|
|
 |
 |
|
--- Thursday, November 27, 2003
Praise the Lord, Pass the Turkey
While the turkey is cooking, I just popped in to the blogosphere to offer Thanksgiving wishes. Despite everything that's gone wrong in the American "experiment," it's hard to underestimate God's providence in creating our nation and allowing it to prosper. Here are some other thoughts to ponder for the day:
Suzanne Fields: "Thanksgiving is a holiday stirring mixed emotions. We rejoice in friends and family, mourn the memory of those no longer at the table. We endure the tiresome bores at the table because they qualify as family. Not all the turkeys at table are full of egg-bread stuffing."
Samuel Blumenfield: "In this day and age when the Ten Commandments are being trashed by the radical left that now sits in judgment in our courts, when biblical morality is being discarded like old newspapers and the celebration of Christmas is being thrown out of our public schools, it's time to reflect on the meaning of Thanksgiving Day."
George Will: "The country heard from Washington -- the man, not the place -- when he issued a National Thanksgiving Proclamation for Nov. 26, 1789. The new nation had much for which to be thankful."
--- Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Will Evangelical Fire Consume Bush?
Prez Bush has been taking some flack from Christians this week, says the London Telegraph and WorldNetDaily, for his suggestion that Christianity and Islam worship the same God. Though I believe Mr. Bush to be utterly wrong on this point, it seems like just another variation of his "Islam is a religion of peace" stance.
But just because the deities of the Christian and Muslim faiths both claim to be, essentially, the "God of Abraham," doesn't mean that Allah and Jehovah are one in the same. The God of Scripture has a completely different identity, nature, character, and plan as the god of the Quran. And any Christian should be uneasy that the Quran's version of our Lord Jesus leaves Him a mere human, and certainly not the sole path to Heaven. Indeed, we are even considered polytheists for believing Christ to be equal with the Father. We must be sensitive to these issues in our relationships with our Muslim neighbors, but make no mistake, we do not share complementary faiths, and therefore we cannot be serving the same Master.
The Next Steps
Family Research Council suggests three possible actions that may result from the Massachusetts court decision.
The Loss of Innocence
Columns by both Cal Thomas and Mona Charen lament the very "adult" messages that kids today are forced to endure from culture.
Thomas says: The sexualization of children is supported by state governments, many of which mandate sex education as early as kindergarten. School nurses dispense contraceptives and abortion advice without parental knowledge or approval. Teen magazines such as Cosmo Girl and Seventeen promote sexual activity for minor children. And Charen wants to "change the channel" on media's education of youth: But we can't change the channel, because this isn't just a television invention. This is our culture. This free-for-all, libertine, conscienceless maypole dance is what we've created from once-strong roots of Puritan rectitude. A nation once lampooned for its innocence now wallows in smut of every kind. Another well thought out resource along these lines is Liberation's Children, a book of essays by Kay Hymowitz that I reviewed for Townhall.
Reluctant Reconstruction
Eric Hogue:
Being a strong constitutionalist, I never thought I'd say this...I believe it is now time to support an amendment to the Constitution that defines and recognizes marriage as the institution of one man and one woman. I'm not a fan of constitutional amendments. I believe our Constitution is a solid document, not a living and breathing flex of emotional and cultural thought. But in this battle with the left's rogue judiciary artillery, this culture cannot lose the institution to a lifestyle that is nothing more than envious of marriage, not essential in the meaning thereof. My feelings exactly. It is with a heavy heart that we support the amending of the Constitution to protect society from something so unthinkable as changing the definition of marriage.
Keeping Our Focus
Dennis Prager Writes:
Iraq is the battleground for civilization. That is why our enemies are throwing everything they can at you. If you help create the first free and tolerant Arab country in the heart of Islam, they are doomed. If we fail in Iraq, we are doomed. Our enemies know this. We need to know this.
--- Monday, November 24, 2003
Out of the Mouths of Teenagers
A survey by Gallup suggests that nearly three-fourths of American teenagers believe that abortion is morally wrong, at least in certain situations. Wisdom, thy name is youth.
Missing the Point, Part III
OK, so the so-called "conservative" arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are threefold, I think. 1) It's really divorce and infidelity that's the threat to marriage, not homosexuality. 2) Only a lunatic believes that opening the field of eligible candidates into marriage will bring instability to the institution. 3) How dare we deny the "right" to marry to a group who just "happens" to be different.
