"Rome will become an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread though Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, even Eastern Europe. Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our prophet Muhammad." -- Yunis al-Astal, a Muslim cleric and Hamas parliamentarian.

Yesterday was the 555th anniversary of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks.

In recent years…the West has rejected…the…idea of empire building, at least through martial means. [S]o thorough has this rejection been that many Americans and Europeans can no longer imagine anyone continuing to harbor such ambitions.

On that basis, they…assume that violence and terrorism -- from the attacks of 9/11/01 to the missiles raining on Israel to the suicide-bombings in the marketplaces of Iraq -- must be a response to oppression or occupation or some other "legitimate grievance." History suggests otherwise. So…do the leaders of the various modern militant Islamist movements.—Cliff May

H/T: Prof. David Koyzis

David L. Bahnsen has a retort to Senator Obama’s Wesleyan University commencement address, here.

An excerpt:

Obama…is hand-delivering…good old-fashioned class warfare, and doing it as a rank hypocrite at the same time. I am not sure what I find more distasteful - hypocrisy, or socialism. Since we have had plenty of Presidents over the years who were guilty of hypocrisy, I think it is the message coming from this hypocrite that bothers me even more.The Obama family had adjusted gross income of $1 million in 2006 ($983k, to be exact). They have not released their 2007 numbers yet, which are expected to be over $1.2 million. In 2005, their adjusted gross income approached $1.7 million. They have not made less than $200,000 in any one calendar year in nearly a decade. Until 2005, they had not so much as given even 1.5% of their income to charity. In 2002, when they made $260,000, they gave $1,050 to charity. With generosity like this, I can see why some may be attracted to the welfare state that he endorses. After all, someone has to help the needy. (Emphasis mine.)

Paradoxically, the senator also told his audience that the selfless devotion to others would actually be self-serving. Of course, that raises the question: If I’m going to be a self-serving bastard, why not skip right over doing things for others and be, well, a self-serving bastard?

Besides, is it hardly an overwhelming concern for others, rather than oneself, which tells mothers it is perfectly acceptable to kill the unborn for the sake of their careers, convenience, whatever. If a woman cannot be prevailed upon to endure hardship (or simple inconvenience) for a baby, no one in the world ought to be induced to endure hardship (or simple inconvenience) for anyone else -- at all, ever.

Or, as I’ve asked before: If one does not have a right to be born into the world, how does one come to have rights simply by virtue of having been born? If you don’t have a right to be here in the first place, what entitles you to those things which make possible your continued presence here?

H/T: Kevin D. Johnson at Reformed Catholicism

Right now, so far as I’m able to discern I don’t pay for anyone’s abortion. Apparently, Senator Obama would like to, well, change that by having prolife Christians pay for them through his healthcare plan.

Not all change is improvement, any more than motion, in and of itself, constitutes progress. And whatever change constitutes improvement depends upon what sorts of things one values. And these values are religious in nature.

Funny how the left believe their (religious) values can be transformed into policy, but object when the right believe they ought to be able to do that also.

Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on election day. -- Thomas Sowell, here. (H/T: Matteo)

From the American Thinker, yesterday:

Republicans have never been willing to play the political game by real-world rules. If [the] list of liberal felonies were extended backward -- say, to the 1960s (and what a job that would be!) -- how many of them would the left have been forced to answer for? A handful, at best. And those almost exclusively by individuals such as Ronald Reagan and the younger, vital Newt Gingrich, seldom by the GOP as a whole. Almost without exception, liberals have been allowed to take utterly obnoxious stances -- supporting the Viet Cong, abolishing DDT, undermining U.S. efforts against the Soviets -- and after they blow up, simply brush themselves off and walk away. They are never called to account, never made to explain themselves, never forced to mount a defense.

Look once again at Iraq. Liberals were wrong about the war, wrong about Al-Queda [sic], wrong about the Iraqi people, the government, and most recently, wrong about the Shi'ite militias. And they were wrong in a way that exacted a clear price, one that undermined the efforts of their own country, encouraged its enemies, and cost the lives of many innocent bystanders. Yet no one in the political sphere (partially excepting Joe Leiberman) has challenged them on it. Both Obama and Hillary are still repeating the same nonsense about immediate, unilateral retreat, based on mythology that was never true and has been disproven a dozen times over. And they will go straight into the general election saying the exact same thing, well aware that no one will call them on it.

The American left is not made to eat its failures. This must change. The only entity capable of forcing that change is, unfortunately, the Republican Party.

Yes. The Republican Party. Unfortunately. The same party which, though never perfect, seemingly cannot go fast enough in turning its back on the only leader to (1) make any successful attempt at holding leftists accountable for their failures and (2) make it a majority party for the first time since the Depression.

H/T: Anchoress

And I forget
just what it takes
and yet I guess
it makes me smile
I found it hard
it's hard to find
Oh well, whatever, never mind

[…]

With the lights out
its less dangerous
here we are now
entertain us
I feel stupid
and contagious
here we are now
entertain us -- “Smells Like Teen Spirit” (Nirvana)

Your rulers are rebels,
companions of thieves;
they all love bribes
and chase after gifts. – Isaiah 1.23

Laura Ingraham (14 May 2008, 3d Hour, KJCE-AM) objects to Presidential candidates appearing on shows like Saturday Night Live. To her it offends against the dignity of the office. One caller disagreed with her. Appearing on these sorts of shows is a good thing because it shows the candidates’ human side, it personalizes them. Conservatives come off as stuffy, you see, so appearing on shows like SNL will help make them not seem so stuffy.

