“Does God have a sense of humor?”

He does, actually. Even before going to scripture, that would be a logical inference.  Certainly human beings cannot do anything God can’t do. That includes the ability to laugh and the ability to say humorous things.

And look at nature!  Can you just imagine the fun God must have had assembling a monkey?  How about a parrot?  The other day in the news, a lost parrot was discovered and returned because the parrot actually had his address memorized! I would have been on the floor listening to that screechy voice give out directions.

If nature is one witness, the Bible is another.  Jesus often said things that were quite humorous although we sometimes miss it because we are so unfamiliar with the culture He spoke to. When Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10), it was a loaded statement. A needle in those days, was a portal into a city. It was with difficulty that a man got his horse or donkey into the portal, but it was next to impossible with a camel.  Camels were considered mean little cusses. A stubborn camel was known to spit on his master while being dragged or pushed into a needle.

In Genesis 18, God visits Abraham and tells him that his wife Sarah will bare a son even though she was in her seventies. Sarah laughs at the very prospect.  One year later, she does have a son, and they name him Isaac, meaning, “God laughed.”  God got the last laugh on Sarah.

Conclusion: A sense of humor is important. Doctors for years have pointed out the medicinal benefits of laughter.  Knowing that God has a sense of humor makes God more approachable.  It also makes His love for us easier to accept.

Don’t you just love how our brave and gallant Senators seek to solve our oil price hike crisis?  They drag in the heads of oil companies and ask them how much money they make.  Hey, Senator, how much money do YOU make, being that campaign finance reform has fixed things so that no one can run for office without being wealthy?  I just love how you Democrats demonize the rich. Do you think the country is so stupid we haven’t noticed your mansions and private jets?  Do you think it’s a secret that your kids go to private schools while you speak against vouchers?

Oh, and Senator?  If you are really looking to honestly solve this problem, rather than just grandstanding and making it look like you are trying the solve the problem, why won’t you let our American oil companies drill for oil in America?  You love to talk about how over dependent we are on the Saudis.  I agree. So what are you going to allow us to actually do about it?  If somebody dares to suggest that we drill in Alaska or some other local wilderness, we get a lecture on how that will endanger the life of Perry the Polar Bear or Carrie the Caribou.

Or maybe you would allow us to take oil from Iraq as a bill for liberating them from a sadistic dictator.  Never mind. Forget it.   Not a chance. France would have a field day with that one. Russia too. They may have made under the  table “oil for food” deals with Hussein in private while they sanctioned him in public, but hey, why be personally penitent when you can blame all the problems of the world on America?

OK. It won’t work in Iraq. Maybe, instead, we should sit the Saudis down and try a strategy different from begging. We remind them that we saved their necks during Desert Storm.  We  offer  them a choice: “Lower your prices or we simply bill you for the fact that your nation is still alive.” Sound good?  I guess not. What would the ethical UN say about us?  That would damage our global reputation for sure and interfere with all the change Obama plans to bring about.  Besides, Ahamadinnejad and Hugo Chavez might give speeches on how evil we are. So will their buddy, Jimmy Carter. We would also get lectures from The New York Times and being in good standing with those honest journalists is far more important than solving a problem. 

Any more ideas, Senator?  Alternative energy, you say?  OK.  How about building another nuclear reactor?  I didn’t think so. As for this other alternative energy you keep talking about, I think we all know it will be years before something like that is developed so it doesn’t really help us much now, does it?  If we someday figure out how to run a car on Coca Cola or Jiffy Pop, fine. Until then, we need to live in the present.

Well, you just keep hollering at the oil companies. It makes you look good and after all, isn’t that what it’s really about?  Senators don’t need to be good. They just need to look good.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

There’s a speech I give today on college campuses. It generally provokes a lot of interest because it raises an extremely controversial question: Does Jesus belong on a college campus?  Should we be allowed to talk candidly about a religious figure in the classroom or even at a special seminar for that matter?

