There has been some reaction to Howard Dean's rant yesterday, reported by the Lawrence Journal in Lawrence Kansas. Dean said many of the the things one would expect about going to every state in the Union and rallying supporters, even in Republican states. But he probably did his party no good with his statements on social issues. According to the paper:
"'The issue is not abortion,' Dean told the closed-door fund-raiser. 'The issue is whether women can make up their own mind instead of some right-wing pastor, some right-wing politician telling them what to do.'
And Dean told the Hiebert fund-raiser that gay marriage was a Republican diversion from discussions of ballooning deficits and lost American jobs. That presents an opportunity to attract moderate Republicans, he said.
'Moderate Republicans can't stand these people (conservatives), because they're intolerant. They don't think tolerance is a virtue,' Dean said, adding: 'I'm not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant.'"
Many individuals, not the least of which would be Christian apologist Josh McDowell, have pointed out that the word tolerance has become a code word for the stubborn insistence that no ultimate and final truth can exist about anything, and a hammer to keep faith-based values out of public discourse. Tolerance, to the liberal mind, means all views are equally valid except those views that claim to be objectively and finally true. As long as something is only personally true, one can believe anything one wants. But when something is asserted as universally true, to the liberal, it is a sign of supreme arrogance on the part of the one who holds that standard.
When morally conservative people say murder is always wrong, and that a human fetus is always a living human being, morally liberal people see arrogance. How can anyone say anything is always true? And morally liberal people, (tolerant as they are), tend to use liberal politics to impose their viewpoints on society with the force of law, usually through the courts.
I do think the reaction of the state Rebublican party leader, Derrick Sontag, was a bit over the top.
"'My immediate reaction to that whole dialogue is, it's full of hatred,' Sontag said. 'The Democratic Party has elected a leader that's full of hatred.'"
Liberalism is not necessarily hatred, and I don't think it wise to respond to labels with labels, to play the "hate" card the way some play the "race" card, or the way gay rights activists have used the word "hate" to bash everyone who doesn't think homosexuality is a morally neutral genetic trait. Rather, liberalism is a mindset that cannot conceive of the possibility that there can be any universal truths, (save for the absolute rule that no absolutes exist). And it drives morally liberal people to distraction that conservatives can't see the obvious arrogance in saying something is actually true. I think Dean is sincere. I think he is totally clueless as to how shrill and ridiculous he sounds to most Americans. I think he really believes we just aren't enlightened enough to understand.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
Anglican Church Closer to Split
The ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson continues to divide the Anglican communion as this AP Report shows. That thirty-five church leaders would ask U.S. Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, active in the support of Robinson and gay unions, to withdraw from a major Council is encouraging to conservatives, but, Bishop Griswold of the US Episcopal Church stated the action of the primates still left matters open to "many views". The likelihood of a split appears to be enhanced, even though the unwillingness to make a final decision on the part of the Bishops is intended to allow time to find a way to retain unity.
Christianity Today has a web page that tracks the reaction of many of the 39 Anglican Provinces to this issue, and it is fascinating to see how the African leaders are the staunchest voices for traditional Biblical morality. Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya, is quoted as saying, "The devil has clearly entered the church. God cannot be mocked" and insisting his church will not even accept missionaries from the U.S. Episcopal Church.
It is clear that amid all the talk of "unity" and "not breaking the Communion", conservatives in the Anglican Church believe the Communion is already broken. Fascinating that The Anglican Mission in America has been founded by Bishops of Africa and Asia as a missionary effort to America because of both the loss of faith in this country and in part because of the biblical infidelity of the U.S. Episcopal church.
Last year's Windsor Report talks of sensitivity regarding the issue of same sex unions by urging, "an ongoing process of listening and discernment, and that Christians of good will need to be prepared to engage honestly and frankly with each other on issues relating to human sexuality."
On the other hand, the report is fairly strong in it's criticism of Anglican Bishops who have sought to provide Biblically conservative leadership for those churches which have found the consecration of Robinson repulsive:
"We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:
to express regret for the consequences of their actions
to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.
We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care.
