Joel Osteen--Christian or not?

Michael Spencer has an interesting article critiquing Joel Osteen:

Any analysis of Joel Osteen's theology is going to have a hard time saying he is proclaiming the Christian message. The most popular preacher in Christianity is proclaiming a theology that is neither Christian, nor Jewish, nor Muslim, but is pragmatically pagan. Pagan in the sense of finding ways to gain the favor of god so he will do good things for you. Manipulating the deity to give you blessings. This is the ultimate example of Luther's "theology of glory" chosen over the "theology of the cross." I would rather a non-Christian hear John Shelby Spong a hundred times than hear this. Spong denies it all- outright. Osteen is presented as a Christian, but his message isn't going to bring you to Christ, the Kingdom or heaven. It's spiritual cyanide disguised as candy. If there is a hell, Osteen's message won't stop you or the people youlove from going there, because the savior in his messages is YOU and the

salvation he offers is a NEW ATTITUDE, and some resulting real estate.

I could not agree with Spencer more. Osteen is a dangerous man. Whether he intends to or not (and I would like to think that he doesn't), he is doing a tremendous amount of harm to Christianity. We are not helping people by failing to give them the truth. And the truth is the only way anyone can have any meaning in life is through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. To ignore this is to ignore everything. Osteen presents a narcissitic, hedonistic Christianity. Does God exist merely to "bless" us? Should our sole concern be whether or not we are happy and prosperous, however Osteen defines it? What does it mean to "grow where you are planted"? Does that mean a gangster should seek to be the most happy gangster he can be? Does God exist as a mere facilitator in our experience? Why is Osteen so adamant that he in not a "prosperity preacher"? Could any able-minded person see him as anything but a "prosperity preacher"?

I have no solution for this "problem." I don't know if Evangelicals are ever going to receive a fair impression in our society. I don't know if we will ever be able to present our pure vision to this culture. But we should certainly stand up when a pseudo-Christian like Osteen distorts most of what Christianity consists.

But what about the . . .

How many times do we have to here that for the next several days?

"The elections went off without a hitch, but what about the insurrgents that still are in Iraq?"

"True, the elections appeared to be successful, but what about our troops?"

"So the Iraqis voted. Good for them. What does that have to do with us?" (Jay Sevren was saying this on the radio today.)

Are the people who constantly bray their discontent and disapproval of the Iraqi situation able to admit they are wrong? Is it possible for the MSM to give one complimentary comment to Pres. Bush?

I think most already know the answers to those questions. The coverage and misinformation pouring out of the media outlets is so nauseating. John Poderhertz agrees:

January 31, 2005 -- WHEN you heard about the stunning success of the Iraqi elections, were you thrilled? Did you see it as a triumph fordemocracy and for the armed forces of the United States that have sacrificed and suffered and fought so valiantly over the past 18 months to get Iraq to this moment?

Or did you momentarily feel an onrush of disappointment because you knew, you just knew, that this was going to redound to the credit of George W. Bush? This means you, Michael Moore. I'm talking to you, Teddy Kennedy.

The Defiant ones

Over two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson penned these words:



"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."



With those courageous words, 57 Americans signed the greatest human political document ever written, the Declaration of Independence. Several of these men lost most every possession they had in the course of the war.

Francis Lewis experienced the destruction of all his property, as did Lewis Morris , William Floyd, Lyman Hall (who was charged with treason), Arthur Middleton (who was imprisoned by the British), and John Hart.

Several others were also arrested by the British: Thomas Heyward, Jr. and Richard Stockton.

All of these put their intergity and safety on the line by affixing their signatures to the dotted line.



Yesterday, a similiar situation took place in Iraq:



"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqis embraced democracy in large numbers Sunday, standing in long lines to vote in defiance of mortar attacks, suicide bombers and boycott calls. Pushed in wheelchairs or carts if they couldn't walk, the elderly, the young and women in veils cast ballots in Iraq's first free election in a half-century."



Every American ought to rejoice. Yesterday was a victory for Pres. Bush. Yesterday was a victory for our military. Most important, yesterday was a tremendous victory for the Iraqi people. They are the ones who defied the bullets and bombs in order to vote. They are the ones who would not be cajoled into submission. They are the ones who counted the opportunity for freedom more valuable than the possiblility of death. They are the heroes. They are the patriots. No one knows how much they stand to loose. No one knows what will be the final result of this "Arab experiment." But no one can take the events of yesterday away from the Iraqis. This is their time. This is their triumph. Every freedom-loving American ought to rise in ovation to their perserverrance. And every American and every Iraqi ought to say as Admiral David Farragut said, "Damn the [terrorists]. Full speed ahead!"

Pitt and 'Cuse

Pittsburgh is currently in the process of beating Syracuse. This makes me very happy. I do not like Syracuse. I am not sure why, but I don't. I always cheer on most anyone who plays them. I like to see teams decimate their zone, as Pitt is doing right now. I like the way Pitt plays. They are a tough bunch of guys. Chevron Troutman is a smooth, smart player.

Kansas and Texas will be playing shortly. I like Rick Barnes and Texas. I actually like most every Big-12 team. They all play tough, physical basketball. There are a few stars in the league, but mainly just a bunch of great teams. This game will probably not be as good as the game at Lawrence, KA, two years ago. That was the game Nick Colison accrued 24 points and 23 rebounds in what has to be one of the best individual performances ever. I don't think I will ever see anything to top it (Jason Williams was spectacular a few years ago in Duke's 10 point comeback against Maryland). I haven't liked Kansas as much since Roy Williams left. I do like Langford, Simien, and Miles. Let the excitement begin.

Meanwhile, the good news

As the terrorist step up their intimidation methods, the security forces continue to corral the terrorist leaders:



"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi officials on Friday announced the capture of three leading members of the insurgent group headed by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."

Would You Vote in Iraq?

I don't know who this hack is (so I probably shouldn't call him a hack), but he doesn't seem to have a clue:



"Violence has stepped up prior to the election with insurgents threatening open season on anyone who goes to a polling station. Here's a quick roundup of Iraq violence from 8 a.m. Thursday to 8 a.m. Friday. We have just one question: Amid all this, would you vote?"



He is right. It would be better for them to stay indoors and stay alive, and let the terrorist thugs have their way. I am sure once the situation settles down, the thugs would be happy to set aside their IEDs and AK-47s and listen to what the citizens think. Plus, the weather forecast calls for sandstorms. No one wants to be caught in one of those. Maybe they could pay the terrorists to leave them alone. They could set up a monthly installment plan, where, once a month, they leave a bad of dinari outside their door in exchange for safety. For an extra bag of dinari, they could buy an exemption from the rape rooms. They definately want to forgo the chance of ever determining their own destiny. Patrick Henry was not exactly right. An attached head is worth a few pounds of chains.

Hamas goes legit

Do you remember this scence from "The Godfather"? It takes place after Michael returns from Sicily.



Michael: I'm working for my father now. He's been sick, very sick.

Kay: But you're not like him, Michael. I thought you weren't going to become a man like your father. That's what you told me.

Michael: My father's no different than any other powerful man (Kay laughs), any man who's responsible for other people. Like a senator or a president.

Kay: You know how naive you sound?

Michael: Why?

Kay: Senators and presidents don't have men killed.

Michael: Oh, who's being naive, Kay?



I think this applies here to Hamas:



"Initial results show the militant group Hamas has won an overwhelming victory in Palestinian local elections held Thursday in the Gaza Strip, winning nearly two-thirds of the local council seats in 10 districts. The results reflect the widespread support Hamas has in Gaza, and are also seen as a potential turning point for the Islamic group."



This would be like the Weather Underground getting people elected to Congress. Hamas consists of murderers who bribe the citizenry. It is possible they do good things for the Palestinians. But it is certain they support the killing of innocent Israelis. How in Bermuda can the anyone legitimize Hamas? Notice, they did not participate in the recent elections. (Tell me, Pres. Carter, does that make the Palesinian elections illegit?). How can we expect them to lay aside their way of life now that they hold public office? Does anyone really expect this to reform them? The whole situation in Palestine is a circus.

Where is the sanity?

So many European leaders, so much delusion:



"DAVOS, Switzerland -- Politics made an appearance at the World Economic Forum Friday as German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder urged diplomacy in the standoff with Iran over nuclear enrichment and Israel's Shimon Peres said there was 'magic' on the mountain in Middle East peace talks."



I have not read "The Magic Mountain", though I intend to. I do know it takes place in an insane asylum, which seems relevant when we are speaking of Europe. Shimon Peres did a smack-up job with the Oslo accords. And Schroeder has much credibility.

Where is Sam when you need him?

Sam Walton will be turning over in his grave:



"LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is expanding the definition of 'immediate family' in its employee-ethics policy to account for laws in states that recognize domestic partnerships and civil unions.

