In the movie, "The Last Samuri", the Emperor -- referring to
one of his warriors who had died in the heat of battle --
said, "it was a good death." He meant, of course, that this
warrior had died honorably, the way a warrior would want
to die, fighting for a cause he and his brothers-in-arms
believed in and would gladly give their lives for...
Today's news is splattered with the sad toll that 2,000
US military members have been killed in Iraq, inspiring
many of us to ask the obvious questions:
WHY? For what PURPOSE? And what have those tragic
deaths GAINED for us and for the world?
Die-hard Conservatives will say, "It's all a part of the
(so-called) 'War On Terror' ", and, "War is ugly; if these
people were going to wail and moan about dying while
on duty, they shouldn't have signed up..."
Well, side-stepping the lack of Compassion in those
types of comments, consider these two thoughts:
1) The Bush administration did NOT, originally, go
into Iraq under the banner of "the War on Terror"...
The "cause" was, instead, "WMD", which is
now a "dark humor" joke in just about every comedy
outlet we have, and on tv, and in the papers, and at
many coffee machines in offices around the country.
Bush did a classic bait-and-switch with Americans,
changing the "mission" mid-stream and going back to
his que-cards: "War on Terror...", "noble cause...",
"defending our freedoms...", etc.
US service men and women are now over there dying
for that little shell game...
2) Even IF Bush had continued his success in Afghanistan
(post-9/11) by then turning to Iraq and saying, "you're
next", and had presented to the American public credible
DATA demonstrating that Iraq is some kind of way-station
for terrorists and their deadly tools and processes, he
would STILL, at this point, have to give an accounting:
What have we GAINED by the deaths of these 2,000
military personnel? That figure does not even include
the many hundreds, perhaps thousands more who are
maimed, injured, or traumatized by the war in Iraq...
Whatever else she might be or might have said (or be
saying), and whoever else she might be associating with,
Cindy Sheehan raises an excellent and poignant concern:
What "noble cause"??
WHY did her son - and the sons and daughters of 1,999
other parents - have to go and die in Iraq?? Are these
2,000 deaths "good deaths"???
It's just a question, Mr. President. I dare you to look those
parents square in the eye and honestly respond to the questions
they're all asking as they grieve over their losses...
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Friday, September 30, 2005
Racism in the Party
Today's news brings to us yet another indication
that SOME in the Republican Party, and its
Conservative figure-heads, just do not GET IT
when it comes to Racism:
A prominent figure in the Party, Bill Bennett, had
this to say on his weekly radio program recently:
"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that
were your sole purpose -- you could abort every
black baby in this country and your crime rate
would go down... That would be an impossibly
ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do,
but your crime rate would go down," he said.
-- quoted from a piece on today's CNN.com
OK, if anybody actually needs to EXPLAIN to
Mr. Bennett why this kind of comment is profoundly
and deeply Racist, then he is nowhere near as
smart as I used to think he was...
The fact that he's right now trying to spin it as "taken
out of context" further undermines his credibility.
A public apology from Bennett, and a quick termination
by the radio station of this person, needs to happen
immediately, to make a statement to African-Americans
everywhere that this kind of obvious Racism simply
will not be tolerated.
that SOME in the Republican Party, and its
Conservative figure-heads, just do not GET IT
when it comes to Racism:
A prominent figure in the Party, Bill Bennett, had
this to say on his weekly radio program recently:
"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that
were your sole purpose -- you could abort every
black baby in this country and your crime rate
would go down... That would be an impossibly
ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do,
but your crime rate would go down," he said.
-- quoted from a piece on today's CNN.com
OK, if anybody actually needs to EXPLAIN to
Mr. Bennett why this kind of comment is profoundly
and deeply Racist, then he is nowhere near as
smart as I used to think he was...
The fact that he's right now trying to spin it as "taken
out of context" further undermines his credibility.
A public apology from Bennett, and a quick termination
by the radio station of this person, needs to happen
immediately, to make a statement to African-Americans
everywhere that this kind of obvious Racism simply
will not be tolerated.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Bush: The Good, The Bad... and Iraq
I feel the need to come right out and make something clear:
I do not now, nor have I ever, supported the war in Iraq.
President Bush missed a prime opportunity to "spin" the
invasion of Iraq in its only positive light: That the US
(and some of its allies) were going to go into Iraq and kick
down any damn door it chose to, to FORCE compliance with
the UN Resolutions on Weapons of Mass Destruction; once
that mission was complete, we should have gotten the h---
out of there...
Instead, Bush made two fatal errors:
1. Insisting (or having Colin Powell wear the egg on his
face on behalf of the president) before the UN that
there was credible "evidence" for WMD in Iraq...
2. Changing the mission, once WMD were not found, to
some "noble cause" that has now cost the US nearly
two THOUSAND lives and BILLIONS of dollars,
with no end in sight...
He could have easily chosen FAR better:
1. "We have no idea for sure if there really are WMD
in Iraq, but I tell you what, we're going in with guns
blazing to find out; when WE are satisfied, we'll leave..."
2. "Our mission is complete; no WMD, and we'll continue
to keep Hussein in our cross-hairs, taking covert action
against him when our interests are threatened".
Since when did America become the "chosen people",
carrying out some crusade to plant Democracy in every
nation on earth?? So we don't agree with Theocracies,
and we think Freedom is to be prized above all else;
Fine, but a Foreign Policy guided by an approach that
says "free elections or it's Bunker Busters for YOU!"
is nothing short of Imperialism.
I voted for Bush, and I still like everything I know
about him in terms of his character as a man and his
faith in Jesus Christ; but the flag waving and the
Sousa marches and the party allegiance have steadily
faded in me as the stream of news stories of carnage
and futility in Iraq continue...
And my estimation of Bush's leadership abilities has
taken a nose-dive in the wake of Katrina, which
demonstrated how pathetically lacking this Administration
has been in overseeing the agencies which exist to
respond to these types of catastrophies...
No president is perfect, and I'll take a Bush over
a Kerry any day... But past ALL the labels, accusations,
suspicions about "liberal media bias", etc., Leadership
means (among other things) keeping those you lead
up to date on what's going on and what your PLAN is
to accomplish the objectives. It also means having
CONTROL over what your government is doing...
I do not now, nor have I ever, supported the war in Iraq.
President Bush missed a prime opportunity to "spin" the
invasion of Iraq in its only positive light: That the US
(and some of its allies) were going to go into Iraq and kick
down any damn door it chose to, to FORCE compliance with
the UN Resolutions on Weapons of Mass Destruction; once
that mission was complete, we should have gotten the h---
out of there...
Instead, Bush made two fatal errors:
1. Insisting (or having Colin Powell wear the egg on his
face on behalf of the president) before the UN that
there was credible "evidence" for WMD in Iraq...
2. Changing the mission, once WMD were not found, to
some "noble cause" that has now cost the US nearly
two THOUSAND lives and BILLIONS of dollars,
with no end in sight...
He could have easily chosen FAR better:
1. "We have no idea for sure if there really are WMD
in Iraq, but I tell you what, we're going in with guns
blazing to find out; when WE are satisfied, we'll leave..."
2. "Our mission is complete; no WMD, and we'll continue
to keep Hussein in our cross-hairs, taking covert action
against him when our interests are threatened".
Since when did America become the "chosen people",
carrying out some crusade to plant Democracy in every
nation on earth?? So we don't agree with Theocracies,
and we think Freedom is to be prized above all else;
Fine, but a Foreign Policy guided by an approach that
says "free elections or it's Bunker Busters for YOU!"
is nothing short of Imperialism.
I voted for Bush, and I still like everything I know
about him in terms of his character as a man and his
faith in Jesus Christ; but the flag waving and the
Sousa marches and the party allegiance have steadily
faded in me as the stream of news stories of carnage
and futility in Iraq continue...
And my estimation of Bush's leadership abilities has
taken a nose-dive in the wake of Katrina, which
demonstrated how pathetically lacking this Administration
has been in overseeing the agencies which exist to
respond to these types of catastrophies...
No president is perfect, and I'll take a Bush over
a Kerry any day... But past ALL the labels, accusations,
suspicions about "liberal media bias", etc., Leadership
means (among other things) keeping those you lead
up to date on what's going on and what your PLAN is
to accomplish the objectives. It also means having
CONTROL over what your government is doing...
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Finding BLAME over Katrina
The devestation in the Gulf Coast states over the past week
or so continues to dominate media headlines; the images of
destruction, death, violence, and suffering are both captivating
and heart-breaking...
And the anger over all of it has, not surprisingly, inspired
passionate outbursts from every angle, from the mayor of
New Orleans to journalists on the scene to rappers participating
in fund raising events...
Where should BLAME fall in this terrible situation? If you'll
permit the opinions of one lone voice out in the void of this
online community, here are my own thoughts on that subject:
GOD
I wrote a respsonse to the Tsunami, in Asia, a short while back,
so I won't cover the issue about Natural Disasters again; the
Universe was cracked and broken by Original Sin, and will
never be healed until the New Heaven and New Earth are
brought into existence (this, along with literally SEEING God,
is the Great Hope of the believers...)
I will say one thing loosely related to this, however:
If a person chooses to live in a city that is half a dozen feet
below sea level, and if that area of the country is subject
to hurricanes on a routine basis, I don't see how GOD can be
blamed when "nature" does its thing and lives and property
are destroyed...
George W. Bush
Here's the hot one: Blame the "GUB-ment" when national
tragedy strikes... It's a "25-meter target" scenario (you military
types know what I'm talking about) that doesn't take a whole
lot of thought or analysis, and provides a great hook on which
to hang all the pain, suffering, and anguish; it makes us all "feel"
better to vent, and Bush is an easy mark for those emotions...
HOWEVER, I am compelled to generally agree with those who
say Bush should have done more, sooner:
1. The meteorologists were predicting devestation for DAYS
before landfall... PLENTY of time for the Administration to
craft a Response plan and be at the ready the moment it was
possible to a) mobilize the military to restore order and stem
(the highly predictable) looting that ensued, b) release the
emergency supply pods stationed around the country, as
part of the Homeland Security infrastructure, for precisely
these kinds of events, c) air-drop MRE's and other food, water,
blankets, toiletries, etc., to any place needed, and d) to commandeer
local and state Public Safety resources, under some kind of
emergency federal mandate, to get help to precisely where
any help might be needed...
2. Instead, what we saw was the same sort of mass confusion
and slowness to respond in the past week that we saw when 9/11
happened... So despite the creation of a cabinet-level office
to protect the country, and despite the failures from 9/11 that
should have taught this Administration how to RESPOND to
national emergencies, we have -- 4 years later -- the same
inability to ACT, quickly and efficiently, as we had then...
3. At a minimum, the President should have gotten on a helicopter
and been on the scene the very moment it was possible for him
to do so; he's got people everywhere to protect him and to pull him
away if a military emergency seemed attached to the situation in
the Gulf states... short of that, his mere presence down there, nearly
as soon as the hurricane died down, would have been huge...
It has come to light in the past week that the "perfect storm"
of a levee break combined with a severe hurricane, which would
inflict devastation to the magnitude we've seen this week, is
something that had been studied and reported on numerous times
in the years leading up to Katrina... but NOBODY did anything
about it, not the Army Corps of Engineers, not the state of LA,
not FEMA, not Homeland Security (FEMA is part of HS), not
ANYBODY who might have been able to implement a plan to
build up the levee... And to say that this type of scenario was
"never envisioned", as Homeland Security's Michael Chertoff
is saying on the news, is ludicrous: The reason you HAVE
this type of department in the government is specifically so that
it WILL "envision" any and all possible scenarios! Even a
junior high school student can think along the lines of, "gee,
what would we do if X happened..." !!
It seems like every time large-scale tragedies
strike this country, the powers-that-be are shown to have been
totally unprepared for those events....
Read more along these lines here:
http://www.nola.com/hurricane/?/washingaway/
The Mayor and the LA Governor
But the federal government is a giant, 800-pound elephant that
moves incredibly slowly; state and local authorities should ALSO
have had their OWN Emergency Response plan. They should
ALREADY have had answer to questions like, "how would we
maintain law and order in the event of massive flooding" and
"how would we evacuate 200,000 people" and "how can we work
in conjunction with neighboring states to set up evacuation
centers", etc. etc.
But more specifically, I hold Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco
(mayor and governor, respectively) the MOST responsible for
their inadequate response to the disaster (and if the governor did not go
on record, prior to the disaster, screaming to the Feds to strengthen
the levees, then she should be ashamed...). Neither Nagin or
Blanco demonstrated ANY kind of Preparedness, and worse,
BOTH of them had RESOURCES that could have been utilized
immediately after the initial impact to save lives by getting people
out... The picture of HUNDREDS of school buses in a New Orleans
parking lot -- unused, and now flooded -- is an amazing sight,
especially given the story of one courageous young man who
"stole" one of them, on his own, and drove about 75 people
300 miles to safety...
