Two Nations
Ah the ways of the flesh... we lazily oversimplify the complex, but our greater tendency is to take the simplest truth and beat it to death with analysis.
Is intellect over-rated? I would argue that it has to be, because it is both inconsequential to our eternal standing and is most often wasted on all that will pass away. I believe there is intellectual equity in the spiritual realms in that our brains are simply the instruments we use to express the decisions of our hearts... suggesting that humility and pride are the best measuring sticks of the concious and unconcious soul.
So here I argue that there are two nations occupying our fifty states. One is composed of the followers of "The Way" and their sidlers. (sidler...a Seinfeld reference) The other is composed of the rejecters of Christ and their sidlers. The sidlers are clueless and lost in cultural distractions, but share general values, identities, and traditions with their respective nations. However the "principals" have made "the decision" in a battle that is older than human creation... started among fallen and faithful spiritual forces of an older world.
Can our experience be reduced to good versus evil? Well I think its always has been that simple... and that complex. It is a battle whose nature is as varied as the number of human hearts, but it is the single undercurrent to every aspect of human existence.
As we say in Greentown, you can't tell the players without a program. But if you're tuned-in to the program the cultural and political landscape becomes a fascinating and instructive window into what is really going on out there... and reveals our responsibilities as consumers and voters.
I believe the simplest mind that is tuned-in to God's program can look out upon our culture and determine what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, praiseworthy... and what is not. Its as simple as that.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Justice for Ms. Lin and Family
Almost 27 years ago when Stanley "Tookie" Williams visited the Brookhaven Motel in Los Angeles he left with approximately 100 stolen dollars. He also left part of the face of Yu-Chin Lin, a 43-year-old female Taiwanese immigrant, splattered across the room... which can happen when a shotgun is fired at close range. Also murdered were Ms. Lin's 76-year-old father and 63-year-old mother. Here is a picture of a man at the Tookie vigil at San Quenton on December 12th holding up a forensic picture of the portion of Ms. Lin's face that was left intact.
http://www.zombietime.com/tookie/
Witnesses testified that Tookie, when talking with friends, referred to these immigrants as "Budhha-Heads."
I know that this picture is disturbing but words fail to describe an ugliness such as this. I figure the MSM keeps pictures like this away from us for a reason... they want passions inflamed in support of their pet issues... not against them. Its probably the same reason that we no longer see images from 9/11... and no movie has been made with planes flying into towers, people jumping from burning towers, people burning to death, and towers collapsing... etc. Scenes like that might stir up support for the war on terror and benefit the president's popularity.
Anyway, I hope that Mr Williams at least privately felt remorse and made peace with God over these pointless murders.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Wisconsin Educators Seek To Indoctrinate
I found this piece by Ari Kaufman in Front Page Magazine:
The day before Thanksgiving, third-grade students at the Frank Allis Elementary School in Madison, Wisconsin, were given a curious lesson in civic responsibility. They were told to write letters to their congressman and various media outlets calling for an end to the war in Iraq.
Parents were sent a letter justifying this political indoctrination as a social studies lesson. “The Frank Allis third grade will be writing letters to encourage an end to the war in Iraq,” the letter explained. “The letter writing will teach civic responsibility, a social studies standard, while providing an authentic opportunity to improve composition skills and handwriting.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20506
As might be expected, there were those in Wisconsin that took offense that a public school would attempt to indoctrinate 8 and 9-year-olds into the left-wing anti-war movement, and the assignment was eventually dropped.
But to me this story represents the arrogance in public education. A bachelor's degree and a master's in education are admirable accomplishments, but they do not not instill depth, wisdom, or even common sense in an individual... nor do they equip a teacher with some weighty insight into current events or superior judgement into the proper attitudes to hold concerning those issues. An educator should teach, not indoctrinate, and there are many that manage to stimulate thought and teach a subject without interjecting their own political biases.
The story goes on to say that Congressman Mark Green, R-WI, wrote to the school and suggested that the young students could hone their writing skills and be taught civic responsibility by writing to our soldiers and thanking them for their service... but so far this suggestion has not elicited a reply.
I found this piece by Ari Kaufman in Front Page Magazine:
The day before Thanksgiving, third-grade students at the Frank Allis Elementary School in Madison, Wisconsin, were given a curious lesson in civic responsibility. They were told to write letters to their congressman and various media outlets calling for an end to the war in Iraq.
Parents were sent a letter justifying this political indoctrination as a social studies lesson. “The Frank Allis third grade will be writing letters to encourage an end to the war in Iraq,” the letter explained. “The letter writing will teach civic responsibility, a social studies standard, while providing an authentic opportunity to improve composition skills and handwriting.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20506
As might be expected, there were those in Wisconsin that took offense that a public school would attempt to indoctrinate 8 and 9-year-olds into the left-wing anti-war movement, and the assignment was eventually dropped.
But to me this story represents the arrogance in public education. A bachelor's degree and a master's in education are admirable accomplishments, but they do not not instill depth, wisdom, or even common sense in an individual... nor do they equip a teacher with some weighty insight into current events or superior judgement into the proper attitudes to hold concerning those issues. An educator should teach, not indoctrinate, and there are many that manage to stimulate thought and teach a subject without interjecting their own political biases.
The story goes on to say that Congressman Mark Green, R-WI, wrote to the school and suggested that the young students could hone their writing skills and be taught civic responsibility by writing to our soldiers and thanking them for their service... but so far this suggestion has not elicited a reply.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Fiesta Brady
Forgive me, but its been a slow news week...
I found this tidbit about my favorite college quarterback from my favorite college football team in the Sun Times:
Quarterback, No. 10, Notre Dame, 6-3, 232 pounds, junior
Essential demeanor: Bright and polite; an Abercrombie model with a deadly gun.
Born: Oct. 27, 1984 (the weekend rookie Michael Jordan began regular-season play for the Bulls).
Father: Ty, a home developer, never played football past high school.
Mother: Robin, a homemaker-plus, ran track vs. the boys at a small high school in northern Ohio.
High school: Dublin (Ohio) Coffman.
First award: In 1991, first grade, ''Most organized desk.''