Here's how Dahlia Lithwick at Slate puts it: If you're going to be a crusader for the sanctity of marriage -- if you really believe gay marriage will have some vast corrosive, viral impact on marriage as a whole -- here's a brief list of other laws and policies far more dangerous to the institution. Go after these first, then pass your constitutional amendment. Now let's be clear: many factors have contributed to the de-sanctification of marriage during the past few decades. The divorce rate is tragic, infidelity is shamefully common, and the culture at large is pushing families away from spending intimate time at home. And to be honest, the true meaning of marriage itself has never been in danger -- for it is a law and design set by God Himself. But the special place marriage holds in society is extremely threatened by altering its standards. Perhaps even worse is that the state approval of same-sex marriage puts a crack in America's moral foundation by giving the final word that homosexuality is normal, accepted, and mainstream.
Missing the Point 2
World Magazine is also blogging about the Brooks column:One problem here is that the Bible repeatedly describes homosexuality as an abomination. So is the Bible a house divided, telling us what is wrong and then insisting that what is wrong should be consecrated? Ruth’s covenant with Naomi meant that she was leaving behind the Moabite religion, which included abominable practices, and embracing the God of Israel, including His commandments. The Times would be better off sticking to liberal pro-gay arguments and not twisting Scripture.
Missing the Point
David Brooks starts out quite well in his Saturday column about the same-sex marriage debate: Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.
But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to each other and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin. Absolutely. Fornication and promiscuity are murder to the soul, as Paul makes concisely clear in I Corinthians 6. But from here, Brooks loses sight of why marriage is truly important.
The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity. What Brooks fails to acknowledge is that inherent within the sacredness and fidelity of marriage is the complementary and necessary balance of both a man and a woman. Two men or two women can never provide the completion that a husband and wife can offer each other. And to encourage gay couples to make commitments rather than to explore promiscuity is to concede that homosexuality is not inherently evil -- a foundational question upon which Christians mustn't be willing to compromise. We feel empathy and love for repentant homosexuals, just as we feel the same for repentant adulterers. God's design and God's will are for one man and one woman to make a covenant before Him to serve each other unconditionally forever. To accomodate any other relationship into this equation is detrimental to the moral basis of culture.
--- Sunday, November 23, 2003
Mass. Supports Gay Marriage
Differing from most of the nation, a plurality of Massachusetts residents claim to be in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, says a Boston Globe poll.
--- Saturday, November 22, 2003
Cryptic Cartoon Causes Koranic Commotion
This is too bizarre not to post...
WorldNetDaily reports that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is demanding an apology from Johnny Hart, the creator of the comic strip B.C., after alleging that Hart made a "cryptic" slam against Muslims in one of his recent cartoons. You be the judge, I guess (Nov. 10 strip).
See the Movie, Read the Book
I just got back from seeing The Gospel of John at the movie theater. Ultimately, I'm afraid that it is doomed to be overshadowed by next year's The Passion of Christ, the controversial film created by Mel Gibson. Still, John was a pretty good, pictoral look at the fourth book in the New Testament, but I have to say that it didn't stand out as unique from any other straight-from-Scripture film about the Good News. Jesus was played (as convincingly as is possible on screen) by an actor who at least looked Jewish, which is a good change from the typical fare. But showing a movie that is a near-verbatim narrative of the book of John can't quite capture the depth of God's Word. However, it does a decent job of portraying the message of salvation, which is one we ALL need desperately.
Focus on the Family's Plugged In says: "All told, The Gospel of John provides a fresh, powerful and honest look at the life of Christ, promising rich reward for those willing to withstand its long presentation (the movie's pace may be more suited to episodic Bible studies than a night out at the movies). If any viewer is left doubting that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, it is no fault of The Gospel of John."
--- Friday, November 21, 2003
A Hef-ty Burden Indeed
Did Hugh Hefner really win the culural war for modesty? Though I won't say the fat lady has completely exhausted her vocal chords, it's a humbling question -- answered, perhaps by another: How shocking is Playboy today?
The most common first response could be the most telling. Playboy, shocking? you ask.
