriminate Najib.
iii) He has more hidden evidence, and publishes the SMS logs between Najib & Shafee Abdullah.
Before I proceed, allow me to make clear that I support neither party in this. I think Rusdi Mustapha is the sort of filth that is the result of 3 years in law school and 3 hours in law ethics. And I think RPK is a cowardly wuss of a drama-queen who is starting to miss the spotlight.
Having said that, I am more inclined to believe that RPK does have something explosive on Najib. However, until and unless RPK can (or has the will to) bring such evidence to light, he's nothing but a hot air balloon.
If you're going to counter me with all the SMS logs, police reports, etc that RPK has posted on his blog, then I challenge you to verify all such evidence for yourself.
Put simply: You cannot. There is no way to gain the SMS logs between 2 private mobile numbers without involving the service provider, or the mobile device directly. How exactly did RPK get the SMS logs between Shafee & Najib anyway? Did anyone actually bother to look it up? Assuming the logs are real, RPK had to do some level of espionage to get these logs. That makes all 3 of them who should be thrown behind bars.
The months and years have gone by, but RPK is ever the same. He fancies himself as some model citizen cum whistle-blower. Do yourself a favor:
Ignore RPK until he comes up with something concrete.
May 15, 2009
Catholicism: Spiritual Warfare 3
I am taking the following piece from "scottthong.wordpress.com", his article "Virus/Anti-virus Scam on the Spiritual Plane". I met his brother Kerry through a youth ministry seminar a few months back. Scott describes the trickery used by spirits of the occult better than I.
A Danger to the Body
Anne was telling me that her PC had just been infected with a computer virus… The Bartok virus, as it is apparently called. It must have been caught while various teachers were using their thumbdrives to transfer files – sticking the unprotected piece of equipment into their unsafe, disease-ridden computer bodies.
A hi-tech metaphor warning against casual sex if there ever was one! But that’s not the only analogy that can be drawn from this case. Read on…
A Danger to the Mind
One of the teachers had encountered the Bartok virus before, and had a program to fight it. The program was specifically anti Bartok virus (which seems very suspicious to me; a dedicated program to solve just one virus???).
So Anne ran the program, which kept getting shut off quickly (ostensibly by the very smart virus, which knew to stop the anti-Bartok program while letting other applications run uninterrupted). When it finally worked, it detected 8 or so infected files. These files were summarily repaired.
But a follow-up scan discovered 5 files that were still (or just had been) infected by Bartok. So clean-up again. The next scan immediately after found 13 files infected! Wow, the virus must be really quick to replicate, and also able to hide from the anti-Bartok scans!
But I suggested this scenario: What if the so-called ‘Bartok virus’ is actually rather innocious? That is, on its own it doesn’t really do much harm except spread quickly. But the creator of the virus also wrote an ‘anti-Bartok virus’ software, that when run is given full access and powers in your PC?
So the Bartok virus itself isn’t the big problem; voluntarily running the so-called anti-virus program is what really kills your PC!
A Danger to the Soul
The above method of sending a small menace to annoy you, then tricking you into binding yourself to a big menace as a ’solution’ is an age-old methodology of evil spirits. Here’s what I mean…
Say some poor unfortunate gets possessed or otherwise tormented by an demon/evil spirit (I make no distinction between the two, as they are the same). In order to solve this problem, the person is taken to see a medium or similar spiritualist.
The medium invokes the name of Bob (insert some other more relevant name yourself, ISA notwithstanding). The demon gets kicked out and the problem is solved! Walla!
Only, there’s one little nuance that wasn’t taken into account. By invoking the name of Bob to help out, the person now owes a big favour to Bob.
And it’s no small repayment here, the person’s very life has just been bound to Bob. Just let me say that loan sharks are amateurs when it comes to exorbitant interest rates!
What has just happened is, like the above Bartok virus scenario, a small problem has been used to trick you into voluntarily chaining yourself to a big problem.
Because while Bob masquerades as a goody, helpey spirit-boss, in reality it is a higher-ranking, more powerful baddie spirit! Likely even the medium representing Bob doesn’t know it, and neither does the entire of Bob Consultation & Prayer Services Company Inc.
In fact, it is very likely that the original small problem was in cahoots with this scheme all along! The demon was one of many small fry on the payroll of Bob Inc. So it’s one big, fat, spiritual-realm scam.
Am I being confusing? What do I mean about major spiritual players being in league with the small problem spirits?
Well, I’m not going to directly say it for fear of slander and libel, so let an established and certified printed book say it instead.
Read 1 Corinthians 10: 19-20, Deuteronomy 32: 16-17 and Psalm 106: 36-38. And 2 Corinthians 11: 14-15 about the ‘Don’ of this mob, for good measure.
It’s a brilliant scam, one that is pulled off all the time – even in our supposedly scientific and superstition-free modern world. And so we really need a powerful, genuine virus-cleaning program. I think you just might find it around somewhere…
Have you ever thought about why professionals don't bother to use free anti-virus programs? I tried that once. I'm never doing it again. The above scenario is really not all that uncommon when you stop and think about it.
Spiritual warfare is not a popular topic for winning converts, but it is a bloody good reason why being a "lukewarm" Christian is simply not enough. But who knows? A potential convert may actually tend to agree with our view on spiritual warfare.