Laura responded by asking if candidates should also do cooking segments with Rachel Ray. I was thinking more along the lines of, say, Survivor, Amazing Race, or even Hell’s Kitchen. But Rachel Ray works also.

So let’s see. People who might otherwise agree with conservativism won’t vote for a conservative because conservatives are stuffy. Or is it that people who otherwise disagree with conservative policies would be inclined to vote for a conservative because he’s human? I don’t know what kind of victory it would be when one has demonstrated one’s humanity not by acts of personal charity, magnanimity, bravery and the like, but by appearing on a television show – something the most selfish, ego-centric, and cowardly humans are always capable of doing, and do on a regular basis. I don’t see how that works out, logically. But then, cults of personality are never about logic.

They aren’t about policies or qualifications either. Now, we want our political leaders to entertain us – as if feeding us, clothing us, housing us, educating us, job-training us, rescuing us, and doctoring us just still isn’t enough.

If conservatives do come off as stuffy, perhaps it is not so much that conservatives themselves are the problem. The problem could very well be the vision of those who see conservatives as stuffy.

If the Prophet Isaiah were ministering today he might have written chapter one, verse twenty-three thusly:

Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves;
they all love bribes and chase after gifts.
They are fools and minstrels,
buying your votes with table scraps,
and your affections with a joke and a tap dance.

In the wake of the raid on the YFZ Ranch, I haven’t been able to stop thinking how ironic it is that it is illegal for a man to marry and father children with more than one woman, but it is legal for a man to have, and father children with, more than one “girlfriend”, and, in many cases, at state expense.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Dear Sir,

I love to receive letters very well, much better than I love to write them. I make but a poor figure at composition; my head is much too fickle. My thoughts are running after birds’-eggs, play and trifles, till I get vexed with myself. Mamma has a troublesome task to keep me steady, and I own I am ashamed of myself. I have but just entered the third volume of Smollett, though I had designed to have got half through it by this time. I have determined this week to be more diligent, as Mr. Thaxter will be absent at court, and I can not pursue my other studies.

I have set myself a stint, and determine to read the third volume half out. If I can but keep my resolution I will write again at the end of the week, and give a better account of myself. I wish, sir, you would give me some instructions with regard to my time, and advise me how to proportion my studies and my play, in writing, and I will keep them by me and endeavor to follow them. I am, dear sir, with a present determination of growing better….

[…]

P.S.— Sir, if you will be so good as to favor me with a blank-book I will transcribe the most remarkable occurrences I meet with in my reading, which will serve to fix them upon my mind.

The writer of that letter, was John Quincy Adams, age 10. The recipient was his father.

Yesterday I was viewing one of the many websites devoted to debunking Creationism. The proprietor of this particular site blames creationism for the amount of ignorance in the U.S. He may be right. But frankly, I think the problem is not so much what is taught (which is very little, even – or especially – in public schools) but how it is taught. I suspect there were more “creationists” in John Quincy Adams’ day than there are now. They do not give the impression of having been ignorant for it.

I mean, bear in mind that The Federalist Papers were written to be read by farmers.

I live in one of those areas where it seems every one who has a child in school has an honor child in school. I often think to myself how much I’d like to read a letter such as they might write to their parents. But when I recall the samplings I've received from high school graduates (graduates of high schools where evolution is taught, by the way) I'm afraid. Very, very, afraid.

During the present controversy over elements in certain of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons, many have again wondered when blacks in the U.S.A. will cease seeing themselves still being as oppressed as they ever were under slavery and the segregation era. I think the answer is, “Not for a long time.”

Having said that, however, I disagree with Rush Limbaugh’s frequently proffered reason. That reason is: blacks as perpetual victims is a lucrative business for men like the Reverends Sharpton, Jackson and Wright, who, in short, are opportunists and nothing more. Unlike Limbaugh I hesitate to make such statements about men I've never met. I'm not saying he's wrong; quite frankly it can easily look to be the case.

On the other hand, one could for the same reason suggest that someone like James Dobson really – deep down inside – does not want solutions to the problems with the family he has identified because The Dysfunctional Family is a lucrative business for him. If and when Focus on The Family succeeds in solving the problems it has set for itself a lot of people are going to be unemployed. These things could be true about Sharpton, Jackson and Wright, even about Dobson; but it's more than I know about these men, so I won't speculate.

No, I think what motivates the likes of Sharpton, Jackson and Wright is not personal financial benefit. Rather, what motivates them is Black Theology. I don't mean by “Black Theology” theology done by blacks, as opposed to a “White Theology” done by whites (and therefore “orthodox”, while “Black Theology” is “unorthodox”); I mean by the term that school of thought, within the stream of liberal Christian theology, to which theologians like James H. Cone gave, or began to give, systematic expression in his Black Theology and Black Power and A Black Theology of Liberation.