Bishop Akinola of Nigeria, responded to the language of Report,
"It fails to confront the reality that a small, economically privileged group of people has sought to subvert the Christian faith and impose their new and false doctrine on the wider community of faithful believers....Why, throughout the document, is there such a marked contrast between the language used against those who are subverting the faith and that used against those of us, from the Global South, who are trying to bring the church back to the Bible? ...Where is the language of rebuke for those who are promoting sexual sins as holy and acceptable behaviour? ... The Episcopal Church and Diocese of New Westminster are already walking alone on this and if they do not repent and return to the fold, they will find that they are all alone. They will have broken the Anglican Communion.
As I read both Scripture and church history, there can be no unity that does not include doctrinal unity, and there is simply no precedent in scripture or church history that would allow, much less condone, the consecration of a bishop who is not only living with another man, but who left his living wife and two daughters to do so. I would hope that Christians of many backgrounds can stand together on this issue.
Certainly, Christians of the last 2000 years have been united on this issue. That a few "progressive" bishops in an upscale northeastern United States location should feel comfortable repudiating not only the rest of their own church, but the consensus of all Christians for 20 centuries is rather breathtaking.
Christianity Today has a web page that tracks the reaction of many of the 39 Anglican Provinces to this issue, and it is fascinating to see how the African leaders are the staunchest voices for traditional Biblical morality. Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya, is quoted as saying, "The devil has clearly entered the church. God cannot be mocked" and insisting his church will not even accept missionaries from the U.S. Episcopal Church.
It is clear that amid all the talk of "unity" and "not breaking the Communion", conservatives in the Anglican Church believe the Communion is already broken. Fascinating that The Anglican Mission in America has been founded by Bishops of Africa and Asia as a missionary effort to America because of both the loss of faith in this country and in part because of the biblical infidelity of the U.S. Episcopal church.
Last year's Windsor Report talks of sensitivity regarding the issue of same sex unions by urging, "an ongoing process of listening and discernment, and that Christians of good will need to be prepared to engage honestly and frankly with each other on issues relating to human sexuality."
On the other hand, the report is fairly strong in it's criticism of Anglican Bishops who have sought to provide Biblically conservative leadership for those churches which have found the consecration of Robinson repulsive:
"We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:
to express regret for the consequences of their actions
to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.
We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care.
Bishop Akinola of Nigeria, responded to the language of Report,
"It fails to confront the reality that a small, economically privileged group of people has sought to subvert the Christian faith and impose their new and false doctrine on the wider community of faithful believers....Why, throughout the document, is there such a marked contrast between the language used against those who are subverting the faith and that used against those of us, from the Global South, who are trying to bring the church back to the Bible? ...Where is the language of rebuke for those who are promoting sexual sins as holy and acceptable behaviour? ... The Episcopal Church and Diocese of New Westminster are already walking alone on this and if they do not repent and return to the fold, they will find that they are all alone. They will have broken the Anglican Communion.
As I read both Scripture and church history, there can be no unity that does not include doctrinal unity, and there is simply no precedent in scripture or church history that would allow, much less condone, the consecration of a bishop who is not only living with another man, but who left his living wife and two daughters to do so. I would hope that Christians of many backgrounds can stand together on this issue.
Certainly, Christians of the last 2000 years have been united on this issue. That a few "progressive" bishops in an upscale northeastern United States location should feel comfortable repudiating not only the rest of their own church, but the consensus of all Christians for 20 centuries is rather breathtaking.
Human Property
Joe Carter of the Evangelical Outpost has an excellent and short item showing how pro-abortion advocates have seriously attempted to argue that human embryos are personal property. If the fetus is property, then the "owner" has rights if that property is destroyed by another. But if the property is not wanted, the "owner" has the right to destroy it. It is just another clever legal reshuffling of the "every child a wanted child" slogan, but it also amazing for its callousness and similarity to arguments in favor of slavery.
