Flag Burning, Veterans, and the First Amendment

Personally, my favorite sentiment that I have heard expressed regarding the proposed flag desecration amendment is that we should heed the recent warnings of the Surgeon General about secondhand smoke and ban all flag burnings lest we all die from breathing noxious secondhand flag burning smoke! But beyond agreeing with that sentiment, I have other reasons for still supporting the amendment.

Primarily, it is not a matter for the Supreme Court to have decided as it did in 1989. Just like with Roe v. Wade, which overturned abortion laws in 45 states, so Texas v. Johnson overturned laws prohibiting flag burning in 48 states! That is judicial activism in a nutshell, and it's not how this country is supposed to work.

Secondarily, I think there is confusion over free speech which feeds into the flag issue. This confusion is most epitomized by veterans I have seen, heard, or read about who take the position that there is just about nothing they hate worse than the desecration of the American flag, but regardless of their own feelings "freedom includes the right to burn the flag in protest." (This kind of sounds like the "Personally, I'm against abortion, but . . . " argument.) Neal Boortz (the "High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth," in which I have "lost faith") who would never himself desecrate an American flag, nevertheless wrote in his "Neal's Nuze:"

The headline on foxnews.com this morning read "First Amendment Lives Another Day." Well put. The so-called "Flag burning" amendment to our Constitution has failed ... by one vote. Freedom wins ... by one vote.

Get down on your knees and thank God or Allah or whom ever is politically correct to worship these days; the flag burning amendment failed in the Senate! The scary part, folks, is that it failed by just one vote. One vote! That means sixty-six of our Senators (out of 100) voted in favor of an amendment that would limit your right to freedom of expression. Sixty-four Senators wanted to use the United States Constitution to limit your freedoms, rather than to limit the range of government power.

I disagree with this contention that the First Amendment "free speech" clause protects such acts. (Notice that Boortz broadens the language from "free speech" to "freedom of expression.") Veterans who grimace and support flag burning do it because they think their Constitution, which they are sworn to support and defend, demands it. However, the protection of speech is the protection of the right to dissent. Public disagreement is not only allowed, but encouraged and protected. The Founders greatly desired to protect this right. But "speech" is not "behavior." The Founders did not limit speech, but they did limit behavior. Now, this is a difficult distinction to maintain, but it can be illustrated in the Founders attitude toward treason.

• Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. (Article III, section 3, clause 1)
  

Here the Founders looked back to 1350 and Edward III's treason statute, which limited treason, among other things, to "compassing or imagining the death of the king, levying war against the king, or adhering to the king's enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Notice that the Founders dropped the language of "compassing or imagining," which had been easily abused in the English doctrine of "constructive treason." So, the Constitution limits treason to treasonous behavior, and does not extend to treasonous speech.

No one wants to stifle dissent against the government. But the uniqueness of the flag as a symbol of all Americans leads many to want to protect it from desecration. Either way, it should be decided by the People, not the Court.

Some Advice

You don't have to wait until you're "finished" to use the air freshener spray in the restroom!

Southern Baptists Side With Pharisees, Declare Jesus a Drunkard, Abandon Great Commission

That appears to be the case anyway since they passed a resolution a couple of weeks ago condemning the USE of alcohol. That's right, the resolution never mentions the abuse of alcohol (which would have been a biblical stance), but in strong language it declares "our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages," accusing those who merely use alcohol of "misinterpretation of the doctrine of “our freedom in Christ.”" Now, any reasonable Bible interpreter would have to take this as a condemnation of Christ himself (see John 2, Luke 7, the Last Supper parallels)! But before going further, here is the text of the resolution:

• WHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g. Proverbs 23:29-35); and
• WHEREAS, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation’s highways; and
• WHEREAS, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and
• WHEREAS, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal; and
• WHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of “our freedom in Christ”; now, therefore, be it
• RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further
• RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation; and be it further
• RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptist to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finally
• RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.