First QB job: In 1993, age 9, the Wildcats, Dublin Football League (junior division).
Began serious weight training: In 1997, seventh grade.
Draws great inspiration from: The Bible.
Doesn't drink: Soda pop (even diet).
In high school: Skyrocketed after new coach introduced crisp pass-oriented offense in his junior year.
In college: Skyrocketed after new coach introduced crisp pass-oriented offense in his junior year.
College recruiting irony: A Methodist, he was recruited by Tyrone Willingham, a Methodist, to play at the grand Roman Catholic football emporium.
Ecumenical note: His father is a Roman Catholic.
Number of Notre Dame All-Americans from Ohio: 14, including Harry Stuhldreher (Massillon), Alan Page (Canton) and Bob Golic (Willowick). Most recent: Frank Stams (Akron), 1988.
Biggest strengths: Confidence; high level and rapid response of his football IQ; variety of balls he throws.
Biggest weakness: Sometimes talks too fast, especially to expanding media mass.
Beyond his ears, friends fear: A career-ending injury to his finely-hinged frame.
Is he ready for the NFL?: Were the Beatles ready for ''Ed Sullivan''?
Most compelling argument for playing next year at Notre Dame: Vague notion of placating echoes.
Most compelling argument for moving to the NFL: Irretrievable earning year, accelerated chance to continue closing in on QB legends.
Without him this season: Notre Dame struggles to be 4-7.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/campus/cst-spt-quinn28.html
Monday, December 26, 2005
This is The Left
Here are some pictures from San Francisco rallies. http://www.zombietime.com/ If the Democrat base doesn't scare you, then you're not paying attention.
This kind of misinformation and hatred was spawned when the Democrat Party abandoned truth for the sake of its political future. We are a poorer nation because of it.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
First Things First
The Democrats are calling for an investigation into the NSA eavesdropping matter, no doubt worrying that the Bush administration might be using the presidency to collect information and spy upon poor unsuspecting citizens.
I would suggest here that a BIG problem our government has is that they jump into new investigations before they finish the old ones.
Remember the discovery at the Clinton White House of more than 900 secret FBI personnel files, including dossiers of prominent Republicans? Did we get the who, how, when, and why of all that? Was Clinton gathering info that would protect us from terrorists?
I don't remember the Democrats, the mainstream media, or the rest of the Left's stormtroopers being all that inspired towards getting to the bottom of that little outrageous misuse of power.
I'm not a smart man, Jenny, but eavesdropping on terrorists and people in the states that they like to talk to might be demonstrating a competence in insuring our security. And if we contrast this with the sleazy machinations of window-peeking into the private matters of political opponents... well the Bush administration does seem to have loftier goals in play.
The Democrats are calling for an investigation into the NSA eavesdropping matter, no doubt worrying that the Bush administration might be using the presidency to collect information and spy upon poor unsuspecting citizens.
I would suggest here that a BIG problem our government has is that they jump into new investigations before they finish the old ones.
Remember the discovery at the Clinton White House of more than 900 secret FBI personnel files, including dossiers of prominent Republicans? Did we get the who, how, when, and why of all that? Was Clinton gathering info that would protect us from terrorists?
I don't remember the Democrats, the mainstream media, or the rest of the Left's stormtroopers being all that inspired towards getting to the bottom of that little outrageous misuse of power.
I'm not a smart man, Jenny, but eavesdropping on terrorists and people in the states that they like to talk to might be demonstrating a competence in insuring our security. And if we contrast this with the sleazy machinations of window-peeking into the private matters of political opponents... well the Bush administration does seem to have loftier goals in play.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
If Every United States Congressman Looked Like This...
There Would Be World Peace.
I think we all remember Katherine Harris from the 2000 election when she was the Florida Secretary of State. She stood there in her tasteful business suit and declared George Bush the winner in Florida.
Call me crazy, but I think she looks even better in this picture.
American Insurgents Attempt to Murder Cinncinnati Mosque
Evidently a small explosive device detonated on the porch of the Islamic Association of Cincinnati which is attached to a mosque. Only the door was damaged. It happened a couple days ago two hours after evening prayers and no one was hurt.
First of all its a credit to our citizens and this nation of laws that such a pathetic act (or much worse) doesn't happen more often. Look at the facts:
We have a government that has shown itself incapable of securing our borders. Our immigration policy is an absolute joke. Political correctness instead of common sense is screening passengers at airports. One of our two major political parties is giving daily aid to our enemy. And no, the Muslim communities in the U.S. haven't exactly been leading the way in the war on terror.
When government fails, frustrated idiots do stupid things and take the law in their own hands.
Is it wrong? Absolutely.
If this country was united and if the government was doing its job would that mosque in Cinncinnati have been attacked?
I don't think so.
Evidently a small explosive device detonated on the porch of the Islamic Association of Cincinnati which is attached to a mosque. Only the door was damaged. It happened a couple days ago two hours after evening prayers and no one was hurt.
First of all its a credit to our citizens and this nation of laws that such a pathetic act (or much worse) doesn't happen more often. Look at the facts:
We have a government that has shown itself incapable of securing our borders. Our immigration policy is an absolute joke. Political correctness instead of common sense is screening passengers at airports. One of our two major political parties is giving daily aid to our enemy. And no, the Muslim communities in the U.S. haven't exactly been leading the way in the war on terror.
When government fails, frustrated idiots do stupid things and take the law in their own hands.
Is it wrong? Absolutely.
If this country was united and if the government was doing its job would that mosque in Cinncinnati have been attacked?
I don't think so.
A Big Week for Dems and Friends
Lets see, the Democrats successfully blocked drilling in Alaska's Anwar so there will be no loss of influence for dictators in South America and the Middle East... not to mention the positive effect on oil prices and any domestic optimism that might have followed... has be averted. Ahhh...
Hmm, combing the airwaves for suspicious words and phrases or patterns will no longer be an effective tool to fight terrorists and their plots, leaving the President less capable of defending us. Leaks, leaks, love those leaks! Good... good...
What else... what else... Oh! ...Democrats have exhibited the proper lack of resolve in fighting terrorism by opposing the Patriot Act... reinforcing the "Paper Tiger" image, and encouraging the Islamofascists to hang on for just three more years!!!