The change drew quick praise from a major gay-rights lobbying organization."



I would guess that any policy that pleases gay-"rights" activist will disturb traditional moral value supporters. One of the problems with this stems from the influence of Wal-Mart. They are the one of the largest companies in America. They have a tremendous influence over the markets. They have also been one of the more conservative companies. Sam Walton was a strong Christian. Seeing them fall to the left is a bad omen. I wonder if Hugh Hewitt will organize a boycott of Wal-Mart?

Terrorist travel

I am one of many that will be extremely perturbed if the President and Congressional leadership fail to keep there promise to James Sensenbrenner:



"WASHINGTON - House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., has introduced legislation, the Real ID Act, containing terrorist travel provisions that were dropped from legislation enacted last month that addresses the work of the 9/11 Commission."



This is a piece of legislation that should have been already passed. It needs to be on the highest priority. Most other security provisions are impotent without this one.

Not over yet

Make no mistake, the fight is far from over:



"SANTA ANA, Calif. -- The legal fight over same-sex marriage has shifted to Southern California now that a lawsuit filed by a gay couple from suburban Orange County is the only remaining challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. "



This battle will continue on every level for many years. The result may reside in whatever party has more fortitude. I pray that traditional value supporters understand the importance of the fight, and stay with it all the way.

Iraqi Expatriates Begin Voting in U.S.

I hope most Americans realize that, regardless of the final outcome, that fact that Iraqis are voting is a tremendous victory by itself:



"SOUTHGATE, Mich. -- Joyful tears and frequent applause marked the start of U.S. voting Friday in Iraq's first independent elections in more than 50 years.

Iraqi expatriates began casting votes at 7 a.m. inside an abandoned store in this Detroit suburb. Periodically, cheers would erupt from one of the 15 polling stations."



We cannot forget:



"The ballot before had Saddam Hussein - yes or no - and if you put no, the bodyguard took you to the jail," said Almoumineen, who now teaches Arabic to U.S. troops.

Poverty in Africa

How could so many important people be wrong about the importance of solving the poverty in Africa?



Tony Blair today appeared alongside rock star Bono and ex-US president Bill Clinton to urge the world to take a “quantum leap” in fighting poverty in Africa.



It isn't just Bono and Bubba speaking out on this issue. It is also "Richard Gere, Angelina Jolie and Sharon Stone." We really ought to respect their authority on these issues. They know of what they speak.

Poverty in Africa

How could so many important people be wrong about the importance of solving the poverty in Africa?



Tony Blair today appeared alongside rock star Bono and ex-US president Bill Clinton to urge the world to take a “quantum leap” in fighting poverty in Africa.



It isn't just Bono and Bubba speaking out on this issue. It is also "Richard Gere, Angelina Jolie and Sharon Stone." We really ought to respect their authority on these issues. They know of what they speak.

Poverty in Africa

How could so many important people be wrong about the importance of solving the poverty in Africa?



Tony Blair today appeared alongside rock star Bono and ex-US president Bill Clinton to urge the world to take a “quantum leap” in fighting poverty in Africa.



It isn't just Bono and Bubba speaking out on this issue. It is also "Richard Gere, Angelina Jolie and Sharon Stone." We really ought to respect their authority on these issues. They know of what they speak.

Nazis in Boston

The ACLU will probably not like this:



"An 89-year-old Sutton man who worked in a Nazi training camp faces deportation after a federal judge ruled yesterday he had lied about killing Jews so he wouldn't be barred from entering the United States more than 50 years ago."



I am not too pleased with this ruling. What are they attempting to do? What good can come from punishing a nearly 90 year old for something he may have done 60 years ago? Just let the old man die in peace, and in the US.

PR for the Bush Administration

Some seem to dislike the fact Pres. Bush has spent much on public relations:



WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has more than doubled its spending on outside contracts with public relations firms during the past four years, according to an analysis of federal procurement data by congressional Democrats.

The administration spent at least $88 million in fiscal 2004 on contracts with major public relations firms, the analysis found, compared with $37 million in 2001, Bush's first year in office. In all, the administration spent $250 million on public relations contracts during its first term, compared with $128 million spent for President Clinton between 1997 and 2000. The analysis did not examine what the Clinton administration spent during its first term



In a political world where preception is so highly regarded, few can blame the President for being so concerned about PR. He should spend some on PR, as long as there is full disclosure. He needs even more PR in this second term to help him carefully articulate his policies, and make sure every American is aware of them and understands them. Crafting his message will be a key aspect to accomplishing his second term goals. Keep in mind Pres. Bush has to combat a contentious legacy media that will do whatever they can to distort his polcies. Is the reason Pres. Clinton didn't spend as much on PR due to the fact he had much of the MSM touting his policies?

Palestinian steps

The Palestinians are either cracking-down or cracking up:



"RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - The Palestinian leadership banned civilians Thursday from carrying weapons its latest step aimed at reining in violence while awaiting Israel's response to a proposed mutual ceasefire."



What is interesting is not that they are banning weapons, but that they have allowed citizens to carry weapons up to this point. What reason would they have to carry they weapons? Is there a surplus of rabid rodents in Gaza? It is anyone's guess how well the citizens will respond to this ban, since the security forces "lack control" of the area. I suppose the Palestinian murders have been known to listen to reason.

The article notes:



Abbas and Qureia have also decided to name Nasser Yousef as the new Palestinian interior minister, a post in charge of the security forces, said a senior Palestinian official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Yousef was in charge of cracking down on guerrilla groups in the 1990s.



Just the man for the job. Anyone can see the success he had in "cracking down on guerrilla groups." They are almost extinct.

Who cares about the Oscar nods?

Here is a news story that I find more interesting than the Oscar nominations.

You sank my battleship

Yet another blow to conservative commentary:



(CBS) Conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher received $21,500 from the Bush administration to push the president's marriage initiative, the Washington Post reports. Gallagher is the second pundit reported to have received money from the administration to push Bush proposals.



Gallagher submits what could quite possibly be one of the worst explanations in the history of journalism:



Gallagher later wrote a column in which she said: "I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers."



That "apology" may be sufficient for a junior high school student, but not for a trained journalist. You would almost have to wonder if they were paid by someone else to make the Bush administration look bad.

Terror threats

It appears that any drunk person with a vendetta can put our entire Homeland Security Department on alert:



A Mexican man who reported Boston was targeted for a terrorist nuclear attack confessed he fabricated the story to take revenge on a man who stiffed him in a deal to smuggle illegal aliens, a source said. ``He's admitted it's all a hoax,'' said a law enforcement source familiar with the investigation of Jose Ernesto Beltran Quinones, who was taken into custody Monday along with his son in Mexicali by Mexican police and interviewed by the FBI. ``He admitted he was trying to get back at his employer, who is a human smuggler,'' said the source.



This kook needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In fact, we ought to make a new law that says anyone who turns in a false terror tip will be sent to Canada's Northwest Territory. We could even suspend Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution so we can send him away.

Russia and Syria

I have posted on the Russia-Syrian connection before, but have not kept close watch on it. There have been several stories about their burgeoning ties, including this one:



MOSCOW, January 26 (Itar-Tass) -- Russia is ready to cooperate with Syria “in every direction, also in coping with new challenges and threats”, in regional cooperation and in the economy, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov said during his meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday.



I suspect that this could prove to be an very significant alliance.

Palestinian militants

More progress with the "Road Map" to peace?



Mahmoud Abbas, the newly-elected Palestinian President, and Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, could hold a summit meeting within weeks after high-level diplomatic contacts resumed for the first time in two years.

In a flurry of meetings and telephone contacts, senior officials from both countries reportedly finalised agreement on the deployment of thousands of Palestinian security forces to curb attacks on Jewish settlements from southern Gaza.

In return, Israel agreed to curtail the "targeted killings" of Palestinian militants in Gaza - which the Palestinians say is crucial if Mr Abbas is to persuade militant groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas to respect a ceasefire so that negotiations can start on a comprehensive political settlement.



I suppose Israel really should cease their "targeted killings" of Palestinian "militants," a.k.a barbarous murders. If the Palestinians want to kill innocent Israelis, they should be able to without impunity. Does the Times think the "targeted killings" are not all that targeted, or justified? Apparently not, for later in the article they refer to "almost 5,000 people [who] have been killed in violence, including almost 4,000 Palestinians. The latest victim was a three-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead in the Gaza Strip by Israel troops this morning - Israeli military sources said the soldiers had been returning fire after a mortar or rocket attack on their position." They would have to have an excellent research department to find cases of Israeli fire killing innocent Palestinians. The instance they allude to above must prove that Israeli retaliation is merely unjustified "killings." Such propaganda.



Update: The Times is cheesecake compared to the slander Aljazeera is publishing:



Israeli occupation forces shot dead on Wednesday a three-year-old girl inside in her house in Gaza, witnesses and medical sources said.