That is a shameful resolution. If I were Southern Baptist I would be embarassed (although if I were really Southern Baptist I guess I would think it is great). As you can see, this is not a biblical argument. One can't get where they have with the Bible. Rather, this is essentially a cultural argument and here Rev. Rob Rayburn of Tacoma, WA interestingly explains some of the cultural reasons that grape juice replaced wine in your communion cup:

It may surprise some of you to learn that Welch's Grape Juice was invented precisely for the purpose of providing a substitute for alcoholic wine in the Lord's Supper. Dr. Thomas Welch was a New Jersey dentist and a communion steward at his local Methodist church. He was a committed advocate of temperance and wondered if the new theories of Louis Pasteur, that had already by 1869 been applied to the pasteurization of milk, might be also applied to the juice of grapes. One day, with his wife and 17 year old son, he picked about 40 pounds of concord grapes from his family's yard. They cooked the grapes for a few minutes, then squeezed the juice through cloth bags. They filtered the juice, poured it into quart bottles, sealed the bottles with cork and wax, and then lowered them into boiling water long enough to kill the yeast organisms in the juice and prevent fermentation. For weeks the family waited listening for the explosion that would signify failure, but none came. When the bottles were opened Dr. Welch found he had produced a sweet, unfermented grape juice. He convinced his pastor to try it in the Supper, began processing small amounts of the juice and providing it to other churches in Southern New Jersey, and, unbeknownst to Mr. Welch at the time the American fruit juice industry was born. In 1890 the name of the product was changed from "Dr. Welch's Unfermented Wine" to "Dr. Welch's Grape Juice." Under the influence of temperance convictions, grape juice came to be widely used as a substitute for wine in the Lord's Supper practice of American churches.

It may be hard for some of you to appreciate the strength of conviction that animated the temperance movement of the 19th century, especially in its evangelical Christian form. It is interesting that this was one thing concerning which liberals and conservatives in the great Protestant churches were in general agreement. Prohibition was, largely, the fruit of the Protestant Christian temperance movement. I have a photocopy of a page from a hymnal published by David C. Cook in 1881. The gospel song is entitled "We will not Sip Wine or Beer" and ran this way:
"We will never sip, sip wine or beer,
Tempt us not, tempt us not;
We will ever fight this foe we fear,
Tempt us not, tempt us not.
Drink that hurts us, new or old,
From our lips we will withhold;
Hour by hour, and day by day,
When we work and when we play."
And two more verses like that. It was a powerful movement that gripped American Christianity.

So, why do I care about all of this since I am not Southern Baptist? Well, because I see this as no less than a failure by my brothers in Christ to be salt and light. It is a neglect of the Great Commission's discipling of the nations. It is taking alcohol, which was given by God to 'gladden the heart' and saying to the world, "Here, take this! We don't know what to do with it! God gave it to us, but it takes too much wisdom to use rightly, so you can have it!" And rather than model for the world the proper, biblical, glorious use of alcohol, too many churches (not just Baptists) have shunned it and left the world to figure it out on its own. This capitulation by the Church has resulted in the very conditions the Baptists cite as reasons for not using alcohol in the first place! But rather than realize their surrender they make a bad situation worse and declare victory by not drinking a drop of alcohol, and so they completely abandon their calling on this issue! And American Christianity is still gripped.

That's enough for now . . .

Categories: Beer and Wine, Evangelical La La Land

Chi-Rho

The Chi-Rho is the oldest known monogram of Jesus Christ. It is sometimes known as a “Christogram”. The chi and the rho are the first two letters of the word Christ (Christos) in the Greek language. The chi (X) = ch, and the rho (P) = r. The Greek word Christos translates the Hebrew word for Messiah, which means “anointed one”. Jesus was born to be the promised, anointed Priest and King.

You can follow this link to test your knowledge and learn more of early Christian symbols and art.

It is funny that Bill Gates, who is ethnically Jewish but doesn't practice Judaism, would release two major operating systems with "Christian" names: Windows NT (New Testament) and Windows XP (chi-rho). Does it mean anything?

"Christian Name"

I was introduced to the notion of a "Christian name" by the movie Jeremiah Johnson. It's one they show repeatedly on TBS. The scene is one in which an Indian named Paints-His-Shirt asks the title character, "What's your name?" "Johnson," he answers. The Indian asks further, "Your Christian name?" "Jeremiah."

Now, I've heard "Christian name" many times since then, but this is the first I've looked up anything about it. The following is from Wikipedia:

The term given name is rarely used in the United Kingdom; forename or Christian name predominate, with the former now used almost universally on official documentation.
The term first name can refer to any forename, not just the very first. In the United States, first name is the most common form, although given name is often encountered on official documents. The term Christian name, on the other hand, has mostly fallen out of favor.
Christian name may refer to the name taken by converts to Christianity upon baptism.

So, it is mostly a British expression that has fallen out of favor. Well, with a name like "Christian" I guess it was bound to wane in popularity!