The NYPD also offered to come to N.O. to help maintain law
and order; Nagin declined. Instead, he went to the media and
let loose a profanity-laden tirade against the Federal government,
while some his citizens looted, others remained trapped in their homes,
and many died in those first critical few days...
AGAIN, given the fact that the severity of the disaster was predicted
several days in advance, the do-nothing response of these two
Louisiana elected officials is utterly disgraceful and inexcusable.
Churches, Charitable Groups, and Citizens
Tell me this: Why do the secular Entertainment groups, right now,
have (or have had) no less than THREE (at my last count) fund-raising
events scheduled, to be televised nationally, while the Christian
communities and organizations -- while responding through their own
Giving campaigns -- are largely silent? Surely one of the Christian
record labels can muster enough resources to televise a fund-raising
event that say to the world, "Hey, Jesus cares about what is going on
in New Orleans"??
Now, I already have read about roughly 6 distinct, organized efforts
from the Church to reach out with all kinds of help, and I'm FAR more
interested in one-to-one assistance ("here, sir, take this water... take
this box of MRE's... please, sir, you and your family follow me over here
to this area where there are cots and you can all sit and rest...")...
I'm just wishing, along the way, that we could see more of a PUBLIC
response to these types of things...
And if every single CHURCH that was NOT in the affected areas would
EACH take in as many victims (and their families) as they could,
a dozen in some cases to possibly *hundreds* at larger churches with
more resources, and if the PEOPLE in those churches converged on
the church to SERVE those victims, the burden on the "gub-ment"
would be far less severe... MORE IMPORTANTLY, though, it would
send the message that Love is, indeed, the center of the
True Gospel...
The victims themselves (some of them)
If you chose to stay in harm's way when you could have gotten out
(i.e., had somewhere to go and the means to get there), then your
suffering is your own fault (though no less pitiable). And if you
take advantage of the Chaos to LOOT or SHOOT or ABUSE,
then you are a CRIMINAL and nobody has any sympathy for you
(except insofar as your debauched Soul needs Salvation, as we all do...)
-----
Our nation has once again shown its Weaknesses to a watching world.
While we pray for the victims as they suffer through this (and as we
send our financial assistance, supplies, and even volunteers) to that
part of the country, we are ALL coping with the thoughts that our
vaunted reputation as "the greatest nation on earth" has, once again,
been a bit tarnished by such events...
or so continues to dominate media headlines; the images of
destruction, death, violence, and suffering are both captivating
and heart-breaking...
And the anger over all of it has, not surprisingly, inspired
passionate outbursts from every angle, from the mayor of
New Orleans to journalists on the scene to rappers participating
in fund raising events...
Where should BLAME fall in this terrible situation? If you'll
permit the opinions of one lone voice out in the void of this
online community, here are my own thoughts on that subject:
GOD
I wrote a respsonse to the Tsunami, in Asia, a short while back,
so I won't cover the issue about Natural Disasters again; the
Universe was cracked and broken by Original Sin, and will
never be healed until the New Heaven and New Earth are
brought into existence (this, along with literally SEEING God,
is the Great Hope of the believers...)
I will say one thing loosely related to this, however:
If a person chooses to live in a city that is half a dozen feet
below sea level, and if that area of the country is subject
to hurricanes on a routine basis, I don't see how GOD can be
blamed when "nature" does its thing and lives and property
are destroyed...
George W. Bush
Here's the hot one: Blame the "GUB-ment" when national
tragedy strikes... It's a "25-meter target" scenario (you military
types know what I'm talking about) that doesn't take a whole
lot of thought or analysis, and provides a great hook on which
to hang all the pain, suffering, and anguish; it makes us all "feel"
better to vent, and Bush is an easy mark for those emotions...
HOWEVER, I am compelled to generally agree with those who
say Bush should have done more, sooner:
1. The meteorologists were predicting devestation for DAYS
before landfall... PLENTY of time for the Administration to
craft a Response plan and be at the ready the moment it was
possible to a) mobilize the military to restore order and stem
(the highly predictable) looting that ensued, b) release the
emergency supply pods stationed around the country, as
part of the Homeland Security infrastructure, for precisely
these kinds of events, c) air-drop MRE's and other food, water,
blankets, toiletries, etc., to any place needed, and d) to commandeer
local and state Public Safety resources, under some kind of
emergency federal mandate, to get help to precisely where
any help might be needed...
2. Instead, what we saw was the same sort of mass confusion
and slowness to respond in the past week that we saw when 9/11
happened... So despite the creation of a cabinet-level office
to protect the country, and despite the failures from 9/11 that
should have taught this Administration how to RESPOND to
national emergencies, we have -- 4 years later -- the same
inability to ACT, quickly and efficiently, as we had then...
3. At a minimum, the President should have gotten on a helicopter
and been on the scene the very moment it was possible for him
to do so; he's got people everywhere to protect him and to pull him
away if a military emergency seemed attached to the situation in
the Gulf states... short of that, his mere presence down there, nearly
as soon as the hurricane died down, would have been huge...
It has come to light in the past week that the "perfect storm"
of a levee break combined with a severe hurricane, which would
inflict devastation to the magnitude we've seen this week, is
something that had been studied and reported on numerous times
in the years leading up to Katrina... but NOBODY did anything
about it, not the Army Corps of Engineers, not the state of LA,
not FEMA, not Homeland Security (FEMA is part of HS), not
ANYBODY who might have been able to implement a plan to
build up the levee... And to say that this type of scenario was
"never envisioned", as Homeland Security's Michael Chertoff
is saying on the news, is ludicrous: The reason you HAVE
this type of department in the government is specifically so that
it WILL "envision" any and all possible scenarios! Even a
junior high school student can think along the lines of, "gee,
what would we do if X happened..." !!
It seems like every time large-scale tragedies
strike this country, the powers-that-be are shown to have been
totally unprepared for those events....
Read more along these lines here:
http://www.nola.com/hurricane/?/washingaway/
The Mayor and the LA Governor
But the federal government is a giant, 800-pound elephant that
moves incredibly slowly; state and local authorities should ALSO
have had their OWN Emergency Response plan. They should
ALREADY have had answer to questions like, "how would we
maintain law and order in the event of massive flooding" and
"how would we evacuate 200,000 people" and "how can we work
in conjunction with neighboring states to set up evacuation
centers", etc. etc.
But more specifically, I hold Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco
(mayor and governor, respectively) the MOST responsible for
their inadequate response to the disaster (and if the governor did not go
on record, prior to the disaster, screaming to the Feds to strengthen
the levees, then she should be ashamed...). Neither Nagin or
Blanco demonstrated ANY kind of Preparedness, and worse,
BOTH of them had RESOURCES that could have been utilized
immediately after the initial impact to save lives by getting people
out... The picture of HUNDREDS of school buses in a New Orleans
parking lot -- unused, and now flooded -- is an amazing sight,
especially given the story of one courageous young man who
"stole" one of them, on his own, and drove about 75 people
300 miles to safety...
The NYPD also offered to come to N.O. to help maintain law
and order; Nagin declined. Instead, he went to the media and
let loose a profanity-laden tirade against the Federal government,
while some his citizens looted, others remained trapped in their homes,
and many died in those first critical few days...
AGAIN, given the fact that the severity of the disaster was predicted
several days in advance, the do-nothing response of these two
Louisiana elected officials is utterly disgraceful and inexcusable.
Churches, Charitable Groups, and Citizens
Tell me this: Why do the secular Entertainment groups, right now,
have (or have had) no less than THREE (at my last count) fund-raising
events scheduled, to be televised nationally, while the Christian
communities and organizations -- while responding through their own
Giving campaigns -- are largely silent? Surely one of the Christian
record labels can muster enough resources to televise a fund-raising
event that say to the world, "Hey, Jesus cares about what is going on
in New Orleans"??
Now, I already have read about roughly 6 distinct, organized efforts
from the Church to reach out with all kinds of help, and I'm FAR more
interested in one-to-one assistance ("here, sir, take this water... take
this box of MRE's... please, sir, you and your family follow me over here
to this area where there are cots and you can all sit and rest...")...
I'm just wishing, along the way, that we could see more of a PUBLIC
response to these types of things...
And if every single CHURCH that was NOT in the affected areas would
EACH take in as many victims (and their families) as they could,
a dozen in some cases to possibly *hundreds* at larger churches with
more resources, and if the PEOPLE in those churches converged on
the church to SERVE those victims, the burden on the "gub-ment"
would be far less severe... MORE IMPORTANTLY, though, it would
send the message that Love is, indeed, the center of the
True Gospel...
The victims themselves (some of them)
If you chose to stay in harm's way when you could have gotten out
(i.e., had somewhere to go and the means to get there), then your
suffering is your own fault (though no less pitiable). And if you
take advantage of the Chaos to LOOT or SHOOT or ABUSE,
then you are a CRIMINAL and nobody has any sympathy for you
(except insofar as your debauched Soul needs Salvation, as we all do...)
-----
Our nation has once again shown its Weaknesses to a watching world.
While we pray for the victims as they suffer through this (and as we
send our financial assistance, supplies, and even volunteers) to that
part of the country, we are ALL coping with the thoughts that our
vaunted reputation as "the greatest nation on earth" has, once again,
been a bit tarnished by such events...
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
A "relationship" with God??
Some fellow readers-of-Lewis and I have been discussing
what the concept of having a "relationship" with God might mean...
My position is that if there IS such a thing, it is *profoundly* different
from any other "relationship" we have, so much so that it needs
its own word!
Check it out: HIGHLIGHT, and then COPY this Link...
cslewis.drzeus.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3052
and then PASTE it into your Browser "address" (or "location") field...
Hit ENTER and read the thread...
Feel free to post your Responses here, or there in the Forum
(you can submit your comments as "Anonymous", or use your Name)...
what the concept of having a "relationship" with God might mean...
My position is that if there IS such a thing, it is *profoundly* different
from any other "relationship" we have, so much so that it needs
its own word!
Check it out: HIGHLIGHT, and then COPY this Link...
cslewis.drzeus.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3052
and then PASTE it into your Browser "address" (or "location") field...
Hit ENTER and read the thread...
Feel free to post your Responses here, or there in the Forum
(you can submit your comments as "Anonymous", or use your Name)...
Monday, August 08, 2005
An American Icon Dies
Today we have the news that Peter Jennings,
longtime anchor and newsman with ABC,
has succumbed to cancer and has died.
Like many Americans, the news caught me
by surprise this morning as I sit here drinking
my morning coffee. Peter Jennings was the
ultimate newsman, setting the standard for
delivering an entertaining package that
included not just "the news", but a great deal
of style, thoughtfulness, and wit.
As I read today's news story, however (on CNN),
I was struck by a quote that Dianne Sawyer
attributed to Jennings:
"There is no absolute truth in the world
for every group of people."
This shouldn't surprise me, really; I had no
reason to believe that Jennings was a conservative,
much less a Christian, but the glaring declaration
of a concise Metaphysic like that sort of gripped me.
Picture things from his perspective: He was a
world traveler, by profession, and found himself
(over the decades of his career) in just about every
human context possible, from wars and famine to
abundance and celebration, and from religious and
political extremes to unbelievable wealth and
abject poverty. He interviewed proponents of
just about every World View on the planet, and
(from what little I know about him) he was an
avid reader, and a "stickler for details".
If *anyone* had a front-row seat on the idealogical
landscape of Humanity, it was Peter Jennings.
No Absolute Truth??
But here is the thing to keep in mind:
IF all he meant by that comment was that people
cannot AGREE on what is Absolute Truth -- that
sect "A" passionately holds belief "X" while
sect "B" (just as) passionately holds the exact
opposite belief "Y", then he is right; but there
are a vast number of reasons (some important,
some just plain silly) for that disagreement.
But IF, on the other hand, he was making a
metaphysical pronouncement on the nature of
Truth -- that there IS no Absolute for All people
in All places at All times -- then he either never
really thought that World View all the way out
or he clearly identified himself as a Humanist,
fundamentally believing that one can cobble
together one's own "truth" and then live out
our lives by it without fear that we might be WRONG
(because who's to say what "wrong" means??).
Because of his broad Viewer base, Peter Jennings
probably had (and will continue, to some degree, to have)
a big influence on the minds of those who watched him.
These kinds of comments, by someone like him, just
might help to cement that "sense" or "feeling" in the
general American population that there really IS no
"absolute Truth" and that we indeed ARE free to
"make it up as we go along"...
One of the problems, though, with that World View
is that NOBODY really believes it! The homosexual
who passionately chooses that side will then turn and
utterly REVILE the person who believes that homosex
is an Abomination to God; the so-called "abortion rights"
people will turn around and lend their efforts to "right
to die" campaigns; and many people who discount any
absolute sense of Morality will turn right around and
call this or that act "immoral" or will make some kind of
vague appeal to "moral duty".
