Switching gears

I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving this year, and that for those of you who traveled to have Thanksgiving with family, that you're arriving safely back home.

Anyway, I thought it might be a nice change of pace to switch gears a little bit, so I'm recommending that you visit Craig Winn's Yada Yahweh blogtalkradio program when you get the time. Specifically one or more of his shows in the very intriguing "The Great Galatians Debate" series which are accessible at the site.

Let me know what you think, if you should like, in a comment to this entry.

Read More

Islamites spew venom at the West from their Dead Island perch

Note: The caption at the top of the video is a complete misrepresentation. These Islamites aren't "insulting" Geert Wilders, as if to say they're simply calling him bad names or something. Insofar as they speak of Wilders by name, they make no bones about what punishment they have in store for him should he ever drop his guard. What idiot among us doubts that these freak followers of their freak prophet Mohammed wouldn't saw his head off with a dull knife right there in the streets of London if they could get their hands on him? But, of course, it isn't just Mr. Wilders's life they threaten, but the lives of all non-Muslim Westerners, including your children and mine.

History, methinks, is bound to repeat itself once again. Terry didn't raise his *kids to be no fools, nor to succumb to jihadist threats and acts of aggression. So we got us a little problem here, don't we.

*I actually hate using that word "kids" in reference to my offspring because sheep have kids, people have children (Katherine Dang). And words most definitely mean something. Occasionally I'll make an exception, which I did in this particular case for purely stylistic reasons. And yes, I apply the exact same rule in verbal communications as I do in writing. On the other hand, given the way some children tend to behave, I can see why their parents choose to refer to them (or is it themselves?) in animalistic terms.

Read More

Is anything possible with God?

Well, no. Anything that is possible is possible with God, unlike human ... beings. It isn't like God is being that involves no restriction on His being, well, being. God can't possibly create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, as an example. But He can create a rock that is too heavy for created beings to possibly lift, human technology and enginuity notwithstanding. That is the essence of God. He can do certain things, and he cannot do certain other things. We (human beings, created intelligent beings) can relate to this only as a limited being can relate to unlimited being. By calling God "unlimited," while asserting his "limitlessness" am I not contradicting myself? Well, in a sense, yes. In another sense (the God-sense), no. God is unlimited in his ability to do that which is possible to do. Human beings cannot ever achieve that level of possibility no matter what. We'll never be able to create a rock that is impossible for us to lift, in other words, if it were at all possible for us to "create" a rock in any event.

But, in the end, I'm simply inviting others to share their view or understanding of theology. Given that we have some very intelligent, very informed commenters here, I have nothing but intense interest in their particular views on this subject.

The floor is yours...

Read More

History of the United States, by Noah Webster

I wrote once, in passing, about Google books. And I included a link in the post to Noah Webster's (America's Schoolmaster) "History of the United States." I thought that I had included a favorite passage of mine from the book in the entry, but a search of the blog archives proves that that is not the case, so I shall include it here. In the introduction to the book, Noah Webster wrote:

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.

So much for the doctrine of "the separation of church and state," eh? By the way, how is it that one is to "separate" his religion (or the lack thereof) from his politics. I hold that it is impracticable; that those who vie for such a thing are irrational.

Someone named "Zapem" invokes the authority of General Washington in a comment posted under Dr. Keyes's latest entry over at Loyal to Liberty. My reply to Zapem involves the importation of foreign ideas of God, man, and government to these shores. It once was, you see, a great concern of Washington's, the witness of American youth migrating to foreign countries in order to acquire the higher branches of erudition. Why? Because, in his words, the great possibility existed that these students, ill-eqipped as they were to well understand the value of their own system of government, would thus imbibe principles not congenial with republicanism and bring them back with them on return to America. But we needn't worry with that anymore, as I intimate in my reply to Zapem.

Read More

On the intolerablest of all possible sins

There is a semi interesting discussion ongoing at Dr. Keyes's site Loyal To Liberty in which the intolerablest sin imaginable -- intolerance -- is mentioned several times back and forth between posters. (Might this be yet another case of leftier-than-thou posters sparring with one another about who is, well, the leftier of the two, which are always fun and entertaining exchanges? Well, not exactly, but close.)

I thought a word on tolerance was in order, so I posted a comment to the thread. It also seemed appropriate that I should mention in the comment the blatantly false liberal idea that we can't (or shouldn't) legislate morality. If liberals truly believe that we can't/shouldn't legislate morality, then why do they do it? The answer is that they don't really believe in the concept. What they actually believe is that legislating specific kinds of morality (i.e., non-liberal morality) is absolutely not permissable, liberal morality being excepted, of course. As I've said many times before, here and elsewhere, it's not a matter of whether we can or should legislate morality, it is rather a matter of whose morality will be legislated.

Anyway, here's what I wrote in the post:

A word on "tolerance" if I may:

Perhaps it needs to be pointed out to some in this conversation that people don't tolerate that which they agree with, they embrace it. Tolerance implies disagreement, thus those who embrace a thing and (self-righteously) count it as the highest form of tolerance are simply lying to themselves. Likewise, people who say that a person is intolerant because he expresses opposition to, or non-embrace of a thing, indict themselves. But if anyone can show me an ideology that is more intolerant (not to mention destructive) than liberalism in any case, I'd sure like to see it.

Then there's the liberal fallacy that says "we cannot legislate morality."

For our purposes here, let's throw the illegitimate word "amorality" on the ash heap where it belongs and act like adults with some semblance of common sense. As if moral beings can be morally neutral.

But if it's true that we cannot legislate morality, as liberals are so fond of saying, then why do liberals (they're the ones that incessantly make the statement, and I'm including among them right-liberals), well, legislate morality, liberal morality?