Terry Schiavo
It is almost mind numbing to follow the Terry Schiavo case. What we have been witnessing is a battle to remove both food and water from a woman who is not brain dead, not terminally ill, not unresponsive. If the feeding tube is removed, which today may be again delayed by a 60-day stay to investigate abuse charges, we will have fully and completely crossed the line from abortion to active euthanasia, with all of America watching as if the whole mess is no more than a a typical reality TV spectacle. There can be no one in this country even casually aware of the news who has not seen images of this woman alive, moving, responding to her parents. Yes her "quality of life" is not what any of us would want, and yes her care is expensive in both dollars and human effort. But actively killing by starvation a human being for being less healthy than the rest of us is a line we simply must not cross.
I am not sure we realize the significance of this case. We have been traveling down the slippery slope for decades and this may mark a point of no return.
I am not sure we realize the significance of this case. We have been traveling down the slippery slope for decades and this may mark a point of no return.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Looking for Work
I want a job like this. Bill Maher, of Politically Incorrect fame, was on Scarborough Country last night, and apparently had some choice things to say about Christianity. For example,
"I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder."
I don't want to misquote him, but I don't know what context a statement like that can be placed in that would make it anything less than astonishingly contemptuous. I want to know how people get major media jobs where they make all kinds of money hurling derogatory and insulting comments at huge numbers of ordinary people.
Let's consider the impact of this statement, that faith is a neurological disorder. Apparently anyone who has any faith is judged by Bill Maher to be insane. Who would he be speaking of, as people who have faith, and for the sake of argument, we'll limit it to Christianity. Abraham Lincoln? G.K. Chesterton? C.S. Lewis? George Washington? Isaac Newton? Blaise Pascal? C. Everett Koop? Michael Faraday? Handel? Bach? Rembrandt? T.S. Eliot?
Now that is a a very short list. But the question is, what makes Bill Maher qualified to go on national television and say that all people of faith are deranged and sit in judgment on the intellectual capacities of those on the list above, some of whom were instrumental in the development of modern science? And why should anyone listen to him compare the faith of these individuals with that of those who would fly airplanes into buildings to murder civilians? Certainly not all people of faith, any faith, are equally balanced and rational. But Maher says we are all brain damaged.
Apparently, Maher wants to blame it all on childhood training, suggesting that if we didn't teach Bible stories to our children our kids would all be much more intelligent and enlightened atheists.
"Do you think if it was the fairy tale about a man who lived inside of a whale and it was religion that Jack built a beanstalk today, you would know the difference? Why do you believe in one fairy tale and not the other? Just because adults told you it was true and they scared you into believing it, at pain of death, at pain of burning in hell."
His ignorance of Christianity is staggering. Fairy tales have a place in the teaching of general ideas about morality or human values, both good and bad, but that does not make all Bible stories fairy tales. Jesus told many stories or parables that any reader of the gospels intuitively knows are intended to be only stories to teach a singular truth. But these are easily distinguished from those events recorded in the Old and New Testament that are intended to be more than mere stories, but actual events in which God interacted with the natural world.
There are Bible stories that are clearly portrayed as history. These events are recorded by those who claim to be eyewitnesses, they are documented in written records, they refer to other verifiable historical events, places and people for context. In short, what we are presented with in many Biblical stories are unusual events which most people would not be inclined to believe except for the fact that they are portrayed as historical events by people who are rational enough to know the difference.
We can verify that Moses lived and breathed and led the Israelites out of Egypt. We can verify that there was a city named Nineveh, and yes, on occasion, men have been swallowed by sea creatures and survived. We can verify that Jesus walked and talked in Palestine, that he was crucified by the Roman authorities. It is a matter of public record that twelve men who followed Jesus went to horrible deaths proclaiming that Christ had in fact risen from the dead. It is absolutely certain that this belief in the resurrection of Christ spawned a movement that overtook much of the known world by the second century and many Christians continued to prefer death to renouncing their faith.
I suppose if Maher wants to call them all disordered, that is his right. I just want to know who is dumb enough to pay him for it. I'd like a job where I can make lots of money saying stupid and ignorant things.
"I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder."
I don't want to misquote him, but I don't know what context a statement like that can be placed in that would make it anything less than astonishingly contemptuous. I want to know how people get major media jobs where they make all kinds of money hurling derogatory and insulting comments at huge numbers of ordinary people.