And one other point: NOBODY -- nobody! -- holds any
position to be "The Truth" (e.g., "there is no absolute
truth...") without firmly believing that that position is TRUE,
and that its exact opposite (e.g., "there IS at least one
Absolute Truth...") is FALSE. In other words, if you
passionately believe that proposition "X" is the truth,
you ALSO necessarily believe that proposition "NOT X"
is NOT the truth (or, is False).
A Call to American Christians
The reason Mr. Jennings could get away with such
blatant declarations of RELATIVISM is that he lived
in a country where Relativism is the reigning Metaphysic,
AND where those who have the Courage to declare
that there ARE Absolute Truths are branded as "Extremists".
This is one of the luxuries of Freedom, especially of Speech.
Public declarations of that type in other countries could
result in public disgrace and perhaps even torture and death;
but in America, comments like this indicate -- to me, anyway --
that the Church must continue the Battle for the Mind,
especially the minds of our younger generations.
"...Speaking the Truth in Love..." we are admonished; and so
it ought to be: Our LOVE for those around us ought to awaken
the desire in them to know more; then the REASONS for the Faith
must be well-grounded and defensible.
We may not be able to change popular beliefs in the broader sense,
but perhaps we can influence Minds to consider Christ, one at a time...
longtime anchor and newsman with ABC,
has succumbed to cancer and has died.
Like many Americans, the news caught me
by surprise this morning as I sit here drinking
my morning coffee. Peter Jennings was the
ultimate newsman, setting the standard for
delivering an entertaining package that
included not just "the news", but a great deal
of style, thoughtfulness, and wit.
As I read today's news story, however (on CNN),
I was struck by a quote that Dianne Sawyer
attributed to Jennings:
"There is no absolute truth in the world
for every group of people."
This shouldn't surprise me, really; I had no
reason to believe that Jennings was a conservative,
much less a Christian, but the glaring declaration
of a concise Metaphysic like that sort of gripped me.
Picture things from his perspective: He was a
world traveler, by profession, and found himself
(over the decades of his career) in just about every
human context possible, from wars and famine to
abundance and celebration, and from religious and
political extremes to unbelievable wealth and
abject poverty. He interviewed proponents of
just about every World View on the planet, and
(from what little I know about him) he was an
avid reader, and a "stickler for details".
If *anyone* had a front-row seat on the idealogical
landscape of Humanity, it was Peter Jennings.
No Absolute Truth??
But here is the thing to keep in mind:
IF all he meant by that comment was that people
cannot AGREE on what is Absolute Truth -- that
sect "A" passionately holds belief "X" while
sect "B" (just as) passionately holds the exact
opposite belief "Y", then he is right; but there
are a vast number of reasons (some important,
some just plain silly) for that disagreement.
But IF, on the other hand, he was making a
metaphysical pronouncement on the nature of
Truth -- that there IS no Absolute for All people
in All places at All times -- then he either never
really thought that World View all the way out
or he clearly identified himself as a Humanist,
fundamentally believing that one can cobble
together one's own "truth" and then live out
our lives by it without fear that we might be WRONG
(because who's to say what "wrong" means??).
Because of his broad Viewer base, Peter Jennings
probably had (and will continue, to some degree, to have)
a big influence on the minds of those who watched him.
These kinds of comments, by someone like him, just
might help to cement that "sense" or "feeling" in the
general American population that there really IS no
"absolute Truth" and that we indeed ARE free to
"make it up as we go along"...
One of the problems, though, with that World View
is that NOBODY really believes it! The homosexual
who passionately chooses that side will then turn and
utterly REVILE the person who believes that homosex
is an Abomination to God; the so-called "abortion rights"
people will turn around and lend their efforts to "right
to die" campaigns; and many people who discount any
absolute sense of Morality will turn right around and
call this or that act "immoral" or will make some kind of
vague appeal to "moral duty".
And one other point: NOBODY -- nobody! -- holds any
position to be "The Truth" (e.g., "there is no absolute
truth...") without firmly believing that that position is TRUE,
and that its exact opposite (e.g., "there IS at least one
Absolute Truth...") is FALSE. In other words, if you
passionately believe that proposition "X" is the truth,
you ALSO necessarily believe that proposition "NOT X"
is NOT the truth (or, is False).
A Call to American Christians
The reason Mr. Jennings could get away with such
blatant declarations of RELATIVISM is that he lived
in a country where Relativism is the reigning Metaphysic,
AND where those who have the Courage to declare
that there ARE Absolute Truths are branded as "Extremists".
This is one of the luxuries of Freedom, especially of Speech.
Public declarations of that type in other countries could
result in public disgrace and perhaps even torture and death;
but in America, comments like this indicate -- to me, anyway --
that the Church must continue the Battle for the Mind,
especially the minds of our younger generations.
"...Speaking the Truth in Love..." we are admonished; and so
it ought to be: Our LOVE for those around us ought to awaken
the desire in them to know more; then the REASONS for the Faith
must be well-grounded and defensible.
We may not be able to change popular beliefs in the broader sense,
but perhaps we can influence Minds to consider Christ, one at a time...
Friday, January 07, 2005
Tsunami : Where was GOD?
The recent Tsunami in
people (and still counting) and causing massive destruction in
that region – again brings to the attention of the world
the age-old question:
If there is a “God”, and if He is Just as well as Almighty,
how could this have happened? Where is GOD???
This Blog entry won't presume to offer an answer.
I would, though, like to offer up some thoughts and musings:
Did GOD cause this to happen?
Either God ACTIVELY caused this terrible disaster, or He
PASSIVELY allowed it to happen (assuming, of course, that
you believe God exists at all, and that He could have
prevented it if He chose to...).
If He did cause the disaster (that is to say, He did it),
it would not be too hard to conclude He is an evil, vindictive,
and horrible Power. If He did not directly cause it to happen,
then He obviously did allow it to happen.
Why? How COULD He? How could He allow the senseless
and random mass destruction of human life, and the
subsequent horror of the disease-ravaged aftermath?
Are those lives MEANINGLESS? A person is born, grows
to be a teenager, and then, one day while walking down the
sidewalk in a coastal town in
crashes down on him and destroys him? Was that Life
– that PERSON – created only to be destroyed in some
twisted, "Great Cosmic Drama" of God’s design??
For that matter, is it FAIR that every single person born is
– according to the creeds of Christianity – “born into sin”, and
“a sinner from birth”? I’m “guilty” before I’ve ever even
DONE anything, subject to God's eternal Wrath for rejecting
a Person I've never met, who paid a Debt (of Sin) I didn't
know I had?? This is FAIR??
Comparative Possibilities
The following sentence combinations are offered just as
a way of sparking Thinking along these lines...
The following sentence combinations are offered just as
a way of sparking Thinking along these lines...
A. God MAKES every event in this world happen, directly
CAUSING all events
B. God only ALLOWS every event in this world to happen
A. God INTERVENES in the physical world, altering the
outcomes of given events
B. God does NOT intervene in the physical world; He lets it
“run its course”
A. Man has, to a great degree, the FREEDOM to CHOOSE
how events will go
B. Man does NOT have true Freedom; God, or “the gods”
determine everything that happens; Men are merely pieces
on some "Great Cosmic Chessboard"
A.
events of this world
B. God works toward INFLUENCING the CHOICES of Men
A. Natural Disasters happen because SIN “broke” the Universe
and set it on a crash course for inevitable destruction
B. Natural Disasters happen randomly, without purpose
or meaning, and are just cold, impersonal Facts about the
nature of the physical Universe that must be accepted
A. God works to “woo” humans to CHOOSE Him while they can
B. Satan works to convince humans that they can make their
OWN Destiny (and that all this “religion” talk is nonsense,
espoused only by the weak-minded among us)
One Possible Answer: The Crashing Bus
Imagine a bus full of people going over the edge of a cliff, a
burning mass of twisted metal, plunging toward the inevitable
CRASH in the ravine far below…
That is the post-Original-Sin Creation we live in, and
God works to rescue as many from the bus as He can… as will
accept His offer of Salvation of their own free will… tragically,
most of the passengers are in complete DENIAL of the
condition and fate of the bus…
These things are all part of the destruction-in-progress
condition of the Crashing Bus, and while God obviously
“allows” it, He did not CAUSE it to be that way, and is working
feverishly to save as many passengers as He can who
– again – respond to His call with their Free Will…
His objective is NOT to save the BUS, but the people inside it…
The Big Question: FAIRNESS
For me, the PROBLEM OF PAIN comes down to
a question of FAIRNESS:
Is it FAIR to, say, a 1-yr-old Girl that her filthy uncle
rapes her? Is it FAIR to a 4-yr-old Boy in
life ends by being crushed by a wall of water? Aren’t THOSE
souls – far too young to have committed any “sins” and
not at all justifiably culpable for anyone else’s – of any WORTH
to God? Were THOSE Souls brought into existence merely
to play “bit” parts in God’s tragic "Great Cosmic Drama"???
on our understanding of “FAIR”. GOD understands things
completely and perfectly. GOD is, in the last analysis,
ALL-Powerful and ALL-Wise and ALL-Knowing; we do not
know what He knows, nor can we see what He can see.
of what makes God God is that He is SO far above us in His
understanding and SO much more broad in His perspective...
End of All Things), GOD Himself will have set everything right;
EVERYTHING will – in the end – be precisely as it “ought” to be…
will be made “Fair”… and/or, our concept of “Fairness” will
have been made perfect, and we will SEE things much
the same way God does (though not completely, of course)...
dozens of Christmas presents. After all are handed out,
one child notices that the other not only received “MORE”
presents, but that the other’s presents were “BIGGER”.
“FAIRNESS”. But only the parents understand “Value”;
only THEY know that the child complaining about “Fairness”
actually received not only the very thing they so desperately
wished for, but also the presents of far greater VALUE, while
the child with the “most” presents actually received less,
in terms of “Value” (and perhaps not exactly what they wanted…
maybe Wal-Mart had no more left…).
“Value”, and the invocation of “Fairness” was made imperfectly
and without all the necessary Data… the parents patiently try
to explain things from the more mature perspective…
of His immutable character – All-Wise, All-Knowing, All-Powerful,
and Everywhere-Present – it is not too difficult to stop
demanding “Fairness” and to simply, with His grace,
do TWO things in response to horrible Tragedies:
and
Reach out in Love and suffer with/serve the Needy
MAY GOD's MERCY FALL ON ALL OF US
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
The FLAP over CHRISTMAS
Every year around this time, it's the same old thing:
Christmas becomes a referendum on Religion, Government,
Free Speech, Truth, the Constitution, and TOLERANCE.
It seems the Secular Humanists and Liberal Freethinkers
have stepped up their offensives this year, as the cacophony
over CHRISTMAS – with its patently “religious” themes –
has reached something of a fever pitch...
I'm not an Attorney, nor a "real" Philosopher, and I don't
pretend to be an expert on interpreting the Constitution
of the United States; I also do not have an Historian’s
grasp of the evolution of CHRISTMAS over the years...
But I feel compelled to publish a few thoughts relating to
the fact that the nearly 2000-year-old Tradition of celebrating
the birth of Jesus has, in modern times, morphed into yet
another fierce political struggle in this country, adding to
the din in the Public Square over “religion”, Free Speech,
and the political “greased pig”, Tolerance...
I’ll do this by gathering my comments around four words:
Democracy, Fairness, Segregation, and Eternity…
Democracy
www.dictionary.com defines “Democracy” as (paraphrasing)
a system of representative government driven by the
Rule of the Majority. This is precisely what we have in
America, and the recent “Red State / Blue State” elections
make this concept graphically clear.
The framers of the Constitution had the Church of England
in mind when they wrote the infamous First Amendment,
intending to prevent the Federal government from
ESTABLISHING an "official" religion AND to prevent the
squelching of any EXPRESSION of religion by the Citizenship.
But when the will of the Majority (Democracy) effectively
prohibits the “speech” of the Minority (Free Expression),
and when Government appears to be endorsing one viewpoint
over others, what is a Citizen to do?
Here’s an idea: Get Out The Vote. Even local governments
(states, counties, municipalities, sheriffs, mayors, etc.)
are all ELECTED by the will of the people. Citizens have
a good deal of power in deciding who governs them (and how)
on the Local level; Democracy is a hands-on effort that
allows voters to affect CHANGE in what goes on in
the politics of our communities.
Fairness
Where did the idea come from that says that governments
(and school boards and county courts and mayors’ offices, etc.)
need to – MUST! – at all times demonstrate “Fairness” in the
Public Square? Who made the Public Square a political
“pageant” of Faiths, World Views, and Political Agendas?
The Secular Humanists, the Liberal Democrats, the Atheists
and Agnostics, and all of similar persuasions, have gotten a
good bit of Media exposure with what amounts to WHINING
over these issues; at CHRISTMAS time, the Whining grows
loudest as they protest figurines of the Baby Jesus on the lawns
of local government buildings, police stations, etc…
But if local officials are elected by the local Majority, shouldn’t
the Will of that local Majority prevail? If MOST of the citizens
in County “X” want to see Baby Jesus at CHRISTMAS time
on the lawn of the county courthouse, where do we get this
silly notion that “offending” the detractors creates a political
mandate to censor the Majority?