Facial Hair

I just heard on Animal Planet's Most Extreme the evolutionary explanation for facial hair. It seems that women are supposed to be attracted to large-jawed men, and facial hair is a way to make the jaw appear larger. So, hairy-faced guys get all the girls. Hmmm . . . seems like a stretch to me. What do you ladies think? Are you falling for any of these guys? They were contestants in the World Beard and Moustache Championships the last time they were held in the USA in 2003. Well, they may look great, but the winner that year is below--Karl-Heinz Hille of Berlin, Germany's Berlin Beard Club:

All the winners for that year, and other years, can be seen here.

The Bored-Again Christian

I stumbled upon this site while browsing around. Their motto is "Where Christian music gets saved." They also describe it as "Christian music for people who are tired of Christian music." I've been a bit out of touch with this "scene" for a few years, but this is a great place to hear some of the more quality "popular" music out there of a Christian stripe that artistically goes way beyond "The Fish." You can subscribe to their podcast which is top notch. Check it out!

Lie vs. Lay

I was called upon recently to help settle a grammar dispute regarding "lie" and "lay." It's fairly simple as long as you remember the present, past, and participial forms of the verbs are as follows:

• "to recline"--lie, lay, lain
• "to put or place"--lay, laid, laid
• there is also "to tell a falsehood"--lie, lied, lied (but I don't find this one confusing at all)
  

Now, if you're ready for a challenge you can go here to take a quiz and impress yourself with your mastery of Lie vs. Lay!

Godless

I got my copy of Godless by Ann Coulter today. I have just begun to look at it, but this is a great book. I couldn't read it quietly: I was laughing, cringing, yelling "Honey, come hear this!" just in the first chapter alone. Here's just one little bit:

• "Liberal doctrines are less scientifically provable than the story of Noah's ark, but their belief system is taught as a fact in government schools, while the Biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law. As a matter of faith liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out people who don't reproduce? (For that we need a theory of "survival of the most fabulous.") And if gays can't change, why do liberals think child-molesters can? Pedophilia is a sexual preference! If they're born that way, instead of rehabilitation, how about keeping them locked up? And why must children be taught that recycling is the only answer? Why aren't we teaching children "safe littering"?

Now, that's some good stuff there, I don't care who you are. Those are in fact articles of faith on the part of liberals, and what Ann Coulter is so good at is pointing out the contradictions in funny, ironic, and sometimes outrageous ways. She does that masterfully above, and the whole stink over the "Jersey Girls" makes Ann's point exactly. In the estimation of the Left and media they are unassailable, precisely as she says in the book! They apparently don't know that they're making her point because they're having so much fun piling on, but they are.

The reason I say it's a great book is that she attacks this myth of neutrality that surrounds public discourse in this country. This is the idea that Christianity, or any other belief system (but especially Christianity) is clouded by faith commitments, and scoffs at reason, and is inherently contradictory, etc. Therefore, it is impossible to be a Christian and be fair-minded about things because of all the baggage the Christian's beliefs bring with him. But the elephant in the room, which Ann focuses a big spotlight on, is that the liberal (Darwinists, secularists, etc.) brings just as much baggage to the debate as does someone like Billy Graham or the Pope. The notion that only the "non-religious" are somehow "neutral" is laughable because the so-called non-religious are in fact religious themselves. The statement, "There is no God" is just as religious as the statement "There is a God." The statement "Man is an animal" is just as religious as the statement "Man is made in the image of God." Everyone does theology. No one is "neutral." And that needs to be pointed out again and again.

Week in Review Quotes

• "For the three fans of ABC’s maltreated Commander in Chief, the finale will air at 10 p.m. Wednesday. Let’s hope that when a woman does run for president, her campaign is managed better than this series."--Molly Willow in the Columbus (OH) Dispatch

• "You are safer in a uniform in Iraq than as a baby in the womb of an American woman at a Planned Parenthood office."--Rush Limbaugh in response to Democrat hysteria over the 2,500th death of U.S. military in three years in Iraq. Where is their hysteria while 3,700 American children are aborted each day (and worldwide a staggering 126,000 are aborted each day)??? Oh, there is no hysteria over abortion because it's in their platform! In a heart-warming concluding section called "A Strong American Community," the 2004 Democratic Party Platform says : "We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." Once again they only "believe in the privacy and equality of women" and "defend the dignity of all Americans" who manage to be born despite their abortion policies! And of course don't we want all of our "rights" to be "safe, legal, and rare"?!?! (3,700 abortions a day is rare?) I wonder if they will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it if it turns out to be themselves?