Witnesses said that Rahma Ibrahim Abu Shamas was inside her house in Deir al Balah in Gaza when the Israeli gunfire struck her in the head, killing her instantly. The Israeli military admitted the killing, saying it was investigating the "incident."

A spokesman for the Israeli military justified the girl’s killing, saying that soldiers thought that Palestinian resistance fighters were somewhere in the neighborhood.

However, the Israeli-state run radio, Cal Yisrael, asserted that no Palestinians fighters were present in the area at the time of the shooting.

PA security officials in the Gaza Strip strongly denounced the killing, a "another hideous crime."

"Imagine that a Jewish child was killed…and how Israel would react…they are killing our children in cold blood as they are vociferously reminding the world of the so-called holocaust," said Abu Muammar, a Palestinian security official in Deir al Balah.



This report is absolutely sickening. Where are the reports on the number of Israeli children that have been killed? I suspect the number is far greater than the 650 Palestinian children Aljazera is reporting. Mind you, both numbers are upsetting, but it would be nice to see some balance.

Iraqi abuses

Is this going to receive as much attention as Abu Graib?



"In a report detailing prisoner treatment by Iraqi security forces, U.S.-based watchdog Human Rights Watch catalogues arbitrary detentions, dismal jail conditions and the routine torture of prisoners."

Novice

Sen. Obama wouldn't be trying to make a name, for himself, would he?



"WASHINGTON -- President Bush's nominee to head the Department of Veterans Affairs faced pointed questions from lawmakers Monday about disparities in veterans benefits among the states, particularly in Illinois, where vets receive some of the lowest awards in the country."

Klepto-chef

Stealing from the cookie jar?



"NEW YORK - The former president of the James Beard Foundation has pleaded guilty to stealing more than $50,000 from the culinary organization, according to state officials."

Drilling in NM

The liberal paradox: how do we decrease our dependence on foreign oil without actually drilling at home:



ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Despite protests by the governor and environmentalists, the federal government decided to open nearly all of New Mexico's vast Otero Mesa for exploratory drilling but vowed that the oil and gas industry won't have a "free-for-all."



It doesn't matter how inevasive the exploration will be, or how desolate the area is. Drilling is always more evil than capitalism. I formerly lived in northwestern NM, and I can tell you, the jackrabbits aren't going to miss their land.

Suicide at Gitmo

They must be under tremendous psychological stress:



SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico Jan 25, 2005 — The U.S. military said 23 Guantanamo Bay terror suspects carried out a coordinated effort to hang or strangle themselves in 2003 during a week-long protest in the secretive camp in Cuba.



It must be the inhumane conditions. Why else would a jihadist, who is committed to the obliteration of infidels, attempt such an act? Here is an interesting statement:



[Dr. Daryl Matthews, a forensic psychiatrist at the University of Hawaii] criticized some practices, and said it was "appalling" that medical professionals shared detainees' medical records with interrogators.



Could it be that knowing some of a prisoner's medical history is key to interrogating them without causing physical harm? Would they treat a person with a heart condition differently than some one without one?

Rumor hunters

A CA Representative wants a inquiry into an alleged organization:



"U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Solano, sent a letter Monday to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter calling for hearings into an alleged secret intelligence organization reported in a Washington Post article to have been created by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld."



She also wants an investigation into a boy in Utah that was alleged born with deer antlers on his head, which was reported in World Magazine.

Deficits and terrotists

Isn't it interesting that the AP couples the budget estimates with a request for more funding for Iraq:



WASHINGTON Jan 25, 2005 — The Congressional Budget Office is predicting the government will go another $855 billion into debt over the next decade, excluding the costs of President Bush's Social Security plan and ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The report, described by a congressional aide who spoke on condition of anonymity, was being released Tuesday, the same day administration officials were expected to describe President Bush's request for fresh $80 billion request to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year.



What will the dovish, blowhards say of this? They want Pres. Bush to fight a war on terror with no lack of supplies, no loss of American life, and no cost to American taxpayers. If we are going to win in Iraq, shouldn't we provide all the means necessary? What dollar value can we place on our natinal security?

Concerning the predictions, the budget estimates are not worth the paper they are printed on. I can't understand why people get in an uproar over a "projection." The projections are getting smaller, which means our economy is getting better. The growth of our economy flucuates. It seems impossible to make an accurate projection without knowing what will happen to the economy in the future.

The liberals and the legacy media should have a heyday with this.

Palestinian promises

Palestine wants Israel to promise to withhold retaliation:



"GAZA (Reuters) - Palestinian commanders hoped to get an Israeli go-ahead Tuesday for deploying security forces in south Gaza to solidify a de facto cease-fire that would help new President Mahmoud Abbas talk peace with Israel."



Do you suppose the Israelis are wary because the Palestinians have broken almost every peace treaty they could? Why should the Israelis be barred from protecting itself?

Dave Berry likes classical music

Dave Berry gives on of the best definitions of classical music:



"But we also need to define ''classical music.'' A little farther on in the World Book, we come to the section on music, which states: ''There are two chief kinds of Western music, classical and popular.'' Thus we see that ''classical music'' is defined, technically, as ''music that is not popular.'' This could be one reason why the ''average Joe'' does not care for it."



Actually, I like some classical music. I must not be an "average Joe."

Certainty

Dr. John Mark Reynolds, a professor of philosophy at Biola University, writes a post in his blog entitled, "The Three Essentials for Education: Part Two--Right Questions." It is a very thought provoking post. If I understand it properly, I don't entirely agree with it (though he certainly has the upper hand in terms of erudition). He says:



. . . my own experience suggests that having the right questions is more important than having the right answers. My answers must always be tentative. I try to have faith seeking understanding and not understanding seeking faith.



I think that last statement is an excellent paradigm for a philosophy of education. If I understand Kierkegaard properly, in his book, "Fear and Trembling," he posits the idea that all our knowledge begins with faith, rather than ending in it, as the Hegelians say. We all start with a presupposition, whether we realize it or not. To say we begin with pure knowledge is pure fancy. Everyone has a philosophical starting point. Identifying that point will help us.

He continues:



Dogma, if by dogma one means certainty, should have no place in my life. There are things I think are true based on best reason and best experience. They seem good, true, and beautiful. However, I must always acknowledge that I could be wrong. Certainty is not ever present this side of Paradise. I hold all my answers loosely, but keep to my questions passionately.



I cannot accept that statement. I believe we can have certainty. What hope is there in life if there is no certainty? I am not sure that Reynolds is speaking of spiritual certainty here. God gives his children the assurance that they are His, and few Christian deny this. I assume he is speaking of intellectual certainty. There is plenty of knowledge about this universe that is above our understanding. We will never know all there is to know. We even know so little about what we do know. But there is a big difference with not knowing anything, and not knowing everything. What we can know we can know with certainty. I will admit, I fear not being able to be sure about the knowledge I have. But were does a world with a lack of dogma leave us? What is the point of pursuing knowledge if there is no guarantee that that knowledge is "truth"? There is a tremendous philosophical difficulty is establishing epistemology. I have not studied near enough philosophy to be able to relate the different views on it. I will admit that I do not know enough to know that I cannot know anything. I want to have confidence in my knowledge. That is why I test it. I measure it. I am constantly purifying it. That is a completely different from moving from one belief to another.

He says:



This does not make for a lack of zeal or boldness. To the contrary, I have great zeal for the quest for truth. I grow excited by open thought and can enjoy reading blogs and books with ideas contrary to my own. If my ideas are the correct ones, they will be strengthened.



Everyone ought to have zeal. Zeal is a good quality. I attempt to have zeal when I teach, especially if I am teaching a topic as dry as Reconstruction. I fail, though, to see the correlation between zeal and assurance. If I am told that, in a warehouse filled with boxes, one box contains $1 million, I can search with all my energy and enthusiasm. However, that will have no affect on the accuracy of that claim. There may or may not be $1 million. Why would I search if I wasn't convinced I would find?

Futhermore:



The fact that I may be wrong does not mean that I must assume I am. Until sight is better, I must walk in the light I have and uncover darkness boldly. It is easy to be sure where darkness is even when tentative about knowing the final source of light.



If you are walking in light, you must know that you are in the light. Else, how could you know where the darkness is? How can we ever realize we are wrong if we ever realize we are right? Emerson described our knowledge as ever expanding circles. I find this an excellent analogy. We have our sphere of knowledge, that of which we are convinced. Outside this is a fog, a sphere of obscurity that one day can become our sphere of certainty. Our knowledge is ever expanding. Only fools and fanatics fail to expand their knowledge. It also seems foolish to me to deny you ever had the truth.

