The Multi-Million Dollar Question

Matthew 16:15 "[Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?"

I've recently read a couple blogs that mention making choices, but this is the only choice that really matters.  To buy this car, or that.  To take this job or that.  To live in this place or that.  Eggs over easy, sunny side up, over medium, scrambled, poached, etc.  Or like the quote from You've Got Mail:

"The whole purpose of places like Starbucks is for people with no decision-making ability whatsoever to make six decisions just to buy one cup of coffee. Short, tall, light, dark, caf, decaf, low-fat, non-fat, etc. So people who don't know what the hell they're doing or who on earth they are can, for only $2.95, get not just a cup of coffee but an absolutely defining sense of self: Tall. Decaf. Cappuccino."

So, you have so many decisions to make but this is the only one that really matters, what is Jesus to you?  So many people talk about Jesus as just a great moral teacher and about how the Bible is just a story made up about this teacher's life and how he went around teaching people to love each other and to all get along etc. etc.  My favorite answer to that idea comes from CS Lewis:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse." 

"You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

There are many answers to this trilemma and it doesn't really appeal to committed atheists/agnostics.  It's not really a powerful logical dilemma because there's so much riding on Jesus' claims.  So, the difficulty in this argument is that so many people take issue with whether or not Jesus actually claimed to be God.  I can understand that it's a complicated issue and not everyone agrees.  Even among people who are wholly committed to faithfully interpreting the Bible according to God's will, there's some disagreement as to Jesus actually claiming to be GOD.  I feel the issue is clear and that Jesus really does claim to be God.  However, I don't feel that a 100% strict interpretation of Jesus being God as opposed to Lord or having some other form of Godhood that gives Him the power and authority of God in certain aspects is somehow required to truly receive salvation through God's forgiveness.

Even after all that, the most important question in life still stands, "Who is Jesus to you?"  Whatever your choice, make sure you know what the repercussions are for that choice.  Think carefully about your choice and don't ever give up on pursuing why you believe what you believe.

One last word on dogmatism.  If you have truly done this, made all the inquiries you can into your beliefs and searched out all avenues of your beliefs and the contrary beliefs, then you have every right to be dogmatic (to a point).  If you truly, I mean truly, believe what you believe after making every effort to seek out the truth from multiple points of view then you have every right to feel you're right.  I believe what I believe after years of inquiry into the Bible and various interpretations and alternate views.  I have every right to believe that what I believe is true.  Am I going to shove it in everyone's face all the time?  No.  I'm not rude.  I share my thoughts here because that's what this blog is about, my thoughts on various subjects relating to faith and philosophy and the like.  The problem I have is when people call me dogmatic as a slight.  I believe what I believe and you're welcome to believe what you believe, but don't hate me because I'm faithful to what I believe.  I certainly don't resent you your beliefs don't resent me mine.

Cape Hedo, the northernmost tip of Okinawa

Aristotle on Logic

When it comes to learning logic Aristotle is one of the founding fathers.  If you want to study logic a great place to start is Aristotle's collective work called the Organon traditionally made up of 8 different books: The Categories, On Interpretation, Prior-Analytics, Posterior-Analytics, Topics, Sophistical Refutations, Rhetoric*, and The Poetics*.  The last two are the ones that many modern philosophy/logic students often don't consider logical works, and it seems like these last two were just kind of thrown into the mix.  Sophistical Refutations is kind of like a text on anti-logic, a kind of how to spot the sophistical, empty arguments.  Of course, these works cover a wide range of logic and Aristotle's works in general cover a very broadly defined concepts of logic and philosophy.  There's no way I or anyone else could even try to attempt to cover every bit of these works but I've been listening to the History of Philosophy podcast, and Professor Adamson gives a nice overview of these works.  He talkes about how ancient philosophy students would start their foray into logic and philosophy with these works.