• "On the morning the sheriff showed up, I spotted them (fellow protestors) and called out. She was on the rope and up the tree in about three minutes. It was an amazing athletic feat."--John Quigley on Daryl Hannah's tree climbing ability.

• "The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country, I don't see why people care about patriotism."-- Natalie Maines, lead singer of The Dixie Chicks. This "Chick" really doesn't get it, does she? How much longer are they going to hang onto that "Dixie" part of their name; it's now a definite misnomer.
  

Gore Using "Junk Science"

Well, it's a sad day when one has to turn his ear to Canada to find a reasonable voice in any matter, but such are the times we live in! I strongly encourage all sane people (I understand that discriminates against some of you!) to read Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe by Tom Harris at Candadafreepress.com. For those who can't wait for another page to load, here are some juicy morsels:

• Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

• Patterson [a paleoclimatologist at Carleton Universtiy] concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as changes in the brightness of the Sun.


• Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

One might think that the main issue in this debate is whether there is in fact any global warming taking place (Did it stop in 1998?). However, the really big question in the global warming debate is the question of human responsibility (and as it turns out, this primarily means the U.S. and western countries) in causing it. That is why the conclusion of the paleoclimatologist Patterson above about the correlation between Earth's temperature and changes in the Sun is so significant. The forces 99.99% responsible for controlling the Earth's temperature are beyond our control. Yet, the environmentalist wacko set, who have clearly "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator," want to take vast financial resources and couple them with a corresponding wealth of government regulation to effect what even they concede will be minute change in global temperatures and ocean levels. I am particularly troubled by the recent duping of evangelicals (including modern day evangelical saint, "Mr. Purpose-Driven" himself, Rick Warren) with the "Evangelical Climate Initiative," which is well-intentioned, but very misguided.
A much more responsible, and biblical, response to these issues is embodied in the Cornwall Declaration put out by the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. I encourage you especially to read points 1, 2, and 3 under the heading "Our Concerns." 3 is so good that I give it to you here:

• 3. While some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated. Some well-founded concerns focus on human health problems in the developing world arising from inadequate sanitation, widespread use of primitive biomass fuels like wood and dung, and primitive agricultural, industrial, and commercial practices; distorted resource consumption patterns driven by perverse economic incentives; and improper disposal of nuclear and other hazardous wastes in nations lacking adequate regulatory and legal safeguards. Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss.

An example of the need for this distinction is the Kyoto Protocol. Implementation of Kyoto-type energy use limits would have an estimated impact of $1 trillion/year on global economic production. All this in an effort to help millions, perhaps billions of people--many of them among the world's poorest--from rising ocean levels that will wipe out the areas in which they live, by reducing temperatures .14 degrees! That's the wacko scenario. In contrast, it would take only a fraction of that same trillion dollars to provide clean drinking water and sanitation to all the remaining areas of the world presently without them! Which is a better use of the resources God has given us? Of course, this is the kind of thinking that Al Gore and his cronies think is wacko!

"Pastor, why do we worship like Gnostics?"

Have you ever heard something like this? "God isn't concerned with the posture of our bodies, just with the attitude of our hearts." If you haven't, try going to your pastor or elders and suggesting that your church install kneelers (similar to those pictured to the right) so the congregation can more faithfully worship according to the Bible. After giving you a strange look, and muttering something about "catholic," the answer in the typical evangelical church will probably be close to the "posture" statement above. If you get such an answer, it would then be appropriate to ask, "Why do we worship like Gnostics?" If you make it this far in the conversation, I would love to know what happens next!
I would guess questions like this never occur in most congregations. Oh, occasionally the "young folks" who want to hold up their hands to some choruses will cite something like Psalm 134:2, "Lift up your hands in the sanctuary and praise the LORD," but in general, in church after church, we continue more and more to divorce the posture of our bodies from the attitude of our hearts. Why do we do this? Well, I would say it is because we are too Gnostic. . . . It's certainly not because we get the idea to divorce posture from attitude by reading the Bible.
The very Hebrew and Greek words that we translate as worship mean "to bow down." In each of these examples try substituting "bow down" for the word "worship":

• Abraham told his two young servants, "Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I are going over there to worship; then we'll come back to you." [Genesis 22:5]
• All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. [Psalms 22:27]
• "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." [Matthew 2:2]
• Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship." Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." [John 4:20-24]
  