Here are the points I put forth, opening myself up to question and debate:

1) Jesus is not merely a religious figure, but an historical figure:

Although the New Testament itself can certainly be defended as an extremely accurate collection of historical documents and eyewitness accounts, it may be of interest to people that Jesus was also mentioned by other ancient historians, such as, the Roman writer, Tacitus and the Jewish writer, Josephus, whom we know was not a convert to Christianity.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.  He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.  He was the Christ.  And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.  And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Josephus
William Whiston translation 379 Antiquities book 18 Chapter 3 pg 379

NOTE: Although much controversy surrounds this passage, its textual tradition is as sturdy as anything else we accept from Josephus and historians turn to Josephus all the time for their understanding of the ancient world.

Although some try to portray this as a Christian interpolation, most scholars accept most of it and some accept all of it.  There is no reason not to accept the entire writing and I defend this in my book, I’d Like To Believe In Jesus, But...

In any event, the history of Jesus does not ride upon this one narrative. We can also look to The Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosta, The Acts of Pilate, Thallas, and (as mentioned above) Tacitus.  There is also an additional passage in Josephus (a shorter one) about Jesus that nobody questions. For now, suffices to say that Jesus is definitely a figure of history and the very notion that an institution of higher learning would censor discussion about a person of history is rather bizarre.

2) Jesus is talked about by professors all the time anyway.

Oh sure. They talk about him in a negative way, but they do talk about him. In a typical Religious Studies class, the professor says on orientation day, “In this class we will not critique religions. We will merely study what they teach and allow them to speak for themselves.”

What he means is that he is not going to critique any religion but Christianity.

The professor continues. “In this class we are going to learn to respect all religions.”

What he means is that you are going to learn to respect all religions except Christianity. On the day you study Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, or even some religion about aliens being hatched from space pods, you will learn about how beautiful the religion is.  On the day you study Christianity, you will learn that the Bible is a chauvinistic book and a racist book. It promotes genocide and even rape. The Bible is also full of contradictions.  Oh yes, and the Bible has been rewritten and mistranslated. If any Christian dares to argue with the professor and defend the gospel, he’ll hear, “Whoa…Buddy. Back off…Separation between church and state. You’re not allowed to preach in here.” Funny how this separation never cuts both ways. People can say any vile thing they want about Christianity, but we Christians dare not defend ourselves.  See how it works?

My point: If professors feel the campus is an inappropriate place to mention Jesus, then maybe they should stop talking about him But the notion that our constitution forbids religious discussion unless Christianity is being criticized, smells like an open jar of pickled herring on a hot windy day.

3)  Speaking of  “Separation between church and state,” the phrase is found no where  in the constitution and I mean, no where!

The First Amendment reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

That’s it!  That one line is what all the bugaboo is about!  How then, did the myth of separation between church and state raise its ugly head?

It actually began in the year 1947 in a court case called Everson VS the Board of Education. The court said: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”  (Everson VR Board of Education 330 US 1,18 1947)

They were quoting Thomas Jefferson, but quoting him out of context:

Jefferson used the phrase in a letter he wrote to the Baptist Churches of Danbury, Connecticut who were concerned that the federal constitution might begin to limit the rights of the church.

The fear was this: If the government was granting religious freedom, maybe they could someday take away religious freedom. The Danbury Baptists were asking Jefferson to affirm that religious rights were inalienable rights before God, not privileges which the state invented. Jefferson agreed with them and in a letter wrote:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter that lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state. “
Thomas Jefferson, Jan 2, 1802

Get that? Jefferson is using the phrase separation to agree with the Danbury Baptists that they are free before God to practice their religion as they see fit.

When our country was founded, our fathers were determined to avoid the way of Europe. In Europe, different countries declared their own brand of Christianity. Italy was Catholic. England was (obviously) Church of England. Germany, for the most part, was Lutheran and Switzerland was Reformed. One risked death to break from the religion of his country. In America, it would be different. There would be no mandatory state church. People could participate in any Christian denomination they wished or chose to not be religious at all.

This did not mean that we were not allowed to mention the Bible at school or pray in public. All of our colleges were Bible colleges in those days. Harvard was actually started by the Puritans as a school for prophets.