Segregation
Someone may reply, “Fine, but what would you do if the Majority
changed their affections and suddenly YOU were the Minority?
What would you do then? Do you want to see (protected) displays
of Satan worship on the county courthouse property?”
I will tell you: I would work very hard, locally, to prevent such a
state of affairs, but if it did come to be, I would either find it
within myself to “tolerate” my environment as I continued to
work toward Change, OR, I would MOVE and find communities
that DO reflect my Values and Beliefs.
There is, for example, a school board in the upper Northwest,
I’m told, that is FORCING students to take a class in Islam,
complete with required Muslim clothing and "mock" prayers
to Mecca 5 times a day...
I would not stand for that; I would pull my kids from that school
in a New York Minute (after attempting to persuade the local
school board to reverse that biased policy).
I’m sure most parents would do the same. And I’ve been a bit
amused by reports that a large number of Kerry supporters are,
or are seriously considering, moving to Canada in the wake of
this past election…
And there are efforts all around us to promote one Agenda
over another: Consider this story, about a young feller who
feels he must worship Satan:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/24/uk.devilworship/index.html
And of course, the so-called “Religious Right” is, in my opinion,
under heavy attack these days:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/149/41.0.html
So what, then? Are we becoming a nation rushing toward
deep divisions – SEGREGATION – into “Red vs. Blue” regions,
and into factionalized states, counties, even neighborhoods,
along the lines of collective Values and Beliefs?
It seems obvious that we are already far down that road…
Eternity
As a Christian, I am very concerned about the danger
of placing too much emphasis on political “victories”.
Even IF we believe that traditional, Judeo-Christian values
are the foundation of our country and the basis of our
system of laws (and that’s a VERY big “if”), we must
continually ask ourselves, what are we GAINING by
aggressively pursuing political causes that only alienate
the World and make the message of Jesus even more
repugnant to those who need to SEE it in us?
It only adds to the problem when Christians, rebuffed in
the political arena, then turn around and say of their
political opponents, "they're just rejecting Christ!"...
Injecting GOD into the Public Square does nothing to advance
the Great Commission nor the Great Commandment:
Jesus did not say, "Go ye therefore and form
Political Action Committees and get George Bush elected",
nor did Jesus say "Love the Constitution with all your heart
and soul and mind..."
What are we so AFRAID of? Why waste time and money
exploiting Politics, printing Tracts, fighting on Talk Radio, and
commandeering School Board meetings (among other things)
in some "fight" against "The World" when those fights DESSIMATE
the Love we are supposed to share, even in politics?
You don't BLUDGEON someone into considering Jesus,
and you don't shove a Tract in their hands and shout, "Trust Jesus!"
over your shoulder as you run as fast as you can the other direction...
We need to return to a focus on ETERNAL Values. Sure, we ought
to be involved in political efforts, but as good stewards, rendering to
Ceasar what is Ceasar’s, and all with an attitude of Worship
toward God and Love toward our fellow men…
And we accomplish the MOST through respectful, intelligent, patient
conversations (perhaps over coffee, perhaps over a nice dinner)
in which we plant the seed of Truth and then pray that the Holy Spirit
waters the seed…
In the end, this old World (left to itself) will never understand the Faith.
Attempts to coerce familiarity will only breed contempt, and the truths
of Christianity will only seem foolish to those who are perishing
(1 Cor. 1:18,21,23,25).
Into this cacophony steps JESUS: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God...
Prince of Peace... (Isaiah 9). MERRY CHRISTMAS.
Christmas becomes a referendum on Religion, Government,
Free Speech, Truth, the Constitution, and TOLERANCE.
It seems the Secular Humanists and Liberal Freethinkers
have stepped up their offensives this year, as the cacophony
over CHRISTMAS – with its patently “religious” themes –
has reached something of a fever pitch...
I'm not an Attorney, nor a "real" Philosopher, and I don't
pretend to be an expert on interpreting the Constitution
of the United States; I also do not have an Historian’s
grasp of the evolution of CHRISTMAS over the years...
But I feel compelled to publish a few thoughts relating to
the fact that the nearly 2000-year-old Tradition of celebrating
the birth of Jesus has, in modern times, morphed into yet
another fierce political struggle in this country, adding to
the din in the Public Square over “religion”, Free Speech,
and the political “greased pig”, Tolerance...
I’ll do this by gathering my comments around four words:
Democracy, Fairness, Segregation, and Eternity…
Democracy
www.dictionary.com defines “Democracy” as (paraphrasing)
a system of representative government driven by the
Rule of the Majority. This is precisely what we have in
America, and the recent “Red State / Blue State” elections
make this concept graphically clear.
The framers of the Constitution had the Church of England
in mind when they wrote the infamous First Amendment,
intending to prevent the Federal government from
ESTABLISHING an "official" religion AND to prevent the
squelching of any EXPRESSION of religion by the Citizenship.
But when the will of the Majority (Democracy) effectively
prohibits the “speech” of the Minority (Free Expression),
and when Government appears to be endorsing one viewpoint
over others, what is a Citizen to do?
Here’s an idea: Get Out The Vote. Even local governments
(states, counties, municipalities, sheriffs, mayors, etc.)
are all ELECTED by the will of the people. Citizens have
a good deal of power in deciding who governs them (and how)
on the Local level; Democracy is a hands-on effort that
allows voters to affect CHANGE in what goes on in
the politics of our communities.
Fairness
Where did the idea come from that says that governments
(and school boards and county courts and mayors’ offices, etc.)
need to – MUST! – at all times demonstrate “Fairness” in the
Public Square? Who made the Public Square a political
“pageant” of Faiths, World Views, and Political Agendas?
The Secular Humanists, the Liberal Democrats, the Atheists
and Agnostics, and all of similar persuasions, have gotten a
good bit of Media exposure with what amounts to WHINING
over these issues; at CHRISTMAS time, the Whining grows
loudest as they protest figurines of the Baby Jesus on the lawns
of local government buildings, police stations, etc…
But if local officials are elected by the local Majority, shouldn’t
the Will of that local Majority prevail? If MOST of the citizens
in County “X” want to see Baby Jesus at CHRISTMAS time
on the lawn of the county courthouse, where do we get this
silly notion that “offending” the detractors creates a political
mandate to censor the Majority?
Segregation
Someone may reply, “Fine, but what would you do if the Majority
changed their affections and suddenly YOU were the Minority?
What would you do then? Do you want to see (protected) displays
of Satan worship on the county courthouse property?”
I will tell you: I would work very hard, locally, to prevent such a
state of affairs, but if it did come to be, I would either find it
within myself to “tolerate” my environment as I continued to
work toward Change, OR, I would MOVE and find communities
that DO reflect my Values and Beliefs.
There is, for example, a school board in the upper Northwest,
I’m told, that is FORCING students to take a class in Islam,
complete with required Muslim clothing and "mock" prayers
to Mecca 5 times a day...
I would not stand for that; I would pull my kids from that school
in a New York Minute (after attempting to persuade the local
school board to reverse that biased policy).
I’m sure most parents would do the same. And I’ve been a bit
amused by reports that a large number of Kerry supporters are,
or are seriously considering, moving to Canada in the wake of
this past election…
And there are efforts all around us to promote one Agenda
over another: Consider this story, about a young feller who
feels he must worship Satan:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/24/uk.devilworship/index.html
And of course, the so-called “Religious Right” is, in my opinion,
under heavy attack these days:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/149/41.0.html
So what, then? Are we becoming a nation rushing toward
deep divisions – SEGREGATION – into “Red vs. Blue” regions,
and into factionalized states, counties, even neighborhoods,
along the lines of collective Values and Beliefs?
It seems obvious that we are already far down that road…
Eternity
As a Christian, I am very concerned about the danger
of placing too much emphasis on political “victories”.
Even IF we believe that traditional, Judeo-Christian values
are the foundation of our country and the basis of our
system of laws (and that’s a VERY big “if”), we must
continually ask ourselves, what are we GAINING by
aggressively pursuing political causes that only alienate
the World and make the message of Jesus even more
repugnant to those who need to SEE it in us?
It only adds to the problem when Christians, rebuffed in
the political arena, then turn around and say of their
political opponents, "they're just rejecting Christ!"...
Injecting GOD into the Public Square does nothing to advance
the Great Commission nor the Great Commandment:
Jesus did not say, "Go ye therefore and form
Political Action Committees and get George Bush elected",
nor did Jesus say "Love the Constitution with all your heart
and soul and mind..."
What are we so AFRAID of? Why waste time and money
exploiting Politics, printing Tracts, fighting on Talk Radio, and
commandeering School Board meetings (among other things)
in some "fight" against "The World" when those fights DESSIMATE
the Love we are supposed to share, even in politics?
You don't BLUDGEON someone into considering Jesus,
and you don't shove a Tract in their hands and shout, "Trust Jesus!"
over your shoulder as you run as fast as you can the other direction...
We need to return to a focus on ETERNAL Values. Sure, we ought
to be involved in political efforts, but as good stewards, rendering to
Ceasar what is Ceasar’s, and all with an attitude of Worship
toward God and Love toward our fellow men…
And we accomplish the MOST through respectful, intelligent, patient
conversations (perhaps over coffee, perhaps over a nice dinner)
in which we plant the seed of Truth and then pray that the Holy Spirit
waters the seed…
In the end, this old World (left to itself) will never understand the Faith.
Attempts to coerce familiarity will only breed contempt, and the truths
of Christianity will only seem foolish to those who are perishing
(1 Cor. 1:18,21,23,25).
Into this cacophony steps JESUS: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God...
Prince of Peace... (Isaiah 9). MERRY CHRISTMAS.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Only ONE "Truth"?
As mentioned in a previous article, modern thinking
HATES the "Exclusivity" of the Christian message:
That Jesus Christ is the one and only way for Mankind
to be reconciled to God. The popular mindset of
Postmodernism says, as Oprah Winfrey said to a Christian
guest of hers recently, "I'm fine with your faith statements
as long as you don't say YOUR faith is 'true' and MY faith
is 'false' "...
But notice the fundamental Presupposition that is at
the heart of this mindset (which, by the way, is something
I think most of modern society "feels" more than "thinks"):
There Can Be No "One Truth".
Not only is THIS, itself, a Truth Statement, but it denies
outright its opposite, that there just very well MAY be
"One Truth" which applies to all people everywhere.
A legitimate Quest for Truth must not begin by presupposing
its conclusions...
So it would seem that even the Postmodernist wants to talk
about "Truth" in absolute terms. OK, fine, so the next
question usually is, how then can any ONE individual arrive
at "Truth"? Volumes have been written by thousands of thinkers
over thousands of years on this philosophical subject, of course,
and a serious Quest for Truth takes most of us a lifetime;
but consider this:
MOST of what we assert to be "True" is based on three things:
Reason (is the statement Reasonable; does it "hold water"
Logically), Authority (does the person making the statement
have the Credentials and Credibility to do so), and
Eye Witness accounts (what did the person making the statement
SEE or HEAR or TOUCH). Using these rudimentary tools, we
follow the EVIDENCE (the sum total of the three) until we
reach a point of, "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (as in court).
When we have arrived at "Truth", using these methods, most
of us continue to examine our Case, looking for holes,
building support for the weak spots, and being willing to modify
parts of the Case when better Evidence presents itself.
But having done so, we become far more comfortable using the word
"Truth" because we've actually DONE some "homework" on the issue...
So what is at the heart of Postmodernism's loosely-held
belief -- their "truth statement" -- that There Can Be No
"One Truth"? Well, in addition to the probability that
most modern "thinkers" have not actually gone to the trouble
of researching and solidifying their World View (the Media
are among the most vocal preachers of today's "Collective Relativity"),
I believe it has to do with three things:
1. They do not realize that the very ACT of believing
"X" to be TRUE must mean, then, that its exact opposite,
"Y", is FALSE. You simply can NOT believe that two
absolutely OPPOSED positions might BOTH be true; and...
2. ...they are uncomfortable with this, because it begins to
fly in the face of their basic "truth statement" (i.e.,
There Can Be No "One Truth"). Quite simply, they lack the
Courage to stand up and say to anyone else, "You are Wrong".
They call that kind of stance "Extremism", a charge which
carries a lot of weight in a post-9/11 world...
3. But I believe the REAL reason is this: Postmodernists know
in their hearts that a real BELIEF in a real God (who really
has put His moral law inside us and will hold us Accountable)
would mean that they must set aside their own agendas and
pursuits of pleasure and/or fulfillment and focus instead on
worshipping this God and obeying His Will.
In a word, they are UNWILLING to do this. The first sin in
the history of the Universe, committed by Lucifer, was PRIDE:
"Not Thy Will but MINE be Done..." And it is this "back that
breaks but never bends" which constitutes the basis of the
assertion that "There Can Be No 'One Truth' ", because One Truth
means Obligation, a bowing-down, a yielding of an assumed
"right" to determine "one's own truth".
