Sunday, November 30, 2003
Saturday, November 29, 2003
"I see them coming, and I figure, 'I'll hit them before they hit me.'"
--Walter Peyton on linemen
Professional football is definitely not a game for Democrats. They would want incontrovertible "proof" that the linemen were going to hit them.
--Walter Peyton on linemen
Professional football is definitely not a game for Democrats. They would want incontrovertible "proof" that the linemen were going to hit them.
Monday, November 24, 2003
"We confide in our strength without boasting of it; we respect that of others without fearing it."
--Thomas Jefferson
--Thomas Jefferson
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Apparently I used my terms unwisely a few days ago in discussing open mindedness and fundamentalism and some people were confused. So I will attempt to explain here what I meant.
I am basically taking an Aristotelian angle to this whole argument. Courage is the mean as all virtues are between two vices--cowardice and brashness. To get at the virtue, we must aim at the vice that is most unlike us. Thus a coward, to be brave, must do things that seem to him foolhardy, while the naturally brash to be merely brave, must behave in ways that seem to him cowardly. To gain the virtue we must aim at the vice we are most unlike.
Now there is definitely a balance between narrow-mindedly (to borrow the colloquialism) clinging to the past and never checking things out and being so open-minded your brains have fallen out (another colloquialism) and we have to attain that balance without rushing to either extreme. The way to do this is identify which vice we are most like and act so far the other way that we are likely to hit the mean.
I don't think anyone in their right mind could deny that, on the whole American society and especially "Christian academics" (let's just put the whole thing in quotes) are in any danger of narrow-mindedness, anymore than they are in danger of actual racism or militarism. They are in far more danger of going completely the other way to cultural relativism. As someone trying to strike the balance, I believe the answer is to aim as far as we can towards the opposite extreme, and at least we'll be closer to the mean than to the dangerous extreme we are now hugging. Besides, a little firm authority in a chaotic world is always a good thing.
And for the record, I am not a KJV-Onlyist, a Separatist, a Wesleyan who believes they sit astride the Only True Theology, or a liberal.
I am basically taking an Aristotelian angle to this whole argument. Courage is the mean as all virtues are between two vices--cowardice and brashness. To get at the virtue, we must aim at the vice that is most unlike us. Thus a coward, to be brave, must do things that seem to him foolhardy, while the naturally brash to be merely brave, must behave in ways that seem to him cowardly. To gain the virtue we must aim at the vice we are most unlike.
Now there is definitely a balance between narrow-mindedly (to borrow the colloquialism) clinging to the past and never checking things out and being so open-minded your brains have fallen out (another colloquialism) and we have to attain that balance without rushing to either extreme. The way to do this is identify which vice we are most like and act so far the other way that we are likely to hit the mean.
I don't think anyone in their right mind could deny that, on the whole American society and especially "Christian academics" (let's just put the whole thing in quotes) are in any danger of narrow-mindedness, anymore than they are in danger of actual racism or militarism. They are in far more danger of going completely the other way to cultural relativism. As someone trying to strike the balance, I believe the answer is to aim as far as we can towards the opposite extreme, and at least we'll be closer to the mean than to the dangerous extreme we are now hugging. Besides, a little firm authority in a chaotic world is always a good thing.
And for the record, I am not a KJV-Onlyist, a Separatist, a Wesleyan who believes they sit astride the Only True Theology, or a liberal.
Friday, November 21, 2003
This weekend being the 40th anniversary of his assassination, the editorial pages of the NYT gave up their Bush-bashing for Bush-undermining and dedicated themselves to praising JFK in lofty terms. This is not really surprising but since it seems to be such a hot topic, let me cash in on it.
First of all, let no one be disrespectful of John F. Kennedy: he was a man of singular abilities to be sure. OK, I've said that.
A favorite tactic of liberal media is to find some kind of liberal "achievement" to compare, of course favorably, to Bush's handling of the war in Iraq specifically and the worldwide war on terror generally. In Kennedy's instance, this is usually the Cuban Missile Crisis. "If only Bush could have handled Iraq like Kennedy handled Cuba," the critics lament. "All would have been well. After all, even with the close shave, we're still here. We won that standoff." Yes, we are still here. And so is Cuba. And so, until a few years ago, was the Soviet Union. What changed?
