All in the Family featured the curmudgeonly Archie Bunker. Archie was television’s most famous grouch, blunt, blustering, straightforward and untouched by the PC crowd. He was the archetype of the conservative male. Michael desprately tried to reeducate him, but he persisted in his breviloquence.

Looking back at the last 40 years, we realize: ARCHIE WAS RIGHT!


Nothing to See, No Reason to Sue

I've officially had it with this story, and the way it is being reported in the Mainstream and Christian Media.

N.C. Dunkin' Donuts bakery sued for religious discrimination

ASHEVILLE, N.C – A Dunkin' Donuts franchise here will go to federal court to answer charges that it refused to hire an Asheville man who could not work on Saturday because of his religious beliefs.
Darrell Littrell, a Seventh-Day Adventist, applied for a job as a donut maker at the Citi Brands' Arden manufacturing plant in December 2012, the suit alleges. He was later interviewed by the company's plant manager.
In January, 2013 the manager offered Littrell the donut maker position, and told Littrell to report to work the next day, a Friday, at 3 p.m., the suit said.
Littrell said that he could not start work on Friday afternoon, since Adventists observe a Sabbath from sunset Friday until sunset Saturday. The manager then withdrew the job offer to Littrell, the commission alleges.
My first bone to pick with this is the way some media sources are reporting this as if it is a giant battle for equal rights for Christians.  It's not.  It never will be.  Jehovah Whiteness and 7th Day Adventists are not now, and have never been Christian denominations.  They are offshoots of a religious movement known as Millerites.  Yes back in 1833 some Millerites held traditional Christian beliefs.  That isn't the way it is now.  Today both groups deny basic tenants of  Christology.  This means they cannot be by definition Christians.

There is of course no reason to expect the Mainstream Media to make that distinction or care.  Christian media sources, should be able to get the story right and not pretend that this EEOC filling is some sort of cosmic battle between good and evil.  It's not.  It's not even a minor battle between religious freedom in general and corporate insensitivity.  David isn't going up against Goliath here.  Quit trying to make the story into something it isn't.

My second bone to pick has to do with the story and lawsuit.  If  a man applies for a job, and he knows he has certain religious beliefs that he cannot violate, he might want to bring those up before he is told to report to work.

Here is what I think happened.  Times are tough and jobs are hard to come by.  Darrell Littrell saw a job advertised.  He wanted the job and applied for it.  He interviewed.  It went well.  The boss seemed to like him.  Darrell forgot to mention that there is a 24 hour period of the week he can't work.  No sense being disagreeable about work hours before getting the job.  For some reason it slipped Darrell's mind to ask what shift he would be working.

Then something good happened, Darrell was offered the job and told to report to work.  The problem was that Darrell suddenly remembered that he needs sundown Friday to sundown Saturday off from work.  So despite the fact that he needed the job, he told the boss he couldn't go to work.  The boss figured Darrell didn't need the job that badly and withdrew his offer.

This is not discrimination.  Dunkin Donuts is a 24 hour a day, seven days a week business.  Obviously they need people to work on the Sabbath.  I think the boss knew that he needed people to work the weekend.  That's why he hired a guy to work on the weekend.  Darrell springs the news he can't work the weekend as soon as he is offered the job, and the boss says "OK, I'll get someone else".  Darrell still wants the money from the job, he just doesn't want to show up and work the weekends, so he got himself a lawyer.

Too bad for Darrell.  The job is working on the weekends.  Maybe if that was a problem you should have mentioned it before you got the job offer.  Nobody is discriminating against you because you don't want to work.  Nobody is questioning your deeply held religious beliefs.  They have a job that involves working the weekend.  You don't want to work the weekend.  They don't have a job you want to do.  There is no reason to sue them.

So what would the  "reasonable accommodation" required by the law, look like in Darrell's case?  Well according to Darrell's POV someone else would have to work his shift.  That means the company would either have to hire someone to do it, or force another employee to work it. 