Even Christians must "die" every single day to this natural desire
to assert one's own will over the Will of God. With the help and work
of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we Christians are all a "work in progress".
Who does the Postmodernist have to help him?
And is banking EVERYTHING on the weak assertions of Relative Truth
worth the RISK if, in the end, they're proved horribly WRONG??
HATES the "Exclusivity" of the Christian message:
That Jesus Christ is the one and only way for Mankind
to be reconciled to God. The popular mindset of
Postmodernism says, as Oprah Winfrey said to a Christian
guest of hers recently, "I'm fine with your faith statements
as long as you don't say YOUR faith is 'true' and MY faith
is 'false' "...
But notice the fundamental Presupposition that is at
the heart of this mindset (which, by the way, is something
I think most of modern society "feels" more than "thinks"):
There Can Be No "One Truth".
Not only is THIS, itself, a Truth Statement, but it denies
outright its opposite, that there just very well MAY be
"One Truth" which applies to all people everywhere.
A legitimate Quest for Truth must not begin by presupposing
its conclusions...
So it would seem that even the Postmodernist wants to talk
about "Truth" in absolute terms. OK, fine, so the next
question usually is, how then can any ONE individual arrive
at "Truth"? Volumes have been written by thousands of thinkers
over thousands of years on this philosophical subject, of course,
and a serious Quest for Truth takes most of us a lifetime;
but consider this:
MOST of what we assert to be "True" is based on three things:
Reason (is the statement Reasonable; does it "hold water"
Logically), Authority (does the person making the statement
have the Credentials and Credibility to do so), and
Eye Witness accounts (what did the person making the statement
SEE or HEAR or TOUCH). Using these rudimentary tools, we
follow the EVIDENCE (the sum total of the three) until we
reach a point of, "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (as in court).
When we have arrived at "Truth", using these methods, most
of us continue to examine our Case, looking for holes,
building support for the weak spots, and being willing to modify
parts of the Case when better Evidence presents itself.
But having done so, we become far more comfortable using the word
"Truth" because we've actually DONE some "homework" on the issue...
So what is at the heart of Postmodernism's loosely-held
belief -- their "truth statement" -- that There Can Be No
"One Truth"? Well, in addition to the probability that
most modern "thinkers" have not actually gone to the trouble
of researching and solidifying their World View (the Media
are among the most vocal preachers of today's "Collective Relativity"),
I believe it has to do with three things:
1. They do not realize that the very ACT of believing
"X" to be TRUE must mean, then, that its exact opposite,
"Y", is FALSE. You simply can NOT believe that two
absolutely OPPOSED positions might BOTH be true; and...
2. ...they are uncomfortable with this, because it begins to
fly in the face of their basic "truth statement" (i.e.,
There Can Be No "One Truth"). Quite simply, they lack the
Courage to stand up and say to anyone else, "You are Wrong".
They call that kind of stance "Extremism", a charge which
carries a lot of weight in a post-9/11 world...
3. But I believe the REAL reason is this: Postmodernists know
in their hearts that a real BELIEF in a real God (who really
has put His moral law inside us and will hold us Accountable)
would mean that they must set aside their own agendas and
pursuits of pleasure and/or fulfillment and focus instead on
worshipping this God and obeying His Will.
In a word, they are UNWILLING to do this. The first sin in
the history of the Universe, committed by Lucifer, was PRIDE:
"Not Thy Will but MINE be Done..." And it is this "back that
breaks but never bends" which constitutes the basis of the
assertion that "There Can Be No 'One Truth' ", because One Truth
means Obligation, a bowing-down, a yielding of an assumed
"right" to determine "one's own truth".
Even Christians must "die" every single day to this natural desire
to assert one's own will over the Will of God. With the help and work
of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we Christians are all a "work in progress".
Who does the Postmodernist have to help him?
And is banking EVERYTHING on the weak assertions of Relative Truth
worth the RISK if, in the end, they're proved horribly WRONG??
Sunday, November 21, 2004
The Exclusivity of the Faith
Those of us who are Christians are beginning, more and more,
to experience the same kind of Hatred to the fundamental
message of our Faith that our Founder did:
Jesus Himself claimed, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life;
no man comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6),
and again, "...he that has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).
And His disciples knew immediately, after Jesus ascended to
heaven, the central theme of their calling: "...there is no other name
under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
The Jewish leadership of Jesus' time, and the civil leadership under
which most of the Church has lived for the last 2000 years, HATED
what our World today HATES MOST about Christianity:
The Exclusivity of the message.
Jesus' Jewish contemporaries snorted with indignation as the son
(rumored to be illegitimate) of a poor carpenter, from regions outside
of Jerusalem, rose in that city and claimed to be GOD, and to be
the Only Way of Salvation for all men.
At Pentecost and beyond, many ofthe earliest members of the Church
were routinely persecuted and even murdered (some in the most
gruesome fashion) for expressing the same kind of "Intolerance".
And there is nothing that the World of today HATES more about the
Christian faith than this same position of Exclusivity. "Who are you
to say that Jesus is the 'only' way to God?" they demand. "We all
must find our OWN 'truth' " they say, "there IS no 'One Way' "...
It does no good to share Bible verses with someone repulsed by
The Message. Indeed, Our Lord Himself was abused, beaten, tortured,
and finally brutally murdered for insisting He was the ONLY Way to God.
It is only in the power of the Ressurection that Jesus' claim as the
Only Way comes raging back as indeed THE TRUTH. Not only is the
literal Ressurection of Christ a matter of historical record (and how many
other "ways" to God feature their Founder rising from the dead???),
but it is still relevant in the experience of every single Sinner who
comes to the point of accepting Jesus:
The Bible says we were all "dead" in our sins until we were "raised"
to New Life in Jesus Christ: SALVATION! And not just TO God, but
also FROM OURSELVES (and from our "own truth").
Until a person realizes just how desparately they need fixing, there
is no point in discussing broken-ness. You don't often find a person recoiling
against the singularity of Jesus' message AFTER they've laid down their
weapons and have come to understand just how deep and how profound
their Sinfulness is; no, those reactions come only from a mindset that believes,
deeply, that there are many "ways" to God, and that any one of us can
pick-and-choose what "our way" should be...
Osama bin Laden shares this belief: He and his terrorist cohorts sincerely
believe that God is inspiring their murderous hearts, and that their networks
of Evil are God's tools to carry out His will. They each believe they will be rewarded
in Heaven with any of a number of things (7 virgins, etc.).
We may very well be entering a period in human history where Western Civilisation
begins experiencing the kinds of persecution of Christians that has gone on in
Eastern countries for hundreds and hundreds of years. The fuel of that HATRED
will stem from our refusal to temper the central theme of our Faith:
Jesus Christ -- God, born of a virgin, lived the first and only sinless life, was murdered
and yet rose again, and whose Blood satisfies God's righteous requirements -- is in fact
the ONLY way back TO God. All other ground is sinking sand...
to experience the same kind of Hatred to the fundamental
message of our Faith that our Founder did:
Jesus Himself claimed, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life;
no man comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6),
and again, "...he that has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).
And His disciples knew immediately, after Jesus ascended to
heaven, the central theme of their calling: "...there is no other name
under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
The Jewish leadership of Jesus' time, and the civil leadership under
which most of the Church has lived for the last 2000 years, HATED
what our World today HATES MOST about Christianity:
The Exclusivity of the message.
Jesus' Jewish contemporaries snorted with indignation as the son
(rumored to be illegitimate) of a poor carpenter, from regions outside
of Jerusalem, rose in that city and claimed to be GOD, and to be
the Only Way of Salvation for all men.
At Pentecost and beyond, many ofthe earliest members of the Church
were routinely persecuted and even murdered (some in the most
gruesome fashion) for expressing the same kind of "Intolerance".
And there is nothing that the World of today HATES more about the
Christian faith than this same position of Exclusivity. "Who are you
to say that Jesus is the 'only' way to God?" they demand. "We all
must find our OWN 'truth' " they say, "there IS no 'One Way' "...
It does no good to share Bible verses with someone repulsed by
The Message. Indeed, Our Lord Himself was abused, beaten, tortured,
and finally brutally murdered for insisting He was the ONLY Way to God.
It is only in the power of the Ressurection that Jesus' claim as the
Only Way comes raging back as indeed THE TRUTH. Not only is the
literal Ressurection of Christ a matter of historical record (and how many
other "ways" to God feature their Founder rising from the dead???),
but it is still relevant in the experience of every single Sinner who
comes to the point of accepting Jesus:
The Bible says we were all "dead" in our sins until we were "raised"
to New Life in Jesus Christ: SALVATION! And not just TO God, but
also FROM OURSELVES (and from our "own truth").
Until a person realizes just how desparately they need fixing, there
is no point in discussing broken-ness. You don't often find a person recoiling
against the singularity of Jesus' message AFTER they've laid down their
weapons and have come to understand just how deep and how profound
their Sinfulness is; no, those reactions come only from a mindset that believes,
deeply, that there are many "ways" to God, and that any one of us can
pick-and-choose what "our way" should be...
Osama bin Laden shares this belief: He and his terrorist cohorts sincerely
believe that God is inspiring their murderous hearts, and that their networks
of Evil are God's tools to carry out His will. They each believe they will be rewarded
in Heaven with any of a number of things (7 virgins, etc.).
We may very well be entering a period in human history where Western Civilisation
begins experiencing the kinds of persecution of Christians that has gone on in
Eastern countries for hundreds and hundreds of years. The fuel of that HATRED
will stem from our refusal to temper the central theme of our Faith:
Jesus Christ -- God, born of a virgin, lived the first and only sinless life, was murdered
and yet rose again, and whose Blood satisfies God's righteous requirements -- is in fact
the ONLY way back TO God. All other ground is sinking sand...
Friday, November 12, 2004
Thoughts on Arafat's passing
I won't pretend to know a whole lot when it comes to
the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in the Middle East;
known Terrorists seem to side with the Palestinians, and
civilized nations (such as the USA) seem to side with
Israel; that should tell us all a LOT about who's
"right" and who's "wrong" in that conflict...
Another thing seems clear: Israel clearly has the FAR
greater Military power; if they wanted to, I suppose they
could quickly eliminate all of Palestine from the face
of the Earth, and end the conflict with brute force.
They've chosen not to, and are, instead, the victims of
relentless bombings by the PLO and other terrorist
organizations. Again, what does that tell us about who
is "right" and who is wrong?
Instead, I'll let the two sides do their own talking:
(Copy-n-Paste these links into your Web browser, then hit ENTER)...
Here's a link to an organization critical of Arafat:
http://www.masada2000.org/arafat-plo.html
And here is a link to an article by Paul Findley, known in Congress
as "the friend of Arafat":
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=9987
CONCLUSION: As with all other matters, GOD will
sort out the Right and Wrong, in the end, and everybody
will get what they have coming to them...
the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in the Middle East;
known Terrorists seem to side with the Palestinians, and
civilized nations (such as the USA) seem to side with
Israel; that should tell us all a LOT about who's
"right" and who's "wrong" in that conflict...
Another thing seems clear: Israel clearly has the FAR
greater Military power; if they wanted to, I suppose they
could quickly eliminate all of Palestine from the face
of the Earth, and end the conflict with brute force.
They've chosen not to, and are, instead, the victims of
relentless bombings by the PLO and other terrorist
organizations. Again, what does that tell us about who
is "right" and who is wrong?
Instead, I'll let the two sides do their own talking:
(Copy-n-Paste these links into your Web browser, then hit ENTER)...
Here's a link to an organization critical of Arafat:
http://www.masada2000.org/arafat-plo.html
And here is a link to an article by Paul Findley, known in Congress
as "the friend of Arafat":
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=9987
CONCLUSION: As with all other matters, GOD will
sort out the Right and Wrong, in the end, and everybody
will get what they have coming to them...
Why Kerry Lost
With all the post-mortem analysis going on of the
defeat of John Kerry in this past election, I thought
I'd toss out some thoughts of my own...
Here are a few reasons why I believe Kerry lost:
1. Both parties took BIG money from corporations,
so Kerry couldn't really hit on that; job growth during
the first Bush administration was (and is) a matter
of debate; and ANY President can only do so much
to stimulate the Economy... But this President understands
far better than Kerry that the more the government
gets OUT OF THE WAY, and the more TAX RELIEF
that can be established, the more SMALL BUSINESSES
can start and thrive. The secret to a growing economy
is Small Business, and Kerry failed to emphasize that
fact nearly as much as President Bush did.
2. I'm not too keen on the idea of "Moral Values"
becoming a political issue, and the Press has had a party
with this ever since it became an Exit Poll statistic.
But the fact that Americans -- by the millions! --
voted for President Bush with Moral Values in mind,
shows how deeply concerned Americans STILL are about
issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage, and how much
they STILL think that Character matters. Kerry
was viewed by these voters as a Liar, a Clinton-esque
Slippery Snake, and as having no solid Core of beliefs
which go beyond one's own limited mind and which
rise above MTV, fads and trends, polls, and reality TV shows.
