06/21/2006: I wonder how the left-wing nutjobs in the media are going to spin this?
Let’s see:
(1) We know Saddam had WMDs; we’ve found hundreds of them.
(2) We know Saddam had relationhips with Islammunist terrorists.
(3) We know Saddam was a genocidal piece of crap who slaughtered Kurds and Shi’ites.
(4) We know Saddam is guilty of crimes against humanity. We’ve seen videos of his tortures.
Does anyone still want to contend that this was not a worthwhile war?
06/21/2006: If Ann Coulter were male, she’d be in the Special Forces.
Her latest book–Godless–is her best one yet.
The funny part about it is the MSM has made a big hay out of the least significant part of the book: Coulter’s remarks about the “Jersey Girls”, who have arrogated themselves as speaking for all 9/11 widows (they don’t). I agree with Ann.
Coulter masterfully presents modern liberalism for what it is: a secular church. It has its own god (government), miracles (Darwinism), its own sacrament (abortion), its sacred scriptures (Roe v. Wade), martyrs (Alger Hiss, Sacco and Vanzetti, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg), churches (government schools and universities).
While Laura Ingraham has commented favorably on Coulter’s abortion chapter–and it is a fine chapter–Coulter is at her best when she writes about evolution. It’s not that she makes groundbreaking scientific arguments against evolution–she is presenting in many respects what others already have–but rather the way she confronts the underlying paradigm that is driving blind devotion to evolution: Darwinism. Here, she hits back-to-back grand slams.
I have commented on these pages that the movers and shakers in the pro-evolution movement have a very religious agenda that is materialist, reductionist, and utilitarian. That is an integral part of the church of liberalism.
Ann Coulter decimates them, using a wit that outdoes Pat Buchanan in his prime.
Coulter incites the most vehement reaction from the Left. They don’t like Robert Novak or Cal Thomas, but they absolutely hate Ann Coulter. Not since Pat Buchanan has a right-leaning columnist provoked such vitriol from the left.
That is because Novak is like a .25 caliber pistol and Cal Thomas is an M-16A2, whereas Ann Coulter is the 155 mm howitzer of political discourse.
She obliterates all comers.
I give it a 10 out of 10.
06/21/2006: Outgoing Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, the head of the Episcopal Church, shows that he doesn’t get it. Speaking before the General Convention, on the issue of electing gay bishops:
Unless there is a clear perception on the part of our Anglican brothers and sisters that they have been taken seriously in their concerns, it will be impossible to have any genuine conversation…There needs to be a clear sense that we are not ignoring the sensibilities for those who are genuinely unable to understand what we have done…Humility is not an easy virtue but it is very much required in this season.
Griswold is revealing his own arrogance in assuming that conservatives “are genuinely unable to understand what we have done”. We understand quite well: you are sanctifying sodomy.
While–as a libertarian, I generally support the rights of gays in society–there is no Biblical sanction for homosexual behavior, as the Scriptures are very clear regarding the sexual act and its role in the marriage covenant (which is heterosexual).
Societal rights are one thing, but sanctioning homosexuality in the Church has no credible Biblical precedent.
It is Griswold and his cronies who need to take their own advice and submit themselves to the authority of Scripture on this matter. They are arrogant for taking a very clear Biblical command and sidestepping it, all the while sanctifying sexual immorality.
Sadly, the incoming Bishop–Katharine Jefforts Schori–is about as brain-dead as Griswold:
[The Church should] lay down our narrow self-interest and heal the hurting and fill the hungry and set the prisoners free…We children of Jesus can continue to squabble over our inheritance or we can claim our name and heritage as God’s beloveds, and share that name beloved with the whole world
Schori doesn’t understand: this whole move to ordain wackjobs is all about self-interest. It has no Biblical precedent, and is an outrage to anyone who takes the Scriptures seriously.
If Schori wants to ignore Biblical injunctives regarding sexual matters, then on what basis does her proclamation to “heal the hurting and fill the hungry and set the prisoners free” have any authority?
What about the Gospel? What role does that have here? After all, any social work in the Church is secondary to Her primary role of preaching the Gospel of Christ (ya know…that silly, outdated notion that just happens to be the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes?)
While many women will [rightly] point to fine Biblical examples–Deborah, Huldah, Anna, Priscilla, Phoebe–of women in prominent positions of leadership, Schori is closer to Athaliah and Jezebel for her flagrant disregard of Scripture.
06/21/2006: I don’t agree with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Al Mohler on everything. However, most of my disagreements with Al Mohler have less to do with orthodoxy and more to do with orthopraxy.
In his latest blog, he assesses the Presbyterian Church (USA) regarding its accommodation of revising the Trinity. This week, the 217th General Assembly of the PCUSA “received” and commended a study regarding the Trinity, called The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing.
Who could possibly object to a study with an innocuous name like that?
Sadly, rather than accept what God has handed us via the Scriptures, the PCUSA–and its fellow liberals in tow–has taken it upon themselves to reinvent the Faith on their own terms (or allow others to define it on their own terms).
I don’t know what the PCUSA folks are smoking–whatever it is, I want it–but they seem to forget that Christians are a people of the Book. When you decide that the Truth is whatever the heck you want it to be, then none of Jesus’ teachings–even the ones the liberals enjoy–make any sense whatsoever.
If you strike out John 14:6, in which Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me”, then why should we accept His teachings about who is one’s neighbor (the basis for the Good Samaritan parable), or His receiving repentant sinners (the basis for the parables of the Lost Coin, Lost Sheep, and Lost (Prodigal) Son)?
If Jesus’ teachings on Father, Son, and Holy Spirit–there is no place in which Jesus refers to a member of the Trinity as “mother” or “rainbow” or “ark” or dove”–are obsolete, then what about any of his acts of compassion? Why are they not fair game for revionist redaction?
As Mohler states so clearly, God does name Himself in Scripture. Last time I checked, the name is YHWH. When Jesus teaches, He refers to “your Father in heaven”, even making the analogy with earthly fathers. He also teaches regarding the Holy Spirit, and refers to Himself as the Son.
Why is that archaic? Why revise on that? While there are many qualities and roles that God plays in Scripture, why trash Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Mohler realizes that this is the work of feminist theology, which is little more than old-fashioned Paganism with a quasi-Christian spin. Feminists cannot communicate their theology with the Bible as-is, and therefore the language must be adapted.
This is why–when I was at Southern–there was a significant struggle over inclusive language with respect to the Scriptures. (For the record: I am opposed to rewriting Scripture on such terms. Jesus shattered many paradigms during his time in flesh and blood. If He wanted to shatter that paradigm and promote inclusive language, He would have done that too.) A discussion regarding women in the ministry was synonymous with feminist theology. You could not discuss one without the other.
The takeaway is that feminist theologians–who are practically running the PCUSA and the Episcopalians–are in a full-court press to reinvent the Christian Faith, even rewriting the Bible on their terms.
Christians are a People of the Book, and feminist theologians know this. That is why they are trying to rewrite the Scriptures: it is their ticket to hijacking Christianity.
The PCUSA, the Episcopalians, and the United Church of Christ are promoting a “social gospel” that involves a nebulous, Pagan, New Age spirituality, which makes a radical departure from the work of Jesus according to the Scriptures. That includes the virgin birth, the miracles, the teachings, the rebukes, the healings, and–yes!–the physical death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven.
An old friend of mine from my days at Southern, who is a PCUSA minister, is trying to get his congregation to bolt the PCUSA and enter fellowship with the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) for the very reasons that Mohler and I are stating.
Mohler is spot-on here.
06/21/2006: I saw this courtesy of Black Five. WARNING: LANGUAGE IS SALTY.
Scientists: Los Angeles Due for a Big One
06/21/2006: Apparently, the southern San Andreas Fault is cocked and locked. The last big quake from that fault–in 1690–was about 7.7 on the Richter Scale.
Anything 7 or higher would be very severe, as this would effectively be a direct hit on Los Angeles.
Anything 8 or higher would inflict damage as bad as–or worse than–Katrina.
The Northridge quake of 1994, which measured 6.7, killed 56 people, knocked down NINE bridges on three different freeways, and was–at the time–the costliest natural disaster in American history.
Good thing that one struck at 4:30 in the morning.