So far the podcast, as I've been going through it, has only given a broad overview of the logical works. To me, the most interesting book is the first one listed, The Categories.  In general, it's about categorizing various things.  The categories for different objects are listed as: substance, quality, quantity, relation, place, time, position, state, action, and being acted upon.  How certain parts a thing are essential to that that thing, and some are accidental.  It may seem silly but there's a problem I have with this.  One of the concepts within the philosophy of language is that words are given their meaning through a somewhat arbitrary process.  Prof Adamson uses the example of a giraffe quite often, so I'll follow his example.  I'm assuming everyone of my readers knows what a typical giraffe looks like.  One of the examples is a giraffe painted blue, so we have a blue giraffe, but that's just an accidental characteristic of that particular giraffe, or if there was a giraffe with a broken foot.  Those are accidental characteristics of giraffes.  So here's my question, one would assume that a long neck and legs would be considered essential characteristics of giraffes.  However, what if I told you that I had a short-necked short-legged giraffe?  What makes what I'm calling a giraffe?  Me calling it a giraffe?  According to some concepts of linguistics that's part of what makes it a giraffe.

The next on the list, On Interpretation is also quite interesting.  To me, it has one of Aristotle's most important contributions to logic and philosophy.  I've always heard it called the "Law of Non-contradiction" though Prof Adamson doesn't specifically mention it.  In general, this particular text is about negation and how to make statements and syllogisms.  I don't have the space to explain all that but I would like to talk a little about non-contradiction.  According to the professor of the logic course that I was taking through https://www.coursera.org/ negating a statement isn't as easy as it appears.  The most straightforward method is to append the statement with "it is not the case that..."  So, the non-contradiction idea is this: two statements that are contradictions of each other cannot both be true at the same time.  For example, the statements "giraffes exist" and "it is not the case that giraffes exist," cannot both be true at the same time.  Obviously, at some time in the future or in the past giraffes may or may not exist, but at the same time they cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.  Though according to Prof Adamson, it seems that Aristotle leaves an exception to this idea, namely, for statements about the future.  For example, the statement "I will win the lottery tomorrow" is about the future and it is both true and not true at the same time.  Tomorrow, when I'm taking a bath in gold and jewels like Scrooge McDuck, I still can't say that statement was true or false just because it ends up coming true doesn't mean that when it was made it was true.

Plato's Republic Book 10 and 11

Wait for it... oh sorry, you've been waiting for this for several weeks now.  It's my final entry at least for now, on Plato's Republic; specifically, books ten and eleven.  As before I have a couple caveats to my entry before I begin.  First, my thoughts that fall under the 'Book 10' portion of this entry aren't really a commentary on what that particular section is about, more like my thoughts on Plato and Socrates' concepts of God and my imagined response they might have had to Jesus.  Secondly, if you're reading these notes, I hope you understand that these are just my reactions to listening to Plato's work in audiobook format, NOT some in-depth study or analysis of Plato's works or philosophy.  I like to think I have some good insights into his work, but I'm probably just one of thousands of people (most of which are MUCH smarter and better read than I) that have said their opinions about what Plato meant when he wrote this work.

Book 10.  When listening to this section I wasn't really all that focused on Plato's idea of the "forms" (I'm going to dispense with the use of quotation marks to refer to Plato's idea that there's an ideal representative thing for everything that exists), as much as I was thinking about how Plato would have responded if he had met Paul or Jesus or C.S. Lewis or some other great Christian teacher/apologist.  Plato is expanding some of his concept of forms and all I can think is "the God of the Bible is the God that you're describing!"  If Plato had the chance to sit down with Paul and discuss theology and Paul had taught Plato about the God of the Bible, that I serve, and shared with Plato that which Jesus had taught him, I think Plato would have become a great apologist himself.  Plato already talks about a god that made the universe and made the forms of all things and then he goes astray from this great god and still believes in Zeus and Athena and the like.  If he could have dispensed with all that mythology and just stuck with the idea of one God that made all things including the ideal forms of all things then his theology and his philosophy wouldn't have been that far off the mark.  As his book affirms Plato was totally caught up in the Greek mythology of his day.  His concept of this originator god that created the forms of all things is novel and borderline blasphemous.  Sadly, Plato lived hundreds of years before Christ and it doesn't appear that he had any influence or interaction with any Jews or anyone else that believed or followed the biblical texts as they existed at the time.