The plain fact of the matter is that EVERYONE has
a World View -- a RELIGION -- that guides their actions
and policies and decisions; apparently American voters
prefer the President's Theistic World View over Kerry's
Humanistic (i.e., Man-centered) World View.
It's that simple.
3. In their gut, nearly 60 million American voters despised
the Intellectual SNOBBERY of Kerry and Edwards, and of
the Upper North East and West Coast regions that think
like they do; 60 million Voters used their ballots to strike back.
Apparently these two "emperors" could not see that they had
no clothes, and the only ones impressed by their pomp
and presumption were themselves and their high-minded
constituents. I read today a comment by a democratic party
analyst that Kerry was "much more intellectual" than
President Bush...
Let's break that down for a minute: How would someone
MEASURE that? What does a silly statement like that even
mean? It's clear that Kerry was a more accomplished
public speaker than the President, and that he wasn't
prone to the same kind of "creativeness" with the English
language that the President is... But most of us know SOMEONE
(a friend, a brother, a father-in-law) who is perhaps a "blue collar worker"
and/or who has never been to college, but who is intelligent,
smart-as-a-whip, and worldly-wise; someone who knows when
to fight (and HOW!) and when to yield, someone who works
hard, who is strong (mentally, emotionally, and physically),
and who is tough, respectful, honest, and consistent...
The only thing that person "lacks" -- in this context -- is the
spit-n-polish, Ivy-league school VENEER that Kerry displays...
This, then, is "Intellect"?? The country would obviously rather have
a candidate more like the former and less like the latter...
defeat of John Kerry in this past election, I thought
I'd toss out some thoughts of my own...
Here are a few reasons why I believe Kerry lost:
1. Both parties took BIG money from corporations,
so Kerry couldn't really hit on that; job growth during
the first Bush administration was (and is) a matter
of debate; and ANY President can only do so much
to stimulate the Economy... But this President understands
far better than Kerry that the more the government
gets OUT OF THE WAY, and the more TAX RELIEF
that can be established, the more SMALL BUSINESSES
can start and thrive. The secret to a growing economy
is Small Business, and Kerry failed to emphasize that
fact nearly as much as President Bush did.
2. I'm not too keen on the idea of "Moral Values"
becoming a political issue, and the Press has had a party
with this ever since it became an Exit Poll statistic.
But the fact that Americans -- by the millions! --
voted for President Bush with Moral Values in mind,
shows how deeply concerned Americans STILL are about
issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage, and how much
they STILL think that Character matters. Kerry
was viewed by these voters as a Liar, a Clinton-esque
Slippery Snake, and as having no solid Core of beliefs
which go beyond one's own limited mind and which
rise above MTV, fads and trends, polls, and reality TV shows.
The plain fact of the matter is that EVERYONE has
a World View -- a RELIGION -- that guides their actions
and policies and decisions; apparently American voters
prefer the President's Theistic World View over Kerry's
Humanistic (i.e., Man-centered) World View.
It's that simple.
3. In their gut, nearly 60 million American voters despised
the Intellectual SNOBBERY of Kerry and Edwards, and of
the Upper North East and West Coast regions that think
like they do; 60 million Voters used their ballots to strike back.
Apparently these two "emperors" could not see that they had
no clothes, and the only ones impressed by their pomp
and presumption were themselves and their high-minded
constituents. I read today a comment by a democratic party
analyst that Kerry was "much more intellectual" than
President Bush...
Let's break that down for a minute: How would someone
MEASURE that? What does a silly statement like that even
mean? It's clear that Kerry was a more accomplished
public speaker than the President, and that he wasn't
prone to the same kind of "creativeness" with the English
language that the President is... But most of us know SOMEONE
(a friend, a brother, a father-in-law) who is perhaps a "blue collar worker"
and/or who has never been to college, but who is intelligent,
smart-as-a-whip, and worldly-wise; someone who knows when
to fight (and HOW!) and when to yield, someone who works
hard, who is strong (mentally, emotionally, and physically),
and who is tough, respectful, honest, and consistent...
The only thing that person "lacks" -- in this context -- is the
spit-n-polish, Ivy-league school VENEER that Kerry displays...
This, then, is "Intellect"?? The country would obviously rather have
a candidate more like the former and less like the latter...
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Values, Truth, and Tolerance
Without a doubt, the world of Political Commentary
is absolutely BUZZING right now over the emerging
Theme of the election: MORAL VALUES.
While "Morality" and "Values" can be dangerous political
fodder, it's GREAT to watch as people everywhere are
having discussions (some polite, some not) over the most
important considerations of human existence.
But what do these words mean? Whose "values"?
"Truth" according to whom? Why is it that the "Red"
states are quickly being cast as the "moral value" states
while the "Blue" states are being characterized by some as...
well, what?
Here is one person's commentary:
VALUES might be things like Hard Work, Equality,
Thrift, and Responsibility. Certainly the "Red" states
have no corner on these Values; but when you add
the adjective "Moral" to the word "Values", the
combination takes on a whole new twist:
Now you're talking about Values which are viewed as "Right"
or "Wrong"; so, for example, in W, you have a President
who VALUES the One-Man-One-Woman institution
of Marriage, because he believes it's RIGHT and that
any perversion of that arrangement is WRONG.
And while he may VALUE civil rights granted by some
consitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court,
his MORAL VALUE on, say, Abortion is that it is
(in nearly all cases) WRONG.
But where do assessments of "Right" and "Wrong"
come from?? And who are we to make them??
Well, it depends on what you believe; it depends on what
you have come to accept as the TRUTH.
If you believe the Bible, you will view its contents as
the TRUTH; the same can be said of the Torah, the Koran,
and any other sacred writings of your World View.
But it doesn't stop there: MUCH of what we assert to be
"TRUTH" we accept on the authority of the Source from which
we discover that Truth: Astronomers tell us the Sun is 93 million
miles from Earth; I assert this to be "True" because I accept
their authority. I could, if I chose, launch an investigation into
the facts and attempt to ascertain for myself if that is
the case, but I don't because I'm satisfied with their authority.
The "Search for Truth" is something many of us have done -- or
still do! -- with as much vigor and curiosity as we can muster,
and some of us are very open-minded to just about any serious,
plausible Viewpoints out there...
But there is an important point to make here, and it regards what
is sometimes referred to as "EXCLUSIONISM":
If you regard position "X" as being absolutely TRUE, then you,
by definition, regard it's exact opposite, say, position "Y", to be
absolutely FALSE. The human mind simply cannot hold two
diametrically-opposed positions to BOTH be true at the same time
(a room cannot be completely DARK and completely LIT at the
same time...).
Does this make you "exclusive"?? Of course not! You've arrived
at "X" because you've done your research, inquired into all the
authoritative resources you can find, granted that some of "X"
sounds a little fantastic, and yet you've still come out in the end
convinced (by Reason, by Authority, and by Eye Witness Accounts)
that "X" is TRUE and "Y" is FALSE.
A man like George W. Bush is not afraid to stand up and say
publicly that he believes ONE thing to be TRUE and another to be
FALSE. That kind of courage, applied to traditional Moral Values,
is what the Electorate saw in him this past Tuesday.
One more point:
Every single human on this planet is a sentient being whom God
loves and cherishes with all His heart. Unfortunately, most of them
will not choose to love Him in return, and will spurn His Will for them
in favor of their own. "Tolerance", for the Christian, does NOT mean
viewing Abortion or Homosexuality with anything less than God's
own righteous anger; it means demonstrating Warmth, Compassion,
and Caring to those around us who, apart from God, will NEVER
experience the Joy and Fulfillment He made them for...
is absolutely BUZZING right now over the emerging
Theme of the election: MORAL VALUES.
While "Morality" and "Values" can be dangerous political
fodder, it's GREAT to watch as people everywhere are
having discussions (some polite, some not) over the most
important considerations of human existence.
But what do these words mean? Whose "values"?
"Truth" according to whom? Why is it that the "Red"
states are quickly being cast as the "moral value" states
while the "Blue" states are being characterized by some as...
well, what?
Here is one person's commentary:
VALUES might be things like Hard Work, Equality,
Thrift, and Responsibility. Certainly the "Red" states
have no corner on these Values; but when you add
the adjective "Moral" to the word "Values", the
combination takes on a whole new twist:
Now you're talking about Values which are viewed as "Right"
or "Wrong"; so, for example, in W, you have a President
who VALUES the One-Man-One-Woman institution
of Marriage, because he believes it's RIGHT and that
any perversion of that arrangement is WRONG.
And while he may VALUE civil rights granted by some
consitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court,
his MORAL VALUE on, say, Abortion is that it is
(in nearly all cases) WRONG.
But where do assessments of "Right" and "Wrong"
come from?? And who are we to make them??
Well, it depends on what you believe; it depends on what
you have come to accept as the TRUTH.
If you believe the Bible, you will view its contents as
the TRUTH; the same can be said of the Torah, the Koran,
and any other sacred writings of your World View.
But it doesn't stop there: MUCH of what we assert to be
"TRUTH" we accept on the authority of the Source from which
we discover that Truth: Astronomers tell us the Sun is 93 million
miles from Earth; I assert this to be "True" because I accept
their authority. I could, if I chose, launch an investigation into
the facts and attempt to ascertain for myself if that is
the case, but I don't because I'm satisfied with their authority.
The "Search for Truth" is something many of us have done -- or
still do! -- with as much vigor and curiosity as we can muster,
and some of us are very open-minded to just about any serious,
plausible Viewpoints out there...
But there is an important point to make here, and it regards what
is sometimes referred to as "EXCLUSIONISM":
If you regard position "X" as being absolutely TRUE, then you,
by definition, regard it's exact opposite, say, position "Y", to be
absolutely FALSE. The human mind simply cannot hold two
diametrically-opposed positions to BOTH be true at the same time
(a room cannot be completely DARK and completely LIT at the
same time...).
Does this make you "exclusive"?? Of course not! You've arrived
at "X" because you've done your research, inquired into all the
authoritative resources you can find, granted that some of "X"
sounds a little fantastic, and yet you've still come out in the end
convinced (by Reason, by Authority, and by Eye Witness Accounts)
that "X" is TRUE and "Y" is FALSE.
A man like George W. Bush is not afraid to stand up and say
publicly that he believes ONE thing to be TRUE and another to be
FALSE. That kind of courage, applied to traditional Moral Values,
is what the Electorate saw in him this past Tuesday.
One more point:
Every single human on this planet is a sentient being whom God
loves and cherishes with all His heart. Unfortunately, most of them
will not choose to love Him in return, and will spurn His Will for them
in favor of their own. "Tolerance", for the Christian, does NOT mean
viewing Abortion or Homosexuality with anything less than God's
own righteous anger; it means demonstrating Warmth, Compassion,
and Caring to those around us who, apart from God, will NEVER
experience the Joy and Fulfillment He made them for...
A NOTE about the VOTE
Well, my candidate won on November 2.
My choice for Governor of Missouri won too,
so for me, it was a good night.
Here is an assortment of thoughts about what
transpired in our country in this election:
1. I was very very happy to see that the winner
became clear in only a day and a half or so. A process
that dragged out into days and weeks -- as in 2000 --
would have been very hard on this country.
2. I believe John Kerry demonstrated a lot of grace
and dignity in his concession of the race; I was surprised
and glad to see that. The same cannot be said for his
running mate, John Edwards; comments like, "this fight
will go on!" seemed very anti-climactic...
3. I thought one of the most fascinating statistics to
come out of the voting activity, all across the coutry, on
November 2 was the fact that -- according to Exit Polls --
fully 22% of the respondents said MORAL VALUES
was their top voting concern this election (of those, 84%
voted for President Bush). Interesting! I was thrilled
to see that that particular dynamic was high on the minds
of voters; seems the Media and Radical Left-Wingers
are out of touch with an Electorate that cares about
the MOST important things...
4. Some quick messages go out to various people/groups:
Michael Moore: Apparently getting "creative" with the Truth
did little to fool the voting public...
New York Times, Time Magazine, CNN, Oprah Winfrey,
Al Sharpton, and any and all other LIBERAL public figures
and Media outlets: Popular Vote AND the Presidency!
Need we say more?? Is it possible that these entities are
simply Out Of Touch?? This is relevant not just because
President Bush won in both categories, but because (again)
the Exit Poll data show that your Leftist views are shared
by FAR LESS of the Electorate than you try to lead us all
to believe...
5. On that last point, I have always believed that it is largely
some of the mainstream Media and a host of liberal Public Figures
who incessantly beat the drums of DIVISION in this country.
I believe that any two intelligent, rational adults can sit down
and discuss even the most divisive of issues (e.g., Abortion)
without becoming hateful toward one another. We are characterized
too often by the Media as being "anti-" this or "anti-" that, and
images we are shown on TV and in the magazines only include
the extremists among us who are mostly full of Hate.
