Douglas Groothuis Agrees With Me! ;-)

In a total confirmation of my convictions, Dr. Doug Groothuis of Denver Seminary echoes a good portion of my sentiments in an article on patheos.com about the comments on Rep. Michele Bachmann's so-called "Dominionism" view of the material world.  Just to be clear, Rep. Bachmann is only the means by which this topic is being trodded out, straw manned, and falsely attributed to people I deeply respect within the Christian faith, namely Nancy Pearcy and the late Francis Schaeffer.  The political hit-men responsible for their crazy-train-of-thought (Lizza and Knight) literally know nothing about which they are mocking and throwing up as "dangerous" in the attempt to pummel a respectable Presidential candidate with their near-libelous words.

From Dr. Groothuis' article:

Third, the key Christian influences on Bachman are not Rushdoony and his followers, but Francis Schaeffer and Nancy Pearcey. Schaeffer referred to Rushdoony's views on mandating biblical law as "insanity," and never sanctioned any form of theocracy. (The name "Rushdoony" does not even appear in the index of Schaeffer's five-volume collected works.) Schaeffer explicitly condemned theocracy in A Christian Manifesto (p. 120-1). Nor did he call for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe V. Wade were not overturned. Schaeffer rather explained various ways of resisting tyranny according to a Christian worldview and in light of church history. He saw "civil disobedience" (his phrase) as a last resort and did not stipulate any specific conditions under which it would be advisable in America. In fact, Schaeffer worried (on p. 126) that speaking of civil disobedience is "frightening because there are so many kooky people around." Further, "anarchy is never appropriate."

Schaeffer condemned theocracy and found civil disobedience frightening?  OMG, that's crazy!!  Lizza and Knight need to realize that they are the ones on the crazy train, not Michele Bachmann.  It certainly is crazy what drinking that liberal Kool-aid does to the human mind.

Hate the Idiocy, Not the Idiot

Last week, a truly worthless hit piece on Rep. Michele Bachmann was published in the LA Times.  The average American newsreader is probably used to a certain amount of libertinism (yes, I do mean that) in order to inject sensationalism into their stories, but never have I read something so atrociously wrong as this, which made me feel as if it infected me with aliens that were about to bust through my chest. 

Calling himself a "Culture Monster," Christopher Knight takes on the arrogant task of characterizing Bachmann in a way too obvious attempt to smear her in the public eye, but it is as if he protests too much.  From the beginning, he accuses her of disliking the Renaissance and the art of the Renaissance greats.  His article is a travesty of honest-to-goodness honesty as he completely fabricates the animosity of Nancy Pearcy and Francis Schaeffer against figures such as Leonardo Da Vinci.  In what anyone can recognize as extreme self-imposed ignorance, Knight fails to see from the video that he himself embeds into the article that Schaeffer both admires the philosophical journey of artist/philosophers like Leonardo, yet sees the journey's end, just as Leonardo himself did:  life and philosophy eventually arrive at an empty void that humanity and the human mind alone cannot fill.

It's fairly obvious that Knight hasn't read even a page out of one of Schaeffer's or Pearcey's books.  Are we to believe that an author who cannot even get a solitary concept correct in those he criticizes actually knows anything substantive about the Renaissance?  Only with an agenda of evil would one dare to publish such naked vitriol against a woman who's simply running for the office of the President of the United States, for crying out loud.  Our society has been telling little girls they can be whatever they want and dream big, but only the Antichrist forbid that any girl ever actually reach that place of dreams when she grows up.  Journalists and authors should be praising Michele Bachmann for bucking the stereotypes of gritty, haughty women too coarse for prime time who must resort to screeching their way into political power for the substitution of affection they lack otherwise.  Talk about irony walking backwards in the Midieval direction, Mr. Knight.  Yeah, that would be you.

Knight repeatedly frames Bachmann's supposed views on a subject she's never talked about in public with words of his own choosing:

o "artistic spawn"
o "Renaissance ruin"
o "ungodly error"
o "Hate the art, in other words, not the artist."
o "drivel"
o "kooky"
o "wicked Renaissance humanism"
o "Schaeffer's crazy train"

Also, not content to simply project his own words into her thoughts, he quotes from another journo-assassin, Ryan Lizza from the New Yorker, that Schaeffer (and thus Pearcy onto Bachmann) thinks Renaissance philosophy was "dangerous" and "blasphemous."

The LA Times should be red-faced ashamed to have let this person publish such a mammoth-gagging piece with their name on it.  It has all the sense and sensibility of a drive-by shooting.  Not only does the author misunderstand everything that Francis Schaeffer stood for in his ministry, valuing art and teaching on the perspective of artists, but goes on to attribute the care and thoughtfulness of such a scholar like him to insanity.  The entire article is as if it is the result of what happens when garbage smokes dope and then vomits on a keyboard.  The earth would be greener indeed if such energy wasting dopehead garbage were never conceived to pollute the net with its inanity.  However, hate the idiocy, "in other words," not the idiot. 