Just this week, millions of TV watchers (yours truly NOT included, thankfully) were mesmerized by Britney Spears flaunting her selling points on national television. And if that wasn't enough skin for the viewing pleasure, Victoria's Secret showcased its latest -- um, fashion? -- in a prime-time special on Tuesday. That these shows get airtime is plenty indicative of the culture; but now they're being broadcast on network television during "family" viewing hours. And it goes without mentioning what kind of trash is glorified in R-rated movies (and some PG-13s), on cable, in countless Playboy clones and other magazines, and certainly on the Internet.
This constant barrage of sensual imagery bludgeons a man's soul. Even worse, it sends mixed and deceitful messages to pure-hearted, modest, and humble women (who are the truly attractive ones). Have Hugh Hefner and his media progeny successfully killed the soul of the culture? I don't think so -- but they may have helped put it on life support.
Pushing the Lord off the Cliff
David Limbaugh writes:
In the Moore case you have a federal court telling a state court that it can't symbolically recognize the God of the Bible as the source of our laws (or otherwise). In the Massachusetts case you have a state court ruling that the Bible can't be the source of our laws. I think the latter has even graver implications. Well put. The more we set aside the moral foundation of the law (of God and of the conscience He's created), the more baseless rationale is used to open the doors to all kinds of immorality. It's a natural enough progression, but we have to stand strong to stop the dominoes from continuing to fall.
Lightning (and Meteor) Strikes Twice
Remember the meteor that supposedly wiped T-Rex and pterodactyl from the real Jurassic Park? Apparently, that was nothing compared to another rock some couple hundred million years earler. That meteorite, circa 251,000,000 BC, supposedly wiped out about 90 percent of life on earth (and presumably a substantial number of entire species). What's amazing to me is just how quickly evolution rebounded to replenish the planet with so many new kinds of creatures during that time. It doesn't quite add up -- I guess journalists aren't the only ones who work better under deadline.
--- Thursday, November 20, 2003
Jihad of the Dove?
In an interview with Larry Elder, author Robert Spencer debunks President Bush's stated position that Islam is a peaceful religion, hijacked by terrorist extremists.
There are millions of peaceful Muslims ... but the fact is that radical Muslims are using core texts of Islam that are deeply rooted in Islamic theology, tradition, history and law to justify their actions, and those radical Muslims are able to recruit and motivate terrorists around the world by appealing to these core Islamic texts. This is such an important message. Many Muslims practice a more passive approach to daily living, but just because we like them better doesn't mean they're the true adherents to their religion. There are pro-abortion, pro-gay-agenda "Christians" who don't believe Jesus was Messiah, but just because they get treated better by the media doesn't make them committed followers of the Lord. The bottom line is that "jihad of the sword" is hardly heretical to the Quran, and most Islamic organizations won't deny that fact.
A Walk up the Slippery Slope
Ross MacKenzie tracks how low we've sunk in the marriage debate, vis a vis this week's court ruling. "And so now, with our knowledge superior to that of the Founders," he says, "knowing what they did not know, and could not - a Massachusetts court has directed its fire at an institution created for the procreation of children and their healthy upbringing by a woman and a man."
It bears recalling how numerous cultural factors have chipped away at the sanctity of -- well, pretty much everything -- in the past several decades. Whereas family, marriage, life, and liberty used to be the crown jewels of American society, now we hold dear "equality" and "diversity" and "expression." We should certainly protect the latter, but God forbid it comes at the expense of the former.
Stupid Is as Stupid Does?
Editing God out of the history books really doesn't leave much left. Craig McMillan writes:
The America that I know became what it is in large part because of the thrift, energy and intellect of its Puritan founders. Their lives were a direct outgrowth of their Christian faith. They passed the same traits and faith on to their children, and so on down the line. That is why it is commonly said that we are a Christian nation. It has less to do with our church attendance than with the values we bring to the workplace and the public square.
--- Wednesday, November 19, 2003
And from the Left...
USA Today: "The civil rights of individuals across the USA are violated routinely because of sexual orientation. States can end that discrimination by ensuring that their laws treat gay and heterosexual couples equally."
Ralph Neas, People for the American Way: "This is not only a victory for gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts, but also an important affirmation of the changing attitudes toward equal rights for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation."
