Additional Reactions to Partial Birth Abortion Ruling

rosie O asked:

"why only democrat's responses? I'm sure Rudy and Mitt had something to say...What say you Blogger?"

Well, Rudy and Mitt (and even McCain) were good:

Giuliani: "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it."

Romney: Said the decision “reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency.”

and McCain: Said the ruling “ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children.” “It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures."

But the really interesting reaction is from our former Double-Talker-in-Chief on Larry King's Alive tonight. He doesn't believe it's a pro-life decsion. Hoooo-boy! You want to see some slick abortion rhetoric? Here you go! . . . From the transcript at CNN.com (warning, this will cause nausea and nightmarish flashbacks) . . .

~~~~~~~~
KING: Some of the bases we will cover tonight.

The Supreme Court has said partial-birth abortion is wrong. The woman will not be blamed, but the doctor can get up to two years.

Thoughts?

B. CLINTON: Well, you know, I vetoed that bill twice. And I think it's a great victory for the political strategy of the anti- abortion movement. But I do not believe it's a pro-life decision.

KING: No?

B. CLINTON: I do not. Not a pro-life decision, because, let me remind you, when I vetoed that bill, I had standing in the White House with me an Evangelical Christian who had had the procedure who was pro-life, an Orthodox Jew who had had the provision who was pro-life, and another Christian who had been pro-choice.

All three women and their husbands and physicians -- but two of the three who had had the provision were pro-life. They did it because their children were -- I mean, their unborn children were severely hydrocephalic. They were certain to die either before, during or immediately after childbirth. And the doctors told them that if they did not reduce the size of these babies' heads -- which were swollen very high, very large -- that delivering them, even by cesarean section, might so damage the women that they might not be able to bear other children.

And they told me that they would otherwise never want to use this procedure, that no one would want to do this unless there was some medical necessity for it.

But it sounded gruesome. You could use -- you can label it and no one ever knew the facts. It was a perfect political strategy.

Who can be for partial-birth abortion?

It's a great line.

But the truth is, the doctors who did it and the women who agreed to have it -- as I said, I talked to two of them who were pro-life, anti-abortion. They did it because they thought it was a pro-life position. They thought it was the only way they could go on and have further children.

KING: So you don't see "Roe v. Wade" in danger?

B. CLINTON: No, I do think it's in danger. But all I'm saying is I don't believe that this was a victory for the pro-life forces. I think -- you know, I think abortion is a difficult decision. I agree with the "Roe v. Wade" decision because I don't think we ought to criminalize this. I think it's somewhat hypocritical, frankly, to make the doctors criminals and leave the mothers off.

KING: It's two parts to the crime.

B. CLINTON: You can't go around saying, well, this is killing and then you have an essential accomplice here, the mother. The mother can't do this -- I mean, the doc can't do it without the mother. But we're not going to charge them, we're only going to charge the doctor.

So they know how hard this is. This is -- but as a political strategy for the anti-abortion movement, it's a great triumph. And they do -- they have put "Roe vote. Wade" at risk. I just don't agree with the decision. And I don't think it's pro-life.

I think that the -- I vetoed those bills because I thought that if they passed it would make it harder for women with problem pregnancies to have other children.
~~~~~~~~

If American Idol's Simon wants to roll his eyes about something, here would be a good place! I feel like starting a "NO MORE YEARS!" chant.

Big Week for Nigeria

I was reading the "Persecution News from Compass Direct" in the right-hand column of this blog and became interested in Nigeria. There a 13 year-old Christian boy was kidnapped by Muslims who intended to force him to convert to Islam, but he managed to escape after four months. He is now in hiding in another village. You can read his story here. (I know Christians have been accused of all sorts of evils by the naysayers, but have we ever tried the "kidnapping and forced conversion" thing?)

This week happens to be a big one for Nigeria, Africa's most populous country; national elections are Saturday. One Nigerian columnist begins his latest article this way: "The State election is over with its shortcomings, disqualifications, expulsions, abductions, kidnappings, arrests, killings, and assassinations, now Nigerians are ready for the big one this weekend." And guess who else is on the scene in Nigeria? An Islamist group called the Taliban! Yes, just Tuesday they are suspected to have been responsible for a gun attack that killed 21 policemen at a Kano police station. Long live the religion of peace! Not that I understand a thing about Nigerian politics (good grief, there are over 50 political parties!) but I will report here the results of the elections, which hopefully will be the first peaceful transition of presidential power in decades.

There's No Rhetoric Like Abortion Rhetoric

As you hear people discussing today's Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial birth abortion, you will hear things like "women's rights have been destroyed" and "this is the end of our constitution." When you hear these things, please keep in mind that they are upset about the banning of the "procedure" pictured below. They don't even like that it is called "partial birth abortion." Well, if they don't like that phrase, then why don't we just call it what it is--infanticide?!?! People need to know what this "procedure" is. Remember these images when you listen to them:

Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps to manually force a "breach" (feet first) birth.

The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.

The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole...

The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

For the record here are some of the presidential candidates who support the legality and continuance of the above "procedure:"

John Edwards: On Wednesday, Edwards said he "could not disagree more strongly" with the high court’s decision. "The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election."

Barack Obama: Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said the decision is a dramatic departure from precedents safeguarding women’s health. "I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

Mrs. Bill Clinton: Clinton said Wednesday’s ruling "blatantly defies" the high court’s decision in 2000 to strike down a state partial-birth abortion law because it failed to provide an exemption for a woman’s health. "As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account," she said. "It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."

"Erosion of constitutional rights"? Does she mean the right to do the act in the pictures above? Don't fall for the rhetoric.

Top Website

According to a BBC story, the number one website in the world in terms of time per visit is not this blog (surprise!) but a fantasy role-playing game site called RuneScape. The average visit is 6 hours and 32 minutes! Those visitors have some serious time to waste. It does look like an interesting game that my kids would probably love in a few years. Try it out; you can play for free.

Save the Seals!

The Discovery Channel's Planet Earth is an amazing documentary (please note, Moore & Gore). Filmed over a five-year period in over 200 locations, it is absolutely stunning visually. There are the occasional attributions of divinity to evolution (aka "blind chance"), but it is well worth a look. An 11-part series with new episodes airing on Sunday evenings. Check it out!

Movin' On Up

Chip Caray, after the Marlins catcher took a foul ball to his groin:

"He'll be in a different seat in the choir on Sunday."

They don't call catcher's gear the "tools of ignorance" for nothing!