A Danger to the Body
Anne was telling me that her PC had just been infected with a computer virus… The Bartok virus, as it is apparently called. It must have been caught while various teachers were using their thumbdrives to transfer files – sticking the unprotected piece of equipment into their unsafe, disease-ridden computer bodies.
A hi-tech metaphor warning against casual sex if there ever was one! But that’s not the only analogy that can be drawn from this case. Read on…
A Danger to the Mind
One of the teachers had encountered the Bartok virus before, and had a program to fight it. The program was specifically anti Bartok virus (which seems very suspicious to me; a dedicated program to solve just one virus???).
So Anne ran the program, which kept getting shut off quickly (ostensibly by the very smart virus, which knew to stop the anti-Bartok program while letting other applications run uninterrupted). When it finally worked, it detected 8 or so infected files. These files were summarily repaired.
But a follow-up scan discovered 5 files that were still (or just had been) infected by Bartok. So clean-up again. The next scan immediately after found 13 files infected! Wow, the virus must be really quick to replicate, and also able to hide from the anti-Bartok scans!
But I suggested this scenario: What if the so-called ‘Bartok virus’ is actually rather innocious? That is, on its own it doesn’t really do much harm except spread quickly. But the creator of the virus also wrote an ‘anti-Bartok virus’ software, that when run is given full access and powers in your PC?
So the Bartok virus itself isn’t the big problem; voluntarily running the so-called anti-virus program is what really kills your PC!
A Danger to the Soul
The above method of sending a small menace to annoy you, then tricking you into binding yourself to a big menace as a ’solution’ is an age-old methodology of evil spirits. Here’s what I mean…
Say some poor unfortunate gets possessed or otherwise tormented by an demon/evil spirit (I make no distinction between the two, as they are the same). In order to solve this problem, the person is taken to see a medium or similar spiritualist.
The medium invokes the name of Bob (insert some other more relevant name yourself, ISA notwithstanding). The demon gets kicked out and the problem is solved! Walla!
Only, there’s one little nuance that wasn’t taken into account. By invoking the name of Bob to help out, the person now owes a big favour to Bob.
And it’s no small repayment here, the person’s very life has just been bound to Bob. Just let me say that loan sharks are amateurs when it comes to exorbitant interest rates!
What has just happened is, like the above Bartok virus scenario, a small problem has been used to trick you into voluntarily chaining yourself to a big problem.
Because while Bob masquerades as a goody, helpey spirit-boss, in reality it is a higher-ranking, more powerful baddie spirit! Likely even the medium representing Bob doesn’t know it, and neither does the entire of Bob Consultation & Prayer Services Company Inc.
In fact, it is very likely that the original small problem was in cahoots with this scheme all along! The demon was one of many small fry on the payroll of Bob Inc. So it’s one big, fat, spiritual-realm scam.
Am I being confusing? What do I mean about major spiritual players being in league with the small problem spirits?
Well, I’m not going to directly say it for fear of slander and libel, so let an established and certified printed book say it instead.
Read 1 Corinthians 10: 19-20, Deuteronomy 32: 16-17 and Psalm 106: 36-38. And 2 Corinthians 11: 14-15 about the ‘Don’ of this mob, for good measure.
It’s a brilliant scam, one that is pulled off all the time – even in our supposedly scientific and superstition-free modern world. And so we really need a powerful, genuine virus-cleaning program. I think you just might find it around somewhere…
Have you ever thought about why professionals don't bother to use free anti-virus programs? I tried that once. I'm never doing it again. The above scenario is really not all that uncommon when you stop and think about it.
Spiritual warfare is not a popular topic for winning converts, but it is a bloody good reason why being a "lukewarm" Christian is simply not enough. But who knows? A potential convert may actually tend to agree with our view on spiritual warfare.
May 14, 2009
Catholicism: Spiritual Warfare 2
Spiritual deliverance can best be defined as a mild form of exorcism, used to deal with obsessions and some forms of possessions. Unlike hardcore exorcism, deliverance is readily available to the laypeople. In charismatic prayer gatherings, and Eucharistic adorations, the unclean spirits in a person cannot bear the holy presence. The result can vary, from massive headaches and nausea to open displays of facial contortions and physical manifestations.
If there’s anything charismatic/Pentecostal Christians got right, it’s the abundant outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The best way to deal with the afflicted person would be to isolate him in a quiet room. It is best not to give the evil spirit the attention it is calling for. After all, you would not perform surgery in the view of hundreds or so spectators, would you?
Christ gave examples throughout the Gospels. He calls us to continue that ministry. The best thing you can do for an afflicted person is to discern the extent of obsession/possession, and decide whether to address the issue, or to refer the case to a more senior minister. It is important not to attempt deliverance without proper preparation and prayer. An inexperienced team of people can (and probably will) do more harm than good to the afflicted person. Recognize that some cases are beyond you, or that since you have unconfessed sins, you are not adequate to perform the deliverance.
If you do decide to attempt deliverance, there is a way to do it. What I’m doing is summarizing the points:
1) Move the afflicted person to a quiet room with no distractions.
2) Gather a small group (I emphasize small as in about 5 people), and pray for the protection and inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
3) Ensure that your team does not have unconfessed sins, because they can be used against the team or person, or might even become a loophole that the spirit can use.