ACLU: "In a practical sense, today's ruling will end discrimination against gay couples regarding pension benefits, medical insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights. The Massachusetts court's decision to no longer deny the right to marry is clearly the way to go, the ACLU said, rather than to proceed with a dangerous federal constitutional amendment that would, by attempting to ban same sex marriages and destroy all of the domestic partnership laws and other measures that state and local governments have passed to protect same-sex relationships."
Eileen McNamara: "The right to a marriage license is a matter not of morality or of religion or of ethics but of equality under the law. In the end, it was that simple....In a historic decision, made more compelling by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall's powerful, spare prose, the state's highest court reduced the polarizing issue of gay marriage to the straightforward constitutional question before the justices."
Andrew Korfhage: "If Bush and right-wing members of Congress seek to circumvent the courts with a constitutional amendment, the institution of marriage may prove a destabilizing force in our society for a long time to come."
More from the Right...
Terrence Jeffrey: "Yet, if God is not the ultimate author of our law, who will be? Whoever has the power to impose their will on others. This week it was four Massachusetts judges -- who manhandled marriage, denying the truth that it is a match made in heaven."
Maggie Gallagher: "Four judges in Massachusetts, ruling in a same-sex marriage case, have decided that children don't need mothers and fathers, that marriage has nothing to do with getting children what they need. Marriage is a passing plaything of the latest fashionable ideology, a toy for adults with graduate degrees to tinker with, at their pleasure."
Stanley Kurtz: "Far from being a great victory, Goodridge is a serious tactical error on the part of the gay-marriage movement. By pushing gay marriage on a country that still opposes it, the gay-marriage movement has set itself up for at least the possibility of defeat. It would have been much smarter to wait....Given the wording of Goodridge, I think the court will be hard-pressed to do anything less than insist on full gay marriage, whether the legislature goes along with it or not."
Albert Mohler: "The Massachusetts court has turned aside millennia of moral wisdom and would lead that Commonwealth--and by extension the entire nation--into a brave new world where marriage is merely a contractual relationship between individuals and homosexuality is completely celebrated as a lifestyle."
Cal Thomas: "Marriage was not invented by the postal service as a convenient way to deliver the mail. It was established by God as the best arrangement for fallen humanity to organize and protect itself and create and rear children."
The Civil-Union War
The Washington Post reports:If the ruling goes into effect six months from now as the court envisions, and if same-sex couples carrying Massachusetts marriage licenses settle in other states, it probably will be only a matter of time before someone goes to court claiming the right to have a same-sex marriage recognized outside the Bay State, legal analysts on both sides of the issue said. It seems likely that the Defense of Marriage acts on the books in 37 states will end up providing the necessary conflict to take the issue to the Supreme Court.
Slope Is Still Slippery
The court decision in Massachusetts yesterday confirms some of our worst suspicions about the aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling this summer in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned a prohibition on sodomy. Yesterday's nonsense bucks public opinion that is overwhelmingly opposed to same-sex unions, and it spits in the face of the moral foundation of marriage -- and of our nation. True as that may be, the "family" itself is not really in any more or less danger. For there will always be (Lord willing) disciples of Christ who understand the spiritual significance of a man and woman joining together in service and fellowship and bringing offspring into the world to do the same. What's truly under fire is the conscience of society itself, for if culture redefines family and morals as "anything goes," then there really isn't a basis for anything.
Here are some more news, opinions and statements on the case from Focus on the Family, American Values, Family Research Council, The Washington Times, and MarriageDebate.com. I'll probably be posting more of these links throughout the next couple days....stay tuned.
--- Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Deja Vu, Again?
Sunday's Washington Post contained an interview with Yasser Arafat's new puppet...er, Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qureia. The face may be new, but the rhetoric is pretty much exactly the same as Qureia's short-lived predecessor Abu Mazen. We're not terrorists...it's all the fault of the Zionist aggressors...we will make the sacrifice for peace...how noble we are to offer to stop blowing up innocent civilians...yada yada yada.