The probability of a chimpanzee smashing its fists on a keyboard and pounding out a fairer article on Michele Bachmann is infinitely higher than Christopher Knight's inane and vacuous treatment of not one, two, but three intelligent and accomplished Americans of faith.  Has Christopher Knight even cracked one of the books he's bashed?  I think his response to recommended reading would be the phrase of the day:  resist we much.  Knight should go write about some wet t-shirt contest somewhere on a college campus.  That's the level of journalistic responsibility he appears capable of maintaining.

I join others like Doug Groothuis in calling for a Renaissance of reading.  Those who claim to love the Renaissance of history should avoid absolute hypocrisy by reading Francis Schaeffer themselves.  Some of Schaeffer's titles include:
The God Who Is There
He Is There and He Is Not Silent
Art and the Bible
True Spirituality

From Arab Spring to Norwegian Summer

Last week, some Norwegian dude bombed a government building in Oslo and shot 87 people to death at a youth camp.  My interest in his story is only in part, as the reaction from the news articles regarding the motives for his actions comprise that added 'wow' (more like 'whoa') factor that only the mainstream media can dish out.

News media of all stripes, in their haste to publicize the fact that Anders Behring Breivik was not Muslim, crooned for two days about what the police described as Breivik's "right-wing Christian fundamentalism" with articles like
"Oslo Shooter Anti-Muslim Christian Fundamentalist" http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/oslo-shooter-anti-muslim-christian-extremist/   From the post:  "Anders Behring Breivik, is a frequent poster of anti-Muslim screeds on Christian fundamentalist websites" which came from an article that said merely that Anders "posted on websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies. He did not describe the websites in any more details." 

and
"Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalist Charged Following Norway Attack"

and

"Oslo Suspect Wrote of Fear of Islam and Plan for War"
In particular, this article which was written by Steven Erlander is a toned-down version of one he wrote a day earlier outright labeling Breivik as a "Christian extremist."  This article, which no longer labels Breivik as a "Christian extremist" nevertheless quotes from Thomas Hegghammer who does remark that, “[Breivik's action] seems to be an attempt to mirror Al Qaeda, exactly in reverse.”  Such a statement easily conveys the idea that Breivik's actions are somehow religiously motivated similarly to Al Qaeda.

and

"Norway Terror Update: Suspect Detained Identified As ‘Christian Fundamentalist’" 
Of course, none of this news frenzy could go ignored by internet pop-skeptics.  Such a salacious story about a Christian shooting up people easily calls out the hounds, which prize expletives like John Loftus seized on to again mime (meme?) his knife-twisting hatred of Christianity.  And once the media let a domino fall, it predictably set off a chain reaction of anti-religious media personalities carving a collective "a ha!" gotcha notch on their digital bedposts.  /CoughBill Mahercough!

And, the last shred of human decency left in this world disintegrated with the publishing of another little piece of refuse like this:
"Pamela Geller and Co. Connected to Norway Bomber Anders Behring Breivik?"

The Golden Ticket, however, again came from the New York Times.  As I referenced above, in an article titled, “As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist – Manifesto Shows Plan of Attack, Fear of Islam," Steven Erlander supposedly gave stunning revelations from Brievik's online manifesto to the "fact" of Breivik's religiously-fueled terrorism.  However, despite my earnest attempts to find an online link or archive, it has mysteriously disappeared from the NYT online.  Think this was a small story?  Newsbusters reports that the NYT's article was actually in print on the front page of the July 23rd edition.

But is any of this true?  Nope.  Anders Behring Breivik himself thankfully provides the answer in what I call his "Treatise on how Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment Can be Crimeless Yet Full of Punishment."  In other words, how to rationalize killing the innocent in order to justify killing the perceived guilty.  I think that was also the the basic plot of Star Trek VI.  According to Brevik, his so-called Christian connection is no more substantive than that Norway is considered a "Christian"-dominant country having adopted Christianity as the state religion.  Well if that were the real criteria for being a Christian, then Breivik is certainly a Christian just as anyone else in Norway is a Christian just for living there and not claiming to be anything else.  Now, I think I know a little something about what being a Christian is, and I can safely say that your birthplace doesn't determine if you adopt a particular religion even if it is dominant.  I think any atheist would agree with that.

Just recently, David Wood from Answering Muslims put out a video discussing Anders Behring Breivik.  Wood specifically deals with the whole "Is Breivik a Christian?" question.  Not to be missed, here it is:
 

For the sake of competent reporting, I sure hope that the MSM will wake up soon and realize that the fascists they've been looking for are maybe the ones staring at themselves in the mirror. The thinly veiled hatred the media has for Christianity isn't all that sensational anymore. Just sayin'.

Chris Matthews' 'Don't Know Much About History' Blunder on Hardball

I found this yesterday on Huffpo.  Though suffering through a cold usually makes one numb to what else goes on in the world, I had to gasp at this interview they pulled off of Chris Matthews' Hardball earlier this week:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Wow, talk about biting it on national television with a shameful showing of the utter lack of knowledge on the US Constitution and American history. On Tuesday, leftist lackey Chris Matthews went on a jaundiced tirade against Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's speech for the Iowans for Tax Relief. Specifically, he derided Rep. Bachmann's citation of John Quincy Adams as one of this country's forebearers who worked tirelessly for abolition.