In Black Liberation Theology, God exists with and identifies with the oppressed. This is true of any Liberation theology, but for liberationist theologians there is not a universal theology. Liberationist theologies do not reason from a divinely inspired text like classical theologies. The theological center of any liberationist theology is experience. Philosophically speaking, no two people can have the same experience of an event, even though they both are present at the same event. Theological statements, then, being rooted in experience, are not of universal application; they are culture specific. Oppressed blacks therefore must have their own unique theology of liberation, since the black experience of oppression is not the experience of oppressed Latin Americans, among whom the first liberation theologies were crafted.

As a liberationist theology, Black Theology posits a God who exists among, and identifies with oppressed blacks. And the God of oppressed blacks is not the God of oppressing whites; He cannot be, by definition. Think of it the way Dr. Cone puts it (paraphrased by me): The God of the white men running the slave ship simply cannot be the God of the black slaves down in the hold. In liberationist theology, it cannot be that Oppressor and Oppressed are in relation with the same God, any more than oppressed Hebrews were in relationship with oppressing Egyptians. And if, in existing, moving and having His Being among the oppressed, God must be existing, moving and having His Being among blacks, then God Himself is black. Dr. Cone describes God's “Blackness” in this way:

The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism...The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God's own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ, the human race is made to understand that God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering...Liberation is not an afterthought, but the very essence of divine activity. (A Black Theology of Liberation, pp. 63-64)

Now if, as Dr. Cone says, “God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering” then, quite logically, if one is truly to know God and be in relationship with God, then one must be in humiliation and suffering. In other words, if your God is a God only of the oppressed, then you must be one of the oppressed; and you must always be one of the oppressed. When you cease being one of the oppressed, then you cease to be in relation with that God who is God only of the oppressed. If you are in relation with any God after you are no longer one of the oppressed you must know that God is not the God with whom you were formerly in relation. (One easily sees how blacks like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Michael Steele, Walter E. Williams, and Shelby Steele have lost their status as Blacks: they are no longer among the oppressed. To be truly black in Black Theology is to be oppressed.)

If one is to remain in relation with the God of the oppressed, specifically in this case, oppressed blacks, then one must always see oneself as oppressed. This is why I said above that the answer to the question, “When will blacks cease to see themselves as oppressed?” is not for a long time.

“But James,” you say, “things really have changed.” You will no doubt list for me those things which used to be the case but which no longer are. There is no forced segregation in schools. There are no Jim Crow laws. You'll go on and on. And you'd be right. However, theology, being about those things in the category of The Ultimate, is about those things which do not change. The response of Black Theology is that what has changed is the form, or the appearance of the oppression, not the fact of it.

Something in Jeremiah Wright's speech to the NAACP really brought this home to me. He was talking about education and said that black learning styles are not white, or western learning styles.

Dr. [Janice] Hale showed us that in comparing African-American children and European-American children in the field of education, we were comparing apples and rocks. And in so doing, we kept coming up with meaningless labels like EMH, educable mentally handicapped, TMH, trainable mentally handicapped, ADD, attention deficit disorder. And we were coming up with more meaningless solutions like reading, writing and Ritalin. Dr. Hale's research led her to stop comparing African-American children with European-American children and she started comparing the pedagogical methodologies of African-American children to African children and European-American children to European children. And bingo, she discovered that the two different worlds have two different ways of learning. European and European-American children have a left brained cognitive object oriented learning style and the entire educational learning system in the United States of America, back in the early '70s, when Dr. Hale did her research, was based on left brained cognitive object oriented learning style. Let me help you with fifty cent words.

Left brain is logical and analytical. Object oriented means the student learns from an object. From the solitude of the cradle with objects being hung over his or her head to help them determine colors and shape to the solitude in a carol in a PhD program stuffed off somewhere in a corner in absolute quietness to absorb from the object. From a block to a book, an object. That is one way of learning, but it is only one way of learning.

African and African-American children have a different way of learning. They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain--that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place, over there behind the desk. Black kids climbed up all on them. Because they learn from a subject, not from an object.... They have a different way of learning. Those same children who have difficulty reading from an object and who are labeled EMH, DMH and ADD -- those children can say every word from every song on every hip hop radio station half of whose words the average adult here tonight cannot understand. Why? Because they come from a right-brained creative oral culture like...in Africa, who can go for two or three days as oral repositories of a people's history.... That is a different way of learning. It's not deficient, it is just different.

You see: It is oppressive for left-brained whites to insist that right-brained blacks learn in accordance with white-brained learning styles. It is oppressive to insist that blacks adapt their learning to the white mind. So you see, desegregated schools are as oppressive as segregated schools, just in a different way. They are oppressive because although they may be segregated, they are not (using Wright's terminology) integrated. Yes, blacks and whites go to the same schools, but if right-brained kids are going to be made to learn as if they are left-brained then that is just as oppressive as leaving them in segregated schools.

