Jesus was born in Bethlehem because of ....Taxes?

Yup. Looks like it:

The Christmas tax story

With Mary so close to delivering her child, why did she and Joseph risk traveling to Bethlehem? Taxes.

A census was ordered to determine the taxes due from the residents of the Roman Empire. Each person had to return to his home town to meet the decree's requirements.

So Joseph and Mary headed out from Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, specifically to the city of David known as Bethlehem, an estimated three-day trip, because Joseph was of the house and family of David.

And the rest is Biblical history. [...]

Follow the link for the scripture references and various embedded links.

Gosh. Taxes. They're everywhere.

Merry Christmas!
     

Paul Harvey got much of it right, back in 1965

See for yourself. How much of this rings true today?



Hint: it was easy for someone to illustrate it with contemporary photographs.

     

Advice from Thomas Jefferson...

... in a letter to his nephew, Peter:

QUESTION WITH BOLDNESS. . .

Dear Peter, — I have received your two letters of December 30 and April 18, and am very happy to find by them, as well as by letters from Mr. Wythe, that you have been so fortunate as to attract his notice & good will; I am sure you will find this to have been one of the most fortunate events of your life, as I have ever been sensible it was of mine. I enclose you a sketch of the sciences to which I would wish you to apply, in such order as Mr. Wythe shall advise; I mention, also, the books in them worth your reading, which submit to his correction. Many of these are among your father’s books, which you should have brought to you. As I do not recollect those of them not in his library, you must write to me for them, making out a catalogue of such as you think you shall have occasion for, in 18 months from the date of your letter, & consulting Mr. Wythe on the subject. To this sketch, I will add a few particular observations. [...]

Jefferson goes on to make several observations. Fascinating reading, especially his observations about religion.

     

God vs Science: Nothing to do with Einstein, everything to do with an "Urban Legend"

My Dad has a Christian friend from his days in the Navy, whom he emails with. He forwards a lot of joke emails he gets, and some of the emails are from his Christian friend. This is one of those:

Subject: God vs Science

This has been around before, but worth reading again! Some of you may have not seen it a great arguement.

God vs. Science

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely. '

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?', the professor says.

He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er..yes,' the student says..

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir..'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.

'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not..'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '

Yes.

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.' You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'.

We can get down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat.

You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so.

So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs. Science'

PS: the student was Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein wrote a book titled God vs. Science in 1921.

[END]

The whole thing seemed a bit "off" to me. Einstein was Jewish, and I never heard of him being a Christian, so I did some research. It turns out that Einstein never wrote a book called "God vs Science". He did not believe in a personal God, and was resentful of the stories being told by religious people, claiming that he did. This from Einstein's Wikipedia page sums it up:

Religious views

Main article: Albert Einstein's religious views

The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and whether or not he believed in God, or in a god. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."^[94] In a 1954 letter, he wrote, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."^[95] In a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind, Einstein remarked, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."^[96]

Repeated attempts by the press to present Albert Einstein as a religious man provoked the following statement:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

—Albert Einstein^[97]

Einstein had previously explored this belief, that man could not understand the nature of God, when he gave an interview to Time Magazine explaining:

I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.

—Albert Einstein^[98]

I also read other sources on line about this, belittling Christians for "knowingly spreading this lie around the internet, to advance their religion".

That may be too harsh an accusation. I suspect many Christians pass this on because they believe it, and are ignorant of the facts. Ideally they ought to check the facts first before passing it on, but that can be said about many things that get passed around through email. In the end, the reader must verify.

I'm sure lots of Christians liked this story too because, it let's God off the hook where evil is concerned, and argues for the existence of faith. Yet I think it's ironic, too. The argument by the Christian against the atheist is that the atheist is working from a premise of duality. Yet isn't much of conventional Christian doctrine also based on the belief in duality? The argument against duality actually sounds like an argument in support of Eastern religion.

Snopes.com says that this email is actually a variation of an urban legend, where a Christian student puts an atheist professor in his place:

Snopes.com: Einstein and the "Evil is the absence of God" argument

Snopes gives all the details, and similar popular arguments that are often used to bolster religious faith in the face of atheistic arguments. And explains why Einstein got pulled into the story.

Here is another post by a blogger about this email story:

God vs Evil: A Philosophical Chain Email

In the comments below it, someone quotes some excerpts from a paper by Albert Einstein, called “Science and Religion.” While Einstein was not conventionally religious, he wasn't an atheist either. If you follow the link, there are some interesting quotes from the paper, as well as some other quotes by Einstein.

According to Snopes, Einstein, as a "generic genius", got incorporated into this Urban Legend. I suspect that his paper then got referred to as a book, the title got changed slightly, and claims were made about the content and the author's beliefs that don't hold up to scrutiny.