Before God we are equally wise -- and equally foolish.
-Albert Einstein

Golf, Atheism, and the Invention of Glue

I chuckled this past Easter Sunday as the Masters golf tournament concluded and the champion, Zach Johnson, sat in Butler Cabin being interviewed by Jim Nantz. He made sure to thank his "Lord and Jesus." So, he botched his line a bit; it was only his second tour victory. I'm sure he meant to say "Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" or simply "Lord Jesus," but that's not why I chuckled. My chuckle was because I thought of poor Sam Harris, the atheist author of The End of Faith and more recently of Letter to a Christian Nation. I pictured Harris somewhere enjoying the Masters as a perfectly pagan diversion on a religious holiday of such significance. And just when Harris was pondering the question on everyone's mind, "Who is Zach Johnson?," here comes Zach's truncated profession of faith like fingernails on a chalkboard announcing that he is just another of those idiots Harris likes to write about. He had to think, "Is there no respite from these Christian whackos?" That's what I thought, and so I chuckled.

The reason Sam Harris was on my mind is that I had just read last week's "God Debate" in Newsweak between him and Pastor Rick Warren. The thing that struck me about the debate was that, for an atheist who says "the basic point is that evolution by natural selection is random genetic mutation over millions of years in the context of environmental pressure that selects for fitness," Harris sure does make an awful lot of value judgments.

This point is wonderfully expanded upon in Douglas Wilson's brand new book Letter from a Christian Citizen, which is a direct answer to Harris' Letter. I strongly recommend that you click here to read the fantastic introduction by Gary DeMar and the first ten pages of chapter one. The book is in a big font, so it reads quickly. If that's not enough, you can listen to a radio interview of Wilson by DeMar here. And lastly, if you haven't figured out why this post's title mentions the invention of glue, start clicking!

Technorati Tags: sam harris, atheism, christianity, douglas wilson

Another Bible Version?

I'm convinced riding around town this week that there must be a new Bible version out there that contains a verse something like, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have a car flag with your church's name on it."

U-u-u-u-u-h-h-h-h-h-h!!!

The title of this post is supposed to be that low, rumbling sound Lurch made on the Addams Family. Why? Because that's my reaction to John Kerry's idiocy on the Senate floor yesterday in regard to stem cells. (Plus, Kerry looks a bit Lurchy, don't you think?)


Kerry was overstating the results of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research in mice, but the statement that bugs me is this one, because even those one the right side of this debate make this same error sometimes. He said:

"Now we can all hope that alternatives to embryonic research hold similar promise [to ESCs], but we can't wish away what our scientists are telling us: research on embryonic stem cells is incredibly promising, pivotal to this new field and not easily sidestepped."

Why speak of "alternatives" to embryonic stem cell research?!?! ESC HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING! The wishing is all on the side of ESC; the results are on the side of adult and cord blood therapies.

In further Senate action, the President should be able to successfully veto the bill overturning his stem cell funding policy. But the more interesting vote was on bill S. 30. Anyone voting against this bill can rightly be characterized as "anti-science." The short form of the bill states:

It is the purpose of this Act to--

(1) intensify research that may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions; and

(2) promote the derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines without the creation of human embryos for research purposes and without the destruction or discarding of, or risk of injury to, a human embryo or embryos other than those that are naturally dead.

Which simply means "we support ethical stem cell research." Well, some senators, including two presidential hopefuls, do not support such research:

NAYs ---28
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Clinton (D-NY)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Wyden (D-OR)

NOT VOTING - 2
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)

At least Kerry voted for "alternative" research; he must have some sense.

Also here's a link to an earlier post re: adult stem cell successes.

Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way. . . . The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.
(Read the entire article here)
-Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Shoot, Newt!

Newt Gingrich has had a disappointing week. First there was the revelation of his new book due later this year about his brand of market-driven environmentalism called Contract with the Earth. It might be a good book, but what a pathetic title. Then there was his letter yesterday urging Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to consider stepping down over the U.S. Attorneys fiasco. I know Newt has been disgusted that the whole thing was so poorly handled, but nothing illegal or immoral occurred! You can't give scalps to political enemies (and make no mistake, that's an accurate description of the scenario we have here) for reason of administrative incompetence. That is only to chum the water!

Now today I see the report from the Newt and John Kerry environment debate. Pathetic again! Here is some of the limp-wristed action:

Gingrich began first with a concession to his opponent. Holding the new book by Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Gingrich said, "This is a very good book. As a clearly right-wing reader, I would commend the book" as one that shows examples of local leadership on environmental issues.