Only Wednesday... and so much accomplished!
Lets see, the Democrats successfully blocked drilling in Alaska's Anwar so there will be no loss of influence for dictators in South America and the Middle East... not to mention the positive effect on oil prices and any domestic optimism that might have followed... has be averted. Ahhh...
Hmm, combing the airwaves for suspicious words and phrases or patterns will no longer be an effective tool to fight terrorists and their plots, leaving the President less capable of defending us. Leaks, leaks, love those leaks! Good... good...
What else... what else... Oh! ...Democrats have exhibited the proper lack of resolve in fighting terrorism by opposing the Patriot Act... reinforcing the "Paper Tiger" image, and encouraging the Islamofascists to hang on for just three more years!!!
Only Wednesday... and so much accomplished!
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Democrats Demand Civil Liberties for Terrorists
With their political base continuing to shrink, Democrats have reached out to another minority in an effort to shore up their numbers. By denying an up-or-down vote on the Patriot Act and threatening the President over NSA eavesdropping, the Democrats hope to garner the coveted terrorist vote in the 2006 elections. Though running the risk that most Americans may be more concerned with their security than the rights of the murderers trying to kill them, the Democrats have decided to charge ahead in their efforts to "take the side" of the oppressed and under-represented terrorists here and around the world.
Note: This reporter has no access to the Democrat Leadership and must determine their intentions through observation and conjecture.
With their political base continuing to shrink, Democrats have reached out to another minority in an effort to shore up their numbers. By denying an up-or-down vote on the Patriot Act and threatening the President over NSA eavesdropping, the Democrats hope to garner the coveted terrorist vote in the 2006 elections. Though running the risk that most Americans may be more concerned with their security than the rights of the murderers trying to kill them, the Democrats have decided to charge ahead in their efforts to "take the side" of the oppressed and under-represented terrorists here and around the world.
Note: This reporter has no access to the Democrat Leadership and must determine their intentions through observation and conjecture.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
The Defeat that Really Concerns the Democrats
The problem with being "character-challenged," a pathology that afflicts the Democrat Leadership, is that you lose your ability to see beyond your own selfish interests. The "big picture" is not service, and leaving a legacy of freedom and stability for generations to come... but rather a collage of polls, sound-bites, and talking points focused on nothing noble... just that which will return them to power... no matter the cost.
The Democrats frenzied concerns are not for our security, but rather the securing of the elections of 2006. They take no joy in Iraqi elections or a robust economy because good news for America is bad news for their ambitions. With negativity and defeatism their banner and battlecry... they die just a little with each of our victories... and choke on each morsel of positive news.
Mohammed Atta hated America so much that he invited his own destruction in order to strike out against us. The Democrat's efforts to destroy the Bush Administration may be temporarily cathartic to their pain, but weilding a sword of negativity and revenge becomes a burdensome endeavor... a poison whose ills afflict the perpetrator as much as the victim.
Reid, Pelosi, Dean, and the rest probably began their careers with unselfish ideals and hopes for our nation. But somewhere in the political struggle they lost sight of even the most basic and primary tenets of patriotism, loyalty, and service to country. Their methods are good neither for the country nor their Party, but there is nothing reasonable in their fanaticism.
The problem with being "character-challenged," a pathology that afflicts the Democrat Leadership, is that you lose your ability to see beyond your own selfish interests. The "big picture" is not service, and leaving a legacy of freedom and stability for generations to come... but rather a collage of polls, sound-bites, and talking points focused on nothing noble... just that which will return them to power... no matter the cost.
The Democrats frenzied concerns are not for our security, but rather the securing of the elections of 2006. They take no joy in Iraqi elections or a robust economy because good news for America is bad news for their ambitions. With negativity and defeatism their banner and battlecry... they die just a little with each of our victories... and choke on each morsel of positive news.
Mohammed Atta hated America so much that he invited his own destruction in order to strike out against us. The Democrat's efforts to destroy the Bush Administration may be temporarily cathartic to their pain, but weilding a sword of negativity and revenge becomes a burdensome endeavor... a poison whose ills afflict the perpetrator as much as the victim.
Reid, Pelosi, Dean, and the rest probably began their careers with unselfish ideals and hopes for our nation. But somewhere in the political struggle they lost sight of even the most basic and primary tenets of patriotism, loyalty, and service to country. Their methods are good neither for the country nor their Party, but there is nothing reasonable in their fanaticism.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Lovers?
John McCain and Harry Reid were caught sneaking out from behind a tree today. Standing far apart they tried to look innocent but observers feared the worst.
Actually this is a picture from some lame Time Magazine article about people of the year or some such nonsense... I didn't read the real caption figuring my own would surely be as credible as anything TIME magazine might have to say.
Treason?
Hanging works for me...
I found this lovely illustration on David Horowitz's "Front Page Magazine."
Always good reading.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Note to Democrats: Politics Don't Protect Us
Well here we go again.
Democrats gutted the intelligence agencies and set up road blocks discouraging inter-agency communications... and then they trumpeted the failure of the intelligence communities on 9/11... on "Bush's watch" as they are fond of saying.
Democrats voted to invade Iraq... but when the going got tough they said they were misled and called the President a liar.
And now, after grandstanding in the 9/11 commission over our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad... the Democrats are bemoaning the fact that the President is aquiring that information by eavesdropping on terrorists.
The Democrat Leadership was briefed more than a dozen times about these communication intercepts and the activities involved... and now they are shocked, SHOCKED to learn of this activity... and conveniently announce their outrage on a day when their is good news over the election in Iraq.
How selfish and wreckless does a politician have to be to put politics above the safety of millions of American citizens? How outrageous is it to leak sensitive information to the press, giving terrorists (who are trying to kill American men, women, and children) a "heads-up" over the methods we use to prevent their attacks?
Politicians who compromise our security possess the same patriotism that trashes our Commander-in-Chief and questions the morality of our troops in a time of war. These politicians are called Democrats.
Well here we go again.
Democrats gutted the intelligence agencies and set up road blocks discouraging inter-agency communications... and then they trumpeted the failure of the intelligence communities on 9/11... on "Bush's watch" as they are fond of saying.