There is something else one can pick up from Wright's brief excursus on learning styles. It makes sense, when you think about it, that people with different learning styles will not only learn differently but see the world differently. From there it is a small step to understanding that they might also have different understandings of oppression. The left-brained understanding of oppression will be (what?) clinical, formal, positivistic: there is no oppression because there is no institutionalized oppression; there is affirmative action, equal opportunity, reverse discrimination; we’ve had blacks on the Supreme Court; we’ve had two black secretaries of State. On it could go.

The right-brained understanding of oppression will be (one can only suppose) an oppression which will be difficult to discuss, since right-brained thinking is not “logical and analytical”, but rather subject-oriented. The black will experience oppression which, for want of left-brainedness, the existence of which he will not be able to demonstrate to left-brained whites. According to Wright, blacks don’t have the tools to demonstrate that they still are being oppressed. Indeed, insistence on the part of whites that blacks demonstrate logically and analytically the existence of this oppression is itself a form of oppression. (That’s quite convenient.)

It goes without saying, I think, that left-brained and right-brained will also have different ideas of what liberation looks like. For the left-brained, the past oppression was embodied in the law. Blacks were slaves in the past because the law permitted it. They were segregated because the law required it. They sat at the back of the bus and yielded seats to whites because the law required it. They had separate water fountains and restrooms because the law required it. And on it goes. Things are different now. Not only does the law not require these things, it forbids them. Not only is the state prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, so are private citizens. In most instances under the law, a hotel owner, for example, would be permitted to decide what sort of clientele he wanted to cater to. He still can, but not on the basis of race. For the left-brained, the symmetry indicates that liberation has been achieved; there is no legal boot keeping blacks down.

For the right-brained any set-back, any perceived injustice is evidence of oppression. If, for example, a group of police officers are put on trial for attempted murder of a black man named Rodney King and found innocent of attempted murder, that is evidence of oppression, of injustice. Had they been charged and found guilty of use of excessive force, perhaps things would have been different. But the right-brained is not interested in such fine distinctions. As Reverend Wright has informed us, the black mind, being right-brained is not logical and analytical; superficial similarities will therefore suffice for the destruction of a neighborhood. And the left-brained will simply have to understand the right-brained rage.

So, in addition to being always oppressed because one is a member of God's people (and God is God of the Oppressed) one can always be assured that the oppressor (the left-brained, logical, analytical white) will never really understand just how it is that the oppressed (the right-brained, non-logical, non-analytical black) actually and genuinely experience that oppression, or why they do not feel liberated. And that, naturally, means the white oppressor will be powerless to cease being what he cannot understand himself to be. If I can't understand the ways in which I'm oppressing you – despite my best efforts – because I'm powerless to think like you, to experience reality in the way that you do, then I can't stop doing it. I would have to be able to understand that oppression from your perspective in order to stop it. But I can't understand it from your perspective because I'm left-brained and you're right-brained. And never the twain shall meet.

(We also now understand why blacks who do well, or strive to do well, in “white”, left-brained schools are accused of acting white. They are denying their right-brainedness – denying who they really are inside – and, as the saying goes, acting white, that is, acting like they are left-brained rather than right-brained. This also loses them their status as “real” blacks.)

We come now to the reason I have titled this essay, “Black Theology and Black Impotence”. Black Theology, as a species of Liberation Theology, purports to be the theological energy behind the Black Power movement, a movement intended to liberate blacks from their continuing oppression under whites. But, at the same time, this very theology tells its adherents (even if only tacitly) that they must always be oppressed; they can never really be liberated – not if they are to remain in relationship with their Black God.

Recall that, according to Dr. Cone, “The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God's own condition.” So, as he further explains:

Being black…has little to do with skin color. Being black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are. (Black Theology and Black Power, p. 1)

And if there are no dispossessed? If there are no oppressed? What then? Do away with dispossession and one does away with God. Do away with oppression and one does away with God. And, what’s more, since there must be someone being dispossessed and oppressed, there must (tautologically) always be a dispossessor and oppressor. So blacks will never cease being oppressed; and whites will never be innocent of the charge of oppressing blacks.

As the intellectual motif behind Black Power, a motif which, by virtue of its definition of God, requires oppression, Black Theology can give no power of liberation. For all its desires to the contrary, Black Theology does not result in Black Power; it results in Black Impotence. Paradoxically, Black Theology is in the end not a theology of liberation; it is a theology of oppression. So, in fact, are all theologies of liberation. Adherents will always be liberating, but never liberated. Their theology simply won’t allow it: there is no category for it. The term liberation is in their vocabulary, but it is a concept ultimately devoid of content.

I think we also have here the answer to the question why blacks so consistently vote Democrat, despite never really getting those things that Democrats promise them. If one perceives oneself as being oppressed and dispossessed and one political party will grant the proposition that one is oppressed, while other parties will not, it is easy enough to see which party one will turn to. Again, the oppressed require an oppressor. Above, I said that given brain dominance difference (i.e., left versus right) the denial on the part of the left-brained that the right-brained person is being oppressed is itself a form of oppression. (As far as the right-brained person is concerned, anyway.) Conversely, one who will at least concede the point is your friend, even if in the end he does nothing for you, especially if he can point to some rival party as being responsible for his failure. Furthermore, a political party which by and large denies the claim of oppression is, by definition, an oppressor party, especially if it works against that party which has identified itself as siding with the oppressed, siding with God even. With the lines are drawn like that, where would your vote go if you wanted to be on God’s side?