Whenever you make a distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, you've just taken a moral position. Does anyone know of any law on the books that is not founded in a moral position, someone's moral position?

Let's take abortion as our example since this thread is about abortion. Correct me, but isn't the argument, at bottom, that it is wrong, thus immoral, to deny a woman's right to choose? Isn't that what we constantly hear from the pundits, the talking heads, and our illustrious liberal politicians ("Republicans" included)?

Read More

On the sorry state of the Christian Church in America

As if the preceding two posts to this blog were not enough, I received a report from the frontlines a few days ago relating to the post title.

Now, I'm not particularly friendly to what some would call "organized religion." I'm a Christian, and I strive to follow Christ's teachings. That would include the Old Testament which Christ, several times in the New Testament, confirmed. On the other hand, I'm not opposed to some level of "organized" religion. There has to be a balance struck, and again, I strive [truly] to strike that balance as an individual, as well as in my relation to others outside my personal individuality.

In the particular case in question, and among other serious errors, it was reported to me, from a very reliable source, that the minister of this church announced to the congregation during his "altar call" during last Sunday's service that "if you want to be released from the bonds of traditionalism, then come forward and pray with me and you shall be set free." Well, okie dokie. That's about the point at which I would have walked out. And indeed, according to my informant, that WAS the point at which he walked out of the service, with no intention of ever returning.

Now, in and of itself it isn't that big of a deal if we establish some reasonable context in which the statement was made. But this isn't the case. This is the kind of church in which overweight females actually pray the calories out of their food (you'd think they'd look in the mirror, or step on a pair of scales once in a while), and such as that. It is the kind of church in which the Spirit of God cannot be in attendance unless virtually everyone is acting like a bunch of teenaged idiots at a rock concert or a local nightclub. And etc. You get the idea I think, but let us seal the deal: This is the kind of church in which the impending economic crisis is thought to be exclusive to the world; the kind of church in which the congregation is assured that as long as it pays its tithes, everything (for faithful tithe-paying members in exclusion of all others) will be hunky-dory. Getting the picture?

You see why I find life so interesting? Here we have a "Christian" church (and this is more common than some of you might think) which teaches doctrines that are not only unscriptural, but which also denies God's very nature and essence. But God is not mocked; He will laugh and will have us in derision. Let me put it this way: if you're a so-called "Christian" church, and your sole and exclusive focus is on the book of Revelation, end-times prophesy, name-it-and-claim-it "gospel," then you're so far from genuine Biblical-Christian teaching that you have no earthly business claiming to be "Christian" in any sense of the word. And this whole problem spans the denominations, believe me:

Several years ago one of the neighbor children came to me while I was busy doing some yard work and announced that she'd been "saved." Now, knowing her like I did, I thought this was kind of odd, so I began to quiz her on what she meant by the term "saved." She said that she was in church and the preacher had an altar call in which he invited all of the non-saved to participate. She, of course, participated. As I 'interrogated' her as to what she'd done, I found that she was completely oblivious to what she'd done. First, she didn't know who Christ was. Second, she had no idea about his birth, death, and resurrection. I gave her a few scriptures to read, and said to her that she should go back to the pastor and explain that she wasn't aware, at the time of her "conversion", what it all meant; that she wanted to be saved legitimately. She did so, and reported back to me (with a bit of an attitude this time) that the pastor in question had informed her that he had saved her before, so there was no need to go over it again ... and that she was to communicate this to me at our next encounter, which she did.

Years prior to that particular incident I was working on a job when the lady of the house announced to me that the weather at the time was the "weirdest weather she'd experienced during the course of her lifetime," and that she could "no longer tell the difference [between the seasons]." This occurance, to her, meant that Christ was soon to return in accordance with Revelation. The season in question was Fall, and I simply said to her that I can tell the difference -- all I have to do is look outside and see the changing as it takes place. And accordingly I asked how much time she spent outside the house. (Does geographic location -- in this case 35 degrees North latitiude, 100 degrees West longitude, approx. 750 ft. above Sea Level, and completely surrounded by land -- mean nothing to any American anymore?).

That, my friends, is the state of Christianity in this country. I've seen and experienced it over and over and over again during the course of the last several years. And it isn't getting any better. It is getting worse, and the stain on Christianity and Biblical-Christian teaching is becoming more and more profound as we speak.

I completely understand where many of you non-Christians are coming from when you say things to the effect that religion is unreasonable. But I want you to know that there are some of us 'religionists' who do not deny our physical beings and our physical natures, nor the physical world in which we live. Indeed, we embrace it as essential aspects of who we are. At the same time we do not deny our spiritual sides either. And we believe, with assurance, that our physical existance is governed by physical laws which are more or less immutable. The same applies as well to our spiritual natures.

Read More

Allow me another anecdote

I ran across Jay Seculow's radio show the other day while driving from one job to another. My interest was piqued because Seculow was talking about the recent release of the report from the Homeland Security Dept., and the UCLJ's actions in response.

When the phone lines were opened a female caller prefaced her concerns with this statement which I'll paraphrase: "I'm sorry, but we've elected a Muslim to the presidency." I don't think the latter part of the statement was actually aired because Seculow intentionally cut her mic in the very midst of her making the statement. Thus, her larger point was not allowed to be made.

Seculow then entered upon a diatribe about how he wasn't going to question Hussein's profession of faith, nor the way in which he chooses to exercise his religion, which, of course, Hussein claims to be Christianity. He didn't come out and say it, of course, but the implication was clear enough -- Jay Seculow is a bought-and-paid-for, holier-than-thou "liberal Christian." You know, one of those Christians who believes in fairness and "tolerance" and non-discrimination as the ultimate goal and ruling principles of any legitimate society. He also, by implication, has a problem with Christianity's exclusivism, as well as with Christians who understand and accept this essential aspect of Christianity. But that doesn't negate the fact that Christianity IS exclusivistic.