Democrats voted to invade Iraq... but when the going got tough they said they were misled and called the President a liar.
And now, after grandstanding in the 9/11 commission over our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad... the Democrats are bemoaning the fact that the President is aquiring that information by eavesdropping on terrorists.
The Democrat Leadership was briefed more than a dozen times about these communication intercepts and the activities involved... and now they are shocked, SHOCKED to learn of this activity... and conveniently announce their outrage on a day when their is good news over the election in Iraq.
How selfish and wreckless does a politician have to be to put politics above the safety of millions of American citizens? How outrageous is it to leak sensitive information to the press, giving terrorists (who are trying to kill American men, women, and children) a "heads-up" over the methods we use to prevent their attacks?
Politicians who compromise our security possess the same patriotism that trashes our Commander-in-Chief and questions the morality of our troops in a time of war. These politicians are called Democrats.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Radical Islam and the Treatment of Women
Shahid Mehdi, an Islamic Scholar stated in a televised interview that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Did he say this in Saudi Arabia? No, this statement was issued in Copenhagen. And if you consider the sharp rise in the reported rapes and beatings of Scandenavian women by "immigrants," you may assume Mehdi's followers believe this policy applies to western women. Charges of rape in Sweden have tripled in the past 20 years and there are 6 times as many reported rape cases involving children under 15. A study by Ann Christine Hjelm, a lawyer, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents.
On David Horowitz's Front Page I found this story about two girls who were attacked on their way to a New Years Eve party in Sweden. Malin and Amanda were assaulted, raped, and beaten savagely by four Somali immigrants.
Sharon Lapkin reports a story from Australia about a Muslim man who:
...told the court he had committed four attacks on girls as young as 13 because they had no right to say “no.” They were not covering their face or wearing a headscarf, and therefore, the rapist proclaimed: “I’m not doing anything wrong.”
Many Islamofascists believe that it is just a matter of time until the West belongs to them. And as the multiculturalism of the West psychologically empowers their totalitarian ambitions, they grow bolder. Its not much of a stretch for one of these radicals to look at an unveiled Norwegian or Swedish girl and see nothing but an object, a piece of infidel property or loot to be pilfered.
Still, its evidently worse for females in Saudi Arabia as James Woolsey relates:
Religious police in Saudi Arabia forced some young girls fleeing a burning school back inside to their deaths because they were not properly veiled. This is a fanaticism that knows no bounds.
And Lapkin reports that in some parts of Pakistan "gang rape" is an "officially sanctified method" of controlling social values and punishing crime. When a young man committed an offense against a Pakistan farming village, the village council ordered that his sister be taken to a hut where she was raped repeatedly by four men.
So where is the outrage? You might expect it to come from liberal women's groups, but generally they save their outrage for "Things Republican." Any "crusade" they might start against the mistreatment of women by radical Islam might be construed as aligning themselves with the Bush administration... so thats not going to happen.
And while I'm sure moderate Muslims cringe upon hearing such horror stories, their voices are silent.
We hear of the beheading of hostages, but some how these attacks on women and girls, justified by religious beliefs is much more troubling. The barbarism described above is indicative of the kind of evil that threatens our world. And since it will not be defeated by understanding words or placating gestures, the liberals and multiculturalists of Europe are no match for it. This evil must be engaged consistently and preemptively because every foothold it acquires is a step towards our destruction. America needs to keep in power, and elect to power, representatives that understand just what we are up against... and remarkably many of our present leaders do not.
Shahid Mehdi, an Islamic Scholar stated in a televised interview that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Did he say this in Saudi Arabia? No, this statement was issued in Copenhagen. And if you consider the sharp rise in the reported rapes and beatings of Scandenavian women by "immigrants," you may assume Mehdi's followers believe this policy applies to western women. Charges of rape in Sweden have tripled in the past 20 years and there are 6 times as many reported rape cases involving children under 15. A study by Ann Christine Hjelm, a lawyer, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents.
On David Horowitz's Front Page I found this story about two girls who were attacked on their way to a New Years Eve party in Sweden. Malin and Amanda were assaulted, raped, and beaten savagely by four Somali immigrants.
Sharon Lapkin reports a story from Australia about a Muslim man who:
...told the court he had committed four attacks on girls as young as 13 because they had no right to say “no.” They were not covering their face or wearing a headscarf, and therefore, the rapist proclaimed: “I’m not doing anything wrong.”
Many Islamofascists believe that it is just a matter of time until the West belongs to them. And as the multiculturalism of the West psychologically empowers their totalitarian ambitions, they grow bolder. Its not much of a stretch for one of these radicals to look at an unveiled Norwegian or Swedish girl and see nothing but an object, a piece of infidel property or loot to be pilfered.
Still, its evidently worse for females in Saudi Arabia as James Woolsey relates:
Religious police in Saudi Arabia forced some young girls fleeing a burning school back inside to their deaths because they were not properly veiled. This is a fanaticism that knows no bounds.
And Lapkin reports that in some parts of Pakistan "gang rape" is an "officially sanctified method" of controlling social values and punishing crime. When a young man committed an offense against a Pakistan farming village, the village council ordered that his sister be taken to a hut where she was raped repeatedly by four men.
So where is the outrage? You might expect it to come from liberal women's groups, but generally they save their outrage for "Things Republican." Any "crusade" they might start against the mistreatment of women by radical Islam might be construed as aligning themselves with the Bush administration... so thats not going to happen.
And while I'm sure moderate Muslims cringe upon hearing such horror stories, their voices are silent.