But I have digressed.

What I’ve posted here is simply my own view of some of the logical implications of that stream of Liberation Theology known as Black Theology. Nothing here should be understood as a denial that there are oppressed and dispossessed, oppressors and dispossessors. Neither ought a Christian to deny that there ought to be concern for the dispossessed and oppressed. Having said that, one ought also to admit that not every proposed solution to a problem is truly adequate to the problem. Indeed some proposed solutions only exacerbate the problems they are intended to resolve. Such is the case with Black Theology, I think.

But although I disagree with Black Theology as a system, I do not dismiss it out of hand. I am guided in my approach by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI),

[I]t must be borne in mind that no error could persist unless it contained a grain of truth. Indeed, an error is all the more dangerous, the greater that grain of truth is, for then the temptation it exerts is all the greater. Furthermore, the error concerned would not have been able to wrench that piece of the truth to its own use if that truth had been adequately lived and witnessed to in its proper place (in the faith of the Church). So, in denouncing error and pointing to dangers in liberation theology, we must always be ready to ask what truth is latent in the error and how it can be given its rightful place, how it can be released from error's monopoly..(Here) Emphasis mine.

There is a grain of truth in Black Theology. And had that truth been lived out and given its proper place in the life of the church, there may have been no need of such a theology. But ironically, Black Liberation Theology makes an error similar to that made by slave-holding whites. Black Liberation theologians read the Bible through the lens of their own experience in order, among other things, to comfort themselves; slave-holding whites read the Bible through the lens of their experience in order, among other things, to comfort themselves. If either one is justified in that subjective approach, then so is the other. Black Theology can hardly find “White” Theology wanting, though it desperately would like to.

The fact is, Dr. Cone could very well be mistaken. It could very well be that the God of the white men running the slave ship is also the God of the slaves down in the hold. He will, as that God, hold both accountable for their respective sins, the oppressor for his oppression (among others, of course), the oppressed for his response to oppression (among others, of course). God did not cease being David’s God when David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then suborned the murder of her husband. Indeed, it was precisely because He continued to be David’s God that He punished David for his sin. David and his descendants all suffered (for hundreds of years) as a consequence of his double sin. I suspect we have no idea what ills we have suffered and may continue to suffer because people long dead decided to limit the concept and the desire for liberty only to themselves at our nation's inception and for many decades afterward.

But I also doubt that many blacks will experience liberation because they have a theology in which God is God only of the oppressed. Desiring to be with God (as we all should) they will always be oppressed -- by definition.

One of Jeremiah Wright's complaints during his interview with Bill Moyers (transcript here ) about the clips from his sermons was that he was taken out of context. Hugh Hewitt has context, lots of context. I don't think the context really helps Obama. At all.

Joan Walsh, an admitted leftist, wasn't very impressed by the Bill Moyers interview, either.

I would be willing to agree that nothing Wright says is relevant to U.S. politics generally, or to Senator Obama's compaign particularly, but for two things: 1) politics involves questions of ultimacy, hence will necessarily at some point become about religion; 2) as I mentioned previously, if John McCain were a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, there would be heck to pay (and rightly, I believe). I'm also not bothered by Wright's desire (if it be such) that God damn the U.S.A. (It's not a desire that I share.) (Of course, on the other hand, those folks over at Westboro share Wright's antipathy to the U.S.A., albeit for different reasons. But I digress.) First, I don't hold it as an article of faith that a Christian must believe the U.S.A to be sinless; that would be idolatry. Second, Wright strikes me as using the same sort of hyperbole Jesus employed when he says such things as, "If your right eye offends you pluck it out," "Hate you father and mother," etc.

I have just finished reading the book of Daniel. One thing I find noteworthy every time I read it, is Daniel's love for those who are his captors, as well as how that love was reciprocated. When Judgment was announced to Nebuchadnezzer through a dream, Daniel wished that the judgment was on Nebuchadnezzar's enemies! Daniel 5.19. Then, under Darius the Mede (conqueror of the Bablyonian empire), when Daniel's enemies conspired to have him tossed into a lion's den, Darius spent a night fasting in hopes that God would deliver Daniel from the lion's mouth. Daniel 6.18.

Daniel, a Jew, captive in the Bablyonian, and then Medo-Persian empires for seventy years was, in those lands, what we would call a loyal citizen a patriot. Why?

Writing to the Jews in captivity, the Prophet Jeremiah (how ironic!) wrote:

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, "Build houses and live in them; and plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease. Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare." Jeremiah 29.6,7.

You could call this my own "theme passage" on how I seek to conduct myself as a Christian living in the U.S.A. I doubt Daniel would have had much patience for synagogue sermons in Bablyon that sounded anything like some of Reverend Wright's. And, like Wright, there were plenty of Jews who served in the Babylonian and Medo-Persian armies. That service would not have earned them a pass for such sermonating.