4) When praying for the afflicted person, it is imperative to treat him with kindness and respect. In most cases, they might not even know they are obsessed/possessed, and they have made the choice to allow you to perform deliverance. So be nice.
5) Keep in mind that you are not doing this for yourself. Be very careful to not use the Lord’s name in vain. Also, using “In the name of Jesus Christ” to command a spirit to comply is a good way of keeping the session in line with your purpose.
6) If deliverance is successful, praise God and remember to follow-up on the person. Prayer is especially important, for all of the people involved. If you are not successful, don’t push. Recommend the afflicted person to someone with more experience. Don’t feel ashamed or inadequate about it, but accept that you have done as much as you could for the person.
Something that I forgot to mention earlier on is this: Don’t take all this talk on spiritual warfare too hardly. Deliverance is similar to taking out the garbage. It’s not very pleasant work, but someone has to do it.
Finally, there is a failsafe that you can use for minor spiritual afflictions. The following line consists of 7 segments:
(In the name of Jesus Christ), (I command you) (spirit of ___) (to depart) (peacefully) (to the feet of Jesus Christ) (to be dealt with by His mercy).
“In the name of Jesus Christ” is a powerful line. The triumph of good over evil is real not because Hollywood directors get a kick out of it, but because Christ overcame sin by His death. A little salvation history is required in order to fully appreciate just how great the name of Christ really is.
As we are hardly perfect people, we tend to sin. Spiritual warfare a visible reminder of just how much our sin damages us. For every dent we allow our spirit to take, it becomes that much easier for an outside spirit to penetrate our natural defenses, including baptism. The church has its own reasons for promoting the use of the Rosary in this respect. While there exists many interpretations of the book of Revelations, Mary being anything other than the Holy Mother of God can be easily disproved.
Spiritual warfare draws its strength from faith, prayer, and fasting. Emulating the life of Mary is perhaps the best possible example the Gospels give us.
I encourage you to read up on various other materials on deliverance yourself, such as “Deliverance from Evil Spirits: A Practical Manual” by Francis McNutt, which is the primary source of my knowledge on spiritual warfare.
If there’s anything charismatic/Pentecostal Christians got right, it’s the abundant outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The best way to deal with the afflicted person would be to isolate him in a quiet room. It is best not to give the evil spirit the attention it is calling for. After all, you would not perform surgery in the view of hundreds or so spectators, would you?
Christ gave examples throughout the Gospels. He calls us to continue that ministry. The best thing you can do for an afflicted person is to discern the extent of obsession/possession, and decide whether to address the issue, or to refer the case to a more senior minister. It is important not to attempt deliverance without proper preparation and prayer. An inexperienced team of people can (and probably will) do more harm than good to the afflicted person. Recognize that some cases are beyond you, or that since you have unconfessed sins, you are not adequate to perform the deliverance.
If you do decide to attempt deliverance, there is a way to do it. What I’m doing is summarizing the points:
1) Move the afflicted person to a quiet room with no distractions.
2) Gather a small group (I emphasize small as in about 5 people), and pray for the protection and inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
3) Ensure that your team does not have unconfessed sins, because they can be used against the team or person, or might even become a loophole that the spirit can use.
4) When praying for the afflicted person, it is imperative to treat him with kindness and respect. In most cases, they might not even know they are obsessed/possessed, and they have made the choice to allow you to perform deliverance. So be nice.
5) Keep in mind that you are not doing this for yourself. Be very careful to not use the Lord’s name in vain. Also, using “In the name of Jesus Christ” to command a spirit to comply is a good way of keeping the session in line with your purpose.
6) If deliverance is successful, praise God and remember to follow-up on the person. Prayer is especially important, for all of the people involved. If you are not successful, don’t push. Recommend the afflicted person to someone with more experience. Don’t feel ashamed or inadequate about it, but accept that you have done as much as you could for the person.
Something that I forgot to mention earlier on is this: Don’t take all this talk on spiritual warfare too hardly. Deliverance is similar to taking out the garbage. It’s not very pleasant work, but someone has to do it.
Finally, there is a failsafe that you can use for minor spiritual afflictions. The following line consists of 7 segments:
(In the name of Jesus Christ), (I command you) (spirit of ___) (to depart) (peacefully) (to the feet of Jesus Christ) (to be dealt with by His mercy).
“In the name of Jesus Christ” is a powerful line. The triumph of good over evil is real not because Hollywood directors get a kick out of it, but because Christ overcame sin by His death. A little salvation history is required in order to fully appreciate just how great the name of Christ really is.
As we are hardly perfect people, we tend to sin. Spiritual warfare a visible reminder of just how much our sin damages us. For every dent we allow our spirit to take, it becomes that much easier for an outside spirit to penetrate our natural defenses, including baptism. The church has its own reasons for promoting the use of the Rosary in this respect. While there exists many interpretations of the book of Revelations, Mary being anything other than the Holy Mother of God can be easily disproved.
Spiritual warfare draws its strength from faith, prayer, and fasting. Emulating the life of Mary is perhaps the best possible example the Gospels give us.
I encourage you to read up on various other materials on deliverance yourself, such as “Deliverance from Evil Spirits: A Practical Manual” by Francis McNutt, which is the primary source of my knowledge on spiritual warfare.