Qureia said:
We should leave this meeting with an explicit message to the peoples on both sides that we will start working together to put an end to the suffering. We will reach a cease-fire agreement and start negotiations to end the conflict and live as good neighbors....The real problem is Israel, not Arafat....When we reach a cease-fire, I am committed to it. I am committed to the road map. I am committed to all the agreements that have been signed. I recognize Israel but we want the Americans to tell the Israelis to stop the settlements and the wall. Line for line, these statements could have been made by Abu Mazen during his limited tenure as PM. For that matter, they could be made by Arafat himself, who has been known to shift his views depending on which microphone he's speaking into.
Change is absolutely impossible in this region until the PA is willing to put action to words and use their resources to fight terrorism instead of fund it. I won't hold my breath.
More on the Massachusetts Case
You can read the full text of the Mass. court's decision here.
Not surprisingly, in that decision you'll find a lot of familiar vocabulary from recent Supreme Court rulings and liberal mantras that distort terms like "dignity" and "equality."
Mass. Edges Toward Gay Marriage
After months of waiting to see how the Massachusetts high court would respond to a same-sex marriage case, the verdict is in: gay couples have the constitutional right to wed in Massachusetts. Lawmakers in the state must now create legislation based on the court's decision, which could end up providing "marriage" licenses to same-sex couples.
If nothing else, this might put an imminent deadline on the passage of a marriage amendment. It's disgusting that it will take amending the Constitution to protect the definition of matrimony from being re-written, but the results seem almost inevitable if we put faith in the court system to do its job.
--- Monday, November 17, 2003
No Amendments to Marriage
Jeff Jacoby writes:
Race is immaterial to marriage, but sex -- gender -- goes to its very essence. And just as it was a perversion of marriage for the law to force race into the equation, it would be a perversion for the law to force gender out of the equation.
Gays and lesbians must be treated with dignity and compassion, but we must also insist on a universal truth: Marriage is for joining what is different, not for adding like to like. Indeed.
No-Love Charity?
A Unitarian minister in Great Britain is accusing Billy Graham's Samaritan's Purse organization as being "right wing and racist." The big crime? Delivering shoeboxes full of food and toys to children in war-torn nations and including -- gasp! -- story books of the Gospel! Clearly in the name of humanity and civil rights, these starving kids should slap a big fat "Return to Sender" label on these gifts in protest of their overt religious underpinnings. Seriously now, these children probably are not concerned whether this week's meals come from caring Christians or not. And Samaritan's Purse hardly forces them to accept Christ before giving them physical nourishment. Providing food for the body and for the soul is the definition of charity.
--- Friday, November 14, 2003
Your Mother Shouldn't Wear Army Boots
Elaine Donnelly writes:
"We need brave women in the military, but no one's daughter should have to suffer an ordeal comparable to that experienced by Pfc. Jessica Lynch. Not in the name of other women's careers, military necessity, or anything else. Liberal feminists tried to turn the tragic Jessica Lynch story into the tale of the heroine who slaughtered both enemy attackers and the military gender gap. Not surprisingly, now that the ordeal has lost its novelty (and regardless of whether was captured a subdued victim or a reluctant warrior), I hope we call all step back and see how crazy it is to be sending our daughters, wives and mothers out to the front lines of combat.
Pardon me for being old-fashioned, but I have come to believe that God's precious daughters are meant to be fought for, not placed side by side with brothers on the battlefield. Knights are supposed to ride out valiantly to defend the fair maiden, not slap a sword in her hand and wish her good luck.
Maybe I really am living in a fairy-tale world to think that there are enough men left who would take a bullet (or worse) for the ladies in their lives, either during war or at home.
I'm sure a lot of women, no doubt including Miss Lynch, are wonderfully adept at knowing military strategy and operating weapons and could handle themselves just fine in many battlefield situations. And there are certainly plenty of roles in the armed forces where women are a valuable asset. But not in combat. It's past time to lay pride on the table and send the message to women, "We don't want you in combat situations. We don't want you to be shot at. We don't want you to be killed. We don't want you to be captured."
God forbid we feel anything but heartbrokenness whenever any soldier falls in battle. But there ought to be an added sense of horror when that soldier is a fair maiden.
More Ten Commandments
Finally, a court has upheld a display of a Ten Commandments monument for the right reasons. On the same day that Alabama ousted the judge who defended to the end a similar monument in an Alabama courthourse, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas found that "even those who would see the Decalogue as wise counsel born of man's experience rather than as divinely inspired religious teaching cannot deny its influence upon the civil and criminal laws of this country."