We hear of the beheading of hostages, but some how these attacks on women and girls, justified by religious beliefs is much more troubling. The barbarism described above is indicative of the kind of evil that threatens our world. And since it will not be defeated by understanding words or placating gestures, the liberals and multiculturalists of Europe are no match for it. This evil must be engaged consistently and preemptively because every foothold it acquires is a step towards our destruction. America needs to keep in power, and elect to power, representatives that understand just what we are up against... and remarkably many of our present leaders do not.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Poor Hollywood
Try to control your grief as you read this snippet from Breibart.com:
Even a much-hyped giant gorilla, a geisha and a schoolboy magician won't be able to create a happy ending at the US box office, as Hollywood ends its most disappointing year in nearly two decades. Plunging movie ticket sales, after a string of uninspiring remakes and movie sequels coupled with an explosion of the DVD and video game markets, are keeping audiences at home and have sent Hollywood into a deep existential crisis.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/13/051213173239.bo5ciosh.html
I've taken a stand in my humble life... I will not use the phrase, "well duh..." no matter how appropriate the occasion. These financial difficulties that Hollywood faces are self-inflicted and due to their stubborn, narcissistic, and arrogant belief that they know what is good for us. I believe Hollywood makes movies for Hollywood... caring more about mutual sycophancy than public praise or box office receipts. So be it, and their red ink. Did it feel good to say all this? Oh yes... yes it did.
They could fix this with more family-friendly movies... more Church-friendly movies... but they won't. They've taken a stand, too.
Try to control your grief as you read this snippet from Breibart.com:
Even a much-hyped giant gorilla, a geisha and a schoolboy magician won't be able to create a happy ending at the US box office, as Hollywood ends its most disappointing year in nearly two decades. Plunging movie ticket sales, after a string of uninspiring remakes and movie sequels coupled with an explosion of the DVD and video game markets, are keeping audiences at home and have sent Hollywood into a deep existential crisis.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/13/051213173239.bo5ciosh.html
I've taken a stand in my humble life... I will not use the phrase, "well duh..." no matter how appropriate the occasion. These financial difficulties that Hollywood faces are self-inflicted and due to their stubborn, narcissistic, and arrogant belief that they know what is good for us. I believe Hollywood makes movies for Hollywood... caring more about mutual sycophancy than public praise or box office receipts. So be it, and their red ink. Did it feel good to say all this? Oh yes... yes it did.
They could fix this with more family-friendly movies... more Church-friendly movies... but they won't. They've taken a stand, too.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
The Secret Economic Boom
Once in a while its good to get your economic news from a source that isn't particulary interested in 1) making President Bush look like a complete loser and 2) creating a hand wringing atmosphere from which the Democrats can launch their 2006 campaigns.
The Wall Street Journal is a source like that. I found these "facts" there:
• The stock market has risen by about $4 trillion in value, and an estimated 40% of that gain is directly attributable to increases in the after-tax return on equities, thanks to the tax cut. (If the tax cut expires, the market will instantly give back those gains.) Housing values have soared so rapidly that the fear is we now face a bubble. Household net wealth has climbed by $10 trillion.
• Business investment--which had sunk into the abyss during the recession, falling by 21% between 2000 and 2002--has roared back to life. Spending is up nearly 25% over the past 30 months.
• Dividend payments to shareholders have doubled in two years, according to data gathered by the American Shareholders Association. The cumulative impact of the tax cut and the higher dividend payments has put $100 billion into the pockets of America's burgeoning investor class.
• The macro-economic signs all point to a solid, sustainable expansion. Employment is up 4.4 million and real GDP growth has averaged 4%--or twice the OECD average--since 2003. Today's unemployment rate of 5% means there are now roughly one million more Americans working than were projected before the tax cut.
• Oh, and yes, there was a $120 billion reduction in the budget deficit in 2005. That's because tax receipts rose by more than in any previous year in U.S. history, even adjusting for inflation. Receipts were up by $55 billion above projections in 2004; $122 billion above projections in 2005; and are already running well ahead of projections so far in fiscal 2006 (which began in October).
• Finally, we wonder if any of the faux debt-hawks in Congress noticed that thanks to the sizzling economy, states and localities are now running hefty budget surpluses, reversing years of red ink and painful service cutbacks. Even New York City--which for years looked like the U.S. version of debt-plagued Argentina--is back in the black.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007650
I confess to being a little shocked when I read this data. But I suppose that speaks to the efficiency of the mainstream media in their attempts to dress every positive story in a shroud.
Once in a while its good to get your economic news from a source that isn't particulary interested in 1) making President Bush look like a complete loser and 2) creating a hand wringing atmosphere from which the Democrats can launch their 2006 campaigns.
The Wall Street Journal is a source like that. I found these "facts" there:
• The stock market has risen by about $4 trillion in value, and an estimated 40% of that gain is directly attributable to increases in the after-tax return on equities, thanks to the tax cut. (If the tax cut expires, the market will instantly give back those gains.) Housing values have soared so rapidly that the fear is we now face a bubble. Household net wealth has climbed by $10 trillion.
• Business investment--which had sunk into the abyss during the recession, falling by 21% between 2000 and 2002--has roared back to life. Spending is up nearly 25% over the past 30 months.
• Dividend payments to shareholders have doubled in two years, according to data gathered by the American Shareholders Association. The cumulative impact of the tax cut and the higher dividend payments has put $100 billion into the pockets of America's burgeoning investor class.
• The macro-economic signs all point to a solid, sustainable expansion. Employment is up 4.4 million and real GDP growth has averaged 4%--or twice the OECD average--since 2003. Today's unemployment rate of 5% means there are now roughly one million more Americans working than were projected before the tax cut.
• Oh, and yes, there was a $120 billion reduction in the budget deficit in 2005. That's because tax receipts rose by more than in any previous year in U.S. history, even adjusting for inflation. Receipts were up by $55 billion above projections in 2004; $122 billion above projections in 2005; and are already running well ahead of projections so far in fiscal 2006 (which began in October).
• Finally, we wonder if any of the faux debt-hawks in Congress noticed that thanks to the sizzling economy, states and localities are now running hefty budget surpluses, reversing years of red ink and painful service cutbacks. Even New York City--which for years looked like the U.S. version of debt-plagued Argentina--is back in the black.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007650
I confess to being a little shocked when I read this data. But I suppose that speaks to the efficiency of the mainstream media in their attempts to dress every positive story in a shroud.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Peter Heck Corrects Local Dem over "Establishment Clause" Issues
Local radio phenom Peter Heck visited the county's Democrat Blog site to correct the mistakes that a local Dem had posted there. Mr Heck writes:
First, your statement that “all 85 of the Federalist Papers only mention God twice” (and that not seriously)…and both of those are attributable to Madison is wrong. Among other indirect references, Federalist #2, written by John Jay states, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs. This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence.” This is not an impersonal, “heaven only knows” reference. This is a God who has actively given a people, common in their religious practice (one can clearly assume this is Christianity) a nation out of a grand design. Gore Vidal has misled you.
