Archives

Quote of the day

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day:

The nation waits with bated breath to see if, this term, the court will strike “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Liberals are so desperate for this to happen that some of them are actually praying for it.

I’ll bet she made that up. And some liberal will probably call her bluff and ask for proof.

What if Bush had done something before 9/11?

Gregg Easterbrook wrote an “alternative history” imagining what might have hapened had GW Bush “done something to prevent 9/11.” This imaginary scenario demonstrates what I’ve been thinking all along: nobody is able to see into the future except God himself, and even if they were, it wouldn’t change political realities. Unless the entire American public (or a sizeable majority thereof) were able to see with you, you couldn’t do anything about a threat that was yet to materialize. As Bush said in his press conference, Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.

Be Fruitful

Hamlet to Ophelia: I say, we will have no more marriages:
those that are married already, all but one, shall
live; the rest shall keep as they are.

What an alien concept–the idea that marriage and childbearing are somehow connected! Read Roberto Rivera’s column for an excellent expostition of the subject. He says it much better than I could even if he is Catholic. There are some things that we Baptists could learn from those of the Catholic persuasion if we’d listen. Of course, I’m not too sure that a lot of Catholics listen too closely to the teachings of their own church when said teachings don’t happen to suit them, but that’s another subject. All of us need to listen to God’s command in Genesis to “be fruitful and multiply” and at least make a stab at figuring out what that means and obeying.

For such a time

Peggy Noonan writes this week toward the end of her column about the need for Republican officeholders to speak up for the president and on the issues that matter to Republicans:

“GOP senators and congressmen seem to me to be acting not like they’re excited by this moment in history but intimidated by it. As if they’re thinking, “Oh no, we’re in charge now and everyone will blame us when things go wrong!” They need a little spirit of 1994: “We’ll make the very dome of this Capitol vibrate with our energy.”

I agree. Where are the Republicans who are speaking out on the issues of “gay marriage” and immigration reform and how we are winning the war against terrorism and also how the events in Spain prove that Bush was right about this being a long war with many fronts and . . . Either I’m not reading, listening to and watching the right media outlets or the Republicans are strangely quiet. Are they afraid to take a stand now that they are in the majority in the Congress? An of course, it is an election year. Maybe an unpopular stand would mess up their majority. Or maybe we elected them to do what’s right whether or not it gets them votes. Maybe their vocal, articulate stand for what they truly believe in WOULD get them votes. Contrast Republicans knowing what they believe and where they want the country to go with Kerry’s cluelessness. Might be a winner. But it doesn’t matter whether it is or not. Do it because it’s right.

Baylor education

About a week ago the Baylor Lariat published an editorial in support of “gay marriage.” Read here to see what Terry Mattingly of getreligion has to say about the controversy. And this is the response I posted to his blog:

My daughter is a freshman student at Baylor, so that makes me a “Baylor parent.” I think your idea makes a lot of sense. I don’t know who would oppose the idea more, but I do agree that it would be a much more responsible way of dealing with the entire issue. I am opposed to the concept of “gay marriage.” It seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. However, my main problem with the Lariat editorial was its lack of logic and supporting evidence. I read the editorial, and it sounded like a semi-religious (not the Christian religion) statement. ” it isn’t fair to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation. Shouldn’t gay couples be allowed to enjoy the benefits and happiness of marriage, too?” How do this statement and question address the issue of whether the acts taking place in San Francisco constitute marriage or play-acting? Do the Lariat editors tell us anywhere in their editorial why this is a civil rights issue? No, they simply state that homosexuals are denied their civil rights when we deny that two men or two women living together equals marriage. Aren’t editorials meant to convince or persuade? What are they teaching these students anyway?

My point is that I expect Baylor to teach and exemplify a distinctively Christian worldview. I don’t think these students should be allowed to write editorials about anything until they have been taught to at least understand a Christian Biblical view of issues. Then, maybe they could try to refute that Biblical view. All they did was print a bunch of well-worn arguments straight out of the gay rights handbook.In other words, I am not advocating that the students be censored but rather that they be taught to think.

Kerry is Lurch

I found this picture at Southern Appeal. Even if you don’t know who Lurch was and you’ve never seen The Addams Family, you’ll still be scared silly by this one:

Lurch for President!