May 13, 2009
Catholicism: Spiritual Warfare 1
In order to address this, we must acknowledge something: there is a spiritual side to this world. However, we must be careful not to fall into either extreme of seeing a spirit behind everything (animism), and refusing to believe in the existence of spirits at all (atheistic).
While most Asians and South Americans readily believe in the influence of spirits, there is a school of thought that spirits do not exist among Europeans, some parts of North America, and some of their more rigid Asian followers. Let’s get 1 thing straight before moving along: All major religions are spiritual. This is even more so with new age beliefs which try to reconcile the differences of other major religions into one.
Perhaps the best way for a person to believe in the spiritual is experience. As reluctant as I am to support this view, it is one of the easiest ways of induction into the spiritual. The perfect way to make a convert would take too long and raise too many questions.
There is a distinction between obsession and possession. In the case of obsession, it is like an evil spirit is on the outside trying to get in. It doesn’t succeed, but is capable of manipulating the responses and behavior of the person. In the case of possession, it is the evil spirit that has been able to attach itself onto a person’s being. Movies tend to give a less factual view of this, but there are known cases that have become that dramatic.
Demons and other malevolent spirits exist. It is impossible to prove this point without going back to the Bible, but that would be another topic in itself. Matthew 9:32-34 is related to Luke 11:14-22. In the Matthew verse, Christ is casting out the demon in a dumb person. When it is done, and the man can speak again, the Pharisees say “It is through the prince of devils that he casts out devils”.
The Luke verse gives us a much clearer picture. It is the same event of casting out the demon in a dumb man, and restoring his speech. When some of the people said, “It is through Beelzebul, the prince of devils, that he casts out devils”. Christ explained it this way, “Every kingdom divided against itself is heading for ruin, and a household divided against itself collapses. So too with Satan: if he is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?”
“Now if it is through Beelzebul that I cast out devils, through whom do your own experts cast them out? … So long as a strong man fully armed guards his own palace, his goods are undisturbed; but when someone stronger than he is attacks and defeats him, the stronger man takes away all the weapons he relied on and shares out his spoil”.
Let’s separate the quoted text into 3: the demon that binds the man’s tongue, Jesus casting out the spirit, and the claim that it is through a demon that Christ casts out another demon.
1. The demon that binds the man’s tongue. The study into the causes and effects of the spiritually afflicted can take up thousands of case studies. However, for the sake of this article, I will condense the doctrines into 4 categories: Spirits of sin, Spirits of trauma, Familiar spirits, & Spirits of the occult.
The cause and effect of each category is evident in the name itself. Spirits of sin are a result of a habitual sin manifesting itself in a person. A good example is the habitual womanizer who indulges in adultery every so often, reasoning that such a habit is only temporary, and hurts no one in particular. What he fails to realize is that these so-called “small sins” are a foothold for something more terrible. The phrase “Everyone is entitled to one sin” is especially dangerous, because your spiritual integrity relies on you being spiritually protected (through baptism). However, sin destroys that protection, because every time you sin, it is as good as saying you renounce God.
Spirits of trauma are similar to spirits of sin in their cause. It is through traumatic events (death of loved ones) that a person becomes spiritually vulnerable. Such a condition will persist if the trauma is not dealt with, and will continue to torment the person, to the point that spirits will be able to penetrate him. A good case of this is the abused child, victims of domestic violence, and developmental conflicts that were not resolved/explained adequately. Keep in mind that spirits of sin, and spirits of trauma tend to have relatively less violent effects on a person.
Familiar spirits are ancestral spirits that haunt a person. When you ask why, it can be because such spirits are somehow “stuck” in this world, or have something “blocking” them from moving on. A recent movie featuring Eva Longoria as the “stuck” spirit is actually a good example. The more common example is a child that has been consecrated to other spirits. I am not attacking Buddhism, but the fact is that children offered to Guan Yin (Goddess of Mercy), and other deities are the “easy targets”. The case studies in India are even more fascinating, and I encourage you to read up and decide on them yourself. This is spiritual warfare: When a person has irrational/unrelated cravings that appear to have no source, and is “forced” into doing certain actions that they would choose not to.
One Catholic priest in India once described how a girl consecrated to a Hindu deity could mimic the exact same postures and positions of the deity. This happened even when she has no memory of the said deity, as she was raised in the US. It’s not a popular statement, and will not make converts overnight, but I do urge you to think about it: Consecrating an infant to any god is questionable.
Finally, spirits of the occult are another main category of demons. These are also the main spirits mentioned throughout the Gospel. If you are a Christian who does not believe in spiritual warfare, I would seriously question your stand. In Matthew 10:1, Christ “called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness”. If there was spiritual warfare 2000 years ago, and Christ did not finish it, who are you to say that there is no longer the threat of spiritual warfare?
This brings me to my point of the occult. Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA), Ouija boards, Tarot cards, and other forms of divination (directly linked to the occult or not) are invitations for evil spirits to enter a person’s spiritual self. Most people do not realize it, but tarot cards and Ouija boards are taken very seriously by the church because these are unholy methods of seeking information. Even doing these things for fun can compromise a person’s spiritual integrity. The spirits latched onto a willing SRA participant are perhaps the nastiest an exorcist can encounter, bringing with it the most severe forms of possession.
This sums up Spiritual Warfare 1. Spiritual Warfare 2 will address deliverance and exorcism. Spiritual Warfare 3 will go into an interesting modern analogy of how spirits can trick us.