It's interesting to see how facts over time can get distorted. And it's great that a bit of searching on the internet can explain it all, uncover the history and connect the dots, and set the record straight again.

     

America and Europe: the religious divide

American and European attitudes toward religion differ quite a lot. The following article examines, in depth, many of the factors that account for this:

Religious Divide Across The Atlantic

[...] In Europe, for many centuries, the nexus of religion with political power was very strong. The Catholic Church preached not liberty but authority and obedience. Calvinism, which preached equality and individuality, had quickly degenerated into theocracy where it could acquire political power. And revolutionary Lutheranism, which had opposed papal power, soon turned into a state religion that sanctified secular power in Germany and Scandinavia. It is only in the last century that full rights of citizenship have become independent from belonging to the ‘correct’ faith in much of Europe. Just like secular ideologies try to cling to political power today, following the Treaty of Augsburg (1555) churches accommodated themselves to the supremacy of Kings and aristocracies, and they traded the granting of the ‘divine right’ to rulers for many privileges (regarding land, taxes, etc…). Therefore, whoever wanted to attack authority in Europe had to attack the churches, and while these churches might have been different among individual countries, within countries usually one church had a near-monopoly on faith. Revolutions on the European Continent thus became as much anti-clerical as anti-royal (or anti-prince), and the common denominator of the civil faiths that arose in the 18th and 19th centuries – liberalism, socialism and communism – was anti-clericalism. Also in the 20th century, fascism and nazism saw churches as rivals for power and effectively ‘nationalized’ them (like Lenin/Stalin did before, and Putin does today). To this very day, to be a “progressive” in Europe requires to be a-religious (and often anti-religious), and hence there is the mistaken belief that modernity necessarily leads to (or requires) secularization.

The American experience has been very different, and there never existed a significant split between anti-clericalism and clericalism in the United States like it did in Europe. The Founders of the American Republic were on the whole very religious people, and they did not have to burn down churches and murder priests to establish their republic, like they did in France. Already de Tocqueville had pointed to the paradox that by establishing a rigorous separation of church and state (through the rejection of the concept of a state religion) the Founding Fathers had actually strengthened the role of religion in general in the United States. Faith (in its myriad forms) was viewed as the friend of freedom, not its enemy, and it was not despised or derided as an enemy of the Enligthenment in America. The contemporary Joffe points to another factor, namely that the protestants who settled America spoke largely English, not French. That means that they had benefited from the Scottish-English Enligthenment which was already a hundred years old at the time of the French Revolution. The latter was marked by Danton’s and Robespierre’s “deadly hatred of all things Deist”. By contrast, the great minds of the earlier Scottish-English Enlightenment - Berkely, Hume, Locke, Hutchinson – had no problem with God. And neither did the American offspring of that Enlightenment. They saw “natural law” and “natural rights” as transcending man-made laws, and Berkeley’s empiricism required God as ultimate proof of reality.

So, in short, because religion had been part of an oppressive state in Europe, it was later banned from the public sphere. Europe’s buildings, cathedrals, art, etc…attest to it having been a great Christian civilization in the past, but a visitor there today will not find much God in the public space. In America, the same visitor can easily encounter God in a football stadium, or at the end of a speech by…President Obama. And the essential reasons for that are (a) the early separation of church and state in America’s original 18th century Constitution, which has stood the test of time more than any other to this day, as well as (b) the non-denominational character of God in America. In America religion was never politically as powerful as it has been in Europe, but its influence has proven to be more lasting because it has relied on its own resources and thus remained in control of its own principles/message or, if you will, free from state control. [...]

If you read the whole article, it's rather long, but there is lots of meat to chew on. It is, to me, a very interesting topic.
     

European Union tries to pick a King President

Or mabye "King" is a better word? Many people feel left out of the process:

Leaders in last-minute attempt to decide top European Council roles
Opposing groups try to find consensus on who should take presidential and foreign minister roles ahead of Brussels summit

The leaders of Europe's main political tribes conferred in Brussels this afternoon in an attempt to hammer out a last-minute consensus on who should be the top two people running the EU's new Lisbon regime, ahead of a crucial Brussels summit.

While Christian democratic government leaders, including the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, gathered in Brussels, Gordon Brown found himself isolated at a session of the seven centre-left leaders ahead of this evening's summit.

The centre-left leaders, grouped in the Party of European Socialists (PES), hope to secure the new post of European foreign minister, with Italian Massimo D'Alema and Spain's Miguel Angel Moratinos as their frontrunners.

[...]

Last night Merkel provoked anger in other European capitals with the announcement that Germany and France are to strike a deal on who they want for the post of president.