Conclusion: Today, secular activists,while claiming they are only looking out for their own rights, ignore the fact that their right to be unreligious has NEVER EVER been infringed upon in the history of our great nation. Indeed, it is they who are systematically eroding the rights of Christians and they are doing it with historical revision.

Jesus always has and always will belong on the college campus.

 
This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

There once was an Illinois resident,

who thought he might make a good president,

His culture was black,

His smooth speech was on track,

So his White House bid formed a new precedent.

Barak is the first of his names,

His second, I’m told, is Hussein,

But names do not cause him,

to act like a Muslim,

Allegiance to Christ is his claim.

When courting the modern faith votes,

he turns to the Bible for notes,

Claiming Jesus somehow,

sanctions gay marriage vows,

yet he can’t seem to offer a quote.

At church he would sit in his pew,

as his pastor slammed, rich, white and Jew,

He offered no fight,

to the speeches of Wright,

for he missed them and had not a clue.

Continuing down the man’s error list,

we see he was friends with a terrorist,

But he was a child,

when Bill Ayers went wild,

so the friendship is not all that perilous.

His enemies once tried to nag him,

because he would not wear a flag pin,

But that’s not the way we see,

his pledge of loyalty,

Symbols give no right for braggin’.

The test for the love of one’s nation,

is not where the flag pin is stationed,

Instead he’ll get you and me,

bonded in unity,

free from George Bush tribulation.

A president so strong and able,

should sit right across from the table,

With handshake, drink, wink and nod,

he’ll get Ahamadinnejad

to pledge on a deal that is stable.

A man who gets much inspiration,

from Robin Hood style variation,

He’ll steal from the wealthy,

and make the sick healthy,

through forced socialist reparation.

Obama’s campaign was arranged,

on the promise of bringing forth change,

His words produced thrills

and gave Chris Matthews chills,

but to some, he looks phony and staged.

If he has his true dreams, does he leak them?

Between the lines people still seek them,

As some doubting Thomases,

fear he’ll break promises,

I’m just afraid he might keep them.

Well, once again in the name of Democracy, our brilliant courts have decided that they know better than we do. These days, our courts remind us of democracy the way John Wayne reminds us of Rosie O’Donnell.

By a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court chose to overturn a ballot initiative in which some 61.4 percent of voting Californians decided to preserve marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. This means that 4 people are going to decide the future of California rather than 61 percent of the people.  Well gee, that makes sense. After all, we’re just the mindless rabble. What do we know about things like marriage? An institution that should remain between a man and a woman? Get with the times, dude.

How was this decision justified? The judges found the will of the people to be unconstitutional. Somehow, in their minds, the California constitution says something about homosexuality. I think they found it right next to the passage that allows judges to legislate from the bench.

Of course, our constitution speaks about homosexuality no more than it speaks about polygamy. Is that going to be next?  Are we soon going to find that right hidden in our constitution as well?  Eager Mormons are salivating. And what happens when people want to start marrying their pets?  Do you think I’m kidding?  Have you been studying the animal rights movement?  If PETA can equate a plate of fried chicken with the Jewish Holocaust, believe me, people can soon start marrying their pets. The rights are all there in the constitution, honestly they are, in plain sight, although our egotistical, narcissistic, activist judges have to use Captain Crunch’s decoder ring to find them.

What will the future look like now?  Well for starters, the gay rights spin misters will use the same historical revision they used with Massachusetts. Remember? We hear all the time how the will of the Massachusetts people has allowed for gay marriage. Not true. The Massachusetts legislature voted against gay marriage and some judges in Massachusetts overturned it.  We saw this coming. That’s why so many of our Republican congressmen (supposedly conservative) have been asked to take a stand for a marriage amendment to our federal constitution. The reaction of our cowardly politicians is always so predictable one can write it as a script.  “Well, I feel this is a matter better left to the states.”  Yes, that always sounds so nice. Just leave it to the states. Only one problem. Our courts have robbed our states of the right to make these decisions and our spineless politicians know this. John McCain, do you want to show some real bravery and genuinely rally your base? This is the issue, if you have the guts to take it. Honestly, John, activist judges threaten our society even more than (Dare I say it?) Global Warming!