While most Asians and South Americans readily believe in the influence of spirits, there is a school of thought that spirits do not exist among Europeans, some parts of North America, and some of their more rigid Asian followers. Let’s get 1 thing straight before moving along: All major religions are spiritual. This is even more so with new age beliefs which try to reconcile the differences of other major religions into one.
Perhaps the best way for a person to believe in the spiritual is experience. As reluctant as I am to support this view, it is one of the easiest ways of induction into the spiritual. The perfect way to make a convert would take too long and raise too many questions.
There is a distinction between obsession and possession. In the case of obsession, it is like an evil spirit is on the outside trying to get in. It doesn’t succeed, but is capable of manipulating the responses and behavior of the person. In the case of possession, it is the evil spirit that has been able to attach itself onto a person’s being. Movies tend to give a less factual view of this, but there are known cases that have become that dramatic.
Demons and other malevolent spirits exist. It is impossible to prove this point without going back to the Bible, but that would be another topic in itself. Matthew 9:32-34 is related to Luke 11:14-22. In the Matthew verse, Christ is casting out the demon in a dumb person. When it is done, and the man can speak again, the Pharisees say “It is through the prince of devils that he casts out devils”.
The Luke verse gives us a much clearer picture. It is the same event of casting out the demon in a dumb man, and restoring his speech. When some of the people said, “It is through Beelzebul, the prince of devils, that he casts out devils”. Christ explained it this way, “Every kingdom divided against itself is heading for ruin, and a household divided against itself collapses. So too with Satan: if he is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?”
“Now if it is through Beelzebul that I cast out devils, through whom do your own experts cast them out? … So long as a strong man fully armed guards his own palace, his goods are undisturbed; but when someone stronger than he is attacks and defeats him, the stronger man takes away all the weapons he relied on and shares out his spoil”.
Let’s separate the quoted text into 3: the demon that binds the man’s tongue, Jesus casting out the spirit, and the claim that it is through a demon that Christ casts out another demon.
1. The demon that binds the man’s tongue. The study into the causes and effects of the spiritually afflicted can take up thousands of case studies. However, for the sake of this article, I will condense the doctrines into 4 categories: Spirits of sin, Spirits of trauma, Familiar spirits, & Spirits of the occult.
The cause and effect of each category is evident in the name itself. Spirits of sin are a result of a habitual sin manifesting itself in a person. A good example is the habitual womanizer who indulges in adultery every so often, reasoning that such a habit is only temporary, and hurts no one in particular. What he fails to realize is that these so-called “small sins” are a foothold for something more terrible. The phrase “Everyone is entitled to one sin” is especially dangerous, because your spiritual integrity relies on you being spiritually protected (through baptism). However, sin destroys that protection, because every time you sin, it is as good as saying you renounce God.
Spirits of trauma are similar to spirits of sin in their cause. It is through traumatic events (death of loved ones) that a person becomes spiritually vulnerable. Such a condition will persist if the trauma is not dealt with, and will continue to torment the person, to the point that spirits will be able to penetrate him. A good case of this is the abused child, victims of domestic violence, and developmental conflicts that were not resolved/explained adequately. Keep in mind that spirits of sin, and spirits of trauma tend to have relatively less violent effects on a person.
Familiar spirits are ancestral spirits that haunt a person. When you ask why, it can be because such spirits are somehow “stuck” in this world, or have something “blocking” them from moving on. A recent movie featuring Eva Longoria as the “stuck” spirit is actually a good example. The more common example is a child that has been consecrated to other spirits. I am not attacking Buddhism, but the fact is that children offered to Guan Yin (Goddess of Mercy), and other deities are the “easy targets”. The case studies in India are even more fascinating, and I encourage you to read up and decide on them yourself. This is spiritual warfare: When a person has irrational/unrelated cravings that appear to have no source, and is “forced” into doing certain actions that they would choose not to.
One Catholic priest in India once described how a girl consecrated to a Hindu deity could mimic the exact same postures and positions of the deity. This happened even when she has no memory of the said deity, as she was raised in the US. It’s not a popular statement, and will not make converts overnight, but I do urge you to think about it: Consecrating an infant to any god is questionable.
Finally, spirits of the occult are another main category of demons. These are also the main spirits mentioned throughout the Gospel. If you are a Christian who does not believe in spiritual warfare, I would seriously question your stand. In Matthew 10:1, Christ “called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness”. If there was spiritual warfare 2000 years ago, and Christ did not finish it, who are you to say that there is no longer the threat of spiritual warfare?
This brings me to my point of the occult. Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA), Ouija boards, Tarot cards, and other forms of divination (directly linked to the occult or not) are invitations for evil spirits to enter a person’s spiritual self. Most people do not realize it, but tarot cards and Ouija boards are taken very seriously by the church because these are unholy methods of seeking information. Even doing these things for fun can compromise a person’s spiritual integrity. The spirits latched onto a willing SRA participant are perhaps the nastiest an exorcist can encounter, bringing with it the most severe forms of possession.
This sums up Spiritual Warfare 1. Spiritual Warfare 2 will address deliverance and exorcism. Spiritual Warfare 3 will go into an interesting modern analogy of how spirits can trick us.