"I would agree with about 60 percent of this book," he added.

~~~

Gingrich raised some discrepancies among the science that has led to the current data on climate change, but when asked pointedly about science doubters, like Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Gingrich strongly held the case that climate change is a problem.

"What would you say to Sen. Inhofe and others in the Senate who are resisting even science? What's your message to them here today?" Kerry asked.

"My message, I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere —"

"And do it urgently, now?" Kerry interrupted.

"Urgently, yes," Gingrich said.

It sounds to me that Newt concedes the premise of this nonsense--that global warming is caused by man--and if he does that he loses not only the debate, but my support as well. It also makes me much more nervous about that book title. Wake up, Newt!

You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you. -John Wooden

ESV

I am a fan of the English Standard Version of the Bible. My reasons are pretty much the same as those of George Grant, who says:

The English Standard Version is the translation of the Bible I have been waiting for my entire Christian life. I trust you will find the same to be true for you. It is as precise and accurate as the New American Standard, but is far more literary. It is as readable and accessible as the New International Version, but is far more scholarly. The NAS has always fallen short because of its clunky, ungrammatical prose. The NIV has always fallen short because of its blatant inaccuracies.

There are many examples, but here is one from this past week. You may be familiar with the convention used in English translations to specially denote the covenant name for God, Yahweh, with the all caps LORD. Similarly, hesed is a significant Hebrew word for God's covenant love. Some English translations indicate hesed with the word "loving-kindness." Though it is good they have a word to alert us to hesed, "loving-kindness" is a little mushy for that purpose. The ESV's "steadfast love" better captures the "foreverness" of the covenant God of Israel's love, don't you think?

I say all of that to complain about how the NIV uses no such convention for hesed. It just says "love." Psalm 119 (which we studied in SS on Easter) is packed with references to hesed, but if you use the NIV you will never know it. Aren't translations supposed to help illuminate the Bible text, not obscure it? I think the ESV is the best choice for individual or group study and for the public reading of God's Word.

And one more thing. I hope we are reaching the end of the explosion of translations we've had for the last couple of decades. We have enough already. The last thing we need is for every group to have its own translation. (In case you missed it, that's a dig at the Southern Baptists who now have their own official translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible.)

So, what translation do you use?

Gone Ape

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- The eight bonobos at the Great Ape Trust of Iowa howled Tuesday as they watched two trumpeter swans dip into a lake for the first time. Who can blame them? Not only will the apes get new neighbors, they'll get a chance to name the rare birds. "They were very excited," said scientist Karyl Swartz. Read the rest here.

I don't mean to disparage our "most humanlike" friends, but I never had to help my children name an animal by holding up signs or providing them a list from which to choose. These are grown apes with "sophisticated language skills?" If they are so sophisticated why not ask them to post names for the swans on their blog or at least to write down their own list!

These animal intelligence reports are always so overblown. Don't people realize that Lassie, Flipper, Mr. Ed, etc. couldn't really do all that stuff themselves? It was all the stupid humans standing around who wrote, directed, and filmed them who made them look so smart. It reminds me of the absurd statement on the PETA website (find it yourself, I refuse to link to it) that pigs are smarter than 3-year-old children. Now, I've had a few 3-year-old children and they are pretty darn smart. (And these are boys I'm talking about; we all know girls are much smarter.) Here is the statement of Dr. Donald Broom on the PETA site: "[P]igs have the cognitive ability to be sophisticated. Even more so than dogs, and certainly 3-year-olds." Also, fish are "so good-natured," and cows "are all individuals."

This might sound good to some people (maybe you) but it is exactly this minimizing of the uniqueness and exceptionalism of humans that leads to caring for animals and killing people. The same types who decry the horrors of meat-packing think that an unborn child's survival depends on nothing but the "choice" of the mother. This is a little crass, but Jesus came to us as a man, not a lamb. He ate fish and other meat. He stood up for little children (against his own disciples), and drowned a large herd of pigs. Let's keep our warm fuzzies about animals in perspective, please.

Anyone Speak Carpenter Bee?

If so, I'd like to tell the bees digging in the fascia board on my front porch that the University of Kentucky Entomology Department doesn't think they should be doing that. The entomologists say:

Carpenter bees prefer to attack wood which is bare, weathered and unpainted. Therefore, the best way to deter the bees is to paint all exposed wood surfaces, especially those which have a history of being attacked.

Hmmmm. I haven't noticed the carpenter bees I've seen to have much regard for such entomological assertions. I wonder if entomologists actually study insects anymore, or do they just read books written by other entomologists who may or may not have studied insects? So far this year I have eliminated 11 bees that apparently shouldn't even be there with my trusty Dunlop tennis racket. But every time I get one, two more seem to show up. I wouldn't care, but they're right at the front door! Oh well. If anyone could talk to them for me, please let me know.

Ideas Have Consequences

I just listened to the extended interview with Brian Godawa at St. Annes Pub (you'll have to scroll down to 23 - 26 in the list on the right side to hear the interview, otherwise you can listen to 1 - 22 first; it's all good stuff). Brian is a writer and producer in Hollywood. His writing credits include To End All Wars and The Visitation.

Brian is a bright spot in Hollywood and I am very excited about a couple of his upcoming works: Monkey Trial and Cruel Logic. He is the writer on Monkey Trial, which is about the infamous 1925 Scopes case in Dayton, TN. We all know of it from that embarassment of a production, Inherit the Wind, which in typical Hollywood fashion is a "true" story decidedly lacking in truth. Monkey Trial hopes to tell a more accurate version of the trial (I believe it is adapted from Larson's excellent book Summer for the Gods) and hopefully future generations will know of the Scopes case from this film instead. Believe me; the truth is far more interesting than the made up Inherit the Wind version. Look for it later this year or early next.

I am also very intrigued by Cruel Logic. It has already been produced as a (very) short film, which you can see here. The tag line is "No absolutes. No guilt. No remorse." It is the story of an escaped serial killer who kidnaps college professors and engages them in high stakes debates over whether he should kill them or not. He uses their own academic arguments (that there are no absolutes, no God, only chance) against them to prove he is perfectly free to kill them. Now this is great! You can also take a look at a chapter of the graphic novel (that's a fancy word for "comic book") by clicking here. (Another neat touch is that the detective in Cruel Logic is named Cornelius Van Til; if you don't get it, I can't explain it here.) CL should also be out later this year or early next.

The point of much of Brian's work is that, as his serial killer character says, ideas have consequences. Hopefully his movies will have a consequential impact on our culture.

Technorati Tags: godawa, film, cruel logic

Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the point of highest reality. A chastity or honesty or mercy, which yields to danger, will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. Pilate was merciful until it became risky.-C.S. Lewis

technorati tags:quotes, c.s.lewis, courage

We'll sing the first, third, and fifth

Marian and I were discussing the phenomenon of skipping verses when singing hymns. I realize that if your church has a big screen in front of the "sanctuary" (gym) then the notion of a hymnal is probably alien to you, but it's a book that contains a bunch of old songs that have been sung by the church for (if its a good hymnal) centuries. It includes all of these funny little marks, called musical notation, which tell the musicians what notes to play and the congregation what notes to sing. (There are even different lines of notes for different kinds of voices--usually soprano, alto, tenor and bass. All these different parts combine to produce one glorious sound. There's something trinitarian about it. Weird, huh?)