If Darrell believes that working on a Sabbath is a sin, why would he insist on having someone sin on his behalf?  If Darrell believes in fairness, and I'm assuming he does since he is arguing that it's fair for the company to let him have the day off, why would he think it's fair to disrupt another employee's work schedule?  Don't other people have a right to enjoy the weekend too?


Home Run

Fred Reed takes a swing at his 50th high school reunion and knocks it out of the park.

When We Were America

There was nothing special about the class of 1964, or about King George High, except for those of us who were in it. Our yearbook looked like ten thousand others across America, portraits with acne removed in the photo lab, the basket ball team exactly like everybody else’s, the cheerleaders conventionally glorious, conventional adolescent good-byes in ball-point pen—but without misspelling or bad grammar.
The names in the yearbook are just names: Sonny, Rosie, Butch, Kenny, Joyce, Cecil, Ricky, Kit. Just names. But. But, but, but. With any of these people you could leave your keys in the car—we did—or the front door unlocked—we did. We had one cop in the country, Jay Powell, a state trooper, and he had little to do. The high school did not have metal detectors or police patrolling the halls. We had none of the behavior that now makes these things necessary. It wasn’t in the culture. We could have raped, killed, robbed, fathered countless illegitimate children like barnyard animals. We didn’t.
It wasn’t in the culture.
That tag line,  "It wasn’t in the culture." sums up the entire article.  Take a walk down memory lane in what was once America.  I know Freed is remembering it right.  I wasn't there in 1964.  I know he is right because of this line: "Sex had occurred to us, but didn’t occupy our thoughts except when we were awake."  I never spent much time in Virginia, but I do still remember what it was to be young and with a girl who made me glad to be a boy.

Take a gander at Fred's piece.  It's worth your time.

Bible Versions

The little girl was sitting with her grandmother, who had presented her with her first little children's Bible, in an easy-to-read translation, when she was very young.

Now, a decade or so later, the elderly lady was ready to spend a few sweet moments handing down the big old family Bible, in the time-honored King James Version, to her only grandchild.

Understandably excited, the youngster was asking a number of questions, both about the family members whose births and deaths were recorded therein, and about various aspects of the Scriptures themselves.

Her grandmother was endeavoring to answer all the child's questions in terms she could understand, but the one that stopped her cold was this sincere inquiry:

"Which Virgin was the mother of Jesus? Was it the Virgin Mary, or the King James virgin?"



I have a hypothetical situation for you.

For my purposes this incident happens in the United States.

You are sick and need a doctor, not just any doctor you need a surgeon for a difficult procedure.  If you don't get the procedure you will die. The hospital has 5 doctors that they say are qualified to preform your surgery.  To make matters worse this is an emergency and you don't have time to research the skill set of each of the candidates.   You do however get 5 min with each of them for a pre-surgery consultation. 

All five men seem very nice and are personable.  They all claim to have done the procedure before but all of them are new graduates and have only been out of school a short time.  The price of the surgery will be the same no matter who preforms it.  All five men have answered your pre-surgery questions word for word the same way.

One doctor is Asian.
One is Jewish.
One is a nondescript White guy.
One is Black.
One is Hispanic.

Which one do you pick and why?

Note, if you don't answer in the comments its because you are a racist and your non-answer is proof that you are a hater.

Incidentally each possible choice involves prejudice, does that mean your choice is also racist?



I have been reading Op-ed articles for over 30 years now.  I'm not sure who or what started my interest in reading opinion pieces.  I remember liking Mike Royko, probably because he was witty and irreverent.  It's been over a dozen years since I subscribed to a newspaper.  With the advent of the internet, printed papers have become unnecessary. 

There are people that I read or listen to because I agree with them.  There are people that I read because I disagree with them, but I enjoy being challenged by their thinking.  I suspect that other people share the same fascination.  Rush Limbaugh has made an outstanding career and a small fortune out of this phenomenon; as have other personalities, like Ann Landers and Dear Abby.