Secondly, your statement that “there is quite a bit of evidence that our Founding Fathers were not Christians” also fails the test of historical accuracy. Of the 55 men who signed the Constitution, virtually ALL were PROFESSING followers of Christianity (29 Episcopalians, 9 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 Quaker/Anglican, and 1 possible Deist—Ben Franklin, who as the least religious of all the Founders called for daily prayer and contributed to all denominations!). Further, the Founders made their personal faith very evident in their writings. Besides founding the new nation, these men founded other organizations of note: the American Tract Society, the American Bible Society, the Philadelphia Bible Society, and the Christian Constitutional Society. And even more remarkable are their words…upon request I would be happy to supply you with quotes of our Founders like: John Jay “Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His merciful and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by his beloved Son.” Or Alexander Hamilton “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.” Or John Adams “The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion.” Or George Washington “My most glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father…direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, the Life.” And we could keep going, but I think the point is made. Your statement that the Founders were not Christians is built upon misrepresentations of the Founders…not what they themselves professed.
Third, your pronouncement that the Constitution is a “godless” document merely because the word “God” does not appear in it reveals an elementary logic. Interesting that the words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in any of the founding documents and yet you believe that the PRINCIPLE of separation was inherent in the document. Seems like a bit of a double standard. I could write for hours on this topic of a "godless constitution" and show you studies which demonstrate the remarkable percentages of direct Biblical references of our Founders in forming Constitutional principle, point out the intricacies of some of the systems and how they are uniquely Biblical. If you so desire, I will; but again, I want to be respectful and save space.
I found it interesting you quoted Hamilton’s biographer as saying they just forgot about God in forming the document. That's interesting since Hamilton himself said of the Constitution that, “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” And noted revolutionary war veteran, friend of the Founders, Noah Webster, whose writings and ideas contributed to the composition of Constitutional principle (specifically Article I, Section 8) said, “The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion...” In other words, Bob, though the document obviously does not mention God, that is an impotent reason to suggest it is not founded upon the moral principles of the Bible. To do so demonstrates a failure to grasp the purpose of the Constitution.
The Constitution is a framework for the governing system in the United States, not a charter of liberties. In many ways, the Constitution serves as the canvas upon which the early administrations and Congresses were to paint upon. In other words, the Constitution is not the embodiment of the common law, but the form in which that law is to be developed and administered. A blueprint for a house does not contain direct reference to the nails, screws, and bolts used to strengthen and support the form; yet, any architect or builder will readily acknowledge they are necessary for the security of the structure. In the same way, the “blueprint” for the country (read Constitution) may not contain direct reference to the religious truth used to preserve and perpetuate its existence. Yet, the architects and builders of the new republic were clear about the vital nature of such enduring truth. If you would like quotes to support that fact, again, merely ask.
Finally, the Declaration of Independence mentions the Creator God four times, not twice. “…to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them” , “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” , “…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions” , and “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”
Bob, you flippantly discount the most significant and crucial element of this Declaration. And I point this out, because doing so is dangerous to all of us. I know you are concerned about civil liberties and rights…but your disregard for the significance of what the Founders are doing in the Declaration threatens those very liberties you hold so dear. The Founding Fathers, unlike nations founded upon the principles of humanism (that the modern left touts), rooted our most basic, fundamental, and precious rights in a transcendent moral authority that exists above and beyond man. Yes, government is a political institution. But it is not the final authority and arbiter of rights and liberties. The Founders said there is something beyond man and his institutions…a transcendent moral authority (Creator God) who gives man his most basic rights. That is why their revolution was justified…because the King was taking away rights and freedoms that he had no right to take away. Why didn’t he? Because they are a gift not of man, but of God. In other words, the whole idea, the whole root of liberties and freedoms in America is based in the foundation of a just and holy God that exists beyond man, and that man individually, corporately, and in government is to be held accountable to. Bob, that’s why America is the greatest defender of human rights in the world, because we understand…and have for 200 years that those rights are the gift of the Creator to the people…and no man has the right to take them away. If that isn’t resting an entire civilization and culture in absolute moral truths of the Bible, I don’t know what is.
Obviously, this post only scratches the surface of these issues. Thank you for the opportunity to post here. Please understand that while the founders were not desirous of a government run religion, they did recognize the importance of founding a republic firmly rooted in lasting moral principles. As John Quincy Adams stated so perfectly, “The highest glory of the American revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” Not in the sense that everyone had to be Christians…but in the sense that the absolute truths of the Bible were to be the foundation of our civilizations. We would be wise to follow in their footsteps and not be so arrogant as to assume we know better than they.
Another blogger, one Tom Smith, added this information to the discussion that he found in the Library of Congress:
"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.... Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist 'a wall of separation between church and state.' In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a 'national' religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government."
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
Then Mr Smith "nails it" in his own words:
Evidence such as this demonstrates that if our Founders had intended the strict separation that Bob advocates, they were by far the worst violators of the document and principles that they themselves drafted.
With Peter Heck and Tom Smith on the job the Founder's intentions may be safe from those who wish to re-write history to suit their preferences.
Local radio phenom Peter Heck visited the county's Democrat Blog site to correct the mistakes that a local Dem had posted there. Mr Heck writes:
First, your statement that “all 85 of the Federalist Papers only mention God twice” (and that not seriously)…and both of those are attributable to Madison is wrong. Among other indirect references, Federalist #2, written by John Jay states, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs. This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence.” This is not an impersonal, “heaven only knows” reference. This is a God who has actively given a people, common in their religious practice (one can clearly assume this is Christianity) a nation out of a grand design. Gore Vidal has misled you.