Kennedy deserves credit for realizing once the missiles in Cuba became operational, there was no use trying to storm the island, or else the Soviets would launch them and there goes world peace. When you have a foe capable of destroying you, should you attack, it might be wise to reconsider and try to get what you want without a war. It's part of looking out for your people.
Nevertheless, the whole reason the war in Iraq was necessary was to avoid the Iraqi dictator getting to that point, and here is where it becomes clear that Kennedy and not Bush falls short. Did Saddam have nuclear weapons? No, but he was trying to get them. Did he have biological and chemical agents? Yes. Had he used them before? Yes. Once he gained these weapons, was there anything to say he shouldn't or wouldn't use them? No. With these weapons at his disposal, Saddam would have been in the position to mock the United States and demand concessions until he was blue in the face. We wouldn't dare to attack him, and we must try to appease him. The attack removed him--if allowed to run its course, the operation will make sure Iraq will never be in a position to threaten the free world again. You think 400 soldiers is a lot? Try invading an Iraq with nuclear weapons. It would have been more than 400 and it would have been more than soldiers.
Kennedy was wise, once it had got to this point, to avoid war with the Soviets over Cuba. But had he followed through his invasion plan and removed Castro, it would never have gotten to this point. Now we have done this and avoided a deadly and tense standoff like that in 1962. Where are the cheers from the media? I'm not expecting them. But at least let's have no more fantasy that we really want another Missile Crisis.
First of all, let no one be disrespectful of John F. Kennedy: he was a man of singular abilities to be sure. OK, I've said that.
A favorite tactic of liberal media is to find some kind of liberal "achievement" to compare, of course favorably, to Bush's handling of the war in Iraq specifically and the worldwide war on terror generally. In Kennedy's instance, this is usually the Cuban Missile Crisis. "If only Bush could have handled Iraq like Kennedy handled Cuba," the critics lament. "All would have been well. After all, even with the close shave, we're still here. We won that standoff." Yes, we are still here. And so is Cuba. And so, until a few years ago, was the Soviet Union. What changed?
Kennedy deserves credit for realizing once the missiles in Cuba became operational, there was no use trying to storm the island, or else the Soviets would launch them and there goes world peace. When you have a foe capable of destroying you, should you attack, it might be wise to reconsider and try to get what you want without a war. It's part of looking out for your people.
Nevertheless, the whole reason the war in Iraq was necessary was to avoid the Iraqi dictator getting to that point, and here is where it becomes clear that Kennedy and not Bush falls short. Did Saddam have nuclear weapons? No, but he was trying to get them. Did he have biological and chemical agents? Yes. Had he used them before? Yes. Once he gained these weapons, was there anything to say he shouldn't or wouldn't use them? No. With these weapons at his disposal, Saddam would have been in the position to mock the United States and demand concessions until he was blue in the face. We wouldn't dare to attack him, and we must try to appease him. The attack removed him--if allowed to run its course, the operation will make sure Iraq will never be in a position to threaten the free world again. You think 400 soldiers is a lot? Try invading an Iraq with nuclear weapons. It would have been more than 400 and it would have been more than soldiers.
Kennedy was wise, once it had got to this point, to avoid war with the Soviets over Cuba. But had he followed through his invasion plan and removed Castro, it would never have gotten to this point. Now we have done this and avoided a deadly and tense standoff like that in 1962. Where are the cheers from the media? I'm not expecting them. But at least let's have no more fantasy that we really want another Missile Crisis.
Monday, November 17, 2003
How important is it to be open-minded? It suddenly seems the goal of most Christians. They will move heaven and earth, bend themselves over backwards, change any and every doctrine, anything to be considered "open-minded." Thus, "fundamentalist" becomes a term of derision, because anything smacking of certainty is also "close-minded." So, how important is it really?