Tell ya what, Jay, you go on not questioning Hussein's faith and his exercise of faith (and by extension anyone and everyone else's), while at the same time discriminating against Christian callers bold enough to assert the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. But let me ask you this: what part of Holy writ, and what part of the New Testament and Christ's ministry in particular, do you presume to cite in defense of this "Christian" position of yours? Take your time.

Read More

Bible vs. Koran

Which of the two books is more violent, and thus which of the two books is more peaceful? An interesting discussion on the topic may be had here.

Read More

In Answer to the objections of Atheists...

...to Auster, Coleman, et al.

Here is an excerpt from Washington's Farewell Address apropos to the discussion, and a strong defense of the position of those mentioned:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? (emphasis mine)

Indeed! Who that is a sincere friend to our species of free government can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Messers Auster and Coleman, et al, are simply doing what they have to do. And they have the force of a Washington to back them up, whom I invoke.

Read More

Christianity -- the West's suicide pact?

The long discussion on religion continues over at Mangan's Miscellany. Let us recall, as apropos to the discussion, Kristor L.'s excellent analysis of genuine Christian teaching vs. the teachings of "liberal Christianity" in this August, 2007 VFR entry, permanently linked in my left sidebar under Select VFR Articles.

Note: I've left a comment at Mangan's to this effect.

Read More

Darby, Mangan, Auster, Morris -- and disbelief in the central doctine of Christianity

This October 9th, 2007 Webster's post is being bumped to the fore in light of this VFR entry on this Mangan's Misc. entry.

A great and most important discussion, by the way, from all sides.

We've had these discussions before, here and elsewhere, but where have we ever settled the issue? ...

**********

Update: below is my response to certain assertions of commenter "Anonymous" over at Mangan's with Anon's comments highlighted in italics.

Christians claim that there is an all-knowing, all-loving God who created the universe. Several arguments are used to prove God's existence. They are all inadequate.

- A first argument is the Bible: "The Bible says God exists, so he must." The problem is that if we ask a Hindu, a Muslim, a Sikh or a Jew the same question they too will point to their respective holy books as proof of the existence of their Gods.

First of all, this is an oversimplification (perhaps purposeful) of how Christians determine the Bible to be evidence of God's existence. Some Christians may express it in these inadequate terms, but I personally do not know many, if any, that do. If you want to reduce it to a simple statement it would be more along the lines of "The Bible claims to be the Word of God spoken in human language. If this claim is true then God must exist, and he must possess all the attributes that the Bible says he possesses. And he must have communicated his will for man -- his creation -- in man's language." Of course this also means, by implication, that if the claims of the Bible are not true, then the biblical God most likely doesn't exist, which is not to say that some other supreme being does not exist. But the Bible also denies the existence of all deities other than the singular deity it describes and gives testimony to.

Second, why is it a problem for the God of the Bible that if you ask a Hindu he will point to his scriptures as evidence of the existence of Hindu gods? My understanding about Muslims and Jews is that they believe their God to be one and the same God as the God of the O.T. scriptures, so there seems to be at least some unity here, and I do not understand why Anonymous lumps Muslims and Jews in with Hindus. Muslims and Jews deny Christ's deity, and this is one area where they and Christians part ways. But again, I can hardly see how this is a problem for the God of the Bible. Because the book of Mormon exists, and Latter Day Saints profess belief in its teachings presents no problem for the existence of the Biblical-Christian God.

- Christians will sometimes say "The universe didn't just happen, someone must have made it and therefore there must be a creator God." There is a major flaw in this argument. When it starts to rain we do not ask "Who is making it rain?" because we know that rain is caused not by someone but by something - natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc. A cause (or causes) need not be a being. Even if we believe that a divine being is needed to explain how the universe came into existence, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? Perhaps it was created by the God of Islam.

Again you seem to be completely unaware that the God of Islam purports to be the same God as the God of the Old Testament Bible. Now, admittedly, Christians who understand what the Koran teaches about Allah will emphatically deny that Allah and the Biblical God can be one and the same being. Christians would maintain that one of them does not and cannot exist -- Allah -- because Allah claims attributes that are impossible for God to possess.

- The Christian will of course maintain that the universe does not merely exist but that its existence shows perfect design. But how does the Christian know that it was his God who is behind creation? How does the Christian know that only one God designed evrything? And...is the universe perfectly?

Because if there is such a thing as a Supreme Being (or God, if that is your preference), then logically there can only be one God. If there were more than one Supreme Being then neither of them could possibly live up to their billing. All the Bible is saying about the deity is that He is necessarily a singularity; a simple being with no potentiality ... as opposed to all others. Moreover, no informed Christian that I know of would ever assert that the universe is perfect. Only God is perfect, and he cannot transmit his perfection to a created thing. But how do you know that the universe is not perfect? Why do the vast majority of us agree that the universe is not perfect, that the earth is not perfect, that mankind is not perfect? Is it not that we are somehow endowed with a sense of perfection? How, I ask, by anyone's standards, did we come by this sense of perfection? Don't tell me, by random mutations and chance occurances.

- Christians will sometimes say that everything has a cause, that there must be a first cause, and that God is the first cause. This old argument contains its own refutation, for if everything has a first cause then the first cause must also have a cause. There is another problem with the first cause argument. Logically there is no good reason to assume that everything had a single first cause. Perhaps six, ten or three hundred causes occurring simultaneously caused everything.