Yet again:



Some philosophers are guilty of this. We all sometimes act as if everything could be cleared up if put in proper logical order. Some modern philosophy has gone all the way and restricted all truth to science and its handmaiden analytic philosophy. (At least, some claim that this has been done.) This need not be the case. No classical philosophy, such as my own Platonism, has done such a thing. Plato was the consummate writer and poet. He believed in Divine Revelation and in philosophy. Each had its place. It is not philosophy (or science) that is the problem, but people who claim too much for both. You can be analytic without putting the universe into a tiny box.



This is a profound point. Those who claim that the only knowledge is that which their mind can perceive are hopelessly condemned to Plato's cave. God speaks to all His children. He speaks through every medium available. He speaks to each child in a specific manner. And yet He speaks. He gives His knowledge to us, and we can be sure that this is His truth. We can be certain of that which He gives us.

Reynolds finishes:



Truth is not merely propositional, but it contains propositions. Each truth leads to another and also to experience. Propositional truth and experiential truth can never war in a classical philosophy of life. Traditional Christians are neither modern nor post-modern. We are classical, pre-dating and enfolding the best of both. This give hope that a resolution can come between those who love the humanities and those who love science. Both need to hear the wisdom of the other. Both can learn to do so without plunging into non-reason or ugliness. Both can do so by asking human questions and listening. I think I have experienced, a Divine Answer to those questions. This does not end my yearning, but merely spurs me to reason even more with the Divine Logos who under girds the world.



Because we can converse with the "Divine Logos," we can obtain knowledge from Him. And we can be certain. We can be free from ambiguity. We can live unshakled by doubt. We don't have to deny everything, and believe nothing. We can know. Paul had certainty, and he passes it on to us. How many times does he use the word "know" in Romans? John had dogma. We need but to look at his first epistle. If all truth is God's truth, then the certainty John and Paul had about their spiritual life can be ours in this physical universe.

This is my insufficient attempt to debate Dr. Reynolds, and layout my own epistemology. I have spoken. Take it as you will.

What has Iraq done for US?

I saw VDH on FoxNews this evening. He is undoubtedly one of the most erudite and lucid commentators of our day. I discovered that all along I have been calling him Victor David Hanson, when his name is Victor Davis Hason. I truly apologize, Mr. Hanson, should you ever read my article, when you are soaring about the sky with the wings that grew from your ears. At any rate, VDH has a new installment, and he agrees with something I have said before (I don't recall saying it on my blog, so you will just have to trust me without a link):



There are lessons here for those who claim that American flexibility has become increasingly constricted and American choices all but foreclosed. In fact, as Iraq comes slowly under control, the opposite prognosis is at least as likely to be the case. Precisely because of proven American resolve in Iraq, the United States now commands both military and diplomatic options—well short of another Iraq-style invasion—that were not at its disposal previously.



He is rather upbeat about our position in Iraq, and the position Iraq gives us in the rest of the world, as the above quote indicates. You should read all the article. It is an intellectual treat.

The role of compromise

As new poll shows that many Americans don't want their representatives to compromise on issues:



As public officials continue to wrestle with hot-button issues ranging from abortion to gay rights to the death penalty, they may find thinner ranks of Americans supporting compromise. Those are some of the findings from a national survey by the nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization Public Agenda that compares how Americans' views of religion in public life have changed between the years 2000 and 2004. The survey (conducted before the November election) found a smaller number of Americans who believe that deeply religious elected officials sometimes have to compromise in the political arena, with major decreases among those who attend religious services weekly.



I understand that, many times, compromise is essential in conducting business in government. Our current government is the result of numerous compromises. But compromise can be beneficial only in an environment of key beliefs. I don't expect anyone, liberal or conservative, to alter their fundamental moral beliefs. I don't see how one can call it a belief if they are willing to go to the mattresses over it. If I vote for a person who says he is pro-life, pro traditional marriage, pro small government, I would be offended if he voted against those values.

Now, as to why we have seen this decrease, I have no answers, though it is an interesting subject. I wonder if the resolve of Pres. Bush has strengthened America's resolve. We have seen that a person can get re-elected without sliding toward the center. We have seen that Pres. Bush can accomplish much without compromising his core beliefs. We need people who know what they believe and refuse to recant to be in leadership. I hope that this "trend" continues.

It is still Pres. Bush's fault

More evidence that Pres. Bush did not do everything he could to prevent 9/11:



WASHINGTON: Almost three decades before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, a high-level government panel urged measures to protect the nation against terrorist acts ranging from radiological "dirty bombs" to airline missile attacks, according to declassified documents.



Why Pres. Bush failed to study and implement the findings of a 30-year old commision, I will never know.

Journalistic indolence

I doubt I could ever become a MSM journalist. I have way too much common sense:



WASHINGTON — The Pentagon acknowledged Sunday that it is trying to improve its network of spies abroad but denied a published report that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had reinterpreted U.S. law to create an espionage unit under his control.



What would it take to teach some of these reporters that our alleged "right to know" might sometimes infringe on our "right to not be killed by terrorists"? If there really was a secret spy unit (a redundant phrase, incidentally), what good does it do anyone, except maybe terrorists, to expose it. Maybe the NYT and WaPo can start printing our black-ops missions next to movie listings.

A WA cabal

State Democratic Party spokeswoman Kirstin Brost said the move indicated Republicans are afraid they won't win in court.

"The Republicans are in a hopeless situation," Brost said. "What we have seen in the last couple weeks is them floundering and grasping at straws trying to find some way to undo the election results."



What makes this statement so interesting is that the reason Gregorie is currently the governor is because the Demos "floundered and grasped at straws" until they obtained the election results they wanted. There seems to be some obvious improprieties here, such as more votes in a country than elligible voters. I just hope the situation can be resolved legitimately.

Hermeneutics 101

What did Pres. Bush really say in his speech? Did he outline a new foreign policy based on American hegemony? Did he challenge every "tyranny" in the world to a fist fight? Was he merely using soaring rhetoric? Is this an example of Bushian hubris?

I am convinced what the Pres. said was a remuneration of what has been his foreign policy since 9/11. We eludicated his core beliefs about the world and his role as commander in chief of the world's only remaining superpower. Look at what he said in an address to the National Endowment for Democracy in November of 2003:



Historians in the future will reflect on an extraordinary, undeniable fact: Over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weaker. In the middle of the 20th century, some imagined that the central planning and social regimentation were a shortcut to national strength. In fact, the prosperity, and social vitality and technological progress of a people are directly determined by extent of their liberty. Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity -- and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations. Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth.



It seems hypocritical that, in a world where diplomacy is so highly revered, the strong, definitive rhetoric that Pres. Bush uses is so greatly reviled. I agree with what Stephen Hayes of "The Weekly Standard" said on "Meet the Press":



“I mean, that worked for President Reagan. You remember when he said, ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.’ We didn't show up with a crane and bring the wall down ourselves. Rhetoric is sometimes action. And I think, in that sense, what the president did the other day is significant and historic and could mark a significant turning point in the history of both this nation and in the world.”



No one can argue that the vision Bush has for the world is both sweeping and quasi-utopian. No one can argue with the fact he cannot accomplish his goal in his presidency. And no one can deny that history has been shaped by visionaries who dreamed bigger than themselves, who lived for more than just there lifetime, who started something they were not able to finish. The key is that they lived, they dreamed, and they started something. Pres. Bush has been consistent and resolute. Are people ever going to see that?

The naked text

Michael Spenser at the blog Internetmonk has an interesting post on hermeneutics:



There was a lot of confidence in the Bible and a lot of faith in God in this method. But the Bible wasn't treated rightly, and it took a long time for me to realize that the inspiration of scripture wasn't magic in the words, but the actual message of the book. It always seemed insulting to say the Bible was just like any other book, but it is! That's the wonder of inspiration. All the same rules for proper interpretation. The same approach to context, sentences and grammar. The same concern with the original situation the book speaks to and the worldview of the author. I was told my education would ruin the Bible because I would come to believe it wasn't inspired. Of course, what did we mean by authority and inspiration? How about "The authority of the Bible is in the God it presents, and especially in Jesus, the focus and final Word of the whole Biblical narrative?"



George MacDonald, in one of his "Unspoken Sermons" entitled "The Higher Faith", says:



But to the man who would live throughout the whole divine form of his being, not confining himself to one broken corner of his kingdom, and leaving the rest to the demons that haunt such deserts, a thousand questions will arise to which the Bible does not even allude. Has he indeed nothing to do with such? Do they lie beyond the sphere of his responsibility?

. . . Sad, indeed, would the whole matter be, if the Bible had told us everything God meant us to believe. But herein is the Bible itself greatly wronged. It nowhere lays claim to be regarded as the Word, the Way, the Truth. The Bible leads us to Jesus, the inexhaustible, the ever unfolding Revelation of God. It is Christ “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” not the Bible, save as leading to him.