Book 11.  This is the final section of the Republic and in some ways the most distressing.  He has mentioned a few times previously about the illegitimacy of poetry and various poets.  He even suggested that art and poetry be completely regulated and censored.  Then, after blasting the poets for making up fairy tales and twisting the truth.  What does Plato do in book 11?  He makes up a fairy tail mythology to support his concept of how the soul is immortal and how it pays to be a wise philosophical person, both for this life and the next.  One other thing I dislike about this last section, Plato makes it clear in his fairy tale that souls are immortal and just pass from this life into the next then come right back (a bit similar to Hindu reincarnation).  However, (unless I heard wrong) in book 10 he said that god creates souls.  So which is it Plato?  Are souls immortal or were they created by god?  It seems that he wouldn't have such a glaring internal inconsistency given that he's basically a genius and one of the greatest fathers of all western philosophy.

Alex whale watching

Test Done!

Well, that's done!  At least until next year.  I'm assuming I didn't pass.  I studied some but I don't really think I studied near enough and the test is quite tedious.  I like my job in the military and I'm glad promotion is (at least) somewhat proficiency related.  I mean, in some jobs all it takes to gain a position of leadership is knowing the right person.  And, let's be honest that's not a good criterion for choosing a leader.  Now that I'm done with the test at least I'll have no excuses not to catch up on my Bible reading plan and my 50-books-in-a-year goal.  As I said before I have some topics for entries brewing/simmering, and I'll get them written up, hopefully, sooner rather than later.

These beautiful egrets are everywhere

Faith and Philosophy Blog Carnival, Mar 2013, 2nd Edition

Jana presents http://www.wisdom-ink.com/?p=1637 DECIDING..And It's Significance To Creation and Manifestation::Because Life is Effortless::Wisdom Ink and http://www.wisdom-ink.com/?p=683 The Good Stuff of Life both posted at http://www.wisdom-ink.com/blog.

Ashley Reid presents two entries one, http://ashleyreid88.blogspot.com/2013/02/lent-2013-giving-up-vengeful-spirit-and.html Lent 2013: Giving Up a Vengeful Spirit and Accepting Grace and the other, http://ashleyreid88.blogspot.com/2013/02/lent-2013-where-are-your-accusers.html Lent 2013: Where are Your Accusers? both posted at http://ashleyreid88.blogspot.com/ The Real.

Rob Graumans presents http://theyoungsocrates.com/2013/02/15/a-defence-of-relativism/ A Defence of Relativism | The Young Socrates posted at http://theyoungsocrates.com The Young Socrates.

Joshua Tilghman presents http://www.spiritofthescripture.com/id1238-meditating-into-the-god-within.html Meditating into the God Within and http://www.spiritofthescripture.com/id1442-will-the-esoteric-jesus-please-stand-up.html Will the Esoteric Jesus Please Stand Up? both posted at http://www.spiritofthescripture.com The Spirit of the Scripture.

Jocelyn Crawley presents http://jocelyncrawley.blogspot.com/2012/09/some-suppositions-on-spiritual-death.html Some Suppositions on Spiritual Death posted at http://jocelyncrawley.blogspot.com/ Jocelyn Crawley.

Terence Stone presents http://urbanspiritual.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/realizing-the-divine-within-embracing-presence/ Realizing the Divine Within: embracing presence posted at http://urbanspiritual.wordpress.com urban spiritual.

Ron Moser presents http://lastdaysunraveledblog.com/2013/02/28/the-key-to-unlocking-bible-prophesy/ The Key to Unlocking Bible Prophesy posted at http://lastdaysunraveledblog.com Where Eagles Gather (and other sayings of Christ).

Jonathan Grant presents several entries, http://askawiseman.com/how-can-i-know-gods-will/ How Can I Know God’s Will?, http://askawiseman.com/the-secret-to-never-being-wrong/ The Secret to Never Being Wrong!, http://askawiseman.com/most-important-thing-to-do-in-an-argument/ The Most Important Thing to Do in an Argument (which no one ever does), http://askawiseman.com/climate-change/ The truth behind global warming and climate change (It's not what you think), http://askawiseman.com/worry/ How to Stop Worrying, and http://askawiseman.com/church-brainwashing/ Is the Church using brainwashing techniques? all posted at http://askawiseman.com Questions & Answers About Life.

Ashumi Shah presents http://thesaltysardines.com/?p=680 The Hero of our Age. (Part 1 of 3) posted at http://thesaltysardines.com The Salty Sardines.

Byteful Travel presents http://byteful.com/blog/2013/02/why-non-attachment-is-key/ Why Non-Attachment is my Key to Happiness posted at http://byteful.com/blog Byteful Travel.