Secondly, your statement that “there is quite a bit of evidence that our Founding Fathers were not Christians” also fails the test of historical accuracy. Of the 55 men who signed the Constitution, virtually ALL were PROFESSING followers of Christianity (29 Episcopalians, 9 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 Quaker/Anglican, and 1 possible Deist—Ben Franklin, who as the least religious of all the Founders called for daily prayer and contributed to all denominations!). Further, the Founders made their personal faith very evident in their writings. Besides founding the new nation, these men founded other organizations of note: the American Tract Society, the American Bible Society, the Philadelphia Bible Society, and the Christian Constitutional Society. And even more remarkable are their words…upon request I would be happy to supply you with quotes of our Founders like: John Jay “Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His merciful and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by his beloved Son.” Or Alexander Hamilton “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.” Or John Adams “The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion.” Or George Washington “My most glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father…direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, the Life.” And we could keep going, but I think the point is made. Your statement that the Founders were not Christians is built upon misrepresentations of the Founders…not what they themselves professed.
Third, your pronouncement that the Constitution is a “godless” document merely because the word “God” does not appear in it reveals an elementary logic. Interesting that the words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in any of the founding documents and yet you believe that the PRINCIPLE of separation was inherent in the document. Seems like a bit of a double standard. I could write for hours on this topic of a "godless constitution" and show you studies which demonstrate the remarkable percentages of direct Biblical references of our Founders in forming Constitutional principle, point out the intricacies of some of the systems and how they are uniquely Biblical. If you so desire, I will; but again, I want to be respectful and save space.
I found it interesting you quoted Hamilton’s biographer as saying they just forgot about God in forming the document. That's interesting since Hamilton himself said of the Constitution that, “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” And noted revolutionary war veteran, friend of the Founders, Noah Webster, whose writings and ideas contributed to the composition of Constitutional principle (specifically Article I, Section 8) said, “The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion...” In other words, Bob, though the document obviously does not mention God, that is an impotent reason to suggest it is not founded upon the moral principles of the Bible. To do so demonstrates a failure to grasp the purpose of the Constitution.
The Constitution is a framework for the governing system in the United States, not a charter of liberties. In many ways, the Constitution serves as the canvas upon which the early administrations and Congresses were to paint upon. In other words, the Constitution is not the embodiment of the common law, but the form in which that law is to be developed and administered. A blueprint for a house does not contain direct reference to the nails, screws, and bolts used to strengthen and support the form; yet, any architect or builder will readily acknowledge they are necessary for the security of the structure. In the same way, the “blueprint” for the country (read Constitution) may not contain direct reference to the religious truth used to preserve and perpetuate its existence. Yet, the architects and builders of the new republic were clear about the vital nature of such enduring truth. If you would like quotes to support that fact, again, merely ask.
Finally, the Declaration of Independence mentions the Creator God four times, not twice. “…to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them” , “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” , “…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions” , and “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”
Bob, you flippantly discount the most significant and crucial element of this Declaration. And I point this out, because doing so is dangerous to all of us. I know you are concerned about civil liberties and rights…but your disregard for the significance of what the Founders are doing in the Declaration threatens those very liberties you hold so dear. The Founding Fathers, unlike nations founded upon the principles of humanism (that the modern left touts), rooted our most basic, fundamental, and precious rights in a transcendent moral authority that exists above and beyond man. Yes, government is a political institution. But it is not the final authority and arbiter of rights and liberties. The Founders said there is something beyond man and his institutions…a transcendent moral authority (Creator God) who gives man his most basic rights. That is why their revolution was justified…because the King was taking away rights and freedoms that he had no right to take away. Why didn’t he? Because they are a gift not of man, but of God. In other words, the whole idea, the whole root of liberties and freedoms in America is based in the foundation of a just and holy God that exists beyond man, and that man individually, corporately, and in government is to be held accountable to. Bob, that’s why America is the greatest defender of human rights in the world, because we understand…and have for 200 years that those rights are the gift of the Creator to the people…and no man has the right to take them away. If that isn’t resting an entire civilization and culture in absolute moral truths of the Bible, I don’t know what is.
Obviously, this post only scratches the surface of these issues. Thank you for the opportunity to post here. Please understand that while the founders were not desirous of a government run religion, they did recognize the importance of founding a republic firmly rooted in lasting moral principles. As John Quincy Adams stated so perfectly, “The highest glory of the American revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” Not in the sense that everyone had to be Christians…but in the sense that the absolute truths of the Bible were to be the foundation of our civilizations. We would be wise to follow in their footsteps and not be so arrogant as to assume we know better than they.
Another blogger, one Tom Smith, added this information to the discussion that he found in the Library of Congress:
"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.... Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist 'a wall of separation between church and state.' In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a 'national' religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government."
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
Then Mr Smith "nails it" in his own words:
Evidence such as this demonstrates that if our Founders had intended the strict separation that Bob advocates, they were by far the worst violators of the document and principles that they themselves drafted.
With Peter Heck and Tom Smith on the job the Founder's intentions may be safe from those who wish to re-write history to suit their preferences.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
The Lion, the Dems, and the Church
I've spent some time visiting my county's Democrat Blog Site (no, I don't feel all that welcome there) over an issue involving The Peter Heck Show , and the issue has rapidly turned into a discussion on the Church and its attitude towards the Democrat Party. There was a comment posted suggesting that some Democrats had stopped attending Church because they no longer felt welcome.
Most ministers and Church officials that I'm familiar with stick with preaching and teaching what they believe are truths from the Bible... and comment on cultural concerns when these truths relate to them. But I've never seen any arm twisting from the pulpit when it comes to party affiliation. It wouldn't be polite and it would jeopardize their tax-exempt status. It may happen among members, and in Sunday school classes but I haven't seen it.
From what I've witnessed you have to be an African-American church to legally endorse candidates.
I think the source of discomfort for loyal church-going Democrats is when their national leaders embrace issues that conflict with traditional moral statutes from the Bible, and the Church speaks out against those issues. Because of Party loyalty these Christians may try to restructure their core beliefs to accommodate non-Biblical views... or question the importance of the issues... or somehow justify their vote through other issues voiced by their party.
Now I will admit that there is a new line thats been drawn in the sand out there, but it wasn't drawn by the Church. The Democrat Party has gone through some very dynamic changes in the past 4o years and its a little unreasonable to expect Christians to go against their "Play Book" and follow along.