Merkel stated for the first time that she and Sarkozy intended to agree on a common candidate, believed to be the Belgian prime minister, Herman Van Rompuy.

[...]

The Belgian shares the strong opposition of both Sarkozy and Merkel to Turkey joining the EU. In a debate in the Belgian parliament five years ago, Van Rompuy made plain that he viewed the EU as a Christian club with no room for a large Muslim country such as Turkey.

"Turkey is not a part of Europe and will never be part of Europe," Van Rompuy said, years before he became Belgian prime minister. "The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey."

The EU is divided over Turkey, with France, Germany, and Austria leading hostility to membership, while Britain, Sweden and east European countries are strong supporters of Turkey in Europe.

Van Rompuy's antipathy to Turkey earned him support yesterday for the EU job from the Vlaams Belang, or Flemish Interest, party on the extreme anti-immigrant right wing in Flanders.

But news of a Franco-German alliance triggered anger in some European capitals.

"We're not having a replay of the bad old days when the big guys fixed all the deals," said a Polish official.

Poland campaigned for greater glasnost, to open up the contest for the key jobs. But they have now conceded defeat, although they claim to have the support of 10 of the 27 EU countries. "We had a go," said the Polish official. "We wanted a degree of transparency to address the sceptics. And lots of countries feel that these appointments are just being made over their heads. There's always been a suspicion about the way these deals are done in the EU. This is a genuine example. It puts everyone to shame." [...]

The Lisbon "treaty" is basically the EU constitution that was rejected by European voters. The voters don't elect the EU president, either. Sounds like the "Old" way of doing things, no?

Anyway, it seems lots of people are angry, as the drama continues.


Also see:

Without Opposition: the European Union

Will the EU force Britain to accept the Euro?


     

Is this book "The Shack" theologically correct?

Is it supposed to be? Does it matter? I haven't read it, but it was recommended by someone in a Christmas card we received, so I looked it up on Amazon.com:

The Shack (Paperback)

Product Description
Mackenzie Allen Philips' youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandoned shack deep in the Oregon wilderness.

Four years later in the midst of his Great Sadness, Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend. Against his better judgment he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack's world forever.

In a world where religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant "The Shack" wrestles with the timeless question, "Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain?" The answers Mack gets will astound you and perhaps transform you as much as it did him. You'll want everyone you know to read this book!

It has over 2,000 customer reviews, giving it an average of four out of five stars. There are some sample pages to you can read from the forward to the book, and I read them up to the point where it stopped. It was interesting enough to hold my attention that long. Don't know if I would want to read the whole thing, as I'm not a fan of religious books generally.


When I looked it up on Amazon, the search also showed me this book:

THE SHACK: Unauthorized Theological Critique (Paperback)

Product Description
In this booklet I hope to guide you through The Shack. We will look at the book with a charitable but critical eye, attempting to understand what it teaches and how it can be that opinions about the book vary so widely. We do this not simply to be critical, but as an exercise in discernment and critical thinking. We will simply look at what the author teaches and compare that to the Bible.

This book had 14 customer reviews, that averaged out to be two out of five stars. Judging from the comments the reviewers left, many didn't care for the author's criticism.

I don't consider myself religious, because I don't care about doctrines of theology or religious dogma. I consider myself a Christian culturally, but I don't identify myself as a Christian religiously, because to do so has specific meanings, implies things about beliefs that I don't hold.

In my youth I explored religion, and found it wanting. From Christianity I did learn some things of value, and they have stayed with me. The rest I discarded. As appealing as parts of it may be, I don't try to associate myself with the religious whole, because my beliefs would make me a heretic or a hypocrite. I also don't have a need to have everything explained for me; how can anyone explain away the ubiquitous ineffable? I'm content with The Mystery.

Where The Shack is coming from and where it is going, and whether or not I'll ever read it, I couldn't say. It does appear to want to tackle some tough questions, and perhaps from a spiritual perspective it could be interesting. But this book is being called "The Pilgim's Progress of our Times". I read Pilgrim's Progress, and hated it. It was interesting as anthropology/literature, but spiritually it seemed to embody much of what I don't like about religion, and stridently religious people.

I see faith as a personal matter. I'm not interested in religious arguments. I can't comment on a book I haven't read, so I won't. I'm just wondering if it's a book that would have appeal beyond a strictly religious audience? I've read that there are plans to make it into a movie, for general theatrical release. That implies it could have a wide appeal, unless they have to change it a lot for the movie.

The author of The Shack has a website at www.theshackbook.com. The book's index, "forward" and the first chapter are all available on-line there.

Merry Christmas.
     