If you're a diplomat, very important. If you're a Christian, Keeper of the True Path, the only Way to God, it is not important at all. I would rather have people I care about be "close-minded" Christians all their lives and never consider another way, than think "openly" all the way to the fiery gates. Then they can sing Hell's theme song--"I Did It My Way." This "gospel of openness" is not Scriptural--its adherents shun Scripture like a liberal shuns logic--and is indeed nothing more than Martin Luther's "wide doorway to Hell." Avoid it at all costs.
If you're a diplomat, very important. If you're a Christian, Keeper of the True Path, the only Way to God, it is not important at all. I would rather have people I care about be "close-minded" Christians all their lives and never consider another way, than think "openly" all the way to the fiery gates. Then they can sing Hell's theme song--"I Did It My Way." This "gospel of openness" is not Scriptural--its adherents shun Scripture like a liberal shuns logic--and is indeed nothing more than Martin Luther's "wide doorway to Hell." Avoid it at all costs.
Sunday, November 16, 2003
"Bringing in Arab League troops to keep the peace may not be what Washington wants to hear. But it may be the most viable way to ease Mr. Bush's campaign worries while ensuring Iraq's long-term stability."
--Dilip Hiro in today's NYT
Liberalism was once considered the property of the intelligentsia, but I have a hard time believing that this is the academia and if it is, the country is done for. Sure, now that Saddam is gone, let's turn management of the country back over to the same nations whose people have been infiltrating Iraq for the past weeks to create turmoil in the country. The Arab League cares nothing for peace and stability in Iraq and has a vested interest in keeping the democratization process from fruition, as when they see democracy working in an Arab country, their own people will begin to see their regimes as (justly) tyrannical. This "brilliant" move by the Left shows their desperation to wreck the peace in Iraq any way they can. It's good thing the President does not have an advisor from the NYT's editorial team on his staff. It would be the same as taking the viper to one's breast.
--Dilip Hiro in today's NYT
Liberalism was once considered the property of the intelligentsia, but I have a hard time believing that this is the academia and if it is, the country is done for. Sure, now that Saddam is gone, let's turn management of the country back over to the same nations whose people have been infiltrating Iraq for the past weeks to create turmoil in the country. The Arab League cares nothing for peace and stability in Iraq and has a vested interest in keeping the democratization process from fruition, as when they see democracy working in an Arab country, their own people will begin to see their regimes as (justly) tyrannical. This "brilliant" move by the Left shows their desperation to wreck the peace in Iraq any way they can. It's good thing the President does not have an advisor from the NYT's editorial team on his staff. It would be the same as taking the viper to one's breast.
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Does provoking outrage equal provoking thought? It seems anymore on a Christian campus that professors or speakers are allowed to say just about anything, calculated to offend, all on the basis of "provoking thought." Now, I always thought of things rationally, not in the heat of emotion. Nevertheless, to provoke outrage and offense, means people are reacting emotionally, not thoughtfully to what is being said. These sorts of statements are not meant to educate, exort or edify but only to offend. Rather than logically and calmly discussing key issues, these "Christian" academics (I did it the other way yesterday so I'll do it this way today) make outlandish and outrageous statements that should raise the ire of anyone holding to a traditional view. Normally, nothing is said to prove the traditional view false; they simply trash it and feel like they are bold and "on the cutting edge." This does not provoke thought, although it may provoke discussion and division. These "academics" would be better advised to think and discuss quietly rather than decide they dislike a proposition for whatever reason and execrate it, along with all who believe it.
Friday, November 14, 2003
Would the apostles recognize the church they founded? I wonder. When Christian "academics" (and it is sometimes hard to tell whether it is Christian or academic that ought to be in quotation marks) preach a doctrine of being "open to the possibility that you are wrong about the existence of God." And here at Have-It University (name withheld to protect the guilty), I heard a chapel of all things on the self-same doctrine this past Monday. Funny but I don't remember Peter or Paul ever doing this in their ministry. If they had, I doubt Christianity would still exist today.
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Remember those in prison as though you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as though you yourselves were suffering. --Hebrews 13:3
I was a prisoner, but you never came:
I was naked, hungry and so cold,
I was frightened and I was suffering
But the torment was I suffered all alone
Remember then the brothers who are suffering:
Remember that your sisters are in pain:
For some of them the sun of hope is setting
And for others it may never rise again.