Eureka! We've struck common sense! Like it or not, the United States was built as a Christian nation, a reality that was promoted by the Founders and has been upheld by all three branches of the federal government for most of the country's history. Not everyone in America is a follower of Christ, of course, but the nation itself identifies unapologetically with the God of Israel. May it ever be so.
--- Thursday, November 13, 2003
In and Out
While President Bush tries to get federal judges placed in the courts, Alabama has gone the other direction by removing its supreme court chief justice, Roy Moore.
Constitutional Tug-of-War
Following last night's slumber party, US Senators are now in Day Two of the big judicial-nomination debate. In the center ring is an argument over the constitutionality of the filibuster method and whether it is an impediment to democracy.
Says Texas Senator John Cornyn:
"It is wrong for a partisan minority of senators to treat good people like statistics; wrong to mistreat distinguished jurists with unprecedented filibusters and unconscionable character attacks; wrong to hijack the Constitution and seize control of the judicial-confirmation process from the president and a bipartisan majority of the Senate; wrong to deny up-or-down votes to judicial nominees simply because a partisan minority of senators cannot persuade the bipartisan majority to vote against a nominee; and wrong not to play fair, follow tradition, and allow a vote." And if you haven't yet had your fill of the conversation, it looks like the debate may now proceed until tomorrow morning.
--- Wednesday, November 12, 2003
As the Senate Turns
I've been watching, off and on, the C-SPAN soap opera that is the Senate's 30-hour debate session on judicial nominees. The rhetoric thus far has been fairly predictable (and moderately heated) on both sides of the aisle. But in the end, I see no major results other than continued angry politics.
Israeli-Palestinian War Over; And in Other News...
Upon installation of a new Palestinian Authority cabinet, Yasser Arafat announced today that "the time has come between us and you Israelis ... to get out of this cycle of destructive war."
Dare we dream that peace could finally be in the midst in one of the most volatile regions on earth? Pardon me if I don't purchase party favors in advance. Arafat has called for "peace" on a fairly routine basis, but he is just as consistent about declaring his seething and undying hatred for the people and nation of Israel. Are we to believe that the Palestinian terrorist suddenly had an epiphany of compassion for his enemy? Doubtful. Certainly we should continue to pray for and work toward peace in Jerusalem, but don't be fooled: As long as Yasser Arafat has breath to give, he will work -- overtly or covertly -- toward the destruction of Israel.
A Right-to-Lie Case?
Gina Dalfonzo picks apart the mainstream media's coverage of the Terri Schiavo case.
In a life-and-death case like that, you'd think media professionals would be EXTRA careful to collect facts and statements from all possible perspectives. Yet it seems that the majority of publications and programs have instead blurred the real issues of the case, namely what constitutes a "life worth living."
Holiday Cheer Begins
Also from WorldNetDaily:
"In a dispute over display of holiday symbols, New York City schools are allowing Jewish menorahs and Islamic crescents but barring Christian nativity scenes, alleging the depiction of the birth of Christ does not represent a historical event."
Oh for the Sake of Politics
According to a WND report, President Bush seems once again willing to appease and "tolerate" a group that stands contrary to his stated Christian worldview. Bush's office apparently sent a letter of congratulations to the Metropolitan Community Church upon its 35th anniversary. This organization was founded as a meeting place for homosexuals, and its founder recently participated in a "marriage" ceremony in Canada with his "partner."
Now, I certainly understand the game of politics -- seeking to alienate as few members of the voting base as possible. But the MCC calls itself a church when its foundation is an immoral, God-defying act. So I'm not sure congrats are in order.
--- Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Land of the Free
Rebecca Hagelin thanks veterans for their sacrifices on behalf of liberty, noting that "America must never forget that Rome fell not at the hands of her enemies, but from within. We are no less vulnerable to decay and destruction if we attempt to deny our citizens with inalienable rights or the God who blessed us with them."
Yet if we, as a nation, rebuke the God under whom it was founded, then that implosion is inevitable. Thanks to those serving in the military, indeed, for their contribution to protecting the freedoms given to us by God alone.
Keeping Marriage in Suspense
Lost in the shuffle of other same-sex marriage issues was a court case in Massachusetts that could have taken the debate to a new level. But the Supreme Judicial Court has been silent on the case all summer. Citizen magazine sheds some light on the still-pending decision.