John presents http://fearlessmen.com/honor-god-honor-yourself-and-honor-others/ Honor God, Honor Others and Honor Yourself posted at http://fearlessmen.com Fearless Men.

Justin Allison presents http://bible-tech.com/tech-thoughts-on-the-religion-of-innovation/ Tech Thoughts on the “Religion of Innovation” posted at http://bible-tech.com.

These are the final entries for the second edition of the Faith and Philosophy blog carnival for March 2013. Any further entries will be added to the April edition.

Same caveat as last month's iteration of the blog carnival, I don't necessarily agree with everything said in the entries, in fact I outright disagree with some of them but as they are about having faith or some part of philosophy they met the criteria for inclusion in the carnival. One other note, future carnival editions will NOT include pictures from the various entries. That process makes the prep time for the carnival about double what it would be if I left the pictures off so next edition won't include any photos from the entries, though I might share one of my own photos just to liven up the edition. Thanks for all the submissions and all the future submissions; I look forward to more editions with many more entries about faith and philosophy.

Writer's Block

Sorry for the lack of entries lately.  I've sort of been busy.  Not that I've truly had writer's block per se, but rather I haven't had time.  I have several blog notes for entries I just haven't had time to sit down and put virtual ink to virtual paper.

Next couple entries, in no particular order: finish up with Plato's Republic, an entry about an Alistair Begg podcast message, and one about the philosophy of language.  So that's three (possibly four) entries I have brewing I just need to get some time to sit and type them all out.  What are you doing right now you ask?  Well, I only have time to say that I don't have time because I have to get to studying for my promotion test in a little over a week.

So, see you again (virtually speaking) in a little over a week.

Panoramic Photography

I've enjoyed photography for many years now; it started when I was in middle school and my neighbor "Bud" taught me how to use his manual SLR (single-lens reflex) camera.  He taught me the basics of metering, shutter speed, f-stops, and many other things.  Well, that enjoyment has grown and changed with time.  Now I have a very expensive hobby with a couple expensive cameras and several expensive lenses.  This is quite fortunate now that I live in one of the most beautiful places in the world.  I now have lots of beautiful things to photograph!

Here's my first attempt at stitching photos together to make a large panoramic:

Here's one of my best (so far) with a super-wide angle fisheye lens:

I'll try to always have a photo to share.  Hope you enjoy.

A Daily Account: Journalism at its Finest

A Daily Account: Journalism at its Finest
« Previous / Next »

By stevenspecht / February 11, 2013 / Military Service, Notes from Afghanistan / Leave a comment

The military service member is on the front lines of history. Whether we are the special operators, aviators, or support crews, our stories are like no others and they need to be told. However, all too often, we allow the civilian journalist to do our reporting for us. In the era of social networking, self-publishing, and online blogging, there is no reason to allow others to interpret our stories.

You may ask yourself, “why is my story special?” I would respond with the obvious statement that, at any given time, you are a member of the mere one percent of the total population that makes up the all-volunteer force, and with a rapid decline of living WW II vets, you are among the steadily shrinking number of Americans who have served at all. Each story is a precious documentary. Some are fortunate (or unfortunate) to be thrust into amazing events such as those in Lone Survivor by US Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, but many publications have been about gut wrenching boredom and lack of action such as Jarhead by US Marine Scout Sniper Anthony Swofford, which detailed concerns of irrelevancy and separation from loved ones that are often left out of many war books. One need not be a scout sniper or SEAL to write a great work as proven by myriad publications about Southeast Asia from the perspective of the average draftee such as If I Die in a Combat Zone, Box Me Up and Ship Me Home by Tim O’Brien.

The idea of writing a book is daunting if you’ve not done it, but the method I used to complete the rough draft of “Notes from Afghanistan,” was to write down 100 words on what happened each day. This doesn’t sound like a lot, and it isn’t. However, when multiplied by the length of a year-long deployment, it grows into 36,500 words, which, is nearly 100 pages of material for a standard book that can be fleshed out into something amazing with the right amount of effort.

The importance of writing each day cannot be over-emphasized. With time, all events become fuzzy, and we have a tendency to editorialize or dramatize events to make them look better or worse depending on our attitudes. With the technique of 100 words a day, we need take only a few moments to chronicle the who-what-where of our day, and we can leave the introspection of how and why for a later time.