My friend, your statement contains its own refutation. The term "first cause" means exactly that -- first -- which means there is nothing preceding it. When we speak of things in terms of their being "first" we usually mean precisely what the term indicates. Our first POTUS, George Washington, was the first president because no one had preceding him in the office. How could they when the office did not before the ratification of the Constitution exist? What Christians actually say is that everything that is not a necessary existence had a first cause. The only thing that Christians assert does not need a first cause is God, the necessary existence who not only needs no cause, but who can't be his own cause.

- Christians claim that miracles are sometimes performed in God's name and that the fact that this happens proves that God exists. If miracles performed in God's name prove the existence of the Christian God, then miracles performed in the name of numerous other gods must likewise prove that they too exist.

You assume that all so-called miracles, or claims of the miraculous, meet the same criteria. You make this assumption based on what? Muslims claim that their holy book is evidence of the miraculous -- that Mohammed who was illiterate must have therefore had Allah's assistance in writing the Koran. This is not even close to the same thing that Christians claim to be miraculous.

- Christians will often claim that only by believing in God will people have the strength to deal with life's problems, and therefore that belief in God is necessary. It is clear, however, that people from non-Christian religions and even those with no religion are just as capable of dealing with life's crises as Christians are - sometimes even better.

Yes; the United States of America, which was founded largely on Biblical-Christian beliefs (some prefer "Judeo-Christian" beliefs) has many equals in the annals of the history of nations.

- According to Christians, God is all-knowing - he knows all the past, all the present and all the future. If this is so, then God must know everything we do long before we do it. This means that our whole life must be predetermined and that we act not according to the free exercise of our wills but according to our predetermined natures.

You make the oft repeated mistake of believing that predetermination and free will are mutually exclusive concepts. But they are not, and this criticism has been answered thoroughly.

Read More

The Bible and the election

I realize that the contemporary view is that religion and politics do not, and should not, mix. The whole of modern American society is infused with this false belief, but people don't actually believe it anyway when you get down to where the rubber meets the road. One's religion does, and forever will, inform one's politics. True, we can't legislate morality ... as long as it's Christian morality. All other versions of morality (non-Christian morality) is not only acceptable but encouraged in modern American politics. As I've said so many times before (and I invite anyone to refute the principle with a good argument), all laws are founded on morality, someone's morality.

Matthew Fontaine Maury once observed that "the Bible is authority for everything it touches." I agree. So, since I agree, I offer the following opinion. If the Bible says anything on politics, then it is authority for that particular aspect of political philosophy. If it says anything about what our standards should be for choosing our rulers, then it is authority for the making and observing of those standards.

So does the Bible have anything to say about choosing our rulers; about what standards and principles we should apply to their selection? Indeed it does, and we're wise to pay particularly close attention to the details, especially in this farce of a presidential election:

Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.

The elective franchise carries with it a heavy burden of responsibility and of duty. The two candidates we're offered in this election in no way, so far as I can tell, meet these simple, reasonable qualifications (If you think either of them does, I should like to hear why.), therefore, since no other candidate for the presidency is included on the Oklahoma ballot, and since the Oklahoma ballot does not make accomodation for a write-in candidate, I shall abstain in the presidential election.

For those of you who know the scriptures, you're encouraged to offer others, Old and New Testament, which speak to this issue. The scripture I've posted above serves very well the purpose of this post, and that is why I chose it.

Read More

Can America survive devoid of religious principle?

Over at BadEagle.com Dr. Yeagley has an interesting Journal entry posted which I read quickly this morning and submitted the following comment to:

TM writes:

Interesting post.

A comparison/contrast of the leading principles which have marked the government of the People of America since they first began colonizing the continent in the early 1600s might be helpful:

1. God's principle of individuality vs. modern liberalism's godless individuality, i.e., "extreme individualism."

2. The Christian principle of self-government vs. the liberal/libertarian Christless version of 'self-government', in the latter case an unrestrained self-indulgence called "self-determination."

3. The American Heritage of Christian Character vs. the liberal denial and rewrite of the same, i.e., whatever, if any, connection between the historic faith of Americans and the greatness of the Republic exists, is at most negligible. America is an idea; an idea not unique to any people or any faith. Genuine orthodox Christianity is a perversion of and destructive to the universal idea that is America.

4. Conscience is the most sacred of all property vs. the liberal principle that conscience, whenever it guides one to a conclusion not congenial with the principles of liberalism, is an oppressive restraining influence on 'free' spirits, which children must be taught to violate at a very early age.

5. The Christian form of our government vs. liberalism's radical "secular state", the latter of which claims to deny the existence and legitimacy of moral governance, an easily demonstrated palpably false claim.

6. Local self-government vs. an all-powerful centralized government -- power emanates from the national authority, not the other way around.

7. The Christian principle of American political union, i.e., reciprocal and centrifugal federalism and voluntary union vs. liberalism's government by judiciary and forced political union.

What it all comes down to in the end, though, is worldview, which is the reason I often state "worldview is everything," meaning a person's, and by extension a nation's and a government's worldview ultimately determines the way each conducts his/its affairs, whether this clear fact is recognizable to some or not. Whatever it is, everyone has one (a worldview) and cannot not vie for its institution at every level of government, and always on moral grounds, spurious or otherwise. In other words, whatever their particular worldview instructs them is right (moral) and wrong (immoral) will invariably dictate what form of government they are most attached to. The Federal Representative Constitutional Republic that our founders created is, as John Adams said, wholly inadequate any other than a religious and a moral people.

A frequent commenter there who goes by the moniker "ecology" chooses to answer this way:

Well I do not know about this having to be religious thing. Like who is going to tell me that I am not the right religion and am not "moral". I will just load a round into the chamber and tell you to f*** off. I do not think you have to be any of these mainstream religions to be "moral". In fact I find many reigious people to be covetous and fake. Liars living a lie with cult like tendencies. People need to be raised humble and with a connection to the land and reality. Cheap oil and the new world resources have made us bloated and pudgy. We are basically one massive cargoist cult.