Let's consider the impact of this statement, that faith is a neurological disorder. Apparently anyone who has any faith is judged by Bill Maher to be insane. Who would he be speaking of, as people who have faith, and for the sake of argument, we'll limit it to Christianity. Abraham Lincoln? G.K. Chesterton? C.S. Lewis? George Washington? Isaac Newton? Blaise Pascal? C. Everett Koop? Michael Faraday? Handel? Bach? Rembrandt? T.S. Eliot?
Now that is a a very short list. But the question is, what makes Bill Maher qualified to go on national television and say that all people of faith are deranged and sit in judgment on the intellectual capacities of those on the list above, some of whom were instrumental in the development of modern science? And why should anyone listen to him compare the faith of these individuals with that of those who would fly airplanes into buildings to murder civilians? Certainly not all people of faith, any faith, are equally balanced and rational. But Maher says we are all brain damaged.
Apparently, Maher wants to blame it all on childhood training, suggesting that if we didn't teach Bible stories to our children our kids would all be much more intelligent and enlightened atheists.
"Do you think if it was the fairy tale about a man who lived inside of a whale and it was religion that Jack built a beanstalk today, you would know the difference? Why do you believe in one fairy tale and not the other? Just because adults told you it was true and they scared you into believing it, at pain of death, at pain of burning in hell."
His ignorance of Christianity is staggering. Fairy tales have a place in the teaching of general ideas about morality or human values, both good and bad, but that does not make all Bible stories fairy tales. Jesus told many stories or parables that any reader of the gospels intuitively knows are intended to be only stories to teach a singular truth. But these are easily distinguished from those events recorded in the Old and New Testament that are intended to be more than mere stories, but actual events in which God interacted with the natural world.
There are Bible stories that are clearly portrayed as history. These events are recorded by those who claim to be eyewitnesses, they are documented in written records, they refer to other verifiable historical events, places and people for context. In short, what we are presented with in many Biblical stories are unusual events which most people would not be inclined to believe except for the fact that they are portrayed as historical events by people who are rational enough to know the difference.
We can verify that Moses lived and breathed and led the Israelites out of Egypt. We can verify that there was a city named Nineveh, and yes, on occasion, men have been swallowed by sea creatures and survived. We can verify that Jesus walked and talked in Palestine, that he was crucified by the Roman authorities. It is a matter of public record that twelve men who followed Jesus went to horrible deaths proclaiming that Christ had in fact risen from the dead. It is absolutely certain that this belief in the resurrection of Christ spawned a movement that overtook much of the known world by the second century and many Christians continued to prefer death to renouncing their faith.
I suppose if Maher wants to call them all disordered, that is his right. I just want to know who is dumb enough to pay him for it. I'd like a job where I can make lots of money saying stupid and ignorant things.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Persecution
Michelle Malkin points us to a chilling post on JihadWatch which suggests that the murder of a Coptic Christian family in New Jersey was a premeditated act of deception and religious persecution.
The Armanious family had inspired several Muslims to convert to Christianity — or thought they had. These converts were actually practicing taqiyya, or religious deception, pretending to be friends of these Christians in order to strengthen themselves against them, as in Qur'an 3:28: "Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful -- he that does this has nothing to hope for from Allah -- except in self-defense."
Most of us do not want to make generalizations about Muslims. But we need to be frank about a few things. The radical Islamicists are waging a war which we cannot put in conventional categories.1. They are willing to target civilians
2. They have no identifiable organized government with which we can deal.
3. They will use any and all manner of deception to accomplish their goals, including media manipulation.
4. They are not only willing, but often desirous of death in their cause.
As a result, we have a difficult task. There is no particular country which we can approach diplomatically. The enemy generally will not be dressed in a military uniform and will hide behind civilians. We will need counterintelligence like never before in history to anticipate their strategies. We cannot expect mercy or rational actions from front line combatants from the other side and though we will not wish to use inhumane tactics, we cannot expect them reciprocate.
This is a stealthy and ruthless enemy. I am personally thankful we have a president who has understood that this war is not a conventional one and has been willing to take the heat for decisions he has made from those who still want to categorize the war on terror in conventional terms. GWs occasional conciliatory comments about the peacefulness of Islam aside, he at least understands the nature of the war itself is unconventional.