What's at stake in this decision, for Massachusetts and for the country, is the definition of marriage. The seven homosexual couples that filed suit against the state want the word "marriage" applied to their relationships. They don't want civil unions, they want marriage.
--- Monday, November 10, 2003
Al-Qaeda Strikes Back
The world is a bit on edge this week as US military officials express their expectation of continued hostility from terrorists in Iraq. Meanwhile, yesterday's attack against a Saudi residential complex has been credited to terrorism by al-Qaeda. And the US is closing its embassy offices in Sudan this week out of concerns of further violence there.
On top of all that -- somebody thought it would be a good time to do a fly-over of the White House.
--- Sunday, November 09, 2003
The Threat-to-Peace of Jerusalem
So the people of Europe have spoken. Forget the Axis of Evil, they say. Al-Qaeda? No big deal. Nope, the biggest threat to world peace, according to an EU poll, is Israel. Don't worry -- the United States fared well in the standings, but Israel is deemed to be the real apple spoiling the barrel.
In a way, this is true, of course. For if Israel were wiped off the map -- ba-da-bing, it's peace in our time! Right?
It's easy to see the supernatural blinders at work, though.
As Hudson Institute president Herbert London writes,
It is astonishing that the spilling of Jewish blood receives almost no attention in European press organs, but when Israel retaliates and Palestinians are killed, it is a front page story. Part of this biased reporting can be attributed to a widely held belief that Israel is a surrogate of the United States and merely an active arm of American foreign policy. Try disabusing an European intellectual of this conviction.
--- Saturday, November 08, 2003
Unfortunately, it looks like recent US intelligence was right on the money about a terrorist threat in Saudi Arabia. Twenty or so people were reportedly killed today by a three-point attack. Sometimes it's no fun to be right. But it would seem that al-Qaeda is getting bolder in the region.
--- Friday, November 07, 2003
Episcopal Church Casts Lots
In the midst of the fallout of the Episcopal Church's gay-bishop consecration, Christianity Today offers a list of reactions from each of the world's Anglican provinces.
It is encouraging to note the upholding of Scripture by most of the bodies, particularly the ones in Africa. Maybe for the ECUSA, being so "progressive" wasn't so great after all.
PBA Ban Small Step Toward Reclaiming Sanctity of Life
Mona Charen presents the brutal facts about partial-birth abortion.
"From the beginning, this issue has brought out the worst in the pro-abortion lobby."
I Peter 3
Some of our worst fears about the capture of Jessica Lynch were confirmed in the pages of her new biography, which cites medical records showing that Pvt. Lynch was raped by the enemy captors. I don't think we really doubted that this was the case, but it's still heart-wrenching to have it in writing. WND's Joseph Farah writes, in a hard-hitting column, "Women aren't missing out on an opportunity by being prevented from entering combat. They need to understand the truth -- they are being valued higher than the young men whose blood we spill on the battlefield."
It was once the case that the rules of combat involved protecting women and children at all costs. In today's technological warfare, it may be impossible to do that completely, but the very character of our nation is lost if we become indifferent to the placement of women in front of the battlefield.
--- Thursday, November 06, 2003
Hollywood Machine Takes Over Matrix, Defeats Human Viewers
I made the pilgrimage to see the final installment of The Matrix trilogy last night, and let's just say it was anticlimactic at best. Pretty much everything wholesome and/or entertaining about the other two movies in the series (Number One in particular) was stripped out of the conclusion. It's coarse, dark, and weird. Very weird. (Perhaps the big, secret ending is that the Revolutions in theaters now isn't the actual movie at all! I'll be waiting for the real thing...)
Jonathan Last at The Weekly Standard hits it on the head: "After a brief encounter, the Merovingian -- easily the most interesting and entertaining character in the series -- exits, stage left, never to be seen again. This disappearance is the first in a series of abandoned subplots, themes, and physical laws which the first two movies went to great pains to lay out."
--- Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Legal Games Begin on PBA Ban
Before the ink dried on the newly signed law to ban partial-birth abortion, a district court judge in Nebraska pounced on the legislation by filing a limited restraining order. The judge claimed that the law is unconstitutional, citing its lack of provision for excepting the health of the mother as one example. That's pretty much been the mantra of the pro-abortion crowd since this bill was initiated -- along with the accusation that the bill is too "vague."