Well, most of these hymns have maybe 3-5 verses, but there are many times that only the "first and last" or "first and second" or "first, third, and fifth" verses are sung. This is what Marian and I were discussing. Why does this happen? We thought of two reasons: theology and time. "Theology" would be if there is a genuine disagreement with a verse's meaning or teaching. Now, I have to say, as one who has led a fair share of hymns in my day, that I have never known this to be the reason for verse-skipping. In my experience it has always been the "time" reason.

The problem is that the time reason is pretty pathetic if you examine it. Most verses of most hymns take about 30 seconds to sing. The quicker common meter hymns (like "How Sweet the Name of Jesus Sounds") are about 15 seconds per verse. So, most hymns are no more than 2.5 to 3 minutes. WOW!!!!! No wonder everyone is skipping all those verses! Who's got three more minutes to sing a song to God when the line's getting crowded at Golden Corral?!?!?!

“Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear.”
- Ambrose Redmoon

Al was right about one thing . . .

. . . in his "testimony" the other day. He said, "I promise you a day will come when our children and grandchildren will look back and ask...What in God's name were they doing?"

Exactly! I can hear them now . . .

Why were they worried about 45,000 polar bears when 5 million children were dying of malnutrition each year? Why did they spend hundreds of billions of dollars to comply with Kyoto rather than put that money into combating malaria and dirty water which, unlike "global warming," actually killed millions each year? Why did they listen to that idiot Al Gore, who couldn't decide from decade to decade whether it was getting colder or hotter? Didn't they notice all the communists hiding behind those "Love Your Mother" buttons and "Equal Rights For All Species" t-shirts? What were they doing????

Good questions, kids.

Practical politics consists of ignoring facts.

— Benjamin Disraeli

Chapter 2-The Battle Won: Colossians

Continuing with a serial look at NT Wright's Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship . . .

At the foot of Mount Cadmus near the river Lycus a startling declaration would have first been read aloud to the small congregation of Christians in the ancient city of Colosse:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.-Colossians 1:15-20

With those words Paul declared that the great battle had already been won. A battle? Victory? Over whom? The ancients gave them personal names like Mars, Aphrodite, or Zeus, etc. We tend call them by the impersonal titles such as "economic forces" or "political climate." The ancients thought they could be assuaged, even bribed, in various ways. We tend to think one most hope for the best and chalk it up to fate. They are those intangible powers that chew us up and spit us out. One need look no further than any days headlines to see these powers working. The point is that we need the message of this letter today just as much as the Colossians themselves needed it, for we too need to hear of the defeat of the powers and the victory of Jesus.

Paul has three things to say about these powers. First, as in the above passage, all things were made in Christ, through Christ, and for Christ; this includes the powers. These seemingly uncontrollable powers were intended to be part of God's ordered, structured world. The problem is that we have handed power over, through sin, to the powers. When we abuse sex, we have given power to Aphrodite, and she will gladly take control. When we are irresponsible with money, we have given power to Mammon, and he will take control. And so on. When the powers take over, we get crushed.

The second point comes in chapter 2. Jesus confronted the powers. They said to live for money. Jesus said you cannot serve both God and Mammon. They said Israel would be freed through the sword. Jesus said he who lives by the sword will die by it. They said that Caesar was Lord of the world. Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of his Father. At first glance it seems obvious what happened at the cross: the powers killed him. That is what they do to those who challenge them. They stripped him naked and publicly humiliated him. They nailed the charge against him over his head: King of the Jews, indeed. They celebrated their triumph over him, another challenger snuffed out.

But Paul stands all of this on its head in verses 13-15 of chapter 2:

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

The apparent defeat of Christ at the hands of the powers is in fact the defeat of the powers at the bleeding hands of Christ.

The third point is very important. These defeated powers are not annihilated; rather they have been reconciled to God through Christ. As stated above (1:20), "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." So, not to worship Aphrodite does not mean that we become sexless. Not to serve both God and Mammon does not mean that we boycott all currency. God intends for the powers to serve him, and to serve and sustain his creatures as well.

This is why thanksgiving is such a theme of the letter. As Wright says:

He wants them so to understand what the true God has achieved for them in Christ that they will praise him from the bottom of their hearts (1:12-23). He wants them so to understand that they are in Christ, and that therefore no other philosophy or system has any claim on them, that they will celebrate their having died to the old world and come alive to the new (2:6-3:4). He wants them so to grasp the truth of this new way of being human that they will live their lives on the basis of that gratitude, and so be able to put to death all the bits and pieces of the old way of life, and to discover the joy of the new way (3:5-17). In the third chapter of the letter Paul sets out a bracing ethical programme of living in Christ, of following Jesus: no sexual immorality; no anger and violence. But that program does not stand by itself. If you try to live that way without recognizing the defeat of the powers, you will fail. The ethical programme stand four-square on the victory of the cross. The powers of lust, that tell you you can't resist them; the powers of fear, suspicion, and greed, that tell you you must get angry and use violence--these powers were defeated on the cross. They have no rights over you.

As free subjects of the true king we owe nothing at all to the powers. The battle has been won.

All that remains is to celebrate and put into practice this victory. How can that be done? It is surprisingly simple. Every time we gather as God's people we are saying Jesus is Lord and the powers aren't. When we say grace before a meal we are saying Jesus is Lord and the powers aren't. Perhaps uniquely we do this in celebrating the Eucharist, which after all means "thanksgiving." Giving thanks for the work of Christ is the most powerful thing we can ever do. Even if we don't grasp it's significance, the powers surely do. So let's continue on our way with gratitude. The battle has been won; let's celebrate it by following the Lord who won it.

Technorati Tags: NT Wright, Colossians

I liked him better as George

I found this on a blog at Townhall.com by Dean Barnett. He's commenting on seeing Jason Alexander (George from "Seinfeld") criticizing Gen. Peter Pace on Bill Maher's "idiotfest" and then seeing the movie 300. He ties it all together rather neatly:

While Alexander and Maher were discussing Pace’s comments, their condescension and hostility for the military were evident. Their whole conversation rested on the unstated premise that guys like Pace are cretins, and sadly lacking in the enlightenment so ubiquitous in Hollywood. It was also clear that they have absolutely no clue that guys like Peter Pace protect the freedom that they so enjoy and that has made them such rich men.

IT WAS WITH THIS CONVERSATION IN mind that I saw “300” yesterday. First, I must confess that I greatly enjoyed the film. And please note that I consider comic books a waste of time and computer-generated graphics a nuisance.

What made “300” such a delight was the way the film unapologetically and unsubtly embraced such outmoded concepts as loyalty, valor, courage and sacrifice. This was no film for moral relativists. If you’re seeking a nuanced portrayal of war, look elsewhere. Lord knows you won’t lack for options.

The reason the public has embraced “300” is because it was desperate for a film that would depict a battle of good versus evil without expressing sympathy for the devil. There was a purity and a simplicity to “300” – these characteristics had the crowd applauding when the final credits rolled.

SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH PETER PACE AND Jason Alexander? Pace, like most career military men, has dedicated his life to a military code that dates back to the Battle of Thermopylae that “300” depicts. His dedication, and that of men and women like him, is what keeps the rest of us free.

Week In Review

Here are some "need to reads" for the week:

• General Pace, whom I admire and have mentioned before, gave homosexuality a less than glowing review this week, which means he must be Satan himself. Greg Koukl writes about the Myth of Moral Neutrality, a principal weapon in the moral relativist armory. Here's a snippet:
  

It’s important to have an informed and civil public dialogue about public policy, and homosexual rights is a delicate subject made more difficult when only one side is accused of moral judgment. Both sides are making moral judgments; it’s the nature of the issue. The question we should be discussing is which moral judgment makes the best public policy? It’s not possible to be morally neutral so it would be much more productive if everyone owned up to their moral values.

• A study which is supposed to attest that homosexuals would make great adoptive parents doesn't really indicate that at all, which is no surprise to Peter Sprigg.
• On the "We'll get Rove or Cheney, yet !!!" front, Washington and the (so aptly dubbed by the Godfather) drive-by media have managed once again to scandalize the exercise of executive power. This U.S. Attorneys story is so lacking in substance it's maddening. Imagine . . . Hillary and Schumer the chief finger waggers! (There's so much on Schumer; here's another one.)
  
• Oh, have you hugged your robot today?
  
• And in the clash of civilizations, the West continues to preemptively surrender. Three Little Puppies?!?!
• For St. Patrick's Day here's a good listen.

Cartoon of the Week: How Earth Mother types imagine the Fall?
And lastly, Al Gore: The Early Years (before he invented the internet)

Immunize Yourself Against the Great Global Warming Swindle

This is the UK documentary that's upsetting all the worshipers of the Earth Mother. Most interesting to me (since I already don't buy the "science" of global warming) was learning of Margaret Thatcher's role in getting the whole man-made global warming movement going. Thatcher wanted to make the UK energy-independent through nuclear power – she didn’t like her country’s reliance on coal, which politically empowered the coal miner unions, or oil, which empowered Middle Eastern states. So Thatcher latched onto the notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide warmed the planet in a harmful way, thereby providing the perfect political cover for advancing her nuclear power agenda without having to fight coal miner unions or Arab oil states. She empowered the U.K. Meteorological Office to begin global climate change research. And of course, any government bureaucracy is going to find exactly what it was created to find, whether it exists or not. Her move eventually led to the 1988 creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations’ group that has come to be the “official” international agency for global warming alarmism. Now you know.

Watch this film (which is a far more "documented" documentary than the winner of the Emmy for the best so-called "documentary"). Don't be swindled.

Atlas Shrugged – 50 Years Later

There is much to commend, and much to condemn, in "Atlas Shrugged." Its object – to restore man to his rightful place in a free society – is wholesome. But its ethical basis – an inversion of the Christian values that predicate authentic capitalism – poisons its teachings.

I agree. This is why I'm not a libertarian (at least not of the Randian sort). Read more of Mark Skousen's opinion, with which I pretty much concur, here.

March Madness Live On Your Computer

If you don't like the game you're stuck watching in the Big Dance, you may watch any of the other games (live or played earlier) on your computer without paying a penny. You have to register, but it's no biggie--just opt out of all the "Send me third party e-mails" offers. Try it by clicking here, and Go Jackets!

Chapter 1-The Final Sacrifice: Hebrews (Part II)

Continuing with N.T. Wright's Following Jesus . . .

Secondly, Hebrews gives us a new reading of the Old Testament. Even where the Old Testament is more familiar to us, how the writer of Hebrews is reading it can at first seem odd. The point to grasp here is that Hebrews presents the Old Testament as an unfinished story in need of a final chapter. It requires Jesus and his sacrifice, with which he brings in the new covenant, as its final chapter. The Old Testament continually points beyond itself to a reality, a final dealing with sin, that it itself does not contain. This new reading unfolds in five steps.

First (chapter 1), the Old Testament speaks of angels serving someone greater than themselves. This can only be the Messiah, the Son of God. Second (chapter 2), the Old Testament says the entire creation is subject to human rule, which can only be true in the enthronement of the man Jesus. Third (chapters 3-4), the Old Testament speaks of a time of rest which occurs long after the Jews already dwell in Canaan; there must be a more permanent rest to come. Fourth (chapters of 5-7), the Old Testament speaks of a king who is also a priest. In Jewish categories this is an impossibility; yet, it is true of Jesus. And lastly (chapters 8-10), the Old Testament speaks of a new covenant which, unlike the system of animal sacrifice, will once and for all deal with sin. In each case, only Jesus is the fulfillment. This should show us that what God did in Jesus Christ was not an odd, isolated invasion into the world, but rather the climax of his long plan. Our faith rests upon the rock-solid plan of the Lord of history.

Third and last, Hebrews tells us of Jesus the Final Sacrifice. There is deep seated within human awareness the understanding of guilt and the need for atonement. Things which are wrong must be put right somehow. But the blood of bulls and goats, as Hebrews says, can't take away sins; those sacrifices pointed forward to the one sacrifice of Jesus himself that can and does purify us and make atonement. Look at what the Bible tells us about priests and the need for Jesus' sacrifice becomes clear: God created man to be the priests of all his creation, offering creation's worship and bringing order to it. Man sinned, so God chose Israel as a priestly nation to offer up worship and bring a solution to the problem of human sin. But Israel herself was sinful, so God chose a family of priests (Aaron's sons) for the sinful nation of priests. But these priests, too, were sinful; so God sent his own Son to be the sinless Priest and Sacrifice. Jesus' sacrifice is the point when humanity, in the person of a single man, offers itself fully to the creator. At last consciences can be truly washed clean, and human life is truly possible.

Next time: The Battle Won: Colossians


Technorati Tags: NT Wright, Hebrews

“It’s a big book, full of big stories with big characters. They have big ideas (not least about themselves) and make big mistakes. It’s about God and greed and grace; about life, lust, laughter, and loneliness. It’s about birth, beginnings, and betrayal; about siblings, squabbles, and sex; about power and prayer and prison and passion. And that’s only Genesis.”–N.T. Wright

Chapter 1-The Final Sacrifice: Hebrews (Part I)

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."-Hebrews 4:15-16

Hebrews is a difficult book. One way of looking at it, Wright says, would summarize it this way: a complex discussion of angels, followed by a treatment of what Psalm 95 means by 'entering God's rest,' moving on to Melchizedek and a listing of the tabernacle furniture, and ending with an exhortation to 'go outside the camp.' Hmmm. Sure there are a few high points along the way, like the great chapter on faith, but then there's all that stuff about sacrifice which we don't understand very well and are just glad we don't have to do!

Wright suggests there is a better way to approach Hebrews that does help us understand the life of following Jesus. First, it offers a compelling portrait of Jesus, the human high priest, and his cross. The opening passage above needs to be set within the sweep of Hebrews. Here it goes. In chapter 1, Jesus is not merely a special sort of angel. He is in fact superior to them; he is the Son of God. But before you start to get the wrong idea, chapter 2 emphasizes that he is also totally and truly human. This is very important. Jesus has not 'gone back to being just God again.' No, the same Jesus who lived our life and died our death has been exalted and glorified precisely as a human being. In chapter 3 and 4 Jesus is the true Joshua. In fact these are the same name; Joshua is Hebrew and Jesus is Greek. The point is that Jesus is the true Joshua who leads his people into their true promised land. In chapters 5, 6, and 7, Jesus is the true high priest. He is not a temporary priest from the house of Levi, but a priest forever, as Psalm 110 says, of the order of Melchizedek, whose call does not depend upon ancestry, but upon the call of God alone. Chapters 8-10 speak of Jesus' sacrifice and the new covenant. We will return to this theme in the final section.