But I wonder what it will take for most of us to be willing to say this is a religious war which they have declared. To quote Aragorn from the Two Towers, "Open war is upon us, whether we would risk it or not."
Illinois to Potentially Force Churches to Hire Gays
As an Illinois resident, I was somewhat taken aback to learn from WorldNetDaily that our illustrious governor has signed into law a bill which could require churches to hire homosexuals.
As usual, the bill purports to be a civil rights advance, but according to the article:
"...IFI Executive Director Peter LaBarbera notes the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Carol Ronen, D-Chicago, is on record stating it should be applied to churches, meaning they would not be allowed, for example, to reject a job applicant who practices homosexual behavior. "
More information is also available at the website of the Illinois Family Institute, which reports"
"The Illinois law firm Ungaretti & Harris, which specializes in labor and employment issues, published an analysis of SB 3186 that states (emphasis added): 'While many such municipal prohibitions on sexual orientation discrimination expressly exempt religious organizations from their coverage, the new amendment to Illinois Human Rights Act does not. '"
Without such an exception, it appears that any organization which employs fifteen or more people would be subject to anti-discrimination penalties if that organization refused to hire openly gay individuals.
The Chicago Tribune predictably trumpeted the bill as a good thing and ignored the implications for any who might find homosexual behavior morally problematic.
The WorldNetDaily article continues by quoting Blagojevich as saying, "What we're doing today is older than scripture: Love thy neighbor. It's what Jesus said when he gave his Sermon on the Mount: 'Do unto others what you would have others do unto you."'
It was my brother in law who years ago pointed out the deceptive hypocrisy of the left leaning agenda which applies equally to both the abortion rights and the gay rights agenda. In essence the view that says "you have your truth, I have mine" is exceedingly unfair when one considers what it costs each side. The liberal view means, essentially, "we will allow you to do that which we believe to be morally neutral, if you will allow us to do that which you believe to be morally reprehensible." More bluntly, "We will let you carry live babies to term if you will allow us to kill ours." Not exactly equality. What it apparently means in this case is, "you are not allowed to say or enforce any of your views of sexuality, even in private organizations, but you must comply with ours, by the force of law."
"Tolerance" means compliance with a liberal moral agenda, once again.
As usual, the bill purports to be a civil rights advance, but according to the article:
"...IFI Executive Director Peter LaBarbera notes the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Carol Ronen, D-Chicago, is on record stating it should be applied to churches, meaning they would not be allowed, for example, to reject a job applicant who practices homosexual behavior. "
More information is also available at the website of the Illinois Family Institute, which reports"
"The Illinois law firm Ungaretti & Harris, which specializes in labor and employment issues, published an analysis of SB 3186 that states (emphasis added): 'While many such municipal prohibitions on sexual orientation discrimination expressly exempt religious organizations from their coverage, the new amendment to Illinois Human Rights Act does not. '"
Without such an exception, it appears that any organization which employs fifteen or more people would be subject to anti-discrimination penalties if that organization refused to hire openly gay individuals.
The Chicago Tribune predictably trumpeted the bill as a good thing and ignored the implications for any who might find homosexual behavior morally problematic.
The WorldNetDaily article continues by quoting Blagojevich as saying, "What we're doing today is older than scripture: Love thy neighbor. It's what Jesus said when he gave his Sermon on the Mount: 'Do unto others what you would have others do unto you."'
It was my brother in law who years ago pointed out the deceptive hypocrisy of the left leaning agenda which applies equally to both the abortion rights and the gay rights agenda. In essence the view that says "you have your truth, I have mine" is exceedingly unfair when one considers what it costs each side. The liberal view means, essentially, "we will allow you to do that which we believe to be morally neutral, if you will allow us to do that which you believe to be morally reprehensible." More bluntly, "We will let you carry live babies to term if you will allow us to kill ours." Not exactly equality. What it apparently means in this case is, "you are not allowed to say or enforce any of your views of sexuality, even in private organizations, but you must comply with ours, by the force of law."
"Tolerance" means compliance with a liberal moral agenda, once again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)