Yes, many self professed religious people are liars and fakes and hypocrites, no one is disputing that. But not all religious people are liars and fakes and hypocrites, at least these are not their defining characteristics, unless we're talking about a religion like Islam which enjoins its followers to lie and fake and engage the act of hypocrisy. I find that many non-religious folks are liars and fakes and hypocrites, so it seems that both religious and non-religious folks have something in common after all, i.e., our common humanities and fallen natures.

Ecology simply makes the common error of missing the big picture. And while I know it's not pc to question someone's patriotism unless it is on the grounds of a rejection and denial of the all-encompassing ideology of liberalism and its principles, I prefer to take my cues from the wisdom of founding fathers such as George Washington, et al:

Ecology,

In his Farewell Speech, George Washington said:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." (emphasis mine)

Now, you personally may not be particularly inclined, as some are, to labor to overthrow all religious influence in America (so long as it is Christianity), I do not and cannot know. But you nonetheless "labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness" when you argue that, in direct opposition to Mr. Washington, morality can be maintained without religion. Do you also claim the tribute of patriotism as you labor to subvert these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens? If so it is all in vain.

If this offends your sensibilities that I would dare question another American's patriotism, and particularly on these grounds, then I guess you'll just have to get over it. Ecology, like so many liberals (and nominal conservatives) these days, boldly ignores the wisdom of our eminent founders, throwing caution to the wind as he indulges the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion; that liberty and independency and genuine Republican government can be maintained without both, and this he does as he instructs us that we should teach our children humility and connect them to reality. Well okie dokie.

Once more, he and others like him lack the perspective of a whole view, which is to say that his approach to this subject (and any other) is a part-to-whole approach which he was unwittingly taught during his formidable years, and continues to unwittingly embrace and apply, his self-styled humility and connection to reality notwithstanding. It's understandable and really serves to illustrate the point; the point being that an irreligious society cannot be a moral society; that an immoral society cannot be a free society. I know, I know, that's a complete departure from the conventional wisdom. But if you believe otherwise, then I'd strongly suggest that you open your eyes and take a good look around you.

Read More

Sarah Palin and Complementarianism

If you follow a biblical-Christian worldview then you're very likely a complementarian. To what extent you're a complementarian may be in question, but you're a complementarian to some extent, no doubt. To what extent you're a complementarian, though, is ultimately the determining factor in how you view the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's vice-presidential running mate. But if you're not a pure complementarian are you in danger of slipping into Christian egalitarianism?

Earlier today frequent VFR commenter and complementarian Laura W. sent to VFR a link to a site called "Doug's blog" where is posted this excellent essay by Bill Einwechter in which Einwechter discusses Sarah Palin and the Complementarian Compromise. I'm posting the introductory paragraph below. You may read the entirety of the essay here.

Sarah Palin’s selection by John McCain to be his running mate in his bid for the presidency of the United States is not only a surprise political move, it also carries with it implications of historic proportions. If Senator McCain is successful in his candidacy, Mrs. Palin will become the first woman to fill the office of vice president of this country and be in place to assume the presidency, if necessary. She will also be in line to take up the Republican nomination for president in the future. If John McCain becomes president and chooses to serve only one term, it is quite possible that the next presidential election (2012) will be between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. But Palin’s nomination to the vice presidency is not only an historic occasion for our country, it is also a watershed moment for evangelical Christians, particularly those who claim to be complementarian in their views of men and women (i.e., those who believe that men and women have different but complementary roles according to the revealed will of God).

I think you'll enjoy the rest of the essay irrespective of how pure a complementarian you are. So be sure to read it. I know I certainly needed a bit of a refresher.

Read More

If Sarah Palin isn't McCain's ticket to the White House, Piper Palin is

I've had a lot of critical things to say about Sarah Palin, mainly in comments over at VFR but at a couple of other places as well, including this blog. But today I had something of an epiphany.

No; I'm not taking any of it back. I think I've been fair to Sarah Palin while expressing certain legitimate concerns and criticisms. But I did have something of a revelation today that I'd like to share.

My revelation is that none of my criticisms or Auster's criticisms, or anyone's criticisms for that matter, are likely to make any difference at this point. Not that we shouldn't continue to criticize her when criticism is called for, but that it's not going to make any difference one way or the other.

When Sarah Palin's absolutely adorable six year old daughter Piper was caught on camera during her mom's speech at the RNC swiping her palm across her tongue for the purpose of laying her brother Trig's hair down, at that point the Palin family won the hearts of average Americans for once and for all. For those that didn't see it live, they heard about it and they've seen it now.

I watched it live and I even got a lump in my throat as I witnessed the scene. But don't tell my wife whose instinctive reaction was to let out a gasp and utter "Oh my God!" Then we both began to laugh joyfully together. This little perfectly innocent gesture of love toward her baby brother, this little non-scripted event involving this little girl acting the role of good little mother, which no amount of noise in the auditorium would turn her undivided attention from, captured our hearts. This was powerful, powerful stuff. The kind of stuff words cannot explain. It just is what it is. That's all.