Actually, let me change that. Chris Matthews doesn't have a "lack" of knowledge about the US Constitution and the history of abolition; he has a lack of accurate knowledge about the US Constitution and the history of abolition. He has drunk the liberal historical revisionism that many high school teachers and college professors now pour down the throats of our impressionable students who haven't understood history as it was between the Constitutional Congress and the Civil War. Let's let the circumstances back then speak for themselves.

- John Quincy Adams: according to biographies of Adams' life, he repeatedly attempted to introduce bills by abolitionist groups into Congress calling for the abolition of slavery. Such was the opposition to his ongoing attempts, Southern Democrats passed a number of gag rules in order to prevent Adams from introducing any more abolitionist bills.

"Throughout he was conspicuous as an opponent of the extension of slavery, though he was never technically an abolitionist, and in particular he was the champion in the House of Representatives of the right of petition at a time when, through the influence of the Southern members, this right was, in practice, denied by that body. His prolonged fight for the repeal of the so-called "Gag Laws" is one of the most dramatic contests in the history of the U.S. Congress. The agitation for the abolition of slavery, which really began in earnest with the establishment of the Liberator by William Lloyd Garrison in 1831, soon led to the sending of innumerable petitions to congress for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, over which the Federal government had jurisdiction, and for other action by congress with respect to that institution. These petitions were generally sent to Adams for presentation. They aroused the anger of the pro-slavery members of congress, who, in 1836, brought about the passage of the first "Gag Rule", the Pinckney Resolution, presented by Henry L. Pinckney, of South Carolina. It provided that all petitions relating to slavery should be laid on the table without being referred to committee or printed; and, in substance, this resolution was re-adopted at the beginning of each of the immediately succeeding sessions of congress, the Patton Resolution being adopted in 1837, the Atherton Resolution, or "Atherton Gag", in 1838, and the Twenty-first Rule in 1840 and subsequently until repealed. Adams contended that these "Gag Rules" were a direct violation of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and refused to be silenced on the question, fighting for repeal with indomitable courage, in spite of the bitter denunciation of his opponents. Each year the number of anti-slavery petitions received and presented by him increased; perhaps the climax was in 1837, when Adams presented a petition from twenty-two slaves, and, when threatened by his opponents with censure, defended himself with remarkable keenness and ability. At each session, also, the majority against him decreased until in 1844 his motion to repeal the Twenty-first Rule was carried by a vote of 108 to 80 and his battle was won." (Source: NDDB biographies, http://www.nndb.com/people/370/000026292/)

Incidentally (or not incidentally, if you believe in Divine Providence as I do), in the last year of Adams' life, he mentored a young Congressman to work toward abolition. This Congressman later went on to become the 16th President of the United States. Oh, what was his name? Abraham Lincoln. (Watch this history video about John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhtkAO9PUE8)



- the Three-Fifths Clause in the US Constitution: historical revisionism has erased the word "compromise" from the Three-Fifths Compromise as written in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. Why? Because the word "compromise" could cause people to ask questions over what the compromise was about. In the runup to this clause in the Constitution, slave-holding states wanted their slaves to be included in the state population to give them more seats in Congress and votes in the electoral college. Morally, this was outrageous, for using slaves to increase your representation in Congress was insult beyond subjugation, not to mention an unfair advantage in congressional representation against Northern states. Abolitionists moved to oppose such accounting, wanting slaves not to be included at all. In a compromise, Congress adopted the Three-Fifths rule to appease the Democrats yet limit their power.

From Gary Wills, "Negro President”: Jefferson and the Slave Power, cited on Wikipedia: The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio" had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.

Chris Matthews clearly needs to go back to school and read some real American history and apologize to Rep. Bachmann for inflicting his ignorance on her and the American public. Maybe then, he won't be as big of a "balloon head" who suffers from so much hoof-in-mouth disease on national television.

Why Nidal Malik Hasan Did Not Murder Anyone

I originally intended to publish a post on the Ft. Hood massacre soon after the news broke about the attack by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. In the inital days following, the news media strained to find a possible motive for Hasan's actions. Was he a flaming jihadi or a garden variety crazyman? Now, since the events took place months ago, I've had plenty of time to mull the situation over and grant possibilities and motivations subliminally suggested by the media. I also enlisted the help of a fellow Christian apologist and expert on Islam, David Wood from Answering Muslims, to help me make sense of Hasan's motivations. Questions in bold are followed by his answers in italics. To be fair to the media, I have also included representative media answers in response to Mr. Wood's statements. Thus, this blog entry has both sweet and sour sides to it. I'll let the reader decide which is which.

1. It seems like the American media doesn’t know what to make of this man Hasan except to attribute his actions to a psychosis or a mental breakdown. How legitimate is this treatment of him?

Hasan did exactly what Islam commands him to do, which is why it's absurd to attribute his actions to a mental defect. If Hasan had started running down the highway in a pink dress, barking like a dog and shooting people with paint-ball pellets, we might reasonably question his sanity. But when he proclaims his jihadist views over a period of years, consults Muslim scholars about waging Jihad, purchases weapons, and carries out a brutal attack against carefully selected targets, psychological problems simply aren't the explanation. Islam is the explanation.