May 12, 2009
Catholicism: Proudly Pro-Choice on Education
Taken from WSJ.com
New York's archbishop on schools and the challenges facing the Catholic Church.
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
'The child is not a mere creature of the state. Parents have the primary responsibility to see how and where their children are educated."
For thousands of lower-income New York children caught in the city's failing public school system, any high-profile advocate for choice in education might seem to be heaven-sent. Perhaps this one is. His name is Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the newly appointed spiritual leader of New York's 2.5 million Catholics.
When I went to see Archbishop Dolan early on a midweek morning last month at the New York Catholic Center in Manhattan, his warm and gregarious personality had already been widely reported on. His beaming -- and may I say prominently Irish -- face had been plastered all over the front pages of local newspapers and on the evening news. We had learned early on that he believes in being a joyful shepherd, that he is an outspoken opponent of gay marriage and abortion, and that he likes baseball -- though he told me, with a roaring laugh, that he is "pro-choice when it comes to Mets or Yankees."
Yet the early press coverage leaves a lot of unanswered questions about what to expect from this 59-year-old St. Louis native, who inherits not only substantial political, cultural and religious influence in the largest city in the nation but also a lot of challenges. The Roman Catholic Church has long been an important part of the civic fabric of New York. But in recent decades the trends have not been good. Catholic schools have been closing down, young people have been drifting from the faith, and fewer young men and women are entering Catholic Church vocations. What does this optimistic archbishop have up his sleeve?
The issue that most New Yorkers, Catholic or not, may be interested in is whether the diocese's 279 Catholic schools -- an educational lifeline to over 88,000 children -- can survive. More than 50 have closed down in the past 25 years, and those that are left often struggle to get by. Surely they would have a better chance if New York had an education voucher program like Milwaukee does? So I began our conversation by asking the archbishop to talk about the Milwaukee experience. His already radiant face brightened even more.
"We called it Choice in Education and it was a genuine blessing," he says, sitting up in his chair and leaning forward. "It began under Gov. Tommy Thompson, and the idea was that parents would have a choice as to where they would send their children. It was restricted in that it was just the city of Milwaukee, and the parents had to be under a certain income level. But it was so successful" he explains, that demand soon exceeded the cap of 15,000 students.
When that happened, Milwaukeeans wanted to go further. Archbishop Dolan says he was "part of a coalition, two years ago, that worked with Gov. [Jim] Doyle to expand the cap to 22,000 students." As of now it serves about 20,000 children of families that meet strict income limits. "It's been a tremendous boost," he says, smiling enthusiastically.
The archbishop says that "philosophically," as much as practically, the Milwaukee diocese celebrated the voucher program. "The Catholic Church has always been an ardent advocate for parental rights in education," he points out. "The experiment is now about 15 years old, and it is applauded by all sides . . . except," he notes in a more somber tone, "there [are] some who would attack it, particularly those associated with the public-school teachers lobby, which is very strong in Wisconsin. They still apparently believe that the government should have a monopoly on education."
Despite the power of that lobby, the archbishop says "the parents and the wider community appreciate [the voucher program]," and he stresses that it is popular with more than just Catholics. "The coalition that supports it is made up of, yes, Catholics, but also many Jewish leaders, civic leaders, many politicians, people who just love and support the community with no religious background at all. There seemed to be a widespread appreciation that this was a tremendous boost to the Milwaukee community, and of course we're always hoping to expand it."
Yet what has been possible in Milwaukee may not be in New York. "The challenge of keeping our wonderful Catholic schools strong, affordable, accessible and available," the archbishop says, is "all the more pressing here in New York because we don't have the blessing of vouchers." His next comment suggests that he doesn't expect them here anytime soon. "I know that the state of New York likes to consider itself kind of on the vanguard of enlightened progressive initiatives, but in this regard Wisconsin is way ahead."
Still, the archbishop is not deterred. After all, he reminds me, one of the greatest New York archbishops of all time, John Hughes, had a similar problem. "He got into a battle in the 1840s with what was called then the New York Public School Society, saying 'I'd like a portion of those [government] funds to educate our children.'" He lost that fight but went on to build the city's Catholic school system, which educated masses of Irish immigrants previously considered impossibly ignorant and unruly.
Hughes was continually short of funds, as the diocese is today, but Archbishop Dolan says this too can be kind of a blessing. "It's why the Catholic schools are scrappy," he says. "And in a way that's part of the genius of our schools: We are not rolling in dough. We have to fight for every dime; it becomes a communal endeavor. There is a sense of pride and ownership among the people because, darn it, we fought for this school, we love it, we scraped for it, we have mopped floors and painted classrooms, and we do not take this for granted."
When I rattle off the some of the dropping enrollment statistics in the diocese, the archbishop admits that the "schools can really cause us to go for the Maalox and Tylenol. But," he says, "what we have to ask ourselves is 'Are they worth it?' And we say you bet they are. They're worth it because nobody does it better than the [Catholic] Church when it comes to education."
The archbishop admits that at times others in the Catholic Church don't share his enthusiasm. "Some priests and some bishops have lost their nerve when it comes to Catholic schools. [They've] almost said, 'boy they were nice and we'll do our best to keep the ones that we got but more or less they are on life support and I guess in 50 years they're going to fade away.'" The archbishop says his predecessor Cardinal Egan rejected this line of thinking and he does too. "Its time for us bishops to say: these . . . are . . . worth . . . fighting . . . for," he says, emphasizing each word slowly. "These are worth putting at the top of our agenda, and these are worth something not only internally for us as a church as we pass on the faith for our kids and grandkids, but it is also a highly regarded public service that we do for the wider community. And darn it we do it well, we have a great tradition of it and we're not going to stand by and see it collapse."