The Bible makes clear that worship is not some disembodied activity that takes place solely in the "head" or "heart." In addition to "lifting hands" and "bowing down," the Bible speaks of worship that involves singing and music, responsive prayers and recitations of Scripture that actively involve the congregation, and other "active" and "physical" worship. In fact, the only posture that the Bible does not speak of in regard to prayer is sitting! It does describe prayer offered face down, kneeling, or standing.
So, what does any of this matter? It matters because God is concerned (even if we aren't) with what we do with our bodies, not simply what we don't do with them("Thou shalt not . . ."). When God says in Isaiah that He has "had enough of burnt offerings," it is not because He wanted the offerings to stop, but that He wanted the attitude accompanying the offerings to be out of a sincere, faithful heart. God wants both--our heart and hands. This is because God is not Gnostic.

Caption Contest

I've been waiting for something really inspirational for the caption contest, and here it is!



(If you don't know the story behind Daryl Hannah sitting in a tree with Julia Butterfly, click here to listen to her talking about it.)

Poll Discussion

For those who would like to clarify and extend their responses to the poll about alcohol, you may use this post. Simply leave a provocative comment below!

God Endorses Candidate in PA Governor's Race!

Well, it seems that God has weighed in on the Pennsylvania governor's race! For those who don't know, the race is between the incumbent, pro-abortion Democrat Ed Rendell, and his Republican challenger Lynn Swann (yes, that Lynn Swann). Whom has God picked? Here's a bit from the story in the Scranton, PA Times-Tribune:

During a voter awareness event in the Capitol Rotunda on Tuesday, the incumbent Democrat received word via a Lycoming County minister — a registered Republican, no less — that God has “decreed” he will be re-elected to a second term.

“I was a little stunned, to be honest,” a smiling governor said afterward.

The campaign bombshell was dropped by the Rev. Carl Vining, pastor of the nondenominational House of Judah Ministries in Montgomery and a chaplain-on-call for the state Senate.

As the reverend introduced Mr. Rendell to a packed Rotunda, he told those gathered that “the God of Israel” recently sent word through him on the outcome of this year’s gubernatorial election.

“The God of Israel said, ‘One more term,’” the Rev. Vining told Mr. Rendell.

The announcement sparked applause from some in attendance and chuckles from others. The Rev. Vining later insisted it’s no joke.

“God spoke to me to tell Governor Ed Rendell that he was anointed by the God of Israel for another term,” he told a reporter. “That means he’s going to win the election.”

Did God give a reason?

“God has his own reasoning. It’s the will of our father in Heaven,” the Rev. Vining said.

A Sad Day for Michael Moore?

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Poor Michael Moore has lost a great ally in his fight against President Bush. Too bad. Maybe he can make a movie about how Zarqawi was "misunderstood" and "wrongly labeled" or some such gobbledygook.

The best news is that al-Zarqawi may have been turned in by some of his own guys. If true, that is a great thing that should be well noted. But should we give the $25 million to a terrrorist?

From CNSNews.com:
Got Him: 'Zarqawi is Dead'
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
June 08, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terrorist leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, has been killed, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki announced at a press conference on Iraqi state television shortly before 4 a.m. Thursday Washington time.

"Today we have managed to put at end to al-Zarqawi," Maliki said in Arabic, to thunderous applause.

The accomplishment stemmed from the type of cooperation the government had been asking of Iraqi citizens, the prime minister said, suggesting that an intelligence tip-off had led forces to track down Zarqawi.

His death was a message to all those who are pursuing violence, Maliki said, pledging to kill "all the terrorists."
............

General Casey said "tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders" from Zarqawi's own network led coalition forces to Zarqawi as he met with his associates in Baquba, north of Baghdad.
............

That same year, the State Department announced an increase in the reward it was offering for information leading to Zarqawi's capture, of up to $25 million -- the same amount offered for bin Laden.