Phptht. No, Hasan had to be mentally disturbed. After all, he was about to be shipped to Iraq to fight George Bush’s War. Who wouldn’t go insane? You shouldn’t bring Hasan’s cultural upbringing into this. As an enlightened and tolerant society, we should realize that none of this is really his fault, and he can’t help it if he’s Muslim. I mean, Islam is a religion of peace, right? Right?

2. What are the laws in the Qu’ran prohibiting murder or the killing of innocent people? Tell me about what they mean.

Concerning the murder of innocents, Muslims may appeal to Qur'an 17:33, which says, "And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided." Here a Muslim may rightly claim that the Qur'an condemns the killing of innocents.

The problem is that the Islamic definition of "innocent" is radically different from that of practically everyone else on the planet. According to Islam, non-Muslims aren't innocent. Pagans aren't innocent. Christians and Jews aren't innocent. Consider, for instance, what Qur'an 9:30 says about Jews and Christians: "And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Christians and Jews are therefore guilty of the worst sin imaginable (associating partners with Allah). It isn't surprising that 9:29 commands Muslims to fight us.

Hence, while it is correct to say that Islam forbids the killing of innocents, we must keep in mind the fact that, according to Islam, the only innocent people are good Muslims.

This has to be an obvious twisting of the Qu’ran. I mean, what about The Crusades?

3. According to this understanding of the Qu’ran, why are American soldiers legitimate targets of killing?

The Qur'an specifically says that the penalty for "making mischief" in Muslim lands or fighting against the Muslim community is death. Qur'an 5:33 reads: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement."

The American soldiers targeted by Hasan were about to be deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, to make what Hasan would regard as "mischief in the land." These soldiers were therefore legitimate targets according to Islam.

Well, I have a Muslim neighbor, and that’s not what he believes. And he says he’s very devout. His kids and mine play soccer together.

4. What is the war/jihad that Hasan chose to fight in and what the imam he consulted with endorsed?

According to Hasan, the United States is at war with Islam (due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). Thus, any Muslim is justified in waging Jihad against America.

That’s sooo ridiculous. As stated before, Islam is a peaceful religion. The U.S. is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq because George W-stands-for-Warmonger Bush was a warring warmonger. You can’t base what one crazy man says as representative of the whole religion. I’m sure there’s no justification whatsoever in what he believes. He’s crazy, you know.

5. If Hasan’s acts took place in, say, Saudi Arabia, would he be treated as a murderer as he is here in the US?

In the eyes of Muslims who understand Muhammad's teachings, Hasan isn't a murderer at all. He killed enemy combatants, and therefore should be considered a war hero.

Haw-haw. Hasan is a US citizen, and he has Miranda rights and should be tried fairly in federal court. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty!

6. What could be his defense for his actions? Could he argue that he did not really murder anyone at all, since none of the victims were Muslim?

Murder, by definition, is an unjust killing. In Islam, it's lawful to kill enemy combatants. It's also lawful to kill people who are aiding enemy combatants. It's even lawful to kill civilians as collateral damage when targeting enemy combatants. Everyone killed by Hasan fits into these categories, so there was nothing unjust about his killing spree (according to Islam).

See, this shows that Islam is very tolerant and peaceful.

7. The American society seems to be just one of the things disdained by many militant Muslims about the US. Are the features (positive or negative) of American society fundamentally incompatible with Islam or Sharia? Are Islam and Sharia the same?

Islam is the religion, while Sharia is the legal system put in place when the religion becomes dominant in an area. Thus, while there are many Muslims in America, there isn't much Sharia. Sharia is completely incompatible with American society. Freedom of religion is severely limited under Sharia. Freedom of speech is severely limited. The penalties for various offenses in Islam would qualify as "cruel and unusual" in America. Since America is pluralistic, Islam can exist in America. But Islam is monolithic; therefore, America cannot exist under Islamic rule.

America has separation of church and state, therefore, I cannot conceive of any American Muslims who would tolerate Sharia. Only the radical Muslims, whom I refuse to acknowledge exist, would want to impose Sharia. Even if they did exist (which they do not), I’m satisfied with characterizing them as terribly misunderstood and also confident that they will eventually become as relativistic about their beliefs as I believe they should be.

8. Is Sharia the goal of Islam? I mean, there are plenty of Muslims who do not want to live under Sharia. However, does faithfulness to Islam compel them to accept it as the right way of life?

If someone believes that Islam is true, they should believe that Sharia is the greatest system of law (since it's the system that's been commanded by Allah). It is therefore quite strange for a Muslim not to desire Sharia law. Muslims who do not desire Sharia have either been thoroughly Westernized, or they don't know enough about their religion to know that they're supposed to seek the establishment of Sharia.

Well, if you’re going to get all confusing like that, then there is no longer any reason to rebut you.

9. Are Americans naïve to this aspect of Islam? Are Westernized Muslims likewise naïve?

Since Americans are raised to believe that a particular religion shouldn't be forced on people, many Americans just can't grasp the fact that Islam is completely different in this respect. Americans tend to think that all religions support basic rights, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc. Indeed, when the facts about Islam are pointed out to people, many become upset because they assume that those presenting the facts must be misrepresenting Islam. After all, no religion could possibly teach that unbelievers should be fought simply for being unbelievers!