In a previous posting, I said the things I do for fun don’t cost much, if any, money. Here are some samples of things I find fun. They’re free too.







Most of us could use a lot of that sort of fun.

I’m just sayin’.

And no, I am not the demonstrator in any of these clips.

That’s what John McCain – bless his heart – wants to be in this election. It is also the reason for his aforementioned swipe at the North Carolina Republican Party. That’s the sort of thing that sounds good, really, really good. Sweet, even. I think I feel my eyes tearing up. (No, just threw up in my mouth.) But it’s also the sort of thing that means he will ultimately stand for little else than getting elected.

Don’t get me wrong. Like Senator McCain, I too have a pipe dream: I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony Or, alternatively, buy it a Coke. (It’s the real thing.)

One really cannot be a candidate for all of the people where, apparently, being that type of candidate means pleasing all the people all the time. (Or perhaps McCain’s real desire is to be the candidate of all the correct people.) It’s very simple: You have positions or you don’t. If you do, what are they? And why do you think your positions accord with wisdom? And in contemporary politics those positions will be either to the right or to the left of center, the only question being how far from center one is.

Besides, there really is a difference between being President of the United States (i.e., President of that union of states which was formed by the states) and being president of all the people (there is no such office). The key is not to convince people that you can be a candidate pleasing to all of them; that’s impossible. The key is to stake out those positions – whether of the Left of the Right, preferably not both (as if political positions were like items at a buffet!) – and convince as many of the people as possible that those positions are wise, not popular, not easy – but wise and (here’s something new) constitutional. (Let’s face it: President Bush is not the only one who – arguably – doesn’t care what the constitution permits or doesn’t permit.)

Wherever Obama’s loyalties ultimately are, I agree with Arnold Ahlert:

Mr. Obama is not running for college president on some lunatic left-wing campus…. He’s running for the most powerful office in the world, and the public ought to be well acquainted with the company he’s kept and keeping–loud and often.

[…]

This is one American who’s damn tired of a Republican candidate for president who thinks going toe-to-toe with two irredeemable socialists is “unseemly.” Better to “disrespect” them than that part of the American electorate–hopefully a majority–which yearns to see a Republican show a little backbone. Nothing is more “hardball” than a presidential election.

“Man up,” Mr. McCain.

What concerns me about Obama is that he seems not to understand federalism. He thinks that Senator McCain’s inability to get the NCRP to pull the ad is indicative of his leadership ability. Ostensibly, Obama does not know that in our federal system there are national politics and state politics. Since it's really none of his business how state parties conduct their affairs, he may object all he wants, but he has no leadership authority over those parties. McCain may be the presumptive leader of the Republican Party, but he’s not the Party dictator – neither at the national lever nor (certainly!) at the state level.

Senator McCain would have us believe that it is racist for people to raise the issue of some people's loyalties with respect to his pastor. Particulary, he objects to this ad by the North Carolina Republican Party:



I doubt the senator would take the same position if the circumstances were entirely identical but for Obama and Wright being white, instead of black.

On one hand, it’s easy to see why some might think it irrelevant to Obama’s fitness for office that his pastor has certain views. My pastor has certain views with which I disagree. On the other hand, if John McCain were a member of The Westboro Baptist Church, I doubt he’d be able to extricate himself from the ensuing predicament! And most of us wouldn’t be convinced that it was racist for anyone to run an ad which included a clip of one of Fred Phelps’ sermons and wanted to know if McCain’s sentiments were similar to Phelps’. And most of us wouldn’t believe a denial. We’d still wonder: If he doesn’t share those views, why be a member – for twenty years?

It’s real simple. As President of the United States Senator Obama will take an oath of office which stipulates that he will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is relevant whether he feels the same way about the nation as his pastor does. It does matter where his loyalties are.

Some might say, “Yes, James, but Obama has asserted that he doesn’t share Wright’s views. People ought to consider the matter resolved.” Sure. As long as you think Obama isn’t lying about it.

Perhaps he isn't lying. I have no evidence that he is. But it is still legitimate to raise the issue.

Very interesting article on how the way you handle the cash, if any, on your person may be indicative of how you handle money generally. That, in turn, has implications for your economic status, which is therefore probably something that no federal program is going to be able to fix for you.

Incidentally, I belong to the “File Folder Funds” category. My bills are not only organized from higher to lower denominations and all facing the same way, they are grouped in two: discretionary and non-discretionary. And I know exactly how much is in my wallet at this moment, as well as how much is discretionary and how much is non-discretionary.

Of course, I'm informed that "having all the dead presidents right-side up and facing the same way...might mean [I] 'have a problem allocating enough money toward fun'." What it really means -- in my case -- is that as a man of simple (i.e., "Spartan") tastes, the things I do for fun are relatively inexpensive and rather healthy -- physically, mentally, and psychologically. Also, I spent most of my childhood in the ranks of the poor so there wasn't a whole lot of money to spend in the first place. As a consequence I never really learned to spend it.

I have a lot of discretionary money in that wallet. Not because I get a lot of discretionary money, but because I spend very little of what I do get as discretionary money. What I put into my wallet as non-discretionary is usually spent within two weeks, and goes, presently, mostly towards fueling my cars.