The chains can't bind the hopefulness
And the bars can't block the means of grace
And the distance that might separate
Cannot defeat the prayers that we might suffer in their place.
After all, these could be your own children dying:
Your wives, your daughters, your husbands, and your sons.
We must weep the tears that they are crying,
With prayer we take our stand beside them so they won't be alone.
So, fellow prisoners, remember:
Someday we may know captivity
But there's a purpose in the calling,
For it is the Lord who sets the prisoner free.
After all, these are your children dying;
They're your wives, your daughters, your husbands and your sons.
We must weep the tears that they are crying.
With prayer we take our stand beside them so they won't be alone.
--Michael Card
It was made known to me in church today that this was a special Sunday set aside to pray for the persecuted Church around the world. It may be thought that hideous persecution is a thing of the past but all over the globe today the same "practitioners of a religion of peace" who hate our country martyr millions of our fellow believers. Keep them in your prayers as you go throughout your day.
I was a prisoner, but you never came:
I was naked, hungry and so cold,
I was frightened and I was suffering
But the torment was I suffered all alone
Remember then the brothers who are suffering:
Remember that your sisters are in pain:
For some of them the sun of hope is setting
And for others it may never rise again.
The chains can't bind the hopefulness
And the bars can't block the means of grace
And the distance that might separate
Cannot defeat the prayers that we might suffer in their place.
After all, these could be your own children dying:
Your wives, your daughters, your husbands, and your sons.
We must weep the tears that they are crying,
With prayer we take our stand beside them so they won't be alone.
So, fellow prisoners, remember:
Someday we may know captivity
But there's a purpose in the calling,
For it is the Lord who sets the prisoner free.
After all, these are your children dying;
They're your wives, your daughters, your husbands and your sons.
We must weep the tears that they are crying.
With prayer we take our stand beside them so they won't be alone.
--Michael Card
It was made known to me in church today that this was a special Sunday set aside to pray for the persecuted Church around the world. It may be thought that hideous persecution is a thing of the past but all over the globe today the same "practitioners of a religion of peace" who hate our country martyr millions of our fellow believers. Keep them in your prayers as you go throughout your day.
Saturday, November 08, 2003
What is it? He's never cried before. Not for all the blood, and all the death. Not for his young students from VMI, not for his friends, not for anybody.
Not so, Sandie. I think he's crying for them all now.
--from "Gods and Generals."
Death is a horrible thing. God Himself wept in front of it (John 11:35). Why did He weep? It wasn't for Lazarus alone--He already told Martha her brother would rise from the dead. Like Stonewall Jackson, in the scene above, He wept for "us all" because He knew how horrible death was and was about to taste it Himself. Never let it be said that God doesn't know what it's like. He does. And if we had listened to Him from the start, we wouldn't have to deal with it now (Genesis 3). But even though we rebelled against Him and chose the way of death, the way that has brought such pain to the earth, He still sent a substitute to pay our ransom and offer us a way out.
If you see this, pray for my schoolmate Julie Farney, whose mother is apparently dying after a car accident sometime last night.
Not so, Sandie. I think he's crying for them all now.
--from "Gods and Generals."
Death is a horrible thing. God Himself wept in front of it (John 11:35). Why did He weep? It wasn't for Lazarus alone--He already told Martha her brother would rise from the dead. Like Stonewall Jackson, in the scene above, He wept for "us all" because He knew how horrible death was and was about to taste it Himself. Never let it be said that God doesn't know what it's like. He does. And if we had listened to Him from the start, we wouldn't have to deal with it now (Genesis 3). But even though we rebelled against Him and chose the way of death, the way that has brought such pain to the earth, He still sent a substitute to pay our ransom and offer us a way out.
If you see this, pray for my schoolmate Julie Farney, whose mother is apparently dying after a car accident sometime last night.
Friday, November 07, 2003
From today's NYT:
And by making Mr. Rehaief the story's hero, the filmmakers avoid having to make up details about Private Lynch's ordeal or delivering too jingoistic a paean to American military prowess. Troops in the field are shown to be brave and true, but their bosses back home are not. The Bush administration's efforts to capitalize on the rescue operation are invoked obliquely.