So what's the plan? The archbishop, who seems to me part theologian, part historian, and part marketing guru, is already thinking about ways to explore and expand private funding initiatives such as the successful Inner City Scholarship Fund.
He is sure that there can be "wider participation from New York's philanthropic, business and civic community." There are many "who so love the New York community" and see education as "one of the finest investments we can make in the future of our community." Often, he says, givers are not Catholic. "I met someone a week or so ago who said if you ask me my religion I'd probably say I am an atheist, but I love Catholic schools because they do such a sterling job and I am going to support them."
If Archbishop Dolan can save and perhaps even revive the city's Catholic school system, he will be a hero to all of New York. But while he's working on that, he has two other problems that are troubling for the Catholic Church. The first is the growing number of 20- and 30-somethings, raised in the faith, who are not attending Mass or getting married in the Catholic Church. The second is the sharp drop in people choosing Catholic Church vocations.
I asked him what he thinks has gone wrong. For starters, he says, the Catholic Church for too long took for granted the Catholic culture, "when it was presumed that you would go to Sunday Mass, that you would marry a Catholic and be married in the Catholic Church, when it was presumed that you would always remain in the faith, with tons of priests and nuns and Catholic schools to serve you."
Those days are gone, and now he says its time to "recover the evangelizing muscle that characterized the early church." This means putting an end to the "wavering" that has too often characterized the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council and a return to a clear and confident message.
"Very often even the word Catholic even the word church has had a question mark behind it," he says. "Does it know where it's going? Does it know what its teaching? Is it going to be around? There was a big question mark. A young person will not give his or her life for a question mark. A young person will give his or her life for an exclamation point."
This "recovery" in confidence, he says, began under John Paul II and continues under Pope Benedict XVI. In his new role, Archbishop Dolan intends to keep it going. Being a Catholic is an "adventure in fidelity," he insists. The Catholic Church, he says, has "a very compelling moral message. She calls us to what is most noble in our human makeup, dares us to become saints, challenges us to heroic virtue."
Is the church ignorant? Stupid? Uneducated? Old-fashioned?
I challenge anyone who thinks so to actually read her literature, her history, her teachings, and her faith. It would take a lifetime of reading, reflecting, soul-searching, and philophisizing to reach even the vaguest of conclusions.
But then, philosophy is a lifelong wonder, is it not?
New York's archbishop on schools and the challenges facing the Catholic Church.
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
'The child is not a mere creature of the state. Parents have the primary responsibility to see how and where their children are educated."
For thousands of lower-income New York children caught in the city's failing public school system, any high-profile advocate for choice in education might seem to be heaven-sent. Perhaps this one is. His name is Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the newly appointed spiritual leader of New York's 2.5 million Catholics.
When I went to see Archbishop Dolan early on a midweek morning last month at the New York Catholic Center in Manhattan, his warm and gregarious personality had already been widely reported on. His beaming -- and may I say prominently Irish -- face had been plastered all over the front pages of local newspapers and on the evening news. We had learned early on that he believes in being a joyful shepherd, that he is an outspoken opponent of gay marriage and abortion, and that he likes baseball -- though he told me, with a roaring laugh, that he is "pro-choice when it comes to Mets or Yankees."
Yet the early press coverage leaves a lot of unanswered questions about what to expect from this 59-year-old St. Louis native, who inherits not only substantial political, cultural and religious influence in the largest city in the nation but also a lot of challenges. The Roman Catholic Church has long been an important part of the civic fabric of New York. But in recent decades the trends have not been good. Catholic schools have been closing down, young people have been drifting from the faith, and fewer young men and women are entering Catholic Church vocations. What does this optimistic archbishop have up his sleeve?
The issue that most New Yorkers, Catholic or not, may be interested in is whether the diocese's 279 Catholic schools -- an educational lifeline to over 88,000 children -- can survive. More than 50 have closed down in the past 25 years, and those that are left often struggle to get by. Surely they would have a better chance if New York had an education voucher program like Milwaukee does? So I began our conversation by asking the archbishop to talk about the Milwaukee experience. His already radiant face brightened even more.
"We called it Choice in Education and it was a genuine blessing," he says, sitting up in his chair and leaning forward. "It began under Gov. Tommy Thompson, and the idea was that parents would have a choice as to where they would send their children. It was restricted in that it was just the city of Milwaukee, and the parents had to be under a certain income level. But it was so successful" he explains, that demand soon exceeded the cap of 15,000 students.
When that happened, Milwaukeeans wanted to go further. Archbishop Dolan says he was "part of a coalition, two years ago, that worked with Gov. [Jim] Doyle to expand the cap to 22,000 students." As of now it serves about 20,000 children of families that meet strict income limits. "It's been a tremendous boost," he says, smiling enthusiastically.