Similarly, many Muslims in America have been raised with Western values, and they believe in Western values. But since they don't know much about Islam, they are convinced that Islam teaches the same thing (when it doesn't).

This is the problem with religion in the first place. Adherents turn perfectly benign beliefs in the brotherhood of man (and woman) and the parenthood of God(ess) into a contest of exclusivity! If religious people would just become as enlightened as we reporters, journalists, and news anchors, then everyone would understand how objectively correct we are in pointing out the relativism of all moral and religious beliefs! Let us all put down the dogma, already! Get it? Put down the dog-ma?

10. There are efforts from people like Irshad Manji to reform Islam into a less oppressive religion. Is this even possible?

People are free to reinterpret Islam, and this is what many are already doing here in the West. The problem is that wherever Islam spreads, there will always be a minority of Muslims who take the Qur'an and Hadith seriously. So no matter how much Irshad Manji waters down the religion of Muhammad, Muslims will continue to oppress unbelievers.

When women and minorities are abused in Islamic countries and bring that abuse to the West, I tolerate it as a mark of their culture that I can’t bring myself to critique in public, even if I wanted to. I’ve abdicated my ability to criticize Islam out of loyalty to moral and religious relativism and political correctness. Christianity—now that’s another matter altogether…

Personal reflection:
An army base with unsuspecting and men and women, most of them unarmed. Motive: kill the enemy. Triggerman: one Soldier of Allah. Result: 13 dead.

However the media (and the military) chose at one point to characterize what happened, I can’t ignore the clear, linear progression of logic that led Hasan to attack the personnel at Ft. Hood. For a Muslim dedicated to the supremacy of Allah by following Qu’ran to the letter, mass murder became more necessary than any gentle proselytizing. Maj. Nidal Hasan was an officer in our military, yet he was of another military, that of Islam. In short, he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, following the path of what he believed a good Soldier of Allah was supposed to do.

Oh yes, let’s go there. Though 13 people died, assuming none were Muslim, according to the laws within Islam, Hasan did not commit murder at all. The dead were only Jews, Christians, and infidels worthy to be swept up in body bags as the consequence of victory in jihad. In Islam, there is no murder of non-Muslims, just death. This is the first tragedy of Ft. Hood.

The second tragedy is this: it took months for the Army to finally spit out the word “terrorist” in the same sentence as Hasan’s name. And the mainstream media? I’m still waiting. And in the pit of my stomach, I suspect I will be waiting forever. Journalists are doing the equivalent of sticking one’s head in the sand to hide from the obvious. Hasan’s beliefs are Islamic…and protected in the shadow of welfare in a beautiful, magical, multicultural world. Therefore, saying anything negative about the origin of his violence (ahem, Islam) is strictly prohibited in the uber-PC culture of the mainstream media. Political correctness forces us to ignore where Hasan got his jihadist mindset (um, the Qu’ran and the Hadith?)

So it seems that some want to imply that Hasan could have been a radical, violent, religious nutcase that had just as much chance of shooting up an army base as a Christian as he did as a Muslim. Fine. If that were the case, I have complete confidence that the media will call him for what he is: a murderer.

But if political correctness in the media can’t call something for what it is, like murder, terrorism, and jihad, then we might as well blame political correctness for murdering 13 people. If that is the case, then political correctness needs to be murdered in order for people to live.

The Moral of the Story: Jon and Kate Plus 8, Part 1

Introduction
I have never watched the reality show J&K+8 nor given the show a moment's thought in the last five years. Yet, now I think something's changed at the moment of their critical mass. Coincidence? Hardly. At just the right juncture, I’m interested and perhaps providentially so. At least, that is how it seems to me.

Jon and Kate Gosselin, the parents and main "characters" of the show, set themselves up as a Christian couple trying to raise a big family on TV. Their verbal commitment to God and faith linger somewhere above their heads throughout the show’s current four-plus seasons. Kate regularly goes on speaking engagements to mostly Christian audiences, and her name is splashed on many Christian magazine covers announcing interviews inside. A family photo graces the cover of a new book, titled Multiple Bles8ings. But right here, right now, Jon and Kate’s marriage is imploding on national television.

And I'm thinking, ‘Is there anything about this family situation that is healthy at all?’

Fertility is a god
I wrote about the idea of fertility treatment on a previous blogpost, particularly as it concerns Christian couples struggling with infertility. The Gosselins’ situation, unknown to me at the time, perfectly mirrors the situation I talk about right down to the issue of suddenly having many more babies than expected. Their first success using technology gave them twins. Kate wanted a third child, but they cancelled a potential adoption midway through the process in favor of returning to fertility treatments. This time, the sextuplets that caught the attention of a cable TV network were born. Nowhere online did I read that they questioned whether their choices and consequences were aligned with God’s wisdom, yet Kate claims “It’s what God wants for us.*” Even Amazon.com’s editorial review (from Publishers Weekly) of their book states that “she and Jon…decided to accept the extreme challenge God had handed them.”