Hypocrisy

I forget where I heard this definition of hypocrisy--"the application of a double standard in favor of (surprise!) one's very own self."
(Clicking the picture will help you to read it better)

G-N-O-S-T-I-C-I-S-M

Okay, boys and girls. It's time for another "four dollar word." Gnosticism. The "g" is silent, the "o" is like the "o" in "pot," and the "c" is an "s" like in "exorcism." So, try it again. Gnosticism. I have several posts coming up on various topics like food, worship, beer, Baptists, death, etc. All of these will tie in (believe it or not) with "Gnosticism." So, what is Gnosticism? The term comes from the Greek word gnosis, which means "knowledge." An "ism" is a system or doctrine of belief. Gnosticism, therefore, is a system of belief that regards the attainment of certain hidden, or secret, knowledge as the means of escape from the physical and material world (which is inherently evil) to the spiritual and immaterial world (which is inherently good).
The New Testament suggests that even then a germ of Gnosticism was making inroads into the church. John appears to be addressing this heresy directly in the verses below:

• John 1:14: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
  
• 1 John 4:2-3: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
  
• 2 John 1:7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Now, this all stands in stark contrast to the so-called "Gnostic gospels," like Thomas, Mary, and the recently hyped Judas. For example, the latter has Jesus saying to Judas, “But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." The idea here is that Jesus' crucifixion is something which will liberate him from the (corrupt) flesh that masks the true, spiritual him. This is a biblically absurd notion! If Jesus was to be liberated from the flesh, then why did he appear to his disciples again, after the resurrection, with a fleshly body and not as an immaterial spirit? To be fair, it was a remarkably transformed (i.e., glorified) body. But it was still a "flesh and bone" body that bore the scars of the crucifixion, that could be touched, and that ate food. Jesus' own words about this body confirm that he was not simply a spirit: "And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39).
The resurrection is the final repudiation of Gnosticism. It is impossible to be Gnostic and to also believe in the Christ of the Bible. The Christ of the Bible shows Gnosticicsm to be a lie. And yet in many ways we are modern day Gnostics--even us church folks. We have learned it from the Gnosticism of popular culture (things like the Star Wars and Matrix movies) and from frankly bad Bible interpretation. I hope to explore some of these things over the coming days. Stay tuned!

Pagan is as pagan does . . .

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion--Proverbs 18:2

• Ian McKellen said recently, in response to criticism of some of the historical claims of the DaVinci Code, that he thinks the Bible itself should have a disclaimer at the beginning declaring that it is fiction because "walking on water, I mean, takes an act of faith." Ian, I loved you as Gandalf and all, but just shut up and act! You can see or hear the clip here or here.
• The Student Insurgent, a student-operated newspaper at the University of Oregon, ran some cartoons lampooning Christianity in general, and Jesus in particular, in its March 2005 issue. The "paper" issued a statement saying that Christianity "needs to be lampooned." The cartoons and commentary were especially viscious. Here's a sample: "I believe that Christianity is a destructive institution in America, and the world for that matter. It functions as a stagnant force that prevents growth and development in society. It perpetuates inequality and serves as a means of control. . . . It is [a] way of thinking that leads some people to feel morally superior. It forces people to define morals in a way that may not be up to date with the times and more importantly may happen to really f*** over certain groups of people, like women. In addition, heaven and hell is like the lure, it freaks people out because they don't want to fry in hell for eternity. Heaven is the bribe for worshiping god. The term god-fearing anyone? Fear is not what should drive a belief system. The belief system is flawed because in my opinion, god is an a**hole. . . . It is funny that extremely evil things are always disguised as good. Christianity uses concepts like virtue, purity, and piety to promote the idea that is is morally superior to other belief systems. But again they define morality as if it is something to be defined in a blanketing sort of way. Even to say murder is always immoral is difficult to do. So how can one say that it is immoral to be a lesbian? Why does that apply to everyone? Who decides this? It doesn't make any sense to me. In my opinion this 'purity' is a disguise as something good, but really it is an ideology that serves to repress people from doing what they want.”. . . . Good stuff, huh? I refer again to the verse at the top of this post. As if that weren't enough, here are two of the cartoons with the sensitive portions blocked out:
  

Wise Words

"Then, moreover, what a swelling of arrogance it is, what oblivion of humility and gentleness, what a boasting of his own arrogance, that any one should either dare, or think that he is able to do what the Lord did not even grant to the apostles; that he should think that he can discern the tares from the wheat, or, as if it were granted him to bear the fan and to purge the threshing-floor." --Cyprian, martyred in the 3rd century

"Advancing the science of pet nutrition . . ."

Purina cares for all God's creatures, furry and otherwise. I stumbled across Purina Worm Chow while looking at some snake stuff! Who knew? Maybe some of you hardcore fishermen or gardeners might have, but I didn't. What's funny is that I went to Purina.com to see what they had to say about their worm chow, but there is literally nothing. I searched the site for "worm chow" and it only turns up things about worming your dog or cat!