Selective Religious Tolerance: a Leftist Tool

One would think that "Religious Tolerance" would be about showing consideration for all religions, but clearly that is not the case in Europe, as Thomas Landen at the Brussels Journal shows us:

Dispatch from the Eurabian Front: Austria, European Parliament, the Netherlands, Belgium

The Austrian authorities have indicted politician Susanne Winter on charges of incitement and degradation of religious symbols and religious agitation. This offence carries a maximum sentence of two years. Last January, Ms Winter said that the prophet Muhammad was “a child molester” because he had married a six-year-old girl. She also said he was “a warlord” who had written the Koran during “epileptic fits.”

The politician, a member of the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ, an anti-immigration party which is in opposition, added that Islam is “a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean.” She also warned for “a Muslim immigration tsunami,” saying that “in 20 or 30 years, half the population of Austria will be Muslim” if the present immigration policies continue.

Following her remarks, Muslim extremists threatened to kill Susanne Winter and she was placed under police protection. Today, the Justice Department in Vienna announced that Ms Winter will be charged with “incitement and degradation of religious symbols” (Verhetzung und Herabwürdigung religiöser Symbole). If convicted she may have to serve up to two years in jail for her opinions.

However, Alfred Hrdlicka, the Austrian “artist” who depicted Jesus and his apostles engaging in homosexual acts of sodomy during the Last Supper, has not been indicted. Nor will he be. Depicting Jesus sodomizing his apostles is not considered to be a “degradation of religious symbols” in Austria, but referring to the historic fact that Muhammad married a six-year old girl is “incitement to racial hatred.”

Neither has Mr Hrdlicka been threatened by Christian assassins for his “opinions.” The difference between Christian and Muslim extremists is that the former do not aim to kill those who offend them, but the latter do – which is perhaps also why the European authorities fear the radical Muslims and persecute their opponents while they subsidize those who insult Christians. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The rest of the article talks about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders, who have been threatened with death by Muslim fanatics for being critical of Islam. The forces of Europe's multi-culti political correctness are being mustered to deny them protection and effectively silence them and/or force them to leave. Ironically, this emboldens the most violent and threatening Muslims to continue being violent, threatening and intolerant. Why would that behavior be encouraged in a genuinely liberal and tolerant society?

Leftist socialists pretend to be liberal and tolerant, but in reality they are anything but. They are very selective about who and what they support. Any cause they can use against the establishment they support. Everything they do is a means of achieving power; freedom of speech and personal liberty are not values worth protecting for everyone, they are just tools to use selectively in pursuit of political power. The ends justifies the means.

In Turkey, the secular Left opposes the conservative Islamic AKP party. But in Europe, the Left supports Islamists. Why? Because in Europe, Leftists and Islamists have a common enemy they hate; Christian conservatives.

In Iran in the 1970's, the political Left joined forces with the Islamic Right to overthrow the Shah. The Leftists foolishly believed the Islamists would share power with them, and bring about a secular socialist state. Instead, when the Shah was driven out, the Islamists killed or exiled the leaders of the Left and subjugated their followers, under a rigid an intolerant Islamic theocratic state.

Leftists often have self-destructive tendencies, and also fail to learn from their mistakes, repeating them again and again. Even if they won't learn, surely the rest of us can? Their mistakes are a lesson for us all.


Related Links:

Hitler, Islamism and Leftist Liberals...

Political Correctness and Multiculturalism:
The New Tools of "Stealth" Socialism?

Radical Islam, the Western Left, and the
end of democracy; the problems and solutions

     

Jisus is coming, April 25th...

... and in multiple colors, too!



But only to stores in Europe, so far. From DesktopLinux.com:

Dutch UMPC runs Ubuntu Linux

Dutch integrator Van Der Led (VDL) Designs has announced a clone of the Asus Eee PC ultra-mini PC (UMPC) notebook. The WiFi-enabled "Jisus" UMPC is equipped with a Chinese-made 1GHz Loongson CPU, has an 8.9-inch display, and runs Ubuntu Linux.

The unusual name may be intended to remind shoppers of Asus, the better-known brand responsible for the popular Eee mini-notebook. Or, it may be derived from the device's Loongson 2F CPU: the Loongson was code-named "Godson" by its developers in the CAS (Chinese Academy of Sciences) in the People's Republic of China. The Linux-oriented CPU is based on a derivative of the MIPS64 architecture, albeit without patented portions, such as unaligned 32-bit load/store support. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Wow. I knew that Christianity was taking off in a big way in China, but this it the first time I've seen it's influence manifested in the high tech world. It's not a big deal, but I find it interesting.

The rest of the article deals with the technical specs of the units, and compares them with the Asus Eee, which Jisus was made to compete with. I can only wonder if and when Jisus will make it to the United States. I hope it does. The more, the merrier! Would it keep the same name, and would Americans like it? It might be fun to see.