This is an example of 100 words:

“I got up at 0400 today to the sound of a low flying jet. This was the third day in a row I’ve been woken up prematurely. I went to the gym for an hour of weightlifting before eating and prepping my kit for an uneventful patrol. Some locals gave us intel on the location of a weapons cache in the area that we will report later on. I was able to get online today and call my wife on Skype. She is having difficulty in getting my W-2 for taxes, but there isn’t anything I can do right now.”

While not Shakespeare, this provides the basis for elaboration later on when there is time for reflection. When you write every day of being woken up early, it will begin to form a pattern that indicates frustration with the poor sleep schedule. The daily activities of weight lifting and chow stand alone, but if the intelligence on the weapons cache turns out to be valid, then you now have the ability to connect the dots between two events that might not be remembered a year from now. Every one of us has dealt with the stress of trying to manage events back home that are largely irrelevant in the moment but important to those we have left behind.

Nothing I write is meant to suggest that every single service member will write the next Jarhead, but even if you never publish a sentence of your work, you leave behind a legacy for those that come after you. Your story begins now. Don’t wait until you are in the middle of something to begin furiously scribbling down the half-remembered details. Don’t wait until your kids start asking you about your time in Afghanistan or Iraq 20 years from now. Some of the memories you will never forget, but a lot of them you will.

“Notes from Afghanistan” by Steven Specht is available on iTunes and Amazon at:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/notes-from-afghanistan/id600538159?mt=11

http://www.amazon.com/Notes-from-Afghanistan-ebook/dp/B00BEIFN9U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360793305&sr=8-1&keywords=Notes+from+Afghanistan

Plato's Republic, Book 9

I think it's funny, my last entry about Plato's Republic Books 1-3 has the second highest views of all my entries.  I'm relatively certain it doesn't have anything to do with the skill with which that particular entry was written, rather it's a popular search topic on Google as people are still reading and researching Plato and his writings even today.

A couple notes before we begin.  First, I don't plan on doing any entries about Books 4, 5 or 7, 8 I had a short(ish) comment on Book 6 here.  I listened to those audio recordings too long ago to adequately analyse their content.  Second, every once in a while I actually get a little proud of myself.  Let me explain, I've been listening to the history of philosophy podcast and I've recently come across the podcast entry pertaining to Plato's Republic and sometimes I come to the same conclusions or have the same insights as the maker of that podcast.  It makes me proud to think that I thought of the same things this scholar came up with.  It's silly, since it should naturally come from whatever text we're both consulting, but I still feel that way nonetheless.

Without further ado:

Book 9.  Plato (via Socrates of course) lays out the other types of human governance, and he proceeds to tear each one down to show how they are inferior to his "Republic."  Incidentally, the word 'republic' is not used in the text (at least other than the title, that I heard as I listened to the whole text read); it seems that the word 'republic' is given by scholars in describing Plato's ideal state (i.e. body politic).  It may surprise you to know that Plato lists the types of states in order from best (closest to his ideal) to worst (farthest from his ideal state), and that Democracy ranks third out of four!  The type of governance that we hold so dear, is to Plato, second to LAST in quality.  There is one huge caveat to this that I've come up with, namely, that Plato's idea of democracy is very different from our modern idea of democracy.  While the people did hold the power, from the meaning of the Greek words, the leadership was chosen by lot.  So, if you were a citizen of Athens, you could hold a position of leadership if your lot was chosen.  That means the leadership is not chosen by merit, skill, ability, persuasiveness, charisma, money or any other desirable or undesirable trait.  What we think of in the US is a representative democracy, we choose the representative leaders democratically.  We're supposed to choose based on merits or skills NOT on the negative traits.

The ninth book is quite long because it details not only these four different types of state: oligarchy, timarchy (timocracy), democracy, and tyranny, but it also describes the character of the man in relation to each of the state types.  I won't go into all the details of each group because that would take more than you or I have time for!  I will give a short personal definition of each type because not all of them are familiar.  Oligarchy, is where the rich or affluent rule.  One can buy leadership via money or winning popularity or influence.  Monarchy fits within oligarchy because it's a state run by the few and of course the monarchy would be rich and powerful, though in hereditary monarchy of course power is handed down via lineage.  There are other simple types not very many of which are very positive for the ruled classes, because they are generally in servitude to the leadership.  Though of course Plato doesn't seem to spin it that way, because oligarchy is set up as second only to his Republic as a form of governance.  Then comes timocracy (or timarchy), which is difficult to describe without referencing Sparta, because Sparta is the primary example used by Plato for this type of governance.  I've always thought Sparta was ruled by the military, which is actually not far from the this idea.  Timarchy comes from the Greek word for honor.  So, leadership is based on love of the state and honor, which one would assume comes from military prowess.  Then comes democracy, where anyone and everyone rules.  Then last and easiest to understand is tyranny, where the tyrant rules.  Generally, tyranny is considered the worst form of governance because as most people know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