This topic indeed seems blasphemous to a life-long Baptist, but I feel it is worth investigating. What purpose should the Word of God have in our life? Does God desire we live solely by the words of the Word? Or does He desire us to seek the living Word, the Logos? Are the words more important than the message?

I find myself yearing more and more for preaching that soars beyond the "practical." I long for teachings that plow deeper than the topsoil of the text. No doubt, the words are important. Without them we can never understand the Logos. But are we to merely dwell on them? What does God desire we do with our intellect, our powers of reasoning? Does natural revelation become irrelevant next to the words of the Special Revelation? Does God speak to each man individually? Does He commune with my spirit with words that have never been written down?I do not have any answers, but I believe that there are answers to be found. We Christians have a duty to seek them out.

Victory for democracy

This is certainly good news:



Kiev - Orange Revolution leader Viktor Yuschenko took an oath of office on Sunday, formally becoming Ukraine’s new president.

At the ceremony held in the national parliament, the Verhovna Rada, Yuschenko became the third president in the country’s history, replacing Leonid Kuchma, who during two five-year terms led the country since 1991.



I am far from the first to say it, but the Ukrainian elections are all excellent paradigm for spreading democracy. I believe what Pres. Bush says, the people of the world want freedom. It will not always be bought with blood. Sometimes it is purchased with the mark of a pen. But it can, and will, come to many more people in the world. Tyranny cannot last forever.

More inaugural interpretation

Pres. Bush (41) agrees with me:



WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush’s inaugural address, with its emphasis on spreading democracy and eliminating tyranny throughout the world, was not meant to signal a new direction in U.S. foreign policy or to portray the United States as arrogant, his father said yesterday.



If Pres. Bush (43) had said, "We stand by our belief that the sun rises in the west," the Grand Left would have stood up and denouned his closed-mind stance toward astronomy.

Men aren't women?

Exactly what type of intellectual discussions should universities have?



Last week, Harvard President Larry Summers received some vehement criticism over remarks he made that there may be innate differences between men and women's abilities in math and science. Yet Summers also had strong defenders, those who felt that "provoking" scholars and encouraging debate is exactly what more university leaders should be doing.



One of the main problems of groupthink is that few, if any, question the status quo of ideas. This is abundantly true in our universities. People are compelled to think a certain way without any compelling evidence for thinking that way. If someone like Summers steps up an questions the reasons for thinking that way, he is labeled a sexist or a chauvinist. If what we think is true, then it will stand up to scrutiny. If what we think is false, then we need to be shown its fallacy so we can change our thinking. To many people don't what to believe what's right, they want what they believe to be right, no matter what scientific or philosophical evidence contradicts it. I think what Summers did was laudatory. If anything, he exposed some of the intellectual anemia of one of America's top institutions.

Israeli compromise

I am not sure why it is Israel's responsibility to stop the violence:



GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip Jan 23, 2005 — The Israeli military is willing to suspend operations against Palestinian militants if they call off attacks, Israeli leaders said Sunday, signaling a shift in position that could help pave the way toward a cease-fire after more than four years of fighting.



Maybe we could start by calling the "militants" by their real name, "barbarous murderers." And maybe when the Palestinians fail to maintain their part of the bargain for the twenty-seventh time, the world will see that nothing short of the destruction Israel will sastify the Palestinians.

Dealing with Iran

I am glad to hear VP Cheney and soon-to-be Sec. of State Rice talk tough about Iran:



WASHINGTON -- President Bush refuses to rule out war with Iran. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami says his country is ready to defend itself against a U.S. attack. The United States is pushing for a peaceful solution to its nuclear impasse with Iran but, with mistrust on both sides running high, encouraging signs are hard to find.



I seriously doubt that diplomacy is going to work with Iran. Like I said the other day, the mullahcracy cannot afford to be perceived as weak. They apparently do not have the support a majority of Iranians, and could face a revolt if their influence fades. Like Pres. Bush, I feel we should exhaust the diplomatic option, like we did with Iraq. It almost falls to our advantage to deplete diplomacy and reveal the ineptitude of European peacemakers. It makes our use of force all the more legitimate, not that it will ultimately make a difference in Europe. I hope the Iranian situation resolves peacefully, but I doubt it will.

Blizzard blogging about terrorists

It's the newest craze. Pretty soon everyone will be doing it. We are actually about 10 miles or so outside of the "Blizzard Warning" area, but it is still pretty bad. We received so far about 1 to 1.5 feet of snow. We are unable to go to church. It is very imprudent to be on the roads this morning. I will probably go out later to unearth, or unsnow, our church.

I wonder if this storm hampered the terrorist plot:



BOSTON -- Gov. Mitt Romney said he has become "less concerned, not more concerned" about a potential terrorist threat against the city of Boston. The FBI, meanwhile, is exploring possible theories for the reports - including a possible revenge motive



We have to expect more of this type of swindle. False emergencies like this can be a terrorist attack in themselves. They can reduce of credulity and awareness. They can enable us to be less likely to scrutinize each threat, and thereby make us more vulnerable. There ought to be a severe penalty for anyone who calls in a false threat.

Lincoln's Second inaugural address

Decon at Powerline has an interesting take on John Kerry's interpretation of Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.

Inaugural address

And so, the interpretation begins:



"One day after U.S. President George Bush's inaugural address, political analysts say his pledge to end tyranny can be interpreted as an interventionist position."



I don't see how this can be considered "interventionist." Or maybe, I am not sure if they intend that as a compliment or a criticism. If Bush is an interventinoist, then so is the UN. The only reason Bush has stepped up to the plate is that the UN has backed away and become "irrelevant." The vision Bush outlined in his speech is indeed grand, but it is my no means new to him. He said in the speech what has been a core belief for him since 9/11. He expounded it in more sweeping language than he ever has before, but it is still the same tune. I truly hope he can accomplish many of his goals, but am realistic in thinking that he probably won't.

SS reform

Leave to the MSM to propigate fears regarding the Social Security overhaul:



"WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) - A slight majority of Americans feel Social Security needs fundamental changes to ensure its long-term health, but aren't convinced that President Bush's call to add private investment accounts to the system is the appropriate solution."



I am not intimately knowlegeable of Pres. Bush's plan, but I feel I know enough to know that this "poll" strategically mispresents it. For instance:



Fifty-nine percent of respondents in the recent survey said they would be unlikely to invest Social Security taxes, while 29 percent said they would be somewhat or very likely to do so.

The reluctance appeared to stem from a lack of confidence in their own investment savvy, with only 19 percent saying they were "very confident" in their own investment skills, while 33 percent were somewhat confident and 45 percent were not confident.



As this indicates, everyone isn't required to invest their money into a private account. Only those who want to have to. What difference does it make that not everyone feels competent enough to invest on their own? Are they saying the plan is faulty since a majority of Americans won't take an advantage of it? Or are they trying to prove the liberal tenet that the average American is fiscally incompent and prodigal and is in need of the government to make his decisions for him? I would imagine more people would join the program as they see how successful it can be. What difference does it make what people think now? I imagine most people don't even understand how it works, and thus, are unable to make an accurate judgement.



Here is another great poll question:



Indications by the White House that a Bush plan would also require a cut in benefits for future retirees from currently promised levels have also created wariness among Capitol Hill Republicans, who fear such a move could cost them in the 2006 midterm elections.

The survey showed such fears aren't without merit. Seventy-eight percent of those surveyed said combining benefit cuts with and private investment accounts is a bad idea.



If I am not mistaken, the supposed cut in benefits for future retirees is based on faulty math from a journalist writing about the plan (I apologize I cannot remember the journalist or the article). Even so, what kind of question is that? They might as well said, "85% of respondants said they would oppose the plan if the investment accounts required one sacrifice their children to Molech." No one wants to see a cut in benefits. SS is going to be in trouble. It could be bankrupt by 2042, the year the people who would benefit from the private accounts would start to retire. Does this poll ask what people think of having no benefits from the money they "invested" in SS?



There is an obvious agenda at work here. The MSM is going to do everything they can to sway public opinion away from the Pres. Bush. I just hope that the White House can effectively communicate and market the plan, so that people not only understand it, but will welcome it with open arms.

Clinton and Oil-for-food

This may be preliminary, but it could be another scar for the Clinton administration:



NEW YORK – "They [the Clinton administration] knew of problems in the program and were informed on three separate occasions." So claims a central figure in the scandal-ridden U.N.-Iraq Oil-for-Food Program who himself has been accused of wrongdoing.



The article later says:



The references to both Albright's and Holbrooke's knowledge of Oil-for-Food problems, while not new, does mark the first time they have been specifically cited by central figures in the defunct U.N. operation.

During the period in question, officials at the U.S.-U.N. mission in New York City often asked reporters, "Is is a crime to steal from a crook?" (a reference to the regime of former Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein).



We shall see what comes out about this.