Chapter 11, the well-known faith chapter, is significant because the important position in such Jewish listings is at the end. And who occupies that position? Jesus, of course. (My comment: The listing doesn't conclude until chapter 12, when Jesus is mentioned. Yet another reason to ignore chapter and verse divisions!) He is the ultimate hero of faith:

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted."-Hebrews 12:1-3

At this point I simply have to quote Wright, because he is summarizing, and I can't summarize his summary any better than he!

"The themes we have already looked at come to a head in this passage. Take them in reverse order: Jesus, the high priest, coming at the end of the great list of heroes. Jesus, the one who leads us into our promised land, the pioneer, the one who goes ahead to blaze the trail. Jesus, the truly human being, who has travelled the road of human suffering ahead of us. Jesus, now enthroned as Son of God. Jesus, therefore-as the final chapter 13 puts it-the same yesterday, today, and forever; Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, the one brought again from the dead. That is the picture of Jesus which Hebrews offers us; it is the Jesus who will guide us through life, the Jesus who meets us today as we feast at his table, the Jesus who summons us gently but clearly to follow him. And at the heart of this picture, we find the cross: the cross which Jesus endured on our behalf, which was the climax of his life of suffering and rejection, which was, as we shall see, the final sacrifice."

Technorati Tags: NT Wright, Hebrews

Alternative Browser Alliance

I think I can explain how I got on this bandwagon . . . I finally got the boys' computer an adapter so they can access our wireless internet at home. Their computer is running Windows Millenium Edition (ME) which is still a piece of garbage after all these years. Rather than use Internet Explorer (which is full of it's own problems) I installed Mozilla Firefox, which I have used myself for over a year now. Well, it had problems running on ME, and I couldn't get them solved. I also tried a flash-based browser for kids, but it REALLY bogged down their computer.

I checked around for some other browsers and found Opera as I told you last week. I loved it. It worked great on the boys' computer; it worked great on my laptop. Then I found this Alternative Browsers Alliance site and saw all the choices available and decided to start trying different ones. I now have K-meleon on the boys' computer (which I am using to post this), and I have settled on Opera for myself. I was also intrigued with Flock because it has some interesting blogging features, but I didn't like it overall.

So, what difference does all of this make? I think the boys over at the ABA are right when they say:

Competition keeps innovation going. If several products have to fight for market share, they have to continually one-up each other. End result: all browsers improve, everyone wins.

It hardly seems a coincidence that Microsoft stopped developing Internet Explorer when they trounced Netscape, then started again as soon as Firefox started making gains.

Security may be easier to manage when you only have one place to look, but it's also easier for the bad guys to crack. Right now, they can get 90% of the web just by targeting Internet Explorer on Windows. Now imagine that 90% spread out among IE, Firefox, Opera and Safari on Windows, PowerPC Macs, Intel Macs, and Linux. They'd have to settle for 10% or try to crack every combination they could. Web developers, on the other hand, designing for the common language of the web, would have no more trouble than they do today.

And who knows? You just might find yourself liking another browser better than you thought!

That's what happened to me!

Week in Review

• The State Department has belatedly learned that there are a large number of Muslims in Europe, and they have a plan.  Joseph Farah has a better plan.  (This is a MUST read, folks.)

• A Massachusetts Democrat and Michigan Republican led the charge for our early daylight savings that starts tonight.  They predict the change "will save consumers $4.4 billion and eliminate the need for three coal plants by the year 2020."  That really sounds made up!  But I have to say I love the change.  I wish we stayed on daylight savings year round!
  

• The idea of anarchists organizing themselves is always funny to me.

• A great mystery solved and clearly explained.  (It's visual; you have to click on it.)
  

• Ignorant media? Impossible.  We know they are all geniuses.
  

• Don't let yourself be ignorant.  Read "75 New Reasons to Reconsider the Alleged Need for Stem Cell Research that Destroys Human Embryos."  The document is only about half again as long as the title!
  

• This is two years old, but it is new to me and I'm sure it will be new to most of you.  It's an amazing song of regret.  Cry if necessary.
  

"Read the Scriptures, not as an attorney may read a will, merely to know the sense, but as the heir reads it, as a description and proof of his interest."
-John Newton

FJ-Preface

Well, Wright says some good stuff in his preface so I feel the need to mention that before we get to Hebrews in chapter 1. He begins with a call for us to look at the real Jesus, the one who challenges us and bids us do something about the plight of the world. FJ is about the So What? that follows from looking at the real, historical Jesus. We aren't to simply admire from a distance or, worse, to  tame him so he is easier handle.  He calls us to take action and follow him; what does that mean in today's world?

Wright argues that reading whole books (or at least large chunks) of the Bible at a time ought to be our primary activity rather than daily reading plans which fail to give one the "full flavor and thrust" of Scripture. For example, (here's a challenge to you) he says that Colossians can be read through in about 12 minutes and Hebrews in about an hour. This is how they were originally received, and reading them in such a way really is an aid to understanding what they say.  It is in this expostion of whole books that Wright really excels, as you will see in the first 6 chapters of Following Jesus.  Next up, The Final Sacrifice: Hebrews.

Following Jesus

I intend over the next two weeks to provide a summary of N.T. Wright's Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship. It is a compilation of twelve sermons in which Wright outlines the essential message of six New Testament books (Hebrews, Colossians, Matthew, John, Mark, and Revelation) looking in particular at their portrayal of Jesus and what he accomplished in his sacrificial death, and then he takes six key New Testament themes (resurrection, rebirth, temptation, hell, heaven, and new life) and considers their significance for the lives of present-day disciples. If you think that sounds dry, then you've never heard or read Wright's sermons before! He is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England and is an outstanding bible scholar, defender of Christianity, writer, and speaker. I have read Following Jesus before, but I want to take a de novo look at it for myself and so that others might be spurred to read and profit from it. We'll look at a chapter each day, so be sure to come back. You'll be able to click on the "Following Jesus" link under the "By Subject" heading in the left column to read all the entries.

Dueling Caption Contests

Contestant #1

Contestant #2

For disappearing acts, it's hard to beat what happens to the eight hours supposedly left after eight of sleep and eight of work.
-Doug Larson

Catching Up

These are some things I've meant to mention, but haven't because things are always so busy!

• Odd News--PETA's gonna be peeved. And is there a sudden bathroom shortage in the world? Apparently so in Cedar Rapids and a small German town. And I hope the Taiwanese have something better than this to defend themselves from China.
  

• Much Ado About Nothing--Ann Coulter makes her point again, just like she did with her "Jersey girls" comment, and the media intentionally misreport it while some conservatives are too stupid/prudish/intimidated to get it. Oh well. Don't give up Ann!
  

• Much More Ado About Even Less--Scooter Libby. Convicted of nothing so some D.C. liberals can feel like they got the Bush Administration. May he receive justice on appeal.
  

• This is good news, but beware--The BBC is going to show a documentary debunking the man-made global warming neo-communist lie. While this is good, even great, news watch out! The real warming is under left-wing collars.
  

New Browser

New Blog

I want to let you know about a new blog I'm doing to keep folks abreast of our homeschool happenings.  This is a recent post from it.  You can get to the blog by clicking here.