A few minutes ago I found the You-tube video and watched it again. And this event still elicits very positive emotions in me. I can't help it. And I'm betting a lot of other Americans can't help it either. There's something almost magical about it. The shot starts out on Piper's mom giving her speech. This woman is easy to look at. And it's not just her physical beauty, though she's obviously very pretty, but you can see in her eyes almost a sincerity and goodness, maybe even a degree of naivete or uncorruptedness. But in addition you see her youth, the brightness in her face and her eyes, a very positive and outgoing attitude, and you just sense that Sarah Palin is a good and decent person, albeit one to be reckoned with. Then suddenly, without warning yet very naturally, the shot is on Sarah's youngest daughter Piper caring for her little brother. She's sweet and gentle, but not so cautious with him as to make you feel as though she thinks she's going to break him. You get the feeling this little six year old girl has already been trained very well; that she's a capable motherly caregiver with abilities well beyond her years, and that the Palins are well justified in placing a great deal of confidence in her ability to maintain perfect undivided focus, under virtually all conditions and circumstances, on her task of taking care of Trig. No amount of noise or commotion in the auditorium can divert Piper's attention from the duties at hand. She has a job to do; she can't be distracted by the insignificant goings on around her inside the auditorium. Relative to her job of taking care of Trig, this is all meaninglessness; a bunch of noise and racket that she simply can't be bothered with.

What a powerful testament; what a powerful scene! How could Obama ever touch it? How could he ever come close to touching it? Barack Obama doesn't have the stuff it takes to match this scene, let alone top it, even if he tried.

So as I said in the title to this entry, if Sarah Palin isn't McCain's ticket to the White House, Piper Palin is. But of course, you don't get Sarah without Piper or vice versa, they come as a matching set. With almost sixty days left until the general election and several debates to come, I'd bet my last dollar on it. Not that I'm particularly happy about it, or that I'll vote McCain, but I'll wager a McCain victory with anyone that cares to. And Piper Palin is a big reason why.

Read More

Religious Right Loses Bearings on Palin Selection

Below is a list of emails I've received to my inbox from Dr. Dobson's CitizenLink organization on McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate (Note: Links are provided here where they are provided in the emails.):

-Aug. 29: Dr. James Dobson: McCain's Choice of Palin 'Outstanding'‏

-Sept. 2: Dr. Dobson Prays for Palin Family‏

-Sept. 3: Palin Draws Dr. Dobson Toward McCain‏

-Sept. 4: Special Alert: Palin Adds to Euphoria over Strength of GOP Platform‏

These are the CitizenLink emails I've received to my inbox since Palin's selection as McCain's running mate was announced. Very interestingly to yours truly is the fact that Don Wildmon's AFA (American Family Association) has been strangely silent on the Palin selection. I haven't personally received a single email from AFA concerning the Palin selection, and this seems strange to me. Don Wildmon and Dr. Dobson are generally in complete agreement on these political questions, and yet not a word from Wildmon's AFA? It just seems strange.

I wrote at VFR the following concerning Dr. Dobson's immediate and continued support for Sarah Palin:

When one makes the leap--as Dr. Dobson did with both feet almost immediately after her selection was announced--onto the bandwagon of some relatively unknown political figure such as Sarah Palin, no amount of religion nor conservatism will suffice, it seems, to convince one that one has made an error.

Conservatism is about being level headed about these things, is it not? Why didn't Dobson recognize his initial joy at hearing of the Palin selection as based in passion, not in clear-headed reason?

It's hard to criticize a figure like Dr. Dobson -- someone who has for years done outstanding work in my opinion on family issues -- without looking (and feeling) like you're being overly-critical of him. But in this case Dr. Dobson needs to be criticized for hurling himself and his entire organization onto the Sarah Palin bandwagon before he knew anything of substance about Sarah Palin and her "family values". As a respected leader of the "religious right", I think the least required of Dr. Dobson is to take a second look at his support for Sarah Palin and to reconsider his position. And I hereby call on him to do so.

You disagree? Why?

Also, some of you may be interested in the contents of the following email (not posted at VFR) that I sent to Auster on the Palin situation and Dobson's blind support of her:

TM writes to LA:

I just want to point out, too, that as Dobson defends Sarah Palin's "family values" and effectively says that we can't question the fact of her "absentee momism" as having anything to do with the Bristol situation, he's effectively leaving her younger children (and all American children by extension) hanging out to dry.

Dobson says that being Christian does not mean you or your children are perfect. Fine. The Palin's are not perfect, they make mistakes like everyone else, and their children make mistakes like everyone else, who is saying otherwise? But then he says that there's forgiveness and restoration for those who confess their sins to the Lord. Well, first of all, does Mrs. Palin feel any sense of personal failure or sinfulness related to Bristol's condition? And if she does then why the hell is she going to continue to be an absentee mom when she still has young children at home who need the influence that only she, as their mother, can provide?

This is nothing less than the sacrificing of our children on the alter of liberalism; it is in one sense worse than abortion for rather than killing their bodies, it is killing their souls. As you've pointed out, this is not just about Sarah Palin. It is about our larger society and the influence that the Sarah Palins of our society have upon it.

I've never been more discouraged about our future.

Read More

Desperate Crossing: The Untold Story of the Mayflower

Since good historically accurate television docu-dramas, and their value as a means and instrument to enlighten a public illiterate on early American history, are on my mind today, here's one that I saw on the History Channel, Thanksgiving 2006. This particular documentary is based on the only reliable source available on the history of the founders of Plymouth Colony, Governor Bradford's own history "Of Plymouth Plantation."

I read Governor Bradford's history many years ago, so I was well prepared to identify any blatant historical inaccuracies that might be contained in the movie. It's been two years since I saw it so my recollection may be a bit skewed, but the overall impression that I formed of the movie at the time, as I recall, was very positive, and I've retained that sense to this day. Indeed, I looked for it last year at Thanksgiving on the History Channel, eager to see it again, but to no avail. I think this year, rather than count on a replay on the History Channel, I'll just purchase a DVD copy and let that be that.

Who says tv isn't a useful educational tool?