Look for pastors to be sued if they aren’t willing to perform gay weddings. Look for new laws about hate speech if people speak out against homosexuality, now that “we as a people have sanctioned” gay marriage." (OK OK..Not really we as a people. Four judges. But evidently that now means the same thing.) And watch for new laws in which teachers at public schools are no longer allowed to use the phrase “man and woman” while defining a family. Oh wait! I forgot. That law was already passed a few months ago in the name of tolerance. Tolerance from the left is like Obama’s call for unity.  “We will pass laws that allow all of you to tolerate our viewpoint. And we will throw you in jail if you don’t tolerate it.”  How did we miss this new legislation?  The fact that it wasn’t in the news may have had something to do with it. Congress, after all, was busy regulating baseball and our presidential candidates were arguing about who was going to bring about real change. Real change?  They don’t know the meaning of the word!  If you want change, don’t  become president. That’s small potatoes. Just be a judge.

The only recourse remaining in California  is one final  initiative, a last ditch effort to add a new marriage amendment to our state constitution. It won’t matter. Even if we succeed, it won’t matter. Some judge will the rule the new constitution as unconstitutional. And what will we as a society do? What we always do; roll over and play dead. Democracy is dead! Long live tyrannical oligarchy!  What?  You don’t like tyrannical oligarchy?  Then you are intolerant.

 The Bob Siegel Show can be heard Sundays 3:00-4:00 PM Pacific Time on KCBQ 1170 San Diego. Listen live over the internet at KCBQ.com. Call in toll free number: 1-888-344-1170. Or listen off Bob's website at your convenience: www.bobsiegel.net

You say he’s one of the best orators who ever lived?  You say his thought provoking words are responsible for the success of his presidential campaign? You say his speeches are sheer magic, an incredible inspiration, the kind of words that send a chill up MSNBC commentator, Chris Matthew’s leg?

Well, now, you too, can give a speech just like Obama. It’s simple, really. All you have to do is mention three things:

1) You will bring about change.

2) You will bring about unity.

3) The election of John McCain would mean four more years of George Bush.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If this sounds a bit too formulaic and unfair to Obama, I must admit that sometimes there is more of a variety in his speeches. He has been known to mention unity first, John McCain second, and change third.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

John McCain is getting in trouble. Once hailed as running a civil campaign, he is now accused of “name calling” because he dared to mention that the terrorist organization, Hamas, went on record to say they hope Obama wins the election.

Obama immediately distanced himself from Hamas by talking about his support of Israel. I guess his ties to the anti-Semitic Rev. Wright and his attendance at the Nazi, Louis Farrakhan’s million man march should be ignored. So should his desire to sit down and talk with men like Ahamadinnejad who vows to wipe Israel off the face of the map.  Gee, why would Hamas support a man like this?  Why oh why?  I just can’t imagine.

Let’s be clear: Drawing attention to this endorsement by Hamas is not name calling. It is a chilling fact. Since when are candidates not allowed to point out why their opponents would make bad Presidents?  McCain was drawing attention to a POLICY difference. He will not speak with murderers and terrorists. Obama will. Could the distinction between the two men possibly be more apparent? Is there any issue more important to be pointed out? 

Hamas likes Obama. This fact alone speaks volumes. This fact cannot be repeated by McCain enough times.

I don’t know what you’re paying to send your kids to college these days, but I can tell you this: Whatever the amount, it’s too much!

The latest indoctrination comes in the form of a special presentation at UC Irvine entitled, “The Palestinian Holocaust.”

I’m convinced most people do not know what a holocaust is anymore.  Had they really studied Hitler’s war against the Jews, they would understand that no event since offers even a close comparison.