The archbishop says that "philosophically," as much as practically, the Milwaukee diocese celebrated the voucher program. "The Catholic Church has always been an ardent advocate for parental rights in education," he points out. "The experiment is now about 15 years old, and it is applauded by all sides . . . except," he notes in a more somber tone, "there [are] some who would attack it, particularly those associated with the public-school teachers lobby, which is very strong in Wisconsin. They still apparently believe that the government should have a monopoly on education."
Despite the power of that lobby, the archbishop says "the parents and the wider community appreciate [the voucher program]," and he stresses that it is popular with more than just Catholics. "The coalition that supports it is made up of, yes, Catholics, but also many Jewish leaders, civic leaders, many politicians, people who just love and support the community with no religious background at all. There seemed to be a widespread appreciation that this was a tremendous boost to the Milwaukee community, and of course we're always hoping to expand it."
Yet what has been possible in Milwaukee may not be in New York. "The challenge of keeping our wonderful Catholic schools strong, affordable, accessible and available," the archbishop says, is "all the more pressing here in New York because we don't have the blessing of vouchers." His next comment suggests that he doesn't expect them here anytime soon. "I know that the state of New York likes to consider itself kind of on the vanguard of enlightened progressive initiatives, but in this regard Wisconsin is way ahead."
Still, the archbishop is not deterred. After all, he reminds me, one of the greatest New York archbishops of all time, John Hughes, had a similar problem. "He got into a battle in the 1840s with what was called then the New York Public School Society, saying 'I'd like a portion of those [government] funds to educate our children.'" He lost that fight but went on to build the city's Catholic school system, which educated masses of Irish immigrants previously considered impossibly ignorant and unruly.
Hughes was continually short of funds, as the diocese is today, but Archbishop Dolan says this too can be kind of a blessing. "It's why the Catholic schools are scrappy," he says. "And in a way that's part of the genius of our schools: We are not rolling in dough. We have to fight for every dime; it becomes a communal endeavor. There is a sense of pride and ownership among the people because, darn it, we fought for this school, we love it, we scraped for it, we have mopped floors and painted classrooms, and we do not take this for granted."
When I rattle off the some of the dropping enrollment statistics in the diocese, the archbishop admits that the "schools can really cause us to go for the Maalox and Tylenol. But," he says, "what we have to ask ourselves is 'Are they worth it?' And we say you bet they are. They're worth it because nobody does it better than the [Catholic] Church when it comes to education."
The archbishop admits that at times others in the Catholic Church don't share his enthusiasm. "Some priests and some bishops have lost their nerve when it comes to Catholic schools. [They've] almost said, 'boy they were nice and we'll do our best to keep the ones that we got but more or less they are on life support and I guess in 50 years they're going to fade away.'" The archbishop says his predecessor Cardinal Egan rejected this line of thinking and he does too. "Its time for us bishops to say: these . . . are . . . worth . . . fighting . . . for," he says, emphasizing each word slowly. "These are worth putting at the top of our agenda, and these are worth something not only internally for us as a church as we pass on the faith for our kids and grandkids, but it is also a highly regarded public service that we do for the wider community. And darn it we do it well, we have a great tradition of it and we're not going to stand by and see it collapse."
So what's the plan? The archbishop, who seems to me part theologian, part historian, and part marketing guru, is already thinking about ways to explore and expand private funding initiatives such as the successful Inner City Scholarship Fund.
He is sure that there can be "wider participation from New York's philanthropic, business and civic community." There are many "who so love the New York community" and see education as "one of the finest investments we can make in the future of our community." Often, he says, givers are not Catholic. "I met someone a week or so ago who said if you ask me my religion I'd probably say I am an atheist, but I love Catholic schools because they do such a sterling job and I am going to support them."
If Archbishop Dolan can save and perhaps even revive the city's Catholic school system, he will be a hero to all of New York. But while he's working on that, he has two other problems that are troubling for the Catholic Church. The first is the growing number of 20- and 30-somethings, raised in the faith, who are not attending Mass or getting married in the Catholic Church. The second is the sharp drop in people choosing Catholic Church vocations.
I asked him what he thinks has gone wrong. For starters, he says, the Catholic Church for too long took for granted the Catholic culture, "when it was presumed that you would go to Sunday Mass, that you would marry a Catholic and be married in the Catholic Church, when it was presumed that you would always remain in the faith, with tons of priests and nuns and Catholic schools to serve you."
Those days are gone, and now he says its time to "recover the evangelizing muscle that characterized the early church." This means putting an end to the "wavering" that has too often characterized the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council and a return to a clear and confident message.
"Very often even the word Catholic even the word church has had a question mark behind it," he says. "Does it know where it's going? Does it know what its teaching? Is it going to be around? There was a big question mark. A young person will not give his or her life for a question mark. A young person will give his or her life for an exclamation point."
This "recovery" in confidence, he says, began under John Paul II and continues under Pope Benedict XVI. In his new role, Archbishop Dolan intends to keep it going. Being a Catholic is an "adventure in fidelity," he insists. The Catholic Church, he says, has "a very compelling moral message. She calls us to what is most noble in our human makeup, dares us to become saints, challenges us to heroic virtue."
Is the church ignorant? Stupid? Uneducated? Old-fashioned?
I challenge anyone who thinks so to actually read her literature, her history, her teachings, and her faith. It would take a lifetime of reading, reflecting, soul-searching, and philophisizing to reach even the vaguest of conclusions.
But then, philosophy is a lifelong wonder, is it not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)