Anyway, here is one short review of the movie posted on the Amazon page linked above:

J.S. Kaminski writes:

Most Americans know the story of the Pilgrims and Mayflower...or do they? The History Channel has done a great job here, showing us that there is more to the story than we'd been taught. For example, who knew that many of the Pilgrims had actually moved to the Netherlands for an extended period (12 years or so) before deciding to try their luck in the New World? Or that there were actually two ships (the other being called The Speedwell), but the 2nd one was left behind because it was deemed un-seaworthy? Or that the Pilgrims landed first, not at Plymouth, but on Cape Cod, only to be driven off by the Native Americans there? These facts and many others are revealed in this interesting film.

Well, had you read the book, Mr. Kaminski, you would have known some of these otherwise obscure facts about the Pilgrims. LOL

Nah, Mr. Kaminski is right that these facts are not widely known today, and he's also right, if memory serves, that these facts among others spoken of in Bradford's history, such as the use of a "great iron screw" to repair a damaged main beam in the ship, are brought out in the movie. My only real beef with the docu-drama is that I personally feel that too much effort was expended in giving the ancestors of the natives an angry voice by which to demonize the Pilgrims. There are some very angry Indians out there, but that side of the story has been told for ... how long now? Hopefully the movie will lead people like Mr. Kaminski to read the book?

I don't recall the exact context so it would be hard for me to find the link, but we had a discussion a few years ago over at the AFB in which a couple of us were challenged by someone for "making the story of the Pilgrims out to be a "religious fairytale"", or something to that effect. I replied by pointing out to our opponent that the story of the Pilgrims -- Bradford's history of Plymouth Plantation -- which I had read several times sort of reads like one; that he ought to read it sometime and he would know exactly why our impression of the Pilgrims is what it is -- a religious fairytale if that's what you want to call it. The movie in question, again as I recall from seeing it two years ago, following Bradford's history closely, has the same basic effect. I highly recommend it for those who have yet to read or hear or see anything other than revisionist histories of our Pilgrim ancestors.

Addendum:

I thought that some of you may be unaware of this bit of historical 'trivia' related to Bradford's manuscript, and that you might be interested. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the subject which relates the basic facts of the manuscript's century-long disappearance from the American continent, how it was discovered and returned:

History of the manuscript

After Prince's death, the manuscript was left in the tower of the Old South Meeting House in Boston. During the Revolutionary War, British troops occupied the church and the manuscript was lost for another century. After quotes from the missing book appeared in Samuel Wilberforce's A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, in the 1850s it was discovered in the Bishop of London's library at Fulham Palace,[2] and was published in print in 1856. Formal proposals to return the manuscript were not successful until the 1897 initiative of the Hon. George Hoar, United States Senator from Massachusetts, supported by the Pilgrim Society, the American Antiquarian Society, and the New England Society of New York.

When Bishop of London Frederick Temple learned of the importance of the book, he thought it should be returned but because it was being held by the Church that approval from the Archbishop of Canterbury was needed. By the time the formal request from Hoar's group reached England, the Archbishop was Frederick Temple. The bishop's Consistorial and Episcopal Court of London observed that although how the book got there was not known, the marriage and birth registry in the back of the book should have been deposited with the Church, that this library was the proper place for it, thus the book was a church document and the Diocese of London had proper control of it. The court went on to observe that when the Colony declared independence in 1776, the Diocese of London was no longer the proper place because London's registry was no longer the proper repository for such a registry. The bishop's court ordered that a photographic copy of the document be made for the court, and the original be delivered to the Governor of Massachusetts.

Read More

A quibble that's increasingly becoming a major gripe

Can we agree that the holiday we celebrate annually on July 4th in this country should be referred to as "Independence Day," not "the 4th of July"? I mean, we don't refer to Christmas as "the 25th of December," nor our own birthdays, nor our wedding day as "the 23rd of March" (randomly chosen date) or whatever. December 25th and July 4th are dates on the calendar which mark two great occasions for celebration in this country, the birth of Christ and the birth of the nation respectively. Personally I think we do a disservice to our founders and the epoch when we use the calendar date July 4th as synonymous terminology with the event which we're celebrating, or which we're supposed to be celebrating.

As John Quincy Adams, on the 61st occasion for celebrating Independence Day in this country, so ably said in a speech delivered to the citizens of Newburyport:

Why is it that next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day.
Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked to the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the Progress of the Gospel dispensation?
Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth?
That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before.

Perhaps my traditionalist friends will at least agree with me (and with Mr. Adams) on this point. Indeed, as Mr. Adams put it, our most joyous and most venerated festival, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, returns on this day, the calendar date July 4th. The festival itself is not the same as the date on which we celebrate it.

Notwithstanding that, here's a Wikipedia article on the Declaration of Independence that you might find interesting.

Addendum:

Here's the first paragraph from the Wiki entry:

The United States Declaration of Independence was a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, announcing that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration was a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of America—Independence Day—is celebrated on July 4, the day the wording of the Declaration was approved by Congress. (emphasis added)

Happy Independence Day!

Read More

Apostate Muslim's account of Islam

In an essay posted at VFR Evariste explains why he ultimately rejected the teachings of the Koran, and with that rejection the Bible itself.

There are a lot of insights to be gleaned from Evariste's lengthy essay, so I recommend that you read it ... more than once. Certain Muslim beliefs are not common knowledge among Christians. I know, for instance, that I've been confused before on exactly what issue Muslims have with the Biblical account of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Particularly whether Muslims believe that Ishmael was the actual "son of promise." Which brings me to the point of this post, something Evariste states in his essay:

It's really an Arab supremacist religion that. Both the Arabs and the Jews are Semitic peoples with many resemblances, and Arabic and Hebrew are extremely similar languages, sharing an identical basic structure and much vocabulary, so I think there's a case to be made that the Arabic rage and fury against the Jews that manifests fully in the religion called Islam is actually an echo through history of the story of Cain and Abel, writ very, very large.