Or...

a free advertising for RockyNational.com

This is my favorite scene in ‘Crocodile Dundee’:






I too like a good knife. Indeed, I feel about knives the way Obi Wan Kenobi feels about light sabers, "A more civilized weapon for a more civilized (And yes, I did happen to notice Linda Kozlowski. It was 1986; I was young and single. And she was only seven years older than me. Gosh, I guess she still is. Anyway, in general, I find brunettes more attractive. But I digress.)



This is the knife I have in mind for myself:























Anything less would be uncivilized.

As you can see, it’s a very versatile knife. Hunny, if you’re reading, you can order it for me here. (It would be a great birthday gift.) Sweetie, if you’re reading this it would make a great Father’s Day gift.

NOTE: I didn’t have time to look around UTUBE for a version with no subtitles.

What is it with politicians and closed-ended questions? Last night Senator Obama was asked if the D.C. gun ban (D.C. Code sections 7-2502.02 , 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02) is constitutional. It was a simple thing: it is; or it is not. After Obama’s two minute response, Charles Gibson replied that he didn’t think he got his question answered.

Senator Clinton was no better. She was asked an even simpler question: Do you support the D.C. gun ban? It’s a question which doesn’t call for a legal opinion, but for a personal opinion. Do you support the gun ban or not? She also gave a several minutes long response, which included the fact that she didn’t have all the facts, and supported gun legislation within the bounds of constitutionality, and so forth.

There is room for nuanced answers here. For example, to the question, “Is the D.C. gun ban constitutional?” one could offer principled arguments for and against. An argument for the constitutionality of the ban would take account of the text of the second amendment, noting that the amendment seeks to curb the power and authority of the federal government, leaving such matters in state hands. Since D.C. is not a state but is under direct control of the federal government, the federal government does have power to limit weapons ownership in D.C., which authority (one could argue) has been delegated to the D.C. municipal government. In short, and as Laurence Tribe has argued, the provision is not applicable in the nation’s capital. The nation’s capital is effectively federal territory and thus not subject to a provision which limits the power of the federal government over the states. When looked at that way (which I think is the correct way to look at it) I think that the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.

Sadly, we can no longer look at it that way. There is a school of thought which has it that the Fourteenth Amendment wraps up the Bill of Rights and makes them applicable against the states. There are also those who argue for D.C. statehood. Those people should put their statehood money where their statehood mouths are, apply that Bill of Rights they enjoy applying against the states and acknowledge that since a state can no longer make laws respecting an establishment of religion, they darn well can’t infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Looked at that way, the D.C. gun ban should be seen as unconstitutional. But since D.C. is not a state, that really is not the correct way to look at it.

So, for the record, I do not support the D.C. gun ban because I think it is unwise. But I think the ban is constitutional because the Constitution curbs the federal power with respect to weapons, and D.C. is federal territory.

See how easy that was?

Well, sort of.

If a government is going to promise free healthcare, it must somehow be able to assure the requisite number of healthcare professionals to meet healthcare needs. What if the requisite number is not there?

That, as the New York Times reports, is the situation in Massachusetts. (Read the story here.) Previously, one of the problems in Massachusetts was that physicians didn't particulary care for some of the details of Commonwealth care, especially the reimbursements. Those reimbursements, it seems, are as pitiful as the state's Medicaid program, Mass Health (here). It isn't bad enough that physicians can't determine their own schedules (they are required to give patients a first-appointment within 45 days); no, their incomes will also be determined by the state.

With strictures like those it is possible that people who might otherwise be interested in the health professions will decide upon careers which give them a bit more freedom. Should that fact lead to a healthcare-professional crisis we shall have to institute something like a draft.

Your typical leftist can rationalize it this way. If we can force people into the military in order to take lives in a war (and possibly have their lives taken) we should feel no compunction about forcing people into the healthcare system in order to save lives (without the risk of losing their lives). This is especially case since we shall be paying for their undergraduate and professional educations. (It's irrelevant that we don't have a military draft. The rationale is still useful.)

Your kid wants to be a fireman, does he? Well, make sure he doesn't show any interest in, or aptitude for, the sciences. It would be bad.

Serendipidously, Limbaugh mentioned a report yesterday on how long it took major technologies to reach 50% of households. (Graph here. 2004 story here.)














Part of the reason for the rapidity with which any technology reaches more and more households is the drop in price over time, as well as our relatively high standard of living. Generally, prices for new technologies drop further and faster the longer the technology is available. When I was a kid only rich people had VCRs. Now you can pick one up (but why would you?) for a fistful of dollars (when you compare that fistful with the value of the dollar back when the VCR was new).

Somehow, when it comes to healthcare, prices go up and up rather than down, making it available to fewer and fewer, rather than more and more. Typically, if prices for anything go up it is because of limited supply relative to demand, like crude oil, for example. We talk about the increasing cost of healthcare, but ignore the possibility of a demand which in some way exceeds the supply. Somehow -- we are told exactly how -- supply must meet demand, regardless of cost to the supplier.