Oh sure, students know there was some kind of persecution and that it involved a lot of people (six-million Jews) but do they understand this was an attempt to wipe out an entire race? Do they know that even Jews who had faithfully defended Germany as World War One veterans were included?  Do they know that Jews who converted to Christianity were still killed because it was a matter of genetics and not belief?  One could be a Catholic priest, but if his great grandfather was Jewish, he was still hauled into a concentration camp.  Do they know about the vicious gassings that came out of showers when Jews were instructed to disrobe and get clean? Do they know that Jewish skin was used to make lampshades? Do they know that Jewish babies were placed live into ovens?

And what is this being compared with today?  Israel wants to defend itself against a people who teach their children that Israel has no right to exist, people who lie and insist the Jews have no historical claim to the Holy Land, people who blow up buses and women and children. Israel responds by going after the terrorists alone and she’s accused of starting “a new holocaust.”  It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. I am so tired of these wicked lies. They make me sick to my stomach and I am twice disturbed that such mindless propaganda is being embraced by our institutions of higher learning.

The word holocaust has become nothing more than a useful tool for different groups to promote their cause.  This example with the Palestinians isn’t even the worst one. A couple of years ago PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) put a display on their website: A picture of Auschwitz Concentration Camp was placed alongside a plate of fried chicken. The caption read, “The New Holocaust.”  See how it works today? Not only are you guilty of a holocaust if you assassinate a terrorist, you are guilty of a holocaust if you enjoy Mom’s fried chicken.

Meanwhile, the word holocaust gets watered down and diluted beyond recognition.  We’d better get re-educated with the word because new holocausts are being planned by men like Ahamadinnejad and if we are going to call every petty little thing under the sun a holocaust we will rob ourselves of the ability to spot the next authentic one.  For example: Many Palestinians talk about the Jews and talk about wiping out the Jews with rhetoric that very much resembles the Nazis.  That, we do not compare to the holocaust because we are preoccupied with fried chicken. God help us. 

And while we're on the subject, let me tell you how I feel about PETA's holocaust: The last time I had a bucket of KFC it was finger licking good!

Also from Bob Siegel:

Kinder Than The Average Bear

Is It Really Just a Question of Legal Marriage?

Months ago, when most were predicting that Obama had the Democratic nomination in the bag, I cautioned people not to underestimate the Clintons. Now that Wright is sabotaging Obama and now that Hillary delivered a dynamic performance on the Bill O’Reilly Show, people are speculating that the Super Delegates may determine that Obama is simply unelectable and hand the nomination to Hillary even though Obama won most of the primaries.

If this happened, can you just imagine the outrage from the black community?  This would make the 2000 election (in which Bush was unfairly accused of stealing the Presidency from Gore) look like nothing.

I can just hear it now: “The white politicians have stolen the election from a black man!”

If that happened, the Democratic Party would split in half. Hillary would lose almost every Obama supporter in November and McCain would walk away with the election hands down.

Probably most of the Super Delegates would be afraid of such a maneuver. Oh sure, they’ll conclude that Obama is unelectable (and I believe he now is, even if he repeats the word change 200 more times.)  But politicians tend to think of their careers before the good of the party. Nobody wants to be labeled a racist.

Anyway, Republicans are salivating over all of this. It seems like a win/win situation. If Obama goes against McCain, he loses because he’s now damaged goods.  If Hillary ticks off the Obama base, she loses a good chunk of her Democratic support, and she too loses to McCain.

Well don’t relax yet. Again, we are talking about the Clintons.  There is still a chance of that double ticket, Hillary/Obama. I realize people have long since abandoned that idea. They think too much bad blood had developed between the two candidates.  But Hillary will do what it takes to win. She will do anything.  Supposing the nomination wasn’t “taken” from Obama. Supposing, instead, he was quietly approached. “Look, you can read the polls. You have no chance against McCain. Hillary does, now that she’s re-energized herself. You can run as Vice-President and return to run for the Presidency some other time when people have forgotten about your buddy, Wright.  Or, even if they haven’t forgotten, you’ve noticed how stupid of a country we’ve become. We’ll be even stupider in 8 years and maybe by then, people won’t even care what Wright says.”

I am convinced McCain can win against a weakened Hillary or a weakened Obama. But together they will be quite formidable, so let’s not celebrate quite so fast. We aren’t out of this yet, Bucko.”