Boston terrorist threat

It is unfair and unjust that these people are now going to be targeted soley on the basis of their ethnicity:



"WASHINGTON - The FBI on Thursday added the names of nine Chinese people and one other man to the list of those being sought for questioning about a possible terror plot targeting Boston."



I live 45 minutes outside of Boston. If the terrorist suspects were all supposed to be 20-something white males, I would have no problem with them checking me out to ensure that all of us are safe.

Danger of SpongeBob

Personally, I think SpongeBob is a threat to our national santity, not our national security:



"WASHINGTON -- On the heels of electoral victories to bar same-sex marriage, some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: SpongeBob SquarePants."

More Iranian schmack

The Iranians are talking it up again:



"Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has issued a new warning that Tehran will respond to any hostile military action from the United States, but he says he does not believe U.S. forces will attack his country."



We should really start to take them seriously, like when they say they do not intend to use the nuclear missiles they are building as nuclear missiles. They are using them as garden gnomes.

Palestinians step it up in Gaza

The Palestinians are restless:



"GAZA CITY (AFP) - Hundreds of Palestinian security forces were being deployed to the northern Gaza Strip with orders from their newly elected leader, Mahmud Abbas, to prevent attacks by militants on Israel."



Many will die of shock if Abbas ever condemns the murderers, rather than simply attempting to "prevent" them. If I was Israel, I would feel very nervous about Palestinian troops congregating along the border. We shall see what happens.

Opponents Trying to Negate Arizona Immigration Law

Almost anything that aims to fix our border problem is good, despite all objections:



"PHOENIX -- Opponents of Arizona's new immigration law - stymied in their initial court challenges - are taking aim at the law's election mandates, claiming they'll virtually eliminate voter registration drives and place too many obstacles in front of minority voters. "



The questions regarding voter registrations are important ones. Congress needs to address voting procedures in our country. We need to decide which is more important, designing procedures that elliminates most illegitimate votes and some legitimate ones, or opening up voting so that every "legitimate" vote and many illegitmate votes are counted. Is one legitimate vote worth 10 illegitimate votes? I really don't think so. I am not in favor of unverisal suffrage. There is no benefit with allowing everyone with a pulse vote. Voting ought to have some level of "difficulty" associated with it. This will allow only those who take their voting privilege seriously to vote. I know I don't have any answers, but we certainly need to look at these questions.

Victory for traditional values

I am always happy to hear of a court decision protecting family values:



"TAMPA, Fla. - In what is believed to be the first ruling of its kind, a judge on Wednesday upheld the federal law letting states ban same-sex marriages, dismissing a lawsuit by two women seeking to have their Massachusetts marriage recognized here."



It is important to have legal precedent on the side of the sanctity of marriage. Case law is so important is jurisprudence. We ought to celebrate every victory for family values.



The article says:



The women argued that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory on the basis of sex and violated their fundamental rights.



This is not discrimination on the basis of sex. It is discrimination on the basis of lifestyle. They call it "sexual orientation." We descriminate frequently on the basis of lifestyle. Do we allow convicted sex criminals to work at a daycare? Would we allow a drug addict to be the sheriff? If our court system begins to protect lifestyles, then any deviant lifestyle must be protected. If we are unable to withhold "rights" based on lifestyle, then when need to give NAMBA (North American Man-Boy Love Association, a advocate of pedophila) the same "rights" as anyone else.



The article quotes from Nancy Wilson,a minister for Metropolitan Community Churches, one of the world's largest congregations of gay Christians:



"Despite this ruling, we are still married in our hearts, and legally married in Massachusetts."



Can't it be enough that they are "married in [their] hearts"? What need have they of government sanction, is marriage is something internal? They want more than just legal marriage rights. They want complete acceptance. And they will not stop until they get it.

Iraq wants US to leave

I am skeptical of this, as it comes from the NYT:



"WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - The Iraqi government that emerges from elections on Jan. 30 will almost certainly ask the United States to set a specific timetable for withdrawing its troops, according to new American intelligence estimates described by senior administration officials."



I am in favor of a timetable for withdrawl. Thus far, we have set specific goals for the progress in Iraq. This has kept us constantly working towards a mark. This has enabled us to say focused and measure our accjmplishments. Once the elections are completed, we should establish a gradual withdrawl plan, based on the training of Iraqi troops. Trained Iraqi soldiers would replace American troops. I don't believe this withdrawl should take place within the next couple of years, but we should show the Iraqi's that we have a definite plan for leaving their country.



The NYT surprinsingly makes some editorial distortions:



In recent days, Mr. Powell and others among Mr. Bush's senior advisers have become more direct in acknowledging that the anti-American insurgency is not likely to fade soon.



How is this an "anti-American" insurgency? As of late, exponentially more Iraqis have been targeted and killed than have Americans. The insurgents are attempting to disrupt the democratic process, not drive out the Americans. However, since the NYT wants the US out of Iraq, they have to alter the news to fit their agenda.

Why we went to war

LGF has a copy of the Resolutionthat allowed us to go to war in Iraq. You ought to read it, just to refresh your memory.

Iraq isn't Vietnam

Michael Gove at the Times Online has a profound article detailing the differences between Iraq and Vietnam:



"Following on, as it does, from the highly successful elections held in Afghanistan, the vote in Iraq will be one of the most significant events in the Middle East since, or even before, the Sixties. From the time of Nasser the Arab peoples have been sold a succession of strongmen as the answer to their plight. And they have seen their region suffer as a result. Now, at last, they have the chance to become proper masters of their own destiny. The next two weeks will be tough. But Iraqis can now glimpse, just over the horizon, an event that could transform their outlook. And help them to escape from the black hole of mass graves and devastated lives that Saddam dug for them."



I wonder if Jay Sevren has read this.

Succes in Iraq

This article comes via Power Line (I am unable to link to the original column):



"Rep. John Kline, returning from a trip to Iraq, said U.S. troops told him they are getting the necessary armored vehicles and equipment to do their jobs."



That is certainly good news, and news that the MSM will not report. Notice what Rep. Kilne says:



Kline, who served in the Vietnam War, said he didn't agree with the suggestion made by some that Iraq was becoming like Vietnam. "I've never liked that comparison,'' he said.

"When we were attacked on September 11th, we were at war. Arguably in Vietnam, we chose as part of a strategy of containment to go to Vietnam. But even when we did that, we never envisioned we would be attacked in our own country. Now we do. We have been attacked.''



I completely agree. Or, should I say, he agrees with me

The Brits incredulity

I may be the only one who finds the Brits incredulity of decency standards interesting:



"The panic that is gripping American TV bosses facing a puritanical backlash or exorbitant government fines has today extended to a cartoon series and a BBC drama."



Notice how the article describes "puritanical backlash," as though only stodgy old Puritans would find gratuitous nudity unacceptable. The major networks, and the FCC, need to realize that the problem with decency goes far behind scattered behinds and exposed nipples. There is a penumbra of obsenity surrounding TV. Most television shows promote standards that are far outside the mainstream of America. I doubt that most Americans accept the rampant premarital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexuality, disrespect, prodigallity, vulgarity, narcissism, hedonism, and shallowism that is prevelant on most network and cable shows. How is it that the only words that are off limits are the F and S words? How many times each night will you hear the word bitch (pardon the frankness)? I find that word extremely offensive and derrogatory, especially in the context in which it is most often used. I don't care if it is used in a "humourous" setting." It is despicable. How many times each night will you hear someone approach one of the two taboos, only to be cut off at the last second? Is this any more decent that the full use of the word? How many times each evening will you hear all sorts of deviant sexual behavior describe in rather explicit terms? Is this any "cleaner" than if they had showed the behavior? How many different euphamisms for sexual oragans will you hear each evening? Television is riddled with smut. To deal with only specific types of smut is merely perfunctory.



Signed,

A Stodgy old Puritan.

Mercy killings

What do we do when churches started accepting the practice of mercy killings:



"The Church of England took a radical step towards backing 'mercy killing' of terminally ill patients last night after one of its leading authorities said that there was a 'strong compassionate case' for voluntary euthanasia.



Canon Professor Robin Gill, a chief adviser to Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said people should not be prosecuted for helping dying relatives who are in pain end their lives. Last week Gill was sent by Williams to give evidence to a parliamentary committee investigating euthanasia."



I cannot understand how any "Christian" could accept such barbarity. They attatch their acceptance to their conception of "compassion":



"There is a very strong compassionate case for voluntary euthanasia,' Gill told The Observer . 'In certain cases, such as that which involved Diane Pretty [the woman who was terminally ill with motor neurone disease and who campaigned for the right to be helped to die], there is an overwhelming case for it.'"