The first paragraph of the bill states: "A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."
That seems disgustingly specific to me, and it's atrocious that certain groups are working so hard to protect this procedure. What an incredible stretch to say that prohibiting this "medical" act somehow violates the rights of women! Granted, many pro-lifers see PBA as merely one battlefield in a larger war. But it's scary to see how far pro-abortion advocates are willing to draw the line. It's bad enough that we cannot see the human life present in what is so casually referred to as "the woman's fetus." But how is it even thinkable in the medical profession to allow the dismemberment of a life just minutes from seeing his first rays of light? A "partial-birth" abortion kills a total baby.
The XYZ of ABC's Heresy
Brent Bozell picks apart ABC's recent special on "The Da Vinci Code":
The program's host, ABC reporter Elizabeth Vargas, claimed she would reveal "surprising truths" about this bizarre thesis. But over and over, it was apparent ABC had not uncovered a thing.
Wouldn't you think that in the hard-bitten, skeptical environs of the television news business...this entire concept would be laughed right out the window before it started?
The Lives We Save
The President is scheduled to sign into law today a ban on partial-birth abortion. Praise God that this day has finally come. Jill Stanek writes a column emphasizing that "the PBA ban won't save one life. It will save millions."
NOTE: Pres. Bush will sign the bill at 1:40, Washington, DC, time.
--- Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Absurdity Reaches a New Low
Set your VCRs. The Rev. Al Sharpton is scheduled to host Saturday Night Live next month. And I am too speechless to even make a sarcastic comment worthy of such a venture.
--- Monday, November 03, 2003
Rewriting the Scripture
I just watched the last half of ABC's special on Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The liberal scholars outweighed the conservatives by about 4 to 1, and I didn't hear Matthew, Mark, Luke or John quoted once. I'm sure the first half was better.
Supreme Court Won't Take 10 Commandments Appeal
And Speaking of George W Bush...
Democratic congressman Zell Miller takes an astounding endorsement for the Bush '04 campaign to the pages of the Wall Street Journal today.
"My political history to the contrary, this was the easiest decision I think I've ever made in deciding who to support. For I believe the next five years will determine the kind of world my four grandchildren and four great-grandchildren will live in. I simply cannot entrust that crucial decision to any one of the current group of Democratic presidential candidates."
Lieberman's Integrity
Democratic Presidential Candidate Joseph Lieberman, in a WashingtonPost.com chat, on voting to support Pres. Bush's request for $87 billion for Iraq: "I hope people who don't agree with me on this particular vote will decide that they want someone as their president who does what he believes is right, particularly when it is controversial. That is what I mean when I say I will lead America with integrity."
I do applaud Mr. Lieberman's support for a President Bush who is doing "what he believes is right," even though it's controversial. Thanks, Joe, for reminding me why I voted for him.
US Church Rebuked
Following yesterday's consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson, Anglicans around the world have expressed their disapproval at the appointment of a homosexual bishop.
Why is this such a big deal? "Because the word of God teaches us clearly what the standards are for Christian behavior in leaders and Canon Robinson does not fulfill those requirements." Plainly stated by Australian archbishop Peter Jensen. "This creates a split for the first time in a particular area, and that's a tragedy but it's necessary if the truth is to be preserved."
If only more American Episcopalians had taken such a high view of Scripture -- but preserving the truth did not seem to be a factor in this decision.
--- Saturday, November 01, 2003
The Tides of Tolerance
Writes William Federer:
Homosexuals come out of the closet, Christians go in! If sixteen Democrats in the House of Representatives have their way, General Boykin will be censured and reassigned for sharing his faith. While silent about the Muslim "spy" chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, Democrat Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D OH), Sheila Jackson Lee (D TX) and Maxine Waters (D CA) introduced House Resolution 419, calling for, in essence, the establishment of a new military policy of "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" your faith if you are Christian. We are still in the United States of America, right?
Suing to Save Abortion
Even before the bill to ban partial-birth abortion gets to the President's desk, pro-abortion groups are trying to stick their foot in the door with lawsuits. CBS notes that the Prez is set to sign the bill on Wednesday, and the legal war begins again.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