Yes, I suppose one could, more or less, accurately describe it that way; Cain angrily bludgeoned his brother Abel to death because of his outrage over the fact that God respected Abel's sacrificial gift but did not respect Cain's. But I think there's a better biblical accounting which more accurately describes the genesis of the sibling rivalry between Arabs and Jews. Namely, Genesis chapters 16, 17 and 21. It seems that the descendants of Ishmael came by their hatred for Isaac and his descendants honest, and that nothing will ever serve to satisfy them that their rightful inheritance, as descendants of the first-born son of Abraham, was not stolen from them.

Read More

Obama Speaketh, and the church sayeth Amen!

Here's a story from ABC News on Caesar Obama's 2006 statements which are now, two years ex post facto, the focus of so much media attention. (Hat tip VA)

I could take several different approaches to the topic if that were my desire, but they'd all boil down to the obvious singularity: Obama is indeed, as Dr. Dobson has stated, a "fruitcake", unfit to be president of the United States. And he has a sizeable contingency of lesser fruitcakes who fawn over his every word, to wit:

The speech delves into Obama's view of the constructive role religion plays in society, beseeching "work that progressive leaders need to do" on the subject, followed by his views of "what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge." (emphasis mine)

That included "the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice," Obama said, as well as "the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

First of all, someone pointed out in a comment to the article that the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In a response to the comment another commenter asked the question "so what do you think is meant by the "establishment clause" of the first amendment? Well, obviously, by the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the founders meant to say that Christians in particular can't, uh, well, uh ... let's let someone with authority to speak on the matter answer that; here are his credentials:

I am a pastor in one of the largest mainline Protestant denominations in the U.S.

Whoa! You got my attention Pastor. Proceed.

I see nothing wrong with Obama's comments as quoted in this article. In fact, I applaud them.

Ok, fair enough. But why do you qualify your support for Obama's statements with the phrase "as quoted in this article?" You're not trying to leave yourself a little wiggle room just in case it turns out that your boy truly is what he truly is, are you? Never mind.

The good Pastor continues:

Leaders who are unable to embrace our nation's pluralism are out of touch and risk establishing a theocracy.

Tripper, you wouldn't, perchance, be Dr. Charles Stanley would you, In Touch pastor in one of the largest mainline Protestant denominations in America as you are and whatnot? Well, anyway, I think you've coined a new phrase soon to be as popular in America as the oft repeated "our democracy" -- "our nation's pluralism." Congratulations. But I'm confused, how is it again that our out-of-touch founders rejected the notion of "our nation's pluralism" and yet avoided, in the very midst of a comparatively non-pluralistic society, establishing a theocracy? Wait, you said this is a "risk", albeit one directly connected to a rejection of pluralism, not necessarily an absolute surety. You're good; you are good! What other pearls of wisdom have you for us poor ignorant biblically and historically illiterate laymen?:

Pluralism is much more of a strength to celebrate rather than a liability to fear.

Wow! Pluralism, excuse me, "our nation's pluralism" is not merely more of a strength to celebrate, but much more of a strength, ummm, much more to be celebrated. Nice touch. Now as the verse of the song in the hymnal says (page 101): "let's all celebrate and have a good time." But before we start, we need you to drop us another pearl'r two:

Christians can/should be completely faithful without legislating morality or theology.

Oh, I see. According to our in touch pastor, there's some sort of mystic power in Christianity which enables us believers to divorce our religious persuasions (or the lack thereof) from our political beliefs. And in addition, Christians, ummm, I mean "in touch" Christians, can and should do the impossible, i.e., avoid legislating their peculiar brand of morality. Do I need to demonstrate for the gazillionth time that all laws are based on morality, someone's morality? Even Obama, as idiotic and self-destructive as his statements which inspired the good pastor's approving statements are, was not so foolish, at least in this particular case, as to assert that the impossible is possible, even for Christians.

Let me say it again for the benefit of those who missed it the other gazillion times I've stated it: ALL laws are founded in a moral perspective, someone's moral perspective. Which is to say that all laws are created on the basis that a thing is right or it is wrong, that it is good or it is evil; that it is moral or immoral. To demonstrate this, I've used the example of abortion before. Yes; laws that favor abortion are founded on a moral perspective. If you doubt me, ask someone who favors abortion laws why they favor abortion laws. Invariably you're going to get an answer based in their particular idea of morality; generally they favor abortion because they think it is wrong (i.e., immoral) to deny a woman the "right to choose" over her own body, and that it is right (i.e., moral) to grant her this "inalienable" right. I don't care how you look at it, that is a moral perspective, and any law which has its basis in such a perspective is a moral law. And as I said, all laws have their bases in this kind of moral reasoning. Therefore, it is literally impossible to not "legislate morality," someone's morality. Question is, for the gazillionth time, whose morality are we going legislate? The great champion of diverse cultural and moral clarity, the benevolent leader for change Augustus Obama provides us the answer. Mr. Obama:

Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

In other words, whatever we once were (a Christian nation, for those who missed it), we are now an admixture of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, non-believers and etc., and whatever collective morality this odd collection produces, that is the morality that will be legislated. But with the "increasing diversity of America's population," says Augustus Obama, "the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater." One could rightly conclude from this statement that as diversity continues to increase in this country, so too will the dangers of sectarianism continue to increase, and that therefore, as the dangers of sectarianism, which are a direct result of increases in diversity, increase even beyond what they are now with further increases in diversity, it is our increasing diversity which spells our ultimate doom. And yet, according to our trippin' pastor, who sees nothing wrong with Obama's statements and in fact applauds them by the way, this diversity, religious and otherwise, is more, much more to be celebrated than to be feared. Which begs the question: what kind of junk is Pastor Tripper tripping on?

Read More