"Iniquity Everywhere"



by Edward Langenback

© 10/20/06

There is a growing trend these days. It is showing in just about every area of American life and government. It is iniquity.

Matthew 24:12, "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold."

Iniquity is translated from the Greek anomia {pronounced an-om-ee'-ah}[strongs number 458] and means the condition of absence of law because ignorance of it or because of violating it, contempt of and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness

We are seeing iniquity in all levels of government, business and society in general, a fact testified to by the seemingly never ending stream of scandals of one kind or another. Almost all of which are either about gaining or wielding power wrongly, Greed or satisfying lust of one kind or another.

All of these are rooted in lasciviousness, which simply means unchecked lust or desire. It is ultimately a lack of self control. A lacivious person is one who is only interested in satisfying their every desire... be it for power, sex, money or whatever.

When lasciviousness becomes the norm for a people, then that people is in serious trouble on many levels.

======
This survey shows a sad trend. One in which people are simply going along with what the President says just because he's the president or simply because they're just reacting without considering the implications.

The problem is that things like this new 'harsh interrogation' law, or the warrantless wiretap program, and many other things that are being done in the name of 'national security' or 'the war on terrorism' can all have some seriously negative results and it seems like very few people are even thinking about them.

Yes, terrorism is serious and needs to be dealt with. Terrorists need to be questioned and intelligence needs to be gathered. The problem is that if we are to be the righteous nation that we portray ourselves as, then there absolutely MUST be a point at which we will say 'That isn't right for any reason and we won't do it." This 'harsh interrogation' law crosses that line. From what I've seen about it, it amounts to legalized torture that's been given a pretty name. Just because the enemy is evil and does evil things does not give us reason or the right to do similar things in our fight against them.

We Americans' like to think of our country as the greatest nation on earth but if we actually expect anyone else to think so then we MUST hold ourselves to a higher standard of right and wrong. We MUST require that everything we do is righteous and not use tricky wording or secret programs and lies to justify doing something that we know full well is wrong.

There is no other way to say it or make it pretty, torture and "techniques bordering on torture" are wrong. They are the kind of thing that the terrorists would do and for us to use them leaves a stain of sin on our nation that will take a long time for the world to forgive and even longer to forget.

The fact that this survey and others like it do not show an overwhelming disagreement with this 'harsh interrogation' law is a sad comment on the moral decline of Americans. The citizens of a Moral, Righteous, God fearing nation would be outraged that such a bill was even considered, let alone signed into law.

=====
Survey for Wed, Oct 18, 2006
http://dsurvey.iwon.com/results.jsp?poll_id=2006-10-18
Interrogation Law

1. President George W. Bush signed a law yesterday allowing tough CIA interrogation and military trials for terrorism suspects, triggering bitter denunciations from Democrats. The new law means Bush can continue a secret CIA program for interrogating terrorism suspects whom he believes have vital information that could thwart a plot against America. Human rights groups charge that the measure would allow harsh techniques bordering on torture, such as sleep deprivation and induced hypothermia. (Reuters)

Do you agree or disagree with the interrogation bill signed into law by President Bush yesterday?

Related Story:
==
Bush signs law authorizing harsh interrogation
Oct 17, 4:59 PM (ET)
By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush signed a law on Tuesday allowing tough CIA interrogation and military trials for terrorism suspects, triggering bitter election-year denunciations from Democrats.

With Republicans in danger of losing control of the U.S. Congress in November 7 elections because of voter anger over the Iraq war, Bush sought to put back on the campaign agenda a more favorable issue for him -- national security and dealing with those blamed for the September 11 attacks.

In a White House ceremony, Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. He said the new law, the product of frantic September negotiations when senior Republicans broke with him, would bring to trial some of those believed complicit in the September 11 attacks.

The new law means Bush can continue a secret CIA program for interrogating terrorism suspects whom he believes have vital information that could thwart a plot against America.