What God handed them? I believe the conventional understanding of providence involves considerable less control and knowledge over an outcome than what the Gosselins have experienced. Knowing the risks and potential consequences, they circumvented infertility (infertility being a circumstance uncaused by them) to have multiples by artificial means (a circumstance caused by them). How else does an infertile couple go from zero to twins to sextuplets in such short order when they only wanted just one more baby?

The answer is that fertility is a god. Today, instead of erecting physical idols that might grant the next generation of children, livestock, and crops, many go to a clinic where its practices often result in too much of what was wanted (along with consequent “reductions”--ahem, abortions--as remedies). For couples that find themselves unable to have children naturally, the quest to change that through any means necessary can be all consuming, driving even the most well intentioned wannabe parents to take measures beyond godly limits. As Christians, we are most often sensitive to the pro-life position regarding the end of life, but rarely have we thought carefully about the pro-life side of the creation of life. Kate acknowledged the probability of multiples the second time around. “We were told that there was a possibility of four, but we were truly unaware that there were seven on the day that our procedure was done, or we would not have gone through with it,**" she states in an interview. With the potential for a minimum of four more children, did they stop to ask themselves if they were crossing into recklessness by creating more lives than was their intent? If human life is as precious as we say, then we do harm to the children conceived in numbers beyond parents’ normal ability to handle. One thing is true about the use of infertility treatments: many couples may be stamping Jesus’ approval of decisions made without Him retroactively based on the results rather than on principle and responsibility.

Even in the one of the cheesiest near-foreign movies ever made (Bruce Lee’s The Game of Death), the plea to respect life stands out as a universal, objective good; in particular, it is a good that is found within the whole counsel of God. It is about time we apply the whole counsel of God to the subject of infertility and its treatments and realize the bioethical limitations that must exist. To want children is blessed. To avoid ethical pitfalls surrounding the issue of fulfilling this want is equally blessed, if not more.

*(http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/jon-and-kate-plus-8.htm)
**(http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/jon-and-kate-plus-81.htm)

(Next: The Morals of Jon and Kate Plus 8 Story, Part 2)

The View Heard 'Round the Blogosphere

DJ Chuang happened to post his thoughts on the same View controversy over the n-word as I. I appreciated the mutual interest on the topic and the different approach he took to seeing the video clip. Here is my comment to his post on Next Gener.Asian:

Hello DJ!

I just blogged about this same issue as well (read it at my blog). I guess it’s a good thing I wrote it without knowledge of your comments, because it seems we have something to talk about!

The majority race in this country is not the only one to be insensitive to other racial groups. As much as the black community is the victim of much racial insensitivity, blacks have also dished out their fair share of it as well, a lot of it falling on Asians. (Recall a riot in L.A. where Asian shopowners in particular were the victims of shooting, looting and vandalism).

Reading my post, you might get a sense that I am one of those fellow Asians that doesn’t acknowledge the cultural differences that come with being in a racial minority in America. I think those differences are impossible to ignore, so rest assured that at the very least I don’t ignore it.

However, there quickly comes a point where talking about things like this out loud becomes little more than complaining and beating up on an entire class of fellow humans (a.k.a. those of “white priviledge”), most of which have been whipped by political correctness not to have a true dialogue about race at all but parrot PC language all day long. There also comes a point where I surmise some might resist making progress for fear of losing their power once forgiveness becomes incumbent upon them.

The church is in the perfect spot to exemplify healing to the world. It is a testimony that–I agree with you–we are failing to accomplish. Theologically speaking, all races in question belong to the majority in mankind: Gentile. I believe that as Christians, this is where we need to begin. The Gospel of Jesus Christ has come to even us, as the Judaizers with Peter realized.

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came down on them, just as on us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if God gave them the same gift that He also gave to us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, how could I possibly hinder God?” When they heard this they became silent. Then they glorified God, saying, “So God has granted repentance resulting in life to even the Gentiles!” (Acts 11:16-18, emphasis mine)

As a Christian, capitulating to the world’s fragmentation and double standards has never sat well with me. We can do better, much much better.

Two Worlds and Double Standards?

Although I don't watch The View at all, apparently I can't avoid the show, since it produces news-capturing controversy on a regular basis. This time, it is riding the coattails of Jesse Jackson's curious "accidental" (?) negative remarks about Barack Obama, using the n-word. On The View, hostesses Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd defend the use of the n-word, but only among blacks and only those blacks that supposedly know what they're doing with that word. In other words, dirty rappers may or may not fall into that category. Hm. Conversely, no white folk (or any other color folk) should ever find themselves uttering such a word, because then it becomes an blatant racial slur. The condemnation that follows such an utterance then should be swift and severe. I see. Now you see:


Credit YouTube user speakmymind01.

What if I should behave the same with racial words used for Asians by more blacks than whites that have ever run across my path? In my lifetime, it was a black child older than I that ever harassed me physically. Should I hold that against all blacks? Should I say then that no black person can use certain words but make an exception for myself and others of my own racial grouping? That isn't just ridiculous, it is repugnant.