One of the reasons I am drawn to this type of entertainment is because I want to see how someone with a particular viewpoint addresses an issue.  Let's be honest about this point, it is mostly entertainment, not education, not information.  Why do people tune into Dr. Laura or Dr. Phil?  We like seeing train wrecks.  We also like hearing our thoughts in other people's voices.  Has there ever been a Dr. Laura show where the answer to at least one segment wasn't, "get off your back and quit being a slut"?  We like that answer.  We wish we were able to say something just like it, but for some reason we don't.

The Op-ed Page is a lot like that.  We know that the world is a giant train wreck.  We like hearing other people articulate our rather sensible solutions to todays problems.  Some authors like a Pat Buchannan or Walter Williams are going to come at a problem from a fixed philosophical perspective.   If you understand their perspective you can probably know their conclusion without reading the piece.  The enjoyment comes from watching them work out and articulate the solution.

Other authors have a fixed solution but no overall philosophical perspective.  While we see this idiocy in many left leaning people, they don't bother me as much.  The leftist wants a utopia without effort.  The quasi-conservative wants a different utopia, one without fixed philosophical principle.  The reason the leftist doesn't cause me as much concern is that he will never achieve his goals.  Indeed he cannot.  Contradicting ideas produce contradicting results.  The leftist will forever spend his time rushing about pandering to the loudest whimpering's of whatever aggrieved group is in vogue de jure.

The quasi-conservative is a much worse creature.  He is articulating a vision of something that does work.  His world is a good place.  Good people recognize it when he speaks of it.  The quasi-conservative (Quasi-Con) assumes the utopia without a solid philosophical perspective. 

The Quasi-Con wants a world where everyone lives according to fixed principles.  He wants to count on others behaving themselves in a predictable fashion.  He wants the benefit of an ordered society based on immutable philosophical principles.  He is willing and wants to live with them.  He is willing to go along with them.  He doesn't understand those principles, because he doesn't share them. That is why he is powerless to communicate anything beyond a desire to live in a Quasi-Con Utopia.

I suspect this is part of why I find Lord Monckton such a frustrating read.  He starts off well.  He means well.  He ends up with solutions that are void of fixed philosophical principle.  Which is why he ends up supporting guns, except of course these guns, under these circumstances, or free speech except for this kind of speech.  A principle isn't a principle if you have to surround it with a fence of exceptions.


Thought Experiment

I'd like everyone to try a thought experiment.

For purposes of this experiment we have to go back in time to the Garden of Eden.  We are assuming that there are only three kinds of beings (lower animals are not 'beings').  The first being is God.  The second are angelic creatures (faithful or fallen).  The third is mankind.  In the subset of mankind there are two and only two creatures Adam and Eve.

For our purposes Adam and Eve have not fallen or sinned yet. 

  • Adam and Eve are able to be in the presence of God and speak/interact with Him
  • Adam and Eve are able to be in the presence of angelic creatures and speak/interact with them
  • Adam and Eve are cloaked in shekinah
  • Adam and Eve do not have to contend with death or a known limit to their life span
  • Adam was given dominion/authority over creation
  • There are only three commandments to which Adam is subject, two positive and one negative:
    • Tend the garden
    • Produce offspring
    • Don't eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
  • Adam was restricted to a 3 dimensional reality
Since we have no way of knowing when Adam and Eve sinned we cannot know exactly how long they lived in the Garden.  Presumably Adam sinned sometime between his creation and his 130th year since that is the age we are given for the birth of his son.  We don't know how long he lived in a sinless state or exactly what that state was like.  What we do know is that there is a provision for marking time days/seasons/years but time itself has no real meaning if life is limitless.

Mankind currently exists and is limited inside three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.  Does it follow that we always have been limited in this way?

Please weigh in with your position even if you don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve.  It's an experiment in thought, not empirical data.  FWIW, I'm assuming that our universe exists in a 10 dimensional reality.