Human rights groups charge that the measure, likely to face legal challenges that go up as far as the Supreme Court, would allow harsh techniques bordering on torture, such as sleep deprivation and induced hypothermia.

Full Article:
http://tinyurl.com/y6qe5c
\=-\=-\=-

North Korea sets off a nuke and what's the big response? A UN resolution. After the results such resolutions have gotten in the past, like twelve years worth of them concerning Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I can't help wondering what's the point of pushing for and getting such a resolution against North Korea. I doubt they're going to give it any more heed than Saddam did.

=====
U.S. Unveils U.N. Resolution on N. Korea
Oct 12, 3:13 PM (ET)
By EDITH M. LEDERER

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States on Thursday introduced a new draft resolution in the Security Council to punish North Korea for its reported nuclear test and said it wants a vote on Friday.

Russia urged the United States not to rush the vote, saying Moscow still had differences and the U.S. should wait for the results of a flurry of high-level diplomacy. China backed Russia's call, saying Beijing would welcome more talks so the Security Council can send a united and forceful message to Pyongyang condemning the test.

Full Article:
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20061012/D8KN97J80.html
\=-\=-\=-

One of the biggest things that can be said about this latest scandal is that this kind of thing is getting entirely too commonplace. It's a powerful statement about morality in today's society when things like this are not only no longer a surprise, but actually feel like they're to be expected.

I.e., any given public figure or elected official is sooner or later likely to be involved in some kind of scandal or a coverup of scandalous behavior.

Indeed, as Jesus said it would, iniquity is abounding like crazy.

=====
Ethics Panel Tackles Foley Case
Lawmakers Look To Sort Out When GOP Leaders Knew About Lurid E-mails
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 2006

(CBS/AP) House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office may have learned of ex-Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate conduct toward male pages in 2002, 2003 or 2005, depending on who is telling the story.

This week, the House's internal investigators are starting to sort it all out.

Kirk Fordham, Foley's one-time chief of staff, is scheduled for questioning Thursday before a House ethics committee investigative panel. He said he notified Hastert chief of staff Scott Palmer in 2002 or 2003 about Foley's inappropriate conduct, and that he subsequently learned that Palmer met with Foley.

An internal review released by Hastert's office on Sept. 30 says the first notice to Hastert's aides about Foley wasn't until the fall of 2005 - and it didn't come from Fordham.

Rather, the review said, it came from the office of Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., after the lawmaker learned of an overly friendly - but not sexually explicit - e-mail from the Florida Republican to a page from the congressman's state.

Full Article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/10/politics/main2076615.shtml
\=-\=-\=-

Nanotechnology. The very word brings forth images of Science Fiction stories of intelligent microscopic machines that take over or somehow vastly change the world.

What is nanotechnology? It is the science of building almost impossibly small machines using molecules and individual atoms as construction materials. These tiny machines can be used to perform a wide variety of chemical and physical tasks.

Nanotechnology is also one of those things where man comes dangerously close to playing God and getting involved with things he doesn't understand well enough to be safe.

There are a LOT of potential benefits from the use of nanotechnology, but it's something that in spite of a lot having been learned about it in recent years, there is still a lot that we do not know about how machines like this work. There is not that I've ever heard of, any sure and certain way to shut the things off. Once made, they perform their tasks until they can't due to either chemical or physical problems in the environment they're being used in or they run out of raw materials.

The emphasis here is the lack of guaranteed way to turn the things off. Anyone who has ever read any science fiction knows how foolhardy it is to make a machine that doesn't have an off switch. Granted, that's fiction and we're talking about reality, but do YOU feel comfortable with a machine you cannot even see that cannot be turned off?

I sure don't. Especially when these things are being used in food processing and manufacturing. What are the effects of things like this on food? Biochemistry is complicated enough without going to the molecular and atomic level. At that point, materials have different properties and behave differently than they do normally.

This kind of technology has a lot of potential for doing a lot of things that could never be done otherwise, but it's only reasonable to be a lot more careful than we have been.