There indeed are two worlds. Apparently, Elisabeth Hasselbeck (and I) live in the one that wants to bring unity and compassion to our existence. Whoopi lives in the world that doesn't. Whoopi doesn't just bring attention to racial disparity, she wallows in it. In a society that is sincerely trying to move beyond skin color as a measure of one's personhood and value, Whoopi and Jesse Jackson mean to drag as many as they can to the depths of their anger and refuse to let the nation heal. We cannot have a dawn of a new day if civil rights activists insist on shooting out the sun.

I summon the spirit of Rodney King that begs you to let us all get along. Clean up your mouth. Let go of the nastiness.

Apparently, it's Barack-O Suave

If ever there opens a pit of despair in my stomach it is when I see intelligent and critical-thinking women abandoning their brains on national television to fawn over a political candidate they should interview with great scrutiny instead! As many know, Sen. Barack Obama made a widely publicized appearance on ABC's The View to talk about, well, nothing really. Aside from a casual brush off of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ordeal, Obama did a terrific impression of a male model, one that talks little of substance but everyone loves him anyway just for the way he looks.

So powerful was his appeal that near the end of his appearance, both co-hosts Sherri Shepherd and (Republican) Elisabeth Hasselbeck volunteered themselves to work for Obama's campaign. Said Shepherd, "I so appreciate you sharing your heart in the speech you just gave, 'cause I had my vote for Hillary, and as soon as I heard that speech, I changed it. And I want to leave The View to campaign for you--well, not leave The View, but you know, on the weekends." To which Hasselbeck added, "I was just thinking the same thing!" My, all this for a candidate that talks in government subsidies and nonpartisan feelgoodisms.

I guess all that is needed to win some women's votes is to be sexy and genteel (hey, "sexy" is the word Barbara Walters used).

So go ahead and watch the interview for yourself. I want to see how many other women fall under the Obama "sexy" spell too.


Credit: YouTube user kimktb

15 Minutes of Fame...or Dread?

UPDATE: After inquiring about a possible print date for this story, the reporter told me that, essentially, TATB has been upstaged by the Pope's upcoming visit to the US, and our story has been pushed back for an unpecified amount of time.

[Originally posted on Monday, 3/24/2008]
Last Wednesday, our monthly Theology at the Bottleworks discussion brought the folks out in droves, as often the case. Apparently, immigration issues gets people talking. Also apparently, the New York Times wants to shine a spotlight on TATB for their paper. Well, nothing new here--news articles about the Journey's TATB have been turning Christian against Christian for going on two years here in St. Louis--except that this time my name is going into the article.

The reporter gave me no indication her tack on the whole TATB experience, so I have no idea what angle the article will have. She asked me my age, my occupation, my political leanings (!), and how I get along with those with whom I politically disagree in church. Okay.

And then I find out that she'd finished wrapping up an interview with John MacArthur earlier that day prior to TATB for the same article. Uh-oh. I am unwilling to get into details of what my knee-jerk cynicism conjures up, but I smell another round of John MacArthur vs. Emerging church jousting coming up. Ugh, I pray not.

And my name is going in this article. Yikes.

Ah, the Crotchety Sound of Inspiration

I know I'm late to the game on many fronts. But being on the cutting edge of motherhood has it's sacrifices, ya know? Anyhoo, coming home from Midrash planning last Sunday evening gave me the almost-never opportunity to turn on my car radio to my local FM talk radio station (who listens to talk radio on a Sunday night???). And a revelation hit me--on the air was an articulate, strong-minded, politically charged woman that sounded like she was taking thoughts out of my own mind and broadcasting them all over St. Louis. Who is this?!, I wanted to know. Well, you can take a gander at the links below, but man, not since I discovered Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham as a college student have I found a kindred spirit in this young gal on the airwaves. She says what I think; she must be brilliant. ;-)

Kudos to Dana Loesch.
97.1 FM Talk link
Dana's political blog
Mamalogues

And she lives in St. Louis, too! And she's a mom of two the same ages as mine! And..and..and...don't worry, the afterglow will subside in time.

Think, St. Louis Metrovoice

The February 2008 issue of the St. Louis Metrovoice features articles written by Michael Spielman, taken from Abort73.com. All articles are superb arguments for the pro-life case, thoughtfully and winsomely written and articulated. One of them in particular, titled "The Cost of Life", is particularly noteworthy, for Spielman prefaces his main argument with a lengthy reference to the movie Schindler's List. Great movie. Great article. But...

Tsk tsk, Metrovoice. Don't you know that Schindler's List is rated R?

Oh Joy.

Seems like Joy Behar accepted Weird Al's challenge to "Dare to Be Stupid." Her outrageous reasoning on why the Catholic Church has not declared any saints in the modern era (with the possible exception of Mother Teresa) rivals Caitlin Upton's ( Miss Teen South Carolina 2007) unintelligible answer about maps. According to Ms. Behar, Catholic saints were mentally ill, and since we treat mentally ill people with meds nowadays, in a twist of irony, the pool of available saints has effectively dried up.

Thankfully, Father Jonathan Morris has provided a pointed, yet gentle critique of Joy Behar's disrespectful and off-base remarks.