This justification is far from adequate. What concept of compassion can lead a person to take another person's life? Shouldn't compassion lead us to seek out any and all medical means that might extend this person's life? Shouldn't compassion lead us to focus a sufferer's attention on a Soverign God, rather than taking life, and death, into our own hands? Deborah Annetts, chief executive of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, says:



"'Christianity is about compassion, and one has only to look at the sad circumstances in the Blackburn case to recognise that the current law is not a compassionate response.'"



True Christianity is about far more than just compassion, especially the compassion people like Annetts believe in. With their concept of compasison, God would never let any harm or pain come upon any human. He would never allow His children to suffer. This is not how God works. His compassion is some much more complex than ours. Christianity is mostly about a holy, soverign God. Accepting this barbarity is an affront to everything Christianity is, not a compliment, as the Church of England seems to believe.



"'It worries us when organised religion is not sharing the heartfelt view of mainstream faith-based opinion in this country,' the clerics noted."



What? What kind of inebriated religions conforms its moral standards to that of the "mainstream faith-based opinion of the country"? With that logic, the Church of England would have been front and center at the Nazi rallys of the 30's. Where is "religion" going?

Mercy killings

What do we do when churches started accepting the practice of mercy killings:



"The Church of England took a radical step towards backing 'mercy killing' of terminally ill patients last night after one of its leading authorities said that there was a 'strong compassionate case' for voluntary euthanasia.



Canon Professor Robin Gill, a chief adviser to Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said people should not be prosecuted for helping dying relatives who are in pain end their lives. Last week Gill was sent by Williams to give evidence to a parliamentary committee investigating euthanasia."



I cannot understand how any "Christian" could accept such barbarity. They attatch their acceptance to their conception of "compassion":



"There is a very strong compassionate case for voluntary euthanasia,' Gill told The Observer . 'In certain cases, such as that which involved Diane Pretty [the woman who was terminally ill with motor neurone disease and who campaigned for the right to be helped to die], there is an overwhelming case for it.'"



This justification is far from adequate. What concept of compassion can lead a person to take another person's life? Shouldn't compassion lead us to seek out any and all medical means that might extend this person's life? Shouldn't compassion lead us to focus a sufferer's attention on a Soverign God, rather than taking life, and death, into our own hands? Deborah Annetts, chief executive of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, says:



"'Christianity is about compassion, and one has only to look at the sad circumstances in the Blackburn case to recognise that the current law is not a compassionate response.'"



True Christianity is about far more than just compassion, especially the compassion people like Annetts believe in. With their concept of compasison, God would never let any harm or pain come upon any human. He would never allow His children to suffer. This is not how God works. His compassion is some much more complex than ours. Christianity is mostly about a holy, soverign God. Accepting this barbarity is an affront to everything Christianity is, not a compliment, as the Church of England seems to believe.



"'It worries us when organised religion is not sharing the heartfelt view of mainstream faith-based opinion in this country,' the clerics noted."



What? What kind of inebriated religions conforms its moral standards to that of the "mainstream faith-based opinion of the country"? With that logic, the Church of England would have been front and center at the Nazi rallys of the 30's. Where is "religion" going?

Iranian schmack

The Iranians say the US has nothing on them:



"TEHRAN, Iran - Iran has acquired a strong military capability and will deter any attacks against it, Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said."



We should really pay attention to what they are saying. Why would they say this if they didn't mean it?

I think they are scared. They know the US will not allow them to continue there terrorist ways for too long. The mullahs know that the US could wipe them away with a flick of the wrist. They understand that a majority of the citizens of Iran dislike their rule. They have to talk tough. They have to act strong. There is a strong possibility of revolt if the Iranian people sense that the mullahs are losing grip. We shall see what happens in Iran once the situation settles down in Iran.



Also, is it possible for Seymour Hersh to be tried for treason? Forget all the media's right-to-know crap. Whether or not Hersh's article is correct, is in endangering our situation in Iran. If there really are not currently operations in Iran, any future operation could be at risk. Hersh is not acting like a patriot. He is acting very foolish.

Dave Berry's driving

Dave Berry talks about the thrills of driving:



"If you do much driving on our nation's highways, you've probably noticed that, more and more often, bullets are coming through your windshield. This is a common sign of Road Rage, which the opinion-makers in the news media have decided is a serious problem, currently ranking just behind global warming and several points ahead of Asia."

Iraqi voter disenfranchisement

Does anyone expect to hear the Rev. Jesse Jackson or the venerable John Kerry speak about this voter disenfranchisement:



"Iraq's out-of-country voting program began yesterday but the pro-democracy Iraqi American Christians, rather than being elated by the opportunity to vote in the first Iraqi election in decades, are enraged by what they see as ethnic discrimination against them in the process here in the United States and are debating whether to boycott it. The story behind this travesty is familiar to independent observers of U.S. Iraq policy: It reflects the U.S. government's favoritism of Iraq's Kurdish minority, and its indifference to the fate of the Christian one, overlaid with the intransigence of an international bureaucracy. This is devastating to a religious minority that is taking the brunt of terrorism and persecution within Iraq with the kidnapping of its beloved Archbishop Basile Georges Casmoussa outside his church in Mosul Monday as the latest example (he's since been released)."

Setting the bar for Pres. Bush

I don't know where Pres. Bush would be without so many dissenters in the country setting the bar for him. A new poll came out recently:



Jan. 17, 2005 — President Bush approaches his second inauguration with a comparatively weak job approval rating, subdued expectations for his performance in office and the daunting challenge of a single issue with the potential to make or break his second term: Iraq.



Oh no! The public is not completely approving of the Pres. policies! Whatever should we do?

I am extremely glad that our President doesn't seem to be swayed by opinion polls. This last election is a testatment to that. He ran the election on his core beliefs without sliding to the center, as many believe an incumbent should do. The people who care most about polls is the media and the left, and they will probably use them to bash the Bush administration as much as possible. As many have been saying, we can expect there to be many "scandals" and "revelations" about impropriety in the administration, all directed at swaying public opinion away from the Republicans. I doubt there will be a concerted, organized attempt to discredit Pres. Bush. But there is no doubt in my mind that those who dislike him will do anything to disparge his name. Polls to them are a measure of their success. This is going to be a politically ugly four years. I just wish we could all get along.

Misinformation from China

It is somewhat reassuring to know that Communist propaganda never dies:



"BEIJING (AFP) - China said it was right to send tanks to crush the Tiananmen democracy demonstrations in 1989, as it stepped up security in Beijing following the death of purged former prime minister Zhao Ziyang."



Isn't it interesting that the Chinese credit their malicious oppression of free speech the cause of "China's economic transformation over the past 15 years"? They feel the unjust murder of thousands brought "stability." I guess stability is a climate where people are too afraid to speak, a culture of fear.

Police Report Recommends Suspending Handgun ID System

I am not aware of any gun-control legislation that makes sense. This one surely doesn't:



"BALTIMORE - A law requiring Maryland State Police to collect ballistics information from each handgun sold in the state has not aided a single criminal investigation and should be repealed, a state police report has concluded. "



A fact most gun-control advocates ignore is that criminals being criminals do not follow the law. They are not going to obtain their weapons by lawful means. All the waiting periods and ballistic databases and background checks are infertile when criminals side-step them.

Welcome to out planet

Not that we needed more evidence that John Kerry lacks a terrestrial origin, he addressed some demos in Boston Monday:



"BOSTON -- Sen. John Kerry, in some of his most pointed public comments yet about the presidential election, invoked Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy on Monday as he criticized President Bush and decried reports of voter disenfranchisement."



The most the average lilberal can do is decry injustice. They never do anything about it, probably because they know there is no basis for their bemoanings. No legitimate court of law would hear their complaints. Thus, they cry to whomever they can. Where are the demos in Washington state seeking justice in the gubernatorial election? Why are they not up in arms over the glaring descrepancies?



It seems as though some of Kerry's old pals are back:



"Throughout Europe, as I met with European leaders, it's clear that they're prepared to do more, but the (Bush) administration has not put the structure together for people to be able to do it," he said.



I believe that these "Eurpoeans leaders" live in Mr. Kerry's atache case. They go wherever he goes, encouraging him and echoing his sentiments toward Pres. Bush. What a wack job!

A blog like mine

Dr. John Mark Reynolds, a very intellegent Christian philosopher, has changed the look of his blog. It looks amazing like mine. Now, I just have to strive to make the content of my blog more like his.

Hewitt on O'Reily

I saw Hugh Hewitt on O'Reily Friday (1/14) night. I do not like O'Reily. I think he is arrogant and self-important. He is obnoxiously centrist, or, to use his favorite description, "traditional." He often talks about the "folks." Who in Manhattan is the "folks"? Is he Andy Griffith?