"Speaking the Truth in LOVE" needs to become not just a
Christian mantra, but a manner of behaving toward one another
REGARDLESS of where we each fall on the political spectrum...
My choice for Governor of Missouri won too,
so for me, it was a good night.
Here is an assortment of thoughts about what
transpired in our country in this election:
1. I was very very happy to see that the winner
became clear in only a day and a half or so. A process
that dragged out into days and weeks -- as in 2000 --
would have been very hard on this country.
2. I believe John Kerry demonstrated a lot of grace
and dignity in his concession of the race; I was surprised
and glad to see that. The same cannot be said for his
running mate, John Edwards; comments like, "this fight
will go on!" seemed very anti-climactic...
3. I thought one of the most fascinating statistics to
come out of the voting activity, all across the coutry, on
November 2 was the fact that -- according to Exit Polls --
fully 22% of the respondents said MORAL VALUES
was their top voting concern this election (of those, 84%
voted for President Bush). Interesting! I was thrilled
to see that that particular dynamic was high on the minds
of voters; seems the Media and Radical Left-Wingers
are out of touch with an Electorate that cares about
the MOST important things...
4. Some quick messages go out to various people/groups:
Michael Moore: Apparently getting "creative" with the Truth
did little to fool the voting public...
New York Times, Time Magazine, CNN, Oprah Winfrey,
Al Sharpton, and any and all other LIBERAL public figures
and Media outlets: Popular Vote AND the Presidency!
Need we say more?? Is it possible that these entities are
simply Out Of Touch?? This is relevant not just because
President Bush won in both categories, but because (again)
the Exit Poll data show that your Leftist views are shared
by FAR LESS of the Electorate than you try to lead us all
to believe...
5. On that last point, I have always believed that it is largely
some of the mainstream Media and a host of liberal Public Figures
who incessantly beat the drums of DIVISION in this country.
I believe that any two intelligent, rational adults can sit down
and discuss even the most divisive of issues (e.g., Abortion)
without becoming hateful toward one another. We are characterized
too often by the Media as being "anti-" this or "anti-" that, and
images we are shown on TV and in the magazines only include
the extremists among us who are mostly full of Hate.
"Speaking the Truth in LOVE" needs to become not just a
Christian mantra, but a manner of behaving toward one another
REGARDLESS of where we each fall on the political spectrum...
Monday, October 25, 2004
Add Your Comments!
We welcome your Feedback!
Feel free to post your own Comments
by clicking on the "COMMENT" link at
the bottom right corner of each posting...
You don't need to add your name, since
postings by "Anonymous" are allowed...
Go ahead! Post your replies to our Musings here...
Opinions, thoughts, responses, etc., from ALL
sides of the spectrum are encouraged!
Feel free to post your own Comments
by clicking on the "COMMENT" link at
the bottom right corner of each posting...
You don't need to add your name, since
postings by "Anonymous" are allowed...
Go ahead! Post your replies to our Musings here...
Opinions, thoughts, responses, etc., from ALL
sides of the spectrum are encouraged!
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Deflating Kerry
It can be frustrating for us Republicans to hear
the President out on the stump each day (and in
the now-infamous debates) leave SO much good material
"on the table" with regard to Kerry's attacks.
So HERE (since this is my li'l old Blog) I am going
to take the opportunity to make a few quick points
that apparently President Bush's campaign manager
isn't having his man trumpet far and wide:
ON THE WAR IN IRAQ
The President has NOT "taken his eye off the ball".
While I agree that the push into Iraq was probably premature,
and (in hindsight) based on weak intelligence, the plain fact
of the matter is that this is a war on TERRORISM, not on
Osama Bin Laden or any other single terrorist. President Bush
was given information that led him (and Tony Blair, AND the
US Congress, including John Kerry!) to believe that Iraq
was the hub of a dangerous mixture of Terrorists and WMD.
An *excellent* target, then, for an attack, don't you think??
Even though the search for WMD proved fruitless, it's STILL
true that there is an epicenter of terrorist movement in that
entire region: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Kuwait, and
even Saudi Arabia (you could include Egypt, Sudan, and even
Palestine, too).
So I wish the President would tear down Kerry's straw-man
argument, about "the hunt for Bin Laden" and REMIND America
that the fight against TERRORISM has ALWAYS included Iraq.
Yes it's messy over there; and YES we probably underestimated
our enemy there; but with people like Kerry voting AGAINST
funding for additional supplies, what's a President to do???
And now is the time for steel-jawed Resolve, not Fear-mongering.
Oh, and one more thing: Kerry promises he will "build a coalition
of our Allies," and "hunt down and kill the terrorists". Oh really?
Is that why he voted AGAINST the Gulf War offensive, depsite
the VAST Coalition of our Allies at the time? And just *where*
does Mr. Kerry suppose he's going to "find and kill" terrorists?
Afghanistan is an EASY war to support AFTER it's already been won.
ON TAX BREAKS FOR "THE RICH"
Here is one that is so easy to expose as nothing more than
Resentment-baiting by the Kerry ticket: Kerry claims that the
Tax breaks won by the President serve mostly the upper 1% of
America's most wealthy, people making over $200,000 a year.
It's simply a matter of Fairness, with some easy Math thrown in:
If you, the Taxpayer, PAY more taxes (based on your income), you
will RECEIVE more back from a Tax rebate. It's that simple.
Kerry loves to toss out the figure "89 b-i-l-l-i-o-n dollars....!" in
rebates to "the richest Americans," hoping to stir up RESENTMENT
among the Middle Class and especially the Poor.
Far from a BAD thing, this should be a sign of PROSPERITY
in America! Think about it: There are apparently enough wealthy
Americans (if we accept the definition of "wealthy" as the 200k and
above people) in this country that a Tax rollback to them -- a FAIR,
income-based percentage -- adds up to those billions of dollars.
And President BUSH is the only one, of the two, who GETS it when
it comes to spurring economic growth through Small Businesses.
What more can a President do than to take back a portion of the
money a "vote-themselves-a-pay-raise-in-the-middle-of-the-night"
Congress wants to keep and give it BACK to America, while
encouraging would-be Investors and Entrepreneurs to use that
money to jump-start Commerce in this country??
ON EDUCATION, JOB LOSS, and HEALTH CARE
I am so tired of hearing Kerry blast the President on a spate of issues
which NO President has much *direct* control over. Look, there is
one message that you sometimes hear from Fearless Republicans and
which you NEVER hear from the polls-driven Democrats, directed at
the general American public:
GROW UP!
Stop blaming Government for every single problem in your lives!
RUN from any candidate who makes sweeping Promises about how
HIS administration is going to come in and "change all that," who
patronizes Voters with vague scenarios of "a stronger America".
How about STRONGER CITIZENS?? How about a new generation
of Americans who take far more responsibility for their lives?
If your kid drops out of school, discipline him/her! If your company
outsources your job, re-train yourself for another career, or find
something else to do in that or another company... If your health care
costs are too high, start taking better care of yourself! If you are an
Illegal Alien, you are breaking the Law and ought to be prosecuted
(ask any Californian about the *strain* on public services there,
caused by a flood of Illegals pouring into that state...).
A strong Republic is a PARTNERSHIP between Citizens and those
they elect, requiring the former to work hard, be smart, and limit
their dependence on Government as much as possible, while the latter
works to create the conditions in which those efforts can be
fruitful and long-lasting...
If YOU have more, that you'd like to see posted here, WRITE to me:
Blog@kernworld.net
the President out on the stump each day (and in
the now-infamous debates) leave SO much good material
"on the table" with regard to Kerry's attacks.
So HERE (since this is my li'l old Blog) I am going
to take the opportunity to make a few quick points
that apparently President Bush's campaign manager
isn't having his man trumpet far and wide:
ON THE WAR IN IRAQ
The President has NOT "taken his eye off the ball".
While I agree that the push into Iraq was probably premature,
and (in hindsight) based on weak intelligence, the plain fact
of the matter is that this is a war on TERRORISM, not on
Osama Bin Laden or any other single terrorist. President Bush
was given information that led him (and Tony Blair, AND the
US Congress, including John Kerry!) to believe that Iraq
was the hub of a dangerous mixture of Terrorists and WMD.
An *excellent* target, then, for an attack, don't you think??
Even though the search for WMD proved fruitless, it's STILL
true that there is an epicenter of terrorist movement in that
entire region: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Kuwait, and
even Saudi Arabia (you could include Egypt, Sudan, and even
Palestine, too).
So I wish the President would tear down Kerry's straw-man
argument, about "the hunt for Bin Laden" and REMIND America
that the fight against TERRORISM has ALWAYS included Iraq.
Yes it's messy over there; and YES we probably underestimated
our enemy there; but with people like Kerry voting AGAINST
funding for additional supplies, what's a President to do???
And now is the time for steel-jawed Resolve, not Fear-mongering.
Oh, and one more thing: Kerry promises he will "build a coalition
of our Allies," and "hunt down and kill the terrorists". Oh really?
Is that why he voted AGAINST the Gulf War offensive, depsite
the VAST Coalition of our Allies at the time? And just *where*
does Mr. Kerry suppose he's going to "find and kill" terrorists?
Afghanistan is an EASY war to support AFTER it's already been won.
ON TAX BREAKS FOR "THE RICH"
Here is one that is so easy to expose as nothing more than
Resentment-baiting by the Kerry ticket: Kerry claims that the
Tax breaks won by the President serve mostly the upper 1% of
America's most wealthy, people making over $200,000 a year.
It's simply a matter of Fairness, with some easy Math thrown in:
If you, the Taxpayer, PAY more taxes (based on your income), you
will RECEIVE more back from a Tax rebate. It's that simple.
Kerry loves to toss out the figure "89 b-i-l-l-i-o-n dollars....!" in
rebates to "the richest Americans," hoping to stir up RESENTMENT
among the Middle Class and especially the Poor.
Far from a BAD thing, this should be a sign of PROSPERITY
in America! Think about it: There are apparently enough wealthy
Americans (if we accept the definition of "wealthy" as the 200k and
above people) in this country that a Tax rollback to them -- a FAIR,
income-based percentage -- adds up to those billions of dollars.
And President BUSH is the only one, of the two, who GETS it when
it comes to spurring economic growth through Small Businesses.
What more can a President do than to take back a portion of the
money a "vote-themselves-a-pay-raise-in-the-middle-of-the-night"
Congress wants to keep and give it BACK to America, while
encouraging would-be Investors and Entrepreneurs to use that
money to jump-start Commerce in this country??
ON EDUCATION, JOB LOSS, and HEALTH CARE
I am so tired of hearing Kerry blast the President on a spate of issues
which NO President has much *direct* control over. Look, there is
one message that you sometimes hear from Fearless Republicans and
which you NEVER hear from the polls-driven Democrats, directed at
the general American public:
GROW UP!
Stop blaming Government for every single problem in your lives!
RUN from any candidate who makes sweeping Promises about how
HIS administration is going to come in and "change all that," who
patronizes Voters with vague scenarios of "a stronger America".
How about STRONGER CITIZENS?? How about a new generation
of Americans who take far more responsibility for their lives?
If your kid drops out of school, discipline him/her! If your company
outsources your job, re-train yourself for another career, or find
something else to do in that or another company... If your health care
costs are too high, start taking better care of yourself! If you are an
Illegal Alien, you are breaking the Law and ought to be prosecuted
(ask any Californian about the *strain* on public services there,
caused by a flood of Illegals pouring into that state...).
A strong Republic is a PARTNERSHIP between Citizens and those
they elect, requiring the former to work hard, be smart, and limit
their dependence on Government as much as possible, while the latter
works to create the conditions in which those efforts can be
fruitful and long-lasting...
If YOU have more, that you'd like to see posted here, WRITE to me:
Blog@kernworld.net
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Subjective Morality
I read on today's CNN web site that the New York Times
has officially endorsed John Kerry for president.
This comes as no surprise at all: The New York Times
is not exactly known for its fair and balanced position
on most issues, remaining in a long-standing contest with
the Boston Globe and the Washington Post for the title
of "most liberal newspaper" in this country...
What really had me shaking my head, though, was the
quote from that publication which characterizes Kerry as
"a man with a strong moral core..."
Moral?? Does that word even *mean* anything in today's
postmodern, pluralistic, anti-traditional-values Society??
It amazes me how anyone -- including liberal publications
like the NYT, Time magazine, and many others-- can, on the
one hand, support so-called "Abortion Rights" and the
homosexual agenda and then turn right around and pronounce
anything or anyone else "moral" or "immoral"...
Gloria Allred -- an avowed, radical, left-wing Feminist --
appealed to "moral duty" a year or so ago, reacting to
Michael Jackson's dangling of his infant son off a
German balcony... Porn purveyor Larry Flynt was quoted
as saying he would not publish the nude photos he owns
of PFC Jessica Lynch because "sometimes you just
have to do the right thing."