What we're told, however, is that greed best explains the higher prices. But look, the people who make DVD players and iPhones and so forth are just as greedy as those in the healthcare and petroleum businesses. The fact is, raising prices just for the sake of greed is not a wise long-term policy for any business operation. But it doesn't matter: in the end politicians don't campaign for the votes of thinking people, but for those of the "distracted multitudes". And those multitudes are rather superificial in their thinking. For the superficial, greed is as good an explanation as any, even if only because it is the most obvious of all explanations. And obvious is what superficial people love most. The politician who wants the superficial vote need point to nothing but the obvious in order to get it.

Some of us here in Nolodicere think that our small community ought to declare itself an explicity Christian municipality. (Don't worry, the heathen will be allowed to remain, especially the ones who work in restaurants. The sabbath-breakers among us need people to feed them after church. "Feed me, Seymour!" Ahem. I digress.)

There is a catch: we are governed by U. S. federal law. According to that law such an act as we propose would be unconstutional.

But who cares? I think we should do it anyway. If a city as large and visible as San Francisco can disregard federal law, an insignificant municipality such as I live in should easily be able to pull it off. (Side bar: My favorite part of the story is where opponents of the ad campaign are referred to not as "anti-illegal immigration" but "anti-immigration".)

Wait. Actually, there is another catch. Both St. Paul and St. Peter are on record as exhorting obedience to governing authorities (see, e.g., Romans 13.1-7; 1 Peter 2.13-17). I guess it's awfully convenient, for San Francisco, that San Francisco is not a Christian municipality, nor can be.

Early in my Christian life -- which began in 1988 -- when I was still a Roman Catholic (as opposed to a Reformed Catholic), I contemplated becoming either a Benedictine, a Dominican, or a Jesuit. Probably in that order, too. Eventually, I threw in with Reformation thought and left the Catholic church (or, to borrow from President Reagan, discovered that it had anathematized me).

It is still my habit to read the Rule of St. Benedict. In the past I read it through at least once a year. But my wife recently purchased an edition which divides the text into daily readings and includes the Declarations and Constitution of the American Cassinese Congregation.

The April 6 reading was in Chapter 54 of the Rule. What was most disturbing was this, from the ACC's Declaration 66: "As to the reading of newspapers, let all take good care not to stay at it with loss of time. And let no one acquire the silly and pernicious habit of listening to the radio."

I'm addicted to talk radio. I don't know if I could have handled such a stricture. Of course, the particulary Benedictine monastery I was interested in was Our Lady of Guadalupe Abbey Benedictine Monastery, in Pecos, New Mexico, a member of the Olivetan Congregation. I don't know anything about the Olivetans' declarations. So maybe I'd have been allowed to indulge my "silly and pernicious" habit. (I selected Our Lady for two reasons: My father's familiarity with one of the monks there; and it wasn't terribly far from home, so, with Father Abbot's permission, of course, family members would be able to visit from time to time.)

And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to return to "silly and pernicious" habit.

On this rock I will build my church. -- Jesus Christ (Matthew 16.18)

This is not your grandfather’s church -- Gerald Kieschnick

That’s what I can never help thinking when I read stories like this one. It’s not that I deny the need for any and all change. But it depends upon the nature of the change. As C. S. Lewis once observed, all theology needs to be translated into the vernacular as it were. But some changes are simply a nod to a culture which may be in need of transformation. Nodding to a culture in need of transformation doesn’t make much sense.

But what really ought to concern people is not so much the sort of changes Kieschnick and his fellow travelers advocate. What really concerns me is the way Kieschnick replies to objections. If someone objects to changes, the appropriate response is to demonstrate that Scripture (whether explicitly or implicitly) either warrants the changes or at least does not forbid the changes. Telling objectors, “This is not your grandfathers church” is no reply at all. It is also not very respectful of one’s opponents (one’s supposed brothers in Christ) for it simply dismisses an objection out of hand as not even worthy of consideration, much less reasoned response. It's just a way of saying, "Shut up."

Besides its not the present generation’s church either.

H/T: Centurion

According to Sean Hannity, the Obama’s tax returns reveal that their charitable giving amounts to 1%. Slate posts the returns here.

Jake Tapper writes about the returns here (comments are entertaining, especially those in defense of the Obama’s), and here.

Bloomberg crunches the numbers here.

Frankly, I don’t think people running for public office should publicize their tax returns. (And they are not, rightly, required to do so by law.) But as long as they do so, I suppose it's legitimate to make observations. I observe that the rather generous giving (much, much, more than 1%) of the President received no praise from his critics, who persisted in calling him a greedy Republican, with no care for the poor, and so forth.

The people criticizing Obama seem to forget two things. First, people don’t always claim all of the charitable giving they do. (I know I don’t: sometimes keeping the necessary records is a greater pain in the neck than it’s worth. My state and federal income tax liability this year came to $87.00. Perhaps better records would have gotten me an $87.00 refund instead. I don’t know.) Second, being a liberal means, among other things, never (or, at least, rarely) having to demonstrate compassion out of your own resources. (President Clinton, for example, frequently complains of how little he pays in taxes despite being very rich, when, in fact, he can pay as much in taxes as he likes – as long as he pays at least what the IRS says he owes.)