Lately Marian and the boys have especially enjoyed several books by Geraldine McCaughrean (pronounced "Ma - cork - run"). She is a British author whose specialties are mythology and children's literature. Her retellings of classic stories are excellent. They have read Hercules, Pilgrim's Progress, Moby Dick, and several of Shakespeare's plays. Additionally she has some excellent adaptations of Bible stories.  The Jesse Tree is one such title they enjoyed.  A Jesse tree is a depiction of Jesus' family tree in wood, stone, or stained glass so that the unlettered might learn.  She writes in her introduction:

A priest could point to the figures or symbols an tell the stories of those Old Testament kings, prophets, heroines, warriors.  And the tree itself served to show how the New Testament grew out of the Old Testament; how, for Christians, the birth of Jesus was not just a beginning, but a completion.  He was the flowering of a tree planted long before, by God's own design.  By tracing his earthly ancestry back to King David and beyond, it was easy to see Jesus as a real historical figure.

I even appreciate how she laments the "Puritan vandals" of the seventeenth century who attempted to destroy these Jesse trees in their attempt to eradicate all "graven images." Someone needed to say it.
The book is the wonderful interplay of a young boy who comes upon an old man who is making a Jesse tree at a church. The boy is full of questions for which the old man hasn't the time; but he begins to tell the boy the stories behind the symbols on the tree.   We look forward to reading many more of McCaughrean's books.  There is a link at the bottom of the right sidebar to many of her books on Amazon.  Take a look!

In the beginning?

The scene: Jacob is pulled over for speeding in the hallway.

Me: "Jacob!"

Jacob, nervously: "Yes, sir?"

Me: "Jacob, can you ever remember a time when there wasn't a rule against running in the house?"

Jacob: "Nooooooo."

Me: "How long has that been a rule?"

Jacob: "Ever since when the world was created!"

And in my head I could hear Adam having this same conversation with Cain and Abel.

Night

"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference."

~Elie Wiesel

I recently finished Night by Elie Wiesel. It is a short book, so it will fit into a busy schedule. It is Wiesel's account of the concentration camps of World War II. A teenager at the time, Wiesel and his family were taken from Romania in 1945 and shipped, literally, to Auschwitz. I don't want to tell you what happens; I simply want you to read the book. Try to get the new, 2006 edition. Ignore the fact that it will likely have "Oprah's Book Club" on it; this book mattered long before Oprah made it required reading. The new edition is translated by Wiesel's wife and represents a better conveyance of Wiesel's story. As he says, "She knows my voice." Night is both horrifying and irresistible at the same time.

Wiesel's struggles are not only with Nazi's, but also with God. In fact the original text of Night starts this way:

In the beginning there was faith—which is childish; trust—which is vain; and illusion—which is dangerous.We believed in God, trusted in man, and lived with the illusion that every one of us has been entrusted with a sacred spark from the Shekhinah’s flame; that every one of us carries in his eyes and in his soul a reflection of God’s image.That was the source if not the cause of all our ordeals.

Throughout the book Wiesel speaks of no longer believing in this God. This theme reaches a climax with the hanging of another teenage boy. All of the prisoners are forced to watch the hanging. A man asks, "Where is God now?" And Wiesel answers within himself, "Where is He? Here He is. He is hanging here on this gallows..."

One of the most remarkable things about the book is Francois Mauriac's original introduction to it. It is a Christian introduction to a very Jewish book, and it is very profound in its statements about the Holocaust and the Crucifixion. I am amazed it has survived to be included in the new edition. Mauriac writes of his first meeting with Wiesel and the horrific story he told to him:

And I, who believe that God is love, what answer could I give my young questioner, whose dark eyes still held the reflection of that angelic sadness which had appeared one day upon the face of the hanged child? What did I say to him? Did I speak of that other Jew, his brother, who may have resembled him - the Crucified, whose Cross has conquered the world? Did I affirm that the stumbling block to his faith was the cornerstone of mine, and that the conformity between the Cross and the suffering of men was in my eyes the key to that impenetrable mystery whereon the faith of his childhood had perished? Zion, however, has risen up again from the crematories and the charnel houses. The Jewish nation has been resurrected from among its thousands of dead. It is through them that it lives again. We do not know the worth of one single drop of blood, one single tear. All is grace. If the Eternal is the Eternal, the last word for each one of us belongs to Him. This is what I should have told this Jewish child. But l could only embrace him, weeping.

You will do the same. Read Night.

Official State Sandwich?

Today I had what should surely be the official sandwich of the state of Georgia--peanut butter and peach preserves. Not a bad combo at all. (My blog posts are becoming foodie. Hmmmm. Time for a new blog?)

I might need a doggy bag

I'm a little ashamed since I just made mini pizza burgers (Krystal-sized patties on rolls with mozzarella and pizza sauce) for dinner last night. Meanwhile, Denny's Beer Barrel Pub of Clearfield County, PA made a record 123 pound burger! And it looks good, too! The only drawback is that it costs $379. It's supposed to feed 100 people, but I'm not so sure that I would share. They also have 2, 3, 6, and 15-pound burgers on the menu, so get your own burger!

Step Away From the Keyboard

I made the comment to Marian that I "hate these people who fast from the internet for Lent." She had never heard of such a thing, but I see it every year at this time. Here's an example:

40 days away...to repent, to reflect, to listen to His voice.



I am observing Lent with internet silence.



May the Lord speak to your hearts and minds as you listen for Him this season.

Now, "hate" is too strong a word in this case; I simply am disappointed that I won't be able to enjoy reading the person's blog for 40 days. Marian's response when she understood? "Hate them! You should admire them! You need to do that!"

CSI: Jerusalem

The godless are getting giddy. They actually think that they can disprove the resurrection with evidence found in Jerusalem. Check this out:

"Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archaeologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua."

Here's the real kicker: "But film-makers Cameron [of Titanic fame] and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archaeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family." DNA tests? Have they subpoenaed Jesus to get a DNA sample from him? Did they find trace DNA on the Holy Grail or something? This is absurd! There is apparently a book that came out last year which advances all this nonsense. I guess we never heard of it because many of the same folks were too busy going nuts for DaVinci Code at the time.

A press conference is scheduled for Monday. Stay tuned.

Vulgarity

One of the blog posts I've highlighted in the right sidebar is "On Vulgar Language" by Peter Leithart. It is a very interesting look at what is permitted and prohibited by the Bible in regards to our speech. I recommend you take a look at it. One thing we need to remember is that being a Christian does not mean being a goody two shoes. Being a Christian is not a "Don't drink," "Don't smoke," "Don't swear" proposition.

Having said that, I myself am decidedly a "Don't swear" guy. This is how it happened. It all begins in 5th grade. (Harps playing as we fade to the kickball field at Pine Street Elementary School circa 1980 . . .) It was during recess. I got thrown out at home playing kickball and remember saying, even whispering to myself, "Dammit!" Some kids (especially the ones named "Shane") cursed all the time. Not me. I was shocked at myself, which is why I remember it to this day.

The second foul mouth moment was during PE the next year. We were having a team basketball shooting contest that awarded something like one point for a layup, two for a free throw, and three points for a long jumper behind some line. Each person got thirty seconds or so to score as many points as possible. Now, I am very competitive in such situations. One of my guys, when it was his turn, only tried to make 3-pointers. He wasn't coming close. It still ticks me off. I shouted out something like, "No, dumbass!" Again I was shocked. Everyone was looking around for the shouter. So was I! He was never found. Well, I had managed to escape the scorn of the teacher, but not of myself. Recognizing the ruinous path I was on, I quit cold turkey. I don't think I have used a genuine "curse" word since. But watch out in traffic; I'm liable to call you a "peabrain," "numbskull," "bonehead," or the like. In fact, I passed a "goofball" on the way home this very evening.