And this is surprising? Seems perfectly natural to me! The Iraqis are all heroes, where have you been? It would be highly unusual for NBC or any network television station to run a drama that shows the US as anything like "the good guy". After all, we must be objective, mustn't we? And "objective" in Media Land means what most people term "treason": badmouthing your country and lionizing the enemy. Far be it from me to suggest that Mr. Rehaief does not deserve credit for his actions, but if an American had done what he did, it would be whitewashed over as quickly as possible. It's a horrible thing to our media to be seen as patriotic. Remember when it used to be a virtue?
That being said, I tend to agree with the writer's final analysis of the docudramas airing this weekend (CBS' "The Elizabeth Smart Story" and NBC's "Saving Jessica Lynch"--talk about original titles, good grief!). Alessandra Stanley comments, "It goes without saying that both "Saving Jessica Lynch" and "The Elizabeth Smart Story" are shameless attempts by the networks to capitalize on real-life horror stories." Yes, unfortunately to most people in media, making money and getting high ratings are all they really care about, and they'll do that anyway they can. Still, what is wrong about them telling us some good news for a change? The NYT certainly has not been printing much of that lately--unless you count federal judges reversing the death sentence reprieve for millions of half-born babies as good news. How odd. It's perfectly constitutional to force hundreds of older companies to pay big money to control their emissions into the atmosphere, even if it hurts their business; but let one abortion provider say it can't do its job without partial birth abortions, and the media and the courts bend over backwards to allow them to continue. Anyone else see the double standard here? Maybe we would be better off watching the docudramas than reading the newspaper: at least there we get to pretend that is still chic to save life rather than destroy it.
And by making Mr. Rehaief the story's hero, the filmmakers avoid having to make up details about Private Lynch's ordeal or delivering too jingoistic a paean to American military prowess. Troops in the field are shown to be brave and true, but their bosses back home are not. The Bush administration's efforts to capitalize on the rescue operation are invoked obliquely.
And this is surprising? Seems perfectly natural to me! The Iraqis are all heroes, where have you been? It would be highly unusual for NBC or any network television station to run a drama that shows the US as anything like "the good guy". After all, we must be objective, mustn't we? And "objective" in Media Land means what most people term "treason": badmouthing your country and lionizing the enemy. Far be it from me to suggest that Mr. Rehaief does not deserve credit for his actions, but if an American had done what he did, it would be whitewashed over as quickly as possible. It's a horrible thing to our media to be seen as patriotic. Remember when it used to be a virtue?
That being said, I tend to agree with the writer's final analysis of the docudramas airing this weekend (CBS' "The Elizabeth Smart Story" and NBC's "Saving Jessica Lynch"--talk about original titles, good grief!). Alessandra Stanley comments, "It goes without saying that both "Saving Jessica Lynch" and "The Elizabeth Smart Story" are shameless attempts by the networks to capitalize on real-life horror stories." Yes, unfortunately to most people in media, making money and getting high ratings are all they really care about, and they'll do that anyway they can. Still, what is wrong about them telling us some good news for a change? The NYT certainly has not been printing much of that lately--unless you count federal judges reversing the death sentence reprieve for millions of half-born babies as good news. How odd. It's perfectly constitutional to force hundreds of older companies to pay big money to control their emissions into the atmosphere, even if it hurts their business; but let one abortion provider say it can't do its job without partial birth abortions, and the media and the courts bend over backwards to allow them to continue. Anyone else see the double standard here? Maybe we would be better off watching the docudramas than reading the newspaper: at least there we get to pretend that is still chic to save life rather than destroy it.
Thursday, November 06, 2003
So, CBS is feeling the sting of liberal criticism for dropping a miniseries intent on blackening the reputation of Ronald Reagan. Now, when someone stands up for communist sympathizers and are allowed to be heard, liberals rejoice. But now, although CBS denies conservative backlash was the reason for dropping the miniseries back to cable, liberals are griping about censorship. There's an amazing double standard applied by liberals--what we do is right, what you do is wrong, even when it is the same things. I am thankful the American people spoke up when they did, and that CBS had the sense to listen. This is what "free society" does for you, by the way. Go live in China if you don't want people to have a say in what they watch and listen to.
Sunday, November 02, 2003
I'm not sure what to say about this. Last week I predicted the real clincher for the Giants' season would be whether they could beat the woeful New York Jets and other lousy teams. This week the Giants proved they are the same old team, easily defeating undefeated powerhouses like Minnesota and struggling to come up with the win on their home field against the Jets of all people. Now granted, the Giants 31-28 OT win demonstrates they are still very much alive and Kerry Collins' 24 of 40 for 303 yards and 2 TDs without an interception certainly is an impressive performance. Nevertheless, if they intend to make the playoffs, the Giants will have to be able to crush the weaker teams.
Saturday, November 01, 2003
Stricken, smitten and afflicted: See Him dying on a tree;
'Tis the Christ by man rejected, yes, my soul, 'tis He, 'tis He!
'Tis the long expected Prophet, David's Son and David's Lord;
By His Son God now has spoken, 'tis the true and faithful Word!
Tell me, ye who hear His groaning, was there ever grief like His?
Friends through fear His cause disowning, foes insulting His distress.
Many hands were raised to wound Him, none would interpose to save,
But the dearest stroke that pierced Him was the stroke His Father gave.
Ye who think of sin but lightly, nor suppose the evil great,
Here may view its nature rightly, here its cost may estimate:
Mark the sacrifice appointed, see who bears the crushing load.
'Tis the Word, the Lord's anointed: Son of Man and Son of God.
Here we have a firm foundation, here the refuge of the lost:
Christ the Rock of our Foundation, His the Name in which we trust.
Lamb of God, for sinners wounded, sacrificed to cancel guilt,
None shall ever be confounded, who on Him their hopes have built.
--unknown poet.
'Tis the Christ by man rejected, yes, my soul, 'tis He, 'tis He!
'Tis the long expected Prophet, David's Son and David's Lord;
By His Son God now has spoken, 'tis the true and faithful Word!
Tell me, ye who hear His groaning, was there ever grief like His?
Friends through fear His cause disowning, foes insulting His distress.
Many hands were raised to wound Him, none would interpose to save,
But the dearest stroke that pierced Him was the stroke His Father gave.
Ye who think of sin but lightly, nor suppose the evil great,
Here may view its nature rightly, here its cost may estimate:
Mark the sacrifice appointed, see who bears the crushing load.
'Tis the Word, the Lord's anointed: Son of Man and Son of God.
Here we have a firm foundation, here the refuge of the lost:
Christ the Rock of our Foundation, His the Name in which we trust.
Lamb of God, for sinners wounded, sacrificed to cancel guilt,
None shall ever be confounded, who on Him their hopes have built.
--unknown poet.
In the aftermath of Halloween yesterday, let me offer an alternative to the celebrating of an ancient pagan festival that we now associate with fun, but the people who understood it associated with child sacrifice and witchcraft. I do not celebrate Halloween needless to say, but there are (truly Christian--not just trick-or-treating as Bible characters) ways to redeem it.
These can be twofold: For Protestants, October 31st marks the anniversary of that day in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed up his 95 these. It is Reformation Day--something well worth celebrating, in fact I know many churches do. For Catholics: perhaps October 31st had best be spent as it was in the old days: in prayer and petition. November 1st is All-Saints Day, a day to remember and honor the lives of godly men and women of the past. If people still want to dress up, this would be the time to do it, and there could be skits or something. Far better to honor Christian truths than to make light of evil. Happy Reformation Day/All Saints Day!
These can be twofold: For Protestants, October 31st marks the anniversary of that day in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed up his 95 these. It is Reformation Day--something well worth celebrating, in fact I know many churches do. For Catholics: perhaps October 31st had best be spent as it was in the old days: in prayer and petition. November 1st is All-Saints Day, a day to remember and honor the lives of godly men and women of the past. If people still want to dress up, this would be the time to do it, and there could be skits or something. Far better to honor Christian truths than to make light of evil. Happy Reformation Day/All Saints Day!