I do, however, like his show, because he has good guests, like Hugh. This was the first time I had seen Hugh. I enjoy reading his blog. On this blog he has some comments here and here on his appearance (scroll down a bit). I like what they have to say. I think that O'Reily is wary and atagonistic toward anyone that would accuse anyone of anything. He won't mention any allegations, no matter how strong they are, until there is a court conviction. In the past, he has been slandered by people like "Stuart Smalley" (a.k.a Al Franken) and "left-wing websites" (as he calls them), so he is naturally defensive toward anyone that accuses other people of wrongdoing. To take this "stand" he apparently must be blind to evidence, since the evidence against Mr. Rather is overwhelming. He is obsessed with giving everyone a fair shake. Everyone, that is, except all websites and Al Franken. He knows as much about the blogosphere as Michael Jackson knows of football. Which makes his adversion to blogs so amazing. How can he sweeping deride all websites as unprofessional and untrustworthy when he is not even familiar with them? Hugh mentioned Instapundit, Powerline, and Captain's Quarter, all very reputable (more so than O'Reily). Bill is very old school. He is as much a part of legacy media as Rather is. He just doesn't admit it. Not, at least, without a court order.

Blogging from home

This being MLK day, I do not have school. This would explain the increased volume of posts. One of the greatests benefits of being a teacher is the immense number of holidays. We get off any day that even resembles some type of holiday. We do not get off Teacher Appreciation day, which is odd. At any rate, I am enjoying the time I can spend checking out world events. I do not like that my internet connection at home is much slower than the one at school. What can you do?

Cutting the deficit

Tough US budget expected in drive to cut deficit:



The White House is expected to present a tough budget to Congress next month, aimed at signalling George W. Bush's commitment to cutting the federal deficit over his second term.

The budget, the start of this year's financial negotiations with Congress, will seek to follow up Mr Bush's campaign promises with a freeze on discretionary spending other than on defence and homeland security.



It will be amazing if Pres. Bush is able to cut the deficit, what with his proclivity for signing spending bills.

The media's nose

The media is often infuriating, with their "right-to-know" balloney. What right do they have to know about our military's "top secret" missions. What else would "top secret" mean, other than top secret? Some one needs to slap Seymour Hersh upside the head:



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Monday criticized a published report that said it was mounting reconnaissance missions inside Iran to identify potential nuclear and other targets.

"The Iranian regime's apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organizations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in the New Yorker article titled "The Coming Wars," the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said in a statement.

Disproportionate reporting

I know that many understand the world media is blindingly biased. But it is still annoying to see so many articles like this:



BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Insurgents bent on sabotaging Iraq's Jan. 30 elections unleashed mortars and bombs and opened fire in several cities Monday, killing at least 22 policemen and soldiers and targeting polling stations.



I would be content with just one good story from Iraq each day. I know that many good things are happening in Iraq. Why doesn't anyone report them?

Those wacky Russian politicians

If you have ever wondered if Vladimir Putin is red at the roots here is proof:



MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday his government had bungled the implementation of changes to the country's creaking social security system but stood by the reform despite week-long protests by pensioners.



Only a Marxist would stand by an utterly decrepit program.

How to eliminate poverty

The UN has figured out how to completely eliminate hunger in just 10 years:



UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 17 - An international team of experts sponsored by the United Nations proposed today a detailed, ambitious plan to halve extreme poverty and save the lives of millions of children and hundreds of thousands of mothers each year by 2015.



Before you throw away your UNICEF greeting cards, you should note that:



The Millennium Project's blueprint for development - viewed by some critics as utopian overreaching - is likely to shape the agenda for agencies of the United Nations over the coming decade and to influence other major players, including the World Bank and the governments of impoverished African countries.



The Millennium Project has also figured out a way to build its world headquarters out of discarded toothpicks.

Violence in ME

Surprisingly, the situation in the Middle East is not getting better:



Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, on Monday held consultations with his ministers and security advisers after Israel warned that his time was running out for a swift crackdown on militant groups.



It will be extremely challenging for Abbas to shut down these murder groups, seeing as how he supports them. I am not sure what exactly this means:



"There are intensified instructions to the Palestinian security forces to assume their responsibilities," Communications Minister Azzam al-Ahmed, told reporters today after a Cabinet meeting.



How will statements like these help, when the responsibility of the "security forces" is to obliterate Israel? And how is legitimizing the murder groups going to help?



He disclosed that Abbas had also issued instructions to recruit gunmen belonging to Fatah's armed wing, the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, into the security forces.



This should be a challenging week in the ME.

Medical records database

A proposed database containing everyone's medical records is not popular with everyone:



But opponents say EHRs represent a major violation of a patient's privacy, mostly because records would not only be accessible to health care providers without patient consent but any number of other people and organizations up and down the line.



Currently, all of a person's financial records are available to almost anyone. I can go to any bank, car dealership, furniture store, or mortage house and within seconds they can have my financial history. Of course, I must give my permission in order for some one to do a credit check. I don't see how medical records would be any different. Even though the wrong people could obtain my credit report (and identity theft happens often), the system is still in place. I wonder if each person could be given a type of card that was needed to access the records. If you go to the doctor, you would give him your card. With one swipe, he could access your records. There could also be some type of emergency override a doctor could use if you didn't have your card on you. There would obviously be some missuse, but I think the benefits far outweigh them.

I like this point the dissenters make:



Finally, say critics, patients who encounter problems with their physician such as a personality conflict, misdiagnosis or malpractice situation could have that conflict put into their records from the physician's standpoint (patient non-compliant and difficult; threatened to sue) and, even if the problem was legitimate, that would make it more difficult for them to find other physicians willing to treat them.



This exact situation occurred in an episode of Seinfeld. Elaine upset a doctor, so no other doctor would see her after looking at her records. It was a very funny episode.

Christian crusades

I recently finished reading a book by Dietrich Bonhoeffer entitled Ethics. The book might be properly subtitled, "The Christian in the world." It doesn't not cover ethics in the convention sense, as the difference between right and wrong. Bonhoeffer was a German theologian who lived during the 1930s. He was imprisoned by the Nazis in WWII, before he finished the book, and eventually executed for his religious beliefs . The book is very provocative and technical. I enjoyed reading it.

In a later section Bonhoeffer is discussing "On the possibility of the word of the Church to the World." He says:



One of the characteristic features of church life in the Anglo-Saxon countries, and one from which Lutheranism has almost entirely freed itself, is the organized struggle of the Church against some particular worldly evil, the "campaign," or, taking up again the crusading idea of the Middle Ages, the "crusade." Examples of this are slavery, prohibition and the League of Nations. But precisely these examples betray at the same time the critical weakness of these "crusades." The abolition of slavery coincide with the coming into being of the British industrial proletariat. (It might be said that the world will have its due.) Prohibition, which was forced through mainly by the Methodists, led to worse experiences than those of the preceding period, so that the Methodists themselves supported its abolition. (This experience was of decisive importance for the American churches.) The League of Nations was intended to overcome national antagonism, but its result was to intensify them to the highest pitch. Such experiences as these must give food for earnest thought in the face of the question of the extent to which the Church is called upon to solve worldly problems. "God in their hand" (Job 12.6 [Luther]).



I would contend with his first example. I am not sure what effect abolition had on the growing proletariat, and I am not sure why he considers it a bad situation. As for his second example, I might agree, though I believe the problem was in the implementation of Prohibition. The idea is not fundamentally flawed. I will give him the third example, though I don't know that many Christians supported the LON. However, I do appreciate his question. To what extent should the Church, and individual Christians, battle worldly ills? And through what means should we battle them? To what extent should we work through the government?

That last question is one of the more significant ones. Christians have asked for many years what role they should play in government. I believe that Christians should get involved in as many ways as possible, especially in our republican government. But should government be used as a force to enact social change? Is it government's responsibility to encourage morality? Is it theologically correct for Christians to use government to spread morality?

One of the primary purposes of the local church is to declare Jesus and His righteousness. Certainly, as we do this, morality will follow along. The government is an amoral institution. There is not a "good government" and a "bad government." The morality of government is predicated on the people running it and the goals toward which they strive. Any government can be good, and any government can be bad. The political structure itself is unaffected by morality. The government our founding fathers gave us was not a "Christian government." The culture in which it was birthed, however, was Christian. Therein lies the difference between now and then. Our culture is no longer Christian. Many people have many positions as to why this is so, but the fact remains--we live in a post-Christian society. Do we then use government to re-Christianize society?

And should Christians even be worrying about battle societal evils? The chief concern of the Church is declaring Jesus. It is not the Christian's responsibility to rid the world of gambling and prostitution. Those practices are evil, and should not be tolerated by Christians. But should we battle these to their elimination?

I have raised questions where to which I have no answer. I have increased my own confusion on this matter since I started this post, so I probably not been very clear and precise. I challenge anyone who might have stumbled across this blog to take on this questions and give me your feedback. These are issues all Americans should take interest in, whether you are a Christian or not. Hopefully, in a short while, I can compose a more coherent argument.