Now, for a serious discussion of vulgarity, check out the Leithart post. Very interesting. Also, check out the poll at the top of the right sidebar.

Should've heeded this advice before I became a city carrier . . .

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.
–Henry David Thoreau

Week in Review

• I for one am glad that the NCAA came to its senses regarding football clock rules. If they want to shorten games, sacrifice some $$$$$ and get rid of a few commercials. TV timeouts stink! Always have, always will!

• Someone explain this to me (from ajc.com): "Texas Tech (16-10, RPI 34) seemed out after four straight losses but then won a big one at Texas Tech Tuesday night. The Red Raiders now have two wins over Texas Tech and one over Kansas." Huh? Is Texas Tech in the role of Sybil here, or what?

• Thomas Sowell has written a series of articles on the global warming hysteria called "Global Hot Air" I, II, and III. He begins, "The political left's favorite argument is that there is no argument." How true. Sowell is always worth the read.
  

• Cartoon of the Week--Well, I had to choose this one, don't you think?
  

• Given the new Congress it may take an executive order from the President to continue to protect military chaplains' prayers.

• And I can't forget this--talking urinals!

My Man Calvin

As you may know by now, Calvin Johnson, Mr. All-World at Georgia Tech (boy, just imagine how good he would've been at Georgia), put up some decent combine numbers for NFL scouts. A 4.33 40. . . 11 foot standing broad jump. . . 43 inch vertical. All at 6-5, 235 or so.

There is a great thread about Calvin on a Tampa Bay Bucs message board. For all the hype about him, though, his best feature is that he is a humble guy and a team player. But that's not why he's a #1 prospect; this is why:

Kudos to Jim Marshall

I was incredibly pleased to hear today that my congressman, Jim Marshall (D), went against his party, but for his constituents, and voted against the Terrorist Survival Act of 2007. This is what he said from the House floor in the debate leading up to the vote:

"The anti-surge resolution is akin to sitting on the sidelines, and booing in the middle of our own team's play because we don't like the coach's call. I cannot join mid-play nay-saying that discourages even one of those engaged in this current military effort in Baghdad."

You've seen my previous letters (1) (2) to Mr. Marshall; here is my pat on the back I sent to him this evening:

Dear Congressman Marshall,

I was so pleased to learn of your vote today. It is a sad fact, but I know that it took great political courage on your part to vote as you did. It also gave me great pleasure to explain to my young sons the significance of your vote. You acted as a true statesman and I will not soon forget.

My wife's great uncle died fighting in France in World War I. My stepbrother is currently in the Air Force and serving in the Middle East. Many others of our family have served in between. Thank you for your unwavering support of our troops and your refusal to play political games with these very serious, and I think non-political, matters.

Marshall and Gene Taylor of Mississippi were the only 2 Democrats to break with their party, which means so-called "conservative" Democrats like Heath Shuler showed their real colors. Additionally, 17 Republicans broke with their party and voted for terrorists. Now this all goes to the Senate for more shenanigans tomorrow.

Another Letter to My Congressman

Given that the most ridiculous of resolutions, H. Con. Res. 63, is before the U.S. Congress this weekend, I wrote again to Jim Marshall. First, here is the text of H. Con. Res. 63:

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Hogwash. Now, for what it's worth, here's my letter to Congressman Marshall:

Dear Congressman Marshall,

I have written to you previously concerning my support for H.R. 511. Unfortunately the same politics which have taken hold of the Senate seem to have seized the House as well, so that you now have before you H. Con. Res. 63, which is at best a waste of time and at worst a vote of confidence for our enemy.

I believe this vote will tell me a great deal about the man who represents me in Congress, and so I will be watching your vote very closely. My instincts are that you disfavor H. Con. Res. 63, but that you may well vote for it due to pressure from your Party leaders. Part of the reason I did not vote for you this past year is that I feared you might be subject to such pressure concerning the war.

Whether H. Con. Res. 63 passes or fails, I will be looking at only one person's vote--yours. I pray that you do the right thing for this country and our troops by voting NO.

Pretty straightforward. Not "fanatical." Kind of a challenge to his manhood. I hope he's up to that challenge. I'll definitely let you know how he votes.

"In God We Trust" Motto Still on New $1 Coins

The U.S. Mint is beginning a new $1 coin series featuring the Presidents of the United States. The first four look like so:

Apparently there has been a rumor that the familiar "In God We Trust" motto will not be part of the design. This is not true. Though the phrase does not appear on the front or back of the coin, neither does "E Pluribus Unum" nor the year and location the coin is minted. These all appear on the side of the coins:

I suppose some will be upset by this "marginalization" of God. I guess the whole "In God We Trust" thing is so generic that it doesn't bother me so much. I'd prefer "In Yahweh We Trust" or "In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Now that would be something to fight over!

From the Floor of the House Yesterday . . .

Rep. Terry Everett [R-AL]:

If we wanted to have a meaningful debate on the real issues facing this country, we would take up Congressman Sam Johnson's bill that opposes any effort to cut off or restrict funding for our military.

But that is not the debate we are having today. Instead, we are debating a nonbinding resolution that, in my mind, can only hurt our troops who are on the battlefield as we speak, and this resolution can only give comfort to those who wish to kill Americans.

Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX]:

And I am not a big one on process. I haven't been here that long. I don't know that I understand process all that well. But why in the world would we not allow a vote or even a motion to recommit on, say, Sam Johnson's bill, H.R. 511? Sam Johnson's bill, a simple two-page bill that details all of the fine things done by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ends with this simple paragraph: Faithful support of Congress. Congress will not cut off or restrict funding for units and members in the Armed Forces that the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way.

Amen, gentlemen!

Happy Valentine's Day!

A Valentine we received from a family friend:

Week in Review

After a long hiatus the greatly heralded Week in Review makes a glorious return. It's bigger. It's better. It's bodacious and contagious. It's so good these can't wait till Friday!

• Now I know what's wrong with half of the city carriers at the Conyers Post Office!

• I can't believe I didn't mention this one before. The Left has perfected "argument by animal." That is, they don't really make an argument; they just let pictures of (allegedly) helpless animals (and people's natural instinct to say "Ooooohhhhhh!" in such situations) make their argument for them. Well, there's no telling how many "sensitive illiterates" (as Harold Bloom called American high school graduates) fell for this photo that made the rounds in all the global warming hysteria press last week. Your supposed to think these bears' polar cap melted down to nothing and now they're going to perish while adrift at sea. This is just a bit of iceberg drifting southward that the bears find convenient and fun. Therefore, companies like Exxon should surrender their profits to the government so they can save the planet.
  
  

• It's pretty predictable, but you have to admit "Lust in Space" was a pretty good headline for the bizarre NASA love triangle.
  

• Video of the Week--Ouch, ouch, and ouch again! Which is your favorite? (Warning. You will get the finger at the end from a surprise celebrity. Actually, it's not for you; it's probably for someone like Helen Thomas!)

DrewDrew Go

The boys are always game for a stop at QuikTrip. Even a freezing day doesn't seem to deter them from desiring a frozen smoothie. So, driving home after church recently I heard a navigational voice saying, "Turn left. Then turn right into QuikTrip." Who needs a TomTom when you have a "DrewDrew?"