In true irony, Ms. Behar’s “comedic” monologue — meant to make a serious point —
turns out to be rather funny. She tried to use Mother Teresa to prove her point
that modern saints (that don’t exist?) don’t hear voices anymore (because they
take psychiatric medicine?). But Mother Teresa, in fact, did hear voices and
they were not dissimilar to the ones heard by Joan of Arc, the French saint and
true feminist who Ms. Behar suggested needed a prescription of Thorazine.

Personally, I'm less amused at her motivation for making such comments rather than at the comments themselves. If anyone denies that the Christian faith is the whipping-boy of the secular media and its majority of voiceboxes, I'll gladly point back to Ms. Behar and Rosie O'Donnell again and again. Such tv personalities use their airtime to pontificate their certainty that Christianity is false and oppressive. They, in effect, are preachers of anti-Christianity. They can sure dish it out, but can they take it in kind?

Now, a few distinctions are in order. When Ms. Behar refers to "saints," I know she is referring to Roman Catholic saints. Not being Roman Catholic myself, I can't speak to the specific criteria of sainthood of the Catholic Church. But I can defend my own biblically derived understanding of sainthood and where Ms. Behar is completely off the map (pun entirely intended). In the evangelical perspective, sainthood is conferred onto every believer in Jesus. The Spirit of God communicates to every believer through Scripture and through divine conviction, which is wrought through various means (prayer, reasoning, life experiences), including visions if God so wills.

All true believers have experienced God's revelation in one or more of these ways. No amount of meds in the world can squelch that.

It is evident now that Joy Behar has never experienced God then. Otherwise, wouldn't she be on Thorazine as proof?

Playing into the Media's Hands

As much fun as this MBC/A29 snub has been, I'd like to touch on an angle that has received little attention, and that is how the media has played a role in how things have shaped up. That is, unless you have been living under my roof, because I've been sounding off about Tim Townsend and Jennifer London since the "Beer and the Bible" article appeared on the front page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch early this year.

But, that's about to change.

Basically, Southern Baptists have repeatedly fed the beast that is the liberal media. Among the newsworthy events: Texas SBC faction secedes from the Union--er, the SBC; Next, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship secedes from the SBC. In MO, secession by Word & Way newspaper, The Baptist Home, Missouri Baptist University, Windermere Conference Center, and Missouri Baptist Foundation. And now, the rejection of the Acts 29 Network by the MBC. Hmm, a trend. The media has certainly eaten well this decade.

This is a minor point with larger ramifications. The current stink about the MBC and A29 over alcohol should be an internal matter that only impacts the respective parties involved, but sadly, this is not the case. Newspaper and tv reporters can and are blowing disputes among Christians up into juicy news. This might get them a plaque on their cubicle wall, but I daresay that they'd like to make this yet another black eye to parade to the public about how conservative Christians cannot do anything but disagree and split...

especially here in MO. Regardless of the specifics, the implication is that Southern Baptists cannot help but focus on issues that divide Christians rather than on unity for the gospel's sake.

When are we going to lose this image? When is conscience going to override the tendency to play clique-religion within the Christian faith? Why are our leaders of the Conservative Resurgence, supposing to right the wrongs the theological liberals committed during their leadership, not doing any better than those they have deposed? At this juncture in the MBC saga, I predict not too few aspiring young leaders will seek opportunities to preach and lead outside of the SBC. What then? Perhaps by their absence, the current SBC leadership will come to realize just what they have become, a beauracracy of stubbornness that holds legalism as a higher ideal over the preaching of the gospel. Maybe it will come to that and maybe it won't. But if decisions like the one the MBCEB has made toward A29 spread across the country, the SBC is finished.

And wouldn't that be one salacious story for the front page of the newspapers?

Religio-blogging Catches Newspaper's Eye

On Tuesday, USA Today featured a look at Christian blogging in the Life section of the paper. The article highlights blogging activity for Southern Baptists, Catholics, and Episcopalians. Overall, the article is neutral on reporting the hot topics among each denomination, though of course, the clashing in cyberspace is what gets printed. Frank Page, SBC President, is quoted twice for exclaiming "For Christ's sake, stop!" in referring to the heated disagreements over SBC matters.

Page fretted in a Baptist Press column that battling bloggers frighten off
"lost souls and new believers." He wrote, "Lost people are seeing the deep
division and sometimes hatred that is flowing froth among churches and among those who are involved in convention discussions. For Christ's sake, stop!"

The article similarly points out vociferous disagreement over the gay issue among Episcopalians and the larger Anglican church. It runs aground when it comes to Catholics, as it seems the author couldn't find anything more controversial than the Pope's decision about accessibility of the Catholic mass.

My curiosity is piqued. Why quote Frank Page thus? Why point out the war of words occurring in cyberspace to the largely uninterested public? I think the media is again doing what it does best when it handles the religious sector in any way, and that is to mess up the story or make one out of nothing. It seems to be playing the latter this time. Whatever.

But, a few people are getting their 15 minutes out of this. Two bloggers in each denomination have mentions as representatives of the fray. They are:

Southern Baptist
1. Ben Cole -- SBCOutpost.com, baptistblog.wordpress.com
2. Wes Kenney -- weskenney.net, SBCToday.com

Catholic
1. John Zuhlsdorf
2. Rocco Palmo

Episcopal
1. David Virtue
2. Louie Crew