=====
FDA Gets Mixed Advice on Nanotechnology
Oct 10, 1:55 PM (ET)
By ANDREW BRIDGES

WASHINGTON (AP) - The government must balance close oversight of the fast-growing field of nanotechnology against the risk of stifling new development, a Food and Drug Administration conference was told Tuesday.

These contrasting views emerged from a host of experts that the agency brought together to how it should regulate products containing tiny particles, some as small as one-millionth the width of the head of a pin.

Increasingly, those submicroscopic particles are being incorporated in the thousands of products overseen by the FDA, including drugs, foods, cosmetics and medical devices.

Those products account for roughly 20 cents of every dollar spent each year by U.S. consumers, giving the FDA a key role in both safeguarding the public and guiding the future development of nanotechnology.

Full Article:
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20061010/D8KLTTBO0.html
\=-\=-\=-

Once again the issue of violent video games has risen. This time I think that there is no question that the game developer has gone too far. In an age when school violence and terrorist worries are such big issues, making a game that encourages the player to become a bully or worse is just plain irresponsible.

Rockstar games says things like "All they can do is try to make good video games." and "We just want them to know that this is just entertainment." But the problem is that it's not JUST entertainment. Video games, like television, are a powerful medium that has a very strong effect on the person playing/watching. The images are strong, violent and driven deeply into the person's mind and spirit because of their close involvement. This is especially true of games because the person playing the game sees themselves as the hero in the game. Therefore things that the game's hero does and gets rewarded for have a lasting impact on the person playing the game.

It's not "Just entertainment", it's something that's involved in how the minds and spirits of our young are developing. Can we allow carelessness with this? Absolutely not.

=====
Maker Defends School 'Bully' Video Game
Oct 13, 6:43 PM (ET)
By MATT SLAGLE

NEW YORK (AP) - The creators of the popular, but oft-criticized "Grand Theft Auto" games are set to release a new title in which players assume the role of a 15-year-old wannabe tough guy, a premise that drew outcry almost as soon as it was announced last year.

But amid a rash of recent school violence, lawsuits and an ongoing discussion about the influence of video games on children, the developers at Rockstar Games defend "Bully" and say the issues are out of their hands: All they can do is try to make good video games.

"Some people like our games; some don't," company spokesman Rodney Walker said. "We can't try to beat these arguments. Our whole process we believe with 'Bully' is we have to let the game speak for itself. We just want them to know that this is just entertainment."

Full Article:
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20061013/D8KO1D202.html
\=-\=-\=-

This is another case of taking things too far. Essentially, this girl chose to vent her frustrations and opinions in a graphic on a web page. She put up a picture of President Bush with some text drawn across it. When she learned that her act could be considered a threat to the president she took it down right away.

Unfortunately, she was too late. She ended up getting the third degree from government agents who were unwilling to simply see it for what it was... somebody expressing their opinion in graphic detail.

I realize that threatening the president is illegal, but what happened to people's right to express their opinions and have it be recognized as such? When high school kids start getting subjected to secret service or homeland security interrogations because they chose to blow off steam on a web page then it's time to stop and think that maybe somebody's being just a tad more paranoid than is reasonable.

It wasn't all that long ago that I remember seeing on the news once in a while that some group or person had hung or burned a president or other official in effigy. At no time was it a threat to that person's life. Rather, it was done as a social and political statement. Somebody was expressing their opinion.

When voicing your opinion can get you in this kind of hot water then our society is in serious trouble. Citizens should never be afraid of their government or afraid to disagree with their government. When they are, there is something wrong with that government.

=====
Oct 14, 2006 1:08 pm US/Pacific
Teen Questioned For Online Bush Threats

(AP) SACRAMENTO, Calif. Upset by the war in Iraq, Julia Wilson vented her frustrations with President Bush last spring on her Web page on MySpace.com.

Full Article:
http://cbs5.com/topstories/topstories_story_287155430.html
\=-\=-\=-