One key point of book nine that I'd like to point out before concluding this entry is how Plato (again) makes the argument against wrongdoing.  The other characters in the dialogue with Socrates have tried to make the argument that behaving badly is actually the best course of action.  Plato argues and quite persuasively shows how the tyrant is actually the LEAST happy personality of all the archetypes associated with each form of government.  This seems odd because one would think that a tyrant, who, by virtue of being a tyrant, can have anything and everything he or she wants at any time, would be the most happy type of person.  Plato points out that such freedom is illusionary and is actually the deepest and most sincere form of slavery; that is, slavery to oneself and one's passions.  This deeply entrenched slavery shows that the tyrant is actually the least content, happy, honorable, good, etc. type of person among all the types.  My own interpretation of this point is that we need to avoid all types of tyranny in our lives.  Don't be too obsessed with any one pursuit, even in contradiction with my blog title, the pursuit of happiness can also lead to a slavery to one's passions. Contentment is the key here, as 1 Timothy 6:6 says, "6 But godliness with contentment is great gain."

I had originally intended to cover both book nine and ten but as this entry is getting quite lengthy I'm going to break them in to multiple entries.  So stay tuned for the next entry and possibly the closing of my entries about Plato's Republic.

Throne room (or sorts) at Shuri Castle here on Okinawa in Naha city

Guest Post by Steven Specht on Beardedness

Satire from my friend and fellow blogger/writer Steven Specht (also read here):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Lifestyle is Not a Choice: Fighting for Survival in a Godless Society
« Previous / Next »
By stevenspecht / February 4, 2013 / Daily Diatribes, Satire, Social Commentary / 2 Comments

I and those like me are under a constant pressure to conform to a society that has lost its way. My lifestyle is called “a choice,” and because of that “choice,” I am often disenfranchised. I am tired of being a second class citizen in the so-called “land of the free.”

Of course I’m talking about having a beard.

When I walk down the sidewalk, people move to the other side of the street. Mothers hold their children close as I pass. Police stare me down and stop me to ask me where I’m going and where I’ve been. Evidently I “fit a profile.” When I try to order soup, the waitress glares at me and asks, “are you sure it’s a good idea for one of you people to eat the clam chowder?” I am more than my beard and I deserve more than soda through a straw and pretzels without condiments.

The worst part of it all isn’t the open hatred from those who don’t understand our way of life. It is the demeaning stereotypes applied to us by those who mean well. When I go to a job fair, I’m given information on construction and plumbing jobs, but no one ever assumes that I just might be an accountant or a neurosurgeon. I am sick and tired of being approached on the street and asked if I am a Navy SEAL or an unemployed hipster living with my parents.

I feel so alone.

We should have known that the moment the secular progressives began taking God out of our classrooms that beards would be soon to follow. There was a time when our nation was guided by a higher power that commanded his followers to not trim their beards like the heathens. God is out of our classrooms and our beards have been shorn. The next thing to go is our guns.

We were the men of Gods and Generals, but we have become divided and relegated to the sideshow of reality TV. The persecution is endless, but just as Jesus of Nazareth had his beard pulled and torn out by his tormentors, we must turn our cheeks—turning our cheeks while not hiding from the shame and the spitting.
We can and must fight for our freedom.

All is not lost—not yet. Join me my bearded brothers. I am bearded, hear me roar, with whiskers too large to ignore!

It is time to demand our rights! To take back our country! To take back our freedom! Join me on our day of triumph on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on February 29th. Join me as we rally around the famous beard of our 16th president. Bring your crossfit workouts, your drum circles, your harleys, and your bongs. The day is ours if we seize it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOT from the blog, but a prime example of a Steven Specht beard: