joyfulchristian |
|
|
My own personal musings, wonderings, thoughts, and results of personal studies. Also, occasional comments on world events. Counter
Links Christian Resources Christian Blogs Political/News Blogs Totally Cool Sites Greatest Hits
Archives 
|
Monday, October 14, 2002
The Junk Yard Blog has a few comments on Falwell, riots, and Iran:
Better yet, lets spare the people of Iran. Faster please. Last night I was talking to my sister on the phone. I asked her what she wanted for her birthday. At this point she turns to her roommate and says, "Brandi, are there any new movies out that I want for my birthday?" Just checked my e-mail. 3 spams in a row for dating services. Is somebody trying to tell me somthing?
And on another note, my cousin writes that her daughter is going to be on Barney again! Ahhhh. Am I still allowed to blog now or am I tainted by association? Oooh! I wonder who's going to win this election? Yes, elections in totalitarian states mean so much. Now this is impressive While thinking about the bombing in Bali, I found myself drawn to this passage in Job.
A couple of years ago I was asked to lead a prayer and say a few words at one of the many memorial services held in Stillwater when a plane crash killed several people associated with the Oklahoma State basketball team. In preparing for that service I found myself, quite by accident (well at least from my point of view) actually, reading this passage from Job. I was struck then, as I am now, by the sheer strength of Job's faith.
Within a matter of minutes Job was informed of the destruction and theft of virtually all his property. Hard on the heels of that news comes word that all of his children are dead. What was Job's first response? He fell to the ground and worshipped God.
This is astounding. Many of us pray to God in times of trouble, but it would be hard to call what we do when disaster strikes worship. Worship is something done solely to bring honor to God. At these times, most of us are more concerned with prayers to help us and to help others. I'm not saying that this is bad. What I am saying is that what Job did was better.
And now it is time to confess. When I read the stories coming out of Bali, I find it very easy to pray for the victims families. I find it easy to pray that the leaders of my country, Indonesia, New Zealand, Australia, and others act wisely to end these attacks. I find it impossible to worship God while thinking about these attacks. I simply don't know how to do it.
We, meaning me especially, should strive to live up to Job's example.
Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”
In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.(Italics added)
A couple of years ago I was asked to lead a prayer and say a few words at one of the many memorial services held in Stillwater when a plane crash killed several people associated with the Oklahoma State basketball team. In preparing for that service I found myself, quite by accident (well at least from my point of view) actually, reading this passage from Job. I was struck then, as I am now, by the sheer strength of Job's faith.
Within a matter of minutes Job was informed of the destruction and theft of virtually all his property. Hard on the heels of that news comes word that all of his children are dead. What was Job's first response? He fell to the ground and worshipped God.
This is astounding. Many of us pray to God in times of trouble, but it would be hard to call what we do when disaster strikes worship. Worship is something done solely to bring honor to God. At these times, most of us are more concerned with prayers to help us and to help others. I'm not saying that this is bad. What I am saying is that what Job did was better.
And now it is time to confess. When I read the stories coming out of Bali, I find it very easy to pray for the victims families. I find it easy to pray that the leaders of my country, Indonesia, New Zealand, Australia, and others act wisely to end these attacks. I find it impossible to worship God while thinking about these attacks. I simply don't know how to do it.
We, meaning me especially, should strive to live up to Job's example.
Frank Lautenberg wants voters to forget about the fact that he was put on the ballot in clear violation of New Jersey Law.
He's apparently none to happy about Forrester's commercials mocking his substitution for the Torch.
That's an understatement.
"People were angry and annoyed by it ... and frankly I think we got the brunt of some of that tension," he said. Good. That's what we call giving credit where credit is due.
"But I really believe, if it's not gone, it will be gone." Or this will be one of the shortest political comebacks of all time.
No, it was the "Democratic" Party that made sure that all he was only criticized and not ejected from the Senate. It was also the "Democratic" Party that supported him fully until they figured out he was going to lose. Further, it was the "Democratic" Party that got the New Jersey Supremes to create new election law out of whole cloth. That is what has an effect on voting for you. (And I thought "Democrats" were supposed to be "intellectuals.") I got a Google hit from someone who was apparently looking for C.S. Lewis's views on war. If anyone else is interested, I suggest reading his speech, "Why I Am Not a Pacifist," which was published in his book The Weight of Glory. Interestingly, this speech was given to a pacifist society during England in the midst of WWII. Now wouldn't that be a nice change? Pacifists actually looking for honest debate rather than screaming hysterically. I'm afraid we may have left those days behind. While reading about the bombing in Bali and all the horrible stories, escpecially regarding Austrailians, that are coming out I find that I can feel nothing but rage. I find that I have exactly the same feelings reading this story about a father sending his daughters back home to Australia while he, "looks for Mummy," that I have every time I watch this page about the WTC attacks. What I feel is an anger I can barely contain.
While this is natural to most humans, I believe, it frightens me. Anger is sometimes necessary. Anger breeds righteous indignation which causes us to act to remove atrocities. Even Jesus acted in this way. What scares me is that when we act in anger, we are seeking revenge rather than fighting to protect others or to adminster justice. When we act with revenge as our motive, we claim something for ourselves which God reserved as HIs right alone.
The problem is that we must act, but if we act for the wrong reasons we sin. The only answer I know is to learn how to restrain our anger and make sure we are actions against the terrorist are for the right motive.
This is the same moral problem I face in regards to the bombing in Oklahoma City. I am a strong supporter of the death penalty. However, I was worried about the execution of Timothy McVeigh. The reason for this is that I got the firm sense, especially living only an hours drive from the site around many people who were personally affected, that to a large number of people this execution was not about justice. It was about vengeance. For the first time in my life, I found myself questioning the death penalty. (Not in general mind you, just as regards this specific case.) The fact that so many people took a great deal of pleasure in the execution troubled me.
I've rambled on enough, so I think I'll just cut this off by saying that while the bombing in Bali makes it abundantly clear that we must continue prosecuting the war on all fronts, I hope we do so for the right reasons. Stephen Green responds to a reader who thinks police work will stop al-Qaeda and other terrorists. I'm not trying to disparage policeman, but I feel obliged to point out that our police forces don't always know terrorism when they see it. Mark Byron thinks the bombing in Bali could make politics very ugly in Indonesia. By the way Mark, I didn't know that Catholicism was an ethnicity.
Update-Philip Murphy also has some comments about the effect on Indonesian politics and what we ought to do about it. Reuters:Defence minister says bomb shows al Qaeda is in Indonesia
Gee Wally, do you really think so? Sunday, October 13, 2002
Red Letter Edition Matthew 10:16-23 “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Is it just me, or is the peace at any cost crowd telling us simultaneously that al-Qaeda has absolutely no ties with Iraq (Because there's no way religious zealot bin Laden would work with the secular government of Hussein which he despises), but at the same time arguing that al-Qaeda attacks will increase because of the outrage of our invasion of Iraq? Doesn't this seem a little odd? Isn't there something a little odd about holding both views simultaneously? Steve den Beste has a great piece about the shadow war. The whole post is worth reading. I do however want to offer this for your consideration:
I wonder if our atheist friend knows he's in complete agreement with the prophet Jeremiah:
Anyway, the recent upswing in bombings makes it painfully aware that this war is far from over. In fact, the more I study the problem, the more I realize that this is a war of enormous scope. It will require us to move from place to place breaking the will of those who seek to destroy us and reforming nations in a manner that fosters freedom, fundamental rights, and openness. At 27, I begin to wonder if the war will be won in my lifetime. Don't get me wrong. I'm not becoming a doom and gloomer, and you certainly won't here me whining about quagmires. I just think that this is a bigger job then many of us realized and its going to take a really long time.
This is embarrassing too. New polls make it look like Jean Carnahan may be in trouble in the Missouri Senate race.
Ouch! She's only been there 2 years. She is someone new. Of course, as a conservative Republican, I find this wonderful news. Just got to remember not to count my chickens yet. Tim Blair has been keeping running updates of the bombing in Bali. Follow that link and scroll up. He takes it kind of personal. About 80% of the people in the nightclub were Australian. The religion of peace marches on. And you were doing so well From the Austin American Statesman
Hmm, lets see. A twenty year old sets off a bomb with enough power to kill, wound, or maim about 85 people for no apparent reason. You've determined that some sort of professional knowledge was necessary to construct the bomb. You say that it wasn't terrorism. What we have here is an inability to connect the dots. Look, there's two likely alternatives here. Either you've got a depressed and angry guy determined to go out with a bang or you've got a terrorist. He may not be connected to a terrorist organization, but he was most likely committing terrorism. This was an act calculated to strike fear into people. And it worked. I realize we're not talking about a huge country here, but the Prime Minister is giving press conferences on this thing. This one act apparently managed to rattle and disturb an entire nation. But its not terrorism. Of course! What was I thinking?
While I'm on the subject I've got another gripe. What is this, "no connections to terrorism" line about? Is terrorism now a person of its own? You can't have "connections to terrorism." Terrorism is a combat tactic. It is not a person or even a group of people. (This is why Jonah Goldberg argued that we should stop the "war on terrorism" and declare war on the terrorist.) There is a question as to whether this guy had connections with terrorists. There is no question of him having "connections with terrorism" because that simply isn't possible.
And another thing. If I see this quote in one more story about the bombing, I may go insane. (Or, if you think I already am, then maybe I'll go sane.)
Accident? Accident? Since when is suicide bombing considered an accident? Now to be fair, I first saw this quote before the police found evidence of a bomb. At the time I thought calling it an accident was a bit naive, but I let it slide. Besides, at the time I'm sure this doctor was more concerned with treating the victims than figuring out exactly how it happened. What I'm upset with is the reporters who keep sticking this line in their stories long after it became clear that this was no accident. And why on earth did they feel then need to add "the" and "region" to this quote. He didn't say, "the Helsinki region." He said, "in Helsinki." The sentence made perfect sense before they starting adding their parenthetical comments. Not to mention that doing so actually changes the meaning of the sentence. ARGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, rant now concluded. I'm better now. Saturday, October 12, 2002
I stand corrected. They are calling the mall bombing in Helsinki terrorism. Well there's a change. Could common sense be breaking out? Nah. (Link via Daily Pundit.) Mean Dean at Blogs4God lives in Maryland near the shootings. He shares some excerpts from his recent life:
Or how about this from the Junkyard Blog:
Tell me again how this isn't terrorism. This may or may not be Islamic terrorism. It may or may not be organized terrorism. Regardless, these shootings are clearly designed to inflict terror and they have succeeded. Guards at the US embassy in Tel Aviv captured a would-be suicide bomber. Captured suicide bomber. Now there's an oxymoron. Well, for my money you can drop the "oxy." Yesterday, you may recall, I lambasted the Helsinki police for their stunning inability to come to the logical conclusion that the source of the explosion at a shopping center was a bomb. Well guess what. It was a bomb. Next stop on this sorry train will almost certainly be, "But it wasn't terrorism." I posted a piece over at the University on God's justice and mercy that you might want to check out. Victor Davis Hanson thinks something nasty is brewing in Germany. Hanson makes a convincing case that there is a growing tide of nationalism with dangerous overtones growing in Germany. He also asserts that we should start slowly moving troops out of the country to force them to build up their own forces. One question: If the growing tide of nationalism is as bas as he says, are we sure we want them growing their military? I seem to remember a couple of really nasty wars that resulted, in part, from strong nationalism in Germany accompanied by a strong army. Just a thought. Friday, October 11, 2002
Jonah Goldberg has an excellent article about confusing the personal with the political. That is not, however, what I want to talk about. Well, not exactly. Goldberg mentions a friend who is a libertarian. He said the friend told him that if he believed socialism was better for poor people that he would be a socialist. That got me thinking. Would I be a socialist if I thought it was better for poor people?
The answer is, "Not exactly." I would be a socialist if socialism actually delivered all the things people claim it can. After all, in theory socialism sounds so wonderful. Everybody taking care of everyone else. No one keeping more than they need. No one allowed to go in need. It sounds so wonderful. So compassionate. There is just one little problem. It doesn't work. Instead of lifting everyone up to the same level, socialism brings everyone down to the same level. It is, as often noted, a system that brings about the equal distribution of misery.
Capitalism on the other hand sounds so awful. (Especially if you hear a socialist describe it.) It sounds merciless and cold. Those who have ability and cunning get rich while the rest do not. Capitalism offers nothing that appeals to our noblest instincts. In fact, capitalism has only one redeeming value. The only thing that makes capitalism bearable is that it happens to work. In practice, capitalism is a rising tide that lifts all ships.
Its ironic really. Socialism promises virtually everything, but it delivers so little. Capitalism promises practically nothing, but delivers so much.
I can't say that I would necessarily be a socialist because I thought it was, "better for the poor." I can say that I would almost certainly be a socialist if only socialism happened to work. A shopping center blew up in Helsinki:
To early to determine the cause of the blast? Do you think it might have been a bomb?
Even crime? Funny. When a shopping center blows up, my first thought is, "It was probably a bomb." Think that fits as a crime.
"We are checking whether there have been or still are any explosive materials in the building." I don't know about, "still are," but I think the, "have been" is fairly well established.
You mean like a bomb?
"It is most likely caused by something that has been brought in from the outside," the police official. You mean they didn't store bombs in the building?
No? I wonder. If we find out that al Qaeda did this, then will Reuters take the scare quotes off of terrorist? Or will they still be "freedom fighters?" Also, if this was al Qaeda or some other jihadist group how long it will take for some idiotarian to blame the United States. My guess: 42 seconds.
I'm afraid I may not have been sarcastic enough. I want to make sure its understood that I have no intention of cheapening the deaths from this event. I just want to point out that, given the geo-political climate, this kind of thing is almost certainly terrorism. If it looks like terrorism, feels like terrorism, and kills like terrorism, then its probably terrorism. I suppose there could be some other explanation here, but could we try looking in the obvious places first for once, huh? And another thing, if they trace this to some Islamic extremist (or any other wacko) and say, "But its not terrorism because he's not connected to any known organization, I'll scream." Terrorism is a description of a crime carried out in such a way as to instill fear in the general population. If this was indeed a bomb, then it fits the description of terrorism.
You know, there's a word for North Koreans who are able to succeed in getting amnesty in the South. Lucky. Okay, I can understand Muslims protesting Jerry Falwell calling Mohammed a terrorist. What I don't understand is why the Hindus showed up to fight them. Reading this story, the only guess you'd have would be that the Hindus were defending Falwell. Isn't it far more likely that the riot itself, unlike the protest, didn't have anything to do with Falwell? Isn't it far more likely that the actually fighting, like most of the fighting in India, is just as a result of the general animosity between the Indian Hindus and Muslims? Some people don't know when to shut up. Man, I'd hate to see what Belafonte says about people he does mean to defame. Voter fraud in South Dakota. Seems some people misunderstood the point of a "Democratic" party voter registration drive. Senate authorizes uses of force 75-25. That was fast. Update- InstaPundit links to a WaPo story that shows the vote to be 77-23. Thursday, October 10, 2002
In the last few years our country has pretty much convinced itself that democracy is the thing that makes it great. I grew up in schools whose slant on America was exactly that. We tend to worship the majority. If 50% plus 1 say it, it must be right. (Hence people's fetish with the UN despite the fact that most of those countries who are voting are not themselves democratic.) It took me years to figure out on my own that democracy is not a panacea. It is possible for a majority of people to agree on something and even vote that something into being and for all of them to be wrong. That is what makes it so vitally important that we stand up for our rights. To protect ourselves against the tyranny of the majority. This is necessary because sometimes the majority is wrong. I'll say it again because I'm afraid it isn't said enough: Sometimes the majority is wrong. If you don't believe me, look here. I think I figured it out This story is primarily about some anti-war protestors who wholed up in Hillary Clinton's office demanding she vote no on the force resolution. However, I think I understand now why she's doing so.
Now call me crazy, but I think those four words, "or any future president," are what Hillary's vote is all about. She thinks this is the best position to take to help her down the road. She also wants to make sure the executive branch is strong if she ever gets there. All afternoon bloggers have been making fun of the envivonmentalist who fell off a tree and died. The thing that really bothers me about myself is that I laughed every time. As foolish as this guy's actions were, his death is a real tragedy to his family and friends. There I was laughing about it. We're not always as civilized as we like to think we are. Steve at Happy Fun Pundit rants about the problems with American visas. He finishes great:
I love integrity. I especially love it when a columnist writes a column, hears a denial, issues a correction and then keeps digging to find all the facts. Ann Coulter really has it in for Bob Byrd. (See if you can catch all the Klan references. Some are actually subtle.)
While looking for something totally different, I came across this great sermon on the resurrection preached by Dr. Gene Scott. It really is a must read. Among other things, he made a point I'd never considered; of all the theories that have been espoused to explain the resurrection, each one depends on the disciples telling a lie. Seen in this light it becomes even more important than I had realized to establish the honesty of the apostles and early evangelists. You knew it had to happen Mike Taylor, the Republican Senatorial candidate in Montana is dropping out of the race. Unsurprisingly, some people have already started suggesting that the Republicans attempt to replace Taylor on the ballot even though the deadline to do so has passed. For instance, Orrin Judd said:
I'm not sure whether he's serious or not. I hope not. I'll explain in a moment why I think this would be a bad idea. First though, we should look at the similarities between New Jersey and Montana.
In Montana a Republican candidate withdraws from the race facing lagging poll numbers and allegations of prior misdeeds while running his business in Colorado. These allegations came from the Montana "Democratic" Party. (Yes, those are sneer quotes.) Also, many people allege that the ad in question was an attempt to paint Taylor as a homosexual.
In New Jersey the "Democratic" nominee withdrew facing lagging poll numbers caused by his opponent harping on his many ethical problems. (See here, here, and here.)
From what I can figure out from the coverage I've seen so far the situations are very similar factually. Sure, you have the homosexual angle in Montana. Certainly, from what I've seen so far the allegations of corruption against Taylor are more flimsy. However, when you boil it down, both candidates withdrew because they were loosing. Neither of them even tried to hide that. They told us straight up, I'm backing out because I'm loosing.
Now let us look at the law. In Montana, the election of Senators is governed by the election law for governor. The relevant statute for the governor's race reads:
So, under Montana law if a candidate withdraws less than 85 days before the election, his party may not replace him. There is an exception, but only if the candidate is dead. Taylor certainly appears to be alive and I don't see anybody knocking him off just to win an election.
In New Jersey, the relevant law reads:
So, in Montana, the law expressly states that a vacancy cannot occur 85 days or less before an election except by death. The opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court aside, the New Jersey statute does not allow a vacancy to occur on the ballot for any reason less than 50 days before the election. In the New Jersey case the Supremes claimed that the statute did not expressly forbid a vacancy occurring after the 51st day. I personally think, "shall occur not later than the 51st day," was pretty expressive. Regardless, the Montana statute expressly states that a candidate cannot officially withdraw once he hits the 85th day before the election. It appears that this wording, being more precise than the New Jersey statute, would effectively cut off the loophole used in New Jersey. For this reason, I believe that any attempt to replace Taylor on the ballot should, and hopefully would, fail. This is the case even though the fact patterns are the same. Take that analysis for whatever its worth. Remember, I'm an accountant, not an attorney. I do a good bit of legal research, but this is nowhere near my area of expertise.
Apart from the issue of whether or not the Republicans could prevail is the issue of whether or not they should even try. I affirm most passionately that they should not. We just spent nearly two weeks arguing about how important the rule of law was, especially when related to elections. This is a nation of laws. We don't get to change the rules just because the other side got away with it. Of course, I'm a conservative first, a Republican second. I believe it is more important to stand up for my principles, in this case the rule of law, and possibly (even probably) lose than to compromise principles to improve my chances of winning. I opposed the replacement of Torriccelli because it was illegal. If the Republicans attempt to replace Taylor, I'll oppose that as well. I take the same position both times for a simple reason: In this country, the law must be king.
Then there is also the issue of credibility. As I see it, the Republicans have three basic choices here:
Number 3 isn't happening in a million years, but it would avoid charges of hypocrisy. It could also be the death nail to American politics as we know it. That would pretty much mean both parties declaring open war on election laws across the country. I fear that may happen anyway, but this action wouldn't help. Number 2 would open the whole party up to charges of hypocrisy. Of course, the same would be true for the Donks as they try to explain why its okay for them, but not for the Republicans. Sure, the situation and laws are slightly different, but they're not that different.
Ultimately, I believe that Republicans should throw the political calculations aside and choose number 1. I say this even though I think the Torch fiasco is one of the most embarassing episodes in the history of American jursiprudence. I say that even though I am a Republican and it is fairly obvious we got screwed. I say that because morally and ethically it is the right thing to do. We are not above the law. We should not attempt to push, pull, bend, or break the law just because we don't like it.
Doing that however opens up huge problems. Taylor is still on the ballot. The election is in less than a month. We've got huge problems. The first is that to get a write-in campaign to work will require huge amounts of PR just to get people to understand what is expected of them. The second is the party line voters. Lots of people pay little attention to politics and just walk into the both and vote straight "D" or "R." Its very likely that whoever the Republicans convince to run will end up splitting the Republican vote with Taylor, whose not even running any more. I hope that Taylor spends every last dime of his campaign funds running, "Vote for the other guy," commercials.
I'm afraid that political calculations may convince the party to try to pull the Torch number. On the other hand, there is even less time to make a credible showing unless they pull out a hugely popular celebrity. My hope hangs on the idea that party leadership won't think its worth the effort. None dare call it terrorism An initial investigation indicates that the French taker that blew up was attacked. However, even after admitting this, I still don't see that anyone's willing to step up and say the "T" word. den Beste speculates that we're pressuring the EU to admit Turkey as a quid pro quo for their help in the coming war. That may be what they asked for, but I suspect we'd help them more in the long run by convincing them to stay out. Bellafonte on Powell
Bellafonte says that Powell is there to show that the Bush cabinet is made up of people of color. Then he says that this is not true. This must mean that Powell is not black. (Presumably, neither is Condi Rice.) I am always amazed by this thinking. Powell doesn't hold the "right" political views so he suddenly ceases to be black. It happened to Clarence Thomas too. The thing is, the people who say this stuff really seem to believe it. Powell is not black. They say it like its someone everyone should know. Would someone please tell me when we discovered that your politics, rather than the color of your skin, determined who was "black." Red Letter Edition
A few thoughts:
*=Note, this is not an attempt to launch into any kind of discourse on "Replacement Theology." I am merely lamenting the idea that Jews shouldn't be taught. Wednesday, October 09, 2002
How Appealing was listed as recommended reading by the New York Bar Association. Strangely, as noted by Bashman himself the readers are cautioned to be aware of his biases. I find this strange because in my experience, How Appealing is one of the least biased blogs I've come across. In fact, after reading the blog for months, I'm still not sure where Bashman stands politically. I guess bias is in the eye of the reader. Reading this article, reminds me of two things. The first is that the State Department is incompetent. The second is that Joel Mowbray is a great reporter. I wonder how long until State detains him again? As if we needed more proof that Jim McDermott is an idiotarian. Yes, I'd heard faint rumblings about this one, but I've been having more trouble with headaches the last couple of days, so somehow I missed that McDermott believes Bush is trying to have himself crowned emperor. Hey Jim, you don't become emperor by having your troops seize control of a foreign nation. You do that by having troops seize control of you own nation. Ain't seen no signs of that happening. (Link via The Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiller) Tuesday, October 08, 2002
Red Letter Edition
When I look on our world, "sheep without a shepherd," seems an apt description. The harvest is still plentiful and the workers few. What are we doing about it. I fear that the answer is, "Not enough." I know that in my own life that is frequently the case.
Joshua Claybourn gives some advice to Christians in politics. Update-Joel Fuhrman expands on this topic. In doing so, he makes an excellent point.
Well said. Advice from the master Dick Morris, the king of polling for a purpose, explains how the NYT used a poll to create news. Monday, October 07, 2002
What can I say? When he's right, he's right. Cato the Youngest tells Europeans we don't actually want war, we just see it as necessary. He also tells them that if they don't get their collective heads out of the sand eventually, it could all be over for the west. Red Letter Edition
I had several half-baked thoughts about this passage, but in the end, the only one that I could put into words was this. When these men say, "Have mercy," they are admitting that nothing they can do merits what they are asking of Christ. Whatever he gives them will be wholly of his own accord. There is nothing you can do that puts God in debt to you. In some cases, God may choose to say to his people, "If you do x, I will do y," but even then he is not bound by our merit, but by his own character. God doesn't lie, so he honors promises. However, nothing you do, in and of itself, forces God to act, or even warrants God's action.
I think that many people understand this idea intellectually but fail to grasp it on the emotional level. Hence, you here people saying things like, "I've been a good guy, I don't understand why God won't do this one little thing for me." (Incidentally, the most accurate response to this argument might be, "No, you haven't." It may not be the most well received response, but true regardless.) Maybe this is because we fail to understand just how great and powerful and, well, good God is. Maybe its because we fail to grasp how weak, and insignificant, and, well, bad we are. Let us be honest. It is both.
In our everyday lives, we get used to quid pro quo. That is, we tend to think most everything we do deserves a response from someone else. He should do this for me because I did that for him. We then try to apply this idea to God. Here we see one of the dangers of extrapolation. On our small scale, this works. When applied to God, it cannot. There is simply no quid we can give which demands a quo from God. Even if you could add all the good that every human had ever did (assuming that humans actually do good and it actually could be added which are totally different discussions) you still wouldn't have enough goodness to require a single thing from God. He is infinitely good. None of us are. Hence we will never reach his level of goodness. We will never be able to require anything of God.
The opposite works as well. God gives us great gifts. God gave us the greatest gift. We can never give enough back to God to earn, to be worthy, of what He has given to us. In this case, we simply have no quo that matches his quid. Fortunately, He doesn't ask that of us. He had mercy on us when He gave his Son to die, knowing we would never deserve it.
One final note, just because we will never be worthy of the gift, doesn't mean we should stop trying. Just one of the paradoxes that makes life as a Christian so interesting, not to mention frustrating. Susanna has some cutting words on slavery and the current UN conference. (I know, I know. Bad pun. Hey, if you grew up with my dad, you'd understand.) Not even the Guardian is buying it So we're supposed to believe that bin Laden made an audio tape? The worlds number won raving egomaniac wants to be seen and heard. This pretty much clinches it for me; he's dead.\
This might prove an interesting problem to the anti-war crowd. Think about it: On the one hand they would like to use this tape to argue that bin Laden is still out there and we've got to get him first; on the other hand, the peaceniks love to argue that there is no way on earth that bin Laden and Saddam would ever work together, but, if this tape is genuine, we've got bin Laden offering to scale down his terrorism if we don't attack Iraq. My guess is the anti-war crowd runs with the tape until someone points out the stupidity of this decision. Saturday, October 05, 2002
Martin Devon thinks Hillary Clinton will vote (Are you ready for this?) for an attack on Iraq. He's actually got a good argument. Here's a thought. When people are driving around shooting people at random with a rifle, that's terrorism. It may not be Islamic terrorism. It may not be Arabic terrorism. But its terrorism none the less. Terrorism is an act of violence calculated to cause terrorism in the populace. Let's be honest, this qualifies. Friday, October 04, 2002
Robert Alt says the New Jersey Supreme Court clearly didn't think out the consequences of their decision and says the SCOTUS should take up the case. Robert Levy, on the other hand, argues that as bad as the decision is and as damaging the reasoning would be if carried to its logical conclustion, the SCOTUS should stay out of it. Here's the latest edition of, "Are the Democrats on crack?" I don't know about anyone else, but portraying a very popular president pushing little old ladies off cliffs sounds like a really stupid tactical move. Thursday, October 03, 2002
Red Letter Edition' Matthew 9:18-26 While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, “My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.” And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, “If I only touch his garment, I will be made well.” Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well. And when Jesus came to the ruler's house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion, he said, “Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping.” And they laughed at him. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. And the report of this went through all that district. "Your faith has made you well." That simple remark has meaning to us as well, and I'm not talking about physically. Scripture is clear that we cannot have salvation without faith. In a way then, those words apply to us as well.
I've always been interested in why Jesus told the crowd that the girl was just sleeping. This was, of course, not the only time that Jesus referred to someone who was dead as sleeping. However, in this case, he specifically said that she was not dead, but sleeping. I just can't sort this one out. And then there's this from Philip Murhpy. I was looking forward to reading how The New York Times would describe the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision yesterday to ignore state law and allow the Democrats to name a new more popular candidate for the Senate. To most people the law seems pretty clear: no substitutions less than 51 days in advance of an election. Well, that would be cheaper than listing which ones they didn't intend to recognize. Paul Cella has posted his complaints against the Bush administration. Its well written, provacative, and long. (Take a look at the time stamp.) I'm still not sure what I think about it. When I decide, I'll probably let you know. Have you ever notice that Matt Drudge has this tendency to grab hold of some public figure and then just refuse to let go? Update-Drudge is not entirely fair here. It was actually Streisand's private foundation which bought the stocks at issue. As much as I love rolling in liberal hypocrisy, she may have very little direct control over how the foundation invests. I doubt she's managing the portfolio herself. Josh Chafetz weighs in again on whether there is a constitutional issue in the case of extinguishing the Torch. He makes some good points. I'm still on the fence on that one. On the other hand, the Republican request also claims that this decision violates federal laws in relation to overseas voters. I haven't researched the issue, but their case there was pretty compelling on that issue. On another note, anyone who thinks we didn't create a monster in Florida a couple of years ago should think again. In about 15 pages this application cited at least 3 cases that came out of that brouhaha, two of them incessantly. If we don't get a handle on this whole issue, our election laws will be utterly meaningless before long. Ok, I'm reading the Republican appeal to the Supremes in the New Jersey fiasco. I'm still not sure that this is a federal issue, but their making a pretty good case. I thought this line was priceless.
I guess I should clarify, this isn't actually an appeal per se. Its actually their request to stay the New Jersey opinion pending the court's decision to accept or deny the case. I guess I should point out that I got that link from Instapundit, but then most of you already knew that. Recent happenings in New Jersey made me feel just how pressing the words of Thomas Paine are. In his book Common Sense, he made a suggestion whose time might well have come. Rather than typing the whole thing out, I shamelessly lifted the quote from here.
Hey, it couldn't hurt. How about cruise missiles at 100,000 paces? Yes, the Iraqis proposed a duel to settle things. As Bill Quick noted, Mullah Omar made a similar suggestion. I've got two competing theories on this type of talk.
Well, I do have one other theory. Maybe they're just all related to Patton. (Okay, that was good for humor, but full disclosure, I can't find any affirmation or denunciation of this quote.) Many in the legal profession have withheld opinion on the NJ Supreme Court ruling. Robert George however, has a few choice words. Sgt. Stryker wants us to remember that in the grand scheme of things, bloggers aren't as important as we sometimes like to think. Red Letter Edition
For a long time I had trouble understanding this passage. That's because when I use symbols as Jesus does here, I am usually describing a simile or some other form of parallel. My father explained to me that Jesus isn't drawing a parallel here at all. What he's saying is that it would be as inappropriate to for his disciples to fast while he was with them as it would be to sew an unshrunk path on a shrunk garment or to put new wine into new wineskins.
Of course he also says that when the bridegroom is gone, they will fast. It seems clear to me that Jesus expected his followers to fast. We are given no instructions about exactly how to do so or how often we should do it, but this and other passages make it fairly clear that we should. I'm afraid we don't put much emphasis on fasting. I know that I don't. For the last several weeks I come across passages like this and think, "I need to take time to fast," but I haven't gotten around to it. I think its pretty clear this is something we should make time for. Wednesday, October 02, 2002
Now that I'm on the faculty I guess I've got to stop heckling them to post and actually do it myself. I've posted a theological musing over at the university. More (hopefully) on this issue to follow. Eugene Volokh asks a good question. If 51 days is no longer the cut off date in New Jersey, than what is? This is a great question. No matter how unfair the 51 day bright line rule may seem to be, it was a bright line rule. There is a reason legislators put bright lines into the law. That reason is that they have determined that, in this instance, it is better to have a clear demarcation that everyone is aware of in advance, even if it sometimes leads to unfair results. (By the way, the unfairness argument in this case is a huge stretch.) The court has now removed the bright line and left nothing in its place. People used to know how long they had to make a substitution on the ballot, now its anyone's guess. Josh Chafetz argues that the NJ Supreme Court decision allowing the "Democratic" party to bait and switch is not appealable to the federal court system. What can I say? When the man's right, he's right. I hate the decision, but I just don't see a federal issue here. Ok, I was a little upset when I read that decision. I apologize for the tone. I stand by the analysis. By the way, as bad as that decision is, I doubt the Supreme Court will take it. They managed to couch their opinion entirely on New Jersey law and precedent. (Sort of.) I'm just not sure this is a federal issue. I've now read the decision. It didn't take long. It took them longer to lay out the parties of the suit than it did to actually explain their reasoning. Its a crock. The court's decision was based on three points: 1. It is in the public interest to present to the electorate a ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we already have that? Torch is a Democrat and would have been on the ballot. 2. The election statutes should be broadly construed to allow people a choice on election day. Um, a Democrat (Torch), a Republican (Forrester) and four 3rd party candidates constitute a choice don't they? But at least these two points quoted some sort of precedent. Misapplied based on my quick reading, but precedent. 3. There's nothing in the law that says we can't. Well except for the fact that the law explicitly says that you can make a substitution up to 51 days before the election. They argue that the law doesn't say what happens after 51 days. This is nonsense. I think any fool knows that if you say something can be done up until a certain date that it can't be done after that date. That's it folks. The great legal wisdom of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. We need a Democrat on the ballot. You had one already. The people should have a choice. 6 people isn't enough of a choice? Besides, they won't have any more choice now than they had before. You're just changing one of the choices. Well, there's nothing that says we can't. Except common sense. Oh, my bad. Never mind.
Idiots. Jane Galt points out that if the Democrats are allowed to replace Torch on the ballot that there are candidates the Republicans could substitute as well. I have heard this kind of talk as well, although she provides more details. I've also heard people, some in jest but other seriously, suggest yanking Bill Simon off the gubernatorial ballot in California and inserting Arnold Schwarzenegger. As much as this kind of talk sparks the, "Yeah, we'll show them," side of my character, I must, in the end, reject this kind of thinking. What the Donkeys are attempting in New Jersey is both illegal and unethical. If the Republican party duplicated their actions they would also be acting illegally and unethically. They chicanery of the Democrats does not justify chicanery by Republicans. No matter what they do, we must follow the law. Tuesday, October 01, 2002
Red Letter Edition
One of the things I struggle with is the ability to reach out to those that most people consider the dregs of society. As a tax collector for the Roman overlords, Matthew and his friends were looked on as collaborators. That is not a term that has ever been applied with anything but the utmost contempt. The Jewish people thought these men lower than dirt. Jesus, on the other hand, went with them, dined with them, and ministered to them. His statement to the pharisees is profound. He told us that it is the sick that need doctors. Just so, it is the godless who need God. How far will we go and what indignities are we willing to suffer to take Jesus to a lost world. I'm generally ashamed of my own answer.
Mean Mr. Mustard is first out of the gate with news that Donald Rumsfeld unleashed a new weapon of mass-irritation on Iraq; In a seminal strategic event, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield announced his plans to deploy New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd to the Middle East theater early today, prompting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to quickly announce his complete and uconditional surrender. Read the rest. Its great stuff. I laughed so hard my head hurt. Oh wait, my head already hurt. Well, good stuff regardless. Eugene Volokh responds to Mickey Kaus's suggestion that the governor of New Jersey could simply call off the November senate election if Torch resigns from the Senate. (Aside: I think it highly unlikely Torch could be convinced to resign. That would be too big a sacrifice of ego.) Volokh responds that he does not believe this is the case, but with the caveat that he is not an expert on New Jersey law. That points to the one problem I have with the analysis he gives; he bases his argument entirely on New Jersey law. It seems to me that the Constitution comes into play here.
As I read this, this Amendment can only be construed to read on of two ways. Either:
In point of fact, option 1 has always been followed meaning that the term lasts 6 years and then is over. Period. It seems to me that any attempt to appoint a new senator and cancel the November election would extend Torch's original term beyond the constitutionally limited 6 year term.
As I read the New Jersey statutes under discussion, they explain how to fill Torch's current term which ends in January. They say nothing about how to fill the following term for which the election has already been scheduled. Any attempt to interpret them otherwise would result in extending a senate term beyond its constitutionally allowed length. A history lesson from Sharp Knife:
Unfortunately, that's the way it is now.
In democratic countries we arrest people for bribing voters. What do they do in Zimbabwe. Arrest and torture people who film the bribing of voters. Oh, why didn't I think of this. I also particularly liked this part:
Now here's a great idea! If politicians stand up to the President, tell them to get out of the country or go to jail. And peacenik idiots try to convince people we live in a police state? Why don't they go to Zimbabwe and protest an actual dictator who is actually abusing human rights? Josh Chafetz says that the really embarrassing thing about the Streisand blunder is that it doesn't even sound like Shakespeare.
As a tax accountant, I guess I have trouble understanding how things like that happen. If I ever quoted a piece of tax law without a specific citation, I'd get humiliated. That's why I verify everything that comes across my desk, even if it comes from people I trust. As such, I really don't understand people using a quote unless they know exactly where it came from.
It also occurs to me that the people in the anti-war movement who attributed this quote alternately to Shakespeare and Caesar apparently did so to claim the voice of authority so as to bolster their cause. That effort has now damaged their cause. I realize that they didn't anticipate the thing becoming national news, but didn't they anticipate someone looking it up and discrediting the quote? David Heddle asks, "Was Melchizadek a Christophany?"
To begin with, let us define Christophany. The phrase is generally used to describe appearances of Christ on earth prior to the Incarnation. While I have to admit that I know as little about Melchizadek as David, I think a little reasoning will indicate that he was not a Christophany. I just have a few points.
I could be wrong of course. This could have been Christ. But the evidence seems all against it to me. This looks like another example of theologians making very much out of practically nothing in their ongoing quest to explain every inexplicable passage in the Bible. I, for one, while being curious, am contented to wait to find the answers to some mysteries. |