Apparently our American mindset has gone so wildly off
the track that we suppose we can legitimately apply the
words and concepts of "Morality" to this or that, here and
there, wherever we choose; we've apparently lost all concept
of the fundamental idea that unless there is an Absolute
STANDARD -- unflinching, unchanging, and applicable to ALL --
then the idea of what is "moral" and what is not "moral"
loses all meaning. Who does the NYT think they're fooling???
For the Christian, however, this is not surprising: The Bible
says that "the heart of man is deceitful above all things and
desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9). It is not until a person
comes near to our Holy GOD and bows down before Him that any REAL
idea of what is "Moral" and "Immoral" begins to make any sense.
has officially endorsed John Kerry for president.
This comes as no surprise at all: The New York Times
is not exactly known for its fair and balanced position
on most issues, remaining in a long-standing contest with
the Boston Globe and the Washington Post for the title
of "most liberal newspaper" in this country...
What really had me shaking my head, though, was the
quote from that publication which characterizes Kerry as
"a man with a strong moral core..."
Moral?? Does that word even *mean* anything in today's
postmodern, pluralistic, anti-traditional-values Society??
It amazes me how anyone -- including liberal publications
like the NYT, Time magazine, and many others-- can, on the
one hand, support so-called "Abortion Rights" and the
homosexual agenda and then turn right around and pronounce
anything or anyone else "moral" or "immoral"...
Gloria Allred -- an avowed, radical, left-wing Feminist --
appealed to "moral duty" a year or so ago, reacting to
Michael Jackson's dangling of his infant son off a
German balcony... Porn purveyor Larry Flynt was quoted
as saying he would not publish the nude photos he owns
of PFC Jessica Lynch because "sometimes you just
have to do the right thing."
Apparently our American mindset has gone so wildly off
the track that we suppose we can legitimately apply the
words and concepts of "Morality" to this or that, here and
there, wherever we choose; we've apparently lost all concept
of the fundamental idea that unless there is an Absolute
STANDARD -- unflinching, unchanging, and applicable to ALL --
then the idea of what is "moral" and what is not "moral"
loses all meaning. Who does the NYT think they're fooling???
For the Christian, however, this is not surprising: The Bible
says that "the heart of man is deceitful above all things and
desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9). It is not until a person
comes near to our Holy GOD and bows down before Him that any REAL
idea of what is "Moral" and "Immoral" begins to make any sense.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Reaction to Debate 3
I watched nearly all of the third presidential debate
last night (kept flipping over to the Cards game, to
see our team put down the Astros in Game 1 of the
NLCS... Go Cards!!)...
In a word, I believe president Bush *trounced* Kerry.
From the very start, Kerry mumbled, stumbled,
struggled for words, and merely babbled on and on
with the same stale rhetoric that has become the
hallmark of his campaign. He was *clearly* off-center,
not anywhere NEAR as confident and precise as many
had judged him in earlier debates.
The President, by contrast, was comfortable, cheerful,
invigorating, affable and at ease, and his Content was
far, far better than it had been previously.
But HERE is where -- to me -- the contrast between
President Bush and John Kerry becomes starkest:
1. When asked about Faith, Kerry was clearly
uncomfortable, tossing a RIDICULOUS bone to
the New Age movement by dead-panning,
"We're ALL God's children..." ( if he's Catholic,
I doubt his PRIEST appreciated that.... that is,
unless he's part of this new "Catholic" movement
that rejects most of the traditional doctrinal
stances of the Church...)
Bush, by contrast, was clear and unwavering in
his personal statements of faith, making the very
wise connection between Faith, the kind of Person
his Faith makes him, and therefore the kinds of
PRINCIPLES he stands on, which then, inevitably,
influence his Public Policy decisions.
(The subject of Kerry's LACK of personal Principles
is an entire discussion unto itself...)
2. When asked about their Wives, President Bush was
the epitome of class, kindness, and love: He wisely
mentioned -- right off -- the lesson of *listening* to
his dear wife, and then he shared a few tender, gentle,
loving, and sincere comments about how he and his
wife met, and about his profound affection for her...
Kerry, on the other hand, was downright AWKWARD
when mentioning his own wife, leaning heavily on a
self-deprecating joke about *himself* rather than
saying much about any Love he feels for his wife,
or the role she plays in his life, or how they met, or
how he feels about her, or how she might help him
serve as president...
It's clear to me -- now more than ever -- that the
FUEL of the Kerry campaign consists in not much more
than simply TEARING DOWN the Bush administration;
the President's comment about Kerry's "Litany of Complaints"
is classic! That's all Kerry *has*, and what is the Senator's
common refrain, offered as some kind of "answer"??
"I have a Plan...." Uh, right. Gosh, that's SO inspiring...
(As is his liberal voting record in the Senate...)
And notice, Kerry RARELY uses the pronoun "WE".
Poor John Edwards: He's the Ugly Stepsister who is
hardly ever invited to share the spotlight with Captain
Save-America.
The LAST thing this country needs right now is a
self-aggrandizing, liberal Democrat who follows the party
line of, "The Government can solve all your problems,
America". This country NEEDS President Bush, who is
not afraid to say that good governance is a partnership
between hard-working and responsible Citizens and an
administration that works toward a safe and free Society
in which those Citizens can pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness.
Despite all the help from our Leftist media, and regardless
of the disrepectful and whining campaign of the Kerry-Edwards
ticket, I look forward to watching President Bush win on
election day...
last night (kept flipping over to the Cards game, to
see our team put down the Astros in Game 1 of the
NLCS... Go Cards!!)...
In a word, I believe president Bush *trounced* Kerry.
From the very start, Kerry mumbled, stumbled,
struggled for words, and merely babbled on and on
with the same stale rhetoric that has become the
hallmark of his campaign. He was *clearly* off-center,
not anywhere NEAR as confident and precise as many
had judged him in earlier debates.
The President, by contrast, was comfortable, cheerful,
invigorating, affable and at ease, and his Content was
far, far better than it had been previously.
But HERE is where -- to me -- the contrast between
President Bush and John Kerry becomes starkest:
1. When asked about Faith, Kerry was clearly
uncomfortable, tossing a RIDICULOUS bone to
the New Age movement by dead-panning,
"We're ALL God's children..." ( if he's Catholic,
I doubt his PRIEST appreciated that.... that is,
unless he's part of this new "Catholic" movement
that rejects most of the traditional doctrinal
stances of the Church...)
Bush, by contrast, was clear and unwavering in
his personal statements of faith, making the very
wise connection between Faith, the kind of Person
his Faith makes him, and therefore the kinds of
PRINCIPLES he stands on, which then, inevitably,
influence his Public Policy decisions.
(The subject of Kerry's LACK of personal Principles
is an entire discussion unto itself...)
2. When asked about their Wives, President Bush was
the epitome of class, kindness, and love: He wisely
mentioned -- right off -- the lesson of *listening* to
his dear wife, and then he shared a few tender, gentle,
loving, and sincere comments about how he and his
wife met, and about his profound affection for her...
Kerry, on the other hand, was downright AWKWARD
when mentioning his own wife, leaning heavily on a
self-deprecating joke about *himself* rather than
saying much about any Love he feels for his wife,
or the role she plays in his life, or how they met, or
how he feels about her, or how she might help him
serve as president...
It's clear to me -- now more than ever -- that the
FUEL of the Kerry campaign consists in not much more
than simply TEARING DOWN the Bush administration;
the President's comment about Kerry's "Litany of Complaints"
is classic! That's all Kerry *has*, and what is the Senator's
common refrain, offered as some kind of "answer"??
"I have a Plan...." Uh, right. Gosh, that's SO inspiring...
(As is his liberal voting record in the Senate...)
And notice, Kerry RARELY uses the pronoun "WE".
Poor John Edwards: He's the Ugly Stepsister who is
hardly ever invited to share the spotlight with Captain
Save-America.
The LAST thing this country needs right now is a
self-aggrandizing, liberal Democrat who follows the party
line of, "The Government can solve all your problems,
America". This country NEEDS President Bush, who is
not afraid to say that good governance is a partnership
between hard-working and responsible Citizens and an
administration that works toward a safe and free Society
in which those Citizens can pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness.
Despite all the help from our Leftist media, and regardless
of the disrepectful and whining campaign of the Kerry-Edwards
ticket, I look forward to watching President Bush win on
election day...
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Reaction after 2 debates
I watched both the presidential debates with keen interest,
since Debate is a process I personally enjoy (always have).
Now we all knew, going into both, that Kerry is simply a
better extemporaneous speaker than President Bush.
It's very clear to me, after watching him in two debates,
that Kerry has some well-honed skills in the area of
thinking on his feet, constructing his thoughts, speaking
in careful, measured tones, emphasizing key points,
and leaving his audience with those important little
nuggets to mull over. He's good at this stuff.
By contrast, the President is more colloquial, with more
of an "Everyman" style and approach. Unfortunately,
he seems to feel the need to speak in high-pitched tones
and alarmist rhetoric, and many of us Republicans are
dismayed at the WEALTH of material against Kerry that
President Bush is simply leaving on the table. In short,
I think his debate coach is short-changing him.
But here's what I have to say about the debates, in sum:
BIG DEAL.
So Kerry is a more accomplished public speaker than
President Bush; SO WHAT. So he can turn a phrase
more quickly than the President; WHO CARES.
The bottom line is that Kerry's record on critical issues --
from Taxes to the Military to Abortion to Homosexuality
and others -- not to mention the whole Character question,
still makes the President the more trustworthy and
respectable candidate. THAT kind of thing isn't changed
by these media-driven debates we've been seeing.
since Debate is a process I personally enjoy (always have).
Now we all knew, going into both, that Kerry is simply a
better extemporaneous speaker than President Bush.
It's very clear to me, after watching him in two debates,
that Kerry has some well-honed skills in the area of
thinking on his feet, constructing his thoughts, speaking
in careful, measured tones, emphasizing key points,
and leaving his audience with those important little
nuggets to mull over. He's good at this stuff.
By contrast, the President is more colloquial, with more
of an "Everyman" style and approach. Unfortunately,
he seems to feel the need to speak in high-pitched tones
and alarmist rhetoric, and many of us Republicans are
dismayed at the WEALTH of material against Kerry that
President Bush is simply leaving on the table. In short,
I think his debate coach is short-changing him.
But here's what I have to say about the debates, in sum:
BIG DEAL.
So Kerry is a more accomplished public speaker than
President Bush; SO WHAT. So he can turn a phrase
more quickly than the President; WHO CARES.
The bottom line is that Kerry's record on critical issues --
from Taxes to the Military to Abortion to Homosexuality
and others -- not to mention the whole Character question,
still makes the President the more trustworthy and
respectable candidate. THAT kind of thing isn't changed
by these media-driven debates we've been seeing.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
GOD, Bush, and Kerry
So here we are, with the much-anticipated
First Debate set to happen this evening
between President Bush and John Kerry.
I've said in this Blog that I will vote for the
President, and I've said why. I've become
more convinced than ever -- based on what
I've read of him in the past few weeks --
that John Kerry is someone who cannot
make up his mind, and who does not make
consistent decisions based on unshakeable
principles and convictions.
This is not the kind of man America needs
as its leader; the country needs President Bush,
whose courage and compassion stem from
his core set of deeply-held Values.
HOWEVER, that being said, I must hasten to add
that -- as a Christian -- I believe there is a
danger in making TOO MUCH of this election.
In the end, GOD is all that matters, and while
we need to worship God by being good citizens
and making wise election choices (and taking
part in all areas of civic duty), we need to do so
with an awareness that our REAL Joy rests
in the Great Hope we have of one day being
welcomed into God's very Presence.
This world, and all its systems, plans, struggles,
pleasures, and governments will some day pass
away, and God Himself will give us a NEW heaven
and a NEW earth, and we will reign with Him forever.
Temporal things -- including this presidential race --
simply PALE by comparison. Let us proceed through
this process with a sense of Perspective appropriate
to redeemed children of God...
First Debate set to happen this evening
between President Bush and John Kerry.
I've said in this Blog that I will vote for the
President, and I've said why. I've become
more convinced than ever -- based on what
I've read of him in the past few weeks --
that John Kerry is someone who cannot
make up his mind, and who does not make
consistent decisions based on unshakeable
principles and convictions.
This is not the kind of man America needs
as its leader; the country needs President Bush,
whose courage and compassion stem from
his core set of deeply-held Values.
HOWEVER, that being said, I must hasten to add
that -- as a Christian -- I believe there is a
danger in making TOO MUCH of this election.
In the end, GOD is all that matters, and while
we need to worship God by being good citizens
and making wise election choices (and taking
part in all areas of civic duty), we need to do so
with an awareness that our REAL Joy rests
in the Great Hope we have of one day being
welcomed into God's very Presence.
This world, and all its systems, plans, struggles,
pleasures, and governments will some day pass
away, and God Himself will give us a NEW heaven
and a NEW earth, and we will reign with Him forever.
Temporal things -- including this presidential race --
simply PALE by comparison. Let us proceed through
this process with a sense of Perspective appropriate
to redeemed children of God...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)