It bothers me a little that a family might stop attending a church because of politics, but maybe its just as well. In this country there is a church for every belief and every philosophy. There are all sorts and degrees of liberal churches out there... and I contend that liberal religious beliefs and liberal politics pretty much go hand-in-hand. Liberal churches as a rule are not dynamic... in fact they're generally dying, but they are available.
But in every church, both liberal and fundamental, there are people who are moving towards God... people that are moving away from God... and people who merely fill a pew. (just in case there is really something "up there") But we should relax. When the Lion of Judah returns... He'll sort us all out.
I've spent some time visiting my county's Democrat Blog Site (no, I don't feel all that welcome there) over an issue involving The Peter Heck Show , and the issue has rapidly turned into a discussion on the Church and its attitude towards the Democrat Party. There was a comment posted suggesting that some Democrats had stopped attending Church because they no longer felt welcome.
Most ministers and Church officials that I'm familiar with stick with preaching and teaching what they believe are truths from the Bible... and comment on cultural concerns when these truths relate to them. But I've never seen any arm twisting from the pulpit when it comes to party affiliation. It wouldn't be polite and it would jeopardize their tax-exempt status. It may happen among members, and in Sunday school classes but I haven't seen it.
From what I've witnessed you have to be an African-American church to legally endorse candidates.
I think the source of discomfort for loyal church-going Democrats is when their national leaders embrace issues that conflict with traditional moral statutes from the Bible, and the Church speaks out against those issues. Because of Party loyalty these Christians may try to restructure their core beliefs to accommodate non-Biblical views... or question the importance of the issues... or somehow justify their vote through other issues voiced by their party.
Now I will admit that there is a new line thats been drawn in the sand out there, but it wasn't drawn by the Church. The Democrat Party has gone through some very dynamic changes in the past 4o years and its a little unreasonable to expect Christians to go against their "Play Book" and follow along.
It bothers me a little that a family might stop attending a church because of politics, but maybe its just as well. In this country there is a church for every belief and every philosophy. There are all sorts and degrees of liberal churches out there... and I contend that liberal religious beliefs and liberal politics pretty much go hand-in-hand. Liberal churches as a rule are not dynamic... in fact they're generally dying, but they are available.
But in every church, both liberal and fundamental, there are people who are moving towards God... people that are moving away from God... and people who merely fill a pew. (just in case there is really something "up there") But we should relax. When the Lion of Judah returns... He'll sort us all out.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
With our Backs to Sodom
I've often thought that if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were alive today they would vacation in Los Angeles. This is the same Los Angeles whose entertainment industry tutors our teenagers, instructs our children, and babysits our toddlers.
When I was in Jr High, I accompanied my parents to a revival meeting where the preacher spoke about his home. He said that while he and his wife did not judge others, he struggled not to question the seriousness of the faith of those who had televisions in their homes. I'm sure, at the time, I desperately hoped my parents were not taking his message to heart. As a kid in the 60's our TV was my only window to what I thought was the real world, and my only balm for boredom. It was a monumental waste of time even then, but I can't remember it being disturbing.
When insomnia strikes me today I lie in bed and surf late-night cable programming where I see soft-porn videos being advertised and comedians broaching subjects that I'd be embarrassed to discuss in polite company. I see the Church belittled and adultery celebrated. I could go on, but maybe you've seen television.
Being "holier than thou" is the stuff that hypocrits are made of, but being holy is still our calling and should be our goal. Television and movies at their best are distractions from our most basic reality... that being the one relationship we have that is eternal. At their worst these entertainments are pollutants and pathogens that we willfully place between us and our Holy Creator.
Its physically impossible to turn your back to something that surrounds you. And I'll admit to being much more lost in this culture than I should be. But being cognizant of the danger is the first step towards survivng the influences of this decadent, faithless culture... and guarding our hearts by wisely choosing our entertainments is paramount in defusing its influences.
Paul wrote, "What fellowship can light have with darkness?* ...Whatever is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable... think on these things."**
Christianity in this rich country can easily become more a "lifestyle" than a commitment. But in the early morning before the television is turned on... when our minds are yet serious and lucid... as we read the Bible and kneel to pray... there is a moment to reach past our temporary little world... and ask for wings to ride above the evil and its noise.
*2 Cor 6, **Phil 4
I've often thought that if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were alive today they would vacation in Los Angeles. This is the same Los Angeles whose entertainment industry tutors our teenagers, instructs our children, and babysits our toddlers.
When I was in Jr High, I accompanied my parents to a revival meeting where the preacher spoke about his home. He said that while he and his wife did not judge others, he struggled not to question the seriousness of the faith of those who had televisions in their homes. I'm sure, at the time, I desperately hoped my parents were not taking his message to heart. As a kid in the 60's our TV was my only window to what I thought was the real world, and my only balm for boredom. It was a monumental waste of time even then, but I can't remember it being disturbing.
When insomnia strikes me today I lie in bed and surf late-night cable programming where I see soft-porn videos being advertised and comedians broaching subjects that I'd be embarrassed to discuss in polite company. I see the Church belittled and adultery celebrated. I could go on, but maybe you've seen television.
Being "holier than thou" is the stuff that hypocrits are made of, but being holy is still our calling and should be our goal. Television and movies at their best are distractions from our most basic reality... that being the one relationship we have that is eternal. At their worst these entertainments are pollutants and pathogens that we willfully place between us and our Holy Creator.
Its physically impossible to turn your back to something that surrounds you. And I'll admit to being much more lost in this culture than I should be. But being cognizant of the danger is the first step towards survivng the influences of this decadent, faithless culture... and guarding our hearts by wisely choosing our entertainments is paramount in defusing its influences.
Paul wrote, "What fellowship can light have with darkness?* ...Whatever is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable... think on these things."**
Christianity in this rich country can easily become more a "lifestyle" than a commitment. But in the early morning before the television is turned on... when our minds are yet serious and lucid... as we read the Bible and kneel to pray... there is a moment to reach past our temporary little world... and ask for wings to ride above the evil and its noise.
*2 Cor 6, **Phil 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
